[vchkpw] Vpopmaild

[robert]

Im a little confused on installing the vpopmail daemon. Im trying to
install the vhost php panel and it stated on the website to install the
latest devel with the vpopmail daemon 5.5.3. So my question is, is that
the total install for vpopmail? Or do I have to install vpopmail first
then the 5.5.3 dev code?

Second how do I install the vpopmail daemon? I dont see anything in the
README or INSTALL about it.

Thanks
Robert

[vchkpw] Vpopmail with PHP

[robert]

I believe I sent this to the list last time, but didnt get any responses.
Basically I just want to know if the dev code 5.5.3 of vpopmail is all I
need to run vpopmail. I noticed the latest stable version is 5.4.x.
According to the website I need the latest dev code to get vpopmail
daemon.

Is 5.5.3 the complete vpopmail code? Or do you have to install it along
with the latest version of stable vpopmail? The reason I ask is because
the stable version was recently released where the dev code shows it was
released back in March.

Thanks
Robert

Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail with PHP

[robert]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I believe I sent this to the list last time, but didnt get any
>> responses.
>> Basically I just want to know if the dev code 5.5.3 of vpopmail is all I
>> need to run vpopmail. I noticed the latest stable version is 5.4.x.
>> According to the website I need the latest dev code to get vpopmail
>> daemon.
>>
>> Is 5.5.3 the complete vpopmail code? Or do you have to install it along
>> with the latest version of stable vpopmail? The reason I ask is because
>> the stable version was recently released where the dev code shows it was
>> released back in March.
>
> Hi,
>
> We are using vpopmail 5.4.x with vpopmaild compiled from the CVS code in
> production.  All you need to be aware of is that the 5.4.x code in
> qmailadmin / vuserinfo does not handle the new bit masks on the uid of
> the user (ie you have to manually set it yourself).
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick
>
>


Thanks for the response. Im installing the system from scratch so the
question is, is 5.5.3 all I need? Is it the complete vpopmail software?

Thanks!
Robert

Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail with PHP

[robert]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response. Im installing the system from scratch so the
>> question is, is 5.5.3 all I need? Is it the complete vpopmail software?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Robert
>
> Hi,
>
> I think the answer depends on where you are getting the 5.5.3 software
> from.
>
> I think Bill or Ken has a 5.5.3 version that is stable but I've never
> run it.
>
> I'd ask the owner of where you got it from.
>
> Rick
>
>


I got it straight from the inter7.com website:

http://www.inter7.com/?page=vhostadmin

Down at the bottom for the requirements.

Robert

Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail with PHP

[robert]

> Rick Macdougall wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response. Im installing the system from scratch so the
>>> question is, is 5.5.3 all I need? Is it the complete vpopmail software?
>
> If it is from CVS on SourceForge...
>
> Yes it is complete.  It is well tested with cdb, lightly tested with
> MySQL and untested with all other authentication modules, although I
> have attempted to keep them consistent with the changes made.
>
> If you see any problems - let me know, preferably on the sourceforge
> vpopmail-devel list.
>
> Rick
>


So why does vpopmail have the latest stable version as 5.4.13, which was
recently released in October, yet have a version 5.5.3 which was released
back in March as dev? Thats where Im getting confused.

Thanks
Robert

Courier-IMAP / VPOPMAIL Admin password

[Robert Borden]

how can I set the imap admin password needed by 
webmail program imp to check for the users quota?
 
Rob

RE: [vchkpw] When to use MySQL with Vpopmail?

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

Many thanks to Steve and Bill for providing me with a better
understanding of when MySQL might be a better solution than using CDB.
Considering I am not a DBA, nor do I have any working experience with
MySQL, I'd rather not have to use it at the moment if I can get away
with it.  Your explanations help me get a better grasp of when it may
become necessary.

You guys rock!

Robert Kropiewnicki
Network Administrator
StructuredWeb Inc.
Phone: 201-325-3146
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

Hi,

I have a working install of QMail on a RedHat 7.3 system.  It hosts my domains 
email server.  (RP2C.COM) and all was working well.  I wanted to be able to 
host mail users without local accounts, and according to Dave Sill's book 
vpopmail was a way to do that.  I have a number of employees that I want to 
provide email to but I don't want them necessarily to have accounts on this 
system.  Also they will be coming in from the all over the internet so I 
wanted to enable POP and/or IMAP services.

I got the POP3D service running just fine, but as far as I can tell in order 
to host users mail without accounts the way to go is a virtual domain type 
service like vpopmail.  Maybe I am confused but does this mean I have to 
acquire another top level domain name?  Can't I just turn my current domain 
into a "virtual" domain as far as Qmail is concerned?  

Anyway, after installing vpopmail I altered my POP3d run file to have it use 
vchkpw as opposed to checkpassword.  At that point all logins failed, both 
for the virtual domain and the real user based accounts.

I tried telneting into 0 110 and got past the user x stage okay, when I 
put in pass yy I got an AUTH failed message.  Replacing vchkpw with 
checkpassword again and restarting the service resulted in everything working 
again.

I am stumped?  Any ideas?

Cheers,

Robert Porter
RP2C Inc

Re: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:30 pm, rm wrote:
>
> Could you post your pop3d run script?  and are you using the mysql
> option?
>
> regis
This is the current one, which works with local users

#!/bin/sh
MAXPOP3D=`head -1 /var/qmail/control/concurrencypop3`
exec /command/softlimit -m 200 \
 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -H -l -o -x /etc/tcp.pop3.cdb -c "$MAXPOP3D" \
 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup zoomer.rp2c.com /bin/checkpassword \
 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1

This is the modified one which fails.
I also tried replacing the real host with mail.rp2c.com which is a valid MX 
record in DNS but points to the same host.  And I added mail.rp2c.com to the 
virtualhosts file etc.  Still no joy. 

#!/bin/sh
MAXPOP3D=`head -1 /var/qmail/control/concurrencypop3`
exec /command/softlimit -m 200 \
 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -H -l -o -x /etc/tcp.pop3.cdb -c "$MAXPOP3D" \
 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup zoomer.rp2c.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw \
 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1

Re: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:30 pm, rm wrote:
>
> Could you post your pop3d run script?  and are you using the mysql
> option?
>
> regis

I forgot to add that I was not using MySql although I was thinking about it 
for later.  

