qmail Digest 0 Jan 1900 00:00:00 -0000 Issue 762
Topics (messages 30372 through 30407):
Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
30372 by: Thomas M. Sasala
30376 by: Daniluk, Cris
Re: SMTP lookups
30373 by: Robert Varga
inetd support (was: Kurt's Closet on qmail)
30374 by: Dave Sill
Re: When will qmail back off to the next MX?
30375 by: Greg Owen
30388 by: Jason Haar
30389 by: Russell Nelson
30390 by: Jason Haar
30392 by: Russell Nelson
30394 by: Racer X
30397 by: Jon Rust
Re: Virtual Domains again
30377 by: David Dyer-Bennet
inetd not supported---not? (was RE: Kurt's Closet on qmail)
30378 by: Mate Wierdl
Not yet solved : Existing/nonexisting users
30379 by: Puck
30380 by: Russell Nelson
Fooling qmail inject
30381 by: Blaine Lefler
30382 by: Vince Vielhaber
defaultdomain and mail header fields
30383 by: Lyndon Griffin
30384 by: Dave Sill
30386 by: Lyndon Griffin
30387 by: Dave Sill
race condition in qmail-popbull
30385 by: Russell Nelson
30401 by: Jaye Mathisen
Default time for server UTC?
30391 by: Joseph R. Junkin
30393 by: Sam
strange behaviour of delivering to local user
30395 by: Marco Leeflang
How do you set the From and Received: line dates to match the one in the Date: line ?
30396 by: Ric Verkler
Notification E-mails
30398 by: Qmail-User
30403 by: seiheng
Mail client and sorting
30399 by: Subba Rao
30407 by: Anand Buddhdev
David Summers
30400 by: Qmail-User
Qmail woes
30402 by: Bryan J. Ischo
URGENT: HELP BIG ATTACHMENTS NOT RECIVING
30404 by: Manohar Pradhan
Patch for spam
30405 by: Hotdog
30406 by: Van Liedekerke Franky
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> So then the assumption is that all qmail users subscribe to - and read -
> every message on this list. Not only that, new users have also gone back
> and read every message that was ever posted.
And if they would, they would find threads like this. Take
it off line pleeeeeese.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ 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 +
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fortuantely, only about 5% or so of the laws actually passed by this
"useful" group ever actually make it into every state's law. For as
unproductive and unsuccessful as they are, it's a wonder the commission
exists. I'm not too frightened about UCITA becoming a bill. Especially not
in my state where we have a referrendum and initiative.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James J. Lippard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 6:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
>
>
> There is proposed new law on the matter--recent revisions to the
> Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2B, a/k/a UCITA (Uniform Computer
> Information Transactions Act). It has been approved by the National
> Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Law and will be
> introduced
> in most state legislatures early next year. Do a web search
> for "UCITA"
> or "UCC 2B" and you'll find all kinds of opposition web pages.
>
> Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/
> Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
> PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
>
> On 16 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >> I was told last night by an IP lawyer that
> "click-through licenses have
> > >> been upheld in court".
> > >
> > >Yes, I believe that's been the case for a while. A click on ACCEPT
> > >appears to be legally roughly equivalent to the signature
> on a contract,
> > >provided you can prove the person did that (signatures are
> a bit more
> > >permanent and lasting and easier to establish). This is a
> Good Thing; if
> > >this weren't the case, ISP AUPs and the like would be
> uninforceable and
> > >e-commerce would become very difficult. I don't have a
> problem with that.
> >
> > Yes, that's the reasoning, and I understand it perfectly well...to a
> > point.
> >
> > Exactly *who* are the parties to the "[rough] equivalent to the
> > signature on a contract", though?
> >
> > Remember, the assumption here is that the transaction between the
> > parties (FTP client and FTP server operators and their correlative
> > software agents; or customer and salesperson exchanging money and
> > shrinkwrap software) has *already happened*.
> >
> > After that transaction, which is an *implied contract* (I assume),
> > there can be *no* after-the-fact changes to the contract without
> > *both* parties agreeing to that.
> >
> > When you're *later* running that computer program, you are *not*
> > engaging in contract negotiations with a second party. In fact,
> > you are dealing with no legally recognized entity at all. You
> > can't sue it for making false representations, for example.
> >
> > I'm not interested in what we can *infer* that software did based
> > on the code. I'm only interested in what *legislation* exists
> > that grants software the right to, on its own volition, enter
> > into an enforceable contract with an individual such that the
> > individual is liable for damages, can be imprisoned, and so on,
> > when the *software* is under no such legal liabilities.
> >
> > Put another way: if you buy a JimBobBoy Toy for your 5-year old,
> > take it out of the store, assuming the transaction has completed,
> > what right does that *toy* have to suddenly, two months later,
> > "decide" it will no longer "play" with your son as it has (perhaps
> > implicitly) been promised to do in the past *unless* you tell it
> > you agree to some *new* license terms?
