qmail Digest 14 Jun 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1032
Topics (messages 43030 through 43068):
Re: Qmail on Linux
43030 by: Peter Green
Qmail & ETRN
43031 by: Tony Wade
43032 by: Magnus Bodin
Running Courier-IMAP 0.33
43033 by: Martin Langhoff
smtpd server very slow
43034 by: Luca Zancan
43042 by: Luca Zancan
No logs / supervise/ok doesn't exist...
43035 by: Martin Langhoff
Mail forwarding
43036 by: Tore Micaelsen
RE:smtpd server very slow
43037 by: Tore Micaelsen
43041 by: Henrik �hman
Re: tcpserver: unable to bind
43038 by: Luca Zancan
qmail can't find hosts
43039 by: Andreas Keiser
43040 by: Johan Almqvist
Web account system like hotmail ???
43043 by: [ Francho ]
43044 by: Ben Beuchler
Re: spam dissguised as bounce
43045 by: Michael Boyiazis
43046 by: Ronny Haryanto
43047 by: Michael Boyiazis
43048 by: Ronny Haryanto
43054 by: Chris Johnson
43056 by: Michael Boyiazis
43057 by: Chris Johnson
43058 by: Michael Boyiazis
43059 by: Michael Boyiazis
43063 by: Ronny Haryanto
qmail hanging - best way to restart
43049 by: Mike Denka
43050 by: Dave Kelly
43051 by: Mike Denka
43052 by: Mark Mentovai
Re: Sender domain must resolve
43053 by: James R Grinter
Performance degradation when queuing a message to thousands of recipients
43055 by: Manuel Lemos
43062 by: Dave Kelly
Account Creation Script for use with Sqwebmail and qmail
43060 by: Druvi Vaidyakularatne
43061 by: Druvi Vaidyakularatne
ezmlm capabilities
43064 by: graham.aussino.com
43065 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: Security warning: using linuxconf(RedHat 6.2) and permissions of
/usr/sbin/sendmail (fixed)
43066 by: Peter Bieringer
OFF-TOPIC (Dan's DNS servers)
43067 by: Michael Boman
43068 by: James Raftery
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
also sprach irwanhadi: > We are planning to have a new server, and it can be a Dual Pentium III > server, with 512 RAM, and RAID 5 controller with 2 X 18 giga drives to RAID5 is impossible with <3 disks, unless you're wanting to use multiple partitions on one disk in the array, which I *KNOW* you're not. :) > serve about 12,000 email account @ 2 M for our students, and web space > about @1 M, > My question is, can linux handle this so large system, especially from the > inode problem. I don't know about the inode problem, but you might reconsider trying to do everything on one server. You're just opening yourself up to more widespread downtime if something goes wrong. One major service per machine, and all that... > Beside that, as we want to give web space too for the students, can mysql > handle this heavy load, because we want to make the password for web and > mail the same, so my plan is using vpopmail + mysql, and proftpd + mysql, > so they will share the same database password, and when users change their > email password, they change their FTP password at the same time. If you're only doing password stuff on the MySQL end, I don't see how this would be anything of a stress. For example, we currently log >4M hits over ten web servers to a MySQL database without little perceptible slowdown to the MySQL database (machine load usually around 0.00-0.20). We've got another MySQL db (running on another machine) that has up to 300 simultaneous connections, some of which are doing some fairly heavy joins and whatnot. MySQL is probably not going to be the problem. I'd say distributing your services may be. /pg -- Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Feel free to contact me (flames about my english and the useless of this driver will be redirected to /dev/null, oh no, it's full...). (Michael Beck, describing the PC-speaker sound device)
Hi all, I am rather surprised to see that no one has offered any assistance in the Qmail ETRN problem that I am experiencing. Does no one use ETRN ? Is there someone who can assist ? Thank You Tony Wade (Postmaster) The Internet Solution Tel: (+27 11) 283 5000 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] #include <std/disclaimer.h> A career is great, but you can't run your fingers through its hair.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 02:13:46PM +0200, Tony Wade wrote: > Hi all, > > I am rather surprised to see that no one has offered any assistance in the > Qmail ETRN problem that I am experiencing. Does no one use ETRN ? > > Is there someone who can assist ? Take a look here: http://cr.yp.to/serialmail.html and http://www.qmail.org/turnmail /magnus -- http://x42.com/
hi list, I'm trying to get courier-imap to run on 2 different servers to no avail. Whenever I try to run ` imapd.rc start ` I get a "bind: adress already in use" error ... I've been readin the man pages and found nothing, and I've also been looking at the /etc/services file, hoping I had something wrong there, but doesn't look broken. does anyone have courier-imap running allright with qmail/vmailmgr? can you tell me what could I be missing? thanks martin
