qmail Digest 20 Feb 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 557
Topics (messages 22185 through 22249):
Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:
22185 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22188 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22189 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22190 by: Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22191 by: Mark Bainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22192 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22193 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22194 by: Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22195 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22196 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22197 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22198 by: Mark Bainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22199 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22200 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22201 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22202 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22203 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22206 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22208 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22210 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22212 by: "Roman V. Isaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22213 by: Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22218 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22223 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22231 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22234 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22235 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail, Majordomo, and virtual domains
22186 by: Steve Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail configuration problems.
22187 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User wants his mail now, but the mails are stuck in a large queue.
22204 by: R Aldridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22205 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22236 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22237 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
need some spam/relay help
22207 by: "Richard Shetron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22209 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22214 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22225 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22229 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
two copies (was Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo:)
22211 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
binmail procmail Linux
22215 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trigger help and adduser scripts
22216 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22217 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22219 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22221 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
smtp relaying
22220 by: "Roman V. Isaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22230 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22239 by: Asmodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22240 by: Russ Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22248 by: "Roman V. Isaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Summers rpm failure
22222 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22224 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22226 by: Monte Milanuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22227 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22232 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22243 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22244 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
System w/o /etc/passwd
22228 by: Paul Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22233 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22242 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Howto... disabled user, receiving mail
22238 by: Igor Loncarevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Problem cause of homeserver-failure
22241 by: Rene Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22249 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Summers rpm failure - addition
22245 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help ASAP: queued message, disk full, general chaos
22246 by: Chris Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Safely archiving logs
22247 by: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:41:32 +0300, Roman V. Isaev wrote: > No! Solved for you only. You might cope with it just fine, but >once in a while someone hit the wrong button... and oops, we all see >some pretty interesting comments flying through the list. Let 'em >insert list addres deliberately. It also helps to keep traffic a >little lower. So what if they press the wrong button??? It is their problem.. So is my problem if I enter the wrong person from my adress book. These kind of mistakes happen only to people who just hit reply and type something stupid, instead of actualy READing what is written and "reply" as it should have been done. Most just press reply add a comment and send the whole message quoted back to the mailing list. It happend that I actualy had to use Find option in my MUA to locate where the answer was becouse everything was quoted. If you take *your time* to read and reply, then you don't make so stupid mistakes as pressing the wrong button. And btw. download PMMail and try it. PMMail pops up a dialog (you don't press a button, you have a selection list) and gives you another hint (!) that you can send this message privately or to the mailing list. I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote: > The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the > From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail > (MUA), he notices the difference between the "From:" and "Reply-To:" > list, pops up a quick dialog asking me to choose to whom to reply; > to the list (Reply-To) or to the poster (From:). Voila.. problem > solved. No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one would the MUA choose, anyway?). What happens is that I have three mailing lists where the users have requested me to set the Reply-To field pointing back to the list. To accomplish that, I had to add Reply-To to headerremove and to headeradd (I'm using ezmlm to manage the lists). This has the very inconvenient "feature" that whenever the list gets spammed and the spammer says in the body of the message "If you don't want to receive our messages anymore, just hit the reply button and include 'remove' as the Subject." Then, the list just gets a ton of those "remove" posts. :-( This is one of the particular cases when the poster is not on the mailing list but has set a Reply-To field and "want" the replies back to him (I'm assuming that the Reply-To field contains a valid recipient address, even though we know that's not what happens in practice). I wish I knew of a free less brain-dead MUA for Windows that realized there is a Mail-Followup-To field and allowed users to reply to sender, reply to list or both, so that I could stop setting this damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my users? []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Undergrad. Computer Science Student - "Windows? Linux and X!" Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | When I hit reply it tells me that From: and Reply-To: fields differ and | asks me to what e-mail adress do I want to reply (to mailing list or | to the author personal mailbox). | -> Now that's a smart MUA. | | And nearly all responses to my post that I got were delivered to me | twice: Once thru mailing list and once directly. What a waste of my | time and bandwidth :(. If your MUA is so smart, why doesn't it suppress the duplicates for you (like procmail)? Otherwise, you cannot avoid seeing *some*, because SMTP itself doesn't guarantee not to generate some.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Rok Papez wrote: > If you take *your time* to read and reply, then you don't make so > stupid > mistakes as pressing the wrong button. Now I'm *REALLY* confused. My MUA doesn't even have buttons... ;) > I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and > mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake > when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately. Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally posts a private response to the list. /pg -- Peter Green Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org ) (And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works great. It is able to recognize lists and when you want to reply to a list address it can handle it w/no need to munge reply-to's. Check it out.