qmail Digest 6 May 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 632
Topics (messages 25215 through 25253):
proxy POP3/IMAP server?
25215 by: "Ramesh Panuganty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25219 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25248 by: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reviewers/proofreaders wanted
25216 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AutoResponders
25217 by: "Julian L.C. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25218 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25253 by: �����ӿ��� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maildir2mbox and vice versa
25220 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail_file_is_writable error msg ?
25221 by: David McCall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
seletive virutal domain rejection?
25222 by: Kirk Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RH 6.0
25223 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25224 by: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25225 by: Mark Zugsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25226 by: Russell Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25227 by: Russell Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25238 by: listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25241 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25243 by: Russell Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
a couple qmail config questions
25228 by: Leigh Orf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25229 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Configuring a qmail gateway
25230 by: "Russell P. Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25242 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What happens when qmail-send is killed?
25231 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25234 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25235 by: Rick Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25236 by: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25237 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25239 by: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25240 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25245 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25246 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cleaning up corrupt queue
25232 by: Kevin Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25233 by: Abel Lucano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Need help with spam/relay control
25244 by: Sysop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25249 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
localhost problems
25247 by: "Eric Zeller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ������ߵ�����Ǯ]
25250 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
accept smtp local network
25251 by: Marco Leeflang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail/serialmail queue names
25252 by: "Tom Furie" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Does anyone know whether there are any proxy POP3/IMAP servers
available for trying or looking into the code? I basically want a server
which accepts requests like
login: user@mailer
pass: <password on mailer>
and just forwards the data between the user and the actual mail
server and doesn't maintain any accounts on itself.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Ramesh
Ramesh Panuganty wrote:
> Does anyone know whether there are any proxy POP3/IMAP servers
> available for trying or looking into the code? I basically want a server
> which accepts requests like
> login: user@mailer
> pass: <password on mailer>
> and just forwards the data between the user and the actual mail
> server and doesn't maintain any accounts on itself.
Why not just use a plain TCP proxy? If the proxy isn't to process anything
and just pass it on, then a simple TCP relaying proxy would do that.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 09:56:06AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ramesh Panuganty wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know whether there are any proxy POP3/IMAP servers
> > login: user@mailer
> > pass: <password on mailer>
> Why not just use a plain TCP proxy? If the proxy isn't to process anything
> and just pass it on, then a simple TCP relaying proxy would do that.
Big difference.
What if you want your users to be able to connect to any external POP/IMAP
server they want? Are you going to put an infinite number of port
redirectors up?
Try http://caristudenti.cs.unibo.it/~borgia/ for pop3gw - does just what you
want :-)
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
I've got enough of my qmail guide complete that it's worth reviewing:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
It's still less than half done, though, so don't bother telling me
that section X.Y is empty. :-)
Let me if like it, hate it, or don't care either way. If you think it
needs reorganizing or is doesn't cover a topic well enough, or at all,
I'd like to hear that, too. Of course, factual errors and typo
corrections are welcome, too.
I'll be putting a new version up every night, if I've made changes
during the day.
-Dave
Dear Group,
I want to set up autoresponders for some of my customers. What I believe
may be the best way to do it and feel free to let me know, is to make a
perl script that reads a text file with the standard response, reads the
incoming message and mails the response to that address.
I can write PERL that's not a problem, my question is how do I get qmail to
send the mail to my script, how do I read the email in to my script and
then how do I take the email and dump it in to the email box it should be
going to afterwards..
If there is any easier way, let me know...
Regards,
Julian L.C. Brown
Interware.Net Inc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.interware.net
There is a C based autoresponder on the www.qmail.org site.
Works great. We use is in conjunction with vchkpw and
our new web based qmail admin program. It lets users add
autorepsonders via a web interface.
Check it out http://webmail.inter7.com/cgi-bin/qmailadmin
User: postmaster
Domain: test.com
Password: test
Cheers
Ken Jones
Inter7
On Wed, 05 May 1999 09:25:40 Julian L.C. Brown wrote:
>
> Dear Group,
>
> I want to set up autoresponders for some of my customers. What I believe
> may be the best way to do it and feel free to let me know, is to make a
> perl script that reads a text file with the standard response, reads the
> incoming message and mails the response to that address.
>
> I can write PERL that's not a problem, my question is how do I get qmail to
> send the mail to my script, how do I read the email in to my script and
> then how do I take the email and dump it in to the email box it should be
> going to afterwards..
>
> If there is any easier way, let me know...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Julian L.C. Brown
> Interware.Net Inc.
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.interware.net
>
>
>
No perl,but .qmail can,
For example,add this line into your .qmail files:
| (echo "To: $SENDER"; cat /autoresp.txt ) | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -f "$SENDER"
and '/autoresp.txt' is the words you should say. such as:
From: myname
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: autoresponder
Remember,'reply-to' must to be an invaild address,else, mail loop should take place.
