qmail Digest 23 Apr 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 619
Topics (messages 24571 through 24640):
This looks bad. Any ideas?
24571 by: Petri Kaukasoina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24617 by: Doug Lumpkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24618 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Batch loading qmail remotes
24572 by: Blaine Lefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24577 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
virtualdomains question
24573 by: olli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24574 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Giulio Orsero)
.qmail-
24575 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24581 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24585 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24587 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24589 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24591 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24593 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24594 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24595 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24596 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24603 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24608 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24610 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24611 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24612 by: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24633 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24634 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24635 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rcpthosts logging.
24576 by: Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24579 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24582 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail displays GMT time instead of local time
24578 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
integrating patches into the distribution
24580 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24583 by: Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24584 by: Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24586 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24588 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24590 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24606 by: ".Oliver_Thuns." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
lspawn-> script -> local
24592 by: ivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Radius & Qmail
24597 by: Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24614 by: "Monte Mitzelfelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ETRN
24598 by: Dimitri SZAJMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24599 by: Logics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24602 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
any qmail-smtpd rewrites ?
24600 by: listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24601 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is this off
24604 by: Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24607 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RBL, DUL, Shubs, woohoo
24605 by: Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24613 by: "Evan Champion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DSN
24609 by: "Ferri Andy Ch." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
old popdeamons don't do ~user/Mailbox
24615 by: Pike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sender rewriting (From: lines and envelope)
24616 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virus scanning with qmail
24619 by: Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24620 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24622 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24624 by: Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24626 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Need to get copies of 1 user's outgoing mail.
24621 by: Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24625 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24627 by: "Stephen Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24628 by: Mike Holling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24629 by: Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24630 by: Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
new at qmail PLEASE HELP
24623 by: "Jason L. Skoland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey - Waitaminit! (was: Need to get copies of 1..)
24631 by: Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24632 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hey - Getting closer, methinks!
24636 by: Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Un subscribe
24637 by: sophia Kounia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can't Send mail with Webmail-Like Sw
24638 by: Luca Pescatore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Relay or not to relay ? - "to be continued" :)
24639 by: "Jacek Kubica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
unsubscibe
24640 by: Javed Ahsan <[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 Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 03:42:50AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Yup. AOL is using DNS replies > 512 bytes.
Replies from relays.orbs.org are also larger than 512. But I guess it
doesn't matter because the TXT record fits in the answer and just the NS
records are truncated. So there's no need to patch rblsmtpd?
I'm new to linuxand picked up qmail a few months ago and haven't had to touch
it... But now I need the patch below. I have tried the 1.03 patch with a
cleanly tarred qmail tree and all of the hunks fail...
Does anyone have any recommendations???
Thanks,
--
Doug Lumpkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russell Nelson wrote:
> 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.
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 02:38:14PM -0700, Doug Lumpkin wrote:
> I'm new to linuxand picked up qmail a few months ago and haven't had to touch
> it... But now I need the patch below. I have tried the 1.03 patch with a
> cleanly tarred qmail tree and all of the hunks fail...
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations???
Try again. The patch applied cleanly to my qmail-1.03 sources. Both patches do.
Chris
Hello All
This is my first message to the group. I was wondering if there is a
way to make qmail open a single qmail connection per domain not per
rcpt?
Thanks Blaine Lefler
Blaine Lefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is my first message to the group. I was wondering if there is a
>way to make qmail open a single qmail connection per domain not per
>rcpt?
No.
-Dave
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
from man:
A virtual domain has the form domain:prepend. It
applies to any recipient address at domain.
Well, can I use a domain name as a second part? As example:
foo.com:foo1.com
Will then qmail send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
Bye.Olli.
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:56:24 -0300 (GMT+3), hai scritto:
>Well, can I use a domain name as a second part? As example:
>
>foo.com:foo1.com
>
>Will then qmail send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
No, try this instead:
virtualdomains:
foo.com:alias-foo
~alias/.qmail-foo-default
|forward $[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ciao.
--
Giulio
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would assume not go through the hassle of telling dixie why her alias
>all of a sudden stopped working.
I assume you meant "as soon".
>it would be nice if I could just render
>it useless before the confusion begins I guess.
Did you read Sam's response?
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Sam wrote:
>>
>> In this particular case, qmail should do the right thing. Give it a try,
>> and see what happens.
He saying he thinks that user dixie-jo will override ~dixie/.qmail-jo,
so no rendering useless is required. If you can't take the time to
perform a simple test, you shouldn't expect other people to go out of
their way to help you.
-Dave
> Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I would assume not go through the hassle of telling dixie why her alias
> >all of a sudden stopped working.
>
> I assume you meant "as soon".
I did. Thanks.
> >it would be nice if I could just render
> >it useless before the confusion begins I guess.
>
> Did you read Sam's response?
Yes.
> >> In this particular case, qmail should do the right thing. Give it a try,
> >> and see what happens.
>
> He saying he thinks that user dixie-jo will override ~dixie/.qmail-jo,
> so no rendering useless is required. If you can't take the time to
> perform a simple test, you shouldn't expect other people to go out of
> their way to help you.
I never argued that this didn't work, tried it, and it did. That wasn't
the question either. Its more of a control issue that it makes me nervous
a user can create addition email addresses for themselves. The only way
administratively to handle this as far as I can tell is maybe do night
searches for .qmail files or something kludgy. Its also not an option for
the users to have their mail on another host. Its just hard to believe I'm
the only person that has ever thought this way and figured there was a
patch to modify the behavior is all. Seems pretty straight forward for a
mail to just mail to users and not allow the users to add variations of
their email address is all.
