qmail Digest 26 May 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1013
Topics (messages 42325 through 42358):
problems installing qmail
42325 by: yair linux
42331 by: mark
Re: securing pop3 sessions
42326 by: Magnus Bodin
42336 by: Jonathan Fortin
42338 by: Peter Bieringer
42345 by: esl
42351 by: Louis Theran
42352 by: Bro. Len Budney
42357 by: rino.darklord.dyndns.org
Re: pop3
42327 by: Magnus Bodin
42339 by: Adam McKenna
42344 by: Alex Shipp
42348 by: Claus F�rber
42349 by: Rogerio Brito
Re: pop3 (embedded UUDECODE)
42328 by: Alex Shipp
42334 by: Magnus Bodin
imap + ssl
42329 by: Julien Marguet
42332 by: Julien Marguet
42333 by: Christian Wiese
Qmail on a firewall (contd...)
42330 by: Rajkumar S.
42335 by: Chris Johnson
tcpserver/identd
42337 by: Aaron Goldblatt
Re: Qpopper 2.53 remote problem, user can gain gid=mail (fwd)
42340 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
Hmmm. TLS patch on qmail.org
42341 by: Magnus Naeslund
42343 by: Magnus Bodin
42346 by: A.L.
Re: messages sent to msglog??
42342 by: Peter Bieringer
relevance of RFC 822bis
42347 by: Jim Breton
How to stop UUCP?
42350 by: Kristina
42354 by: Magnus Bodin
Mail Bouncing
42353 by: System Administrator
42355 by: Magnus Bodin
No SMTP
42356 by: rino.darklord.dyndns.org
550 User not local
42358 by: Col Wilson
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
I'm installing Qmail 1.03 on Red Hat 6.0
I was told to put: csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &' in my boot script.
Where is the exact place to put this command ?
I'm afraid all what I tried failed - qmail doesn't start when the system
is going up.
Thanks.
Hi,
Have a look in /etc/rc.d/init.d/. Here is where all your startup scripts are
housed. In that directory you must create a script (with the correct
permissions etc....) called qmail or something to that effect.
Clue : Have a look at some other scripts there to get an idea. I used ssh
and changed it to start qmail.
Once you have created the file enter the following:
chkconfig --add qmail
chkconfig --level qmail 5 on
chkconfig --level qmail 3 on
If the script is setup correcetly you should be able to enter the following
:
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start (which will start qmail)
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop (which will stop qmail)
If you are still struggling then mail me back.
I'll send you a copy of my start script and also give you more detailed
instructions on how to enter the script in its different run levels.
Cheers
Mark
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:39:32AM -0400, llu wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I'm using qmail 1.0.3 with the included qmail-pop3d.
> >
> > What's the best way on the server side to prevent passwords from being
> > sent as clear text over the network for a pop3 session? I know users
> > will be reluctant to change their mua's. So what can I do on my side?
> > Is there any way around this without expecting anything from the pop
> > users?
> I use stunnel which doesn't require changes on qmail.
> Check this: http://security.fi.infn.it/tools/stunnel/index-en.html.
>
> I can share my configuration to anyone interested.
>
Please do. That's how we keep this community alive!
/magnus
|
Using stunnel, you can add SSL dynamicly to your
pop3 server...
Just make sure you got an SSL capable
mua.
|
At 23:03 24.05.2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Len Budney writes:
>Doesn't anybody implement APOP??
Qualcomm's Eudora since long time ago, i.e. 3.06 (freeware), also 4.x
Peter
Magnus Bodin wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:39:32AM -0400, llu wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm using qmail 1.0.3 with the included qmail-pop3d.
> > >
> > > What's the best way on the server side to prevent passwords from being
> > > sent as clear text over the network for a pop3 session? I know users
> > > will be reluctant to change their mua's. So what can I do on my side?
> > > Is there any way around this without expecting anything from the pop
> > > users?
> > I use stunnel which doesn't require changes on qmail.
> > Check this: http://security.fi.infn.it/tools/stunnel/index-en.html.
