qmail Digest 23 Oct 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 798
Topics (messages 32011 through 32048):
Re: qmail
32011 by: Peter Samuel
Re: Remove from List
32012 by: Isamar Villas Boas Perrelli Maia
32013 by: Gremmen, Jeroen
Re: possibly the most morronic question asked in this list...
32014 by: Dave Sill
32041 by: Rogerio Brito
Re: MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
32015 by: torben fjerdingstad
Re: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
32016 by: Dave Sill
32020 by: jyoung.helus.com
32031 by: Dave Sill
Re: qmail, Linux, and NetApp/NFS
32017 by: Curtis Generous
Re: qmail logs
32018 by: shajain
Re: spambait?
32019 by: Charles Cazabon
32023 by: Chris Garrigues
32024 by: Jeff Hayward
32044 by: nascheme.enme.ucalgary.ca
force sendmail-type default for /etc/aliases
32021 by: Peeter Pirn
Re: Queue's
32022 by: Peeter Pirn
Re: Multiple emails
32025 by: Scott A. Cole
fastforward puzzling behaviour
32026 by: Russell P. Sutherland
32027 by: Peeter Pirn
Help with virtual users and domains
32028 by: Andy Smith
32029 by: Greg Owen
32030 by: Delanet Administration
Binmail on solaris 7
32032 by: G. Ryan Fawcett
32037 by: G. Ryan Fawcett
32048 by: dd
Any thoughts on instant messaging vs. smtp
32033 by: Eric Dahnke
qmail-queue_error
32034 by: Lidia Marchioni
32035 by: Delanet Administration
32038 by: Lidia Marchioni
qmail-lint 0.54 question
32036 by: brandon.discontent.com
32039 by: Delanet Administration
451 could not exec qq (#4.3.0)
32040 by: Lidia Marchioni
451 qq internal bug (#4.3.0)
32042 by: Lidia Marchioni
32043 by: Delanet Administration
32045 by: Lidia Marchioni
451 error: Sender domain must resolve
32046 by: Ted Lin
32047 by: Ted Lin
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, 22 Oct 1999, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:18:44PM -0200, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Neil Floris wrote:
> > I think that is only one advantage on usign sendmail: you can
> > program it to play the old 'X' or 'O' game... ( somebody can tell me how
> > can i say this game name in english? )
> >
> > X | |
> > ___|___|___
> > | X |
> > ___|___|___
> > | |
> > | O | O
>
>
> It's called tic-tac-toe. But the above story I've heard several times but
> I have NOT seen any evidence trace of it but a small passus repeating the
> fact that "... programming a tic-tac-toe game in sendmail.cf ...".
<flippant>
That's not the question he asked. He wanted to know what the game is
called in _English_. It's called "Noughts and Crosses". In _American_
it's called "tic-tac-toe" :)
</flippant>
I used to have a sendmail.cf that turned sendmail into a slow
mathematical calculator. I'll see if I can hunt it down (I'll also
have to find a sendmail system to test it - not many around here
any more :)
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Consultant or at present:
eServ. Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 2 9206 3410 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.........................................................................
Isamar Villas Boas Perrelli Maia
Magiclink Internet
Analista de Sistemas
Salvador - BA - Brasil
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> > I deleted my old mail on how to get off of the list. I need to remove
> > myself for a couple of weeks.
> > Where does the remove request get mailed to?
> > Thanks,
> > MarkT.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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
>
Me too!!!
I've tried several times to remove myself from this mailing list but I get
the same message over and over telling me I'm not on the mailing list....
Kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet,
Jeroen Gremmen
Country-Micado Consultant / Check 2000 Team Manager
Origin International B.V.
Complex Vredeoord VH 1.20
Groenewoudseweg 1, 5621 BA Eindhoven
+31 (0)40 2756943
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Isamar Villas Boas Perrelli Maia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 22 October, 1999 14:02
To: Timothy L. Mayo
Cc: Mark Thomas; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Remove from List
Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.........................................................................
Isamar Villas Boas Perrelli Maia
Magiclink Internet
Analista de Sistemas
Salvador - BA - Brasil
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> > I deleted my old mail on how to get off of the list. I need to remove
> > myself for a couple of weeks.
> > Where does the remove request get mailed to?
