qmail Digest 15 Jun 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1033
Topics (messages 43069 through 43129):
big-* patches and FD_SET()
43069 by: Toens Bueker
43085 by: Uwe Ohse
43091 by: Russ Allbery
43097 by: clemensF
43112 by: Peter van Dijk
43124 by: Toens Bueker
43125 by: Toens Bueker
qmail setup with openbsd 2.7. and SMTP
43070 by: Andreas Keiser
43095 by: clemensF
Any reason not to run supervise?
43071 by: Russell Nelson
43072 by: Petr Novotny
43093 by: Russ Allbery
43098 by: clemensF
POP Server keeps dying.
43073 by: blue
Mass virtual hosting with qmail
43074 by: Nick Kew
43100 by: clemensF
Problems in qmail's Installation
43075 by: SANTOLALLA OSCAR
ELM with Maildirs?
43076 by: Enrique Vadillo
Re: smtpd server very slow
43077 by: Luca Zancan
Error 4294967295... What is this?
43078 by: Z
Install question
43079 by: Joe Denney
43082 by: Khadaji Shin
qmail-pw2u hang?
43080 by: Paul Farber
qmail-pw2u - got it!
43081 by: Paul Farber
vpopmail/qmail admin
43083 by: Paul Farber
logging tcpserver activity
43084 by: Ben Beuchler
43086 by: Chris Johnson
Re: qmail hanging - best way to restart
43087 by: Mike Denka
forwars. pop accounts dissappearing!!! help me..
43088 by: Nick
error
43089 by: Fernando B. Hallberg
secure strategy to add v-users from cgi
43090 by: Martin Langhoff
Bouncing mail w/ no reverse DNS
43092 by: Sgt Chains
43099 by: Michael Boyiazis
43103 by: Dave Kelly
43104 by: Dave Kelly
43122 by: Erwin Hoffmann
43129 by: Lorens Kockum
Re: No logs / supervise/ok doesn't exist...
43094 by: Martin Langhoff
maildirsmtp timing out
43096 by: Ben Beuchler
43101 by: Ben Beuchler
Maildir prob
43102 by: Z
43105 by: Manfred Bartz
43107 by: Eric Cox
43109 by: Ben Beuchler
43113 by: Peter van Dijk
Unnecessary overhead on modular design (was: Re: Any reason not to run supervise?)
43106 by: Rogerio Brito
Fixing open relay
43108 by: Dewald Strauss
43110 by: Eric Cox
43111 by: Peter van Dijk
43118 by: Dewald Strauss
relay-ctrl-1.4 on Solaris
43114 by: Kristina
please help me !!! qmail and vpopmail
43115 by: Dirgantara R T
AUTH-SMTP: Compling on Solaris
43116 by: Kristina
43117 by: TAG
43121 by: Krzysztof Dabrowski
Rewriting "To:" prior to redirect
43119 by: Joaquim Homrighausen
Help on qmail-qstat
43120 by: System Administrator
43126 by: Eric Cox
43127 by: System Administrator
Bandwidth sucking
43123 by: Paulo Jan
43128 by: OK 2 NET - Andr� Paulsberg
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi *,
I'm sure it's an FAQ but I haven't found any hints on this
until now.
>From my days with squid (http://squid.nlanr.net/), I
tought I'd now how to increase the filedescriptor limit on
Solaris.
For qmail I did the same (edit /etc/system and add 'set
rlim_fd_max = 4096').
But I still cannot compile qmail with the big-* patches,
because they still complain, that:
./chkspawn
Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
How can I increase this 'hidden limit'?
root@blub:/usr/local/src/qmail/qmail-1.03> ulimit -a
core file size (blocks) unlimited
data seg size (kbytes) unlimited
file size (blocks) unlimited
open files 2048
pipe size (512 bytes) 10
stack size (kbytes) 8192
cpu time (seconds) unlimited
max user processes 15941
virtual memory (kbytes) unlimited
Any hints?
Thx
By
T�ns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:58:20AM +0200, Toens Bueker wrote:
> ./chkspawn
> Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
edit qmail-1.03/conf-spawn, set the value to a number less then or
equal to 509.
> How can I increase this 'hidden limit'?
You can try what is described in /usr/include/sys/select.h, but i
don't know whether this will do something good: The C library
might know too much about the 1024 internally.
Regards, Uwe
Uwe Ohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:58:20AM +0200, Toens Bueker wrote:
>> How can I increase this 'hidden limit'?
> You can try what is described in /usr/include/sys/select.h, but i don't
> know whether this will do something good: The C library might know too
> much about the 1024 internally.
Raising the limit in this fashion is supported and should work correctly
for Solaris 7 or later, IIRC. It's a Solaris-specific hack, though.
(Solaris, being a SysV derivative, really wants you to convert your
software to use poll instead of select.)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
> Toens Bueker:
> ./chkspawn
> Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
does qmail really take up that many fd's at a time?
clemens
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 10:42:21PM +0200, clemensF wrote:
> > Toens Bueker:
>
> > ./chkspawn
> > Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
>
> does qmail really take up that many fd's at a time?
