qmail Digest 17 Jan 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1247
Topics (messages 55275 through 55390):
Re: Authenticate for default domain
55275 by: Marlon_Abao.support.trendmicro.com
55312 by: qmailu
55313 by: qmailu
Re: Bogus popularity claims for Sendmail
55276 by: Gjermund Sorseth
55372 by: Mark Delany
Re: QMTP MX-question
55277 by: Peter van Dijk
55381 by: Russell Nelson
Re: qmail list reply-to
55278 by: funky gao
55290 by: funky gao
55291 by: funky gao
55300 by: Dean Mumby
55310 by: IT Andrew Bold
55374 by: George Patterson
Re: Volunteers for a multilog patch?
55279 by: funky gao
Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
55280 by: funky gao
Re: concurrencyremote
55281 by: funky gao
Incomming message filter
55282 by: funky gao
55301 by: keng heng
Re: VMailMGR & hostname based access
55283 by: funky gao
Re: Logging with checkvpw and qmail-pop3d problems?
55284 by: funky gao
Re: [OT] iso-8859-1 charset problems
55285 by: funky gao
Re: A bug or am I being daft?
55286 by: funky gao
Re: (OT) Vmailmgr and Vpopmail
55287 by: funky gao
Re: 2 QUESTIONS
55288 by: funky gao
55298 by: Hubbard, David
Re: [vmailmgr] Some question
55289 by: funky gao
virus in list
55292 by: Keith, Yeung Wai Kin
55305 by: Jose AP Celestino
55375 by: George Patterson
55389 by: Scott D. Yelich
hmmm
55293 by: Deslions Nicolas
Re: Possible problem with qmail-qmtpc patch
55294 by: Johan Almqvist
55324 by: Ian Lance Taylor
55341 by: Ian Lance Taylor
Why?
55295 by: Rod... Whitworth
Viruses on the list
55296 by: Ertan Payci
Please stop sending me your virus infected files!
55297 by: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg
Virus-ridden emails from 'funky gao'?
55299 by: Hubbard, David
55345 by: Andy Bradford
55376 by: George Patterson
55378 by: funky gao
Re: AVP found infected object
55302 by: Michail A.Baikov
qmail smtp daemon takes long to display banner
55303 by: Gonçalo Gomes
55311 by: Charles Cazabon
55326 by: Henning Brauer
55335 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
Re: TWO INSTANCES OF QMAIL
55304 by: Rob Hines Jr.
VIRUS IN LAST 28 MESSAGES FROM FUNKY GAO ON LIST
55306 by: Robert Mudryk
Mail with content qmailscan - infected -
55307 by: Ruprecht Helms
Re: tcpserver
55308 by: Charles Cazabon
55317 by: Dave Sill
Re: smtp to 371.net
55309 by: Charles Cazabon
55327 by: Henning Brauer
55331 by: Charles Cazabon
55334 by: Henning Brauer
ENOUGH WITH THE FRIGGIN VIRII WARNINGS!
55314 by: Brett Randall
55328 by: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg
55366 by: Grant
Re: looking for mua
55315 by: Paul Jarc
Re: A firestorm of protest?
55316 by: Laurence Brockman
55338 by: Jerry Lynde
55339 by: Jurjen Oskam
55343 by: Dave Sill
55346 by: Tony Campisi
55348 by: Robin S. Socha
55349 by: Robin S. Socha
55353 by: Michael Boyiazis
55354 by: Jonathan J. Smith
55357 by: Dave Sill
55363 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen
55367 by: Aaron Carr
55368 by: Stanton Fields
55371 by: Andy Bradford
55380 by: Russell Nelson
55383 by: Peter Cavender
55387 by: Russell Nelson
55390 by: Pavel Kankovsky
tcpserver/smtp
55318 by: Dale Herring
55321 by: Charles Cazabon
55322 by: Johan Almqvist
55350 by: Dale Herring
55351 by: Mark Delany
55359 by: Dale Herring
55373 by: Mark Delany
How I block some adresses ?????
55319 by: -= Ana Paula =-
55323 by: Johan Almqvist
55385 by: Piotr Kasztelowicz
unable to bind: address already used
55320 by: Matthew Patterson
55333 by: Marco Leeflang
forwarding mail
55325 by: Travis Turner
55329 by: Alex Kramarov
55330 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Installing mini-qmail seems to require qmail ids contrary to documentation
55332 by: Tetsu Ushijima
Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1
55336 by: Scott Gifford
55344 by: Charles Cazabon
55347 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Dot in email adress
55337 by: David L. Nicol
Header rewriting ...
55340 by: Alex Kramarov
Re: qmailanalog scripts
55342 by: Ismail YENIGUL
55365 by: Grant
Re: Life With Qmail
55352 by: Dave Sill
@home.com mail servers...
55355 by: Marc Knoop
55358 by: joshua stein
55360 by: Jesse Sunday
Re: qmail help quick!
55356 by: Dave Sill
55379 by: David Talkington
55384 by: Dan Phoenix
bounce mail allways double bounces because the 'to' in the envelope is empty?
55361 by: Sebastián E. Brocher
55386 by: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg
tcpserver with more connection control
55362 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: Documentation of qmailanalog
55364 by: Grant
Does "-probe" mean "removed"?
55369 by: Brian Ghidinelli
55370 by: Markus Stumpf
Auto Responder
55377 by: Rohit Gupta
55382 by: Rohit Gupta
Looking for definitive 250 ok response identifiers
55388 by: Mark Delany
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
are you talking about SMTP-AUTH or POP3 auth?
-marlon
Hi,
How do I authenticate for my default domain with
just the username ? ie If I use OE 5.0, I should give only username and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have
about 25 domains , but need to authenticate only for my primary domain this
way !!
This is a little urgent !!
Raghu
|
Hi,
Sorry about that !! My setup -
I have test.com as my hostname with MX pointing to my IP address. I also
have added testmail1.com, testmail2.com ....testmail25.com as my virtual
domains with their MX pointing to the same IP. Now I need my users in
testmail1.com to give only username and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to authenticate to retrieve their mails. So how do I setup testmail1.com as
the default domain ?
Raghu
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'qmailu' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Authenticate for default domain
> >How do I authenticate for my default domain with just
> >the username ? ie If I use OE 5.0, I should give only
> >username and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have
> >about 25 domains , but need to authenticate only for my
> >primary domain this way !!
> >This is a little urgent !!
>
> Raghu,
>
> You haven't told us *anything* about your qmail setup, so how
> you expect us to be telpathic and work out what you've setup,
> I don't know. The fact that you're using multiple domains
> suggests you might be using, say, vpopmail or VMailMgr,
> but that's speculation.
>
> Possible answer to your question: Run your default domain
> separately (outside of virtualdomains etc; separate POP3 service).
>
> There is a mailing list for vpopmail which may be more
> appropriate.
>
> Andrew.
Hi,
Sorry about that !! My setup -
I have test.com as my hostname with MX pointing to my IP address. I also
have added testmail1.com, testmail2.com ....testmail25.com as my virtual
domains with their MX pointing to the same IP. Now I need my users in
testmail1.com to give only username and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to authenticate to retrieve their mails. So how do I setup testmail1.com as
the default domain ?
Raghu
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'qmailu' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Authenticate for default domain
> >How do I authenticate for my default domain with just
> >the username ? ie If I use OE 5.0, I should give only
> >username and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have
> >about 25 domains , but need to authenticate only for my
> >primary domain this way !!
> >This is a little urgent !!
>
> Raghu,
>
> You haven't told us *anything* about your qmail setup, so how
> you expect us to be telpathic and work out what you've setup,
> I don't know. The fact that you're using multiple domains
> suggests you might be using, say, vpopmail or VMailMgr,
> but that's speculation.
>
> Possible answer to your question: Run your default domain
> separately (outside of virtualdomains etc; separate POP3 service).
>
> There is a mailing list for vpopmail which may be more
> appropriate.
>
> Andrew.
> Out of these 62,786 remote SMTP servers, 16,658 are running sendmail (27%)
> and 5098 are running qmail (8%).
Perhaps it is also interesting to look at how many of the messages
were delivered to what type of server.
Out of the 3,016,454 messages in the sample, 484,010 were delivered
to servers running sendmail (16%) and 313,195 to servers running
qmail (11%).
This shifts the numbers in favor of qmail, which suggests that
large sites prefer to run qmail rather than sendmail.
--
Gjermund Sorseth
Excellent stats, Gjermund.
Are you scripts suitable for general use? Can they be easily modified
to identify some of the missing 65% and 73% respectively?
Your latter numbers are more useful, 100 machines running sendmail and
accepting 1 email each "handle" less traffic than 1 machine running
qmaik and accepting 101 emails, IMO.
Regards.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Gjermund Sorseth wrote:
>
> > Out of these 62,786 remote SMTP servers, 16,658 are running sendmail (27%)
> > and 5098 are running qmail (8%).
>
>
> Perhaps it is also interesting to look at how many of the messages
> were delivered to what type of server.
>
> Out of the 3,016,454 messages in the sample, 484,010 were delivered
> to servers running sendmail (16%) and 313,195 to servers running
> qmail (11%).
>
> This shifts the numbers in favor of qmail, which suggests that
> large sites prefer to run qmail rather than sendmail.
>
> --
> Gjermund Sorseth
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 05:16:45AM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Johan Almqvist writes:
> > Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
>
> Don't believe everything you read. :-)
>
> My original design made QMTP-only mail exchangers easier but made
> QMTP+SMTP mail exchangers harder. This was a bad tradeoff.
>
> Clients should interpret a QMTP priority as ``try QMTP, then try SMTP.''
Which is my interpretation of part of the spec, but another part
contradicts this.
> Then a typical SMTP host that adds QMTP support can keep its single MX
> record but change the priority.
Could you please revise the spec?
Greetz, Peter.
D. J. Bernstein writes:
> Johan Almqvist writes:
> > Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
>
> Don't believe everything you read. :-)
>
> My original design made QMTP-only mail exchangers easier but made
> QMTP+SMTP mail exchangers harder. This was a bad tradeoff.
