qmail Digest 22 Apr 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 618
Topics (messages 24512 through 24570):
How to disable user-anything
24512 by: "Ingo Neis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
any qmail-smtpd rewrites ?
24513 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24522 by: "x" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24524 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
checkpassword and pop
24514 by: Thomas Balle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24515 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24516 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QMAIL delivery mechanism
24517 by: "iVAN Georgiev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Minor problem with leaving messages on server
24518 by: "Jim Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No pop mail?
24519 by: "Durham, Kenneth J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24520 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Problems with qmail-smtpd
24521 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FW: No pop mail?
24523 by: "Durham, Kenneth J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24529 by: "Durham, Kenneth J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QMail Book
24525 by: Jim Beam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24530 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24535 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24559 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John R. Levine)
24563 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Pipe
24526 by: "A.Y. Sjarifuddin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24527 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24534 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Encrypted secure POP3 and VPNs
24528 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24552 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
vacation
24531 by: olli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
changing mail servers
24532 by: xs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24533 by: xs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Problem with qmail-local
24536 by: luftik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail displays GMT time instead of local time
24537 by: Pablo Godel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24539 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24541 by: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24544 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24545 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24546 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24547 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24548 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24567 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No delivery
24538 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Elson)
24555 by: Peeter Pirn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
POP slow
24540 by: Gordon Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
splitting mails
24542 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sender rewriting (From: lines and envelope)
24543 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24549 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dot-qmail and wildcards
24550 by: "Jeff Lush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24551 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24553 by: "Jeff Lush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24554 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24570 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.qmail-
24556 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24557 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24558 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This looks bad. Any ideas?
24560 by: Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24561 by: seiheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24562 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24564 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dot-qmail
24565 by: "Jeff Lush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24566 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John R. Levine)
Relay or not to relay ?
24568 by: "Jacek Kubica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
integrating patches into the distribution
24569 by: "Racer X" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!
I have /etc/aliases:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: foo1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: foo2
- real users foo, foo1 and foo2
I want mail to be delivered to foo1 if it is send to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What happens is that qmail correctly splits the name into "foo" "-" "berlin"
and tries
to deliver it to the local user "foo".
What I want is that qmail delivers ALL mail to the alias user which uses
fastforward.
Haw can I disable qmails user-splitting?
Remark: it works correct until there is no user "foo".
Remark2: I dont want to use the users/assign mechanism.
Greetings, Ingo.
Ingo Neis eurodata GmbH & Co. KG
Diplom-Informatiker Abteilung Datenbank und Systemanalyse
Tel: (06 81) 88 08-0 Gro�blittersdorfer Stra�e 257-259
Fax: (06 81) 88 08-3 00 66119 Saarbr�cken
x writes:
> hi,
>
> as far as i know qmail-smtpd can't be run as a deamon but from ident (or
> similar djb's server)only.
> since this is really unefficient..are there any patches to this ?
How is it "unefficient"? What measurements have you made that shows
this?
> is qmail-smtpd considered clean of bugs ?
Yes.
> how many daily messages can they handle ?
I know of a single machine handling nearly a million mails a day. I
know of two sites with a cluster of machines handling 3-4 million
mails a day.
> i can't trust qmail efficency notes
> stuff like 'Red Hat doing fine with qmail, 16MB 486/66, 70000 messages a
> day'
> doesn't sound too real, & it ain't: RH is running Sendmail.
Yeah. They had some trouble with qmail, didn't ask for help, decided
it was a piece of crap, and went back to sendmail after qmail had
saved their bacon.
--
-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.
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How is it "unefficient"? What measurements have you made that shows
> this?
i haven't done any measurements, thought of many http cgi tests.
if buffer owerflows are unlikely to appear within qmail-smtpd why
not just make it standalone. using fork for that does not require many
changes.
Hotmail seems to be using custom smtpd(NO UCE) & leaving qmail to do the
rest.
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Of course, you can run any smtpd that you wish,
> once you teach it to talk to qmail-queue (which is quite simple).
hmm.. write message somewhere to mess/xx,
add file with appropriate content in todo/ and intd/ ?
x writes:
> From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > How is it "unefficient"? What measurements have you made that shows
> > this?
> i haven't done any measurements, thought of many http cgi tests.
Oh, well, guessing doesn't go very far on this mailing list.
> if buffer owerflows are unlikely to appear within qmail-smtpd why
> not just make it standalone. using fork for that does not require many
> changes.
Go for it, then.
> From: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Of course, you can run any smtpd that you wish,
> > once you teach it to talk to qmail-queue (which is quite simple).
>
> hmm.. write message somewhere to mess/xx,
> add file with appropriate content in todo/ and intd/ ?
You don't have permission to do that. Only the qmailq user has that
permission. qmail-queue is the only setuid program in qmail, and
about the only thing it does is write one file descriptor to
mess/xx/yy, and another file descriptor to todo/.
--
-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.
Hi,
Im running qmail 1.03 with checkpassword 0.81 on a Pentium 133Mhz with 64
MB ram with RedHat, it has about 1000 accounts.
After installing the ver 0.81 of checkpassword the system runs like a dream.
But Ive got this new cusomer running Lotus Notes and he claims that it
needs to check all his 100 accounts at the same time, of what I can see the
system has "plenty" of power to handle this.
But when he does kick off this 100 requests at one time qmail spawns a lot
of pop3 processes and then after 30-50 has been executed pop3 dies
completely - why ?
And what can I do to make the system able to handle this kind of (ab)use ?
Thanks,
Thomas
P.S. here is a typical cut from top after I've installed the new checkpassword.