Hi everybody, The qmail-smtpd is very slow. When I telnet to port 25 of 127.0.0.1 (or even localhost), no problem # telnet 127.0.0.1 25 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to 127.0.0.1 Escape character is '^]'. 220 redtest.logicaonline.com ESMTP I mean: the answer is immediate; but when I try 192.168.254.99 (the IP address of the netcard), I obtain # telnet 192.168.254.99 25 Trying 192.168.254.99... Connected to 192.168.254.99 Escape character is '^]'. (up to 60 sec delay here, and then) 220 redtest.logicaonline.com ESMTP any idea ? I use tcpserver and I also start it with -H and -R flags (I have already followed the instructions in the qmail mailing list archive at http://www-archive.ornl.gov:8000...) I have also edited /etc/host.conf, leaving only (before was "order hosts,bind") order hosts multi on I run qmail ver 1.03 under RedHat 6.1 (amd k6 processor, 64MB). Thanks in advance Luca __________________________________________________ Luca Zancan Logica S.r.l. e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL http://www.logicaonline.com __________________________________________________
Hi Tore, I've controlled my "locals" file and this is its content:
redtest.logicaonline.com
I've also tried to replace it with my IP, that is 192.168.254.99, but with no results...
I'd like to work without DNS name resolution.
I've also tried "dig -x 127.0.0.1" and the answer is immediate: with "dig -x 192.168.254.99", instead, I must wait for 60 seconds before obtaining a response...
What should I put in my control files ("/var/qmail/control/locals" and "/var/qmail/control/me")???
Thank you again,
LucaTore Micaelsen wrote:
>Hi everybody,>The qmail-smtpd is very slow. Check your /var/qmail/control/localsYou may miss the dns for the last host there...i sure did.. ;) Tore
--
__________________________________________________Luca Zancan
Logica S.r.l.
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL http://www.logicaonline.com
__________________________________________________
It seems I'm havimg mostly the same problem that Goran Blazic described a few months ago in a thread called " No log?". In a nutshell, after installing qmail i've got no logging activity from anything Mail-related. But the thread died without a solution. I guess/hope that Goran was able to get his logging to work ... but he forgot to post how he did it, and the archives thoughtfully strip all emails in fear of spam :( is anyone out there with a solution? I guess it's related to supervise, as you may see: # /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail restart Stopping qmail: qmail qmail/log (already down) done. Starting qmail: qmail/log (will be started later) qmail done. and then # /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail status qmail: qmail: up (pid 5527) 37912 seconds qmail/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist thanks! martin
>The qmail-smtpd is very slow.Check your /var/qmail/control/localsYou may miss the dns for the last host there...i sure did.. ;)Tore
identd not running is also a cause of delay, check that as well. Henrik. At 04:13 PM 6/13/00 +0200, you wrote: > >Hi everybody, > > >The qmail-smtpd is very slow. > > >Check your /var/qmail/control/locals >You may miss the dns for the last host there...i sure did.. ;) > > >Tore >
Thank you all for your support; I have resolved the situation reinstalling qmail... Maybe some defective binary... I don't know: but now everything works well (except for a timeout problem in tcpserver... I have just posted another message in this mailing list) Thank you again, Luca Luca Zancan wrote: > Thank you, Clemence, for your support, > > but I'm not automatically starting qmail... and no qmail process is visible > with "ps -ef" before I start qmail with "/etc/rc.d/svscan start"... > I've followed the instructions in "Qmail 2 HOW-TO" and "A life with Qmail", > downloaded from www.qmail.org. > In any case I will re-check my configuration. > Thank you again, > > luca > > clemensF wrote: > > > > Luca Zancan: > > > > > What should I verify??? > > > > you have set up qmail somehow, so there is a line w.r.t. qmail in your > > start up files. you must have started two server processes, usually due to > > a commandline ending in '&' where it shouldn't. > > > > clemens > > -- > __________________________________________________ > > Luca Zancan > Logica S.r.l. > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL http://www.logicaonline.com > __________________________________________________ -- __________________________________________________ Luca Zancan Logica S.r.l. e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL http://www.logicaonline.com __________________________________________________
