qmail Digest 20 Nov 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 825
Topics (messages 33337 through 33404):
Re: disk mirroring
33337 by: John P. Looney
33369 by: Matthew Brown
33372 by: Robert Varga
33388 by: John White
33389 by: John White
33390 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
33399 by: cmikk.uswest.net
Re: LWQ translators wanted
33338 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
33356 by: dd
Re: DNS restart causes lost mail
33339 by: Lorens Kockum
Re: TCPServer gives slow response - what is identd
33340 by: Russell Nelson
33349 by: Greg Owen
host to host
33341 by: Edward Castillo-Jakosalem
Re: Slightly OT: Remotely Storing User Mail
33342 by: Damien Croarken
Unknown hosts
33343 by: Pieckiel, Kevin A
33344 by: Petr Novotny
33346 by: Pieckiel, Kevin A
33347 by: John P. Looney
33348 by: Petr Novotny
33351 by: John P. Looney
33362 by: Aaron L. Meehan
Maildrop, fetchmail and Maildir
33345 by: Subba Rao
33355 by: Dave Sill
33361 by: Subba Rao
33394 by: Sam
33395 by: Subba Rao
33396 by: Denis Voitenko
User not here anymore script
33350 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
33352 by: eric
33353 by: Petr Novotny
33354 by: Russell Nelson
33358 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
33359 by: Petr Novotny
33360 by: Lorens Kockum
33398 by: Rogerio Brito
Re: From: and To: - Headers with SMTP-Messages
33357 by: Chris Mikkelson
Strange qmail behavior when natd turned on on FreeBSD
33363 by: Barry Lustig
Problem and question
33364 by: Andres Mendez
33366 by: Petr Novotny
maxrcpt patch
33365 by: Andres Mendez
33376 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
Re: BIND upgrade causes qmail wierdness: Update
33367 by: A.L.Lambert
33368 by: David Dyer-Bennet
33371 by: Dave Sill
33374 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Serialmail fd 7 error!
33370 by: Florian G. Pflug
ETRN
33373 by: Frank Greven
AutoTURN startup script
33375 by: Paulo Jan
33377 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
message body --> script ?
33378 by: Denis Voitenko
33379 by: Markus Stumpf
33380 by: Magnus Bodin
33384 by: Denis Voitenko
33397 by: Frederik Lindberg
User unknown problems when sending out mail.
33381 by: Dan Hill
33393 by: Chris Johnson
Can anyone help with selective relaying/rcpthosts problem?
33382 by: Rob Havens
33404 by: Holger H�ffelin
sniffing
33383 by: dd
33386 by: Marcin Jaskowiak
33392 by: Sam
behaviour with 1 msg to n recipients at 1 external host
33385 by: Michael Pepe
33387 by: Markus Stumpf
33391 by: Sam
Re: sniffing / crypto
33400 by: Peter Cavender
33402 by: Marcin Jaskowiak
qmail's timezone
33401 by: Edward Castillo-Jakosalem
MX/RELAY
33403 by: Edward Castillo-Jakosalem
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, Nov 18, 1999 at 07:36:17PM -0800, Michael Boyiazis mentioned:
> Greetings,
> We are thinking of using OpenDiskSuite to
> mirror a disk which contains /var/qmail so that
> if the disk dies we have (hopefully) not lost the
> mail in the queue. Will this work?
It'll work fine. Seeing as you are considering OpenDiskSuite, I'll assume
you're using it on Solaris/Sparc/SCSI.
Straight mirroring with disksuite is a bit faster than on Veritias - I
could only recommend Veritas if you had a large number, or huge
filesystems - it's very complex. To just ensure that you reduce the
possibility of losing your mail, disksuite is fine. If you don't have that
many users, and performance isn't really an issue, a straight mirror should
be OK. If you are looking at requiring more than 2MB/sec off the disk,
consider getting a multipack, and at least six disks...and striping the
mirrors - this will almost treble your read performance, and nearly double
reading, over a simple mirror.
With a standard mirror, you almost double read performance, and half
write performance (disksuite will "roundrobin" reads, doubling bandwidth,
but have to write to two disks, halving write bandwidth) - not nice on a
mail queue, where you get about 50% reads/50% writes. Seeing as this isn't
really qmail related, mail me off-list, if you have any more specific
questions..
> Would I then need to run the queue through the
> queue recovery script or should it be okay without?
It should be fine. Mirroring is there to ensure the application doesn't
see any problem with the physical disks whatsoever.
Needless to say, mirroring still doesn't protect against ...
"# rm -r /var/ tmp/directory"
.. mistakes :)
Kate
--
Microsoft. The best reason in the world to drink beer.
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen
John White wrote:
> IMHO, no software mirroring scheme is going to do the trick. AND
> they're overwhelmingly expensive.
As to the latter point, isn't DiskSuite included in your Solaris license
these days? (not sure about other OSes, but generally a simple software
RAID solution is in most Unices nowadays).
On the former point: why is such a huge proportion of the world doing their
mirroring with software RAID (generally Veritas) including some HUGE solaris
installations (Sun seems quite keen on Veritas).
> Software RAID is, again IMHO, not suitable for making your queue
> redundant or quick.
I've met many people who are of the opinion that software RAID is no slower
than most hardware RAID. Or is the 'most' the important word here?
-Matt
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Matthew Brown wrote:
>
>
> John White wrote:
> > IMHO, no software mirroring scheme is going to do the trick. AND
> > they're overwhelmingly expensive.
>
> As to the latter point, isn't DiskSuite included in your Solaris license
> these days? (not sure about other OSes, but generally a simple software
> RAID solution is in most Unices nowadays).
>
> On the former point: why is such a huge proportion of the world doing their
> mirroring with software RAID (generally Veritas) including some HUGE solaris
> installations (Sun seems quite keen on Veritas).
>
> > Software RAID is, again IMHO, not suitable for making your queue
> > redundant or quick.
>
> I've met many people who are of the opinion that software RAID is no slower
> than most hardware RAID. Or is the 'most' the important word here?
IMHO, mirroring cannot be really faster for uses where the large amount
of the operations (30-40+ percent) is writing. Mail queues fall into this
category. Of course if you rely on caching, it can be improved, but then
again, it is not due to the mirroring, but due to the cache, anyway.
Robert Varga
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 09:57:44AM -0800, Matthew Brown wrote:
> John White wrote:
> > IMHO, no software mirroring scheme is going to do the trick. AND
> > they're overwhelmingly expensive.
>
> As to the latter point, isn't DiskSuite included in your Solaris license
> these days?
No. One has to buy a special edition of the OS to get DS.
> On the former point: why is such a huge proportion of the world doing their
> mirroring with software RAID (generally Veritas) including some HUGE solaris
> installations (Sun seems quite keen on Veritas).
Probably because those installations are supporting a qmail queue
on their giant SW RAIDs.
> > Software RAID is, again IMHO, not suitable for making your queue
> > redundant or quick.
>
> I've met many people who are of the opinion that software RAID is no slower
> than most hardware RAID. Or is the 'most' the important word here?
The phrase "writeback cache" is what's important.
Disk i/o is a bottleneck. SW RAID 1 exacerbates that bottleneck.
If redundancy is all you want, I'd reccomend a HW RAID 1 with a cache to
smooth out the spikes in usage. If you needed continuous high performance,
I'd go with a 1+0 configuration with more cache AND a journaled fs.
John
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 03:25:43PM -0800, John White wrote:
> > On the former point: why is such a huge proportion of the world doing their
> > mirroring with software RAID (generally Veritas) including some HUGE solaris
> > installations (Sun seems quite keen on Veritas).
>
> Probably because those installations are supporting a qmail queue
> on their giant SW RAIDs. ^^^
AREN'T
John
Doesn't a journeling FS incure speed penalities due to the fact that all
disk activity is logged?
>From what I figured out mirrored disks(RAID 1) are pretty quick and are
100% fault tolerant (there is always a spare and it's always up to date.)
I'm gonna start with mirroring (2 9.1 GB quantum ATLAS IV's and an ADAPTEC
2490 UW SCSI-2 controller. Mainly for a centrailized databased using
linux's raid tools for software raid.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, John White wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 09:57:44AM -0800, Matthew Brown wrote:
> > John White wrote:
> > > IMHO, no software mirroring scheme is going to do the trick. AND
> > > they're overwhelmingly expensive.
