qmail Digest 26 Jul 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1074
Topics (messages 45520 through 45608):
Configuring tcpserver to use qmail-pop3d & SMTP/pop3 lock
45520 by: Daniel Cave
45524 by: Chris, the Young One
Double Forwarding
45521 by: Neil D. Roberts
45522 by: Brett Randall
45538 by: Brett Randall
45547 by: Dave Sill
45553 by: Scott Gifford
URGENT
45523 by: Nithin H Ravanikar
45525 by: Daniel Cave
forwarding to another host
45526 by: Jochen E. Führing
45527 by: Daniel Cave
45529 by: Dave Sill
45546 by: Tyler J. Frederick
trouble creating files in queue - partly solved ...
45528 by: Toens Bueker
local-test sends to internet
45530 by: Harry Putnam
45539 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
45569 by: Harry Putnam
Re: Moving from sendmail to qmail/vpopmail
45531 by: Ondrej Sury
Re: I Need An Actual License For Qmail
45532 by: Russell Nelson
45559 by: Nathan J. Mehl
Relationship between qmail and root named servers
45533 by: Luis Bezerra
45564 by: Aaron L. Meehan
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
45534 by: Peter van Dijk
45540 by: Jenny Holmberg
45557 by: Russell Nelson
45568 by: Paul Jarc
45571 by: Michael T. Babcock
45582 by: Markus Stumpf
45588 by: Michael T. Babcock
Re: How to set qmail to forward all email to mail hub
45535 by: Greg Owen
Relaying dialup mail users for qmail.
45536 by: Daniel Cave
45542 by: Chris, the Young One
45552 by: Aaron L. Meehan
45600 by: Chris, the Young One
Re: QMTP & MX encoding
45537 by: Michael T. Babcock
Re: Mails not bouncing for virtual domains
45541 by: Dave Sill
Re: qmail goes down when my international backbone goes down
45543 by: Ronny Haryanto
45544 by: Russell Nelson
bouncesaying does not work in fastforward???
45545 by: jodok.sutterluety.mm-karton.com
Problems with virtual domains
45548 by: Nicklas af Ekenstam
45549 by: Dave Sill
POP3 outlook timeout on SMTP delivery
45550 by: brandon.discontent.com
Re: HELP. qmail doesn't send messages from my users
45551 by: John van V.
45555 by: Chris Johnson
Default Delivery Question
45554 by: Derek Watson
45558 by: Paul Jarc
45601 by: Chris, the Young One
Changing over from sendmail question, forwarding.
45556 by: Bruce Edge
45602 by: Chris, the Young One
Re: redhat switches to postfix + mailman
45560 by: David L. Nicol
45562 by: Dave Sill
45563 by: Irwan Hadi
45576 by: Jamie Heilman
45581 by: Jason Haar
45583 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
45561 by: Bruce Guenter
45567 by: Dave Sill
45585 by: Bruce Guenter
45591 by: Markus Stumpf
remove
45565 by: Richard White
45578 by: Brad Schuster (Volt)
45579 by: Adam McKenna
45580 by: Guy Rosinbaum
Re: Problems with IPv4 mapped IPv6 Addresses
45566 by: Erwin Hoffmann
mail server location question
45570 by: Bruce Edge
45573 by: Ken Jones
45574 by: Greg Owen
45575 by: Paul Jarc
Re: QMTP via EHLO type command
45572 by: Michael T. Babcock
rblsmtpd and not bouncing
45577 by: Michael T. Babcock
45586 by: Johan Almqvist
qmail-qmqpc.c load balancing mods
45584 by: Austad, Jay
45590 by: JuanE
Re: ezmlm
45587 by: Michael T. Babcock
Re: redhat switches to postfix + mailman (fwd)
45589 by: Johan Almqvist
tai64 v. tai64n
45592 by: Ben Beuchler
qmail-mrtg w/ tai64n?
45593 by: Ben Beuchler
recordio + awk
45594 by: Jim Breton
45596 by: asantos
45597 by: Markus Stumpf
45598 by: Jim Breton
45599 by: asantos
recordio example
45595 by: Edward Tsang
Sort maildir and send smallest first
45603 by: qmail.col7.metta.lk
multilog problem--quite urgent please
45604 by: webmaster.thaiLE.com
45605 by: Petr Novotny
45606 by: Chris, the Young One
45607 by: webmaster.thaiLE.com
45608 by: webmaster.thaiLE.com
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 all.
Im trying to get tcpserver configured to use the qmail-pop3d instead of
in.pop3d (rh 6.1).
What's the correct syntax for this?? Ive tried.
csh -cf '/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -c100 -u666 -g102 0 tcp-env qmail-popup
domain.net /usr/sbin/logpopauth-pre checkpassword /usr/bin/logpopauth-post
qmail-pop3d Maildir' &
this doesnt seem to work. Im also trying to allow relaying using the pop3
logging for pop3 users outside the domain.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
Dan
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 11:00:21AM +0100, Daniel Cave wrote:
! What's the correct syntax for this?? Ive tried.
!
! csh -cf '/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -c100 -u666 -g102 0 tcp-env qmail-popup
! domain.net /usr/sbin/logpopauth-pre checkpassword /usr/bin/logpopauth-post
! qmail-pop3d Maildir' &
!
! this doesnt seem to work. Im also trying to allow relaying using the pop3
! logging for pop3 users outside the domain.
While I'm not sure what the right invocation is (since I've never
used qmail-pop3d) but I'll make a few notes:
1. tcp-env is a stripped down version of tcpserver: if you use tcpserver
you need not, and should not, use tcp-env as well.
See http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#pop3d for more info.
2. I suggest you invoke this using supervise (from daemontools) instead.
Read http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/install.html.
But if you can't/won't, the ``&'' should be in the csh string. (I
think the csh -cf '... &' usage is a waste of time, but I think DJB
is trying to cope with deficient non-job-control sh implementations,
as all csh implementations I know of support job control.)
Sorry, I can't help with the ``allow relaying for POP3 users'' part.
Cheers,
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ heartbleed (OpenBSD/i386) has now been up for
Auckland, New Zealand |_ all of 27 days, 08:55:25
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
Hi List,
I have a little problem with creating a double alias. The situation is
the following: I have a mail server running qmail, which holds normal
mail boxes for POP3 clients, it also holds virtual domains which get
forwarded to local mail boxes for POP3 clients and it also has mail
queue´s for domains. The problem is that one of my clients wants to have
redirected his email address to a) his mail box & b) his mail queue. The
local email addresses would be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and his mail queue would
be "@domain.es" for example. He wants me to have "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" go to
his mail queue and also go to his "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I created a file
in the home directory for the mail queue called ".qmail-user". Inside
this file I have placed "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so this part works. Right
now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail queue but
goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so that it also
goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the
".qmail-user" file because it would loop. Any ideas as to what I can do
?
Thanks, and much respect !
Neil
I BELIEVE this may be possible using the dot-forward package. Using a
.forward file, you should be able to forward to multiple addresses,
including the current one without creating a loop (I have done this before
in sendmail, and presume the same is true for the dot-forward package, but
it has been a while...)
Brett
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil D. Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Double Forwarding
>
>
> Hi List,
>
> I have a little problem with creating a double alias. The situation is
> the following: I have a mail server running qmail, which holds normal
> mail boxes for POP3 clients, it also holds virtual domains which get
> forwarded to local mail boxes for POP3 clients and it also has mail
> queue´s for domains. The problem is that one of my clients wants to have
> redirected his email address to a) his mail box & b) his mail queue. The
> local email addresses would be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and his mail queue would
> be "@domain.es" for example. He wants me to have "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" go to
> his mail queue and also go to his "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I created a file
> in the home directory for the mail queue called ".qmail-user". Inside
> this file I have placed "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so this part works. Right
> now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail queue but
> goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so that it also
> goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the
> ".qmail-user" file because it would loop. Any ideas as to what I can do
> ?
>
> Thanks, and much respect !
>
> Neil
>
Are you sure you aren't a little confused? I meant the dot-forward add-on
package that uses a literal .forward file in the user's home.
If this package doesn't work, the only other idea I personally would have
would be to setup up the alias to forward to two different accounts: a
different mail spool for the user (under a different but probably similar)
username, and the other to the list or whatever.
Hopes this helps
Brett.
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil D. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Double Forwarding
>Hiya Brett,
>
>Unfortunatly I have tried the .forward file (.qmail-user) but it loops....
I
>have read the manpages for the .forward files, but can´t find any reference
>about this problem.... I am not sure what to do :(
>
>Brett Randall wrote:
>
>> I BELIEVE this may be possible using the dot-forward package. Using a
>> .forward file, you should be able to forward to multiple addresses,
>> including the current one without creating a loop (I have done this
before
>> in sendmail, and presume the same is true for the dot-forward package,
but
>> it has been a while...)
