qmail Digest 23 Jan 1999 11:00:07 -0000 Issue 529
Topics (messages 20837 through 20885):
changing the VERP delimiter
20837 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20854 by: Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Building new mail system
20838 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20842 by: "Brian S. Craigie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20874 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
configuring qmail to work with binmail
20839 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Naden)
20843 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20857 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
multiple relays in smtproutes
20840 by: Bernhard Duebi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20841 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20856 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20863 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20866 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20879 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Troubles with stuck queue
20844 by: Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20846 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20848 by: Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20849 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20853 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble with stuck queue (additional)
20845 by: Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
new-inject vs qmail-inject
20847 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
file descriptors
20850 by: Matthias Pigulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20855 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Local delivery and host masquerading, again
20851 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20871 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20877 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cool!
20852 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20858 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20859 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20860 by: Steve Vertigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20862 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20882 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20883 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Forward virtual doamin to different server?
20861 by: "Shayne Judkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20878 by: Jose Luis Painceira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20880 by: "Shayne Judkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Solaris and qmail-remote (was: RE: increasing qmail performance)
20864 by: Dax Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Troubles with stuck queue (further news)
20865 by: Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20884 by: Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail without "To:" line.
20867 by: R Aldridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20869 by: Michael Bracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20873 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20875 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20876 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20881 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Netscape and Maildir
20868 by: Steve Vertigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Continuing to configure qmail...
20870 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Naden)
New Email Address!
20872 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same user, multiple virtual domains.
20885 by: Searcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
D J Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Dash-separated extensions are used in the .qmail-*-default
> mechanism, qmail-inject VERPs, ezmlm VERPs, etc.
> conf-break is the default user-ext delimiter. It doesn't affect the use
> of dashes inside extensions.
Am I correct in thinking, then, that the "right" answer to Tim's problem
is not the patch I provided but rather to use a QMAILSUSER of
list-request+bounces instead of list-request, so that sendmail will still
deliver to list-request and the dashes instead of + won't matter?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:01:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> D J Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Yes. Dash-separated extensions are used in the .qmail-*-default
> > mechanism, qmail-inject VERPs, ezmlm VERPs, etc.
>
> > conf-break is the default user-ext delimiter. It doesn't affect the use
> > of dashes inside extensions.
>
> Am I correct in thinking, then, that the "right" answer to Tim's problem
> is not the patch I provided but rather to use a QMAILSUSER of
> list-request+bounces instead of list-request, so that sendmail will still
> deliver to list-request and the dashes instead of + won't matter?
That does look like the right solution for me. Thanks for the idea.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:28:23PM -0500, Robert Adams wrote:
> We're putting together a new box to handle mail.. thought I would pick your
> brains a little for advice. Hopefully someone has done this already.
>
> We are planning on using 4x9gig Cheetahs in a RAID 0+1 configuration..
> Currently we are looking at two RAID-RAID controllers.
>
> 1) Mylex 2 CHANNEL RAID W-U SCSI DACSXI
> 2) CMD CRD-5440 or CRD-5500's
1) RAID 0+1 is creating two stripes, and mirroring one onto another.
RAID 1+0 is mirroring each drive to another, and striping across
the resulting volumes.
They aren't the same thing. Really. They aren't.
with 0+1, the second drive you lose results in the loss of the data.
with 1+0, you can lose one drive from each mirrored pair, and still
maintain data integrity. It's the no-compromise approach to RAID
sets.
> Few questions.. can anyone recommend one of the above controllers over the
> other? If so, for what reasons. Does the RAID 0+1 seem like the way to go?
> Or should we go with something like RAID 5?
Pound on the sales people and inside tech people at the companies you're
deciding between. I don't know of any Mylex RAID controllers which allow
1+0, but that doesn't mean they don't have one. I know that CMD has a
controller which allows 1+0, but I don't know that you're looking at it.
It's up to you to make sure you're spec'ing the correct hardware capabilities.
RAID 5 has slow writes which make it unadvisable for data that undergoes
updates on a minute to minute basis.
> The reason we aren't going with something like the DPT controllers is that
> you have to boot to DOS to fix a failure... which isn't good imho. Any other
> controller/setup recommendations are welcome..
Personally, I'm not into server controller based RAID. I'd rather have
the RAID look like a drive on the SCSI bus...
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
On 22-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) RAID 0+1 is creating two stripes, and mirroring one onto another.
> RAID 1+0 is mirroring each drive to another, and striping across
> the resulting volumes.
>
> They aren't the same thing. Really. They aren't.
I'm reliably told 0+1 and 1+0 _are_ the same thing. Either way, you create
stipes across a set of disks, and then mirror the set of disks to another set
of disks. You can lose all the disks on one side of the mirror and still be
operational.
