qmail Digest 19 Mar 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 584
Topics (messages 23094 through 23132):
ETRN, qmail-1.03 and etrn patch v0.1f
23094 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23100 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23109 by: "Robert J. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23112 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Relaying problem (new approach)
23095 by: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23097 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23098 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23101 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23104 by: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23105 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23106 by: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23107 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23114 by: Asmodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23129 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23130 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23132 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail sends single message meny times
23096 by: Iavor Trapkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23102 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23128 by: Iavor Trapkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dot-qmail security
23099 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23121 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
ezmlm and "delay notifies" (was: Re: mini-bounce)
23103 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23119 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail Relay.
23108 by: "Carles Latorre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23120 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Strange Bounce
23110 by: Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23131 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Connection closed on qmail-smtpd using tcp-env
23111 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23127 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Documentation
23113 by: Diego Puertas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23118 by: Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23122 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23124 by: Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NIS and qmail: solved
23115 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23123 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
outgoing mail
23116 by: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23126 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail-Make Version 3.0 & Build-Cfg version 2
23117 by: "Julian L.C. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
splogger replacement?
23125 by: Bruce Guenter <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I've read the page about etrn, and I think the author made some
> mistakes (at least on his first page, I'm saying anything about the
> code).
[snip]
> This solution of etrn relies on the fact that all mail
> should stay in a queue. But why? In a maildir, you've much more
> control about the size (quota) and all, which I think is a feature
> many people appreciate. When mails stay in the queue, it can grow
> beyond your control and crash your own machine. So to summarize: use
> maildir2smtp, not etrn.
That's one part of the truth. The rest is that for
maildir/maildir2smtp you need to know _in advance_ for which domains
you have this feature. ETRN is much more democratic - every domain
for which you have the mail in queue can ask you to deliver it now.
In "normal" setup you probably don't need etrn - the messages in
queue are either outgoing or going to your clients. I can't think of
an example where etrn cuts it more easily than maildir2smtp does but
that probably doesn't mean there is one...
Just my 0.02 whatever.
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 12:10:31PM +0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> That's one part of the truth. The rest is that for
> maildir/maildir2smtp you need to know _in advance_ for which domains
> you have this feature. ETRN is much more democratic - every domain
> for which you have the mail in queue can ask you to deliver it now.
With qmail's model, this can be a problem. If you are already delivering
messages at full concurrency, and then 3 or 4 domains send ETRNs around the
same time, they will be starved. qmail may not finish up existing
deliveries for quite a while, and these domains will have to wait until
then. That's why I maintain that ETRN in qmail is not the best way.
AutoTURN is much better, because each client gets their own process to send
them email, and the serialization isn't so bad, because modem connections
are slow anyway. Using maildirs gives many advantages too, like control
over size and filtering messages at the ISP to save downstream sites from
unwanted messages, especially for sites that have to pay for connect time
and volume.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Hello,
Is it possible to setup AutoTURN so that the user doesn't have to have a
static IP? So far that's the only downside I've seen.
-j
---
Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net
Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com
SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc.
Phone: 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153
-----Original Message-----
From: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 1999 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: ETRN, qmail-1.03 and etrn patch v0.1f
>On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 12:10:31PM +0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
>
>> That's one part of the truth. The rest is that for
>> maildir/maildir2smtp you need to know _in advance_ for which domains
>> you have this feature. ETRN is much more democratic - every domain
>> for which you have the mail in queue can ask you to deliver it now.
>
>With qmail's model, this can be a problem. If you are already delivering
>messages at full concurrency, and then 3 or 4 domains send ETRNs around the
>same time, they will be starved. qmail may not finish up existing
>deliveries for quite a while, and these domains will have to wait until
>then. That's why I maintain that ETRN in qmail is not the best way.
>
>AutoTURN is much better, because each client gets their own process to send
>them email, and the serialization isn't so bad, because modem connections
>are slow anyway. Using maildirs gives many advantages too, like control
>over size and filtering messages at the ISP to save downstream sites from
>unwanted messages, especially for sites that have to pay for connect time
>and volume.
