qmail Digest 4 Jan 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 870
Topics (messages 34998 through 35044):
Re: The Canonical Set of qmail Patches
34998 by: Fred Lindberg
Receiving mail for an old server
34999 by: Antonio Navarro Navarro
35000 by: Martin A. Brown
35001 by: Jakub Chromy
footnote inject on server
35002 by: qmail.col7.metta.lk
Re: Anal-ness
35003 by: Dave Sill
35020 by: Russ Allbery
Long delay on smtp connect
35004 by: Jon Rust
35007 by: bert hubert
35008 by: Greg Owen
35009 by: Dave Sill
35011 by: Jon Rust
35013 by: Greg Owen
35014 by: Dave Sill
35019 by: Jon Rust
qmail / vpopmail / weird behavior
35005 by: Jonathan Herbert
35016 by: iv0
ANNOUNCE: getmail, a fetchmail replacement
35006 by: Charles Cazabon
VHosting
35010 by: Josh Pennell
35012 by: Peter Cavender
35018 by: Martin Lesser
Help on qmailanalog
35015 by: Ari Arantes Filho
35017 by: Ronny Haryanto
selective relay pbm
35021 by: Reece Markowsky
35040 by: Einar Bordewich
compile error
35022 by: Kristina
35025 by: Chris L. Mason
35029 by: lbudney-lists-qmail.nb.net
35032 by: Russell Nelson
35035 by: Russ Allbery
35036 by: Russell Nelson
35038 by: Greg Hudson
35039 by: Russell Nelson
Another compile error
35023 by: Kristina
35043 by: Mikko H�nninen
Ryan Sharon's new address
35024 by: Segfult
How do I empty the mailbox?
35026 by: Kristina
35027 by: Sam
35028 by: Dustin Marquess
qmail-inject error
35030 by: Kristina
More spam prevention
35031 by: Postmaster
35033 by: Russell Nelson
Cannot send or relay mail unexpectedly.
35034 by: Kevin Diffily
Delivering mail into a SQL table
35037 by: Bill Ataras
35044 by: Mikko H�nninen
Qmail & AtDot
35041 by: Lists
35042 by: Greg Wildman
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, 2 Jan 2000 23:17:51 -0500 (EST), Russell Nelson wrote: >Sure. Propose a canonical set of patches. About the only thing I >install, and only on very high volume sites, is big-todo. Oh, and the >rblsmtpd multiple -r option patch. Given that MAPS and the big-concurrency patch. Seems to hurt very little even with concurrency << 255. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Hi all ! I have configured Qmail for receiving mail for several domains using vpopmail. I need to receive mail not only for the domain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but for the machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) How can I do it ? Regards, Antonio Navarro Navarro BemarNet Management [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bemarnet.es
Antonio, If you wish to receive mail for other hosts, simply put the hostname into /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts. If you wish to deliver /any/ incoming mail to the same UN*X user, you can use the following setup: /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts ================================= domain.com mail.domain.com .domain.com /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains ================================= domain.com:domainuser mail.domain.com:domainuser .domain.com:domainuser Please note that including "mail.domain.com" is merely being explicit about receiving mail for that hostname. You need not include it explicitly, as the wildcard entry ".domain.com" will take care of your problem (and will accept mail for any other hostnames in "domain.com". This is covered in Life with Qmail. Come back if you still have troubles.... See here: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#virtual-domains -Martin -- Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe Communications --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Antonio Navarro Navarro wrote: :Hi all ! : :I have configured Qmail for receiving mail for several domains using :vpopmail. I need to receive mail not only for the domain :([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but for the machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) : :How can I do it ? : :Regards, : :Antonio Navarro Navarro :BemarNet Management :[EMAIL PROTECTED] :http://www.bemarnet.es :
> I have configured Qmail for receiving mail for several domains using > vpopmail. I need to receive mail not only for the domain > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but for the machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > How can I do it ? There are several ways how to do that -- just comment '# mail.domain.com' in /var/qmail/control/locals and echo 'mail.domain.com:domain' >> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains . You will have delivered all incoming traffic to 'mail.domain.com' using the same rule as for 'domain.dom'. Read carefully the documentation. with regards Jakub Chromy Hosting CZ Ltd. Tel: 0603 822 830 http://www.hosting.cz ICQ: 12017727 NEW: Miesto.sk http://www.miesto.sk Operator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sorry for the rather late reply to your help on my mail footer. I run Redhat 6.0 and am using Dave's LWQ for my setup. I did the patch to qmail as per your email but I get no footer on the mail. Your advice on where to look for errors is much appriciated. I put the perl script in this file: /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd-wrapper ---------------------------------- #!