qmail Digest 28 Jan 1999 11:00:09 -0000 Issue 534
Topics (messages 20978 through 21042):
qmail-lint-0.51
20978 by: Peter Haworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
again: maildir question: why chdir()?
20979 by: Uwe Ohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mailbox size question
20980 by: Abel Lucano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Problem with qmail-pop3d - ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
20981 by: "Martin Staael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20986 by: Chris Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ezmlm moderation request replies don't work
20982 by: "Stephen Wettone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unable to run qmail-remote from resource exthaustion PERMENENT error?
20983 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
how to reduce traffic on list...
20984 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Building new mail system
20985 by: "Brian S. Craigie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-lint-0.52
20987 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Three solutions for spam
20988 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20989 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20990 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20991 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20992 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20993 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20994 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20995 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20996 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20997 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20998 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20999 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21000 by: "Paul J. Schinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21001 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21002 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21004 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21006 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21009 by: "Luca Olivetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pattern-matching and filtering
21003 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21005 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21010 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21013 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21015 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21016 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21018 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21019 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21021 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21024 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21026 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21027 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21034 by: Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Linuxberg from tucows
21007 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rcpthosts, locals
21008 by: Samuel Dries-Daffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21012 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21014 by: Samuel Dries-Daffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21017 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21020 by: Samuel Dries-Daffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21022 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21035 by: Samuel Dries-Daffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help unsubscribing
21011 by: Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newbie configuration
21023 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virtual Domain/Users not working proeprly
21025 by: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21028 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21029 by: Jose Luis Painceira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21032 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21037 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"solutions for spam"
21030 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21031 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21033 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two way email gateway
21036 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorenzo Cavassa)
Bouncing specific users
21038 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21039 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virtual domains using qmail
21040 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Naden)
21041 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
checkpassword
21042 by: "Martin Staael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I've uploaded qmail-lint-0.51 to www.qmail.org. It now has a -v flag
> which prints a more verbose explanation of why something might be a
> problem.
Shame on you for not using strict!
Without this patch, if a user's home directory produces more than one warning,
the second and subsequent warnings show the previous error code instead of the
username.
*** qmail-lint-0.51 Wed Jan 27 12:25:41 1999
--- qmail-lint Wed Jan 27 12:27:05 1999
***************
*** 36,40 ****
sub verbose {
return unless $opt_v;
! $name = shift;
return if $verbose_printed{$name}++;
seek(DATA,0,0);
--- 36,40 ----
sub verbose {
return unless $opt_v;
! my $name = shift;
return if $verbose_printed{$name}++;
seek(DATA,0,0);
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Windows NT addresses 2 Gigabytes of RAM which is more than any
application will ever need."
--Microsoft, 1992, on the development of Windows NT
maildir.5 states:
A program delivers a mail message in six steps. First, it
chdir()s to the maildir directory.
why?
I'd like to avoid to have to do a chdir() inside a library or
force a chdir() outside of that library.
I assume this has to do something with NFS, but i don't understand
it.
Regards, Uwe
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Iain Hardcastle wrote:
> People,
>
> In doing some consulting work for an ISP, I need to specify a mail
> server.
>
> Could all you ISP techs please respond with a good figure for sizing a
> mail account? I mean if you are going to offer mail, on average, how
> much would you allocate per client when sizing a machine to run it.
> Also, does q-mail offer features for limiting mail stored on a mailhost?
>
> Regards
> Iain.
>
>
Quota + /var/qmail/control/databytes works for me
regards
Abel Lucano
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
I'm having a problem with qmail-pop3d.
There is no problem starting qmail-pop3d via tcpserver, but when a user
logs into POP3 it says unable to scan $HOME/Maildir.
How do I tell qmail-pop3d where the users mail directory is?? In the
qmail-pop3d.c file it only reads argument 1 which is "./" so I don't really
know how qmail-pop3d would know where it is.
Is it a bug - or what am I doing wrong?
Example:
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
user martin
+OK
pass xxxxxxxx
-ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
My /var/qmail/users/assign looks like this
=martin:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:::
+martin-:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:-::
My maildirectory is in /webdisk/mail - where all mail is stored.
The rc script file looks like this:
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./ splogger qmail
And the qmail-pop3d is started in this way.
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail.xx.net \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d ./ &
The martin mail directory looks like this:
/webdisk/mail/martin > la
total 8
drwx------ 5 martin qmail 45 Jan 27 13:49 .
drwxrwxrwx 3 root qmail 24 Jan 27 11:56 ..
drwx------ 2 martin sys 4096 Jan 27 14:07 cur
drwx------ 2 martin sys 9 Jan 27 14:07 new
drwx------ 2 martin sys 9 Jan 27 12:09 tmp
A note is that if I start the tcpserver like this
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail.xx.net \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d /webdisk/mail/martin &
then it works fine - but this would only work in a single user pop3 mode
:>) *lol*
Martin
---
- Origin: Glace Bleu d'origine... :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I believe that the checkpassword program upon successful authentication
chdir()s into the user's homedir before execing qmail-pop3d.
-Chris
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Martin Staael wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:55:03 +0100
> From: Martin Staael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Problem with qmail-pop3d - ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
>
> Hi
>
> I'm having a problem with qmail-pop3d.
>
> There is no problem starting qmail-pop3d via tcpserver, but when a user
> logs into POP3 it says unable to scan $HOME/Maildir.
>
> How do I tell qmail-pop3d where the users mail directory is?? In the
> qmail-pop3d.c file it only reads argument 1 which is "./" so I don't really
> know how qmail-pop3d would know where it is.
>
> Is it a bug - or what am I doing wrong?
>
> Example:
>
> Connected to localhost.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> user martin
> +OK
> pass xxxxxxxx
> -ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
>
>
> My /var/qmail/users/assign looks like this
>
> =martin:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:::
> +martin-:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:-::
>
> My maildirectory is in /webdisk/mail - where all mail is stored.
>
> The rc script file looks like this:
> exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./ splogger qmail
>
> And the qmail-pop3d is started in this way.
>
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail.xx.net \
> /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d ./ &
>
> The martin mail directory looks like this:
> /webdisk/mail/martin > la
> total 8
> drwx------ 5 martin qmail 45 Jan 27 13:49 .
> drwxrwxrwx 3 root qmail 24 Jan 27 11:56 ..
> drwx------ 2 martin sys 4096 Jan 27 14:07 cur
> drwx------ 2 martin sys 9 Jan 27 14:07 new
> drwx------ 2 martin sys 9 Jan 27 12:09 tmp
>
> A note is that if I start the tcpserver like this
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail.xx.net \
> /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d /webdisk/mail/martin &
>
> then it works fine - but this would only work in a single user pop3 mode
> :>) *lol*
>
>
> Martin
>
> ---
> - Origin: Glace Bleu d'origine... :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>
This may be slightly off topic, but I'm having trouble getting ezmlm to
respond to moderation requests. I've already sent a copy of this message to
the ezmlm list.
