qmail Digest 20 Dec 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 855
Topics (messages 34558 through 34599):
Re: question of"554 Transaction failed"
34558 by: bert hubert
qmail dead but subsys locked
34559 by: Arne Hanssen
Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?
34560 by: cmikk.uswest.net
34561 by: cmikk.uswest.net
34594 by: Russell Nelson
34595 by: Sam
34596 by: Russell Nelson
34597 by: Sam
34599 by: Petr Novotny
Re: qmail appending mail machines name to recipients (fwd)
34562 by: David C. Maple
new list.cr.yp.to DNS software
34563 by: D. J. Bernstein
Re: Limit POP3 and SMTP service !
34564 by: Michael Boman
34569 by: bert hubert
34571 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34573 by: bert hubert
34574 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34575 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34576 by: cmikk.uswest.net
34578 by: bert hubert
34579 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34580 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34582 by: bert hubert
34583 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34584 by: bert hubert
34585 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
Re: Here are your coupons
34565 by: Rogerio Brito
34567 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34570 by: Philip Gabbert
Re: Do you see in the FROM field -> From: To: qmail ...
34566 by: Rogerio Brito
34568 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34572 by: Rogerio Brito
Re: [code!] Limit POP3 and SMTP service !
34577 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
34581 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
Re: Limit POP3 and SMTP service
34586 by: ari.doctordata.com.br
systemload
34587 by: Thomas Mellenthin
Re: AMaViS working ... almost
34588 by: vogelke.c17mis.region2.wpafb.af.mil
Compiling qmail on Solaris
34589 by: Kristina
remove from list
34590 by: sindbad the sailor
AMaViS update
34591 by: Chris L. Mason
34592 by: Rainer Link
Re: Q-Cards
34593 by: resume.104.com.tw
Re: Outlook/pop3d: user claims to have lost mail after an aborted retrieval
34598 by: Abdul Rehman Gani
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 03:38:24PM +0800, Li Hong wrote:
> Greeting all,I sent this msg several days ago but don't get any
> responce,so sorry I resend it today and wish get any responce.
If you receive no response, chances are that your message isn't clear
enough.
> -------
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 216.33.151.135 failed after I sent the message.
> Remote host said: 554 Transaction failed
>
> when I try to telnet to hotmail, the result is the same.
Please show what you sent to telnet exactly to get that response.
> it seems NOT [EMAIL PROTECTED] but [EMAIL PROTECTED],how to change it?I've
> tried lwq and manpage but no file seems for it.
I believe this is in the FAQ.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
After upgrading from RedHat 5.2 (2.2 kernel) to 6.0 (and removing
unwanted sendmail again), querying qmail status gives:
# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail status
qmail dead but subsys locked
qmails 336 0.0 0.6 1132 392 ? S 13:13 0:00 qmail-send
qmaill 340 0.0 0.6 1108 420 ? S 13:13 0:00 splogger qmail
root 341 0.0 0.5 1100 336 ? S 13:13 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Ma
qmailr 342 0.0 0.5 1100 336 ? S 13:13 0:00 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 343 0.0 0.5 1092 352 ? S 13:13 0:00 qmail-clean
(The commands involved are:
status qmail
ps aux | grep qmail )
Why is this? It seems like qmail is alive and well, in spite of the
above statement.
--
Vennlig hilsen / Best regards |\ ___,,--, _
Arne Hanssen, Senja, Norway /,`--'' \-,,__,'/
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4 ) )_ ) /~-----'
--------------------------------'---^~(_/-_)--(_/_)-------
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:19:10 -0500 (EST) , Russell Nelson writes:
> Why would this happen after installing eliminate-dups? That's the
> beauty of qmail. If you don't want dups, you don't have to receive
> them. And if you do want a separate delivery to multiple extensions,
> you can have that also.
To be fair, you could do something quite similar
under sendmail, also. Just use procmail, with
formail's duplicate removal feature.
--
Chris Mikkelson | "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | which, when you looked at it the right way, did not
| become still more complicated." -- Poul Anderson
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:36:52 -0500 (EST) , Sam writes:
> You want to hand-hold all the PHBs who can barely put together a
> Powerpoint presentation, and tell them how to install a unix filter?
>
> Life's too short.
IIRC, Russ's suggestion was to change the default
delivery for the qmail installation, which is
something the systems administrator does.
If you're sysadmin needs handholding to install a
filter, then you've got other problems ;-)
--
Chris Mikkelson | Setting delivery schedules is easy enough using the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | I Ching, astrology, psychic hotlines, or any of the
| well-known scatomantic and necromantic methodologies.
| Meeting your prophetic deadlines, though, is another
| bowl of entrails. -- Stan Kelly-Bootle
Sam writes:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Why would this happen after installing eliminate-dups?
