qmail Digest 13 May 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 639
Topics (messages 25466 through 25525):
qmail-popup/qmail-pop3d logging patch?
25466 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25468 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25470 by: Lars Uffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25474 by: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25480 by: Lars Uffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25481 by: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25500 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25510 by: Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AutoTURN Startup Script Problem
25467 by: Logics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25472 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25473 by: Logics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25477 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail and multiple interfaces
25469 by: "Claudiu Balciza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25492 by: Michael Graff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Could someone help, please?
25471 by: "Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simple SMTP question
25475 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25482 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Startup line for qmail-smtpd and autoturn
25476 by: Logics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fundamental flaws in List-Unsubscribe
25478 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25522 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
how to delete messages from queue ?
25479 by: Stephen Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25486 by: "Alex at Star" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
General mail/dial-up question
25483 by: "Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25484 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25487 by: "Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
interesting bounce
25485 by: Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25488 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25491 by: Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Somebody please help!
25489 by: "Damir Cosic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
25490 by: "DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25493 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25496 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25521 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rcpthosts
25494 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25497 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25502 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25509 by: Wilson Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
a question on repacking queue
25495 by: olli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25498 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
More Info (was Re: rcpthosts)
25499 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25501 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25503 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25504 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
forwarding question
25505 by: "Praniti Lakhwara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[PATCH] MAIL FROM:... 2nd. ed
25506 by: Jason Welsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
setting relay clients
25507 by: Wilson Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25508 by: Wilson Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25523 by: "Oden Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25524 by: Matthew Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Q: Is it possible to bind 2 diffrent qmail instances on 2 diffrent network interfaces
25511 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-queue _exit(61) when run by root
25512 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is the double bounce's envelope sender wrong?
25513 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Q] qmail speed "again"
25514 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
trouble opening info/8/
25515 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25525 by: Petri Kaukasoina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail 2.0
25516 by: Gary Barnden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Embedded linefeed epidemic
25517 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OFMIP drives me crazy
25518 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail/serialmail queue names
25519 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is this normail? (qmail-rspawn)
25520 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[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 Wed, 12 May 1999, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Dan Peterson wrote:
>
> > hi. at www.qmail.org(/top.html), there is a mention of a patch to
> > qmail-popup and qmail-pop3d to make the log stuff to splogger, but the link is
> > broken (it points to http://www.pharos.com.au/mbp/). anyone have any idea
> > where i can pick this patch up? any help would be greatly appreciated! :)
>
> I do have a logger patch but it's broken. AFAIK it's a waste of time to
It would be sweet to be able to log bad passwords when people try to get
their mail like cistron radius does when they are trying to dial in. Tha
treally provides a powerful tool to tech support to get right to the heart
of a problem.
andy
At 5:48 am -0500 12/5/99,the wonderful Andy Walden wrote:
>It would be sweet to be able to log bad passwords when people try to get
>their mail like cistron radius does when they are trying to dial in.
Paul Gregg's version of Checpassword does that
http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/
peter.
--
peter at gradwell dot com; http://www.gradwell.com/
gradwell dot com Ltd. Enabling the internet you don't see.
** Cheap and easy ecommerce: http://www.gradwell.net/ **
Balazs Nagy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Dan Peterson wrote:
>
> > hi. at www.qmail.org(/top.html), there is a mention of a patch to
> > qmail-popup and qmail-pop3d to make the log stuff to splogger, but the link is
> > broken (it points to http://www.pharos.com.au/mbp/). anyone have any idea
> > where i can pick this patch up? any help would be greatly appreciated! :)
>
> I do have a logger patch but it's broken. AFAIK it's a waste of time to
> talk about logging qmail-pop* until we cannot do logging with tcpserver.
> The problem is:
>
> supervise tcpserver qmail-popup 2>&1 | {some logger}
>
> This tcpserver opens stderr to print its log messages and opens a pipe to
> stdin-stdout for qmail-popup's connection. In fact there isn't a way to do
> logging right now.
> --
> Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
Try commenting out line 91 in qmail-popup.c:
91 /* if (fd_copy(2,1) == -1) die_pipe(); */
92 close(3);
93 if (pipe(pi) == -1) die_pipe();
94 if (pi[0] != 3) die_pipe();
95 switch(child = fork()) {
96
Now checkpasswords and qmail-pop3d's SDTERR should go where tcpservers
STDERR
goes. Set a environment variable in qmail-popup, say LOGID to provide
a session wide unique tag to use in the popup -> checkpassword -> pop3d
pipeline.
-- lars
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Lars Uffmann wrote:
> Balazs Nagy wrote:
> >
> > This tcpserver opens stderr to print its log messages and opens a pipe to
> > stdin-stdout for qmail-popup's connection. In fact there isn't a way to do
> > logging right now.
>
> Try commenting out line 91 in qmail-popup.c:
>
> 91 /* if (fd_copy(2,1) == -1) die_pipe(); */
Why DJB put this line in? If you run this program from command line, 0,1,2
are open. If you run from inetd, it dups 2 and 1 fom 0 (eg. 2 is alive).
Tcpserver does a good emulation of command line. I don't know why this line
exists in the code.
> Now checkpasswords and qmail-pop3d's SDTERR should go where tcpservers
> STDERR goes. Set a environment variable in qmail-popup, say LOGID to
> provide a session wide unique tag to use in the popup -> checkpassword ->
> pop3d pipeline.
Sounds reasonable.
Error catch points:
login, stat, commands: qmail-pop3d
bad passwords: checkpassword
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
Balazs Nagy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 May 1999, Lars Uffmann wrote:
>
> > Balazs Nagy wrote:
> > >
> > > This tcpserver opens stderr to print its log messages and opens a pipe to
> > > stdin-stdout for qmail-popup's connection. In fact there isn't a way to do
> > > logging right now.
