qmail Digest 26 Mar 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 952
Topics (messages 39041 through 39077):
POP3 && sticky bit, IMHO
39041 by: Russell Nelson
39055 by: Russell Nelson
Re: MX records changed, but mails still go through old mailserver...
39042 by: Uwe Ohse
Re: qmail-pop3d: connection closed by foreign host
39043 by: Uwe Ohse
Re: How I delay the sending of a message?
39044 by: Uwe Ohse
Re: help qmail + fastforward + mailing list
39045 by: Uwe Ohse
Re: Compilation error
39046 by: Uwe Ohse
qmail not delivering to ./Maildir/
39047 by: John Conover
39051 by: Uwe Ohse
qmail pop3 & outlook express (encoding problem)
39048 by: Hong Taeki
Running qmail on a 4x Xeon 550MHz system
39049 by: Andreas Aardal Hanssen
39054 by: Ruben van der Leij
39056 by: Andreas Aardal Hanssen
39057 by: brianb-qmail.technet.evoserve.com
39058 by: Andreas Aardal Hanssen
39059 by: Paul Schinder
39060 by: Bruce Guenter
39061 by: Bruce Guenter
39067 by: Adam McKenna
39069 by: Ruben van der Leij
39070 by: John White
39071 by: Thorkild Stray
39072 by: brianb-qmail.technet.evoserve.com
Re: Another (slightly different) cr lf question
39050 by: Uwe Ohse
/var/qmail/rc under supervise?
39052 by: John Conover
39053 by: Chris Johnson
Re: qmail-ldap needed
39062 by: Roland Pelzer
Receiving error messages back when sending mail.
39063 by: Maarten van Leunen
Re: Adding X-Deliver-To Header for Virtual Domains
39064 by: Robert Sanderson
unsubscribe qmail
39065 by: the fragile art of existence
39068 by: Mauricio Goto
Ask ./: What Makes A UNIX System UNIX?
39066 by: Lars Uffmann
Where is setuser ?
39073 by: Irwan Hadi
Re: vpopmail
39074 by: Spades
39075 by: Michael Boman
How to fetch via POP mail ?
39076 by: Irwan Hadi
What is the maximal value
39077 by: Irwan Hadi
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, qmail-pop3 should deny access to a Maildir if the home directory
it is stored in has the sticky bit set. It's consistent with
qmail-local, which will refuse to deliver mail to such a home
directory. I know, I know:
sh -c 'if test -k .; then qmail-pop3d Maildir; else qmail-pop3d /etc/skel/Maildir; fi '
Still, shouldn't that be included in qmail-pop3d?
--
-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.
Russell Nelson writes:
> IMHO, qmail-pop3 should deny access to a Maildir if the home directory
> it is stored in has the sticky bit set. It's consistent with
> qmail-local, which will refuse to deliver mail to such a home
> directory. I know, I know:
>
> sh -c 'if test -k .; then qmail-pop3d Maildir; else qmail-pop3d /etc/skel/Maildir;
>fi '
Much more likely that this would work as intended:
sh -c 'if test -k .; then qmail-pop3d /etc/skel/Maildir; else qmail-pop3d Maildir; fi '
--
-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.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 08:51:25PM -0000, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> but mails are still handled by the old mailserver. If I use the new one as
> SMTP server directly, the mails are delivered locally (using qmail and
> vpopmail). Has anyone got an idea what's going on here?
Yes.
Your MX record for mail.buz.ch will only be used for mails to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] is sent to the IP
address buz.ch (209.15.28.27), which happens to be identical to
the old MX for mail.buz.ch.
You need to add another MX record, this time for the buz.ch and
not for mail.buz.ch. In bind-speak:
buz.ch IN MX 10 mail.buz.ch
It might take some time until all name servers have learned about
this.
Regards, Uwe
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 07:01:07PM -0800, Juara Com wrote:
> What am I doing wrong?
Don't know.
Try running
strace -vs 512 -o out -f \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup juara.com /usr/sbin/logpopauth-pre \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
there may be a hint around the end of the file "out".
Regards, Uwe
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 12:46:22PM +0100, Eduardo Calder�n Chao wrote:
> Is it posible to inject a message, but that the qmail does not try to
> send it until within two days, for example?
It's possible to get this behaviour through some hacks (FAQ 5.3 plus
serialmail, for example).
You can use "at" for that, too.
