qmail Digest 9 Nov 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 815
Topics (messages 32646 through 32732):
qmail: alert: cannot start: unable to switch to
32646 by: Jean-Pierre H. Dumas
32648 by: Vince Vielhaber
Re: best way to handle postmaster
32647 by: James Raftery
Re: qmail remote delivery logic
32649 by: Dave Sill
32657 by: David Dyer-Bennet
32660 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
32665 by: Pavel Kankovsky
32672 by: Dave Sill
32686 by: Pavel Kankovsky
32691 by: Dave Sill
32694 by: Dave Sill
32701 by: David L. Nicol
32709 by: Sam
32710 by: John White
32711 by: Sam
32714 by: John White
32731 by: Steve Vertigan
Qmail with rh 6.1
32650 by: Steve Kapinos
32662 by: Andres Mendez
32664 by: Dave Sill
32667 by: Adam D . McKenna
32669 by: Dave Sill
32679 by: Steve Kapinos
32680 by: Dave Sill
32685 by: Adam D . McKenna
32690 by: Steve Kapinos
32693 by: Dave Sill
qmail training in London
32651 by: Russell Nelson
connection to port 25 from "local" hosts only
32652 by: Barbara Schelkle
32653 by: Dave Sill
32654 by: peter.allen.moon-light.co.uk
OT: guestimate of number of MTA hosts worldwide
32655 by: Eric Dahnke
qmail-pw2u fatal error?
32656 by: jennifer
Re: Removing messages from the queue (another one) - a conclusion
32658 by: Wallace Nicoll
Re: quick question re: starting with rblsmtpd
32659 by: dd
Re: Pop/Single-UID based POP3/problem
32661 by: J�rgen Skogstad
Installed Qmail on redhat 6.0 using LWQ now getting tcpserver error on boot
32663 by: Nicole & Ron McIntosh
32666 by: Dave Sill
32668 by: Nicole & Ron McIntosh
32671 by: Vince Vielhaber
DNS (SMTP/POP3)
32670 by: Bill Parker
ack oops - version typo
32673 by: Nicole & Ron McIntosh
32675 by: Dave Sill
Majordomo + Qmail
32674 by: stevenma.uc.shu.edu
32689 by: Andy Bradford
Only allow emails or domains listed
32676 by: Bob ross
Please help newbie with 2 questions
32677 by: Reuben King
32681 by: Steve Kapinos
32683 by: Peter Abplanalp
32684 by: Dave Sill
32687 by: Reuben King
32692 by: Dave Sill
32702 by: Reuben King
32703 by: Reuben King
Only Allow emails or domains from
32678 by: Bob Ross
fastforward
32682 by: Keith Warno
32688 by: Keith Warno
32697 by: Keith Warno
32698 by: Dave Sill
32705 by: Timothy L. Mayo
32708 by: Keith Warno
Re: cdb owned by root?
32695 by: Dave Sill
Re: qmail.html through publicfile
32696 by: Russell Nelson
Still getting error on startup of qmail
32699 by: Nicole & Ron McIntosh
32715 by: Andres Mendez
String replacement in binary file?
32700 by: Peter C. Norton
ANSWER OT: guestimate of number of MTA hosts worldwide
32704 by: Eric Dahnke
32706 by: schinder.leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
ignore unless memphis rpm user
32707 by: Mate Wierdl
I want to accept, but I don't want to deliver
32712 by: Jeremy Hansen
imap quota reached
32713 by: Shane Clements
Thanx for your help
32716 by: Nicole & Ron McIntosh
error deleting email
32717 by: Theodore Cekan
32718 by: Theodore Cekan
Re: Who do I mail to remove myself from this list?
32719 by: Andy Davidson
32722 by: Andy Bradford
POP3 & SMTP not working Help
32720 by: john
Cyrus+qmail: mmap() errors with big messages. .
32721 by: Christian S. Bell
Re: qmail remote delivery
32723 by: Petr Novotny
Rewriting date
32724 by: Petr Novotny
32726 by: Magnus Bodin
(Kein Betreff)
32725 by: Holger Hug
mail sdk / api required
32727 by: Holger Hug
SPAM!!!!!
32728 by: Luis Bezerra
pop locks the Mailbox
32729 by: Luis Bezerra
32730 by: Luis Bezerra
error from relay mailer
32732 by: Robin Bowes
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a POP toaster, and I did a complete backup of /
with tar. (this includes /var/qmail...)
I setup a new FreeBSD 3.2 system, minimal, on another
computer with
differing disks (one small IDE rather than a big
SCSI).
Once the new minimum system boot, I untar my previous
backup...
I reboot after adjusting the fstab, everything seems
to come OK but qmail.
I have this message (on screen during boot, and in the
/var/log/messages):
qmail: xxxxxx alert: cannot start: unable to switch to
queue directory
If I look /var/qmail looks OK to me.
What's wrong ?
What can I do ?
What should I do in the future to avoid this problem
with backed up disks.
(It has to be tar, and can be restored on volumes with
differing size)
Thank you in advance.
Jean-Pierre Dumas
P.S. I did not subscribe to the qmail list, please
cc me.
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Votre e-mail @yahoo.fr gratuit sur http://courrier.yahoo.fr
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, [iso-8859-1] Jean-Pierre H. Dumas wrote:
> I have a POP toaster, and I did a complete backup of /
> with tar. (this includes /var/qmail...)
> I setup a new FreeBSD 3.2 system, minimal, on another
> computer with
> differing disks (one small IDE rather than a big
> SCSI).
>
> Once the new minimum system boot, I untar my previous
> backup...
>
> I reboot after adjusting the fstab, everything seems
> to come OK but qmail.
> I have this message (on screen during boot, and in the
> /var/log/messages):
> qmail: xxxxxx alert: cannot start: unable to switch to
> queue directory
>
> If I look /var/qmail looks OK to me.
>
> What's wrong ?
> What can I do ?
> What should I do in the future to avoid this problem
> with backed up disks.
> (It has to be tar, and can be restored on volumes with
> differing size)
>
> Thank you in advance.
> Jean-Pierre Dumas
>
> P.S. I did not subscribe to the qmail list, please
> cc me.
How about permissions? Go to your qmail source directory and run
# make setup check
That should fix things up.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 06:10:26PM -0500, David Harris wrote:
> I just didn't want to end up ignoring any message sent by a real user to the
> postmaster address. Since they would have a real return path, they would get a
[snip]
> But setting something up sounds like too much work for too little gain, so I'll
> just /dev/null all the postmaster e-mails.
Use control/doublebouncehost and control/doublebounceto to send
double-bounce messages somewhere other than postmaster.
postmaster will then get 'real' email only, and double bounces are sent
off somewhere else to be ignored/deleted/whatever.
Regards,
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster IE Domain Registry
Preferred Contact by Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UCD Computing Services
Web: http://www.domainregistry.ie/ Computer Centre
Tel: (+353 1) 7062375 Fax: (+353 1) 7062862 Belfield, Dublin 4, IE
"Jim B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#multi-rcpt
-Dave
Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 7 November 1999 at 16:40:02 -0300
>
> Could someone explain how qmail manages to be faster for average msgs. I
> can't see how it would be.
Set up a benchmarking configuration and see. Best to use real-world
traffic streams; most people's ideas of what's "normal" don't seem to
match what really goes on very well.
There are a number of issues with sorting the queue by recipient
system. To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE. Then you have to
sort the message list, figure out which messages are the same, and
make up your rcpt-to lists. And then you probably want to limit them
to only 20 rcpt-tos, because that's what sendmail does and other
things may not handle larger lists; this drastically limits the profit
you could gain on all this work.
In a pathological case, qmail can use a lot more network bandwidth
because of the duplication of messages going to the same system. In
practice this is rarely a serious problem. Taking into account the
*decreased* DNS traffic, it's even more rarely a problem.
Finally, network bandwidth isn't something qmail tries to optimize;
it's more concerned with minimizing delivery time. As a secondary
point, it wants to minimize queue i/o bandwidth use, since that's what
a busy qmail system generally runs out of first.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Join the 20th century before it's too late! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
> In a pathological case, qmail can use a lot more network bandwidth
> because of the duplication of messages going to the same system. In
> practice this is rarely a serious problem. Taking into account the
> *decreased* DNS traffic, it's even more rarely a problem.
It depends heavily on the usage pattern of your mailserver. Generally
qmails way is the best for normal mail traffic. It's also true if you have
enough bandwith to gain faster delivery.
But there are other scenarios too. One has to think about them if it comes
to the decision which MTA to use.
I have several customers that create the "pathological case" every day and
every hour:
- small bandwith, expensive line too
- no idea about delivery lists at the receiving site
- no idea about the purpose of SMTP, never heard about FTP
- not willing to be educated
- exchange of LAAARGE files (50MB) through mail
- typically delivery to several receivers at the same destination host
For these cases qmail is a really bad choice - I agree that this is not
the typical setup most of you are familiar with, but IT IS REALITY in many
cases. Often DNS doesn't matter because all deliveries go through a
smarthost (that of course doesn't support any of qmail's features).
