qmail Digest 17 Nov 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1186
Topics (messages 52311 through 52370):
Implementation of ETRN
52311 by: Philip Tong
52322 by: Charles Cazabon
52344 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: how to set the rights for maildir to be secure
52312 by: Dave Sill
52318 by: Brett Randall
52324 by: Brett Randall
52331 by: Dave Sill
Re: Delivering mail locally
52313 by: Dave Sill
52334 by: Oliver Menzel
52357 by: Chris Johnson
Re: Duplicate messages.
52314 by: Dave Sill
52315 by: Andy Abshagen
52317 by: Dave Sill
52319 by: Peter Green
52321 by: Andy Abshagen
52323 by: Peter Green
Re: User Unknown
52316 by: Dave Sill
two questions
52320 by: Dariusz Zmokly
Re: linux and reiserfs
52325 by: Charles Cazabon
localhost
52326 by: Sebastian Steinlechner
52327 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: secrets and lies
52328 by: Mate Wierdl
52339 by: Matthias Andree
52352 by: Felix von Leitner
52355 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: cr.yp.to delays
52329 by: Mate Wierdl
Qmail repeating system name in address
52330 by: Jamin Collins
52332 by: Dave Sill
52345 by: Sebastian Steinlechner
52346 by: markd.bushwire.net
52359 by: Jamin Collins
emacs rmail+maildir
52333 by: Keith Warno
52340 by: Scott Gifford
52343 by: Keith Warno
52347 by: Scott Gifford
Local delivery problems (Expanded)
52335 by: Oliver Menzel
52336 by: Chris Johnson
52338 by: Oliver Menzel
And error occurred while sending mail
52337 by: Romeo Manzur
52342 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: removing Delivered-To header...?
52341 by: Peter Cavender
52370 by: Andrew Richards
Re: qmail 1.04
52348 by: Balazs Nagy
52354 by: Peter van Dijk
52356 by: markd.bushwire.net
52358 by: Markus Stumpf
52363 by: markd.bushwire.net
control files on an NFS share?
52349 by: Ben Beuchler
52350 by: markd.bushwire.net
52351 by: Ben Beuchler
52362 by: Scott Gifford
Strange 550 errors to ???
52353 by: Jon Griffin
52368 by: Michael Maier
virtualdomains.cdb
52360 by: Alex Pennace
bounces...but configured right
52361 by: Barry Smoke
Temporary long delay (Qmail and Real -Time )
52364 by: Kornyakov Yevgeniy
52365 by: markd.bushwire.net
Re: ezmlm response
52366 by: Yard
Forwarding all messages to local net behind masquerade
52367 by: Daniel POGAC
run file suddenly disappear!!
52369 by: eric yu
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anybody tried implementations of ETRN on QMail?
If yes, what would be a good choice and where can I get more information on
it?
Thanks in advance.
Philip Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anybody tried implementations of ETRN on QMail?
>
> If yes, what would be a good choice and where can I get more information on
> it?
djb's qmail FAQ contains a brief entry:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html
Essentially you want AutoTURN. It's better than ETRN and requires no
special support by the client.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:55:03AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Essentially you want AutoTURN. It's better than ETRN and requires no
> special support by the client.
We use a similar approach.
However, we do queue the eMails in Maildirs mapped to domain names,
i.e. /var/qmail/etrn/example.com
which contains a
.qmail-default ./Maildir/
./Maildir
RELAYHOST 1.2.3.4 # defines IP to deliver to
Via tcpserver and ACLs we do mappings like
1.2.3.4:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",ETRN="example.com"
This allows us to define IPs that trigger AutoTURN for a specific
domain (and the IP that triggers AutoTURN hasn't even to be the
mailserver the mails get delivered to).
However there are some mailservers that are set up to explicitely
"trigger" ETRN that give up with qmail as qmail doesn't know about ETRN
commands. Give up means even if they are configured to e.g. connect
every 30 minutes to ETRN they stop at all as they get a 500 code from qmail.
I have added this code to qmail-smtpd.c:
(sorry no patch, as we're still on a qmail-1.01 and it is *heavily*
patched, so a patch would not apply).
char *env_etrn;
in getenvs() add
env_etrn = env_get("ETRN");
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ */
void smtp_etrn(arg) char *arg; {
if (env_etrn) { out("250 OK, queuing for node "); out(env_etrn); out("
started\r\n"); }
else { if (!arg) { out("500 Syntax Error\r\n"); }
else { out("459 Node "); out(arg); out(" not allowed: not
configured\r\n"); }
}
}
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ */
and also add
{ smtp_etrn, "etrn", 1 }
to the smtpcmd[] struct.
tcpserver now starts a script "qmail-smtpd-etrn" that looks like this:
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
[ ! -z "$ETRN" ] && {
(
exec </dev/null >/dev/null 2>&1
/var/qmail/bin/sm-delivery $ETRN </dev/null 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger
"serialsmtp" 17 &
) &
}
exec /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------
/var/qmail/bin/sm-delivery in turn is a small script that basically
- exists, if it can't get a lock on
/var/qmail/etrn/$ETRN/RELAYHOST
- otherwise locks /var/qmail/etrn/$ETRN/RELAYHOST and starts delivering
eMails from /var/qmail/etrn/$ETRN/Maildir via maildirsmtp to the host
listed in /var/qmail/etrn/$ETRN/RELAYHOST
\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.
Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm not sure you actually understand how unix works. All the folders
>in /home shouldn't be accessible to other users anyhow.
I'm not sure you're aware of how systems are actually configured. All
the user directories on my systems are world readable/executable, and
they're that way by default, not because I did something to make it
that way.
Now maybe your favorite Linux distro does otherwise, which is fine,
but that doesn't constitute a universal truth.
>I think you should go and read a small book on unix administration
>before you go any further...
