qmail Digest 9 Apr 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 605
Topics (messages 24017 through 24070):
control/locals prolem
24017 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24018 by: Uwe Ohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24065 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Giulio Orsero)
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1) (FIXED)
24019 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virtualdomains - Alias style VS. User style
24020 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24021 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is *anybody* using XTND XMIT in qmail-pop3d ?
24022 by: "John Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24023 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24024 by: "John Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24025 by: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24032 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24054 by: "John Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24069 by: Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ooops
24026 by: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24041 by: Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why does ~alias/.qmail-sim.hamp do nothing?
24027 by: Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24030 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24034 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24035 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
authentication in proxy
24028 by: "Ganesh Kirti (EUS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail speed
24029 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24031 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24033 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24036 by: "Craig I. Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24037 by: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24038 by: "Craig I. Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24042 by: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24049 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24052 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24060 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24061 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24063 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24064 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'number only' aliases
24039 by: Jerry Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24040 by: Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24044 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24050 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help with logfile?
24043 by: Joe Junkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24046 by: "Andrzej Kukula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24051 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
modify outgoing headers
24045 by: 914 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24047 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24048 by: 914 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24062 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Autoreply for incoming email.
24053 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24057 by: Tillman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tcpserver echoing?
24055 by: MountaiNet Tech Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24056 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Auto responder
24058 by: "Martin Searancke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Opps fond one.
24059 by: "Martin Searancke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anybody having Problems running on RH 2.2.5?
24066 by: Joe Junkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24067 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QMAIL XTND XMIT patches vs. 1.03
24068 by: Adrian Pavlykevych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Allow -ext on with qmail-users (virt user?)
24070 by: Sameer Vijay <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 09:17:09AM +0200, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> > it_isn't_in_my_control/locals_file,_so_I_don't_treat_it_as_local._(#5.4.6)
> > It Clearly show that the line'.mydomain.com' in control/locals has no any
> > effect. :(
> > Now what can do?
>
> Something like this should do it.
>
> btw: i think that kind of game is evil.
What risks or problems are there in this game then?
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
[.domain hack in locals]
> > btw: i think that kind of game is evil.
>
> What risks or problems are there in this game then?
This will simply not work:
@domain.example
hosta IN MX 10 hosta
IN MX 20 server-with-my-dotdomain-in-locals-hack
* IN MX 10 server-with-my-dotdomain-in-locals-hack
since locals is the first thing qmail-send looks at (note that it will
not work even for locally generated mail).
In case you _really_ want everything to go to the same host it may be
fine, but else it's just a way to get serious email problems very soon.
Regards, Uwe
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:06:00 +0800, hai scritto:
> For some reason, I must let our qmail treat all hosts like *.mydomain.com
>as local host. (There are over 50000 hosts and increase very fast, I cann't
>add it one per line into control/locals).
> So I add a line '.mydomain.com' into control/locals. But when I send a
Try this:
In control/virtualdomains:
.mydomain.com:alias-local
In ~alias/.qmail-local-default:
|forward $DEFAULT
killall -1 qmail-send
Ciao.
--
Giulio
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-MD5: 7USxvUzgj+ueQW0vQmWBJQ==
>
> Isn't qmail-local suppose to pick the UID in assign and deliver as
>
> the user defined there and if not, what user is it running as and how
>
> could it deliver to the Maildir if it is 0700 ??
What are the permissions on and ownership of /var/qmail/popboxes/testeur/Maildir and
/var/qmail/popboxes/testeur/Maildir/* ?
Chris
I had the structure wrong, I had the cur tmp and new directories directly under
/var/qmail/popboxes/testeur ( I was missing the /var/qmail/popboxes/testeur/Maildir
directory )
I modified the structure, it now works OK for deliveries, I will now tackle the
retrieval
by users.
Thanks to Chris Johnson for his help.
PS: Does anybody know why the texts I post to the list typed in single space end up
double spaced ??
Christian (Chris) Tremblay
Chateau Stores of Canada Ltd.
Montreal, Canada.
What do you guys think the benefits would be to using the alias style for
virtualdomains (~alias/.qmail-domain-user) or the user style
($HOME/user/.qmail-aliaseduser)? I'm trying to figure out the best way to
add my virtual domains to qmail. What do you guys use with your setup?
For those who are unfamiliar (as I was) with either style, allow me to
explain what I know about the two styles of virtual domain configuration.
First you can have your standard virtual domain attached to a local user
account.
In control/virtualdomains you would have domain.com:user. Then in
$HOME/user/ you would have .qmail-aliaseduser files to take care of the
routing to the accounts that you want to have on your virtual domain.
Second, we have the alias user. This is a global user that would normally
take care of the local (control/locals) aliases and such. If you want to use
this style, you would simply put this in your control/virtualdomains,
domain.com:alias-domain. Then in your ~alias/ dir you would make
.qmail-domain-aliaseduser files to take care of the routing.
