qmail Digest 13 Oct 1999 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 788
Topics (messages 31530 through 31571):
unresolvable host name
31530 by: Ben Beuchler
31533 by: Ben Beuchler
Re: Setup HotMail by Qmail ?
31531 by: Andre Oppermann
Re: dot before @
31532 by: Andre Oppermann
Re: Sqwebmail and IMAP
31534 by: Sam
Re: MX --> IP number instead of host name
31535 by: Sam
HELP - I can't shut off percenthack
31536 by: Craig Shrimpton
31540 by: Russell Nelson
31541 by: Craig Shrimpton
31544 by: Phil Howard
Mail Return Codes.
31537 by: Rich Aldridge
31546 by: Markus Stumpf
31547 by: Racer X
Config Problems / Mailhub
31538 by: Heiko Ballosch
Log and from address
31539 by: Jim Arnott
Re: getting qmail to retry
31542 by: Phil Howard
31543 by: Phil Howard
31545 by: Sam
31548 by: Racer X
31551 by: Fred Lindberg
31560 by: Phil Howard
31561 by: Phil Howard
31563 by: Sam
31566 by: Phil Howard
Mail server machine
31549 by: Marek Narkiewicz
31550 by: eric
31552 by: Andre Oppermann
FW: Installation Issue
31553 by: Matthew Kaing
31554 by: Fred Lindberg
Installation Issue
31555 by: Matthew Kaing
Anyone got example qmail-queue replacement code?
31556 by: Jason Haar
Qmail traffic problem
31557 by: Warren Beckett
same user, different domain
31558 by: deden purnamahadi
31559 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Qmail book
31562 by: Keith Burdis
31564 by: John R. Levine
31565 by: Russell Nelson
Re: London qmail training?
31567 by: Einar Bordewich
MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
31568 by: Einar Bordewich
31570 by: Anand Buddhdev
Re: Anti Spamming
31569 by: Michael Graff
flushing sendmail queue after installing qmail?
31571 by: A Curtin
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm running a qmail server for my outgoing mail. I still receive my mail at
my ISP's POP server. Why? 'Cause I've been too lazy to set up my own.
And... When I do, I'm going IMAP.
Anyway...
I've received a couple bounces lately with the error "unresolvable host
name", so I dug through a few of my messages that had been posted to various
lists and examined their headers and sure enough, they weren't resolving!
The only server name listed came from the "HELO" conversation. Any ideas
what I have configured incorrectly? Is their a problem with my DNS entries?
What I can see from looking at my domain (emt-p.org) via nslookup SEEMS ok,
but I'm not really sure what they're supposed to look like.
Ben
----------
The phrasing, style, and content of this message are the sole property of
Ben Beuchler, Inc. and may not be reproduced in any way, shape or form
without the written consent Ben Beuchler Enterprises. All rights reserved.
Void where prohibited by law. Do not remove under penalty of law. Do not
spindle or fold. Not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.
Just an addition to my last post: I just sent a message to myself via
Bigfoot's email forwarding service and I found something that appears to
indicate that my server's name IS resolving. Here is the relavent bit:
Received: from emergimail.com ([205.218.58.195])
by bftoemail6.bigfoot.com (Bigfoot Toe Mail v1.0
with message handle 991012_060925_0_bftoemail6_smtp;
Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:09:25 -0500
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Incidentally, there are several domain names pointing to my mail server.
Two are emergimail.com (as seen above) and emt-p.org (as mentioned in
earlier post). Any ideas/suggestions?
Thanks,
Ben "On his way to BookPool to purchase 'DNS & BIND'" Beuchler
----------
The phrasing, style, and content of this message are the sole property of
Ben Beuchler, Inc. and may not be reproduced in any way, shape or form
without the written consent Ben Beuchler Enterprises. All rights reserved.
Void where prohibited by law. Do not remove under penalty of law. Do not
spindle or fold. Not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 5:08 AM
> To: Qmail List
> Subject: unresolvable host name
>
>
> I'm running a qmail server for my outgoing mail. I still receive
> my mail at
> my ISP's POP server. Why? 'Cause I've been too lazy to set up my own.
> And... When I do, I'm going IMAP.
>
> Anyway...
>
> I've received a couple bounces lately with the error "unresolvable host
> name", so I dug through a few of my messages that had been posted
> to various
> lists and examined their headers and sure enough, they weren't resolving!
