qmail Digest 30 Apr 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 626
Topics (messages 24976 through 25079):
qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
24976 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24977 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24978 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24979 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24980 by: Heiko Romahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24981 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24983 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24984 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24993 by: Greg Owen {gowen} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24994 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24995 by: Greg Owen {gowen} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24996 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24997 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24998 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24999 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25000 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25001 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25002 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25003 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25004 by: Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25005 by: Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25006 by: "Jay D. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25007 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25010 by: Patrick Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25011 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25018 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25019 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25024 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25028 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25033 by: Vince Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25035 by: "Julian L.C. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25036 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25037 by: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25038 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25041 by: Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25062 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25065 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25068 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25070 by: "Jordan Krushen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25071 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25072 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Big Mail system
24982 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25012 by: "Robert J. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25056 by: Tillman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25058 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25073 by: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25075 by: Stefan Osterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail performance statistics
24985 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
which version of qmail is installed?
24986 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24990 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
masquerading _FROM_ field only for mails sent to remote recipient s
24987 by: "Ames Andreas (UC-PN/EMS1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Performance check and qmailanalog
24988 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
deferrals
24989 by: Marlon Anthony Abao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24991 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24992 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help for newbies (was: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail)
25008 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25009 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25063 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25064 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25079 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
checkpassword questions
25013 by: Mark Bitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
/dev/null
25014 by: "Brandon Pulsipher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25015 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25016 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25017 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmailanalog?
25020 by: "Henrik Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25021 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25022 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25023 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fwd: Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
25025 by: ivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rewriting outoing mails for other smtp servers
25026 by: Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
trigger getting corrupt? (was: Re: qmail does his job slowly)
25027 by: "Efg�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A realistic assessment - WAS Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
25029 by: Doug McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-analog with cyclog
25030 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
directory hashing algorithim
25031 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25034 by: "Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pinq
25032 by: andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IMAP and timezones
25039 by: Rene de Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Very Basic Qmail questions
25040 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25047 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-getpw
25042 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25066 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Secondary MX que
25043 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25044 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25045 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25046 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25048 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25049 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25050 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25051 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25053 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25057 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25069 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum)
RFC To: comment syntax?
25052 by: John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25054 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]: yessure���Զ��ظ���(�벻Ҫ�ٻظ�����)]
25055 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stoping a SPAM in progress?
25059 by: Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25067 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
vacation progam
25060 by: "Peter Samuel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
creat a maildir format folder
25061 by: BoLiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fwd: Maildir format mailbox
25074 by: BoLiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fwd: a simple question
25076 by: BoLiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Off: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail]
25077 by: Pike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenSMTP - another approach
25078 by: "Petr Novotny" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Green wrote:
> >
> How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
> your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
> part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
>
> Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
Then that person should not be responsible for a mail server. Or
rather, they should not be surprised if (when) things go wrong and they
can't sort it out. They certainly should not then blame the software
for their lack of knowledge.
Not knowing is OK. Not knowing you don't know is ignorant.
R.
--
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 11:32:57AM +0100, Robin Bowes wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
> > >
> > How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
> > your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
> > part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
> >
> > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
>
> Then that person should not be responsible for a mail server. Or
> rather, they should not be surprised if (when) things go wrong and they
> can't sort it out. They certainly should not then blame the software
> for their lack of knowledge.
>
But I keep saying - not everyone who installs and runs a Linux box
nowadays is going to have the sort of knowledge many of the people on
this list seem to assume. It's just not going to happen I'm afraid so
a little more help and warnings in the qmail documentation would not
go amiss.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
> your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
> part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
>
> Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
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
==========================================================================
Chris Green wrote:
> >
> But I keep saying - not everyone who installs and runs a Linux box
> nowadays is going to have the sort of knowledge many of the people on
> this list seem to assume. It's just not going to happen I'm afraid so
> a little more help and warnings in the qmail documentation would not
> go amiss.
And there lies the crux of the problem. You can put as much help and as
many warnings as you like in the documentation but if the person
installing doesn't read it then it won't help.
If you get the qmail tarball and read and follow the instructions
contained therein, then you will most likely have a reasonably
successful installation.
If, however, you use the rpms to install qmail on a live system without
any prior knowledge of qmail then it is reasonable to assume that you
deserve all hassle you get :o)
Not that rpms are a bad thing - I used the memphis rpm to install qmail
on my Linux box at home but I have done several installations from the
tarball on Unixware and FreeBSD systems so I knew what I was doing.
R.
--
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
Hi,
could you please shutdown this damned thread!
Best regards
Heiko Romahn
--
UUNET Deutschland GmbH
* PGP-Key available on request * Emil-Figge-Str. 80
44227 Dortmund
Tel(Fax): +49 231 972 00 (1601)
Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing!
> > that is common sense
> >
> That is the response of the sysadmin of a big installation! As I have
> kept saying in the past this list *must* accept that there are going
> to be more and more SoHo (+ naive) users installing qmail. They just
> don't have a spare system to "install on a test box".
OK, fair enough. But if you break your home system, that's no big deal,
is it?
R.
--
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > But wait! It gets worse. Very soon now sysadmins may not even think of
> > inflicting such a change on their user base prior to a professionally
> > conducted impact analysis.
> >
> Get real!!!! We're not all sysadmins paid to do installations on big
> Unix boxes with umpteen users. I get the feeling that Pike is someone
> who has another job to do and just maintains a small office system
> (probably running Linux) with half a dozen users. It's bigger than
> the system I run, but not much.
>
> We're not paid and don't have time to spend hours poring over the
> documentation, there's more important things to do like deal with
> customers.
...by breaking their e-mail. Hmmm, great customer service.
I note that in another post you suggest that "a little more help and
warnings in the qmail documentation would not go amiss". How would that
help if you "don't have time to spend hours poring over the
documentation" ?
Just what exactly are you saying here? Dcoumentation should be better?
Installation should be easier?
The fact of the matter is that installing a mail server is not a trivial
task. It's pretty straight-forward once you're familiar with what's
involved, but nonetheless it's not something to be taken lightly.
>
> I *know* that qmail is good, fairly simple to install and secure. But
> a bit more acceptance that the documentation and other help isn't all
> *that* brilliant would reduce the sort of problems that
> non-professional users have installing it.
The trouble is that non-professional users are always going to have
problems. *I* did when I first started - but I didn't repsond by
posting a "qmail is shite" message to this list. No, I thought more
along the lines of "Hmmm, I don't reallly know what I'm doing here -
must learn more". My problems, my fault - not qmail.
R.
--
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 07:14:48AM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
> > your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
> > part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
> >
> > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
>
> If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
>
No longer true I'm afraid, the modern Linux distributions *are* just
about as easy as W95 to install. The installer may well be "playing
the role of admin" but will *not* be someone who has read lots of
O'Reilly books on the guts of Unix utilities.
Many people installing (or at least wanting to install) qmail will be
either doing it on a small home network (like me) or a small office
network.
The problem is that there is no simple alternative which one can
recommend for the SoHo environment. The reason I chose to install
qmail on my home system was that the general opinion in places I
looked was that it was the simplest/easiest MTA to install. Given
this and the fact that one has to install *some* sort of MUA where
else is the naive new Linux user supposed to go?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:54:07PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> > you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing!
> > that is common sense
> >
> That is the response of the sysadmin of a big installation! As I have
> kept saying in the past this list *must* accept that there are going
> to be more and more SoHo (+ naive) users installing qmail. They just
> don't have a spare system to "install on a test box".
If you're at a big installation, then you have a spare box to do
your test on.
If you're at a SoHo installation, then instantaneous mail delivery
isn't vital enough to keep you from taking your box offline for testing.
If you're naive, you shouldn't be setting up a mail server without
first fixing that naivete problem.
You don't need to be at a big installation to plan and test before
installing.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 April 1999 at 09:16:01 +0100
> How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
> your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
> part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
>
> Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
Boy are we seeing title inflation here! Knowing roughly what sendmail
does, and roughly what mailx does, doesn't make you an OS guru as I
use the term; it makes you a not-totally-naive Unix user.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
> Beyond that, most "morons who just popped a RedHat Linux CD out of the
> box" would not have any better luck downloading, compiling, and installing
> sendmail. They're just lucky that RedHat has done most of that for the
> most common configurations so that it works out of the box. To get that
> level of functionality with qmail, I would think it would be up to RedHat
> to RPM it properly for installation in their system.
And note, the RedHat sendmail RPM (at least for RH 5.1) is
incorrectly configured. It has an anti-spam rule installed that makes it
not accept bounces (it drops mail with an envelope sender of <>). If that
was your only mail server, and your mail to others was bouncing, you'd
have no way to know what was happening except careful and reasonably
knowledgeable log analysis.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 08:48:58AM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:54:07PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
# > # Things were still not working and I had to invent complex workarounds.
# > # A lot of handwork ... a week later, I had to do it all over again, to try
# > # and fix it.
# > # The users got funny errors and received all the mail they left on
# > # the server several times .... even on such a small system as mine,
# > # it was HELL.
# >
# > you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing!
# > that is common sense
# >
# That is the response of the sysadmin of a big installation! As I have
# kept saying in the past this list *must* accept that there are going
# to be more and more SoHo (+ naive) users installing qmail. They just
# don't have a spare system to "install on a test box".
It is still common sense
I have more than one machine at HOME!
one for testing purposes.
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:16:01AM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:59:36PM +0100, Robin Bowes wrote:
# > Pike wrote:
# > >
# > > >you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing!
# > > >that is common sense
# > >
# > > That would be a nice warning on the qmail homepage !
# >
# > If that piece of advice comes as a surprise to you, then you deserve
# > every bit of trouble your users have given you.
# >
# > You seem to have attempted to replace a fundamental piece of your
# > computing infratructure without really understanding what you're doing
# > and, in particular, without knowing how the new software works.
# >
# How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
# your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
# part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
#
# Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
you do NOT have to be a GURU to KNOW that sendmail is an INTEGRAL part of the
OS
if you don't KNOW that then you have NO business attempting to install qmail
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 12:09:28PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# But I keep saying - not everyone who installs and runs a Linux box
# nowadays is going to have the sort of knowledge many of the people on
# this list seem to assume. It's just not going to happen I'm afraid so
# a little more help and warnings in the qmail documentation would not
# go amiss.
then they shouldnt be installing it then
it's THAT simple
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
>Dave Sill writes:
> > Migrating an entrenched sendmail system to qmail *is* complicated, and
> > shouldn't be attempted by someone who isn't familiar with both
> > sendmail and qmail. Hire an expert if you don't qualify.
>
>Or come to my half-day qmail tutorial at the Linux Expo on May 19 in
>Raleigh, NC. http://www.linuxexpo.org
That is, if you aren't otherwise occupied!
<http://world.std.com/~burley/Linux_Wars.html>
(I've already made *my* decision...can't recall whether my wife is also
signed up for the qmail tutorial, but I think *I* am! :)
tq vm, (burley)
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 01:22:51PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# The problem is that there is no simple alternative which one can
# recommend for the SoHo environment. The reason I chose to install
# qmail on my home system was that the general opinion in places I
# looked was that it was the simplest/easiest MTA to install. Given
# this and the fact that one has to install *some* sort of MUA where
# else is the naive new Linux user supposed to go?
sendmail should suit the needs of the home user just fine, and it comes
installed on most Linux distributions
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:57:50AM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 12:09:28PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> # But I keep saying - not everyone who installs and runs a Linux box
> # nowadays is going to have the sort of knowledge many of the people on
> # this list seem to assume. It's just not going to happen I'm afraid so
> # a little more help and warnings in the qmail documentation would not
> # go amiss.