I am running qmail-1.03 with ezmlm-0.53 and ezmlm-idx-0.313. I am already
running another (unmoderated) mailing list on the same server with no
problems.
I created the mailing list:
% ezmlm-make -m DIR dot local host
% chown -R user DIR
and subscribed myself to the list and the moderation list:
% ezmlm-sub DIR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% ezmlm-sub DIR/mod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now when I send a message to the list I get the moderation request in the
normal way. So I reply to it (yes, I have checked the address is right) and
I get a bounce from qmail saying:
ezmlm-moderate: fatal: I don't accept messages at this address (inlocal
and/or inhost don't match) (#5.1.1)
I have checked everywhere I can think of in the ezmlm and qmail FAQs. The
~/.qmail-list-accept-default and ~/.qmail-list-reject-default files exist
and point to DIR/moderator, which does invoke ezmlm-moderate.
Can anyone shed any light on why this isn't working?
TIA,
Stephen
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:57:04 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>loss or bounce?
Important semantics: bounce from the MTA point of view. Loss from the
subscribers point of view.
Point: This is a temporary error and should not result in a bounce. No
big deal, but easy to fix.
IMHO, since qmail does not have complete control over possible error
codes, it seems more reasonable to make the default a temporary error
and select specific error codes that lead to permanent errors.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
If you just want to lurk, I've got a daily digest of the list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
On 22-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not at all. There's two functions. There's two ways to order the functions.
>
> 1) A before B
> 2) B before A
>
> striping and mirroring
>
> 1) mirror the stripes
> 2) stripe across the mirrors
Ah! I think I see what you mean. I'll need to try that with Solstice Disksuite
and see if it will work here.
Thanks for providing the idea!
Cheers!
Brian
Peter Haworth writes:
> Shame on you for not using strict!
I'm an old BASIC programmer from way back. I *like* not having to
declare variables. :)
> Without this patch, if a user's home directory produces more than one warning,
> the second and subsequent warnings show the previous error code instead of the
> username.
Thanks! http://www.qmail.org/qmail-lint-0.52.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> > Most other anti-spam measures have a technical
> > foundation...Blocking dialups doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously
> > close to racism.
>
> ...it's a reasonable prejudice, since all of the non-relayed spam I
> get comes from dialups.
And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
me.
> Not all prejudice is bad.
True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
Len.
--
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies
shall perish. --Proverbs 19:9
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:19:33AM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> > > Most other anti-spam measures have a technical
> > > foundation...Blocking dialups doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously
> > > close to racism.
> >
> > ...it's a reasonable prejudice, since all of the non-relayed spam I
> > get comes from dialups.
Well where else would it come from?
> And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> me.
>
> > Not all prejudice is bad.
Yes it is.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> > > Most other anti-spam measures have a technical
> > > foundation...Blocking dialups doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously
> > > close to racism.
> >
> > ...it's a reasonable prejudice, since all of the non-relayed spam I
> > get comes from dialups.
>
> And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> me.
Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic that was used to argue
that SMTP servers should remain open relays...
> > Not all prejudice is bad.
>
> True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
Allowing UUNet dialup IPs direct access to my mail server has _caused_
alot more spam than I now get.
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
It isn't prejudice, it is prevention. The analogy I use is
communicable disease - it is universally acknowledged (at least in
the US) that for the maintenance of public health it is justified
that schools, for example, must exclude students who can not affirm
that they have been vaccinated against some diseases. This policy
excludes many people who have never been sick in their life, who
aren't disease carriers, simply on the basis that they *can't be
proven* disease-free. This is not prejudice at all.
-- Jeff Hayward
From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> > Not all prejudice is bad.
:
:Yes it is.
It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
evidence, which isn't what is happening here. The judgement has happened
after repeated abuse.
:Greetz, Peter.
--Adam
Len Budney writes:
> And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> me.
A statement which would be particularly ironic if you happened to be a
member of a minority group. Not that we can tell from looking at your
email address or name. :)
> > Not all prejudice is bad.
>
> True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
I'm prejudiced against sendmail, and in favor of djb's software. I
don't view that as particularly risky.
As an early human, failing to be prejudiced against predators was
quickly evolved out of the gene pool. Prejudice has great survival
value -- that's why non-functional prejudice is so hard to root out.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> > That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> > me.
>
> Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic that was used to argue
> that SMTP servers should remain open relays...
I was not involved in that debate. Nor do I carry pepper spray. Nor is
the above point BS.
If deliveries to a certain neighborhood are statistically more likely
to be waylaid and robbed, then refusing to deliver to that
neighborhood WILL diminish the number of robberies. Sadly, such a rule
is actionable, as a US pizza vendor recently learned.
> > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
>
> Allowing UUNet dialup IPs direct access to my mail server has _caused_
> alot more spam than I now get.
Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding
email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information,
etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC
(assuming the modems have proper A records) based on the _true_
observation that origination from a modem _correlates_ with spam.
You can get away with exercising this prejudice, for now, because
social stigma applies only to specific forms of prejudice.
The irony is that your prejudice, were it widespread, would hurt a few
Linux geeks like me--but would not affect spammers at all. If enough
servers began rejecting mail from dialups, then spammers will start
using smarthosts, or finding ISPs whose modems are named "wombat" and
"cheetah", or adopting some other countermeasure.
Like all pattern-matching or profiling solutions, it is temporary, and
relies for its effectiveness on its novelty and your domain's numeric
insignificance.
Len.
--
He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth
his spirit than he that taketh a city. --Proverbs 16:32
Adam D. McKenna writes:
> From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> :> > Not all prejudice is bad.
> :
> :Yes it is.
>
> It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
> Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
> evidence, which isn't what is happening here. The judgement has happened
> after repeated abuse.
No, I have no evidence to show that xx-yy-city.da.uu.net is going to
spam me. I'm definitely being prejudiced against dialups. Then
again, you can look at version X.Y of sendmail, notice that it has
security holes, and reasonably be prejudiced against version X.Y+1 or
X+1.Y of sendmail.
As Len Budney says, the problem with prejudice is when it's based on
correlation not causation. Are the security holes in sendmail caused
by intrinsic characteristics of the code? If that's the case, then
the prejudice against sendmail is legitimate. If the security holes
are there because of some methodologic mistake that the maintainer is
making, and he fixes the mistake, then the security holes are merely
correlated. Prejudice would then be unwarranted.