So, [EMAIL PROTECTED] with mail being sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] would look like
this in local user account style.
in file
control/virtualdomains
enter
blah.com:blah
in file
$HOME/blah/.qmail-info
enter
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And for the ~alias user style.
in file
control/virtualdomains
enter
blah.com:alias-blah
in file
~alias/.qmail-blah-info
enter
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now I'm not saying my way is correct. This is how I understand it works.
After reading the man pages, FAQ, and various list mailings, this is what I
understand. If I am wrong, PLEASE tell the list I am. I don't want my misled
info being searched on the archived one day, if in fact it is misled :)
Thanks.
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
> From: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:54:26 -0400
>
> What do you guys think the benefits would be to using the alias style for
> virtualdomains (~alias/.qmail-domain-user) or the user style
> ($HOME/user/.qmail-aliaseduser)? I'm trying to figure out the best way to
> add my virtual domains to qmail. What do you guys use with your setup?
It depends. I've used both. If I'm setting up a virtual domain which is
managed by a user who isn't root, I redirect it all to that user, but on the
other hand, I have a client (scicomp.com), who owns a virtual domain
(scifinance.com) most, but not all, of which is handled by a
.qmail-*-default which forwards it to the main domain.
So, the question is "who's going to manage the domain. If it's the same as
whoever manages your main domain, then it should probably be done in ~alias;
if it's an otherwise unpriviledged user, it should be done by that user.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
Two days ago I asked if anybody had fixed the XMIT patches (that are
v1.01 specific) to work with 1.03. The silence was deafening...
It struck me that if no one is has done this, then maybe there is something
about the whole concept that I should be aware of ?
So, is anybody using XMIT ? Since it's a standard feature in qpopper I would
hope that someone is doing this...
---
John
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, John Grant wrote:
> So, is anybody using XMIT ? Since it's a standard feature in qpopper I would
> hope that someone is doing this...
it may be a standard feature in qpopper, the issue here is that it's not
part of the POP standard, and so most mail clients don't seem to support
it. Hence, since none of my users is clamouring for it there's no point in
me spending time on it.
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, John Grant wrote:
>
>> So, is anybody using XMIT ? Since it's a standard feature in qpopper I
would
>> hope that someone is doing this...
>
>it may be a standard feature in qpopper, the issue here is that it's not
>part of the POP standard, and so most mail clients don't seem to support
>it. Hence, since none of my users is clamouring for it there's no point in
>me spending time on it.
This to support our remote users who often end up on other companies'
networks. Many companies now use firewalls to redirect outgoing port 25
traffic that is not from a 'known' mailhost to the internal mail host for
processing.
We want our remote users to be able to send email with our company domain
name on it, without a) having to have customer firewalls reconfigured, or
b)leaving our mail server open as a spam relay.
So it looks like I'll be redoing the patches (and of course posting the
results).
John Grant wrote:
> We want our remote users to be able to send email with our company domain
> name on it, without a) having to have customer firewalls reconfigured, or
> b)leaving our mail server open as a spam relay.
No need to. You can use tcpserver to allow "relay" only from the
internal IP addresses. See the two consecutive FAQ questions starting at
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/faq/servers.html#tcpserver-smtpd
--
___THE___ One man alone cannot fight the future. USE LINUX!
\ \ / / _______________________________________________
\ V / |Juan Carlos Castro y Castro |
\ / |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
/ \ |Linuxeiro, alvinegro, X-Phile e Carioca Folgado|
/ ^ \ |Diretor de Inform�tica e Eventos Sobrenaturais |
/ / \ \ |da E-RACE CORPORATION |
~~~ ~~~ -----------------------------------------------
RACER
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 04:08:57PM -0300, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> John Grant wrote:
>
> > We want our remote users to be able to send email with our company domain
> > name on it, without a) having to have customer firewalls reconfigured, or
> > b)leaving our mail server open as a spam relay.
>
> No need to. You can use tcpserver to allow "relay" only from the
> internal IP addresses. See the two consecutive FAQ questions starting at
>
> ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/faq/servers.html#tcpserver-smtpd
No. He said 'remote users'.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
>
>So it looks like I'll be redoing the patches (and of course posting the
>results).
>
Well it looks like I have a working version with XMIT. When I have had time
to test it properly I'll post the patches...
On Thu 1999-04-08 (11:56), John Grant wrote:
> >On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, John Grant wrote:
> >
> >> So, is anybody using XMIT ? Since it's a standard feature in qpopper I
> would
> >> hope that someone is doing this...
> >
> >it may be a standard feature in qpopper, the issue here is that it's not
> >part of the POP standard, and so most mail clients don't seem to support
> >it. Hence, since none of my users is clamouring for it there's no point in
> >me spending time on it.
>
>
> This to support our remote users who often end up on other companies'
> networks. Many companies now use firewalls to redirect outgoing port 25
> traffic that is not from a 'known' mailhost to the internal mail host for
> processing.
