qmail Digest 3 Feb 1999 11:00:11 -0000 Issue 540
Topics (messages 21339 through 21417):
Using esmtp's flag size set
21339 by: Lara Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21342 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virtual domains + Username length
21340 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21341 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
trouble opening local
21343 by: "Rask Ingemann Lambertsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't trust 'em.
21344 by: Cris Daniluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21345 by: "Paul J. Schinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21367 by: Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21371 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21373 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21382 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Possible Anti-spam solution (was Re: Example of the anti-fax effect)
21346 by: Michael Graff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21349 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
forward and keep mail
21347 by: "Martin Staael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21348 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
virtual domains troubles
21350 by: Matt Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21351 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21357 by: Matt Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21358 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21359 by: Matt Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Digest for qmail mailing list?
21352 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Three solutions for spam
21353 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21360 by: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21362 by: "Paul Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21368 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21375 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21377 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21378 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21379 by: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21380 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21381 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21384 by: Mike Holling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21386 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
debbugs and qmail
21354 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DUL and rblsmtpd
21355 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21356 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail eats up my memory
21361 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FW: qmail eats up my memory
21363 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21372 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21376 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
multiple receipents
21364 by: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21365 by: Jean Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21366 by: Jere Cassidy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21369 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SSL
21370 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21374 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
abuse@... vs rblsmtpd
21383 by: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21385 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21395 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Million users
21387 by: John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21388 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21389 by: Matthew Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21392 by: Jaye Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21393 by: Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21394 by: Matthew Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21402 by: "Edward S. Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21403 by: Bo Fussing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21404 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21405 by: "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21417 by: Matthew Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maildir/cur
21390 by: John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail POP3 Configuration
21391 by: MountaiNet Tech Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Q re timeout (#4.4.2) deferrals on outbound mail (qmail 1.03 on SCO UNIX)
21396 by: "Heinz Wittenbecher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
virtualdomains troubles...
21397 by: ppiamdn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not sure
21398 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21400 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21401 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CGI client for Maildirs.
21399 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web Mail server with Qmail
21406 by: Mohanan P G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
virtual domains and then some. (offline servers who are the actual vdoamins)
21407 by: Adam H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21414 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
changing the VERP delimiter
21408 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry for this.....
21409 by: Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
new-inject vs qmail-inject
21410 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
getpwnam() bug in freebsd-2.2.8 affects qmail
21411 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unable to run qmail-remote from resource exthaustion PERMENENT error?
21412 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Complicated problem with fastforward and aliases
21413 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mangling From: headers by recipient domain
21415 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Filters with qmail
21416 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 bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I would like to know if it is possible to accept mail with a
certain size not higher then a predefined limit for individual
users. And where can I set the limit of mail for all users if
the above is not possible.
I am assuming that the "databytes" file in the control directory
needs to be created so that a size is handled by smtpd ??
Thank you
lara
________________________________________________________________________
Lara Marques email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Developer work: +27 11 402 4116
fax: +27 11 402 4118
http://www.mighty.co.za Cellular: 082 656 4665
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 01:19:30PM +0000, Lara Marques wrote:
> I would like to know if it is possible to accept mail with a
> certain size not higher then a predefined limit for individual
> users. And where can I set the limit of mail for all users if
> the above is not possible.
>
> I am assuming that the "databytes" file in the control directory
> needs to be created so that a size is handled by smtpd ??
For mail injected via qmail-inject, there's no direct way of controlling
the message size. I suppose you could accept all locally injected mail and
redirect it to some virtual domain entry and then check for size.
For mail coming in via SMTP, the value of control/databytes controls the
maximum size of message that is allowed in. This setting can be overridden
by the DATABYTES environment variable, settable from tcpserver. See the man
page for qmail-smtpd.
The one problem with qmail's smtpd is that it does not make use of the
SIZE parameter to the MAIL FROM command to reject the message right away;
it accepts the entire message, and then checks to see if it is big. If so,
it bounces it, otherwise accepts it. This means that if someone sends me a
15 MB message, and I have my databytes set to 100 K, I'll still have to
accept the entire message before returning a negative response. It would be
nice if qmail-smtpd understood the SIZE keyword.
--
Anand
System Administrator
Africa Online Ltd
http://www.anand.org
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now I wanted to create an account like this: MWormgoor
> I can login to the account using pop just fine. However, qmail-send will not
> deliver mail to this address for some reason, as shown down below.
> The .qmail-MWormgoor file is fine and points to the Maildir. The Maildir
The .qmail file should be all in lowercase because qmail lowercases the
local part for comparisons on .qmail files. In your case, the file should
be:
.qmail-mwormgoor
--
Anand
System Administrator
Africa Online Ltd
http://www.anand.org
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently we setup a qmail-server with virtual domains. We use Bruce Guenter's
> checkvpw for pop3 on these boxes. Now, here's the problem. When creating a
> mailbox under a virtual domain with <8chars and no caps, everything works
> great. We can both receive and check mail.
>
> Now I wanted to create an account like this: MWormgoor
> I can login to the account using pop just fine. However, qmail-send will not
> deliver mail to this address for some reason, as shown down below.
> The .qmail-MWormgoor file is fine and points to the Maildir. The Maildir
> exists like all the other users. Now, what is causing this? BTW, we're
> using Bruce Guenter's rpm for qmail. Does this have anything to do with
> using caps in the name, or is it the length of the username?
You cannot use caps in file names under qmail. Perhaps qmail-users will
help you out. Or use .qmail-mwormgoor.
Mate
On 01-Feb-99 23:44:32, Jake Jellinek wrote something about "trouble opening local". I
just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> Hi,
> I get loads of messages in my qmail log like this:
> 917908634.888123 warning: trouble opening local/0/361859; will try again
> later
> 917908638.898115 warning: trouble opening local/22/361858; will try again
> later
A good start would be to look at the output of
ls -l /var/qmail/queue/*/*/361859 /var/qmail/queue/*/*/361858
You haven't been tampering with the queue, have you?
Regards,
/������������������������������T�����������������������������������������\
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Registered Phase5 developer | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ |
| A4000, 775 kkeys/s (RC5-64) | "ThrustMe" on XPilot and EFnet IRC |
| Keyboard error: <Ctrl> and <Alt> are stuck - press <Del> to continue |
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Mike Holling writes:
> > Exactly. The implicit assumption being promoted here is that an ISP's
> > mail server is somehow more "legitimate" than an arbitrary mailserver on
> > the Internet. As Russ has just demonstrated, there is quite a bit of
> > legitimate mail transacted on non-ISP servers.
>
> Why should I trust J. Random SMTP client to be non-abusive? You're
> trying to convince me that I should trust *all* SMTP clients equally.
> You're going to fail at that, because some have PROVEN themselves not
> worth of trust. I have the evidence of my own eyes -- the spam in my
> mailbox.
>
> How does one develop trust? Through credentials -- a chunk of
> information that says that you are who you say you are. How do the
> credentials become believable? Because of the reputation of the
> issuing institution.
>
> Machines with static IP addresses have a credential -- the
> correspondance between name and number. Muncher.math.uic.edu has
> proven itself trustworthy. How do I know it is muncher? By it's IP
> address, and by the reverse DNS record that identifies it as muncher.