> >
> > I'm aware of *no* legal or ethical compulsion under which I should
> > be required to tell the truth to *software*. To another person
> > *via* software as a recording device, yes -- if that's part of
> > what is clearly a valid contract-agreement process, for example.
> >
> > But when I'm running software on my computer, it's unconnected to
> > the net, or if I've *clearly* been led to believe that I've
> > purchased it (or obtained it for "free" via download), then I can't
> > see how any attempt by that software to get me to engage in
> *further*
> > contract negotiations have any validity.
> >
> > Now, I'm a *totally* committed Christian who doesn't believe it's
> > right to lie, cheat, steal, or kill, *ever*, period.
> >
> > Yet I have no problem lying to a computer program. (Okay, honesty
> > time, maybe I *have*, in the past, and thus not clicked-through
> > a license I didn't want to accept. But no longer, now that
> I clearly
> > see the issues.)
> >
> > As far as convenience for etrade and such: poppycock. First, the
> > courts' jobs are to interpret the *law*, not invent new law for
> > the convenience of industry. That's for the legislatures to
> > undertake.
> >
> > Second, in any situation where a vendor chooses to use a manner of
> > delivery that creates the clear impression that a transaction has
> > been completed as of purchase or download, that vendor must be
> > interpreted, *legally*, to have agreed to continue abiding by the
> > terms of the transaction ever after, regardless of what it claims
> > its software might or might not ask, or be told, by its user.
> >
> > If the vendor disagreed with that, it is up to the *vendor* to
> > choose a *different* method of delivery. E.g. provide
> *non*-anonymous
> > FTP access via a login/password combination after getting something
> > akin to an online signature verifying that the potential customer
> > agrees to the license terms *up front*.
> >
> > It's called "the cost of doing business". And it's trivial, both
> > for FTP access to "free" software that tries to add post-transaction
> > constraints, as well as for overshelf sales of shrink-wrap software,
> > as well as telephone-based sales of shrink-wrap software.
> >
> > In all cases, if the *legislation* doesn't grant
> independently acting
> > software the rights to act on behalf of a party, *or* if the *other*
> > party in a transaction is not warned ahead of time that a seemingly
> > "complete" transaction is going to, in fact, be further negotiated
> > *by that agent* (the software) *afterwards*, then the vendor has
> > committed *fraud* by claiming that the terms of the agreement are
> > modified *after* the transaction.
> >
> > In my opinion, unless somebody can show legislation that itself
> > provides clear, up-front notification to consumers of software
> > (via shrink-wrap transactions or anon-FTP downloads of "free"
> > software) that they were going to have to deal with *software*
> > as if they were *duly appointed agents* of the party with whom
> > they would otherwise have believed they'd *completed* a transaction
> > (with contract, implied or otherwise)...
> >
> > ...we have the potential for a *huge* class-action suit here.
> >
> > So, please, where's the USC or other code I look up that grants
> > such after-the-fact authorization of renegotiation of contract
> > by software?
> >
> > >I'd double-check some of the rest of this with another IP
> lawyer. *Until
> > >you have accepted the contract* you aren't bound by its
> provisions; you're
> >
> > You've accepted the contract that was implied during the
> transaction.
> > After that, nothing you say or do on your computer constitutes
> > modification of a contract, or agreement with a contract, or
> > anything similar, since *you aren't negotiating with anybody*.
> >
> > >In order to make you agree to the
> > >contract as a condition of getting a copy of the software,
> I'm pretty sure
> > >they have to *make* that a condition; that's why if you
> download, say,
> > >Postfix from IBM's web site, they put the license up on
> the screen and
> > >make you accept it before you get a copy.
> >
> > Excellent. That's as it *should* be. I don't mind one bit a
> > splash screen that *confirms* (but cannot reduce) those terms,
> > e.g. in case somebody illegally puts up the copy on another
> > web site without the pre-download protection.
> >
> > >So the only way I can see the above working is if somehow
> you're not in
> > >legal possession of the software after you rejected the
> contract, which
> > >makes no sense to me at all.
> >
> > No, the case I mean is where I accepted the *implicit*, or
> *explicit*,
> > contract when I downloaded or bought software.
> >
> > Then I run the software, stand-alone mode, and it tells me I must
> > accept *further* conditions to run it.
> >
> > I claim that, at this point, I have no ethical or legal compunction
> > to tell the truth to a piece of software, since it is, in this
> > case, not in any way acting as a duly appointed agent for the
> > party of a contract, especially not in a contract negotiation that
> > pertains to my use of that software...since I already *negotiated*
> > that contract.