>
>--
>System Administrator
>See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
>
Robert J. Adams writes:
> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to setup AutoTURN so that the user doesn't have to have a
> static IP? So far that's the only downside I've seen.
Better to use Anand's turnmail script. http://www.qmail.org/turnmail.
--
-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.
Sorry about asking my question again. This time I try really hard
to explain the case. I thought my question was trivial, and the
answer too. (It must be).
I run a mail relay for an ISP.
A customer says: "Can we use your mail relay as a secondary MX?"
I say: "Okay, just give me at list of the domain names we should
accept mail for".
I put this list into control/rcpthosts on mail.isp.dk (name not real)
and get mail.isp.dk added as a lower precedence MX in my customer's
zone files. That should be enough, right? Nothing more necessary.
The problem.
I have, too many times, seen mail.isp.dk reject mail to
my customers domains with the following error:
"Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, "
"it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)"
The error message above contains two statements:
My customers domain names are not in control/locals. That is true.
Our mail relay is listed as the best-preference MX. That is wrong.
I cannot imagine that DNS can claim our mail server to be the best
MX for our costomer's domain, which it is not, and never has been.
DNS says (made up names):
customer.dk. <--- customer's zone
IN MX 10 mail.customer.dk. <-- customer's server
IN MX 20 mail.isp.dk. <--- Our server
To "fix" the reject problem I always make entries for my customers
domains into control/smtproutes, pointing to their best preference
MX host. It works, but I can't believe that hardcoding the best
MX is the way to do it.
Testing is difficult because I can only send mail from our networks,
so rcpthosts is never consulted. Testing from outside is possible
using telnet, but I don't have a shell account on the outside.
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
- torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| The problem.
| I have, too many times, seen mail.isp.dk reject mail to
| my customers domains with the following error:
|
| "Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, "
| "it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)"
|
| The error message above contains two statements:
| My customers domain names are not in control/locals. That is true.
| Our mail relay is listed as the best-preference MX. That is wrong.
Have you tried running dnsmxip (in the qmail source directory) against
the customer's domain?
| I cannot imagine that DNS can claim our mail server to be the best
| MX for our costomer's domain, which it is not, and never has been.
Do you control the authoritative DNS server for the customer's domain
yourself? Could it be that someone occasionally screws up the name
server, actually rendering your server the best MX? Apart from that,
and the possibility that you have a buggy name server around, I see no
reason why you should get the behaviour you describe.
| DNS says (made up names):
|
| customer.dk. <--- customer's zone
| IN MX 10 mail.customer.dk. <-- customer's server
| IN MX 20 mail.isp.dk. <--- Our server
As it should be.
| Testing is difficult because I can only send mail from our networks,
| so rcpthosts is never consulted. Testing from outside is possible
| using telnet, but I don't have a shell account on the outside.
Like I indicated, there is always dnsmxip. And you can telnet
directly to your server's SMTP port and try a few mail from: and rcpt
to: commands.
- Harald
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 12:52:53PM +0100, torben fjerdingstad wrote:
> DNS says (made up names):
>
> customer.dk. <--- customer's zone
> IN MX 10 mail.customer.dk. <-- customer's server
> IN MX 20 mail.isp.dk. <--- Our server
>
> "Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, "
> "it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)"
>
> Testing is difficult because I can only send mail from our networks,
> so rcpthosts is never consulted. Testing from outside is possible
> using telnet, but I don't have a shell account on the outside.
1) PLEASE don't "make up names". This makes it impossible to e.g.
track down problems with DNS for the people on the list.
2) Are you sure the zone files are authoritative? If there is a mistake
and you took the above lines from the zone file it may not reflect
the situation as in DNS. Same if you forgot to increment the serial.
3) Are you sure the setup with a lower prio MX is true (and WAS!!!)
at the moment qmail received the mail. Note that there are some
delays in DNS when updating DNS zones due to caching.
