qmail Digest 26 Oct 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 801
Topics (messages 32079 through 32122):
Re: Net::POP3 perl doesn't work
32079 by: Russell Nelson
Re: confign problem: pls help, urgent.
32080 by: Florian G. Pflug
32088 by: Dustin Marquess
32108 by: kai.1stchina.com
Re: forwarding domain
32081 by: Pieckiel, Kevin A
32082 by: Magnus Bodin
32085 by: Peter Green
32087 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: defaulthost and Eudora
32083 by: Dave Sill
Re: fastforward puzzling behaviour
32084 by: Anand Buddhdev
32086 by: Russell P. Sutherland
Virtual sub-domains and virtual users
32089 by: Nescot Account
32090 by: Petr Novotny
32095 by: Nescot Account
Fwd: Some things I cannot figure out how to do...
32091 by: Miki Shapiro
Re: Help with virtual users and domains
32092 by: Andy Smith
Re: We need Home Workers!
32093 by: Mate Wierdl
32119 by: Edward S. Marshall
Urgent Please
32094 by: Ranjan Koirala
32096 by: Marco Leeflang
32102 by: qmail.col7.metta.lk
32118 by: Mohanan P G
Re: qmail, Linux, and NetApp/NFS
32097 by: Rani Assaf
methods for ETRN
32098 by: jyoung.helus.com
32099 by: jyoung.helus.com
32104 by: Sam
32106 by: Pashinin
32109 by: Mike Ventimiglia
32112 by: Pashinin
32113 by: Mike Ventimiglia
32114 by: Sam
32115 by: Sam
32122 by: Nagy Balazs
SMTP connections
32100 by: Bill Parker
32101 by: Racer X
Qmail+LDAP over SSL
32103 by: eric
32121 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: Any thoughts on instant messaging vs. smtp
32105 by: David L. Nicol
Re: PINE Patched Source (fwd)
32107 by: James Smallacombe
webmail
32110 by: kai.1stchina.com
32111 by: Mike Ventimiglia
binmail on tru64 version 5.0
32116 by: David L. Nicol
problems in queue
32117 by: Martin Paulucci
32120 by: markd.mira.net
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rust writes:
> The Net:POP3 login method expects to get a message count back after a
> successful login.
It's broken, then. Somebody confused an implementation for a
specification.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 08:54:50AM +0300, dd wrote:
>
> > i have just installed qmail on my linux machine. it has no running dns,
> > though but instead using an upstream dns server to resolve domain names.
> > i do not have a registered domain name for my server so my email address
> > shld be: <user>@<my ip address>.
> >
> > internal sending of mails is no problem. however, when i try to send
> > messages to remote clients and vice versa, the message could not be
> > delivered. on my remote machines, the message says "host unknown" for my
> > ip address.
>
> hi
>
> errm i had the same problem and it wasn't solved until i got my domain
> registered to the dns server. i tried sending mail to user@IP but it
> doesn't work, don't know why. afaik you'll have to wait for your domain
> name... :/ btw you _should_ be able to send mail to remote hosts.
Hi
This can�t work, because when an MTA wants to send mail to host xxx.yyy.zzz
(or ip aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd), it checks the DNS for a MX-Record for that domain -
the mx-record tells which mailserver is responsible for a certain domain -
just like A-Records say which ip-address belongs to a certain hostname.
I don�t know if it�s possible to put MX-Records for IP-Addresses in the DNS
(could be, because there _are_ reverse lookups) - but I�ve never seen
anybody do this.
Greetings, Florian Pflug
Try putting the IP address in brackets. eg, "[192.168.1.1]".
-Du
-Dustin
At 12:31 AM 10/25/99 , Nenita Manaois wrote:
>hi!
>
>i have just installed qmail on my linux machine. it has no running dns,
>though but instead using an upstream dns server to resolve domain names.
>i do not have a registered domain name for my server so my email address
>shld be: <user>@<my ip address>.
>
>internal sending of mails is no problem. however, when i try to send
>messages to remote clients and vice versa, the message could not be
>delivered. on my remote machines, the message says "host unknown" for my
>ip address.