> Could someone forge muncher's identity? Yes, by DNS spoofing. That
> is too much work for spammers, however.
>
> Unfortunately for the legitimate users, dialup users have proven
> themselves untrustworthy, because they are at the moment of connection
> anonymous. How can they generate the necessary trust? Well, for one,
> by having a DNS record which identifies them as trustworthy. Their
> ISP can issue them a address from a pool which is trusted, once they
> have proven their trust. Or vice-versa, a new or trial user would be
> given an address in a pool which is not trusted.
>
> Another way they could be trusted is by going through a proxy. This
> proxy runs on a host with a credential, and allows access only to
> trusted SMTP clients.
>
> I'm sure that there are other methods for developing trust. One thing
> is for sure: you can't trust random SMTP clients. This is not your
> father's ARPANet, where all hosts were by definition trusted.
>
> --
> -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.
You assume an ISP would do this. Really? That's an awful lot of work for
something an Inbox filter would stop. And what's to stop someone from buying a
static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
freely? Or relaying off of some server 2 thousand miles away that doesn't
block relays? Some mail servers cant (for example sites like yahoo.com who
have mail gateways... by the way, about 50-60% of spam I receive comes from
"trusted" mail servers on mail gateways like this). More and more spammers are
putting "ADV:" in their topics as is required by law and more and more are
also sending "To be removed" messages. While the to be removed messages don't
really work half the time, I think it is safe to say that a well constructed
message filter could be made to block these out, if not on the MUA level, on
the mail server level.
--
Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Services Network, Inc. http://www.dsnet.net
1129 Niles-Cortland Road, Warren, Ohio 44484 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(330) 609-8624 ext. 20 Fax (330) 609-9990
The Web Hosting Specialists
-------------------------------------------------------------
So many misconceptions, so little time...
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
}
} You assume an ISP would do this. Really? That's an awful lot of work for
} something an Inbox filter would stop. And what's to stop someone from buying a
} static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
} freely?
The terms of the contract they sign with the ISP that gives them the
static domain. The same thing that eventually stopped Samford Wallace
(which is a vast oversimplfication, but...).
If the ISP is a spambone, it can easily be blocked. (One of the only
useful features of iemmc.org was that you could block it because you
knew it was all-spam-all-the-time.) If the ISP is responsible, the
spammer gets shut down.
} Or relaying off of some server 2 thousand miles away that doesn't
} block relays?
ORBS. And convincing admins to shut down their open relays.
} Some mail servers cant (for example sites like yahoo.com who
} have mail gateways... by the way, about 50-60% of spam I receive comes from
} "trusted" mail servers on mail gateways like this).
I *really* doubt this. The spam may *say* in the From: line that it's
from @yahoo.com, but you can't trust anything in a spam. The only
things you can trust are the entries in your logs and the few lines of
the header that your own qmail puts there. Most spam that I get from
bogus @yahoo.com and @hotmail.com addresses are actually sent via
relay rape of machines having nothing to do with yahoo or hotmail.
} More and more spammers are
} putting "ADV:" in their topics as is required by law and more and more are
} also sending "To be removed" messages.
There is no national law on spam.
} While the to be removed messages don't
} really work half the time, I think it is safe to say that a well constructed
} message filter could be made to block these out, if not on the MUA level, on
} the mail server level.
What they do when you reply to one is show the spammer that your
address actually works. That's valuable information to them, and
insures that you'll get more spam.
}
} --
} Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
} -------------------------------------------------------------
} Digital Services Network, Inc. http://www.dsnet.net
} 1129 Niles-Cortland Road, Warren, Ohio 44484 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
} (330) 609-8624 ext. 20 Fax (330) 609-9990
} The Web Hosting Specialists
} -------------------------------------------------------------
}
}
}
--
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> And what's to stop someone from buying a
> static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
> freely?
The economics of static IP discourage it. ISPs in the U.S. often
charge $200-300 in setup fees for static IP addresses, and typically
an additional $100 per month. The spammer would have to be pretty
sure that they would gross at least $400 per spam run in order to make
it worthwhile, and I would guess that most spammers don't see anything
close to that.
> Or relaying off of some server 2 thousand miles away that doesn't
> block relays? Some mail servers cant (for example sites like yahoo.com who
> have mail gateways... by the way, about 50-60% of spam I receive comes from
> "trusted" mail servers on mail gateways like this). More and more spammers are
> putting "ADV:" in their topics as is required by law and more and more are
> also sending "To be removed" messages. While the to be removed messages don't
> really work half the time, I think it is safe to say that a well constructed
> message filter could be made to block these out, if not on the MUA level, on
> the mail server level.
In fact, our system-wide procmail filters include almost 200 recipes
for blocking spam based on patterns in the message body. These
include the Murkowski disclaimer, text like "hit reply to remove,"
"we are sorry if you have received this in error," "we are a
responsible bulk emailer," "this is only an opt-in list," and other
spammers' weasel words. We have a great deal of experience trying to
block spam using full-text filters.
The truth of the matter is that you can indeed stop a fairly high
proportion of spam this way, but not enough to make it worthwhile to
analyze the spam text and write new filters. Even 40% of a flood is
still a deluge.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> > And what's to stop someone from buying a
> > static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
> > freely?
>
> The economics of static IP discourage it. ISPs in the U.S. often
> charge $200-300 in setup fees for static IP addresses, and typically
> an additional $100 per month. The spammer would have to be pretty
> sure that they would gross at least $400 per spam run in order to make
> it worthwhile, and I would guess that most spammers don't see anything
> close to that.
I don't charge any kind of setup fee for a static IP, just $5/mo.
However, when someone requests a static IP, it perks up my ears and I ask
alot more questions and emphasize our terms. Domains incur setup fees,
though. Nobody's claiming this will stop spam, just make it that much
more difficult. That's all we can do.
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.
=====================================================================
Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 February 1999 at 13:05:26 -0500
> On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> > And what's to stop someone from buying a
> > static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
> > freely?
>
> The economics of static IP discourage it. ISPs in the U.S. often
> charge $200-300 in setup fees for static IP addresses, and typically
> an additional $100 per month. The spammer would have to be pretty
> sure that they would gross at least $400 per spam run in order to make
> it worthwhile, and I would guess that most spammers don't see anything
> close to that.
We hope you enjoy your visit to our timeline. Around here, static IPs
cost about another $5 a month (that's the rate currently quoted at
www.visi.com, for example, as well as the number in my memory, and the
number reported on this list by a number of other people). And for
ADSL, at least one local ISP (a different one) does them ALL as static
IPs by default. (I'm in Minneapolis MN).
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
>We hope you enjoy your visit to our timeline. Around here, static IPs
>cost about another $5 a month (that's the rate currently quoted at
>www.visi.com, for example, as well as the number in my memory, and the
>number reported on this list by a number of other people). And for
>ADSL, at least one local ISP (a different one) does them ALL as static
>IPs by default. (I'm in Minneapolis MN).
This is unfortunately not a valid comparison. ISPs that started business
3 or 4 years ago had no problem getting massive blocks of IP addresses
for their own use (a few places got entire /16s with virtually no
justification).
