qmail Digest 29 Dec 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 864
Topics (messages 34844 through 34860):
Re: error with my startup script
34844 by: bert hubert
Re: Server cluster
34845 by: Robert R. Wal
34852 by: James N. Maze
alias/vpopmail uids
34846 by: Peter Green
virtual domains order question
34847 by: olli
34849 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Corel Linux ships with qmail installed, but not running
34848 by: livelym.tklaw.com
vpopmail and .qmail-default
34850 by: Marco Leeflang
34853 by: iv0
Re: trouble with unusually high mbuf usage?
34851 by: cmikk.uswest.net
big rcpthosts file
34854 by: Frank Greven
34855 by: bert hubert
34860 by: Peter Gradwell
rcpthosts and DNS
34856 by: Frank Greven
1 call get 2
34857 by: abu
virtual domains in qmail/ezmlm?
34858 by: Peter Cavender
34859 by: Anand Buddhdev
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 Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 11:31:25AM +0800, Ismal Hisham Darus wrote:
> i'm using Life with qmail by dave sill.. everyhting was perfect until
> i execute /usr/local/sbin/qmail start .. and i got the following
> messages ..
>
> [root@pc supervise]# /usr/local/sbin/qmail start
> Starting qmail: svscan.
> [root@pc supervise]# supervise: fatal: unable to start qmail
> smtpd/run: exec formmat error
this means that it can't execute smtpd/run because of a format error. Does
it start with #!/bin/sh? Is the +x bit set?
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On 99.12.27 Brian Grossman pressed the following keys:
> Once you get to a high volume of incoming mail, your first bottleneck will
> likely be the disk hosting /var/qmail/queue.
If Linux is the preferred system for this cluster, than you can take a look
at reiserfs: one of journaling filesystems that are being developped for
Linux. It took more load from my friends SQUID and INN than changing disks
with spool area for them to the fastest SCSI.
Robert
--
<a href="http://reptile.eu.org/"> Robert R. Wal (me & my cats) </a>
We are not what we remember of ourselves, we are what people
say we are. They project upon us their convictions. We are nothing
but blank screens -- ``Aeon Flux''
This thread has raised some questions about NFS that I'd like to talk
about since I'm looking at potentially using qmail with NFS to create
an e-mail cluster. I'm looking at qmail because its maildir message
store appears to be NFS safe. We're currently using Innosoft's SMTP
and POP servers along with the Cyrus IMAP server on two independent
machines. At one time, we had 6 independent servers, but we've
consolidated into 2 to save $$$. It seemed too many costs were
multiplied by the number of servers. And load balancing across so
many independent servers was difficult for users. But now we've got
too many eggs in too few baskets. We lost one of these servers for
the better part of a day a few months back when a RAID 5 system
failed and caught quite a bit of grief. A RAID controller failed and
when the system attempted to roll over to the redundant controller,
it hung and was corrupted. It took about 6 hours to get the system
back online.
I'm sure NFS has earned its reputation for unreliability, but I think
there are a new generation of dedicated NFS appliances that deserve a
second look. We've been using NetApp filers with our web and database
servers and I've been pleased with the reliability and performance. I
don't mean for this to be a pitch for NetApp. NetApp has several able
competitors. NetApp is just the one we've chosen and where we have
some experience.
We use the NetApp filers as backend servers on a private gigabit LAN
so security is manageable.
The NetApp class of machine is designed for simplicity and
reliability. Multiple hot-swappable power supplies and fans,
hot-swappable disks, and you can buy a spares kit with the things
that are most likely to fail, including the mother board. So if you
have a hardware failure that brings the system down, you should be
able to get back up quickly. You can "cluster" two NetApp's in a
fully redundant system, but that was a little beyond our budget. We
are looking at using their mirroring software to create a mirror of
the e-mail volumes on the web filer. That way, if the e-mail filer
failed and we couldn't get it back up quickly, we could mount the
mirror volume from the web filer.
