qmail Digest 14 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 728
Topics (messages 28938 through 28989):
Vs: one more newbie-question
28938 by: Mirko Zeibig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail+AMaVis
28939 by: "Mats Haglund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
forward question.
28940 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28942 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
binaries
28941 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maybe, maybe! Re: Always, always!
28943 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Queue
28944 by: Dimitri SZAJMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Skipping DNS reverse check!
28945 by: "Vanderlei C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28946 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28947 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28948 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28951 by: Tomasz Papszun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Disconnected Operation
28949 by: Scott Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Question about virtual domains/users in qmail
28950 by: "Derick M. Zinnerstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Outlook Express and remove message after X time
28952 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28956 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28980 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tarpitting or whatever else?
28953 by: Abel Lucano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Always, always!
28954 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28957 by: Yan Seiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28958 by: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28964 by: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28965 by: "Thomas M. Sasala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28969 by: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28972 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28977 by: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
comments on virus scanning
28955 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28970 by: "Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28973 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28987 by: "Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
help!
28959 by: liang xiaojun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28963 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28976 by: "Martin Paulucci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28978 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
recipient not acceptable to SMTP server??
28960 by: Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28962 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Absolute path in .qmail
28961 by: "Lars G. T. Joergensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-inject terminates
28966 by: Ralf Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28981 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
thanks: recipient not acceptable to SMTP server
28967 by: Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not always, sometimes!
28968 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
queue botched?
28971 by: Michael Boyiazis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inode/file limits
28974 by: john smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28982 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28986 by: Daemeon Reiydelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-Linux-distribution
28975 by: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
forward: qp 31002
28979 by: "A.Y. Sjarifuddin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28984 by: "Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28985 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildir patches to IMAP are wonky
28983 by: Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28988 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
checkpassword
28989 by: "Maria Zevenhoven" <[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 Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Maria Zevenhoven wrote:
>
> 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.
Did you create the maildir (not with md but with maildirmake Maildir)?
Regards
Mirko
Hi all!
Id like to use amavis with qmail, but i am new to qmail and dont know in wich file i
should put "scanmail"
I use qmail 1.03 with qmail-pop3, latest amavis + mcaffe
Please help me!
Mats Haglund
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 03:59:50PM +0800, Chan Kin Fai wrote:
> 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 ?
cd ~test
echo test1 > .qmail; echo ./Mailbox >> .qmail
Also read the dot-qmail manpage.
--
See complete headers for more info
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 03:59:50PM +0800, Chan Kin Fai wrote:
>
> > 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 ?
>
> cd ~test
> echo test1 > .qmail; echo ./Mailbox >> .qmail
That should have read:
echo "&test1" > .qmail; echo "./Mailbox" >> .qmail
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/ - we do mail
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> A simple pointer: people who look for the "memphis" rpm, should not look into
> the var-qmail dir. People who look for a binary distribution of qmail,
> should look into var-qmail.
I loved that qmail SRPM, it always worked great for me.
>
> The only added bonus is that now one does not have to compile qmail.
> The old rpm does not meet the criteria for binary redistribution.
so basically it's a drop-in replacement to the old qmail SRPM that was
there, once you add qmail-run? (which makes more sense named qmail-init
maybe?)
> As for patches: binary redistribution does not allow any patches used to
> build the package.
that I understand. I meant that up to a month ago I would download the old
SRPM, do rpm --rebuild and then install the resault
>
> I did not understand your comment about applying patches at srpm build time.
> Perhaps you want to elaborate.
what I mean is that the new binary RPM you are distributing would be
accompanied by the SRPM that created it. doing --rebuild will create the
binary allowed for distribution, but doing --rebuild plus some options
(forgot the syntax, man RPM) will incorporate patches (like RBL MAPS and
Widdifield's UCE patches, quota check patch to qmail-send, or whatever)
and rebuild, creating a binary RPM, possibly named differently.
right now I am happy running the Qmail as installed from the SRPM through
rebuild. Now I want to add a single patch, I need to download the qmail
original tar, patch it manually, recompile, and copy just the one patched
binary over the one from the RPM... I might have just installed from the
TARs to begin with... (not that I don't know how to, I'm just lazy :-)
patches I'd love to have as an option:
Red Hat group-per-user allow-group-writable-homedir patch.
The Widdifield/Lambertsen/Haisley UCE patch
NSCP messenger pop progress indication
pop3 authentication for relaying
SMTP authentication
Nagy Balazs' envelope sender check (make sure it's bouncable)
Oversize DNS packets (AOL fix)
limit the number of RCPT TO:
Mark Delany's envelope sender regex check patch
> Sam does have his own rpm that uses the patch. Also, Bruce Guenter
> has an rpm that employs selected patches.
I'll go check that one out...
> It is rather trivial to add patches to var-qmail-create. Those who cannot,
> should not.
haven't checked it out yet. does that come instead of the SRPM now?
> One problem I see with my old rpm is that a few people installed it, and then
> they started reading the docs included with qmail, and thought they have to
> create initscripts and such. Having two rpms I believe makes it clearer
> what people will get (since apparently I cannot always count on them reading
> the READMEs I put up).
well that's their lookout, ain't it? I used it just fine so far... people
who install software w/0 reading the instructions or the man page are
either very bold or crazy. people who skip even the README are simply
daft. expecially when it's such a central piece of software like a mail
server.
(Just my opinion :-)
Ira Abramov writes:
> I think that definitely belongs in the tip section of qmail.org
Well, come to think of it, it's not always good advice. It should be
more accurately: "Always *consider* running BIND on your qmail host."
If you have a pile of front-end SMTP clients, it might actually be
more efficient to have one local DNS server which keeps the cache of
remote DNS entries, rather than having each machine keep its own
cache. As Dan says, measure, don't guess.
--
-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!
