qmail Digest 10 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 876
Topics (messages 35268 through 35283):
Re: The Canonical Set of qmail Patches
35268 by: Aaron Nabil
My non-cannonical patch list
35269 by: Aaron Nabil
Re: Odd.
35270 by: Russell Nelson
35271 by: Dustin Miller
35272 by: Ronny Haryanto
35273 by: Dustin Miller
35274 by: richard.illuin.org
35275 by: Alex Shipp
35276 by: Strange
35277 by: Dustin Miller
35279 by: Strange
35281 by: Cristopher Daniluk
35283 by: Kelly Prescott
Re: qmail on rh 6.1 alpha problem
35278 by: Dustin Marquess
ANNOUNCE: getmail v.0.98, a 'fetchmail' replacement
35280 by: Charles Cazabon
Relay Problem- Problem resoulving hos-
35282 by: Joseph Francois
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, Russell Nelson wrote:
> listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski writes:
> > Why can't we make something like this (qmail-whatever)?
> > This way we can port all the exisiting patches that everyone is applying
> > these days into one bit patch
> > and later on supporters can work off this patch to add more feautres?
> > Applying a lot of patches to qmail these days leads me into reading diffs
> > manualy and adding them by hand.
> >
> > Is this idea anything good in your opinion?
>
> 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
> (http://mail-abuse.org) has adopted the DUL and RSS zones, you really
> need multiple zones. And running multiple copies of rblsmtpd (Dan's
> suggested solution) is too much of a hack, given the simplicity of
> Aaron Nabil's patch.
Cool, thanks! I like being useful. :)
But I was a bit surprised that you overlooked my POP "stat" bug on your
page, since qmail has so few (if any) other bugs, I was kinda expecting it
to get better billing. (maybe even it's own category and little box like
all the other categories!) It isn't even mentioned! Considering how much
a bug like that could screw up a email client, I'd certainly put it (and
the big-dns thing) into the "must patch" category.
It still lives at http://www.spiritone.com/~nabil/popstatbug.diff and
a search of the archives would turn up some explanatory material, in case
anyone needs it.
--
Aaron Nabil
This isn't intended to be a list of all patches, patches that I think you
should apply, or anything like that. It is just part of an internal
log I keep so I know what I've changed. I was hoping some people might
find it useful (I certainly would have killed for something like this when
I started with qmail), and was also hoping to encourage other
"mature" installations to share their wisdom about what they changed in
qmail.
This is from a 10k user site that's been running qmail for about a year,
and we are running in a single-UID environment that is very much like a
POP toaster. I'm just looking at vpopmail now to handle our virtual
domain stuff instead of the way we are currently doing customer domains.
(some of these are specific to the alpha, and although qmail is mostly
free of aligment and word-size dependancies, the "ULL" stuff are the few
places it isn't)
qmail-1.03/Makefile
(several changes)
qmail-1.03/conf-cc
cc -O2 -Olimit 768 -misalign
qmail-1.03/dns.c
big aol DNS patch qmail-103.patch
qmail-1.03/install-big.c
pop bulletins qmail-popbull-1.03.patch
mail-1.03/qmail-pop3d.c
MAKE_NETSCAPE_WORK right from QLDAP
uidl patch qmail-pop3d-1.03.diff
fix for STAT bug local
fix for extra /r/n bug local
fix to uidl patch local
qmail-1.03/qmail-popup.c
ignore after @ local
lowercase username local
eudora CAPA qmail-popup-CAPA-2.patch
qmail-1.03/qmail-smtpd.c
syslog envelope local
LF RFC fix local
qmail-1.03/qmail-popbull.c new file from qmail-pop3d-1.03.diff
checkpassword-0.81/Makefile
some changes
checkpassword-0.81/checkpassword.c
get data from users cdb local
mess822-0.58/caltime_tai.c
alpha ULL fix local
mess822-0.58/caltime_utc.c
alpha ULL fix local
mess822-0.58/conf-cc
cc -O2
mess822-0.58/conf-ld
cc -s
mess822-0.58/conf-ld
cc -s
mess822-0.58/ofmipd.c
smtp auth mostly from brisby smtpd version
lowercase username local
ignore after @ local
allow passwd retry local
OFMIPLOCAL local
took out PIPELINING local
mess822-0.58/tai_now.c
alpha ULL fix local
rblsmtpd-0.70/rblsmtpd.c
multiple lookup hack local
add IP address to error local
ucspi-tcp-0.84/Makefile
add env.a for recordio local
ucspi-tcp-0.84/recordio.c
RECORDIO hack local
TODO
mime-bounces qmail-mime.tgz
tarpitting tarpit.patch
--
Aaron Nabil
Dustin Miller writes:
> It's off-topic, anyway, if no one will concede that it might actually be
> qmail's fault.
