qmail Digest 14 Feb 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 551
Topics (messages 21953 through 21981):
fastforward problem..
21953 by: Chris Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On demand?
21954 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21956 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21957 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21959 by: "Lars Uffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21960 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21961 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21963 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21964 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21965 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21966 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21970 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21971 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ADV:CREDIT CARD PROCESSING]
21955 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail in LAN with dial-up connection
21958 by: "Rok Papez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21962 by: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fetchmail & Qmail
21967 by: Bradley M Keryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
100,000 mailing lists
21968 by: Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21976 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
concurrencyremote limit
21969 by: Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21972 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21974 by: Mike Holling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21975 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ADV:IS THERE A FREE BREAKFAST?
21973 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any way to change multi-part msgs to text only on the way out?
21977 by: "Heinz Wittenbecher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21978 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21979 by: "Heinz Wittenbecher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
virtual domain
21980 by: Reai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21981 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've been using qmail for a while now I love the facilities it has, we
have finally decided at the isp i work for (after me convencing them) to
switch from sendmail to qmail.
We have a brand new running debian 2.0, i've installed qmail 1.03 on it.
And compiled and installed fastforward.
I setup the following test domain virtual.praceng.co.uk to test the
virtual capiblities of qmails fastforward. I've added the entry in
~alias/qmail-default to pass control to fastforward. Next in
control/virtualdomains i've added virtual.praceng.co.uk and to rcpthosts.
Now in /etc/aliases i've added the following:
@virtual.praceng.co.uk: chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: testuser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: chris, testuser
Then i ran newaliases in /var/qmail/bin and then stopped and restarted
qmail. When I send a test mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it bounces
back with no mailbox by this name, i setup a .qmail-default in there and
then it tried to deliver it to testuser-test. Is there something
fundumental i'm doing wrong, have you got any surgestions how I can fix
this?
Thanks,
Chris.
--
--====== Logics Services ======-- irc Nickname: |Fingers|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 (0) 1432 278319
---================--- Mobile:+44 (0) 7970 278847
http://www.uk.logics.com/
...Software is like sex. It's better when it's free...
At 10:16 pm -0800 12/2/99,the wonderful Russ Allbery wrote:
>> - Donna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> | [...] Basically what people are wanting is this: When they are
>> | dialed up mail gets delivered straight to thier machine (Not to the
>> | mail server then to thier machine) [...]
>
>Assuming the "not to the mail server then to their machine" should be
>taken literally, that's going to require playing games with DNS MX records
>based on whether the customer is dialed in.
>
My ISP (Demon Internet, UK), has a system where by the login servers trigger a mail
"kick" on
login, forcing their relays to deliver mail. They don't use qmail/serialmail, but the
concept is
the same.
Now, I think if you ignore this "not to the mail server then to their machine", then
you don't have
a problem. You could imitate this by having your mail system, on recipt of a mail for
that company,
try and deliver immediately, but on failing, to keep it until said "kick" was
implemented.
It's generally good to fire off another kick 5 mins after they logged in, to make sure
the first
one cleared all the mail.
That way, they get the mail, you get static MX records, and everyone's happy.
Second to that, perhaps you could make them primary MX, so that mail is delivered
directly to them
if poss, but on fall back, it comes to you, and then you dleiver it using the above
scenario.
Of course, I'm sure you could do something with dynamic dns as well if you really
wanted.
Peter.
--
gradwell dot com ltd - writing the bits of the web you don't see
online @ http://www.gradwell.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> Second to that, perhaps you could make them primary MX, so that mail is
> delivered directly to them if poss, but on fall back, it comes to you,
> and then you dleiver it using the above scenario.
in general this is bad idea: the lowest valued MX should be one with a
high degree of reliability and connectivity. if you're trying to deliver
to a machine which is intermittantly connected then you get exponential
back-of on elivery attempts by some hosts on the Internet, resulting in
the mail possibly never being delviered (and complaints from the customer
"it's their setup")
Richard
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:10:20PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter Gradwell wrote:
>
> > Second to that, perhaps you could make them primary MX, so that mail is
> > delivered directly to them if poss, but on fall back, it comes to you,
> > and then you dleiver it using the above scenario.
