qmail Digest 11 Feb 1999 11:00:11 -0000 Issue 548
Topics (messages 21758 through 21817):
Maildir location
21758 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21759 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Error in /var/log/maillog
21760 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21761 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which domain name to put where?
21762 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21764 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21765 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21767 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21787 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21813 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spam on this list
21763 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21768 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21769 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: line
21766 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21785 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21793 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21800 by: "Rik Ling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21802 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21805 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21806 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21808 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21814 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
radius authentication
21770 by: "Monte Mitzelfelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cdb question
21771 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OT: Web Admin
21772 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21774 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fetchmail & Qmail
21773 by: David Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imap server.
21775 by: Victor Regner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21777 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21779 by: Victor Regner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail to subdomain sent to domain
21776 by: Joel Shellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21781 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21782 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
static IP (was Re: Which domain name to put where?)
21778 by: Andy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21780 by: Lars Marowsky-Br�e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21783 by: Steve Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Customizing return messages. (MAILER-DAEMON messages)
21784 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21786 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21792 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
lock files don't erase
21788 by: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21789 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21790 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
unable to switch to queue
21791 by: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Deliverablity?
21794 by: Dongping Deng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21795 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fetchmail
21796 by: Christian Asmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Questions about Relay SHIT
21797 by: Christian Asmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21798 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail, Majordomo, and virtual domains
21799 by: Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21801 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21803 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21804 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21807 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21809 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21810 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21811 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
100,000 mailing lists
21812 by: Dongping Deng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
slow delivery
21815 by: Franky Van Liedekerke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21816 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
concurrencyremote limit
21817 by: Marlon Anthony Abao <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have asked about this before but now that I have both qmail and mutt
working together on my Linux box I *think* I can ask slightly more
intelligently.
The default/normal way to set up Maildir delivery with qmail means
that the Maildir is ~/Maildir, is this 'cast in stone' or is it
relatively easy to change?
It's not a disaster if it has to be ~/Maildir but it's a bit
confusing as users tend to keep their mail folders in ~/Mail and
thus end up having both ~/Mail and ~/Maildir.
I'd really prefer to put the Maildir in the ~/Mail directory and call
it something else such as inbox, or incoming. Then it would be on the
same level as the Maildirs created by mutt.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 11:15:46AM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
> The default/normal way to set up Maildir delivery with qmail means
> that the Maildir is ~/Maildir, is this 'cast in stone' or is it
> relatively easy to change?
>
> It's not a disaster if it has to be ~/Maildir but it's a bit
> confusing as users tend to keep their mail folders in ~/Mail and
> thus end up having both ~/Mail and ~/Maildir.
>
> I'd really prefer to put the Maildir in the ~/Mail directory and call
> it something else such as inbox, or incoming. Then it would be on the
> same level as the Maildirs created by mutt.
Just change the default delivery instruction in qmail's startup rc file to
deliver to ~/Mail/inbox:
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mail/inbox/ by default.
exec env - PATH="/usr/local/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Mail/inbox/ splogger qmail
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
Anand
System Administrator
Africa Online Ltd
http://www.anand.org
Joel Shellman writes:
> What does the following error in the maillog file mean?
>
> Feb 9 23:03:16 joel qmail: 918626596.080512 warning: unable to stat
> mess/20/636 38
It means that you probably tried to delete a message from the queue by
simply removing the associated files.
It doesn't work this way. Restart qmail. If the error continues, stop
qmail, read the documentation on how the queue is organized, investigate
what's corrupted, fix the corruption, restart.
--
Sam
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Joel Shellman wrote:
> What does the following error in the maillog file mean?
>
> Feb 9 23:03:16 joel qmail: 918626596.080512 warning: unable to stat
> mess/20/636 38
It seems a mail message got manually deleted from the queue, but qmail
hasn't been restarted.
Restart qmail, and everything should be fine.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
>I have a small home network with 5 or so machines. These all have IP
>addresses in the range 192.168.13.xxx and I have christened them
>xxxx.isbd.mynet.
I'm not sure, but if you "made up" those IP numbers yourself, i.e.
if you didn't get them assigned as "static IPs" on the Internet,
they should probably be 192.168.0.xxx instead. (This is the Class
C address range reserved for non-Internet-connected boxes. They're
what I use. Of course, when I dial into my ISP via PPP, I get
assigned a completely different dynamic IP number...someday I might
get a static IP, but it'd be, probably at first, just for the dial-in
machine, and IP forwarding and such would manage the movement
of packets accordingly.)
tq vm, (burley)
On 10 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure, but if you "made up" those IP numbers yourself, i.e.
> if you didn't get them assigned as "static IPs" on the Internet,
> they should probably be 192.168.0.xxx instead. (This is the Class
> C address range reserved for non-Internet-connected boxes. They're
> what I use. Of course, when I dial into my ISP via PPP, I get
> assigned a completely different dynamic IP number...someday I might
> get a static IP, but it'd be, probably at first, just for the dial-in
> machine, and IP forwarding and such would manage the movement
> of packets accordingly.)