>
> Clients should interpret a QMTP priority as ``try QMTP, then try SMTP.''
> Then a typical SMTP host that adds QMTP support can keep its single MX
> record but change the priority.
That's what I intended to do. Ian Lance Taylor has pointed out that I
failed to test the case of a host having a QMTP priority but no QMTP
server. I'll reissue the patch in a day or so after I finish off with
a customer's deadline.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
> From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
>
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?
Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
"dialing" a telephone.
At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
Emanuel.exe
> From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
>
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?
Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
"dialing" a telephone.
At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
Emanuel.exe
> From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
>
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?
Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
"dialing" a telephone.
At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
Emanuel.exe
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Please check your system I have recieved this attachment "Emanuel.exe" from
your addres six times It contains the "win32.Navidad.b" virus
thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "funky gao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to
> From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
>
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?
Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
"dialing" a telephone.
At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
On Tuesday 16 January 2001 13:04, you wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> Please check your system I have recieved this attachment "Emanuel.exe" from
> your addres six times It contains the "win32.Navidad.b" virus
> thanks
I was just about to send the same warning when your mail arrived via the
list. It's a good job we all use "mutt" and *nix OSes isn't it? ;^)
--
Andrew Bold
Unix Systems Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
This message is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. It is intended
solely for the stated addressee(s) and access to it by anyone else is unauthorised.
If you have received this message in error, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or
in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this message. Such
unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please
delete it immediately and advise us by return e-mail to the above address.
Andrew!
That is exactly the point, we all don't otherwise this %^&&ard program
wouldn't have made it to the list...
Can the list move to a "no attachment" policy ??... lets see 16k
mulitplied by 1500 recipients is about 20 odd Megabytes. That is just
the data for the one message without the message!!
Regards
George Patterson
IT Andrew Bold wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2001 13:04, you wrote:
>
>> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>> Please check your system I have recieved this attachment "Emanuel.exe" from
>> your addres six times It contains the "win32.Navidad.b" virus
>> thanks
>
>
> I was just about to send the same warning when your mail arrived via the
> list. It's a good job we all use "mutt" and *nix OSes isn't it? ;^)
Last week there was much discussion (some of it even on topic :) about
making multilog rotate files on receipt of a signal.
Here's my very simple patch to make multilog rotate its current file
on receipt of SIGHUP. I have tested it under RedHat Linux 6.2 ONLY.
However, as I have used Dan's coding style (all 2 lines of it) it
should work under any systems on which multilog currently works.
My tests were fairly minimal - I hammered multilog as fast as I could
and sent it a SIGHUP. I then checked to see if it lost any data
between rotations - it didn't.
It obviously needs field testing, but I think it will allow us to
rotate based on time. All we need is a cron job to send the SIGHUP at
the appropriate time.
If you use this, please let me know how it goes. If I get positive
feedback (or no feedback at all) I'll release it in the same manner as
my tai64nunix package - ie a stripped down daemontools with only enough
to build the new multilog. This should comply with Dan's licensing
rules.
--
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"
Emanuel.exe
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:18:30PM -0700, James Stevens wrote:
> Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation of setting up
> concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits I need to make
> to avoid conflicks..
Just compile them using different dirs, and install them into those same
different dirs.
Also, be careful when launching qmail-smtpd. With tcpserver, the "IP"
parameter can NOT be 0 (every interface, which is the most common setting).
Each tcpserver must be bound to it's own network interface, (assuming you're
always using the same port).
RC
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
Emanuel.exe
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:36:50PM -0400, Doug Schmidt wrote:
>
> I would like to increase qmail's concurrencyremote from the default 20 to
> 40. When I create:
> /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote
> and put a value of 40 in the file,
> I restart qmail and get the error:
> Oct 10 16:53:14 server qmail: 971211194.211356 alert: cannot start: unable
> to read controls
>
> Any help on this would be great.
Check permissions on /var/qmail/control and all files therein.
Emanuel.exe
hi everyone:
I have linux and qmail installed( Sorry, I am a chinese people and poor in English
),I want to make my server can let user configure their mailbox to reject certain
messages by MAIL-FROM,but I don't know how to do.Please help me.
Thanks.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________
===================================================================
ÐÂÀËÃâ·Ñµç×ÓÓÊÏä http://mail.sina.com.cn
ÐÂÀËÍƳö°ÂÔ˶ÌÐÅÏ¢ÊÖ»úµã²¥·þÎñ
http://sms.sina.com.cn/
Emanuel.exe
your outlook has been afffected by W32.Navidad.16896... please take care!!
This question belongs on the vmailmgr mailing list.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:14:50PM -0000, Chris Cioffi wrote:
> I'm digging into virtual domains and I'm having a problem with
> logging into my virtual domain.
> In /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains I have a line that looks like
> this:
> virtdom.net:virtdom.net
>
> virtdom.net is a valid unix user with home
> directory /home/virtdom.net
Please don't hide the details from us. It only makes our job harder.
> I can log into my account (user) with this 'virtdom.net-user' but
> not with '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or 'user:virtdom.net'.
> My /etc/vmailmgr/separators contains '@:%'
>
> Is there a setting required to permit hostname based access?
Nope, unless you mean IP-based virtual domains.
> I've
> looked through the docs for vmailmgr and it seems to assume
> hostbased access just kinda works.
It does.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Emanuel.exe
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 09:33:57AM -0600, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
> Does anybody know what variable i would need to get checkvpw to log
> properly with qmail-pop3d?
This was discussed recently in the vmailmgr mailing list. Put a script
containing the following into /etc/vmailmgr/checkvpw-postsetuid, and
make it executable:
#!/bin/sh
echo "Login OK: $VUSER $MAILDIR $USER $HOME"
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Emanuel.exe
> From: Martin Jespersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:00:41 +0200
>
> Hi all
>
> i have written an sms forward filter in perl that allows me to trigger an s
> ms message to me if a
> mail matches my criteria.
>
> i then send an sms including the sender of the mail and the subject line.
>
> Now my problem is this:
>
> I live in denmark and thus it happens pretty often that a subject line incl
> udes non-standard ascii
> characters.
>
> subject lines with non-standard ascci characters are iso-8859-1 encoded, ex
> ample follows:
>
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E5_min_skat_-_jeg_g=E5r_til_afdelingsm=F8de_i?=
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Bredgade_nu_-_jeg_ringer_senere=2E_Kys_til_dig_fra_mig?=
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?_=2AS=2A?=
>
> this subject actually reads:
>
> Nå min skat - jeg går til afdelingsmøde iBredgade nu - jeg ringer senere. Kys
> til dig fra mig*S*
>
> (if this looks weird don't worry -it's danish :)
>
> ofcourse this looks pretty silly in an sms message så what i would like is a
> way to convert this
> back to ascii
I assume you mean you want to convert it back to iso-58859-1.
I did this in tcl a while back. It's actually fairly simple, ?charset?Q?text?
means that 'text' is encoded into ascii using quoted printable. quoted
printable basically just says that '=dd' should be replaced with the code in
hex.
I think the actual conversion is a one liner in perl...something along the
lines of 's/=(..)/chr(hex($1))/eg' (Note this is untested.)
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
Emanuel.exe
> From: "Austad, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:15:03 -0500
>
> Doesn't the case change violate RFC821 or 822? I seem to remember reading
> that case in the user portion of the email address should never be changed
> because the accounts "Bob" and "bob" are two completely different accounts
> on a unix machine.
The rfc says not to change it on mail that a host is relaying, but it leaves
it up the the host to do what's appropriate for local addresses. It's really
the only reasonable thing they could have specified in a world where some
systems have mixed case and some don't.
Whether or not qmail should fold addresses into lower case is debatable, but
the RFC doesn't give any guidance since it was written to be able to work on
systems where folding case is a requirement.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
Emanuel.exe
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 06:50:59PM +0700, Joomy wrote:
> Hi all,
> sorry about this OT, but I can't find any good information about
> vmailmgr/vpopmail.
> If anyone have a nice url , please tell me. (not vmailmgr/vpopmail website)
>
> I have some (stupid) question about vmailmgr and vpopmail
Some answers just about vmailmgr.
> 1. Can I use more then 8 chars password with both system ? like md5 in
> shadow password ? or I have to user ldap authentication ?
AFAIK, vmailmgr supports MD5 passwords, so probably passwords which
are longer than 8 chars.
> 2. Can I use .qmail (for forwarding purpose) in each user dir ? not the
> .qmail-USER in domain dir.
The .qmail, no, but you cann add forwarders to vmailmgr accounts with
the vchforwarders command.
> 3. Which file/dir will be count when I use quota support in each user dir ?
Don't really understand this question... There are per-system user quota,
per mail-user quota, etc...
> and the last one, about file system.
> What is the differrent if
> 1. I store 50,000 user mail directory in the same directory. (can I do this
> ? are there any limitation about file sytem ?)
should be ok.
> 2. I store 50,000 user mail directory by using the vpopmail (create sub-dir
> when dir reach 100 dirs or something like that)
well, that's the vpopmail or vmailmgr which will do that : you don't
have to create the directory by yourself...
Good luck :)
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
Emanuel.exe
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:18:58AM +0200, Linux wrote:
> 2)I'm managing a mail server with qmail. I have about 200 users and 50
> virtual domains, and all my configuration works correctly.
> I have created about 180 real users (passwd and shadow files) in my system
> for managing virtual domains accounts.
> I know that many servers (with qmail) over the internet, host a lot of
> virtual users (10000), but i can't think they created 9000 real users!!
> Someone can tell me if there was a method to avoid the creation of real account
> for managing virtual users?
Yes: if you use vmailmgr <http://www.vmailmgr.org>, you will need only
one real account per domain, and with vpopmail (check qmail.orG), only
one account. Both have own mailing lists.
