qmail Digest 25 Apr 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 982
Topics (messages 40512 through 40597):
Got this
40512 by: Irwan Hadi
40515 by: Russell Nelson
40522 by: Irwan Hadi
Re: qmail-smtpd logging
40513 by: Russell Nelson
40527 by: Andre Oppermann
40531 by: Russell Nelson
40538 by: Andre Oppermann
Re: Internet mail
40514 by: R.Ilker Gokhan
Problem with configuration?
40516 by: Thomas Booms EDV
40517 by: Thorkild Stray
40523 by: Dave Sill
MailQuotaCheck error
40518 by: Luis Bezerra
AutoTURN ISP?
40519 by: Glenn Strauss
Running qmail under SCO environment
40520 by: Irwan Hadi
Re: DO NOT TRY INSTALLING QMAIL ON MANDRAKE
40521 by: Mate Wierdl
Re: Mailbox/Maildir pop ?
40524 by: Dave Sill
Re: temporary failure warning message
40525 by: Dave Sill
40528 by: Len Budney
40541 by: Kai MacTane
40543 by: Thomas Blauvelt
40545 by: Dave Sill
40547 by: Ian Lance Taylor
40548 by: Dave Sill
40551 by: Brian Johnson
40554 by: Ian Lance Taylor
40555 by: Ian Lance Taylor
40556 by: Russell Nelson
40557 by: Brian Johnson
40560 by: Len Budney
40561 by: Ian Lance Taylor
40562 by: Ian Lance Taylor
40563 by: Adam McKenna
40564 by: Brian Johnson
40566 by: Dave Sill
40567 by: Adam McKenna
40568 by: Kai MacTane
40569 by: Ian Lance Taylor
40572 by: Adam McKenna
40573 by: Adam McKenna
40574 by: Chris Hardie
40575 by: Brian Johnson
40576 by: Russell Nelson
40577 by: Adam McKenna
40578 by: Racer X
40590 by: Russ Allbery
40591 by: Russ Allbery
Messages lost in queue?
40526 by: Aled Treharne
Re: rcpthosts and morercpthosts - OT tangent
40529 by: Greg Kopp
Re: Qmail behind firewall question
40530 by: Vincent Danen
40532 by: Dave Sill
40535 by: Dave Kitabjian
40536 by: Len Budney
40540 by: Dave Sill
40559 by: Len Budney
pine and maildir
40533 by: Mate Wierdl
Re: Qmail on FreeBSD 4.0
40534 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
request for GNU (not djb) install info
40537 by: Mate Wierdl
40579 by: Matthias Andree
man-pages daemontools-0.70 ucspi-tcp-0.88
40539 by: Gerrit Pape
Qmail and Procmail
40542 by: root
cant pop
40544 by: Les Higger
40546 by: Dave Sill
40549 by: Les Higger
40550 by: Steffan Hoeke
40552 by: Les Higger
40553 by: Dave Sill
40558 by: Les Higger
queue-fix 1.4 won't compile on IRIX6.5.3m
40565 by: John McCoy, Jr
40585 by: Eric Huss
pine and maildir(2)
40570 by: Mate Wierdl
qmail-pop3d on openbsd 2.6 with NIS auth
40571 by: Ronald Dosnaff
Newbie needs help
40580 by: Jon Saunders
40581 by: Ben Beuchler
sendfail
40582 by: Russell Nelson
Interfacing to qmail-queue
40583 by: Michael Crusi
How do I enable user nobody to use qmail-inject?
40584 by: Geoff Everist
40586 by: Charles Werbick
40588 by: Geoff Everist
40589 by: Charles Werbick
40593 by: Geoff Everist
Recipient MTA is rejecting bounces
40587 by: Yusuf Goolamabbas
40592 by: Russ Allbery
Qmail IMAP AND Pop3 recomendations
40594 by: Peter Janett
Re: suse and qmail
40595 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
40596 by: Neil Blakey-Milner
install-help!
40597 by: suresh
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got this at my log .bpkpenabur.or.id status: local 1/150 remote 1/300 delivery 562: deferral: Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7 .0)/ status: local 0/150 remote 1/300 what should I fix then ? ------- AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
Irwan Hadi writes: > I got this at my log > .bpkpenabur.or.id > status: local 1/150 remote 1/300 > delivery 562: deferral: > Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7 > .0)/ > status: local 0/150 remote 1/300 > what should I fix then ? Remove the program delivery or the x bit from your .qmail file. -- -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.
At 08:29 24/04/2000 -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: >Irwan Hadi writes: > > I got this at my log > > .bpkpenabur.or.id > > status: local 1/150 remote 1/300 > > delivery 562: deferral: > > Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7 > > .0)/ > > status: local 0/150 remote 1/300 > > what should I fix then ? > >Remove the program delivery or the x bit from your .qmail file. But This happened in the mailling list directory. I host my mailling lists at /list and here is the list of the file there 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 list root 23 Apr 13 07:50 .qmail-webpenabur - > /list/webpenabur/editor 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 list root 24 Apr 13 07:50 .qmail-webpenabur-d efault -> /list/webpenabur/manager 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 list root 22 Apr 13 07:50 .qmail-webpenabur-o wner -> /list/webpenabur/owner 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 list root 24 Apr 13 07:50 .qmail-webpenabur-r eturn-default -> /list/webpenabur/bouncer 4 -rwxrwxr-x 1 list list 3666 Apr 12 15:47 .vimrc 1 -rwxrwxr-x 1 list list 598 Apr 12 15:47 .zshrc 1 drwxrwx--- 2 list list 1024 Apr 12 15:47 tmp 1 drwx------ 8 list list 1024 Apr 24 17:51 webpenabur And the files in webpenabur are [root@server webpenabur]# ls -ls total 22 1 -rw------- 1 list list 155 Apr 14 13:05 Log 1 drwx------ 3 list list 1024 Apr 13 07:50 allow 1 drwx------ 3 list list 1024 Apr 13 16:46 archive 0 -rw------- 1 list list 0 Apr 13 07:50 archived 1 drwx------ 2 list list 1024 Apr 13 07:50 bounce 1 -rw------- 1 list list 90 Apr 13 07:50 bouncer 1 -rw------- 1 list list 142 Apr 13 07:50 config 1 -rw------- 1 list list 168 Apr 13 07:50 editor 1 -rw------- 1 list list 223 Apr 13 07:50 headeradd 1 -rw------- 1 list list 137 Apr 13 07:50 headerremove 0 -rw------- 1 list list 0 Apr 13 07:50 indexed 1 -rw------- 1 list list 22 Apr 13 07:50 inhost 1 -rw------- 1 list list 11 Apr 13 07:50 inlocal 1 -rw------- 1 list list 256 Apr 13 07:50 key 0 -rw------- 1 list list 0 Apr 13 07:50 lock 0 -rw------- 1 list list 0 Apr 13 07:50 lockbounce what should fix then ? thanks in advance ;)
Andre Oppermann writes: > Russell Nelson wrote: > > I modified qmail-smtpd to log that error message to stderr. That told > > me the new network, and I enabled many customers to have a happy Easter. > > Sounds like you are running qmail-ldap... ;-) What does ldap user lookup have to do with qmail-smtpd?? -- -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 wrote: > > Andre Oppermann writes: > > Russell Nelson wrote: > > > I modified qmail-smtpd to log that error message to stderr. That told > > > me the new network, and I enabled many customers to have a happy Easter. > > > > Sounds like you are running qmail-ldap... ;-) > > What does ldap user lookup have to do with qmail-smtpd?? Actually nothing, but qmail-smtpd in the qmail-ldap patch does full logging. -- Andre
Andre Oppermann writes: > Russell Nelson wrote: > > What does ldap user lookup have to do with qmail-smtpd?? > > Actually nothing, but qmail-smtpd in the qmail-ldap patch does full > logging. What if I want qmail-ldap but not a modified qmail-smtpd (the one that Dan wrote being nice and secure and me not wanting it touched)? Wouldn't it be a Better Thing(tm) is qmail-ldap just gave me qmail-ldap and not all that other stuff? -- -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 wrote: > > Andre Oppermann writes: > > Russell Nelson wrote: > > > What does ldap user lookup have to do with qmail-smtpd?? > > > > Actually nothing, but qmail-smtpd in the qmail-ldap patch does full > > logging. > > What if I want qmail-ldap but not a modified qmail-smtpd (the one that > Dan wrote being nice and secure and me not wanting it touched)? You can have that, there are no ldap specific modifications in it's qmail-smtpd. The only ldap modified stock qmail programs are qmail- lspawn and qmail-local. New programs are qmail-reply, auth_pop, auth_imap, digest, qmail- quotawarn, qmail-ldaplookup. > Wouldn't it be a Better Thing(tm) is qmail-ldap just gave me > qmail-ldap and not all that other stuff? Yes and No. The main purpose of the qmail-ldap patch is to have an ldap mail- server/-cluster out of the box without the need to apply a dozen patches extra. And that is exactly what qmail-ldap does. It's not a patch which add's ldap but a mail server solution. -- Andre
Title: RE: Internet mailHi all,
Ok. I am changing my question. I assume I have two Qmail server.user name Qmail hostname Qmail hostname
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>deneme.test.com--------------------> deneme2.test.com----------------> internetI want to set if deneme.test.com receive a request e-mail to internet (for example [EMAIL PROTECTED]) it forwards to deneme2.test.com.
