qmail Digest 8 Nov 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 814
Topics (messages 32598 through 32645):
Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
32598 by: J�rgen Skogstad
32599 by: J�rgen Skogstad
32602 by: Chris Johnson
32604 by: J�rgen Skogstad
32611 by: ari.doctordata.com.br
32612 by: ari.doctordata.com.br
32619 by: Chris Johnson
32644 by: Paul Gregg
Can't access localmail
32600 by: Subba Rao
32607 by: Marco Leeflang
Re: silly question? maybe...
32601 by: harold.nb.com.sg ()
Re: Usage of /var/qmail/users/assign
32603 by: Joerg Lenneis
Qmail .qmail file.
32605 by: Bob ross
qmail remote delivery logic
32606 by: Jim B
32608 by: Russell Nelson
32609 by: Sam
32610 by: Jeff Hayward
32613 by: Eric Dahnke
32614 by: Russell Nelson
32615 by: Russell Nelson
32616 by: Jim B
32620 by: Sam
32621 by: Russell Nelson
32624 by: Jason Haar
32625 by: Andy Bradford
32630 by: James J. Lippard
32631 by: Fred Lindberg
32632 by: Andy Bradford
32633 by: Jason Haar
32634 by: Sam
32638 by: Bruce Guenter
32639 by: Fred Lindberg
32640 by: Bruce Guenter
32641 by: Fred Lindberg
Filter using "FROM:"
32617 by: Andres Mendez
32618 by: Chris Johnson
Allow only certian domains or emails
32622 by: Bob ross
32642 by: Magnus Bodin
date stamps
32623 by: Keith Warno
32635 by: Sam
Qmail on a firewall?
32626 by: John R. Dunning
32629 by: Chris Johnson
32643 by: Robin Bowes
Queue details
32627 by: Jim Gilliver
32628 by: Chris Johnson
Re: ezmlm problem
32636 by: Todd A. Jacobs
Re: Forwarding Root email
32637 by: Todd A. Jacobs
Fixing time from clients?
32645 by: Petr Novotny
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindest,
I am having some problems with the setup provided
from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
mailbox;
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.322851 new msg 708801
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.323160 info msg 708801: =
bytes 822 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4445 uid 7791
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334169 starting delivery 5: =
msg 708801 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334456 status: local 1/10 =
remote 0/20
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366126 delivery 5: failure: =
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366417 status: local 0/10 =
remote 0/20
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.386940 bounce msg 708801 qp =
4448
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.388313 end msg 708801
However.. all seems to be in order;
enterprise:/var/qmail# more users/assign=20
=3Dtest-net-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/test:::
enterprise:/var/qmail#=20
Beneath are the permissions on the various dirs and
files;
enterprise:/var/qmail# ls -l
total 10
drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:25 alias
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:14 bin
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 boot
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:20 control
drwxr-xr-x 3 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:31 doc
drwxr-xr-x 10 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 man
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:18 popboxes
drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 queue
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 204 Nov 7 00:57 rc
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:10 users
enterprise:/var/qmail# =20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes# ls -l
total 1
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 test-net
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes#=20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net# ls -l
total 1
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 user
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net#=20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# ls -la
total 4
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 .
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 ..
-rwx------ 1 popuser popuser 11 Nov 7 11:20 .qmail
drwx------ 2 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 Maildir
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# more .qmail=20
./Maildir/
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
What have I done wrong?? Can anyone point out why this is
not working. I am trying to get support for multiple pop3
boxes without having to set up individual user accounts on
this system.
I have changed the domain name and user.. so test.net is
not the correct domain.. however; all mail delivery worked
fine before I begun to implement this.=20
Would apriciate any input!
Have a real nice weekend..
Kindest,
J=F8rgen
Kindest,
I am having some problems with the setup provided
from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
mailbox;
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.322851 new msg 708801
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.323160 info msg 708801: =
bytes 822 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4445 uid 7791
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334169 starting delivery 5: =
msg 708801 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334456 status: local 1/10 =
remote 0/20
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366126 delivery 5: failure: =
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366417 status: local 0/10 =
remote 0/20
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.386940 bounce msg 708801 qp =
4448
Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.388313 end msg 708801
However.. all seems to be in order;
enterprise:/var/qmail# more users/assign=20
=3Dtest-net-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/test:::
enterprise:/var/qmail#=20
Beneath are the permissions on the various dirs and
files;
enterprise:/var/qmail# ls -l
total 10
drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:25 alias
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:14 bin
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 boot
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:20 control
drwxr-xr-x 3 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:31 doc
drwxr-xr-x 10 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 man
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:18 popboxes
drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 queue
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 204 Nov 7 00:57 rc
drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:10 users
enterprise:/var/qmail# =20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes# ls -l
total 1
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 test-net
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes#=20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net# ls -l
total 1
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 user
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net#=20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# ls -la
total 4
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 .
drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 ..
-rwx------ 1 popuser popuser 11 Nov 7 11:20 .qmail
drwx------ 2 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 Maildir
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# more .qmail=20
./Maildir/
enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
What have I done wrong?? Can anyone point out why this is
not working. I am trying to get support for multiple pop3
boxes without having to set up individual user accounts on
this system.
I have changed the domain name and user.. so test.net is
not the correct domain.. however; all mail delivery worked
fine before I begun to implement this.=20
Would apriciate any input!
Have a real nice weekend..
Kindest,
J=F8rgen
What's in control/virtualdomains?