I'm getting visions of a talking pot... It's saying something to a
kettle...
-Dave
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<momentary snip>
> I'm not sure you're aware of how systems are actually
> configured. All the user directories on my systems are world
> readable/executable, and they're that way by default, not because I
> did something to make it that way.
>
> Now maybe your favorite Linux distro does otherwise, which is fine,
> but that doesn't constitute a universal truth.
Yes...well...I just realised how much I shot myself in the foot. The
only distros I've ever used (which isn't many) have had 700
permissions on the home dirs...Now I have learnt otherwise ;) Thanks
for the info...
>>I think you should go and read a small book on unix administration
>>before you go any further...
>
> I'm getting visions of a talking pot... It's saying something to a
> kettle...
And then Alice jumped out into the middle of the road and the great
teacup jumped on top of her to save her from the likes of the incoming
bunny rabbit.
--
B r e t t R a n d a l l
http://xbox.ipsware.com/
brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've just tried it with right 700 but it doesn't work. After setting
> ist on right 703 it functions. I have tested it with an other
> user. He can't read the mail and can't do commands like mv or
> others.
Try this:
cd ~user/..
chown -R user.`id -g user` user
chmod 700 user
cd user
chmod -R u+rw *
That should work pretty easily.
--
B r e t t R a n d a l l
http://xbox.ipsware.com/
brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
martin langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>pd: what distro are you using that sets users directories to 755?
Solaris, IRIX, TRU64 UNIX, etc.
755 is traditional for UNIX.
-Dave
Oliver Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So if my server's domain is domain.com, and I try to send
>mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from my own local account (ie:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), qmail complaints that in the
>MX list for domain.com, the first MX record points back to the original
>server..
Put domain.com in control/locals.
-Dave
yep, setup in both files.
it just won't let me relay mail locally between accounts, because it
complaints it loops back to the MX record.
Oliver
--- Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the local domain in both 'locals' and 'rcpthosts'?
>
> ----ScottG.
>
> Oliver Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > hello,
> > perhaps this is another silly question, but I'm trying to deliver
> mail
> > locally. So if my server's domain is domain.com, and I try to send
> > mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from my own local account (ie:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), qmail complaints that in
> the
> > MX list for domain.com, the first MX record points back to the
> original
> > server..
> >
> > Which is currect, since the first MX record (with the highest
> priority)
> > is the actual host, I'm working on now.
> >
> > Can anyone offer some insight?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Oliver
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/
> it just won't let me relay mail locally between accounts,
> because it complaints it loops back to the MX record.
If a domain is listed in control/locals, then the MX record is never even
looked at. MX records apply only to remote deliveries.
Chris
"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Duplicate delivery:
>Nov 15 21:24:27 mail qmail: 974341467.158027 delivery 34992: success:
>did_0+0+2/
Single delivery:
>Nov 15 21:24:28 mail qmail: 974341468.155358 delivery 34993: success:
>did_0+0+1/
See the difference? The +2 vs. +1? That is the number of "program"
deliveries. The user receiving duplicates has a .qmail file that's
delivering the message twice.
-Dave
OK. And what if there is not a .qmail- for each user???
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Duplicate messages.
"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Duplicate delivery:
>Nov 15 21:24:27 mail qmail: 974341467.158027 delivery 34992: success:
>did_0+0+2/
Single delivery:
>Nov 15 21:24:28 mail qmail: 974341468.155358 delivery 34993: success:
>did_0+0+1/
See the difference? The +2 vs. +1? That is the number of "program"
deliveries. The user receiving duplicates has a .qmail file that's
delivering the message twice.
-Dave
"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK. And what if there is not a .qmail- for each user???
There's *always* a .qmail file, even if it's just the one specified on
the qmail-start command line. I don't know exactly how vpopmail sets
things up, but there's some difference between the configuration of
the two domains in question.
-Dave
* Andy Abshagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001116 09:10]:
> OK. And what if there is not a .qmail- for each user???
You mentioned, IIRC, that you are using vpopmail. What is in the
.qmail-default file for the domain in question?
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
panic("esp: detected penguin phase.");
(Panic message in the kernel.)
The .qmail-default contains the following.
| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail ''
/home/vpopmail/domains/d-vision.com/andy
| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail ''
/home/vpopmail/domains/d-vision.com/randy
We want it to go to both users. And we have several other domains that are
setup the same way. I'm not sure why this one would be unique in that
circumstance. Since I've created the .qmail- files for each user we have
not received any duplicate messages. So I think that fixed the problem.
But I really don't like that fix.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:17 AM
To: Qmail Mailing List
Subject: Re: Duplicate messages.
* Andy Abshagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001116 09:10]:
> OK. And what if there is not a .qmail- for each user???
You mentioned, IIRC, that you are using vpopmail. What is in the
.qmail-default file for the domain in question?
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
panic("esp: detected penguin phase.");
(Panic message in the kernel.)
* Andy Abshagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001116 09:45]:
> The .qmail-default contains the following.
>
> | /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail ''
> /home/vpopmail/domains/d-vision.com/andy
> | /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail ''
> /home/vpopmail/domains/d-vision.com/randy
This is wrong. vdelivermail will deliver to *all* header recipients, every
time it's invoked.
You'd be better off making an alias, say <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, that
points to both of the andy and randy mailboxes. Then, set up the
.qmail-default file to read:
| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And watch the magic work... :)
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
panic("esp: penguin phase transition after selection.");
(Panic message in the kernel.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Following the instructures given on Life with qmail, I am trying to
>install qmail using the source codes. So far I a have downloaded qmail
>and the two add-ons (daemontools and ucspi-tcp), and followed the steps
>up to building (Section 2.5.5 in Life with qmail).