�� 99-5-5 10:25:00 ��������"AutoResponders"���
>Dear Group,
>
>I want to set up autoresponders for some of my customers. What I believe
>may be the best way to do it and feel free to let me know, is to make a
>perl script that reads a text file with the standard response, reads the
>incoming message and mails the response to that address.
>
>I can write PERL that's not a problem, my question is how do I get qmail to
>send the mail to my script, how do I read the email in to my script and
>then how do I take the email and dump it in to the email box it should be
>going to afterwards..
>
>If there is any easier way, let me know...
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Julian L.C. Brown
>Interware.Net Inc.
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.interware.net
--
Yessure
I hate beating this horse, but is there a mbox2maildir and maildir2mbox
that actually put the messages in the new or cur directories correctly? I
have looked at the 3 (2 mbox2maildir and 1 maildir2mbox) on the qmail page
and apparently they don't do this. Thanks.
andy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO Communications Phone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
Hi,
Where do I find error listings for such as listed below.
thanks ahead of time
May 5 09:14:09 nbcls qmail: 925920849.832263 delivery 61: deferral:
Uh-oh:_.qmail_file_is_writable._(#4.7.0)/
I have a virtual domain setup usin qmail on 'Machine A'.
When I use 'Machine B' to telnet to 'Machine A' through port 25, I can
send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] just fine.
However if I use a mail program that uses sendmail to send the message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], there is a problem. After the message bounces
back to me, I can see that it did contact 'Machine A' but when it tries
issueing a RCPT to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] it says that it's an unknown
user?
Why can I telnet to port 25 and send messages that way, but sendmail
can't. I'd always thought sendmail did nothing more that a telnet through
port 25? What's going on here?
I just upgraded my Linux system to RH 6.0, and not only it installs
sendmail but it starts automatically at boot.
At least during the previous upgrade it did not start sendmail
automatically.
After *stopping* and nuking sendmail, create the links
ln -sf ../../var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail
ln -sf ../../var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/sbin/sendmail
and optionally remove the dir
/var/spool/mail
Have fun
Mate
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>I just upgraded my Linux system to RH 6.0, and not only it installs
>sendmail but it starts automatically at boot.
Hmmm, I thought you can choose whether to install sendmail or not. At
least that was the case in previous version.
Unless you used all the installer defaults.
Arif
You want to su to root. Do a chkconfig --del sendmail
That will keep sendmail from starting.
You can also do an rpm -e sendmail if you want to completely get rid of
it.
Regards,
Mark
On Wed, 5 May 1999, S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> >I just upgraded my Linux system to RH 6.0, and not only it installs
> >sendmail but it starts automatically at boot.
>
> Hmmm, I thought you can choose whether to install sendmail or not. At
> least that was the case in previous version.
>
> Unless you used all the installer defaults.
>
>
> Arif
>
You can choose sendmail during a fresh install. However, when you do the
updgrade from a previous version, sendmail is forcibly installed and there
is no obvious way to turn that off.
Russ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 5 May 1999, S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> >I just upgraded my Linux system to RH 6.0, and not only it installs
> >sendmail but it starts automatically at boot.
>
> Hmmm, I thought you can choose whether to install sendmail or not. At
> least that was the case in previous version.
>
> Unless you used all the installer defaults.
>
>
> Arif
>
>
Don't forget that you have to rebuild the symlinks to qmail's sendmail
stub.
Russ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mark Zugsmith wrote:
> You want to su to root. Do a chkconfig --del sendmail
> That will keep sendmail from starting.
> You can also do an rpm -e sendmail if you want to completely get rid of
> it.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> On Wed, 5 May 1999, S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 May 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> >
> > >I just upgraded my Linux system to RH 6.0, and not only it installs
> > >sendmail but it starts automatically at boot.
> >
> > Hmmm, I thought you can choose whether to install sendmail or not. At
> > least that was the case in previous version.
> >
> > Unless you used all the installer defaults.
> >
> >
> > Arif
> >
>
>
At 20:25 99-05-05 , Russell Steffen wrote:
>
>
>You can choose sendmail during a fresh install. However, when you do the
>updgrade from a previous version, sendmail is forcibly installed and there
>is no obvious way to turn that off.
>
>Russ
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you haven't done "rpm -e sendmail" earlier, then you still have
sendmail's rpm installed so redhat will hapilly upgrade that package.
uninstall sendmail if you installed it by mistake and THEN try to upgrade
your system..
Kris
Polska OnLine
listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski writes:
> If you haven't done "rpm -e sendmail" earlier, then you still have
> sendmail's rpm installed so redhat will hapilly upgrade that package.
> uninstall sendmail if you installed it by mistake and THEN try to upgrade
> your system..
I haven't yet looked into RH 6.0, but previous versions of Red Hat
installed sendmail whether you did a fresh install or an upgrade.
I haven't yet tried this, but I believe you can get RH to stop throwing
sendmail at you during the install simply by creating an empty RPM, naming
it sendmail, and setting it's version to 99.99, or something like that. I
do not believe that RH's installer overwrites high-versioned RPMs.
