qmail Digest 22 Mar 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 587
Topics (messages 23176 through 23195):
Sendmail plus qmail
23176 by: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23177 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23178 by: Brad Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23179 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23180 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23182 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23190 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23191 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23192 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23193 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23195 by: Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-verh-0.02.tar.gz -> header address iterpolation
23181 by: Frederik Lindberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Did anyone else get this?
23183 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23184 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apology
23185 by: "Louis Theran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Postfix license
23186 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wietse Venema)
Mbox delivery into home dir.
23187 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23188 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23189 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Limit incoming mail size for a particular user?
23194 by: Anand Buddhdev <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible to run both sendmail and qmail on the one machine
I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
Kind regards
Kevin
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 07:37:45AM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Is it possible to run both sendmail and qmail on the one machine
> I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
It depends what you mean by "run." You can certainly have both on your system,
but you can't have them both listening for SMTP connections.
Qmail comes with a fake sendmail (/var/qmail/bin/sendmail). You can replace the
real sendmail with a symlink to qmail's sendmail, and it'll work fine for most
purposes. I haven't tried it with innd though.
Chris
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 07:37:45AM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Is it possible to run both sendmail and qmail on the one machine
> I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
I'm running innd with qmail. Seems to work just fine.
--
Brad Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Line Exchange http://ole.net
Detroit News http://detnews.com
At 07:37 AM Monday 3/22/99, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>Is it possible to run both sendmail and qmail on the one machine
Yes. In pretty much any combination you want - including smtp ports if you
can multi-home your system.
>I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
Er, nope. It requires a command that submits mail, which it commonly assumes
is sendmail. You might want to read your INN installation notes more closely.
Regards.
On 21-Mar-99 Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 07:37:45AM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>> Is it possible to run both sendmail and qmail on the one machine
>> I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
>
> It depends what you mean by "run." You can certainly have both on your system,
> but you can't have them both listening for SMTP connections.
>
> Qmail comes with a fake sendmail (/var/qmail/bin/sendmail). You can replace the
> real sendmail with a symlink to qmail's sendmail, and it'll work fine for most
> purposes. I haven't tried it with innd though.
I have & still am. It works fine.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Is it possible to run both sendmail and qmail on the one machine
> I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
I administer two separate machines where innd and Qmail coexist quite
peacefully.
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21-Mar-99 Chris Johnson wrote:
>> Qmail comes with a fake sendmail (/var/qmail/bin/sendmail). You can
>> replace the real sendmail with a symlink to qmail's sendmail, and it'll
>> work fine for most purposes. I haven't tried it with innd though.
> I have & still am. It works fine.
Yup. Same here.
The only major difference between qmail's sendmail and regular sendmail
that I've seen, from the perspective of the typical Unix program (and
discounting things like daemon mode), is that qmail when given a message
missing a From header adds one with just the e-mail address. sendmail
will add one with the name (from /etc/passwd) and e-mail address.
This will affect programs like elm, which don't add their own From header.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:37 AM Monday 3/22/99, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>> I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
> Er, nope. It requires a command that submits mail, which it commonly
> assumes is sendmail. You might want to read your INN installation notes
> more closely.
Could also be a poorly done RPM. A lot of RPMs for programs that have to
send mail incorrectly add a dependency on sendmail (rather than a more
general dependency on a mailer).
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery writes:
> Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 07:37 AM Monday 3/22/99, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>
> >> I need to install innd adnd it requires sendmail apparently
>
> > Er, nope. It requires a command that submits mail, which it commonly
> > assumes is sendmail. You might want to read your INN installation notes
> > more closely.
>
> Could also be a poorly done RPM. A lot of RPMs for programs that have to
> send mail incorrectly add a dependency on sendmail (rather than a more
> general dependency on a mailer).
The stock INN rpm has no such requirements whatsoever:
[root@ny root]# rpm -q --requires inn
/sbin/chkconfig
cleanfeed
/bin/sh
ld-linux.so.2
libc.so.6
libcrypt.so.1
libdb.so.2
libdl.so.2
libgdbm.so.2
libm.so.6
libnsl.so.1
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/perl
--
Sam
How can I get qmail to stop an incoming message such as:
>From [email protected]. Mon Mar 22 00:33:25 1999
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 99 13:53:10 EST
From: 564564
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Are you single???
Why doesn't qmail prevent this by default?
I'm running 1.03 and I've looked into the RBL patch
but it doesn't want to apply.
I've received more mail this last weekend than
I have in the last 3 to 6 months. I'm definitely
going to try to get qmail to use RBL and stop
receiving mail with bad mail froms.
Also, is there any relation between the site that
comes after "helo" and the mail from domain?
I notice that when I used sendmail 8.9.3 -- it
had a lot of really nice features. I also have
a simple cut-n-paste ruleset addition to
use multiple RBLs.
Where is this support in qmail?
