qmail Digest 19 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 885
Topics (messages 35632 through 35707):
Re: MX, ETRN and QMAIL
35632 by: Chris Johnson
35645 by: J.M. Roth
35669 by: J.M. Roth \(iip\)
35675 by: Chris Johnson
35678 by: J.M. Roth \(iip\)
Re: Maildir format
35633 by: bert hubert
35646 by: Anthony DeBoer
35700 by: Bruce Guenter
nonexit user
35634 by: sachin
Large ISPs/services running qmail?
35635 by: Fred Backman
35637 by: Anand Buddhdev
35639 by: Fred Backman
35643 by: Anand Buddhdev
35644 by: Andras Tudos - Computronic, C3
qmail errors
35636 by: Rich Stock
35638 by: Anand Buddhdev
35641 by: H�ffelin Holger
forwarding non-local mail to one specific SMTP-server
35640 by: Geir H�gberg
35659 by: martin.wonderfrog.net
On heavily loaded sites
35642 by: Alex Povolotsky
35647 by: Mark
Replacing delivery method...
35648 by: Ond�ej Sur�
35649 by: Mark
35650 by: Petr Novotny
35651 by: Chris Garrigues
35652 by: Ond�ej Sur�
35653 by: Ond�ej Sur�
35656 by: Paul Trippett
35666 by: Tim Tsai
35667 by: Steve Wolfe
35670 by: Jason Haar
35679 by: Mark
35680 by: Jason Haar
Re: Maildir format (indexing)
35654 by: Jeff Hayward
35655 by: Russell Nelson
35661 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
35663 by: Mark
Re: Maildir format (scaling)
35657 by: Jeff Hayward
35660 by: Michael Boman
Re: Maildir setup
35658 by: Jose Pedro Pereira
35672 by: Kevin Waterson
35674 by: Russell P. Sutherland
35676 by: Ronny Haryanto
SSL encrypted POP3/IMAP session?
35662 by: Michael Boman
sorry_message_has_wrong_owner
35664 by: Jennifer Tippens
35665 by: Mark
35668 by: Jennifer Tippens
deferral:Unable_to_switch_to_/home/user:_access_denied.(#4.3.0)
35671 by: Michael Martin
35673 by: Rick McMillin
35677 by: Michael Martin
recipientmap?
35681 by: jackmc-qmail.lorentz.com
35688 by: Anand Buddhdev
one user/many pop accounts: best solution?
35682 by: siffert.siff0002.clipper.net
35684 by: Chris Johnson
35687 by: Tong
Chang MCIS mail system to Qmail
35683 by: �i�I��
35705 by: Steve Kennedy
recovery
35685 by: Stefan Paletta
Re: SSL (was Qmail Security)
35686 by: Jonathan McDowell
Qmail forwarding question
35689 by: Ronneil Camara
35690 by: Anand Buddhdev
Serveral recipients in a alias?
35691 by: Michael Boman
35692 by: Michael Boman
35693 by: Anand Buddhdev
35694 by: Michael Boman
35695 by: Michael Boman
35696 by: iv0
Help! Qmail not listening on all IP addresses
35697 by: Brian Baquiran
Databytes?
35698 by: Tonino Greco
35702 by: H�ffelin Holger
passwd and user quota
35699 by: Simon Rae
35706 by: Anand Buddhdev
pop3 retrieval
35701 by: Ronneil Camara
35703 by: H�ffelin Holger
35704 by: Glenn Crownover
35707 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, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:51:49AM +0100, J.M. Roth iip" wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I have 3 MXs for a domain. The lowest preference MX is the local server. The
> other 2 are the customer's internal server as well as an SMTP queueing
> machine (ETRN etc.). The local machine is there in case the customer's server
> and the mail queue fails. If I send mail using the local server (outgoing
> mail server) it doesn't even go to the higher preference MX servers but
> simply delivers locally, instead to the highest preference MX, that is the
> customer's server or its queue. The domain is listed in rcpthosts and
> virtualdomains.
Take it out of virtualdomains. By putting it there you're telling qmail to
handle that domain locally, which isn't what you want. List it in rcpthosts
only.
Chris
Ok, a few things.
I know, lower priority = higher number.
When I said lower priority I meant exactly that.
f.e.:
in MX 5 mail.customer.com
in MX 10 queue.server.com
in MX 20 ourbackup.ourdomain.com
in case MX5 and MX10 fail it should go to the appropriate account on MX20.
to Chris: taking it out of virtualhosts simply prevents it from ending up in
the right mailbox (has this to do something with DNS lookups?)
to Marc-Adrian: if I delete the domain out of rcpthosts the MX20 won't
receive anything for that domain
to David: thanks, I'm going to check out the smtproutes thing
SO: Any idea? Is smtproutes the right thing to do?
Best regards!
-- jmr
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: J.M. Roth iip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: MX, ETRN and QMAIL
Ok, sorry I meant virtualdomains.
As I said I would like a backup in case example.com AND the queue for it
fail.
This I've done with the MX records.
One disadvantage is, since the domain must be in rcpthosts on the 3rd
machine to receive anything, *if* mail is sent using this machine as
outgoing mail server, it doesn't even get sent to example.com, even though
it's higher preference...
Got it?
-- jmr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: MX, ETRN and QMAIL
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 06:56:25PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yeah, but why not in virtualhosts.
> > How can I distinguish between several mailboxes then on the backup
> > machine??
>
> For one thing, there's no such thing as virtualhosts.
>
> Let's say the domain is example.com. You want queue.server.com to accept
mail
> for example.com, but you just want it to queue it and deliver it to
> mail.customer.com when that machine is available. Is that correct? Then,
on
> queue.server.com, put example.com in rcpsthosts and nowhere else. That's
*all*
> you have to do.
>
> Chris
>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 08:43:57PM +0100, J.M. Roth iip" wrote:
> Ok, sorry I meant virtualdomains.
>
> As I said I would like a backup in case example.com AND the queue for it
> fail. This I've done with the MX records.
>
> One disadvantage is, since the domain must be in rcpthosts on the 3rd machine
> to receive anything, *if* mail is sent using this machine as outgoing mail
> server, it doesn't even get sent to example.com, even though it's higher
> preference...
> Got it?
No. This is just not the case. rcpthosts only affects *incoming SMTP* mail, and
it has no affect whatsoever on where mail is ultimately delivered. It only
determines whether your SMTP server will accept the message at the SMTP "RCPT
TO" command. It will *not* cause a lower-preference mail exchanger to ignore
better-preference ones.
Set up the best-preference mail exchanger normally (with the domain in
rcpthosts and either locals or virtualdomains). On the non-best-preference mail
exchangers, put the domain on rcpthosts only. This is how it's done.
Chris
Ok, I understand. Didn't have anything like this before. Never mind.
But how can I determine then where exactly the mail is delivered in case it
arrives on the lower-preference one, if I can't use virtualdomains or
whatever...
Thanks again & Best regards
-- jmr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "J.M. Roth iip"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: MX, ETRN and QMAIL
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 08:43:57PM +0100, J.M. Roth iip" wrote:
> > Ok, sorry I meant virtualdomains.
