qmail Digest 5 Mar 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 570
Topics (messages 22663 through 22699):
500.000+ users mailserver
22663 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22670 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22693 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22694 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22695 by: Joe Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-pop3d & mailbox (i know :(()
22664 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22666 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Redirecting single address to smarthost
22665 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mirko Zeibig)
beOS
22667 by: Uwe Ohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
strange new problem w/ qmail 1.03
22668 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Advice on another mailling list
22669 by: Lara Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
checkpassword interface
22671 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
usernames with dashes
22672 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22675 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22677 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22681 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22682 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22683 by: Bart Blanquart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22685 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22686 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22690 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22691 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22692 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Restored Mail Server after HD Crash, Now Running Very Slow
22673 by: Jeff Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22674 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22676 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22678 by: Jeff Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
root mail problem
22679 by: Aleksander Rozman - Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22680 by: "Eric Dahnke"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How many messages in the Queue
22684 by: Joel Shellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22688 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
new user woes
22687 by: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
substitute for recipientmap in qmail-1.03
22689 by: "Jeremy D. Hartley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22699 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail, Majordomo oddity
22696 by: Chris Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Fwd: Your SMTP is about to be abused!]
22697 by: Jere Cassidy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
new "attack" scheme
22698 by: Markus Stumpf <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 07:19:06PM +0000, Peter Gradwell wrote:
>> Or is there a 32K+ limit on NIS user ids as well?
> ofcourse there is. NIS is just a way to manage your /etc/passwd
> centrally (no, don't start flaming now :)
There is not a 32K limit on NIS user IDs. We currently have UIDs up to
the 53000s in our NIS maps.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 03:10:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 07:19:06PM +0000, Peter Gradwell wrote:
>
> >> Or is there a 32K+ limit on NIS user ids as well?
>
> > ofcourse there is. NIS is just a way to manage your /etc/passwd
> > centrally (no, don't start flaming now :)
>
> There is not a 32K limit on NIS user IDs. We currently have UIDs up to
> the 53000s in our NIS maps.
You're right.
What I meant to say was: NIS has the same limitations as your OS. If your OS limits
uids at 64K, NIS won't limit you any further, neither will it help you break that
barrier.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk | <mo|VERWEG> stoned worden of coden
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mo|VERWEG> dat is de levensvraag
| <mo|VERWEG> coden of stoned worden
| <mo|VERWEG> stonend worden En coden
| <mo|VERWEG> hmm
| <mo|VERWEG> dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I meant to say was: NIS has the same limitations as your OS. If
> your OS limits uids at 64K, NIS won't limit you any further, neither
> will it help you break that barrier.
Right. If you're running SunOS, you do have to worry about >32K UIDs.
And you still have to worry about >64K UIDs in most operating systems;
support for larger things is pretty spotty.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
At 14:23 4/03/99 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What I meant to say was: NIS has the same limitations as your OS. If
>> your OS limits uids at 64K, NIS won't limit you any further, neither
>> will it help you break that barrier.
>
>Right. If you're running SunOS, you do have to worry about >32K UIDs.
>And you still have to worry about >64K UIDs in most operating systems;
>support for larger things is pretty spotty.
Indeed. Of course if the core OS supports >64K, and qmail does, then on a
dedicated mail system it really doesn't matter if a bunch of external stuff
doesn't work too well as it's hardly, if ever, used.
Regards.
Ok so I am probably going to catch heck for this, but there is an LDAP patch
for qmail. It says it is alpha, but that is BS it works GREAT. Here is our
set up.
1 Master LDAP server
4 Qmail-LDAP servers with LDAP slave servers on each
1 Netapp as the mail store
Of course we don't have 500,000 users but this should be NO PROBLEM at all for
this system, and if it is, just add more Qmail servers or Netapps where they
are needed.
Joe
Mark Delany wrote:
> At 14:23 4/03/99 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> What I meant to say was: NIS has the same limitations as your OS. If
> >> your OS limits uids at 64K, NIS won't limit you any further, neither
> >> will it help you break that barrier.
