qmail Digest 8 Mar 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 934
Topics (messages 38289 through 38315):
Re: About authentication with Maildir
38289 by: Bernat Ginard
_I_couldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._
38290 by: Crow, Ian
dnscache reports zero ttl - is that a problem?
38291 by: torben fjerdingstad
38292 by: Anand Buddhdev
qmail-send error
38293 by: Benjamin de los Angeles Jr.
38294 by: Anand Buddhdev
Re: problems with qmail-pop3d
38295 by: Mate Wierdl
qmail ok, but don't deliver, more details
38296 by: dukedavide.libero.it
Re: moving from mbox to maildir.
38297 by: Len Budney
Reg:subscribing
38298 by: ravivr.hss.hns.com
stuck in queue
38299 by: Joel Dudley
qmail-queue exiting 111???
38300 by: Jason Haar
Problems with qmail-pop
38301 by: Alberto Ladron
virtual dom: someone else rewriting "To" header!
38302 by: Bryan Curnutt
38303 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
38304 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
38305 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
38309 by: Bryan Curnutt
mail quota with return mail function
38306 by: Kristina
38307 by: RaTao von J
38308 by: Kristina
38310 by: RaTao von J
38311 by: Kristina
38312 by: RaTao von J
38313 by: Kristina
38314 by: RaTao von J
better ddelay but worse xdelay after re-setting concurrency
38315 by: mack.ms1.hinet.net
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I use vpopmail instead of checkpassword so I may be wrong, but I think
to use pop you can't use mailboxes, I think it only works with maildirs.
Use tcpserver instead of inetd (is the recomended way in the
documentation). And don't worry for ezmlm it doesn't work directly on
the maildirs or mailboxes so you can use maildirs (I do and it works
fine)
mulin wrote:
>
> Hello qmail,
> I change sendmail from RedHat 5.9 to qmail because I freshmeat in
> Linux commonwealth and sendmail is very complicated to me.
> First I setuped (or installed) qmail with using Maildir structure.
> But then I decided to use ezmlm mail list service. But it doesn't
> work with Maildir as far as I know (I read ezmlm documentation and
> didn't find there anything about ezmlm & Maildir in qmail system).
> So I returned Mailbox structure by changing some files. I achieved
> qmail was forwarding and recieving mail, but I couldn't get mail by
> pop3 because of authentication error. I tried to make setuid root
> to /bin/checkpassword as it was mentioned in one resent letter, but
> it didn't work - the result is the same. My settings in /etc/inetd.conf
> pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup
> MYHOST.MYDOMAIN.COM /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
> Please help who knows where a dogs is buried.
>
> Best regards,
> mulin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Bernat Ginard Llad�
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kaos.es
Hello all
I'm having trouble getting mail to send from a Linux box.
I had qmail 1.01 set up to send mail, but wanted to get the SMTP daemon
working. To help me follow instructions relating to inetd I figured I'd
upgrade to 1.03.
I started seeing this when sending a message (and the message never got
sent...):
Mar 6 17:44:47 box qmail: 952364687.681043 delivery 42: deferral:
Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/
I've been experimenting most of the day, but can't figure out what's wrong.
Here's the setup:
RedHat 5.2
qmail 1.03
Dial-up link to ISP
The following domains, etc are involved:
mydomain.demon.co.uk - A domain with a real MX record
fake-domain.com - A domain we use locally, no DNS server, just hosts
box.fake-domain.com - The Linux server
There's one other thing that might be confusing when looking through the
following. The aim is for the Linux box to send all mail (even for local
users) out to the ISP mail relay, so that its available to them while
they're not in the office. This is why I want mail from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to travel down
the wire, and not simply be routed to a local mail store. I haven't done
anything to influence this behaviour as far as I'm aware, and don't think
this is part of my problem. I'm mentioning it just so it doesn't confuse you
in the following.
