qmail Digest 26 Feb 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 923
Topics (messages 37744 through 37803):
qmail behaving weird with virtualdomain
37744 by: Mikael Schmidt
37745 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
Re: Maildir and procmail and safecat
37746 by: Len Budney
37749 by: Sam
rcpthosts and sender address
37747 by: Oliver Frommel
37748 by: alexander.jernejcic.intellinet.at
37750 by: Chris Johnson
Re: can't send mail to aol
37751 by: Russell Nelson
Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
37752 by: Juan E Suris
37753 by: Soffen, Matthew
37755 by: Juan E Suris
37764 by: Jose de Leon
37783 by: Juan E Suris
37784 by: Chris Johnson
37797 by: Juan E Suris
Re: Safecat challenge
37754 by: Len Budney
37756 by: James Park
37759 by: Sam
37760 by: Henri J. Schlereth
37762 by: Paul Farber
37768 by: Racer X
Off topic about mailling list
37757 by: Henri J. Schlereth
Re: Maildir and procmail
37758 by: Tracy R Reed
Re: qmail-pop3d
37761 by: Juan E Suris
Time zones? Qu�?
37763 by: Stephen Bosch
37765 by: Charles Cazabon
single quotes in RCPT
37766 by: Adam McKenna
37770 by: Magnus Bodin
37791 by: Sam
37792 by: Adam McKenna
37794 by: Juan E Suris
U.S. Lets Professor Put Encryption on Internet
37767 by: hsilver
37769 by: hsilver
37798 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Encryption and t-shirts
37771 by: Dave Kitabjian
37772 by: Greg Owen
37773 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
37774 by: jacob.gayweb.com
37775 by: Chad Day
37776 by: Tim Hunter
37777 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
37778 by: Kai MacTane
37779 by: iv0
37785 by: Tracy R Reed
37786 by: Jos Backus
37788 by: David L. Nicol
37790 by: Edward S. Marshall
37795 by: Martin Randall
qmail-pop3d and vchckpasswd
37780 by: Eric Lalonde
37781 by: iv0
37793 by: Steve Belt
37796 by: Charles Cazabon
37800 by: iv0
POP Toaster
37782 by: Stephen Remillard
qmqp and local delivery
37787 by: Tracy R Reed
37802 by: Lars Uffmann
concurrencyremote setting
37789 by: DeChavez , Andrew
relaying
37799 by: Michael Anderson
37803 by: Chris Johnson
POP3D Access Control List
37801 by: balci.proda.com.tr
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
today when I rebooted my computer for the first time since I had added a
virtualdomain on my qmail-machine, it didn't work. It wanted to transport
the mail's that should, and had been before the reboot, be handled locally
away to a remote server. So I began looking into the thing, and I noticed
my control file for virtualdomains was named virtualdomain, how could it be
that it had worked with this name? So I renamed it to virtualdomains, and
added teddybear.cx in it, which is my virtualdomain anyway. Still didn't
work. So i removed it, created a new file, added teddybear.cx in it, now it
worked. How is this? Anyway, a few hours later, I restarted qmail, and now
again it doesn't work... I have no clue whatsoever what can be the faulty
thing here... Anyone got any suggestions?
The system I am running is Linux Slackware 7.0, and no patches in qmail.
itsec.nu is the main domainname for my server to handle, and teddybear.cx
is my virtualdomain. I run the nameserver myself.
here's my control/virtualdomains file;
#cat virtualdomains
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-EOF-
I'd be grateful if anyone could be please answer to this with some kind of
suggestions, cause my head starts to get real empty... I have read Life
with qmail by Dave Sill, and done exactly as it says there, no luck though.
Mikael Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://teddybear.cx/
http://www.itsec.nu/ "When you dream, there are no rules....
Certified Linux Administrator People can fly, anything can happen..."
watata tuoijombade dikombe - Astral Projection
> here's my control/virtualdomains file;
>
> #cat virtualdomains
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm. "An empty prepend means that domain is not a virtual domain" say the
qmail-send manpage.
What do you try with this setup? If you ony want to forward the mail
delete virtualdomains put teddybear.x into rcpthosts and local
and create three alias files in ~alias:
.qmail-iphil
-------------
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
.qmail-lexor
-------------
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
.qmail-mikael:schmidt
-------------
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------
Beware that no users iphil and lexor exist locally.
A users/assign solution would give more control but might be too
complicated to maintain.
Regards, Frank
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Paul Jarc wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, no. You're not looking at *the* putc macro; you're looking at
> > *a* putc macro. One implementation need not resemble another at all
>
> However, since I'm using *MY* implementation, I'm going to look at *MY*
> macros, thankyouverymuch.
[various stupidity snipped]
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee. Benchmarking *YOUR* macros
is pointless, when you're talking about the performance of *MY*
program. Why don't you benchmark my program, stupid?
``I do not need to benchmark obviously inefficient code just to prove that
it's inefficient.'' Who needs to profile, when Sam can calculate runtime
profiles without even glancing at the code? Just tell Sam an anecdote
about your program, and he'll give you a thumbs up or down. Jackass.
> I wonder how many times I have to report the same results (twice
> apparently isn't enough) before everyone finds something else to do,
> besides splitting hairs.
Okay, consider your results. One program writes a byte repeatedly, and
the other immediately segfaults. What was that supposed to tell us
about safecat? Considering your utterly inept approach to profiling,
it certainly appears you don't do it that often.
I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
Len.
--
You're repeating the same old ``forks are bad and execs are
disastrous'' litany without _profiling_ where your time is actually
going.
-- Dan Bernstein
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Len Budney wrote:
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Paul Jarc wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, no. You're not looking at *the* putc macro; you're looking at
> > > *a* putc macro. One implementation need not resemble another at all
> >
> > However, since I'm using *MY* implementation, I'm going to look at *MY*
> > macros, thankyouverymuch.
>
> [various stupidity snipped]
>
> Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee. Benchmarking *YOUR* macros
> is pointless, when you're talking about the performance of *MY*
> program. Why don't you benchmark my program, stupid?
It's not "pointless" -- you overlooked the point on your head.
Since, professor, your program is expected to run on *MY* system, it
therefore logically follows that it's MY macros that would be used, and,
henceforth, should be benchmarked.
> ``I do not need to benchmark obviously inefficient code just to prove that
> it's inefficient.'' Who needs to profile, when Sam can calculate runtime
> profiles without even glancing at the code? Just tell Sam an anecdote
> about your program, and he'll give you a thumbs up or down. Jackass.
Contrary to popular belief, computer programming is not rocket science,
especially not when the task at hand is as easy as that. Maybe you do
need a scientific calculator to add two and two together, but that's only
your own handicap. It does not take much scratching for any college
graduate to figure out that unbuffered I/O is slow and inefficient, and no
benchmarking is needed to state that.
> > I wonder how many times I have to report the same results (twice
> > apparently isn't enough) before everyone finds something else to do,
> > besides splitting hairs.
>
> Okay, consider your results. One program writes a byte repeatedly, and
Gee whiz -- I hate to bear shocking news to you, but that happens to
exactly what your own wares does -- write a byte repeatedly. Surpise!
> the other immediately segfaults.
Am I using words which are too long for you, professor? It only
segfaulted at the end, and, after the typo was fixed the results were
absolutely the same. But, of course, let's ignore some inconvenient pesky
facts, shall we?