/bin/bash ulimit -d 1024 /var/qmail/bin/footer-add.pl exec /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd ${1+"$@"} ----------------------------------- Is that the right place for it or should it be in the Dave's startup script. ---------------------------------- echo -n " qmail-smtpd" supervise /var/supervise/qmail/smtpd tcpserver -v -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ -u$QMAILDUID -g$NOFILESGID 0 smtp \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd-wrapper 2>&1 | setuser qmaill accustamp | \ setuser qmaill cyclog /var/log/qmail/smtpd & echo "." ------------------------------------ below is the footer-add.pl -------------------------- -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 164 Jan 3 22:02 footer-add.pl ----------------------------- #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; if ( $ENV{'TCPLOCALIP'} eq "172.16.1.1" ) { $ENV{'FOOTER'} = "\n--------------\n col7.metta.lk \n"; } exec @ARGV; die "exec failed" ---------------------------- When I execute the perl script by hand I get this error [root@narada bin]# ./footer-add.pl exec failed at ./footer-add.pl line 7. and this is what comes in my qmail messages ------------------------------------------- 946921518.144139 tcpserver: status: 1/40 946921518.144721 tcpserver: pid 1245 from 10.0.0.3 946921519.073927 tcpserver: ok 1245 narada.col7.metta.lk:172.16.1.1:25:10.0.0.3::1030 946921519.131552 exec failed at /var/qmail/bin/footer-add.pl line 7. 946921522.264221 tcpserver: end 1245 status 0 946921522.264426 tcpserver: status: 0/40 Best regards Jacob
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> David Cunningham writes: > >>> Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my >>> own personal use (not for redistribution?) > >> It's complicated. According to US copyright law, once you have a copy, >> it is yours to dispose of as you wish. > >Which does not include the right to make derivative works, even if you >don't redistribute them, by my reading of the actual U.S. copyright >statute. Anyone in the U.S. who's curious should really read the actual >law on <URL:http://www.loc.gov/copyright/>. IANAL, but according to Section 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, you *can* make derivative works for your own use: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or ... If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. -Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IANAL, but according to Section 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: > Computer programs, you *can* make derivative works for your own use: > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an > infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make > or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that > computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential > step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction > with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or Making a derivative work is not an essential step in the utilization of a computer program. That clause is covering making an in-memory copy of a program so as to be able to execute it. "Essential step" says pretty clearly, to me at least, that if you don't have to do it in order to use the computer program in the manner it was intended to be used, you don't have a right to do it. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I've got a user who is seeing a 25 second delay when connecting to port 25. I've thrown up a tcpdump session, and can verify there is a delay, and it apparently is a delay on our end. I can't figure why though. Here's a snippet of log info: 2000-01-03 08:04:50.975956500 tcpserver: pid 7604 from 209.239.242.9 2000-01-03 08:04:50.978663500 tcpserver: status: 5/50 2000-01-03 08:04:50.979591500 tcpserver: pid 7605 from 209.239.242.9 2000-01-03 08:04:51.442364500 tcpserver: status: 6/50 <snip> 2000-01-03 08:05:16.985600500 tcpserver: ok 7604 mail.vcnet.com:209.239.239.15:2 5 gateway.chequemate.com:209.239.242.9::1031 2000-01-03 08:05:16.995683500 tcpserver: ok 7605 mail.vcnet.com:209.239.239.15:2 5 gateway.chequemate.com:209.239.242.9::1032 2000-01-03 08:05:17.296885500 tcpserver: end 7605 status 0 2000-01-03 08:05:17.297172500 tcpserver: status: 4/50 2000-01-03 08:05:17.502376500 tcpserver: status: 5/50 2000-01-03 08:05:17.587533500 tcpserver: end 7604 status 0 2000-01-03 08:05:17.588419500 tcpserver: status: 4/50 Note the ~ 25 second delay. It also shows is tcpdump: 10:38:13.521253 gateway.chequemate.com.1587 > mail.vcnet.com.smtp: S 9465046:9465046(0) win 8192 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> (DF) 10:38:13.521360 mail.vcnet.com.smtp > gateway.chequemate.com.1587: S 1269293425:1269293425(0) ack 9465047 win 17520 <mss 1460> (DF) 10:38:13.547423 gateway.chequemate.com.1587 > mail.vcnet.com.smtp: . ack 1 win 8760 (DF) 10:38:39.583239 mail.vcnet.com.smtp > gateway.chequemate.com.1587: P 1:60(59) ack 1 win 17520 (DF) 10:38:39.612027 gateway.chequemate.com.1587 > mail.vcnet.com.smtp: P 1:15(14) ack 60 win 8701 (DF) I run qmail-smtpd with daemontools .61 with the following run script: #!