2:45pm up 3:03, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.09, 0.08
66 processes: 65 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 1.3% user, 2.1% system, 0.0% nice, 96.8% idle
Mem: 63168K av, 55420K used, 7748K free, 35880K shrd, 34824K buff
Swap: 97276K av, 0K used, 97276K free 5756K cached
> But when he does kick off this 100 requests at one time qmail spawns
> a lot of pop3 processes and then after 30-50 has been executed pop3
> dies completely - why ? And what can I do to make the system able to
> handle this kind of (ab)use ?
I would think you run pop3 from inetd and when suddenly someone
starts 100 simultaneous connections, inetd freaks out and slams the
brakes. If I'm right, the solution is to kick inetd and use xinetd
or, preferably, tcpserver.
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
This is so true.
Inetd blows.
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
-----Original Message-----
From: Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: checkpassword and pop
> But when he does kick off this 100 requests at one time qmail spawns
> a lot of pop3 processes and then after 30-50 has been executed pop3
> dies completely - why ? And what can I do to make the system able to
> handle this kind of (ab)use ?
I would think you run pop3 from inetd and when suddenly someone
starts 100 simultaneous connections, inetd freaks out and slams the
brakes. If I'm right, the solution is to kick inetd and use xinetd
or, preferably, tcpserver.
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
hi list,
Finally I have success with running QMAIL (after a lot of searching on the Internet
and help from some of the list).
So as I understand the QMAIL delivery mechanism work in the following way :
0. message comes to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Read control/virtualdomains file. Ex.:
domain.com:domainacc
2. the address become : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. Read users/assign (cdb) Ex.:
=domainacc-user: user_that_has_access_to_maildir: UID:GID:/mail/mydomain/user:::
4. Read /mail/mydomain/user/.qmail Ex.:
../user/
5. The file/mail goes delivered in directory /mail/mydomain/user
OK.This works for me. Now I want to make the following to add only one line in
users/assign file for the whole domain, but can figure out how.
I was tring many variants w/o a big success.
The reason, if I have something like this user/assign :
+domainacc-:popuser:UID:GID:/mail/mydomain:::
and then in /mail/mydomain to have following files :
.qmail-domainacc-user1
.qmail-domainacc-user2
.qmail-domainacc-user3
.....
.qmail-domainacc-userX
that contains :
./user1/
./user2/
./user3/
.....
./userX/
one line in users/assign will make all the delivery, but can't make this to work.
OK. Now my questions :
1. What is the purpose of qmail/alias directory|users. When all delivery can be made
via mechanism described bofore.
2. What is the purpose of "dash" and "ext" in users/assign file. From the man page I
can understand nearly nothing ?
3. And finaly why the delivery is so complicated. Why not delivery become from three
tier (virtualhosts,users/assign,.qmail) to two tier. What I have in mind (only
users/assign,.qmail).
Example of the users/assign file :
(.*)@(.*):popuser:UID:GID:"/mailhome/" . $2 . "/" .$1:::
:") what this mean --> REGEXP !!! if we translate this to alaPERL, it will look like
:something like this.
$address = "[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
($user,$domain) = $address =~ /(.*)@(.*)/;
$homedir = "/mailhome/" . $domain . "/" .$user
In this way we will have only one line for all domains, no need for .cdb and
recopilation etc... even it can be usefull with virtualdomains too.
Additionaly this line can directly point to .qmail file.
Ex.:
(.*)@(.*):popuser:UID:GID:"/mailhome/" . $2 . "/" . $1 . "/.qmail" :::
or
(.*)@(.*):popuser:UID:GID:"/mailhome/"+$2+"/"+$1+"/.qmail":::
for ease reading.
This are just my thoughts, finally I'm not a C programmer (only reader :")) and can't
help very much on this.
=====
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
Rick.,
I experienced the same problem today.. I mistakenly left my mail
software running at work, IE5 Outlook, and it polled every ten minutes for
new messages.. I received the same message about 30 times that i sent to
myself around midnight..
Jim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick McMillin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 4:36 PM
Subject: Minor problem with leaving messages on server
> We're experiencing a minor problem with setting a mail client
> to leave messages on the server. It's not even really a problem,
> just something annoying.
>
> Anyway, when a mail client is set to leave messages on the server,
> every once in a while, it will re-receive all of the messages causing
> there to be duplicates. When I first saw this problem myself, I was
> using Outlook Express 5.0 and thought that it was probably some
> bug in the software. However, I'm now hearing from others that
> they are having the same problem using other clients like Eudora.
>
> I've checked when this has happened and everything appears to
> be fine in the cur directory.
>
> Has anyone else seen anything like this?
>
> Rick McMillin
> Network Operations Center
> I-Land Internet Services
>
>
>
Im kinda new to linux in general. I finaly got qmail to work after
searching for hours for some good documantation. Now that i have it working
im having a few problems. I can send mail out from the box ok like from
pine or what ever.But when i try to send mail into the box from another box
not on the same lan it bounces back. Also if i were to try and get mail
from the linux box from another box with netscape i get an error that it
could not connect to my pop3 server. Did i miss something in the
configuration or something? Thank you guys for all your help.
What is the error in the log as well as the error from the bounced email?
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
-----Original Message-----
From: Durham, Kenneth J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Qmail' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 9:32 AM
Subject: No pop mail?
>Im kinda new to linux in general. I finaly got qmail to work after
>searching for hours for some good documantation. Now that i have it
working
>im having a few problems. I can send mail out from the box ok like from
>pine or what ever.But when i try to send mail into the box from another box
>not on the same lan it bounces back. Also if i were to try and get mail
>from the linux box from another box with netscape i get an error that it
>could not connect to my pop3 server. Did i miss something in the
>configuration or something? Thank you guys for all your help.
>
It seems that I'll have a lot of idle qmail-smtpd processes, and when I get
to a certain amount of qmail-smtpd procs running, it allows a connection to
be made to port 25, BUT, it doesn't send or recieve data.
