The configuration of my e-mail system is the following:
qpsmtpd->VexiraAntivirus->SpamAssassin->qmail
I have enabled greylisting plugin for qpsmtpd and it works fine for entering
email...
But the my mails sent with Webmail (squirrelmail) or client IMAP (Netscape
Messenger or Outl
trying to get config for morercpthosts
> > 12556 Plugin rcpt_ok, hook rcpt returned DENY, Relaying denied (#5.7.1)
> > 12556 550 Relaying denied (#5.7.1)
>
> You need the put the list of domains that you accept mail for in
> /var/qmail/rcpthosts on the qpsmtpd host.
>
> Hop
> is blocked because [EMAIL PROTECTED] IS NOT IN rcpthost (it seems that
> my
> > client - squirrelmail or netscape messenger or outlook - are seen like
> > external..i don't understand!!)
> >
>
> Are you setting RELAYCLIENT anywhere? Qpsmtpd is not allowing y
Scrive John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have specified the local network (with RELAYCLIENT) in /etc/tcp.smtp, but
> in
> > this phase qmail & tcpserver are not been involved...on not??
>
> Surprisingly enough, if you expe
Hi
I have a problem when sending msg with many recipients:
when the quantity of rcpts is greater than 52, in qpsmtpd log appear this
output...
2007-07-18 13:12:00.727764500 3915 dispatching RCPT
TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2007-07-18 13:12:00.727956500 3915 to email address :
[<[EMAIL
From: Devin Carraway
Fixes a taint-checking abort on startup when BASH_ENV is set; modules are
loaded first, which kills prefork in the attempt to load IO::Socket.
---
qpsmtpd-prefork | 10 ++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qpsmtpd-prefork b/qpsmtpd
From: Devin Carraway
---
qpsmtpd-prefork | 10 ++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qpsmtpd-prefork b/qpsmtpd-prefork
index 882c752..3f23df3 100755
--- a/qpsmtpd-prefork
+++ b/qpsmtpd-prefork
@@ -10,6 +10,12 @@
# safety guards
use strict;
+BEGIN
From: Devin Carraway
---
qpsmtpd-forkserver |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qpsmtpd-forkserver b/qpsmtpd-forkserver
index 92d133a..9533092 100755
--- a/qpsmtpd-forkserver
+++ b/qpsmtpd-forkserver
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ usage: qpsmtpd-forkserver [ options
From: Devin Carraway
---
qpsmtpd-prefork |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qpsmtpd-prefork b/qpsmtpd-prefork
index 798e3c4..aecb417 100755
--- a/qpsmtpd-prefork
+++ b/qpsmtpd-prefork
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ if (@d_addr) {
}
}
} else
Hi all. I'm putting together a new server, using qpsmtp.
I'm running up to date gentoo, using the gentoo ebuild for
qpsmtpd-0.84-r2.
When I go to start the service, it fails. Debugging a little, strace
reveals that as the server starts up, it's trying to stat
lib/Net/IP.pmc an
Thanks all, good stuff there for me to follow up on.
Net::IP is not listed as a dependency, it should be. I'll see if I
can get hold of the qpsmtpd ebuild developers and get a bug filed.
From: Matt Simerson via qpsmtpd
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:09:16 -0800
Considering
I've discovered that my allow_postmaster plugin isn't doing what I
want it do, namely allow to postmaster from anybody. It turns out
that the spamassassin plugin is still running, and still DENY'ing
spam, even to postmaster.
My config/plugins has allow_postmaster first, and spamassassin last.
I'
OFT_COM 0.0 >>
AG> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
AG> score X_OSIRU_OPEN_RELAY 0.0 >> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
AG> killall spamd
AG> /usr/local/bin/spamd -d -u qpsmtpd
AG> --
AG> Andreas Gunleikskaas
Tom Smith writes:
Is it safe to assume that most MTAs will give up trying after four or five
days if a message is still undeliverable, even if it's getting a temporary
error? (The spam I referred to is dated in 2003, but I don't want to set a
date limit that old--perhaps a week or two.)
Sort
Tom Smith writes:
Is it safe to assume that most MTAs will give up trying after four or
five days if a message is still undeliverable, even if it's getting a
temporary error? (The spam I referred to is dated in 2003, but I don't
want to set a date limit that old--perhaps a week or two.)