> >
> > I can share my configuration to anyone interested.
> >
>
> Please do. That's how we keep this community alive!
I'll post it to this list when I get home late tonight.
LLU
>
> /magnus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Len Budney) writes:
> "Louis Theran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ using SSH forwarding to tunnel POP3 ]
> That's a dandy idea. However, once you do that it's not POP3 anymore.
Nonsense. What exactly would you call the protocol running inside the
tunnel if not POP3?
^L
"Louis Theran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Len Budney) writes:
> [ using SSH forwarding to tunnel POP3 ]
> > That's a dandy idea. However, once you do that it's not POP3 anymore.
>
> Nonsense. What exactly would you call the protocol running inside the
> tunnel if not POP3?
Um, the protocol INSIDE the tunnel is POP3. But the protocol YOU MENTIONED
is POP3+SSH. In particular, it cannot be implemented using standard POP3
clients from machines which don't have SSH installed. Which, please note,
is what the original poster asked for.
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #30:
Let a large corporation pay you big bucks to tattoo their company logo
on your bald spot.
Just my 2cents, I'm fetching emails via "fecthmail" thru SSH so yes you
need OpenSSH installed in client and server side to have a secure channel.
HTH
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:30:44PM -0400, Bro. Len Budney wrote:
> "Louis Theran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Len Budney) writes:
> > [ using SSH forwarding to tunnel POP3 ]
> > > That's a dandy idea. However, once you do that it's not POP3 anymore.
> >
> > Nonsense. What exactly would you call the protocol running inside the
> > tunnel if not POP3?
>
> Um, the protocol INSIDE the tunnel is POP3. But the protocol YOU MENTIONED
> is POP3+SSH. In particular, it cannot be implemented using standard POP3
> clients from machines which don't have SSH installed. Which, please note,
> is what the original poster asked for.
>
> Len.
>
> --
> Frugal Tip #30:
> Let a large corporation pay you big bucks to tattoo their company logo
> on your bald spot.
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:54:13AM +0200, Christer Matson wrote:
> You have the following attached to your message:
>
> > --
> > begin 666 LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
> > Ich bin ein Signaturvirus. Verbreite mich!
> > end
> > http://www.faerber.muc.de/
> >
>
> As you can see from the below copy of your message, the file
> LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs gets decoded by my MUA on receipt. This file has
> the same name as a well known virus.
If that's what happening with your MUA, then it's just that your MUA is
falling for the hoax.
I trust a more MIME-compliant mailreader.
/magnus
--
Attachment Converted: "c:\pagefile.sys"
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 09:03:37AM +0100, Alex Shipp wrote:
> >I didn't send any attachments.
> >
> >Claus
>
> Beg to differ
>
> Your emails contain the following:
>
> > begin 666 LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
> > Ich bin ein Signaturvirus. Verbreite mich!
> > end
> > http://www.faerber.muc.de/
That's called a signature or .sig for short.
--Adam
>>
>> Beg to differ
>>
>> Your emails contain the following:
>>
>> > begin 666 LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
>> > Ich bin ein Signaturvirus. Verbreite mich!
>> > end
>> > http://www.faerber.muc.de/
>
>That's called a signature or .sig for short.
Your point is?
_______________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
Alex Shipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Your emails contain the following:
>> begin 666 LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
>> Ich bin ein Signaturvirus. Verbreite mich!
>> end
>> http://www.faerber.muc.de/
> The 'begin' looks exactly like the start of a uuencoded file.
> Are you including this in your emails deliberately, or did
> you not know you were doing this
That's a signature, not an attachment. If your MUA automatically tries
to treat what is labelled as arbitrary text as anything else then
arbitrary text, it's broken.
Claus
--
begin 666 LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
I'm a signature virus. Copy me!
end
http://www.faerber.muc.de
On May 25 2000, Alex Shipp wrote:
>
> >> Beg to differ
> >>
> >> Your emails contain the following:
> >>
> >> > begin 666 LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs
> >> > Ich bin ein Signaturvirus. Verbreite mich!