Today getting IPs is extremely difficult. We have around 1000 dialup
ports, and can therefore justify a need for at least 1000 IPs, but it
took a lot of cajoling to get just that. We aren't in a position to give
away static IPs to dialup customers at any practical price. We have to
conserve them for our dedicated and DSL customers because we can't
guarantee that we'll get any more later.
Unfortunately the people administering the IP address space kinda screwed
up early on in their allocations, and now there's no real way to get the
unused IP blocks back. Water under the bridge I guess. The point is
that static IPs don't cost $5 at every ISP; they aren't even available at
many, many ISPs.
shag
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The DUL and the RBL have NOTHING (vehemently so) to do with each
> other.
Well, no, but they are served in the same way, both MAPS projects, and
both work to help reduce spam on my network.
--Michael
Michael Graff writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The DUL and the RBL have NOTHING (vehemently so) to do with each
> > other.
>
> Well, no, but they are served in the same way, both MAPS projects, and
> both work to help reduce spam on my network.
Yeeks! I was vehemently wrong! .... new (as of 01 FEB 1999 anyways) ....
I guess I'm behind the times -- apparently ORCA DUL has become a MAPS
project. Sorry. Last I knew, Paul Vixie was hostile to all non-MAPS
DNS-based blocking.
--
-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.
Hi,
I have a user who has a .qmail in his mail directory which looks like this:
.qmail:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This works fine and forward the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BUT - what if the user wants a copy of the mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
STILL keep a copy of the mail in the home directory?
How to do this?
Thanks,
put the following in .qmail:
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Maildir/ (for storage in Maildir format)
./mbox (for storage in inbox format)
> ----------
> From: Martin Staael[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 2:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: forward and keep mail
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a user who has a .qmail in his mail directory which looks like
> this:
>
> .qmail:
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This works fine and forward the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> BUT - what if the user wants a copy of the mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> STILL keep a copy of the mail in the home directory?
>
> How to do this?
>
> Thanks,
>
I've fixed my DNS CNAME snafu and my ~control/locals, and now when I
`telnet me.domain.com smtp`
HELO
MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCPT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DATA
Subject: Test message.
testing
.
QUIT
and then look in the qmail logs on me.domain.com, it shows an accepted
connection and...
<accustamp> starting delivery #: msg ###### to local @me.domain.com
Note that there's no account name in front of the @ ^. Two lines down in the
log is the line...
<accustamp> delivery #: success:
Whereas when I just mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same line would
read...
<accustamp> delivery #: success: did_1+0+0
and would show the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the "starting
delivery" line.
Note, I had to test each this way, since the MX record I need to go into
real operation is, uh, occupied. If I just mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it'd go
to the currently operational (just barely) mail server.
Is my ~users/assign file not being used properly? How should it be chmoded?
Who owns it? What other configuration blunders have I made?
With all accounts of a name like domain-com-user in the ~users/assign file,
I don't need a domain-com user, or a .qmail file in the domain-com home
directory, right?
--
Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
Superor Open Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use the protocol correctly and it will work. :)
220 plutonium.mayod.nb.net ESMTP
EHLO mayod.nb.net
250-plutonium.mayod.nb.net
250 8BITMIME
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
DATA
354 go ahead
testing....
.
250 ok 917968202 qp 10149
QUIT
221 plutonium.mayod.nb.net
The format of the protocol commands is shown in the FAQ and TEST documents
for a reason. :)
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matt Garrett wrote:
> I've fixed my DNS CNAME snafu and my ~control/locals, and now when I
> `telnet me.domain.com smtp`
> HELO
> MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> RCPT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> DATA
> Subject: Test message.
>
> testing
> .
> QUIT
> and then look in the qmail logs on me.domain.com, it shows an accepted
> connection and...
> <accustamp> starting delivery #: msg ###### to local @me.domain.com
> Note that there's no account name in front of the @ ^. Two lines down in the
> log is the line...
> <accustamp> delivery #: success:
> Whereas when I just mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same line would
> read...
> <accustamp> delivery #: success: did_1+0+0
> and would show the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the "starting
> delivery" line.
>
> Note, I had to test each this way, since the MX record I need to go into
> real operation is, uh, occupied. If I just mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it'd go
> to the currently operational (just barely) mail server.
>
> Is my ~users/assign file not being used properly? How should it be chmoded?
> Who owns it? What other configuration blunders have I made?
>
> With all accounts of a name like domain-com-user in the ~users/assign file,
> I don't need a domain-com user, or a .qmail file in the domain-com home
> directory, right?
>
> --
> Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
> Superor Open Systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Manager
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
D'oh!
That would help, wouldn't it.
Okay, problem solved. Next problem.
I still can't seem to deliver mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED], even though I have
~alias/.qmail-[root, postmaster, mailer-daemon] all set up to be
"./operator/Maildir/" and ~alias/operator is a symlink to /home/me, on which
I have run maildirmk. The .qmail files aren't set executable by anyone, and
my home dir and Maildir are chmoded 0755.
Perhaps I should be using &me, rather than ./operator/Maildir/.
Is forwarding a better option?
--
Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
Superior Open Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since the user receiving the mail must OWN the directory it is finally
delivered to, symlinks won't work. Forwarding is your best option. :)
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matt Garrett wrote:
> D'oh!
> That would help, wouldn't it.
> Okay, problem solved. Next problem.
>
> I still can't seem to deliver mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED], even though I have
> ~alias/.qmail-[root, postmaster, mailer-daemon] all set up to be
> "./operator/Maildir/" and ~alias/operator is a symlink to /home/me, on which
> I have run maildirmk. The .qmail files aren't set executable by anyone, and
> my home dir and Maildir are chmoded 0755.
>
> Perhaps I should be using &me, rather than ./operator/Maildir/.
> Is forwarding a better option?
>
> --
> Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
> Superior Open Systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Manager
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
I should also note that I'll probably want all of the mail for [root,
postmaster, mailer-daemon]@<any of my domains> to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't know if I'll need to set up those addresses in ~users/assign, or if
!alias/.qmail-other-com-root, etc would catch them.
On another note, anyone know why checkpoppasswd would fail to authenticate
because it couldn't setgid to the group of my popuser account (888)?
I have popuser:x:888: in /etc/group. Should I put any of the various qmail
users in the popuser account or vice versa?
--
Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
Superior Open Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:35:23 -0500, Michael Slade wrote:
>Anyone else prefer a digest for the qmail mailing list?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent out daily, so it may be large [several subscribers' bounced the
latest digest because of their databytes limit. It was 211K.].
Also: I use it to test new versions of ezmlm-idx, so very occasionally
it might be screwed up.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Mike Holling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 1 February 1999 at 19:28:07 -0800
> > > It may come to that. If DSL IP banks become a significant, easily
> > > blockable source of mostly spam, then of course they will be blocked.
> > > So? Why is this supposed to be a problem for me if I block them?
> >
> > Because it's possible there will reach a point where the number of hoops
> > the person using DSL would have to jump through to successfully get mail
> > to you will exceed their patience, at which point they'll just say "screw
> > it" and stop communicating with you.
