qmail Digest 13 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 727
Topics (messages 28866 through 28937):
Alias question...
28866 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28868 by: Ang Sei Heng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quotas
28867 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28869 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28871 by: Dimitri SZAJMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28889 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28891 by: Tomasz Papszun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28900 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28901 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28919 by: Daemeon Reiydelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
virtual domains+users+IMAP
28870 by: Murat Arslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28875 by: Murat Arslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28883 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Infamous internic
28872 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28879 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28902 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28903 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28907 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28908 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28909 by: "B. Bogart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28912 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28914 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28915 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28916 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28917 by: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DNS paranoia
28873 by: Simon Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28874 by: James Raftery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
vchkpw + SQL
28876 by: Jonathan Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28882 by: "seafox eng. de software LTDA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28884 by: Jonathan Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28885 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28887 by: Richard Antecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28888 by: Jonathan Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
problems compiling
28877 by: "James P Kannengieser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28878 by: "Jay D. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Always, always!
28880 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28893 by: Simon Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28905 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28906 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ownership of programs that execute in /var/qmail/alias?
28881 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28895 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ip based accounting
28886 by: "Michael Mertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
just curious
28890 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28892 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28911 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28920 by: Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
POP newbie issues, almost fixed (but not quite)...
28894 by: "Hawke Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28896 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ip based accounting (2)
28897 by: "Michael Mertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28898 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28927 by: "Michael Mertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Solved: qmail-bigrem limits linux
28899 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28904 by: "Johannes Erdfelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
newbie Problems - qmail-pw2u
28910 by: "AP - Darvin Zuch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28933 by: Mirko Zeibig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Performance
28913 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28918 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
one more newbie-question
28921 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28922 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28923 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28926 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vs: one more newbie-question
28924 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28928 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28929 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28930 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28931 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28935 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28936 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28937 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
forward question.
28925 by: Chan Kin Fai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vs: Vs: one more newbie-question
28932 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28934 by: "Petr Novotny" <[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 Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Ang Sei Heng wrote:
> A quick question:
>
> Is it possible to convert incoming email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] in qmail?
>
> If yes, how?
>
> Or... is there any document that discuss this in detail?
Put this into user1's .qmail-file:
|forward user2-${DEFAULT}@mydomain.com
|forward user3-${DEFAULT}@otherdomain.com
this will forward [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] It will also forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/magnus
--
"MOST USELESS site of the year 1998"
--> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
Thank! It work!
Sei Heng
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, you wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Ang Sei Heng wrote:
>
> > A quick question:
> >
> > Is it possible to convert incoming email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] in qmail?
> >
> > If yes, how?
> >
> > Or... is there any document that discuss this in detail?
>
> Put this into user1's .qmail-file:
>
> |forward user2-${DEFAULT}@mydomain.com
> |forward user3-${DEFAULT}@otherdomain.com
>
>
> this will forward [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] It will also forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> /magnus
>
> --
> "MOST USELESS site of the year 1998"
> --> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
Dimitri SZAJMAN writes:
> - I use qmail for POP account, so the mail of each user is in
> /home/user/Mailbox. I would like to add a quota of like 10 Mb. How can I do
> that. Is it easy ?
It's easy if you set filesystem quotas for your users.
>
> - If the mail received is like 15 Mb, it will be denied. But will it be
> denied before being sent to my SMTP server or after ?
After.
--
Sam
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
> - If the mail received is like 15 Mb, it will be denied. But will it be
> denied before being sent to my SMTP server or after ?
After.
Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
-- Jeff Hayward
At 07:42 12/08/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
>
> > - If the mail received is like 15 Mb, it will be denied. But will it be
> > denied before being sent to my SMTP server or after ?
>
> After.
>
>Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
in /var/qmail/control/databytes ?
and I only pout the # of bytes allowed ? What do you advise ?
Thank you.
Jeff Hayward writes:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
>
> > - If the mail received is like 15 Mb, it will be denied. But will it be
> > denied before being sent to my SMTP server or after ?
>
> After.
>
> Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
Nope. Your server will still dutifully receive every byte of a 30 megabyte
mailbomb. Qmail will stop writing to the disk when it hits the limit, and
will eventually reject the message once the sender stops spewing. But
still, you're gonna get the whole thing.
--
Sam
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 at 14:43:38 +0200, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
> At 07:42 12/08/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
> >
> > > - If the mail received is like 15 Mb, it will be denied. But will it be
> > > denied before being sent to my SMTP server or after ?
> >
> > After.
> >
> >Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
>
> in /var/qmail/control/databytes ?
>
> and I only pout the # of bytes allowed ? What do you advise ?
I think so.
But the result may be not what you want.
It won't prevent accepting many smaller messages (each below databytes).
If a user exceeds his quota, new messages won't be appended to his mailbox
(or maildir) but will be filling the spool, making the situation even
worse.
One of the solutions is using the script named mailquotacheck, mentioned
at www.qmail.org, available from
http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/qmail/mailquotacheck/
Though it's only effective when a user can't edit his .qmail, i.e. usually
on mail servers without "shell accounts".
--
Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
> Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
Nope. Your server will still dutifully receive every byte of a 30 megabyte
mailbomb. Qmail will stop writing to the disk when it hits the limit, and
will eventually reject the message once the sender stops spewing. But
still, you're gonna get the whole thing.
The context of the discussion is messages on disk. Perhaps you have
some other point you are making?
-- Jeff
Yes, control/databytes, if present, is the maximum message size
which the qmail-smtpd program will accept. Set it at least as large
as your largest user quota. See 'man qmail-smtpd' for details.
-- Jeff
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
At 07:42 12/08/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
>
> > - If the mail received is like 15 Mb, it will be denied. But will it be
> > denied before being sent to my SMTP server or after ?
>
> After.
>
>Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
in /var/qmail/control/databytes ?
and I only pout the # of bytes allowed ? What do you advise ?
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Moderator.
Jeff, thank you for pointing that out. The issue of such a mailbomb is a
piece of information an overworked admin installing qmail for the first
time might not consider.