>>
>> Brett
>>
>> Manager
>> InterPlanetary Solutions
>> http://ipsware.com/
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Neil D. Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:11 PM
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Subject: Double Forwarding
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi List,
>> >
>> > I have a little problem with creating a double alias. The situation is
>> > the following: I have a mail server running qmail, which holds normal
>> > mail boxes for POP3 clients, it also holds virtual domains which get
>> > forwarded to local mail boxes for POP3 clients and it also has mail
>> > queue´s for domains. The problem is that one of my clients wants to
have
>> > redirected his email address to a) his mail box & b) his mail queue.
The
>> > local email addresses would be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and his mail queue
would
>> > be "@domain.es" for example. He wants me to have "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" go
to
>> > his mail queue and also go to his "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I created a file
>> > in the home directory for the mail queue called ".qmail-user". Inside
>> > this file I have placed "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so this part works. Right
>> > now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail queue but
>> > goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so that it also
>> > goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the
>> > ".qmail-user" file because it would loop. Any ideas as to what I can do
>> > ?
>> >
>> > Thanks, and much respect !
>> >
>> > Neil
>> >
>
"Neil D. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a little problem with creating a double alias. The situation is
>the following: I have a mail server running qmail, which holds normal
>mail boxes for POP3 clients, it also holds virtual domains which get
>forwarded to local mail boxes for POP3 clients and it also has mail
>queue´s for domains.
What do you mean by "mail queues for domains"?
>The problem is that one of my clients wants to have
>redirected his email address to a) his mail box & b) his mail queue.
You mean he wants to file a copy in his mailbox and forward another
copy elsewhere? That's easy: just put two lines in his .qmail file:
one for the mailbox and another for the forward.
>The
>local email addresses would be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and his mail queue would
>be "@domain.es" for example. He wants me to have "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" go to
>his mail queue and also go to his "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I created a file
>in the home directory for the mail queue called ".qmail-user". Inside
>this file I have placed "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so this part works. Right
>now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail queue but
>goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so that it also
>goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the
>".qmail-user" file because it would loop. Any ideas as to what I can do
Yow, my head hurts. I can't figure out what you're talking about. You
need to identify:
1) the local user's username
2) the local system's domain name
3) the virtual domain name
4) the virtual username
5) the remote address to which you want the message copied
Or give another example with real domain names and user names and
identify which are real/local and which are virtual.
-Dave
"Neil D. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail
> queue but goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so
> that it also goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place
> "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the ".qmail-user" file because it would
> loop. Any ideas as to what I can do ?
As the second line in the .qmail-user file, try
./Maildir/
I think that will give you the behavior you want.
-----ScottG.
Hi,
I want to install qmail 1.03 on Red Hat Linux 6.0 with kernel version
2.2.10.
Can you tell me whether to to go for qmail-1.03.tar.gz or "memphis"
qmail
which is divided into two.
I heard that when using RH go for the rpms which come along with the
distribution,
so i am a bit confused.......
Reply waiting at utmost urgency..... --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nithin H Ravanikar CNA,CCNA "House Of Excellence"
Systems Engineer No.17 Electronics City,
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosur Road,
Phone:80-852 1048/1069/0046 (210) Bangalore-561229
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nithin
I would use the qmail-1.03 package as you can be assured that it will
contain stock qmail featured and not 'other' third party non djb appoved
programmes for qmail.
Good luck,
Dan Cave.
Hi,
I want to install qmail 1.03 on Red Hat Linux 6.0 with kernel version
2.2.10.
Can you tell me whether to to go for qmail-1.03.tar.gz or "memphis"
qmail
which is divided into two.
I heard that when using RH go for the rpms which come along with the
distribution,
so i am a bit confused.......
Reply waiting at utmost urgency..... --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Nithin H Ravanikar CNA,CCNA "House Of Excellence"
Systems Engineer No.17 Electronics City,
E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosur Road,
Phone:80-852 1048/1069/0046 (210) Bangalore-561229
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
|
Hello!
How can I do forwarding to another host
?
I have setup several virtualdomains and
now
all the mail for the domain example.com should be
redirected to host.mydomain.com.
How can I do that?
Sincerly,
Nico Schottelius
|
Nico.
Install and read the fastforward package for qmail.
http://cr.yp.to/fastforward.html
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen E. Führing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 July 2000 12:02
To: QMail Mailing List
Subject: forwarding to another host
Hello!
How can I do forwarding to another host ?
I have setup several virtualdomains and now
all the mail for the domain example.com should be redirected to
host.mydomain.com.
How can I do that?
Sincerly,
Nico Schottelius
Jochen E. Führing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How can I do forwarding to another host ? I have setup several
>virtualdomains and now all the mail for the domain example.com should
>be redirected to host.mydomain.com.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do since you mention
virtual domains, but if example.com is not a virtual domain, you can
put the following in control/smtproutes:
example.com:[IP address of host.mydomain.com]
.example.com:[IP address of host.mydomain.com]
If example.com *is* virtual, then you'll need to put something in the
-default .qmail file for the domain to forward the mail to the
appropriate address.
Perhaps if you describe more clearly what you're trying to achieve, we
can provide better assistance.
-Dave
Read the man pages on qmail-remote. Look for info on a file called
'smtproutes'.
- T
--
Tyler J. Frederick
Systems Administrator
Sportsline.com, Inc.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, [iso-8859-1] Jochen E. Führing wrote:
> Hello!
>
> How can I do forwarding to another host ?
> I have setup several virtualdomains and now
> all the mail for the domain example.com should be redirected to host.mydomain.com.
>
> How can I do that?
>
> Sincerly,
>
> Nico Schottelius
>
>
Hi *,
after testing various configurations of qmail (different
conf-splits, with/without patches), I moved the queue-dir
to a partition, which resides on two disks - in fact RAID1+0 via
SDS.
And the errors went away. Furthermore, I learned, that
sending via qmail-inject doesn't have these problems,
either.
Again the question: can anybody see this on his/her
Solaris7/qmail system?
I can reproduce it on two Solaris boxes by using smtpstone
as a test.
By
Töns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
[New user alert]
Running FreeBSD 4.0
Just installed qmail-1.03 from the FreeBSD ports collection.
My setup is a home user machine, laptop running FreeBSD that accesses
the internet by IP masquerade of desktop machine (also home user
machine) which is connected via DSL to local ISP. My main internet
mailbox is with the commercial news service newsguy.com.
The laptops name is satellite.local.lan. At the end of the qmail
build a message was displayed:
Your hostname is satellite.local.lan.
hard error
Sorry, I couldn't find your host's canonical name in DNS.
You will have to set up control/me yourself.
So `/var/qmail/control/me' says: satellite.local.lan
Past experience indicates that if I want my From address to reflect
the newsguy.com address, I need to Masquerade that domain
(newsguy.com).
Qmail FAQ indicates that is done by placing a `default' file in
/var/qmail/control/default containing:
newsguy.com
This works for sending mail via the internet and my `From' address
comes out right.
Currently the only files in /var/qmail/control are the two mentioned
above: `default' and `me'
My problem:
Going through the various tests I find the local-local test doesn't
insert a message in my inbox ~/Mailbox ( a symlink to /var/mail/$USER)
directly as expected but instead sends the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is:
`echo to: reader | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject'
Does not insert a message directly to ~/Mailbox but instead sends it
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So if the DSL link isn't up then local delivery fails.
What do I need to do to correct this?
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 05:10:13AM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> [New user alert]
> Running FreeBSD 4.0
> Just installed qmail-1.03 from the FreeBSD ports collection.
>
> My setup is a home user machine, laptop running FreeBSD that accesses
> the internet by IP masquerade of desktop machine (also home user
> machine) which is connected via DSL to local ISP. My main internet
> mailbox is with the commercial news service newsguy.com.
>
> The laptops name is satellite.local.lan. At the end of the qmail
> build a message was displayed:
>
> Your hostname is satellite.local.lan.
> hard error
> Sorry, I couldn't find your host's canonical name in DNS.
> You will have to set up control/me yourself.
>
> So `/var/qmail/control/me' says: satellite.local.lan
>
>
> Past experience indicates that if I want my From address to reflect
> the newsguy.com address, I need to Masquerade that domain
> (newsguy.com).
>
> Qmail FAQ indicates that is done by placing a `default' file in
> /var/qmail/control/default containing:
> newsguy.com
>
> This works for sending mail via the internet and my `From' address
> comes out right.
>
> Currently the only files in /var/qmail/control are the two mentioned
> above: `default' and `me'
>
> My problem:
> Going through the various tests I find the local-local test doesn't
> insert a message in my inbox ~/Mailbox ( a symlink to /var/mail/$USER)
> directly as expected but instead sends the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail-local (local delivery in general) trusts control/locals as a list of local
domains.
"echo satellite.local.lan >> control/locals" should do the trick.