> The only server name listed came from the "HELO" conversation. Any ideas
> what I have configured incorrectly? Is their a problem with my
> DNS entries?
> What I can see from looking at my domain (emt-p.org) via nslookup
> SEEMS ok,
> but I'm not really sure what they're supposed to look like.
>
> Ben
>
>
> ----------
>
> The phrasing, style, and content of this message are the sole property of
> Ben Beuchler, Inc. and may not be reproduced in any way, shape or form
> without the written consent Ben Beuchler Enterprises. All rights
> reserved.
> Void where prohibited by law. Do not remove under penalty of law. Do not
> spindle or fold. Not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had read a lot of mail to say that HotMail is build by QMail.
> But how to implement another HotMail by QMail ?
>
> HotMail have following feature:
> 1. Several million user
> 2. Only use domain name for each account (eg: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 3. Multiple mail server to store user mail
>
> My mainly problem is :
> 1. How to manage such large user account system ?
LDAP or SQL.
> 2. How to dispatch each mail to accurate mail server ?
Clustering. qmail-ldap includes native clustering in the latest release.
> It is very clearly that we cannot just put user account in different server,
> because when we apply the New Accout from Hotmail, HotMail will
> check if we choose the already existed username. Besides, when we
> mail such as [EMAIL PROTECTED], this mail finally will be dispatch
> to such as ms18.hotmail.com, where does Qmail to check this account
> should store which mail server ?
LDAP or SQL.
> Or we should use database or LDAP to centralize all the user account
> into one server ? How does it cooperate with Qmail ?
Very well, see qmail-ldap at http://www.nrg4u.com and subscribe to the
list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andre
Claus F�rber wrote:
>
> Brad Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > > BTW, the time on your workstation looks pretty wrong, almost 19 hours
> > > behind.
> >
> > More like 13 hours.
>
> Well, exactly time-of-day hours. (My UA is configured to always send
> 00:00:00 -0000 for privacy reasons.)
Thats a little bit paranoid, isn't it?
BTW, it doesn't help... When I look at the headers I see when you sent
it anyway.
Please stop this, it makes reading in my mailbox hard and fucks up
threading.
--
Andre
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Sam writes:
> > I think that most ISPs are reluctant to offer IMAP because UW-IMAP server
> > is such a bloated pig.
>
> In my experience, the IMAP protocol is the bloated pig.
[mrsam@ny imap]$ size imapd
text data bss dec hex filename
76595 776 25672 103043 19283 imapd
Nope. Just poor implementations are bloated pigs, like UW-IMAP which on
my machine weighs in at half a megabyte. Additionally, I've tested three
IMAP clients: Pine, Netscape Communicator, and Outlook Express. All
clients open multiple connections to the server, without any good reason.
So, on top of a bloated UW-IMAP client, you have bad implementations that
only make things worse.
IMAP has other problems. It's simply a stupid protocol, no more, no less.
My ISP declined to offer IMAP services because they simply did not have
the resources to support several hundred concurrent UW-IMAP servers
running.
--
Sam
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Fred Backman wrote:
> I have a question about MX records. Our users cannot email a certain domain,
> say foo.com, and when I looked the domain up, I noticed their entry for mail
> exchanger is an IP address rather than a host name. Now I've read somewhere
> earlier on the qmail list that this is not correct according to the DNS RFC.
> Could someone please confirm this, and also point me to the RFC in question?
You're correct. It's RFC 1035.
> Now, the foo.com people says the problem is at _our_ end, and they use the
> IP address to reduce the load of the DNS server, just as you can do by browsing
They are idiots. DNS servers will return an A record in the same query as
the MX record, most of the time, so there's very little extra traffic at
all:
[root@ny root]# dig usa.net mx
;; ANSWER SECTION:
usa.net. 39m12s IN MX 10 mxpool01.netaddress.usa.net.
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
usa.net. 6h7m21s IN NS DNS01.OPS.usa.net.
usa.net. 6h7m21s IN NS DNS03.OPS.usa.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
mxpool01.netaddress.usa.net. 39m12s IN A 204.68.24.19
DNS01.OPS.usa.net. 1d16h37m20s IN A 204.68.24.137
DNS03.OPS.usa.net. 1d16h37m20s IN A 204.68.24.136
I do not have to an extra query to get the A record for
mxpool01.netaddress.usa.net. The DNS server returns it to me right away.
> the web using IP numbers rather than host names. To be honest, this does strike
> me as a bit odd but then again if they are not violating any "rules" perhaps
> they are right?