Cheers,

Bob

Re: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:53 pm, rm wrote:

> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > MAXPOP3D=`head -1 /var/qmail/control/concurrencypop3`
> > exec /command/softlimit -m 200 \
> >  /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -H -l -o -x /etc/tcp.pop3.cdb -c
> > "$MAXPOP3D" \ 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup zoomer.rp2c.com
> > /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1
>
> Here's a copy of my .../pop3d/run.  I guess the big difference is your
> path to /etc/tcp.pop3.cdb.  I'm not sure what's going on there.  you
> might try this format - it's right out of "life with qmail".  I
> mentioned the mysql option because you usually have to raise the
> softlimit.
>
> #!/bin/sh
> exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 4000 \
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -H -l 0 0 110
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \
>   pop.mbpost.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw \
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1
The etc/tcp.pop3.cdb bit is from Dave Sill's book, the author of "life with 
qmail" its the database of allowed/denied TCP relay clients.  

I replaced my run script with essentially a copy of yours and still no joy, 
then I looked at Eric Moore's reply and realized what I was doing wrong.  I 
was supplying "bob" instead of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" so it had no idea 
where to look I guess.  All appears to be fine now!

Thanks!

Bob

Re: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

Thanks Kevin,

I read (am reading) the link you sent, out of curiosity does a setup like that 
support a webmail interface? If so any material on which one and how to 
implement it?

Thanks!


Bob Porter

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:07 pm, you wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Paul Gregg wrote a nice single user id how to.
>
>   http://www.pgregg.com/projects/qmail/singleuid/index.php
>
> I'd shy away from vpopmail as it doesn't really work properly.
>
> Sincerely,
>  Kevin Barnes - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Wednesday, September 04, 2002, 9:01:25 PM, you wrote:
>

Fwd: Re: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword. [T2002090500RP]

[Robert Porter]

I received this message addressed directly to me a few minutes ago.  Anyone 
have any idea why I would get such a message? Possibly someones email being 
forwarded to an abuse address?

Do you think I need to worry about it?

Cheers,

Bob Porter

--  Forwarded Message  --

Subject: Re: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword. 
[T2002090500RP]
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:17:39 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.  We are sorry for
any inconvenience it has caused you.  Because we receive a large
number of complaints each day at [EMAIL PROTECTED],  regretfully, a
personalized response to each message is not possible.

Please be assured that Verizon investigates each reported occurrence
of unsolicited e-mail or spamming.  We maintain a zero-tolerance
policy in regard to spamming and will take the appropriate action as
permitted by Verizon's Acceptable Use Policy.  To view our policy,
please refer to one of the two following links:

Former Bell Atlantic users:
http://www.bellatlantic.net/help/faqs/#faqpolicies

Former GTE users:
http://www.gte.net/hotlinks/policies/agreement.html

To better understand the problems with unsolicited e-mail, we have
provided information about filtering Spam with your e-mail software,
answers to several frequently asked questions and links to some useful
online information about Spam at the following link:

http://www.gte.net/announcements/spam.html

You may also link directly to our page about unsolicited e-mail:

http://www.gte.net/contact/spam.html

If you are reporting an issue of hacking or other security issues not
related to e-mail abuse, please submit your report to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for investigation.

Sincerely,
Verizon Internet Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

Re: Re[2]: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

How long ago was your experience with the vpopmail/sqwebmail combo? Since I am 
not going to be running a high volumn server I wonder if my experience would 
be different.  Just curious what you think.  I don't want to go the expense 
of Cold Fusion if I can avoid it.  I am a small operation < 10 employees and 
unlikely to grow much beyond that.  Might host another 20+ accounts for 
associates and contractors but that would be it.

Cheers,

Bob Porter

On Thursday 05 September 2002 12:11 am, you wrote:
> Hello Robert,
>
> No  webmail  interface.   I  use  a Cold Fusion webmail interface that
> works pretty well.
>
> I  found  in  my experimenting with vpopmail/sqwebmail/qmailadmin that
> there  were  far  more  problems  than  benefits.  I've been running a
> straight qmail server for a few years, then I added vpopmail/sqwebmail
> and qmailadmin.  After that everything went to hell, fast.  Forwarding
> did  not  work,  the webmail interface validated users for about a day
> then  quit.   qmailadmin  would  error  out  all  the  time, but still
> complete the task.
>
> I  switched back to a standard qmail install and found the cold fusion
> front  end.   Now  all  the  qmail  stuff  (forwarding,  aliasing, and
> catchall mailboxes) work just fine.
>
> Sincerely,
>  Kevin Barnes - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re[2]: [vchkpw] No joy getting vchkpw to replace checkpassword.

[Robert Porter]

Thanks for the feedback, I am going to have a look at both packages.  I think 
I will start another thread for this to solicit info/opinions on Webmail 
interfaces.

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Bob Porter

On Thursday 05 September 2002 10:32 am, Michael Anderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 11:01 PM, Robert Porter wrote:
> Bob, we started out with sqwebmail.  Personally, I liked it a lot,
> however, our clients like the squirlmail system much better.  They are
> both excellent web interfaces, and it's more like personal choice.
> sqwebmail was a little easier to install, but neither one is very
> difficult.

[vchkpw] QMAIL and Vpopmail Question

[Robert Porter]

I have Qmail and Vpopmail up and running, many thanks to this list! But I 
still have some remaining confusion over .qmail files and how they work with 
vpopmail.

Under "Native" qmail I could create a .qmail-someuser file or use the alias 
mechanism to assign mail delivery for multiple addresses to a given "real" 
user, i.e. someone with an actual account on the server.  

How do I accomplish this under vpopmail? I would like to have address's like 
webmaster@ and info@ and abuse@ to all come to one user.  The documentation I 
have been able to find is a little fuzzy on this score.

Any help, especially links or faqs that I could study would be appreciated.