Thanks for your help.
andy
Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I never argued that this didn't work, tried it, and it did. That wasn't
>the question either. Its more of a control issue that it makes me nervous
>a user can create addition email addresses for themselves.
Why didn't you just say "How can I disable extension addresses? They
make me nervous." instead of trumping up problem with them? You made a
general complaint, then gave a specific example. Of *course* the
responses addressed the example.
Personally, I think you're a control freak and you should either relax
or switch to a more fascist MTA. There's probably a way to disable
extension addresses in qmail--perhaps diddling with conf-break or via
qmail-users, though.
What is it about extension addresses that bothers you?
-Dave
> I never argued that this didn't work, tried it, and it did. That
> wasn't the question either. Its more of a control issue that it
> makes me nervous a user can create addition email addresses for
> themselves. The only way administratively to handle this as far as I
> can tell is maybe do night searches for .qmail files or something
> kludgy. Its also not an option for the users to have their mail on
> another host. Its just hard to believe I'm the only person that has
> ever thought this way and figured there was a patch to modify the
> behavior is all. Seems pretty straight forward for a mail to just
> mail to users and not allow the users to add variations of their
> email address is all.
And wouldn't recompiling qmail with strange enough conf-break ('\n'
comes to mind, '@' or something >127) help? I don't know RFC821 good
enough to tell you, but there should be some character which cannot
appear in the username, shouldn't it?
Actually, I can't see any problem with user creating subaddresses. I
doesn't do too much different stuff from what a "read the subject
and react" kind of procmail script does. The only thing is to make
the conf-break which will not appear in user names (space, newline,
backspace, at, whatever).
--
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]
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Petr Novotny wrote:
> And wouldn't recompiling qmail with strange enough conf-break ('\n'
> comes to mind, '@' or something >127) help? I don't know RFC821 good
> enough to tell you, but there should be some character which cannot
> appear in the username, shouldn't it?
Why not a \0
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
> > And wouldn't recompiling qmail with strange enough conf-break
> > ('\n' comes to mind, '@' or something >127) help? I don't know
> > RFC821 good enough to tell you, but there should be some character
> > which cannot appear in the username, shouldn't it?
>
> Why not a \0
:-) I was not sure if it doesn't break the sources in some place -
like strcpy() and stuff. Aside that, this one would be nearly perfect
- if it works.
--
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]
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Andy Walden wrote:
> > Why didn't you just say "How can I disable extension addresses? They
> > make me nervous." instead of trumping up problem with them? You made a
> > general complaint, then gave a specific example. Of *course* the
> > responses addressed the example.
>
> Sorry, I'm still fumbling around trying to get a grip on this. I have to
> feel insanely confortable before I move my userbase over to this new
> server using qmail. The old one uses sendmail (big suprise). I'm also the
> kind of guy that keeps the bat book on top of the toliet for regular
> study.
That's not why I'd keep it there. Never know when you're gonna run out
of paper!
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > And wouldn't recompiling qmail with strange enough conf-break
> > > ('\n' comes to mind, '@' or something >127) help? I don't know
> > > RFC821 good enough to tell you, but there should be some character
> > > which cannot appear in the username, shouldn't it?
> >
> > Why not a \0
>
> :-) I was not sure if it doesn't break the sources in some place -
> like strcpy() and stuff. Aside that, this one would be nearly perfect
> - if it works.
What would the \0 do?
Thanks, andy
> What would the \0 do?
That's exactly what I don't know; it might make strcmp behave
strangely (parts after the \0 would not be compared); it might make
strcpy/strdup behave strangely. It might be completely benign.
Someone who understands the sources should tell you, not me.
--
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]
> Why didn't you just say "How can I disable extension addresses? They
> make me nervous." instead of trumping up problem with them? You made a
> general complaint, then gave a specific example. Of *course* the
> responses addressed the example.
Sorry, I'm still fumbling around trying to get a grip on this. I have to
feel insanely confortable before I move my userbase over to this new
server using qmail. The old one uses sendmail (big suprise). I'm also the
kind of guy that keeps the bat book on top of the toliet for regular
study.
> Personally, I think you're a control freak and you should either relax
> or switch to a more fascist MTA. There's probably a way to disable
> extension addresses in qmail--perhaps diddling with conf-break or via
> qmail-users, though.
I can live with that. The main reasons I'm being pulled in the qmail
direction are Maildir and the performance hype. I have removed qmail
completely and installed sendmail with procmail to deliver to home
directories, but then bit the bullet and put qmail back on.
> What is it about extension addresses that bothers you?
Its probably not fully understanding what they do yet. I also am
responsible for teaching a tech crew how to get around this once I move it
over and when a call comes in where mail is disappearing, they can't do a
sendmail -v and some of the traditional processes so I would like to keep
some very basic rules like all aliases are in /etc/aliases, users can't
make up variations of their username and have them work as email
addresses, etc....Maybe its facist, makes my life easier in the long haul
though is all. I was almost sure I saw someone post something about a
patch that required anyone that made a working .qmail file to be in a
control/staff file, but a search of the archives hasn't turned up the
message.
andy
> From: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:29:41 -0500 (CDT)
>
> server using qmail. The old one uses sendmail (big suprise). I'm also the
> kind of guy that keeps the bat book on top of the toliet for regular
> study.
On *TOP* of the toilet?????
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
Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Sorry, I'm still fumbling around trying to get a grip on this. I have to
>feel insanely confortable before I move my userbase over to this new
>server using qmail.