> >
> > As to the latter point, isn't DiskSuite included in your Solaris license
> > these days?
>
> No. One has to buy a special edition of the OS to get DS.
>
> > On the former point: why is such a huge proportion of the world doing their
> > mirroring with software RAID (generally Veritas) including some HUGE solaris
> > installations (Sun seems quite keen on Veritas).
>
> Probably because those installations are supporting a qmail queue
> on their giant SW RAIDs.
>
> > > Software RAID is, again IMHO, not suitable for making your queue
> > > redundant or quick.
> >
> > I've met many people who are of the opinion that software RAID is no slower
> > than most hardware RAID. Or is the 'most' the important word here?
>
> The phrase "writeback cache" is what's important.
>
> Disk i/o is a bottleneck. SW RAID 1 exacerbates that bottleneck.
>
> If redundancy is all you want, I'd reccomend a HW RAID 1 with a cache to
> smooth out the spikes in usage. If you needed continuous high performance,
> I'd go with a 1+0 configuration with more cache AND a journaled fs.
>
> John
>
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:53:00 -0500 (EST) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Doesn't a journeling FS incure speed penalities due to the fact that all
> disk activity is logged?
Theoretically, a journalling FS should be able to get a better
response time on an fsync() call than an FS with soft updates, or
sync metadata. This will increase qmail's performance, since each
message incurs 4 or 5 fsyncs (two from qmail-queue, and two or
three from qmail-send during preprocessing).
Which reminds me, in the qmail FAQ, Dan says not to use qmail on
a filesystem with soft updates. I don't see why not, as long as
the soft updates implementation honors fsync() (which McKusick's
does). Am I missing something, or was the statement directed toward
users of more experimental softupdates implementations (e.g. Ganger
and Patt's)?
--
Chris Mikkelson | "Unfortunately, simplicity is a complicated mess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | of a concept." --Taner Edis
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 03:43:43PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> While I was writing LWQ, I had several people ask if they could
> translate it. I suggested they wait until version 1.0. I never heard
> back from any of them.
>
> I'd really like to get some translations going, so if you're
> interested, please let me know. I'll help any way I can.
I can take the portuguese translation...
Regards;
Ricardo
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| FCCN/RCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional
| Av. Brasil, 101 / 1700-066 Lisboa / Portugal *** Tel: (+351) 218440100
> > While I was writing LWQ, I had several people ask if they could
> > translate it. I suggested they wait until version 1.0. I never heard
> > back from any of them.
> >
> > I'd really like to get some translations going, so if you're
> > interested, please let me know. I'll help any way I can.
>
> I can take the portuguese translation...
errm and i can do my best for a turkish translation...
love, peace and stuff,
dd
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 18 Nov 1999, (Lorens Kockum) wrote:
>> In my opinion and according to my experience, making that test a
>> 4xx error is highly recommended.
>
>No. The correct solution is to determine whether your DNS failure is
>transitive or permanent. That's not rocket science, in fact it is trivial
>to do so. If it's a transitive error, return a 453, if it's a permanent
>failure, return a 553.
Agreed.
Geoff Roberts writes:
> By the way, could anyone tell me how identd adds more security across a
> network? I have read comments on dejanews that it has its own security
> problems.
Probably written by people who don't understand its purpose. identd
removes the anonymity of TCP connections coming from a single machine
by allowing the remote end to ask for a magic cookie which, when
presented to the administrator of the machine, will enable them to
identify the user who made the tcp connection. If someone on a
particular machine is misbehaving, this allows the system
administrator to take action.
Unfortunately, some identd's have been badly written so that they
return the username of the user who connected instead of a magic
cookie. Some people have used this feature to gather email addresses,
since Unix typically maintains a one-to-one correspondence between
usernames and email addresses.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
> Probably written by people who don't understand its purpose. identd
> removes the anonymity of TCP connections coming from a single machine
> by allowing the remote end to ask for a magic cookie which, when
> presented to the administrator of the machine, will enable them to
> identify the user who made the tcp connection. If someone on a
> particular machine is misbehaving, this allows the system
> administrator to take action.
What are other people who run mail relays doing with identd? Since
all the idents are 'qmail' ids, it doesn't serve it's designed purpose. Do
people enable it to speed connections which request it, or disable it
because it doesn't do much?
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi to all!
I am having difficulty finding a solution to this problem. I hope somebody
can help me.
I have this host (HostA) running qmail with different virtual domains.
HostA has no config problem. I can send emails to virtual domain users.
Lately, HostA became loaded so we decided to point the MX of HostA (and
all virtual domains on HostA) to a different machine (HostB) running
sendmail. Now I want to upgrade HostB's sendmail to qmail. Presently,
HostB is configured with LUSER_RELAY to point to HostA the emails that is
unknown to HostB. I already added '| forward "$LOCAL@HostA"' to
~alias/.qmail-default so that qmail will do the same for unknown users.
Now my problem is how do I configure my virtual domains to do the same? I
tried copying the virtualdomains file on HostA to HostB but I get the
error that it is not in my control/locals file.
I know that I can't put a virtual domain on locals because that is a
no-no.
Any help will be highly appreaciated.
Thank you very much and more power!
Regards,
Edward Castillo Jakosalem
Does anyone possibly have a windows client that is capable of doing this, as
I really feel that webmail isnt quite secure enough.... yet!
Damien
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 19 November 1999 2:14 PM
To: Qmail
Subject: Re: Slightly OT: Remotely Storing User Mail
Denis Voitenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or you could simply install LDAP :-)
Isn't that sort of like "simply" bringing about world peace? :)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Hi!
QMail by default has undeliverable messages stay in the queue for a week
before returning a permanent error, despite the reason the message isn't
deliverable. I know that I can change this value with a control file, but I
would like to change this for ONLY messages sent to a domain that doesn't
exist. Is that possible?
Example:
Message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is undeliverable because the mail server at
domain1.com is refusing connections (maybe down for maintenance?). This
message should remain queued for the duration of seven days until 1) it is
deliverable or 2) time runs out and a permanent error is returned.
Message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is seen as a non-existent domain and is
immediately returned with a permanent error message.
Thanks!
Kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 99, at 8:48, Pieckiel, Kevin A wrote:
> Example:
> Message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is undeliverable because the mail server
> at domain1.com is refusing connections (maybe down for maintenance?).
> This message should remain queued for the duration of seven days until 1)
> it is deliverable or 2) time runs out and a permanent error is returned.
>
> Message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is seen as a non-existent domain and
> is immediately returned with a permanent error message.
That's exactly what qmail does!
On the other hand, if you get a temporary error from your DNS
asking for non-domain.blah, qmail will keep the message and try
again.
So - if you're seeing that messages fro unknown hosts remain in
the queue, it's time to check your DNS setup...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBODVj/lMwP8g7qbw/EQKkoQCg2GX6yyw3WcuQzV80ehjB+/JVZagAn2Ar
aGrl17i5c8P+GOIkGOABtN9T
=UlB+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Grrr... I appreciate your reply. My domain is smartrafficenter.net (it's
behind a firewall--internal E-Mail only) and E-Mail was unintentionally sent
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and got stuck in the queue. I fixed
the program sening this E-Mail, but now I have to wait a week for the queue
to clear. If I run nslookup to look up localhost.smartrafficenter.net, I
get an error, just as if I had typed in non-domain.blah and received an
error. I don't know what to check as far as DNS is concerned except the
existence of an A record for the host "localhost.smartrafficenter.net".
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Petr Novotny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 8:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Unknown hosts
On the other hand, if you get a temporary error from your DNS
asking for non-domain.blah, qmail will keep the message and try
again.
So - if you're seeing that messages fro unknown hosts remain in
the queue, it's time to check your DNS setup...
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 01:51:24PM -0000, Petr Novotny mentioned:
> On 19 Nov 99, at 8:48, Pieckiel, Kevin A wrote:
> > Example:
> > Message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is undeliverable because the mail server
> > at domain1.com is refusing connections (maybe down for maintenance?).