--
Sam
On Thu, 6 May 1999, listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski wrote:
> At 20:25 99-05-05 , Russell Steffen wrote:
> >
> >
> >You can choose sendmail during a fresh install. However, when you do the
> >updgrade from a previous version, sendmail is forcibly installed and there
> >is no obvious way to turn that off.
> >
> >Russ
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If you haven't done "rpm -e sendmail" earlier, then you still have
> sendmail's rpm installed so redhat will hapilly upgrade that package.
> uninstall sendmail if you installed it by mistake and THEN try to upgrade
> your system..
Not true. The system I upgraded earlier had no sendmail RPM installed at
all. It has been a qmail-only box for a long time (and the qmail RPM I
used specificly includes a "Conflicts: sendmail" line in the spec).
Russ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Kris
> Polska OnLine
>
>
Hi folks,
I finally got fed up with sendmail and spent yesterday configuring
qmail. I have a couple questions which I couldn't resolve via the FM.
setup: Linux, RH 6.0, latest version of qmail. I connect via modem, have
a dynamic IP, and have the ability to run named (be my own nameserver)
but haven't had the need to do so (perhaps I do now). I call my machine
localhost, but change my hostname to whatever dynamic IP I get every
time I dial up.
here are my control file contents:
==> defaulthost <==
mailbag.com
==> me <==
localhost
==> smtproutes <==
:mailbag.com
mailbag.com is my isp and I want all my outgoing mail to go through it
since I'm on a sporadic serial link.
Here are my problems:
1. In my /etc/resolv.conf file I have a search line which contains a
few domains. With sendmail, if I were to send an email to fred@frog, it
would expand fred@frog to, say, [EMAIL PROTECTED], searching through
the domains in the search line and using the 1st one that resolved. I
haven't found the way to get qmail to do this. Qmail will instead
try to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] through mailbag.com, and I'll get
a bounce message from mailbag.com saying, of course, it can't find
frog.localhost. Sendmail would always expand the To: field in the way I
wanted.
2. I use MH as my mail handler. If I do not include a From:
line in my outgoing message, MH (post) apparently inserts From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and that's what my recipient sees. I
would rather have it so that if I don't include a From: header, qmail
will insert From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I can't seem to get qmail to ignore
the From: entry that MH sticks in, and I don't think I can turn that
feature off in MH. Setting QMAILINJECT to f doesn't seem to do anything,
and it's not what I want since I usually put the From: header I want in
my messages anyway.
If I just do
echo blah | mail orf
qmail will put in the From: header that I prescribe with qmail
environment variables (From: "Leigh Orf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). In this
case I assume Qmail got a message with no From: header and did what I
wanted.
With sendmail, the following entries in /etc/sendmail.cf gave me the
behavior I want:
DSmailbag.com
DMmailbag.com
i.e., From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] would magically appear in my message when I
didn't prescribe it when composing a message with comp (in MH).
Note that 99% of the time I prescribe my From: field when composing
messages. But sometimes I forget, and in those cases I'd like the
recipient of my message to be able to reply to my normal email address.
Thanks for helping a qmail newbie out!
Leigh Orf
Leigh Orf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>1. In my /etc/resolv.conf file I have a search line which contains a
>few domains. With sendmail, if I were to send an email to fred@frog, it
>would expand fred@frog to, say, [EMAIL PROTECTED], searching through
>the domains in the search line and using the 1st one that resolved.
Isn't that deprecated behavior due to security problems? Seems like
there was a way for an attacker to cause incomplete domain names to
resolve incorrectly, e.g. "foo.com" resolves to "foo.com.edu" or
something like that. Which is why qmail uses the defaultdomain and
plusdomain.
>I haven't found the way to get qmail to do this. Qmail will instead
>try to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] through mailbag.com, and I'll get
>a bounce message from mailbag.com saying, of course, it can't find
>frog.localhost. Sendmail would always expand the To: field in the
>way I wanted.
I don't think you can get the behavior you want with qmail. Why not
create aliases for these users instead?
>2. I use MH as my mail handler.
Can't help you there.
>Thanks for helping a qmail newbie out!
Wow, a newbie who knows how to read docs and ask good questions! :-)
-Dave
I have configured a qmail machine to be a pure email gateway/relay
(no local delivery in terms of deliverying a message to a local mailbox)
using virtualdomains.
All incoming email gets routed based upon the recipient address
as follows:
rcpt address smtp host
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> name.domain.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> smtp.domain.com
user@*.domain.com -> smtp.domain.com
etc...
The MX records for domain.com and the wildcard *.domain
are pointing at my gateway machine (gateway.domain.com).
I have implemented the routing of incoming email on the relay
by configuring qmail as follows:
/var/qmail/control:
me: gateway.domain.com
rcpthosts: domain.com
.domain.com
virtualdomains: domain.com:alias-smtp
name.domain.com:alias-name
.domain.com:alias-smtp
smtproutes: smtp.domain.com:[IP addr of smtp.domain.com]
name.domain.com:[IP addr of name.domain.com]
There are no other files in the control directory.