4) We have a setup like yours for some thousand domains and it works
perfectly for nearly two years (without having the domains in
smtproutes)
5) rcpthosts only tells qmail-smtpd which domains are allowed as
destination addresses in the envelope. It has nothing to do with
the error messages you get.
Local testing is perfect, as your problem is with further delivery
of the email and in that case (once it's on your system) rcpthosts
doesn't matter any longer.
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | In a world without
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | walls and fences,
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | who needs
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | Windows and Gates?
torben fjerdingstad writes:
> I have, too many times, seen mail.isp.dk reject mail to
> my customers domains with the following error:
>
> "Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, "
> "it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)"
> [...]
> Testing is difficult because I can only send mail from our networks,
> so rcpthosts is never consulted. Testing from outside is possible
> using telnet, but I don't have a shell account on the outside.
You could use my spam testing software. From the server in question,
send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with the envelope sender set
the host in question. It will connect back to your server and send
mail to the envelope sender. Then it will send mail to the envelope
sender address. Obviously if the envelope sender address is bouncing,
you got a problem, but that's not the case here. Just ask your
customer to create an alias on their host that forwards to your host,
and use it as the envelope sender.
--
-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 Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 01:27:09PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | The problem.
> | I have, too many times, seen mail.isp.dk reject mail to
> | my customers domains with the following error:
> |
> | "Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, "
> | "it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)"
> |
> | The error message above contains two statements:
> | My customers domain names are not in control/locals. That is true.
> | Our mail relay is listed as the best-preference MX. That is wrong.
>
> Have you tried running dnsmxip (in the qmail source directory) against
> the customer's domain?
No. I had not noticed that utility. I used nslookup -q=mx <domain>
which appears to be equivalent.
> | I cannot imagine that DNS can claim our mail server to be the best
> | MX for our costomer's domain, which it is not, and never has been.
>
> Do you control the authoritative DNS server for the customer's domain
> yourself? Could it be that someone occasionally screws up the name
> server, actually rendering your server the best MX? Apart from that,
> and the possibility that you have a buggy name server around, I see no
> reason why you should get the behaviour you describe.
No. In the cases I remember DNS was delegated to the customer's
name server. I run the ISP's nameserver so I am used to check DNS.
I could not find any error in DNS for the customer's domains.
> | DNS says (made up names):
> |
> | customer.dk. <--- customer's zone
> | IN MX 10 mail.customer.dk. <-- customer's server
> | IN MX 20 mail.isp.dk. <--- Our server
>
> As it should be.
>
> | Testing is difficult because I can only send mail from our networks,
> | so rcpthosts is never consulted. Testing from outside is possible
> | using telnet, but I don't have a shell account on the outside.
>
> Like I indicated, there is always dnsmxip. And you can telnet
> directly to your server's SMTP port and try a few mail from: and rcpt
> to: commands.
Hmmm.. you are right. Right now it seems to work as it should
without a rule in smtproutes.
I think I will try to remove some more of those smtproutes and wait
to see what happens. Strange. I have seen my problem for at least
3 quite differens receipient domains, where DNS looked fine.
There might have been a transient DNS error, but that should not
give a hard error, I think.
Thanks.
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
> From: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:47:50 +0100
>
> No. In the cases I remember DNS was delegated to the customer's
> name server. I run the ISP's nameserver so I am used to check DNS.
> I could not find any error in DNS for the customer's domains.
Is it possible that these were domains in which they had just added the MX
and the old zone data was still cached in various places in the DNS, so your
qmail didn't have access to the latest zone yet? You might need to flush
the bind cache on your DNS server before things will work properly.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues Deep Eddy Internet Consulting
+1 512 432 4046 609 Deep Eddy Avenue O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78703-4513
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
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 09:13:56AM -0600, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> > From: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:47:50 +0100
> >
> > No. In the cases I remember DNS was delegated to the customer's
> > name server. I run the ISP's nameserver so I am used to check DNS.