> What was that supposed to tell us
> about safecat? Considering your utterly inept approach to profiling,
> it certainly appears you don't do it that often.
Correct, professor. I prefer to write efficient code right from the
start. What a novel concept!
> I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
> within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
And on other systems, it benchmarks at 1/50th the speed of
efficiently-written code. Did you ever work for Microsoft?
--
Sam
Hi,
after reading through the mailing list archives my understanding concerning
qmail relaying is that: rcpthosts is used only for checking the recipients
domain. What about the sender address then? Coming from a sendmail background
I would like the following behaviour:
1. allow sending from everywhere to the local domain (that works through
rcpthosts)
2. allow sending from somewhere else (MUA) via the qmail-smtpd to somewhere else
(the difference to 3. is that the sender address is a local address)
3. prohibit sending from somewhere else to somewhere else with no local
address (relaying in my understanding)
Is there a way to make 2. work without using one of the "first pop then smtp"
packages? I guess 2. still allows spammers to use the server as a relay to
some extent, but only by forging a local address (in which case it might be
of only limited use to them ..)
thanks for your help
--Oliver
tpserver (part of daemontools) does exactly what you want. its a matter
of setting RELAYCLIENT. there are also solutions for dynamic relay,
where the client first authenticates through pop3.
take a look at life with qmail: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
espacially chapter 3.2.3. its described in detail there
hope that helps
alexander
=========================
widerst@nd
On 25 Feb, Oliver Frommel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after reading through the mailing list archives my understanding concerning
> qmail relaying is that: rcpthosts is used only for checking the recipients
> domain. What about the sender address then? Coming from a sendmail background
> I would like the following behaviour:
>
> 1. allow sending from everywhere to the local domain (that works through
> rcpthosts)
>
> 2. allow sending from somewhere else (MUA) via the qmail-smtpd to somewhere else
> (the difference to 3. is that the sender address is a local address)
>
> 3. prohibit sending from somewhere else to somewhere else with no local
> address (relaying in my understanding)
>
>
> Is there a way to make 2. work without using one of the "first pop then smtp"
> packages? I guess 2. still allows spammers to use the server as a relay to
> some extent, but only by forging a local address (in which case it might be
> of only limited use to them ..)
>
> thanks for your help
> --Oliver
>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:12:38PM +0100, Oliver Frommel wrote:
> After reading through the mailing list archives my understanding concerning
> qmail relaying is that: rcpthosts is used only for checking the recipients
> domain. What about the sender address then? Coming from a sendmail background
> I would like the following behaviour:
>
> 1. allow sending from everywhere to the local domain (that works through
> rcpthosts)
>
> 2. allow sending from somewhere else (MUA) via the qmail-smtpd to somewhere else
> (the difference to 3. is that the sender address is a local address)
>
> 3. prohibit sending from somewhere else to somewhere else with no local
> address (relaying in my understanding)
>
>
> Is there a way to make 2. work without using one of the "first pop then smtp"
> packages? I guess 2. still allows spammers to use the server as a relay to
> some extent, but only by forging a local address (in which case it might be
> of only limited use to them ..)
If you want to control relaying based on the envelope sender address, you'll
need to patch qmail-smtpd. See http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html.
Chris
Michael Boman writes:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 12:28:42PM +0200, kailash oswal wrote:
> > hi there,
> >
> > I have a problem with aol domain...My customers cannot send mail to aol.com
> > (american on line)domain.Is there any seetings to be amde at our end
> > ...please tell if somebody has come accross with such problem
>
> Snipped from www.qmail.org:
>
> Patches for high-volume servers
> If you want to have any hope of talking to AOL, you've got to install
> Christopher K. Davis's patch to accept oversize DNS packets. It works
> on both qmail's dns.c and tcpserver's dns.c.
Actually, that's old information. AOL has since changed their DNS
configuration so that they don't have oversize packets. I fixed the
one mention but not the other. I don't think this is the cause of the
problem.
--
-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.
S Ashok Kumar writes:
> Juan E Suris wrote:
>
> > >At 10:40 PM -0500 2/24/00, Juan E Suris wrote:
> > >>Hello All,
> > >>
> > >>Like a good qmail user, I changed qmail-pop3d from inetd to
> > >>tcpserver, but now it's really slow. It takes about 10 secs to
> > >>respond. Is this usual.
> > >>Following are my start scripts.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>JES
> > >>
> > >>here's what my run script look like:
> > >>/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/run
> > >>#!/bin/sh
> > >>VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
> > >>VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
> > >>exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
> > >> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -u $VUID -g $VGID 0 pop-3 \
> > >
> > >
> > >Turn off reverse lookups. Add a -H.
> > >
> >
> > Didn't work. Same delay. BTW, I am having the same problem with qmail-smtpd
> > (init script exactly like lwq with -H).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > JES
>
> Stop running identd and see if the performance improves.
>
> - Ashok
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Didn't work.
JES
_______________________________________________________________________
Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
Check your DNS entries/server. Is all working properly there ?
Matt Soffen
Web Intranet Developer
http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan E Suris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
>
> S Ashok Kumar writes:
>
> > Juan E Suris wrote:
> >
> > > >At 10:40 PM -0500 2/24/00, Juan E Suris wrote:
> > > >>Hello All,
> > > >>
> > > >>Like a good qmail user, I changed qmail-pop3d from inetd to
> > > >>tcpserver, but now it's really slow. It takes about 10 secs to
> > > >>respond. Is this usual.
> > > >>Following are my start scripts.
> > > >>
> > > >>Thanks,
> > > >>JES
> > > >>
> > > >>here's what my run script look like:
> > > >>/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/run
> > > >>#!/bin/sh
> > > >>VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
> > > >>VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
> > > >>exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
> > > >> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -u $VUID -g $VGID 0 pop-3 \
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Turn off reverse lookups. Add a -H.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Didn't work. Same delay. BTW, I am having the same problem with
> qmail-smtpd
> > > (init script exactly like lwq with -H).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > JES
> >
> > Stop running identd and see if the performance improves.
> >
> > - Ashok
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> Didn't work.
> JES
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
Everything seems to be alright in the DNS entries.
Is there a way that I can trace or follow tcpserver's execution to see
where it is getting stuck?
JES
Soffen, Matthew writes:
> Check your DNS entries/server. Is all working properly there ?
>
> Matt Soffen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juan E Suris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:43 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
> >
> > S Ashok Kumar writes:
> >
> > > Juan E Suris wrote:
> > >
> > > > >At 10:40 PM -0500 2/24/00, Juan E Suris wrote:
> > > > >>Hello All,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Like a good qmail user, I changed qmail-pop3d from inetd to
> > > > >>tcpserver, but now it's really slow. It takes about 10 secs to
> > > > >>respond. Is this usual.
> > > > >>Following are my start scripts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Thanks,
> > > > >>JES
> > > > >>
> > > > >>here's what my run script look like:
> > > > >>/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/run
> > > > >>#!/bin/sh
> > > > >>VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
> > > > >>VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
> > > > >>exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
> > > > >> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -u $VUID -g $VGID 0 pop-3 \
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Turn off reverse lookups. Add a -H.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Didn't work. Same delay. BTW, I am having the same problem with
> > qmail-smtpd
> > > > (init script exactly like lwq with -H).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > JES
> > >
> > > Stop running identd and see if the performance improves.
