From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:22:56 -0500 (EST)
Mark Delany writes:
> I walk around http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/world.html
> might be instructive.
Instructive, yes, but it says nothing about TAI. TAI is simply a
counting of sec
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:42:49 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why? POSIX says 2000 is not a leap year :)
What makes you say that?
POSIX is incorrect because it says that 2100 is a leap year (just in
case you were worried that there wouldn't be a Y2.1K problem). POSIX
does not say that
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:53:31 -0500 (EST)
> 5. Recommendation
>
> Impose the 40 character limitation specified by RFC1939 into qmail.
> Apply qmail-popup patch http://www.ktwo.ca/c/qmail-popup-patch
I don't recommend applying t
From: "Peter Samuel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:09:10 +1100 (EST)
I _know_ what INTERNALS says Dan, but try this test and you'll see that
it does leave the queue in a corrupt state
echo "echo "Fpsamuel\0Tpsamuel\0" > /tmp/envelope
echo hello | qmail-q
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:37:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>The remaining problem is to have a current set of smtproutes
>available which could probably be generated from log file
>analysis in near-realtime.
Doing it anywhere near realtime would require man
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
> I have two mail servers - on is located in a different country - My
> question is how do I become a backup for that other server in the event
> that it goes down or looses connectivity??
>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:53:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>At 4/24/2000 10:56 AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote or quoted:
>>"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to
>> >him o
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>How often have you heard somebody say ``You
>didn't get my fax? I guess the Telco server was down.''
Ever pick up the phone and not get a dialtone? Dial a number and get
the "fast busy signal" tha
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:05:37 -0400
From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
actually it's more the nature of our existance - nothing can be
guaranteed with absolute certainty, so you need to check everything...
But that's why we have computers--to check things for us.
You can't ch
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:26:00 -0400
From: Brian Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the person could just simply not
be checking their e-mail, or you could've mistyped the address, or a million
other things, so you just plain can't depend on the system, but the more
checks you put in
From: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:37:14 -0400
Not at all. Dave said, ``simply because they didn't receive a
warning...'' In other words, you can't assume the message was
received, simply because you WEREN'T told that it WASN'T received. You
can on
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:17:27 -0400
From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was
that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you
want implemented:
That feature is reliability from t
This patch adds control of queue lifetimes to qmail.
This patch permits user control of the length of time a message will
live in the queue before being bounced. For example, a very urgent
message might be sent with a queue lifetime of 1 hour. If it is not
sent in that time, it will be bounced,
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:39:18 +0200
From: Paulo Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Taylor UUCP (to be exact, the one that comes with Red Hat Linux 6.x)
and qmail. Is there a step-to-step guide, a sort of HOWTO, for it? I
have qmail working succesfully with HDB UUCP for a number
From: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:32:01 -0700
further, it's unlikely (at least based on my experience) that every
qmail-smtpd will have to go through the entire rcpthosts file every
single time a message comes in, so the CPU argument is a little iffy
t
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:28:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Mayzurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The pipe works fine for small distribution lists, but I'm getting consistent
blocking after writing about 10KB of addresses (around 400 recipients) to the
pipe. qmail-queue is blocked in read() and
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:14:14 +0530
From: Ruchir Chandra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1. Qmail on server Q1 is unable to deliver the mail fetched over UUCP to
the local POP mailboxes.
How do we setup Qmail to deliver mail fetched over UUCP to the local pop
mailboxes.?
In what way do
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:49:34 -0500
From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not to mention that the whole point of freeware and open source software in
general is to give everyone the ability to audit the software, not just a
select few. It sounds like the author of this book is
From: "Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:43:50 -0500
> Lipscomb, Al writes:
> > Open Source is often used to describe software that has
> its source code
>^ incorrectly
> > available regardless of the license involved. "Free
> Soft
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:11:06 -0800
From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Jarc wrote:
> Dan's software isn't open source.
Oh, really? By whose definition? I have the source, and I have the
actual program. I suppose if you're some ESR/RMS fanatic, this does
not comply
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:38:24 -0600
From: Chris Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Since we were on the subject of wasted bandwidth; I've been reading
this thread about 'Secrets and lies' lately. Exactly what purpose does
this subject serve on this list?
There are probably lots of clev
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:34:59 -0800
From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can't see any circumstances where any of Dan's sofware can be deemed
closed source.
It is not the case that all software is either open source or closed
source. There is a broad continuum of licensing poss
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:52:33 -0600
From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:34:59 -0800
>From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I can't see any circumstance
Date: 1 Dec 2000 18:28:12 +
From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Another issue for my money is that of the lost of instantaneousness
that would result in having to (effectively) retrieve a web page for
each email you read. It sounds silly, but adding a mere second to the
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:33:08 -0600 (CST)
From: CK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We have experienced very bad email floods from the
Bare CRLF code in Qmail, where another site that
didn't understand the error and will keep sending
the same message forever. It seems to be automated
I installed QMTP on sources.redhat.com. sources.redhat.com, formerly
sourceware.cygnus.com, is the host of a number of free software
projects, including gcc, gdb, and the GNU binutils. It sends out over
100,000 e-mail messages per day.
The system has received exactly one mail message via QMTP (
Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
> it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
>
> If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> running) this failure will be logged as
>
> deferral: Connected_
Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010115 23:53]:
> > I don't see it. Russ's patch looks like this (at least, in the
> > version I downloaded):
> > +if (qmtp_priority(ip.ix[i].pref)) {
> > +
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
> > it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
> >
> > If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> >
"Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scenario 2: When a remote system establishes an SMTP session with your
> system, your tcpserver will try and contact the ident server on the
> remote system. If the remote system is not running an ident server,
> tcpserver has to wait for the timeout be
Martin Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whilst I'm hereI noticed that most mail servers connecting have
> cutomised greetings and endings during the 220, 250 and 221 responses. I
> searched the docs plus Dave Sills archives but couldn't find anything on
> this.
