qmail Digest 11 Dec 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 846
Topics (messages 34188 through 34253):
Re: Oops, someone tried to send you a virus
34188 by: Mark E. Drummond
34211 by: Matthew Brown
34213 by: Kai MacTane
34214 by: Russell Nelson
34215 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
34216 by: Dustin Miller
34223 by: Russell Nelson
34225 by: Dustin Miller
new to list, install questions
34189 by: Mark Maggelet
34190 by: Vince Vielhaber
34193 by: tech.staff.netbig.com
34194 by: Peter Green
34195 by: Soffen, Matthew
34196 by: Russell Nelson
34197 by: claudio.nieder.symmetrix.ch
34198 by: Mark Maggelet
34200 by: Russell Nelson
34203 by: Steve Kapinos
34204 by: Shawn P. Stanley
34205 by: Ang Sei Heng
34228 by: Lenny Mastrototaro
34233 by: Peter Cavender
Re: Question about UCE and also AMAVIS
34191 by: Sam
34207 by: Dustin Miller
Parallel serial mail setup
34192 by: Andreas Fiedler
Re: looping delivered-to autoresponder stuff...
34199 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: question about tcpclient
34201 by: martin.wonderfrog.net
Performance?!
34202 by: Ekker, Heinz
34208 by: John White
34220 by: Markus Stumpf
34232 by: cmikk.uswest.net
34234 by: James Raftery
34241 by: cmikk.uswest.net
Difference between Bruce's and Mate's RPM (was: Re: new to list, install questions)
34206 by: Mirko Zeibig
Re: qmail dying on Solaris
34209 by: Robin Bowes
34210 by: Matthew Brown
34212 by: Matthew Brown
34243 by: Peter C. Norton
Re: Logging
34217 by: Dave Sill
My recent AMaViS patch.
34218 by: Dustin Miller
34219 by: Greg Owen
34221 by: Dustin Miller
34224 by: Greg Owen
34226 by: Dustin Miller
multiple queues?
34222 by: Peter Green
34227 by: Dave Sill
34229 by: Peter Green
34230 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
Re: How to send a message after
34231 by: David L. Nicol
34235 by: Ari Arantes Filho
Re: failure notice
34236 by: Racer X
34244 by: Sam
Hotmail
34237 by: Monte Mitzelfelt
34238 by: Aaron L. Meehan
34239 by: Aaron L. Meehan
34240 by: Monte Mitzelfelt
34245 by: Sam
34251 by: Denis Voitenko
virtual domains and local users
34242 by: Aaron Gowatch
34246 by: Russell Nelson
34247 by: Aaron Gowatch
34248 by: Russell Nelson
sendmail --> qmail (Maildir)
34249 by: Yamin Prabudy
34250 by: Philip Gabbert
User Mail size
34252 by: Ranjan Koirala
34253 by: Andy Bradford
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Cavender wrote:
>
> Go away and take your alarmist spam with you. I hope your
> quarantined viruses get loose on your NT server.
Actually, if I remember right these guys are the ones who implemented an
email anti-virus system using a modified version of Qmail running on
UNIX boxen.
--
___________________________________________________
Mark Drummond|ICQ#19153754|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gang Warily|http://signals.rmc.ca/
> 1) Like *I* am responsible for what my mail users receive!!
Many of us might be responsible for cleaning up the mess.
> 2) Most viruses are for Windows, which contribute to it's downfall.
Most viruses are for Windows because of its popularity, especially among the
less computer literate who are more likely to unwittingly run a virus. If
Linux got popular among that crowd, Linux viruses would be everywhere.
> 4) If it is a Linux virus, aren't they required to include
> the source code?
No ;) Binary linux viruses exist.
> 5) What kind or dork runs executable attachments from unknown sources?
> 6) What kind or dork uses a MUA that auto-runs attachments?
The problem in the Windows world is that most of the recent viruses look
like (or are) attached documents. Since people in many organizations are
addicted to sending people MS Word files instead of plain emails, they don't
even think twice before opening them. Embedded viral macro code runs, which
can do anything.
Also, most of these viruses propagate themselves by looking in their
victims' email addressbooks or mail inboxes and sending to everyone they
find there. So the virus might not be coming from an unknown source, but
rather the guy in the next cube.
> Go away and take your alarmist spam with you. I hope your
> quarantined viruses get loose on your NT server.
Actually, in this case, it was a completely automated system. I don't
believe malice here.
I don't hope he gets a virus; I hope he gets a clue about how to approach
people in a more polite manner, rather than coming on so strong.
-Matt
--
Matt Brown ---- UNIX Administrator ---- tickets.com
Phone: (714) 327-5571 --- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:14 AM 12/10/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>4) If it is a Linux virus, aren't they required to include the source
> code?
No. Just because the OS is GPLed doesn't mean that all software that runs
on it must also be GPLed, or even open-source. There *are* closed-source
software packages available for Linux, and this is perfectly legal.
If you engage in Linux or open-source advocacy, BTW, you should do some
more research on the ins and outs of open source licensing lest you confuse
the people you're trying to enlighten.
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Advocacy.html
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/linuxmanship/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kai MacTane
System Administrator
Online Partners.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
die horribly /v./
The software equivalent of crash and burn, and the preferred emphatic
form of die. "The converter choked on an FF in its input and died
horribly".
Matthew Brown writes:
> Actually, in this case, it was a completely automated system. I don't
> believe malice here.
Yes, and it did the right thing in this case -- to send email to all
likely receipients of the email, since they got a virus that might
cause them a problem.
--
-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!
> Yes, and it did the right thing in this case -- to send email to all
> likely receipients of the email, since they got a virus that might
> cause them a problem.
Imagine that every receiver of the list had installed such a system. Boom!
The warning should only go to the envelope sender and envelope receivers.
Regards, Frank
It did.
It went to me, and it went to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dustin
P.S. I'll reiterate for the paranoid. I attached the EICAR TEST VIRUS to an
e-mail message posted to this list. It does no harm (except for crashing
Windows Millennium if you try to run it), and will simple display a text
string if run under DOS. For more information, please see:
http://www.datafellows.com/v-descs/eicar.htm
_____
Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Tegtmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Oops, someone tried to send you a virus
> Yes, and it did the right thing in this case -- to send email to all
> likely receipients of the email, since they got a virus that might
> cause them a problem.
Imagine that every receiver of the list had installed such a system. Boom!
The warning should only go to the envelope sender and envelope receivers.
Regards, Frank
Frank Tegtmeyer writes:
> > Yes, and it did the right thing in this case -- to send email to all
> > likely receipients of the email, since they got a virus that might
> > cause them a problem.
>
> Imagine that every receiver of the list had installed such a system. Boom!
Hmmm... You're right, that behavior doesn't scale for mailing lists.
--
-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!
The problem with the alarming system was that I had directed a post both to
the list and to an individual subscriber. That person's system alarmed, and
sent the alarm e-mail to all recipients of that message. I would guess that
the best way to reply to the list and to a subscriber would be to move the
list to the BCC field.
Of course, if a new script is written, another approach might be to instruct
the alert to not send mail to any address with the word "list" or "group" in
it. That might help, but it also might allow a loophole for, let's say, the
mail alias, "webmastergroup". Hmm..