Regards,
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
Emanuel.exe
Oliver, all of your emails are being sent with
a virus infected executable attached, Emanuel.exe,
you may want to have a look at your machine before
sending more emails.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: funky gao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:42 AM
To: Linux
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2 QUESTIONS
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:18:58AM +0200, Linux wrote:
> 2)I'm managing a mail server with qmail. I have about 200 users and 50
> virtual domains, and all my configuration works correctly.
> I have created about 180 real users (passwd and shadow files) in my system
> for managing virtual domains accounts.
> I know that many servers (with qmail) over the internet, host a lot of
> virtual users (10000), but i can't think they created 9000 real users!!
> Someone can tell me if there was a method to avoid the creation of real
account
> for managing virtual users?
Yes: if you use vmailmgr <http://www.vmailmgr.org>, you will need only
one real account per domain, and with vpopmail (check qmail.orG), only
one account. Both have own mailing lists.
Regards,
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 09:46:24PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 06:50:59PM +0700, Joomy wrote:
> > 1. Can I use more then 8 chars password with both system ? like md5 in
> > shadow password ? or I have to user ldap authentication ?
> AFAIK, vmailmgr supports MD5 passwords, so probably passwords which
> are longer than 8 chars.
Yes. vmailmgr can authenticate against both standard crypt and MD5
passwords, and writes out MD5 passwords by default. With MD5 passwords,
there is no limit on pass phrase length.
> > 3. Which file/dir will be count when I use quota support in each user dir ?
> the entire maildir ? or just ./new and ./cur ?
> good question :) the answer would also interest me.
Right now, it only counts new and cur. Support for the entire maildir
is on the TODO.
> > and the last one, about file system.
> > What is the differrent if
> > 1. I store 50,000 user mail directory in the same directory. (can I do this
> > ? are there any limitation about file sytem ?)
> should be ok.
Storing 50K users in one directory is possible but inadvisable.
Managing a CDB with 50K users could be time consuming (each modification
requires rewriting the CDB). vmailmgr has support for GDBM (and soon
*DBM) password tables, which reduces this problem.
> > 2. I store 50,000 user mail directory by using the vpopmail (create sub-dir
> > when dir reach 100 dirs or something like that)
> well, that's the vpopmail or vmailmgr which will do that : you don't
> have to create the directory by yourself...
vmailmgr has a directory hashing feature that can evenly distribute the
directories into multiple other directories, if enabled before the
accounts are created.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Emanuel.exe
don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao"
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:03:14PM +0800, Keith, Yeung Wai Kin wrote:
> don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao"
Why should I?
wine emanuel.exe ?
Regards.
--
Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || SAPO / PTM.COM
Administração de Sistemas / Operações || http://www.sapo.pt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elevating brain damage to an art form.
Windows.
Jose!
Even that is a waste of time...
Goto to www.europe.f-secure.com/v-descs/navidad.html for more
information...
It could still crash wine as it does some registery modificationa and
load itself into the system tray... as an icq like icon...
Regards
George Patterson
Jose AP Celestino wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:03:14PM +0800, Keith, Yeung Wai Kin wrote:
>
>> don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao"
>
>
> Why should I?
>
> wine emanuel.exe ?
>
> Regards.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Keith, Yeung Wai Kin wrote:
> don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao"
Why not? *clickclick* Did I miss something?
Scott
Emanuel.exe is not needed thx
-----Message d'origine-----
De?: funky gao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoy¨¦?: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:41
¨¤?: Doug Schmidt
Cc?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet?: Re: concurrencyremote
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:36:50PM -0400, Doug Schmidt wrote:
>
> I would like to increase qmail's concurrencyremote from the default 20 to
> 40. When I create:
> /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote
> and put a value of 40 in the file,
> I restart qmail and get the error:
> Oct 10 16:53:14 server qmail: 971211194.211356 alert: cannot start: unable
> to read controls
>
> Any help on this would be great.
Check permissions on /var/qmail/control and all files therein.
* Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010115 23:53]:
> I don't see it. Russ's patch looks like this (at least, in the
> version I downloaded):
> + if (qmtp_priority(ip.ix[i].pref)) {
> + if (timeoutconn(smtpfd,&ip.ix[i].ip,(unsigned int) qmtp_port,timeoutconnect)
>== 0) {
> + tcpto_err(&ip.ix[i].ip,0);
> + partner = ip.ix[i].ip;
> + qmtp(); /* does not return */
> + }
> + }
> + if (timeoutconn(smtpfd,&ip.ix[i].ip,(unsigned int) smtp_port,timeoutconnect) ==
>0) {
> In other words, if the MX priority indicates QMTP, try to make a QMTP
> connection. If that connection fails--if it times out, or if the
> remote system does not accept the connect request--timeoutconn will
> return -1 and qmail-remote will go on to try to make an SMTP
> connection.
timeoutconn seems to only return -1 when the attemt times out, NOT if the
remote system doesn't accept the connection attempt. (That's what my
experiments have shown, at least... I'd like very much for this to be
seconded by others before I have another go at this!)
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010115 23:53]:
> > I don't see it. Russ's patch looks like this (at least, in the
> > version I downloaded):
> > + if (qmtp_priority(ip.ix[i].pref)) {
> > + if (timeoutconn(smtpfd,&ip.ix[i].ip,(unsigned int)
>qmtp_port,timeoutconnect) == 0) {
> > + tcpto_err(&ip.ix[i].ip,0);
> > + partner = ip.ix[i].ip;
> > + qmtp(); /* does not return */
> > + }
> > + }
> > + if (timeoutconn(smtpfd,&ip.ix[i].ip,(unsigned int) smtp_port,timeoutconnect)
>== 0) {
> > In other words, if the MX priority indicates QMTP, try to make a QMTP
> > connection. If that connection fails--if it times out, or if the
> > remote system does not accept the connect request--timeoutconn will
> > return -1 and qmail-remote will go on to try to make an SMTP
> > connection.
>
> timeoutconn seems to only return -1 when the attemt times out, NOT if the
> remote system doesn't accept the connection attempt. (That's what my
> experiments have shown, at least... I'd like very much for this to be
> seconded by others before I have another go at this!)
Interesting. What type of system are you running? The code in
timeoutconn.c uses getpeername to check whether the connect really
succeeded. This is as DJB suggests in
http://cr.yp.to/docs/unixport.html
When I look at timeoutconn.c, it looks to me like it should return -1
if the connect attempt fails. Any other result implies that
getpeername succeeds when the socket is not connected.
Ian
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
> > it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
> >
> > If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> > running) this failure will be logged as
> >
> > deferral: Connected_to_194.47.249.19_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
> >
> > which means that the message will not be retried at the next best MX but
> > go back to the queue.
>
> I don't see it.
Now I see it. You can't call connect twice on the same socket. This
patch, on top of Russ's patch, fixes it.
Ian
--- qmail-remote.c.~1~ Sat Jan 6 22:49:02 2001
+++ qmail-remote.c Tue Jan 16 10:30:29 2001
@@ -531,6 +531,9 @@
partner = ip.ix[i].ip;
qmtp(); /* does not return */
}
+ close(smtpfd);
+ smtpfd = socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM,0);
+ if (smtpfd == -1) temp_oserr();
}
if (timeoutconn(smtpfd,&ip.ix[i].ip,(unsigned int) smtp_port,timeoutconnect) ==
0) {
tcpto_err(&ip.ix[i].ip,0);
In the last minute I have received 5 emails from this
list purporting to be from funky gao.
All have an attachment called Emanuel.exe.
4 are messages from regular contributors who are not
(apparently) Chinese. These appear to be from other than
their normal origins.
What is going on? I am certainly not executing the
attached exe (and it probably would not run on either my
OS/22 box I'm on now nor the Linux or OBSD ones) but I'm
mightily suspicious.
In a way this is a test to see if the list is hijacked.
In the beginning was The Word
and The Word was Content-type: text/plain
The Word of Rod.
Hello everybody.
Our virus scanner detected a couple of mails that contain a virus.
The message looks like this:
Scanning file /var/tmp/qmail-local2076/unpacked/mm.eyj8Cr
Scanning file /var/tmp/qmail-local2076/unpacked/Emanuel.exe
Found the W32/Navidad.e@M trojan !!!
Please take care.
Best regards.
--
Ertan Payci Seruba GmbH
Notkestrasse 13 22607 Hamburg
FON: 0049 40 41360-212 FAX: 0049 40 41360-100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even though the message is in norwegian, you will recognize that it's
a QMAILSCANNER virus warning, and I've gotten 6 more last hour.
Please disinfect your computer and / or temporarly stop sending mail.
MVH André Paulsberg IDG New Media Support
Informasjon fra IDG New Media - http://www.newmedia.no
Viktig: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Denne meldingen ble ikke sendt til avsenders adresse, da det ser ut til
at dette er fra en meldingsliste eller annen automatisert e-post melding]
Et Virus ble funnet i en e-post sendt til deg.
E-post skanneren avbrøt og stoppet hele meldingen før den nådde deg.
Det er rapportert at Virus er av typen:
virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E
Ta kontakt med ditt IT personell vedrørende spørsmål for gjeldende regler.
E-posten som ble sendt til deg, hadde følgende adresser:
MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... og med følgende meldingshode:
From: "funky gao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martin Jespersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Qmail mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] iso-8859-1 charset problems
Message-ID: <00cd01c0681e$b37264a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:40:55 +0800 (CST)
Den orginale meldingen er tatt vare på i:
mailscan2:/var/spool/qmailscan/quarantine
hvor System Anti-Virus Administrator videre kan diagnostisere den.
