qmail Digest 3 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 717
Topics (messages 28454 through 28487):
Internet draft for VERP
28454 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
M$ Exchange -> qmail
28455 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28456 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28459 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28466 by: Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28468 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28469 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28471 by: "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28472 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28474 by: Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28487 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
delivery question
28457 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28458 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28460 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver
28461 by: "kingman.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28462 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can I do this with qmail?
28463 by: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28477 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
unable to exec qq
28464 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28483 by: "Rob Baham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
your mail
28465 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28475 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28476 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28478 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.
28467 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildirsmptd
28470 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Starting supervise from Digital Unix's rc3 files at bootup.
28473 by: Jim Arnott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[vmailmgr] imap with vmailmgr ? (...imp)
28479 by: Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
imap3d / pop3d giving connection closed w/ tcpserver
28480 by: Adam H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2 qmail-pop3d
28481 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28485 by: Frederik Lindberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildirsmtp
28482 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
question on AUTOTURN
28484 by: Goh Sek Chye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcprules: fatal
28486 by: Diana Dewi <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Schwartz writes:
> If you don't want to fix the problem,
There is no problem. qmail is working exactly as designed. It provides
this feature with a minimum of fuss.
> If sendmail or postfix did that, you'd flame about it constantly.
Your trolling is not welcome here, Scott. Go away.
---Dan
I read the other 4 replies to your original message. It sounds like you
are asking if the Exchange server (rather it be Exchange, Outlook97, 98,
2000, or another Exchange MAPI client) can connect to the Qmail server.
If you are using Exchange MAPI protocols. No.
Exchange works by a client making a direct connection to the Exchange
server. Where every click, drag-n-drop, and open is directly on the
server.
Now, if you want to get rid of MAPI (Calender, Address books, Tasks lists,
Scheduler, Notes and more), then you can switch to Qmail. You would
configure your clients to use 'Internet Mail' instead of Exchange Server
Extensions. This will remove their 'sharability' for the above features.
I don't think the president of a company that is used to using Lotus Notes,
Exchange, or Novell clients to switch to a 'non-sharing a schedules'
platform such as 'pop3/smtp'.
And you are correct, Exchange does not use SMTP to talk to other servers.
It uses X.400 pad's format, which Qmail has no idea how to handle.
Now, you could keep the Exchange servers up and running in the back end.
Then configure the mail to first route to the Qmail server. Where the
Qmail server will forward/re-route the mail to the correct Exchange box.
This will free up the load on the Exchange servers.
Regards,
Eric Duncan
Ps, why does your NT Server need rebooting? My Exchange servers have been
up for 102 days (last upgrade of the service packs). They have 512megs of
ram with an avarage of 100 to 150megs free on a network of 4,000 employees
world wide. Seems stable enough for me and I wouldn't switch to Qmail from
Exchange (the president would kill me). Even though I love Qmail for
email, pop3/smtp just does not have the resources and features of an
Exchange network. Humm, maybe someone should write one for the Internet.
And a RFC to go with it. So programs such as Pine, Mutt and others can
share calenders and such. On a Unix platform, that would be smoking!
President.and.CEO
The.Public.Network
http://www.thepublic.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Olivier M. writes:
> I have a friend which has an Microsoft Exchange Mail server ("main" server)
> always connected to the internet, and there are a few (about 10)
> other MS-Exchange servers which are connecting directely to the main
> mailserver every hour using ISDN-dialin (ppp).
>
> Now, we'd like to replace the NT server with a linux/qmail server, which
> will most probably need fewer reboots. Problem : the other client servers
> will still use Exchange : will the communication between the systemes
> work fine ?
>
> I guess that an Exchange server don't simply use STMP to communicate
> with another exchange server. What kind of protocol is it, and is it
> possible to emulate it using qmail tools ? I looked on the qmail
> homepage and in some other places, and didn't found much details
> about that : maybe you know a little bit more ? I'm just looking
> for some more docs (url...) and why not qmail/exchange configuration
> examples.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Olivier, with soon one more unix server :)
>
> PS: btw, when will the O'Reilly Qmail book be for sale ? :)
Exchange can use SMTP, but only as a simple delivery/receiving of mail.
Hence the term Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. It can not be setup custom
like Qmail by any means.
In the Exchange's routing, you may be able to configure the domain mask to
change on SMTP outbound. Which means you may could route to different
Qmail servers. But it is no where near as versitile as Qmail.
Regards,
Eric Duncan
President.and.CEO
The.Public.Network
http://www.thepublic.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Neumann writes:
> "Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I guess that an Exchange server don't simply use STMP to communicate
> > with another exchange server. What kind of protocol is it, and is it
> > possible to emulate it using qmail tools ? I looked on the qmail
> > homepage and in some other places, and didn't found much details
> > about that : maybe you know a little bit more ? I'm just looking
> > for some more docs (url...) and why not qmail/exchange configuration
> > examples.
>
> I'm not an expert on M$ Exchange by any means, but I know
> for sure that Exchange can run an SMTP server for itself,
> and this is where you can hook up to. Just have all customer
> mail delivered into Maildirs on your new qmail machine
> (one Maildir per customer), then you can use a small program
> to fetch the mail using POP3 from the qmail machine to the
> Windows machines running Exchange, where you re-inject them
> into the local SMTP server offered by Exchange. I do the
> same for a bunch of customers running Lotus Notes SMTP
> servers behind dialup lines.
> I think Exchange can also use ETRN to tell another SMTP
> server that it wants it to send queued mail, but ETRN
> is even worse, being incredibly insecure and qmail doesn't
> support it w/o a patch anyway, so stay away from it.
>
> -t
>
Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think Exchange can also use ETRN to tell another SMTP
>server that it wants it to send queued mail, but ETRN
>is even worse, being incredibly insecure
Not true. TURN is incredibly insecure, because it feeds messages back
over an unverified connection, but ETRN is as secure any other SMTP
exchange. Basically, it's just telling a server "hey, if you've got
any mail for host X, you should try sending it now".