-- 
Cheers,

Robert Porter   http://www.rp2c.com
RP2C Inc[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [vchkpw] qmail-inject Error

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

Paul,

Please refrain from top posting.  It makes quoting your email in context
very difficult when replying.  It is also very difficult to follow which
points your email responded to specifically.

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Theodoropoulos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] qmail-inject Error
>
>
>
> This would all be fine and dandy - if your construct were
> correct. I draw
> your attention to the word "insist" before your bullet points
> below.  "Bullet points" is perhaps ironically apropos -
> because the fact
> is, nobody has a gun to your head. Nobody can compel someone else to
> educate them/read documentation for them/etc via email to a
> mailing list.
> It's your choice to respond.
>

Yet people write email after email to technical mailing lists asking for
just that type of handholding.  There's a reason why people are
constantly told to RTFM, it's because in so many cases it is dreadfully
obvious that they haven't.

> I understand where you are coming from with your rant, but I
> also believe
> we should err on the side of compassion and humanity when
> dealing with
> ignorance (ignorance in the specific form, 'lack of knowledge on the
> subject at hand'.) Asking questions is the first step towards
> learning.

I disagree.  It is incumbent upon the person asking for help on a free
mailing list to actually show that they've gone to some length to find
an answer on their own.  Not making an effort before asking for help
abuses both the time and bandwidth of those who do make an effort as
well as those who offer support.  To boot, there are a number of
applications, especially internet connected, that if a person cannot
show the slightest inclination to help themselves, they should not be
running in the first place.

> Yes, it is frustrating when the same questions get asked over
> and over by
> different people. I've lost count of the times on the
> sqwebmail list that
> someone has asked a short or long question about something,
> and Mister Sam
> replies simply "See INSTALL".
>

Possibly because if they had read the INSTALL before installing as they
were supposed to do, the answer would have been obvious. Since you bring
up the Sqwebmail list, of which I'm also a member, how many times have
you seen in the last month alone people asking about the "Invalid User
ID or Password" issue that relates to having vpopmail installed?  It
gets asked over and over because people refuse to do some research
beforehand.  Spoonfeeding people is not helping the situation.

> In my early days learning UNIX systems administration (nine
> years ago), I
> posted to comp.unix.solaris a few times. My questions were not newbie
> questions, but compared with what some of the seasoned
> experts there knew,
> the questions were trivial. However, I didn't get flamed for asking a
> question that in relative terms to their expertise was a
> newbie question.
> For that I'm thankful. And i've reciprocated many, many times
> with others,
> by sharing my knowledge without judgement. True - if someone
> comes to me
> with the same question three separate times, I'll probably
> become reticent.
>

Newbies are by definition ignorant.  That's why they are newbies.  It is
possible to ask a newbie question that won't be universally flamed by
the gurus.  But in order to do that, one must show that they made some
kind of effort to understand what's going on.

> bottom line: answer or don't answer or redirect the questioner to the
> appropriate place. But ultimately, it's all your choice.
> Nobody is forcing
> you or anyone else to reply to this person's question.
>
> See THE GOLDEN RULE.
>
> and that's _my_ rant for the day!   ;^)
>
>

> Paul Theodoropoulos
> http://www.anastrophe.com
> Help Cure Alzheimer's with your PC's spare time:
> http://folding.stanford.edu


Robert Kropiewnicki
Network Administrator
StructuredWeb Inc.
Phone: 201-325-3146
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [vchkpw] qmail-inject Error

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles
> Sprickman
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:21 PM
> To: Clayton Weise
> Cc: Paul Theodoropoulos; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [vchkpw] qmail-inject Error
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Clayton Weise wrote:
>
> > I agree on both points.  I feel that these mailing lists
> should be for the
> > odd problems that can't be solved by doing a simple search
> on google, or
> > reading through the archives.  But not everyone takes
> things that far.
>
> There are also so many questions that come up so often that a FAQ is
> sorely needed.  Then the flaming would be easier.  Reply to a
> 6 page email
> with a pointer to the FAQ. :)

There is an FAQ.  Granted, it could probably use and update as well as
being setup so that clicking on the question takes you to the answer,
but it's still better than nothing.

It can be found at:

http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail/FAQ


> You also have to remember that even someone who knows what
> they are doing
> for the most part can get horribly lost if they jump in and
> try to learn
> qmail/vpopmail/courier-imap/sqwebmail all at the same time...
>
> Charles
>

As one who just recently (maybe half a year ago) jumped in and began the
process of learning all of these applications, I agree.  The key is
research, research, research.  Putting together a publicly accessible
email server (ie. not purely for internal use and without an internet
connection) is not a task that is to be taken lightly.  There are so
many good references available to help you along, most notable "The
qmail Handbook" by Dave Sill, that asking for help right from the start
without having done the most basic of research is rightfully vilified.

Regards,

Robert Kropiewnicki
Network Administrator
StructuredWeb Inc.
Phone: 201-325-3146
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [vchkpw] Configuration Help

[Robert Porter]

On Wednesday 18 September 2002 03:17 pm, Joe A Cairns wrote:
> I have installed qmail (ver 1.02), vpopmail (ver 5.2) and vchkpwd.  When I
> set up my client to check for email I get and er
>
> Your user name or password was rejected.
>
> I have create the virtual domain and I added the user.
>
> Is there something else I need to do to get it to work.
>
> Thanks in advanced for your help.
>
> Joe

A common error in logging into virtual domains is to forget that your user 
name is the whole email addess, i.e [EMAIL PROTECTED]  not just bigbob.  If 
that is not your issue try and post again.  

And I too would be curious as to why you choose Qmail 1.02?
-- 
Cheers,

Robert Porter   http://www.rp2c.com
RP2C Inc[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [vchkpw] NOOB: POP3 auth problems on new FreeBSD install

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

>-Original Message-
>From: Don Buckley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:39 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [vchkpw] NOOB: POP3 auth problems on new FreeBSD install
>
>
>Hi people,
>
>I've read through the archives and tryed a few things in there.
>
>What I know:
>telnet USER/PASS authentication on port 100 with the box works.
>
>I'm pretty sure that my problem lies near vchkpw, but i'm not sure
about how to expose the problem, where to start to look.
>
>Any hints would be appreciated :)
>
>Don Buckley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Don,

A good start would be to tell us what the actual problem is.