Any ideas?
_____
Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Oops, someone tried to send you a virus
Frank Tegtmeyer writes:
> > Yes, and it did the right thing in this case -- to send email to all
> > likely receipients of the email, since they got a virus that might
> > cause them a problem.
>
> Imagine that every receiver of the list had installed such a system.
Boom!
Hmmm... You're right, that behavior doesn't scale for mailing lists.
--
-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!
Hi there
I'm installing qmail on a RedHat 6.1 server install machine and I just
have a couple of quick questions and then I'll lurk for awhile.
1) REMOVE.sendmail says this:
Find sendmail in your boot scripts. It's usually in either /etc/rc or
/etc/init.d/sendmail. It looks like
sendmail -bd -q15m
-q15m means that it should run the queue every 15 minutes; you may
see a different number. Comment out this line.
there's no such line, but theres a script called /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
that I removed. Is that the right thing to do?
2) the install file says this:
Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
but it's on 2 lines, does it mean one line, or two lines? because
if it were 1 line, there would be 8 fields and the other lines in there
have 7. I feel pretty dumb for having to ask that one.
3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
but doesn't say how.
many thanks,
- Mark
***********************************************
On 12/10/99 at 7:07 AM Mark E. Drummond wrote:
>Peter Cavender wrote:
>>
>> Go away and take your alarmist spam with you. I hope your
>> quarantined viruses get loose on your NT server.
>
>Actually, if I remember right these guys are the ones who implemented an
>email anti-virus system using a modified version of Qmail running on
>UNIX boxen.
>
>--
>___________________________________________________
>Mark Drummond|ICQ#19153754|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gang Warily|http://signals.rmc.ca/
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Mark Maggelet wrote:
> Hi there
> I'm installing qmail on a RedHat 6.1 server install machine and I just
> have a couple of quick questions and then I'll lurk for awhile.
>
> 1) REMOVE.sendmail says this:
> Find sendmail in your boot scripts. It's usually in either /etc/rc or
> /etc/init.d/sendmail. It looks like
> sendmail -bd -q15m
> -q15m means that it should run the queue every 15 minutes; you may
> see a different number. Comment out this line.
>
> there's no such line, but theres a script called /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
> that I removed. Is that the right thing to do?
I don't run linux so I can't help much with this one, but that's probably
what you want. Also make sure it's not currently running.
> 2) the install file says this:
> Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> but it's on 2 lines, does it mean one line, or two lines? because
> if it were 1 line, there would be 8 fields and the other lines in there
> have 7. I feel pretty dumb for having to ask that one.
Find your way to: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html (it's called
Life With Qmail) and follow the instructions to using tcpserver. You
will be farther ahead than using inetd and it's MUCH more reliable.
To avoid confusion, tcpserver comes in the ucspi-tcp package.
> 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
> but doesn't say how.
Try renaming your existing sendmail binary to sendmail.old (I usually even
chmod it to 000) and create a link from /var/qmail/bin/sendmail to where
sendmail was (eg. ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail).
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 Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Mark Maggelet wrote:
> Hi there
> I'm installing qmail on a RedHat 6.1 server install machine and I just
> have a couple of quick questions and then I'll lurk for awhile.
>
> 1) REMOVE.sendmail says this:
> Find sendmail in your boot scripts. It's usually in either /etc/rc or
> /etc/init.d/sendmail. It looks like
> sendmail -bd -q15m
> -q15m means that it should run the queue every 15 minutes; you may
> see a different number. Comment out this line.
this is the location of sendmail in slackware, not redhat
>
> there's no such line, but theres a script called /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
> that I removed. Is that the right thing to do?
just run ntsysv and disable sendmail, then kill sendmail procedure.
>
> 2) the install file says this:
> Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> but it's on 2 lines, does it mean one line, or two lines? because
> if it were 1 line, there would be 8 fields and the other lines in there
> have 7. I feel pretty dumb for having to ask that one.
it's on ONE line. the field after "/var/qmail/bin/tcp-env" is just
arguments of tcp-env
>
> 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
> but doesn't say how.
you can add symbolic links in /var/spool/mail, which point to
$HOME/Mailbox, or just run "mail -f ./Mailbox"
>
> many thanks,
> - Mark
>
> ***********************************************
>
> On 12/10/99 at 7:07 AM Mark E. Drummond wrote:
>
> >Peter Cavender wrote:
> >>
> >> Go away and take your alarmist spam with you. I hope your
> >> quarantined viruses get loose on your NT server.
> >
> >Actually, if I remember right these guys are the ones who implemented an
> >email anti-virus system using a modified version of Qmail running on
> >UNIX boxen.
> >
> >--
> >___________________________________________________
> >Mark Drummond|ICQ#19153754|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Gang Warily|http://signals.rmc.ca/
>
>
>
>
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 04:27:48AM -0800, Mark Maggelet wrote:
> Hi there
> I'm installing qmail on a RedHat 6.1 server install machine and I just
> have a couple of quick questions and then I'll lurk for awhile.
>
> 1) REMOVE.sendmail says this:
> Find sendmail in your boot scripts. It's usually in either /etc/rc or
> /etc/init.d/sendmail. It looks like
> sendmail -bd -q15m
> -q15m means that it should run the queue every 15 minutes; you may
> see a different number. Comment out this line.
>
> there's no such line, but theres a script called /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
> that I removed. Is that the right thing to do?
It's okay, but not ideal. You should do `chkconfig --del <service>` for each
service that you wish to disable from starting. (In this case, <service>
would be 'sendmail'.) That will remove the links from /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ (and
other runlevels) to the startup script, effectively disabling sendmail.
> 2) the install file says this:
> Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
Ditch inetd. Use tcpserver. <http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html>
> 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
> but doesn't say how.
I haven't been able to figure out how to configure *sending* mail using
/bin/mail on a qmail installed machine. My guess is that /bin/mail speaks
directly to an SMTP server or something goofy.
Being on a RedHat 6.1 box, you might consider using Bruce Guenter's
*excellent* qmail source RPMs. <http://em.ca/~bruceg/>
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Green [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:15 AM
> To: Mark Maggelet
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: new to list, install questions
>
[snip]
> > 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
> > but doesn't say how.
>
> I haven't been able to figure out how to configure *sending* mail using
> /bin/mail on a qmail installed machine. My guess is that /bin/mail speaks
> directly to an SMTP server or something goofy.
>
> Being on a RedHat 6.1 box, you might consider using Bruce Guenter's
> *excellent* qmail source RPMs. <http://em.ca/~bruceg/>
>
>
I believe that /bin/mail simply uses /usr/sbin/sendmail to send its
mail so make sure that you have replaced sendmail with a link to the qmail
sendmail wrapper program.
Matt Soffen
Applications Developer
http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
Mark Maggelet writes:
> there's no such line, but theres a script called /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
> that I removed. Is that the right thing to do?
No. The right thing to do under redhat is to run chkconfig to turn
the service off.
> 2) the install file says this:
> Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> but it's on 2 lines, does it mean one line, or two lines? because
> if it were 1 line, there would be 8 fields and the other lines in there
> have 7. I feel pretty dumb for having to ask that one.