>
> then they shouldnt be installing it then
> it's THAT simple
>
To you, yes (and maybe me) but how do *they* know they shouldn't be
installing it? They may well have installed Linux with no problems
and also a few applications from RPMs.
.... ah, look here, an RPM to install qmail, everyone says it's
better than sendmail ....
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 10:00:45AM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 01:22:51PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> # The problem is that there is no simple alternative which one can
> # recommend for the SoHo environment. The reason I chose to install
> # qmail on my home system was that the general opinion in places I
> # looked was that it was the simplest/easiest MTA to install. Given
> # this and the fact that one has to install *some* sort of MUA where
> # else is the naive new Linux user supposed to go?
>
> sendmail should suit the needs of the home user just fine, and it comes
> installed on most Linux distributions
>
Not really, a little network with a connection to a dial-up ISP is not
easy to set up using sendmail. That's why I decided to use qmail
because (especially with the holdremote patch) it is well suited to
this situation, it's also what lots of people suggested I use because
it's easier than sendmail.
I'm not knocking qmail (it's excellent and works very well for me) but
just trying to point out that a little more help for users of small
systems who aren't full time sysadmins would be very welcome. There's
no ideal MTA for small (unix/linux) systems, all the existing ones are
trying to be the best for big systems IMHO. Given this lack of MTA
for small systems qmail will be the MTA of choice for quite a few
people who need a bit more hand holding than is easily available at
present.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:26:03PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 10:00:45AM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
# > On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 01:22:51PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# I'm not knocking qmail (it's excellent and works very well for me) but
# just trying to point out that a little more help for users of small
# systems who aren't full time sysadmins would be very welcome. There's
# no ideal MTA for small (unix/linux) systems, all the existing ones are
# trying to be the best for big systems IMHO. Given this lack of MTA
# for small systems qmail will be the MTA of choice for quite a few
# people who need a bit more hand holding than is easily available at
# present.
Qmail is not the best solution for small users in some instances, multiple
messages sent per message, etc.
If you think the docs for small systems needs to be better, there is nothing
stopping you from writing them....
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote:
>
> > How is he to know that what he's replacing is "a fundamental piece of
> > your computing infrastructure"? Not everyone knows that sendmail is
> > part of the guts of the system but that mailx (for example) isn't?
> >
> > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
>
> If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
>
As a 4-month old linux user (and passionnated), I've chosen
qmail over sendmail. I took time to read the docs of both, and
have done my best to be a not to bad admin with qmail.
Installing qmail as a replacement to sendmail didn't seem
difficult to me: the INSTALL* files are very straight-forward.
Reading the FAQ makes many usual admin things easy too.
But I must admit things have become impossible to me when
it has come to understanding qmail related tcp packages' mans.
My qmail runs as a tcpserver, but please ask no more to me ;-)
Anyway, sendmail's doc is very hard for a beginner to understand.
Its best point is being very complete. I really appreciate
qmail's coders' job, and understand easily they prefer writing
code to writing doc. Well, the mailing-list archives are not to
be despited when you have to solve what seems a common problem.
Fabrice
--
"A l'encontre de ce que pourraient penser d'aucuns quidams
mal renseignes un contestataire est un homme en colere qui
conteste, et non un idiot en fureur qui fait son testament."
-- Pierre Dac
"Pavel V. Piankov" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:03:22AM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> > Again I would point out that fully 90% of the people who are now
> > running Linux boxes probably depend on RPMs to install *everything*.
>
> Nope ... I`ve first seen a deb of qmail ... installed it on debian test box
> just to taste what it is like and it works fine till now.
> I wouldn`t install it via deb on a production box tho.
When I installed my first linux box (a RH 5.1) and began being
more familiar with it (I had very little Unix knowledge), it
didn't take much time to me to understand that a package like
Sendmail would NEVER do what I expected from it if I didn't
take some time to download the latest, read the docs, try to
install it properly from SRC (btw, being able to compile such
packages proves your system is not to bad), then configure it.
Come on... are you going to modify the /etc/sendmail.cf file
a good way if you don't even know about m4 ?! I chose linux
because I couldn't stand having to change strange and hazardous
things in '95 register without understanding anything.
I've done the same with qmail. All from the source, only.
Concerning RPMs, I don't thing
they are a very serious thing. When you see that RH systems
are not even able to find out that a RPM you want to install
is not present on the system... you know, that --force option...
Com'on... source rules. RPMs only help when you install the
whole system and expect most things to be approximatively done
as a beginning to the real job YOU are going to do.
Fabrice
--
"Le cretin pretentieux est celui qui se croit plus
intelligent que ceux qui sont aussi betes que lui."
-- Pierre Dac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
>
> If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
- -Jay
( ______
)) .-- "There's always time for a good cup of coffee." --. >===<--.
C|~~| (>-- Jay D. Dyson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --<) | = |-'
`--' `-- People who think NASA is fake view WWF as real. --' `-----'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNyh/pM2OVDpaKXD9AQElzgP9F7WYQnuWmpeLVlLwD+NZwGR/SNjXSFOv
iimq6bTe1LSLdKjtP41HyWBSHs0AOhTobogn+ZM2181bDyzCSZMCPdQ0NetGJ55f
zJDUbreEid4dzsa2o/r82K0X1+WoeDVoEPrd4SKmxPz4IvitbyZjit0jLud96ySY
Fo3pqf8E0ww=
=OdTd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Jay D. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:
: On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
:
: > > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
: >
: > If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
: > obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
:
: Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
: of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
: install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
:
: Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
: turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyone who can read and comprehend the documentation and is moderately
intelligent should be able to install qmail with a minimum of fuss.
The problem is the people who don't want to read and learn. This usually
includes *nix newbies.
--Adam
>>> Adam D. McKenna had the thought that... <<<
> From: Jay D. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> :
> : On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> :
> : > > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
> : >
> : > If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> : > obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
> :
> : Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
> : of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
> : install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
> :
> : Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
> : turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> Anyone who can read and comprehend the documentation and is moderately
> intelligent should be able to install qmail with a minimum of fuss.
I can back this up. I've been thrown into sys admin duty recently. I
was able to get qmail+pop3 up in about a day and a half. I didn't
have a plan. This was bad. I just downloaded the src and compiled,
then went searching for the INSTALL file. Then to qmail.org, the
searched the archive for hours.
> The problem is the people who don't want to read and learn. This usually
> includes *nix newbies.
Well, now that everything is up and running, I'm scared what will
happen if/when something goes wrong... but then that's why I keep up
with the qmail list ;-)
Pat
--
Code Creation
Freestyle Software Inc.
www.freestylesoft.com
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Jay D. Dyson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
> >
> > If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> > obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
>
> Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
> of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
> install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
>
> Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
> turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
If you're going thru the extent of understanding what you install and
reading the docs in advance, then you're doing fine. It's those that
have the belief that 'I can just install this RPM and everything will
be just peachy' are not competent to be admins.
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
==========================================================================
Jay D. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 April 1999 at 08:49:53
-0700
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
> >
> > If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> > obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
>
> Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
> of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
> install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
>
> Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
> turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd guess people are overestimating the difficulty of installing qmail
(especially on a simple system).
I've never been a sysadmin as my main job (though I had partial
responsilibity for running a Sun 3/280 server for a while once). On
the other hand, I'd been running Linux boxes since 0.99PL15, I think
it was. I switched to qmail from smail, after running it for a while
(and implementing some patches to do what I needed with virtual
domains). Never did install or understand sendmail. (All this was
pre-RPM, at least pre my encountering RPM). I found qmail quite easy
to install and configure. My Linux box was the first MTA I ever
configured (and the first DNS, and the first httpd, and...). I did
run a BBS for years, too, on Fidonet, which has things a bit like mail
configuration to handle.
On the other hand, I *have* been actively involved with computers
continuously since 1968, when I started keypunching my own programs
and loading the cards into an IBM 1620 :-) .
All of this probably gives me a *very* different set of knowledge and
attitudes than somebody who is breaking the Windows boundary by
installing Linux for the first time! The primary difference may
simply be that I don't assume it's supposed to / going to be easy.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
+ Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| As a 4-month old linux user (and passionnated), I've chosen
| qmail over sendmail.
Wow. I think it safe toasy you must be the youngest qmail user ever.
And you write exceedingly well for a 4-month old, too!
- Harald 8-)
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
[snip]
> Anyway, I guess my point is that qmail has a bigger learning curve than
> I've encountered in some time, but once that is overcome it *is* much
> better (IMHO, of course) than Sendmail.
I'd like to disagree with this. :-)
I don't believe that qmail has got a steeper learning curve than
sendmail. I don't believe that most people running sendmail have much
understanding of how it works. What is perceived as a steeper learning
curve for qmail is the fact that you *are* learning how it works.
When you couple this with the facts that:
- qmail and sendmail work differently (to accomplish the same
tasks), and
- most people installing qmail have some (IMHO vague) idea of the
outward functioning of sendmail,
*of*course* "qmail has a steeper learning curve". This is the difference
between learning .01% of sendmail as opposed to 80% of qmail.
> Troy
--
"Life is much too important to be taken seriously."
Thomas Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (613) 998-2836
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Anyway, I guess my point is that qmail has a bigger learning curve than
> > I've encountered in some time, but once that is overcome it *is* much
> > better (IMHO, of course) than Sendmail.
>
> I'd like to disagree with this. :-)
>
> I don't believe that qmail has got a steeper learning curve than
> sendmail.
<SNIP>
> *of*course* "qmail has a steeper learning curve". This is the difference
> between learning .01% of sendmail as opposed to 80% of qmail.
>
> > Troy
Make up your mind !
This thread is becoming ludicrous, even for a beginner like me.
***From another mail ***
It's obvious that there's a major difference between someone who has 4/5 years
of Linux under their belt as well as using a Sun3/280 running a previous mailer
(smail) before transitioning to Qmail and a total Un*x newbie who wants to
learn and play with a MTA.
Hopefully, some people, a group perhap's, will get together and create a short,
simple plain language document (the INSTALL is part of the way, perhap's it
could be expanded) that succinctly explains things better.
In fact, If people are interested, (both Qmail pro's and struggling newbies),
I'll start a mailing list so we can thrash out some things. If nothing else, we
can have a Qmail-newbies list that some of the more experienced people may wish
to pop into to help newbies get it up and running, and more importantly get
experience so they can, in turn, spread the word.
Regards...Martin
--
\\\\\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 08:55:07AM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> We're not paid and don't have time to spend hours poring over the
> documentation, there's more important things to do like deal with
> customers.
If you're too busy to read the documentation, hire someone to do it for
you.
> I *know* that qmail is good, fairly simple to install and secure. But
> a bit more acceptance that the documentation and other help isn't all
> *that* brilliant would reduce the sort of problems that
> non-professional users have installing it.
If you're not a professional, maybe you should not be setting up a mail
server.
--vince
>> We're not paid and don't have time to spend hours poring over the
>> documentation, there's more important things to do like deal with
>> customers.
>
>If you're too busy to read the documentation, hire someone to do it for
>you.
>
>> I *know* that qmail is good, fairly simple to install and secure. But
>> a bit more acceptance that the documentation and other help isn't all
>> *that* brilliant would reduce the sort of problems that
>> non-professional users have installing it.