How can I set this configuration?
Thanks in advance..Ilker G.
-----Original Message-----
From: R.Ilker Gokhan
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 4:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Internet mailHi to all,
I have a mail system that is MS Exchange server 5.5 at the local sites. I 'm using INC (Internet mail connector) on Exchange server for internet mail. . I'm using NT4.0 on local and remote sites. I 've wanted to use Qmail on the remote sides so I 've installed qmail1.03 (without any patch) to use on remote sites to posting and getting mail with the local sites via SMTP and POP3 protocol. Any user on the remote site can posting mail to any user on the local sites or getting. But remote site's user can't send any mail to the internet. In the same way they can't get any mail. I have MX entry for MS Exchange on DNS. I've scan FAQ but I couldn't find any information about this.Shortly, I mean that:
site users-------------------->qmail server-------------------------->MS Exchange server----------------------->InternetHow can I set this smtproutes to internet mail?
Thanks for helps
Ilker G.
Hi all, qmail generell is running good. My current problem seems to be the fact, that mails send to @mail.<domain> are accepted, but those send to @<domain> not. Who can give me tips to solve this problem? Thanks in advance. Thomas
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Thomas Booms EDV wrote: > My current problem seems to be the fact, that mails send to > @mail.<domain> are accepted, but those send to @<domain> not. What do you mean with it not being accepted? Is domain in your locals file? -- Thorkild
Thomas Booms EDV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My current problem seems to be the fact, that mails send to >@mail.<domain> are accepted, but those send to @<domain> not. Put <domain> in control/locals and control/rcphosts. Restart qmail. -Dave
Hello Everyone, Anyone know this error: > >> /usr/bin/mailquotacheck: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable > >> QUOTACHECK ERROR: The mail quotacheck program cannot determine the size >of > >> this message. Please inform postmaster of the site you are trying to >mail > >to. -- ----------------------------- Lu�s Bezerra de A. Junior [EMAIL PROTECTED] SecrelNet Inform�tica LTDA Fortaleza - Cear� - Brasil Fone: 021852882090 -----------------------------
Would someone please recommend an ISP that provides AutoTURN service to customers? My primary MX is currently on the end of a DSL line with a static IP, but when that goes down, I'll have a dynamic IP on the end of a dial-up line (so SMTP ETRN is out). Thanks in advance. Glenn
Is it possible to run qmail under SCO unixware 4 environment ? Is there any library I need to run qmail then ? Thanks in advance for your reply ------- AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
Please, 1) Tell us the machine's name qmail is on. 2) The remote machine's name you are trying to send mail to. 3) Show us the log entry that shows the failed delivery attempt. 4) If you get any bounces, include the bounce with full header. Mate
"Bolivar Diaz Galarza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I know almost nothing about linux and less about qmail. I have installed it >and it works with one mailbox. Can any of you please tell me how to add >users to my qmail linux and qmail at the same time? System users are qmail users automatically. -Dave
"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >is it possible to configure qmail to send out a "temporary failure" message >or something if mail can't be delivered rightaway? No. >One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to >him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late... Oh? What would the user have done had he known there was a DNS failure? >Some >failure messages inbetween would be quite helpful. That's one of sendmail's more annoying features, if you ask me. -Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >is it possible to configure qmail to send out a "temporary failure" message > >or something if mail can't be delivered rightaway? > > No. But if you're desperate, you can create this feature easily. Write a Perl script which either 1) grovels through the queue directories, or 2) runs /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread, and sends a report to the original sender for messages enqueued longer than X minutes/hours/days. > >Some failure messages inbetween would be quite helpful. > > That's one of sendmail's more annoying features, if you ask me. 100% agreed. Don't even consider doing what I described above. If an email is _that_ time-sensitive, follow up using a phone call. Better yet, write ``Let me know AS SOON AS you receive this!'' inside the body of the email. Len. -- I'm more worried about real security problems than theoretical reliability problems. -- Dan Bernstein
At 4/24/2000 10:56 AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote or quoted: >"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to > >him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late... > >Oh? What would the user have done had he known there was a DNS >failure? He might have tried to fax, fed-ex, or otherwise send the information via another medium. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) finger trouble /n./ Mistyping, typos, or generalized keyboard incompetence (this is surprisingly common among hackers, given the amount of time they spend at keyboards). "I keep putting colons at the end of statements instead of semicolons", "Finger trouble again, eh?".