> > Thanks,
> > MarkT.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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
>
Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 11:27:21AM +0300, dd wrote:
>
>> errm hi
>>
>> i'm a newbie administrator and i have installed qmail a few days ago. not
>> much probs actually. hmm, i went through all the documents but there's a
>> small point i didn't understand. errm what does "sos" mean? i mean
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc, what does that "sos" stand for?
>
>It's just an example extension used in the documentation to illustrate
>qmail's ability to deal with address extensions.
Yeah, but "sos" means "sick of sendmail". That might come in handy for
the qmail edition of Trival Pursuit.
-Dave
On Oct 22 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> Yeah, but "sos" means "sick of sendmail". That might come in handy
> for the qmail edition of Trival Pursuit.
In which case "save our souls" would do just fine. :-)
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 07:16:55PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote:
> Use that patch, stop qmail, then a make setup check, echo 1 > /qmail
>path/control/mfcheck and start qmail again. You don't have to do any changes in your
>startup script or worry about rblsmtpd.
>
> tcpserver allows or denies ip adresses from local list
> rblsmtpd allows or denies ip addresses from remote list
>
> if the connecting ip address passes the two first, then qmail-smtpd checks for a
>valid domain in the from field.
Yes, it works with rblsmtpd.
Thank you very much. I'm happy.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 03:39:56PM +0200, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Einar Bordewich writes:
> > > > > Has anyone made som MX/A/PTR checking on MAIL FROM: in qmail-smtpd?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there's a patch for it on www.qmail.org.
> > >
> > > Well, actually it doesn't work. Please use qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch
> > > instead (URL: http://lsc.kva.hu/dl/qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch ). Oh, by the
> > > way, Russ, could you update this patch's URL and local copy at www.qmail.org
> > > please?
> >
> > I use rblsmtpd. So patching qmail-smtpd won't work?
> > What can I do?
> >
> > /usr/local/bin/supervise /usr/local/qmail/supervise/tcpserver env - \
> > PATH="/usr/local/bin:$PATH" TZ=MET-1METDST,M3.5.0,M10.5.0 \
> > tcpserver -x /usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
> > -v -p -t 5 -c 400 -b 40 -u 203 -g 200 0 \
> > smtp /usr/local/bin/smtplog \
> > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \
> > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.orbs.org \
> > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrbl.maps.vix.com \
> > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdul.maps.vix.com \
> > /usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 \
> > | /usr/local/bin/accustamp \
> > | /usr/local/bin/cyclog -s100004000 -n2 /var/adm/smtpd smtpd 3 &
> >
--
Med venlig hilsen / Regards
Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group
UNI-C
Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C
Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have configured my rc file as laid out in LWQ. I am getting this error in
>maillog.
>
>Oct 21 13:54:13 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532053.685387 alert: cannot start:
>qmail-send is already running
>Oct 21 13:54:14 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532054.705194 alert: cannot start:
>qmail-send is already running
>Oct 21 13:54:15 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532055.725390 alert: cannot start:
>qmail-send is already running
>Oct 21 13:54:16 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532056.745306 alert: cannot start:
>qmail-send is already running
>
>Since the errors are every second I believe it has something to do with
>supervise.
Correct.
>/var/log/qmail gets 10 files all time stamped. This fits with
>cyclogs parameters. Inside each file is a list of hundreds of pids. Which I
>think would coincide with the output from attempting to start qmail-send.
>
>[1] 522
>[1] 545
>[1] 561
>[1] 567
>[1] 573
>[1] 579
>
>My hunch is that something is telling supervise that qmail-send is down.
>This is as far as I've got. My assumptions could be wrong.
>
>Any ideas?
Sounds like your /var/qmail/rc is botched, perhaps running qmail-start
in the background. Does it contain any "&"'s?
What platform are you on? Cut-n-paste a copy of your /var/qmail/rc.
-Dave
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I have configured my rc file as laid out in LWQ. I am getting this error
in
>>maillog.
>>
>>Oct 21 13:54:13 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532053.685387 alert: cannot start:
>>qmail-send is already running
>>Oct 21 13:54:14 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532054.705194 alert: cannot start:
>>qmail-send is already running
>>Oct 21 13:54:15 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532055.725390 alert: cannot start:
>>qmail-send is already running
>>Oct 21 13:54:16 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532056.745306 alert: cannot start:
>>qmail-send is already running
>>
>>Since the errors are every second I believe it has something to do with
>>supervise.