>
> We want our remote users to be able to send email with our company domain
> name on it, without a) having to have customer firewalls reconfigured, or
> b)leaving our mail server open as a spam relay.
>
> So it looks like I'll be redoing the patches (and of course posting the
> results).
>From www.qmail.org:
DJB has three suggestions for allowing your users to relay when they're not
at a known IP address (which is the FAQ 5.4 solution):
Use a secret IP address and port number, and you'll have much better
security than user-chosen passwords.
Put a secret string into the HELO string sent by the client. This will
be visible to the fixup script, so you can reject messages with bad
passwords without changing qmail-smtpd---and it's still more widely
supported than XTND XMIT.
Oh, you want real security? Check that all messages are PGP-signed by
local users. I wouldn't be surprised if PGP plugins are available for
more clients than XTND XMIT patches are.
I'm sure you can see how Dan feels about it :-)
- Keith
--
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.
---
Sorry John Grant, I misunderstood your problem completely. It's much
more complicated than I thought at first.
You could use tcpserver and (urgh) recompile tcprules every time a
company member visits a customer.
Or... you could use tunelling. Theoretically, travelers could have their
notebooks to establish a IP-over-IP connection to your server from
wherever they are. This way, they'd be "local" no matter where they are.
I had this idea 30 seconds ago, but probably somebody has had it before.
Anything more consistent on the subject?
--
___THE___ One man alone cannot fight the future. USE LINUX!
\ \ / / _______________________________________________
\ V / |Juan Carlos Castro y Castro |
\ / |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
/ \ |Linuxeiro, alvinegro, X-Phile e Carioca Folgado|
/ ^ \ |Diretor de Inform�tica e Eventos Sobrenaturais |
/ / \ \ |da E-RACE CORPORATION |
~~~ ~~~ -----------------------------------------------
RACER
At 12:15 PM 4/8/99 , Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
>Or... you could use tunelling. Theoretically, travelers could have their
>notebooks to establish a IP-over-IP connection to your server from
>wherever they are. This way, they'd be "local" no matter where they are.
>
>I had this idea 30 seconds ago, but probably somebody has had it before.
>Anything more consistent on the subject?
I use this. I do local port forwarding for smtp, imap, and pop3 using ssh.
Works great. The only limitation is that I need a SSH client from where I'm
sending the mail. This isn't a problem because I always do this from my laptop.
--Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ICQ UIN: 692441
My first post to this group - I hope this is not a question that has been
asked before, but I could find it when I searched.
I'm trying to get qmail to route incoming mails from my ISP, pulled down by
fetchmail. Mail is sent either to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to my wife,
both of which are aliases for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fetchmail passes mail over as simon.hampton@localhost and I can teach
users/assign to tackle simon.hampton and deliver it linux user sim, but why
cannot I set up a .qmail file in ~alias to do this? What is the aim of having
these two mechanisms for dealing with addresses that are direct user names on
my linux box?
Simon
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.tvd.be/ws35056
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Fetchmail passes mail over as simon.hampton@localhost and I can teach
>users/assign to tackle simon.hampton and deliver it linux user sim, but why
>cannot I set up a .qmail file in ~alias to do this?
For security reasons, qmail replaces "."'s with ":"'s in .qmail
filenames. Try ~alias/.qmail-sim:hamp.
>What is the aim of having these two mechanisms for dealing with
>addresses that are direct user names on my linux box?
Flexibility. They each do things the other can't do.
-Dave
Simon wrote/schrieb/scribsit: see Subject
Because ~alias/.qmail-sim:hamp does.
FAQ 4.6
Stefan
>From "man dot-qmail":
WARNING: For security, qmail-local replaces any dots in ext with colons
before checking .qmail-ext. For convenience, qmail-local converts any
uppercase letters in ext to lower-case.
Based on this, your qmail file should be named:
~alias/.qmail-sim:hamp
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Simon wrote:
> My first post to this group - I hope this is not a question that has been
> asked before, but I could find it when I searched.
>
> I'm trying to get qmail to route incoming mails from my ISP, pulled down by
> fetchmail. Mail is sent either to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to my wife,
> both of which are aliases for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Fetchmail passes mail over as simon.hampton@localhost and I can teach
> users/assign to tackle simon.hampton and deliver it linux user sim, but why
> cannot I set up a .qmail file in ~alias to do this? What is the aim of having
> these two mechanisms for dealing with addresses that are direct user names on
> my linux box?
>
> Simon
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://home.tvd.be/ws35056
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
> Hi, We support single sign-on mechanism and user's don't need to
> provide their userid and password to access their mails. My mail proxy
> does
> the authentication of user(and some application specific stuff)
> and forwards the request to qmail server. I don't want qmail to do
> authentication
> again and for the rest of the user's information it will use ldap
> directory.
>
>
> So, is there a way to turn-off authentication on qmail server?
>
> P.S. I just started using qmail server and sorry for this basic question
>
> Thanks,
> Ganesh
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Ganesh Kirti (650)463-6902 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ericsson Inc. Datacom Networks and IP Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
How's your qmail configured? What does qmail-showctl say?