Lines in inetd.conf have a variable number of parameters, beyond the
path to the program at parameter #6 and the name of the program at
parameter #7 (don't ask me why you have to specify the path and the
name separately -- botch, botch).
> 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
> but doesn't say how.
When you replace /usr/sbin/sendmail with a symlink to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail,
it just works.
--
-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!
Hi,
> > smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> > tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> parameter #7 (don't ask me why you have to specify the path and the
> name separately -- botch, botch).
I suppose the name is what is passed as argv[0] to the process. This
may be different, than the filename, and there are programs who act
differently according to what argv[0] contains.
claudio
--
Claudio Nieder,Symmetrix AG,Seefeldstr. 231,CH-8008 Z�rich phn:+411 381 8880
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.symmetrix.ch fax:+411 381 2127
***********************************************
On 12/10/99 at 9:22 AM Soffen, Matthew wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Green [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:15 AM
>> To: Mark Maggelet
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: new to list, install questions
>>
> [snip]
>
>> > 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
>> > but doesn't say how.
>>
>> I haven't been able to figure out how to configure *sending* mail using
>> /bin/mail on a qmail installed machine. My guess is that /bin/mail speaks
>> directly to an SMTP server or something goofy.
>>
>> Being on a RedHat 6.1 box, you might consider using Bruce Guenter's
>> *excellent* qmail source RPMs. <http://em.ca/~bruceg/>
>>
>>
> I believe that /bin/mail simply uses /usr/sbin/sendmail to send its
>mail so make sure that you have replaced sendmail with a link to the qmail
>sendmail wrapper program.
i did that, but my mail still doesn't get sent with 'mail'
it does get delivered when I do:
echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
but I want something like 'mail' to prompt me for subject,
etc.. is there something I'm missing? don't tell me I have
to de echo to: | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject every time I
want to send a message!?
thanks to everybody for the feedback.
- Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi,
>
> > > smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> > > tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > parameter #7 (don't ask me why you have to specify the path and the
> > name separately -- botch, botch).
>
> I suppose the name is what is passed as argv[0] to the process. This
> may be different, than the filename, and there are programs who act
> differently according to what argv[0] contains.
Right, but introduce a gratuitious incompatibility?? Everywhere else
under Unix where the above behavior is desired, it's accomplished
through a hard link. There was absolutely *zero* reason to introduce
this new method for setting argv[0] to different values for the same
program. As I said, "botch, botch".
A lot of what we use for standards in Unix was invented off the cuff
by peach-bearded Berkeley freshmen. I agree 100% with Linus and djb
-- that we must not worship BSD or SYSV as *the* only or best way of
doing things. A lot of the shit that Linus and Dan get is from people
who worship California and New Jersey hackers. While I respect those
hackers, neither do I think they've invented the last way of doing
something.
Pay attention to the way Dan designs programs. Typically they are
more sublime than most other things you'll find in Unix -- for
example, Bernstein chaining, or supervising a daemon, or logging
standard error.
--
-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!
You must be missing a sendmail link.. all copies of sendmail should be -x'd
and replaced with qmail's sendmail wrappers.
Do a 'locate sendmail' and make sure none of the binaries are still alive
and kicking. I think in redhat the one people miss is in /usr/lib/ I
think.
/bin/mail will work for sending mail without modification once qmail is
installed and sendmail is deinstalled and wrapp'd out.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Maggelet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: new to list, install questions
***********************************************
On 12/10/99 at 9:22 AM Soffen, Matthew wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Green [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:15 AM
>> To: Mark Maggelet
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: new to list, install questions
>>
> [snip]
>
>> > 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
>> > but doesn't say how.
>>
>> I haven't been able to figure out how to configure *sending* mail using
>> /bin/mail on a qmail installed machine. My guess is that /bin/mail speaks
>> directly to an SMTP server or something goofy.
>>
>> Being on a RedHat 6.1 box, you might consider using Bruce Guenter's
>> *excellent* qmail source RPMs. <http://em.ca/~bruceg/>
>>
>>
> I believe that /bin/mail simply uses /usr/sbin/sendmail to send its
>mail so make sure that you have replaced sendmail with a link to the qmail
>sendmail wrapper program.
i did that, but my mail still doesn't get sent with 'mail'
it does get delivered when I do:
echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
but I want something like 'mail' to prompt me for subject,
etc.. is there something I'm missing? don't tell me I have
to de echo to: | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject every time I
want to send a message!?
thanks to everybody for the feedback.
- Mark
> Lines in inetd.conf have a variable number of parameters, beyond the
> path to the program at parameter #6 and the name of the program at
> parameter #7 (don't ask me why you have to specify the path and the
> name separately -- botch, botch).
The name parameter is actually sent as parameter zero to the application
specified in the path parameter. There are a number of applications that
perform differently depending on what they receive as parameter zero. As an
example, gzip, gunzip, and zcat are all the same program, but when it's
invoked with the name zcat, it acts very differently from when it's invoked
with the name gzip.
Mark Maggelet wrote:
> Hi there
> I'm installing qmail on a RedHat 6.1 server install machine and I just
> have a couple of quick questions and then I'll lurk for awhile.
>
> 1) REMOVE.sendmail says this:
> Find sendmail in your boot scripts. It's usually in either /etc/rc or
> /etc/init.d/sendmail. It looks like
> sendmail -bd -q15m
> -q15m means that it should run the queue every 15 minutes; you may
> see a different number. Comment out this line.
>
> there's no such line, but theres a script called /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail
> that I removed. Is that the right thing to do?
>
I believe you are using a RedHat. This is what I did:
1) Remove the 'sendmail' software link from '/etc/rc.d/rc3.d'. Just cd to
this directory
and rm the 'S80sendmail' link. (Note, the number could be different
from your system).
2) Use one of the startup script from '/var/qmail/boot'. I recommend 'home'
script. Just copy
it as filename 'rc.qmail' in '/var/qmail/' directory.
3) Add the following line in rc.local (after the '#!/bin/sh' -- the first
line).
if [ -x /var/qmail/rc.qmail ]; then
echo -n "Starting qmail services..."
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc.qmail &'
fi
This should start the qmail next time you reboot.
>
> 2) the install file says this:
> Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line):
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
> tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
Use tcpserver instead. goto http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html
Add the following line in rc.local (after rc.qmail)
if [ -x /usr/local/bin/tcpserver ]; then
if [ -x /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd ]; then
echo -n "Starting tcpserver for qmail-smtpd..."
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 1002 -g 102 0 smtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
echo "done"
fi
fi
>
> but it's on 2 lines, does it mean one line, or two lines? because
> if it were 1 line, there would be 8 fields and the other lines in there
> have 7. I feel pretty dumb for having to ask that one.
>
> 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it
> but doesn't say how.
'mail' try to use sendmail program in '/sbin/sendmail'. Move this file some
where else (maybe in '/root'?)
and create a softlink as:
ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail sendmail
This should allow 'mail' to use qmail to send email.
Note:
- I configure my RedHat like a Slackware, I like the Slack way of doing
things... someone should be able
to explain better way of install it in a more 'RedHat' manner. But, it
works for my system.
