qmail Digest 16 May 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1003
Topics (messages 41712 through 41784):
SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
41712 by: Robert Varga
41719 by: Krzysztof Dabrowski
41722 by: Colin Humphreys
41723 by: Krzysztof Dabrowski
41724 by: Robert Varga
41738 by: Jerry Walsh
slow answer through firewall
41713 by: Antje Koschel
41714 by: Administrator for OK 2 NET
41715 by: Rodrigo Severo
41716 by: Chris Harris
41717 by: James R Grinter
41718 by: Antje Koschel
Re: Unix_Loveletter
41720 by: Robert Varga
41721 by: Robert Varga
Re: Disable telnet to port 110
41725 by: Paul Farber
41741 by: Aaron L. Meehan
41742 by: Paul Farber
41761 by: David L. Nicol
41765 by: Paul Farber
Re: Share queue between servers and other questions.
41726 by: Greg Owen
41771 by: John White
Message: "-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir"
41727 by: Bob Carpenter
41728 by: Timothy L. Mayo
41730 by: Bob Carpenter
multiple auto-reply messgs...(simple??)
41729 by: Marcelo J. Iturbe
41731 by: Ronny Haryanto
41732 by: Markus Stumpf
41760 by: Marcelo J. Iturbe
Re: qmail / mysql (/ldap)
41733 by: Markus Stumpf
courier IMAP and Outlook problem
41734 by: Derek Smith
41739 by: Cono D'Elia
Metering POP related email traffic?
41735 by: Chin Fang
41736 by: James Raftery
41737 by: Jerry Walsh
41740 by: Markus Stumpf
41744 by: Chin Fang
41745 by: Chin Fang
41746 by: Andr�s
41750 by: Peter van Dijk
41752 by: Len Budney
41756 by: Peter van Dijk
miniQmail and QMQP? (was: Share queue between servers)
41743 by: Dave Kitabjian
41747 by: Duane Schaub
Re: is content level blocking possible
41748 by: Bruce Guenter
41758 by: Jason Haar
Problem with virtual domains.
41749 by: Albert Hopkins
41754 by: Albert Hopkins
Re: Virtual Domain User not receiving mail
41751 by: Aaron L. Meehan
ezmlm list creation problem
41753 by: cdowns
41755 by: Steffan Hoeke
Accessing Qmail using Netscapes mail client
41757 by: dean klimt
Re: BACKUP POP SERVER
41759 by: David L. Nicol
sending bulk personalized email
41762 by: Michael Waples
Re: qfilelog...
41763 by: Bruce Guenter
Qmail-Imap-Maildir
41764 by: FabriceK
distributed redundnat queue architecture (for M Bowman)
41766 by: David L. Nicol
41767 by: Peter van Dijk
Weird startup troubles
41768 by: Michael R. Jinks
Virtual Domain DNS MX question
41769 by: James
41770 by: Chris Johnson
Stupid Sendmail tricks?
41772 by: John White
41776 by: Rogerio Brito
Anonymizing Email
41773 by: Alec Grynspan
Pummelling limiting, again
41774 by: John R Levine
41775 by: Michael R. Jinks
Group Wise SMTP System
41777 by: ranjanml
Working with SerialMail and Queue
41778 by: Carlo Manuali
moving part of the queue
41779 by: Van Liedekerke Franky
41781 by: Petr Novotny
UREGENT: SMTP domains getting resolved as Local
41780 by: ravivr.hss.hns.com
41782 by: Petr Novotny
Several mail domains on a single host (POP3/userdb ?...)
41783 by: Pierre-Julien Grizel
multilog patterns
41784 by: clemensF
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all,
is there a SMTP AUTH patch for qmail?
Regards,
Robert Varga
http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
Kris
Does this work with any Outlook versions?
The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work.... what about others?
thanks,
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
> http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
>
> Kris
>
>
>The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work.... what about others?
Outlook'97 does not have support for smtp-auth at all.
'98 supports it. exactly like outlook express.
Kris
Unfortunately members.elysium.pl cannot be resolved. Does someone have the
patch downloaded, or knows a working address?
Robert Varga
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Colin Humphreys wrote:
> Does this work with any Outlook versions?
>
> The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work.... what about others?
>
> thanks,
> Colin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:34 PM
> Subject: Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
>
>
> > http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
> >
> > Kris
> >
> >
>
>
Yes it does resolve, check your DNS
At 04:12 PM 5/15/00 +0200, Robert Varga wrote:
>Unfortunately members.elysium.pl cannot be resolved. Does someone have the
>patch downloaded, or knows a working address?
>
>Robert Varga
>
>On Tue, 16 May 2000, Colin Humphreys wrote:
>
> > Does this work with any Outlook versions?
> >
> > The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work.... what about others?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Colin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
> >
> >
> > > http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
Hello,
we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that
connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to
initiate while the connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that
forwards the requests to the outside mailserver is fast.
That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall but that qmail handles
the connections differently. But I don't see a reason for this.
Any clues?
The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the
mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03.
Thanks for any hints,
Antje
> we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see
> the strange behaviour that connections from inside to an
> outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to initiate while the
> connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that forwards
> the requests to the outside mailserver is fast.
> That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall
> but that qmail handles the connections differently.
> But I don't see a reason for this. Any clues?
>
> The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the
> mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03.
The ident* segments are being dropped by your firewall,
this causes the OUTSIDE server to wait for response.
Solution 1: which I think is the best, is to REJECT all ident segments.
The reason for this is that many server expect some sort of reply
to accept connections or the will wait og make connections slow.
Solution 2: you could allow all or some ident segments,
beware however that some NAT systems will have problems with ident.
Since the mailserver will not see the hidden IP and will send it directly
to the firewall, which the FIREWALL might not know where to send...
Solution 3: set the TIMEOUT on the OUTSIDE mailserver to a lower number,
I would do this only if everything else fails.
Solution X: You could mix your own configuration of RULES to make this work!
*ident is a small TCP connection on PORT 113 done by servers to "verify" the client,
your INSIDE mailserver being the client and OUTSIDE being the server in this case.
Regards Andr� Paulsberg
Antje,
> we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that
> connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to
> initiate while the connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that
> forwards the requests to the outside mailserver is fast.
> That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall but that qmail handles
> the connections differently. But I don't see a reason for this.
> Any clues?
I had a similar problem sometime ago. It was related to the firewall not
allowing ident requests to pass. They didn't even had to be answered,
they just had to pass the firewall.
As I wrote this it really looked strange but to allow ident request to
pass my fierwall was all I did and my delay problem got solved.
I hope this helps,
Rodrigo
> we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour
that
> connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to
> initiate while the connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that
> forwards the requests to the outside mailserver is fast.
> That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall but that qmail handles
> the connections differently. But I don't see a reason for this.
> Any clues?
>
> The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the
> mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03.
I am also configuring a qmail-1.03 mailserver working through Checkpoint FW1
(4.0) on a Nokia.
The mailserver is in a DMZ so smtp requests from inside go through the firewall.
I also noticed a delay such as you describe, and noticed in the firewall log
that the mailserver was trying to make an 'auth' connection (port 113) to the
client, which was being dropped by the firewall. It wasn't until that timed out
that the smtp connection continued. I configured the firewall to allow the auth
connection, and the delay disappeared. I don't know the reason for the auth
conenction.