My goal is to create a cluster that supports SMTP, POP, and IMAP. If
one of the servers fails, existing connections might be broken, but
the system should appear to heal itself quickly and, when users try
again, it should appear fully functional. We'll do the load balancing
with MX and Foundry Network's ServerIron layer 4 switches. Foundry
also has a number of able competitors.
To me, I want both the MTA (SMTP) and mailbox servers (POP/IMAP) to
be clustered. I don't see a need to separate the MTA from the mailbox
servers since they seem so interdependent. Actually, I worry a bit
less about the MTA since SMTP is inherently store and forward and MX
provides an easy way to load balance across multiple MTA's. I worry
more about the mailbox servers. If it takes a little while longer for
some messages to be delivered because of an MTA failure, users may
not notice. If a mailbox server fails, users will know immediately.
If that mailbox server is down for very long, users will be looking
for scalps.
So the scenario I'm looking at would look something like:
( public network )
|
+------------+
| firewall +
+------------+
|
+------------+
| switch(es) |
+------------+
| |
+------------+ +------------+
| server 1 + | server 2 + (more servers, if needed)
+------------+ +------------+
| |
+------------+
| switch(es) |
+------------+
|
+------------+
| filer(s) |
+------------+
Another thing I like about these filers is the ability to manage
_storage_ separate from _servers_. Before, each server had its own
storage subsystem that had to be managed separately. If one server
was running low on space, it wasn't easy to move space from one
server to another. With a filer, we can add disks as needed, on the
fly in most cases, and the space is immediately available to all of
the servers. It also makes backup easier.
Not being familiar with qmail, the biggest question for me is if I'll
be able to do all the things I'm doing now. For example, our current
POP/IMAP servers don't allow plaintext login, but provide a number of
options such as SSL, APOP, and CRAM-MD5. We also do SMTP AUTH with
SSL and CRAM-MD5 authentication. And our SMTP server allows relaying
if you authenticate. And we can automatically post messages to any
IMAP mailbox. One thing we don't have at this point is a single,
unified account database and message store for POP and IMAP. Cyrus
could do this as will the next version of the Innosoft product, but
neither will support NFS.
--
James N. (Jamey) Maze
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Computing, Information and Networking Division
http://www.ornl.gov/cind
Is there any potential drawback (security or otherwise) to giving the
'alias' user and the 'vpopmail' user the same UID?
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi.
Sorry or a noise.. I wanna make virtual domains so , that any mail on
domain, exept one adress, will have one prepend & one exception will have
another prepend. Is it rigth to do this in a next manner:
---cut---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:home
alien.digger.org.ru:alien
---cut---
In other words: is it true that qmail reads virtualdomains string per
string and applies 1st found rule, no matter what gives next string?
Bye.Olli.
//System administrator of "Russia Young" internet group.
Any info regarding "Russia Young" & Boris Nemtsov:
http://www.rosmol.ru , http://www.nemtsov.ru , http://www.boris.nemtsov.ru
olli writes:
> Sorry or a noise.. I wanna make virtual domains so , that any mail on
> domain, exept one adress, will have one prepend & one exception will have
> another prepend. Is it rigth to do this in a next manner:
> ---cut---
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:home
> alien.digger.org.ru:alien
> ---cut---
> In other words: is it true that qmail reads virtualdomains string per
> string and applies 1st found rule, no matter what gives next string?
No. Qmail throws all the virtualdomain left-hand-sides into a hash,
and it searches in a particular order: it searches for the entire
address, then the entire domain name, then it strips off leading
domains and searches until there is no more to strip off.
The order in the original file doesn't matter unless you have
identical left-hand-sides.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
I installed Corel's Linux and there is a function in the xwindows client
for starting q-mail. It will ask you the name of the server etc and install
all existing users. It works great and is pretty hard to screw up.
I am having one problem though. When handing off mail to the server from a
POP3 client it can take up to a couple of minutes. Retrieving mail is a
couple of seconds?