33 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 13 16:22:56 mumbly qmail: 934554176.794487 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
Aug 13 16:22:56 mumbly qmail: 934554176.794738 starting delivery 87297:
msg 340233 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 13 16:22:56 mumbly qmail: 934554176.794961 status: local 0/10 remote
2/20
Aug 13 16:22:57 mumbly qmail: 934554177.958940 delivery 87296: deferral:
Connected_to_195.115.41.46_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_418_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._unresolvable_host_name_localhost.localdomain,check_your_configuration./
Aug 13 16:22:57 mumbly qmail: 934554177.959282 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
Aug 13 16:22:58 mumbly qmail: 934554178.124796 delivery 87297: deferral:
Connected_to_195.115.41.45_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_418_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._unresolvable_host_name_localhost.localdomain,check_your_configuration./
Please how to stop these messages ? I would like to "flush" this queue.
Should I exec qmail-something ? Is it safe ?
Thank you.
Please reply also via private mail as I am not subscribed.
Thank you !
_______________
Dimitri SZAJMAN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xon-xoff.fr
Hello,
I'm using tcp_wrappers (tcpd) to avoid email relay in my server. But
the
problem is that some
email I should receive, are instead bounced. In my maillog file I
noticed that this is happening when
the DNS verification results in different domain names (the reverse
is
not good in the email original server!).
Ex:
Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: warning: can't verify
hostname: gethostbyname(sahs-gateway.acrux.net) failed
Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: refused connect from
207.51.203.140
Or
Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: warning: host name/name
mismatch: inet.netaxs.com != mail.inet-access.net
Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: refused connect from
207.8.186.50
Do you know how to avoid dns verification?
Thanks a lot,
--
Vanderlei C. da Silva PHONE: 212-962-7410 x324
Fine Point Technologies, Inc. FAX: 212-962-7404
90 John Street Suite 311 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New York, NY 10038 Web: http://www.finepoint.com
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 10:36:23AM -0400, Vanderlei C. wrote:
Stop using tcp_wrappers, and switch to tcpserver instead from the
ucspi-tcp package. Then you can choose not to do reverse lookups.
> Hello,
> I'm using tcp_wrappers (tcpd) to avoid email relay in my server. But
> the
> problem is that some
> email I should receive, are instead bounced. In my maillog file I
> noticed that this is happening when
> the DNS verification results in different domain names (the reverse
> is
> not good in the email original server!).
--
See complete headers for more info
Do what I do, I scan the "refused connect" messages and send emails to
the domains in question. Most of the time, I get a good response.
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanderlei C. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 10:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Skipping DNS reverse check!
>
> Hello,
> I'm using tcp_wrappers (tcpd) to avoid email relay in my server. But
> the
> problem is that some
> email I should receive, are instead bounced. In my maillog file I
> noticed that this is happening when
> the DNS verification results in different domain names (the reverse
> is
> not good in the email original server!).
> Ex:
> Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: warning: can't verify
> hostname: gethostbyname(sahs-gateway.acrux.net) failed
> Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: refused connect from
> 207.51.203.140
> Or
> Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: warning: host name/name
> mismatch: inet.netaxs.com != mail.inet-access.net
> Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: refused connect from
> 207.8.186.50
>
> Do you know how to avoid dns verification?
> Thanks a lot,
> --
> Vanderlei C. da Silva PHONE: 212-962-7410 x324
> Fine Point Technologies, Inc. FAX: 212-962-7404
> 90 John Street Suite 311 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> New York, NY 10038 Web: http://www.finepoint.com
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> I'm using tcp_wrappers (tcpd) to avoid email relay in my server.
That's an unsupported way.
> But
> the
> problem is that some
> email I should receive, are instead bounced. In my maillog file I
> noticed that this is happening when
> the DNS verification results in different domain names (the reverse
> is
> not good in the email original server!).
> Ex:
> Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: warning: can't verify
> hostname: gethostbyname(sahs-gateway.acrux.net) failed
> Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: refused connect from
> 207.51.203.140
> Or
> Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: warning: host name/name
> mismatch: inet.netaxs.com != mail.inet-access.net
> Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: refused connect from
> 207.8.186.50
If they can't set up DNS, they probably can't set up SMTP either :-)
> Do you know how to avoid dns verification?
Sure. Use tcpserver.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7Q+A1MwP8g7qbw/EQKnLQCgtNdjr4ZL9DdaeUuJBqG8Snww90IAn3kS
wVYnhiFntwqU+iP/H8f1nEmq
=3Asu
-----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]
It depends on how your tcp_wrappers were compiled (with which options) and
from the contents of your hosts.allow and hosts.deny files. Lastly, it
depends what exactly you want to achieve with tcpd.
But some of these rejects can be avoided by _not_ using option PARANOID
for lines regarding SMTP, i.e. tcp-env, in the mentioned files.
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 at 10:36:23 -0400, Vanderlei C. wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm using tcp_wrappers (tcpd) to avoid email relay in my server. But
> the
> problem is that some
> email I should receive, are instead bounced. In my maillog file I
> noticed that this is happening when
> the DNS verification results in different domain names (the reverse
> is
> not good in the email original server!).
> Ex:
> Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: warning: can't verify
> hostname: gethostbyname(sahs-gateway.acrux.net) failed
> Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: refused connect from
> 207.51.203.140
> Or
> Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: warning: host name/name
> mismatch: inet.netaxs.com != mail.inet-access.net
> Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: refused connect from
> 207.8.186.50
>
> Do you know how to avoid dns verification?
> Thanks a lot,
> --
> Vanderlei C. da Silva PHONE: 212-962-7410 x324
> Fine Point Technologies, Inc. FAX: 212-962-7404
> 90 John Street Suite 311 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> New York, NY 10038 Web: http://www.finepoint.com
>
--
Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
Hello everyone,
I've got a mail server on a private network (192.168.x.x) which
I want to periodically pick up mail from my server that's
co-located elsewhere. Both servers are running qmail.
The public server has MX records for my domain, pointing to
it. Mail to/from there seems to be working just fine.