So you're a fascist neophobe. :-)
>I can live with that. The main reasons I'm being pulled in the qmail
>direction are Maildir and the performance hype.
Hype? Who's hyping it? It really is much faster than sendmail.
>> What is it about extension addresses that bothers you?
>
>Its probably not fully understanding what they do yet.
I understand, but one shouldn't go around hacking out functionality
just because they don't understand it. Do you remove commands from
/bin that you don't fully understand?
>I also am
>responsible for teaching a tech crew how to get around this once I move it
>over and when a call comes in where mail is disappearing, they can't do a
>sendmail -v and some of the traditional processes so I would like to keep
>some very basic rules like all aliases are in /etc/aliases, users can't
>make up variations of their username and have them work as email
>addresses, etc....
What about those pesky .qmail (or .forward) files? Your tech crew
might not be able to follow them. Are you going to outlaw them, too?
>Maybe its facist, makes my life easier in the long haul
>though is all.
That's not a good test for system administration decisions. By
reducto ad absurdum you'd end up with no system to administer. Sure,
that'd be "easier", but you'd be out of a job.
The goal of a system administrator is to provide a system that meets
the user's needs. A good system adminstrator doesn't wait for users
to request a capability: if he sees it would be useful and knows how
it can be implemented, he makes it available and tells his users about
it.
So, sure, you can disable extension addresses or other features of
your system that are "hard" or that you don't understand, but in the
long run you'd be better off if you worked to add functionality
instead of removing it.
-Dave
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, I'm still fumbling around trying to get a grip on this. I have to
> >feel insanely confortable before I move my userbase over to this new
> >server using qmail.
>
> So you're a fascist neophobe. :-)
A petname, I'm touched..
> >I can live with that. The main reasons I'm being pulled in the qmail
> >direction are Maildir and the performance hype.
>
> Hype? Who's hyping it? It really is much faster than sendmail.
Hype can be true...apparently I'm sucking it up since I'm running it.
> >> What is it about extension addresses that bothers you?
> >
> >Its probably not fully understanding what they do yet.
>
> I understand, but one shouldn't go around hacking out functionality
> just because they don't understand it. Do you remove commands from
> /bin that you don't fully understand?
Yes come to think of it. Its not out of line for me to chmod 0 a command
unless it can deem itself worthy, I especially pull this on suid stuff.
Kinda scary eh :)
> >I also am
> >responsible for teaching a tech crew how to get around this once I move it
> >over and when a call comes in where mail is disappearing, they can't do a
> >sendmail -v and some of the traditional processes so I would like to keep
> >some very basic rules like all aliases are in /etc/aliases, users can't
> >make up variations of their username and have them work as email
> >addresses, etc....
>
> What about those pesky .qmail (or .forward) files? Your tech crew
> might not be able to follow them. Are you going to outlaw them, too?
sendmail -v follows those around and lays out the whole story.
> That's not a good test for system administration decisions. By
> reducto ad absurdum you'd end up with no system to administer. Sure,
> that'd be "easier", but you'd be out of a job.
I'm in no shortage of b.s. to put up with. I could come up with witty
replies for the rest of it, but I get the idea and this thread is turning
into something else. Thanks for the help.
-andy
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> > From: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:29:41 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> > server using qmail. The old one uses sendmail (big suprise). I'm also the
> > kind of guy that keeps the bat book on top of the toliet for regular
> > study.
>
> On *TOP* of the toilet?????
I think it would clog it up if I tried in the toliet....don't you?
Okay, before someone starts getting hysterical over nothing let me give
my R$ 0.03 (two cents in Brazilian currency):
I think what bothers Andy is overlapping -- the possibility of creating
an user that stops a previously existing valid alias dead on its tracks,
or creating an perfectly legal alias that just doesn't work. Yes, there
IS the potential to support nightmares with qmail's alias system. Add
virtual domains to the mix and it just gets worse.
Administratively enforcing a few rules would help:
1) Never ever EVER let ANYBODY create a valid username containing
dashes. Dashes are for alias. The almighty Lord has said so.
2) Tweak user creation process so usernames don't clash with anything in
~alias (like I did on the ISP I work at. People are forbidden to create
users with anything except the Web interface).
That's pretty liberal still. Moses came down the mountain with ten! ;)
Dave Sill wrote:
>
> Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I never argued that this didn't work, tried it, and it did. That wasn't
> >the question either. Its more of a control issue that it makes me nervous
> >a user can create addition email addresses for themselves.
>
> Why didn't you just say "How can I disable extension addresses? They
> make me nervous." instead of trumping up problem with them? You made a
> general complaint, then gave a specific example. Of *course* the
> responses addressed the example.
>
> Personally, I think you're a control freak and you should either relax
> or switch to a more fascist MTA. There's probably a way to disable
> extension addresses in qmail--perhaps diddling with conf-break or via
> qmail-users, though.
>
> What is it about extension addresses that bothers you?
--
___THE___ "Commercial OS vendors are, at the moment, all closed
\ \ / / economies, and doomed to fall in their competition with
\ V / open economies just as communism eventually fell."
\ / -- H. Reiser, Unix OS developer
/ \ _____________________________________________________
/ ^ \ | Juan Carlos Castro y Castro - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
/ / \ \ | Diretor de Inform�tica e Eventos Sobrenaturais da |
~~~ ~~~ | E-RACE CORPORATION |
RACER -----------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm also the kind of guy that keeps the bat book on top of the
> toliet for regular study.
Push it in! Push it in!
--
I'm criticizing one program. That program is disgustingly insecure. It
shouldn't just be ridiculed---it should be taken out and shot.
