qmail Digest 4 Sep 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 749
Topics (messages 29807 through 29840):
Lobby mail.com
29807 by: "Thomas M. Sasala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29808 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29809 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29810 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29812 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29814 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
29819 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29821 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think I've got it. (was: Re: qmail and statistics)
29811 by: "Bill Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Information
29813 by: "J.P. Racine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any ideas?
29815 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29822 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29833 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
daemontools 0.6x
29816 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
remove
29817 by: "Edward Dooner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Queue problems
29818 by: Kevin Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IMAP/Maildir
29820 by: "Denis Voitenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29823 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29824 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail crash
29825 by: Gustavo Rios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Maildir patch on Qmail-imap-4.5
29826 by: Victor "Regn�r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29827 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29828 by: John Schmerold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29831 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail & inetd.conf
29829 by: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29840 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re : could not start qmail
29830 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tong YU)
Qmail and Cyrus-IMAP
29832 by: Joe Sollich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
restarting qmail
29834 by: "Stephen Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29835 by: "J.P. Racine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
how to use userdb
29836 by: "wenwei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
help: qmail question
29837 by: "wenwei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
POP3
29838 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
REQUEST: Correct /var/qmail/rc for IRIX (binm?+df)?
29839 by: "Jay D. Dyson" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
YES! Please move this flame war off line! Thanks.
Einar Bordewich wrote:
>
> Actually I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to gain some wisdom around qmail and
> it's solution. I think the subject "Re: Lobby mail.com" and it's legal issues is some
> kind of boring now. (Time to stop or move to another list for legal issues?)
>
> What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail check the RCPT TO:
>against the actual users on my machine.
>
> (PLEASE...... ;)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
> System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ 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 +
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Cris Daniluk writes:
> This may sound rude, but it's not intended to be--what country do you live
> in? I think you're either under a different set of laws, or have a
> fundamental misunderstanding of them.
My understanding of laws comes from established precedents - AOL versus
Cyberpromo, and Prodigy versus Cyberpromo, which states that system
administrators have a fundamental right to block any source of mail that
they see fit. Even though AOL does not have explicit clauses in their
TOS/AUP giving them the right to block mail, the judge has ruled that they
have an implied right to do so, based upon the fact that this is private
property, and existing principles applicable to private property are in
force.
> Your claims are very inaccurate. VERY
> inaccurate. The only reason I bring this to the list is that there may be
> other people in the same situation as mail.com out there and I think they
> may be reading everything that comes through here as fact. It is illegal for
> them to block out legitimate email from customers when they agree to provide
> the mail to customers.
No, it's not illegal for them to do anything just because you think it's
illegal. It is only illegal if it violates an existing law, which is what
"illegal" means. Until you came come up with a statute which prohibits
what mail.com did, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.
You have also completely ignored my pointer to mail.com's Terms Of
Service/Acceptable Usage Policy which clearly gives mail.com to arbitrarily
block incoming mail. Your blather about them agreeing to this and that is
just that, blather, since they did not agree to anything you think that
they agreed to, and, in fact, they agreed to just the opposite.
> They can make you sign contracts that say this is not
> so, but those contracts can have their legality tried in court. All ISPs and
Courts will not void existing contracts just because you think they should.
The only way contracts can be voided would be if they violate an existing
law.
You're welcome to cite a statute that prohibits private property owners
from configuring their equipment in whatever way they see fit.
[ more gruborisms deleted ]
--
Sam
Cris Daniluk writes:
> There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I
> sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my
> customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling
> our end of the deal between us and our customer.
If it is within my legal right to cut the route, which it is, since the
route lies on my private property, using private equipment that I paid for,
than that's just too bad. I am under no legal obligations to conduct my
business in a way that does not conflict with yours.
> They paid us money, we
> didn't deliver.
Frankly, I do not care for your contractual obligations with your customer.
It is none of my concern. Until several key provisions of the Bill of
Rights are voided, I have every legal right to configure my equipment in
whatever way I see fit, unless it is a violation of existing law to do so.
Whatever impact it has on your business does not interest me very much. If
you put yourself in a situation where you depend on other entities that
have no legal obligations to you in order for you to conduct your business,
you have nobody but yourself to blame for your poor business choices.
> If you will all remember, Network Solutions' lawyers were in
> a similar situation when they were threatened with a blacklist for their
> high volume of spam. They made this very same argument. That never saw a
> court room, but then again they aren't blacklisted are they?
