[vchkpw] Re: how to check local mailaddresses on mx server ?
Hi, If your mail account are not created on your smtp server, you need to tell QMail wich address are valid... have a look here : http://www.protecmail.com/opensource/ , rcptchecks is a patch for qmail, and a script you run on your vpopmail server to update a the rcptchecks mysql database with valid address. ,- - [ Le lundi 14 juillet 2008 vers 22:47 Bulent Kolay écrivait: ] - - | I have some domains. I use vpopmail5.x on qmail-1.03. I have a MX server and a Pop3 server for my domains. I want my mx server to check for local users on my pop3 server. I don't want my pop3 server to check these local mailaddresses again. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be !DSPAM:4880521d32351214074096!
[vchkpw] Re: setting up a secondary MX
Bonjour, ,- - [ Le mardi 26 février 2008 vers 20:10 Bogdan Motoc - CRC écrivait: ] - - | Ok, what do I have to replicate from qmail/vpopmail for it to work and not deliver mail localy, but to the primary MX? Replicating everyting, including maildirs is out of the question. You could use rcptchecks : http://www.protecmail.com/opensource/?lang=en It allow you to configure in a mysql db every address that should be allowed, it's a nice tool when you do not have control of the main server, or do not want to use a full vpopmail/mysql solution. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be !DSPAM:47c476f6310545689014248!
[vchkpw] Re: rsync
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 2 février 2008 vers 2:22 Quey écrivait: ] - - | We are doing backup trough rsync, and when the mail accounts take more than 10GB (meaning a lot of mails !), the backup take really a lot of time, we needed to split the backup domain per domain... define a long time? More than 1h per 10GB (3h for 25GB) on a Gigabit lan. Meaning of course that only a small part of this size are really transfered. I've already seen a single account with more than 1.000.000 emails for less than 2Gig taking 3 hours, rsync have really difficult to handle so many files at once ! and what FS do you use (ext2|3/reiser/etc...)? reiserfs, on ext3 such big directory is really not a good idea :) | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be !DSPAM:47a4dceb310541648688850!
[vchkpw] Re: rsync
Hi, ,- - [ Le vendredi 1 février 2008 vers 15:28 Christopher Chan écrivait: ] - - | Did any body tried using rsync to replicate between backup and primary qmail servers. Is it recommended for a Qmail hosting multiple domains having more then 7000 users. Try nfs or whatever backend storage interface you fancy for your storage server and put /home/vpopmail/domains there. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Storing mail accounts on any backend storage does not have anything to do with the need of backup... nfs or local, the mails must be backup at least every day... We are doing backup trough rsync, and when the mail accounts take more than 10GB (meaning a lot of mails !), the backup take really a lot of time, we needed to split the backup domain per domain... -- Best regards... _ (_' ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be !DSPAM:47a33b5d310541471214031!
[vchkpw] Re: Upgrade to Vpopmail 5.4.26 and .qmail-default issues
Hi, Be carefull with the Gentoo ebuilds : they are modyfied by the Gentoo team to use .maildir (dot maildir) in place of Maildir, it can be the source of your problems if you've mixed official Gentoo ebuilds (expecting .maildir) with others made by hand (using Maildir). ,- - [ Le mercredi 2 janvier 2008 vers 20:13 Matthew Goodman écrivait: ] - - | netqmail-1.05, qmail-scanner-2.01-st, vpopmail 5.4.26 - all compiled from Gentoo ebuilds. The vpopmail ebuild I sort of made by hand, so as much as possible I investigate the ebuilds carefully for strange/rogue settings and such. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be !DSPAM:477bebec310542081710665!