> > >
> > > - Ashok
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> > Didn't work.
> > JES
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
I'm experiencing same problem. DNS is correct, I've turned off reverse name
server lookups, using tcpserver and not inetd.
I would like to see some suggestions also.
----- Original Message -----
From: Juan E Suris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
Everything seems to be alright in the DNS entries.
Is there a way that I can trace or follow tcpserver's execution to see
where it is getting stuck?
JES
Soffen, Matthew writes:
> Check your DNS entries/server. Is all working properly there ?
>
> Matt Soffen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juan E Suris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:43 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
> >
> > S Ashok Kumar writes:
> >
> > > Juan E Suris wrote:
> > >
> > > > >At 10:40 PM -0500 2/24/00, Juan E Suris wrote:
> > > > >>Hello All,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Like a good qmail user, I changed qmail-pop3d from inetd to
> > > > >>tcpserver, but now it's really slow. It takes about 10 secs to
> > > > >>respond. Is this usual.
> > > > >>Following are my start scripts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Thanks,
> > > > >>JES
> > > > >>
> > > > >>here's what my run script look like:
> > > > >>/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/run
> > > > >>#!/bin/sh
> > > > >>VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
> > > > >>VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
> > > > >>exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
> > > > >> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -u $VUID -g $VGID 0 pop-3 \
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Turn off reverse lookups. Add a -H.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Didn't work. Same delay. BTW, I am having the same problem with
> > qmail-smtpd
> > > > (init script exactly like lwq with -H).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > JES
> > >
> > > Stop running identd and see if the performance improves.
> > >
> > > - Ashok
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> > Didn't work.
> > JES
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
Sorry folks! My problem is not resolved. The -L option in fact did not work.
Here's my init script setup under supervise like in lwq.
#!/bin/sh
VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -H -L -R -u $VUID -g $VGID 0 pop-3 \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \
www.ypay4it.com /mail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d \
Maildir 2>&1
JES
>I'm experiencing same problem. DNS is correct, I've turned off reverse
name
>server lookups, using tcpserver and not inetd.
>
>I would like to see some suggestions also.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Juan E Suris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 8:00 AM
>Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
>
>
>Everything seems to be alright in the DNS entries.
>Is there a way that I can trace or follow tcpserver's execution to see
>where it is getting stuck?
>
>JES
>
>Soffen, Matthew writes:
>
>> Check your DNS entries/server. Is all working properly there ?
>>
>> Matt Soffen
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Juan E Suris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 9:43 AM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d slowness
>> >
>> > S Ashok Kumar writes:
>> >
>> > > Juan E Suris wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > >At 10:40 PM -0500 2/24/00, Juan E Suris wrote:
>> > > > >>Hello All,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>Like a good qmail user, I changed qmail-pop3d from inetd to
>> > > > >>tcpserver, but now it's really slow. It takes about 10 secs to
>> > > > >>respond. Is this usual.
>> > > > >>Following are my start scripts.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>Thanks,
>> > > > >>JES
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>here's what my run script look like:
>> > > > >>/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/run
>> > > > >>#!/bin/sh
>> > > > >>VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
>> > > > >>VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
>> > > > >>exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
>> > > > >> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R -u $VUID -g $VGID 0 pop-3 \
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Turn off reverse lookups. Add a -H.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Didn't work. Same delay. BTW, I am having the same problem with
>> > qmail-smtpd
>> > > > (init script exactly like lwq with -H).
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > JES
>> > >
>> > > Stop running identd and see if the performance improves.
>> > >
>> > > - Ashok
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> >
>> > Didn't work.
>> > JES
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
>
>
>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 05:21:48PM -0500, Juan E Suris wrote:
> The -L option in fact did not work.
Which isn't surprising, since the -L option doesn't exist.
Chris
Woops! I discovered that before sending the message, but forgot to change
the code in the message. My script looks like this:
#!/bin/sh
VUID=`id -u vpopmail`
VGID=`id -g vpopmail`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -H -R -l www.ypay4it.com -u $VUID \
-g $VGID 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \
www.ypay4it.com /mail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d \
Maildir/ 2>&1
>On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 05:21:48PM -0500, Juan E Suris wrote:
>> The -L option in fact did not work.
>
>Which isn't surprising, since the -L option doesn't exist.
>
>Chris
>
Just for fun, why not put your money where your mouth is? I'll give
you $250 if you can write a program which 1) Exactly conforms to the
maildir protocol (including fsync()), and 2) runs 50 times faster than
safecat, in an independent benchmark using actual emails, and 3) runs
at least 20 times faster on a Linux machine with an ext2 filesystem
mounted async, like mine. Since this is such a lock for you, you can
dictate terms: what will you pay me after you fail?
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Considering your utterly inept approach to profiling, it certainly
> > appears you don't do it that often.
>
> Correct, professor. I prefer to write efficient code right from the
> start. What a novel concept!
The prosecution rests, your honor. We've heard from Dijkstra, Knuth,
and other expert witnesses. The defendent has confessed to the crime
of total boobery.
> > I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
> > within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
>
> And on other systems, it benchmarks at 1/50th the speed of
> efficiently-written code.
1. You benchmarked safecat? You saw somebody else's benchmarks? No. So
shut up.
2. I said ``/bin/cat''. You said, ``efficiently written code'', by which
you meant ``something I'm imagining right now in my head, which isn't
safecat, which I've never profiled. There's a profiler in my head!''
Beep! Thanks for playing; take your booby prize at the door. (I'm done
abusing the list with this off-topic thread.)
Len.
PS A speedup of 2 is nothing to sneeze at. It's closer to 3 on an unloaded
system; again nothing to sneeze at. I'll be rewriting safecat Real Soon
Now.
this is a public e-mail forum.
maybe you guys should take your private war private.
peace, gentlemen.
-----Original Message-----
From: Len Budney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Safecat challenge
Just for fun, why not put your money where your mouth is? I'll give
you $250 if you can write a program which 1) Exactly conforms to the
maildir protocol (including fsync()), and 2) runs 50 times faster than
safecat, in an independent benchmark using actual emails, and 3) runs
at least 20 times faster on a Linux machine with an ext2 filesystem
mounted async, like mine. Since this is such a lock for you, you can
dictate terms: what will you pay me after you fail?
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Considering your utterly inept approach to profiling, it certainly
> > appears you don't do it that often.
>
> Correct, professor. I prefer to write efficient code right from the
> start. What a novel concept!
The prosecution rests, your honor. We've heard from Dijkstra, Knuth,
and other expert witnesses. The defendent has confessed to the crime
of total boobery.
> > I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
> > within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
>
> And on other systems, it benchmarks at 1/50th the speed of
> efficiently-written code.
1. You benchmarked safecat? You saw somebody else's benchmarks? No. So
shut up.
2. I said ``/bin/cat''. You said, ``efficiently written code'', by which
you meant ``something I'm imagining right now in my head, which isn't
safecat, which I've never profiled. There's a profiler in my head!''
Beep! Thanks for playing; take your booby prize at the door. (I'm done
abusing the list with this off-topic thread.)
Len.
PS A speedup of 2 is nothing to sneeze at. It's closer to 3 on an unloaded
system; again nothing to sneeze at. I'll be rewriting safecat Real Soon
Now.
