qmail Digest 18 Nov 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1187
Topics (messages 52371 through 52435):
QRECEIPT
52371 by: Daniel POGAC
Re: secrets and lies
52372 by: D. J. Bernstein
52407 by: Mate Wierdl
52412 by: Russell Nelson
52413 by: Russell Nelson
52414 by: Russell Nelson
52415 by: Russell Nelson
52426 by: Al
52431 by: Ian Lance Taylor
52434 by: Adam McKenna
52435 by: Andre Oppermann
Re: how to set the rights for maildir to be secure
52373 by: martin langhoff
Re: ezmlm response
52374 by: Marco Leeflang
strange username
52375 by: Tzabu
Re: Temporary long delay (Qmail and Real -Time )
52376 by: Kornyakov Yevgeniy
Forwarding of a whole domain
52377 by: Ruprecht Helms
52379 by: Peter Samuel
Re: two questions
52378 by: Dariusz Zmokly
52380 by: Tim Hunter
bounces and mime encapsulation
52381 by: torben fjerdingstad
52416 by: Russell Nelson
Host masquerading problems
52382 by: Sebastian Steinlechner
Virtual users in qmail
52383 by: azazel.123india.com
52386 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: qmail 1.04
52384 by: Peter van Dijk
52385 by: markd.bushwire.net
outdated information on Postfix (was: secrets and lies)
52387 by: Matthias Andree
MX record not updating
52388 by: Andy Abshagen
52389 by: Jan Knepper
52390 by: Andy Abshagen
52393 by: Ben Beuchler
52394 by: Lipscomb, Al
52399 by: Chris Johnson
Filtering Mail
52391 by: Kevin Smith
52392 by: Kevin Smith
52403 by: David Dyer-Bennet
badmailfrom
52395 by: Kevin Smith
52396 by: Kevin Smith
52397 by: markd.bushwire.net
aliases and ...
52398 by: Neil Grant
52402 by: Jerry Lynde
Re: removing Delivered-To header...?
52400 by: Aaron L. Meehan
Re: qmail on Mac OSX?
52401 by: Jörgen Persson
Duplicated Messages
52404 by: Dave Gresham
52405 by: Chris Johnson
52406 by: markd.bushwire.net
52408 by: Dave Gresham
test
52409 by: edw.q5comm.com
52410 by: Jerry Lynde
customizable undeliverable email messages
52411 by: Troy Muller
Re: run file suddenly disappear!!
52417 by: Mate Wierdl
52418 by: Mate Wierdl
qmail log file
52419 by: Neil Grant
52423 by: Brad Cox
domain forwarding
52420 by: Shakaib Sayyid
52421 by: Brett Randall
52425 by: Chris Johnson
(fwd) oMail-webmail 2 - project notes (draft)
52422 by: Olivier M.
qmail, Mailbox and finger
52424 by: Neil Grant
smtp problems
52427 by: Neil Grant
52428 by: Chris Johnson
yahoo/egroup servers
52429 by: Richard Lyons
Re: Forwarding all messages to local net behind masquerade
52430 by: wolfgang zeikat
Qmail Permissions
52432 by: shawn
Adding CR to bare LFs
52433 by: Casey Allen Shobe
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have problem. Qreceipt program in /var/qmail/bin is to send „delivery notice“ to sender.
When I’m [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i take this address to /home/dano/.qmail in this sequence:
|qreceipt [EMAIL PROTECTED], anyone send me mail, Qreceipt looking for this string in header:
Notice-requested-Upon-Delivery-To:
When qreceipt find this string, send success notice back to the envelope sender.
But we use Outlook. And Outlook gives to header this string:
Return-Receipt-To:
Can you help me how i can solve this my problem ??? I don’t know if header of mail is generated by SMTP server or by Email soft.
like Netscape messenger, Outlook, etc...
Daniel POGAÈ
Tech. Support
TatraSoft Group s.r.o
Sibírska 4
83102 Bratislava
tel: +421-7-55574033
fax: +421-7-55566385
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dan's "audit" of Postfix I didn't look at the Postfix code; I merely noticed that one of the documented ``security features'' was an obvious design error. See http://cr.yp.to/maildisasters/postfix.html for the complete story. ---Dan
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 12:09:15AM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote: > Thus spake Mate Wierdl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > My question is why is not it better for qmail-queue *immediately* write > > the "received" line identifying the user? > > Then the attacker could still kill qmail-queue. Indeed, but there is (IMO) a big difference. If you do qmail-queue & kill $! You get an empty file with no user identification: # ls -l /var/qmail/queue/mess/17 total 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 qmailq users 0 Nov 17 13:22 112303 But if you do echo| qmail-queue You get # cat /var/qmail/queue/mess/7/112293 Received: (qmail 23027 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2000 21:15:28 -0000 so the UID of the user shows up making it possible to identify the attacker. > > Mate, you have posted dozens of dumb emails to the mailing list. > You raise issues that you don't understand and waste everybodies time > with this. Indeed, I still do not understand why qmail-queue does not immediately write the received line upon startup if it helps to deal with this attack. Of course, if I was not this dumb, I'd go read the code, and convince myself that modifying qmail-queue this way is not feasible. All the happy nondumbs out there already know the secret, and they enable ps accounting on all their qmail boxes with a smile on their face. Mate
Dave Sill writes: > That's exactly what happened with Wietse Venema's "audit" of qmail > that turned up the qmail-smtpd DOS (which is trivially prevented by > proper installation (which INSTALL still doesn't cover, BTW)), which > prompted Dan's "audit" of Postfix that turned up the problems with the > world-writable maildrop. That's why we need qmail-1.04 -- to fix these documentation flaws. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Dave Sill writes: > >So has any expert ever audited qmail or djbdns? > > No. Any audit worth doing would be prohibitively expensive for a > freeware project. $1000 wouldn't even begin to cover it, at least for > qmail. Still, I've read an awful lot of Dan's code. I've seen a few places where I said "Hey, that's a security hole." But on further investigation, I can see that there's just no way (e.g. formatting a 16-bit integer into digits stored in a fixed-length string without bothering to ensure that the string won't get overflown by MiGs and strafed). -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Robin S. Socha writes: > * Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > > The OpenBSD guys lost their credibility as software security authority > > when they decided to include sendmail as standard MTA. > > Well, we all know why they cannot include qmail. :-/ What you mean "we", kimosabe? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Lipscomb, Al writes: > Open Source is often used to describe software that has its source code ^ incorrectly > available regardless of the license involved. "Free Software" as promoted by > the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a different thing. I belive that the > DJB software is Open Source, but not free. Nope. If it's not free, it's not OSI Certified Open Source Software. I'm on the board; you have my personal guarantee that that will remain the case as long as I am. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