> >"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to > > >him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late... You can shorten the queue lifetime by adding a file called 'queuelifetime' to qmail/control. The contents of the file should be the number of seconds you want messages to wait in the queue before being bounced. We have ours set to 345600, or four days rather than the default seven. That is of course only a compromise, but seven days does seem a long time before you are notified of a problem. tom blauvelt Thomas Blauvelt NorthNet Internet Services, Inc. North Country Reference & Research Resources Council [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 Commerce Lane Canton NY 13617 USA (315) 386-4569
>At 4/24/2000 10:56 AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote or quoted: >>"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to >> >him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late... >> >>Oh? What would the user have done had he known there was a DNS >>failure? > >He might have tried to fax, fed-ex, or otherwise send the information via >another medium. Anyone who assumes that An Important Mail has been delivered intact and read by the recipient simply because they didn't receive a warning or bounce message deserves what they get. -Dave
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:53:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >At 4/24/2000 10:56 AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote or quoted: >>"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to >> >him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late... >> >>Oh? What would the user have done had he known there was a DNS >>failure? > >He might have tried to fax, fed-ex, or otherwise send the information via >another medium. Anyone who assumes that An Important Mail has been delivered intact and read by the recipient simply because they didn't receive a warning or bounce message deserves what they get. This is a real indictment of the state of the Internet. I hope that someday people will trust the Internet the way they trust the telephone system. How often have you heard somebody say ``You didn't get my fax? I guess the Telco server was down.'' The Internet can and should be more reliable for this sort of usage. Ian
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This is a real indictment of the state of the Internet. It's more of an example of some of the differences between the ways different communication technologies/protocols work. >I hope that someday people will trust the Internet the way they trust >the telephone system. I already do, I just have different expectations for the two. >How often have you heard somebody say ``You >didn't get my fax? I guess the Telco server was down.'' Ever pick up the phone and not get a dialtone? Dial a number and get the "fast busy signal" that means "no circuits available"? Ever try to send someone a fax and get a busy signal, no answer, or a human? I sure have. >The Internet can and should be more reliable for this sort of usage. SMTP and existing MUA's and MTA's were not designed for instantaneous delivery. If you want to force it to be more immediate, shorten your queuelifetime. -Dave
the only thing that makes the phone system more reliable than the internet is that you get an instant response, if you don't get a response then you know their's a problem. by the nature of e-mail you do-not get an instant response, so after some time of no response you have to assume the message didn't go through, if you use an instant message program on the other hand then you will get an (almost) instant response (as long as the person is at their desk), and will know your message has gotten through.. JUST as reliably as the phone system. snail mail is the same deal as e-mail (hence the similarity in names)... when you mail a letter you assume it's gotten where it's supposed to go, but sometimes (not often) letters _do_ get lost, and so if iut's something very importaint then you'll usually call in a reasonable amount of time (couple days) to make sure the other person got the letter... it's the nature of communications in general, not of the internet... actually it's more the nature of our existance - nothing can be guaranteed with absolute certainty, so you need to check everything... wow, that's alot longer than I planned - sorry for the rant.. -Brian Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This is a real indictment of the state of the Internet. > > I hope that someday people will trust the Internet the way they trust > the telephone system. How often have you heard somebody say ``You > didn't get my fax? I guess the Telco server was down.'' > > The Internet can and should be more reliable for this sort of usage. > > Ian
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:24:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >How often have you heard somebody say ``You >didn't get my fax? I guess the Telco server was down.'' Ever pick up the phone and not get a dialtone? Dial a number and get the "fast busy signal" that means "no circuits available"? Ever try to send someone a fax and get a busy signal, no answer, or a human? I sure have. Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week. >The Internet can and should be more reliable for this sort of usage. SMTP and existing MUA's and MTA's were not designed for instantaneous delivery. If you want to force it to be more immediate, shorten your queuelifetime. There is a large gap between instantaneous delivery and 1 week. There is a large gap between ``I could not deliver this message in one hour but I will keep trying'' and ``I could not deliver this message in one hour, try again later.'' There is no one correct solution for all mail messages. But I don't see why the current state of affairs is appropriate or even reasonable. Ian
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:05:37 -0400 From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> actually it's more the nature of our existance - nothing can be guaranteed with absolute certainty, so you need to check everything... But that's why we have computers--to check things for us. You can't check everything, but it doesn't follow that we shouldn't try to check what we can. Ian
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by > default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week. I would be interesting to see (someone else do :) a study of the time in the queue vs. success in delivery. How profitable is it to leave mail in the queue for seven days versus the four that Tom suggested? -- -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.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:05:37 -0400 > From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > actually it's more the nature of our existance - nothing can be > guaranteed with absolute certainty, so you need to check everything... > > But that's why we have computers--to check things for us. > > You can't check everything, but it doesn't follow that we shouldn't > try to check what we can. but why bother trying to have the computer check? "You can't check everything" automatically, which mean's you have to use the usual methods to make sure your message got through anyway due to the things you can't check for. One good solution to this whole thing is use return reciepts, then if you don't get a return reciept in a timely fashon then you'll know to use another form of communication to check.. the person could just simply not be checking their e-mail, or you could've mistyped the address, or a million other things, so you just plain can't depend on the system, but the more checks you put in, the more you make the system _look_ perfect, the more easy you make it for users to assume that is _is_ perfect... -Brian
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anyone who assumes that An Important Mail has been delivered intact > and read by the recipient simply because they didn't receive a > warning or bounce message deserves what they get. > > This is a real indictment of the state of the Internet. Not at all. Dave said, ``simply because they didn't receive a warning...'' In other words, you can't assume the message was received, simply because you WEREN'T told that it WASN'T received. You can only assume it was received if you HAVE been told it HAS been received. > I hope that someday people will trust the Internet the way they trust > the telephone system. I know you got my phone call, because I know I heard your voice. I know you got my fax, because fax machines DO acknowledge when a fax has been received. Email has no _general_ confirmation mechanism, except asking the recipient to ``hit reply so I know you got this.'' Len. -- There are two people at fault in every computer security breach: the attacker, and the programmer who let him in. -- Dan Bernstein
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:26:00 -0400 From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the person could just simply not be checking their e-mail, or you could've mistyped the address, or a million other things, so you just plain can't depend on the system, but the more checks you put in, the more you make the system _look_ perfect, the more easy you make it for users to assume that is _is_ perfect... You seem to be saying that there is no point to improving something unless we can make it perfect. However, I think we can all agree that in this world nothing is ever perfect. Therefore, you seem to be saying that we should never try to improve anything. If that isn't what you mean, then what do you mean? I'm not saying we should make things perfect. I'm saying we should make things better. And the first step is realizing that things are not good enough--or, in other words, that they are not perfect. Ian
From: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:37:14 -0400 Not at all. Dave said, ``simply because they didn't receive a warning...'' In other words, you can't assume the message was received, simply because you WEREN'T told that it WASN'T received. You can only assume it was received if you HAVE been told it HAS been received. Why bother sending a bounce message at all, then? Ian
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:33:58PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > You seem to be saying that there is no point to improving something > unless we can make it perfect. However, I think we can all agree that > in this world nothing is ever perfect. Therefore, you seem to be > saying that we should never try to improve anything. And you seem to be under the impression that everyone thinks that what you want is an improvement. People have already given you a solution, either use it, or come up with something yourself. --Adam
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Why bother sending a bounce message at all, then? to help diagnose the problem? you send an e-mail to the only person who's address you know for sure, the sender, and he can fix the problem if it's on his end, or let the recipient into the problem if it's on their end.. much easier that going to the admin and looking through the logs to figure out the reason behind every failed message..