> >
> > Try commenting out line 91 in qmail-popup.c:
> >
> > 91 /* if (fd_copy(2,1) == -1) die_pipe(); */
>
> Why DJB put this line in? If you run this program from command line, 0,1,2
> are open. If you run from inetd, it dups 2 and 1 fom 0 (eg. 2 is alive).
> Tcpserver does a good emulation of command line. I don't know why this line
> exists in the code.
>
>
To be compatible with inetd qmail-popup HAS to dup STDERR 2 STDIN.
If you will patch checkpassword/pop3d to log to STDERR, you will no
longer
be able to run them from inetd, because the log messages would be
redirected
to the mail client. The same with qmail-smtpd. I guess this is one
reason
qmail-smtpd does no logging at all.
-- lars
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Lars Uffmann wrote:
> Balazs Nagy wrote:
>
> > Why DJB put this line in? If you run this program from command line,
> > 0,1,2 are open. If you run from inetd, it dups 2 and 1 fom 0 (eg. 2 is
> > alive). Tcpserver does a good emulation of command line. I don't know
> > why this line exists in the code.
>
> To be compatible with inetd qmail-popup HAS to dup STDERR 2 STDIN. If you
> will patch checkpassword/pop3d to log to STDERR, you will no longer be
> able to run them from inetd, because the log messages would be redirected
> to the mail client. The same with qmail-smtpd. I guess this is one reason
> qmail-smtpd does no logging at all.
But you should use tcp-env to run qmail-popup and you should open a pipe to
a logger (esp. the stderr fd) which can be specified in command line. Other
solution: use errorsto(daemontools).
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
Lars Uffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| To be compatible with inetd qmail-popup HAS to dup STDERR 2 STDIN.
Or, it can be called from a trivial wrapper that does the dup for it.
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 02:30:28PM -0400, Scott Schwartz wrote:
> Lars Uffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | To be compatible with inetd qmail-popup HAS to dup STDERR 2 STDIN.
>
> Or, it can be called from a trivial wrapper that does the dup for it.
actually, what about a syslog solution? i tried adding a syslog()
call to checkpassword, but when i did that it stopped working for some
reason (compiled fine, but authorization failed for everyone). i just want
something similar to cucipop logging...for successful connects, it shows the
username, how many messages they have (and size), and how many they
downloaded during their POP session. that would be cool!
-dan
`--- dan peterson [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] http://erinyes.net
`-- network engineer, digitaldune networks -- yuma, az
`- (520) 344-1110 -- http://www.digitaldune.net
Hi,
I've just setup a new brand new box (very overspec'ed just for a relay
box). Its job is purely to feed our smtp customers there mail, so i've
installed qmail and ucpsi and serialmail. It says this:
3. Replace
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
with
sh -c '
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
cd /var/qmail/autoturn
exec setlock -nx $TCPREMOTEIP/seriallock \
maildirsmtp $TCPREMOTEIP autoturn-$TCPREMOTEIP- $TCPREMOTEIP AutoTURN
This does not work i've tried everything the lines in the script its
replacing are the following:
sh -c "start-stop-daemon --start --quiet \
--exec /usr/bin/tcpserver -- \
-S -u 71 -g 65534 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp \
/usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | logger -t qmail -p mail.notice &"
echo "."
How can I get AutoTURN activated with the above?
Thanks,
Chris
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:17:11PM +0100, Logics wrote:
Unless there's a typo, you're missing a closing quote (') in your
qmail-smtpd invocation, and that might cause a problem. Other than that, it
looks just fine to me.
> Hi,
>
> I've just setup a new brand new box (very overspec'ed just for a relay
> box). Its job is purely to feed our smtp customers there mail, so i've
> installed qmail and ucpsi and serialmail. It says this:
>
> 3. Replace
>
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> with
>
> sh -c '
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> cd /var/qmail/autoturn
> exec setlock -nx $TCPREMOTEIP/seriallock \
> maildirsmtp $TCPREMOTEIP autoturn-$TCPREMOTEIP- $TCPREMOTEIP AutoTURN
>
> This does not work i've tried everything the lines in the script its
> replacing are the following:
>
> sh -c "start-stop-daemon --start --quiet \
> --exec /usr/bin/tcpserver -- \
> -S -u 71 -g 65534 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp \
> /usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | logger -t qmail -p mail.notice &"
> echo "."
>
> How can I get AutoTURN activated with the above?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
that was a cut and paste problo :)
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:17:11PM +0100, Logics wrote:
>
> Unless there's a typo, you're missing a closing quote (') in your
> qmail-smtpd invocation, and that might cause a problem. Other than that, it
> looks just fine to me.
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just setup a new brand new box (very overspec'ed just for a relay
> > box). Its job is purely to feed our smtp customers there mail, so i've
> > installed qmail and ucpsi and serialmail. It says this:
> >
> > 3. Replace
> >
> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> >
> > with
> >
> > sh -c '
> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > cd /var/qmail/autoturn
> > exec setlock -nx $TCPREMOTEIP/seriallock \
> > maildirsmtp $TCPREMOTEIP autoturn-$TCPREMOTEIP- $TCPREMOTEIP AutoTURN
> >
> > This does not work i've tried everything the lines in the script its
> > replacing are the following:
> >
> > sh -c "start-stop-daemon --start --quiet \
> > --exec /usr/bin/tcpserver -- \
> > -S -u 71 -g 65534 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp \
> > /usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | logger -t qmail -p mail.notice &"
> > echo "."
> >
> > How can I get AutoTURN activated with the above?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
>
> --
> System Administrator
> See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
>
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 01:31:00PM +0100, Logics wrote:
Then perhaps some more information from the logs would help. Also, have you
tried to run maildirsmtp manually, to see if it works OK?
> that was a cut and paste problo :)
> On Wed, 12 May 1999, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:17:11PM +0100, Logics wrote:
> >
> > Unless there's a typo, you're missing a closing quote (') in your
> > qmail-smtpd invocation, and that might cause a problem. Other than that, it
> > looks just fine to me.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Given some multiple interfaced machine, I would like to know how can I
restrict the qmail to send messages only on one of them.