>and qmail doesn't
>support it w/o a patch anyway, so stay away from it.
qmail+serialmail supports AutoTURN, which is like ETRN, but doesn't
require the remote site to send an ETRN command.
-Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I think Exchange can also use ETRN to tell another SMTP
> >server that it wants it to send queued mail, but ETRN
> >is even worse, being incredibly insecure
>
> Not true. TURN is incredibly insecure, because it feeds messages back
> over an unverified connection, but ETRN is as secure any other SMTP
> exchange.
Yes, exactly as secure as any other SMTP command, which is
a nice way to say 'not secure at all'.
ETRN, on servers that support it, is part of a normal, unverified
SMTP session. What verification capabilities do you see in ETRN as
defined in RFC1985? It would at least be pseudo-secure if the domain
name given as parameter of the ETRN command would be the FQDN to
connect to for sending the queues content and the ETRN capable MTA on
the server side would open a separate connection to that given host,
but this is not the case (and can not be, as RFC1985 section 5 says
the given domain is allowed to resolve to only an MX, hence is allowed
to lack an A record and therefore maybe can not be connect()'ed to).
The domain supplied with ETRN is only to tell the server which
elements of its queue it should send to the client.
> Basically, it's just telling a server "hey, if you've got
> any mail for host X, you should try sending it now".
Yes, and it will send it over the already running SMTP session
in which the ETRN command was issued. So what keeps me away
from telnet'ing to some SMTP server that I know does ETRN for
domain foo.bar.com and shoot a 'ETRN foo.bar.com' at it and
it will happily send me all of foo.bar.com's mails?
> qmail+serialmail supports AutoTURN, which is like ETRN, but doesn't
> require the remote site to send an ETRN command.
This is true, but it only works iff your dialup clients have static IP
addresses.
-t
On 2 Aug 1999, Thomas Neumann wrote:
> Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >I think Exchange can also use ETRN to tell another SMTP
> > >server that it wants it to send queued mail, but ETRN
> > >is even worse, being incredibly insecure
> >
> > Not true. TURN is incredibly insecure, because it feeds messages back
> > over an unverified connection, but ETRN is as secure any other SMTP
> > exchange.
>
> Yes, exactly as secure as any other SMTP command, which is
> a nice way to say 'not secure at all'.
>
> ETRN, on servers that support it, is part of a normal, unverified
> SMTP session. What verification capabilities do you see in ETRN as
> defined in RFC1985? It would at least be pseudo-secure if the domain
> name given as parameter of the ETRN command would be the FQDN to
> connect to for sending the queues content and the ETRN capable MTA on
> the server side would open a separate connection to that given host,
ETRN DOES require the server to open a NEW SMTP connection to the domain
that is being transferred. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETRN AND TURN.
Please go back and reread the RFCs. ETRN IS secure.
RFC 1985, Section 3, third paragraph:
"The security loophole is avoided by asking the server to start a new
connection aimed at the specified client."
> but this is not the case (and can not be, as RFC1985 section 5 says
> the given domain is allowed to resolve to only an MX, hence is allowed
> to lack an A record and therefore maybe can not be connect()'ed to).
> The domain supplied with ETRN is only to tell the server which
> elements of its queue it should send to the client.
>
> > Basically, it's just telling a server "hey, if you've got
> > any mail for host X, you should try sending it now".
>
> Yes, and it will send it over the already running SMTP session
> in which the ETRN command was issued. So what keeps me away
> from telnet'ing to some SMTP server that I know does ETRN for
> domain foo.bar.com and shoot a 'ETRN foo.bar.com' at it and
> it will happily send me all of foo.bar.com's mails?
NO!!!! ETRN tells the mail server to resend the mail for the specified
domain using a NEW SMTP connection (normal queue processing). It
SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS using the existing SMTP connection. You are
confusing ETRN with TURN.
>
> > qmail+serialmail supports AutoTURN, which is like ETRN, but doesn't
> > require the remote site to send an ETRN command.
>
> This is true, but it only works iff your dialup clients have static IP
> addresses.
>
>
> -t
>
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> > Basically, it's just telling a server "hey, if you've got
> > any mail for host X, you should try sending it now".
>
> Yes, and it will send it over the already running SMTP session
> in which the ETRN command was issued.
No it won't. It starts a new SMTP session, originated by the server.
The SMTP session is basically one way traffic. You open it, you
stuff all your mails and commands and the other side just sighs
"250 ok" or "550 bugger off". If you want mails coming to you, you
tell the other side to open a new connection.
> So what keeps me away
> from telnet'ing to some SMTP server that I know does ETRN for
> domain foo.bar.com and shoot a 'ETRN foo.bar.com' at it and
> it will happily send me all of foo.bar.com's mails?
... only the fact that it wouldn't work.
> This is true, but it only works iff your dialup clients have static IP
> addresses.
No; with a moderate amount of hacking (aren't there scripts on
www.qmail.org) you can kick SMTP after verifying some shared
secret - like POP3 password. You can kick maildir2smtp from any
network-listening program basically... The amount of security is in
your hands, as usually happens in Un*x world.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN6XZWlMwP8g7qbw/EQJHHACgtVgeO89+YqYAlA7XhS0WZlALyxAAoNOi
TBO8MTWBUowriNLnYEdw+N/y
=GmGc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 12:41:31PM -0400, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> ETRN DOES require the server to open a NEW SMTP connection to the domain
> that is being transferred. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETRN AND TURN.
> Please go back and reread the RFCs. ETRN IS secure.
>
> RFC 1985, Section 3, third paragraph:
>
> "The security loophole is avoided by asking the server to start a new
> connection aimed at the specified client."
>
> > but this is not the case (and can not be, as RFC1985 section 5 says
> > the given domain is allowed to resolve to only an MX, hence is allowed
Could you clarify one thing for me:
If I am [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I want to get all mail for
victim.org, what would happen in the following scenario:
I have root privliges for attacker.org, and for the purpose of attack
I will accept mail destined for victim.org.
I issue an ETRN command, with the @host extention, and wait for email
to come to my mailboxes at attacker.org.
I don't see any restrictions in the rfc regarding how host selection
happens, so I infer from the rfc that it's based on the 'helo'. Is
this right? Does ETRN work this way?
