qmail Digest 11 Jun 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1029
Topics (messages 42966 through 42986):
Re: Run perl script
42966 by: Will Harris
42970 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: Psuedo-benchmarks?
42967 by: clemensF
42968 by: Dave Kelly
Redirecting double bounces
42969 by: Ben Beuchler
vpopmail + qmail + mail filters
42971 by: Ramy M. Hassan
ultra160 scsi disks
42972 by: Ken Jones
42974 by: Steve Wolfe
42981 by: Neal Pollack
Re: deferral: Can't_create_tempfile_(#4.3.0)
42973 by: Ken Jones
42979 by: clemensF
42980 by: Vince Vielhaber
42982 by: Ken Jones
IMAP / POP conflicts
42975 by: Martin Langhoff
Testing
42976 by: Bolivar Diaz Galarza
Open Relay
42977 by: Bolivar Diaz Galarza
42978 by: Chris Johnson
Who sets 'Return-Path'?
42983 by: Ben Beuchler
42984 by: Chris Johnson
Newbie tcpserver
42985 by: Boyd Kelly
42986 by: Chris Johnson
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I want to run perl script and do some actions if comes mail on
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] So I created .qmail-test file with contents:
> | ./perlscript.pl
>
>Problem now is how to import this mail into script and parse it. Any idea
>or
>example script?
The mail is available on STDIN. Anything you write on STDOUT will show up
in the log file.
will
__________________________________________________________________________
"I was going to be a Neo-Deconstructivist, but Mom wouldn't let me..."
multimedia laboratorium [EMAIL PROTECTED]
institut fuer informatik (pgp id) F703D035
der universitaet zuerich (office) +41 1 635 4346
winterthurerstr. 190 (fax) +41 1 635 6809
ch-8057 zuerich (mobile) +41 76 372 0913
switzerland www.ifi.unizh.ch/~harris
__________________________________________________________________________
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:00:54AM +0200, Anzej Becan wrote:
>
> I want to run perl script and do some actions if comes mail on
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I created .qmail-test file with contents:
> | ./perlscript.pl
>
> Problem now is how to import this mail into script and parse it. Any idea or
> example script?
Take a look at e.g. Russell Nelsons eliminate-dups script,
(link found on <http://www.qmail.org/>)
http://qmail.x42.com/eliminate-dups
I also encourage you to check out how the environment looks like when in the
script.
This could be done through a simple echo-script found here:
http://x42.com/qmail/scripts/
(Note that DTLINE, RPLINE and UFLINE includes a trailing newline)
Run that in a .qmail-echo-default file and you'll get the mail script
environment back. Thus you can experiment with extended addresses and see
how the various EXT and HOST variables change.
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/qmail/
> Eric Cox:
> So, if you're so inclined, could you send me a message with
> your basic setup (like CPU/Speed,RAM,OS,HDs,connection in/out),
> approx. number of users, approx. volume of mail, and a rough
> idea of how well the machine(s) are handling the volume, etc...
>
> directly to me - if there's any demand for the data I can
> post a synopsis to the list for all to enjoy.
of course there's demand! post right away.
clemens
Well, we don't run an enormous setup, but here's some stats on one of our
busiest servers:
400MHz Pentium II
256 MB RAM
RAID 5 on IBM UltraStar 7200RPM drives
RH Linux 6.2 with the latest kernel (2.2.16)
This box supports 4000 - 4500 SMTP and POP3 customers, with no signs of
slowing down. Now to be fair, it also does their web pages and a little bit
of RealAudio for them. Our traffic on this box is probably 25,000 - 30,000
messages a day. Fairly small by most counts.
Anyway, we had been on a 200MHz machine with sendmail and it was eating our
lunch. After we moved to this box in February, our load average was
generally between 0.00 and 0.10 if nobody was running Real Audio (the qmail
stuff was SO efficient!!). UNTIL...we were getting so pounded with spam I
decided to apply Nagy Balazs' patch that ensures that each incoming email
has a valid domain in it's return address, so it won't accept any mail that
it cannot bounce (since a lot of spam tends to come from things like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) The added overhead of doing a DNS queries for email
has bumped up the system load a little. It now hovers between 0.00 and
0.15. :) Our customers are extremely pleased with our performance increase
since February. And recently they've been even more pleased since we've
eliminated 75% of the SPAM we used to get with this patch we applied.