>
>If you're not a professional, maybe you should not be setting up a mail
>server.
Word Brother Vince. You know, e-mail is so emotionally tied to your users.
They DEPEND on email and the fact that it will ALWAYS get delivered. If
you don't know what you're doing you should not be installing a mail
server. If you don't have time, you're fooling yourself because q-mail
(like any MTA) is full of quirks. Most companies have someone dedicated to
the task of looking after email - and if this is not your company you
should look towards Micro$oft for buggy, low grade help.
Julian L.C. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 April 1999 at 17:20:29
-0400
> Most companies have someone dedicated to the task of looking after
> email - and if this is not your company you should look towards
> Micro$oft for buggy, low grade help.
I don't know what planet you come from; On the planet *I* come from, I
know how the internals work at an ISP, a non-profit, a division of a
big company (used to be independent), and a startup (3 years old,
about 35 people). *None* of these have anybody devoted full-time to
looking after email. All of them run their own MTAs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
| I don't believe that qmail has got a steeper learning curve than
| sendmail. I don't believe that most people running sendmail have much
| understanding of how it works. What is perceived as a steeper learning
| curve for qmail is the fact that you *are* learning how it works.
This is, of course, entirely true. I neglected to point out that with
regards to "steepest learning curve I've encountered in long time", I've
_never_ wanted to tackle the sendmail learning curve.
| *of*course* "qmail has a steeper learning curve". This is the difference
| between learning .01% of sendmail as opposed to 80% of qmail.
Perfectly said.
Troy
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:35:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Julian L.C. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 April 1999 at 17:20:29
-0400
#
# > Most companies have someone dedicated to the task of looking after
# > email - and if this is not your company you should look towards
# > Micro$oft for buggy, low grade help.
#
# I don't know what planet you come from; On the planet *I* come from, I
# know how the internals work at an ISP, a non-profit, a division of a
# big company (used to be independent), and a startup (3 years old,
# about 35 people). *None* of these have anybody devoted full-time to
# looking after email. All of them run their own MTAs.
I know the internals of an ISP, a multi mational, and a university
all have at least 1 person full time doing email
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
Once upon a midnight dreary, Justin Bell had spoken clearly:
>On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:35:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
># Julian L.C. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 April 1999
at 17:20:29 -0400
>#
># > Most companies have someone dedicated to the task of looking after
># > email - and if this is not your company you should look towards
># > Micro$oft for buggy, low grade help.
>#
># I don't know what planet you come from; On the planet *I* come from, I
># know how the internals work at an ISP, a non-profit, a division of a
># big company (used to be independent), and a startup (3 years old,
># about 35 people). *None* of these have anybody devoted full-time to
># looking after email. All of them run their own MTAs.
>
>I know the internals of an ISP, a multi mational, and a university
>all have at least 1 person full time doing email
I *am* the internals of an ISP -- small, (~600 customers - so far) but very
dedicated, and tho I do much more than just email, it is my responsibility
to cover that as well, so I guess you could say we have a "dedicated
employee" for mail, but it most certainly doesn't take up my whole day.
That's why I went with qmail many years ago -- once you get the learning
out of the way, it's "set it and forget it." The security of qmail alone
makes what little sleep I get every nite a little more restful. Besides, I
don't want to have to carry the "bat-book" around with me every time I
needed to change that blasted sendmail.cf file...
Speaking of books, are the qmail book authers going to give those of us on
the list a chance to purchase "limited edition, autographed" versions of
the book first???? <wink> <wink>
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 10:28:46AM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> Qmail is not the best solution for small users in some instances, multiple
> messages sent per message, etc.
>
So what alternatives are there? sendmail has the advantage of being
'already there' but is difficult to configure to work well with a
dial-up connection.
> If you think the docs for small systems needs to be better, there is nothing
> stopping you from writing them....
Well..... I must admit I *have* considered doing this, there are a
couple of other people have produced HOWTOs for qmail with dial-up but
there is a gap there I think.
Time and lack of knowledge are basically what prevent me at the
moment. If winter arrives and I'm still in the same frame of mind I
might well try putting something together.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:12:49AM -0700, Patrick Berry wrote:
> > Anyone who can read and comprehend the documentation and is moderately
> > intelligent should be able to install qmail with a minimum of fuss.
>
> I can back this up. I've been thrown into sys admin duty recently. I
> was able to get qmail+pop3 up in about a day and a half. I didn't
> have a plan. This was bad. I just downloaded the src and compiled,
> then went searching for the INSTALL file. Then to qmail.org, the
> searched the archive for hours.
>
OK you (and I) can 'afford' to spend this sort of amount of time. In
my case it's simply because it's on a home system which is as much
hobby as essential tool.
However a small businessmand hasn't got this sort of amount of time to
spend and isn't going to regard configuring his E-Mail as recreation
over the weekend. He is also, maybe, a one or two person business
that can't afford to hire someone for a day or two to do the job for
him.
Lots of other (quite complex) software is used by small businesses and
is quicker/easier to set up than qmail. OK, so quite a bit of it is
commercial and so part of what your paying for is the slick set-up.
But there's not much in the way of alternatives to qmail (and they're
more difficult to configure) so where does the small business go?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Vince Gonzalez wrote:
> > I *know* that qmail is good, fairly simple to install and secure. But
> > a bit more acceptance that the documentation and other help isn't all
> > *that* brilliant would reduce the sort of problems that
> > non-professional users have installing it.
>
> If you're not a professional, maybe you should not be setting up a mail
> server.
>
This is where I came in to some extent! :-)
Linux is being used by *lots* of non 'professional' people as a
'server' on small networks. They need an MTA of some sort and qmail
is better than most for various reasons.
Most of these people are either home users who certainly can't afford
professional help or small businesses who could afford something but
(probably) not the sort of amount a good sysadmin would cost for a day
or two.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
>However a small businessmand hasn't got this sort of amount of time to
>spend and isn't going to regard configuring his E-Mail as recreation
>over the weekend. He is also, maybe, a one or two person business
>that can't afford to hire someone for a day or two to do the job for
>him.
>
>Lots of other (quite complex) software is used by small businesses and
>is quicker/easier to set up than qmail. OK, so quite a bit of it is
>commercial and so part of what your paying for is the slick set-up.
>But there's not much in the way of alternatives to qmail (and they're
>more difficult to configure) so where does the small business go?
The thing is, email servers are *not* something a novice should be setting
up. There aren't any *really* easy ways to set up a (insert secure and/or
functional here) mail server. It's a complex subject, and that's exactly
why larger organizations assign staff to the subject, or simply hire someone
else to do the task. You need someone with expertise in this area, or
you're going to be kicking yourself later. Smaller companies, one would
assume, don't have such a high volume of mail that they need their own
server. And correct me if I'm wrong, but setting up a simple install of
qmail to act as a mere relay is ridiculously easy.
You know, it's funny.. but we recently had a client with an NT box full of
users decide to co-locate with us, and they're running iMail, a horribly
nasty mail server ;) All kidding aside, part of the server's 'slick' setup
(being a commercial server, and all) was to simply not ask questions like
"Do you want this server to be an open relay?" and default to relaying for
the entire world. This just blows me away.
J.
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 05:20:29PM -0400, Julian L.C. Brown wrote:
> (like any MTA) is full of quirks. Most companies have someone dedicated to
> the task of looking after email - and if this is not your company you
> should look towards Micro$oft for buggy, low grade help.
>
No! "Most companies" do *not* "have someone dedicated to the task of
looking after email". This is what I have been trying to get across
to this list, nothing more. There are an increasing number of
(potential) qmail users who can't possibly afford to have a dedicated
E-Mail person, or even a dedicated sysadmin. Even a ten person
company will probably have only one person who spends *some* of their
time each day on computer administration. Lots of companies with
fewer than ten people now have a small network.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
> : On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> :
> : > > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru.
> : >
> : > If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's
> : > obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95.
> :
> : Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
> : of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
> : install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
> :
> : Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
> : turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> Anyone who can read and comprehend the documentation and is moderately
> intelligent should be able to install qmail with a minimum of fuss.
>
> The problem is the people who don't want to read and learn. This usually
> includes *nix newbies.
>
Well I'm not a Unix newbie by any means, I've been C (and now C++)
programming on Unix since 1982 or so. However I'm not a professional
sysadmin, I'm a developer.
It took me a while to install qmail successfully and I needed to ask a
few questions on the list here. It is all in the documentation but
not always in obvious places or presented in an easy to follow way.
The problems I had were mostly to do with running qmail with a dial-up
ISP which is not a situation directly addressed by the documentation.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Stefan Osterman writes:
> Hi
>
> I need some advice how to install a Qmail system that can handle 20k users
> scaling up to 200k users. The system should handle mulitple domains and not
> use the /etc/passwd file. Each Maildir should have quota whith mail
> notification to user, sender and maybe some other address.
Incoming mail should be handled by qmail-users, it will scale.
If you're ok with POP3/IMAP users logging in using their UNIX ids, you're
all set. If you want users to login under their virtual domains, vchkpw
won't work because it won't scale - it scans a flat file for user
validation.
Write a custom checkpassword checking routine, using something like GDBM to
validate userid/domains.
Qmail has no builtin quota support. Write a custom script that sweeps
through all the mailboxes, notifies owners which exceed their soft quota,
and locks out mail delivery to mailboxes that exceed their hard quota.
Modify your POP3/IMAP server to unlock mailboxes, if necessary, after mail
is deleted.
> How do best take advantage of two SUN 4500 and 216 GB storage connected via
> dual FCAL each. The machines are currently configured with Veritas cluster
> software and with failover which means that one of the machines idle's,
> waste of power eh!
Get a separate RAID box, move all the disks there, and put it on the
network. Have both machines mount the same filesystem, and use it as the
mail store, using Maildirs. The machines should have only enough disk
space to run the OS, plus sufficient disk space for your active mail queue.
--
Sam
Andre,
Any idea how fast qmail-ldap is compared to a stock qmail system with a
custom delivering setup pulling the info from a mySQL database?
-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: 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stefan Osterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: Big Mail system
>Stefan Osterman wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I need some advice how to install a Qmail system that can handle 20k
users
>> scaling up to 200k users. The system should handle mulitple domains and
not
>> use the /etc/passwd file. Each Maildir should have quota whith mail
>> notification to user, sender and maybe some other address.
>>
>> How do best take advantage of two SUN 4500 and 216 GB storage connected
via
>> dual FCAL each. The machines are currently configured with Veritas
cluster
>> software and with failover which means that one of the machines idle's,
>> waste of power eh!
>>
>> Looking fwd to get some input!
>
>Get qmail-ldap! The newest and greatest version will be here soon:
> http://www.nrg4u.com
>
>--
>Andre
>
Sam wrote:
> Stefan Osterman writes:
>
> > I need some advice how to install a Qmail system that can handle 20k users
> > scaling up to 200k users. The system should handle mulitple domains and not
> > use the /etc/passwd file. Each Maildir should have quota whith mail
> > notification to user, sender and maybe some other address.
>
> Incoming mail should be handled by qmail-users, it will scale.
>
> If you're ok with POP3/IMAP users logging in using their UNIX ids, you're
> all set. If you want users to login under their virtual domains, vchkpw
> won't work because it won't scale - it scans a flat file for user
> validation.
I'm jumping into this thread, as I'm in a very similar position. I'm a little
leery of using uid's, because (from my understanding) they're a signed 16-bit
field, meaning that only 32K users can actually operate (on a 2.0.36 Linux
system).