> >
> > >Copyright law in the United States specifically gives you
> the right to
> > >make whatever copies of software are necessary for the
> normal running of
> > >the software package. However, I can see the argument
> that in this case,
> > >this only implies your right to run the software and get
> that dialog box;
> > >you're then presented with a contract you have to agree to
> to continue.
> >
> > I argue that I'm presented with a *purported* contract, that has no
> > more legal or ethical force than when your three-year-old daughter
> > asks you "daddy, when I grow up, will you marry me?" and you say
> > "yes, dear".
> >
> > >So my non-lawyer *opinion* is that you're not required to
> destroy the
> > >software, you still have a legal copy, and you're permitted to make
> > >archival and backup copies of it and run it as many times
> as you want to
> > >see that dialog box, but you can't do any more than that
> with it without
> > >accepting the contract.
> >
> > Just to reiterate, I already accepted the only *legally and
> ethically
> > binding* contract on the transaction that resulted in my getting
> > a copy of the software.
> >
> > If the software wants to play games with me and pretend I
> have to agree
> > to other terms, I'm perfectly within my rights to lie to it and say
> > "ACCEPT", then brazenly violate *those terms*, as long as I'm still
> > within the terms of the *real* contract.
> >
> > (Practically, I realize that if some judge has ruled otherwise, this
> > might not be smart. But I claim it *is* entirely legal and ethical
> > *unless* someone can show the legislation that informed me,
> up front,
> > that I should be prepared to continue negotations, post-transaction,
> > with an automaton.)
> >
> > tq vm, (burley)
> >
>
>
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Mark Parker wrote:
> I am receiving this error in my mail logs
>
> "CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily."
>
> where the recipient address is like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When I do a nslookup from various name servers ther all indicate that the
> domain does not exist. Yet, when I do a lookup for "mail.domain.com.au" and
> www.domain... etc they are give valid IP addresses.
>
> This has become an issue as people used to be able to use this address
> previously, and other sites still can, so the address is still valid.
>
> Is there an underlying error that may be evident either in the setup of my
> qmail or DNS?? I thought that if the domain name could not be resolved, then
> obviously the mail could not be delivered.
You should do an nslookup for MX to be completely sure that they have
misconfigured the DNS. If it does not give back a mail exchanger, then it
is their misconfiguration. However usual nslookup on a domain gives back
not found error.
So there is no DNS misconfiguration probably.
That it may or may not be a qmail error I do not know, since I don't know
exactly the conditions that trigger that message.
Robert Varga
"Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>hate to jump in late here, but to both sides: where exactly does DJB say he
>doesn't support inetd? i can't seem to find anywhere in the source or on
>his site. in fact, the main qmail.html page sez:
>
>"qmail's design inherently limits the machine load, so qmail-smtpd can
>safely run from your system's inetd."
>
>www.qmail.org is the only place i see that actually sez "not supported," and
>it's reasonably clear that the creator of qmail does not maintain that page,
>so i'm not sure what the big deal is.
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/06/msg01014.html
Where DJB said:
]The use of tcpd with qmail is no longer supported, and the use of inetd
]with qmail is supported only for the basic configuration explained in
]qmail's installation instructions.
So it appears the claim on www.qmail.org is incorrect.
-Dave
> 2) They don't have anyone with enough brains to set up a mail
> relay with hardcoded paths.
Not that its my job to defend them, but I don't think its a lack of
brains. Their system allows the actual end mail host owners, who are often
a hop, skip, division and organizational unit away, to control mail delivery
for their own domain without requiring a centralized authority to "know"
about all those edge servers. And in Xerox, anything that saves an edge
admin from having to convince centralized Xerox that they should listen to
him is an absolute blessing...
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 08:38:25AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
> Not that its my job to defend them, but I don't think its a lack of
> brains. Their system allows the actual end mail host owners, who are often
Not only that - but I recall seeing this exact strategy mentioned in a book
on Security and Firewalls...
Let's face it, as far as I'm aware, qmail is the only MTA that doesn't do
"goto next MX if first MX timesout/fails". Put another way - over 80% of the
MTAs on the Internet today handle MX issues differently that Qmail - which
is right?
[Boy, I must be full of shi... - erm - beans - this morning!]
[donning flame-proof underpants]
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Jason Haar writes:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 08:38:25AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
> > Not that its my job to defend them, but I don't think its a lack of
> > brains. Their system allows the actual end mail host owners, who are often
>
> Not only that - but I recall seeing this exact strategy mentioned in a book
> on Security and Firewalls...
It's still wrong. At *very* least it's a violation of the SMTP
protocol. Where's the SMTP banner?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 05:14:57PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> It's still wrong. At *very* least it's a violation of the SMTP
> protocol. Where's the SMTP banner?
