qmail Digest 8 Feb 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 905
Topics (messages 36868 through 36921):
Re: Can I rewrite *@xx to *@yyy?
36868 by: Greg Owen
36889 by: Jason Haar
36919 by: Scott D. Yelich
Relay Again :(
36869 by: Roberto Samarone Araujo
36870 by: Thorkild Stray
36871 by: Lars Balker Rasmussen
36872 by: Russell Nelson
36877 by: Glenn Crownover
36878 by: Dave Sill
36890 by: Russell Nelson
Redirecting messages
36873 by: Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas
36874 by: H�ffelin Holger
36875 by: Petr Novotny
Re: Relay Problem
36876 by: David Dyer-Bennet
alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
36879 by: Max
36880 by: Dave Sill
36883 by: Max
Re: workaround for port 25 block? (fwd)
36881 by: Brandon Dudley
36884 by: Paul Schinder
will removing "invoked by uid #" break anything?
36882 by: Jim Breton
Setting Up POP3 Account. How?
36885 by: Marvel Carvalho
how do I do this?
36886 by: Bill Parker
Re: ORBS not recommended
36887 by: Jon Rust
Speakeasy DSL (was Re: workaround for port 25 block?)
36888 by: Kai MacTane
Re: "<>" bogus mail from??
36891 by: ari
36892 by: Jeff Hayward
Re: [qmail] Re: "<>" bogus mail from??
36893 by: ari
36894 by: Pavel Kankovsky
Running Programs in .qmail
36895 by: smanjourides.corp.visto.com
36898 by: Peter Samuel
36901 by: smanjourides.corp.visto.com
36903 by: Peter Samuel
How to setup local delivery for only ONE user?
36896 by: Mike Borowiec
36914 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: [qmail] "<>" bogus mail from??
36897 by: ari
Qmail can't find file that is obviously there
36899 by: Ronald Robson
Yet another relay issue with Qmail
36900 by: Jason Haar
36916 by: Petr Novotny
36917 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
Deliveried-To: ?
36902 by: smanjourides.corp.visto.com
36906 by: Sam
Web based IMAP4 email software
36904 by: Arumugam Thiruppathi
36905 by: Sam
RH RPM POP3 problemo!!!
36907 by: chupepe
Surely someone has done this...
36908 by: Sean Casey
36909 by: Greg Owen
36910 by: Stephen Mills
ETRN Patch
36911 by: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary
RELAYCLIENT
36912 by: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary
36918 by: Magnus Bodin
monitoring w/supervise and logging w/splogger
36913 by: Wang-hua Li, Mack
Maildir --> Procmail
36915 by: Muhammad Ali
dynamic mail queue
36920 by: Shem
qmail-queue
36921 by: Keith, Yeung Wai Kin
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnus Bodin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:47:21PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> > aliases, and rewrite the remaining from *@xx to *@yy (e.g.
> > jhaar@xx becomes jhaar@yy). I can't see any way of doing this
>
> No. There is no rewriting in qmail-queue.
However, check out mess822 at http://cr.yp.to/mess822.html.
OTOH, if all you want to do is forward (as opposed to rewriting the
headers) then the .qmail recipe Magnus posted is fine.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:46:59AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> | forward "${DEFAULT}@yy"
>
Absolutely what I was after :-)
Bit of a ba%*tard to find that one in the man pages...
Yippee - can finish the job now... :-)
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Jason Haar wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:46:59AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> > | forward "${DEFAULT}@yy"
> Absolutely what I was after :-)
> Bit of a ba%*tard to find that one in the man pages...
> Yippee - can finish the job now... :-)
Qmail's documentation is perfect.
Repeat until you believe.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOJ/grx4PLs9vCOqdAQESHAQAmn5SyQNOsUNH+V8DQQtOwZwoLJHLuXlq
K7vA+f6IiSakSR/8+JAOOcY+353D2toZ8B3dPLqXqm3s7wk0G2i0fW3NIW5Wbly4
wfmith6y3IvitdOLSGlixYgpYhGsqcKhAUDGqv8MYGlmLoxjbckTvm6WtaoSho87
eBQDh362KsI=
=tOxa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver
> with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp
>
> 200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> :allow
> According to what I've read, this should allow only users with
> 200.242.253.*
> to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely using
> mail-abuse.org , the test messages
> are allowed through.
>
> What do I need to do to solve this problem ?
I still didn' find a solution for this problem :( When I Telnet
to mail-abuse.org , my qmail server accept relays ...
Roberto Samarone Araujo
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Roberto Samarone Araujo wrote:
> I still didn' find a solution for this problem :( When I Telnet
> to mail-abuse.org , my qmail server accept relays ...
What test does it accept relays on? Is it a confirmed
relay? mail-abuse.org reports success, even though the mail never is
relayed.
--
Thorkild
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 11:50:52AM -0300, Roberto Samarone Araujo wrote:
> > I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver
> > with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp
> >
> > 200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > :allow
>
> I still didn' find a solution for this problem :( When I Telnet
> to mail-abuse.org , my qmail server accept relays ...
You might want to read
<http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#authorized-relay>
a little more carefully.
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen, Software Engineer, Mjolner Informatics ApS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Samarone Araujo writes:
> > I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver
> > with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp
> >
> > 200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > :allow
> > According to what I've read, this should allow only users with
> > 200.242.253.*
> > to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely using
> > mail-abuse.org , the test messages
> > are allowed through.
> >
> > What do I need to do to solve this problem ?
>
> I still didn' find a solution for this problem :( When I Telnet
> to mail-abuse.org , my qmail server accept relays ...
Gee, so does mine. Maybe the problem is with the test??
>>> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 250 ok
Relay test result
Uh oh, host appeared to accept a message for relay.
The host may reject this message internally, however
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Also, try tcprulescheck (man tcprulescheck) to confirm that your tcprules have
been properly configured. The syntax for 'tcprules' which creates the cdb file
(which tcpserver actually uses) is a bit weird, perhaps it is not using the
rules you think it is?
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Roberto Samarone Araujo writes:
> > > I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver
> > > with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp
> > >
> > > 200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > > :allow
> > > According to what I've read, this should allow only users with
> > > 200.242.253.*
> > > to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely using
> > > mail-abuse.org , the test messages
> > > are allowed through.
> > >
> > > What do I need to do to solve this problem ?
> >
> > I still didn' find a solution for this problem :( When I Telnet
> > to mail-abuse.org , my qmail server accept relays ...
>
> Gee, so does mine. Maybe the problem is with the test??
>
> >>> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 250 ok
> Relay test result
> Uh oh, host appeared to accept a message for relay.
> The host may reject this message internally, however
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
--
�.��.���`�. Glenn R. Crownover
�.��.���`�. Owner/CEO - Investor's Network Cafe
�.��.���`�. http://www.investnetcafe.com/
�.��.���`�. reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Samarone Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver
>> with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp
>>
>> 200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>> :allow
>> According to what I've read, this should allow only users with
>> 200.242.253.*
No, to wildcard 200.242.253.anything, use "200.242.253.:allow,...".