It's amazing how qmail haters (here in Germany) always reduced the
discussion about qmail to this special case - it may be bad discussion
style but I also think that there is more need to support this type of
setup than the "normal" qmail administrator may assume.
Regards, Frank
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
> lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE.
As opposed to the "one SMTP transaction per remote recipient" strategy
that is able to deliver messages without the need to figure out what the
recipient systems are? Intriguing. :)
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
>> lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE.
>
>As opposed to the "one SMTP transaction per remote recipient" strategy
>that is able to deliver messages without the need to figure out what the
>recipient systems are? Intriguing. :)
Say you send a message to a list of 10,000 addresses using
sendmail. What's the first thing it does? It looks up the MX for each
recipient so it can sort by MX and minimize the number of connections.
qmail, on the other hand, fires off concurrencyremote qmail-remotes
and starts delivery immediately.
I think Postfix just sorts by FQDN, so it doesn't have to do 10,000
DNS lookups before it starts delivering. But by doing that, it
potentially misses a lot of combining for different FQDN's with the
same MX.
-Dave
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> >> To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
> >> lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE.
> >
> >As opposed to the "one SMTP transaction per remote recipient" strategy
> >that is able to deliver messages without the need to figure out what the
> >recipient systems are? Intriguing. :)
>
> Say you send a message to a list of 10,000 addresses using
> sendmail. What's the first thing it does? It looks up the MX for each
> recipient so it can sort by MX and minimize the number of connections.
Indeed. But are there any EXTRA lookups done? ("Extra" is the keyword
here...read original DDB's text again.)
The answer is: NO unless the implementation is incredibly stupid.
> I think Postfix just sorts by FQDN, so it doesn't have to do 10,000
> DNS lookups before it starts delivering. But by doing that, it
> potentially misses a lot of combining for different FQDN's with the
> same MX.
"A lot" being a speculation or based on real-world data? <evil grin>
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Indeed. But are there any EXTRA lookups done? ("Extra" is the keyword
>here...read original DDB's text again.)
>
>The answer is: NO unless the implementation is incredibly stupid.
Like sendmail? :-) Sendmail is notorious for unnecessary DNS lookups.
>> I think Postfix just sorts by FQDN, so it doesn't have to do 10,000
>> DNS lookups before it starts delivering. But by doing that, it
>> potentially misses a lot of combining for different FQDN's with the
>> same MX.
>
>"A lot" being a speculation or based on real-world data? <evil grin>
I don't need real-world data to know that there are lots of MX's that
serve multiple FQDN's. And I did say "potentially".
-Dave
"Frank Tegtmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's amazing how qmail haters (here in Germany) always reduced the
>discussion about qmail to this special case - it may be bad discussion
>style but I also think that there is more need to support this type of
>setup than the "normal" qmail administrator may assume.
The bottom line is that qmail was designed for well-connected hosts.
It's just not possible for qmail to be optimal in all cases:
engineering is the art of balancing trade-offs.
-Dave
We have the source; let's fix it.
What the people with the problem are asking for appears to
be for qmail to not split up identical mails intended for
multiple recipients at identical hosts. These are real problems
and poo-pooing them as degenerate cases or something produces nothing.
In terms of modifying, this might not be the "extensive
rewrite" that "life with qmail" claims it will be. I see two
parts to change:
We want (1)the part that splits messages with multiple recipients
to group by mail-host-name and merely split by mail-host-name,
and also (2) that qmail-remote can issue multiple rcpt-to instructions
in these cases. That is all. Two patches. Three, with (3)
record-keeping
regarding who has received and who has errorred adjusted to work with
(2.)
People who are running mailing lists (which need VERPS) behind
low-bandwidth
links are not covered by this patch proporal: They need to form
cooperatives
and rent servers with good connections.
Looking at the chart
qmail-smtpd --- qmail-queue --- qmail-send --- qmail-rspawn ---
qmail-remote
/ | \
qmail-inject _/ qmail-clean \_ qmail-lspawn ---
qmail-local
it is not exactly clear at which point a mail that is CCd to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gets split into three messages. (by smtpd, queue or send?)
man pages indicate ... that qmail-remote "sends the message
to one or more recipients at a remote host." Which means that
it still hasn't been split up when qmail-remote gets it, and that
qmail-remote is the only program that would need to be patched.
Is this accurate, that messages withmultiple recipients are
associated with a single queue entry until they are delivered
and cleaned up, and that all delivery multiplexing happens within
qmail-remote? If so, qmail-remote is the only part of the system
which needs to be tweaked, and the groundwork is already there.
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > I think Postfix just sorts by FQDN, so it doesn't have to do 10,000
> > DNS lookups before it starts delivering. But by doing that, it
> > potentially misses a lot of combining for different FQDN's with the
> > same MX.
>
> "A lot" being a speculation or based on real-world data? <evil grin>
qmail-remote has to look up the MX records too, so adding a switch
to just sort by host name or wait until all the mx queries are back
before
sorting would not be that hard; but this advanced optimization would
only make sense as something to toss in AFTER sorting and grouping by
hostname
is in place, at that point it's simply adjusting the sort/group method,
it isn't introducing any new architectural features.
______________________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End Daylight Savings Time in our lifetime
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> In a pathological case, qmail can use a lot more network bandwidth
> because of the duplication of messages going to the same system. In
> practice this is rarely a serious problem. Taking into account the
> *decreased* DNS traffic, it's even more rarely a problem.
Pard'n me, but how does an additional DNS lookup for every recipient end
up reducing the overall amount of DNS traffic?
--
Sam
I understand the motivation David, I really do. But you don't
seem to understand who qmail works.
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 09:12:48PM +0000, David L. Nicol wrote:
> What the people with the problem are asking for appears to
> be for qmail to not split up identical mails intended for
> multiple recipients at identical hosts. These are real problems
> and poo-pooing them as degenerate cases or something produces nothing.
No. What people are asking for is that qmail not treat a message
with multiple recipients as separate messages to those recipients
if the recipients are to be routed through the same SMTP server.
Unfortunately, they're unclear about what they mean.
If I have a message to 1M different FQDN which all use the same
MX, do I want to split, or don't I?
> In terms of modifying, this might not be the "extensive
> rewrite" that "life with qmail" claims it will be. I see two
> parts to change:
>
> We want (1)the part that splits messages with multiple recipients
> to group by mail-host-name and merely split by mail-host-name,
> and also (2) that qmail-remote can issue multiple rcpt-to instructions
> in these cases. That is all. Two patches. Three, with (3)
> record-keeping
> regarding who has received and who has errorred adjusted to work with
> (2.)
>
>
> People who are running mailing lists (which need VERPS) behind
> low-bandwidth
> links are not covered by this patch proporal: They need to form
> cooperatives
> and rent servers with good connections.
Ok, you're vastly oversimplifying how complex those changes are,
and mistaken in the need to patch qmail-remote. And you're excluding
the people who "need" the the modification the most from the umbrella.
> man pages indicate ... that qmail-remote "sends the message
> to one or more recipients at a remote host." Which means that
> it still hasn't been split up when qmail-remote gets it, and that
> qmail-remote is the only program that would need to be patched.
No it doesn't.
> Is this accurate, that messages withmultiple recipients are
> associated with a single queue entry until they are delivered
> and cleaned up, and that all delivery multiplexing happens within
> qmail-remote?
No.
> If so, qmail-remote is the only part of the system
> which needs to be tweaked, and the groundwork is already there.
And as such, you conclusion is incorrect.
Take a look at INTERNALS.
John
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> Say you send a message to a list of 10,000 addresses using
> sendmail. What's the first thing it does? It looks up the MX for each
> recipient so it can sort by MX and minimize the number of connections.
I doubt very much that that's what sendmail does, by the simple fact of
what would happen if the best MX is unreachable. The resulting logic
would be too convoluted even for sendmail, because then it would have to
reshuffle every message, since you certainly can't assume that all domains
pointing to the same best MX will also have the same second-best MX listed
as well.
I think you're really referring to the behavior of older sendmails which
have a pathological need to issue a CNAME query for every address in the
headers in order to rewrite it in those few cases where there's a CNAME
record for the domain. I don't think sendmail does that anymore.
> qmail, on the other hand, fires off concurrencyremote qmail-remotes
> and starts delivery immediately.
... But not after issueing the same DNS query to find the MX for each
recipient. qmail-remote does not pull an IP address out of thin air.
Additionally, I'm not sure but it's possible that sendmail will not query
for the same domain the second time, thus 10,000 messages going to 5,000
different domains will result in only 5,000 DNS queries. Meanwhile, each
instance of qmail-remote should diligently issue a DNS query - for a
grand sum of 10,000 queries overall.
So what you have here is 10,000 guaranteed queries from Qmail, and up to
10,000 DNS queries for sendmail, maybe less. The only difference would be
that the DNS queries would come all in one burst of sendmail, and
staggered over time from Qmail, because a single DNS query will be issued
only when qmail-remote gets each individual message.