Jeff Hayward wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
>
> > Unless you set an incoming limit using control/databytes.
>
> Nope. Your server will still dutifully receive every byte of a 30 megabyte
> mailbomb. Qmail will stop writing to the disk when it hits the limit, and
> will eventually reject the message once the sender stops spewing. But
> still, you're gonna get the whole thing.
>
> The context of the discussion is messages on disk. Perhaps you have
> some other point you are making?
>
> -- Jeff
--
Daemeon Reiydelle
Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
I'm writing a bunch of codes to handle a web-mail gateway service.
Everything is ok, but the virtual domains, users and the IMAP parts..
I added somedomain.com to /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts and
somedomain.com:guy-some to /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
Sent signal HUP to qmail-send, and created .qmail-some-info in the
home dir of user `guy'. The file .qmail-some-info has the
following line:
/home/somedir/maildir-info/
This is to make qmail-local store the incoming mails to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to the above directory.
But it didn't work. When I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I receive the No such mailbox error.
My first question is where's my mistake ?
Secondly, I need a password database for the virtual users
in order to make the IMAP server do the authentication.
I investigated this on the web and of course on the manuals,
and found that this is possible w/ (correct me if i'm wrong)
qmail-pw2u and qmail-newu. The question is; is it possible
to make such a pw db for the virtual users, and also for
the IMAP server ?
I found a patch for IMAP4, by Matthias, but couldn't
have time to test it. Do they work also for the above procedure ?
I will be appreciated in any kind of help.
Thanks for your time,
--
Regards,
Murat Arslan
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Murat Arslan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm writing a bunch of codes to handle a web-mail gateway service.
> Everything is ok, but the virtual domains, users and the IMAP parts..
I made qmail understand the .qmail-info file. But now it gives the error:
Temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery._(#4.3.0)/
And, the maildir is specified in .qmail-info, which is
/home/somedir/info/
Any help will be appreciated,
--
Regards,
Murat Arslan
Murat Arslan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm writing a bunch of codes to handle a web-mail gateway service.
> Everything is ok, but the virtual domains, users and the IMAP parts..
>
> I added somedomain.com to /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts and
> somedomain.com:guy-some to /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
>
> Sent signal HUP to qmail-send, and created .qmail-some-info in the
> home dir of user `guy'. The file .qmail-some-info has the
> following line:
>
> /home/somedir/maildir-info/
>
> This is to make qmail-local store the incoming mails to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the above directory.
>
> But it didn't work. When I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I receive the No such mailbox error.
>
> My first question is where's my mistake ?
>
> Secondly, I need a password database for the virtual users
> in order to make the IMAP server do the authentication.
>
> I investigated this on the web and of course on the manuals,
> and found that this is possible w/ (correct me if i'm wrong)
> qmail-pw2u and qmail-newu. The question is; is it possible
> to make such a pw db for the virtual users, and also for
> the IMAP server ?
>
> I found a patch for IMAP4, by Matthias, but couldn't
> have time to test it. Do they work also for the above procedure ?
>
> I will be appreciated in any kind of help.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> --
> Regards,
> Murat Arslan
vchkpw supports all of this. a friendly person from the internet
has patched imap to work with vchkpw authentication. both are
available off http://www.inter7.com/vchkpw/
--
Ken Jones
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
Cris Daniluk writes:
> I don't know if people are aware of thi (as I dont know that I've heard it
> before), but it appears InterNIC users qmail for some or all of their
> mail, based on email headers which I've viewed. Can anyone else confirm
> this? If so, this is a pretty significant qmail achievement, considering
> the sheer volume internic sends in a given day...
yes, the Internic uses qmail. No, this is not a surprise. No, it is
not a particular "achievement". There are sites which send much more
mail per day (I'm guessing).
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
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!
Cris Daniluk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 12 August 1999 at 02:12:08 +0000
> I don't know if people are aware of thi (as I dont know that I've heard it
> before), but it appears InterNIC users qmail for some or all of their
> mail, based on email headers which I've viewed. Can anyone else confirm
> this? If so, this is a pretty significant qmail achievement, considering
> the sheer volume internic sends in a given day...
The headers and the text you get when you telnet to their port 25 look
like qmail to me.
Their volume must be significant; even more impressive is how
*important* the email traffic they're handling is. Choosing qmail
suggests a belief in its reliability (and probably security; hacking
the InterNIC must be one of the larger numbers of hack-points you can
earn in one expploit!).
--
David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
I think it is quite a big surprise :) When 80% of the world uses Sendmail...
It's safe to assume that Internic used to use sendmail because they've been
around since before qmails exsistence, and sendmail was really it when they
were new. I'd be shocked if there were too many more sites that had that
much traffic, considering the sheer volume they send out. When MAPS was
talking about RBL'ng them they claimed somewhere up near 10 million emails
per day. Plus that doesn't count the 35 million customers that they send
mass mailings to (minus those who checked no). The volume isn't nearly as
impressive as the dependability though. They have to really trust it.. the
mail can't afford to be late, because of the nature of what they do. I think
it may be good to put up a list of sites such as this that use qmail.
Hotmail and InterNIC both are very large volume sites and it's a good answer
to "Who uses qmail anyway?" which was asked of us quite often while we began
to migrate to it.
Cris Daniluk
MicroStrategy
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 2:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Infamous internic
Cris Daniluk writes:
> I don't know if people are aware of thi (as I dont know that I've heard
it
> before), but it appears InterNIC users qmail for some or all of their
> mail, based on email headers which I've viewed. Can anyone else confirm
> this? If so, this is a pretty significant qmail achievement, considering
> the sheer volume internic sends in a given day...
yes, the Internic uses qmail. No, this is not a surprise. No, it is
not a particular "achievement". There are sites which send much more
mail per day (I'm guessing).
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
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!
At 04:46 PM Thursday 8/12/99, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
...
>mail can't afford to be late, because of the nature of what they do. I think
>it may be good to put up a list of sites such as this that use qmail.