>
>In the qmail-1.03 subdirectory, I typed make setup check
>
>After a series of compling, I get the following response:
>
> fatal: unable to find user alias
> make: ***[auto_iods/c] Error 111 ,
>
>and end up back at the root prompt.
What does this show:
grep qmail /etc/passwd
>Then, following the next directions,
When following a set of instructions, if one of the steps fails,
*don't* continue on to the next step and expect anything sane to
happen.
>I have checked the user account tab in linuxconf treemenu and there are
>users and aliases.
That's great, but are the users qmail requires there? You should have
created them in 2.5.4.
> My user account is Caroline and my e-mail alias is
>MAILER-DAEMON. The user account is there.
Mixed case usernames are a bad idea in general, and don't work with
qmail.
>1. Why did the make setup check command not find user alias file? How
>do I create one?
It's looking for a user named "alias", not an alias file. You create
it and the other qmail users by following the directions in section
2.5.4 of LWQ.
>2. Is the make+***[auto_iods/c}Error 111 warning a different problem.
>If so, how do I correct this?
No.
>3. Why doesn't the ./config or ./config-fast command work? Will it work
>once the user alias problem is fixed?
Most likely.
-Dave
hi !
I have qmail installed to deliver messages to mbox style mailboxes. Is
there an easy way to change it to Maildir ?
And next question - my users want to check their mailboxes via www.
Could you recommend me some program allowing this working fine with qmail ?
I have found oMail 0.94. What do you think of it ? Does it work fine
and is secure ? I have to add security is my first concern.
regards,
Dariusz Zmokly
Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2) I've found many remarks on qmail and reiserfs, but nobody agrees on
> wether it's good or bad. So I won't start that here all over again but I
> would like to ask:
> does anybody use qmail+reiserfs on a high-load production machine?
Several people have mentioned on the list that they are using qmail on
ReiserFS in serious production environments. A small patch to qmail is
necessary to prevent lost data in the event of certain failures; I can't
find the patch at the moment, but it's out there somewhere.
There is a page on qmail+ReiserFS here:
http://www.jedi.claranet.fr/qmail-reiserfs-howto.html
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Hope you can help me with this
question:
When I send mail to xyz@localhost with pine, qmail returns the mail
as undeliverable, as it tries to send the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(senfpott.gysar is my machine - obviously, it's not connected to the internet
with that domain name...)
Of course, if have an entry in controls/locals that
says:
localhost
senfpott.gysar
So why doesn't qmail accept mails @localhost? Or is
this a problem with pine?
S.Steinlechner
|
Sebastian Steinlechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I send mail to xyz@localhost with pine, qmail returns the mail as
> undeliverable, as it tries to send the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (senfpott.gysar is my machine - obviously, it's not connected to the internet
> with that domain name...) Of course, if have an entry in controls/locals that
> says: localhost senfpott.gysar So why doesn't qmail accept mails @localhost?
> Or is this a problem with pine?
qmail-inject (which is called by the sendmail wrapper) appends
/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain to any hostname not containing a dot.
It's in the manpage for qmail-inject.
The quick solution is to send your mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of
localhost.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:48:31AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Another possible qmail attack is it's late bouncing for non-existent
> users. Using a false envelope sender address you could fill up the
> queue with double bounces. I consider this a more serious problem.
> The decision to handle bouncing this way was appearently part of the
> security and modularity concept of qmail.
Vietse's attack was (modified a bit):
while true; do
qmail-queue&
kill $!
done
This creates 0 length files in /var/qmail/queue/mess until inodes get
exhausted. And manual intervention/recovery certainly seems needed.
Dan's response was that this is not completely anonymous since people
are supposed to do process accounting. (On RH Linux, btwy, the user
is easy to catch since users have their own group).
My question is why is not it better for qmail-queue *immediately* write
the "received" line identifying the user?
Mate
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I said "sounds like". And in the context in which his opinion was presented,
> it sounds a lot like MS's.
I read it as if he meant (not a quote, but my interpretation):
Don't rely on people testing your software, even if you offer money
for found holes, but if you want reliable audits, go hire somebody.
In fact, the SDMS (secure digital music anything) has rewarded some $$$
for cracking their stuff, which is utterly nonsense. If someone is to
make them feel sorry and ashamed, they'll wait until the "contest" is
closed and file their crack afterwards. Apart from the obvious
impossibility to protect against the final -- decrypted -- information
delivery.
--
Matthias Andree
Thus spake Mate Wierdl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I thought it was possible that Dan would give some hints on his view
> on secure programming in these notes.
Don't talk.
Read his code and you will understand.
> > Software is secure iff the architecture and trust model is sound, which
> > you can verify yourself in a few hours.
> You make software security look easy, and Schneier's book tells me
> otherwise.
Software security _is_ easy.
The correct paradigms have been published for decades.
It is only non-trivial to write good (and secure) software if you use
legacy APIs that make it unnecessarily hard on you. That's why Dan
decided to not use many routines from the standard C library. Actually,
he has written many notes on his reasoning, you just have to look
instead of posting here and thinking that maybe others do the work for
you.
> 1) It seems that systematic (scientific?) testing of qmail
> or djbdns has not happened---except by Dan.
Had you actually read the Schneier, you would know that no testing in
the world can prove the security of a system. Testing can only prove
that a system is not secure.
> 2) The only way we could get a hint on the guiding ideas of Dan on
> secure computing is to read the source code he writes.
Or you could read a few books or papers about security.
The guidelines are easy and easily understood and implemented.
For example, minimizing the trusted computing base and
> But this is reverse engineering, and is similar to trying to
> undertand Gauss's ideas by reading his proofs---good luck.
Reconstructing the source code from a binary program is reverse
engineering. Reading the source code is not.
And source code is a formal representation of an algorithm, not a proof.
An algorithm would tell you how to prove something. Understanding Gauss
by his proofs is like understanding djb by looking at an RPM. It is
still possible, by the way, because the man pages are great.
