qmail Digest 3 Oct 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 778
Topics (messages 31161 through 31179):
Re: Is inetd really unreliable?
31161 by: Mirko Zeibig
qmail local-error test failed
31162 by: Ernyo
Pbl with control/locals
31163 by: Ho Soo Aun
31164 by: Timothy L. Mayo
31165 by: Ho Soo Aun
vdomains: forwarders/pop3 accts with quota + accounting possible ?
31166 by: Jochen Tuchbreiter
Re: Blocking large mails
31167 by: Strange
DJB to be back in court.
31168 by: Peter C. Norton
processes dissapearing
31169 by: Marek Narkiewicz
OT: Average Internet e-mail size
31170 by: Eric Dahnke
31171 by: Eric Dahnke
31172 by: Stan Horwitz
OT: saturating a T1 with e-mail
31173 by: Eric Dahnke
31174 by: Stan Horwitz
31175 by: Todd A. Jacobs
31176 by: Roger Merchberger
31177 by: Lyndon Griffin
problem sending remote mail with tcpserver running
31178 by: The Philosopher
User masquerading on a server with multiple virtual domains
31179 by: Bernard Karmilowicz
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 03:53:42PM -0400, David Harris wrote:
> I'm happy with my inetd service and tcpserver for my qmail-smtp. I'm running a
> few low-load services through inetd and it's doing fine. Perhaps if pop3 or
> imap become a larger load when I deploy web based email, I'll run them with
> tcpserver too.
Well, another advantage of using tcpserver for pop as well is, that you can
rather easily implement things like smtp-after-pop-relaying using Russel's
scripts and patch for checkpassword or the pam_exec.so.
Regards
Mirko
--
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
privat: http://sites.inka.de/picard
commerce: http://www.webideal.de
qmail, ldap, serialfax, rh-isdn: http://www.webideal.de/#downloads
Hi!
I followed the instruction by install.xxx text. Everything's OK until
local-error test. When I sent a mail to an nonexistent local user, I didn't
have a bounce message in my maildir. I saw the syslog, there was an error
message _Unable to chdir to Maildir_ instead of _No such address_. What's
wrong. I hope someone can help me!
Thanx: Ernyo
I have setup qmail host domains monja.com.sg.
I add educast.com.sg as local too. With these settings:
in control/locals:
monja.com.sg
po.monja.com.sg
educast.com.sg
po.educast.com.sg
in control/rcpthosts:
monja.com.sg
po.monja.com.sg
educast.com.sg
po.educast.com.sg
On server I can qmail-inject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At remote host I can send message thro any smtp to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But I can send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] only thro po.monja.com.sg.
Send message by Netscape using smtp po.mediamanager.com.sg to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i received this message:
An error occurred while sending mail.
The mail server responded:
Invalid receipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please check the message receipients and try again.
Someone gives me pointer to where I should look in to trouble shoot this
problem.
Thank you
Soo Aun
MediaManager Pte Ltd
Is there an MX record in DNS for educast.com.sg? Where does it say the
mail should be delivered. You should have a DNS entry like this:
educast.com.sg. IN MX 10 po.monja.com.sg.
po.educast.com.sg. IN MX 10 po.monja.com.sg.
If there is no MX record, the SMTP protocol requires that the mail be
delivered to the machine identified by the A record. This is NOT what you
want in this case.
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Ho Soo Aun wrote:
> I have setup qmail host domains monja.com.sg.
> I add educast.com.sg as local too. With these settings:
>
> in control/locals:
> monja.com.sg
> po.monja.com.sg
> educast.com.sg
> po.educast.com.sg
>
> in control/rcpthosts:
> monja.com.sg
> po.monja.com.sg
> educast.com.sg
> po.educast.com.sg
>
> On server I can qmail-inject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At remote host I can send message thro any smtp to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But I can send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] only thro po.monja.com.sg.
>
> Send message by Netscape using smtp po.mediamanager.com.sg to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> i received this message:
>
> An error occurred while sending mail.