Humans are quick and easy pattern-matchers. It's unfortunate when
we're wrong, but sometimes life-saving when we're right. That's why
everyone is subject to prejudice and being prejudiced -- because all
the descendants of humans who weren't don't exist.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding
> email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information,
> etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC
> (assuming the modems have proper A records) based on the _true_
> observation that origination from a modem _correlates_ with spam.
Noone's advocating "discarding email", merely not accepting it from
a known dialup IP address (in most cases previously used for spamming).
What has been advocated here is not accepting the mail in the first
place so the sender has to choose a different route for that mail to
be delivered. But never saying to discard it.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================
Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
>
> True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
>
> It isn't prejudice, it is prevention.
Prejudice is defined, in part, as "a leaning toward one side of a
question from other considerations than those belonging to it".
Modems neither cause nor result from spam--modems and spam merely
correlate.
> The analogy I use is communicable disease--
Okay, let's pick one: HBV. That's a disease that correlates with lots
of things. Let's select people with those correlative risk factors, and
deny them jobs which place them in close proximity to people. Let's
call that "prevention". It would not be prejudice; it would merely be
insulating ourselves from those who could not *prove* themselves to
be disease-free.
The point: prejudice or bias may at times have positive value, but it
must be handled with extreme caution.
Len.
--
A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering
mouth worketh ruin. --Proverbs 26:28
(my last post in this thread...sorry for getting caught up in it)
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
>
> I'm prejudiced against sendmail, and in favor of djb's software. I
> don't view that as particularly risky.
True, but you can make a decent case for "causation" here. Sendmail
has a long and illustrious history of failure and security flaws. It
would be wrong to call you "prejudiced" for judging it on its track
record.
Judging all mail from dialups, though, based on the "track record" of
such mail, is the fallacy of reasoning from the general to the
specific.
Len.
--
He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even
they both are abomination to the LORD. --Proverbs 17:15
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > > And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> > > That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> > > me.
> >
> > Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic that was used to argue
> > that SMTP servers should remain open relays...
>
> I was not involved in that debate. Nor do I carry pepper spray. Nor is
> the above point BS.
>
> If deliveries to a certain neighborhood are statistically more likely
> to be waylaid and robbed, then refusing to deliver to that
> neighborhood WILL diminish the number of robberies. Sadly, such a rule
> is actionable, as a US pizza vendor recently learned.
<snip completely invalid comparison>
> > > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
> >
> > Allowing UUNet dialup IPs direct access to my mail server has _caused_
> > alot more spam than I now get.
>
> Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding
> email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information,
> etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC
> (assuming the modems have proper A records) based on the _true_
> observation that origination from a modem _correlates_ with spam.
Modems don't have A records, dialup ports do. RFC1123 states that your
SMTP server must talk to domains with MX records, nothing about A records
alone.
> You can get away with exercising this prejudice, for now, because
> social stigma applies only to specific forms of prejudice.
sociology has nothing to do with this. You might as well be saying that
we're "prejudice" against open relays. Well, we are. If the open relay
or dialup port wants to sue me, then I'll take my chances.
> The irony is that your prejudice, were it widespread, would hurt a few
> Linux geeks like me--but would not affect spammers at all. If enough
> servers began rejecting mail from dialups, then spammers will start
> using smarthosts, or finding ISPs whose modems are named "wombat" and
> "cheetah", or adopting some other countermeasure.
tcpserver filters by ip address, not name. Besides, nobody said you can
get ALL of them, but that's no reason not to make the effort. My
suggestion to you would be to get a static IP. Once I get more address
space, I'm going to renumber, and all the dynamic IPs will be blocked for
outbound port 25 access, and the static IPs and static subnets will be on
a different /24 that isn't.
> Like all pattern-matching or profiling solutions, it is temporary, and
> relies for its effectiveness on its novelty and your domain's numeric
> insignificance.
Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:02:37PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
}
} Judging all mail from dialups, though, based on the "track record" of
} such mail, is the fallacy of reasoning from the general to the
} specific.
The track record of dialup mail for me is that it's all spam. So
every time I get one, I automatically use tcpserver to block the
dialup bank it came from. I don't use DUL because ORBS, which I have
used and will use again once it's visible from here again, caused me
enough trouble tunneling machines we need to get mail fromthrough the
ORBS block. So I take out those dialup banks that have spammed me
once at the tcpserver level.
If that's "prejudice", I don't apologize for it. I'm not going to let
you dictate what policies I impose on this end on any of my machines
by politically correct insults. I will do what I can to accomodate
the few users I have on this end, but so far that's been just to tell
them to use the SMTP server of their provider.
}
} Len.
}
} --
} He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even
} they both are abomination to the LORD. --Proverbs 17:15
}
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Forgive me! One last one...)
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My suggestion to you would be to get a static IP.
You're quite right. Please make your check payable to "Len Budney"
and mail it c/o "Maya Design Group, 2100 Wharton Street, Pittsburgh
PA, 15203".
Len.
--
Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be
established in righteousness. --Proverbs 25:5
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:02:37PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> (my last post in this thread...sorry for getting caught up in it)
>
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
> >
> > I'm prejudiced against sendmail, and in favor of djb's software. I
> > don't view that as particularly risky.
>
> True, but you can make a decent case for "causation" here. Sendmail
> has a long and illustrious history of failure and security flaws. It
> would be wrong to call you "prejudiced" for judging it on its track
> record.
Correct.
> Judging all mail from dialups, though, based on the "track record" of
> such mail, is the fallacy of reasoning from the general to the
> specific.
No. This comparison goes limp.
Rejecting mail from dialups could be compared to not using SMTP because
some software that implements SMTP has had problems in the past (Sendmail,
Microsoft Exchange).
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> (Forgive me! One last one...)
Me too. :)
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My suggestion to you would be to get a static IP.
>
> You're quite right. Please make your check payable to "Len Budney"
> and mail it c/o "Maya Design Group, 2100 Wharton Street, Pittsburgh
> PA, 15203".
FWIW, we charge $5/mo extra for a static IP. Some ISPs charge less, some
charge more, some give it away, some don't offer it. In Pittsburgh, I'm
sure you have an ample selection. If you can't afford it, you may, in
fact be SOL when it comes to sending out SMTP directly to some or all
places.
The Internet is not some big, free, public network that everyone has a
God-given right to have unfettered access to. It's a collection of
private networks that each network owner/admin makes rules for his little
corner of, at his/her own peril (peril in terms of technical and marketing
ramifications).
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> :> > Not all prejudice is bad.
> :
> :Yes it is.
>
> It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
> Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
> evidence, which isn't what is happening here. The judgement has happened
> after repeated abuse.