-Dave
Glenn Crownover writes:
> Also, try tcprulescheck (man tcprulescheck) to confirm that your tcprules have
> been properly configured. The syntax for 'tcprules' which creates the cdb file
> (which tcpserver actually uses) is a bit weird, perhaps it is not using the
> rules you think it is?
No, Glenn, the problem *is* the test. It's inappropriate to use that
test on a qmail host. One might as reasonbly test
relaytest/mail-abuse.org@host, as far as qmail is concerned. By the
way, at least one sendmail configuration used to think that anything
with slashes in it was a filename, and would attempt delivery to the
file.
> > >>> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <<< 250 ok
> > >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <<< 250 ok
> > Relay test result
> > Uh oh, host appeared to accept a message for relay.
> > The host may reject this message internally, however
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Hi,
I would like to know if it's possible to redirect the mail from one user
account to one or more different accounts but keeping a copy for the
original user.Lets say that I have users A, B and C. I want that all the
mail coming to to user A be redirect to to users B and C but keeping a
copy for user A.I tried this with sendmail but it creates a loop.There is
a way to avoid this loop.
Juan Navas
Nicarao Node
Put in your .qmail-...-file:
|forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Mailbox (or ./Maildir/ depending on your installation
CU
Holger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Montag, 7. Februar 2000 16:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Redirecting messages
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if it's possible to redirect the mail
> from one user
> account to one or more different accounts but keeping a copy for the
> original user.Lets say that I have users A, B and C. I want
> that all the
> mail coming to to user A be redirect to to users B and C but keeping a
> copy for user A.I tried this with sendmail but it creates a
> loop.There is
> a way to avoid this loop.
>
> Juan Navas
> Nicarao Node
>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Feb 00, at 9:23, Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan wrote:
>
> I would like to know if it's possible to redirect the mail from one
> user account to one or more different accounts but keeping a copy for
> the original user.Lets say that I have users A, B and C. I want that
> all the mail coming to to user A be redirect to to users B and C but
> keeping a copy for user A.I tried this with sendmail but it creates a
> loop.There is a way to avoid this loop.
1. What's got sendmail to do with that?
2. Yes, there is; you forward to B and C, and store in A's
mailbox/maildir; you don't forward to A.
3. The exact syntax of #2 depends on the MDA used. For
qmail-local, A's .qmail will contain (for maildir delivery)
&B
&C
./Maildir/
4. If you don't know about #3, RTFM.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOJ72EVMwP8g7qbw/EQIJigCfdRryqIXxefo9/E8qQGQwWbGzAAkAn0Ta
lrT8cdCUZne8BjeZg4zu01js
=Veft
-----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]
John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 6 February 2000 at 18:45:16 -0000
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> > John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 6 February 2000 at 01:21:38 -0000
> >
> > > I haven't tried it against orbs, but, for the mail server's IP being
> > > 123.321.123.321 and a client's 123.321.123.322:
> > >
> > > :deny
> > > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > > 123.321.123.321:allow
> > > 123.321.123.322:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > >
> > > which came from someone on this list. Could this be verified as
> > > correct?
> >
> > You don't want the :deny; that will prevent anybody else from
> > connecting to deliver mail *at all*, even mail directed to your
> > users. And you want to set relayclient for the server itself by IP,
> > as well as the server itself by localhost IP.
> >
>
> Thanks, David. Can this be verified? The reason I ask is that it has
> been working for about a year like that.
Whee! Well, I've just reviewed the man page on tcprules, and it
appears to confirm my interpretation. And my example is also from a
multi-year running installation.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
I am running qmail 1.03 on top of FreeBSD
3.4 with supervise and tcpserver. The startup scripts are copied verbatim from
Dave Sill's "Life with qmail". The server starts fine, accepts incoming smtp
traffic, Pop works incredibly fast, but outgoing smtp messages are inconsistent.
Some messages send and some just sit in the queue. My log file displays the
following error over and over...
2000-02-04 15:30:01.714534500 alert: cannot
start: qmail-send is already running
2000-02-04 15:30:02.737359500 alert:
cannot start: qmail-send is already running
Attached is my startup files and a screen
shot of pHs -aux.
Does anyone know what is causing this and
how I fix it?
Thanks in advance.
|
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
root 58208 0.0 0.2 408 244 p0 R+ 8:59AM 0:00.00 ps -aux
root 1 0.0 0.2 424 256 ?? Is Thu11PM 0:06.93 /sbin/init --
root 2 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?? DL Thu11PM 0:00.31 (pagedaemon)
root 3 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?? DL Thu11PM 0:00.00 (vmdaemon)
root 4 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?? DL Thu11PM 1:04.51 (syncer)
root 34 0.0 0.1 204 84 ?? Is Thu11PM 0:00.00 adjkerntz -i
root 114 0.0 0.4 824 516 ?? Is Fri07AM 0:01.56 syslogd
daemon 123 0.0 0.3 824 388 ?? Is Fri07AM 0:00.00 /usr/sbin/portmap
root 155 0.0 0.5 908 668 ?? Is Fri07AM 0:00.06 inetd -wW
root 158 0.0 0.4 988 568 ?? Ss Fri07AM 0:02.12 cron
root 200 0.0 1.6 2776 2084 ?? Ss Fri07AM 0:11.26 /usr/local/sbin/apache
root 230 0.0 0.5 836 588 v0 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv0
root 231 0.0 0.5 832 584 v1 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv1
root 232 0.0 0.5 832 584 v2 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv2
root 233 0.0 0.5 832 584 v3 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv3
root 234 0.0 0.5 832 584 v4 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv4
root 235 0.0 0.5 832 584 v5 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv5
root 236 0.0 0.5 832 584 v6 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv6
root 237 0.0 0.5 832 584 v7 Is+ Fri07AM 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/getty Pc
ttyv7
nobody 238 0.0 1.6 2776 2088 ?? I Fri07AM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/apache
nobody 239 0.0 1.6 2776 2088 ?? I Fri07AM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/apache
nobody 240 0.0 1.6 2776 2088 ?? I Fri07AM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/apache
nobody 241 0.0 1.6 2776 2088 ?? I Fri07AM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/apache
nobody 242 0.0 1.6 2776 2088 ?? I Fri07AM 0:00.00 /usr/local/sbin/apache
root 47234 0.0 0.3 796 384 p0- S Fri03PM 0:01.42 svscan
root 47235 0.0 0.3 760 336 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.01 supervise qmail-send
root 47236 0.0 0.3 760 324 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.01 supervise log
root 47237 0.0 0.3 760 324 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.01 supervise qmail-smtpd
root 47238 0.0 0.3 760 324 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.01 supervise log
root 47239 0.0 0.3 760 324 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.01 supervise qmail-pop
root 47240 0.0 0.3 760 324 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.01 supervise log
qmails 47241 0.0 0.4 836 504 p0- I Fri03PM 0:03.93 qmail-send
qmaill 47242 0.0 0.3 784 380 p0- I Fri03PM 0:01.50 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/log/qmail
root 47243 0.0 0.4 796 460 p0- S Fri03PM 0:00.77 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver
-v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup merc
qmaill 47244 0.0 0.3 784 380 p0- S Fri03PM 0:00.57 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/log/qmail/pop
qmaild 47245 0.0 0.4 796 460 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.54 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver
-v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 82 -g 81 0 smtp /
qmaill 47246 0.0 0.3 784 380 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.35 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/log/qmail/smtpd
root 47248 0.0 0.3 784 372 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.95 qmail-lspawn ./Maildir/
qmailr 47249 0.0 0.4 828 496 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.48 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 47250 0.0 0.3 772 396 p0- I Fri03PM 0:00.58 qmail-clean
root 58071 0.0 0.5 888 640 ?? Ss 8:45AM 0:00.15 telnetd
maxc 58072 0.0 0.8 1428 968 p0 Is 8:45AM 0:00.08 -bash (bash)
root 58074 0.0 0.3 468 336 p0 I 8:45AM 0:00.05 -su (csh)
root 58076 0.0 0.8 1428 988 p0 S 8:45AM 0:00.11 /usr/local/bin/bash
root 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 ?? DLs Thu11PM 0:00.15 (swapper)
bash-2.03# cat qmail
#!/bin/sh
PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
export PATH
case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Starting qmail: svscan"
cd /var/qmail/supervise
env - PATH="$PATH" svscan &
echo $! > /var/run/svscan.pid
echo "."