>
> That is:
> `echo to: reader | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject'
>
> Does not insert a message directly to ~/Mailbox but instead sends it
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> So if the DSL link isn't up then local delivery fails.
> What do I need to do to correct this?
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 21 3166700 (24h/dia) - Fax: +351 21 3166701
Ricardo Cerqueira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 05:10:13AM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >
> > [New user alert]
> > Running FreeBSD 4.0
> > Just installed qmail-1.03 from the FreeBSD ports collection.
> >
> > My setup is a home user machine, laptop running FreeBSD that accesses
> > the internet by IP masquerade of desktop machine (also home user
> > machine) which is connected via DSL to local ISP. My main internet
> > mailbox is with the commercial news service newsguy.com.
> >
> > The laptops name is satellite.local.lan. At the end of the qmail
> > build a message was displayed:
> >
> > Your hostname is satellite.local.lan.
> > hard error
> > Sorry, I couldn't find your host's canonical name in DNS.
> > You will have to set up control/me yourself.
> >
> > So `/var/qmail/control/me' says: satellite.local.lan
> >
> >
> > Past experience indicates that if I want my From address to reflect
> > the newsguy.com address, I need to Masquerade that domain
> > (newsguy.com).
> >
> > Qmail FAQ indicates that is done by placing a `default' file in
> > /var/qmail/control/default containing:
> > newsguy.com
> >
> > This works for sending mail via the internet and my `From' address
> > comes out right.
> >
> > Currently the only files in /var/qmail/control are the two mentioned
> > above: `default' and `me'
> >
> > My problem:
> > Going through the various tests I find the local-local test doesn't
> > insert a message in my inbox ~/Mailbox ( a symlink to /var/mail/$USER)
> > directly as expected but instead sends the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> qmail-local (local delivery in general) trusts control/locals as a list of local
>domains.
>
> "echo satellite.local.lan >> control/locals" should do the trick.
Still not working here.
cat /var/qmail/control/defaulthost:
newsguy.com
cat /var/qmail/contol/me:
satellite.local.lan
cat /var/qmail/control/locals
satellite.local.lan
When I call (as root) `echo to: reader | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
I see:
Jul 25 13:35:58 satellite qmail: 964557358.900609 new msg 66
Jul 25 13:35:58 satellite qmail: 964557358.902731 info msg 66: bytes
207 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 471 uid 0
Jul 25 13:35:58 satellite qmail: 964557358.911375 starting delivery 3:
msg 66 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 25 13:35:58 satellite qmail: 964557358.912673 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Jul 25 13:36:05 satellite qmail: 964557365.151312 delivery 3: success:
209.155.56.71_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_NAA24636_Message_accepted_for_delivery/
Jul 25 13:36:05 satellite qmail: 964557365.160189 status: local 0/10
remote 0/20
Still sending to remote host.
I am moving big server from sendmail to qmail and I want to be sure
that I didn't forgot something I want all mail which could be delivered
to be stored in some account. Is making /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-default
sufficient?
--
Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Globe Internet s.r.o.http://globe.cz/
Tel: +420235365000 Fax: +420235365009 Pláničkova 1, 162 00 Praha 6
Mob: +420602667702 ICQ: 24944126 Mapa: http://globe.namape.cz/
NAJDI.TO http://najdi.to/ Chief Administrator and Developer.
Mike Flynn writes:
> I work for IBM and I want to install qmail
> on my server. IBM requires that I present
> our legal department with an actual license
> so that the Intellectual Property lawyers can
> review it and bless it or not. I will not
> be distributing qmail in any way, just using it,
> hopefully, to dramatically reduce the time
> spent sending very large mailings (on an RS/6000
> server under AIX) using the sendmail daemon.
Tell your lawyers that the author of qmail believes that no license is
needed. See the author's statement at http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
That's the closest thing to a license they're going to get.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
In the immortal words of Mike Flynn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> I work for IBM and I want to install qmail
> on my server. IBM requires that I present
> our legal department with an actual license
> so that the Intellectual Property lawyers can
> review it and bless it or not. I will not
> be distributing qmail in any way, just using it,
> hopefully, to dramatically reduce the time
> spent sending very large mailings (on an RS/6000
> server under AIX) using the sendmail daemon.
>
> I saw one append a while back that had something about
> a license and referenced an ftp site. I don't think
> the information there is in "proper" enough form
> (I'm guessing) to satisfy the lawyers.
You may be out of luck. Qmail does not have a "license". The closest
it has is the terms of redistribution:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
-n
------------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"They've got an unmarked car with your name on it." (--Golden Palominos)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
Onyone knows some relationship betwween root named servers(DNS) and
qmail.
Yesterday, when my international backbone goes down, my DNS goes down
too because the named root servers are located in USA. And I suspect
that exists one relationship between the problems.
anyone already worked with one problem like this?
Quoting Luis Bezerra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Yesterday, when my international backbone goes down, my DNS goes down
> too because the named root servers are located in USA. And I suspect
> that exists one relationship between the problems.
Actually, not all the root name servers are in the US. There is at
least one in England and one in Japan, and perhaps elsewhere. I'm
pretty sure the GTLD servers (global top-level domain, i.e. .br, .uk,
etc.) are geographically diverse as well, but I haven't the
motivation right now to find out :)
> anyone already worked with one problem like this?
I think Russ Nelson said it as well as it can be: Brazilian networks
probably should have a name server serving the root domains.
Otherwise, *everything* that relies on DNS has the potential to fail
if your international routing fails. Your problem really has not a
thing to do with qmail specifically.
Aaron
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:24:17AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
> "Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > VERP was proposed by DJB as a way to identify bounce recipients. VERP
> > requires that each recipient have their own From: as well as To:.
>
> Not quite: it's envelope senders and recipients, not To: and From:
> fields. (So recipients can still receive exactly the same message -
> with the same To: and From: fields - but with SMTP, the messages will
> need to be delivered separately, and they'll get different
> Delivered-To, Return-Path, and Received fields added during delivery.)
> Does QMTP support per-recipient envelope senders for a single copy of
> a single message?
qmail will happily expand VERP after a message has been entered thru
SMTP/QMTP. It's just that no clients will send messages with a
VERP-expandable envelope sender over QMQP or SMTP. mini-qmail will do it
over QMQP, tho.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah! Okay, I see some objection there. I've had double-bounces turned
> off for a long, long time (and none of the causes were ORBS probes),
> but a more macho admin wouldn't want to do that of course.
I don't consider myself "macho" (although at least one of my
cow-orkers has disagreed), but I do want to keep double-bounces going
to a mailbox which is read by the postmaster. Scanning through the
double-bounce folder a couple of times per day is a very good way of
locating various problems which otherwise might not be discovered
until someone complains. Plus, of course, it's more than once helped
me discover mailbombers while they were still online, which is good
for some amusement...
/Jenny - praetera censeo ORBS delendam esse
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
Just in case anybody cares, I am tired of being spammed by
relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl. I am now blocking 194.178.232.55. If
this causes my server to be listed by ORBS, so be it.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:24:17AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
> > Does QMTP support per-recipient envelope senders for a single copy of
> > a single message?
>
> qmail will happily expand VERP after a message has been entered thru
> SMTP/QMTP.
But does QMTP require servers to do such expansion? If so, then when
a mailing list server is delivering a message to several subscribers
at a particular host, and the delivery is done over QMTP, a single
copy can be sent with a to-be-expanded VERP.
What I had in mind at first was a protocol that would have multiple
<sender, recipient> tuples per message in the envelope. This would
also allow a list server to send just a single copy to each host
having subscribers.
paul
-x-
A package is the concatenation of three strings:
first, an encoded 8-bit mail message;
second, an encoded envelope sender address;
third, an encoded series of encoded envelope recipient addresses.
-x-
The encoded envelope sender address isn't expanded on beyond the examples
given, but your proposal might give a good performance increase for very
large lists (a la redhat.com lists, etc.). The qmtp documentation doesn't
seem to mention VERP at all.
See
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/02/msg00293.html
for previous discussion on the issue (that went almost nowhere).
cf. http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt
Paul Jarc wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Does QMTP support per-recipient envelope senders for a single copy of
> > > a single message?
>
> What I had in mind at first was a protocol that would have multiple
> <sender, recipient> tuples per message in the envelope. This would
> also allow a list server to send just a single copy to each host
> having subscribers.
This may get somewhat off topic ...
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:15:15AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> The move to lower bandwidth consumption of websites in general has picked up
> speed as well. Many many sites and organisations are taking a stand to
> reduce bandwidth use of websites and the Internet in general.
I would call that rumours.
Alone switching to XML which is coming more and more will probably
put the overhead of markup code compared to visible content far beyond
the current ratio. Thats for the size of the documents.
And I really cant see any site that has reduced the amount of images
on their pages ... more to the opposite, navigation is done in zillions
of small images compared to one with imagemap, each are gets own nifty
images and so on ...
