qmail Digest 21 Mar 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 586
Topics (messages 23163 through 23175):
Limit incoming mail size for a particular user?
23163 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23164 by: Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23168 by: Dongping Deng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail-basic setting up procedure.
23165 by: RJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23169 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
messages in queue
23166 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ezmlm and "delay notifies" (was: Re: mini-bounce)
23167 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23173 by: Frederik Lindberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mailbox VS maildir
23170 by: Daniel V. Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23171 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23172 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23174 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23175 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Dongping Deng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I'd like to limit the incoming mail size for individual users. Any
| quick way to do that?
What do you mean? Based on recipient? If so the answer is no. Or
based on sender? The answer is still no. But you can limit the size
of incoming mail on smtp connections from specific IP addresses by
telling tcpserver to set DATABYTES for those IP addresses. So if the
users in question always send their mail from a specific PC with a
known address, you can do it.
- Harald
Dongping Deng wrote:
>
> I'd like to limit the incoming mail size for individual users. Any quick
> way to do that?
>
> dp
You might simply use quotas.
But that might not be what you exactly want to do.
As I understand it, the DATABYTES can limit any incoming mail size for
all users on the system. It just so happen that we'd like to have one
group of users to receive mail no larger than 100K, and other group of
users no larger than 2000K. This is based on recipients and each
incoming mail.
If the answer is no now, is this a good feature to have in the future
(at least for some system accounts) ? Can we also use .qmail to do
some thing like that?
Thanks.
dp
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Hanche-Olsen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 3:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Limit incoming mail size for a particular user?
>
> - Dongping Deng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | I'd like to limit the incoming mail size for individual users. Any
> | quick way to do that?
>
> What do you mean? Based on recipient? If so the answer is no. Or
> based on sender? The answer is still no. But you can limit the size
> of incoming mail on smtp connections from specific IP addresses by
> telling tcpserver to set DATABYTES for those IP addresses. So if the
> users in question always send their mail from a specific PC with a
> known address, you can do it.
>
> - Harald
Hello all.
After about a month of frustrating investigation & experimentation
I am still unable to find out how to get Qmail to send my mail
to sedric.demon.co.uk.
I started from the following files:
90441 Mar 18 23:12 daemontools-0.53.tar.gz
645366 Mar 18 23:13 fetchmail-4.7.8.tar.gz
1024 Feb 27 13:01 install-mail.0.1
480346 Mar 18 23:11 qmail-1.03.tar.gz
117264 Mar 18 23:15 serialmail-0.75.tar.gz
1024 Mar 17 19:12 tkrat-1.2
131538 Mar 18 23:15 ucspi-tcp-0.84.tar.gz
The first attempts being manual following the various installation
instructions FAQs & what-have-you, with a bit of guesswork and
experimentation to try and put the correct entries in the
/var/qmail/control files.
After some time, I ended up with something that would allow me
to mail to local users and would also receive mail from
demon via fetchmail (though admittedly with socket errors showing
up in /var/log/ppp-log) - the 'fix' for this in the fetchmail FAQ
having no apparent effect...
What I then ran up against was a persistant CNAME_lookup_failed
message associated with every qmail attempt to send to an
external address. Apparently, Qmail attempts to do 'DNS' look-ups
unless 'serialmail' is used. As I understand this, it means that
Qmail is not intended for use with dynamically allocated addresses
or dial-up connections, but can be adapted by use of the serialmail
package so that it can then be used.
This seems to have the consequence that qmail will not tolerate attempts
to send mail when the dial-up connection is down, which I can live with
since TkRat has a deferred mail delivery mode.
Having decided that despite repeated re-reading of installation
instructions, checking the installation by hand, running several
perl scripts to validate the installation was leading nowhere,
I removed (tarred) the whole /var/qmail tree , rm -fr 'ed it,
removed the qmail users and source trees and ran install-mail.0.1
- this on the assumption that there was some blunder that I
had made in the setting up procedure which I could not see for looking.
When that had run and sent a test email declaring that mail was
working, I then started up TkRat again, and attempted to send mail
to the one local user that I just set up using install-mail.0.1.
This was refused with a message saying 'not in my list of rcpthosts'
I forced this to work by editing my local hostname into
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts and /var/qmail/control/locals
Now, a message from TkRat addressed explicitly to rjp@local-host-name
will find it's way back. (That, as far as I can tell is what ought to
happen)
Then I attempted to send to sedric.demon.co.uk again, what I expected
was for the message to find it's way back.
what I actually get is '553 sorry, that domain is not in my list of
allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)'
OK - so I edit rcpthosts to include sedric.demon.co.uk
A message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (again) is now accepted, but (as far
as I can understand it), this message should also find it's way back. It
does not - it gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the
message text is in /var/qmail/alias/pppdir/new.