>Dave Sill replied:
>Correct.
>Sounds like your /var/qmail/rc is botched, perhaps running qmail-start
>in the background. Does it contain any "&"'s?
>What platform are you on? Cut-n-paste a copy of your /var/qmail/rc.
>
I am running on Linux, Redhat 6.0. Yes there were background commands in
both the /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail and the/var/qmail/rc file. I removed the "
&" from /var/qmail/rc and the errors no longer come up. Thank you.
I left the & in the init.d file. Was that the appropriate fix?
The surpervise command in /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail reads:
echo -n "Starting qmail: qmail-send"
supervise /var/supervise/qmail/send /var/qmail/rc |
setuser qmaill cyclog /var/log/qmail &
/var/qmail/rc reads as follows:
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
csh -cf 'qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail &'
Since I'm exporting $PATH in my initiation file do I need the exec env -
line in rc? Should I just start qmail-start from my initiation file?
Could changing either of these items cause problems?
Thanks
John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>I have configured my rc file as laid out in LWQ. I am getting this error
>in
>>>maillog.
>>>
>>>Oct 21 13:54:13 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532053.685387 alert: cannot start:
>>>qmail-send is already running
>>>Oct 21 13:54:14 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532054.705194 alert: cannot start:
>>>qmail-send is already running
>>>Oct 21 13:54:15 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532055.725390 alert: cannot start:
>>>qmail-send is already running
>>>Oct 21 13:54:16 hchlunx01 qmail: 940532056.745306 alert: cannot start:
>>>qmail-send is already running
>>>
>>>Since the errors are every second I believe it has something to do with
>>>supervise.
>
>>Dave Sill replied:
>>Correct.
>>Sounds like your /var/qmail/rc is botched, perhaps running qmail-start
>>in the background. Does it contain any "&"'s?
>
>>What platform are you on? Cut-n-paste a copy of your /var/qmail/rc.
>
>I am running on Linux, Redhat 6.0. Yes there were background commands in
>both the /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail and the/var/qmail/rc file. I removed the "
>&" from /var/qmail/rc and the errors no longer come up. Thank you.
>I left the & in the init.d file. Was that the appropriate fix?
Both /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail and the/var/qmail/rc should be as they
appear in LWQ unless you know what you're doing.
> The surpervise command in /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail reads:
> echo -n "Starting qmail: qmail-send"
> supervise /var/supervise/qmail/send /var/qmail/rc |
> setuser qmaill cyclog /var/log/qmail &
OK
>/var/qmail/rc reads as follows:
>exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
>csh -cf 'qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail &'
Nope. Should be:
#!/bin/sh
# Using stdout for logging
# Using control/defaultdelivery from qmail-local to deliver messages by default
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start "`cat /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery`" accustamp
-Dave
According to Rani Assaf:
>
> On 20 Oct 1999 01:34:44 +0200, Arnold, Josh A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > it has since been made more robust, however I'm curious if anyone else is
> > using a similar setup on a large scale? I'd be interested in hearing about
>
> We do... One toaster doing mail (more than 350000 mailboxes) and
> serving users web pages via NFS... frontends are PCs (PII/128Mb)
> running Linux 2.2.x
Are you using MAILDIR format on the mailboxes? or are you using standard
UN*X mailbox format and dealing with nfs locks?
--curtis
Is there anyway by which I can retrieve the old missing logs of a few dates?
Thanks,
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: qmail logs
>
>
> "shajain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I need to keep logs of qmail atleast for 60 days, but when I check in
> >/var/log/qmail it shows the logs of only past three-four days. I
> >would be very thankful if somebody can tell me how to increase the
> >entry for no. of days for which qmail keeps the logs.
>
> Assuming you're using cyclog, the total size of the logs is determined
> by two arguments: -s (the size of each file, default 104000) and -n
> (the number of log files, default 10). So, by default, cyclog keeps
> about a megabyte of logs. If you wanted 20 megabytes of logs, you
> could do something like:
>
> blah blah blah ... | cyclog -n20 -s1004000 /var/log/qmail
>
> There's no way with cyclog to keep a specified duration of logs.
>
> -Dave
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have bunches of spambait addresses. Let's use them to combat spam.