Hi I run qmail-1.03. OpenBsd 2.7. If I want to send e-mails they stay in the queue. If I want to receive e-mails, qmail gets them from the ISP but lets them in the queue. It does= n't send them to my NT-Exchange Server. Why qmail cannot find the receiver's host and the sender's host? If I run nslookup usa.net or myhost.ch it finds the IP-addresses. I tried to send an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heres the result: Any ideas? What could be wrong? When I send from mydom.ch to usa.net I have the same problem. Received: (qmail 10816 invoked for bounce); 8 Jun 2000 10:21:30 -0000 Date: 8 Jun 2000 10:21:30 -0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mydom.ch. I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced! <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: Sorry, I couldn't find any host named usa.net>. (#5.1.2) --- Below this line is the original bounce. Return-Path: <> Received: (qmail 24419 invoked for bounce); 8 Jun 2000 10:21:30 -0000 Date: 8 Jun 2000 10:21:30 -0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "<casinobrasil"@usa.net> Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mydom.ch. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: Sorry, I couldn't find any host named mydom.ch>. (#5.1.2) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <"<casinobrasil"@usa.net>> Received: (qmail 29235 invoked by uid 66); 8 Jun 2000 10:21:29 -0000 Received: from UNKNOWN(204.68.23.61), claiming to be "nwcst316.netaddress.usa.net" via SMTP by firewall, id smtpdw13068; Thu Jun 8 12:21:22 2000 Received: (qmail 6141 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jun 2000 04:34:09 -0000 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from 204.68.23.61 by nwcst316 for [193.72.22.43] via web-mailer(34FM1.4.02C) on Fri Jun 9 04:34:09 GMT 2000 Date: 8 Jun 00 22:34:09 MDT From: Andreas Keiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test angela X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (34FM1.4.02C) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable test *** end of msg I think that my DNS configuration is ok, since nslookup works fine. Or could be something wrong with it? My DNS setup is the following: resolv.conf ----------- domain mydom.ch nameserver 127.0.0.1 lookup file bind localhost.rev ------------- ; @(#)localhost.rev 5.1 (Berkeley) 6/30/90 @ IN SOA ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU. rwh.ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU. ( 14 ; Serial 3600 ; Refresh 900 ; Retry 3600000 ; Expire 3600 ) ; Minimum IN NS mail.mydom.ch. 1 IN PTR localhost.mydom.ch. named.boot ------------ directory / primary 0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA localhost.rev forwarders (some DNS-IP Adresses) options forward-only Regards Andreas ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Hi! > <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named usa.net>. (#5.1.2) ^ There's the culprit! > Return-Path: <> > Received: (qmail 24419 invoked for bounce); 8 Jun 2000 10:21:30 -0000 > Date: 8 Jun 2000 10:21:30 -0000 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: "<casinobrasil"@usa.net> What mail program created that weird email address? > <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named mydom.ch>. (#5.1.2) Same here. -Johan -- Johan Almqvist
Someone know software for create a web free mail account system like homail (with qmail of course)??? and urls with info about ??? Thanks in advance. -- <<< Net.Zaragoza@FchX >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- Si te gusta, no habr� ninguna a tu medida. (Primera ley de Hadley sobre la compra de ropa) ---
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 07:39:13PM +0200, [ Francho ] wrote: > Someone know software for create a web free mail account system like > homail (with qmail of course)??? > > and urls with info about ??? vpopmail w/ sqwebmail. www.inter7.com for both. 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
sorry. forget everyone doesn't have ESP... the following line appears in my "inrules" file which was compiled into a cdb... 209.244.137.13:deny tcprules inbound.cdb inbound.tmp < inrules there are other lines in there of course, but this is/was at the top and should have been read and executed immediately, right? There is nothing wrong w/ the tcpserver line. It works to prevent connection from other IPs blocked w/ denies. It just seems that in this case (and in a previous attack) that the spam, which is disquised as a bounce, (no "from" info) slips past tcpserver, perhaps because qmail considers the mail to be from the person receiving the mail instead of being from the spammer(?) I don't mind being terribly wrong w/ my hypothesis; that's why I'm not calling it a theory. Michael Boyiazis ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronny Haryanto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: spam dissguised as bounce > > > On 12-Jun-2000, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > > I've tried putting that IP in my tcprules file (bad-guy-IP:deny) > > but still the mail gets through. > > Be more specific. Which file? Have you recreated the cdb file? How > does the mail get through? From which IP? Is the IP blocked by your > rules? What do the logs say? > > Ronny _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