Lik
Peter J. Holzer writes:
Something else I forgot?
Yeah, that people won't bother doing either of that. =/
Start with creating a single page listing _all_ plugins; their name, a short
description and an URL to where they can be found, the date it was added and
then a button people can press
ple are using a lot of customized plugins)
there'd finally be this ultimate collection of plugins; a very simple way
for new/potential users of qpsmtpd to find out what's possible.
Once that's available it'd be easier to create a sort of package-system,
allowing people to easi
On Sunday 08 December 2002 5:44 pm, Andreas Gunleikskaas wrote:
> I've been testing qpsmtp tonight and like it very much, but i have a couple
> of questions.
>
> #1
> SpamAssasin appends the X-Spam-Status header which is good, because then it
> is up to the user if he want to filter it. But not all
It's great to be able to reject a connection from a spammer. It's
okay to reject a connection from a legitimate sender, as long as the
rejection message is reasonable and gets back to him. Unfortunately, there
is at least one MTA that doesn't pass the error through to the sender:
Hotmail. W
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Well, anti-spam is my day-job, and I wouldn't recomend those if I didn't
> think they were worth it.
Hmm. Until recently, I worked for Western Canada's largest ISP on
their Tier III Messaging Team. My unofficial title was "Spam-Master", not
only
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My personal philosophy is that spam control should not be
> >dependent on anyone else. That means no dnsbl lists at all. It also means
> >that whatever I do, I have to guarantee that legit email can get through.
> >On top
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2004, at 00:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > My personal philosophy is that spam control should not be
> > dependent on anyone else. That means no dnsbl lists at all. It also
> > means
> > that whatever I do, I have to guarantee that legit
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Henry Baragar wrote:
> I am getting the following warning in my log files:
>
> Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at
> ./plugins/spamassassin line 102, line 43
>
> Should I be concerned? What can I do to make it go away?
One of the variables didn't ge
I am getting the "MAP!" warning in my logs on a very regular
basis, but I don't think it happens with every connection. It's coming
from the "get_qmail_config" subroutine with the following code:
if ($type and $type eq "map") {
warn "MAP!";
I'm still using version 0.26 - ca
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2004, at 2:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'm still using version 0.26 - can someone please describe what
> > this is supposed to indicate? As far as I can tell, everything is still
> > functioning properly (but mayb
Don't know if I'm just too tired to see the forest for the trees,
or if my Perl skills need more work in this area (probably both)...
I'm trying to pass an array between plugins. The sending plugin
does this:
$transaction->notes( 'myarray', @array ) ;
The receiving plugin
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Anthony D. Urso wrote:
> You'll want to do:
>
> $transaction->notes( 'myarray', [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ;
>
> $array = $transaction->notes( 'myarray' ) ;
>
> foreach $element ( @$array ) {
Ah! Things make so much more sense in the light of day :-) It
works as I intended.
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> Has anyone really seen real clients being disconnected by this plugin?
I wouldn't call them 'clients' but...
In the last 3 weeks, we've had 2870 out of 152940 disconnected
transactions or 176804 total transactions disconn
ome files of the same size too, but all are different messages
> truncated in the middle (e.g. after 12288 bytes). Strange.
>
> > I see now that qpsmtpd is dying whilst waiting for qmail-scanner to
> > finish:
>
> I use qmail-scanner too, maybe thats a hint.
I don'
>
> > A message does not need "diagnostic information" to have a purpose.
> > Everything related to mail transport (and _thats_ what the qpsmtpd
> > core is about) is signalled outside of the message. A empty message
> > might very well trigger some action at the r
In going over some information about SMTP reply codes, it appears
that certain error codes (numbers) should be used with certain commands
(only, sometimes). Is this correct, or can we issue any error code at any
time?
For example, the check_spamhelo plugin returns a 550 error if we
d with its usual possible replies.
>^
Yes, and the state table is a bit different than in 821, also.
> and goes on to list the following:
>
> EHLO or HELO
> S: 250
>E: 504, 550
>
> so qpsmtpd is perfectly fine.
I also wonder about the
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, John Peacock wrote:
> so qpsmtpd is perfectly fine.
