qmail Digest 6 Feb 1999 11:00:10 -0000 Issue 543
Topics (messages 21519 through 21580):
var-qmail
21519 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21521 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21523 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21528 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21531 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21533 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21535 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21536 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21538 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21546 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21551 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21556 by: Matthias Pigulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21557 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21558 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21559 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21563 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21565 by: Karl Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21566 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21568 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21570 by: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21572 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21573 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21574 by: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21576 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21578 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21579 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21580 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe
21520 by: Franky Van Liedekerke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21539 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PATH and related things at installation
21522 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Best way to check for new mail in Maildir?
21524 by: Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21526 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21534 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21562 by: Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maildir format and IMAP servers
21525 by: "������� ������������" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21527 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21529 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21532 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
case dependent addrsesses
21530 by: "Roger O. Svenning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21540 by: Vern Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-send message
21537 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maildirsmtp - better logging possible?
21541 by: "Eric Dahnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patch to disable .qmail support for ordinary users
21542 by: "Niall R. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mail server change-over problem
21543 by: Matt Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web Mail server with Qmail
21544 by: Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail as a pop server
21545 by: "Glaza, Lorenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21547 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21549 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21552 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21553 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail vs. dns
21548 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildir_child() in qmail-local.c error reporting
21550 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pop3d....
21554 by: Dino Di Stefano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21555 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
More Maildir configuration questions
21560 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21561 by: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21564 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21569 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QMTP + VERP
21567 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Incomplete Message Headers
21571 by: "Bryan White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
procmail question
21575 by: Brian Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ofmipd to rewrite return-path header
21577 by: "FastWeb" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan says precompiled var-qmail packages are allowed if:
1) installing the package produces exactly the same /var/qmail
heirarchy as a user would obtain by downloading, compiling,
and instlaling qmail-1.03.tar.gz, fastforward-0.51.tar.gz,
and dot-forward-0.71.tar.gz;
2) the package behaves correctly, i.e., the same way as normal
qmail+fastforward+dot-forward installations on all other
systems; and
3) the package's creator warrants that he has made a good faith
attempt to ensure that the package behaves correctly.
Can someone explain to me why it would be bad to include
multiple sets of binaries with differeint UID/GID combos,
and install one based on which UIDs/GIDs the system had
open? With, say, 5 sets of UIDs/GIDs, one could get fairly
decent coverage of users.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Can someone explain to me why it would be bad to include
multiple sets of binaries with differeint UID/GID combos,
and install one based on which UIDs/GIDs the system had
open? With, say, 5 sets of UIDs/GIDs, one could get fairly
decent coverage of users.
1) What if you have partial overlap with the existing UIDs GIDs?
2) What if the qmail users/groups are already added---except qmaill is
called lqmail?
BTWY, I have a var-qmail-create package at
ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/qmail/var-qmail
which can help you in creating a binary package (I think the procedure
of creating the args for idedit is well portable).
Mate
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 06:39:46AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> Can someone explain to me why it would be bad to include
> multiple sets of binaries with differeint UID/GID combos,
> and install one based on which UIDs/GIDs the system had
> open? With, say, 5 sets of UIDs/GIDs, one could get fairly
> decent coverage of users.
>
> 1) What if you have partial overlap with the existing UIDs GIDs?
> 2) What if the qmail users/groups are already added---except qmaill is
> called lqmail?
I'm talking about using brute force:
Here are 5 sets of binaries.
The first has UIDs 792-799, and GIDs 798 799.
Next has UIDs 1792-1799, and GIDs 1798 1799.
Next has UIDs 2792-2799, etc etc.
An install script decides which is the first UID/GID combo which
is open, and installs that set of binaries.
The install should prequalify the system's user/group name space AND
alternate UID/GID space. How can it be otherwise? My goal here is
to install binaries which can be MD5 checksum'd, so idedit isn't an
option.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 04:59:10AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1) What if you have partial overlap with the existing UIDs GIDs?
> I'm talking about using brute force:
>
> Here are 5 sets of binaries.
> The first has UIDs 792-799, and GIDs 798 799.
> Next has UIDs 1792-1799, and GIDs 1798 1799.
> Next has UIDs 2792-2799, etc etc.
>
> An install script decides which is the first UID/GID combo which
> is open, and installs that set of binaries.
Again, what if
UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
For md5: cannot you make that part of the installation (after you did the
idedit magic)? For example, it is possible to do it with rpm.
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Again, what if
>
>UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
If none of the UID/GID sets is available, the installation will fail.
Surely failed installation is acceptable, e.g., due to insufficient
disk space.
-Dave
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 09:19:35AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Again, what if
> >
> >UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
>
> If none of the UID/GID sets is available, the installation will fail.
> Surely failed installation is acceptable, e.g., due to insufficient
> disk space.
But then there is no way to install the binary---unless the installer starts
moving uids around. (Just being picky, but the arg is certainly valid on a
busy system)
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:06:05AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 04:59:10AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 1) What if you have partial overlap with the existing UIDs GIDs?
>
> > I'm talking about using brute force:
> >
> > Here are 5 sets of binaries.
> > The first has UIDs 792-799, and GIDs 798 799.
> > Next has UIDs 1792-1799, and GIDs 1798 1799.
> > Next has UIDs 2792-2799, etc etc.
> >
> > An install script decides which is the first UID/GID combo which
> > is open, and installs that set of binaries.
>
> Again, what if
>
> UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
If none of the UID/GID groups are available, then the install fails.
> For md5: cannot you make that part of the installation (after you did the
> idedit magic)? For example, it is possible to do it with rpm.
Yes. But the argument is that an md5 checksum from an install-only
read-only medium like CDROM is preferable to an installation specific
md5 checksum.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But then there is no way to install the binary---unless the installer starts
>moving uids around.