Next thing would be to tell us what the logs say.

Regards,

Robert Kropiewnicki

RE: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Kohlsmith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request
>
>
> > > I believe you're using the wrong MTA if you don't like
> patches.  :-)
> > > Qmail is the "a patchy mail server" of mail servers.
>
> > I keep hoping that will change sometime soon. :) I guess no-one has
> > released a patch that everyone just can't do without though.
>
> I've put together a monster patch which is a composite of all
> of these
> patches:
>
> badmailunk
> badrcptto
> qmail-queue-patch
> accept-5xx
> conredirect
> qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch
> qmail-103-bigdns
> tarpit
> ext_todo-20020504
> nullenvsender-recipcount
> qmail-0.0.0.0
> qmail-1.03-qmtpc
> qmail-bouncecontrol
> qmail-1.03-tls
> netscape-progress
> qmail-send.mimeheaders
> qmail-pop3d+vpomail
>
> So far, so good.  :-)
>
> > That says a lot for qmail's original design, which I like.
>
> I agree.  However there are a lot of little things (as seen
> in the patchlist
> above) which I wish would be rolled in to the next qmail
> release.  I don't
> think that's going to happen, though.  DJB seems happy with
> qmail the way it
> is and to be honest, any changes means he has to check it all
> over again for
> security.  Not fun.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew
>

Andrew,

Just out of genuine curiosity, were you actually seeing problems that
required each of those patches?  I've been running a
qmail/vpopmail/sqwebmail/qmailadmin setup for the past year now and have
yet to actually find need for a patch.

Regards,

Robert

RE: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

> -Original Message-
> From: Davide Giunchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:56 AM
> To: Rhett Hermer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request
>
>
> Il 09:13, venerdì 7 febbraio 2003, Rhett Hermer ha scritto:
> > If djb doesn't want to improve qmail with all of those
> patches et al, then
> > what's stopping us to write new MTA based on qmail design?
> Is there any
> > restriction that I am not aware of?
>
> I don't think that anybody here want to write
> yet_another_mta, probably if
> somebody is unhappy with qmail it will pass to postfix.
>
> Regards.
>
> --
> Davide Giunchi.
> Membro del FoLUG (Forlí Linux User Group) - http://folug.linux.it
> GPG Key available on http://www.keyserver.net
> Fingerprint: 4BFF 2682 6A58 ECFE 071B  A1A4 F2A3 9EFA 6494 81FD
>
>

Not to mention there are those of us that don't want 300 patches
integrated into qmail.  Patches should be used on an as-needed basis,
not simply because they exist.  And even then, it's highly recommended
that one look for an add-on app that will supply the requested feature
instead of patching the qmail source.

Regards,

Robert Kropiewnicki

maildir delivery + forwarding

[Robert Varga]

What is planned regarding the problem with easy managing the default
vdelivermail behaviour PLUS forwarding?

The need for two config files is a very big problem I think in this case.

Consider the three relevant cases:

1. Default maildir delivery:  

No .qmail files are needed.

2. Forwarding:

Either 
  - domain/.qmail-user 
  - domain/user/.qmail (suggested method by documentation and other
software, and general qmail approach as well)

is good.

3. Default maildir delivery + forwarding

Now I have to move ALL forwards from domain/user/.qmail to
domain/.qmail-user where I also must care for filename conversions due to
the . characters in filenames. I don't know what the case with dash-ended
localparts is. I also have to copy the content of .qmail-default.

Therefore I must do a workaround, which is not even managed by qmailadmin
and other software I think, and definitely not a preferable approach. 




Using a single configuration file in domain/user makes it much more
manageable, and I don't have to look at possible stray .qmail-user files
in the domain directory. 

If I need to use domain/.qmail-user then domain/user/.qmail is needless,
since a superset of  its functionality can be provided with
domain/.qmail-user however these are much less manageable.


I suggest that at least the line 

./Maildir/

should be interpreted by vdelivermail and it should act for it as its
default behaviour without any forwards, but it look at the other
instructions in the .qmail file as well, enabling it to solve the problem 
I outlined . It does not need a big change, does not provide conflicts
with quota checking and mail-retrieving as delivering to arbitrary
maildirs would.

Regards,

Robert Varga

Re: [vchkpw] Re: chkuser random rejects

[Robert Sanderson]

Bogdan Motoc - CRC  wrote:
> ...
>
> locals:
> Messages for domain.com are delivered locally.
>
> ...
>
> virtualdomains:
> Virtual domain: domain-design.com:domain-design.com
> Virtual domain: domain-design.ro:domain-design.ro
> Virtual domain: domain-engineering.com:domain-engineering.com
> Virtual domain: domain-engineering.ro:domain-engineering.ro
> Virtual domain: domain-yachting.com:domain-yachting.com
> Virtual domain: domain-yachting.ro:domain-yachting.ro
> Virtual domain: domain.com:domain.com
> Virtual domain: domain.eu:domain.eu
> Virtual domain: domain.nl:domain.nl
> Virtual domain: domain.ro:domain.ro
>
> ...
>

A domain must not appear in both "locals" and "virtualdomains". If the
domain in question is handled by vpopmail, take that domain out of
locals! See: http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#virtual-domains

-Bob


!DSPAM:4a9ea83532711362210611!

RE: [vchkpw] Re: Tom's fork of vpopmail (and qmailadmin)

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

Hello all,

I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents on the matter.  Please note, I'm not a
programmer and do not claim to be one.  My views are purely from the
standpoint of someone who has been using vpopmail happily for a couple
of years now.  It is one of the first open source software packages I
had the pleasure of using in Linux.

1. I agree with the decision to open a Sourceforge project for the
development of vpopmail.  Sourceforge is pretty much the de facto
standard with regards to open source projects.  If we're going to have
more development from the community at large, it would make sense to use
Sourceforge for the repository.