> > This message should remain queued for the duration of seven days until 1)
> > it is deliverable or 2) time runs out and a permanent error is returned.
> > Message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is seen as a non-existent domain and
> > is immediately returned with a permanent error message.
> That's exactly what qmail does!
>
> On the other hand, if you get a temporary error from your DNS
> asking for non-domain.blah, qmail will keep the message and try
> again.
However, if the host qmail trys to deliver it says "I can't resolve the
DNS name of the host this came from", qmail considers this a transient
error too, and doesn't bounce the mail. Bad form. Can this be fixed ?
Kate
--
Microsoft. The best reason in the world to drink beer.
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 99, at 15:15, John P. Looney wrote:
> However, if the host qmail trys to deliver it says "I can't resolve the
> DNS name of the host this came from", qmail considers this a transient
> error too, and doesn't bounce the mail. Bad form. Can this be fixed ?
Sorry? How does the host say that - by SMTP? There's a rule that
codes starting with 4 are temporary and starting with 5 are
permanent. qmail obliges. Why should it do differently?
Or are you speaking about something else?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBODVqqFMwP8g7qbw/EQJTgACgj7I7uYtl8CairE+2SSBpaKbngXcAoNIy
nyPiNCA+/8DImMQUh8O4RDeV
=sDUL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:19:50PM -0000, Petr Novotny mentioned:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 19 Nov 99, at 15:15, John P. Looney wrote:
> > However, if the host qmail trys to deliver it says "I can't resolve the
> > DNS name of the host this came from", qmail considers this a transient
> > error too, and doesn't bounce the mail. Bad form. Can this be fixed ?
>
> Sorry? How does the host say that - by SMTP? There's a rule that
> codes starting with 4 are temporary and starting with 5 are
> permanent. qmail obliges. Why should it do differently?
Oh right. The servers my qmail server was trying to talk to were saying:
delivery 6: deferral:
Connected_to_136.182.1.10_but_sender_was_rejected./
Remote_host_said:_451_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._Sender_domain_must_resolve/
So this "Sender domain must resolve" problem is because the remote mail
server decided that this is a transient error, and the 451 code
communicates this to qmail. OK - so this is a bug in the remote server or
it's setup. I was wondering why qmail wasn't bouncing the mail back. Now I
know, thanks.
John
--
Microsoft. The best reason in the world to drink beer.
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~valen
Quoting Pieckiel, Kevin A ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Grrr... I appreciate your reply. My domain is smartrafficenter.net (it's
> behind a firewall--internal E-Mail only) and E-Mail was unintentionally sent
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and got stuck in the queue. I fixed
> the program sening this E-Mail, but now I have to wait a week for the queue
> to clear. If I run nslookup to look up localhost.smartrafficenter.net, I
> get an error, just as if I had typed in non-domain.blah and received an
> error. I don't know what to check as far as DNS is concerned except the
> existence of an A record for the host "localhost.smartrafficenter.net".
You should have an RR:
localhost IN A 127.0.0.1
in the zone for your domain, fake or not.
Aaron
Hello
I would really appreciate some help for getting maildrop and
it's filters to work with fetchmail and my ~/Maildir.
Here is my $HOME/.qmail
=> '| /usr/local/bin/maildrop'
and /etc/maildroprc
=> DEFAULT="./Maildir"
My $HOME/.fetchmailrc
=> poll mypop.ibm.net protocol pop3 username myusername password mypassword
=> mda "/usr/local/bin/maildrop"
An excerpt from my $HOME/.mailfilter
=> ### Store messages to Qmail in their own folder
=> if ( /^To: *qmail@list\.cr\.yp\.to.*/ \
=> || /^Cc: *qmail@list\.cr\.yp\.to.*/ )
=> {
=> to Mail/qmail
=> }
In .fetchmailrc, if I use the "deliver-maildir" MDA, all the mail goes into
my "inbox". No filtering. When I point mda to maildrop, nothing happens.
There is a stream of mail coming in (pppstats output) but does not show up
in the Maildir.
Can someone please tell me what am I missing?
Thank you in advance.
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>and /etc/maildroprc
>
>=> DEFAULT="./Maildir"
Just guessing, since I don't use maildrop, but maybe that should be:
DEFAULT="./Maildir/"
or
DEFAULT="~/Maildir/"
-Dave
On 0, Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> DEFAULT="~/Maildir/"
>
Thanks for replying. I tried the above and it did not work.
It appears that there are many people who are using fetchmail
and maildrop along with Qmail. I could not find anything in
Qmail archives nor in the maildrop examples.
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Subba Rao wrote:
> Hello
>
> I would really appreciate some help for getting maildrop and
> it's filters to work with fetchmail and my ~/Maildir.
>
> Here is my $HOME/.qmail
>
> => '| /usr/local/bin/maildrop'
>
> and /etc/maildroprc
>
> => DEFAULT="./Maildir"
>
> My $HOME/.fetchmailrc
>
> => poll mypop.ibm.net protocol pop3 username myusername password mypassword
> => mda "/usr/local/bin/maildrop"
>
> An excerpt from my $HOME/.mailfilter
>
> => ### Store messages to Qmail in their own folder
> => if ( /^To: *qmail@list\.cr\.yp\.to.*/ \
> => || /^Cc: *qmail@list\.cr\.yp\.to.*/ )
> => {
> => to Mail/qmail
> => }
>
> In .fetchmailrc, if I use the "deliver-maildir" MDA, all the mail goes into
> my "inbox". No filtering. When I point mda to maildrop, nothing happens.
> There is a stream of mail coming in (pppstats output) but does not show up
> in the Maildir.
>
> Can someone please tell me what am I missing?
You need to:
A) Examine your logs
B) Read fetchmail documentation.
I don't know anything about fetchmail, and I have no idea how fetchmail
tells maildrop which local mailbox to dump all mail into. If fetchmail
executes maildrop without doing anything else, maildrop will simply
deliver the mail to the mailbox of the userid running maildrop. So, if
you're running fetchmail as root, maildrop will deliver to root's mailbox.
You need to read the documentation for fetchmail and determine what
options are available in fetchmail for specifying the local mailbox where
mail gets delivered.
On 0, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Can someone please tell me what am I missing?
>
> You need to:
>
> A) Examine your logs
>
> B) Read fetchmail documentation.
>
> I don't know anything about fetchmail, and I have no idea how fetchmail
> tells maildrop which local mailbox to dump all mail into. If fetchmail
> executes maildrop without doing anything else, maildrop will simply
> deliver the mail to the mailbox of the userid running maildrop. So, if
> you're running fetchmail as root, maildrop will deliver to root's mailbox.
>
> You need to read the documentation for fetchmail and determine what
> options are available in fetchmail for specifying the local mailbox where
> mail gets delivered.
>
>
Is there a better way (other than fetchmail) to get mail from my pop server?
The pop server, I use, is at my ISP. Is there an fetchmail type of tool, that
comes along with the Qmail?
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
Fetchmail by default delivers the mail to the SMTP port so if you have SMTP
running there is no need to run Maildrop, at least I think so. You'd have to
add
smtpaddress <your local domain> to the .fetchmailrc
If you plan on sorting things out by the header you will need procmail but I
am not very sure of how to get it working with Maildir directly.
Denis Voitenko
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 9396092
----- Original Message -----
From: Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Maildrop, fetchmail and Maildir
> On 0, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Can someone please tell me what am I missing?
> >
> > You need to:
> >
> > A) Examine your logs
> >
> > B) Read fetchmail documentation.
> >
> > I don't know anything about fetchmail, and I have no idea how fetchmail
> > tells maildrop which local mailbox to dump all mail into. If fetchmail
> > executes maildrop without doing anything else, maildrop will simply
> > deliver the mail to the mailbox of the userid running maildrop. So, if
> > you're running fetchmail as root, maildrop will deliver to root's
mailbox.
> >
> > You need to read the documentation for fetchmail and determine what
> > options are available in fetchmail for specifying the local mailbox
where
> > mail gets delivered.
> >
> >
>
> Is there a better way (other than fetchmail) to get mail from my pop
server?
> The pop server, I use, is at my ISP. Is there an fetchmail type of tool,
that
> comes along with the Qmail?