> Bandwidth consumption on the Internet is important enough that most routers
> and software routers (including Linux) now include options to make use of
> RED (random early detection) in their queuing systems to drop IP packets and
> cause TCP streams to slow down and not fill their pipes. Major routers are
> clogging and locking up at major websites.
If you have a line that can't handle the load, get a bigger/additional one.
I have no sympathy for so called ISPs that that try to stay in business
with dumping prices which they implement by either using some $1500 Linux
routers that can't cope with the load instead of buying some real
(and expensive) routers from companies who's names we all know, or
they have those routers but they can't/are unwilling to pay a line that
could handle the bandwidth needed.
> This is a real issue. If you
> think opening a few dozen connections to a major ISP who has to handle
> thousands is not going to make a difference, think again.
I probably understand you wrong on this.
But one always have a critical point, where adding one more piece
to it makes the system collapse. And there is always a solution
to manage this.
I have a checkpassword perl script on our POP Server. Ran smoothly
for about 2 years and then - without any notice - we'd reached the
critical point and the load on the POP Server jumped from one day to
the other from an average of 1.5 to 2 during prime time hours to about
10-15 and sometimes more.
I had a look at it for 3 oder 4 days, did some analysis and then, I sat down
and reimplemented the checkpassword program in C.
Guess what? 5 minutes after I had exchanged the perl code with the C
binary the load was down to 0.3 to 0.7.
> Mind you, I think a simple solution includes adding an option to drop
> incoming connections (on tcpserver) from IPs that already have connections
> open.
This is probably to simple.
Why should I drop maybe 50 connections from one host if I have no others?
And who says that those 50 connections are redundant and result from
always the same mail send 50 times to 50 different users on my host?
We have 40.000-60,000 tcpserver connects a day on each of our
mailservers (which are in the range of 300.68-MHz 686-class, 128 MB RAM).
No problem at all, I'd say they could handle more than double the
connections.
Maybe this is the reason I don't care about those limits.
And at the end one general note about qmails delivery strategy.
If you put aside the bandwidth overhead qmail has and the CPU/memory
overhead sendmail has in sorting a 150,000 user mailing list with
all the race conditions involved I can think of, there are some memory
frazzles from math lessons that showed that it's the fastest for
all "customers" if everyone is treated the same in one queue and
no multi-jobs (i.e. on person stands there trying to get 10 jobs
for others persons done, too) allowed. And that exactly is the behaviour
qmail sticks to. Always stand at the current end of the queue with
every single message (and qmail-smtpd enforces this by not allowing
more than one "MAIL FROM" per session).
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Replies are in private ... anyone actually interested may ask for ensuing
discussion :-).
Markus Stumpf wrote:
> This may get somewhat off topic ...
> What is the best way to set up qmail to handle mails from web
> forms and CGIs and send it to a mail hub for processing i.e a
> qmail install that does not do any mail processing even for
> locals but send all mail to another qmail server.
Put ":mailhub.domain.com" into /var/qmail/control/smtproutes.
Alternately, you can use qmqp, but that's non-portable.
> I would want all mail ent to mail hub masqueraded to remove host name
> i.e [EMAIL PROTECTED] to look [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Put "domain.com" into /var/qmail/control/defaultdomain and
/var/qmail/control/defaulthost.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all.
I currently have qmail-smtpd running under tcpserver using the 'allow
authorised RELAY hosts /etc/tcp.smtp' mechanism. for dialup ISP email. Im
not sure of a few things.
1. If someone tries to relay an email from an IP address (ISP dialup) which
is not listed in /etc/tcp.smtp, and who's domainname happens to be listed in
rcpthosts, desined for a recipient 'somewhere' on the internet, am I right
in thinking that this connection/request to relay will be blocked by
tcpserver? How do I allow this to happen, if I dont know the IP address of
the user wishing to relay?? This in essence is the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], isnt it??
2. What is the significance of using qmail-qmqpd over the above method.
Which is better.??
Thanks.
Dan.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 02:12:17PM +0100, Daniel Cave wrote:
! 1. If someone tries to relay an email from an IP address (ISP dialup) which
! is not listed in /etc/tcp.smtp, and who's domainname happens to be listed in
! rcpthosts, desined for a recipient 'somewhere' on the internet, am I right
! in thinking that this connection/request to relay will be blocked by
! tcpserver?
If RELAYCLIENT is not set when qmail-smtpd is invoked, then they can't
relay.
! How do I allow this to happen, if I dont know the IP address of
! the user wishing to relay??
Put rules of the form =.foo.bar, if the domain name you wish to allow
relay is foo.bar. Then any client whose IP address reverse-resolves
to *.foo.bar can relay.
=.foo.bar:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
! This in essence is the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
! sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], isnt it??
Not sure I understood you here, sorry.
! 2. What is the significance of using qmail-qmqpd over the above method.
! Which is better.??
QMQP (628/tcp) is really only used for ``null-client'' setups. You were
referring to dialup users, so I must presume you are referring to tools
in the serialmail package, in which case SMTP and QMTP are the options.
QMTP (209/tcp) is similar to SMTP, but more efficient. Set it up if you
have dialup users using qmail. qmail-qmtpd has as much relay protection
as qmail-smtpd.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
Quoting Chris, the Young One ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> ! How do I allow this to happen, if I dont know the IP address of
> ! the user wishing to relay??
Yikes, I see I will have to modify my quoted text regexp. Oh, the
heck with it... I'm not putting an exclamation mark in it.
> Put rules of the form =.foo.bar, if the domain name you wish to allow
> relay is foo.bar. Then any client whose IP address reverse-resolves
> to *.foo.bar can relay.
A malicious individual who has control over his reverse DNS could then
also relay mail via your server. Assuming you're not checking IP
addresses in "paranoid" mode, of course. A low risk, to be sure, as
most spammers are clueless. Something to think about, though, since
it's not always just plain ol' spammers that spam.
Aaron
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 09:30:41AM -0700, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
! Quoting Chris, the Young One ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
! > ! How do I allow this to happen, if I dont know the IP address of
! > ! the user wishing to relay??
!
! Yikes, I see I will have to modify my quoted text regexp. Oh, the
! heck with it... I'm not putting an exclamation mark in it.
Yikes, I see I will have to modify my quote margin. Oh the heck with
it... I'm not changing it to a greater-than sign. :-)
What I use:
set quote_regexp="^([ \t]*[|>:}!])+"
(I've taken out ``#'', which is in the default setting, because # is
used so often in script files that people occasionally attach.)
! A malicious individual who has control over his reverse DNS could then
! also relay mail via your server. Assuming you're not checking IP
! addresses in "paranoid" mode, of course. A low risk, to be sure, as
! most spammers are clueless. Something to think about, though, since
! it's not always just plain ol' spammers that spam.
That brings back memories of the legendary DJB v. WZV thread on bugtraq.
To wit:
http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/archive.pike?list=1&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway, I second your point above. I use ``paranoid'' mode for SMTP and
other services for which I ``need'' the reverse DNS. At least tcpserver
doesn't drop connections where the paranoid test fails; it simply unsets
TCPREMOTEHOST.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ heartbleed (OpenBSD/i386) has now been up for
Auckland, New Zealand |_ all of 28 days, 02:26:08
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
Your arguments are interesting in so far as they pertain to the use of QMTP, but
my concern is more that at some point the Qmail community may want to have QMTP
as RFCxyz and used as a standard feature of mail exchange. With that goal (in my
mind, maybe not yours), my proposal seemed to have more comatibility and
standards potential than the MX magic, especially when DJB mentionned not using
the MX magic preference values.
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Michael T. Babcock writes:
(stuff)
> I think that's a silly idea. Better to pick a "magic" MX preference,
Ruchir Chandra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have Virtual domains and locals running on my qmail server. For the
>domains hosted in locals, any incoming mail to a wrongly spelled ID gets
>bounced immediately to the sender.
Right.
>In case of domains under virtualdomains file the incoming mail for the
>wrongly spelled user doesn't bounce back,
Then you must have a catch-all .qmail file for the virtual
domain. What do you have in control/virtualdomains, what .qmail files
to you have for the domain, and what do they contain?
>instead the qmail takes it as an
>remote user and put it to Relay mail server. Since that domain is hosted
>from the same qmail server the mail comes back, this happens 25 times and
>then a error message is posted too many hops and then the mail bounce back.
Copies of log entries or a complete copy of one of the bounce messages
would be instrumental in analyzing this problem.
-Dave
On 25-Jul-2000, Luis Bezerra wrote:
> Why DNS?
How does qmail know _where_ to deliver if DNS is unavailable?
If you expect people to help, you need to supply the information
needed to help you. What do the logs say?
Ronny
Luis Bezerra writes:
> Why DNS?
>
> For two years, qmail works very well.
>
> This problem appear when my back bone goes down and my router
> doesn't have the international routes. It has the domestic routes, but
> nothing out of Brazil.