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by > > default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week. > >I would be interesting to see (someone else do :) a study of the time >in the queue vs. success in delivery. How profitable is it to leave >mail in the queue for seven days versus the four that Tom suggested? I have three and a half days of old logs I ran through qmailanalog. The zddist script says: ---- Distribution of ddelays for successful deliveries Meaning of each line: The first pct% of successful deliveries all happened within doneby seconds. The average ddelay was avg. doneby avg pct 175.68 72.00 90 185.54 74.41 91 197.96 77.15 92 214.85 80.45 93 229.72 84.12 94 262.56 88.66 95 302.85 94.62 96 1001.79 109.63 97 1275.71 141.99 98 10004.30 605.29 99 173893.00 607.67 100 ---- So 99% of my messages were delivered within 3 hours (10800 s), and all were delivered within about 2 days (172800 s). This was for a chunk of log summarized by zoverall as: ---- Basic statistics qtime is the time spent by a message in the queue. ddelay is the latency for a successful delivery to one recipient---the end of successful delivery, minus the time when the message was queued. xdelay is the latency for a delivery attempt---the time when the attempt finished, minus the time when it started. The average concurrency is the total xdelay for all deliveries divided by the time span; this is a good measure of how busy the mailer is. Completed messages: 15518 Recipients for completed messages: 85595 Total delivery attempts for completed messages: 92071 Average delivery attempts per completed message: 5.93317 Bytes in completed messages: 94519308 Bytes weighted by success: 284405101 Average message qtime (s): 502.863 Total delivery attempts: 175896 success: 162250 failure: 191 deferral: 13455 Total ddelay (s): 54231611.160887 Average ddelay per success (s): 334.247218 Total xdelay (s): 4135746.725588 Average xdelay per delivery attempt (s): 23.512455 Time span (days): 3.50192 Average concurrency: 13.6689 ---- Now, this doesn't exactly measure what you asked for because it just looks at a 3.5 day snapshot: it doesn't follow N messages until they were either delivered or bounced. But, it's interesting that none of the messages in this period took more than two days to be delivered. I think it's clear that very few messages are delivered in the 4th through 7th days. -Dave
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:02:53PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > I haven't said what I want, beyond something better than the current > situation, so this response does not seem to be to the point unless > you think the current situation is ideal. > > I am trying to come up with something myself (http://www.zembu.com/) > but Zembu Labs can't do it alone. I want to encourage people to > realize that the Internet could stand improvement. Saying people > should just accept the way things are, which is how I read Dave Sill's > note to which I originally replied, is a hot button for me. Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you want implemented: Ian> I don't see why the current state of affairs is appropriate or even Ian> reasonable. Ian> You can't check everything, but it doesn't follow that we shouldn't Ian> try to check what we can. Ian> I'm not saying we should make things perfect. I'm saying we should Ian> make things better. And the first step is realizing that things are Ian> not good enough--or, in other words, that they are not perfect. You've been answered with (for the most part) "We think things are OK the way they are, use queuelifetime if you want to change qmail's behavior" --Adam
At 4/24/2000 04:17 PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote or quoted: >Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was >that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you >want implemented: >[snip] >You've been answered with (for the most part) "We think things are OK the >way they are, use queuelifetime if you want to change qmail's behavior" As a contrasting view, I see things roughly thus: As things stand with qmail right now, a user sending mail through qmail gets one of three things: 1) A successful delivery. 2) A bounce message (liable to happen within a few minutes under most circumstances). 3) An eventual failure (which takes queuelifetime). In the case of a failure to deliver, the user will not get *any* warning about it until queuelifetime has passed. I think that the option to have qmail (or a plug-in or add-on program) deliver a message back to the user stating that the message hasn't gone through yet, after an admin-configurable length of time (presumably somewhere from 4-24 hours), would be a useful thing. This isn't necessarily a qmail feature request, since I can see a strong case to be made for having this be an add-on. But it is a dissenting view that I thought should be aired, because I'd like to counterbalance the view I see here of "Messages like that are horrible; why would anyone want them?" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) finger trouble /n./ Mistyping, typos, or generalized keyboard incompetence (this is surprisingly common among hackers, given the amount of time they spend at keyboards). "I keep putting colons at the end of statements instead of semicolons", "Finger trouble again, eh?".
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:17:27 -0400 From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you want implemented: That feature is reliability from the perspective of the user who knows nothing about how the e-mail system works. That includes comprehensible failure modes. You've been answered with (for the most part) "We think things are OK the way they are, use queuelifetime if you want to change qmail's behavior" If you think that things are OK the way they are, then we simply disagree. First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say ``I need to know about this message, but not about this other message.'' It doesn't tell me ``it's been a hour to deliver this message--I'm still trying, but you might want to think about fixing something.'' Second, my actual point. Internet e-mail is pretty good, but I believe it could be a lot better. I encourage people to think of ways to make it better. If you see something that doesn't work right, don't just say ``well, that's the way it is.'' Instead, say ``we know that sucks, but nobody has fixed it yet.'' OK, I'll try to get off my soapbox now and drop this topic (except to answer any specific questions). Ian
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:38:01PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote: > This isn't necessarily a qmail feature request, since I can see a strong > case to be made for having this be an add-on. But it is a dissenting view > that I thought should be aired, because I'd like to counterbalance the view > I see here of "Messages like that are horrible; why would anyone want them?" They're annoying to administrators, and they do little more than confuse users, which makes life even worse for the administrator, who now is getting bombarded with calls from users "why didn't my email go through" --Adam
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:31:49PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is > good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say > ``I need to know about this message, but not about this other > message.'' It doesn't tell me ``it's been a hour to deliver this > message--I'm still trying, but you might want to think about fixing > something.'' You're right -- that's what qmail-qstat and qmail-qread are for. --Adam
On 24 Apr 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is > good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say > ``I need to know about this message, but not about this other > message.'' It doesn't tell me ``it's been a hour to deliver this > message--I'm still trying, but you might want to think about fixing > something.'' There's a link from the qmail website to Brian Wightman's delayed-mail notifier, which serves this purpose quite faithfully (runs on cron, scans the queue and sends a message to the sender letting them know about the delay) and seems to be the piece of software several folks are looking for. Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please pick up the nearest courtesy phone. I have a copy from Feb 99; it's the one we've been using in production for some time now and it's never let us down. 9K download: http://www.summersault.com/chris/techno/qmail/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz Note that it's an alpha release, and that I didn't write it, and that I won't support it, and that I probably won't answer questions about it, and that I don't want to be the primary download site for it. I hope this helps. Chris -- Chris Hardie ----------------------------- ----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- -------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
Kai MacTane wrote: > At 4/24/2000 04:17 PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote or quoted: > > >Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was > >that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you > >want implemented: > >[snip] > >You've been answered with (for the most part) "We think things are OK the > >way they are, use queuelifetime if you want to change qmail's behavior" > > As a contrasting view, I see things roughly thus: > > As things stand with qmail right now, a user sending mail through qmail > gets one of three things: > > 1) A successful delivery. > 2) A bounce message (liable to happen within a few minutes under most > circumstances). > 3) An eventual failure (which takes queuelifetime). you forgot the possibility of 4) Message gets totally lost and NO-ONE gets any warning... this can happen for many reasons. from entering the wrong e-mail address accidentally and whoever gets it ignores/deletes it, to the server failing and losing the message. this was my point earlier, you can't always count on getting an error message if there is an error, because there's _always_ a chance that the message will be lost without a trace. so if you do make errors for everything possible, then users who don't know how the system works will assume than _every_ error will return an error message which just can never be the case. the only way to make the system foolproof that I can think of is by implementing some kind of automatic return reciepts built into to the MUA. have it automatically request a reciept whenever a message is sent, and whenever a reciept is recieved flag that message as "recieved" otherwise flag the message as "in transit". the problem with this is both ends have to support it for it to work properly, but this would do 2 things - instantly educate the user that the system's not infallable, and solve your need for error messages. -Brian