The real situation is that one interface has real ip address while the
others can reach out through masquerade.
Some mail servers use to check up the existence of the source host. This
fails on masqueraded addreses.
Any hints ?
Claudiu
"Claudiu Balciza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given some multiple interfaced machine, I would like to know how can I
> restrict the qmail to send messages only on one of them.
> The real situation is that one interface has real ip address while the
> others can reach out through masquerade.
> Some mail servers use to check up the existence of the source host. This
> fails on masqueraded addreses.
> Any hints ?
If you are using NetBSD, I have patches to set the machine's "default"
outgoing IP address. It is machine wide, though.
I suppose someone could add a change to qmail to tell it what IP
address to try to bind to...
--Michael
Hi all
System: SUSE Linux, qmail 1.03
Is it possible to set up qmail in such a fashion that it routes messages for certain
recipients, eg. to my address [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to our normal mail server inside the
LAN -whose IP address is in smtproutes- but directly to another host?
Strangely enough qmail already routes a message addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to the host named mail-gwia...
Thanks
Ralf
This is a simple SMTP question but I'm not sure if it's defined the same for
all SMTP servers.
Let's say I have a system with a dynamically allocated IP address and I also
have dynamic DNS set up to point foo.com at it. Now a record always exists
for foo.com but the system may not always be online because I may bring the
system down for maintenance. If mail is sent at this time it will wait in
the queue - but does it wait until the IP address comes back up or until foo.com
comes back up? The reason I ask is that if I then bring the machine back up
again it may not get the same address but whatever it gets the DNS server will
be updated with the new IP.
Any pointers would be useful. Thanks
--
Matthew Harrell Bill Gates is only a white Persian
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC cat and a monocle away from being
[EMAIL PROTECTED] the villain in a James Bond movie.
: > This is a simple SMTP question but I'm not sure if it's defined the same for
: > all SMTP servers.
:
: It looks to me to have more to do with DNS...
Well, I knew what the DNS servers did, but I was mainly curious as to whether
the SMTP server cached the address the first time it looked it up and used the
address when it next tried to deliver or whether the name was used the next
time.
: > Let's say I have a system with a dynamically allocated IP address and I also
: > have dynamic DNS set up to point foo.com at it. Now a record always exists
:
: (Please use example.com, foo.com actually does exist. Example.com has
: been reserved for examples, such as this.)
Point taken. I didn't know that.
: The moral of the story is this isn't 100% reliable; use small TTLs for
: this to minimize lossage. If you used, for example, a 1 second TTL, you'd
: have a very small window of loss, but almost every reference to your
: machine would require a DNS lookup, with an "adverse" effect on connecting
: to you.
:
: I wouldn't have a mail server depending on a dynamic IP address. Let
: someone else who's always connected catch your mail for you and suck it
: from them on your schedule.
It was just going to be on a temporary basis, but thanks. I think that mostly
answers my questions.
--
Matthew Harrell You're just jealous because the
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC voices only talk to me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Can anybody who is using autoturn please email there full startup line for
tcpserver, qmail-smtpd.
Thanks,
Chris.
On Wed, 12 May 1999 10:53:32 +0200 (MET DST), Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>> What the MUA should do is find the most recent subscription confirmation
[...]
>Murphy's laws, this means some change WILL happen.) What happens if the
>instructions in the most recent message the user has received (!= the most
>recent message sent) are out of date? :)
Even worse, what makes you think that the MUA the subscriber uses for
the unsubscribe attempt has access to [or has ever had access to] the
most recent subscription confirmation?
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Fred Lindberg writes:
> It should come with posts, as the info may change.
If the information changes, there should be a new confirmation message.
There's lots of useful stuff in a confirmation message. The user should
be able to immediately pull up the latest confirmation message for each
list. Trying to cram the same information into the header of every
mesasge is counterproductive.
---Dan
For viewing and removing messages from a qmail queue I use qmHandle (Perl
script), it used to be on the main qmail page, but the link has
disappeared. Maybe this will help you out.
http://www.io.com/~mick/soft/qmhandle.html
Cheers,
Steve
>
> | "there are some messages waiting in the queue for a long time.
> | how can I delete them ?"
>
> | You can bounce them immediately by a sort of backwards FAQ 7.3: Just
> | make the message older than one week (GNU touch is handy for this).
>
> | - Harald
>
> I tried this (eg touch -d 1-jan-1999 /var/qmail/queue/mess/15/26902) and
> also restarted qmail (for luck) but the file is still there. I also checked
> the log - sure enough, it had tried to send but failed:
>
> May 12 08:34:14 1999 926494454.122750 delivery 17: deferral:
> Sorry,_I_wasn't_abl
> e_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
>
> What am I doing incorrectly?
>I tried this (eg touch -d 1-jan-1999 /var/qmail/queue/mess/15/26902) and
>also restarted qmail (for luck) but the file is still there. I also checked
>the log - sure enough, it had tried to send but failed:
>
>May 12 08:34:14 1999 926494454.122750 delivery 17: deferral:
>Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
>
>What am I doing incorrectly?
(answering my own question)
I was touching the wrong file:
touch -d 1-jan-1999 /var/qmail/queue/info/15/26902
works fine
__________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all viruses by the Star Screening System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
__________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all viruses by the Star Screening System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
I know this isn't qmail specific and I apologize, but I know a LOT of people
on this list will know the answer. I have looked through several RFCs
(probably the wrong ones!) and still can't find a definite confirmation of
how I think this works. (Can anyone recommend a good overview of the email
system? I am, of course, waiting on the qmail book too!)
The setup: Dial-up access is provided on one linux box. qmail is running
on another. Both boxes have permanent connections to the internet through
the LAN. Almost all dial-up users use Windoze for connecting and reading
e-mail - if that matters.