If I run qmail-inject -n I get, which looks right:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 6 Mar 2000 17:39:07 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "My Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I drop the -n to qmail-inject so that things really happen I get, which
is not so good:
Mar 6 17:37:57 box qmail: 952364277.225610 new msg 67796
Mar 6 17:37:57 box qmail: 952364277.242731 info msg 67796: bytes 251 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2284 uid 500
Mar 6 17:37:57 box qmail: 952364277.377483 starting delivery 39: msg 67796
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 6 17:37:57 box qmail: 952364277.378444 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Mar 6 17:37:57 box qmail: 952364277.420403 delivery 39: deferral:
Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_a_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/
Mar 6 17:37:57 box qmail: 952364277.421614 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
I tracked down the error message to qmail_remote.c (the sharp eyed will have
noticed I changed 'any' to 'a' in the error message to make sure I'd got the
right spot), and added some code to dump the qmail-remote command line:
argv[0] = qmail-remote
argv[1] = mydomain.demon.co.uk
argv[2] = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
argv[3] = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I then found that I could invoke qmail-remote directly and successfully send
the message:
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-remote mydomain.demon.co.uk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a test
rK194.217.242.92 accepted message.
Remote host said: 250 OK id=12S1TY-000CyR-0Y
So, I'm now completely stumped. My best guess is that something in the
environment of the daemon processes is stopping the name lookup working. Two
things make me think this: a) The error is about name resolution; b) The
dial-up link doesn't fire up, which it does if I do the qmail-remote
directly.
Any ideas anyone?
IanC
____________________________________________________________
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
____________________________________________________________
It seems that DJB's dnscache makes all ttl's look like zero.
Is that an expected behaviour? Is it a problem?
Example:
$ dig darenet.dk mx
[cut]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
darenet.dk. 0S IN MX 10 mail.net.uni-c.dk.
Asking the master, I get the truth:
$ dig darenet.dk @ns-soa.darenet.dk mx
[cut]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
darenet.dk. 1D IN MX 10 mail.net.uni-c.dk.
Is everything OK?
The dnscache is behind a firewall, so you won't be able to
try it.
I apologize if you think I should have asked somewhere else.
(where would that be?).
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 02:21:09PM +0100, torben fjerdingstad wrote:
> I apologize if you think I should have asked somewhere else.
> (where would that be?).
I don't have an answer for the DNS problem, but you should join up the
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> list and discuss this issue there.
--
See complete headers for more info
what's the meaning of this error message?
alert: cannot start: hath the daemon spawn no fire?
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 09:38:28PM +0800, Benjamin de los Angeles Jr. wrote:
> what's the meaning of this error message?
>
> alert: cannot start: hath the daemon spawn no fire?
Either there is a serious configuration error, or there is a temporary
lack of resources like memory or file descriptors.
man qmail-log
--
See complete headers for more info
The problem is
nslookup -query=ptr 209.115.163.67
Server: pluto.msci.memphis.edu
Address: 141.225.11.59
*** pluto.msci.memphis.edu can't find 67.163.115.209.in-addr.arpa.:
Non-existent host/domain
This gives hard error.
Mate
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Hi
I add more details to my previous mail ("qmail ok, but don't deliver")
if i do a "ps -ef|grep mail":
root 3455 3454 0 10:09 pts/1 00:00:01 supervise qmail-send
root 3457 3454 0 10:09 pts/1 00:00:00 supervise qmail-smtpd
qmaill 3461 3456 0 10:09 pts/1 00:00:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/l
qmaill 3462 3458 0 10:09 pts/1 00:00:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/l
root 13306 3455 0 16:02 pts/1 00:00:00 supervise qmail-send
this because a person tell me to control that the qmail-send run
properly, and i think so.... but the mail continue to stay in queue
and does not deliver.
Thanks.
"Russell P. Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Eric Lalonde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [ 6 Mar 2000 22:09]:
>
> > ...where do i copy currently unchecked email in /var/spool/mail,
> > so that this mail will be listed under Maildir as 'unchecked' email?
>
> See for example: <http://madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca/qmail/mbox2maildir>
> for a perl script written by Ivan Kohler.