Additionally, I would think that you'd get better results with having a
single burst of DNS queries coming in rapid succession, then with them
staggered over time. When you have a single, rapid burst, you increase
the chances of your local DNS queries satisfying the query from its cache.
When you have them go out over time, there's an increased chance that the
DNS server's cache will periodically expire entries.
> I think Postfix just sorts by FQDN, so it doesn't have to do 10,000
> DNS lookups before it starts delivering. But by doing that, it
> potentially misses a lot of combining for different FQDN's with the
> same MX.
I happen to think that this is a reasonable compromise. There aren't
really that many relays that accept mail for many domains, where each
domain gets a significant volume of mail. Usually, when you have
thousands of domains pointing to the same relay, you're talking about a
virtual web host, which doesn't get much mail. So, I'd doubt that this
optimization is actually very effective. Except, perhaps, in Demon's
case, where the sheer huge number of subdomains would really result in
some optimizations.
--
Sam
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:24:23PM +0000, David L. Nicol wrote:
> John White flamed forth:
>
> > > man pages indicate ... that qmail-remote "sends the message
> > > to one or more recipients at a remote host." Which means that
> > > it still hasn't been split up when qmail-remote gets it, and that
> > > qmail-remote is the only program that would need to be patched.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, that's what the man page for qmail-remote says.
No, you don't understand. Just because qmail-remote allows
multiple recipients doesn't mean that a message in the qmail
system hasn't been split at the time that qmail-remote is
invoked.
Nor would qmail-remote be the only program that needs to be patched
to allow qmail to do multiple recpt-to's.
> If a single
> qmail-remote instance is handling each address, why does the man
> page say that qmail-remote accepts multiple addresses?
qmail uses a single qmail-remote to deliver one message to one
recipient. qmail-remote is not limited to this. What's the problem?
> Does
> qmail-remote
> have aspects of its interface which are not being used by the other
> parts
> of the system?
Yes.
> Did the great DJB allow an inconsistency to appear
> between his coding and his documentation?
Not that I see in this specific case.
John
Dave Sill wrote:
> Say you send a message to a list of 10,000 addresses using
> sendmail. What's the first thing it does? It looks up the MX for each
> recipient so it can sort by MX and minimize the number of connections.
Why is that? Lets say you have to deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why wouldn't a well-written mta assume that the MX for
aol.com is most likely going to be the same as for aol.com, and aol.com? If
the MX lookup is done after sorting by domain wouldn't that reduce dns
traffic?
Regards,
--Steve
Hi,
I've setup qmail in the past, long ago.. and just now started putting qmail
back up on a new box, and this time using tcpserver, etc.
My real problem is around getting smtp working (dunno what the problem is),
but I seem to have some lower level problems I should sort out first.
I setup qmail according to the HOWTO listed on the homepage and am using
Mailbox format for delivery right now. Qmail is loaded via my rc script
fine, and I see all the daemons running in my process list.
qmails 2890 0.0 1.2 1120 384 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-send
root 2891 0.0 1.0 1072 324 ? S Nov07 0:00 supervise
/var/lock/qmail-smtpd tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u50
qmaill 2892 0.0 0.9 1068 304 ? S Nov07 0:00 accustamp
qmaill 2893 0.0 1.1 1084 340 ? S Nov07 0:00
cyclog -s5000000 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
qmaild 2894 0.0 1.3 1156 420 ? S Nov07 0:00
tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u503 -g503 0 25 rblsmtpd qmail-smtp
qmaill 2895 0.0 1.3 1096 408 ? S Nov07 0:00 splogger
qmail
root 2896 0.0 1.0 1088 328 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-lspawn
./Mailbox
qmailr 2897 0.0 1.0 1088 324 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 2898 0.0 1.1 1080 344 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-clean
root 3320 0.0 1.6 1244 508 pts/0 S 10:02 0:00 grep qmail
I ran ./config to dump all my hosts into the control files. I can mail
locally and mail gets delievered fine into the user's Mailbox. However, I
can not see any logging activity in my /var/log/messages file. Earlier, I
was trying to use inetd, VSM, and procmail, and actually did see loggin in
/var/log/maillog (only diff was using the proc file for /var/qmail/rc, and
before I started using all the 'extras' that the HOWTO suggests, tcpserver,
etc).
Where should I start looking to help find where splogger is dumping things?
The 'real' problem is I can't get mail delievered via smtp delievered. I
telnet to port 25, use a local username as rcpt, and it says 'ok' fine, but
the msg never makes it to Mailbox.
Thanks
-Steve
The log should be in /var/log/qmail/smtpd.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Kapinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:17 PM
Subject: Qmail with rh 6.1
> Hi,
>
> I've setup qmail in the past, long ago.. and just now started putting
qmail
> back up on a new box, and this time using tcpserver, etc.
>
> My real problem is around getting smtp working (dunno what the problem
is),
> but I seem to have some lower level problems I should sort out first.
>
> I setup qmail according to the HOWTO listed on the homepage and am using
> Mailbox format for delivery right now. Qmail is loaded via my rc script
> fine, and I see all the daemons running in my process list.
>
> qmails 2890 0.0 1.2 1120 384 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-send
> root 2891 0.0 1.0 1072 324 ? S Nov07 0:00 supervise
> /var/lock/qmail-smtpd tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u50
> qmaill 2892 0.0 0.9 1068 304 ? S Nov07 0:00 accustamp
> qmaill 2893 0.0 1.1 1084 340 ? S Nov07 0:00
> cyclog -s5000000 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
> qmaild 2894 0.0 1.3 1156 420 ? S Nov07 0:00
> tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u503 -g503 0 25 rblsmtpd qmail-smtp
> qmaill 2895 0.0 1.3 1096 408 ? S Nov07 0:00 splogger
> qmail
> root 2896 0.0 1.0 1088 328 ? S Nov07 0:00
qmail-lspawn
> ./Mailbox
> qmailr 2897 0.0 1.0 1088 324 ? S Nov07 0:00
qmail-rspawn
> qmailq 2898 0.0 1.1 1080 344 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-clean
> root 3320 0.0 1.6 1244 508 pts/0 S 10:02 0:00 grep qmail
>
>
> I ran ./config to dump all my hosts into the control files. I can mail
> locally and mail gets delievered fine into the user's Mailbox. However, I
> can not see any logging activity in my /var/log/messages file. Earlier, I
> was trying to use inetd, VSM, and procmail, and actually did see loggin in
> /var/log/maillog (only diff was using the proc file for /var/qmail/rc, and
> before I started using all the 'extras' that the HOWTO suggests,
tcpserver,
> etc).
>
> Where should I start looking to help find where splogger is dumping
things?
> The 'real' problem is I can't get mail delievered via smtp delievered. I
> telnet to port 25, use a local username as rcpt, and it says 'ok' fine,
but
> the msg never makes it to Mailbox.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Steve
>
>
"Andres Mendez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The log should be in /var/log/qmail/smtpd.
For LWQ. But he said he used the HOWTO, which uses
/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd.
-Dave
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> "Andres Mendez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The log should be in /var/log/qmail/smtpd.
>
> For LWQ. But he said he used the HOWTO, which uses
> /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd.
No.. It's runing splogger and not cyclog, which means the logs are getting
sent through syslog. Look in /var/log/mail.log.
--Adam
>
> -Dave
>
"Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>> "Andres Mendez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >The log should be in /var/log/qmail/smtpd.
>>
>> For LWQ. But he said he used the HOWTO, which uses
>> /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd.
>
>No.. It's runing splogger and not cyclog, which means the logs are getting
>sent through syslog. Look in /var/log/mail.log.
'splain this, then, from
http://www.flounder.net/qmail/qmail-howto.html#10:
]Now all that is left to do is create the directories that cyclog will log to.
]
] # mkdir /var/log/qmail
] # chown qmaill /var/log/qmail
] # mkdir /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
] # mkdir /var/log/qmail/qmail-pop3d # if you are also using qmail-pop3d
] # chown qmaill /var/log/qmail/*
And, from Steve's process list:
> qmaill 2893 0.0 1.1 1084 340 ? S Nov07 0:00
> cyclog -s5000000 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
-Dave
This is not the problem in whole..
The log in /var/log/qmail-smtpd has entries in it of the form..
[root@hootch qmail-smtpd]# ls
@00000941952524 @00000941996365
But those log entries only contain tcpserver msgs, not the normal loggin I
see from qmail. Plus.. I'm not seeing loggin at all for local delieveries
as well.. not just smtp traffic.