E-post skanneren rapporterte følgende når meldingen ble skannet:
---
---iscan results ---
Virus Scanner v3.1, VSAPI v5.170-0617
Trend Micro Inc. 1996,1997
Pattern version 832
Pattern number 25093
Configuration: -a -r -nl -c1 -c2 -u -s
Directory /var/spool/qmailscan/mailscan297964821727269
/var/spool/qmailscan/mailscan297964821727269/979648217.27271-0.mailscan2
/var/spool/qmailscan/mailscan297964821727269/Emanuel.exe
*** Found virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.E in file
/var/spool/qmailscan/mailscan297964821727269/Emanuel.exe
==============================
Directory:
Searched : 1
File:
Searched : 2
Scan : 2
Infected : 1
Infected : 1(Include files been compressed)
Time:
Start : 1/16/101 13:30:17
Stop : 1/16/101 13:30:17
Used : 00:00
---
Is everyone else receiving a bunch of emails
from 'funky gao'? Can someone remove this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] from the list? I've
received quite a few messages from him this
morning, all containing the file Emanuel.exe
with a virus.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: funky gao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:42 AM
To: Brett Randall
Cc: Robin S. Socha; qmail
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to
> From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:00:06 +1000
>
> > Then the sender should ask for a Cc: - remember kids, it isn't called
> > Courtesy Copy for nothing.
>
> I thought it was Carbon Copy?
Considering that the majority of Internet users these days are so young that
the have never seen carbon paper, that term seems to be as obsolete as
"dialing" a telephone.
At Stan Freburg said, "That went out with button shoes!"
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:02:44 EST, "Hubbard, David" wrote:
> Is everyone else receiving a bunch of emails
> from 'funky gao'? Can someone remove this
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the list? I've
> received quite a few messages from him this
> morning, all containing the file Emanuel.exe
> with a virus.
Yes, I have been receiving these as well. Our mail server with
qmail-scanner has rejected 16 so far. They are probably not going
back to him so he may not even be aware...
Andy
This vius is diffenitely being sent through the list server??
Andy... He (or She??/It!!???) it is aware of it.. At least he/she has
been notified by me and a few others...
<sarcasm>
Could we collectively bomb his/her email server that would stop it...??
</sarcasm>
Regards
George
Andy Bradford wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:02:44 EST, "Hubbard, David" wrote:
>
>
>
>> Is everyone else receiving a bunch of emails
>> from 'funky gao'? Can someone remove this
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the list? I've
>> received quite a few messages from him this
>> morning, all containing the file Emanuel.exe
>> with a virus.
>
>
> Yes, I have been receiving these as well. Our mail server with
> qmail-scanner has rejected 16 so far. They are probably not going
> back to him so he may not even be aware...
>
> Andy
very very sorry, yestoday I was infected with a virus and before
I knew how to handle it , it had sent many mail bombs.
now it is ok , sorry for bring u so much trouble. sorry
-- funky gao
Quoting George Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: This vius is diffenitely being sent through the list server?? Andy... He (or She??/It!!???) it is aware of it.. At least he/she has been notified by me and a few others... Could we collectively bomb his/her email server that would stop it...?? Regards George Andy Bradford wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:02:44 EST, "Hubbard, David" wrote: > > > >> Is everyone else receiving a bunch of emails >> from 'funky gao'? Can someone remove this >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the list? I've >> received quite a few messages from him this >> morning, all containing the file Emanuel.exe >> with a virus. > > > Yes, I have been receiving these as well. Our mail server with > qmail-scanner has rejected 16 so far. They are probably not going > back to him so he may not even be aware... > > Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: <root>
To: <root>
Cc: <virus>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:23 PM
Subject: AVP found infected object
> /var/tmp/checkmail8395/receivedmail/[From: "funky gao"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]:\Emanuel.exe infected: I-Worm.Navidad.b2
Hi,
my installed qmail server takes long to display its banner, i dont know why,
i've followed lifewithqmail step by step
and cant figure out what is the problem!
Best Regards
Gonçalo Gomes.
Gonçalo Gomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> my installed qmail server takes long to display its banner, i dont know why,
> i've followed lifewithqmail step by step
> and cant figure out what is the problem!
This is in the FAQs. Read the man page for tcpserver, and pay attention to
the section on data-gathering options.
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 Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:31:16PM -0000, Gon?alo Gomes wrote:
> my installed qmail server takes long to display its banner, i dont know why,
> i've followed lifewithqmail step by step
> and cant figure out what is the problem!
You didn't gave sufficient information, but I could guess the problem.
Disable ident lookups, man tcpserver gives you the options. Careful reading
of this manpage is important, there are at least two other opions whioch can
speed up things.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 06:00:21PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:31:16PM -0000, Gon?alo Gomes wrote:
> > my installed qmail server takes long to display its banner, i dont know why,
> > i've followed lifewithqmail step by step
> > and cant figure out what is the problem!
>
> You didn't gave sufficient information, but I could guess the problem.
> Disable ident lookups, man tcpserver gives you the options. Careful reading
> of this manpage is important, there are at least two other opions whioch can
> speed up things.
Disabling host resolution also helps quite a lot. Just RTFM before asking.
RC
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis Telecom - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
PGP signature
I can think of some very good reasons to run a second instance of SMTP, for instance,
providing roaming mail service to a large userbase who dialup through earthlink.
Earthlink blocks any other SMTP than their own when their users dial up, so with a
second SMTP server on another port, you effectively can bypass that problem.
I run my SMTP through supervise, so all I had to do was go into
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd, and edit the run script. In the run script, just
copy your whole command
line in after the first instance, and change the port. Restart your mail, and you're
all set (if you want to use a named port, you have to add the name in /etc/services,
otherwise you'll use a number).
Nothing to it.
Rob
Grant wrote:
> In my opinion you shouldn't be running two instances of qmail on the same
> machine and nor should you ever change the default mail port which is 25.
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, qmailu wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > How do I run two instances of qmail on the same machine - the first one listening
>on port 25 (default smtp port) and the second on some other port, for eg. say 1099.
> > The two instances need to have two different control files - and should not
>interfere with each others existance.
> >
> > Raghu
> >
--
Rob Hines Jr.
System Administrator
yea... so far 28 messages have posted back with the virus to the list
that have contracted W32/Navidad.e@M in the past 2 1/2 hours...
From: "funky gao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ertan Payci wrote:
> Hello everybody.
>
> Our virus scanner detected a couple of mails that contain a virus.
> The message looks like this:
>
> Scanning file /var/tmp/qmail-local2076/unpacked/mm.eyj8Cr
> Scanning file /var/tmp/qmail-local2076/unpacked/Emanuel.exe
> Found the W32/Navidad.e@M trojan !!!
>
> Please take care.
>
> Best regards.
>
> --
> Ertan Payci Seruba GmbH
> Notkestrasse 13 22607 Hamburg
> FON: 0049 40 41360-212 FAX: 0049 40 41360-100
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
this mail is important for all mail-users that mail under Windows .
A mail of the content qmailscan has included an attachment
Emanual.exe (or could)
This attachment is containing a new macrovirus, not cleanable with the
newest Mc Affee (using sdat4115).
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
Martin Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> maildirmake /etc/skel/Maildir (even from within /cvar/qmail/bin) failed and
> in the end I had to cd /etc/skel and do /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake
> Maildir
[...]
> I take it a .qmail file is also required in /etc/skel.
As noted by others, no. Provided your default delivery instruction is
"./Maildir/", no .qmail files are required for your users if they all posess
a Maildir of that path/name.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have noticed stuff like Dan says mkdir /supervise whereas LWQ has
>references to /var/qmail/supervise. Still I'd like to follow Dan's
>methodology.
mkdir /supervise
ln -s /var/qmail/supervise/* /supervise
Optionally, replace "/var/qmail/supervise" with "/supervise" in all
scripts.
Alternatively, do:
mkdir /supervise
ln -s /supervise /var/qmail
instead of LWQ's "mkdir /var/qmail/supervise".
-Dave
Rick Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My mail server is qmail and it plays well. But I can not send any mail to
> 371.net which has three mx server and one smtp server.
> mx2.371.net
> mx3.371.net
> mx4.371.net
> smtp.371.net
>
> on its website, I got to know that smtp.371.net is recommended. but I can not
> connect to this server by telneting its 25 port. Can anyone give me a hand?
> Or is there any other method by which mail servers can communicate with each
> other?
Is the document on its website intended for the ISP's customers? Probably the
mx* hosts are intended to be the MX for the domain, and "smtp.371.net" is there
as a smart relay for its customers only, and they have port 25 firewalled off
from the rest of the net.
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 Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Rick Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My mail server is qmail and it plays well. But I can not send any mail to
> > 371.net which has three mx server and one smtp server.
> > mx2.371.net
> > mx3.371.net
> > mx4.371.net
> > smtp.371.net
> > on its website, I got to know that smtp.371.net is recommended. but I can not
> > connect to this server by telneting its 25 port. Can anyone give me a hand?
> > Or is there any other method by which mail servers can communicate with each
> > other?
> Is the document on its website intended for the ISP's customers? Probably the
> mx* hosts are intended to be the MX for the domain, and "smtp.371.net" is there
> as a smart relay for its customers only, and they have port 25 firewalled off
> from the rest of the net.
dnsmx 371.net gives mx.371.net, so this one is reachable from outside.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > Rick Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > My mail server is qmail and it plays well. But I can not send any mail to
> > > 371.net which has three mx server and one smtp server. on its website, I
> > > got to know that smtp.371.net is recommended. but I can not connect to
> > > this server by telneting its 25 port. Can anyone give me a hand? Or is
> > > there any other method by which mail servers can communicate with each
> > > other?
> > Is the document on its website intended for the ISP's customers? Probably
> > the mx* hosts are intended to be the MX for the domain, and "smtp.371.net"
> > is there as a smart relay for its customers only, and they have port 25
> > firewalled off from the rest of the net.
> dnsmx 371.net gives mx.371.net, so this one is reachable from outside.
I meant that "smtp.371.net" might be an internal-only mail relay. Any host
named "mx\d" is probably a publically-reachable MX.
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 Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:33:06AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dnsmx 371.net gives mx.371.net, so this one is reachable from outside.
> I meant that "smtp.371.net" might be an internal-only mail relay. Any host
> named "mx\d" is probably a publically-reachable MX.
This is speculation. As mx.371.net is a MX for this domain it must be
reachable from outside. For the others we don't have any information.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
--
B r e t t R a n d a l l
http://xbox.ipsware.com/
brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
Hey, it took 30 minuttes for my message to go trough!