>
>here's my control files:
>
>defaultdomain: (contains the actual ip address of the machine -> x.x.x.x)
>locals: (same as defaultdomain)
>me : same as defaultdomain
>plusdomain: (empty)
>rcpthosts: same as defaultdomain
>
>i am running tcpserver.
>
>pls help.
>
>-nenita
Hi,
Try sending emial to user@[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is your IP.
Pay attention about the bracket.
hope this help.
Akai
dd wrote:
> > i have just installed qmail on my linux machine. it has no running dns,
> > though but instead using an upstream dns server to resolve domain names.
> > i do not have a registered domain name for my server so my email address
> > shld be: <user>@<my ip address>.
> >
> > internal sending of mails is no problem. however, when i try to send
> > messages to remote clients and vice versa, the message could not be
> > delivered. on my remote machines, the message says "host unknown" for my
> > ip address.
>
> hi
>
> errm i had the same problem and it wasn't solved until i got my domain
> registered to the dns server. i tried sending mail to user@IP but it
> doesn't work, don't know why. afaik you'll have to wait for your domain
> name... :/ btw you _should_ be able to send mail to remote hosts.
>
> good luck and love & peace etc etc,
> dd
--
Song Kaicheng
http://www.1stChina.com/
ICQ:16229085
Hi!
I run an email server here for a domain smartrafficenter.net (it will be
smartrafficenter.org when we get our T3 set up). I have another domain
for a field office as phase2.smartrafficenter.org and a 56K connection
between our offices.
You should be able to simply add this to your control/smtproutes file:
fwd.example.com:newmailhost
.fwd.example.com:newmailhost
What this does is force all mail coming to the domain fwd.example.com or
any machine.fwd.example.com and forward it to the machine named
newmailhost. I believe you also have to add fwd.example.com to
control/rcpthosts as well. I think that should produce the results you
desire.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 6:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: forwarding domain
We would like to set up a subdomain on our system, say,
'fwd.example.com'.
When mail gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it gets rewritten
to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (along with some other headers) and resent.
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 06:13:19PM -0400, Peter Green wrote:
> We would like to set up a subdomain on our system, say, 'fwd.example.com'.
> When mail gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it gets rewritten to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (along with some other headers) and resent.
The forward-all-to-another-domain-alternative
=============================================
This is when you want to forward <anything>@nowhere.mil to
<anything>@elsewhere.co.za, i.e. when every forward goes to
the same "otherhost".
Put "nowhere.mil:alias-nowhere" into virtualdomains.
Then put this line into ~alias/.qmail-nowhere
| forward ${DEFAULT}@elsewhere.co.za
Now will all mail be forwarded to the domain elsewhere.co.za.
Every username will however be intact.
If you want to override this for just some user, then create an own
.qmail-file for just that alias, e.g. .qmail-nowhere-support, and put
your own forward in there.
See further in my textmaterial for a virtual domain cookbook:
http://x42.com/qmail/doc/
--
magnus
-- MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 03:38:20PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 06:13:19PM -0400, Peter Green wrote:
> > We would like to set up a subdomain on our system, say, 'fwd.example.com'.
> > When mail gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it gets rewritten to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (along with some other headers) and resent.
>
> The forward-all-to-another-domain-alternative
> =============================================
> This is when you want to forward <anything>@nowhere.mil to
> <anything>@elsewhere.co.za, i.e. when every forward goes to
> the same "otherhost".
But I don't want this. I want the "otherhost" to be encoded in my host. So
if you wanted to sign up for my service, people could write to you at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and it would get forwarded to you. (Please note: I'm not asking if this is a
*good* idea, just if it is possible. :)
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:17:47AM -0400, Peter Green wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 03:38:20PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 06:13:19PM -0400, Peter Green wrote:
> > > We would like to set up a subdomain on our system, say, 'fwd.example.com'.
> > > When mail gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it gets rewritten to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (along with some other headers) and resent.
> >
> > The forward-all-to-another-domain-alternative
> > =============================================
> > This is when you want to forward <anything>@nowhere.mil to
> > <anything>@elsewhere.co.za, i.e. when every forward goes to
> > the same "otherhost".