[root@hootch qmail-smtpd]# cat *
941952582.673819 tcpserver: status: 1/40
941952582.674904 tcpserver: pid 612 from 127.0.0.1
941952582.848907 tcpserver: ok 612 loopback:127.0.0.1:25
loopback:127.0.0.1:jobu:1025
941952608.626309 tcpserver: end 612 status 0
941952608.626527 tcpserver: status: 0/40
941996616.213772 tcpserver: status: 1/40
941996616.214646 tcpserver: pid 2914 from 127.0.0.1
941996616.313220 tcpserver: ok 2914 loopback:127.0.0.1:25
loopback:127.0.0.1:jobu:1036
941996641.218950 tcpserver: end 2914 status 0
941996641.219162 tcpserver: status: 0/40
I should see logging from examples like they have in TEST.deliever, which I
am not. Nor do I if I call mail from the command prompt, which does
deliever mail to the ~user/Mailbox. So mail is being delievered by qmail
locally, but I'm not finding the logging.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Andres Mendez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:54 PM
To: QMail
Subject: RE: Qmail with rh 6.1
The log should be in /var/log/qmail/smtpd.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Kapinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 3:17 PM
Subject: Qmail with rh 6.1
> Hi,
>
> I've setup qmail in the past, long ago.. and just now started putting
qmail
> back up on a new box, and this time using tcpserver, etc.
>
> My real problem is around getting smtp working (dunno what the problem
is),
> but I seem to have some lower level problems I should sort out first.
>
> I setup qmail according to the HOWTO listed on the homepage and am using
> Mailbox format for delivery right now. Qmail is loaded via my rc script
> fine, and I see all the daemons running in my process list.
>
> qmails 2890 0.0 1.2 1120 384 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-send
> root 2891 0.0 1.0 1072 324 ? S Nov07 0:00 supervise
> /var/lock/qmail-smtpd tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u50
> qmaill 2892 0.0 0.9 1068 304 ? S Nov07 0:00 accustamp
> qmaill 2893 0.0 1.1 1084 340 ? S Nov07 0:00
> cyclog -s5000000 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
> qmaild 2894 0.0 1.3 1156 420 ? S Nov07 0:00
> tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u503 -g503 0 25 rblsmtpd qmail-smtp
> qmaill 2895 0.0 1.3 1096 408 ? S Nov07 0:00 splogger
> qmail
> root 2896 0.0 1.0 1088 328 ? S Nov07 0:00
qmail-lspawn
> ./Mailbox
> qmailr 2897 0.0 1.0 1088 324 ? S Nov07 0:00
qmail-rspawn
> qmailq 2898 0.0 1.1 1080 344 ? S Nov07 0:00 qmail-clean
> root 3320 0.0 1.6 1244 508 pts/0 S 10:02 0:00 grep qmail
>
>
> I ran ./config to dump all my hosts into the control files. I can mail
> locally and mail gets delievered fine into the user's Mailbox. However, I
> can not see any logging activity in my /var/log/messages file. Earlier, I
> was trying to use inetd, VSM, and procmail, and actually did see loggin in
> /var/log/maillog (only diff was using the proc file for /var/qmail/rc, and
> before I started using all the 'extras' that the HOWTO suggests,
tcpserver,
> etc).
>
> Where should I start looking to help find where splogger is dumping
things?
> The 'real' problem is I can't get mail delievered via smtp delievered. I
> telnet to port 25, use a local username as rcpt, and it says 'ok' fine,
but
> the msg never makes it to Mailbox.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Steve
>
>
"Steve Kapinos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The log in /var/log/qmail-smtpd has entries in it of the form..
>
>[root@hootch qmail-smtpd]# ls
>@00000941952524 @00000941996365
>
>But those log entries only contain tcpserver msgs, not the normal loggin I
>see from qmail.
Right, the smtpd log only logs incoming SMTP connections. The "normal
logging" you're referring to is from qmail-send, which, according to
the process list you posted, is being done through splogger.
Check your /etc/syslog.conf to see if/where you're logging those
messages.
-Dave
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:39:44PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> And, from Steve's process list:
>
> > qmaill 2893 0.0 1.1 1084 340 ? S Nov07 0:00
> > cyclog -s5000000 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
Right.. that's for qmail-smtpd.. Those logs will be useless however if he
wants to see where the mail actually went. He needs to look in qmail-send's
logfile which appears to still be handled by splogger.
--Adam
Learning syslogd as I go.. =)
I looked in /etc/syslog.conf, and according to it, mail.* is being sent to
/var/log/maillog
But it doesn't seem to be happening. Procmail did log qmail tagged messages
to maillog fine tho.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Qmail with rh 6.1
"Steve Kapinos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The log in /var/log/qmail-smtpd has entries in it of the form..
>
>[root@hootch qmail-smtpd]# ls
>@00000941952524 @00000941996365
>
>But those log entries only contain tcpserver msgs, not the normal loggin I
>see from qmail.
Right, the smtpd log only logs incoming SMTP connections. The "normal
logging" you're referring to is from qmail-send, which, according to
the process list you posted, is being done through splogger.
Check your /etc/syslog.conf to see if/where you're logging those
messages.
-Dave
"Steve Kapinos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Learning syslogd as I go.. =)
>
>I looked in /etc/syslog.conf, and according to it, mail.* is being sent to
>/var/log/maillog
>
>But it doesn't seem to be happening. Procmail did log qmail tagged messages
>to maillog fine tho.
Do:
echo foo |/var/qmail/bin/splogger qmail
If you don't see a line like:
Nov 8 15:15:21 6C:sws5 qmail: 942092121.752035 foo
in /var/log/maillog, then your syslog isn't configured properly (or
needs to be HUP'd if you recently modified syslog.conf.)
If you do see such a line, you need to re-examine your qmail startup
command. Do you see a splogger process in a ps list?
-Dave
By the way, there will be a qmail training session conducted by myself
in London at the Radisson Edwardian (Heathrow) on December 6th.
Please reply for pricing and further information.
--
-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!
dear list,
I installed qmail-1.03 and ucspi-tcp-0.84.
I followed the instructions in Dave Sill's "life with qmail"
qmail is up and running now, i can send email to local users and
to remote hosts.
the ip of my server is 141.20.25.44 (www.vifu.de)
I can receive email from hosts in 141.20.* so tcpserver is running
correct, the connctions are logged and the mail gets delivered,
but not from any other host. when I telnet to port 25 from another
host, which is not in 141.20.* I don't get a connect, not even a
refused connection, just a timeout. when i run tcprulescheck for
that client on the server, I get "allow connection".
any hints where i can check why i can't connect to port 25
from other hosts ?
thanks in advance,
Barbara
(our network admin says he does not do any packet filtering on our
network...)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Schelkle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Computer Science Humboldt University of Berlin
mail: Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany
office: Rudower Chaussee 25, D-12489 Berlin, building 3, room 405
phone: +49-30-2093-3184 fax: +49-30-2093-3168
Barbara Schelkle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... when I telnet to port 25 from another
>host, which is not in 141.20.* I don't get a connect, not even a
>refused connection, just a timeout. when i run tcprulescheck for
>that client on the server, I get "allow connection".
>
>any hints where i can check why i can't connect to port 25
>from other hosts ?
>
>(our network admin says he does not do any packet filtering on our
>network...)
Look in /var/log/qmail/smtpd/*. tcpserver logs every connection
attempt. If you're not seeing logs entries corresponding to your
attempts, then *someone*, if not your network admin, is blocking port
25.
-Dave
Your network Admin is wrong: your port 25 *is* being filtered.
Could it be tcpwrappers if it is not a firewall ? Check /etc/hosts.allow
and /etc/hosts.deny.
Peter
At 03:59 PM 11/8/99 +0100, Barbara Schelkle wrote:
>dear list,
>
>I installed qmail-1.03 and ucspi-tcp-0.84.
>I followed the instructions in Dave Sill's "life with qmail"
>qmail is up and running now, i can send email to local users and
>to remote hosts.
>the ip of my server is 141.20.25.44 (www.vifu.de)
>I can receive email from hosts in 141.20.* so tcpserver is running
>correct, the connctions are logged and the mail gets delivered,
>but not from any other host. when I telnet to port 25 from another
>host, which is not in 141.20.* I don't get a connect, not even a
>refused connection, just a timeout. when i run tcprulescheck for
>that client on the server, I get "allow connection".
>
>any hints where i can check why i can't connect to port 25
>from other hosts ?
>
>thanks in advance,
> Barbara
>
>(our network admin says he does not do any packet filtering on our
>network...)
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Barbara Schelkle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Department of Computer Science Humboldt University of Berlin
>mail: Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany
>office: Rudower Chaussee 25, D-12489 Berlin, building 3, room 405
>phone: +49-30-2093-3184 fax: +49-30-2093-3168
I'm searching as best I can, but can't find a site which lists the
approximate number of MTAs permanently connected to the internet.
Anyone care to venture a guess, or mention a site where I can find such
data.
I figure around 100,000???
TIA - Eric
Greetings...
I am having a strange problem... I normally use qmail-pw2u and it has
always worked in the past; I have no idea what has changed now...
I added a new user and then went to run qmail-pw2u and after considerable
time got:
qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to find alias user
What does this mean?
btw, /var/qmail/users/assign is no longer there
Thanks,
Jen
In previous emails I noted that a qmail installation as part of Network
Associates Webshield SMTP for Solaris was exhibiting strange behaviour with
some email that could not be processed or sent correctly. These messages
kept reappearing in the intd and mess subdirectories, quickly eating up disk
space.