/bin/sh QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c 50\ -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp sh -c ' /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd cd /var/qmail/autoturn exec setlock -nx $TCPREMOTEIP/seriallock \ maildirsmtp $TCPREMOTEIP autoturn-$TCPREMOTEIP- $TCPREMOTEIP AutoTURN ' 2>&1 Any ideas on where the delay is coming from? Thanks, jon
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:08:35PM -0800, Jon Rust wrote: > I've got a user who is seeing a 25 second delay when connecting to > port 25. I've thrown up a tcpdump session, and can verify there is a > delay, and it apparently is a delay on our end. I can't figure why > though. Here's a snippet of log info: Check for ident queries which may be timing out. -- +---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl | nerd for hire | | +---------------+ | - U N I X - | | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
> I've got a user who is seeing a 25 second delay when connecting > to port 25. I've thrown up a tcpdump session, and can verify > there is a delay, and it apparently is a delay on our end. I > can't figure why though. Here's a snippet of log info: Your tcpserver is doing an ident lookup on his machine, and his machine is not answering the ident port. The default timeout for ident lookups in tcpserver is 26 seconds. This answer assumes that the tcpdump log you showed was pared down only to include SMTP lines. I assume that a full tcpdump would also show the ident query going out. You can turn off ident lookups using the -R option to tcpserver, or you can change the timeout using the -ttimeout option. These two options are detailed in the man page for tcpserver (although they never refer to this as an ident lookup - it is "setting TCPREMOTEINFO"). -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've got a user who is seeing a 25 second delay when connecting to >port 25. I've thrown up a tcpdump session, and can verify there is a >delay, and it apparently is a delay on our end. > >Any ideas on where the delay is coming from? Look at the -H and -R options to tcpserver. Your delay is almost certainly due to either slow DNS lookups or IDENT timeouts, and probably the latter. -Dave
Greg, Dave and Bert, Thanks, it was the ident check. -R fixed it. Any brainstorms on why this suddenly cropped up? And only for this guy? He was running fine on Friday, came to work today and it had the delay. Over the weekend I pulled out the paranoid setting (-p) in my script. Does running with -p preclude running the ident check or something? Thanks again, Jon At 3:23 PM -0500 1/3/00, Dave Sill wrote: >Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I've got a user who is seeing a 25 second delay when connecting to >>port 25. I've thrown up a tcpdump session, and can verify there is a >>delay, and it apparently is a delay on our end. >> >>Any ideas on where the delay is coming from? > >Look at the -H and -R options to tcpserver. Your delay is almost >certainly due to either slow DNS lookups or IDENT timeouts, and >probably the latter. > >-Dave
> Thanks, it was the ident check. -R fixed it. Any brainstorms on why > this suddenly cropped up? And only for this guy? He was running fine > on Friday, came to work today and it had the delay. Over the weekend > I pulled out the paranoid setting (-p) in my script. Does running > with -p preclude running the ident check or something? <bull mode on> Don't quote me on this, but I think tcpserver's ident check fails immediately with a connection refused (no ident services) and times out with a connection that hangs (improperly configured ident services, some firewall side effects). If either of the latter was new to the equation, that might do it. Questions to ask: is he running a machine that might be expected to do ident (as opposed to a Wintel)? If so, does he run it or not run it? And have there been any firewall changes between the two sites? </bull mode off> Beats the hell out of me ;> -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thanks, it was the ident check. -R fixed it. Any brainstorms on why >this suddenly cropped up? And only for this guy? He was running fine >on Friday, came to work today and it had the delay. His identd probably broke or his network admins started blocking IDENT due to hacker paranoia. -Dave