What kind of connectivity do you have?
Running a local nameserver?
>with SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
Multiple servers? RAM disk? qmail 2.0?
-Dave
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 03:59:18PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
>
> Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
20K/hour for PPRO200
40K/hour for PII350
> How's your qmail configured? What does qmail-showctl say?
concurrencyremote: Remote concurrency is 255.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
locals:
Messages for localhost are delivered locally.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts:
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes.
timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds.
timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds.
timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds.
virtualdomains: (Default.) No virtual domains.
> What kind of connectivity do you have?
That particular box is connected to a 100Mbit network (located at Exodus)
> Running a local nameserver?
yes
> >with SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
>
> Multiple servers? RAM disk? qmail 2.0?
/tmp is on a RAM disk
Is qmail 2.0 out?
Dirk
> -Dave
Ug. You're invoking qmail-queue for each recipient? Is that necessary?
Most of your system resources are probably spend putting individual messages
into the queue and deleting individual messages as they're delivered.
Try this as an alternative injection script:
(
sed s/^/Bcc: / <list
cat /tmp/message
) /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
Each delivery will only require the sync writing of one byte to say the
recipient got it rather than wholesale deletion of a message. Each insertion
is just one extra recipient in the list rather than wholesale message
insertion.
Regards.
At 12:51 AM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What speed should one be able to expect from qmail?
>
>A client of ours is delivering a newsletter to 230,000
>people which we are feeding into the queue like this:
>
>#! /bin/sh
>
>for address in `cat list`
>do
>
>echo -ne "[EMAIL PROTECTED]\000T$address\000\000" >/tmp/address
>sed s/xxxx/$address/g /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue 1<
/tmp/address
>
>echo $address >>log
>done
>
>Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350 with
>SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
>
>Dirk
> >Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350 with
> >SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
yup, you can get about an order of magnitude
speed boost if you are willing to play a little faster
and looser -- however if your machine crashes
there may be some risk in having a corrupted queue.
what you can do is remove ALL of the fsync calls
in qmail. This will DRAMATICALLY speed up queue
operations as it allows the OS (e.g. linux/freebsd) to
take full advantage of their filesystem cache. The
risks of doing this should be obvious. OTOH, for
bulk mailings this is a phenomonal way to get
a speed boost.
If anyone else does this, pls give me the numbers as i am
curious.
-- craig
At 04:33 PM 3/9/99 -0500, Craig I. Hagan wrote:
>what you can do is remove ALL of the fsync calls
>in qmail. This will DRAMATICALLY speed up queue
>operations as it allows the OS (e.g. linux/freebsd) to
>take full advantage of their filesystem cache. The
>risks of doing this should be obvious. OTOH, for
>bulk mailings this is a phenomonal way to get
>a speed boost.
>
>If anyone else does this, pls give me the numbers as i am
>curious.
FWIW, I did this, a while back, on a Solaris 2.6 Sun machine.
I send several hundreds thousand unique emails a day (not spam).
First, I did it with qmail-send: I did not notice any significant improvement.
Then, I did it with qmail-queue: qmail-send did not like it (got something
like "Sorry, message has wrong owner"). I never got to investigate (I
recall the problem was in spawn.c though).
David.
______________________________________
David Villeger
(212) 972 2030 x34
http://www.CheetahMail.com
The Internet Email Publishing Solution
I did it across the board (all files, there were a few) in qmail-1.03.
I also ran my filesystem with atime turned off.
-- craig
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, David Villeger wrote:
> At 04:33 PM 3/9/99 -0500, Craig I. Hagan wrote:
> >what you can do is remove ALL of the fsync calls
> >in qmail. This will DRAMATICALLY speed up queue
> >operations as it allows the OS (e.g. linux/freebsd) to
> >take full advantage of their filesystem cache. The
> >risks of doing this should be obvious. OTOH, for
> >bulk mailings this is a phenomonal way to get
> >a speed boost.
> >
> >If anyone else does this, pls give me the numbers as i am
> >curious.
>
> FWIW, I did this, a while back, on a Solaris 2.6 Sun machine.
> I send several hundreds thousand unique emails a day (not spam).
>
> First, I did it with qmail-send: I did not notice any significant improvement.
>
> Then, I did it with qmail-queue: qmail-send did not like it (got something
> like "Sorry, message has wrong owner"). I never got to investigate (I
> recall the problem was in spawn.c though).
>
> David.
> ______________________________________
> David Villeger
> (212) 972 2030 x34
>
> http://www.CheetahMail.com
> The Internet Email Publishing Solution
>
At 05:13 PM 4/8/99 -0400, David Villeger wrote:
>Then, I did it with qmail-queue: qmail-send did not like it (got something
>like "Sorry, message has wrong owner"). I never got to investigate (I
>recall the problem was in spawn.c though).