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Len Budney wrote:
> Just for fun, why not put your money where your mouth is? I'll give
> you $250 if you can write a program which 1) Exactly conforms to the
> maildir protocol (including fsync()), and 2) runs 50 times faster than
> safecat, in an independent benchmark using actual emails, and 3) runs
> at least 20 times faster on a Linux machine with an ext2 filesystem
> mounted async, like mine. Since this is such a lock for you, you can
> dictate terms: what will you pay me after you fail?
This reminds me of the "challenge" posed to Microsoft last year by, I
think, Novell. They bet Microsoft $1,000,000 if they can prove that the
Microsoft SQL server is at least 1/100th as fast as their own database
server. Of course, Microsoft did not take the bait, because their
crapware runs only 1/20th as slow, and Novell would have gladly paid
Microsoft a million dollars for the privilege of publicising that
Microsoft admits that their own software runs 1/20th as slow as their
competitors.
So, basically, you want to be paid $250 for the privilege of writing
inefficient code? Come up, 'fess up, do you work for Microsoft?
Well, let's REALLY see how inefficient your code is, for which you think
you deserve $250 dollars. I happen to have a stripped maildir delivery
agent, which has been out there for six months, as part of Courier-IMAP
and SqWebMail. It's a little bit more that just a maildir deliverer, it
also calculates the current quota on the maildir, and the latest version
also supports sharable maildir folders, which involves additional sanity
checking to make sure that script kiddies aren't putting junk like soft
links in a public maildir. But, even with, I estimate, four or five times
more overhead than a completely basic maildir deliverer, looky what
happens when the very message where you issue your <cough> "challenge"
gets put through the ringer:
[mrsam@ny safecat-1.1]$ cat t.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
int waitstat;
for (i=0; i<1000; i++)
if ( fork() == 0)
{
execv(argv[1], argv+1);
exit(0);
}
else
wait(&waitstat);
return (0);
}
[mrsam@ny safecat-1.1]$ time ./t ./safecat tt/tmp tt/new </tmp/msg1
[ snip ]
951500570.9689013621.ny.email-scan.com
951500570.0124413622.ny.email-scan.com
1.31user 2.03system 0:08.34elapsed 40%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (81074major+9017minor)pagefaults 0swaps
[mrsam@ny safecat-1.1]$ time ./t /usr/lib/courier-imap/libexec/deliverquota tt
</tmp/msg1 ""
1.14user 2.31system 0:03.44elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (86075major+12017minor)pagefaults 0swaps
So, even with me having four/five times of logical overhead (and I did
manually add the final fsync to my code), I'm still 2.5 times ahead of you
on a small message. Most of the overhead here, certainly, is the thousand
forks and execs. Then, if we move this into the enterpise setting, with
PHBs sending 10 MB powerpoint presentations, I wish you the best of luck
writing that one, a byte at a time, ba-hahaha. And, that is very much
real-life, real-world traffic that is common in many companies.
Whether you like it, or not, your basic algorithm, the one that you're so
proud of, is much more than 50 times as slow as properly-implemented
buffering algorithm.
> > > I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
> > > within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
> >
> > And on other systems, it benchmarks at 1/50th the speed of
> > efficiently-written code.
>
> 1. You benchmarked safecat? You saw somebody else's benchmarks? No. So
> shut up.
I benchmarked its logic.
I'm sorry to disappoint you with facts, but your code is very inefficient.
--
Sam
While I understand that this is a heated technical arguement well over my head
by miles, have you two considered the impression you are making on a
public list? I like a good debate as much as anyone else but this
is pretty much degenerating into a brawl. Cant you gentlemen take
outside at fifty paces or whatever?
Regards,
Henri J. Schlereth
actually it's quite interesting.
I 'specially liked the code and benchmarks.. it's interesting to see how
'real' programmers do it. (that didn't come out right...)
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, James Park wrote:
> this is a public e-mail forum.
>
> maybe you guys should take your private war private.
>
> peace, gentlemen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Len Budney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 11:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Safecat challenge
>
>
> Just for fun, why not put your money where your mouth is? I'll give
> you $250 if you can write a program which 1) Exactly conforms to the
> maildir protocol (including fsync()), and 2) runs 50 times faster than
> safecat, in an independent benchmark using actual emails, and 3) runs
> at least 20 times faster on a Linux machine with an ext2 filesystem
> mounted async, like mine. Since this is such a lock for you, you can
> dictate terms: what will you pay me after you fail?
>
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Considering your utterly inept approach to profiling, it certainly
> > > appears you don't do it that often.
> >
> > Correct, professor. I prefer to write efficient code right from the
> > start. What a novel concept!
>
> The prosecution rests, your honor. We've heard from Dijkstra, Knuth,
> and other expert witnesses. The defendent has confessed to the crime
> of total boobery.
>
> > > I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least, runs
> > > within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
> >
> > And on other systems, it benchmarks at 1/50th the speed of
> > efficiently-written code.
>
> 1. You benchmarked safecat? You saw somebody else's benchmarks? No. So
> shut up.
>
> 2. I said ``/bin/cat''. You said, ``efficiently written code'', by which
> you meant ``something I'm imagining right now in my head, which isn't
> safecat, which I've never profiled. There's a profiler in my head!''
>
> Beep! Thanks for playing; take your booby prize at the door. (I'm done
> abusing the list with this off-topic thread.)
>
> Len.
>
> PS A speedup of 2 is nothing to sneeze at. It's closer to 3 on an unloaded
> system; again nothing to sneeze at. I'll be rewriting safecat Real Soon
> Now.
>
>
minor corrections:
the whole "challenge" was a marketing ploy by oracle (not novell), aimed
at exercising some little used feature of both oracle and microsoft, but
a feature which oracle had spent a boatload of time optimizing solely
for this challenge. i don't recall the specifics of it, but it was
debunked by infoworld and other news agencies as well as microsoft.
i think oracle's "challenge" didn't restrict the hardware that could be
used either or even require it to be the same, so basically oracle was
allowed to run on a high-end sun and could use the results from that,
while microsoft had to run on wintel stuff. sorta like taking the state
champion high school football team and put them up against even the
lowly cleveland browns. the browns would eat them for breakfast in
their street clothes.
a very smart move by oracle - if microsoft refuses, well then obviously
they aren't as fast, and if they didn't, well, oracle is free to use
whatever numbers it can cook up in cahoots with sun and will blow msft
away no matter what they do.
however, this is all totally off-topic for the list and it's getting
really tiresome. please, take it to private mail, or set up a web page
where those of us with that kind of morbid fascination can follow along
with this challenge.
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri 25 Feb 2000 10:00
Subject: Re: Safecat challenge
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Len Budney wrote:
>
> > Just for fun, why not put your money where your mouth is? I'll give
> > you $250 if you can write a program which 1) Exactly conforms to the
> > maildir protocol (including fsync()), and 2) runs 50 times faster
than
> > safecat, in an independent benchmark using actual emails, and 3)
runs
> > at least 20 times faster on a Linux machine with an ext2 filesystem
> > mounted async, like mine. Since this is such a lock for you, you can
> > dictate terms: what will you pay me after you fail?
>
> This reminds me of the "challenge" posed to Microsoft last year by, I
> think, Novell. They bet Microsoft $1,000,000 if they can prove that
the
> Microsoft SQL server is at least 1/100th as fast as their own database
> server. Of course, Microsoft did not take the bait, because their
> crapware runs only 1/20th as slow, and Novell would have gladly paid
> Microsoft a million dollars for the privilege of publicising that
> Microsoft admits that their own software runs 1/20th as slow as their
> competitors.