;;
stop)
echo -n "Stopping qmail: svscan"
kill `cat /var/run/svscan.pid`
echo -n " qmail"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*
echo -n " logging"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*/log
echo "."
;;
stat)
cd /var/qmail/supervise
svstat * */log
;;
doqueue|alrm)
echo "Sending ALRM signal to qmail-send."
svc -a /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
;;
queue)
qmail-qstat
qmail-qread
;;
reload|hup)
echo "Sending HUP signal to qmail-send."
svc -h /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
;;
pause)
echo "Pausing qmail-send"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "Pausing qmail-smtpd"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
;;
cont)
echo "Continuing qmail-send"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "Continuing qmail-smtpd"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
;;
restart)
echo "Restarting qmail:"
echo "* Stopping qmail-smtpd."
svc -d /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "* Sending qmail-send SIGTERM and restarting."
svc -t /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "* Restarting qmail-smtpd."
svc -u /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
;;
cdb)
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
echo "Reloaded /etc/tcp.smtp."
;;
help)
cat <<HELP
stop -- stops mail service (smtp connections refused, nothing goes out)
start -- starts mail service (smtp connection accepted, mail can go out)
pause -- temporarily stops mail service (connections accepted, nothing leaves)
cont -- continues paused mail service
stat -- displays status of mail service
cdb -- rebuild the tcpserver cdb file for smtp
restart -- stops and restarts smtp, sends qmail-send a TERM & restarts it
doqueue -- sends qmail-send ALRM, scheduling queued messages for delivery
reload -- sends qmail-send HUP, rereading locals and virtualdomains
queue -- shows status of queue
alrm -- same as doqueue
hup -- same as reload
HELP
;;
*)
echo "Usage: $0 {start|stop|restart|doqueue|reload|stat|pause|cont|cdb|queue|help}"
exit 1
;;
esac
exit 0
bash-2.03# cat qmail-send/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /var/qmail/rc
bash-2.03# cat qmail-pop/run
#!/bin/sh
exec \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mercury.emind.com \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1
bash-2.03# cat qmail-smtpd/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
-u 82 -g 81 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1
"Max" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am running qmail 1.03 on top of FreeBSD 3.4 with supervise and
>tcpserver. The startup scripts are copied verbatim from Dave Sill's
>"Life with qmail". The server starts fine, accepts incoming smtp
>traffic, Pop works incredibly fast, but outgoing smtp messages are
>inconsistent. Some messages send and some just sit in the queue.
What do the logs show for messages that "just sit in the queue"?
>My log file displays the following error over and over...
>
>2000-02-04 15:30:01.714534500 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
>2000-02-04 15:30:02.737359500 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
That means that supervise thinks qmail-send isn't running, and tries
to restart it. I looked at your scripts and processes, and everything
looks OK to me, so I'm not sure what's going on here. But this is only
a minor annoyance since supervise only tries to restart qmail-send
once per second, and qmail-start sees that qmail-send is already
running so it prints the message and exits. Whatever is causing your
outgoing messages to sit in the queue is something else.
-Dave
Thanks, I think I traced the problem down to an interaction issue with my
firewall. How do I clear my queue to get rid of all of these messages?
Thanks for your help.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
"Max" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am running qmail 1.03 on top of FreeBSD 3.4 with supervise and
>tcpserver. The startup scripts are copied verbatim from Dave Sill's
>"Life with qmail". The server starts fine, accepts incoming smtp
>traffic, Pop works incredibly fast, but outgoing smtp messages are
>inconsistent. Some messages send and some just sit in the queue.
What do the logs show for messages that "just sit in the queue"?
>My log file displays the following error over and over...
>
>2000-02-04 15:30:01.714534500 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already
running
>2000-02-04 15:30:02.737359500 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already
running
That means that supervise thinks qmail-send isn't running, and tries
to restart it. I looked at your scripts and processes, and everything
looks OK to me, so I'm not sure what's going on here. But this is only
a minor annoyance since supervise only tries to restart qmail-send
once per second, and qmail-start sees that qmail-send is already
running so it prints the message and exits. Whatever is causing your
outgoing messages to sit in the queue is something else.
-Dave
BTW: I work for excite@Home, and just wanted to let you know that the pricing
and service levels and such are set by the cable partners, not by us.
B
> hi,
>
> actually those rules are very regional. In Rochester it is not against the
> AUP to run web servers, ftp, game servers ... etc. That is of course,
> assuming you are not doing anything illegal. If you are taking up to much
> bandwidth, they will throttle your modem. Period. (having worked there, i
> know how they operate)
>
> but i did look up the business rates (when i worked there they hadnt started
> offering business service yet) and they wanted roughly $700 a month for the
> same service i get now. sorry, that i will not do.
>
>
> brian
>
>
> ************************************************************
>
> That was one of the reasons given, which I and many other RR people think is
> bogus.
>
> It is illegal for non-business account users to use servers of any kind and
> if they find out you are (hardly a difficult task), they will terminate your
> service. It's in the terms and conditions.
>
> The real reason...It's down to money folks.
>
> Basic service is $49.95p/m, $39.95p/m if you have their cable service.
>
> To open up the mail server port 25, they will charge you an extra $79.95p/m.
> Want to run a mail, web & ftp server, it's an extra $249.95p/m.
>
> In fact, I'm looking into DSL to run some stuff, which I'll mention on some
> of Dan's lists, once I put on my firesuit and anchor the chains down :-)
>
> Regards...Martin
> --
> ---------------
>
> A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
> -- Napoleon Bonaparte, "Maxims" 1804-1815
>
> *** End of forwarded message ***
>
>
>
> Regards...Martin
> --
> ---------------
>
> After I run your program, let's make love like crazed weasels, OK?