Right. Like when there's not enough disk space, there is no way to
install the binary---unless the installer starts freeing up space.
Or say I've removed rpm, tar, zip, etc. from my system. No var-qmail
package will install successfully until I add one or more of them
back.
Where is it written that var-qmail packages *must* install
successfully on *every* system, regardless of configuration?
-Dave
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:57:07AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 09:19:35AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> > Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Again, what if
> > >
> > >UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
> >
> > If none of the UID/GID sets is available, the installation will fail.
> > Surely failed installation is acceptable, e.g., due to insufficient
> > disk space.
>
> But then there is no way to install the binary-
You are correct, sir.
> --unless the installer starts
> moving uids around. (Just being picky, but the arg is certainly valid on a
> busy system)
I'd leave the uid moving to the sysadmin in question.
I'm perfectly content with having a binary distribution which is
picky about the state of the system.
Not only do you have to have one of five (or ten, or however many)
groups of UID/GID pairs, but you have to have the user/group name
space free as well. So there.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But then there is no way to install the binary---unless the installer starts
>moving uids around.
Right. Like when there's not enough disk space, there is no way to
install the binary---unless the installer starts freeing up space.
Well, but you want to maximize the likelihood of success. Not enough
(< 2M) diskspace is less likely than no appropriate UIDs. For
example, in our small but busy Linux lab, all UIDs between 500 and
6500 are taken by student accounts. So John's binary would not
install. (Qmail's UIDs are towards the end of the range!)
Hope this info helps
Mate
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Well, but you want to maximize the likelihood of success. Not enough
>(< 2M) diskspace is less likely than no appropriate UIDs. For
>example, in our small but busy Linux lab, all UIDs between 500 and
>6500 are taken by student accounts. So John's binary would not
>install. (Qmail's UIDs are towards the end of the range!)
Well, you don't know for sure whether John's binaries would install,
because he hasn't said exactly what UID's/GID's he'd use. The ones he
gave were examples. The preselected ID's should be carefully selected
to maximize the likelihood of success. E.g., sets in the rough ranges:
50-100
101-500
501-5000
5001-32000
33000-64000
Would be a good start. One of which would almost certainly work on any
of our systems here. (We generally use UID's 4949X and GID's 3131X for
qmail).
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The install should prequalify the system's user/group name space AND
> alternate UID/GID space. How can it be otherwise? My goal here is
> to install binaries which can be MD5 checksum'd, so idedit isn't an
> option.
I don't have a clue of that stuff, but what about installing with
appropriate UIDs/GIDs for your machine, then saving the resulting
binaries, keep them as "known good" copies and MD5 'em?
Matthias
--
w e b f a c t o r y | matthias pigulla
www.webfactory.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Matthias Pigulla wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The install should prequalify the system's user/group name space AND
> > alternate UID/GID space. How can it be otherwise? My goal here is
> > to install binaries which can be MD5 checksum'd, so idedit isn't an
> > option.
>
> I don't have a clue of that stuff, but what about installing with
> appropriate UIDs/GIDs for your machine, then saving the resulting
> binaries, keep them as "known good" copies and MD5 'em?
>
Good enough for a single user. Not good enough for a distribution.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 11:26:31AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But then there is no way to install the binary---unless the installer starts
> >moving uids around.
>
> Right. Like when there's not enough disk space, there is no way to
> install the binary---unless the installer starts freeing up space.
>
> Well, but you want to maximize the likelihood of success. Not enough
> (< 2M) diskspace is less likely than no appropriate UIDs. For
> example, in our small but busy Linux lab, all UIDs between 500 and
> 6500 are taken by student accounts. So John's binary would not
> install. (Qmail's UIDs are towards the end of the range!)
So what if I include 30 different UID/GID combinations?
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The install should prequalify the system's user/group name space AND
> alternate UID/GID space. How can it be otherwise? My goal here is
> to install binaries which can be MD5 checksum'd, so idedit isn't an
> option.
I don't have a clue of that stuff, but what about installing with
appropriate UIDs/GIDs for your machine, then saving the resulting
binaries, keep them as "known good" copies and MD5 'em?
Understandably, John wants to put as little burden on the installer as
possible, and saving a known good copy of the qmail binaries in a
"safe" place is a burden. He wants the CD hold the known good
copies. That is a safe place, and even if the sysadm loses it, can
order a second set.
I think what John wants to do (but choose the range David suggests) is
very reasonable---but I think it will not fly with Dan.
Mate
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 01:33:51PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> Understandably, John wants to put as little burden on the installer as
> possible, and saving a known good copy of the qmail binaries in a
> "safe" place is a burden. He wants the CD hold the known good
> copies. That is a safe place, and even if the sysadm loses it, can
> order a second set.
>
> I think what John wants to do (but choose the range David suggests) is
> very reasonable---but I think it will not fly with Dan.
>
Based upon what?
Paraphrased from <ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html>
1) produce exactly thge same /var/qmail heirarchy as if the user
downloaded and installed the source.
2) ensure the package behaves correctly
3) warrant that a good faith attempt at #2.
In other words, the permission is already granted to do what I want.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
>> In a previous message, someone said:
?> Here are 5 sets of binaries. The first has UIDs 792-799, and GIDs 798
?> 799. Next has UIDs 1792-1799, and GIDs 1798 1799. Next has UIDs
?> 2792-2799, etc etc.
?>
?> An install script decides which is the first UID/GID combo which is
?> open, and installs that set of binaries.
>> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:06:05 -0600,
>> Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
M> Again, what if
M> UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
Here's a short script I use to find open user/group ID ranges for qmail.
