com/, I suppose.
> I ask because I found that one of my ISP's server will reject
> emails with Return-path <>. This make me many inconvenience.
> Maybe I could talk with my ISP after checking it in details.
They are completely clueless if they do so, since they won&#x
rious other places.
> I ask because I found that one of my ISP's server will reject
> emails with Return-path <>.
That's in violation of the RFCs, and common sense. RFC2821, section 3.7
(Relaying) states, concerning notification (bounce) messages:
This notificat
Hello Charles,
I want to know more details about the RFC which discuss on the
empty (null) envelope sender. Can you tell me the RFC number and from
where I could access the RFC ?
I ask because I found that one of my ISP's server will reject
emails with Return-path <
Enrique Rodríguez Lázaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can I avoid emails with Return-path <>?
If you mean "How can I make my server reject mails with an empty (null)
envelope sender with qmail?", the answer is "Don't". Stock qmail won't even
let
How can I avoid emails with Return-path <>?
Thanks in advanced.
Lukasz Felsztukier([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.04.25 12:19:08 +:
> Hi there!
> I send emails thru PHP script on my machine - These mails all have
> Return-Path in form: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Of course I use a 'From:' header, so it doesn't show up in users' MUA,
>
Hi there!
I send emails thru PHP script on my machine - These mails all have
Return-Path in form: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course I use a 'From:' header, so it doesn't show up in users' MUA,
but I was just curious does it make any security threat like that...
Cheers,
--
Edward C. Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just for clarity: if the internal domain is example.org, and my machine is
> foo, then the Return-Path is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like it to be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], or whatever.
>
> Any thoughts?
Yes -- don't try
, qmail.) Ideally, qmail
would route any non-local address through uucp, and wash the Return-Path to my
proper @'ised bang-path address.
Just for clarity: if the internal domain is example.org, and my machine is foo,
then the Return-Path is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like it to be
[EMAIL PROT
Roger Walker wrote
> We need to set up something special for a domain and to do so, we
> need to capture all of the headers, including the "Return-Path:". If we
> pipe the messages to a script in the ".qmail-default", qmail-local strips
> off that and other heade
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Kirill Miazine wrote:
> A similar thing has been discussed today,
I just joined the list, so I missed it.
> read 'man preline' and/or use something like
>
> |preline -f /your/command
>
> in your .qmail-default
Yes, I had just thought to check that after see
Roger Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need to set up something special for a domain and to do so, we
> need to capture all of the headers, including the "Return-Path:". If we
> pipe the messages to a script in the ".qmail-default", qmail-local strips
need to capture all of the headers, including the "Return-Path:". If we
> pipe the messages to a script in the ".qmail-default", qmail-local strips
from 'man qmail-command':
WARNING: The mail message does not begin with qmail-
local's usua
We need to set up something special for a domain and to do so, we
need to capture all of the headers, including the "Return-Path:". If we
pipe the messages to a script in the ".qmail-default", qmail-local strips
off that and other headers we may need. Is there any w
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
This is more correct than /usr/sbin/sendmail
> Thank you, I am still having an issue with qmail. Qmail seems to be
> running, but I can't send any email from a form. If I send from
> PINE I am ok. There is NOTHING in
I am having a bit of confusion here, is the absolute path to qmail:
/usr/sbin/sendmail
or
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
Thank you, I am still having an issue with qmail. Qmail seems to be
running, but I can't send any email from a form. If I send from PINE I am
ok. There is NOTHING i
call qmail-inject with the -f option or specify the return path in the
headers:
Return-Path:
-K
> From: "Jon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:57:50 -
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Return-Path
>
> Hi,
>
> I have
In the previous episode (03.03.2001), Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Anyway to control what the return-path is?
with qmail you can also use the command
sendmail -f to send mails.
if your script uses that, you could thus define the "return-path", the
smtp envelope sender, to
Hi,
I have been running qmail for about 2 months now and everything has been
great :-) I have a very simple setup. I host web sites on the server using
Apache, and when someone uses a perl script though there web site, email
sent by perl script has a return-path of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
back to the sender, the remote server said "501 bogus mail from".
That mail server is misconfigured. The RFC requires that such messages be
accepted.
> Is there anyway to change the Return-Path of my bounce messages to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Not without patching qmail. It isn'
Hey Matthew, would it be possible to email the admin of
that domain and tell them to stop blocking messages
with empty return-path headers? It is against RFC to do
so but they probably won't care. They are stupid for doing
it as bounces from most mail servers will not be delivered
to
". Is there anyway to change the Return-Path of my
bounce messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Included below is the bounce portion of
the message.