They are most certainly violating explicit definition of the MX record
from RFC 1035.
> What can I do at our end to sort this out? Any advice would be most
> apreciated.
You don't have to do anything. You're doing nothing wrong.
--
Sam
I can't shut off the percenthack feature. Qmail 1.01 ignores an absent or
an empty percenthack file. It will relay mail for any ip alias on the
server except for the fqdn of the host. How do I shut it down?
If it ignores the control/percenthack, can I make a code change somewhere
and recompile?
Thanks,
-Craig
Craig Shrimpton writes:
> I can't shut off the percenthack feature. Qmail 1.01 ignores an absent or
> an empty percenthack file. It will relay mail for any ip alias on the
> server except for the fqdn of the host. How do I shut it down?
Are you sure you don't have a sendmail host somewhere in your email
chain? If the percenthack isn't turned on, qmail doesn't treat
the percent character specially.
--
-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!
In desperation I re-patched and re-compiled the server. Now all of a sudden
it's working like it's supposed to. I've seen that kind of weirdness with
DOS C programs but never with a "Unixoid" application.
Strange...
Thanks,
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: HELP - I can't shut off percenthack
> Are you sure you don't have a sendmail host somewhere in your email
> chain? If the percenthack isn't turned on, qmail doesn't treat
> the percent character specially.
Craig Shrimpton wrote:
> In desperation I re-patched and re-compiled the server. Now all of a sudden
> it's working like it's supposed to. I've seen that kind of weirdness with
> DOS C programs but never with a "Unixoid" application.
I have, many times. I usually attribute it to things like having
applied the instructions slightly incorrectly, or applied my own
changes inconsistently. This is why instead of manually installing
things, I create a script that does the entire install, starting
from untarring the tarball fresh each time it runs. That way I know
I have a consistent compile/install each time. If I make changes,
I won't "forget" something I did the last time. I installed qmail
this way.
--
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]
Hello again,
I have a customer who uses a package called mailtraq. He calls our
outgoing server from an external address sometimes. When using his
mailtraq package to send mail via our outgoing server, he gets a 553
status code from the server. He has requested that we return a 471 or
571 code instead. I reckon that "toying" with these codes may not be a
good idea as other packages may depend on them. What does anyone else
think, and are there any other solutions ?
Thanks and regards,
Rich Aldridge
Internet Systems Engineer,
Cable Internet.
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 06:44:34AM -0700, Rich Aldridge wrote:
> mailtraq package to send mail via our outgoing server, he gets a 553
> status code from the server. He has requested that we return a 471 or
> 571 code instead. I reckon that "toying" with these codes may not be a
> good idea as other packages may depend on them. What does anyone else
> think, and are there any other solutions ?
553 is the return code used by qmail-smtpd to indicate:
- sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list
- sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
I don't see any problems in changing this to a 451 which is defined in
RFC821 as "Requested action aborted: error in processing" which is
considered as a temporary failure.
This gives you the chance to check for configuration errors (missing
host/domain in rcpthosts file or wrong entry in badmailfrom). This
implies that you log and periodically check for this kind of errors
in your logfiles.
It has the disadvantage that even if the failure is correct and wanted
the remote mail server will retry the message for some time (usually 7
to 14 days) and put some more load on your smtp server.
I didn't find any reference to 471 in RFC821 (but I haven't the update
RFC to 821 at hand). Same for 571, but that wouldn't really make any
difference to 553 as 5xy are defined as "Permanent Negative Completion reply".
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
you may have noticed that there's another thread similar to this on the list
right now. i'd first suggest that you ignore the 471 part, as that would be
changing the meaning of the error from permanent to temporary. my second
suggestion would be to find out exactly what the customer thinks the
difference in codes is, and to find out exactly why he needs to know the
difference between 553 and 571.
my last suggestion is to tell the customer to go pound rocks. changing the
behavior of a production system just so a customer can get some strange
package to work right is going way beyond the call of duty. other packages
don't necessary depend on the difference in codes, so it would be one thing
to change the return code in certain situations, but it seems pretty silly
to change it for everything.
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Aldridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue 12 Oct 1999 6.44
Subject: Mail Return Codes.
> Hello again,
>
> I have a customer who uses a package called mailtraq. He calls our
> outgoing server from an external address sometimes. When using his
> mailtraq package to send mail via our outgoing server, he gets a 553
> status code from the server. He has requested that we return a 471 or
> 571 code instead. I reckon that "toying" with these codes may not be a
> good idea as other packages may depend on them. What does anyone else
> think, and are there any other solutions ?