--
Karl Vogel
ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
#
# $Id: avail-ids,v 1.1 1999/02/05 20:49:28 vogelke Exp $
# $Source: /src/mail/mta/qmail/qmail-local/RCS/avail-ids,v $
#
# NAME:
# avail-ids
#
# SYNOPSIS:
# avail-ids
#
# DESCRIPTION:
# Look for a nice range of open ids in /etc/passwd and /etc/group.
#
# We only check for stuff over userid or groupid 100; if nothing
# is found, then we don't have any user/group ids that high, so
# we just print the first seven after 100.
#
# The resulting commands should look something like this:
# groupadd -g 1000 nofiles
# groupadd -g 1001 qmail
#
# useradd -g nofiles -u 1000 -d /var/qmail/alias alias
# useradd -g nofiles -u 1001 -d /var/qmail qmaild
# useradd -g nofiles -u 1002 -d /var/qmail qmaill
# useradd -g nofiles -u 1003 -d /var/qmail qmailp
#
# useradd -g qmail -u 1004 -d /var/qmail qmailq
# useradd -g qmail -u 1005 -d /var/qmail qmailr
# useradd -g qmail -u 1006 -d /var/qmail qmails
#
# OPTIONS:
# None.
#
# AUTHOR:
# Karl Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Sumaria Systems, Inc.
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin
export PATH
getrange () {
awk '{
cur = $1
match = 0
if (cur > 100 && cur - prev > 8)
{
for (k = 7; k >= 1; --k)
{
match = 1
print cur-k
}
exit
}
prev = cur
} END {
if (match == 0)
{
print "101 102 103 104 105 106 107"
}
}'
}
#
# Print groupadd commands.
#
set `cut -f3 -d: /etc/group | sort -nu | getrange`
echo groupadd -g $1 nofiles
echo groupadd -g $2 qmail
#
# Print useradd commands.
#
set `cut -f3 -d: /etc/passwd | sort -nu | getrange`
echo useradd -g nofiles -u $1 -d /var/qmail/alias alias
echo useradd -g nofiles -u $2 -d /var/qmail qmaild
echo useradd -g nofiles -u $3 -d /var/qmail qmaill
echo useradd -g nofiles -u $4 -d /var/qmail qmailp
echo useradd -g qmail -u $5 -d /var/qmail qmailq
echo useradd -g qmail -u $6 -d /var/qmail qmailr
echo useradd -g qmail -u $7 -d /var/qmail qmails
exit 0
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: qmail mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: var-qmail
>So what if I include 30 different UID/GID combinations?
If I'm understanding correctly what you want to do, which is include
separate binaries for each UID configuration, at some point it's going to
make your distribution ridiculously big. And besides that, there's STILL
no guarantee that the package will work on every distribution unless you
account for every possible permutation of the UID space. It also fails to
account for the usernames necessary being taken. Yes, qmail is an unlikely
choice, but it's still possible that it's already present on the system.
I think it would be really nice if Red Hat could guarantee a certain subset
of the UID space available to packages like this that need predefined UIDs.
Interactive users already start at 500 I believe, so most anything under
500 is fair game to use. Obviously some of it might be in use, so perhaps
it could be allocated something like this:
0-99: "Essential" accounts (root, bin, daemon)
100-299: Program accounts that don't have UIDs compiled in (apache,
postgres, ftp) and can be assigned UIDs at install or run time
300-499: Program accounts that DO have UIDs compiled in (qmail)
The space from 300-499 would be managed by Red Hat. Application developers
who need this could register a subset of the UID space, which would prevent
conflicts on installation since no one would use this space unless they had
registered it.
This is probably not the best solution but it's a start. Linux shared
libraries were all registered with a central source before the move to ELF,
and that worked reasonably well. In addition, the number of programs that
really require compiled-in UIDs is pretty small, so the registration
probably wouldn't be that big a deal.
Any thoughts?
shag
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 01:06:51PM -0800, Racer X wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> >So what if I include 30 different UID/GID combinations?
>
> If I'm understanding correctly what you want to do, which is include
> separate binaries for each UID configuration, at some point it's going to
> make your distribution ridiculously big.
Suffer. :)
sendmail rpm I have is 260K. sendmail DOC rpm is 460K.
> And besides that, there's STILL
> no guarantee that the package will work on every distribution unless you
> account for every possible permutation of the UID space. It also fails to
> account for the usernames necessary being taken. Yes, qmail is an unlikely
> choice, but it's still possible that it's already present on the system.
How about a single uid/gid pair per rpm with a naming scheme like:
qmail-1.03_792_500-1.rpm
In fact, were one to do this, someone could automatically build the
rpm to the user's request.
> I think it would be really nice if Red Hat could guarantee a certain subset
> of the UID space available to packages like this that need predefined UIDs.
Already proposed. Already shot down.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it would be really nice if Red Hat could guarantee a certain subset
> of the UID space available to packages like this that need predefined UIDs.
[...]
> The space from 300-499 would be managed by Red Hat. Application developers
[...]
> Any thoughts?
Only the obvious: Linux != RedHat.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: qmail mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: var-qmail
>Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it would be really nice if Red Hat could guarantee a certain
subset
>> of the UID space available to packages like this that need predefined
UIDs.
>[...]
>> The space from 300-499 would be managed by Red Hat. Application
developers
>[...]
>> Any thoughts?
>
>Only the obvious: Linux != RedHat.
My apologies. I should know better than that.
It certainly doesn't have to be Red Hat managing the space. The shared
library mappings were managed by.. someone else, I forget who, but it
worked pretty well.
Someone mentioned this idea had been "shot down" already. Who shot it down
and why?
shag
Racer X wrote:
> If I'm understanding correctly what you want to do, which is include
> separate binaries for each UID configuration, at some point it's going to
> make your distribution ridiculously big. And besides that, there's STILL
> no guarantee that the package will work on every distribution unless you
> account for every possible permutation of the UID space. It also fails to
> account for the usernames necessary being taken. Yes, qmail is an unlikely
> choice, but it's still possible that it's already present on the system.