Or, if you're more anal about strict conformity to the maildir algorithm,
you can try safecat:
<http://www.pobox.com/~lbudney/linux/software/safecat.html>
Use formail to split the mbox into messages, and safecat to filter each
one. There's a one-liner on the one-liners page, reachable from the
main safecat page.
The point of safecat is that it returns success if and only if the
message is delivered successfully. You should arrange to catch the
exit status of safecat, and try again for any mbox for which safecat
fails (which is unlikely to happen in the first place).
Len.
--
Use prime numbers so that the hashing works well. (``Oh, that's what
/usr/games/primes is for.'')
-- Dan Bernstein
well I thoght I had my qmail working, but I have a little problem. I was
sending some test messages to some accounts on the server and they never got
there. I never got a undeliverable mail message so I was wondering where they
went. I did /usr/local/sbin/qmail queue and saw them in the queue. I am not
sure what I am doing wrong here and it is driving me bonkers, I have been
trying to set this server up for 3 days!!! Now when I do a
/usr/local/sbin/qmail doqueue I get the following mesasage:
sending ALRM to qmail-send.
tcpserver: fatal anable to bind: address already in use.
I just dont know what to do. If I use lsof I see that tcpserver is using posts
25 and 110 so why do I get that error?? What I am trtying to do is use qmail
as an smtp server and a pop server using vpopmail. I set it up according to
life with qmail. Can anyone (PLEASE) loom at my config files below and offer
helpful comments. My boss is breathing down my neck and I really want to prove
to him that Linux is a good thing to have in our office. Thanks a million in
advance.
This is my qmail startup file located in /etc/rc.d/init.d/
#!/bin/sh
PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
export PATH
#tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup nixmail.silverw.com \
#/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
tcpserver -uvpopmail_uid -gvpopmail_gid 0 110 \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup nixmail.silverw.com \
/home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
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: $0 {start|stop|restart|doqueue|reload|stat|pause|cont|cdb|queue|help}"
exit 1
;;
esac
exit 0
This is my /var/qmail/rc
#!/bin/sh
# Using stdout for logging
# Using control/defaultdelivery from qmail-local to deliver messages by default
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start "`cat /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery`"
I also have run files for supervise according to LWQ
any ideas and comments are welcome. Sorry for the huge e-mail!!!!!
- Joel Dudley
Network Administrator
MCSE and Linux wannabe
Wierd thing.
My qmail-queue replacement that does virus scanning - scan4virus - is
registering a exit status 111 when it forks a call to the real qmail-queue.
Testing has shown that this only occurs when hops>100 - i.e when a loop has
occured for whatever reason. The sending SMTP client shows the server
qmail-smtpd process returning "too many hops"/etc, but (my) qmail-queue
still seems to be called, and when my qmail-queue replacement calls
qmail-queue, it exits with a 111.
Nothing in the qmail-1.03 source shows qmail-queue exiting 111 - so I'm at a
lost to understand what's happening here...
I've attached the perl subroutine showing this behaviour (line: "Unable to
queue message").
Any suggestions?
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Hi:
I followed the virtual-accounts howtro from Jedy to the letter,
but Ie a problem.
My hostname is: perseo.dce.net.mx
I start qmail-pop from inetd a sfollows:
pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
perseo.dce.net.mx /usr/bin/checkpoppasswd
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
I using the checkpasswd program from Jedy.
the file poppasswd is :
bogus:22I3i7y15Hi2c::/var/qmail/popboxes/:/var/qmail/popboxes/perseo-dce-net-mx/bogus
testid:NONxKalgYFU2Q:popuser:/var/qmail/popboxes/perseo-dce-net-mx/testid
h:MBuUC.8464/Xk:popuser:/var/qmail/popboxes/perseo-dce-net-mx/h
.
the file users assign looks:
=perseo-dce-net-mx-bogus:popuser:512:512:/var/qmail/popboxes/perseo-dce-net-mx/bogus:::
=testid:popuser:512:512:/var/qmail/popboxes/perseo-dce-net-mx/testid:::
=h:popuser:512:512:/var/qmail/popboxes/perseo-dce-net-mx/h:::
.
when I make a telnet to the port 110 I gvet the next:
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
user h
+OK
pass caca
Maildir
-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
Connection closed by foreign host.