>
> You want to hand-hold all the PHBs who can barely put together a
> Powerpoint presentation, and tell them how to install a unix filter?
If you can't figure out how to make it easy for them, then you have to
turn in your Sysadmin merit badge.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Russell Nelson writes:
> Sam writes:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > Why would this happen after installing eliminate-dups?
> >
> > You want to hand-hold all the PHBs who can barely put together a
> > Powerpoint presentation, and tell them how to install a unix filter?
>
> If you can't figure out how to make it easy for them, then you have to
> turn in your Sysadmin merit badge.
Are you really saying that it is now necessary to jump through hoops in
order to support Qmail on the back-end? Why should I figure out anything,
just for the sake of switching to Qmail? There's no need for me to figure
out how to make it easy. It's already easy: sendmail takes care of those
things for me, automatically.
--
Sam
Sam writes:
> Are you really saying that it is now necessary to jump through hoops in
> order to support Qmail on the back-end? Why should I figure out anything,
> just for the sake of switching to Qmail? There's no need for me to figure
> out how to make it easy. It's already easy: sendmail takes care of those
> things for me, automatically.
Nonsense. Sendmail makes a "90%" attempt at the job. When it expands
aliases, it eliminates any duplicates it can detect. However, it can
only detect alias expansions on the same host. Once you leave that
host (for example when moving from the department workgroup server and
going to the enterprise server), no attempt is made to suppress
duplicate alias expansions.
Sendmail also makes no attempt to delete duplicates caused by multiple
SMTP deliveries. There is a small but nonzero period of time when a
connection failure must result in a second delivery even though the
first was successful. This is a well-known (although infrequent)
problem which sendmail makes no attempt to solve.
Eliminate-dups solves both of those problems.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Russell Nelson writes:
> Sam writes:
> > Are you really saying that it is now necessary to jump through hoops in
> > order to support Qmail on the back-end? Why should I figure out anything,
> > just for the sake of switching to Qmail? There's no need for me to figure
> > out how to make it easy. It's already easy: sendmail takes care of those
> > things for me, automatically.
>
> Nonsense. Sendmail makes a "90%" attempt at the job. When it expands
> aliases, it eliminates any duplicates it can detect. However, it can
> only detect alias expansions on the same host. Once you leave that
> host (for example when moving from the department workgroup server and
> going to the enterprise server), no attempt is made to suppress
> duplicate alias expansions.
Well, that's still 90% better than what Qmail does. And, with mailing
lists being managed in one place, that goes up to 100%. There is no
concept of a "workgroup" versus "enterprise" server. There are just a
bunch of honking servers, who all have the access to the same exact set of
monster alias files. I'm not sure, but the actual aliases may actually be
kept in NIS or LDAP, or they may be periodically updated from a central
server, but the point is that whichever server gets the mail, the server
has complete access to all mailing list aliases, and can completely expand
the recipient list all by itself.
Furthermore, the PHBs don't exactly have access to a shell server, where
they can install procmail recipes or forwarding. Even nobody in IT does
that because, frankly, there's no need to. Mail gets delivered to a
central IMAP server, and anyone can access their mailbox from any office,
so there's very little need for any forwarding.
> Sendmail also makes no attempt to delete duplicates caused by multiple
> SMTP deliveries. There is a small but nonzero period of time when a
> connection failure must result in a second delivery even though the
> first was successful. This is a well-known (although infrequent)
> problem which sendmail makes no attempt to solve.
>
> Eliminate-dups solves both of those problems.
Eliminate-dups is a solution in search of a problem. Duplicates due to
SMTP window failures are mostly theoretical than anything else. If you
have a flaky connection, you are likely to fail long before you get to this
point. I do not ever recall receiving a duplicate message that was traced
to this problem. The actual window of vulnerability is as small as you can
possibly get. Then, with your internal network having a pretty good track
record of stability, to calculate the actual probability of a duplicated
message, you'd have to go pretty far past the decimal point.
If anyone has ever logged a dupe, and confirmed that this was the reason
for it, please raise your hand.
I'm not comfortable with the notion that the way to eliminate duplicates
with 100% certainty is, first, to generate a whole bunch of them, and then
to eliminate them on the delivery end. Seems to be a bit wasteful to me.
eliminate-dups can also be argued to be a useful tool to eliminate
duplicate copies of reply-to-alls from your mailing list manages.
Yet, in actual practice, I found that to be a non-issue as well, as long as
you are already filtering your mailing list mail. It seems to me that when
you develop a need for something like that, you are probably already
filtering your mailing lists, and may not end up reading all of it.