> > I could not find any error in DNS for the customer's domains.
>
> Is it possible that these were domains in which they had just added the MX
> and the old zone data was still cached in various places in the DNS, so your
> qmail didn't have access to the latest zone yet? You might need to flush
> the bind cache on your DNS server before things will work properly.
No. In the cases I remember, the MX had been set up for weeks
before the problem popped up. I guess the primary MX host has
not responded, so the mail got routed to our mail server which
has a lower precedence, and therefore not normally gets mail
for the customer.
I think you can understand I get scared when our mail server
rejects mail for our customers with a fatal error message.
DNS errors may be the explanation, but DNS was fine at the
times I checked it.
It has been helpful to me to get confirmed that the customer's
domain names belong in control/rcpthosts only, in my setup.
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
- "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Is it possible that these were domains in which they had just added
| the MX and the old zone data was still cached in various places in
| the DNS, so your qmail didn't have access to the latest zone yet?
But then his server would not even be aware that it was an MX for the
domain in question, so the problem simply would not arise.
- torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I cannot imagine that DNS can claim our mail server to be the best
| MX for our costomer's domain, which it is not, and never has been.
**************
- Harald
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, torben fjerdingstad wrote:
> I put this list into control/rcpthosts on mail.isp.dk (name not real)
> and get mail.isp.dk added as a lower precedence MX in my customer's
> zone files. That should be enough, right? Nothing more necessary.
>
> The problem.
> I have, too many times, seen mail.isp.dk reject mail to
> my customers domains with the following error:
>
> "Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, "
> "it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)"
I might be wrong (I tend to muddle my way through problems), but just
today I was adding another subdomain to handle mail for and I ran into the
same error message. As far as I can tell (sorry, I don't have the FAQ
memorized...yet), in addition to rcpthosts, you also have to have it in
either locals (for local mail) or virtualdomains (for everything else).
The only problem I see with having it as a virtualdomain is that 'how is
the customer supposed to pick up his/her/its mail?' It won't be
automatically sent out.
A question about secondary MX's: How are they supposed to handle the
mail they get? They can't immediately send it off, because the primary MX
might be down.
.Shawn
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 04:35:49PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | Is it possible that these were domains in which they had just added
> | the MX and the old zone data was still cached in various places in
> | the DNS, so your qmail didn't have access to the latest zone yet?
>
> But then his server would not even be aware that it was an MX for the
> domain in question, so the problem simply would not arise.
If the sending mailer sends mail to the best-MX frequently it might
have the MX records cached in his DNS server.
Then the best-MX ist down and it tries the backup-MX. The mailserver
there does a DNS query which does not succeed and *poof* ??
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | In a world without
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | walls and fences,
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | who needs
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | Windows and Gates?
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 04:00:59PM -0500, Asmodeus wrote:
> I might be wrong (I tend to muddle my way through problems), but just
> today I was adding another subdomain to handle mail for and I ran into the
> same error message. As far as I can tell (sorry, I don't have the FAQ
> memorized...yet), in addition to rcpthosts, you also have to have it in
> either locals (for local mail) or virtualdomains (for everything else).
This depends on how you want to "handle" the email. If you're only
the backup MX you *must not* put it in locals/virtualdomains (unless
of course you have some mechanism set up with e.g. serialmail that
sends the message on).
Because of the DNS latency we usually put domains, which we do backup-MX
for, also in smptroutes for two or three days.
> A question about secondary MX's: How are they supposed to handle the
> mail they get? They can't immediately send it off, because the primary MX
> might be down.
It simply stays in the queue and is delivered once the best-MX host is
up again (with respect to qmails quadratic backoff algorithm).
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | In a world without
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | walls and fences,
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | who needs
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | Windows and Gates?
- Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 04:35:49PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
| > - "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| >
| > | Is it possible that these were domains in which they had just added
| > | the MX and the old zone data was still cached in various places in
| > | the DNS, so your qmail didn't have access to the latest zone yet?
| >
| > But then his server would not even be aware that it was an MX for the
| > domain in question, so the problem simply would not arise.
|
| If the sending mailer sends mail to the best-MX frequently it might
| have the MX records cached in his DNS server.
| Then the best-MX ist down and it tries the backup-MX. The mailserver
| there does a DNS query which does not succeed and *poof* ??
If it gets a temporary error, the mail remains in the queue. If it
doesn't find itself among the MXes, it will happily forward to
whatever MX it can find. It should never get an answer saying that it
is itself a best MX, if the authoritative data has never been in that
state. As far as I am aware, a caching name server must either cache
all, or none, of the pertinent data for a given name at a given time.
Otherwise, a partially filled cache might indeed lead a host to think
it is a best MX when in fact it has never been so.
- Harald
Hi,
I'm using qmail to secure our students mail server, to use quotas etc...
When user sends a message to meny resipients qmail sends particular
message for evryone of them, evan I'm using "smart relay"
(/var/qmail/control/smtproutes::post-office.ru.acad.bg) .
The problem is when particular recipients address is hundreds of times in
the message header:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ....
qmail will produce hundreds of messages to single user.
In this case sendmail sends a single message. Also it rewrites aliases and
sends a single message to particular address.
How can qmail gains sendmail's behaviour?
--
Iavor Trapkov
Iavor Trapkov writes:
> qmail will produce hundreds of messages to single user.
>
> In this case sendmail sends a single message. Also it rewrites aliases and
> sends a single message to particular address.
>
> How can qmail gains sendmail's behaviour?
Install my eliminate-dups program. It's on www.qmail.org.
--
-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.
Hi Russ,
In fact I need qmail just forwards single message to remote addresses to
"smart relay" and sends local as it does now.
I think I must rewrite qmail-send but I'm not sure I succeed.
BTW, that is better behaviour for MTA in case with "smart relay".
If you have interest your help is welcome!
Iavor Trapkov
On 18 Mar 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Iavor Trapkov writes:
> > qmail will produce hundreds of messages to single user.
> >
> > In this case sendmail sends a single message. Also it rewrites aliases and
> > sends a single message to particular address.
> >
> > How can qmail gains sendmail's behaviour?
>
> Install my eliminate-dups program. It's on www.qmail.org.
>
> --
> -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.
>
Joel Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That has nothing to do with the suggestion though, that the
>_home-directory_ of the user should be owned by root. Perhaps you thought
>it was Maildir which should be owned by root?..
No, I thought the assertion was that making .qmail files owned by root
made them tamper-proof.
-Dave
Dave Sill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Joel Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: >That has nothing to do with the suggestion though, that the
: >_home-directory_ of the user should be owned by root. Perhaps you thought
: >it was Maildir which should be owned by root?..
: No, I thought the assertion was that making .qmail files owned by root
: made them tamper-proof.
If the home partition is ext2fs, you can set the file attributes on
the .qmail file to immutable. The file mode and ownership are then
irelevant, and only root can revoke that attribute.
Another way is to make a fake home partition, mount it ro, and tell
qmail via users/assign that home directories actually live there.
-harold
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:55:55 -0500, Tim Pierce wrote:
>On this list in particular, when you subscribe, the ezmlm confirmation
>message doesn't include any of the magic cookies traditionally
>associated with daemon messages (such as "Precedence: junk" or
>"qmail-request"). My vacation program replied, and apparently that
>was enough to confirm my subscription. The confirmation process is a
>sham if it can be fooled so easily by vacation programs and
>autoresponders.
Better that that. When I get a robot that autoreplies to an ezmlm list
I construct a unsubscirbe request for that user. The robot autoreplies,
and presto - no more vacation notices on the list ;-)
A confirmation request is not "junk" or "bulk". It is an ordinary
personal message. List messages and digests are "bulk". You shouldn't
vacation reply to "bulk".
