qmail Digest 26 Sep 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 771
Topics (messages 30854 through 30870):
.qmail in /home wont work :-(
30854 by: Andre Anneck
30855 by: Chris Johnson
"info" mailing list/responder with attachments?
30856 by: Paul A. Cheshire
30860 by: Ruben van der Leij
How to stop remote host lookup?
30857 by: skip-qmail.mail.seacove.net
30859 by: Peter C. Norton
30861 by: Dennis Duval
qmail-pw2u problem (and also a MUA question)
30858 by: Michael Slade
please, some help to block spam
30862 by: Abel Lucano
30867 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
logging pop3d with cyclog
30863 by: Barry Dwyer
Re: When will qmail back off to the next MX?
30864 by: Russell Nelson
30870 by: phil.ipal.net
Re: Sqwebmail and IMAP
30865 by: Randy Harmon
30866 by: Russell Nelson
30869 by: Sam
qmail rc script won't run
30868 by: Barry Dwyer
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello everybody,
I installed qmail on FreeBSD3.2.
Everything works fine... but one thing.
According to the documentation I can set a virtualhost entry in the
/control/virtualhosts
file like this:
mydomain.com:myuser
And afterwards I can create .qmail files inside of the home directory of
"myuser",
and qmail will read them and act accordingly...
but it doesnt. :-(
I created a .qmail-info file inside of /home/myuser.
But every time I try to send a mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail tells me "sorry no mailbox here by that name"..yadda yadda...
But if I create the same .qmail inside of /var/qmail/alias it works!
:-(
The reason why I need the virtualhosts settings it that I am manageing
multiple domains
on one box, thus I would really like to have the feature of spreading the
control of domain mails
to user-home directories....
Can anyone give me suggestions on what to check, re-check, and check again
in order to get
virtualhosts working?
Cheers,
Andre
P.S.: Yes I did restart qmails with HUP signals.... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------
ICQ#: 1339921
Home: http://anneck.de
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 06:08:41PM +0200, Andre Anneck wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I installed qmail on FreeBSD3.2.
> Everything works fine... but one thing.
>
> According to the documentation I can set a virtualhost entry in the
> /control/virtualhosts
> file like this:
> mydomain.com:myuser
Which documentation was that? The file you're looking for is
control/virtualdomains (note the lack of the leading slash). In a normal
installation, the control directory will be in /var/qmail.
> And afterwards I can create .qmail files inside of the home directory of
> "myuser", and qmail will read them and act accordingly... but it doesnt. :-(
>
> I created a .qmail-info file inside of /home/myuser. But every time I try to
> send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail tells me "sorry no mailbox here by
> that name"..yadda yadda...
>
> But if I create the same .qmail inside of /var/qmail/alias it works!
If the file is ~alias/.qmail-info and [EMAIL PROTECTED] works, then you have
mydomain.com in control/locals. If you want it to be virtual, it should be in
control/virtualdomains and *not* control/locals.
Chris
Is this possible with qmail and/or ezmlm? I have not really explored
these areas very much yet and I cannot find any reference to
attachments (mime, uuencoded, et al.) in the docs or faqs.
Put simply I want to publish an 'info' email address to respond with
a textual body and smallish attachment (actually an MSWORD, Applix
Words or HTML document). If the attachment (name) can be derived at
time of receipt all the better but this is not a necessity.
In addition, can I arrange for qmail to run a script on receipt of a
particular type of mail (recipient, subject or similar discernible
content)? Obviously, it would have to preserve security by running as
qmail or similar user but that's all I need.
MTIA
Paul
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:11:21PM +0100, Paul A. Cheshire wrote:
> Is this possible with qmail and/or ezmlm?
[send files on demand]
Nope. And neither should it be. The way to go is procmail or another MDA.
On the procmailex-manpage there's a working example which you can cut and
paste and adapt to your own needs.
--
Ruben
Vulcans worship peace above all.