I just tried it again (I thought this was too weird), and it works fine. I
must have modified something else the first time.
Sorry.
David.
Each message is personalized to the recipient. They truly are 230,000
different messages. That why it is fed into the queue.
Dirk
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 01:12:58PM -0700, Mark Delany wrote:
> Ug. You're invoking qmail-queue for each recipient? Is that necessary?
>
> Most of your system resources are probably spend putting individual messages
> into the queue and deleting individual messages as they're delivered.
>
> Try this as an alternative injection script:
>
> (
> sed s/^/Bcc: / <list
> cat /tmp/message
> ) /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
>
> Each delivery will only require the sync writing of one byte to say the
> recipient got it rather than wholesale deletion of a message. Each insertion
> is just one extra recipient in the list rather than wholesale message
> insertion.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> At 12:51 AM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >What speed should one be able to expect from qmail?
> >
> >A client of ours is delivering a newsletter to 230,000
> >people which we are feeding into the queue like this:
> >
> >#! /bin/sh
> >
> >for address in `cat list`
> >do
> >
> >echo -ne "[EMAIL PROTECTED]\000T$address\000\000" >/tmp/address
> >sed s/xxxx/$address/g /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue 1<
> /tmp/address
> >
> >echo $address >>log
> >done
> >
> >Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350 with
> >SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
> >
> >Dirk
>
What kind of speed improvement are you seeing?
dirk
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 06:16:17PM -0400, David Villeger wrote:
> At 05:13 PM 4/8/99 -0400, David Villeger wrote:
> >Then, I did it with qmail-queue: qmail-send did not like it (got something
> >like "Sorry, message has wrong owner"). I never got to investigate (I
> >recall the problem was in spawn.c though).
>
> I just tried it again (I thought this was too weird), and it works fine. I
> must have modified something else the first time.
>
> Sorry.
>
> David.
At 04:06 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Each message is personalized to the recipient. They truly are 230,000
>different messages.
That doesn't gel with your original post of:
>> >sed s/xxxx/$address/g /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue 1<
>> /tmp/address
Which means you have either misrepresented your question - or have done us
the disservice of "sanitizing" your code. The former is a reasonable error,
everyone makes mistakes. However the latter is considered *very* poor form
on this list and will result in much heckling from the peanut gallery.
In either case, no one can accurately help until you fix both of these
problems.
Regards.
Huh?
A message looks like something like this:
------
To: xxxx
...
This message was sent to xxxx....
------
What the sed below does is replace xxxx with the recipient's email
address. So each email is different from the other. It can't be delivered
as one email with multiple recipients.
But maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by
"misrepresented your question" or "sanitizing" the code?
Dirk
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 09:13:00PM -0700, Mark Delany wrote:
> At 04:06 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Each message is personalized to the recipient. They truly are 230,000
> >different messages.
>
> That doesn't gel with your original post of:
>
> >> >sed s/xxxx/$address/g /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue 1<
> >> /tmp/address
>
> Which means you have either misrepresented your question - or have done us
> the disservice of "sanitizing" your code. The former is a reasonable error,
> everyone makes mistakes. However the latter is considered *very* poor form
> on this list and will result in much heckling from the peanut gallery.
>
> In either case, no one can accurately help until you fix both of these
> problems.
>
>
> Regards.
>
And er, you send this on a regular basis and that's the only unique aspect
of the email?
If that is the case, then my apologies. You are right. My earlier suggestion
does not apply if you need to put the recipient address in the body of the
email.
At 09:21 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Huh?
>
>A message looks like something like this:
>
>------
>To: xxxx
>...
>
>This message was sent to xxxx....
>
>------
>
>What the sed below does is replace xxxx with the recipient's email
>address. So each email is different from the other. It can't be delivered
>as one email with multiple recipients.
Right. It did occur to me that that was technical possible, but it didn't
occur to me that that was a likely definition of a unique email per user. I
personally would use the VERP support within qmail to take advantage of the
suggested method, but I suspect you'll explain that it's important that the
recipient see their original email address in the body of the email as
opposed to the headers where VERP support puts it.
Regards.
Yes and yes. I should have made that clearer from the beginning.
No prob.
Dirk
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 10:00:15PM -0700, Mark Delany wrote:
> And er, you send this on a regular basis and that's the only unique aspect
> of the email?
>
> If that is the case, then my apologies. You are right. My earlier suggestion
> does not apply if you need to put the recipient address in the body of the
> email.
>
> At 09:21 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Huh?
> >
> >A message looks like something like this:
> >
> >------
> >To: xxxx
> >...
> >
> >This message was sent to xxxx....
> >
> >------
> >
> >What the sed below does is replace xxxx with the recipient's email
> >address. So each email is different from the other. It can't be delivered
> >as one email with multiple recipients.