At 3:57 PM -0500 1/3/00, Dave Sill wrote: >Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Thanks, it was the ident check. -R fixed it. Any brainstorms on why >>this suddenly cropped up? And only for this guy? He was running fine >>on Friday, came to work today and it had the delay. > >His identd probably broke or his network admins started blocking IDENT >due to hacker paranoia. Nope, nope. :-) I'm their router admin. FreeBSD running NAT. The only thing that changed was on this end -- turning off "paranoid" on tcpserver. jon
Hi gang, I've been fighting with this one for a while now, i'm not sure what the exact problem is. The system is running openbsd 2.6, with the generic kernel. As far as i can tell, qmail is running alright, but vpopmail is doing something weird. For instance, when i add a virtual domain: host# ./vadddomain test Please enter password for postmaster: enter password again: ps: illegal option -- f usage: ps [-aChjlmrSTuvwx] [-O|o fmt] [-p pid] [-t tty] [-U user] [-M core] [-N system] [-W swap] ps [-L] host# Something tells me this is not the correct behavior =) My best guess is that the vadddomain command never finishes setting up all of the necessary files, or makes all of the required changes to /var/qmail/users/assign, and /var/qmail/control/{rcpthosts,locals}. I'm interested in seeing this work, it's been a while since i've used qmail with inter7's excellent vchkpw. I can't wait to see some of the new features in action! Thanks, Jonathan
Jonathan Herbert wrote: > > Hi gang, > > I've been fighting with this one for a while now, i'm not sure what the > exact problem is. > > The system is running openbsd 2.6, with the generic kernel. > > As far as i can tell, qmail is running alright, but vpopmail is doing > something weird. > > For instance, when i add a virtual domain: > > host# ./vadddomain test > Please enter password for postmaster: > enter password again: > ps: illegal option -- f > usage: ps [-aChjlmrSTuvwx] [-O|o fmt] [-p pid] [-t tty] [-U user] > [-M core] [-N system] [-W swap] > ps [-L] > host# > > Something tells me this is not the correct behavior =) > > My best guess is that the vadddomain command never finishes setting up all > of the necessary files, or makes all of the required changes to > /var/qmail/users/assign, and /var/qmail/control/{rcpthosts,locals}. > > I'm interested in seeing this work, it's been a while since i've used qmail > with inter7's excellent vchkpw. I can't wait to see some of the new features > in action! > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Check the config.h file for #define PS_COMMAND It looks like it might not be setting the ps command options correctly for openBSD. If this is the case, it will have setup everything correcly and failed on HUPing qmail-send. qmail-send needs to be HUP'd when a new virtual domain gets added since the control/rcpthosts and control/virtualdomains have the new domain added. I suspect your PS_COMMAND is set to "ps -ef". It should probably be set to ps ax or ps -ax Ken Jones
Slightly offtopic -- flames in private email, please. getmail 0.91 is the third public release of a new POP3 mail retrieval utility which I have released under the GPL version 2. It is intended to be a simple POP3 mail retriever with reliable maildir delivery (i.e., it does not re-inject retrieved messages via SMTP on localhost ala 'fetchmail'). It is simple to configure and use. It can handle an unlimited number of email accounts on one or more POP3 hosts, with delivery to maildirs specified on a per-account basis. It follow's Dan's reccomended naming conventions and practices for delivery. It can easily be set up to retrieve mail from the same set of accounts on a regular basis (all mail or new mail only), or can be used to retrieve mail on a one-time basis. getmail is written in Python, and is available from: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/getmail/ Questions, feedback, commets greatly appreciated in private email. Charles -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer. --------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, I read the virtual hosting faq, but I'm left wondering how do I set up a virtual mail domain that will send mail to seperate mail users. The FAQ, as I understand it, only explains how to send <everyone>@yourdom.com to one individuals mail box. I ( my customers ) need to be able to receive mail addressed to their domain in different mail box's. For example: Mail For: Deliver To: -------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/jill/Maildir [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/bobe/Maildir [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/elli/Maildir Should I use procmail to do this or does one of the mail guru's out there have a super elegant way to achieve this? Thanks for the help, as usual! Josh