On 13-Jun-2000, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > 209.244.137.13:deny [...] > It works to prevent connection from other IPs blocked w/ denies. Could you show that the mail that you think slips past tcpserver in fact came from 209.244.137.13? Maybe scan your logs for 209.244.137.13 and see if it's denied or not. > It just seems that in this case (and in a previous attack) that the > spam, which is disquised as a bounce, (no "from" info) slips past > tcpserver, perhaps because qmail considers the mail to be from the > person receiving the mail instead of being from the spammer(?) AFAIK, tcpserver doesn't understand mail. In a nutshell, it acts as a mediator, it will invoke whatever daemon is specified if connection is not denied. Please CMIIW. Ronny
Unfortunately I have a few spams to prove it in my mail box and records of a huge amount of bounces (from all the users that didn't exist on our end). And our access provider was able to wipe that user off their dialups (eventually). Plus, we log the from-IP and recipient email address in qmail-smtpd and sender and recipient list in qmail-queue. All pointed to that IP and an empty sender/from. Michael Boyiazis ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronny Haryanto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: spam dissguised as bounce > > Could you show that the mail that you think slips past tcpserver in > fact came from 209.244.137.13? Maybe scan your logs for 209.244.137.13 > and see if it's denied or not. _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
On 13-Jun-2000, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > Unfortunately I have a few spams to prove it in my mail box > and records of a huge amount of bounces (from all the > users that didn't exist on our end). And our access provider > was able to wipe that user off their dialups (eventually). Plus, > we log the from-IP and recipient email address in qmail-smtpd > and sender and recipient list in qmail-queue. All pointed to > that IP and an empty sender/from. Try running tcprulescheck to see if that IP is rejected by your cdb file. I'm afraid that's about as far as I can help. You might want to consider using rblsmtpd to block connections from dialups listed in DUL (http://mail-abuse.org/dul). I know most people use a combination of RBL + RSS + DUL, and I think it's a good rule of thumb. Ronny
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:58:12AM -0700, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > sorry. forget everyone doesn't have ESP... > the following line appears in my "inrules" file > which was compiled into a cdb... > > 209.244.137.13:deny > > tcprules inbound.cdb inbound.tmp < inrules > > there are other lines in there of course, but this > is/was at the top and should have been read and > executed immediately, right? > > There is nothing wrong w/ the tcpserver line. > It works to prevent connection from other IPs > blocked w/ denies. It just seems that in this case > (and in a previous attack) that the spam, which is > disquised as a bounce, (no "from" info) slips past > tcpserver, perhaps because qmail considers the > mail to be from the person receiving the mail > instead of being from the spammer(?) No. If everything is set up correctly and you have the above deny line in your rules file, then connections from 209.244.137.13 will not be allowed, period. There's no way for anything to "slip past" tcpserver. qmail-smtpd will never be invoked if the connection is from 209.244.137.13, so no manipulation of envelope sender or disguising something as a bounce or anything else will allow mail from this IP address to get through. As someone else said, tcpserver doesn't know anything about mail. All it can do is either allow or deny a connection and set environment variables based on IP address. Chris