Actually, his "made up" IP addresses are perfectly correct as they are.
The address ranges reserved for private network addressing are listed in
RFC 1918 as:
A 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
B 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
B 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
---------------------------------
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
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 11:50:08AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I have a small home network with 5 or so machines. These all have IP
> >addresses in the range 192.168.13.xxx and I have christened them
> >xxxx.isbd.mynet.
>
> I'm not sure, but if you "made up" those IP numbers yourself, i.e.
> if you didn't get them assigned as "static IPs" on the Internet,
> they should probably be 192.168.0.xxx instead. (This is the Class
Anything in the range 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255 is in the
'private' range assigned by the RFC.
> C address range reserved for non-Internet-connected boxes. They're
> what I use. Of course, when I dial into my ISP via PPP, I get
> assigned a completely different dynamic IP number...someday I might
> get a static IP, but it'd be, probably at first, just for the dial-in
> machine, and IP forwarding and such would manage the movement
> of packets accordingly.)
>
Demon Internet is exceptional in that it offers all its dial-up users
a static IP address. I think it's basically because it was one of the
earliest ISPs and thus has the addresses available because it grabbed
them early before they were hard to come by.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
I see a potential problem for you: when you send a mail from your
linux machine to another machine in isbd.mynet, the envelope sender's
address will have isbd.demon.co.uk as the domain part.
Even worse: unless you fix all MUAs, the From: headers will have the
machine's name server2.isbd.mynet in the domain part.
I think the only way to succesfully manage your setup is to use the
mess822 package (from djb).
Mate
Currently I have:-
defaultdomain contains isbd.mynet
defaulthost contains isbd.demon.co.uk
locals contains isbd.demon.co.uk and server2.isbd.mynet
me contains isbd.demon.co.uk
plusdomain contains isbd.mynet
rcpthosts contains isbd.demon.co.uk and server2.isbd.mynet
>Actually, his "made up" IP addresses are perfectly correct as they are.
>The address ranges reserved for private network addressing are listed in
>RFC 1918 as:
>
>A 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>B 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>B 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
Thanks for correcting me. Somehow I got confused, perhaps by something
I read, that the 192.168.0.0 was a class C, not B, space reserved
for unconnected networks. (Maybe that used to be the case and I was
looking at old docs, but never mind!)
tq vm, (burley)
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:00:15AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> I see a potential problem for you: when you send a mail from your
> linux machine to another machine in isbd.mynet, the envelope sender's
> address will have isbd.demon.co.uk as the domain part.
>
This isn't a problme as I don't send mail from the Linux machine to
other machines, all machines use the Linux machine as a mail server
and collect directly from it using POP3 and send to it using SMTP.
None of the other machines has a mail server, just MUAs.
> Even worse: unless you fix all MUAs, the From: headers will have the
> machine's name server2.isbd.mynet in the domain part.
>
> I think the only way to succesfully manage your setup is to use the
> mess822 package (from djb).
>
This may be more of a problem though presumably I can fix it in the
individual MUAs (there are only three or four of them). However this
is surely not an unusual set up, how do other people handle it?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 09:12:40PM -0500, Scott Schwartz wrote:
> ppiamdn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Unsubscribe
>
> I think that the next version of ezmlm should have a built in hazing
> ritual wherein prospective users are asked to subscribe and unsubscribe
> four or five times in a row before being allowed to really join any
> list.
>
> Majordomo can automatically bounce unsubscribe messages that are
> sent to the list. Nice feature.
>
> That said...
>
> The standard way to get on or off an internet mailing list is to send
> to <listname>-request, and to read and follow the instructions that are
> mailed back to you. In this case that would be
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Don't forget to *read* and *follow* the *instructions* you get back.
>
This guy has a different problem. Have not you seen his previous messages?
They were "rubbish" or nothing at all. I get more spam from this list than
from anywhere else combined. And cannot do a thing about it, since the list
gets these messages without the original headers.
How about this:
1) Dan should allow a few people to remote adm the list (he is obviously not
around a lot).
2) Limit 10 posts/day from any sender.
3) If subscribe or unsubscribe is alone in a line, bounce the message with
the help text.
4) If every line in the body of the message starts with ">", bounce the
message:
|bouncesaying "You were gonna say...." 822bodygreaterthan
Finally a remark: on a list I manage (well, ezmlm-idx), there are 169
subscribers, 11 of which had completely incorrect envelope sender address.
These guys cannot even get a response when they send a message to list-help.
Since these guys are developers of a program, they could fix the
problem---but what do you guys do with less literate people?