--
***
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Ill
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:56:29PM +0100, octave klaba wrote:
> Hi,
> 2 questions:
> - how can I deny all emails without Return-Path:
> like this: Return-Path: <>
> - is it a good idea ?
Don't do that. You need to accept mail from null envelope senders, as
those are
Hi,
2 questions:
- how can I deny all emails without Return-Path:
like this: Return-Path: <>
- is it a good idea ?
The problem I have is to deny this kind of email.
I tried badmailfrom but it does not work
# cat badmailfrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks for help
Octave
Return-Path: <&
joaquim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sending email from inside a firewall. When qmail sends mail the
> Return Path: on the envelope is my hostname inside my network which is
> not valid outside this network. This causes some site to bounce the email
> back to me.
I am sending email from inside a firewall. When qmail sends mail the
Return Path: on the envelope is my hostname inside my network which is
not valid outside this network. This causes some site to bounce the email
back to me.
My organization have five units. Each unit have a local qmail
Title: How does one set the return-path different from the sender?
The header needs to refer to a particular address unrelated
to the sender. This is to have bounced emails handled internally.
Is there a way to have qmail overwrite the return-path header value with
a set address rather
hello,
after a quick search in the internet i have decided to ask the question here:
the problem is as follows:
we are running our own webmail service. thereis such a feature like in eudora - you
can redirect message to another person (not forward) and it should change return path
to
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:30:34PM -0700, Duane L. wrote:
> Someone enlightened me of a very helpful qmail command that took a local
> email address as an argument, and then it spat out the path to where it
> would delivery the message... except I can't recall the command and I&
Someone enlightened me of a very helpful qmail command that took a local
email address as an argument, and then it spat out the path to where it
would delivery the message... except I can't recall the command and I've
lost that email, and (of course) can't remember who sent it.
Hi there,
How can I completely rewrite "ReturnPath" or "Host information" in message
header in qmail?
For example,
A mail ---> relay to B's qmail ---> C final destination --> receiver.
I want the receiver or other user will return mail to B instead of A.
Currently, if C's receiver return mail
i wrote:
>our redhat linux machine mira's sendmail is using our redhat linux qmail
>server luzifer as smarthost
>when users on that mira send mails, the mails contain a return-path
>containing the full hostname mira.webseek.de which is not fully qualified
>(just for intern
our redhat linux machine mira's sendmail is using our redhat linux qmail
server luzifer as smarthost
when users on that mira send mails, the mails contain a return-path
containing the full hostname mira.webseek.de which is not fully qualified
(just for internal LAN use) and thus ca
I 'm managing a server with Sqwebmail 0.36 now, but I still have a problem
with the return path, as the server name is server.somesite.or.id and the
domain for the user is just only somesite.or.id
so bob email address will be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In vpopmail, I didn;t compile it with --de
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:20:14PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> I'm sure this is a basic question, but who controls the 'Return-Path'
> header? The MTA or MUA?
The local delivery agent sticks the Return-Path header in there. According to
the qmail-local man page, &quo
I'm sure this is a basic question, but who controls the 'Return-Path'
header? The MTA or MUA?
Thanks,
Ben
--
The spectre of a polity controlled by the fads and whims of voters who
actually believe that there are significant differences between Bud Lite
and Miller Lite, and
Ok new qmail/linux user here so please for my lack of
knowledge here, and you'll probley be hearing lots more from me.
After installing qmail, the /sbin directoy was removed
from the path or I suspect the path is acutally being over written. This
only occures when I logon though t
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:08:33PM +0300, Ilya wrote:
> Ilya wrote:
>
> > A mail contain:
> >
> > From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Qmail generate:
> >
> > Return-Path: <&
Ilya wrote:
> A mail contain:
>
> From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Qmail generate:
>
> Return-Path: <"ÃÓÑÏ Áàøõëåáîïòèöåïðîì >>
>
> Why? How can I correct it?
>
>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:45:43AM +0100, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > > Return-Path: <"?Ó?? Á???ë?áî???ö???î? >>
>
> > Well how would qmail decide that that address is potentially bogus?
> > I
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:30:59PM +0300, Ilya wrote:
> > > From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Qmail generate:
> > > Return-Path: <" ? >>
> >
> > Are you sure thi
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Return-Path: <"?Ó?? Á???ë?áî???ö???î? >>
> Well how would qmail decide that that address is potentially bogus?
> I don't know. That address is, even, potentially _valid_.