I want the private server to periodically dialin, pick up
the messages, send any that are queued (this is already
working), and deliver via POP (also already working).
SO, do I switch the public server from handling the mail
as a standard domain to a virtual domain? How do I get
the private server (which has a DYNAMIC IP address) to
pickup the mail?
I've looked at both fetchmail and serialmail. I think I
understand how to do this with fetchmail, but I cannot
make heads or tails of the serialmail "docs".
Any advice, suggestions, etc?
Thanks in advance,
-Scott
I was wondering if anyone could direct me to a faq or howto for the setup
of virtual domains under qmail. I am using IP aliasing, and have figured
out virtual hosting under apache and my ftpd. For qmail, I need to find a
way to:
Have the same username, but at different domains
ie, info@host1, info@host2 go to different mailboxes
(virtual aliases)
Have actual POP3 accounts of the same name, but different domains
ie, bob@host1 goes to bob, bob@host2 goes to bob@host2
(virtual accounts)
Have the aliases (and possibly actual accounts) defined by a file in
the users home directory (ie, .redirect, .users, something like
that).
I've been able to find a little information about this on the qmail site,
and have been playing with a test machine, but would like to know a little
more.
If this message is off-topic, please forgive me.
-Derick
--------------------==========++++++++++==========---------------------
Derick M. Zinnerstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (716) 510-7973
dcs-solutions.com intelligentsia.org statiknet.org hacknaked.com/net
Does anyone know if the qmail pop3 server (or any patches) support
the Outlook Express features to:
1) Leave a copy on the server
2) Delete copy after X days
Not surprisingly, people who set this option end up downloading
the same email every time they check pop, untill X days are over.
--
Ken Jones
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
Shouldn't be like that unless their copy of Outlook is broken. What's
the acronym ULID?
Ken Jones escribi�:
>
> Does anyone know if the qmail pop3 server (or any patches) support
> the Outlook Express features to:
>
> 1) Leave a copy on the server
> 2) Delete copy after X days
>
> Not surprisingly, people who set this option end up downloading
> the same email every time they check pop, untill X days are over.
>
> --
> Ken Jones
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Spark Sistemas
- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
Tel: 4702-1958
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> Shouldn't be like that unless their copy of Outlook is broken. What's
> the acronym ULID?
It's UIDL.
However, dollar to doughnuts that the guy is talking about some
proprietary MSexchange extension.
Hi all
I remember a old thread about denying tons of repeted junk mail to an
account or mailbombing (not in size, just the (same) mail's quantity)
I know now (-thanks to this qmail list-) how limiting incoming mail's size
with databytes, filtering mail with badmailfrom and procmail, but i have
no tool to limit or deny hundreds of the same small mail to an given
Mailbox
I've heard about tarpitting and other tools.
Maybe someone could point me to the url o the right direction?
Any working configuration in a production server?
I'm running qmail-1.03 with tcpserver, delivering to Mailbox.
Best regards
Abel Lucano
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:13:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
We've come around this by configuring bind only to listen on 127.0.0.1
and we've put
------------------------------------------------------------------------
domain space.net
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 195.30.0.2
nameserver 195.30.0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
into /etc/resolv.conf
This makes the bind running on the mailserver inaccessible from the
outside and as there are only few trusted users on the mailhub exploits
which use access/priviledge holes on the local filesystem are not
really that big a problem.
Other than that I agree that a named on a very low volume mail server
is not really needed.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
You can also run bind as non-root (e.g. nobody) and chrooted to its own
little partition. You can also prevent outside requests at the fire
wall by filtering on the ACK bit. It's not much of a security risk that
way.
Performance wise, always use forwarders if you are running a caching
only server. It's much faster that way.
Yan
Markus Stumpf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 02:13:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> ? 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.
>
> We've come around this by configuring bind only to listen on 127.0.0.1
> and we've put
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> domain space.net
> nameserver 127.0.0.1
> nameserver 195.30.0.2
> nameserver 195.30.0.1
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> into /etc/resolv.conf
>
> This makes the bind running on the mailserver inaccessible from the
> outside and as there are only few trusted users on the mailhub exploits
> which use access/priviledge holes on the local filesystem are not
> really that big a problem.
>
> Other than that I agree that a named on a very low volume mail server
> is not really needed.
>
> \Maex
>
> --
> SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
> Research ? Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
> D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
--
__ __
| / /
/------/
-- / \ / \ --
/ /\ \ / /\ \
| / | \/--|-- |
\ / \ /
~~ ~~
"The older I get, the faster I was."
At 11:07 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you 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.
Ummmm, i'm a little confused here, I don't admin my own DNS (UUNET does
that for me), is there a difference between DNS and a caching nameserver?
if so, will a caching nameserver speed up web queries by the machines
who get their net access via the linux box (NAT)?
-Bill
>
>Bill Parker wrote:
>>
>> At 11:07 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> Ummmm, i'm a little confused here, I don't admin my own DNS (UUNET does
>> that for me), is there a difference between DNS and a caching nameserver?
>>
>
>No. DNS most likely runs as named (also called BIND) on your unix box.
>If you're set up as caching only, you also want to have the forwarders
>set, and also alsways forward first.
ok, named is not currently running on my Linux box, and I have the ORA
DNS/Bind Book, does it show how to set up a caching only DNS (for local
stuff), or where should I look for this info?
>
>That way, your caching only nameserver will never try to resolve names
>itself that are not in its cache, but will always ask UUNET first.
>Chances are that UUNET's nameservers are much, much faster than yours,
>so names are resolved very quickly.
Yeah, but when UUnet breaks down once in a while (always at the MOST
inopportune times), DNS lookups croak, so a caching DNS w/forwarding
makes the best sense...Doe the book cover this stuff?
>
>> if so, will a caching nameserver speed up web queries by the machines
>> who get their net access via the linux box (NAT)?
>Yes.
That sounds like what I want to do...hmmmm!