> Or does everybody on this list who read qmail's sources is writing
> 100% secure software now?
Why don't just read the sources yourself and find out?
> Does everybody have a clear idea what Dan considers a security
> problem?
A buffer overflow on the stack, for example.
> For example, he clearly does not care about preventing some
> DoS attacks.
Your oversimplifications border on intention deconstructivism.
Read his fscking web pages and find your questions answered.
Felix
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 11:01:13AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
[snip]
> My question is why is not it better for qmail-queue *immediately* write
> the "received" line identifying the user?
That will not solve the problem, just create a race-condition.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 08:22:53PM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> UIC is paying its ISP for a measly 14Mbps. UIC has been hitting this
> limit more and more frequently since the beginning of September. The
> packet-loss rate averages over 2% now, even if you don't count the
> recent 30-hour outage, and hits 25% at busy times.
>
> UIC's computer center is an independently operated profit-making
> enterprise. It has no incentive to pay for adequate network service.
> Maybe the router is being flooded by some easily fixed source of
> traffic; the computer center won't even bother investigating.
I wonder why you are still at UIC... Universities are interesting: we
recently got rewired to 100Mbps. But the rewiring started in the
Admin building, and the mathsci building was rewired 2 years after.
Mate
First let me state that I'm sure this is a rather stupid question, but I was
stumped by it for a bit. If this is covered in a HOWTO or other document
somewhere, please feel free to refer me to said document.
I've been attempting to setup a qmail server for a short time now. I've
looked at several different sources of documentation and each of them seem
to have a different manner of going about the setup. For right now, I'm not
overly concerned with all the nifty optional items. I would much rather get
a simple qmail install up and running and then look into tweaking it to my
needs.
As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery. Every
test message I tried would result in a bounce. In the bounced message I
could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
the addresses. For example if I addressed a message to "user@system" the
bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I only have three control
files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts. All of these files have the
same information in them. Originally this entry was "system". However in
order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".
Can someone explain why this was necessary? I feel that if I understand
this, it will help with future delivery problems.
Jamin W. Collins
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery. Every
>test message I tried would result in a bounce. In the bounced message I
>could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
>the addresses. For example if I addressed a message to "user@system" the
>bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I only have three control
>files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts. All of these files have the
>same information in them. Originally this entry was "system". However in
>order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".
>
>Can someone explain why this was necessary? I feel that if I understand
>this, it will help with future delivery problems.
"me", "locals", and "rcpthosts" are supposed to be a fully qualified
domain names. E.g., hostname.domain.tld. SMTP and qmail both require
addresses to be fully qualified.
-Dave
Just a few messages ago, I asked almost the same question. Here's what
Charles Cazabon told me:
>qmail-inject (which is called by the sendmail wrapper) appends
>/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain to any hostname not containing a dot.
>It's in the manpage for qmail-inject.
>The quick solution is to send your mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of
>localhost.
So in your case: Don't send your mail to just user@system, but to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In addition (again thanks to Charles) you could try adding system.system to
your locals file.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail repeating system name in address
> Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery. Every
> >test message I tried would result in a bounce. In the bounced message I
> >could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
> >the addresses. For example if I addressed a message to "user@system"
the
> >bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I only have three
control
> >files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts. All of these files have
the
> >same information in them. Originally this entry was "system". However
in
> >order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".
> >
> >Can someone explain why this was necessary? I feel that if I understand
> >this, it will help with future delivery problems.
>
> "me", "locals", and "rcpthosts" are supposed to be a fully qualified
> domain names. E.g., hostname.domain.tld. SMTP and qmail both require
> addresses to be fully qualified.
>
> -Dave
>
> In addition (again thanks to Charles) you could try adding system.system to
> your locals file.
No. Don't do that. It's a completely bogus solution. Better to understand what you
want to do and use the configuration appropriately. For example, consider:
defaultdomain, plusdomain and the like. A read of the qmail-control man page is
a good place to start.
Regards.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Qmail repeating system name in address
>
>
> > Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery. Every
> > >test message I tried would result in a bounce. In the bounced message I
> > >could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
> > >the addresses. For example if I addressed a message to "user@system"
> the
> > >bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I only have three
> control
> > >files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts. All of these files have
> the
> > >same information in them. Originally this entry was "system". However
> in
> > >order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".
> > >
> > >Can someone explain why this was necessary? I feel that if I understand
> > >this, it will help with future delivery problems.
> >
> > "me", "locals", and "rcpthosts" are supposed to be a fully qualified
> > domain names. E.g., hostname.domain.tld. SMTP and qmail both require
> > addresses to be fully qualified.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
>
I apologize for my error in not providing the actual logs. I had thought I
did provide enough detailed information. I am very sorry for my error in
judgement.
However, it appears that my problem may have been that I was using the
system name only, not the FQDN. I would like to thank everyone for their
rapid responses.
Jamin W. Collins
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:34 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail repeating system name in address
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:17:25PM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
> As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery. Every
> test message I tried would result in a bounce. In the bounced message I
> could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
> the addresses. For example if I addressed a message to "user@system" the
> bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I only have three control
> files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts. All of these files have
the
> same information in them. Originally this entry was "system". However in
> order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".
>
> Can someone explain why this was necessary? I feel that if I understand
> this, it will help with future delivery problems.
Jamin. When someone comes to you with a problem, what's the first thing
you do? Do you perchance ask for exact evidence to help you narrow down
the possibilities? Do you perchance want to see the output of what happened?
Do
you perchance want to dive into log files to see what the system was doing?
Do you
perchance want to see exactly what they've done so you can try to reproduce
it?
Guess what? People on this list are no better than you. We need actually
real-life
examples and actual real-life log file entries to understand the problem. So
how
about showing us the bounces (with headers) and the associated log file
entries?