They weren't blacklisted because they took steps to stop spamming.
> >The real question is, "are you a lawyer?" If you're not, then you really
> >have no business speaking about the law in any forum.
>
> Are you? Is Sam? Are any of us? No.
Good, so stop inventing laws that do not exist.
> and no, Sam, legal fees would not be awarded. If you'll do your homework,
> legal fees are rarely awarded except in exceptionally erroneous claims. My
A legal claim based on laws that do not exist would probably qualify as
"exceptionally erroneous".
--
Sam
Einar Bordewich writes:
> Actually I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to gain some wisdom around qmail and
>it's solution. I think the subject "Re: Lobby mail.com" and it's legal issues is some
>kind of boring now. (Time to stop or move to another list for legal issues?)
>
> What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail check the RCPT TO:
>against the actual users on my machine.
>
> (PLEASE...... ;)
It takes about 50 lines of C code to do so. I know, because I've done it.
It's not easy.
Unless you're comfortable with hacking the guts of qmail-smtpd.c, forget
about this ever happening.
--
Sam
> A better question: how can anybody NOT?
If you want to run a mail SERVICE then you need to provide the ability to
send and recieve mail to/from anyone anywhere. Sure, if you can catch a
spammer then block it. But by your OWN ADMISSION flitering the bad guy
rarely works. They just change who/how they sent it and you are back at
square one. (See below)
> Spammers can change their names, change their addresses, alter the
> length and content of their mail, forge their headers, hide behind
> proxies, register their assets in the Carribean, get sex changes and
> crouch down behind shubberies, but there is one fingerprint they can
> never, ever change: in order to have a prayer of making a profit, they
> have to send out a lot of mail, really quickly.
I have a priets with a cc'ed list of church information... he is a
spammer?
> If I see a host that I do not recognize appear out of the blue and
> start pumping hundreds or thousands of messages an hour into my mail
> server, the odds are pretty on that it's a spammer. If it's not, I'm
> not averse to apologizing later on.
Basically we have learned that mail.com dosen't know what it is doing.
And that you make be on that same path. If you want to stop spammers,
take them to court. Filtering e-mail just pisses the rest of us off. If
you are serious about protecting your network resources then ACTUALLY FIND
THE SPAMMER, and sue them. It's actually pretty easy. They usually give
you the address or phone number you can use to get in contact with them.
>There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I
>sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my
>customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling
>our end of the deal between us and our customer. They paid us money, we
>didn't deliver.
In other words, your customer has every right to sue *you*.
Sam's exactly right. If you and your customer not only want to rely
upon a third party (an ISP) to conduct legally-binding business,
but want to reserve the right to *sue* that third party over it's
failure to continue to meet your expectations, then it is up to *you*
to enter into a *legally binding contractual agreement* with that
third party. (Actually, it's probably best for both you and your
customer to do so -- to ensure the ISP recognizes email coming from
you, to your customer, as never to be rejected for any reason.)
Yes, there are cases where the agreement is considered implicit, even
in the absence of a contract between two parties. E.g. the requirement
that a building constructed such that it blocks a pathway long used
by pedestrians must provide continued public access through it, which
leads to nonsense like businesses shutting down public access to their
private parking one day per year just to establish that they don't always
provide it, to avoid being caught up in such lawsuits without a quick
exit available.
But, the moment the Internet community perceives that someone might
even have a ghost of a chance succeeding with a lawsuit such as has
been proposed *here*, a substantial percentage of ISPs and email-hosting
sites will *shut down* their email (SMTP processing) with a message
saying something like "we are having problems with our email system,
but expect it to be fixed by [24 hours from shutdown], which happens
from time to time as you all know". The rest of them will do the
same thing later, on a fairly arbitrary schedule. All to try to eliminate
the argument that "well, it was there before and always worked, so I get
to sue the moment it isn't there for me".
Do you really *want* that to happen?