Raid 0 is striping, raid 1 is mirroring. There is logically only one way to
combine the two correctly, ie you mirror your stripes. This is variably termed
0+1 or 1+0.
>
> with 0+1, the second drive you lose results in the loss of the data.
Only if it's on the opposite side of the mirror from the first lost disk and on
the same stripe.
> with 1+0, you can lose one drive from each mirrored pair, and still
> maintain data integrity. It's the no-compromise approach to RAID
> sets.
I think you mean raid 10? http://www.whatis.com/raid.htm says:-
"RAID-10. This type offers an array of stripes in which each stripe is a
RAID-1 array of drives. This offers higher performance than RAID-1 but at
much higher cost."
> RAID 5 has slow writes which make it unadvisable for data that undergoes
> updates on a minute to minute basis.
Agreed. Can't see why anyone would want raid 5.
> Personally, I'm not into server controller based RAID. I'd rather have
> the RAID look like a drive on the SCSI bus...
Yup, hardware raid is indubitably better.
> --
> John White
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Cheers!
Brian
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:42:45PM -0000, Brian S. Craigie wrote:
> On 22-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1) RAID 0+1 is creating two stripes, and mirroring one onto another.
> > RAID 1+0 is mirroring each drive to another, and striping across
> > the resulting volumes.
> >
> > They aren't the same thing. Really. They aren't.
>
> I'm reliably told 0+1 and 1+0 _are_ the same thing.
Whatever.
> Either way, you create
> stipes across a set of disks, and then mirror the set of disks to another set
> of disks. You can lose all the disks on one side of the mirror and still be
> operational.
>
> Raid 0 is striping, raid 1 is mirroring. There is logically only one way to
> combine the two correctly, ie you mirror your stripes. This is variably termed
> 0+1 or 1+0.
Not at all. There's two functions. There's two ways to order the functions.
1) A before B
2) B before A
striping and mirroring
1) mirror the stripes
2) stripe across the mirrors
> > with 0+1, the second drive you lose results in the loss of the data.
>
> Only if it's on the opposite side of the mirror from the first lost disk and on
> the same stripe.
>
> > with 1+0, you can lose one drive from each mirrored pair, and still
> > maintain data integrity. It's the no-compromise approach to RAID
> > sets.
>
> I think you mean raid 10? http://www.whatis.com/raid.htm says:-
Whatever... Read "RAID levels outlive their usefulness":
http://www.raid-advisory.com/rabguide.html
The terms aren't defined.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
I'm hoping that this question will make better sense
than the last one I bothered you all with. I've tried to
follow the instructions in INSTALL.vsm; that is, to edit
the /qmail/rc file to look at binmail rather than looking
to ./Mailbox. What I dont' know is, why it doesn't work..
/qmail/rc is currently reading;
#
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./usr/bin/mail splogger qmail
#
I've undoubtedly done something stupid here, but could
anyone point out what it is? As far as i can tell
from looking at it, bin/mail is in usr/bin/mail,
*or* could be called as /bin/mail... but it still
isn't working, unfortunately.
Thanks for your help
~Chris Naden
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 12:26:50PM +0000, Chris Naden wrote:
> I'm hoping that this question will make better sense
> than the last one I bothered you all with. I've tried to
> follow the instructions in INSTALL.vsm; that is, to edit
> the /qmail/rc file to look at binmail rather than looking
> to ./Mailbox. What I dont' know is, why it doesn't work..
>
> /qmail/rc is currently reading;
>
> #
> exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./usr/bin/mail splogger qmail
^
Take that dot out of mail's path. You want to run /usr/bin/mail, not
./usr/bin/mail.
Chris
>
> I've undoubtedly done something stupid here, but could
> anyone point out what it is? As far as i can tell
> from looking at it, bin/mail is in usr/bin/mail,
> *or* could be called as /bin/mail... but it still
> isn't working, unfortunately.
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> ~Chris Naden
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 12:26:50PM +0000, Chris Naden wrote:
> I'm hoping that this question will make better sense
> than the last one I bothered you all with. I've tried to
> follow the instructions in INSTALL.vsm; that is, to edit
> the /qmail/rc file to look at binmail rather than looking
> to ./Mailbox. What I dont' know is, why it doesn't work..
>
> /qmail/rc is currently reading;
>
> #
> exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./usr/bin/mail splogger qmail
I doubt this is what the instructions say. You should, instead, try
to look at the /var/qmail/boot/binm* files, and copy the one closest
to what you want to /var/qmail/boot/binm4, edit it to suit your need,
and then do
cp /var/qmail/boot/binm4 /var/qmail/rc
Mate
Dear Qmail Admins,
is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
smtproutes ?
I use qmail as a relay from the internet to the internal mail server.