>
> So, basically, you want to be paid $250 for the privilege of writing
> inefficient code? Come up, 'fess up, do you work for Microsoft?
>
> Well, let's REALLY see how inefficient your code is, for which you
think
> you deserve $250 dollars. I happen to have a stripped maildir
delivery
> agent, which has been out there for six months, as part of
Courier-IMAP
> and SqWebMail. It's a little bit more that just a maildir deliverer,
it
> also calculates the current quota on the maildir, and the latest
version
> also supports sharable maildir folders, which involves additional
sanity
> checking to make sure that script kiddies aren't putting junk like
soft
> links in a public maildir. But, even with, I estimate, four or five
times
> more overhead than a completely basic maildir deliverer, looky what
> happens when the very message where you issue your <cough> "challenge"
> gets put through the ringer:
>
> [mrsam@ny safecat-1.1]$ cat t.c
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> int i;
> int waitstat;
>
> for (i=0; i<1000; i++)
> if ( fork() == 0)
> {
> execv(argv[1], argv+1);
> exit(0);
> }
> else
> wait(&waitstat);
> return (0);
> }
> [mrsam@ny safecat-1.1]$ time ./t ./safecat tt/tmp tt/new </tmp/msg1
>
> [ snip ]
>
> 951500570.9689013621.ny.email-scan.com
> 951500570.0124413622.ny.email-scan.com
> 1.31user 2.03system 0:08.34elapsed 40%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (81074major+9017minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> [mrsam@ny safecat-1.1]$ time ./t
/usr/lib/courier-imap/libexec/deliverquota tt </tmp/msg1 ""
> 1.14user 2.31system 0:03.44elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (86075major+12017minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> So, even with me having four/five times of logical overhead (and I did
> manually add the final fsync to my code), I'm still 2.5 times ahead of
you
> on a small message. Most of the overhead here, certainly, is the
thousand
> forks and execs. Then, if we move this into the enterpise setting,
with
> PHBs sending 10 MB powerpoint presentations, I wish you the best of
luck
> writing that one, a byte at a time, ba-hahaha. And, that is very much
> real-life, real-world traffic that is common in many companies.
>
> Whether you like it, or not, your basic algorithm, the one that you're
so
> proud of, is much more than 50 times as slow as properly-implemented
> buffering algorithm.
>
> > > > I'll repeat, for the last time: safecat, on my system at least,
runs
> > > > within a factor of two of /bin/cat.
> > >
> > > And on other systems, it benchmarks at 1/50th the speed of
> > > efficiently-written code.
> >
> > 1. You benchmarked safecat? You saw somebody else's benchmarks? No.
So
> > shut up.
>
> I benchmarked its logic.
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you with facts, but your code is very
inefficient.
>
> --
> Sam
>
>
>
Is there a digest version?
Henri
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
"All data leaves a trail. The search for data leaves a trail.
The erasure of data leaves a trail.The absence of data, under
the right circumstances,can leave the clearest trail of all-
Dr. Kio Masada"
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 01:29:26AM +0200, Mikko H�nninen wrote:
> Or, 3) you use the latest version of procmail which supports maildirs
> natively. (I've yet to hear this confirmed working, but the version
> announcement said it supports them, so...)
Hi Mikko/Wizzu!
I got the latest version of procmail and it does work properly. Consider this
confirmation.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Thanks Fred!
I had -H and -R, but not -L. I put it in and it did the trick.
JES
Fred Lindberg writes:
> Read the tcpserver man page, expecially -hH/lL/-rR. Skipping the
> lookups saves lots of time. The auth/identd lookup times out
> after about 30s. That was a problem here, since clients didn't
> refuse the request, just ignored it. Disabling the check removed
> 30s from the pop3 delay.
>
> --Fred
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Get your free email, mailing list and website at http://www.Ypay4it.com
Hello, everyone:
Okay -- I know that this question has been asked before, and I know it's
been answered before, but I've sifted through all the the FAQs I could find,
heeded some of the advice, looked through the archives, and I'm no closer to
a clear answer or a solution.
The question:
How do I modify/configure qmail so that the messages I *receive* have the
appropriate time stamp on them? All my incoming mail appears in UTC.
I have checked my system clock. Hardware clock is in UTC, system timer shows
correct local time with offset.
I have switched from /var/qmail/bin/sendmail to /var/qmail/bin/datemail.
This has had no visible effect. Outgoing mail seemed to have the correct
timestamp on it before anyway -- or at least, the webmail client I was using
to test this feature was translating the timestamp in the header correctly.
I have implemented John Saunders patch, and this has had no effect either.
The problem persists.
[question: I ran "make setup check" after patching the source -- is that all
I have to do, or am I supposed to move any binaries?]
Of note is that if I am using Netscape Messenger to retrieve e-mail, it will
show the correct local time of receipt. If I use Outlook, it will not. I
want the time to appear correctly in either one. (I haven't been able to
find any place in Outlook where you can set how headers are interpreted.)
Your assistance is much appreciated. Even if somebody tells me "at present,
there is no way to resolve this problem" I'd be happy.
Thanks,
Stephen Bosch
Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How do I modify/configure qmail so that the messages I *receive* have the
> appropriate time stamp on them? All my incoming mail appears in UTC.
The messages do have the correct timestamp on them.
> Of note is that if I am using Netscape Messenger to retrieve e-mail, it will
> show the correct local time of receipt. If I use Outlook, it will not. I
> want the time to appear correctly in either one. (I haven't been able to
> find any place in Outlook where you can set how headers are interpreted.)
Outlook is broken, and Netscape is doing the right thing. Messages should
be timestamped in UTC -- the mail user agent is supposed to translate this
into whatever human-preferred form you want, be that a different time zone,
or even a different time convention (pre-Gregorian calendar, or metric time
perhaps).
So the question here isn't "why doesn't qmail do this", the question is
"why hasn't Microsoft fixed Outlook to display UTC times properly in local
time format?".
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
I am investigating a problem on our local lan. The problem seems to stem
from netscape sending RCPT TO: lines in the following manner:
RCPT TO: <'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
The qmail server responds:
Sorry, I couldn't find any host named flounder.net'. (#5.1.2)
I am pretty sure that Netscape is violating RFC 822 by sending single quotes
inside the brackets, but I can't find the specific part of the RFC that
specifies that only double quotes should be used.
If someone else knows the RFC better and can point me to the specific
section, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
--Adam
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:19:06PM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
> I am investigating a problem on our local lan. The problem seems to stem
> from netscape sending RCPT TO: lines in the following manner:
>
> RCPT TO: <'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
>
> The qmail server responds:
>
> Sorry, I couldn't find any host named flounder.net'. (#5.1.2)
>
> I am pretty sure that Netscape is violating RFC 822 by sending single quotes
> inside the brackets, but I can't find the specific part of the RFC that
> specifies that only double quotes should be used.
>
> If someone else knows the RFC better and can point me to the specific
> section, I'd appreciate it.
There is no mention of single quote whatsoever.
http://rfc822.x42.com/
Page 9, (section 3.3; LEXICAL TOKENS)
; ( Octal, Decimal.)
