qmail Digest 29 Apr 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 986
Topics (messages 40689 through 40730):
Re: AutoTURN ISP?
40689 by: Robert Varga
Re: qmail-uce works in vpopmail environment ?
40690 by: Robert Varga
qmail question...
40691 by: Mario Rafael
40694 by: Dave Sill
What is the alias user for?..
40692 by: Mario Rafael
40695 by: Dave Sill
40696 by: Mario Rafael
40697 by: Dave Sill
Re: Configuration question behind a firewall
40693 by: Dave Sill
RH62 running Qmail + pop + imap, cli�nts use outlook
40698 by: Jeroen ten Berge
40701 by: Stefan Paletta
excepting subdomain from wildcard?
40699 by: Bryan Curnutt
Re: QMAIL 1.03 SMTP antispam filter patch
40700 by: Patrick Ohiomoba
"Multi-RCPT vs. Single RCPT delivery" - logic error?
40702 by: Dave Kitabjian
40707 by: Andy Bradford
40708 by: Len Budney
40709 by: Len Budney
40710 by: Len Budney
40711 by: Chris Hardie
40712 by: Dirk Harms-Merbitz
40715 by: Chris Garrigues
40716 by: Scott Gifford
40717 by: Chris Hardie
40722 by: Racer X
Limit file size by user name
40703 by: Shakaib Sayyid
40704 by: Kai MacTane
40706 by: David Cunningham
40723 by: Shakaib Sayyid
Newbie setting up aliases
40705 by: Bob Waskosky
dashes in domain name?
40713 by: Peter Janett
40726 by: Chris Johnson
Qmail-ldap & cryus imapd
40714 by: Caleb Rutan
sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts?
40718 by: snowcrash
40719 by: Len Budney
Adding a new Domian
40720 by: Bert Beaudin
40721 by: Chris Hardie
40724 by: Bert Beaudin
40725 by: Chris Hardie
Re: Can't send via Mail.app on NeXT
40727 by: Bob Rogers
archive to the web
40728 by: Vincent Danen
Book
40729 by: suresh
virtual domain hosting
40730 by: Vishwanath Paranjape
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 06:45:40PM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 07:06:13AM -0700, Glenn Strauss wrote:
> > > 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).
> >
> > In this case the AutoTURN is no option for you, as with the standard
> > setup you still need a static IP address.
> > However, maybe someone wrote a system similar to "SMTP after POP" that
> > does "SMTP-send after POP".
>
> I have implemented (but not tested yet ;) this as part of my virtual-domain
> checkpassword replacement.
>
> It's not opensource (yet), unfortunately.
Look at www.qmail.org. There I saw a patch for just this scenario.
A dummy pop3 connection triggers maildir2smtp delivery. Any other
connection is suitable where you can determine the client IP (ssh is
suitable).
Robert Varga
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, sunchain wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:01:08 +0800 (CST)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am having qmail+vpopmail running on Solaris and am looking for
> > some ways to let my vpopmail account users to have his/her own
> > mail filter to reject mails. I saw 'qmail-uce' on the net. It
> > looks like a good way to try, but I am wondering if it works well
> > with vpopmail environment. Can qmail-uce (w/maildrop or procmail)
> > recognize individual user's filter recipe under a vpopmail account's
> > home directory?
> > (say, /home/vpopmail/domains/virtual.net/user1/rcptfilter)
> >
> > Any idea ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > ------------
> > Wang-hua Li
> >
> I think vpopmail put user's dot qmail file at vitural domain directory.
> for example, user1 of virtual.net, .qmail-virtual.net-user1 is existing
> under /home/vpopmail/domains/virtual.net/.
> So It cann't recognize file under
> /home/vpopmail/domains/virtual.net/user1/rcptfilter,
>
You can put you .qmail files in ~vpopmail/domains/domain.
For joe@domain it would be
~vpopmail/domains/domain/qmail-joe.
User's maildir is referred in this file as ./username/Maildir/
vpopmail per default delivers via .qmail-default calling vdelivermail.
It also handles some .qmail files in ~vpopmail/domains/domain/user/
It can contain email addresses to forward to (without &), a vpopmail-owned
maildir director, or the string: bounce-no-mailbox.
It (vdelivermail) cannot handle program deliveries or forwards without a
domain, and you must not use & character for forwards.
Regards,
Robert
Hi, suppose I have qmail receiving smtp mail correctly but my local
delivery agent in my case procmail, is down (I dont know why) WHERE is the
mail that has being sent to us but not delivered locally?... I suppose it
will be some kind of message queue but where is it stored?, what file?....
Thanks in advance
Mario Rafael
e-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mario Rafael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, suppose I have qmail receiving smtp mail correctly but my local
>delivery agent in my case procmail, is down (I dont know why) WHERE is the
>mail that has being sent to us but not delivered locally?
That depends upon how procmail is failing. The messages could either
be queued locally (under /var/qmail/queue) if procmail is indicating a
temporary failure, or the message could be bouncing back to their
senders if procmail is indicating a permanent failure.