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c 550 -x /etc/security/tcprules/inbound.cdb \ -u qmaild -g nofiles 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & with aforementioned line present in the inrules file compiled to create inbound.cdb did let it through. i don't know why. qmail-smtp is modified to print out the IP of the sender. that was 209.244.137.13. Level3 communications eliminated the user connected to that IP. That is when he went away. The mail flowed until then. My servers were bogged down to prove it. Everything works w/ tcpserver for every other situation except for this character yesterday and I believe the same guy a few weeks back. > No. If everything is set up correctly and you have the above > deny line in your > rules file, then connections from 209.244.137.13 will not be > allowed, period. > There's no way for anything to "slip past" tcpserver. > qmail-smtpd will never be > invoked if the connection is from 209.244.137.13, so no > manipulation of > envelope sender or disguising something as a bounce or > anything else will allow > mail from this IP address to get through. > > As someone else said, tcpserver doesn't know anything about > mail. All it can do > is either allow or deny a connection and set environment > variables based on IP > address. > > Chris _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 05:10:01PM -0700, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c 550 -x /etc/security/tcprules/inbound.cdb \ > -u qmaild -g nofiles 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & > > with aforementioned line present in the inrules file compiled to > create inbound.cdb did let it through. i don't know why. > > qmail-smtp is modified to print out the IP of the sender. that was > 209.244.137.13. Level3 communications eliminated the user > connected to that IP. That is when he went away. The mail > flowed until then. My servers were bogged down to prove it. You can't prove something that isn't true. tcpserver doesn't care about the IP address of the sender, if by "the IP address of the sender" you mean the IP address from which the sender originally sent the message. It cares only about the IP address of the remote host that's connecting to you to deliver you the message. If that remote host is 209.244.137.13 and you have "209.244.137.13:deny" in your rules file and you have everything set up correctly, then you will not receive mail via SMTP directly from 209.244.137.13, period. You may receive mail from that host if it was relayed through some other host from which you accept mail, but that has nothing to do with things being disguised as bounces or anything "slipping by" tcpserver. Chris
Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6404 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 -0000 Received: from dialup-209.244.147.13.orlando1.level3.net (HELO mail.localhost.com) (209.244.147.13) by mail2-2.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 -0000 Message-ID: < 806637@ 899648> From: <> Bcc: Subject: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:48:47 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess then that he was relaying through someone else and munged the header. I never meant to imply that tcpserver was broken. I'm back to my original question of how to stop an attack that has qmail-smtpd convinced that it is coming from a particular IP when it is apparently not. One option is the DUL, but if he's faking his IP, I don't see that working either, right? > You may receive mail from that host if it was relayed through some other host > from which you accept mail, but that has nothing to do with things being > disguised as bounces or anything "slipping by" tcpserver. > > Chris _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> Return-Path: <> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 6404 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 -0000 > Received: from dialup-209.244.147.13.orlando1.level3.net (HELO > mail.localhost.com) (209.244.147.13) > by mail2-2.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 -0000 > Message-ID: < 806637@ 899648> > From: <> > Bcc: > Subject: > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:48:47 -0400 (EDT) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > umm... so it was 209.244.147.13 all along (but that was what was in my tcprules file). i've been misstating it as 137.13...my question still stands was he forging an IP or relaying silently thru something else and munging the header? _____________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
On 13-Jun-2000, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > umm... so it was 209.244.147.13 all along (but that was what was in > my tcprules file). i've been misstating it as 137.13...my question > still stands was he forging an IP or relaying silently thru something > else and munging the header? Mail headers are not reliable source of information, since they can be easily forged. Please check your tcpserver log as it can tell whether that IP was denied or not. This is an example log entry of a machine denying a connection from a server listed in the cdb file: [time] tcpserver: deny 28291 mine.dom:127.0.0.1:25 abuser.dom:256.128.32.18::49337 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ronny