Any idea?
Thanks
Quedo suyo, cuanto mas lejos mejor,
P.S. And, do you Tango?
I'm hoping this is off-topic...
I'm using fastforward to try to handle virtual domains, and
it seems to be working from everywhere except from my ISP...
It turns out that my ISP has sendmail configured to rewrite
the "To" header using the canonical domain name, i.e. if the
mail is sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and there's
an MX record like this
virtual.my.domain IN MX 10 canonical.my.domain
then the mail is rewritten to be addressed to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Questions:
1. Is this broken behavior? (Please tell me "yes"!) If so,
then this isn't really on-topic for the qmail list...
2. If this is not broken behavior, how can I have a chance in
heck of setting up qmail to handle virtual domain e-mail that
isn't addressed to the virtual domain once it reaches qmail???
I can think of various solutions, but none are nearly as clean
(given 6,000+ virtual domains and 16,000+ virtual users) as
handling it in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains and
/etc/aliases.cdb.
My configuration includes:
/var/qmail/control/locals:
localhost
webdev.salu.com
web.dev.salu.com
mail.dev.salu.com
www.dev.salu.com
dev.salu.com
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts:
localhost
webdev.salu.com
web.dev.salu.com
mail.dev.salu.com
www.dev.salu.com
dev.salu.com
dunkdunk.dev.salu.com
/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains:
dunkdunk.dev.salu.com:alias
/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-default:
| fastforward -d /etc/aliases.cdb
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The latter line is for testing purposes...)
/etc/aliases:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:billing_dunkdunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:advice_dunkdunk
dunkdunk.dev.salu.com has an MX record pointing to web.dev.salu.com.
Also an A record pointing to the same IP as web.dev.salu.com (formerly
a CNAME record pointing to web.dev.salu.com, temporarily changed to
an A record to see whether it made any difference).
If I send mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from a normal mail
server, all works as expected:
Mar 7 11:18:53 webdev qmail: 952456733.973404 new msg 142562
Mar 7 11:18:53 webdev qmail: 952456733.974138 info msg 142562: bytes 576
from <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 21539 uid 65521
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.034361 starting delivery 177: msg
142562
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.034761 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.188924 new msg 142563
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.189360 info msg 142563: bytes 693
from <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 21544 uid 65520
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.309202 starting delivery 178: msg
142563
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.309639 status: local 2/10 remote
0/20
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.338245 new msg 142564
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.338771 info msg 142564: bytes 693
from <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 21545 uid 65520
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.398733 starting delivery 179: msg
142564
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.399144 status: local 2/10 remote
1/20
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.399465 delivery 177: success:
fastforwar
d:_qp_21544/did_0+1+1/qp_21545/
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.413917 status: local 1/10 remote
1/20
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.414258 delivery 178: success:
did_1+0+0/
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.424619 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.425403 end msg 142562
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.448588 end msg 142563
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.766437 delivery 179: success:
207.175.17
7.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_952456810_qp_16171/
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.780108 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Mar 7 11:18:54 webdev qmail: 952456734.780535 end msg 142564
If I send mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" from my ISP, things
don't work:
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.240390 new msg 142562
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.240919 info msg 142562: bytes 844
from <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 21565 uid 65521
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.303423 starting delivery 180: msg
142562
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.303797 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.338547 delivery 180: failure:
Sorry,_no_
mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.365787 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.456805 bounce msg 142562 qp 21570
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.468751 end msg 142562
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.515694 new msg 142563
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.516069 info msg 142563: bytes 1368
from
<> qp 21570 uid 65526
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.578122 starting delivery 181: msg
142563
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 11:24:06 webdev qmail: 952457046.578483 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
Mar 7 11:24:08 webdev qmail: 952457048.366675 delivery 181: success:
209.102.12
4.23_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_LAA32298_Message_accepted_for_d
eliv
ery/
Mar 7 11:24:08 webdev qmail: 952457048.383514 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Mar 7 11:24:08 webdev qmail: 952457048.383953 end msg 142563
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:03:31PM -0800, Bryan Curnutt wrote:
> I'm hoping this is off-topic...