In situations like this, it's best to shut qmail down until you fix
the problem.
-Dave
Hi I have noticed that the alias user in my system receives TONS of
messages... mostly bounce messages... is this normal?... is there any
posibility to configure it?, any help would be appreciated... ;)..
Thanks in advance..
Mario Rafael
e-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mario Rafael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi I have noticed that the alias user in my system receives TONS of
>messages... mostly bounce messages... is this normal?
Bounces or double bounces? Alias shouldn't receive any bounces
because it shouldn't be sending any mail. But, by default, double
bounces go to "postmaster", which is usually an alias, and alias mail
goes to--surprise--the "alias" user.
>... is there any
>posibility to configure it?, any help would be appreciated... ;)..
The file control/doublebounceto can be used to redirect double bounces
to another user, and, of course, ~alias/.qmail-postmaster can be used
to redirect postmaster mail.
-Dave
Hi ;)
>Bounces or double bounces? Alias shouldn't receive any bounces
>because it shouldn't be sending any mail. But, by default, double
>bounces go to "postmaster", which is usually an alias, and alias mail
>goes to--surprise--the "alias" user.
The messages were doble-bounces, I had a local user sending mail from a
badly written mail addres (origin address) and to a badly remote address,
thanks for the help :).
>The file control/doublebounceto can be used to redirect double bounces
>to another user, and, of course, ~alias/.qmail-postmaster can be used
>to redirect postmaster mail.
Thanks... would it be possible to redirect it to /dev/null? XD, I suppose
is as easy as tellin it mailbox is that one no?... Thanks ;)
-Mario Rafael
e-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mario Rafael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thanks... would it be possible to redirect [double bounces] to
>/dev/null? XD, I suppose is as easy as tellin it mailbox is that one
>no?... Thanks ;)
No, not that easy, but close. Do:
echo doublebounces >/var/qmail/control/doublebounceto
echo # >/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-doublebounces
Then restart qmail.
-Dave
"Susan Short" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Our network design requires that I forward all the mail currently coming
>into my dmz back to our inside secure network to host email02 behind another
>pix. I have tried to set this up and am my mail appears to be going in a
>loop.
>
>My intention was for email01 in the dmz to receive all mail and send it back
>to email02 for storage. the MX record on the internet points to email01.
>There is no record on the internet for email02.
>
>I was trying to do this with smtproutes. So email01 has mydomain.com in its
>rcpthosts but nots its locals and an smtproute file with
>mydomain.com:[ip_of_email02]. Then email02 had just one line in its
>smtproute file of
>:[ip_of_email01].
OK, that sounds good so far. What was the problem?
>I will need to have email02 forward outbound mail because I don't have
>internet DNS resolution in my secure network.
No problem: smtproutes will do what you want.
To summarize, on email01 you want:
mydomain.com in rcpthosts, but not locals
mydomain.com:[ip_of_email02] in smtproutes
On email02 you want:
mydomain.com in rcpthosts and locals
:[ip_of_email01] in smtproutes
You'll also need to set up selective relaying on email01 so it'll
accept outgoing messages from email02.
-Dave
Hello dear readers,
my co-workers are not very bright PC users, so I can't let them play in linux cause
that would be weird for them (you know, no mouse and windows, only those weird
characters ;) ), but they can work around in outlook a bit, but anytime some-one goes
on holiday and needs to auto-reply and auto-forward message's I'm fucked cause I have
to enable it on the linux-box, is there a tool for windows that would make life easier
?
Regards,
Jeroen ten Berge.
Jeroen ten Berge wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
Please, keep your lines around 70 characters max, thanks.
> auto-reply and auto-forward message's I'm fucked cause I have to
> enable it on the linux-box, is there a tool for windows that would
> make life easier ?
I did this yesterday to enable configuration of a forward by email:
cat > .qmail-fax
./Maildir/
| test -e .fax-away && forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^D
cat > .qmail-fax-config
| test -e .fax-away && { rm -f .fax-away ; status=off ; } || { touch .fax-away ;
|status=on ; } ; bouncesaying "Fax forwarding is now $status"
^D
User sends a mail to he-fax-config to toggle forwarding and gets
a bounce telling him the current status.
Stefan
I need to be able to have our primary mail server handle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
but pass addresses such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the server which handles the 'dev.neurohub.net' subdomain,
and addresses such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the server which handles the 'qa.neurohub.net' subdomain.
>From anywhere else on the net, it seems likely that this will be handled
well by setting the MX record for each [virtual] host to point to the
mail server for that subdomain.
But from the primary mail server for neurohub.net, the way I've
usually handled large numbers of hosts in the past -- putting
wildcards into rcpthosts and virtualdomains, then using fastforward
to direct delivery of mail to recipients in the virtual domains --
won't work, i.e. if rcpthosts contains
neurohub.net
.neurohub.net
and virtualdomains contains
.neurohub.net:virtual
then mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" or "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
doesn't get sent to the dev.neurohub.net server.