Chris
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:06:34PM +0100, J�rgen Skogstad wrote:
>
> Kindest,
>
> I am having some problems with the setup provided
> from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
> trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
> mailbox;
>
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.322851 new msg 708801
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.323160 info msg 708801: =
> bytes 822 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4445 uid 7791
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334169 starting delivery 5: =
> msg 708801 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334456 status: local 1/10 =
> remote 0/20
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366126 delivery 5: failure: =
> Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366417 status: local 0/10 =
> remote 0/20
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.386940 bounce msg 708801 qp =
> 4448
> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.388313 end msg 708801
>
> However.. all seems to be in order;
>
> enterprise:/var/qmail# more users/assign=20
> =3Dtest-net-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/test:::
> enterprise:/var/qmail#=20
>
> Beneath are the permissions on the various dirs and
> files;
>
> enterprise:/var/qmail# ls -l
> total 10
> drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:25 alias
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:14 bin
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 boot
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:20 control
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:31 doc
> drwxr-xr-x 10 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 man
> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:18 popboxes
> drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 queue
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 204 Nov 7 00:57 rc
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:10 users
> enterprise:/var/qmail# =20
>
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes# ls -l
> total 1
> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 test-net
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes#=20
>
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net# ls -l
> total 1
> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 user
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net#=20
>
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# ls -la
> total 4
> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 .
> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 ..
> -rwx------ 1 popuser popuser 11 Nov 7 11:20 .qmail
> drwx------ 2 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 Maildir
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# more .qmail=20
> ./Maildir/
> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>
> What have I done wrong?? Can anyone point out why this is
> not working. I am trying to get support for multiple pop3
> boxes without having to set up individual user accounts on
> this system.
>
> I have changed the domain name and user.. so test.net is
> not the correct domain.. however; all mail delivery worked
> fine before I begun to implement this.=20
>
> Would apriciate any input!
>
> Have a real nice weekend..
Hi there Chris..
Here's what I have in my control/virtualdomains file;
enterprise:/var/qmail/control# more virtualdomains
test.net:test-net
enterprise:/var/qmail/control#
.. not sure if the way I start qmail has anything to do
with this?? Shouldn't be, but here is the content of that
rc file;
enterprise:/var/qmail# more rc
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
enterprise:/var/qmail#
Have any idea as to what may be done to get this up and
running??!
Thanks alot ... ;)
Kindest,
J�rgen
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Til: J�rgen Skogstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kopi: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dato: 7. november 1999 14:06
Emne: Re: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
>What's in control/virtualdomains?
>
>Chris
>
>On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:06:34PM +0100, J�rgen Skogstad wrote:
>>
>> Kindest,
>>
>> I am having some problems with the setup provided
>> from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
>> trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
>> mailbox;
>>
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.322851 new msg 708801
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.323160 info msg 708801: =
>> bytes 822 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4445 uid 7791
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334169 starting delivery 5: =
>> msg 708801 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334456 status: local 1/10 =
>> remote 0/20
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366126 delivery 5: failure: =
>> Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366417 status: local 0/10 =
>> remote 0/20
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.386940 bounce msg 708801 qp =
>> 4448
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.388313 end msg 708801
>>
>> However.. all seems to be in order;
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# more users/assign=20
>> =3Dtest-net-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/test:::
>> enterprise:/var/qmail#=20
>>
>> Beneath are the permissions on the various dirs and
>> files;
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# ls -l
>> total 10
>> drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:25 alias
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:14 bin
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 boot
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:20 control
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:31 doc
>> drwxr-xr-x 10 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 man
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:18 popboxes
>> drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 queue
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 204 Nov 7 00:57 rc
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:10 users
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# =20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes# ls -l
>> total 1
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 test-net
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net# ls -l
>> total 1
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 user
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# ls -la
>> total 4
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 .
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 ..
>> -rwx------ 1 popuser popuser 11 Nov 7 11:20 .qmail
>> drwx------ 2 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 Maildir
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# more .qmail=20
>> ./Maildir/
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>>
>> What have I done wrong?? Can anyone point out why this is
>> not working. I am trying to get support for multiple pop3
>> boxes without having to set up individual user accounts on
>> this system.
>>
>> I have changed the domain name and user.. so test.net is
>> not the correct domain.. however; all mail delivery worked
>> fine before I begun to implement this.=20
>>
>> Would apriciate any input!
>>
>> Have a real nice weekend..
>
Hi,
I think the wrong is in the .qmail file, the correct is
/Maildir/
not
./Maildir/
Check also if the uid and gid of popuser is 888.
Best regards,
Ari
----Mensagem Original----
De : "J=F8rgen Skogstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assunto : SV: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
Hi there Chris..
Here's what I have in my control/virtualdomains file;
enterprise:/var/qmail/control# more virtualdomains
test.net:test-net
enterprise:/var/qmail/control#
.. not sure if the way I start qmail has anything to do
with this?? Shouldn't be, but here is the content of that
rc file;
enterprise:/var/qmail# more rc
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
enterprise:/var/qmail#
Have any idea as to what may be done to get this up and
running??!
Thanks alot ... ;)
Kindest,
J�rgen
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Til: J�rgen Skogstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kopi: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dato: 7. november 1999 14:06
Emne: Re: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
>What's in control/virtualdomains?