>
> I think it would be really nice if Red Hat could guarantee a certain subset
> of the UID space available to packages like this that need predefined UIDs.
> Interactive users already start at 500 I believe, so most anything under
> 500 is fair game to use. Obviously some of it might be in use, so perhaps
> it could be allocated something like this:
>
> 0-99: "Essential" accounts (root, bin, daemon)
> 100-299: Program accounts that don't have UIDs compiled in (apache,
> postgres, ftp) and can be assigned UIDs at install or run time
> 300-499: Program accounts that DO have UIDs compiled in (qmail)
>
> The space from 300-499 would be managed by Red Hat. Application developers
> who need this could register a subset of the UID space, which would prevent
> conflicts on installation since no one would use this space unless they had
> registered it.
We already use 100-999 for internal functions, local daemons, staff users, etc.
Regular users begin at 1000. The range 100-999 can also be used for other
things like qmail, but the allocation of a number has to take place in an
administrative way to ensure that the same number is used across all machines
in our network. Having an install script find an empty UID and making use of
it will cause problems no matter what the number is, unless it can correctly
reserve that number on every machine. But it would be best that qmail get the
same UID on every machine it's install on (and nothing gets that number on the
other machines).
> This is probably not the best solution but it's a start. Linux shared
> libraries were all registered with a central source before the move to ELF,
> and that worked reasonably well. In addition, the number of programs that
> really require compiled-in UIDs is pretty small, so the registration
> probably wouldn't be that big a deal.
It's kinda late to expand centrally registered UIDs beyond the traditional
0-99. People already use 100 and up.
I must question why UIDs, or any system specific configuration parameters for
that matter, need to be compiled in to a program. A standard starting config
file in /etc could fill in all other info. The program reading that file can
then be pedantic and make sure the uid/gid of the file and /etc itself is root
and permissions have not been compromized before it trusts what's in there.
If a program really MUST have a UID compiled in, the administrator will need
to choose it if there is already administrative policy in effect that can be
in conflict. I had no problem with compiling qmail because I could pick these.
OTOH, maybe those who would install a pre-compiled binary are not the ones who
would be doing any universally managed UID numbers. While I do like having
RPMs from Red Hat to quickly install binaries, Red Hat is not the only system
I use.
--
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]
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I think it would be really nice if Red Hat could guarantee a certain
> subset
> >> of the UID space available to packages like this that need predefined
> UIDs.
> >> Any thoughts?
I wrote:
> >
> >Only the obvious: Linux != RedHat.
Racer wrote:
> My apologies. I should know better than that.
Apologies not necessary. However, my example should have been broader,
as qmail is not only for GNU/Linux systems. I doubt that the creators of
Solaris, Digital UNIX, HP/SUX, AIX, et al would care much for the idea either.
Not to mention non-UNIX systems -- does qmail run on VMS? What about others?
> Someone mentioned this idea had been "shot down" already. Who shot it down
> and why?
Not sure, but probably something along these lines.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
BTWY, if John wants to make rpm, perhaps he may want to consider the
idea I wrote down about two weeks ago about how to make an rpm that
would use idedit, but rpm could also be used to verify the whole
package (including the "bad" binaries).
Mate
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Karl Vogel wrote:
> Here's a short script I use to find open user/group ID ranges for qmail.
[ snip ]
Since I'm temporary without access to a Red Hat box, I can't really offer
it directly, but the setup script in one of my SRPMS, which can be found
at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/qmail-1.03.uce-5.src.rpm
has a rather nice section of code that does the same thing, except it will
also work if you have NIS or NIS+.
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I must question why UIDs, or any system specific configuration parameters for
> that matter, need to be compiled in to a program. A standard starting config
[ snip ]
Let's not go through that flame war again. Feel free to carp at DJB in
private. I'm with you, but we've hashed this out publicly before.
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:34:00PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> BTWY, if John wants to make rpm, perhaps he may want to consider the
> idea I wrote down about two weeks ago about how to make an rpm that
> would use idedit, but rpm could also be used to verify the whole
> package (including the "bad" binaries).
Two things:
1) I understand and agree that a multiple-stage confirmation process
is possible. The argument against this is the disire to do
MD5 checksums against trusted read-only media. I'm not saying
I agree, just that this is the argument.
2) Ultimately, I've stopped caring about the ``issues'' surrounding
rpm distribution of qmail. In my mind, now, it's a matter of
solving the problem and moving on.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Hi,
for some addresses to a remote server, I always get this error. What
does this mean?
On Fri 1999-02-05 (12:24), Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for some addresses to a remote server, I always get this error. What
> does this mean?
You've probably hit some OS resource limit. Usually it's the maximum number
of file descriptors and maximum number of processes that need to be upped.
On my system I have:
ulimit -n 1024
ulimit -u 1024
before the qmail-start line in my qmail startup script. There is a formula
for working out how many of each you need depending on what your
concurrencyremote is. I'm sure someone here will enlighten us. :-)
- Keith
--
Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/
IRC : Panthras JAPH
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script"
Standard disclaimer.
---
Chris Green writes:
> 1 - The default installation directory is /var/qmail, do most
> installations actually use this? If you do use this do you add
Yes.
> /var/qmail/bin to the qmail administrator's (usually root) path
> or what? After install unless you do something manually none of
> the executables are accessible and nor are the man pages.
After install, I very rarely need to run anything out of bin. I do
reconfigure man to look into /var/qmail/man, but that's it.
> 2 - Related to the above (and I know there's a checkpasswd list)
> checkpasswd has / as its default installation root. It works
> OK there but sets the permissions on / to 0700 which is a bit
> disastrous! It took me quite a while to fathom out what had
> happened.
