qmail Digest 21 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 735
Topics (messages 29261 through 29302):
Mail Filter of my own
29261 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29269 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail and IMAP
29262 by: "Bongo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Viewing cyclog logs
29263 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
daemontools binaries
29264 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver not (sys)logging on redhat-5.2
29265 by: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29267 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Copy of all messages from host xxxx
29266 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29294 by: "Ben Beuchler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29295 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
fastforward and location of aliases file
29268 by: Steve Tylock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29274 by: Mirko Zeibig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29276 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User Based Forwarding
29270 by: "Amit Vadehra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29272 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Opinions on a mail filter?
29271 by: "Mark E. Drummond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29273 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
daemontools binaries (was Re: binaries)
29275 by: Greg Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29278 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29282 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29285 by: Greg Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29300 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29302 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pine patches
29277 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29280 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29281 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29283 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29284 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29286 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29288 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
POP takes >20sec to connect ???
29279 by: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How do I unsubscribe
29287 by: "Diego Puertas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29292 by: Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
recommended pltform?
29289 by: "Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29290 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29291 by: "Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29293 by: "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29296 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29301 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SQWebMail or IMP?
29297 by: Tim Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29298 by: "Martin Paulucci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-send and the processes it spawns
29299 by: "Bill Johnson" <[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, 19 Aug 1999, Samar Vijay wrote:
> I am thinking of writing a Mail Filter of my own. Can I use the CDB file that Qmail
>uses for user authentication?
> Is there any API dicumented ot something?
What and Why do you want to authenticate in a mail filter?
Is it an outgoing and/or incoming mail filter?
/magnus
--
"MOST USELESS site of the year 1998" --> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Samar Vijay wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Samar Vijay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: QMAIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Mail Filter of my own
>
>
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Samar Vijay wrote:
> >
> > > I am thinking of writing a Mail Filter of my own. Can I use the CDB
> file that Qmail uses for user authentication?
> > > Is there any API dicumented ot something?
> >
> > What and Why do you want to authenticate in a mail filter?
> > Is it an outgoing and/or incoming mail filter?
> >
> > /magnus
>
> I am thinking extending the functionality of /etc/tcp.smtp. I want to
> filter mails on per user basis. Has somebody
> tried it? The reason is that we so many customers who use our email
> servers from ISP. I am not able to stop
> anonymous spams. Its not on a big scale though, but we are exposing
> ourselves anyway. Authenticating mails
> on user basis may control a lot of it.
>
> NOTE - I know the server is stilll exposed.
tcpserver blocks on a lower level. You have to insert this functionality
in qmail-smtpd. And you won't like to do that, I guess.
/magnus
--
"MOST USELESS site of the year 1998"
--> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
I am running qmail with David Summers qmail-imap Linux
RPM.
Although pop-3 connections work fine, users connecting with
IMAP sends the imapd process anywhere between 40 and 100% for around 30 seconds,
before they get delivery of their Inbox (or any other folder)
The server is a PII 400 with 384Mb RAM running
RH6.
Anyone else had this problem or got any
suggestions?
Thanks,
Toby.
|
I had this idea...
> in my free time (in a month? :-) I want to start working on a log
> reviewing tool for cyclog. right now it's very inconveniant to run less on
> a random logfile, since the filename changes once in a while, plus the
> time stamps are not human readable. an interface to read the right log
> automatically, in human time and the right time zone, plus coloring and
> possibly jumping fixed time gaps automatically, including across log files
> (one minute, one hour, etc). the way the cyclog directories are organized
> will let such a tool guess automatically what logs exist on the system to
> begin with and offer them to the user in a menu etc., etc.
anyone already working on this? can we collaborate and split the work?
anyone got more feature ideas or things he'd like to implement there?
I have a feeling that with a good audit review tool and with Mate's
excellent inetd-replacement system to tcpserver, we could push cycslog
to take the command from syslogd for most system functions if not all,
hopefully to make it a standard on one of the Linux distributions as a
beginning.
I just extend the fairly clearly described qmail license to the other
djb products: a binary distribution which installs the same as if it
was compiled (unpatched) from the tarball, and it behaves the same can be
distributed w/o getting djb's personal permission.