Hope this helps.
Chris Harris
System Manager
STL Ltd.
ph. 01228 512512 ext. 2211
fax 01228 514949
Antje Koschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that
> connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to
time delays with connecting to port 25 always say to me 'ident' - ie,
is the remote system attempting to make an ident (port tcp/113)
connection back to you and suffering a delay because it gets no
response and no TCP reset?
(clues here would include looking at what your firewall is rejecting
during this time.)
it's fairly common practice, if you're not wanting to provide an ident
response to remote systems for later tracking purposes, to configure
filters to send TCP resets for port 113 (whereas most defaults are
just to 'drop' the packet, ie ignore it and act as if it was never
received.)
James.
Thanks to all for your fast replies.
Rejecting the ident* (auth at port 113) solved the probolem.
Thanks, Antje
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Administrator for OK 2 NET wrote:
> > we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see
> > the strange behaviour that connections from inside to an
> > outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to initiate while the
> > connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that forwards
> > the requests to the outside mailserver is fast.
> > That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall
> > but that qmail handles the connections differently.
> > But I don't see a reason for this. Any clues?
> >
> > The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the
> > mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03.
>
> The ident* segments are being dropped by your firewall,
> this causes the OUTSIDE server to wait for response.
>
> Solution 1: which I think is the best, is to REJECT all ident segments.
> The reason for this is that many server expect some sort of reply
> to accept connections or the will wait og make connections slow.
>
> Solution 2: you could allow all or some ident segments,
> beware however that some NAT systems will have problems with ident.
> Since the mailserver will not see the hidden IP and will send it directly
> to the firewall, which the FIREWALL might not know where to send...
>
> Solution 3: set the TIMEOUT on the OUTSIDE mailserver to a lower number,
> I would do this only if everything else fails.
>
> Solution X: You could mix your own configuration of RULES to make this work!
>
>
> *ident is a small TCP connection on PORT 113 done by servers to "verify" the client,
> your INSIDE mailserver being the client and OUTSIDE being the server in this case.
>
>
> Regards Andr� Paulsberg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
EMBL Computing & Network Group
Antje Koschel Phone : +49 / 6221 / 387 287
Meyerhofstr. 1 Fax : +49 / 6221 / 387 517
D-69012 Heidelberg Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
Maybe. I seem to remember about an interview on The Register with
a spokesperson from Microsoft Benelux mentioned that he knows of Linux and
Apache servers has been infected with Lovebug. Interestingly that person
was out of contact for quite a time after that, and MS Benelux denied that
they have stated anything such.
Robert Varga
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Jon Rust wrote:
> Hardly an issue since I know of not a single mail program on any UNIX
> that will automatically run an attachment. And even if you were
> foolish enough to run it, it would only effect your files, not the
> entire system's.
>
> If you get this virus, it's your own damn fault! :-)
>
> (Hmmm... wondering if MS created this just so they could say "see,
> other platforms can have it happen too!" Conspiracy theorists will
> have a field day.)
>
> jon
>
> At 12:01 PM +0200 5/11/00, Dewald Strauss wrote:
> >http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=UNIX_LOVELETT
> >ER
> >
> >*nix is loved too :-)
>
>
A mistype, Apple instead of Apache.
Robert Varga
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> Maybe. I seem to remember about an interview on The Register with
> a spokesperson from Microsoft Benelux mentioned that he knows of Linux and
> Apache servers has been infected with Lovebug. Interestingly that person
> was out of contact for quite a time after that, and MS Benelux denied that
> they have stated anything such.
>
> Robert Varga
>
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Jon Rust wrote:
>
> > Hardly an issue since I know of not a single mail program on any UNIX
> > that will automatically run an attachment. And even if you were
> > foolish enough to run it, it would only effect your files, not the
> > entire system's.
> >
> > If you get this virus, it's your own damn fault! :-)
> >
> > (Hmmm... wondering if MS created this just so they could say "see,
> > other platforms can have it happen too!" Conspiracy theorists will
> > have a field day.)
> >
> > jon
> >
> > At 12:01 PM +0200 5/11/00, Dewald Strauss wrote:
> > >http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=UNIX_LOVELETT
> > >ER
> > >
> > >*nix is loved too :-)
> >
> >
>
>
WTF?
Telnet has nothing to do with POP3. Comment out the telnet line in
inetd.conf.
If you need to filter port 110 that different, but it has nothing to do
with POP3.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Sun, 14 May 2000, Matthew wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000, Mark Lo wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still
> > let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using
> > tcpserver)
> >
>
> with great difficulty i'm afraid. users will always be able to write
> their own program to cummunicate on port 110. even if u where to delete
> telnet they could just download a another copy.
> is their a good reason for doing this?
>
> if u're users are not very "knowlegeable" then u could get the telnet
> source code and stick in a line on code somewhere to check that the port
> parameter is not 110, if it is then just print something like
> "telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused".
> this could prove confusing to your users!
> they could still use many other program such as nc.
>
> > Thank You
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
>
>
Quoting Daniel J. Zaccariello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> You could:
>
> 1. Disable telnetd
telnetd listens on port 23, by default.
> 2. Make the user's shell /usr/nologin or something (depends on your OS).
If you think about this some more, you'll realize this isn't going to
do anything for this person, either :)
It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question.
Aaron
> At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still
> >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using
> >tcpserver)
I think the original poster is just 'scared' because the POP3 protocol
uses cleartext command (telnet, perl script, python) could connect up and
get mail.
Thinking that telneting to 110 and giving the same commands at a console
is somehow 'hacking' a system.
It will blow thier mind when they telnet to port 25 and can actually SEND
mail!
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> Quoting Daniel J. Zaccariello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > You could:
> >
> > 1. Disable telnetd
>
> telnetd listens on port 23, by default.
>
> > 2. Make the user's shell /usr/nologin or something (depends on your OS).
>
> If you think about this some more, you'll realize this isn't going to
> do anything for this person, either :)
>
> It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still
> > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using
> > >tcpserver)
>
How about a really short time-out? Automated POP3 clients
waste no time typing at the prompt -- Mark could analyze the
delay his MUAs have between connection and sending auth commands;
and patch pop3d accordingly. Or he could patch pop3 to require
(not just accept) encrypted authentications, maybe in addition to
the timing thing.
Paul Farber wrote:
>
> I think the original poster is just 'scared' because the POP3 protocol
> uses cleartext command (telnet, perl script, python) could connect up and
> get mail.
>
> Thinking that telneting to 110 and giving the same commands at a console
> is somehow 'hacking' a system.
>
> It will blow thier mind when they telnet to port 25 and can actually SEND
> mail!
>
> Paul Farber
> Farber Technology
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ph 570-628-5303
> Fax 570-628-5545
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> > It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question.
> > Aaron
> > > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote:
> > > > I would like to disable telnet to port 110, but still
> > > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using
> > > >tcpserver)
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drawn to the speed and performance
Network/server latentancy and a poor MUA (OUTLOOK!) could cause a lot of
'could not connect to host' errors.