> Write a custom checkpassword checking routine, using something like GDBM to
> validate userid/domains.
Ideally, I'd like to use the radius patch in conjunction with this. I haven't
yet downloaded the patch or read the DOC's, as I'm in the middle of somewhat
time-intensive DNS migration, but I'm not exactly positive where it would get
it's home-dir information for use with Maildir's ... our Cistron radius server
certainly doesn't have that information available to server out the way thigns
stand now :-)
> Qmail has no builtin quota support. Write a custom script that sweeps
> through all the mailboxes, notifies owners which exceed their soft quota,
> and locks out mail delivery to mailboxes that exceed their hard quota.
> Modify your POP3/IMAP server to unlock mailboxes, if necessary, after mail
> is deleted.
Would not the hard quota itself lock out delivery, or is there some "might break
qmail" issue that I'm missing? I'm perfectly content with a bounce mentioning
disk space, as the users are well aware of the 10Mb limit that we are currently
imposing on our soon-to-be-replaced mail system.
> Get a separate RAID box, move all the disks there, and put it on the
> network. Have both machines mount the same filesystem, and use it as the
> mail store, using Maildirs. The machines should have only enough disk
> space to run the OS, plus sufficient disk space for your active mail queue.
I'm not all that worried about throughput in my situation, as the current mail
server is handling the load just fine. I'm looking for a solution that lets me
use radius (to consolidate the user database at long last :-) for authentication,
ideally for more than 32K users (we're at 10K now) and even more ideally in an
automated fashion, such that adding a user to the radius database automatically
adds their mail store dir. I'm not yet started on the planning for this project,
so this might be more simple than it appears to me at the moment.
-Tillman Hodgson
Tillman writes:
> Sam wrote:
>
> > If you're ok with POP3/IMAP users logging in using their UNIX ids, you're
> > all set. If you want users to login under their virtual domains, vchkpw
> > won't work because it won't scale - it scans a flat file for user
> > validation.
>
> I'm jumping into this thread, as I'm in a very similar position. I'm a little
> leery of using uid's, because (from my understanding) they're a signed 16-bit
> field, meaning that only 32K users can actually operate (on a 2.0.36 Linux
> system).
If all you use this box for is as a POP3/IMAP server, you can have 50,000
accounts mapping to the same numerical userid (as long as you disable
telnet into the box, it doesn't matter).
>
>
> > Write a custom checkpassword checking routine, using something like GDBM to
> > validate userid/domains.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to use the radius patch in conjunction with this. I haven't
> yet downloaded the patch or read the DOC's, as I'm in the middle of somewhat
> time-intensive DNS migration, but I'm not exactly positive where it would get
> it's home-dir information for use with Maildir's ... our Cistron radius server
> certainly doesn't have that information available to server out the way thigns
> stand now :-)
If you make it a convention that user foo's home directory is /home/foo,
you don't need to keep track of individual home directories.
>
> > Qmail has no builtin quota support. Write a custom script that sweeps
> > through all the mailboxes, notifies owners which exceed their soft quota,
> > and locks out mail delivery to mailboxes that exceed their hard quota.
> > Modify your POP3/IMAP server to unlock mailboxes, if necessary, after mail
> > is deleted.
>
> Would not the hard quota itself lock out delivery, or is there some "might break
> qmail" issue that I'm missing? I'm perfectly content with a bounce mentioning
> disk space, as the users are well aware of the 10Mb limit that we are currently
> imposing on our soon-to-be-replaced mail system.
If you're running a solid box, hardware quotas are OK. But if you
routinely have processes dying all over the place, for some reason,
temporarily files in the maildir being created can quickly use up the hard
quota, which'll be purged only after a couple of days (and only by
maildir-compliant mail readers). It's better to calculate the quota
yourself, only for the actual messages.
--
Sam
Just take a look on the next qmail-ldap patch this weekend, it does
all (except RADIUS) what you want.
I'll do an excessive announcement of it here when it's available.
--
Andre
Tillman wrote:
>
> Sam wrote:
>
> > Stefan Osterman writes:
> >
> > > I need some advice how to install a Qmail system that can handle 20k users
> > > scaling up to 200k users. The system should handle mulitple domains and not
> > > use the /etc/passwd file. Each Maildir should have quota whith mail
> > > notification to user, sender and maybe some other address.
> >
> > Incoming mail should be handled by qmail-users, it will scale.
> >
> > If you're ok with POP3/IMAP users logging in using their UNIX ids, you're
> > all set. If you want users to login under their virtual domains, vchkpw
> > won't work because it won't scale - it scans a flat file for user
> > validation.
>
> I'm jumping into this thread, as I'm in a very similar position. I'm a little
> leery of using uid's, because (from my understanding) they're a signed 16-bit
> field, meaning that only 32K users can actually operate (on a 2.0.36 Linux
> system).
>
> > Write a custom checkpassword checking routine, using something like GDBM to
> > validate userid/domains.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to use the radius patch in conjunction with this. I haven't
> yet downloaded the patch or read the DOC's, as I'm in the middle of somewhat
> time-intensive DNS migration, but I'm not exactly positive where it would get
> it's home-dir information for use with Maildir's ... our Cistron radius server
> certainly doesn't have that information available to server out the way thigns
> stand now :-)
>
> > Qmail has no builtin quota support. Write a custom script that sweeps
> > through all the mailboxes, notifies owners which exceed their soft quota,
> > and locks out mail delivery to mailboxes that exceed their hard quota.
> > Modify your POP3/IMAP server to unlock mailboxes, if necessary, after mail
> > is deleted.
>
> Would not the hard quota itself lock out delivery, or is there some "might break
> qmail" issue that I'm missing? I'm perfectly content with a bounce mentioning
> disk space, as the users are well aware of the 10Mb limit that we are currently
> imposing on our soon-to-be-replaced mail system.
>
> > Get a separate RAID box, move all the disks there, and put it on the
> > network. Have both machines mount the same filesystem, and use it as the
> > mail store, using Maildirs. The machines should have only enough disk
> > space to run the OS, plus sufficient disk space for your active mail queue.
>
> I'm not all that worried about throughput in my situation, as the current mail
> server is handling the load just fine. I'm looking for a solution that lets me
> use radius (to consolidate the user database at long last :-) for authentication,
> ideally for more than 32K users (we're at 10K now) and even more ideally in an
> automated fashion, such that adding a user to the radius database automatically
> adds their mail store dir. I'm not yet started on the planning for this project,
> so this might be more simple than it appears to me at the moment.
>
> -Tillman Hodgson
--
Andre
At 03:10 AM 99/04/30 +0000, Sam wrote:
>Tillman writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>> > If you're ok with POP3/IMAP users logging in using their UNIX ids, you're
>> > all set. If you want users to login under their virtual domains, vchkpw
>> > won't work because it won't scale - it scans a flat file for user
>> > validation.
>>
>> I'm jumping into this thread, as I'm in a very similar position. I'm a
little
>> leery of using uid's, because (from my understanding) they're a signed
16-bit
>> field, meaning that only 32K users can actually operate (on a 2.0.36 Linux
>> system).
>
>If all you use this box for is as a POP3/IMAP server, you can have 50,000
>accounts mapping to the same numerical userid (as long as you disable
>telnet into the box, it doesn't matter).
>
>>
>>
>> > Write a custom checkpassword checking routine, using something like
GDBM to
>> > validate userid/domains.
Is there some package for this? I found vmailmgr which I think will do this
but the docs are almost nonexisting so i haven't got it working yet.
Maybe the qmail-ldap is something. Do I have to buy the Mozilla SDK?
>>
>> Ideally, I'd like to use the radius patch in conjunction with this. I
haven't
>> yet downloaded the patch or read the DOC's, as I'm in the middle of
somewhat
>> time-intensive DNS migration, but I'm not exactly positive where it
would get
>> it's home-dir information for use with Maildir's ... our Cistron radius
server
>> certainly doesn't have that information available to server out the way
thigns
>> stand now :-)
>
>If you make it a convention that user foo's home directory is /home/foo,
>you don't need to keep track of individual home directories.
>
>>
>> > Qmail has no builtin quota support. Write a custom script that sweeps
>> > through all the mailboxes, notifies owners which exceed their soft quota,
>> > and locks out mail delivery to mailboxes that exceed their hard quota.
>> > Modify your POP3/IMAP server to unlock mailboxes, if necessary, after
mail
>> > is deleted.
>>
>> Would not the hard quota itself lock out delivery, or is there some
"might break
>> qmail" issue that I'm missing? I'm perfectly content with a bounce
mentioning
>> disk space, as the users are well aware of the 10Mb limit that we are
currently
>> imposing on our soon-to-be-replaced mail system.
>
>If you're running a solid box, hardware quotas are OK. But if you
>routinely have processes dying all over the place, for some reason,
>temporarily files in the maildir being created can quickly use up the hard
>quota, which'll be purged only after a couple of days (and only by
>maildir-compliant mail readers). It's better to calculate the quota
>yourself, only for the actual messages.
>
>
>--
>Sam
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan �sterman
Merkantildata Kommunikation AB
Box 20161
161 02 Bromma
Telefon + 46 8 5662 3087
Fax + 46 8 5662 3001
Mobil 0708-35 30 87
Internet http://www.merkantildata.se
E-post mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This would be useful. Are there any standard (or commonly used) benchmarks
>used to measure MTA and mailing list performance?
The Postfix distribution includes an SMTP benchmark called
"smtpstone". I haven't looked at it.
-Dave
Heiko Romahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I can't and I want not to imagin that there is no easier way to check which
>version of qmail is installed. I did a grep -i on the sourcetree for version.
>But nothing helpfull returns. I did a grep -i also in the man tree, the
>result was as disapointing.
If you have the source tree, and the root isn't named "qmail-1.03" or
something similar, try looking in CHANGES. For 1.03, at least, this
will show you the version:
sed '2,$d' CHANGES
-Dave
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:50:32 +0200, Heiko Romahn wrote:
>version of qmail is installed. I did a grep -i on the sourcetree for version.
>But nothing helpfull returns. I did a grep -i also in the man tree, the
Oh, from the source tree it's easy:
% cat VERSION
>From the binaries it's harder ;-)
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
hi all,
i'm new to qmail and got a problem i was not able to solve by myself till
now.
i've setup my standalone linux box ( rh 5.2 ) to use qmail as my mta.
several other users should be able to work with my box comfortably.
as i've got no real domain i've setup qmail ( config-fast ... ) to use a
fake domain- and hostname, say localhost.localdomain ...
furthermore i've got a pop3-mailbox with some free internet-mail-provider (
where i'm known as, say, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) and a full featured account with
an isp for dialling up, where another user has her own imap mailbox ( at
mailhost host.isp.com ).
local mailing works fine; to get mail from the internet i'm using fetchmail,
which also does well ( although i doubt that i've got this success in a
noncanonical way by using the alias mechanism because i have no entries in
virtualdomains? ).
although i've read the manuals and faq and i've searched the archive ( there
were some postings with similar topics, but the described solutions didn't
work for me; perhaps it is more probable that i misunderstood them, so
please speak slowly if you answer :-).
i still have no answers to the following questions:
1) is it possible to setup qmail in a way that my local mails are delivered
with the _FROM_ field set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _AND_ all my
mails sent to remote addresses got the _FROM_ field set to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_AND_ all mails sent by the other user to the internet got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( while her local mails should work as mine )?
i know this is possible as i'm using mutt ( i.e. with the send-hook ) but i
don't want to be forced to use the same mua forever.
with qmail i could imagine to configure rspawn to do what i want but there
seems to be no means in qmail to configure rspawn??