I doubt I'm the only one who reads every message in every mailing list. I
usually flush 90% of everything straight into the trash. I actually
welcome a carbon copy that goes straight into my INBOX, instead of being
shuffled aside into the mailing list folder. If I feel the need to
respond, it helps me to go in and fish out the mailing list copy, and reply
to that too.
Yet, actually I tend to avoid doing that myself, when I reply. I think I'm
in the minority here, as far as that's concerned.
--
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Dec 99, at 5:18, Sam wrote:
> Are you really saying that it is now necessary to jump through hoops in
> order to support Qmail on the back-end? Why should I figure out anything,
> just for the sake of switching to Qmail? There's no need for me to figure
> out how to make it easy. It's already easy: sendmail takes care of those
> things for me, automatically.
So does Win98. Does that, like, prove anything?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOF4V2lMwP8g7qbw/EQIPVACghEJvYTX57RlW/sRXUlOt3eAbvBQAn0FJ
yH4gKV6zrkAtqZRLxCQYcfy3
=MVqe
-----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]
I was also under the impression that you had to end have an extra blank
line after the subject.
print MAIL "Subject:$subject\n\n";
^^
I doesn't look like it's causing your current problem, but when you escape
the @'s you may find another error.
Dave
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David C. Maple
V.P. Information Systems
Advanced Communications Group
'The bigger it bloats, the harder it falls.'
-- "The 48 Laws of Power" (R. Greene, J Elffers)
....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 99 21:40:08 +0100
From: Heiko Schmidhaeussler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: QMail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: qmail appending mail machines name to recipients
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:05:29 -0500, clifford thurber wrote:
>Hello,
>I made a post earlier to this list open a PERL program I have written which
>basic opens one file handle ot a CSV file containing usernames and email
>adresses parses them and then sends users mail by writing to a file handle
>opened to qmail. Here is the snippet of code that achieves this:
>
>$mailprog = "/usr/local/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject";
>
>open(MAIL, "|$mailprog");
>
>print MAIL "To: $email\n";
>print MAIL "From: $from\n";
>print MAIL "Subject:$subject\n";
>print MAIL "MIME-Version: 1.0\n";
>print MAIL "Content-Type: text\/html\; charset\=us-ascii\;
>name=\"newsl.html\"\n";
>print MAIL "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit\n";
>print MAIL "Content-Disposition: inline\; filename=\"newsl.html\"\n";
>print MAIL "Content-Base: http:\/\/www\.liveuniverse\.com\n";
>
>
>print MAIL " etc .....
>close(MAIL);
>
>The problem is that every message is being bounced back b/c somewhere qmail
>is appending the name of our machine(snapper.raremedium.com) onto the
>recipients e-mail address. It then sees the name of our box and decideds
>this is a local delivery which is of course undeliverable as we are trying
>to send mail to a list of remote users. Can anyone help me with this. For
>instance below my script assigned the value $email ="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
In perl you have to escape the @-symbol in a string. So try this:
$email="maletic\@usa.net"
HTH, Heiko.
Starting Monday, outgoing deliveries from list.cr.yp.to will perform DNS
resolution through a new non-BIND DNS cache. Starting Wednesday, the MX
record for list.cr.yp.to will be provided by a new non-BIND DNS server.
(A portion of the same DNS software will be used in qmail 2, reducing
memory use for outgoing SMTP deliveries, allowing higher concurrency on
small machines.)
If you don't receive any messages on Monday or Tuesday, or if you see a
message to list.cr.yp.to stuck in a queue on Thursday, let me know by
sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't anticipate any problems; the
new software is generally much less fragile than BIND.
---Dan
On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 08:30:26PM +0330, Seyyed Hamid Reza Hashemi Golpayegani wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I have installed qmail 1.03 and it works fine ! but I want some feature that
> can't find it .
> 1- I want that relay mail based on the sender domain name . For example I
> have install this qmail server on morva.net domain and want to don't deliver
> mails that are not have [EMAIL PROTECTED] form . It means only morva.net users
> can use our smtp server .
> 2- The log file will be show me that the qmaild user send a mail when I use
> pop3 service . It means that I can get uid of user that use pop3 service and
> logon to the pop3 server and send a mail . How can I find out that which uid
> use pop3 and send a mail ?
>
> Thank You so much
> Hamid Hashemi
> Morva.net Admin
>
First I dont recoomend that you allow ppl with a certein email address
to post thru your SMTP server, as that is the part that is esiest to fake
(you just change your settings in Outlook etc).