Have you profiled or u are just speculating?
What numbers do u have? It's something like 90% of dial-ups in the world
are used for spamming? So let's block them all?
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> FWIW, we charge $5/mo extra for a static IP. Some ISPs charge less, some
> charge more, some give it away, some don't offer it.
Over here they charge $100 or more.
- --
Luca Olivetti http://www.luca.ddns.org
UNETE A LA HUELGA EUROPEA DE INTERNET - EL 31 DE ENERO NO TE CONECTES
JOIN THE EUROPEAN INTERNET STRIKE - DON'T CONNECT ON JANUARY 31st
- ------------------[ http://www.internautas.org ]---------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2r2GUCQPXTRx9NmQRAlBOAJwNvDv9AUDis1yKOYm0hZ8yKOcX7gCgmCIE
5EAEAXy1xAscAvGqBQCE1wE=
=a7Cg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exactly one
envelope recipient and one envelope sender--which will be a valid
email address.
What will you match on then?
Len.
--
A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble
in spirit. --Proverbs 29:23
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
>
> Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
> uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
> originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exactly one
> envelope recipient and one envelope sender--which will be a valid
> email address.
>
> What will you match on then?
Why, the host it comes from, of course. There's no wooden stake here,
just a bunch of crucifixes...nobody says this is a complete solution.
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
> uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
> originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exactly one
> envelope recipient and one envelope sender--which will be a valid
> email address.
>
> What will you match on then?
Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending out spam
with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the game being
"send as many copies as you can before you get thrown off", BCCing
hundreds of addresses per single copy of the spam is far more advantageous
than sending an individual copy to everyone.
The only way I see individualized spamming becoming more popular is only
with greater adoption of broadband access, when bandwidth is no longer
much of an issue.
Still, there are still things you can do then. Today I do see occasional
incidents where the spam has no explicit forgeries, and is not BCCed. I
still manage to filter out most of it, though. By staring at the headers,
after a while you can figure out the pattern that's being used to generate
them, and you filter against that. The pattern is unique to that
particular spam generator, and I've never had it trip for a legitimate
E-mail message.
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > What will you match on then?
>
> Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending
> out spam with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the
> game being "send as many copies as you can before you get thrown
> off"...
That's true largely because spammers are fairly clueless, and authors
of toys like "Spam Bomber 2000" are almost as stupid. This limit is
rather artificial, though: on this mailing list, I'd expect you to
know that very well!
Efficient: On a Pentium under BSD/OS, qmail can easily sustain
200000 local messages per day---that's separate messages injected
and delivered to mailboxes in a real test! Although remote
deliveries are inherently limited by the slowness of DNS and SMTP,
qmail overlaps 20 simultaneous deliveries by default, so it zooms
quickly through mailing lists. (This is why I finished qmail: I had
to get a big mailing list set up.)
When Linux hits 61.4% market share, the first person to think of:
ln -s /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject /usr/bin/spam-blaster-inject
may make a tidy sum. (And yes, I know there is _slightly_ more to it
than that).
Len.
--
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies
shall perish. --Proverbs 19:9
Len Budney writes:
> > Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending
> > out spam with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the
> > game being "send as many copies as you can before you get thrown
> > off"...
>
> That's true largely because spammers are fairly clueless, and authors
No, it's true because they operate from 28.8 dialups.
> Efficient: On a Pentium under BSD/OS, qmail can easily sustain
> 200000 local messages per day---that's separate messages injected
=====
Uhhh... We're not talking about local mail.
Over a 28.8 dialup a spambag can easily spew out about a million copies per
hour, using long lists of BCCs.
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 08:12:18PM +0000, Sam wrote:
> Len Budney writes:
>
> > > Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending
> > > out spam with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the
> > > game being "send as many copies as you can before you get thrown
> > > off"...
> >
> > That's true largely because spammers are fairly clueless, and authors
>
> No, it's true because they operate from 28.8 dialups.
>
> > Efficient: On a Pentium under BSD/OS, qmail can easily sustain
> > 200000 local messages per day---that's separate messages injected
> =====
>
> Uhhh... We're not talking about local mail.
>
> Over a 28.8 dialup a spambag can easily spew out about a million copies per
> hour, using long lists of BCCs.
2880/32*60*60=324000
32 is the size of a RCPT TO: for a short address.
2880 is, ofcourse, the cps achieved. Compression might help a bit.
But for a million, he'd need 64K.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [About why spammers must use long BCC lists]
> No, it's true because they operate from 28.8 dialups.
Getting some spam through beats getting no spam through (to the
spammer). Read on.
> > Efficient: On a Pentium under BSD/OS, qmail can easily sustain
> > 200000 local messages per day---that's separate messages injected
> =====
> Uhhh... We're not talking about local mail.
I know what I quoted. But you snipped out "zooms quickly through
mailing lists".
> Over a 28.8 dialup a spambag can easily spew out about a million
> copies per hour, using long lists of BCCs.
Okay, then why are people wasting their time rejecting mail from
dialups? Just scan email header for each envelope recipient, and
reject emails with >25 "BCC" recipients. For extra fun, if you are the
ISP, forward a copy of any such mail to yourself. Voila! Spam is dead!
If and when ISPs do just that, "Spam Blammer Turbo" will simply split
mailing lists into 25-recipient chunks. Better: it will split it into
24-message chunks for "improved spam-guard evasion".
I said "one envelope recipient" because I'm postulating a world in
which all BCC's, RFC-violations, and all-caps subject lines are
forwarded to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The most that such measures can
do is _slow_down_ spam; it is fundamentally impossible to distinguish
spam from legit email automatically and reliably.
To illustrate: I used to filter spam for myself with fairly
sophisticated "hype detection" patterns. Invariably, it canned email
from VP's and other mucky-mucks from my own company. Though their mail
was "legit", it conformed to many spam "red flags": huge CC lists,
abundant superlatives, excessive exclamation, all-caps subjects, even
phrases like "sure thing" and "big money".
Once my filter told the company president just what to do with his
filthy spam. (Okay, that part is a lie. My spam-filter always gave a
pass to internal email. It DID usually put VPmail into the "probably
spam" folder, though).
Today, I don't bother much with spam filtering. I do discard any mail
without my address in its headers, and I haven't seen a spam in over
two years (other than VPmail, which I still insist IS spam).
Len.
--
He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken
down, and without walls. --Proverbs 25:28
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Over a 28.8 dialup a spambag can easily spew out about a million
> > copies per hour, using long lists of BCCs.