Sorry? Did I miss an earlier message? Where does it say it's a violation? I
thought this entire matter was due to it being an area not formally
mentioned in the RFCs - as it isn't mentioned, neither Qmail or Sendmail/et
al are right or wrong. My point was that "everyone else" does it a different
way than Qmail. If Qmail did it "the same way", it would make Qmail more
acceptable to users.
I've always got some mail queued up trying to get through to sites affected
by Qmail's ruling on how to handle MX sites that drop after a connect.
Screwing around with /var/qmail/control/smtproutes all the time is not my
idea of fun...
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Jason Haar writes:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 05:14:57PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > It's still wrong. At *very* least it's a violation of the SMTP
> > protocol. Where's the SMTP banner?
>
> Sorry? Did I miss an earlier message? Where does it say it's a violation?
Quoting RFC821:
One important reply is the connection greeting. Normally, a
receiver will send a 220 "Service ready" reply when the connection
is completed. The sender should wait for this greeting message
before sending any commands.
The table below lists alternative success and failure replies for
each command. These must be strictly adhered to; a receiver may
substitute text in the replies, but the meaning and action implied
by the code numbers and by the specific command reply sequence
cannot be altered.
A host that persistently refuses to run the SMTP protocol on the SMTP
port cannot be said to be running SMTP.
> I've always got some mail queued up trying to get through to sites affected
> by Qmail's ruling on how to handle MX sites that drop after a connect.
> Screwing around with /var/qmail/control/smtproutes all the time is not my
> idea of fun...
Tell them to fix their SMTP servers, don't work around their
breakage.
--
-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!
> Sorry? Did I miss an earlier message? Where does it say it's a violation?
I
> thought this entire matter was due to it being an area not formally
> mentioned in the RFCs - as it isn't mentioned, neither Qmail or
Sendmail/et
> al are right or wrong. My point was that "everyone else" does it a
different
> way than Qmail. If Qmail did it "the same way", it would make Qmail more
> acceptable to users.
i just did a quick search of some relevant RFC's, and all they seem to say
is that MTA's may, but are not required to, try any fall back MX hosts. the
only thing they seem to say is that the most preferred MX must be tried
first.
so qmail is within its "legal" boundaries in the way it handles MX records.
without an RFC that specifies different behaviors for different situations,
MX handling will always be a gray area. for instance:
* if the primary host gives you a temporary error, should you fall back to
the next MX? how fast, immediately or wait a while? if you wait a while,
maybe the temporary error will go away?
* what if a fallback gives you a temp error? should you reset your MX
preference to the primary? how soon?
* if any host gives you a permanent error, should you try all other hosts?
(this may be answered in some rfc, i dunno)
* there's clearly a difference between a "connect refused", "host not
responding", "host answers but disconnects without notice", all these kind
of error conditions. how should they be handled wrt MX?
* how often do you check for an updated MX list? every time you send the
mail? if so, should you keep track of what the preferences used to be?
an RFC would be the ideal way to answer these. doing it "like everyone else
does" isn't valid. doing it "the way sendmail does" is even worse.
btw, in case you weren't aware, your "make qmail more acceptable to users"
argument isn't going to impress people around here.
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>Quoting RFC821:
>
> One important reply is the connection greeting. Normally, a
> receiver will send a 220 "Service ready" reply when the connection
> is completed. The sender should wait for this greeting message
> before sending any commands.
>
> The table below lists alternative success and failure replies for
> each command. These must be strictly adhered to; a receiver may
> substitute text in the replies, but the meaning and action implied
> by the code numbers and by the specific command reply sequence
> cannot be altered.
>
>A host that persistently refuses to run the SMTP protocol on the SMTP
>port cannot be said to be running SMTP.
Since qmail never receives said greeting, and can therefore assume
the remote host is not running SMTP, it seems obvious to me that it
should move on to the next MX record in the list.
Jon
_____________________________________________________
|Jon Rust | VCNet, Inc |(805) 383-3500|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | www.vcnet.com|
|---------------------------------------------------|
| Failure is not an option |
| It comes bundled with your Microsoft product |
|___________________________________________________|
Qmail-User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 16 September 1999 at 11:46:05
+1000
>
> I have two domain names:
>
> cyberscapes.com.au
> peakimpact.net
>
> The first works without any problems but the second I have yet to have
> working. I have added the following to "virtualdomains":
>
> pekimpact.net:peakimpact
>
> I have set up a user who is peakimpact. I have two files under the
> peakimpact user:
>
> .qmail-vpl
> .qmail-ajr
>
> Inside these files I have put the following:
>
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> and
>
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> respectively. Am I correct so far? I want also for these users to able
> to send mail to other people without those people seeing anything to do
> with cyberscapes.com.au. Either e-mail have their username followed by
> their domain eg. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Can you please give me some pointers?