>
>Chris
>
>On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:06:34PM +0100, J�rgen Skogstad wrote:
>>
>> Kindest,
>>
>> I am having some problems with the setup provided
>> from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
>> trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
>> mailbox;
>>
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.322851 new msg 708801
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.323160 info msg 708801: =
>> bytes 822 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4445 uid 7791
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334169 starting delivery 5: =
>> msg 708801 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334456 status: local 1/10 =
>> remote 0/20
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366126 delivery 5: failure: =
>> Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366417 status: local 0/10 =
>> remote 0/20
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.386940 bounce msg 708801 qp =
>> 4448
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.388313 end msg 708801
>>
>> However.. all seems to be in order;
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# more users/assign=20
>> =3Dtest-net-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/test:::
>> enterprise:/var/qmail#=20
>>
>> Beneath are the permissions on the various dirs and
>> files;
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# ls -l
>> total 10
>> drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:25 alias
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:14 bin
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 boot
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:20 control
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:31 doc
>> drwxr-xr-x 10 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 man
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:18 popboxes
>> drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 queue
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 204 Nov 7 00:57 rc
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:10 users
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# =20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes# ls -l
>> total 1
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 test-net
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net# ls -l
>> total 1
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 user
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# ls -la
>> total 4
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 .
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 ..
>> -rwx------ 1 popuser popuser 11 Nov 7 11:20 .qmail
>> drwx------ 2 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 Maildir
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# more .qmail=20
>> ./Maildir/
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>>
>> What have I done wrong?? Can anyone point out why this is
>> not working. I am trying to get support for multiple pop3
>> boxes without having to set up individual user accounts on
>> this system.
>>
>> I have changed the domain name and user.. so test.net is
>> not the correct domain.. however; all mail delivery worked
>> fine before I begun to implement this.=20
>>
>> Would apriciate any input!
>>
>> Have a real nice weekend..
>
Sorry,
/Maildir/
----Mensagem Original----
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assunto : RE: SV: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
Hi,
I think the wrong is in the .qmail file, the correct is
/Maildir/
not
./Maildir/
Check also if the uid and gid of popuser is 888.
Best regards,
Ari
----Mensagem Original----
De : "J=F8rgen Skogstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assunto : SV: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
Hi there Chris..
Here's what I have in my control/virtualdomains file;
enterprise:/var/qmail/control# more virtualdomains
test.net:test-net
enterprise:/var/qmail/control#
.. not sure if the way I start qmail has anything to do
with this?? Shouldn't be, but here is the content of that
rc file;
enterprise:/var/qmail# more rc
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
enterprise:/var/qmail#
Have any idea as to what may be done to get this up and
running??!
Thanks alot ... ;)
Kindest,
J�rgen
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Til: J�rgen Skogstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kopi: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dato: 7. november 1999 14:06
Emne: Re: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
>What's in control/virtualdomains?
>
>Chris
>
>On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:06:34PM +0100, J�rgen Skogstad wrote:
>>
>> Kindest,
>>
>> I am having some problems with the setup provided
>> from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
>> trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
>> mailbox;
>>
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.322851 new msg 708801
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.323160 info msg 708801: =
>> bytes 822 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4445 uid 7791
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334169 starting delivery 5: =
>> msg 708801 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.334456 status: local 1/10 =
>> remote 0/20
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366126 delivery 5: failure: =
>> Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.366417 status: local 0/10 =
>> remote 0/20
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.386940 bounce msg 708801 qp =
>> 4448
>> Nov 7 11:20:53 enterprise qmail: 941970053.388313 end msg 708801
>>
>> However.. all seems to be in order;
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# more users/assign=20
>> =3Dtest-net-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/test:::
>> enterprise:/var/qmail#=20
>>
>> Beneath are the permissions on the various dirs and
>> files;
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# ls -l
>> total 10
>> drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:25 alias
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 00:14 bin
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 boot
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:20 control
>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:31 doc
>> drwxr-xr-x 10 root qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 man
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:18 popboxes
>> drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 1024 Nov 6 20:19 queue
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 204 Nov 7 00:57 rc
>> drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1024 Nov 7 10:10 users
>> enterprise:/var/qmail# =20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes# ls -l
>> total 1
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 test-net
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net# ls -l
>> total 1
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 user
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# ls -la
>> total 4
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:20 .
>> drwx------ 3 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 ..
>> -rwx------ 1 popuser popuser 11 Nov 7 11:20 .qmail
>> drwx------ 2 popuser popuser 1024 Nov 7 11:19 Maildir
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>>
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user# more .qmail=20
>> ./Maildir/
>> enterprise:/var/qmail/popboxes/test-net/user#=20
>>
>> What have I done wrong?? Can anyone point out why this is
>> not working. I am trying to get support for multiple pop3
>> boxes without having to set up individual user accounts on
>> this system.
>>
>> I have changed the domain name and user.. so test.net is
>> not the correct domain.. however; all mail delivery worked
>> fine before I begun to implement this.=20
>>
>> Would apriciate any input!
>>
>> Have a real nice weekend..
>
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:41:39PM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think the wrong is in the .qmail file, the correct is
> /Maildir/
>
> not
>
> ./Maildir/
No, it's ./Maildir/
Chris
Sounds like you have test.com in control/locals
Make sure there is nothing in control/locals - this file denotes domains which
are handled by system useraccounts.
Paul.
J�rgen Skogstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kindest,
> I am having some problems with the setup provided
> from Paul Greg. I get these errors in the log when
> trying to get incoming mail routed to the users
> mailbox;
--
Email pgregg at tibus.net | T: +44 (0) 1232 424190 | CLUB24 INTERNET |
Technical Director | F: +44 (0) 1232 424709 | Free Access |
The Internet Business Ltd | W: http://www.tibus.net | www.club24.co.uk |
Hello,
I am trying to access my mailbox on one of my Linux systems. I had installed
Qmail on it and later decided to move back to Sendmail. At first, all qmail
related material was deleted and later I went as far as reinstalling Linux.