When I sent the message NOONE had complained,
later when the list catched up several warning-messages came.
Complain to the "fill in the blank" person who sent this virus :(
MVH André Paulsberg
Use pine
On 17 Jan 2001, Brett Randall wrote:
>
>
"Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mutt is pretty nifty. Another good choice would be Gnus http://www.gnus.org/
> which also supports Maildir natively if you use nnmaildir.
Since Google doesn't find it, I'll say that nnmaildir lives at
<URL:http://multivac.cwru.edu/nnmaildir/>
> Otherwise, Maildir is available as a regular mail backend.
Which is to say: the other backends can read incoming mail from a
maildir, but they store it in some other format. AFAIK, nnmaildir is
the only (existing) way to make Gnus store mail in a maildir.
paul
I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
users can go and search from. I think this would be ideal for qmail.org
site...
Just my $0.02
Laurence
--
Laurence Brockman
Unix Administrator
Videon Cablesystems Alberta Inc
10450-178 St.
Edmonton, AB
T5S 1S2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(780) 486-6527
-----Original Message-----
From: Erwin Hoffmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:39 AM
To: Henning Brauer; qmail-list
Subject: Re: A firestorm of protest?
At 23:46 15.1.2001 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 03:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
>> www.qmail.org.
>>
>> Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
>> fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
>> implies that qmail-smtpd has a problem that the patch fixes. I'd
>> rather see people steal the necessary parts of Makefile, and Dan's
>> library code, and create a stand-alone "qmail-smtpd-auth" program.
>
>I'd just rename it from patches to "additional functionality" or something
>like that.
>
I guess, thats the correct approach. It would be very helpful for the qmail
community to "organize" the patches - or have them organized. From my point
of view - actually how I organize the mails coming from this mailing list -
one should differentiate between "Add-Ones" (eg. scripts working within
.qmail and the brand new Log-Analyzer in perl) leaving the product
unchanged and "Miscellaneous enhancements" covering the patches against the
code. Both should be organized by feature and/or qmail module.
This would help to keep track of the patches. When I initially created the
SPAMCONTROL patch, I had the same problem like everybody has: Here and
there is a useful piece of code (=patch) which I integrated into a larger
set. But this is not as trivial as it seems.
While qmail 1.03 is since years in the field SMTP development is going
further (eg. STARTTLS and SASL) and of cause, everybody is interesting
employing those features. It is necessary to integrate those enhancements
(even though they are not coming from DJB and might be as complex as
qmail-ldap) in order to be competitve.
In addition, since qmail is prefered by ISPs, there requirements are
different wrt the end user. Therefore, we have today packages like
vpopmail, sqwebmail and others which enhence qmail and it's complexity
significantly. Maybe it would worthwile to consider this as well as an
"organizational" item for qmail.org.
cheers.
eh.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| fff hh http://www.fehcom.de Dr. Erwin Hoffmann |
| ff hh |
| ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 |
| fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln |
| ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm |
| ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 |
| ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
At 07:21 PM 1/15/2001, you wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> > If you want to use bloated, unreliable, immensely fat software with a
>
>Where I have written, that EACH patch? Only USEFUL patch.
>The world goes forward!
Ah...but what is useful to thee may not be useful to me :o)
Or many others for that matter. Who decides what's useful?
Jer
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:18:10 -0500 (EST), Russell Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
>fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
This might be too simple, but why not call them 'modifications' or
'customi[sz]ations'?
That doesn't seem to have the implied wrongness...
end
--
Jurjen Oskam * carnivore! * http://www.stupendous.org/ for PGP key
assassinate nuclear iraq clinton kill bomb USA eta ira cia fbi nsa kill
president wall street ruin economy disrupt phonenetwork atomic bomb sarin
nerve gas bin laden military -*- DVD Decryption at www.stupendous.org -*-
"Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> "Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
>> patches are often released to fix bugs.
>
>How about "addition" or "extension"?
I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
-Dave
: I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
:
: -Dave
:
Service pack 0.1 Beta?
TonyCam
* Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> "Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
>>> patches are often released to fix bugs.
>> How about "addition" or "extension"?
> I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
Ummm... Nope. A plug-in is something one plugs in. Like relay-ctrl. Patches
are not. A tool to magically merge patches one needs into one big patch
(like Felix' jumbo patch) would be really neat (like, smtp-auth fails
with the other patches I need applied).
* Laurence Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do
> something like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches,
> or upgrades, or anything else. They call them Modules and have a
> central repository that users can go and search from. I think this
> would be ideal for qmail.org site...
A module is not a patch. You can apply as many well written modules as
you like - but you cannot simply patch away at an existing code base.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
how about:
stuff-to-make-qmail-a-reasonable-tool-to-use-with-a-few-million-users-that-m
ay-encourage-others-to-write-stuff-that-may-introduce-security-holes-and-mak
e-the-original-author-uneasy
i'm grateful that qmail is security bug free. but i have the need to
control
the max number of recipients per email and to prevent broken ms SMTP
servers from bringing my servers to their knees, etc.
while i wrote a similar "enhancement" to qmail to control max rcpt's to what
was on the qmail.org site (before i knew to cruise the site for good stuff),
i wouldn't want to do that for things like big todo "patch" and perhaps the
big concurrancy "patch".
if i had a few or ten thousand users, i'd gladly use qmail "out of the box."
i'd have someone watch the logs 24/7 and if they see too many connections
from one IP, block them with a tcpserver rule. unfortunately i have too
many servers and too many users to be doing that. i need the help that
others have provided to assist qmail be accepted and usable in many
heterogeneous real world environments.
--
Michael Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
"Robin S. Socha" wrote:
>
> * Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>> "Upgrade" suggests adding features, rather more than "patch" does;
> >>> patches are often released to fix bugs.
>
> >> How about "addition" or "extension"?
>
> > I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
>
> Ummm... Nope. A plug-in is something one plugs in. Like relay-ctrl. Patches
> are not. A tool to magically merge patches one needs into one big patch
> (like Felix' jumbo patch) would be really neat (like, smtp-auth fails
> with the other patches I need applied).
Why not put together something like that.. a versioning tool for qmail
and patches...
have a published standard format for dealing with it and specifing the
details for
each patch (Module)..
Jonathan Smith
"Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I vote for "source code plug-ins". :-)
>
>Ummm... Nope.
Nope what? Nope, I don't vote for "source code plug-ins"? Or nope,
"source code plug-ins" is not a good rename for "patches"? You're
right either way--as the smiley clearly indicates.
Seriously, I suggest we call them "modifications", or "mods" for
short.
-Dave
+ Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Seriously, I suggest we call them "modifications", or "mods" for
| short.
This whole discussion reminds of a Lisp story I heard many years ago.
These folks were making a software package based on Lisp. A manager
actually requested that they rename the garbage collector because it
(the name) implied that their program produced garbage!
But of course, if we are to bend to this silliness in the first place,
then Dave's suggestion sound good to me.
- Harald
I hate to add to the barrage of email about this, but, I feel that I must
throw in my 2 cents for the record.
My vote for the web site would be qmail-plugins or something to that effect.
It does not imply any shortcoming, defect or bug, it simply states that some
my find each particular plugin useful, while others may have no use for it
at all.
As for updating qmail, I would be all for a new version of qmail with some
of the more useful (nearly mandatory) plugins already added. A couple I can
think of is the oversize DNS packet patch for qmail, and possibly
qmail-scanner ( with the option to disable it if not needed). After last
nights virus fiasco on this list, is there anyone who doesn't think it might
be a welcome addition to a standard qmail install? : )
As for who would decide what is useful and what isn't? I would assume DJB
or perhaps a small panel of qmail experts appointed by DJB could vote on
additions to the mail install.
As I said, these are just my 2 cents from someone not far into the qmail
journey. I'm picking it up when and where I can.
Aaron Carr
On 17-Jan-01 at 01:05, Aaron Carr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I hate to add to the barrage of email about this, but, I feel that I must
> throw in my 2 cents for the record.
>
> My vote for the web site would be qmail-plugins or something to that
> effect. It does not imply any shortcoming, defect or bug, it simply states
> that some my find each particular plugin useful, while others may have no
> use for it at all.
Why not "Source Code Options"
>
> As for updating qmail, I would be all for a new version of qmail with some
> of the more useful (nearly mandatory) plugins already added. A couple I
> can think of is the oversize DNS packet patch for qmail, and possibly
> qmail-scanner ( with the option to disable it if not needed). After last
> nights virus fiasco on this list, is there anyone who doesn't think it
> might be a welcome addition to a standard qmail install? : )
But what if someone comes along with the 'killer DNS Option' and a much better
scanner/detector of the next brew of spam/virus/worm?
>
> As for who would decide what is useful and what isn't? I would assume DJB
> or perhaps a small panel of qmail experts appointed by DJB could vote on
> additions to the mail install.
>
Stan The Computer Man
aka: Stanton Fields ---------- http://www.gate.net/~stan
The Lab called... Your brain is ready!
Thus said "Robin S. Socha" on 16 Jan 2001 20:47:55 +0100:
> A module is not a patch. You can apply as many well written modules as
> you like - but you cannot simply patch away at an existing code base.
Unless you write code in Lisp... :-)
Andy
--
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
7:16pm up 75 days, 21:36, 5 users, load average: 1.38, 1.35, 1.38
Laurence Brockman writes:
> I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
> like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
> anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
> users can go and search from. I think this would be ideal for qmail.org
> site...
He's done *just that*. That's what program delivery in a .qmail file
is for. That's what qmail-getpw is for. That's what users/assign is
for. That's what qmail-queue is for. Nobody patches the source of
perl -- they just go to the published APIs and add things. So why are
we patching qmail instead of writing replacements?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
> Laurence Brockman writes:
> > I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
> > like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
> > anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
> > users can go and search from. I think this would be ideal for qmail.org
> > site...