Any ideas?
Mel Lively
Thompson & Knight LLP
214-969-1444
"David L.
Nicol" To: "Chris L. Mason"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Sent by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
david cc:
Subject: Re: Corel Linux ships with qmail
installed, but not running
12/27/1999
04:05 PM
"Chris L. Mason" wrote:
>
> Perhaps Corel is planning to use qmail in future versions and it just
wasn't
> ready for 1.0? I've been waiting awhile for a Linux distribution to come
> out that uses qmail as the default MTA (or at least offers the choice of
> using it over sendmail in the installation.)
>
> Chris
I think linux distributors are waiting for qmail to be able to combine
non-VERP messages for same remote machine into single transmissions;
or perhaps for a configuration GUI. (it would thave to be standard
and extensible, so qmail extensions could extend the GUI as well)
Where's your distribution, then, Chris?
Does not the existence of easily available qmail RPMs qualify?
__________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grep -v 0 /proc/*/where
The default behaviour of qmail when no .qmail-default is in the alias
dir the message bounced and the sender received a message.
Is this possible with vpopmail/qmailadmin, i have 2 domains and one i
want to bounce and the other should deliver undeliverd mail to the
postmaster.
greetings,
marco leeflang
Marco Leeflang wrote:
>
> The default behaviour of qmail when no .qmail-default is in the alias
> dir the message bounced and the sender received a message.
> Is this possible with vpopmail/qmailadmin, i have 2 domains and one i
> want to bounce and the other should deliver undeliverd mail to the
> postmaster.
>
> greetings,
> marco leeflang
Don't remove the .qmail-default file.
For the domain you want to deliver undelivered mail to postmaster,
don't make any changes to .qmail-default
For the domain you want to bounce email. Edit .qmail-default and
change the last parameter in the file to "bounce-no-mailbox"
Ken Jones
Inter7
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 18:32:32 -0500 , Delanet Administration writes:
> I have a FreeBSD 3.1r server running qmail 1.03 with ezmlm and vchkpw
> 3.12. It's been running fine for 9 months or so now until last week. The
> server crashed (hardware related and fixed) and there was rather
> extensive FS corruption..after cleaning it and re-starting qmail, the
> mbufs which normally never spike over 300 or so topped 7k, crashed the
> server simply trying to start qmail. I raised max-users and thats fixed
> it, however for a server to suddently need over twice the mbufs with no
> real changes aside from addition of users (not enough to account for
> that much change) bothers me. I can find nothing wrong with it..I did
> have some 330+ messages in the queue, however I've restarted it with
> more before..even a kill -ALRM would cause a crash before I increased
> the limit, which never was a problem in the past. Has anyone else
> experienced this or have any ideas on where I can look to track it down?
What was probably happening was some sizeable messages
built up in the queue, and when running the queue
(on startup or kill -ALRM), qmail was attempting to
deliver them all simultaneously.
I was seeing mbuf usage exceed 15000 from large
hotmail messages the other week :-/
--
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?
Hello,
I've a rcpthosts file with more than 500 domains listed in it.
I've read somewhere not to put more than 50 in it.
Are there any performance problems with such a big rcpthosts?
If so, what can I do to avoid this?
Thanks,
Frank
On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Frank Greven wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've a rcpthosts file with more than 500 domains listed in it.
> I've read somewhere not to put more than 50 in it.
>
> Are there any performance problems with such a big rcpthosts?
> If so, what can I do to avoid this?
from man qmail-smtpd:
morercpthosts
Extra allowed RCPT domains. If rcpthosts and mor-
ercpthosts both exist, morercpthosts is effectively
appended to rcpthosts.
You must run qmail-newmrh whenever morercpthosts
changes.