I've also seen some proposals for new error codes (i.e. if you are
bouncing spam or viruses). Would most/all MTAs properly handle a
(currently) undefined code? We could easily implement these new codes
right
After finally getting pop-before-smtp to work for pop and imap
clients, I find that the major ISP in the area is starting to block port
25 outbound from their dynamic IPs, so the feature is currently useless
for a number of people.
I tried to google some "SMTPS QPSMTPD"
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, John Peacock wrote:
> Isn't this pretty much exactly what you need?
>
> http://www.rickk.com/sslwrap/
I'll have a look - thanks.
> BTW - Kudos to the ISP for blocking port 25 on their dynamic IP's! This
> is a major source of spam (from the zombie army)!
Thanks for the pointers. I'm discovering all the different names
in use - SMTPS, STARTTLS, SSLWRAPPER, Secure SMTP, and so on. I should be
able to piece something together will all this.
--
Roger Walker
"HIS Pain - OUR Gain"
250-nylon.rope.net EHLO [66.206.23.240] [66.206.23.240]
I see that this information is output to the logs for each
connection, as well as outputs it in the SMTP dialog. In this case, the
first IP address is substituted for the hostname, since the hostname
(reverse lookup) doesn't exist.
I've been playing with this plugin off and on for some time, and I
really find 'spamc' itself problematic. I'm wondering if others have found
the same problems and what, if anything, they have done about it.
Quite often, submitting the same file to 'spamc' can result in
nothing, "0
space after the colon.
> >
> > qmail is also happy without angle brackets. And with no colon.
> "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send" was a
> good motto for a friendlier internet than we have today.
I hope qpsmtpd doesn't bec
Further information, and a temporary fix:
I read the tcp file for qmail instead of the one for qpsmtpd, so
the RELAYCLIENT was not being set after all.
I set up simple debug code in all of the plugins, and here's what
it reported for a connection that should have
I have a bit of a different plugin running that handles
pop-before-smtp by reading a list of recent IPs that have popped an
account, and if there is a match with the connecting IP, it sets a
transaction note:
$transaction->notes( 'pop-b4-smtp', 1 ) ;
In the check_relay plugin, I a
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Michael C. Toren wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:53:35AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have a bit of a different plugin running that handles
> > pop-before-smtp by reading a list of recent IPs that have popped an
> > account, and if there is a match with the co
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Michael C. Toren wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:51:24PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > $transaction->notes( 'pop-b4-smtp', 1 ) ;
> > > >
> > I'm working from what I 'THINK' I know from reading existing
> > plugins and creating my own. There doesn't seem to be
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> If someone who's using clamav can make and test a patch for the clamav
> plugin to make it work with 0.80 (and if possible spew a warning if
> clamav is too old), then I think we are ready for 0.29 ... (famous
> last words).
I b
I've been using "Email::Valid" internally to check for bad
addresses, and periodically it finds one. I was looking at moving the
check into a plugin, but when I use "$sender->user" and "$sender->host",
it seems like qpsmtpd has already done some ve
use
> connection->notes('original_string') to do whatever you need.
Something to look forward to - thanks.
What about any "built-in" address verification? Does qpsmtpd do
any? Some? Complete? I'm still at 0.26 on the old mail server.
--
Roger Walker
"HIS Pain - OUR Gain"
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Bob wrote:
> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
> >This is strictly a syntax check, though - no semantic verification is
> >(can't require spf but MX in dns is fair to require, because otherwise
> >it's an "open relay"), if so, we might check "built-in". This should be
> >left to plugins
Hey Chris,
See https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/pull/246
Matt
> On Dec 17, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Chris Dallimore wrote:
>
> The helo plugin fails to match any entries in badhelo, as the is_regex_match
> sub returns after the first (usually unsuccessful) test.
>
> This works
ndly, I would like to just accept all email unauthenticated from my
> LAN, can I configure qpsmtpd to let anything from 172.22.0.0/16 go through?
Yes, you can.
Matt
Considering that 0.84 is quite a lot older than current, I'd do a search for
Net::IP within the qpsmtpd repo and see what turns up:
https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/search?q=net%3A%3Aip&type=Commits
<https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/search?q=net::ip&type=Commits>
Matt
>
50 matches
Mail list logo
