Hi all.
Hope someone can help me
I am running a qmail/vpopmail/maildrop installation in a mail box.
Yesterday the box stopped receiving mail. All mail was rejected with
the error:
"421 unable to read controls"
After a quick search in the net i solved it chmodding
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts.
B
Amen
-Original Message-
From: Payal Rathod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 12:27 AM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:33:25PM -0400, Steve Cole wrote:
> I've had it stop running enough times that I
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:33:25PM -0400, Steve Cole wrote:
> I've had it stop running enough times that I run "/etc/init.d/qmailq
> start" every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get
> over 500K mail per day, and queues infuriate users). It only quits
> maybe once a month o
Hi List,
On my personal experience i use the combination of stock qmail +
spamcontrol + vpopmail + eMail Messaging Policy Framework (eMPF) comes with
inter7.com.
spamcontrol can be found at http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/spamcontrol.html
for me it has everything you need and i think the autho
Bruno Negrão wrote:
Hi everybody,
Thank you very much for the info.
Let me tell more info about us.
We already use Qmail in our 6 mailservers for 4 years. I installed all
of them. I even wrote
http://www.qmailwiki.org/Simscan/Related_Docs/Simscan_ClamAV_Chkuser_Installation_Guide
What mean
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:45, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Ahh... well, don't get too anxious for people to drop their MS Outlooks.
> I've yet to see a webmail that provides the speed and convenience (and
> offline access) that a good client-side mail browser can (not that I'm
> defending MS Outlook or
I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I
heard it is licensed "under BSD which is
DFSG-free" - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the
distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap?
Mmm, not exactly. Qmail-ldap is based on qmail (as I understand
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:43, Alex Borges wrote:
> So, where can i find the documents to move my vpopmail install from
> qmail to postfix?
I haven't done it. Too many problems and risks for me. But Google probably
has the answer to that.
--
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administra
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:19, Bruno Negrão wrote:
> What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly,
> and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We
> substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break
> down and cry. Sqwebmail
Same to me! Qmail has been a great piece of software in the past but its
definitly to old in the meanwhile an I hate doing all the patch stuff to
get an almost up to date smtp-server.
But as far as i know the only way to integrate it with postfix is a
qmail backend :-( So I think i have to loo
On Tuesday, July 5 at 06:19 PM, quoth Bruno Negrão:
3) We don't have personnel and don't intend to dedicade C programmers
to develop patches for qmail by ourselves.
Out of curiosity, how frequently do you find the need to patch qmail? I
would have thought it was a "decide what it needs to do,
So hollistic has this "internet" of humans has become.
I was actually trying to research how to make vpopmail work with postfix
because i HATE the way (or lack thereoff) we have in qmail to put an
extra email in each email sent (like a disclaimer or non disclosure text
in each email).
It seems pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Be advised, my previous public key has expired. Below is my new
one.
Public key for 0x87361146B7B54216
- -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
mQGiBELK+dIRBAC0okiXPmTsEvTKE8Y23OtaJlMiWFj6IpUxOhUN80+xLd4M8iry
gNr+xMr
Hi everybody,
Thank you very much for the info.
Let me tell more info about us.
We already use Qmail in our 6 mailservers for 4 years. I installed all of
them. I even wrote
http://www.qmailwiki.org/Simscan/Related_Docs/Simscan_ClamAV_Chkuser_Installation_Guide
What means I'm used to the Qmail
Steve Cole wrote:
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:45, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure).
i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious.
I agree. It should be.
Yes. I've configured qmail on many different
On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 10:56:26 PM Steve wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:50, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
>> Hello List,
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7:24:19 PM patrick wrote:
>> > by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with
>> > vpopmail? regards
>>
>> That's exa
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:50, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7:24:19 PM patrick wrote:
> > by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with
> > vpopmail? regards
>
> That's exactly 'roaming users' feature of vpopmail.
Yes. Just so every
Hello List,
On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7:24:19 PM patrick wrote:
> by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with vpopmail?
> regards
That's exactly 'roaming users' feature of vpopmail.
Ask your provider if the pre-installed vpopmail was compiled enabling
this feature, if
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:45, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure).
>
> i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious.
I agree. It should be.
--
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kings
At 01:37 PM 7/5/2005, Steve Cole wrote:
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you have some other issues...
I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,
2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the
sympto
On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 10:35:30 AM patrick wrote:
>>From which source exactly? What's the complete download URL you used
>>to get this patch?
>>
> http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/dist/qmail-smtpd-auth-0.31.tar.gz
OK, than parameters should be OK.
> Well, I did not compile v
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you have some other issues...
I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,
2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the
symptoms are the same... qmail-send dies.
I'm
Maybe you have some other issues...
> On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:28, Ken Jones wrote:
>
>> We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and
>> it never breaks.
>
> I've had it stop running enough times that I run "/etc/init.d/qmailq
> start"
> every hour, just so that I can b
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:28, Ken Jones wrote:
> We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and
> it never breaks.
I've had it stop running enough times that I run "/etc/init.d/qmailq start"
every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K
mail per d
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 1:05 pm, Bruno Negrão wrote:
> >does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a
> >'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what
> >shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not
> >"Qmail").
>
> OK. He wants
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:20, James McMillan wrote:
> "Why should I use qmail?"
Then, the answer is probably:
"If you're already using it, and it's adequate or too costly to switch."
These days, that pretty much sums it up.
--
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kingston
Eh, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the question like;
"Why should I use qmail?"
and not
"Why shouldn't I use qmail?"
Just trying to point us back in the right direction.
Steve Cole wrote:
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh,
In passing, qsheff version 1.0 was released. This is the best solution for
qmail spam and virus protection I've yet seen for qmail, and in my testing it
seems less buggy than most.
http://www.enderunix.org/qsheff/
enderunix has a reputation for building efficient useful software. I haven't
t
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh, I think netqmail has
> addressed that "problem".