Mate
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 07:59:29AM -0600,
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Finally a remark: on a list I manage (well, ezmlm-idx), there are 169
> subscribers, 11 of which had completely incorrect envelope sender address.
> These guys cannot even get a response when they send a message to list-help.
> Since these guys are developers of a program, they could fix the
> problem---but what do you guys do with less literate people?
If they don't have a correctly configured MUA they shouldn't be on a mailing
list.
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> This guy has a different problem. Have not you seen his previous messages?
> They were "rubbish" or nothing at all. I get more spam from this list than
> from anywhere else combined. And cannot do a thing about it, since the list
> gets these messages without the original headers.
That guy wasn't a spammer, just another dolt that doesn't know what he's
doing.
> Finally a remark: on a list I manage (well, ezmlm-idx), there are 169
> subscribers, 11 of which had completely incorrect envelope sender address.
> These guys cannot even get a response when they send a message to list-help.
> Since these guys are developers of a program, they could fix the
> problem---but what do you guys do with less literate people?
Most of the 'less literate' I encounter are the same ones that tell me
to "get a modern mail client" when I complain about the useless or non
existant quote marks in their replies. I return the favor and tell 'em
to get a real mail client.
<rant> Microsoft (mainly) has made such a mess out of any standard they've
encountered and produced crap to advertise this fact that problems like
this are only going to escalate. I have no regrets about being rude to
folks that run that junk and swear it's the best thing ever written. If
they don't want to look like an illiterate jerk they shouldn't use a
mailer that goes out of it's way to make them look like one. </rant>
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
==========================================================================
This is a little off topic. I'm running qmail server on linux machine.
When one of my customer sends mail through my mail server, it is rejected
because of To: line:
To: [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
failure: Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_named_aquacorp.com].
Qmail doesn't strip off the bracket(]).
rfc822:
3.4.6. BRACKETING CHARACTERS
[...]
o Square brackets ("[" and "]") are used to indicate the
presence of a domain-literal, which the appropriate
name-domain is to use directly, bypassing normal
name-resolution mechanisms.
See also 6.2.3 DOMAIN TERMS.
Mate
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
> From: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: To: line
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:50:03 -0600
>
>
> This is a little off topic. I'm running qmail server on linux machine.
> When one of my customer sends mail through my mail server, it is rejected
> because of To: line:
> To: [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> failure: Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_named_aquacorp.com].
>
> Qmail doesn't strip off the bracket(]).
>
> rfc822:
> 3.4.6. BRACKETING CHARACTERS
> [...]
>
> o Square brackets ("[" and "]") are used to indicate the
> presence of a domain-literal, which the appropriate
> name-domain is to use directly, bypassing normal
> name-resolution mechanisms.
>
> See also 6.2.3 DOMAIN TERMS.
So how do I enable qmail to get through this To: line???
Do I need to make a script to check To: line of all incoming mails and
strip if off if it has bracket([SMTP: ]).
Heechul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So how do I enable qmail to get through this To: line???
You don't. This is a broken To: line that is illegal.
> Do I need to make a script to check To: line of all incoming mails and
> strip if off if it has bracket([SMTP: ]).
No. You need to tell whoever's sending the E-mail to fix his or her broken
software.
--
Sam
Sam,
Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly *how*
the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed. What should it look
like? And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of RFC822? Is that
section correct, incorrect or merely being taken out of context?
Regards,
Rik.
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: To: line
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> So how do I enable qmail to get through this To: line???
>
>You don't. This is a broken To: line that is illegal.
>
>> Do I need to make a script to check To: line of all incoming mails and
>> strip if off if it has bracket([SMTP: ]).
>
>No. You need to tell whoever's sending the E-mail to fix his or her
broken
>software.
>
>
>--
>Sam
>
>
Rik Ling writes:
> Sam,
>
> Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
> the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly *how*
> the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed.
If the To: header looks like the following, as it was indicated:
To: [SMTP: user@domain]
Then it is obviously broken. It does not follow the format of E-mail
addresses defined by RFC822.
> What should it look
> like?
To: user@domain
> And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of RFC822? Is that
> section correct, incorrect or merely being taken out of context?
No, it is absolutely correct. In the example cited above, the brackets do
not surround a domain literal.
--
Sam
Rik Ling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
> the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly
> *how* the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed.
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] is not an Internet mail address. It's not even
remotely close to an Internet mail address. I don't know what the client
that's generating such things is trying to talk to, but it's not trying to
talk to an Internet mail server.
> What should it look like?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] No SMTP, no colon, no brackets. That particular
syntax looks like it's coming from a client that speaks some proprietary
internal mail standard and is expecting a gateway.
> And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of RFC822?
That section is describing domain literals, which are in the form
[171.64.12.23]. An IP address. Domain literals specifically require that
the server forgoe any standard DNS lookups and use them literally as the
network address of a computer. As "SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is not that,
there's no way that an Internet mail server can possibly deliver mail to
the address [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]. qmail is failing in a somewhat
non-intuitive way if one doesn't realize how it must have parsed that
line, but I find it highly doubtful that you'll have much better luck with
any other MTA that follows Internet RFCs.