> The mail server responded:
> Invalid receipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Please check the message receipients and try again.
>
> Someone gives me pointer to where I should look in to trouble shoot this
> problem.
> Thank you
>
> Soo Aun
> MediaManager Pte Ltd
>
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
My administrator had set DNS for educast.com.sg with this entry
educast.com.sg. IN MX 10 kids.monja.com.sg.
IN A 203.127.238.161
kids is the host name of monja.com.sg. Is the problem lies on DNS setting.
My understanding is qmail setting are entries in control/locals and
control/rcpthosts.
I have to convince him that.
Soo Aun
"Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:
> Is there an MX record in DNS for educast.com.sg? Where does it say the
> mail should be delivered. You should have a DNS entry like this:
>
> educast.com.sg. IN MX 10 po.monja.com.sg.
> po.educast.com.sg. IN MX 10 po.monja.com.sg.
>
> If there is no MX record, the SMTP protocol requires that the mail be
> delivered to the machine identified by the A record. This is NOT what you
> want in this case.
>
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Ho Soo Aun wrote:
>
> > I have setup qmail host domains monja.com.sg.
> > I add educast.com.sg as local too. With these settings:
> >
> > in control/locals:
> > monja.com.sg
> > po.monja.com.sg
> > educast.com.sg
> > po.educast.com.sg
> >
> > in control/rcpthosts:
> > monja.com.sg
> > po.monja.com.sg
> > educast.com.sg
> > po.educast.com.sg
> >
> > On server I can qmail-inject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > At remote host I can send message thro any smtp to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > But I can send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] only thro po.monja.com.sg.
> >
> > Send message by Netscape using smtp po.mediamanager.com.sg to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > i received this message:
> >
> > An error occurred while sending mail.
> > The mail server responded:
> > Invalid receipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Please check the message receipients and try again.
> >
> > Someone gives me pointer to where I should look in to trouble shoot this
> > problem.
> > Thank you
> >
> > Soo Aun
> > MediaManager Pte Ltd
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Administrator
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/
>
> The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
> One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
> Monroeville, PA 15146
> (412) 810-8888 Phone
> (412) 810-8886 Fax
Hi,
I am currently setting up a new machine for my
Webhosting(forwarding)-Service. Since I have heard a lot about qmail I
would like to use it as MTA on this machine.
I did read some docs on www.qmail.org but since I need some non-standart
stuff I don't exactly know where to start. It would be nice if you could
give me some advice in what direction I should head. I promise, I'll rtfm,
but it is always good if someone with a lot of knowledge of a program
tells you where to start and what to look at.
Here's a list of what I need:
- virtual domains support. (I'm planning on hosting over 2000 Domains on
this machine. Yes, the number is correct - most of the domains are
simple forwarders without webspace)
- an easy way to make email-forwarders (you'll probably hit me but I like
the sendmail virtusertable a lot - is there some equivalent for this in
qmail ? I'm not talking about local aliases).
- pop3 boxes that do not require one unix-user per popbox
- quota-support for the pop3-boxes (seperate for every box)
- accounting. I need to know which domain causes how much traffic per day
(I'll probably need to write a little script for this myself but where
should I integrate it into qmail ?)
I currently have all the customer-data in a SQL-Database (forwarders/pop3
account for all domains etc. etc.), directly interfacing with it would be
the best solution but generating configuration/forwarding files from it
periodically would be ok also.
How can I make QMail do all of the things above ? Please point me into the
right direction :-)
Thanks for you help,
Jochen Tuchbreiter
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Diego Puertas wrote:
> Greetings to everyone
> How can I make qmail stop receiving large mails.
This is probably heavily discussed in a qmail FAQ or man page, but...
1. For all mail inbound (i.e., via SMTP), just put the number of bytes
(as in 2048000 for basically 2 megabyte limit) into
/var/qmail/control/databytes Chmod the file 644.