>
> in general this is bad idea: the lowest valued MX should be one with a
> high degree of reliability and connectivity. if you're trying to deliver
> to a machine which is intermittantly connected then you get exponential
> back-of on elivery attempts by some hosts on the Internet, resulting in
> the mail possibly never being delviered (and complaints from the customer
> "it's their setup")
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP dialup, but I'm my
own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to deliver to a secondary MX is Very
Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which is that stupid?
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 12, 1999 at 10:16:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sounds like you need the serialmail from DJB's collection.
[...]
> That's what I was thinking too, but that doesn't take care of this part:
>
> > - Donna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > | [...] Basically what people are wanting is this: When they are
> > | dialed up mail gets delivered straight to thier machine (Not to the
> > | mail server then to thier machine) [...]
>
> Assuming the "not to the mail server then to their machine" should be
> taken literally, that's going to require playing games with DNS MX records
> based on whether the customer is dialed in.
Someday I thougt about about the following:
domain: client.isp.net.
primary MX is mailhub.isp.net.
the client has his own mailserver, with ip address 192.168.42.1.
state 1 (client offline):
catch-all maildirdelivery on mailhub.isp.net.
control/virtualdomains:
client.isp.net:alias-ppp-clientid
~alias/.qmail-ppp-clientid:
./spool/clientid/
state 2 (client dials up):
- add the customers ip to control/smtproutes:
client.isp.net:[192.168.42.1]
- remove the client domain from control/virtualdomains.
- kill -HUP qmail-send
- flush the catch-all maildir via serialmail:
# maildir2smtp ~alias/spool/clientid/ alias-ppp-clientid- 192.168.42.1 helo
state 3 (client online):
mail goes directly to the clients mailserver, via smtproutes.
state 4 (clients disconnects):
- add the client domain to virtualdomains again.
- kill -HUP qmail-send
- remove the smtproutes entry.
The whole thing though would require reliable communications
between the ISPs mailhub and their terminal server.
regards, lars
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
> dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
> deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which
> is that stupid?
the secondary MX
Richard
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
> > dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
> > deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which
> > is that stupid?
>
> the secondary MX
Err... come again?
Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid that it will
not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> >
> > > Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
> > > dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
> > > deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which
> > > is that stupid?
> >
> > the secondary MX
>
> Err... come again?
the secondary MX should not deliver to itself if it's the best preference
reachable MTA.
> Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid that it will
> not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
no. however the seocndary MX will (unless configured specially)
exponentially backoff delivery attempts to the primary MX. If you're going
to go to
that effort (of specially configuring it) you might as well go the extra
step and set it as the primary MX and configure it to avoid the DNS
altogether. This benefits other sites, since they'll not waste time (and
concurrency remotes) trying to connect to a system which is disconnected
most of the time. the downside is an extra delviery delay whilst mail is
relayed though the secondary MX, but given most dialup nodes (in the Uk
atleast) are disconnected >50% of the time most of the inbound mail will
do this anyway.
Richard
At 4:32 pm +0100 13/2/99, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>>
>> > Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
>> > dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
>> > deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which
>> > is that stupid?
>>
>> the secondary MX
>
>Err... come again?
I belive richard means that the secondary mx will sit there uselessly trying to
deliver to the nonexistant primary mx.
Which is why the secondary needs to be modified only to deliver when primary is up.
>Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid that it will
>not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
not one worth using.
peter
--
peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/
"To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 04:01:25PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> > > On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
> > > > dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
> > > > deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which
> > > > is that stupid?
> > >
> > > the secondary MX
> >
> > Err... come again?
> the secondary MX should not deliver to itself if it's the best preference
> reachable MTA.
