qmail Digest 17 May 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 643
Topics (messages 25638 through 25651):
General mail/dial-up question
25638 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Q: Is it possible to bind 2 diffrent qmail instances on 2 diffrent network interfaces
25639 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25648 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail -ERR this users has no $HOME/Maildir
25640 by: Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Strange problem with header of outoing mails
25641 by: Kaspar Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25642 by: Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25645 by: Kaspar Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
setting relay clients
25643 by: Jari Tenhunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25644 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail deployment / global address books
25646 by: "d. divine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IP in qmail-popup's argument
25647 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paternalism?
25649 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25650 by: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25651 by: Anand Buddhdev <[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, May 12, 1999 at 10:20:58AM -0500, Wade wrote:
> 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! :)
The dialup-server is just a dumb machine that looks at the destination IP
in the packets your SMTP connection is made of. It forwards these packets
to the correct IP. _that_ IP then starts looking at the port to see what to
do with it.
Ofcourse, if you configure your dial-up machine to allow people only access
to port 25 on the mailserver, the dial-up machine will _look_ at the port
[and throw the packet away if it's not 25 or 110], but it will not actually
_do_ anything with the port. That's still just passed on straight to the
mailserver.
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 |
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 03:35:08AM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > 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.)
How much of a standard is that?
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 |
On Sun, May 16, 1999 at 12:24:05PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > 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.)
>
> How much of a standard is that?
RFC821:
HELO <SP> <domain> <CRLF>
<domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain>
<element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]"
<dotnum> ::= <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum>
<snum> ::= one, two, or three digits representing a decimal
integer value in the range 0 through 255
Therefore,
HELO [199.103.176.41]
looks like it is acceptable.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 11:10:38AM -0600, New Hope Hostmaster wrote:
> I've finally got the checkpasswd authorization to work, but not it's not
> finding the $Home/Maildir.
>
> I have put a Maildir in all the placing I think it may look, using the
> qmail-makedir whatever command, but still no luck.
>
> So, how do I change/find out the value of $HOME, so I can change it, or make
> the necessary directories?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter Janett
how are you running qmail-popup in inetd.conf? when you telnet to the POP
port, does it say <XXXXX.XXXXXX@checkpassword>? if so, you might be having
the same problem i was having. here's my line from inetd.conf:
pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd
/usr/sbin/qmail-popup hostname checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir
(this should be all on one line)
in the man page, it just says to use qmail-popup <hostname> ... in
inetd.conf, but that gave me the <XXXXXX.XXXXX@checkpassword> weirdness and
the $HOME/Maildir error. i decided to try putting /usr/sbin/tcpd in front of
it, and all of my problems went away. it now shows <XXXX.XXXXX@hostname> and
works wonderfully. :) now only if it did some logging...
HTH,
-dan
`--- dan peterson [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] http://erinyes.net
`-- network engineer, digitaldune networks -- yuma, az
`- (520) 344-1110 -- http://www.digitaldune.net
Hi all.
I�m currently experiencing a strange problem with the header of outgoing
mails. I�m using qmail in a UUCP-only environment (ie. that i all mails
and news are sent and received via UUCP) and have it configured
accordingly. The strange thing is that apparently, somewhere, the header
of each mail which is sent out is being changed from the original and
correct form to an incorrect form.
Here�s an example: The following represents a mail as found in the
outgoing spool directory which has been sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the UUCP
site) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (shell account).
--- cut here ---
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 7015 invoked by uid 500); 16 May 1999 14:15:09 -0000
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:15:09 +0200
From: Kaspar Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i
--- cut here ---
This looks all fine and everything is correct (btw, are uppercase letters
allowed in mail addresses? Which is the RFC i�d have to look this up in?).
Now, this mail is sent out of the outgoing uucp queue via my uucp uplink
(unlisys or unlisys.snafu.de or unlisys.unlisys.net (aliases)) to my shell
account [EMAIL PROTECTED] And now look at the header of *the same* mail once
it�s been arrived at [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- cut here ---
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 16 16:31:25 1999
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:31:25 +0200
Received: from unlisys.snafu.de ([194.64.64.23] helo=mail.unlisys.net)
by www.inx.de with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
id 10j1wq-0007JW-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 16 May 1999 16:31:24 +0200
Received: by mail.unlisys.net (Smail3.2.0.96inx)
id <m10j1wq-00vEqwC>; Sun, 16 May 1999 16:31:24 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (qmail 7015 invoked by uid 500); 16 May 1999 14:15:09 -0000
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:15:09 +0200
From: Kaspar Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 0
Lines: 0
--- cut here ---
This looks pretty messed up. First, there is "From [EMAIL PROTECTED]" and
"Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]". At least the return path should be
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" because that�s my mail address. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does
not exist! (Btw, "Ukl" is my UUCP login on my uucp uplink. I wonder how
it got there.)
And then the "Received" part looks also a bit odd and confusing to me.
