qmail Digest 5 May 2001 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1355
Topics (messages 61965 through 61998):
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
61965 by: Robin S. Socha
61967 by: Dave Sill
61968 by: Markus Stumpf
61971 by: John Hogan
61980 by: q question
61983 by: Adam McKenna
61986 by: Dave Sill
61988 by: Brett
61989 by: Kris von Mach
Re: qmail-smtpd, qmail-send and multiple IP addresses
61966 by: Rodrigo Severo
61973 by: Filip Sneppe \(Yucom\)
61996 by: Karsten W. Rohrbach
REMOVE
61969 by: test test
61993 by: Dave Schultz
Re: Huge Maildirs?
61970 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: FromMail.pl
61972 by: Lisa Applegate
Qmail and its parts.
61974 by: Carl J. Danowski
61975 by: Chris Johnson
61976 by: Carl J. Danowski
61997 by: Johan Almqvist
qmtp
61977 by: Steve Hagerman
61981 by: Henning Brauer
61982 by: Charles Cazabon
61984 by: Peter van Dijk
61998 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: Missing step in qmail+mysql! pls help!
61978 by: Tim Legant
Cluster
61979 by: Tony Vickers
61985 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: Filter incoming messages for one particualr user
61987 by: John R. Levine
Re: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"?
61990 by: root.mail.delanet.com
61991 by: root.mail.delanet.com
61995 by: Michael Boyiazis
POP3 Cluster
61992 by: Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga
Filter incoming message
61994 by: K. F. YIm
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010504 04:49]:
[...]
> You are posting tons of useless OFF TOPIC stuff and not a single on-topic
> message so far, please stop this NOW.
http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/19/7271589 - nice site,
too.
And fix your sig. Noone's gonna call you with an MUA, you know? }:->
"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was appalled when [Charles] said "please don't post BIND zonefiles
>to Dan's lists". That is a blanket directive that is not necessarily
>shared by everyone on this list, certainly not me.
directive <> request
>A few lines of zone records speaks volumes for BINDthinkers and they are
>well worth the space in the email.
BINDthinkers are WRONGthinkers. djbdnsthinkers are RIGHTthinkers. :-)
Zone files are as welcome here as sendmail.cf's: not very. DJB went to
a great deal of effort to free us from crapware like Sendmail and
BIND. Please show him a little respect.
-Dave
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:14:52AM +0300, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> But you are absolutely sure that it won't? If so, great, no problemo then.
You can't be sure about anything.
There are broken DNS libraries out there, paranoid configured
tcpservers/inetds/...
The funny thing about this whole thread is that the source of all
problems is probably a lousy provider, that doesn't care for PTR
delegations. So why don't you get yourself a caring one?
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
temper, temper, Henning...
my temper got me into trouble earlier this week... just let them act like children and
let it go
- hogan
At 03:15 AM 5/4/2001, you wrote:
>On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:18:56PM -0500, q question wrote:
>> >Please stop this useless flaming. You aren't posting anything usefull, just
>> >flaming charles. This is a technical discussion list, no smalltalk. Either
>> >provide answers or participate in technical discussions or shut up.
>> I am not flaming Charles in any way. I have been completely respectful.
>
>Sure. What else.
>
>> I
>> have requested that he not issue blanket directives that are not necessarily
>> shared by all.
>
>You are posting tons of useless OFF TOPIC stuff and not a single on-topic
>message so far, please stop this NOW.
>
>--
>Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
>Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
>http://www.bsws.de | Germany
>
>Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
>(Dennis Ritchie)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
>Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:32:58 -0400
>
>"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I was appalled when [Charles] said "please don't post BIND zonefiles
> >to Dan's lists". That is a blanket directive that is not necessarily
> >shared by everyone on this list, certainly not me.
>
>directive <> request
>
> >A few lines of zone records speaks volumes for BINDthinkers and they are
> >well worth the space in the email.
>
>BINDthinkers are WRONGthinkers. djbdnsthinkers are RIGHTthinkers. :-)
>
>Zone files are as welcome here as sendmail.cf's: not very. DJB went to
>a great deal of effort to free us from crapware like Sendmail and
>BIND. Please show him a little respect.