It's quite possible that the client that generates such messages has
multiple modes, one that speaks this proprietary protocol and one that
speaks Internet mail protocols, and the user can simply reconfigure it to
solve the problem.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Rik Ling wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Perhaps you could explain exactly *how* the To: line is broken and how
> it might be fixed.
> What should it look like? And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of
> RFC822?
This is not an RFC822 issue; it is rather a matter of RFC821 compliance.
[1] For mail received via SMTP, qmail never sees or parses the RFC822
headers. What qmail sees and complains about is the SMTP envelope
recipient (forward-path). Square bracets are only allowed in the "["
<dotnum> "]" context (cf. RFC821 sect. 4.1.2). qmail is not supposed to
strip them off.
I guess that the remote mail software fails converting its own address
format (as seen in the 822 "To" header field) into an RFC821 recipient
address.
Stefan
[1] I don't know if the format is 822 compliant, I guess it isn't, thought
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] is not an Internet mail address. It's not even
:remotely close to an Internet mail address. I don't know what the client
:that's generating such things is trying to talk to, but it's not trying to
:talk to an Internet mail server.
I just did a cursory search of my inbox and I found that many of the messages
that have "[SMTP:email@address]" in the body have come with the following:
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
Considering the version number I would suspect this comes from Microsoft
Exchange 5.5.. I could be wrong though.
--Adam
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:23:16PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] is not an Internet mail address. It's not even
> remotely close to an Internet mail address. I don't know what the client
> that's generating such things is trying to talk to, but it's not trying to
> talk to an Internet mail server.
>
That format is often used on MUAs which can send mail by various
means, i.e. Pegasus on Netware has a format something like this. The
leading SMTP: is a flag to Pegasus to indicate that it should send to
the SMTP server rather than to the Netware (or other) mail gateway.
However the leading SMTP: should, of course, be stripped off before the
mail is sent, as should the []. If it *is* coming from Pegasus (but I
don't think that uses the []) then the Pegasus installation is
misconfigured in some way because Pegasus is actually quite well
behaved re: RFCs.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Michael Bracker wrote:
> i still think about an authentication for incoming and outgoing eMails
> through a radius server. At the moment we've got mysql and a radius deamon
> running. Could we authenticate our users' emails with this, too?
> I think there is a way to get the eMail but how can I tell qMail to look at
> the mysql or radius server for the usernames and passwords?
www.qmail.org has a RADIUS checkpassword for POP written in perl.
- Rob Genovesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I am using qmail v1.03 with the users/assign method. bin/qmail-newu
| builds a cdb database for the assign file and I am trying to use
| 'cdbget' fromt he cdb-0.55 package to query data from this database.
|
| I notice the cdbget can recover find records for keys that start
| with a '+' but not records that start with a '='.
That is because the `=' records are stored with the trailing null byte
as part of the lookup key. The code in nughde_get (qmail-lspawn.c)
cleverly uses this by first searching for the whole local part with
null byte appended, and then trying successively shorter substrings.
- Harald
Has anyone created a Web Admin module for qmail ?
FYI: Web Admin (http://www.webadmin.com/) is a GUI based interface for
many standard system admin tasks.
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 -
==============================================
I screwed up the URL. It really is
http://www.webmin.com/
At least I was close *g*
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 -
==============================================
Hi, I�m using fetchmail to retrieve my mail from my remote account in my ISP
pop server. Then I tell fetchmail to pass all the mail to qmail-inject. But i
don�t know how to tell qmail to send all this mail to a local Mailbox and not
trying to resend the messages again to their destinations.
Can anybody help me?
Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gomez
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key avaliable in http://www.rediris.es/cert/keyserver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Think of security as a chain. The security of the entire system
is only as strong as the weakest link " - Bruce Schneier.
I've heard that the imapserver included with qmail isnt very stable.
Does anyone know a good imap server that also works with Maildir?
Need an imap server to make imp work properly.
Victor
begin:vcard
n:Regner;Victor
tel;pager:0740-132878
tel;cell:070-4920505
tel;fax:08-6948119
tel;work:08-7023158
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:1trappaupp Internet Byr�
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Tekniker
fn:Victor Regner
end:vcard
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Victor Regner wrote:
> I've heard that the imapserver included with qmail isnt very stable.
I don't know how anyone can conclude that qmail's imap server isn't very
stable. qmail does NOT include any imap server, stable or otherwise. :)
>
> Does anyone know a good imap server that also works with Maildir?
There are patches to various imap servers available on www.qmail.org to
make them work with Maildir format.
>
> Need an imap server to make imp work properly.