- I assume you already installed the qmail in '/var/qmail' directory.
- I assume you will install tcpserver (Qmail officially state to use
tcpserver instead of inetd)
Good Luck!
Sei Heng
On Dec 11, 12:26am, Ang Sei Heng wrote:
> Subject: Re: new to list, install questions
> Mark Maggelet wrote:
> I believe you are using a RedHat. This is what I did:
>
> 1) Remove the 'sendmail' software link from '/etc/rc.d/rc3.d'. Just cd to
> this directory and rm the 'S80sendmail' link. (Note, the number could be
> different from your system).
The chkconfig(8) command is the preferred way to manage the symlinks under
/etc/rc.d/rc?.d directories in recent Redhat distributions (5.1 or later)
Regards,
Lenny
>-- End of excerpt from Ang Sei Heng
--
Leonard Mastrototaro Systems Administrator Click3X New York
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 212-627-1900 http://www.click3x.com
"Yeah well ... The Dude abides." -- http://www.lebowski.com
> > Mark Maggelet wrote:
>
> > I believe you are using a RedHat. This is what I did:
> >
> > 1) Remove the 'sendmail' software link from '/etc/rc.d/rc3.d'. Just cd to
> > this directory and rm the 'S80sendmail' link. (Note, the number could be
> > different from your system).
>
>The chkconfig(8) command is the preferred way to manage the symlinks under
>/etc/rc.d/rc?.d directories in recent Redhat distributions (5.1 or later)
>
>
Running ntsysv on RedHat gives you a nice interface to do the same
thing. Just un-select sendmail, and hit OK.
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Alex at Star wrote:
>
> >Probably not against "the rules", but it shows extremely poor taste, and,
> >much like you, I would actually refrain from doing business with any
> >inconsiderate clod who'd try to pull that on me.
>
>
> So Sam, let me get this straight. If you posted a problem onto the list,
> and someone proposed a solution that not only costs you less in real terms,
> but is also technically better, you would ignore it. In that case, why post
> the problem in the first place?
You are assuming that the solution you're selling meets this criteria. I
would not necessarily accept it as a given.
Instead of winding yourself up for a sales pitch, the proper respose
should've been simply a one line note -- "are you open to considering a
commercial software solution?" and go from there. But don't just unload a
lengthy sales pitch into anyone's mailbox who asks a question that has
even the remotest connection to your wares.
--
Sam
The problem posted was not "I need an antivirus solution."
The problem posted was "I can't get Amavis to work, I'm sure someone else
has been able to."
You didn't solve my problem.
I didn't want your solicitation, it was an invasion of my privacy.
_____
Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex at Star [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:28 AM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Question about UCE and also AMAVIS
>Probably not against "the rules", but it shows extremely poor taste, and,
>much like you, I would actually refrain from doing business with any
>inconsiderate clod who'd try to pull that on me.
So Sam, let me get this straight. If you posted a problem onto the list,
and someone proposed a solution that not only costs you less in real terms,
but is also technically better, you would ignore it. In that case, why post
the problem in the first place?
Alex
____________________________________________________________________________
____
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening
System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
Hi,
I've setup qmail and serialmail successfully. Now I want to make another
serialmail queue for a mailing list. I have to send some thousand messages
a month to clients and it isn't really important how long it takes for
delivery.
On the other hand I have mail that need to be delivered immediately.
I plan to make a second serialmail outgoing queue for the mailing list
messages so my high priority mails don't sit in the big queue anymore.
The list mails come from a single local account (hgs) only. What can I
do that these mails make it into pppdir2 and all other mails in
pppdir1? The mailing list account doesn't send other mails than to the
list.
Do I have to fiddle around in control/virtualdomains?
I would like some hints!
Thanks in advance
Andreas
Marc-Adrian Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i have an autoresponder line in a customers .qmail file as follows:
>
> | /var/qmail/bin/autorespond AutoReplyBot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> /www/db/user/respond.txt
...
> However, the user doesn't receive the mail that you send! I then tried to
> put:
>
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> in the next line of the .qmail file but i get the autoresponder back, but i
> also get a mail with the following:
Yes, that loops. Instead, put a file/maildir delivery instruction in the
second line:
|/var/qmail/bin/autorespond ...
./Maildir/
This should work. Using a mail forwarding instruction (&...) will re-inject
the message, and qmail detects mail loops like this.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
Serban,
Two dashes like that indicate "this is the end of option parsing", and
any subsequent data is treated as arguments. In some shells (with some
commands) "-" is interpreted as <STDIN>, so in order to disambiguate,
the "--" are used...
Is tcpclient functioning as you would expect?
-Martin
------------
$ man bash
<snip>
- A single - signals the end of options and dis-
ables further option processing. Any arguments
after the - are treated as filenames and argu-
ments. An argument of -- is equivalent to an
argument of -.
<snip>
On 10 Dec, Serban Udrea wrote:
: On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:59:13PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > Serban,
: >
: > I'd ask the list....but, if you don't get a good response from the list,
: > please feel free to ask me directly, and I'll try to respond promptly...
: >
: > -Martin
: < Here we are at the end of your message >
:
: Hello,
:
: And thanks Martin for answering to my question.
:
: My first problem is about the examples given for the use of tcpclient. Lets
: take who@ (the others are more or less similar):
:
: #!/bin/sh
: # WARNING: This file was auto-generated. Do not edit!
: /usr/local/bin/tcpclient -RHl0 -- "${1-0}" 11 \
: sh -c 'exec /usr/local/bin/delcr <&6' | cat -v
:
: After reading the man page for tcpclient, I think attentively, I couldn't
: figure out at all what are the `--' standing for. So I would be very happy if
: someone could explain me the `--'.
:
: Please note that I'm a beginner in programming and also that I introduced the
: `\' just in this mail to break the long line in the who@ script (although this
: should be harmless also in the script)
:
: Best regards,
:
: Serban
:
--
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe Communications --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
When playing around with qmail I couldn't avoid noticing that I only reach a
poor performance. My tests run with some Perl-Scripts that send randomly
sized messages to random users via smtp. The message sizes average to ~100k.
When I first tested it, I used alias-expansion with the fastforward-package,
and to be honest, I was quite surprised to find that qmail could - on a
Pentium III 500 with 512 Megs RAM and a 19GB Level 1-RAID running RedHat,
2.2.13 with fd-patch - deliver only about 2 messages per second. The Queue
kept filling up, and half of the messages were not preprocessed. Only when I
let go of fastforward, I reached ~200 messages per minute and 17-18 MB of
throughput, which still seems very little. At least the preprocessing seemed
to work now. The CPU idles with 70, 80 %, there's plenty of RAM left. The
local concurrency never ever rises above 5.
I did my homework and dug through the archives of this mailing list, but the
only suggestions I found were (hopefully a joke) to take out the fsyncs
(which, BTW, didn't bring any increase) and people telling what good
performance they get with qmail(15, 20 messages per second? Still more? With
a lot less investment in hardware?).
Have you any suggestions for me on which type of hardware I should set up
qmail to reach similar results? We plan to move a medium site to qmail, and
I know there are severall still bigger ones running this mailserver.