<"> = <ASCII quote mark> ; ( 42, 34.)
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
Adam McKenna writes:
> I am investigating a problem on our local lan. The problem seems to stem
> from netscape sending RCPT TO: lines in the following manner:
>
> RCPT TO: <'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
>
> The qmail server responds:
>
> Sorry, I couldn't find any host named flounder.net'. (#5.1.2)
>
> I am pretty sure that Netscape is violating RFC 822 by sending single quotes
> inside the brackets, but I can't find the specific part of the RFC that
> specifies that only double quotes should be used.
There's no mention of single quotes anywhere in RFC822, therefore they
should not be treated as anything special, so this is interpreted as an
address 'adam on host flounder.net', and, since flounder.net' is an
invalid domain address, the recipient is rejected.
Having said that, I've never seen Messenger act this way. Forget about
RFCs, something's screwy in Messenger.
On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:47:26AM +0000, Sam wrote:
>
> Adam McKenna writes:
>
> > I am investigating a problem on our local lan. The problem seems to stem
> > from netscape sending RCPT TO: lines in the following manner:
> >
> > RCPT TO: <'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
> >
> > The qmail server responds:
> >
> > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named flounder.net'. (#5.1.2)
> >
> > I am pretty sure that Netscape is violating RFC 822 by sending single quotes
> > inside the brackets, but I can't find the specific part of the RFC that
> > specifies that only double quotes should be used.
>
> There's no mention of single quotes anywhere in RFC822, therefore they
> should not be treated as anything special, so this is interpreted as an
> address 'adam on host flounder.net', and, since flounder.net' is an
> invalid domain address, the recipient is rejected.
>
> Having said that, I've never seen Messenger act this way. Forget about
> RFCs, something's screwy in Messenger.
I'm thinking it maybe was user error. I don't know though. If the guy asks
again why his mail is being rejected I'll tell him to delete those
addressbook entries and re-create them.
--Adam
I had this exact problem and in my case it was user error. When you copy and
paste an address, sometimes you can bring the quotes along.
JES
>On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 01:47:26AM +0000, Sam wrote:
>>
>> Adam McKenna writes:
>>
>> > I am investigating a problem on our local lan. The problem seems to
stem
>> > from netscape sending RCPT TO: lines in the following manner:
>> >
>> > RCPT TO: <'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'>
>> >
>> > The qmail server responds:
>> >
>> > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named flounder.net'. (#5.1.2)
>> >
>> > I am pretty sure that Netscape is violating RFC 822 by sending single
quotes
>> > inside the brackets, but I can't find the specific part of the RFC that
>> > specifies that only double quotes should be used.
>>
>> There's no mention of single quotes anywhere in RFC822, therefore they
>> should not be treated as anything special, so this is interpreted as an
>> address 'adam on host flounder.net', and, since flounder.net' is an
>> invalid domain address, the recipient is rejected.
>>
>> Having said that, I've never seen Messenger act this way. Forget about
>> RFCs, something's screwy in Messenger.
>
>I'm thinking it maybe was user error. I don't know though. If the guy
asks
>again why his mail is being rejected I'll tell him to delete those
>addressbook entries and re-create them.
>
>--Adam
>
Source: New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/25encryption.html
February 25, 2000
U.S. Lets Professor Put Encryption on Internet
By REUTERS
WASHINGTON -- The United States will allow a computer scientist to put
instructions for writing a powerful computer data-scrambling program on his
Web site, but his high-profile lawsuit challenging U.S. export restrictions
on encryption may continue, his lawyer said Thursday.
President Bill Clinton in January dramatically liberalized once-strict U.S.
export limits on encryption programs, which scramble information and render
it unreadable without a password or software "key." The changes recognized
that encryption, used in everything from Web browsing software to cellular
telephones, has become essential for securing electronic commerce and
global communications.
The move also followed a May 6, 1999 decision by a U.S. Appeals Court
panel that the old rules barring University of Illinois professor Daniel
Bernstein from posting instructions for his "Snuffle" program on the
Internet were an unconstitutional violation of the scientist's freedom of
speech.
In a private advisory letter sent last week, the U.S. Commerce Department
confirmed that the new encryption export policy permitted Bernstein to post
instructions, called source code, for his program on the Internet for all
to see. Any other computer programmer could easily compile the source code
into a functioning program.
"In light of the changes in licensing and review requirements for publicly
available source code, the new regulations do not interfere with his
planned activities as you have described them," the Commerce Department
letter said in response to a letter from Bernstein's lawyer.
Under the old rules, Bernstein had to obtain an export license for each
person who wanted to view his Web site from outside the United States -- an
impossible task given the Net's global reach.
But the new rules allow anyone to post encryption source code on the
Internet as long as they also send a copy to the government and do not
charge royalties for use of the code.
"We are still considering our options," said Cindy Cohn, Bernstein's
lawyer. Cohn said the Commerce Department letter failed to clear up some
questions about the new rules.
The department did make clear that a Web site which merely picked up code
posted by someone else, a practice known as mirroring, would not be held
responsible for following the export rules. And Bernstein or others would
not have to notify the government again each time they posted bug fixes or
updates.
Bernstein's lawsuit came about because under the old rules, a book
containing computer source code could be shipped out of the United States
without restriction but the same source code posted on the Internet or put
on a floppy disk could not be "exported" without a license.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year
decided two to one that the old rules violated the First Amendment by
restricting Bernstein's speech. But in January, the full court asked the
panel to reconsider the ruling in light of the new Clinton policy.
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------
> Source: New York Times
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/25encryption.html
> February 25, 2000
> U.S. Lets Professor Put Encryption on Internet
> By REUTERS
>
> WASHINGTON -- The United States will allow a computer scientist to put
> instructions for writing a powerful computer data-scrambling program on his
> Web site, but his high-profile lawsuit challenging U.S. export restrictions
> on encryption may continue, his lawyer said Thursday.
[SNIP]
> The move also followed a May 6, 1999 decision by a U.S. Appeals Court
> panel that the old rules barring University of Illinois professor Daniel
> Bernstein from posting instructions for his "Snuffle" program on the
> Internet were an unconstitutional violation of the scientist's freedom of
> speech.
Dan,
Can Snuffle be integrated into a qmail system and do you know when
you will be making the source for Snuffle available on qmail.org ?
Harley Silver
Pyx Networking
hsilver writes:
> Dan,
> Can Snuffle be integrated into a qmail system and do you know when
> you will be making the source for Snuffle available on qmail.org ?
I'm looking forward to seeing Dan's crypto code, but I expect Dan will
put it on his web site at http://cr.yp.to. I might put a copy on my
web site http://qmail.org if it's specific or useful to qmail.
--
-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.
Let's face it. We're not just fans of qmail, we're fans of djb. I think we need some
t-shirts printed. Let's see:
"I'm with djb"
or maybe
"Qmail is Qool"
or
"cr.yp.to"
Hmm. Maybe,
"UTC for me"
Or how about
Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
Back: "Send mail with qmail"
or
"cdb. cdb run. run, cdb, run."
Help me out here, guys.
Dave
On Friday, February 25, 2000 3:26 PM, hsilver [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> Source: New York Times
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/25encryption.html
>
> February 25, 2000
>
> U.S. Lets Professor Put Encryption on Internet
>
> By REUTERS
>
> WASHINGTON -- The United States will allow a computer scientist to put
...