It won't.
> > Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid that it
>will
> > not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
>
> no. however the seocndary MX will (unless configured specially)
> exponentially backoff delivery attempts to the primary MX. If you're going
Well configure it correctly then.
> to go to
> that effort (of specially configuring it) you might as well go the extra
> step and set it as the primary MX and configure it to avoid the DNS
> altogether. This benefits other sites, since they'll not waste time (and
> concurrency remotes) trying to connect to a system which is disconnected
> most of the time. the downside is an extra delviery delay whilst mail is
> relayed though the secondary MX, but given most dialup nodes (in the Uk
> atleast) are disconnected >50% of the time most of the inbound mail will
> do this anyway.
Ok you have a big point there, but I still prefer myself as primary MX, especially
since my connection (when active) is more reliable than that of my fallback MX (well
they have a shitty uplink. Also, they're running sendmail, which I despise).
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 04:04:55PM +0000, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> At 4:32 pm +0100 13/2/99, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> >>
> >> > Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
> >> > dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
> >> > deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which
> >> > is that stupid?
> >>
> >> the secondary MX
> >
> >Err... come again?
>
> I belive richard means that the secondary mx will sit there uselessly trying to
> deliver to the nonexistant primary mx.
And also possibly not attempting at the right time (i.e. when the client is online).
> Which is why the secondary needs to be modified only to deliver when primary is up.
Exactly.
> >Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid that it
>will
> >not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
>
> not one worth using.
I fully agree.
Oh btw.. please don't Cc me, I'm on the list.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid
>that it will not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
Yes; I don't know WHAT it is, but I have headers. See below...
First, some background, and another reason the Primary MX isn't always
available: In Xerox, there are many many mail domains
(xis.xerox.com,adoc.xerox.com,etc. etc.). All mailservers are behind the
firewall. To get mail, the Primary is the mail server, and the secondary MX
host is a firewall mail relay. So, in my case,
xis.xerox.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = terminator.xis.xerox.com
xis.xerox.com preference = 100, mail exchanger = mailer-east.xerox.com
where terminator is my local internal mail server, and mailer-east is on the
firewall.
Mail servers try to reach terminator, fail because there's no route, and
back off to try mailer-east. The succeed, mailer-east passes the mail
along, and we get our mail.
The benefit of doing it this way (or so I assume) is that no one has to
keep a central list of what the mailserver for any given Xerox domain is.
The owner of that domain and that mailserver generally also owns DNS for
that domain, and can change the final mail host through DNS without ever
having to figure out who in Xerox they'd need to talk to about changing
things. Instead of a 'smtproutes' file with N entries for N Xerox entities,
all of which shift around like jumping beans, the bookeeping is distributed
via DNS.
Now, as to the broken mail client: A friend forwarded me this bounce.
The way I read it, the mail server didn't back off to try the secondary.
I'd love to figure out what the mail server is, based on this version
number: (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/23Jun97-1209PM)
Here's the bounce:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to terminator.xis.xerox.com:
>>> QUIT
<<< 421 eagle.nhes.state.nh.us Sorry, unable to contact destination SMTP
daemon.
421 terminator.xis.xerox.com (smtp)... Deferred: Connection reset by peer
during greeting wait with terminator.xis.xerox.com
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from [172.23.31.84] by alfraido.nhes.state.nh.us;
(5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/23Jun97-1209PM)
id AA25444; Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:04:16 -0500
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16)
I assume the bounce doesn't come from the PC with Eudora light, as there
are three hosts in this list (alfraido, eagle, and 172.23.31.84). But other
than that version string, no sign of the bouncer's ID...
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
> xis.xerox.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = terminator.xis.xerox.com
> xis.xerox.com preference = 100, mail exchanger = mailer-east.xerox.com
>
> where terminator is my local internal mail server, and mailer-east is on the
> firewall.