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Rok Papez [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 4:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo: > > On 18 Feb 1999 23:03:26 -0000, Russell Nelson wrote: > > >The problem (as I see it) is that there is no requirements or even > >guidelines for MUAs. How's about we get all the mailing list manager > >people together, and bash out a set of requirements that a mailing > >list-friendly MUA will have. Then we either find a group to publish > >them, or else create our own group, and publish them ourselves. > > > >Yeah, it's work, but arguing about inserting reply-to is also work. > :) > > It already works grat with PMMail (it is also available for Windows). > > The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the > From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail (MUA), > he notices the difference between the "From:" and "Reply-To:" list, > pops up a quick dialog asking me to choose to whom to reply; to the > list > (Reply-To) or to the poster (From:). Voila.. problem solved. > > Of course.. we could define.. if Reply-To is already set, maybe the > mailing list should preserve it (so the people not subscribed to the > mailing list could set the Reply-To to their private mailbox or > some place else). > > > > best regards, > Rok Papez, > Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, > University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:53:51AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: # On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Rok Papez wrote: # > I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and # > mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake # > when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately. # # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to # the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally # posts a private response to the list. now that is really strange I am on a list for something completely non technical, shadowrun, and it is VERY rare that someone sends a message to the list that was supposed to be private. Also everyone complains when a reply-to is passed on from their MUA as to reply to them, as it makes it hard to reply to the list. -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson | Attention span is quickening. | |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote: >> The mailing list sets the Reply-To: address to the mailing list, the >> From: field is preserved. When I hit the Reply buttin in PMMail >> (MUA), he notices the difference between the "From:" and "Reply-To:" >> list, pops up a quick dialog asking me to choose to whom to reply; >> to the list (Reply-To) or to the poster (From:). Voila.. problem >> solved. > > No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because >this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages >compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one >would the MUA choose, anyway?). Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields ???? There is only one, the one that mailin lists creates or the original-one that is preserved by the mailing list. Please read the post carefuly before replying; and if I wasn't clear enough ask me to clearify it. I'll write it again: If I post to the mailing list *without* "Reply-To:" field mailinglist creates one that points to itself, the "From:" field points to the original author of the post. If I post *with* "Reply-To:" field already set, then mailinglist does *not* add a "Reply-To:" field. This way it is solved. If I wasn't subscribed to the mailinglist, I could set the "Reply-To:" field to my personal mailbox and everyone will be replying to me, not the mailing list. > What happens is that I have three mailing lists where the >users have requested me to set the Reply-To field pointing back to the >list. To accomplish that, I had to add Reply-To to headerremove and to >headeradd (I'm using ezmlm to manage the lists). You don't set it.. mailing list software sets it. >damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any >ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my >users? Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho. I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Justin Bell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 08:53:51AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: > # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to > # the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally > # posts a private response to the list. > > now that is really strange Not really, when you consider how busy everyone on the list is. It's not a matter of people on the list not understanding how Reply-To: technically works...it's a matter of being in something of a hurry and not being able to adequately check the headers. /pg -- Peter Green Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: >Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org ) > >(And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because >I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works >great. It is able to recognize lists and when you want to reply to a >list address it can handle it w/no need to munge reply-to's. Check it >out.) I tried it... It wasn't pleasent for use. I'm used to PINE, joe, PMMail. Mutt is a step in a totaly new direction, I know it is more powerful; but I PINE is a lot more intuitive for use (for me that is ) :). best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
On 19 Feb 1999 08:59:47 -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote: >If your MUA is so smart, why doesn't it suppress the duplicates >for you (like procmail)? Ugh.. you use procmail as MUA? ;) >Otherwise, you cannot avoid seeing *some*, because SMTP itself doesn't >guarantee not to generate some. Not *some*, *most*!! :) best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hi Peter. >> # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the Reply-To: to >> # the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that someone accidentally >> # posts a private response to the list. >> >> now that is really strange > >Not really, when you consider how busy everyone on the list is. It's not a >matter of people on the list not understanding how Reply-To: technically >works...it's a matter of being in something of a hurry and not being able >to adequately check the headers. Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning) the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the mailing list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the mailinglist address. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Then patch pine to work properly and/or add the features you need. Don't break the list to fix a MUA problem. -shrug- I use mutt for mutiple reasons. I personally like the interface, but my biggest reason is that it does things 'The Right Way' and doesn't care if all the other mail clients don't. That is the attitude I like and prefer to see. It's one of the reasons I like Qmail. Because Dan doesn't think he needs to make Qmail Sendmail-compliant. (gag) If your mail client can't handle qmail because it supports sendmail, not the RFC then that's your problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rok Papez [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:22 AM > To: Mark Bainter; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Qmail mailing list and ReplyTo: > > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: > > >Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org ) > > > >(And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account > because > >I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it > works > >great. It is able to recognize lists and when you want to reply to a > >list address it can handle it w/no need to munge reply-to's. Check > it > >out.) > > I tried it... It wasn't pleasent for use. I'm used to PINE, joe, > PMMail. > Mutt is a step in a totaly new direction, I know it is more powerful; > but I PINE is a lot more intuitive for use (for me that is ) :). > > > > best regards, > Rok Papez, > Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, > University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Hi Mark. On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:31:22 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: >Then patch pine to work properly and/or add the features you need. >Don't break the list to fix a MUA problem. -shrug- I use mutt for >mutiple reasons. I personally like the interface, but my biggest reason >is that it does things 'The Right Way' and doesn't care if all the other >mail clients don't. That is the attitude I like and prefer to see. >It's one of the reasons I like Qmail. Because Dan doesn't think he >needs to make Qmail Sendmail-compliant. (gag) If your mail client can't >handle qmail because it supports sendmail, not the RFC then that's your >problem. No.. I'll just hit the ReplyToAll button on PMMail, I can play "don't care about others" too :(. Didn't see no RFC on mailinglist policy. And there is one rule about communications that you probably never heard of: When you receive, be as liberal as you can be. When you send, be as conservative as you can be. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
>Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs Not quite everybody. cc:Mail (at least some versions) completely ignores it. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will become my default address in March, and which works now.
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 03:14:53PM +0100, Rok Papez wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any > >ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my > >users? > > Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't > like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho. > I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else. I've been using Pine for about 3 years (and liked it, albeit it's very slow on big mailboxes). After switching to mutt (for Maildir and PGP support) I found mutt _very_ intuitive.. Nothing wrong there. I only use Pine for reading News, nowadays. Greetz, Peter. -- .| Peter van Dijk | <mo|VERWEG> stoned worden of coden .| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mo|VERWEG> dat is de levensvraag | <mo|VERWEG> coden of stoned worden | <mo|VERWEG> stonend worden En coden | <mo|VERWEG> hmm | <mo|VERWEG> dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:42:45AM -0500, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote: # >Um, no. Everybody honors Reply-To. The problem is that most MUAs # # Not quite everybody. cc:Mail (at least some versions) completely # ignores it. that killed on the MTA level -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson | Attention span is quickening. | |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