-- McCoy, "Return to Tomorrow", stardate 4768.3
It is my understanding that is it neither necessary nor desireable to do a
remote host lookup on each incoming mail item. However, I have tried to
start qmail-smtpd under tcpserver with both the -H and -R options, as well
as a combination of both. Still, identd is trying to do a remote lookup on
each item. My os is Redhat 5.2 Linux.
29270 ? S 0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-smtpd tcpserver -v -HR -c40
-x /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.cdb -u81 -g80 0 smtp rblsmtpd -b -r
relays.radparker.com rblsmtpd -b qmail-smtpd
A typical syslog entry:
Sep 19 05:30:43 mail identd[8469]: from: 208.14.212.3 ( isot.com ) for:
3173, 25
Sep 19 05:30:43 mail identd[8469]: Successful lookup: 3173 , 25 :
qmailr.qmail
My question: How do I disable this remote lookup, or is it
necessary/recommended to do the lookup?
Dennis Duval
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:00:57PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that is it neither necessary nor desireable to do a
> remote host lookup on each incoming mail item. However, I have tried to
> start qmail-smtpd under tcpserver with both the -H and -R options, as well
> as a combination of both. Still, identd is trying to do a remote lookup on
> each item. My os is Redhat 5.2 Linux.
>
> 29270 ? S 0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-smtpd tcpserver -v -HR -c40
> -x /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.cdb -u81 -g80 0 smtp rblsmtpd -b -r
> relays.radparker.com rblsmtpd -b qmail-smtpd
OK. By this configuration you shouldn't be initiating remote name lookups,
nor ident queries. That's good since this information from a remote site
is rarely useful.
> A typical syslog entry:
>
> Sep 19 05:30:43 mail identd[8469]: from: 208.14.212.3 ( isot.com ) for:
> 3173, 25
> Sep 19 05:30:43 mail identd[8469]: Successful lookup: 3173 , 25 :
> qmailr.qmail
This is different. This is syslog telling you that 208.14.212.3 ( isot.com )
is trying to find out who on your machine is connecting to them. I.e.
they haven't disabled the ident lookup.
> My question: How do I disable this remote lookup, or is it
> necessary/recommended to do the lookup?
If this stuff worries you (and it is a time and resource drain on your
server) you can use something like tcp_wrappers' /etc/hosts.deny to prevent
ident requests from being served to hosts outside of your network, or just
comment out the identd entry from your /etc/inetd.conf.
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
>
> > A typical syslog entry:
> >
> > Sep 19 05:30:43 mail identd[8469]: from: 208.14.212.3 ( isot.com ) for:
> > 3173, 25
> > Sep 19 05:30:43 mail identd[8469]: Successful lookup: 3173 , 25 :
> > qmailr.qmail
>
> This is different. This is syslog telling you that 208.14.212.3
isot.com )
> is trying to find out who on your machine is connecting to them. I.e.
> they haven't disabled the ident lookup.
>
Oh, Stupid me! I had interpreted this as my system doing the lookup on mail
incoming FROM that address. Thank you for setting me straight on this.
> > My question: How do I disable this remote lookup, or is it
> > necessary/recommended to do the lookup?
>
> If this stuff worries you (and it is a time and resource drain on your
> server) you can use something like tcp_wrappers' /etc/hosts.deny to
prevent
> ident requests from being served to hosts outside of your network, or just
> comment out the identd entry from your /etc/inetd.conf.
>
I will try this. Thank you!
Dennis Duval
Hmm-
In a new install whenever I try and run qmail-pw2u it sits running forever
until I halt it and then get the message:
"qmail-pw2u: fatal unable to find alias user"
The user 'alias' has been created (with no full name) and /var/qmail/alias
does exist with a Maildir subdirectory.
There is also a reasonable set of .qmail-ext files that were generated
during install in ...alias/ .
Qmail is running - I can mail in and can mail out via qmail-inject.
Any ideas of what I'm doing wrong?