Thanks in advance,
Heinz
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 04:54:31PM +0100, Ekker, Heinz wrote:
> When I first tested it, I used alias-expansion with the fastforward-package,
> and to be honest, I was quite surprised to find that qmail could - on a
> Pentium III 500 with 512 Megs RAM and a 19GB Level 1-RAID running RedHat,
> 2.2.13 with fd-patch - deliver only about 2 messages per second. The Queue
> kept filling up, and half of the messages were not preprocessed. Only when I
> let go of fastforward, I reached ~200 messages per minute and 17-18 MB of
> throughput, which still seems very little. At least the preprocessing seemed
> to work now. The CPU idles with 70, 80 %, there's plenty of RAM left. The
> local concurrency never ever rises above 5.
Did you see a discussion in the last 30 days about RAID levels?
Is your /var/qmail/queue on the RAID1? Big write I/O reduction
if you are.
John
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 09:12:01AM -0800, John White wrote:
> Did you see a discussion in the last 30 days about RAID levels?
>
> Is your /var/qmail/queue on the RAID1? Big write I/O reduction
> if you are.
IMHO this is NOT the problem. The problem is a IMHO design flaw in
qmail-send's processing loop.
It uses concurrency* to its full extend if and only if there a no new
messages to process.
If you have a bulk inject of lets say 10000 messages qmail-send
transfers them from the unpreprocessed queue to the processed queue.
Due to the design of the processing loop it does - within one loop - at most
process one unpreprocessed message and one for delivery. As soon as
all messages from the unprocessed queue are processed (processing is
kinda slow; Russell Nelsons big-todo-patch helps on some systems for
speedup and doesn't on some others, it's FS type dependant)
qmail "speeds up" and starts concurrency* number of deliveries and
becomes really fast. However if one of those messages bounces, it is
"reinjected" into the unpreprocessed queue and slows down qmail again.
This causes qmail to deliver in "waves".
I have graphically documented this (avail at
<URL:http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/deliver-stats.gif>
and also asked on the list whether there is a workaround for this,
but it looks like there isn't.
As you can see from the above figure, as soon as qmail-send has an
empty unprocessed queue it starts (in my case) 240 concurrent (120 local
and 120 remote) deliveries. These are being processed really fast, but
they produce bounces, which slow down the (remote/local) deliveries for
some time.
During that time only few new deliveries are started until the unprocessed
queue ist empty again. Then qmail-send again starts up to 120 deliveries
and stays there, unless bounces happen and then slows down again.
If you look at the time frame 150-180 of the image you can see a case
where only one or two bounces happend, these were processed fast and
it is up at 120 again.
One way to somewhat overcome this on a "bulk only" mailserver, where it's
not too important that you have quick notice on new messages is to
chmod 000 /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger
That way qmail has no communication with qmail-queue and checks for
unprocessed messages only each 20 minutes.
Thus the bounces don't come in the way of deliveries, so deliveries are
highly concurrent.
However this is no solution for a "default" mailserver.
Any comments on this analysis?
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:15:06 +0100 , Markus Stumpf writes:
[triggering slows down qmail]
> This causes qmail to deliver in "waves".
>
> I have graphically documented this (avail at
> <URL:http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/deliver-stats.gif>
> and also asked on the list whether there is a workaround for this,
> but it looks like there isn't.
[snip]
> One way to somewhat overcome this on a "bulk only" mailserver, where it's
> not too important that you have quick notice on new messages is to
> chmod 000 /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger
> That way qmail has no communication with qmail-queue and checks for
> unprocessed messages only each 20 minutes.
Actually, 25 (in my copy, anyway).
> Thus the bounces don't come in the way of deliveries, so deliveries are
> highly concurrent.
> However this is no solution for a "default" mailserver.
>
> Any comments on this analysis?
I think that the "no-trigger" idea has some merit,
even for general purpose servers. I will have to
try this out myself, but it would seem that reducing
SLEEP_TODO in qmail-send.c, and removing the trigger
mechanism should eliminate the starvation caused by
rapid triggering.
--
Chris Mikkelson | Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 03:33:28PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:15:06 +0100 , Markus Stumpf writes:
> > This causes qmail to deliver in "waves".
>
> I think that the "no-trigger" idea has some merit,
> even for general purpose servers. I will have to
> try this out myself, but it would seem that reducing
> SLEEP_TODO in qmail-send.c, and removing the trigger
> mechanism should eliminate the starvation caused by
> rapid triggering.
If one considers the wave-like perfermance pattern to be a negative
thing then this wouldn't really be a solution, as it would make the
waves even more pronounced.
You would create a pattern of rapid high throughput delivery followed by
a period of almost total inactivity, and then high throughput SLEEP_TODO
time later.
The trigger mechanism may restrict peak performance but it also limits
wasted time. It tends to smooth the wave pattern out.
Perhaps in certain situations a trigger free qmail might be ideal but
not, IMO, for a run-of-the-mill installation. YMMV, of course.
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
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:44:25 +0000 , James Raftery writes:
> > I think that the "no-trigger" idea has some merit,
> > even for general purpose servers. I will have to
> > try this out myself, but it would seem that reducing
> > SLEEP_TODO in qmail-send.c, and removing the trigger
> > mechanism should eliminate the starvation caused by
> > rapid triggering.
>
> If one considers the wave-like perfermance pattern to be a negative
> thing then this wouldn't really be a solution, as it would make the
> waves even more pronounced.
Well, it depends on (a) your incoming message rate,
and (b) how low you set SLEEP_TODO.
> You would create a pattern of rapid high throughput delivery followed by
> a period of almost total inactivity, and then high throughput SLEEP_TODO
> time later.
> The trigger mechanism may restrict peak performance but it also limits
> wasted time. It tends to smooth the wave pattern out.
However, the point of the post I was responding to
was that the trigger mechanism causes qmail-send to
slow down sending during times of rapid triggering.
By batching the preprocessing, it might be possible
to get an effect like:
while (qmail-send is running)
preprocess a bunch of messages
keep concurrency* maxed out until the next iteration
What I had in mind was setting SLEEP_TODO to a minute
or less. This should give decent response time, with
a *less* pronounced wave-like pattern, assuming that
(a) preprocessing happens much more quickly than sending, and
(b) during each preprocessing run, qmail-send enqueues enough
messages to "keep itself busy" for SLEEP_TODO.
> Perhaps in certain situations a trigger free qmail might be ideal but
> not, IMO, for a run-of-the-mill installation. YMMV, of course.
Yes, if I try this, I'll post results....
--
Chris Mikkelson | ... a pet peeve of mine is people who directly edit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | the .cf file instead of using the m4 configuration
| files ... I treat the .cf file as a binary file
| - you should too. --- Eric Allman
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 09:14:44AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
> Being on a RedHat 6.1 box, you might consider using Bruce Guenter's
> *excellent* qmail source RPMs. <http://em.ca/~bruceg/>
Would someone be so kind and state the major differences between these RPMs?
Thx
Mirko
--
privat: http://sites.inka.de/picard
commerce: http://www.webideal.de
qmail, ldap, serialfax, rh-isdn: http://www.webideal.de/#downloads
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Brown [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999, 9:52:26
> To: Robin Bowes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: qmail dying on Solaris
>
>
> > I'm having problems with qmail-smtpd dying on my Solaris box.