It needs 2 for every remote delivery, for example. One fd is passed by
qmail-rspawn to qmail-remote, being an open fd to the queue file, another
fd is needed for the connection to the remote host.
I figure local deliveries might need even more at times, but I may be wrong
here :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How can I increase this 'hidden limit'?
>
> > You can try what is described in /usr/include/sys/select.h, but i don't
> > know whether this will do something good: The C library might know too
> > much about the 1024 internally.
>
> Raising the limit in this fashion is supported and should work correctly
> for Solaris 7 or later, IIRC. It's a Solaris-specific hack, though.
> (Solaris, being a SysV derivative, really wants you to convert your
> software to use poll instead of select.)
That's what squid does. So qmail uses select, right?
By
T�ns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
clemensF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ./chkspawn
> > Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
>
> does qmail really take up that many fd's at a time?
Depends from what you're trying to do.
I just checked - sending 200 mails to one of our mail
servers (which is a little bit slow) took about 150
'qmail-remotes'.
As there are at least 2 fds needed for each mail (and
there should be a few left for the OS), there should be
more than 509 available for a busy server.
By
T�ns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
Hi
since weeks I am trying to setup qmail without success.
So I want to start from scratch again.
Is there anybody who already installed qmail on OPENBSD 2.7. ?
1. Where can I get the source, which I can compile with OPENBSD 2.7.
(When I compiled I had problems -> user alias not found, but I set up
group and passwd files!!)
2. What compiler should I use.
3. I want to receive and send mail with smtp (no pop3). What packages or
sources do I need. Where can I get them.
4. Is there a documentation to do exactly that?
Thank you very much.
Andreas
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
> Andreas Keiser:
> Is there anybody who already installed qmail on OPENBSD 2.7. ?
freebsd here, starting with 2.2.8 upto 4.0 never any problems.
> 1. Where can I get the source, which I can compile with OPENBSD 2.7.
> (When I compiled I had problems -> user alias not found, but I set up
> group and passwd files!!)
you have to make sure that any shadow-passwds or nis-databases or the like
are compiled after changes to /etc/{passwd,group}.
> 2. What compiler should I use.
gnu cc serves well.
> 3. I want to receive and send mail with smtp (no pop3). What packages or
> sources do I need. Where can I get them.
> 4. Is there a documentation to do exactly that?
i think the documentation from mr. bernstein and qmail users is adequate
for the technical mind. for smtp 'pure' you don't need anything else.
clemens
Mike Denka writes:
> I don't use a supervisor unless it's hidden in the default configuration,
> but this is my startup script:
I'm just curious: is there any reason not to run supervise?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 14 Jun 00, at 9:20, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Mike Denka writes:
> > I don't use a supervisor unless it's hidden in the default
> configuration, > but this is my startup script:
>
> I'm just curious: is there any reason not to run supervise?
"It eats up space in process table."
As in "sendmail is superior to qmail because it doesn't eat up
space in process table". (Overheard this just an hour ago...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOUd7UVMwP8g7qbw/EQL0dgCfYoeZNT1wNx31B3RkPbjBlc1/blIAoJMf
+Ue7XwcOvJx7zQa3Dnc8/6dC
=uBcS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "It eats up space in process table."
> As in "sendmail is superior to qmail because it doesn't eat up space in
> process table". (Overheard this just an hour ago...)
I've encountered this some too; it's an interesting psychological effect
that I think slows the adoption of qmail a bit. Because qmail is so
modular and actually exposes its internal interfaces to the degree of
having separate binaries running, people think that it's considerably more
complicated than sendmail (I keep hearing this). This is, of course,
really not true; sendmail does way more inside that big monolithic black
box. But because it hides all the complexity, it scores some marketing
points.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
> Petr Novotny:
> As in "sendmail is superior to qmail because it doesn't eat up
> space in process table". (Overheard this just an hour ago...)
which is why qmail, consisting of many *small* programs, is vwery well
suited to unix. if you read the source, you will find a very unix-stylish
program set.
clemens
My pop server keeps dying. I only have 5 users on my system. Why would
this be happening ?
I am looking at the logs for hours but I do not get any information from
them. I am running my pop
server like this:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mymail.server.com
\
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
Anyone know where I can begin to look for this problem ?? Is there a
program that can check my
qmail-config for errors ?
thanks !
I'm looking for a mass-virtual-hosting patch for qmail:
(1) Has anyone written such a thing?
(2) If not, does anyone else think it would be useful for me
to write one?
In more detail, my requirement is for mass hosting at valet.webthing.com
(see http://valet.webthing.com/ for a preview). I propose to offer
a co-branding scheme, under which resellers set up valet.some-domain.com
as a CNAME for my server, and offer the Site Valet service at their
own domain.