> How's this for a plan:
[snip]
Sounds like a great idea -- will you be taking steps to prevent people from
sending random IP addresses to the list? You probably don't want just
anyone to be able to add them, or it would make a great DoS.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
> From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:13:24 -0600
>
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have bunches of spambait addresses. Let's use them to combat spam.
> > How's this for a plan:
> [snip]
>
> Sounds like a great idea -- will you be taking steps to prevent people from
> sending random IP addresses to the list? You probably don't want just
> anyone to be able to add them, or it would make a great DoS.
How about these ideas:
Digitally signed messages containing the SPAM addresses and you have to
submit your public key before you can send the SPAM addresses; abusers would
get rapidly removed from the trusted list.
Also, an address doesn't get added until two (three? twelve?) different sites
report it as a SPAMmer. Since real SPAMmers, by definition, hit everywhere,
that shouldn't keep real SPAM from being blocked quickly, and would make it
a bit harder (when combined with my above suggestion) to compromise the system.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com
+1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500
4314 Avenue C
O- Austin, TX 78751-3709
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Is this of interest to anyone? Is anyone doing it already? It's not
a qmail-specific thing, although the code for the sender and receiver
would be.
You'll need to authenticate the messages, preferably before
remailing them to the list. I'd use PGP.
-- Jeff
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 01:45:09PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> Digitally signed messages containing the SPAM addresses and you have to
> submit your public key before you can send the SPAM addresses; abusers would
> get rapidly removed from the trusted list.
That is good. If you can identify who is submitting the bad
addresses then abuse can be controlled much easier.
> Also, an address doesn't get added until two (three? twelve?) different sites
> report it as a SPAMmer. Since real SPAMmers, by definition, hit everywhere,
> that shouldn't keep real SPAM from being blocked quickly, and would make it
> a bit harder (when combined with my above suggestion) to compromise the system.
Maybe is should be up to the users of the database to decide how
many times a site must be submitted.
You could make the database complex and have different reasons
for the site being in the database (open relay, in Vixie db, sent
mail to spambait address, etc.). The clients could determine
what constitues being a "spam site".
Mechanism is should be concentrated on rather than policy.
Policy is a site decision.
Neil
I am running fastforward against /etc/aliases.cdb. I want to force the
default sendmail-type behavior that an entry in /etc/aliases will have
delivery priority over a user's mailbox, e.g., an alias exists for "bobo"
and so does the user account for "bobo" but mail will get delivered
according to "bobo's" alias instructions.
>From man qmail-getpw:
You can override all of qmail-getpw's decisions with the
qmail-users mechanism, which is reliable, highly config-
urable, and much faster than qmail-getpw.
So, in /users/assign, I remove the entries (generated by qmail-pw2u):
=bobo:bobo:109:100:/home2/bobo:::
+bobo-:bobo:109:100:/home2/bobo:-::
and replace these with
=bobo:alias:1384:105:/var/qmail/alias:-:default:
The intention is to force deliveries to bobo to be handled by
~alias/.qmail-default, which contains:
| fastforward -d /etc/aliases.cdb
After running qmail-newu, I send mail to bobo. The delivery goes to the
bobo's mailbox:
Oct 22 12:43:52 mail qmail: 940614232.480027 starting delivery 226697: msg
433083 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Oct 22 12:43:52 mail qmail: 940614232.530061 delivery 226697: success:
did_1+0+0/
If it had been handled by fastforward, I would have seen something like:
Oct 22 13:15:33 mail qmail: 940616133.320053 delivery 228585: success:
fastforward:_qp_25373/did_0+0+1/
but I didn't.
I can get proper handling by fastforward if I delete the two entries in the
qmail-pw2u-generated users/assign, don't insert anything else and run
qmail-newu. But this is a problem too, because the qmail behavior for local
delivery is:
(1) check qmail-users and follow any instructions
(2) if no instructions in (1) check local users and deliver to users'
mailbox
(3) if user doesn't have a local mailbox, send to user "alias"
It appears that in this case, (2) is skipped! (I don't believe this.)
Can someone please explain in this case why doing the right thing doesn't
work and doing the wrong thing does?
Thank you.