>
>-Dave
I have shown respect for DJB and everyone on this list. I am looking very
seriously at installing djbdns, and I'm sure that djbdns is in fact probably
going to show itself to be superior to BIND.
BINDthinkers cannot just jump blindly into djbdnsthink. There are going to
be a few posts now and again where someone is going to show a few zone
records to clarify their point while they transition into qmail/djbdns/etc.
Noone should say: "please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists". This
fellow only showed a few lines, not his entire zonefile. I made one simple
request to Charles not to shut down this kind of information and received
arguments from Charles which I responded to. In the process of responding to
the arguments generated by Charles, I have been accused wrongly of being
off-topic.
END OF DISCUSSION
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:19:17PM -0500, q question wrote:
> I have shown respect for DJB and everyone on this list. I am looking very
> seriously at installing djbdns, and I'm sure that djbdns is in fact probably
> going to show itself to be superior to BIND.
Heh, it's funny how some people talk about respect and yet hide behind fake
e-mail addresses and pseudonyms.
--Adam
"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>END OF DISCUSSION
Sorry, q, but I'm not ready to end the discussion, despite your
declaration.
>Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>>"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I was appalled when [Charles] said "please don't post BIND zonefiles
>> >to Dan's lists". That is a blanket directive that is not necessarily
>> >shared by everyone on this list, certainly not me.
>>
>>directive <> request
You ignored this comment, which is, I think, critical. Charles said
"please don't post...". Charles did not say "never post...". The
former is a request. The latter is a directive. If Charles had given a
directive, your reaction *might* have been justified.
>BINDthinkers cannot just jump blindly into djbdnsthink. There are going to
>be a few posts now and again where someone is going to show a few zone
>records to clarify their point while they transition into qmail/djbdns/etc.
Such zone file excerpts should be prefaced with an apology. If no
apology is included, offenders should not be surprised if people point
out their faux pas.
>Noone should say: "please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists".
Who is Noone, and why should he repeat Charles' request?
-Dave
Everybody seriously needs to lighten up.
A LOT.
At 03:37 PM 5/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >BINDthinkers cannot just jump blindly into djbdnsthink. There are going to
> >be a few posts now and again where someone is going to show a few zone
> >records to clarify their point while they transition into qmail/djbdns/etc.
>
>Such zone file excerpts should be prefaced with an apology. If no
>apology is included, offenders should not be surprised if people point
>out their faux pas.
>
>-Dave
Um guys... All I wanted to know was why you can't use CNAME for a MX record.
The question has been answered, and maybe this topic can be dropped now? Or
should we continue on giving our opinions on what should and shouldn't be
posted and how it should be posted, etc...
Second, I just wanted to point out that this is qmail list, not djdns or
bind list. So asking a question related to qmail, and using a format of bind
or djdns zone files to give further explanation of what is the
question/problem should be ok. If bind zone files offend you, I think you
might have a bigger problem to worry about. It's like saying inetd startup
script for qmail offends me because I use tcpserver... Come on, give it a
break. And giving an apology for posting relevant info? Maybe you should
also put in an apology, every time you write something that might offend
someone...
The questions have been asked and answered, lets just move on with our lives
now and end this thread.
On an ending note, I appreciate everyone that responded to my question and
gave me relevant info. I have fixed it on our servers, and am very happy
that I am now RFC compliant.
__
Kris.
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
>
> Is there a way to get qmail to use the IP that mail is recived in on to
> resend it back out ?
AFAIK the answer is no. I have been looking for some similar feature: I
want to set the src address depending on the e-mail bandwidth
requirement, you want to set it acording to the address it entered
through.
I managed to implement what I want with a major hack (also called
gambiara in portuguese): I already used qmail-scanner to filter my
e-mails for virus. Now qmail-scanner is also choosing which of my - now
- two qmail instances to use.
The new instance I installed yesterday has Damir Cifer outgoingip patch.
I believe you should take a look at <http://www.qmail.org> looking for
the 'bind to ip' patches. Besides Damir Cifer patch there are others
that might interest you, for example: Bill Nugent's updated patch.
None of them is exactly what you are looking for but you might be able
to create a gambiara that suit your needs.
I hope I helped you in some way,
Rodrigo Severo
From: Darcy Buskermolen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Is there a way to get qmail to use the IP that mail is recived in on to
> resend it back out ?