> > Lipscomb, Al writes: > > Open Source is often used to describe software that has > its source code > ^ incorrectly > > available regardless of the license involved. "Free > Software" as promoted by > > the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a different thing. I > belive that the > > DJB software is Open Source, but not free. > > Nope. If it's not free, it's not OSI Certified Open Source Software. > I'm on the board; you have my personal guarantee that that > will remain > the case as long as I am. > Don't care. What I care about is what the words mean in an actual language. In this case English. I do not recognize OSI as a standards body and do not care what definition of Open Source can be found at opensource.org or the FSF. When I look up the words "open" and "source" in my Websters I am not going to cut out big chucks of what fits because some people have some kind of agenda they are trying to promote. - "One of the best examples of pure democracy in action is the lynch mob" - AA4YU
From: "Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:43:50 -0500 > Lipscomb, Al writes: > > Open Source is often used to describe software that has > its source code > ^ incorrectly > > available regardless of the license involved. "Free > Software" as promoted by > > the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a different thing. I > belive that the > > DJB software is Open Source, but not free. > > Nope. If it's not free, it's not OSI Certified Open Source Software. > I'm on the board; you have my personal guarantee that that > will remain > the case as long as I am. Don't care. What I care about is what the words mean in an actual language. In this case English. I do not recognize OSI as a standards body and do not care what definition of Open Source can be found at opensource.org or the FSF. When I look up the words "open" and "source" in my Websters I am not going to cut out big chucks of what fits because some people have some kind of agenda they are trying to promote. Cool. ``Open source'' was invented because people thought ``free software'' was a misuse of English. Now we can see the same thing happen to ``open source.'' What will the next term be? ``Software for which source available and for which others are not restricted from redistributing changed versions?'' How about ``redistributable source?'' The way I use the terms, DJBware is neither free software nor open source. It's source-available and no-cost, but it's not modified-redistributable. Ian
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 10:43:50PM -0500, Al wrote: > Don't care. What I care about is what the words mean in an actual language. > In this case English. I do not recognize OSI as a standards body and do not > care what definition of Open Source can be found at opensource.org or the > FSF. When I look up the words "open" and "source" in my Websters I am not > going to cut out big chucks of what fits because some people have some kind > of agenda they are trying to promote. If you want to have your own definition of "Open Source", that's fine. Just keep it to yourself. When you use the words "Open Source" in a public forum, people will generally assume that you are talking about software that complies with the OSD. To publically claim that software is "Open Source", based on your own personal definition is just boorish and arrogant, and invites (semantic) arguments. All the king's horses, etc. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires." 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_ 4:56am up 161 days, 3:12, 12 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Mate Wierdl wrote: > > 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. Yes, unless qmail-clean would clean them up (as well as in queue/pid). > 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? In theory this could be done. The problem is, you'll see this when you look at the code, a race condition. A pid file is being created, then inode number is taken and then the whole thing is linked/unlinked (transaction) from queue/pid to queue/mess. I can't imagine a fix other than cleaning up with qmail-clean. -- Andre
Dave, this thread got me wondering, and, as I suspected, my machines are usually configured with home at 0755 (world can read/execute, only owner -root- can write), so only root can add/delete users. [these machines are RH Linux + Bastille, mostly] On the other hand, I wouldn't trust a system (much less a distro) that sets the users directories (/home/user) to world readable ... my machines have something like 0700 (owner can do whatever, the rest of the world cant even peek inside). Looking around, I've found that vmailmgr does indeed set the "users" directory to 0755 ... I guess it's doing it for a reason, but inner directories (/home/domain/users/myvirtualuser/) are secured tightly (0700), so I don't really know. Anyway, it does makes a point come through: a machine set up as a mail host with virtualdomains is probably 'hackable' with a local account -- specially regarding the privacy of emails sitting in the users maibox. It shouldn't be, of course, but I won't be betting my head on that one... martin pd: what distro are you using that sets users directories to 755? Dave Sill wrote: > 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.