I do not see any problem Kevin distributing qmail with his OS; that
seems to be particularly encouraged by Dan. But no patches---and it
is probably a good idea to make a separate var-qmail and qmail-run
package. It is also more useful for the user (it will be clear that
the INSTALL docs refer to var-qmail only, and they can easily check
what is provided for them by qmail-run).
Mate
Using redhat-5.2/linux and qmail-1.03-2, I have added some
rblsmtpd's to the startup script /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail which now says:
echo -n "Starting qmail: "
/var/qmail/start-qmail &
/usr/sbin/tcpserver -u 72 -g 201 0 smtp \
/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.radparker.com \
/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.orbs.org \
/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrbl.maps.vix.com \
/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdul.maps.vix.com \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 &
I added the rblsmtpd lines and the traling "2>&1"
How do I make messages from rblsmtpd go to syslog?
The rblsmtpd messages go to the root user tty, which is rather disturbing.
:rblsmtpd: pid 8153: 451 Open relay - see
:http://www.orbs.org/verify.cgi?address=x.x.x.x
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 03:20:49PM +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote:
> Using redhat-5.2/linux and qmail-1.03-2, I have added some
> rblsmtpd's to the startup script /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail which now says:
>
> echo -n "Starting qmail: "
> /var/qmail/start-qmail &
> /usr/sbin/tcpserver -u 72 -g 201 0 smtp \
> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.radparker.com \
> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.orbs.org \
> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrbl.maps.vix.com \
> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdul.maps.vix.com \
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 &
You need that line to end ' ...smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &'
Without splogger, output goes to the console.
--
See complete headers for more info
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 11:22:51AM +0000, Alain Cocconi wrote:
See FAQ #5.5 from the qmail docs. It talk about a broken client, but it
works for any client, and you can do whatever you like with the message,
including keep a copy.
> Hello,
>
> I'm searching a .qmail-default configuration for keeping copy of all
> messages sended from a host xxxx
>
> I've try to use mess822, but I don't know the right way to do it.
>
> Do you have an idea ?
--
See complete headers for more info
Completely off topic, but I find it interesting that Outlook 98 decided that
this particular thread was of an obscene nature and marked it as an "Adult",
filtering it into my trash folder...
Perhaps Redmond doesn't like any competition for the dreaded Exchange
server...
----------
The phrasing, style, and content of this message are the sole property of
Ben Beuchler, Inc. and may not be reproduced in any way, shape or form
without the written consent Ben Beuchler Enterprises. All rights reserved.
Void where prohibited by law. Do not remove under penalty of law. Do not
spindle or fold. Not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anand Buddhdev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 8:31 AM
> To: Alain Cocconi
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Copy of all messages from host xxxx
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 11:22:51AM +0000, Alain Cocconi wrote:
>
> See FAQ #5.5 from the qmail docs. It talk about a broken client, but it
> works for any client, and you can do whatever you like with the message,
> including keep a copy.
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm searching a .qmail-default configuration for keeping copy of all
> > messages sended from a host xxxx
> >
> > I've try to use mess822, but I don't know the right way to do it.
> >
> > Do you have an idea ?
>
> --
> See complete headers for more info
>
>
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 07:38:27PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
: Completely off topic, but I find it interesting that Outlook 98 decided that
: this particular thread was of an obscene nature and marked it as an "Adult",
: filtering it into my trash folder...
:
: Perhaps Redmond doesn't like any competition for the dreaded Exchange
: server...
:
: > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > Subject: Re: Copy of all messages from host xxxx
^^^^
Nice conspiracy theory, but I think this is the more likely culprit.
The real question is why are you using an M$ mail client? Now that's
truly obscene! ;-)
(I used qmail for my tiny site within Kodak 3 years ago, and have
just converted my new employer (~200 accounts) to it...)
We have an automated environment where an LDAP server is the key data
repository. Users manage aliases and forwarding through a web page.
With sendmail, a backend took the data and massaged it into an
/etc/aliases file.
I have fastforward, and have modified most of the backend to work
with ~user/.qmail, and still run the rest out of /etc/aliases.