> > It is running
> > under tcpserver/supervise but this doesn't seem to prevent it
> > from dying and
> > not restarting.
>
> I'd almost bet money here that what you're doing is running qmail
without
> protecting it from SIGHUP, and when you log out everything dies. I had
> this happen myself, with similar symptoms. When you find this has
happened, is
> EVERY daemon dead?
I don't think this is the problem. If the server is re-booted and all
the daemons come up "normally" then I still experience the problem. I
just tested by stopping qmail-smtpd then re-running it from the .init
file then logging out. Observing form another console, I can see the the
daemon did not die when I logged out.
> qmail is NOT like every other daemon out there. It does NOT catch
SIGHUP.
> On Solaris, if you don't launch qmail under csh or under nohup, it will
die
> when you log out.
Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
R.
--
Robin Bowes, System Development Manager, Equal Opportunities Commission,
Room 405A, Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 (0) 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 (0) 161 835 1657
> I'm having problems with qmail-smtpd dying on my Solaris box.
> It is running
> under tcpserver/supervise but this doesn't seem to prevent it
> from dying and
> not restarting.
I'd almost bet money here that what you're doing is running qmail without
protecting it from SIGHUP, and when you log out everything dies. I had this
happen myself, with similar symptoms. When you find this has happened, is
EVERY daemon dead?
qmail is NOT like every other daemon out there. It does NOT catch SIGHUP.
On Solaris, if you don't launch qmail under csh or under nohup, it will die
when you log out.
-Matt
--
Matt Brown ---- UNIX Administrator ---- tickets.com
Phone: (714) 327-5571 --- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't think this is the problem. If the server is re-booted and all
> the daemons come up "normally" then I still experience the problem. I
> just tested by stopping qmail-smtpd then re-running it from the .init
> file then logging out. Observing form another console, I can see the the
> daemon did not die when I logged out. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
Sorry to find that's not your problem ... oh well ;)
-Matt
--
Matt Brown ---- UNIX Administrator ---- tickets.com
Phone: (714) 327-5571 --- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the $PATH set to for the user who built qmail? On solaris having
/usr/ucb before /usr/ccs/bin is fatal to qmail (and most other software).
What you're seeing is commonly caused by this mistake.
-Peter
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 06:18:00PM -0000, Robin Bowes wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matthew Brown [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999, 9:52:26
> > To: Robin Bowes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: qmail dying on Solaris
> >
> >
> > > I'm having problems with qmail-smtpd dying on my Solaris box.
> > > It is running
> > > under tcpserver/supervise but this doesn't seem to prevent it
> > > from dying and
> > > not restarting.
> >
> > I'd almost bet money here that what you're doing is running qmail
> without
> > protecting it from SIGHUP, and when you log out everything dies. I had
>
> > this happen myself, with similar symptoms. When you find this has
> happened, is
> > EVERY daemon dead?
>
> I don't think this is the problem. If the server is re-booted and all
> the daemons come up "normally" then I still experience the problem. I
> just tested by stopping qmail-smtpd then re-running it from the .init
> file then logging out. Observing form another console, I can see the the
> daemon did not die when I logged out.
>
> > qmail is NOT like every other daemon out there. It does NOT catch
> SIGHUP.
> > On Solaris, if you don't launch qmail under csh or under nohup, it will
> die
> > when you log out.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
>
> R.
> --
> Robin Bowes, System Development Manager, Equal Opportunities Commission,
> Room 405A, Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 (0) 161 835 1657
>
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
Marek Narkiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I apologise if this is slightly off topic but I am growing concerned
>about the log files that sem to be infesting my system in particular
>the qmail and samba ones. I looked through the daemon tools package
>and found something called cyclog which I intend to use to handle my
>logging from now on. My question is this. How do I run qmail in such
>a way that its logging is handled by the cyclog program and what
>daemons etc generate the log messages. Also as I use tcpserver to
>wrap around qmail smtp but qmail-send is run from a shell script how
>do I log these seperately (do i need to?) and can I log output from
>tcpserver detailing connections before any mail stuff is logged? Hope
>someone can make some sensee of this and help me out here.
"Life with qmail", available from:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/qmail.html
details running qmail with daemontools 0.61. If you have daemontools
0.53 installed, see:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq-dt53.html
-Dave
One of the fuctions of the patch was to attempt to actually ATTACH the
offending e-mail virus to the mail that gets sent to virus alert. However,
as you will be able to tell if you use the package, it doesn't properly
ATTACH the e-mail, it just dumps all of the MIME parts as plain text into
the message.
Can someone help me out in this regard? I'm considering a total re-write of
scanmails that will support qmail, and I want to make it as full-featured as
possible.
If it works out, I'll GPL it and give credit to all the folks that helped.
Anyone else interested in tackling this project with me? We can communicate
on the phone to work out what the system truly needs to be able to
accomplish.
Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
> One of the fuctions of the patch was to attempt to actually ATTACH the
> offending e-mail virus to the mail that gets sent to virus
> alert. However, as you will be able to tell if you use the package,
> it doesn't properly ATTACH the e-mail, it just dumps all of the MIME
> parts as plain text into the message.
Are you convinced that's the right thing to do?
Given that the message originator's system is not, by definition,
running anti-virus software to catch this virus, doesn't mailing a usable
attachment back just increase the chance of them getting further infected
and passing it on again?
I think forwarding the MIME headers for that attachment is better
(not the whole MIME encoded content, of course). That gives them enough
info to track down and kill the virus if they're competent, but not enough
to help them cause further mayhem if they're incompetent.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this case, it does not mail the attachmed message to the sender or
recipient, it mails to a local "virusalert" role, responsible for keeping
track of anti-virus on a given domain.
_____
Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:19 PM
To: Qmail List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: My recent AMaViS patch.
> One of the fuctions of the patch was to attempt to actually ATTACH the
> offending e-mail virus to the mail that gets sent to virus
> alert. However, as you will be able to tell if you use the package,
> it doesn't properly ATTACH the e-mail, it just dumps all of the MIME
> parts as plain text into the message.
Are you convinced that's the right thing to do?
Given that the message originator's system is not, by definition,
running anti-virus software to catch this virus, doesn't mailing a usable
attachment back just increase the chance of them getting further infected
and passing it on again?
I think forwarding the MIME headers for that attachment is better
(not the whole MIME encoded content, of course). That gives them enough
info to track down and kill the virus if they're competent, but not enough
to help them cause further mayhem if they're incompetent.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In this case, it does not mail the attachmed message to the sender or
> recipient, it mails to a local "virusalert" role, responsible
> for keeping track of anti-virus on a given domain.
Perhaps make it an option, then? Even for the local "virusalert"
role, there is added danger in forwarding it. Some viruses these days don't
need to be opened if you're using a mail tool like outlook (which, yes, many
of us run for various reasons).
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's a good idea. I also run Outlook 2000 (and pine, sometimes, when I
don't feel like tipping over to the Windoze box) and, you're right, that's a
risk.
I suppose that ZIPping the mail attachment might preclude that risk,
however.
An option would be a good idea, though.
_____
Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:27 PM
To: Qmail List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: My recent AMaViS patch.