Further, it will be interesting to see how a lawyer tries to explain
how the concept I cited is extended to email, given facts such as:
- there exist *plenty* of alternate routes, i.e. other than
the SMTP port of an "offending" ISP, to reach the end user
of that system
- the end user of that system could always maintain accounts on
other ISPs and ask that duplicate mails be sent to them, to
assure likelihood of receipt of at least one of them (i.e. plenty
of alternate routes on the receiving end as well)
- letting pedestrians walk through your vacant lot for 30 years
and then erecting an impassable obstacle is hardly the same
thing as letting pedestrains walk through your back yard for
10 years but putting up "private property, keep out" signs
whenever you see an armored tank division rolling your way
(the equivalent of a huge flood of email)
In particular, *spam* will be impossible to distinguish from "wanted
email" in this kind of lawsuit, because the protocols used to exchange
the email do not include any way to assure "wanted" status.
Therefore, any whiff of a legal requirement to accept "legit" email
from anyone, anytime, will amount to accepting spam, and probably
denial-of-service attacks, as well. Spammers will probably be the
first to sue, though I think they have tried already (and failed).
Of course, the present US tort system might well encourage such lawsuits
nevertheless. Change it so the plaintiff pays triple *requested* damages
when the suit is determined to be frivolous (i.e. the problem can be
solved by entering into a legal agreement with the 3rd party, in this
case), and also make sure the jury can never award more than requested
damages, and I assure you nobody would *ever* bring such a case to trial.
(Note, I'm not arguing for "loser pays" *here*.)
IANAL, but I play one on the Internet. ;-)
And I'm finding the Internet to be more and more full of the sorts of
people who respond to not getting their pet email through (or seeing
themselves as possibly in that boat) by talking about hiring lawyers,
rather than making mindnumbingly simple adjustments in their privileged
little lifestyles. ("Like, place a phone call, goober, and use a modem
on both ends if it *really* has to be data you exchange." I said
basically this to some guy who pestered the EGCS mailing lists with
off-topic posts and got booted off -- the only guy to get booted? -- and
who also claimed, on that publicly archived mailing list, that my ISP was
run by incompetents because it wouldn't accept his email. He then
went on to tell me in private email that if I didn't *immediately*
agree with him and switch ISPs, I was an "elitist". I told him never
to email me again, which is too bad since he was technically quite bright
and seemed interested in some of my viewpoints as expressed on the EGCS
list, but I don't have time or patience to deal with spoiled e-brats.
Oh, the reason the ISP blocked his email is that he'd tell the SMTP
that he was coming from a different host than he actually was...there
are some good reasons for doing that, like when you don't like the
SMTP service, or lack thereof, of the ISP that hosts your *incoming* mail,
but my ISP believes it likely indicates spam or something. I'm not
sure who's right -- I don't think it's important, even though it also
means one of my brother-in-laws can't easily email me, due to his setup,
either. I believe all the people who care to email me, but can't, can
collectively adjust their email method to fit my ISP's requirements
with far less hassle than it'd take for me to switch ISPs...especially
since I'd have to negotiate "don't block lying SMTP clients trying to
reach me" as a special item on the contract. Heck, both of them
know my *old* address, which doesn't have that problem, and which
I check every day or so, anyway, but the first guy, not a relative, made
like I was an investor in 1980s South Africa because I was a customer
of an ISP that blocked email like his. That's an extreme case, but
I think I see a higher and higher percentage of Internet users take
this approach -- threaten, harrass, intimidate, and litigate -- compared
to those of us who used the approach of the old ARPANET days -- understand,
research, cope, and, if possible, fix it so it works better for
everyone. So much for the theory that American schools have been
better at teaching "tolerance" lately -- AFAICT they've been teaching
to sue at the hint of *intolerance* as defined by them, which is, to me,
pretty near the height of intolerance itself.)
tq vm, (burley)
In the immortal words of Fabrice Scemama ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Is Nathan trying to explain that qmail sends mail so fast that it
> can't be natural ? ;-)
Heh, there is an element of that. Parallelizing MTAs such as qmail
and Postfix present a challenge when doing frequency analysis.
However, I would tend to think that this is the analyzer's problem,
not qmail's.
-n
------------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have seen the future of the net, and it's a pimply 14-year old boy shouting
"ADD ME TO THE LIST!!!!11!!!" Forever.
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
Okay, I lose credibility here for responding on-list when I said I
wouldn't, but I just couldn't let a whopper this size pass...
In the immortal words of Cris Daniluk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> There are no current court cases.
Oh yes there are. AOL vs Cyberpromo. Fascinating case, I suggest you
look into it, especially as its conclusion (which carries the weight
of law) directly contradicts most of your assertions here.