If you have for an example a C net of computers (common when it comes to
ISP's (doh!) use the ':allow,RELAYCLIENT=""' in the tcpserver settings. If
your users are floating around (a'la hotmail etc) you might wanna do
pop3-authorization for SMTP access. It works like this: client grabs his
mail from your pop3 server. The IP of the client is added as a user that
has access to use the SMTP server for anything. I know that the vchkpw
(a.k.a. vpopmail) from inter7.com can do this.
Well, thats my 2 cents.
/Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Cristal Time Building, #06-00, Singapore 347778
Ring : (65) 844 3228 [ext 118] Fax : (65) 842 7228
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 01:02:00AM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
> If you have for an example a C net of computers (common when it comes to
> ISP's (doh!) use the ':allow,RELAYCLIENT=""' in the tcpserver settings. If
> your users are floating around (a'la hotmail etc) you might wanna do
Is anybody aware of patches that would allow me to specify for example
'.casema.net:,RELAYCLIENT=""'? It would make administration easier for us.
If it isn't out there, and other people want it, I'm willing to write this
for tcpserver.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 06:57:56PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 01:02:00AM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
>
> > If you have for an example a C net of computers (common when it comes to
> > ISP's (doh!) use the ':allow,RELAYCLIENT=""' in the tcpserver settings. If
> > your users are floating around (a'la hotmail etc) you might wanna do
>
> Is anybody aware of patches that would allow me to specify for example
> '.casema.net:,RELAYCLIENT=""'? It would make administration easier for us.
I actually thought of that today on a boring train-trip (train-trips are
mentally and intellectually _very_ productive for me), I was thinking of
something along these lines:
right now, you probably have a line like:
tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
(logging and some paths left out)
We could replace that with something similar to:
tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domcheck -x
/etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
where tcp-domcheck is a small tool that does the domain checking as you
describe. Perhaps a bit easier than patching it in.
> If it isn't out there, and other people want it, I'm willing to write this
> for tcpserver.
Hmm then we have 2 dutch ISPs actively coding qmail stuff :) (we're the other
one :)
I think it'd be dead easy to do.
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++
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:04:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domcheck -x
>/etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> where tcp-domcheck is a small tool that does the domain checking as you
> describe. Perhaps a bit easier than patching it in.
While more modular, I think that it should be integrated in tcpserver, as
this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
> Hmm then we have 2 dutch ISPs actively coding qmail stuff :) (we're the other
> one :)
Our (public) coding efforts have so far mostly been directed to OpenLDAP.
qmail is almost perfect as it is :-)
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:23:28PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:04:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domcheck -x
>/etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> >
> > where tcp-domcheck is a small tool that does the domain checking as you
> > describe. Perhaps a bit easier than patching it in.
>
> While more modular, I think that it should be integrated in tcpserver, as
> this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
The results of those lookups are saved in env.vars, so that other process
takes hardly any time to run.
> > Hmm then we have 2 dutch ISPs actively coding qmail stuff :) (we're the other
> > one :)
>
> Our (public) coding efforts have so far mostly been directed to OpenLDAP.
I'm working hard on a checkpassword replacement to do multi-domain stuff -
one UID per domain for all popboxes (and also FTP and shell on that UID, for
website maintenance), instead of one UID per popbox (our current sendmail
setup).
> qmail is almost perfect as it is :-)
That's true, I applied just the bigdns patch, and I had the todo patch for
a while but I removed it in the investigation of a performance problem. The
todo patch had nothing to do with it, but I never put it back in.
I did hack qmail-smtpd a little bit to call an external program for the ETRN
command. Still need to code that external program tho :)
I also made qmail-send a little more verbose, to report if an 'out of
filehandles' error was due to the processlimit or the systemwide limit.
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++
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:23:28PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:04:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domcheck -x
>/etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> >
> > where tcp-domcheck is a small tool that does the domain checking as you
> > describe. Perhaps a bit easier than patching it in.
>
> While more modular, I think that it should be integrated in tcpserver, as
> this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
Code done, I'll put it online in a few minutes.
It's a terribly ugly hack, it's not as flexible as tcpserver, all it can do
is either leave RELAYCLIENT alone or set it to "" if:
[example, assume TCPREMOTEHOST="blah.casema.net"]
it can find 'blah.casema.net'
it can find '.casema.net'
or it can find '.net'
in it's cdbfile.
This should do it for you.
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++
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:23:28 +0100 , bert hubert writes:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:04:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domche
ck -x /etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> >
> > where tcp-domcheck is a small tool that does the domain checking as you
> > describe. Perhaps a bit easier than patching it in.