> In this case, it does not mail the attachmed message to the sender or
> recipient, it mails to a local "virusalert" role, responsible
> for keeping track of anti-virus on a given domain.
Perhaps make it an option, then? Even for the local "virusalert"
role, there is added danger in forwarding it. Some viruses these days don't
need to be opened if you're using a mail tool like outlook (which, yes, many
of us run for various reasons).
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've search LWQ, the qmail home page, and my for: 'multiple', 'instance',
and 'queue'. Yet, I can't find the links (that I know I've seen!) to
step-by-step instructions for setting up multiple, concurrent qmail
queues/installations. Does anyone have any pointers?
Thanks,
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've search LWQ, the qmail home page, and my for: 'multiple', 'instance',
>and 'queue'. Yet, I can't find the links (that I know I've seen!) to
>step-by-step instructions for setting up multiple, concurrent qmail
>queues/installations. Does anyone have any pointers?
Just build and install more qmails with different conf-qmail's
pointing to their homes, e.g., /var/qmail1, /var/qmail2, ...,
/var/qmail/N. To inject a mesage into "qmail1", use
/var/qmail1/bin/qmail-inject.
You'll have to pick one to listen to port 25, or come up with some
mechanism for round-robin'ing it.
I haven't done this myself, so there might be a couple other
gotchas. If I can get a good write-up, I'll include it in LWQ.
-Dave
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 02:59:10PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I've search LWQ, the qmail home page, and my for: 'multiple', 'instance',
> >and 'queue'. Yet, I can't find the links (that I know I've seen!) to
> >step-by-step instructions for setting up multiple, concurrent qmail
> >queues/installations. Does anyone have any pointers?
>
> Just build and install more qmails with different conf-qmail's
> pointing to their homes, e.g., /var/qmail1, /var/qmail2, ...,
> /var/qmail/N. To inject a mesage into "qmail1", use
> /var/qmail1/bin/qmail-inject.
>
> You'll have to pick one to listen to port 25, or come up with some
> mechanism for round-robin'ing it.
Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver from
the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
timeouts and retries are more sane.
I guess the part I can't figure out is how to make qmail do precisely this,
especially in the forwarding from one queue to the other.
Thanks,
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 03:22:57PM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 02:59:10PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> > Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I've search LWQ, the qmail home page, and my for: 'multiple', 'instance',
> > >and 'queue'. Yet, I can't find the links (that I know I've seen!) to
> > >step-by-step instructions for setting up multiple, concurrent qmail
> > >queues/installations. Does anyone have any pointers?
> >
> > Just build and install more qmails with different conf-qmail's
> > pointing to their homes, e.g., /var/qmail1, /var/qmail2, ...,
> > /var/qmail/N. To inject a mesage into "qmail1", use
> > /var/qmail1/bin/qmail-inject.
> >
> > You'll have to pick one to listen to port 25, or come up with some
> > mechanism for round-robin'ing it.
>
> Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
> extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver from
> the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
> timeouts and retries are more sane.
>
> I guess the part I can't figure out is how to make qmail do precisely this,
> especially in the forwarding from one queue to the other.
I have yet to find out how, I also can't seem to find how to make it deliver
to a smart host after first failure, something very welcome on dialups. This
is just about the only thing I miss in qmail that sendmail does have :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/womanizer/pretending coder
|
| 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
| C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.'
| Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
What ari appears to me to be asking for is a way to derail large e-mails
into a secondary queue: He wants email to flow 24/z for little memos,
but attachments above a threshold must wait until off-peak.
A variety of approaches come to mind. Disabling _all_ outgoing e-mail
until off-peak times is not one of them.
Some point in the process must be selected for removal/insertion, and
a size-based gateway installed there.
Read your source code, Ari, I look forward to seeing your upcoming
patch!
Ari Arantes Filho wrote:
>
> The user sends the email, not me!!!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ari Arantes Filho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: How to send a message after
>
> > run your mail program in night;-)
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Ari Arantes Filho wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Supose I'm supervising the qmail queue and see a message with (2
> > > attachments of 2mb each for 5 different addresses). This message will
> > > consume a lot of my link, so I want to send this message during the
> night.
> > > How to do this?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Ari
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
--
___________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Safeguard your finances against
the great Beanie crash of 2000
David,
You are totally right:
> What ari appears to me to be asking for is a way to derail large e-mails
> into a secondary queue: He wants email to flow 24/z for little memos,
> but attachments above a threshold must wait until off-peak.
I'm using the qmail-hold patch, so I can create a control/holdremote (with
1), send HUP the qmail-send and the queue is paused. But at this time, all
messages will be stopped. I would like to stop only the big one.
Is it safetty to remove a message with this patch and when the queue is
stopped?
How do I return this message to the queue at 11pm for example?
In december, users love to send Christmas cards, most of them very big
attachments and addressed to more than one friend at the same time.... But
other user needs to send a very important message, not so big, and his
message will delay!!!
I would like to decide which message should be send later!!!
Regards,
Ari
----- Original Message -----
From: David L. Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ari Arantes Filho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: How to send a message after
> A variety of approaches come to mind. Disabling _all_ outgoing e-mail
> until off-peak times is not one of them.
>
> Some point in the process must be selected for removal/insertion, and
> a size-based gateway installed there.
>
> Read your source code, Ari, I look forward to seeing your upcoming
> patch!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ari Arantes Filho wrote:
> >
> > The user sends the email, not me!!!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Ari Arantes Filho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: How to send a message after
> >
> > > run your mail program in night;-)
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Ari Arantes Filho wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Supose I'm supervising the qmail queue and see a message with (2
> > > > attachments of 2mb each for 5 different addresses). This message
will
> > > > consume a lot of my link, so I want to send this message during the
> > night.
> > > > How to do this?
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Ari
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> --
> ___________________________________________
> David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Safeguard your finances against
> the great Beanie crash of 2000
can someone tell me what's wrong with the headers that would cause the
message to bounce like so? i'm curious to know because this is an
autoresponder that's generating the "bad" headers.
thanks-
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri 10 Dec 1999 14.42
Subject: failure notice
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at cnmnetwork.com.
> I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce
bounced!
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 143.183.152.22 failed after I sent the message.
> Remote host said: 553 Header error
>
> --- Below this line is the original bounce.
>
> Return-Path: <>
> Received: (qmail 11920 invoked by uid 257); 10 Dec 1999 14:42:28 -0800
> Date: 10 Dec 1999 22:42:28 -0000
> Message-ID: <944865748.11916.blah>
> Delivered-To: Autoresponder
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: CNM Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Your mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[remainder of message cut]
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Racer X wrote:
> can someone tell me what's wrong with the headers that would cause the
> message to bounce like so? i'm curious to know because this is an
> autoresponder that's generating the "bad" headers.
[ snip ]
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 143.183.152.22 failed after I sent the message.
> > Remote host said: 553 Header error
> >
> > --- Below this line is the original bounce.
> >
> > Return-Path: <>
> > Received: (qmail 11920 invoked by uid 257); 10 Dec 1999 14:42:28 -0800
> > Date: 10 Dec 1999 22:42:28 -0000
> > Message-ID: <944865748.11916.blah>
Your Message-ID: header violates RFC 822.