Here's my qmail-smtpd line.
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 21 -g 20 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
Any ideas?
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
i installed qmail according to the documantation. from what i know there is
no sendmail running. i checked all the pids. and with the queue problems
can someone help on that as well. thanks guyz
-----Original Message-----
From: Reid Sutherland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 7:09 AM
To: Durham, Kenneth J
Subject: Re: No pop mail?
This is sendmail and not qmail.
Seems like it anyway.
Forward the log to the list and not me.
You have queue problems anyway.
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
-----Original Message-----
From: Durham, Kenneth J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Reid Sutherland' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: No pop mail?
>In the email i included a copy of the recent maillog file. i tried
>re-sending email to my self to see if its still bouncing back. thank you
>for your help
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Reid Sutherland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 6:36 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: No pop mail?
>
>
>What is the error in the log as well as the error from the bounced email?
>
>
>Reid Sutherland
>Network Administrator
>ISYS Technology Inc.
>http://www.isys.ca
>Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Durham, Kenneth J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 'Qmail' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 9:32 AM
>Subject: No pop mail?
>
>
>>Im kinda new to linux in general. I finaly got qmail to work after
>>searching for hours for some good documantation. Now that i have it
>working
>>im having a few problems. I can send mail out from the box ok like from
>>pine or what ever.But when i try to send mail into the box from another
box
>>not on the same lan it bounces back. Also if i were to try and get mail
>>from the linux box from another box with netscape i get an error that it
>>could not connect to my pop3 server. Did i miss something in the
>>configuration or something? Thank you guys for all your help.
>>
>
>
i installed qmail according to the documantation. from what i know there is
no sendmail running. i checked all the pids. and with the queue problems
can someone help on that as well. thanks guyz
Subject: Re: No pop mail?
This is sendmail and not qmail.
Seems like it anyway.
Forward the log to the list and not me.
You have queue problems anyway.
-----Original Message-----
>In the email i included a copy of the recent maillog file. i tried
>re-sending email to my self to see if its still bouncing back. thank you
>for your help
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>What is the error in the log as well as the error from the bounced email?
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>>Im kinda new to linux in general. I finaly got qmail to work after
>>searching for hours for some good documantation. Now that i have it
>working
>>im having a few problems. I can send mail out from the box ok like from
>>pine or what ever.But when i try to send mail into the box from another
box
>>not on the same lan it bounces back. Also if i were to try and get mail
>>from the linux box from another box with netscape i get an error that it
>>could not connect to my pop3 server. Did i miss something in the
>>configuration or something? Thank you guys for all your help.
>>
>
>
maillog
Does anyone know the expected release date of the QMail book? I want to
add it to my collection :-)
On Wed 1999-04-21 (10:02), Jim Beam wrote:
> Does anyone know the expected release date of the QMail book? I want to
> add it to my collection :-)
Joe Garcia writes:
> What is the ETA of the book nowadays Russell??
Russell Nelson writes:
> Depends on the production schedule and all, so I have no authoritative
> information. I'd guess some time in August, assuming that johnl and I
> stick to our part of the schedule.
It still hasn't appeared on O'Reilly's "New & Upcoming Titles" list:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/new.html
but that only lists stuff coming out in May or June at the moment.
- 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.
---
i asked someone at the o'reilly booth last week at spring internet world in
los angeles, the street date she gave me was i believe 1 sep 99.
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Beam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Qmail (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 8:02 AM
Subject: QMail Book
> Does anyone know the expected release date of the QMail book? I want to
> add it to my collection :-)
>
>i asked someone at the o'reilly booth last week at spring internet world in
>los angeles, the street date she gave me was i believe 1 sep 99.
Uh, oh. Hey, Russ, we have to write faster.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
At 10:46 PM Wednesday 4/21/99, John R. Levine wrote:
>>i asked someone at the o'reilly booth last week at spring internet world in
>>los angeles, the street date she gave me was i believe 1 sep 99.
>
>Uh, oh. Hey, Russ, we have to write faster.
I was wondering which tail was wagging which dog here :>
Regards.
Dear All,
Any idea what's seem to be the problem?
Thanks
_Ayip.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Postmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 1:10 PM
>Subject: Nondeliverable mail
>
>
>>------Transcript of session follows -------
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>The pipe has been ended.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Postmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 1:10 PM
> >Subject: Nondeliverable mail
> >
> >
> >>------Transcript of session follows -------
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>The pipe has been ended.
Sounds like a follow-on to the Tom Waits song "The Piano Has Been Drinking".
Chris
[ Sorry I didn't have anything useful to contribute, but this just tickled my
funnybone somehow. ]
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
+ "A.Y. Sjarifuddin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Any idea what's seem to be the problem?
Nope. Since the bounce is not originated by qmail, and moreover the
bounce message doesn't in any way resemble any message created by
stock qmail, I think all you can do is ask the postmaster at
indosat.net.id.
| >-----Original Message-----
| >From: Postmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| >Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 1:10 PM
| >Subject: Nondeliverable mail
| >
| >
| >>------Transcript of session follows -------
| >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| >>The pipe has been ended.
- Harald
Recently, I found two utilities to be of enormous value while
looking into setting up a secure encrypted POP3 server and an
encrypted irc server/client.
The following two utilites can be applied to secure many
different applications including VPNs, SMTP as well POP3
The following two sites offer source for these two powerful
utilities and can enhance qmail
http://mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel
and
http://www.openssl.org
Regards,
Harley Silver
On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 11:57:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Recently, I found two utilities to be of enormous value while
> looking into setting up a secure encrypted POP3 server and an
> encrypted irc server/client.