Is there an easy way to make exceptions to the ".neurohub.net" wildcard,
without listing every host in the ".neurohub.net" zone in rcpthosts (or
morercpthosts) and virtualdomains?
--
Bryan Curnutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is there a qmail-ldap list? Has anybody successfully installed the
qmail-ldap patch? What type of scalability does it offer vs. vpopmail?
Any thoughts, insights, and theories will be appreciated.
Patrick
Regarding: http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#multi-rcpt
Dave S,
I'm having trouble accepting this logic. You mention 3 options:
"Say you're an MTA, and one of your users sends a message to three
people on hostx.example.com. There are several ways you could do this.
1. You could open an SMTP connection to hostx, send a copy of
the message to the first user, send a copy to the second user, send a
copy to the third user, then close the connection.
2. You could start three processes, each of which opens an SMTP
connection to hostx, sends a copy of the message to one of the users,
then closes the connection.
3. You could open an SMTP connection to host, send a copy of the
message addressed to all three users, then close the connection. "
and that qmail uses option #2. Clearly, the rank of efficiency is, from
best to worst,: 3, 1, 2
------
We had a situation with a customer who was consulting for a college. So
every few days, she had to send a 10MB PowerPoint file to about 50
recipients at that college. Under qmail, a separate thread was opened up
for each qmail-remote.
a) That means a total transfer of 500MB rather than simply 10MB.
b) Secondly, since all outbound threads were tied up for a long time,
all other mail was deferring, causing customer complaints.
c) Finally, since all 50 messages were being received by the same remote
SMTP server, the transfer was bottlenecked by the cpu and i/o of their
single mail relay trying to receive 50 copies of the same thing.
We love qmail, and it's working very well for us in general. But I'm
having a hard time reconciling your logic in this paragraph. Perhaps you
could clarify for me.
Dave (K)
Thus said Dave Kitabjian on Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:12:44 EDT:
> We had a situation with a customer who was consulting for a college. So
> every few days, she had to send a 10MB PowerPoint file to about 50
> recipients at that college. Under qmail, a separate thread was opened up
> for each qmail-remote.
>
> a) That means a total transfer of 500MB rather than simply 10MB.
> b) Secondly, since all outbound threads were tied up for a long time,
> all other mail was deferring, causing customer complaints.
> c) Finally, since all 50 messages were being received by the same remote
> SMTP server, the transfer was bottlenecked by the cpu and i/o of their
> single mail relay trying to receive 50 copies of the same thing.
I may be rehashing old topics, and I may sound a little bit old
fashioned (even at age 26), but I don't believe email was ever meant to
handle that large amount of traffic. Or, in other words SMTP != FTP
I am still of the opinion that one should instruct users to use the
right protocols for the right reasons. Hence, put the 10MB PowderPoint
file in a public or private ftp directory and then include a URL to
fetch it in the email.
I realize that this doesn't necessarily fix what you may think is a
problem, but this is how I would handle it. :-)
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
PGP signature
Dave Kitabjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Sill:
> "Say you're an MTA [ sending three messages. you could: ]
>
> 1. ...[ send three copies through one connection, ]...then close
> the connection.
> 2. ...start three processes, each of which...sends a copy of the
> message...
> 3. ...send a [ single ] copy of the message addressed to all three
> users..."
>
> Dave Kitabjian:
> Clearly, the rank of efficiency is, from best to worst,: 3, 1, 2
That might be true, if the situation you described were complete, but
it's not. The MTA handles hundreds (thousands) of messages per day,
and in typical situations a very small fraction of them are both 1) the
same message, and 2) bound for the same host.
For qmail to implement solution #1 or #3 means that qmail must identify
any mail traffic it can combine, and then must handle it specially. That
takes some work. The extra code becomes a possible source of bugs and
security holes. Does it speed qmail up noticeably? No, for several
reasons:
1. Only a tiny percentage of email can even potentially benefit from
this ``optimization''. Hence, even a large speedup would have a
small overall effect.
(The only major exception to this is mailing list traffic. If enough
of your local users subscribe to a remote mailing list, then it's
worth your while to set up a sublist.)
(The other major exception, corporate email, isn't an exception at
all. Corporate email typically runs at LAN speeds, where the difference
in speed is negligible.)
2. Connection caching (strategy #1) is actually terrible for
performance, because all mails for a given destination are
serialized. They would arrive faster if they were delivered in
parallel, which is what qmail does.
Connection caching also impairs the remote mail admins' ability to
limit throughput to levels his server can handle. If his server goes
down temporarily, for example, then you will probably try to shove
thousands of emails down his throat as soon as you see he's back
up. This effect is what Dan calls ``opportunistic bombardment'';
it's why sendmail typically clobbers recovering mail hosts. (After
an outage, AOL typically is taken down again, several times, by
incredible waves of sendmail bombardment.)