Rok Papez writes: > Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields ???? Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list. What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately fragmented. Doh! -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If your MUA is so smart, why doesn't it suppress the duplicates > for you (like procmail)? > > Otherwise, you cannot avoid seeing *some*, because SMTP itself doesn't > guarantee not to generate some. Though I'm not using procmail too heavily lately, I suppress dups by using formail in my .qmail-lists-default file: |{ formail -D 65536 .msgid.cache && exit 99 } || exit 0 Bogus reply-to behaviors don't trouble me, because I subscribe under the address "budney-lists-qmail", and personal replies (without human intervention) are not distinguished from list traffic, where dups are killed. Sadly, I think I'm one of the bogus-MUA users. I use Mew under emacs, and can only find one "reply" function, which seems to work as "reply to all". Does anyone know Mew, and know whether I've missed something? Len. -- 46. Take all Admonitions thankfully in what Time or Place Soever given but afterwards not being culpable take a Time & Place convenient to let him him know it that gave them. -- George Washington, "Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour"
- "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | Sadly, I think I'm one of the bogus-MUA users. I use Mew under | emacs, and can only find one "reply" function, which seems to work | as "reply to all". Does anyone know Mew, and know whether I've | missed something? I use mew. No, you haven't missed anything (I think). The intention is for you to go and edit the recipient fields, weeding out those you don't want to respond to. Also, Mew doesn't even look at the Reply-To field. I've been thinking about doing something about these shortcomings myself for a long while, but I just haven't got around to it yet. (My wife has a round tuit, but she never lets me use it.) - Harald
Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:09:39 -0500 > On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: > > > Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the > > > Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > > > It is very anoying that I must type the > > > mailing list address for every message > > > I respond to. > > > > Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great > > reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should > > have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option. > > Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of unreasonable mailers in the > world, which makes that philosophy impractical. While I sympathize > with the opinions offered in "Reply-to Considered Harmful," it's > mostly ivory tower theorizing. The lack of MUA support for useful options is a bitch. But I have to work hard to reply direct to people on a few lists I'm on that use munging, and I see private stuff accidentally posted on those lists more than once a month. Those are real harms. The problem is that not munging the reply makes the common case harder, but munging the reply makes some less common, but still definitely present, cases harder. And a very few impossible. I can't get around the impossible, so I don't mung reply-to on lists I control. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
On 02/19, Justin Bell wrote: > # > I also moderate a mailing list where most people use PMMail and > # > mailing list sets the Reply-To. There has been only 1 (!) mistake > # > when someone replied to the mailing list instead of privately. > # Try subscribing to the inet-access mailing list. They set the > # Reply-To: to the list, and it's nearly 2-5 times per day that > # someone accidentally posts a private response to the list. > now that is really strange > I am on a list for something completely non technical, > shadowrun, and it is VERY rare that someone sends a message to > the list that was supposed to be private. Also everyone complains > when a reply-to is passed on from their MUA as to reply to them, as > it makes it hard to reply to the list. People will complain without Reply-To, people will complain with Reply-To. But if you are running a list with people from rival companies... -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.gunlab.com.ru Moscow, Russia
Text written by Russell Nelson at 03:18 PM 2/19/99 -0000: >Rok Papez writes: > > Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields ???? > >Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list. >What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the >Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately >fragmented. Doh! Like it wouldn't be already? Or are you suggesting that the originator would manage all the mail coming back to hir, acting as a temporary gateway between the two lists? Normally, discussions on two different lists probably *should* be fragmented -- or at least, they normally will be. After all, they are two _separate_ lists, right? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- >From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) casting the runes /n./ What a guru does when you ask him or her to run a particular program and type at it because it never works for anyone else; esp. used when nobody can ever see what the guru is doing different from what J. Random Luser does. Compare incantation, runes, examining the entrails.
Hi Russell. On 19 Feb 1999 15:18:39 -0000, Russell Nelson wrote: > > Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields ???? > >Anybody who suggests that the Reply-To should be set to "the" list. >What happens when mail is sent to multiple lists? Each sets the >Reply-To to its own list, and the discussion is immediately >fragmented. Doh! Discussions get fragmented very often.. I don't see a problem here. It is a bit weird to post a message to multiple mailing lists and expect the discussion *not* to get fragmented. Even *this* discussion got very fragmented and it was posted only to this mailing list. best regards, Rok Papez, Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
On Fri 1999-02-19 (15:22), Rok Papez wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:05:31 -0500, Mark Bainter wrote: > > >Just use mutt. ( http://www.mutt.org ) > > > >(And yes, I'm not using it now. Qmail comes to my work account because > >I'm too lazy to move it. I use mutt for all my other lists and it works > >great. It is able to recognize lists and when you want to reply to a > >list address it can handle it w/no need to munge reply-to's. Check it > >out.) > > I tried it... It wasn't pleasent for use. I'm used to PINE, joe, > PMMail. > Mutt is a step in a totaly new direction, I know it is more powerful; > but I PINE is a lot more intuitive for use (for me that is ) :). I hear this sort of thing a lot. I wish that someone would take the innards of mutt and package them up nicely so that people can write nice interfaces to sit on top of it. That way we'd have all the cool features of mutt (and hopefully some from other MUAs that mutt doesn't have) with an interface to suit everyones taste. Anyone keen? :-) ....maybe one day when I have time... - Keith > Rok Papez, -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because > >this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages > >compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one > >would the MUA choose, anyway?). > > Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields ???? Anybody who cogitates the possibility of having Reply-To fields pointing to user addresses or mailing list addresses should, at one point or another, think about this issue to avoid using two Reply-To fields. The problem that I reported in my message had to do with the fact that I had to set up another Reply-To field upon request of my users. Since an e-mail can't have two Reply-To fields (as far as I know -- and that was mentioned in my original message), the original one set up by the user has to be removed/invalidated. > There is only one, the one that mailin lists creates or the > original-one that is preserved by the mailing list. > Please read the post carefuly before replying; and if I wasn't > clear enough ask me to clearify it. Yes, I understood that (I'm not an idiot, as you may be implying). But realize that the suggestion you so firmly defend is not a complete solution to the problem. What should be done when the sender wants his/her personal replies back to a different address *BUT* doesn't want to receive all replies to his/her post personally, that is, the poster still wants to keep the discussion on the list? Add another Reply-To field to the message? (...) > If I post *with* "Reply-To:" field already set, then mailinglist does > *not* add a "Reply-To:" field. And then some people will come to the list and say: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the > Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > This way it is solved. No, it's not solved. BTW, please don't be so arrogant to ask others "Please read the post carefuly before replying" [sic]. You win nothing with this attitude. > >damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any > >ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my > >users? > > Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't > like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho. > I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else. Pff... I used to use Pine for 4 years until last week, when I decided to switch over to Mutt. I must say that you apparently didn't use Mutt enough to talk about its intuitiveness, for it can have a behavior pretty similar to Pine's: you can set up the keyboard bindings so that the user won't notice the change. And you can even obtain ready-made system-wide configuration files for your system such that Mutt emulates Pine. So, it's as intuitive as Pine. BTW, if some software is intuitive or not is, after all, subjective and and depends on previous experience of the user. If a user used Mutt first, then it would be more intuitive than Pine. Anyway, that was not my point. I wasn't judging if such-and-such software is intuitive. I was just asking if people knew some software smart enough to handle e-mails to mailing lists. I just happened to ask (in jest) if Mutt had any port for Windows, but any other software with such feature will do. []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Undergrad. Computer Science Student - "Windows? Linux and X!" Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning) the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the mailing list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the mailinglist address Using stock Unix /bin/mail, try to reply to this message without sending yourself a copy. Take your time, and have fun. Mate