>
> While more modular, I think that it should be integrated in tcpserver, as
> this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
Well, it *is* just one other process -- the extra
fork() will be pretty cheap compared to the number
of fsync()s that the message will incur on its way
through your server. If you're worried about the
exec() cost, statically link it.
I'm not sure that checking TCPREMOTEHOST and
TCPREMOTEIP belong in the same program -- they're
semantically different. For example, does an empty
key refer to a default IP, or a default hostname?
What if you want the two to have different default
behaviors?
--
Chris Mikkelson | Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
| FreeBSD: Are you guys coming or what?
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:29:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> > we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
>
> The results of those lookups are saved in env.vars, so that other process
> takes hardly any time to run.
That is not the issue. Launching the other program is what takes time,
especially on 'heavy' unixes like Solaris.
> I'm working hard on a checkpassword replacement to do multi-domain stuff -
> one UID per domain for all popboxes (and also FTP and shell on that UID, for
> website maintenance), instead of one UID per popbox (our current sendmail
> setup).
We already have this (based on our own LDAP/qmail setup). Works like a
charm. We currenly host ~30.000 cablemodem users per Sun Enterprise 250
(single cpu). A whole lot more than sendmail+cucipop could handle.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 08:02:02PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:29:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> > > we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
> >
> > The results of those lookups are saved in env.vars, so that other process
> > takes hardly any time to run.
>
> That is not the issue. Launching the other program is what takes time,
> especially on 'heavy' unixes like Solaris.
>
> > I'm working hard on a checkpassword replacement to do multi-domain stuff -
> > one UID per domain for all popboxes (and also FTP and shell on that UID, for
> > website maintenance), instead of one UID per popbox (our current sendmail
> > setup).
>
> We already have this (based on our own LDAP/qmail setup). Works like a
> charm. We currenly host ~30.000 cablemodem users per Sun Enterprise 250
> (single cpu). A whole lot more than sendmail+cucipop could handle.
Yeah but suppose you had 20.000 domains with between 1 and 500 popboxes per
domain, does that fit into your setup? My drpop-solution (yes I am proud :)
does all that, and more :)
Btw have a look at http://www.dataloss.net/tcp-domcheck.tar.gz
If that does the job, integrating it into tcpserver shouldn't be that hard...
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++
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 08:02:02PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:29:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> > > we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
> >
> > The results of those lookups are saved in env.vars, so that other process
> > takes hardly any time to run.
>
> That is not the issue. Launching the other program is what takes time,
> especially on 'heavy' unixes like Solaris.
>
> > I'm working hard on a checkpassword replacement to do multi-domain stuff -
> > one UID per domain for all popboxes (and also FTP and shell on that UID, for
> > website maintenance), instead of one UID per popbox (our current sendmail
> > setup).
>
> We already have this (based on our own LDAP/qmail setup). Works like a
> charm. We currenly host ~30.000 cablemodem users per Sun Enterprise 250
> (single cpu). A whole lot more than sendmail+cucipop could handle.
Hmm did you write that POP3proxy yourself, or does the 'ahu' stand for some
of your patches?
It's kewl nonetheless :)
We're prolly going for a distributed approach based on NFS, the good thing
about that is that we just add another popserver and load is halved, given that
the NFS server (soon to be NetApp prolly) can take the load.
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++
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 08:08:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm did you write that POP3proxy yourself, or does the 'ahu' stand for some
> of your patches?
It's homegrown and currently owned by Casema.
> It's kewl nonetheless :)
We think so :-)
> We're prolly going for a distributed approach based on NFS, the good thing
> about that is that we just add another popserver and load is halved, given that
> the NFS server (soon to be NetApp prolly) can take the load.
I would advise against that for several reasons. NFS is a bad idea most of
the time and it also turns out that most OSes have trouble with certain NFS
operations, like doing softquotas on Maildir boxes. I know for a fact that
this causes problems.
With Maildir and a virtual user setup, combined with the popproxy, it's very
easy to continue adding boxes. Also lots cheaper than the NetCrap approach.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 09:00:44PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 08:08:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hmm did you write that POP3proxy yourself, or does the 'ahu' stand for some
> > of your patches?
>
> It's homegrown and currently owned by Casema.
IC. Not open source?
> > It's kewl nonetheless :)
>
> We think so :-)
Hehe same here..
> > We're prolly going for a distributed approach based on NFS, the good thing
> > about that is that we just add another popserver and load is halved, given that
> > the NFS server (soon to be NetApp prolly) can take the load.
>
> I would advise against that for several reasons. NFS is a bad idea most of
> the time and it also turns out that most OSes have trouble with certain NFS
> operations, like doing softquotas on Maildir boxes. I know for a fact that
> this causes problems.