In lieu of standards, MLMs have made up their own headers. Smart
vacation programs keep up with that. The ezmlm tell-tale header is
"Mailing-List". There is a proposal for a "List-ID:" header
(http://www.within.com/~chandhok/ietf/listid.shtml) which if generally
adopted would make things easier. rfc2369 is another one that hopefully
will be widely supported. You can catch either by looking for headers
"List-*" and choose not to reply.
Personally, I would use the To/Cc rule and send vacation messages only
if my address is in one of those 2 headers. For everything else (and
maybe more) the sender couldn't care less about my absence.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
I have a suggestion in this regard. Vacation programs should be using a
precedence of junk (IMO not that of any standard) in their replies, so that
perhaps ezmlm could ignore confirmations that have a precedence of junk.
Hi everybody,
I have a qmail server running on a Red Hat
Linux
and I'd like to protect my server from mail
relay.
What can I do?
I hope anyone could help me...
Thanks in advance,
Carles.
Carles Latorre writes:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have a qmail server running on a Red Hat Linux
> and I'd like to protect my server from mail relay.
> What can I do?
Read the manual page for qmail-smtpd. It tells you want you need to do.
--
Sam
This is one of the stranger bounces I've seen. Has anyone seen something
similar?
> Remote host said: 500 Session already established. The domain name
> [sol.acs.uwosh.edu] passed in with HELO will be ignored. The current
> domain name of sending SMTP is [mlwkwi-ns1.usxc.net].
----------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Milam I.T. Division - Academic Computing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 01:41:55PM -0600, Chuck Milam wrote:
> This is one of the stranger bounces I've seen. Has anyone seen something
> similar?
>
> > Remote host said: 500 Session already established. The domain name
> > [sol.acs.uwosh.edu] passed in with HELO will be ignored. The current
> > domain name of sending SMTP is [mlwkwi-ns1.usxc.net].
I have seen this some times and every time I checked it was a Lotus
SMTP server on the other side. What's strange is that with one host
it happend more than one time during a whole day and the message was
always exactly the same. Probably a bug in the Lotus server?
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | In a world without
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | walls and fences,
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | who needs
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | Windows and Gates?
I'm getting a connection closed when I telnet from the localhost to port 25
after I install qmail using inetd and tcp-env. My conf lines are as follows.
# inetd.conf line, split for sanity of this message.
#
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/local/bin/tcpd
/var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
#
# end
# services
#
smtp 25/tcp
#
# end
# hosts.allow, this is the first line, I understand that tcpd goes in
sequence.
#
tcp-env: 127.0.0.1 : setenv=RELAYCLIENT
#
# end
If I take off the tcp-env and make use of the rcpthosts file and simply use
the inetd.conf line from the INSTALL file, it works fine. But when I make
use of tcpd, it pukes. Now my tcpd works fine, because I have many lines in
my hosts.allow, and other services respond to it fine.
Also my hosts.deny is set to ALL:ALL.
Thanks.
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 02:57:19PM -0500, Reid Sutherland wrote:
> I'm getting a connection closed when I telnet from the localhost to port 25
> after I install qmail using inetd and tcp-env. My conf lines are as follows.
>
> # inetd.conf line, split for sanity of this message.
> #
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/local/bin/tcpd
> /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> #
> # end
That line in inetd should read:
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/local/bin/tcpd
/var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
all one one line. You're missing a "tcp-env" invocation.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
In order to never ask a cuesti�n like this again:
were can I find documentation for qmail ? , the most easy readable there
is
is there some kind of tutorial anyware?
Sorry, but the situation of sendmail in my server is critical, I have
just instaled qmail and I need it up runing for yesterday.
Thanks
Text written by Diego Puertas at 08:30 PM 3/18/99 +0000:
>In order to never ask a cuesti�n like this again:
�Hola a Venezuela de los EE.UU.! Tratar� a contestar en espa�ol -- lo
estudi� en liceo, por eso puede ser un poquito d�bil.