Do you have a root domain name server in Brazil? If not, then you
won't be able to determine the name server for .br. If these types of
outages are common, you should establish some Brazil-wide root domian
name servers, and use them as the roots instead of the
Internic-published ones. A root server only has a few hundred zones
in it, and can be served by just about any ordinary desktop-class PC.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
hi,
in my fastforwad alias table i got this line:
old.address : "| bouncesaying 'This address no longer
exists!'"
but this does not work always! in my logfile i get this message when a mail
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] has arrived:
Jul 25 16:39:15 km3 qmail: 964535955.164711 delivery 2970: deferral:
This_addres
s_no_longer_exists!/preline:_fatal:_unable_to_copy_input:_broken_pipe/
it the mail is a short one (aprox. 1K) it is not a problem.
could this be a timing problem in qmail?
any hints?
jodok
Hi
I'm new to this list so please excuse me if this subject has been dealt
with a gazillion times before.
I've read the faq:s and the man pages, but have yet to come up with a
solution this (I'm guessing) simple problem of mine:
I have two domains (nille.org & fett.org) that I would like to have user
'nille' admin.
My /var/qmail/controls/virtualdomain looks like this:
fett.org:nille-fett
nille.org:nille-nille
In ~nille/ I have the following files:
.qmail-fett-default
.qmail-nille-default
The both contain this line:
nille
I have also set rcpthosts & locals so that mail to these domains are accepted.
Problem:
When I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it bounces right back with the message:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
When I send an email to a [EMAIL PROTECTED] it ends up in
their mailbox instead of nille:s.
What have I missed here?
Any pointers really appreciated.
//Nille
Nicklas af Ekenstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My /var/qmail/controls/virtualdomain looks like this:
>
>fett.org:nille-fett
>nille.org:nille-nille
>
>In ~nille/ I have the following files:
>.qmail-fett-default
>.qmail-nille-default
>
>The both contain this line:
>nille
>
>I have also set rcpthosts & locals so that mail to these domains are accepted.
Oops. Take them out of locals.
-Dave
Gang -
Hopeing for a pointer or two ont he following problem:
I moved residences recently, and changed a couple of things on my home Linux
box, which is running Qmail-1.03. When we moved, my gf's outlook began to
give SMTP timeout errors when trying to send messages. The email is being
accepted and sent by qmail according to the logs, but doesn't seem to be
giving Outlook a response to let it know that the message has been sent.
Any ideas? Here's how Qmail and Qpopper are being run:
[brandon@misanthrope ~alias]# ps auxww | grep qmail
root 17900 0.0 0.0 1088 52 ? S Jul05 0:00 supervise qmail-send
root 17902 0.0 0.0 1088 52 ? S Jul05 0:00 supervise qmail-smtpd
qmaill 17905 0.0 0.1 1104 116 ? S Jul05 0:04 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/log/qmail
qmaill 17909 0.0 0.1 1104 116 ? S Jul05 0:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog
t /var/log/qmail/smtpd
qmaild 12069 0.0 0.1 1280 120 ? S Jul14 0:01
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c 5 -u 16 -g 52 0 smtp
/usr/sbin/relaylock /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
qmails 12072 0.0 0.1 1148 160 ? S Jul14 0:12 qmail-send
root 12077 0.0 0.0 1100 72 ? S Jul14 0:01 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
qmailr 12078 0.0 0.1 1116 148 ? S Jul14 0:13 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 12079 0.0 0.0 1092 92 ? S Jul14 0:00 qmail-clean
brandon 9513 0.0 0.5 1192 516 pts/1 S 08:29 0:00 mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
root 9523 0.0 0.4 1208 424 pts/2 R 08:32 0:00 grep qmail
#/etc/inetd.conf
[brandon@misanthrope ~alias]# grep popper /etc/inetd.conf
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd /usr/local/lib/popper popper
-R -s
Anything else that might help? When I switched residences, I changed IP addresses, but
that's about it. Her Ip is in /etc/smtp-poplock.static_allowed (I'm
running Relaylock patch to allow dynamic relaying for POP3 clients).
Thanks for any help you can give,
Brandon
> Anyone knows this problem??????
Did you change anything ??
=====
John van Vlaanderen
#############################################
# CXN, Inc. Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] # #
# Proud Sponsor of Perl/Unix of NY #
# http://puny.vm.com #
#############################################
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
> I have a big problem in my ISP
> After the morning, when my users try to use my
> smtp server, the daemon displays this message:
> Sorry, that domain isn't allowed to be relayed thru this MTA
> Anyone knows this problem??????
qmail doesn't produce this message. It's not coming from your qmail server.
Chris
Hello all -- I would like a few opinions on the "defaultdelivery"
method. .
. . .for instance, this is standard:
qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
. . . I want to try something like this, to achieve a global incoming
mail filter without using any qmail-queue wrappers or modifications:
qmail-start "|/var/qmail/bin/myfilter |tomaildir $HOME/Maildir" splogger
qmail
Where myfilter is a program I write and tomaildir is from the "qtools"
package, and does a reliable job of delivering messages to a maildir.
Will this work? Do I need the quotes? I guess what I really want to
know is: "Can I make this line as robust as a line from a .qmail file?"
I know this gets passed to qmail-lspawn, but lspawn's man page isn't too
detailed about what it can and can't have in it's params.
Has anybody else tried something like this before? Is there a way
easier way to achieve this that I'm not seeing because I'm an idiot?
All very possible.
Thanks in advance,
Derek
Derek Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> . . . I want to try something like this, to achieve a global incoming
> mail filter without using any qmail-queue wrappers or modifications:
>
> qmail-start "|/var/qmail/bin/myfilter |tomaildir $HOME/Maildir" splogger
> qmail
That should work, as long as myfilter and tomaildir behave properly.
But it won't take effect when a .qmail file is found for a particular
local address. The defaultdelivery gets passed from qmail-start to
qmail-lspawn to qmail-local. qmail-local looks for a .qmail file and,
if none is found, it slaps defaultdelivery into place and pretends
that it found a .qmail file containing defaultdelivery. qmial-local
uses it exactly as it would use the contents of the .qmail file. It
can contain multiple delivery instructions, one per line, if you like,
just as a .qmail file can.
> Do I need the quotes?
Yes, it has to be passed as a single argument.
paul
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Derek Watson wrote:
! . . . I want to try something like this, to achieve a global incoming
! mail filter without using any qmail-queue wrappers or modifications:
!
! qmail-start "|/var/qmail/bin/myfilter |tomaildir $HOME/Maildir" splogger
! qmail
Here I presume that tomaildir takes input from myfilter, not from
qmail-local. If my assumption is wrong, you need to put ``|tomaildir''
on a different line.
You also need to put the whole string in apostrophes, or else the
$HOME in the string will get expanded prematurely.
Try, for size:
echo '$HOME'
echo "$HOME"
Cheers,
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
I have a sendmail server up already. It's the host for our domain name, so all
mail to that domain goes to it.
To have it forward the mail to the qmail box, shouldn't I just have to change
the MX records to point to the new host with a lower priority number?
eg:
was
sattel.com. IN MX 10 wutang.sattel.net.
now:
sattel.com. IN MX 0 mail.sattel.com.
sattel.com. IN MX 10 wutang.sattel.net.
Except that wutang is not forwarding the mail to mail.sattel.com.
I know this may be a sendmail issue, but what else do I need to change to get
wutang to forward the mail?
TIA, Bruce.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 05:15:53PM -0700, Bruce Edge wrote:
! I know this may be a sendmail issue, but what else do I need to change to get
! wutang to forward the mail?
Tell sendmail on wutang that sattel.com is not a local domain? :-)
I think the relevant setting is in class w in sendmail.cf; however
I've not touched sendmail for ages, so don't take my advice as gospel.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
This just came in; submitted for your discussion:
>
> Attention all List Members:
>
> We are in the process of migrating all Red Hat lists from the current list
> manager software/server running qmail/Smartlist to a new server running
> postfix and GNU Mailman (*). Within the next week you will receive more
> information about this migration including information on how to access your
> membership, including subscribe/unsubscribe information and instructions on
> how to set your preferences for your membership on the list. The preferences
> include setting/unsetting digest mode, temporarily disabling delivery, and the
> option of receiving your own posts. This migration will not only address
> performace issues that have arisen due to the number of lists/members on Red
> Hat lists, but also highly improve ease of use for list members. Your
> patience is greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you for your attention
> Kambiz Aghaiepour
>
> (*) For information on Mailman, see http://www.list.org/
>
>
> --
> \o__O o Kambiz Aghaiepour, RHCE - Phone: (919) 524-7423 o o
> \_ /|\ -= Red Hat, Inc. =- |\| Pager: (800) 946-4646 //\ //\
> |\ |\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | Pager Pin #: 1412622 // //
> / / |/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.redhat.com |\ ||
>> ... This migration will not only address
>> performace issues that have arisen due to the number of lists/members on Red
>> Hat lists, but also highly improve ease of use for list members.