>Hotmail and InterNIC both are very large volume sites and it's a good answer
>to "Who uses qmail anyway?" which was asked of us quite often while we began
>to migrate to it.
Out of date, but nonetheless: ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/users.html
Regards.
Daniluk, Chris writes:
> I think it is quite a big surprise :) When 80% of the world uses Sendmail...
According to Dan's latest survey (http://pobox.com/~djb/surveys/smtpsoftware3.txt),
(which isn't very "latest"), it's now down to 63%.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
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!
At 05:31 PM Thursday 8/12/99, Russell Nelson wrote:
>Daniluk, Chris writes:
> > I think it is quite a big surprise :) When 80% of the world uses
> Sendmail...
>
>According to Dan's latest survey
>(http://pobox.com/~djb/surveys/smtpsoftware3.txt),
>(which isn't very "latest"), it's now down to 63%.
"There are only lies, damn lies and statistics."
"97% of all statistics are wrong."
I'm not suggesting any motive at all, but we could (but hopefully wont)
spend ages discussing whether those surveys depict a trend, whether they are
in fact comparable, whether "80% of hosts" is the same as "80% of the world"
whether selecting *.net skews that stats in any particular direction or not.
It would, eg, be handy if the followup surveys were reported and whether
there was a trend that indicated increasing or decreasing change. Clearly
with just two sample points no such conclusion can be drawn.
"There are only two types of people in this world, those who believe there
are two types of people in this world and those who don't".
Ooops. Sorry, thread collision.
Mark.
I have to put my two cents in here. Everyone seems impressed that InterNIC uses
qmail. It has been mentioned repeatedly that their mail is important and cannot
afford to be late. In my experience mail from InterNIC is always late or never
arrives. Yes, it seems that they should have a reliable mail server. Perhaps
they do, but their mail does not seem to get out on time or at all for some
reason. I think showing that qmail is used by InterNIC is more of a turn off
than a positive finding.
Of course, this is based on my own experience. I can only assume that others
have had similar experiences. Although it is possible that I am the only one
who has these problems, it does not seem likely.
I should also say that I do not think their problems rooted in their mail
software. Don't let this turn you off to qmail. I have been very happy with it
so far.
Ben
Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> I think it is quite a big surprise :) When 80% of the world uses Sendmail...
> It's safe to assume that Internic used to use sendmail because they've been
> around since before qmails exsistence, and sendmail was really it when they
> were new. I'd be shocked if there were too many more sites that had that
> much traffic, considering the sheer volume they send out. When MAPS was
> talking about RBL'ng them they claimed somewhere up near 10 million emails
> per day. Plus that doesn't count the 35 million customers that they send
> mass mailings to (minus those who checked no). The volume isn't nearly as
> impressive as the dependability though. They have to really trust it.. the
> mail can't afford to be late, because of the nature of what they do. I think
> it may be good to put up a list of sites such as this that use qmail.
> Hotmail and InterNIC both are very large volume sites and it's a good answer
> to "Who uses qmail anyway?" which was asked of us quite often while we began
> to migrate to it.
>
> Cris Daniluk
> MicroStrategy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 2:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Infamous internic
>
> Cris Daniluk writes:
> > I don't know if people are aware of thi (as I dont know that I've heard
> it
> > before), but it appears InterNIC users qmail for some or all of their
> > mail, based on email headers which I've viewed. Can anyone else confirm
> > this? If so, this is a pretty significant qmail achievement, considering
> > the sheer volume internic sends in a given day...
>
> yes, the Internic uses qmail. No, this is not a surprise. No, it is
> not a particular "achievement". There are sites which send much more
> mail per day (I'm guessing).
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> 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!
B. Bogart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Of course, this is based on my own experience. I can only assume that others
> have had similar experiences. Although it is possible that I am the only one
> who has these problems, it does not seem likely.
Internic has caused a fair amount of pain and suffering over here too. I hate
it when they say "oh, why don't you sent it again.. I think we lost that
request." But I still love qmail. It's possible to build a system using great
software and still botch the end product.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
Daniluk, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Plus that doesn't count the 35 million customers that they send mass
> mailings to (minus those who checked no).
The parenthetical qualification is a lovely thought, but unfortunately
isn't particularly well-reflected in reality.
> They have to really trust it.. the mail can't afford to be late, because
> of the nature of what they do.
*dry chuckle*
> I think it may be good to put up a list of sites such as this that use
> qmail.
"qmail is used by the following well-known sleazebags... er, wait...." :)
<URL:http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99aug/19990801.html>
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
B. Bogart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 1999 at 21:49:22 -0700
> I have to put my two cents in here. Everyone seems impressed that InterNIC uses
> qmail. It has been mentioned repeatedly that their mail is important and cannot
> afford to be late. In my experience mail from InterNIC is always late or never
> arrives. Yes, it seems that they should have a reliable mail server. Perhaps
> they do, but their mail does not seem to get out on time or at all for some
> reason. I think showing that qmail is used by InterNIC is more of a turn off
> than a positive finding.
>
> Of course, this is based on my own experience. I can only assume that others
> have had similar experiences. Although it is possible that I am the only one
> who has these problems, it does not seem likely.
I've been doing a *lot* of transactions with the InterNIC lately,
having sold my primary domain and set up four new ones in the last
month. I'm still trying to get all the NS records straight before the
actual cutover, so I've made 5 changes just today. I guess this may
NOT be a lot for somebody from a big ISP or web hosting outfit, but
it's a lot for me. And I get the email from them quite promptly, and
have *never* noticed one missing.
Which is no more valid a data point than any other single observation,
but since Ben is explicitly assuming that other people's experience is
the same as his (which we all do, and is the right assumption in the
absence of contrary evidence), I thought I'd enter my contrary data
point into the stream of discourse.
--
David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Which is no more valid a data point than any other single observation,
> but since Ben is explicitly assuming that other people's experience is
> the same as his (which we all do, and is the right assumption in the
> absence of contrary evidence), I thought I'd enter my contrary data
> point into the stream of discourse.
ditto with my recent experience and load.