Please email me directly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) because sometimes the
list traffic is overwhelming!
Michael Slade
BTW- Next problem is getting the common mail user agents such as mail to
work with qmail. I haven't seen instructions that seem to cover this. Where
did I miss them?
thanks again
I'm receiving hundreds of mails bounced from aol.com, and i cannot put the
right rule in badmailfrom to effective filtering
Our main MX running qmail-1.03 with tcpserver is called ferro.ba.net at
200.41.130.3; it's NOT an open relay.
ba.net is our domain.
There's an spammer at ppp187.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.187]
sending mails "as from ba.net domain" to aol.com domain
I'm receiving all the bounces. (a lot!!)
Do I put in badmailfrom all the aol.com relays
@rly-yc05.mail.aol.com, etc? (a lot)
(putting @aol.com for a moment doesn't works neither)
Please, i would appreciate very much any advice to stop this.
Thanks (a lot) in advance
Abel Lucano
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Below one copy of one bounce.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 27016 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1999 19:41:56 -0000
Received: from aolmbd02.mx.aol.com (205.188.156.76)
by ferro.ba.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 1999 19:41:56 -0000
Received: from rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37])
by aolmbd02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-2.0.0)
with ESMTP id SAA23285 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost)
by rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with internal id SAB04911;
Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status
boundary="SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com"
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
The original message was received at Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
from ppp187.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.187]
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery. The AOL address which was undeliverable is listed in the
section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".
The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail
could
not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is
a
general translation for other e-mail servers.
Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail
administrator.
--AOL Postmaster
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-yc01.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 550 xena1948 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
--SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
Arrival-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 2.0.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; air-yc01.mail.aol.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 250 OK
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
ast-Attempt-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
--SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: from ba.net (ppp187.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.187])
by
rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (v61.9) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:32 -0400
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hey man
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:32:44
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<HEAD>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>(Type a title for your page here)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BACKGROUND="" BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="white" LINK="red" VLINK=""
ALINK="#ff0000">
<A HREF="http://3470651298/barney/"><FONT SIZE="+2">Click Here</FONT>>
<B><A HREF="http://3470651298/barney/"><FONT SIZE="+1" color="cyan">Hi
There...My names is Amber. My girlfriends Elaine and Louise came over
this
past weekend with their new digital camera, and after a little wine, and a
lot
of foolin' around, we got a little crazy...Anyways, now that the pictures
are
taken, we might as well show them to SOMEONE, so how about
you?</FONT></a></B><BR>
<A HREF="http://3470651298/barney/"><FONT SIZE="+2">Click Here</FONT>
</BODY>
</html>
find out that ip address aol is using and
ipfwadm -I -a deny -S AOL.IP.ADDRESS.HERE -D YOUR.MAIL.SERVER.IP
or use tcpserver.
Call the ISP in question and let them know.. most are pretty helpful.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Abel Lucano wrote:
> I'm receiving hundreds of mails bounced from aol.com, and i cannot put the
> right rule in badmailfrom to effective filtering
>
> Our main MX running qmail-1.03 with tcpserver is called ferro.ba.net at
> 200.41.130.3; it's NOT an open relay.
> ba.net is our domain.
>
> There's an spammer at ppp187.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.187]
> sending mails "as from ba.net domain" to aol.com domain
>
> I'm receiving all the bounces. (a lot!!)
> Do I put in badmailfrom all the aol.com relays
> @rly-yc05.mail.aol.com, etc? (a lot)
>
> (putting @aol.com for a moment doesn't works neither)
>
> Please, i would appreciate very much any advice to stop this.
>
> Thanks (a lot) in advance
>
> Abel Lucano
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Below one copy of one bounce.