It is not. "ufatel.ru>>&qu
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ilya wrote:
> Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ilya wrote:
> >
> > > From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Qmail generate:
> > > Return-Path: <"ĂÓ
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:30:59PM +0300, Ilya wrote:
> Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ilya wrote:
> >
> > > From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Qmail generate:
> > > Return
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ilya wrote:
>
> > From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Qmail generate:
> > Return-Path: <"ÃÓÑÏ Áàøõëåáîïòèöåïðîì >>
>
> Are you sure this piece of
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:20:32AM +0100, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ilya wrote:
>
> > From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Qmail generate:
> > Return-Path: <"?Ó?? Á???ë?áî???ö???î? >&
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ilya wrote:
> From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Qmail generate:
> Return-Path: <"ĂÓŃĎ Áŕřőëĺáîďňčöĺďđîě >>
Are you sure this piece of junk was generated by qmail?
> Return-Path: <&qu
A mail contain:
From: =?koi8-r?B?5/Xz8CBcIuLB28jMxcLP0NTJw8XQ0s/NXCI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail generate:
Return-Path: <"ÃÓÑÏ Áàøõëåáîïòèöåïðîì >>
Why? How can I correct it?
Original Message
Subject: failure notice
The cause of the problem was that I had added the hostname to the
127.0.0.1 entry in /etc/hosts. I guess on reverse lookup of the
hostname, /etc/hosts was used for some reason to reveal
localhost.localdomain.
A special thanks to Patrick Tudor who pointed me in this direction.
The cause of the
Two problems with which I've had little luck remedying through the docs.
1) All mail sent shows up with the headers
"Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
The from header used to have this problem until I change my
environment variables, but there should be something I can f
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Mike van der Velden wrote:
[snip]
> Second, the firewall people have started to complain that ever since the
> switch-over to qmail, they are seeing a lot of "auth" packets to and
> from the qmail server to various remote sites. They want to know what
> is going on. What so
Yup... I'd already sent him a pvt msg detailing how to do that with
tcpserver :)
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, bert hubert wrote:
> And this can easily be turned off.
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 03:57:17AM -0500, Jim Breton wrote:
> More specifically, it is probably tcpserver (or whatever superserver he's
> running) that is causing the ident requests.
And this can easily be turned off.
Regards,
bert hubert
--
+---+ | http://www.
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Sam wrote:
> The "return path" is specified solely by MUA, so this is entirely a Pegasus
> Mail configuration issue. It is possible that other mail servers take it
> upon themselves to rewrite the return address, but they should not really
> do that,
Mike van der Velden writes:
> There are two outstanding questions:
>
> First, when a user on a Windows client machine uses Netscape Mail 4.7 to
> send a message, the sender and return-path both say "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> However, when using Pegasus Mail 3.1.2 to s
n a user on a Windows client machine uses Netscape Mail 4.7 to
> send a message, the sender and return-path both say "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> However, when using Pegasus Mail 3.1.2 to send the same message, the
> return path says "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" while the sender'
oing mail looks like it comes from the domain
"company.com".
There are two outstanding questions:
First, when a user on a Windows client machine uses Netscape Mail 4.7 to
send a message, the sender and return-path both say "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
However, when using Pegasus Mail
distribute it.
Please search the www.qmail.org web page for "mjinject" and check
Russ's FAQ and documentation. My web pages are guaranteed out of
date. :-(
> The problem occurs when a message sent to a mailing list bounces on one
> or more of the mailing list addresses. The
list bounces on one
or more of the mailing list addresses. The return path included in the
message to the list is always invalid, often in the form:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Summersault.com is our domain, the rest of that is related to the invalid
mailing list address.
The result, a
Hi
I'm working on a webbased mailadministration system. Using perl and
"Single-UID based POP3 box HOWTO" by Pau Gregg.
My directory structure looks like
/var/qmail/popboxes///Maildir/
where is the popuser.
Is it posible to put that i a .qmail-default?
/Lars
Student at Department of Compute
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:35:01 -0400, David Villeger wrote:
>qmail-inject -n definitely produces a Return-Path field.
qmail-inject by default (-N) queues messages to the mail system. As
such it _does not_ add a "return-path" header. With the -n switch you
ask it to print a messa
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:24:41PM -0400, David Villeger wrote:
> Return-Path is added by the *final* transport system. So why is it added by
> qmail-inject?
rfc 821 seems to define "transport system" not as a host, but more
generally. Specificly, I think this would addr
At 06:33 PM 7/19/99 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:24:41PM -0400,
> David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Return-Path is added by the *final* transport system. So why is it added by
>> qmail-inject?