Following some suggestions from previous emails to the list, advice from
Frank Tegtmeyer, and responses to my previous emails, I tried various
things, but none seemed to work.
Manually deleting the entries in intd and mess/* cleared them enough to
release disk space for other messages to be handled. But the bad messages
just came back.
I tried changing the creation date on the mess/* files.
I hoped that the messages might "time out" eventually.
I set doublebounceto but I don't think that worked.
On Friday last I set badmailfrom for the two original senders, and over the
weekend the files seem to have gone.
Now I don't know if it had something to do with a default timeout somewhere
in the system of about 6 weeks from when the messages were originally sent,
or whether the badmailfrom worked. But so far today, the files are
conspicuous by their absence. Hooray! Lots of free disk space again.
Thanks for all your help!
Wallace.
--
======================================================================
Wallace Nicoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]
City of Edinburgh Council IT Services,
Chesser House, 500 Gorgie Road, Phone : 0131 469 5343
Edinburgh, EH11 3YJ, Scotland Fax : 0131 469 5335
[From overseas [P]+441314695343 [F]+441314695335 ]
======================================================================
> > | My csh skills are rusty; I can't remember how to redirect stderr.
> >
> > In his case, I think he needs to replace:
> >
> > 2>&1 |
> >
> > with:
> >
> > |&
>
>
> i had the same question and had this answer:
> You can use this notation
>
> command >& file_name
>
> but this will stderr AND stdout to the same file. stderr comes to the
^^^^^^^^^^^
oops. it seems "redirect" is missing here...
one more thing, You can use the
bash -c 'command bla bla 2>some_file_or_/dev/null_or_whatever'
command which will run the command in bash, redirect stderr to anywhere
You want and give You only a nice clean stdout.
hope this helps...
love, peace and aspirin,
dd
>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.
Mmm .. no, that was the strange thing. The domain was
removed from the control/locals file. I tripple checked
the installataion and reinstalled both qmail and other
thing as well. ;)
Anyways; I ended up with the installation of
http://www.inter7.com/ sollution. Worked after some
checking. (The valid release, not the beta, did not
support .qmail files.. but upgrading to the beta
all worked fine)
Thanks for your help at least! ;)
Kindest,
J�rgen
This line in startup/shutdown script
-
supervise /var/supervise/qmail/smtpd tcpserver -v
-x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
-u$QMAILDUID
-g$NOFILESGID 0 smtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd-wrapper 2>&1 | setuser qmaill accustamp |
\
setuser qmaill cyclog
/var/log/qmail/smtpd &
Is giving me this error on boot -
tcpserver: usage tcpserver [ -lpPhHrRoOdDqQV ] [ -c
limit ] [ -x rules.cdb ] [ -B banner ] [ -g gid ] [ -u uid ] [ -b backlog ] [ -l
localhost ] [ -t timeout ] host port program
Now I know this is a syntax error,
but i can not see it. If you could please point it out to me.
Thanx for your help
Nicole & Ron McIntosh
|
"Nicole & Ron McIntosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This line in startup/shutdown script -
> supervise /var/supervise/qmail/smtpd tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
> -u$QMAILDUID -g$NOFILESGID 0 smtp \
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd-wrapper 2>&1 | setuser qmaill accustamp | \
> setuser qmaill cyclog /var/log/qmail/smtpd &
>
>
>Is giving me this error on boot -
>
>tcpserver: usage tcpserver [ -lpPhHrRoOdDqQV ] [ -c limit ] [ -x
>rules.cdb ] [ -B banner ] [ -g gid ] [ -u uid ] [ -b backlog ] [ -l
>localhost ] [ -t timeout ] host port program
>
>Now I know this is a syntax error, but i can not see it. If you could
>please point it out to me.
Your tcpserver doesn't grok the "v" option, but has a "V" option,
which I've never seen before. What version of ucspi-tcp are you
running?
-Dave
|
using version 0.53 of ucspi-tcp
Nicole & Ron McIntosh Proud Parents
To
Devin- 5,Britni- 3, Sierra- 2, & Tyler-
1
***************************************************
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Nicole & Ron McIntosh wrote:
> using version 0.53 of ucspi-tcp
Wow, is that old! You might want to upgrade it so it works with the
current examples if nothing else. The current version is 0.84 or
something really close to that.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Hello,
After adding an entry for 192.168.3 to my named.conf file, I am getting
faster response on smtp/pop3 via qmail on my LAN, however, I was wondering
if I could get better performance if I added the class C range I was
assigned via UUnet to my caching DNS server (still learning DNS, but it
is tough going here)..:)
Another question, assume I have a user shark on my system, and I
am using qmail v1.03 w/vpopmail...how can I cc: a message to his mailbox
at his isp (I know forwarding and alias is easy, but i think i am over
looking something basic here) <blink>...
-Bill
|
okie sorry for that dont know where my mind is
today .. it is version 0.84 for the ucspi-tcp
the 0.53 is for daemontools
Nicole & Ron McIntosh
|
"Nicole & Ron McIntosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>okie sorry for that dont know where my mind is today .. it is version
>0.84 for the ucspi-tcp
>
>the 0.53 is for daemontools
OK, then your ucspi-tcp is corrupted. Re-download the source tarball
and re-install it.
-Dave
Hi, after reading the Majordomo+Qmail FAQ, and trying tons of things out I
still can't figure this out:
We're running Qmail 1.03, and Majordomo 1.94.4 together on a RedHat 5.2
machine (qmail and majordomo are both source packages, not RPM's)
Anyway, the problem seems to be with the "majordomo" alias and qmail. All
my test lists I've setup seem to work just fine, mail sent to a list gets
resent out to all the list users/owner, and put into digest form. The
problem I have is I can't send ANY requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the
requests get there, but they're simply put in the majordomo user's
mailbox, not reset back out to me!
So if I send a HELP message to majordomo, I don't get the help page
emailed back to me, the message just gets put into the Mailbox of the
majordomo user.
I've made three aliases for the majordomo user:
.qmail-majordomo
.qmail-majordomo-owner
.qmail-owner-majordomo
In .qmail-majordomo I have:
|/usr/local/majordomo/wrapper majordomo
The other two have my email address in them. So for some reason the
wrapper majordomo part doesn't seem to be working. There's no error
message in any log (majordomo or qmail) and nothing gets returned
undeliverable, it just doesn't work! All this I copied right from the
instructions, and I'm using the new mjinject script with Majordomo.
Anyone have any ideas where to go from here?
Thanks,
Matt Stevenson
Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:56:28 EST:
> So if I send a HELP message to majordomo, I don't get the help page
> emailed back to me, the message just gets put into the Mailbox of the
> majordomo user.
Hmm, it looks like majordomo may be in users/assign perchance?
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
Is there a way to change this code from a user
.qmail to only allow users or domains listed in the file instead of deleting
those mails.
|if test -n "`fgrep -x $SENDER allowfrom`"; then
echo Go Away;exit 99; else exit 0; fi
Tried a bit of perl code but that seems to be causing a few error's.
Thanks
Bob Ross
|
I have read the FAQ and studied individual setup guides but I am still
stumped on these two issues:
1) I cannot get anything sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
forward to account "reuben".. I have edited my /etc/aliases file and ran
"newaliases" to compile the /etc/aliases.cdb file, but no go. I have
verified it is working, because I have another forward "azzy" which forwards
to "reuben" fine. Here's the /etc/aliases file:
# Mail Aliases
bin: root
daemon: root
decode: root
dumper: root
games: root
ingres: root
mailer-daemon: root
manager: root
nobody: root
operator: root
postmaster: root
system: root
toor: root
uucp: root
root: reuben
webmaster: reuben
azzy: reuben
.. any ideas?
I read somewhere that qmail doesn't deliver to the root account, so I'll
need to forward it to another account.
2) Any outgoing mail to a server other than what is in the rcpthosts file
will get kicked back to me with an error. I cannot possibly list every
conceivable host on the Internet! Can I put a wildcard in there? FWIW-- My
MX record on the DNS is still only set to pointing to my current email
server (gandalf -- an entirely different machine).. I was going to wait
until I have tested this new qmail server out fully before making any
changes. Could this be the problem?
Thanks in advance,
-Reuben King
Qmail doesn't use /etc/aliases unless patched to do otherwise.
Root mail would be handled by a .qmail file in ~alias
Read INSTALL.alias, and look at the man page dot-qmail.0
Basically create a .qmail-root in ~alias, and put &[EMAIL PROTECTED] in the
.qmail-root to have mail to root forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The second question I will leave to the qmail gods..
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Reuben King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please help newbie with 2 questions
I have read the FAQ and studied individual setup guides but I am still
stumped on these two issues:
1) I cannot get anything sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
forward to account "reuben".. I have edited my /etc/aliases file and ran
"newaliases" to compile the /etc/aliases.cdb file, but no go. I have
verified it is working, because I have another forward "azzy" which forwards
to "reuben" fine. Here's the /etc/aliases file:
# Mail Aliases
bin: root
daemon: root
decode: root
dumper: root
games: root
ingres: root
mailer-daemon: root
manager: root
nobody: root
operator: root
postmaster: root
system: root
toor: root
uucp: root
root: reuben
webmaster: reuben
azzy: reuben
.. any ideas?