The internal mail server is built of two maschines. When one goes down,
the other one takes over automaticaly. Normaly this is handle with
virtual IP addresses. But the firewall can't handle virtual IP
addresses.
In sendmail I can define a list of hosts in the routing table. This list
is then handled as a list of equal preference MX records.
Is this also possible in qmail ?
If yes, how ?
Cheers
Bernhard Duebi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bernhard Duebi writes:
> is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
> smtproutes ?
Yes and no. You have to do it through the DNS. Make a new name for
the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record,
or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.
--
-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.
> Bernhard Duebi writes:
> > is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
> > smtproutes ?
>
> Yes and no. You have to do it through the DNS. Make a new name for
> the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record,
> or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.
This is bad news, as the security people already told me that they will
not put internal hosts in the external DNS.
BTW: Why does qmail-remote not use /etc/hosts ?
Cheers
Bernhard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Bernhard Duebi writes:
> > > is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
> > > smtproutes ?
> >
> > Yes and no. You have to do it through the DNS. Make a new name for
> > the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record,
>
> > or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.
>
> This is bad news, as the security people already told me that they will
> not put internal hosts in the external DNS.
Then run a private DNS server on that machine, which is only
authoritative for that one hostname.
--
-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.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Bernhard Duebi writes:
> > > is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
> > > smtproutes ?
> >
> > Yes and no. You have to do it through the DNS. Make a new name for
> > the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record,
>
> > or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.
>
> This is bad news, as the security people already told me that they will
> not put internal hosts in the external DNS.
If the so-called "internal hosts" are reachable via the Internet, and the
sole distinguishing feature that makes them "internal" is a lack of DNS
records, you need to hire better security people.
If your internal hosts are not reachable from the Internet, DNS records
make no difference whatsoever, and you still need to hire better security
people.
> BTW: Why does qmail-remote not use /etc/hosts ?
Because /etc/hosts does not have the capability of specifying MX records.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 January 1999 at
16:47:15 +0100
> BTW: Why does qmail-remote not use /etc/hosts ?
I know of 2 reasons off-hand:
1. /etc/hosts doesn't have anything like MX records, and a host might
be listed in /etc/hosts that doesn't actually accept its own mail.
2. The functions that use /etc/hosts in the standard library aren't
available, since Dan doesn't use the standard library (for
security and space reasons).
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Hi there;
I've just noticed that all the mail on my machine has been backed up since
about the 17th and I can't think what I've done to my machine to cause
this. Every time it tries to deliver mail (mostly by my pitiful attempts
to 'killall -ALRM qmail-send') I get log messages like this:
Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796554 delivery 90: deferral:
Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796724 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
etc. for every message. I took a little look at the qmail-remote source
and this error seems to be some 'default' action for when something times
out.
The only thing I did a while ago was change my mailer from Netscape to
KMail, both of which injected mail into qmail via SMTP to localhost, and I
can't see anything fishy with the queue files (though I'm not sure I'd
know what to look for).
can anyone help me out?
cheers,
--
Matthew
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:57:28PM +0000, Matthew Bloch wrote:
> Hi there;
>
> I've just noticed that all the mail on my machine has been backed up since
> about the 17th and I can't think what I've done to my machine to cause
> this. Every time it tries to deliver mail (mostly by my pitiful attempts
> to 'killall -ALRM qmail-send') I get log messages like this:
>
> Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796554 delivery 90: deferral:
> Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
> Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796724 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
>
> etc. for every message. I took a little look at the qmail-remote source
> and this error seems to be some 'default' action for when something times
> out.
>
> The only thing I did a while ago was change my mailer from Netscape to
> KMail, both of which injected mail into qmail via SMTP to localhost, and I
> can't see anything fishy with the queue files (though I'm not sure I'd
> know what to look for).
>
> can anyone help me out?
Type qmail-qread and see if the domains it's trying to send to are correct.
Greetz, Peter.
--
<squeezer> AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE | Peter van Dijk
<squeezer> hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<squeezer> @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d
<squeezer> $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] < 37); |
<squeezer> $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] < 99); | * blah *
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:57:28PM +0000, Matthew Bloch wrote:
> > Hi there;
> >
> > I've just noticed that all the mail on my machine has been backed up since
> > about the 17th and I can't think what I've done to my machine to cause
> > this. Every time it tries to deliver mail (mostly by my pitiful attempts
> > to 'killall -ALRM qmail-send') I get log messages like this:
> >
> > Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796554 delivery 90: deferral:
> > Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
> > Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796724 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
> [snip]
>
> Type qmail-qread and see if the domains it's trying to send to are correct.
This is what I get; I think this is correct for the bits of mail that are
in my queue. Does it look abnormal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Jan 1999 14:53:43 GMT #835935 505 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(this was a test post to my usual redirection address)
22 Jan 1999 14:28:13 GMT #835936 1430
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[]>
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.... etc. (a mailing list post)...