>
> I'm using fastforward to try to handle virtual domains, and
> it seems to be working from everywhere except from my ISP...
>
> It turns out that my ISP has sendmail configured to rewrite
> the "To" header using the canonical domain name, i.e. if the
> mail is sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and there's
> an MX record like this
>
> virtual.my.domain IN MX 10 canonical.my.domain
>
> then the mail is rewritten to be addressed to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
It can't be stressed enough: whenever possible, report real domain
and hostnames. This will help people figure out your problem.
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++
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:03:31PM -0800, Bryan Curnutt wrote:
[snip setup]
>
> dunkdunk.dev.salu.com has an MX record pointing to web.dev.salu.com.
> Also an A record pointing to the same IP as web.dev.salu.com (formerly
> a CNAME record pointing to web.dev.salu.com, temporarily changed to
> an A record to see whether it made any difference).
Well, the CNAME is breaking a couple of rules here:
- never have a CNAME and one or more other records on the same hostname
- never send mail to a CNAME
- never have a MX be a CNAME itself.
I think the problems with the A record are related to nameserver cache
refresh timeouts.
Also, sendmail indeed does rewriting on a CNAME, which might be an
explanation. Actually, qmail does that too. It's an RFC rule.
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++
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 01:51:15AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:03:31PM -0800, Bryan Curnutt wrote:
> > I'm hoping this is off-topic...
> >
> > I'm using fastforward to try to handle virtual domains, and
> > it seems to be working from everywhere except from my ISP...
> >
> > It turns out that my ISP has sendmail configured to rewrite
> > the "To" header using the canonical domain name, i.e. if the
> > mail is sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and there's
> > an MX record like this
> >
> > virtual.my.domain IN MX 10 canonical.my.domain
> >
> > then the mail is rewritten to be addressed to
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of to
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
>
> It can't be stressed enough: whenever possible, report real domain
> and hostnames. This will help people figure out your problem.
I apologize.
That data was in the rest of your mail.
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++
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 04:03:31PM -0800, Bryan Curnutt wrote:
> [snip setup]
> >
> > dunkdunk.dev.salu.com has an MX record pointing to web.dev.salu.com.
> > Also an A record pointing to the same IP as web.dev.salu.com (formerly
> > a CNAME record pointing to web.dev.salu.com, temporarily changed to
> > an A record to see whether it made any difference).
>
> [...]
> I think the problems with the A record are related to nameserver cache
> refresh timeouts.
>
> Also, sendmail indeed does rewriting on a CNAME, which might be an
> explanation. Actually, qmail does that too. It's an RFC rule.
You found the problems exactly. The combination of previously having
defined the virtual domain as a CNAME, and the CNAME still being in the
ISP's nameserver cache, were causing my ISP's mail server to (correctly)
rewrite the destination address.
And, as I'd hoped, the problem turned out to be off-topic for the
qmail list. :-)
I am a little unclear on a few things regarding setting up a
mail quota for users.
I understand a mail quota is set at
/control/databytes but how do I set the number? In KB
or MB? I want to set it at 5MB.
Can I set a unique mail quotas for different users?
By default, does qmail send a return mail to the sender?
I would like a return mail telling the sender the user is
above their limit. Do I require any patches for this?
I have read about the mailquotacheck patch and it says on
the www.qmail.org page that it is "clearly only effective on a userless mail
hub"?
Why is that?
Thankyou,
Kristina
Hi,
On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
>
> I am a little unclear on a few things regarding setting up a
> mail quota for users.