2) do i have to bother with the envelope's _SENDER_ field when changing the
_FROM_ field in the header; are there applications known to require that
these fields are equal?
thanks in advance; any help appreciated.
regards
andreas
Scott Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>1) From zddist it seems that Qmail took 8 hours to deliver 95 % mails
>and almost 2 hours for the first 10%. Probablly I misinterpretted the
>meaning of the zddist result.
No, that's what it says. (!)
>Are they because that the number of failures and deferrals were high
>(14% of all deliveries)?
I doubt it. It looks like you got a serious problem somewhere.
>Is it going to get worse when we double our email deliveries?
Possibly.
>2) The instruction on zoverall says that average concurrency is "a good
>measure of how busy the mailer is", what is the acceptable average
>number?
How busy should your mailer be? If it's doing a lot of work,
concurrency will be higher. That's a bit like asking "what's an
acceptable number of messages/day?" This number alone can't tell you
whether or not there's a problem.
>Say less then 1? Was our number of 17 too high?
Comparing your results to mine, your average concurrency doesn't look
bad.
>3) The average message qtime is 20541 seconds (the lowerest at one day
>was 30 seconds).
>Is it because the failures of the deliveries?
No, there's some other problem.
>1) zoverall result
>
>Completed messages: 79915
>Recipients for completed messages: 79912
>Total delivery attempts for completed messages: 81574
>Average delivery attempts per completed message: 1.02076
>Bytes in completed messages: 308819271
>Bytes weighted by success: 289642486
>Average message qtime (s): 20541
>
>Total delivery attempts: 87057
> success: 76036
> failure: 4076
> deferral: 6945
>Total ddelay (s): 1629455636.245614
>Average ddelay per success (s): 21430.054662
>Total xdelay (s): 1062732.982771
>Average xdelay per delivery attempt (s): 12.207324
>Time span (days): 0.684
>Average concurrency: 17.9827
Here's mine (qmailanalog-0.60):
Messages: 15518
Recipients: 85595
Average message tries: 5.93317
Total delivery attempts: 175896
success: 162250
failure: 191
deferral: 13455
Message bytes: 94519308
Message bytes weighted by success: 284405101
Time span (days): 3.50192
Average message qtime (s): 502.863
Average xdelay (s): 23.5125
Average ddelay (s): 334.247
Average concurrency: 13.6689
This is a DEC Alphaserver 2100 doing mostly mailing lists.
>2) zddist result
>
> doneby avg pct
> 6276.99 2489.81 10
>23670.40 13325.81 50
>30555.20 18623.89 95
>52067.70 19451.91 100
Mine:
doneby avg pct
9.42 3.33 10
78.00 29.72 50
262.56 88.66 95
173893.00 607.67 100
This graphically highlights the problem. Even your fastest deliveries
are taking way too long. Look at your logs for a few selected
messages, and see where the delays are occurring.
What are your concurrencyremote and concurrencylocal set to? Better
yet, what does qmail-showctl say?
-Dave
hello,
i seem to be getting a lot of deferrals lately. would this be a problem
with memory? with i/o? with the OS itself?
am using Linux 2.2.x.
my remoteconcurrency has been set to 240 and i've been getting this full
for the last 3 days so i installed another copy of qmail on the same
machine with the same concurrency.
so now i have 2 separate copies of qmail, each with remoteconcurrency of
240 and even before i reach 200 on any copy, i already get deferrals.
-marlon
ps.
what is error 4.3.0?
Thu Apr 29 21:17:51 1999 MX2 delivery 857: deferral:
qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._(#4.3.0)/
Thu Apr 29 21:17:58 1999 MX1 delivery 5952: deferral:
qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._(#4.3.0)/
Marlon Anthony Abao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> am using Linux 2.2.x.
>
>Thu Apr 29 21:17:58 1999 MX1 delivery 5952: deferral:
>qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._(#4.3.0)/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your problem is that qmail-spawn can't fork because it's hit some
resource limit: per-user process limit, insufficient memory,
etc. I.e., this is a Linux question, not a qmail question.
-Dave
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 10:00:10PM +0800, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
It seems that you're running out of resources. You could add a ulimit
statement to your qmail-send startup script to give a higher number of
processes/memory. You may even have to recompile your kernel to increase the
maximum values of processes and memory.
> hello,
> i seem to be getting a lot of deferrals lately. would this be a problem
> with memory? with i/o? with the OS itself?
>
> am using Linux 2.2.x.
>
> my remoteconcurrency has been set to 240 and i've been getting this full
> for the last 3 days so i installed another copy of qmail on the same
> machine with the same concurrency.
>
> so now i have 2 separate copies of qmail, each with remoteconcurrency of
> 240 and even before i reach 200 on any copy, i already get deferrals.
>
> -marlon
>
> ps.
> what is error 4.3.0?
>
> Thu Apr 29 21:17:51 1999 MX2 delivery 857: deferral:
> qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._(#4.3.0)/
> Thu Apr 29 21:17:58 1999 MX1 delivery 5952: deferral:
> qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._(#4.3.0)/
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
"Jay D. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
>of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
>install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
>
> Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a
>turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination.
People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail
without self-injury, which, IMHO, is:
1. Ability to read
2. Ability to think
3. Ability to follow directions
However, I do think there's a need for documentation aimed at less
experienced administrators. I'm putting something together in my free
time, which means it'll take longer than I'd like, but it'll be
available before the book, and it'll be free and on-line. If you'd
like to contribute, let me know.
-Dave
Dave Sill writes:
> People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail
> without self-injury, which, IMHO, is:
>
> 1. Ability to read
> 2. Ability to think
> 3. Ability to follow directions
4. Ability to ask high-quality questions, which demonstrate that one
has indeed RT'ed the FM, and which include just the necessary
information needed to solve the problem.
--
-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, Apr 29, 1999 at 12:03:51PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail
> without self-injury, which, IMHO, is:
>
> 1. Ability to read
> 2. Ability to think
> 3. Ability to follow directions
>
> However, I do think there's a need for documentation aimed at less
> experienced administrators. I'm putting something together in my free
> time, which means it'll take longer than I'd like, but it'll be
> available before the book, and it'll be free and on-line. If you'd
> like to contribute, let me know.
>
Excellent! I'd certainly be willing to help if I can, even if just by
reading your documentation and seeing if I can follow it. I could
possibly also contribute my experience of installing qmail for a
dial-up ISP using the holdremote patch. My ISP is unusual though in
that my mail is delivered from the ISP using SMTP and I have a static
IP address.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:08:01PM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Dave Sill writes:
> > People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail
> > without self-injury, which, IMHO, is:
> >
> > 1. Ability to read
> > 2. Ability to think
> > 3. Ability to follow directions
>
> 4. Ability to ask high-quality questions, which demonstrate that one
> has indeed RT'ed the FM, and which include just the necessary
> information needed to solve the problem.
>
We're not all *perfect* you know! :-)
I occasionally (?) ask some pretty silly questions but that doesn't
automatically make me a complete moron. A little sympathy from
experienced usesrs is always welcome.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Chris Green wrote:
> We're not all *perfect* you know! :-)
>
> I occasionally (?) ask some pretty silly questions but that doesn't
> automatically make me a complete moron. A little sympathy from
> experienced usesrs is always welcome.
At the start of the journey which is learning qmail, and until the
"qmail-way" clicks into place, it is sometimes necessary to ask
questions which may seem obvious or odd to more seasoned qmail users.
This is not the same as asking "silly" questions.
FWIW, I don't recall you ever having asked "silly" questions.
R.
--
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
I'm trying to use an existing virtual user database instead of the users
in /etc/passwd, I got the script to create .qmail files and Maildirs, I
just can't get the pop login thing to work. Is there a plain English
description of what/how checkpassword does? How about what qmail-popup
spits out and what qmail-pop3d wants to see?
>From the man page:
"The information supplied on descriptor 3 is a login name terminated by
\0, a password terminated by \0, a timestamp terminated by \0, and
possibly more data."
All I can retrieve from argv is "/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d" and
"Maildir", there is nothing else there.
"If the password is acceptable, checkpassword uses execvp to run
subprogram with the given arguments." execvp isn't referenced in the
K&R book, what's it all about?
As to the flame war - if you need warning labels and RPMs to install
software, maybe you should do something else for a living (I'm seriously
considering truck-driver school). If you think qmail is a bitch to deal
with, you really ought to try sendmail as a tarball. I'm sure as hell
no guru, but a plain vanilla qmail installation is a lot easier to get
running than sendmail could ever hope to be. Qmail took 4 hours out of
my life to install and configure on an $80 486 box (so much for the
"can't afford a test machine" argument). It's happily delivering mail
for 8 domains now, and it freed up a pentium box for harder work. The
docs for the add-ons and mods are cryptic and written in pure
geek-speak, but then, look at "sendmail.cf" - now there's a real treat.
I am having a problem sending messages to /dev/null. I recently set a
couple of .qmail files to /dev/null
and now I see this in my logs:
Apr 29 09:39:25 ns qmail: 925403965.005324 delivery 6356: deferral:
Unable_to_write_/dev/null: invalid_argument._(#4.3.0)/
I read through the archives and someone had suggest putting just '#' in the
.qmail file. So I changed the qmail file to:
#/dev/null
and now I see n the logs:
Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.203380 starting delivery 6377: msg
106426 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.203678 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.343924 delivery 6377: success:
did_0+0+0/
Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.344242 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
So, my question is: Is qmail throwing this away now? It doesn't say
deferral and I can't find any account that the mail went to, so I assumme
this worked?
Thanks.
_Brandon
A .qmail file that contains only a comment tells qmail not to deliver the
message to anywhere but to act as if it did. (This effectively throws the
message away).
Yes it is working as you intend. :)
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Brandon Pulsipher wrote:
> I am having a problem sending messages to /dev/null. I recently set a
> couple of .qmail files to /dev/null
> and now I see this in my logs:
>
> Apr 29 09:39:25 ns qmail: 925403965.005324 delivery 6356: deferral:
> Unable_to_write_/dev/null: invalid_argument._(#4.3.0)/
>
> I read through the archives and someone had suggest putting just '#' in the
> .qmail file. So I changed the qmail file to:
> #/dev/null
> and now I see n the logs:
>
> Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.203380 starting delivery 6377: msg
> 106426 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.203678 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.343924 delivery 6377: success:
> did_0+0+0/
> Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.344242 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
>
> So, my question is: Is qmail throwing this away now? It doesn't say
> deferral and I can't find any account that the mail went to, so I assumme
> this worked?
>
> Thanks.
>
> _Brandon
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
+ "Brandon Pulsipher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| So I changed the qmail file to:
| #/dev/null
| and now I see n the logs:
|
| Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.203380 starting delivery 6377: msg
| 106426 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.343924 delivery 6377: success:
| did_0+0+0/
|
| So, my question is: Is qmail throwing this away now? It doesn't say
| deferral and I can't find any account that the mail went to, so I
| assumme this worked?
Yep. That "did_0+0+0" counts up the number of deliveries performed
(to files, forwarded, and to programs (though I may have the order of
the latter two backwards)).