> >
> > As I said I would like a backup in case example.com AND the queue for it
> > fail. This I've done with the MX records.
> >
> > One disadvantage is, since the domain must be in rcpthosts on the 3rd
machine
> > to receive anything, *if* mail is sent using this machine as outgoing
mail
> > server, it doesn't even get sent to example.com, even though it's higher
> > preference...
> > Got it?
>
> No. This is just not the case. rcpthosts only affects *incoming SMTP*
mail, and
> it has no affect whatsoever on where mail is ultimately delivered. It only
> determines whether your SMTP server will accept the message at the SMTP
"RCPT
> TO" command. It will *not* cause a lower-preference mail exchanger to
ignore
> better-preference ones.
>
> Set up the best-preference mail exchanger normally (with the domain in
> rcpthosts and either locals or virtualdomains). On the non-best-preference
mail
> exchangers, put the domain on rcpthosts only. This is how it's done.
>
> Chris
>
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 03:07:09PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Right, and any scalable email system is going to use NFS. Therefore
No. We scale with pop-proxies, and do without NFS at all. We rely heavily on
LDAP to achieve this.
Regards,
bert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The needs I am aware of include:
> - the basics of POP3 plus...
> [snip]
> - hierarchical multiple mailbox support
That should include something that makes sense for a host that's behind a
firewall and/or NAT and/or dynamic-IP dialup to authenticate and download
mail for multiple users (to basically do what people try to do with
fetchmail/multidrop or ETRN or other dodgy solutions nowadays). The
existing POP3 protocol doesn't have an accepted RFC-level solution for
identifying the set of users to whom each message should go, and SMTP
requires that the host be reachable at a static IP address. A good
modern protocol cannot assume the server can open a link to the client,
or that the client is coming from a known address.
> - message upload (for draft messages and for transmittal)
All client/server communications should ideally happen in the new/fixed
protocol; I'd just as soon not do any SMTP relaying at all, and instead
require that the user offer credentials in order to relay outbound
through me. This neatly solves the remote-dialup-relay problem too.
> A challenge-response authentication system is a debatable need. On one
> hand, with it you never send your pass phrase in the clear. On the
> other, all your content is still in the clear, so it would be better to
> assume a SSL link where necessary.
Making the authentication separate from the after-authentication protocol
allows you to bolt on whatever you need; simple user-password may be all
that's exportable in a vanilla release from a US vendor, but some sites
may want something stronger.
There may also be sites that want to require internal communications,
especially those that have to cross the Internet, go through an
encrypted/authenticated tunnel.
--
Anthony DeBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 03:26:49PM -0000, Anthony DeBoer wrote:
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The needs I am aware of include:
> > - hierarchical multiple mailbox support
>
> That should include something that makes sense for a host that's behind a
> firewall and/or NAT and/or dynamic-IP dialup to authenticate and download
> mail for multiple users (to basically do what people try to do with
> fetchmail/multidrop or ETRN or other dodgy solutions nowadays).
Would it be acceptable to ensure that each message has an accessable
envelope sender address, or are you thinking of something else or more?
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
i want forward unknown local user to my isp's smtp server for relay
without changeing the message header ie. ( rcpt to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
wheter domain.com is in my locals & the user userunknown is the unknown
user in that domain
i got dial up connection to my isp my main mail server is located at
ait.com
i got two location & i want use same domain name for internal as well as
external
mailling . or is there any way to send messages to my other popaccount
with the same domain name
i thing we have to something in .qmail-default file
by
sachin
Hello all,
What large ISPs or services are running qmail, and roughly how much
traffic do they have (e.g. number of messages per day)?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 12:08:08PM +0000, Fred Backman wrote:
> Hello all,
> What large ISPs or services are running qmail, and roughly how much
> traffic do they have (e.g. number of messages per day)?
Yahoo! is running entirely on qmail (with some modifications to suit
their size), Hotmail's outgoing mail server is qmail, egoups (now
incorporating egroups and onelist) run close to 260000 mailing lists on
qmail, Resaux IP Europeene (RIPE) and Network Solutions (incoming mail)
are both on qmail. I don't know about numbers of messages, but these
sites are certainly extremely big.
--
See complete headers for more info
Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> Yahoo! is running entirely on qmail (with some modifications to suit
> their size), Hotmail's outgoing mail server is qmail, egoups (now
> incorporating egroups and onelist) run close to 260000 mailing lists on
> qmail, Resaux IP Europeene (RIPE) and Network Solutions (incoming mail)
> are both on qmail. I don't know about numbers of messages, but these
> sites are certainly extremely big.
egroups are running 260000 lists??? or did you mean X lists with 260000
subscribers?
Thanks for the reply though!
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:13:57PM +0000, Fred Backman wrote:
> > their size), Hotmail's outgoing mail server is qmail, egoups (now
> > incorporating egroups and onelist) run close to 260000 mailing lists on
>
> egroups are running 260000 lists??? or did you mean X lists with 260000
> subscribers?
Last I heard, it was 260000 _lists_. The number of subscribers could be
much higher.
--
See complete headers for more info
At 2000.01.18 13:08, Tuesday, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>What large ISPs or services are running qmail, and roughly how much
>traffic do they have (e.g. number of messages per day)?
Hi,
we are running a public email service (web, pop3, forward) with a 5
frontend, 2 NFS backend, 1 database server qmail setup: 245 000 active
mailboxes, 4-500 000 messages/day, 90 000 web logins/day, 150 000 pop3
logins/day. All numbers are growing. Frontends are running FreeBSD, NFS
backends are SGI O200s running Irix (because of XFS journaling), database
is Solid. Each component is heavily customized in the sources. Currently
everything works off the SQL database, but we are thinking towards LDAP
because of SQL performance problems and need for replication. Any similar
or larger experiences?
Andras Tudos
C3, Budapest
ok i keep getting this error message on my machine, i had qmail installed
fine, but then i edited the /etc/passwd and /etc/group and changed some
uid/gids, I then reinstalled qmail (including directories and permmisions
as described in life with qmail.) and i keep getting this error message, i
am starting qmail-start with ./Maildir and have remade directories, for
myself
starting delivery 335: msg 112777 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: local 7/10 remote 0/20
starting delivery 336: msg 112789 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: local 8/10 remote 0/20
delivery 330: deferral: Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/
status: local 7/10 remote 0/20
i am getting responses to my mails saying for my default domain and all my
virtual domains, i am using vpopmail for virtual domains, incase that is
somehow relavant.
**********************************************
** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
**********************************************
The original message was received at Tue, 18 Jan 2000 02:25:35 -0600
from [10.40.100.9]
----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection refused by theodorespaint.com.
Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
Will keep trying until message is 3 days old
If someone knows how i can fix this, or can point me in the right direction
i would appriciate it greatly
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 07:56:10AM -0600, Rich Stock wrote:
> ok i keep getting this error message on my machine, i had qmail installed
> fine, but then i edited the /etc/passwd and /etc/group and changed some
> uid/gids, I then reinstalled qmail (including directories and permmisions
> as described in life with qmail.) and i keep getting this error message, i
> am starting qmail-start with ./Maildir and have remade directories, for
^^^^^^^^^^^
That should be ./Maildir/ with a trailing slash. Without the slash,
qmail-local is trying to deliver the message to a _file_ called Maildir,
but in fact finds a directory instead and defers delivery.
> myself
>
> starting delivery 335: msg 112777 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> status: local 7/10 remote 0/20
> starting delivery 336: msg 112789 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> status: local 8/10 remote 0/20
> delivery 330: deferral: Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/
> status: local 7/10 remote 0/20
--
See complete headers for more info
Might be an error in your qmail-start: It should be ./Maildir/ not ./Maildir
. Otherwise Qmail means ./Maildir to be a Mailbox format file.
Holger
> ok i keep getting this error message on my machine, i had
> qmail installed
> fine, but then i edited the /etc/passwd and /etc/group and
> changed some
> uid/gids, I then reinstalled qmail (including directories
> and permmisions
> as described in life with qmail.) and i keep getting this
> error message, i
> am starting qmail-start with ./Maildir and have remade
> directories, for
> myself
>
> starting delivery 335: msg 112777 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> status: local 7/10 remote 0/20
> starting delivery 336: msg 112789 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> status: local 8/10 remote 0/20
> delivery 330: deferral:
> Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/
> status: local 7/10 remote 0/20
>
> i am getting responses to my mails saying for my default
> domain and all my
> virtual domains, i am using vpopmail for virtual domains,
> incase that is
> somehow relavant.
>
> **********************************************
> ** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY **
> ** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE **
> **********************************************
>
> The original message was received at Tue, 18 Jan 2000 02:25:35 -0600
> from [10.40.100.9]
>
> ----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors -----
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection refused by
> theodorespaint.com.
> Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours
> Will keep trying until message is 3 days old
>
> If someone knows how i can fix this, or can point me in the
> right direction
> i would appriciate it greatly
>
Hi,
my problem is this: (generally it's been metioned before, but it has changed
a little bit :-)
i have a bunch of clients using my qmail-server as smtp for relaying out to
the internet.
the thing is that I want to tweak it a little bit so that when the
mailserver is delivering non-local mail, then it should process it thru
another smtp-server on my network before going out on the internet, this is
a virus-scanning-smtp.
So therefore, all outgoing smtp has to be routed thru that one before
entering the internet and out to the recipient.
is there any good solutions for this kind of action? and is it configurable
so that it does this action with only one or two domains? (that is the
sender-domain...) so if: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sends a message to a non-local, then
it goes out thru this special smtp-relay and virus-scanning thing, but if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sends a message to a non-local, then it goes directly on to the
net...
a little wierd problem i would presume :)
---
Geir O. H�gberg
**********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message and it's attachments
has been swept by MIMEsweeper 4.0 for the presence of computer viruses.
This has been done by ElTele �stfold AS.
Coustomer service e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corporate WEB site: www.eltele.no
**********************************************************************
Geir,
Add the following line to your control files:
/var/qmail/control/smtproutes
=============================
:your.internal.virus-scanning.host-ip
Then restart qmail.
This will tell qmail to send all non-local (and
virtualdomains) mail to the IP you enter there.
Best of luck,
-Martin
On 18 Jan, Geir H�gberg wrote:
: Hi,
:
: my problem is this: (generally it's been metioned before, but it has changed
: a little bit :-)
:
: i have a bunch of clients using my qmail-server as smtp for relaying out to
: the internet.
: the thing is that I want to tweak it a little bit so that when the
: mailserver is delivering non-local mail, then it should process it thru
: another smtp-server on my network before going out on the internet, this is
: a virus-scanning-smtp.
: So therefore, all outgoing smtp has to be routed thru that one before
: entering the internet and out to the recipient.
:
: is there any good solutions for this kind of action? and is it configurable
: so that it does this action with only one or two domains? (that is the
: sender-domain...) so if: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sends a message to a non-local, then
: it goes out thru this special smtp-relay and virus-scanning thing, but if
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sends a message to a non-local, then it goes directly on to the
: net...
:
: a little wierd problem i would presume :)
:
:
: ---
: Geir O. H�gberg
: **********************************************************************
: This footnote confirms that this email message and it's attachments
: has been swept by MIMEsweeper 4.0 for the presence of computer viruses.
:
: This has been done by ElTele �stfold AS.
:
: Coustomer service e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Corporate WEB site: www.eltele.no
: **********************************************************************
--
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe Communications --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello!
It seems that from next Monday on, I'll be in charge for administrating a
large mail and webmail system (over 300000 emails per day, at least 100000
active users).
I've never met such large systems yet, so I'm seeking advice. Does anyone
run mail system of such scale? Does Maildir storage work well under that
loads? What storage is used, if not? How can be solved problem of too many
user directories under same main dir? Are there any points I'd like to miss?
Alex.
PGP signature
Alex Povolotsky wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> It seems that from next Monday on, I'll be in charge for administrating a
> large mail and webmail system (over 300000 emails per day, at least 100000
> active users).
>
> I've never met such large systems yet, so I'm seeking advice. Does anyone
> run mail system of such scale? Does Maildir storage work well under that
> loads? What storage is used, if not? How can be solved problem of too many
> user directories under same main dir? Are there any points I'd like to miss?
>
> Alex.
Well, plenty of people here have run larger systems (as recent posts
have shown).
Maildir doesn't really have a problem due to the number of users, so as
long as the
user direectories are stored in such a way as to not cause large
directory searches
then there is nothing instrinsic about qmail that will cause it to fail.
Of course there will be a point at which the aggregate load on your
system will
exceed the system's capability at which point you'll need to do
something about it.
One of the areas that you are likely to have problems with first is the
I/O load
created by the queue. But as always, the best thing you can do is
conduct a fairly
rigourous performance analysis of the system to determine just what sort
of demands
are currently being placed on it and what resources are likely to be
totally consumed
first.
Mark.
I just want to hear your opinions...
How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
put and pull
mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
overwhelming file
system with milion of mails ;-) Or has anyone implemented this?
--
Ondrej Sury: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +420602667702
GLOBE Internet s.r.o.: http://www.globe.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+420233356502
NAJDI.TO; http://najdi.to/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PRESS.CZ; http://press.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:46:31PM +0100, Ond?ej Sur� wrote:
>
> I just want to hear your opinions...
>
> How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
> put and pull
> mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
> overwhelming file
> system with milion of mails ;-)
What leads you to believe that a database such as MySQL will
not overwhelm your file system trying to do the same thing?
Did you make any comparative performance measurements?
Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18 Jan 00, at 16:46, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
> put and pull
> mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
> overwhelming file
> system with milion of mails ;-) Or has anyone implemented this?
Are you talking about final delivery to a MySQL, or /var/qmail/queue
in MySQL. (Or why are you talking about qmail-send.) If the latter,
forget it.