Connection caching is also unfair. It means that once you have a
connection, you exploit it to send everything you've got. Meanwhile,
if the server is near capacity, others are completely denied
service. qmail'l parallel delivery, which at first seems more greedy,
is actually fairer--admins can easily limit per-site connections,
causing qmail to wait its turn. Meanwhile sendmail users hog up
connections, forcing their mail through without waiting their turn.
3. Option #3 is mainly harder for the outgoing server; it means that
the server has to notice opportunities to combine emails into one
message with several recipients.
a. There are cases where a server will be fooled anyway.
b. Ignoring that, his work will pay off only in a tiny minority of
cases.
c. This approach also has privacy implications: if I give a message
with multiple recipients to another SMTP server, and some of
those are BCC recipients, then the upstream server may violate
privacy be recording the complete envelope.
d. This approach makes things like VERPs impossible. VERPs are why
ezmlm can handle bounces so conveniently. They actually have
convenient uses for individuals, as well: it lets you map bounces
of important emails to the exact address you were sending to
(which may not be the address which caused the bounce).
So your logic is fine by itself, but it misses the bigger picture of
what's going on with email traffic.
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #4:
Keep skipping town two days ahead of the collection agency.
Dave Kitabjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We had a situation with a customer who was consulting for a college. So
> every few days, she had to send a 10MB PowerPoint file to about 50
> recipients at that college. Under qmail, a separate thread was opened up
> for each qmail-remote.
Warn her, firmly, to send Zip disks by email or to rent space on an
FTP server. If she persists, kill her. Then find and kill the manager
who would email me 6MB presentations, clogging my modem for half an
hour--instead of waiting 45 minutes and giving it to me when I arrived
at work.
> a) That means a total transfer of 500MB rather than simply 10MB.
Right! That's not what email is for! Not only your pipe is being abused;
the downstream servers are, too.
And think of the poor recipients! If they use modems, then they will
be _extremely_ ticked at the wait. Worse, many POP servers and/or
clients will jam on such large messages, forcing retries. Some will
fail forever, blocking receipt of any further emails until someone at
the ISP deletes the offending message.
This is a MAJOR case for customer education.
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #65:
Get a cushy TMF job where you can get away with making goofy lists like
this one for a living.
"Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Warn her, firmly, to send Zip disks by email or to rent space on an
> FTP server. ^^^^^
Should be ``mail'', of course. My patented ``matter emailer'' is not
yet on the market. :)
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #14:
Sell your used Q-Tips as modern art.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Andy Bradford wrote:
> I may be rehashing old topics, and I may sound a little bit old
> fashioned (even at age 26), but I don't believe email was ever meant to
> handle that large amount of traffic. Or, in other words SMTP != FTP
> I am still of the opinion that one should instruct users to use the
> right protocols for the right reasons. Hence, put the 10MB PowderPoint
> file in a public or private ftp directory and then include a URL to
> fetch it in the email.
I agree with this sentiment, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to
find good ways to enforce it. Case in point: we do web development for an
organization that has a PR firm develop brochures and then send them to us
for posting on their website. The files are often 7-10 MB in size, large
enough to be cumbersome for e-mail, small enough to make overnighting a
ZIP disk seem a little excessive.
The organization hosts their site with us, and so we could obviously
instruct them to upload the files through FTP, but the PR firm shouldn't
necessarily be able to do this. It gets more complicated when you think
that it's not always going to be the same person at the PR firm sending
the files, and that there are many cases where other third parties need to
send us materials related to the site.
Clearly it's a complicated issue, but it seems that as broadband access to
the net becomes more common, businesses are going to expect to be able to
use one "interface" to do all their communications, be it plain text
messages or large multi-megabyte file transfers. I cringe every time
someone sends me a 7 MB mail message, but it's difficult to explain to
them why this is a bad idea.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone's found a good general solution to
this in a production/business environment.
Chris
-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
I have customers who regularly send 100+MB attachements.
Email is the most convenient way for them to do this.
Especially with a local SMTP server in their network.
Why waste time tyring to convince them otherwise?
Dirk
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 03:02:06PM -0500, Chris Hardie wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> > I may be rehashing old topics, and I may sound a little bit old
> > fashioned (even at age 26), but I don't believe email was ever meant to
> > handle that large amount of traffic. Or, in other words SMTP != FTP
> > I am still of the opinion that one should instruct users to use the
> > right protocols for the right reasons. Hence, put the 10MB PowderPoint
> > file in a public or private ftp directory and then include a URL to
> > fetch it in the email.
>
> I agree with this sentiment, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to
> find good ways to enforce it. Case in point: we do web development for an
> organization that has a PR firm develop brochures and then send them to us
> for posting on their website. The files are often 7-10 MB in size, large
> enough to be cumbersome for e-mail, small enough to make overnighting a
> ZIP disk seem a little excessive.