- Harald
At 11:01 AM Thursday 4/29/99, Brandon Pulsipher wrote:
>I am having a problem sending messages to /dev/null. I recently set a
>couple of .qmail files to /dev/null
>and now I see this in my logs:
>
>Apr 29 09:39:25 ns qmail: 925403965.005324 delivery 6356: deferral:
>Unable_to_write_/dev/null: invalid_argument._(#4.3.0)/
>
>I read through the archives and someone had suggest putting just '#' in the
>.qmail file. So I changed the qmail file to:
> #/dev/null
Right. So you now have a valid set of delivery instructions in your .qmail
file which consists of precisely:
1. comment (anything starting with a #)
2. Zero deliveries to programs (anything starting with a | )
3. Zero deliveries to files (anything starting with a . or / )
4. Zero deliveries to forward addresses (anything else pretty much)
>and now I see n the logs:
>did_0+0+0/
which is saying it successfully completed instructions 2, 3 and 4 and of
course ignored 1 as a comment.
>Apr 29 09:47:44 ns qmail: 925404464.344242 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
>
>So, my question is: Is qmail throwing this away now? It doesn't say
>deferral and I can't find any account that the mail went to, so I assumme
>this worked?
It didn't throw it away, it didn't defer it, it did everything you asked and
since there were no further instructions, it concluded the delivery to be a
success.
Regards.
My qmailanalog programs don't work :(
They just hang and do nothing at all, what can be wrong??
/Henrik
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 11:07:28AM -0700, Henrik Holmberg wrote:
> My qmailanalog programs don't work :(
>
> They just hang and do nothing at all, what can be wrong??
Did you read the documentation, or did you just try running the programs to see
what happens?
If the latter, then you found out what happens--nothing. You should read the
MATCHUP document (normally installed in /usr/local/qmailanalog/doc). The
INSTALL document tells you to look there.
Chris
"Henrik Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My qmailanalog programs don't work :(
>
>They just hang and do nothing at all, what can be wrong??
Lots of things, but I'm not going to guess.
-Dave
Hmm, I just thought it interesting to see these two together:
+ "Henrik Holmberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| My qmailanalog programs don't work :(
|
| They just hang and do nothing at all, what can be wrong??
+ Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Dave Sill writes:
| > People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail
| > without self-injury, which, IMHO, is:
| >
| > 1. Ability to read
| > 2. Ability to think
| > 3. Ability to follow directions
|
| 4. Ability to ask high-quality questions, which demonstrate that one
| has indeed RT'ed the FM, and which include just the necessary
| information needed to solve the problem.
- Harald
hi ,
My two 5 cents.
I have success in running QMail after a bit of hacking.
First I was never running mail system on Linux till now, second I know nothing
about SendMail.
IMHO :
1. QMAIL is easy to install only and only and only when you install it once,
till your first install you must do alot of hacking.
2. Docs are very bad and unordered. I meant that they are hard to understand,
not that they are useless. (But this is the problem of Linux at all, by
"default" programmers are not people that can write good documentation even if
they can make a great products).
3. I think that the configuration is unnatural, but this may be is 'cause I'm
just testing it at the moment and have no big experience with QMAIL. Most of you
are right that everything that you want to use must be first tested.
4. It is free, so if anyone don't like it, you can skip it !!!
=====
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
We used to receive mail for several domains, using several smtp servers.
We are now moving to use a unified domain for everybody.
Our new mail setup is this :
- a single mail hub which does get all incoming mail @education.gouv.fr
- looking up a database, it forwards mail to one of several internal
smtp servers (upon which I have little or no control), which usually
then stores the mail for pop3 retrieval.
- For outgoing mail, each pop3 servers doubles up as an smtp server. They
currently send outgoing mail directly to the internet.
The problem is, that because @education.gouv.fr addresses are fairly
new, not all users can be bothered to change their mail preferences to
put their new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address in it instead of, say,
their old [EMAIL PROTECTED] address.
So I want to have all outgoing smtp servers forward their outgoing mail
to my mail hub, which would look up a database and rewrite old adresses
into new ones in the From, Reply-To en enveloppe (and maybe a few other
fields, suggestions ?), and then send them out.
The setup I propose to use on the mail hub is this :
in tcprules, for each IP of outgoing smtp server, add:
123.123.123.123:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@rewrite"
in control/virtualdomains, add:
rewrite:alias-rewrite
in ~alias/.qmail-rewrite-default:
| rewriteheadersproggy | forward $DEFAULT
Is this going to work as I want it ? Do you see any
security/openrelaying problem ?
Thanks,
Florent
--
Florent Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Apr 27 10:15 trigger
>
> Does anybody have any ideas why it might get different
> permissions
I believe the usual reason is that, as root, you cp -Rp stuff around but
forget that your umask is 022.
Florent
If you are going to convert from Sendmail to QMail, count on the following-
1. You will have to be able to in your head understand the "metaphor" if
you will that Sendmail uses and the one that Qmail uses. They both think
about e-mail quite differently.
2. You will need to be able to pinpoint areas where potential conversion
mistakes are highly likely to occur, and double check these areas -
especially in chkrcpts, locals;
3. You will have to be able to react quickly. Plan on a highly tested
system requiring your full, nearly 24-hour-a-day, attention for a few days
after installation. Not so much because it needs it but because you *will*
find things which you hacked into sendmail and the pop server break on you.
Again, be especially cognizant of chkrcpts.
As a general rule -I would never recommend qmail to the system admin who
isn't completely confident in their abilities and who isn't good at
reacting quickly. Sendmail - once it actually *compiles* is actually
somewhat easier to configure because it is monolithic in nature. Qmail is
multiple programs working together (or against one another in some cases!).
One thing I had to learn was before where I could do killall
sendmail;sendmail -bd to reset the server, now I had to be careful because
it is quite possible to mistakenly use this approach in qmail with bad
results. Kill one daemon, and you learn quickly why they're called
"daemons" as the others turn against you (and call them legion).
Figure out supervise and tcpserver. I could tell from reading this list
that it would be better to jump fully into the project using these and
Maildirs with some slight impact on users than to try to build in this
functionality later on. Supervise is excellent because it makes controlling
the service very easy.
It took me five days to get back to where I was with sendmail in my first
Qmail install. I expected some trouble, though not quite that much, and
I've already posted to the list things that I felt were unnecessary
nuisances like the (i still say arrogant) linefeed problem. But the
interesting fact is within a matter of a day or two I was (and am) still
looking at dozens more way to expand the functionality this programset has
to offer. POP bulletins are a major asset, for example. These are things
that sendmail doesn't have, and that I will be able to do with QMail easily
with a little work.
Everything that is worth it, takes effort, dedication, learning,
adaptibility, and skill.
That's life.
-doug
>
>
>Should you install qmail ?
>---------------
>
>First of all, consider these:
>
>* You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While
>installing
> qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some
>changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall
>sendmail.
> It's a good idea to completely backup your system so you'll be able to
>swap it
>back in once you really fall asleep and things are still not working.
>
>* There are some differences in securitymechanisms, for better or for worse.
>
>* Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more
>human.
>
>* Some experience is necessary. It may take you some hours. Don't use an
>RPM (as of
>this date); qmail is _not_ fsstnd. Install it 'by hand', step by step.
>
>----------------
>
>Now,
>
>If you're just a single user, you have some sparetime left, you hate sendmail
>and like the fancy rumours about qmail, try it. Especially, if you've just
>installed
>your system out of the box, and never heard of sendmail, never had any mail,
>this is the moment to install qmail. Don't use sendmail, it's awfull.
>
>If you have a server with several users, things may get messy. You've never
>realised how many users you have untill they all start complaining,
>believe me,
>I know :-)
>
>If you're have problems with sendmail, qmail may be the solution. The other
>solution
>is to hire a Sendmail Guru, someone that actually read the book :-)
>
>But here are some of the things you're going to face:
>
>- qmail doesn't do /var/spool/mail. it tries to keep
>the mailboxes in the users' homedirectories (which is better). If you want
>to do that,
>move all your mbox files to the users' homedirs .. there u go. If you don't
>want that,
>read a whole lot of docs before you install qmail.
>
>-in fact, qmail-pop3d doesn't do any mbox format, it wants
>to use the Maildir format (which really is better). If you want to use
>that, you should
>convert all your mbox files to maildirs ... someway. In the package, there
>is a tool
>supplied to do the reverse: MailDir to Mbox files :-)
>
>- qmail-pop3d doesn't work without a passwordchecker. you need to get it
>somewhere
>online and change some lines in some initfiles to get it working.
>
>If all of the above 2 things scare you, don't use qmail-pop3d...you need to
>use some
>other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit ....
>And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of
>the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you
>need to update.
>
>-qmail doesn't do .forward files, it uses .qmail files (which are better).
>If you want
>to use them, edit and rename all .forward files ... ... there u go.
>There's also a patch (dotforward) for using .forward files.
>
>-qmail doesn't read /etc/aliases. It reads info from /var/qmail/ (which is
>better).
>...you get the point. Yes, there is a patch (fastforward) to run if you
>want /etc/aliases.
>
>--------------
>
>In practice, a lot of things didn't work at my server. I had to move all
>the mboxes,
>rename & edit all .forward files (dotforward barfed), and decided not to
>even try fastforward
>
>Things were still not working and I had to invent complex workarounds.
>A lot of handwork ... a week later, I had to do it all over again, to try
>and fix it.
>The users got funny errors and received all the mail they left on
>the server several times .... even on such a small system as mine,
> it was HELL.
>
>I'm glad I have it running & I like it.
>But would I have known all this, I wouldn't have done it.
>Sendmail, after all, was working fine.
>
>cu
>*PIKE*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...*..P.i.k.e...*....
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.kw.nl/~pike - desktop
> icq: 4322610
>
>
> The Cathedral and the Bazaar
> by Eric S. Raymond
> http://www.redhat.com/knowledgebase/cathedral-bazaar.html
>
> I anatomize a successful free-software project, fetchmail, that was
> run as a deliberate test of some surprising theories about software
> engineering suggested by the history of Linux. I discuss these
> theories in terms of two fundamentally different development styles,
> the ``cathedral'' model of most of the commercial world versus the
> ``bazaar'' model of the Linux world. I show that these models derive
> from opposing assumptions about the nature of the
> software-debugging task. I then make a sustained argument from the
> Linux experience for the proposition that ``Given enough eyeballs, all
> bugs are shallow'', suggest productive analogies with other
> self-correcting systems of selfish agents, and conclude with some
> exploration of the implications of this insight for the future of software.
In recent times, I've been installing qmail off of the SRPM from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Previously, I built it myself. This SRPM uses a
variety of packages that I haven't fully mastered yet (such as daemontools,
etc).
One of the changes is that I was using syslog and it uses cyclog.
Every night at midnight, I have a cronjob that rotates the syslog and sends
email with a qmail-analog report in it. Since cyclog may cycle it's logs at
any time, it isn't clear to me how to integrate qmail-analog with cyclog.
How are other people getting daily reports of qmail usage when they use cyclog?
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
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
So I need a good directory hashing algorithim beyond last/first name for
example.
Maildir is located under the users home directory. I want their homedir location
to be something that would distribute the load more evenly, instead of something
like /home/smith/joe/Maildir.
Any suggestions?
Joe
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Joe Garcia wrote:
> So I need a good directory hashing algorithim beyond last/first name for
> example.
>
> Maildir is located under the users home directory. I want their homedir location
> to be something that would distribute the load more evenly, instead of something
> like /home/smith/joe/Maildir.