Funny thing is.. it's working. qmail-pop3 is secure (right?) and it
needs cleartext commands to log in, authenticate and pass mail.
It sure dosen't look broke to me.. why are we trying to fix it?
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Mon, 15 May 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> How about a really short time-out? Automated POP3 clients
> waste no time typing at the prompt -- Mark could analyze the
> delay his MUAs have between connection and sending auth commands;
> and patch pop3d accordingly. Or he could patch pop3 to require
> (not just accept) encrypted authentications, maybe in addition to
> the timing thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Farber wrote:
> >
> > I think the original poster is just 'scared' because the POP3 protocol
> > uses cleartext command (telnet, perl script, python) could connect up and
> > get mail.
> >
> > Thinking that telneting to 110 and giving the same commands at a console
> > is somehow 'hacking' a system.
> >
> > It will blow thier mind when they telnet to port 25 and can actually SEND
> > mail!
> >
> > Paul Farber
> > Farber Technology
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Ph 570-628-5303
> > Fax 570-628-5545
> >
> > On Mon, 15 May 2000, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> > > It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question.
> > > Aaron
> > > > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote:
> > > > > I would like to disable telnet to port 110, but still
> > > > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using
> > > > >tcpserver)
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> drawn to the speed and performance
>
I'm on the list, no need to Cc me.
Michael Boman wrote:
> What I want is to be able to share the queue between n+2
> servers on each loocation
Qmail's design specifically precludes putting the queue on a network
filesystem, so you can't share it that way. One alternative is to set up
something like N+1 host PCs connected to a SCSI disk array that allows
multiple hosts, and to somehow configure all but one of the hosts as a
failover. Perhaps even a NAS technology like GFS
(http://www.globalfilesystem.org/) would work (but not definitely).
However, I've never heard of anyone doing so, so you'd be forging into new
ground. Note that in particular, you'd have to have the 2nd to Nth servers
lying dormant until the 1st server is believed to be dead, because multiple
instances of qmail can't be processing one queue at the same time.
No mail system I know of supports this kind of setup by design, and
I'm not sure it is easily possible under any of them. There's a reason for
that. It isn't worth the trouble. Most people who are concerned about
reliability and losing mail run N+1 independent servers, put the mail queue
on RAID, and if one machine dies try to manually recover the mail on their
second server.
Your problem seems to be that you don't have local resources that
can administer these machines if something goes wrong. If that's your
problem, what you should do is buy a server with serious redundancy. Compaq
(among others, I'm sure) makes servers with redundant power, disk, memory,
and CPU. You're safe from pretty much anything except a fried motherboard.
You can go a lot further with seriously redundant server hardware than you
will with some homegrown shared server approach, especially where it looks
like load is not your reason for multiple servers. Then just make sure you
get notified when a power supply dies so you can get a new one out while the
second is still working.
> as well as be able to split a single domain's mailstorage
> so each users doesn't need to download his/hers email from
> the other end of the world.
One way is to break down users into subdomains for delivery. I.e.,
given the email domain "bigdomain.com," with a primary MX server physically
located in Singapore, and users in Singapore, Tokyo, and Hong Kong:
You would need to set up forwarding on a user-by-user basis. User
joe lives in Singapore? Then [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be forwarded to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and delivered locally there. User jane lives
in Tokyo? [EMAIL PROTECTED] User josh lives in Hong Kong?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] As long as their mail clients correctly send
as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," the illusion of a single domain is retained. You
may or may not have to do some header rewriting on final delivery so that
they don't end including [EMAIL PROTECTED] in their "Reply
to..." mail messages.
This is not a hard problem, it just doesn't have an elegant
solution. If you need to do it that badly, then you can justify the added
busy work.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
> A server goes down that resolvs in global or local downtime (ok, the
> box itself is down, but the mail should been taken care of by another
> server without we need to plug the raid-set into another box). We
> should be able to say: Hmm.. let's check that out after lunch.. or
> if it is in the middle of the night: let's have a look at it tomorrow
> morning.
>
> A single point of failure is not an option.
Two points:
1) Having a backup qmail server as a backup MX will result in being
able to continue delivery of new mail when the primary host goes down.
2) Having the queue of the primary qmail server on an external RAID
will allow you to recover what few messages were in the queue at
the time of failure at your liesure.
A final suggestion:
Since you already need a custom delivery agent to look up information
from LDAP, or whatever you wanted to do, just have that delivery agent
drop a copy of each message in an NFS mounted maildir. Then have
another process from the primary server delete anything in the maildir
older than queuelifetime. That way a primary server crash will leave
a copy of every message which could be in the queue in a maildir.
serialmail will allow the messages to be re-injected into another queue.
Duplication is the price of recovery.
John
I've searched through several qmail archives and saw this question appear
many times, but never found a solution that helped me.
I've been following Dave Sills "Life with qmail" pretty much to the letter.
OK, actually _TO_ the letter.
I'm finding that the server happily accepts e-mail on both of the IP
addresses and host names I've assigned to the box. It doesn't DELIVER them
mind you, but they sit happily in the queue.
It would appear as though I definitely have a mailbox type issue.
# telnet localhost 110
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to mercury (127.0.0.1).
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <9981.958401059@FQDN>
user bob
+OK
pass xxxxxx
-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
Connection closed by foreign host.
[root@mercury control]# more /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery
./Maildir/
[root@mercury control]#
But I DO have the maildir as created by "maildirmake", no?
[root@mercury bob]# ls -al Mai*
-rw------- 1 bob bob 19136 May 12 13:07 Mailbox
-rw------- 1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir
[root@mercury bob]#
I've experimented with different types of delivery, as shown by the two
mailbox types above. And now I seem to have broken it quite badly.
As well as:
[root@mercury bob]# tail -f /var/log/qmail/current
@40000000392008fb0ad9d30c status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@4000000039200a1207e7e33c starting delivery 1: msg 24123 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@4000000039200a1207e9b02c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@4000000039200a120852c29c delivery 1: deferral:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
@4000000039200a1208541e44 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@4000000039200a1907d2b944 starting delivery 2: msg 24126 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@4000000039200a1907d42c5c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@4000000039200a19083a8b64 delivery 2: deferral:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
@4000000039200a19083bdb54 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
As you can see by the Mailbox and Maildirs it once worked, once I started to
mess with tcpserver my woes began.
Ultimately this is just going to be a MTA/MDA box for MS Lookout clients.
Any thoughts, suggestions and supportive criticisms, would be greatly
appreciated.
Bob
R. (Bob) Carpenter
CIO-Chief Information Officer
RedSea Management Ltd.
San Jos�, Costa Rica
(506) 204-3300
(506) 204-7090 fax
PGP Key available by request.
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Bob Carpenter wrote:
> But I DO have the maildir as created by "maildirmake", no?
>
> [root@mercury bob]# ls -al Mai*
> -rw------- 1 bob bob 19136 May 12 13:07 Mailbox
> -rw------- 1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir
> [root@mercury bob]#
No, the above ls output shows that you have a FILE named 'Maildir'. You
do NOT have a Maildir/ directory as created by maildirmake. Delete the
above file and rerun maildirmake as user 'bob'.
Note: the ls output for a Maildir directory would have looked like the
following:
drwx------ 1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
Thank you!