> >> > end
> >> > http://www.faerber.muc.de/
> >
> >That's called a signature or .sig for short.
>
> Your point is?
His point is that that signature is just intended as a joke to
see which programs will fall on the trap thinking that it is
an attachment with a virus. Your program probably thought it
was.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>If that's what happening with your MUA, then it's just that your MUA is
>falling for the hoax.
>
>I trust a more MIME-compliant mailreader.
Is this a MIME issue? If so, can anyone point me to the RFC describing
how to handle UUENCODE embedded within a MIME message.
_______________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 11:44:29AM +0100, Alex Shipp wrote:
> >If that's what happening with your MUA, then it's just that your MUA is
> >falling for the hoax.
> >
> >I trust a more MIME-compliant mailreader.
>
> Is this a MIME issue? If so, can anyone point me to the RFC describing
> how to handle UUENCODE embedded within a MIME message.
No it's not. It's more of someone complaining about normal mail text content
misinterpreted as it was something different.
(As I also illustrated, wagely with my eudora-bug-reference in my .sig :-)
The signature is and has never been uuencoded, and should therefore not be
interpreted as such.
I can show examples of how webbrowser implementations also show this form of
self-applied decision making, but not in this forum.
/magnus
______________________________________________________
Bo�te aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
Hi all
I try to install ssl on a mail-server that I just have
installed for an hospital
I use qmail 1.03, and imap (courier-imap 0.32 from
inter7.com).
I use this link to install ssl:
http://security.fi.infn.it/tools/stunnel/index-en.html
but it doesn't work.
when I use the script imap.rc from courier-imap the
connection with an (Outlook) client= OK. (without ssl)
when I use the script imap-ssl.rc from courier-imap there
is no connection with the client : it say no server
securise.
ssl doesn't work.
What files do I see or change ?
_______________________________________________________
Vendez tout... aux ench�res - http://www.caraplazza.com
Hi Julien,
I would suggest that the problem is not at the qmail-imap site, but
rather on the client (Outlook) site.
I don't know much about Outlook and I don't like it, but I think Outlook
can't handle SSL connections.
Please try to find some informations about Outlook and it's
possibilities regarding SSL connections to IMAP servers.
greetings
christian
Julien Marguet schrieb:
> Hi all
> I try to install ssl on a mail-server that I just have
> installed for an hospital
>
> I use qmail 1.03, and imap (courier-imap 0.32 from
> inter7.com).
>
> I use this link to install ssl:
> http://security.fi.infn.it/tools/stunnel/index-en.html
> but it doesn't work.
>
> when I use the script imap.rc from courier-imap the
> connection with an (Outlook) client= OK. (without ssl)
>
> when I use the script imap-ssl.rc from courier-imap there
> is no connection with the client : it say no server
> securise.
>
> ssl doesn't work.
> What files do I see or change ?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Vendez tout... aux ench�res - http://www.caraplazza.com
hello all,
i have discussed my mail setup in my previous mails with the same subject.
Now i have my incoming and outgoing mails working. this is the complete
envelope of a mail send from my mail box to flashmail and reterived using
fetchmail.
my requiremet is that is there any means where by i can prevent the
headers containing the name/ip of my internal machine, the precise line i
want to remove is
Received: from unknown (HELO linux.indsoft.com) (192.168.1.1)
by 203.129.250.50 with SMTP; 25 May 2000 11:24:16 -0000
linux.indsoft.com is the name we use only internaly. and i do not want
that to show up on any mail that is being send from here
and yes this info is here also :-)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
raj
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 25 16:57:05 2000
Received: from mail.flashmail.com
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for raj@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 25 May 2000 16:57:05 +0530
(IST)
Received: from beta.indsoft.co.in ([203.129.250.50]) by flashmail.com ;
Thu, 25
May 2000 04:33:44 -0700
Received: (qmail 8994 invoked from network); 25 May 2000 11:24:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO linux.indsoft.com) (192.168.1.1)
by 203.129.250.50 with SMTP; 25 May 2000 11:24:16 -0000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:55:20 +0530 (IST)
From: "RajKumar S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: out mail
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Rcpt-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-UIDL: 959254477.35326
Status: RO
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 962
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 05:07:20PM +0530, Rajkumar S. wrote:
> i have discussed my mail setup in my previous mails with the same subject.