-Bill
Bill Parker wrote:
>
> ok, named is not currently running on my Linux box, and I have the ORA
> DNS/Bind Book, does it show how to set up a caching only DNS (for local
> stuff), or where should I look for this info?
The book is a great start. Also see the DNS How-To.
> Yeah, but when UUnet breaks down once in a while (always at the MOST
> inopportune times), DNS lookups croak, so a caching DNS w/forwarding
> makes the best sense...Doe the book cover this stuff?
Generally. Chapter 4 is what you want - that's the meat
of it. However, you really should *read everything* up to
chapter 4.
-Tom
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Thomas M. Sasala, Electrical Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] +
+ MRJ Technology Solutions http://www.mrj.com +
+ 10461 White Granite Drive, Suite 102 (W)(703)277-1714 +
+ Oakton, VA 22124 (F)(703)277-1702 +
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
I got my config from LDP - sunsite.unc.edu, linux documentation project,
look up the DNS HOWTO. It's pretty well documented.
I just printed it out and cut and pasted the files...
You may have to download the latest version of BIND (8.1.3??) to make it
work.
quite possible, here is the output from tail -f /var/log/messages...<mope>
Aug 13 11:59:53 odie ftpd[15356]: FTP LOGIN FROM 192.168.2.4 [192.168.2.4],
billp
Aug 13 12:00:00 odie ftpd[15358]: FTP LOGIN FROM 192.168.2.4 [192.168.2.4],
billp
Aug 13 12:00:04 odie ftpd[15356]: FTP session closed
Aug 13 12:00:04 odie ftpd[15358]: FTP session closed
Aug 13 12:20:06 odie named[15412]: starting. named 4.9.3-BETA26 Sun Nov 26
2:58:49 CST 1995 ^Iroot@fuzzy:/tmp/bind-4.9.3-BETA26/named
Aug 13 12:20:06 odie named[15412]: /etc/named.boot: No such file or directory
Does anyone have any ideas, or does my version of BIND/named need to be
upgraded or replaced? <grrrr> (running Caldera OpenLinux 1.2 Base here,
libc5 based)
-Bill
>
Quoting Bill Parker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Aug 13 12:20:06 odie named[15412]: starting. named 4.9.3-BETA26 Sun Nov 26
> 2:58:49 CST 1995 ^Iroot@fuzzy:/tmp/bind-4.9.3-BETA26/named
> Aug 13 12:20:06 odie named[15412]: /etc/named.boot: No such file or directory
>
> Does anyone have any ideas, or does my version of BIND/named need to be
> upgraded or replaced? <grrrr> (running Caldera OpenLinux 1.2 Base here,
> libc5 based)
Yow, that version is ooold, and replete with remote root exploits,
no doubt. http://www.isc.org is the home of BIND, go there and
get the latest 8.1.x release. Compile and install. Get the bind-doc
file as well and read, read, read. BIND discussion is best in
comp.protocols.dns.bind.
Aaron
--
Aaron L. Meehan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Administrator Central Oregon Internet
http://www.coinet.com/
At 02:49 PM 8/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Quoting Bill Parker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>
>> Nod, I see a tarball for that stuff...have to download from isc.org,
>> since the tarball installs with root privledges, it should put every
>> thing in the right location (if my understanding of tarballs is any
>> good?)
>
>yes make install puts everything into the proper place.
>
ok, I did an rpm -e of bind, and downloaded the three .gz files in the
isc.org ftp directory...also interesting is when I issued the rpm -e on
bind, it also removed the named file from /etc/rc.d/init.d, although
the /usr/sbin/named file is still on the system...does this need to be
removed prior to starting...here is a ls -al of /usr/sbin/named*
/etc/named.conf
/etc/sysconfig/daemons/named.rpmsave
/usr/doc/bind-8.1.1/named.conf.sample.gz
/var/catman/cat8/named.8.gz
/var/lock/subsys/named
/var/named
so it looks like the binaries for named (aka bind 8.1.1) have been removed.
Is there any other problems or issues I might look for before untarring
the three packages I downloaded?
-Bill
hola qmailers,
I've been in the archives for a while looking at this previously
discussed topic and would like to make some comments on the typical
responses:
> No virus scanning package would be very efficient without continual updates.
This is the norm for all anti-virus packages and has been for years.
Don't understand where people are pulling that from. What's more most
any server would have continual conectivity, and updates ought to be
fairly transparent.
> Virus scanning should be done on the client machine
This is complete counter logic in my opnion. How can anyone argue that
anit-virus installations, scans, and updates are better done all client
machines when a single installation, scan, and update point is available
on the server?
> Viruses are being increasingly sent as encrypted msgs
Ok, you're got an arguement against server based scanning there, but the
question is; If the virus intially comes out in a pgp message, it will
not be propagated in an encrypted format if the people that resend don't
use pgp. Or an I wrong there?
The final point seems the me the only possible achiles heal of a server
based virus scanning system.
A virus scanning implementation would be extremely valuable, and can't
understand why the qmail community so shuns the idea. I know that the
virus scanning software for NT goes for upwards of $20,000 per
installation. How is it that all you qmail developers have not embraced
this big dollar topic as an opportunity. And the modulatity of qmail -
come on!
Cheers, - eric
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Spark Sistemas
- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
Tel: 4702-1958
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
My company makes its money offering an email virus scanning service (based
on qmail!), so I would like to throw in my 2p worth based on our
experience.....
>> Viruses are being increasingly sent as encrypted msgs
>Ok, you're got an arguement against server based scanning there, but the
>question is; If the virus intially comes out in a pgp message, it will
>not be propagated in an encrypted format if the people that resend don't
>use pgp. Or an I wrong there?
I have not seen any examples of this, ever. Now, of course our system would
not pick this up directly so I am basing this on the fact that none of our
customers has ever complained of receiving a virus in an encrypted email.
Has *anyone* any factual data to back this up? Is anyone out there seeing an
increase in encrypted traffic? We find that less than 0.0001% of our mail
traffic is encrypted. Is this the norm or are we a special case?