Regards.
Greets qmailers.
One one my lusers insists on using emacs rmail for reading mail. I'm
not an emacs user so I don't know a lick about it, but I do know it
doesn't talk to the Maildir format. It wants mbox format.
Normally I would have her mail delivered to both Maildir and Mailbox but
NFS is in the picture. grrrr! Mailbox deliveries are out the window.
In short, does anyone have a patch, etc for emacs to allow it to talk to
Maildir, or know where to find one? I poked around at qmail.org with no
luck.
Thanks for any help.
Regards,
kw
--
1:43pm up 3 days, 14:50, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Keith Warno [h]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || [w]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Keith Warno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One one my lusers insists on using emacs rmail for reading mail. I'm
> not an emacs user so I don't know a lick about it, but I do know it
> doesn't talk to the Maildir format. It wants mbox format.
Three comments:
1. GNUS, another EMACS mail/news reader, has no problem with Maildir.
They might want to just use that.
2. Searching around briefly, I see a message that rmail users can use
'maildir2mbox' to convert their Maildir into standard mbox format.
rmail can be configured to run a program to check new mail, and if
you set up a script that runs maildir2mbox in an appropriate way,
then have it run that when it's checking mail, it should just work.
See:
http://lists.omnipotent.net/qmail/199707/msg00111.html
3. You might want to search around and see if there is a newer version
of rmail than the one they're using, which perhaps supports Maildir
natively.
Hope this is helpful,
------ScottG.
Thanks for the help from those who have assisted.
I've not used maildir2mbox in the past; I know it "does not protect
against simultanous access by another maildir2mbox" (from maildir(5))
but is it safe to use over NFS?
Thanks again,
kw
--
3:40pm up 3 days, 16:47, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Keith Warno [h]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || [w]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2000-11-16 at 15:17 -0500, Scott Gifford uttered:
| Keith Warno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > One one my lusers insists on using emacs rmail for reading mail. I'm
| > not an emacs user so I don't know a lick about it, but I do know it
| > doesn't talk to the Maildir format. It wants mbox format.
|
| Three comments:
|
| 1. GNUS, another EMACS mail/news reader, has no problem with Maildir.
| They might want to just use that.
|
| 2. Searching around briefly, I see a message that rmail users can use
| 'maildir2mbox' to convert their Maildir into standard mbox format.
| rmail can be configured to run a program to check new mail, and if
| you set up a script that runs maildir2mbox in an appropriate way,
| then have it run that when it's checking mail, it should just work.
|
| See:
|
| http://lists.omnipotent.net/qmail/199707/msg00111.html
|
| 3. You might want to search around and see if there is a newer version
| of rmail than the one they're using, which perhaps supports Maildir
| natively.
|
| Hope this is helpful,
|
| ------ScottG.
|
|
Keith Warno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the help from those who have assisted.
>
> I've not used maildir2mbox in the past; I know it "does not protect
> against simultanous access by another maildir2mbox" (from maildir(5))
> but is it safe to use over NFS?
NFS is only less safe than local storage for locking, and even then
only if your NFS implementation really sucks.
So I wouldn't worry about it.
To prevent both, though, you could write a simple wrapper script for
maildir2mbox that did some kind of file-based, NFS-aware locking (or
just use fcntl/flock, if your NFS is non-horrible).
----ScottG.
Hi,
I have a domain integrationsoft.com, when I get mail on one account
(user1), and login, and attempt to forward the mail to another account
(user2), on the same domain/server qmail complaints:
from /var/log/messages:
Nov 15 15:38:38 m3 sendmail[50960]: eAFNccL50958: SYSERR(phate): MX
list for phate.com. points back to m3.integrationsoft.com
Nov 15 15:41:05 m3 sendmail[50971]: eAFNeg450969: SYSERR(phate):
mr1.integrationsoft.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX
problem?)
Nov 15 15:53:59 m3 sendmail[50994]: eAFNrbJ50992: SYSERR(phate):
mr1.integrationsoft.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX
problem?)
MX records for integrationsoft.com
> set type=mx
> integrationsoft.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
integrationsoft.com preference = 10, mail exchanger =
mr1.integrationsoft.com
integrationsoft.com preference = 20, mail exchanger =
mr2.integrationsoft.com
integrationsoft.com nameserver = ns1.integrationsoft.com
integrationsoft.com nameserver = ns2.integrationsoft.com
ns1.integrationsoft.com internet address = 64.75.21.87
ns2.integrationsoft.com internet address = 64.75.21.88
mr1 is an alias for m3.
How can I fix this error, everything looks OK to me
Thanks!
Oliver
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 11:12:23AM -0800, Oliver Menzel wrote:
> I have a domain integrationsoft.com, when I get mail on one account
> (user1), and login, and attempt to forward the mail to another account
> (user2), on the same domain/server qmail complaints:
>
> from /var/log/messages:
>
> Nov 15 15:38:38 m3 sendmail[50960]: eAFNccL50958: SYSERR(phate): MX
^^^^^^^^
> list for phate.com. points back to m3.integrationsoft.com
> Nov 15 15:41:05 m3 sendmail[50971]: eAFNeg450969: SYSERR(phate):
^^^^^^^^
> mr1.integrationsoft.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX
> problem?)
> Nov 15 15:53:59 m3 sendmail[50994]: eAFNrbJ50992: SYSERR(phate):
^^^^^^^^
> mr1.integrationsoft.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX
> problem?)
That ain't qmail talking.
Chris
Thanks!