I have had domain email get processed and returned in less than 30
minutes and I have had them take several weeks. The web form creation
of email and ending of the email appears to take only several minutes.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN7NojR4PLs9vCOqdAQEK1gP7Bk1+58ftx+7MmRvn5PE9CY8nghaj29Rp
Nigo/z84bd8QYDALAqPbgDjQFQ4baJI8VkWjlEBMRJrsIKRS1yLirYxxHxOkNJhd
Mtf5/PpDRSCie2mG17AhI1m/YdcAMOLPDmNAgMDyZaZwVZ18IoGMgxwzMvvtL507
h9VmmA3btV0=
=Kn2C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 06:36 PM 8/12/99 -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Which is no more valid a data point than any other single observation,
>> but since Ben is explicitly assuming that other people's experience is
>> the same as his (which we all do, and is the right assumption in the
>> absence of contrary evidence), I thought I'd enter my contrary data
>> point into the stream of discourse.
>
>ditto with my recent experience and load.
>
>I have had domain email get processed and returned in less than 30
>minutes and I have had them take several weeks. The web form creation
>of email and ending of the email appears to take only several minutes.
Yes, yes, the InterNIC is wonderful... ;-)
But aren't these web forms sent with *sendmail*???
David.
PS: I received a message from the InterNIC today with this header:
X-Mailer: fastmail [version 2.4 PL24alpha4]
What's fastmail?
______________________________________
David Villeger
(212) 972 2030 x34
http://www.CheetahMail.com
The Internet Email Publishing Solution
I'm having a few problems with qmail (1.03 on Linux) returning 5.1.2
errors for mail destined to various sites. This just happens
occasionally for hosts/domains which definitely do exist. I'm suspecting
it could be due to DNS timeouts while querying our DNS servers due to
line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anything I can do to
remedy this apart from splash out extra cash on a line upgrade (assuming
this is the problem)?
Ta
Simon
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:15:17PM +0100, Simon Rae wrote:
> line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anything I can do to
> remedy this apart from splash out extra cash on a line upgrade (assuming
> this is the problem)?
You (c|s)hould run a nameserver on your qmail machine. It's makes quite
a difference.
Regards,
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster IE Domain Registry
Preferred Contact by Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UCD Computing Services
Web: http://www.domainregistry.ie/ Computer Centre
Tel: (+353 1) 7062375 Fax: (+353 1) 7062862 Belfield, Dublin 4, IE
Hi there,
I've ran into a strange situation where i'd like to be able to
utilize the features of the vhckpw suite (virtualhost multiple
domains on a single IP, single UID, etc), but would also like
to use a SQL backend for pop password checking, and whatever
else.
I'm not sure if something of this sort exists, although i manage
someone must have atleast thought of it before (maybe i'm the first,
although i doubt it).
I have systems running via SQL backend database systems that include
radius, accounting, and a giant internal database, all which benefits
from the relational capabilities. As of now, POP is the last piece
to be integrated if this is possible.
Does something exist which can do this?
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hi...
What is your SQL Server??
If is Oracle, i'have a implementation for vchkpw-3.4.1...
Regards,
Gilberto Bottaro
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 11:38 AM
Subject: vchkpw + SQL
> Hi there,
>
> I've ran into a strange situation where i'd like to be able to
> utilize the features of the vhckpw suite (virtualhost multiple
> domains on a single IP, single UID, etc), but would also like
> to use a SQL backend for pop password checking, and whatever
> else.
>
> I'm not sure if something of this sort exists, although i manage
> someone must have atleast thought of it before (maybe i'm the first,
> although i doubt it).
>
> I have systems running via SQL backend database systems that include
> radius, accounting, and a giant internal database, all which benefits
> from the relational capabilities. As of now, POP is the last piece
> to be integrated if this is possible.
>
> Does something exist which can do this?
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:49:35AM -0300, seafox eng. de software LTDA wrote:
> Hi...
>
> What is your SQL Server??
>
> If is Oracle, i'have a implementation for vchkpw-3.4.1...
Actually, i'm using MySQL. I imagine this would add an arguably
unnecessary amount of overhead to the entire thing, but it just
might be worth it when you factor in the manageability.
Oh well.. On that note, how does it perform with Oracle? Oracle has
always given me nothing but headaches, so i'm admittedly biased ;)
Thanks,
Jonathan.
Jonathan Herbert wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I've ran into a strange situation where i'd like to be able to
> utilize the features of the vhckpw suite (virtualhost multiple
> domains on a single IP, single UID, etc), but would also like
> to use a SQL backend for pop password checking, and whatever
> else.
>
> I'm not sure if something of this sort exists, although i manage
> someone must have atleast thought of it before (maybe i'm the first,
> although i doubt it).
>
> I have systems running via SQL backend database systems that include
> radius, accounting, and a giant internal database, all which benefits
> from the relational capabilities. As of now, POP is the last piece
> to be integrated if this is possible.
>
> Does something exist which can do this?
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
Yes it exists. Someone send me code (I can't remember his name). He
modified vchkpw to talk to mysql. He has it up and running in
production.
I think it was a patch file. You can have the code
"as is" and integrate it yourself. Or if you can wait until next
week, I will be integrating it myself.
--
Ken Jones
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
Wouldn't a centralised auth daemon (a la vmailmgr) be better for this sort
of thing? It removes the additional overhead of connecting to the
database for each auth request.
Another problem is server stability (for the ultra-paranoid). An
alternative is to update a db file from the database periodically, or use
both and fallback on the db file if mysql goes down.
Richard
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Ken Jones wrote:
> Jonathan Herbert wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I've ran into a strange situation where i'd like to be able to
> > utilize the features of the vhckpw suite (virtualhost multiple
> > domains on a single IP, single UID, etc), but would also like
> > to use a SQL backend for pop password checking, and whatever
> > else.
> >
> > I'm not sure if something of this sort exists, although i manage
> > someone must have atleast thought of it before (maybe i'm the first,
> > although i doubt it).