>Hello, > >I read the virtual hosting faq, but I'm left wondering how do I set up a >virtual mail domain that will send mail to seperate mail users. The FAQ, >as I understand it, only explains how to send <everyone>@yourdom.com to >one individuals mail box. I ( my customers ) need to be able to receive >mail addressed to their domain in different mail box's. For example: > >Mail For: Deliver To: >-------------------------------------------- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/jill/Maildir >[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/bobe/Maildir >[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/elli/Maildir > >Should I use procmail to do this or does one of the mail guru's out there >have a super elegant way to achieve this? > >Thanks for the help, as usual! > > >Josh You do send all the mail for a domain to one user (I have a user "forwarder" for this purpose), then, for that user, you have multiple .qmail files that tell where to deliver the messages. It took me forever to figure this out myself. in virtualdomains: domain1.com:forwarder-domain1 domain2.com:forwarder-domain2 Then make the .qmail files: /home/forwarder/.qmail-domain1-jill contains "jill" /home/forwarder/.qmail-domain2-bobe contains "bobe" etc. Pete
Josh Pennell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I read the virtual hosting faq, but I'm left wondering how do I set up a > virtual mail domain that will send mail to seperate mail users. The FAQ, > as I understand it, only explains how to send <everyone>@yourdom.com to > one individuals mail box. I ( my customers ) need to be able to receive > mail addressed to their domain in different mail box's. For example: > > Mail For: Deliver To: > -------------------------------------------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/jill/Maildir > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/bobe/Maildir > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> /home/elli/Maildir > > Should I use procmail to do this or does one of the mail guru's out there > have a super elegant way to achieve this? I think there is (like so often) more than one way to solve the problem. The first way is to create only a forwarder in the homedir of the virtual domain (i.e. /home/vpopmail/domains/cust-dom.com). So for jill there should be a file .qmail-jill with one line &[EMAIL PROTECTED] Qmail would then forward all incoming mail to the mentioned account at real-dom.com which probably is a maildir on the same host. If this is not what you want the second way is to create a real user in your virtual domain and let the user pop the account in the common way. You can then add a forwarder for this virtual user as well but I think that's more complicate than the first way. You should try to use the qmailadmin-package, its a really nice cgi-interface to your virtualdomain-administration. Martin
Hi, I'm trying to use qmailanalog without successfull. I've read MATCHUP and all documentation in /usr/local/qmailanalog/doc but I'm still lost. Could you send me some layout output and input for the zoverall and others tools? I've tried using splogger and multilog, but the output is null!!! How can I use qmailanalog? Best regards, Ari
On 03-Jan-2000, Ari Arantes Filho wrote: > I'm trying to use qmailanalog without successfull. > I've read MATCHUP and all documentation in /usr/local/qmailanalog/doc > but I'm still lost. > Could you send me some layout output and input for the zoverall and > others tools? > I've tried using splogger and multilog, but the output is null!!! > How can I use qmailanalog? I use this script to send me a log analysis nightly (via crontab). Add the z* commands as you like before ")| qmail-inject". #!/bin/sh PATH=/usr/local/qmailanalog/bin:/var/qmail/bin:/bin QMAILLOG="/tmp/q.$$" umask 077 cat /var/log/qmail/* | matchup > $QMAILLOG 5>/dev/null DATE=`date +'%a %d %b'` (echo "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" echo "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" echo "Subject: qmail report $DATE" echo "" zoverall < $QMAILLOG zfailures < $QMAILLOG zdeferrals < $QMAILLOG)| qmail-inject rm -f $QMAILLOG -- Ronny Haryanto
I have configured selective relaying as described in Michael Samuel's step-by-step instructions. This enables customers to bypass rcpthosts by enabling RELAYCLIENT. The problem is that I am receiving a denial of service for anybody- even those hosts (IP addresses) listed in my
tcp.smtp.cdb database. It seems to be ignoring these rules - only using the rcpthosts. Any help is appreciated! Thanks.For example, from my host 192.152.1.21 I try to telnet to the SMTP host and send a message to a host that is NOT defined in the rcpthosts file.
My understanding is that because my host (192.152.1.*) is allowed to relay, RELAYCLIENT will be set and rcpthosts will by bypassed.
It doesn't seem to work however. Here is some output:telnet mysmtphost.mydomain.com 25
Trying XXX.XX.XX.XX...