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Rich Aldridge
> Internet Systems Engineer,
> Cable Internet.
>
>
>
Hi Folks,
I've problems to configure a Qmail Server as a mailhub for external
mails.
The scenario:
I've a internal Qmail server that handles all mails at "mydomain.de" and
everything is working fine.
Now I created a subnet behind a firewall "subnet.mydomain.de".
There I've another Qmail server "mailhub.subnet.mydomain.de".
I've inserted the IP-adress of the mailhub into the smtproutes file at
the internal mailserver like this
":111.111.111.111" and all external mail goes to
"mailhub.subnet.mydomain.de".
Onto the mailhub I've an alias called "alias-ppp" and all external mail
is stored into a maildir called "pppdir".
With maildirsmtp I transfer all mails of the pppdir to our ISP. Works
very well.
All mail at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will be transfered into 1 POP3-Mailbox
at the ISP-Mailserver.
But now I've problems to get my mails from the ISP via fetchmail.
I made an entry into the fetchmailrc to use qmail-inject -> mda
"/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" and inserted the domain and IP-adress of
the internal mailserver into the smtproutes file of the mailhub.
mydomain.de:100.100.100.100
It seems to work fine but the mailhub doesn't send the incoming mails
directly to the internal mailserver.
At the qmail log file I see something like this
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
How can I tell the mailhub to send the incoming messages directly to the
internal mailserver ???
Thank you very much
regards
Christian
My logs do not show the "from address". is this normal ?
This only happens from mail coming from qmail-smtp. I see the from if
it comes from qmail-inject.
example:
...
1999-10-12 08:41:08.393144 info msg 107714: bytes 847 from qp 3471 uid 605
1999-10-12 08:41:08.453629 starting delivery 314: msg 107714 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Thanks for any help,
jim
Sam replied:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > Sam replied:
> >
> > > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This is not up to you. The remote server responded with a permanent
> > > > > failure code. The mail gets bounced.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that it is a permanent failure code. But clearly a full
> > > > mailbox is not a true permanent situation (although a spammer case is
> > >
> > > This is not your call. It is the receiving mail server that gets to
> > > decide what is a permanent failure, and what is a temporary failure.
> >
> > But my server can decide whether to bounce it now or requeue it and try
> > again later as if it were a temporary error.
>
> Then it wouldn't be a server that implements SMTP.
In the purest sense, no, it would not be.
> > > Well, yes. It's called RFC 822. It specifies that all 4xx error codes
> > > are temporary failures, and that all 5xx error codes are permanent
> > > failures.
> >
> > I mean a programmed table in qmail, where it specifies the internal routines
> > for the action. If such a table is in a config file, I could change it
> > there. If it is in the code, I can change it there. If it's not organized
> > that way, I guess I'll have to code explicit checks.
>
> Of course it's not organized that way, because SMTP servers do not have
> any need for that. They just look at the numeric code, 4xx or 5xx, and
> take one of two possible actions.
It is very possible to configure many server implementations in ways that
do not precisely obey the standard protocols. It's then up to the system
administrator to "do the right thing". I do know sendmail can be configured
to "misbehave". Many server implementations have some aspects of the protocols
entirely configurable. Conformance is done by means of the whole of the code
and the configuration together. For example, a lookup table for actions to
take for each different response code (but I think I mentioned it).
Conceivably, a smart MUA could resend mail when it gets a bounce back that
it thinks is a temporary condition. In most cases when I get errors trying
to deliver mail to people, I don't always assume they have passed away.
The difference would be doing this in the MUA vs the MTA. For mail sent
by a user, doing it in the MUA makes sense. For bounce mail, there isn't
really a separate MUA. The approach I speak of is just a simple hack to
effect a similar behaviour.
I'm not asking of this conforms to SMTP; I'm asking if it is easy or difficult.
I'm now going to assume it's difficult.
People who know me know I am not a standards purist.
--
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]
Sam wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?= writes:
>
> > > On second thought, I really don't want to know what these people want to
> > > do with SMTP. Ugh, what a frightening thought...
> >
> > It's not a new version of SMTP if that is what you're afraid of. It only
> > collects some important extensions (such as Extended SMTP/EHLO) and
> > clarifications.
>
> No, it does more than just that. I just read it. My initial suspicions
> were correct.