The /home is on a different partition so the user data was secure. I use
ELM and MUTT. I have removed all references to Qmail from /home/users
directories.
I can't access any mail for the local user. The mailbox seems to get it,
but when I use mail, elm or mutt, it system seems to be looking in ~/Maildir,
which is a Qmail scheme of the mailbox. Please keep in mind this is a new
installation.
================= System where Qmail was deleted ======================
---Mutt: (no mailbox) [Msgs:0]---(date/date)----------------------(all)---
/root/Maildir: No such file or directory (errno = 2)
Mailbox is '~/Maildir' with 0 messages [ELM 2.4 PL25]
===================================================================
This is a different system which is running sendmail. Qmail was not installed
on this system. The output from MUTT and ELM go the /var/spool/mail/user.
================= Differenet System with Sendmail =====================
---Mutt: /var/spool/mail/root [Msgs:0]---(date/date)--------------(all)---
Mailbox is '/var/spool/mail/root' with 0 messages [ELM 2.4 PL25]
==================================================================
Does anyone have an idea, why my 1st system is going back to ~/Maildir?
Any help is appreciated. I want to be able to read my local mail.
Thank you in advance.
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================================================
Disclaimer - I question and speak for myself.
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
______________________________________________________________
are there .qmail files in the homedirs ????
marco leeflang
Subba Rao wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to access my mailbox on one of my Linux systems. I had installed
> Qmail on it and later decided to move back to Sendmail. At first, all qmail
> related material was deleted and later I went as far as reinstalling Linux.
> The /home is on a different partition so the user data was secure. I use
> ELM and MUTT. I have removed all references to Qmail from /home/users
> directories.
>
> I can't access any mail for the local user. The mailbox seems to get it,
> but when I use mail, elm or mutt, it system seems to be looking in ~/Maildir,
> which is a Qmail scheme of the mailbox. Please keep in mind this is a new
> installation.
>
> ================= System where Qmail was deleted ======================
>
> ---Mutt: (no mailbox) [Msgs:0]---(date/date)----------------------(all)---
> /root/Maildir: No such file or directory (errno = 2)
>
> Mailbox is '~/Maildir' with 0 messages [ELM 2.4 PL25]
>
> ===================================================================
>
> This is a different system which is running sendmail. Qmail was not installed
> on this system. The output from MUTT and ELM go the /var/spool/mail/user.
>
> ================= Differenet System with Sendmail =====================
>
> ---Mutt: /var/spool/mail/root [Msgs:0]---(date/date)--------------(all)---
>
> Mailbox is '/var/spool/mail/root' with 0 messages [ELM 2.4 PL25]
>
> ==================================================================
>
> Does anyone have an idea, why my 1st system is going back to ~/Maildir?
> Any help is appreciated. I want to be able to read my local mail.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Subba Rao
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==============================================================
> Disclaimer - I question and speak for myself.
>
> http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
> ______________________________________________________________
dd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: hi
: errm, why does qmail let EVERY user has his/her own mailing list (the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] thing i mean). whatif every user creates a mailing
: list and floods the server with thousands of mail this way? is there a way
: to prevent this?
What if the user decides to send thousands of messages and thousands
of people decide to send him thousands of messages? This is not
fundamentally different than running a mailing list.
That aside, you can always disable extension addresses. man
qmail-users.
-harold
Todd A Jacobs:
> I'm not 100% sure I understand the difference in intended usage between
> setting up a ~/alias/.qmail-whatever file and setting up a virtual user in
> /var/qmail/users/assign. As far as I can tell, the former uses forwarding,
> whereas the latter is acting like a true alias.
> Am I understanding this correctly? If so, what are the practical
> implications? They seem almost interchangeable to me.
For the usage you describe, they really do the same thing except that
with the ~/alias/.qmail-whatever mechanism delivery happens twice,
once to the user alias and once to the address in
~/alias/.qmail-whatever. Using assign gives you additional options
though, like running delivery using a specified user/group id in a
directory and with a .qmail-xyz of your choice. This can be quite
handy, I used it for instance to do deliveries for a Cyrus IMAP
Server.
One crucial difference would also be performance on a highly loaded
mailserver with lots of aliases. Delivery using
~/alias/.qmail-whatever requires a scan of the ~/alias/ directory
which can be costly depending on the file system implementation. The
lookup for addresses in /var/qmail/users/assign is done via a hash
table and therefore much faster.
--
Joerg Lenneis
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
I have a question and have never seen it asked or
answered.
I would like to set up a filter in the .qmail file
that is in every user /home/userdir on my system.
I use a badmailfrom filter for the spam that each
user maintains, but I would like to setup a filter to only allow mail from
certian domains or users in a allowfrom file. Should be the oposite of
denyfrom but me not knowing programing for qmail have been hitting a lot of dead
ends.
any help would be great.
Thanks in advance.
Bob Ross
|
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
multiple RCPT TOs?
I just spotted it the other day and meant to go back and read it, and now I
can't find it in the man pages, in the FAQ, on DJB's site, etc. etc....
Thanks much! Please CC replies to me directly as I'm no longer subscribed
to the list. :)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Jim B writes:
> Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
> would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
> with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
> multiple RCPT TOs?
Because it's faster.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Russell Nelson writes:
> Jim B writes:
> > Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
> > would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
> > with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
> > multiple RCPT TOs?
>
> Because it's faster.
Only under certain conditions. Try sending a 1 MB attachment to a dozen
recipients.
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Because it's faster.
