qmail Digest 22 Feb 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 559
Topics (messages 22263 through 22270):
Still subscribed?
22263 by: Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22264 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22265 by: Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22266 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help ASAP: queued message, disk full, general chaos
22267 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Howto... disabled user, receiving mail
22268 by: Allen Versfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
vacation (again!)
22269 by: "Peter Samuel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
need some spam/relay help
22270 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum)
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm.
I got a bounce message, and my feed of the list seems to have dried
up...
Am I still on it?
R.
--
Two rules to success in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
-- Sassan Tat
Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I got a bounce message, and my feed of the list seems to have dried
| up...
|
| Am I still on it?
Hang on, I'll fly the Taelon shuttle to Chicago and check. Anyone know
Dan's office number and password?
Scott Schwartz wrote:
>
> Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I got a bounce message, and my feed of the list seems to have dried
> | up...
> |
> | Am I still on it?
>
> Hang on, I'll fly the Taelon shuttle to Chicago and check. Anyone know
> Dan's office number and password?
<g> I guess that means "yes" !
R.
--
Two rules to success in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
-- Sassan Tat
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:45:10 +0000, Robin Bowes wrote:
><g> I guess that means "yes" !
A "quieter" way to find out is to mail [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and reply to the confirmation request. The was_already/new_subscriber
messages are slightly different and since I assume you want to be on te
list anyway ...
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Chris Hardie writes:
> Howdy; please help ASAP: We're running Qmail on FreeBSD 2.2.8. Someone
> sent a 17 MB message to one of our users. /var, where qmail is located,
> is only a 30 MB partition, and with that message sitting in the queue,
> only has about 3 MB left on it.
>
> In the maillog, the message
>
> deferral: Unable_to_forward_message :_qq_write_error_or_disk_full_(#4.3.0)./
>
> appears repeatedly. There's plenty of space on the user's partition and
> their quota will allow for the message just fine. It appears that qmail
> somehow needs to re-write the message somewhere in it's own hierarchy on
> the same partition before it can forward it on.
Looks to me like the user has a .qmail file which says
'&somebodyelse', because qmail-local is trying to re-queue the message
for another delivery, and failing.
> I tried reducing the queue lifetime so the message would bounce, but qmail
> can't bounce it either, the same messages of "file system full" keep
> appearing.
Well yes, that wouldn't work either, because it can't inject the
bounce.
> I tried (much to your dismay) to move the queue directory to another
> partition, and got an error message at startup about "cannot start: unable
> to open mutex" so I didn't pursue that any further (can anyone say what
> "mutex" is?)
Yes, qmail tries to open a file mutually exclusively, as a lock.
> So, I'd *really* like to know:
> 1) In the short term, is there a way to deliver or bounce this message
> without just deleting the queue file manually?
Deliver yes, but not forward.
> 2) In general, did this problem arise because we improperly installed
> qmail to a small partition, or is there something about qmail that should
> be better in handling large messages (i.e. file system full problems)
> that it can't really handle?
Well, it's handling it as best it can, given the lack of space.
> 3) If it's a disk space issue, is there a way to have the queue
> directory somewhere else or do we need to move the whole ball of wax?
You can put /var/qmail/queue on a different filesystem.
> 4) Is there a way to restrict incoming/outgoing message size?
Incoming is easy: stuff the size into a decimal number stored in
control/databytes. That will tell qmail-smtpd to refuse mail that
large. Outgoing is a little tougher if you have user accounts.
--
-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.
Well, First thing that comes to mind is to disable their account by
simply changing their password. This way, the account remains active,
but no-one can get in. Then, use the vacation software (as discussed
previously on the list) to send the relevant message.
If they want to reconnect, ask them for their password ("For your
security, mam"). They don't need to know that you never knew their
password...
Of course, there are probably better ways to do this, but I will leave
those to the guru's.
Igor Loncarevic wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have installed on all of my servers qmail, and I was wondering
> how to acomlishe this situations:
>
> I want to disable user account (user is not permitted to login),
> but I want from qmail to recognize this situation, and receive message
>
> for user and automaticly send mail to sender with note that this user
> is currently
> disabled, etc. etc.
>
> Also, sendmail, smail and qmail doesn't have feature like this:
> if user doesn't exist don't even think to receive messages,
> current behaivoure is: receive message, try-to-deliver, if there's no
> mailbox or user, send apropriate message to sender. I want from qmail
> little more inteligence here, to check before reeceiveing whole
> message does
> user/mailbox exist, if not, dont even receive message, just take from
> sender field
> from heder and send apropriet message...
>
> tia,
> i
>
>
> --
> Igor Loncarevic
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Allen Versfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wandata
"I hate quotations" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
> We had the "other" vacation working under IRIX 5.3 but since we have moved
> to 6.5 it doesn't work. Our qmail config is the same, so I can't really
> say why it doesn't work. I have read both the IRIX (sendmail) vacation and
> the Peter Samuel vacation manuals, but can't make the old one work again.
>
> We have a sendmail wrapper that does this:
>
> ella 1# more /usr/lib/sendmail
> #!/bin/sh
> cat | /var/qmail/bin/predate /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
>
> ...and as stated (below) we were using preline like this:
>
> |preline vacation YourLogin
>
> Peter's vacation works great, but I am instructed to fix the "other"
> vacation (if possible)...any help would be appreciated :)
1) define "won't work" in the case of the sendmail style vacation. If
it's a case of vacation generating a reply for every message but mail
NOT being delivered to user's mailboxes (or subsequent .qmail
instructions failing) and your qmail log showing loads of
deferral: preline:_fatal:_unable_to_copy_input:_broken_pipe/
then the problem cannot be fixed with that version of vacation. I've
said this before but I'll say it again
If you use qmail's preline utility, remember that preline expects
to pipe the _entire_ mail message through the specified program.
If the specified program closes standard input before preline has
finished, preline will exit with a transient failure and you'll see
the following error in your logs:
deferral: preline:_fatal:_unable_to_copy_input:_broken_pipe/
THIS is the reason I wrote (modified) the qmail-vacation package.
Vacation programs written for sendmail style MTAs, close STDIN after
reading the headers. If the size of the message is bigger than your I/O
buffer then preline will bitch with the message above. vacation
programs written for sendmail style MTAs need a UUCP style "From "
header (not to be confused with an RFC822 "From:" header, note the
space vs colon). preline provides the necessary "From " header but it
demands that the downstream process swallow everything it has to
give.
If "won't work" is something else, then please let us know so we can
work on a solution.
2) Unless you have the source to the "other" vacation package, how are
you going to "fix" it. You have the source for preline, but changing
that will break programs that do the right thing. You could modify
preline and call it something else and remember to only use it for
sendmail style vacation like programs, but that's getting really
messy.
Use my perl program, or write your own in C if you don't want to use
perl, or use the experimental perl compiler that ships with
perl-5.005_02.
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Consultant or at present:
Uniq Professional Services, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a division of X-Direct Pty Ltd
Phone: +61 2 9206 3410 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't recommend that anyone run an open relay and I'll continue to tell
>people not to and to refer them to FAQ 5.4, but I'm becoming increasingly
>sympathetic to people who think they need to. Whether the problem can be fixed
>without some kind of username/password authentication in SMTP I don't know, but
>I think it's something worth talking about.
POP before SMTP ?
--
#include <std_disclaim.h> Lorens Kockum