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 12:41:31PM -0400, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> > ETRN DOES require the server to open a NEW SMTP connection to the domain
> > that is being transferred. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETRN AND TURN.
> > Please go back and reread the RFCs. ETRN IS secure.
> >
> > RFC 1985, Section 3, third paragraph:
> >
> > "The security loophole is avoided by asking the server to start a new
> > connection aimed at the specified client."
> >
> > > but this is not the case (and can not be, as RFC1985 section 5 says
> > > the given domain is allowed to resolve to only an MX, hence is allowed
>
> Could you clarify one thing for me:
>
> If I am [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I want to get all mail for
> victim.org, what would happen in the following scenario:
>
> I have root privliges for attacker.org, and for the purpose of attack
> I will accept mail destined for victim.org.
>
> I issue an ETRN command, with the @host extention, and wait for email
> to come to my mailboxes at attacker.org.
>
> I don't see any restrictions in the rfc regarding how host selection
> happens, so I infer from the rfc that it's based on the 'helo'. Is
> this right? Does ETRN work this way?
No, destination selection is done using DNS or using the override
mechanism on the SERVER. (for qmail, this would be
/var/qmail/control/smtproutes). You can do whatever you wish on
attacker.org and unless you can hi-jack the DNS or in my case, get root
access to the server, you will NEVER receive the mail for ANY of my ETRN
customers.
ETRN says attempt to resend the mail for domain now. It says NOTHING
about where to send it. The server is expected to use its normal queue
processing to send the mail (ie. normal destination IP determination;
normal SMTP communication - new connections, not the existing one; etc.)
>
>
> --
> The 5 year plan:
> In five years we'll make up another plan.
> Or just re-use this one.
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
"Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This is true, but it only works iff your dialup clients have static IP
> > addresses.
>
> No; with a moderate amount of hacking (aren't there scripts on
> www.qmail.org) you can kick SMTP after verifying some shared
> secret - like POP3 password.
Yes, of course, and I've already written such a program that is in use
on our server, based on a shared MD5-encoded secret just like APOP.
All I meant to say is that serialmail and the AutoTURN mechanism
as shipped and as documented in the distribution by DJB himself
relies on static IP addresses for security. Nobody keeps you away
from spicing it up with some homegrown add-ons, just like I
(and I guess you as well) have done.
And now the circle closes and we are just where we started. The
required 'moderate amount of hacking to kick of SMTP' can be
avoided by use of a POP3-based fetchmail-like tool on the M$-Exchange
machine that stuffs each mail into Exchange's SMTP server after
it got it via POP3. This combines the already existing password
security offered by POP3 (preferrably APOP) with the advantage of
not having to 'kick SMTP' on the qmail machine. That was my point
from the start and that's why I suggested the POP3-ish way of
doing it. A further advantage is that a homegrown custom way
of verifying a shared secret and kicking SMTP will most likely
be non-standard (because of its home-grown nature) while you
can stay safe in RFC-land if you go the POP3 route.
-t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> If I am [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I want to get all mail for
> victim.org, what would happen in the following scenario:
>
> I have root privliges for attacker.org, and for the purpose of attack I
> will accept mail destined for victim.org.
>
> I issue an ETRN command, with the @host extention, and wait for email to
> come to my mailboxes at attacker.org.
>
> I don't see any restrictions in the rfc regarding how host selection
> happens, so I infer from the rfc that it's based on the 'helo'. Is
> this right? Does ETRN work this way?
No it doesn't. It just says "reprocess mail for victim.org sitting in
the queue". The other side then goes to DNS (or smtproutes) and
delivers accordingly.
It means that unless you can spoof DNS for victim.org, this
scenario is safe. (And if you can, you can steal the mail without
ETRN as well.)
The only "problem" is possible DoS scenario (since anyone can
issue ETRN, he can saturate the other side with queue runs) - or
even this-is-gonna-cost-you if the link between server and victim is
on-demand and expensive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN6an4lMwP8g7qbw/EQK0cQCfeIqfQwSjSd98X2Dtaynz9niA7rEAnRBT
l7BfMSt1zVj6Y0JKipI5OjAL
=RzRE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Almost a 'yes' certainly. In the line:
> 933356713.821501 starting delivery 95162: msg 298536 to local
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This says that the msg has already been accepted by smtpd and it is queued
as number 298536. And this message # is to be delievered to a local
location. Most likely the user userb's lcoation. Where depending on what
is in the .qmail file is what it will do next.
> 933356713.821579 status: local 1/120 remote 0/120
> 933356713.945498 delivery 95162: success: did_1+0+0/
> 933356713.968847 status: local 0/120 remote 0/120
> 933356713.969326 end msg 298536
In order:
1) We have 1 in local queue.
2) Read the .qmail file and delivered as such without errors
3) We have 0 in local queue.
4) Nothing else to do (via the .qmail file). Done with message.
Even though the log is a good help to see if it was delivered or not, it
can't always be trusted. But if there are errors Qmail can detect (via the
.qmail file or other means), it will display them here.
So all in all, it is most likely the message was delivered correctly.
Regards,
Eric Duncan
President.and.CEO
The.Public.Network
http://www.thepublic.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Van Liedekerke Franky writes:
> Hi,
>
> when I see in my qmail logfile the line:
>
> 933356713.693024 info msg 298536: bytes 1566 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3602
> uid 1008
> 933356713.821501 starting delivery 95162: msg 298536 to local
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 933356713.821579 status: local 1/120 remote 0/120
> 933356713.945498 delivery 95162: success: did_1+0+0/
> 933356713.968847 status: local 0/120 remote 0/120
> 933356713.969326 end msg 298536
>
> Does this mean the mail has been succesfully inserted into the users
> maildir, or has been handed to another program that does the real delivery?
> In other words, does this give me 100% absolute certainty that the user has
> this mail in his maildir?
>
> Franky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Almost a 'yes' certainly.
No "almost".
>> 933356713.945498 delivery 95162: success: did_1+0+0/
This is the critical entry. It says there was one file delivery, zero
forwards, and zero program deliveries.