-- Prof. Dan Bernstein
Author of qmail
"Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why not [set conf-break to] a \0
>
> :-) I was not sure if it doesn't break the sources in some place -
> like strcpy() and stuff.
You think DJB would use strcpy()? Or indeed anything in libc?
Qmail should do just fine with \0 as a conf-break. Hold on...yep, it
builds just fine. Someone else will have to try running it, though.
Len.
--
8. At Play and at Fire it's Good manners to Give Place to the last Commer,
and affect not to Speak Louder than Ordinary.
-- George Washington, "Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour"
To follow up all the fun we had earlier today, my answer was running the
assign file and using qmail-pw2u -C. Thanks to all. :)
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. "
Is there any way to log rcpthosts failures? Qmail's logs are much more
difficult to track than sendmail's where before everything was two lines or
three, it's five or six, and I'm not able to see things that could be
potential configuration problems with Qmail (at least not clearly!).
_doug
Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>... Qmail's logs are much more
>difficult to track than sendmail's where before everything was two lines or
>three, it's five or six, and I'm not able to see things that could be
>potential configuration problems with Qmail (at least not clearly!).
Grab qmailanalog-0.70 and run "matchup" on your logs.
-Dave
Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Is there any way to log rcpthosts failures?
You need to patch qmail-smtpd. Check the archives for my diffs.
There are lots of things that qmail-smtpd needs to log, but doesn't.
Pablo Godel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 21 April 1999 at 17:13:46 -0600
> 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 ?
qmail doesn't *display* the time at all; and when it puts the
timestamp in, it doesn't know what timezone the message will be in
when somebody *does* display it. So UTC seems to make the most
sense.
Also, by using UTC Dan avoids getting entangled in the system-specific
mechanisms for determining local timezone, and/or the need to depend
on the standard library.
--
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!
"Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.
You'd lose. I've used qmail heavily for three years and I don't use
any patches anywhere.
>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.
He thinks most are either unnecessary or bad. I wouldn't expect many
of them to be integrated.
>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).
It would be interesting to know who's using which patches and why. One
of Dan's main objections to patches is that they make it hard for him
to tell what really needs to be changed in qmail. If one has problem X
with qmail, and there's a patch that fixes problem X on www.qmail.org,
most people just install the patch and never complain to Dan.
-Dave
On 1999-04-22T14:05:36,
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The problem with that theory is that, when someone complains to Dan,
> he dismisses their concern as trivial and frivolous. Given the choice
> between being insulted, and actually getting your problem solved by
> installing a patch, which would you choose?
Thank reminds me ;-) Do you know if there is any effort to port ezmlm to
postfix?
Mit freundlichen Gr��en,
Lars Marowsky-Br�e
--
Lars Marowsky-Br�e
Netzwerk Management
teuto.net Netzdienste GmbH - DPN Verbund-Partner
On 1999-04-22T16:05:32,
Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Lets assume for now I did not intend to hit "g" instead of "r" and this was
never send to the list, ok?
> From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Apr 1999 14:05:36 -0000
>
> Dave Sill writes:
> > "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >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.
> >
> > You'd lose. I've used qmail heavily for three years and I don't use
> > any patches anywhere.
>
> I'm only using the rbl patch, and that only because I wrote it before
> Dan wrote rblsmtpd.
I'm also not using any patches. I used Sam's anti-spam patch for a while, but
it got too many false positives, so I backed it off the systems I had it on.
(The client who had insisted I install it found that mail from their VC firm
was being bounced!)
> > >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).
> >
> > It would be interesting to know who's using which patches and why. One
> > of Dan's main objections to patches is that they make it hard for him
> > to tell what really needs to be changed in qmail. If one has problem X
> > with qmail, and there's a patch that fixes problem X on www.qmail.org,
> > most people just install the patch and never complain to Dan.
>
> The problem with that theory is that, when someone complains to Dan,
> he dismisses their concern as trivial and frivolous. Given the choice
> between being insulted, and actually getting your problem solved by
> installing a patch, which would you choose?
Even so, it would be interesting to know who's using which patches and why.
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
Dave Sill writes:
> "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> You'd lose. I've used qmail heavily for three years and I don't use
> any patches anywhere.
I'm only using the rbl patch, and that only because I wrote it before
Dan wrote rblsmtpd.
> >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).
>
> It would be interesting to know who's using which patches and why. One
> of Dan's main objections to patches is that they make it hard for him
> to tell what really needs to be changed in qmail. If one has problem X
> with qmail, and there's a patch that fixes problem X on www.qmail.org,
> most people just install the patch and never complain to Dan.
The problem with that theory is that, when someone complains to Dan,
he dismisses their concern as trivial and frivolous. Given the choice
between being insulted, and actually getting your problem solved by
installing a patch, which would you choose?
--
-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.
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The problem with that theory is that, when someone complains to Dan,
>he dismisses their concern as trivial and frivolous. Given the choice
>between being insulted, and actually getting your problem solved by
>installing a patch, which would you choose?
C: Check the list archives for discussion on the topic. Understand the
issues, and Dan's POV (if known), before requesting a change in
qmail's behavior. Decide whether to (a) work around problem without
patching qmail, (b) patch qmail, (c) complain to Dan, (d) none of
the above, (e) some combination of (a)-(c).
-Dave
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:56:43 -0700, Racer X wrote:
>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 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.
What we need is a big patch, which includes most of the useful patches
and the patches which could be disabled by configuration files.