[vchkpw] Re: Upgrade to Vpopmail 5.4.26 and .qmail-default issues
Hi, My opinion, if it can help : If it works when you have a .qmail, it's probably because this file use a different delivery agent (maildrop), thus it means that your default delivery agent does not work correctly, and for me according you are using gentoo, honnestly, the .maildir / Maildir difference remain a clue... could you try creating a symlink .maildir ? Anyway, it should be the default delivery program wich is not able to do their job, try it manualy to see if you have a specific output. ,- - [ Le mercredi 2 janvier 2008 vers 21:09 Matthew Goodman écrivait: ] - - | I do agree, that the ebuilds are not always very useful. I had edited the build to eliminate the changes from Maildir to .maildir. It is accomplished through a simple sed command across the vpopmail source before compiling. I interrupted this process by commenting it out and the build itself should be operating as normal from source, which would be Maildir. You do raise a good point, I wish Gentoo would get that part of it right. Deviating from the standards are not a good idea. Matt Hi, Be carefull with the Gentoo ebuilds : they are modyfied by the Gentoo team to use .maildir (dot maildir) in place of Maildir, it can be the source of your problems if you've mixed official Gentoo ebuilds (expecting .maildir) with others made by hand (using Maildir). ,- - [ Le mercredi 2 janvier 2008 vers 20:13 Matthew Goodman écrivait: ] - - | netqmail-1.05, qmail-scanner-2.01-st, vpopmail 5.4.26 - all compiled from Gentoo ebuilds. The vpopmail ebuild I sort of made by hand, so as much as possible I investigate the ebuilds carefully for strange/rogue settings and such. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be !DSPAM:477c0008310541045313506!
[vchkpw] Re: Disable a domain
Hi, If you use qmail : configure the new server into the smtproutes file, and remove any settings for a local delivery. It would be much easier. ,- - [ Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 vers 8:54 Dominic Caputo écrivait: ] - - | I tried this but I dont seem to be able to get it to work. I have also tried it with a pipe in front. Please let me know if i have something wrong in the .qmail-default /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' $DEFAULT@newserver.xxx.com | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Re: Vpopmail/QMail relay local mail to another server mail ??
Hi, ,- - [ Le lundi 25 juin 2007 vers 10:12 Hoang An écrivait: ] - - | Currently, I had a Qmail Server in Fedora 4 and MDeaemon in Windows 2003. But when user1 send to user3, QMail return error - Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mydomain.com http://mydomai.com/. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) . `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not really clear... wich server handle the emails of @mydomain.com ? Is it VPopmail or QMail ? The better way to do is to use only one server to handle the domain, but you remain able to use the other server with another domain, like that : MDaemon handle mydomain.com QMail handle intranet.mydomain.com When MDaemon receive a mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] wich should be handled by qmail, MDaemon redirect the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (i use this kind of settings with one main server reachable from internet handling emails account of commercials on the road, and another server on the intranet of the company, handling the mails for internal staff, this server is not reachable from internet and thus cannot handle mail accounts for external people). -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Re: chkuser wrongly accept emails for default@
Hi, ,- - [ Le mercredi 18 avril 2007 vers 9:33 tonix (Antonio Nati) écrivait: ] - - | I don't see any reason to check for the content of alias, looking for a bouncing string. Apart .qmail-default, I don't see a reason why a .qmail-ALIAS should contain a bouncing string. There is for me a reason : when using a catch-all if you want to disable some specific address... i know that actually if the .qmail-default specify a catch-all, chkuser does not look further and accept the mail, but it should be easy in that case to still verify if the specific user is not configured to bounce... Anyway, for me, if a .qmail-xyz specify bounce-no-mailbox for any reason, i do not see why chkuser should accept the mail and let qmail bounce it as it's easy to avoid... it's an opengate for spammers. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Re: chkuser wrongly accept emails for default@
Bonjour, ,- - [ Le mercredi 18 avril 2007 vers 8:43 Jeremy Kister écrivait: ] - - | Great idea. I'm no C guy, but shouldn't that second conditinal be inside the first? I'm no C guy nope, i've used the same existing code than for a mailman list, wich use the same principe. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Re: chkuser wrongly accept emails for default@
Hi, ,- - [ Le mercredi 18 avril 2007 vers 17:34 Tom Collins écrivait: ] - - | Until that's a part of chkuser, Stephane (and others) can use qmail's bouncesaying program in their .qmail-alias files. To allow every spammer on earth use our servers to spam using the bounce ? I do not like the idea that much... It's why i'm looking for a workaround for the default@ fake alias, spammers use it, i will not add another hole... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Bien à vous... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] chkuser wrongly accept emails for default@
Hi,
With chkuser 2.0.8 (not yet updated to 2.0.9, sorry :)), someone reported me
that chkuser wrongly accept emails adressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , as there is
a .qmail-default alias file, even if this file specify bounce-no-mailbox...