>
>
>
>
At 10:12 AM -0800 2/7/00, Brandon Dudley wrote:
>
>BTW: I work for excite@Home, and just wanted to let you know that the pricing
>and service levels and such are set by the cable partners, not by us.
>
>B
Who sets the policies, like "no servers" (whatever that means)? In
this day of HTML only documentation, it's difficult to get by without
running an HTTP server on one's house network. And I'm not allowed
to run X clients on remote machines, because I need an X "server"
running on my local machine? Personally I think that policy needs a
great deal of clarification.
I have an ATT@Home account, and I interpret that "no servers" to mean
that I shouldn't let others use my machines or bandwidth. I run
"servers" on my machines (qmail, for example), that are strictly
controlled either by passwords or by the remote IP addresses allowed
to access them or both. I run portsentry on my machine, which
listens on lots of ports (so I suppose could be considered a
"server"), so I can detect the script kiddies that hunt on @Home (and
recently, the scans for NNTP proxies from @Home itself) and take
appropriate action. That *I* should be able to use my own machines
from wherever I am on the Internet I take as a given. That's what
Internet connectivity is all about. I did it with dialups (machines
dialed in using cron so I could get to them while I was at work), so
I'll do it with cable.
--
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 693
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just rebuilt qmail-queue with the following lines in qmail-queue.c changed:
else
{
i = fmt_str(s,"by uid "); len += i; if (s) s += i;
i = fmt_ulong(s,uid); len += i; if (s) s += i;
}
to
else
{
i = fmt_str(s,"by user"); len += i; if (s) s += i;
/* i = fmt_ulong(s,uid); len += i; if (s) s += i; */
}
I think I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. :)
I moved it into /var/qmail/bin, set the ownership and permissions, and
it seems to work fine.
I just would like to make sure I'm not breaking anything else in the
qmail roundup by changing this. From what I can tell, nothing else
depends on the format of this string. Can anyone tell me if I'm right?
Thanks.
|
I've just installed qmail on my Linux in a NT Network.
The sending mail SMTP service is working fine, but POP3 service has
failed.
I've only added an user called marvel in this Linux station,
and the SMTP service (QMail/Linux) worked.
How can I set my MS-Outlook to check my e-mails
there?
How can I create a QMail / POP3 account to me?
My Outlook has returned this message:
The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'Teste Email
Interno', Server: 'halley.portway2.com', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL):
No, Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E
Thanks a lot
Marvel Carvalho
Portway Com. Importa��o e Serv.
Ltda.
Centro Comercial - Alphaville - SP
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fone/Fax: (11)
7291-7823
|
Hello All,
How can I create the following situation:
running the following goodies:
ezmlm-0.53
qmail-1.03
ucspi-tcp-0.84
daemontools-0.53
sqwebmail-0.31
autorespond-1.0.0
qmailadmin-0.26c
qmail-mrtg-0.1
vpopmail-3.4.11.released
i'm trying to find a way to make mail received by user FOO to be left
on mail server, and a copy sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I need to set up
a forward for user FOO, or an alias (or am I lost here)?
-Bill
what I am trying to do is make a duplicate of email re
At 9:20 PM -0500 2/6/00, Len Budney wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I would strongly recommend *against* using ORBS, because it blocks a
>> lot of legitimate mail.
>
>Agreed. (I cut a similar caution for space reasons; should've just omitted
>mention of ORBS.)
>
>Fascism is seductive to techies--in particular, the ORBS fellow does
>seem to have a bit of a god complex. <http://www.orbs.org/bugtraq.html>
>gives a good example.
>
>Len.
I use maildrop and a hacked version of rblcheck to simply add a
header to suspected spam. If the last server before ours matches RBL,
rblcheck's return code is incremented by 1. If it matches at
RBL.maps.vix.com, incremented by 2. DUL.maps.vix.com, by 4.
relays.mail-abuse.org, by 8. Then I throw the return value into the
header. The results have been informative.
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 03:58:15 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 2 FREE GAMBLING CRUISE TICKETS !!!! L@@K!!!!
Status: U
X-Spam: based on relay(1) 199.171.54.114
So in this case the spam was spotted by only ORBS. In the next
example, ORBS and relays.mail-abuse caught it:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc: <snipped for brevity>
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Earn Big $$$ From Home!
Status: U
X-Spam: based on relay(9) 205.168.240.10
And one that surely isn't spam:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:02:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MODIFY DOMAIN somedomain.com
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Spam: based on relay(1) 198.41.0.91
Status: U
ORBS catches a lot of spam, but they also hit a lot of big sites.
Like Network Solutions in the above example. PacBell Internet. Ebay.
Discover Brokerage. The thing is, all these sites DO HAVE open
relays. Just because they're big, they should be able to get away
with it? I've let all of them know (I'm sure they already knew), but
haven't seen any of them change it.
Anyway, the plan is to eventually let users decide for themselves how
much filtering they want, or if they're happy with just a header
being added. If they want to chance lost mail and use ORBS, that's
their choice.
jon
At 02:57 PM 2/5/00 -0500, Sam wrote or quoted:
>
>Last time I checked, DSL provider speakeasy.net's TOS/AUP explicitly
>allows their customers to run any server their heart desires, as long as
>it doesn't suck up gobs of bandwidth.
I recently purchased Speakeasy DSL, and that is essentially their policy.
They also disallow adult content servers and IRC servers, partly because
these tend to suck up gobs of bandwidth. Other than that, they have no real
restrictions; they just give you a pipe with all ports open, and it's up to
you what you want to do with those ports. They'll give you up to 8 static
IPs on a residential account, too.
My sign-up and setup experience with Speakeasy was great. Every time I've
called them, whether for technical- or sales-related calls, the phone has
been answered in under 5 minutes (usually under 30 seconds) and the person
on the other end has been friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable. The
installation and setup went smooth as silk. So far, I've had 100% uptime
since it was turned on (about two weeks ago).
The one thing I'd note is that their quality appears to vary regionally; on
www.dslreports.com, there are many people from Maryland complaining about
Speakeasy. You might want to check there and see what people in your
particular area are saying before signing up with them. (I'm in San
Francisco.) However, if you see positive and glowing reports like mine from
the folks in your area, believe them! At least in some cities, these people
really know how to run a DSL business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kai MacTane
System Administrator
Online Partners.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
steam-powered /adj./
Old-fashioned or underpowered; archaic. This term does not have a
strong negative loading and may even be used semi-affectionately for
something that clanks and wheezes a lot but hangs in there doing
the job.
Of what i remember from RFC 821, the null reverse-path is _not_ required, but
is rather mentioned as "one way" to get around the "bounce of a bounce"
problem.
Yes, all mailers should allow this, even though many spammers abuse it. True,
rejecting it can be considered breaking RFC-compliance. But it is by no means
required for use.
Or maybe i'm nitpicking.
ari
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 12:25:01PM -0600, Ronny Haryanto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm just wondering if
> >
> > MAIL FROM: <>
> >
> > in SMTP session is valid or not? From what I understand is that qmail
>
> Yes it's valid, it's actually even the required sender of a bounce.
>
> > uses that to send bounce messages. However some sites (particulary
> > ones using IMail v5) rejects that sender saying "501 bogus mail from".