Something like ezmlm-idx (which is a big patch to ezmlm). It would be
nice to enable/disable options with configuration files, not with
patching qmail. This patched qmail could get a different name
(qmail-unoff? :)
--
I'm busily ignoring some thousand of implications I have determined to be irrelevant.
hi,
Can anone tell me what is necessary to be done so qmail-lspawn run myscript and
then myscript to exec the qmail-local.
I'm primary interested how one program run another with defined UID:GID i.e.
who "lspawn" or "local" take care of this and if this is done by qmail-lspawn
how can I implement the same thing via shell or perl script.
Thanx alot in advance
=====
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
Hi,
Is anyone using the Radius patch for Qmail POP3 user
authentication (http://qmail.plig.org/ckpw-radius)? I can't
get Authen::Radius to work: Having installed it and its
prerequisites (MD5, IO), I get the same result from the
test script whether I point it at a real Radius server/port
or not. Any ideas, anyone? (Note: I speak hardly any Perl)
(Sample output)
#perl test.pl
Make sure this machine is in your Radius clients file!
Enter hostname[:port] of your Radius server: 190.191.192.193
Enter shared-secret of your Radius server: ddd
Enter a username to be validated: lll
Enter this user's password: xxx
ok 2
not ok 3
ok 4
attr: name=3D1 value=3Dlll
attr: name=3D2 value=3Ds{=DA=A0=BB6>=C4WRr
cheers,
Andrew Richards.
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Andrew Richards wrote:
> Is anyone using the Radius patch for Qmail POP3 user
> authentication (http://qmail.plig.org/ckpw-radius)?
Yes, we use it routinely. I may have even written it.
> (Sample output)
> #perl test.pl
> Make sure this machine is in your Radius clients file!
> Enter hostname[:port] of your Radius server: 190.191.192.193
> Enter shared-secret of your Radius server: ddd
> Enter a username to be validated: lll
> Enter this user's password: xxx
> ok 2
> not ok 3
> ok 4
> attr: name=1 value=lll
> attr: name=2 value=s{ڠ�6>�WRr
It looks like 3 is the actually password check. In our version of radius,
we have radpwtst, a command line client to test the RADIUS server. Try
that. If it doesn't work, make sure that the host and its secret are
correct in the "clients" file. Is the machine multi-homed? That's
another good question. The requests may be getting bound to an IP that
isn't in the "clients" file.
I'll think about this some more, but I can't think of any more snags at
this point.
Monte
Hi !
Please let me ask you a question about ETRN with Qmail. We will soon have
some clients that will connect once a day to our qmail server. They would
like to connect once, to get all messages for each persons, and then
distribute it to each user (they don't have a perm connect nor an static ip).
Any idea ?
autoturn
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
> Hi !
>
> Please let me ask you a question about ETRN with Qmail. We will soon have
> some clients that will connect once a day to our qmail server. They would
> like to connect once, to get all messages for each persons, and then
> distribute it to each user (they don't have a perm connect nor an static ip).
>
> Any idea ?
>
Logics writes:
> autoturn
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
>
> > Hi !
> >
> > Please let me ask you a question about ETRN with Qmail. We will soon have
> > some clients that will connect once a day to our qmail server. They would
> > like to connect once, to get all messages for each persons, and then
> > distribute it to each user (they don't have a perm connect nor an static ip).
No, autoturn is only for people with a static IP address. Autoturn
shares that problem with ETRN. Better to use Anand's turnmail. It's
on www.qmail.org.
--
-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.
>stuff like 'Red Hat doing fine with qmail, 16MB 486/66, 70000 messages a
keep in mind that 70000 messages/day is less than 1 message/second. and
this is nothing special at all. On out peak hours we've few messages/second
and out processor usage is someting like 0.7 on p2 266.
K.
listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski writes:
> >stuff like 'Red Hat doing fine with qmail, 16MB 486/66, 70000 messages a
>
> keep in mind that 70000 messages/day is less than 1 message/second. and
> this is nothing special at all. On our peak hours we've few messages/second
> and our processor usage is someting like 0.7 on p2 266.
You're comparing your peak period to a daily average.
You're comparing a Pentium-II 266, a 1998 state of the art machine to
a 486/66, a 1992 state of the art machine.
--
-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 have a feeling this means open relay, right?
/etc/tcp.smtp
216.98.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
38.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
But for some reason without that last :allow no one in my subnets can relay.
-doug
+ Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I have a feeling this means open relay, right?
|
| /etc/tcp.smtp
|
| 216.98.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
| 38.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
| :allow
Not unless your rcpthosts file is missing. This says only the two
named nets can relay, all others may connect but cannot relay.
| But for some reason without that last :allow no one in my subnets
| can relay.
That makes no sense, since :allow is the default rule in any case. My
guess is that maybe your file did not end with a newline, and perhaps
then the last line did not register?
- Harald
What is the *best* means to use the RBL, DUL, Shubs, and others, with
qmail-smtpd and be able to allow our dialups to relay?
-doug
Hi Doug,
> What is the *best* means to use the RBL, DUL, Shubs, and others, with
> qmail-smtpd and be able to allow our dialups to relay?
tcpserver/tcprules will take care of the selective relaying, and rblsmtpd
(available from ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/pub/software/) will handle RBL
for you
Evan
Hi,
Is there any plan in near future to implement DSN support in qmail (+when)?
Maybe someone else already ask this before, sorry, but I'm new to this list and
really like to have this feature.
Best regards,
Ferri Andy Ch.