>
> Mail servers try to reach terminator, fail because there's no route, and
> back off to try mailer-east. The succeed, mailer-east passes the mail
> along, and we get our mail.
Pard'n me, but this is the dumbest way to set up an E-mail firewall that
I've ever seen.
The right way to do this is by using a split-DNS configuration.
This kind of set up also implies that you are using a huge chunk of IP
address space that will never be routable from the Internet, yet it will
waste valuable routable IP address space that others can put to much
better use.
> The benefit of doing it this way (or so I assume) is that no one has to
> keep a central list of what the mailserver for any given Xerox domain is.
No. The benefit of doing this is so that you do not need to have
sufficient skills to manage a complicated firewall. Just burn up valuable
IP address space, and throw a bunch of MX records out there that do
nothing but cause trouble.
> The owner of that domain and that mailserver generally also owns DNS for
> that domain, and can change the final mail host through DNS without ever
> having to figure out who in Xerox they'd need to talk to about changing
> things. Instead of a 'smtproutes' file with N entries for N Xerox entities,
> all of which shift around like jumping beans, the bookeeping is distributed
> via DNS.
So? Why not do _all_ the bookeeping via DNS?
> Now, as to the broken mail client: A friend forwarded me this bounce.
> The way I read it, the mail server didn't back off to try the secondary.
> I'd love to figure out what the mail server is, based on this version
> number: (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/23Jun97-1209PM)
[ snip ]
That's sendmail 5.65. Five year old piece of junk.
----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 4927 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1999 12:42:17 -0000
Received: from zopie.attic.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by koek.attic.vuurwerk.nl with QMTP; 13 Feb 1999 12:42:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 2415 invoked by uid 501); 13 Feb 1999 12:41:08 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 2255 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1999 12:40:46 -0000
Received: from usquerd.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by zolder.cx with SMTP; 13 Feb 1999 12:40:46 -0000
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (muncher.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181])
by usquerd.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA00506
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:01:16 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 17992 invoked by uid 1002); 13 Feb 1999 07:19:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 16701 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1999 07:19:19 -0000
Received: from 2cust79.tnt22.dfw5.da.uu.net (HELO localhost) (208.254.195.79)
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 13 Feb 1999 07:19:19 -0000
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ADV:CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:41:04
*********************************************************
This message is being brought to you by World Teknologies
To be removed from from further mailings respond to this
message with "remove" in the subject line.
*********************************************************
[snip F*CKing spam]
----- End forwarded message -----
Anybody need more proof before refusing mail from uu.net dialups? I've seen this spam
on the PHP list too, and I frequently receive mail from da.uu.net directly.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:34:02 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
>> 2.nd problem:
>> Even if I fix that... I have 2 internet mail accounts (POP3),
>> and I'm subscribed to different mailinglists. So if mail is
>> sent to the mailinglist it MUST be sent from the account I've
>> subscribed from.
>> How do I implement some sort of per user database of mailinglists
>> and if To: line contains a mailinglist it should change From: line
>> differently AND(!) serialmail should send this mail thru different
>> SMTP server.
>>
>That sounds like the sort of problem that mutt's send-hook facility
>could handle for you. (mutt is an MUA)
Mutt also runs on OS/2 and Windows 95/98/NT ?? Don't think so,
plus his POP3 support is lousy. For terminal mode I prefer pine
over it, it is more intuitive :) and I'm already used to pine.
If it was just for the terminal, I would have used those evironment
variables that modify the From line.
BUT!!! Most 99.9% of the mail is processed by users on their workstations
that are running mostly Windows. The mailers are Outlook Express,
Netscape Communicator, PMMail and probably others.
I have this situation (use monospace font and LONG lines ;>):
-------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET dial-up LINUX server LAN WORKSTATIONS
pop3 account 1 <- serialmail <- Qmail 1.03 <- SMTP <- user1
pop3 account 1 -> fetchmail -> Qmail 1.03 -> POP3 -> user1
pop3 account 2 <--------------> Qmail 1.03 <--------> user2
pop3 account 3 <--------------> Qmail 1.03 <--------> user2
pop3 account 4 <--------------> Qmail 1.03 <--------> user3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
user 1 mail transfer is shown more detailed.