It works!
Now the mystery is how did I make that file in the first place?
I'm SURE that I followed the instructions in the qmail 'INSTALL.maidir' to
create this file. (as shown below)
maildirmake $HOME/Maildir
echo ./Maildir/ > ~/.qmail
But the directory now exists, the telnet to the localhost has been fixed
too.
I do notice that, unlike the tcpserver instructions, it does NOT echo back
the users mail directory.
Or is that not a normal function of tcpserver under Maildir?
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy L. Mayo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Message: "-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir"
>
>
> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Bob Carpenter wrote:
>
> > But I DO have the maildir as created by "maildirmake", no?
> >
> > [root@mercury bob]# ls -al Mai*
> > -rw------- 1 bob bob 19136 May 12 13:07 Mailbox
> > -rw------- 1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir
> > [root@mercury bob]#
> No, the above ls output shows that you have a FILE named 'Maildir'. You
> do NOT have a Maildir/ directory as created by maildirmake. Delete the
> above file and rerun maildirmake as user 'bob'.
>
> Note: the ls output for a Maildir directory would have looked like the
> following:
>
> drwx------ 1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Administrator
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/
>
> The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
> One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
> Monroeville, PA 15146
> (412) 810-8888 Phone
> (412) 810-8886 Fax
Hello,
I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales,
etc).
How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all
arrive at the same pop account?
Thanks.
***********************************************
ICQ 22921676
MSM Interactive.
El Bosque Norte 0134, Las Condes, Chile.
Phone: (56-2) 234-9852 Fax: (56-2) 233-8912
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.msm.cl
*******************************************
On 15-May-2000, Marcelo J. Iturbe wrote:
> Hello,
> I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales,
> etc).
> How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all
> arrive at the same pop account?
The trick is to generate auto-reply _before_ they arrive at the same
mailbox.
In .qmail-info:
| /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/info
mailbox
In .qmail-support:
| /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/support
mailbox
...etc...
Ronny
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:38:47AM -0400, Marcelo J. Iturbe wrote:
> I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales,
> etc).
> How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all
> arrive at the same pop account?
Do it in the control file for the various addresses. You probably have
.qmail-info
.qmail-support
.qmail-sales
.qmail-etc
Set them up like
.qmail-info
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
|autoresp-info
./Maildir/
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
.qmail-support
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
|autoresp-support
./Maildir/
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus you have different autoresponders, but one POP3-Box.
If you do it via a .qmail-default it's more complicated:
.qmail-default
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
|autoresp-enhanced
./Maildir/
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make "autoresp-enhanced" a script that checks $LOCAL and decides what
text to send and then exit 0
Of course you could use this "autoresp-enhanced" also with the "more
.qmail files" setup.
\Maex
Hi,
Maybe I am going around this all wrong.
I am having troubles creating the auto-reply scripts.
The script is in PERL and I am trying to capture the message. I tried to do
a print on ARGV and ENV but both arrays are empty. How do I grab the email
message? I would also like to modify the subject line of the message before
it gets sent to the "common" pop account.
The .qmail-support alias file looks like
|/var/qmail/alias/forward.pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:55 AM 5/15/00 -0500, Ronny Haryanto wrote:
>On 15-May-2000, Marcelo J. Iturbe wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales,
> > etc).
> > How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all
> > arrive at the same pop account?
>
>The trick is to generate auto-reply _before_ they arrive at the same
>mailbox.
>
>In .qmail-info:
> | /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/info
> mailbox
>
>In .qmail-support:
> | /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/support
> mailbox
>
>...etc...
>
> Ronny
***********************************************
ICQ 22921676
MSM Interactive.
El Bosque Norte 0134, Las Condes, Chile.
Phone: (56-2) 234-9852 Fax: (56-2) 233-8912
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.msm.cl
*******************************************
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 03:29:45PM +0200, Joerg Ebel wrote:
> is there a qmail-mysql-module, like qmail-ldap?
You may take a look at
http://www.softagency.co.jp/mysql/qmail2.en.html
Never tried it myself ...
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Hi,
I'm having difficulty getting MS Outlook 5 to create IMAP subfolders in
Courier-IMAP.
Does anyone have any experience of this, do they have it working?
Can anyone offer any work around?
Cheers,
Del.
Hi Derek,
There is a readme for setting up imap clients here:
http://www.inter7.com/courierimap/README.imap.html
Follow the instructions for the Outlook section. I have gotten it to work.
Hope this helps,
Cono
----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: qmail Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:16 AM
Subject: courier IMAP and Outlook problem
> Hi,
>
> I'm having difficulty getting MS Outlook 5 to create IMAP subfolders in
> Courier-IMAP.
>
> Does anyone have any experience of this, do they have it working?
>
> Can anyone offer any work around?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Del.
>
>
Watching the logs created by qmail-pop3d, I can see that the access
frequency is always increasing. A POP connection results the
retrieval of a message of finite size. This takes bandwidth too.
However, the logs created by tcpserver and qmail-pop3d do not contain
any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We
don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any
hints for an alternative.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:39:33AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote:
> any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We
> don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any
> hints for an alternative.
Perhaps your OS kernel supports IP firewalling with accounting?
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster
IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375
"Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like
herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, mail must come into the system in order for it to be collected,
so perhaps qmail-analog - the qmail log analysis tool ?
It's available from www.qmail.org and is written by the author himself.
so analysing the smtp logs will show you how much mail the user has received,
but you must assume all mail was collected successfully.
there is a -v switch you can add to tcp server to make its logging more
verbose, i'm not sure if this would help or not.
Regards,
Jerry.
Jerry Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aardvark IPL Fax +353 21 896040
Morris house Tel +353 21 896060
Douglas
Cork Ireland. http://www.aardvark.ie/
The package said Windows NT 4 or better - I installed UNIX
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:39:33AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote:
> However, the logs created by tcpserver and qmail-pop3d do not contain
> any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We
> don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any
> hints for an alternative.
First it would be interesting how exact the metering should be!
If you have to know about every byte in/out you could plug a
modified "recordio" (from ucspi-tcp) just after the tcpserver command.
(recordio fork()s and duplicates the data stream. Thus you have one
stream for the "POP3 process" and one "locally" where you could
simply count bytes in/out (instead of outputting them) and on the
termination of the stream outout it, so it will show up in the logs.
This is probably the better (and exacter) approach.
The other possibility would be to patch qmail-pop3d.c to output
the number of bytes on every successfull "RETR" command (probably to
STDERR) and have them listed in the logfile.
Both approaches are still kinda vague, as they do "content" accounting,
which is different from IP accounting, as you won't catch TCP/IP
protocol overhead, retransmissions on packet loss, etc.
If you want to measure IP traffic, you should add some factor to the
content data. From our experience a rather realistic formula is
ip-traffic = 1.8 * content-size
This however also depends on the kind of userbase you have. If they all
are well connected the factor is smaller. If they access the POP3-Server
mostly remote from bad connected dialins it may also be higher.
The 1.8 is what we calculated from incoming/outgoing traffic for SMTP
connections to/from our local customers and in/out from/to the Internet
(i.e. mixed "userbase").
\Maex
P.S. No, sorry, I don't have patches for any of the approaches I've described
above.