>
> But I don't want this. I want the "otherhost" to be encoded in my host. So
> if you wanted to sign up for my service, people could write to you at:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> and it would get forwarded to you. (Please note: I'm not asking if this is a
> *good* idea, just if it is possible. :)
>
Everything is possible(tm):
Put ".fwd.example.com:alias-fwd" into virtualdomains.
Then put this line into ~alias/.qmail-fwd-default
|forward ${LOCAL}@`perl -e 'print $1 if $ENV{HOST} =~ /(.+?).fwd.example.com$/'`
--
magnus
-- MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
Carrott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>defaulthost is set to my node provided by my ISP. This was tested as per
>the FAQ on my qmail machine and workes perfectly. ie mail sent is rewritten
>as [EMAIL PROTECTED] when sent as " echo to: me | qmail-inject".
That's not rewriting; qmail-inject is merely appending defaulthost
because none was specified.
>If I try to send an email, even a local one, from Eudora, the to: or from:
>headers are not rewritten.
Eudora inject mail via SMTP, and qmail-smtpd doesn't rewrite headers.
Eudora should be configured with the proper host/domain.
If you absolutely, positively have to rewrite From headers on the
server side, look at ofmipd from the mess822 package.
-Dave
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 01:27:21PM -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
> 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
That's wrong. You need to invoke fastforward with a -d option:
|fastforward -d /etc/aliases.cdb
See the man page for more info.
--
See complete headers for more info
* Anand Buddhdev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [25 Oct 1999 10:16]:
> > I am using fastforward-0.50 with ~alias-default as:
> > % cat ~alias/.qmail-default
> > | fastforward /etc/aliases.cdb
>
> That's wrong. You need to invoke fastforward with a -d option:
>
> |fastforward -d /etc/aliases.cdb
I figured out that the problem was with the version of fastforward.
With fastforward-0.50 one needs to simulate the -d option that
is built into fastforward-0.51 ala:
| RECIPIENT="$DEFAULT"@"$HOST" fastforward /etc/aliases.cdb
[ fastforward -d d does an additional case as well as the above ].
--
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
Hello there,
Is it possible to use use a combination of virtual users using
the users/assign file and also specifiying sub-domains as well
as domains? For example my users/assign file looks like this:
=subdomain-domain-com-nige:vuser:888:888:/vusers/nige:::
---
control/vitualdomains contains:
subdomain.domain.com:subdomain-domain-com
---
and control/rcpthosts contains:
subdomain.domain.com
---
So if I wanted mail to reach this user, I would send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and mail would be delivered into the
/vusers/nige dir. I'm also starting qmail using "qmail-start
./". All the users are vitual and there is no real need for system
users.
This setup works to an extent, ie typeing
"inject-qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]" on the same box works
fine, but it keeps saying the mailbox doesnt exist when I send
the message from a different host.
When I look at the logs, this is what I get when I send from
a different host...
starting delivery 5: msg 1275969 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
delivery 5: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
bounce msg 1275969 qp 16554
end msg 1275969
and I get this when sending from the command prompt on the same
box...
new msg 1275969
info msg 1275969: bytes 217 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 16740
uid 888
starting delivery 7: msg 1275969 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
delivery 7: success: did_1+0+0/
I dont use pop at all, the users will collect their mail from
a web interface.
My DNS Configuration:
I have loads of subdomains in the domain file with each subdomain
being a CNAME that point to a single A record. there is also
one MX entry which has the same domain as the A record. i.e.
MX 10 domain.com.
domain.com. A 1.2.3.4
subdomain1 CNAME domain.com.
subdomain2 CNAME domain.com.
subdomain3 CNAME domain.com.
I found a simular post that could be the same problem I am haveing.
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail/753.html
If it is a case of haveing a separate zone file for every sub
domain, that is not really possible because theres going to be
thousands of sub domains on this system and it'll just be to
chaotic to organise like that.
If it's not possible to do it this way with the sub-domains,
could someone please suggest an alternative setup?
Thanx in advance...