>
>
>
> Victor
>
---------------------------------
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 though there where something called qmail-imap but I must have been wrong.
I'll reformulate my question.
Is there any imap server binary for linux redhat 5.x ?
Victor
"Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Victor Regner wrote:
>
> > I've heard that the imapserver included with qmail isnt very stable.
>
> I don't know how anyone can conclude that qmail's imap server isn't very
> stable. qmail does NOT include any imap server, stable or otherwise. :)
>
> >
> > Does anyone know a good imap server that also works with Maildir?
>
> There are patches to various imap servers available on www.qmail.org to
> make them work with Maildir format.
>
> >
> > Need an imap server to make imp work properly.
> >
> >
> >
> > Victor
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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
begin:vcard
n:Regner;Victor
tel;pager:0740-132878
tel;cell:070-4920505
tel;fax:08-6948119
tel;work:08-7023158
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:1trappaupp Internet Byr�
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Tekniker
fn:Victor Regner
end:vcard
Thanks for your help. One more quick easy one for you. I'm trying to
send email to a subdomain: beos.knocean.com. I have in my
virtualdomains:
beos.knocean.com:beos
knocean.com:knocean
However, as I watch the maillog, it's sending the mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone know why? I did kill qmail and restart it after changing
virtualdomains (just to make sure, if -HUP wasn't enough).
--
Joel Shellman
knOcean Interactive Corporation
http://corp.knOcean.com/
- Joel Shellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I'm trying to send email to a subdomain: beos.knocean.com. I have in
| my virtualdomains:
|
| beos.knocean.com:beos
| knocean.com:knocean
|
| However, as I watch the maillog, it's sending the mail to
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't have beos.knocean.com in control/locals I hope?
If you do, don't.
- Harald
Thanks for your help. One more quick easy one for you. I'm trying to
send email to a subdomain: beos.knocean.com. I have in my
virtualdomains:
beos.knocean.com:beos
knocean.com:knocean
beos.knocean.com is not a subdomain, it is an alias for knocean.com.
When a remote user tries to send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it gets replaced by [EMAIL PROTECTED]; in other words, the address
gets canonicalized. Then it gets sent to mail.knocean.com because of
the mx record for knocean.com.
So just remove the beos.knocean.com cname record, and replace it by an
MX pointing at mail.knocean.com.
Mate
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> Demon Internet is exceptional in that it offers all its dial-up users
> a static IP address. I think it's basically because it was one of the
> earliest ISPs and thus has the addresses available because it grabbed
> them early before they were hard to come by.
I don't know all the facts behind it but I believe there that the IP
registry in question (RIPE) will not prevent any ISP from giving static IP
to all it's customers, provided the ISP keeps all the relevant records.
Others may not provide them at all or may charge more because of this
'administrative overhead', but it isn't really a matter of IP addresses
being hard to come by.
--
Andy J. Smith ... <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... <http://www.strugglers.net/andy>
Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key, or check the key servers ......
KeyID: 0xBF15490B FP: 0E42 36CB 5295 1E14 5360 6622 2099 B64C BF15 490B
3) I don't sign parts of the body, even if they're still attached.
-- Terry Pratchett, news://alt.fan.pratchett
On 1999-02-10T18:39:47,
Andy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't know all the facts behind it but I believe there that the IP
> registry in question (RIPE) will not prevent any ISP from giving static IP
> to all it's customers, provided the ISP keeps all the relevant records.
Thats incorrect. If you don't know all the facts behind it, don't talk.
RIPE NCC discourages assigning static IPs to dialup customers, unless they are
needed (like for MX entries in the DNS etc).
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Br�e
--
Lars Marowsky-Br�e
Network Management
teuto.net Netzdienste GmbH - DPN Verbund-Partner
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 06:39:47PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> > Demon Internet is exceptional in that it offers all its dial-up users
> > a static IP address. I think it's basically because it was one of the
> > earliest ISPs and thus has the addresses available because it grabbed
> > them early before they were hard to come by.
> I don't know all the facts behind it but I believe there that the IP
> registry in question (RIPE) will not prevent any ISP from giving static IP
> to all it's customers, provided the ISP keeps all the relevant records.
Demon offers a 'host' based service, delivers mail to customers by
SMTP. Thus a customer logs-in, say with host, and their domain name
is host.demon.co.uk. Demon dont care about the user part and can in
fact have as many or as few 'users' on their host.
At the time static IP was the way to go.
RIPE DID try and stop Demon allocating static IP addresses, however
after certain high level shouting matches and threats to go to the
European court (RIPE aren't allowed to dictate how Demon run their
business, if they run an SMTP/host based service - that's what they
run, RIPE can't dictate for them to use dynamic IP). Anyway, Demon
have to account for every IP addressed used, and associate it (in
customer blocks) with a name and address. Which is fair enough.