>
> ie My qmail box has a few IP applied to it.
>
> 10.1.1.1
> 10.1.1.2
> 10.1.1.3
>
> I'd like mail comming in via smtp on 10.1.1.2 to go out useing 10.1.1.2 as
> the src address. Currently it defaults to 10.1.1.1
>
> IS there a way to do this ?
Hi Darcy,
I think you should look into the NAT (network Address Translation)
possibilities that are offered by the underlying operating system, rather
than trying to change the behavior of network applications like qmail.
I can't speak for all UNICES, but on Linux 2.4, you could make use of the
netfilter/iptables architecture to do some source address NAT in the
netfilter postrouting table based on the source and/or destination
destination TCP/UDP ports. It might also be possible to do it on a 2.2
kernel with advanced routing support and iproute2.
I'd be glad to hear from *BSD people on the list if ipfilter offers similar
functionality (possibly in private email).
Regards,
Filip
Filip Sneppe (Yucom)([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.05.04 16:12:44 +0000:
> I'd be glad to hear from *BSD people on the list if ipfilter offers similar
> functionality (possibly in private email).
ipf on bsd should provide this feature via nat bimap
/k
>
> Regards,
> Filip
--
> Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
KR433/KR11-RIPE -- http://www.webmonster.de -- ftp://ftp.webmonster.de
[Key] [KeyID---] [Created-] [Fingerprint-------------------------------------]
GnuPG 0x2964BF46 2001-03-15 42F9 9FFF 50D4 2F38 DBEE DF22 3340 4F4E 2964 BF46
REMOVE
Dave Schultz
Tech Support
casagrande.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List Monkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with HUGE Maildir's? I have an account that
> is subscribed to a lot of high traffic mailing lists (like this one), and
> I want to keep all the messages on my server.
I do this; however, I use qmail's extension addressing scheme to put each
mailing list in a different Maildir. I still have archive Maildirs with 3,000
or 5,000 messages in them.
> I have seen grumblings, but no concrete info, on what may happen when your
> Maildir contains 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 messages?
It's not really specific to Maildirs, but many OSes and filesystems slow down
significantly when you have a large number of files in a single directory
(like Maildir/cur/), due to the linear-scan nature of directory access in most
filesystems. Some systems have implemented internal hashing and whatnot to
speed these operations up; patches have been posted to the linux-kernel
mailing list in the last few months showing ten- or hundredfold-increase in
speed in directories with 10,000 or more files.
Until you notice that it's slow, it's not a problem.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> "FA" == Flavio Alberto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
FA> FormMailpl http://www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/ work it
FA> qmail?
Be advised that formmail.pl has a giant security hole in it, allowing
spammers to abuse your script and use it as an anonymous relay.
Another perl script with better security and similar functionality is
"mailer", which can be found here:
http://www.geekgiveaways.com/code/
Lisa
--
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable
to dispense it.
-- Dick Cavett
|
I don't normally ask for help, but this thing
(qmail and associated programs) is driving me nuts.
Environment and background:
O/S: RedHat 7.0
compiled and installed these packages:
qmail-1.03+patches-18
supervise-scripts-3.3-1
ucspi-tcp-0.88-1
ucspi-unix-0.34-1
vmailmgr-0.96.9-2
vmailmgr-courier-imap-0.96.9-2
vmailmgr-daemon-0.96.9-2
While I thought I've configured everything
according to the million man files...mail comes in, gets put into a directory
under /var/qmail/queue
ps -ef | grep qmail reveals:
root
198 194 0 08:59 ?
00:00:00 supervise qmail
qmaild
570 1 0 09:00
? 00:00:00 tcpserver -c 100 -u 101 -g
102 0
so qmail is apparantly running.
qmail-showctl looks good. my rcpthosts
contains the name of the mailserver, the name of the domain.
virtualdomains looks good.. for both users i have
defined right now, it has the name of the domain and the username
(domainname:username).