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
> Well, mail must come into the system in order for it to be collected,
> so perhaps qmail-analog - the qmail log analysis tool ?
>
> It's available from www.qmail.org and is written by the author himself.
We are using that for metering SMTP traffic. However, there are three
traffic streams that IMHO should be watched:
o incoming SMTP traffic
o outgoing SMTP traffic
o POP traffic (message retrieval costs bandwidth)
qmailanalog handles the first two quite well. I am having problems with
the third one.
I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop
output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total
email bandwidth usage. I would like to find a way to make this
metering more precise.
The -v flag of tcpserver prints error messages and status messages, not
sizes.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> so analysing the smtp logs will show you how much mail the user has received,
> but you must assume all mail was collected successfully.
>
> there is a -v switch you can add to tcp server to make its logging more
> verbose, i'm not sure if this would help or not.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry.
> Jerry Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aardvark IPL Fax +353 21 896040
> Morris house Tel +353 21 896060
> Douglas
> Cork Ireland. http://www.aardvark.ie/
>
> The package said Windows NT 4 or better - I installed UNIX
>
>
We are using Solaris boxes as mail servers. All mail servers have
ipfilter installed. Ipfilter does offer ip traffic accounting, but as
it's at IP level, so it's only useful to get overall bandwidth
utilization, but I would also like to know which users are hogging up
bandwidth most. The later requires application level data.
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We
> > don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any
> > hints for an alternative.
>
> Perhaps your OS kernel supports IP firewalling with accounting?
>
> james
> --
> James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster
> IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375
> "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like
> herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Try using IPAC, it generates graphs for bandwith. You can specify the IP,
port...
----- Original Message -----
From: Chin Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Raftery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
> We are using Solaris boxes as mail servers. All mail servers have
> ipfilter installed. Ipfilter does offer ip traffic accounting, but as
> it's at IP level, so it's only useful to get overall bandwidth
> utilization, but I would also like to know which users are hogging up
> bandwidth most. The later requires application level data.
>
> Chin Fang
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We
> > > don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any
> > > hints for an alternative.
> >
> > Perhaps your OS kernel supports IP firewalling with accounting?
> >
> > james
> > --
> > James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster
> > IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375
> > "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like
> > herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote:
[snip]
>
> I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop
> output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total
> email bandwidth usage. I would like to find a way to make this
> metering more precise.
Unless people have forwards to more than 1 address, logic dictates that
POP3 should be at least 50% of your traffic.
Why 'at least'? 'Keep mail on server'.
If you are running mailinglist, the 50% is probably way too high.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote:
> >
> > I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop
> > output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total
> > email bandwidth usage.
>
> Unless people have forwards to more than 1 address, logic dictates that
> POP3 should be at least 50% of your traffic.
This strikes me as a ``Profile. Don't speculate.'' moment. ``Logic''
might argue instead that 30% is about right: one might expect roughly
equal volumes of incoming SMTP, outgoing SMTP, and POP traffic, assuming
no mailing list servers.
The moral: measuring is better.
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #63:
Leave your penny loafers empty. It's cheaper!
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:09:47PM -0400, Len Budney wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop
> > > output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total
> > > email bandwidth usage.
> >
> > Unless people have forwards to more than 1 address, logic dictates that
> > POP3 should be at least 50% of your traffic.
>
> This strikes me as a ``Profile. Don't speculate.'' moment. ``Logic''
Correct. I am speculating :)
> might argue instead that 30% is about right: one might expect roughly
> equal volumes of incoming SMTP, outgoing SMTP, and POP traffic, assuming
> no mailing list servers.
I'd expect incoming to be equal to the sum of outgoing and POP, assuming any
address is either a forward or a popbox.
> The moral: measuring is better.
Always.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
1) Are any of you out there running miniQmail / QMQP?
2) What's the final word on which is recommended: multiple inbound SMTP
servers, or a series of QMQP servers? (The goal is high volume / high
availability).
For the latter, here are the two configs I'm considering:
Internet
|
| smtp
|_____________________________________________
| |
| MXa | MXb
_|___ _|___
|miniQ| |miniQ| ...
|_____| |_____|
| |
| qmqpc |
|______________|______________________________
___|_____ ___________
| qmail/ | | RAID |
| qmqpd |---| -queue |
|_________| | -Maildirs |
| |___________|
| NFS
______________________|______________________
| |
| |
_|___ _|___
|qmail| |qmail| ...
|_____| |_____|
| | DNS round robin
| pop | pop
|______________|______________________________
|
|
Internet
Here's the other config:
Internet
|
| smtp
|_____________________________________________
| |
| MXa | MXb
_|___ _|___
|qmail| |qmail| ...
|_____| |_____|
| |
| NFS |
|______________|______________________________
___|_______
| RAID |
| -queue |
| -Maildirs |
|___________|
| NFS
______________________|______________________
| |
| |
_|___ _|___
|qmail| |qmail| ...
|_____| |_____|
| | DNS round robin
| pop | pop
|______________|______________________________
|
|
Internet
Notes:
1)For the moment, both POP sides are the same (I'm not sure what other
POP options exist).
2)The first uses miniQmail; the 2nd does not.
3)The first has a "master" qmail server. The second are pure peers,
offering better availability.
Is the 2nd option even possible with qmail? Any and all educated input
is more than welcome. How do some of you very large sites operate?
Thanks!
Dave
_____________________________________
Refs:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/mini.html
http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmqp.html
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#organize
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#qmqpd
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#big-servers
http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/QLDAPINSTALL
http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/the-big-qmail-picture-103-p2.gif
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/179/1/1/1.html
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/175/1/1.html
To achieve the High Availability and Transparent down time, we are using a
VERY NICE protocol specific proxy from bluetail.com. Their programmers
wrote code for telco switches and they have a product that includes
auto-failover, load-balancing, etc and has MANY re-writing and features that
greatly exceed the capabilities of ServerIron or hardware loadbalancers.
I highly recommend the product. You can have many POP, SMTP, IMAP, etc
servers behind a couple of Bluetail servers. Then, assuming that you are
using NFS-shared POP-dirs, you can up/down the qmail app servers with no
effect to the end users. This works VERY well and prevents down time of any
kind.
They have an Web/Radius/DNS product as well.
Duane.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Kitabjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 12:59 PM
To: 'qmail Mailinglist'
Cc: 'Greg Owen'
Subject: miniQmail and QMQP? (was: Share queue between servers)
1) Are any of you out there running miniQmail / QMQP?
2) What's the final word on which is recommended: multiple inbound SMTP
servers, or a series of QMQP servers? (The goal is high volume / high
availability).