18 Jan 1999 20:53:34 GMT #835932 926 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.... etc. (more banal emails to friends)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Matthew
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:06:55PM +0000, Matthew Bloch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:57:28PM +0000, Matthew Bloch wrote:
> > > Hi there;
> > >
> > > I've just noticed that all the mail on my machine has been backed up since
> > > about the 17th and I can't think what I've done to my machine to cause
> > > this. Every time it tries to deliver mail (mostly by my pitiful attempts
> > > to 'killall -ALRM qmail-send') I get log messages like this:
> > >
> > > Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796554 delivery 90: deferral:
> > > Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
> > > Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796724 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
> > [snip]
> >
> > Type qmail-qread and see if the domains it's trying to send to are correct.
>
> This is what I get; I think this is correct for the bits of mail that are
> in my queue. Does it look abnormal?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 22 Jan 1999 14:53:43 GMT #835935 505 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (this was a test post to my usual redirection address)
> 22 Jan 1999 14:28:13 GMT #835936 1430
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[]>
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .... etc. (a mailing list post)...
> 18 Jan 1999 20:53:34 GMT #835932 926 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .... etc. (more banal emails to friends)...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try telnetting from your mailserver to port 25 of the MXes for these domains.
Greetz, Peter.
--
<squeezer> AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE | Peter van Dijk
<squeezer> hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<squeezer> @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d
<squeezer> $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] < 37); |
<squeezer> $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] < 99); | * blah *
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Matthew Bloch wrote:
> Hi there;
>
> I've just noticed that all the mail on my machine has been backed up since
> about the 17th and I can't think what I've done to my machine to cause
> this. Every time it tries to deliver mail (mostly by my pitiful attempts
> to 'killall -ALRM qmail-send') I get log messages like this:
>
> Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796554 delivery 90: deferral:
> Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
> Jan 22 15:36:24 meb39 qmail: 917019384.796724 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
Do you perhaps have a machine listed in smtproutes that's down?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================
Sorry, I probably ought to make clear that this is my /outgoing/ mail that
doesn't deliver. Incoming mail gets to me fine (mostly on the subject of
'why haven't you mailed me xyz yet?' :-) )
--
Matthew
"D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new-inject documentation is more straightforward. You could solve
> your problem with new-inject by putting
>
> =deer.jcb-sc.com:jcb-sc.com
>
> into control/rewrite.
Dan,
Does the above suggestion imply that new-inject may safely be used
instead of qmail-inject, or that you would recommend this?
The man page for new-inject does not say so explicitly, and doesn't
highlight the differences from qmail-inject.
The BLURB for mess822 _does_ hint at this, but I missed it till I
read your suggestion.
Len.
--
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies
shall not escape. --Proverbs 19:5
Jozef Gniadek wrote:
> Maybe this is out of topic. On sun with solaris 2.5.1 are running mail
> server and web server, I got error msg, something like ' out of file descriptors,
> too many open files'......
> What I should do?, how I may to increase file descriptors?, if this is posible...
For those running Linux: We're experiencing such problems on a extremely
busy Linux webserver, AFAIK there's a compile time limit of 256 fd's
(controlled by ulimit) in Linux 2.0, but in some usenet posting I read
that Linux 2.2 (wich is about to be released) will support 1024 fds by
default.
Matthias
--
w e b f a c t o r y | matthias pigulla
www.webfactory.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Matthias Pigulla wrote:
> For those running Linux: We're experiencing such problems on a extremely
> busy Linux webserver, AFAIK there's a compile time limit of 256 fd's
> (controlled by ulimit) in Linux 2.0, but in some usenet posting I read
> that Linux 2.2 (wich is about to be released) will support 1024 fds by
> default.
2.2-final is now available. It will take about a month, or so, for all
the vendors to start shipping it as a package. It supports more than 1024
fds per process, some obscene number I didn't bother to remember.
Should be interesting to see what will happen if someone running
UltraPenguin on a Sparc with about a dozen CPUs bumps up concurrencyremote
to 1024...
>>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Niels Jensen wrote:
>>
>> So, some of my control files are:
>>
> me: f64.work.com
>> locals: f64.work.com (to define local addresses)
>> defaultdomain: work.com
>> defaulthost: sonic.net (my ISP)
>> plusdomain: work.com
>> smtproutes: :mail.sonic.net
>>
>> If I send mail to myself using the local-local test from TEST.deliver,
>> the mail is delivered remotely to the sonic mailserver, because sonic.net
>> is added to my username. How do I get qmail to stop doing this?
>
>That's because your defaulthost is sonic.net. When qmail-inject sends
>an email to an address without a host, it adds the default host (see
>qmail-inject manpage).