P. Pirn -- see complete headers for more info
Heads up. If you have a reasonably high-volume server (10,000+), you may be
facing the "big todo" queue issue (See mailing list archives.). And even
with the big-todo patch installed, the disk controller for the separate
filesystem may not keep up with the volume of local deliveries.
I ran into these problems and finally put the queue and maildirs on the
SAME filesystem which was controlled by an powerful SCSI controller with
32MB of on-board RAM. The local queue still didn't process fast enough.
After adding another 32MB of SCSI controller RAM, it finally did local
deliveries fast enough.
eric writes:
> What kind of beliefs are held on mounting /var/qmail/queue on a seperate
> partition? Are any problems out there with this?
>
> I'm thinking of this statement from the FAQ -->
>
> "Do not use async (or softupdates) filesystems; if you do, and if your
> system crashes at the wrong moment, you will lose mail. Under Linux, make
> sure that all mail-handling filesystems are mounted sync..."
>
> Therefore we will be testing a seperate queue partition mounted
> sync (in Linux) -> but experience is best.
>
P. Pirn -- see complete headers for more info
>
> What do your logs say Mr. Vice President? Can you show evidence of qmail
> producing duplicates. In my mail system experience, 95% of all repeated
> messages happen somewhere in the POP3 transaction. (server mailbox -->
> POP3 --> mail client).
Not here...the evidence is simple the logs show different mail id's for
the same mail message. 5 occurances is most common, then 4 then 2.
I have experianced and solved pop3 duplicates in the past. This is not
similar.
Scott
>
> - Phushnickens
>
>
>
> "Scott A. Cole" escribi�:
> >
> > It's pretty simple code, but if you have any productive in sights, I would
> > enjoy hearing them.
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Fabrice Scemama wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Mr Vice President,
> > > your PHP3 script might be badly designed ;-)
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Scott A. Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a script written in php3 that sends email via the php calls. We use
> > > > qmail on our system and thus so does the php.
> > > >
> > > > However, as of late, users of this script have been getting multiple
> > > > emails being sent out when using it.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know what's going on here?
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------
> > > > Scott A. Cole
> > > > Senior Vice President, Engineering & CTO
> > > > OneSight, Inc.
> > > > http://onesight.com
> > > >
> > > > OneSight - "Connecting Companies with Consumers"
> > > > -------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
I've looked through the qmail archives and saw similar problems but no
real definitive answer:
I am using fastforward-0.50 with ~alias-default as:
% cat ~alias/.qmail-default
| fastforward /etc/aliases.cdb
Here is the snippet from /etc/aliases:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: hamilton
where testvdomain.com is a virtual domain.
% grep testvdomain.com /var/qmail/control/*
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts:testvdomain.com
/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains:testvdomain.com:alias
fastforward works in test mode:
% env [EMAIL PROTECTED] /var/qmail/bin/fastforward -n /etc/aliases.cdb
from <original envelope sender>
to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Which is correct.
But when someone sends mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], here is the
qmail log:
940612264.876800 info msg 249964: bytes 2651 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 24951
uid 201
940612264.905110 starting delivery 305: msg 249964 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
940612264.905124 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
940612264.921845 delivery 305: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
940612264.921860 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
940612264.960100 bounce msg 249964 qp 24957
Any ideas?
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
Are you running qmail-users, i.e., do /var/qmail/users/assign and
/var/qmail/users/cdb exist on your server?
Russell P. Sutherland writes:
> I've looked through the qmail archives and saw similar problems but no
> real definitive answer:
>
> I am using fastforward-0.50 with ~alias-default as:
>
> % cat ~alias/.qmail-default
> | fastforward /etc/aliases.cdb
>
> Here is the snippet from /etc/aliases:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: hamilton
>
> where testvdomain.com is a virtual domain.
>
> % grep testvdomain.com /var/qmail/control/*
> /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts:testvdomain.com
> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains:testvdomain.com:alias
>
>
> fastforward works in test mode:
>
> % env [EMAIL PROTECTED] /var/qmail/bin/fastforward -n /etc/aliases.cdb
> from <original envelope sender>
> to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Which is correct.
>
> But when someone sends mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], here is the
> qmail log:
>
> 940612264.876800 info msg 249964: bytes 2651 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
>24951 uid 201
> 940612264.905110 starting delivery 305: msg 249964 to local
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 940612264.905124 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> 940612264.921845 delivery 305: failure:
>Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> 940612264.921860 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> 940612264.960100 bounce msg 249964 qp 24957
>
> Any ideas?