>Even though the log is a good help to see if it was delivered or not, it
>can't always be trusted.
If you're aware of situations where qmail logs incorrect information,
it's news to me. Please provide details.
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > 933356713.821579 status: local 1/120 remote 0/120
> > 933356713.968847 status: local 0/120 remote 0/120
>
> In order:
> 1) We have 1 in local queue.
> 3) We have 0 in local queue.
Um, no, it means that there is one current local delivery being
performed. Has nothing to do with the size of the local queue.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
I have installed tcpserver, I did read the FAQ with qmail to install
tcpserver. Everything on the local server works great but an outside server
gets it was unable to establish a smtp connection (4.4.1)
Any ideas.
Thanks in advance
Bob Ross
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
(http://www.surftheusa.net/ ) 600+
dial-up locations. Visit our website for
more information. Access Numbers have
been update July 29th, 1999
Division of R&R Services.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"kingman.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have installed tcpserver, I did read the FAQ with qmail to install
>tcpserver. Everything on the local server works great but an outside server
>gets it was unable to establish a smtp connection (4.4.1)
We'll need to see your tcpserver command line and the contents of your
tcpserver config files.
-Dave
I have happily been running qmail for over a year on our
main mail relay for over a year with zero problem.
Now I also got responsibility for an aix-4.3/sendmail host,
which I would like to convert to qmail.
As far I can see I can't, because of missing qmail features.
The features are (prioritiezed).
1) spam_friends support
That means that selected users, including postmaster, can
receive mail from blacklisted mail hosts. (Some bosses
want it).
And mail from .dk also must pass the blacklist checks.
2) reverse user aliases
Local users automatically have their from header rewritten
to their "official" email name, which is first.last.
(Yeah, I know ...). Boss demand.
3) sender domain check in rblsmtpd.
There is an unofficialt patch for qmail-smtpd, but none
for rblsmtpd.
imap and pop3 are also used, and many users use pine.
(I don't want to patch or support pine in any way).
I would like to use maildirs. Should i do double delivery,
maildir for qmail-pop3d and mailbox for the rest, or are
there better options? Which imap-maildir-patch is
supported on this mailing list (none I suppose).
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:43:04 +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote:
>imap and pop3 are also used, and many users use pine.
>(I don't want to patch or support pine in any way).
>I would like to use maildirs. Should i do double delivery,
>maildir for qmail-pop3d and mailbox for the rest, or are
>there better options? Which imap-maildir-patch is
>supported on this mailing list (none I suppose).
Pine does not support maildir, but the patch works well. Without
patching, you could use pinq from qmail to create a mbox from the
maildir on startup. Jucky solution - why not use the pine patch? I've
used pine 3.96 here with patch for some time - now the 4.10 one
mentioned second www.qmail.org. There is an imap there as well. Not
tried, but same library - so should work.
Sender domain check, i.e. "MAIL FROM: at the smtp level" or From:
header parsing if IMHO a frightful waste of resources, and a reason for
bouncing mail that is perfectly legitimate (albeit syntactically
flawed). Use rbl and relay.radparker.com instead. Those approaches make
sense.
Address rewriting: Set QMAILUSER/QMAILHOST correctly and get people to
configure their MTA correctly (memo from boss: I will fire everyone who
does not ...). I don't know how to rewrite e.g. From: headers with
qmail.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Which is exactly what the files say. I'm not sure where the nulls
>and trashed name are coming from...
Beats me. Could be an strace bug, I suppose.
>I'm sorry, I didn't mean the files above, I meant the files below (they were
>missing):
>control/defaulthost
>control/idhost
No, they're there in the same table:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#defaulthost
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#idhost
>... If I ran it as admin (default login) it told me:
>
>bash: ./qmail-queue: Operation not permitted
As someone else already pointed out, your operating system probably
doesn't allow normal users to run setuid binaries in world-writable
directories. Please remove the group and world write bits on
/var/qmail/bin and try again.
-Dave
The saga continues... (combining 2 messages)
> >I'm sorry, I didn't mean the files above, I meant the files below (they
> >were missing): control/defaulthost control/idhost
>
> No, they're there in the same table:
>
> http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#defaulthost
> http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#idhost
I noticed that after I posted it. I could have sworn I did a search for them and
came up empty...
>
> >... If I ran it as admin (default login) it told me:
> >
> >bash: ./qmail-queue: Operation not permitted
>
> As someone else already pointed out, your operating system probably
> doesn't allow normal users to run setuid binaries in world-writable
> directories. Please remove the group and world write bits on
> /var/qmail/bin and try again.
I did and it still won't run. :-( Still get:
bash: ./qmail-queue: Operation not permitted
I also reran "make check" and it didn't give me any error messages this time.
To Petr:
>What system (with what patches) are you running?
As in:
Cobalt Linux release 4.0 (Fargo) Kernel 2.0.34 on a mips
qmail 1.03, ucspi-tcp .84,
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd-wrapper (from life with qmail)
As far as I know there haven't been any patches applied yet. This was a pre-
installed Linux web-server, so I wasn't able to get my hands dirty setting it
up...
>BTW, paranoid as I am, I would consider everything inside
>/var/qmail/bin compromised, delete it and reinstall.
Is that as simple as rm -f the /var/qmail/bin directory and rerun 'make setup
check' from the source direcotry?
Again, thanks for the help and patience...
Rob
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SciTech Software, Inc.
505 Wall Street
Chico, CA 95928, USA
Voice: (530) 894-8400
Fax : (530) 894-9069
www : http://www.scitechsoft.com
But the problem then is that if a user uses "peter" with no domain then
the default /home/vpopmail/vpasswd is used. From the virtual domains
howto. The "real" username/passwords are located in /etc/passwd.
Is there a way to get vchkpw to look use /etc/passwd for an existing qmail
setup running pop3d? Or can vchkpw only go have virtual users/doamins?
IE f-tech.net is my "real" mail server but I want to add
"haven.k12-pa-us" and benesch.f-tech.net as virtual mail domains.