>
> The following two utilites can be applied to secure many
> different applications including VPNs, SMTP as well POP3
>
> The following two sites offer source for these two powerful
> utilities and can enhance qmail
>
> http://mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel
>
> and
>
> http://www.openssl.org
Don't forget sslwrap: http://www.rickk.com/sslwrap
Chris
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Peter Samuel wrote:
> Rather than heavily modify vacation, why not modify your .qmail entry thusly
> | attachment_strip | vacation psamuel
I've corresponding to this question: I wanna split mail for a some gate
that allows messages only lower 16Kb. How should I do this for outgoing
mail for some domains & what programm will be better for deviding
message for small parts under Linux? `man what?` ?
AFAIK the dot files controls incoming mail. What should I use for
outgoing?
Bye.Olli.
hey all, i have some legacy customers that are still trying to use my old
mail server to send mail out, i was wondering (and i think i saw before
that it was) if it was possible to use a tcprules cdb to send the user an
error message saying something like "uhh use smtp.safari.net dumbass.", i
saw somewhere this:
1.2.3.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
will allow 1.2.3 to relay, so say i did this
1.2.3.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="use smtp.safari.net you silly boy."
is that the way to go about it? or is there some another command i need to
throw on that line?
thanks for any help
-xs
end
+-------------------------------------+
|Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Safari Internet www.safari.net|
|Fort Lauderdale, FL 1-888-537-9550|
+-------------------------------------+
i figured it out, download and install rblsmtpd, and in /etc/tcp.smtp put:
1.2.3.:allow,RBLSMTPD="Use smtp.safari.net."
then compile it (cat|tcprules etc...)
and run tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cbd rblsmtpd qmail-smtpd
thanks,
-xs
end
+-------------------------------------+
|Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Safari Internet www.safari.net|
|Fort Lauderdale, FL 1-888-537-9550|
+-------------------------------------+
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, xs wrote:
>
>hey all, i have some legacy customers that are still trying to use my old
>mail server to send mail out, i was wondering (and i think i saw before
>that it was) if it was possible to use a tcprules cdb to send the user an
>error message saying something like "uhh use smtp.safari.net dumbass.", i
>saw somewhere this:
>
>1.2.3.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>
>will allow 1.2.3 to relay, so say i did this
>
>1.2.3.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="use smtp.safari.net you silly boy."
>
>is that the way to go about it? or is there some another command i need to
>throw on that line?
>
>thanks for any help
>
>-xs
>
>end
>+-------------------------------------+
>|Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
>|Safari Internet www.safari.net|
>|Fort Lauderdale, FL 1-888-537-9550|
>+-------------------------------------+
>
>
Hello,
I am sorry if this problem was discussed before, but I could'nt find it.
And I do not know anybody who can fix it. So to the point:
I have qmail-1.03 I use /var/spool/mail with mbox format of mailboxes. I
use '|preline procmail' directive to filter mail. And i would like
qmail-local to deliver mail to /var/spool/mail ... I don't know how to do
it.
Second Question: Can I remove qmail-local and use procmail instead of
qmail-local. ? (to deliver mail to /var/spool/mail)
Thanks for help .. .
--
Lukas Futera >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I am wondering why Qmail inserts into the headers and bounces the time
in UTC format and why not the local time.
I need Qmail to displays the local time, is there any way to get this
done ?
thanks,
Pablo Godel
+ Pablo Godel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I am wondering why Qmail inserts into the headers and bounces the
| time in UTC format and why not the local time.
Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
all use the same time zone.
| I need Qmail to displays the local time, is there any way to get
| this done ?
The only head field with a time which is intended for the end user is
the Date: field. It should be set by the MUA, in which case qmail
won't touch it. For those MUAs which, like BSD mail, don't set the
Date: field, consult FAQ #6.1.
- Harald
| Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
| all use the same time zone.
I don't mean to flame (I think this list is a little esoteric and
hot-tempered as it is), but this seems like a bogus statement, considering
that I haven't ever seen another MUA do this. (I'm not saying that they
don't, but I don't recall seeing it.) Is this a let's be different
because we can mentality, or is there a better reason than this?
| The only head field with a time which is intended for the end user is
| the Date: field. It should be set by the MUA, in which case qmail
| won't touch it. For those MUAs which, like BSD mail, don't set the
| Date: field, consult FAQ #6.1.
I suppose, then, that the "Date:" field in MAILER-DAEMON generated
messages is not intended for the end user?
| Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Received: (qmail 18265 invoked for bounce); 21 Apr 1999 21:33:40 -0000
| Date: 21 Apr 1999 21:33:40 -0000
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: failure notice
Troy
+ Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| | Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
| | all use the same time zone.
|
| I don't mean to flame (I think this list is a little esoteric and
| hot-tempered as it is), but this seems like a bogus statement,
| considering that I haven't ever seen another MUA do this.
Received: headers are created by MTAs, not MUAs. But yes, other MTAs
usually make time stamps in local time. That doesn't mean it's a good
idea to do so, however. And us qmail folks, we tend to be more
concerned with doing the Right Thing than doing whatever everyone else
does. (Esoteric and hot-tempered, who? 8-)
| Is this a let's be different because we can mentality, or is there a
| better reason than this?
Perhaps it's a let's be different because different is better
mentality. The other reason is that Dan is bending over backwards to
avoid using the standard C library for reliability and security
reasons. And it is very very difficult to get good timezone
information without asking the standard C library. But way back when
this was discussed (around version 0.96 or so?), it was me who raised
the point that timestamps in a single time zone were easier to
compare, which seemed to settle the discussion.
| | The only head field with a time which is intended for the end user is
| | the Date: field.
|
| I suppose, then, that the "Date:" field in MAILER-DAEMON generated
| messages is not intended for the end user?