[Greetings to Venezuela from the U.S! I'm going to try to answer in Spanish
-- I learned it high school, so it may be a bit rusty.]
>were can I find documentation for qmail ? , the most easy readable there
>is
Hay un Proyecto por Documentaci�n de Qmail al URL:
[There is the Qmail Documentation Project at the URL:]
http://qmail-docs.surfdirect.com.au/
Ese contiene los paginas manuales ("man pages") por qmail 1.03 y 1.01 en
formato HTML, y muchos "FAQs" que tratan de recibimiento virtual, la
retransmisi�n selectiva, y la registraci�n.
[It contains the qmail man pages (for versions 1.03 and 1.01) in HTML
format, plus many FAQs on subjects like virtual hosting, selective
relaying, and logging.]
Tristamente, toda la documentaci�n es en ingles.
[Sadly, all the documentation is in English.]
>is there some kind of tutorial anyware?
Es l�stima que no hay tutori�l electr�nico por qmail (o si hay, no lo
conozco).
[Unfortunately, there are no qmail tutorials online (that I know of).]
Ojal� que mi espa�ol no sea tan malo como creo -- tuve que utilizar el
servicio de traducci�n de AltaVista para algunos t�rminos t�cnicos, y esa
traducci�n puede ser totalmente incorrecta.
[I hope my Spanish isn't as awful as I think it is -- I had to use
AltaVista's translation service for some technical terms, and that
translation may be completely wrong.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kai MacTane
System Administrator
Online Partners.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
fix /n.,v./
What one does when a problem has been reported too many times to
be ignored.
Kai, i think you probably spent entirely too much time researching and
replying to this message =)
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Kai MacTane wrote:
-| Text written by Diego Puertas at 08:30 PM 3/18/99 +0000:
-| >In order to never ask a cuesti�n like this again:
-|
-| �Hola a Venezuela de los EE.UU.! Tratar� a contestar en espa�ol -- lo
-| estudi� en liceo, por eso puede ser un poquito d�bil.
-|
-| [Greetings to Venezuela from the U.S! I'm going to try to answer in Spanish
-| -- I learned it high school, so it may be a bit rusty.]
-|
-| >were can I find documentation for qmail ? , the most easy readable there
-| >is
-|
-| Hay un Proyecto por Documentaci�n de Qmail al URL:
-| [There is the Qmail Documentation Project at the URL:]
-|
-| http://qmail-docs.surfdirect.com.au/
-|
-| Ese contiene los paginas manuales ("man pages") por qmail 1.03 y 1.01 en
-| formato HTML, y muchos "FAQs" que tratan de recibimiento virtual, la
-| retransmisi�n selectiva, y la registraci�n.
-|
-| [It contains the qmail man pages (for versions 1.03 and 1.01) in HTML
-| format, plus many FAQs on subjects like virtual hosting, selective
-| relaying, and logging.]
-|
-| Tristamente, toda la documentaci�n es en ingles.
-| [Sadly, all the documentation is in English.]
-|
-| >is there some kind of tutorial anyware?
-|
-| Es l�stima que no hay tutori�l electr�nico por qmail (o si hay, no lo
-| conozco).
-|
-| [Unfortunately, there are no qmail tutorials online (that I know of).]
-|
-| Ojal� que mi espa�ol no sea tan malo como creo -- tuve que utilizar el
-| servicio de traducci�n de AltaVista para algunos t�rminos t�cnicos, y esa
-| traducci�n puede ser totalmente incorrecta.
-|
-| [I hope my Spanish isn't as awful as I think it is -- I had to use
-| AltaVista's translation service for some technical terms, and that
-| translation may be completely wrong.]
-|
-| -----------------------------------------------------------------
-| Kai MacTane
-| System Administrator
-| Online Partners.com, Inc.
-| -----------------------------------------------------------------
-| >From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
-|
-| fix /n.,v./
-|
-| What one does when a problem has been reported too many times to
-| be ignored.