2. I disagree with the decision to leave Ken Jones off the ownership
list for vpopmail.  I recognize Tom's right to do so, but I still don't
think it's the right thing to do.  For whatever reasons, Ken has not
contributed to the vpopmail project as much (if at all) recently as he
has in the past.  I do not dispute this.  However, I do believe that
without Ken, or at least someone from Inter7, as one of the owners, this
may become a dead-end project.

3. I am heavily concerned that the latest stable release of vpopmail is
still at 5.2.1. I am troubled by this notion that it is acceptable in
the business world to run development level software in a production
environment, especially given that the latest development release keeps
changing.  What is the latest "stable" development release?  The fact
that Inter7 has, on more than one occasion right on this mailing list,
fed into this notion of development releases being ok for production
environments is a source of great annoyance.  A number of the different
software packages on Inter7's website no longer differentiate between
development and stable release.  IIRC, the latest stable version of
vqadmin requires a development version of vpopmail.

4. Given the failure of Inter7 with regards to point number three, who
is going to be responsible for deciding a particular development release
is good enough to be declared stable?  While the quickly increasing
version number on both vpopmail and qmailadmin is an impressive
statement about the power of community written software, anything
related to mail server operation is not a toy.  This is not something we
just sit around with on a computer in the back room and run it because
we can.  Those of us using the software in a production environment need
to know that there is a version where no new features were added and all
known bugs were fixed.  If 5.2.1 is the last version we're going to be
able to call a stable release, sysadmins running vpopmail will need to
decide if 5.2.1 is acceptable.  If not, it may be time to look into some
other virtual domain manager such as vmailmgr.  The same goes for
qmailadmin.

Regards,

Robert Kropiewnicki

RE: [vchkpw] Re: Tom's fork of vpopmail (and qmailadmin)

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

.2.x-stable as well as the last 5.3.x release from Inter7, someone
(perhaps Ken Jones) should go through that last Inter7 5.3.x release and
figure out what needs to be done to make that a new stable release.

> 4) Inter7 needs to get over themselves and gradually join
> back into the
> development, IF AND ONLY IF they plan to play nicely with
> others.  If they
> don't, then maybe they should go get bent since there's been a ton of
> positive movement on this project in their absence.  NO FORKING.
>

Define play nicely with others?  Catherine's inappropriate comments
aside (and the fact that you felt the need to point out how carefully
your words were chosen, Catherine, only serves to highlight how
inappropriate they were), I've seen no evidence to suggest an ulterior
motive on Ken's part with regards to vpopmail.  I simply don't see the
threat in having Ken as an administrator.  Even if he were to do
something as stupid as try and kick Tom off from the list of
administrators, as some seem to be suggesting, all that would be
necessary is to truly fork the project and shut Inter7 out completely.

> Disclaimer: If you disagree with these comments, that's your
> prerogative,
> but I personally don't want to hear sniping comments back about it,
> because frankly, I don't value the opinion of most of you.  The list
> membership over the past year has become overpopulated with
> whiny idiots
> who have no appreciation for where the product has been, how it almost
> died, and how it has now seen tremendous progress in the
> absence of Ken
> and Inter7.
>

Your opinions would be even more valuable if you would quit with the
derogatory comments.  People who disagree with you are not necessarily
idiots.  They are not necessarily inferior sysadmins.  They simply have
a different point of view.

Regards,

Robert Kropiewnicki

RE: [vchkpw] Re: Tom's fork of vpopmail (and qmailadmin)

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

> Paul L. Allen
>
> Robert Kropiewnicki writes:
>
> > Do you work for Inter7?  Can you speak definitively to the fact that
> > they've shelved vpopmail for good on their end?  No, you can't.
>
> And can you speak definitively to say that they haven't?
> Despite Ken's
> sudden re-appearance here, can you positively, definitely state that
> Ken is going to be as active now and in the future as he was
> six months
> ago and that there will be no more sudden disappearances for months on
> end?
>

I've spoken definitively to no such thing.  What Ken Jones will do now
that he has been granted admin access (bravo Tom!) is not at the core of
my argument.  My argument is that he has done enough in the past for
vpopmail development to warrant his inclusion as an admin.

> > I've seen enough projects in enough companies get put on hold for
> > periods of time because there was something else that required more
> > attention.  Heck, I've had projects I've worked on get put on hold
> > because management decided something else was a more pressing matter
> > only to return to the project when the pressing matter had been
> > completed.
>
> And in those cases I would expect the companies involved to be honest
> with external clients who are waiting for the completion of those
> projects, at least if the client asked when it was going to be ready.
> Clients are funny that way - if you tell them there has been a delay
> they may accept that delay but if you ignore them they go
> somewhere else.
> By not even saying that he was busy or delegating it to somebody else
> Ken put himself in the situation where people walked away.
>

Many of the projects I spoke about in terms of personal experience had
more to do with internal infrastructure projects.  Actually, it was
projects for external paying clients that would often be the reason they
were put on hold.  With any business, the needs of the paying clients
come first.

> > Failure of Inter7's management to recognize the need for
> either visibly
> > active development or at the very least, acknowledge the
> fact that Ken's
> > hands were currently tied due to being assigned other
> projects should not
> > be held against Ken.
>
> No, it should be held against Inter 7.  Which may or may not be Ken
> himself.  Whether it was Ken's decision or that of a pointy-haired
> boss makes no difference.  Somebody at Inter 7 thought it acceptable
> for Ken to ignore this list and vpopmail development for 6 months.
> I do not think that acceptable.
>

I do not find it acceptable either.  I had asked on this list when the
next official Inter7-stamped stable release of vpopmail was coming on at
least two occasions given that one of the other Inter7 apps I was using
(I believe it was vqadmin) required the development release of vpopmail
as a requirement for its stable release.  I found that as unacceptable
then as I do now.