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:43:46PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # # Exactly my point.. If you took your time and read (instead of scanning) # the message before replying, those "Ups I posted a private mail to the # mailing # list" mistakes wouldn't hapen with "Reply-To:" field set to the # mailinglist # address # # Using stock Unix /bin/mail, try to reply to this message without sending # yourself a copy. Take your time, and have fun. # how could he do that, he had to delete /bin/mail when he installed qmail -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson | Attention span is quickening. | |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
On Thu, Feb 18, 1999 at 09:47:17AM -0600, Chuck Milam wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, John R. Levine wrote: > > If this sounds interesting, let me know and I'll pack up my scripts. > > There's a perl script to handle the bounces, and a shell script that > > creates the lists and makes the .qmail files. > Yes, this sounds interesting! I'd like to see your scripts. Definately interested. Steve -- NetTek Ltd tel +44-171 483 1169 fax +44-181 444 6103 Flat 2, 43 Howitt Road, Belsize Park, London NW3 4LU Epage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [body of text only]
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 04:27:19PM +0800, Glen Ward wrote: On the Linux box: control/rcpthosts: rothgard.com control/smtproutes: rothgard.com:[IP address of sendmail server] Delete the control/locals file since you don't have any local users on the linux box. > I need the qmail 1.03-3 on the Linux box to receive mail for the domain > rothgard.com and relay it to the Sparc (which will be setup as a > sendmail client). > Mail from the Sparc will go directly to the Linux box, and from there to > the outside world. > > I have no users setup on the Linux box. -- Anand System Administrator Africa Online Ltd http://www.anand.org
Hi Guys, Until we get our total qmail solution in place (hopefully this Sunday) we are still stuck with qmail acting as a buffer for our old sendmail system. As our trusty sendmail server went down today, we were left with rather a large backlog of messages on our qmail machine. I have a user who "needs his mail NOW!". Unfortunately, his mail is stuck in the queue. Whilst I have found that I am able to locate messages addressed to him using find and grep, I don't know how I could force qmail to deliver his messages before anyone else, or reprioritise his messages. Does anyone have any ideas please ? Thanks, once again, Richard Aldridge, Cable Internet.
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 04:22:20PM +0000, R Aldridge wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Until we get our total qmail solution in place (hopefully this Sunday) we are > still stuck with qmail acting as a buffer for our old sendmail system. As our > trusty sendmail server went down today, we were left with rather a large > backlog of messages on our qmail machine. > > I have a user who "needs his mail NOW!". Unfortunately, his mail is stuck in > the queue. Whilst I have found that I am able to locate messages addressed to > him using find and grep, I don't know how I could force qmail to deliver his > messages before anyone else, or reprioritise his messages. Does anyone have > any ideas please ? # /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok # kill -ALRM <pid of qmail-send> Chris
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 04:22:20PM +0000, R Aldridge wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Until we get our total qmail solution in place (hopefully this Sunday) we are > still stuck with qmail acting as a buffer for our old sendmail system. As our > trusty sendmail server went down today, we were left with rather a large > backlog of messages on our qmail machine. > > I have a user who "needs his mail NOW!". Unfortunately, his mail is stuck in > the queue. Whilst I have found that I am able to locate messages addressed to > him using find and grep, I don't know how I could force qmail to deliver his > messages before anyone else, or reprioritise his messages. Does anyone have > any ideas please ? # /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok # kill -ALRM <pid of qmail-send> This does not attempt to send the particular user's messages first... Mate
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:54:52PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 04:22:20PM +0000, R Aldridge wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > Until we get our total qmail solution in place (hopefully this Sunday) we are > > still stuck with qmail acting as a buffer for our old sendmail system. As our > > trusty sendmail server went down today, we were left with rather a large > > backlog of messages on our qmail machine. > > > > I have a user who "needs his mail NOW!". Unfortunately, his mail is stuck in > > the queue. Whilst I have found that I am able to locate messages addressed to > > him using find and grep, I don't know how I could force qmail to deliver his > > messages before anyone else, or reprioritise his messages. Does anyone have > > any ideas please ? > > # /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok > # kill -ALRM <pid of qmail-send> > > This does not attempt to send the particular user's messages first... Oops. I didn't read the question carefully enough. I thought it was just a how-do-I-get-the-queue-going-again question. In any case, unless the queue is just absolutely enormous, getting it running again and having sensible concurrency settings ought to get this person his mail in reasonably short order. Chris
We've been trying to stop relay raping and UCE in general through our system and so far, badmailfrom, rcpthosts, tcp-wrappers with /etc/hosts.deny seems to be almost completely useless or block our own users from sending/receiving email. I am a techie, but I've been doing managment/finance/etc so my tech side is very rusty. I'm looking at the following options: 1) Converting back to sendmail, is there information on how to do this or any conversion program to convert backwards but keep the maildir format? No flames please, we converted to qmail solely due to security problems with sendmail 3 years ago, sendmail seems to have finally gotten the bugs out. The performace enhancement was nice, I've seen the spam relayers shove 10K+ emails/hour through us and I'd like to stop that. 2) Is there anyway to have qmail check for certain text strings in either the headers and/or entire message and reject a message based on the header content, ie, alot of spam says things like From: some [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3) Can qmail be setup so we use a machine with sendmail as the spam filter and then have it pass the mail to qmail for deliver? 4) Other suggestions? One of the complications we have is we're running a couple hundred or so virtual domains and some of the users are not local to our network, they connect via aol.com, earthlink.net, etc. -- Richard Shetron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is the Meaning of Life? There is no meaning, It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
"Richard Shetron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 1) Converting back to sendmail, What does sendmail do that qmail doesn't? | 2) Is there anyway to have qmail check for certain text strings in either | the headers and/or entire message and reject a message based on the header | content, ie, alot of spam says things like From: some [EMAIL PROTECTED] A wrapper around qmail-queue can check for anything you like, but you'll have to code it. Or, if SMTP is all you care about, tweak qmail-smtpd however you like. The other approach is to arrange for qmail to send all smtp input on a detour through a virtual domain that pipes every message through e.g. awk. That's the approach the FAQ recommends---which I expect you've already read---but it's less elegant than the qmail-queue wrapper, in my opinion. There are myriad anti-spam patches for qmail. Browse www.qmail.org and pick the ones you like. | 3) Can qmail be setup so we use a machine with sendmail as the spam | filter and then have it pass the mail to qmail for deliver? Obviously, but why bother. | 4) Other suggestions? | | One of the complications we have is we're running a couple hundred or | so virtual domains and some of the users are not local to our network, | they connect via aol.com, earthlink.net, etc. In other words, your real problem is that you have no idea which network connections represent authentic users, so you can't prevent spammers from using you as they will. You need to solve that problem directly; no amount of content filtering will suffice to finesse it. You must require that your remote users authenticate prior to submitting any mail; that's elementary---users who want service need to positively identify themselves first. There's various ways to do that, see www.qmail.org for some. The question arises, however, why those aol users don't just submit their mail to aol's smtp server? Presumably an aol user, just like any person on the internet, can submit a message to their local smtp server (for which they are authenticated) with a "From:" line that has one of your virtual domains in it (or indeed, any string they like). So why do aol users need to use you as their injection point?