>
> The organization hosts their site with us, and so we could obviously
> instruct them to upload the files through FTP, but the PR firm shouldn't
> necessarily be able to do this. It gets more complicated when you think
> that it's not always going to be the same person at the PR firm sending
> the files, and that there are many cases where other third parties need to
> send us materials related to the site.
>
> Clearly it's a complicated issue, but it seems that as broadband access to
> the net becomes more common, businesses are going to expect to be able to
> use one "interface" to do all their communications, be it plain text
> messages or large multi-megabyte file transfers. I cringe every time
> someone sends me a 7 MB mail message, but it's difficult to explain to
> them why this is a bad idea.
>
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone's found a good general solution to
> this in a production/business environment.
>
> Chris
>
> -- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
> ----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
> -------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
>
>
> From: Dirk Harms-Merbitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:07:26 -0700
>
> I have customers who regularly send 100+MB attachements.
>
> Email is the most convenient way for them to do this.
> Especially with a local SMTP server in their network.
>
> Why waste time tyring to convince them otherwise?
We have a customer who's internet connection kept getting unusably slow. It
turned out that they had several employees who thought that email was a great
way to pass pornography around. Because the spooler was on the LAN, it seemed
fast to them, so they didn't realize they were clogging the pipe by emailing
dirty pictures to a dozen friends (each at different servers, so no redesign
of qmail could solve the problem). In this case, the solution was to have
their management tell them not to do that, but if it had been legitimate data,
the solution would have been to use an FTP server.
email may be convenient, but that just means that other paths aren't
convenient enough. It would be better to have a common folder on everyone's
desktop where they could drop the files. This even works across the internet,
if you're a Mac user and have a (free) account on mac.com, you can mount a
folder from there on your desktop to drop things on and any other mac.com user
can mount it to read your files. That's more convenient than sending email,
and much more efficient.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com
+1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500
4314 Avenue C
O- Austin, TX 78751-3709
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
Here's one interesting solution I heard about not too long ago:
http://www.whalemail.com/
Another interesting solution would be to teach your MTA to
automatically replace MIME attachments with a link to a Web page and a
password, and decode and store the attachments on a Web server. Not
appropriate for a lot of people, but interesting for a business that
can get away with automagically munging people's email.
-----Scott.
Chris Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> > I may be rehashing old topics, and I may sound a little bit old
> > fashioned (even at age 26), but I don't believe email was ever meant to
> > handle that large amount of traffic. Or, in other words SMTP != FTP
> > I am still of the opinion that one should instruct users to use the
> > right protocols for the right reasons. Hence, put the 10MB PowderPoint
> > file in a public or private ftp directory and then include a URL to
> > fetch it in the email.
>
> I agree with this sentiment, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to
> find good ways to enforce it. Case in point: we do web development for an
> organization that has a PR firm develop brochures and then send them to us
> for posting on their website. The files are often 7-10 MB in size, large
> enough to be cumbersome for e-mail, small enough to make overnighting a
> ZIP disk seem a little excessive.
>
> The organization hosts their site with us, and so we could obviously
> instruct them to upload the files through FTP, but the PR firm shouldn't
> necessarily be able to do this. It gets more complicated when you think
> that it's not always going to be the same person at the PR firm sending
> the files, and that there are many cases where other third parties need to
> send us materials related to the site.
>
> Clearly it's a complicated issue, but it seems that as broadband access to
> the net becomes more common, businesses are going to expect to be able to
> use one "interface" to do all their communications, be it plain text
> messages or large multi-megabyte file transfers. I cringe every time
> someone sends me a 7 MB mail message, but it's difficult to explain to
> them why this is a bad idea.
>
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone's found a good general solution to
> this in a production/business environment.
>
> Chris
>
> -- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
> ----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
> -------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
> I have customers who regularly send 100+MB attachements.
>
> Email is the most convenient way for them to do this.
> Especially with a local SMTP server in their network.
>
> Why waste time tyring to convince them otherwise?
>
> Dirk
>
E-mail protocols and software are not well equipped, by default, to deal
with this kind of message size. (They're certainly getting better!)
When a message bounces, some mailers send back the whole thing. If it is
delayed in a queue, that's a 100 MB message being shuffled around (i.e.
copied, transferred over a network, etc) using up system resources.
Receiving a 100 MB attachment may be easy for you, but what about someone
who happens to be checking their e-mail over a 56K modem for the weekend
while their away from the office? Their mail client starts downloading a
100 MB attachment and all sorts of problems could result if the
connection is lost or interrupted.
FTP is much simpler, and much more binary in its success/failure.
In general, you and your net contacts may all have the right
infrastructure in place to use e-mail to send large files, but most of the
rest of the world probably still doesn't, and when they go on using e-mail
for such purposes uneducated about the implications, it can create a huge
burden on system administrators.
Chris
-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
One service that may be of interest for situations like this is Driveway
(www.driveway.com). They offer 25mb of free storage space available
from the Web (you can buy more), and the space can be shared (you can
also put a password on it). In Windows 98/2000, you can even set up a
"Web folder" in Explorer, which lets you treat the remote storage space
like a Windows share.
