qmail Digest 24 Jan 1999 11:00:15 -0000 Issue 530
Topics (messages 20886 through 20894):
relay for reserved IPs / proxy question
20886 by: "axw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20892 by: Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(off topic) required mx?
20887 by: Niklas Alberth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Building new mail system
20888 by: spork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20893 by: Patrick Greenwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20894 by: spork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmtp issue
20889 by: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20890 by: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cool!
20891 by: Russell Nelson <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi!
I have successfuly set up qmail to receive and send mail on a firewall (tis fwtk 2.1)
proxy.
I know that perhaps I shouldn't have done this for security reasons;
however, the trouble is, I can not make qmail pass emails from the internal network
(192.168.etc). It means that it's impossible to reach any external account via pop3
nor send any mail. This concerns only windows 95 machines behind the firewall/proxy
(which works fine itself).
So, my question is: how do I set up qmail to act as a relay (pop3 & smtp) for reserved
IPs behind the proxy?
How to configure qmail on a proxy/firewall?
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
axw
At 05:06 AM 2/23/99 , axw wrote:
>I have successfuly set up qmail to receive and send mail on a firewall (tis
>fwtk 2.1) proxy.
>I know that perhaps I shouldn't have done this for security reasons;
>however, the trouble is, I can not make qmail pass emails from the internal
>network (192.168.etc). It means that it's impossible to reach any external
>account via pop3 nor send any mail. This concerns only windows 95 machines
>behind the firewall/proxy (which works fine itself).
>So, my question is: how do I set up qmail to act as a relay (pop3 & smtp)
>for reserved IPs behind the proxy?
Proxying POP3 is not a qmail-related thing. If you run a SOCKS server on
the qmail/firewall/proxy machine, you can get your Win95 machines to use
the SOCKS server. If their mail clients don't support SOCKS, you can use
the SocksCap program at www.socks.nec.com to make them go through the SOCKS
server. Or you can use something like Linux's masq or FreeBSD's natd and
proxy everything.
Proxying SMTP could be done by the solution above, or you could develop a
messy smtproutes method. A simple, blanket smtproute would work, except
that it would stop the mail which goes only behind the firewall.
--Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
ICQ UIN: 692441 ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Hello
I guess this is abit of topic but I don't knew any one else to ask.
(bakground: I'm doing a kind of exam work, using linux to set up a (q)mail
and web server for the other students at my school, I've only got control
over my own server)
My qmail server is at student.nystromska.soderkoping.se, I'm only accepting
mail for that domain. Is a mx required for that domain? I've tried to set
up a dns server but i don't think the rest of the net is aware of it. I
can't other A or CNAME i've setup.
Please take a look, and if you like - see if I've configured my server right.
--Niklas
I would stay away from the CMD product. It seems pretty nice, but we've
been holding up a similar migration for a few months because CMD cannot
help us figure out why the controller "disappears" for a few minutes now
and again. We`re running 2.2x with CAM. The mylex is used in wcarchive,
and I believe it may be the better candidate just because it's in active
use and there are no "unsupported OS" issues.
See related thread on freebsd-scsi... Look for "5440" and "spork".
Charles
---
Charles Sprickman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Robert Adams wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> 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
>
> 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?
>
> 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..
>
> TIA,
>
> Jason
>
> ---
> Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net
> Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com
> SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc.
> Phone: 888-4-SISCOM 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
>
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, spork wrote:
> I would stay away from the CMD product. It seems pretty nice, but we've
> been holding up a similar migration for a few months because CMD cannot
> help us figure out why the controller "disappears" for a few minutes now
> and again. We`re running 2.2x with CAM.
Did you ever consider that that might be your problem, as CAM is
constantly being worked on and AFAIK isn't being back-ported to 2.2.X?
I'm running a couple of CMD based boxes hooked to BSDi boxen and they run
flawlessly...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
(tinc)
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Did you ever consider that that might be your problem, as CAM is
> constantly being worked on and AFAIK isn't being back-ported to 2.2.X?
Oh, did I ever ;) After some email exchanges with one of the CAM folks
though, I'm pretty confident that cam is a much more stable choice than
the old drivers for the adaptec card I'm using. The stock drivers
couldn't even find a second partition on the CMD even with the LUNs wired
down in the kernel config. Some informal benchmarking also confirms that
performance is greatly enhanced, especially when you have many reads and
writes cued up on a busy system.
I'm running patches specifically for the 2.2 branch at this time. I
believe there will be a final version sometime this month.
I've also found that the CMD only handles a total of 64 tagged commands,
which is less than the Mylex which I believe has double that.
> I'm running a couple of CMD based boxes hooked to BSDi boxen and they run
> flawlessly...
Yep, one of the things that sold me was the praise from people already
using them. Also I think CMD is the only one that has all the RAID 5 math
done in an ASIC, which is probably speedier than the i960 the mylex uses.
Then again, it seems the walnut creek folks have had excellent results
with their mylex or wcarchive.
I also have a quick question for you: What controller are you using? If
it's an Adaptec, is disconnection enabled or disabled? I believe the
default is enabled.
Thanks,
Charles
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
> (tinc)
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
Hiyas,
I want to write an article about Qmail for a Linux related special issue of
the Hungarian Chip and it's work but I don't know whether I can give my
readers a solution for send letters via QMTP protocol.
There's a qmail-qmtpd which accepts connections from qmtp-capable clients
but I cannot find any client for this task.
Is QMTP a hypothetical protocol?
Regards: Jul
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -export-a-crypto-system-sig -http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> Is QMTP a hypothetical protocol?
Except of serialmail.
Regards: Jul
Mark Delany writes:
> >/etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message
>
> Being pedantic, perhaps /etc/skel/Maildir/new/0.0.welcome?
Yeah, maybe too pedantic. No qmail reader cares, but other qmail
writers might be writing "welcome.message". Sticking with the
standard of timestamp.pid.hostname guarantees that it'll work. Of
course, if you *know* you have no hostnames named "welcome", and you
can guarantee that no other qmail writer is configured with a
pseudo-hostname of welcome, then *anything* ending in .welcome will
work just fine.
But still, yeah, you're right.
--
-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.