> >
> > I'll point out that this mailing list is being run off what is arguably an
> > IP address provided to an end-user by an ISP. (At least possibly; I'm not
> > aware of whatever arrangements Dan has with his university. But here at
> > Stanford, I'd put faculty machines into that category.)
>
> Exactly. The implicit assumption being promoted here is that an ISP's
> mail server is somehow more "legitimate" than an arbitrary mailserver on
> the Internet. As Russ has just demonstrated, there is quite a bit of
> legitimate mail transacted on non-ISP servers.
That's not what I hear. I hear some people arguing that mailservers
on dynamically assigned (i.e. anonymous) IP addresses are suspect. I
hear them give statistics explaining *why* they consider them
suspect. This is not nearly so strong a claim as the one you say is
being promoted.
I absolutely agree that lots of legit mail gets transacted on non-ISP
mailservers. Nobody, in my memory of this conversation, has disagreed
with this.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
shag> Find another ISP. I have no sympathy for you. You are choosing
shag> to stay with an ISP who is providing you with less service than
shag> you want (by not providing a reverse lookup). Choose with your
shag> dollars.
if you didn't sound so unpleasant i'd be more sympathetic to your premise.
however that aside i'll just observe that, like many people you're making
assumptions that work for you but might not where someone doesn't have a
(reasonable) choice.
shag> If there were a real need for people to send outbound email
shag> directly to their recipients, I'm sure we would offer such a
shag> service, and I'm sure we'd have a contract restricting use
shag> appropriately. The simple fact is that there is no such need,
shag> beyond people wanting to "play" with their mail setup. Oddly
shag> enough, these people who "play" whine that they can handle mail
shag> better than their ISP. This seems to be a contradiction in
shag> terms, and of course ignores the fact that we don't make our
shag> money selling services to people who want to "play" on the
shag> Internet.
i could say that you're whining over your technical inability to find a
solution less ham-fisted than the one you've chosen but it's apparent that
you can only see the world through holier-than-thou-isp tinted glasses.
it's a common problem that when you make hammers for a living every problem
starts to look like a nail.
sadly this has nothing to do with qmail other than i run it at home on my
dynamically ip'd dial-up machine.
--
paul
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Feb 1999 11:53:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: "Racer X"'s message of "Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:25:51 -0800"
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 20.3 - "Vatican City"
shag> My problem is that not a single person who feels they need this
shag> service is willing to pay for it (or at least, has not expressed
shag> that willingness here). As Russell said, if you want to be an
shag> exceptional user and get exceptional services you should expect
shag> to pay some additional fees.
i hate when people keep moving the argument around. i'd pay extra. i
already do (the only ISDN line in my CO is mine and i pay for regional
calling).
take russ saying he objects to anonymous spammers. i'm on a dial-up but it
doesn't have ``anonymous'' spammers and they persue spammers that use their
service aggressively. but i didn't hear anyone say ``I'll fix anonymous
spammers.'' i hear folks saying ``Let's screw technically sophisticated
users with particular desires that don't connect to my ISP''.
--
paul
Paul Graham writes:
> take russ saying he objects to anonymous spammers. i'm on a dial-up but it
> doesn't have ``anonymous'' spammers and they persue spammers that use their
> service aggressively. but i didn't hear anyone say ``I'll fix anonymous
> spammers.'' i hear folks saying ``Let's screw technically sophisticated
> users with particular desires that don't connect to my ISP''.
Well, Paul, how are we to tell the difference? It would be great if
we could come up with a new idea that positions qmail as the spamless
MTA.
--
-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 Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:32:58PM -0500, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> > accountable for 128.3cust.da.uu.net (etc)
> Hmm.. I think I nuked that guy once, after receiving spam :)
> Greetz, Peter.
There ya go with a solution for spam. Get spam, smurf the
offending network off the Internet. *sigh*
Did anyone catch the CNN.com frontpage article (link) about
Cyber Vigilantes? *shudder*
Scott
ps: my fiance changes her email address quite often, but I turned
on an address for her last night.. and this morning she has spam.
On 02-Feb-99 Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> Did anyone catch the CNN.com frontpage article (link) about
> Cyber Vigilantes? *shudder*
Catch it, hell. I printed it and passed it around! But wasn't it about
networks getting hacked? Or are we talking about two different articles?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
>That's not what I hear. I hear some people arguing that mailservers
>on dynamically assigned (i.e. anonymous) IP addresses are suspect. I
>hear them give statistics explaining *why* they consider them
>suspect. This is not nearly so strong a claim as the one you say is
>being promoted.
I'll be more than happy to argue that mail servers on dynamically
assigned addresses are suspect, or at least should be considered
untrusted. This does not seem like too big a stretch to me, nor does it
seem like something requiring a lot of justification. I don't see how
you can consider dynamic addresses anything BUT suspect, considering that
in the space of 30 seconds one host could be replaced by another. Would
you trust an rsh connection from an dynamic IP?
>I absolutely agree that lots of legit mail gets transacted on non-ISP
>mailservers. Nobody, in my memory of this conversation, has disagreed
>with this.
I don't disagree with this either. But I do posit that mail from a
dialup is more likely to be spam (based on my experience anyway) and also
that one of the main sources of spam is unblocked dialups.
shag
nelson> Well, Paul, how are we to tell the difference? It would be
nelson> great if we could come up with a new idea that positions qmail
nelson> as the spamless MTA.
let's *pursue* a different victim. i'd be happy if instead of talking
about ``dial-up'' users people said ``Dial-up users of large, well-known
and probably national providers of dial-up services that have a history of
not dealing with spammers who use throw-away or fraudulently obtained
accounts on a regular basis'' with various other modifiers and definitions.
then you're pursuing and punishing the guilty rather than using DNS to
force legitimate users through hoops they may find a bit snug.
especially if those users are on this list (which is about qmail).
--
paul
>if you didn't sound so unpleasant i'd be more sympathetic to your
premise.
>however that aside i'll just observe that, like many people you're
making
>assumptions that work for you but might not where someone doesn't have a
>(reasonable) choice.
I don't believe there are any places where someone doesn't have another
reasonable choice. The only possible exceptions to this are areas where
local telcos still have legally-enforced monopolies on all facets of
communications service. To those people, I'll say I'm sympathetic to
your plight, but if you expect me personally to do anything about it,
you'll be waiting a long time. All I can suggest is to work within your
laws to deregulate your telcos, or move to a more enlightened country.
>i could say that you're whining over your technical inability to find a
>solution less ham-fisted than the one you've chosen but it's apparent
that
>you can only see the world through holier-than-thou-isp tinted glasses.
>it's a common problem that when you make hammers for a living every
problem
>starts to look like a nail.
And I could say you're a typical end-user who doesn't really have any
idea about the technical, legal and financial issues involved, and that
your own ignorance leads you to believe that I don't know what I'm doing
and that you could do it better.
I'd be more than happy to see whatever other solutions you have that will
accomplish the same goals. I noticed that you didn't bother to offer any
here, despite the fact that you think I could use some help. Perhaps
you're a consultant looking to sell your services?
shag
>take russ saying he objects to anonymous spammers. i'm on a dial-up but
it
>doesn't have ``anonymous'' spammers and they persue spammers that use
their
>service aggressively. but i didn't hear anyone say ``I'll fix anonymous
>spammers.'' i hear folks saying ``Let's screw technically sophisticated
>users with particular desires that don't connect to my ISP''.