Never had that happen to me.
> Two things - firstly 'maildirmake' won't work unless you've
> previously added to your path as I've asked about above. Secondly
> what's this bit about "creating a maildir in the new-user template
> directory"? A bit more help would be welcome here.
It's referring to /etc/skel.
RTFM the -m option to useradd.
Hi,
I'm looking at implementing serialmail and am delivering out-going mail
to a maildir.
I'd like to run maildirsmtp as a cron job but only if any outgoing mail
exists, ie;
if <any new mail in Maildir> then run maildirsmtp
What's the "best" way to check for new mail in a Maildir?
Currently I'm thinking of using a script something like this:
#!/bin/bash
if [ 'ls ~alias/pppdir/new | wc -w' != "" ] ; then
# run maildirsmtp here
fi
Is there a more elegant way to do this, ie is there an already-written
script/function that I don't know about?
Thanks,
R.
--
Me: http://i.am/robin.bowes
Reeds Web Hosting: http://www.ReedsWeb.net
Order a Valentine: http://come.to/your.valentine
Ians.World: http://ich.reedsweb.net/
Is this spam?
Two rules to success in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
-- Sassan Tat
>I'd like to run maildirsmtp as a cron job but only if any outgoing mail
>exists, ie;
>
> if <any new mail in Maildir> then run maildirsmtp
>
>What's the "best" way to check for new mail in a Maildir?
You could probably get quite fancy by looking at the mtime of the new/
directory vs a control file, but that's not easy (or possible?) in a shell
script.
Another choice is a program that does a readdir() (sans stat() calls).
In the scheme of things:
> Currently I'm thinking of using a script something like this:
> #!/bin/bash
>if [ 'ls ~alias/pppdir/new | wc -w' != "" ] ; then
> # run maildirsmtp here
>fi
Is probably fine. If the directory is huge then this is slowish, but then
you have a large maildirsmtp process that follows, so who cares? Certainly
it's pretty cheap for an empty directory.
Regards.
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 01:14:17PM +0000, Robin Bowes wrote:
>
> I'm looking at implementing serialmail and am delivering out-going mail
> to a maildir.
>
> I'd like to run maildirsmtp as a cron job but only if any outgoing mail
> exists, ie;
>
> if <any new mail in Maildir> then run maildirsmtp
>
> What's the "best" way to check for new mail in a Maildir?
>
Off the top of my head, why would you want to do that?
just run maildirsmtp. If there is mail in the maildir, a delivery
attempt cycle begins. If not, it exits at very little cost.
What possible gain could be had from actually checking before running?
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What's the "best" way to check for new mail in a Maildir?
> >
>
> Off the top of my head, why would you want to do that?
>
> just run maildirsmtp. If there is mail in the maildir, a delivery
> attempt cycle begins. If not, it exits at very little cost.
Aha! That makes a difference...
> What possible gain could be had from actually checking before running?
Absolutely none whatsoever. I didn't realise that maildirsmtp would
behave like that.
One less problem to worry about :)
R.
--
Two rules to success in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
-- Sassan Tat
Hi Gurus,
Is there any IMAP server that supports Maildir format?
Regards,
George Koulogiannis
Hellas on Line NOC.
At 03:26 PM 2/5/99 +0200, ������� ������������3O3t5/I= wrote:
>Hi Gurus,
>
> Is there any IMAP server that supports Maildir format?
Nup.
Russ Nelson has alluded to such a beast on occassions. But it's a big job
isn't it Russ?
Regards.
Mark Delany writes:
> At 03:26 PM 2/5/99 +0200, ������� ������������3O3t5/I= wrote:
> >Hi Gurus,
> >
> > Is there any IMAP server that supports Maildir format?
>
> Russ Nelson has alluded to such a beast on occassions. But it's a big job
> isn't it Russ?
Building one from scratch, yes. The IMAP server does nearly all the
work.
--
-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.
At 02:11 PM 2/5/99 -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>Mark Delany writes:
> > At 03:26 PM 2/5/99 +0200, ������� ������������3O3t5/I= wrote:
> > >Hi Gurus,
> > >
> > > Is there any IMAP server that supports Maildir format?
> >
> > Russ Nelson has alluded to such a beast on occassions. But it's a big job
> > isn't it Russ?
>
>Building one from scratch, yes. The IMAP server does nearly all the
>work.
As in the UoW IMAP server?
If so, is that anything more than a Maildir layer? Hmm. I mis-remembered
that you alluded to one from scratch.
Regards.
Hi
Is there any way to get qmail to accept email adresses
regardless of wheter it's upper/lowercase or a mixture of theese ?
Roger O. Svenning
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Roger O. Svenning wrote:
>
> Is there any way to get qmail to accept email addresses
> regardless of whether it's upper/lowercase or a mixture of these ?
Well, according to the dot-qmail manpage:
For convenience, qmail-local converts any uppercase letters in ext
to lowercase.
So, USER@host is controlled by .qmail-user.
If you mean you want user@host to be a different address than USER@host
then you'll have to edit qmail-local.c and find where it converts
uppercase letters to lowercase and remove that code.
Cheers,
Vern
-- __ _____ ___ _ _
\ \ / / __| _ \ \| |
Vern Hart \ V /| _|| / .` |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \_/ |___|_|_\_|\_|
8:34am up 1 day(s), 17:15, 15 users, load average: 0.14, 0.21, 0.21
Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Note for Dan: QSBMF relies on an English string "Hi. This is the". But
>English is not the only language in use around the 'net. What happens to
>those who want to use say German or French for their bounce message and
>still rely on QSBMF? The only way I can think of is to retain the English
>message, and tag the other language onto the English paragraph. This will
>be in keeping with QSBMF and yet provide support for another language.
