Besides all new features and/or corrections about
q-s, I wonder about performance improvements in this version, so far.
BTW, I had searched in the q-s list (A LOT) about
keeping q-s persistent (in any possible way) but up to now I have no idea
if this is possible, how to do it and if it is worth.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 12/07/2005 13:53:28:
> Jim Maul wrote:
>
> > I dont see anything over 4.0 seconds there with the average around
2.0
> > seconds maybe? This is with extra SARE rules, razor, and
URIBL
> > lookups. This is running on a p4 2.8ghz with 512mb ram.
>
>
> Yup - everyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 11/06/2005 10:00:29:
> Anyway - you simply want qmail to do something that it's design
> precludes it from doing (qmail-smtpd simply does not have PERMISSIONS
> to check weather the recepient exists. It was made that way because
of
> security issues - any bug in SMTP co
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 10/06/2005 00:25:35:
> We're all happy to discard viruses without bouncing them.
> We're even OK with the idea of discarding SPAM without notifying the"sender".
> It's not hard to conclude that bouncing in these two cases is utterly
wrong,
> despite what the RFCs may
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 09/06/2005 22:49:27:
> Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>
> >No I'm not. Read what I wrote. "If an MTA does accept email
for delivery, it
> >should NEVER bounce it"
Qmail, due to its modular architecture does accept
message and decide to bounce later in its chain. You need to und
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 02/19/2005 01:06:03:
> Hi,
> I try to upgrade my existing qmail-scanner-1.22 to
> qmail-scanner-1.24, but i have qq 453 error when trying to send mail.
> found this from the log.
>
> error_condition: X-Qmail-Scanner-1.24-st-qms: owner of unpacked
file
> "/var/s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -
>If you have SMTP AUTH patched in your qmail, verify it's configured
>correctly. Try to connect using an invalid username/password
>combination and see if you can relay.
>I had a problem a year ago with a server I hadn't configured smtp
>auth properly and couldn
Forgive me, have you used a online test for openrelays? For some test
softwares qmail might appear as an openrelay even it is not open. There is
a patch for that.
>> No. this happened in a production box.
Here goes what happened: This box has been stable for more than a week - I had added q-s a
The REALYCLIENT check (and decision, rcpthost -> 'addrallowed') is done by qmail-smtpd, so before qmail-queue (or q-s) is invoked.
Maybe one of the patch that modifies qmail-smtpd.c has broken this check... You can also check your rcpthost file.
Salvatore, thanks for your promptly replay.
I see
I had setup a qmail box for a customer with many patches:
spamcontrol
spf from spf.pobox.com
discard feature I had written myself
This install uses q-s for all external (non-relayclient) incoming connections.
It has also setup helocheck and mfdnscheck (see spamcontrol).
This box has been working
I am using q-s1.22 patched with SA 3.0
without no issues at all.
Just need to be careful about deprecated
options and new way to setting old things.
IIRC, this is all in README file.
Regards.
I got a qmail + q-s + clamav system
running pretty fine now.
During installation I came across the
following issue:
q-s was installed using credentials
of user qscand - as default.
clamav, using clamdscan daemon, was
installed using credentials of user clamd - as default.
At first, my system was
12 matches
Mail list logo