> Now i have my incoming and outgoing mails working. this is the complete
> envelope of a mail send from my mail box to flashmail and reterived using
> fetchmail.
>
> my requiremet is that is there any means where by i can prevent the
> headers containing the name/ip of my internal machine, the precise line i
> want to remove is
>
> Received: from unknown (HELO linux.indsoft.com) (192.168.1.1)
> by 203.129.250.50 with SMTP; 25 May 2000 11:24:16 -0000
>
> linux.indsoft.com is the name we use only internaly. and i do not want
> that to show up on any mail that is being send from here
If you're using tcpserver, try using this in your rules file:
192.168.1.1:allow,TCPREMOTEIP="unknown",TCPREMOTEHOST="unknown",RELAYCLIENT=""
This will manually set TCPREMOTEIP and TCPREMOTEHOST to "unknown" for
connections from 192.168.1.1, and that's what will appear in the headers.
Chris
A simple conceptual question, really, but I'm unable to resolve by looking
at the archives.
I've set up tcpserver driving oidentd, like this:
tcpserver -R 0 113 /usr/local/sbin/oidentd -i -u 99 -g 9 &
This runs tcpserver as root, and then on connect calls oidentd which
switches to UID99/GID9 (nobody/kmem). The connections look good and the
users on my system who are addicted to IRC are happy.
However, just on the paranoid side of things, I'd prefer if I could get
tcpserver to run as nobody, like this or this:
tcpserver -R -u99 -g9 0 113 /usr/local/sbin/oidentd -i &
tcpserver -R -u99 -g9 0 113 /usr/local/sbin/oidentd -i -u 99 -g 9 &
In theory I guess this should be possible; qmail-d runs this way. But what
happens is the TCP connection closes immediately, like this:
wndrgrl:/etc/rc.d# telnet localhost 113
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
Connection closed by foreign host.
Is this an oidentd issue, a problem with the hand-off from tcpserver to
oidentd, or is it actually supposed to run the first way and I'm just
kissing up the wrong tree?
Thanks in advance.
ag
On Thu, 25 May 2000, listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski wrote:
>There is realy no point in using qpopper. I have used it in isp enviroment
>and i can say that it sucks.
>It doesn't do any mailbox locking, it just copies the whole thing to temp
>dir back and forth. this kills the performace. (id 3.x better?).
Qpopper works fine for us, there is also a server-mode directive to change
this default behavior to be more like a regular pop server, it will NOT
copy the file and cause chunking on the HD.
>You have a broad choice:
>
>a) qmail-pop3d - maildir only, lightweight, good
maildir only, one downside....
>b) cucipop - this is what i use at the moment, mailbox only, fast, small
no longer supported, as has been mentioned, the last "version" was circa
1998.
>c) popa3d - by solar designer - small, fast, compatible, mailbox only
i have no experience with this.
>d) solid pop3d - quality from Poland - like the above but with more
>features, maildir & mailbox
I have no experience with the above either.
--
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
12:25pm up 14 days, 17:51, 4 users, load average: 0.04, 0.08, 0.06
I had a fully working qmail system, but thought that the TLS patch on
qmail.org would be really nice to have.
Once i applied the patch my qmail-remote started to crash.
As soon as i reversed the patch, it worked as usual.
Have anyone else experienced this?
Cheers
Magnus Naeslund
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 08:17:16PM +0200, Magnus Naeslund wrote:
> I had a fully working qmail system, but thought that the TLS patch on
> qmail.org would be really nice to have.
> Once i applied the patch my qmail-remote started to crash.
> As soon as i reversed the patch, it worked as usual.
>
> Have anyone else experienced this?
Have you any more info?
Did you tried enabled extra DEBUG-info?
