qmail Digest 1 May 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 627
Topics (messages 25080 through 25124):
Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
25080 by: Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25086 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25087 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25095 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25097 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25099 by: Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenSMTP - another approach
25081 by: Tim Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25082 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25083 by: Tim Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25084 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Berry)
25085 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25092 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25096 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25098 by: Vaclav Bittner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25102 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25120 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rewriting outoing mails for other smtp servers
25088 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
some questions to qmail and sql
25089 by: Heiko Romahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25093 by: ivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help for newbies (was: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail)
25090 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Very Basic Qmail questions
25091 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Fwd: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail]
25094 by: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aliases..
25100 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25101 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25103 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25104 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
25105 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25106 by: "Matt Buford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25107 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25108 by: xs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver man
25109 by: "d. divine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25110 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25111 by: "Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver man - answered
25112 by: "d. divine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Off: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail -
25113 by: Pike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail is a replacement for Sendmail
25114 by: Scott Burkhalter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cyrus Imapd anyone?
25115 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25116 by: "Scott Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25118 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25119 by: Jon Scarbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Modifying tcpserver and checkpoppasswd
25117 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25121 by: Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stop! Now! (was Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail_
25122 by: Eddie Irvine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pine 4.05 error, need help
25123 by: Dinesh Punjabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25124 by: Dinesh Punjabi <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 30-Apr-99 Chris Green wrote:
> 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.
Then maybe such companies should either
-- use the server of their ISP
-- get a qmail consultant on a retainer basis
If they want to run an SMTP MTA, they should know what
it entails. Why pay maintenance for a machine, or an
accounting package, but not for the MTA?
The fact that qmail and Linux don't cost them any money should
be an added incentive to employ a computing-knowledgeable
person, or to buy the service from a local consultant.
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exup�ry
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> 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.
The lack of time thing doesn't help, but when in a state of 'lack of
knowledge' it's the best time to write the how to. 1) you learn by
doing and more importantly; 2) you assume nothing. Too often it's
assumed by the writer that the reader already knows something. If
you want an example, go visit some of the LDAP sites! Most of them
that I've seen assume you already know everything there is to know
about X.500.
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 Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote:
> 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.
Cost shouldn't be a factor. I know for a fact that there are folks
on this list that either own a company or work for one that will set
up qmail on a machine for under $125 and probably even under $100, and
I don't mean per hour either. A small business should be able to afford
that.
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
==========================================================================
Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay '
checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT.
Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth
it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus.
Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most
secure. I like the thought that has gone into them.
M.
--
\\\\\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Martin wrote:
> Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay '
> checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT.
> Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth
> it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus.
Yes, I used to use Mercury but it was awkward because my NT system
wasn't turned on 24 hours a day. My Linux box is turned on all the
time so it makes much more sense to me to use qmail.
> Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most
> secure. I like the thought that has gone into them.
>
Quite, but it would be *even better* if qmail was as easy to set up as
Mercury. Maybe what I'm after is qmail-lite which is easy to set up
rather than efficient.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Chris Green wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Martin wrote:
> > Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay '
> > checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT.
> > Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth
> > it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus.
>
> Yes, I used to use Mercury but it was awkward because my NT system
> wasn't turned on 24 hours a day. My Linux box is turned on all the
> time so it makes much more sense to me to use qmail.
>
> > Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most
> > secure. I like the thought that has gone into them.
> >
> Quite, but it would be *even better* if qmail was as easy to set up as
> Mercury. Maybe what I'm after is qmail-lite which is easy to set up
> rather than efficient.
>
I suggest you turn back to NT and have it turned on all the time ;-)
> 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> > 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> > accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
>
> I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes
after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept
and bounce after" kind of approach.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBNymSE1MwP8g7qbw/EQLa4gCg8Or6fEia81SO4162tEpoyhcPr8cAoLm4
cm2yR/rN0A0qG74LK21doiAo
=5FJB
-----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]
> > > 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> > > accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
> >
> > I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
>
> No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes
> after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept
> and bounce after" kind of approach.