We are having some problems with qmail hanging and no longer responding to POP requests or smtp requests. Restarting all qmail processes and qmail-popup resolves the problem. I notice that when I stop qmail, the /etc/init.d/qmail stop script does not stop all processes, only those whose effective uids are 0 (root). Therefore several processes remain running and I must wait for them to terminate to restart. This can be quite a long time (sometimes the processes seem to be hung and never terminate naturally). Two questions: 1) anyone else notice this problem with both qmail pop and qmail smtp hanging (on Solaris 7 running on an E250 with 512 MB RAM - using tcpserver to fork the processes - note: this does NOT seem to be related to the previous thread on Solaris 7 problems - that thread mentioned thousands of qmail processes stalling, I never have more than 40 or 50). 2) Is there any reason that qmail processes whose effective uid is not 0 shouldn't be killed when stopping and restarting? Thanks, Mike
What does your 'qmail start' script look like? If you converted to the most recent supervise from an older version, and didn't convert things into the 'run' file correctly, you could see this behaviour. -D >-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Denka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 3:04 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: qmail hanging - best way to restart > > >We are having some problems with qmail hanging and no longer responding to >POP requests or smtp requests. Restarting all qmail processes and >qmail-popup resolves the problem. I notice that when I stop qmail, the >/etc/init.d/qmail stop script does not stop all processes, only those whose >effective uids are 0 (root). Therefore several processes remain >running and >I must wait for them to terminate to restart. This can be quite a >long time >(sometimes the processes seem to be hung and never terminate naturally). > >Two questions: > >1) anyone else notice this problem with both qmail pop and qmail smtp >hanging (on Solaris 7 running on an E250 with 512 MB RAM - using tcpserver >to fork the processes - note: this does NOT seem to be related to the >previous thread on Solaris 7 problems - that thread mentioned thousands of >qmail processes stalling, I never have more than 40 or 50). > >2) Is there any reason that qmail processes whose effective uid is not 0 >shouldn't be killed when stopping and restarting? > >Thanks, > >Mike > >
I don't use a supervisor unless it's hidden in the default configuration, but this is my startup script: #!/sbin/sh # # Start qmail # case "$1" in 'start') if [ -f /var/qmail/rc ]; then csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &' fi if [ -f /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -a -f /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -a -f /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb ]; then /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -c 100 -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 32004 -g 1000 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & fi ;; 'stop') /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-smtpd /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-send /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-lspawn /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-rspawn /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-clean /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 splogger ;; *) echo "Usage: $0 { start | stop }" exit 1 ;; esac exit 0 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Kelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 1:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: qmail hanging - best way to restart > > > What does your 'qmail start' script look like? If you converted > to the most > recent supervise from an older version, and didn't convert things into the > 'run' file correctly, you could see this behaviour. > > -D > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mike Denka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 3:04 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: qmail hanging - best way to restart > > > > > >We are having some problems with qmail hanging and no longer > responding to > >POP requests or smtp requests. Restarting all qmail processes and > >qmail-popup resolves the problem. I notice that when I stop qmail, the > >/etc/init.d/qmail stop script does not stop all processes, only > those whose > >effective uids are 0 (root). Therefore several processes remain > >running and > >I must wait for them to terminate to restart. This can be quite a > >long time > >(sometimes the processes seem to be hung and never terminate naturally). > > > >Two questions: > > > >1) anyone else notice this problem with both qmail pop and qmail smtp > >hanging (on Solaris 7 running on an E250 with 512 MB RAM - using > tcpserver > >to fork the processes - note: this does NOT seem to be related to the > >previous thread on Solaris 7 problems - that thread mentioned > thousands of > >qmail processes stalling, I never have more than 40 or 50). > > > >2) Is there any reason that qmail processes whose effective uid is not 0 > >shouldn't be killed when stopping and restarting? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Mike > > > > > >