> > Disagree.  If Linus Torvalds had to step away from working
> on the Linux
> > kernel for an extended period of time, would he have to
> justify why he
> > still deserved to be a lead on the project?
>
> If he stopped working on the kernel for 6 months without
> telling anyone,
> without responding to bug reports or patches and effectively stalling
> development until somebody forked development then he damned
> well would
> have to justify being a lead again.  But we both know that Linus would
> not do that.  If circumstances forced his absence for a
> prolonged period
> he would delegate control temporarily.
>
> Ken did not even delegate control temporarily.  It was left to Tom to
> pick up the ball after realizing that Ken had apparently given up on
> things.  It appears that the only reason Ken has expressed
> any interest
> since is because Tom formally took control and so Inter 7
> would lose the
> right advertise themselves as the developers of vpopmail.
>
> I do not see any behaviour by Ken or Inter 7 that justifies Ken having
> administrative control but I do see a lot of behaviour by Ken that
> justifies him NOT having administrative control.
>

For the most part I can agree with this argument.  If Ken were going to
have complete and total administrative control again to the exclusion of
Tom, I would completely agree with this argument.  However, as it stands
right now, Ken and Tom are both listed as administrators, so here's a
call to let this thread die.

> --
> Paul Allen
> Softflare Support
>
>

The civility of your post is well appreciated.  Here's hoping we both
get what we want, the continued development and improvement of vpopmail.

Regards,

Robert Kropiewnicki

RE: [vchkpw] Vpopmail 5.3.30 released

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:37 PM
> To: vpopmail list; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [vchkpw] Vpopmail 5.3.30 released
>
>
> http://vpopmail.sf.net/
>
> This should fix all known problems with 5.3.29.
>

If this fixes all known problems with 5.3.29, perhaps now is the time to
call a freeze on new features and work towards testing 5.3.30 for a possible
5.4 release.

Re: [vchkpw] Smtp Auth with VPopmail

[Robert Fleming]

--On Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:26 AM -0600 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is rumoured to have written:

Is anyone using an smtp auth solution with vchkpw authentication?  Or, can
you point me in a good direction.  I have looked at all the smtp auth
solutions on the qmail.org site.  None of them seem to support vchkpw.
Any help would be appreciated.
i am using the "qmail-smtpd AUTH patch" 
 in combination with the 
courierpasswd authentication program.

HTH

Rob

RE: [vchkpw] allowing users to change their own passwords

[Robert Fleming]

--On Saturday, September 4, 2004 10:15 PM -0400 Jim Clark is rumoured to 
have written:

Well, the thing is I don't have access to vpopmail directly - my web
hosting service controls that. And I want the actual mailbox user to be
able to change their own password. I went to the qmailadmin page and the
demo showed an interface that looked more like an administrator interface
rather than a mailbox user interface - which I already have from my
hosting provider. Did I miss something? Any other ideas?
qmailadmin allows users to login into that interface and change their 
password.

Rob

Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail 5.4.9 released

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

Tom Collins wrote:
On Jan 12, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Yeahbut wrote:
This is not happening. Sqwebmail connections don't get logged at all.

I don't think sqwebmail uses vchkpw (which does that logging).  AFAIK, 
it reads directly from the maildirs.

Note also that courier-imap does not call vchkpw for authentication, 
it uses a built-in authentication module.  I think someone has made a 
patch for courier-imap, but don't know if it's made it into the 
mainstream releases.

--
Tom Collins  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/  Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/
Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/

Tom,
You are correct that it reads directly from the maildirs, as opposed to 
webmail clients like Squirrelmail that require IMAP, however an 
authentication method is still required which is specified during 
./configure.  In the configuration I'm using, the specified 
authentication method was to use authvchkpw, which I would assume (I am 
not a programmer) means it is using vchkpw. 

Is it possible that it is using the same information store of usernames 
and passwords as vchkpw but not actually calling vchkpw?

Regards,
Robert Kropiewnicki

Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail 5.4.9 released

[Robert Kropiewnicki]

Andryan wrote:
Robert Kropiewnicki wrote:
[..]
Tom,
You are correct that it reads directly from the maildirs, as opposed 
to webmail clients like Squirrelmail that require IMAP, however an 
authentication method is still required which is specified during 
./configure.  In the configuration I'm using, the specified 
authentication method was to use authvchkpw, which I would assume (I 
am not a programmer) means it is using vchkpw.

As Tom had said before, authvchkpw is *not* using vchkpw, instead it's 
a module of Courier which does the same as vchkpw. It uses the same 
library, but that's it. The logging feature is in vchkpw, so that's 
why it wouldn't appear if you used the module authvchkpw.
Andryan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Robert Kropiewnicki

RE: [vchkpw] reply problem

[Robert Bartlett]

It's basically saying it can't add the email into the sent folder because
there's not enough space in your mailbox. The header error is php, meaning
data was sent to the browser before the php header command was given.

Robert

-Original Message-
From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:42 AM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: [vchkpw] reply problem

Hi there,
Anybody could help me. When I am trying to reply from Squirrel online I get
this message:

ERROR:
  ERROR : Could not append message to INBOX.Sent.
  Server responded: [ALERT] You exceeded your mail quota.
  Solution: Remove unneccessary messages from your folder
and start with your Trash folder.





Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output
started at /var/www/html/webmail/functions/page_header.php:29) in
/var/www/html/webmail/src/compose.php on line 402

RE: [vchkpw] reply problem

[Robert Bartlett]

Well if the error is telling the truth you need to either increase your mail
quota or delete some emails from your inbox to free up space. Are you using
qmailadmin to administrate your email accounts?

Robert

-Original Message-
From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:50 AM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] reply problem

Thank you Robert for your response.
Could you tell me please how I deal with this problem.

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: [vchkpw] reply problem


> It's basically saying it can't add the email into the sent folder because
> there's not enough space in your mailbox. The header error is php, meaning
> data was sent to the browser before the php header command was given.
>
> Robert
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:42 AM
> To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> Subject: [vchkpw] reply problem
>
> Hi there,
> Anybody could help me. When I am trying to reply from Squirrel online I
get
> this message:
>
> ERROR:
>   ERROR : Could not append message to INBOX.Sent.
>   Server responded: [ALERT] You exceeded your mail quota.
>   Solution: Remove unneccessary messages from your folder
> and start with your Trash folder.
>
>
>
>
>
> Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output
> started at /var/www/html/webmail/functions/page_header.php:29) in
> /var/www/html/webmail/src/compose.php on line 402
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [vchkpw] reply problem

[Robert Bartlett]

Then I would suggest to login to qmailadmin and up your quota on the account
that is giving you this error.