You are right - my bad.
Tim
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:45:26 +0100, you wrote:
>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.
If you're having problems with Netscape or Outlook, why not just patch your
qmail-smtpd to support authentication?
http://www.nimh.org/code.shtml near the bottom.
I have successfully implemented it (and all my patches have been send back
to mrs.brisby). It's working here great. Just ask if you're interested..
Best wishes
James
--
Adastra Software Ltd, Edmonton House, Park Farm Close, Folkestone, Kent
Tel: 01303 222700 Fax: 01303 222701 24-hr support: 0701 0702 016
Call handling for GP Co-ops & Deputising services www.adastra.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> If you're having problems with Netscape or Outlook, why not just patch
> your qmail-smtpd to support authentication?
>
> http://www.nimh.org/code.shtml near the bottom.
Your approach is definitely correct to relay from Netscape; my
Pegasus doesn't do authentication. I'm aiming at general, not too
expensive, solution.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBNymWWVMwP8g7qbw/EQKU/QCdGhmVkUL0mk/XUfkgB/QA+c/2WJYAnAs8
fBcdFDO2Y7M86H4kOdi8+eeV
=datL
-----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]
Tim Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 30 April 1999 at 05:12:40 -0500
> > 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> > accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
>
> I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
I don't think so. ORBS verifies *delivery* of the relayed test
message, not just acceptance. RBL requires a history of human contact
and lack of response to the problem. If there's no problem, no RBL.
Meanwhile, the spammer *thinks* he's sent his message, but it hasn't
gone out. That part sounds especially amusing to me.
--
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 Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:20:52PM +0100,
Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > > 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> > > accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
> >
> > I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
>
> No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes
> after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept
> and bounce after" kind of approach.
You won't end up on the rbl, but whoever reads your postmaster mail
is not going to be happy if a spammer tries to relay through you.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:20:52PM +0100,
> Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > > 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> > > > accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
> > >
> > > I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
> >
> > No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes
> > after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept
> > and bounce after" kind of approach.
>
> You won't end up on the rbl, but whoever reads your postmaster mail
> is not going to be happy if a spammer tries to relay through you.
--
sorry for interrupting, I am just quite interested in this thread.
But I am getting lost on those abbreviations. What is RBL and ORBS ?
Thanx.
V.
That's what /dev/null is for.
Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Wolff III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:14 AM
> To: Petr Novotny; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:20:52PM +0100,
> Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > > 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are
> > > > accepted (not sent out, just accepted).
> > >
> > > I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that.
> >
> > No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes
> > after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept
> > and bounce after" kind of approach.
>
> You won't end up on the rbl, but whoever reads your postmaster mail
> is not going to be happy if a spammer tries to relay through you.
>
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:23:23PM -0400,
Joe Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what /dev/null is for.
Hopefully filter based as the standard calls for the postmaster address
to be monitored by humans so you shouldn't be chucking all email to that
address.
I got pretty ticked when I tried to report some hacking activity to one
major univeristy and mail to postmaster at their top level address responded
with a reply that said I had to reeneter my message and send it to their
help desk. I bitched to their help desk and they said they would like
to get the details about the hackers. I told them to go look for the email
I had previously sent to their postmaster address.
We have some similar stuff here (though not for the tld). We have people
that want to run their own mail servers but don't want to be bothered with
postmaster email or worrying about being used as a spam relay (at least not
until their machine gets toasted).
To answer another question in this thread, the ORBS is a list of hosts that
are vunerable to being abused by spammers to gain throughput or to avoid
blocklists. The RBL is a list of sites that are being abused by or supporting
spammers. There is also a DUL, which is a list of dial up sites that normally
wouldn't be running their own mail servers.