Heh, you got me there... But really, what user wants to know *when*
the message bounced? With mail from people, it *is* interesting to
know the sending date in their local time (for example, you can tell
that I am sending this a few minutes after midnight, which means I am
unlikely to make more followups to this thread for at least eight or
ten hours). But with a bounce, knowing *why* is much more important.
Or if you want to know the bounce time, it may be of more interest to
relate it to your own time zone than that of the other end. If your
time zone is +0700, it is probably easier to convert from UTC to your
local time zone than from, say, CDT.
- Harald
Troy Morrison writes:
>
> | Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
> | all use the same time zone.
>
> I don't mean to flame (I think this list is a little esoteric and
> hot-tempered as it is), but this seems like a bogus statement, considering
> that I haven't ever seen another MUA do this.
MUAs typically don't need to display dates in the Received: header.
Netscape Communicator correctly adjusts the Date: header to the local
timezone. I'm pretty sure MS Outlook Express does that too. Correcting
for a local timezone is a no-brainer for any MUA, especially in UNIX.
> | The only head field with a time which is intended for the end user is
> | the Date: field. It should be set by the MUA, in which case qmail
> | won't touch it. For those MUAs which, like BSD mail, don't set the
> | Date: field, consult FAQ #6.1.
>
> I suppose, then, that the "Date:" field in MAILER-DAEMON generated
> messages is not intended for the end user?
>
> | Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Received: (qmail 18265 invoked for bounce); 21 Apr 1999 21:33:40 -0000
> | Date: 21 Apr 1999 21:33:40 -0000
The Date: field in EVERY message is intended for the user, therefore the
user's MUA should correctly display the Date: header on any message.
--
Sam
Pablo Godel writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering why Qmail inserts into the headers and bounces the time
> in UTC format and why not the local time.
>
> I need Qmail to displays the local time, is there any way to get this
> done ?
How about you setting your system clock correctly, first:
>Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:13:46 -0600
That's 7:30PM Eastern time, and right now it's only 6:13PM.
What's probably happening is that your MUA is unable to correctly display
the accurate local time due to your FUBARed timezone/system clock.
--
Sam
> From: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> | Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
> | all use the same time zone.
>
> I don't mean to flame (I think this list is a little esoteric and
> hot-tempered as it is), but this seems like a bogus statement, considering
> that I haven't ever seen another MUA do this. (I'm not saying that they
> don't, but I don't recall seeing it.) Is this a let's be different
> because we can mentality, or is there a better reason than this?
>
> | The only head field with a time which is intended for the end user is
> | the Date: field. It should be set by the MUA, in which case qmail
> | won't touch it. For those MUAs which, like BSD mail, don't set the
> | Date: field, consult FAQ #6.1.
>
> I suppose, then, that the "Date:" field in MAILER-DAEMON generated
> messages is not intended for the end user?
That happens to be a fine example of a mail message generated from one of
"those MUAs which, like BSD mail, don't set the Date: field".
As Harald said, Consult FAQ #6.1.
> | Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Received: (qmail 18265 invoked for bounce); 21 Apr 1999 21:33:40 -0000
> | Date: 21 Apr 1999 21:33:40 -0000
> | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Subject: failure notice
>
> Troy
>
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
> From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:12:08 GMT
>
> Netscape Communicator correctly adjusts the Date: header to the local
> timezone. I'm pretty sure MS Outlook Express does that too. Correcting
> for a local timezone is a no-brainer for any MUA, especially in UNIX.
My mua (exmh) displays dates as they appear in the mail with the local date in
parenthesis following it. That way I know both when they sent it in their
timezone and also when they sent it in my timezone. Both can be useful at
different times. here's an example:
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:11:15 +0200 (Wed 17:11 CDT)
So, I know that message was sent just after midnight where it originated, but
just after 5PM where I am.
Now I know not only how long ago the message was sent, but also that the
author is probably going to bed pretty soon, so I shouldn't anticipate quite
responses.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
>
> | Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
> | all use the same time zone.
>
> I don't mean to flame (I think this list is a little esoteric and
> hot-tempered as it is), but this seems like a bogus statement, considering
> that I haven't ever seen another MUA do this. (I'm not saying that they
> don't, but I don't recall seeing it.) Is this a let's be different
> because we can mentality, or is there a better reason than this?
I know of no MUA which touches Received: lines
RjL
After successfully installing qmail on 2 SGI's (Indigos running IRIX 6.2)
I'm having problems with a 3rd. It seems as
though mail doesn't get through to $HOME/Mailbox except when I reboot the
machine. The SYSLOG shows the mail arriving, but no delivery:
Apr 21 19:59:34 6C:aeolus qmail: 924724774.268246 new msg 893132
Apr 21 19:59:34 6C:aeolus qmail: 924724774.269185 info msg 893132: bytes
540 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 785 uid 7791
Apr 21 19:59:41 6C:aeolus qmail: 924724781.993927 new msg 893135
......
Any suggestions?
(Please email me directly)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TIA
Are these running? They should be.
226 qmaill ?? I 0:00.15 splogger qmail
227 root ?? I 0:00.09 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
228 qmailr ?? I 0:00.04 qmail-rspawn
229 qmailq ?? I 0:00.11 qmail-clean
223 qmails co- I 0:00.57 qmail-send
Perhaps you haven't run
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Elson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 4:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: No delivery
After successfully installing qmail on 2 SGI's (Indigos running IRIX
6.2)
I'm having problems with a 3rd. It seems as
though mail doesn't get through to $HOME/Mailbox except when I reboot
the
machine. The SYSLOG shows the mail arriving, but no delivery:
Apr 21 19:59:34 6C:aeolus qmail: 924724774.268246 new msg 893132
Apr 21 19:59:34 6C:aeolus qmail: 924724774.269185 info msg 893132:
bytes
540 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 785 uid 7791
Apr 21 19:59:41 6C:aeolus qmail: 924724781.993927 new msg 893135
......