> >
> >Right. If you're running SunOS, you do have to worry about >32K UIDs.
> >And you still have to worry about >64K UIDs in most operating systems;
> >support for larger things is pretty spotty.
>
> Indeed. Of course if the core OS supports >64K, and qmail does, then on a
> dedicated mail system it really doesn't matter if a bunch of external stuff
> doesn't work too well as it's hardly, if ever, used.
>
> Regards.
I've got an experimental pop3 server that works via
qmail-popup/checkpassword on a mailbox in the users home directory.
It writes in-situ and relies only qmail-local delivering (for locking
purposes).
But I think the chances of releasing it are a bit low as the cost/benefit
isn't there as most people retain mailbox because they have a UA such as
elm/pine that works on it.
Regards.
At 12:52 PM 3/4/99 +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Marko Mlakar wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I was wondering if there is a patch for qmail-pop3d to work with
>> mailbox. I need the users/assign and I can not use maildir due to
>> some compatibility problems. If there isnt such patch, i'll probably
>> write and patch the in.pop3d myself, but i wanted to make sure that
>> the patch hasn't been written already.
>
>There is no known patch for qmail-pop3d to work with the mbox format, and
>there probably won't be, because there are already many POP servers that
>support mbox.
>
>--
>See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
>
>
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Marko Mlakar wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I was wondering if there is a patch for qmail-pop3d to work with mailbox. I
> need the users/assign and I can not use maildir due to some compatibility
> problems. If there isnt such patch, i'll probably write and patch the
> in.pop3d myself, but i wanted to make sure that the patch hasn't been written
> already.
Using users/assign doesn't imply using maildir. You can use users/assign with
mailbox delivery.
Chris
Hello,
I am connected to the internet by ISDN. Now I have a small mail-distribution
problem. All mail from or to MX picard.inka.de is going first to my ISPs
mail-server, now he offered the possibility to distribute single addresses
to other accounts/scripts etc.
I have set up [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be immediately delivered to a bunch of
mail addresses when coming to my ISP's server. Now from my home I want to
use this distribution mechanism as well. So mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
should always be delivered to the ISP server, where it will be distributed.
Is there a way to do this using virtualdomains o. sth.?
Thanx for your answers
Mirko
[mirko@picard mirko]$ cat /etc/qmail/control/locals
picard.inka.de
borg.picard.inka.de
localhost
[mirko@picard mirko]$ cat /etc/qmail/control/me
picard.inka.de
[mirko@picard mirko]$ cat /etc/qmail/control/smtproutes
:mail.inka.de
klingon.picard.inka.de:klingon.picard.inka.de
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] myhome_aka_~:http://sites.inka.de/picard
RedHat=~/rh52_isdn.html teles16.3c=~/teles163c/teles163c_contents.html
XL97-Classes ~/vba-classes/
be aware of culture www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~etcetera
> Anyone tried compiling qmail on BeOS? It's supposed to be POSIX compliant...
write() to a socket fails on BeOS (and i think
POSIX-level-whatever-BeOS-supports doesn't include sockets), as they
decided to use the stupid DOSish "write to a file and sendto a socket"
view of the world.
I suppose one can get around that by giving substdio special read/write
functions, but i don't have the slightest idea what other nightmares are
around.
Regards, Uwe
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 11:12:18AM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - Thomas Herbst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | I have a sparc 1 acting as the mailserver for my wife's business.
> | It is running Sunos 4.1.3.
> |
> | Now doing the "insert"ing a mail message works, but when I
> | try to test by telnet'ing to port 25 when I get to the
> | part that you type "data" the server closes the connection.
> | test mail messages are getting "read errors".
>
> Try letting tcpserver (or do you use inetd?) run the following little
> shell script instead of qmail-smtpd:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> exec trace -o /var/tmp/smtpd.trace.$$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> and then look for clues in the resulting trace output.