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 12:45:06PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote: > The question arises, however, why those aol users don't just submit their > mail to aol's smtp server? Presumably an aol user, just like any person on > the internet, can submit a message to their local smtp server (for which they > are authenticated) with a "From:" line that has one of your virtual domains > in it (or indeed, any string they like). So why do aol users need to use you > as their injection point? Try this with msn.com. If you're connected to their network and submit a message to the local smtp server using a "From" address that isn't an msn.com address, they'll *silently* discard your mail. They'll accept it, and without warning deposit it into a bitbucket. (This was the case several months ago. They may have wised up since, but I doubt it.) I've heard that other ISPs are requiring that the envelope sender domain be one of their domains in order for you to be able to relay, thus making them unusable as relays if you use a different address. At one point (and this may have changed), ibm.net would give you a "550: Unauthorized access" as soon as it saw a MAIL FROM with a non-ibm.net address. Another problem I've had runs along the lines of the following: Me: "Use your ISPs SMTP server to send your mail." AOL user: "Huh?" I'm not even sure that AOL provides relays for outgoing mail, since they use some kind of proprietary mail protocol that's built in to their front-end software. Because of stupid policies like MSN's or users' conceptual problems with relaying mail, it's becoming very difficult to provide people on different ISPs with e-mail addresses that they can use. I usually wind up telling MSN users that their mail will just have to look like it's coming from their msn.com addresses, and there's nothing I can do about it. I tell AOL users to get a real ISP. I don't recommend that anyone run an open relay and I'll continue to tell people not to and to refer them to FAQ 5.4, but I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to people who think they need to. Whether the problem can be fixed without some kind of username/password authentication in SMTP I don't know, but I think it's something worth talking about. Chris
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote: > Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 12:45:06PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote: > | > The question arises, however, why those aol users don't just submit their > | > mail to aol's smtp server? Presumably an aol user, just like any person on > | > the internet, can submit a message to their local smtp server (for which they > | > are authenticated) with a "From:" line that has one of your virtual domains > | > in it (or indeed, any string they like). So why do aol users need to use you > | > as their injection point? > | > | Try this with msn.com. If you're connected to their network and submit a > | message to the local smtp server using a "From" address that isn't an msn.com > | address, they'll *silently* discard your mail. They'll accept it, and without > | warning deposit it into a bitbucket. (This was the case several months ago. > | They may have wised up since, but I doubt it.) I've heard that other ISPs are > | requiring that the envelope sender domain be one of their domains in order for > | you to be able to relay, thus making them unusable as relays if you use a > | different address. At one point (and this may have changed), ibm.net would give > | you a "550: Unauthorized access" as soon as it saw a MAIL FROM with a > | non-ibm.net address. > > Are you talking about envelope sender or From line? They don't need to > be the same at all. For most purposes, getting the From line right > should satisfy your virtual domain users. I know they don't have to be the same, but I don't know of any non-Unix MUA that knows that. You stick your e-mail address in the appropriate blank, and the MUA creates the envelope sender and From line from it. I've never seen an MUA that allowed you to specify a different envelope sender, and even if they did allow such a thing I'd hate to have to explain that concept to someone. Chris
Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 12:45:06PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote: | > The question arises, however, why those aol users don't just submit their | > mail to aol's smtp server? Presumably an aol user, just like any person on | > the internet, can submit a message to their local smtp server (for which they | > are authenticated) with a "From:" line that has one of your virtual domains | > in it (or indeed, any string they like). So why do aol users need to use you | > as their injection point? | | Try this with msn.com. If you're connected to their network and submit a | message to the local smtp server using a "From" address that isn't an msn.com | address, they'll *silently* discard your mail. They'll accept it, and without | warning deposit it into a bitbucket. (This was the case several months ago. | They may have wised up since, but I doubt it.) I've heard that other ISPs are | requiring that the envelope sender domain be one of their domains in order for | you to be able to relay, thus making them unusable as relays if you use a | different address. At one point (and this may have changed), ibm.net would give | you a "550: Unauthorized access" as soon as it saw a MAIL FROM with a | non-ibm.net address. Are you talking about envelope sender or From line? They don't need to be the same at all. For most purposes, getting the From line right should satisfy your virtual domain users. | I don't recommend that anyone run an open relay and I'll continue to tell | people not to and to refer them to FAQ 5.4, but I'm becoming increasingly | sympathetic to people who think they need to. Whether the problem can be fixed | without some kind of username/password authentication in SMTP I don't know, but | I think it's something worth talking about. Probably the easiest solution is an applet on the PC that tunnels 127.0.0.1:25 to a private smtp or qmtp server on the mail host, doing authentication in the process. SMOP. Wasn't there a usenix paper about this a while back?