I just thought my sendmail was a link to the corresponding qmail
program, but I skipped that step during installation
Regards,
Oliver
--- Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 11:12:23AM -0800, Oliver Menzel wrote:
> > I have a domain integrationsoft.com, when I get mail on one account
> > (user1), and login, and attempt to forward the mail to another
> account
> > (user2), on the same domain/server qmail complaints:
> >
> > from /var/log/messages:
> >
> > Nov 15 15:38:38 m3 sendmail[50960]: eAFNccL50958: SYSERR(phate): MX
> ^^^^^^^^
> > list for phate.com. points back to m3.integrationsoft.com
> > Nov 15 15:41:05 m3 sendmail[50971]: eAFNeg450969: SYSERR(phate):
> ^^^^^^^^
> > mr1.integrationsoft.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX
> > problem?)
> > Nov 15 15:53:59 m3 sendmail[50994]: eAFNrbJ50992: SYSERR(phate):
> ^^^^^^^^
> > mr1.integrationsoft.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX
> > problem?)
>
> That ain't qmail talking.
>
> Chris
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/
there is an error when I try to send a messages by a client as Eudora or
Netscape Messenger to other server as Hotmail or Yahoo, the message is:
And error occurred while sending mail.
The mail server reponded:
sorry, that domain isnīt in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Please check the message recipientes and try again.
I use too a Webmail client, but this works good...
If someone now how to fix it please tell me...
===========================
isilicom
Romeo Manzur
Web Developer
Av. 27 de Febrero 904-A 1
Centro
Villahemrosa. Tabasco, Mexico
C.P.: 86000 T.:52(93)
12-4790
---------------------------------------------
Este mensaje fue enviado por el sistema de Webmail de Isilicom.
http://www.isilicom.com.mx/webmail/
Romeo Manzur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is an error when I try to send a messages by a client as Eudora or
> Netscape Messenger to other server as Hotmail or Yahoo, the message is:
>
> And error occurred while sending mail.
> The mail server reponded:
> sorry, that domain isnīt in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
> Please check the message recipientes and try again.
You need to allow relaying for your local LAN addresses -- typically by
using tcpserver and a .cdb file to set the RELAYCLIENT environment variable
for connections from those addresses. See "Life with qmail" for details
on selective relaying.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Quoting Peter Cavender ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Hi-
> >
> > I have a qmail server hosting several virtual domains, and all mail
> > delivered to recipients in the virtual domains have a Delivered-To
> > header line indicating the "main" domain name of the server.
>
>Fascinating. Is that a government secret, or something?
haha - no, I just host several domains for third parties, and the
people on domain3 ask why domain1 shows up in their mail headers...
Just trying to make my mail services *completely* virtualized.
People at local-bapist-church.org wouldn't want hot-sex-pics.com in
their mail headers. ;-)
>Doesn't the Received header also mention what your domain name is?
Not an issue for me - I only have incoming POP boxes, no relaying.
>
> > I want to delete this line, and I understand that the -d option to
> > preline is the way to do this, but *where* do do do this?
>
>Hmmm, but what program will you use to actually do the delivery?
>You don't mention what mailbox format you're using.
Vanilla Maildir delivery on local machine.
>
>Anyway, Delivered-To is there to prevent mail loops. Not all that
>terrific an idea to cut them out.
Hmmm...
--Pete
Peter,
> I have a qmail server hosting several virtual domains, and all mail
> delivered to recipients in the virtual domains have a Delivered-To
> header line indicating the "main" domain name of the server.
> I want to delete this line, and I understand that the -d option to
> preline is the way to do this, but *where* do do do this?
>People at local-bapist-church.org wouldn't want hot-sex-pics.com in
>their mail headers. ;-)
The easiest way is to ensure you have a 'Neutral' name for your "main"
domain name of the server. If that's not possible...
You could have parallel qmail installations on the same machine,
i.e. one qmail per domain - using a different IP address (IP alias)
per domain. Then you can tailor all the control files according to
each domain.
I'd be reluctant to mess with Delivered-To lines - not having them
does have the potential to create mail loops.
cheers,
Andrew.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> >
> > It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
> > like morercpthosts.
>
> That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of
> only happening at SIGHUP?
>
> There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb.
Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the
same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one.
--
Nagy Balazs, LSC
http://www.lsc.hu/
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
> > > It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
> > > like morercpthosts.
> > That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of
> > only happening at SIGHUP?
> >
> > There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb.
> Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the
> same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one.
How would having virtualdomains being a cdb help you manage better?
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:55:51AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
> > > > like morercpthosts.
> > > That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of
> > > only happening at SIGHUP?
> > >
> > > There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb.
> > Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the
> > same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one.
>
> How would having virtualdomains being a cdb help you manage better?
By saving on the HUP to qmail-send?
Regards.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 06:02:44PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:55:51AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
> > > > > like morercpthosts.
> > > > That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of
> > > > only happening at SIGHUP?
> > > >
> > > > There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb.
> > > Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the
> > > same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one.
> >
> > How would having virtualdomains being a cdb help you manage better?
>
> By saving on the HUP to qmail-send?
As I'd started this (sub-)thead ;-)
I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-)
We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with
our qmail server. This is due to large smtproutes and rcpthosts files
and some I/O bottleneck on the disk they're located.
Mistake 1) A cdb wouldn't help with this problem, as its usually even
slightly larger
Mistake 2) virtualdomains is only read once and kept im memory. Making
a cdb out of virtualdomains wouldn't help with the bottleneck ;-)
Working around the need for a kill -HUP to reread virtualdomains would
(for performance reasons) imply to have a mechanism to notice changes
to the cdb (timestamp on file e.g.) and only refresh when changed.
This however could also be done with a "plain" virtualdomains file,
except one would save the costs of hashing the file.
What also should be taken into consideration is constantly stat()ing
the virtualdomains file/cdb vs an occasional reload due to a kill -HUP.
\Maex
P.S. We'll hopefully be solving the I/O problem soon by migrating the qmail
server on a RAID 5 array ;-)
--
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.