Connected to mysmtphost.mydomain.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 localhost.localdomain ESMTP
mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)Note, somewhereelse.com is not listed in my rcpthosts. Ok, but this is a telnet session is from a machine who enables RELAYCLIENT in the tcp.smtp.cdb database. Here is my configuration (ip info has been changed for security reasons)
tcp.smtp (I remembered to reload this):192.152.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allowYou can see that I am running tcpserver correctly too:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 137 -g 223 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
Any ideas??
Thanks!
rjm
> Note, somewhereelse.com is not listed in my rcpthosts. Ok, but this is > a telnet session is from a machine who enables RELAYCLIENT in the > tcp.smtp.cdb database. Here is my configuration (ip info has been > changed for security reasons) > tcp.smtp (I remembered to reload this): > > 192.152.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > :allow Did you remeber to: cat tcp.smtp | tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb ~/tcp.smtp.tmp Also remember that you are running in paranoid mode (-p). Your reversemapping (PTR) has to be correct compared to the host and domainname (IN). You can try starting tcpserver without the -p option, and check if this solves your problem. If it does, fix your lack of reverse info and turn it back on (if you need it). -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
When I compile qmail-1.03 on Solaris 7 the following error is produced throu ghout the compile for all *.c files. In the end, qmail compiles okay so I am wond ering if the following is something I should be worried about? qmail-local.c:448: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' Thanks for any help, Kristina
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 10:38:21AM +0900, Kristina wrote: > > > > When I compile qmail-1.03 on Solaris 7 the following error is produced throu > ghout > the compile for all *.c files. In the end, qmail compiles okay so I am wond > ering if > the following is something I should be worried about? > > qmail-local.c:448: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' > Hi, Technically it's a bug. main() should always return int, never void or anything else, according standard C. I always just assumed Dan was trying to make a statement of some kind as he certainly wouldn't have done this by mistake. :) Anyway, it shouldn't actually affect anything, you can just ignore it. Chris
"Chris L. Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Technically it's a bug. main() should always return int... Dan always calls _exit(stat), so main() _does_ return an integer, regardless of the declaration. > I always just assumed Dan was trying to make a statement of some > kind as he certainly wouldn't have done this by mistake. :) In 1996, Dan said, ``In case anyone's curious: I use void main() because it shuts gcc up. If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break void main(), I will happily advise everyone to use a different compiler.'' >From this we can infer that some version(s) of gcc, on some platform(s), made a lot of noise over "int main()"; perhaps when it contains no return statements. "void main()" works identically, with fewer complaints. Len.
Kristina writes: > When I compile qmail-1.03 on Solaris 7 the following error is > produced throughout the compile for all *.c files. In the end, > qmail compiles okay so I am wondering if the following is > something I should be worried about? > > qmail-local.c:448: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' It's of no concern. At some point, some smart person decided that main should return the exit code of the program. So every program needed to have its 'main' routine changed from void to int, and have the final exit(x) changed to return(x). And this solved *what* problem? #include <djb/standard-rants/gratuitious-incompatibilities.h> -- -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.
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's of no concern. At some point, some smart person decided that main > should return the exit code of the program. So every program needed to > have its 'main' routine changed from void to int, Mm... I'm fairly certain that it's been int main() clear back to the K&R days. I don't have a 1st edition K&R handy, but the second edition declares main without a return value, which in C of course is an implicit declaration of int. > and have the final exit(x) changed to return(x). This is certainly not necessary. No standard requires it that I've ever seen, and current gcc has no problems with it. windlord:/tmp> cat test.c #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main() { printf("Hello, world!\n"); exit(0); } windlord:/tmp> gcc -W -Wall -o test test.c windlord:/tmp> ./test Hello, world! windlord:/tmp> gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/pubsw/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.6/2.95.1/specs gcc version 2.95.1 19990816 (release) Older gcc's didn't know that exit doesn't return, and therefore would warn about main without a return with warnings enabled, but that's been fixed. I'm not even sure how long ago. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery writes: > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It's of no concern. At some point, some smart person decided that main > > should return the exit code of the program. So every program needed to > > have its 'main' routine changed from void to int, > > Mm... I'm fairly certain that it's been int main() clear back to the K&R > days. I don't have a 1st edition K&R handy, but the second edition > declares main without a return value, which in C of course is an implicit > declaration of int. Right, but the 1st edition doesn't mention the return value from main(). 2nd edition does. -- -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.