Naturally qmail provides
"zhonghua dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Who can tell me what's the function substdio_feed for?
It refills the buffer for the substdio argument. It is called when
one of the input routines is called when there is no data left in the
buffer.
It's a bit confusing at first glance because DJB
"Sean C Truman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - "Jeremy Suo-Anttila" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > the only exploits i could find about qmail is the one that djb wrote
> > himself. Can you tell me what string you used for the search or post the
> url
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Jps
>
> Below are the only t
Peter Cavender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is this qmail version 2.0 that securityfocus.com claims there is an
> explot for? Am I missing something, or are they?
>
> Being that I have better things to do than to try to screw up my mail
> server, has anyone tried this claimed explot? Wha
"Jason Brooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you run qmail-smtpd directly from inetd.conf, as suggested in the
> > INSTALL file distributed with qmail-1.03, then there is a pretty good
> > chance that the instance of qmail-smtpd being attacked will grow to
> > eat of all of memory. What hap
"Jason Brooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's all well and good though, until your comment about tcpserver not
> preventing this DOS. If this is true then I have to withdraw.
>
> I run qmail under tcpserver on variety of slackware 7.1 installs and and a
> couple of slackware 4.0 installs,
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Obviously there isn't anything wrong with qmail. And obviously these
> > bug reports are highly misleading in implying that there is a bug
> > which ne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
> statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
> not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
>
> What is wrong with some of the requests t
"Edward J. Allen III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is nothing wrong with incorporating common patches into the
> distribution. This is how open source development works.
qmail is not open source. It does not obey condition 3 of the Open
Source Definition:
http://www.opensource.org/d
Yee Siew Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> how can i configure a qmail to act as a uucp server?
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/outgoing.html#uucp
Ian
Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, to me it appears that a simple perl script (or whatever) could
> be used to fix this "problem". Simply make the script call the real
> qmail-inject or qmail sendmail wrapper, then first print out the Date
> header (in whatever format/timezone/
Jason Kawaja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /var/tcp/env -->
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root sys 80 Mar 6 07:45 PATH
>
> <> Contents of /var/tcp/env/PATH :
>
> /usr/local/bin:/var/tcp:/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin
>
> <> Have tried the following:
>
> echo $PAT
"Matt Simonsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you sure? Is this wrong?
> http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/1167/fid/208
Looks wrong to me. datemail is a trivial shell script which invokes
sendmail. sendmail and qmail-inject take different options. It does
not make sense t
Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you're down for too long, mail will bounce. The same is true of your
> own secondary, unless you make provisions to deliver it somewhere else
> or store it and re-inject it or other such administrative nightmare.
No, when the primary goes down, you jus
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone know of any reasion why I shouldn't set the qmail-qread
> and qmail-qstat as setuid root? I've looked through the source, but
> am looking for a last confirmation or "don't do that." -sc
Make them setuid qmailq, not setuid root.
That
"Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If the input numbers are truly random, then a modulos hash will
> >distribute well whether or not the hash size is prime.
> >
> >However, if the input
"Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Unix file system inode numbers are not truly random. Therefore, it's
> >>wise to choose a prime conf-split.
>
> BTW, I modified my modhash program to read numbers from stdin, fed it
> lists of real, live inode numbers, and guess what? It still makes n
"Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You're right. The "hashing" used here is a simple modulo. From
> fmtqfn.c:
>
>i = fmt_ulong(s,id % auto_split); len += i; if (s) s += i;
>
> I can't see that primality would do anything special here.
>
> However, the default, 23, is prime, and in h
"Rodney Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ===> OK, to be fair I'll include the example of sending a bunch of mail to
> this same domain with a single connection but with differing message bodies.
Note that VERP, which is very useful for mailing lists, requires this
approach, because the one c
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:58:26 -0400
From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am pretty sure svscan expects the logging to come through on a certain file
descriptor, but not positive. Does anyone know if this is the case? If so,
which one is it? Should I just add a 2>&1 at the e
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:42:18 -0500
From: Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've read and reread DjB's documentation of the format and still find it
quite confusing. For example, I still do not understand the
significance of the first eight bytes of the stamp. I think it is the
From: "Kadre, Da" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:25:37 -0700
550 Sorry, I can't open that file: not a directory.
Cannot retrieve info, any other info?
Dave's suggestion works for me. However, you may have better luck with
http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt
Ian
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:32:00 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Tim Hunter wrote:
> This doesn't even make sense, are you looking to configure a different time
> period for different users?
>
> This isn't even possible, or neccessary.
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:49:00 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 August 2000 at 11:32:00 -0700
> I can't see much harm in being able to define the queuelifetime on
> an individual submission - perhaps li
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:07:24 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The information is passed via the environment variable
> QMAILQUEUELIFETIME to qmail-inject, which uses a new code (L) in the
> todo file. qmail-send moves this new code over to the info file, and
> honors it when
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:21:33 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Off tangent, how does an SMTP submission get at this feature? Interestingly,
it should probably be something that each MTA knows about to be truly useful,
consider secondary MXes gateway systems, etc. Ahh, a change in SM
Date: 22 Sep 2000 11:48:44 -
From: John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I get mail via uucp. The "From " header looks like:
From somplace.com!someone ...
and qmail adds the domain:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and then adds a:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
57 matches
Mail list logo