One other note...when we made this move from sendmail to qmail in February,
in the 10 hours we were down for the switch, we had queued 2500 emails on
our backup MX (also a qmail box). We dequeued, and they were all delivered
in about 90 seconds. In April, we took over about 300 customers for a
smaller company near us, and decided to bring up a sendmail box and put them
on there for a couple weeks until we could merge them onto an established
server. During the move, we queued about 300 messages. qmail dequeued as
fast as sendmail could take them, but sendmail still hadn't accepted all the
messages after 90 MINUTES. That sold me. No more sendmail for me.
I absolutely LOVE qmail. We are in the process of converting EVERY sendmail
box we have over to qmail, and have never regretted moving to qmail at all.
I have detailed instructions for the rest of our admin crew, and once a
RedHat box is installed, we can get qmail up and running on it in about 30
minutes, and that's SMTP and POP3, fully configured, fully ready to accept
mail. 30 MINUTES!! We run nothing out of inetd (all tcpserver, including
our POP3), and run the latest supervise around everything. We don't do any
of the big TODO patches...we're not big enough to warrant those yet, I don't
think.
We run everything with Maildir. The advice I got when I was first starting
to work with qmail was "you'll be buying me beers a year from now if you use
Maildir". I owe that man a KEG. :)
So...print this email out. Give it to your potential customers! I would
ask them to read the next line carefully:
If you switch to qmail, you will NEVER regret it. EVER.
:)
I'd be happy to answer any questions this email might bring up!
-D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:48 AM
Subject: Psuedo-benchmarks?
Hi All!
Okay, here's a chance for all of you guys that run huge sites
to brag a little. I run several smallish qmail installations
and am trying to convince a couple of larger MS-Centric ISPs
(that get ALOT of spam) to let me switch them over to qmail -
and increase my cash-flow in the process of course. :)
And I need a favor...
What I'm looking for are not really benchmarks; I realize the
futility of accurately benchmarking an MTA. But if I could
get a rough idea of how much volume a real-world qmail system
can handle on a given set of hardware, it would go a long way
toward making my case for qmail.
So, if you're so inclined, could you send me a message with
your basic setup (like CPU/Speed,RAM,OS,HDs,connection in/out),
approx. number of users, approx. volume of mail, and a rough
idea of how well the machine(s) are handling the volume, etc...
It's probably a good idea to refrain from cluttering up the
list with this kind of traffic, so you should send them
directly to me - if there's any demand for the data I can
post a synopsis to the list for all to enjoy.
Thanks very much in advance,
Eric
We are getting a ton of double bounces, mostly spam bouncing back to
non-existent addresses. In an attempt to thin out my inbox, I set the
double bounces to got to a seperate address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Here's the relevant snippet from qmail-showctl:
-----
doublebouncehost: 2B recipient host: bitstream.net.
doublebounceto: 2B recipient user: doublebounce.
-----
Despite this fact, I'm still getting double bounces delivered to
postmaster! And I did send a HUP to qmail-send. Note that the periods at
the end of those lines do not exist in the actual control files. They
were apparently added by qmail-showctl. At least I assume it's a double
bounce. Here's the first part of the message(s):
-----
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at amazhan.bitstream.net.
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce
bounced!
-----
Sounds like a double bounce to me. Any ideas why they are not being
handled as directed by doublebouncehost and doublebounceto?
Thanks,
Ben
--
The spectre of a polity controlled by the fads and whims of voters who
actually believe that there are significant differences between Bud Lite
and Miller Lite, and who think that professional wrestling is for real, is
naturally alarming to people who don't.
-- Neal Stephenson
Hi everyone.
I am using qmail with vpopmail to offer mail services to multiple virtual
domains. My mail client is sqwebmail. I want my users (virtual users) to be
able to filter mail messages. I tried MAILDROP which does not seem to work with
virtual maildirs, although it worked fine with real users on the system, but it
knows nothing about vpopmail.
Anybody got maildrop to work with qmail and vpopmail. If not, is there any
mailfilter package that work instead.
If such filtering is possible I am willing to work on a patch for sqwebmail to
make it allow users to add their own filters.
Thanks,
begin:vcard
n:Hassan;Ramy
tel;cell:012-2123989
tel;home:5874976
tel;work:5333310
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Arab Academy for Science and Technology;Computer Engineering
adr:;;29 Moh. Saleh Abu-Youssef st. saba basha;Alexandria;ALX;N/A;Egypt
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Teaching Assistant
x-mozilla-cpt:;-9056
fn:Ramy M. Hassan
end:vcard
Has anyone tried out the new ultra160 scsi?
Here is a link to an old artcle announcing
the standard, September 14, 1998.
http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0%2C1510%2C8078%2C00.html
It's supposed to be twice as fast as ultra2 scsi
Here is a link to the ultra160 web site:
http://www.ultra160-scsi.com/
scsi type Speed
--------- -----
ultra160 160Mb
ultra2 80Mb
wide 40mb
Since qmail is disk I/O bound I'm interested in hearing
or discussing the advantages of a ultra160 machine.
