qmail Digest 11 Sep 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1120
Topics (messages 48374 through 48386):
daemontools problem
48374 by: QBA
Does Qmail support MUA on Win9x?
48375 by: big_qmail.email.com.cn
48376 by: Steve Wolfe
48377 by: wolfgang zeikat
48383 by: David Dyer-Bennet
48386 by: Steve Wolfe
Re: Flame (Dont read if you hate this like I do)
48378 by: Scott D. Yelich
48380 by: Stephen F. Bosch
Re: Monitoring Email - Clarified
48379 by: Scott D. Yelich
48382 by: David Dyer-Bennet
48385 by: Adam McKenna
duplicate messages
48381 by: James T. Perry
qmail-smtpd-auth crashes!!!
48384 by: Manuel Gisbert
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've just installed daemontools on my linux. But I didn't find any
documentacion within it. All I know is that now I must run 'mkdir /service'.
But where should it be? I installed daemontools in /usr/local.
And what should it contain?
And to be honest with you I don't know what is this program about.
I thought that it is for qmail to better working but I guess I was wrong.
Could you tell me what you are using it for?
Thank you in advance,
QBA
It seems that Qmail supports only Unix's MUA.I'm using win9x on my client PC,does it
mean I can't use Qmail as my SMTP/POP3/IMAP server?
Thank you!
----------------------------------------------
��ӭ��ʹ�� �ټ���������ʼ�ϵͳ http://www.email.com.cn
Welcome to E-mail business system
> It seems that Qmail supports only Unix's MUA.I'm using win9x on my client PC,does it
>mean I can't use Qmail as my SMTP/POP3/IMAP server?
> Thank you!
qmail supports any MUA that adheres to the pop3 and smtp protocols,
which includes a wide variety of Unix and Windows MUA's.
steve
actually, SMTP, POP3 and IMAP servers do *not* care which operating system
you are running, as long as your clients use protocol compliant commands.
or in other words: yes, you can use qmail as your SMTP / POP3 server (and
as an IMAP server too, with addons)
(you can *not* install qmail on windoze, if that is what you are asking,
but you dont install apache either in order to visit webpages on
unix/linux servers ...)
wolfgang
Also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 11.09.2000:
It seems that Qmail supports only Unix's MUA.I'm using win9x on my client
PC,does it mean I can't use Qmail as my SMTP/POP3/IMAP server?
Thank you!
Steve Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at 18:52:00 -0600
> > It seems that Qmail supports only Unix's MUA.I'm using win9x on my client PC,does
>it mean I can't use Qmail as my SMTP/POP3/IMAP server?
> > Thank you!
>
> qmail supports any MUA that adheres to the pop3 and smtp protocols,
> which includes a wide variety of Unix and Windows MUA's.
Um, qmail as such doesn't support pop3; that's done with various
add-on packages. So a rock-bottom qmail install won't support pop3.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Steve Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at
18:52:00 -0600
> > > It seems that Qmail supports only Unix's MUA.I'm using win9x on my
client PC,does it mean I can't use Qmail as my SMTP/POP3/IMAP server?
> > > Thank you!
> >
> > qmail supports any MUA that adheres to the pop3 and smtp
protocols,
> > which includes a wide variety of Unix and Windows MUA's.
>
> Um, qmail as such doesn't support pop3; that's done with various
> add-on packages. So a rock-bottom qmail install won't support pop3.
Well, although a rock-bottom installation doesn't have pop3 support, qmail
does include a pop3 server in the standard distrobution, so (at least in my
mind) it can be said to support pop3. Your opinion may differ. ; )
steve
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I still await the days when one can post a legitimate question to a
> list, without receiving a barrage of out of context messages with
> personal opinions, and RTFM a**hole, especially when they send them to
> the list. Perhaps this is why some lists are moderated.
Back in the day... you knew who was out there. Basically, it was
universities and a few high tech businesses here and there. People
respected others -- or at least dirty laundry wasn't spread out all
over.
Anyone else remember when the dot-com to dot-edu ratio was reversed?
These days, kiddies treat their knowledge of *anything* as somthing to
use against you. Perhaps they know only one thing, but holy-hell hope
that you don't even let them think that you don't just happen to know
this one thing that they know, or else you'll undoubtedly have
it handed to you, if you know what I mean.
Example: Ask someone why cnames aren't allowed in MX records. You'll
get insulted, told that you're stupid... you'll have dozens of people
telling you to read some FAQ or, if they're clever and/or have heard it
before, they might even go so far as to tell you read some RFC...
but, it seems to me, that 99.999_% of the people out there don't know
why. I'm not going to enlighten this list (because there are too many
closed minded people on it), because there are already those here who
are going to flame me and attack me back... get over it. Try thinking
for yourself for once, eh? I'd tell you RTFM, but, alas, there's no FM
for you.
It is amusing when kiddies tell you to RTFM on an app that YOU wrote and
that YOU wrote the FM.... or, kiddies try to give you back some
super-elite code that does something neat, but they want something
special in return -- when it's code that you're written...
Anyway ... back to the point: The simple point is, we could all simply
share and help each other and instead of bashing each newbie that comes
along, simply be nice and show, by example, how to act.
We're all different, and the world is only getting more crowded. The
"kids" these days are already a whole heck of a lot more violent and
far less tolerant... and having a global communications medium only
seems to let the negatives become highly visible.