Chris Hardie writes: > Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please > pick up the nearest courtesy phone. It's also temporarily available as http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't show up too soon, I'll change the link to point to my server. -- -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 Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 02:02:13PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote: > Could you elaborate on the part about such messages being annoying to > administrators? Administrators use email too. --Adam
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon 24 Apr 2000 13:47 Subject: Re: temporary failure warning message > > As things stand with qmail right now, a user sending mail through qmail > > gets one of three things: > > > > 1) A successful delivery. > > 2) A bounce message (liable to happen within a few minutes under most > > circumstances). > > 3) An eventual failure (which takes queuelifetime). > > you forgot the possibility of > 4) Message gets totally lost and NO-ONE gets any warning... > this can happen for many reasons. from entering the wrong e-mail address > accidentally and whoever gets it ignores/deletes it, to the server failing and That happens to be a case of #1 above. The message was successfully delivered to the address specified by the user. Do you honestly expect any MTA to correct those "errors"? > losing the message. this was my point earlier, you can't always count on > getting an error message if there is an error, because there's _always_ a > chance that the message will be lost without a trace. so if you do make errors Not if you have a halfway decent MTA. Writing bulletproof software is not impossible. There are only so many states the message can be in. Of course, the disk drive could always melt down with messages in queue, in which case you'd be screwed and the message could disappear. But I'd say that recovering from that kind of failure is a little outside the scope of an MTA. shag ===== Judd Bourgeois | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Software Developer | Phone: 805.520.7170 CNM Network | Mobile: 805.807.1162 or http://www.cnmnetwork.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In the case of a failure to deliver, the user will not get *any* warning > about it until queuelifetime has passed. I think that the option to have > qmail (or a plug-in or add-on program) deliver a message back to the > user stating that the message hasn't gone through yet, after an > admin-configurable length of time (presumably somewhere from 4-24 > hours), would be a useful thing. Our users constantly reply to such messages saying "please stop trying to deliver that message." *sigh* Once we switch away from sendmail, I'm strongly inclined to turn them off. I'd also significantly reduce the queue lifetime; honestly, if the message can't be delivered in two or three days, most e-mail users these days seem to have already concluded it will never get there and get really confused when it comes through. Our mail server that just sends out bounce messages already has a queue lifetime of just one day, but that's a special case (a very large number of those messages will just double-bounce and get silently discarded). -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: "Brian Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> this was my point earlier, you can't always count on getting an error >> message if there is an error, because there's _always_ a chance that >> the message will be lost without a trace. so if you do make errors > Not if you have a halfway decent MTA. Writing bulletproof software is > not impossible. There are only so many states the message can be in. Yeah, but just because a bounce message was generated doesn't mean that the user gets it. I've seen a depressing quantity of users that put all sorts of random trash in their envelope sender and never see any of their bounces. Ideally, I'd track down the double-bounces and get the user to fix their configuration so that they see further bounces, but there really isn't enough time in the day for any significant user base. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Hi there. We had a power failure here the other day, and since then I'm getting messages like this one in the log file: Apr 24 09:57:16 marilyn qmail: 956588236.339152 warning: trouble opening remote/15/551670; will try again later Apr 24 09:57:20 marilyn qmail: 956588240.349218 warning: trouble opening info/22/554598; will try again later Apr 24 09:57:42 marilyn qmail: 956588262.359546 warning: trouble opening remote/4/551705; will try again later What can I do to fix this? The files in question don't exist. TIA, Aled.
I appreciated all of the responses to my message and it woudl appear that rsync and rdist is a much better way to do this. However, I am at a loss in just how to use rsync or rdist. Can someone point me to a good reference on how to do what I want? The man pages didn't seem to help me much. Thanks, Greg > 2. Do you think it would be safe to use NFS to mount my /var/qmail/control > directory on our backup MX and then use symlinks of the nfs mounted > rcpthosts file to the local file? For the number of domains I have, I want > to avoid having to edit multiple files everytime we add one or delete one. Sure, if you don't mind making all of your email hosts rely on NFS. A better solution might be to rdist or rsync the files from a master machine.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Jason Brooke wrote: > In my experience, that error is caused when the value you enter for the port > isn't listed in /etc/services That's kinda what I thought, which is why I explicitly defined port 25 in there... but that doesn't seem to be the issue... =( -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], OpenPGP key available on www.keyserver.net Freezer Burn BBS: telnet://bbs.freezer-burn.org . ICQ: 54924721 Webmaster for the Linux Portal Site Freezer Burn: http://www.freezer-burn.org
Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number for geceventures.com > >I'm starting qmail-smtpd with: > >#!/bin/sh >QMAILUID=`id -u qmaild` >NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` >exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcprules.d/smtpd.cdb \ > -u $QMAILUID -g $NOFILESGID geceventures.com 25 \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 Make that "echo exec...", run it, verify that the expanded command is correct--especially the UID and GID. -Dave
What about removing the "exec" completely? I don't see why exec is necessary, and I don't know if your script variables will be passed into the new process created by the exec. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Qmail behind firewall question Vincent Danen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number for geceventures.com > >I'm starting qmail-smtpd with: > >#!/bin/sh >QMAILUID=`id -u qmaild` >NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` >exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcprules.d/smtpd.cdb \ > -u $QMAILUID -g $NOFILESGID geceventures.com 25 \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 Make that "echo exec...", run it, verify that the expanded command is correct--especially the UID and GID. -Dave
Dave Kitabjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about removing the "exec" completely? I don't see why exec is > necessary... It's necessary to save one process. Otherwise, the script itself continues running, doing nothing except waiting for the tcpserver process to exit. (Decent sysadmin types make a hobby out of conserving process-table slots. It's a good hobby. The first step along the way is to make your shell scripts ``exec'' their final command. I'd go so far as to say that that's a good definition of a ``wrapper script''.) > ...and I don't know if your script variables will be passed > into the new process created by the exec. They won't, in the script below. You must export the shell variables into the environment, or they won't be inherited by exec-ed processes. Like so: > > #!/bin/sh > > QMAILUID=`id -u qmaild` > > NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` export QMAILUID NOFILESGID > > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcprules.d/smtpd.cdb \ > > -u $QMAILUID -g $NOFILESGID geceventures.com 25 \ > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 Len. -- Frugal Tip #38: Don't buy mustache wax. It's much cheaper to let the handlebars droop.
"Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave Kitabjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ...and I don't know if your script variables will be passed >> into the new process created by the exec. > >They won't, in the script below. You must export the shell variables >into the environment, or they won't be inherited by exec-ed processes. >Like so: > >> > #!/bin/sh >> > QMAILUID=`id -u qmaild` >> > NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > >export QMAILUID NOFILESGID > >> > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ >> > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcprules.d/smtpd.cdb \ >> > -u $QMAILUID -g $NOFILESGID geceventures.com 25 \ >> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 Yes, but there's no need to pass QMAILUID and NOFILESGID to softlimit, tcpserver, or qmail-smtpd. They're only needed by the shell that does the exec, and it expands them before doing the exec. -Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >export QMAILUID NOFILESGID > > Yes, but there's no need to pass QMAILUID and NOFILESGID to softlimit, > tcpserver, or qmail-smtpd. They're only needed by the shell that does > the exec, and it expands them before doing the exec. You're right! Thanks for not saying ``Duh!'' Why did I think he was using envuidgid? Those would still be the wrong variables... Len. -- Frugal Tip #7: Manage a multifamily housing complex in the back seat of your SUV.
It seems I am behind: I just noticed that pine-4.21 supports maildir. Or is it just the version RH made? Thx Mate
Good news for everybody, the FreeBSD bug I was mentioning earlier in the list has been fixed for FreeBSD 4.0 and -current. If you upgrade your system, you should not have any problems with this anymore. Patrick.