Thanks
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> vchkpw uses the same qmail-pop3d. All you have to do is change your
> startup script for qmail to remove the default 'checkpoppasswd' (or
> whatever it to called). Then insert the compiled program
> '/home/popusers/bin/vchkpw' in place of it. Here's my Qmail startup
> scripts from BEFORE and AFTER:
>
> Before:
>
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -c 20 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> thepublic.net /var/qmail/users/checkpoppasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir &
> ^- All on one line.
>
> (I know you can break this up, but why complex things?)
>
> See that I am using /var/qmail/users/checkpoppasswd? This is a modified
> checkpoppasswd that I have done.
>
> When you install vchkpw, all you do is change to:
>
> After:
>
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -c 20 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> thepublic.net /home/popusers/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
> &
> ^- All on one line.
>
> See. No mystery here. vchkpw is a different user authentication. vchkpw
> also re-writes several files in the /var/qmail/control/* directory.
> Including virtualdomains and rctphosts. So back them up before continuing.
> You can edit them later.
>
> vchkpw also rewrites the /var/qmail/users/assign file to it's format. So
> this means any passwords you might have stored here already will be gone.
> You can backup a copy of it and delete what you have. Then edit the
> directories later.
>
> That's basically the procedure for 'upgrading' to vchkpw. I use the
> default qmail-pop3d and smtpd. As well as Qmail's 4 daemon's running,
> hosting close to 200 domains now. It hasn't flinched. Not bad for a
> little program called Qmail and vchkpw. :)
>
>
> Eric Duncan
>
> President.and.CEO
> The.Public.Network
> http://www.thepublic.net
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Paul Farber writes:
>
> > hello all
> >
> > I'm tring to set up two qmail-pop3d daemons using tcpserver on a RH 5.2
> > box. I've modified the qmail-pop3d.init files and added the service
> > (vpop-3 108/tcp) and it starts up.
> >
> > I want to use vchpwd and qmailadmin to host more than one virtual domain.
> > The INSTALL and FAQ don't cover what to do when you are adding vchkpw and
> > still keep the original qmail-pop3d service running.
> >
> > Any advice?
> >
> > Paul D. Farber II
> > Farber Technology
> > Ph. 570-628-5303
> > Fax 570-628-5545
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
As quoted from vchkpw's FAQs:
"vchkpw is a collection of programs to automate creation and maintence of
non /etc/passwd virutal domain email and pop accounts for qmail
installations."
If you want 'user' to be able to login using /etc/passwd information, I
suspect you setup two Qmails.
I am not thinking too much about it, but you may just be able to run two
qmail-pop3d sessions. One using checkpoppassword and the other running
vchkpw's password. This would be binded to two different IPs.
Then you will have to edit your control/virtualdomains and user/assign
files to route the mail correctly for local users (using the same
qmail-smtpd running on one IP and port).
I would setup vchkpw to operate normally with virtual domains and hosts,
then try to get qmail-pop3d binded to another IP, editting the files, and
putting checkpoppasswd in place after vchkpw is working. This is because
vchkpw re-writes your control/* files (just some of them) and some files in
users/*. But it does not keep track of what's in there after it edits.
Therefore you want to edit the control/* and assign/* files after vchkpw is
installed and working because vchkpw will only add to/remove what you
add/remove via vchkpw's scripts.
Eric Duncan
President.and.CEO
The.Public.Network
http://www.thepublic.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Farber writes:
> But the problem then is that if a user uses "peter" with no domain then
> the default /home/vpopmail/vpasswd is used. From the virtual domains
> howto. The "real" username/passwords are located in /etc/passwd.
>
> Is there a way to get vchkpw to look use /etc/passwd for an existing qmail
> setup running pop3d? Or can vchkpw only go have virtual users/doamins?
>
> IE f-tech.net is my "real" mail server but I want to add
> "haven.k12-pa-us" and benesch.f-tech.net as virtual mail domains.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul D. Farber II
> Farber Technology
> Ph. 570-628-5303
> Fax 570-628-5545
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > vchkpw uses the same qmail-pop3d. All you have to do is change your
> > startup script for qmail to remove the default 'checkpoppasswd' (or
> > whatever it to called). Then insert the compiled program
> > '/home/popusers/bin/vchkpw' in place of it. Here's my Qmail startup
> > scripts from BEFORE and AFTER:
> >
> > Before:
> >
> > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -c 20 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> > thepublic.net /var/qmail/users/checkpoppasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> > Maildir &
> > ^- All on one line.
> >
> > (I know you can break this up, but why complex things?)
> >
> > See that I am using /var/qmail/users/checkpoppasswd? This is a modified
> > checkpoppasswd that I have done.
> >
> > When you install vchkpw, all you do is change to:
> >
> > After:
> >
> > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -c 20 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> > thepublic.net /home/popusers/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
> > &
> > ^- All on one line.
> >
> > See. No mystery here. vchkpw is a different user authentication. vchkpw
> > also re-writes several files in the /var/qmail/control/* directory.
> > Including virtualdomains and rctphosts. So back them up before continuing.
> > You can edit them later.
> >
> > vchkpw also rewrites the /var/qmail/users/assign file to it's format. So
> > this means any passwords you might have stored here already will be gone.
> > You can backup a copy of it and delete what you have. Then edit the
> > directories later.
> >
> > That's basically the procedure for 'upgrading' to vchkpw. I use the
> > default qmail-pop3d and smtpd. As well as Qmail's 4 daemon's running,
> > hosting close to 200 domains now. It hasn't flinched. Not bad for a
> > little program called Qmail and vchkpw. :)
> >
> >
> > Eric Duncan
> >
> > President.and.CEO
> > The.Public.Network
> > http://www.thepublic.net
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Farber writes:
> >
> > > hello all
> > >
> > > I'm tring to set up two qmail-pop3d daemons using tcpserver on a RH 5.2
> > > box. I've modified the qmail-pop3d.init files and added the service
> > > (vpop-3 108/tcp) and it starts up.
> > >
> > > I want to use vchpwd and qmailadmin to host more than one virtual domain.