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
Attachment Converted: "c:\pagefile.sys"
> I had a fully working qmail system, but thought that the TLS patch on
> qmail.org would be really nice to have. Once i applied the patch my
> qmail-remote started to crash. As soon as i reversed the patch, it
> worked as usual.
>
> Have anyone else experienced this?
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Naeslund
Never had any such problems myself (Linux-x86), although I did
have some rather fubar behavior on Linux-alpha (except my problems seemed
to be qmail-smtpd related). Anyway, I don't have any real suggestions,
just my 2 cents to say that "it works for me." :)
--
A.L.Lambert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If what they've been doing hasn't solved the problem, tell them to do
something else.
-- Gerald Weinberg, "The Secrets of Consulting"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
At 07:27 27.04.2000 -0400, Peter Green wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:29:28AM +0530, Madhav wrote:
>> hi,
>> i use a RH 6.1 and i have installed qmail in one machine using rpms from
>> "bruceg-qmail+patches"
>> and it is working fine. but when i send mails i see a delivery made to
>> msglog (also i am unable to find where this is stored) i don't want to keep
>> a copy of the mails sent. so how do i disable it.
>
>It is disabled by default. The "delivery" you are seeing is (basically)
>merely a formality. Look at the file /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-msglog; if it
>only has comments, then messages bound for msglog@wherever are going right
>into the bit bucket. The original recipient still gets it, though.
Same "problem".
Just for cosmetic, how can I disable this feature of "msglog"?
If I removed the file .qmail-msglog, I got following logs:
@40000000392d792218171b4c starting delivery 7: msg 58541 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@40000000392d7922189b108c starting delivery 8: msg 58541 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@40000000392d79222473cf5c delivery 7: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
I found a hint in qmail source extra.h:
#ifndef EXTRA_H
#define EXTRA_H
#define QUEUE_EXTRA "Tmsglog\0"
#define QUEUE_EXTRALEN 8
#endif
This defines are used in qmail-queue.c
qmail-queue.c: if (substdio_bput(&ssout,QUEUE_EXTRA,QUEUE_EXTRALEN) == -1)
die_write();
Can I simply remove this line or the inclusion of "extra.h" to disable this
feature?
TIA,
Peter
Hi, first of all, sorry for the length of this message. I also apologize for
bringing this up so soon since the last time it hit this list. :P
Anyway, can anyone tell me whether this RFC draft actually has any
importance?
Reason I ask: I am in the middle of a small feud/disagreement with a
certain software company which claims that it is legal to send a bare LF
at the end of the line. My impression is that it is not legal, and have
seen the document at which qmail points when this is attempted.
However, I was not able to find through several 'net searches whether
822bis is really relevant. Iow, is it something with which mailers
should be complying now, or is it still some proposal to which mailers
need not yet comply?
Their program is sending a mail message with a bare LF and they
are saying it is a problem with qmail, and that a bare LF-terminated
line is perfectly legal according to RFC 822 -- which is why I wonder
whether the newer 822bis is now authoritative.
I don't want to mention the product here because a) it's not really
important for this purpose, and b) I am personally involved with the
company and don't want to appear to have any animosity, I just think
they are wrong. :)
FYI here is (paraphrased) part of their claim:
"The message ends with 0D0A2E0D0A which follows the RFC. Anything prior
to that is message data and should be allowed by the receiving SMTP
service.
What if I were sending an attachment meant to be displayed on a
machine that used just a LF? They are saying that I would not be able
to send that document via their email server?"
I've read all the list archives I could find on ORNL about this topic
and am considerably more well-informed about this now, but there seems
to be a "pigheadedness" thing going on. I wrote a retort to them
yesterday and received this response:
**********
I did an analysis on the data sent by the customer. I looked at the packet
prior to error message from the receiving MTA. The only instance of a bare
line feed in the entire packet is at the end of the message where you have
0A 0D 0A 2E 0D 0A. So yes, there is a bare line feed. Yes the message data
is terminated by 0D 0A 2E 0D 0A. Yes, we do follow the RFC. I don't think
this statement is at all ambiguous:
"The mail data may contain any of the 128 ASCII character codes".