See the following web pages for more details:
http://maps.vix.com/
http://www.orbs.org/
http://maps.vix.com/dul/
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 08:52:10PM +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> 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
You could also try an investigate the mess822 package by DJB. It allows
rewriting of incoming SMTP mail.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Hi to all,
I want to create an sql-database in which I want to hold information about my
mail-users, routing information and forwarding infos.
Does anybody know a sql-databaseengine which works fine with qmail?
Is a flatfile more efficient than a sql-database?
Thanks in advance,
Heiko Romahn
hi,
I'm tring to do nearly the same thing here.
At moment my conf. includes :
0. PortSlave for dial-up and leased users (or any other portmaster)
1. XTRadius server (Based on Cistron which is based on Livingston. it is
free).
2. Qmail server (at the moment only POP auth. is made against Radius).
3. MySQL DB server which holds all user info. (The good thing is that you can
implement additional crypting for passwords, for a better protection ).
4. Later will add IIS (via MySQL ODBC) an Apache auth.
against this DB.
The whole system is partially finished and is yet in test phase. So the big
benefit will be that all user info will in one fast and reliable place (which
can fit any of your future needs), no in hard to support and protect passwd,
shadow, NIS or NT SAM base. The other benefit of this approach is that the DB
can store also accounting info which will be the base of future Billing and
Reporting software :") till moment I'm on NT SAM.
So flatfile may be is the easier approach, but it is unscalable.
I'm very interesting how you think to incorporate QMAIL routing information and
forward infos into SQL DB.
see ya
=====
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====
>Hi to all,
>
>I want to create an sql-database in which I want to hold information about my
>mail-users, routing information and forwarding infos.
>
>Does anybody know a sql-databaseengine which works fine with qmail?
>
>Is a flatfile more efficient than a sql-database?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Heiko Romahn
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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! :-)
Russ went a little too far, I think. "Ability to ask questions that
demonstrate that one has read the documentation and that include at
least some of the relevant details" would be good enough. One can't
expect someone to know exactly which information is required if they
don't know what the problem is. On the other hand, there is no excuse
for questions like "I installed foo and it didn't work. Why?"
>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.
Silly questions are OK. Stupid questions aren't.
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>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?
Yes, you can change it in conf-qmail. I think it's better to leave
conf-qmail alone, though, and make /var/qmail a symbolic link to
wherever you want qmail to live. E.g.:
# mkdir /var/spool/qmail
# ln -s /var/spool/qmail /var
So /var/spool/qmail and /var/qmail will refer to the same place:
/var/spool/qmail.
Actually, I think it'd be even better to make /var/qmail a real
directory, and put symlinks pointing to the various
subdirectories. E.g.:
# mkdir /var/qmail
# mkdir /var/spool/qmail
# ln -s /var/spool/qmail /var/qmail/queue
# ln -s /usr/local/man /var/qmail
# mkdir /usr/local/etc/qmail
# ln -s /usr/local/etc/qmail /var/qmail/control
Then proceed with the INSTALL directions.
>How about other directories
>such as /var/log/smail/, do I have to create /var/log/qmail?
That depends on how you setup qmail's logging. If you use cyclog from
daemontools, which I recommend, you probably do want a
/var/log/qmail. If you log via syslog (splogger), your syslog.conf
will determine where the mail logs go.
-Dave
Did it again...To the list this time
--
\\\\\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
Jordan Krushen wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> 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.
>
<SNIP>
> J.
--
Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay '
checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT.
Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth
it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus.
Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most
secure. I like the thought that has gone into them.
M.
\\\\\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
I'm trying to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] > user. This was pretty painless in
sendmail. I'm trying to use fast-forward and setup @vhost.com: user, which
works for non-existant usernames, but if the account exists, it goes
there. I also tried the virtualhosts file, but didn't get positive results
there. thoughts..ideas? thanks.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO Communications Phone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm trying to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] > user. This was pretty painless in
>sendmail.
Couldn't be much easier in qmail:
echo vhost.com:user >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
echo vhost.com >>/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
>I also tried the virtualhosts file, but didn't get positive results
>there. thoughts..ideas? thanks.