Hence I want qmail to accept mail for users @valet.[anything] and deliver
deliver locally to valet-hostname-username (where my own program will
deal with it). I don't want to have to add anything to rcpthosts
(or morercpthosts), locals or virtualdomains for every domain.
--
Nick Kew
> Nick Kew:
> deal with it). I don't want to have to add anything to rcpthosts
> (or morercpthosts), locals or virtualdomains for every domain.
you don't? but then people might try to use your setup to base spamming
on.
clemens
Dear Colleagues,
I decided to follow the installation's instructions of the document "Life
with qmail". The unique observation is I'm not using DNS because I want to
use it only for internal mail. I must have made some mistake.
The errors made clear when i tried to start qmail. When i execute " #
/usr/local/sbin/qmail start ", appears a message saying the inexistence of
this file. What i don't find out is which of the previous steps are related
with the creation of this executable.
Another matter i don't understand is the message that appears when the
system tries to start the service qmail: "execvp: No such file or directory
... [FAILED]".
Thanks,
Oscar Santolalla
qmail-showctl
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
silent concurrency limit: 120.
subdirectory split: 23.
user ids: 502, 503, 504, 0, 505, 506, 507, 508.
group ids: 502, 503.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON.
bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is mail.slinux.
concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10.
concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
defaultdomain: Default domain name is mail.slinux.
defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is mail.slinux.
doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: mail.slinux.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is mail.slinux.
helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is mail.slinux.
idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is mail.slinux.
localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes mail.slinux.
locals:
Messages for mail.slinux are delivered locally.
me: My name is mail.slinux.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
plusdomain: Plus domain name is mail.slinux.
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts:
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.slinux.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 mail.slinux.
smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes.
timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds.
timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds.
timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds.
virtualdomains: (Default.) No virtual domains.
defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does.
Is there some modified ELM somewhere that works with Maildirs? or maybe just
patches?
thanks!
Enrique-
Thank you all (Tore, Heinrik, Ed, ecc.) for the hints.
I have found the solution to my problem. I have added the "-l
192.168.254.99" switch to the tcpserver launch (192.168.254.99 is the IP
address of my mail server, of course) and now "telnet 192.168.254.99 25"
is immediate!
Thank you again
Luca
__________________________________________________
Luca Zancan
Logica S.r.l.
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL http://www.logicaonline.com
__________________________________________________
I'm jsut starting out with qmail and it installed correctly, but every
time i try to pop my mail i get error 4294967295 and it doesn't say
anything else. I've installed checkpassword and i use qpop3. my dns has
my domain as the MX record and i put the proper information in the
inetd.conf and restarted it. also, when i try to send from my MUA using
my domain as the SMTP server it will only keep it in the Outbox and never
send it. any help would be great.
Z
|
Hi all,
Am running RH 6.2, and attempting my first install
of qmail. Looking at the readme for qmail-run and it talks about a 'functions
rpm'. What is this? I can find no reference on RedHat's website and a search of
the faq and archives for this list don'tshow anything. Am I making this harder
than it is?
TIA,
Joe
|
|
Thanks to all for the help. Will try again. Think I
was probably making it to complicated. BTW, nice to be on a list where people
still care enough to reply w/o sarcasm and or RTFM!!!!
Joe
|
hello all
I'm tring to use the utility qmail-pw2u to convert the passwd file to the
users file for qmail and when I run the qmail-pw2u it simply stalls(?). I
was expecting to see the users file dumped to the screen but I get
nothing.
I'm using RH 6.1 with approx 10 users. Passwords are shadowed, but I did
run pwunconv then qmail-pw2u, same thing.
Any advice?
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
Never mind.. RTFM second time and figureed it out... DOH!
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
Hello all,
I'm using qmail 1.03 and trying to add qmailadmin support for
administrating the accounts.
How do I keep the existing account in place while still utilizing the
qmailadmin features or having to redo all the accounts under
/home/vpopmail/domain/??
Any tips??
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
Is there an easy way to log tcpserver activity?
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 Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 01:28:40PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> Is there an easy way to log tcpserver activity?
Use tcpserver with the -v switch and pipe the output into multilog from the
daemontools package.
Chris
The problem with the soft kill is that, as you say in your message, it takes
some time for all connections to come to a graceful conclusion and then
you're still often left with some that hang. Unfortunately our mail server
is in production offering both smtp and pop services for thousands of
customers. When our mail server hangs, people start screaming. We need to
un-hinge it and get it back up and running again. I would love to
understand what is causing smtp and pop to hang up. But, meanwhile, I need
to quickly kill qmail and tcpserver and get them started again. Sounds like
pkill without the "-u 0" is the answer. My original question was why this
startup script would kill only the root owned processes.
BTW, I would be interested in a discussion of the political and theoretical
issues involved in stopping qmail outright, since, until I can figure out
why qmail is hanging on our system, I must apparently stop it outright to
get it up and running again. And political and theoretical rammifications
must be taken into consideration (even if they are overridden by necessity).