Therefore, i�d be glad if someone could tell me what�s probably going on
here and how i can fix that. Because with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as
Return-Path, i can�t even subscribe to the qmail mailing list (doh).
I don�t understand why parts of the header such as the Return-Path (which
is quite important) are being changed from the original mail which is
perfectly correct. And what is changing them? qmail? Or the MTA on my uucp
uplink (i suppose the latter)?
Any hints would be appreciated.
Bye, Kasi
PS: I set up UUCP according to point 2.3. in the qmail FAQ and since the
mail arrives correctly in the outgoing queue, i assume that this part
has been done correctly.
--
Kaspar Landsberg, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kaspar Landsberg wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> This looks pretty messed up. First, there is "From [EMAIL PROTECTED]" and
> "Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]". At least the return path should be
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" because that�s my mail address. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does
> not exist! (Btw, "Ukl" is my UUCP login on my uucp uplink. I wonder how
> it got there.)
> PS: I set up UUCP according to point 2.3. in the qmail FAQ and since the
> mail arrives correctly in the outgoing queue, i assume that this part
> has been done correctly.
Try leaving out the -f option to preline. Your uucp uplink needs a From
line, I suppose.
Stefan
Hi,
On Sun, May 16, 1999 at 07:23:49PM +0200, Stefan Paletta wrote:
| Try leaving out the -f option to preline. Your uucp uplink needs a From
| line, I suppose.
hmm, now i get this:
--- cut here ---
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun May 16 21:06:03 1999
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:06:03 +0200
Received: from unlisys.snafu.de ([194.64.64.23] helo=mail.unlisys.net)
by www.inx.de with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
id 10j6Ec-0001au-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 16 May 1999 21:06:02 +0200
Received: by mail.unlisys.net (Smail3.2.0.96inx)
id <m10j6Ec-00vEroC>; Sun, 16 May 1999 21:06:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (qmail 7706 invoked by uid 500); 16 May 1999 19:09:04 -0000
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:09:04 +0200
From: Kaspar Landsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test
--- cut here ---
Looks a bit better but i'm still unsure whether replies sent to me using
the above Return-path would arrive correctly.
Would they? :)
Bye, Kasi
--
Kaspar Landsberg, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
After playing around with different configurations I found out that
selective relay using tcp-wrappers works fine with RH5.2 but not with
RH6.0.
However, it's weird that I can't find the reason why RH6.0 isn't
compatible with setenv. I installed RH5.2 tcp-wrappers rpm on a RH6.0 box
but qmail-smtpd still didn't accept any relay clients. I guess some
libraries have changed causing this odd behaviour.
Should this be reported to RedHat Software ??
--
Jari Tenhunen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stardate [-30]2988.69
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Jari Tenhunen wrote:
>
> After playing around with different configurations I found out that
> selective relay using tcp-wrappers works fine with RH5.2 but not with
> RH6.0.
> However, it's weird that I can't find the reason why RH6.0 isn't
> compatible with setenv. I installed RH5.2 tcp-wrappers rpm on a RH6.0 box
> but qmail-smtpd still didn't accept any relay clients. I guess some
> libraries have changed causing this odd behaviour.
>
> Should this be reported to RedHat Software ??
Unless you can provide more documentation than that, such as the specific
reason why tcpwrappers validation is failing, Red Hat will simply ignore
your report.
This may be off the wall for this mailing list but it's the information I'm
lacking to deploy qmail. It also seems to be the least referenced item on
the net.
Deploying qmail as an alternative to the traditional Novell or Microsoft
solutions what tools are available to centrally create and manage global
address books for company networks. Specifically:
1. What common global address book administration programs are being used,
including ones compatible with Outlook clients.
2. Are there any that integrate with the Unix/Linux user creation to reduce
administration (using scripts or program interface).
3. Use alias names for local network deliveries.
4. Allow simple creation of distribution lists by the administrator with
internal and external addresses.
I'd appreciate pointers to any programs, books, or references that are
available.
thanks
d. divine
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 10:24:13AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>From the source, it appears that the "hostname" is not given any special
treatment. It is simply used to create qmail-popup's initial greeting. So
you should be able to use a hostname, an IP address, or any string. I tried
it with a string of "hello.there" and it worked fine.
> Can one use it, or need FQDN?
>
> Thx
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
I was looking at the output of qmail-showctl on my system today. What is
paternalism?
$ qmail-showctl | grep pater
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
$
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> I was looking at the output of qmail-showctl on my system today. What is
> paternalism?
>
> $ qmail-showctl | grep pater
> paternalism (in decimal): 2.
> $
What patches did you apply to qmail and what are you smoking?
--
Andre
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
Oops. Unpatched qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD-3.1-RELEASE. I was looking at the
output of qmail-showctl, and didn't understand what paternalism means:
$ qmail-showctl
qmail home directory: /usr/local/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
silent concurrency limit: 120.
subdirectory split: 23.
user ids: 69, 70, 71, 0, 72, 73, 74, 75.
group ids: 70, 71.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
[further output snipped]
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