Nige
-----
MailStart Plus - http://www.mailstartplus.com
Consolidate Your Mailboxes Into an Organized, Filtered, Spell-Checked,
Anywhere, Anytime WebBox
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 25 Oct 99, at 8:10, Nescot Account wrote:
[snip]
> My DNS Configuration:
>
> I have loads of subdomains in the domain file with each subdomain
> being a CNAME that point to a single A record. there is also
> one MX entry which has the same domain as the A record. i.e.
>
>
> MX 10 domain.com.
> domain.com. A 1.2.3.4
> subdomain1 CNAME domain.com.
> subdomain2 CNAME domain.com.
> subdomain3 CNAME domain.com.
This is your problem. Change them to MX. IIRC, CNAMEs in
addresses are rewritten before being sent out.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOBSCPFMwP8g7qbw/EQKDSwCfQdwWP9ZqBUqcNEvmCfF4UZk2MtcAn2QN
T+l+WibDlNQHNeAglpxLuRfC
=qcSh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Wow, like this problem has been driving me MAD for the past few
hours. Thanks!!!!
|--- Original Message ---
|From: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Date: 10/25/99 4:15:57 PM
|
|-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|Hash: SHA1
|
|On 25 Oct 99, at 8:10, Nescot Account wrote:
|[snip]
|> My DNS Configuration:
|>
|> I have loads of subdomains in the domain file with each subdomain
|> being a CNAME that point to a single A record. there is also
|> one MX entry which has the same domain as the A record. i.e.
|>
|>
|> MX 10 domain.com.
|> domain.com. A 1.2.3.4
|> subdomain1 CNAME domain.com.
|> subdomain2 CNAME domain.com.
|> subdomain3 CNAME domain.com.
|
|This is your problem. Change them to MX. IIRC, CNAMEs in
|addresses are rewritten before being sent out.
|
|-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
|Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
|
|iQA/AwUBOBSCPFMwP8g7qbw/EQKDSwCfQdwWP9ZqBUqcNEvmCfF4UZk2MtcAn2QN
|T+l+WibDlNQHNeAglpxLuRfC
|=qcSh
|-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|--
|Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|http://www.antek.cz
|PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
|-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when
he's drunk.
|
[Tom Waits]
|
|
-----
MailStart Plus - http://www.mailstartplus.com
Consolidate Your Mailboxes Into an Organized, Filtered, Spell-Checked,
Anywhere, Anytime WebBox
Hi.
I inherited a linux box running qmail.
I more or less understand the structure of qmail, it's aliases, control
files etc. and have the docs laid out in front of me, but I need a
little guidance.
I need emails coming from one of say three predefined addresses have
these changes:
1. a "reply to" with a specific address line added to the header of all
emails who have a certain subject.
2. those same emails to be bcc'd to yet another address.
How do I go implimenting this?
Thanks in advance.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Miki Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aladdin Knoledge Systems,
eSafe Technical Support
--------------------------------------------------
"Internet Security is like sex.
Everyone SAYS they are doing it..."
Hi Charles,
I think this is on the right track for me, but I still don't understand.
I can get virtual domains to work just fine, where all mail for a domain
will go into a certain user account, or a certain user .qmail-default
file. That's works well.
The problem is that for some domains, I have maybe 50 POP accounts and the
domain added to the "locals" file. The mail goes into the user account
just fine. How, then, would I make an exception to send
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to one of those 50 accounts?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
-Andrew Smith
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> In qmail, you add it to 'localhosts' and you're done. If you want to deliver
> it to a different accountname ([EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which are both
> your box) then you use a virtualdomains entry as well.
>
> > 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.
>
> You use qmail alias .qmail files to forward the mail anywhere you like, or
> do many other things.
>
> Charles
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
This guy seems to be originating from flash.net. While
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was working a month ago, it seems to be /dev/null now.
Is flash.net already in rbl? How does one check?
Mate
Here is a header I received (and many more in the past month)
Forwarded: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 01:12:26 -0500
Forwarded: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] "
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-Date: Sat Oct 23 12:48:52 1999
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 17642 invoked from network); 23 Oct 1999 12:48:51 -0000
Received: from p44.amax1.dialup.lax1.flash.net (HELO ns.bigbear.net) (209.30.74.44)
by wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu with SMTP; 23 Oct 1999 12:48:51 -0000
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: We need Home Workers!