My very fuzzy understanding of how this works: Windoze connects to the
dial-up server and uses the dial-up server's port 25 to connect to the qmail
server's port 25 to send/receive mail. Is that it, or am I missing the big
picture - again?
The point of this (other than the joy of figuring out how it works :) is
that they now want to limit some users to sending and receiving e-mail only.
If I understand correctly, I just need to find a way to limit those users to
accessing only port 25 of the dial-up server. ?
TIA
-wade
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 09:38:18AM -0500, Wade wrote:
> My very fuzzy understanding of how this works: Windoze connects to the
> dial-up server and uses the dial-up server's port 25 to connect to the qmail
> server's port 25 to send/receive mail. Is that it, or am I missing the big
> picture - again?
Too bad. Try again.
The users connect thru the dial-up server (which is completely transparent
to them) to port 25 on the qmail server to _send_ mail. They get their
incoming mail thru POP3 (port 110 on the qmail server).
> The point of this (other than the joy of figuring out how it works :) is
> that they now want to limit some users to sending and receiving e-mail only.
> If I understand correctly, I just need to find a way to limit those users to
> accessing only port 25 of the dial-up server. ?
And port 110, if you want them to get their mail too :)
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognikz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
Duh... That's what I started out thinking, and I let someone convince me
that 25 was bi-directional and handled both on a LAN. Excuse me while I go
Snipe hunting. :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> The users connect thru the dial-up server (which is
> completely transparent
> to them) to port 25 on the qmail server to _send_ mail. They get their
> incoming mail thru POP3 (port 110 on the qmail server).
So do the connections actually go through ports 25 and 110 on the dial-up
server to connect to ports 25 and 110 on the mail server? I assume the
dial-up server sees a request to send/receive mail using a certain server
and then makes the appropriate connections. But since it's transparent to
the requesting program, does it still have to use the same ports? For some
reason I've always had trouble understanding the "port" concept. Almost as
bad a trying to figure out which direction electricity flows in! :)
-wade
no comment
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 29893 invoked from network); 12 May 1999 11:26:25 -0000
Received: from kerberos2.troja.mff.cuni.cz (195.113.28.3)
by argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz with SMTP; 12 May 1999 11:26:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 15788 invoked from network); 12 May 1999 11:26:24 -0000
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
by argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz with SMTP; 12 May 1999 11:26:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 204 invoked for bounce); 12 May 1999 11:25:58 -0000
Date: 12 May 1999 11:25:58 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at muncher.math.uic.edu.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
ezmlm-send: fatal: this message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line
(#5.4.6)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 7267 invoked from network); 12 May 1999 11:25:57 -0000
Received: from chromium.singnet.com.sg (HELO chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg)
(165.21.74.3)
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 12 May 1999 11:25:57 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft
SMTPSVC;
Wed, 12 May 1999 19:24:44 +0800
Received: from xenon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.26]) by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1875.115.11);
Wed, 12 May 1999 16:53:03 +0800
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (muncher.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181])
by xenon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id QAA28370
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:54:17 +0800 (SST)
Received: (qmail 9426 invoked by uid 1002); 12 May 1999 08:53:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 28074 invoked from network); 12 May 1999 08:53:14 -0000
Received: from kerberos2.troja.mff.cuni.cz (195.113.28.3)
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 12 May 1999 08:53:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 13870 invoked from network); 12 May 1999 08:53:32 -0000
Received: from argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz (195.113.28.11)
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 12 May 1999 08:53:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 27801 invoked by uid 501); 12 May 1999 08:53:32 -0000
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:53:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fundamental flaws in List-Unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 May 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> What the MUA should do is find the most recent subscription confirmation
> from the SOS list, and follow the instructions in _that_ message. This
> is why I proposed putting a List-ID field into every message; it lets
> the MUA reliably keep track of the latest information for each list.
I can't resist the temptation...
What happens when List-ID is out of date? (Even if changing the id is
strongly discouraged, nothing in the world can prevent it. According to
Murphy's laws, this means some change WILL happen.) What happens if the
instructions in the most recent message the user has received (!= the most
recent message sent) are out of date? :)
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"NSA GCHQ KGB CIA nuclear conspiration war weapon spy agent... Hi Echelon!"
Actually, it's completely uninteresting. It's the typical mail-loop
prevention message that you'll get from qmail. It happens whenever
someone tries to download mail from a server using POP3, and deliver
the mail by re-injecting it. Works fine whenever the RFC822 addresses
match the RFC821 addresses, which they never do for mailing lists.
-russ
Pavel Kankovsky writes:
> no comment
> Received: from mail pickup service by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft
>SMTPSVC;
> Wed, 12 May 1999 19:24:44 +0800
> Received: from xenon.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.26]) by chromium.mcis.singnet.com.sg
> with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1875.115.11);
> Wed, 12 May 1999 16:53:03 +0800
> Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (muncher.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181])
> by xenon.singnet.com.sg (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id QAA28370
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:54:17 +0800 (SST)
--
-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 12 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Actually, it's completely uninteresting. It's the typical mail-loop
> prevention message that you'll get from qmail. It happens whenever
> someone tries to download mail from a server using POP3, and deliver
> the mail by re-injecting it. Works fine whenever the RFC822 addresses
> match the RFC821 addresses, which they never do for mailing lists.
What was interesting was the fact both recipient and sender envelope
address were fabricated. Sender address fabrication is quite unusual
because the correct value is supposed to be available in Return-Path.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"NSA GCHQ KGB CIA nuclear conspiration war weapon spy agent... Hi Echelon!"
I am running Red Hat 5.2 and tried to replace sendmail with qmail but
experienced some problems. Installation went pretty smoothly, but when it
came to test, it failed.