>
> I understand a mail quota is set at
> /control/databytes but how do I set the number? In KB
> or MB? I want to set it at 5MB.
no, the control/databytes defines the maximum lenght for a message received by
SMTP. this value is in bytes.
real user-quotas should be done at delivery level... or at file-system level.
>
> Can I set a unique mail quotas for different users?
>
you can define a diferent DATABYTES env. var. for diferent instances of
qmail-smtpd (for various interfaces, etc)
> By default, does qmail send a return mail to the sender?
> I would like a return mail telling the sender the user is
> above their limit. Do I require any patches for this?
by default, when you exceed DATABYTES qmail will return an error during the
SMTP conversation.
> I have read about the mailquotacheck patch and it says on
> the www.qmail.org page that it is "clearly only effective on a userless mail
> hub"?
> Why is that?
it's a box that don't have users (no control/locals). This box receives the
mail and forwards it to another server.
>
> Thankyou,
> Kristina
regards,
ratao
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08-Mar-2000
Time: 01:57:23
----------------------------------
Thankyou for your responses. I was confused on mail quota for users
and max. message size. Sorry!
I am interested in mail quota for users. I was told there are two levels:
delivery level and file-system level. I would like delivery level.
How can I set delivery level mail quota for each user?
Thanks,
Kristina
At 02:05 00/03/08 +0000, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
> >
> > I am a little unclear on a few things regarding setting up a
> > mail quota for users.
> >
> > I understand a mail quota is set at
> > /control/databytes but how do I set the number? In KB
> > or MB? I want to set it at 5MB.
>
> no, the control/databytes defines the maximum lenght for a message received
by
> SMTP. this value is in bytes.
>
> real user-quotas should be done at delivery level... or at file-system lev
el.
>
> >
> > Can I set a unique mail quotas for different users?
> >
>
> you can define a diferent DATABYTES env. var. for diferent instances of
> qmail-smtpd (for various interfaces, etc)
>
> > By default, does qmail send a return mail to the sender?
> > I would like a return mail telling the sender the user is
> > above their limit. Do I require any patches for this?
>
> by default, when you exceed DATABYTES qmail will return an error during the
> SMTP conversation.
>
> > I have read about the mailquotacheck patch and it says on
> > the www.qmail.org page that it is "clearly only effective on a userless
mail
> > hub"?
> > Why is that?
>
> it's a box that don't have users (no control/locals). This box receives the
> mail and forwards it to another server.
>
> >
> > Thankyou,
> > Kristina
>
> regards,
> ratao
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 08-Mar-2000
> Time: 01:57:23
> ----------------------------------
>
Hi again,
On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
>
> Thankyou for your responses. I was confused on mail quota for users
> and max. message size. Sorry!
>
> I am interested in mail quota for users. I was told there are two levels:
> delivery level and file-system level. I would like delivery level.
>
> How can I set delivery level mail quota for each user?
>
it depends on the delivery agent you picked :)
there are some in /var/qmail/boot (read the INSTALL file)
if you're delivering to $HOME/Mailbox or /var/spool/mail/$USER you could pipe
the message through a simple program that checks the size/quota and acts
acordingly. (I don't know where you can find such a program, anyone?)
anyway, to do this kind of quota enforcing i would choose the standard
"file-system quotas" and apply this:
http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-quotas-1.1.patch
good luck,
ratao
> Thanks,
> Kristina
>
> At 02:05 00/03/08 +0000, you wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
>> >
>> > I am a little unclear on a few things regarding setting up a
>> > mail quota for users.
>> >
>> > I understand a mail quota is set at
>> > /control/databytes but how do I set the number? In KB
>> > or MB? I want to set it at 5MB.
>>
>> no, the control/databytes defines the maximum lenght for a message received
> by
>> SMTP. this value is in bytes.
>>
>> real user-quotas should be done at delivery level... or at file-system lev
> el.
>>
>> >
>> > Can I set a unique mail quotas for different users?