Oh, well, it *might* be qmail's fault, but given the numer of people
who have been using qmail-1.03 over the length of time that it's
existed, you'll have to come up with some pretty good evidence. So
far, you've just asked if it might be qmail's fault, and the answer
has to be: not bloody likely.
--
-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.
It wasn't my mailer that wrapped those headers in that message. They
arrived here wrapped. So it's either the other message author's MUA or the
MTA.
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 9:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Odd.
Dustin Miller writes:
> It's off-topic, anyway, if no one will concede that it might actually be
> qmail's fault.
Oh, well, it *might* be qmail's fault, but given the numer of people
who have been using qmail-1.03 over the length of time that it's
existed, you'll have to come up with some pretty good evidence. So
far, you've just asked if it might be qmail's fault, and the answer
has to be: not bloody likely.
--
-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.
On 09-Jan-2000, Dustin Miller wrote:
> It wasn't my mailer that wrapped those headers in that message. They
> arrived here wrapped. So it's either the other message author's MUA or the
> MTA.
If you open the message with Outlook, how can you be sure it has not
been tampered with by Outlook? You have to prove that the headers are
already wrapped _before_ you open it with Outlook.
--
Ronny Haryanto
I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my
server.
Everyone responding to this thread seems to think that I'm unwilling to
admit that Microsoft is the problem. While true, they are the cause of the
majority of my daily headaches, in this case, MS has nothing to do with it.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronny Haryanto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 10:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Odd.
On 09-Jan-2000, Dustin Miller wrote:
> It wasn't my mailer that wrapped those headers in that message. They
> arrived here wrapped. So it's either the other message author's MUA or
the
> MTA.
If you open the message with Outlook, how can you be sure it has not
been tampered with by Outlook? You have to prove that the headers are
already wrapped _before_ you open it with Outlook.
--
Ronny Haryanto
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Dustin Marquess wrote:
>
> I have a hard time believing that Outlook is just being
> strict on RFCs, since it's usually M$ that breaks the RFCs in the
> first place, and Anyways, why do you need a journal and scheduler
> built into your MUA?
because most people at work send me messages saying where I'll be needed
for a consulting gig, or where /when meetings will be held.
Where I worked before I used outlook, now I use Eudora Pro and Netscape
Calendar.
I theink the point here being that I use what everyone else is using
inside my organisation.
Finally... qmail makes very few changes to the contents of a mail message
submitted via SMTP. if the contents of a message is unreadable after
pasing through qmail I think it unlikely that it was qmail that despoiled
it.
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
I use outlook too, and didn't see anything unusual with the messages
immediately preceeding yours. Since your message is still on the
server, what happens if you re-read the message with a different
copy of outlook, and/or a different version?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dustin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my
>server.
________________________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System
http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote:
> I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my
> server.
Ok, then, why not fill us in on these sorts of details in advance? You
would not believe the number of questions asked on this list where such
a simple thing as checking the saved message on the server has not been
done.
Also:
a) Are there any mail clients in common between the senders of these
messages? Qmail will not "correct" headers.
b) Are you or any of the senders behind any kind of firewall? What
one(s)?
c) What POP server program are you using?
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
That's funny when I see a message From: Strange, Re: Odd. :)
a) The original sender used Eudora Pro, I'm using Outlook 2000.
b) I'm behind a masquerading gateway using a custom-patched Amavis
installation to scan e-mails for virii. The message in question was
actually still in another delivery location (I log *all* incoming mail to a
different location that doesn't get touched by Amavis), and that copy was
also wrapped.
c) I'm using the qmail pop daemon.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Strange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Odd.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote:
> I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my
> server.
Ok, then, why not fill us in on these sorts of details in advance? You
would not believe the number of questions asked on this list where such
a simple thing as checking the saved message on the server has not been
done.