Any suggestions?
(Please email me directly)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TIA
Check your DNS settings. This is usually the cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Golden (ICQ#5013149) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: POP slow
Trying this again...
Any ideas why sending mail would take an unusual amount of time? POP
reacts quick when receiving mail, but smpt seems extremely slow.
Running Redhat 5.1, Pentium 166 w/ 64 megs of ram, and it's slow
even on a lan.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------
Download ICQ at http://www.icq.com
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, olli wrote:
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:41:16 -0300 (GMT+3)
> From: olli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: vacation
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Peter Samuel wrote:
> > Rather than heavily modify vacation, why not modify your .qmail entry thusly
> > | attachment_strip | vacation psamuel
> I've corresponding to this question: I wanna split mail for a some gate
> that allows messages only lower 16Kb.
That sounds like Mausnetz? However, you could use metasend --- I've found
metasend within the metamail package of my SuSE (5.1) distribution.
Metasend has a default minimum size for parts of afair 20K, but you can
change that in metamail-2.7-19/metamail/splitmail.c at line 30:
#define MINCHUNKSIZE 14000 /* Better be enough to hold the headers, or we die! */
Recompile and reinstall, hmm ... the ,/usr/bin/splitmail' program; the
metasend program itself can be left untouched. 14K should be save in most
cases where mail headers are added by some MTAs, increasing size. At least
about 12.5K should go through anyway, but the comment warns you :_)
I didn't verify if splitmail runs relyable with the reduced limit because
shortly after I applied the modification using it became obsolete!
> How should I do this for outgoing mail for some domains
It probably depends on the MUA you're using. Some (like pine) allow piping
the mails through filters, and you could set up metasend as such a filter or
use a wrapper to decide wheather a mail must be filtered or not. As an
example for building a wrapper the mkpgp (2.1) script could give you some
useful hints. (You should be able to find it by searching for keywords ,PGP'
and ,pine'; or just ask me to mail it to you.)
> & what programm will be better for deviding message for small parts under
> Linux?
Metasend uses MIME (what you might not want), split does not.
> `man what?` ?
Look at man: metasend, splitmail, split.
> AFAIK the dot files controls incoming mail. What should I use for outgoing?
Sorry, I can't help with that --- to qmail, I'm a newbie who installed it
just yesterday.
GH
Hi.
I'm having some trouble to configure qmail (1.03) correctly for the
following situation: I've an account at an ISP for sending and receiving
mail. After establishing a (dial-up) PPP connection, mails are fetched with
fetchmail, and qmail sends outgoing mail via SMTP.
Sending mails requires that the sender specified in the ,From:' lines must
be the same as the sender specified in the envelope. Furthermore, the
receiving SMTP host (at the ISP) tries to verify the sender addresses:
Qmail's running on a maschine called ,yun' that belongs to a local domain
called ,home.de'. I'm the user ,abc' (,[EMAIL PROTECTED]') there. When ,abc'
tries to send a mail to ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' via the ISP, the mail is not
accepted and I get the error-message ,cannot route to sender'. The sender,
,[EMAIL PROTECTED]', is obviously unknown to the ISPs host, since there I'm
known as ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
Therefore, in /var/qmail/control/defaulthost I specified ,01019freenet',
with a defaultdomain of ,de'. This rewrites the From: lines and the envelope
sender address ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
But ,abc' still needs to be replaced by ,hans_wilmer'. I'm doing that by
setting the environment variables as follows:
MAILUSER=hans_wilmer
MAILSUSER=hans_wilmer
MAILSHOST=01019freenet.de
QMAILINJECT=f
It works, but it introduces two problems:
1.) Any local user can pretend to be ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' by
setting these variables, and ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' can pretend to be
,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' ...
2.) All local users actually do pretend to be @01019freenet.de --- and that
especially applies to some daemons and some lokal programs that have
their own lokal accounts, when these daemons (cron, for example) or
programs are sending mail.
The first problem is currently just very ugly, since I'm the only (human)
user on my maschine. But is it a good idea to have those variables and to
allow anyone pretending to be someone else?
The second one is even more ugly. To get hold of the mails my
daemons/programs send, I've added 01019freenet.de to control/locals. It
works, but it will effectively prevent me from sending mail to any user
@01019freenet.de, since all mail to these remote users will be delivered
locally --- and bounce for these remote users do not exist locally (except
users like root or postmaster that are accessible through aliases that point
to myselfe;_).
Well, how can I configure qmail to solve these problems? I'm a little bit
confused with the documentation of qmail (manpages and the FAQ). It's spread
across a lot of files, and it's not easy to find out and understand what
this or that file or directory is used for. An overview over all the related
files and programs is not easy to get. Is there some other documentation I
should read? I would be glad if someone could help me.
GH
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| [...] Therefore, in /var/qmail/control/defaulthost I specified
| ,01019freenet', with a defaultdomain of ,de'. This rewrites the
| From: lines and the envelope sender address ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to
| ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
(Please follow English quoting conventions, like `01019freenet' etc,
when mailing to a English-speaking list. Those commas are very
confusing.)
| But ,abc' still needs to be replaced by ,hans_wilmer'. I'm doing that by
| setting the environment variables as follows:
|
|
| MAILUSER=hans_wilmer
| MAILSUSER=hans_wilmer
| MAILSHOST=01019freenet.de
| QMAILINJECT=f
|
|
| It works, but it introduces two problems:
|
|
| 1.) Any local user can pretend to be ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' by
| setting these variables, and ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' can pretend to be
| ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' ...
|
| 2.) All local users actually do pretend to be @01019freenet.de --- and that
| especially applies to some daemons and some lokal programs that have
| their own lokal accounts, when these daemons (cron, for example) or
| programs are sending mail.
|
|
| The first problem is currently just very ugly, since I'm the only
| (human) user on my maschine. But is it a good idea to have those
| variables and to allow anyone pretending to be someone else?