> >
> > I have systems running via SQL backend database systems that include
> > radius, accounting, and a giant internal database, all which benefits
> > from the relational capabilities. As of now, POP is the last piece
> > to be integrated if this is possible.
> >
> > Does something exist which can do this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan
>
> Yes it exists. Someone send me code (I can't remember his name). He
> modified vchkpw to talk to mysql. He has it up and running in
> production.
> I think it was a patch file. You can have the code
> "as is" and integrate it yourself. Or if you can wait until next
> week, I will be integrating it myself.
>
> --
> Ken Jones
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
>
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 10:59:54AM -0500, Ken Jones wrote:
> >
> > As it stands, my POP server isn't exactly getting hammered anyhow..
>
> The guy running it said it is faster.
Hrm, thats interesting. I've seen strange things with MySQL,
things you'd expect to be slow are occasionally fast, and things
you'd expect to be fast are more often slow. It's still a nice piece
of software. And i'm sure it has a lot to do with your database design.
In terms of failover, in the event your mysql server dies, some sort of
method would be nice. I've rarely had a mysql server die and stay dead
for extended periods of time, but i suppose it can (and probobly does)
happen with atleast some regularity.
As far as speed, thats another issue depending on where you want to
put your actual database. Running the mysql server on the mailserver
may or may not be practical, but bet itd be pretty fast. At the same
time, you can do some nice things with localdirectors / serverirons to
implement some real redundancy of services.
All that stuffs expensive though. pff.
Oh well, just my $1/50.
Jonathan
Putting /usr/ccs/bin in my path worked well. Thanks for the advice. However, I
am having a similar problem further along during the compiling process. Now when
I run make setup check, I get this message.
./load auto-str substdio.a error.a str.a
/usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed
*** Error code 1
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `auto-str'
I searched for auto-str using find, but it is not on my system. Short of
installing sendmail, what should I do now?
Thanks,
Jim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, James P Kannengieser wrote:
> Putting /usr/ccs/bin in my path worked well. Thanks for the advice.
> However, I am having a similar problem further along during the
> compiling process. Now when I run make setup check, I get this message.
>
> ./load auto-str substdio.a error.a str.a
> /usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed
> *** Error code 1
> make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `auto-str'
>
> I searched for auto-str using find, but it is not on my system. Short of
> installing sendmail, what should I do now?
There's a couple of files named "auto-cc.sh" and auto-ld.sh" (I
*think*...it's been a while). Open those with vi and change the call from
'cc' to 'gcc' and that should do it.
This is, of course, presuming you have gcc loaded. I'm guessing
you're running Solaris (which doesn't come with a working C compiler).
- -Jay
( ______
)) .--- "There's always time for a good cup of coffee" ---. >===<--.
C|~~| (>--- Jay D. Dyson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---<) | = |-'
`--' `----------- My other car is a Sparc Ultra. -----------' `-----'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN7Lb2s2OVDpaKXD9AQHquwP/X11uL3g0C4+X3k6HfZ3iIIyygebIG41e
9SvQgMrOyx1k70xESR+WU1kTcCkvQ5PBmg07FPzrtFGIfAeqjR/ugZrdh7uxlEZd
1cGWnleszNm4m4MBuYrJ1hNd3JXpmy8NccqMpZEuNnQVt9mhsHpTKUG4iyEWw453
+NvK2sCzYD4=
=FsSs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Raftery writes:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:15:17PM +0100, Simon Rae wrote:
> > line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anything I can do to
> > remedy this apart from splash out extra cash on a line upgrade (assuming
> > this is the problem)?
>
> You (c|s)hould run a nameserver on your qmail machine. It's makes quite
> a difference.
*Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's caching-only.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
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'm running BIND on the qmail box. It does the DNS for our LAN and
queries our ISP's servers for outgoing mail etc.
Simon
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> James Raftery writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:15:17PM +0100, Simon Rae wrote:
> > > line traffic. Does this sound feasible? Is there anything I can do to
> > > remedy this apart from splash out extra cash on a line upgrade (assuming
> > > this is the problem)?
> >
> > You (c|s)hould run a nameserver on your qmail machine. It's makes quite
> > a difference.
>
> *Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's caching-only.
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> 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!
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's
> caching-only.
Er... if it's handling a reasonably high volume of mail. If it's only
churning out a message or two every ten minutes, I wouldn't bother; BIND
is a huge memory hog and also a program that tends to have to be
frequently upgraded due to security holes.
In other words, run a caching name server on your mail *servers*, but not
on every random Unix workstation that happens to be running qmail.
(Oh, and remember: If you have any programs that use the standard
gethostbyname() calls and you're using Solaris, link them directly against
libbind if you have a local name server. Otherwise, they'll still query
through nscd, which on versions of Solaris prior to 7 is single-threaded
for DNS queries.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > *Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's
> > caching-only.
>
> Er... if it's handling a reasonably high volume of mail. If it's only
> churning out a message or two every ten minutes, I wouldn't bother; BIND
> is a huge memory hog and also a program that tends to have to be
> frequently upgraded due to security holes.
Isn't BIND the next pig in djb's sights?
> In other words, run a caching name server on your mail *servers*, but not
> on every random Unix workstation that happens to be running qmail.
Russ is right, of course. We Russ'es always are. :) Except when
we're not.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
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!
John Conover writes:
> As per the "standard" qmail installation for uucp, I have a
> /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-uucp-default of:
>
> '|preline -d /usr/bin/uux - -gC -a"${SENDER:-MAILER-DAEMON}" uucphost!rmail
>"($DEFAULT@$HOST)"'
>
> when there is outgoing email to uucphost, what program executes the
> uux command, and what is its UID and GID when it does it?
preline executes uux.
grep ^alias: /etc/passwd | awk -F: '{print "UID=",$3," GID=",$4}'
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
At 11:21 AM Thursday 8/12/99, Russell Nelson wrote:
>John Conover writes:
> > As per the "standard" qmail installation for uucp, I have a
> > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-uucp-default of:
> >
> > '|preline -d /usr/bin/uux - -gC -a"${SENDER:-MAILER-DAEMON}"
> uucphost!rmail "($DEFAULT@$HOST)"'
> >
> > when there is outgoing email to uucphost, what program executes the
> > uux command, and what is its UID and GID when it does it?