>
> Subba Rao
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
Does anyone have any ideas or a script that will e-mail a sender when the
recieptient is no longer at a domain?
Qmail will bounce the message to postman, I would like to fire the message
back with "User no longer at domain, please correct your address book"
instead of bouncing it.
Right noew I have to manaully reply and give the news.... wondering if
thier was a way to automate the process.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
|/var/qmail/bin/bouncesaying 'Sorry, that user does not exist any longer - please
|update your records.'
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
; Does anyone have any ideas or a script that will e-mail a sender when the
; recieptient is no longer at a domain?
;
; Qmail will bounce the message to postman, I would like to fire the message
; back with "User no longer at domain, please correct your address book"
; instead of bouncing it.
;
;
; Right noew I have to manaully reply and give the news.... wondering if
; thier was a way to automate the process.
;
; Paul Farber
; Farber Technology
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; Ph 570-628-5303
; Fax 570-628-5545
;
;
--
Eric Pancer @ "I don't give advice; geniuses don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ! need it, and amateurs don't want it."
http://www.catastrophe.net | -- Vida Chenoweth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 99, at 9:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anyone have any ideas or a script that will e-mail a sender when the
> recieptient is no longer at a domain?
Do you use any virtual domains packages, or plain qmail?
> Qmail will bounce the message to postman, I would like to fire the message
> back with "User no longer at domain, please correct your address book"
> instead of bouncing it.
Bounce to postman? No way. Only double bounce goes to
postman.
(Only if you're using some automated virtualdomain setup, the
.qmail-something-default might send mail to postman. But then you
need to tell use which package you use.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBODVxT1MwP8g7qbw/EQJ3BgCfaXIws7+q7tlf8/SS7ID8wwin0NQAoLAY
+X5fBcqa8sUq5y414E1Mu+Mz
=ckd9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does anyone have any ideas or a script that will e-mail a sender when the
> recieptient is no longer at a domain?
>
> Qmail will bounce the message to postman, I would like to fire the message
> back with "User no longer at domain, please correct your address book"
> instead of bouncing it.
The problem is that SMTP has no concept of redirection. All it can do
is send back a bounce message to the envelope sender. For example,
you could use bouncesaying as someone suggested. The problem with
this is that various programs, e.g. ezmlm, interpret anything sent to
the envelope sender as a bounce message.
I don't know if DSNs allow redirection. Even if they did, you would
have to wonder if you should trust them.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Thanks for the info.
But once the user is gone I need to maintain a list.... and if
someone signs up again I need to remove the name from the list.. general
list admin stuff. That's what I was hoping for.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, eric wrote:
>
>
> |/var/qmail/bin/bouncesaying 'Sorry, that user does not exist any longer - please
>update your records.'
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ; Does anyone have any ideas or a script that will e-mail a sender when the
> ; recieptient is no longer at a domain?
> ;
> ; Qmail will bounce the message to postman, I would like to fire the message
> ; back with "User no longer at domain, please correct your address book"
> ; instead of bouncing it.
> ;
> ;
> ; Right noew I have to manaully reply and give the news.... wondering if
> ; thier was a way to automate the process.
> ;
> ; Paul Farber
> ; Farber Technology
> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ; Ph 570-628-5303
> ; Fax 570-628-5545
> ;
> ;
>
> --
> Eric Pancer @ "I don't give advice; geniuses don't
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! need it, and amateurs don't want it."
> http://www.catastrophe.net | -- Vida Chenoweth
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 99, at 11:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But once the user is gone I need to maintain a list.... and if
> someone signs up again I need to remove the name from the list.. general
> list admin stuff. That's what I was hoping for.
You may use a fastforward database (invoking fastforward from the
eventual .qmail-something-default or ~something/.qmail-default).
You'll just need to implement a tool to easily add and delete
address from the eventual fastforward database.
No big deal though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBODWFU1MwP8g7qbw/EQJ1rgCdF06JK5lv/j9QSaRdmm0dZ5tokNYAoONy
yF32FYOp7xkx6c1yp1iW0JFV
=ddWh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Does anyone have any ideas or a script that will e-mail a sender when the
> > recieptient is no longer at a domain?
> >
> > Qmail will bounce the message to postman, I would like to fire the message
> > back with "User no longer at domain, please correct your address book"
> > instead of bouncing it.
>
>The problem is that SMTP has no concept of redirection. All it can do
What is the problem with
251 User not local; will forward to <forward-path>
551 User not local; please try <forward-path>
or even, since we're on the qmail list and qmail uses RFC 1893,
251 User not local; please try <forward-path> (#2.1.6)
551 User not local; please try <forward-path> (#5.1.6)
>is send back a bounce message to the envelope sender. For example,
Of course, unless the sender MTA parses that, it is just a
bounce like any other.
But it *is* SMTP, RFC 821, Internet Standard number 10 ...
>you could use bouncesaying as someone suggested. The problem with
>this is that various programs, e.g. ezmlm, interpret anything sent to
>the envelope sender as a bounce message.
Well, I don't see why it should be anything else. What is the
desired behaviour? Either you send a notification about a
problem with mail delivery, or you don't. If ezmlm can't parse
a bounce message in QSBMF, then that's a pity. If you can't
risk being desubscribed from some long-forgotten announcement
mailing-list, it has to be manually monitored. I don't see
another way. If you want to bounce it after looking at it, that
is possible, of course. Should be a relatively simple script.
On Nov 19 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> But once the user is gone I need to maintain a list.... and if
> someone signs up again I need to remove the name from the list.. general
> list admin stuff. That's what I was hoping for.
No, no, no! That's "bad admin stuff". Don't reuse a login once
it has been previously assigned to a given user.
Never.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 09:25:06 +0100 , "Ekker, Heinz" writes:
> When I tested sending Messages via SMTP, I realized that QMail, unlike
> Sendmail, doesn't rewrite Headers in the following manner:
> Insert missing From: - Headers from Envelope-Sender
> Insert missing To: - Headers from Envelope-Recipients
> Insert blank line after last Header-Line
qmail does not do any rewriting of messages without some hacks.
> I wondered whether anyone of you regards this as problem, and whether anyone
> of you has a fixup for this (like a C-Program to feed the messages through
> or anything). We don't have any local users on the server, only virtual
> users who feed their messages via smtp and get them via pop3 and are
> authenticated via radius.
You could probably use a variant of the fixup/@fixme hack described
in the FAQ. Feed the message through an appropriate formail command
line to add the headers, and then through forward or qmail-inject
to deliver it to the final destination.
This will send the message twice through the queue, which is a bit
of a performance hit. I'm looking into rewriting headers in a
wrapper around qmail-queue.
-Chris
I recently started playing with natd on my FreeBSD box. When I turn natd
on, qmail starts having strange problems sending email to another of my
internal network boxes. I've included a kdump trace of qmail-remote when
trying to send the message. Notice the MAIL FROM: line below. Has anyone
seen this kind of behavior before or have any suggestions for tracking it
down?
The only difference between working and not is when turning on IPFIREWALL
and IPDIVERT in the kernel and turning on the natd process. All of the
firewall rules have the box completely open. I have two network interfaces,
fxp0 is connected to the internal network which is connected to the internet
via a cisco router, and de0 which is connected to a cable modem and gets its
address via DHCP.