Note: [ The gateway has no DNS date for any of the machines names
that it relays data to ].
/var/qmail/alias:
.qmail-smtp-default: |forward ${EXT2}@smtp.domain.com
.qmail-name-default: |forward ${EXT2}@name.domain.com
This configuration seems to "work".
Any comments on items I may have missed or perhaps a "better way"
to configure this relay?
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 04:03:01PM -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
> I have configured a qmail machine to be a pure email gateway/relay
> (no local delivery in terms of deliverying a message to a local mailbox)
> using virtualdomains.
>
> All incoming email gets routed based upon the recipient address
> as follows:
>
> rcpt address smtp host
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> name.domain.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> smtp.domain.com
> user@*.domain.com -> smtp.domain.com
> etc...
>
> The MX records for domain.com and the wildcard *.domain
> are pointing at my gateway machine (gateway.domain.com).
>
> I have implemented the routing of incoming email on the relay
> by configuring qmail as follows:
>
> /var/qmail/control:
>
> me: gateway.domain.com
>
> rcpthosts: domain.com
> .domain.com
>
> virtualdomains: domain.com:alias-smtp
> name.domain.com:alias-name
> .domain.com:alias-smtp
>
> smtproutes: smtp.domain.com:[IP addr of smtp.domain.com]
> name.domain.com:[IP addr of name.domain.com]
>
> There are no other files in the control directory.
>
> Note: [ The gateway has no DNS date for any of the machines names
> that it relays data to ].
>
> /var/qmail/alias:
>
> .qmail-smtp-default: |forward ${EXT2}@smtp.domain.com
>
> .qmail-name-default: |forward ${EXT2}@name.domain.com
>
> This configuration seems to "work".
>
> Any comments on items I may have missed or perhaps a "better way"
> to configure this relay?
It can be much simpler than that. Remove the virtualdomains file altogether,
and in smtproutes put:
name.domain.com:[IP addr of name.domain.com]
domain.com:[IP addr of smtp.domain.com]
.domain.com:[IP addr of smtp.domain.com]
That's all you need.
Chris
What happens when qmail-send is killed, as e.g. a routine shutdown
while qmail-remote is hanging onto clients?
It appears that qmail-remote completes the delivery, but has nobody to
tell it did so, resulting in duplications.
Is this really what happens? Of course duplication in such a situation
is quite acceptable. I'm just trying to find out if this is the source
of the duplications seen (or if there is a real problem).
Normally, when shutting down, qmail-send it is not doing deliveries, or
trying deliveries that have a low likelihood of succeeding, i.e.
redeliveries. Thus, this wouldn't be apparent. This time, I shut it
down (-TERM) during maximal activity for reconfiguration (test system).
Any insight would be appreciated! THanks!
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
qmail-remote has no permissions to touch the queue and there are no kill
calls in any of the qmail code, so:
o nothing gets rid of running qmail-remotes (as also evidenced by the log
entries when you shutdown qmail-send)
and
o qmail-remote never notices that the underlying infrastructure has gone
so, they run to completion as far as smtp is concerned, but nothing changes
the queue entries.
Regards.
At 03:07 PM Wednesday 5/5/99, Fred Lindberg wrote:
>What happens when qmail-send is killed, as e.g. a routine shutdown
>while qmail-remote is hanging onto clients?
>
>It appears that qmail-remote completes the delivery, but has nobody to
>tell it did so, resulting in duplications.
>
>Is this really what happens? Of course duplication in such a situation
>is quite acceptable. I'm just trying to find out if this is the source
>of the duplications seen (or if there is a real problem).
>
>Normally, when shutting down, qmail-send it is not doing deliveries, or
>trying deliveries that have a low likelihood of succeeding, i.e.
>redeliveries. Thus, this wouldn't be apparent. This time, I shut it
>down (-TERM) during maximal activity for reconfiguration (test system).
>
>Any insight would be appreciated! THanks!
>
>-Sincerely, Fred
>
>(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
>
>
On May 05, 1999 at 13:23:48 -0700, Mark Delany twiddled the keys to say:
> qmail-remote has no permissions to touch the queue and there are no kill
> calls in any of the qmail code, so:
>
> o nothing gets rid of running qmail-remotes (as also evidenced by the log
> entries when you shutdown qmail-send)
Yes, but a `shutdown' generally won't wait for qmail-anything to finish.
At least on my system all processes get a -KILL within 30 seconds.
For what it's worth, I've noticed quite a bit fewer dupes since 1.03.
And moreso since I've adopted the policy of giving qmail-send the -TERM
and waiting for it to die naturally before rebooting.
Rick Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------
The Feynman Problem 1) Write down the problem.
Solving Algorithm 2) Think real hard.
3) Write down the answer.
At 03:07 PM 5/5/99 -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
>What happens when qmail-send is killed, as e.g. a routine shutdown
>while qmail-remote is hanging onto clients?
>
>It appears that qmail-remote completes the delivery, but has nobody to
>tell it did so, resulting in duplications.