If the former, try your luck (seznam.cz is doing that I think). I still
can't see how a generic-purpose SQL would handle million of user
entries better than a specific-purpose database (filesystem). If you
are concerned about millions of directories/files, you can put
together something much smarter than SQL for messages... (Hell,
a simple POP3 session would have to lock the database for quite a
long time - does it scale?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOISac1MwP8g7qbw/EQLp8QCg6gOluP4MeD9zves98/ftAn31tmQAoPIy
IJoXbnJdrdFcPrzs3aiEoWeZ
=y/Lr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Ond=F8ej=20Sur=FD?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:46:31 +0100
>
>
> I just want to hear your opinions...
>
> How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
> put and pull
> mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
> overwhelming file
> system with milion of mails ;-) Or has anyone implemented this?
You would prefer to overwhelm a database with millions of emails?
I suspect you'll find the filesystem to be faster.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com
+1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500
4314 Avenue C
O- Austin, TX 78751-3709
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:46:31PM +0100, Ond?ej Surý wrote:
> >
> > I just want to hear your opinions...
> >
> > How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
> > put and pull
> > mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
> > overwhelming file
> > system with milion of mails ;-)
>
> What leads you to believe that a database such as MySQL will
> not overwhelm your file system trying to do the same thing?
>
> Did you make any comparative performance measurements?
Well, this solution have some advanteges and some disadvanteges.
Let me think of some:
+ You can backup all mail much more easily. It's quite easier
to backup few database files than bunch file-per-email files.
+ You can store emails on different machine than qmail-smtpd is
running without using N(ot Reliable)FS.
+ You can run queries over emails in case you save parsed
header into db.
+ It's too much easier to access mails from web (for me) and you
don't have to use IMAP.
- Database files are bigger than plain emails.
But that has nothing to do with my previous question.
--
Ondrej Sury: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +420602667702
GLOBE Internet s.r.o.: http://www.globe.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+420233356502
NAJDI.TO; http://najdi.to/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PRESS.CZ; http://press.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Petr Novotny wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18 Jan 00, at 16:46, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
> > put and pull
> > mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
> > overwhelming file
> > system with milion of mails ;-) Or has anyone implemented this?
>
> Are you talking about final delivery to a MySQL, or /var/qmail/queue
> in MySQL. (Or why are you talking about qmail-send.) If the latter,
> forget it.
I am talking about final delivery to MySQL. I thought it was
qmail-send
which is pulling messages out of queue and put them into
Maildirs.
> (Hell, a simple POP3 session would have to lock the database for quite a
> long time - does it scale?)
Why? I don't see a reason, why pop3 would lock db for long time?
--
Ondrej Sury: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +420602667702
GLOBE Internet s.r.o.: http://www.globe.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+420233356502
NAJDI.TO; http://najdi.to/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PRESS.CZ; http://press.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I dont know to do it. but I think it is could be ok on a system with little
users. i.e. If you had email accounts that don't use a system account to
acces their email but surely you would have to rewrite half of the POPD and
the MTA?
Although.
+ Data Retrieval is a lot faster than Opening and Closing files on
accounts with a lot of emails.
+ No File Locking or DB Locking
+ Reduces Disk Access
- More Space is used up
- Complicated
- Could be security isssues on pourly planned installations
It would be a pain to administer Users. Plus QMail comes with a pukka MTA
you would increase the risk of people reading the wrong emails
Views?
Regards
Paul Trippett
-----Original Message-----
From: Ondrej Surý [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 3:47 PM
To: Qmail List
Subject: Replacing delivery method...
I just want to hear your opinions...
How difficult would be to replace qmail-send and qmail-pop3d to
put and pull
mail to and from database (MySQL)? I don't like idea of
overwhelming file
system with milion of mails ;-) Or has anyone implemented this?
--
Ondrej Sury: [EMAIL PROTECTED], +420602667702
GLOBE Internet s.r.o.: http://www.globe.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+420233356502
NAJDI.TO; http://najdi.to/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PRESS.CZ; http://press.cz/, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[using SQL for mail store]
Wasn't usa.net doing this? I seem to remember seeing a few messages in
the past about this.
Tim
> [using SQL for mail store]
>
> Wasn't usa.net doing this? I seem to remember seeing a few messages in
> the past about this.
I don't know about usa.net, but I've been using PostgreSQL to archive a
mailing list for some time. In a setting like an archive where you will be
performing searches on the data, and would like to refine the search on
criteria such as date, time, keywords, subjet, etc., it's just what the
doctor ordered. However, for simple mail storage/retrieval, I don't know
if it would be such a good idea.
One of the largest detriments would be storage space. With PostgreSQL,
your database is usually about five times as large as if you had simply
stored the data in a text format. If your mail server is handling high
amounts of traffic, then five times the disk space, and a higher load on
the disk I/O isn't exactly what you want. : ) Of course, the overhead in
storage space is going to depend on the server in question, but you're
never going to break even.
The optimal solution is likely going to somewhat resemble an SQL server
that is stripped down and optimized only for mail, and with a more
streamlined API than SQL. You don't exactly need to do outer joins for
POP3 or IMAP, and features like stored procedures and user-defined data
types would only be wasted. : )
steve
Just on a related note.
M$ Exchange uses a database to store Email. They go on about how wonderful
it is, but from personal experience I can tell you it's a "fair weather
friend" - works well when it's going, but when any problems occur - you have
no idea where to start looking for a solution. Database corruption is of
course the worst thing that can happen you to - sometimes restoring from
backup doesn't even help as the DB was corrupted days/weeks earlier but just
didn't die until recently :-(
Thing is: M$ Exchange _doesn't_ use a SQL server backend - it uses a version
of the M$ JET database specifically re-written to efficiently handle Email.
M$ were intending moving Exchange to M$-SQL (via Transaction Server) - but
gave up that idea as the performance would never be as good.
I think it would be fair to deduce from that, that a major player in this
market doesn't think SQL is appropriate for Email - draw what you will from
that...
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 08:51:35AM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> Just on a related note.
>
> M$ were intending moving Exchange to M$-SQL (via Transaction Server) - but
> gave up that idea as the performance would never be as good.
>
> I think it would be fair to deduce from that, that a major player in this
> market doesn't think SQL is appropriate for Email - draw what you will from
> that...
Do Oracle store email in their database with 8i?
I vaguely thought they did.
There is nothing instrinsically wrong with using a database to store email,
but the cost/benefits have to be there and I don't think the original
poster made it clear what cost/benefits would be for his scenario.
Mark.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 01:59:36PM -0800, Mark Delany wrote:
> There is nothing instrinsically wrong with using a database to store email,
> but the cost/benefits have to be there and I don't think the original
> poster made it clear what cost/benefits would be for his scenario.
Actually you're dead right - I guess what M$ is saying is that even they
can't use M$-SQL as their backend server - others like Oracle may be fine ;-)
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
One way to do that would be for Dan to change the
Maildir specification so that a Maildir may have multiple "cur"
directories. Then, keep a CDB containing a subset of the message
headers.