.qmail-ppp-rjp was not generated by the installation script so perhaps
this is a 'red herring'?
If I introduce a file into /var/qmail/alias/pppdir called .qmail-ppp-rjp
(pure guesswork this) I then find that messages start appearing in
/var/log/maillog:
Mar 20 01:13:12 SedricWorks qmail: 921892392.990956 starting delivery 14:
msg 496 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 20 01:13:12 SedricWorks qmail: 921892392.991371 status:
local 1/10 remote 0/20
Mar 20 01:13:13 SedricWorks qmail: 921892393.547002 delivery 14:
deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
/var/qmail/alias/pppdir.qmail-ppp-rjp contains:
/home/rjp/Mailbox/
Ahh------------- This is rapidly becoming another waste of time.
I do not immediately need qmail - since I have this Acorn RiscPC
set- up which works well enough. BUT since the future of Acorn machines
is now in question, I need to look at an alternative. That is what this
is about. I also tried M$ IE4 & did not like that much...
I do use eMail for commerical purposes, so I would not mind paying
for advice. anyone got any ideas on that?
The fact that this list exists at all inspires some confidence there is
at least one set of conditions under which qmail will work..
The question is what are they?
Regards, RJP
-
RJP Personal..
On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 06:23:58PM +0000, RJP wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> After about a month of frustrating investigation & experimentation
> I am still unable to find out how to get Qmail to send my mail
> to sedric.demon.co.uk.
Rather than beat around the bush and make people wade through a lot of words to
try to deduce what it is you're trying to accomplish, why don't you just say
explicitly what it is you're trying to accomplish, and give us a few details of
your setup?
I'll put on my detective cap, and try to deduce what I can.
Apparently, you're on a dialup connection with a dynamic IP. You've installed
serialmail, and in control/virtualdomains you have a line that looks like this:
:qmail-ppp
In ~alias, you have a file called .qmail-qmail-ppp-default, in which we find
the following:
./pppdir/
The reason you set things up this way is that you'd like all non-local mail to
be queued in ~alias/pppdir/ for eventual handling by serialmail, which will
deliver this mail to your ISP's mail server when your PPP connection is up.
How am I doing so far?
[snip]
> Then I attempted to send to sedric.demon.co.uk again, what I expected
> was for the message to find it's way back.
>
> what I actually get is '553 sorry, that domain is not in my list of
> allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)'
>
> OK - so I edit rcpthosts to include sedric.demon.co.uk
>
> A message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (again) is now accepted, but (as far
> as I can understand it), this message should also find it's way back. It
> does not - it gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the
> message text is in /var/qmail/alias/pppdir/new.
What do you mean by "find it's [sic] way back"? Back from where?
The reason that it's getting sent to qmail-ppp-rjp and ending up in
/var/qmail/alias/pppdir/new is the control/virtualdomains entry. Mail to any
domain not listed in control/locals or without a more specific entry in
control/virtualdomains will be delivered there, as per you instructions.
> .qmail-ppp-rjp was not generated by the installation script so perhaps
> this is a 'red herring'?
>
> If I introduce a file into /var/qmail/alias/pppdir called .qmail-ppp-rjp
> (pure guesswork this) I then find that messages start appearing in
> /var/log/maillog:
>
> Mar 20 01:13:12 SedricWorks qmail: 921892392.990956 starting delivery 14:
> msg 496 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mar 20 01:13:12 SedricWorks qmail: 921892392.991371 status:
> local 1/10 remote 0/20
> Mar 20 01:13:13 SedricWorks qmail: 921892393.547002 delivery 14:
> deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
>
>
> /var/qmail/alias/pppdir.qmail-ppp-rjp contains:
>
> /home/rjp/Mailbox/
At this point, qmail-local is running as the alias user, so it can't deliver
mail into rjp's mailbox, which is owned by rjp.
Apparently, you'd like mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be sent to the
local user rjp. What about mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Is
mail to anyone @sedric.demon.co.uk to be considered local, or just rjp?
If you want mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be delivered locally for
any user, stick sedric.demon.co.uk in control/locals and SIGHUP qmail-send. If
you want mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be delivered locally, but you want
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be delivered to your ISP, put
the following in control/virtualdomains (along with the qmail-ppp entry):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:rjp
Then touch .qmail-rjp-default and SIGHUP qmail-send.
By the way, do you have something in your ppp-up (or whatever) script to run
serialmail when your PPP connection is up?
Chris
On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 10:49:10PM +0100, Joel Eriksson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Ricardo! wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running qmail on Redhat 5.2. I created the Maildir and installed all the
> > necessary programs.
