qmail Digest 8 Mar 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 573
Topics (messages 22736 through 22753):
(OT) Need queue-fix...
22736 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virus Scan within qmail
22737 by: Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oops, you were sent a virus
22738 by: Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22739 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22741 by: Michael Bracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
huge problem using qmail-local/lspawn
22740 by: Sameer Vijay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22742 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22749 by: Sameer Vijay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unable to checkpassword Solution
22743 by: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
question about procmail
22744 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22745 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22746 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22747 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Getting Qmail to reject unknown MAIL FROM addresses...
22748 by: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22750 by: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22751 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22753 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail + procmail again
22752 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I'm sorry to bring this to the list, but...
|
| I need queue-fix from www.qmail.org but the domain netmeridian.com
| where the package is located vanished from DNS... Does anybody has a
| copy? Can you send it to me?
Don't use queue-fix. It has a bug that can lose mail for you. I have
alerted the author about the bug, and hopefully he will fix it. But
in the mean time, I cannot recommend the program.
If your problem is due to a restore or moving your queue to a new file
system, one solution is to have messages from your old queue in
/var/qmail/queue.old, a brand new empty queue in /var/qmail/queue, and
run the following script (which requires GNU find):
#!/bin/sh -x
cd /var/qmail || exit 1
find queue.old/mess -type f -printf '%f %i\n' |
awk '{print $1, $1%23, $2, $2%23}' |
while read oldi oldd newi newd; do
mv queue.old/mess/$oldd/$oldi queue/mess/$newd/$newi
mv queue.old/info/$oldd/$oldi queue/info/$newd/$newi
test -f queue.old/local/$oldd/$oldi &&
mv queue.old/local/$oldd/$oldi queue/local/$newd/$newi
test -f queue.old/remote/$oldd/$oldi &&
mv queue.old/remote/$oldd/$oldi queue/remote/$newd/$newi
test -f queue.old/bounce/$oldi &&
mv queue.old/bounce/$oldi queue/bounce/$newi
test -f queue.old/todo/$oldi &&
mv queue.old/todo/$oldi queue/todo/$newi
done
Hi,
don't know if this is a better solution, but this is a different solution. It
needs a little tweaking to work with qmail, and (as far as I made it work)
scans only incoming mails based on the users .qmail-file. I can send you our
version if you are interested.
See http://satan.oih.rwth-aachen.de/AMaViS/ for details.
Greetings, Sascha
On 06 Mar 1999 09:23:39 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The Star Scanning System discovered a virus in a message sent to you.
> ------------------------------------
Does anybody know what kind of anti-virus-system is running on their
qmail-server?
Looks very interesting..
Greetings, Sascha
From: Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> The Star Scanning System discovered a virus in a message sent to you.
:> ------------------------------------
:
:Does anybody know what kind of anti-virus-system is running on their
:qmail-server?
:
:Looks very interesting..
:
:Greetings, Sascha
This is just a wild guess, but I'm going to say he's running the Star Scanning
System.
--Adam
hi,
At 21:02 07.03.99 , Sascha Ottolski wrote:
>Does anybody know what kind of anti-virus-system is running on their
>qmail-server?
>
>Looks very interesting..
look for instance to McAffee. There should be a program which is the
program a user/server connects to. After scanning the eMail this scanner
gives the message to the smtpd. I don't really know but heared about the
system.
bye,
Michael
Dear Fellows,
Hello!
Our server had been running qmail-1.02 for quite sometime. Recently, there
were few problems encountered. I have no idea whether sysad had any
hand in it or not.
Problem 1. The remote mails were delievered instantly but the local
mails were not at all delivered. as a result we could not get any
mails. The logs showed upto 1400 local message nos. and the status
line read
status: local 10/10 remote 0/20(or 5/20)
till the sysad forced qmail to deliever the local messages.
There were once so many mails and the logs were really mounting up so
mush so that /var became full. the sysad then removed the log files
manually.
Problem 2. After a reboot the problem really grew. qmail just couldnt
restart. the system logs was full of similar mesg.
alert: unable to open(/read) todo/<some no.s> or
alert: unable to open(/read) mess/<some.nos> or
alert: unable to opendir todo, sleeping...
All this time the logfile was increasing by Mb' severy minute and
within few minutes the /var was full again. and since then its not
been working at all.
A similar installation of qmail exists on another server which we are
using at present.
Any insight into the above problems would be helpful.
Thanks and regards,
--
Sameer Vijay - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Research Engineer)
Dept. of Chemical Engg, IIT Bombay, Mumbai 400076 INDIA.
Fax: +91-22-5796895 (dept), +91-22-5783480 (IITB)
At 06:24 PM 3/7/99 +0530, Sameer Vijay wrote:
>
>Dear Fellows,
>Hello!