-n, shutting up now, really
------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for
Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was
the built-in blind spot of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed
Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. (--HST)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------
I've made a small modification to multilog in daemontools, and written a
perl script which will allow me to tail through the cycling log just as if
it were a single text file. The way it works is, multilog will write a line
to the effect of "CLOSING LOG FILE" when it is about to cycle to a new log,
and the perl script detects this, closes the old log, waits a tenth of a
second, then opens "current" again. It seems to work quite well. Since this
seems it could be useful to a lot of people, if anyone's interested feel
free to email me for a copy of the sources.
Bill Johnson
MicroStrategy
Hi I'm new,
Is this where I complain about the mail.com stuff?
Think about it,
J.P. Racine
Thot Networks
Okay, here goes again. One machine does this:
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
4 2 1 1308 4660 7108 53960 0 0 17 28 5 17 9 21 32
10 0 0 1308 4372 7124 53828 0 0 6 153 471 2306 19 76 5
12 0 0 1308 4240 7212 53660 0 0 15 121 468 2297 20 77 3
10 2 1 1308 4084 7216 53740 0 0 5 214 497 2338 22 74 3
10 0 0 1308 3836 7224 53916 0 0 5 136 425 1982 21 74 5
7 1 1 1308 4048 6844 53676 0 0 7 167 475 2299 22 75 2
10 0 0 1308 3944 6288 54224 0 0 15 223 442 2012 22 69 9
10 0 0 1308 3924 6312 54708 0 0 12 167 425 2107 20 76 4
10 0 0 1308 3888 5856 54780 0 0 17 150 427 2163 20 76 4
9 0 1 1308 4708 5908 54836 0 0 13 194 482 2222 19 75 6
3 1 1 1308 4080 5932 55472 0 0 12 206 428 1788 20 73 7
11 0 0 1308 4756 5432 56000 0 0 25 202 470 2208 22 72 6
11 0 0 1308 3580 5468 56688 0 0 18 166 410 1941 21 74 5
10 0 0 1308 2976 5072 57216 0 0 31 180 445 2047 22 74 4
9 0 1 1308 3468 4188 57828 0 0 36 170 433 2047 23 72 4
3 1 1 1308 4208 3432 58516 0 0 35 245 454 1898 22 71 7
3 3 0 1308 2948 3604 59572 0 0 37 212 380 1686 22 70 8
4 0 0 1408 5000 2780 60216 0 10 111 198 490 1991 21 66 12
3 2 0 1408 3160 3120 61412 6 0 102 197 423 1847 26 69 5
8 0 0 1408 3528 3212 61068 0 0 53 186 432 2110 22 73 5
10 0 0 1408 3580 3200 60700 0 0 48 212 467 1983 23 72 5
And the other:
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
0 3 0 588 3532 7080 180396 0 0 8 37 223 218 7 15 78
3 3 0 588 4348 6852 179212 0 0 58 222 591 752 18 34 47
2 2 0 588 3844 6856 179332 0 0 49 221 557 766 21 33 47
0 6 0 588 2708 6632 179076 0 0 46 265 550 739 21 37 41
0 3 0 588 3388 6528 178464 0 0 60 163 564 672 17 29 54
0 5 0 588 3380 6432 178052 0 0 55 259 563 733 16 27 56
1 5 0 588 3080 6276 177920 0 0 40 226 496 642 20 37 43
0 6 1 588 3088 6328 177288 0 0 60 223 572 740 15 26 59
0 3 0 588 4008 6524 177716 0 0 67 119 648 757 6 14 80
2 1 0 588 2760 6616 175984 0 0 61 194 534 649 23 29 48
4 3 0 588 3844 6648 173592 0 0 64 294 610 757 22 36 43
3 1 0 588 4788 6768 174512 0 0 56 231 602 819 20 37 43
4 1 0 588 4544 6840 174368 0 0 59 228 575 791 17 34 49
6 1 0 588 3400 6924 173848 0 0 67 225 602 876 21 37 42
5 1 0 588 1736 7048 174124 0 0 74 220 667 983 20 39 41
2 2 0 588 3020 7112 174028 0 0 60 235 588 810 20 37 43
0 12 2 588 3464 7204 174704 0 0 84 264 731 1125 19 34 47
6 2 1 588 3068 7328 176220 0 0 59 157 605 919 18 36 46
4 2 1 588 3716 7380 177668 0 0 47 302 600 888 16 30 54
3 1 0 588 3440 7532 180124 0 0 72 198 673 1048 24 39 38
0 9 0 588 3132 7552 181320 0 0 57 279 656 895 15 28 57
11 0 0 588 3456 7620 183184 0 0 57 191 634 871 17 27 56
--
Matthew Harrell Smile, it's the second best thing
Bit Twiddlers, Inc. you can do with your lips
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> procs memory swap io system cpu
> r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
>10 0 0 1308 3888 5856 54780 0 0 17 150 427 2163 20 76 4
>
> procs memory swap io system cpu
> r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
> 3 1 0 588 4788 6768 174512 0 0 56 231 602 819 20 37 43
The first system seems to be spending a lot of CPU in the kernel (the
sy column) and is nearly CPU bound. This is probably due to the high
rate of context switches (the cs column)
The second system spends half as much time in the CPU, and has CPU to
spare (the id column). The difference seems to be the context switch
rate which is less than half (819 vs 2163, in this case).