I'd LOVE to see more people using that rather than email for big files.
Some email clients are really lame about handling large attachments
(ahem, Outlook, cough), and they get bogged down encoding/decoding the
attachment in the foreground.
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]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri 28 Apr 2000 13:02
Subject: Re: "Multi-RCPT vs. Single RCPT delivery" - logic error?
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> > I may be rehashing old topics, and I may sound a little bit old
> > fashioned (even at age 26), but I don't believe email was ever meant
to
> > handle that large amount of traffic. Or, in other words SMTP != FTP
> > I am still of the opinion that one should instruct users to use the
> > right protocols for the right reasons. Hence, put the 10MB
PowderPoint
> > file in a public or private ftp directory and then include a URL to
> > fetch it in the email.
>
> I agree with this sentiment, but it's becoming increasingly difficult
to
> find good ways to enforce it. Case in point: we do web development
for an
> organization that has a PR firm develop brochures and then send them
to us
> for posting on their website. The files are often 7-10 MB in size,
large
> enough to be cumbersome for e-mail, small enough to make overnighting
a
> ZIP disk seem a little excessive.
>
> The organization hosts their site with us, and so we could obviously
> instruct them to upload the files through FTP, but the PR firm
shouldn't
> necessarily be able to do this. It gets more complicated when you
think
> that it's not always going to be the same person at the PR firm
sending
> the files, and that there are many cases where other third parties
need to
> send us materials related to the site.
>
> Clearly it's a complicated issue, but it seems that as broadband
access to
> the net becomes more common, businesses are going to expect to be able
to
> use one "interface" to do all their communications, be it plain text
> messages or large multi-megabyte file transfers. I cringe every time
> someone sends me a 7 MB mail message, but it's difficult to explain to
> them why this is a bad idea.
>
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone's found a good general solution to
> this in a production/business environment.
>
> Chris
>
> -- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
> ----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
> -------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
>
>
>
Is there a way to limit the file size for attachments by
user name. Currently I have
# cat /var/qmail/control/databytes
5000000
and there is one user who wants to send a file thats ~20M. Is
there a way to do this?
Thanks
===============================================================
Shakaib Sayyid | Kodenet Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | G-3163 Flushing Rd.
| Suite 217
| Flint, MI, 48504, U.S.A.
===============================================================
At 4/28/2000 12:18 PM -0400, Shakaib Sayyid wrote or quoted:
>and there is one user who wants to send a file thats ~20M. Is
>there a way to do this?
The user should use FTP for something that large.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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?".
There are a couple of soultions in place already on the qmail home page.
One option is to install user quotas on your machine. Basically this sets a
limit on the number of bytes of file space any user can use. This can be
customized on a per user basis. There is a patch to qmail local that will
check to see if the message to be delivered exceeds the available space for
the user in question. If so the message is bounced. Without this patch
(and after enabling quota) qmail would just defer delivery and that 20 Meg
message would just sit in your queue! Go here for the patch
http://qmail.valueclick.com/qmail/qmail-1.03-quotas-1.1.patch
Another option is to use Paul Gregg's script. It will check the size of all
incoming messages for any given user. It can bounce messages with
customized bounce messages and "user quota" does not need to be enabled in
the kernel for it to work. Find it at
http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/qmail/mailquotacheck/
-David Cunningham
----- Original Message -----
From: Shakaib Sayyid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 9:18 AM
Subject: Limit file size by user name
>
> Is there a way to limit the file size for attachments by
> user name. Currently I have
>
> # cat /var/qmail/control/databytes
> 5000000
>
> and there is one user who wants to send a file thats ~20M. Is
> there a way to do this?
>
> Thanks
>
> ===============================================================
> Shakaib Sayyid | Kodenet Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | G-3163 Flushing Rd.
> | Suite 217
> | Flint, MI, 48504, U.S.A.
> ===============================================================
>
>
Is there a way to limit the file size for attachments by
user name. Currently I have
# cat /var/qmail/control/databytes
5000000
and there is one user who wants to send a file thats ~20M. Is
there a way to do this?
Thanks
===============================================================
Shakaib Sayyid | Kodenet Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | G-3163 Flushing Rd.
| Suite 217
| Flint, MI, 48504, U.S.A.
===============================================================
Hi. I'm having a very difficult time setting up my aliases. I just have
a linux box and want to use qmail/mutt for my email. My ISP POP3 email
address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I also have email on my virtualave
website server [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is just forwarded to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . How do I set up my aliases so this mail is sent to
my ~/Maildir? I've been fighting with this for 2 weeks. I'm sending this
using netscape right now. How to get qmail to send outgoing smtp mail
will be my next question. Thanks in advance.
Bob Waskosky
I am trying to setup a virtual domain name that contains a dash (-). I
believe it's not working due to the fact that Qmail turns periods into
dashes, so it's not matching the domain correctly.