Apparently, he simply switched off the machine for reboot.
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Hi all,
Could someone please point me to a mailling list on attachments.
Much appreciated
lara
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lara Marques mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
InfoLine cellular: 082 656 4665
http://www.infoline.web.za work: 011 402 4116
http://www.mighty.co.za fax: 011 402 4118
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I'm writing a checkpassword replacement (for my own use, but I might release it if it
gets really good :). I have one problem though. I want qmail-popup to be a little
more verbose than '-ERR authorization failed'. How should I go about this?
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk | <mo|VERWEG> stoned worden of coden
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mo|VERWEG> dat is de levensvraag
| <mo|VERWEG> coden of stoned worden
| <mo|VERWEG> stonend worden En coden
| <mo|VERWEG> hmm
| <mo|VERWEG> dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
Hello,
Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
escape character than -
cheers - eric
Hello,
Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
escape character than -
cheers - eric
Not true. But: you should not have both
eric-van-der-laan
and
eric. Indeed, then eric might try to set up an alias
~eric/.qmail-van-der-laan
Mate
- Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Not true. But: you should not have both
|
| eric-van-der-laan
|
| and
|
| eric. Indeed, then eric might try to set up an alias
|
| ~eric/.qmail-van-der-laan
He might try, but it won't let him snatch eric-van-der-laan's mail.
Look at the code in qmail-getpw: It will first look up user
eric-van-der-laan, and then, if that fails, it will successively try
eric-van-der, eric-van, and eric.
- Harald
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
> contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
> escape character than -
unless you're using the users/assign method for qmail to look up users,
which you probably should.
> cheers - eric
>
>
--
"Life is much too important to be taken seriously."
Thomas Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (613) 998-2836
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
|
| > Hello,
| >
| > Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
| > contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
| > escape character than -
|
| unless you're using the users/assign method for qmail to look up
| users, which you probably should.
Have you tested this? I haven't, but my reading of the code says
qmail-getpw will deal with usernames with dashes in them just fine.
(See my earlier message on this topic.)
- Harald
Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> | > Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
> | > contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
> | > escape character than -
> |
> | unless you're using the users/assign method for qmail to look up
> | users, which you probably should.
>
> Have you tested this? I haven't, but my reading of the code says
> qmail-getpw will deal with usernames with dashes in them just fine.
> (See my earlier message on this topic.)
It is possible to have users with dashes in their names. I've got a bunch of those,
and all works well (no user-spoofing like the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" vs.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] with .qmail-something" mentioned before seems to be possible)
bt
--
Bart Blanquart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel (02)50 51 916 fax (02)50 51 930
Creationism: Listening to reason with fingers in ears.
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 06:11:24PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | Not true. But: you should not have both
> |
> | eric-van-der-laan
> |
> | and
> |
> | eric. Indeed, then eric might try to set up an alias
> |
> | ~eric/.qmail-van-der-laan
>
> He might try, but it won't let him snatch eric-van-der-laan's mail.
> Look at the code in qmail-getpw: It will first look up user
> eric-van-der-laan, and then, if that fails, it will successively try
> eric-van-der, eric-van, and eric.
Sure. The point is that, eric's alias does not work---and that is not
acceptable.
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Bart Blanquart wrote:
> Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
>
> > | > Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
> > | > contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
> > | > escape character than -
> > |
> > | unless you're using the users/assign method for qmail to look up
> > | users, which you probably should.
Well, actually, I wrote the two lines above, not Harald. And I was
completely wrong, except that you should use users/assign. ;-)
> > Have you tested this? I haven't, but my reading of the code says
> > qmail-getpw will deal with usernames with dashes in them just fine.
> > (See my earlier message on this topic.)
>
>
> It is possible to have users with dashes in their names. I've got a bunch of those,
>and all works well (no user-spoofing like the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" vs.
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED] with .qmail-something" mentioned before seems to be possible)
>
> bt
> --
> Bart Blanquart
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel (02)50 51 916 fax (02)50 51 930
> Creationism: Listening to reason with fingers in ears.