The problem is with the From lines of the workstations.
I don't wont to pest every user on LAN to change "From" and "Reply To"
lines. To make things worse. User 2 has 2 POP3 accounts and both
receive mail from mailinglists. So if message is sent to a mailing list
it's From line has to be changed acording to the mailing list address
AND (!) the serialmail must be smart enough to pick the correct host
for smtp transfer.
I was thinking along the lines:
queue messages into ~alias/pppdir <- already works!
set up a ~alias/SMTP_host_specific_queue for every
smtp host. Example:
~alias/smtp-1
~alias/smtp-2
~alias/smtp-3
Now I have to process mail. I have to run procmail on something else
on mail in ~alias/pppdir/new and check the from line.
If "From" is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should send it to smtp.someplace.si
and so I move it to ~alias/smtp-x. I also have to change the from line
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course user2 is a bit more complicated. I have to check
~user2/mailinglists (for example) and if "To" line has an entry in
~user2/mailinglists, I should send to another smtp server. And
change the "From" line acording to mailinglist entry in
~user2/mailinglists.
Now.. Can procmail do that and if it can; can someone *please* send me
a few examples. Or do I have to make my own mail processor.
best regards,
Rok Papez,
Student at Faculty of Computer and Information Science,
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Rok Papez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mutt also runs on OS/2 and Windows 95/98/NT ?? Don't think so,
> plus his POP3 support is lousy. For terminal mode I prefer pine
Mutt could possibly work on Win32 boxes (and maybe OS/2) under the
CygWin system. It's worth a try. And if you don't like Mutt's POP
support, you could always use fetchmail to gather the mail and mutt to read
it.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, David Gomez wrote:
> 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?
>
This isn't quite what you want, but you could tell fetchmail to use SMTP
to pass qmail the messages (e.g. 'user "foo" there is "bar" here'). That
way, qmail just delivers the mail. My parents' computer has been using
that sort of setup for about a year and a half, with no trouble.
Brad
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 11:43:39PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> At 11:45 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Dongping Deng wrote:
> >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.
>
> Lemme see. 100,000 * 15 * 3 = 4.5million deliveries a day.
> ...
>
> It's probably more appropriate to ask whether your underlying qmail system
> can deliver 4.5M messages a day. It's within the realms of possibility, but
> a standard single spindle system probably wont hack it.
Is there a FAQ on configuring qmail to use multiple delivery queues?
I can't see offhand how to do this from a stock qmail, and couldn't
find any relevant info on www.qmail.org.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
On Sat 1999-02-13 (15:34), Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 11:43:39PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> > At 11:45 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Dongping Deng wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > Lemme see. 100,000 * 15 * 3 = 4.5million deliveries a day.
> > ...
> >
> > It's probably more appropriate to ask whether your underlying qmail system
> > can deliver 4.5M messages a day. It's within the realms of possibility, but
> > a standard single spindle system probably wont hack it.
>
> Is there a FAQ on configuring qmail to use multiple delivery queues?
> I can't see offhand how to do this from a stock qmail, and couldn't
> find any relevant info on www.qmail.org.
If you'd like to see how I went about it, take a look at:
http://rucus.ru.ac.za/qmail/multiplicity.html
HTH
- Keith
> Tim Pierce
--
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.
---
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:37:22PM +0800, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
> 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?
Qmail internally stores the concurrency limit in an object of type
char. If you tried to specify a limit higher than 256, it would
overflow and give you a concurrency limit *lower* than what you asked
for.
Is there a compelling technical reason why qmail shouldn't support
more concurrent delivery processes, or is this just the result of
short-sighted design considerations?