>
> They suck.
>
> > I don't care if the sender doesn't receive the bounce back, heck I
> > tried to send bounce message but they rejects it. It's just annoying,
> > especially if this is valid, not bogus.
>
> It is valid, and required, to prevent bounces bouncing :)
>
> > I have contacted a rep from IMail, but no response. Here's the
> > website: http://www.ipswitch.com/products/IMail_Server/index.asp
>
> It's ipswitch. It ends with .asp. I'm not touching that with a forty-foot
> pole (no don't start a holy war on me now :)
>
> Greetz, Peter.
> --
> Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder
> |
> | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
> | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.'
> | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
--
.------------------------Ari Edelkind--------------------------.
Unix Systems and Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Health Research Institute (212) Phone: 578 0822
New York, NY [USA] Fax : 576 8442
`--------------------------------------------------------------'
You've misread the spelling of 'MUST' in sections 5.2.9 and 5.3.3 of
RFC 1123.
-- Jeff Hayward
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:
Of what i remember from RFC 821, the null reverse-path is _not_ required, but
is rather mentioned as "one way" to get around the "bounce of a bounce"
problem.
Yes, all mailers should allow this, even though many spammers abuse it. True,
rejecting it can be considered breaking RFC-compliance. But it is by no means
required for use.
Or maybe i'm nitpicking.
ari
Actually, i haven't. Section 5.2.9 states the following:
An empty reverse path MUST be supported.
I clearly stated that this was not in dispute.
Section 5.3.3 does indeed state that the null return-path _is_ required for
use, however references itself with section 3.6 of RFC 821, which is the actual
specification of the SMTP protocol. Section 3.6 of RFC 821, however, does
_not_ state that the null return-path is required when sending bounces. It
clearly states that the null return-path is _one_ option:
One way to prevent loops in error reporting is to specify a null
reverse-path in the MAIL command of a notification message. When such
a message is relayed it is permissible to leave the reverse-path null.
I stand by my original statement.
ari
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said this stuff:
> You've misread the spelling of 'MUST' in sections 5.2.9 and 5.3.3 of
> RFC 1123.
>
> -- Jeff Hayward
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:
>
> Of what i remember from RFC 821, the null reverse-path is _not_ required, but
> is rather mentioned as "one way" to get around the "bounce of a bounce"
> problem.
>
> Yes, all mailers should allow this, even though many spammers abuse it. True,
> rejecting it can be considered breaking RFC-compliance. But it is by no means
> required for use.
>
> Or maybe i'm nitpicking.
>
> ari
>
>
>
--
.------------------------Ari Edelkind--------------------------.
Unix Systems and Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Health Research Institute (212) Phone: 578 0822
New York, NY [USA] Fax : 576 8442
`--------------------------------------------------------------'
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:
> Section 5.3.3 does indeed state that the null return-path _is_ required for
> use, however references itself with section 3.6 of RFC 821, which is the actual
> specification of the SMTP protocol. Section 3.6 of RFC 821, however, does
> _not_ state that the null return-path is required when sending bounces. It
> clearly states that the null return-path is _one_ option:
5.3.3 of RFC 1123 amends 3.6 of RFC 821 stating "<>" is the _one_
and _only_ option.
This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path
in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821.
> > Yes, all mailers should allow this, even though many spammers abuse it.
Perhaps I am not spammed by the right set of spammers but the amount of
spams having a null return-path I have ever received is less than 1 % of
the the total.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
I'm trying to run a program for each email sent to a certain address. So I
have a .qmail file in the correct directory, which looks something like
this:
|/var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/local/junk/test
The app (/usr/local/junk/test) is very security conscious. It checks itself
for permissions, which must be 770 else it complains and doesn't run.
Lets also say that the app has another requirement of owner/group =
test/testgrp. I've placed all the qmail users in the group testgrp
(qmaild,qmaill,qmailp,qmailq,qmailr,qmails), so the 770 access should be
enough for qmail to run the app. I've tested this by giving qmailq a shell
and logging in to verify the user has permissions to run the app.
qmail still complains about not being able to access the file.
If I change the permissions on the test app to 777, then qmail has no
problem, but the security-anal app refuses to run in such a configuration.
Has anyone run into such a problem? Does qmail honor group permissions?
Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
- Scott M
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to run a program for each email sent to a certain address. So I
> have a .qmail file in the correct directory, which looks something like
> this:
>
> |/var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/local/junk/test
>
> The app (/usr/local/junk/test) is very security conscious. It checks itself
> for permissions, which must be 770 else it complains and doesn't run.
770 is not VERY security conscious :)
>
> Lets also say that the app has another requirement of owner/group =
> test/testgrp. I've placed all the qmail users in the group testgrp
> (qmaild,qmaill,qmailp,qmailq,qmailr,qmails), so the 770 access should be
> enough for qmail to run the app. I've tested this by giving qmailq a shell
> and logging in to verify the user has permissions to run the app.
Bad ideas. By the time a .qmail file is accessed, the effective uid
and gid have been changed to the user for whom the mail message was
intended (see the qmail pictures). So making the qmail users (qmaild
etc) members of group testgrp is not going to help. Also giving qmailq
a shell is a potential security nightmare - change it back now!
>
> qmail still complains about not being able to access the file.
The user for whom the mail is destined needs to be in the group
testgrp to execute the file. It sounds like this is not the case in
your current environment.
>
> If I change the permissions on the test app to 777, then qmail has no
> problem, but the security-anal app refuses to run in such a configuration.
Of course. See above. Also see the qmail pictures again - especially
the local delivery diagrams.
>
> Has anyone run into such a problem? Does qmail honor group permissions?
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Consultant or at present:
eServ. Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 2 9206 3410 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
Thanks for the response, Peter. Yes, the "security" of the app is not my
doing (otherwise I wouldn't have this problem at all!). And, yes, I removed
the shell from qmailq almost as soon as I added it.
Unfortunately my problem persists. I was hoping to not cloud this discussion
with our site-specific implementation, but...
We've hacked qmail to not set uid/gid on delivery (actually the recipient
doesn't even have an account on the machine). So, the uid/gid of the process
running the .qmail is indeed qmailq/qmail.
This is why is seems strange that with qmail in the testgrp group it still
complains.
Thanks for the help all the same.
- Scott M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 4:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Running Programs in .qmail
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to run a program for each email sent to a
> certain address. So I
> > have a .qmail file in the correct directory, which looks
> something like
> > this:
> >
> > |/var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/local/junk/test
> >
> > The app (/usr/local/junk/test) is very security conscious.
> It checks itself
> > for permissions, which must be 770 else it complains and
> doesn't run.
>
> 770 is not VERY security conscious :)
>
> >
> > Lets also say that the app has another requirement of owner/group =
> > test/testgrp. I've placed all the qmail users in the group testgrp
> > (qmaild,qmaill,qmailp,qmailq,qmailr,qmails), so the 770
> access should be
> > enough for qmail to run the app. I've tested this by giving
> qmailq a shell
> > and logging in to verify the user has permissions to run the app.