> I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-)
>
> We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with
> our qmail server. This is due to large smtproutes and rcpthosts files
> and some I/O bottleneck on the disk they're located.
>
> Mistake 1) A cdb wouldn't help with this problem, as its usually even
> slightly larger
> Mistake 2) virtualdomains is only read once and kept im memory. Making
> a cdb out of virtualdomains wouldn't help with the bottleneck ;-)
Right. But you're assuming that qmail-send would read the whole of
virtualdomains in at startup when it's a cdb file. I would imagine
a more sensible strategy would be to read the relevant entry per
email - as is done with the other cdb files.
Regards.
Our one qmail/vpopmail server is about to become a node in a load
balanced pool of mail servers. I plan to mount the queue via NFS (I am
now, in fact) but am wondering about the control files. It seems that
at least SOME of them should be safe to share over NFS. Any thoughts or
recommendations?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 05:40:27PM -0600, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> Our one qmail/vpopmail server is about to become a node in a load
> balanced pool of mail servers. I plan to mount the queue via NFS (I am
> now, in fact) but am wondering about the control files. It seems that
Ouch. You will, at some stage, lose mail this way. Is it actually working?
> at least SOME of them should be safe to share over NFS. Any thoughts or
> recommendations?
Anything but queue is probably ok.
Regards.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 02:49:24PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 05:40:27PM -0600, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> > Our one qmail/vpopmail server is about to become a node in a load
> > balanced pool of mail servers. I plan to mount the queue via NFS (I am
> > now, in fact) but am wondering about the control files. It seems that
>
> Ouch. You will, at some stage, lose mail this way. Is it actually working?
I mis-spoke. The queue is, of course, local. The spool is on the NFS
share. I slipped into "boss speak" there for a second. My boss for
some reason persists in referring to the spool as the queue...
> > at least SOME of them should be safe to share over NFS. Any thoughts or
> > recommendations?
>
> Anything but queue is probably ok.
I am primarily concerned about files like 'rcpthosts'. They are read on
every invocation of qmail-smtpd. Am I going to be looking at
significant overhead from reading a file like that over NFS?
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our one qmail/vpopmail server is about to become a node in a load
> balanced pool of mail servers. I plan to mount the queue via NFS (I am
> now, in fact) but am wondering about the control files. It seems that
> at least SOME of them should be safe to share over NFS. Any thoughts or
> recommendations?
We have stored all configuration files (save 'me') on NFS for about 8
months now, with no problem. It does put quite a bit of additional
strain on the NFS server, though; I'm looking at moving control to a
RAMdisk, and just copying from the NFS server when qmail is restarted.
We also store spool on NFS with no problems.
We've stored queue on NFS in the past, and while we didn't see any
lost mail, we did see huge performance problems, and had to move it to
local storage.
------ScottG.
I have had my qmail setup for several years and just now have started to
notice that some recipients are returning:
550 relaying mail to ... is not allowed.
This happens when a virtual user is relaying through my server and the
servername is not the same as the recipient.
For example: I send mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it is
rejected with the above error. However if I send mail from the domain that
is listed in defaultdomain "laschools.org" it works fine.
This has happened both times on university sites. exchange.calstatela.edu
and ucla.edu. Could it be an exchange server setup that is bad. Or do I
have something misconfigured for all this time and didn't know it.
Jon Griffin wrote:
> I have had my qmail setup for several years and just now have started to
> notice that some recipients are returning:
> 550 relaying mail to ... is not allowed.
> This happens when a virtual user is relaying through my server and the
> servername is not the same as the recipient.
That's quite normal! You can use POP before SMTP Authentification so Virtual
Users must check their e-Mail first. A Program on your
Mail Server will then add the IP/Hostname to the List of People who are
allowed to relay through your Server. You can also open whole
Relay but that is not very wise because your Server will be listed then to the
different Relay Blocking Lists on the Internet. If you don't have
a Clue how to setup POP before SMTP
http://www.octlabs.de/linux/docu/qmail_howto.shtml can maybe help you. I have
written down there
how I installed my Mail Server with POP before SMTP Stuff.
With best Regards...
--^..^--------------------------------------------------
michael maier - system & development administrator
flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
d-60314 frankfurt am main
fon +49.(0)69.50 95 98-308
fax +49.(0)69.50 95 98-101
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
url http://www.flatfox.com - m a k e m y d a y
--------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:47:50AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> Working around the need for a kill -HUP to reread virtualdomains would
> (for performance reasons) imply to have a mechanism to notice changes
> to the cdb (timestamp on file e.g.) and only refresh when changed.
> This however could also be done with a "plain" virtualdomains file,
> except one would save the costs of hashing the file.
For each cdb lookup, the program mmaps the cdb, does a lookup, then
unmaps it. Provided that programs which change the file do so
atomically with rename(), the querying program will never have to
worry about missing data due to updates.
PGP signature
|
I am forwarding bounce warnings from 2 mailing lists I
subscribe to...(imp, and vmailmgr)
I want to know...I found that there was not a carraige return
after the bryant.dsc.k12.ar.us entry in control/rcpthosts
, I just added one, but is that why these messages have been
bouncing...but sometimes go through...
I thought I had been getting most of my mail from these
lists...in fact I was watching the vmailmgr one today, and know I got a message
on it...
why don't messages bounce all the time on an error like
this?
Thanks,
Barry Smoke
Bryant Public Schools
using qmail for 3 years...and loving it!
|
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages to you from the imp mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I received.
If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces,
I will remove your address from the imp mailing list,
without further notice.
I've kept a list of which messages from the imp mailing list have
bounced from your address.
Copies of these messages may be in the archive.