For the average message... :-)
-- Jeff
Could someone explain how qmail manages to be faster for average msgs. I
can't see how it would be.
- Eric
Jeff Hayward escribi�:
>
> On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Because it's faster.
>
> For the average message... :-)
>
> -- Jeff
>
Sam writes:
> Russell Nelson writes:
>
> > Jim B writes:
> > > Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
> > > would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
> > > with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
> > > multiple RCPT TOs?
> >
> > Because it's faster.
>
> Only under certain conditions. Try sending a 1 MB attachment to a dozen
> recipients.
Have you?
--
-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!
Eric Dahnke writes:
>
> Could someone explain how qmail manages to be faster for average msgs. I
> can't see how it would be.
The most-oft used MTA fiddles with hostnames while the DNS burns.
--
-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!
Ummm.. yeah thanks. But I want to know *why* it's faster.
I know there's a doc that explains 3 different methods, this being one of
them... and it shows situations why one may be preferable over the other.
Do you know what doc I'm talking about?
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jim B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: qmail remote delivery logic
> Jim B writes:
> > Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why
qmail
> > would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote
domain
> > with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
> > multiple RCPT TOs?
>
> Because it's faster.
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are
so
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank
amateur
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them.
Homeschool!
>
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Sam writes:
> > Russell Nelson writes:
> >
> > > Jim B writes:
> > > > Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
> > > > would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
> > > > with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
> > > > multiple RCPT TOs?
> > >
> > > Because it's faster.
> >
> > Only under certain conditions. Try sending a 1 MB attachment to a dozen
> > recipients.
>
> Have you?
Yes. Even off a T1, there's a measurable difference between ~10 MB and ~1
MB worth of traffic.
Sam writes:
> Yes. Even off a T1, there's a measurable difference between ~10 MB and ~1
> MB worth of traffic.
And?? Don't hold us in suspense. What was the difference in delivery
times?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 04:21:20PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Sam writes:
> > Yes. Even off a T1, there's a measurable difference between ~10 MB and ~1
> > MB worth of traffic.
>
> And?? Don't hold us in suspense. What was the difference in delivery
> times?
I was going to keep quiet but how about we all listen to someone in another
country to has to deal with "real world" speeds the rest of the world has
access to instead of all these impossible-to-believe speeds USA sites have
(that means me ;-)
We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
taking our Internet link offline for the next several hours. Qmail being the
great bandwidth chewer it is suddenly has 20 concurrent qmail-remotes
running all delivering the same Email message to 20 different people - some
of who are on the same server (i.e. hotmail.com). I've actually upped our
concurrency limit due to this "feature" of qmail. Of course another
side-effect of this is that other users mail ends up being queued as the
concurrency limit's been hit.
Fact: Sendmail would have used less bandwidth in this _specific_ situation.
In general - in our situation - sendmail and qmail are identical in
performance.
Fact: I don't care. Even with this issue - I still prefer qmail. This is a
issue I (and therefore those I work for) am willing to live with...
The reality is that I want some perfect mailer that can allow me to use
features of sendmail and qmail. And of course it's so complicated that I
screw it up at every turn. Oh yeah - that's right - I already use that -
it's called MS Exchange! ;-)
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Thus said Jason Haar on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300:
> We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
> sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
> taking our Internet link offline for the next several hours. Qmail being the
> great bandwidth chewer it is suddenly has 20 concurrent qmail-remotes
> running all delivering the same Email message to 20 different people - some
> of who are on the same server (i.e. hotmail.com). I've actually upped our
> concurrency limit due to this "feature" of qmail. Of course another
> side-effect of this is that other users mail ends up being queued as the
> concurrency limit's been hit.
Sounds like you should educate your users. They shouldn't be using SMTP at
all for sending MP3s. The standard protocol for transfering files is FTP,
not SMTP. I believe you can setup qmail to reject emails > than some
specified size.
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 15:11:29 -0700 in Andy Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus said Jason Haar on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300:
>
> > We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
> > sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
> > taking our Internet link offline for the next several hours. Qmail being the
> > great bandwidth chewer it is suddenly has 20 concurrent qmail-remotes
> > running all delivering the same Email message to 20 different people - some
> > of who are on the same server (i.e. hotmail.com). I've actually upped our
> > concurrency limit due to this "feature" of qmail. Of course another
> > side-effect of this is that other users mail ends up being queued as the
> > concurrency limit's been hit.
> Sounds like you should educate your users. They shouldn't be using SMTP at
> all for sending MP3s. The standard protocol for transfering files is FTP,
> not SMTP. I believe you can setup qmail to reject emails > than some
> specified size.
> Andy
Times are changing. Unified messaging is coming. Email, voice mail,
faxes, video mail, all will be the same thing. "User education" will
not be the answer--building the appropriate user interfaces and
designing the appropriate transport protocols will be.
Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/
Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any.
PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
>We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
>sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
[...]
>Fact: Sendmail would have used less bandwidth in this _specific_ situation.
>In general - in our situation - sendmail and qmail are identical in
>performance.
Probably, but in reality the difference would be small, unless the
friends are very clustered.
>Fact: I don't care. Even with this issue - I still prefer qmail. This is a
>issue I (and therefore those I work for) am willing to live with...
You could purchase QMTP/QMQP service for a well-connected ISP. We do
some mailing lists that way: The customer uses QMQP for the mailing
list traffic, SMTP for everything else. Fast local delivery, while the
central server shoves out list messages to 100,000 subscribers.