/etc/qmail/users/assign formatted according to the
man page.
qmail-qstat reveals:
messages in queue: 24
messages in queue but not
yet preprocessed: 14
It would help me greatly if anyone could help me
understand how all these things fit together. I know supervise is a
replacement for just putting something in rc.d or whatever, and i think i have
that running right, since qmail is running. What I'm hoping to
accomplish is the delivery of the email into the correct user's
maildir. Confused as to how vmailmgr fits into this, i've even made the
.qmail file in the user's directory simply point at the maildir directory,
instead of using the | to send the mail to the vmailmgr.
Could someone get me started?
Thanks..
Carl Danowski
|
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 12:57:56PM -0400, Carl J. Danowski wrote:
> While I thought I've configured everything according to the million man
> files...mail comes in, gets put into a directory under /var/qmail/queue
>
> ps -ef | grep qmail reveals:
>
> root 198 194 0 08:59 ? 00:00:00 supervise qmail
> qmaild 570 1 0 09:00 ? 00:00:00 tcpserver -c 100 -u 101 -g 102 0
>
> so qmail is apparantly running.
It looks like it's not running. You should see these:
qmails 235 0.0 0.4 952 472 con- I 17Apr01 0:57.48 qmail-send
root 242 0.0 0.3 888 380 con- I 17Apr01 0:10.77 qmail-lspawn ./Maildir/
qmailr 243 0.0 0.3 888 424 con- I 17Apr01 0:01.92 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 244 0.0 0.3 876 384 con- I 17Apr01 0:09.98 qmail-clean
It looks like you probably have qmail-smtpd running, which will happily queue
mail that comes in via SMTP, but qmail-send isn't there to process it once it's
queued.
What's in /service/qmail/run? Is /service/qmail/run executable? Is anything in
the logs?
Chris
PGP signature
oops. i chmod'd run and ran it. immediately it tried to process the queue.
thanks. i hate it when it's something stupid, and, of course, my question
went to the millions (haha) on this list. . now, i've just got to figure
out why it's not "able to chdir to Maildir." hmm...
thanks again.
carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Carl J. Danowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail and its parts.
* "Carl J. Danowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010504 19:32]:
> oops. i chmod'd run and ran it. immediately it tried to process the queue.
> thanks. i hate it when it's something stupid, and, of course, my question
> went to the millions (haha) on this list. . now, i've just got to figure
> out why it's not "able to chdir to Maildir." hmm...
Permissions on the Maildir are probably wrong. Did you create a users
Maildir as root?
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
I thought about giving it a whirl but wouldnt do much good if im the only
one.
Administrator
Steve Hagerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advancedisp.com/
Phone: 864-220-1594
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:58:26PM -0400, Steve Hagerman wrote:
> Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
Meaning the modified qmail-remote, running qmail-qmtpd and annoucing this
via MXPS? We do it for everthing hosted here.
> I thought about giving it a whirl but wouldnt do much good if im the only
> one.
You aren't. There are coming mails in via qmtp, though it's less then 1%.
--
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
Steve Hagerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
Yes, many people on this list are using Dan's MXPS proposal. Russell Nelson
and others have QMTP patches for qmail. See qmail.org for details.
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 Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:58:26PM -0400, Steve Hagerman wrote:
> Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
> I thought about giving it a whirl but wouldnt do much good if im the only
> one.
I provide lists that deliver over qmtp if your MX records are
MXPS-compliant. Go to http://www.dataloss.nl/services/ for more info.
Greetz, Peter.
* Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010504 20:42]:
> Steve Hagerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
> Yes, many people on this list are using Dan's MXPS proposal. Russell Nelson
> and others have QMTP patches for qmail. See qmail.org for details.
There's also a set of patches on my page (address below).
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 12:20:50PM +0800, Foo Ji-Haw wrote:
[snip qmail+mysql information...]
> -My processes are like these:
> 36449 p0- I 0:00.01 /bin/sh /usr/local/bin/safe_mysqld --datadir=/var/db/
> 36478 p0- S 0:00.60 /usr/local/libexec/mysqld --basedir=/usr/local --data
> 36678 p0- I 0:00.02 qmail-send
> 36679 p0- I 0:00.00 splogger qmail
> 36680 p0- I 0:00.00 qmail-lspawn |preline procmail
> 36681 p0- I 0:00.00 qmail-rspawn
> 36682 p0- I 0:00.00 qmail-clean
>
> The funny thing is, i can't seem to find the mysql server process, even when
> i do a 'ps aux'.