IBM is selling 7,200 and 10,000 ultra160 disks with
a seek time of 4.2 ms (or around that speed)
Here is a link to IBM ultra160 products
http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/diskdrdl/prod/ultrastar.htm
Here is a link to a FAQ about IBM ultra160 technology.
http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/diskdrdl/library/ultra3.htm
What I'm looking at, in terms of hardware for a large
volume machine is:
2 PIII 500Mhz cpu
2 Ultra160 9G disks
512 MB ram
The other hardware configuration I'm looking at for
medium or low volume sites is with an IDE flash drive.
They are alot cheaper than ram drives. Costs about
$500 (street price) for 400Mb
Burst transfer rate: About 20 Mb/s
Flash mem transfer rate: 8 Mb/s
Here's a link to a product site for IDE/ATA flash
disks. I haven't checked out thier prices.
http://www.magicram.com/IDE_flash.htm
So the configuration would be
1 PIII 500Mhz cpu
1 ATA 9G disk
1 400Mb IDE flash drive
128 MB ram
Any one want to discuss these or talk about optimial
hardware configurations for qmail servers?
Ken Jones
Inter7
> Has anyone tried out the new ultra160 scsi?
Nope. ; )
> Since qmail is disk I/O bound I'm interested in hearing
> or discussing the advantages of a ultra160 machine.
In my opinion, I really don't think it's going to be as large of an
increase as you think for a single drive, because even though the spec says
that the *maximum* transfer rate is a huge, huge number, the drive itself
isn't going to put that much out for more than a very, very short-lived
burst.
The real, difficult bottleneck to beat is the bandwidth of your SCSI bus -
which this will certainly raise to huge levels. However, in order to get
near the limits of the SCSI bus, you're probably going to have to put a good
number of drives in your array. You'll have to research the specs on the
drives available to you (actual transfer rate, seek time, capacity, price,
etc.), and decide how you can get the most bang for your buck. Depending on
your budget and what's available to you, the 'best' bet can either be a
small number of larger drives, or a large number of smaller drives. One
thing is certain, though, the more drives you have in the array (within
reason, of course), the more total transfer you're going to see, all other
factors being equal.
steve
So here is what we did and it works....
Use several drives in a RAID array, and the R/W performance
more than doubles. THEN, we added a SCSI Solid State CACHE
into the mix. It is esentially a huge RAMDISK, with electronics
that has and in and out scsi connector. You can put it between
the physical disks and the SCSI controller, and it has smarts
that cache the blocks and also lookahead, in the RAM.
This also further boosted the heck out of performance.
The SCSI cache come from ATTO Corp. in New York.
They also make regular solid state SCSI disks (RAM+CONTROLLER)
that you can use for a journalling or logging device, to also
further speed up a server. The stuff really kicks butt, and is
also battery backed up.
Hope that helps.
Neal
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 01:34:12PM -0600, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > Has anyone tried out the new ultra160 scsi?
>
> Nope. ; )
>
> > Since qmail is disk I/O bound I'm interested in hearing
> > or discussing the advantages of a ultra160 machine.
>
> In my opinion, I really don't think it's going to be as large of an
> increase as you think for a single drive, because even though the spec says
> that the *maximum* transfer rate is a huge, huge number, the drive itself
> isn't going to put that much out for more than a very, very short-lived
> burst.
>
> The real, difficult bottleneck to beat is the bandwidth of your SCSI bus -
> which this will certainly raise to huge levels. However, in order to get
> near the limits of the SCSI bus, you're probably going to have to put a good
> number of drives in your array. You'll have to research the specs on the
> drives available to you (actual transfer rate, seek time, capacity, price,
> etc.), and decide how you can get the most bang for your buck. Depending on
> your budget and what's available to you, the 'best' bet can either be a
> small number of larger drives, or a large number of smaller drives. One
> thing is certain, though, the more drives you have in the array (within
> reason, of course), the more total transfer you're going to see, all other
> factors being equal.
>
> steve
>
zealot wrote:
>
> I repeatedly see this message in /var/log/qmail/current:
>
> delivery 787: deferral: Can't_create_tempfile_(#4.3.0)/
> status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> starting delivery 788: msg 69232 to local
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> What causes this error message and what can I do to fix it?
>
> I'm running FreeBSD 4.0, ucspi-tcp 0.88, Qmail 1.03, and Vpopmail 3.4.11-2.