How exactly did you set it up, and how did it fail?
-Dave
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 10:59:11AM -0500, Andy Walden wrote:
>
> I'm trying to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] > user. This was pretty painless in
> sendmail. I'm trying to use fast-forward and setup @vhost.com: user, which
> works for non-existant usernames, but if the account exists, it goes
> there. I also tried the virtualhosts file, but didn't get positive results
> there. thoughts..ideas? thanks.
There's no such thing as the virtualhosts file, so it's no surprise that it
didn't help.
If I understand correctly what you're trying to do, then this is a completely
straightforward virtual domain setup, as per FAQ 3.2. Just make sure vhost.com
is not in control/locals. There's no reason to use fastforward here.
Chris
Dave Sill wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I'm trying to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] > user. This was pretty painless in
> >sendmail.
>
> Couldn't be much easier in qmail:
>
> echo vhost.com:user >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
> echo vhost.com >>/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
In addition to that, make sure vhost.com is not in locals.
To catch [EMAIL PROTECTED], edit ~user/.qmail-default to reflect
how you want [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be delivered (assuming "anything"
is not meant literally :-).
Stefan
It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using
NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the
most part is NAT).
I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly
10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running
under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no results.
Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me?
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
Add the -R option to your tcpserver command lines to disable ident lookups.
Without -R, tcpserver attempts to do an ident lookup, which then causes the
10-15 second delay while it times out when the user is behind either a
firewall or NAT which just blackholes your connection attempt.
----- Original Message -----
From: Reid Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:46 AM
Subject: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
> It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using
> NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the
> most part is NAT).
>
> I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly
> 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running
> under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no
results.
>
> Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me?
>
>
> Reid Sutherland
> Network Administrator
> ISYS Technology Inc.
> http://www.isys.ca
> Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
>
>
Makes sense.
The man stated something in regards to TCPREMOTEINFO which throws me off.
But now I know :)
Thanks again, the problem seems to be fixed now.
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Buford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Reid Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
>Add the -R option to your tcpserver command lines to disable ident lookups.
>Without -R, tcpserver attempts to do an ident lookup, which then causes the
>10-15 second delay while it times out when the user is behind either a
>firewall or NAT which just blackholes your connection attempt.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Reid Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:46 AM
>Subject: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
>
>
>> It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using
>> NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the
>> most part is NAT).
>>
>> I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly
>> 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running
>> under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no
>results.
>>
>> Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me?
>>
>>
>> Reid Sutherland
>> Network Administrator
>> ISYS Technology Inc.
>> http://www.isys.ca
>> Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
>>
>>
>
>
may i also sugest that you use something like nullident to give everone
using nat the same ident, i use it here. works great, checkout
freshmeat.net for more info.
-xs
end
+-------------------------------------+
|Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|Safari Internet www.safari.net|
|Fort Lauderdale, FL 1-888-537-9550|
+-------------------------------------+
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Matt Buford wrote:
>Add the -R option to your tcpserver command lines to disable ident lookups.
>Without -R, tcpserver attempts to do an ident lookup, which then causes the
>10-15 second delay while it times out when the user is behind either a
>firewall or NAT which just blackholes your connection attempt.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Reid Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:46 AM
>Subject: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
>
>
>> It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using
>> NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the
>> most part is NAT).
>>
>> I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly
>> 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running
>> under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no
>results.
>>
>> Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me?
>>
>>
>> Reid Sutherland
>> Network Administrator
>> ISYS Technology Inc.
>> http://www.isys.ca
>> Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
>>
>>
>
>
Where can you get a copy of the tcpserver man pages. It was not included
with the distribution is used and is missing from the qmail DocProject man
pages as well.
thanks,
d. divine
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:39:19PM -0500, d. divine wrote:
> Where can you get a copy of the tcpserver man pages. It was not included
> with the distribution is used and is missing from the qmail DocProject man
> pages as well.