> > > The INSTALL and FAQ don't cover what to do when you are adding vchkpw and
> > > still keep the original qmail-pop3d service running.
> > >
> > > Any advice?
> > >
> > > Paul D. Farber II
> > > Farber Technology
> > > Ph. 570-628-5303
> > > Fax 570-628-5545
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> >
>
vchkpw allows for authentication of /etc/passwd users in addition to
the vchkpw local users in /var/qmail/users/assign and for separate
virtual domain users (which are not in /etc/passwd)
none of the vchkpw programs should over wright anything currently
on the system, including the qmail control files or the current
contents of ~users/assign file.
If they do, it is a bug we don't know about and I will fix it.
be sure you get the latest vchkpw from http://www.inter7.com/vchkpw/
I've taken over development and maintence since Chris Johnson (the
orignal author) is busy with work.
There is also a vchkpw mailing list at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> As quoted from vchkpw's FAQs:
>
> "vchkpw is a collection of programs to automate creation and maintence of
> non /etc/passwd virutal domain email and pop accounts for qmail
> installations."
>
> If you want 'user' to be able to login using /etc/passwd information, I
> suspect you setup two Qmails.
>
> I am not thinking too much about it, but you may just be able to run two
> qmail-pop3d sessions. One using checkpoppassword and the other running
> vchkpw's password. This would be binded to two different IPs.
>
> Then you will have to edit your control/virtualdomains and user/assign
> files to route the mail correctly for local users (using the same
> qmail-smtpd running on one IP and port).
>
> I would setup vchkpw to operate normally with virtual domains and hosts,
> then try to get qmail-pop3d binded to another IP, editting the files, and
> putting checkpoppasswd in place after vchkpw is working. This is because
> vchkpw re-writes your control/* files (just some of them) and some files in
> users/*. But it does not keep track of what's in there after it edits.
> Therefore you want to edit the control/* and assign/* files after vchkpw is
> installed and working because vchkpw will only add to/remove what you
> add/remove via vchkpw's scripts.
>
> Eric Duncan
>
> President.and.CEO
> The.Public.Network
> http://www.thepublic.net
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Paul Farber writes:
>
> > But the problem then is that if a user uses "peter" with no domain then
> > the default /home/vpopmail/vpasswd is used. From the virtual domains
> > howto. The "real" username/passwords are located in /etc/passwd.
> >
> > Is there a way to get vchkpw to look use /etc/passwd for an existing qmail
> > setup running pop3d? Or can vchkpw only go have virtual users/doamins?
> >
> > IE f-tech.net is my "real" mail server but I want to add
> > "haven.k12-pa-us" and benesch.f-tech.net as virtual mail domains.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paul D. Farber II
> > Farber Technology
> > Ph. 570-628-5303
> > Fax 570-628-5545
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > vchkpw uses the same qmail-pop3d. All you have to do is change your
> > > startup script for qmail to remove the default 'checkpoppasswd' (or
> > > whatever it to called). Then insert the compiled program
> > > '/home/popusers/bin/vchkpw' in place of it. Here's my Qmail startup
> > > scripts from BEFORE and AFTER:
> > >
> > > Before:
> > >
> > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -c 20 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> > > thepublic.net /var/qmail/users/checkpoppasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> > > Maildir &
> > > ^- All on one line.
> > >
> > > (I know you can break this up, but why complex things?)
> > >
> > > See that I am using /var/qmail/users/checkpoppasswd? This is a modified
> > > checkpoppasswd that I have done.
> > >
> > > When you install vchkpw, all you do is change to:
> > >
> > > After:
> > >
> > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -c 20 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> > > thepublic.net /home/popusers/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
> > > &
> > > ^- All on one line.
> > >
> > > See. No mystery here. vchkpw is a different user authentication. vchkpw
> > > also re-writes several files in the /var/qmail/control/* directory.
> > > Including virtualdomains and rctphosts. So back them up before continuing.
> > > You can edit them later.
> > >
> > > vchkpw also rewrites the /var/qmail/users/assign file to it's format. So
> > > this means any passwords you might have stored here already will be gone.
> > > You can backup a copy of it and delete what you have. Then edit the
> > > directories later.
> > >
> > > That's basically the procedure for 'upgrading' to vchkpw. I use the
> > > default qmail-pop3d and smtpd. As well as Qmail's 4 daemon's running,
> > > hosting close to 200 domains now. It hasn't flinched. Not bad for a
> > > little program called Qmail and vchkpw. :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric Duncan
> > >
> > > President.and.CEO
> > > The.Public.Network
> > > http://www.thepublic.net
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Farber writes:
> > >
> > > > hello all
> > > >
> > > > I'm tring to set up two qmail-pop3d daemons using tcpserver on a RH 5.2
> > > > box. I've modified the qmail-pop3d.init files and added the service
> > > > (vpop-3 108/tcp) and it starts up.
> > > >
> > > > I want to use vchpwd and qmailadmin to host more than one virtual domain.
> > > > The INSTALL and FAQ don't cover what to do when you are adding vchkpw and
> > > > still keep the original qmail-pop3d service running.
> > > >
> > > > Any advice?
> > > >
> > > > Paul D. Farber II
> > > > Farber Technology
> > > > Ph. 570-628-5303
> > > > Fax 570-628-5545
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Ken Jones
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
Ken Jones wrote:
>
> be sure you get the latest vchkpw from http://www.inter7.com/vchkpw/
>
> I've taken over development and maintence since Chris Johnson (the
> orignal author) is busy with work.
>
> There is also a vchkpw mailing list at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken,
Am I right in thinking that you've removed the vchkpw cgi stuff from the
current tarball?
R.
--
Two rules to success in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
-- Sassan Tat
I'm seeing the above error message in the log for my MS Mail gateway
(MailBeamer), but only for 1 particular message.