> Or how about
>
> Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> Back: "Send mail with qmail"
ROTFL.
I'd buy that one.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:25:47PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> > Or how about
> >
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
> ROTFL.
>
> I'd buy that one.
Count me in too!
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 Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:16:05PM -0500, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> Let's face it. We're not just fans of qmail, we're fans of djb. I think we need some
>t-shirts printed. Let's see:
>
> "I'm with djb"
>
> "cr.yp.to"
>
> Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
i would (seriously) send someone a money order for any one of these.
jacob
So instead of talking about how we all want one, what needs to be done?
Will someplace like copyleft start printing these up if there is demand?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 4:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Encryption and t-shirts
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:16:05PM -0500, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> Let's face it. We're not just fans of qmail, we're fans of djb. I think we
need some t-shirts printed. Let's see:
>
> "I'm with djb"
>
> "cr.yp.to"
>
> Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
i would (seriously) send someone a money order for any one of these.
jacob
How about:
Front: "fsck sendmail"
Back: <qmail logo>
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 4:24 PM
To: Qmail List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Encryption and t-shirts
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:25:47PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> > Or how about
> >
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
> ROTFL.
>
> I'd buy that one.
Count me in too!
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 Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 03:26:27PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:16:05PM -0500, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> > Let's face it. We're not just fans of qmail, we're fans of djb. I think we need
>some t-shirts printed. Let's see:
> >
> > "I'm with djb"
> >
> > "cr.yp.to"
> >
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
> i would (seriously) send someone a money order for any one of these.
I don't like the 1st one, too little people would get it...
The 3rd one is _very_ good, I'll shell out $25 anytime for that one.
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++
At 04:30 PM 2/25/2000 -0500, Tim Hunter wrote or quoted:
>How about:
>
>Front: "fsck sendmail"
>Back: <qmail logo>
I prefer the previous...
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
It seems more humorous and creative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kai MacTane
System Administrator
Online Partners.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
house wizard /n./
A hacker occupying a technical-specialist, R&D, or systems position
at a commercial shop. A really effective house wizard can have influ-
ence out of all proportion to his/her ostensible rank and still not
have to wear a suit.
I think we can put one together in the next couple weeks.
We've talked about it at Inter7 and thought it was a good idea.
Some artist friends of ours can probably come up with
something cool looking.
If people have any design ideas please send them my way.
If we can get it together, I'll post to the list.
Ken Jones
www.inter7.com
Chad Day wrote:
>
> So instead of talking about how we all want one, what needs to be done?
> Will someplace like copyleft start printing these up if there is demand?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 4:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Encryption and t-shirts
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:16:05PM -0500, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> > Let's face it. We're not just fans of qmail, we're fans of djb. I think we
> need some t-shirts printed. Let's see:
> >
> > "I'm with djb"
> >
> > "cr.yp.to"
> >
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
> >
>
> i would (seriously) send someone a money order for any one of these.
>
> jacob
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:16:05PM -0500, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> Let's face it. We're not just fans of qmail, we're fans of djb. I think we need some
>t-shirts printed. Let's see:
Brilliant though his software may be, his licensing forever dooms it to
obscurity. :( What I wouldn't give for a plain GPL'd qmail with no other
restrictions, exceptions, or strings attached.
> Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> Back: "Send mail with qmail"
I'd buy one.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
I'd buy one, too.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Reliability means never
_/ _/ _/ having to say you're sorry."
_/ _/_/_/ -- D. J. Bernstein
_/ _/ _/ _/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
Greg Owen wrote:
>
> > Or how about
> >
> > Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> > Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
> ROTFL.
>
> I'd buy that one.
If someone else can do the art I can get them printed
___________________________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> Back: "Send mail with qmail"
All I need to know is where to send a money order. ;-)
--
Edward S. Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
Hello Dave
On 25-Feb-00, you wrote:
>
> Front: "Don't queue mail with sendmail"
> Back: "Send mail with qmail"
>
That ones great.
You going to put that in the public domain so people can reproduce it ?
Regards...Martin
--
---------------
A man of genius makes no mistakes. His errors are volitional
and are the portals of discovery.
-- James Joyce, "Ulysses"
I am trying to switch to set up virtual domains via vpopmail.
In my startup script i have:
env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
tcpserver -uvpopmail_uid -gvpopmail_gid 0 pop-3 \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup daylightfading.org \
/home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
I installed vpopmail, ran bin/vadddomain daylightfading.org
ran bin/vadduser mordac (password)
Sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tried to check the mail via outlook express but couldn't. what should the
login to check the email be? I was under the assumption that it was
domainname-username so it would be daylightfading-mordac. But this doesn't
work. In maillog it says:
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.486755 new msg 40216
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.487131 info msg 40216: bytes 860
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3751 uid 505
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491353 starting delivery 69: msg
40216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491477 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510021 delivery 69: success:
did_0+0+1/
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510290 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510999 end msg 40216
Feb 25 16:11:27 damacles vpopmail[3756]: vchkpw: No user found
[daylightfading-mordac@] from 169.233.15.76
The trailing @ also confuses me. Doesn't look like it should be there. can
it mean that the login to get email using the vpopmail system is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , instead of just
'daylightfading-mordac'?
When I use the username [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail-pop3d authenticates correctly, and checks for mail, but doesn't find
the mail that was sent to the account, and doesn't log anything in my
maillog, so I don't know what is really happening there.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks,
Eric
Eric Lalonde wrote:
>
> I am trying to switch to set up virtual domains via vpopmail.
> In my startup script i have:
> env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
> tcpserver -uvpopmail_uid -gvpopmail_gid 0 pop-3 \
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup daylightfading.org \
> /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
>
> I installed vpopmail, ran bin/vadddomain daylightfading.org
> ran bin/vadduser mordac (password)
> Sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tried to check the mail via outlook express but couldn't. what should the
> login to check the email be? I was under the assumption that it was
> domainname-username so it would be daylightfading-mordac. But this doesn't
> work. In maillog it says:
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.486755 new msg 40216
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.487131 info msg 40216: bytes 860
> from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3751 uid 505
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491353 starting delivery 69: msg
> 40216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491477 status: local 1/10 remote
> 0/20
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510021 delivery 69: success:
> did_0+0+1/
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510290 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510999 end msg 40216
> Feb 25 16:11:27 damacles vpopmail[3756]: vchkpw: No user found
> [daylightfading-mordac@] from 169.233.15.76
>
> The trailing @ also confuses me. Doesn't look like it should be there. can
> it mean that the login to get email using the vpopmail system is
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] , instead of just
> 'daylightfading-mordac'?
>
> When I use the username [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> qmail-pop3d authenticates correctly, and checks for mail, but doesn't find
> the mail that was sent to the account, and doesn't log anything in my
> maillog, so I don't know what is really happening there.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
> Thanks,
>
> Eric
POP wasn't built to understand virtual domains. vpopmail gets around
that by having the pop user name include the domain name.
For example: mordac%daylightfading.org as the pop user name
try that
Ken Jones
Is that a typo. I thought it was:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve B.
----- Original Message -----
From: iv0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Eric Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d and vchckpasswd
> Eric Lalonde wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to switch to set up virtual domains via vpopmail.