>However, this would look messy, with the second language following English
>in the same paragraph, and possibly being missed. I am aware that most 'net
>users understand English, but it's wrong to assume everyone knows English,
>especially since more and more countries in the world join the 'net.
I'm not Dan, but the reason for keeping the message in English is the
same as reason for using English-only in protocol commands like HELO,
MAIL, RCPT, and DATA: interoperability. These are machine protocols,
and human-readability is secondary.
-Dave
Hello list friends,
Is there a way to get maildirsmtp to write the msg recipient to syslog
for each msg it processes?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Hi there,
I have a patch to do the above, which might be useful for some ISPs who
don't like the security implications of being able to forward or deliver
to arbitrary programs. Would anyone here like to take a look at it to
make sure I haven't made any thinkos?
Reply by private email because I read this group semi-irregularly,
Niall Murphy
I've finally put my new ISP mail system into operation, but now I'm wondering
if there's any simple way to retreiving old customer e-mail from the old
server that was received between the last time a customer popped their e-mail
and the time the change-over occurred. The old software was called World Group
Server by Gallacticomm (yes, the same people who made it in the 80s with BBS
software). Fetchmail on the new system wouldn't work. If there a fetchmail
analog under qmail that could pop their mail off the old system and deposit it
into the new Maildir based qmail system, I could easily automate the process.
--
Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
Superior Open Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just set this up and finally I've found what I'm looking for!!!
Well, not entirely.
I'm an admin for a web hosting company. We use Bruce Guenter's
Virtual Mail Manager for all of our users. If there would be
any way to allow Sqwebmail to work with Bruce's virtual pop's,
welp, I'd be the happiest man alive. :-) The ability to setup
folder that check from alternate paths other then $HOME/Maildir.
The virtual users follow the same structure, but it's in
$HOME/users/username.
Also, we would probable give something like this its own machine,
which would mean that the system this is one would not be the MTA.
Mail sent from this machine uses that machine's fqdm as its origin.
I user preference, "YOUR DOMAIN" would be the best. Or at least
a Reply-To preference.
Thanks and please keep up the development. This is great.
-jeremy
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999,
>
> < sigh... Geocities' servers are now regurgitating mail that's been stuck
> for two days in there >
>
> 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! :) ).
>
> I have beta quality software that does that, providing that you use
> Maildirs, not mailbox files. See http://sqwebmail.listbot.com for more
> info.
I just setup qmail on my server and I want to use it as a pop server for my
friends. I can pop all the mail I want from my server, but I am unable to
send mail from a pop client like Eudora. I get a message, "we do not relay"
from the server as a response to sending mail. I can't figure out why this
is. Does anyone have any ideas? Could it have to do with control files?
Thanks,
Lorenz Glaza
Transamerica Life Companies
Special Studies/ALM
213-742-5049
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lo-lands.org <http://lo-lands.ml.org>
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 09:10:04AM -0800, Glaza, Lorenz wrote:
> I just setup qmail on my server and I want to use it as a pop server for my
> friends. I can pop all the mail I want from my server, but I am unable to
> send mail from a pop client like Eudora. I get a message, "we do not relay"
> from the server as a response to sending mail. I can't figure out why this
> is. Does anyone have any ideas? Could it have to do with control files?
If it's saying literally, "we do not relay," then you're not talking to qmail.
qmail doesn't give out that message.
If what it's really saying is, "sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)," see
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/faq/servers.html#authorized-relay.
Chris
On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Glaza, Lorenz wrote:
> I just setup qmail on my server and I want to use it as a pop server for my
> friends. I can pop all the mail I want from my server, but I am unable to
> send mail from a pop client like Eudora. I get a message, "we do not relay"
> from the server as a response to sending mail. I can't figure out why this
> is. Does anyone have any ideas? Could it have to do with control files?
Read FAQ 5.4
Chris Johnson wrote:
> If it's saying literally, "we do not relay," then you're not talking to qmail.
> qmail doesn't give out that message.
Can I make it give such a message, or preferrably, a message of my own design
such as "I spit on scum like you"?
--
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 Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 11:52:37AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> > If it's saying literally, "we do not relay," then you're not talking to qmail.
> > qmail doesn't give out that message.
>
> Can I make it give such a message, or preferrably, a message of my own design
> such as "I spit on scum like you"?
You can make it say whatever you want. Just edit qmail-smtpd.c and recompile.
Chris
Hi!
I have a problem O:).
I have a Linux 2.0.36 RH 5.2 server, serving a few
boxes on intranet (no internet connection -- yet).
FQDN for my server is "Aurora", after installing
qmail I followed the test procedure in TEST.deliver,
but qmail failed to deliver mail localy (first test)
becuse it tried delivering (remotly) to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it possible to make qmail work with this network
setup or will I have to add a fake domain name
(what domain name is usualy used, .localdomain? or
.home? or ... ?)
files:
-> control/defaultdomain
-> control/plusdomain
-> control/me
all contain:
--- file starts ---
Aurora
--- file ends ---
files:
->control/locals
->control/rcpthosts
contain:
--- file starts ---
localhost
Aurora
Strader
Lion
host100
host101
host102
host103
host104
...
host255
--- file ends ---
could I also make a link:
ln -s locals rcpthosts ??
best regards,
Rok Papez,
Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science,
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Dan:
Would you consider adding more errors to the reporting from this
routine?
A user received a 10 MB E-mail. His quota is 2MB soft, 7 MB hard. He's
got 1MB files. qmail-local delivery and fails: "Temporary error on
maildir delivery". It's hard to deterimine the cause. The mail log
doesn't help. Everything looks ok with the maildir. He's not over
quota.