I'd like this backend to work as a user other than root, but
newaliases requires the file /etc/aliases.tmp, and I can't make
that a link...
Any ideas on solutions short of:
using a group permission on /etc
hacking into the newaliases code myself
steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 10:21:42AM -0400, Steve Tylock wrote:
> (I used qmail for my tiny site within Kodak 3 years ago, and have
> just converted my new employer (~200 accounts) to it...)
>
> We have an automated environment where an LDAP server is the key data
> repository. Users manage aliases and forwarding through a web page.
> With sendmail, a backend took the data and massaged it into an
> /etc/aliases file.
>
> I have fastforward, and have modified most of the backend to work
> with ~user/.qmail, and still run the rest out of /etc/aliases.
>
> I'd like this backend to work as a user other than root, but
> newaliases requires the file /etc/aliases.tmp, and I can't make
> that a link...
>
> Any ideas on solutions short of:
> using a group permission on /etc
> hacking into the newaliases code myself
I am not quite sure, but a grep over the sources showed that the position
/etc/aliases.tmp is only twice found in newaliases.c, so I guess replacing
this one should be enough.
Regards
Mirko
Steve Tylock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
[[snip]]
> I have fastforward, and have modified most of the backend to work
> with ~user/.qmail, and still run the rest out of /etc/aliases.
>
> I'd like this backend to work as a user other than root, but
> newaliases requires the file /etc/aliases.tmp, and I can't make
> that a link...
>
> Any ideas on solutions short of:
> using a group permission on /etc
> hacking into the newaliases code myself
I don't think there is any way short of hacking the code. Here is the patch you
want:
http://www.davideous.com/misc/fastforward-0.51_aliasloc.patch
This patch makes the filename for the database to update the first argument
passed to newalises. Beware that this patch does not update the documentation
or any of the error messages.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
|
Hi,
I need to implement user
based Email forwarding. This essentially means that i can have multiple users
on one particular domain. There might be [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Both these users
physically sit at different places say one is in London and one in New York. Now
both these places have a email server. This email server could be any POP3 /
SMTP email server and not necessary on Linux/Qmail. Now My Qmail server is the
gateway for both these locations . The Domain MX record points to this this
server which physically sits elsewhere from the other two servers.
Now what i need is that
when the mail for User1 comes to the Qmail server , it should get forwarded to
the London server and when the mail for User2 comes it should get forwarded to
the New York server. All the servers are on the Internet and connectivity is not
a problem .The forwarding should take place on IP rather that Domains
or any Names as i dont want any DNS resolution to take place.
I DO NOT want them to
have different domains like [EMAIL PROTECTED] .This is
possible by putting the entries in the SMTPROUTES file , but this is NOTwhat i
require.As it is one organisation , i would like all the e-mail addresses to be
with a single domain.
Thanks in Anticipation.
|
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 08:38:42PM +0530, Amit Vadehra wrote:
> I need to implement user based Email forwarding. This essentially means that
> i can have multiple users on one particular domain. There might be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Both these users physically sit at
> different places say one is in London and one in New York. Now both these
> places have a email server. This email server could be any POP3 / SMTP email
> server and not necessary on Linux/Qmail. Now My Qmail server is the gateway
> for both these locations . The Domain MX record points to this this server
> which physically sits elsewhere from the other two servers.
>
> Now what i need is that when the mail for User1 comes to the Qmail server ,
> it should get forwarded to the London server and when the mail for User2
> comes it should get forwarded to the New York server. All the servers are on
> the Internet and connectivity is not a problem .The forwarding should take
> place on IP rather that Domains or any Names as i dont want any DNS
> resolution to take place.
>
> I DO NOT want them to have different domains like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .This is possible by putting the entries in the SMTPROUTES file , but this is
> NOTwhat i require.As it is one organisation , i would like all the e-mail
> addresses to be with a single domain.
This is exactly what you require. The machines in London and New York do have
names, or at least IP addresses, even if you don't want people addressing mail
directly to them. On your main mail server, you'd have:
~alias/.qmail-user1:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~alias/.qmail-user2
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
control/smtproutes:
london.domain.com:[london's IP address]
newyork.domain.com:[newyork's IP address]
All your e-mail addresses would be of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED], and your main
mail server would be responsible for getting the mail to its ultimate
destination.