Regards, Uwe
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 07:50:02PM +0100, G.Z. wrote:
> when I write to listar@mydomain the alias reads
> listar: "|/home/listar/listar"
> but mail is delivered to the Mailbox of the listar account
This is how the alias mechanism is designed to work:
mail gets delivered to alias (and fastforward) only if there is no
account for that address. In this case there is a listar account,
so /etc/aliases will not be used.
echo "|/home/listar/listar" >~listar/.qmail
chown listar ~listar/.qmail
> when i write to mylist@mydomain I get an error message in qmail log like
> delivery 1: deferral: sh:_/home/listar/listar:Permission_denied/
chmod +x /home/listar/listar
Regards, Uwe
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 04:55:59PM -0300, Erico Augusto Bettoni wrote:
> I'm trying to compile qmail-1.03 on a solaris 2.5.1 with gcc-2.95.2 and
> bintuils-2.9.1 (ld). I've adjusted conf-cc and conf-ld:
>
> conf-cc:
> gcc -02
typo. -O2, not -02.
> Users and groups are created and /var/qmail too.
> Both of them are the GNU one's.
Both of what? GNU users?
> ./load auto-str substdio.a error.a str.a
> ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 00010074
can you compile, link and run trivial programs?
echo "int main(void) { write(1,"hello world\n",12); exit(42); }" >x.c
gcc -o x x.c && ./x
Your development system may be seriously crippled.
Regards, Uwe
A couple of weeks ago, someone mentioned in the list that qmail
stopped delivering to ./Maildir/
Now, I have the same problem on a new machine-Debian 2.1, qmail 1.03.
qmail-inject DOES deliver to ./Maildir/, but normal mail does not.
Any suggestions on how to track down the problem, (I'm at my wits end
on it)?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.johncon.com/
631 Lamont Ct. Tel. 408.370.2688 http://www.johncon.com/ntropix/
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602 http://www.johncon.com/nformatix/
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 04:20:14AM -0800, John Conover wrote:
> Now, I have the same problem on a new machine-Debian 2.1, qmail 1.03.
>
> qmail-inject DOES deliver to ./Maildir/, but normal mail does not.
>
> Any suggestions on how to track down the problem, (I'm at my wits end
> on it)?
Read qmail-1.03/REMOVE.sendmail
It looks like your old sendmail is still around.
Regards, Uwe
|
Hi,
I am Redhat linux 6.1 user.
I'm trying to use qmail as pop3 server.
And like many free mail services I wanted to insert
footnote(banner, url so on) to mail.
With mailing list's answer I modified the qmail source
and inserted the footnote.
After several tests, I found some problems.
If the mail is written in plain text-case of using pine, there
is no problem.
If I use outlook express, I can choose content type(html,
text)
and encoding methods(base 64, quoted printable,
7bits).
So when I choose 7bits, there is no problem.
But in other cases the footnotes is not recognizable or not
seen.
(not recognizable: chose text and different encoding
methods(except 7 bits)
not seen: chose html )
I use Korean. Because Korean is 8 bits character, there are
many problems(especially encoding).
How can I solve this problem?
According to the mail header, should I change the
footnote?
Is there any methods or module to change the encoded
content(7bits -> base 64 and so forth)?
Thank you...
|
Hello,
I'm currently administrating the mail delivery system on a
system as described in the subject, with 1GB of SDRAM and
100GB disk.
I'm using ReiserFS (which, BTW, is working very well). My
mailsystem receives 70'000 mails a day and the throughput
is just about twice that. Average mails sent per second
varies around 70-170 mails.
I wonder if qmail understands that I'm running a quad-
processor system, as it doesn't seem to deliver messages
faster when the queue builds up. When I run single-threaded
programs which use 100% of one processor, qmail will not
deliver mail!
Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
Hope for an answer,
Andreas
--
Andreas Aardal Hanssen
Software Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:48:04PM +0000, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
> disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
> with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task waiting to run. Or,
to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time filled with
tasks that want to run.
Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
--
Ruben
>> Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
>
>> disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
>
>> with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
> A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task
> waiting to run. Or,
> to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time
> filled with tasks that want to run.
> Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
A slight correction there, the uptime program gives a load
average accumulating on each and every process. If five
processes want 100% processor time, you will get an
output from 'uptime' saying '5'.
An average of 1.4 is high, but absolutely not as high as
140% of your computer's resources!! ;)
1.4 might mean that I have 10 processes requesting 14%,
but that's not the same as a 140% processor load.
Andreas
--
Andreas Aardal Hanssen
Software Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Ruben van der Leij wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:48:04PM +0000, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
> > disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
> > with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
>
> A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task waiting to run. Or,
> to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time filled with
> tasks that want to run.
> Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
I agree. I manage a similar system (quad Xeon, 1GB memory) with a
loadaverage of 0.3 or thereabouts.
Although I'm not familiar with the intricacies of how load is
distributed across multiple CPUs among different OS's, I would suspect
something is wrong with your system.