>
--
"Life is much too important to be taken seriously."
Thomas Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (613) 998-2836
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 07:36:42PM +0100, Bart Blanquart wrote:
> Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
>
> > | > Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
> > | > contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
> > | > escape character than -
> > |
> > | unless you're using the users/assign method for qmail to look up
> > | users, which you probably should.
> >
> > Have you tested this? I haven't, but my reading of the code says
> > qmail-getpw will deal with usernames with dashes in them just fine.
> > (See my earlier message on this topic.)
>
>
> It is possible to have users with dashes in their names. I've got a bunch of those,
>and all works well (no user-spoofing like the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" vs.
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED] with .qmail-something" mentioned before seems to be possible)
I did not say spoofing. The problem is that if both
eric-shogun
eric
exists on the system, eric might try to set up a mailinglist in
~eric/.qmail-shogun
but whenever he sends a message to the list, the message would end up in
~eric-shogun/Mailbox.
Mate
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 02:33:32PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 07:36:42PM +0100, Bart Blanquart wrote:
> > Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > | > Is it true that the only way to deliver messages to usernames that
> > > | > contain dashes is to recompile qmail telling it to use a different
> > > | > escape character than -
> > > |
> > > | unless you're using the users/assign method for qmail to look up
> > > | users, which you probably should.
> > >
> > > Have you tested this? I haven't, but my reading of the code says
> > > qmail-getpw will deal with usernames with dashes in them just fine.
> > > (See my earlier message on this topic.)
> >
> >
> > It is possible to have users with dashes in their names. I've got a bunch of
>those, and all works well (no user-spoofing like the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" vs.
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED] with .qmail-something" mentioned before seems to be possible)
>
> I did not say spoofing. The problem is that if both
> eric-shogun
> eric
> exists on the system, eric might try to set up a mailinglist in
> ~eric/.qmail-shogun
> but whenever he sends a message to the list, the message would end up in
> ~eric-shogun/Mailbox.
I agree that that is a problem. But I don't see any easy solutions, apart from
prohibiting dashes in usernames. Do you?
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk | <mo|VERWEG> stoned worden of coden
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mo|VERWEG> dat is de levensvraag
| <mo|VERWEG> coden of stoned worden
| <mo|VERWEG> stonend worden En coden
| <mo|VERWEG> hmm
| <mo|VERWEG> dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > > It is possible to have users with dashes in their names. I've got a bunch of
>those, and all works well (no user-spoofing like the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" vs.
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED] with .qmail-something" mentioned before seems to be possible)
> >
> > I did not say spoofing. The problem is that if both
> > eric-shogun
> > eric
> > exists on the system, eric might try to set up a mailinglist in
> > ~eric/.qmail-shogun
> > but whenever he sends a message to the list, the message would end up in
> > ~eric-shogun/Mailbox.
>
> I agree that that is a problem. But I don't see any easy solutions, apart from
> prohibiting dashes in usernames. Do you?
Well, the qmail separator is compile time configurable, and I think many
people use `+'. I think Harald said, though, that care has to be used when
using qmail-users.
Mate
qmail has slowed to processing local mail in 10-20 minutes since I
restored the backup files to a new drive (after the old one crashed).
The restore seemed to go along okay, and everything else on the system
seems to be working as it was.
I've tried sending local mail normally and tried "echo to: jhill |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" with similar results.
I'm running tcpserver, but I'm not certain how that could slow down
delivery. I should be more familiar with qmail, but I've never had
reason to: it has run flawlessly and very fast since I installed it
about eight months ago.
I've searched the FAQ and the mail archive with few hints except that I
should work on tracing the problem (which I'm trying to do).
Unfortunately, I'm under a bit of pressure to resolve this problem
quickly. Any suggestions appreciated.