Yard wrote: > > 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 make a .qmail-user1 in the directory of that domain made with vadddomain put the following in that .qmail-user1 file /home/vpopmail/domains/whateverdomain.com/user1/Maildir/ &[EMAIL PROTECTED] or /home/vpopmail/domains/whateverdomain.com/user1/Maildir/ /home/vpopmail/domains/whateverdomain.com/user2/Maildir/ greetings, marco leeflang
Friday, November 17, 2000, 1:18:29 PM, you wrote: mbn> 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 ??? >You also need to give us more details about the delays. Where do they >occur exactly? This delay occur after SMTP sessions inactive period 10 or more minuts > When the remote site tries to connect? Yes ! And I see (ps -ax) that qmail-smtpd daemon is invoked > When the mail is accepted and placed in the queue? No > 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? If I use telnet to 25 port I have delays and I can't recieve mail > Where do you see the delays? I don't know what can I do, and I done cron script in other server which send mail every 5 minuts to null client.. After that delays disappeared ... This is stupid solution for this problem .... -- Best regards,
Hi, how can I configure qmail to forward mails for all users of a domain? Regards, Ruprecht ----------------------------------------------------------- INTERNOLIX Standards for eBusiness ------------------------------------------------------------ INTERNOLIX AG Ruprecht Helms System-Engineer http://www.internolix.com mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Weiherstr. 20 Tel: +49-[0]7533-9945-71 78465 Konstanz Fax: +49-[0]7533-9945-79
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Ruprecht Helms wrote: > Hi, > > how can I configure qmail to forward mails for all users of > a domain? Remove the domain from /var/qmail/control/locals Add the domain to /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains as follows: domain.place:alias-domain_place Create /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-domain_place-default with the following contents: | forward $[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send qmail-send a SIGHUP so that it re-reads locals and virutaldomains Organise for the MX record for domain.place to point to your box. -- Regards Peter ---------- Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate) Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739 e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada "If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Nicholas Leonovich wrote: > I recently made the switch myself. I moved from mbox to Maildir, switched > from UW-IMAP to Courier-IMAP (which is not only more secure but uses the > Maildir format), and installed vpopmail and sqwebmail (all these things can [..] Does sqwebmail work with POP3 ? I dont intend to install IMAP client. regards, Dariusz Zmokly
sqwebmail reads maildirs directly, does not use imap or pop3 -----Original Message----- From: Dariusz Zmokly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 10:09 AM To: Nicholas Leonovich Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: two questions On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Nicholas Leonovich wrote: > I recently made the switch myself. I moved from mbox to Maildir, switched > from UW-IMAP to Courier-IMAP (which is not only more secure but uses the > Maildir format), and installed vpopmail and sqwebmail (all these things can [..] Does sqwebmail work with POP3 ? I dont intend to install IMAP client. regards, Dariusz Zmokly
When I as postmaster receive bounces from mailer-daemon on my qmail system, the spam is concatenated in-line to the bottom of the error mail. How do I get it as a mime attach instead? That way, I can easily isolate the original letter from the errror messages with my MUA (mutt), and I will see the subject of the spam instead of the famous subject "failure notice". When I get bounces from a sendmail host hear, it has mime encapsulated the different parts. That's what I like. In mutt, it looks like this when I go to the view attachment menu. Here, I can easily submit attach #6 for a spam complaint, RSS, whatever. 1 <no description> [text/plain, 7bit, 0.4K] 2 <no description> [message/delivery-s, 7bit, 0.3K] 3 Returned mail: User has moved; please tr [message/rfc822, 7bit, 2.8K] 4 ><no description> [text/plain, 7bit, 0.4K] 5 ><no description> [message/delivery-s, 7bit, 0.2K] 6 >Money you never have to repay! [message/rfc822, 7bit, 1.4K] 7 ><no description> [text/plain, 7bit, 0.7K] -- Med venlig hilsen / Regards Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group UNI-C Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
torben fjerdingstad writes: > When I as postmaster receive bounces from mailer-daemon on > my qmail system, the spam is concatenated in-line to the > bottom of the error mail. > > How do I get it as a mime attach instead? Is this what you're looking for? <li>Fred Lindberg has a patch which causes qmail-send to preserving the MIME-ness when<a href="http://www.ezmlm.org/pub/patches/qmail-mime.tgz">bouncing MIME messages</a>. It requires and includes a patch to ezmlm, since it breaks <a href="http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt">QSBMF</a>. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Hi, As my machine running qmail is named senfpott.gysar (a bogus name, used only in our local network), it should masquerade any outgoing mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now - as explained in the faq - I put gymnasium-sarstedt.de into control/defaulthost. It worked - until I configured serialmail. Now qmail seems to just ignore defaulthost, no matter whether the mail is to a local or a remote address - it always shows <from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I already tried to change all the senfpott.gysars into gymnasium-sarstedt.de (in me, defaultdomain etc.) which 1st isn't a good practice at all and 2nd doesn't help either. Of course I already checked if there's an environment variable set that overrides defaulthost, but there is none. Any help - or should I try the serialmail mailinglist? Sebastian Steinlechner
Hi there, A quick question.... I am trying to install a virtual user under qmail. I want to have all mail received for [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] because there is already a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address in use. I have both stuff.org and mail.org in both rcpthosts and locals, also [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid delivery address (user newinfo with a .qmail-info file in the homedirectory) In my /var/qmail/virtualdomains file I have the entry [EMAIL PROTECTED]:newinfo Which I believe should deliver any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the newinfo-info mailbox after I have kill -HUPed qmail-send (which I have). However, when I check the maillog it gets delivered to the info user rather than the newinfo-info user. So it seems that my virtualdomains entry is being ineffectual. If anyone can point out the obvious or let me know where I'm going wrong when creating this virtual user I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks very much. J ______________________________________________________ 123India.com - India's Premier Portal Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am trying to install a virtual user under qmail. I want to have all mail > received for [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] because > there is already a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address in use. > > I have both stuff.org and mail.org in both rcpthosts and locals, also > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid delivery address (user newinfo with a > .qmail-info file in the homedirectory) > > In my /var/qmail/virtualdomains file I have the entry > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:newinfo > > Which I believe should deliver any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the newinfo-info > mailbox after I have kill -HUPed qmail-send (which I have). > > However, when I check the maillog it gets delivered to the info user rather > than the newinfo-info user. So it seems that my virtualdomains entry is being > ineffectual. If stuff.org is in locals and you have a local user info, that user will take precedence. Remove stuff.org from locals, leave it in rcpthosts, and keep your above line in virtualdomains. It should then be delivered to local user newinfo and controlled by ~newinfo/.qmail-info. 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 10:29:28PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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. Then the discussion is - reading it at HUP *once* and doing in-memory scans versus - a cdb lookup for every delivery. I can tell you now that reading it once will only in very rare conditions give worse performance. 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 05:06:27PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:29:28PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. > > Then the discussion is > - reading it at HUP *once* and doing in-memory scans > versus > - a cdb lookup for every delivery. > > I can tell you now that reading it once will only in very rare > conditions give worse performance. True enough, but only virtualdomains has the opportunity to be read just once. smtproutes and rcpthosts (and badmailfrom especially) are read on each invocation of qmail-smtpd. One problem with the current setup is that control.c issues 64 bytes reads. I changed that on one system that had very large smtp control files to do larger reads and it made a significant impact. It also seems that Dan thinks at least some smtp control files are suited to this setup: witness morercpthosts. Regards.