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:09:43
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> This guy seems to be originating from flash.net. While
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] was working a month ago, it seems to be /dev/null now.
> Is flash.net already in rbl?
Wouldn't matter, this came directly from a dialup there, not their mail
servers. The RBL wouldn't catch that, nor should it, because that is
beyond their scope.
It is, however, listed by the MAPS DUL (http://www.maps.org/dul/), which
is managed by the same folks as the original RBL. If you were using the
DUL listing as well, you never would have seen it...
$ rblcheck 209.30.74.44
209.30.74.44 not RBL filtered by rbl.maps.vix.com
209.30.74.44 RBL filtered by dul.maps.vix.com
209.30.74.44 not RBL filtered by relays.orbs.org
[...snip...]
> How does one check?
Snag a copy of rblcheck; makes these kind of lookups very easy:
http://www.xnet.com/~emarshal/rblcheck/
(And yes, I'll hopefully have a new release out soon. Working for a living
and hobbies of any kind don't seem to mix well... ;-)
--
Edward S. Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ What goes up, must come down. ]
http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ [ Ask any system administrator. ]
Hi,
I have just setup qmail for my ISP server, I have got my DNS and MX
everything setup properly. But most of my clients are getting bounced
message when they send to other addresses around the world.
This is the content of the bounced message,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Connected to 206.31.56.7 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 501 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must exist
This is just a copy lot of my clients are getting this and out side users
also can not send the email to our address.
Pls somebody give us the reason for this.
Warm Regards,
Ran
look at faq 5.4, about allow relay messages
marco leeflang
Ranjan Koirala wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just setup qmail for my ISP server, I have got my DNS and MX
> everything setup properly. But most of my clients are getting bounced
> message when they send to other addresses around the world.
>
> This is the content of the bounced message,
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Connected to 206.31.56.7 but sender was rejected.
> Remote host said: 501 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must exist
>
> This is just a copy lot of my clients are getting this and out side users
> also can not send the email to our address.
>
> Pls somebody give us the reason for this.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Ran
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 09:45:23PM +0500, Ranjan Koirala wrote:
Hi,
This is likely a DNS Problem.
Goto www.domtools.com/
Look for "dlint" and try dlint from that site.
See if your domainname resolves correctly from the outside world.
See if it resolves reverse from that site.
Just a guess
Jacob
> I have just setup qmail for my ISP server, I have got my DNS and MX
> everything setup properly. But most of my clients are getting bounced
> message when they send to other addresses around the world.
>
> This is the content of the bounced message,
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Connected to 206.31.56.7 but sender was rejected.
> Remote host said: 501 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must exist
>
> This is just a copy lot of my clients are getting this and out side users
> also can not send the email to our address.
>
> Pls somebody give us the reason for this.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Ran
--
Though one were to live a hundred years lazy and effortless, the
life of a single day is better if one makes a real effort. 112
> look at faq 5.4, about allow relay messages
> > Remote host said: 501 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must exist
Another possibility could be a reverse look up failure. Some SMTP clients
insist on a valid sender domain.
--pgm
P G Mohanan
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:52:00AM -0400, Curtis Generous wrote:
> Are you using MAILDIR format on the mailboxes? or are you using standard
Maidir of course.
Rani
Some of our clients use ETRN to get their mail. I'm wondering what are my
choices of solutions to implement this feature into qmail. The only thing I
have found is at http://defiant.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/qmail-etrn/. Is
anyone using this? If so, how's it working for you?
Any and all solutions are appreciated.
Thanks.
John
Some of our clients use ETRN to get their mail. I'm wondering what are my
choices of solutions to implement this feature into qmail. The only thing I
have found is at http://defiant.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/qmail-etrn/. Is
anyone using this? If so, how's it working for you?
Any and all solutions are appreciated.
Thanks.
John
addendum:
The services they use are MS Exchange, or the interjet, etc..