>
> Bad ideas. By the time a .qmail file is accessed, the effective uid
> and gid have been changed to the user for whom the mail message was
> intended (see the qmail pictures). So making the qmail users (qmaild
> etc) members of group testgrp is not going to help. Also giving qmailq
> a shell is a potential security nightmare - change it back now!
>
> >
> > qmail still complains about not being able to access the file.
>
> The user for whom the mail is destined needs to be in the group
> testgrp to execute the file. It sounds like this is not the case in
> your current environment.
>
> >
> > If I change the permissions on the test app to 777, then
> qmail has no
> > problem, but the security-anal app refuses to run in such a
> configuration.
>
> Of course. See above. Also see the qmail pictures again - especially
> the local delivery diagrams.
>
> >
> > Has anyone run into such a problem? Does qmail honor group
> permissions?
>
> Regards
> Peter
> ----------
> Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Technical Consultant or at present:
> eServ. Pty Ltd
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: +61 2 9206 3410 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
>
> "If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have
> happy ones left"
>
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for the response, Peter. Yes, the "security" of the app is not my
> doing (otherwise I wouldn't have this problem at all!). And, yes, I removed
> the shell from qmailq almost as soon as I added it.
>
> Unfortunately my problem persists. I was hoping to not cloud this discussion
> with our site-specific implementation, but...
>
> We've hacked qmail to not set uid/gid on delivery (actually the recipient
> doesn't even have an account on the machine). So, the uid/gid of the process
> running the .qmail is indeed qmailq/qmail.
Then you should have told us from the outset :) Site specific mods are
almost always the cause of the problem. Any reason why you did this?
You can use the /var/qmail/users/assign mechanism to allow non
existant "users" to receive mail as a specified user - alias for
example or some other trusted user. That's the approach I would be
taking to this problem.
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Consultant or at present:
eServ. Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 2 9206 3410 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
Greetings -
I'm trying to configure QMail to accept and locally deliver mail (using
/bin/mail on a Solaris 2.6 machine) for only one specific e-mail address,
and forward ALL other e-mail messages to the Corporate mail hub.
I'm sure there is probably an easy way to do this, but I cannot seem to
get it to work. Can anyone offer any suggestions? Thanks!
- Mike
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Borowiec - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tellabs Operations, Inc.
Lead Engineer, Engineering Software Tools 4951 Indiana Ave., MS 57
630-512-8019 FAX: 630-512-7010 Lisle, IL 60532 USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:05:20PM -0600, Mike Borowiec wrote:
> Greetings -
> I'm trying to configure QMail to accept and locally deliver mail (using
> /bin/mail on a Solaris 2.6 machine) for only one specific e-mail address,
> and forward ALL other e-mail messages to the Corporate mail hub.
>
> I'm sure there is probably an easy way to do this, but I cannot seem to
> get it to work. Can anyone offer any suggestions? Thanks!
Local domains
The definition of a "local" maildomain is that all local users (i.e. default
those in /etc/passwd) has a mailadress on the form <user>@<domain>. This
will NOT be overridden by any virtual domain with the same name.
As soon as one wants to not deliver all mail for a domain locally it's often
much wiser to make it virtual. The alternative is to divert the mail from
within the users home directories (their .qmail-files).
For doing efficient mail hosting that is easy to maintain and debug, it's
always best to have local delivery of mail to the mailhost. I.e. if your
mailhost is called gandalf.foobar.net, then that very host accepts mail for
that local domain. When splitting domain delivery, it's always easiest to
take advantage of that local mailhost domain delivery.
One local user, the rest to somewhere else
==========================================
1. Domain handling
Put the all the domains in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts like this:
foobar.net
gandalf.foobar.net
2. Put the domain in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains:
foobar.net:alias-foobar
DO NOT domains in locals if you have them in virtualdomains!
3. Put the HOSTNAME of the mailhost in /var/qmail/control/locals:
gandalf.foobar.net
4. Create local delivering alias
Now all mail to foobar.net is handled by ~alias/.qmail-foobar-*
which means that you can create a ~alias/.qmail-foobar-joe and put
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in this file. This will locally deliver joes mail.
Repeat this step if you have more aliases that should be delivered
locally.
5. Create forwarding alias
You want to forward all other mail to the central mailhub.
(Let's assume that host is called biffo.foobar.net)
Then create a ~alias/.qmail-foobar-default that will handle mail to
~alias/.qmail-foobar-* where * is a username.
Put this line into the file:
|forward "${DEFAULT}@biffo.foobar.net"
This will forward [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the central mailhub
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
> - Mike
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Borowiec - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tellabs Operations, Inc.
> Lead Engineer, Engineering Software Tools 4951 Indiana Ave., MS 57
> 630-512-8019 FAX: 630-512-7010 Lisle, IL 60532 USA
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
http://x42.com/
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Say NO to HTML in email and news
x
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said this stuff:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, ari wrote:
>
> > Section 5.3.3 does indeed state that the null return-path _is_ required for
> > use, however references itself with section 3.6 of RFC 821, which is the actual
> > specification of the SMTP protocol. Section 3.6 of RFC 821, however, does
> > _not_ state that the null return-path is required when sending bounces. It
> > clearly states that the null return-path is _one_ option:
>
> 5.3.3 of RFC 1123 amends 3.6 of RFC 821 stating "<>" is the _one_
> and _only_ option.
>
> This notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path
> in the envelope; see Section 3.6 of RFC-821.
>
It's possible this is an amendment, but i am inclined to believe otherwise, as
other amendments are stated as such:
[4.1.3.4]
The description of the 110 reply on pp. 40-41 of RFC-959 is
incorrect; the correct description is as follows.
[4.2.2.2]
The Length field of a UDP header is incorrectly defined; it
includes the UDP header length (8).
[5.2.14]
The military time zones are specified incorrectly in RFC-822:
they count the wrong way from UT (the signs are reversed).
... whereas in this case, the reader is simply referred to RFC 821. It may be
argued that the errors stated are of a different nature, but the amendments of
a similar nature are generally given individual discussions. To me, it seems
like either an erroneous statement or an oversight from discussion. Perhaps
the statement just lacks the clarity i would like. Either way, i yield; i see
this discussion going only in circles.
> Perhaps I am not spammed by the right set of spammers but the amount of
> spams having a null return-path I have ever received is less than 1 % of
> the the total.
If you wish, i will forward you some of what my users complain about. We keep
a rather hefty spam-blocking list, but these are unstoppable with our current
anti-spam implementation (using the RBL will keep some legitimate mail from
us). About 5% of our spam yields a null return-path.
ari
--
.------------------------Ari Edelkind--------------------------.
Unix Systems and Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Health Research Institute (212) Phone: 578 0822
New York, NY [USA] Fax : 576 8442
`--------------------------------------------------------------'
Hello,
I'm fairly new to qmail, but I seemed to get ezmlm working with it quite
well last week without too much trouble. However, our web site hosts
upgraded their server (I'm not certain if qmail was part of the change), but
after the upgrade ezmlm moderation requests fail when they try to send the
approved message:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at server.bogus.net.