To retrieve a set of messages 123-145 (a maximum of 100 per request),
send an empty message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To receive a subject and author list for the last 100 or so messages,
send an empty message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here are the message numbers:
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
596
594
595
592
597
598
601
602
593
599
600
603
604
619
606
610
608
611
613
612
623
625
629
605
626
627
628
607
631
609
616
617
621
614
622
615
624
618
620
630
--- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 94209 invoked for bounce); 5 Nov 2000 06:39:09 -0000
Date: 5 Nov 2000 06:39:09 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at horde.org.
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.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
165.29.94.240 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 165.29.94.240.
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages to you from the vmailmgr mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I received.
If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces,
I will remove your address from the vmailmgr mailing list,
without further notice.
I've kept a list of which messages from the vmailmgr mailing list have
bounced from your address.
Copies of these messages may be in the archive.
To retrieve a set of messages 123-145 (a maximum of 100 per request),
send an empty message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To receive a subject and author list for the last 100 or so messages,
send an empty message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here are the message numbers:
4111
4112
4113
4114
--- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 32690 invoked for bounce); 5 Nov 2000 02:59:47 -0000
Date: 5 Nov 2000 02:59:47 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at daedalus.bfsmedia.com.
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.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
165.29.94.240 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 165.29.94.240.
I have strange delay --
If clients (or other servers) d't use my
SMTP server during 10 (or more) minutes
appear timaut about 1 min.
After this timeout all working OK - without
some timeout till next pause from work SMTP server...
I use tcpserver with -R -H options and Slackware linux...
I suspect this problem have to do with reduce process prioritet
and remove all qmail daemons to swap...
How I can avoid this ???
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 12:43:55PM +0600, Kornyakov Yevgeniy wrote:
> I have strange delay --
> If clients (or other servers) d't use my
> SMTP server during 10 (or more) minutes
> appear timaut about 1 min.
> After this timeout all working OK - without
> some timeout till next pause from work SMTP server...
> I use tcpserver with -R -H options and Slackware linux...
> I suspect this problem have to do with reduce process prioritet
> and remove all qmail daemons to swap...
> How I can avoid this ???
I'd be surprised if it's a swap issue. qmail-smtpd and qmail-queue
are very small programs. Have you used things like vmstat to confirm
your suspicion about swapping?
You also need to give us more details about the delays. Where do they
occur exactly? When the remote site tries to connect? When the mail
is accepted and placed in the queue? When it's in the queue and
waiting to be delivered?
What happens when you do a manual smtp session to your server using
telnet? Where do you see the delays?
Regards.
Hi there, I'm using qmail with vpopmail... I want do
this:
wend I send a email to "user1" I want that copy the email to
"user2" but keep it on "user1" so both user have
it... I don't figure how I can do that... Someone can help?
Jean-Francois Dionne
Can you any one help me ???
We have qmail server on our router. Everything is going fine...
Our MX in DNS records pointing to this router.
Now i need to forward all messages to server on our local network behind
masquerade...
It is possible ???
How I can do that....
Thanks...
Daniel POGAČ
Tech. Support
TatraSoft Group s.r.o
Sibírska 4
83102 Bratislava
tel: +421-7-55574033
fax: +421-7-55566385
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear all,
I'd a problem that drives me to nuts. >_<
I'm running daemontools0.7 on qmail. Following are the structures of my run files:
/service/qmail-send/run
/service/qmail-send/log/run
/service/qmail-smtpd/run
/service/qmail-smtpd/log/run
which /service/* was symbolic linked to /var/qmail/supervise/*, however every time
when I restarted my machine, the /service/qmail-send/run suddenly disappear!!!
Following are the run file content:
/service/qmail-send/run
#! /bin/sh
exec /var/qmail/rc
/service/qmail-send/log/run
#!/bin/sh
SETUIDGID=/usr/local/bin/setuidgid # directory for setuidgid
MULTILOG=/usr/local/bin/multilog # directory for multilog
PROG=smtpd
LOGDIR=/var/log/qmail # directory for qmail-send log
LOGUSER=qmaill # user to own logs
LOGNUM=10 # number of log files.
LOGSIZE=5000000 # maximum file size for log files.
exec $SETUIDGID $LOGUSER $MULTILOG t n$LOGNUM s$LOGSIZE $LOGDIR
/service/qmail-smtpd/run
#!/bin/sh
QMAILHOME=/var/qmail
USERID=`id -u qmaild`
GROUPID=`id -g qmaild`
COMMAND=qmail-smtpd
PORT=smtp
CONCURRENT=70
BYTESIZE=2000000 # Limit data segment, stack segment, locked physical pages,
and total of all segements per process to BYTESIZE.
SOFTLIMIT=/usr/local/bin/softlimit # directory for softlimit
TCPSERVER=/usr/local/bin/tcpserver # directory for tcpserver
exec $SOFTLIMIT -m $BYTESIZE \
$TCPSERVER -vHR -c$CONCURRENT -P \
-u $USERID -g $GROUPID 0 $PORT $QMAILHOME/bin/$COMMAND 2>&1
/service/qmail-smtpd/log/run
#!/bin/sh
# This is the run file for supervise to execute the qmail-smtpd's log.
SETUIDGID=/usr/local/bin/setuidgid # directory for setuidgid
MULTILOG=/usr/local/bin/multilog # directory for multilog
PROG=smtpd
LOGDIR=/var/log/qmail/$PROG # directory for qmail-smtpd log
LOGUSER=qmaill # user to own logs
LOGNUM=10 # number of log files
LOGSIZE=5000000 # maximum file size for log files
exec $SETUIDGID $LOGUSER $MULTILOG t n$LOGNUM s$LOGSIZE $LOGDIR
One more thing I would like to mention is that only the /service/qmail-send/run file
it disappear, other three run files are working fine after reboot.
Any comments are highly appreciated.
Thanks & regards,
Eric
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://freemail.asiamail.com