Running Debian Linux 2.0.33 on a P133, 98MB RAM
Sincerely,
Jeff Hill
--
********* HR On-Line: The Network for Workplace Issues ********
** Ph:416-604-7251 -- Fax:416-604-4708 ** http://www.hronline.com **
Jeff Hill writes:
> qmail has slowed to processing local mail in 10-20 minutes since I
> restored the backup files to a new drive (after the old one crashed).
Dollars to doughnuts /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger no longer looks like this:
prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 4 11:40 trigger
You can re-make it as a named pipe by hand (mkfifo) or stop qmail, run
``make setup'' in your qmail source directory, and restart it.
--
-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.
qmail has slowed to processing local mail in 10-20 minutes since I
restored the backup files to a new drive (after the old one crashed).
The restore seemed to go along okay, and everything else on the system
seems to be working as it was.
I've tried sending local mail normally and tried "echo to: jhill |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" with similar results.
I'm running tcpserver, but I'm not certain how that could slow down
delivery. I should be more familiar with qmail, but I've never had
reason to: it has run flawlessly and very fast since I installed it
about eight months ago.
I've searched the FAQ and the mail archive with few hints except that I
should work on tracing the problem (which I'm trying to do).
Unfortunately, I'm under a bit of pressure to resolve this problem
quickly. Any suggestions appreciated.
You probably messed up thr trigger file. Compare yours with
# l /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger
prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 4 10:59 /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger|
If the problem is not this, run
make check
from the top qmail src dir. If your system is RH Linux, and you used
my rpm, you can also do
/var/qmail/bin/instcheck
But, as the FAQ warns, there is no way to backup a nonempty queue.
Mate
Thank you (and Mate). The trigger file was messed up. I checked every
file under /var/qmail and knew that permissions were critical but just
didn't catch it. Mine read:
prw------- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 4 12:15 trigger
Thank you again. I could have sat here for days without seeing it.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hill
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Jeff Hill writes:
> > qmail has slowed to processing local mail in 10-20 minutes since I
> > restored the backup files to a new drive (after the old one crashed).
>
> Dollars to doughnuts /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger no longer looks like this:
> prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 4 11:40 trigger
>
> You can re-make it as a named pipe by hand (mkfifo) or stop qmail, run
> ``make setup'' in your qmail source directory, and restart it.
>
> --
> -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.
--
********* HR On-Line: The Network for Workplace Issues ********
** Ph:416-604-7251 -- Fax:416-604-4708 ** http://www.hronline.com **
Hi !
Since I reinstalled (upgraded) FreeBSD to 3.1 I can get mail for root. I
can send mail or get mail at any of addresses, but not as root.
Maillog log shows this error:
Mar 4 18:27:15 atechnet qmail: 920568435.241139 delivery 1052: deferral:
Not_allowed_to_perform_deliveries_as_root./
I had little rpoblems with permissions on several files so if someone shows
me how must I set files, I would be very thankful. Or maybe there is
another problem.
Please help.
Andy
**************************************************************************
* Aleksander Rozman - Andy * Member of: E2:EA, E2F, SAABer, Trekkie, *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * X-Phile, Heller's angel, True's screamer, *
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * True's Trooper, Questie, Legacy, PO5, *
* Maribor, Slovenia (Europe) * Profiler, Buffy (Slayerete), Pretender *
* ICQ-UIC: 4911125 *********************************************
* PGP key available * http://www.atechnet.ml.org/~andy/ *
**************************************************************************
Hello,
qmail won�t deliver to root. make a .qmail-root file in ~alias and within that
file put &user to deliver root�s mail to user.
- cheers eric
>
>Hi !
>
>Since I reinstalled (upgraded) FreeBSD to 3.1 I can get mail for root. I
>can send mail or get mail at any of addresses, but not as root.
>
>Maillog log shows this error:
>
>Mar 4 18:27:15 atechnet qmail: 920568435.241139 delivery 1052: deferral:
>Not_allowed_to_perform_deliveries_as_root./
>
>I had little rpoblems with permissions on several files so if someone shows
>me how must I set files, I would be very thankful. Or maybe there is
>another problem.