Do I need to substitute the dash with something else in the Qmail config
files?
Thanks,
Peter Janett
New Media One Web Services
~Professional results with a personal touch~
http://www.newmediaone.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(303)828-9882
> I am trying to setup a virtual domain name that contains
> a dash (-). I believe it's not working
You'll have to define "not working." How did you set this domain up, and
what happened that's different from what you expected? What do the logs say?
> due to the fact that Qmail turns periods into dashes, so
> it's not matching the domain correctly.
qmail doesn't turn periods into dashes.
> Do I need to substitute the dash with something else in the
> Qmail config files?
No.
Chris
Hello all,
I have a working production environment running qmail/cyrus. Have also
got an LDAP server with my user data in it for use as an addressbook.
Ultimately I'd like to use the ldap lookups instead of cdb I have now,
just to get everything in one place, and reduce maintenance efforts.
Cyrus will authenticate out of ldap without any problems at all, which
is also convienient.
Currently am setting up a test box with qmail-ldap and openldap 1.2.10
and cyrus 1.6.22. Qmail will deliver to cyrus, without the ldap
lookups, but I cannot seem to make it deliver with the ldap lookups on.
For some reason it is reading a .qmail file with an empty line, or at
least that is what the log is suggesting:
@400000003909daad17c3947c starting delivery 1: msg 87094 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003909daad17c3b7a4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@400000003909daae04d55bac delivery 1: deferral:
Uh-oh:_first_line_of_.qmail_file_is_blank._(#4.2.1)/
@400000003909daae04d58a8c status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
The user object (crutan) in the ldap database has the following for
relevant fields:
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailHost: cronus.detroit.fahnestock.com
deliveryMode: normal
deliveryProgramPath: /usr/cyrus/bin/qmail_deliver_wrapper crutan
These are all of the /control/ldap* files:
ldapuid: 501 (uid of user cyrus)
ldapgid: 12 (gid of group mail)
ldapbasedn: ou=branches, dc=fahnestock, dc=com
ldapdefaultdotmode: ldapwithprog
ldapserver: cronus.detroit.fahnestock.com
I know the ldap lookup is taking place, I can see that in the log, it's
successfully looking up the user and getting the address, but I don't
know what .qmail file it's using, or why it's even using one. It
doesn't look like it should be, at least as far as I can tell. There is
a .qmail in ~cyrus, just to be safe, it has
|/usr/cyrus/bin/qmail_deliver_wrapper $LOCAL in it.
Any help would be much appreciated.
thanks,
caleb
--
----------------------->
Caleb Rutan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office phone:(313)566-2371
Manager, Information Systems - First of Michigan
You're everywhere. You're omnivorous.
-- Homer Simpson, to God
There's No Disgrace Like Home
<-------------------------
I am running qmail with the vpopmail package. I get this error when I
try to send mail to any outside domains using pop from an outside domain.
What do I need to do to allow people on diffrent ISPs to send mail through
my server to any other domain besides mine? If there is a quick fix (less
secure?) and a long fix... I could really use both, as I kinda need this at
least temporarily fixed ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Daniel Daley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"snowcrash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What do I need to do to allow people on diffrent ISPs to send mail
> through my server to any other domain besides mine?
That's called ``relaying'', and if you relay _indiscriminantly_, then
you will eventually be abused by spammers, and blacklisted by ORBs.
(Just a caution; I know that's not what you're trying to do.)
The quickest ``solution'' is to delete control/rcpthosts, which makes you
a wide-open relay. (Now reread the caution above!)
The second quickest, if you know where your friends send mail to, is
to add those destinations to control/rcpthosts. Since they won't be in
control/me or control/locals, qmail will do the right thing. (This is
only slightly less dangerous than the previous suggestion, unless the
list of target sites is quite small.)
The best solution is to enable relaying, temporarily, from hosts which
authenticate themselves. One approach is the SMTP-after-POP solution;
You can read about it at <http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html>.
That page also gives more information about relaying and its implications.
The recommended solution, by Bruce Guenter, is available from
<http://em.ca/~bruceg/relay-ctrl/> _after_ you read Chris Johnson's page.
Hope this helps,
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #20:
Take hostages.
Hello all
I have qmail installed on our mail systems and it has been working great.
The school is now merging with another school and I need to host the second
domain on my server. The one problem I have is I need to create some of the
same email aliases that I allready have, i.e. admissions, dean etc. How do
I do this? Can someone point me to some doc's.
Thanks for your time and help.
Bert Beaudin
Computer Support Specialist
206-633-2419
http://www.niaom.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a test
The keywords here are "qmail" and "alias".
http://www.qmail.org/man/misc/INSTALL.alias.txt
http://www.qmail.org/man/man9/dot-qmail.html
You could have gotten to these on your own by looking at the qmail.org
site and then looking at the documentation section.
Hope this helps!
Chris
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bert Beaudin wrote:
> Hello all
> I have qmail installed on our mail systems and it has been working great.