So what does it suggest doing that doesn't conform to the standard?
--
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 Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>
> > > It's not a new version of SMTP if that is what you're afraid of. It only
> > > collects some important extensions (such as Extended SMTP/EHLO) and
> > > clarifications.
> >
> > No, it does more than just that. I just read it. My initial suspicions
> > were correct.
>
> So what does it suggest doing that doesn't conform to the standard?
For once thing, the explicit prohibition against content-based rejection
of messages. This is probably as far out of touch with reality as you can
possibly get. According to the draft, if some pissant decides to flood
your server with spam, or even mailbomb you, there's nothing that you can
do about it, according to the draft.
I'm proud to announce that my mail server will violate this new "standard"
at every possible opportunity.
--
Sam
> Conceivably, a smart MUA could resend mail when it gets a bounce back that
> it thinks is a temporary condition. In most cases when I get errors
trying
> to deliver mail to people, I don't always assume they have passed away.
> The difference would be doing this in the MUA vs the MTA. For mail sent
> by a user, doing it in the MUA makes sense. For bounce mail, there isn't
> really a separate MUA. The approach I speak of is just a simple hack to
> effect a similar behaviour.
you're missing the point. the remote side has already informed you that the
error is permanent and should generate a bounce message. is your MUA so
"smart" that it knows exactly when the error condition will be remedied?
there are a lot of errors that could conceivably be considered "temporary,"
but the determination of whether the error is temporary or permanent should
be determined by the server doing the mail delivery. to assume your client
is smarter than the server, despite the fact that your client knows nothing
about the server, is not only foolish, it defeats the purpose of having
return codes in the first place.
shag
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:18:19 -0400 (EDT), Sam wrote:
>For once thing, the explicit prohibition against content-based rejection
>of messages. This is probably as far out of touch with reality as you can
>possibly get. According to the draft, if some pissant decides to flood
>your server with spam, or even mailbomb you, there's nothing that you can
>do about it, according to the draft.
I don't see that:
When RFC 822 format is being used, the mail data include the memo
header
items such as Date, Subject, To, Cc, From [MSGFMT]. Server SMTP
systems
SHOULD NOT reject messages based on perceived defects in the RFC 822
or
MIME [RFC-MIME] message header or message body. In particular, they
MUST
NOT reject messages in which the numbers of Resent- fields do not
match or
Resent-to appears without Resent-from and/or Resent-date.
Implementations that adhere to
all "MUST" ("MUST NOT") but not to all of these are considered to be
partially conforming. Such implementations may interoperate properly
with
fully conforming ones and with each other, but this will typically be
the
case only if great care is taken. Consequently, an implementation
should
violate "SHOULD" ("SHOULD NOT") requirements only under exceptional
and
well-understood circumstances.
This just means that you shouldn't reject messages due to precieved
_syntax_ errors in headers/MIME. Also, it is SHOULD not MUST, so there
is room for rejection for whatever reason you want 550 Go away). SHOULD
means that violating this doesn't make you non-compliant (just
partially compliant) and as you say you do this "under exceptional and
well-understood circumstances" and it doesn't break anything.
More arcane, IMHO, is the 8-bit antagonism. I would have expected a
modern draft to specifically allow the full 8-bit charset (barring CRLF
and probably NUL) in header text fields and message.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Sam replied:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >
> > > > It's not a new version of SMTP if that is what you're afraid of. It only
> > > > collects some important extensions (such as Extended SMTP/EHLO) and
> > > > clarifications.
> > >
> > > No, it does more than just that. I just read it. My initial suspicions
> > > were correct.
> >
> > So what does it suggest doing that doesn't conform to the standard?
>
> For once thing, the explicit prohibition against content-based rejection
> of messages. This is probably as far out of touch with reality as you can
> possibly get. According to the draft, if some pissant decides to flood
> your server with spam, or even mailbomb you, there's nothing that you can
> do about it, according to the draft.
>
> I'm proud to announce that my mail server will violate this new "standard"
> at every possible opportunity.
Having not seen that "standard", but just on your description alone, I feel
it's a good bet that I will ensure my server violates it, as well.
My view of standards has always been that it is about communications and
meaning ... syntax and semantics. The 552 code means that the sender is
saying that the delivery has encountered a permanent error. It could be
lying. Whether it is lying or not, I can take that meaning with a grain
of salt, or disregard it altogether. Maybe I know it's a lie and maybe
I don't.