Dan wrote, in 1996: > ``In case anyone's curious: I use void main() because it shuts gcc > up. Of course, a modern version of gcc (I just tested 2.8.1) will warn about "void main()" even if you don't give it warning flags. (I asked for this to be the case, back in 1996 when Dan said that; I can't remember whether the maintainers had already made the change in the development sources or if they did so in response to my asking.) As to Russell Nelson's assertion that "int main" is a gratuitous innovation in C, I think that he's confused. "void" didn't even exist in early C, and the semantics of the return value from main() were probably in place long before void was added. I don't have any references to back up my beliefs, though.
Greg Hudson writes: > As to Russell Nelson's assertion that "int main" is a gratuitous > innovation in C, I think that he's confused. In 1st edition K&R, main() wasn't treated as a subroutine, was never declared "int main", and there was no discussion of the meaning of a return value from main. Was I confused or not? -- -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 get the following error during compile and after starting qmail: Jan 4 11:14:49 ldaptest qmail: 946952089.151836 alert: unable to opendir to do, sleeping... I do not understand why qmail is trying to open the directory "todo" which is in the source directory of ldap: ldap/doc/deve/todo !!!!! Thanks for any help, Kristina
Kristina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 04 Jan 2000: > Jan 4 11:14:49 ldaptest qmail: 946952089.151836 alert: unable to opendir to > do, > sleeping... > I do not understand why qmail is trying to open the directory > "todo" which is in the source directory of ldap: > ldap/doc/deve/todo !!!!! Are you sure it's this directory? (And what makes you think it is?) There's also /var/qmail/queue/todo, which is a much more likely source for qmail's complaint. Hope this helps, Mikko -- // Mikko H�nninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / "Scotty, beam us aboard." "Aye, sir. Will a 2x4 do?"
Hey All, At last, I have finally got my mail server up and running. Many thanks go out to Duncan Mackinnon for being kind enough to give me a temporary address (well, that was the original idea...) during this unexpectedly long delay. Kudos also go out to Deirdre (who's last name to this day eludes me...) for providing secondary DNS to digicode.com. Cheers guys! I hope to see you at the CABAL meeting next week. I can now be reached at the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are still some kinks that need to be worked out, but I should receive any mail sent to me and be able to reply. Bobby: Feel free to check out my security, but please don't break anything... Shotwell Kids: Haven't heard from you in a while; Hopefully, we can change that. Russ and Mary: Yes, I *am* just about ready to start the test network (said with a slight tremble), and I haven't heard anything new from Internic... All the rest: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thanks, Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a command where I can delete all past messages in a users mailbox, eg. /home/kristina/Mailbox. ????? Thanks for your help, Kristina
Kristina writes: > Is there a command where I can delete all past messages in a users > mailbox, eg. /home/kristina/Mailbox. ????? Yes - delete this file. -- Sam
rm /home/kristina/Mailbox; touch /home/kristina/Mailbox -Dustin On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Kristina wrote: > Is there a command where I can delete all past messages in a users > mailbox, eg. /home/kristina/Mailbox. ????? > > Thanks for your help, > Kristina >
The first time I did a mail test to my mailbox kristina it worked. However, the second time it wouldn't work any more. I get the following error: % echo to: kristina | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject: to:: not found the second part "/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" seems to be causing the error. The permissions for qmail-inject are: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 13 Jan 4 11:47 qmail-inject Thanks in advance for your help, Kristina
I have a situation where there are several ISPs running open relays, which are being used by spammers to hit users at this site. I'd like to find a way to reject mail that's passed through these ISPs' mailers, regardless of what the envelope sender is. IOW, something sort of like badmailfrom, but which looks at the names/addresses of the mailers which have handled the mail along the way. Some digging in the qmail docs and sources didn't turn up anything quite right. A bit of web surfing suggests that maildrop might do what I want, but it looks like I'd have to spend some non-trivial amount of effort. Anybody have solutions or suggestions? Thanks in advance...
Postmaster writes: > I have a situation where there are several ISPs running open relays, > which are being used by spammers to hit users at this site. I'd like > to find a way to reject mail that's passed through these ISPs' > mailers, regardless of what the envelope sender is. IOW, something > sort of like badmailfrom, but which looks at the names/addresses of > the mailers which have handled the mail along the way. http://www.crynwr.com/spam/ -- -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.