It shoudn't be too hard to set up qmail to at the qmail-send level (or
even qmail-queue) choose between delivery models, e.g. messages > x
bytes and/or > y recipients are handled by a separate queue or by
QMQP/QMTP to an external server. This way, your 3Mb file would be sent
exactly once with a massive saving in [local] bandwidth over sendmail,
whereas for small messages with few recipients you get qmail
performance. I'm hoping for 2.0 to do this to be more friendly to
narrow links ;-)
You could also look into QMQP over your link. I found that the
qmail-qmqpd write timeout of 60 s is too short in this situation. Any
problem at that stage, and the server will have received the message,
by the client won't know, so send it again. I know one setup where QMQP
is used from Brasil to St. Louis, AFAIK still successfully. Local
queuing would be nice. AFAIK, Bruce Guenter's nullmailer does this and
can use QMTP to the smarthosts.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Thus said "James J. Lippard" on 07 Nov 1999 17:12:54 MST:
> Times are changing. Unified messaging is coming. Email, voice mail,
> faxes, video mail, all will be the same thing. "User education" will
> not be the answer--building the appropriate user interfaces and
> designing the appropriate transport protocols will be.
Yes, and tha appropriate protocol is already in place, it's called FTP.
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:22:43PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said "James J. Lippard" on 07 Nov 1999 17:12:54 MST:
>
> > Times are changing. Unified messaging is coming. Email, voice mail,
> > faxes, video mail, all will be the same thing. "User education" will
> > not be the answer--building the appropriate user interfaces and
> > designing the appropriate transport protocols will be.
> Yes, and tha appropriate protocol is already in place, it's called FTP.
> Andy
Let's stop this thread now. I think it's a bit on the nose to tell users
that they should think before they send. As far as I'm concerned, FTP is
dead and the world is moving to nothing but HTTP and SMTP :-)
Our users send 100Mb+ messages internally over our private WAN - why
shouldn't they send that way to the Internet? [yes, yes, I know - others
have quota limits/etc. But disk is cheap - quotas never work. Users just
save everything over their quota into some other area - where it probably
isn't backed up/etc].
Anyway, all this is business decisions individual sites make. Nothing of use
for us to talk about here....
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Sam writes:
> > Yes. Even off a T1, there's a measurable difference between ~10 MB and ~1
> > MB worth of traffic.
>
> And?? Don't hold us in suspense. What was the difference in delivery
> times?
Depending upon DNS, and phases of the moon, I usually can push out a meg
in about 10-15 seconds. With ESMTP PIPELINING extension, there is no
measurable difference between having one or ten recipients per message.
Doing the Qmail way, I usually hope to get everything out the door in less
than a minute, and pray that the recipient does not implement any per-IP
concurrency limits.
This is one situation where Qmail's behavior is less than optimal.
--
Sam
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 06:20:36PM -0600, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> You could also look into QMQP over your link. [...]
> AFAIK, Bruce Guenter's nullmailer does this and
> can use QMTP to the smarthosts.
nullmailer can indeed use QMTP to smarthosts that support it, but it
explicitly has no support for local delivery. You could set up qmail
and nullmailer concurently and have qmail deliver all remote mail into a
virtual domain that calls up nullmailer to transfer it.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> nullmailer can indeed use QMTP to smarthosts that support it, but it
> explicitly has no support for local delivery. You could set up qmail
> and nullmailer concurently and have qmail deliver all remote mail into a
> virtual domain that calls up nullmailer to transfer it.
The problem would be that qmail would deliver one message per remote
recipient, so there is little gain (except QMTP < SMTP overhead). Would it
be hard to put hooks into nullmailer to support local delivery via
qmail-local?
-Sincerely, Fred
Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:13:25AM +0000, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
> > nullmailer can indeed use QMTP to smarthosts that support it, but it
> > explicitly has no support for local delivery. You could set up qmail
> > and nullmailer concurently and have qmail deliver all remote mail into a
> > virtual domain that calls up nullmailer to transfer it.
>
> The problem would be that qmail would deliver one message per remote
> recipient, so there is little gain (except QMTP < SMTP overhead).
Uh, yeah. Missed that one. OK, bad idea.
> Would it
> be hard to put hooks into nullmailer to support local delivery via
> qmail-local?
Hard, but not impossible. How would you envision such hooks?
Certainly, I am not going to add support to nullmailer to actually do
the delivery, but giving it a way to call an external program that could
is a reasonable option.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> Hard, but not impossible. How would you envision such hooks?
> Certainly, I am not going to add support to nullmailer to actually do
> the delivery, but giving it a way to call an external program that could
> is a reasonable option.
How about a simplified scheme: All mail with recipient host matching the
local host is passed to an external program for delivery. The external
program takes arguments as qmail-local (which is what I'd use). This
should be of general use for nullmailer users, since it takes care of the
needs of a small "dumb" mailhost.
Default should still be to forward everything.
Thus:
1. message queued.
2a. if -l: compare host name of envelope recipients. If same as local host
name, deliver locally with qmail-local.
2b. deliver multi-recipient message remotely (concurrent with 2a). If -l:
remove all recipients with host part matching the local host (me).
3. Generate one bounce message per local recipient. Generate pre-VERP
bounce if one of more remote recipients are not accepted.
-l controls local delivery.
envelope recipients without host/domain are extended with
defautlhost/domain before comparison. Thus, they will be delivered locally
only if defautlhost/domain match the local host name.
No DNS needed. Would work also for e.g. a local office host.
-Sincerely, Fred
Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
Hello.
My SMTP server has to work relaying everyone, so I can't stop spam checking
the IP the message comes from.
I've though that all the e-mails that my server has to process must be sent
by people whose mail ends with "redys.com".