Thanks,
barry
824 qmail-remote RET recvfrom 209/0xd1
824 qmail-remote CALL close(0x3)
824 qmail-remote RET close 0
824 qmail-remote CALL gettimeofday(0xbfbfdd3c,0)
824 qmail-remote RET gettimeofday 0
824 qmail-remote CALL getpid
824 qmail-remote RET getpid 824/0x338
824 qmail-remote CALL socket(0x2,0x2,0)
824 qmail-remote RET socket 3
824 qmail-remote CALL connect(0x3,0x280e6590,0x10)
824 qmail-remote RET connect 0
824 qmail-remote CALL sendto(0x3,0xbfbfd8ec,0x24,0,0,0)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 wrote 36 bytes
"h\^Y\^A\0\0\^A\0\0\0\0\0\0\adevious\^Flustig\^Ccom\0\0\^O\0\^A"
824 qmail-remote RET sendto 36/0x24
824 qmail-remote CALL poll(0xbfbfd6a4,0x1,0x1388)
824 qmail-remote RET poll 1
824 qmail-remote CALL recvfrom(0x3,0x804d7a0,0x200,0,0xbfbfd72c,0xbfbfd698)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 read 93 bytes
"h\^Y\M^E\M^@\0\^A\0\0\0\^A\0\0\adevious\^Flustig\^Ccom\0\0\^O\0\^A\^FL\
ustig\^CCOM\0\0\^F\0\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0#\^Dgate\M-@$\^Ebarry\M-@$w(\^Ae\0\
\0*0\0\0\^N\^P\0006\M-n\M^@\0\^AQ\M^@"
824 qmail-remote RET recvfrom 93/0x5d
824 qmail-remote CALL close(0x3)
824 qmail-remote RET close 0
824 qmail-remote CALL socket(0x2,0x2,0)
824 qmail-remote RET socket 3
824 qmail-remote CALL connect(0x3,0x280e6590,0x10)
824 qmail-remote RET connect 0
824 qmail-remote CALL sendto(0x3,0xbfbfd8b0,0x24,0,0,0)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 wrote 36 bytes
"h\^Z\^A\0\0\^A\0\0\0\0\0\0\adevious\^Flustig\^Ccom\0\0\^A\0\^A"
824 qmail-remote RET sendto 36/0x24
824 qmail-remote CALL poll(0xbfbfd668,0x1,0x1388)
824 qmail-remote RET poll 1
824 qmail-remote CALL recvfrom(0x3,0x804d7a0,0x200,0,0xbfbfd6f0,0xbfbfd65c)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 read 209 bytes
"h\^Z\M^E\M^@\0\^A\0\^A\0\^D\0\^D\adevious\^Flustig\^Ccom\0\0\^A\0\^A\
\M-@\f\0\^A\0\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0\^D\M-M\M-v\^B\M-t\^FLustig\^CCOM\0\0\^B\0\
\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0\^N\^Cdns\acrocker\M-@;\M-@4\0\^B\0\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0\a\^D\
rmc1\M-@N\M-@4\0\^B\0\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0\a\^Dwest\M-@4\M-@4\0\^B\0\^A\0\^A\
Q\M^@\0\a\^Dgate\M-@4\M-@J\0\^A\0\^A\0\^B\M-"\M-z\0\^D\M-La\f\^B\M-@d\
stdin
\0\^A\0\^A\0\^B\M-"\M-z\0\^D\M-La\f2\M-@w\0\^A\0\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0\^D\M-Q\
\M^]\^Z\M^B\M-@\M^J\0\^A\0\^A\0\^AQ\M^@\0\^D\M-M\M-v\^B\M-r"
824 qmail-remote RET recvfrom 209/0xd1
824 qmail-remote CALL close(0x3)
824 qmail-remote RET close 0
824 qmail-remote CALL open(0x804c408,0x5,0xbfbfdd38)
824 qmail-remote NAMI "queue/lock/tcpto"
824 qmail-remote RET open 3
824 qmail-remote CALL open(0x804c408,0x4,0xbfbfdd38)
824 qmail-remote NAMI "queue/lock/tcpto"
824 qmail-remote RET open 4
824 qmail-remote CALL flock(0x3,0x2)
824 qmail-remote RET flock 0
824 qmail-remote CALL read(0x4,0x804f670,0x400)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 4 read 1024 bytes
"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"
824 qmail-remote RET read 1024/0x400
824 qmail-remote CALL close(0x4)
824 qmail-remote RET close 0
824 qmail-remote CALL close(0x3)
stdin
824 qmail-remote RET close 0
824 qmail-remote CALL socket(0x2,0x1,0)
824 qmail-remote RET socket 3
824 qmail-remote CALL fcntl(0x3,0x3,0)
824 qmail-remote RET fcntl 2
824 qmail-remote CALL fcntl(0x3,0x4,0x6)
824 qmail-remote RET fcntl 0
824 qmail-remote CALL connect(0x3,0xbfbfdd30,0x10)
824 qmail-remote RET connect -1 errno 36 Operation now in progress
824 qmail-remote CALL select(0x4,0,0xbfbfdcb0,0,0xbfbfdca8)
824 qmail-remote RET select 1
824 qmail-remote CALL getpeername(0x3,0xbfbfdd30,0xbfbfdca4)
824 qmail-remote RET getpeername 0
824 qmail-remote CALL fcntl(0x3,0x3,0)
824 qmail-remote RET fcntl 6
824 qmail-remote CALL fcntl(0x3,0x4,0x2)
824 qmail-remote RET fcntl 0
824 qmail-remote CALL select(0x4,0xbfbfdc0c,0,0,0xbfbfdc04)
824 qmail-remote RET select 1
824 qmail-remote CALL read(0x3,0x804f1c0,0x80)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 read 30 bytes
"220 devious.lustig.com ESMTP\r
"
824 qmail-remote RET read 30/0x1e
824 qmail-remote CALL select(0x4,0,0xbfbfdc40,0,0xbfbfdc38)
824 qmail-remote RET select 1
824 qmail-remote CALL write(0x3,0x804f270,0x16)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 wrote 22 bytes
"HELO gate.lustig.com\r
"
824 qmail-remote RET write 22/0x16
824 qmail-remote CALL select(0x4,0xbfbfdc0c,0,0,0xbfbfdc04)
824 qmail-remote RET select 1
824 qmail-remote CALL read(0x3,0x804f1c0,0x80)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 read 54 bytes
"250-devious.lustig.com\r
250-PIPELINING\r
250 8BITMIME\r
"
824 qmail-remote RET read 54/0x36
824 qmail-remote CALL select(0x4,0,0xbfbfdc40,0,0xbfbfdc38)
824 qmail-remote RET select 1
824 qmail-remote CALL write(0x3,0x804f270,0x1e)
824 qmail-remote GIO fd 3 wrote 30 bytes
"MAIL FROM:<\^P\^B\0\0\^?\0\0\^A\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0>\r
"
824 qmail-remote RET write 30/0x1e
824 qmail-remote CALL select(0x4,0xbfbfdc0c,0,0,0xbfbfdc04)
824 qmail-remote RET select 1
Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gate(80)#
barry@gate$
Does sqwebmail use the smtp server of qmail to send e-mails?
I have patched qmail to limit the number of recipients an e-mail can have
(so a spammer can't use my computer to send an e-mail to 1.000 people).
It works when I try using MS Outlook from a remote computer. But if I use
sqwebmail to send the e-mail it allows any amount of e-mails.
What happens?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Nov 99, at 18:23, Andres Mendez wrote:
> I have patched qmail to limit the number of recipients an e-mail can have
> (so a spammer can't use my computer to send an e-mail to 1.000 people).
So he'll send 50 mails, to 20 people each.
> It works when I try using MS Outlook from a remote computer. But if I use
> sqwebmail to send the e-mail it allows any amount of e-mails.
I would think that sqwebmail injects locally.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBODWYVFMwP8g7qbw/EQIPxgCgotb1o4rj4fFz1w83EWjXlC0wu/YAoNJ/
LU5uFBgfLYLhxbNhLBiWHQbi
=9mQ4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Hello.
I've been having problems to apply this patch.
Finally I did it by hand so, if anyone else can't apply the patch too, here
you have it applied.
qmail-stmp.zip
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 06:29:07PM +0100, Andres Mendez wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've been having problems to apply this patch.
>
> Finally I did it by hand so, if anyone else can't apply the patch too, here
> you have it applied.
I don't know if you've noticed, but diffing your qmail-smtpd.c and the original one,
you get my patch :)
Regards;
Ricardo
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| FCCN/RCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional
| Av. Brasil, 101 / 1700-066 Lisboa / Portugal *** Tel: (+351) 218440100
Okay, after much thinking and testing, I think I have figured out
what the problems are. They seem to be related to tcp-env and name
resolution (fwd and reverse). Why I never saw these problems before
yesterday confuses me, but the facts speak for themselves.