>
>Change it to f64.work.com.
If I do this, then when I mail stuff remotely through my ISP's
mailserver, the return address for me is my work address, which I
do not want. Somehow I have to make qmail change my address to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] whenever mail is sent rmotely, and keep it to
nielsj, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] when mail is sent locally.
First of all, the line
smtproutes: :mail.sonic.net
says that whenever there is a local connection to smtp, the message
should be sent to mail.sonic.net, your ISP. So if a (local) user
sends mail from Netscape or MH---even to a local address---it will be
sent through your ISP.
But suppose all mailers use sendmail. Then how about this solution:
Set up a virtualdomain l.l as
l.l:special
and put
|forward $[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in ~special/.qmail-default. (Since l.l is for local users, no need for it to be in
DNS)
Then your users can send a message to a local user joe as
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To also set the envelope sender, put
| SLOCAL=`echo $SENDER | cut -d@ -f1`
qmail-inject -f $[EMAIL PROTECTED] $[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in ~special/.qmail-default (all on one line).
If any of your users find that it is too much work to type `@l.l',
then they can set up aliases (or you can do it for them) as
joe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for each local user joe in their MUAs.
Mate
Niels Jensen writes:
> If I do this, then when I mail stuff remotely through my ISP's
> mailserver, the return address for me is my work address, which I
> do not want. Somehow I have to make qmail change my address to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] whenever mail is sent rmotely, and keep it to
> nielsj, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] when mail is sent locally.
virtualdomains to the rescue!
echo '|forward $DEFAULT' >~alias/.qmail-foobar-default
echo '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-foobar' >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
(repeat this step for any other local users.)
Does not he have to do
echo '|forward $[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >~alias/.qmail-foobar-default
instead of the first line? Otherwise @sonic.net (defaulthost) will be
appended?
Mate
Mate Wierdl writes:
> Niels Jensen writes:
> > If I do this, then when I mail stuff remotely through my ISP's
> > mailserver, the return address for me is my work address, which I
> > do not want. Somehow I have to make qmail change my address to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] whenever mail is sent rmotely, and keep it to
> > nielsj, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] when mail is sent locally.
>
> virtualdomains to the rescue!
>
> echo '|forward $DEFAULT' >~alias/.qmail-foobar-default
> echo '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-foobar' >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
> (repeat this step for any other local users.)
>
> Does not he have to do
>
> echo '|forward $[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >~alias/.qmail-foobar-default
>
> instead of the first line? Otherwise @sonic.net (defaulthost) will be
> appended?
As configured, yes. It really depends on who he sends more mail to.
That's what defaults are for -- for the most usual circumstance. But
you're right, it ought to name his own host explicitly.
--
-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'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't
have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories:
/etc/skel/Maildir
/etc/skel/Maildir/new
/etc/skel/Maildir/tmp
/etc/skel/Maildir/cur
and this file:
/etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message
And the useradd script will make the Maildir for me AND "email" them a
welcome message! This is so cool!
--
-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'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't
have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories:
Yupp, from INSTALL.maildir:
The system administrator can set up Maildir as the default for everybody
by creating a maildir in the new-user template directory and replacing
./Mailbox with ./Maildir/ in /var/qmail/rc.
Mate
On 22 Jan 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't
> have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories:
>
> /etc/skel/Maildir
> /etc/skel/Maildir/new
> /etc/skel/Maildir/tmp
> /etc/skel/Maildir/cur
>
> and this file:
>
> /etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message
>
> And the useradd script will make the Maildir for me AND "email" them a
> welcome message! This is so cool!
Been doing this for years...since the Mailbox days... :)
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
Russell Nelson wrote:
> /etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message
>
> And the useradd script will make the Maildir for me AND "email" them a
> welcome message! This is so cool!
The main problem I've found with doing this is the headers have to be generic
and can't put the actual users address in there. Another problem I ran into
just today was some bastard version of adduser that didn't actually copy
anything from /etc/skel thus my newusers were Maildirless. Ick.
--Steve
Been doing this for years...since the Mailbox days... :)
It is necessary to create even Mailbox in the skel dir; if ~/Mailbox
does not exist, pine complains about not finding `...Folder'.
Mate
At 04:20 PM 1/22/99 -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>I'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't
>have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories:
>
>/etc/skel/Maildir
>/etc/skel/Maildir/new
>/etc/skel/Maildir/tmp
>/etc/skel/Maildir/cur
>
>and this file:
>
>/etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message
Being pedantic, perhaps /etc/skel/Maildir/new/0.0.welcome?
Regards.