>
> He's done *just that*. That's what program delivery in a .qmail file
> is for. That's what qmail-getpw is for. That's what users/assign is
> for. That's what qmail-queue is for. Nobody patches the source of
> perl -- they just go to the published APIs and add things. So why are
> we patching qmail instead of writing replacements?
What do you mean by "writing replacements"? That people should write
their own mail servers, rather than try to enhance qmail?
Peter Cavender writes:
> > Laurence Brockman writes:
> > > I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
> > > like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
> > > anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
> > > users can go and search from. I think this would be ideal for qmail.org
> > > site...
> >
> > He's done *just that*. That's what program delivery in a .qmail file
> > is for. That's what qmail-getpw is for. That's what users/assign is
> > for. That's what qmail-queue is for. Nobody patches the source of
> > perl -- they just go to the published APIs and add things. So why are
> > we patching qmail instead of writing replacements?
>
> What do you mean by "writing replacements"? That people should write
> their own mail servers, rather than try to enhance qmail?
No. I think that people who want qmail-smtpd to have a badrcptto file
as well as a badmailfrom (for example) should make a Makefile, change
qmail-smtpd.c, include the necessary files, and package it up.
There's no reason why they couldn't include the patch file as well.
My point being that most things which are called patches could just as
easily be stand-alone pieces of software.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Nobody patches the source of perl -- they just go to the published
> APIs and add things. So why are we patching qmail instead of writing
> replacements?
Nice comparison...of pines and apples. Adding badrcptto (btw: this is a
very useful thing) or big-todo patches to qmail is like changing the
semantics of hashes in Perl. Unlike Perl, qmail has no built-in hooks for
such drastic changes (well, badrcptto can be "implemented" with a
front-end SMTP daemon but this is as absurd as using recordio to make
qmail-smtpd log some diagnostic messages...this is not modularity but
onion-style bloat).
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Okay I know the to aren't the same, but two seperate issues.
I am setting up qmail running Maildir/
I can get the server running and am able to send mail to my box
locally on the machine itself
If I try to send a message from another machine to that box the
messages goes. I never get a bouce back but the messages never
appears in my maildir/new box. It just gets lost in space so to speak.
I am able to check mail from a remote machine and retrieve it, when I
send it from the same machine of course. but when I start qmail and
tcpserver i get
{pop3d: 979682833.124531 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address
already used}
Now since I know I am missing something simple, and with a brain fry
(to much OT) I'm missing it or trying to make more out of it than
there is. Therefore a fresh perspective ??
My tcpserver startup looks like this.
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
mail.mydomian.com \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 | \
/var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d &
Suggesitons please
Dale Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am able to check mail from a remote machine and retrieve it, when I
> send it from the same machine of course. but when I start qmail and
> tcpserver i get
> {pop3d: 979682833.124531 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address
> already used}
Something else is already running on port 25. Did you forget to stop
sendmail?
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dale Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010116 16:39]:
> My tcpserver startup looks like this.
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> mail.mydomian.com \
> /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 | \
> /var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d &
> Suggesitons please
Starting an smtp server may help....
tcpserver 0 smtp qmail-smtpd
Or, with you paths:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 smtp qmail-smtpd | \
/var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd &
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Okay, i got rid of one error and picked up another one.
tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to run qmail-smtpd: file
does not exist
And I still have mail that is going to the machine but it just disapears.
Instead of going to the Maildir/
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: tcpserver/smtp
Dale Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am able to check mail from a remote machine and retrieve it, when I
> send it from the same machine of course. but when I start qmail and
> tcpserver i get
> {pop3d: 979682833.124531 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address
> already used}
Something else is already running on port 25. Did you forget to stop
sendmail?
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 Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:02:33PM -0600, Dale Herring wrote:
> Okay, i got rid of one error and picked up another one.
>
> tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to run qmail-smtpd: file
> does not exist
So you have yet another error to get rid of.
Is it too obvious to ask that you show us how you are running
tcpserver? And I do mean the exact command, not some paraphrasing as
paraphrasing hides errors.
> And I still have mail that is going to the machine but it just disapears.
> Instead of going to the Maildir/
I bet you it's not. Show us the log files where the mail
"disapears". It is simply somewhere that you haven't looked.
Regards.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: tcpserver/smtp
>
>
> Dale Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I am able to check mail from a remote machine and retrieve it, when I
> > send it from the same machine of course. but when I start qmail and
> > tcpserver i get
> > {pop3d: 979682833.124531 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address
> > already used}
>
> Something else is already running on port 25. Did you forget to stop
> sendmail?
>
> 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Okay, yea I know its not disappearing. Lets just say like you said I can't
find it yet.
But at least its not getting bounced.
tcpserver startup scripts.
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd |
/var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd &
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
server.mydomain.com \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 | \
/var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d &
Now I am sure that there is a way to include the smtp stuff into the
supervise/qmail-smtp/run
script...
As far as the missing mail goes I have mailed a e-mail with a attachment and
the overall used space is increasing.. so I know that it is getting there.
Just have to find it.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:34:04PM -0600, Dale Herring wrote:
> Okay, yea I know its not disappearing. Lets just say like you said I can't
> find it yet.
> But at least its not getting bounced.
> tcpserver startup scripts.
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd |
> /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd &
I don't know where that particular invocation came from, it's sure not
from the FAQ. Be that as it may, if it's run as root it'll probably
work, but you'd be better off using the -u and -g options as suggested
in the FAQ.
Also, you probably want to re-direct stderr as is also suggested in
the FAQ.
> Now I am sure that there is a way to include the smtp stuff into the
> supervise/qmail-smtp/run
If it's not being run out of there, then the whole
supervise/qmail-smtpd directory is pretty pointless. Is it possible
that supervise is trying to run in competition with your manual
tcpserver invocation?
Regards.
Hi !
I have 55 e-mail addresses of peoples that constantly send SPAMS for
my server.
I would like to block these addresses for the whole server.
How do I make that?
--
Best regards,
Ana
Ana, please don't start new threads by replying to old messages!
* Ana Paula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010116 17:03]:
> I have 55 e-mail addresses of peoples that constantly send SPAMS for
> my server.
> I would like to block these addresses for the whole server.
> How do I make that?
Put the addresses, one per line, into
/var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
Note that this makes qmail-smtpd reject based on the _envelope_ sender.
Use Peter's patch at
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/qmail-qmtpc.html
to achieve the same thing for qmail-qmtpd.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, -= Ana Paula =- wrote:
>
> I have 55 e-mail addresses of peoples that constantly send SPAMS for
> my server.
on server - if you had qmail with tcpserver - try add the line
to tcp.smtp (or another file provided to access control throu
tcpserver):
the.spamhost.name:deny
Piotr
---
Piotr Kasztelowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
question for the list:
I am using qmail-1.03 (patched for bigdns and queuevar), ucspi-tcp-0.88,
daemontools-0.70 and vpopmail-4.9.6-1 on a SuSE GNU/Linux 6.4 box. I have all
the e-mail related daemons (vchkpw, qmail-qmtp, qmail-smtp and qmail-send) in a
setup like the one described in Life With qmail. Every so often, the pop3 logs
(multilog) get flooded with entries like:
@400000003a636a5e07e6c22c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
I haven't the foggiest why this is happening, and so far the solution is to
reboot the machine. My config files are below.
Thanks in advance.
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
/etc/rc.d/qmail:
#!/bin/bash
PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Starting qmail: svscan"
cd /var/qmail/supervise
env - PATH="$PATH" svscan &
echo $! > /var/run/svscan.pid
echo "."
;;
stop)
echo -n "Stopping qmail: svscan"
kill `cat /var/run/svscan.pid`
echo -n " qmail"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*
echo -n " logging"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*/log
echo "."
;;
stat)
cd /var/qmail/supervise
svstat * */log
;;
doqueue|alrm)
echo -n "Sending ALRM signal to qmail-send"
svc -a /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "."
;;
queue)
qmail-qstat
qmail-qread
;;
reload|hup)
echo -n "Sending HUP signal to qmail-send"
svc -h /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "."
;;
pause)
echo -n "Pausing qmail-pop3"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3
echo "."
echo -n "Pausing qmail-send"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "."
echo -n "Pausing qmail-smtpd"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "."
echo -n "Pausing qmail-qmtpd"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-qmtpd
echo "."
;;
cont)
echo -n "Continuing qmail-send"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "."
echo -n "Continuing qmail-smtpd"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "."
echo -n "Continuing qmail-qmtpd"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-qmtpd
echo "."
echo -n "Continuing qmail-pop3"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3
echo "."
;;
restart)
echo "Restarting qmail:"
echo -n "* Stopping qmail-pop3"
svc -d /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3
echo "."
echo -n "* Stopping qmail-qmtpd"
svc -d /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-qmtpd
echo "."
echo -n "* Stopping qmail-smtpd"
svc -d /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "."
echo -n "* Sedning qmail-send SIGTERM and restarting."
svc -t /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "."
echo -n "* Restarting qmail-smtpd"
svc -u /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "."
echo -n "* Restarting qmail-qmtpd"
svc -u /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-qmtpd
echo "."
echo -n "* Restarting qmail-pop3"
svc -u /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3
echo "."
;;
cdb)
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
echo "Reloaded /etc/tcp.smtp."
tcprules /etc/tcp.qmtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.qmtp
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.qmtp*
echo "Reloaded /etc/tcp.qmtp."