So I want that the SMPT server stops any e-mail whose user e-mail address
does not contain "redys.com".
I've been looking for spam filters, but they all use blocking lists (of well
know spammers) or IPs. Is there any program to check this?
I use tcpserver with qmail.
Thanks.
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 09:30:32PM +0100, Andres Mendez wrote:
> My SMTP server has to work relaying everyone
Are you sure?
> so I can't stop spam checking the IP the message comes from.
>
> I've though that all the e-mails that my server has to process must be sent
> by people whose mail ends with "redys.com".
>
> So I want that the SMPT server stops any e-mail whose user e-mail address
> does not contain "redys.com".
>
> I've been looking for spam filters, but they all use blocking lists (of well
> know spammers) or IPs. Is there any program to check this?
>
> I use tcpserver with qmail.
Note that since the envelope sender on a message is trivial to forge, there's
no real security using this method. If you feel you must do this, however, this
patch will do the trick: http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html.
Chris
|
Is there a way to change this code from a user
.qmail to only allow users or domains listed in the file.
|if test -n "`fgrep -x $SENDER badmailfrom`"; then
echo Go Away;exit 99; else exit 0; fi
Thanks
Bob Ross
|
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 02:24:52PM -0700, Bob ross wrote:
> Is there a way to change this code from a user .qmail to only allow users or domains
>listed in the file.
>
> |if test -n "`fgrep -x $SENDER badmailfrom`"; then echo Go Away;exit 99; else exit
>0; fi
At this stage, I'll go for a perl oneliner:
|perl -e '($u,$d)=$ENV{SENDER}=~/(.+)?\@(.+)/;if(`grep "$d" baddomainfrom`){print "Go
|Away";exit 99}else{exit 0}'
Remember that if ross.com is in baddomainfrom, then a grep on oss.com will
also get a hit here, so I rather go for this one:
|perl -e '($u,$d)=$ENV{SENDER}=~/(.+)?\@(.+)/;if(`grep "^$d\$" baddomainfrom`){print
|"Go Away";exit 99}else{exit 0}'
(NB! no trailing whitespace wanted in the baddomainfrom here!)
If you want to make it even simpler, don't print the "Go Away" message:
|perl -e '($u,$d)=$ENV{SENDER}=~/(.+)?\@(.+)/; exit(`grep "^$d\$"
|baddomainfrom`?99:0;)'
(Note that you can modify this solution to reject on users instead although
that would be more than silly.)
/magnus
--
MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
Hi all -- excuse me if this has been discussed before. New to the list and
this is my first post! :>
My coworkers use IMAP (curse them!) for retrieving email from our
qmail-1.03-based linux box via Outlook Express 5.something. The box is
running imapd from the pine4.10 package.
In any case, at least in Outlook Express, the "received" time (the time
given in the "received" column) is in GMT. When using POP and Outlook
Express 5.something the "received" time is in EST, the way I would expect it
to be.
In the IMAP case, do ya think it's Outlook's goof? Or IMAP's goof? I doubt
it's qmail's goof, but is there a way to convince qmail to stamp incoming,
locally-delivered mail with a time in EST rather than GMT?
Try to refrain from flames -- if I were my choice, all the windoze boxes
would be put to death w/ dynamite. :>
Cheers,
kw
/*
** Keith Warno
** Make Us An Offer, Inc.
** Real-time Online Haggling
** http://www.makeusanoffer.com/
*/
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Keith Warno wrote:
> In the IMAP case, do ya think it's Outlook's goof? Or IMAP's goof? I doubt
IMAP is irrelevant.
If Outlook Distress is showing the message time without adjusting it to
local time, it is a bug in Outlook Distress.
> it's qmail's goof, but is there a way to convince qmail to stamp incoming,
> locally-delivered mail with a time in EST rather than GMT?
No. Nor there should be any reason to do so.
> Try to refrain from flames -- if I were my choice, all the windoze boxes
> would be put to death w/ dynamite. :>
No, no big deal. It's just that more and more people are refusing to make
concessions due to sloppy Win32 programming, that's all.
--
Sam
Hi all. Parts of this have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't
seen anybody describing quite this setup. I'm reconfiguring a network
to have a dedicated firewall machine, on which I want to run qmail.
But, I don't want the firewall machine reaching in to the rest of the
network to do delivery; I want it to turn around and forward any
incoming mail to the "real" mail server on the internal network. I'd
also like the reverse path for outgoing mail; the internal mail server
forwards to the one on the firewall, which takes care of getting it
out into the rest of the net.
---+ +----------+ +-----------+
| | Firewall | | Internal |
Net|----->| |-------->| Server |
| | Qmail | | Qmail |
|<-----| |<--------| |
---+ +----------+ +-----------+
If anyone can shed light on how to set this up, or point me at some
docs, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 11:25:12PM -0000, John R. Dunning wrote:
> Hi all. Parts of this have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't
> seen anybody describing quite this setup. I'm reconfiguring a network
> to have a dedicated firewall machine, on which I want to run qmail.
> But, I don't want the firewall machine reaching in to the rest of the
> network to do delivery; I want it to turn around and forward any
> incoming mail to the "real" mail server on the internal network. I'd
> also like the reverse path for outgoing mail; the internal mail server
> forwards to the one on the firewall, which takes care of getting it
> out into the rest of the net.
>
> ---+ +----------+ +-----------+
> | | Firewall | | Internal |
> Net|----->| |-------->| Server |
> | | Qmail | | Qmail |
> |<-----| |<--------| |
> ---+ +----------+ +-----------+
>
> If anyone can shed light on how to set this up, or point me at some
> docs, it would be greatly appreciated.