>
> --
> Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
> Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
> CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
P. Pirn -- see complete headers for more info
Hello,
I work for an ISP in Philadelphia, and we're trying to move away from
Sendmail into a QMail / Maildir environment. Everything on our test
machine is working fine, except for what we call "sendmail exceptions."
For example, say the MX record for foo.com is set to our mailserver. We
add foo.com to Sendmail's /etc/sendmail.cw file and we can accept mail for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for local users.
We also have a method of making sendmail exceptions, where for example,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to a local user, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to a
remote user.
Basically, I need to figure out how to do this with qmail:
- Recieve message
- Check against a list of exceptions. If exception for destination
address exists, send it to the target of the exception.
- Attempt local delivery
- bounce if local username not found.
I've been hammering at this for a few days and thought I would ask. Any
ideas?
-Andy Smith
DCANet
> Basically, I need to figure out how to do this with qmail:
>
> - Recieve message
> - Check against a list of exceptions. If exception for destination
> address exists, send it to the target of the exception.
> - Attempt local delivery
> - bounce if local username not found.
I've done this; my method is probably not optimal, but it works.
You can do this using .qmail and, in particular, .qmail-default
addresses. Part of the answer is in FAQ 3.2:
----
3.2. How do I set up a virtual domain? I'd like any mail for
nowhere.mil, including [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
so on, to be delivered to Bob. I've set up the MX already.
Answer: Put
nowhere.mil:bob
into control/virtualdomains. Add nowhere.mil to control/rcpthosts. If
qmail-send is running, give it a HUP (or do svc -h /var/run/qmail if
qmail is supervised).
Now mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered locally to
bob-whatever. Bob can set up ~bob/.qmail-default to catch all the
possible addresses, ~bob/.qmail-info to catch [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.
----
Now, to arrange the default delivery to local user, use a
.qmail-default file similar to the one listed in FAQ 4.1:
----
4.1. How do I forward unrecognized usernames to another host? I'd like
to set up a LUSER_RELAY pointing at bigbang.af.mil.
Answer: Put
| forward "$LOCAL"@bigbang.af.mil
into ~alias/.qmail-default.
----
I think I ended up having to use "$USER"@... instead of "$LOCAL"@...
because $LOCAL ended up picking up part of the initial redirection. There's
some way to find out what variables are available in .qmail; I forget
offhand...
So what I ended up with is:
Put example.com:example in virtualdomains
Either create a user 'example' or use .qmail-example-BLAH in
/var/qmail/alias.
Then, ~example/.qmail-default (or ~alias/.qmail-example-default) contains
the recipe to attempt local delivery.
~example/.qmail-postmaster (or ~alias/.qmail-example-postmaster) points to
whatever address you want mail for postmaster to go to instead. (replace
postmaster with whatever address you want an exception for).
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the vpopmail 3.4.9 package. It can be found at
http://www.inter7.com/qmail and makes handling of virtual domains much
easier. Also look for fastforward (uses /etc/alias) on the qmail site for
your 'exceptions' and/or read up on the dot-qmail man pages for this same
problem. There is also a seperate mailing list for vpopmail (noted on the
site) should you choose to go that way. Also, reading the 'Life with Qmail'
page is a beneficial step. It can be found at
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html.
--
Stephen Comoletti
Systems Administrator
Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I work for an ISP in Philadelphia, and we're trying to move away from
> Sendmail into a QMail / Maildir environment. Everything on our test
> machine is working fine, except for what we call "sendmail exceptions."
>
> For example, say the MX record for foo.com is set to our mailserver. We
> add foo.com to Sendmail's /etc/sendmail.cw file and we can accept mail for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for local users.
>
> We also have a method of making sendmail exceptions, where for example,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to a local user, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to a
> remote user.
>
> Basically, I need to figure out how to do this with qmail:
>
> - Recieve message
> - Check against a list of exceptions. If exception for destination
> address exists, send it to the target of the exception.
> - Attempt local delivery
> - bounce if local username not found.
>
> I've been hammering at this for a few days and thought I would ask. Any
> ideas?
>
> -Andy Smith
> DCANet
"There's a fine line between genius and insanity."