>
>
>
> Return-Path: <>
> Received: (qmail 27016 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1999 19:41:56 -0000
> Received: from aolmbd02.mx.aol.com (205.188.156.76)
> by ferro.ba.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 1999 19:41:56 -0000
> Received: from rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37])
> by aolmbd02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-2.0.0)
> with ESMTP id SAA23285 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from localhost (localhost)
> by rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
> with internal id SAB04911;
> Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status
> boundary="SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com"
> Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
> Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
>
> This is a MIME-encapsulated message
>
> --SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
>
> The original message was received at Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
> from ppp187.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.187]
>
>
> *** ATTENTION ***
>
> Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
> delivery. The AOL address which was undeliverable is listed in the
> section
> labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
>
> The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
>
> labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
>
> The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
> labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".
>
> The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail
> could
> not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is
> a
> general translation for other e-mail servers.
>
> Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail
> administrator.
>
> --AOL Postmaster
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to air-yc01.mail.aol.com.:
> >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 550 xena1948 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
> 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
>
> --SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
> Content-Type: message/delivery-status
>
> Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
> Arrival-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Action: failed
> Status: 2.0.0
> Remote-MTA: DNS; air-yc01.mail.aol.com
> Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 250 OK
> Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
> ast-Attempt-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT)
>
> --SAB04911.938298758/rly-yc05.mx.aol.com
> Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
> Received: from ba.net (ppp187.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.187])
> by
> rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (v61.9) with ESMTP; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:32:32 -0400
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Hey man
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:32:44
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> <html>
> <HEAD>
>
> <HEAD>
> <TITLE>(Type a title for your page here)</TITLE>
>
> </HEAD>
>
> <BODY BACKGROUND="" BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="white" LINK="red" VLINK=""
> ALINK="#ff0000">
>
> <A HREF="http://3470651298/barney/"><FONT SIZE="+2">Click Here</FONT>>
> <B><A HREF="http://3470651298/barney/"><FONT SIZE="+1" color="cyan">Hi
> There...My names is Amber. My girlfriends Elaine and Louise came over
> this
> past weekend with their new digital camera, and after a little wine, and a
> lot
> of foolin' around, we got a little crazy...Anyways, now that the pictures
> are
> taken, we might as well show them to SOMEONE, so how about
> you?</FONT></a></B><BR>
> <A HREF="http://3470651298/barney/"><FONT SIZE="+2">Click Here</FONT>
>
> </BODY>
> </html>
>
>
>
>
The sample rc scripts I'm using to run qmail-send and -smtpd already run
cyclog (and it all works fine) but I've added the pop3 line to the rc
file myself and can't get logging to run properly by simply adding the
cyclog stuff between "Maildir" and the closing "&"
How would I modify the following command line so that daemontools 0.53's
"cyclog" logs my pop3 stuff?
supervise /var/supervise/qmail/pop3d tcpserver 0 110 \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup bby.precisionsound.com /bin/checkpassword \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
Thanks,
Barry Dwyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Now you can just requeue the mail and try again later. If you do, then
> you are presuming that perhaps it will be fixed later on, but before the
> expiration of the mail.
It's reasonable to retry a host if you can make a connection to it,
but cannot talk SMTP to it.
> Doesn't this really come down to a difference between the WAY a mail server
> is broken?
No, it comes down to the weight you put on the importance of sending
mail to the primary vs the secondary MX. If you think it's important
to talk to the primary, then you'll retry successful connections to the
primary.
Since you seem to think that any temporary failure means that the
secondary MX should be retried, what about a 4XX failure? Should that
cause the secondary MX to be used?
--
-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!
Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Now you can just requeue the mail and try again later. If you do, then
> > you are presuming that perhaps it will be fixed later on, but before the
> > expiration of the mail.
>
> It's reasonable to retry a host if you can make a connection to it,
> but cannot talk SMTP to it.
To the perpetual exclusion of all else?
> > Doesn't this really come down to a difference between the WAY a mail server
> > is broken?
>
> No, it comes down to the weight you put on the importance of sending
> mail to the primary vs the secondary MX. If you think it's important
> to talk to the primary, then you'll retry successful connections to the
> primary.