I am not saying we won't modify the program ever but from a support
standpoint at this point in time <product> functions in accordance with the
current RFC. In reality we probably meant to include 0D 0A and this will be
addressed soon.
[rant]
You should also look at it from the standpoint that we cannot possibly make
a change every time an RFC reaches draft status. There are draft RFC's that
have taken years to be adopted. I would find it really hard to believe that
anyone would allow a specification to state that you cannot have a 0A appear
within the body of the message. You have to remember that encoded
attachments are really part of a message during the SMTP conversation. What
if I was including a code snippet in the body of my message that included a
bare linefeed. If your program can't handle that then its just lazy
programming.
[/rant]
**********
So they essentially are saying "Since it's not an official RFC yet, we are not
obligated to comply with it." From what I have read from the archives, I
am still not clear on "why" it is important to not have bare LFs as line
terminators.
Thanks very much for any help!
P.S. What does "bis" stand for? Can't seem to find that anywhere
either....
Does qmail accept UUCP-style addressing by default?
I would like to disable qmail's acceptance of UUCP-style
addresses.
Any help greatly appreciated,
Kristina
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:28:32AM +0900, Kristina wrote:
>
> Does qmail accept UUCP-style addressing by default?
> I would like to disable qmail's acceptance of UUCP-style
> addresses.
qmail accepts !-chats within the address, but it does not deliver them
UUCP-style. It's not treated specially at all. So don't you worry about them
funky exclamation marks. They are nearly as discriminated as the percentage
sign.
/magnus
Hi
can anyone help me out in the following problem ?
i have a domain adfl-indianfood.com whose earlier mx records where
pointing to my server.no i have changed the dns entries to pointing to the
new address, but qmail running at my server bounces the mails for the
domain saying that there is no mailbox here by that name.
i have removed the domain entries from the follwoing file :
/var/qmail/control/morercpthosts
/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
/etc/aliases
but the mails still get bounced.
Parag Mehta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
System Administrator.
Puretech Internet Pvt. Ltd. http://puretech.co.in/
77 Atlanta. Nariman Point.
Mumbai - 400021. India. Tel: +91-22-2833158
============================================================
Support is now available thru our Web Based Support System.
http://support.puretech.co.in
============================================================
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:34:54AM +0530, System Administrator wrote:
> Hi
>
> can anyone help me out in the following problem ?
>
> i have a domain adfl-indianfood.com whose earlier mx records where
> pointing to my server.no i have changed the dns entries to pointing to the
> new address, but qmail running at my server bounces the mails for the
> domain saying that there is no mailbox here by that name.
>
> i have removed the domain entries from the follwoing file :
> /var/qmail/control/morercpthosts
> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
> /etc/aliases
>
> but the mails still get bounced.
As long as some host out there on the vast ocean of ip thinks that your host
is the port for all mail bound to 'adfl-indianfood.com', then your host is
the one who will get it.
As you've REMOVED it from all your rcpthost files, your host will do nothing
but reject the mail to that domain. I.e. BOUNCE it.
If you want to do something else, there is three possible solutions which both
requires you to add the domain to your rcpthosts or your morercpthosts
again:
1. Do nothing but have the domain in your rcpthosts/morercpthosts-file. Your
host will then act as secondary mail server for domain and route all
incoming mail for that domain to the new one found in DNS with highest
possible MX.
2. Route the mail explicitly in your smtproutes file "just to be sure", or
if you yourself suffer from an ill-updated DNS.
3. (not so polite) Set up a virtual domain and drop the mail on the floor.
(just ignore the incoming mail).