I've never used the qmail+mysql stuff, so I'm afraid I can't help you
with that. However, the mysql server process is called "mysqld" and is
the second line (above) of your 'ps' listing - PID 36478. It appears to
be running just fine.
Tim
--
* * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l
qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying
FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains
* * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
I was wondering if there is a way to do a reverse of QMTP. What I would like
to do is put Qmail on 4 systems in a cluster (no NFS) with a queue and do
nothing but forward all mail to the main mail server. This way if my main
mail server goes down all mail is queued until that main server comes back
online
Tony
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:19:40AM -0700, Tony Vickers wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a way to do a reverse of QMTP. What I would like
> to do is put Qmail on 4 systems in a cluster (no NFS) with a queue and do
> nothing but forward all mail to the main mail server. This way if my main
> mail server goes down all mail is queued until that main server comes back
> online
You probably mean the reverse of QMQP there :)
Regardless, your setup is simple: set primary MX to your main mail
server, and put the 4 backuphosts at secondary MX levels, all 4 the
same. Done.
Greetz, Peter.
>> Let's say I have a user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", whose home directory is
>> /home/mailuser. I want to set things up so that mailuser only accepts
>> messages from one particular e-mail address. In other words, if the sender
>> is any other address besides [EMAIL PROTECTED], mailuser will silently
>> throw the message away. If the message is from [EMAIL PROTECTED], it
>> completes the instructions in mailuser's .qmail file (which right now
>> forwards to three other addresses).
It's very easy. Put this as the first line in the .qmail file:
| case "$SENDER" in [EMAIL PROTECTED]) exit 0 ;; *) exit 99 ;; esac
The exit 99 tells qmail to skip the rest of the .qmail file.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
hi jason why not just say /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote
add it there...have a good day.
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Jason Brooke wrote:
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:35:45 +1000
> From: Jason Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"?
>
> > my qmail-mrtg show that the qmail concurrency value 20 is not enough. anyone
> > can tell me how to increase it.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Chris
>
>
> Hi Chris
>
> Please read 'FAQ' in your source directory, or have a look at
> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html which is linked from www.qmail.org
>
> jason
>
>
>
> hi jason why not just say /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote
>
> add it there...have a good day.
Because I'd prefer to politely teach people to learn to help themselves if they
can
jason
do we know that he meant for remote delivery?
your answer is not necessarily correct. checking
the FAQ or lifewithqmail *would* be better since
it would include info about both local and remote
deliveries.
--
Michael Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 1:59 PM
> To: Jason Brooke
> Cc: Chris; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"?
>
>
>
>
> hi jason why not just say /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote
>
> add it there...have a good day.
>
>
> On Fri, 4 May 2001, Jason Brooke wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:35:45 +1000
> > From: Jason Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"?
> >
> > > my qmail-mrtg show that the qmail concurrency value 20 is
> not enough. anyone
> > > can tell me how to increase it.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Chris
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris
> >
> > Please read 'FAQ' in your source directory, or have a look at
> > http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html which is linked from
> www.qmail.org
> >
> > jason
> >
> >
> >
>
Hi,
Anyone on the list(s) have any idea of how to make a "independent-of-another-
servers" pop3 cluster on a group of qmail-vpopmail servers? Preferentlly on
distinct DMZs.
B.R.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga - Analista de Suporte - #179653
Blumenau - Santa Catarina. Tel. (47) 9102-3303
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi,
Not being a programming guru, does this mean that if I put:
KF
>
>> Let's say I have a user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", whose home
directory is
> >> /home/mailuser. I want to set things up so
that mailuser only accepts
> >> messages from one particular e-mail
address. In other words, if the sender
> >> is any other
address besides [EMAIL PROTECTED], mailuser will
silently
> >> throw the message away. If the message is from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], it
>
>> completes the instructions in mailuser's .qmail file (which right
now
> >> forwards to three other addresses).
>
> It's
very easy. Put this as the first line in the .qmail file:
>
>
| case "$SENDER" in [EMAIL PROTECTED]) exit 0 ;; *)
exit 99 ;; esac
>
> The exit 99 tells qmail to skip the rest of the
.qmail file.
>
> --
> John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727,
Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer
Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
> Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial
E-mail
|