>How is it that all you qmail developers have not embraced
>this big dollar topic as an opportunity. And the modulatity of qmail -
>come on!
:)
________________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 02:22:51PM -0300,
Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Virus scanning should be done on the client machine
> This is complete counter logic in my opnion. How can anyone argue that
> anit-virus installations, scans, and updates are better done all client
> machines when a single installation, scan, and update point is available
> on the server?
Because there are generally a lot more free cycles on the end user machine
than on the mail server. Not all messages that go through the main servers
will normally need to be checked. Some users may not want to bother having
virus scans done at all since they won't be running any programs sent to them
(including active documents).
> > Viruses are being increasingly sent as encrypted msgs
> Ok, you're got an arguement against server based scanning there, but the
> question is; If the virus intially comes out in a pgp message, it will
> not be propagated in an encrypted format if the people that resend don't
> use pgp. Or an I wrong there?
I believe there were two parts to this. One is that people will start getting
more encrypted email. This email can't be effectively scanned because the
server has no way to read it. The second part is that virus writers can be
expected to start using encryption to make detecting viruses with pattern
matching more difficult. This allow with the continual increase in the number
of viruses will mean that as time goes on, checking for viruses is going to
be more resource intensive and that in the long run other approaches should
be used.
> > Virus scanning should be done on the client machine
>...Because there are generally a lot more free cycles on the end user
machine
>than on the mail server.
True, but not necessarily relevant. If my server doesn't have enough free
cycles to cope with virus scanning, I just buy a faster server or use two
servers. Virus scanning belongs on the server and the client, but to me it
makes more sense to put most of my effort into protecting the central
places, like servers, because these are the places where viruses will move
from machine to machine. I still protect my clients, but I work harder at
protecting my servers.
>Not all messages that go through the main servers
>will normally need to be checked.
I agree. We should only check those messages that contain viruses. That
would save a lot of time. ;-)
>Some users may not want to bother having
>virus scans done at all since they won't be running any programs sent to
them
>(including active documents).
Yes, I agree again. ;-) All our users/customers are virus experts and never
do anything which could cause them to become infected and never make any
mistakes or have any accidents. When they tell me they will never run any
programs sent to them, I know I can sleep happy... The fact that we have
intercepted viruses from an IT director of a major IT company, and also from
a major Antivirus vendor must be just bad luck on our part. Perhaps we have
the wrong set of customers, somehow not mirroring the real world.
> Viruses are being increasingly sent as encrypted msgs
>>...people will start getting more encrypted email.
Does anyone have any hard data on the increase in encrypted mail traffic?
I'm very interested in this.
>>...virus writers can be
>>expected to start using encryption to make detecting viruses with pattern
>>matching more difficult.
Has anyone seen this yet? Again, I'm very interested in any real examples.
>>..checking for viruses is going to
>>be more resource intensive
(lets hope increases in processor speeds keeps up!)
>>and that in the long run other approaches should
>>be used.
Like not checking for viruses? (sorry, couldn't resist that one)
Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex Shipp
Imagineer
St@r Internet
E - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T - 01285 884496
F - 01285 887013
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
hi,
Could you tell me how to unsubscribe the mailing list?
Thanks a lot!
--------------------------------------------------
Liang Xiaojun
463 chapin complex
stony brook, NY, 11790
Tel:516-216-2121(h)
--------------------------------------------------
liang xiaojun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Could you tell me how to unsubscribe the mailing list?
See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#mailing-lists
-Dave
Hi everybody,
I'm starting with qmail and I installed vckhpw and qmailadmin, as
well
as autoresponder and ezlml
The problem comes when I try to get the mail.
I'm running it in a Solaris 2.6 SPARC.
The /etc/init.d/qmail file contains (this is only the main part of it):
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
supervise /var/lock/qmail-smtpd /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v
-x/etc/tcp.s
mtp.cdb -u$USERID -g$GROUPID 0 25 \
/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 |
setuser qmaill
/usr/local/bin/accustamp | \
setuser qmaill /usr/local/bin/cyclog -s5000000 -n5
/var/log/qmail/qmail-
smtpd &
env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
tcpserver 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup sintesoft.net \
/mail/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
And I've created the directory for vpopmail in /mail/vpopmail
Inside that I've created a username for mydefaultdomain.com in
users called martin
Also, I've created a virtual domain called virtualdomain.com
When I try to read the email from for example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I get:
-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
For a virtual domain it seems to be working fine.
Somebody knows what should I change?.
Thanks in advance,
Martin
Best regards,
Martin Paulucci
http://www.ServiRED.COM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
Telephone/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
Look at your file /var/qmail/rc
My guess is that file starts qmail with Mailbox format.
change ./Mailbox to ./Maildir/ and everything should work.
Martin Paulucci wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm starting with qmail and I installed vckhpw and qmailadmin, as
> well
> as autoresponder and ezlml
> The problem comes when I try to get the mail.
> I'm running it in a Solaris 2.6 SPARC.
>
> The /etc/init.d/qmail file contains (this is only the main part of it):
>
> csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
>
> supervise /var/lock/qmail-smtpd /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v
> -x/etc/tcp.s
> mtp.cdb -u$USERID -g$GROUPID 0 25 \
> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 |
> setuser qmaill
> /usr/local/bin/accustamp | \
> setuser qmaill /usr/local/bin/cyclog -s5000000 -n5
> /var/log/qmail/qmail-
> smtpd &
>
> env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
> tcpserver 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup sintesoft.net \
> /mail/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
>
> And I've created the directory for vpopmail in /mail/vpopmail
> Inside that I've created a username for mydefaultdomain.com in
> users called martin
> Also, I've created a virtual domain called virtualdomain.com
> When I try to read the email from for example
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] I get:
> -ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
> For a virtual domain it seems to be working fine.