1. Qmail has stopped resolving anything in /etc/hosts. I find this very
bizare, as everything else on the system still seems to work fine with
/etc/hosts only entry's that have no corrosponding DNS entry (the
localhost<->127.0.0.1 maping failing for a smtproute to an alpha-pager
program was how I figured this out). /etc/host.conf is properly configured
(order hosts,bind ; multi on).
2. A delay has been introduced for any host for which both forward and
reverse DNS resolution is not possible. After digging through the
doc's/faq's, this would seem to have been the expected behavior, however I
had never seen it until yesterday... ???
For a solution, I've got a bunch of dummy DNS entry's for local stuff that
doesn't speak to the Internet (previously only listed in /etc/hosts), and
I've also gone through and fixed some reverse DNS on a few things that I
had let slide because they weren't causing any problems previous to this,
and I had other fires to put out, so for now the problems are more/less
negated. Anyhoo, I thought I would post the follow-up to the list so that
anyone else who runs into similar situations might benefit from my
experience (or lack thereof, as the case may be) :) Also, thanks to
Jacob, who's comments about some problems he once had led me to start
checking /etc/hosts resolution. Cheers!
--A.L.Lambert
(original post below)
> Upgraded bind daemon to fix/cover latest root exploits. I now
> have 30-120 second timeouts for SMTP or POP-3 connections. ????
> Everything else continues to work as before (all the usual: ftp, nntp,
> http, etc., + even some bizare custom stuff I'm using here and there; all
> works fine). I am out of my league at this point, and was hoping some of
> the smarter-than-mine minds on the list might be able to lend some
> suggestions. Tecnical details below:
>
> General setup:
>
> Linux 2.0.38 (RH 5.2 based), qmail 1.03 (no patches/mods), xinetd
> 2.1.8.6b7, tcpwrapers 7.6 (used to setenv RELAYCLIENT for qmail-smtpd, not
> at all for pop-3), bind 8.2.2P3 (installed from RedHat's posted RPM to fix
> overflow problems), and nothing else (other than base Linux distro stuff)
> in common betwixt the boxes... The one and only change made recently was
> the bind upgrade (hence my suspicion that it's the root cause).
>
> What I've done to try and figure it out so far (not in exactly
> this order):
>
> 1. Checked all logfiles for error messages relating to qmail: found none
>
> 2. tail -f'd all related logfiles, and telneted to smtp and pop3 ports:
> get instant notification of connection from xinetd; ps axf shows tcp-env +
> smtpd or pop3 has started instantly
>
> 3. Timed the timeout to see if there was an exact length of time it
> waited for: averages 30-90 seconds, but can range as high as 120 seconds
> (and presumably higher, at 120 seconds I gave up on it).
>
> 4. Recompiled/reinstalled qmail on one of the boxes: no noticable
> improvements.
>
> 5. Verified that all other services were working properly, without
> delays: they are.
>
> 6. Rebooted boxen: no improvements
>
> 7. Cursed loudly: didn't help
>
> 8. Searched through recent qmail mailing list messages (last few days)
> for possibly related problems: didn't see any
>
> 9. Rebuilt from src RPM's of previously used version of bind using the
> StackGuard GCC compiler, in hopes that it might restore qmail to service,
> and keep out crackers as well: no noticable results.
>
> 10. Repeated test steps outlined above: still broken.
>
> 11. Recompiled/reinstalled qmail again: still broken.
>
> 12. Cursed more loudly than before, and for longer period of time: still
> no results.
>
> 13. Repeated steps above: no changes in status
>
> 14. Sent e-mail to qmail mailing list, in hopes that someone smarter than
> I will know what the problem is/might be, or at least have some new ideas
> of what I might try at this point.
>
>
> Any help will be GREATELY appreciated.
>
> --A.L.Lambert
A.L.Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 19 November 1999 at 11:39:17 -0600
> Okay, after much thinking and testing, I think I have figured out
> what the problems are. They seem to be related to tcp-env and name
> resolution (fwd and reverse). Why I never saw these problems before
> yesterday confuses me, but the facts speak for themselves.
>
> 1. Qmail has stopped resolving anything in /etc/hosts. I find this very
> bizare, as everything else on the system still seems to work fine with
> /etc/hosts only entry's that have no corrosponding DNS entry (the
> localhost<->127.0.0.1 maping failing for a smtproute to an alpha-pager
> program was how I figured this out). /etc/host.conf is properly configured
> (order hosts,bind ; multi on).
qmail never did resolve anything via /etc/hosts; it uses DNS *only*.
(This is another thing it does to avoid dependency on and insecurity
due to use of the system libraries).
Incidentaly, I enjoyed reading your description of the steps you'd
gone through to analyze the problem in your message yesterday.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Join the 20th century before it's too late! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A.L.Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 19 November 1999 at 11:39:17 -0600
> >
> > 1. Qmail has stopped resolving anything in /etc/hosts. I find this very
> > bizare, as everything else on the system still seems to work fine with
> > /etc/hosts only entry's that have no corrosponding DNS entry (the
> > localhost<->127.0.0.1 maping failing for a smtproute to an alpha-pager
> > program was how I figured this out). /etc/host.conf is properly configured
> > (order hosts,bind ; multi on).
>
>qmail never did resolve anything via /etc/hosts; it uses DNS *only*.
>(This is another thing it does to avoid dependency on and insecurity
>due to use of the system libraries).
qmail gotcha #7:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#etc-hosts
-Dave
Dave Sill writes:
> qmail gotcha #7:
>
> http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#etc-hosts
Maybe qmail-lint should check to see if every host listed in
/etc/hosts is also listed in the DNS? Nahhhhh, that's too much of a
stretch. :)
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:14:09AM +0100, Rok Papez wrote:
> Hi Roger, qmail and serialmail m.l.
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Roger Wrethman wrote:
>
> > Go and have a look at http://www.e-smith.net
> > They have this all down to a tee.
>
> I was expecting help.... It seems I've got a commercial :-(.
> I guess Qmail/serialmail just isn't up to the job.
>
> Everybody can smart-ass around about Linux support how great the mailing
> list/newsgroup support is and that it's better than commercial.
> My experiance (specialy with qmail/serialmail) shows that this is not the case.
> The people who know don't bother to answer, the people who don't know smart-ass
> around :-((((.
>
> I'm sorry but this is very dissapointing that no-one on qmail nor serialmail
> mailing list is able to just give me a hint (RTFM would do, if I accidently
> missed the docs - I do a lot of RTFM on our local user group m.l.). But it is
> not like I'm the power user who can go in and use the RTSL (Read The Source,
> Luke).
>
> Obviously a step in the right direction would be to dump Qmail/Serialmail
> altogether. Local user group people know only about sendmail and qmail
> users are obviously unwilling to help out.
>
> I'll mail djb personaly.. maybe he will answer altough I doubt
> it... I'll probably get ditched together with SPAM into /dev/null.
Hi
Well.. if you think there is not enough support for linux/free software, go
on, and install exchange server (running nt->microsoft->commercial->help)
I guess if what you need is an easy job, installation will be faster. It
will run slower, be a bit mysterious (like all those windows things) - and
of course M$ will respond to mails you send to them asking for help. I am
quite sure, just will just have to call the hotline, and those nice &
competent guys there will call you back, telling you how to use
RBL/IMAP/filter mails/chack for viruses/tune your mailserver. If exchange
server can�t do what you need, they will incorporate the changes you need in
the next release, if you ask really nice, they will give you there software
for 1/2 the price.
greetings, Florian Pflug
Hi,
I've found the following message in my log:
Unable to open etrntrigger. etrn disabled
Does it mean there is an easy switch to enable etrn?
Thanks,
Frank
Hi all:
I'm installing serialmail and AutoTURN to provide our customers with
ETRN. So far I like what I'm seeing, but I'd like to know how to
redirect the output of the startup script to a log file instead of the
screen. My script is:
--------------------------------
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c55 -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 7791 -g 2108 0
smtp \
sh -c '
/usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
cd /usr/local/qmail/autoturn
exec setlock -nx $TCPREMOTEIP/seriallock \
maildirsmtp $TCPREMOTEIP autoturn-$TCPREMOTEIP- $TCPREMOTEIP AutoTURN
'
2>&1 | /usr/local/bin/accustamp | /usr/local/bin/setuser root
/usr/local/bin/cyclog -n12 /var/log/qmail-receive &
--------------------------------
I just replaced the "/usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd" of my original
script with the "sh -c '...'" part, as the AutoTURN instructions said.