I think we're arguing two different things here. When I'm talking about
blocking dialup users, I'm talking about preventing my users on my
network from sending mail directly out. I'm not talking about using the
DUL, or RBL, or anything else to prevent inbound mail. As a matter of
policy, we don't block or filter any inbound mail, except for addresses
we've had particular and consistent problems with.
I'm not sure who's on which side here.
shag
> That's not what I hear. I hear some people arguing that mailservers
> on dynamically assigned (i.e. anonymous) IP addresses are suspect. I
> hear them give statistics explaining *why* they consider them
> suspect. This is not nearly so strong a claim as the one you say is
> being promoted.
I just fear that it's a very small step to go from blocking known dialup
pools to blocking any IP that resolves to a pattern like
"1-2-3-4.example.net". That looks like a dialup, and if it's a cablemodem
or DSL line who cares, that may as well be a dialup right? After all, if
it were a true mail server that could be trusted it wouldn't have a name
that starts with its IP address, only dialups use those.
- Mike
Mike Holling writes:
> I just fear that it's a very small step to go from blocking known dialup
> pools to blocking any IP that resolves to a pattern like
> "1-2-3-4.example.net". That looks like a dialup, and if it's a cablemodem
> or DSL line who cares, that may as well be a dialup right? After all, if
> it were a true mail server that could be trusted it wouldn't have a name
> that starts with its IP address, only dialups use those.
Well, that's life. My personal policy is simple. On the receiving side, I
implement mechanisms to block dialup spam in a manner that I believe is far
more efficient than outright blacklists. Others have reported that
filtering out dialup spam based on the headers, instead of IP addresses,
yields too many false positives, however my experience doesn't show that.
As far as I know, I've never blocked a non-spam message sent to my
spam-filtered address from a dialup, and have blocked all dialup spam,
sometimes sent from the same IP address pool. I have become aware of some
isolated cases where the spamware won't be blocked by my filters, but so
far I have not been on the receiving end for now, and I've decided to cross
that bridge when I come to it.
On the sending side, for a very, very short list of receipients who I have
a specific reason to regularly send mail to, and who I know are blocking
mail from dialups, I make sure to smarthost my mail to that domain. In all
other cases, if my reply to an inquiry bounces due to an obvious dialup
block, I will manually resend that reply, but all further E-mail from the
same domain will be blocked as well, with an informative rejection message,
inviting the sender to try again from a different domain.
I no longer get excited over this issue, and prefer to abstain from
religious flame wars over this. That's simply how I'm handling it, and, so
far, the approach works rather well.
Yusuf Goolamabbas writes:
> If the local MTA is qmail you _must_ install a different MTA somewhere
> (eg in a subdirectory) and tell the bug system to use that;
> qmail has broken command-line parsing in its /usr/lib/sendmail
> emulation.
>
> Has anybody used this package and can elaborate on what the author
> refers to as broken command-line parsing
He wants to be able to give /usr/lib/sendmail an argument of
"foo bar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" or "(foo bar) [EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Sendmail.com's sendmail accepts this, but qmail's sendmail does not.
--
-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.
Does anyone know if Dan is planning on adding DUL support to rblsmtpd?
--Adam
Adam D. McKenna wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Does anyone know if Dan is planning on adding DUL support to rblsmtpd?
There's no need to do that. Just pass "-rdul.maps.vix.com" as an argument
to another instance of rblsmtpd.
Stefan
It's ok now... I patched qmail but I forgot a "s" in the code ... :(
But now it works great: :)
Qmail (with the LDAP patch patched again, and the anti UCE path in there as
well) already served over 100.000 messages in two days, and the system
didn't even budge. It's fabulous! And it just keeps on working...
> ----------
> From: Van Liedekerke Franky[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 3:04 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: qmail eats up my memory
>
> qmail version: 1.03
>
> after a couple of hours, the qmail-lspawn process became huge (813M),
> eating
> up all my memory and of course blocking everything.
> Anybody seen this before?
>
he figured it out....
> ----------
> From: Fred Lindberg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: Fred Lindberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 6:02 PM
> To: Van Liedekerke Franky
> Subject: RE: qmail eats up my memory
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:45:41 +0100, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
>
> >It's ok now... I patched qmail but I forgot a "s" in the code ... :(
> >But now it works great: :)
>
> let me guess: stralloc_cat() instead of stralloc_cats() ...
>
>
> -Sincerely, Fred
>
> (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
>
>
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
> he figured it out....
>
> > >It's ok now... I patched qmail but I forgot a "s" in the code ... :(
> > >But now it works great: :)
> >
> > let me guess: stralloc_cat() instead of stralloc_cats() ...
What kind of a stupid compiler would let this go by? Different
prototypes, you should get at least a warning.
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Sam wrote:
> What kind of a stupid compiler would let this go by? Different
> prototypes, you should get at least a warning.
What prototypes?
Richard
-------------
#ifndef STRALLOC_H
#define STRALLOC_H
#include "gen_alloc.h"
GEN_ALLOC_typedef(stralloc,char,s,len,a)
extern int stralloc_ready();
extern int stralloc_readyplus();
extern int stralloc_copy();
extern int stralloc_cat();
extern int stralloc_copys();
extern int stralloc_cats();
extern int stralloc_copyb();
extern int stralloc_catb();
extern int stralloc_append(); /* beware: this takes a pointer to 1 char */
extern int stralloc_starts();
#define stralloc_0(sa) stralloc_append(sa,"")
#endif
Sorry guys to bug again,
Qmail is now 99% working, however have one more problem:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> useraccount1 + useraccount2 + useraccount3
say i have [EMAIL PROTECTED] , i want jane and bill to get copies of it. In
the end upto 8 people will be on the list to receive [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s
mail
Cheers
Gavin
Gavin,
Try this;
/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-info
where .qmail-info contains;
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, root wrote:
> Sorry guys to bug again,
>
> Qmail is now 99% working, however have one more problem:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> useraccount1 + useraccount2 + useraccount3
>
> say i have [EMAIL PROTECTED] , i want jane and bill to get copies of it. In
> the end upto 8 people will be on the list to receive [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s
> mail
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Gavin
>
The easiest thing is to just do in .qmail-listname :
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&user2
&user3
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Jere Cassidy - System Administration - D&E SuperNet
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (717)738-7054
web: http://www.desupernet.net/jere
pager/pcs: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (717)203-0042
~~~ "While sowing the seeds of Utopia,
you invoked a convenient amnesia" -BR ~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 5:20 pm +0000 2/2/99,the wonderful root wrote:
>Sorry guys to bug again,
>
>Qmail is now 99% working, however have one more problem:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> useraccount1 + useraccount2 + useraccount3
>
>say i have [EMAIL PROTECTED] , i want jane and bill to get copies of it. In
>the end upto 8 people will be on the list to receive [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s
>mail
just put
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(each on a new line)
in the .qmail-info file for that domain.
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"
Has anybody managed to get an SSL wrapper around Qmail-SMTP and POP-3D??