Here's a transcript of the Mailbeamer log file:
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: Connecting with smtp.eoc.org.uk
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: Connection established with candace.eoc.org.uk
[172.16.65.1]
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 220 candace.eoc.org.uk ESMTP
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: > EHLO bast.eoc.org.uk
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 250-candace.eoc.org.uk
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 250-PIPELINING
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 250 8BITMIME
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: > MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 250 ok
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: > RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 250 ok
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: > DATA
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 354 go ahead
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: < 451 See
http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: Error: Temporary message handling problem [51]
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: > RSET
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: Error: Connection reset by peer [11]
99-08-02 17:01:05 0008: Connection closed with smtp.eoc.org.uk
Here's the same connection from qmail-smtpd's point of view:
1999-08-02 17:00:15.781516 tcpserver: status: 1/40
1999-08-02 17:00:15.782067 tcpserver: pid 70150 from 172.16.65.8
1999-08-02 17:00:15.784107 tcpserver: ok 70150
candace.eoc.org.uk:172.16.65.1:25 bast.eoc.org.uk:172.16.65.8::1313
1999-08-02 17:00:15.825571 tcpserver: end 70150 status 256
1999-08-02 17:00:15.825736 tcpserver: status: 0/40
I've looked at Dan's explanation of the problem and I am aware of the
SMTP LF issue. My problem is why should this error occur just for 1
message? I mean, if *every* message had the same problem, I could
understand it and would put it down to a broken program, but for just 1
message to cause the error? Seems strange to me...
Oh, and it was me who sent the message and I've sent several to the same
address previously with no apparent problems, ie they were received
intact.
Any ideas?
Or is my Mail gateway broken?
--
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
Hi Dave,
My script to activate the sending of mail over the serial link
is like this:
Please let me know if you see any errors.
/mail-out
---------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
export PATH
/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp /var/qmail/alias/pppdir alias-ppp- \
204.143.107.46 metta.lk
------------------------------------------------------------------
when I execute the script it gives the below error
[root@narada /]# ./mail-out
/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp: syntax error near unexpected token
`execve("/var/qmail/alias/pppdir",'
/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp: /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp: line 1:
`execve("/var/qmail/alias/pppdir", ["/var/qmail/alias/pppdir", "alias-ppp-",
"metta.lk"], [/* 18 vars */]) = 0'
[root@narada /]#
Any hints where I should look ?
there are no errors in /var/log/messages
nor in /var/log/qmail/
thanking you for your replies.
Jacob
Hi,
Thanks for the help. This seemed to work, but only if a stick a sleep 20
at the end of that section of the script.
-jim
> You will need to use 'nohup' to start these services. They are being
> terminated when the shell they are started from closes.
>
> Here is the line I use to start qmail under the same OS:
>
> /usr/bin/nohup /var/qmail/rc >> /var/adm/qmail/nohup.out &
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Jim Arnott wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new to qmail and all its utilities.
> > I'm using the latest qmail (1.03) and Digital Unix 4.0
> >
> > Has anyone run into a problem where supervise does not start or stay
> > running
> > (nor start any sw that it should start) when a system is coming up
> > during boot. See the script below.
> >
> > I also had the same problem with starting tclserver from an rc3.d
> > script. Qmail-send would start fine, but
> > only if I start it without supervise.
> >
> > After I boot and do a ps -aef, no qmail or supervisor processes have
> > started. When I start this script by
> > hand (as root) it works fine.
> >
> > Also, I get the correct comments from the echos on the monitor upon
> > bootup, so I know the script is running and
> > executing the supervise programs.
> >
> > I do not get any error messages.
> >
> > Any ideas ?
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
> >
> > Jim Arnott
> > Bridge Info Sys
> >
> > #cd /sbin/rc3.d
> > #ls -lg S99qmailstart
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root bin 20 Jul 6 07:29 S99qmailstart ->
> > ../init.d/qmailstart
> > #ls -lg ../init.d/qmailstart
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root system 1710 Jul 7 01:45
> > ../init.d/qmailstart
> > #cat ../init.d/qmailstart
> > #!/sbin/sh
> >
> > NAME=qmail
> > SUPERVISE=/usr/local/bin/supervise
> > ACCUSTAMP=/usr/local/bin/accustamp
> > CYCLOG=/usr/local/bin/cyclog
> > SETUSER=/usr/local/bin/setuser
> > SVC=/usr/local/bin/svc
> >
> > ECHO=/bin/echo
> > QMAILDIR=/var/qmail
> > PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$QMAILDIR/bin
> > CMD_ENV=bsd
> > export CMD_ENV PATH
> >
> > QMAILDUID=606
> > NOFILESGID=600
> >
> > set -e
> >
> > case "$1" in
> > start)
> > set `who -r`
> > if [ $9 = "S" ]; then
> > $ECHO -n "Starting qmail: "
> > $ECHO -n "(qmail persistent daemons) "
> > $SUPERVISE $QMAILDIR/supervise/qmail-send env -
> > \
> > PATH="$QMAILDIR/bin:$PATH" qmail-start ./Mailbox
> > $ACCUSTAMP | $SETUSER qmaill $CYCLOG /var/log/qmail &
> > $ECHO -n "(qmail-smtpd via tcpserver) "
> > $SUPERVISE $QMAILDIR/supervise/tcpserver-qmail \
> >
> > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -u $QMAILDUID -g
> > $NOFILESGID 0 smtp \
> > $QMAILDIR/bin/qmail-smtpd &
> > $ECHO .
> > fi
> > ;;
> > stop)
> > $ECHO -n "Stopping qmail: "
> > $ECHO -n "(qmail-smtpd via tcpserver) "
> > $SVC -dx $QMAILDIR/supervise/tcpserver-qmail
> > $ECHO -n "(qmail persistent daemons) "
> > $SVC -dx $QMAILDIR/supervise/qmail-send
> > $ECHO .
> > ;;
> > alrm)
> > $ECHO "Sending ALRM signal to qmail-send."
> > $SVC -a $QMAILDIR/supervise/qmail-send
> > ;;
> > hup)
> > $ECHO "Sending HUP signal to qmail-send."
> > $SVC -h $QMAILDIR/supervise/qmail-send
> > ;;
> > restart)
> > $ECHO "Restarting qmail:"
> > $ECHO "* Stopping qmail-smtpd via tcpserver."