Why multiple "cur" directories? I'm guessing that you're trying to avoid
rebuilding a large CDB when any cachable item changes. Why not simply use
multiple CDB's in a single directory instead? Select a CDB by hashing the
file names.
I'm also presuming that the CDB will be indexed by something like the
message file name. How efficient are things like string searches going to
be in that case? My dream states include things like results of previous
searches being cached (I have several large folders that I search on the
same subset of strings frequently). How would you do that with a CDB?
Thanks,
-- Jeff Hayward
Jeff Hayward writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> One way to do that would be for Dan to change the
> Maildir specification so that a Maildir may have multiple "cur"
> directories. Then, keep a CDB containing a subset of the message
> headers.
>
> Why multiple "cur" directories?
Avoid large subdirectory filesystem lossage.
> I'm also presuming that the CDB will be indexed by something like the
> message file name. How efficient are things like string searches going to
> be in that case? My dream states include things like results of previous
> searches being cached (I have several large folders that I search on the
> same subset of strings frequently). How would you do that with a CDB?
If you're storing mail on a server, I don't see *any* alternative to
server-side searching. Not that I know how best to implement it.
--
-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 Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 10:15:31AM -0600, Jeff Hayward wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> One way to do that would be for Dan to change the
> Maildir specification so that a Maildir may have multiple "cur"
> directories. Then, keep a CDB containing a subset of the message
> headers.
>
> Why multiple "cur" directories? I'm guessing that you're trying to avoid
> rebuilding a large CDB when any cachable item changes. Why not simply use
> multiple CDB's in a single directory instead? Select a CDB by hashing the
> file names.
CDB is hashed itself. Using multiple CDB's to share one load is useless.
The multiple "cur" directory idea helps performance on average filesystems.
> I'm also presuming that the CDB will be indexed by something like the
> message file name. How efficient are things like string searches going to
> be in that case? My dream states include things like results of previous
> searches being cached (I have several large folders that I search on the
> same subset of strings frequently). How would you do that with a CDB?
Well the CDB (in my idea, at least) will be indexed to the unchanging part
of a message filename (without new/ or cur/ in front), and contain the headers
that mutt normally reads from the file itself while opening. [Yes, I am
targeting mutt specifically, don't flame me ;)]
For searches thru headers, the cdb can be used. For body-text-searches my
solution won't help much.
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/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 Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 06:41:23PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well the CDB (in my idea, at least) will be indexed to the unchanging part
> of a message filename (without new/ or cur/ in front), and contain the headers
> that mutt normally reads from the file itself while opening. [Yes, I am
> targeting mutt specifically, don't flame me ;)]
This is not uncommon in a number of the proprietry message stores. An index
file that points directly into the mail/mailbox which identifies such things as
MIME boundaries, header boundaries and so on. Many treat the index as a
cache of high-use knowledge needed by the client applications.
> For searches thru headers, the cdb can be used. For body-text-searches my
> solution won't help much.
Your cdb/index *could* contain a cache of recent searches.
Mark.
On 14 Jan 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm responding to provide a counterpoint to Russ's views. I certainly
don't plan on changing his mind by my argument. It is abundantly clear
that "there's more that one way to do it (well)" to borrow a phrase.
My experience is quite the contrary, namely that delivering to *any*
shared file system, whether it be NFS or AFS, is fundamentally less
reliable and harder to maintain than delivering mail to independent mail
server machines [...]
It is funny how one's experiences can be different. At my site, it is
exactly the opposite. The minute we changed from a "user dictates server"
correspondence to a separation of the data from the application we saw
enormous improvement in reliability and ease of maintenance. We serve
about 80K users using layer 4 redirectors, 10 application server boxes and
2 NFS servers. There is virtually no maintenance, no outages, and no
performance peaks and valleys. By putting our money in to making the data
reliable we don't have to have expensive and complicated schemes to keep
application servers up. Load balancing happens automatically, not by
adding/moving users to application boxes. Failover is just a special case
of load balancing. Scales well for us (about 6.5 million messages stored
in maildirs) with no limits on the horizon.
That said, maildir indexing would help latency in application response
quite a bit.
Oh, we've also been down the AFS path. Not recommended based on my
experience.
Regards,
-- Jeff Hayward
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 10:32:23AM -0600, Jeff Hayward wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I'm responding to provide a counterpoint to Russ's views. I certainly
> don't plan on changing his mind by my argument. It is abundantly clear
> that "there's more that one way to do it (well)" to borrow a phrase.
>
> My experience is quite the contrary, namely that delivering to *any*
> shared file system, whether it be NFS or AFS, is fundamentally less
> reliable and harder to maintain than delivering mail to independent mail
> server machines [...]
>
> It is funny how one's experiences can be different. At my site, it is
> exactly the opposite. The minute we changed from a "user dictates server"
> correspondence to a separation of the data from the application we saw
> enormous improvement in reliability and ease of maintenance. We serve
> about 80K users using layer 4 redirectors, 10 application server boxes and
> 2 NFS servers. There is virtually no maintenance, no outages, and no
> performance peaks and valleys. By putting our money in to making the data
> reliable we don't have to have expensive and complicated schemes to keep
> application servers up. Load balancing happens automatically, not by
> adding/moving users to application boxes. Failover is just a special case
> of load balancing. Scales well for us (about 6.5 million messages stored
> in maildirs) with no limits on the horizon.
>
> That said, maildir indexing would help latency in application response
> quite a bit.
>
> Oh, we've also been down the AFS path. Not recommended based on my
> experience.
>
> Regards,
> -- Jeff Hayward
In the near future I will try out to store the users mail on one or
several CODA server(s). Have anyone any comment on that?
Best regards
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #06-00, Singapore 347778
Ring : (65) 844 3228 [ext 118] Fax : (65) 842 7228
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
Try /etc/skel ...
The name says it all...
Good Luck
JP
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> In the qmail/doc/INSTALL.maildir it says to edit /var/qmail/rc
> and replace ./Mailbox with ./Maildir/
> and "by creating a maildir in the new-user template directory"
> Where is this directory?
>
> Kind regards
> Kevin
>
>
Jose Pedro Pereira wrote:
> Try /etc/skel ...
> The name says it all...
hmm, there is nothing in this dir?
What should be there?
Could I be missing something?
Kind regards
Kevin
* Kevin Waterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Jan 2000 15:40]:
> > Try /etc/skel ...
> > The name says it all...
>
> hmm, there is nothing in this dir?
> What should be there?
> Could I be missing something?
If you put a Maildir in this area, then every new account
will be automatically set up with one. I've used something
similar to:
# /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake /etc/skel/Maildir
Then one can use the "useradd" command to add a new user
and the Maildir will be created automatically.
P.S. I have only used "useradd" on Linux and Solaris systems.
There may be other tools on other Unix (i.e. BSD) systems.
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
On 19-Jan-2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Jose Pedro Pereira wrote:
>
> > Try /etc/skel ...
> > The name says it all...
It says nothing to me at first, until I read 'man useradd'.
skel stands for skeleton, I guess.