This is a bit offtopic: I was about to upload an init/run scripts package when I noticed they would not work properly. The reason: the install and mkdir programs of the GNU fileutils package on RH 6.1 do not handle special bits properly. Consider install -d -m2755 a ls -ld a drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 24 04:11 a/ The problem is fixed for RH 6.2, but I see it on RH 6.1. I would just like to ask people to give me feedback how install/mkdir behaves on their Linux system. So please do install -d -m2755 a ls -ld a mkdir -p -m2755 b ls -ld b If you do not see the special bit set, please send me the output of the above along with your system description. For example, how is Debian, Mandrake, Corel, RH =< 6.0 ? Thx
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a bit offtopic: I was about to upload an init/run scripts > package when I noticed they would not work properly. The reason: the > install and mkdir programs of the GNU fileutils package on RH 6.1 do > not handle special bits properly. Consider > > install -d -m2755 a > ls -ld a > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 24 04:11 a/ > > The problem is fixed for RH 6.2, but I see it on RH 6.1. I would just > like to ask people to give me feedback how install/mkdir behaves on > their Linux system. GNU fileutils 3.16 is fine (comes with SuSE 6.2). -- Matthias Andree Where do you think you're going today?
Because I did not find any, I created man-pages for the packages in subject from djb's documentation at http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html . You find them at ftp://ftp.innominate.org/gpa/djb/daemontools-0.70-man.tar.gz ftp://ftp.innominate.org/gpa/djb/ucspi-tcp-0.88-man.tar.gz Greets, Gerrit. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] innominate AG networking people fon: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 web: http://innominate.de pgp: /pgp/gp
I have heard that the newest versions of Procmail support the Maildir aspects of Qmail. Are there any caveats I should know before replacing/upgrading my Procmail? Thanks! Jeff
I ve got checkpassword working.. however I tried to telnet on 110 and login as a phony pop client. I get message this user has no $HOME/ Maildir.. I look in /home/user and Maildir is there.. i tried makemaildir but I got responce command does not exist. I was in ~qmail/bin.. and I see it there.. *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* * Les Higger ITAF , * Local Area Network Coord. * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School * Los Angeles Unified School District ---> Old men can give flawless advice, for they nolonger can set bad examples <---
Les Higger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >i tried makemaildir but I got responce command does not exist. >I was in ~qmail/bin.. and I see it there.. Is . or ~qmail/bin (?) in your path? In other words, would ./maildirmake or /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake have worked? -Dave
ah... finally saw the error of my ways.. I didnt know makemaildir needed ./ didnt show that in the install.maildir.. now i have one problem left.. i send mail to bert.. mail winds up in Mailbox not Maildir. I missed something.. :-( *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* * Les Higger ITAF , * Local Area Network Coord. * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School * Los Angeles Unified School District ---> Old men can give flawless advice, for they nolonger can set bad examples <--- On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > Les Higger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >i tried makemaildir but I got responce command does not exist. > >I was in ~qmail/bin.. and I see it there.. > > Is . or ~qmail/bin (?) in your path? In other words, would > ./maildirmake or /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake have worked? > > -Dave >
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:25:41AM -0700, Les Higger wrote: > ah... finally saw the error of my ways.. I didnt know makemaildir needed > ./ didnt show that in the install.maildir.. > now i have one problem left.. > i send mail to bert.. mail winds up in Mailbox not Maildir. > I missed something.. :-( How are you starting qmail (i.e. what's the command line for qmail-start ? If you want to use maildirs, it should say ./Maildir/ instead of ./Mailbox .... > *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > * Les Higger ITAF , Greetz, Steffan -- http://therookie.dyndns.org
oh.... yes.. i saw the trailing / but forgot to add it when i changed from Mailbox to Maildir.. i ll try it and see what happens.. thanks all *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* * Les Higger ITAF , * Local Area Network Coord. * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School * Los Angeles Unified School District ---> Old men can give flawless advice, for they nolonger can set bad examples <--- On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Steffan Hoeke wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:25:41AM -0700, Les Higger wrote: > > ah... finally saw the error of my ways.. I didnt know makemaildir needed > > ./ didnt show that in the install.maildir.. > > now i have one problem left.. > > i send mail to bert.. mail winds up in Mailbox not Maildir. > > I missed something.. :-( > How are you starting qmail (i.e. what's the command line for qmail-start ? > If you want to use maildirs, it should say ./Maildir/ instead of ./Mailbox .... > > > *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > > * Les Higger ITAF , > Greetz, > Steffan > > -- > http://therookie.dyndns.org > >
Les Higger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >ah... finally saw the error of my ways.. I didnt know makemaildir needed >./ didnt show that in the install.maildir.. That's not specific to maildirmake: *all* commands have to be: 1) specified with an absolute pathname (/var/qmail/bin/maildirmake), 2) specified with a relative pathname (./maildirmake), or 3) in a directory contained in your "path". This is *very* basic UNIX stuff. >now i have one problem left.. >i send mail to bert.. mail winds up in Mailbox not Maildir. >I missed something.. :-( If you installed using the LWQ directrions, you can do: echo ./Maildir/ >/var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery qmail restart Otherwise, look at /var/qmail/rc or however/wherever you're running qmail-start. -Dave
Thanks all... were up and running now.. it just took a . here and a / there and words of wisdom from you all.. thanks again.. *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* * Les Higger ITAF , * Local Area Network Coord. * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School * Los Angeles Unified School District ---> Old men can give flawless advice, for they nolonger can set bad examples <--- On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Steffan Hoeke wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:25:41AM -0700, Les Higger wrote: > > ah... finally saw the error of my ways.. I didnt know makemaildir needed > > ./ didnt show that in the install.maildir.. > > now i have one problem left.. > > i send mail to bert.. mail winds up in Mailbox not Maildir. > > I missed something.. :-( > How are you starting qmail (i.e. what's the command line for qmail-start ? > If you want to use maildirs, it should say ./Maildir/ instead of ./Mailbox .... > > > *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++* > > * Les Higger ITAF , > Greetz, > Steffan > > -- > http://therookie.dyndns.org > >
I've been trying to figure this one out with no luck. When compiling queue-fix it gives the following error: ./makelib str.a str_len.o str_diff.o str_diffn.o str_cpy.o \ str_chr.o str_rchr.o str_start.o byte_chr.o byte_rchr.o \ byte_diff.o byte_copy.o byte_cr.o byte_zero.o ./load queue-fix fifo.o fs.a stralloc.a getln.a open.a error.a \ substdio.a alloc.a str.a ld32: Segmentation fault. Removing output file... *** Error code 1 (bu21) Unfortunately I'm still new to all this, I have made sure I have the latest versions of gcc++ and it's libraries. I've been able to compile the program on Solaris 2.6 & 7 boxes without a problem, however the broken queue is on the SGI box. Has any body tried this under IRIX? Eric you mentioned libraries from D.J. Bernstein, do I need to get these? Can I use qmail-sanity's output and go in and delete files manually, instead? Help I'm desperate, my maillog file grows by 1Meg every couple hours!!! Thanks Box info: SGI Indy r5000 IRIX 6.5.3m Gcc 2.8.1 256Megs RAM Lots of disk space. Qmail 1.03 (fairly normal, no pop3 or extras) Typical maillog entries: Apr 24 19:52:19 4C:ella qmail: 956605939.916525 warning: unable to stat mess/1/53499 Apr 24 19:52:19 4C:ella qmail: 956605939.916756 warning: unable to stat mess/11/53486 Apr 24 19:52:19 4C:ella qmail: 956605939.917012 warning: unable to stat mess/11/30900 Apr 24 19:52:19 4C:ella qmail: 956605939.917247 warning: unable to stat mess/11/52819 Apr 24 19:52:19 4C:ella qmail: 956605939.917478 warning: unable to stat mess/11/53003 Apr 24 19:52:20 6C:ella qmail: 956605940.106213 delivery 123293: success: did_1+0+0/ Apr 24 19:52:20 6C:ella qmail: 956605940.126366 status: local 0/25 remote 1/20 Apr 24 19:52:20 4C:ella qmail: 956605940.356701 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Apr 24 19:52:20 4C:ella qmail: 956605940.586380 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Apr 24 19:52:20 6C:ella qmail: 956605940.587046 end msg 4134 ************************************* John McCoy, Jr Systems Administrator Central Systems, Mills College 510-430-3321 [EMAIL PROTECTED] *************************************
Sounds like a bug in the Irix linker. Try looking to your OS vendor for patches. Or you can try installing gnu binutils (and then recompiling gcc instructing it to use the binutils version of ld). However, this is a tricky and dangerous path to take. -Eric > Unfortunately I'm still new to all this, I have made sure I have the latest > versions of gcc++ and it's libraries. I've been able to compile the program > on Solaris 2.6 & 7 boxes without a problem, however the broken queue is on > the SGI box. > > Has any body tried this under IRIX? > Eric you mentioned libraries from D.J. Bernstein, do I need to get these? > Can I use qmail-sanity's output and go in and delete files manually, > instead? > > Help I'm desperate, my maillog file grows by 1Meg every couple hours!!!
