qmail Digest 3 Apr 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 599
Topics (messages 23879 through 23896):
maildir and "You have new mail"
23879 by: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23880 by: Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23889 by: "Lenny Mastrototaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The "from" script for Maildir.
23881 by: Ricardo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FW: In need of Qmail help
23882 by: "Nelson, Lacresha S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
question about qmail RPM
23883 by: Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23885 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sending mail with bounces going elsewhere
23884 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23886 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Question about qmail and private networks
23887 by: "Gary Rule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sendmail like lusers in qmail
23888 by: Jay Soffian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Melissa Virus
23890 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23896 by: Steve Manes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Mitnik
23891 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23892 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23893 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Melissa Mutations
23894 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MD5 in djb-c?
23895 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 bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Jay Soffian:
> Doesn't the presence of any messages in the new dir indicate "You
> have new mail." and the presence of any messages in the cur dir
> indicate "You have mail."
I wish, but the maildir manpage is clear on this:
HOW A MESSAGE IS READ
A mail reader operates as follows.
It looks through the new directory for new messages. Say
there is a new message, new/unique. The reader may freely
display the contents of new/unique, delete new/unique, or
rename new/unique as cur/unique:info.
This means a mail reader may leave new messages in new/ if it wishes.
Now if a mail reader was obliged to move all new messages to cur/unique:info
before opening or deleting a message, you could use the mtime on cur/
as an indication of when the new mail was read.
So to find (a) when mail last arrived and (b) when mail was last checked
there are the following options:
1. Use atime on new/ for (a), and mtime on tmp/ for (b)
Problem: some non-MUA programs scan new/ as well and change the
atime on new/. They should be fixed.
2. Use mtime on cur/ for (a) and mtime on tmp/ for (b)
Problem: all MUAs MUST move messages from new/ to cur/ first so
that the mtime on cur/ gets updated.
3. Scan all files in new/ and cur/ with readdir(), then stat() them all
and use the highest mtime for (a) and the highest atime for (b).
Problem: this is the traditional method but can be very disk
intensive because of all the stat()s. It is also more complicated to
code - (1) and (2) are easy to drop in in existing applications.
My original proposal was (1). Now I get the feeling that (2) might
be better, but at least mutt and qmail-pop3d do things differently -
mutt leaves messages in new/ if not read, and qmail-pop3d deletes DELEted
messages directly from new/ without ever moving them to cur/
Now another solution would be:
4. Get mtime from tmp/, cur/ and new/. the mtime on tmp is (a): last time
a new message arrived. MAX(mtime(cur), mtime(new)) defines (b): when the
maildir mailbox was last checked for new mail.
Problem: maildir(5) needs to state that a MUA MUST move the message
new/unique to cur/unique:flags unless it is deleted.
This last proposal would work with most existing applications including
qmail-pop3d and applications that scan new/ and cur/. AFAICS, only
mutt would need to be fixed - a minor issue.
Remember why I started this: to be able to make shells and status bars
etc aware of maildir without big changes. Changing the app from stat()ing
the mbox to stat()ing maildir/{cur,tmp,new} is much easier, takes less
code and is more portable then to add a complete readdir() / stat() loop
to the application.
With just one added requirement for the MUA - it MUST move the message
new/unique to cur/unique:flags unless it is deleted - this would be possible.
Besides, most MUAs (including qmail-pop3d) behave this way already.
djb?
Mike.
--
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Duh. Ignore my previous email, I wasn't thinking straight. I said:
> 4. Get mtime from tmp/, cur/ and new/. the mtime on tmp is (a): last time
> a new message arrived. MAX(mtime(cur), mtime(new)) defines (b): when the
> maildir mailbox was last checked for new mail.
This doesn't work, ofcourse the mtime on new/ is changed every time a new
message is delivered into the maildir. So it's back to the original idea:
1. Use atime on new/ for (a), and mtime on tmp/ for (b)
Problem: some non-MUA programs scan new/ as well and change the
atime on new/. They should be fixed.
Mike.