Chris
I have the following setup. Currently my mail is spooled on my mail hub
and I access it using IMAP. I am running qmail locally with delivery to
my ~/Maildir/. If I turn on mail fowarding on my mailhub to send mail to
my local machine (which is the goal here) all my mail gets stuck in
~/Maildir/. No problem there except that I am on a "few" mailing lists
and would like to filter incoming mail ala procmail.
I would like to change my setup a bit so that I have say ~/Mail/ which
would contain Maildir style mailboxes under it like so:
~/Mail/inbox
~/Mail/mutt
~/Mail/qmail
etc etc. Each of those subdirs would be a Maildir style mailbox created
with makemaildir.
So everything is set up except for the mail filter and I am wondering
which I should use. I have some experience with procmail but have not
managed to get it to work with qmail. Is there a filter that I can stick
in the pipe that will deliver to Maildir style folders?
Mark.
begin:vcard
n:Drummond;Mark
tel;fax:(613) 542-8129
tel;home:(613) 384-4068
tel;work:(613) 541-6000 x 6060
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:signals.rmc.ca
org:Royal Military College of Canada;Computing Services
adr:;;4475 Bath Road;Amherstview;Ontario;K7N 1A3;CANADA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:UNIX System Administrator
x-mozilla-cpt:;31488
fn:Mark Drummond
end:vcard
"Mark E. Drummond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So everything is set up except for the mail filter and I am wondering
>which I should use. I have some experience with procmail but have not
>managed to get it to work with qmail. Is there a filter that I can stick
>in the pipe that will deliver to Maildir style folders?
Procmail+safecat or procmail+maildir patches will do the trick, but
maildrop is probably the way to go.
See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#procmail
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#safecat
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#maildrop
-Dave
> the daemontools binaries are included, they are, like all DJB
> software other than Qmail itself, under PD (not GPL).
Public domain would mean you can do anything you want with it. You
can't; in particular, you are not allowed to distribute derivative
works other than precompiled var-qmail packages without Dan's
permission.
> Don't ask me how I know that, maybe an old discussion here, but I do
> know that there are no LICENSE readme files in the packages or on
> DJB's site.
If you download some source code and there is no license, you can't
assume that the source is in the public domain or that you have
permission to do anything covered by the exclusive rights given under
copyright law.
As it turns out, there is a license among Dan's web pages. See:
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html
Kevin Waterson writes:
> Ira Abramov wrote:
>
> > readme files in the packages or on DJB's site. Russ? could there be a
> > little note about licensing on qmail.org? it's very confusing to a lot of
> > people, especially now that GPL is in the news, it should be strictly
> > mentioned on the page that Qmail and friends are not.
>
> This would be very much appreciated by me for one. I am trying to
> put together a small commercial distro ( another RedHat clone) and
> would like to have qmail as a drop in replacement. What am I
> allowed to use for this and what am I not.
I agree that it's a problem. The copyright status of DJB,
Inc. products is not at all obvious. For example, the permission to
redistribute qmail doesn't come with qmail, you have to go looking on
pobox.com/~djb for it. Other products grant permission to distribute
unmodified copies, but no permission to modify them into binaries.
Other products are in the public domain (e.g. cdb or checkpassword).
And other products are simply copyrighted with NO permission to
redistribute granted at all (e.g. mess822, or libtai).
I would prefer to see a file called COPYRIGHT in each product.
And no, it doesn't really matter what I say on www.qmail.org, because
legal authority can only come from the author. All I could do is open
myself up to legal liability.
--
-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!
Greg Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ira Abramov wrote:
>>
>> the daemontools binaries are included, they are, like all DJB
>> software other than Qmail itself, under PD (not GPL).
>
>Public domain would mean you can do anything you want with it. You
>can't; in particular, you are not allowed to distribute derivative
>works other than precompiled var-qmail packages without Dan's
>permission.
Says who? Remember, the question is about daemontools, not qmail. Note
that Ira said "other than [qmail]". The redistribution rights of
daemontools are not clearly spelled out anywhere,as far as I know.