If so let me know.
Joe
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Joe Garcia wrote:
> Has anybody managed to get an SSL wrapper around Qmail-SMTP and POP-3D??
Yep. See http://www.rickk.com/sslwrap. It's easy to set up, and works great.
Note that MS Outlook Express on Windows 98 (but not, for some reason, on 95)
frequently hangs in the "Securing" stage of the negotiation (on POP
connections). You have to quit the application and start it back up again. For
some reason if you send a message first it doesn't happen, and it never happens
on the first connection after you launch it. A buggy MS application--surprise!
(I just wanted to mention this so that you didn't think that there was a bug in
sslwrap or something wrong in your setup--this problem is unique to OE/98.)
Chris
Hiyas,
I have a little cosmetic problem with spam handling. I'd like to make a
controlled account where the handled-as-spammer-hosts can post mail. This
account can be practically [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I understand that RBL lists are a solution of today's problems and it
have to be isolated from smtpd, but it would be good if some spammer could
send complaining letters to my host.
Before some of you suggest me to use another IP address I have to tell that
we currently own 32 addresses and I cannot give one just for spam complains.
I think I musn't isolate myself from spammers completely because it's
generally a bad idea.
Regards: Balazs
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -export-a-crypto-system-sig -http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
Balazs Nagy writes:
> Hiyas,
>
> I have a little cosmetic problem with spam handling. I'd like to make a
> controlled account where the handled-as-spammer-hosts can post mail. This
> account can be practically [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAIK, rblsmtpd is an all-but-nothing deal, since once it takes over
instead of smtpd, there is no turning back.
The solution is to abandon rblsmtpd, and integrade RBL into qmail-smtpd
itself, selectively applying it to all recipients except abuse.
> I have a little cosmetic problem with spam handling. I'd like to make a
> controlled account where the handled-as-spammer-hosts can post mail. This
> account can be practically [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Well, I understand that RBL lists are a solution of today's problems and it
> have to be isolated from smtpd, but it would be good if some spammer could
> send complaining letters to my host.
>
> Before some of you suggest me to use another IP address I have to tell that
> we currently own 32 addresses and I cannot give one just for spam complains.
>
> I think I musn't isolate myself from spammers completely because it's
> generally a bad idea.
I, and my assistant, Watson, have been working on an alternative for them to
communicate to you with. This device will not only provide immediate forms
of communication, but it will also provide a somewhat improved economic
resistance to trivial attempts at communications. An additional feature
will allow natural vocal recognition, and the opportunity to communicate
back will be included. I have also designed the device to integrate
smoothly into the communications circuits you already have in your wiring
infrastructure. I hope you will find my new device satisfactory to your
need.
Yours most truly, Alexander Graham Bell
:-)
There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
handling a million emails a day.
Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
load?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Conover writes:
> There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
> handling a million emails a day.
>
> Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> load?
Not that I know of, although I believe that a suitably-provisioned one
could, with qmail 1.03. And qmail 2.0 is being designed to.
--
-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 Tue, 2 Feb 1999, John Conover wrote:
> There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
> handling a million emails a day.
>
> Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> load?
Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running a
free Unix.
The congressional stuff runs on, I think, 8 (was that 18?) Exchange boxes.
Matthew.
I did not save all my testdata unfortunately, but at one time, I had 2
FreeBSD P6 boxes, NFS mounting a Netapp F540, using Maildir for delivery,
and several boxes generating the email in front. The P6's were
loadbalanced with a Cisco LocalDirector.
I certainly recall it handling something like 450k+ deliveries of a mix of
5k and 100k messages, in 24 hours easily, and the netapp was not dedicated
to it, it was serving FTP, web pages, and all that stuff via other boxes.
One time the queue backed up to several thousand messages, for reasons I
never divined, but it cleaned itself up eventually, and then stayed pretty
steady.
I didn't do any significant tuning.
I have no doubts a million messages a day would be not impossible at all.
A million messages in 24 hours is what, appx 12/second, so that's
humming right along.
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, John Conover wrote:
>
> > There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
> > handling a million emails a day.
> >
> > Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> > load?
>
> Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running a
> free Unix.
>
> The congressional stuff runs on, I think, 8 (was that 18?) Exchange boxes.
>
> Matthew.
>
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> > Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> > load?
>
> Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running a
> free Unix.
Why not?
> The congressional stuff runs on, I think, 8 (was that 18?) Exchange boxes.
Hmm - MS's ftp site runs on 40 NT boxes, and - at the release for
Win98, I believe - set the record for number of bytes shipped per
day. It was surpassed a few months later by cdrom.com, running on a
single 200MHz FreeBSD box.
With that as a guideline, I'd expect a single FreeBSD box to be able
to handle the load of 8 Exchange boxes.
<mike
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> > > load?
> >
> > Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running
> > a free Unix.
>
> Why not?
No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the
time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want
a little more resilience to whatever failures may come..
> > The congressional stuff runs on, I think, 8 (was that 18?) Exchange boxes.
>
> Hmm - MS's ftp site runs on 40 NT boxes, and - at the release for
> Win98, I believe - set the record for number of bytes shipped per
> day. It was surpassed a few months later by cdrom.com, running on a
> single 200MHz FreeBSD box.
>
> With that as a guideline, I'd expect a single FreeBSD box to be able
> to handle the load of 8 Exchange boxes.
Sure. I'd have Linux instead, but I can't imagine either having
significant difficulty pissing all over NT/Exchange.
Matthew./
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> > > Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running
> > > a free Unix.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
> for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the
> time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want
> a little more resilience to whatever failures may come..
That's suit mentality, frankly. I've run both Solaris and Linux systems in
heavily loaded situations, and have had greater long-run stability from a
well-tuned linux system.
Solaris simply started losing it's mind after prolonged periods of uptime
(specific case was a pair of Oracle servers; after a few months of uptime,
the machines started behaving badly, zombies refusing to be reaped, etc;
half-way through shutdown on one of them, the kernel finally just got it
over with and panic'd ;-). (This is Solaris/SPARC, if it matters.)
On the flip side, I've had Linux boxen run for what basically seems like
forever, running all manner of user tasks on relatively cheap PC hardware,
without hiccups. Tells me a lot about that "Sun resilience". ;-)
> Sure. I'd have Linux instead, but I can't imagine either having
> significant difficulty pissing all over NT/Exchange.
I don't think anyone will disagree there. ;-)
--
Edward S. Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ What goes up, must come down. ]
http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ [ Ask any system administrator. ]
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Edward S. Marshall wrote:
> Solaris simply started losing it's mind after prolonged periods of uptime
> (specific case was a pair of Oracle servers; after a few months of uptime,
> the machines started behaving badly, zombies refusing to be reaped, etc;
> half-way through shutdown on one of them, the kernel finally just got it
> over with and panic'd ;-). (This is Solaris/SPARC, if it matters.)
Apparently Solaris/SPARC is the main development platform for Oracle (at
least two years ago) so it does not get any better (worse?) than that.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons they are rolling out a Linux version of
Oracle 8.