They don't mention whether their performance issues were Smartlist or
qmail related. If they have evidence that Postfix is faster than qmail
at serving Mailman lists, I'd sure like to see it.
Smartlist vs. Mailman is a no-brainer. Mailman vs. ezmlm is far more
interesting. Mailman is prettier, with its fancy web interface. But
ezmlm has automatic VERP-based bounce handling and doesn't require a
web server or the use of a web interface.
I'd like to know if they decided against ezmlm primarily because of
Mailman's web interface. Or perhaps they just decided to switch to
Postfix and Mailman was the best list manager available.
-Dave
At 02:09 PM 7/25/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>This just came in; submitted for your discussion:
I think this can be happened maybe because qmail is too greedy in bandwith
consuming ? because redhat doesn't use EZMLM but SmartList so the single
RCPT To concept is not too usefull.
> >
> > Attention all List Members:
> >
> > We are in the process of migrating all Red Hat lists from the current list
> > manager software/server running qmail/Smartlist to a new server running
> > postfix and GNU Mailman (*). Within the next week you will receive more
> > information about this migration including information on how to access
> your
> > membership, including subscribe/unsubscribe information and instructions on
> > how to set your preferences for your membership on the list. The
> preferences
> > include setting/unsetting digest mode, temporarily disabling delivery,
> and the
> > option of receiving your own posts. This migration will not only address
> > performace issues that have arisen due to the number of lists/members
> on Red
> > Hat lists, but also highly improve ease of use for list members. Your
> > patience is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thank you for your attention
> > Kambiz Aghaiepour
> >
> > (*) For information on Mailman, see http://www.list.org/
> >
> >
> > --
> > \o__O o Kambiz Aghaiepour, RHCE - Phone: (919) 524-7423 o o
> > \_ /|\ -= Red Hat, Inc. =- |\| Pager: (800) 946-4646 //\ //\
> > |\ |\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | Pager Pin #: 1412622 // //
> > / / |/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.redhat.com |\ ||
> Smartlist vs. Mailman is a no-brainer. Mailman vs. ezmlm is far more
> interesting. Mailman is prettier, with its fancy web interface. But
> ezmlm has automatic VERP-based bounce handling and doesn't require a
> web server or the use of a web interface.
Yeah but, python vs. C? I mean do you really want to fire up a python
interpreter every time a message comes through? Unless mailman uses a
persistent python instance (I'd check but list.org seems to be unavailable)
it seems to me that ezmlm would use far less system resources.
--
Jamie Heilman http://wcug.wwu.edu/~jamie/
"...thats the metaphorical equivalent of flopping your wedding tackle
into a lion's mouth and flicking his lovespuds with a wet towel, pure
insanity..." -Rimmer
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 03:25:56PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Smartlist vs. Mailman is a no-brainer. Mailman vs. ezmlm is far more
> interesting. Mailman is prettier, with its fancy web interface. But
> ezmlm has automatic VERP-based bounce handling and doesn't require a
> web server or the use of a web interface.
"doesn't require a web server" - man, talk about one-eyed :-)
The truth is that there are plenty of people out there who REQUIRE a GUI to
do anything. I agree that ezmlm is great - but mailman allows you to manage
all your mailing-lists (that a single Mailman site houses of course) via a
GUI interface - no more back-and-forth with mail messages trying to do the
same thing.
I'd say RedHat now has a non-trivial large subscriber base of people not
"used to" (read that how you will) to using a MUA as a management tool.
They want a GUI.
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 01:39:46PM -0600, Irwan Hadi wrote:
> At 02:09 PM 7/25/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> >This just came in; submitted for your discussion:
>
> I think this can be happened maybe because qmail is too greedy in bandwith
> consuming ? because redhat doesn't use EZMLM but SmartList so the single
> RCPT To concept is not too usefull.
Someone should send the mail and tell them about ezmlm-idx and
sublists, I guess. And it's a no-brainer to add web mgmt to
ezmlm - any cgi script that can send mail can do it :->
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 09:08:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As I've just posted, to my mind that just makes the results conservatively
> trend against qmail. I think that's probably the right direction for now
> in the absence of actual measurements, which if course would be best.
I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It
calls qmail-remote once with all the recipients (multi-RCPT), and once
for each recipient (multi-connection). I only have preliminary results
so far, and I plan to run a more complete set of tests tonight after I
leave work. I'll post my full results and scripts once I've completed
the tests.
> > I'd be willing to do this, I'm somewhat curious myself.
> Sure, I'd love to see your numbers.
OK, for my complete logs, which at the moment span roughly 5 days, this
shows a potential 23% bandwidth savings. zoverall indicates a maximum
overhead of 35%. From the last full day's logs, though, the savings is
only 6%, with zoverall showing a maximum overhead of 17%.
I discovered on Friday that with a recent expansion, our previous limit
of 10MB was being blown by in just 2-3 days, so I just expanded that
limit to 100MB. I also stopped a monitoring process that was producing
3 small (281 byte) emails a minute that were skewing the numbers
significantly. Once that fills up, I should have more representative
statistics to report.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
>64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
>send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It
>calls qmail-remote once with all the recipients (multi-RCPT), and once
>for each recipient (multi-connection). I only have preliminary results
>so far, and I plan to run a more complete set of tests tonight after I
>leave work. I'll post my full results and scripts once I've completed
>the tests.
Great. How about soliciting bit-bucket addresses from various places
around the 'net? I could donate a few. Or is it not important for your
tests that the recipients be distributed?
-Dave
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 04:04:00PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
> >64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
> >send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It
> >calls qmail-remote once with all the recipients (multi-RCPT), and once
> >for each recipient (multi-connection). I only have preliminary results
> >so far, and I plan to run a more complete set of tests tonight after I
> >leave work. I'll post my full results and scripts once I've completed
> >the tests.
>
> Great. How about soliciting bit-bucket addresses from various places
> around the 'net? I could donate a few. Or is it not important for your
> tests that the recipients be distributed?
The benchmark case I am considering is to compare sending multiple
copies of the same message to the same host by using either multiple
RCPTs or using multiple connections. The test case assumes it has a
-default address to test againas, as it uses numbered addresses. If you
have such an address, I can certainly test against it, especially if it
is bandwidth limited. The results of this benchmark are not dependant
on distributing the deliveries across the internet.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:06:57AM -0700, John White wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > o DNS overhead is not counted
>
> I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
> part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
> there's no difference in the dns traffic between the two
> methods?
Ok, you can beat every horse to death ;-)
Then you can't use (qmail) logfiles for calculation, but you have to use
IP traffic and count e.g. retransmits as well. With a congested line due to
opening 50 connections the packet loss and retransmits may well become
a significant factor as compared to a single session transfer.
Also DNS traffic is "relative". I run (caching) DNS servers on our
mailservers that use our "real" DNS servers as forwarders. On which point
of the system do you start counting the overhead? Also DNS is very hard to
calculate in this setup. A record that is now in the cache and is only a
host away may expire in 2 seconds and be retrieved from the "other end" of the
net and a record that is not in the cache now, will be 1 second later
and stay there for a resonable period of time.
(A german computer magazine tried to measure the quality of ISPs by
DNS response times. Very easy to fake ... Check what DNS lookups they
do a make sure that the records are in the cache of the DNS all the
time. If a competitor has to freshly get that record he'll loose.
After explaining the situation they dropped the tests ;-))
I am personally - though I love numbers and statistics - very sceptical
about the results that any non-complex test system will reveal as opposed
to a real life operating production mail system on this matter.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Irwan Hadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 02:09 PM 7/25/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>This just came in; submitted for your discussion:
I think this can be happened maybe because qmail is too greedy in bandwith
consuming ? because redhat doesn't use EZMLM but SmartList so the single
RCPT To concept is not too usefull.
> >
> > Attention all List Members:
> >
> > We are in the process of migrating all Red Hat lists from the current
list
> > manager software/server running qmail/Smartlist to a new server running
> > postfix and GNU Mailman (*). Within the next week you will receive more
> > information about this migration including information on how to access
> your
> > membership, including subscribe/unsubscribe information and instructions
on
> > how to set your preferences for your membership on the list. The
> preferences
> > include setting/unsetting digest mode, temporarily disabling delivery,
> and the
> > option of receiving your own posts. This migration will not only address
> > performace issues that have arisen due to the number of lists/members
> on Red
> > Hat lists, but also highly improve ease of use for list members. Your
> > patience is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thank you for your attention
> > Kambiz Aghaiepour
> >
> > (*) For information on Mailman, see http://www.list.org/
> >
> >
> > --
> > \o__O o Kambiz Aghaiepour, RHCE - Phone: (919) 524-7423 o o
> > \_ /|\ -= Red Hat, Inc. =- |\| Pager: (800) 946-4646 //\ //\
> > |\ |\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | | Pager Pin #: 1412622 // //
> > / / |/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.redhat.com |\ ||
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Please remove me from this list, as fun as it all sounds. :)
--==(( Brad Schuster ))==--
Hey Brad, did Microsoft have an in-house course on unsubscribing from e-mail
lists? Usually it works better if you follow the unsubscribe instructions.