>If you download some source code and there is no license, you can't
>assume that the source is in the public domain or that you have
>permission to do anything covered by the exclusive rights given under
>copyright law.
Correct.
>As it turns out, there is a license among Dan's web pages. See:
>ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html
For *qmail*. See the Subject of this message.
-Dave
> For *qmail*. See the Subject of this message.
Yeah, sorry about that.
Some of the reasoning in my message remains valid (lack of a license
is not an indication of public domain status), but of course the
specific facts were irrelevant.
Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the daemontools binaries are included, they are, like all DJB software
> other than Qmail itself, under PD (not GPL).
I'm fairly sure that Dan's software is not in the public domain. It
requires a specific and explicit statement by the author to place
something in the public domain, and I've not seen such a statement.
It's covered under a very unclear license, from a legal perspective, at
least relative to the prevailing free source licenses. This seems to
reflect Dan's belief that the basis of most current software licensing is
invalid.
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~djb/softwarelaw.html> and note also
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/~djb/qmail/dist.html>.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > the daemontools binaries are included, they are, like all DJB
> > software other than Qmail itself, under PD (not GPL).
>
> Public domain would mean you can do anything you want with it. You
> can't; in particular, you are not allowed to distribute derivative
> works other than precompiled var-qmail packages without Dan's
> permission.
where is that written?
> As it turns out, there is a license among Dan's web pages. See:
> ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html
>
it refers ONLY to Qmail itself. nothing about daemontools, tcpserver,
cyclog, libtai, EZmlm, cdb, and other such packages that are seperate. the
page specifically says that if you wish to distribute a precompiled qmail,
it must include the precompiled fot-forward and fastforward too, but
nothing about vice versa (I can't understand why, except for one system I
installed, I never used DF and FF anywhere).
back to squere one:
> > Don't ask me how I know that, maybe an old discussion here, but I do
> > know that there are no LICENSE readme files in the packages or on
> > DJB's site.
I remember Dan had long and persuasive discussiona about how he doesn't
want Qmail to go the sendmail way (a gazzilion contradicting versions with
security holes introduced by nameless "contributors"), but the add-on
packages are not part of that. at least not explicitly...
> If you download some source code and there is no license, you can't
> assume that the source is in the public domain or that you have
> permission to do anything covered by the exclusive rights given under
> copyright law.
again: I didn't just assume, I said I vaguely remember it from an old
discussion on the list. that's why there is a very serious need for a
LICENSE file in each of those tars that Dan distributes!
oh wait... there's one line in the readme...
"You may distribute unmodified copies of the fastforward package."
well, better than nothing at all....
I'll go untar the entire directory of my mirror of Koobera now, and write
a summery of the licenses once and for all, so Russ has something to put
up on qmail.org so we can stop this silly thread. Ofcourse I would have
prefered DJB to do it because it's afterall his software and his IP to
take care of, but it seems like he never donates his opinion tho these
threads (and they pop up every 6 months).
Good Day...
If you want, I can extract the patches from the src rpm for you.
What you wrote about patches and nonprogrammers was exactly my point;
for nonprogrammers (and I assume many mail administrators may not be),
it is hard to figure out which patches they need to get for what they
want. www.qmail.org is a great help, but I think a common ftp site (or
at least a common naming scheme via Bruce's daystamp suggestion) would
ease the sysadms' task. And of course, maintaining www.qmail.org
would be also easier.
Mate
Actually the mail administrator MAY be a non-programmer. (in fact where
I work, our postmaster is a tech / system maint person).
And I bet that this is more the norm, than an exception.
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mate Wierdl [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 12:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: pine patches
>
> If you want, I can extract the patches from the src rpm for you.
>
> What you wrote about patches and nonprogrammers was exactly my point;
> for nonprogrammers (and I assume many mail administrators may not be),
> it is hard to figure out which patches they need to get for what they
> want. www.qmail.org is a great help, but I think a common ftp site
> (or
> at least a common naming scheme via Bruce's daystamp suggestion) would
> ease the sysadms' task. And of course, maintaining www.qmail.org
> would be also easier.
>
> Mate
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 11:25:57AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
: If you want, I can extract the patches from the src rpm for you.