Rule of thumb for large sites: Put your 50 most com-
monly used domains into rcpthosts, and the rest into
morercpthosts.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
At 23:43 28/12/99 +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> Rule of thumb for large sites: Put your 50 most com-
> monly used domains into rcpthosts, and the rest into
> morercpthosts.
ah, but does it matter? I have nearly 900 in my rcpthosts file and I'm not
noticing anything in particular. I'm doing a constant stream of mail, but
never more than one stream at anyone time really... performance is fine.
I don't *really* know which domains are the busiest. To work that out I
would have to do something like get all the domains from the qmail logs,
use qmail-analog to weight them, sort the list of domains, and then split
them appropriately.
Currently I have a script that just generates the rcpthosts file from the
virtualdomains file, and that is generated out of a simple script that just
prints out a mysql table contents.
Ranking everything would be a bit OTT IMHO.
So, should I be worried? Does it matter? When does it matter?
cheers
peter
--
peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/
Hello,
today we need to have a big rcpthosts file with lots of hundrets of
domains.
To maintain this file it needs a lot of time. Now I've heard somewhere
that you can ... relaying by asking your DNS server.
Is there any way to allow relaying from/for all domains our name server
is a primary or secondary?
Thanks a lot,
Frank
Hai, I am new here. Sorry my english very bad
I have problem, I use qmail for my office but there are 2 server : I am
admin at server1, but no at server2, there are user account on server1
same on server2.
So how to configure when client at server1 download email from server1
download agan from server2. using user/pwd on server1.
srv1: qmail+maildir+checkpwd+qmailpopup (I am admin here)
srv2: qmail+mailbox+checkpwd+qpopper ( I am not admin here)
user ---> download email --> server1 -----------------------> server2
(with the same user/pwd)
How to configure qmail / qmail popup or else to work like that. I have
tried with fetchmail and qpoper but still compusing, I tried to change
source program (qmail-popup.c) but no progress.
Th
Abu (LUG Indonesia)
Hi-
I have finally mastered qmail (OK, "I installed qmail and it works")
and am now trying to set up a couple ezmlm lists on a server with
virtual domains.
My /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains file looks like this:
domain1.com:forwarder-domain1
domain2.com:forwarder-domain2
...
I obviously have a special user, "forwarder", set up with lots of
.qmail files, and all is fine & working for normal qmail traffic.
I try making a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ezmlm-make /virtual/domain1/ezmlm /home/forwarder/.qmail-domain1
domain1 domain1.com
(that's one line, the dir is OK, and the links get created in /home/forwarder/)
But I get:
"Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)"
when I try to talk to it. (mailing to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
I am trying to make simple, public lists for a couple of virtual
domains. I think all I have to do is get the ezmlm-make command line
right.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Pete
PS: Am I missing something, or are the only docs what comes in the .tar.gz?
------------------------------------------------------------
Linux kernel 2.4.* - The final NT service pack.
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 12:55:13AM -0500, Peter Cavender wrote:
You're missing something. See below:
> My /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains file looks like this:
> domain1.com:forwarder-domain1
> domain2.com:forwarder-domain2
> ...
>
> I obviously have a special user, "forwarder", set up with lots of
> .qmail files, and all is fine & working for normal qmail traffic.
>
> I try making a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> ezmlm-make /virtual/domain1/ezmlm /home/forwarder/.qmail-domain1
> domain1 domain1.com
That line should be:
ezmlm-make /virtual/domain1/ezmlm /home/forwarder/.qmail-domain1-domain1
domain1 domain1.com
(all on one line - notice the extra "-domain1" in the .qmail file)
Also note that if you use the standard ezmlm-0.53, then you'll have to
manually make one other change before the list will work. That change is
as follows:
cd /virtual/domain1/ezmlm
Find in there a file called "inlocal". This contains the name of the
local part which ezmlm expects to see. It will contain "domain1" in your
case. You have to change that to "forwarder-domain1-domain1". The
alternative is to patch ezmlm with ezmlm-idx, which doesn't need you to
fiddle with any files like this.
[snip]
--
See complete headers for more info