What am I missing?
(Sorry, BTW, if you choke at the sight of something really wrong or
horrible in the above script. I'm far from being an Unix guru (duh), but
I'm willing to be enlightened).
Paulo Jan.
DDnet.
> --------------------------------
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c55 -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 7791 -g 2108 0
> smtp \
> sh -c '
> /usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> cd /usr/local/qmail/autoturn
> exec setlock -nx $TCPREMOTEIP/seriallock \
> maildirsmtp $TCPREMOTEIP autoturn-$TCPREMOTEIP- $TCPREMOTEIP AutoTURN 2>&1 |
>splogger etrn '
Change this line like the above.
Regards;
Ricardo
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| FCCN/RCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional
| Av. Brasil, 101 / 1700-066 Lisboa / Portugal *** Tel: (+351) 218440100
I have a silly idea of writing a small robot that would accept message
bodies in format like
http://www.whateverurlyouwhish.com
http://... [as many urls as you wish]
and reply to it with the content of the web page. I have attempted to do so
by creating an alias like .qmail-robot with content
| /home/robot/script.pl
but something is not working out. Should I pass messages some other way?
Denis
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:48:53PM -0800, Denis Voitenko wrote:
> and reply to it with the content of the web page. I have attempted to do so
> by creating an alias like .qmail-robot with content
>
> | /home/robot/script.pl
>
> but something is not working out. Should I pass messages some other way?
This is prefectly ok and should work.
The problem is in your script.
Did you see any error messages in the logfiles?
You could dump the whole message that you get on STDIN to a file.
And then test your script with /home/robot/script.pl < file until
it does what you expect it to do.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:48:53PM -0800, Denis Voitenko wrote:
> I have a silly idea of writing a small robot that would accept message
> bodies in format like
>
> http://www.whateverurlyouwhish.com
> http://... [as many urls as you wish]
>
> and reply to it with the content of the web page. I have attempted to do so
> by creating an alias like .qmail-robot with content
>
> | /home/robot/script.pl
>
> but something is not working out. Should I pass messages some other way?
If the script just prints the webpages to stdout then you're doing it wrong.
You must send the content to a pipe
like this ($newbody contains your fetched pages):
open MAIL,"| /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject $ENV{SENDER}";
print MAIL "From: url auto responder <url\@whatever.com>\n";
print MAIL "\n";
print MAIL "$newbody";
close MAIL;
/magnus
My problem is not sending mail. It is passing the message to the script so
it could process it. For now my script looks like this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$input=<STDIN>;
open(OUT, ">>/home/robot/email.txt");
print OUT $input;
close(OUT);
and when .qmail that looks like this:
| /usr/bin/perl /home/robot/script.pl
invokes it, it writes stuff like this:
Received: (qmail 22673 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1999 23:47:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 22710 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1999 23:49:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 22694 invoked from network); 19 Nov 1999 23:48:07 -0000
into email.txt. Nice loggin thingy but not what I want. I want to to write
the message with all the headers, etc. into the file (for now).
As far as I see it is not script's fault. There is something wrong with the
way I pipe stuff to it.
Denis Voitenko
Tel: 856 809-9252
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 9396092
----- Original Message -----
From: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Denis Voitenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: message body --> script ?
> On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:48:53PM -0800, Denis Voitenko wrote:
> > I have a silly idea of writing a small robot that would accept message
> > bodies in format like
> >
> > http://www.whateverurlyouwhish.com
> > http://... [as many urls as you wish]
> >
> > and reply to it with the content of the web page. I have attempted to do
so
> > by creating an alias like .qmail-robot with content
> >
> > | /home/robot/script.pl
> >
> > but something is not working out. Should I pass messages some other way?
>
> If the script just prints the webpages to stdout then you're doing it
wrong.
> You must send the content to a pipe
>
> like this ($newbody contains your fetched pages):
>
> open MAIL,"| /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject $ENV{SENDER}";
> print MAIL "From: url auto responder <url\@whatever.com>\n";
> print MAIL "\n";
> print MAIL "$newbody";
> close MAIL;
>
> /magnus
>
>
>
>
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 05:59:24PM -0800, Denis Voitenko wrote:
> My problem is not sending mail. It is passing the message to the script so
> it could process it. For now my script looks like this:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> $input=<STDIN>;
>
> open(OUT, ">>/home/robot/email.txt");
> print OUT $input;
> close(OUT);
[...]
> into email.txt. Nice loggin thingy but not what I want. I want to to write
> the message with all the headers, etc. into the file (for now).
Your script reads and writes only the first line. You want:
open(OUT, ...);
while (<>) {
print OUT;
}
close(OUT);
or (if this looks wierd to you):
open(OUT, ...);
while (($input = <STDIN>)) {
print OUT $input;
}
close(OUT);
There are other problems. Two messages delivered at the same time may become
mixed in your outfile, so you need some type of lock - I assume this is
for testing only...
--Sincerely, Fred
Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
Hello. I keep getting the following error when sending out mail.
======= Begin Error =========
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.metaullics.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 1.1.1.1 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 553 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
======= End Error ========
I am do not know why this is happening. The test is valid. It can
receive mail no problem but can not send. Very frustrating. It will
only work if my email address in my Netscape identity is set to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] insead of [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is what I want.
I have both mail.company.com and company.com in my locals and rcpthosts
files. What the heck am I doing wrong?
Thanks for any help!
Dan
> Hello. I keep getting the following error when sending out mail.
>
> ======= Begin Error =========
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.metaullics.com.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Connected to 1.1.1.1 but sender was rejected.
> Remote host said: 553 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
This has nothing to do with qmail. Ask the people who run the host to which
you're trying to send mail why they won't accept your mail.
Also, if you really want help don't use fake domain names. If there's some
kind of DNS problem you make it impossible for anyone to discover it.
Chris
1. Have testuser who has dialup account at provider.net, gets dynamic IP
address when dials in.
2. Our company has domain newman.com. Want testuser to be able to
send/receive mail using our Linux 2.2.5-15 server (RedHat6.0) and
qmail1.03 running under tcpserver (uspci.tcp).
3. Set up user account "outofstate" on newman mail server. Installed
Russell Nelson's checkpassword patch and Mirko Zeibig's script.
4. outofstate dials up to provider.net, uses pop3 to retrieve his
mail...works.
5. tcprulescheck qmail-smtpd.cdb (hisIPaddress) reports:
rule (hisIPaddress):
set environment variable RELAYCLIENT=
allow connection
6. outofstate sends message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7. outofstate sends message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Outlook express reports:
The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected
by
the server. The rejected email address was [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject 'test 34th time', Account 'Testmail', Server:
'mailserver.newman.com', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry,
that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)',Port 25, Secure (SSL);No, Server Error:553,Error
Number
0x800CCC79
8. Any and all other users with newman.com subnet IP addresses can send
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok. Other entries in qmail-smtpd.cdb
are:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
9.9.9.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" (for our subnet IP address range)
Help please. Any suggestions?
Rob Havens schrieb:
> 1. Have testuser who has dialup account at provider.net, gets dynamic IP
> address when dials in.
> 2. Our company has domain newman.com. Want testuser to be able to
> send/receive mail using our Linux 2.2.5-15 server (RedHat6.0) and
> qmail1.03 running under tcpserver (uspci.tcp).
> 3. Set up user account "outofstate" on newman mail server. Installed
> Russell Nelson's checkpassword patch and Mirko Zeibig's script.
> 4. outofstate dials up to provider.net, uses pop3 to retrieve his
> mail...works.
> 5. tcprulescheck qmail-smtpd.cdb (hisIPaddress) reports:
> rule (hisIPaddress):
> set environment variable RELAYCLIENT=
> allow connection
> 6. outofstate sends message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 7. outofstate sends message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Outlook express reports:
> The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected
> by
> the server. The rejected email address was [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject 'test 34th time', Account 'Testmail', Server:
> 'mailserver.newman.com', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry,
> that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts (#5.7.1)',Port 25, Secure (SSL);No, Server Error:553,Error
> Number
> 0x800CCC79
> 8. Any and all other users with newman.com subnet IP addresses can send
> mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok. Other entries in qmail-smtpd.cdb
> are:
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 9.9.9.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" (for our subnet IP address range)
>
> Help please. Any suggestions?