--Adam
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 02:30:52PM -0700, Brad Schuster (Volt) wrote:
> Please remove me from this list, as fun as it all sounds. :)
>
> --==(( Brad Schuster ))==--
>
Hi,
occasionally, one has to answer one's own questions:
At 10:15 30.5.2000 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hallo,
>
>a QMAIL user reported problems with the IPv6 stack and QMAIL 1.03:
>
>System:
>- LINUX SUSE 6.4 (Kernel 2.2.15 and glibc 2.1.3)
>- IPv6 enabled
>- xinetd with IPv6 options (call to tcp-env and qmail-smtpd)
>- QMAIL 1.03 with my SPAMCONTROL patch
>
>Symptom:
>- TCPREMOTE does not return correct IPv4 address
>
>Affected QMAIL routines:
>- tcpenv.c
>- dns.c
>
>Both routines use <netinet/in.h> function "ntohs" which returns the IPv4
mapped IPv6 address (ff:IPv4).
>
>Thus, it seems that we have to modify dns.c and tcp-env.c (and other
routines from tcpserver) to cope with IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses.
>
>After disabling the IPv6 option, everything works as expected.
>
>cheers.
>eh.
>
>
There is a patch for QMAIL available, allowing it to cope with IPv6 addresses:
http://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/fujiwara/
Does anybody know about/applied this ???
cheers.
eh.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Can I run the qmail server behind a firewall?
I want to rely on the dns MX records on the firewall to route mail to the
qmail server, which is on an internal LAN, with a non Internet routable
192.168.1 address.
Will this work?, or, do I need to have the qmail server addressable from the
internet directly?
Thanks in advance, Bruce.
Bruce Edge wrote:
>
> Can I run the qmail server behind a firewall?
>
> I want to rely on the dns MX records on the firewall to route mail to the
> qmail server, which is on an internal LAN, with a non Internet routable
> 192.168.1 address.
>
> Will this work?, or, do I need to have the qmail server addressable from the
> internet directly?
>
> Thanks in advance, Bruce.
You could run a qmail/smtp server on the firewall that forwards
incoming mail to the internal mail server, and relays internal/outgoing
mail to the internet.
Or you could use a public IP for your MX record and have the
firewall map it to the internal mail server IP.
Basicly, you have to have a public IP for your MX record.
Ken Jones
> I want to rely on the dns MX records on the firewall to route
> mail to the qmail server, which is on an internal LAN, with a non
> Internet routable 192.168.1 address.
>
> Will this work?, or, do I need to have the qmail server
> addressable from the internet directly?
In order for this to work, your MX records will have to point to the
publicly routable address of the firewall, and the firewall will have to
redirect incoming port 25 to port 25 of the internal qmail mail server
address.
In other words, if your firewall has an external address of 1.2.3.4,
an internal address of 192.168.1.1, and your qmail server has 192.168.1.2,
then your firewall must forward inbound traffic to 1.2.3.4:25 to
192.168.1.2:25. Your MX records will point to 1.2.3.4.
But, yes, it works without any problems that I've ever seen.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Edge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to rely on the dns MX records on the firewall to route mail to the
> qmail server, which is on an internal LAN, with a non Internet routable
> 192.168.1 address.
If you want mail to be able to get in, something that accepts mail has
to be visible to the Internet. You could do this by putting the qmail
machine outside the firewall, or by using NAT or the like on the
firewall so that SMTP connections to the firewall get redirected to
the qmail machine internally. But what you've described won't work -
the world sees that, according to your MX records, mail for your
domain should go to a certain host, but then that host can't be
reached from the outside.
paul
To make this a little more QMTP compatible, and to agree with some of Peter
Norton's comments from late 1998, the sending MTA could also immediately
'transfer' the request to the QMTP by opening a new connection on the QMTP
port when it 'saw' the QMTP response from the foreign SMTP MTA. It would
not have to wait for the TCP session to close, etc. (this could be done in a
non-blocking manner) and the QMTP session could begin almost as quickly as
it would if it knew the foreign server supported QMTP to start with.
As someone else said over a year ago (and I'm sure its been repeated since),
the knowledge that a foreign MTA supports QMTP could be temporarily cached,
if it were desired (and proved faster than not) and reused instead of
opening new SMTP requests to those servers.
This would have the added benefit of using QMTP more often when
communicating with servers that receive a lot of repeated traffic.
I wrote:
> { Syntax: "<" from server ... ">" to server }
>
> < 220 IP ESMTP QMTP
> > QHLO
> > (data stream)
> < (response)
>
> I see this last one as being best, since the opening message can be
> customised to mention QMTP in it easily, and once that is parsed by the
> sending MTA, no further foreign responses are required until the QMTP
> dialog is finished. The initial "QHLO" would be added to inform the
> foreign MTA of our intentions.
I would like to offer an option similar to pobox.com's [spam: 84%]
"Subject:" munging for incoming messages from RBL or RSS listed sites.
Instead of actually bouncing the message as RBLSMTPD does, allow the
message but add [spam - rbl] or [spam - rss] or the like to the Subject:
field of the messages in question.
I'm wondering if anyone else has done this before I go making a
completely modified version of rblsmtpd to do so.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 05:27:28PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> I would like to offer an option similar to pobox.com's [spam: 84%]
> "Subject:" munging for incoming messages from RBL or RSS listed sites.
> Instead of actually bouncing the message as RBLSMTPD does, allow the
> message but add [spam - rbl] or [spam - rss] or the like to the Subject:
> field of the messages in question.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has done this before I go making a
> completely modified version of rblsmtpd to do so.
I think the way to go is SpamBouncer (http://www.spambouncer.org/),
procmail -m and the qmail-queue patch (Let spambouncer look at all
incoming messages.) rblsmtpd basically runs INSTEAD of smtpd, and denies
accepting the message.
Okay, s/the way/one way/.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
Here's the modified version of qmqpc that will pick a random server instead
of the first available. I haven't tested it yet, but it compiles, and
printf statements in strategic places give me the output I'm looking for.