Hmm... NFS is kind of a legacy thing in our company, I'd rather get rid of it
too, but I'm not the one deciding stuff like that. So I just build a qmail
solution that fits perfectly :)
> With Maildir and a virtual user setup, combined with the popproxy, it's very
> easy to continue adding boxes. Also lots cheaper than the NetCrap approach.
Well on our system there's also a website 'n stuff for each user, which makes
it a bit more complicated.
But you did get me thinking... quotas are not my problem, or my cup of tea,
but that might be a problem than. If it applies to most OSes, let's just hope
it doesn't apply to Linux. Our setup is not hybrid whatsoever (not yet,
perhaps) so we don't need to worry about different OSes.
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++
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 09:06:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmm... NFS is kind of a legacy thing in our company, I'd rather get rid of it
> too, but I'm not the one deciding stuff like that. So I just build a qmail
> solution that fits perfectly :)
/* NFS dorks */
(read the source :-))
> > easy to continue adding boxes. Also lots cheaper than the NetCrap approach.
>
> Well on our system there's also a website 'n stuff for each user, which makes
> it a bit more complicated.
No it doesn't the idea that homedirectory and mail are somehow related is
somewhat outdated. It's quite easy to make web interface that replaces the
.forward capabilities.
> it doesn't apply to Linux. Our setup is not hybrid whatsoever (not yet,
> perhaps) so we don't need to worry about different OSes.
Only recently has the Linux NFS support come of age. I would advise on
interrogating the NetApp people (say hi to them for me :-)) on the
experiences wrt Linux.
Regards,
bert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 09:38:01PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 09:06:42PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hmm... NFS is kind of a legacy thing in our company, I'd rather get rid of it
> > too, but I'm not the one deciding stuff like that. So I just build a qmail
> > solution that fits perfectly :)
>
> /* NFS dorks */
>
> (read the source :-))
I always do :)
> > > easy to continue adding boxes. Also lots cheaper than the NetCrap approach.
> >
> > Well on our system there's also a website 'n stuff for each user, which makes
> > it a bit more complicated.
>
> No it doesn't the idea that homedirectory and mail are somehow related is
> somewhat outdated. It's quite easy to make web interface that replaces the
> .forward capabilities.
legacy is the word... :(
> > it doesn't apply to Linux. Our setup is not hybrid whatsoever (not yet,
> > perhaps) so we don't need to worry about different OSes.
>
> Only recently has the Linux NFS support come of age. I would advise on
> interrogating the NetApp people (say hi to them for me :-)) on the
> experiences wrt Linux.
I'll troll my coworkers to do so :)
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++
On Dec 17 1999, Andy Bradford wrote:
> How did this email creep in? Is the list setup to allow posts from
> non-subscribers?
That's the "correct" way to setup a mailing list which
provides support for a program -- people will usually just
send bug reports or ask about unexpected behaviour without
having to go thru the entire subscribe, send the message, wait
for responses, unsubscribe cycle.
This is (or, actually, should be) usually the case for open
source program mailing lists. The drawback is that you get
spam once in a while...
On the other hand, if your mailing list is just, say, a music
mailing list, then there's just no need for keeping it open.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 11:26:32AM -0200, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> On Dec 17 1999, Andy Bradford wrote:
> > How did this email creep in? Is the list setup to allow posts from
> > non-subscribers?
>
> That's the "correct" way to setup a mailing list which
> provides support for a program -- people will usually just
> send bug reports or ask about unexpected behaviour without
> having to go thru the entire subscribe, send the message, wait
> for responses, unsubscribe cycle.
>
> This is (or, actually, should be) usually the case for open
> source program mailing lists. The drawback is that you get
> spam once in a while...
>
> On the other hand, if your mailing list is just, say, a music
> mailing list, then there's just no need for keeping it open.
If you mean 'open' as opposed to 'closed', where 'closed' says "don't accept
mail with From-addresses that are not on the list", I wholeheartedly disagree.
The address I post from at home ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is different from
my subscribed address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). If this list were
'closed' as defined above, I wouldn't be able to post.
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++
There is a way to allow multiple email address to post to a list. I'm not
sure if it can be done with elmz or not, but I do know I post to a list with
multiple email addresses, but it all gets sent to just one address. It's a
closed list, but I've setup the preferences for my account to allow posts
from my work account, home account, and website account.
Philip
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 18:47:51 +0100
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Here are your coupons
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 11:26:32AM -0200, Rogerio Brito wrote:
>> On Dec 17 1999, Andy Bradford wrote:
>>> How did this email creep in? Is the list setup to allow posts from
>>> non-subscribers?