Thus wrote "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I didn't look at the Postfix code; I merely noticed that one of the > documented ``security features'' was an obvious design error. See > > http://cr.yp.to/maildisasters/postfix.html > > for the complete story. Your site is outdated in technical respect; your efforts seem to have been successful almost two years ago, and I thank you for finding the problem. Provided that the user chooses the "safe" path in section 12 of the INSTALL document (I'm not citing that here), Postfix has a dedicated group for that maildrop directory which is group writable, and a setgid-to-that-group command to handle injecting mail: $ sudo ls -ld /var/spool/postfix/maildrop/ /usr/sbin/postdrop | awk '{printf "%s %8s %8s %s\n", $1,$3,$4,$9;}' # to limit line width -rwxr-sr-x root postdrop /usr/sbin/postdrop drwx-wx--T postfix postdrop /var/spool/postfix/maildrop/ Citing from Postfix's HISTORY document as per 20001030: "19981221 [...] Bugfix: the maildrop directory should not be world-readable. Files: conf/postfix-script, showq/showq.c. [...] 19981225 [...] Feature: when a writable maildrop directory is a problem, sites can make the new "postdrop" utility set-gid. This command is never used when the maildrop directory is world-writable. 19990316 [...] Workaround: use fstat() to figure out if the maildrop is world-writable. access() uses the real uid, which stinks." There are not further notes on world-writability or postdrop until snapshot-20001030. Thus, Postfix-19990317 and any later releases, when installed with group-writable postdrop directory, are immune against the attacks you described. Would you mind updating your site? You could add a warning that Postfixen before 19990317 are unsecure, and that Postfix from 19990317 and younger MUST be installed to use a setgid postdrop command and a GROUP (not world)-writable maildrop directory. -- Matthias Andree
OK. Our MX record here was changed on Monday. However all the mail from this list is still going to the old server. Any idea how long the caching is happening on the list server? I'd say there is a problem with DNS but the only email I'm still receiving on the old server is the mail from this list. Thanks Andy Abshagen System Administrator Data-Vision, Inc. 219-243-8625, 888-925-8625 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weird, it usually does not take as long. Is mail being received according to the new MX settings? Did the DNS daemon reload the config data? Don't worry, be Kneppie! Jan Andy Abshagen wrote: > OK. Our MX record here was changed on Monday. However all the mail from > this list is still going to the old server. Any idea how long the caching > is happening on the list server? I'd say there is a problem with DNS but > the only email I'm still receiving on the old server is the mail from this > list. > > Thanks > Andy Abshagen > System Administrator > Data-Vision, Inc. > 219-243-8625, 888-925-8625 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jan Knepper Smartsoft, LLC 88 Petersburg Road Petersburg, NJ 08270 U.S.A. http://www.smartsoft.cc/ http://www.mp3.com/pianoprincess Phone : 609-628-4260 FAX : 609-628-1267 FAX : 303-845-6415 http://www.fax4free.com/ Phone : 020-873-3837 http://www.xoip.nl/ (Dutch) FAX : 020-873-3837 http://www.xoip.nl/ (Dutch) In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well like I said all other mail is going to the new server. It is just mail from the list itself. In fact your mail sent directly to me was received on the new server not the old. So I was kinda thinking that the list server is caching the dns information or something. Not really sure though. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Jan Knepper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 1:03 PM To: Andy Abshagen Cc: Qmail Mailing List Subject: Re: MX record not updating Weird, it usually does not take as long. Is mail being received according to the new MX settings? Did the DNS daemon reload the config data? Don't worry, be Kneppie! Jan Andy Abshagen wrote: > OK. Our MX record here was changed on Monday. However all the mail from > this list is still going to the old server. Any idea how long the caching > is happening on the list server? I'd say there is a problem with DNS but > the only email I'm still receiving on the old server is the mail from this > list. > > Thanks > Andy Abshagen > System Administrator > Data-Vision, Inc. > 219-243-8625, 888-925-8625 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jan Knepper Smartsoft, LLC 88 Petersburg Road Petersburg, NJ 08270 U.S.A. http://www.smartsoft.cc/ http://www.mp3.com/pianoprincess Phone : 609-628-4260 FAX : 609-628-1267 FAX : 303-845-6415 http://www.fax4free.com/ Phone : 020-873-3837 http://www.xoip.nl/ (Dutch) FAX : 020-873-3837 http://www.xoip.nl/ (Dutch) In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 01:07:23PM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote: > Well like I said all other mail is going to the new server. It is > just mail from the list itself. In fact your mail sent directly to me > was received on the new server not the old. So I was kinda thinking > that the list server is caching the dns information or something. Not > really sure though. Well, since DJB wrote dnscache specifically for mail servers (at least initially) it would surprise me greatly to learn he was NOT cacheing DNS info on the list server. Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
> > OK. Our MX record here was changed on Monday. What was the old TTL? What servers have authority for your domain, miss any secondaries (zone transfer or rsync fail)?