Thanks,
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Mentovai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 3:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: qmail hanging - best way to restart
>
>
> 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
>
>
|
OK.. i have a mail server
running qmail 1.03 vpopmail qmailadmin and
sqwebmail
this 1 user had some problems with his account on a
virtualdomain.
when i created it i set is up as a forward. to
forward this mail.
i also already had about 12 other forwards setup on
this virtualdomain.
those all work fine but this one user does not. i
recreated it over and over (yes the correct
.qmail files are being made by qmailadmin in the
virtual-domain dir) and if i send e-mail
to this address it vanishes (no errors in maillog)
but all the other foewards work great
i added another forward to test it with a different
account name and it works..
so then i said screw it and made it a POP account
on this virtualdomian
same thing.. all outide mail vanishes.. all
internal mail works.. yet a new different
that seems to be throwing the external mail away..
can anyone help me get this figured out?
i dont understand what is happening.. its like
there is something hiding somewhere
saying "delete all e-mail to ever be delivered to
this address" i doubt that is the case.
thanks alot
Refards
~NIck
|
friends
someone had already this error:
deferral:
Connected_to_200.250.15.3_but_swender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_ma
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
thank's
Fernando B. Hallberg
Conectta Webmarketing
http://www.conectta.com.br
Cascavel - Paran� - Brasil
hi list,
I'm looking for a safe way to add users to a webmail service set up
on qmail + vmailmgr + courier-imap + twig (a php mailclient). The part
missing is, you guessed, adding new users automagically. Now I'm
straining my head to think of the safest solution to give inmmediate
registration to new users.
All of the webmail users are running on the same UID
the best path I could think of is writing a cgi that takes the info,
validates the username and pw to make sure no escaping/shell invocation
gets through and then pass them as parameters to a suid perl script that
changes to the proper user, goes to its ~ and invokes vadduser.
do you see any trouble with this approach, besides the care I must
take to take the results (success/failure) all the way back to the cgi?
or maybe there is a well know and understood sanctioned way to do it?
martin
Forgive me if this is somewhere in the Docs, I can't find it.
I would like to bounce inbound mail that comes in that can't resolve
reverse DNS.
A lot of net admins out there have started to not setup DNS entries for
their dial-up accounts believing that this is a better approach than
registering w/ the MAPS/DUL list.
Personally I don't agree... but I'm getting a lot of trespass spam via
non resolved DNS.
Any ideas?
--Larry
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Forgive me if this is somewhere in the Docs, I can't find it.
>
> I would like to bounce inbound mail that comes in that can't resolve
> reverse DNS.
>
> A lot of net admins out there have started to not setup DNS
> entries for
> their dial-up accounts believing that this is a better approach than
> registering w/ the MAPS/DUL list.
>
> Personally I don't agree... but I'm getting a lot of trespass spam via
> non resolved DNS.
>
> Any ideas?
I tried it for about two days. I had sales people complaining that
they couldn't get mail from their contacts; I had tech(!) firms' mail
bouncing back to them; etc.
While some spam comes from these unlisted people, most
comes from hijacked servers used for relay, which have perfectly
set up DNS entries.
Michael Boyiazis -----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetZero
Mail/Sys/Network Admin
_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
You can use the patch at http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch to
do this. I have used it, and love it. We were seeing MUCH more spam from
nonexistant domains than legitimate ones, so this helped out a ton. Call me
old school, but I think every return address should have a valid, resolvable
DNS entry, so I don't shed too many tears when emails with bad DNS
information don't get through.
-D
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sgt Chains [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:13 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Bouncing mail w/ no reverse DNS
>
>
>Forgive me if this is somewhere in the Docs, I can't find it.
>
>I would like to bounce inbound mail that comes in that can't resolve
>reverse DNS.
>
>A lot of net admins out there have started to not setup DNS entries for
>their dial-up accounts believing that this is a better approach than
>registering w/ the MAPS/DUL list.
>
>Personally I don't agree... but I'm getting a lot of trespass spam via
>non resolved DNS.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>--Larry
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Ah, but just because it comes from an open relay with a valid DNS entry
doesn't mean the "From:" address is valid. That's what the patch at
qmail.org checks, so it can bounce it to the original sender if it needs to.
The problem I was running into was that we'd get so much SPAM with an
unresolvable From: header that was trying to be delivered to non-existant
users on our system, that it would sit in the queue for a week while it was
trying to bounce it back to that non-existant domain. Then after a week
that would puke out and flood the MAILER-DAEMON or postmaster boxes with
"but the bounce bounced!" messages. I pretty much got sick of it, and
applied the patch, and I haven't been sorry. :)
As long as everyone has their "From:" address configured correctly with
their mail reader, there shouldn't be any problems. If people don't have
that configured correctly, well, they SHOULD. :)
-D
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Boyiazis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:54 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Bouncing mail w/ no reverse DNS
>
>
> > Forgive me if this is somewhere in the Docs, I can't find it.
>>
>> I would like to bounce inbound mail that comes in that can't resolve
>> reverse DNS.