I assume you have allow as last entry in your qmail-smtpd.cdb. Otherwise
your testuser should not be able to connect to your server using SMTP an
send mail to your local users. So the thing you do is setting RELAYCLIENT=""
for special IPs to allow relaying on your host, meaning Qmail will ignore
rcpthosts file.
Solution:
You'll have to enter the IP-range of your provider so that the RELAYCLIENT
variable is also set for your dialup-testuser. Otherwise qmail will check
the rcpthosts file. Another way is to kill your rcpthosts file which will
cause your server to be an open relay :-((((.
CU
Holger
hi
AFAIK one of the documents related to qmail mentioned the insecurity of
POP3 protocol and said that in an insecure network the passwords could
easily be stolen. today i tried one of the sniffers for linux and got the
pass of my friend (of course, i told him that i did so). errm, if i can do
this, any other user can do the same too. hmm, does qmail-pop3d support
any kind of encryption of the passwords ? so that i can guarantee the
security of the accounts of my users?
thx, peace and the other good things like haribo,
dd
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, dd wrote:
> [...]
> AFAIK one of the documents related to qmail mentioned the insecurity of
> POP3 protocol and said that in an insecure network the passwords could
> easily be stolen. today i tried one of the sniffers for linux and got the
> pass of my friend (of course, i told him that i did so). errm, if i can do
> this, any other user can do the same too.
And so more, you could even monitor a telnet connection ;)
Of course if you are a superuser (e.g. root) and users of your subnet are
too lazy to use ssh.
> hmm, does qmail-pop3d support
> any kind of encryption of the passwords ? so that i can guarantee the
> security of the accounts of my users?
There might be several posibilities for that.
The most common and portable way is propably to use SSL encryption wrapper
with actual POP, IMAP or any other protocol.
If you want to check this out, go directly to a stunnel web page at
http://mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel, and don't forget to install
latest OpenSSL or SSLeay code.
Eventualy check my latest downloads at
ftp://hal.umcs.lublin.pl/pub/security.
> [...]
> thx, peace and the other good things like haribo,
> dd
Sincerely,
Marcin Jaskowiak
"It's better to burn out than to fade away..."
- Kurt Cobain
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, dd wrote:
> hi
>
> AFAIK one of the documents related to qmail mentioned the insecurity of
> POP3 protocol and said that in an insecure network the passwords could
> easily be stolen. today i tried one of the sniffers for linux and got the
> pass of my friend (of course, i told him that i did so). errm, if i can do
> this, any other user can do the same too. hmm, does qmail-pop3d support
> any kind of encryption of the passwords ? so that i can guarantee the
> security of the accounts of my users?
Unless you have Windblows boxes on your network, you have nothing to worry
about. In Unix, you have to be root in order to sniff packets.
There is, allegedly, a challenge-response authentication standard defined
for POP3, but I find very few POP3 servers that implement it in practice.
There is also a challenge-response authentication standard defined for
IMAP, and, to a lesser degree, SMTP authentication, which is somewhat
popular.
I've looked in the archives, but couldn't find a specific answer. Does
anybody know if qmail is able to send the same message to multiple
recipients at a given external host (ie. mx.otherhost.com) without
splitting up the message into one message per recipient? If not, is
qmail able to create a persistent connection to an external host, in
order to more efficiently deliver the messages separately? How much, if
any, of this behaviour is determined by the MTA at the other end?
Thanks in advance!
Mike Pepe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(303) 497-8582
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 04:04:19PM -0700, Michael Pepe wrote:
> I've looked in the archives
No you didn't.
Exactly this was the biggest thread the last 2 weeks.
And no, you can't.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Michael Pepe wrote:
> I've looked in the archives, but couldn't find a specific answer. Does
No, you didn't. This has been the subject of at least a dozen flamewars
over the last year.
> anybody know if qmail is able to send the same message to multiple
> recipients at a given external host (ie. mx.otherhost.com) without
> splitting up the message into one message per recipient?
No.
> If not, is
> qmail able to create a persistent connection to an external host, in
> order to more efficiently deliver the messages separately?
No.
> How much, if
> any, of this behaviour is determined by the MTA at the other end?
None of it.
This is completely the sender's call.
If you are worried about sniffing, nothing that isn't fully encypted
is safe. POP, SMTP, telnet, etc. ad nauseum. Talk like "you can only
sniff if you are root" is silly. I don't know where these people
work, but everybody here has root for their machine, and certainly
all the techies at your ISP do for theirs... And about those routers
on the way...
If you want security, HARD ENCRYPT YOUR CONTENT. And public key
crypto is NOT hard. (comments from our distinguished author..?)
Jeesh, people expect MI5 level security from 20 year old public
protocols.
BTW, Cobain stole that quote. I'll leave it as an exercise for the
reader to figure out from who.
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, dd wrote:
> [...]
> AFAIK one of the documents related to qmail mentioned the insecurity of
> POP3 protocol and said that in an insecure network the passwords could
> easily be stolen. today i tried one of the sniffers for linux and got the
> pass of my friend (of course, i told him that i did so). errm, if i can do
> this, any other user can do the same too.
And so more, you could even monitor a telnet connection ;)
Of course if you are a superuser (e.g. root) and users of your subnet are
too lazy to use ssh.
> hmm, does qmail-pop3d support
> any kind of encryption of the passwords ? so that i can guarantee the
> security of the accounts of my users?
There might be several posibilities for that.
The most common and portable way is propably to use SSL encryption wrapper
with actual POP, IMAP or any other protocol.
If you want to check this out, go directly to a stunnel web page at
http://mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel, and don't forget to install
latest OpenSSL or SSLeay code.
Eventualy check my latest downloads at
ftp://hal.umcs.lublin.pl/pub/security.
> [...]
> thx, peace and the other good things like haribo,
> dd
Sincerely,
Marcin Jaskowiak
"It's better to burn out than to fade away..."
- Kurt Cobain
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Peter Cavender wrote:
> If you are worried about sniffing, nothing that isn't fully encypted
> is safe. POP, SMTP, telnet, etc. ad nauseum.
No doubt for that ;)
> Talk like "you can only sniff if you are root" is silly. I don't know
> where these people work, but everybody here has root for their machine,
> and certainly
> all the techies at your ISP do for theirs... And about those routers
> on the way...
Yes. But if you really cares about security you CAN (and IMHO you SHOULD)
not enable anyone except you to be root in your subnet. You may do that by
NOT using dynamic addressing and restrincting physical access to your
computers and hubs.
> If you want security, HARD ENCRYPT YOUR CONTENT. And public key
> crypto is NOT hard. (comments from our distinguished author..?)
> Jeesh, people expect MI5 level security from 20 year old public
> protocols.
Be cause it's easier to expect than to search for a remedy.
And like SSL for HTTP it might be used for POP3 or even SMTP too.
It's abount half hour to install it :)
> BTW, Cobain stole that quote. I'll leave it as an exercise for the
> reader to figure out from who.
In fact i don't give a *tear* about who said that first.
Bilions of ppl everyday say "Hi and Hello" but i'm still saying that
too... who said that first ? Adam ? ;)
"Peace, Love, Empathy"
- Kurt Cobain (too)
Hookahey!
Hi to all!
I have two questions.
1. How can we change the timezone that qmail is using? I would like to
change it to our localtime.
2. Does anyone use qmail with digital unix? If so, is there any problem or
incompatibility observed?
Thanks once again and more power!
Regards,
Edward Castillo Jakosalem
Hi!
I need help on this one.
I am running qmail with tcpserver. What my tcp.smtp file contains is
:allow and I have my rcpthosts and virtualdomains file in place.
What I want to happen is to accept mails for all my hosted and local
domains but not act as a relay to save CPU usage. I have my SMTP server at
another machine.
Did I do it right with the config I mentioned?
Thanks for any help and more power!
Regards,
Edward Castillo Jakosalem