I'm running qmail on Redhat 6.0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Some of our clients use ETRN to get their mail. I'm wondering what are my
> choices of solutions to implement this feature into qmail. The only thing I
> have found is at http://defiant.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/qmail-etrn/. Is
> anyone using this? If so, how's it working for you?
>
> Any and all solutions are appreciated.
The final long-term solution is to get your clients to use an alternative
mail arrangement. ETRN is a solution in search of a problem. Even though
someone is maintaining ETRN workaround and hacks right now does not mean
that this will always be that way. If your clients do not have a permanent
Internet connection, they should use a more appropriate protocol than SMTP
in order to download their mail.
--
Sam
Recommend, please, protocol instead SMTP in such case.
Sam wrote:
> The final long-term solution is to get your clients to use an alternative
> mail arrangement. ETRN is a solution in search of a problem. Even though
> someone is maintaining ETRN workaround and hacks right now does not mean
> that this will always be that way. If your clients do not have a permanent
> Internet connection, they should use a more appropriate protocol than SMTP
> in order to download their mail.
>
> --
> Sam
--
Pashinin:OL
I think he is referring to a solution such as POP3, or IMAP accounting.
Which would be the most viable option in the absence of a stable, always-on
internet connection.
Mike Ventimiglia
Ultracom Internet Technologies
-----Original Message-----
From: Pashinin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 8:42 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: methods for ETRN
Recommend, please, protocol instead SMTP in such case.
Sam wrote:
> The final long-term solution is to get your clients to use an alternative
> mail arrangement. ETRN is a solution in search of a problem. Even though
> someone is maintaining ETRN workaround and hacks right now does not mean
> that this will always be that way. If your clients do not have a
permanent
> Internet connection, they should use a more appropriate protocol than SMTP
> in order to download their mail.
>
> --
> Sam
--
Pashinin:OL
As I think, POP3 or IMAP accounts is the best way for users,
but not for organizations.
Besides, why POP3 better SMTP for feeding large mail stream over
unstable, slow connection ?
Mike Ventimiglia wrote:
>
> I think he is referring to a solution such as POP3, or IMAP accounting.
> Which would be the most viable option in the absence of a stable, always-on
> internet connection.
>
> Mike Ventimiglia
> Ultracom Internet Technologies
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pashinin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 8:42 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: methods for ETRN
>
> Recommend, please, protocol instead SMTP in such case.
--
Pashinin:OL
Organizations that incur a large mail stream, shouldn't be relying on a
slow, unstable connection. If they are trapped with this kind of
connectivity, POP3 and IMAP accounts on a remote mail server was the option
I was referring to- for the simple fact that mail server administration
would be hell under such bandwidth squeeze.
Mike Ventimiglia
Ultracom Internet Technologies
-----Original Message-----
From: Pashinin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 9:11 PM
To: Mike Ventimiglia
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: methods for ETRN
As I think, POP3 or IMAP accounts is the best way for users,
but not for organizations.
Besides, why POP3 better SMTP for feeding large mail stream over
unstable, slow connection ?
Mike Ventimiglia wrote:
>
> I think he is referring to a solution such as POP3, or IMAP accounting.
> Which would be the most viable option in the absence of a stable,
always-on
> internet connection.
>
> Mike Ventimiglia
> Ultracom Internet Technologies
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pashinin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 8:42 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: methods for ETRN
>
> Recommend, please, protocol instead SMTP in such case.
--
Pashinin:OL
Pashinin writes:
> Recommend, please, protocol instead SMTP in such case.
UUCP.
--
Sam
Pashinin writes:
>
> As I think, POP3 or IMAP accounts is the best way for users,
> but not for organizations.
> Besides, why POP3 better SMTP for feeding large mail stream over
> unstable, slow connection ?
No kind of mail stream should be fed over an unstable, slow connection.
If you want reliable mail delivery, use a permanent, reliable transport,
and run SMTP on top of it.
If you have part time connectivity, use any kind of a part time mail
transfer protocol, such as POP3, IMAP, or UUCP.
--
Sam
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Sam wrote:
> If you have part time connectivity, use any kind of a part time mail
> transfer protocol, such as POP3, IMAP, or UUCP.