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
AIM: bbaquiran
>>> Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
>>> disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
>>> with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
>> A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task waiting to run. Or,
>> to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time filled with
>> tasks that want to run.
>> Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
> I agree. I manage a similar system (quad Xeon, 1GB memory) with a
> loadaverage of 0.3 or thereabouts.
> Although I'm not familiar with the intricacies of how load is
> distributed across multiple CPUs among different OS's, I would suspect
> something is wrong with your system.
Ok, the average of 1.4 was taken at the start of this discussion,
with great activity. The load average is now down to 0.7 and
dropping.
My point was: qmail should interpret 25% of this load as the
capability of these computers are 4x what a normal computer
can handle with the same configuration in 1x.
I want mail delivery to go much faster, the computer can do
much better than this!!! I want the qmail-send program to deliver
4x as many mails.
Andreas
--
Andreas Aardal Hanssen
Software Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 4:51 PM +0000 3/25/00, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >>> Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
>>>> disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
>>>> with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
>>> A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task waiting to run. Or,
>>> to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time filled with
>>> tasks that want to run.
>>> Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
>> I agree. I manage a similar system (quad Xeon, 1GB memory) with a
>> loadaverage of 0.3 or thereabouts.
>> Although I'm not familiar with the intricacies of how load is
>> distributed across multiple CPUs among different OS's, I would suspect
>> something is wrong with your system.
>
>Ok, the average of 1.4 was taken at the start of this discussion,
>with great activity. The load average is now down to 0.7 and
>dropping.
>
>My point was: qmail should interpret 25% of this load as the
>capability of these computers are 4x what a normal computer
>can handle with the same configuration in 1x.
>
>I want mail delivery to go much faster, the computer can do
>much better than this!!! I want the qmail-send program to deliver
>4x as many mails.
But qmail doesn't "know" what the load on your machine is, or how
many processors are available. Scheduling of processes is controlled
by the operating system, not the processes themselves. There might
be something wrong with the way your OS is set up.
There are things that you can do to "tune" a qmail installation, like
setting concurrency remote. IIRC they're covered by "Life with
qmail". Start at www.qmail.org.
>
>Andreas
>
>--
>Andreas Aardal Hanssen
>Software Developer
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 693
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 04:10:14PM +0100, Ruben van der Leij wrote:
> > Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
> > disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
> > with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
>
> A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task waiting to run. Or,
> to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time filled with
> tasks that want to run.
Not quite. It means that, on average, 1.4 tasks were ready to run. On
a 4 processor machine, that means that there were still two completely
idle CPUs. A load average of 4 would mean all 4 CPUs are 100% busy.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 04:51:10PM -0000, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> My point was: qmail should interpret 25% of this load as the
> capability of these computers are 4x what a normal computer
> can handle with the same configuration in 1x.
>
> I want mail delivery to go much faster, the computer can do
> much better than this!!! I want the qmail-send program to deliver
> 4x as many mails.
Mail delivery is typically not CPU bound. You could probably add
another 4 CPUs and not see any significant improvement in throughput.
Mail delivery is pretty much 100% I/O bound. And, with the way qmail
writes its queue files, it becomes mostly seek-time bound as well (due
to running many fsync's).
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:36:44PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Ruben van der Leij wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:48:04PM +0000, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? The
> > > disk IO is very low and my computer is *really* sleeping,
> > > with a load average (uptime etc) of approx. 1.4..
> >
> > A loadaverage of 1.4 means you have on average 1.4 task waiting to run. Or,
> > to put it in percentages: your machine has 140% of it's time filled with
> > tasks that want to run.
>
> > Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
Um, no. Even if you (incorrectly) express load average as a percentage of
processing capacity in use, a load average of 1.4 on a 4-way system would
still only indicate 35% of available capacity in use.
It is also very possible to achieve high load averages without using 100% of
your processor. I've seen machines with one processor, that regularly have a
load average over 2, and are only using 10-15% of the processor.
> I agree. I manage a similar system (quad Xeon, 1GB memory) with a
> loadaverage of 0.3 or thereabouts.
In other words, your quad Xeon is being wasted. You could replace it with a
single Pentium II or Pentium III machine.
> Although I'm not familiar with the intricacies of how load is
> distributed across multiple CPUs among different OS's, I would suspect
> something is wrong with your system.
That is an absolutely terrible thing to say. You don't know anything about
his system (and obviously, not enough about Unix or computers in general) to
make an accurate analysis based on his post. Please refrain from saying such
things in the future unless you're sure you know what you're talking about.
--Adam
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:59:06PM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > Even for an idle quad Xeon, that is way to high.