--
// chandy a7 cbn 607 net 607 id -------/
// Linux kernel 2.2.5 XFree86 3.3.2.3
// Glib/Gtk 1.2.1 Enlightenment 0.16
// Mozilla 4.51 -------/
>On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 02:00:01PM +0000, Pike wrote:
>
>> The main problem is
>> the classical popdeamons (pop3d,pop2d etc) still try to read
>> the /var/spool/mail boxes.
>
>ipop3d, qpopper and cucipop can all be told to look for ~/Mailbox, but
>you'd have to recompile them. It's not too difficult though, and they all
>come with instructions for doing this in the README or INSTALL files.
>
That would probably work if I didn't install everything from RPM.
Here's the easier solution:
imapd's pop3d _does_ support ~user/mbox
(the newer version of imapd does).
Just rename all the ~user/Mailbox files to ~user/mbox
and everything will work like a charm.
Don't forget to edit all qmail's config files, startupthingies
, dotfiles, etc. to change Mailbox into mbox.
I wish I could list exactly what to change where here, but hell,
qmail has spread itself all across the filesystem randomly.
Try to read some docs or man's, there everywhere as well.
I still hate the mess qmail's rpm made of my machine.
Thanks anyway
*.P.i.k.e.*
"I think, therefor I Mac"
���������������������������������
�================��---------------�
�========�======��------�---------�
�========�=====��-------�---------�
�========�====��--------�---------�
�============��-------------------�
�===========��--------------------�
�===========���������-------------�
�=================��--------------�
�================��---------------�
�===============��----------------�
�=====���=======��-------���------�
�========����������������---------�
�===============��----------------�
�================��---------------�
���������������������������������
��
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> | From: lines and the envelope sender address ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to
>
> (Please follow English quoting conventions, like `01019freenet' etc,
> when mailing to a English-speaking list. Those commas are very
> confusing.)
Sorry, I'll use the English conventions in future.
BTW, is there some netiquette about mailing lists or this list in
particular? For example, I'm not sure if I should mail replys to the list
only or to both the list and the author I reply to.
> | setting the environment variables as follows:
> |
> | MAILUSER=hans_wilmer
> | MAILSUSER=hans_wilmer
> | MAILSHOST=01019freenet.de
> | QMAILINJECT=f
> |
> | 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.
Ugh, that's hard to swallow! I'm used to the opposite convention --- i. e.
that all users must not pretend to be anyone else --- from using the
Mausnetz. The Mausnetz is a German mailbox network, and having to pretend to
be yourselfe as a must seems to fit very well into german mind :_)
> 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.
I see, and it makes sense in such legitimate cases. Now I understand why the
ISP requests no authentification from me for sending mails --- but that
still comes with the disadvantage that anybody pretending to be me can send
mails via my account at the ISP. Abuse (for sending SPAM, for example) seems
to be a feature ...
> | 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.
Thank you very much! I've done so now, and the output of qmail-read looks
good. Unless it actually works, you wouldn't receive this mail :_)
> | 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.*?
Not all of them yet, but `PIC.local2rem' was indeed somewhat helpful. At
least, installing a certain program is one thing. Understanding how
transporting and delivering of mail on Unices, possibly including PPP
connections, TCP/IP and all the related issues work and how the stuff is to
set up is just another. Alas, the SuSE is nice distribution that installs
quite easily and produces a usable system, but every now and then it lets
you find out that you seem to know absolutely nothing about a great deal of
what's involved because it worked for you until you tried to find a solution
that exactly suits your needs. I tried a Debian 2.1 and appreciated it, but
I'd have had to have to spend too much time on tailoring it with my still
insufficient knowledge --- and especially my knowledge considering
networking is so little that even a SuSE can't help it ;_) Studying the
NET-3-HOWTO etc. is still on my todo-list ...
> If you want more graphical pictures, try the Big qmail picture (look
> at http://www.qmail.org/ to find its location).
THX, I've already found them and had instructed wwwoffle to fetch the
pictures, but for some reasons they weren't fetched or cached. But the ASCII
pictures are quite good enough and viewable with lesser effort.
GH
My list of reasons to despise Windows and the dumbf*cks who don't know how to
use it properly continues to grow.
It has been mandated to me that I will get virus scanning working with our
mail system. Our sales and marketing people keep getting viruses and passing
them on to the rest of the company.
So I'm afraid I have to ask: Has *anyone* gotten any sort of decent virus
scanning setup with qmail? I read a few suggestions on the list during the
Melissa outbreak but I never saw any good complete plans for making this work.
This should probably be in the FAQ.
I saw a message in the qmail archive where someone claimed to have amavis
(http://satan.oih.rwth-aachen.de/AMaViS/) working with qmail. Anyone know how
this was done?
I really don't want to have to switch to sendmail just to get virus
scanning...
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
Tracy R Reed writes:
> So I'm afraid I have to ask: Has *anyone* gotten any sort of decent virus
> scanning setup with qmail? I read a few suggestions on the list during the
Wrong question. The right question is whether there is any virus scanning
software out there for your specific hardware platform and operating
system. Once you've located the right software, plugging it into Qmail
should be trivial.
--
Sam
Read the archives, there is a poster to the list that runs a system called
"start antivirus" or something similar, it's in his .signature and should
come up easily. He has a URL to it on his sig.
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Tracy R Reed wrote:
-| My list of reasons to despise Windows and the dumbf*cks who don't know how to
-| use it properly continues to grow.
-|
-| It has been mandated to me that I will get virus scanning working with our
-| mail system. Our sales and marketing people keep getting viruses and passing
-| them on to the rest of the company.