Or QMTP. I think serialmail does the right thing.
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon
Hello All,
Since I didn't get a reply back with this msg, I thought I would try again :)
With the help of Ken Jones at inter7.com, I have qmail running on a
slightly faster pent-133 (as opposed to a pent-100), and things are working
well, however, how fast should an SMTP connection take to this box (it has
a static IP which is part of our companys class C), and runs NAT via
IPchains, smtp/pop3 via qmail v1.03, sshd 1.1.27, samba, etc...to send a mail
message takes on average (since this morning) about 20 seconds, and then it
is gone...running tcpserver with -H -R, there is a caching DNS server running
on the pent-133, and lookups go quite fast (IMO), and UUnet handles our DNS
table...Any ideas guys?
Or a better question is how long should an SMTP connection take to form on
machine which IP address range is in 192.168.3.x (and that range is listed
in tcp.smtp.cdb)...<blink>
-Bill
You need to clarify the problem here. When you say it takes 20 seconds to
send a message, do you mean that it takes 20 seconds from the time you send
a message to the time it arrives somewhere else? Do you mean that you're
watching the logs and it takes qmail 20 seconds to process the message? Do
you mean that it takes qmail-smtpd 20 seconds to respond with a prompt when
you "telnet hostname 25"? Or something else entirely?
Assuming network connectivity is good, DNS is working fine, etc., a Pentium
class machine should process mail pretty quickly as long as it's not
swapping or anything. Have you investigated to see what exactly the machine
is doing in these 20 seconds?
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: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon 25 Oct 1999 13.01
Subject: SMTP connections
> Hello All,
>
> Since I didn't get a reply back with this msg, I thought I would try again
:)
>
> With the help of Ken Jones at inter7.com, I have qmail running on a
> slightly faster pent-133 (as opposed to a pent-100), and things are
working
> well, however, how fast should an SMTP connection take to this box (it has
> a static IP which is part of our companys class C), and runs NAT via
> IPchains, smtp/pop3 via qmail v1.03, sshd 1.1.27, samba, etc...to send a
mail
> message takes on average (since this morning) about 20 seconds, and then
it
> is gone...running tcpserver with -H -R, there is a caching DNS server
running
> on the pent-133, and lookups go quite fast (IMO), and UUnet handles our
DNS
> table...Any ideas guys?
>
> Or a better question is how long should an SMTP connection take to form on
> machine which IP address range is in 192.168.3.x (and that range is listed
> in tcp.smtp.cdb)...<blink>
>
> -Bill
>
>
Is anyone doing Qmail authentication for POP over SSL to
an LDAP server?
If so, do you mind sharing your thoughts?
Thanks.
Eric
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 06:09:42PM -0500, eric wrote:
> Is anyone doing Qmail authentication for POP over SSL to
> an LDAP server?
>
> If so, do you mind sharing your thoughts?
Take a look at stunnel
http://mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel/
--
magnus
-- MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
Eric Dahnke wrote:
>
> 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
"talk" is as least as old as SMTP. Did the appearance of
the telephone eliminate the postal service? Hardly.
_______________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enough already, Noam Chomsky for president
I recall at least a couple of people who were having trouble with the
getting the Maildir-patched pine-4.10 to work, so I thought I'd forward
this insight from Larry.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:22:43 -0400
From: Larry Morley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PINE Patched Source
James -
By George, I think I've got it!
Once I removed the mbox directory from any users $HOME (~/mbox),
everything started working correctly. The answer seems to be:
(mbox2maildir.pl; rm -rf mbox) (of course, you'd probably want to
make sure step 0 worked before going on to step 1 :( )
Upon inspection of the source, this is what is supposed to happen
if drivers are used (mbox first, then something-else-I-can't-recall,
etc.).
Cavetat emptor (programmerus?)
Thanks again,
Larry Morley
James Smallacombe wrote:
>
> You're the third person that's mentioned this problem to me, and I have
> yet to figure out what's happened. If works fine for me using
>
> $HOME/Maildir
>
> in my pine config, so I can only think of 2 things:
>
> 1: maybe your global /usr/local/lib/pine.conf is overriding your .pinerc
>
> 2: check your MAIL envronmental variable. It should look like this:
>
> [richard2 james james]$ echo $MAIL
> /usr/home/james/Maildir
>
> This worked for me no problem on both Sparc Solaris 2.6 and FreeBSD 3.2.