Well, maybe failure is not correct word, since I didn't get an error
message, but I didn't get what I expected either. I tried to send mail
locally, as described in TEST.receive, by telnet to port 25, but I never got
anything in the Mailbox. Now, as I said, no error messages in maillog, but
delivery - success field is incomplete. Here are messages from maillog:
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.365457 new msg 471059
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.365600 info msg 471059: bytes 208
from <> qp 680 uid 7791
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.456627 starting delivery 2: msg
471059 to local @hal.utah-inter.net
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.456721 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.457687 delivery 2: success:
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.457768 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 8 11:51:03 localhost qmail: 926185863.457829 end msg 471059
Then I tried remote-to-local test, it failed too, but this time with an
error message:
May 8 12:38:25 localhost qmail: 926188705.179383 new msg 471059
May 8 12:38:25 localhost qmail: 926188705.179510 info msg 471059: bytes
1106 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1961 uid 7791
May 8 12:38:25 localhost qmail: 926188705.270538 starting delivery 4: msg
471059 to remote dcosic@localhost
May 8 12:38:25 localhost qmail: 926188705.270639 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
May 8 12:38:25 localhost qmail: 926188705.926201 delivery 4: failure:
Sorry._Although_I'm_listed_as_a_best-preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_isn't_in_my_control/locals_file,_so_I_don't_treat_it_as_local._(#5.4.6)/
May 8 12:38:25 localhost qmail: 926188705.926338 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 8 12:38:26 localhost qmail: 926188706.041654 bounce msg 471059 qp 1963
May 8 12:38:26 localhost qmail: 926188706.041985 end msg 471059
After this followed message about bounce mail, which was sent successfully.
Well I don't what else to say or what else information could help solving
this problem. During installation I followed instructions from INSTALL.*
files. Only thing that I did other then just a simple installation is
masquerading host name. Host name is
al.utah-inter.net and utah-inter.net is my ISP's domain. One more thing. I
don't know if qmail-local is supposed to be running all the time, but when I
run ps, I get this:
367 ? S 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
366 ? S 0:00 splogger qmail
369 ? S 0:00 qmail-clean
368 ? S 0:00 qmail-rspawn
355 ? S 0:00 qmail-send
Well that's all. On the end of the file I included output from qmail-showctl
if you need to know more about qmail configuration. I hope somebody can help
me solve this problem. I don't feel like using
hotmail any more!
Thanks.
Damir
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
silent concurrency limit: 120.
subdirectory split: 23.
user ids: 7790, 7791, 7792, 0, 7793, 7794, 7795, 7796.
group ids: 2108, 2107.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON.
bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is hal.utah-inter.net.
concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10.
concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
defaultdomain: (Default.) Default domain name is hal.utah-inter.net.
defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is hal.utah-inter.net.
doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: hal.utah-inter.net.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is hal.utah-inter.net.
helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is hal.utah-inter.net.
idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is hal.utah-inter.net.
localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes hal.utah-inter.net.
locals: (Default.) Messages for me are delivered locally.
me: My name is hal.utah-inter.net.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
plusdomain: (Default.) Plus domain name is hal.utah-inter.net.
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts: (Default.) SMTP clients may send messages to any recipient.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No rcpthosts; morercpthosts is irrelevant.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 hal.utah-inter.net.
smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes.
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:
Virtual domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
What do you think of that ???
As I complained to sorena (the editor of ZMailer) of errors 500 generated
when there was a connection in between Qmail and Zmailer, here was their
answer... Any idea ?
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
>
>yep, it is definite, QMAIL violates RFC 2197, and should *NOT* claim
>support for PIPELINING.
>
>MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BODY=8BITMIME
>RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>250 ok
>250 ok
>
>After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT To:",
>but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after "RCPT To:"
>processing.
>/Matti Aarnio
>
>
>
============================================================
We aim at delivering high specification products at very
competitive prices.
For all your filters, resonators, oscillators and rubidium
clocks, think TEMEX Time & Frequency.
/-----------------------+------------------------------\
| | TEMEX Time & Frequency |
| TTTTTT TTTTTT FFFFFF | C.Q.E. |
| TT TT FF | 2, rue Robert Keller |
| TT TT FFFF | 10150 Pont-Sainte-Marie |
| TT TT FF | France |
| TT TT FF | tel : +33 (0)3 25 76 45 00 |
| | fax : +33 (0)3 25 80 34 57 |
\-----------------------+------------------------------/
For more details, please :
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or visit our web site http://www.tekelec-temex.com
"DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What do you think of that ???
I don't believe it.
>>yep, it is definite, QMAIL violates RFC 2197, and should *NOT* claim
>>support for PIPELINING.
>>
>>MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BODY=8BITMIME
>>RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>250 ok
>>250 ok
>>
>>After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT To:",
>>but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after "RCPT To:"
>>processing.
>>/Matti Aarnio
I conducted a simple pipelining test with three RCPT's and a DATA, and
it worked fine as far as I can tell. Matti may have a point, but he's
failed to make it.
-Dave
On Wed, 12 May 1999, DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E. wrote:
What do you think of that ???
As I complained to sorena (the editor of ZMailer) of errors 500 generated
when there was a connection in between Qmail and Zmailer, here was their
answer... Any idea ?
Matti is definitely wrong. I just ran my own pipelining test, 1000
RCPT entries, two messages, all sent in a single i/o operation.
Worked fine.
He's probably doing something silly, like not waiting for the
responses to complete, or not using canonical line termination or
something (I've done both of those before, with predictable
results).
-- Jeff Hayward
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
>
>yep, it is definite, QMAIL violates RFC 2197, and should *NOT* claim
>support for PIPELINING.
>
>MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BODY=8BITMIME
>RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>250 ok
>250 ok
>
>After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT To:",
>but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after "RCPT To:"
>processing.
>/Matti Aarnio
>
>
>
============================================================
We aim at delivering high specification products at very
competitive prices.
For all your filters, resonators, oscillators and rubidium
clocks, think TEMEX Time & Frequency.