>
> Okay, then why are people wasting their time rejecting mail from
> dialups? Just scan email header for each envelope recipient, and
> reject emails with >25 "BCC" recipients. For extra fun, if you are the
A few reasons:
1) Because in order to do that, you have to receive the message first, as
opposed to what essentially is a firewall with very little bandwidth
wasted. You said "BCC recipients", right? You can't just figure out that
your E-mail with 50 recipients are all BCCed until you get the message
contents first.
2) The framework for blocking IP address ranges exists in almost every
MTA, so you already have the code to implement dialup blocks. Very few
MTAs have built-in facilities for scanning E-mail in order to determine if
it should be accepted. Sendmail's header filtering rules won't be
sufficient here.
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Okay, then why are people wasting their time rejecting mail from
> > dialups? Just scan email header for each envelope recipient, and
> > reject emails with >25 "BCC" recipients...
>
> 1) Because in order to do that, you have to receive the message
> first...
This part is not true. You only need to receive the _header_, and can
still return the appropriate rejection code after your check. This
measure uses slightly more bandwidth than per-host blocking, but much
less than accepting and delivering the message.
Furthermore, according to Russ's qmail homepage:
Sam Varshavchik has a patch to qmail-smtpd which calls procmail
recipes to filter spam before it is accepted for delivery.
The above suggestion should be quicker; it performs a very specific
check and can doubtless be implemented faster than the full power of
procmail.
Len.
--
Employ strong encryption with GnuPG and Mailcrypt.
<http://www.pobox.com/~lbudney/linux/software/mailcrypt.html>
Len Budney writes:
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) Because in order to do that, you have to receive the message
> > first...
>
> This part is not true. You only need to receive the _header_, and can
> still return the appropriate rejection code after your check. This
Nope. You cannot receive just the header, send an SMTP rejection, then
expect the sender to stop sending you the rest of the message, unless you
drop the socket as well. But, when you do that, the sender is likely to
get a broken socket error, which gets interpreted as a transient error,
resulting in the same message being rescheduled for another delivery
attempt later on.
> Furthermore, according to Russ's qmail homepage:
>
> Sam Varshavchik has a patch to qmail-smtpd which calls procmail
> recipes to filter spam before it is accepted for delivery.
A slightly outdated description, but that's not important.
> The above suggestion should be quicker; it performs a very specific
> check and can doubtless be implemented faster than the full power of
> procmail.
Procmail's definitely has other problems besides that, but that's not the
point. You still have to suck in the entire message.
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This part is not true. You only need to receive the _header_, and can
> > still return the appropriate rejection code after your check. This
>
> Nope. You cannot receive just the header, send an SMTP rejection,
> then expect the sender to stop sending you the rest of the
> message...
Conceded. You win your point in favor of per-host blocking. However, I
still think my suggestion (made satirically) beats any other
pattern-matching solution which involves scanning headers or otherwise
"sucking in the entire message".
If it were widely adopted, the spam would be sent out in 24-recipient
blocks...then 15, then 9, then 5, then 1 as mail admins reacted to the
countermeasure. Ultimately, the whole Internet might become a BCC-free
zone, yet spam would still go through.
Does any non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a
message? The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which,
of course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
handle them appropriately.
> > Sam Varshavchik has a patch to qmail-smtpd which calls procmail
> > recipes to filter spam before it is accepted for delivery.
>
> A slightly outdated description, but that's not important.
Oops--I told you about your own patch. That's pretty funny!
Len.
--
The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth
gifts overthroweth it. --Proverbs 29:4
Sam Somebody write:
> Nope. You cannot receive just the header, send an SMTP rejection, then
> expect the sender to stop sending you the rest of the message, unless you
> drop the socket as well. But, when you do that, the sender is likely to
> get a broken socket error, which gets interpreted as a transient error,
> resulting in the same message being rescheduled for another delivery
> attempt later on.
What I'd really like to do is, when this happens, instead of dropping the
socket (just yet), inject a temporary filter in the firewall, for about
an hour, that blocks that remote IP:port from getting any packets back
from this host IP:25 (as well as from the remote). Then block the socket.
That will leave a process running on the remote machine, and perhaps help
overload it. On the local end you only have a FIN_WAIT sitting around for
a few minutes.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:33:02PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
>
> Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
> uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
> originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exactly one
> envelope recipient and one envelope sender--which will be a valid
> email address.
>
> What will you match on then?
The same thing I filter on now: body text.
Want to know the absolute best ways of telling whether a message is
spam?
* Comes from a dialup: da.uu.net, dial-access.att.net,
ipt.aol.com, as.wcom.net, etc.
* Reference to "Section 301" or "Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.1618"
* "This is a one-time mailing"
* "If (I have reached you|you have received this message) in error"
* "Authenticated sender" header in a message that doesn't come
from Pegasus or Eudora.
In principle, you are correct that this is an arms race, or that it
could be. In practice, I find that these rules catch about 80% of the
spam that moves into my systems, and the tweaks I have to place on my
filters have become infrequent and insignificant. Even though I agree
with you that it is not a workable long-term solution, in reality
pattern-matching is a tool that I cannot live without.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
Yes,...you can get Linux softawre from tucows at :-
http://alpha1.Linuxberg.com
Also note that Qmail is available :-
http://alpha1.Linuxberg.com/conhtml/ser_mail.html
Regards...Martin
Ok simple question...too foggy to fix on my own :)
I have two machines: ella (IRIX) and kaos (Solaris), both have qmail.
I want to send mail to a user on kaos from a user on ella.
Mail seems to leave ella, and doesn't bounce...
...but doesn't get delivered on kaos...
What should be in the respective rcpthosts and locals on each machine?
And what other things should I be looking at? My machine kaos doesn't show
anything about this in the logs...
On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
> Ok simple question...too foggy to fix on my own :)
>
> I have two machines: ella (IRIX) and kaos (Solaris), both have qmail.
>
> I want to send mail to a user on kaos from a user on ella.
>
> Mail seems to leave ella, and doesn't bounce...
>
> ...but doesn't get delivered on kaos...
>
> What should be in the respective rcpthosts and locals on each machine?
> And what other things should I be looking at? My machine kaos doesn't show
> anything about this in the logs...
You sure sendmail's not still running on kaos? Is it still in ella's
queue? Does ella's log say anything about the message being delivered?
Can you telnet to port 25 on kaos?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================
Well, don't see any sendmail processes
kaos-root /var/adm$ ps -ef |grep sendmail
root 9571 6638 0 11:53:28 pts/62 0:00 grep sendmail
And telnet to port 25 seems ok (though i don't know what syntax to use)
ella 4% telnet kaos 25
Trying 144.91.3.21...