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:16:15AM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> At 04:20 PM 1/22/99 -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> >I'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't
> >have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories:
> >
> >/etc/skel/Maildir
> >/etc/skel/Maildir/new
> >/etc/skel/Maildir/tmp
> >/etc/skel/Maildir/cur
> >
> >and this file:
> >
> >/etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message
>
> Being pedantic, perhaps /etc/skel/Maildir/new/0.0.welcome?
If I was pedantic, I'd require you to write a script that does time().$$.`hostname` :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
<squeezer> AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE | Peter van Dijk
<squeezer> hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<squeezer> @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d
<squeezer> $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] < 37); |
<squeezer> $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] < 99); | * blah *
We are using a linux server for IPMasquerading/Qmail/
DNS/FTP/HTTP (what a workhorse! gotta love it!).
We have several virtual domains setup on this server
and everything works.
I need to "forward" or "re-direct" ALL of the (incoming)
EMAIL for a particular virtual domain to a Microsoft
Exchange Server (I know....not my choice!) residing
on the internal (behind the IPMasqueraded firewall)
network.
What would be the "simplest/easiest/best" way to
accomplish this? (I can't just change the MX record
in DNS, because the DNS machine IS the mail server
and it just doesn't "pass it on" to the "Exchange
Server".) Oh yeah, for what it's worth, I have opened
up the Exchange Server's smtp port with:
ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S 0/0 -D <exchange_server_IP> 25 -y
Thanks!
Shayne
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Shayne Judkins wrote:
> I need to "forward" or "re-direct" ALL of the (incoming)
> EMAIL for a particular virtual domain to a Microsoft
> Exchange Server (I know....not my choice!) residing
> on the internal (behind the IPMasqueraded firewall)
> network.
virtualdomain.com:exchangeserverhostname in smtproutes
echo virtualdomain.com >> rcpthosts
--
Regards,
Jose Luis Painceira.
That works! THANKS!
Shayne
-----Original Message-----
From: Jose Luis Painceira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Shayne Judkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Forward virtual doamin to different server?
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Shayne Judkins wrote:
>
>> I need to "forward" or "re-direct" ALL of the (incoming)
>> EMAIL for a particular virtual domain to a Microsoft
>> Exchange Server (I know....not my choice!) residing
>> on the internal (behind the IPMasqueraded firewall)
>> network.
>
>virtualdomain.com:exchangeserverhostname in smtproutes
>echo virtualdomain.com >> rcpthosts
>
>--
>Regards,
>Jose Luis Painceira.
>
>
I believe Dan said that under solaris the resolver library is statically
linked only.
On 22 Jan 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Andrew Richards writes:
> > As someone looking at using Qmail on Solaris, what is the issue with
> > Solaris alluded to above?
>
> Solaris fritters away quite a bit of memory in each networking process.
> This limits the number of simultaneous processes that you can run.
>
> ---Dan
>
Thanks for everyone who's replied so quickly-- I've actually found out
what /caused/ the problem. Apparently using SMTP to any hosts outside
Cambridge is not allowed, and they've had a firewall in for a number of
years; the question I want answered is how the f*** did I mange for two
weeks without using their smarthost?
Anyway, that's by the by-- my next question is how can I set qmail so that
it has the envelope address permanently set to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, whoever
the mail comes from on my machine? I managed to run a mailing list from
my Acorn machine in this way, but I'm not sure how to fiddle the envelope
address with qmail.
--
Matthew
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, you wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:09:42 +0000 (GMT),
>>> Matthew Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>M> Anyway, that's by the by-- my next question is how can I set qmail so
>M> that it has the envelope address permanently set to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>M> whoever the mail comes from on my machine? I managed to run a mailing
>M> list from my Acorn machine in this way, but I'm not sure how to fiddle
>M> the envelope address with qmail.
>
> You might want to use ezmlm instead of messing with envelope addresses.
> It's a very slick mailing list manager, available wherever you got
> qmail.
I'm using ezmlm but I need /all/ my outgoing mail from my qmail setup to be
use a single envelope from: address; is this possible?
--
Matthew ( http://www.soup-kitchen.demon.co.uk/ )
This isn't really a qmail question, more mail in general. I received an
email with the following header. Although it was "Received: .... for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]", it doesn't have a "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" line ?!
Or maybe I'm missing something. Any ideas anyone ?
Thanks,
Richard Aldridge.