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 01:07:23PM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote: > Well like I said all other mail is going to the new server. It is just mail > from the list itself. In fact your mail sent directly to me was received on > the new server not the old. So I was kinda thinking that the list server is > caching the dns information or something. Of course it caches DNS information; that's what all DNS caches do. It won't, however, cache the information for any longer than you've expressed in your DNS records that you'd like the information to be cached. Under what address are you subscribed to the list? Chris
Hi there, Does anyone know of a simple filtering program for qmail that will filter on the From: field by the email address or by the domain of the email address? Many thanks, Kevin Smith
Hi there, Does anyone know of a simple filtering program for qmail that will filter on the From: field by the email address or by the domain of the email address? Many thanks, Kevin Smith
Kevin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 November 2000 at 18:16:02 -0000 > Hi there, > > Does anyone know of a simple filtering program for qmail that will filter on > the From: field by the email address or by the domain of the email address? Procmail, an old standard (but current versions support maildir directly) will do this. So will maildrop. Maildrop is newer, cleaner, code. I haven't used maildrop myself; being used to procmail, I haven't bothered to change. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Hi All, The file badmailfrom in the /var/qmail/control directory, how do I enter only a domain name to stop receiving mail, instead of enter the full email address? I've tried the following : *@domain.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which does work, any ideas? Regards, Kevin Smith
That was meant to say, doesn't work... sorry. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 7:07 PM Subject: badmailfrom > Hi All, > > The file badmailfrom in the /var/qmail/control directory, how do I enter > only a domain name to stop receiving mail, instead of enter the full email > address? > > I've tried the following : > > *@domain.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Which does work, any ideas? > > Regards, > > Kevin Smith > >
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 07:07:36PM -0000, Kevin Smith wrote: > Hi All, > > The file badmailfrom in the /var/qmail/control directory, how do I enter > only a domain name to stop receiving mail, instead of enter the full email > address? > > I've tried the following : > > *@domain.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Which does work, any ideas? I know it's cheating, but I believe that the manpage for qmail-smtpd tells you exactly what to do. Regards.
I have started seting up qmail and have everything working apart from the aliases for root, postmaster, etc and smtp (which i havent started on yet) everything is installed in its default place ie /var/qmail/ in /var/qmail/alias I have done 'touch .qmail-root' and then 'chmod 644 .qmail-root' as root but all mail to these aliases ends up in /var/qmail/Mailbox what have I done wrong? also I have found that I regularly (but not everytime) I recieve the dont 'delete this message' message when I collect my pop3 mail - how can I get rid of it? Neil
At 12:19 PM 11/17/2000, Neil Grant wrote: >I have started seting up qmail and have everything working apart from the >aliases for root, postmaster, etc and smtp (which i havent started on yet) > >everything is installed in its default place ie /var/qmail/ > >in /var/qmail/alias I have done 'touch .qmail-root' and then 'chmod 644 >.qmail-root' as root but all mail to these aliases ends up in >/var/qmail/Mailbox > >what have I done wrong? > >also I have found that I regularly (but not everytime) I recieve the dont >'delete this message' message when I collect my pop3 mail - how can I get >rid of it? > > >Neil Delete it. Seriously... the don't delete this message email is some legacy stuff from older implementations of pop3 mailboxes. When I worked at an ISP, we upgraded the mail server and our entire client base got those emails. Just ignore them, delete them and move along.... Jerry Lynde
Quoting Peter Cavender ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > 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. ;-) Well, how would that be possible? Non-standard virtual domains set up? Example: You have mail.example.com as MX for virtual.com, which is in virtualdomains as "virtual.com:joe". In ~joe you have .qmail-joe. Mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will have a delivered-to header like so: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless you have set up your virtualdomains in some way I'm not aware of, it should be irrelevent what other virtual domains you have configured. Maybe you can share this tidbit. We host quite a few virtualdomains, I must say, and don't have your particular problem. > >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. Well, did you hack qmail-smtpd.c to not add a Received header to the top of each message? How does email get delivered to your POP boxes from the Internet, if not via qmail-smtpd or some other SMTP daemon that follows RFCs? No delivery from via SMTP at all, maybe? > >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. Maybe you just need to install procmail, get the maildir patches from www.qmail.org (are they still needed? I can't remember) and use formail to cut out that header (a la formail -I) from the user's .procmailrc. Again, though, I would caution against removing Delivered-To. Aaron
Sorry for the delay but I had to do some digging to find the file. Enjoy On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 08:08:02AM +0100, Jörgen Persson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 02:31:04PM -0800, Matt Harrington wrote: [snip] > > I hear that some people had success with OSX-Server, but I don't see why > > OSX (non-server) would be any different with respect to a program like > > qmail. > > I've managed to compile qmail under MacOSX-server and from what I > remember I had some similar problems. I don't know it all by > heart since it was about 18 months ago :) but I think I still > have some notes about it. I'll mail it to the list later on > today. -- Jörgen PerssonA short howto install Qmail-1.03 under Mac OS X (G.M 1.1). You still have to read and follow the README except for obivous changes. 1) Go to the source 2) After reading INSTALL.ids, add the users and the groups through the graphical application "Network Manager". 3) Edit the file conf-ld, change cc -s into cc 4) Run "make setup check" 5) ./load qmail-pop3d will cause some errors. 6) Type the command manually and add strerr_sys.o and error_str.o to the end, ie ./load qmail-pop3d commands.o case.a timeoutread.o \ timeoutwrite.o maildir.o prioq.o now.o env.a strerr.a sig.a \ open.a getln.a stralloc.a alloc.a substdio.a error.a str.a \ fs.a `cat socket.lib` strerr_sys.o error_str.o 7) Run "make setup check" again 8) Done 9) Put the startup scripts in /etc/rc.common or /etc/startup 10) You can strip the binaries afterwards strip /var/qmail/bin/*
I have been receiving multiple copies of messages from the qmail mailing list for a couple weeks. I talked to Dave Sill who suggested I send mail to DJB, which I did, however to date I have not heard anything. all the messages seem to be coming from: muncher.match.uic.edu with the same message id's. here are a couple samples: Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ74CF; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:33:42 -0600 Received: (qmail 9752 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 31147 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zephyr.SoftLock.com) (216.34.101.242) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 71); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO arbor.softlock.com) (63.103.65.14) by 216.34.101.242 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 Received: by arbor.softlock.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <W2W8NZCQ>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:54 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: How maybe times qmail will retry send the bounce email? Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:53 -0500 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ7TWA; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:13:45 -0600 Received: (qmail 9752 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 31147 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zephyr.SoftLock.com) (216.34.101.242) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 71); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO arbor.softlock.com) (63.103.65.14) by 216.34.101.242 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 Received: by arbor.softlock.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <W2W8NZCQ>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:54 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: How maybe times qmail will retry send the bounce email? Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:53 -0500 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ7TTM; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:15:05 -0600 Received: (qmail 9752 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 31147 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zephyr.SoftLock.com) (216.34.101.242) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 71); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO arbor.softlock.com) (63.103.65.14) by 216.34.101.242 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 Received: by arbor.softlock.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <W2W8NZCQ>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:54 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: How maybe times qmail will retry send the bounce email? Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:53 -0500 ------------next message--- Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ7TKH; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:37:53 -0600 Received: (qmail 20791 invoked by uid 1002); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6383 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 Received: from orion.insign.ch (HELO orion.8304.ch) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 23117 invoked by uid 507); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:33:58 +0100 From: "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mailtraffic logging, inclusive Subject: field Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 08:43:04AM +1300 X-PGPKey-Url: http://omnis.ch/olivier-key.txt Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ7S0F; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:59:05 -0600 Received: (qmail 20791 invoked by uid 1002); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6383 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 Received: from orion.insign.ch (HELO orion.8304.ch) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 23117 invoked by uid 507); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:33:58 +0100 From: "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mailtraffic logging, inclusive Subject: field Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR" X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 08:43:04AM +1300 X-PGPKey-Url: http://omnis.ch/olivier-key.txt ----------next message Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ7TQA; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:08:42 -0600 Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 19461 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 Received: from massive.dataloss.net (HELO dataloss.net) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 15612 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2000 09:48:59 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:59 +0100 From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Yahoo delivery failure - short test and proposal Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mail-Followup-To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:28:53PM +1100 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id WQAZ7QWA; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:45:04 -0600 Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 19461 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 Received: from massive.dataloss.net (HELO dataloss.net) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 15612 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2000 09:48:59 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:59 +0100 From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Yahoo delivery failure - short test and proposal Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mail-Followup-To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:28:53PM +1100
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:06:52PM -0600, Dave Gresham wrote: > I have been receiving multiple copies of messages from the qmail mailing > list for a couple weeks. I talked > to Dave Sill who suggested I send mail to DJB, which I did, however to date > I have not heard anything. > > > all the messages seem to be coming from: > muncher.match.uic.edu with the same message id's. > > here are a couple samples: > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service My guess is that the list server tries to send you the message, and for whatever reason the connection is closed before your end acknowledges receipt. The list server has no choice but to try to send it again. Since your end of the connection is running MS Exchange and Dan's running qmail, I'd suspect the problem is on your end. Chris
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:06:52PM -0600, Dave Gresham wrote: > I have been receiving multiple copies of messages from the qmail mailing > list for a couple weeks. I talked > to Dave Sill who suggested I send mail to DJB, which I did, however to date > I have not heard anything. Are you continuing to get them? I wonder whether your Exchange server is accepting the message into its queue, but then not sending a "250 ok" or the "250 ok" is not making it back either due to network issues or timeout exceeded. > all the messages seem to be coming from: > muncher.match.uic.edu with the same message id's. And at quite different times which suggests muncher is retrying the message presumably because it thinks that the previous delivery attempt failed. Certainly the qmail logs at muncher would confirm the delivery outcome that it is seeing. Regards. > here are a couple samples: > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ74CF; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:33:42 -0600 > Received: (qmail 9752 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 31147 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO zephyr.SoftLock.com) (216.34.101.242) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 71); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO arbor.softlock.com) (63.103.65.14) > by 216.34.101.242 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 > Received: by arbor.softlock.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > id <W2W8NZCQ>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:54 -0500 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Qmail List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: How maybe times qmail will retry send the bounce email? > Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:53 -0500 > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ7TWA; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:13:45 -0600 > Received: (qmail 9752 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 31147 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO zephyr.SoftLock.com) (216.34.101.242) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 71); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO arbor.softlock.com) (63.103.65.14) > by 216.34.101.242 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 > Received: by arbor.softlock.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > id <W2W8NZCQ>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:54 -0500 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Qmail List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: How maybe times qmail will retry send the bounce email? > Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:53 -0500 > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ7TTM; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:15:05 -0600 > Received: (qmail 9752 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 31147 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO zephyr.SoftLock.com) (216.34.101.242) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0000 > Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 71); 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO arbor.softlock.com) (63.103.65.14) > by 216.34.101.242 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 14:45:40 -0000 > Received: by arbor.softlock.