>> >
>>
>> you can define a diferent DATABYTES env. var. for diferent instances of
>> qmail-smtpd (for various interfaces, etc)
>>
>> > By default, does qmail send a return mail to the sender?
>> > I would like a return mail telling the sender the user is
>> > above their limit. Do I require any patches for this?
>>
>> by default, when you exceed DATABYTES qmail will return an error during the
>> SMTP conversation.
>>
>> > I have read about the mailquotacheck patch and it says on
>> > the www.qmail.org page that it is "clearly only effective on a userless
> mail
>> > hub"?
>> > Why is that?
>>
>> it's a box that don't have users (no control/locals). This box receives the
>> mail and forwards it to another server.
>>
>> >
>> > Thankyou,
>> > Kristina
>>
>> regards,
>> ratao
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 08-Mar-2000
>> Time: 01:57:23
>> ----------------------------------
>>
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08-Mar-2000
Time: 02:57:37
----------------------------------
At 03:08 00/03/08 +0000, you wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
> >
> > Thankyou for your responses. I was confused on mail quota for users
> > and max. message size. Sorry!
> >
> > I am interested in mail quota for users. I was told there are two levels:
> > delivery level and file-system level. I would like delivery level.
> >
> > How can I set delivery level mail quota for each user?
> >
>
> it depends on the delivery agent you picked :)
> there are some in /var/qmail/boot (read the INSTALL file)
>
> if you're delivering to $HOME/Mailbox or /var/spool/mail/$USER you could p
ipe
> the message through a simple program that checks the size/quota and acts
> acordingly. (I don't know where you can find such a program, anyone?)
>
> anyway, to do this kind of quota enforcing i would choose the standard
> "file-system quotas" and apply this:
>
> http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-quotas-1.1.patch
>
> good luck,
> ratao
Thanks. I have taken a look at http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-quotas-1.1.pa
tch
and it says the following :
"The virgin code as distributed by DJB treats this as a 'temporary
error on maildir' and leaves the message in the queue for later
delivery retries. The modified code treats it as a permanent error
and immediately returns the message to the sender."
What is it referring to when it says "The virgin code as distributed by DJB "?
Does it mean that by default when a users maildir gets over the system-quota
any mail sent to the user is retried over a certain number of days and then
sent
back as return mail while the above patch makes qmail to send a return email
immediately?
Currently I am using Maildir.
Thanks Kristina
> > Thanks,
> > Kristina
> >
> > At 02:05 00/03/08 +0000, you wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I am a little unclear on a few things regarding setting up a
> >> > mail quota for users.
> >> >
> >> > I understand a mail quota is set at
> >> > /control/databytes but how do I set the number? In KB
> >> > or MB? I want to set it at 5MB.
> >>
> >> no, the control/databytes defines the maximum lenght for a message
received
> > by
> >> SMTP. this value is in bytes.
> >>
> >> real user-quotas should be done at delivery level... or at file-system
lev
> > el.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Can I set a unique mail quotas for different users?
> >> >
> >>
> >> you can define a diferent DATABYTES env. var. for diferent instances of
> >> qmail-smtpd (for various interfaces, etc)
> >>
> >> > By default, does qmail send a return mail to the sender?
> >> > I would like a return mail telling the sender the user is
> >> > above their limit. Do I require any patches for this?
> >>
> >> by default, when you exceed DATABYTES qmail will return an error during
the
> >> SMTP conversation.
> >>
> >> > I have read about the mailquotacheck patch and it says on
> >> > the www.qmail.org page that it is "clearly only effective on a userle
ss
> > mail
> >> > hub"?
> >> > Why is that?
> >>
> >> it's a box that don't have users (no control/locals). This box receives
the
> >> mail and forwards it to another server.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thankyou,
> >> > Kristina
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> ratao
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: 08-Mar-2000
> >> Time: 01:57:23
> >> ----------------------------------
> >>
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 08-Mar-2000
> Time: 02:57:37
> ----------------------------------
>
On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
>
> Thanks. I have taken a look at http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-quotas-1.1.pa
> tch
> and it says the following :
>
> "The virgin code as distributed by DJB treats this as a 'temporary
> error on maildir' and leaves the message in the queue for later
> delivery retries. The modified code treats it as a permanent error
> and immediately returns the message to the sender."