If these are similar systems doing similar workloads, there's
something "wrong" with the first system. The difference between the
vmstat output formats implies that they're running different OS revs,
which could be enough to explain the variance.
Neither is swapping significantly, so memory doesn't seem to be the
bottleneck.
Next step is to run iostat or equivalent during a peak period.
-Dave
: If these are similar systems doing similar workloads, there's
: something "wrong" with the first system. The difference between the
: vmstat output formats implies that they're running different OS revs,
: which could be enough to explain the variance.
Actually, these two cases are similiar machines but the first has one processor
and the second two. That's probably the difference you're seeing here. They
are running the same kernel revision except one is compiled for SMP.
: Neither is swapping significantly, so memory doesn't seem to be the
: bottleneck.
That's good.
: Next step is to run iostat or equivalent during a peak period.
I don't seem to have iostat on my machine. What's a good replacement?
--
Matthew Harrell Programmer - a red-eyed mumbling
Bit Twiddlers, Inc. mammal capable of conversing with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] inanimate objects.
I think you should read the man page for svscan and multilog. Then
you will come up with a better setup.
Mate
I've noticed /var/qmail/queue/mess getting quite full lately, almost as if
qmail-clean has died. However, it is still running. When I stop/restart
the queue functions (qmail-clean, etc.), the queue shrinks back to normal
quickly. I'm running qmail-1.03+patches under RH Linux 6.0 (kernel
2.2.5-22SMP) on a dual PPro 200Mhz box with a fantastic disk subsystem. Any
ideas?
---
Kevin Sawyer - President/CEO - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Personal Computing, Inc. - APCiNet - http://www.apci.net
6001 Old Collinsville Road, Building #3, Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Office: (618) 632-7282 FAX: (618) 632-7287 Support: (618) 628-2Net
Are there any known IMAP servers that would work with Maildir?
Denis Voitenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Are there any known IMAP servers that would work with Maildir?
http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Denis Voitenko wrote:
> Are there any known IMAP servers that would work with Maildir?
Check out David Harris excellent patch-fix for the UW-IMAP server.
http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
--
magnus
-- MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
Hy, my qmail crash suddenly.
The message is:
oh no! lost spawn connection! dying...
Does anybody suggest what could make it crash ?
My system is freebsd 3-2 Stable, and the only thing bad here is the
problem related to qmail, my system uptime is 48 days, this only machine
is a ftp, ssh, http, pop3, smtp server, nothing else goes wrong, only
qmail.
i decide to run truss -p <qmail-send_pid>, but until now, nothing
happened. While this truss goes eating my system RAM memory.
I am afraid off not discoverying what is going on before truss eat *ALL*
my memory.
Hardware problem? I guess no, no other software crash, only qmail, and i
have already maked the *HOLE* world many times, nothing wrong.
i am really getting nut about all that, once no ideia come up into my mind
about what's is f.. my system.
Can any body help me?
Thanks a lot for your time and cooperation!
--
What's the similarity between an air
conditioner and a computer? They both
stop working when you open windows.
How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
handle Maildirs correctly?
/Victor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
> handle Maildirs correctly?
Why do you say patch the "Qmail-imap 4.5"? Almost sounds like you are referring
to an RPM that someone has created. If so, you need to know that a binary RPM
can not be patched. Instead you can only patch the IMAP 4.5 source code and
then compile a modified version.