Also:
a) Are there any mail clients in common between the senders of these
messages? Qmail will not "correct" headers.
b) Are you or any of the senders behind any kind of firewall? What
one(s)?
c) What POP server program are you using?
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote:
> a) The original sender used Eudora Pro, I'm using Outlook 2000.
Nod. Was that the case for all the letters that had the problem for you?
> b) I'm behind a masquerading gateway using a custom-patched Amavis
> installation to scan e-mails for virii. The message in question was
> actually still in another delivery location (I log *all* incoming mail to a
> different location that doesn't get touched by Amavis), and that copy was
> also wrapped.
Next: What logs/moves it?
What patches, if any, were applied to your qmail source tree?
> c) I'm using the qmail pop daemon.
Check. I haven't seen this problem with the distribution POP3 daemon
under any cirdumstances, and I have it working for a cluster of
art/graphics/photo houses which use a ton of different mail clients, and
receive some of the most messed up mail I have ever encountered.
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
For reference, there are known issues in Outlook 2000 Express which cause
messages to occaisionally be unreadable in Outlook 2000. It is caused by
character set issues which are annoying as hell if you ask me :)
Regardless, it is only a "some-of-the-time" issue. MS knows about the bug
and will probably fix it sometime never... it only seems to be a problem
when viewing the message in Outlook 2000 DESPITE the fact that it is a
deficiency in Outlook Express. In other mailiers, there is just a garbled
letter or two at the beginning of the body.
I think it's obvious this isn't your problem :) But the reason I mention it
is to show that Outlook 2000 does NOT like misformed messages.
And to set the record straight, integrating the mailer/scheduler/contact
management is a great thing for our company. It may not be for yours, but
that's your company's issue. Those of you fruitlessly attacking a perfectly
fine solution that you wouldn't use, save it. It may not be your solution,
but it's not necessarily a bad one either...
-----Original Message-----
From: Dustin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 1:57 PM
To: Strange; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Odd.
That's funny when I see a message From: Strange, Re: Odd. :)
a) The original sender used Eudora Pro, I'm using Outlook 2000.
b) I'm behind a masquerading gateway using a custom-patched Amavis
installation to scan e-mails for virii. The message in question was
actually still in another delivery location (I log *all* incoming mail to a
different location that doesn't get touched by Amavis), and that copy was
also wrapped.
c) I'm using the qmail pop daemon.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Strange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Odd.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote:
> I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my
> server.
Ok, then, why not fill us in on these sorts of details in advance? You
would not believe the number of questions asked on this list where such
a simple thing as checking the saved message on the server has not been
done.
Also:
a) Are there any mail clients in common between the senders of these
messages? Qmail will not "correct" headers.
b) Are you or any of the senders behind any kind of firewall? What
one(s)?
c) What POP server program are you using?
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
You might try using formail to rewrite the headers and make sure they are
not split...
Then, have formail extract the headers 1 by 1 and reread the msg with
outlook to see which header is causing the problem...
Maybe we could try duplicating the problem with different domains etc and
then we could see exactly what makes outlook barf.
Kelly Prescott
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Alex Shipp wrote:
> I use outlook too, and didn't see anything unusual with the messages
> immediately preceeding yours. Since your message is still on the
> server, what happens if you re-read the message with a different
> copy of outlook, and/or a different version?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dustin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> >I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my
> >server.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System
> http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
>
>
Welp..
I've been running qmail 1.03 on a Debian slink box for over a year..
DEC Multia 166Mhz
64MB RAM
3.1GB HD
egcs 1.1.2
glibc 2.1.1
Without any unaligned traps.. Unaligned traps usually mean that
the code isn't 64-bit clean and that the DEC firmware has kicked into some
special compatibility code. (Which is slow as hell).
I believe Aaron Nabil just posted some Alpha patches for qmail,
maybe you should give those a try.
Let me (and probably Aaron too) if they help you. If they do,
I'll slap them on my Alpha! :)
-Du
-Dustin
At 02:19 AM 1/9/00 , Kelly Prescott wrote:
>Hello. I have qmail-1.03 running on a rh 6.1 box This is a DEC Alpha. I
>seem to be getting exceptions and core dumps from cyclog and occationally
>qmail-lspawn.