Steve
--
NetTek Ltd tel +44-171 483 1169 fax +44-181 444 6103
Flat 2, 43 Howitt Road, Belsize Park, London NW3 4LU
Epage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [body of text only]
Anyone know how to customize those messages. Instead of the "...sorry it
didn't work out." stuff. I don't think my boss thinks it's "professional".
Personally I don't care, it's a damn return message. :)
But anyone know where I could customize. Even if I have to recompile.
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
- "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Anyone know how to customize those messages. Instead of the "...sorry it
| didn't work out." stuff. I don't think my boss thinks it's "professional".
| Personally I don't care, it's a damn return message. :)
|
| But anyone know where I could customize. Even if I have to recompile.
; grep 'work out' *
qmail-send.c:This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.\n\
- Harald
Reid Sutherland writes:
> Anyone know how to customize those messages. Instead of the "...sorry it
> didn't work out." stuff. I don't think my boss thinks it's "professional".
Change the source code.
> Personally I don't care, it's a damn return message. :)
>
> But anyone know where I could customize. Even if I have to recompile.
Use the "grep" command to find the text in the source code, customize,
recompile, install.
--
Sam
(Okay, I'm a newbie to this stuff, so be patient with me, and I'll make a
real contribution yet! =).
I was having trouble with pop3d on sendmail occasionally failing to remove
lock files from /usr/tmp/.pop/ (resulting in a user not being able to log
in to the pop server (usually my boss )^& :). Some people on one of the
Linux newsgroups recommended upgrading to Qmail. This I've done, and now
enjoy all the wonderful benefits of being a Qmail user, except that the lock
file problem still exists.
Qmail has a qmail-pop3d file, but the documentation doesn't tell me any way
of configuring it with out using Maildir (which looks like a real hassle).
Is there an way to set up the qmail-pop3d with my /var/spool/mail/$USER
configuration? Also, does anyone know if this will solve my lock file
problem?
(If I sound like a complete buffoon in this aria, it's because I am. That's
why I need help. =) If anyone can help me with this, I would be exceedingly
grateful!
Sincerely,
-Carlos
>Qmail has a qmail-pop3d file, but the documentation doesn't tell me any way
>of configuring it with out using Maildir (which looks like a real hassle).
>Is there an way to set up the qmail-pop3d with my /var/spool/mail/$USER
>configuration?
No. qmail-pop3d only works with Maildir. There is no mbox pop server
supplied with any of the qmail sources or addons.
Regards.
D. Carlos Knowlton wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Qmail has a qmail-pop3d file, but the documentation doesn't tell me any
> way of configuring it with out using Maildir (which looks like a real
> hassle).
Converting to Maildir basically is a simple thing:
o set up qmail-popup/checkpassword/qmail-pop3d as usual
o stop qmail
o run convert-and-create (http://www.qmail.org)
o change the default delivery instruction in you qmail rc file to
"./Maildir/" and change any .qmail files accordingly if they exist
o start qmail
> Is there an way to set up the qmail-pop3d with my /var/spool/mail/$USER
> configuration?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: before qmail-pop3d, run mbox2maildir (http://www.qmail.org)
to stuff the mbox into a Maildir for qmail-pop3d to work on.
> Also, does anyone know if this will solve my lock file problem?
Sort of. qmail doesn't use them.
Stefan
Second problem: (I love this mailing list! you guys are great! =)
I have a Linux machine inside the LAN that I want to use to do some tests on
Qmail before I implement them on the live, internet-accessible, 100 user
(busy =) email server. I follow all the documentation instructions (I
think), run the procmail 'rc' and I get this message:
[date][hostname] qmail: 91850531.791142 alert: cannot start: unable to
switch to queue directory
Does having the machine behind a firewall, unable to access the DNS to
autodetect its host name, make any difference? I did the same things on
this machine that I did on the live one (I think), but it's not starting.
Any clues?
Sincerely,
-Carlos
How to determine whether you can send mail to a domain? Is there a
function in qmail to do the testing without actually delivering a
message.
Thanks
dp
Dongping Deng writes:
> How to determine whether you can send mail to a domain? Is there a
> function in qmail to do the testing without actually delivering a
> message.
See RFC822, RFC821, and use the telnet command.
--
Sam
I use fetchmail and qmail alright, and it sends all msgs to all local
users. Try this:
on $HOME/.fetchmailrc
you put
poll pop_server protocol POP3
user user_at_ISP is user_local
password blablalba
forcecr
1. user@isp is the username to check the pop acc
2. user_local is the nick of the user localy (if it is root it is wrong"!)
3. Dont forget forcecr I had some trouble with that...
4. .fetchmailrc should be chmod 600 otherwise it will not work..
Hope I helped.
--------------------------------------------
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
--------------------------------------------
Chrisitan Willy Asmussen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kriconet.com.br/~krico
ICQ# 1572199
I have still not solved my problem with relaying.