To get a working copy of the UW IMAP 4.5 server with Maildir support, you need
to take a base IMAP tarball, extract it, and apply a number of patches to the
source code. Detailed instructions and all the patches and tarballs you will
need are at:
http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
Or you could use my RPM available at the same site.
If you have any problems following those instructions first see the help on the
patch command, and then get in contact with me.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
Does the binary support Virtual Domains? In particular, I'm interested in domains
administered by Inter7's GUI.
David Harris wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
> > handle Maildirs correctly?
>
> Why do you say patch the "Qmail-imap 4.5"? Almost sounds like you are referring
> to an RPM that someone has created. If so, you need to know that a binary RPM
> can not be patched. Instead you can only patch the IMAP 4.5 source code and
> then compile a modified version.
>
> To get a working copy of the UW IMAP 4.5 server with Maildir support, you need
> to take a base IMAP tarball, extract it, and apply a number of patches to the
> source code. Detailed instructions and all the patches and tarballs you will
> need are at:
>
> http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
>
> Or you could use my RPM available at the same site.
>
> If you have any problems following those instructions first see the help on the
> patch command, and then get in contact with me.
>
> - David Harris
> Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
--
John Schmerold
Katy Computer, LLC
20 Meramec Station Rd
Valley Park, MO 63088
314-316-9000
314-316-9200 fax
There is a imap maildir modified source tar ball on
http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail/
I don't know if it supports all the features correctly. However,
it has been tested by several isp system admin's. They reported
success.
Here is the text from the page:
vchkpw now support IMAP!
opT from efnet #qmail has ported imap to talk to vchkpw.
Pick up the tar file now. <link>
We have several people interested in maintaining this as a
current version. So if you use it and program a fix or update,
please send us the code. Or go to efnet #qmail and tell
the folks there.
John Schmerold wrote:
>
> Does the binary support Virtual Domains? In particular, I'm interested in domains
> administered by Inter7's GUI.
>
> David Harris wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
> > > handle Maildirs correctly?
> >
> > Why do you say patch the "Qmail-imap 4.5"? Almost sounds like you are referring
> > to an RPM that someone has created. If so, you need to know that a binary RPM
> > can not be patched. Instead you can only patch the IMAP 4.5 source code and
> > then compile a modified version.
> >
> > To get a working copy of the UW IMAP 4.5 server with Maildir support, you need
> > to take a base IMAP tarball, extract it, and apply a number of patches to the
> > source code. Detailed instructions and all the patches and tarballs you will
> > need are at:
> >
> > http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
> >
> > Or you could use my RPM available at the same site.
> >
> > If you have any problems following those instructions first see the help on the
> > patch command, and then get in contact with me.
> >
> > - David Harris
> > Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
>
> --
> John Schmerold
> Katy Computer, LLC
> 20 Meramec Station Rd
> Valley Park, MO 63088
> 314-316-9000
> 314-316-9200 fax
can qmail live without an entry in /etc/inetd.conf on solaris 7?
can it just be happy with the following in /etc/init.d/inetsvc:
csh -f '/var/qmail/rc' &
echo "qmail started..."
/basit
Either I've totally misunderstood your question or else I think you have
misunderstood what /etc/inetd.conf is for. inetd is a daemon listening
for incoming connections from a user on all the ports listed in the
file, and upon connection inetd then starts the corresponding program
which will then communicate with the user. So by putting the qmail
startup code in inetd.conf, you basically tell inetd to start qmail
every time someone sends an email to your mail server, which is surely
not what you want. Don't you want inetd to start the smtp daemon every
time someone sends an email?
The script to start qmail is usually put somewhere in the /etc/rc*.d/
directories, which means it's started up every time the machine
(re)boots. I'm sure you can find the explanation in the qmail
documentation.
If you for some reason want to restart qmail regularly, e.g. at 8
o'clock each morning, then you write a script which handles the restart
and put this script in the crontab file, though to be honest I can't
really see the point of doing this. You could have a cron job which
frequently checks if qmail is operational, and if it isn't, restarts it
or sends you an email or something.
Hope this cleared things up a little bit :-)
cheers
Fred
System Administrator wrote:
> can qmail live without an entry in /etc/inetd.conf on solaris 7?
>
> can it just be happy with the following in /etc/init.d/inetsvc:
>
> csh -f '/var/qmail/rc' &
> echo "qmail started..."
>
> /basit
Eventually I found out the source of the problem.
For some reasons, the .bashrc file was missing in the home directory.