> Um, no. Even if you (incorrectly) express load average as a percentage of
> processing capacity in use, a load average of 1.4 on a 4-way system would
> still only indicate 35% of available capacity in use.
Um, yes. You did see the magic word *idle*? His system is doing nothing
usefull, but still has a load of 1.4. Normal systems have a load of 0.00
when idle. :)
--
Ruben
> I'm using ReiserFS (which, BTW, is working very well). My
> mailsystem receives 70'000 mails a day and the throughput
> is just about twice that. Average mails sent per second
> varies around 70-170 mails.
It's interesting that you're using ReiserFS. Are you doing
that for /var/qmail/queue?
At what rate are you able to inject messages into the queue
without causing serialization of qmail-send?
> I wonder if qmail understands that I'm running a quad-
> processor system, as it doesn't seem to deliver messages
> faster when the queue builds up. When I run single-threaded
> programs which use 100% of one processor, qmail will not
> deliver mail!
Are you implying that it's qmail's job to manage what processes
get scheduled for time on which CPU instead of the OS?
John
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, John White wrote:
> It's interesting that you're using ReiserFS. Are you doing
> that for /var/qmail/queue?
If you're not using the packing tails feature, it should do ok.
> Are you implying that it's qmail's job to manage what processes
> get scheduled for time on which CPU instead of the OS?
:-)
--
Thorkild
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 11:36:44PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree. I manage a similar system (quad Xeon, 1GB memory) with a
> > loadaverage of 0.3 or thereabouts.
>
> In other words, your quad Xeon is being wasted. You could replace it with a
> single Pentium II or Pentium III machine.
Depends on what you mean by wasted. Nobody's worried about the mail
system being overloaded (bandwidth now becoming the limiting
factor). It keeps The Man off my back. IMHO, a small price to pay.
Of course, yes, it could be handled by a PII for now, but I'd still
rather have the quad Xeon with the redundant hardware goodies (and a
service contract) than an off-the-shelf PII, or even one built by my
own hands.
> > Although I'm not familiar with the intricacies of how load is
> > distributed across multiple CPUs among different OS's, I would suspect
> > something is wrong with your system.
>
> That is an absolutely terrible thing to say. You don't know anything about
> his system
Granted, I'm not a sysadmin by profession, and I've only been using
qmail for ~4 months, but I've been running a similar system (aside
from the ReiserFS) under a similar load. From my limited experience,
and our record of loadaverages over the past 3.5 weeks, a load average
of 1.4 would indicate something out of the ordinary.
> (and obviously, not enough about Unix or computers in general) to
> make an accurate analysis based on his post. Please refrain from saying such
> things in the future unless you're sure you know what you're talking about.
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
AIM: bbaquiran
On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 04:47:18PM -0800, thomas wrote:
> Is there an easy way to have qmail either not do the crlf -> lf translation
> on files it delivers locally, or is there any easy way to undo this?
No. No.
> We have IMAP clients accessing these files directly off the unix box,
> and they miss the cr
Hm - strange.
Question to the knowing: aren't IMPA servers supposed to translate
the local line end conventions to CR/LF before sending the articles
over the wire?
Regards, Uwe
Is there a way to run /var/qmail/rc (or qmail-start,) under supervise
to insure they are always running?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.johncon.com/
631 Lamont Ct. Tel. 408.370.2688 http://www.johncon.com/ntropix/
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602 http://www.johncon.com/nformatix/
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 06:07:16AM -0800, John Conover wrote:
> Is there a way to run /var/qmail/rc (or qmail-start,) under supervise
> to insure they are always running?
Yep. Just do it.
I use svscan, and created a qmail directory in /service. /service/qmail/run
looks like this:
#!/bin/sh
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" qmail-start ./Maildir/
/service/qmail/log/run looks like this:
#!/bin/sh
exec setuidgid qmaill multilog t s500000 ./main
supervise now oversees my whole qmail operation.
Chris
>where can I get qmail-ldap, I would like to implement it. And where can I
>get a HOWTO?
Try www.nrg4u.com , there is also some documentation stuff and mailinglist
available.
- Roland
Problems. I installed Wmail, but aparently I forgot some stuff to do.
Perhaps any of you can help. When I send an email to myself, I receive the
following error message back (by the by, emailing from myself to myself on
the localhost seems to work just fine.)
Date:
25 Mar 2000 16:31:58 -0000
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Block address
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
failure delivery
Add Addresses
------ *** -------
Message from yahoo.com.
Unable to deliver message to the following address(es).
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
209.67.50.14 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 209.67.50.14.