> > $SVC -d $QMAILDIR/supervise/tcpserver-qmail
> > $ECHO "* Sending qmail-send SIGTERM and
> > restarting."
> > $SVC -t $QMAILDIR/supervise/qmail-send
> > $ECHO "* Restarting qmail-smtpd via
> > tcpserver."
> > $SVC -u $QMAILDIR/supervise/tcpserver-qmail
> > ;;
> > *)
> > $ECHO "Usage: /etc/init.d/$NAME
> > {start|stop|restart|alrm|hup}"
> > exit 1
> > ;;
> > esac
> >
> > exit 0
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Administrator
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/
>
> The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
> One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
> Monroeville, PA 15146
> (412) 810-8888 Phone
> (412) 810-8886 Fax
>
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 02:55:05PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
> Everything is fine so far. Now, I'd like to create new IMAP mailboxes
> for different domains, without having to create new Unix users
> (adduser, etc...). I'm currently using vmailmgr for pop and forwarding
> accounts : is there a way to use vmailmgr mailboxes (
>/home/domain.ch/users/username/new|cur|tmp
> directories ) via IMAP ? I guess it wouldn't be impossible : is anybody working
> on it ?
There is no IMAP solution that I am aware of that works with a
checkpassword interface, which is a requirement for vmailmgr (and
vchkpw, also as far as I am aware).
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
I'm having frustrating problems getting imapd3d or pop3d running under
tcpserver.
Escape character is '^]'.
* OK ecamp IMAP4rev1 v12.250 server ready
a001: login ah *****
Connection closed by foreign host.
chasey%
There is nothing in the logfile that gives any clue. imap3d closes out on
any valid or invalid auth. ipop3d will give a fialed auth and let you try
again, and closes with a valid.
imap3d runs under tcpd (inet.conf) but tcpd doesnt handle connections
properly for some reason, hanging the process when loggin in -- have to
kill the process and then it starts it up again and logs in fine.
If anyone has any ideas, I'd much appreciate any information.
Thank you,
Adam
Did I have an A record and an MX record set up for the aliased IP address,
and when I start up qmail-vpop3d.init (the standard qmail-pop3d startup)
tcpserver says "unable to bind port already in use".
ifconfig shows eth0:0 on a seperate IP.
Do I need another NIC or can I get away with an alias?
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
> Paul Farber writes:
>
> > I want to use vchpwd and qmailadmin to host more than one virtual domain.
> > The INSTALL and FAQ don't cover what to do when you are adding vchkpw and
> > still keep the original qmail-pop3d service running.
>
> You can tell tcpserver which IP and port to work with. You can run as many
> instances of qmail-pop3d as you want. My host has 2 interfaces and 2 IP for
> the public interface. I run 3 tcpserver -> qmail-pop3d. One internal (open)
> one external (restricted to some hosts) and one on the alternative IP (a
> vmailmgr virtual domain).
>
> -Sincerely, Fred
> Frederik Lindberg, Inf. Dis, WashU, St. Louis, MO
>
Paul Farber writes:
> Did I have an A record and an MX record set up for the aliased IP address,
> and when I start up qmail-vpop3d.init (the standard qmail-pop3d startup)
> tcpserver says "unable to bind port already in use".
>
> ifconfig shows eth0:0 on a seperate IP.
>
> Do I need another NIC or can I get away with an alias?
tcpserver will accept connections for any IP by default. To use several
different tcpservers for the same port, you have to tell each where to bind
with the "host" argument. It will use the "first IP address for that host",
so the easiest is to explicitly use the IP address here.
Alias is fine, e.g. eth0:0 for one and eth0:1 for the other. Of course,
they have to be configured appropriately ...
-Sincerely, Fred
Frederik Lindberg, Inf. Dis, WashU, St. Louis, MO
Hi Dave and others,
I must appologize for the below error messages
I had done a real foolish thing and overwritten my maildirsmtp
binary.
It works again.
regards
Jacob
============================================================
>My script to activate the sending of mail over the serial link
>is like this:
>Please let me know if you see any errors.
>/mail-out
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>#!/bin/sh
>
>PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
>export PATH
>
>/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp /var/qmail/alias/pppdir alias-ppp- \
>204.143.107.46 metta.lk
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>when I execute the script it gives the below error
>[root@narada /]# ./mail-out
>/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp: syntax error near unexpected token
>`execve("/var/qmail/alias/pppdir",'
>/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp: /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp:
> line 1: `execve("/var/qmail/alias/pppdir", ["/var/qmail/alias/pppdir",
> "alias-ppp-", "metta.lk"], [/* 18 vars */]) = 0'
Hi all!
I am exploring the possibility of using qmail/serialmail instead of
sendmail.
I have setup qmail/serialmail successfully and it works great!
However, I have a question here:
We have a mail server running sendmail (lets call it mail.big.isp) serving
all our ISDN customers.
Lets say one of my existing ISDN customer has the following MX records:
customer.com IN MX 10 mx1.customer.com (customer mail server)
customer.com IN MX 20 mx2.customer.com (customer mail server)
customer.com IN MX 30 mail.big.isp ( our AUTOTURN server)
How can I configure mails for this customer's domain "customer.com" to be
stored in one single directory and when mx1.customer.com. or
mx2.customer.com. makes a SMTP connection to our AUTOTURN server, mails in
that directory will be pushed out to whichever server that is making the
SMTP connection?
The reason why our customer is having 2 mail server may be for redundancy
and backup purpose. In such case, how should I configure qmail/
serialmail?
Thanks for your help!
________________________________
Goh Sek Chye
SingNet Network Operations Centre
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key fingerprint = 55 9E FF EA 4D A7 33 25 03 00 3E BF A2 F3 AF 6A
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi....
Anybody can help me? May be this problem ever ask before, I've got some
problem when get mail. I use tcpserver for POP3. And I've got error
message :
tcprules: fatal: unable to parse this line:
202.155.12.172:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
I'm not used tcprules for POP3. My tcpserver :
tcpserver -v -R 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup asterix.dnet.net.id
/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
How to corecct this error?
Thank's,
-=Diana Dewi=-