After copying that back and
giving the appropriate rights, qmail can start now.
Thanks.
Tong
----------------------
>Hello Everyone.
>I used Redhat Linux 5.2.
>I could not start qmail whether using
>csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
>or execute the qmail-start ... command
>directly. It just exit with code 111.
>Any hints ?
>( By the way, I did this in another machine
>also using Redhat 5.2 and was successful.
>I was able to create user accounts, virtual domains ... )
>Thanks.
>Regards,
>Tong
Ok, this question was offered in this list thousent times certainly but I have
no sollution for the following: I need the qmail-cyprus-patch. All my attempts
to get 'http://www.periapt.com/qmail-cyrus/' end with an error 404. Does anyone
know an other URL for this patch and where can I get a good beginner-guidance,
possibly in german? By the way I try to get QMail 1.03 and Cyrus-imap-1.6.10 to
work together. thx.
Greetings,
Joe
---
cu
Joe Sollich | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P/O-Box 2303 | PGP-Key & Homepage:
32095 Bad Salzuflen, Germany | http://members.tripod.de/joes_homepage
I just added a new virtual domain to a qmail server and am curious as
to the best/easiest way to restart qmail so it will see the changes
in the rcpthosts and virtualdomains file under /var/qmail/control.
So far a kill -ALRM does not seem to get qmail-send to reread the
virtualdomains file.
Stephen Berg
//- USAF Instructor -/- Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer -//
//- Home = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
//- Work = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
//- http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/ -/- http://www.3c0x1.com -//
Stephen,
A kill -HUP seems to always work for me.
J.P. Racine
Thot Networks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Berg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 1:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: restarting qmail
>
>
> I just added a new virtual domain to a qmail server and am curious as
> to the best/easiest way to restart qmail so it will see the changes
> in the rcpthosts and virtualdomains file under /var/qmail/control.
> So far a kill -ALRM does not seem to get qmail-send to reread the
> virtualdomains file.
>
> Stephen Berg
> //- USAF Instructor -/- Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer -//
> //- Home = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
> //- Work = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
> //- http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/ -/- http://www.3c0x1.com
> -//
>
>
>
hi,all
my system: rh v6.0 qmail-1.03 maildrop-0.70 vchkpw-3.4.6
I can setup /etc/userdb.dat in term of help, but i'm using vchkpw package
for "virtual" accounts . I don't know to how to use /etc/userdb.dat.
Would you please tell me an example?
thanks
xww
hi,all
My system: RH v6.0 qmail-1.03 tcp-server maildrop-0.70
mess8.22 ( ofmipd instead of smtpd ) serialmail
* /etc/ofmipd.cdb: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: personal name:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I send to email, find email From: and Return-Path: header
[EMAIL PROTECTED] change to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
When Email To: header , domain name is local domain name,
but user name write error ( no local user name ),
example: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ,
then when email untread, email arrived into ~alias/Maildir,
not arrive into sender mbox. I don't know how to solve .
thanks
xww
I have Qmail installed on a FreeBSD 3.2 box and want to allow users to
check their mail via POP3 clients- I downloaded and installed the
checkpassed package- but I believe tat I have to add a line to my startup
files- what is it??
Thanks,
bernie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi folks,
I must be getting senile. I've set up Qmail on countless Solaris
machines with no grief, but this IRIX install is confounding me
completely.
I've set up everything find, but the rc script to use has me
befuddled. I want the mail to be written to /var/spool/mail and all, but
when I try most every invocation as supplied, I get large errors and the
mail isn't delivered.
FWIW, I also loaded dot-forward and fast-forward. The only thing
tripping me up is the rc boot script.
HeLp?
- -Jay
( ______
)) .--- "There's always time for a good cup of coffee" ---. >===<--.
C|~~| (>--- Jay D. Dyson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---<) | = |-'
`--' `-- Encrypt as if your life depends on it. It does. --' `-----'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN9DE3M2OVDpaKXD9AQEwhQP9HsTSQT7jNdYtlcfMBX2WJoXusT71xNeW
3DRfQAxSdD0G1PVEDcd2ZV5ic/YVhF31jEj4ZWMoMYuQDlEXsNQFT634ckKrjPyv
5hcBSBTUH83bheYlMALNGrWzcJM3ISPoD9oYbSLl9voXy7W59k3/fDtWhKFNb8By
TiA+IPx67fs=
=J+TV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