If I said "My hair is green", that would be an incorrect statement. That
it is incorrect does not mean that it violates the conventions of English
language to convey meaning. It was conveyed correctly; it's just that the
original meaning is false or deceitful.
Like English, any of the TCP/IP protocols can be used in potentially false
and misleading ways. If I forge the "From:" header, have I violated the
RFC822 standard? Some would say yes because the standard meant that it is
my originating address. I would say no, because what the standard defines
is how to convey a meaning of "This is my originating address" even if I
am acting in a deceitful manner to convey false information.
Even qmail selectively does such deceit in order to do things like making
sure bounces don't loop. I see nothing wrong with it, and not even a
violation of the standard. There are others that see it differently.
To me, a standard is violated if I fail to convey, within the terms of
how the standard said to convey it, the meaning I intended to convey.
In HTML, the <table> tag does not say "render this table". It says "this
is a table". What to do with the table depends on how you want to be
presented with the meaning of the information conveyed in the HTML body.
It might be ignored. It might draw graphically. It might be rendered
in a text hack. It might launch a spread sheet application. It might
get downloaded into your brain. It's not a violation to choose something
strange and unusual to do with it.
Here's an example of another standard that some have insisted that I have
violated. Yet, it works (with the standard browsers running on video modes
with 16, 24, or 32 bit color). So far no one has shown a specific part of
the standard that was violated, although several have indicated that I have
violated certain intents or expectations they believe the designers had.
You can see this violation (prepare for a 181779 byte download) at:
http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html
Actually, I won't announce my intent to violate this new "standard" you
spoke of. Instead, I will covertly "violate" it in a "deceitful" way :-)
--
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]
Racer X wrote:
> > Conceivably, a smart MUA could resend mail when it gets a bounce back that
> > it thinks is a temporary condition. In most cases when I get errors
> trying
> > to deliver mail to people, I don't always assume they have passed away.
> > The difference would be doing this in the MUA vs the MTA. For mail sent
> > by a user, doing it in the MUA makes sense. For bounce mail, there isn't
> > really a separate MUA. The approach I speak of is just a simple hack to
> > effect a similar behaviour.
>
> you're missing the point. the remote side has already informed you that the
> error is permanent and should generate a bounce message. is your MUA so
> "smart" that it knows exactly when the error condition will be remedied?
No, I have not missed the point. I am intentionally ignoring the point.
I do know what the point is.
> there are a lot of errors that could conceivably be considered "temporary,"
> but the determination of whether the error is temporary or permanent should
> be determined by the server doing the mail delivery. to assume your client
> is smarter than the server, despite the fact that your client knows nothing
> about the server, is not only foolish, it defeats the purpose of having
> return codes in the first place.
I suggest that if it is a violation of the standard to disregard the
meaning conveyed in a standardized form (such as SMTP), then it is
likewise a violation to assert a false or incorrect meaning. If we
are going to look beyond the communication itself and examine the
behaviour behind the communication then we must be fair and examine
it on both ends. That means that if the MTA receiving the mail conveys
an error as permanent, when in fact it is not, then this must be a
violation if we are considering that behavious is subject to these rules.
I may not know in the instance that the violation has taken place, but
I certainly can know (and do know) from actual experience that this
violation does take place routinely. I see nothing wrong in conduction
like violations in reverse to compensate.
--
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 Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
> Sam replied:
>
> > For once thing, the explicit prohibition against content-based rejection
> > of messages. This is probably as far out of touch with reality as you can
> > possibly get. According to the draft, if some pissant decides to flood
> > your server with spam, or even mailbomb you, there's nothing that you can
> > do about it, according to the draft.
> >
> > I'm proud to announce that my mail server will violate this new "standard"
> > at every possible opportunity.
>
> Having not seen that "standard", but just on your description alone, I feel
> it's a good bet that I will ensure my server violates it, as well.
Here it is. I just went back and looked it up to be sure. Section 2.4.1:
===
... In general, a relay SMTP SHOULD assume that the
message content it has received is valid and, assuming that the envelope
permits doing so, relay it without inspecting that content.
===
Well, this is stated right in the middle of a lengthy discussion on 8bit
message contents/transparency issues, so they might be referring to that
issue alone. Still, something like that just jumps up and grabs your
attention.
--
Sam
Sam wrote:
> Here it is. I just went back and looked it up to be sure. Section 2.4.1:
>
> ===
> ... In general, a relay SMTP SHOULD assume that the
> message content it has received is valid and, assuming that the envelope
> permits doing so, relay it without inspecting that content.