> > I can send messages into the queue but they don't get dequeued.
> >
> > currently the message when I run 'qmail-qstat' is
> >
> > messages in queue: 6
> > messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
> >
> > Any clues?
>
> Have you run "sh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'"?
I think he has, the messages wouldn't have been preprocessed otherwise.
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:)
Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Agreed. But you shouldn't vacation-reply to a subscribe confirmation
| message, either, or it defeats the whole purpose.
So maybe confirmation messages shouldn't be generated by
replying to the envelope sender. Put the confirmation
address in the message body instead.
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Tim Pierce wrote:
> Agreed. But you shouldn't vacation-reply to a subscribe confirmation
> message, either, or it defeats the whole purpose. I believe that
> anyone running a BSD vacation program could be forge-subscribed to
> this list, since ezmlm is basically guaranteed to get a confirmation
> from them.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about mail on the list, I'm talking about the
> subscribe confirmation message.
This is why I don't use "vacation". IMHO, you know that I have received an
E-mail and read it when you receive my reply, no earlier.
I reguarly use the ezmlm feature to unsubscribe users on any ezmlm
list that vacation reply to the list.
I agree that this foils the subscribe reply, and maybe the users address
should go into e.g. a Cc: header instead of To:.
-Sincerely, Fred
Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
Hey, I'm about to setup a Unix server hosting several domains and i
would like to know if mailbox have any advantages vs maildir and vice
versa ..
furthermore, i have setup the virtualsdomains to havde the user kibdk as
domain master and so i have tried setting up .qmail-daniel in his
homedir, but when i send mail to daniel@domain it bounces with wrong
rcptient .. any clues?
Kind Regards,
Daniel V. Pedersen
System Administrator
Icon Medialab A/S {http://www.iconmedialab.dk}
On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 10:42:42PM +0100, Daniel V . Pedersen wrote:
> Hey, I'm about to setup a Unix server hosting several domains and i
> would like to know if mailbox have any advantages vs maildir and vice
> versa ..
Maildir is better. See ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/maildir.html.
> furthermore, i have setup the virtualsdomains to havde the user kibdk as
> domain master and so i have tried setting up .qmail-daniel in his
> homedir, but when i send mail to daniel@domain it bounces with wrong
> rcptient .. any clues?
What's in control/virtualdomains?
Chris
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Daniel V. Pedersen wrote:
> Hey, I'm about to setup a Unix server hosting several domains and i
> would like to know if mailbox have any advantages vs maildir and vice
> versa ..
Maildir places far less CPU load in high E-mail traffic environments, but
requires the mail partition to be formatted with plenty of inodes - one
inode per message.
Maildir is less vulnerable to NFS bugs, but, paradoxically, sometimes
results in slightly more disk I/O than mailbox.
Placing a .qmail-daniel in Daniel's homedir will give qmail instructions
if someone sent mail to daniel-daniel@domain (this is assuming that
daniel is the user name).
However, since the username is kibdk, placing kibdk@domain in the file
~alias/.qmail-daniel will tell qmail to redirect mail sent to
daniel@domain to kibdk@domain (as long as you don't have a user already
named daniel).
Glenn
>
> Hey, I'm about to setup a Unix server hosting several domains and i
> would like to know if mailbox have any advantages vs maildir and vice
> versa ..
>
> furthermore, i have setup the virtualsdomains to havde the user kibdk as
> domain master and so i have tried setting up .qmail-daniel in his
> homedir, but when i send mail to daniel@domain it bounces with wrong
> rcptient .. any clues?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Daniel V. Pedersen
> System Administrator
> Icon Medialab A/S {http://www.iconmedialab.dk}
>
>
- Daniel V. Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Hey, I'm about to setup a Unix server hosting several domains and i
| would like to know if mailbox have any advantages vs maildir and
| vice versa ..
As others have noted, maildir is mostly technically superior. The
mbox format has of course the advantage that virtually every mail
program understands the format.
| furthermore, i have setup the virtualsdomains to havde the user
| kibdk as domain master and so i have tried setting up .qmail-daniel
| in his homedir, but when i send mail to daniel@domain it bounces
| with wrong rcptient .. any clues?
Most likely, you have the domain in the locals file as well. Virtual
domains must not be in the locals file (RTFM carefully: qmail-send).
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Placing a .qmail-daniel in Daniel's homedir will give qmail
| instructions if someone sent mail to daniel-daniel@domain (this is
| assuming that daniel is the user name).
Oh, but maybe you forgot to notice that he set up a virtual domain.
He didn't say exactly how, but a reasonable guess is
domain:kibdk
in control/virtualdomains, which should work provided domain is not
in control/locals.
- Harald