G. Ryan Fawcett
Unix Network Admin.
AudioBase Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok does anyone know how to configure Qmail so that you can user /bin/mail as
your mail client.
"There's a fine line between genius and insanity."
G. Ryan Fawcett
Unix Network Admin.
AudioBase Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ok does anyone know how to configure Qmail so that you can user /bin/mail as
> your mail client.
errm, i don't know whether this will solve your problem or not but you can
use the "qail" wrapper which is included in the Qmail package. simply
alias "mail" to "qail" and there you go (I assume you use the Maildir
format).
yours sincerely etc
dd
I understand the pros and cons of each, but am interested in knowing if
there is anyone on this list who thinks instant messaging has a chance
of upseating smtp.
- cheers Eric
Would anybody know what could cause the following error:
Oct 22 02:39:39 forums qmail: 940585179.259565 delivery 90: deferral:
ezmlm-send:_fatal:_temporary_qmail-queue_error/
I ran queue-fix and this appeared afterwards. I did check the
conf-split before hand for the correct number though... No messages are
going in or out now, the log is full of:
Oct 22 15:59:39 forums qmail: 940633179.109340 warning: trouble
injecting bounce message, will try later
thanks
--
Lidia
btw, Russell is in India doing an emergency qmail cluster upgrade...
The second error is comming from injectbounce, where qmail-send is trying
to inject the bounce message back into the queue to be delivered to the
sender. Not sure what would cause that off the top of my head, but do you
have enough disk space free on the drive/partition that contains your
queue?
Lidia Marchioni wrote:
> Would anybody know what could cause the following error:
>
> Oct 22 02:39:39 forums qmail: 940585179.259565 delivery 90: deferral:
> ezmlm-send:_fatal:_temporary_qmail-queue_error/
>
> I ran queue-fix and this appeared afterwards. I did check the
> conf-split before hand for the correct number though... No messages are
> going in or out now, the log is full of:
>
> Oct 22 15:59:39 forums qmail: 940633179.109340 warning: trouble
> injecting bounce message, will try later
>
> thanks
> --
> Lidia
>
> btw, Russell is in India doing an emergency qmail cluster upgrade...
--
Stephen Comoletti
Systems Administrator
Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
there should be no problem with the space:
forums:/var/qmail/bin/queue-fix-1.4# df -k
Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/hda1 63448 18890 41276 31% /
/dev/hda3 6006799 2725714 2969991 48% /usr
also, I just tried queue-fix with -N option but there is not much there:
Running in test mode, no changes will be made.
Unlinking [/var/qmail/queue/info/20/698461]
Unlinking [/var/qmail/queue/remote/20/698461]
queue-fix finished...
any ideas about the first error?
thanks
lidia
Delanet Administration wrote:
> The second error is comming from injectbounce, where qmail-send is trying
> to inject the bounce message back into the queue to be delivered to the
> sender. Not sure what would cause that off the top of my head, but do you
> have enough disk space free on the drive/partition that contains your
> queue?
>
> Lidia Marchioni wrote:
>
> > Would anybody know what could cause the following error:
> >
> > Oct 22 02:39:39 forums qmail: 940585179.259565 delivery 90: deferral:
> > ezmlm-send:_fatal:_temporary_qmail-queue_error/
> >
> > I ran queue-fix and this appeared afterwards. I did check the
> > conf-split before hand for the correct number though... No messages are
> > going in or out now, the log is full of:
> >
> > Oct 22 15:59:39 forums qmail: 940633179.109340 warning: trouble
> > injecting bounce message, will try later
> >
> > thanks
> > --
> > Lidia
> >
> > btw, Russell is in India doing an emergency qmail cluster upgrade...
>
> --
> Stephen Comoletti
> Systems Administrator
> Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
> ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
upon running this today, it gave me the followign error:
Warning: users/assign checking not implemented.
problem is that I don't know what it means - using the -v flag was no help.
Anyone have any idea?
Brandon
It's checking to see if the users/assign is a regular file as opposed to a
directory or symlink/etc.. There is no code beyond verifying it's existance in
the current version from what I saw, which is probably the reason for the
message.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> upon running this today, it gave me the followign error:
> Warning: users/assign checking not implemented.
>
> problem is that I don't know what it means - using the -v flag was no help.
>
> Anyone have any idea?