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > id <W2W8NZCQ>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:54 -0500 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Qmail List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: How maybe times qmail will retry send the bounce email? > Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:47:53 -0500 > > > > ------------next message--- > > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ7TKH; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:37:53 -0600 > Received: (qmail 20791 invoked by uid 1002); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:57 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 6383 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 > Received: from orion.insign.ch (HELO orion.8304.ch) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 > Received: (qmail 23117 invoked by uid 507); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:58 -0000 > Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:33:58 +0100 > From: "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: mailtraffic logging, inclusive Subject: field > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR" > X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 08:43:04AM +1300 > X-PGPKey-Url: http://omnis.ch/olivier-key.txt > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ7S0F; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:59:05 -0600 > Received: (qmail 20791 invoked by uid 1002); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:57 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 6383 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 > Received: from orion.insign.ch (HELO orion.8304.ch) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 17:33:56 -0000 > Received: (qmail 23117 invoked by uid 507); 8 Nov 2000 17:33:58 -0000 > Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:33:58 +0100 > From: "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: mailtraffic logging, inclusive Subject: field > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR" > X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 08:43:04AM +1300 > X-PGPKey-Url: http://omnis.ch/olivier-key.txt > > > ----------next message > > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ7TQA; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:08:42 -0600 > Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:38 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 19461 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 > Received: from massive.dataloss.net (HELO dataloss.net) > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 > Received: (qmail 15612 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2000 09:48:59 -0000 > Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:59 +0100 > From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Yahoo delivery failure - short test and proposal > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mail-Followup-To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:28:53PM +1100 > > > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by > epmail0.ltfinc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2650.21) > id WQAZ7QWA; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:45:04 -0600 > Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by uid 1002); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:38 -0000 > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 19461 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 > Received: from massive.dataloss.net (HELO dataloss.net) > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 09:50:37 -0000 > Received: (qmail 15612 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2000 09:48:59 -0000 > Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:59 +0100 > From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Yahoo delivery failure - short test and proposal > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mail-Followup-To: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:28:53PM +1100 >
>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 3:17 PM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: Re: Duplicated Messages > > >On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 03:06:52PM -0600, Dave Gresham wrote: >> I have been receiving multiple copies of messages from the qmail mailing >> list for a couple weeks. I talked >> to Dave Sill who suggested I send mail to DJB, which I did, however to date >> I have not heard anything. > >Are you continuing to get them? I am getting duplicate messages daily, however at some point I no longer see additional duplicates. I will do some analysis on this. >>I wonder whether your Exchange server is accepting the message into its >>queue, but then not sending a "250 ok" or the "250 ok" is not making it back >>either due to network issues or timeout exceeded. > I will do some research into this. I am taking on the responsibilities of exchange, and am looking at ways to incorporate qmail into our organization. > >And at quite different times which suggests muncher is retrying the message >presumably because it thinks that the previous delivery attempt failed. > >Certainly the qmail logs at muncher would confirm the delivery outcome that >it is seeing. Dave Sill had suggested I email DJB to find out what the logs did say, but I haven't heard anything. Thanks
test
At 03:53 PM 11/17/2000, you wrote: >test you get an A for being to the point, and an F for being obscure...which averages to a C.. you pass... but next time you should give it more effort....
Hi all, Being new to qmail, I thought this would be the appropriate place to ask this question. How do I (or can I?) go about handling undeliverable email messages differently than what is currently being used. What I am looking to do is to intercept the message going to any user (all of them), re-write the message to make it a bit more clear for users to debug these problems themselves and also give them suggested hints as to what they could do to verify that the email address is correct, etc. I know if my site (domain) generates the error, I log it and also send this type of info to the user on the other end, but I want to do this when the final destination fails to deliver the message and the remote system replys with an undeliverable email message. I want to be able to intercept these undeliverable email messages and put them in a format that I think is appropriate. TYIA, -- Troy Muller Sr. Unix Administrator SAGEport, Inc I laughed, I cried, I then used Debian Linux.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:03:31PM +0800, eric yu wrote: > /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 So your $LOGDIR is /var/log/qmail, but then > /service/qmail-smtpd/log/run > > #!/bin/sh > # This is the run file for supervise to execute the qmail-smtpd's log. > > SETUIDGID=/usr/local/bin/setuidgid # directory for setuidgid > MULTILOG=/usr/local/bin/multilog # directory for multilog > PROG=smtpd > LOGDIR=/var/log/qmail/$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 so the $LOGDIR is a subdir of qmail-send's logdir which is again /var/log/qmail. Also, is /service/qmail-smtpd/run a symlink? Mate
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:03:31PM +0800, eric yu wrote: > /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 Why do you have this PROG line here? > /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 You are not using a tcprules file?! Finally, why not take advantage of new daemontools's envuidgid and tcpserver's -U and -X flags? Here is my qmail-smtpd run file: #! /bin/sh exec 2>&1 CDB="/var/service/qmail-smtpd/tcprules.cdb" PORT="smtp" USER="qmaild" PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin; export PATH COMMAND="qmail-smtpd" exec envuidgid $USER \ tcpserver -v -c40 -UX -x$CDB \ 0 $PORT $COMMAND Mate
Typically in /var/log/maillog or /var/adm/maillog, but it can vary depending on how your system is set up. Look for a line that contains something like "mail.*" in the first column of /etc/syslog.conf, the second column tells where one will find the log. "man syslog.conf" and "man syslogd" for more information. On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 01:02:29AM -0000, Neil Grant wrote: > really stupid question: > > where is the qmail log file (refered to as syslog in the documentation)? -- Brad Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key fingerprint = E741 589E 4A43 DA89 C5AA B9A3 7E44 18BB C16B F62D I'm young ... I'm HEALTHY ... I can HIKE THRU CAPT GROGAN'S LUMBAR REGIONS!