What you've done so far looks correct and complete to me for handling
*incoming* mail. Your question seems to be about how *outgoing* mail
looks. Can I safely conclude that incoming mail is already working
correctly for you?
For outgoing mail -- depends how they are sending it. If they submit
it using qmail-inject (or the sendmail wrapper which calls
qmail-inject), you can control what the "from" header and what the
envelope sender are set to using various environment variables. man
qmail-inject for details (see USER, MAILHOST, and QMAILSHOST in
particular). You may also need the QMAILINJECT variable, perhaps with
the value "f". This is how I'm handling it; the primary name of the
system I'm sending this from is gw.dd-b.net, but the headers show me
as sending this from just dd-b.net.
If they submit it via smtp, then qmail doesn't alter the headers; they
should do whatever their mail program lets them do to set up the
headers before submitting it, and that will be passed through. The
headers will then show the step of *relaying through*
cyberscapes.com.au.
As a last resort, to be avoided if at all possible, you *can* arrange
to trap every message being relayed and do modifications to it, I
believe. I've never resorted to this and am not very familiar with
the tools, so I won't try to give details on this approach.
--
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!
> The decision to not support inetd was made after qmail 1.03 was
> released and
> was announced on this list. I assume that the documentation will be
> corrected in the next version.
I think it is incorrcet to say that djb/qmail does not support inetd
anymore. Indeed, even in the new FAQ at
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/faq/install.html
you can read
How do I install qmail?
Answer: Follow the step-by-step instructions in INSTALL in the qmail
package. If you are upgrading from a previous version, use UPGRADE
instead of INSTALL.
And of course
grep -A3 16 /var/qmail/doc/INSTALL
16. Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
The point is that there were many people for whom tcp wrappers did not
work out of the box on their redHat 5.0-1 system. This was an error
on RH's part, and later the problem got corrected.
So then the assumption is that all qmail users subscribe to - and read -
every message on this list. Not only that, new users have also gone back
and read every message that was ever posted.
No, but new users should believe more experienced members on this list
when they say tcpserver works better than inetd. Not only that, they
should also read the FAQ which gives a hint why one should switch to
tcpserver:
grep -A2 barf /var/qmail/doc/FAQ
5.1. How do I run qmail-smtpd under tcpserver? inetd is barfing at high
loads, cutting off service for ten-minute stretches. I'd also like
better connection logging.
Mate
Hi folks,
i have a problem :
i have a virtual domain just-kidding.de with some users.
if a mail arrives for a non existing user of just-kidding.de, the mail
shell go to one of the existing users, chris.
Chris is a virtual user with pop3 access.
i have this in my .qmail-default :
|if !(vdeliver) exit 0; fi
./users/chris/
So, whenever a mail arrives for an existing user, the same message is
copy to
chris mailfolder too, even it could be delivered !
But that's not what i wanted !
What's wrong with the above?!
Thank you,
Thomas
Puck writes:
> |if !(vdeliver) exit 0; fi
> ./users/chris/
>
> So, whenever a mail arrives for an existing user, the same message
> is copy to chris mailfolder too, even it could be delivered !
Right. Instead, do this:
|vdeliver
./users/chris/
Modify vdeliver so it exits with one of the exit codes documented in
qmail-command. In particular, if vdeliver successfully delivers the
mail, it should exit 99. This will cause the copy to the chris
mailfolder to be skipped.
--
-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!
Is it possible to fool qmal-inject into thinking a message is bad and if
so how?
--
Blaine Lefler
USA.NET System Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone (719) 785-2373
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Blaine Lefler wrote:
> Is it possible to fool qmal-inject into thinking a message is bad and if
> so how?
>
define "bad"
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
This is interesting... could somebody please explain this, if possible?
I took the following message:
$ vi testmail
TO: My New Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: A Big Loser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: lgriffin@nowhere1
Mail-Reply-To: lgriffin@nowhere2
Mail-Followup-To: lgriffin@nowhere3
SUBJECT: testing mail headers
testing
and dumped it in the queue:
$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject < testmail
and what I got on the other end was this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp0.host.com ([207.106.77.100])
by mail.naviant.com (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id OAA27657
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:21:31 -0400
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: (qmail 12694 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Sep 1999 18:21:29 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Sep 1999 18:21:29 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TO: My New Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: A Big Loser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Reply-To: lgriffin@nowhere2
Mail-Followup-To: lgriffin@nowhere3
SUBJECT: testing mail headers
Content-Type: text
----------------------------------------------------------------------
notice how the Reply-To: picked up default domain, but Mail-Reply-To: and
Mail-Followup-To didn't? This is just for curiosity's sake - I have no
desire to force the RT:, MRT:, or MFT: fields to pick up a default domain...