The same problem occur for any alias defined (why ?) with bounce-no-mailbox...
Here's a little fix to verify if the alias is not bounce-no-mailbox...
--- chkuser.c Tue Apr 17 20:11:24 2007
+++ chkuser.c Tue Apr 17 20:31:24 2007
@@ -756,12 +756,20 @@ static int realrcpt (stralloc *sender, s
if (!stralloc_cats (alias_path, tmp_path.s)) DIE_NOMEM();
if (!stralloc_0 (alias_path)) DIE_NOMEM();
- fd_file = open_read (alias_path.s);
- if (fd_file != -1) {
- close (fd_file);
- retstat = CHKUSER_OK;
- break;
- }
+fd_file = open_read (alias_path.s);
+read_char = 0;
+if (fd_file != -1) {
+read_char = read (fd_file, read_buf, sizeof(read_buf)
- 1);
+close (fd_file);
+if (read_char 0) read_char = 0;
+}
+read_buf[read_char] = 0;
+
+if ( strstr(read_buf, CHKUSER_BOUNCE_STRING) == NULL ) {
+retstat = CHKUSER_OK;
+break;
+}
+
#endif
case 9:
--
Bien à toi...
_
(_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier !
,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Enabling chkuser for a domain *not* in rcpthosts ?
Hi, I have some domains protected by an external antispam gateway, those domains are removed from the rcpthosts settings of qmail, and the antispam gateway is added in the /etc/tcp.smtp to be allowed to relay... This way, only the antispam gateway is able to send emails for the domain to the mail server, avoiding direct injection from spammers. Now, the antispam gateway is doing a pop3 connexion to verify if a recipient is accepted by the destination mail server before accepting the message from the sender... My probem is : as the domain is not in the rcpthosts, chkuser does'nt work : it allways accept the mail... Is it possible to configure chkuser to check if a domain is local and if a user exist even when the domain is not listed in rcpthosts ? Thanks for your help :) -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Re: Is chkuser 2.0 suitable for my system?
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 25 décembre 2005 vers 22:48 ro0ot écrivait: ] - - | I have vpopmail using catchall account for all the virtual domain. Can chkuser 2.0 works with catchall account? Is chkuser 2.0 suitable for my system? chkuser work with catchall, but if you only have domains with catchall, chkuser will become useless : if you have a catchall, any email address should be valid and thus accepted by chkuser... thus chkuser will refuse no mail, except if you create specific bounce-no-mailbox accounts. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best regards... _ (_' ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be
[vchkpw] Re: Problem with --enable-domain-quotas in vpopmail.