-|
-|
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
6:30pm up 42 days, 1:10, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.07
Text written by John Gonzalez/netMDC admin at 06:34 PM 3/18/99 -0700:
>
>Kai, i think you probably spent entirely too much time researching and
>replying to this message =)
<grin> The research wasn't that much trouble -- I already have the QDP
bookmarked. The reply was a bit of an effort, but it beats letting my
Spanish atrophy completely.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kai MacTane
System Administrator
Online Partners.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
crawling horror /n./
Ancient crufty hardware or software that is kept obstinately alive by
forces beyond the control of the hackers at a site. Like dusty deck
or gonkulator, but connotes that the thing described is not just an
irritation but an active menace to health and sanity.
I thought it could be intresting for smd. to read about how it is possible to
make qmail work on a pop3 toaster were all users have no homedirs (well the
homedir is set to /tmp for everybody), and with NIS on:
1) ypcat -k passwd > passwd
2) awk '{$1="";print}' passwd > passwd_
(thanx to Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for that one)
2) sed -e 's/ //g' passwd_ > passwd__
3) /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u -H < passwd__ > /var/qmail/users/assign
4) /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu
(thanx to Peter van Dijk for pointing me to FAQ (% )
okay, that is rather ugly ... but all works fine.
no qmail patching was needed ... as usual.
Pashah
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 01:00:22AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
[ssnip]
> Read FAQ 4.9
--
http://www.spb.sitek.net/~pashah/public-key-0x97739141.pgp
On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 03:28:11AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I thought it could be intresting for smd. to read about how it is possible to
> make qmail work on a pop3 toaster were all users have no homedirs (well the
> homedir is set to /tmp for everybody), and with NIS on:
>
> 1) ypcat -k passwd > passwd
> 2) awk '{$1="";print}' passwd > passwd_
> (thanx to Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for that one)
>
> 2) sed -e 's/ //g' passwd_ > passwd__
> 3) /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u -H < passwd__ > /var/qmail/users/assign
> 4) /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu
> (thanx to Peter van Dijk for pointing me to FAQ (% )
>
> okay, that is rather ugly ... but all works fine.
hardly.. this is the recommended solution I think...
> no qmail patching was needed ... as usual.
:)
> On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 01:00:22AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> [ssnip]
> > Read FAQ 4.9
Well what can I say.. short hints rule :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk | <mo|VERWEG> stoned worden of coden
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mo|VERWEG> dat is de levensvraag
| <mo|VERWEG> coden of stoned worden
| <mo|VERWEG> stonend worden En coden
| <mo|VERWEG> hmm
| <mo|VERWEG> dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
Is there any way to cc: outgoing messages? We have an employee that we
want to copy all of his incoming and outgoing messages to another
userid. Is there a way to do that?
Travis
microserv
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 02:45:17PM -0700, Travis Johnson wrote:
FAQ #8.2
> Is there any way to cc: outgoing messages? We have an employee that we
> want to copy all of his incoming and outgoing messages to another
> userid. Is there a way to do that?
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Hey fellow Qmailers,
I'm nearing completion with my Qmail-Make & Build-Cfg scripts. These
scripts fully automate the process of creating domains. They also have the
power of converting Sendmail Aliases/Domain Listings with references to
Passwd users in to complete qmail assigns & password files.
This script has been used to move several thousand accounts from a sendmail
platform to qmail platform and is very much meant to automate this process.
The scripts are still in beta but if you would like copies feel free to
email me.
Julian Brown
Network Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 02:10:13AM -0000, John Conover wrote:
> The syslog on my machine takes more resources than qmail in:
>
> exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail
>
> Is there a replacement for splogger that will log qmail's activity into
> its own log so that I won't have to use syslog?
>
> I also use tcpserver instead of inetd, and would like to log activity
> on those ports, too.
You could try my qfilelog, a fairly trivial non-rotating file logger,
available at:
http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/distrib/qlogtools/
--
Bruce Guenter, QCC Communications Corp. EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (306)249-0220 WWW: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/