>
> Somebody knows what should I change?.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Martin
> Best regards,
>
> Martin Paulucci
> http://www.ServiRED.COM
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
> Telephone/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
--
Ken Jones
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ - web based qmail adminstration
I can't send from a pop client a message to someone outside my box. It
says that the recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is not acceptable to my SMTP
server.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (local user) -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (outside user)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lundquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Aug 13, 1999 at 02:10:55PM -0400, Mark wrote:
> I can't send from a pop client a message to someone outside my box. It says
> that the recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is not acceptable to my SMTP server.
Don't paraphrase. What does it really say?
I'll go out on a limb and guess that FAQ 5.4 and maybe
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html will help.
Chris
Hi
I'm working on a webbased mailadministration system. Using perl and
"Single-UID based POP3 box HOWTO" by Pau Gregg.
My directory structure looks like
/var/qmail/popboxes/<domain>/<user>/Maildir/
where <user> is the popuser.
Is it posible to put that i a .qmail-default?
/Lars
Student at Department of Computer Science
University of Copenhagen
http://www.diku.dk/students/larsj/
Hi,
I got the following error message, when I tried to retrieve my
mail using getpop3. All messages fetched are directly passed to
qmail-inject.
*******
RETR 1
+OK 2944 octets
Retrieving message...
qmail-inject: fatal: unable to parse this line:
Cc: davem%redhat.com;ak%muc.de;[EMAIL PROTECTED];;;;
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject terminated with status 100.
QUIT
*******
Qmail-inject terminated and consequently getpop3 terminated
too, leaving the other 300 messages on the server (which is
actually good, because obviously getpop3 does not lose
messages).
Pretty radical approach... Is it really necessary for qmail-inject
to stop in a moment?
Could somebody please explain?
Thanks...Ralf
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Ralf Nagel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got the following error message, when I tried to retrieve my
> mail using getpop3. All messages fetched are directly passed to
> qmail-inject.
>
> *******
> RETR 1
> +OK 2944 octets
> Retrieving message...
> qmail-inject: fatal: unable to parse this line:
> Cc: davem%redhat.com;ak%muc.de;[EMAIL PROTECTED];;;;
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject terminated with status 100.
Try specifying the option -m /var/qmail/bin/sendmail to getpop3.
> Qmail-inject terminated and consequently getpop3 terminated
> too, leaving the other 300 messages on the server (which is
> actually good, because obviously getpop3 does not lose
> messages).
> Pretty radical approach... Is it really necessary for qmail-inject
> to stop in a moment?
>
> Could somebody please explain?
qmail-inject apparently barfs on badly formatted headers. getpop3 simply
hands off mail it pulls down from your POP3 mailbox over to qmail-inject.
You can't really point the finger anywhere here. The real culprit here is
the knucklehead who's sending you the mail with crap in the headers.
It would be safe to assume that whoever's sending you nonsense like that
isn't worth reading anyway. So, if it bothers you that much, you can tell
by running getpop3 manually, from console, the number of the message in
your mailbox which is causing this problem, so you can telnet to the pop3
port on your server manually, and blow it away.
relaying was the problem
Thanks for the help
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lundquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Parker writes:
> At 11:07 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >*Always* run a nameserver on your qmail machine, even if it's caching-only.
>
> Ummmm, i'm a little confused here, I don't admin my own DNS (UUNET does
> that for me), is there a difference between DNS and a caching nameserver?
I agree, it's confusing. Let me try to explain. The DNS (domain name
system) is a big distributed database (unquestionably THE most widely
distributed database), shaped like a tree. The tree starts at the
root, which holds top-level domains: the gTLD's (.net, .com, .edu,
etc.) and ccTLD's (.us, .uk, .pl, .to, etc.) Then you get into
second-level domain names, and third, etc.
You *could* quite easily construct a client which always recursed the
whole tree, starting at the root. That would be very slow. Instead,
what happens is that the client *always* asks a local server
(sometimes on the same machine). The server will do the recursion if
it doesn't have a timely cached answer from a previous query.
There is no requirement that your clients' nameserver be the same
nameserver that is authoritative for your domain. Important
characteristics for your authoritative nameserver (reliable access
from the rest of net) are different than those for your client's
nameserver (tons of memory for storing all the hostnames you send
email to).
> if so, will a caching nameserver speed up web queries by the machines
> who get their net access via the linux box (NAT)?
Yes. You should always have a caching nameserver which is local to
the clients which access it. Whether that's the same machine running
qmail, or whether it's a dedicated machine depends on the exact mix of
email you send and receive.
--
-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!
We had some difficulties yesterday...
Our qmail servers are connected to a netfiler.
Someone plugged something into port 1 on the switch on the network
and everything freaked out for a while.
Anyway, many switch and box reboots later I'm having problems with
qmail on one of the boxes.
When I start up qmail it says a bunch of items are accepted for
delivery, but then I get qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe
(this comes from spawn.c)
Has the queue been corrupted? Is it fixable using the queue-rename
patch I found in the archives by Pedro Melo?
I have qmail running on a second disk in the server w/
the disk mounted onto /var/qmail...
(it is a Sun E450 running 2.6 and qmail 1.03)
********
a couple of usernames replace by joe/josieuser...
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.287240 status: local 0/10 remote
31/110
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320082 delivery 156: deferral:
qmail-spaw
n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320303 status: local 0/10 remote
30/110
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325023 starting delivery 157: msg
116965
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325242 status: local 0/10 remote
31/110
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325710 delivery 157: deferral:
qmail-spaw
n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325919 status: local 0/10 remote
30/110
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340023 starting delivery 158: msg
116748
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340239 status: local 0/10 remote
31/110
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356327 starting delivery 159: msg
116687
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356563 status: local 0/10 remote
32/110
Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.367017 delivery 158: deferral:
qmail-spaw
n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/
plus a lot of these...
Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.525128 warning: trouble injecting
bounce message, will try later
Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.583448 warning: trouble injecting
bounce message, will try later
Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.650093 warning: trouble injecting
bounce message, will try later
Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.708559 warning: trouble injecting
bounce message, will try later
Aug 13 12:55:43 mail6 qmail: 934574143.765686 warning: trouble injecting
bounce message, will try later
Aug 13 12:56:40 mail6 qmail: 934574200.819155 warning: trouble injecting
bounce message, will try later
--
mike b. ---------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.sprynet.com/~boyiazis/mikehome.htm
"I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." Calvin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Hello. I am creating a qmail-based webmail system(please contact me if
anyone else is working on this too!) and have some questions about
Maildirs.
I am concerned with running up against file/inode limits with maildirs.
However, I have no real knowledge of the underlying file system to base
this fear on. Can anyone recommend somewhere where I can learn more
about this? Some of my questions: Does the size of the drive affect the
maximum number of files? What are the average practical limits?
Also, I would love to hear any general comments on my design for the
system. I am using Maildirs because the system seems much better in
most respects that the mail spool files.
However, I still sometimes question my choice. Using Maildirs, I simply
need to scan a directory for files and then put that list up for the
webmail user to choose from. However, it seems I would have to open
each file in the dir to get the header info out. I've considered
updating a central index file as mail arrives but I don't know how well
that would work.
I've also considered just inserting all the mails into a mysql database
when they arrive. Thoughts?
Using the traditional spool file sometimes appears to be the best
option as I can simply open the one file and scan it for headers and
build a index document with the headers and information regarding what
byte offset contains each email.
Well, I don't mean to just pop up on the list and start asking for free
advice, but if anyone is in the mood to talk, I would love to hear any
advice or comments.
Thanks,
Jack
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, john smith wrote:
> Hello. I am creating a qmail-based webmail system(please contact me if
> anyone else is working on this too!) and have some questions about
> Maildirs.
It's been done already. www.qmail.org has some pointers to a couple of
webmail CGIs that you can use.
> I am concerned with running up against file/inode limits with maildirs.
> However, I have no real knowledge of the underlying file system to base
> this fear on. Can anyone recommend somewhere where I can learn more
> about this? Some of my questions: Does the size of the drive affect the
> maximum number of files? What are the average practical limits?
It has been my experience that the size of an average E-mail message is
somewhere between 4K and 7K.
As long as you format your filesystem with 4096 bytes per inode, you'll
get it right on the button.
This also happens to be how Linux formats ext2fs by default, so apparently
on most UNIXes the average size of a file is also 4K to 7K, so basically
storing E-mail messages one per file does not really skewer your
filesystem stats.
> However, I still sometimes question my choice. Using Maildirs, I simply
> need to scan a directory for files and then put that list up for the
> webmail user to choose from. However, it seems I would have to open
> each file in the dir to get the header info out. I've considered
> updating a central index file as mail arrives but I don't know how well
> that would work.
>
> I've also considered just inserting all the mails into a mysql database
> when they arrive. Thoughts?
My webmail CGI creates a cache file that stores the headers of all the
messages in the Maildir. The cache file gets automatically rebuilt when
new messages arrive. I compare the timestamps to figure out when I need
to rebuild the cache file. Works very well, to format the folder contents
I only need to open the cache file, and read it.
It's been my experience that this approach scales to about a thousand
messages per a Maildir. If you're dealing with more mail than that,
you're better off with a commercial, database-driven solution. You also
have to be aware, if you choose to write something like this yourself,
that there are some pretty tricky race conditions that can bite you, if
you compare timestamps in such a fashion. Furthermore, if you're using
NFS, you have to have the clocks on your server and client synched up.
Otherwise, you get screwed.
In most UNIX systems (excluding e.g. Network Appliances and Veritas)
there is a fixed number of inodes defined when you create (mkfs.minx,
newfs, etc.) the file system. The number is configurable within pretty
broad limits. As an aside, recall that every (sub)directory, link, and
file take up an inode. Most folks run into problems resulting from the
amount of email files, but having a lot of empty email users can
therefore cause problems (e.g. when running a free email service).
If I recall, large files can also require multiple inodes. I have
forgotten my vnode to inode mapping rules so I could easily be wrong.
john smith wrote:
>
> Hello. I am creating a qmail-based webmail system(please contact me if
> anyone else is working on this too!) and have some questions about
> Maildirs.
>
> I am concerned with running up against file/inode limits with maildirs.
> However, I have no real knowledge of the underlying file system to base
> this fear on. Can anyone recommend somewhere where I can learn more
> about this? Some of my questions: Does the size of the drive affect the
> maximum number of files? What are the average practical limits?
>
> Also, I would love to hear any general comments on my design for the
> system. I am using Maildirs because the system seems much better in
> most respects that the mail spool files.
Avoids locking problems if multiple deliveries occur in parallel to the
same email.
>
> However, I still sometimes question my choice. Using Maildirs, I simply
> need to scan a directory for files and then put that list up for the
> webmail user to choose from. However, it seems I would have to open
> each file in the dir to get the header info out. I've considered
> updating a central index file as mail arrives but I don't know how well
> that would work.
Watch out for excessive disk io reading/updating the inodes for atime
(in Linix, FreeBSD or Solaris 2.7 you can turn off atime).
>
> I've also considered just inserting all the mails into a mysql database
> when they arrive. Thoughts?
Inserting the HEADERS is a nice speed up but file access will ALWAYS be
faster (30-200%) than ANY database access for a given number of bytes.
>
> Using the traditional spool file sometimes appears to be the best
> option as I can simply open the one file and scan it for headers and
> build a index document with the headers and information regarding what
> byte offset contains each email.
MySQL et al allows you to quickly deliver the headers to the user, e.g.
with JavaScript so the user can sort locally. Going after a given file
then is pretty quick AND stateless.