/-----------------------+------------------------------\
| | TEMEX Time & Frequency |
| TTTTTT TTTTTT FFFFFF | C.Q.E. |
| TT TT FF | 2, rue Robert Keller |
| TT TT FFFF | 10150 Pont-Sainte-Marie |
| TT TT FF | France |
| TT TT FF | tel : +33 (0)3 25 76 45 00 |
| | fax : +33 (0)3 25 80 34 57 |
\-----------------------+------------------------------/
For more details, please :
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or visit our web site http://www.tekelec-temex.com
DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E. writes:
> What do you think of that ???
I think that patches are a support nightmare. What you're using isn't
qmail, so don't call it qmail, and don't ask the qmail list for help.
---Dan
Ok, I sort of asked this question before, but I'm going to try again, this
time with a little more info.
I try to use fetchmail to download mail from another server. While running
fetchmail, it dies saying "fetchmail: can't even send to user!" (user
being whoever I'm logged in as. Later, I received an email to my localhost
from the "fetchmail-daemon" saying "Some addresses were rejected by the
MDA fetchmail sends to" with a Diagnostic-Code: user: 533 sorry, that
domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1).
What do I need to do to get around this?
THanks,
Jason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Ok, I sort of asked this question before, but I'm going to try again, this
>time with a little more info.
Good idea. :-)
>I try to use fetchmail to download mail from another server. While running
>fetchmail, it dies saying "fetchmail: can't even send to user!" (user
>being whoever I'm logged in as. Later, I received an email to my localhost
>from the "fetchmail-daemon" saying "Some addresses were rejected by the
>MDA fetchmail sends to" with a Diagnostic-Code: user: 533 sorry, that
>domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1).
>
>What do I need to do to get around this?
You still haven't given enough information. What's in rcphosts,
locals, and your .fetchmailrc (less passwords, of course)? How about a
sample of one of those fetchmail-daemon bounces, including the
complete header?
-Dave
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:41:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ok, I sort of asked this question before, but I'm going to try again, this
> time with a little more info.
>
> I try to use fetchmail to download mail from another server. While running
> fetchmail, it dies saying "fetchmail: can't even send to user!" (user
> being whoever I'm logged in as. Later, I received an email to my localhost
> from the "fetchmail-daemon" saying "Some addresses were rejected by the
> MDA fetchmail sends to" with a Diagnostic-Code: user: 533 sorry, that
> domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1).
>
> What do I need to do to get around this?
Put the domain in your list of allowed rcpthosts. By not including your own
domain name in rcpthosts, you're telling qmail-smtpd that you don't want to
receive mail addressed to addresses in your domain.
Chris
There is a Newbie's guide to relaying that answers questions relating to this problem.
All people with the rcpthosts problem should read it.
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html
Also FAQ point #5.4 is most important for using tcp-wrappers and inetd
On Wednesday, May 12, 1999 6:09 PM, Dave Sill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >Ok, I sort of asked this question before, but I'm going to try again, this
> >time with a little more info.
>
> Good idea. :-)
>
> >I try to use fetchmail to download mail from another server. While running
> >fetchmail, it dies saying "fetchmail: can't even send to user!" (user
> >being whoever I'm logged in as. Later, I received an email to my localhost
> >from the "fetchmail-daemon" saying "Some addresses were rejected by the
> >MDA fetchmail sends to" with a Diagnostic-Code: user: 533 sorry, that
> >domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1).
> >
> >What do I need to do to get around this?
>
> You still haven't given enough information. What's in rcphosts,
> locals, and your .fetchmailrc (less passwords, of course)? How about a
> sample of one of those fetchmail-daemon bounces, including the
> complete header?
>
> -Dave
Hi.
If I need to repack & immediately send mail I should killall -ALRM
qmail-send. I do this then I got dialup user that wish to get mail via
smtp. But what about big ISPs that have many dialup clients & a big spool?
Is it possible anyhow (I know that it is possible w/ sendmail) not to
repack all mail (say we have 100Mb spool w/ 10kb for a dialup user) , but only
that what should be sent to this dialup user? & next problem I've heared
about: if a dialup client that wish to get email via smtp is going to the
net (sometimes) with windows (w/o smtp server), then qmail rejects mail to
sender, but not defferring for later retry as it (AFAIK) should do. Is it
possible to fix this?
Bye.Olli.
olli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If I need to repack & immediately send mail I should killall -ALRM
>qmail-send. I do this then I got dialup user that wish to get mail via
>smtp. But what about big ISPs that have many dialup clients & a big
>spool?
You should use AutoTURN from the serialmail package. See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#serialmail
>... next problem I've heared
>about: if a dialup client that wish to get email via smtp is going to the
>net (sometimes) with windows (w/o smtp server), then qmail rejects mail to
>sender, but not defferring for later retry as it (AFAIK) should do. Is it
>possible to fix this?
What evidence do you have that this is actually happening? Do you have
an example bounce message?
-Dave
> You still haven't given enough information. What's in rcphosts,
> locals, and your .fetchmailrc (less passwords, of course)? How about a
> sample of one of those fetchmail-daemon bounces, including the
> complete header?
>
> -Dave
>
For the time being, my system only has a dialup connection, so all that's
in my rcpthosts and locals is localhost.localdomain. As far as the
.fetchmailrc, I'm actually just typing in it at the command line
"fetchmail -p POP3 -a -u user host.net".
As for the fetchmail bounce, I've attatched the complete message.
Thanks for being so patient,
Jason
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@localhost
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some addresses were rejected by the MDA fetchmail forwards to.