Mike Denka wrote, among other things: > /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-smtpd > /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-send > /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-lspawn > /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-rspawn > /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 qmail-clean > /usr/bin/pkill -f -u 0 splogger I'll spare the discussion of the merits of stopping qmail outright (as you are attempting to do) vs. letting it stop. That's a more theoretical and political issue. -u 0 is your answer to your euid==0 question. Check the man page. The -u option to pkill restricts it to processes with a certain effective UID. Take it out. Actually, you're killing too many unnecessary things and too few necessary things. To hard-stop the SMTP server, send a SIGTERM to tcpserver and qmail-smtpd. To hard-stop qmail, send a SIGTERM to qmail-send and all delivery programs (qmail-remote, qmail-local, and any local delivery agent like procmail). pkill isn't portable. Assuming you're OK with that, and that you'll continue to launch qmail as you have been (without supervise from daemontools), AND that you want to hard-stop qmail, you should do the following: # Stop delivering mail, deliveries in progress will continue pkill -TERM -u qmails qmail-send # Stop accepting SMTP connections, open connections will remain pkill -TERM -u qmaild tcpserver If left alone long enough, deliveries and SMTP connections would then finish. This is what I refer to as a soft stop. For a hard stop, possibly after sleeping for a while to give deliveries a fair chance: # Stop local deliveries in progress - don't specify -u due to setuid # Messages will remain in queue pkill -TERM '(qmail-local|procmail)' # Stop remote deliveries in progress # Messages will remain in queue pkill -TERM -u qmailr qmail-remote # Stop SMTP connections in progress # MTAs will queue mail and try again. MUAs should do the same, but # may warn the user. pkill -TERM -u qmaild qmail-smtpd Mark -- Do not reply directly to this e-mail address -- Mark Mentovai GGN NOC System Administrator
Pablo Mart�nez Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (212.49.139.237) and the sender is [EMAIL PROTECTED], bt.es mail > server says "Sender domain must resolve". > > This don't happen when the mail server sends mails to others domain, so > I really do not have a clue of what can be happening. I think it's > related with DNS, but I don't know what can I be doing wrong, or what it Generally it indicates DNS resolution problems. But everything seems to be fine with your DNS right now, both your name servers are giving valid authoritative responses. Sometimes sites that return the above errors are themselves at fault (I encountered one only the other week that was rejecting absolutely everything, presumably because of a DNS fault at their end.) James.
Hello, Once in a while I havce to send out a message to thousands of users from a variable set. So, I make a custom database query to extract the recipients list. Then I establish a SMTP connection to a qmail server. My problem is that along the time the number of recipients has been growing to many thousands but the time that queueing takes does not grow linearly with the number of recipients but rather grows exponentially. I am taking advantage of the PIPELINING SMTP extension to reduce the overhead of waiting for the response from the STMP server. I take care of not pipe more than 100 recipients at a time before waiting for the server response to all to not exceed the TCP window size to avoid SMTP dialogue deadlock. Once I decide to make my connection code to output the dialogue between the SMTP client and the server and I noticed that periodically the dialogue hangs for a little while and then it proceeds. Response hang periods do not happen right after queing the current batch of 100 piped recipients. Does anybody know how to explain this? Is there a cure? Would spliting the queueing in many different messages help? If so, how many recipients are recommended per batch? Regards, Manuel Lemos Web Programming Components using PHP Classes. Look at: http://phpclasses.UpperDesign.com/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mlemos.e-na.net/ PGP key: http://www.mlemos.e-na.net/ManuelLemos.pgp --