I didn't see an SRPM anywhere...if I had I would have extracted it on my
Linux box, but I sure appreciate it :)
: What you wrote about patches and nonprogrammers was exactly my point;
: for nonprogrammers (and I assume many mail administrators may not be),
: it is hard to figure out which patches they need to get for what they
: want. www.qmail.org is a great help, but I think a common ftp site (or
: at least a common naming scheme via Bruce's daystamp suggestion) would
: ease the sysadms' task. And of course, maintaining www.qmail.org
: would be also easier.
For sure. In the past 3+ years I've been running qmail, Sendmail's gotten
a whole lot better, both from a security standpoint, and an ease of
configuration standpoint. If qmail is going to remain a desirable
alternative, it has to move forward as well. DJB's licensing stance
doesn't help this, but AFAIK, there's nothing standing in the way of
distributing patched for Maildir tarballs (please, NOT RPMs!) of the
latest Pine and IMAP on www.qmail.org.
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>For sure. In the past 3+ years I've been running qmail, Sendmail's gotten
>a whole lot better, both from a security standpoint, and an ease of
>configuration standpoint.
1) Lack of reported vulnerabilities <> more secure.
2) Sendmail's performance still lags far behind current-generation
MTA's.
-Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 August 1999 at 15:51:59 -0400
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >For sure. In the past 3+ years I've been running qmail, Sendmail's gotten
> >a whole lot better, both from a security standpoint, and an ease of
> >configuration standpoint.
>
> 1) Lack of reported vulnerabilities <> more secure.
True. But a significant drop in the rate at which vulnerabilities are
reported, in a very-widely-used package which has traditionally had a
lot of vulnerabilities, is a good sign. I don't see the number of
sendmail installations having dropped enough, or the focus of the
people hacking changed enough, for the change in exploits to reflect
much other than the improvement in sendmail security.
Do I think sendmail is as secure as qmail today? No, I do not. Do I
think the latest sendmail is more secure than sendmail 3 years ago? I
sure do!
--
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!
> From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
>
> 2) Sendmail's performance still lags far behind current-generation
> MTA's.
...and will continue to as long as it runs that stupid rule based system to
rewrite addresses that don't need to be rewritten.
Of course, if that were removed, it would hardly be sendmail, would it?
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com
+1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500
4314 Avenue C
O- Austin, TX 78751-3709
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
James Smallacombe writes:
> For sure. In the past 3+ years I've been running qmail, Sendmail's gotten
> a whole lot better, both from a security standpoint, and an ease of
> configuration standpoint. If qmail is going to remain a desirable
> alternative, it has to move forward as well. DJB's licensing stance
> doesn't help this, but AFAIK, there's nothing standing in the way of
> distributing patched for Maildir tarballs (please, NOT RPMs!) of the
> latest Pine and IMAP on www.qmail.org.
I'd be happy to host them there.
--
-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 03:54 PM 8/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> When connecting to my pop server, it takes between 20-30 seconds to
>> connect. After connecting, everything is fast. I have tested my client
>> with pop servers on other machines and I don't experience this delay (i.e.
>> it is a server problem).
>
>run the pop server with tcpserver and use the -H and -R options
>man tcpserver for details
>
Also, another thing which makes a really big difference is running
a caching DNS on your linux box...smtp and pop3d on my system are
blazing in the office now)...The How-to at Sunsite shows how to do
this, and requires BIND 8.x.x in order to work properly...(I got
mine working 3 days ago)
-Bill
Sorry to ask this but I've lost the subscription mail and can't find
instructions on the web page.
I just don't have time to read all this mail.
Thanks
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Diego Puertas wrote:
> Sorry to ask this but I've lost the subscription mail and can't find
> instructions on the web page.
Every message sent from the list has a header called 'Mailing-List' which
tells you to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for help.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the unsubscribe address, BTW.
--Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Is there a recommended platform for running QMail - hardware and
software? I'm looking at needing to push out up to 3mm emails a day,
and -so far- I'm not seeing the performance that I think I should be.