<:) Lyndon Griffin
"Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Received: from smtp0.host.com ([207.106.77.100])
> by mail.naviant.com (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id OAA27657
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:21:31 -0400
> (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Is that Sendmail I smell or did I step in something?
-Dave
No, I just re-ran the test, only delivering to the local machine this time
(taking sendmail out of the picture)... Same thing happens, so it must be
qmail that is doing this.
> Is that Sendmail I smell or did I step in something?
>
> -Dave
>
"Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, I just re-ran the test, only delivering to the local machine this time
>(taking sendmail out of the picture)... Same thing happens, so it must be
>qmail that is doing this.
A quick look at qmail-inject.c shows that only certain headers are
rewritten. See doheaderfield() and the various rw*() functions.
-Dave
I think I've found a race condition in qmail-popbull. If you delete a
bulletin just after qmail-popbull has run, but before the user has
started to download that message, qmail-pop3d says "-ERR unable to
open that message". If you delete a bulletin just after qmail-popbull
has run, but the user doesn't get a chance to download the message,
qmail-pop3d will leave that symlink lying around forever.
So, to see if this is more than a theory, could people running
qmail-popbull check to see if they have dangling symlinks in their
user's directories?
The fix, if necessary, is for qmail-pop3d to remove dangling symlinks
when it finds them.
--
-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!
Yes, in fact, the first time we used pop-bull to test the "retraction"
feature, we noticed this.
I was going to email you about it, but we've been testing some other
stuff, and it got put on the back burner.
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I think I've found a race condition in qmail-popbull. If you delete a
> bulletin just after qmail-popbull has run, but before the user has
> started to download that message, qmail-pop3d says "-ERR unable to
> open that message". If you delete a bulletin just after qmail-popbull
> has run, but the user doesn't get a chance to download the message,
> qmail-pop3d will leave that symlink lying around forever.
>
> So, to see if this is more than a theory, could people running
> qmail-popbull check to see if they have dangling symlinks in their
> user's directories?
>
> The fix, if necessary, is for qmail-pop3d to remove dangling symlinks
> when it finds them.
>
> --
> -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!
>
What is the 'standard' timezone that people use for the email server?
I am in CA and my server is in San Jose, each time I post a message to a
mailing list, it appears with about a 2-3 hour time lag.
I dug in the archives and noticed that:
"Qmail always uses UTC. It's hard coded in."
So UTC is Universal Coordinated Time. Should I set the servers bios
clock to UTC? I use RedHat Linux and I am about to set it up again.
Should I choose a timezone of UTC?
Joseph R. Junkin writes:
> What is the 'standard' timezone that people use for the email server?
>
> I am in CA and my server is in San Jose, each time I post a message to a
> mailing list, it appears with about a 2-3 hour time lag.
That's because your time and timezone settings are woefully broken.
Your clock is off by three hours, and your timezone setting is also off by
three hours, but in another direction, so they cancel out on your local
machine.
Meanwhile, to everyone else, you're three hours off the mark.
> I dug in the archives and noticed that:
>
> "Qmail always uses UTC. It's hard coded in."
Correct.
> So UTC is Universal Coordinated Time. Should I set the servers bios
> clock to UTC? I use RedHat Linux and I am about to set it up again.
> Should I choose a timezone of UTC?
*NIX system clock runs on UTC. Linux will set the system clock from the
hardware clock, and you tell Linux whether the hardware clock keeps time in
local time, or in UTC, and Linux will automatically translate to/from UTC
if that's necessary. How the BIOS keeps time is irrelevant. The bottom
line is that the hardware clock must be translated to system clock's UTC at
boot time. Afterwards, you use the timezone setting to correctly display
the local time for each client, so if you have someone telnetting in from
Timbuktu, they will see all the dates and times in their local time.
Qmail uses UTC internally, but that is completely irrelevant, as robust
client software will always translate whatever timezone into the local
timezone. For example, my mail reader translated the datestamp on your
message to 2:21 PM US Eastern time, even though it was sent at 5:21 US
Eastern, because your clock is off by three hours. Someone who sent me
mail around the same time from halfway across the world also shows up here
with a timestamp of around 5:20 PM US Eastern Time. As long as your
timestamp is properly formatted, my software will automatically translate
it into my local time, irrespective of the fact if the actual timestamp
uses UTC or the sender's local time.
--
Sam
qmail runs for a few months without a single problem, but now the local
delivery failed.
i setup qmail for local users and put alias names in
/var/qmail/users/assign
a messages to the alias will be received by the user but a message to
the useraccount won't.
no mailbox with this name.
This happens with several usersaccounts but not by all accounts.
why ???
marco leeflang
Hi there! Yes, I am very new to qmail, and am
trying to figure out
various problems/anomolies I am seeing with it
here.