Finally, with quota info, message size info, and mail log it was
possible to figure it out.
"User over quota" would have helped a lot.
Thanks!
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
When I try to do a "telnet 110"
I got this error after inserting user and pass:
-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
do you know why?
The user is not a unix user. But there is its Maildir according to
the assign file.
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 07:20:26PM +0100, Dino Di Stefano wrote:
> When I try to do a "telnet 110"
> I got this error after inserting user and pass:
>
> -ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
>
> do you know why?
> The user is not a unix user. But there is its Maildir according to
> the assign file.
The users/assign file applies only to mail delivery. If you want qmail-pop3d to
find mail that's not in a regular /etc/passwd-type user's account, you'll need
to use a different version of checkpasswd and some sort of file/database to
store user names, passwords, and mail directories in.
If you haven't read it already, read Paul Gregg's single-UID POP box HOWTO at
http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/qmail/single-uid-howto.txt.
I have a patch to DJB's checkpassword that'll allow you to use regular system
accounts in addition to your own accounts as defined in users/poppasswd. It's
at http://www.palomine.net/qmail/checkpassword-0.81.patch.
Chris
I have qmail running on my Linux RedHat 5.2 box now and it
successfully delivers mail to 'ordinary' users. After a little hassle
I have got mutt successfully reading from ~/Maildir. However I have a
problem and a question:-
The 'problem' is that mail to root, postmaster, etc. is still not
working. I have set up a Maildir directory in /var/qmail/alias which
seems to be the place it should arrive (I'm not sure about this) but
the mail doesn't arrive. In /var/log/maillog I'm getting lots of
errors like:-
Feb 5 19:03:33 server2 qmail: 918241413.728213 delivery 39: deferral:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
So presumably I either haven't got the Maildir for root's mail in the
right place or the permissions are wrong. Can anyone set me right
please. (By the way I also have a /root/Maildir but nothing has
arrived there either)
Secondly, the 'question'. Can I change the name and location of a
user's Maildir or does it *have* to be ~/Maildir? If it can be
changed which configuration files need changing?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
> I have qmail running on my Linux RedHat 5.2 box now and it successfully
> delivers mail to 'ordinary' users. After a little hassle I have got mutt
> successfully reading from ~/Maildir. However I have a problem and a
> question:-
> The 'problem' is that mail to root, postmaster, etc. is still not working. I
> have set up a Maildir directory in /var/qmail/alias which seems to be the
> place it should arrive (I'm not sure about this) but the mail doesn't arrive.
> In /var/log/maillog I'm getting lots of errors like:-
> Feb 5 19:03:33 server2 qmail: 918241413.728213 delivery 39: deferral:
> Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
> So presumably I either haven't got the Maildir for root's mail in the right
> place or the permissions are wrong. Can anyone set me right please. (By the
> way I also have a /root/Maildir but nothing has arrived there either)
Nothing will ever be delivered to ~root/Maildir, because qmail-local will
never run as root.
If you simply touch ~alias/.qmail-root and ~alias/.qmail-postmaster (i.e.
create empty files), mail for root and postmaster will be delivered to
~alias/Maildir/. The error you're getting is probably an indication that
alias's Maildir isn't owned by alias (did you create it as root and forget
to chown it to alias?). You might try:
chown -R alias ~alias/Maildir
It might be more convenient to have mail for root and postmaster delivered
to a regular user (like you). In that case, put &chris in ~alias/.qmail-root
and ~alias/.qmail-postmaster.
> Secondly, the 'question'. Can I change the name and location of a user's
> Maildir or does it *have* to be ~/Maildir? If it can be changed which
> configuration files need changing?
You can use users/assign to have mail delivered anywhere you like. What
exactly did you have in mind?
Chris
> ----------
> From: Chris Green[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 2:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: More Maildir configuration questions
>
> I have qmail running on my Linux RedHat 5.2 box now and it
> successfully delivers mail to 'ordinary' users. After a little hassle
> I have got mutt successfully reading from ~/Maildir. However I have a
> problem and a question:-
>
> The 'problem' is that mail to root, postmaster, etc. is still not
> working. I have set up a Maildir directory in /var/qmail/alias which
> seems to be the place it should arrive (I'm not sure about this) but
> the mail doesn't arrive. In /var/log/maillog I'm getting lots of
> errors like:-
>
>
> Feb 5 19:03:33 server2 qmail: 918241413.728213 delivery 39: deferral:
> Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
>
Who owns the directory ? Probably root or alias ? The easiest solution
would be to create
a non-root user (like an admin account) and set .qmail-root,
.qmail-postmaster, etc to
forward the mail to the admin account.
> So presumably I either haven't got the Maildir for root's mail in the
> right place or the permissions are wrong. Can anyone set me right
> please. (By the way I also have a /root/Maildir but nothing has
> arrived there either)
>
qmail will NOT deliver mail to root. That would be a security hole
(since qmail
would need to setuid to root).
> Secondly, the 'question'. Can I change the name and location of a
> user's Maildir or does it *have* to be ~/Maildir? If it can be
> changed which configuration files need changing?
>
Just set it in the ~/.qmail file.
You could just as easily set it to /var/log/mail/USER/maildir however
you will still
need to enforce the protections.
> --
> Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
>
> Matt Soffen
> Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/
> ==============================================
> Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
> Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
> Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
> never mind."
> - Dilbert -
> ==============================================
>
>
The Maildir in ~alias has to be owned by alias. So do
su - alias
maildirmake ~alias/Maildir
Mate
Ps: you do realize that there is an rpm for qmail:
ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/qmail
Mate
On 4 Feb 1999 15:30:24 -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>If qmail's QMTP client coagulated recipients addressed to the same
>hostname (chasing down MXes take more bandwidth, as Dan has proven),
>then we could tell the Mark Crispins of the world, "So implement QMTP
>if you're that concerned about resources. QMTP takes less bandwidth,
>and can receive any number of recipients in a single message."