Scott
"Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
> We're all different, and the world is only getting more crowded. The
> "kids" these days are already a whole heck of a lot more violent and
> far less tolerant... and having a global communications medium only
> seems to let the negatives become highly visible.
But you know what? I find I can be a whole lot more effective nice guy
=)
I like helping people, and with this medium I can help more of them.
=)
-Stephen-
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Otherwise, I would really appreciate anyone who can provide me with relevant
> information (minus the flames, and non-answer yielding responses) (Send
> those off-list)
oh, and that's another thing these days... those who give you an answer
that doen't even address your question -- then treat you as if you owe
them something for their useless garbage.
Have you ever tried #perl on efnet?
My example goes something like:
If you were a student learning to drive... and you asked someone from
#perl (etc.) what the yellow light was for in the traffic light -- you'd
get a first answer -- "red is for stop, green is for go" ... if you then
press the issue and state that you really just want to know about the
"yellow" ... light.... you'll be told that "no one here uses yellow" (or
similar ala "you're stupid if you use yellow" etc) or the instructor
would tell you that you're too stupid of a student and refuse to teach
you or even be in the same car as you.
The favorite is always:
Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I
want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number
in society -- some people don't care to be that way.
Scott
Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600
> The favorite is always:
>
> Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
> A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
>
> Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I
> want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number
> in society -- some people don't care to be that way.
Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it
myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of
these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach
their actual goal. Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't
know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while
suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to
determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 02:18:05AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600
>
> > The favorite is always:
> >
> > Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
> > A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
> >
> > Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I
> > want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number
> > in society -- some people don't care to be that way.
>
> Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it
> myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of
> these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach
> their actual goal. Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't
> know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while
> suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to
> determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me.
I think that the crux of the issue is that some people don't realize that
they are ASKING for help. They act as if they are entitled to it.
The yelich problem described above is a classic example of biting the hand
that feeds you. I am pretty sure that any reasonable person would welcome a
better way of doing something if one were presented to him. Especially if it
involved less work and had a smaller chance of problems along the line.
But I guess there will always be people who would rather learn the hard way,
and that is why yelich remains in my procmail filters.
--Adam
Hi all,
I apologize if this was covered before.
I am having probles after my fresh qmail install, and being
new to all of this I am a little confused with what is going
on.
BTW, qmail is working great and I think its awesome.
Situation:
In my lan I am testing qmail on my two LINUX boxes.
Sending mail out from binmail is no problem, but when I use
my ugly perl script (pasted below) to do some performance
tests (just for ball park figures) I get duplicate messages.
Using sendmail was OK but qmail seems to duplicate all
the messages.
Did anybody get this and over come this before?
If so, I would appreciate it if someone could shed some
light on the situation (hints, pointers, url anything).
MY SETUP:
qmail 1.03
+ DNS and local-time patch
+ vsm and procmail
# slowly attempting the migration to Maildir/...
daemontools 0.70
ucspi-tcp 0.88
# mosly following lwq.html - great doc/info!
Thanks in advance,
jamie
--script--
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
# sendmail below is symlinked to
# /var/qmail/bin/sendmail
$sendmail = '/usr/sbin/sendmail -t';
$mailto = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
$mailfrom = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
$subject = 'This is a test';
# for more mail at once uncomment below and
# and the line above exit 0 way below.
#for $i (1 .. 100) {
open (MAIL, "| $sendmail $mailto");
print MAIL << "__EOF";
To: $mailto
From: $mailfrom
Subject: $subject
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Hello, this is a test.
12345678901234567890 12345678901234567890
# and approx 1 kb worth of garbage text proceeds...
__EOF
close(MAIL);
#}
exit 0;
--/script--
#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#
-- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room,
I will call them a Saint...
GUI == Graphical User Interference
Hi there,
I want to enable authenticated smtp between server and mua.
Therefor I installed either mrs.brisbys qmail-smtp patch or
the advanced version from http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
As I use vpopmail I applied all modifications mentioned in
http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/faq.html
Now when I connect to the server using outlook or outlook express (both are
mentioned on the above website as working) qmail-smtpd exits with "421 out
of memory (#4.3.0)".
I attached the relevant code so that someone might tell me what the problem
is..
<snipp from qmail-smtpd.c>
//This is mrs. brisbys version, but its the same problem with the other one
too
switch ((pid=fork())) {
case -1: die_nomem();
case 0: close(fds[1]);
fd_copy(3,fds[0]);
execvp(smtpauth_argv[1], smtpauth_argv+1);
die_nomem();
/*Thats the exception were qmail-smtpd dies. I'm not quite sure why they
inserted die_nomem() here anyway, but it seems as if there's a problem
invoking the external
programm which validates user/pass */
};
close(fds[0]);
write(fds[1], smtpauthlogin, str_len(smtpauthlogin)+1);
write(fds[1], smtpauthpass, str_len(smtpauthpass)+1);
close(fds[1]);
wait_pid(&st, pid);
if (wait_exitcode(st) == 0) {
out("235 go ahead\r\n");
flush();
relayclient="";
return;
}
sleep(2);
out("535 auth failure\r\n"); flush(); _exit(0);
</snipp>
<snipp from qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run>
#!/bin/sh
QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g vpopmail`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 4000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -l
mydomain -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd /usr/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /bin/true
</snipp>
Thanx in advance
Manuel, the confused one