>
> Here's the setup for /var/qmail/control
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 11 May 27 20:01 defaultdelivery
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 8 May 27 21:20 defaultdomain
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 141 Jun 9 06:51 locals
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 19 May 27 21:21 me
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 8 May 27 21:21 plusdomain
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 180 Jun 6 14:34 rcpthosts
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 166 Jun 6 14:34 virtualdomains
>
> The contents of virtualdomains:
> sneakernet.dhs.org:sneakernet.dhs.org
>
> Here's the setup for virtual acccount sneakernet.dhs.org
>
> /home/vpopmail/domains/sneakernet.dhs.org
> -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 34 Jun 6 21:51 .dir-control
> -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 55 Jun 6 02:34 .qmail-default
> -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 26 Jun 8 02:16 .qmail-root
> -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 0 Jun 6 02:34 .vpasswd.lock
> drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 512 Jun 8 02:08 postmaster
> -rw-r--r-- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 291 Jun 8 11:06 vpasswd
> -rw-r--r-- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 2405 Jun 8 11:06 vpasswd.cdb
> drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 512 Jun 6 02:34 zealot
>
> The contents of .qmail-default:
> | /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox
>
> The contents of .qmail-root:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The contents of .vpasswd
>
> postmaster:xxx:1:0:Postmaster:/home/vpopmail/domains/sneakernet.dhs.org/post
> master:50000000
>
> zealot:xxx:1:0:zealot:/home/vpopmail/domains/sneakernet.dhs.org/zealot:50000
> 000
> (password hash removed to protect the innocent)
>
> Here's the setup for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> /home/vpopmail/domains/sneakernet.dhs.org/postmaster
>
> -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 26 Jun 8 02:16 .qmail
> drwx------ 5 vpopmail vchkpw 512 Jun 6 02:34 Maildir
>
> The contents of .qmail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The code is in vdelivermail.c in two places:
1) void deliver_mail(char *deliverto, struct passwd *pw_data)
sprintf(tmp_file,"tmp/%lu.%d.%s",tm,pid,hostname);
if ((mailfile = creat(tmp_file,S_IREAD | S_IWRITE)) == -1)
failtemp ("Can't create tempfile (#4.3.0)\n");
2) char *email_it(deliverto)
sprintf(tmp_file,"/tmp/%lu.%d.%s",tm,pid,hostname);
if ((mailfile = creat(tmp_file,S_IREAD | S_IWRITE)) == -1)
failtemp ("Can't create tempfile (#4.3.0)\n");
Notice that this places the temp file in /tmp...
Perhaps this should be like 1) above and place it under the
current directory.
You might want to try changing this code to:
sprintf(tmp_file,"tmp/%lu.%d.%s",tm,pid,hostname);
if ((mailfile = creat(tmp_file,S_IREAD | S_IWRITE)) == -1)
failtemp ("Can't create tempfile (#4.3.0)\n");
make ; make install
Then see if you still get the error.
Ken
> Ken Jones:
> You might want to try changing this code to:
> sprintf(tmp_file,"tmp/%lu.%d.%s",tm,pid,hostname);
> if ((mailfile = creat(tmp_file,S_IREAD | S_IWRITE)) == -1)
> failtemp ("Can't create tempfile (#4.3.0)\n");
>
> make ; make install
> Then see if you still get the error.
but the tmp directory would have to exist beforehand, right? unlike the
/tmp, which is already there. but you might have found a bug there!
clemens
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, clemensF wrote:
> > Ken Jones:
>
> > You might want to try changing this code to:
> > sprintf(tmp_file,"tmp/%lu.%d.%s",tm,pid,hostname);
> > if ((mailfile = creat(tmp_file,S_IREAD | S_IWRITE)) == -1)
> > failtemp ("Can't create tempfile (#4.3.0)\n");
> >
> > make ; make install
> > Then see if you still get the error.
>
> but the tmp directory would have to exist beforehand, right? unlike the
> /tmp, which is already there. but you might have found a bug there!
It's tmp not /tmp. tmp should already be created as part of the maildir.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
clemensF wrote:
>
> > Ken Jones:
>
> > You might want to try changing this code to:
> > sprintf(tmp_file,"tmp/%lu.%d.%s",tm,pid,hostname);
> > if ((mailfile = creat(tmp_file,S_IREAD | S_IWRITE)) == -1)
> > failtemp ("Can't create tempfile (#4.3.0)\n");
> >
> > make ; make install
> > Then see if you still get the error.
>
> but the tmp directory would have to exist beforehand, right? unlike the
> /tmp, which is already there. but you might have found a bug there!