Well, such is life in the SMTP world: Anyone *can* pretend to be
anyone else. Moreover, this is quite legitimate sometimes: I
occasionally pretend to be [EMAIL PROTECTED], for example. Or
people might wish to pretend to be themselves, but at a different
location, perhaps with a differently named mailbox.
| The second one is even more ugly. To get hold of the mails my
| daemons/programs send, I've added 01019freenet.de to control/locals.
So you should not set all that bogus information in the control file,
but only in your personal environment variables. Just let
defaulthost, defaultdomain etc point to your local machine, while you
set up the environment to get the addresses you wish to use when
sending your own mail to the outside world.
| An overview over all the related files and programs is not easy to
| get. Is there some other documentation I should read? I would be
| glad if someone could help me.
Have you checked the ASCII qmail pcitures /var/qmail/doc/PIC.*?
If you want more graphical pictures, try the Big qmail picture (look
at http://www.qmail.org/ to find its location).
- Harald
Hello all,
I am wondering if and how qmail can be setup to forward mail from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to one local user. When I say anything I mean any word or
phrase. I have looked through the dot-qmail man pages and to the best of my
knowledge a different .qmail-user file is required for every email address.
Can one specify wildcards like .qmail-*? Maybe that sounds a little crazy...
Thanks,
Jeff Lush
> I am wondering if and how qmail can be setup to forward mail from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to one local user. When I say anything I mean any word or
> phrase. I have looked through the dot-qmail man pages and to the best of
my
> knowledge a different .qmail-user file is required for every email
address.
> Can one specify wildcards like .qmail-*? Maybe that sounds a little
crazy...
The only hard part is naming the user Bob, as per FAQ 3.2.
3.2. How do I set up a virtual domain? I'd like any mail for
nowhere.mil, including [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
so on, to be delivered to Bob. I've set up the MX already.
Answer: Put
nowhere.mil:bob
into control/virtualdomains. Add nowhere.mil to control/rcpthosts. If
qmail-send is running, give it a HUP.
Now mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered locally to
bob-whatever. Bob can set up ~bob/.qmail-default to catch all the
possible addresses, ~bob/.qmail-info to catch [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I am wondering if and how qmail can be setup to forward mail from
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to one local user. When I say anything I mean
> any word or
> > phrase. I have looked through the dot-qmail man pages and to the best of
> my
> > knowledge a different .qmail-user file is required for every email
> address.
> > Can one specify wildcards like .qmail-*? Maybe that sounds a little
> crazy...
>
> The only hard part is naming the user Bob, as per FAQ 3.2.
>
>
> 3.2. How do I set up a virtual domain? I'd like any mail for
> nowhere.mil, including [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> so on, to be delivered to Bob. I've set up the MX already.
>
> Answer: Put
>
> nowhere.mil:bob
>
> into control/virtualdomains. Add nowhere.mil to control/rcpthosts. If
> qmail-send is running, give it a HUP.
>
> Now mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered locally to
> bob-whatever. Bob can set up ~bob/.qmail-default to catch all the
> possible addresses, ~bob/.qmail-info to catch [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.
>
> --
> gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I have gotten that far; however, now user bob needs to build individual
dot-qmail files for whatever he wants as email addresses. For example,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would require .qmail-bobsmith and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would require .qmail-sales. I want all mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to go to
bob with only one dot-qmail file.
Any ideas?
Jeff Lush
> > Now mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered locally to
> > bob-whatever. Bob can set up ~bob/.qmail-default to catch all the
> > possible addresses, ~bob/.qmail-info to catch [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.
>
> I have gotten that far; however, now user bob needs to build individual
> dot-qmail files for whatever he wants as email addresses. For example,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] would require .qmail-bobsmith and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> would require .qmail-sales. I want all mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to go
to
> bob with only one dot-qmail file.
Unless I'm totally confused, that's what ~bob/.qmail-default is for.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Jeff Lush wrote:
> > 3.2. How do I set up a virtual domain? I'd like any mail for
> > nowhere.mil, including [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> > so on, to be delivered to Bob. I've set up the MX already.
> >
> I have gotten that far; however, now user bob needs to build individual
> dot-qmail files for whatever he wants as email addresses. For example,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] would require .qmail-bobsmith and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> would require .qmail-sales. I want all mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to go to
> bob with only one dot-qmail file.
My favourite recipy for this is to include put
nowhere.mil:bob-nowhere
in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
and
then create
a ~bob/.qmail-nowhere-default
that will handle all mail to the domain nowhere. bobs normal mail is
still handled by ~bob/.qmail
If bob wants to handle one specific adress (e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED]) in a
special way, then he creates ~bob/.qmail-nowhere-alice which will handle
this mail.
If he wants to handle alice-* also specifically, then he creates
~bob/.qmail-nowhere-alice-default that will handle this mail.
If no specific dot-file is found then ~bob/.qmail-nowhere-default will
be used. qmail WILL NOT revert to bobs ~bob/.qmail for
nowhere.mil-deliveries.
MOST IMPORTANT: nowhere.mil HAS to be included in
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts BUT NOT in /var/qmail/control/locals
/magnus
--
"most useless site of the year 1998" ---> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
I'm sure there is a way to stop a user from creating additional email
aliases for themselves, can someone tell me what it is please? ie. I have
the user dixie and the user dixie-jo. I don't want dixie makeing a
.qmail-jo file. Thanks in advanced. andy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO Communications Phone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
Andy Walden writes:
>
> I'm sure there is a way to stop a user from creating additional email
> aliases for themselves, can someone tell me what it is please? ie. I have
> the user dixie and the user dixie-jo. I don't want dixie makeing a
> .qmail-jo file. Thanks in advanced. andy
In this particular case, qmail should do the right thing. Give it a try,
and see what happens.