How can I forward all mail received to a domain to another domain. Like mail received to [EMAIL PROTECTED] forward it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] x can be any user. thanks all. =============================================================== Shakaib Sayyid | Kodenet Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1090 King Gerges Post Road | Suite 604 | Edison, NJ 08837 ===============================================================
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > How can I forward all mail received to a domain to another domain. > Like mail received to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > forward it to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > x can be any user. /var/qmail/control/smtproutes (on mxhost.dom1.com): dom1.com:mxhost.dom2.com Make sure mxhost.dom2.com is setup to receive mail for dom1.com (rcpthosts, locals), restart qmail (I think...I can never remember which files require a HUP). -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 09:41:54PM -0500, Shakaib Sayyid wrote: > How can I forward all mail received to a domain to another domain. > Like mail received to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > forward it to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > x can be any user. echo 'dom1.com:alias-dom1' >> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains echo '| forward "$DEFAULT"@dom2.com' > ~alias/.qmail-dom1-default Make sure dom1.com is in rcpthosts and that it is not in locals. HUP qmail-send and you're all set. Chris
Hello, On the omail-webmail mailing list, we're currently talking about a complete improved rewrite of the (quite popular now) omail-webmail interface. < http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about > If you are interested, fell free to subscribe to the devel mailing list, and tell us your opinon, features requests or what you'd like to do! Subscription page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/omail-devel Regards, Olivier ----- Forwarded message from "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:44:56 +0100 From: "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i X-PGPKey-Url: http://omnis.ch/olivier-key.txt Subject: [Omail-devel] oMail-webmail 2 - project notes (draft) Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta5 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Id: Mailing list for oMail developpers <omail-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> Hello! After the posts from Priyadi Iman Nurcahy, and some personal contacts and ideas, I think we could start a "version 2" of omail-webmail in the next weeks. A complete rewrite is the requirement for a much better and modular software : I will continue to maintain the current programm tree (0.95 will come out soon), but rather work on the new software than adding features to the old tree. Some notes, ideas and technical stuff, not really sorted yet (RfC!): Comments highly welcome! * Features: ========= - it should stay a quick, practical and easy to use webmail solution: read/send/folders/addressbook - it must be as secure as possible - target "market" are qmail servers using Maildirs as storage medium (there is Neomail for the Mbox-based servers) - cpu load and memory usage should stay so low as possible - support for multiple languages (if possible also for 2-byte-long languages, like in asia) - html templates support (there is probably some stuff that could be used for that in the CPAN). - gpg/pgp support for outgoing mails - the "cpu-unfriendly" routines could eventually be rewritten in C (for example the get_headers, or why not a "search in all mails" function) * Directories: ============ . INSTALL, README, and all CGI scripts locale/ languages files templates/ html template files modules/ omail/ omail-webmail internal modules (auth, sessions, etc.) cpan/ cpan modules required by the software (in tar.gz) docs/ user docs * Modules: ======== - config.pm : config... - session.pm : session managment : called on every access - auth.pm : called on login, to check authentication using a defined scheme and a specific sub-module for each systems: qmail, vmailmgr, vpopmail, ldap, etc. - maildir.pm : maildir routines (get headers, get msg, change status, etc.) - html.pm : encoding/decoding routines - ... * Scripts: ======== Omail.pl would be splitted in different scripts, with well definied tasks: - index.cgi : login screen, with language choice - login.cgi : call auth.pm - mailbox.cgi : list folder contents - message.cgi : display a single message - viewattach.cgi : display/transmitt an attachment - folder.cgi : create/move/edit/delete folders - compose.cgi : compose new mail + multiple attachment managment - addressbook.cgi : with import routines/modules - config.cgi : user setup, signatures, etc. - ... Voila, I'm now waiting for your comments! If you are interested to work on this project, please tell us right soon, and give us your sourceforge login. Actually, I'm still studying and working a lot on different projects (linux servers, qmail, perl, php, bit of java&xml): I won't manage to developp "omail-webmail 2" without help! But I think the need for such a program is there, and it can only become a "killer ap" :) Regards, Olivier ----- End forwarded message ----- -- _________________________________________________________________ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
PGP signature
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 04:18:46AM -0000, Neil Grant wrote: > my qmail smtp server will only accept emails destined for my its own domain > > how do I get it to send to other domains - like it can internally on the > server http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying Chris
Is anybody having problems listening to yahoo/egroup servers, particularly those in 64.211.240/24, 208.50.144/24, and 208.50.144/24? Since about Thu Nov 16 07:00 GMT, I've had a lot of unsuccessful SMTP transactions. It goes something like this: egroup server makes a connection, qmail-smtpd sends "354 go ahaed", server usually (but not always) sends a packet with a single line, the "X-eGroups-Return: " header, and then about 9m20s later an RST. Note it's not a particular server that's doing this - for example, one server (hp.egroups.com) made a connection at 23:40:00 and sent the RST at 23:49:26, and made another connection at 23:41:28 which successfully completed at 23:41:42. The last time I had a problem with symptoms like this, there was a piece of network hardware in the route that had a smaller MTU but somebody was filtering all ICMP traffic, so PMTU discovery wasn't working. I don't know if this is a similar situation; one would expect gblx to know what they're doing. The end result is a lot of idle SMTP connections, resulting in mail being routed to the secondary, which is similarly affected. I'm about screw down the limit on the allowed connections from those subnets, but I'd like to know if anybpody else is experiencing the problem before I try talking to yahoo/gblx - I couldn't find anything in Deja or nanog. Thanks, Rick.
if your domain is tatrasoft.sk, remove tatrasoft.sk from ~/control/locals (if its there), and if the IP number of your server on the local network is 10.1.1.1, put this in ~/control/smtproutes: tatrasoft.sk:10.1.1.1 (that has to be the actual IP of your internal mail server of course) wolfgang In the previous episode (17.11.2000), Daniel POGAC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Now i need to forward all messages to server on our local network behind >masquerade... >
I have been attempting my first Qmail install by following the directions at http://www.flounder.net/qmail/qmail-howto.html#1 (through #11). The instructions include directions for creation of a script called svscan, which is supposed to start qmail when run. I have this in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/svscan. When I start svscan using 'start', I get: supervise: fatal: unable to start qmail-send/run: access denied supervise: fatal: unable to start log/run: access denied supervise: fatal: unable to start qmail-smtpd/run: access denied supervise: fatal: unable to start log/run: access denied . . . So far I haven't been able to find anything on permissions for the files I created for qmail. Can anyone enlighten me here, or perhaps provide a link to something that might help? Thanks, Shawn
Hi there, I run a webmail service, and am having some trouble. It appears that not all web browsers send CRLF, but instead send LF only when I compose (this is the fault of the widget used for entering email). Both Netscape 6 for Linux and Konqueror 2 have this problem, as well as a bundle of other unix browsers I'm sure. Is there a way I can have qmail automatically convert bare LFs to CRLFs? This would be *very* helpful. Otherwise, I'm going to have to figure out how to write some PHP into my webmail service to do it... -- Casey Allen Shobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://aixos.net **Using AixOS.net Webmail Interface**