>
> Right. It did occur to me that that was technical possible, but it didn't
> occur to me that that was a likely definition of a unique email per user. I
> personally would use the VERP support within qmail to take advantage of the
> suggested method, but I suspect you'll explain that it's important that the
> recipient see their original email address in the body of the email as
> opposed to the headers where VERP support puts it.
>
>
> Regards.
>
I'm an end user of qmail rather than an admin and I have very little
in-depth knowledge of qmail so please go easy on me if this is a dumb
question. I've looked through the FAQ but there didn't seem to be anything
about this.
All of my .qmail-alias files work perfectly except for one:
.qmail-360
In theory, mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be delivered. Qmail spits
it back out and moans about it.
My stuff was recently moved to a new server with a newer version of qmail
on it. On the new server this alias quit working. Does qmail not support
'number only' aliases? A qmail configuration issue maybe? Any help would
be much appreciated. I've included a snippet of the logs below:
qmail: 923603642.218123 new msg 286775
qmail: 923603642.218226 info msg 286775: bytes 691 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qp 9016 uid 1003
qmail: 923603642.287638 starting delivery 9664: msg 286775 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail: 923603642.287724 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
qmail: 923603642.363798 delivery 9664: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
qmail: 923603642.457488 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
qmail: 923603642.512605 bounce msg 286775 qp 9019
qmail: 923603642.512786 end msg 286775
Here's the version info if that helps:
Old Server: ver 1.01
New Server: ver 1.03
Thanks in advance for anyone's help!
JR
On Thu, 08 Apr 1999 16:15:41 -0500 Jerry Rose wrote:
> .qmail-360
> In theory, mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be delivered. Qmail spits
> it back out and moans about it.
1.03 likse a ~alias/.qmail-360 file here just fine. No idea what
your problem is, sorry.
Giles
Well, if you're an end-user rather than the sysadmin, I am *guessing*
you would not have permission to add files to ~alias, so perhaps your
mail should be addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Like I said,
just guessing here..
Aaron
Quoting Jerry Rose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm an end user of qmail rather than an admin and I have very little
> in-depth knowledge of qmail so please go easy on me if this is a dumb
> question. I've looked through the FAQ but there didn't seem to be anything
> about this.
>
> All of my .qmail-alias files work perfectly except for one:
>
> .qmail-360
>
> In theory, mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be delivered. Qmail spits
> it back out and moans about it.
--
Aaron L. Meehan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Administrator Central Oregon Internet
http://www.coinet.com/
Also, some unices (RH) complain about usernames which begin with
numbers. In your case 360 is an alias, so that wouldn't matter, but it
is something to keep in mind.
- eric
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Spark Sistemas E-mail
- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
Tel: 4702-1958
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Aaron L. Meehan" escribi�:
>
> Well, if you're an end-user rather than the sysadmin, I am *guessing*
> you would not have permission to add files to ~alias, so perhaps your
> mail should be addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Like I said,
> just guessing here..
>
> Aaron
>
> Quoting Jerry Rose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'm an end user of qmail rather than an admin and I have very little
> > in-depth knowledge of qmail so please go easy on me if this is a dumb
> > question. I've looked through the FAQ but there didn't seem to be anything
> > about this.
> >
> > All of my .qmail-alias files work perfectly except for one:
> >
> > .qmail-360
> >
> > In theory, mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be delivered. Qmail spits
> > it back out and moans about it.
>
> --
> Aaron L. Meehan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Systems Administrator Central Oregon Internet
> http://www.coinet.com/
Hi all. Running on Redhat 5.2 with the 2.2.5 kernel upgrade.
Something went batty with qmail yesterday and I am not sure why.
Every time I tried to send a message the system would spawn multiple smtp and
queue processes. These would remain listed indefinitely and the message never
set.
I think it may have had something to do with the pop3d in inetd.
At any rate, it is operational again.
But, when I was trouble shooting the problem I moved and then blew away
/var/log/maillog.
I expected another to be created instantly. One did not appear, so I touch'd a
new one and it remains empty after a day. I ran a grep in the /var/log directory
and found no other logs for qmail operations. It was all running just fine
before I blew it away.
Does anybody know what I have done here? Where is the directive for the log
file?
-
Joseph R. Junkin Datafree Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datacrawler.com
On 8 Apr 99 at 15:17, Joe Junkin wrote:
> But, when I was trouble shooting the problem I moved and then blew away
> /var/log/maillog.
> I expected another to be created instantly. One did not appear, so I touch'd a
> new one and it remains empty after a day. I ran a grep in the /var/log directory
> and found no other logs for qmail operations. It was all running just fine
> before I blew it away.
>
> Does anybody know what I have done here? Where is the directive for the log
> file?
Just restart qmail and watch the log.
andrzej
And instead of deleting the log, do a cp /dev/null /var/log/maillog,
same result as a del and you don't have to worry about those problems.
- eric
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Spark Sistemas E-mail
- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
Tel: 4702-1958
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Andrzej Kukula escribi�:
>
> On 8 Apr 99 at 15:17, Joe Junkin wrote:
>
> > But, when I was trouble shooting the problem I moved and then blew away
> > /var/log/maillog.