--om-mani-padme-hum-2139-2123-926460989
Content-Type: MESSAGE/DELIVERY-STATUS; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Description:
Reporting-MTA: dns; localhost
Final-Recipient: rfc822; jason
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:16:29 -0600 (MDT)
Action: failed
Status: j.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: jason: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
(#5.7.1)
--om-mani-padme-hum-2139-2123-926460989
Content-Type: TEXT/RFC822-HEADERS; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Description:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 May 99 17:15:00 -0500
Subject: co
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--om-mani-padme-hum-2139-2123-926460989--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>For the time being, my system only has a dialup connection, so all that's
>in my rcpthosts and locals is localhost.localdomain.
You should add "the-i.net" to rcphosts and put
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]:jason" in virtualdomains. Also, create a
~jason/.qmail-jasonf or ~jason/.qmail-default to catch messages routed
through the virtualdomain to jason-jasonf@localhost.
Fetchmail takes the messages out of your POP mailbox addressed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and re-injects them locally, so you need to tell
qmail to deliver them locally. Or perhaps you can tell fetchmail who
to deliver them to locally.
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As for the fetchmail bounce, I've attatched the complete message.
[ snip ]
>--om-mani-padme-hum-2139-2123-926460989
>Content-Type: MESSAGE/DELIVERY-STATUS; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Description:
>
>Reporting-MTA: dns; localhost
>
>Final-Recipient: rfc822; jason
>Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:16:29 -0600 (MDT)
>Action: failed
>Status: j.0.0
>Diagnostic-Code: jason: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Unless RFC1894 has been updated, recently, fetchmail's DSNs are horribly
broken. Write ESR and tell him to fix his buggy code.
--
Sam
> [ snip ]
>
> >--om-mani-padme-hum-2139-2123-926460989
> >Content-Type: MESSAGE/DELIVERY-STATUS; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> >Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Content-Description:
> >
> >Reporting-MTA: dns; localhost
> >
> >Final-Recipient: rfc822; jason
> >Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:16:29 -0600 (MDT)
> >Action: failed
> >Status: j.0.0
> >Diagnostic-Code: jason: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> > rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
>
> Unless RFC1894 has been updated, recently, fetchmail's DSNs are horribly
> broken. Write ESR and tell him to fix his buggy code.
>
> --
> Sam
>
Is that to say that there's not particularly wrong with my qmail
configuration? Is there some other way to recieve POP3 mail that will work
fine w/ qmail?
Jason
I have a question regarding forwarding. I ahve a mailing address set
up which is supposed to forward to 230 accounts. but when I ad dthe
230 email addresses in its forward to box...and submit it comes back
and says
Value for "flags" is too large
how do I set up teh FLAGS value to take all teh 230 accounts???
please advise
sorry to be ignorant, but how exactly do i install this patch?
It is supposed to stop spammage, right?
im using the rpms for qmail 1.03 from the main qmail web page.
--
=======================================================================
| Jason Welsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] | If you think there's |
| | good in everybody, you |
| http://welsh.dynip.com/ | haven't met everybody. |
=======================================================================
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> Hiyas,
>
> My second edition of MAIL FROM: checking is accessible3 from now from
> http://lsc.kva.hu/dl/qmail-1.03-mfcheck.2.patch
>
> BTW I think this can be very useful in the main qmail src too.
>
> About qmail-antispam4.patch: a patch must contain exactly one extension. In
> this patch some extensions are unneccessary or badly designed. Flames to
> me, please.
> --
> Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
>
>
>
I think this may be your problem. See the following from the man page for
hosts.allow ?
The access control software consults two files. The search
stops at the first match:
o Access will be granted when a (daemon,client) pair
matches an entry in the /etc/hosts.allow file.
ie You have set ALL for the 192.168.0.0 network which seems to indicate
that your host names on the next line will not get a look in. Why not put
your "ALL" catch line after the tcp-env line and see what happens ?
On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 9:08 AM, Jari Tenhunen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Wilson Fletcher wrote:
[...]
> Booting was unnecessary. hosts.{allow, deny} are read every time tcpd is
> executed ie. when a daemon is started by inetd. So the changes take place
> right away.
Sure I take your point but then it is working for me. I did have problems
but they were solved when I carefully reread the FAQ and made sure I
implemented everything exactly. As mentioned I did need to restart despite
what I thought about not needing to. This may be because inetd was not
-HUP'ing my qmail-smtp .... not sure ...
>
> Anyway, back to my problem.
> Has anyone succesfully configured selective relay with tcp_wrappers ??
> Or do I have to install tcpserver ??
YES, I have configured it and I have not used tcpserver. I used tcp
wrappers and inetd.
There are some notes in some FAQ or HOWTO (can't remember) about some
versions of linux shipping tcp wrappers but not having the necessary
options compiled in. Mine was fine though and I'm using RedHat 5.1
> > > qmail-smtpd to relay without reading rcpthosts... Do I have to
recompile
> > > tcp_wrappers or something ??
There is a note somewhere about needing to in some cases. Mine was fine
with RH5.1
> > > However, there seems to be something odd in the way
qmail-smtpd
> > > behaves: After putting "all: all:deny" into /etc/hosts.deny
My hosts.deny is empty. My hosts allow only has the tcp-env line in it. See
my note about about the order of your hosts.allow lines.
My configs:
inetd.conf:
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd
/var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
hosts.allow:
tcp-env: 192.168.1. , 192.168.2. , 192.168.3. ,: setenv=RELAYCLIENT
This is the only line my hosts.allow file contains (try it on it's own).
On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 1:15 PM, Dave Sill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Jari Tenhunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Has anyone succesfully configured selective relay with tcp_wrappers ??
>
> Yes, but it's not supported. One problem is that tcp_wrappers has to
> be built with a certain non-default option for it to work.
>
I don't know aht all the fuss is about. My RH5.1 version of tcp-wrappers works fine.
Hi,
> On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 1:15 PM, Dave Sill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Jari Tenhunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Has anyone succesfully configured selective relay with tcp_wrappers ??
> >
> > Yes, but it's not supported. One problem is that tcp_wrappers has to
> > be built with a certain non-default option for it to work.