It looks like Hotmail may be cutting off messages that exceed their size
limit, by issuing a 500 error in the middle of the DATA session. This
doesn't seem right to me, but qmail doesn't seem to see it. This backs up
my clients outbound queue, not too bad, but worse that I'd like.
It does issue a SIZE if you say EHLO to it. Are there any patches for
SIZE? What's the right answer here.
Thanks,
Monte Mitzelfelt
Quoting Monte Mitzelfelt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> It looks like Hotmail may be cutting off messages that exceed their size
> limit, by issuing a 500 error in the middle of the DATA session. This
> doesn't seem right to me, but qmail doesn't seem to see it. This backs up
> my clients outbound queue, not too bad, but worse that I'd like.
>
> It does issue a SIZE if you say EHLO to it. Are there any patches for
> SIZE? What's the right answer here.
Did you sniff the connection to determine it was sending an error
code?
I haven't done that myself, but have noticed multiple large emails
piling up over the last 3 days. One is 2802525 bytes, after 20
minutes of trying to send the thing to hotmail, this shows up in the
log:
deferral: Connected_to_216.33.151.135_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
I would think that if a 500 code were sent, then qmail would see it
and the email would be deferred. All queued messages are over 2Mb.
Looks like anything larger than that is causing hotmail to choke.
That's what it looks like, anyway.
Aaron
Sorry, correction. I meant that it would _not_ be deferred, but rather
bounced. Oops.
Quoting Aaron L. Meehan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> I would think that if a 500 code were sent, then qmail would see it
> and the email would be deferred. All queued messages are over 2Mb.
> Looks like anything larger than that is causing hotmail to choke.
> That's what it looks like, anyway.
>
> Aaron
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> I would think that if a 500 code were sent, then qmail would see it
> and the email would be deferred. All queued messages are over 2Mb.
> Looks like anything larger than that is causing hotmail to choke.
> That's what it looks like, anyway.
Only if it thought its turn was over (ie DATA ... . was finished) as far
as I can tell from the code. They are timing me out and giving me 500
messages when it is my turn to talk. I haven't check the RFC's yet to see
if this turn notion is correct or not, but it's the working theory around
the office right now.
Monte
On 10 Dec 1999, Monte Mitzelfelt wrote:
>
> It looks like Hotmail may be cutting off messages that exceed their size
> limit, by issuing a 500 error in the middle of the DATA session. This
> doesn't seem right to me, but qmail doesn't seem to see it. This backs up
> my clients outbound queue, not too bad, but worse that I'd like.
>
> It does issue a SIZE if you say EHLO to it. Are there any patches for
> SIZE? What's the right answer here.
The right answer is to firewall all incoming and outgoing mail from
Hotmail, until they fix their mail server to comply with RFC 821.
> The right answer is to firewall all incoming and outgoing mail from
> Hotmail, until they fix their mail server to comply with RFC 821.
Measures like this should be put in the long list of
"things-not-to-do-when-you're-a-mail-admin" :-). Instead I'd try to process
the message and notify the sender of the problem (automatically).
I'm working on migrating a host that has about 30 domains on it from
sendmail to qmail. It supports what can be classified into three types of
addresses:
o Local users addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o Generic/virtual addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o Catch-all addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example, panopticon.com has several addresses:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: local user sasha
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: local user jane
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: invocation of majordomo, specific to panopticon.com
*@panopticon.com: local user bjorn (catch all)
This was easy to do with virtusertable/aliases in sendmail, but I cant
figure out how to do it easily with qmail. According to the docs, if a
domain is listed in locals, the mail is delivered locally, without
consulting virtualdomains. But without listing the domain in locals,
qmail will not attempt a local delivery (unless you have an entry for
every user in virtualdomains (which is not so good if you have several
hundred local users in addition to the virtual and catch-all addresses for
a given domain).
Any help is greatly appreciated...
Aa.
Aaron Gowatch writes:
> For example, panopticon.com has several addresses:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: local user sasha
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: local user jane
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: invocation of majordomo, specific to panopticon.com
> *@panopticon.com: local user bjorn (catch all)
echo 'panopticon.com:panopticon-com' >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
echo '&sasha' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-sasha
echo '&jane' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-jane
echo '&majordomo' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-majordomo
echo '&bjorn' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-default
You may need to do something with the majordomo forwarding. I don't
know how majordomo 2.0 supports qmail.
--
-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 Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Aaron Gowatch writes:
> > For example, panopticon.com has several addresses:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: local user sasha
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: local user jane
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: invocation of majordomo, specific to panopticon.com
> > *@panopticon.com: local user bjorn (catch all)
>
> echo 'panopticon.com:panopticon-com' >>/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
>
> echo '&sasha' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-sasha
> echo '&jane' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-jane
> echo '&majordomo' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-majordomo
> echo '&bjorn' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-default
This is what I was afraid of. :) There could be literally hundreds of
addresses like 'sasha' and 'jane' that need to be handled as local users,
and I was hoping there was an easier (read 'automatic') way than creating
an alias for each of them.
Aa.
Aaron Gowatch writes:
> > echo '&sasha' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-sasha
> > echo '&jane' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-jane
> > echo '&majordomo' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-majordomo
> > echo '&bjorn' >~alias/.qmail-panopticon-com-default
>
> This is what I was afraid of. :) There could be literally hundreds of
> addresses like 'sasha' and 'jane' that need to be handled as local users,
> and I was hoping there was an easier (read 'automatic') way than creating
> an alias for each of them.
If so, you need to have an algorithm to do it, and I didn't see you
suggest one.
--
-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!
I like to migrate from sendmail to qmail
and in qmail i like to used the Maildir format
well anyone can guide me to the URL that contains this stuf
or show me how to do it....
Thanks
--
----------------
Yamin Prabudy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
StarNET
You can get allot of information on www.qmail.org
that's where I started at, and there are ALOT of resources linked on the
front page that can help you in the transfer from SendMail to Qmail.
Check it out.. there is a realy awsome tutorial on that page call "Life with
Qmail" that helps you get Qmail up and keeping it up..
Philip
> From: Yamin Prabudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:20:12 +0700
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: sendmail --> qmail (Maildir)
>
> I like to migrate from sendmail to qmail
> and in qmail i like to used the Maildir format
> well anyone can guide me to the URL that contains this stuf
> or show me how to do it....
>
> Thanks
> --
> ----------------
> Yamin Prabudy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> StarNET
>
Hi,
How can I restrict the incoming mail size for each user before smtp
handshake. I have managed to get the .qmail-toolarge file working
perfectly. But it works only after smtp handshake, which is not very useful
for larger mail servers.
Any suggestion or documention or patch where I can look for this sytem.
Thank you.
KK
Thus said Ranjan Koirala on Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:58:32 +0300:
> How can I restrict the incoming mail size for each user before smtp
> handshake. I have managed to get the .qmail-toolarge file working
> perfectly. But it works only after smtp handshake, which is not very useful
> for larger mail servers.
> Any suggestion or documention or patch where I can look for this sytem.
Have a look at the man pages for qmail-control and qmail-smtpd... I
believe the file that handles this is control/databytes
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