;;
help)
cat <<HELP
stop - stops mail service (smtp/qmtp connects refused, no outgoing)
start - starts mail service
pause - temporarily stops mail service (connections accepted, no outgoing)
cont - continues paused mail service
stat - displays status of mail service
cdb - rebuild tcprules for smtp/qmtp
restart - stops and restarts smtp, qmtp, pop3; gives send TERM and restarts
doqueue - senda qmail-send ALRM
reload - sends qmal-send HUP
queue - shows status of queue
alrm - same as doqueue
hup - same as reload
HELP
;;
*)
echo "Improper usage. Type '$0 help' for options.'
exit 1
;;
esac
exit 0
/var/qmail/rc:
#!/bin/bash
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start './Maildir/'
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3/run:
#!/bin/bash
/usr/loca//bin/tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \
nsc-support.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d \
Maildir 2>&1
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3/log/run:
#!/bin/bash
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \
/var/log/qmail/qmail-pop3
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-qmtpd/run:
#!/bin/bash
QMAILUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 10000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x \
/etc/tcp.qmtp.cdb -u $QMAILUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 qmtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-qmtpd 2>&1
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-qmtpd/log/run:
#!/bin/bash
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \
/var/log/qmail/qmail-qmtpd
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/run:
#!/bin/bash
exec /var/qmail/rc
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run:
#!/bin/bash
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \
/var/log/qmail/qmail-send
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run:
#!/bin/bash
QMAILUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
# export QMAILQUEUE="/var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue"
export QMAILQUEUE="/var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl"
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 10000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x \
/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u $QMAILUID -g $NOFILESGID 0smtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log/run:
#!/bin/bash
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \
/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
>
> @400000003a636a5e07e6c22c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
>
This means that there's already active a pop3-server, look with ps.
disable the pop3 entry in inetd.conf.
marco leeflang
Hello All,
Is there some way to forward an individuals mail to a different ISP. For
example if a user has retired from this company and is using a private ISP
now can I forward [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the
help.
Regards,
Travis Turner
Information Technology Manager
Applied Integration Corporation
Tucson, Arizona U.S.A.
Phone (520) 743-3095
Fax (520) 623-1683
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy
and taste good with ketchup."
|
>Is there some way to forward an individuals mail to a different
ISP. For
>example if a user has retired from this company and is
using a private ISP
>now can I forward [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the
>help.
Edit his .qmail file to point to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or remove his user and create
an alias with this redirect). This is basic, please read man dot_qmail
before farther questions. |
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here
|
Travis Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there some way to forward an individuals mail to a different ISP. For
> example if a user has retired from this company and is using a private ISP
> now can I forward [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course there is. It's clearly documented, and is probably in the FAQ.
Hint: `man dot-qmail`.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf Goolamabbas writes:
> So, does the installation of mini-qmail require creating of user-ids for
> installation and then one can delete them subsequently
Before running make setup check, you could edit conf-users
and conf-groups so that all the first eight lines of
conf-users have ``root'' and all the first two lines of
conf-groups have ``wheel'' (or ``root'' on some systems).
Then you don't have to create new users and groups.
I think replacing qmail users with root in conf-* is safe as
long as one is doing a mini-qmail installation: there
is no queue; there is no setuid program; and there is no
long-running daemons.
Along this line, I happened to make a ``mini-qmail kit''
some time ago. If you are interested, see:
http://pobox.com/~tu/mini-qmail-kit.html
--
Tetsu Ushijima
We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
following MX record:
groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
the mail. 0.0.0.0 connects to 127.0.0.1, so qmail ended up connected
to itself. It continued to deliver the message to itself, and because
127. is allowed to relay on my system, the message was accepted. Then
qmail would immediately begin delivering the message to itself again.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
I stopped this from happening by denying connections from 127. in my
TCP rules file for qmail-smtpd (I changed
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",,RBLSMTPD=""DENYMAIL="DNSCHECK"
to
127.:deny
), but this seemed like kind of a kludgey solution.
So I have 2 questions.
1) Is there a better way to do this? Allowing 127. to relay is a
convenient way for me to test. I'd like to be able to null-route
to these addresses in smtproutes instead, but I don't see a way to
do that.
2) Will anything bad happen as a result of blocking SMTP connections
from 127.? I can't think of what this would break, but I've always
had this address allowed to relay before . . .
Thanks,
------ScottG.
Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 127. is allowed to relay on my system, the message was accepted. Then
> qmail would immediately begin delivering the message to itself again.
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>
> I stopped this from happening by denying connections from 127. in my
> TCP rules file for qmail-smtpd (I changed
>
> 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",,RBLSMTPD=""DENYMAIL="DNSCHECK"
>
> to
>
> 127.:deny
>
> ), but this seemed like kind of a kludgey solution.
>
> So I have 2 questions.
>
> 1) Is there a better way to do this? Allowing 127. to relay is a
> convenient way for me to test. I'd like to be able to null-route
> to these addresses in smtproutes instead, but I don't see a way to
> do that.
Change your rule to:
126.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@localrelay"
and add a virtual domain "localrelay" which files all messages in a single
Maildir, or throws them away. Any mail injected from 127. will get its
envelope recipient rewritten by appending the contents of RELAYCLIENT, and
it will then be handled by this virtual domain.
> 2) Will anything bad happen as a result of blocking SMTP connections
> from 127.? I can't think of what this would break, but I've always
> had this address allowed to relay before . . .
Only if you run software on the machine which sends mail by SMTP to localhost
rather than using the "sendmail" interface.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Change your rule to:
> 126.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@localrelay"
127., of course. Typo.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
James R Grinter wrote:
>
> "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What exactly is the threat this is supposed to guard against? Is
> > it directory descending on vms, or access to the .. directory somehow?
>
> I think it's along the lines of something like 'user-/../foo@domain'
> which would naively search for '.qmail-/../foo'. Replacing '.' is an
> easy way to prevent it ever being possible.
>
> James.
Yes, but dot appears so many places -- would not replacing slash
be a better solution?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"people with fish eyes and brown socks"
|
I know that this question is being asked from time to time here,
but I have never seen a descriptive answer to it.
I have to rewrite the FROM field from messages I recieve through
smtp. The only rewriting I have to do is if FROM = alex@a.b then i
rewrite to FROM = [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The username
stays the same, only rewrite the domail name.
I have tried to use the Fixup part from qmail faq, created virtual
domain, got Mess822, starting to use new-inject in
/alias/.qmail-catchall-default, but I am unable to reach a satisfiing set
of parameters for it.
Somehow I get the feeling that the virtdomail idea is not designed
for tis situation, or am I wrong ???
Help will be apriciated.
Alex.
|
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here
|
hi i write one
http://www.enderunix.org/isoqlog
it suppliess your request
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> did anyone make the attemt to get the output of qmailanalog in a
> webpage. I think of kind of report-page where you get a short monthly
> summary for each local/virtual domain (how many messages, how many Megs,
> etc.)
> If there is nothing like this around, would anyone else be interested in
> such a script or is it just me?
>
> bye
>
> /ch
>
What's the point? If you have root on the machine you can view it from the
terminal session. Just output the results of the various reports that
qmailanalog has to a file that is available on your web server.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> did anyone make the attemt to get the output of qmailanalog in a
> webpage. I think of kind of report-page where you get a short monthly
> summary for each local/virtual domain (how many messages, how many Megs,
> etc.)
> If there is nothing like this around, would anyone else be interested in
> such a script or is it just me?
>
> bye
>
> /ch
>
"Keith Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I followed the directions to the T in Life with Qmail -
>http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html. At the end of the install,
>chapter 2, I re-booted.
>
>After my system booted I type ps and there was only 2 processes
>running:
>
>1) bash
>2) ps
You're not seeing all the processes. Try one of:
ps -ef
ps waux
Or even:
qmail stat
(after you put /usr/local/sbin in root's path).
>Then I issued the command "/usr/local/sbin/qmail start".
>
>PS then showed 9 processes running:
>
>1) bash
>2) svscan
>3) supervise
>4) supervise
>5) supervise
>6) supervise
>7) tcpserver
>8) qmail-lspawn
>9) ps
You're still not seeing all processes.
>Several questions:
>1) Why did I have to start qmail manually?
You probably didn't.
>2) According to the TEST.deliver file there should be 4 processes
>running:
> a) qmail-send
> b) qmail-lspawn
> c) qmail-rspawn
> d) qmail-clean
>Could these be showing as supervise?
No.
>3) LWQ says "logging will be accomplished by multilog" Where is the
>log?
/var/log/qmail/current for qmail-send
/var/log/qmail/smtpd/current for qmail-smtpd (really just tcpserver)
-Dave
Is it just me, or do you folks that run lists find that many of the messages stuck in
the queue are to @home.com recipients?
Whilst watching my logs, I see *many*
"Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establsih_an_SMTP_connection._". I knew they had mail
problems, but sheesh!
--
./mk
Marc Knoop wrote:
> Is it just me, or do you folks that run lists find that many of the
> messages stuck in the queue are to @home.com recipients?
not so much @home, but usually half of aol's mail exchangers fail to
respond at any given point.
Funny you say that... We've had a broken link to them since
01-10-2001 ~ Tons of mail in the queue... =(
Following is a tracert snippet...
Tracing route to home.com [199.172.150.102]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
10 111 ms 110 ms 120 ms p1-0.lsanca1-br2.bbnplanet.net [4.24.6.77]
11 121 ms 110 ms 140 ms p2-0.lsanca1-br1.bbnplanet.net [4.24.4.13]
12 120 ms 161 ms 130 ms p7-3.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net [4.24.5.210]
13 120 ms 121 ms 150 ms p4-0.paloalto-nbr1.bbnplanet.net [4.0.5.65]
14 150 ms 121 ms 130 ms p1-0.paloalto-cr1.bbnplanet.net [4.0.6.74]
15 * * * Request timed out.
Do you have DSL??? Who is your provider???
Jesse
: Is it just me, or do you folks that run lists find that many of the
messages stuck in the queue are to @home.com recipients?
:
: Whilst watching my logs, I see *many*
"Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establsih_an_SMTP_connection._". I knew they had
mail problems, but sheesh!
:
: --
: ./mk
Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am noticing all the mail going into the queue and maybe
>10 qmail-remote processes whereas I have 250 set for
>concurrencyremote!
You restarted qmail after you modified concurrencyremote? Grep for
"status:" in your qmail-send logs to verify that qmail-send agrees
that concurrencyremote is set to 250.
>THis makes no sense to me. THis is a freebsd system and yes sendmail is a
>symlink to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail. All my config looks right.......I have
>not had this problem before. What is happening?