>
>Is this really what happens? Of course duplication in such a situation
>is quite acceptable. I'm just trying to find out if this is the source
>of the duplications seen (or if there is a real problem).
>
>Normally, when shutting down, qmail-send it is not doing deliveries, or
>trying deliveries that have a low likelihood of succeeding, i.e.
>redeliveries. Thus, this wouldn't be apparent. This time, I shut it
>down (-TERM) during maximal activity for reconfiguration (test system).
I am not sure I answer your question, but here is what I know on the subject:
qmail-send catches the TERM signal, waits for all qmail-remotes to complete
and shuts down. So if you kill -TERM (or just kill), there won't be any
duplicates.
However, if you kill -KILL (kill -9), qmail-send dies immediately and
results are unpredictable.
If you use sys V, a script is called to kill qmail-send
(/etc/rc?.d/K??script) with 'stop' as argument when you shutdown the
machine. Make sure that this script kill -TERM qmail-send.
David.
On Wed, 05 May 1999 13:23:48 -0700, Mark Delany wrote:
>so, they run to completion as far as smtp is concerned, but nothing changes
>the queue entries.
Thanks for confirming this! This means that a cleaner shutdown might be
to kill all qmail-remote[/local] as well as qmail-send.
Yes, for a regular shutdown you have only 30s. But if you do a regular
shutdown in the middle of a list delivery with a concurrency of 200,
you get a lot of duplications (a significant majority of the 200 will
complete within 30 s). In my case it was a manual shutdown of only
qmail-send.
AFAIK, there is no penalty for killing qmail-remotes, other than a
deferral. If killing is very close in time, there is little chance for
a completion. If qmail-send is killed first, there is no way for it to
start new qmail-remotes.
So would:
killall qmail-send qmail-remote qmail-local
be a more correct way of doing it?
Would it be more correct for qmail-send to kill it's children upon
receiving sigterm?
Thanks!
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
At 03:57 PM 5/5/99 -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
[...]
>Would it be more correct for qmail-send to kill it's children upon
>receiving sigterm?
I now use qmail-remote directly in some of my programs and it is exactely
the way I do it: the programs catch the TERM signal, kill() all children
and wait().
However, as I said before, qmail-send already catches TERM and waits (not
the wait() system call, just plain english wait) for qmail-remote to
finish. Note that qmail-send does not need to wait() for them because it
has open pipes to them and gets status messages directly through these pipes.
David.
Thanks for the comments and sorry for my stupidity.
To create the qmail init script, I just copied from another init script
on the redhat system. It uses a function "killproc" to kill the process
on "stop". This issues a "kill -9" when used without an argument
(rather than the expected default for "kill" which is "TERM").
I hadn't noticed previously, since I don't usually shut down qmail at
full activity.
Thus, normally TERM is sent to qmail-send, it waits and if TERM is
issued generally, qmail-remote will terminate and when all
qmail-remote/local are terminated qmail-send will exit. If one "kill
-TERM qmail-send" one may have to wait for qmail-remotes to finish, and
if one doesn't want to wait that long, one cam "killall -TERM
qmail-remote qmail-local" after the TERM to qmail-send.
[I use svc/supervise on other systems].
Thanks, David and others!
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
At 07:40 PM Wednesday 5/5/99, Rick Myers wrote:
>On May 05, 1999 at 13:23:48 -0700, Mark Delany twiddled the keys to say:
>> qmail-remote has no permissions to touch the queue and there are no kill
>> calls in any of the qmail code, so:
>>
>> o nothing gets rid of running qmail-remotes (as also evidenced by the log
>> entries when you shutdown qmail-send)
>
>Yes, but a `shutdown' generally won't wait for qmail-anything to finish.
>At least on my system all processes get a -KILL within 30 seconds.
Right. But that's not how the standard qmail works, as others have noted.
Perhaps it's yet again the case of an rpm-styled installed doing "almost the
right thing". (I confess to continually seeing reasons why DjB was/is so
paranoid about others packaging up qmail).
A proper and normal qmail shutdown is an orderly affair where all outstanding
deliveries are completed and accepted as complete prior to qmail-send exiting.
>For what it's worth, I've noticed quite a bit fewer dupes since 1.03.
>And moreso since I've adopted the policy of giving qmail-send the -TERM
>and waiting for it to die naturally before rebooting.
You would need to demonstrate this via log entries. I have seen no change in
behaviour in this regard with 1.03
Regards.
From: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: If you use sys V, a script is called to kill qmail-send
: (/etc/rc?.d/K??script) with 'stop' as argument when you shutdown the
: machine. Make sure that this script kill -TERM qmail-send.
The "killall" command varies depending on unix variant.
I snarfed/modified the following from a solaris rc file -- YMMV:
PID=`/usr/bin/ps -eo pid,comm | /usr/bin/awk '{ if ($2 == "qmail-send")
print $1 }'`
kill -TERM $PID
--Adam
I'm running qmail 1.03+patches under RH Linux 5.2. As luck would have it,
the server got unplugged while a technician was cleaning up a rat's nest of
cables and wiring. I ran Russell Nelson's qmail-qsanity from the qmail.org
web site and it bitched up a storm. What's the best way to clean up the
inconsistencies?