> The school is now merging with another school and I need to host the second
> domain on my server. The one problem I have is I need to create some of the
> same email aliases that I allready have, i.e. admissions, dean etc. How do
> I do this? Can someone point me to some doc's.
>
> Thanks for your time and help.
>
> Bert Beaudin
> Computer Support Specialist
> 206-633-2419
> http://www.niaom.edu
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a test
>
>
-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
Maybe I did not explain my self enough.
I need to be able to receive and send mail as two different domains
niaom.edu and domain2.edu. I also need to process two aliases with the
same names but different domains.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do I do this on the same server?
Thanks
At 05:28 PM 4/28/00 -0500, Chris Hardie wrote:
>The keywords here are "qmail" and "alias".
>
>http://www.qmail.org/man/misc/INSTALL.alias.txt
>http://www.qmail.org/man/man9/dot-qmail.html
>
>You could have gotten to these on your own by looking at the qmail.org
>site and then looking at the documentation section.
>
>Hope this helps!
>Chris
>
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bert Beaudin wrote:
>
> > Hello all
> > I have qmail installed on our mail systems and it has been
> working great.
> > The school is now merging with another school and I need to host the
> second
> > domain on my server. The one problem I have is I need to create some of
> the
> > same email aliases that I allready have, i.e. admissions, dean etc. How do
> > I do this? Can someone point me to some doc's.
> >
> > Thanks for your time and help.
> >
> > Bert Beaudin
> > Computer Support Specialist
> > 206-633-2419
> > http://www.niaom.edu
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a test
> >
> >
>
>
>
>-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
>----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
>-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
Bert Beaudin
Computer Support Specialist
206-633-2419
http://www.niaom.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a test
The links I sent you are still relevant, you just need to read more about
qmail and what it can do before you proceed. Read about qmail-control
files, virtual domains, and the like. Adam McKenna's HOWTO and Dave
Sill's Life with qmail will also come in handy.
One standard way to do what you want is to create two user accounts on
your system, one for each domain (or maybe you just need to create one,
for the new "imported" domain), create entries for it in rcpthosts and
virtualdomains, and then create some dot-qmail files in that account for
that domain.
But really, read the docs before you get into this any further or ask any
more general questions about virtual domain setup.
Chris
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bert Beaudin wrote:
> Maybe I did not explain my self enough.
> I need to be able to receive and send mail as two different domains
> niaom.edu and domain2.edu. I also need to process two aliases with the
> same names but different domains.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> How do I do this on the same server?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> At 05:28 PM 4/28/00 -0500, Chris Hardie wrote:
>
> >The keywords here are "qmail" and "alias".
> >
> >http://www.qmail.org/man/misc/INSTALL.alias.txt
> >http://www.qmail.org/man/man9/dot-qmail.html
> >
> >You could have gotten to these on your own by looking at the qmail.org
> >site and then looking at the documentation section.
> >
> >Hope this helps!
> >Chris
> >
> >On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bert Beaudin wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all
> > > I have qmail installed on our mail systems and it has been
> > working great.
> > > The school is now merging with another school and I need to host the
> > second
> > > domain on my server. The one problem I have is I need to create some of
> > the
> > > same email aliases that I allready have, i.e. admissions, dean etc. How do
> > > I do this? Can someone point me to some doc's.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time and help.
> > >
> > > Bert Beaudin
> > > Computer Support Specialist
> > > 206-633-2419
> > > http://www.niaom.edu
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a test
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
> >----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
> >-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
>
> Bert Beaudin
> Computer Support Specialist
> 206-633-2419
> http://www.niaom.edu
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a test
>
>
-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
From: Michael Friendly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 08:53:29 -0400 (EDT)
I had an open mail-relay with an older version of sendmail,
and got qmail installed on my system.
Now, I can send mail from pine, but not from Mail.app. I can't
get any help locally, so I'm hoping someone can help me sort this out.
When I send from Mail.app, I get
replies from the mailer-daemon like this:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hotspur.psych.yorku.ca.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<Georges Monette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
Sorry, I couldn't find any host named mathstat.yorku.ca>. (#5.1.2)
Does this message number give any clue to what is wrong?
It looks like Mail.app may be passing "Georges Monette
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" as the "-f" parameter to sendmail, which
the real sendmail would reparse, but qmail-inject takes to be just the
address part. Try messing with the "Sender" controls in Mail.app.
-- Bob
Is there a utility or program to place the archive for my mailing list on
a web site?
--
[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
|
Does anybody know of a good book on
qmail
Suresh
----------------------------------------------------------------
Send
and receive mails in Indian languages.
Register free with http://www.mailjol.com
|
hi all
i am trying to setup virtual domains using qmail
i installed qmail on redhat 6.0 and its working ok
but i tried to setup virtual domains
i read the complete documentation along with the distribution
my virtualdomains files is as follows
domain1.com:jim
but the mail addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bounces back
saying "no such mailbox"
but the mail addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
gets delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
please help
vish