( I've just started here and was not involved in
the install)
Anyway, The email headers generated for the From
line
and the Received: line are 7 Hours ahead of the
actual
time sent. The Date: line shows the
correct time.
How to I set up/change this so that the Time is
correctly
shown in the 2 lines?
I'm on the West Coast (in
Santa Clara, CA)
Below is an example. I send this at 12:56
PST
-Thanks in advance for your help
-Ric Verkler
Phone 408-350-0400 Ext 125
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 16 19:53:49
1999
>>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Delivered-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Received:
(qmail 12237 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1999 19:53:49
-0000
>>Received: from unknown (HELO moonstone)
(192.168.13.134)
>> by snowcrash.eng.chronologue.net with SMTP;
16 Sep 1999 19:53:49 -0000
>>Message-ID: <001e01bf007d$93ba8610$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>From:
"Ric Verkler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject:
Date/time in the From and Received: header
>>Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999
12:56:33 -0700
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type:
multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01BF0042.E75BAE10"
>>X-Priority:
3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook
Express 4.72.3612.1700
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE
V4.72.3612.1700
>>Status:
RO
>>X-Status:
>>X-Keywords:
>>X-UID:
77
|
Say if a user has 2 or 3 mail accounts and only one is the primary account
that he checks every day. Is it possible to get qmail to send the user
notification of new e-mails when they arrive in his other 2 accounts? I
assume some command would have to go into the .qmail file in the home
directories of his other 2 accounts but what commands?
Regards
Vivian Lal
Normally, I (currently using Qmail) just forward the all incoming email to
the email account that I check everyday.
I just add in the .qmail file (this is located at the user home directory)
| forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want a copy of email store in the that mail account as well, than add:
./Mailbox
| forward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hope this help,
Sei Heng
ps: I don't think there is a limit of forward account you can put there...
Qmail-User wrote:
> Say if a user has 2 or 3 mail accounts and only one is the primary account
> that he checks every day. Is it possible to get qmail to send the user
> notification of new e-mails when they arrive in his other 2 accounts? I
> assume some command would have to go into the .qmail file in the home
> directories of his other 2 accounts but what commands?
>
> Regards
>
> Vivian Lal
I have subscribed to many mailing lists. Soon I will have my Qmail working. My favorite
mail client is ELM. How do I sort differrent mailing lists into different folders? Are
any other
mail readers in X, not KDE nor GTK based clients. I want the threading capability.
THank you in advance.
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================================================
Disclaimer - I question and speak for myself.
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
______________________________________________________________
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Subba Rao wrote:
> I have subscribed to many mailing lists. Soon I will have my Qmail working. My
>favorite
> mail client is ELM. How do I sort differrent mailing lists into different folders?
>Are any other
Elm comes with a filter utility to sort mail into different folders. If
you want to do filtering with other mail clients, you can use procmail
or maildrop.
> mail readers in X, not KDE nor GTK based clients. I want the threading capability.
Netscape can thread messages, but I also suggest you look at mutt
(http://www.mutt.org). Although it's not X-based, it is very nice.
--
See complete headers for more info
Has anyone ever used David Summers' IMAP/POP server RPM? There doesn't
seem to be any docs on the web site, does anyone know where I could find
some?
Vivian Lal
Hi everyone. I have two (hopefully) quick questions about qmail.
We recently set up qmail on our Solaris mail server after our
open-relay sendmail was taken advantage of and used as a
spam relay.
We have two problems with qmail currently. We have run qmail-lint
and it reports no problems (except that users such as nobody will
be unable to receive mail, which we don't care about).
First problem:
I followed the instructions in the qmail HOWTO and got rid of sendmail
entirely. But later in the day I discovered that emails simply were
not getting delivered. qmail-smtpd was happily accepting them for
delivery but where they went, who knows. We are using /var/mail
files for receiving mail (for compatibility with our IMAP and POP
servers). These files stopped being updated and I can find no
traces of received mail anywhere in /var/qmail/queue. I was unable
to send mail using the /bin/mail program on the mail host. So I
tried the old sendmail.bak sendmail executable and, after making it
suid again, it worked. So I removed the links from /usr/lib/sendmail
and /usr/sbin/sendmail to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail, and replaced those
links with links to the old sendmail.bak. Now users are receiving
mail again. I find it very strange.
My guess is that the fact that /var/qmail/bin/sendmail being
group qmail and all of our mail files in /var/mail being group
mail, and the fact that /var/qmail/bin/sendmail is not suid or
anything, meant that it didn't have permissions to write mail
to the mail files. And it probably returned an error code to
/bin/mail which silently ignored it?