For the latter, here are the two configs I'm considering:
Internet
|
| smtp
|_____________________________________________
| |
| MXa | MXb
_|___ _|___
|miniQ| |miniQ| ...
|_____| |_____|
| |
| qmqpc |
|______________|______________________________
___|_____ ___________
| qmail/ | | RAID |
| qmqpd |---| -queue |
|_________| | -Maildirs |
| |___________|
| NFS
______________________|______________________
| |
| |
_|___ _|___
|qmail| |qmail| ...
|_____| |_____|
| | DNS round robin
| pop | pop
|______________|______________________________
|
|
Internet
Here's the other config:
Internet
|
| smtp
|_____________________________________________
| |
| MXa | MXb
_|___ _|___
|qmail| |qmail| ...
|_____| |_____|
| |
| NFS |
|______________|______________________________
___|_______
| RAID |
| -queue |
| -Maildirs |
|___________|
| NFS
______________________|______________________
| |
| |
_|___ _|___
|qmail| |qmail| ...
|_____| |_____|
| | DNS round robin
| pop | pop
|______________|______________________________
|
|
Internet
Notes:
1)For the moment, both POP sides are the same (I'm not sure what other
POP options exist).
2)The first uses miniQmail; the 2nd does not.
3)The first has a "master" qmail server. The second are pure peers,
offering better availability.
Is the 2nd option even possible with qmail? Any and all educated input
is more than welcome. How do some of you very large sites operate?
Thanks!
Dave
_____________________________________
Refs:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/mini.html
http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmqp.html
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#organize
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#qmqpd
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#big-servers
http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/QLDAPINSTALL
http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/the-big-qmail-picture-103-p2.gif
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/179/1/1/1.html
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/175/1/1.html
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:48AM +0530, Madhav wrote:
> From the qmail server(on Linux machine) adminstrator point of view I
> have a question. All my end users are M$ windoze users. Let's say a mail
> with some virus prone attachment(which act on windoze) arrives through SMTP.
> Is there any package which scans the mail for all possible known virii(which
> act on M$ windoze) before the qmail-queue is invoked. Can anyone give me a
> good pointer or some info as to where I can get that kind of packages. I
> hope something like this is already existing.
Sure take a look at qmail-qfilter:
http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-qfilter/
You can use it to run all mail through one or more content filters of
your chosing.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:48AM +0530, Madhav wrote:
> Hi all,
> From the qmail server(on Linux machine) adminstrator point of view I
> have a question. All my end users are M$ windoze users. Let's say a mail
> with some virus prone attachment(which act on windoze) arrives through SMTP.
> Is there any package which scans the mail for all possible known virii(which
> act on M$ windoze) before the qmail-queue is invoked. Can anyone give me a
> good pointer or some info as to where I can get that kind of packages. I
> hope something like this is already existing.
See http://www.geocities.com/jhaar/scan4virus/ - a anti-virus scanner
harness for Qmail. It supports several commercial virus scanners, and also
has an in-built attachment scanner that can be used to stop all mail with
VBS attachments for example...
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
I'm having problems with a virtual domain. I wanted to set up a
subdomain, arl.dynacare.com. Created a user, arl, for this virtual domain
and put arl.dynacare.com:arl in virtualdomains. Then I proceded to make a
bunch of user accounts using the arl-user convention. Then I'd create a
.qmail-user in the arl home directory and put arl-user into the
file. But for some reason I'm getting 'no mailbox by that name' when
sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I replace alr-user with, for
example, my email address I get the mail fine.
These users exist on the system and they have appropriate Maildir and
.qmail files. Any clues?
--
Albert Hopkins
Sr. Systems Specialist
Dynacare Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nevermind, problem solved. I had put arl.dynacare.com in
/var/qmail/locals. Now that I've taken it out everthing works fine.
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Albert Hopkins wrote:
>
> I'm having problems with a virtual domain. I wanted to set up a
> subdomain, arl.dynacare.com. Created a user, arl, for this virtual domain
> and put arl.dynacare.com:arl in virtualdomains. Then I proceded to make a
> bunch of user accounts using the arl-user convention. Then I'd create a
> .qmail-user in the arl home directory and put arl-user into the
> file. But for some reason I'm getting 'no mailbox by that name' when
> sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I replace alr-user with, for
> example, my email address I get the mail fine.
>
> These users exist on the system and they have appropriate Maildir and
> .qmail files. Any clues?
>
>
--
Albert Hopkins
Sr. Systems Specialist
Dynacare Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting James ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I have finally been able to get Qmail to work with local users and
> receiving mail from outside my server. My next step is to try to get mail
> to my virtual domain users. I am using Mandrake 7.02.
>
> Here are the steps I have taken, but still cannot get mail to my virtual
> domain user:
>
> 1. I've created a user called "pony" whom I wish to have administrative
> control for "ponyexpressdelivery.com"
>
> 2. I have configured my virtualdomains file to look like this:
> @ponyexpressdelivery.com:pony
Remove the @ before the domain name.
> 3. I've configured my locals file to include pony, and kevin, but not
> ponyexpressdelivery.com
Virtual domains do not go into the control/locals.
> 4. I've configured my rcpthosts file to include the following:
> ponyexpressdelivery.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Only domain names go into control/rcpthosts. Remove the email addresses.
After completing these steps, restart qmail-send.
Aaron
ok qmail works great / ezmlm works great , i got all the ezmlm-web.cgi
running with .htaccess files but the problem i have is no matter who
logs in over the cgi interface and creates a list , it goes under my
account? how do i change to a global account? and also instead of having
a list name like [EMAIL PROTECTED] how do i get
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?? any suggestions would be great! thanks
chris.....
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:07:12PM -0400, cdowns wrote:
> ok qmail works great / ezmlm works great , i got all the ezmlm-web.cgi
> running with .htaccess files but the problem i have is no matter who
> logs in over the cgi interface and creates a list , it goes under my
> account? how do i change to a global account? and also instead of having
> a list name like [EMAIL PROTECTED] how do i get
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]?? any suggestions would be great! thanks
Which user does ezmlm-web.cgi run as ?
is it setuid alias or .....
As it seems from your mail ezmlm-web.cgi is running 'under' your account
if you want [EMAIL PROTECTED] ezmlm-web.cgi should run as user alias
The easiest way is to change the settings in index.c and compile it to
index.cgi, per README.install instructions of ezmlm-web ....
> chris.....
HTH,
Steffan
--
http://therookie.dyndns.org
|
I am having a problem
using Netscape's mail client. I am getting an error msg stating that an
there is a problem with the pop3 mail server. I believe that my set up is
correct. I have used several of availble HOWTO's on qmail and I always seem to
get stuck at this point. Currently I have installed the MEMPHIS RedHat
version. I can send messages out and receive them back using the man page
procedure, but when it comes to hooking up to the server using Netscape's or IE
mail client I run into a brick wall.
Initially I was given this
project as a learning tool to increase my Linux awarness, so my background is
weak. Any assistance that can be given is appreciated in
advance.
Respectfully
Dean
|
Make sure you have round-robin turned on in your DNS, assuming
that both POP servers have the same name.
If that doesn't work, bother half your users and have them change
their settings to point to the second machine.
I don't see what is saved by this arrangement, over having all
the users connect directly to the machine with the mailboxes:
all you gain is complexity and additional possible points of failure.
NFS isn't free, those packets need to get read off the disk and
written to the LAN just the same as if the MUA connects directly.
Jhun Hubac wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Is there a way that I can back-up my pop server? I'm using qmail for my two
> servers (both have SMTP & POP3 service).