> If you find the solution, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Larry Morley wrote:
>
> > Hi James -
> >
> > Thanks for posting the patched source. One problem though. On Solaris
> > 7, messages find there way to ~/Maildir fine. And, pine (from the
> > patched source you posted) can read old pine messages in mbox.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I can't for love or money get the thing to read from
> > Maildir. I tried (in pine setup) specifying $HOME/Maildir, ~/Maildir,
> > /export/home/whoever/maildir - everything I could think of. The best
> > I get from PINE is "Maildir - not a selectable folder." (or something
> > very similar). Even tried leaving the inbox-path set to it's default.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Larry Morley
> >
Hi all:
Has anyone performanced a webmail powered by qmail?
Now I want to programme a webmail system with qmail,
which supports virtuldoamins.
anyone have some ready-mode examples for me?
or give some advice about the interface of web to Maildir.
thanks
Akai
--
Song Kaicheng
http://www.1stChina.com/
ICQ:16229085
We are currently migrating a Windows NT based webmail system, to use with
software.com's WebEdge product to interact with qmail-pop3d under a Solaris
enviroment. Only draw back WebEdge was built with an IMAP accounting
structure, so with POP3 you lose some functionality.
Mike Ventimiglia
Ultracom Internet Technologies
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 9:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: webmail
Hi all:
Has anyone performanced a webmail powered by qmail?
Now I want to programme a webmail system with qmail,
which supports virtuldoamins.
anyone have some ready-mode examples for me?
or give some advice about the interface of web to Maildir.
thanks
Akai
--
Song Kaicheng
http://www.1stChina.com/
ICQ:16229085
bin/mail on osf5 / DU5.0 / Compaq trucluster64.
tru64 binmail cannot take the -f switch, as -f means something
different here than it means to the system 7 syntax as given
in all the /var/qmail/boot examples.
I have determined that I can get a successful qmail delivery
using OS-proved /bin/mail with this /var/qmail/rc file:
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using binmail to deliver messages to /var/spool/mail/$USER by default.
# on tru64 bin/mail, -f is a switch to specify an alternate mbox file
# so use -d only
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start \
'|preline -f /bin/mail -d "$USER"' \
splogger qmail
_______________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enough already, Noam Chomsky for president
Hi all!,
I'm getting this message in the syslog. It seems that that file is
missing, because I've checked in the queue/local/16/ and didn't find
it. Any idea how to stop qmail to try sending this message?.
I've checked with qmail-sanity and worked just fine (nothing wrong
in the queue?).
Thanks!
Oct 26 01:04:33 babel qmail: 940910673.947932 warning: trouble
opening local/16/
143559; will try again later
Oct 26 01:06:37 babel qmail: 940910797.949124 warning: trouble
opening local/16/
143559; will try again late
Best regards,
Martin Paulucci
http://www.ServiRED.COM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
VoiceMail/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
Does the file exist?
Have the permissions changed on it?
Has the queue been moved?
Has qmail been recompiled/installed with different uids?
Has the path to the queue changed permissions in some way?
Do other local mails get delivered correctly, or is it all local mails?
At 01:09 AM 10/26/99 -0003, Martin Paulucci wrote:
>Hi all!,
>I'm getting this message in the syslog. It seems that that file is
>missing, because I've checked in the queue/local/16/ and didn't find
>it. Any idea how to stop qmail to try sending this message?.
>I've checked with qmail-sanity and worked just fine (nothing wrong
>in the queue?).
>
>Thanks!
>
>Oct 26 01:04:33 babel qmail: 940910673.947932 warning: trouble
>opening local/16/
>143559; will try again later
>Oct 26 01:06:37 babel qmail: 940910797.949124 warning: trouble
>opening local/16/
>143559; will try again late
>Best regards,
>
>Martin Paulucci
>http://www.ServiRED.COM
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
>VoiceMail/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
>
>