> > I expected another to be created instantly. One did not appear, so I touch'd a
> > new one and it remains empty after a day. I ran a grep in the /var/log directory
> > and found no other logs for qmail operations. It was all running just fine
> > before I blew it away.
> >
> > Does anybody know what I have done here? Where is the directive for the log
> > file?
>
> Just restart qmail and watch the log.
>
> andrzej
Hiya....
i am not at all fimiliar with qmail, but i am using a qmail drop-box
(this one) for some net-related business.. (bianca.com)
the nature of that business exposes me to a variety of nuts and freaks,
and i'd like to conceal the originating IP address in my outgoing
headers.... if you look at the header of this note you should see that
i'm on chaos.resnet.uconn.edu [137.99.166.70]
how can i force qmail to NOT send that RECIEVED FROM line?
i've looked through the FAQ and the list archives, but haven't found
what i'm looking for.... but please remember that i'm far from a
mail-guru...
thanks!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
914 wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> headers.... if you look at the header of this note you should see that
> i'm on chaos.resnet.uconn.edu [137.99.166.70]
>
> how can i force qmail to NOT send that RECIEVED FROM line?
Modify qmail-smtpd to not write that header or see FAQ 5.5.
Stefan
>
> Modify qmail-smtpd to not write that header or see FAQ 5.5.
>
> Stefan
OK.. cool... except that i don't see how FAQ 5.5 has anything to do
with it. Still, if i can get away without modifying any binaries, i'll
be happy....
maybe you could be a little more explicit with what you mean? or maybe
you have a different FAQ? attached is what i have for sec 5.5, and the
online version doesn't seem to use numbers like that. There is a section
on "user masquerading" but it just deals with the defaulthost
attached is what i have for 5.5 of the FAQ
vielen Dank!
914
5.5. How do I fix up messages from broken SMTP clients?
Answer: Three steps. First, put
| bouncesaying 'Permission denied' [ "@$HOST" != "@fixme" ]
| qmail-inject -f "$SENDER" -- "$DEFAULT"
into ~alias/.qmail-fixup-default. Second, put
fixme:fixup
into /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains, and give qmail-send a HUP.
Third, follow the procedure in question 5.4, but set RELAYCLIENT to the
string ``@fixme'':
tcp-env: 1.2.3.6, 1.2.3.7: setenv = RELAYCLIENT @fixme
Here 1.2.3.6 and 1.2.3.7 are the clients' IP addresses. If you are using
tcpserver instead of inetd and tcpd, put
1.2.3.6:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@fixme"
1.2.3.7:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@fixme"
into /etc/tcp.smtp, and run tcprules as in question 5.4.
914 writes:
> the nature of that business exposes me to a variety of nuts and freaks,
> and i'd like to conceal the originating IP address in my outgoing
> headers.... if you look at the header of this note you should see that
> i'm on chaos.resnet.uconn.edu [137.99.166.70]
>
> how can i force qmail to NOT send that RECIEVED FROM line?
You can't, not without modifying code. You could possibly persuade
the sysadmin at where.net to implement FAQ 5.5 for your IP address,
and you could then delete the uconn headers.
--
-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.
A few versions back (I think 1.00 but I could be wrong) of qmail, I
seem to recall someone posted a very simple way to send an automatic reply
for all messages that came _into_ a user's Mailbox (or Maildir for that
matter) by adding one or two lines to the .qmail file in the user's home
directory.
The directives in the .qmail file in the user's home directory simply cat
the contents of a textfile in the user's home directory back to the
original sender. I can't seem to find reference to this in the FAQ or in
the docs of version 1.03 now and I was wondering if there is as simple and
staightforward way of doing this now. If so, what are the directives in
the .qmail file to do this ?
Thanks in advance,
Harley Silver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A few versions back (I think 1.00 but I could be wrong) of qmail, I
> seem to recall someone posted a very simple way to send an automatic reply
> for all messages that came _into_ a user's Mailbox (or Maildir for that
> matter) by adding one or two lines to the .qmail file in the user's home
> directory.
>
> The directives in the .qmail file in the user's home directory simply cat
> the contents of a textfile in the user's home directory back to the
> original sender. I can't seem to find reference to this in the FAQ or in
> the docs of version 1.03 now and I was wondering if there is as simple and
> staightforward way of doing this now. If so, what are the directives in
> the .qmail file to do this ?
[tillman][/var/qmail/alias]$ cat .qmail-ping
# This alias simply sends a "pong" message back to the recipient
# It's used both to remotely confirm qmail operation and as an
# example of how to do an auto-responder under qmail.
#
# Note that this sends any responses/bounces to *another* account
# by faking the "from" header.
#
# Tillman Hodgson, Nov 15/98 11:00pm
#
|/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -- "$SENDER" < ./auto/ping.txt
[tillman][/var/qmail/alias/auto]$ cat ping.txt
From: Automatic Reply System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Subject: Pong!