>
> Well, I don't mean to just pop up on the list and start asking for free
> advice, but if anyone is in the mood to talk, I would love to hear any
> advice or comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
--
Daemeon Reiydelle
Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recall some time back there was much discussion about
having a linux distrobution with qmail rather than
sendmail. This, to me, makes more sense than I have
time for here. I also recall there being much debate
about Redhat wishing to do this, yet, for various
reasons this did not happen.
Every Redhat server I set up I need to go throuth the
process of ridding the system of sendmail and istalling qmail.
I use the memphis rpm and wrote up a simple install script
to to do this with. Then i thought how much easier this would
be if the rpms were part of the distribution rather and
installed during setup, rather than laboriously uninstalling
sendmail ( and applications that depend on sendmail)
So I started piecing together my own redhat clone (yes,
yet another) and would like to know what I need to do
to have qmail included with this distribution.
Did anything positive result from the experience with redhat?
What obligations do people have when distributing qmail?
All thoughts and suggestion gratefully accepted
Kevin Waterson
--
_ _
/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / Systems Administator
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ ...... http://www.oceania.net ......
Dear All,
I tried to implement forward command in my ~aaa/.qmail file:
|if [ "$SENDER" = "bbb@domain" ]; then /var/qmail/bin/forward
ccc@domain ; exit 100; fi
./Maildir/
The message successfully delivered to ccc@domain, but there's
still
a bounce back message to bbb@domain:
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work
out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
forward: qp 31002
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
How to avoid this failure? (forward: qp 31002)
Thanks
Ayip.
--
Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of
a subject
-- the actual enemy is the unknown.
-- Thomas Mann
Change the EXITCODE to 0. The EXITCODE 100 causes qmail bounce the message
back to the sender.
Dong
-----Original Message-----
From: A.Y. Sjarifuddin +ADw-ayip+AEA-cbn.net.id+AD4-
To: qmail+AEA-list.cr.yp.to +ADw-qmail+AEA-list.cr.yp.to+AD4-
Date: Saturday, August 14, 1999 7:47 AM
Subject: forward: qp 31002
+AD4-Dear All,
+AD4-I tried to implement forward command in my +AH4-aaa/.qmail file:
+AD4-
+AD4AfA-if +AFs- +ACIAJA-SENDER+ACI- +AD0- +ACI-bbb+AEA-domain+ACI- +AF0AOw- then
+/var/qmail/bin/forward
+AD4-ccc+AEA-domain +ADs- exit 100+ADs- fi
+AD4-./Maildir/
+AD4-
+AD4-The message successfully delivered to ccc+AEA-domain, but there's
+AD4-still
+AD4-a bounce back message to bbb+AEA-domain:
+AD4-
+AD4-This is a permanent error+ADs- I've given up. Sorry it didn't work
+AD4-out.
+AD4-
+AD4APA-ayip+AEA-cbn.net.id+AD4-:
+AD4-forward: qp 31002
+AD4-
+AD4---- Below this line is a copy of the message.
+AD4-
+AD4-How to avoid this failure? (forward: qp 31002)
+AD4-
+AD4-Thanks
+AD4-Ayip.
+AD4---
+AD4- Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of
+AD4-a subject
+AD4- -- the actual enemy is the unknown.
+AD4- -- Thomas Mann
A.Y. Sjarifuddin writes:
> Dear All,
> I tried to implement forward command in my ~aaa/.qmail file:
>
> |if [ "$SENDER" = "bbb@domain" ]; then /var/qmail/bin/forward
> ccc@domain ; exit 100; fi
> ./Maildir/
>
> The message successfully delivered to ccc@domain, but there's still
> a bounce back message to bbb@domain:
Yup. That's what you told it to do. You asked to have the mail
forwarded (by running forward), then you asked to have it bounced (by
exiting 100).
By the way, the PATH in a .qmail file has /var/qmail/bin at the head
of it, so you can just say:
> |if [ "$SENDER" = "bbb@domain" ]; then forward ccc@domain; fi
> ./Maildir/
--
-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!
More specifically, folder creation seems broken.
I applied David Harris' maildir patches:
<http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/>
to imap-4.6.BETA from
<ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/mail/imap-4.6.BETA.tar.Z>
it applied quite well, and launched wonderfully. I had users supply
(as directed '~/Maildir/' as thier 'mailbox prefix'.
When they tried to make a new folder, the folder created _should_
have been called:
~user/Maildir/NewFolder
(or so I guess), however, what was actually created was:
~user/~/Maildir/NewFolder
The creation of the folder was reported as a success, but subsequent
efforts to use the folder yielded '~/Maildir/NewFolder is not a
valid mailbox', or some such.
I'm otherwise pleased; this is just a heads-up.
--
Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
37 Crystal Ave. #303 Daytime number: (781) 899-7484 x704
Derry NH 03038-1713 USA Intel architecture: the left-hand path
Brian Reichert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
[snip]
> it applied quite well, and launched wonderfully. I had users supply
> (as directed '~/Maildir/' as thier 'mailbox prefix'.
>
> When they tried to make a new folder, the folder created _should_
> have been called:
>
> ~user/Maildir/NewFolder
>
> (or so I guess), however, what was actually created was:
>
> ~user/~/Maildir/NewFolder
>
> The creation of the folder was reported as a success, but subsequent
> efforts to use the folder yielded '~/Maildir/NewFolder is not a
> valid mailbox', or some such.
[snip]
I'm a bit confused about what you are seeing here. When you say that the folder
should have been created as "~user/Maildir/NewFolder" but was created as
"~user/~/Maildir/NewFolder" are you talking about the unix filesystem location
of the folder, or namespace the IMAP server presents to the client? If this is
in the IMAP namespace, could you please tell me where in the filesystem the
folder was created.
Also, where did you read that "~/Maildir/" was the proper mailbox prefix. I've
got things working without any kind of mailbox prefix.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
What is the most standard checkpassword -
program? I get to this www.qmail.org and
follow links from there, and I only get to a page with many different options,
which all seem very complicated and unstandard. I tried a few, with no
results.
-Maria
|