Don't quote problem. It has real problems. errno.h is a nice start.
netqmail is at best a hacked-together solution for a small set of problems.
It
Patrick,
if your reference is lifewithqmail like me just set your
/service/qmail-smtpd/run similar to this
sorry for my bad english since i'm not a native english speaker.
#!/bin/bash
export LOCALMFCHECK=""
export MFDNSCHECK=""
export HELOCHECK=""
export QMAILQUEUE="/var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-q
Hi Patrick,
pls. read:
http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/smtpauth.html
regards.
--eh.
At 19:18 05.07.2005 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello List again,
>How do I need to chmod /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw to use it the right way
with qmail smtp-auth-patched? Any other vpopmail-things i need to take care
of in th
dude, yahoo uses qmail, nuff said!
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
> I cannot name any company name but I used to work for a large
> telecommunications provider. They are world leade
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:51:49 -0500
"Steve Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jacob S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by
> > default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian.
>
> FreeBSD sh
On Tuesday, July 5 at 02:37 PM, quoth Steve Cole:
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote:
It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy
to add functionality to it and much more.
Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to
be adde
- Original Message -
From: "Jacob S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Debian (and Ubuntu - based on Debian) and FreeBSD all use Exim by
> default. I'm not sure about any Linux distros other than Debian.
FreeBSD ships sendmail (8.13.4 in the latest releases) by default. Not Exim.
-steve
ok, so that gives his boss valid reasons to question
getting in bed with qmail. fine, sod off djb... what
else is out there thats worth using?
jaymer...
--- Adi Pircalabu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:18:37 -0300
> "Listas barbarojo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I do
On Tuesday, July 5 at 03:05 PM, quoth Bruno Negrão:
does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a
'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what
shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not
"Qmail").
OK. He wants to know i
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote:
> Most of the GNU/linux distributors are using sendmail but I
> can assure you that the mailserver most robust, efficient and secure is by
> far qmail.
This is simply not true anymore. It was true in 1997, and maybe right up to
1999 (I'll t
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:18:37 -0300
"Listas barbarojo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail
Please visit http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html to find out why there are
no qmail packages built.
No licensing war here, please :)
Thank you
--
Adi Pirc
I cannot name any company name but I used to work for a large
telecommunications provider. They are world leader for supplying mobile
operators with core network solutions like SMS and WAP. While designing
their MMS solution they had to choose an MTA to handle all the email
involved in MMS. Of all
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote:
> It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add
> functionality to it and much more.
Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added
in the form of patches, and it is suffering great
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:05:22 -0300
Bruno Negrão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based
> >upon a 'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings.
> >what shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it
> >is not "
That's right. Most of the GNU/linux distributors are using sendmail but I
can assure you that the mailserver most robust, efficient and secure is by
far qmail. Sendmail has been out there for a long time and too many security
bugs have been found. They have been fixed though.
Qmail has been develo
Hello Pat,
phps use pop before smtp see bill shupp´s qmail toaster.
Oliver
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 7:24 PM
Subject: [vchkpw] smtp after pop
> by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with
vpopmail?
> regards
does your boss have a rationale for his doubts, or are they based upon a
'gut' feeling? usually doubts arise based upon shortcomings. what
shortcoming does your boss see in qmail (note, small 'q' - it is not
"Qmail").
OK. He wants to know if there is a tendency on the market for some other
ma
At 07:29 AM 7/5/2005, Bruno Negrão wrote:
Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My
boss (not me) has doubts about Qmail. He wants
me to search for new mailservers of mail
solutions like, for example, outsourcing the mail function.
does your boss have a rationale for his doubts,
or are t
Since you are using a .de e-mail address i suppose that you speak
german :-) If so, take a look at pofo.de. Olli wrote a howto for FreeBSD
including a (short) smtp-after-pop-hack section.
mfg Bernd
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 19:24 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> by the way: does anyone know a good
by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with vpopmail?
regards
Patrick Gehm
Hello List again,
How do I need to chmod /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw to use it the right way with
qmail smtp-auth-patched? Any other vpopmail-things i need to take care of in
this case? Is there way to tell smtp to control every incoming mail with the
vchkpw? How does tcp.smtp.cdb needs to look li
Haha, Let the bidding begin.
tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
There are a lot of us here using qmail and able to give you an e-mail
service.
So you can continue to use qmail and your boss will have an outsourced
service!
Ciao,
Tonino
At 15.29 05/07/2005, you wrote:
Guys, let me explain why
There are a lot of us here using qmail and able to give you an e-mail service.
So you can continue to use qmail and your boss will have an outsourced service!
Ciao,
Tonino
At 15.29 05/07/2005, you wrote:
Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My boss (not me) has doubts
about Qmail. He wa
Guys, let me explain why I'm asking this. My boss (not me) has doubts about
Qmail. He wants me to search for new mailservers of mail solutions like,
for example, outsourcing the mail function.
So I'm asking this now to have more arguments to convince him to stay with
Qmail.
My boss (and me)
>
>Hello List,
>
>On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 8:50:01 AM patrick wrote:
>
I'm using qmail and vpopmail and just patched up with smtp-auth,
>>>Which SMTP-AUTH-patch?
>> I'm using Version 0.31
>
>From which source exactly? What's the complete download URL you used
>to get this patch?
>
http://me
Hello List,
On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 8:50:01 AM patrick wrote:
>>> I'm using qmail and vpopmail and just patched up with smtp-auth,
>>Which SMTP-AUTH-patch?
> I'm using Version 0.31
From which source exactly? What's the complete download URL you used
to get this patch?
> exec /usr/local/bin/
54 matches
Mail list logo