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:46:24 -0500 > Fact: SMTP does not guarantee that you won't see two copies of any > given message. We all know this, right? It's come up again and again, > and the fair comment is always that anyone who cares about that problem > will have their MTA set up to deal with it. > > Irony: what's the point of complaining if your name appears twice > (perhaps indirectly) in the headers, when you simply cannot avoid > seeing some messages twice, for *whatever* reason? So deal with it > quietly. Well, frequency is relevant. The SMTP duplications don't happen very often; I've never seen one that I can be sure of. Whereas the direct copy of mail that also went to a list I'm on I see every day. I'm using the formail message-id cache to filter these, myself. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 12:27:17AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hello, > > The INSTALL.vsm document says that: > > "sendmail uses binmail to deliver to /var/spool/mail. binmail is shipped > with the operating system as /bin/mail...." > > This does not appear to be the case with Linux (redhat5.2). Instead > procmail seems to be the local delivery agent, though linux does > have a /bin/mail (which btw takes none of the parameters in > the binmail examples in /var/qmail/boot). Due to the large number > of redhat users, perhaps indicating this in one of the proc boot > examples could be helpful. No, in general it is best to use qmail's local delivery agent, qmail-local, that is boot/home or /var/qmail/defaultdelivery/mdir if you use the rpm. If you want to use extensive filtering, use maildrop. -- --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
I was forced to do some file movement as a result of a crash. I have traced one problem to trigger file permissions, but for the life of me cannot find a way to change the file type so that it reads pwr--------- Any clues you could provide would be much appreciated. (I looked at "man chmod" on my linux boxen and found little.. odd that.. Found evidence of the trigger permission file everywhere, but no actual lines on what the fix is, just info that it needs fixin! .. :^) I also was looking around for examples of standard "adduser" scripts that had been modified for use with qmail. thanks thanks.. Jason Simonds Computer Connection Upper Maine Street Damariscotta, Maine 04553 207 563 3098
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I was forced to do some file movement as a result of a crash. I have | traced one problem to trigger file permissions, but for the life of | me cannot find a way to change the file type so that it reads | | pwr--------- That should be pwr--w--w-. The proper way is to run `make setup' from the qmail source directory. If you haven't got it lying around, throw away the the trigger file and create a new one using mknod trigger p chmod 622 trigger chown qmails trigger chgrp qmail trigger but you should really not have thrown the source away. You need it to repair this kind of damage. - Harald
Just look at your adduser command. It probably copies a "skeleton" directory over to the users's home directory. Set up the Maildir in there. (Or just setup the .qmail files.). Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ ============================================== Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ============================================== > ---------- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 2:18 PM > To: Russell Nelson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Trigger help and adduser scripts > > > I was forced to do some file movement as a result of a crash. I have > traced one problem to trigger file permissions, but for the life of me > > cannot find a way to change the file type so that it reads > > pwr--------- > > Any clues you could provide would be much appreciated. > (I looked at "man chmod" on my linux boxen and found little.. odd > that.. Found evidence of the trigger permission file everywhere, but > no actual lines on what the fix is, just info that it needs fixin! .. > :^) > > > I also was looking around for examples of standard "adduser" > scripts that had been modified for use with qmail. > > > thanks > > > thanks.. > Jason Simonds > Computer Connection > Upper Maine Street > Damariscotta, Maine 04553 > 207 563 3098 >
Hi, Jason. Nice to hear from you again. Sorry I missed your "Wireless: Look Ma--No Hands!" session at ISPF in Atlanta. I'll be giving a qmail tutorial session at ISPF/II in San Diego early next month. Hope to see you in San Diego. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I was forced to do some file movement as a result of a crash. I have > traced one problem to trigger file permissions, but for the life of me Ooohhhh, watch that, Jason! Better run http://www.qmail.org/qmail-qsanity-0.52, which I just modifed from -0.51 so it would examine the file's inode as well. You see, qmail relies on the message filenames matching the file's inodes. If you've put the message files into different files, you could have one message overwriting another. > cannot find a way to change the file type so that it reads > > pwr--------- > > Any clues you could provide would be much appreciated. It's a named pipe. Easiest way to re-create it is to go to your qmail source directory and run ``make setup'' again. > I also was looking around for examples of standard "adduser" > scripts that had been modified for use with qmail. Actually, you don't need any. If you're using Mailboxes, qmail will re-create the Mailbox if it's been deleted. If you're using Maildirs, you can just create the Maildir in /etc/skel. Then the standard adduser script will create the Maildir for you. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
I see there are some pop3-before-smtp authentication patches. But using pop3 before sending mail is awkward. So... why nobody thought about a patch using a password in user's e-mail? :) Any MUA allows user to enter his e-mail. ANY. Let's use it! password#username@host. Check that password at mail from: point, receive message if user's password is okay, strip password# from all headers and continue the work... What's wrong with this idea? I think I'm inventing a bicycle, but there must be a good reason to reject it... -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.gunlab.com.ru Moscow, Russia
At 10:49 pm +0300 19/2/99,the wonderful Roman V. Isaev wrote: > I see there are some pop3-before-smtp authentication patches. >But using pop3 before sending mail is awkward. So... why nobody >thought about a patch using a password in user's e-mail? :) >Any MUA allows user to enter his e-mail. ANY. Let's use it! >password#username@host. Check that password at mail from: point, >receive message if user's password is okay, strip password# from >all headers and continue the work... > > What's wrong with this idea? I think I'm inventing a bicycle, >but there must be a good reason to reject it... it sounds horribly insecure to me... peter. -- peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/ "To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Roman V. Isaev wrote: > > I see there are some pop3-before-smtp authentication patches. > But using pop3 before sending mail is awkward. So... why nobody > thought about a patch using a password in user's e-mail? :) > Any MUA allows user to enter his e-mail. ANY. Let's use it! > password#username@host. Check that password at mail from: point, > receive message if user's password is okay, strip password# from > all headers and continue the work... > > What's wrong with this idea? I think I'm inventing a bicycle, > but there must be a good reason to reject it... Besides having a plaintext password flow between any computers between their isp and the smtp server, none that immediately come to mind. AOL(for instance) --> x computers/routers/etc --> server .Shawn