Scott
On 21 Mar 1999 19:23:54 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote:
> The only major difference between qmail's sendmail and regular sendmail
> that I've seen, from the perspective of the typical Unix program (and
> discounting things like daemon mode), is that qmail when given a message
> missing a From header adds one with just the e-mail address. sendmail
> will add one with the name (from /etc/passwd) and e-mail address.
Specifying an empty envelope sender is different:
sendmail-8.8.x: sendmail -f '<>' ...
qmail's clone: sendmail -f '' ...
Regards,
Giles
ftp://ftp.id.wustl.edu/pub/patches/qmail-verh-0.02.tar.gz
This is a patch for qmail-1.03 qmail-remote/qmail-local that allows
insertion of part of the recipient address into message headers at the
qmail level. Mainly useful for construction idiot-proof rfc2369
List-unsubscribe headers for ezmlm lists. Can also be used to e.g. place
the recipients LOCAL or HOST part into e.g. the Subject/To header.
This is a very minor modification of 0.01. With 0.02, substitution is
aborted when ##x (x != L and x!= H) is encountered. Thus, headers with
e.g. '####List' or '##M##E##S##S##A##G##E## ##H##E..' are left alone. See
docs in the package for details.
Cc: to ezmlm list, since this is mainly useful for hosts running ezmlm.
-Sincerely, Fred
Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
Some machine called shamash3.shamash.org apparently just regurgitated old
mailing list traffic. I just received about half a dozen stale list
messages, from December. Has anyone else received this spew???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Received: from geocities.com (mail10.geocities.com [209.1.224.138])
by beasley.concentric.net (8.9.1a/(99/03/11 5.19))
id RAA21680; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:00:25 -0500 (EST)
[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Errors-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (shamash3.shamash.org [207.244.122.42])
by geocities.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA07347
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:00:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11443 invoked by uid 65544); 21 Mar 1999 22:02:09 -0000
Delivered-To: k-qmail@local
Received: (qmail 2878 invoked by uid 65544); 8 Dec 1998 20:35:09 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 2872 invoked from network); 8 Dec 1998 20:35:07 -0000
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
by yt.to with SMTP; 8 Dec 1998 20:35:07 -0000
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 05:17:52PM -0500, Sam wrote:
>
> Some machine called shamash3.shamash.org apparently just regurgitated old
> mailing list traffic. I just received about half a dozen stale list
> messages, from December. Has anyone else received this spew???
I got three from January. They were all messages that were originally sent to
me and to the list.
Chris
A script I wrote accidentally spewed a buch of old messages back to the
list. Feel free to blame me; there are no excuses for being an idiot.
^L
--
Te occidere possunt, sed te edere non possunt nefas quo est.
Russell Nelson:
> Wietse Venema writes:
> > > The license also gives IBM special rights over all enhancements to the
> > > IBM Secure Mailer. If you distribute an IBM Secure Mailer add-on, for
> > > example, then IBM can turn your add-on into an IBM commercial product
> > > without your permission.
> >
> > Excuse me for breaking into a conversation in order to provide
> > information.
>
> No refutation of the "IBM recalls PostFix" clause? Didn't you forsee
> that this would be .... problematic? IBM has a similar clause in
> their Java VM license. If it remains, then IBM will be denied use of
> the Open Source trademark. I suspect that a similar limitation exists
> for PostFix.
We have received a lot of useful feedback regarding this issue,
and are using it as ammunition in our negotiations with IBM's legal
people.
Wietse
Am I correct in stating that the only way for qmail to deliver into the
user's home directory is by setting up symlinks from /var/spool/mail? I
can't imagine have a directory with thousands of symlinks is much better
then having with with thousands of mail files. I did derive the above
conclusion by reading the faq btw. Thanks for the time. -andy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO Communications Phone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 06:01:48PM -0600, Andy Walden wrote:
> Am I correct in stating that the only way for qmail to deliver into the
> user's home directory is by setting up symlinks from /var/spool/mail? I
> can't imagine have a directory with thousands of symlinks is much better
> then having with with thousands of mail files. I did derive the above
> conclusion by reading the faq btw. Thanks for the time. -andy
That's not correct. qmail delivers to home directories by default; to get it to
deliver to /var/spool/mail you'd have to follow the special instructions in
INSTALL.vsm.
You'd need the symlinks only if you were using the default home directory
delivery but had MUAs or a POP daemon that only knew how to look in
/var/spool/mail.
Chris
Andy Walden writes:
> Am I correct in stating that the only way for qmail to deliver into the
> user's home directory is by setting up symlinks from /var/spool/mail? I
Incorrect. Qmail already delivers to home directories, by default.
--
Sam
On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 12:18:50PM -0800, Dongping Deng wrote:
> 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.
In .qmail:
|bouncesaying 'Message too big' [ `wc -c` -gt 100000 ]
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