I read somewhere that qmail doesn't deliver to the root account, so I'll
need to forward it to another account.
2) Any outgoing mail to a server other than what is in the rcpthosts file
will get kicked back to me with an error. I cannot possibly list every
conceivable host on the Internet! Can I put a wildcard in there? FWIW-- My
MX record on the DNS is still only set to pointing to my current email
server (gandalf -- an entirely different machine).. I was going to wait
until I have tested this new qmail server out fully before making any
changes. Could this be the problem?
Thanks in advance,
-Reuben King
> The second question I will leave to the qmail gods..
Not a Qmail God by any stretch of the imagination but here goes...
> 2) Any outgoing mail to a server other than what is in the rcpthosts file
> will get kicked back to me with an error. I cannot possibly list every
> conceivable host on the Internet! Can I put a wildcard in there? FWIW--
My
> MX record on the DNS is still only set to pointing to my current email
> server (gandalf -- an entirely different machine).. I was going to wait
> until I have tested this new qmail server out fully before making any
> changes. Could this be the problem?
I'm gonna start with an assumption here (dangerous, I know). I assume you
can send mail fine from the Qmail host but other hosts in your domain can
not send mail through the Qmail server to the net. If the is the case, and
you are using tcpserver, then you need to allow your Qmail server to relay
mail for hosts in you domain. If your network in 1.2.3, then you can add
the follow: '1.2.3.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""' to your /etc/tcp.smtp file. Now
run:
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
Now your Qmail host will accept SMTP mail from any host in the 1.2.3
network. If you have other networks you need to relay, add them to
/etc/tcp.smtp as well.
Also see: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html (a very good doc, thanks
Dave!!!)
Specifically: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying
HTH,
Peter Abplanalp
StorageTek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Reuben King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1) I cannot get anything sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
>forward to account "reuben".. I have edited my /etc/aliases file and ran
>"newaliases" to compile the /etc/aliases.cdb file, but no go.
You're using fastforward, I take it?
>I read somewhere that qmail doesn't deliver to the root account, so I'll
>need to forward it to another account.
qmail doesn't deliver to the superuser, but aliases for root that
point to non-superusers or remote addresses are OK.
>2) Any outgoing mail to a server other than what is in the rcpthosts file
>will get kicked back to me with an error. I cannot possibly list every
>conceivable host on the Internet!
Calm down. Nobody expects you to. See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying
>FWIW-- My
>MX record on the DNS is still only set to pointing to my current email
>server (gandalf -- an entirely different machine).. I was going to wait
>until I have tested this new qmail server out fully before making any
>changes. Could this be the problem?
No.
-Dave
>
> "Reuben King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >1) I cannot get anything sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
> >forward to account "reuben".. I have edited my /etc/aliases file and ran
> >"newaliases" to compile the /etc/aliases.cdb file, but no go.
>
> You're using fastforward, I take it?
Yes.. I was instructed to modify a file to take advantage of fastforward
and followed the instructions. I'd repost the exact instructions I was
given, but the #@$@# website it is on is not answering right now.
(http://www.sfu.ca/~yzhang/linux/qmail/index.html)
I can verify that the forwarding using /etc/aliases IS working, as I said,
because any forwards I put in there other than root are functioning
correctly.
It's anything that goes to root that disappears into the void.
I've looked for any logging to track, but I see nothing in /var/logs that is
mail related..
> >I read somewhere that qmail doesn't deliver to the root account, so I'll
> >need to forward it to another account.
>
> qmail doesn't deliver to the superuser, but aliases for root that
> point to non-superusers or remote addresses are OK.
>
> >2) Any outgoing mail to a server other than what is in the rcpthosts file
> >will get kicked back to me with an error. I cannot possibly list every
> >conceivable host on the Internet!
>
> Calm down. Nobody expects you to. See:
>
> http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying
>
> >FWIW-- My
> >MX record on the DNS is still only set to pointing to my current email
> >server (gandalf -- an entirely different machine).. I was going to wait
> >until I have tested this new qmail server out fully before making any
> >changes. Could this be the problem?
>
> No.
I deleted the rcpthosts file and now outgoing mail works fine.
Thanks for your help, Dave!
-RK
"Reuben King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's anything that goes to root that disappears into the void.
>
>I've looked for any logging to track, but I see nothing in /var/logs that is
>mail related..
How are you doing logging? splogger? cyclog? If splogger, have you
looked at /etc/syslog.conf?
>I deleted the rcpthosts file and now outgoing mail works fine.
This is The Wrong Thing To Do, as I've explained to you in private
mail.
-Dave
Figured out my problem--
Silly RPM put a blank ".qmail-root" file in the /var/qmail/alias
directory....
Now I need to figure out how to get the logging working... I looked in my
syslog.conf and found no mention of anything QMail related..
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 2:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Please help newbie with 2 questions
>
>
> "Reuben King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's anything that goes to root that disappears into the void.
> >
> >I've looked for any logging to track, but I see nothing in
> /var/logs that is
> >mail related..
>
> How are you doing logging? splogger? cyclog? If splogger, have you
> looked at /etc/syslog.conf?
>
> >I deleted the rcpthosts file and now outgoing mail works fine.
>
> This is The Wrong Thing To Do, as I've explained to you in private
> mail.
>
> -Dave
> "Reuben King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's anything that goes to root that disappears into the void.
> >
> >I've looked for any logging to track, but I see nothing in
> /var/logs that is
> >mail related..
>
> How are you doing logging? splogger? cyclog? If splogger, have you
> looked at /etc/syslog.conf?
Um... I don't know what's logging.. whatever is the default installed logger
with RH6.1 .. I looked at /etc/syslog.conf .. saw lots of purty lines...
nothing about qmail, though.
Sorry for the thickheaded newbie pestering... :)
Thanks for all the help,
-RK
Is there a way to change this code from a user
.qmail to only allow users or domains listed in the file instead of deleting
those mails.
|if test -n "`fgrep -x $SENDER allowfrom`"; then
echo Go Away;exit 99; else exit 0; fi
Tried a bit of perl code but that seems to be causing a few error's.
Thanks
Bob Ross
|
Hi
Anyone know the latest version of fastforward? I'm running 0.51.
I've encountered a small problem. In my /etc/aliases file, I have rules of
the following sort:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@bar.com: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User catch-all exists (it's a real account). Mail for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but winds up
going to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It appeaers fastforward is taking the last rule that matches rather than the
first rule that matches.
Any clues? Probably my goof. If so, enlighten me :>
Thanks,
kw
/*
** Keith Warno
** Make Us An Offer, Inc.
** Real-time Online Haggling
** http://www.makeusanoffer.com/
*/
Sorry -- the aliases file is like this:
NonExistantUser: RealUser
@foo.com: AnotherRealUser
The box recieves mail for many domains (~alias/../control/locals is a dozen
lines long). foo.com would be one such domain (for argument sake). Mail
sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should go to RealUser from my understanding
(or lack thereof) of fastforward, but it winds up going to AnotherRealUser
I'm stumped.
Thanks for any help.
/*
** Keith Warno
** Make Us An Offer, Inc.
** Real-time Online Haggling
** http://www.makeusanoffer.com/
*/
> Well, like I said, I was just speculating. Chances are good that
> fastforward works the way the documentation says it does. If you can
> find a clear contradiction, post the details.
>
> -Dave
Yeah I think I found a "clear contradiction".
I have two rules that demonstrate this:
postmaster: keith
#
# Catch all for makeusanoffer.com
#
@makeusanoffer.com: mike
Both keith and mike are real users. "makeusanoffer.com" is in
~alias/../control/locals. A mail coming in for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
should go to keith, but it goes to mike. A mail coming in for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to keith (assuming foo.com is in locals), but...
The "catch-all" is, in fact, catching all when it shouldn't be.
>Yeah I think I found a "clear contradiction".
>
>I have two rules that demonstrate this:
>
>postmaster: keith
>#
># Catch all for makeusanoffer.com
>#
>@makeusanoffer.com: mike
>
>
>Both keith and mike are real users. "makeusanoffer.com" is in
>~alias/../control/locals. A mail coming in for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>should go to keith, but it goes to mike. A mail coming in for
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to keith (assuming foo.com is in locals), but...
>
>The "catch-all" is, in fact, catching all when it shouldn't be.
OK, now where does the fastforward documentation say that it'll do
what you expect it to do?
-Dave
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> >Yeah I think I found a "clear contradiction".
> >
> >I have two rules that demonstrate this:
> >
> >postmaster: keith
> >#
> ># Catch all for makeusanoffer.com
> >#
> >@makeusanoffer.com: mike
> >
> >
> >Both keith and mike are real users. "makeusanoffer.com" is in
> >~alias/../control/locals. A mail coming in for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >should go to keith, but it goes to mike. A mail coming in for
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to keith (assuming foo.com is in locals), but...