>>
>> A lot of net admins out there have started to not setup DNS
>> entries for
>> their dial-up accounts believing that this is a better approach than
>> registering w/ the MAPS/DUL list.
>>
>> Personally I don't agree... but I'm getting a lot of trespass spam via
>> non resolved DNS.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
>I tried it for about two days. I had sales people complaining that
>they couldn't get mail from their contacts; I had tech(!) firms' mail
>bouncing back to them; etc.
>
>While some spam comes from these unlisted people, most
>comes from hijacked servers used for relay, which have perfectly
>set up DNS entries.
>
>Michael Boyiazis -----
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>NetZero
>Mail/Sys/Network Admin
>
>
>_____________________________________________
>NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
>Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
>http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
Hi,
I included the MAILFROM DNS check in my SPAMCONTROL patch.
You can give it a try....
http://www.fehcom.de/qmail_en.html
cheers.
eh.
At 15:13 14.6.2000 -0500, Sgt Chains wrote:
>Forgive me if this is somewhere in the Docs, I can't find it.
>
>I would like to bounce inbound mail that comes in that can't resolve
>reverse DNS.
>
>A lot of net admins out there have started to not setup DNS entries for
>their dial-up accounts believing that this is a better approach than
>registering w/ the MAPS/DUL list.
>
>Personally I don't agree... but I'm getting a lot of trespass spam via
>non resolved DNS.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>--Larry
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| fff hh http://www.fehcom.de Dr. Erwin Hoffmann |
| ff hh |
| ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 |
| fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln |
| ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm |
| ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 |
| ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Ah, but just because it comes from an open relay with a valid DNS entry
>doesn't mean the "From:" address is valid. That's what the patch at
>qmail.org checks, so it can bounce it to the original sender if it needs to.
Ah OK. That's a pretty unassailable requirement.
"In accepting a piece of mail I accept the RFC 821 "MUST"
obligation to send an error message to the error address if for
some reason I can't deliver it. I cannot resolve the error
address; I cannot therefore at this time send an error message
to the error address, and there is no reason to believe I will
be able to do so in the future; I therefore cannot accept
the obligation to send a message to that address in case of
problems; therefore, I cannot accept your mail."
given to me by [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
> This appears to be a problem with the older versions of the
> qmail+patches RPM. To fix it, you need to stop and start svscan.
> --
> Bruce Guenter http://em.ca/~bruceg/
>
I am attempting to use a variation of the AUTOTURN configuration described
in the serialmail docs for a customer with an intermittent connection. He
is the primary MX and we just queue it up in a Maildir until he connects.
While his connection is up, I can remove him from the 'virtualdomains'
file and send him mail directly without any difficulty. However, when I
either invoke maildirsmtp from tcpserver or from the command line,
maildirsmtp times out. From the mail server I can telnet to port 25 on
the remote box without any difficulty. I have even attempted running
maildirsmtp directly from the command line with the correct IP entered
directly (ie without relying on TCPREMOTEIP being correct. Here is the
command line I have been using:
maildirsmtp 206.144.237.21/ autoturn-206.144.237.21- 206.144.237.21 \
AutoTurn
No messages actually get transferred and after a minute or two I get this
error:
serialsmtp: fatal: network read error: timed out
And eventually maildirsmtp just gives up:
maildirserial: fatal: making no progress, giving up
I am running maildirsmtp as root, so there are no problems with perms on
the Maildir. The remote host is running sendmail. Here is what his
smtp greeting looks like:
220- creatureworks.com Sendmail 950413.SGI.8.6.12/940406.SGI.AUTO ready at
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:38:34 -0500
220 ESMTP spoken here
I am completely confused. Any ideas?
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 Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 03:27:38PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> While his connection is up, I can remove him from the 'virtualdomains'
> file and send him mail directly without any difficulty. However, when I
> either invoke maildirsmtp from tcpserver or from the command line,
> maildirsmtp times out. From the mail server I can telnet to port 25 on
> the remote box without any difficulty. I have even attempted running
> maildirsmtp directly from the command line with the correct IP entered
> directly (ie without relying on TCPREMOTEIP being correct. Here is the
> command line I have been using:
Some judicious packet sniffing revealed that it was puking on a domain
name that refused to resolve. 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
how do io make sure that the messages are going to the correct place.
i keep getting errors like:
starting delivery 52: msg 869324 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status:
local 4/10 remote 0/20 delivery 49: deferral:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
status: local 3/10 remote 0/20
I want it send to ~/Mailbox
also, how do you tell the pop server where to look?
Thanks.
Z
Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> how do io make sure that the messages are going to the correct place.
> i keep getting errors like:
>
> starting delivery 52: msg 869324 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status:
> local 4/10 remote 0/20 delivery 49: deferral:
> Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
> status: local 3/10 remote 0/20
>
> I want it send to ~/Mailbox
your ~/.qmail file must contain ``./Mailbox'' (relative to the user's
home directory, or the full path, e.g. ``/home/username/Mailbox''.