Hi, ,- - [ Le lundi 4 octobre 2004 vers 7:17 Amit khatri écrivait: ] - - - - - - - - | I set the domain limit to 100 MB for my virtual domain using vpopmail but I was able create 11 users with 10 MB each which is wrong it should not happen. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The limit concern the mails received, not the quota of every mailbox,... you can have 20 mail box, with a quota of 10Mb / mailbox and 50Mb/domain... the 50Mb quota will be reached only when there will be 50Mb of mail received in the different mailbox, with a maximum 10Mb possible / mailbox. Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be -- _ _ |_)(_ Votre propre nom de domaine .be - service de qualité - 25 Euros o|_)(_ Hosting php4/cgi/mySQL - 100 Euros, pq payer plus ? www.myown.be
[vchkpw] Re: Heureka! Finished POP3-Frequency-Patch (against brute forcing)
Hi, ,- - [ Le jeudi 12 février 2004 vers 10:25 knom écrivait: ] - - | Currently the patch works IP based. I write a file for each logged in IP to a directory, where I mark the time of the first login. Then I count the number of logins during the next xx minutes in that file, too. If the number exceeds, I show the message to the user, which is in my opinion mandatory, because otherwise the user will be confused (but I think of showing only the minutes and not the exact time ?!...) | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Personaly, i would be interested by a patch to limit the frequency by login, and not by IP... What i would like to limit, is customer placing continuous mail check every 30 seconds... il would like to limit email check to 5 every 10 minutes... but it would be a limit per login, and not per IP, i have customers connected with 50 computers behind a NAT router, so only one IP for at least 50 mailbox... IP based frequency patch is only usefull against DoS, but honnestly, for a brute force DoS, a hacker would probably not use POP3 protocol, except if the DoS is really targetting a mail system and not a whole server... Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be -- _ _ |_)(_ Votre propre nom de domaine .be - service de qualité - 25 Euros o|_)(_ Hosting php4/cgi/mySQL - 100 Euros, pq payer plus ? www.myown.be
[vchkpw] Re: qmailadmin and apache suexec
Hi, ,- - [ Le mercredi 5 novembre 2003 vers 19:09 Don Walters écrivait: ] - - | I had qmailadmin installed and working great. Today, I setup my apache server to use suexec. I noticed my qmailadmin stopped working. After looking through the archives, I found a post where someone mentioned that I needed to change the owner, group, and permissions on the qmailadmin file. I made them the same user and group as the suexec parameter I specified in apache. Now it is working fine. My question is... is that OK? Will I mess anything up by running it as a user other than vpopmail.vchkpw? | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In my case, i use a specific virtualhost for qmailadmin, and i set suexec on this virtualhost to vpopmail.vchkpw Best regards... _ (_' ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be --
[vchkpw] Re: command to set catch-alls
Hi, ,- - [ Le mardi 30 septembre 2003 vers 18:40 Jeff Koch écrivait: ] - - | Is there any way to use the commands in /home/vpopmail/bin to setup domain catch-all accounts? We're trying to automate conversions from sendmail's virtusertable and are stuck on the catch-all accounts. | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vadddomain: usage: vadddomain [options] virtual_domain [postmaster password] options: -v prints the version -q quota_in_bytes (sets the quota for postmaster account) -b (bounces all mail that doesn't match a user, default) -e email_address (forwards all non matching user to this address [*]) ... Otherwile, just create the right .qmail-default, does not need any binaries for that... echo | /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' [EMAIL PROTECTED] .qmail-default Best regards... _ (_' ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be --
[vchkpw] Re: BCC related
Bonjour, ,- - [ Le dimanche 28 septembre 2003 vers 21:01 X-Istence écrivait: ] - - | The BCC will get removed at the first SMTP server, some mail clients even create a new connection for each BCC to send the message for more security :) | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In fact, the BCC field is never transmitted, even to the first SMTP server... in some case the mail client specify multiple rcpt-to address, but never send any BCC: memo header, BCC is only a mail client functionality, not an SMTP one... Best regards... _ (_' ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be --
[vchkpw] Rejecting inexistant mailbox with qmail+vpopmail
Hi, I have a working installation of qmail+vpopmail, but i cannot configure this : When someone send a mail to an inexistant mailbox (for a domain handled by vpopmail of course), qmail accept the mail, send it to vpopmail, and then vpopmail send back a bouncing mail telling that the mailbox does not exist... I would like that qmail refuse directly any mail adressed to an inexistant mailbox... Can you help me how to do that ? Thanks in advance Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antarex.be _ _ |_)(_ Votre propre nom de domaine .be - service de qualité - 25 Euros o|_)(_ Hosting php4/cgi/mySQL - 100 Euros, pq payer plus ? www.myown.be --