>
>preline executes uux.
>
>grep ^alias: /etc/passwd | awk -F: '{print "UID=",$3," GID=",$4}'
More generally. The execution of qmail-local and children (which implies
commands run from within a .qmail file) are *always* run as the user
associated with the .qmail file. In this case it is the user 'alias' as Russ
suggests, and typically the UID/GID will come from /etc/passwd - but
possibly /var/qmail/users
Mark.
Hi there,
I thought I understand the logging concept of qmail, but it teached me something
different.
OK, here my wishlist:
1) IP based accounting
I need to know which subnet caused how much traffic. The one and only place where
I see an IP address is my logfile generated by tcpserver, but there is no information
about
the messages size. (tcpserver is protecting my qmail-smtpd)
2) User based accounting
This should be done with the qmailanalog package, it's telling me a lot of things,
except
my IP address stuff.
Any ideas? I guess this issue is typical for an ISP environment.
Thanks in advance.
--Michael
Where does a message go if the local part is missing?
I did
echo |mailsubj "test" '@localhost'
and the logs show
1999-08-12 12:15:22.929224 new msg 38769
1999-08-12 12:15:22.929253 info msg 38769: bytes 224 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5226 uid 500
1999-08-12 12:15:22.932768 starting delivery 8: msg 38769 to local
@wd207-21.msci.memphis.edu
1999-08-12 12:15:22.932822 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
1999-08-12 12:15:22.949020 delivery 8: success:
1999-08-12 12:15:22.949049 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
1999-08-12 12:15:22.949081 end msg 38769
# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 0
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
So the delivery is not successful, but where did the message go?
Thx
Mate
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> Where does a message go if the local part is missing?
To the bit-bucket.
>
> I did
>
> echo |mailsubj "test" '@localhost'
>
> and the logs show
>
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.929224 new msg 38769
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.929253 info msg 38769: bytes 224 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5226 uid 500
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.932768 starting delivery 8: msg 38769 to local
> @wd207-21.msci.memphis.edu
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.932822 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.949020 delivery 8: success:
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.949049 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> 1999-08-12 12:15:22.949081 end msg 38769
>
> # qmail-qstat
> messages in queue: 0
> messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
>
> So the delivery is not successful, but where did the message go?
On the contrary! qmail successfully delivered the message to the user
named "". It threw it on the floor like you asked it to. :)
>
> Thx
>
> Mate
> ---
> Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
>
---------------------------------
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 Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 12:32:07PM -0400,
"Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
> On the contrary! qmail successfully delivered the message to the user
> named "". It threw it on the floor like you asked it to. :)
This behavior seems to be broken. If the message is supposed to have been
delivered, then it should be saved somewhere. If the message isn't supposed
to be delivered then a bounce message should be generated.
There is no specification I am aware of that says all mail to a null local
address should be delivered to the bit bucket.
On Aug 12 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> Where does a message go if the local part is missing?
(...)
> So the delivery is not successful, but where did the message go?
AFAIK, it's silently discarded. And this is the behavior upon
which some programs may depend.
BTW, the delivery is successful: it was just delivered to the
empty local user.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Thanks to everyone's helpful suggestions, I'm now able to fully get and send
email properly, except for one other item...
>From the time I send an email (whether it's from the same server I'm
retrieving email, or if from a host elsewhere), it takes around 10+ minutes
before I'm able to retrieve it.
Is this configurable? Or did I screw something else up?
Thanks again,
-Hawke
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 10:53:16AM -0600, Hawke Robinson wrote:
> Thanks to everyone's helpful suggestions, I'm now able to fully get and send
> email properly, except for one other item... From the time I send an email
> (whether it's from the same server I'm retrieving email, or if from a host
> elsewhere), it takes around 10+ minutes before I'm able to retrieve it. Is
> this configurable? Or did I screw something else up?
Are you mailboxes NFS mounted from a different box? If so, get the clocks on
that box and your qmail box in sync.
Otherwise, check the permissions on the file /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger.
They should look like this:
prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Aug 12 12:56 trigger
If they don't, cd to your qmail source directory and make setup check.
Chris
Hi there,
after having a few frustrating hours I cannot see any option to force qmail or any
related
program to tell me which IP address sent a message in which size.
sendmail is usually providing me with this information as relay= and size= in the
from=
line of my syslog output.
If someone knows something, please drop me a note, I don't wanna leave the qmail
track, but
without the ability to do ip based accounting everything is worthless.
Regards
--Michael
Michael Mertel writes:
> after having a few frustrating hours I cannot see any option to force qmail or any
>related
> program to tell me which IP address sent a message in which size.
>
> sendmail is usually providing me with this information as relay= and size= in the
>from=
> line of my syslog output.
cd /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03
cat <<EOF >extra.h
#ifndef EXTRA_H
#define EXTRA_H
#define QUEUE_EXTRA "Talias-acct\0"
#define QUEUE_EXTRALEN 12
#endif
EOF
make setup
echo '|./acct' >~alias/.qmail-acct
cat <<EOF >~alias/acct
#!/usr/bin/perl
$size = (stat STDIN)[7];
while(<>) {
last if /^$/;
$address = $2 if /^Received:.*\((.*\@)?(\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+)\)/;
$ip = $address if /^ by .+ with SMTP;/;
}
print "size=$size relay=$ip";
EOF
chmod 755 ~alias/acct
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:56:27 -0400 (EDT), Russell Nelson wrote:
Thanks for the code, figured this out yesterday by myself too, but you
gave me the final information. Thanks a bunch.
--Michael
>Michael Mertel writes:
> > after having a few frustrating hours I cannot see any option to force qmail or any
>related
> > program to tell me which IP address sent a message in which size.