Bo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bo Fussing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gateway Internet Ltd. <Hong Kong>
Tel +852 2963-7173 Fax +852 2963-7353 URL http://www.gateway.net.hk
PGP fingerprint = D7 9F ED 1D E5 B9 62 4F 77 BC D1 33 5B 4E 95 81
For PGP ID & Signature mail empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edward S. Marshall writes:
> On the flip side, I've had Linux boxen run for what basically seems like
> forever, running all manner of user tasks on relatively cheap PC hardware,
> without hiccups. Tells me a lot about that "Sun resilience". ;-)
Let's end this by noting that Sun now supports Linux on their Sparc
hardware, and will be shipping boxes that will dual boot either Solaris, or
Linux.
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
> for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the
> time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want
> a little more resilience to whatever failures may come..
While Solaris is good in those regards, a well-built *BSD box will provide
plenty of resilience.
jms
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Edward S. Marshall wrote:
> > > > Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running
> > > > a free Unix.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
> > for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the
> > time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want
> > a little more resilience to whatever failures may come..
>
> That's suit mentality, frankly. I've run both Solaris and Linux systems in
> heavily loaded situations, and have had greater long-run stability from a
> well-tuned linux system.
That's basically my point. Whether Solaris, Linux or BSD is "better"
(whatever that means in this case) is not too relevant to me. They would
all, I think, do a more than adequate job.
And NT/Exchange simply can't cope with much more than a light load.
Matthew
I have qmail delivering to a user's ~/Maildir. The user uses netscape
as the MUA with copy to self set. The copy ends up in ~/Maildir/cur,
and all other mail ends up in ~/Maildir/new.
Is this normal? Why does qmail think copy to self has been read?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688, FAX 408.379.9602
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www2.inow.com/~conover/john.html
Ok, I know I will get badgered and flamed over this one, but Im having a
problem setting up Qmail to run for my POP3 server. Ive had no problems
getting it to run up to this point. It delivers messages fine to Mailbox
in any home directory. I changed the line in /var/qmail/rc from Mailbox to
Maildir. It will deliver fine to a Maildir in any home directory now. If
I run /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake /home/username/Maildir it creates that
directory fine. Inside of it i have cur, new, and tmp. It will not
deliver to this Maildir. When I try to check e-mail on port 110 I get the
dreaded -ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir message. I run tcpserver with
the lines:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup machine.mounet.com \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
This is on a freshly installed Slackware 3.6 machine. I've read every
message in the archive list regarding this problem, and havent been able to
find a solution. If anyone could kindly help me out, I'd be very appreciative.
Thanks
I'm using smtproutes with entry
:machine.domain.com
On a RH Linux machine all is working great
on a SCO UNIX I get this deferral message in syslog:
Feb 3 00:34:45 bd2001 qmail: 918002085.240000 delivery 33: deferral:
Connected_
to_209.52.99.25_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
The .25 machine is also running qmail.
I have the SCO machine in rcpthosts ( also tried without )
The Linux machine didn't need an entry, it worked without.
Both machines are configured same with reference to qmail and cyrus.
Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
Heinz
Matt Garrett wrote:
>
> I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting qmail to recognize e-amil sent to
> my virtual domains. Here is what I've done so far...
>
> 1. Install Qmail 1.03 from binary rpm.
>
> 2. create popuser account/group
> in /etc/passwd> popuser:x:888:888:POP E-Mail User:/var/qmail:/bin/true
> in /etc/group> popuser:x:888:
>
> 3. created popboxes hierarchy, /var/qmail/popboxes/domain-com/users, all
> owned by popuser, in group popuser, all chmoded 0755.
>
> 4. created Maildirs in each e-mail account using maildirmk, chmoded 0755.
>
> 5. created .qmail files in each e-mail account containing "./Maildir/",
> chmoded 0744.
>
> 6. created vitrual domains in ~control/virtualdomains
> domain.com:domain-com
> etc...
>
> 7. added domain.com to ~control/rcpthosts
>
> 8. added e-mail accounts to ~users/assign
> =domain-com-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/domain-com/user:::
>
> I don't want any email going to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so there's no need
> to create an email user +domain-com:popuser..., right?
>
> I can email to an account with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but not with
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" which is the point of the whole exercise. This is with the MX
> set to mail.domain.com and mail being an alias to the canonical name
> me.domain.com.
>
> When everything's working right, I'll just change the alias from
> oldmail.domain.com to me.domain.com. There a problem with my DNS usage?
>
> The POP3 system is working perfectly, and I have /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd
> set up to allow my customers to mail out and everyone else to mail in, but not
> allow others to relay through me.
>
> I am having trouble getting mailer-daemon, postmaster, and root to be properly
> delivered to my maintenance account, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have the ~alias/.qmail
> files set up to deliver to ./operator/Maildir/ and in ~alias I have a symbolic
> link of operator -> /home/me, chmoded 0755 and I can receive mail as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] just fine, but mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] fails with a
> "Temporary error on maildir delivery (#4.3.0)".
>
> my control files are like as follows:
> defaultdomain:
> domain.com
>
> defaulthost: <- any ideas as to how to have the default host change for each
> domain.com <- virtual domain?
>
> locals:
> localhost
> me.domain.com
> domain.com
> domain.net
>
> me:
> me.domain.com
>
> plusdomain: <- exactly what is this control file used for again?
> domain.com
> domain.net
>
> rcpthosts:
> localhost
> me.domain.com
> domain.com
> domain.net
>
> virtualdomains:
> domain.com:domain-com
> domain.net:domain-net
>
> I'll be adding several other virtual domains once the system is up and
> running, i.e. domain.net, etc.
>
> Anyone care to write man pages for each control file? To call the existing
> documentation for them paltry would be generous.
>
> --
> Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
> Superior Open Systems
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
Been getting a lot of calls about MUA's reporting "Unable to locate
mail.f-tech.net" usually from Eudora lite or Netscape Communicator. I'm
not sure if this is a tcp problem or tcpserver problem.
Here's what happens..
Customer clicks on either send mail or check mail, a window pops up and
states that it cannot find the network address of mail.f-tech.net. It
happened to me once, but if you wait, then try again it goes through.
My mail server is qmail 1.03 on a Cyrix 200MMx 32 Mb ram 2Gb root
partition with /home mounted on a seperate 6Gb disk.
Here is a snapshot of netstat -a right after a customer called.. dosen;t
seem to be a heavy load..
tcp 0 130 mail.f-tech.net:telnet admin.f-tech.net:1024
ESTABLISHED
tcp 0 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft171.f-tech.net:4182
ESTABLISHED
tcp 0 0 mail.f-tech.net:smtp ft220.f-tech.net:1062
ESTABLISHED
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft187.f-tech.net:1072
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft159.f-tech.net:2423
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft192.f-tech.net:1040
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft111.f-tech.net:1031
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop pm4-198.pot.infi.n:1221
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft135.f-tech.net:1091
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft147.f-tech.net:3196
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft147.f-tech.net:3197
TIME_WAIT
tcp 1 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft111.f-tech.net:1035
TIME_WAIT
tcp 0 0 mail.f-tech.net:pop ft220.f-tech.net:1065
ESTABLISHED
tcp 0 0 mail.f-tech.net:smtp www.zone.com:2550
ESTABLISHED
tcp 0 2 mail.f-tech.net:1362 www.zone.com:auth
SYN_SENT
ud
at most I can have 72 people using pop (that's all the modems I have) and
qmail-pop3 is run from tcpserver:
29384 ? S 0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0
0 pop-3 qmail-popup mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
29385 ? S 1:14 tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup
mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
2
Any advice on where to look first?