>
> ===
>
> Well, this is stated right in the middle of a lengthy discussion on 8bit
> message contents/transparency issues, so they might be referring to that
> issue alone. Still, something like that just jumps up and grabs your
> attention.
It didn't say "MUST". So it would not be a violation to inspect the content.
But don't expect all the MTAs to inspect the content.
--
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]
Hi everyone. I have got to the stage where I am confident enough to use qmail for my
ISP network. I need some help. I have no idea what machine to buy. Can you all chip
in with ideas regarding the following problems.
For a 100 000+ user sytem
money is no object
what machine is necessary. (alpha preferable)
what distribution is necessary. (minimum install ie no X)
can I split up the pop and smtp and imap servers to different machines?
Any advice gratefully received. Cheers,
--
Marek Narkiewicz, Webmaster Intercreations
Reply to <-marek @ intercreations . com->
"Dogs are everywhere"
Pulp
Dogs are Everywhere
; what machine is necessary. (alpha preferable)
; what distribution is necessary. (minimum install ie no X)
strip down a linux dist or make one yourself.
; can I split up the pop and smtp and imap servers to different machines?
let me know what you get on this.
--
Eric D. Pancer \ "The absent are never without fault.
Outlook Technologies, Inc. \ Nor the present,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ without excuse."
http://www.catastrophe.net \ -- Benjamin Franklin
eric wrote:
>
> ; what machine is necessary. (alpha preferable)
> ; what distribution is necessary. (minimum install ie no X)
>
> strip down a linux dist or make one yourself.
Or just install FreeBSD 3.3 and select User only.
http://www.freebsd.org
(Or OpenBSD, DJB uses it, http://www.openbsd.org)
> ; can I split up the pop and smtp and imap servers to different machines?
>
> let me know what you get on this.
Check out qmail-ldap with clustering. Will support IMAP as soon as
Sam gets his thinggie ready for public consumtion.
http://www.nrg4u.com (qmail-ldap)
--
Andre
Hi, I am trying to test my configuration according to TEST.receive file. I have the
following error message on RCPT. Can you please help me?
Thanks,
Bora
--------------
[bora@ufo ~]$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 adsl-216-101-234-87.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ESMTP
helo dude
250 adsl-216-101-234-87.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
help
214 qmail home page: http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
data
503 RCPT first (#5.5.1)
-----------------
http://www.pobox.com/~djb/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#local
Or "virtual domain" a little further down.
Hi, I am trying to test my configuration according to TEST.receive file. I have the
following error message on RCPT. Can you please help me?
Thanks,
Bora
--------------
[bora@ufo ~]$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 adsl-216-101-234-87.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ESMTP
helo dude
250 adsl-216-101-234-87.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
help
214 qmail home page: http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
data
503 RCPT first (#5.5.1)
-----------------
Hi there
I'm wanting to put in a replacement qmail-queue that scans for virii before
calling the real qmail-queue. It's supposed to read the message on
descriptor 0 and the envelope on descriptor 1 and then write to the same
descriptors on the real qmail-queue. That's just a bit beyond me
(programming's not my strongest suite).
Has anyone already done anything along this line? I know I could do this in
other ways - but they all involve too many forks for my liking... (e.g.
deliver to user virusscan whose .qmail-default calls...,etc,etc,etc...).
This seems the cleanest way to me.
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Hi all,
We are currently running qmail on out internet gateway. At the moment we
only have a 64k ISDN link which works well most of the day, however
several times per day a few users send out mail to a large group of
recipients with large binary attachments. The users connect MS Exchange
servers which relay through the qmail gateway. The problem is that out
link gets drowned with the traffic that this generates.
I know that I can limit the number of remote-sends however I cannot
spefily X amount of remote sends to the internet and X to the LAN. What
tends to happen is all the remote-send connects are used for outgoing
mail. Incoming mail just sits in a queue for sometime before being
delivered to the appropriate exchange server.
What I would like to do, if possible is
1) Limit the number of outgoing SMTP connection to the internet.
2) Priorities messages in the queue based on time submitted,
number of recipients and attachment size.
I hope this makes some sense 8)
Kind Regards
Warren J. Beckett
Dear all,
Say, I have two domains : domain_a.com and domain_b.com
Both use the same SMTP server (with qmail).
Is possible that [EMAIL PROTECTED] has different mailbox as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
How can I do that ?