> 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]>:
> ezmlm-moderate: fatal: unable to execute
> /web/sites/bogus.com/bin/ezmlm-send
> '/web/sites/bogus.com/qmaildir/news': file does not exist
> ezmlm-moderate: fatal: Fatal error from child
It seems that ezmlm-moderate can't find ezmlm-send. I've checked and
ezmlm-send is exactly where it has always been and it matches the path given
above.
To make things simpler, I created a simple .qmail file apart from ezmlm with
similar results. I put a test script in /web/sites/bogus.com/bin and create
a .qmail that contained '|preline /web/sites/bogus.com/bin/test'. This
message was very similar from this test.
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at server.bogus.net.
> 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]>:
> preline: fatal: unable to run /web/sites/bogus.com/bin/test: file does
> not exist
The permissions on both files are the same: 755.
Any help would be much appreciated,
Thanks,
Ron
Sigh - I just went through this last month with relay issues between Qmail
and Sendmail - and now I've got the same problem with Qmail to Qmail..
I've got Qmail on a DMZ host. No percenthack, good rcpthosts file/etc.
Relaying of the form "user@remote" to "user@remote2" fails as expected. Mail
from "user@remote" to "user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is accepted and passed onto
our internal LAN Qmail server. Now the DMZ host is on a different subnet than
our LAN - so the LAN Qmail server thinks the incoming SMTP session is from a
foreigner - but it still accepts it...
If I connect from the DMZ host to the interal LAN Qmail server and attempt a
manual "user@remote" to "user@remote2" - that fails with the "no relaying"
error. However "user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is accepted and past onto the
appropriate smtproute rule. End result, relaying does occur...
Why does Qmail treat xxx@sss@ttt addresses differently than it treats
xxx@sss addresses when it comes to relaying checks?
Anyone know how this is meant to be worked around?
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 8 Feb 00, at 15:22, Jason Haar wrote:
> I've got Qmail on a DMZ host. No percenthack, good rcpthosts file/etc.
> Relaying of the form "user@remote" to "user@remote2" fails as
> expected. Mail from "user@remote" to "user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is
> accepted and passed onto our internal LAN Qmail server.
Why not? I mean, this address should mean "local user
user@remote2 at our.domain". Unless something is terribly
misconfigures, user@remote2 is a local username, not a remote
user at remote2 machine.
> Now the DMZ
> host is on a different subnet than our LAN - so the LAN Qmail server
> thinks the incoming SMTP session is from a foreigner - but it still
> accepts it...
OK, so it accepts it. Does it bounce it, or does it deliver it?
> If I connect from the DMZ host to the interal LAN Qmail server and
> attempt a manual "user@remote" to "user@remote2" - that fails with the
> "no relaying" error. However "user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is accepted and
> past onto the appropriate smtproute rule. End result, relaying does
> occur...
Does it really occur? If yes, we need to see how exactly you pass
the message from DMZ to LAN. Normal smtproutes forwarding
does not change the RCPT TO: address, ie. the local LAN server
still sees "user@[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and bounces it back
claiming "no such local mailbox user@remote2". Does that not
happen?
> Why does Qmail treat xxx@sss@ttt addresses differently than it treats
> xxx@sss addresses when it comes to relaying checks?
It does not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOJ/oDFMwP8g7qbw/EQKk+wCg4L8VHjBvBnP84gtGaY+T+ehWzY0AoM6u
LIi9vW1HbV2Hr4YWcG94L34P
=VGgB
-----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 Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 08:55:17AM -0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
[blah]
> > Why does Qmail treat xxx@sss@ttt addresses differently than it treats
> > xxx@sss addresses when it comes to relaying checks?
>
> It does not.
Actually, xxx@sss is treated just like that: xxx@sss. But xxx@sss@ttt is
treated like xxx@ttt - qmail-smtpd doesn't care what's before the last '@'.
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder
|
| 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
| C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.'
| Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
Is qmail expected to add a Delivered-To header of the form:
Delivered-To: <user>@<domain>.com@<domain>.com
?
If this is expeted, why and what meaning does it have?
- Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is qmail expected to add a Delivered-To header of the form:
>
> Delivered-To: <user>@<domain>.com@<domain>.com
>
> ?
Well, normally you expect to see a Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If this is expeted, why and what meaning does it have?
The Delivered-To: header is expected, but if you see these kinds of funny
addresses in there, something is seriously fubared in your setup.
--
Sam
Hi
Our company is interested in implementing web based IMAP 4 email delivery
system.
It is equivalent to hotmail and yahoo mail.
Could you pls suggest few softwares available in the market.
Thanks in advance.
Thiru
Arumugam Thiruppathi writes:
> Hi
>
> Our company is interested in implementing web based IMAP 4 email delivery
> system.
I'm really curious: what is a "web based IMAP 4 email delivery system"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
> It is equivalent to hotmail and yahoo mail.
Really?
Neither Hotmail, not Yahoo mail, offer IMAP 4 access, the last time I
checked. Therefore, you probably need to restate your inquiry in more
meaningful terms...
--
Sam
|
I've just installed in a fresh new RedHat 6.0 server,
qmail-1.03-102.memphis rpm as well as qmail-run-4-4 rpm.
After the normal installation i did:
chkconfig qmail-pop3.init on
POP3 starts all right after reboot, but i can't read my email
via POP3 client (outlook 4.72.3110.5), funny thing is i can't find a Maildir in
any new users directory, any help?
I know it must be a simple detail i'm missing, but i can't
figure it out.
Thanx in advance.
Have a nice day.
Ing. Jos� Rodr�guez Alarc�n
|
[I sent a similar message before to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and never saw it. I
apologise if you've gotten this twice.]
I want to set up a two-tiered mail architecture, with a very high uptime
qmail server at the top, and a less reliable exchange server below (I have
no choice at all in the latter).
What I'd like the qmail box to do for incoming SMTP mail from the world is
check to see if user is local, and if not, kick it down to exchange.
But I'd like to tell exchange to use the qmail box as a relay, and this
introduces the dilemma.
What if an exchange user needs to send mail to a mailbox local to the qmail
server? I don't know, but maybe I can tell it "If you don't know this local
address, relay it to the qmail box."
But then a bad address in the local domain will always start a mail loop and
end up in postmaster.
I really don't want to split the mail users into subdomains. And I don't
want to trade email directory info between the two systems (if it has to
happen, it has to be automatic and immediate ).
So, is this doable with qmail configuration? Has someone done something
similar?If I have to, I can modify code as needed, but I'd prefer not to
just to keep things standard here.
Sean
>[I sent a similar message before to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and never saw it. I
>apologise if you've gotten this twice.]
It went through, and mine was the only reply, and it was several days
later. That's okay, I think both your and my messages are more organized
this time ;>
>I want to set up a two-tiered mail architecture, with a very high uptime
>qmail server at the top, and a less reliable exchange server below (I have
>no choice at all in the latter).
I run this setup. I prefer to have SMTP<->Internet done by qmail for
security, reliability, performance, and trackability.
>What I'd like the qmail box to do for incoming SMTP mail from the world is
>check to see if user is local, and if not, kick it down to exchange.