>I am by no means a programming expert. I was just curious to see what
>might be causing this and what I might do to solve it.
>My first thought is maybe running out of resources etc... This is a
>standard redhat installation and a out-of-the-box qmail compile.
>The system is a Alpha 533 mhz lx164 w 256 megs of ram and 9 gb uh SCSI
>drive. We probably do about 60,000 messages per day. This is where
>sendmail started to barf and we happily upgraded.
>I am including some log entries of the exceptions.
>I would greatly appreciate any pointers or help.
>
>---- log----
>Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at
>0000000120003c20: 00000001201093e3 29 1
>Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at
>0000000120003c28: 00000001201093eb 28 1
>Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at
>0000000120003c2c: 00000001201093ef 28 10
>Jan 5 22:15:35 alpha kernel: cyclog(21878): unaligned trap at
>0000000120001ee8: 00000001200033a6 2c 31
>Jan 5 22:15:35 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056]
>(fffffc000031241c)
>Jan 6 15:43:58 alpha kernel: cyclog(29443): unaligned trap at
>0000000120001ee8: 00000001200033a6 2c 31
>Jan 6 15:43:58 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056]
>(fffffc000031241c)
>Jan 6 15:54:07 alpha kernel: cyclog(2248): unaligned trap at
>0000000120001ee8: 00000001200033a6 2c 31
>Jan 6 15:54:07 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056]
>(fffffc000031241c)
>Jan 7 16:46:47 alpha kernel: cyclog(11912): unaligned trap at
>0000000120001ee8: 00000001200033a6 2c 31
>Jan 7 16:46:47 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056]
>(fffffc000031241c)
>Jan 8 13:01:45 alpha kernel: cyclog(5593): unaligned trap at
>0000000120001ee8: 00000001200033a6 2c 31
>Jan 8 13:01:45 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056]
>(fffffc000031241c)
>
>Kelly Prescott.
Slightly off-topic (flames in private mail, please), but applicable to
qmail users:
getmail 0.98 is now available from
http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/getmail/
getmail is intended as a simple replacement for fetchmail, for those who
don't need all of its various features, configuration options, and bugs.
It retrieves mail only from POP3 servers, and delivers reliably to Maildirs.
mbox delivery is also possible, but should not be attempted over NFS.
It is written in Python and released under the GPL version 2.
It can retrieve all mail, or only unread messages, from an unlimited number
of POP3 mailboxes on one or more POP3 servers. Configuration and usage is
straightforward and simple. getmail now has experimental support for
domain (multidrop) mailboxes, with delivery instructions on a per-recipient
basis.
Changes since version 0.95:
-experimental support for domain (multidrop) mailboxes. Please read the
documentation for configuration and limitation information.
-Slightly changed creation of 'From ' mbox delimiter line for overly picky
mail clients.
-Options to delete retrieved mail, and to only retrieve unread mail,
can now be specified on a per-account basis in the .getmailrc file.
The options are specified in each account section, with 'delete=value'
and 'readall=value', where value is '1', 'true', or 'yes', or '0',
'no', or 'false'.
-Changed password entry method.
-Fixed a bug which resulted in failure to deliver to an mbox file when
there was no Return-Path: header in a retrieved email.
-Fixed a bug where explicitly specifying the --dont-delete or -l options
(even though they are the default) caused mail to be deleted from the
POP3 server.
-The GETMAIL environment variable is now unnecessary if your getmail
configuration/data directory is located at $HOME/.getmail
-Some unnecessary code removed.
-Exit codes changed. 0 means mail retrieved, 1 means no mail, -1 means
fatal error, and 100/101 are exits due to options --help and --dump.
Any questions, feedback, etc, is greatly appreciated, but should be done
in private email.
Charles Cazabon
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
My opinions are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello I'm having problem relaying e-mail via my qmail host. I check on my
Network configuration and evrything works fine. here is the error message I
get.
Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.941915 new msg 46856
Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.943248 info msg 46856: bytes 672 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 618 uid 82
Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.953853 starting delivery 11: msg
46856 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.954264 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.465598 delivery 11: failure:
Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_named_usa.net?._(#5.1.2)/
Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.471587 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.490534 bounce msg 46856 qp 620
Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.493392 end msg 46856
Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.517319 new msg 46857
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