The mailbox and .qmail should not be publicly accessable.
man dot-qmail
> also, how do you tell the pop server where to look?
qmail-pop3d only works with maildir, not mailbox. It will
automatically look in the users' home directory for a maildir with
the name specified on the commandline that invokes qmail-pop3d.
HTH
--
Manfred Bartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP_KeyID=0xF172019B
Manfred Bartz wrote:
>
> Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I want it send to ~/Mailbox
>
> your ~/.qmail file must contain ``./Mailbox'' (relative to the user's
> home directory, or the full path, e.g. ``/home/username/Mailbox''.
I think it's
./Mailbox/
(i.e. with the trailing slash)
Eric
--
NEEDHAM'S ELECTRONICS
Device Programmers
(916) 924-8037 (Voice)
http://www.needhams.com
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 04:24:47PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
> > your ~/.qmail file must contain ``./Mailbox'' (relative to the user's
> > home directory, or the full path, e.g. ``/home/username/Mailbox''.
>
> I think it's
>
> ./Mailbox/
>
> (i.e. with the trailing slash)
I believe if you include a trailing slash it delivers as if it were a
Maildir.
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 Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 04:24:47PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
> Manfred Bartz wrote:
> >
> > Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I want it send to ~/Mailbox
> >
> > your ~/.qmail file must contain ``./Mailbox'' (relative to the user's
> > home directory, or the full path, e.g. ``/home/username/Mailbox''.
>
> I think it's
>
> ./Mailbox/
>
> (i.e. with the trailing slash)
Well, if you want a maildir named 'Mailbox', yes. But usually you would do
./Maildir/
or
./Mailbox
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
On Jun 14 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I've encountered this some too; it's an interesting psychological
> effect that I think slows the adoption of qmail a bit. Because
> qmail is so modular and actually exposes its internal interfaces to
> the degree of having separate binaries running, people think that
> it's considerably more complicated than sendmail (I keep hearing
> this). This is, of course, really not true; sendmail does way more
> inside that big monolithic black box. But because it hides all the
> complexity, it scores some marketing points.
Indeed.
A similar feeling actually comes from the (unjustified) myth
that modularization creates a unecessary overhead and,
therefore, is the source of an evil, intrinsic inefficiency.
With the clean, modular and efficient design of qmail, Dan has
given a counter-example to the "common sense".
With bad design, even superior ideas can be worse than
inferior ones moderately well-done, while they are always a
win if done correctly.
[]s, Roger...
P.S.: I was reading the homepage of Postfix <www.postfix.org> this
Monday and found this, regarding our subject:
"Other mailers such as qmail use a rigid hierarchy of programs that
run other programs in a fixed order and throw them away after
use. This approach gives better insulation, at the cost of some
process creation overhead and inter-process communication."
-- Taken from http://www.postfix.org/architecture.html
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Hi everybody,
Some @#%^%& spammer decided to abuse my mailserver today,
and it ended up in orbs.
I really want to fix this, but need some help.
I have the following setup:
qmail 1.03 with ucspi and daemontools
vpopmail
sqwebmail
I am hosting mail for 7 domains, all connecting to the server via a
10.40 address range.
I created /etc/tcp.smtp as follows:
10.40.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
and created the tcp.smtp.cdb file from that.
In /etc/qmail/locals I have just the domainname of the server.
In /etc/qmail/control/rcpthosts I have the names of the 7 domains
In /etc/tcpcontrol there are 2 files: pop-3.rules and smtp.rules
both these files have all 7 domainnames with
:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" after each domainname
(this was installed with qmail?)
/etc/rc.d/init.d/smtpd looks like this:
-------------------->
#!/bin/sh
#
# chkconfig: 345 81 30
# description: The SMTP daemon for qmail with optional RBL blocking.
#
#
# Set standard values
#
SERVICE=smtpd
PROGRAM=/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
PORT=smtp
#THISUID=0
#THISGID=0
#CONCURRENT=15
LOGFACILITY=2
# Source function library.
. /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail-functions
readdefault CONCURRENT concurrencysmtpd 20
THISUID=`id -u qmaild`
THISGID=`id -g qmaild`
#
# Uncomment these lines when testing or set a HOSTNAME is you want something
# else than the cananonical name for this host
#
#HOSTNAME=`/bin/hostname`
#HOST="-l $HOSTNAME"
#
# Security Options. Set SECURITY level to one of the following
#
RELAXED="-RHPo"
BASIC="-rhPO"
NORMAL="-rhPO"
PARANOID="-rhpO"
SECURITY="$RELAXED"