All easily enough done - the FAQ has an entry on this, as follows:
]How do I forward unrecognized usernames to another host? With sendmail
]I had a LUSER_RELAY pointing at bigbang.af.mil.
]
]Answer: Put
] | forward "$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
]into ~alias/.qmail-default.
>But I'd like to tell exchange to use the qmail box as a relay, and this
>introduces the dilemma.
>
>What if an exchange user needs to send mail to a mailbox local to the qmail
>server? I don't know, but maybe I can tell it "If you don't know this local
>address, relay it to the qmail box."
I'd have to doublecheck my systems, but I think that's the default
behavior of Exchange when told to relay. If it doesn't recognize an SMTP
address, it'll punt it whether it is technically "local" or not. If I'm
wrong on this, I'll correct myself tomorrow when I'm back in the office.
>But then a bad address in the local domain will always start a mail loop
and
>end up in postmaster.
Yes. I'm not sure it would go through as many loops as you'd expect,
but I'd have to doublecheck that too. But I'm not sure I see why that
matters - a bad address is a bounce is a bounce, whether it loops or not.
And since your Exchange servers will be using the Exchange directory for
most local mail users, you'll probably see this very rarely.
In short, I wouldn't lose sleep over this aspect of it.
>I really don't want to split the mail users into subdomains. And I don't
>want to trade email directory info between the two systems (if it has to
>happen, it has to be automatic and immediate ).
>
>So, is this doable with qmail configuration? Has someone done something
>similar?If I have to, I can modify code as needed, but I'd prefer not to
>just to keep things standard here.
With the caveats of the things I want to doublecheck above, you should
be able to do this with a standard configuration. My config suffers a
little from being legacy (we went from an interim qmail+cyrus system to a
qmail -> exchange system).
I'll take a look tomorrow and comment again.
--Greg
Im running the following :
Internet feed -> qmail -> Exchange (delivered)
and back out again
Exchange (mail sent from user) -> qmail -> Internet delivery
what I did was, slowly migrate everyone to exchange client (outlook) and
created 2 email address in their profile on exchange ; like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& [EMAIL PROTECTED]
greg is correct.
in the routing tab in the IMS, I route all "domain.com" back to my qmail
machine (Route to:), this works well becuase any accouts that arent yet on
Exchange will get forwarded back to qmail for delivery, any accounts that
are on exchange will be treated locally and delivered instantly.
I just setup a .qmail for each user to forward messages to exchange using
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address, once im complete ill add a smtproute
to control/smtproutes
hope this helps,
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Surely someone has done this...
>What if an exchange user needs to send mail to a mailbox local to the qmail
>server? I don't know, but maybe I can tell it "If you don't know this local
>address, relay it to the qmail box."
I'd have to doublecheck my systems, but I think that's the default
behavior of Exchange when told to relay. If it doesn't recognize an SMTP
address, it'll punt it whether it is technically "local" or not. If I'm
wrong on this, I'll correct myself tomorrow when I'm back in the office.
>But then a bad address in the local domain will always start a mail loop
and
>end up in postmaster.
Yes. I'm not sure it would go through as many loops as you'd expect,
but I'd have to doublecheck that too. But I'm not sure I see why that
matters - a bad address is a bounce is a bounce, whether it loops or not.
And since your Exchange servers will be using the Exchange directory for
most local mail users, you'll probably see this very rarely.
In short, I wouldn't lose sleep over this aspect of it.
>I really don't want to split the mail users into subdomains. And I don't
>want to trade email directory info between the two systems (if it has to
>happen, it has to be automatic and immediate ).
>
>So, is this doable with qmail configuration? Has someone done something
>similar?If I have to, I can modify code as needed, but I'd prefer not to
>just to keep things standard here.
With the caveats of the things I want to doublecheck above, you should
be able to do this with a standard configuration. My config suffers a
little from being legacy (we went from an interim qmail+cyrus system to a
qmail -> exchange system).
I'll take a look tomorrow and comment again.
--Greg
Where can I find ETRN patch for qmail?
Sifat.
How can I know whether environment variable RELAYCLIENT is set and what its
value is?
Sifat.
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 10:46:47AM +0600, Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary wrote:
> How can I know whether environment variable RELAYCLIENT is set and what its
> value is?
Where?
It's major use is in combination with tcpserver.
Here's a little test daemon that could be used to show the concept:
--%<--- cut here ---
#!/usr/bin/perl
# testd.pl; Magnus Bodin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use strict;
while (<>)
{
my $file = "$^T.$$";
open LOG, ">$file" or die "couln't open $file: $!";
foreach (sort keys %ENV)
{
chomp;
print LOG "$_ = $ENV{$_}\n";
}
close LOG;
}
--%<--- cut here ---
Here's the contents of tcp.test at a start:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
Rebuild tcp.test.cdb like this:
tcprules ./tcp.test.cdb ./tcp.test.tmp < ./tcp.test
And start the daemon like this:
tcpserver -v -xtcp.test.cdb 0 4000 ./testd.pl &
telnet to port 4000 from different machines and with different content in
tcp.test.cdb (see manual for tcpserver in ucspi-tcp-package.
Look in the logfiles for results.
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
Hi there,
I'm using daemontools-0.61 to monitor the qmail-1.03 processes
running on my mail server but for some reason, I have to use
syslog instead of multilog or qfilelog to do the loggings.
I tried to put something like
exec splogger qmail
in the ./log/run script file and it seems OK but am still wondering
if there is any potential problem with a configuration like this.
Any idea will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
----------
W.H Li
|
I have setup my Qmail Server using Procmail to
deliver mails to /var/spool/mail. I experimented Maildir format. I have 200+
users on this machine. Now I wanted to switch back to Procmail. As far as
Documnetation and my knowledge is concerned, I have made each and every thing to
bring Qmail to Procmail. But now, QMail always searches for a Mailbox. Amzingly,
not Maildir and not Procmail. Mailbox !!!!
Anyone with some experience or
opinion????
|
I have a box that dials up to an ISP and disconnects etc etc.
I have followed Doug Vander Woude's documentation on Mail Queue, and it
works a treat, for what it does. But I'm getting greedy now, and I want
things to be a little more dynamic. Instead of the queue being used all the
time and mail sent when the link comes up, I want qmail to send out the PPP
if it is up, or place it in the queue if the PPP is down.
This way, if I am online for 40-50 mins I wouldn't have to wait for the
link to go down then back up again (as Dougs solution involves the queue
being flushed on ip-up) or I wouldn't have to manually instruct the queue
to be flushed, when the link is up.
Has anybody thought of (and made) a reliable system for this. I came up
with some nasty polling scripts that get run when the PPP is open, sending
the queued mail every 30 second, but I figured the must be a much more
eloquent method.
I'm sure somebody can suggest a method.
Cheers
Shem
Happy Lunar New Year
I installed qmail 1.03-9 (rpm) on RH6.1 (2.2.12). I also want to install
qmail-pop3d, qmail-qmqpd, qmail-qmtpd, qmail-utils (rpm) also. when I
install qmail-qmqpd, the rpm ask me to install qmail-queue first by
dependence. anyone know how to install qmail-queue ?
New to Qmail..
Keith