I see now, that RH applies the maildir patch and another one called maildirfix. The maildir patch is Mattias Larsson's. Mate
Trying to get going a "pop toaster" as djb calls them, and having all kinds of problems with qmail-pop3d and djb's checkpassword. Authentication will be against NIS, and the passwords are currently using md5 hash. Even an "old" style 12 bit passwd through NIS will not work properly with my checkpassword setup. I thought the getpwnam() would work properly with it, but I guess not, or maybe I need to link in some proper libs? I search to no avail all archives on this matter. I see that djb running openbsd 2.6 also, so surely must be possible. If anyone has run into this and could offer some assistance or pointers, please do, it would be much appreciated. Thanks tons, Ron __________________________________________________ FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place. Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com
I am a qmail and Linux newbie and could use some help. I have a new install with RH 6.2 and followed the setup instructions in Life with Qmail. Everything was working fine until I decided to upgrade ucspi-tcp from .84 to .88. Since I did that, qmail won't start automatically at a reboot. I can execute the startup in /etc/rc/inid.d, it starts fine and works fine. I tried to find it in the logs but couldn't find anything, but I may be looking in the wrong log. Any suggestions where to look would be appreciated! A second question. I am using qmail-pop3, where do I put the start up scripts for it? Thanks Jon Saunders SECPA/Rural-com
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 05:26:35PM -0500, Jon Saunders wrote: > I am a qmail and Linux newbie and could use some help. I have a new install > with RH 6.2 and followed the setup instructions in Life with Qmail. > Everything was working fine until I decided to upgrade ucspi-tcp from .84 > to .88. Since I did that, qmail won't start automatically at a reboot. I > can execute the startup in /etc/rc/inid.d, it starts fine and works fine. I > tried to find it in the logs but couldn't find anything, but I may be > looking in the wrong log. Any suggestions where to look would be > appreciated! Put a symlink to that script in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d named S99qmail. > > A second question. I am using qmail-pop3, where do I put the start up > scripts for it? Do it just like the previous: Put the script in /etc/rc.d/init.d and put a symlink in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d with a similar name. S99qmail-pop should be fine. Ben -- "There is no spoon" -- The Matrix
mail.local vulnerability in 8.9: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/1146 There, but for the grace of Daniel, go I. Actually, at this point, if DJB had gotten hit by a bus while at Columbia in NYC, I'd be running postfix, not sendmail. I often wonder what the Internet would be like without the various people who have made the Internet what it is: Dan Bernstein, Linus Torvalds, Jon Postel. Oops, check that. We now know what the Internet is like without Jon. Dan, look both ways when you cross the street, okay? -- -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.
I'd like to be able to interface directly to qmail-queue to send multiple emails. I've created a hack using qmail_open,qmail_put,qmail_from, etc. and can successfully send a message. I would like to be able to send multiple emails without issuing a qmail_close command between messages. My thinking is that I will be able to dump messages into the queue fastest if I can keep my process open. I don't think ezmlm will help me because I want to be able to generate unique content for each email message I send out. I beleive ezmlm dumps one message for multiple recipients into the queue. I've tried this sequence of qmail commands without luck: qmail_open(&qqt) qmail_puts(&qqt,message) qmail_from(&qqt,sender) qmail_to(&qqt,recip) qmail_put(&qqt,"",1) qmail_put(&qqt,"-1",2) qmail_puts(&qqt,message1) etc. Is it even possible to do what I would like? TIA Mike
I have looked through the FAQ and checked the archives and can see an obvious answer to this question. I am running a Redhat 6.1 system with qmail 1.0.3 installed from the packages. I am using IMP as a web front end for clients to send and receive email. The problem is that IMP invokes qmail-inject (via the /var/qmail/bin/sendmail wrapper) as user nobody (which is configured as a system account - uid 99). When sending mail through IMP I get the following error message: qmail-inject: fatal: read error To verify the cause of the problem, I su'ed as nobody and tried a quick test echo to: postmaster | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject with the same result. The question is, how do I enable the nobody account to use qmail-inject in a secure manner? TIA for any assistance, Cheers Geoff Everist
Geoff, I doubt the problem is with the user/group if your just trying to use the sendmail wrapper. I've used it as non-priveledged users with no problems with the permissions at 0755. Log in as nobody and try: echo to:postmaster | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -A postmaster If it works, you should get the message. Hope this helps. Regards, Charles Werbick The Wirehouse -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Everist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 20:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How do I enable user nobody to use qmail-inject? I have looked through the FAQ and checked the archives and can see an obvious answer to this question. I am running a Redhat 6.1 system with qmail 1.0.3 installed from the packages. I am using IMP as a web front end for clients to send and receive email. The problem is that IMP invokes qmail-inject (via the /var/qmail/bin/sendmail wrapper) as user nobody (which is configured as a system account - uid 99). When sending mail through IMP I get the following error message: qmail-inject: fatal: read error To verify the cause of the problem, I su'ed as nobody and tried a quick test echo to: postmaster | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject with the same result. The question is, how do I enable the nobody account to use qmail-inject in a secure manner? TIA for any assistance, Cheers Geoff Everist
Charles Werbick wrote: > > Geoff, > I doubt the problem is with the user/group if your just trying to use the > sendmail wrapper. I've used it as non-priveledged users with no problems > with the permissions at 0755. > > Log in as nobody and try: > > echo to:postmaster | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -A postmaster > > If it works, you should get the message. Hope this helps. > > Regards, > Charles Werbick > The Wirehouse [snip] Thanks for the reply, but the result is the same...qmail-inject: fatal: read error. Just tried with a 'normal' user..same problem. Only seems to work as root. Permissions seem OK... /var/qmail 4 drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 4096 Mar 23 14:24 alias 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 bin 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 boot 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Apr 25 15:02 control 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:28 defaultdelivery 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 doc 4 drwxr-xr-x 6 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 man 4 drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 queue 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 204 Feb 23 23:25 rc 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:25 users /var/qmail/control 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 4096 Apr 25 15:02 . 4 drwxr-xr-x 11 root qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:28 .. 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12 Feb 23 23:26 defaultdomain 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 87 Mar 20 17:37 locals 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 19 Feb 23 23:26 me 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12 Feb 23 23:26 plusdomain 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 88 Mar 7 14:59 rcpthosts 4 -rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 26 Mar 7 14:58 virtualdomains /var/qmail/bin 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9248 Feb 23 23:25 bouncesaying 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 15404 Feb 23 23:25 condredirect 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2198 Feb 23 23:25 config 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1087 Feb 23 23:25 config-fast 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 126 Feb 23 23:25 datemail 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10728 Feb 23 23:25 dnsfq 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10696 Feb 23 23:25 dnsip 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10600 Feb 23 23:25 dnsptr 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 114 Feb 23 23:25 elq 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9184 Feb 23 23:25 except 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 14380 Feb 23 23:25 forward 8 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4424 Feb 23 23:25 hostname 20 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 17684 Feb 23 23:25 instcheck 8 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7460 Feb 23 23:25 ipmeprint 20 