--
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
On Apr 2, 12:19am, William Burrow wrote:
> Subject: Re: maildir and "You have new mail"
> On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 07:19:42PM -0500, Lenny Mastrototaro wrote:
> > how are you going to stop a user from `innocently' updating the
> > atime of new/ with the following command?
> >
> > ls ~/Maildir/new
> ...
> > > But first I need an answer on the new/atime thing - from djb, I guess
> > > as he would be the final authority on this.
> >
> > DJB, please don't weaken the maildir protocol to the point where
> > I can't `safely' use ls(1).
>
> Why would someone do an ls on their Maildir? Just curious.
I occasionally do this to find the luser with the message
with a 20MB QuickTime attached.
Why should I write another tool when ls(1) does the job?
It would be different if I wanted to move or delete files,
but I think simple queries are reasonable to allow.
Regards,
Lenny
> --
> William Burrow, VE9WIL -- New Brunswick, Canada
> Asking for good driving is like asking for good government. -- Unknown
>-- End of excerpt from William Burrow
--
Leonard Mastrototaro Systems Administrator Click3X New York
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 212-627-1900 http://www.click3x.com
"Yeah well ... The Dude abides." -- http://www.lebowski.com
Does anyone no where I can or how I can modify the "from" script that
outputs just the headers? It looks for Mailbox but I switched over to
Maildirs.
Thanks,
Ricardo!
> Hi all:
>
> I am in need of assistance with Qmail and I got your addresses from
> "http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/01/maillist.htm
> l"
> "http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/03/maillist.htm
> land" . I am hoping that someone can point me in the right direction.
>
>
> We've recently installed Qmail onto a system running Redhat 5.2. The all
> of the daemon tools are running and messages are received by Qmail's
> queue. The problems are that the messages stay on the queue and are not
> delivered to the specified address and that the Qmail-users program is not
> installed. Is it possible to tell by the log what has gone wrong? What
> do I need to do to pop the messages off of the queue?
>
> Below is a sample of the messages that are in the log:
>
> 923005669.564054 delivery 169: failure:
> This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/
> 923005669.564762 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.592650 bounce
> msg 20106 qp 6397
> 923005669.592979
> end msg 20106
> 923005669.593778
>
> new msg 20105
> 923005669.594032 info msg 20105: bytes 1475 from <#@[]> qp 6397 uid 86
> 923005669.610879
> starting delivery 170: msg 20105 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 923005669.611242 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.669272
>
> new msg 20106
> 923005669.669561
> info msg 20106: bytes 1584 from <#@[]> qp 6400 uid 80
> 923005669.673305
> starting delivery 171: msg 20106 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 923005669.673666
> status: local 2/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.674145 delivery 170:
> success: did_0+1+0/qp_6400/
> 923005669.674566
> status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.675246
> end msg 20105
> 923005669.787210
>
> new msg 20105
> 923005669.787499
> info msg 20105: bytes 1687 from <#@[]> qp 6403 uid 80
> 923005669.791457
> starting delivery 172: msg 20105 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 923005669.791815
> status: local 2/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.792294 delivery 171:
> success: did_0+1+0/qp_6403/
> 923005669.792715
> status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.793402
> end msg 20106
> 923005669.805667 delivery 172: failure:
> This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/
> 923005669.806404 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> 923005669.807029 triple bounce: discarding bounce/20105
> 923005669.807262
> end msg 20105
> 923005755.816658 starting delivery 173: msg 20104 to local
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 923005755.816693
> status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> 923005755.851891
> delivery 173: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
> 923005755.851925 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> LaCresha S. Nelson
>
>
Hi all,
I wan to change from sendmail to qmail, but I have encountered some problem during the
installation.
My server configuration:
Redhat 5.2
RPM Package:
Summersoft RPM : qmail-1_03-6_src.rpm
Problem,
When I type : rpm --rebuild qmail-1_03-6_src.rpm
It can't complete the whole process, it rebuild to some extent and then it only shows:
+ STATUS=0
+ [ 0 -ne 0 ]
+ chown -R root .
+ chgrp -R root .
+ chmod -R a+rX,g-w,o-w .