Thanks,
--Kevin
---
Kevin Sawyer - President/CEO - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Personal Computing, Inc. - APCiNet - http://www.apci.net
6001 Old Collinsville Road, Building #3, Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Office: (618) 632-7282 FAX: (618) 632-7287 Support: (618) 628-2Net
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Kevin Sawyer wrote:
> I'm running qmail 1.03+patches under RH Linux 5.2. As luck would have it,
> the server got unplugged while a technician was cleaning up a rat's nest of
> cables and wiring. I ran Russell Nelson's qmail-qsanity from the qmail.org
> web site and it bitched up a storm. What's the best way to clean up the
> inconsistencies?
you could try queue-fix.tar.gz from www.qmail.org
you'll need stop qmail-smtpd while fixin' the queue
regards
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Lucano Argentina On-line S.A.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bernardo de Irigoyen 546, Piso 6
Sistemas Buenos Aires (1072)
http://www.ba.net Tel +5411 4343 9999
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl
script". Standard disclaimer.
Hello,
I have a problem with setting up our mailserver for selective relaying.
Here is what I have and what I need:
We are an ISP with hundreds of domains and users and also offer dialin.
So:
- all local users must send and receive emails
- we have many users, who dialin through other ISP's (e.g. aol) but have
a POP3-Account
here. These users should also send (relay) through our mailserver.
This is generally no problem with the avaible tools -
but it`s too much work and not secure enough to allow relaying only IP's
(dynamic ip-addresses, many ISP's, many networks..)
I think that the following concept would do a good job:
1.) relay on IP-Base, with some (larger) networks
2.) allow relay if sender has a address within our domainpool and IP in
IP-List
3.) accept messages from everywhere (ok .. excluding some baddomins ,
ORBS...) for recipent-addresses in our pool.
1.) and 3.) are "simple", but how can I do 2.) ????
Can you help me or do you have an idee how I can do this?
greetings
M. Junk
-----------------------------------------------
i-dea: Der Internetprovider in Neukirchen-Vluyn
i-dea
Pascalstrasse 33
47506 Neukirchen-Vluyn
Tel.: 02845 292 450
Fax : 02845 7333
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bei Aenderungen, Eintragungen und Problemen)
oder [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fuer allgemeine Informationen)
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 12:18:33AM +0200, Sysop wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem with setting up our mailserver for selective relaying.
> Here is what I have and what I need:
>
> We are an ISP with hundreds of domains and users and also offer dialin.
> So:
>
> - all local users must send and receive emails
> - we have many users, who dialin through other ISP's (e.g. aol) but have
> a POP3-Account
> here. These users should also send (relay) through our mailserver.
>
> This is generally no problem with the avaible tools -
> but it`s too much work and not secure enough to allow relaying only IP's
> (dynamic ip-addresses, many ISP's, many networks..)
>
> I think that the following concept would do a good job:
>
> 1.) relay on IP-Base, with some (larger) networks
> 2.) allow relay if sender has a address within our domainpool and IP in
> IP-List
> 3.) accept messages from everywhere (ok .. excluding some baddomins ,
> ORBS...) for recipent-addresses in our pool.
>
> 1.) and 3.) are "simple", but how can I do 2.) ????
>
> Can you help me or do you have an idee how I can do this?
What you really want to do is tell people to relay mail through their own ISPs'
SMTP servers. That's what they're there for.
But if you want to do 2, I modified a patch that I wrote to relay based on
envelope sender. I added the part about doing this only for specified IP
addresses. You can find it at
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom+ip.patch
Chris
I'm running Debian Potato with Qmail 1.02-1 and I have some problems trying
to configure the bounce messages.
All normal delivery works (except fetchmail, I have to use mda to
qmail-inject as per a previous post), but any bad email addresses get triple
bounced and deleted. I've set all .qmail-* files in alias directory to 600
owned by alias.