>>
>> That's the "correct" way to setup a mailing list which
>> provides support for a program -- people will usually just
>> send bug reports or ask about unexpected behaviour without
>> having to go thru the entire subscribe, send the message, wait
>> for responses, unsubscribe cycle.
>>
>> This is (or, actually, should be) usually the case for open
>> source program mailing lists. The drawback is that you get
>> spam once in a while...
>>
>> On the other hand, if your mailing list is just, say, a music
>> mailing list, then there's just no need for keeping it open.
>
> If you mean 'open' as opposed to 'closed', where 'closed' says "don't accept
> mail with From-addresses that are not on the list", I wholeheartedly disagree.
>
> The address I post from at home ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is different from
> my subscribed address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). If this list were
> 'closed' as defined above, I wouldn't be able to post.
>
> 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++
>
On Dec 18 1999, Diego A. Puertas F. wrote:
> When I see my own message coming back from the list here, what
> appears in the FROM field is actually the TO field, it only happens
> on my messages. Do you see the same?
No, that's not the problem. That's the default behaviour that
some programs (like Pine -- which you are using, BTW -- and
mutt) have when displaying messages that YOU sent.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 08:58:18PM -0200, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> On Dec 18 1999, Diego A. Puertas F. wrote:
> > When I see my own message coming back from the list here, what
> > appears in the FROM field is actually the TO field, it only happens
> > on my messages. Do you see the same?
>
> No, that's not the problem. That's the default behaviour that
> some programs (like Pine -- which you are using, BTW -- and
> mutt) have when displaying messages that YOU sent.
It's not their behaviour, it's just them telling the truth: It's a posting
_from_ you _to_ the mailinglist, and even tho the mailinglist is sending it
back to you, the headers are kept original to prevent confusion.
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++
On Dec 19 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 1999 at 08:58:18PM -0200, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> > No, that's not the problem. That's the default behaviour that
> > some programs (like Pine -- which you are using, BTW -- and
> > mutt) have when displaying messages that YOU sent.
>
> It's not their behaviour, it's just them telling the truth: It's a
> posting _from_ you _to_ the mailinglist, and even tho the
> mailinglist is sending it back to you, the headers are kept original
> to prevent confusion.
I beg your pardon, and I admit that I'm not that good with
English, but it's not clear (for me at least) that we're
talking about the same thing here:
1 - it *is* their default behaviour (whether it is
configurable or not is not the question);
2 - perhaps I was not clear when I said the part "when
displaying messsages that YOU sent [to the list]".
I did NOT say in any moment that the programs (e.g., Pine,
Mutt) rewrite the "From:" header.
Perhaps you meant something different or I did not express
myself as clear as I thought had.
But, of course, this is simply an irrelevant matter for this
mailing list.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 12:46:28PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:23:28 +0100 , bert hubert writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:04:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domche
> ck -x /etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > >
> > > where tcp-domcheck is a small tool that does the domain checking as you
> > > describe. Perhaps a bit easier than patching it in.
> >
> > While more modular, I think that it should be integrated in tcpserver, as
> > this already does forward and reverse name lookups. With the volumes of mail
> > we transfer, I don't want to involve yet another process.
>
> Well, it *is* just one other process -- the extra
> fork() will be pretty cheap compared to the number
> of fsync()s that the message will incur on its way
> through your server. If you're worried about the
> exec() cost, statically link it.
It's not even a fork(). It's just an extra exec, with a couple of lookups
in a cdb database.
> I'm not sure that checking TCPREMOTEHOST and
> TCPREMOTEIP belong in the same program -- they're
> semantically different. For example, does an empty
> key refer to a default IP, or a default hostname?
> What if you want the two to have different default
> behaviors?
Good points.
Code is now online at http://www.dataloss.net/tcp-domcheck.tar.gz
Check it out, and report back to the qmail list please! :)
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++
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:48:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Code is now online at http://www.dataloss.net/tcp-domcheck.tar.gz
>
> Check it out, and report back to the qmail list please! :)
You might want to comment out the printf and fflush, not sure how hard
they would f*ck stuff up, I haven't actually tried this thing in a tcpserver
invocation, just from the commandline (as explained in README.short).
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++
Chris Johnson wrote something called "The qmail newbie's guide to relaying", which
is supposed to answer most of the relaying questions that come across the qmail list.
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html
and
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html
Hi,
I want to set qmail up as shown in "life with qmail".
So far no problem, but I noticed that one process
causes a peak of cpu-load every second. This happens
only when I start qmail with the lwq-script 'qmail start'.