--
Sam
I would assume not go through the hassle of telling dixie why her alias
all of a sudden stopped working. it would be nice if I could just render
it useless before the confusion begins I guess.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO Communications Phone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Sam wrote:
> Andy Walden writes:
>
> >
> > I'm sure there is a way to stop a user from creating additional email
> > aliases for themselves, can someone tell me what it is please? ie. I have
> > the user dixie and the user dixie-jo. I don't want dixie makeing a
> > .qmail-jo file. Thanks in advanced. andy
>
> In this particular case, qmail should do the right thing. Give it a try,
> and see what happens.
>
> --
> Sam
>
I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas?
-doug
Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.937943 starting delivery 280:
msg 5283860 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.938322 status: local 2/10
remote 19/20
Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.938716 delivery 277: success:
did_1+0+0/
Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.966493 status: local 1/10
remote 19/20
Apr 21 23:16:24 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750984.494309 delivery 280: deferral:
CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
Something wrong with the DNS I think...
Doug McClure wrote:
> I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas?
>
> -doug
>
> Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.937943 starting delivery 280:
> msg 5283860 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.938322 status: local 2/10
> remote 19/20
> Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.938716 delivery 277: success:
> did_1+0+0/
> Apr 21 23:16:23 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750983.966493 status: local 1/10
> remote 19/20
> Apr 21 23:16:24 6C:cache-ns qmail: 924750984.494309 delivery 280: deferral:
> CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
Doug McClure writes:
> I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas?
The standard unpatched Qmail cannot handle DNS reply packets longer than
512 bytes. Some domains, including AOL, now return pretty sizable DNS
packets in reply to MX queries.
Immediate short term solution: run dig, and pick an MX server that appears
to be functional, then drop it into your control/smtproutes, to get the
mail going out immediately.
Permanent solution: patch Qmail.
--
Sam
Doug McClure writes:
> I'm seeing AOL getting deferred like so. Any ideas?
Yup. AOL is using DNS replies > 512 bytes. Dan Bernstein said in
July '97, "Dozens of programs enforce the same limit. A site cannot,
as a practical matter, go beyond 512 bytes." Apparently, AOL has
decided to put on the 800LB gorilla suit, and force people to fix
these dozens of programs. Or at least their mailer anyway.
http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/qmail-103.patch is one possible fix.
http://www.qmail.org/big-dns-patch is another.
--
-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.
Hello,
I would like to know if the dot-qmail file of one user can forward mail to
another user's Maildir. Here's why I would like to know:
I need a virtual domain to support more than one user using pop3d:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My idea is to create one line in the virtualdomains file:
abc.com:bob
Then in bob's directory create .qmail-joe and in it add:
/home/joe/Maildir/
Joe's Maildir is setup and he has a .qmail file pointing to ./Maildir/
although I don't think this is necessary.
I have attempted to set this up and the mail gets as far as the .qmail-joe
file in bob's directory and then vanishes.
BTW Thanks to the many experienced qmail users who answer these basic
questions. I appreciate the assistance.
Thanks,
Jeff Lush
>I need a virtual domain to support more than one user using pop3d:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>My idea is to create one line in the virtualdomains file:
>abc.com:bob
>
>Then in bob's directory create .qmail-joe and in it add:
>/home/joe/Maildir/
>
>Joe's Maildir is setup and he has a .qmail file pointing to ./Maildir/
>although I don't think this is necessary.
Your problem is almost certainly that bob doesn't have write
permission in joe's Maildir. Fortunately, he doesn't need it. Rather
than trying to write in someone else's files, just forward the message
to joe so qmail will deliver mail to joe normally. That is, in
~bob/.qmail-joe put:
&joe
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Hi !
I`m new on this forum.
Just married with qmail and ezmlm-idx.:)
(compiled on AiX 4.3)
qmail-smtpd via tcpserver complied and instaled.
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c100 -u329 -g201 0 smtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd &
tcp.smtp (based on
http://qmail-docs.surfdirect.com.au/docs/qmail-antirelay.html)
(ip.of.my.host):allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",TCPLOCALHOST="my.host.domain"
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
Converted by tcprules to /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
I want to get any messages incomming to my host (adressed to user and
mailing list (ezmlm-idx) located on my host), and also outgoing mails from
,
but don`t want to be open relay (SMTP host for external machines).
But now any "external" hosts, can use my host as SMTP host. (tested)
Why ? What I`m doing wrong ??
Sorry for my poor english :)
Jacek Kubica
so we can all see the huge number of patches that are listed on
www.qmail.org, and i'd be willing to bet that anyone who has used qmail for
more than a day or so has had to use at least one of those patches.
i'm not particularly against the idea of patching my software to make it
meet my needs. it is kind of a pain, but once it's done it's done and i
don't have to worry about it. the only problem i have is, let's say
there's a bugfix or cosmetic improvement to qmail at some point and the
main source is changed, then i have to repatch and so on.
i'm not going to attempt to say which patches "should" be folded into the
main distribution, nor if any patches should be folded in at all (or,
because of the possibility of licensing on some patches, whether they even
CAN be). i am, however, curious as to how djb views these patches, and
whether any of them will be integrated into the main distribution anytime
soon.
it might be interesting if people had a way to rate the usefulness of
various patches, both for general usefulness and how well the patch
integrates into qmail (that is, whether it should really be a patch or a
separate program).
just some random thoughts as i sit here late.
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