> >
> > sendmail is usually providing me with this information as relay= and size= in the
>from=
> > line of my syslog output.
>
>cd /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03
>cat <<EOF >extra.h
>#ifndef EXTRA_H
>#define EXTRA_H
>
>#define QUEUE_EXTRA "Talias-acct\0"
>#define QUEUE_EXTRALEN 12
>
>#endif
>EOF
>
>make setup
>
>echo '|./acct' >~alias/.qmail-acct
>
>cat <<EOF >~alias/acct
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>
>$size = (stat STDIN)[7];
>while(<>) {
> last if /^$/;
> $address = $2 if /^Received:.*\((.*\@)?(\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+)\)/;
> $ip = $address if /^ by .+ with SMTP;/;
>}
>
>print "size=$size relay=$ip";
>EOF
>chmod 755 ~alias/acct
>
>--
>-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
>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!
>
Dear Russell,
Thanks for your input. The limiting factor for my redhat linux 2.2.5
installation was a per user process limit of 256. The reason I
sometimes got 256 or 257 concurrency is that reporting is not exactly
synchronous with forking.
Thus, in addition to increasing the number of file handles, you need to
rebuild the kernel after editing:
/usr/src/linux/include/linux/tasks.h NR_TASKS from 512 to e.g. 2048.
Per-user limit defined to half this on the line below.
There also appears to be a bug that limits the number of per process
file handles to 1024. There are "unofficial" patches for this, but
AFAIK, not integrated into the official kernel.
If anyone has more insight into this, I'd love to hear it. With the
patch, our P100/64MB does very well at a concurrencyremote of 400.
Since performance was limited by concurrency (many slow/dead clients)
we got considerably better throughput.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999, Fred Lindberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your input. The limiting factor for my redhat linux 2.2.5
> installation was a per user process limit of 256. The reason I
> sometimes got 256 or 257 concurrency is that reporting is not exactly
> synchronous with forking.
>
> Thus, in addition to increasing the number of file handles, you need to
> rebuild the kernel after editing:
>
> /usr/src/linux/include/linux/tasks.h NR_TASKS from 512 to e.g. 2048.
> Per-user limit defined to half this on the line below.
>
> There also appears to be a bug that limits the number of per process
> file handles to 1024. There are "unofficial" patches for this, but
> AFAIK, not integrated into the official kernel.
Many shipping linux kernels come with "big-fd" patches as well. For
instance, the SuSE 6.2 kernel is 2.2.10 with a "big-fd" patch applied.
You also need to increase NR_OPEN in linux/tasks.h as well.
> If anyone has more insight into this, I'd love to hear it. With the
> patch, our P100/64MB does very well at a concurrencyremote of 400.
> Since performance was limited by concurrency (many slow/dead clients)
> we got considerably better throughput.
I wrote the patch to get a concurrencyremote of 1000. This is on a
P500/512MB so it's a bit different, but like I've mentioned in previous
emails, qmail-remote is so lightweight that practically no memory is
used and we rarely hit 0.10 load. This box will be doing more soon, but
this is a good test for us.
JE
|
I'm running FreeBSD and think I have qmail up
... finally.
All the documentation I've found says I should
use qmail-pw2u to create users.
ie..
sh /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u
When I do (as root), I get an error ..
qmail-pw2u: 1: Syntax error: "(" unexpected
Any helpful Ideas?
Thanks in advance.
dz
|
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 03:47:01PM -0600, AP - Darvin Zuch wrote:
> I'm running FreeBSD and think I have qmail up ... finally.
>
> All the documentation I've found says I should use qmail-pw2u to create users.
>
> ie..
> sh /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u
>
Hello Darvin,
you have to use sth. like:
qmail-pw2u < /etc/passwd > /var/qmail/users/assign
qmail-newu
qmail-pw2u isn't a shell-script.
When doing so, examine the results. As you propably do not want to have
users like ftp recieving mail you better put them into
/var/qmail/users/exclude.
Regards
Mirko
Johannes Erdfelt writes:
> Only 76k per qmail-remote process was unique.
Most of that, by the way, is bloat from the dynamic linker and the BIND
resolver library. You can eliminate the dynamic linker (except under
Solaris) by compiling statically. Eliminating BIND is more difficult.
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein writes:
> Johannes Erdfelt writes:
> > Only 76k per qmail-remote process was unique.
>
> Most of that, by the way, is bloat from the dynamic linker and the BIND
> resolver library. You can eliminate the dynamic linker (except under
> Solaris) by compiling statically. Eliminating BIND is more difficult.
Takes me about 9000 bytes to encode/decode RFC 1035 with error checking,
plus logic to try the nameserver list until I get an answer, with automatic
fallback to TCP upon response packet truncation. The code is probably
multithreadable, although I haven't tried.
Does not include libc overhead. On SysV boxes all the TLI garbage will
probably take even more overhead.
--
Sam
|
I put the line on qmail-pop3d into my
inetd.conf, and restarted inetd. Still my pop3d doesn't start. Why's that? What
can I do to run qmail-pop3d
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> I put the line on qmail-pop3d into my inetd.conf, and restarted inetd.
> Still my pop3d doesn't start. Why's that? What can I do to run qmail-pop3d
1. How does the line look like?
2. What does "telnet localhost 110" do?
3. What about your hosts.{allow,deny}?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7PZZVMwP8g7qbw/EQIOOACfQRUbp9zFk+zdqUDzlpp8w5DVEhUAoNR0
QQI/fPpO4d/k3h2xX5y8sqFq
=qDzE
-----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 Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 10:39:14AM +0200, Maria Zevenhoven wrote:
> I put the line on qmail-pop3d into my inetd.conf, and restarted inetd.
> Still my pop3d doesn't start. Why's that? What can I do to run
> qmail-pop3d
It would help if you can show us the line you have put into your
inetd.conf. Maybe there's a typing error or syntax error which you
haven't seen.
--
See complete headers for more info
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup
> eof.saitti.net /usr/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
> (I tried to put it al on one line, and I guess it is, even it shows up as
> 2 lines whatever I view it with.