Received: from tigers.cableinet.net (tigers.cableinet.net
[193.38.113.20]) by lions.cableinet.net (950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI)
via SMTP id QAA13433 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:53:51
GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 197 invoked from network); 22 Jan 1999 16:50:57 -0000
Received: from baloo.pipex-sa.net (196.22.64.66)
by tigers.cableinet.net with SMTP; 22 Jan 1999 16:50:57 -0000
Received: from rmbam.co.za [196.11.197.7]
by baloo.pipex-sa.net with esmtp (Exim 1.59 #1)
id 103jtE-0005Ty-00; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:57:00 +0200
Received: from RMBAM/SpoolDir by rmbam.co.za (Mercury 1.31);
22 Jan 99 18:58:39 SAST-2
Received: from SpoolDir by RMBAM (Mercury 1.31); 22 Jan 99 18:58:12
SAST-2
Received: from VA5ryisB5 by rmbam.co.za (Mercury 1.31);
22 Jan 99 18:57:59 SAST-2
DATE: 22 Jan 99 8:39:57 AM
Message-ID: <T87SA38yqR6n23nbq>
SUBJECT: Maximize your website traffic.
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: bc96001b4ab82c667042b35c7c2aa1bd
hi,
At 18:16 22.01.99 , R Aldridge wrote:
>This isn't really a qmail question, more mail in general. I received an
>email with the following header. Although it was "Received: .... for
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]", it doesn't have a "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" line ?!
>Or maybe I'm missing something. Any ideas anyone ?
you needn't got a TO:-Line. What you need is a received line with the
mailing address
Received: from [...] for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:53:51 GMT
But this Header is from _Sendmail_. In Qmail you either have no
Recieved-Line (have you?).
I don't know why the developers think it would be better but I think there
is a reason (which?)...
by,
Michael
Because you probably got this "ad" (spam) sent as a bulk mail, and
your address was in the Bcc: header---which gets removed upon delivery
(bcc=BlindCarbonCopy).
Mate---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
R Aldridge writes:
> This isn't really a qmail question, more mail in general. I received an
> email with the following header. Although it was "Received: .... for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]", it doesn't have a "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" line ?!
> Or maybe I'm missing something. Any ideas anyone ?
.Ah "A bit about email"
Before you can understand qmail, you have to understand email.
Perhaps you have used email for years, and know all about how to get
mail through to people with weird addresses. Very likely, though, you
have only ever had to deal with RFC822 messages. You know, From:,
To:, and Subject: headers, and a body. But that's not the major
concern of an MTA like qmail. It's more concerned with RFC821. None
of this explanation is specific to qmail.
.Bh "The post office analogy"
Probably everyone is familiar with the way a national mail system
works. You've got a message to send. You type it up on a piece of
paper. All the business schools teach you how to format a letter,
with your address at the top, followed by the recipient's address,
followed by a salutation and the body of the message. Then the letter
goes into an envelope, the envelope is addressed, a return-address
sticker placed on the top-left corner, and a stamp on the top-right
corner.
Email works much the same way. You enter the message that you want to
send into your MUA (Mail User Agent). You give it the recipient's
address. Earlier you gave it your own address. Since that never
changes, it's stored it away and tacks it onto outgoing messages.
Then the MUA hands the mail to the MTA (Mail Transfer Agent), which
usually examines the headers to get the address of the recipient. It
uses that for the envelope recipient. It supplies the username that
was running the MUA as the envelope sender.
.Bh "The crucial distinction"
The post office uses the envelope address to send the mail. It
doesn't look at the letter inside the envelope. It could care less
what the recipient address on the letter is, nor even if there is any
address at all. If the envelope recipient is wrong, then the post
office sends the mail back to the envelope sender. If that is also
wrong, then the letter goes to the dead letter office, where a human
opens the letter to see if the proper recipient address can be
discerned from the contents.
Similarly, an MTA makes a distinction between the envelope addresses
(RFC821--only address matter, no comments) and the message addresses
(RFC822--typically full name <address>). It tries to send the mail to
the envelope recipient, if that fails, then it tries the envelope
sender, and if that fails, you have a double bounce and the postmaster
gets it.
.Bh "The source of the envelope information"
The envelope information is usually derived from the message headers.
If you don't tell the submittal program (for which the Unix standard
is /usr/lib/sendmail) any special addresses, it will search the
headers for To:, CC:, and BCC: headers. All of those addresses will
be used for envelope recipients. The envelope sender is usually the
username associated with the UID that ran the submittal program.
Those aren't always the right values to use. For examples, consider a
mailing list. A user submitted mail to the list, so the envelope
sender is them, and the envelope recipient is the list submission
address. The mailing list needs to create a totally different
envelope. The list's envelope needs to have it's bounce-processing
address as the envelope sender, and the list of members as the
envelope recipient(s).
Typically, the submittal program has a way to make those changes.
/usr/lib/sendmail has a -f option to set the envelope sender, and you
can give it an address as a parameter, which it will use as the
envelope recipient. This parameter names an alias which the submittal
program expands into the whole list of members.
