qmail Digest 22 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 736
Topics (messages 29303 through 29310):
daemontools binaries (was Re: binaries)
29303 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've been doing some relay testing.
29304 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
auth/identd?
29305 by: John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29307 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29308 by: Jedi/Sector One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patched source for pine 4.1 w/ Maildir support WAS Re: pine patches
29306 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
recommended pltform?
29309 by: "Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-Linux-distribution
29310 by: Keith Burdis <[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, 20 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 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).
umm, isn't libtai part of the cyclog package as it is? and mess822 has
been hanging around in a binary RPM on Mate W.'s site... either it's OK or
Dan doesn't care enough...
> I would prefer to see a file called COPYRIGHT in each product.
COPYRIGHT has nothing to do with distribution rights, the free software
movement shows us that the connection is dissapearing, and so does DJB
himself on his site.
> 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.
ok, that I can understand.
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Ben Kosse wrote:
> Actually, ORBS hasn't listed us. That e-mail touched precicely 3 systems:
> the client, the one I'm building, and our internal Exchange box. It ended up
> in our *INTERNAL* e-mail server as an undeliverable message. qmail tried to
> send it to someone inside our network who didn't exist. What I'd like to do
> is just outright refuse the messages.
I agree with the people replying here that accepting the message and then
discarding it quietly is the right approach and the mail-abuse tester
program is not written correctly, but as a hack to fix it for now, did you
try the patch to add regexp to the badmailfrom system? it's somewhere on
the qmail.org site. if it accepts something like ".*%.*@.*" you should be
ok I suppose.
Qmail does not use auth/identd, right?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688, FAX 408.379.9602, whois '!JC154'
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www2.inow.com/~conover/john.html
On 21 Aug 1999, John Conover wrote:
> Qmail does not use auth/identd, right?
Not qmail-smtpd, but tcpserver does.
See TCPREMOTEINFO in both tcpserver(1), -r and -R and
furher in tcp-environ(5).
/magnus
--
"MOST USELESS site of the year 1998"
--> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
John Conover wrote:
> Qmail does not use auth/identd, right?
Qmail itself does not need identd. But tcpserver and tcp-env can ask
that info if needed.
--
Frank DENIS aka Jedi/Sector One aka DJ Chrysalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-> Software : http://www.jedi.claranet.fr <-
-> Music : http://www.mp3.com/chrysalis <-
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> 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.
After a coupla days of screwing around and a pointer from Ragnar Kjorstad,
I finally got the various patches to work with pine 4.1. If Russ still
wants to put it up on the qmail site, or if anybody else wants to check it
out, the patched source is at: http://3.am/pine4.10.maildir.tar.gz
It's hard to follow who did which patches, except that it looks like
Mattias did the original patch for 3.96 and Ragnar did some mods to work
with later versions (sorry if I missed somebody)
Here is what I did (not neccessarily in this order):
maildir980721.patch (updated for pine 4.02; not sure why it wasn't
renamed)
pine4.00-pine-maildir-patch (the comments here are a little confusing; I
went ahead and defined the NO_MAILDIR_FIDDLE and
NO_ABSOLUTE_PATHS options per mattias's advice for
ISPs running IMAP4)
pine4.10-c-client_directory_with_driver_patch
pine4.10-folder_list_write.patch
It builds and runs fine under FreeBSD 3.2 (-bsf) and Solaris 2.6 with gcc
2.8.1 (-gs5)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Have you got some vmstat/iostat figures?
> >
Here's iostat and vmstat from a box currently cranking out:
I'm not ashamed to say I have no clue what these mean...
/home/lgriffin/$ iostat 5
tty dad0 fd0 sd2 nfs1
cpu
tin tout kps tps serv kps tps serv kps tps serv kps tps serv us
sy wt id
0 47 491 78 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
28 60 1
0 47 428 77 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
37 49 0
0 16 434 76 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
42 40 0
0 16 511 84 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
36 53 0
0 16 564 91 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
30 57 0
0 16 444 77 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
43 41 0
0 16 453 80 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
37 50 0
0 16 470 80 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
46 41 0
0 16 462 80 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
39 47 0
0 16 456 79 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
46 38 0
0 16 535 85 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
34 56 0
0 16 549 86 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
34 54 0
0 16 461 79 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
40 42 0
/home/lgriffin/$ vmstat 5
procs memory page disk faults
cpu
r b w swap free re mf pi po fr de sr dd f0 s2 -- in sy cs
us sy id
0 2 0 66424 21912 5 815 38 56 65 0 1 78 0 0 0 292 3377 451
11 28 61
1 5 0 617488 8672 26 1946 20 304 304 0 0 79 0 0 0 284 3806 452
17 40 43
0 5 0 617824 8984 27 1896 11 313 313 0 0 81 0 0 0 283 3616 448
14 38 49
1 5 0 617664 8896 28 2042 16 310 310 0 0 80 0 0 0 288 3616 461
13 39 49
2 4 0 617304 8632 24 1982 11 257 291 0 4 82 0 0 0 284 4072 449
17 42 42
1 2 0 614632 7936 15 686 19 179 516 0 46 73 0 0 0 277 3425 574
11 33 56
0 2 0 614200 8256 11 144 24 121 171 0 6 70 0 0 0 269 2582 535
9 24 67
1 2 0 613824 8616 9 128 19 89 105 0 2 84 0 0 0 290 2683 411
9 32 59
0 2 0 613552 10400 3 211 22 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 262 3107 637
10 29 61
0 2 0 612808 9632 2 158 17 24 24 0 0 68 0 0 0 267 2874 569
10 27 63
0 2 0 611792 8832 10 211 17 129 129 0 0 67 0 0 0 264 3044 586
13 32 55
1 2 0 611120 8392 12 163 19 147 147 0 0 69 0 0 0 259 3574 560
9 36 55
0 2 0 611256 8632 14 161 12 147 147 0 0 68 0 0 0 262 4376 529
19 42 39
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBN78aSO5NCgmMoSA2EQIJ+gCg0zSPnXYMNa2Xktuu38N3CouHGosAmwSA
Zc+4sG+yRoAhq+cmVKZjDK5x
=CetT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri 1999-08-20 (15:55), Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Ira Abramov wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > BeroLinux already did that, then Qmail disappeared when it was merged into
> > Mandrake Linux. I sugest you switch to Mandrake as a platform (I love it.
> > it's also recompiled for Pentium entirely) and ask them to add a legal
> > Qmail binary distro into their install process, and make Sendmail an
> > option and not a must. I'll join in to that request if you do...
>
> This is what I am hoping to achieve, A legal qmail binary, not in their
> distrobution,
> in my own
The only qmail binary that I know of that meets Dan's requirements (mostly)
is the one done by Mate Wiedl. Take a look at:
ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/qmail/var-qmail/
> Kevin
- Keith
--
Keith Burdis - MSc (Computer Science) - Rhodes University, South Africa
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/
IRC : Panthras JAPH
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script"
Standard disclaimer.
---