-|
-| So I'm afraid I have to ask: Has *anyone* gotten any sort of decent virus
-| scanning setup with qmail? I read a few suggestions on the list during the
-| Melissa outbreak but I never saw any good complete plans for making this work.
-| This should probably be in the FAQ.
-|
-| I saw a message in the qmail archive where someone claimed to have amavis
-| (http://satan.oih.rwth-aachen.de/AMaViS/) working with qmail. Anyone know how
-| this was done?
-|
-| I really don't want to have to switch to sendmail just to get virus
-| scanning...
-|
-| --
-| Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
-| Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-| -- Henry Spencer
-|
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
5:10pm up 77 days, 13 min, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.03
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 10:24:44PM +0000, Sam wrote:
> Wrong question. The right question is whether there is any virus scanning
> software out there for your specific hardware platform and operating
> system. Once you've located the right software, plugging it into Qmail
> should be trivial.
No, the virus scanning software is trivial. McAffee has had it for x86 Linux
for ages. Plugging it into qmail is the hard part. Something has to decode the
MIME, decompress the zips, scan, and then do something appropriate with
the email and notify both parties. That's not particularly trivial.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
Tracy R Reed writes:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 10:24:44PM +0000, Sam wrote:
> > Wrong question. The right question is whether there is any virus scanning
> > software out there for your specific hardware platform and operating
> > system. Once you've located the right software, plugging it into Qmail
> > should be trivial.
>
> No, the virus scanning software is trivial. McAffee has had it for x86 Linux
> for ages. Plugging it into qmail is the hard part. Something has to decode the
> MIME, decompress the zips, scan, and then do something appropriate with
> the email and notify both parties. That's not particularly trivial.
That should be handled by the virus scanning software, otherwise it is
worthless. You can set up the aliasempty argument to qmail-start to run
your virus scanner against the message first, before dropping it into the
local mailbox. By setting the return codes wisely (using a wrapper shell
script, of some sorts), you can have a message either seamlessly saved in
the mailbox, bounced, or bitbucketed, based upon the return code from your
virus scanner. Do a man dot-qmail, and man qmail-command for more
information.
As far as the actual virus scanner goes, well, if McAffee's gizmo can't do
it, it's worthless, and you should really look for something better. The
reformime tool in my maildrop mail filter can, theoretically, be used to
parse a MIME message, and extract any base64-encoded attachments, but not
without writing some extensive shell scripts, because all reformime does is
parse the mail message, and/or extract a single MIME section of it, while
you want to have all MIME sections methodically examined - not just decoded
from base64 - in addition to being unzipped.
Again, you're better off finding a better virus scanner, but if you can't,
there are some tools that you'll be able to use with some additional effort
on your part.
--
Sam
I have received a request from one of my customers and she would like to
have a copy of all *outgoing* mail from her (minor) son's account...
>From what I understand, her son is rather good with computers, so anything
she does to her local machine (she's not a whiz-kid), he's good enough to
undo, so this really needs to be a server-side solution.
I know that you can log *all* SMTP messages, but I only wish to log this
one account, and then email those messages back to her personal account,
which her son does not have the password to...
Is this possible to do? I'm a decent enough perl programmer, and can kludge
around in C, but don't know enough about the qmail internals to just start
hacking 'er up...
A couple of pointers in the right direction, and I should be able to take
'er from there, tho.
Thanks in advance for any help that may come my way,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
Roger Merchberger writes:
> I know that you can log *all* SMTP messages, but I only wish to log this
> one account, and then email those messages back to her personal account,
> which her son does not have the password to...
>
> Is this possible to do? I'm a decent enough perl programmer, and can kludge
> around in C, but don't know enough about the qmail internals to just start
> hacking 'er up...
Well, you have to know how to identify whether an E-mail message originates
from this account. This is something that only you know. Presumably, the
client uses some Windblows box, relaying through your server.
You will have to write the code to examine each incoming connection's IP
address, and for the ones coming from your local IP address space do
whatever is necessary to identify, in real time, the account that's
relaying the mail. Once you have pegged the account, you can do things
like setting RELAYCLIENT to "@foobar", then set up control/virtualdomains
to forward all mail to foobar to some shell script that forwards the mail
to the original message envelope recipient, BCCing the separate account.
--
Sam
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:50:08 GMT, Sam wrote:
>You will have to write the code to examine each incoming connection's IP
>address, and for the ones coming from your local IP address space do
>whatever is necessary to identify, in real time, the account that's
>relaying the mail. Once you have pegged the account, you can do things
>like setting RELAYCLIENT to "@foobar", then set up control/virtualdomains
>to forward all mail to foobar to some shell script that forwards the mail
>to the original message envelope recipient, BCCing the separate account.
Might also want to set up a .qmail file so incoming mail is routed to
the kid being monitored and his parents so they can also see what
he's receiving.
Stephen Berg
//- USAF Instructor -/- Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer -//
//- Home = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
//- Work = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
//- http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/ -/- http://www.3c0x1.com -//
> >From what I understand, her son is rather good with computers, so anything
> she does to her local machine (she's not a whiz-kid), he's good enough to
> undo, so this really needs to be a server-side solution.
Wouldn't he be able to find an open SMTP relay and avoid yours entirely,
then?
- Mike
Filter your dialin port to restrict SMTP relaying to your qmail server.
You really should do this anyhow.
-doug
>> >From what I understand, her son is rather good with computers, so anything
>> she does to her local machine (she's not a whiz-kid), he's good enough to
>> undo, so this really needs to be a server-side solution.
>
>Wouldn't he be able to find an open SMTP relay and avoid yours entirely,
>then?