What I came up with some time ago was a hash of the first three characters
of the username, which could be a-z0-9. Cases where the username wasn't
long enough, or there was a "bad" character in the first three, it's
replaced or padded out with an infrequently used letter, like "q" or "x",
e.g.
user "jsmith" would hash out to /maildrop/j/s/m/jsmith
user "a1" would hash out to /maildrop/a/1/x/ae
user "x-ray" would hash out to /maildrop/x/x/r/x-ray
jms
There any way to make pinq use mbox2maildir after it runs pine? It just seems to ignore
it if I stick it in there.
thanks, a
andy
I have the same situation with pop3. Surprisingly enough it only
started with DST. Under the Sco box I am configured as
TZ=CET-1,CETDST,M3,5,M10,5
Funny enough date and time under ms are configured like
GMT+1, I have the feeling that this causes problems but I haven't been
able to but some conclusive evidence to the problem.
Regards Rene
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 08:44:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Brandon Pulsipher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have been using qmail for about 6 months now and I'm quite happy with
> > it. Recently, I changed from POP3 to IMAP, however, and now, when
> > reading my mail with MS Outlook, all the times are wrong. Outlook
> > thinks the messages are received GMT. I thought this was Outlook's
> > problem, but the more I look at the headers, it seems that qmail stamps
> > the messages received at a GMT time. I see this:
>
> > Received: (qmail 2707 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 -0000
> > Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
> > by xx.mydomain.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 -0000
> > Received: (qmail 21984 invoked by uid 1002); 29 Apr 1999 03:04:53 -0000
>
> qmail only ever uses GMT in Received headers. There's no way of changing
> this short of modifying the qmail code. Dan feels that all timestamps in
> mail should be in GMT so that people don't have to add and subtract time
> zones all the time (and so that in the worst cases people don't have to
> play "guess the time zone offset"), so this is unlikely to change.
>
> However, Outlook should be looking at the Date header of the message, not
> at the Received headers, and the Date header normally contains whatever
> the person sending the message put into it. qmail will use GMT if no Date
> header is provided, but if one has already been generated, I believe it is
> preserved.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
Greetings,
I have some really basic questions on qmail. My current MTA is smail on
a Linux/Debian single user machine. I also have fetchmail to retrieve
incoming mail from my ISP and procmail to process it. As a MUA I'm
using Mutt, and I have a dial on demand connection.
1. Do I need fetchmail (or similar) for retrieving mail, or does qmail
take care of this as well?
2. Would I still be able to process the incoming mail with procmail?
3. The install file says I must make a /var/qmail/ directory, but
currently, the smail dir in my system is in /var/spool/smail/, will it
be fine if I change this in conf-qmail? How about other directories
such as /var/log/smail/, do I have to create /var/log/qmail?
Please, send me a direct reply or a copy, since I'm not currently in the
list.
Thank You in Advance
Horacio
--
Claves - GnuPG/PGP - Keys : http://www.rediris.es/cert/keyserver
o/or
Env�a un mensaje vac�o a [EMAIL PROTECTED] con la l�nea de asunto:
Send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject line:
Tipo de Clave/Key Type Asunto:/Subject:
DSA/ElGamal fetch dsa/elgamal
DSS/Diffie-Hellman fetch dh/dss
RSA fetch rsa
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:03:38AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have some really basic questions on qmail. My current MTA is smail on
> a Linux/Debian single user machine. I also have fetchmail to retrieve
> incoming mail from my ISP and procmail to process it. As a MUA I'm
> using Mutt, and I have a dial on demand connection.
>
> 1. Do I need fetchmail (or similar) for retrieving mail, or does qmail
> take care of this as well?
Use fetchmail.
> 2. Would I still be able to process the incoming mail with procmail?
Yep.
> 3. The install file says I must make a /var/qmail/ directory, but
> currently, the smail dir in my system is in /var/spool/smail/, will it
> be fine if I change this in conf-qmail? How about other directories
> such as /var/log/smail/, do I have to create /var/log/qmail?
Use /var/qmail. Logging is something you should work out for yourself, the
simplest setup just logs to syslog.
For better performance, check out cyclog from djb's daemontools.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
So what does qmail-lspawn pass to qmail-getpw as local? "user" of "user@domain"
Joe
+ "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| So what does qmail-lspawn pass to qmail-getpw as local? "user" of
| "user@domain"
Which part of the qmail-getpw manual page did you not understand?
Did you try actually running the program with various data on the
command line?
- Harald
Hello all
I had a primary MX HDD fail, and for about 6 hours the secondary MX took
up the slack and qued up about 300 messages.
Problem is that I don't see them being forwarded now the primary is up
again.
One thing that MAY had caused a problem is that while the DNS had the
proper MX records:
f-tech.net MX 10 mail.f-tech.net
f-tech.net MX 30 login.f-tech.net
I think the secondary thought that they were it's own mail, as the local's
file included the all of the domains that I keep mail for.
I have since cleared out the locals file to just:
localhost
login.f-tech.net
and rcpthosts has all the info for domains I get mail for. When I try and
run the que (kill -ALRM qmail-send) all mail tries to deliver itself
locally. I do have all the users listed in both the mail and login
server, so if it did look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the passwd file it would
find it (for radius lookups).
The mail log says:
Apr 29 20:14:30 login qmail: 925431270.998476 delivery 215: deferral:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
So it's looking to put the qued mail into the local /home dirs.
How can I flush the que back to the primary?
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30-Apr-99 Paul Farber wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I had a primary MX HDD fail, and for about 6 hours the secondary MX took
> up the slack and qued up about 300 messages.
>
> Problem is that I don't see them being forwarded now the primary is up
> again.
>
> One thing that MAY had caused a problem is that while the DNS had the
> proper MX records:
>
> f-tech.net MX 10 mail.f-tech.net
> f-tech.net MX 30 login.f-tech.net
>
> I think the secondary thought that they were it's own mail, as the local's
> file included the all of the domains that I keep mail for.
>
> I have since cleared out the locals file to just:
> localhost
> login.f-tech.net
>
> and rcpthosts has all the info for domains I get mail for. When I try and
> run the que (kill -ALRM qmail-send) all mail tries to deliver itself
> locally. I do have all the users listed in both the mail and login
> server, so if it did look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the passwd file it would
> find it (for radius lookups).
>
> The mail log says:
>
> Apr 29 20:14:30 login qmail: 925431270.998476 delivery 215: deferral:
> Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
>
> So it's looking to put the qued mail into the local /home dirs.
Did you kill and restart qmail-send? locals are only read on startup IIRC.
I assume also if you look at the queue the mail is still there. If after
all that it still won't go, perhaps a temporary smtp route will clear it.
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
==========================================================================
Yeas, killed and restarted every qmail- I could find. Even tried the
smtproutes with .f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net and stil sitting with 300+ in
the queue and netstat -a says nothing's moving.
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On 30-Apr-99 Paul Farber wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > I had a primary MX HDD fail, and for about 6 hours the secondary MX took
> > up the slack and qued up about 300 messages.
> >
> > Problem is that I don't see them being forwarded now the primary is up
> > again.
> >
> > One thing that MAY had caused a problem is that while the DNS had the
> > proper MX records:
> >
> > f-tech.net MX 10 mail.f-tech.net
> > f-tech.net MX 30 login.f-tech.net
> >
> > I think the secondary thought that they were it's own mail, as the local's
> > file included the all of the domains that I keep mail for.
> >
> > I have since cleared out the locals file to just:
> > localhost
> > login.f-tech.net
> >
> > and rcpthosts has all the info for domains I get mail for. When I try and
> > run the que (kill -ALRM qmail-send) all mail tries to deliver itself
> > locally. I do have all the users listed in both the mail and login
> > server, so if it did look for [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the passwd file it would
> > find it (for radius lookups).
> >
> > The mail log says:
> >
> > Apr 29 20:14:30 login qmail: 925431270.998476 delivery 215: deferral:
> > Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
> >
> > So it's looking to put the qued mail into the local /home dirs.
>
> Did you kill and restart qmail-send? locals are only read on startup IIRC.
> I assume also if you look at the queue the mail is still there. If after
> all that it still won't go, perhaps a temporary smtp route will clear it.
>
> 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 30-Apr-99 Paul Farber wrote:
> Yeas, killed and restarted every qmail- I could find. Even tried the
> smtproutes with .f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net and stil sitting with 300+ in
> the queue and netstat -a says nothing's moving.
Did you run qmail-tcpok before the kill -ALRM ??
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
==========================================================================
No, the qmail 1.01 RPM didn't include it.
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On 30-Apr-99 Paul Farber wrote:
> > Yeas, killed and restarted every qmail- I could find. Even tried the
> > smtproutes with .f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net and stil sitting with 300+ in
> > the queue and netstat -a says nothing's moving.
>
> Did you run qmail-tcpok before the kill -ALRM ??
>
> 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 Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 08:48:27PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I had a primary MX HDD fail, and for about 6 hours the secondary MX took
> up the slack and qued up about 300 messages.
>
> Problem is that I don't see them being forwarded now the primary is up
> again.
>
> One thing that MAY had caused a problem is that while the DNS had the
> proper MX records:
>
> f-tech.net MX 10 mail.f-tech.net
> f-tech.net MX 30 login.f-tech.net
>
> I think the secondary thought that they were it's own mail, as the local's
> file included the all of the domains that I keep mail for.
Ok, you have a bit of a problem here.
What is the problem? qmail has separate local and remote queues.
In the situation where mail got into the remote queue when it should be in
the local queue, you just put an smtproute to localhost.
This problem is a bit more complicated tho.
My suggestion: use virtualdomains to deliver _all_ mail (for that domain
anyway) to a maildir, and then deliver this via serial[sq]mtp to your
primary MX.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
Do you have a URL to serialsmtp? I checked qmail.org and didn't see it.
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 08:48:27PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > I had a primary MX HDD fail, and for about 6 hours the secondary MX took
> > up the slack and qued up about 300 messages.
> >
> > Problem is that I don't see them being forwarded now the primary is up
> > again.
> >
> > One thing that MAY had caused a problem is that while the DNS had the
> > proper MX records:
> >
> > f-tech.net MX 10 mail.f-tech.net
> > f-tech.net MX 30 login.f-tech.net
> >
> > I think the secondary thought that they were it's own mail, as the local's
> > file included the all of the domains that I keep mail for.
>
> Ok, you have a bit of a problem here.
>
> What is the problem? qmail has separate local and remote queues.
> In the situation where mail got into the remote queue when it should be in
> the local queue, you just put an smtproute to localhost.
>
> This problem is a bit more complicated tho.
>
> My suggestion: use virtualdomains to deliver _all_ mail (for that domain
> anyway) to a maildir, and then deliver this via serial[sq]mtp to your
> primary MX.
>
> Greetz, Peter
> --
> | 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
> I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
> | Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
>
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:50:05PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> Do you have a URL to serialsmtp? I checked qmail.org and didn't see it.
It's on www.qmail.org allright. Under the header "Author's enhancement...",
the second link: "serialmail". http://pobox.com/~djb/serialmail.html
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
Thanks.... been a long day :(
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:50:05PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> > Do you have a URL to serialsmtp? I checked qmail.org and didn't see it.
>
> It's on www.qmail.org allright. Under the header "Author's enhancement...",
> the second link: "serialmail". http://pobox.com/~djb/serialmail.html
>
> Greetz, Peter
> --
> | 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
> I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
> | Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
>
Ok, got the serialmail package installed.