--- Original message follows.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 12236 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Mar 2000 16:31:57
-0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [145.85.27.34] by web1004.mail.yahoo.com; Sat, 25 Mar
2000 08:31:57 PST
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:31:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Maarten van <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Qmail attempt 1
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Qmail attempt
------- *** --------
Can you help?
Karn (Ruler of Karchan, Keeper of the Key to the Room of Lost Souls
--
Maarten van Leunen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.il.fontys.nl/~maartenl
http://www.karchan.org
('The most important thing about having goals is having one.'
Geoffrey F. Abert)
>From the list archives:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1998/04/msg00174.html
or in a vpopmail .qmail-default:
| (echo X-Envelope-To: "$DEFAULT@$HOST"; cat) |
/home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox
Chris Bond wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How can I add a header X-Deliver-To that has final destination of the
> email. The reason I need to do this is because the To or CC header is not
> enough information for a program to deliver the mail correctly.
>
> The domain in question I need to do this with is a "Virtual Domain" setup
> in qmail. To some extent this already exists in the header Delivered-To,
> the only problem is it looks like the following:
>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If you can remove the virtual username and dash and put this into the
> X-Deliver-To header this would slove the problem in a stroke.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
--
Robert Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ETRN.com, Inc. - The Internet Answering Service.
http://www.ETRN.com
unsubscribe qmail
Just found this on slahdot.org ;)
POSIX_ME_HARDER (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, @10:42AM EST (#28)
If Dan Bernstein's software runs on it, it's Unix
-- Lars
ulimit -v 2048
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
supervise /var/lock/qmail-smtpd tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
-u$USERID -g$GROUPID 0 25 \
rblsmtpd qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | setuser qmaill accustamp | \
setuser qmaill cyclog -s5000000 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd &
I want to run this script from my init
My question is, where could I found "setuser" command ? because W/O this,
the script won't work, and I must do manually the command.
-------
AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
Hi,
I configured everything well and to work, thanks to iv0.
However most of my pop3 clients do not allow their pop3 syntax:
username%pop.domain.com.
coz of the %
Any idea how to remedy this.
Spades (CService5)
CService Nick Password
http://cservice.galaxynet.org
` _ , '
- (o)o) -
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-ooO'(_)--Ooo-*-*-*
Bryan, Lee Chenghui |
ICQ UIN: 1558635 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Global - irc.provalue.net |
=================================
"A man of words and not of deeds is like
a garden full of weeds..."
Spades writes:
> Hi,
>
> I configured everything well and to work, thanks to iv0.
> However most of my pop3 clients do not allow their pop3 syntax:
>
> username%pop.domain.com.
>
> coz of the %
>
> Any idea how to remedy this.
>
>
>
> Spades (CService5)
> CService Nick Password
> http://cservice.galaxynet.org
>
> ` _ , '
> - (o)o) -
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-ooO'(_)--Ooo-*-*-*
> Bryan, Lee Chenghui |
> ICQ UIN: 1558635 |
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> Global - irc.provalue.net |
> =================================
>
>
>
> "A man of words and not of deeds is like
> a garden full of weeds..."
For Outlook and Outlook express I user the email address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and in Netscape I use username%domain.com as Netscape
don't like '@' in the username - the same goes for Outlook Express on Mac.
So far I haven't seen anything that chokes on the precent sign.
Best regards
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Office Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #04-00, Singapore 347778
Voice : (+65) 844 3228 [extension 118] Fax : (+65) 842 7228
Pager : (+65) 92 93 29 49 ICQ : 5566009
Mobile: (+65) 97 87 39 14
eMail : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
I have set up a server, it's running qmail 1.03, vpopmail, qmailadmin,
ucspi, qmailanalog, dotforward, rblsmtpd, and so on.
I 've setup POP3 server using qmail-pop3d using tcpserver like this
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \
server.site.or.id\
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
it worked, and I could fetch mail from my home maildir at /home/irwan/Maildir
my question is ..... how to fetch mail from my other virtual maildir at
/home/vpopmail/domains/other.site.or.id/ ?
I've tried when I connect to the pop server by doing this
user irwan%other.site.or.id
pass ********
but it returned with ... invalid what...
then , how to fetch from virtual domain email ?
beside that, could I install dot-qmail at virtualdomain home directory ?
for example
for user [EMAIL PROTECTED] at his homedirectory
/home/vpopmail/domains/other.site.or.id/xyz/
I put
.qmail-xyz
-------
AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
I want to know, what is the maximal value of
concurrencyremote and concurrencylocal W/O recompiling again the qmail/kernel
What is the ideal value of concurrencyremote with about 500 mails outbound
everyday, and 800 mails inbound.
-------
AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