This is an automatically generated message.
----------------------------------------------------
It's an email pinger, of sorts :-)
Standard disclaimers:
* It does no loop checking. This is a very bad thing.
* I got the idea for this by searching the archives one day after I couldn't
get the rate-limited autoresponder to work right. 5 minutes after doing this,
the r-l autoresponder problem worked itself out. I should probably be using
that, but this is the example you asked for.
* There's undoubtedly better ways of doing this: I am not a qmail guru by any
means
- Tillman
I start all my qmail stuff with this in /etc/rc.d/rc.local:
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 1002 -g 101 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup edwin.mounet.com \
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
For some reason, it sends everything that tcpserver does to the screen as
well as the logfile. Any ideas why? I feel like Im missing something
stupid.....can someone help me out? Thanks....
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 07:45:08PM -0400, MountaiNet Tech Support wrote:
> I start all my qmail stuff with this in /etc/rc.d/rc.local:
>
> csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 1002 -g 101 0 smtp
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
> 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup edwin.mounet.com \
> /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
>
> For some reason, it sends everything that tcpserver does to the screen as
> well as the logfile. Any ideas why? I feel like Im missing something
> stupid.....can someone help me out? Thanks....
Remove the ampersand from the /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd line and replace it
with a backslash.
Chris
Does anyone know of any Auto Responding Software or Scripts to attach to
QMail.
I.e. To receive the email as normal but also send a reply to the sender as
soon as its received.
The scripting available in the .qmail files looks powerful enough to do what
I want but im sorry im just a bit of a novice and thought someone else might
have already done it.
Thanks
Martin
Martin Searancke
CommSoft Group Ltd.
Level 6, 90 Symonds St
Auckland, New Zealand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+64 21 778592
I must be blind, I just found exactly what I was looking for at the web
site,
Martin
Martin Searancke
CommSoft Group Ltd.
Level 6, 90 Symonds St
Auckland, New Zealand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+64 21 778592
Hi all.
I have had my qmail server running without hitch on the linux 2.0.36 and then
2.2.0 for some time.
Absolutely flawless.
Last thursday I reloaded my server and installed 2.2.5. Everything was fine
until yesterday.
It seems the pop3d is flaky, seems to crash or something.
I will do a closer eval but was just wondering if anyone has been running on
this kernel and had any problems?
-
Joseph R. Junkin Datafree Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datacrawler.com
I'm running 2.2.5. No problem so far.
Dirk
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 12:47:32AM -0400, Joe Junkin wrote:
> Hi all.
> I have had my qmail server running without hitch on the linux 2.0.36 and then
> 2.2.0 for some time.
> Absolutely flawless.
> Last thursday I reloaded my server and installed 2.2.5. Everything was fine
> until yesterday.
> It seems the pop3d is flaky, seems to crash or something.
> I will do a closer eval but was just wondering if anyone has been running on
> this kernel and had any problems?
>
> -
> Joseph R. Junkin Datafree Corporation
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datacrawler.com
Hello,
I have XTND XMIT patch for qmail-1.03, but unfortunately it is tied to
some other modifications (bulletins, logging of SMTP and POP errors etc)
so it would require some manual work to apply it in clean sources if you
don't wan't the rest of my enhancements.
If you want I can send it to you in private email
Regards,
Adrian Pavlykevych email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
System Administrator phone/fax: +380 (322) 742041
State University "Lvivska Polytechnica"
Hi!
On my lab machine, users maintain their own mail-lists using ezmlm,
(including myself). Now, instead of having an address of the sort
sameer-iitb-*@, I would like it to have as iitb-*@ without having an
account for the iitb as user. I understand I can have the
~alias/.qmail-iitb-* files also but if that done for all users will
lead to lot of unmanageable(?) .qmail-* files in ~/alias.
I thought of using qmail-users and added the following line
+iitb-:sameer:501:100:/home/sameer/:-:sameer:
according to what is listed in man qmail-users(1) as
-----begin
A wildcard assignment is a line of the form
+loc:user:uid:gid:homedir:dash:pre:
This assignment applies to any address beginning with loc, including
loc itself.
<snip>
...
+joe-:joe:507:100:/home/joe:-::
...
the address joe-direct is handled by the second line.
-----end
ran qmail-newu and then sent a mail to iitb@
but all I get is
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
in the bounce.
Q1. Is the above procedure workable in my case? It doesnt seem so but
may be I am missing something.
Q1.1 What does the pre (see above) mean? ( I guessed pre-ext@ format )
Q2. What is the procedure if there is a way to do it without doing the
above two things (creating account for iitb or ~alias/.qmail-* files)
Thanks and regards,
Sameer
--
Sameer Vijay - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Research Engineer)
Dept. of Chemical Engg, IIT Bombay, Mumbai 400076 INDIA.
Fax: +91-22-5796895 (dept), +91-22-5783480 (IITB)