+ echo Patch #0:
Patch #0:
+ patch -p1 -s
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59197: patch: command not found
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59197 (%prep)
Does anyone what's going wrong and how to solve this problem? I really need some help.
Thanks.
Regards,
Harris
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Harris wrote:
> Patch #0:
> + patch -p1 -s
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59197: patch: command not found
> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59197 (%prep)
>
> Does anyone what's going wrong and how to solve this problem? I really
> need some help.
What exactly is not clear to you regarding this error message? The patch
command cannot be found. Either you do not have the patch rpm installed,
or it got corrupted.
Hi,
I'm presently trying to send out mail where the sender and from fields
are different. I'm using the line
env - QMAILUSER=$From QMAILSUSER=$Sender qmail-inject $Recipient < msg
and the mail arrives with a "From " string of $Sender$From, no "Sender:" line,
and a "From:" field of $From. Is there any way to get the "Sender:" field in
there (I already tried putting it in the message) and to get the "From " field
to just show the sender and not a concatenation of the two strings?
--
Matthew Harrell You're just jealous because the
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC voices only talk to me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > I'm presently trying to send out mail where the sender and from fields
: > are different. I'm using the line
: >
: > env - QMAILUSER=$From QMAILSUSER=$Sender qmail-inject $Recipient < msg
: >
: > and the mail arrives with a "From " string of $Sender$From, no "Sender:" line,
: > and a "From:" field of $From. Is there any way to get the "Sender:" field in
: > there (I already tried putting it in the message) and to get the "From " field
: > to just show the sender and not a concatenation of the two strings?
: >
:
: If you are trying to send the retuned mail someplace else, modify the
: Return-Path: emailaddress
Actually, I hadn't tried modifying that line directly but I did find that if
I specified QMAILSUSER and QMAILSHOST along with QMAILUSER then it worked.
The values of the QMAILS variables get put in the Return-Path and From fields
and the other get's put in the From: field.
--
Matthew Harrell Beauty is in the eye of the beer
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC holder.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
I have been using qmail on my personal server at home for about a year
I'm guessing but it must be close ). I have a situation at work that needs
to be resolved. First a little background:
This is my first post to this mailing list so forgive me if it has been
covered already. If it has, could you please point me to the archives so
that I can get the answer myself. OK that being said here is my situation:
I have Dual-homed firewall setup at work with our mail server residing on
the internal side. This mail server is located on the 192.168.1.0/24
protected network. I have the FWTK loaded on the firewall. I have smap/smapd
running on the firewall to handle incoming mail. When mail comes to the
firewall I would like the firewall to pick up the mail and send it to the
internal mail server for local delivery. I would also like to send outgoing
mail like normal. My users will use pop to get mail from the internal mail
server and will send mail through the firewall directly. I have seen
examples with other mail systems for forwarding mail to another server but I
have yet to see an example of how to forward that mail to a server located
internally.
So I guess I would like to know two things:
1) If I use something like smap/smapd to pick up the mail is it possible
just to have qmail started to deliver the queue every now and then without a
big hassle
and
2) If the 1st is possible can someone give me a nudge in the right direction
on how to do this.
If you need more information please feel free to contact me
Thanks
Gary
winmail.dat
I'm trying to get qmail to support something like the LUSER support in
sendmail. Here's the situation:
This is a client machine. That is, it relays everything off of a mail
hub (which happens to be running sendmail).
I've set defaulthost and defaultdomain to "cimedia.com" so any mail
sent to an unqualfied address on the machine is qualified with
"@cimedia.com" and then forwarded to the mailhub (since I have also
setup smtproutes to forward everything to the mail hub).
fetchmail is used to grab mail for the machine and it delivers it
through qmail-smtpd via tcpserver.
That all works fine.
The machine has a limited set of users, let's say it has root and bob.
I'd like mail which originates on the machine but is addressed to
either root or bob (that is, anyone in /var/qmail/users/cdb on this
machine) to be qualified with /var/qmail/control/me instead of with
defaulthost.
Is there anyway to do this w/o wrapping qmail-inject or replacing it
with new-inject? Can I even do this with new-inject?
j.