AND/OR,
2. If you want to have some people be able to send huge mails (like up to
8MB), you can set MAXSIZE="8120000" either in your tcpserver control file
on the line that will match their IP/IP range, like:
10.55.66.:allow,MAXSIZE="8120000",RELAYCLIENT=""
The setting of MAXSIZE in the environment by tcpserver will override the
/var/qmail/control/databytes setting, so you can use the databytes control
file number as a catchall. I actually use a line in tcpserver's control
file like :allow,MAXSIZE="1024000" to act as a catchall.
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
Good luck Dan!
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2345714,00.html
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
Why do the processes started by the qmail/rc script keep dissapearing? Also is using
this script ok for a heavy load site? I call smtp and pop3 from tcpserver wrappers.
cheers,
--
Marek Narkiewicz, Webmaster Intercreations
Reply to <-marek @ intercreations . com->
"People in glass houses seldom throw parties"
David Devant and his Spirit Wife
Miscellaneous
Hello List,
I'm curious as to the average size of an Internet mail. I know this is
very subjective, but would like to hear what people think is the average
size.
My calculations based on qmailanalog over a long run give me 64K, and
that seems big.
Looking at my inbox, the average seems more like 4K.
Anyone?
Found what seems to be an answer at
http://www.groupcomputing.com/Issues/1998/98SeptOct/98SOp32_EmailCrisis/98sop32_emailcrisis.html
Looks like around 25K is the average.
- Eric
Eric Dahnke escribi�:
>
> Hello List,
>
> I'm curious as to the average size of an Internet mail. I know this is
> very subjective, but would like to hear what people think is the average
> size.
>
> My calculations based on qmailanalog over a long run give me 64K, and
> that seems big.
>
> Looking at my inbox, the average seems more like 4K.
>
> Anyone?
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> Found what seems to be an answer at
>
>
>http://www.groupcomputing.com/Issues/1998/98SeptOct/98SOp32_EmailCrisis/98sop32_emailcrisis.html
>
> Looks like around 25K is the average.
Someone will scold me for this post, but would appreciate any thoughts:
A T1 would be ~ 80% utilized passing 22,000msgs/hr if the average msg
size was 23K.
Thx
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
>
> Someone will scold me for this post, but would appreciate any thoughts:
>
> A T1 would be ~ 80% utilized passing 22,000msgs/hr if the average msg
> size was 23K.
I would not bet on it. The average message size is not an indicator of
network traffic. For example, if you pushed two messages over the line,
one that's 2 gig and one that's 1 meg, the average would mean very little.
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> A T1 would be ~ 80% utilized passing 22,000msgs/hr if the average msg
> size was 23K.
Not really. You need to differentiate peak load from sustained.
(average message size) * (number of messages per hour)
----------------------------------------------------- = peak seconds
1544
So, assuming your numbers are accurate, you could clear 22,000 queued
messages of that size is 327.72 seconds of maximum throughput. That's only
an average sustained throughput of about 9.2%.
--
Todd A. Jacobs
Network Systems Engineer
Rumor has it that Todd A. Jacobs may have mentioned these words:
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
>
>> A T1 would be ~ 80% utilized passing 22,000msgs/hr if the average msg
>> size was 23K.
>
>Not really. You need to differentiate peak load from sustained.
>
> (average message size) * (number of messages per hour)
> ----------------------------------------------------- = peak seconds
> 1544
>
>So, assuming your numbers are accurate, you could clear 22,000 queued
>messages of that size is 327.72 seconds of maximum throughput. That's only
>an average sustained throughput of about 9.2%.
Aahhh... not by my math. Remember, the 23K is *bytes*, whereas the 1544000
is *bits* per second. Assuming 8-bit bytes, the thruput would be 2621.76
seconds, or ~73% utilization, and if we were lucky enough to swing 7-bit
bytes thru, it would give 2294.04 seconds, or 64% utilization. (I'm not
sure how a T-1 router/gateway encodes bytes-to-bits...)