I would do one of two things instead: 1) Set up a .qmail-something file with all the addresses you want to send to (don't know about performance here, but I wouldn't think it would be too bad), and send the email to that address. It will forward a copy to everyone in that .qmail file. Using a custom SQL query, it would be trivial to export it into a single entry per line, and drop it into a .qmail file. 2) Set up and use ezmlm and use a closed mailing list to do it. This may be overkill for what you're trying to do, if you don't use it very often. Either way, you send one email and let qmail take care of the rest of the work, rather than having to wait for 1000+ messages to be delivered from your outbox, or direct SMTP connection. -D ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuel Lemos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 5:00 PM Subject: Performance degradation when queuing a message to thousands of recipients Hello, Once in a while I havce to send out a message to thousands of users from a variable set. So, I make a custom database query to extract the recipients list. Then I establish a SMTP connection to a qmail server. My problem is that along the time the number of recipients has been growing to many thousands but the time that queueing takes does not grow linearly with the number of recipients but rather grows exponentially. I am taking advantage of the PIPELINING SMTP extension to reduce the overhead of waiting for the response from the STMP server. I take care of not pipe more than 100 recipients at a time before waiting for the server response to all to not exceed the TCP window size to avoid SMTP dialogue deadlock. Once I decide to make my connection code to output the dialogue between the SMTP client and the server and I noticed that periodically the dialogue hangs for a little while and then it proceeds. Response hang periods do not happen right after queing the current batch of 100 piped recipients. Does anybody know how to explain this? Is there a cure? Would spliting the queueing in many different messages help? If so, how many recipients are recommended per batch? Regards, Manuel Lemos Web Programming Components using PHP Classes. Look at: http://phpclasses.UpperDesign.com/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mlemos.e-na.net/ PGP key: http://www.mlemos.e-na.net/ManuelLemos.pgp --
Hi all, I want to find out how many email can ezmlm handle up to. I am running a HP E60 with 156 RAM now. How about a list with a million or half a million users? Anoyone have any ideas? Thank you. Regards, Graham
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 07:01:18AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi all, > > I want to find out how many email can ezmlm handle up to. I am running a HP > E60 with 156 RAM now. How about a list with a million or half a million > users? Anoyone have any ideas? Thank you. It depends on the volume. And what kind of response times you are expecting. If you just tend to post to these people on a weekly basis I would say it holds, but not everyone will get their mail the same day. It also depends on the mail size, the response times from other servers and your bandwidth. If you allow all the 500-1000k people to post I would say it is not enough. /magnus -- http://x42.com/
H, At 13:42 08.06.2000 -0400, Jim Simmons wrote: >To stop it from making this change, I believe you can edit >/usr/lib/linuxconf/redhat/perm and remove the /usr/sbin/sendmail line. Thanks for the hint, I found the file where linuxconf takes its information. Here a diff for qmail installation: --- /usr/lib/linuxconf/redhat/perm/mail.orig Sun Jun 11 10:53:34 2000 +++ /usr/lib/linuxconf/redhat/perm/mail Sun Jun 11 10:54:16 2000 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /var/spool/mqueue root mail d 755 required /var/spool/mail root mail d 775 required -/usr/sbin/sendmail root root f 6755 +/usr/sbin/sendmail root qmail f 755 /etc/mail root root d 755 Peter
I remeber that one part of Dan's DNS software can reply different IP's depending on where you are comming from.. could someone please remind me what part of the DNS software that is? Best regards Michael Boman -- W I Z O F F I C E . C O M L I M I T E D - Your Online Office Wizard 16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #04-00, Singapore 347778 Voice : (+65) 844 3228 [extension 118] Fax : (+65) 842 7228 Pager : (+65) 92 93 29 49 ICQ : 5566009 Mobile: (+65) 98 55 17 34 eMail : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 05:25:39PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote: > I remeber that one part of Dan's DNS software can reply different IP's > depending on where you are comming from.. could someone please remind me > what part of the DNS software that is? Hi Michael, That sounds like pickdns: http://cr.yp.to/dnscache/pickdns.html Regards, james -- James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375 "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