Please forgive me if this is a bit verbose but I have looked at many things and still cannot figure this problem out. I would like to try to find the cause rather than un-install and re-install everything. I had Qmail running fine for the few weeks since I installed it and today "for apparently no reason - there is always one" stopped relaying or doing local deliveries." The only thing that I can pinpoint that waa changed was switching the configuration of a Eudora Client to check a sub mailbox of an already existing mail folder. I had also changed the hostname of the Email Server from webpageweaver.penguinpowered.com to inws.penguinpowered.com earlier in the morning but had been able to send numerous emails since doing that. As far as I can tell this should not bring a mail server down. My setup is composed of the following RPMS installed in this order. functions-3-3.i386.rpm daemontools-0.53-103memphis.i386.rpm ucspi-tcp-0.84-102memphis.i386.rpm qmail-1.03-102memphis.i386.rpm qmail-run-4-4.i386.rpm ** This is set to deliver to ~/Mailbox and has been doing so. Qmail called at boot time; ie /etc/rc.d/init.d : qmail-pop3d.init qmail-qmqpd.init qmail-qmtpd.init qmail-smtpd.init qmail.init tcprules is called via this: /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.cdb /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.tmp < /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd more /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd shows this : 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 192.168.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 207.41.56.135:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 207.136.252.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 192.168.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" portscan shows that port 25 is open. echo to: emailtest | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject: puts a message in ~/Mailbox of user emailtest. Local Spoofing delivered fine: telnet 127.0.0.1 25 etc.... Sending from a pine client at webpageweaver.com and a Eudora Client from a dial up connection will not deliver. ________________________________________________________________________________ InterNetWorkingSolutions Your home for Business and Personal Computing Solutions http://webpageweaver.com PO Box 152 Cabot, VT 05647 USA TEL: 888.726.9030 FAX: 888.726.9030 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 29843943 ________________________________________________________________________________
Are there any patches that let me deliver mail messages into a SQL database (mysql preferrably) instead of Maildir ?
Bill Ataras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 03 Jan 2000: > Are there any patches that let me deliver mail messages into a SQL > database (mysql preferrably) instead of Maildir ? Patches? What do you need patches for? I would imagine a (relatively) simple program which takes an email message in standard input and writes it to the database would be sufficient, it could possibly also look at environment variables for recipient information. Then just use this from the appropriate .qmail files. Mikko -- // Mikko H�nninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / 2 + 2 = 4 (for the time being)
more on last post to lists. I am running Qmail on a FreeBSD 3.3 server and have qpopper setup. Qmail is using ~/Mailbox and all is running fine. I have no external SMTP access but would like to have AtDot be able to send. The problem is that it comes back with the error of: An error was encounted sending your mail. Please try again. This comes up all the time. I can send to all my domains in the control/rcpthosts but if it is not in there I can't send it. I have tried a test and added a host external I wanted to send email to and it completed with out errors. Can someone help me with this. This is the only form of access that we want on this server. Thanks for all of you help David Uzzell List Bot account for 1st Penshurst Scout Group. http://www.1stpenshurst-scouts.asn.au
Lists wrote: > more on last post to lists. > > I am running Qmail on a FreeBSD 3.3 server and have qpopper setup. Qmail > is using ~/Mailbox and all is running fine. > I have no external SMTP access but would like to have AtDot be able to > send. > The problem is that it comes back with the error of: > An error was encounted sending your mail. Please try again. > > This comes up all the time. > > I can send to all my domains in the control/rcpthosts but if it is not in > there I can't send it. I have tried a test and added a host external I > wanted to send email to and it completed with out errors. Can someone help > me with this. This is the only form of access that we want on this server. > > Thanks for all of you help > > David Uzzell > > List Bot account for 1st Penshurst Scout Group. > http://www.1stpenshurst-scouts.asn.au I am not sure I understand you correctly, but try adding the follwoing line to your tcprules file for smtpd. (mine is smtpd.rules in /etc/tcpcontrol) 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" Don't forget to create your .cdb file from the .rules file and restart smtpd. (I use: tcprules smtpd.cdb smtpd.tmp < smtpd.rules ) Hope this helps. Greg