[cjohnson@shemp cjohnson]$ ls -l /usr/local/man/man1/tcpserver.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4026 Nov 17 14:04 /usr/local/man/man1/tcpserver.1
It came with tcpserver, which is in the ucspi-tcp-0.84.tar.gz tarball.
Chris
Download it again, do a make, then make setup check. Should arrive in either
/usr/local/man or /usr/man
Reid Sutherland
Network Administrator
ISYS Technology Inc.
http://www.isys.ca
Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
-----Original Message-----
From: d. divine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Qmail (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 1:47 PM
Subject: tcpserver man
>Where can you get a copy of the tcpserver man pages. It was not included
>with the distribution is used and is missing from the qmail DocProject man
>pages as well.
>
>thanks,
>d. divine
>
>
It was in /usr/local/man. That and ezmlm appear to be the only programs that
put man pages there - all others under /etc/man and /var/qmail/man.
Thank you. I apologize for the inane question. Still grappling with some
unix nuances.
d. divine
> Where can you get a copy of the tcpserver man pages. It was not included
> with the distribution is used and is missing from the qmail DocProject man
> pages as well.
[cjohnson@shemp cjohnson]$ ls -l /usr/local/man/man1/tcpserver.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4026 Nov 17 14:04 /usr/local/man/man1/tcpserver.1
It came with tcpserver, which is in the ucspi-tcp-0.84.tar.gz tarball.
Chris
Hi
Boy, have I been enjoying reading my mail lately :-)
OK, let's kill the thread. Change the subject, it's out of line.
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. ( BTW, ofcourse 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 ?
���`����,��,����`����,��,�����`����,��,����`����,��
http://www.kw.nl/~pike
���`����,��,����`����,��,�����`����,��,����`����,��
As I was going up the stairs
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish, he'd go away
I just wanted to get that out there
Scott Burkhalter
Anyone know anything about Cyrus Imapd and if it'll get along with qmail?
Sendmail uses Cyrus' own program (deliver) to store the mail in a dir that
only Cyrus can read/write. Would qmail be able to use a local delivery
mechanism like this? Anyone ever try this imapd?
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
==========================================================================
Works dandy if your users all have a .qmail file containing:
|preline -f /usr/local/bin/deliver scotte
(or equivalent), where 'scotte' is the local username of course.
----- Original Message -----
From: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:32 PM
Subject: Cyrus Imapd anyone?
>
> Anyone know anything about Cyrus Imapd and if it'll get along with qmail?
> Sendmail uses Cyrus' own program (deliver) to store the mail in a dir that
> only Cyrus can read/write. Would qmail be able to use a local delivery
> mechanism like this? Anyone ever try this imapd?
>
> 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 Scott Ellis wrote:
> Works dandy if your users all have a .qmail file containing:
>
>|preline -f /usr/local/bin/deliver scotte
>
> (or equivalent), where 'scotte' is the local username of course.
>
Thanks!
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
==========================================================================
Just happened to do this yesterday.
1. Cyrus' instructions say to create a user cyrus (with a home directory -
let's assume /var/imap)
2. Create a virtualdomains entry that says something like: domain.com:cyrus
3. Create a .qmail-default in /var/imap that says:
|/var/imap/qmail-deliver "$EXT2"
4. Create the qmail-deliver script (found in the mail archives)
#!/bin/sh
/usr/cyrus/bin/deliver $1
case $? in
64|65|66|67|68|76|77|78)
exit 100
;;
0)
exit 0
;;
*)
exit 111
;;
esac
5. Make sure that qmailp can deliver to cyrus (I did this by adding qmailp to
the same group that cyrus is a member of)
I've found this to work just fine. There are many other setup details but
these were the main ones to get qmail/cyrus working together. With the LDAP
patch available for Cyrus, you can even LDAP enable your mail system rather
easily.
Jon
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Anyone know anything about Cyrus Imapd and if it'll get along with qmail?