I apologize for the Bandwidth. qmail-showctrl is below
Here's what I try
echo To: baduser | /usr/sbin/qmail-inject
and here's what comes out of syslog
May 5 09:40:31 myrouter qmail: 925922431.883392 new msg 462702
May 5 09:40:31 myrouter qmail: 925922431.884528 info msg 462702: bytes 222
from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4420 uid 1000
May 5 09:40:31 myrouter qmail: 925922431.991008 starting delivery 183: msg
4627
02 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 5 09:40:31 myrouter qmail: 925922431.992078 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.250415 delivery 183: failure:
Sorry,_n
o_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.251486 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.500550 bounce msg 462702 qp 4423
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.506204 end msg 462702
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.531208 new msg 462705
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.534101 info msg 462705: bytes 786
from
<> qp 4423 uid 72
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.730112 starting delivery 184: msg
4627
05 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.732078 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.921661 delivery 184: failure:
Sorry,_n
o_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
May 5 09:40:32 myrouter qmail: 925922432.932837 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.081085 bounce msg 462705 qp 4426
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.086745 end msg 462705
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.105239 new msg 462703
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.108234 info msg 462703: bytes 1270
fro
m <#@[]> qp 4426 uid 72
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.277746 starting delivery 185: msg
4627
03 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.279706 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.546363 new msg 462705
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.552981 info msg 462705: bytes 1386
fro
m <#@[]> qp 4429 uid 70May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.712805
starting delivery 186: msg 4627
05 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.719417 status: local 2/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.728301 delivery 185: success:
did_0+1+
0/qp_4429/
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.731715 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:33 myrouter qmail: 925922433.735155 end msg 462703
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.051689 new msg 462702
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.058307 info msg 462702: bytes 1496
fro
m <#@[]> qp 4431 uid 70
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.278033 starting delivery 187: msg
4627
02 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.283757 status: local 2/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.285767 delivery 186: success:
did_0+1+
0/qp_4431/
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.289967 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.293501 end msg 462705
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.401460 delivery 187: failure:
This_mes
sage_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.405901 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.409966 triple bounce: discarding
bounc
e/462702
May 5 09:40:34 myrouter qmail: 925922434.411945 end msg 462702
And Here's the output from qmail-showctrl
The qmail control files are stored in /var/qmail/control.
The uids and gids are 70, 71, 75, 0, 76, 74, 73, 72, 65534, 70.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON.
bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is myrouter.ericzeller.com.
concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10.
concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
defaultdomain: Default domain name is ericzeller.com.
defaulthost: Default host name is ericzeller.com.
doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: myrouter.ericzeller.com.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is myrouter.ericzeller.com.
helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is myrouter.ericzeller.com.
idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is myrouter.ericzeller.com.
localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes myrouter.ericzeller.com.
locals:
Messages for myrouter.ericzeller.com are delivered locally.
Messages for ericzeller.com are delivered locally.
me: My name is myrouter.ericzeller.com.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
plusdomain: Plus domain name is ericzeller.com.
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts:
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at myrouter.ericzeller.com.
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at myrouter.
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 myrouter.ericzeller.com.
smtproutes:
timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds.
timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds.
timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds.
virtualdomains: (Default.) No virtual domains.
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Look at the second-last Received:-line. 'fmail 348 ...'. Is this a fake or
something? (Oh, and I have _no_ idea what the text means :)
----- Forwarded message from ������ �� �� ������ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 878 invoked from network); 6 May 1999 08:55:54 -0000
Received: from zopie.attic.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by koek.attic.vuurwerk.nl with QMTP; 6 May 1999 08:55:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 13638 invoked by uid 501); 5 May 1999 08:39:30 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 13546 invoked from network); 5 May 1999 08:39:16 -0000
Received: from usquerd.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by zolder.cx with SMTP; 5 May 1999 08:39:16 -0000
Received: from k9.dds.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [194.109.21.19])
by usquerd.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA02486
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 May 1999 07:44:33 +0200
Received: from titanic.dds.nl (titanic.dds.nl [194.109.21.16])
by k9.dds.nl (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA18386
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 May 1999 07:40:53 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from bftoemail12.bigfoot.com (bftoemail12.bigfoot.com [208.156.39.212])
by titanic.dds.nl (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA19517
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 5 May 1999 07:32:28 +0100 (WET DST)
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 07:32:28 +0100 (WET DST)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp.188.net ([202.96.125.104])
by bftoemail2.bigfooot.com (Bigfoot Toe Mail v1.0
with message handle 990505_014240_1_bftoemail2_smtp;
Wed, 05 May 1999 01:42:40 -0500
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (fmail 348 invoked from network); 4 May 1999 18:58:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ------) (202.109.48.172)
by 202.96.125.104 with SMTP; 4 May 1999 18:58:20 -0000
From: ������ �� �� ������ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ������ �� �� ������ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Return-Receipt-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ������ߵ�����Ǯ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
������ߵ�����Ǯ
����һ�����Ѽ��������Ի�ã���������Ԫ
���ѣ������һ���������յ�һЩ�������������Ǯ�ĵ����ʼ�����Щ�ʼ����ܵ���
վͨ������Ҫ��ӵ��һ��������ҳ�����û�и�����ҳ�Ļ�ֻ��Ϊ�����������ˣ����Ҵ���
Ҳ�ܵ����ֻ�У���Ԫ��
�ڴˣ�������������һ���µ���վ�����վ��Ĵ�������˵�ǵ�ĿǰΪֹ����֪����վ
�д�����ߵ��ˣ�������Ժ�ÿ����һ�����Ѽ���Ϳ��Ի��12.5��Ԫ�����Ҳ���Ҫ��
����ҳ����ֻҪ�ڼ����������������ѽ���Ϳ����ˣ�
�����վ������Ҫ����Ҫ�˽����߹����������ǰ������д������Ҳ�ܼ�����
����ѡ����и���ɽ�ʰԻ��߶����쳵�����ˣ�
�����������վ���������ע��
http://www.targetshop.com/users/level1.asp?refId=130959
�������ܿ�ͻᱻ����Ϊ��Ա�ģ���Ϊ�����վ��Ҫ���˽��ܵģ������������ٶȾͻ�
����Ҫ���Ϻü��죡�����������ޣ��ȵ�������300��֮��Ͳ������ӻ�Ա�ˣ����Ի��Ǿ�
�춯�ְɣ�
���Ÿ��������վ����ϸ˵����һ�ݹ����ο���
����1000��Ԫ���밴���в���������
1�����ע�����Targetshop�������۹�˾����Ϊ�ù�˾�Ļ�Ա��
2������������Ƽ���80λ���ϵ����ѣ�ÿ����һλ�»�Ա����˾�ά����12.5��Ԫ��
��Ȼ��ҹ�˾Ҳ���Ƿ�������ģ����ֻ�ܸ�����1000��Ԫ��
�������5��31��ǰ�Ƽ��Ļ�Ա�������ڹ�˾��ǰ300����������1000��Ԫ��
����5000��Ԫ!!!