Is your checkpassword in /usr/bin? (Executable for root?) Does
your entry in /etc/services say "pop3" - since my says "pop-3"?
> 2. What does "telnet localhost 110" do?
>
> Nothing
What's nothing? (Any info in logs?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7Pfn1MwP8g7qbw/EQKAqQCdFx+UdEzDeDB6EZ0rFz5tJNp0JwwAoPJU
WdUJnGOrwGB4o0eoinYoHEvU
=F7k5
-----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]
>1. How does the line look like?
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup eof.saitti.net
/usr/bin/checkpassword
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
(I tried to put it al on one line, and I guess it is, even it shows up as 2 lines
whatever I view it with.
2. What does "telnet localhost 110" do?
Nothing
3. What about your hosts.{allow,deny}?
nothing as deny yet, because atm we're just testing...
-Maria
>Is your checkpassword in /usr/bin?
i don't find the whole thing... maybe I'm just stupid`? =)
> (Executable for root?) Does
>your entry in /etc/services say "pop3" - since my says "pop-3"?
no - so that's one thing...
> 2. What does "telnet localhost 110" do?
there's just nothing in the port...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> >Is your checkpassword in /usr/bin?
> i don't find the whole thing... maybe I'm just stupid`? =)
checkpassword is a separate package. Download it and build it.
(You may find some patches from www.qmail.org handy, like the
one for PAMified system - if your system uses PAM.)
> > (Executable for root?) Does
> >your entry in /etc/services say "pop3" - since my says "pop-3"?
> no - so that's one thing...
Add a line that looks like this to your /etc/services:
pop-3 110/tcp
(you may use pop3 instead of pop-3). Use the same spelling as in
/etc/inetd.conf. Restart inetd.
Now something should be listening.
(You may also test by replacing pop3 with 110 in the
/etc/inetd.conf file.)
BTW, the official (supported) way is to invoke pop3 from tcpserver,
not inetd.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7Pkw1MwP8g7qbw/EQJLMgCfdqt/tXxcTgsasrkbqJYaaDuDqaEAoIZc
5GADbufKmXP2AlTr+OoTAp6o
=jW9v
-----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]
I changed the line to pop-3 (the rest same as earlier) and now I get into telnet 110.
well, I put user maria7
server replies +OK
then pass XXXXX
server says the passwd is invalid.
Should I get this, because I'm using mailbox, not maildir, or is something still
wrong?
-Maria
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> well, I put user maria7
> server replies +OK
> then pass XXXXX
> server says the passwd is invalid.
Uhm. Is your checkpassword really installed and working? Without
it, you can't go on.
> Should I get this, because I'm using mailbox, not maildir, or is something
> still wrong?
So you're using mailbox? qmail-pop3d doesn't work on mailboxes.
You either need maildir, or another popper.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7PoWFMwP8g7qbw/EQK3cwCg3mZV4iosD2Ojo9Dy4qKzXEy4UPIAn3gf
2YyS/GUvoE2EFzwNDTi/8NzY
=Y2Wx
-----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]
Now I'm confused...
> >Uhm. Is your checkpassword really installed and working? Without
> >it, you can't go on.
> Installed. can I check if it's working somehow?
- From www.qmail.org:
Mark Delany has a clever way to test your checkpassword with a bit of command line
re-direction. For example, with username fred, password bloggs,
printf "fred\0bloggs\0Y123456\0" | /bin/checkpassword `which id` 3<&0
will execute /bin/id if the password is right.
The printf is a bit trickier to manipulate if the username/password starts with a
digit. If you haven't a printf then enter the data into a file with your favourite
binary editor, such as emacs, and then it's simply:
/bin/checkpassword /bin/id 3<test.file
Or use perl: perl -e 'printf "%s\0%s\0Y123456\0","fred","bloggs"' | ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7PtfVMwP8g7qbw/EQJ8WQCghBAGcBxg6M9dizU5Q50JElaIhgoAoN5q
Jd9sotzdY1FmuTmdk724VXhc
=HCxo
-----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]
Somehow I seem to be gettting problems with everything I tired to put
/home/maria7/Maildir/ in my .qmail - file. Now my mail doesn't go into Mailbox, but
also not in Maildir.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Somehow I seem to be gettting problems with everything I tired to put
> /home/maria7/Maildir/ in my .qmail - file. Now my mail doesn't go into
> Mailbox, but also not in Maildir.
You usually put ./Maildir/ into the .qmail file.
What do the logs say? Was the delivery deferred, or what?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7Pw4lMwP8g7qbw/EQJ/awCgke9AbX/8siC/wDwgt7sKM6Wu68MAn0mh
N4MN17m9jkS02rIm3Y8dUOuH
=91Sv
-----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]
Hi,
I have a qmail account 'test' and 'test1'.
i want to forward all mail for 'test' to 'test1'
and keep a copy in the mailbox of 'test' ( total 2 copy)
how can i do it ?
>Uhm. Is your checkpassword really installed and working? Without
>it, you can't go on.
Installed. can I check if it's working somehow?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> >Uhm. Is your checkpassword really installed and working? Without
> >it, you can't go on.
> Installed. can I check if it's working somehow?
- From www.qmail.org:
Mark Delany has a clever way to test your checkpassword with a bit of command line
re-direction. For example, with username fred, password bloggs,
printf "fred\0bloggs\0Y123456\0" | /bin/checkpassword `which id` 3<&0
will execute /bin/id if the password is right.
The printf is a bit trickier to manipulate if the username/password starts with a
digit. If you haven't a printf then enter the data into a file with your favourite
binary editor, such as emacs, and then it's simply:
/bin/checkpassword /bin/id 3<test.file
Or use perl: perl -e 'printf "%s\0%s\0Y123456\0","fred","bloggs"' | ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7PtfVMwP8g7qbw/EQJ8WQCghBAGcBxg6M9dizU5Q50JElaIhgoAoN5q
Jd9sotzdY1FmuTmdk724VXhc
=HCxo
-----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]