>
>Please help.
>Andy
>
>**************************************************************************
>* Aleksander Rozman - Andy * Member of: E2:EA, E2F, SAABer, Trekkie, *
>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * X-Phile, Heller's angel, True's screamer, *
>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * True's Trooper, Questie, Legacy, PO5, *
>* Maribor, Slovenia (Europe) * Profiler, Buffy (Slayerete), Pretender *
>* ICQ-UIC: 4911125 *********************************************
>* PGP key available * http://www.atechnet.ml.org/~andy/ *
>**************************************************************************
>
>
>
Is there a way to tell quickly the total number of messages in the
queue?
Also, I know there is a great number of messages in the queue, but when
I do:
ps ax|grep qmail
all I get is:
280 ? S 0:00 tcpserver -R -H -c20 0 pop-3
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup tao.
5713 p3 S 0:00 grep qmail
32644 ? S 0:16 qmail-lspawn ./Maildir/
32643 ? S 0:36 splogger qmail
32646 ? S 0:07 qmail-clean
32645 ? S 0:09 qmail-rspawn
32640 ? S 1:04 qmail-send
What is qmail doing? It doesn't seem to be working on the queue. I need
it to process the queue as quickly as possible.
Thank you,
Joel Shellman
knOcean Interactive Corporation
http://corp.knOcean.com/
Joel Shellman writes:
> Is there a way to tell quickly the total number of messages in the
> queue?
ln -s /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qstat /usr/local/bin/qs
Then you only have to type two letters, qs, and enter. Is that quick enough?
> What is qmail doing? It doesn't seem to be working on the queue. I need
> it to process the queue as quickly as possible.
Try looking at the log files. That'll tell you a lot more than
looking at the processes.
--
-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.
I have recently upgraded to q-mail 1.03 from Sendmail on my Linux mail
server (in /var/spool/mail/[user] format), and for the most part have been
quite please with the results, until I tried adding new users. All the mail
for users that existed before the upgrade process just great, yet when I add
a new user, I can check for mail alright, but when I try to send to the
address, I get an error:
"delivery 998: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)"
Is this common? Is there something different that I need to do to add new
users in Q-mail?
thanks
-ck
Greetings.
Due to circumstances that would rather not get into, I had to upgrade to
qmail-1.03 last night.
I see that there is no support to recipientmap in this release.
I was using qmail-1.01 and used the recipientmap file for many purposes.
I have been told that recipientmap was not as secure as it could be, which
was why qmail-1.03 doesn't support the use of it anymore.
My question is, wht is the format in the new version, to obtain the same
functionality as recipientmap?
Would fastforward serve this purpose?
My recipientmap looked something like this, two lines of recipientmap
follow:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
100retro.com and 43productions.com are in locals
Thanks.
Jeremy
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 08:22:08PM -0800, Jeremy D. Hartley wrote:
> Greetings.
> Due to circumstances that would rather not get into, I had to upgrade to
> qmail-1.03 last night.
> I see that there is no support to recipientmap in this release.
> I was using qmail-1.01 and used the recipientmap file for many purposes.
> I have been told that recipientmap was not as secure as it could be, which
> was why qmail-1.03 doesn't support the use of it anymore.
The recipientmap functionality is now provided by virtualdomains. Read the
man page on qmail-send for more details. If you still have a problem, asl
away.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Greetings. I'm having a weird problem with qmail and majordomo. The
"Return-Path" header on messages sent to a majordomo list is not being set
properly, and I can't seem to figure out why.
The list is named "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The system user is
"webacct" and so the majordomo forwarding takes place in .qmail files in
that user's home directory, named ".qmail-developer" and
".qmail-developer-owner" and so on. The "owner" alias forwards to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (that's me).
In one post, the following header was present:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In another:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In both cases there was an invalid e-mail address on the list and so when
it tried to bounce, the bounce bounced. I've included a full e-mail
message example below.