> >
> >The "catch-all" is, in fact, catching all when it shouldn't be.
>
> OK, now where does the fastforward documentation say that it'll do
> what you expect it to do?
>
> -Dave
>
He'll never be able to show you that because the documentation says it
will do exactly what he is seeing. :)
quoting 'man setforward'
TARGETS
When fastforward sees the incoming address [EMAIL PROTECTED], it
tries three targets: [EMAIL PROTECTED], @host.dom, and user@.
It obeys the commands for the first target that it finds.
Target names are interpreted without regard to case.
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
> > OK, now where does the fastforward documentation say that it'll do
> > what you expect it to do?
> >
> > -Dave
> >
>
> He'll never be able to show you that because the documentation says it
> will do exactly what he is seeing. :)
>
> quoting 'man setforward'
>
> TARGETS
> When fastforward sees the incoming address [EMAIL PROTECTED], it
> tries three targets: [EMAIL PROTECTED], @host.dom, and user@.
> It obeys the commands for the first target that it finds.
> Target names are interpreted without regard to case.
My bad.
Apologies to all.
I've read than man time and time again; given this particular site config --
which accepts and delivers mail locally for a handful of domains in
locals -- I had it in my brain that it makes more sense to try user@ before
@host.dom. Given the order in which the targets are tried, for what I want
to do I would need a separate alias for
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
where dom?.com are in locals.
In any case, it's easier to take the "catch alls" out of /etc/aliases, have
fastforward "fall through" if it fails, and put one catch-all in
~alias/.qmail-default
Once again, sorry for wasting yer time.
"Todd A. Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My /var/qmail/users/ files (assign and cdb) are owned by root:root. The
>system seems to work fine in that configuration, but I wanted to know if
>those were the proper permissions, or if those files are supposed to be
>owned by the qmail group instead.
Do you want processes in the qmail group to have more access to them
than they currently do? I'd expect not. As long as they're
world-readable, qmail has all the access it needs.
-Dave
D. J. Bernstein writes:
> ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail.html will continue to work;
> some of you have already noticed the www->. symlink. (If you have
> a mirror program that can't handle loops, try teaching it about
> EPLF's identifiers: http://pobox.com/~djb/ftp/list/eplf.html.)
What problem is solved by creating a loop? My mirror software (wget)
worked just fine until you added the www->. symlink. *I* would prefer
that you remove it, rather than have to add Yet Another Item to my
todo list.
--
-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!
|
Okie I re-downloaded and re installed the
ucspi-tcp-0.84 still a no go, only this time the error reads -
tcpserver: usage tcpserver
[ -lpPhHrRoOdDqQv ] [ -c limit ] [ -x rules.cdb ] [ -B banner ] [ -g gid ] [ -u
uid ] [ -b backlog ] [ -l localhost ] [ -t timeout ]
host port
program
setuser: usage: setusser username program [ arg ...
]
Nicole & Ron McIntosh
|
What's the command line you use?
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicole & Ron McIntosh
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 9:58 PM
Subject: Still getting error on startup of qmail
Okie I re-downloaded and re installed the ucspi-tcp-0.84 still a no go, only
this time the error reads -
tcpserver: usage tcpserver [ -lpPhHrRoOdDqQv ] [ -c limit ] [ -x rules.cdb ]
[ -B banner ] [ -g gid ] [ -u uid ] [ -b backlog ] [ -l localhost ] [ -t
timeout ]
host port program
setuser: usage: setusser username program [ arg ... ]
Nicole & Ron McIntosh
Would the following program:
http://public.connect.org.uk/~rkl/replace/
be suited for flogging a dead horse... er I mean replacing uid's/gid's in
qmail binaries?
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
Source: http://www.sendmail.com/text/press/index.html
More than 1.5 million copies of the Open Source sendmail are installed,
representing over 75 percent of all Internet mail servers.
Eric Dahnke escribi�:
>
> I'm searching as best I can, but can't find a site which lists the
> approximate number of MTAs permanently connected to the internet.
>
> Anyone care to venture a guess, or mention a site where I can find such
> data.
>
> I figure around 100,000???
>
> TIA - Eric
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Spark Sistemas
- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
Tel: 4702-1958
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:18:34PM -0300, Eric Dahnke wrote:
}
} Source: http://www.sendmail.com/text/press/index.html
}
} More than 1.5 million copies of the Open Source sendmail are installed,
} representing over 75 percent of all Internet mail servers.
That really doesn't answer the question. sendmail.com's marketing
droids (remember, sendmail.com is now a business with a vested
interest in inflating numbers) may well be counting all of the copies
of sendmail that are shipped with, for example, Linux distributions
that are on machines that *aren't* 24/7 on the Internet (or even on
the Internet at all). I thought Dan had the results of some surveys
he did at his web site, but a quick check with lynx doesn't turn up
anything. I might just be looking in the wrong place, though.
}
}
}
} Eric Dahnke escribi�:
} >
} > I'm searching as best I can, but can't find a site which lists the
} > approximate number of MTAs permanently connected to the internet.
} >
} > Anyone care to venture a guess, or mention a site where I can find such
} > data.
} >
} > I figure around 100,000???
} >
} > TIA - Eric
}
} --
} + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
} Spark Sistemas
} - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
} Tel: 4702-1958
} e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
} + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, this is offtopic:
This message is just for me to avoid the dozens of inquiries I receive
each day about upgrading to the new daemontools.
It seems to me that from now on Dan's programs will come with some
kind of scripts to start the daemons under svscan. Hence it makes no
sense for me to upgrade all my initscripts (qmail-run,
tcpserver-initscripts) to work with daemontools-0.6* until I see what
Dan will do with, say, qmail.
I will make a daemontools-0.6* rpm so that people can play with, say,
publicfile, but people should use `rpm -i ' to install it, so that 0.53
will do its job for the rest of their setup. The new rpm will be
uploaded to
ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/alpha/
in the next few days.
Mate
Basically I want to setup a dummy host that I can relay mail off of, but I
don't want it to actually send the mail to remote machines.
Reason we're doing this is for load testing a mail application...we want
to see what happens with a real mail list without actually having the mail
go out. What should I do?
Thanks!
-jeremy
http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------
Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Hi,
I have qmail 1.03 running and delivering with the cyrus deliver
program. When a user has reached the quota limit on their mailbox, the
logs show:
Nov 8 15:44:53 mail qmail: 942104693.358273 starting delivery 95: msg
985125 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nov 8 15:44:53 mail qmail: 942104693.358425 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Nov 8 15:44:53 mail qmail: 942104693.385766 delivery 95: deferral:
shane:_Over_quota__/
Nov 8 15:44:53 mail qmail: 942104693.385878 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
How do I get qmail to bounce the message instead of continually
deferring the message?
--
Shane Clements
Software Engineer
NASDAQ: AHWY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(408) 861-4054/ (800)775-4783
http://www.audiohighway.com
http://massmusic.com
|
I got it working had an extra space in the
line
Now on to the next problem hehehe
Nicole & Ron McIntosh
|
For some reason I am unable to delete messages through pop3. Here is my
session:
+OK <242.942111154@smtp>
user test
+OK
pass test
+OK
list
+OK
1 583
2 583
3 583
4 888
.
dele 1
+OK
quit
-ERR unable to unlink all deleted messages
+OK
I am using a virtual popuser, which has write access on the files.
Receiving email works fine.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Ted
Dont you like answering your own questions? It was a permission problem.
Never mind :)
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: Theodore Cekan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 6:37 PM
Subject: error deleting email
> For some reason I am unable to delete messages through pop3. Here is my
> session:
>
> +OK <242.942111154@smtp>
> user test
> +OK
> pass test
> +OK
> list
> +OK
> 1 583
> 2 583
> 3 583
> 4 888
> .
> dele 1
> +OK
> quit
> -ERR unable to unlink all deleted messages
> +OK
>
>
> I am using a virtual popuser, which has write access on the files.
> Receiving email works fine.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ted
>
I have sent email to that address several times. I never get a reply and I
never get off the list. I now only scan the list looking for new ways to
get off. IS there a way?
andy
At 11:17 AM 11/3/1999 +0000, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 10:02:03AM +0200, Miki Shapiro wrote:
>>
>> Who do I mail to remove myself from this list?
>
>mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>And then, go take a look at http://www.ezmlm.org :-)
>
> Ricardo
>--
>+-------------------
>| Ricardo Cerqueira - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
>| FCCN/RCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional
>| Av. Brasil, 101 / 1700-066 Lisboa / Portugal *** Tel: (+351) 1 8440100
>
Thus said Andy Davidson on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:47:45 PST:
> I have sent email to that address several times. I never get a reply and I
> never get off the list. I now only scan the list looking for new ways to
> get off. IS there a way?
Are you kidding... you have been assimilated... :)
Actually, if you followed the directions given you 'to the T' you probably
would have received some type of an error message from your MTA. It should
be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See error below...