> hmm, there is nothing in this dir?
> What should be there?
> Could I be missing something?
Try 'man useradd' first.
--
Ronny Haryanto
Where can I find information how to make a SSL encrypted POP3/IMAP
connection to my mailserver?
I am running qmail 1.03 + vpopmail 3.4.11{something} + SqWebMail +
qmailAdmin.
Best regards
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #06-00, Singapore 347778
Ring : (65) 844 3228 [ext 118] Fax : (65) 842 7228
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
What caused a message to be deferred with the error:
Sorry,_message_has_wrong_owner? I can't send anything using the
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail wrapper without getting this. I did try all the
tests successfully in TEST.deliver and TEST.receive, but they all use
qmail-inject.
Thanks for any help you can give,
-Jennifer
Did it ever work or has it never worked?
Almost certainly the permissions in /var/qmail have not been set properly
or have been changed subsequent to make setup.
Have you moved the queue with cp, tar, cpio, etc? Have you restored it
from a backup tape? Did you install it according to the qmail install or
have you used some 3rd party install?
What happens if, as root in the qmail source directory, you go:
# make check
??
Regards.
> What caused a message to be deferred with the error:
> Sorry,_message_has_wrong_owner? I can't send anything using the
> /var/qmail/bin/sendmail wrapper without getting this. I did try all the
> tests successfully in TEST.deliver and TEST.receive, but they all use
> qmail-inject.
> Thanks for any help you can give,
>
> -Jennifer
>
Yes, because I had a linking mishap {sheepish grin}, I replaced a few files
in /var/qmail/bin with ones from another machine. I did not realize it would
change anything. Thank you very much for your help. I tried a few other
things, then I did:
#make setup check
and that did it. it works now!
Thanks so much,
-Jennifer
Mark Delany wrote:
> Did it ever work or has it never worked?
>
> Almost certainly the permissions in /var/qmail have not been set properly
> or have been changed subsequent to make setup.
>
> Have you moved the queue with cp, tar, cpio, etc? Have you restored it
> from a backup tape? Did you install it according to the qmail install or
> have you used some 3rd party install?
>
> What happens if, as root in the qmail source directory, you go:
> # make check
>
> ??
>
> Regards.
>
> > What caused a message to be deferred with the error:
> > Sorry,_message_has_wrong_owner? I can't send anything using the
> > /var/qmail/bin/sendmail wrapper without getting this. I did try all the
> > tests successfully in TEST.deliver and TEST.receive, but they all use
> > qmail-inject.
> > Thanks for any help you can give,
> >
> > -Jennifer
> >
I've searched the doc, and can't find the answer to this problem. The
permissions
for the directory are: drwxr--r--
For one user, I changed the permissions to drwxr-xr-x and the message in
the mail
log changed to this:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)
Obviously, I'm using Maildir method - all my MUAs are Netscape.
The file permissions for Maildir and everthing in it are drw-r--r--
Adding executable doesn't seem to change things.
qmail is set up to use the default qmail userids and groups.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
Michael Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The permissions on your Maildir directory and the
directories underneath need to all be:
drwx------
Rick McMillin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Administrator
Manager, Network Operations
I-Land Internet Services
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "qmail list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 2:36 PM
Subject: deferral:Unable_to_switch_to_/home/user:_access_denied.(#4.3.0)
> I've searched the doc, and can't find the answer to this problem. The
> permissions
> for the directory are: drwxr--r--
>
> For one user, I changed the permissions to drwxr-xr-x and the message in
> the mail
> log changed to this:
>
> Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)
>
> Obviously, I'm using Maildir method - all my MUAs are Netscape.
> The file permissions for Maildir and everthing in it are drw-r--r--
> Adding executable doesn't seem to change things.
>
> qmail is set up to use the default qmail userids and groups.
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Martin
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
On closer examination, I see that the things that fail have to do with
user
aliases and virtual domains. Guess I gotta go back and revisit that
stuff.
-Michael Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rick McMillin wrote:
>
> The permissions on your Maildir directory and the
> directories underneath need to all be:
>
> drwx------
>
> Rick McMillin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Systems Administrator
> Manager, Network Operations
> I-Land Internet Services
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "qmail list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 2:36 PM
> Subject: deferral:Unable_to_switch_to_/home/user:_access_denied.(#4.3.0)
>
> > I've searched the doc, and can't find the answer to this problem. The
> > permissions
> > for the directory are: drwxr--r--
> >
> > For one user, I changed the permissions to drwxr-xr-x and the message in
> > the mail
> > log changed to this:
> >
> > Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)
> >
> > Obviously, I'm using Maildir method - all my MUAs are Netscape.
> > The file permissions for Maildir and everthing in it are drw-r--r--
> > Adding executable doesn't seem to change things.
> >
> > qmail is set up to use the default qmail userids and groups.
> >
> > What am I missing?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael Martin
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I cannot seem to search the archives to see if this has been discussed.
There used to be a control file called recipientmap that is not there
anymore. I recall someone commenting that people were using it as an
aliases file instead of using the .qmail files. I have a very good use
for this file, and now that I need it, it isn't there anymore. I am hoping
that someone can show me a good way to do this:
Suppose I am responsible for the mail for qmail.org, with 1000
addresses. I set up a mail server someplace called mail.qmail.org,
put qmail.org into the locals and rcphosts. Mail is working fine.
Now, I set up an office in chicago for this company, with 20
users behind an ISDN line. I install a linux box on the LAN,
(mail.chicago.qmail.org) and configure qmail on it so that local
users can use it as an SMTP server. I'd like them to check their
mail on this machine, also, which means having 20 of the addresses
on the main machine go to this machine.
This part is easy. On mail.qmail.org, I add a line to smtproutes:
chicago.qmail.org:mail.chicago.qmail.org
I then put chicago.qmail.org into locals and rcpthosts on
mail.chicago.qmail.org, and for every user that is in this office
(e.g., alice,bill, and cindy), I create .qmail files on mail.qmail.org:
.qmail-alice:&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.qmail-bill:&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.qmail-cindy:&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, when anyone sends email to one of the Chicago users, the
main server has an "alias" that sends their mail off to the Chicago
machine, which puts it into their mailbox.
Now comes the problem. If Alice sends an email to Bill, she
sends it to the local SMTP server, mail.chicago.qmail.org. She is
sending it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since this machine does not handle
email for qmail.org, it finds the MX record, and sends it on to
mail.qmail.org (over the ISDN line). mail.qmail.org then sends it
back after applying the alias. Thus, local mail has to be sent
off of the LAN before it can reach the local user.
With recipientmap, the solution is to put these lines into
recipientmap on mail.chicago.qmail.org:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, mail stays local. Since I no longer have recipientmap, I
wonder what the solution is. One solution is to put qmail.org into
mail.chicago.qmail.org's virtualdomains file. Then I can create
aliases for all of the local users. The problem is that I must also
create aliases for EVERY qmail.org user, so that anyone not on the
local machine has their mail sent to the main server. This would be
a pain to administer, especially when there are dozens of local offices.