> No problem of having redundant SMTP servers but it seems that the MUA
> (clients) are polling on only 1 of the two servers. I'm using NIS/NFS to
> distribute information between the two, so their home directories are on a
> different LINUX machine and the accounts are based on a NIS master. Is
> there a work-around for this?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drawn to the speed and performance
I have a client that needs various mailing lists and needs to send
around 100,000 messages a day - he needs to handle bounces and
subscriptions automatically-
ezmlm-idx seems perfect but for one thing -
he needs each meesage personalized -to say hi fred - hi barney etc etc
and even personalized in the message body
Id rather him use ezmlm but they insist on this feature -
Theres no problem doing the sending and generation of messages with php
and using postgresql or mysql to store all the data - but I'm worried
that trying to send out 100,00 or more messages that way will be bad for
server performance -
I have no experience in mass email and was wondering if anyone could
suggest the right way to go ?
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 09:12:58PM -0700, Jason Ingham wrote:
> I'm using the scripts that come with the memphis RPM's for qmail v1.03.
> They come setup by default for cyclog. Here's the pertinent part of the
> script:
>
> # Grab the daemontools init functions
> . $INITDIR/daemontools.functions
It looks like this file defines a function stop() that causes cyclog to
stop. You'll need to modify it to make qfilelog to stop.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
I have
installed souce of imap : courier-imap-0.32 from inter7.com but it doesn't
work good
Then I installed the imap-4.7 package from the Mandrake
7.02
(I also tryed the imap package (version:4.5-3mdir4)
I prefer use
package than source.
I create Maildir with the command : maildirmake /home/USER/Maildir/ (with the good
permission)
for the client.
When I configure a client (Outlook Express,
Netscape 4.7), the
synchronisation is OK between server and client. I can send messages ...
But: my problems are:
I have nothing
in the recept-box (or Inbox?) of the client.
Or
: where do the messages go on the server?
(Do I use the good package,
source ??)
this is my /etc/inetd.conf: imap steam tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd imapd
this is
my /etc/services:
imap2
143/tcp
imap
imap2 143/udp imap
Note:
I have used the UCSPI source for the tcpserver before with pop3. And all was OK . Do I
delete an old program
??
|
Michael Boman wrote:
> A server goes down [and the mail should been taken care of by
> another server, automatically and samlessly.]
>
> A single point of failure is not an option.
>
> Best regards
> Michael Boman
At the cost of more WAN traffic, you could add patches so
that on delivery failures, in addition to a message being added to
the local queue it also gets copied to one or more other peers for
queuing. Whenever a message that was queued gets successfully
delivered, a notification message is sent to the associated peer,
so it can dequeue its redundant message.
Implementing this would require:
full description of the redundancy protocol
implementing the protocol in the software
Depending on the various costs (WAN bandwitdh, CPU, storage space,
programmer time) this architecture could result in something similar
to usenet, with each extended queue storage server contacting the
others at regular intervals with a list of message-IDs it has received,
so that all of them get multiple chances to receive the same message
stuck in the queue.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drawn to the speed and performance
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:41:49PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
[snip]
>
> Depending on the various costs (WAN bandwitdh, CPU, storage space,
> programmer time) this architecture could result in something similar
> to usenet, with each extended queue storage server contacting the
> others at regular intervals with a list of message-IDs it has received,
> so that all of them get multiple chances to receive the same message
> stuck in the queue.
Do note that usenet was never designed to guarantee message delivery.
Usenet was designed for non-reliable wide-scale messaging.
These useless and irrelevant facts were brought to you by
LackOfCaffeine2000(tm).
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Hi, all. I'm running qmail 1.02 on Linux/UltraSPARC. If I run
/var/qmail/rc &
...by hand, qmail starts and runs flawlessly. But if I use the init
script that came with the source code:
#!/bin/csh -cf
/var/qmail/rc &
...which is the way I have qmail set to start at boot, I get something
like this, quoting /var/log/messages from my last boot:
May 15 18:04:54 embley qmail: csh
May 15 18:04:55 embley qmail: : error in loading shared libraries:
libtermcap.so.2: cannot open shared object file: Error 23
May 15 18:04:55 embley kernel: VFS: file-max limit 4096 reached
May 15 18:05:09 embley rc: Starting qmail failed
To further confuse matters, if I do this:
# /bin/csh -cf /var/qmail/rc &
...it works just fine as well.
If I call the initscript by hand, I don't see the library message but
qmail does spawn so many copies of itself that I get the max-files
error.
Is this a known issue? Is there a better way to start qmail at boot?
TIA,
-m
--
Michael Jinks, IB
Systems Administrator, Chicago Center for Computational Psychology
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public key
I've created a few virtual domains on my system (Linux Mandrake 7.02), and
they are all working well. Now I wish to redirect mail sent to any one of
the virtual domains to the correct place.
I have only one question at this point that I'd like to clear up. I can't
find any reference in the O'Reilly "DNS and BIND" book that explains
exactly how to do this. Anyway, my only question at this point is.. in
the MX part of the DNS record of a virtual domain, I don't quite
understand "what" the mail server is.. is it my server? Or do I have some
special name for the mail server?? So, if it's just my server, and I have
a virtual domain user that I want to have mail sent to, which one of these
MX setups is correct?
virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 server.com.
or
virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 virtualdomain.com.
Thanks for any help.
James
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:31:34PM -0700, James wrote:
> I've created a few virtual domains on my system (Linux Mandrake 7.02), and
> they are all working well. Now I wish to redirect mail sent to any one of
> the virtual domains to the correct place.
>
> I have only one question at this point that I'd like to clear up. I can't
> find any reference in the O'Reilly "DNS and BIND" book that explains
> exactly how to do this. Anyway, my only question at this point is.. in
> the MX part of the DNS record of a virtual domain, I don't quite
> understand "what" the mail server is.. is it my server? Or do I have some
> special name for the mail server?? So, if it's just my server, and I have
> a virtual domain user that I want to have mail sent to, which one of these
> MX setups is correct?
>
> virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 server.com.
> or
> virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 virtualdomain.com.
Either will work, so long as server.com or virtualdomain.com resolves to
whatever the address of the server is. There's no reason that
virtualdomain.com's mail exchanger has to be called virtualdomain.com though.
(There are actually reasons why you'd want an "in-zone" server, but I wouldn't
worry about it at this point.)
Chris
On a mailing list I administer, bounces from a subscriber go
to the person in the From: header. The subscriber is from
leisureworld.org, who's mx is mail.pajo.com
bash-2.03$ telnet mail.pajo.com 25
Trying 216.116.96.4...
Connected to mail.pajo.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.pajo.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.9.1a/8.9.0; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:35:17 -0700 Hello
Is it really possible to configure Sendmail 8.9.x to bounce messages
to someone other than the envelope sender?!?!?!?!
John
On May 15 2000, John White wrote:
> Is it really possible to configure Sendmail 8.9.x to bounce messages
> to someone other than the envelope sender?!?!?!?!
I don't know the answer to your question with any margin of
certainty, but I'd guess that it is possible. My ISP does
header rewriting and I've noticed that if it differs from the
From: field, then its sendmail puts the Return-Path: field as
the From: field. :-(
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I need to make any mail that my system relays from a specific domain
look as if it came from my system, including headers.
eg.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sends mail via a local dial-up in Georgia.
I need to recognize secret.com, grab the message and change the header
to look as if it came from my machine.