Thanks
ddn
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
deden purnamahadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13 October 1999 at 10:11:21 JAV
> Dear all,
> Say, I have two domains : domain_a.com and domain_b.com
> Both use the same SMTP server (with qmail).
> Is possible that [EMAIL PROTECTED] has different mailbox as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
> How can I do that ?
This is what "virtual domains" do. There are a couple of approaches
1) Putting each domain under control of a different real user ("real"
meaning "listed in the passwd file"), and then putting a
.qmail-whoever file in the directory of the controlling user for each
user of the virtual domain. This is easiest IMHO for domains with
small numbers, a few tens, of users. (The control/virtualdomains file
maps from the virtual domain to the controlling user).
2) Using users/assign, you can centralize the mappings of virtual
users to actual mailboxes. I don't use this, but the documentation
covers it.
3) Fancy database-based schemes for large sites (tens and hundreds of
thousands of users). I don't use these, not being a large site.
The documentation including the FAQ, and Dave Sill's Life With Qmail
site, describe all this more clearly than I can off the top of my
head; knowing that you're looking for "virtual domains" you should now
be able to find the specific info you want in those sources.
Have fun!
--
David Dyer-Bennet **Update your records, forwarding expires soon** [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!
Hi all
A friend pointed this out on www.barnesandnoble.com:
Qmail
John R. Levine Russell Nelson Tim O'Reilly (Editor)
bn.com Price: $29.95
Special Order: Ships 3-5 weeks
Format: Paperback, 400pp.
ISBN: 1565926285
Publisher: O'Reilly & Associates, Incorporated
Pub. Date: September 1999
Please note: This title needs to be ordered directly with the publisher
and usually ships within 3-5 weeks. There are occasions where the titles
may go out of print or the publishers may no longer carry stock. If we
cannot fill your order, we will notify you within 1-2 weeks.
No matches on Amazon, Fatbrain or Bookpool. Strangely enough, O'Reilly
doesn't appear to have anything about it either.
So, John and Russell are you guys to get over to Amazon and start
autographying copies for us hungry qmailers next month? ;-)
I need a Dolphin to go along with my autographed Camel book.
- Keith
--
Keith Burdis - MSc (Computer Science) - Rhodes University, South Africa
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/
IRC : Panthras JAPH
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script"
Standard disclaimer.
---
> Qmail
> John R. Levine Russell Nelson Tim O'Reilly (Editor)
> ...
> Pub. Date: September 1999
> So, John and Russell are you guys to get over to Amazon and start
> autographying copies for us hungry qmailers next month? ;-)
Hadn't planned on it. On the other hand, if anyone can get a copy of
this book, please send it to me ASAP so we can plagiarize it rather
finish writing it ourselves.
(Well, gee, it worked for Shakespeare in those time-travel SF stories.)
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Keith Burdis writes:
> Qmail
> John R. Levine Russell Nelson Tim O'Reilly (Editor)
> Pub. Date: September 1999
September. Hmmm... That's in the past. John!! We're in trouble!!
--
-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!
Did you get any feedback on this topic?
We are 3 persons from IDG New Media interested.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 8:35 PM
Subject: London qmail training?
> Is there any interest in a London qmail training session? The final
> cost would be dependent on the number of participants (in other words,
> talk it up among UK people using qmail), but if I can't do it for less
> than $800 per participant there's no point in doing it. So, there's
> an upper bound on the price; the variable is whether it happens or not.
>
> --
> -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!
>
Has anyone made som MX/A/PTR checking on MAIL FROM: in qmail-smtpd?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Oct 13, 1999 at 10:02:35AM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote:
There are a couple of such patches on www.qmail.org
> Has anyone made som MX/A/PTR checking on MAIL FROM: in qmail-smtpd?
--
See complete headers for more info
I have patches on
http://www.flame.org/qmail/flame-patches-1.03-1.6.3.diff
which do regular expression header checks, and more.
FONR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
> Can any one tell me a solution for blocking mails on subject.
> I have a customer who gets wierd mails form different sites , the mails
> originate from different site everytime , thus i am not able to use the
> badmail from feature as it is not a fixed site.
> Any clue or help would be highly appreciated.
> Thanks in advance
> FONR
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Having recently installed qmail, I've still got some deferred messages
in the sendmail queue.
Is it OK to run '/usr/lib/sendmail.real -q' to try to send these
messages? It won't affect qmail, will it?
A.
--
I've been wrong before.