> Sendmail uses Cyrus' own program (deliver) to store the mail in a dir that
> only Cyrus can read/write. Would qmail be able to use a local delivery
> mechanism like this? Anyone ever try this imapd?
>
> 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
> ==========================================================================
Just a little query...
I'm currently using a slightly modified version of the Jedi/Sector One, Paul
Gregg checkpoppasswd program and now I've modified it to use the DENY environ-
ment variable. Rather than have ":deny" be the last line in my /etc/tcprules.d/
qmail-pop3d file, I replace it with ":allow,DENY=""" and that way I get the
person to type in the username and password of the account they're trying to
access and yet still guarantee that I can cut them off based on the existence
of the DENY variable. My only problem now is that if they are trying to hack my
server, they might not give a valid username or password. This is handled in the
J/SO, PG checkpoppasswd in the newgetpwnam() function, which has no knowledge of
the password variable as it is obtained from qmail-popup. So when an invalid
username is used during a connection from a disallowed address, there's no way
to log the password along side it.
The cheap way around this is to just make "char *password" a global. Anyone
foresee any problem with this?
Second, when ":deny" is used, the originating port on the remote host is logged
in the qmail-pop3d logfile. When ":allow,DENY=""" is used, that information is
not passed along. I'd like to get my hands on a copy of the tcpserver source to
add the TCPREMOTEPORT variable to the environemnt created by tcpserver. So,
1) Where can I find the sources. (I know, I know, STFW)
2) Anyone foresee any problem with this?
3) Would the author perhaps be so kind as to add it himself?
I've also written several scripts and proggies of my own to centralize the
operations of my ISP with SMTP, POP3, and RADIUS servers all maintaining
consistency (of tapioca). I'll eventually be putting all of it under GPL and
tarballing it onto my ftp site for all to gawk at.
--
Matt Garrett, Network Engineer
InterNIC handle: MG14026
Superior On-Line Services, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:46 PM 4/30/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>1) Where can I find the sources. (I know, I know, STFW)
http://pobox.com/~djb/ucspi-tcp.html
(this is right off the qmail.org page, in the "author's software" section)
>3) Would the author perhaps be so kind as to add it himself?
The author is Dan Bernstein. He may have already read your post to the list.
--Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ICQ UIN: 692441
Enough of this thread! Please!
--
Eddie
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/eirvine/index.html
________________________________________________
When sending a message using pine. I get the
following error:
Pipe can't access "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail" : no such file or
directory
followed by:
Error running "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail -oem -t -oi"
Any ideas will be appreciated. I checked my links and
they look like this:
$ pwd
/usr/lib
$ ls -ld sendmail
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 23 Apr 30 20:31 sendmail ->
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail
$ /var/qmail/bin
$ ls -l sendmail
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 7936 Apr 25 16:32 sendmail
$
$ cd /usr/sbin/
$ ls -l sendmail
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 23 Apr 25 04:05 sendmail ->
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail
$
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
You were absolutely correct. I found the problem
just after I sent this email. I had the line as
"sendmail-path=sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail".
Thanks for your kind response.
Dinesh
--- Vern Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Dinesh Punjabi wrote:
> >
> > When sending a message using pine. I get the
> > following error:
> >
> > Pipe can't access
> "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail" : no such file or
> > directory
> >
> > followed by:
> >
> > Error running "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail
> -oem -t -oi"
>
> Just a guess, but it looks like pine is trying to
> execute
> 'sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail' instead of just
> '/usr/lib/sendmail'.
>
> Search for 'sendmail' in your ~/.pinerc and the
> system's pine.conf (on
> my system this is /usr/lib/pine.conf but could be
> /usr/local/lib/pine.conf or something else):
>
> grep sendmail ~/.pine* /usr/lib/pine.conf
>
> It's a shot in the dark since I'm still using 3.96.
>
> Let me know.
>
> Cheers,
> Vern
> --
> \ \ / __| _ \ \ | Vern Hart
> \ \ / _| / . | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> \_/ ___|_|_\_|\_|
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