>
>Our server had been running qmail-1.02 for quite sometime. Recently, there
>were few problems encountered. I have no idea whether sysad had any
>hand in it or not.
>
>Problem 1. The remote mails were delievered instantly but the local
>mails were not at all delivered. as a result we could not get any
>mails. The logs showed upto 1400 local message nos. and the status
>line read
>
>status: local 10/10 remote 0/20(or 5/20)
>till the sysad forced qmail to deliever the local messages.
Why not show is some log messages associated with the local delivery
attempts. We cannot guess what those entries are.
>There were once so many mails and the logs were really mounting up so
>mush so that /var became full. the sysad then removed the log files
>manually.
>
>Problem 2. After a reboot the problem really grew. qmail just couldnt
>restart. the system logs was full of similar mesg.
>
>alert: unable to open(/read) todo/<some no.s> or
>alert: unable to open(/read) mess/<some.nos> or
>alert: unable to opendir todo, sleeping...
Please don't sanitize log entries if you want a response. As has been said
many times on this list - sanitized log messsages often hide the true nature
of the problem.
If confidentiality is an issue such that you cannot disclose the log files
to the list, you may want to contract one of the commercial support people
listed on www.qmail.org
Regards.
Quoting previous mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
Sent on Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 08:33:07AM +1100 :
> At 06:24 PM 3/7/99 +0530, Sameer Vijay wrote:
> >Our server had been running qmail-1.02 for quite sometime. Recently, there
> >were few problems encountered. I have no idea whether sysad had any
> >hand in it or not.
> >
> >Problem 1. The remote mails were delievered instantly but the local
> >mails were not at all delivered. as a result we could not get any
> >mails. The logs showed upto 1400 local message nos. and the status
> >line read
> >
> >status: local 10/10 remote 0/20(or 5/20)
> >till the sysad forced qmail to deliever the local messages.
>
> Why not show is some log messages associated with the local delivery
> attempts. We cannot guess what those entries are.
The logs have been deleted. So I am sorry that I cant help much with
that. But the gist is...
o There were absolutely no local deliveries, only queueing up of mails
for local deliveries. The line that I have mentioned came in the
logs when a remote delivery was attempted (which was working fine)
o As there were no local deliveries, there were no lines saying
starting delivery xxx : mesg xxxx to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o the machine handles mail for about 2000 users. on a Sun machine with
SunOS 5.6.
Do the numbers (eg.920799649.721670) which come in the log after
'hostname qmail:' hold any significance? If yes, please tell how to
extract info from them and what do they mean?
> >There were once so many mails and the logs were really mounting up so
> >mush so that /var became full. the sysad then removed the log files
> >manually.
> >
> >Problem 2. After a reboot the problem really grew. qmail just couldnt
> >restart. the system logs was full of similar mesg.
> >
> >alert: unable to open(/read) todo/<some no.s> or
> >alert: unable to open(/read) mess/<some.nos> or
> >alert: unable to opendir todo, sleeping...
>
> Please don't sanitize log entries if you want a response. As has been said
> many times on this list - sanitized log messsages often hide the true nature
> of the problem.
In this case, the log file was completely full of such messages. the
no.s etc correspond to the queued mails ( I guess)
I can also add the log from another machine, which attempted to
deliver mail to the above machine (144.16.106.8)
Mar 7 15:10:48 calvin qmail: 920799648.346757 starting delivery 138: msg 241 to
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 15:10:48 calvin qmail: 920799648.346901 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
Mar 7 15:10:49 calvin qmail: 920799649.721365 delivery 138: deferral:
144.16.106.8_failed_after_I_sent_the_message./Remote_host_said:_451_qq_trouble_creating_files_in_queue_(#4.3.0)/
Mar 7 15:10:49 calvin qmail: 920799649.721670 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Mar 7 15:17:29 calvin qmail: 920800049.730218 starting delivery 139: msg 241 to
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 15:17:29 calvin qmail: 920800049.730522 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Mar 7 15:17:29 calvin qmail: 920800049.931927 delivery 139: deferral:
144.16.106.8_failed_after_I_sent_the_message./Remote_host_said:_451_qq_trouble_creating_files_in_queue_(#4.3.0)/
Mar 7 15:17:29 calvin qmail: 920800049.932206 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Mar 7 15:37:29 calvin qmail: 920801249.950207 starting delivery 140: msg 241 to
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 7 15:37:29 calvin qmail: 920801249.950532 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Mar 7 15:37:30 calvin qmail: 920801250.154062 delivery 140: deferral:
144.16.106.8_failed_after_I_sent_the_message./Remote_host_said:_451_qq_trouble_creating_files_in_queue_(#4.3.0)/
Mar 7 15:37:30 calvin qmail: 920801250.154324 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
As can be seen from these logs, the recipient machine has having
problem creating files in queue, which along with the fact that qmail
on that machine was unable to open dir(s) mess or todo, suggest that
something is amiss.