On the firewall, you need to list the domains for which you'd like to receive
mail in control/rcpthosts, but *not* in locals or virtualdomains. In
control/smtproutes, put:
example.com:[IP address of internal server]
anotherexample.com:[IP address if internal server]
etc, where the domains listed are the ones you listed in rcpthosts. You also
need to implement selective relaying on the firewall
(http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html) so that the internal server
can relay through it.
Set up everything normally on the internal server, and put in control/smtproutes:
:[IP address of firewall]
The internal server will forward to the firewall any mail not handled locally.
Chris
John R. Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all. Parts of this have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't
> seen anybody describing quite this setup. I'm reconfiguring a network
> to have a dedicated firewall machine, on which I want to run qmail.
> But, I don't want the firewall machine reaching in to the rest of the
> network to do delivery; I want it to turn around and forward any
> incoming mail to the "real" mail server on the internal network. I'd
> also like the reverse path for outgoing mail; the internal mail server
> forwards to the one on the firewall, which takes care of getting it
> out into the rest of the net.
>
> ---+ +----------+ +-----------+
> | | Firewall | | Internal |
> Net|----->| |-------->| Server |
> | | Qmail | | Qmail |
> |<-----| |<--------| |
> ---+ +----------+ +-----------+
>
> If anyone can shed light on how to set this up, or point me at some
> docs, it would be greatly appreciated.
John,
I have exactly this setup. I have a "mini-qmail" installation running on
the Firewall machine which uses qmqp to transfer incoming mail to the
internal server.
/var/qmail/bin contains:
$ ls -l /var/qmail/bin
total 80
drwxr-xr-x 2 root 1002 512 Nov 8 09:23 not-used
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1002 33368 Mar 12 1999 qmail-inject
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1002 12120 Mar 12 1999 qmail-qmqpc
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root 1002 11 Mar 12 1999 qmail-queue -> qmail-qmqpc
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1002 25116 Mar 12 1999 qmail-smtpd
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1002 8688 Mar 12 1999 sendmail
(I've moved all unused stuff into the not-used directory)
It's pretty easy to setup and works great. No mail is delivered locally to
the Firewall machine; it is all delivered to the Internal server machine,
even root mail.
R.
Is there a document somewhere that describes the structure and functionality
of the /var/qmail/queue directory?
I have 3 messages in the queue according to qmail-qstat, but qmail-qread
only returns info for one message. I'd like to find out why these other two
emails aren't 'complete'. I've noticed that there are files in the info dir
for the message that qmail-qread knows about, but not for the other two, so
I assume something has cocked up somewhere along the line. Unfortunately,
the logs say nothing is wrong except in the case of the first message (the
user sending the mail typed one of the recipient addresses wrong).
What I need is info on how the queue is structured, and to know if there are
any nice tools for:
(a) rejecting a message stuck in the queue when you know the address is
wrong (it should time out soon, but in this case, my user wanted to know
about it immediately)
(b) cleaning out a message that's somehow gotten corrupted, or missing
associated files in other directories (should an incoming message have a
corresponding entry in the "info" subdirectory?)
Please excuse this email if it sounds a little unstructured, but it's Monday
morning ;)
Jim
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:06:44PM +1300, Jim Gilliver wrote:
> Is there a document somewhere that describes the structure and functionality
> of the /var/qmail/queue directory?
See the INTERNALS document that's in the qmail distribution tarball.
> I have 3 messages in the queue according to qmail-qstat, but qmail-qread
> only returns info for one message. I'd like to find out why these other two
> emails aren't 'complete'. I've noticed that there are files in the info dir
> for the message that qmail-qread knows about, but not for the other two, so
> I assume something has cocked up somewhere along the line. Unfortunately,
> the logs say nothing is wrong except in the case of the first message (the
> user sending the mail typed one of the recipient addresses wrong).
>
> What I need is info on how the queue is structured, and to know if there are
> any nice tools for:
>
> (a) rejecting a message stuck in the queue when you know the address is
> wrong (it should time out soon, but in this case, my user wanted to know
> about it immediately)
I usually locate the message in /var/qmail/queue/info, and touch -t it with
some sufficiently early date. qmail will attempt one more delivery, and then
decide that it's too old and bounce it,
> (b) cleaning out a message that's somehow gotten corrupted, or missing
> associated files in other directories (should an incoming message have a
> corresponding entry in the "info" subdirectory?)
See http://www.qmail.org. There are various queue fixers there (though I don't
have any experience with any of them).
Chris
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, john wrote:
> I installed ezmlm and after finishing the installation when I tested
> like ezmlm-make command it gave me an error message file not found.
How about posting the error? My guess is that ezmlm's files aren't in your
path.
--
Todd A. Jacobs
Network Systems Engineer
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, G. Ryan Fawcett wrote:
> I was wondering if it was possible to forward root email to an out side
> address. For
echo "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ~alias/.qmail-root
--
Todd A. Jacobs
Network Systems Engineer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
on the LAN, there are a few clients which put wrong Date: RFC822
field. I would like to rewrite the date.
I already know of the RELAYCLIENT "@fixme" hack. What I would
like to know is which program should I use to re-stamp the date? It
should not touch any other header... The mailserver DOES have
NTP-synchronized time - but the clients in the LAN don't to
overcome some obscure bug in SourceSafe...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOCaoAlMwP8g7qbw/EQJDjgCbBGpYPSlp/NePWvIh9Uqg4qPbna4AoK7l
uDRJaCpOI0y3wpS/bNx27FRF
=FBDS
-----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]
