Quoth Peter Salvage on Wed, May 03, 2000:
> > Good enough for a reason! Good luck with FreeBSD, BTW.
>
> Half the fun is going "hey that works MUCH better AND faster than NT"
> :-))
Comparing NT to any UNIX (or UNIX-like[tm]) system is pointless.
> > Although I don't have any idea _why_ anyone would want to use
> > web-based interface to read and send their e-mail. Beats me.
>
> Users...they require to be spoon-fed...they like "surfing" to their mail
> <shudder>
Didn't anyone explain to them that Da Web is not Da Internet?
> > What kind of info do you have in your database? Do you need a
> > full-blown database at all?
>
> Yeah all kinds of accounting info from our RADIUS server :-/
Well, I use BSDI, which has BSD authentication (like FreeBSD),
but details may differ. Doesn't FreeBSD has a RADIUS
authentication support? Even if it hasn't, it should be possible
to add it (look at /usr/libexec/login_* and the source code,
/usr/src/libexec/login_*). I can't give you the source of
login_radius from BSDI, because this particular source code is
proprietary. Sorry.
I think I will implement BSD authentication in Exim one day.
When/if I need it.
One of the problems with various UNIXen is that the only
networked accounting and authentication scheme supported by most
of them is YP (a.k.a. NIS). And YP sucks. I'm not familiar with
accounting on FreeBSD (it may be possible to hack libc to support
custom accounting methods, like it was done in my Alma Mater on
BSDI), so I can't give you my advise on this matter.
> > 1. There's no M$ SQL interface in Exim. You're welcome to write
> > one, but you're even more welcome to use some other database.
>
> mysql is looking better and better
Or PostgreSQL. But I'm not really into databases, so I can't
tell you which one is better and why.
> > 3. There is no 3.
>
> Good. I was running out of witty repartee :-)
There Is No Spoon.
Vadik.
--
Would like to kill a certain group of users.
-- UNIX tech support call
Received: from enterprise.cistron.net ([195.64.68.33])
by exim-colo-01.whoc.theplanet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 12mjMu-0002fJ-00
for exim-users@???; Tue, 02 May 2000 21:34:08 +0100
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by enterprise.cistron.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1/Debian/GNU) id WAA09299;
Tue, 2 May 2000 22:25:11 +0200
From: miquels@??? (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Date: 2 May 2000 22:25:10 +0200
Organization: Cistron Internet Services B.V.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <8endj6$927$1@???>
To: exim-users@???
Subject: [Exim] body_linecount in expand.c
Sender: exim-users-admin@???
Errors-To: exim-users-admin@???
X-BeenThere: exim-users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: A user list for the exim MTA <exim-users.exim.org>
As I'm new to exim I don't know yet where to send patches; so I
thought I'd start here.
When using maildir format, the Mutt MUA likes to have a Lines:
header included so that it can show how big the message is. The
variable is already present in the code (body_linecount), it
just isn't made available to the config file yet.
Could the next exim version please make body_linecount (and perhaps
message_linecount for completeness) available as a variable?
This patch seems to do the trick:
--- expand.c.orig Tue May 2 22:18:45 2000
+++ expand.c Sun Apr 30 15:50:45 2000
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
{ "address_pipe", vtype_stringptr, &address_pipe },
{ "authenticated_id", vtype_stringptr, &authenticated_id },
{ "authenticated_sender",vtype_stringptr, &authenticated_sender },
+ { "body_linecount", vtype_int, &body_linecount },
{ "caller_gid", vtype_int, &real_gid },
{ "caller_uid", vtype_int, &real_uid },
{ "compile_date", vtype_stringptr, &version_date },
Mike.