Connected to kaos.mills.edu.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 kaos.mills.edu ESMTP
helo
250-kaos.mills.edu
250-PIPELINING
250 8BITMIME
And not in queue...
ella 2# qstat
messages in queue: 129
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 1
ella 3# qread | grep kaos
ella 4#
And logs look good on ella...
Jan 27 20:03:52 6C:ella qmail: 917467432.923986 starting delivery 6117:
msg 4640
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 27 20:04:26 6C:ella qmail: 917467466.080066 starting delivery 6120:
msg 4315
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any other ideas?
Samuel
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
> >
> > Ok simple question...too foggy to fix on my own :)
> >
> > I have two machines: ella (IRIX) and kaos (Solaris), both have qmail.
> >
> > I want to send mail to a user on kaos from a user on ella.
> >
> > Mail seems to leave ella, and doesn't bounce...
> >
> > ...but doesn't get delivered on kaos...
> >
> > What should be in the respective rcpthosts and locals on each machine?
> > And what other things should I be looking at? My machine kaos doesn't show
> > anything about this in the logs...
>
> You sure sendmail's not still running on kaos? Is it still in ella's
> queue? Does ella's log say anything about the message being delivered?
> Can you telnet to port 25 on kaos?
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
> # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
> Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
> "There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
> than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
>
> And logs look good on ella...
>
> Jan 27 20:03:52 6C:ella qmail: 917467432.923986 starting delivery 6117:
> msg 4640
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jan 27 20:04:26 6C:ella qmail: 917467466.080066 starting delivery 6120:
> msg 4315
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Any other ideas?
Yeah, are all the deliveries like this? This shows it's starting but
never finishing. Try telnetting to kaos again and do something like
this:
220 mail.michvhf.com ESMTP
helo
250 mail.michvhf.com
mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
testing
testing
testing
testing
.
250 ok 917468441 qp 10291
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================
Well now I am seeing something in my kaos queue...but they're not
delivering...
kaos-root /usr/local/lib/lookup$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread
27 Jan 1999 20:15:32 GMT #84893 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 Jan 1999 20:16:08 GMT #84895 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 Jan 1999 20:29:29 GMT #84897 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 Jan 1999 20:29:29 GMT #84897 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 Jan 1999 20:46:14 GMT #84898 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 Jan 1999 20:51:08 GMT #84899 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And I get this when I try locally:
kaos-root /usr/acct/staff/daffners$ mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
test
.
EOT
kaos-root /usr/acct/staff/daffners$ ellapw... User unknown
But I have a .qmail alias file:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root other 53 Jun 10 1997 .qmail-ellapw
And the qmail processes running are:
kaos-root /var/qmail/bin$ ps -ef |grep qmail
qmails 184 1 0 Jan 06 ? 0:03 qmail-send
qmaill 191 184 0 Jan 06 ? 0:00 splogger qmail
root 192 184 0 Jan 06 ? 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
qmailr 193 184 0 Jan 06 ? 0:00 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 194 184 0 Jan 06 ? 0:00 qmail-clean
Is qmail-local supposed to be runnning? Whats missing?
Samuel
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
> >
> >
> > And logs look good on ella...
> >
> > Jan 27 20:03:52 6C:ella qmail: 917467432.923986 starting delivery 6117:
> > msg 4640
> > to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Jan 27 20:04:26 6C:ella qmail: 917467466.080066 starting delivery 6120:
> > msg 4315
> > to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > Any other ideas?
>
> Yeah, are all the deliveries like this? This shows it's starting but
> never finishing. Try telnetting to kaos again and do something like
> this:
>
> 220 mail.michvhf.com ESMTP
> helo
> 250 mail.michvhf.com
> mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 250 ok
> rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
>
> testing
> testing
> testing
> testing
>
> .
> 250 ok 917468441 qp 10291
>
>
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
> # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
> Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
> "There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
> than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
> Well now I am seeing something in my kaos queue...but they're not
> delivering...
>
> kaos-root /usr/local/lib/lookup$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread
> 27 Jan 1999 20:15:32 GMT #84893 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 27 Jan 1999 20:16:08 GMT #84895 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 27 Jan 1999 20:29:29 GMT #84897 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 27 Jan 1999 20:29:29 GMT #84897 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 27 Jan 1999 20:46:14 GMT #84898 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 27 Jan 1999 20:51:08 GMT #84899 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
What do the logs on kaos show now? If they're queued there should be
log entries. Also what is the contents of ~alias/.qmail-ellapw? Is
there perhaps a bad delivery instruction in it?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================
chown alias to the output file made a big difference after a few edits to
the script in the .qmail-alias file. All is well (on this one!)
Thanks for all your help :)
Samuel
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
> >
> > Well now I am seeing something in my kaos queue...but they're not
> > delivering...
> >
> > kaos-root /usr/local/lib/lookup$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread
> > 27 Jan 1999 20:15:32 GMT #84893 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 27 Jan 1999 20:16:08 GMT #84895 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 27 Jan 1999 20:29:29 GMT #84897 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 27 Jan 1999 20:29:29 GMT #84897 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 27 Jan 1999 20:46:14 GMT #84898 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 27 Jan 1999 20:51:08 GMT #84899 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> What do the logs on kaos show now? If they're queued there should be
> log entries. Also what is the contents of ~alias/.qmail-ellapw? Is
> there perhaps a bad delivery instruction in it?
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
> # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
> Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
> "There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
> than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
>
Okay, I've tried [EMAIL PROTECTED], replied to the confirm
message, I'm still on the list and I don't know who runs it. Sorry to bug
everyone but my mailbox keeps filling up and I don't have time to read it all...
--
Matthew
>I'm quite new to Linux, and very new to setting up mail so please
>bear with me if these are stupid questions. I've got a one user
>dial-up box, retrieving mail from my provider using fetchmail. I'm
>pretty sure I'm not doing this the right way. I've got two files in
>control/
>
>me:
>mymadeupdomainname.com
>
>virtualdomains:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:trent
>trent@localhost:trent
>:alias-outgoing_ppp
>
>This is they only setup that I can get to work. If I take out the
>trent@localhost line mail gets put in the outgoing_ppp dir (where my
>mail is queued until I connect) when I run fetchmail. I know there
>is rcpthosts, locals, ... but I don't know how to set them up. If
>someone can tell me the correct way to configure this I would be
>grateful.
I've got a similar configuration, and had some added wrinkles that,
combined, represented a new combination on this list.
But my configuration is different enough from yours to perhaps be
not much help, or too much to deal with (and, besides, it's probably
not ideal, yet).
I suggest you do what I did, carefully read qmail-control, and follow
all the links to other docs, slowly building your understanding of
what all the files in control/ do. Use the qmail-lint program recently
announced here (by Russ Nelson, IIRC), something I haven't yet tried
myself.