Any thoughts?
- --
Jack McKinney
The Lorentz Group http://www.lorentz.com
F4 A0 65 67 58 77 AF 9B FC B3 C5 6B 55 36 94 A6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOITk/0Zx0BGJTwrZAQFxQAQAh+9Ohc1usPI8Wu8BkN2NFxu9AVLLQoOH
rj/xcrnjYdkGRaGopaiIHlKFoBy44WzBq65Eolp/EKywfD9xx0khmPa7Q5ycuOTg
xiUXxWhBpMYCyFMk/v3eVAEjgQ4zMuzb3rgDZiqakSSBzx/fkJSVl2UngDcL5FFa
5pHz0DBdbH0=
=mKyc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:11:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now, mail stays local. Since I no longer have recipientmap, I
> wonder what the solution is. One solution is to put qmail.org into
> mail.chicago.qmail.org's virtualdomains file. Then I can create
> aliases for all of the local users. The problem is that I must also
> create aliases for EVERY qmail.org user, so that anyone not on the
> local machine has their mail sent to the main server. This would be
> a pain to administer, especially when there are dozens of local offices.
recipientmap was a feature of qmail 1.01, and was withdrawn in qmail
1.02 and above. The functionality of recipientmap is now incorporated
into virtualdomains. Read the qmail-send man page more carefully, and
you'll find your solution. Basically you're on the right track, but
you've missed something.
--
See complete headers for more info
Hi, I have several domains that I am in the process of transferring
to one machine with my qmail mailserver. I've gotten in the habit
of accessing my pop mail for different domains at different times
depending on what I'm doing.
My main email address on each of these domains is the same username, i.e.
siffert@domain1
siffert@domain2
siffert@domain3
I know how to store them into different Maildirs in my "siffert" account,
depending on domain, thanks to dot-qmail and virtualdomains. But how
can I access these different Maildirs through pop? It seems that pop
always relies on a hardcoded mailbox name like ~/Maildir, and storing all
my different domains' mail in there would scramble them all together.
Am I going to *have* to use different useraccounts and header-forging
to accomplish this?
Thanks,
Curt
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:39:59PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, I have several domains that I am in the process of transferring
> to one machine with my qmail mailserver. I've gotten in the habit
> of accessing my pop mail for different domains at different times
> depending on what I'm doing.
>
> My main email address on each of these domains is the same username, i.e.
> siffert@domain1
> siffert@domain2
> siffert@domain3
>
> I know how to store them into different Maildirs in my "siffert" account,
> depending on domain, thanks to dot-qmail and virtualdomains. But how
> can I access these different Maildirs through pop? It seems that pop
> always relies on a hardcoded mailbox name like ~/Maildir, and storing all
> my different domains' mail in there would scramble them all together.
> Am I going to *have* to use different useraccounts and header-forging
> to accomplish this?
You need either to use one of the virtual domains packages (see www.qmail.org),
or use a different version of checkpassword. I have a patch to the standard
checkpassword that lets you use a cdb database to look users up and decide
where qmail-pop3d should look for mail. It also works with regular /etc/passwd
users. It's pretty simple to set up.
See http://www.palomine.net/qmail/checkcdb.tar.gz
Chris
I have a simple script in C that resolves same-user-name-but-different-domains.
It authenticates a POP account using Postgresql. You can download the
script from
http://x.csusb.net/free/qmail/
Tong
At 06:14 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 02:39:59PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hi, I have several domains that I am in the process of transferring
>> to one machine with my qmail mailserver. I've gotten in the habit
>> of accessing my pop mail for different domains at different times
>> depending on what I'm doing.
>>
>> My main email address on each of these domains is the same username, i.e.
>> siffert@domain1
>> siffert@domain2
>> siffert@domain3
>>
>> I know how to store them into different Maildirs in my "siffert" account,
>> depending on domain, thanks to dot-qmail and virtualdomains. But how
>> can I access these different Maildirs through pop? It seems that pop
>> always relies on a hardcoded mailbox name like ~/Maildir, and storing all
>> my different domains' mail in there would scramble them all together.
>> Am I going to *have* to use different useraccounts and header-forging
>> to accomplish this?
>
>You need either to use one of the virtual domains packages (see www.qmail.org),
>or use a different version of checkpassword. I have a patch to the standard
>checkpassword that lets you use a cdb database to look users up and decide
>where qmail-pop3d should look for mail. It also works with regular /etc/passwd
>users. It's pretty simple to set up.
>
>See http://www.palomine.net/qmail/checkcdb.tar.gz
>
>Chris
>
Dear all:
We use MCIS mail to provide mail service.Now we want to use qmail to
provide mail service.How can we replace MCIS mail by Qmail?
Tony Chang
System Engineer
Information Technology Division
Hoshin Gigamedia Center Inc
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 06:38:42AM +0800, �i�I�� wrote:
> We use MCIS mail to provide mail service.Now we want to use qmail to
> provide mail service.How can we replace MCIS mail by Qmail?
Since MCIS is NT based, you'd have to have a seperate mail system
and integrate it using MCIS's LDAP features and LDAP patches to
qmail.
Steve
--
NetTek Ltd tel +44-(0)20 7483 1169 fax +44-(0)20 7483 2455
Flat 2, 43 Howitt Road, Belsize Park, London NW3 4LU
Epage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [body of text only]
----- Forwarded message from XY (X Y) -----
> From: XY (X Y)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: e-mail problem
[...]
> ps I liked your message that you gave up!
----- End forwarded message -----
Stefan
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 08:56:37PM +1300, David Anso wrote:
> Where should I go / look for info on adding SSL or configuring SSL to
> POP/IMAP daemons.
Take a look at SSLWrap - <http://www.rickk.com/sslwrap> according to the
version I have here.
J.
--
Oxford University / BA Computation / Guts: putting the name "SYSOP" in
Computer Society / Finalist / your twit filter.
President / /
Hi. I'm new to qmail. I would like to know on how I would redirect incoming
mails to a an smtp
server that is internal to our network. I would want my qmail acts as an
email gateway.
With sendmail, I do it this way,
The /etc/mailertable contains
mydomain.com smtp:[192.168.1.1]
So any mail sent to mydomain.com will be forwarded to 192.168.1.1
Thanks
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 02:48:27PM +0800, Ronneil Camara wrote:
> Hi. I'm new to qmail. I would like to know on how I would redirect incoming
> mails to a an smtp
> server that is internal to our network. I would want my qmail acts as an
> email gateway.
>
> With sendmail, I do it this way,
>
> The /etc/mailertable contains
> mydomain.com smtp:[192.168.1.1]
echo 'mydomain.com:[192.168.1.1]' > /var/qmail/control/smtproutes
--
See complete headers for more info
can I do a alias like this:
--8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
# cat .qmail-stuff
./0/user1/Maildir/
./1/user2/Maildir/
--8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
Please advice
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #06-00, Singapore 347778
Ring : (65) 844 3228 [ext 118] Fax : (65) 842 7228
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
can I do a alias like this:
--8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
# cat .qmail-stuff
./0/user1/Maildir/
./1/user2/Maildir/
--8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
Please advice
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal 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 Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 02:57:08PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
> can I do a alias like this:
>
> # cat .qmail-stuff
> ./0/user1/Maildir/
> ./1/user2/Maildir/
Only if 0/user1/Maildir and 1/user2/Maildir are both owned by the same
user under which the alias runs to deliver that mail.