--
Jay Soffian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UNIX Systems Administrator
404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media
> If companies would just get it that ALL of their PC users need training and
> rules to follow (like never turn off macro protection or you get canned)
If this is the case.. then why have macros be able to be executed in
the first place? It seems that people *want* this convenience, but then
they don't want to live with the consequences. Sorry, mickeysoft isn't
smart enough to give it both ways to the user.
> > My car is "user-friendly" and easy to use, so are you saying that if
> > I go out and drive at 100mph and crash that it's Ford's fault for
> > not limiting the maximum speed of my car?
Seems to be that way with cigarettes.
> >Dismissed - invalid analogy. You need a licence to drive a car. You
> >probably did some tests to prove you know what you're doing. If there
> >were no licence for driving a car, Ford would make a car that would
> >limit your maximum speed.
analogies can always have faults. who cares.
Scott
At 09:57 PM 4/2/99 -0700, Scott wrote:
>> If companies would just get it that ALL of their PC users need training and
>> rules to follow (like never turn off macro protection or you get canned)
>
>If this is the case.. then why have macros be able to be executed in
>the first place? It seems that people *want* this convenience, but then
>they don't want to live with the consequences.
This is a bit like saying "why allow manufacturers to build 160-horsepower
sportbikes when you know that some inexperienced kid is gonna buy one?" The
answer is that it's a technology-driven marketplace. Without end-user
judgement, you're roadkill waiting to happen.
I build websites for a large NYC advertising agency. I tech-lead the account
for a very large international communications hardware company. The strict
security standards we must follow for development of their websites is just
short of paranoid schizophrenia. However, some of their management insists
that we send them self-extracting ZIP files of creative proposals as email
attachments because it's "easier". This is a bit like having a forged steel
front door and leaving the window open. Not surprisingly, Melissa shut down
their corporate mail system for two days.
-----------------------[ http://www.magpie.com ]----------- =o&>o -------
Steve Manes Brooklyn, N'Yawk
> > > Well if the police/government/anybody wants to eavesdrop on him that's dead easy
>for
> > > the phone company. Over here in .nl, mobile carriers are _required_ to be
>technically
> > > able to place taps. We're also country with the highest relative number of taps.
I'm sure you'll all be pleasantly amused to learn... that I
communicated with Mitnick when he was using he cell phone (14.4) to
access the net. He claimed that he had to switch cells every 10 minutes
or so to prevent from being traced. As it came down, it was land lines
that got'm in the end... or, at least, got within proximity to scan for
his cullular activity.
Scott
> All told, Mitnick will serve another 8 months and then be freed on
> parole. Stipulations of the plea also entail that he not personally
> benefit from the incidents which lead up to his arrest (e.g., no big "book
> deal" for personal gain), and that he make restitution to the adversely
> affected parties.
... and lets see how long it will be before he's back to his old tricks.
I personally forwarded his threats on me and my family to the FBI. What
should I do next time he does this crap?
What should I do next time he cracks into US West and shuts off my
phone lines? or changes my credit history?
Theft of identity is coming of age. Lets see how long it takes before
he's indicted again.
He gets absolutely no sympathy from me.
Scott
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, blip wrote:
> Isnt this the same guy that was "jailed" without being charged?
> morgan
*sigh* No, he was charged. He has spent like 4 years in prison and he's
going to get a plea bargain deal where he'll probably get 5 years, of
which he's already served 4.
Another reason he's been out of trial so long is that he has caused this
delay with his defense teams.
Mitnick is not the devil incarnate and responsible for everything the
press says about him, but he's far from innocent (unlike what his auntie
or defense lawyers say). Most all of the kiddies who cyber-chant ``free
kevin'' are mostly misinformed. Anyone who had direct contact with his
destruction knows what he is like.
Scott
> >From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
> feature shock /n./
> [from Alvin Toffler's book title "Future Shock"] A user's (or
> programmer's!) confusion when confronted with a package that has too
> many features and poor introductory material.
How... utterly.... appropriate.
scott
Has anyone coded MD5 (message digest 5) in djb-style C?
--
-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.