> >mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^^^^^
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
|
I have setup qmail 1-03 on Red Hat 6.0 and I have
done all the =
additional needs. Now I can receive mails to the mailbox and
also send. =
But now in my client (outlook or netscape) I need to receive the
mail. =
So I add the POP3 server and the SMTP server but I do not receive the
=
mail at my client side.
I have put up the start up script for SMTP
in the /etc/inetd.conf file =
but I have a line called POP-3 in the
same script. Even after I removed =
the remark statement it seems that my
client is unable to receive the =
mail. What settings should I setup in the
server.=20
I am also using uucspi-tcp and I have installed uucsp-tcp also
in my =
qmail server. But now I need to know why I am unable to receive my
mails =
at the client end pulling it out from the mail server.
my
client side set up is
POP3 - pop3.xxx.com.sg (pop3 is my hostname of the
qmail server)
SMTP - pop3. xxx.com.sg (SMTP)
so could u kindly let me
know where I could have gone wrong.
Thanks & Regards
John
Francis
|
Hello,
I have been running cyrus+qmail for quite some time now and recently, users
have been complaining about large mails not being delivered. I initially thought this
was a problem with cyrus' deliver but it seems not to be the case. When large mails
(>175k) are sent in the normal way (qmail-inject. .qmail-queue. .deliver), I get the
errors reported below about mmap() complaining. However, when piping a 3MB file
directly to '|deliver' from the command line, nothing complains.
Output from imapd.log:
IOERROR: mapping new message file for user.csbell: Not enough space
Output from syslog:
942122791.318715 delivery 53726: deferral:
421_4.3.0_deliver:_failed_to_mmap_new_message_file_/
Also, it might be worthy to note that I'm using a modified version of a script
I found on the list for my qmail-cyrus-wrapper. Though it might be in fault, I cannot
spot any logical deficiencies in it that could cause mmap() (and ultimately cyrus) not
to deliver the message. Anyhow, here it is:
# Modified version to use .qmail-dash and deliver to local mbox's
#!/bin/sh
QMAIL=`echo $LOCAL | tr "[:upper:] "[:lower:]"`
QMAIL_USER=`echo $QMAIL | cut -f1 -d -`
if [ "$EXT" != "" ]; then
QMAIL_MBOX=`echo $EXT | cut -f2- -d -`
QMAIL_MBOX="-m $QMAIL_MBOX"
fi
/usr/cyrus/bin/deliver -q -a $QMAIL_USER -e $QMAIL_MBOX $QMAIL_USER
# ripped codes from posted script
case $? in
64|65|66|67|68|76|77|78)
exit 100
;;
0)
exit 0
;;
*)
exit 111
;;
esac
This script is called as |/var/qmail/bin/qmail-cyrus-wrapper in cyrus' .qmail-default.
Any input appreciated,
Cheers.
--
Christian Bell | InfiniT: Le portail des Qu�b�cois - www.infinit.net/ |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Systems Administrator [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] |
-- --|-- |
-do the math yourself, p=vi.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
just my useless 2p:
1. As stuff like PGP and/or GnuPG starts to spread, there shall be
no longer identical messages - each and every message shall be
signed/encrypted by a different key.
2. The claims about "new technologies", "users wanting to send
videos and MP3s" and stuff should be solved by upgrading the lines
anyway; if you have several users sending 50MB attachments,
they are killing your 64kb line anyway - should they use FTP or
SMTP, and should they send one copy or three copies.
3. For mailing lists it's unusable anyway due to VERPing - the
protocol simply doesn't allow multiple MAIL FROM/RCPT TO pairs
for one DATA part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOCfhyVMwP8g7qbw/EQLtAwCeL1YaKyn9E7G321/4MZntb0PjVcMAn2fK
wYpQXdP1jctewENDgJdTboXt
=K35L
-----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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
since nobody answered the first question, I shall try to reword it:
My qmail installation supports mail clients on local LAN. These
clients may be deemed "broken clients" (irrepairably) as they put
completely incorrect date stamps in the outgoing mail. The
resolution is to have qmail fix the date stamps.
I understand the RELAYCLIENT="@fixme" trick from FAQ. I also
understand transparent proxying (and transparent remapping port
25 to port 26) for the LAN clients.
The question is: Is there a djb program which would re-stamp the
date? (It should not modify any other header; it might delete
Return-Path and Received and stuff.)
I read the documentation of qmail-inject and it would do what I want
if I could filter out the old "Date" line.
I can't (almost) write in Perl. I can write a C program. But first I
wanted to know if there is some already done script/program which
would delete a chosen line from RFC822 header. I don't want to
reinvent a wheel.
We are talking a few hunded e-mails a day - speed/efficiency is not
the primary task.
Is there like something in mess822?
Thanks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOCfm1lMwP8g7qbw/EQLYdgCgjB4wYoBIgAc6Zb6noq7oSKhsPNwAn34o
oTbKNm9Tr4M6ad6XG5MKD3fs
=hryl
-----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]
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 09:18:15AM -0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> since nobody answered the first question, I shall try to reword it:
>
> My qmail installation supports mail clients on local LAN. These
> clients may be deemed "broken clients" (irrepairably) as they put
> completely incorrect date stamps in the outgoing mail. The
> resolution is to have qmail fix the date stamps.
>
> I understand the RELAYCLIENT="@fixme" trick from FAQ. I also
> understand transparent proxying (and transparent remapping port
> 25 to port 26) for the LAN clients.
>
> The question is: Is there a djb program which would re-stamp the
> date? (It should not modify any other header; it might delete
> Return-Path and Received and stuff.)
>
> I read the documentation of qmail-inject and it would do what I want
> if I could filter out the old "Date" line.
>
> I can't (almost) write in Perl. I can write a C program. But first I
> wanted to know if there is some already done script/program which
> would delete a chosen line from RFC822 header. I don't want to
> reinvent a wheel.
Start with this old script. It rewrites the subject.
You can easily rewrite the date with this. Mail privately if you want more
help than this.
--------- %< cut here ------------------
!/usr/bin/perl
# tagmail.pl; 1999-02-18; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use strict;
# read mail and split into hdr and body
my ($hdr, $body);
while (<STDIN>) { last if /^[\r\n]*$/; $hdr .= $_; }
$body = join '',<STDIN>;
# Fix subject-line
$hdr =~ s/^(subject:\s*)(.*)$/$1 ALERT: $2/mi;
# print mail
print "$hdr\n$body";
--------- %< cut here ------------------
/magnus
--
MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
Hi there!
I'm looking for a qmail API helping me to filter incoming and outgoing
mails. Will you please be so kind as to give me a hint where to find
such an API.
Thanks a lot !
Holger Hug
|
Hi there!
I'm looking for a qmail API
helping me to filter incoming and outgoing
mails. Will you please be so kind
as to give me a hint where to find
such an API.
Thanks a lot
!
Holger Hug
|
Hello everyone,
could you give one good solution for spam in qmail ?????
regards
--
-----------------------------
Lu�s Bezerra de A. Junior
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SecrelNet Inform�tica LTDA
Fortaleza - Cear� - Brasil
Fone: 021852882090
-----------------------------
I have one problem with the Mailbox of my clients:
When one user gets your messages and tour mail software breaks down the
connection with my server, your Mailbox stays locked and,
after some time, it is unlocked.
Is there one good solution for this problem?
Is there thisproblem when I use Maildir format for my boxes?
thanks in advance!!!!!
--
-----------------------------
Lu�s Bezerra de A. Junior
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SecrelNet Inform�tica LTDA
Fortaleza - Cear� - Brasil
Fone: 021852882090
-----------------------------
I have one problem with the Mailbox of my users:
When one user gets your messages and your mail software breaks down the
connection with my server, your Mailbox stays locked and,
after some time, it is unlocked.
Is there one good solution for this problem?
Is there thisproblem when I use Maildir format for my boxes?
thanks in advance!!!!!
--
-----------------------------
Lu�s Bezerra de A. Junior
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SecrelNet Inform�tica LTDA
Fortaleza - Cear� - Brasil
Fone: 021852882090
-----------------------------
Hi,
I just replied to a message received as a result of a post to this list and
have just got this error message back:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The
following address(es) failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
host mars.galstar.com [204.251.80.4]:
550 Spam mail from uk.psi.net
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [154.32.19.85] (helo=candace.eoc.org.uk)
by relay2.mail.uk.psi.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)
id 11l8PE-0002zX-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:21:40 +0000
Received: (qmail 48923 invoked from network); 9 Nov 1999 10:21:38 -0000
Received: from bast.eoc.org.uk (172.16.65.8)
by candace.eoc.org.uk with SMTP; 9 Nov 1999 10:21:38 -0000
Received: by bast.eoc.org.uk
with MailBeamer v3.26 ;
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:25:17 -0000
From: Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Qmail on a firewall?
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:24:00 -0000
X-Mailer: MailBeamer v3.26
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Return-Receipt-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Confirm-Reading-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is this just over-zealous anti-spam measures on the part of galstar.com or
is something up with our ISP?
Ta!
R.