First, how to force all f-tech.net mail into a single Maildir:
in virtualdomains I added f-tech.net:ftech (a user who has a maildir)
restart qmail, nada.
How do I get the mail to dump into that users maildir? I added a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Apr 29 22:49 .qmail-default
and restarted, nada.
And after they all dump into the maildir, what is the cmd to get
maildirsmtp to go? Looked at the man page and, well, didn't help. It
seems that I would have to type in the envelope's prefix (username) for
each message to send? Yikes!
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 08:48:27PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > I had a primary MX HDD fail, and for about 6 hours the secondary MX took
> > up the slack and qued up about 300 messages.
> >
> > Problem is that I don't see them being forwarded now the primary is up
> > again.
> >
> > One thing that MAY had caused a problem is that while the DNS had the
> > proper MX records:
> >
> > f-tech.net MX 10 mail.f-tech.net
> > f-tech.net MX 30 login.f-tech.net
> >
> > I think the secondary thought that they were it's own mail, as the local's
> > file included the all of the domains that I keep mail for.
>
> Ok, you have a bit of a problem here.
>
> What is the problem? qmail has separate local and remote queues.
> In the situation where mail got into the remote queue when it should be in
> the local queue, you just put an smtproute to localhost.
>
> This problem is a bit more complicated tho.
>
> My suggestion: use virtualdomains to deliver _all_ mail (for that domain
> anyway) to a maildir, and then deliver this via serial[sq]mtp to your
> primary MX.
>
> Greetz, Peter
> --
> | 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
> I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
> | Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
>
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yeas, killed and restarted every qmail- I could find. Even tried the
>smtproutes with .f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net and stil sitting with 300+ in
>the queue and netstat -a says nothing's moving.
Maybe you wanted "f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net" (without the
leading dot).
Good luck with the maildir2smtp.
--
#include <std_disclaim.h> Lorens Kockum
I'm running down a problem I think is an MUA problem, (Netscape,) and
an interaction with qmail. Is it true that To: header syntax like:
John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
is depreciated, and:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Conover)
is correct?
Thanks,
I couldn't find it in 832. Is it in one of the extensions?
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688, FAX 408.379.9602, whois '!JC154'
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www2.inow.com/~conover/john.html
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 01:40:05AM -0000, John Conover wrote:
>
> I'm running down a problem I think is an MUA problem, (Netscape,) and
> an interaction with qmail. Is it true that To: header syntax like:
>
> John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> is depreciated, and:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Conover)
>
> is correct?
Both are correct, and neither is more correct than the other. It's in
RFC822:
So, for example, the folded body of an address field
":sysmail"@ Some-Group. Some-Org,
Muhammed.(I am the greatest) Ali @(the)Vegas.WBA
is analyzed into the following lexical symbols and types:
[snip]
The canonical representations for the data in these addresses
are the following strings:
":sysmail"@Some-Group.Some-Org
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comments can even go inside the address ;)
Also, qmail doesn't give a damn about the To: field :) It uses the
envelope recipient.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
Any more of you seen these messages? They seem to come in everytime I post
on the qmail list. This one came as a reply on a kind request from me to
stop sending these. It looks like it's automatic, he replies quite fast :)
----- Forwarded message from yessure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 2823 invoked from network); 30 Apr 1999 02:02:28 -0000
Received: from zopie.attic.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by koek.attic.vuurwerk.nl with QMTP; 30 Apr 1999 02:02:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 15155 invoked by uid 501); 30 Apr 1999 02:02:24 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 15152 invoked from network); 30 Apr 1999 02:02:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dns.soim.com) (202.96.237.177)
by zolder.cx with SMTP; 30 Apr 1999 02:02:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 14577 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Apr 1999 02:03:54 -0000
Date: 30 Apr 1999 02:03:54 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: yessure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: SOIM WEB MAIL Hd/1999
Subject: yessure���Զ��ظ���(�벻Ҫ�ٻظ�����)
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
----- End forwarded message -----
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
Anyone know how to stop/cleanup a SPAM with 1500 messages in
queue?
The user was deactivated and kicked offline in the middle of
SPAMing.. But what now? :)
Thanks,
Brad
+ Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Anyone know how to stop/cleanup a SPAM with 1500 messages in
| queue?
|
| The user was deactivated and kicked offline in the middle of
| SPAMing.. But what now? :)
Shut down qmail-send, identify all the spam messages and delete their
corresponding files from the queue. Then restart qmail. For
efficiency, you may wish to write a little script to precompute all
the relevant file names (for split directories, files belonging to
message n is in the subdir named n%23 (where % means modulo).
- Harald
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Richard Shetron wrote:
> I've been reading the manpages for qmail and either I've missed something
> simple or done something stupid, I can'tget the vacation program to work.
>
> my .qmail file is:
>
> ./Maildir/
> |/usr/local/bin/vacation multics
>
> messages keep getting delivered over and over again and no vacation
> message is sent out. I've setup the .vacation.msg file and run vacation
> -I to init things.
If you are using a vacation designed to work with sendmail then it
will fail with qmail. There are 2 possible reasons for this:
1) using the .qmail file quoted above, vacation will be looking
for the UUCP style "From bob@somewhere" header, with qmail does
NOT pass to piped commands. Because vacation doesn't see the
header, it doesn't know who to respond to. qmail includes the
preline utility which inserts this header. So you .qmail file could
look like this
./Maildir/
| preline /usr/local/bin/vacation multics
2) The next problem is preline :) It expexts to pipe the entire
message through the specified command. Vacation closes standard
input after it has read the headers. If the size of the message is
larger than a standard I/O buffer, then preline will complain about
deferral: preline:_fatal:_unable_to_copy_input:_broken_pipe/
Therefore, you need a vacation program designed for qmail!
Fortunately there is one:
ftp://ftp.eserv.com.au/pub/tools/qmail/qmail-vacation-1.3.tar.gz
It requires perl 5 and uses a .qmail file exactly as you have quoted
above.
PS All of this is outline on the www.qmail.org web page.
If you are using my vacation program, send me more details - eg what
does the qmail log say.
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Consultant or at present:
eServ. Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 2 9206 3410 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
I have a qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2 imap server and
I want to creat a maildir format folder from client side
How?
----
BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
I'm trying to use the qmail-imap package from
ftp://ftp.engr.uark.edu/pub/qmail/qmail-imap/
I encounted some problem, I can't creat a Maildir (cur,new,tmp)
format mailbox from the client side, after I creat a
new folder from the netscape, I just got a plain text file
unde my home directory.
Does anyone has some advise or please tell me is there
and document about this package beside the README.maildir?
BTW, I'm using a RedHat 5.2 box, and a netscape messanger
Thanks a lot
----
BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
After I setup the qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2 server,
I add a new user account: bo
what is need under the ~bo/ to support a maidir format creation from the client
side.
----
BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
Boy, have I been enjoying reading my mail lately :-)
OK, let's kill the thread.
My purpose was to have the right warnings popup in the
mailinglist's searchengine for the rookie type of 'rpm & go'
user (like me) considering to install qmail. I've just tried the
searchengine, & I'm happy to say, I succeeded. Thanks guys.
A few [OFF] responses to all the heat:
* The main problem was the RPM. Some people helped me look at the
installation, and it's messy what I have here... the docs don't
match the man pages, I've got different versions of different programs,
some stuff seems missing. This may account for why fastforward and
dotforward don't work ... either that or ...the RPM engine may be acting up
... :-(
* A word about me: yes, it's a small office and I don't get paid to be
sysadmin.
Generally, I just tie all the machines together and keep an eye on things.
We bought
ourselves a linux box few years ago. Occassionaly, we've hired a Guru to
configure ..
sendmail ! .... right :-) Cost you money. Qmail could be the solution ...
it seems.
On the counterpart, a few complaining users are not such a pain to me as
they are to you
SuperUsers, in this small office.
But I don't think I'm the "moron" I claimed myself to be. I know the
difference between
sendmail and xmail ... it's no thing a quick look at the RedHat Book
wouldn't tell too.
Deinstalling sendmail (which is obligatory for the RPM ... either with
--force or by hand)
felt much like taking the wheels of a driving car.
What's more, I don't _want_ to be a Guru. Sorry guys, it's not what I do
for a living.
Most of the time trusting the RPM works much better than trying to do it
myself.
I really love RPM, it could be a powerfull thing ... enough rope to hang
yourself
* RedHat does just 'pop out of a box' nowadays. It's shipped with a book
that suggests
you don't really have to read it at all.This may be RH's mistake. I did
read it. It's empty.
( in fact, I read qmail's docs and mans and studied 'The Big Picture' -
wow, there's a
pp version - before I decided to 'safely' go for the RPM. I've printed
out half this mailinglist to read it at home. Much of it is just happy
faces. The rest is
quite hebrew if you've never seen a working qmail setup )
I really really really hope RedHat installers will support Qmail in future
releases ...
* Ofcourse I had a backup :-) You don't need 2 machines, use partitions.
But once I had
Qmail working (with some workarounds), the backup was outdated. Mail came in.
* I never said qmail is "SH*T" - in fact, I keep repeating it's great
(without caps).
That's why I installed it. This really makes me wonder: what's it to you ?
Why get angry at 'constructive criticism' ?
Thanks for the responses. I'm looking forward to the O'Reilly book and pretty
interested in what Dave Sill and Chris Green might add ...
Bye
*.P.i.k.e..*
PS oh right, the signature :-) I know it showed up as an ugly mess on your
.."VT100" tty -s
That is the point ... therefor I mac, right ?
...*..P.i.k.e...*....
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kw.nl/~pike - desktop
icq: 4322610
| U | s | e | _ | a | _ | f | i | x | e | d | _ | f | o | n | t |
| _ | a | n | d | _ | D | o | n | ' | t | _ | W | r | a | p | _ |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have found many people claiming the current OpenSMTP (SMTP-
after-POP) is useless for them because some MTAs (like
Netscape? Outlook? I don't really know) try to do SMTP first and
the retrieve mail.
A revolutionary approach would be POP-after-SMTP. Here is my
outline and I hope you can tell me if it's too unsafe or what are the
weak point (hell, you might even write the scripts!):
1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
accepted (not sent out, just accepted). qmail-smtpd is invoked
through a script which does something like
if (not set RELAYCLIENT)
set RELAYCLIENT="@relay-attempt-"+TCPREMOTEIP;
qmail-smtpd
(what's the right syntax for it?)
2. There is a virtual domain for relay attempts which stores all the
messages in some directory, easily identified by IP address (like
relay/aaa.bbb.cc.dd) - kind of ppp outgoing directory.
3. POP authentication triggers a script which - through serialmail
and with RELAYCLIENT="" - stuffs the contents of
relay/aaa.bbb.cc.dd directory to qmail at localhost (it means that
for localhost there is a RELAYCLIENT="" line in tcp.smtp.cdb)
4. There is a cron job which periodically bounces or deletes mails
in relay/whatever (which were not sent out after successful POP3
authentication).
What do you think, is it a DoS in disguise, or is there a decent
chance to get it working?
(Any volunteers to code it? I don't currently need it - therefore I
can't spend any time on that.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBNymJxlMwP8g7qbw/EQLfPgCeMSjWZQrRfgbQ6IMlae02L517tr8AoN4l
WcvkkL2X93xeXrH4JfCJf6Wc
=5gK9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS, antek.cz node administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