The problem is concurrency, i.e. qmail needs to know that a host does
QMTP before spawning qmail-remote:s for the other addresses to this
host. This might be done by sorting by host [and by doing smtproutes
before qmail-remote it could be batched even more]. For SMTP one would
_choose_ to send one message per recipient (to get VERP and avoid the
overhead of dealing with rejections from the remote MTA at the SMTP
dialog level), but for QMTP the polite recipient shuts up and takes it.
This could also save DNS lookups, since the lookup would be done only
once per message per host (not usually a big savings, but may be for a
MLM host).
That and a few smtproutes to QMTP smarthosts + ezmlm would make an
awesome "message distributer".
>I'd really like to see this in qmail 2.0. Anything I can do to help, Dan?
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
I am fairly new to qmail. I have a problem when sending messages to an
alias. This is for handling unsubscribe requests to a newsletter.
In /var/qmail/alias I have a file .qmail-unsub-default:
-------------
|/home/arcamax/ezinesub -e
# if the above failes then it is forwarded to a human
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
The ezinesub program looks for the "To:" header and uses that to determine
what action to take. The problem is that about 1% of the time the "To:"
header is not found on the input to ezinesub.
I am currently dumping all input to a log file until th "To:" header if
found. Here is a failing entry:
--------------
7303:ezinesub v0.04 called : 02/05/1999 15:22:56:
7303:InputFormat=1
7303:>Received: (qmail 7300 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 20:22:55 -0000
7303:>Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (194.73.73.83)
7303:> by db.arcamax.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 20:22:55 -0000
7303:>Received: from XXXXX [195.99.58.203]
7303:> by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1)
7303:> id 108rmL-0002or-00; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:23:05 +0000
7303:>Message-ID: <003401be5145$6dd19e80$cb3a63c3@XXXXX>
7303:>Reply-To: "Harry & Betty Millhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7303:>From: "Harry & Betty Millhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7303:>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7303:Encoded Address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7303:Cmd: unsub, Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Context:ztrivia
7303:unsubscribed 1027311:[EMAIL PROTECTED] from list 3:trivia
affected(1)
7308:ezinesub v0.04 called : 02/05/1999 15:23:00:
7308:InputFormat=1
7308:>Received: (qmail 7305 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 20:22:59 -0000
7308:>Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (194.73.73.83)
7308:> by db.arcamax.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 20:22:59 -0000
7308:>Received: from XXXXX [195.99.58.203]
7308:> by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1)
7308:> id 108rmJ-0002or-00; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:23:04 +0000
7308:>From: "XXXXX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7308:>Subject: unsubscribe
7308:>X-Spanska: Yes
7308:>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7308:>Bcc:
7308:>Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:23:04 +0000
7308:>
7308:Fatal Error: No User Email Address
--------------
Note: This appears to be 2 separate messages that are appearing in rapid
succession.
Here is the corresponding entry in the qmail log:
--------------
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.042284 new msg 3123809
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.042524 info msg 3123809: bytes 855
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 7300 uid 401
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.049784 starting delivery 146007: msg
3123809 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.049901 status: local 1/10 remote
0/250
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.178240 delivery 146007: success:
did_0+0+1/
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.178446 status: local 0/10 remote
0/250
Feb 5 15:22:56 db splogger: 918246176.178525 end msg 3123809
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.302093 new msg 3123809
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.302320 info msg 3123809: bytes 521
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 7305 uid 401
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.308434 starting delivery 146008: msg
3123809 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.308554 status: local 1/10 remote
0/250
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.361222 new msg 3123886
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.361459 info msg 3123886: bytes 653
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 7309 uid 400
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.369216 starting delivery 146009: msg
3123886 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.369344 status: local 1/10 remote
1/250
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.369429 delivery 146008: success:
did_0+1+1/qp_7309/
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.369509 status: local 0/10 remote
1/250
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.369585 end msg 3123809
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.501649 delivery 146009: success:
206.246.240.138_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_PAA09790_Message_acc
epted_for_delivery/
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.501817 status: local 0/10 remote
0/250
Feb 5 15:23:00 db splogger: 918246180.501895 end msg 3123886
--------------
Note, I have X'ed out the clients name wherever it occurs.
When it fails the message is redirected to another machine that is running
sendmail and from there picked up via POP3. At this end the "To:" header
will sometimes be correct, somtimes be blank, and sometimes be missing. At
this point the "Delivered-To:" header does contain the desired address but I
am not seeing this in ezinesub.
Why don't I always get a "To:" header?
I am not always clear on what headers are getting added where but obviously
qmail knows the recipient address. Is there an alternative way of getting
this info like an environment variable?
Bryan White
ArcaMax Inc.
Yorktown VA
www.arcamax.com
Is there a way to send the messages in ./Maildir/new to procmail for
processing?
Currently I am sending mail to procmail and Maildir via .qmail file.
But, if I choose to pop messages off my account, they will still reside on
the server (in the sorted procmail folders). If I choose to read mail on
the server, I don't want to see messages that have already been popped,
although I do want to process them with procmail. So, what I would like
to do is run procmail before loading my mail reader (currently pine), and
have procmail process all the messages in ./Maildir/new (so that I don't
get the messages that I have popped off).
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Brian
[ Brian D. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
[ Systems Programmer, IT Computing Services ]
[ North Carolina State University ]
What is the syntax for the name.cdb file to re-write a
from or return-path header?
For example I want to re-write the From header as follows:
Incoming From Rewritten From
*@*.domain1.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where "*" matches anything.
Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header
and not touch the From header?
Thanks,
Ken Jones
Inter7