How do you make a determination if it's important or not?
> Since you seem to think that any temporary failure means that the
> secondary MX should be retried, what about a 4XX failure? Should that
> cause the secondary MX to be used?
For 450, perhaps. For 421, 451, 452, eventually the 2nd MX should be tried,
IMHO. I would think 450 would mean the server thinks it is the local
machine for that domain, and hence _probably_ has to be used by the
secondary to delivery the mail anyway (there may be more than one "local"
server when the mailboxes are shared over NFS ... something that maildir
would make more reliable). And "local" delivery could mean injection into
some other kind of server (I've done 2 SMTP servers running Lotus Notes
injection before they implemented SMTP in Notes itself). The others give
no real clue as to the (un)viability of the 2nd MX.
If the protocol is not carried out to even get an error code, though, then
you really know very little about the server from that attempt. You don't
know if the mailboxes are local. You don't know if the 2nd can or cannot
deliver without the 1st.
I'm not saying that the 2nd MX needs to be tried immediately, but if the
problem persists, it should be eventually tried. Perhaps a study of how
frequently certain kinds of errors do occur, over what proportion of sites
(classified by server software type, too), and how long until those kinds of
errors are corrected, could lead to an optimal estimate of how many failures
to the primary should justify trying the secondaries.
My first thought would be to attempt delivery in some kind of proportion
that is inverse to the MX level, perhaps proportional to 1/(2^(mx/N)) where
N is a configurable value I would start at 50.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 11:36:56PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> D. J. Bernstein writes:
> > Say you have a bunch of mboxes. You choose filenames for them. Of
[...]
> > Now change each mbox to a maildir. Whatever filenames worked with mbox
> > will continue to work with maildir. You now have a bunch of maildirs.
> > What exactly is the problem?
>
> IMAP permits the name Mailbox/2. Feel free to argue that that's
> stupid. It's just a drop in the bucket of stupidity which is IMAP.
> Did I say stupidity? I mean another word beginning with s.
Is the concept of subfolders stupid? IMHO: no. Given: millions of
Microsoft users are wrong. But not on this point.
I feel it stupid that a standard for implementation of a valid and useful
concept for organization of mail can not be agreed upon, or even discussed,
beyond dismissal as 'stupid'.
MUA authors are free to implement such things. And they will. A standard
would help them achieve cross-compatibility. Er, would help us.
Randy
Randy Harmon writes:
> Is the concept of subfolders stupid? IMHO: no. Given: millions of
> Microsoft users are wrong. But not on this point.
The concept of being able to store both mail AND folders in a
folder is stupid.
--
-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 Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Randy Harmon writes:
> > Is the concept of subfolders stupid? IMHO: no. Given: millions of
> > Microsoft users are wrong. But not on this point.
>
> The concept of being able to store both mail AND folders in a
> folder is stupid.
Just as a data point, it's interesting how Pine handles it via IMAP.
Pine will list the folder twice in the folder collection display: one
entry ends with the hierarchy delimiter character, the second entry does
not. Selecting the second entry results in Pine opening the folder's
messages. Selecting the first entry (the one followed by the hierarchy
delimiter) results in Pine listing the subfolders.
Odd problem here.
I'm using the qmail 'rc' script listed in the lwq document on my Caldera
2.2 (col 2.2.5) system. The only mod. I've done to the file is to add
sections to start, stop and restart pop3d.
I've tested each of the start command sequences from the command line
and they all work fine so there's no problem with pathing, etc.
Everything runs when started this way.
The 'qmail' script file is in /etc/rc.d/init.d, along with all the
others and is executable. It's linked to all the proper rcN.d files for
the various run levels. It's also linked to /usr/sbin.
When I boot the system, qmail attempts to load last but fails with an
error message: "no such file or directory". Ditto if I issue the command
"/usr/sbin/qmail start" - I get "bash: /usr/sbin/qmail: No such file or
directory".
Everything's where it should be. What's the problem?
Barry