>
>- Mike
Once upon a midnight dreary, Mike Holling had spoken clearly:
>> >From what I understand, her son is rather good with computers, so anything
>> she does to her local machine (she's not a whiz-kid), he's good enough to
>> undo, so this really needs to be a server-side solution.
>
>Wouldn't he be able to find an open SMTP relay and avoid yours entirely,
>then?
Here's the deal:
The kid isn't a "super-hacker" or anything, but has some experience with
the internet from school, so (AFAIK) he's not relaying or anything, and
wouldn't know how... he's just a "Windoze kinda guy" it seems.
However, his mother *did* trust him initially, and she has since found
evidence that he's not been a perfect gentleman on the Internet, so she
would like to see what's going in and out of his mailbox.
I'm no dummy to .qmail files and whatnot, so the *in* really isn't a
problem for me, but I really didn't want to have to log *everything* and
then throw 99% of it away... besides, as I'm much more comfy with Perl than
C, if I had a proggie to decide what to keep & what to toss on the fly,
sparking up Perl every email in or out would seriously tax this Puntium 133
w/40Meg RAM which is our current mailserver. (Erm, yes... my *home* box is
a dual PII-350 w/256Meg RAM, but that's what it *takes* to read email with
WinNT... ;-)
Maybe I'll recompile qmail on our Web server, as it gets *very* little use,
and see if I can create a filter in C... but as I'm by no means an expert
there, it's doubtful anything could be sparked up in the next few days...
Well, I guess I'll have to tell the lady that the quickie answer is only
one way.
Thanks all, and if anyone has other ideas I'll be happy to hear 'em.
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
ok now I have downloaded the newest version of
qmail and have it installed. I also have downloaded and installed imap. The
question that I have is if I am running Linux and send an E-mail to another one
of my accounts and look at it through outlook express it is right and works
fine. But when I try to set it up in outlook express is says it can not find the
server. can anyone please help me.. Also if I do "telnet localhost
smtp" I get a message connection closed by foriegn host..
Thanks everyone
Jason
Someone mentioned that if this lady had a static IP that the job might be
easier? I might be able to set our dial-in equipment to give this person
their own, particular IP when they dial...
how much easier would the job be if the IP was static?
Thanks again,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
Roger Merchberger writes:
> Someone mentioned that if this lady had a static IP that the job might be
> easier? I might be able to set our dial-in equipment to give this person
> their own, particular IP when they dial...
>
> how much easier would the job be if the IP was static?
Identifying this account as the source of the particular message is now
trivially easy.
--
Sam
Otay... lemme get this straight...
I *think* I set up our dial-in box right to allow my special user
"frazzlespork" the IP address of 12.15.88.19.
Provided I actually did it right, how's this for the qmail end of things???
This is what I have in /etc/tcp.smtp:
12.15.88.19:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@frazzlespork"
12.15.88.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
12.15.89.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
This is what I have in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains:
[snip of other virtual domains we host...]
frazzlespork:alias-frazzlespork
This is what I have in /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-frazzlespork-default
|./var/qmail/alias/envtest.pl
And finally, this is what I have in /var/qmail/alias/envtest.pl:
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
# This is a quick test program to see if the selective mail routing will work.
# Open a file to store all of the environment variables,
open (Q,">>/var/qmail/alias/mailtesting.txt");
# go thru each environment variable and write them to my logfile...
foreach $quack (@ENV) {
print Q "\$ENV - $quack = $ENV{$quack}\n";
}
# open a mail to re-mail everything that comes in to my real mail account...
open (MAIL,"|/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject zmerch\@30below.com");
@zline = <STDIN>;
foreach $liner (@zline) {
print MAIL "$liner";
# and also send a copy of the mail to the logfile that I have.
print Q "OriginalMail:$liner";
}
# Shut 'er down, boys!!! ;-)
close (Q);
close (MAIL);
====================================================
(I haven't gone home to dial in with the test user account, and prolly
won't tonite, either... these 15 hour days make me snoozy... ;-)
so this is currently wholly untested. Am I kinda on the right track, or as
my father-in-law used to say, "am I full of condensed milk?"
Thanks again, and good-night to all on my half of Earth!
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
Unsubscribe
Hi,
My name i Luca PEscatore, and 'm newbie in Qmail. At this moment after
setting up Qmail 1.03 'm trying to install a Web-mail solution (TWIG), but
i have a "big" problem. When i try to send a Mail i don't receive nothing.
What's up ? How can i check if mail is delivered ?
Best Regards,
Luca Pescatore
Hi, thx for all responses for my previous questions but:
My server domain => my.domain
starting smtpd :
/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 3 &
settings in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
=====================
my.domain
localhost
tcprules (in /etc/tcp.smtp):
<my.host.ip>:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@my.domain"
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@my.domain"
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
also trying with:
<my.host.ip>:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
converted to /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb by
tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb tcp.smtp.temp < tcp.smtp
direct mail (qmail=>binmail replacement) work OK.
Running local (my.domain) PINE (or dtmail), trying to send mail
ouside my.domain and ....:
[Mail not sent: sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
(#5]
Seems to tcpserver don`t look to (or ignore) his own tcp.smtp.cdb database
but why ??
(qmail instaled as sendmail-replacment):
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start '|dot-forward .forward
|preline -f /usr/bin/mail -r "${SENDER:-MAILER-DAEMON}" -d "$USER"' \
splogger qmail
System AiX 4.3
Please help , I do not want by open-relay but what I`m doing wrong ??
Jacek Kubica
unsubscribe