> > In my startup script i have:
> > env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
> > tcpserver -uvpopmail_uid -gvpopmail_gid 0 pop-3 \
> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup daylightfading.org \
> > /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
> >
> > I installed vpopmail, ran bin/vadddomain daylightfading.org
> > ran bin/vadduser mordac (password)
> > Sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Tried to check the mail via outlook express but couldn't. what should
the
> > login to check the email be? I was under the assumption that it was
> > domainname-username so it would be daylightfading-mordac. But this
doesn't
> > work. In maillog it says:
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.486755 new msg 40216
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.487131 info msg 40216: bytes
860
> > from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3751 uid 505
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491353 starting delivery 69:
msg
> > 40216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491477 status: local 1/10
remote
> > 0/20
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510021 delivery 69: success:
> > did_0+0+1/
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510290 status: local 0/10
remote
> > 0/20
> > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510999 end msg 40216
> > Feb 25 16:11:27 damacles vpopmail[3756]: vchkpw: No user found
> > [daylightfading-mordac@] from 169.233.15.76
> >
> > The trailing @ also confuses me. Doesn't look like it should be there.
can
> > it mean that the login to get email using the vpopmail system is
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] , instead of just
> > 'daylightfading-mordac'?
> >
> > When I use the username [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > qmail-pop3d authenticates correctly, and checks for mail, but doesn't
find
> > the mail that was sent to the account, and doesn't log anything in my
> > maillog, so I don't know what is really happening there.
> >
> > What am I doing wrong?
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Eric
>
> POP wasn't built to understand virtual domains. vpopmail gets around
> that by having the pop user name include the domain name.
>
> For example: mordac%daylightfading.org as the pop user name
> try that
>
> Ken Jones
>
Steve Belt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> iv0 wrote:
>
> > POP wasn't built to understand virtual domains. vpopmail gets around
> > that by having the pop user name include the domain name.
> >
> > For example: mordac%daylightfading.org as the pop user name
> > try that
> Is that a typo. I thought it was:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No typo. Many POP clients strip everything after the (wrongly) first or
(slightly less wrongly) last @ sign before sending it to the POP server,
assuming you only want to send the username and not the domain. Many
virtual domain POP servers get around this by letting you substitute another
symbol (commonly %, #, $, etc) for the @.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
No, the @ sign is normally stripped out by email clients.
Hence we fool the email client by using the % sign.
Ken
Steve Belt wrote:
>
> Is that a typo. I thought it was:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Steve B.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: iv0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Eric Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: qmail-pop3d and vchckpasswd
>
> > Eric Lalonde wrote:
> > >
> > > I am trying to switch to set up virtual domains via vpopmail.
> > > In my startup script i have:
> > > env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
> > > tcpserver -uvpopmail_uid -gvpopmail_gid 0 pop-3 \
> > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup daylightfading.org \
> > > /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
> > >
> > > I installed vpopmail, ran bin/vadddomain daylightfading.org
> > > ran bin/vadduser mordac (password)
> > > Sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Tried to check the mail via outlook express but couldn't. what should
> the
> > > login to check the email be? I was under the assumption that it was
> > > domainname-username so it would be daylightfading-mordac. But this
> doesn't
> > > work. In maillog it says:
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.486755 new msg 40216
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.487131 info msg 40216: bytes
> 860
> > > from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3751 uid 505
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491353 starting delivery 69:
> msg
> > > 40216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.491477 status: local 1/10
> remote
> > > 0/20
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510021 delivery 69: success:
> > > did_0+0+1/
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510290 status: local 0/10
> remote
> > > 0/20
> > > Feb 25 16:10:15 damacles qmail: 951513015.510999 end msg 40216
> > > Feb 25 16:11:27 damacles vpopmail[3756]: vchkpw: No user found
> > > [daylightfading-mordac@] from 169.233.15.76
> > >
> > > The trailing @ also confuses me. Doesn't look like it should be there.
> can
> > > it mean that the login to get email using the vpopmail system is
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] , instead of just
> > > 'daylightfading-mordac'?
> > >
> > > When I use the username [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > qmail-pop3d authenticates correctly, and checks for mail, but doesn't
> find
> > > the mail that was sent to the account, and doesn't log anything in my
> > > maillog, so I don't know what is really happening there.
> > >
> > > What am I doing wrong?
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Eric
> >
> > POP wasn't built to understand virtual domains. vpopmail gets around
> > that by having the pop user name include the domain name.
> >
> > For example: mordac%daylightfading.org as the pop user name
> > try that
> >
> > Ken Jones
> >
Hi,
I just finished installing qmail on my Linux box. I would like to replace
our NT mail server with qmail running on Linux. There are no local users on
this Linux box so everyone will get their e-mail using POP3.
I have a few beginner's questions for you.
I am reading the FAQ on how to setup a "POP Toaster" and I am a little
confused.
Could someone explain to me the purpose of the checkpassword utility.
Is it to maintain the list of authorized people without creating user
account on Linux? Can I do without it?
Also is there a more detailed document on how to setup qmail-pop3d.
Thanks.
Stephen Remillard
I cruised the archives for this problem and the consensus seemed to be that
there was no solution. My mailing lists are swamping the upstream on my DSL
connection. I have a machine at work that I want to offload the queueing onto
via QMQP. As I understand it my qmail-qmqpc uploads a copy of the message and
a list of recipients to the qmqpd machine and that machine does the remote
deliveries. This should save me quite a bit of bandwidth. However, I still
need to be able to do local deliveries. Currently it looks like my local mail
is getting bounced back and forth forever without ever getting delivered.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Unix had startmenus and taskbars before Microsoft even had a decent memory
manager for DOS.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:18:41PM -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I cruised the archives for this problem and the consensus seemed to be that
> there was no solution. My mailing lists are swamping the upstream on my DSL
> connection. I have a machine at work that I want to offload the queueing onto
> via QMQP. As I understand it my qmail-qmqpc uploads a copy of the message and
> a list of recipients to the qmqpd machine and that machine does the remote
> deliveries. This should save me quite a bit of bandwidth. However, I still
> need to be able to do local deliveries. Currently it looks like my local mail
> is getting bounced back and forth forever without ever getting delivered.
You may want to try the QMAILQUEUE patch available from qmail.org.
Set 'QMAILQUEUE=bin/qmail-queue' for local deliveries, if you inject
your list messages, set 'QMAILQUEUE=bin/qmail-qmqpc'.
Lars
I just would like to find out the highest value anyone has set
concurrencyremote conf file?
Any impact on system performance as it gets higher?
Thanks.
Andrew De Chavez
Strange question, got Qmail all up and running, and can't seem to get the
silly thing to send mail out to the rest of the Internet. I can send mail
to the server, send mail from one user to another, but nothing outside.
I'm running tcpserver, vpopmail, and qmailadmin on a Mandrake Linux 7.0
machine. Would like to be able to dump sendmail (REALLY BAD!!! <G>) but
if I can't get this resolved before tomorrow when the boss reviews
it......... <G>
TIA
Michael
On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 09:47:55PM -0700, Michael Anderson wrote:
> Strange question, got Qmail all up and running, and can't seem to get the
> silly thing to send mail out to the rest of the Internet. I can send mail to
> the server, send mail from one user to another, but nothing outside.
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html
Chris
Hi,
Is there any way of building Access Control list for users for POP3D on a system
running Qmail ? . I want some users to access their mails using POP3, but also
want some others cant access ?
Sincerely.
balci.