1. I want to be albe to let users who connect to ISPs to use my smtp
(allowing their IP NUMBERS after they have a succesful nick pass check
with pop3 for some time is the best that occured to me, but I still cant
do it) (OH and telling them to use the ISPs SMTP doesnt work cause some
ISPs wont allow to send msgs without replay to @ISPS.DOMAIN :-)
2. How do I allow an IP number (local eg 192.168.xx.xx) to use my smtpd
as a relay?
--------------------------------------------
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
--------------------------------------------
Chrisitan Willy Asmussen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kriconet.com.br/~krico
ICQ# 1572199
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Christian Asmussen wrote:
> I have still not solved my problem with relaying.
>
> 1. I want to be albe to let users who connect to ISPs to use my smtp
> (allowing their IP NUMBERS after they have a succesful nick pass check
> with pop3 for some time is the best that occured to me, but I still cant
> do it) (OH and telling them to use the ISPs SMTP doesnt work cause some
> ISPs wont allow to send msgs without replay to @ISPS.DOMAIN :-)
>
> 2. How do I allow an IP number (local eg 192.168.xx.xx) to use my smtpd
> as a relay?
Run tcpserver. Read the docs. Set up /etc/tcp.smtp like this:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
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.
=====================================================================
First off, let me say this: Before anyone gets excited, ezmlm is NOT an
option. I have users and list owners that want to use Majordomo and only
Majordomo. They know Majordomo, they like Majordomo, they demand
Majordomo. Therefore, I have to make this work with Majordomo. Clear?
Ok, then. Here's my predicament: I see from combing through the list
archives and the Qmail and Majordomo web pages that there are a few
different options for setting up Majordomo with qmail.
>From what I've researched, I think I'd like to use the majordomo-inject
and the majordomo-dispatch scripts by Giles Lean and Russ Allbery.
So far, no problem. There's plenty of documentation on how to do this.
Now for the kicker:
I want to set up Majordomo to work within several qmail virtual
domains. There will be instances where [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] will
have to work, so renaming the list isn't an option. Also, mail orginated
by majordomo from a specific virtual domain must appear as if it orginated
from the virtual domain.
Phew! Ok, so does anyone have some war stories, pointers to a FAQ or even
some old notes scribbled on the back of a pizza box they'd be willing to
share to help me tackle this one?
----------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Milam I.T. Division - Academic Computing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh
From: Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:First off, let me say this: Before anyone gets excited, ezmlm is NOT an
:option. I have users and list owners that want to use Majordomo and only
:Majordomo. They know Majordomo, they like Majordomo, they demand
:Majordomo. Therefore, I have to make this work with Majordomo. Clear?
The cool thing about ezmlm is that you don't need to "know" it. You just use
it. There are no problems, no annoying bounces, etc. It just works.
--Adam
Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to set up Majordomo to work within several qmail virtual domains.
> There will be instances where [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] will have to
> work, so renaming the list isn't an option.
Does Majordomo get the entire virtual domain? If so, it's trivial. If
not, there are a few ways to do it. One way is to put the individual
users that Majordomo needs (LIST, LIST-owner, LIST-request, and
LIST-approval) directly into control/virtualdomains and map them to the
Majordomo user. The other way is to piggyback on whatever you're
currently using to control disposition of the mail to a given virtual
domain.
> Also, mail orginated by majordomo from a specific virtual domain must
> appear as if it orginated from the virtual domain.
What do you mean by "appear as"? If you mean that the Received lines have
to match, you'll have a problem there, because qmail-remote doesn't have a
way of binding to a specific IP address without patches.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> First off, let me say this: Before anyone gets excited, ezmlm is NOT
>> an option. I have users and list owners that want to use Majordomo and
>> only Majordomo. They know Majordomo, they like Majordomo, they demand
>> Majordomo. Therefore, I have to make this work with Majordomo. Clear?
> The cool thing about ezmlm is that you don't need to "know" it. You
> just use it. There are no problems, no annoying bounces, etc. It just
> works.
This is simply not true. How do you subscribe to an ezmlm list? How do
you unsubscribe? How do you close an ezmlm list to non-subscriber
messages? How do you remotely get a listing of who's on the list? How do
you configure the intro message? How do you make the list moderated? I
know the answers to all of those questions, or at least solutions for
them, and they're all different than the answers for Majordomo.
Differences are things that you have to know.
You have to know ezmlm. Majordomo has ways of doing all of those things
that are different than ezmlm, and therefore people moving from Majordomo
to ezmlm would have to learn something new. When supporting users on
production servers who are expecting a specific interface, just telling
them "changing to ezmlm guys, learn something new" is not an option.
Furthermore, ezmlm and Majordomo are designed from very different
perspectives. Majordomo is a single address that runs *all* the lists at
one site, making things like global queries possible. A lot of people
have modified Majordomo implementations where global queries are even safe
and fast. This is not ezmlm's root philosophy, so even if you add support
for such things, it's not going to be as clean.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Differences are things that you have to know.