> >
>
> I don't know aht all the fuss is about. My RH5.1 version of tcp-wrappers works fine.
Yes the Russ (or who ever) is wrong about this at the
www.qmail.org site, at least RH5.1-RH6 has tcp wrappers built "the
right way". I think Russ Nelson should update the info about this ?
--
Kindest Regards//Oden Eriksson CNE+MCSE
(Linux enthusiast)
UIN: 952113
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > I don't know aht all the fuss is about. My RH5.1 version of tcp-wrappers
> > works fine.
>
> Yes the Russ (or who ever) is wrong about this at the www.qmail.org
> site, at least RH5.1-RH6 has tcp wrappers built "the right way". I think
> Russ Nelson should update the info about this ?
That's not strictly true. RH5.0 shipped with a tcpd which would segfault
if a rule tried to set an environment variable. They released an update,
but then used the old, broken version for RH5.1, which earned another
update.
I believe that 5.2 and 6.0 have this OK, though.
The problem with the packages was that they were compiled with an option
which used a replacement getenv/setenv instead of the libc one (supposedly
to avoid broken libc's). Unfortunately, this code is (was?) buggy; I
couldn't find a case which _didn't_ make it segfault. Unless it has been
fixed, it's still fair to say that tcp_wrappers is broken, although it
works find with glibc-based Linux systems (and probably most others).
Matthew.
> Connected to 199.246.67.190 but my name was rejected./Remote host said: 501
> HELO requires a valid host name as operand: 'web1.cheetahmail.com' rejected
> from www.cheetahmail.com remote address [206.132.30.31]: Host name does not
> match remote address.
That server is violating RFC 1123, section 5.2.5. You can easily work
around the problem by putting www.cheetahmail.com into control/helohost.
(I'm considering changing the default HELO in qmail-remote in qmail 2.0
to use the bracketed IP address of the client.)
---Dan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The question is: why qmail-queue can access regularly /usr/local/qmail
> when called by a non-root account, but has permission problems when
> called by root?
Presumably because you're mounting the queue directory over NFS, in
violation of the requirements stated in conf-qmail. qmail, like
sendmail, needs a local UNIX filesystem for its queue.
---Dan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> However the choice of an "ilegal" address seems to me a little
> unfortunate, even more since it's hard coded.
The address #@[] complies with RFC 822. It's used for notifications to
the local postmaster. It isn't meant to be transmitted between machines.
---Dan
Marc Slemko writes:
> You put a limit of x connections in. One remote system uses all or
> nearly all of them. No one else can connect.
Wrong again. New connections continue to be accepted and added to the
kernel's (large) table of TCBs. Each of the old connections receives a
message from the remote client and is done within a few seconds, to be
replaced immediately by one of the new connections.
---Dan
Michael Legart writes:
> After our crashed this comes in our log:
> Apr 10 23:32:06 penguin qmail: 923779926.882161 warning: trouble opening
> info/0/306659; will try again later
> (and like 15 of them)
> What does this meen?
This probably means that you're using Linux and didn't mount your
mail-handling systems with synchronous metadata. See conf-qmail.
qmail, like sendmail and other MTAs, relies on certain guarantees
provided by the standard UNIX filesystem (Berkeley FFS, aka UFS). The
Linux filesystem, by default, does not provide those guarantees, and
does not necessarily keep your mail intact after a crash.
---Dan
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 04:16:34AM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> qmail, like sendmail and other MTAs, relies on certain guarantees
> provided by the standard UNIX filesystem (Berkeley FFS, aka UFS). The
> Linux filesystem, by default, does not provide those guarantees, and
> does not necessarily keep your mail intact after a crash.
I wrote a little shared library which should help qmail on Linux. I sent it
to the qmail list last summer and have been using it myself since that. If
someone would like to get it, it's now also in
ftp://elektroni.ee.tut.fi/pub/qmail_linux_metadata_message
>> Connected to 199.246.67.190 but my name was rejected./Remote host said: 501
>> HELO requires a valid host name as operand: 'web1.cheetahmail.com' rejected
>> from www.cheetahmail.com remote address [206.132.30.31]: Host name does not
>> match remote address.
>That server is violating RFC 1123, section 5.2.5. You can easily work
>around the problem by putting www.cheetahmail.com into control/helohost.
>(I'm considering changing the default HELO in qmail-remote in qmail 2.0
>to use the bracketed IP address of the client.)
>---Dan
And when would qmail 2.0 be arriving??
Gary Barnden
Network Engineer
Braenet Pty Ltd
Chris Johnson writes:
> I'm seeing more and more of qmail-smtpd exiting with status 256, which
> usually indicates that the remote host is trying to send mail with
> bare linefeeds.
Maybe, maybe not. I didn't realize anybody was trying to extract useful
information from the exit code of qmail-smtpd! There's one increasingly
common situation, having nothing to do with bare linefeeds, in which
qmail-smtpd will exit nonzero; this isn't something to worry about.
If you want to watch for particular error messages from qmail-smtpd, run
it under recordio. Make sure you filter the log appropriately---recordio
produces a lot of output.
---Dan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 12tocdbm < /etc/name.txt | /cdb-0.5/cdbmake /etc/name.cdb name.tmp
Don't do that. Use the ofmipname program in the mess822 package, and
make sure you pass /etc/name.cdb to ofmipd as a command-line argument.
---Dan
Note that there's a separate serialmail mailing list.
Tom Furie writes:
> For readability and manageability I would prefer to create the queues by
> hostname,
You can give the maildir whatever name you want, as long as you set up
an appropriate symbolic link from the IP address.
---Dan
Silver CHEN writes:
> qmailr 2244 0.0 9.1 24048 23684 p0- I 8:14PM 3:06.28 qmail-rspawn
No, it isn't normal. It shouldn't be possible for the RSS to go much
higher than a megabyte. Exactly what OS are you using?
---Dan