/magnus
I've installed the latest qmail (Slackware 7) and gone thru the
INSTALL.blahblah documents and I'm able to send emails. The problem is
receiving emails. Here is my ~/.fetchmailrc:
darklord:~$ cat .fetchmailrc poll mail.linif.org via localhost port 1234
proto pop3 user dotslash is rino here:
preconnect "ssh -f -l dotslash -L 1234:mail.linif.org:110 mail.linif.org
sleep 20";
And here is the output while fetching mails:
darklord:~$ fetchmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s password:
5 messages for dotslash at mail.linif.org (7738 octets). reading message 1
of 5 (3065 octets)
fetchmail: SMTP connect to localhost failed
fetchmail: SMTP transaction error while fetching from mail.linif.org
fetchmail: Query status=10 darklord:~$ chan_shutdown_read
failed for #1/fd6 [i1 o16]: Transport endpoint is not connected
Anything I've missed such with regards to SMTP? I tried to telnet to port
25 and it refuses and I've checked the firewall also (no problem here).
I'm trying to use a box (armagh.my.net) as qmail server. Everything except
sending mail to my IP works fine. As per the manual I have set up for a ppp
connection and mail to remote addresses does in fact end up in the
alias/pppdir/new directory. However when I try to do:
> /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp ~alias/pppdir alias-ppp- 208.156.39.203
'armagh'
I get the following (example) message bounced to me:
(full message and config at the bottom of this page)
===========================================================================
Hi. This is the maildirbounce program at armagh.my.net.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following address.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
208.156.39.203 said: 550 User not local
============================================================================
I know that relaying problems are well discussed and I have read and tried
to understand the FAQ, the howtos, 'Life with...' and the archives, so try
to be patient with a newbie. I have at least got this far without bothering
the list;)
Is the 550 message coming from the IPs mailhost and then being passed to me
by my qmail system, or is it originating locally (ie on my qmail system)?
If it's the IPs mailhost that is rejecting me, in what way does it
differentiate between this messages and a similar message being sent from
windows+outlook+modem (ie without qmail at all)? Can I fake qmail->remote
messages to look similar to windows->remote messages (and thus not get
rejected)?
All help and useful comments most welcome and if you need any further info
to help me, please tell me.
Regards to the list.
====================== the command line ===================================
> /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp ~alias/pppdir alias-ppp- 208.156.39.203
'armagh'
====================== the command line message ============================
maildirserial: info: new/959327248.2327.armagh bounced: 208.156.39.203 said:
550 User not local
maildirserial: info: returned new/959327248.2327.armagh: qp 280
====================== the returned message ================================
Hi. This is the maildirbounce program at armagh.my.net.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following address.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
208.156.39.203 said: 550 User not local
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 1149 invoked from network); 26 May 2000 05:44:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO antrim) (192.168.1.10)
by 192.168.1.2 with SMTP; 26 May 2000 05:44:35 -0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Col Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "My Hotmail Address" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 07:42:36 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
====================== qmail-send log =====================================
@40000000392e1f5c274638dc end msg 2778529
@40000000392e2c192bc51dc4 new msg 2778529
@40000000392e2c192edfee6c info msg 2778529: bytes 451 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2324 uid 501
@40000000392e2c1a0128bae4 starting delivery 17: msg 2778529 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@40000000392e2c1a01295ef4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@40000000392e2c1a1aa69be4 delivery 17: success: did_1+0+0/
@40000000392e2c1a1aa73ff4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@40000000392e2c1a1aa78e14 end msg 2778529
====================== smtp log ============================================
@40000000392e2dc610634254 tcpserver: status: 1/40
@40000000392e2dc61296cfdc tcpserver: pid 2814 from 127.0.0.1
@40000000392e2dc62f14d94c tcpserver: ok 2814 localhost:127.0.0.1:25
:127.0.0.1:alias:1062
@40000000392e2dd235a066b4 tcpserver: end 2814 status 0
@40000000392e2dd235a2db9c tcpserver: status: 0/40
====================== /var/qmail/rc ======================================
#!/bin/sh
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" qmail-start "./Maildir/"
====================== qmail startup file (under supervise) ===============
#!/bin/sh
exec /var/qmail/rc
====================== smtp startup file (under supervise) ================
#!/bin/sh
QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
-u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1
====================== tcp.smtp file =======================================
192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