>
> clemens
tmp does exist if it's a correctly created Maildir.
It has cur, new and tmp
Ken
hi,
i'm quite a newcomer to email administration, and I'm attempting to
set up qmail to server both IMAP and POP clients. For POP i'm using the
qmail's pop3d (ruinning just fine) , and I'm installing Courier to
handle IMAP clients. Are there any problems in :
a - having one vdomain handled with imap and other with pop [vdomain
granularity] (I'm using one UID per vdomain).
b - having one user with IMAP and another with POP, despite of the
vdomain it belongs to.
c - having users that sometimes connect with POP and sometimes with
IMAP.
My question is regarding to whether it'll mess up the users'
mailboxes (and/or my server) or not. I'm not interested in setting up a
POP-allowed-users list and IMAP-allowed-users list and bounce the users
that tries the wrong protocol.
Mainly my goal is to (a) continue serving my POP/dial-up customers
and set up a Webmail front end that speaks IMAP. But I don't want to
have a separate mailserver for IMAP. And if using both IMAP and POP on
the same mailbox doesn't mess things up,. I'd like to allow my POP
customers to be able to use the webmail interfase to read their mail (as
long as they didn't download it!).
hope at least one of my options is trouble free :)
thanks in advance....
martin
Hi there,
I am running an open relay because I took out the file
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts. I took it out because if I copy whatever is in
locals (I don't have any virtual domains) and place it in rcpthosts, I can
not send any messages to the outside world, I get an error that reads like
this:
The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected by
the server. The rejected e-mail address was '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Subject
'Testing', Account: 'corellinux.ml.com.mx', Server: 'ml.com.mx', Protocol:
SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 553, Error
Number: 0x800CCC79
And the rcpthosts look like this:
corellinux.ml.com.mx
ml.com.mx
mail.ml.com.mx
cscc.edu.mx
I have read over and over the FAQ, LWQ, and I can not find the answer to
this, I will appreciate any help.
Bolivar,
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:58:20PM -0600, Bolivar Diaz Galarza wrote:
> I am running an open relay because I took out the file
> /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts. I took it out because if I copy whatever is in
> locals (I don't have any virtual domains) and place it in rcpthosts, I can
> not send any messages to the outside world, I get an error that reads like
> this:
>
> The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected by
> the server. The rejected e-mail address was '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Subject
> 'Testing', Account: 'corellinux.ml.com.mx', Server: 'ml.com.mx', Protocol:
> SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts (#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 553, Error
> Number: 0x800CCC79
>
> I have read over and over the FAQ, LWQ, and I can not find the answer to
> this, I will appreciate any help.
See http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html and
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html.
Chris
I'm sure this is a basic question, but who controls the 'Return-Path'
header? The MTA or MUA?
Thanks,
Ben
--
The spectre of a polity controlled by the fads and whims of voters who
actually believe that there are significant differences between Bud Lite
and Miller Lite, and who think that professional wrestling is for real, is
naturally alarming to people who don't.
-- Neal Stephenson
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:20:14PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> I'm sure this is a basic question, but who controls the 'Return-Path'
> header? The MTA or MUA?
The local delivery agent sticks the Return-Path header in there. According to
the qmail-local man page, "The message's envelope sender is sender.
qmail-local records sender in a new Return-Path header field."
Chris
Hello,
I have been using qmail under redhat 6.1 for a few weeks now and would like
to implement tcpserver. After installation, I am not able to telnet to
localhost on port 25. (Connection refused)
Followed the install instructions here.
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/install.html which was really straightforward.
Then added
tcpserver -v -u 503 -g 502 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/amail-smtpd 2>&1 |
/var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
to my /etc/rc.d/rc.local script (Is this the right place?)
I also followed these instructions from
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html
Create /etc/tcp.smtp containing
192.168.73.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
to authorize relaying from clients with IP addresses 1.2.3.6 and 127.*. Run
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
Insert
-x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
after tcpserver in your system boot scripts.
Would appreciate any suggestion as to how to troubleshoot this. Thanks
Boyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:07:41PM -0700, Boyd Kelly wrote:
> I have been using qmail under redhat 6.1 for a few weeks now and would like
> to implement tcpserver. After installation, I am not able to telnet to
> localhost on port 25. (Connection refused)
>
> Followed the install instructions here.
> http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/install.html which was really straightforward.
>
> Then added
>
> tcpserver -v -u 503 -g 502 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/amail-smtpd 2>&1 |
^^^^^
Does it really say amail? Do you see anything in the logs?
Does netstat -a show anything listening on port 25?
Chris