The From: contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Received: from ipdiddle.com has to be changed to Received from:
mail.secret.com., etcetera.
Pardon what looks simple, but I'm switching to Qmail from an OS/2
server that I kludged up 4 years ago and want to get rid of.
An acquaintance of mine who has a religious devotion to sendmail tells me
that the next version of sendmail will have a swell new feature. As we all
know, one of the aspects of sendmail that makes it so exciting to use is that
it will accept an unlimited number of simultaneous inbound connections,
causing thrashing and other disasters. So their solution is to let you set a
limit on the number of simultaneous connections from a single host and reject
mail (not connections) if there are more than that. Surely it is a
coincidence that this misfeature will reject entirely legitimate mailing list
traffic from qmail, while being ineffective at limiting overloads if there's
just a lot of traffic overall.
So in the spirit of playing nice with other kids, even when the other kids
deserve to be stomped into the mud, I'm wondering again about how hard it
would be to do some global per MX connection limiting.
Sendmail isn't the only MTA with this problem, of course. My thought would
be to keep some estimate of server load based on the time from the connection
attempt to the banner, or maybe the response to the HELO, and throttle
connections to a host when it got significantly slower than it used to be.
The idea is to set up almost but not quite enough connections to each remote
host to make it fall over.
Anyone experimented with this? Considering that qmail already keeps a retry
time for MX'es that don't answer, I'd think it'd be a relatively
straightforward extension to that.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 12:33:20AM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
>
> My thought would
> be to keep some estimate of server load based on the time from the connection
> attempt to the banner, or maybe the response to the HELO, and throttle
> connections to a host when it got significantly slower than it used to be.
Wouldn't an approach like this be vulnerable to a whole host of noise effects
like varying net latency, or host slowdowns that don't have anything to do
with actual mail load?
-m
--
Michael Jinks, IB
Systems Administrator, Chicago Center for Computational Psychology
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public key
Hi there,
Is there any way that we can configure the smtp server in such a way that we
can customize according to a certain group. Like for a group called blah, I
want to use smtp.abc.com and for blah1 I want to user smtp.abc1.com.
Any suggestion or documentation.
Thank you.
Warm Reards,
Ranjan
Hi to all.
Sorry if I already post a similar question, but i don't understand the best
way that should I follow.
I've installed qmail with vpopmail, qmailadmin and sqwebmail and I manage
many domains and users very efficently via web.
My problem was to manage the queue manually, to send E-Mail only at some
hours (ex. 8 am and 5pm).
You and others told me to try serialmail or work with switch, but unlikely
i'm not very well (i'm newbies about administration...) and my ideas are
very confused.
Can someone help me to explain how can i have to use serialmail (or other
way) to do this with the products that i have already installed?
Whatever help is appreciated.
Thanks for your patience,
--Carlo
Carlo Manuali
Centro d'Ateneo per i Servizi Informatici (CASI)
University of Perugia
ITALY
Hi,
as part of performance increase, I'm thinking of moving part of my qmail
queue/mess dir (half of the subdirs there ) to another disk and creating
symbolic links to there. I suppose qmail still functions then (after I've
run queue-fix)?
Do I need to pay special attention as to which dirs I move to create a
balanced system (probably not, but it doesn't hurt to ask)?
Franky
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 16 May 00, at 10:38, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
> as part of performance increase, I'm thinking of moving part of my qmail
> queue/mess dir (half of the subdirs there ) to another disk and creating
> symbolic links to there. I suppose qmail still functions then (after I've
> run queue-fix)?
I wouldn't be so sure.
How does qmail decide about the <number> subdir: It finds out the
inode of the file just created, and takes this number modulo 23 (or,
more precisely, modulo `head -1 conf-split`). It also assumes that a
simple move of the file from intd(?) to mess doesn't change the
inode number.
It shows that it's not possible to split the queue/mess that way.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOSD8x1MwP8g7qbw/EQJ4+wCgy+X7+oEqdeJHKHgEs0TPkPTqoYgAmgMg
CW6bn1sWbWc9N6S1dLOstYvS
=v9wA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
I am facing a strange problem. All the mails, for the SMTP user, which are
to be smtp to remote servers getting resolved as local.
There are pop users also existing for the domain name, so i have to keep
the domain name in 'local' file. For SMTP users the alias has been defined
and as per the alias the enteries are made in SMTProuytes file.
The setup has been working fine for last 6 months. Suddenly today morning i
found the smtp is not working.
I tried by recreating the locals and smtp routes file it doesn't help.
If i remove the domain name form local the mails start getting smtp, but
then pop users get affected.
kindly suggest what could be the problem.
Ravi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 16 May 00, at 11:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am facing a strange problem. All the mails, for the SMTP user, which are
> to be smtp to remote servers getting resolved as local.
>
> There are pop users also existing for the domain name, so i have to keep
> the domain name in 'local' file. For SMTP users the alias has been defined
> and as per the alias the enteries are made in SMTProuytes file.
>
> The setup has been working fine for last 6 months. Suddenly today morning i
> found the smtp is not working.
>
> I tried by recreating the locals and smtp routes file it doesn't help.
>
> If i remove the domain name form local the mails start getting smtp, but
> then pop users get affected.
In my opinion, it never worked as described.
If you have a domain where some of the people are "local" and the
rest "remote", you have two options:
1. Put
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-domain
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-domain
etc. into virtualdomains. Put "|forward "$DEFAULT"" into
~alias/.qmail-domain-default. Have a
domain.com:othermachine.domain.com entry in smtproutes.
2. Put
domain.com:alias-domain
into virtualdomains. Have ~alias/.qmail-domain-user1, ~alias/.qmail-
domain-user2 etc. all hardlinked to the same file containing
"|forward "$DEFAULT""; have ~alias/.qmail-domain-default contain
"|forward "$DEFAULT"@othermachine.domain.com".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOSD9+VMwP8g7qbw/EQKXHACghzGD3mdPhre6KsEVkGnsZVtrPWkAoIad
esjmqA+Da1X88pQaZV7qcoXt
=/t8s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Hi,
I want to set several domains on a single host. Each domain has its own DNS
entry, like this :
mail.domain1.com (with an IP address)
mail.domain2.com (with the same or another IP address - no matter for me)
I set my virtualhosts to have two virtual domains : domain1-com and
domain2-com.
And, then, I've got several users for each domain.
For example :
- domain1-com-toto
- domain1-com-titi
- domain2-com-tata
- domain2-com toto
And so on, set in my users/assign file.
Then, I wanna use a POP connection, along with userdb (and nothing else than
userdb) to allow people to retreive their mail.
How can I set "things" (either the POP system or userdb) to allow users to
identify as "toto", "titi" and "tata", and, depending on the server they are
accessing (mail.domain1.com or mail.domain2.com), "redirect" them to the right
mailbox ?... (i.e. domain1-com-toto for toto if he connects to mail.domain1.com
and so on).
And, furthermore, I'd like my userdb users to be different on each domain
(domain1-com-toto wouldn't be the same as domain2-com-toto).
Any clues ?....
Thanks...
P.-J.
Why doesn't "multilog ... '-* msg *' ... filter out "end msg 154" line?
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
do D4685B884894C483