# Source function library.
. /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions
# Source networking configuration.
. /etc/sysconfig/network
# Check that networking is up.
[ ${NETWORKING} = "no" ] && exit 0
#
# Setup TCPSERVER execution
#
# If antirbl is installed, process antirbldomains
if [ -x /usr/bin/antirbl ]; then
readdefault DOMAINS antirbldomains ""
for DOMAIN in $DOMAINS; do
RBL="$RBL /usr/bin/antirbl $DOMAIN"
done
fi
# If rblsmtpd is installed, process rbltimeout and rbldomains
if [ -x /usr/bin/rblsmtpd ]; then
readdefault TIMEOUT rbltimeout 60
readdefault DOMAINS rbldomains rbl.maps.vix.com
for DOMAIN in $DOMAINS; do
RBL="$RBL /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -t $TIMEOUT -r $DOMAIN"
done
fi
if [ -n "$RBL" ]; then
PROGRAM="$RBL qmail-pipe fixcr -- $PROGRAM"
fi
DAEMON="tcpserver -u $THISUID -g $THISGID -c $CONCURRENT -v \
$SECURITY -x /etc/tcpcontrol/$SERVICE.cdb $HOST 0 $PORT $PROGRAM | $LOGGER"
#
# Now execute the start-stop checking
#
. /etc/rc.d/init.d/tcpserver-functions
-------------------->
But with this the server still relays mail for anyone.
What did I miss here ?
I really hope someone can help me out here, I am hopelessly stuck
Thanks
Dewald
Dewald Strauss wrote:
>
> In /etc/qmail/locals I have just the domainname of the server.
> In /etc/qmail/control/rcpthosts I have the names of the 7 domains
> In /etc/tcpcontrol there are 2 files: pop-3.rules and smtp.rules
> both these files have all 7 domainnames with
> :allow,RELAYCLIENT="" after each domainname
> (this was installed with qmail?)
> But with this the server still relays mail for anyone.
> What did I miss here ?
The default control directory for qmail is /var/qmail/control, but
your control files are in /etc/qmail. I figured it was probably
possible to change the control dir location, but I've never read
any docs on the subject. If you didn't purposefully change the
default location, perhaps your qmail is still looking in
/var/qmail/control?
Also, you might do a /var/qmail/bin/qmail-showctl and verify
its output.
Eric
--
NEEDHAM'S ELECTRONICS
Device Programmers
(916) 924-8037 (Voice)
http://www.needhams.com
On Tue, Jan 22, 1980 at 02:38:51AM +0200, Dewald Strauss wrote:
[snip]
> In /etc/qmail/locals I have just the domainname of the server.
> In /etc/qmail/control/rcpthosts I have the names of the 7 domains
This combination doesn't make sense. If locals is in /etc/qmail, so is
rcpthosts. Either one of 'm or both (as already suggested) are wrong.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Hi again,
In /var/qmail/control I have symlinks pointing to
/etc/qmail.
This seems to work fine.
Anything else that could be wrong ?
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dewald Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: Fixing open relay
> Dewald Strauss wrote:
> >
> > In /etc/qmail/locals I have just the domainname of the server.
> > In /etc/qmail/control/rcpthosts I have the names of the 7 domains
> > In /etc/tcpcontrol there are 2 files: pop-3.rules and smtp.rules
> > both these files have all 7 domainnames with
> > :allow,RELAYCLIENT="" after each domainname
> > (this was installed with qmail?)
>
> > But with this the server still relays mail for anyone.
> > What did I miss here ?
>
>
> The default control directory for qmail is /var/qmail/control, but
> your control files are in /etc/qmail. I figured it was probably
> possible to change the control dir location, but I've never read
> any docs on the subject. If you didn't purposefully change the
> default location, perhaps your qmail is still looking in
> /var/qmail/control?
>
> Also, you might do a /var/qmail/bin/qmail-showctl and verify
> its output.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> --
> NEEDHAM'S ELECTRONICS
> Device Programmers
> (916) 924-8037 (Voice)
> http://www.needhams.com
>
Has anyone managed to successfully compile
relay-ctrl 1.4 on Solaris 6 or 7?
If so, please let me know how you managed to compile
it.
Thankyou,
Kristina
dear Netter's
I have a problem about qmail
my komputer running qmail and vpopmail ,..and qmail-smtpd is ok
!!,..but problem in qmail-pop3d
qmail-smtpd can send to local or to internet and understand send to
/home/vpopmail/domains/*mydomains*/users
but qmail-pop3d has error can't read a passwd file
i try telnet mycomputer 110
+ok 232424.23232453@myhost
user ~user
pass ~pass
-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir --->> but my maildir in direktory
/home/vpopmail/domains/*mydomains*/user ,qmail-pop3d dont understand
Maildir located !!!
or
-ERR Authorize Failed
Iam running qmail-pop3d :
#!/bin/sh
env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \
tcpserver -H -R -v -c100 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
myhost.mydomain.edu /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
whats wrong to my configuration ??
please help me ,..because qmailadmin and sqweb running if qmail -pop3d
ok !!!
thanks
I am trying to patch qmail-1.03 with qmail-smtpd-auth-0.24 on
Solaris 7 but the patch fails.
Please let me know what I should do.
********
% cd qmail-1.03
% patch < /usr/local/SRC/SMTPAUTH/qmail-smtpd-auth-0.24/qmail-smtpd.patch
Looks like a new-style context diff.