Thanks in advance,
<:)� Lyndon Griffin
Systems Engineer
|||� Naviant� |||
********************************************
100 buckets of bits on the bus�
100 buckets of bits
Take one down, short it to ground
FF buckets of bits on the bus��
FF buckets of bits on the bus��
FF buckets of bits
Take one down, short it to ground
FE buckets of bits on the bus...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBN73f0e5NCgmMoSA2EQKx5wCeOkDQZ4IvB4+voARegfq8d3j9PxkAmwZd
7uDyf/BBdPvCSedN3WuVKMjA
=5me7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lyndon Griffin writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Is there a recommended platform for running QMail - hardware and
> software? I'm looking at needing to push out up to 3mm emails a day,
> and -so far- I'm not seeing the performance that I think I should be.
I've never heard of anyone doing *more* than 1Mm/d on any one host.
Distribution of load is the key to scaling.
--
-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!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
That's what I've heard, as well... My problem is getting past 100k /
day / host. I seem to be at that roadblock. No matter what I try:
fd limits, patches, different injection methods, one big-ass-pipe to
the internet... BTW, I have several of the following config:
Ultra 10, single CPU @ 333mHz, 512mb RAM, running Solaris 7
I didn't *see* any anti-solaris code in the sources...
<:) Lyndon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 4:13 PM
> To: QMail List
> Subject: Re: recommended pltform?
>
>
> Lyndon Griffin writes:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Is there a recommended platform for running QMail - hardware and
> > software? I'm looking at needing to push out up to 3mm emails a
> day,
> > and -so far- I'm not seeing the performance that I think I
> should be.
>
> I've never heard of anyone doing *more* than 1Mm/d on any one host.
> Distribution of load is the key to scaling.
>
> --
> -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!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBN73i4u5NCgmMoSA2EQIIqgCbBaYPj7WD29CtYlbq1dP4g0v4YFoAoN3g
VOBwX4XFI+isSVF1Bq/cKt20
=WWG1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It's called the "run away from IDE" code. The disk system in a U10 is
pathetic as an email server.
-Peter
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 04:24:38PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> That's what I've heard, as well... My problem is getting past 100k /
> day / host. I seem to be at that roadblock. No matter what I try:
> fd limits, patches, different injection methods, one big-ass-pipe to
> the internet... BTW, I have several of the following config:
>
> Ultra 10, single CPU @ 333mHz, 512mb RAM, running Solaris 7
>
> I didn't *see* any anti-solaris code in the sources...
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Lyndon Griffin wrote:
> Ultra 10, single CPU @ 333mHz, 512mb RAM, running Solaris 7
Qmail is a very parallel system. To push the envelope you should throw a
bunch of CPUs in there. Also, I'd bump up to as much RAM is you can,
which you can use for caching the disk, and, speaking of the disk, invest
in a RAID box.
Lyndon Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ultra 10, single CPU @ 333mHz, 512mb RAM, running Solaris 7
An Ultra 10 is a pathetically low-performance low-end server in my
experience, particularly for disk-intensive applications distributed
across multiple disks. Go to an Ultra 2 with SCSI disk if you're a
Solaris-only shop or a low-to-mid-range PC running *BSD or Linux otherwise
(preferrably also with SCSI disk) and you'll probably see much better
performance.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
> http://www.mollymail.com
This just uses emumail, which is available free (with advertising).
Tim
Dear Tim,
> > http://www.mollymail.com
> This just uses emumail, which is available free (with advertising).
Oh...gottcha...anyway I'm looking a hotmail kind of webmail...any
suggestion???
Best regards,
Martin Paulucci
http://www.ServiRED.COM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
Telephone/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
I'm presently working on a project to place concurrency limits on mails sent
by qmail, and I have a few questions
1) Does there exist a method within qmail right now (or a patch to qmail)
that will enable me to limit the number of sockets qmail-send and associates
will open to a given IP during a send operation?
2) Sine qmail-remote has to send some kind of message back to qmail-send as
to whether it succeeded or failed, I presume there is a method of
communication between them. I haven't had a lot of experience with the
source code yet, so I have not found any such method of communication. If
any of the people who have studied the source code know how this works, I'd
be curious to know.
Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
Bill Johnson
------------------------
Bill Johnson
Systems Administrator
Digital Services Network
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