If you don't understand a term or phrase you read, trust me, you *have*
to go find its definition before you proceed. Don't assume that
a term, different from one you saw used a paragraph earlier (which
you did understand), must necessarily mean something you don't care
about and thus can safely ignore -- it might refer to the very same
thing. (E.g. I thought "envelope sender address" couldn't be the
same as "Return-Path:", because they were both used in the same man
page. I knew I wanted to change the latter, and overlooked the
explanation of how to change the former. They are the same thing.
I'd read that earlier, but hadn't fully memorized it at that point.)
>From what I've read about the principles and goals behind the design
of qmail, it's one of the most rock-solid-from-the-ground-up
free-software products we'll ever see. The documentation is well
outside of *that* box, however, and should be not be treated as if
it is. While I haven't resorted to reading the code yet, it is
certainly required to have a complete understanding of what the
documentation would ideally provide, especially when including things
like serialmail (the docs for which reminded me of ADVENT ;-).
(Fortunately, the docs can be improved without reducing the excellence
of the software itself, if that's what is desired.)
tq vm, (burley)
Hi,
This is what we want to archive:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@virtual.com anotherlocaluser
How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthosts,
locals but how do you do the rest. I have read every peace of
documenation i can find on qmail and it does not explain it anywhere.
I've tried a number of things, so far over 150 email domains are down till
i can fix this so if anyone has any ideas it would be appriated.
Regards,
Chris
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, root wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is what we want to archive:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @virtual.com anotherlocaluser
>
> How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthosts,
> locals but how do you do the rest. I have read every peace of
You should not put virtual.com into both rcpthosts and locals. or it will
definitely not work. just put them into rcpthosts.
the create a file named virtualdomains in /var/qmail/control which
containing the following lines:
virtual.com:anotherlocaluser
In the home directory of anotherlocaluser, create file
.qmail-user1 containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.qmail-user2 containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.qmail-user3 containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.qmail-default containing /home/dir/of/anotherlocaluser/Mailbox
Note:
I assume you are using Mailbox instead of /var/spool/mail/anotherlocaluser
Good luck.
> documenation i can find on qmail and it does not explain it anywhere.
> I've tried a number of things, so far over 150 email domains are down till
> i can fix this so if anyone has any ideas it would be appriated.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, root wrote:
> This is what we want to archive:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @virtual.com anotherlocaluser
>
> How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthosts,
> locals but how do you do the rest. I have read every peace of
> documenation i can find on qmail and it does not explain it anywhere.
I suggest you read the fine documentation available again.
cd ~anotherlocaluser ; touch .qmail-default
echo '&[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > .qmail-user3
echo '&localuser2' > .qmail-user2
echo '&localuser1' > .qmail-user1
echo 'virtual.com:anotherlocaluser' >> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
--
Saludos,
Jose Luis Painceira.
Hi,
This is what we want to archive:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@virtual.com anotherlocaluser
Do this
1) Put virtual.com in rcpthosts
2) Put the following in virtualdomains
virtual.com:anotherlocaluser
3) Now do
su - anotherlocaluser
echo "&localuser1" > ~/.qmail-user1
echo "&localuser2" > ~/.qmail-user2
echo "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ~/.qmail-user3
echo > ~/.qmail-default
How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthosts,
locals but how do you do the rest. I have read every peace of
documenation i can find on qmail and it does not explain it anywhere.
I've tried a number of things, so far over 150 email domains are down till
i can fix this so if anyone has any ideas it would be appriated.
The way to figure out things is this:
1) man qmail-control tells you which control file is used by which
qmail program.
2) Look at the man page of the program.
In your case, qmail-send uses virtualdomains. Note the sentence form
the qmail-send man page:
qmail-send handles virtualdomains after locals: if a
domain is listed in locals, virtualdomains does not
apply.
Since virtualdomains rely on .qmail files, look into the dot-qmail man
page (that is where "default" is coming from).
3) If you do not see how to handle your case, look into the FAQ for
additional examples.
4) If nothing works, write to the list.
Mate
If you don't wan't an extra local account:
put virtual.com only in control/rcpthosts.
Then in virtualdomains, put the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-user1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-user2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-user3
virtual.com:alias-virtual
and use the alias files in control/alias:
.qmail-user1, containing: &localuser1
.qmail-user2, containing: &localuser2
.qmail-user3, containing: &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.qmail-virtual-default, containing: &anotherlocaluser
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, or tell me if I'm right :-)
> ----------
> From: root[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 10:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Virtual Domain/Users not working proeprly
>
> Hi,
>
> This is what we want to archive:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @virtual.com anotherlocaluser
>
> How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthosts,
> locals but how do you do the rest. I have read every peace of
> documenation i can find on qmail and it does not explain it anywhere.
> I've tried a number of things, so far over 150 email domains are down till
> i can fix this so if anyone has any ideas it would be appriated.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
There is no such thing as the "right" of a user to all the services an
ISP provides. The user is entitled to what he's paid for. That's it.
If the ISP wishes to charge extra for certain services, or to refuse to
offer certain services, that's that. The customer is free to go
elsewhere. This is not "prejudice", "racism", or any other silly term
like that. It's "business."
Whether or not you think certain policies will hurt my business is your
opinion, and although you're certainly entitled to it, you're foolish to
say that it IS hurting my business. I've got the marketing information
and the analysis of our user base to prove the facts. If you still think
you're right and I'm wrong, you're free to set up your own ISP and offer
any kind of relaying services you want.
A number of people have suggested that blocking direct outbound mail
delivery somehow violates RFCs by deleting mail, or causes mail to be
lost, or... Refusing connections is well within the rules of every RFC
I've ever read. Very few here have even suggested that mail be accepted
and then deleted by the server, instead of just bounced or refused.
For those of you who have an "unreliable" ISP who tends to lose your mail
and still refuses to allow you outbound access - I have no sympathy for
you. Go find another ISP. It's your own money you're wasting staying at
the ISP who won't offer the services you want. I refuse to care about
your own foolishness in where you spend your money. If you want a
particular service, ask for it and offer to sign a contract with the ISP.
If they won't do it, go elsewhere.
No one here has claimed that any spam policy is a panacea. Most of us
who actually run these large systems for a living will readily admit that
fighting spam is a big pain in the ass and we'd rather not have to do it.
But what we want to do really doesn't matter, because we have to fight it
to at least some extent. We're not trying to hide our countermeasures.
Admittedly, we don't advertise in big letters "we block spam" but if a
customer calls and asks about our policies we'll gladly explain them. We
don't mind that the spammers know our countermeasures; they'd figure them
out anyway and it makes them keep trying different things we may not know
about.