Hope that helps.
--
Sameer Vijay - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Research Engineer)
Dept. of Chemical Engg, IIT Bombay, Mumbai 400076 INDIA.
Fax: +91-22-5796895 (dept), +91-22-5783480 (IITB)
Once again I have found the solution in re-installing RedHat and qmail
This time there was no problems at all
Redhat installed normally
Qmail installed normally
ezmlm installed normally
Thanks particularly to Mate for his help
After installing ezmlm, is it good/wise to upgrade to
ezmlm.edx
Kind regards
Kevin
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:have a look at the vckkpwd and chkpoppwd packages on qmail.
:
:i would not vote for procmail on a 10000+ system because the
:produced load would be way too high.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
:better produce these hashes via .qmail-files which is much quicker.
Can anyone provide an example of how to do this?
Put the .qmail files in ~alias? With /var/mail/u/username as the file to
deliver to?
Also, wouldn't this require making the /var/mail heirarchy world-writeable?
As a secondary question, what would be involved in making binmail deliver to a
hashed spool? Does anyone know where I can get binmail source?
--Adam
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> :have a look at the vckkpwd and chkpoppwd packages on qmail.
> :
> :i would not vote for procmail on a 10000+ system because the
> :produced load would be way too high.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
Well, procmail does have an unfortunate tendency to load every message
into memory, including something with a 5 megabyte attachment.
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Well, procmail does have an unfortunate tendency to load every message
:into memory, including something with a 5 megabyte attachment.
OK, so I guess the real question is whether moving to a hashed mail spool on a
12000 user box will make more of a speed difference than using procmail as the
MDA.
--Adam
Err.. that was worded wrong.. What I meant to say was that the real question
is whether using a hashed mail spool will make a big enough difference that
procmail will be worth using.
:OK, so I guess the real question is whether moving to a hashed mail spool on
a
:12000 user box will make more of a speed difference than using procmail as
the
:MDA.
:
:--Adam
:
:
:
:
I know there's a bunch of patches out the to make Qmail do this, but I was
wondering if anyone had done it in a similar fashion to rblsmtpd - i.e. it
would do the check and then pass the connection onto the next part of the
chain - rblsmtpd, qmail-smtpd, whatever.
[I'm trying to do things by the "DJB-book" - so don't want any patches ;-)]
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Jason Haar wrote:
> I know there's a bunch of patches out the to make Qmail do this, but I was
> wondering if anyone had done it in a similar fashion to rblsmtpd - i.e. it
> would do the check and then pass the connection onto the next part of the
> chain - rblsmtpd, qmail-smtpd, whatever.
I am sorry if I am missing something here, but are you wishing to setup
badmailfrom, thus denying acces to certrain domains??
Kevin
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jason Haar wrote:
> I know there's a bunch of patches out the to make Qmail do this, but I was
> wondering if anyone had done it in a similar fashion to rblsmtpd - i.e. it
> would do the check and then pass the connection onto the next part of the
> chain - rblsmtpd, qmail-smtpd, whatever.
How would you propose going about writing clairvoyant code which would
know in advance that the client on the other side of a new SMTP connection
will do a MAIL FROM: with an unresolvable address at some point in the
future?
--
Sam
- "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jason Haar wrote:
|
| > I know there's a bunch of patches out the to make Qmail do this, but I was
| > wondering if anyone had done it in a similar fashion to rblsmtpd - i.e. it
| > would do the check and then pass the connection onto the next part of the
| > chain - rblsmtpd, qmail-smtpd, whatever.
|
| How would you propose going about writing clairvoyant code which would
| know in advance that the client on the other side of a new SMTP connection
| will do a MAIL FROM: with an unresolvable address at some point in the
| future?
Clearly, you can't. But what you could do is to have a program
sitting between the TCP socket and qmail-smtpd. Normally, it would
just pass every incoming command to qmail-smtpd, but it would check
any MAIL command first. If it's bad, it will take over and reject
every RCPT or DATA command until a RSET or new MAIL command appears.
I am not saying this is a good idea, only that it could be done.
Since the front end has to parse the entire SMTP protocol in order to
avoid responding to data in the body of a message, it would be a lot
easier to simply run a patched qmail-smtpd.
Avoiding patches is a valid goal, but not at any price.
- Harald
I noticed in my testing that if a user does not have a home directory, and you
are using procmail to deliver to /var/mail/username, then qmail will return
that the user doesn't exist. Is there a way around this? I want qmail to
deliver to /var/mail/username as long as the user has an entry in /etc/passwd.
(and not necessarily a home directory.)
--Adam
---
bash: syntax error near unexpected token `:)'
Adam D. McKenna
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