>
>Are you sure about
Sam writes:
> David Villeger writes:
>
> > On the same subject, if I send an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] without
> > the Return-Path field (e.g. by using qmail-queue) but using VERP (so that
> > the envelop sender becomes [EMAIL PROTECTED]), the
> &g
David Villeger writes:
> On the same subject, if I send an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] without
> the Return-Path field (e.g. by using qmail-queue) but using VERP (so that
> the envelop sender becomes [EMAIL PROTECTED]), the
> email.com server writes the Return-Path as <[
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:24:41PM -0400,
David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Return-Path is added by the *final* transport system. So why is it added by
> qmail-inject?
>
Are you sure about that? The man page indicates that it deletes return-path
headers. It doe
Hi all.
According to RFC822:
>4.3.1. RETURN-PATH
>
>This field is added by the final transport system that
>delivers the message to its recipient. The field is intended
>to contain definitive information about the address and route
>
is
receiving this message over and over again. Could there be some sort of
loop occuring elsewhere?
A few questions, I've only ever seen ! path addresses WRT UUCP so what
is up with these ones? Also, the number after "new msg" etc, is this
some sort of identif
Interesting. It works with CGI's, but not from within a PHP3 mail() call.
Thanks :)
J.
> Add to the VirtualHost sections of your httpd.conf
> SetEnv QMAILSUSER webmaster
> SenEnv QMAILSHOST virtualdomain.com
> appropriately. This might require mod_env.
Jordan Krushen wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Each user gets their own dedicated pool of Apache processes, running as that
> user. I'd like to be able to make qmail send mails with a return path
> appropriate to that user, as any mail
When sending mail from command-line, all is well with per-user host/user
masquerading. However, when a user on the server sends mail from a CGI
script, it's being sent with the following header:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Each user gets their own dedicated pool of Apach
Just as a clarification, Return-Path: contains the envelope address?
This would be taken from the "MAIL FROM:" in the sendmail dialog,
right?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688, FAX 408.379.9602, whois '
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 08:42:02PM -0500, James Smallacombe wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> >On 3 Mar 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> >
> >> > Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header
> >> > and not to
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>On 3 Mar 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>
>> > Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header
>> > and not touch the From header?
>>
>> No. Why would a user want that?
>
>Wel
On 3 Mar 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header
> > and not touch the From header?
>
> No. Why would a user want that?
Well, for one, a user that's subscribed to an ezmlm mailing list that has
On 3 Mar 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header
> > and not touch the From header?
>
> No. Why would a user want that?
Well, for one, a user that's subscribed to an ezmlm mailing list that has
posts restricted to subsc
FastWeb writes:
> What is the syntax for the name.cdb file to re-write a
> from or return-path header?
See the ofmipname man page:
# From: "Joe Shmoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:Joe Shmoe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There's no support for wildcards. If a us
What is the syntax for the name.cdb file to re-write a
from or return-path header?
For example I want to re-write the From header as follows:
Incoming From Rewritten From
*@*.domain1.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where "*" matches anything.
Also: is it possible to rewrite
Chris Green writes:
> 1 - The default installation directory is /var/qmail, do most
> installations actually use this? If you do use this do you add
Yes.
> /var/qmail/bin to the qmail administrator's (usually root) path
> or what? After install unless you do s
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:28:43AM +, Chris Green wrote:
>
> 1 - The default installation directory is /var/qmail, do most
> installations actually use this? If you do use this do you add
> /var/qmail/bin to the qmail administrator's (usually root) path
>
actually use this? If you do use this do you add
/var/qmail/bin to the qmail administrator's (usually root) path
or what? After install unless you do something manually none of
the executables are accessible and nor are the man pages.
2 - Related to the above (and I know ther
Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 26 January 1999 at 23:34:25 +0100
> - [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> | I don't seem to be getting a return-path header added to messages
> | coming in over the net.
>
> It is added on maildir and mailbox delivery. Wh
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| I don't seem to be getting a return-path header added to messages
| coming in over the net.
It is added on maildir and mailbox delivery. When delivering to a
program, it is not added automatically, but is available in an
environment variable ($RPLINE) for the progr
I don't seem to be getting a return-path header added to messages
coming in over the net. Most qmail users I've talked to seem to
expect this, and there seems to be code in qmail-local to add it at
least under some conditions. I'm back on qmail 1.02, not 1.03 yet.
And I've
84 matches
Mail list logo