>
> Brandon
--
Stephen Comoletti
Systems Administrator
Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
that's what I get when running a test from telnet session:
451 could not exec qq (#4.3.0)
I guess it just means it cannot execute qmail-queue. Any
troubleshooting hints?
thanks
Lidia
now I feel stupid, all the permissions were stripped off qmail-queue
(who knows how that happened). At least it *seems like* I can send a
message from pine now. However, the telnet session gives me:
451 qq internal bug (#4.3.0)
I would like to check all the permission settings but only know what
qmail/queue and qmail/queue/lock should look like. Is there a list
somewhere of all the directories/files and permissions that should be in
place?
Also when I run qmail-qsanity I get lot's of:
message is neither local nor remote: 596059
some of them have additional:
message has no entry in info: 1103909
that appears only for messages renamed by queue-fix...
lidia
Run 'queue-fix queue.tmp' which will create a new queue structure under the
dir queue.tmp, and then you can go over it to compare.
Also, have you applied the 'big-todo' patch to qmail? and if so, did you
apply the patch for queue-fix as well?
Lidia Marchioni wrote:
> now I feel stupid, all the permissions were stripped off qmail-queue
> (who knows how that happened). At least it *seems like* I can send a
> message from pine now. However, the telnet session gives me:
>
> 451 qq internal bug (#4.3.0)
>
> I would like to check all the permission settings but only know what
> qmail/queue and qmail/queue/lock should look like. Is there a list
> somewhere of all the directories/files and permissions that should be in
> place?
>
> Also when I run qmail-qsanity I get lot's of:
> message is neither local nor remote: 596059
>
> some of them have additional:
> message has no entry in info: 1103909
> that appears only for messages renamed by queue-fix...
>
> lidia
--
Stephen Comoletti
Systems Administrator
Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
The problem was with qmail-queue itself... once I changed it to 4711 it
stopped complaining.
thank you all
lidia
Delanet Administration wrote:
> Run 'queue-fix queue.tmp' which will create a new queue structure under the
> dir queue.tmp, and then you can go over it to compare.
> Also, have you applied the 'big-todo' patch to qmail? and if so, did you
> apply the patch for queue-fix as well?
>
> Lidia Marchioni wrote:
>
> > now I feel stupid, all the permissions were stripped off qmail-queue
> > (who knows how that happened). At least it *seems like* I can send a
> > message from pine now. However, the telnet session gives me:
> >
> > 451 qq internal bug (#4.3.0)
> >
> > I would like to check all the permission settings but only know what
> > qmail/queue and qmail/queue/lock should look like. Is there a list
> > somewhere of all the directories/files and permissions that should be in
> > place?
> >
> > Also when I run qmail-qsanity I get lot's of:
> > message is neither local nor remote: 596059
> >
> > some of them have additional:
> > message has no entry in info: 1103909
> > that appears only for messages renamed by queue-fix...
> >
> > lidia
>
> --
> Stephen Comoletti
> Systems Administrator
> Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
> ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
Hi,
I've got a qmail setup running under Redhat 6 which has been working well
for me. I've learned that one of the domains I want to send mail to is
refusing my mail, with the bounce message saying:
Connected to 209.73.64.102 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must resolve
I've got three virtual domains, and the result is the same for all three of
them. We haven't had any trouble with any other domains (that I know of).
The following is the header from an email I sent from my qmail machine to
my pacbell account.
If you can see what I've done wrong, I'd be very grateful.
-ted
----------
X-Persona: <Direct PBI>
Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141])
by mail-la1.pacbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02216
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peabody.barkydog.com ([209.233.135.76])
by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8)
with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 918 invoked from network); Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:39:04 +0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chaos) (192.168.146.10)
by 192.168.146.2 with SMTP; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:39:04 +0000
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:25:13 -0700
From: Ted Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: test from bd
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-UIDL: 9cfa5b8e4154a90cb352e17bcf9fbf2a
I traced it to flaky DNS... sorry for the waste of bandwidth.
-ted
At 08:36 PM 10/22/1999 -0700, Ted Lin wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've got a qmail setup running under Redhat 6 which has been working well
>for me. I've learned that one of the domains I want to send mail to is
>refusing my mail, with the bounce message saying:
>
>Connected to 209.73.64.102 but sender was rejected.
>Remote host said: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must resolve