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Asmodeus wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Roman V. Isaev wrote: > > > > > I see there are some pop3-before-smtp authentication patches. > > But using pop3 before sending mail is awkward. So... why nobody > > thought about a patch using a password in user's e-mail? :) > > Any MUA allows user to enter his e-mail. ANY. Let's use it! > > password#username@host. Check that password at mail from: point, > > receive message if user's password is okay, strip password# from > > all headers and continue the work... > > > > What's wrong with this idea? I think I'm inventing a bicycle, > > but there must be a good reason to reject it... > > Besides having a plaintext password flow between any computers between > their isp and the smtp server, none that immediately come to mind. And if the password get sniffed, so what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as the password is just used for this purpose, all it would let someone do is forge mail through this relay as that user. If you just want to forge mail, there are much easier ways of doing that. The idea here is not really to completely authentcate the sender, it is merely to make using your server as a relay so difficult that a spammer will go elsewhere. Russ Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > AOL(for instance) --> x computers/routers/etc --> server > > .Shawn
On 02/19, Peter Gradwell wrote: > > I see there are some pop3-before-smtp authentication patches. > >But using pop3 before sending mail is awkward. So... why nobody > >thought about a patch using a password in user's e-mail? :) > >Any MUA allows user to enter his e-mail. ANY. Let's use it! > >password#username@host. Check that password at mail from: point, > >receive message if user's password is okay, strip password# from > >all headers and continue the work... > > What's wrong with this idea? I think I'm inventing a bicycle, > >but there must be a good reason to reject it... > it sounds horribly insecure to me... Yeah... I just realized that user can post a message to third-party newsserver, sending his smtp password through usenet %) Oh well. It was a nice idea :( -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.gunlab.com.ru Moscow, Russia
Hello. At this point :- This creates three Qmail RPMs in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386. The only one you are interested in is qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm, you don't need the other two. Now let's install it: $ rpm -U /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm it fails with 'failed dependencies: sendmail conflicts with qmail-1.03-6' Why is this ?? Regards...Martin
On Fri 1999-02-19 (15:41), Martin wrote: > Hello. > > At this point :- > > This creates three Qmail RPMs in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386. The only one you > are interested in is qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm, you don't need the other two. Now > let's install it: > > $ rpm -U /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm > > it fails with 'failed dependencies: sendmail conflicts with qmail-1.03-6' > > Why is this ?? You have sendmail installed. It gets installed by default on Red Hat systems. You need to remove sendmail before you can install qmail. # rpm --nodeps sendmail You need the --nodeps because there are some programs that require an smtp daemon to be installed. But, since you're about to install qmail this shouldn't be a problem. You might find: http://rucus.ru.ac.za/qmail/summersoft.html useful. - Keith > Regards...Martin -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Martin wrote: > Hello. > > At this point :- > > This creates three Qmail RPMs in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386. The only one you > are interested in is qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm, you don't need the other two. Now > let's install it: > > $ rpm -U /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm > > it fails with 'failed dependencies: sendmail conflicts with qmail-1.03-6' > > Why is this ?? > > Regards...Martin All right, newbie question here. Say I am running a 'workstation', not a server of any kind. Why wouldn't I want to use the qmail-client rpm instead. Any tips or tricks to this from the gurus? Monte Milanuk
On Fri 1999-02-19 (22:56), Keith Burdis wrote: > You have sendmail installed. It gets installed by default on Red Hat systems. > You need to remove sendmail before you can install qmail. > > # rpm --nodeps sendmail As Mate pointed out to me privately (thanks), this should have been: # rpm --nodeps -e sendmail -- Keith -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Hello. At this point :- This creates three Qmail RPMs in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386. The only one you are interested in is qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm, you don't need the other two. Now let's install it: $ rpm -U /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm it fails with 'failed dependencies: sendmail conflicts with qmail-1.03-6' Why is this ?? Because qmail conflicts with sendmail. You need to remove sendmail first with rpm -e sendmail Mate
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 03:32:03PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote: > it fails with 'failed dependencies: sendmail conflicts with qmail-1.03-6' > > Why is this ?? > > Because qmail conflicts with sendmail. You need to remove sendmail > first with > > rpm -e sendmail > > Mate Perhaps it is not a crazy idea to use "obsoletes: sendmail" or "replaces: sendmail" in the spec file. Do these directives make sure that installing qmail will remove sendmail? Rpmers? -- --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Hello Keith (and all you Qmailer's ) - :) Thanks to all the people that mailed ! That works but I'm going to stop and ask a question - What's the difference between Summersoft and Memphis RPM's , in layman's terms. What should guide me in choosing ? Maybe I should give my present system - it's convoluted. I am learning all this stuff, but in the spirit of the internet and sharing, I have several free mailing lists. Presently I use MDaemon, a win95/NT MTA/mailing list manager. Being poor, I've cut corners , but what happens is as follows . My set-up :- Main ISP - alpha.com through their smart host (they block port 25 so I have to go through their host). I POP3 to retrieve mail. I have a domain name and catch-all account at another ISP e.g. bravo.com. I POP3 and retrieve the mail My lan is named mail.bravo (no .com as there is a real domain held at another ISP and I don't want to loop ). I have 'no relaying' in place, certain IP's and domain and user names are banned. So basically, I POP3 to two locations, the mail comes in , is sorted, if the accounts exist the mail is stored, if not a response is sent of no user here and I have selected to be notified with a copy. The mailing list also works pretty well, considering. So....Obviously I want to run Qmail and Ezmlm as a replacement. Fred L. mentioned I'd need Fetchmail to POP3 the mail. Any other advice, hints, problems you can see. Regards...Martin ---------------------------- Keith Burdis wrote: > On Fri 1999-02-19 (15:41), Martin wrote: > > Hello. > > > > At this point :- > > > > This creates three Qmail RPMs in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386. The only one you > > are interested in is qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm, you don't need the other two. Now > > let's install it: > > > > $ rpm -U /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/qmail-1.03-6.i386.rpm > > > > it fails with 'failed dependencies: sendmail conflicts with qmail-1.03-6' > > > > Why is this ?? > > You have sendmail installed. It gets installed by default on Red Hat systems. > You need to remove sendmail before you can install qmail. > > # rpm --nodeps sendmail > > You need the --nodeps because there are some programs that require an smtp > daemon to be installed. But, since you're about to install qmail this > shouldn't be a problem. > > You might find: > > http://rucus.ru.ac.za/qmail/summersoft.html > > useful. > > - Keith > > > Regards...Martin > > -- > Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa > Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ > IRC : Panthras JAPH > > "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" > > Standard disclaimer. > ---