My network is split 10/100 using a D-Link 10/100 switching Hub. Modems
are on the 10, mail server is on the 100.
The NIC is a d-link 530-TX PCI controller and seems to be running clean:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:48:4C:C0
inet addr:207.44.65.16 Bcast:207.44.65.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:6434950 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
TX packets:6149503 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x6000
Anything look wrong??
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
717-628-5303
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Paul Farber wrote:
> at most I can have 72 people using pop (that's all the modems I have) and
> qmail-pop3 is run from tcpserver:
>
> 29384 ? S 0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0
> 0 pop-3 qmail-popup mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
> 29385 ? S 1:14 tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup
> mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
> 2
>
Actually, you've limited yourself to 40 simultaneous pop connections (the
-c40 option). Try increasing that to 72 and see what happens.
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Manager
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
Most of the time the load is about 15 POP sessions. I will increase the
-c40 to 100 and see what happens.
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
717-628-5303
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Paul Farber wrote:
>
> > at most I can have 72 people using pop (that's all the modems I have) and
> > qmail-pop3 is run from tcpserver:
> >
> > 29384 ? S 0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0
> > 0 pop-3 qmail-popup mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
> > 29385 ? S 1:14 tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup
> > mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
> > 2
> >
>
> Actually, you've limited yourself to 40 simultaneous pop connections (the
> -c40 option). Try increasing that to 72 and see what happens.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Manager
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/
>
> The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
> One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
> Monroeville, PA 15146
> (412) 810-8888 Phone
> (412) 810-8886 Fax
>
>
For those who might've missed the initial announcement two weeks ago,
amidst several concurrent flame wars...
There's an open alpha/beta test of a new CGI application which provides a
web interface to Maildir-based mailboxes. Since then, a new rev came out,
with additional features, and bug fixes.
To join the alpha/beta test, and for download links, go to
http://sqwebmail.listbot.com
Hi,
There is a perl based package called webmail that might be
useful.
Please check http://webmail.woanders.de/
Regards,
--pgm
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Lucas do R. B. Brasilino da Silva wrote:
->I'd like to provide the same service to these students. Is there
->some Web based Mail server that works with Qmail ??
->In time: At the same machine is running apache (thanks apache group! :) ).
===========================================================
P G Mohanan E-Mail :[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Manager Phone :91-824-475984
Central Computer Centre Ext 301 (Off)
K R E C Surathkal Fax :91-824-476090
Srinivasnagar PO Grams :KARENG
D K , Karnataka Telex :0832-298 KREC IN
INDIA 574 157
===========================================================
Okay -- I think I got the virtdomains down... but my application is a bit
weird.
I have various LAN's that arn't connected to the internet, but I do want
them to receive inet email... so I have them call the server once / day to
transmit that days email.
The main server is domain.net
and all the other offline servers are set up as virtual domains on
domain.net (one.domain.net two.domain.net, etc)
I can receive the mail fine to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
well my question is how to get the [EMAIL PROTECTED] to then send
'queue' the mail so when the offline server connects it can put the mail
in the proper Maildir's on the offline server?
I figure it will use either UUCP or serialmail.. but I'm a bit cloudy on
how to do this.
If someone can help that'd be great.
Thanks so much!
Adam
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:36:45AM -0500, Adam H wrote:
>
> I can receive the mail fine to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> well my question is how to get the [EMAIL PROTECTED] to then send
> 'queue' the mail so when the offline server connects it can put the mail
> in the proper Maildir's on the offline server?
mkdir ~user/Mail
/var/qmail/bin/maildirmake ~user/Mail/one/
echo "./Mail/one/" > ~user/.qmail-one-default
chown -R user ~user/Mail
chown user ~user/.qmail-one-default
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
> Putting virtual.dom:foo in virtualdomains and
> expecting to control this by ~alias/.qmail-foo-default does not work.
Hmmm? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is rewritten as foo-joe and delivered locally. The
delivery is handled by ~alias/.qmail-foo-joe, -foo-default, or -default.
---Dan
How I could unsuscribe of this list???????
Thanx for all
Len Budney writes:
> Does the above suggestion imply that new-inject may safely be used
> instead of qmail-inject, or that you would recommend this?
The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is eventually
going to replace qmail-inject. It supports several new features and has
a much cleaner internal design.
---Dan
The simplest workaround is to enable the qmail-users mechanism:
qmail-pw2u < /etc/passwd > /var/qmail/users/assign
qmail-newu
This is a good idea on all systems, even where getpwnam() isn't buggy,
since the getpwnam() API is inherently unreliable. See qmail-getpw.0.
---Dan
Fred Lindberg writes:
> Jan 26 11:56:10 id qmail: 917351770.832994 delivery 7497: failure:
> Unable_to_run_qmail-remote./
This is a bug in your operating system.
On bug-free systems, the only way for qmail-rspawn to generate that
message is for execve() to return an error that fails error_temp():
normally ENOTDIR, ENAMETOOLONG, ENOENT, ELOOP, EACCES, ENOEXEC, E2BIG,
or EFAULT. None of these can be caused by temporary failures; they are
permanent (and quite serious) configuration errors.
What happened to you, presumably, is that crt0.o tried to load a shared
library, failed because it was out of memory, and incorrectly decided to
exit with some arbitrary code, never mind the fact that exit codes have
meanings. It should instead have terminated the process with SIGKILL.
---Dan
Cristiano Lincoln Mattos writes:
> alias2: alias1
This is an alias2 wildcard, forwarding to alias1@defaulthost, as you can
see with printforward.
fastforward doesn't know whether it's in charge of defaulthost, so it
goes ahead and forwards the message, ignoring your alias1 wildcard. The
message will come back later if fastforward is actually in charge of
defaulthost.
Apparently you meant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---Dan
Paul Halliday writes:
> Therefore all mail to the internet would be stamped '@ourdomain', but all
> company mail to companydomain stamped '@ourhost.companydomain'; this is to
> avoid replied to sensitive company mail being routed via the internet.
With the experimental ofmipd program in the mess822 package you can
easily set up a gateway that accepts messages from authorized hosts and
rewrites @ourhost.companydomain as @ourdomain. The other qmail hosts can
use smtproutes to forward outgoing mail to that gateway.
---Dan
Hi,
I need to setup a filter program with qmail. I have been looking for
a while, but haven't found any programs that does the following :
Spam-filter.
The qmail SMTP server is running as a open-realy, so we need to have
some sort of spam filter - like checking if the mail looks like spam, and
controlling that the user would only send xx mails within xx
minutes.
"Macro" filter :
I need to be able to setup some conditions like:
if the subject like 'something' and email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' then
delete/copy/forward/return to sender.
Can anyone help me on how to setup these - or any ideas of what
programs to use.
Another thing - has anyone made a web interface to control
qmail?
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])