Robert

-Original Message-
From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:17 PM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] reply problem

yes
- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: [vchkpw] reply problem


> Well if the error is telling the truth you need to either increase your
mail
> quota or delete some emails from your inbox to free up space. Are you
using
> qmailadmin to administrate your email accounts?
>
> Robert
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:50 AM
> To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] reply problem
>
> Thank you Robert for your response.
> Could you tell me please how I deal with this problem.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [vchkpw] reply problem
>
>
> > It's basically saying it can't add the email into the sent folder
because
> > there's not enough space in your mailbox. The header error is php,
meaning
> > data was sent to the browser before the php header command was given.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:42 AM
> > To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> > Subject: [vchkpw] reply problem
> >
> > Hi there,
> > Anybody could help me. When I am trying to reply from Squirrel online I
> get
> > this message:
> >
> > ERROR:
> >   ERROR : Could not append message to INBOX.Sent.
> >   Server responded: [ALERT] You exceeded your mail
quota.
> >   Solution: Remove unneccessary messages from your
folder
> > and start with your Trash folder.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output
> > started at /var/www/html/webmail/functions/page_header.php:29) in
> > /var/www/html/webmail/src/compose.php on line 402
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [vchkpw] reply problem

[Robert Bartlett]

If it is being setup as noquota then I believe there is something wrong.
NOQUOTA usually means unlimited space for that account. Perhaps the domain
settings are over quota? If you use vqadmin I would check that and up the
quota for the mail domain and see if that works.

Robert

-Original Message-
From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:23 PM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] reply problem

it is being set up as NOQUOTA. what should I change for?
- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: [vchkpw] reply problem


> Then I would suggest to login to qmailadmin and up your quota on the
account
> that is giving you this error.
>
> Robert
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:17 PM
> To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] reply problem
>
> yes
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [vchkpw] reply problem
>
>
> > Well if the error is telling the truth you need to either increase your
> mail
> > quota or delete some emails from your inbox to free up space. Are you
> using
> > qmailadmin to administrate your email accounts?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:50 AM
> > To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] reply problem
> >
> > Thank you Robert for your response.
> > Could you tell me please how I deal with this problem.
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Robert Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: [vchkpw] reply problem
> >
> >
> > > It's basically saying it can't add the email into the sent folder
> because
> > > there's not enough space in your mailbox. The header error is php,
> meaning
> > > data was sent to the browser before the php header command was given.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Saimir Hafizi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:42 AM
> > > To: vchkpw@inter7.com
> > > Subject: [vchkpw] reply problem
> > >
> > > Hi there,
> > > Anybody could help me. When I am trying to reply from Squirrel online
I
> > get
> > > this message:
> > >
> > > ERROR:
> > >   ERROR : Could not append message to INBOX.Sent.
> > >   Server responded: [ALERT] You exceeded your mail
> quota.
> > >   Solution: Remove unneccessary messages from your
> folder
> > > and start with your Trash folder.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by
(output
> > > started at /var/www/html/webmail/functions/page_header.php:29) in
> > > /var/www/html/webmail/src/compose.php on line 402
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Devel version 4.8.6 available

[Robert J. Adams]

Ken,

Happen to know if Sam plans to make the new Sqwebmail mail filters work with
vpopmail or is he going to keep it maildrop only?

-Jason
---
Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net
Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com
SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc.
Phone: 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153


- Original Message -
From: "Ken Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 10:35 AM
Subject: Devel version 4.8.6 available


>
> http://www.vpopmail.cx/vpopmail-4.8.6.tar.gz
> is availble.
>
> Here are the Changes:
> 4.8.6  - have the configure script look for /usr/bin/tcprules as
> Jul 07   well as looking for it in /usr/local/bin/tcprules
>
> Jul 24 - removed unneeded fsync call in vdelivermail
>- removed unneeded alarm and sig alarm handler in vdelivermail
>- added vdelivermail filter code from Matthias Henze as
>  a new configure --enable-deliver-filter option
>
> The primary change is an experimental filter option for vdelivermail.
> Please see the README.filter file for details on how to create
> a filter program. To include this in your compiled version, you
> will need to add the --enable-deliver-filter=y option to your
> configure line.
>
> Feedback on the filter code and how well it works would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Ken Jones
>

Re: vpopmail-4.9.2

[Robert J. Adams]

Einar,

Yea.. I noticed this.. if you add a letter on the end it works.. for
example..

If you want: --enable-default-domain=domain.com

try : --enable-default-domain=domain.comm

Worked for me ;)

-j
---
Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net
Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com
SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc.
Phone: 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153



- Original Message -
From: "Einar Bordewich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 1:27 PM
Subject: vpopmail-4.9.2


> It looks like --enable-default-domain is broken in the 4.9.2 development
> version.
>
> --
> 
> IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
> Technical Manager  Phone: +47 2336 1420
> E-Mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>
>
>

Filters

[Robert J Adams]

Hello all,

I just wanted to make sure that the developers of vpopmail intend to keep
the filtering option. I mentioned that Sqwebmail now writes maildrop filters
and someone mentioned that vpopmail might move over to use maildrop style
filters? I'm getting ready to write a web interface to the vpopmail filter
setup and didn't want to waste my time if it was all going to change in the
near future.

-Jason

Stats

[Robert J Adams]

Hello all,

Has anyone written a stats program to gather number of pop/imap/smtp
connections etc for vpopmail? Seems like it would be useful.

-Jason

RBL, ORBs etc filtering

[Robert J Adams]

Hello all,

I was thinking about hacking in the ability to bounce spam based on RBL,
ORBs etc into vpopmail.. Is anyone working on this? The idea is to have it
user selectable.. anyone else interested in this?