In the absence of any real legal protections (and I mean practical ones
that actually discourage this kind of behavior) there will ALWAYS be
spammers. I'm not ready to admit that the problem is so bad that we need
vague laws criminalizing "commercial email," but I'm not going to wait
around while people take down my mail servers either.
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Racer X wrote:
> There is no such thing as the "right" of a user to all the services an
> ISP provides. The user is entitled to what he's paid for. That's it.
> If the ISP wishes to charge extra for certain services, or to refuse to
> offer certain services, that's that. The customer is free to go
> elsewhere. This is not "prejudice", "racism", or any other silly term
> like that. It's "business."
That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mail,
your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Either
them come from dial-up or not.
> For those of you who have an "unreliable" ISP who tends to lose your mail
> and still refuses to allow you outbound access - I have no sympathy for
> you. Go find another ISP. It's your own money you're wasting staying at
> the ISP who won't offer the services you want. I refuse to care about
> your own foolishness in where you spend your money. If you want a
> particular service, ask for it and offer to sign a contract with the ISP.
> If they won't do it, go elsewhere.
Obviously u never lived in a country, where monopolies are the rules, not
the exception.
> to at least some extent. We're not trying to hide our countermeasures.
> Admittedly, we don't advertise in big letters "we block spam" but if a
> customer calls and asks about our policies we'll gladly explain them. We
Why would they call you? They would call u and say, i suspect i haven't
received some mail that u deleted?
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
> That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mail,
> your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Either
> them come from dial-up or not.
There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
some services that we choose not to offer to our customers. If someone wants
a service we do not offer, we advise the to find someone who does.
> Obviously u never lived in a country, where monopolies are the rules, not
> the exception.
I never have. I'm not sure what to really tell you, other than, you seem to
have a choice from among change it, leave it, or deal with it.
> Why would they call you? They would call u and say, i suspect i haven't
> received some mail that u deleted?
There is no deletion involved if the mail never arrived. I cannot imagine
any customer that would presume that mail they were expecting to get that
did not arrive was simply deleted from our server.
If a customer does complain that mail failed to arrive, and if it turns out
it was from a dialup line that tried to connect to us directly, I would tell
the customer to have the peron who tried to send the mail call us directly to
resolve the problem. If that person calls, I would advise them to not
attempt to bypass the normal mail servers, and to use the SMTP server
designated by their ISP, or get a dedicated IP address for their own SMTP
server so it can be properly identified as other than a dialup. If they
say anything that makes if convincing that they are really spammers, I will
simply, and rudely, hang up.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
i need your advice to build a splitted email system:
server 1 (run qmail and is MX for several domains):
- get inbound external email
- filter with antispam/UCE/relay rules and allow post only to
defined users ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], but not
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and to the managed domains
- forward email to server 2
- get outbound internal email (originated from server 2 and others)
- act as relay only for allowed hosts (server 2 and others)
- stripe non necessary email headers: email seems to be originated
directly from server 1
- send outbound email
server 2 don't run qmail, manage the several domains, run a POP3 server
and forward all outbound email to server 1.
Can you help me to configure qmail?
thanx!
Lorenzo
--
============================================================
Key fingerprint : 203C 79AE 2A7A 6147 D4A8 8BEE D26A 06EB
KeyID : 0x833FB7FD --- Key available on keyservers
============================================================
Hi,
I've recently aquired control of a new domain and am supporting it under qmail.
My boss wants me to accept mail for all addresses at saiddomain.com and
deliver them to person x (which is easy using a .qmail-default) but we want
to reject a specific address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I put in the
.qmail-pete file?
Thanks
Peter
--
gradwell dot com ltd - writing the bits of the web you don't see
online @ http://www.gradwell.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
Perhaps:
exit 100
if I'm not mistaking...
> ----------
> From: Peter Gradwell[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Bouncing specific users
>
> Hi,
>
> I've recently aquired control of a new domain and am supporting it under
> qmail.
>
> My boss wants me to accept mail for all addresses at saiddomain.com and
> deliver them to person x (which is easy using a .qmail-default) but we
> want
> to reject a specific address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I put in the
> .qmail-pete file?
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
> --
> gradwell dot com ltd - writing the bits of the web you don't see
> online @ http://www.gradwell.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
>
Hi; I've managed, after some help from various members
of this list (primarily Mate) to get qmail set up and running,
and it's delivering localhost messages very well. However;
The test domain that I'm using as a virtual domain is
lakesedge.org ; the files that are relevant are, as I
understand the instructions;
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
######################################
localhost
gwydion.highwayone.net
lakesedge.org
######################################
/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
######################################
lakesedge.org: leorg
######################################
and for the test example
/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-leorg-lyrdarath
######################################
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
######################################
This congiguration *should* take incoming messages for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and forward them to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The mailer is serving incoming messages to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] perfectly well; however, when
I test-sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail generated
this response;
######################################
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at gwydion.highwayone.net.
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.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
######################################
Can anybody tell me what I've done wrong?
~Chris
try putting
> lakesedge.org: alias-leorg
>
in virtualdomains.
Let me know if it works then...
> ----------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Virtual domains using qmail
>
> Hi; I've managed, after some help from various members
> of this list (primarily Mate) to get qmail set up and running,
> and it's delivering localhost messages very well. However;
>
> The test domain that I'm using as a virtual domain is
> lakesedge.org ; the files that are relevant are, as I
> understand the instructions;
>
> /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
> ######################################
> localhost
> gwydion.highwayone.net
> lakesedge.org
> ######################################
>
> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
> ######################################
> lakesedge.org: leorg
> ######################################
>
> and for the test example
>
> /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-leorg-lyrdarath
> ######################################
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ######################################
>
> This congiguration *should* take incoming messages for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and forward them to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The mailer is serving incoming messages to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] perfectly well; however, when
> I test-sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail generated
> this response;
>
> ######################################
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at gwydion.highwayone.net.
> 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.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
>
> ######################################
>
> Can anybody tell me what I've done wrong?
>
> ~Chris
>
>
>
Hi
I have this configuration - starting qmail-pop3d
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail.xx.net \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d ./ &
I have this user list that checkpassword should follow
#xx: /var/qmail/users > cat assign
=martin:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:::
+martin-:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:-::
.
But when checkpassword chdir's into the users directory it follow
the /etc/passwd file and NOT the users/assign file as it should.
Why??
Any fix to this - or any other programs that I can use?
Thanks,
Martin Staael
NetGroup A/S
St. Kongensgade 40H. 2.th.,1264 K�benhavn K., Tel.. +45 33691228,
Fax. +45 33130066
---
- Origin: Glace Bleu d'origine...
:) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