Hunk #3 failed at line 25.
Hunk #5 failed at line 101.
Hunk #6 failed at line 116.
Hunk #8 failed at line 229.
Hunk #10 failed at line 369.
Hunk #11 failed at line 377.
Hunk #12 failed at line 394.
Hunk #13 failed at line 408.
8 out of 13 hunks failed: saving rejects to qmail-smtpd.c.rej
done
********
Thankyou in advance,
Kristina
Kristina wrote:
>
> I am trying to patch qmail-1.03 with qmail-smtpd-auth-0.24 on
> Solaris 7 but the patch fails.
>
Hi,
I have tried many times to get patches installed under solaris and they
always give that error - seemingly no matter what parameters are passed
to patch !! :(
BUT -I apply the patches under linux and then transfer the tared (newly
patched) source file to the solaris machine and go from there.
Hope this helps
Tonino
>% patch < /usr/local/SRC/SMTPAUTH/qmail-smtpd-auth-0.24/qmail-smtpd.patch
> Looks like a new-style context diff.
>Hunk #3 failed at line 25.
>Hunk #5 failed at line 101.
>Hunk #6 failed at line 116.
>Hunk #8 failed at line 229.
>Hunk #10 failed at line 369.
>Hunk #11 failed at line 377.
>Hunk #12 failed at line 394.
>Hunk #13 failed at line 408.
>8 out of 13 hunks failed: saving rejects to qmail-smtpd.c.rej
get the GNU patch utility.
Kris
(author of this patch :) ).
I need to rewrite the "to:" field, inside the message, prior
to redirecting the message in a .qmail file. The address that
should go into the "to:" field is the same address to which
I'm redirecting the message.
I know this is not "standard procedure", but I _need_ to do
this due to the braindead behavior of the software that will
end up processing the message.
Is there a way.. ?
Hi
can any anybody explain the following message by qmail-qstat :
messages in queue: 760
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
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
============================================================
It means there are 760 messages currently in the queue, all
of which have been preprocessed and are awaiting delivery.
Eric
System Administrator wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> can any anybody explain the following message by qmail-qstat :
> messages in queue: 760
> messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
Hi
eric thanks for your reply
but i have seen that when i check this queue with qmail-read i see mails
in the queue which are 4-5 days old. can you help clear the queue, so that
i have 0 messages in the queue.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Eric Cox wrote:
> It means there are 760 messages currently in the queue, all
> of which have been preprocessed and are awaiting delivery.
>
> Eric
>
>
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
============================================================
Hi all:
I wonder if anybody else has seen something like the following:
Last friday our server received an incoming SMTP connection from a
certain mail server (correo.recol.es, which, BTW, is running "Microsoft
SMTP MAIL"), which increased our incoming bandwidth usage several times
over our average. During the whole weekend and part of Monday the MRTG
graph showed our mail server sucking *lots* of incoming bandwidth, while
netstat showed that practically the only incoming SMTP connection that
lasted all that time was the one coming from correo.recol.es (it was
there during Friday, Saturday and Sundey). This lasted until Monday,
when we killed that qmail-smtpd process manually, and the bandwidth
usage instantly dropped to normal levels.
Yesterday it has happened again. We received last night an incoming
SMTP connection from the same server (correo.recol.es), and the mail
server's bandwidth usage has gone through the roof the whole night. This
morning we kill that qmail-smtpd process, and bandwidth usage decreases
to normal levels again.
My question now is: what's going on?
Since the SMTP connection never ends, I don't really know what the heck
are they trying to send me; plus, it would have needed to be something
really *big*, since the incoming bandwidth usage was on 96 Kbytes/sec.
for the whole weekend; you do the math. Rather than that, I think that
it's probably the other side's mail server being buggy and sending
garbage and never closing the connection properly, so I'm writing here
to see if anyone else has seen something similar.
Paulo Jan.
DDnet.
> My question now is: what's going on?
> Since the SMTP connection never ends, I don't really know what the heck
> are they trying to send me; plus, it would have needed to be something
> really *big*, since the incoming bandwidth usage was on 96 Kbytes/sec.
> for the whole weekend; you do the math. Rather than that, I think that
> it's probably the other side's mail server being buggy and sending
> garbage and never closing the connection properly, so I'm writing here
> to see if anyone else has seen something similar.
Checking the logs should give you some idea of what is happening,
and its always smart to include information you find there.
It might be abuse, so you should check for Open Relay on your server,
or someone might be sending you a hole ton of E-Mails.
When it comes to the "pathetic" Micro$oft and their products,
I've observed the following behaviour in some of their E-Mail clients.
When their client gets a error messages and the client gives you
a POPUP windows saying that the mail you are sending are too big,
they still try to send the E-Mail over and over again without delay.
Shouldn't be surprised if their mailserver did the same thing,
so if you are using DATABYTES this could be the reason.
MVH Andr� Paulsberg