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Robert Adams wrote: >> user on the system. Anyone know of a way to get around this? Say, to tell >> qmail to drop all mail to something like /mail/u/s/username? I don't believe qmail can deliver to hashed spools like this by default. I've just written a delivery script to deliver to hashed spools because I needed it (gonna be *many* users). I nearly got it working with virtualdomains and users/assign with 26*26 entries, but it ment that I needed a virtualhosts entry for every virtuall domain and each user was going to have one so it was not practical and thus I wrote my own script as ~alias/.qmail-default. Paul. -- Email pgregg at tibus.net | Email pgregg at nyx.net | Eight out of every Technical Director | System Administrator | five people are math The Internet Business Ltd | Nyx Public Access Internet | illiterates. http://www.tibus.net | http://www.nyx.net | - Anon.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Paul Gregg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Robert Adams wrote: > > >> user on the system. Anyone know of a way to get around this? Say, to tell > >> qmail to drop all mail to something like /mail/u/s/username? > > > I don't believe qmail can deliver to hashed spools like this by default. > > I've just written a delivery script to deliver to hashed spools because I > needed it (gonna be *many* users). > > I nearly got it working with virtualdomains and users/assign with 26*26 > entries, but it ment that I needed a virtualhosts entry for every > virtuall domain and each user was going to have one so it was not > practical and thus I wrote my own script as ~alias/.qmail-default. I think it can if you use the qmail-users mechanism NAME qmail-users - assign mail addresses to users OVERVIEW The file /var/qmail/users/assign assigns addresses to users. For example, =joe.shmoe:joe:503:78:/home/joe::: says that mail for joe.shmoe should be delivered to user joe, with uid 503 and gid 78, as specified by /home/joe/.qmail. Assignments fed to qmail-newu will be used by qmail-lspawn to control qmail-local's deliveries. See qmail-newu(8). A change to /var/qmail/users/assign will have no effect until qmail-newu is run. ..snip... =local:user:uid:gid:homedir:dash:ext: Here local is an address; user, uid, and gid are the account name, uid, and gid of the user in charge of local; and messages to local will be controlled by home- dir/.qmaildashext. ...snip... so i would expect running the file though a little perl script which replaces homedir with the hased spool directory will work (assuming the user has permissions to their hashed spool directory.) or have I missed the point of the question? Richard
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Paul Gregg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > >> user on the system. Anyone know of a way to get around this? Say, to tell > >> qmail to drop all mail to something like /mail/u/s/username? > > > I don't believe qmail can deliver to hashed spools like this by default. maildrop allegedly supports hashed spool directories, see http://maildropl.listbot.com
Hello,I have installed on all of my servers qmail, and I was wondering
how to acomlishe this situations:I want to disable user account (user is not permitted to login),
but I want from qmail to recognize this situation, and receive message
for user and automaticly send mail to sender with note that this user is currently
disabled, etc. etc.Also, sendmail, smail and qmail doesn't have feature like this:
if user doesn't exist don't even think to receive messages,
current behaivoure is: receive message, try-to-deliver, if there's no
mailbox or user, send apropriate message to sender. I want from qmail
little more inteligence here, to check before reeceiveing whole message does
user/mailbox exist, if not, dont even receive message, just take from sender field
from heder and send apropriet message...tia,
i
-- Igor Loncarevic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< multipart/signed; boundary=Q0rSlbzrZN6k9QnT; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature": Unrecognized >>>
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 01:41:01AM +0100, Rene Mueller wrote: > We've got one Problem at our site: > We had a powerfailure so all of our computers crashed (nope, no functioning > UPS). Most of our servers came up with no problems, one of them our mailserver. > But on our homeserver there was a severly diskerror so we had to run fsck > manualy. So we had the situation of a running mailserver with userdatabase, but > no homedirs... > In pasttimes (with sendmail/smail) these leeds to saving the emails at the > default location (no .forward found), but with qmail we got an ugly behavior: > qmail bounced the emails as "not delivarable, cause of no such user" which > definitly wasn't true, just the homedir was missing... > > Any solutions?FAQ 4.9. -- --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Martin wrote: > Hello Keith (and all you Qmailer's ) - :) > > Thanks to all the people that mailed ! > > That works but I'm going to stop and ask a question - What's the difference > between Summersoft and Memphis RPM's , in layman's terms. > > What should guide me in choosing ? > > Maybe I should give my present system - it's convoluted. > > I am learning all this stuff, but in the spirit of the internet and sharing, I > have several free mailing lists. Presently I use MDaemon, a win95/NT MTA/mailing > list manager. > > Being poor, I've cut corners , but what happens is as follows . > > My set-up :- > > Main ISP - alpha.com through their smart host (they block port 25 so I have to go > through their host). I POP3 to retrieve mail. > I have a domain name and catch-all account at another ISP e.g. bravo.com. I POP3 > and retrieve the mail > My lan is named mail.bravo (no .com as there is a real domain held at another ISP > and I don't want to loop ). > I have 'no relaying' in place, certain IP's and domain and user names are > banned. > > So basically, I POP3 to two locations, the mail comes in , is sorted, if the > accounts exist the mail is stored, if not a response is sent of no user here and I > have selected to be notified with a copy. > > The mailing list also works pretty well, considering. > > So....Obviously I want to run Qmail and Ezmlm as a replacement. > > Fred L. mentioned I'd need Fetchmail to POP3 the mail. > > Any other advice, hints, problems you can see. > > Regards...Martin > > ---------------------------- PS. I'm also behind a proxy-server firewall
Howdy; please help ASAP: We're running Qmail on FreeBSD 2.2.8. Someone sent a 17 MB message to one of our users. /var, where qmail is located, is only a 30 MB partition, and with that message sitting in the queue, only has about 3 MB left on it. In the maillog, the message deferral: Unable_to_forward_message :_qq_write_error_or_disk_full_(#4.3.0)./ appears repeatedly. There's plenty of space on the user's partition and their quota will allow for the message just fine. It appears that qmail somehow needs to re-write the message somewhere in it's own hierarchy on the same partition before it can forward it on. I tried reducing the queue lifetime so the message would bounce, but qmail can't bounce it either, the same messages of "file system full" keep appearing. I tried (much to your dismay) to move the queue directory to another partition, and got an error message at startup about "cannot start: unable to open mutex" so I didn't pursue that any further (can anyone say what "mutex" is?) So, I'd *really* like to know: 1) In the short term, is there a way to deliver or bounce this message without just deleting the queue file manually? 2) In general, did this problem arise because we improperly installed qmail to a small partition, or is there something about qmail that should be better in handling large messages (i.e. file system full problems) that it can't really handle? 3) If it's a disk space issue, is there a way to have the queue directory somewhere else or do we need to move the whole ball of wax? 4) Is there a way to restrict incoming/outgoing message size? Thanks very much for your help, Chris --------------------------------------------- Chris Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.summersault.com/chris Vote Picard/Riker in 2000 ---------------------------------------------
rra> Er... how exactly is that going to work? I want to rotate the rra> logs on a daily (or weekly, perhaps) basis at precisely the same rra> time each day so that I don't have to spend a lot of time or rra> thought on getting consistent time intervals for statistics. How rra> do I tell cyclog to stop writing to one log and start writing to a rra> new one? it turns out to be remarkably trivial to teach cyclog to pretend the byte count is less than the margin when it gets a signal. asking it to reopen a log at that point is left as an exercise for the reader. -- paul