Could be a lot of things. Have you verified that resource starvation
isn't problem? E.g., you've got plenty of CPU cycles going to qmail,
adequate RAM, adequate network bandwidth, adequate disk I/O
performance...
>....i am out of ideas...i
>checked /var/log/qmail/current and /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current....mail
>looks like it is going out fine. qmail-showwhatever shows everythign is
>great......but everything gets thrown in the queue...so many almost
>damaging it.
qmail *always* queues all mail. That's not a problem.
>I am not sure if I am on these mailing lists...so please cc
>directly to me....thx in advance.
Done.
-Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dave Sill wrote:
>Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I am noticing all the mail going into the queue and maybe
>>10 qmail-remote processes whereas I have 250 set for
>>concurrencyremote!
>
>Could be a lot of things. Have you verified that resource starvation
>isn't problem? E.g., you've got plenty of CPU cycles going to qmail,
>adequate RAM, adequate network bandwidth, adequate disk I/O
>performance...
To wit: we just switched to qmail here at Prairienet, and it's so much
more efficient than sendmail that disk i/o became the new bottleneck.
Output of "top" is very helpful ...
- -d
- --
David Talkington
Prairienet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
217-244-1962
PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6
iQEVAwUBOmUs971ZYOtSwT+tAQE8lQgAlxEsq7Ik/fqMI+FsLnJr5hMGfV855WGw
ovmAr/yDpSTuwrh1wooJZD+aBU2kgG1qOa4mHfFoc8gVBqhkP7Xa1lt2z+U2AbJg
+YIbbcFJMxwuo4EmLpXQJ0fnwrcA90UZp157+W0k/TuvzTvYkVpr1t6N6aLjkusw
JNpvVxMf9KL/ZG8wfPoU++45EAmzNd5hI2vh9Uq1M79Bn94mtVpDuHuFfOTprhaR
ReF5XtTJtzLQKWw+iCOJYKpe6zWXh+mEahh8mHZodhESiOF+hzTwRd2sUZYNJVse
7n+jrldJWrnAezx7Rxvr9tGQmmft0ZEB/zJCTZm1rhcx6opV4ZFiaA==
=FIPD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
yes network bandwitch is a problem.....
but that does not explain why all the qmail-remote processes still would
not be there.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, David Talkington wrote:
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:26:12 -0600 (CST)
> From: David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: qmail help quick!
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
> >Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I am noticing all the mail going into the queue and maybe
> >>10 qmail-remote processes whereas I have 250 set for
> >>concurrencyremote!
> >
> >Could be a lot of things. Have you verified that resource starvation
> >isn't problem? E.g., you've got plenty of CPU cycles going to qmail,
> >adequate RAM, adequate network bandwidth, adequate disk I/O
> >performance...
>
> To wit: we just switched to qmail here at Prairienet, and it's so much
> more efficient than sendmail that disk i/o became the new bottleneck.
> Output of "top" is very helpful ...
>
> - -d
>
> - --
> David Talkington
> Prairienet
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 217-244-1962
>
> PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 6.5.8
> Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6
>
> iQEVAwUBOmUs971ZYOtSwT+tAQE8lQgAlxEsq7Ik/fqMI+FsLnJr5hMGfV855WGw
> ovmAr/yDpSTuwrh1wooJZD+aBU2kgG1qOa4mHfFoc8gVBqhkP7Xa1lt2z+U2AbJg
> +YIbbcFJMxwuo4EmLpXQJ0fnwrcA90UZp157+W0k/TuvzTvYkVpr1t6N6aLjkusw
> JNpvVxMf9KL/ZG8wfPoU++45EAmzNd5hI2vh9Uq1M79Bn94mtVpDuHuFfOTprhaR
> ReF5XtTJtzLQKWw+iCOJYKpe6zWXh+mEahh8mHZodhESiOF+hzTwRd2sUZYNJVse
> 7n+jrldJWrnAezx7Rxvr9tGQmmft0ZEB/zJCTZm1rhcx6opV4ZFiaA==
> =FIPD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
|
Hi, I'm running qmail+vpopmail in a redhat 6.2 box.
Instaled yesterday
and never installed before, only managed some
systems already installed.
It seems I doesn't have a mail defined for the bounce mails to go for?
I'm sure that doesn't exist. I thought I would
recibe some bounce mail in
--->
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at
tuxar.com.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the
bounce bounced!
<@tuxar.com>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that
name. vpopmail (#5.1.1)
--- Below this line is the original
bounce.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 12560 invoked from
network); 16 Jan 2001 03:47:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO pepe)
(192.168.1.2)
by ol50-71.fibertel.com.ar with SMTP; 16 Jan 2001
03:47:46 -0000
asdf
--->
It seems all bounced mail double-bounces and
finally got to postmaster. How
can I solve this? Is this important? Would cause
any damage?
Bellow is the output for qmail-showctl, that I
thought It may be usefull for you:
--->
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext
delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
silent concurrency limit:
120.
subdirectory split: 23.
user ids: 512, 513, 514, 0, 515, 516, 517,
518.
group ids: 512, 513.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is
allowed.
bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is
MAILER-DAEMON.
bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is
tuxar.com.
concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is
10.
concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is
20.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0
bytes.
defaultdomain: Default domain name is
tuxar.com.
defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is
tuxar.com.
doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host:
tuxar.com.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user:
postmaster.
envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is
tuxar.com.
helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is
tuxar.com.
idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is
tuxar.com.
localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes
tuxar.com.
locals:
me: My name is tuxar.com.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not
allowed.
plusdomain: Plus domain name is
tuxar.com.
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP
servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the
queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts:
SMTP clients may send messages to
recipients at tuxar.com.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No
effect.
smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220
tuxar.com.
smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP
routes.
timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection
timeout is 60 seconds.
timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout
is 1200 seconds.
timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout
is 1200 seconds.
virtualdomains:
Virtual domain:
tuxar.com:tuxar.com
rcpthosts.lock: I have no idea what this file
does.
virtualdomains.lock: I have no idea what this file
does.
locals.lock: I have no idea what this file
does.
--->
Sorry If this is docummented elsewhere and I
missed. Thanks in advance,
Sebastian Brocher
|
> --->
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at tuxar.com.
> I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced!
>
> <@tuxar.com>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. vpopmail (#5.1.1)
>
> --- Below this line is the original bounce.
>
> Return-Path: <>
> Received: (qmail 12560 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2001 03:47:46 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO pepe) (192.168.1.2)
> by ol50-71.fibertel.com.ar with SMTP; 16 Jan 2001 03:47:46 -0000
> asdf
> --->
A complet bounce message with all of the headers
including the original message would be much appriciated.
To me it looks like your envelope sender address is bogus,
but I can't realy be 100% sure if I don't see the rest of the bounce!
MVH André Paulsberg
Sorry, if this is somewhat off topic, but I haven't found a ucspi-tcp list.
(and nothing approriate searching with search engines ;-)
Has someone written an addon to tcpserver that allows control of
connection frequency based on ip addresses?
I am thinking of something like specifing
1.2.3.4 20 connects per 10 minutes
If that limit is hit tcpserver would either deny the connection or start
an optional other program e.g. smtpreject which could send
220 mail.example.com
and a
451 too many connections
as an answer to sucessive commands.
Thanks,
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | 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.
Try the docs that come with qmailanalog.
/usr/local/qmailanalog/doc/MATCHUP
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am searching for the Documentation of qmailanalog from last one
> day on net. but unable to find it.Please suggest me
> where i can get that or if somebody has with him pl. mail me.
>
> Thanks,
> Piyush Jain.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
Sorry this is only partially qmail related;
In the Log files generated by ezmlm in DIR/Log, does "-probe" mean the
user was removed or only that the user was probed? I'm trying to run
statistics and can't find a conclusive answer in the man pages. Thanks!
Brian
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 05:56:19PM -0800, Brian Ghidinelli wrote:
> In the Log files generated by ezmlm in DIR/Log, does "-probe" mean the
> user was removed or only that the user was probed? I'm trying to run
> statistics and can't find a conclusive answer in the man pages. Thanks!
+ subscribe via email
- unsubscribe via email
+manual subscribe manually (e.g. commandline)
+manual unsubscribe manually (e.g. commandline)
-probe removed because a probe message that bounced back
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | 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.
|
Which is the best autoresponder to be used with
qmail and any suggestions as to how to inject the message with an attachment
using qmail-inject
|
|
qmail-autoresponder MESSAGE_FILE
DIRECTORY
this is what qmail-autoresponder gives as
command..
the MESSAG?E_FILE should have certain arguments
...
could anybody pls give me a sample of the
same...
and is DIRECTORY mandatory...
if yes pls anybody could site me an
example...
|
I've got a perl script (albeit crude and unsightly) which parses qmail
logs to determine the distribution of MTAs based on the SMTP 250
response.
The script uses standard perlre to identify a particular MTA.
What I'm doing with this post is to solicit your help in creating a
list of definitive patterns that identify particular MTAs.
If you respond, I have a particular format I'd like to see, namely:
MTA version pattern
Here's a sample to give you an idea:
qmail all _250_ok_\d+_qp_\d+
sendmail 8.11 _250_2\.0\.0_\w+_Message_accepted_for_delivery
sendmail all _250_[A-Z][A-Z][A-Z]\d+_Message_accepted_for_delivery
hotmail any _250_Requested_mail_action_okay,_completed
unknown any .*
Thus all versions of qmail are identified by a pattern that matches
_250_ok_\d+_qp_\d+ and version 8.11 of sendmail is identified
primarily by the 2.0.0 response.
So, for those of you familiar enough with perlre and who have access
to an identifiable MTA, can you post the MTA name and version, the 250
response and ideally a pattern that uniquely matches it?
Even if you don't know perlre, just the definitive 250 response and
the associated MTA is very welcome. In all cases, please include the
real IP address so that I can probe it if necessary.
Ultimately I'll make the script and patterns public so that anyone can
analyze their logs and hopefully make the results generally available.
Regards.
PS. I'm a perl weenie, so be gentle...