:
:You have to know ezmlm. Majordomo has ways of doing all of those things
:that are different than ezmlm, and therefore people moving from Majordomo
:to ezmlm would have to learn something new. When supporting users on
:production servers who are expecting a specific interface, just telling
:them "changing to ezmlm guys, learn something new" is not an option.
As an administrator, getting to know ezmlm took around an hour. As a user, it
took about five minutes.
I am not bashing majordomo.. If it's what he needs he should use it.. I was
just making a comment about ezmlm. It really is "ez", as long as you aren't
doing anything really non-standard.
--Adam
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As an administrator, getting to know ezmlm took around an hour. As a
> user, it took about five minutes.
Do you have shell access to the ezmlm directories for all of the lists
that you manage? ezmlm is very easy to work with if you do and understand
standard Unix commands and files. But list owners don't normally have
that kind of access at nearly all list hosting sites that I'm aware of.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Do you have shell access to the ezmlm directories for all of the lists
:that you manage?
Yes.
:ezmlm is very easy to work with if you do and understand
:standard Unix commands and files. But list owners don't normally have
:that kind of access at nearly all list hosting sites that I'm aware of.
A few people I know are running web interfaces to ezmlm/ezmlm-idx... that
makes it quite easy to administer..
--Adam
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ezmlm is very easy to work with if you do and understand standard Unix
>> commands and files. But list owners don't normally have that kind of
>> access at nearly all list hosting sites that I'm aware of.
> A few people I know are running web interfaces to ezmlm/ezmlm-idx...
> that makes it quite easy to administer..
But now you're not talking about just ezmlm, but ezmlm plus a web
interface. Which has to be checked pretty carefully for security, and is
a bunch of additional work to provide the central administration point
that Majordomo has.
I'm not saying Majordomo is better. At the things ezmlm was *designed*
for, it's massively better, and I like the overall architecture better.
But I don't think *anyone* likes Majordomo's architecture; it's an
extremely old program written quite some time ago, and is interesting
mostly because it was one of the first and because everyone's very used to
it, not because it's particularly good.
(For those who don't know already, Majordomo is being rewritten from
scratch, and the new version has a *lot* of nice features built in,
including a more thorough understanding of MIME including the ability to
strip out attachments and do various things with them, native qmail
support, per-user databases and options like listserv's NOMAIL and such,
possibly rate limiting, better digest support.... It's still in
development, though, and ezmlm is still going to be better at what it was
designed for. ezmlm and Majordomo are nearly on opposite ends of several
fundamental design decisions that are neither right nor wrong, just suited
for different ways of working.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Let's consider a hypothetical situation: a machine needs to host 100,000
mailing lists, each list has subscribers, say, less than 15; and the
traffic for each list is less than 3 a day. Will ezmlm be more suitable
for such situation?
dp
Hi,
I have a list of approx. 3000 addresses, and I need to send a mail to
them. What I do now is plit this list in pieces of 50 addresses ech, and
then send the mail via talking to smtp port 25 directly.
Now, the time between sending and delivery (all remote addresses) can be
up to 13 hours! This is kind of slow, isn't it?
Can I configure some parameters?
I now have
# tcp connections=150
concurrencylocal=40
concurrencyremote=40
Do I need to change these, and or some of the timeout parameters?
Anybody has a suggestion on how they did this?
Franky
I just did this yesterday.
increase the concurrencyremote to 120.( this is the max number by the
default qmail setup. if you need more, you will need to recompile qmail
with this number redefined)
Increase the number of qmail processes that can run at one time may also
improve the delivery time.
Good luck.
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a list of approx. 3000 addresses, and I need to send a mail to
> them. What I do now is plit this list in pieces of 50 addresses ech, and
> then send the mail via talking to smtp port 25 directly.
> Now, the time between sending and delivery (all remote addresses) can be
> up to 13 hours! This is kind of slow, isn't it?
> Can I configure some parameters?
> I now have
> # tcp connections=150
> concurrencylocal=40
> concurrencyremote=40
>
> Do I need to change these, and or some of the timeout parameters?
> Anybody has a suggestion on how they did this?
>
> Franky
>
>
hello,
with the release of the new linux kernel, the limit of concurrent
processes is now raised. according to conf-spawn we cannot raise the qmail
concurrency limit past 256. is there any reason for this?
i know raising this limit would break some unix boxes. is there a
theoretical reason to limit it just to 256? a heavily built linux box with
more than ample memory, processing power, and bandwidth with no load except
mail deliveries would benefit by raising this limit to something even
higher than 256.
during a recent changeover of mail servers, my linux box was comfortably
serving a continuous 240 concurrent remote connections over a period of 2
days.
-marlon