-Jason

Re: RBL, ORBs etc filtering

[Robert J Adams]

Jon Rust has written a program that can be added to the .qmail file. My idea
was to hack his code into vpopmail. I admit that I haven't had time to dig
into the vpopmail code, but this *shouldn't* be that hard to add into the
code..

http://jon.rusts.net/qrblcheck.c can check
rbl,dul,relays,outputs.orbs.org,relays.orbs.org

-j


- Original Message -
From: "Brian Kolaci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian Clare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: RBL, ORBs etc filtering


>
> Hi,
>
> I've had the request to allow on a per-user, per-domain
> basis to either bounce or allow spam through.  This may
> be an underlying request he had.
>
> I've started this, but found that I just dumped the RSS & ORBS
> list and only went for RBL.  That was simpler.
>
> My approach was to update rblsmtbd.c to instead of bounce
> the mail, set an environment variable.  Then in qmail-smtpd,
> you can check the envelope and selectivly bounce it or not,
> depending on the contents in a new control file.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian Clare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: RBL, ORBs etc filtering
>
>
> > That would be a great addition I guess, but once setup in qmail, isn't
> > it working for all domains?
> >
> > Robert J Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I was thinking about hacking in the ability to bounce spam based on
RBL,
> > > ORBs etc into vpopmail.. Is anyone working on this? The idea is to
have
> it
> > > user selectable.. anyone else interested in this?
> > >
> > > -Jason
> >
> > --
> > Brian Clare
> > 312-961-2401
> >
>
>

Re: RBL, ORBs etc filtering

[Robert J Adams]

Michael,

Per user enable/disable would me much nicer than doing it "per host". Some
people have a valid reason to not want spam filtering. As for procmail, it
would be much cleaner to do this internal to vpopmail than to have a
shitload of .qmail files around. We have some domains with 50K+ users.. if
1/4 of them wanted spam filtering it there would be tons of .qmail files
around. This wouldn't be that hard to do (couple hundred lines of code) and
it seems like it would be a nice feature.

-j


- Original Message -
From: "Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert J Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: RBL, ORBs etc filtering


> Why bother?
>
> cf. rblsmtpd for the entire host
>
> or cf. rblcheck for .procmailrc's ...
>
> Robert J Adams wrote:
>
> > I was thinking about hacking in the ability to bounce spam based on RBL,
> > ORBs etc into vpopmail.. Is anyone working on this? The idea is to have
it
> > user selectable.. anyone else interested in this?
>
> --
> Michael T. Babcock, C.T.O. FibreSpeed
> http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
>
>
>

[vchkpw] Troubleshooting vdelivermail

[Robert A Wooldridge]

I am having trouble with my qmail/vpopmail systems.  The default 
dot-qmail file contains:

| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox

But mail does not get delivered.  It just disappears.  When I look in 
the qmail-smtpd log the smtp session appears correctly.  When I look in 
the qmail-send log, it notes a successfully delivery.  But nothing is in 
the user's Maildir/new or Maildir/cur.


When I create an explicit dot-qmail file for the user such as:
/home/vpopmail/domains/test.domain.com/some.user/Maildir/

This works correctly.  But that means I have to creat dot-qmail files 
for each and every user.


Can someone suggest a solution or a reason why the default dot-qmail 
file does not work?  Or a way to troubleshoot vdelivermail?


Thanks!

--
Bob W.


!DSPAM:51f6967634131456691397!

[vchkpw] Re: maildorp filter and sqwebmail

[Robert J. Adams \(jason\)]

Gregor,

Hello, did you ever get this working correctly? For some reason maildrop
doesn't like my VPOP setting..

.qmail-default
| /usr/local/bin/maildrop .mailfilter

.mailfilter

logfile mylog
VHOME=`/spool0/bin/vuserinfo -d $EXT@$HOST`
VPOP="|/spool0/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox"

if ( $SIZE < 262144 )
{
exception {
xfilter "/usr/local/bin/spamc -d
209.251.30.150 -f -u $TOUSER"
}
}

if (/^X-Spam-Flag: *YES/)
{
exception {
include $VHOME/Maildir/.mailfilter
}

}
else
{
exception {
include $VHOME/Maildir/.mailfilter
}
exception {
to "$VPOP"
exit
}
}



yet.. I get this in my maildrop logs:

Date: Fri Oct 18 20:17:00 2002
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj:
!Err: |/spool0/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox (212)

Thanks,
Jason
SISCOM
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gregor Lawatscheck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: maildorp filter and sqwebmail
>
>
> > At 21:07 25/04/2002, you wrote:
> > >At 20:11 25/04/2002, you wrote:
> > >>I have this setup and it works fine with one problem when email is
spam
> > >>and for a non existent user it doesn't bounce but get deferral (but
> > >>non-spam email bounces fine.) If someone can help me with this, it'll
be
> > >>appreciated.
> >
> > This came back from Dallas this afternoon:
> >
> > --
> > I realized this after using it for a while.  The fix is easier than you
> can
> > imagine.  Just add exit calls after your "to" rules, because if the
> message
> > has a non-existent user, then maildrop will try to process the rest of
the
> > filter.
> >
> > # Updated .qmail-default
> > 
> >   VPOP="| /var/vpopmail/pop/bin/vdelivermail ' bounce-no-mailbox"
> >   VHOME=`/var/vpopmail/pop/bin/vuserinfo -d $EXT@$HOST`
> >
> >   if ( $SIZE < 262144 )
> >   {
> >   exception {
> >   xfilter "/usr/bin/spamc -f -u $EXT@$HOST"
> >   }
> >   }
> >
> >   if (/^X-Spam-Flag: *YES/)
> >   {
> >   exception {
> >   include $VHOME/Maildir/.mailfilter
> >   }
> >
> >   ## IF YOU WANT TO GATHER ALL SPAM INTO 1 MAILDRIR
> >   exception {
> >   to /home/pop/spam/
> >  exit
> >}
> >   ## OR IF YOU WANT TO DELIVER SPAM TO THE USERS MAILDIR
> >   #exception {
> >   #to "$VPOP"
> >   #   exit
> >   #}
> >   }
> >   else
> >   {
> >   exception {
> >   include $VHOME/Maildir/.mailfilter
> >   }
> >   exception {
> >   to "$VPOP"
> >  exit
> >  }
> >   }
> >   
> >
> > Thanks go to Sam for pointing that out.
> >
> >
> >
>