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
Carefull, 255 = 11111111, 256=00000001
Dirk
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 03:47:58PM -0500, Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:37:22PM +0800, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Qmail internally stores the concurrency limit in an object of type
> char. If you tried to specify a limit higher than 256, it would
> overflow and give you a concurrency limit *lower* than what you asked
> for.
>
> Is there a compelling technical reason why qmail shouldn't support
> more concurrent delivery processes, or is this just the result of
> short-sighted design considerations?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tim Pierce
> RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
> system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
> Carefull, 255 = 11111111, 256=00000001
256 = 00000001 00000000
257 = 00000001 00000001
- Mike
Ahmm. Oops. Yes, my 256 should have been a 257.
Dirk
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 05:23:04PM -0800, Mike Holling wrote:
> > Carefull, 255 = 11111111, 256=00000001
>
> 256 = 00000001 00000000
> 257 = 00000001 00000001
>
> - Mike
>
IS THERE A FREE BREAKFAST?
Your Favorite Brands of Cereals, Coffee and Paper Goods DELIVERED
TO YOUR FRONT DOOR FOR $1,00 (incl. S&H). E.g. How about a 12
pack of Northern Quilted Bathroom Tissue delivered to your door
for ONLY $1.00! PLUS, make commissions telling your friends and
co-workers about this fantastic deal!
For details: http://www.mustgohere.com/likecoolman
<a href="http://www.mustgohere.com/likecoolman">Click Here</a>
Reply with remove to be removed.
MediaWeb AnnArbor MI 48103 7346698750
Not a qmail problem but as I'm using qmail on the server I'm hoping for some
help here or a pointer as to where to go ( be nice now... ).
The problem is the imap email client in CE 3.0. It has no provisions that I
could find to flag messages or receipients for email to be text only.
As most mailling lists require postings to be text only it makes it a real
pain when on the road and the only email available is via the HPC (which is
multi-part).
What I was hoping might exist is something I can install on our server that
would accept the email from the client, perhaps a regular email address that
would convert to text only and send it on to the address (mailling list)
configured.
TIA - Heinz
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Heinz Wittenbecher wrote:
[ Stupid windbloze mail client ]
> What I was hoping might exist is something I can install on our server that
> would accept the email from the client, perhaps a regular email address that
> would convert to text only and send it on to the address (mailling list)
> configured.
Well, what exactly does this clunker mail out? text/html? Set up a shell
script thingy that run it through lynx.
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Heinz Wittenbecher wrote:
>
>[ Stupid windbloze mail client ]
I agree.
>
>> What I was hoping might exist is something I can install on our server
that
>> would accept the email from the client, perhaps a regular email address
that
>> would convert to text only and send it on to the address (mailling list)
>> configured.
>
>Well, what exactly does this clunker mail out? text/html? Set up a shell
>script thingy that run it through lynx.
>
here's what it sends:
<other headers snipped>
Subject: Test after log in place
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_unique-boundary-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
------=_unique-boundary-2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
to see if goes into the log
------=_unique-boundary-2--
I was (am) hoping that something already exists to turn it into plain text.
Forgot to mention in last post, I'm running on RH 5.2 so a roll your own is
feasable but I'm not great at shell scripts yet.
TIA - Heinz
Sorry,a very stupid question. I want my qmail recieve all letter like
*.nowhere.com(any sub-domain of nowhere.com),
it is very simple to setup dns server,but when I setup qmail.....
How can I do?
Thanks.
Reai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Sorry,a very stupid question. I want my qmail recieve all letter
> like *.nowhere.com(any sub-domain of nowhere.com), it is very
> simple to setup dns server,but when I setup qmail..... How can I
> do?
echo '.soim.com' >>/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
echo '.soim.com:alias-soim' >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
# presuming that you're running qmail under the control of supervise:
svc -h /var/run/qmail
# otherwise, stop and restart qmail.
echo '|forward $DEFAULT' >~alias/.qmail-soim-default
--
-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.