--
See complete headers for more info
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:00:39AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 02:57:08PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
>
> > can I do a alias like this:
> >
> > # cat .qmail-stuff
> > ./0/user1/Maildir/
> > ./1/user2/Maildir/
>
> Only if 0/user1/Maildir and 1/user2/Maildir are both owned by the same
> user under which the alias runs to deliver that mail.
Okey, then there should be no problem with that as I am using vpopmail
that does just that: use a single system UID/GID to store X numbers of
domains/users. =)
Best regards
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal 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 Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:00:39AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 02:57:08PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
>
> > can I do a alias like this:
> >
> > # cat .qmail-stuff
> > ./0/user1/Maildir/
> > ./1/user2/Maildir/
>
> Only if 0/user1/Maildir and 1/user2/Maildir are both owned by the same
> user under which the alias runs to deliver that mail.
Okey, then there should be no problem with that as I am using vpopmail
that does just that: use a single system UID/GID to store X numbers of
domains/users. =)
Best regards
Michael Boman
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M P T E L T D - Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #06-00, Singapore 347778
Ring : (65) 844 3228 [ext 118] Fax : (65) 842 7228
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
Michael Boman wrote:
>
> can I do a alias like this:
>
> --8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
> # cat .qmail-stuff
> ./0/user1/Maildir/
> ./1/user2/Maildir/
> --8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---
>
> Please advice
> Michael Boman
Sure. As long as you follow the standard .qmail file syntax.
Just remember that qmail-local is the one delivering the mail
and processing the .qmail files. The directory specified in
/var/qmail/users/assign for the virtual domain is considered
to be the current working directory. So relative path names
will be based on that directory. You can also specify aliases
into other virtual domain directories like
/home/vpopmail/domains/domain1/user3/Maildir/
or
../domain2/user4/Maildir/
As long as user/group ownership is the same.
Ken Jones
www.inter7.com
Help!
I have a machine that has 2 IP addresses assigned to its one network interface.
The first IP address is a live internet IP, the other one is 192.168.0.2. For
some reason qmail (or possibly tcpserver, I'm not sure) has stopped working on
the 192.168.0.2 IP address. I can telnet to 192.168.0.2 port 25, but I do not
get the SMTP greeting. Same thing w/ POP3. Mail programs just time out.
I'm running qmail-smtpd under tcpserver with the line:
tcpserver -H -c100 -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 710 -g 701 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
My tcp.smtp consists of:
127.0.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
192.168.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
I have not touched anything on the configuration . It was working OK for several
weeks, and this just happened now.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
US Fax: (603) 908-0727
AIM: bbaquiran
Hi,
Is the databytes file that sits in the /var/qmail/control directory a
file that has only the size of e-mail that can be sent through the smtp
server??
Many thanks -
--Tonino
right! it contains the maximum size in bytes.
Holger
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Tonino Greco
> Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 19. Januar 2000 10:12
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Databytes?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Is the databytes file that sits in the /var/qmail/control directory a
> file that has only the size of e-mail that can be sent
> through the smtp
> server??
>
> Many thanks -
>
> --Tonino
>
Could anyone give me a rough indication of how many user accounts my
qmail server can handle (using passwd) before I'd need to start looking
at implementing a cdb or MySQL for POP verification?
I run qmail on RH6 Linux on a PII 350 with 128 meg RAM with oodles of
disk space.
Ta
Si
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 08:59:02AM +0000, Simon Rae wrote:
> Could anyone give me a rough indication of how many user accounts my
> qmail server can handle (using passwd) before I'd need to start looking
> at implementing a cdb or MySQL for POP verification?
It really depends on how your OS handles the /etc/passwd database.
Systems like Solaris and linux use a plain text /etc/passwd, scanned
linearly. This will slow down as the numbers of users goes up. However,
if the file is cached in RAM, then it doesn't matter too much, but the
search is still linear. The BSDs on the other hand make a DB database
out of the /etc/passwd, and so it's much faster to lookup.
> I run qmail on RH6 Linux on a PII 350 with 128 meg RAM with oodles of
> disk space.
There isn't a particular figure, but as a rule of thumb, I would go up
to 10,000 accounts in /etc/passwd. After that, you'd probably have to
consider alternatives.... or switch to a BSD ;-)
--
See complete headers for more info
I've got a pop3 and I would like to retrieve emails. Prior to installing
qmail, I had a
sendmail. Incoming messages are stored in /var/spool/mail. Now, I'm running
qmail and when
messages arrives, it is saved under $HOME/Mailbox. I can see it grow also
which means
that mail is being delivered. How would I fix it so instead of retrieving
under /var/spool/mail,
it would retrieve under &HOME/Mailbox?
Onie
See INSTALL. You'll have to make a link from /var/spool/mail to the users
home.
Regards,
Holger
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ronneil Camara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 19. Januar 2000 10:23
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: pop3 retrieval
>
> I've got a pop3 and I would like to retrieve emails. Prior to
> installing
> qmail, I had a
> sendmail. Incoming messages are stored in /var/spool/mail.
> Now, I'm running
> qmail and when
> messages arrives, it is saved under $HOME/Mailbox. I can see
> it grow also
> which means
> that mail is being delivered. How would I fix it so instead
> of retrieving
> under /var/spool/mail,
> it would retrieve under &HOME/Mailbox?
>
> Onie
>
The easiest way is to create a symbolic link from /var/spool/mail/ to
$HOME/Mailbox
ln -s ~username/Mailbox /var/spool/mail/username
(Repeat this command for each user on your system, replacing 'username' with
the user's login name)
Or, you could use switch to Maildir format and use qmail-pop3d...
Ronneil Camara wrote:
> I've got a pop3 and I would like to retrieve emails. Prior to installing
> qmail, I had a
> sendmail. Incoming messages are stored in /var/spool/mail. Now, I'm running
> qmail and when
> messages arrives, it is saved under $HOME/Mailbox. I can see it grow also
> which means
> that mail is being delivered. How would I fix it so instead of retrieving
> under /var/spool/mail,
> it would retrieve under &HOME/Mailbox?
>
> Onie
--
�.��.���`�. Glenn R. Crownover
�.��.���`�. Owner/CEO - Investor's Network Cafe
�.��.���`�. http://www.investnetcafe.com/
�.��.���`�. reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:31:16AM +0100, H�ffelin Holger wrote:
> See INSTALL. You'll have to make a link from /var/spool/mail to the users
> home.
Alternatively, recompile your POP server (if you have source code) to
read from $HOME/Mailbox instead of /var/spool/mail. Then you don't need
the links.
--
See complete headers for more info