>
> What is it referring to when it says "The virgin code as distributed by DJB
> "?
qmail-1.03
>
> Does it mean that by default when a users maildir gets over the system-quota
> any mail sent to the user is retried over a certain number of days and then
> sent
> back as return mail while the above patch makes qmail to send a return email
> immediately?
>
yes. the amount of time is defined in control/queuelifetime
until then qmail tries to deliver the message. if the user is (still) over
quota, qmail will try again after. when queuelifetime is reached (value in
secs) qmail tries one more time and if unsuccessfull bounces the message back
to the sender.
> Currently I am using Maildir.
>
this apply to maidir also.
> Thanks Kristina
>
>
regards,
ratao
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08-Mar-2000
Time: 03:37:07
----------------------------------
So if I configure /control/queuelifetime with zero seconds, will
the mail be returned immediately? If yes, what is the purpose of the
patch?
Thankyou,
Kristina
At 03:42 00/03/08 +0000, you wrote:
>
> On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I have taken a look at http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-quotas-1.
1.pa
> > tch
> > and it says the following :
> >
> > "The virgin code as distributed by DJB treats this as a 'temporary
> > error on maildir' and leaves the message in the queue for later
> > delivery retries. The modified code treats it as a permanent error
> > and immediately returns the message to the sender."
> >
> > What is it referring to when it says "The virgin code as distributed by
DJB
> > "?
>
> qmail-1.03
>
> >
> > Does it mean that by default when a users maildir gets over the
system-quota
> > any mail sent to the user is retried over a certain number of days and t
hen
> > sent
> > back as return mail while the above patch makes qmail to send a return
email
> > immediately?
> >
>
> yes. the amount of time is defined in control/queuelifetime
>
> until then qmail tries to deliver the message. if the user is (still) over
> quota, qmail will try again after. when queuelifetime is reached (value in
> secs) qmail tries one more time and if unsuccessfull bounces the message b
ack
> to the sender.
>
>
> > Currently I am using Maildir.
> >
>
> this apply to maidir also.
>
> > Thanks Kristina
> >
> >
>
> regards,
> ratao
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 08-Mar-2000
> Time: 03:37:07
> ----------------------------------
>
On 08-Mar-2000 Kristina wrote:
>
>
> So if I configure /control/queuelifetime with zero seconds, will
> the mail be returned immediately? If yes, what is the purpose of the
> patch?
re,
control/queuelifetime reflects the amount of time that a message can remain
queued... and... messages can stay in the queue for several reasons beeing one
of them a "file system error" like caused by the file-system quota. You
wouldn't like having a bounce everytime you lost your network connection for
1minute.. or everytime your DNS-server is rebooting... or when this happens to
the destination servers ;)
setting queuelifetime too short (less than one day, IMMV) is bad ;)
anyway, it's your call. you can wait for the user to free some space or you
can bounce the mail right away.
regards,
ratao
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RaTao von J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08-Mar-2000
Time: 05:29:35
----------------------------------
Hi there,
I'm setting up a new qmail server and am using qmailanalog to
check how it it going in the box. After I tried to raise the value of
concurrencylocal/concurrencyremote/tcpserver -c for smtpd/pop3d
from 10/20/40/40 to 150/150/100/100, I got a result of
shorter Average message qtime and Average ddelay but the Average xdelay
became 10+ times bigger as it was before the new settings.
I guess the result is suggesting that something is going wrong
between the start and gueue-in. As the server is still under testing,
there is no real traffic yet, so I am making forgemails from a single
machine and the machine's less powerful than the mail server itself.
I hope the xdelay problem is because of bottleneck of the
forgemail-generation-machine but am still wondering if anyone out there
can explain this.
Any idea will be appreciated.
--------
W.H.Li