Anyone know if there's any hope of recovering the mails which were
lost at this time? Silently lost mail files are the worst case
scenario for a mail server and I am really afraid that that's what
we have here.
The second problem we have is that qmail doesn't seem to log
properly. Qmail is started via:
qmail-start '|preline -f /bin/mail "$USER"' splogger qmail
But where do the messages get logged? At no time have we ever
received any log messages from qmail except for the following
in /var/adm/messages:
Sep 16 20:55:35 level qmail: 937529735.086563 alert: oh no! lost spawn
connection! dying...
Which occurred when I manually killed qmail when restarting it.
I also have qmail installed (using a qmail rpm) on a RedHat 6.0 box,
and it works flawlessly, with full logging to /var/log/maillog.
Thanks very much,
Bryan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Ischo [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1995 Honda VFR750
Yonkers, NY, USA http://www.ischo.com RedHat Linux 6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello:
I have a problem with my qmail server (qmail 1.03). I can send/receive
normal emails but when i try to send attachments and big files, then the
SMTP server won't answer and it takes very long time. Can anybody give me
some idea why it is happening?
Any help is highly appreciated.
TIA
Manohar
Hi,
I want to write the following patch for qmail. At some small site,you can only
filtrate the spam by the filter invoke from dotqmail, but our server will receive over
100000 junk mails per day,qmail-send & qmail-local take so much time to delivert
these letters. Kill the spam in qmail-smtpd should be the best way.
But the problem is how to write the function 'spamcheck(int spamflag)' ?
In qmail-smtpd.c:
+ spam=0;
received(&qqt,"SMTP",local,remoteip,remotehost,remoteinfo,fakehelo);
blast(&hops);
+ spamcheck(&spam); //The functin will read some control file,such as
+control/badkeyword, if matched,then ...
hops = (hops >= MAXHOPS);
if (hops) qmail_fail(&qqt);
qmail_from(&qqt,mailfrom.s);
qmail_put(&qqt,rcptto.s,rcptto.len);
qqx = qmail_close(&qqt);
if (!*qqx) { acceptmessage(qp); return; }
if (hops) { out("554 too many hops, this message is looping (#5.4.6)\r\n"); return; }
+ if (spam) { out("551 Spam shit! You are not welcome!\r\n"; return; );
if (databytes) if (!bytestooverflow) { out("552 sorry, that message size excee...
if (*qqx == 'D') out("554 "); else out("451 ");
out(qqx + 1);
out("\r\n");
then,it will do something like this:
220 mydomain.com ESMTP
helo iamspam
250 mydomain.com
mail from:<>
250 ok
rcpt to:<someone@>
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
win money from .... <---'win money' is in control/badkeyword,so this letter
should be refused.
.
551 Spam shit! You are not welcome!
Thanks very much!
Hotdog
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
don't reinvent the wheel. If this is what you want, use the anti-UCE spam
patch from Sam (see qmail pages)
Franky
> ----------
> From: Hotdog[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 7:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Patch for spam
>
> Hi,
> I want to write the following patch for qmail. At some small site,you
> can only filtrate the spam by the filter invoke from dotqmail, but our
> server will receive over 100000 junk mails per day,qmail-send &
> qmail-local take so much time to delivert these letters. Kill the spam in
> qmail-smtpd should be the best way.
> But the problem is how to write the function 'spamcheck(int spamflag)' ?
>
>
>
> In qmail-smtpd.c:
>
> + spam=0;
> received(&qqt,"SMTP",local,remoteip,remotehost,remoteinfo,fakehelo);
> blast(&hops);
> + spamcheck(&spam); //The functin will read some control file,such as
> control/badkeyword, if matched,then ...
> hops = (hops >= MAXHOPS);
> if (hops) qmail_fail(&qqt);
> qmail_from(&qqt,mailfrom.s);
> qmail_put(&qqt,rcptto.s,rcptto.len);
>
> qqx = qmail_close(&qqt);
> if (!*qqx) { acceptmessage(qp); return; }
> if (hops) { out("554 too many hops, this message is looping
> (#5.4.6)\r\n"); return; }
> + if (spam) { out("551 Spam shit! You are not welcome!\r\n"; return; );
> if (databytes) if (!bytestooverflow) { out("552 sorry, that message size
> excee...
> if (*qqx == 'D') out("554 "); else out("451 ");
> out(qqx + 1);
> out("\r\n");
>
> then,it will do something like this:
>
> 220 mydomain.com ESMTP
> helo iamspam
> 250 mydomain.com
> mail from:<>
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:<someone@>
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> win money from .... <---'win money' is in control/badkeyword,so
> this letter should be refused.
>
>
> .
> 551 Spam shit! You are not welcome!
>
>
>
> Thanks very much!
>
>
>
> Hotdog
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