Starting qmail in the "classic" way '/var/qmail/rc &' makes
no trouble.
top shows that 'supervise' could be the source. Is there
any advance by using this script or any need of using
'supervise' ?
// melle
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:46:16 -0500,
>> "Chris L. Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
C> Another big pain was that the /etc/magic file on Solaris is missing a
C> whole bunch of stuff which caused most archive formats to be
C> unrecognized, so I had to add a bunch to that (and swap bytes for
C> shorts!).
A nice version of "file" with a greatly-expanded /etc/magic can be found
at ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/file-3.28.tar.gz
--
Karl Vogel
ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am new to qmail and I have just installed and compiled qmail-1.03 on
ultrasparc Solaris 7. When I start qmail I get the following errors in
syslog:
Dec 17 16:10:16 host1 qmail: 945414616.234284 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Dec 17 16:10:17 host1 qmail: 945414617.771422 alert: unable to opendir mess/0
, sleeping...
I understand the first line is not an error, but the second line definitely
looks like one.
Does anyone know what is causing this? Is there something I need to do for q
mail to
run on Solaris?
Thanks in advance,
Kristina
Hi all,
Following my earlier post to this list about AMaViS, I was contacted by
Rainer Link, one of the AMaViS developers. I put together an extensive
patch for the 0.2.0-pre6 version and Rainer merged in his fixes for some of
the virus scanners. qmail support should now be relatively complete,
including x_header support if you have procmail/formail installed. I am
hoping that these changes will be included in the next release of AMaViS.
More information, and a tarball, is available at my website:
http://www.unixzone.com/virus/
Please send me any feedback or bug reports.
Chris
"Chris L. Mason" wrote:
Hi!
> Following my earlier post to this list about AMaViS, I was contacted by
> Rainer Link, one of the AMaViS developers. I put together an extensive
> patch for the 0.2.0-pre6 version and Rainer merged in his fixes for some of
> the virus scanners. qmail support should now be relatively complete,
> including x_header support if you have procmail/formail installed. I am
> hoping that these changes will be included in the next release of AMaViS.
> More information, and a tarball, is available at my website:
> http://www.unixzone.com/virus/
Well, with this new tarball, my "own" patch (rl-qmail-patch1p1)
announced on Saturday, is obsolete.
Thanks to all contributors, especially to Chris!
So, I hope we can release either a x-mas version or a millenium version,
without any -pre :-)
Christian, the AMaViS maintainer, is working on a lot of stuff "behind
the scenes" (i.e. new webdesign) in his (short) spare time.
best regards,
Rainer Link
--
Rainer Link, eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WWW: http://rainer.w3.to/
Student of Communication Engineering/Computer Networking, University of
Applied Sciences,Furtwangen,Germany,http://www.ce.is.fh-furtwangen.de/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Kitabjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 12:19 AM
Subject: Q-Cards
Hey Folks,
When you get some free time, take a look at:
http://www.kitabjian.com/dave/qmailhelp/
I originally prepared these "Q-Cards" for our intranet to help our internal
(and future) staff debug, diagnose, and maintain our qmail-based email
servers when I'm out of town.
Then it occurred to me that this type of end-to-end or "one hurdle at a
time" sequential approach might be helpful to other beginners in the qmail
community at large.
Anyway, I know there are definite holes in my understanding of the way
qmail works, but I have most of the pieces in place. I'd really value you
guys looking it over for accuracy and usefulness and offering any comments.
And by all means, let me know if you find them useful!
Thanks!
Dave K
Did his last message include an attachment or was it a large message?
It's possible that the message was sent by a user who elected to split a
large message into 7 smaller pieces; thus outlook would have detected 10
messages and after downloading would have combined the last 7 into a single
large message.
Regards
Abdul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bert hubert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 8:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Outlook/pop3d: user claims to have lost mail after an aborted
> retrieval
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> After processing zillions of messages the past 9 months, somebody
> startled me
> with a problem. This customer is deemed 'important', that is why
> I am trying
> to find out if this is a known problem.
>
> He is using 'Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300' (we should have
> version numbering like this, sheesh). He reports that he was retrieving
> 10 messages and iconized his Outlook window after message 4, and then
> leaving.
>
> When he returned, only 4 new messages had appeared in his
> mailbox. He is now
> wondering where the other 6 went. I checked, they're not sitting in his
> cur/ directory.
>
> Is this a known problem with qmail-pop3d and outlook? AFAIK, the POP3
> protocol is specifically designed as to only delete messages when
> a session
> was closed properly.
>
> Any clues?
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> bert hubert.
>
>
> --
> +---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
> | nerd for hire | |
> +---------------+ | - U N I X -
> | | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
>