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 19212 Feb 23 23:25 maildir2mbox 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 8860 Feb 23 23:25 maildirmake 20 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 17384 Feb 23 23:25 maildirwatch 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 179 Feb 23 23:25 mailsubj 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 115 Feb 23 23:25 pinq 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 13020 Feb 23 23:25 predate 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 13240 Feb 23 23:25 preline 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 115 Feb 23 23:25 qail 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 11908 Feb 23 23:25 qbiff 12 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 10260 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-clean 8 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 5792 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-getpw 36 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 34748 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-inject 36 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 33944 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-local 20 -rwx------ 1 root qmail 17256 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-lspawn 16 -rwx------ 1 root qmail 14352 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-newmrh 12 -rwx------ 1 root qmail 11584 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-newu 20 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 18988 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-pop3d 12 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 11344 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-popup 16 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 15880 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-pw2u 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 13016 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-qmqpc 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 13888 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-qmqpd 24 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 21128 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-qmtpd 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 15348 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-qread 4 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 371 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-qstat 16 -rws--x--x 1 qmailq qmail 12708 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-queue 28 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 25096 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-remote 16 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 13444 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-rspawn 40 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 39492 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-send 16 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 15956 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-showctl 28 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 26108 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-smtpd 8 -rwx------ 1 root qmail 5548 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-start 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9248 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-tcpok 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 10356 Feb 23 23:25 qmail-tcpto 24 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 21724 Feb 23 23:25 qreceipt 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 11344 Feb 23 23:25 qsmhook 12 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9588 Feb 23 23:25 sendmail 8 -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 6544 Feb 23 23:25 splogger 20 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 17240 Feb 23 23:25 tcp-env /var/qmail/queue is interesting, but I expect this is deliberate... 4 drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Apr 10 14:56 bounce 4 drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 info 4 drwx------ 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Apr 25 14:52 intd 4 drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 local 4 drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 lock 4 drwxr-x--- 25 qmailq qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 mess 4 drwx------ 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Apr 25 14:52 pid 4 drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Feb 23 23:26 remote 4 drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Apr 25 14:52 todo Any other ideas? Cheers Geoff
Geoff, You permissions do indeed seem correct. Are there any log messages? Regards, Charles Werbick The Wirehouse
Charles Werbick wrote: > > Geoff, > You permissions do indeed seem correct. Are there any log messages? > > Regards, > Charles Werbick > The Wirehouse Hrm....curiouser and curiouser.... It all appears to be tied up with environment settings. There is typically only one Qmail environment setting on my system, that is QMAILMFTFILE, which is set to ~username/.lists. When I was testing previously, I was using su username, which preserves the current environment variables. Clearly the new user will not have permissions to access the file set in QMAILMFTFILE, and therefore is bombing out around here somewhere: x = env_get("QMAILMFTFILE"); if (!x) return; r = control_readfile(&mft,x,0); if (r == -1) die_read(); /*XXX*/ if (!r) return; If I use su - nobody, I am no longer getting the error doing it manually and the message is being send according to the logs (i.e. everything looks normal). Which takes me back to my original problem. I having problems sending mail with IMP. I _thought_ it may have been the user nobody problem, but clearly it is not. Basically it appears to send mail, but all I get is the dreaded qmail-inject: fatal: read error message in my apache error log, and the mail disappears into the void. Any ideas will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help so far, Cheers Geoff Everist
Hi, I have a qmail-1.03 machine saw in my queue a few bounces in them. Also, looking at my logs I saw the following message @400000003905243f24daf1b4 delivery 34: deferral: Connected_to_204.68.180.50_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_<#@[]>..._unresolvable_host_name_[],_see_RFC_1123,_sections_5.2.2_and_5.2.18./ Is the recipient MTA correct in its behaviour or have I misconfigured something on my side Regards, Yusuf -- Yusuf Goolamabbas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yusuf Goolamabbas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, I have a qmail-1.03 machine saw in my queue a few bounces in > them. Also, looking at my logs I saw the following message > @400000003905243f24daf1b4 delivery 34: deferral: > >Connected_to_204.68.180.50_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_<#@[]>..._unresolvable_host_name_[],_see_RFC_1123,_sections_5.2.2_and_5.2.18./ A bounce message bounced. When this happens, qmail generates a double-bounce and tries to send it to the local postmaster address. It uses the completely invalid envelope sender "#@[]" to ensure that double-bounces can't then bounce again and generate mail loops. You apparently are forwarding postmaster mail to another system which is doing resolveable name checks on envelope senders, and doesn't like qmail's special double-bounce sender. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I have Qmail working with virtual Maildir pop accounts using Paul Gregg's checkpasswd. It's all working OK, but now I need to be able to access the accounts via IMAP. I have been looking into Courier-IMAP, but if possible, I'd like the IMAP server to use the same checkpasswd I'm using for POP3 access. Any suggestions on IMAP setups with Qmail? (Maildir format preferred, but if I need to go with mailbox format to get IMAP going, I'll make the change). If I have to go to a different checkpasswd, is there a good one that can handle virtual domains (all accounts under one user id) and work with both Qmail pop and IMAP? Thanks in advance, Peter Janett New Media One Web Services ~Professional results with a personal touch~ http://www.newmediaone.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (303)828-9882
> Does suse ship with qmail? No. They told me that they never will. And they even refuse to reserve UIDs for qmail. Regards, Frank
On Wed 2000-04-19 (23:58), Russell Nelson wrote: > Rogerio Brito writes: > > On Apr 19 2000, Mate Wierdl wrote: > > > Does suse ship with qmail? > > > > Not that I know of, but Corel Linux does and it's based on > > Debian. > > Well, the Corel Linux CD that one can download does indeed have qmail > installed, however it is not configured nor does it start running by > default. > > CorelLinux:/var/qmail/control# ls > CorelLinux:/var/qmail/control# Are they allowed to package qmail? Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner Hacker In Chief, Sunesi Clinical Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
getting the folowing errors .can anybody tell me why this is happening
/usr/ccs/bin/make setup check
./compile qmail-local.c
/usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `qmail-local.o'
Is the language software necassary(i got no such cd) or can i loda a
different compiler and try
Suresh----------------------------------------------------------------
Send and receive mails in Indian languages.
Register free with http://www.mailjol.com