[ my calculator is rounding to 2 decimal places, and is (incorrectly)
assuming a 1000-byte K, for 1) ease of computations, and 2) speed of
computations. My apologies for any mathmatical errors or computational
rounding problems. ;-) ]
HTH,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
Forgive me if the two posts from Eric were not related:
saturating a T1:
----------------
Todd presents a good formula, but this is not taking into account anything but the
message size. As Stan mentions, email size is not a good indicator of total network
traffic - even if you are only in the email business.
Average email size:
-------------------
One of my systems sends out a text-only message twice a week. It is usually around
20k in size, and is (this week) 566 lines long, not including headers. This email is
over four times our average message size.
64k average seems very large - of course when you factor in attachments, HTML- or
RTF-formatted messages, the size can get up there. Looking at my inbox, however,
which contains over 1200 emails, I have only 90 with attachments, and just ten or so
that are not plain text.
Unfortunately, the average size of an email is going to vary widely based on a number
of factors which we can only begin to discuss before we realize that this thread gets
out of control ;)
<:) Lyndon
I've having problems with the local-remote delivery. There are no problems
with local-local delivery, and I can do remote-local delivery (using fetchmail).
My system is RedHat 6.0 (with fixes from their ERRATA), qmail 1.03, ucspi-tcp
v0.84, serialmail v0.75
ISP is called bayarea.net (mailserver mail.bayarea.net). Local system is called
friday.excalibur.net
I thought I followed the installation by the letter. I used
DL Vander Woude's article on mailqueue delivery (using alias/pppdir).
Error message I get when running
#/usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp ~alias/pppdir alias-ppp- mail.bayarea.net MyIP, where
MyIP is the entry I get from ppp0 interface under
inet addr (I also tried P-t-P without help):
###################
serialsmtp: fatal: network read error: timed out
serialsmtp: fatal: network read error: timed out
serialsmtp: fatal: network read error: timed out
maildirserial: fatal: making no progress, giving up
###################
The mails get delivered to ~alias/pppdir/new (I can see them there), but I can
send them to my ISP using the above command
Some files you might need to know about:
########## tcp-smtp.cdb ############
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
205.219.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
##################################
#######defaultdomain################
excalibur.net
##################################
#######defaulthost##################
excalibur.net
##################################
#########locals####################
friday.excalibur.net
excalibur.net
friday
##################################
############me####################
friday.excalibur.net
##################################
########plusdomains################
excalibur.net
bayarea.net
##################################
########rcpthosts###################
friday.excalibur.net
friday
mail.bayarea.net
bayarea.net
##################################
#######virtualdomains################
:alias-ppp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-isp
###################################
qmail is starting using:
qmail-start `|preline procmail` splogger qmail
tcpserver is starting using:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 502 -g 502 -c 100 -x /etc/tcp-smtp.cdb 0 smtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
qmaild has userid 502 and nofiles is groupid 502
Thanks,
--
John______________________________________________________________________
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bayarea.net/~jfjellst/
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does a user masquerading solution exist in which it is not necessary to
add MAILHOST and MAILUSER environment variables for every user on a
system hosting a half dozen virtual domains with hundreds of users? I
have read FAQ sections 1.1 and 1.2:
-----
1.1. How do I set up host masquerading? All the users on this host,
zippy.af.mil, are users on af.mil. When joe sends a message to fred, the
message should say ``From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'' and ``To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'', without
``zippy'' anywhere.
Answer: echo af.mil > /var/qmail/control/defaulthost; chmod 644
/var/qmail/control/defaulthost.
1.2. How do I set up user masquerading? I'd like my own From lines to
show [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Answer: Add MAILHOST=af.mil and MAILUSER=boss to your environment. To
override From lines supplied by your MUA, add QMAILINJECT=f to your
environment.
-----
Neither FAQ offers a workable solution. 1.1 addresses the problem of
masquerading when virtual domains are NOT being used. 1.2 addresses the
problem at a microscopic level. However, the solution is not workable in
an environment of hundreds of users and a half dozen virtual domains. It
requires MAILHOST and MAILUSER environment variables for EVERY user.
I am looking for a solution, similar in simplicity to 1.1, that works
for virtual domains.
- Bernie