My configuration is T-Tom Terrific as far as I can tell, and the majordomo
code doesn't seem to explicitly set that header anywhere that I can find.
I'm assuming it's related to the kludgy way of dealing with having a "-"
in the list name, but can't really point to the exact problem. Any ideas?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 5 Mar 1999 02:10:56 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at summersault.com.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
--- Below this line is the original bounce.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 3620 invoked for bounce); 5 Mar 1999 02:10:56 -0000
Date: 5 Mar 1999 02:10:56 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at summersault.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
209.1.112.253 failed after I sent the message.
Remote host said: 550 System resource error: 104
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 2098 invoked by uid 54); 5 Mar 1999 00:24:14 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 2091 invoked from network); 5 Mar 1999 00:24:12 -0000
Received: from smtp.nz.eyi.com (HELO nzanote6.nz.eyi.com) (210.55.175.219)
by summersault.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 1999 00:24:12 -0000
Received: by nzanote6.nz.eyi.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.2 (600.1 3-26-1998)) id
4C25672B.00073352 ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:18:38 +1200
X-Lotus-FromDomain: EYI-AP
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:18:04 +1200
Subject: Re: What's next with WebAccountant
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
<message text>
Re: Attachment:
I wonder how many qmail users got this one!
We patched qmail-smptd some time ago, and indeed, our server will
immediately reject invalid recipients! This was allowing a user to use
a dictionary and 'steal' usernames. Then I find out from this message
that it is a commercial product!
I would check this guys page for your domains, because 3/6 of the ones I
checked were in there (and we are not a very large ISP).
At the risk of publisizing the program, it is located at
http://www.earthonline.com. Let the flaming commence! There have been
quite a few admins contemplating legal action. Luckily, qmail has stood
up to countless attacks of this type. I guess luck doesn't have much to
do with it.. Thanks again DJB, MrSam, and contributors!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Jere Cassidy - System Administration - D&E SuperNet
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (717)738-7054
web: http://www.desupernet.net/jere
pager/pcs: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (717)203-0042
~~~ "While sowing the seeds of Utopia,
you invoked a convenient amnesia" -BR ~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the intrusion, but I thought you might like to know about a program that has
been abusing mail servers for several months. The program
has DOMAINS hard coded into the program and yours is one of them.
This may or may not effect your SMTP server depending on how your SMTP is setup and
what brand it is etc.
Your domain was extracted from the version 3.3 and in version 3.4 they encrypted the
domains in the program so that they are no longer easily
readable.
For information on the program and what it does to your SMTP server you can point your
browser to http://www.l8r.com/nwa/nwa1.htm.
Again, if your not concerned about people scanning your SMTP server with dictionaries
of username names to generate email list of your users
(for use of UCE and SPAM) then by all means delete this message and ignore it. if your
tired of the oversized log files and the Spam your getting
you may want to take some sort of action.
I am posting this information on my own and any opinion is that of my own.
-paul
P.S. If you recieved a duplicate of this with the message repeating itself in the body
I appoligize as I had a problem witht he mailer that was
sending the email.
While this is slightly offtopic I think it's important (and evil) enough
to post it to this list.
There is an "address collector" program that works with a dictionary
of username appends the domain and uses RCPT TO to collect what it
thinks are valid email addresses.
>From the nature of the program and the design of qmail this may cause
a lot of harm and problems, as - for every scanned domain - it will
IMHO consider every name in its dictionary to be a valid address if
hitting a qmail server.
For now I have blocked
@savings.com
@whynot.com
but with the described new version (see URL below) this surely will not be
sufficient and I currently don't see any way to get around the problem
(at least with a vanilla qmail installation; maybe Sam's UCE patch could
help).
For more detailed information please have a look at
http://www.l8r.com/nwa/nwa1.htm
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | In a world without
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | walls and fences,
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | who needs
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | Windows and Gates?