3���������վ���������ע�ᡣ
http://www.targetshop.com/users/level1.asp?refId=130959
ע�Ἴ�ɣ�
1������ע����ҳ����Ӣ�İ���ʵ�����д����˾��֧Ʊ���㸶�
ע����һ�����Ƽ��˵Ļ�Ա�룬�����Ƽ���������д�˱�ʱ��һ�б�����Ļ�Ա��
2����˾�ᷢ�Ÿ��㣬�����ϵ�Ҫ���ٴη���վ�㣬��дһ����ѯ����
3���ڹ�˾����ĵڶ������У��㽫�õ�һ����Ա��,������ʽ���롣
�����һ�α�ʾǸ�⣬�������ˣ��������뻹��������Ҫ��������Ϣ�ģ��Ͼ�12.5��
Ԫ����һ����ͨ�ϰ�����˵����һ��С��Ŀ�������Ҿ�ð��������������ţ�������������
������һЩ��Ӣ�ĵ�ַ���ձ������Է�����д
********************************************************************************
��ɽ��ʾ���´�37��403��
Room 403,No.37,SiFan Residential Quarter,BaoShan District
�����������·125Ū34��201��
Room 201,No.34,Lane 125,XiKang Road(South),HongKou District
473004����ʡ����������·42�� ������
Zhou Wangcai
Room 42��
Zhongzhou Road��Nanyang City��
Henan Prov.China 473004
434000����ʡ�����к�Է��Ƶ� ������
Zhou Wangcai
Hongyuan Hotel,
Jingzhou city,
Hubei Prov. China 434000
473000���������а�һ·272���ظֹ�˾ ������
Zhou Wangcai
Special Steel Corp��No.272��
Bayi��Road��Nanyang City��
Henan Prov. China 473000
528400�㶫��ɽ�ж�����ﻨ7��702 ������
Zhou Wangcai
Room 702, 7th Building,
Hengda Garden, East District,
Zhongshan, China 528400
361012����ʡ�������������������34��601�� ������
Zhou Wangcai
Room 601, No.34 Long Chang Li,
Xiamen, Fujian, China 361012
361004���Ź����ܹ�˾��ŵ�� ������
Mr. Zhou Wangcai
Cheng Nuo Ban, Gong Jiao Zong Gong Si
Xiamen, Fujian, China 361004
266042ɽ��ʡ�ൺ�п�ƽ·53�Ź����ij�������1��¥2��Ԫ204���� ������
Mr. Zhou Wangcai
NO. 204, A, Building NO. 1,
The 2nd Dormitory of the NO. 4 State-owned Textile Factory,
53 Kaiping Road, Qingdao,
Shandong, China 266042
266211ɽ���ൺ��ī�����ѧ��ѧ�? ������
Zhou Wangcai
Mathematics Section
The NO. 5 Middle School of Jimo,
Jimo, Qingdao, Shandong,
China
----- 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 |
I have a network with about 200 local smtp users who put the mail to a
qmail server.
If the destination is local al works fine.
qmail deliver the mail ok
When a smtp user send mail to the qmail server and the destination is
not local, qmail refused the mail and a message is send to the sender.
I want al local smtp users put outgoing mail to the qmail server and
qmail take forward this mail to my ISP.
With qmail-inject local on the qmail server al works fine.
How can i setup qmail to accept all local mail en forward this too my
ISP
greetings, met vriendelijke groet
marco leeflang
Hello,
I am using qmail with serialmail for smtp queues. When I create a queue
using the targets IP address everything works fine, I can push the mail out
and the target can initiate the transfer by connecting to the SMTP port on
my server.
For readability and manageability I would prefer to create the queues by
hostname, however when I do this the target can no longer initiate the
transfer, although I can still push mail to them when they are up.
I realise this is more a serialmail question than qmail, but can anyone
advise me how to get round this?
Cheers,
Tom