.Bh "How qmail fits into this"
Qmail emulates /usr/lib/sendmail, but also provides it's own
submission program (which /usr/lib/sendmail runs), called
qmail-inject. This program adds headers to make the message
RFC822-compliant, and derives the envelope sender and recipient as
described above. It's an improvement over the /usr/lib/sendmail
interface mostly because it was designed to be a submission program,
where /usr/lib/sendmail just aggregated features.
Qmail-inject is the only part of qmail which parses RFC822 headers.
So, once it's derived the envelope addresses, it effectively seals the
envelope.
--
-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.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, R Aldridge wrote:
> This isn't really a qmail question, more mail in general. I received an
> email with the following header. Although it was "Received: .... for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]", it doesn't have a "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" line ?!
> Or maybe I'm missing something. Any ideas anyone ?
Yes. Please explain why you believe that an E-mail message's recipient
must always be listed in the To: header. If so, nearly every message on
this mailing list should confuse you, since nowhere will you appear in the
To: header in nearly all messages on the mailing list.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> Because you probably got this "ad" (spam) sent as a bulk mail, and
> your address was in the Bcc: header---which gets removed upon delivery
> (bcc=BlindCarbonCopy).
>
> Mate---
> Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
>
Acutally, it is supposed to be removed by the MUA when it gets injected
into a mail queue on the sending end. The receiving end and all SMTP
servers in the middle have no idea that it started as a BCC.
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Manager
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
"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:
> Perhaps there was noise on the modem line. If it happens again, you
> could use tcpdump or ucspi-tcp/recordio to see what's actually being
> transmitted through the POP connection.
Possibly.. Or maybe even it was just Netscapes funky progress bar coupled
with a large message. What threw me was they reported problems in other
clients but this turned out to be due to the other admin somehow making all
the files in cur owned by root while fiddling with them. Speaking of
Netscape I applied the octets patch mentioned in the archives but compiling
gives me
qmail-pop3d.c: In function `pop3_top':
qmail-pop3d.c:272: `foo' undeclared (first use this function)
Does anyone know how to fix this? The lines inserted are evidently
puts("+OK ");
foo[fmt_uint(foo,m[i].size)] = 0;
puts(foo);
puts(" octets \r\n");
flush();
Regards,
--Steve
Right then; after some help and interpretation from Mate Wierdl
I've managed to work out that I need to be using the
/qmail/boot/binmx files to source my /qmail/rc. HOwever, I don't
know which one to use; the distribution of binmail that i
have appears to be
4th Berkeley Distribution December 30, 1993
so far as I can tell, and Mate agrees. So; is this
BSD shipping (binm1) or VSR shipping (binm2) or
V7 shipping (binm3) ?
Thanks again,
cHris Naden
I've got a new email address! Replace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in your
various list(s) with:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The old address should work for some time, but I'll be checking it
less and less often.
The new address is part of my upgrading my whole computing setup to
include a new, more reliable ISP. While getting all the pertinent
software working right (and learning how to best use it) is requiring
a significant investment of my time, in the long run it should pay
off by allowing me to work faster, better, stronger, and for only
a little bit more money (to pay the ISP :). For example, it'll be
nice, for a change, to read and write email while "off-line" using
my own computer, rather than "on-line" and remotely via other
computers.
tq vm, (burley)
blip wrote:
> Hi all,
> Have a question about the following:
>
> We host domains, and have many of our customers requesting things like
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the next customer asks for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I do understand the .qmail alias mechanism for when the situation is
> "local". Can someone smack me in the direction of how to accomplish
> this for
> when a qmail server is hosting virtual domains?
Hi blip ;)
Place these "same user name" domains in qmail/control/virtualdomains as
qmail reads the ~/local file first! Remove any domains from ~/locals that
you are putting into qmail/control/virtualdomains or it wont work
Create lines such as this in var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
mydomain.com:mydomaincom
herdomain.com:herdomaincom
user mydomaincom now controls the mail for mydomain.com
I use the same name as the domain less the "dots" to see real easily
what's going on in the qmail/alias directory and to avoid a real user with
that name in etc/passwd or elsewhere.
In var/qmail/alias
touch .qmail-mydomaincom-sales
touch .qmail-mydomaincom-info
touch .qmail-mydomaincom-jim
touch .qmail-herdomaincom-sales
touch .qmail-herdomaincom-info
touch .qmail-herdomaincom-jim
place in each file your forward address such as
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use innocuous domains and send the tests to yourself to start it off.
Call me if you want to see the setup on our name server.
R
--
Rick Weber
Weber Communications - Palace Developers.
Coterie Inc. - Server Admin.
Palace Server sites are available at http://webercom.com/
Our Virtual Education Center is at http://www.coterie.com/
Get Free Palace clients and servers at http://www.thepalace.com/
palace://palace.virtualscholar.com
palace://pennsylvania.lag.com
palace://webercom.com
PO box F, Whitehall PA., 18052