The rand() function is seeded with the current milliseconds from the system
clock. The for loop for doit() will loop twice the number of the servers we
have to make sure it looked at all of them, this was easier than keeping
track of which servers were already checked. Don't make too much fun of my
code, I haven't coded anything for about 3 years. :)
----------
Jay Austad
Network Administrator
CBS Marketwatch
612.817.1271
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://cbs.marketwatch.com
http://www.bigcharts.com
===============================
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <arpa/inet.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/timeb.h>
#include "substdio.h"
#include "getln.h"
#include "readwrite.h"
#include "exit.h"
#include "stralloc.h"
#include "slurpclose.h"
#include "error.h"
#include "sig.h"
#include "ip.h"
#include "timeoutconn.h"
#include "timeoutread.h"
#include "timeoutwrite.h"
#include "auto_qmail.h"
#include "control.h"
#include "fmt.h"
#define PORT_QMQP 628
void die_success() { _exit(0); }
void die_perm() { _exit(31); }
void nomem() { _exit(51); }
void die_read() { if (errno == error_nomem) nomem(); _exit(54); }
void die_control() { _exit(55); }
void die_socket() { _exit(56); }
void die_home() { _exit(61); }
void die_temp() { _exit(71); }
void die_conn() { _exit(74); }
void die_format() { _exit(91); }
int lasterror = 55;
int qmqpfd;
int saferead(fd,buf,len) int fd; char *buf; int len;
{
int r;
r = timeoutread(60,qmqpfd,buf,len);
if (r <= 0) die_conn();
return r;
}
int safewrite(fd,buf,len) int fd; char *buf; int len;
{
int r;
r = timeoutwrite(60,qmqpfd,buf,len);
if (r <= 0) die_conn();
return r;
}
char buf[1024];
substdio to = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(safewrite,-1,buf,sizeof buf);
substdio from = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(saferead,-1,buf,sizeof buf);
substdio envelope = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(read,1,buf,sizeof buf);
/* WARNING: can use only one of these at a time! */
stralloc beforemessage = {0};
stralloc message = {0};
stralloc aftermessage = {0};
char strnum[FMT_ULONG];
stralloc line = {0};
struct sindex
{
int pos[256];
int len;
};
void getmess()
{
int match;
if (slurpclose(0,&message,1024) == -1) die_read();
strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) message.len)] = 0;
if (!stralloc_copys(&beforemessage,strnum)) nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(&beforemessage,":")) nomem();
if (!stralloc_copys(&aftermessage,",")) nomem();
if (getln(&envelope,&line,&match,'\0') == -1) die_read();
if (!match) die_format();
if (line.len < 2) die_format();
if (line.s[0] != 'F') die_format();
strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) line.len - 2)] = 0;
if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,strnum)) nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,":")) nomem();
if (!stralloc_catb(&aftermessage,line.s + 1,line.len - 2)) nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,",")) nomem();
for (;;) {
if (getln(&envelope,&line,&match,'\0') == -1) die_read();
if (!match) die_format();
if (line.len < 2) break;
if (line.s[0] != 'T') die_format();
strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) line.len - 2)] = 0;
if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,strnum)) nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,":")) nomem();
if (!stralloc_catb(&aftermessage,line.s + 1,line.len - 2)) nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,",")) nomem();
}
}
void doit(server)
char *server;
{
struct ip_address ip;
char ch;
if (!ip_scan(server,&ip)) return;
qmqpfd = socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM,0);
if (qmqpfd == -1) die_socket();
if (timeoutconn(qmqpfd,&ip,PORT_QMQP,10) != 0) {
lasterror = 73;
if (errno == error_timeout) lasterror = 72;
close(qmqpfd);
return;
}
strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) (beforemessage.len + message.len +
aftermessage.len))] = 0;
substdio_puts(&to,strnum);
substdio_puts(&to,":");
substdio_put(&to,beforemessage.s,beforemessage.len);
substdio_put(&to,message.s,message.len);
substdio_put(&to,aftermessage.s,aftermessage.len);
substdio_puts(&to,",");
substdio_flush(&to);
for (;;) {
substdio_get(&from,&ch,1);
if (ch == 'K') die_success();
if (ch == 'Z') die_temp();
if (ch == 'D') die_perm();
}
}
stralloc servers = {0};
main()
{
int i;
int j;
int randj;
struct timeb tp;
struct sindex serverindex; //used to keep an index of where each
server starts in servers.s
sig_pipeignore();
if (chdir(auto_qmail) == -1) die_home();
if (control_init() == -1) die_control();
if (control_readfile(&servers,"control/qmqpservers",0) != 1)
die_control();
getmess();
serverindex.len = 1; //we assume that there is at least one
server in the list
serverindex.pos[0]=0;
for (j = 0; j < servers.len; j++)
{
if (servers.s[j] == NULL) {
serverindex.pos[serverindex.len] = j+1;
serverindex.len++;
}
}
serverindex.len--; //discard the last null character
ftime(&tp);
srand(tp.millitm); //seed rand() with milliseconds
for (j=0; j < (serverindex.len*2); j++)
{
randj = (serverindex.len*1.0)*rand()/(RAND_MAX+1.0);
doit(servers.s + serverindex.pos[randj]);
}
_exit(lasterror);
}
Looks like it's going to work, but I still like the round robin idea
better. With the round robin idea you avoid the possibility of polling the
same down server repeatedly. I admit that this seems like an unlikely
event, but if you have few servers, it can be significant. (with 3 servers
this will happen 1 out nine times)
Also, as an added bonus, you can dispense with calling the random number
generation. Which can also be a significant operation. I have seen people
here discuss at length if an fsync here and there is necessary and I might
be wrong but I think calling rand is more expensive than fsync'ing...
Just my thought,
JES
Austad, Jay writes:
> Here's the modified version of qmqpc that will pick a random server instead
> of the first available. I haven't tested it yet, but it compiles, and
> printf statements in strategic places give me the output I'm looking for.
> The rand() function is seeded with the current milliseconds from the system
> clock. The for loop for doit() will loop twice the number of the servers we
> have to make sure it looked at all of them, this was easier than keeping
> track of which servers were already checked. Don't make too much fun of my
> code, I haven't coded anything for about 3 years. :)
>
> ----------
> Jay Austad
> Network Administrator
> CBS Marketwatch
> 612.817.1271
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://cbs.marketwatch.com
> http://www.bigcharts.com
>
>
>
> ===============================
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/socket.h>
> #include <netinet/in.h>
> #include <arpa/inet.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/time.h>
> #include <sys/timeb.h>
> #include "substdio.h"
> #include "getln.h"
> #include "readwrite.h"
> #include "exit.h"
> #include "stralloc.h"
> #include "slurpclose.h"
> #include "error.h"
> #include "sig.h"
> #include "ip.h"
> #include "timeoutconn.h"
> #include "timeoutread.h"
> #include "timeoutwrite.h"
> #include "auto_qmail.h"
> #include "control.h"
> #include "fmt.h"
>
> #define PORT_QMQP 628
>
> void die_success() { _exit(0); }
> void die_perm() { _exit(31); }
> void nomem() { _exit(51); }
> void die_read() { if (errno == error_nomem) nomem(); _exit(54); }
> void die_control() { _exit(55); }
> void die_socket() { _exit(56); }
> void die_home() { _exit(61); }
> void die_temp() { _exit(71); }
> void die_conn() { _exit(74); }
> void die_format() { _exit(91); }
>
> int lasterror = 55;
> int qmqpfd;
>
> int saferead(fd,buf,len) int fd; char *buf; int len;
> {
> int r;
> r = timeoutread(60,qmqpfd,buf,len);
> if (r <= 0) die_conn();
> return r;
> }
> int safewrite(fd,buf,len) int fd; char *buf; int len;
> {
> int r;
> r = timeoutwrite(60,qmqpfd,buf,len);
> if (r <= 0) die_conn();
> return r;
> }
>
> char buf[1024];
> substdio to = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(safewrite,-1,buf,sizeof buf);
> substdio from = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(saferead,-1,buf,sizeof buf);
> substdio envelope = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(read,1,buf,sizeof buf);
> /* WARNING: can use only one of these at a time! */
>
> stralloc beforemessage = {0};
> stralloc message = {0};
> stralloc aftermessage = {0};
>
> char strnum[FMT_ULONG];
> stralloc line = {0};
>
> struct sindex
> {
> int pos[256];
> int len;
> };
>
> void getmess()
> {
> int match;
>
> if (slurpclose(0,&message,1024) == -1) die_read();
>
> strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) message.len)] = 0;
> if (!stralloc_copys(&beforemessage,strnum)) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_cats(&beforemessage,":")) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_copys(&aftermessage,",")) nomem();
>
> if (getln(&envelope,&line,&match,'\0') == -1) die_read();
> if (!match) die_format();
> if (line.len < 2) die_format();
> if (line.s[0] != 'F') die_format();
>
> strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) line.len - 2)] = 0;
> if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,strnum)) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,":")) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_catb(&aftermessage,line.s + 1,line.len - 2)) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,",")) nomem();
>
> for (;;) {
> if (getln(&envelope,&line,&match,'\0') == -1) die_read();
> if (!match) die_format();
> if (line.len < 2) break;
> if (line.s[0] != 'T') die_format();
>
> strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) line.len - 2)] = 0;
> if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,strnum)) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,":")) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_catb(&aftermessage,line.s + 1,line.len - 2)) nomem();
> if (!stralloc_cats(&aftermessage,",")) nomem();
> }
> }
>
> void doit(server)
> char *server;
> {
> struct ip_address ip;
> char ch;
>
> if (!ip_scan(server,&ip)) return;
>
> qmqpfd = socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM,0);
> if (qmqpfd == -1) die_socket();
>
> if (timeoutconn(qmqpfd,&ip,PORT_QMQP,10) != 0) {
> lasterror = 73;
> if (errno == error_timeout) lasterror = 72;
> close(qmqpfd);
> return;
> }
>
> strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,(unsigned long) (beforemessage.len + message.len +
> aftermessage.len))] = 0;
> substdio_puts(&to,strnum);
> substdio_puts(&to,":");
> substdio_put(&to,beforemessage.s,beforemessage.len);
> substdio_put(&to,message.s,message.len);
> substdio_put(&to,aftermessage.s,aftermessage.len);
> substdio_puts(&to,",");
> substdio_flush(&to);
>
> for (;;) {
> substdio_get(&from,&ch,1);
> if (ch == 'K') die_success();
> if (ch == 'Z') die_temp();
> if (ch == 'D') die_perm();
> }
> }
>
> stralloc servers = {0};
>
> main()
> {
> int i;
> int j;
> int randj;
> struct timeb tp;
> struct sindex serverindex; //used to keep an index of where each
> server starts in servers.s
>
> sig_pipeignore();
>
> if (chdir(auto_qmail) == -1) die_home();
> if (control_init() == -1) die_control();
> if (control_readfile(&servers,"control/qmqpservers",0) != 1)
> die_control();
>
> getmess();
>
> serverindex.len = 1; //we assume that there is at least one
> server in the list
> serverindex.pos[0]=0;
> for (j = 0; j < servers.len; j++)
> {
> if (servers.s[j] == NULL) {
> serverindex.pos[serverindex.len] = j+1;
> serverindex.len++;
> }
> }
> serverindex.len--; //discard the last null character
>
> ftime(&tp);
> srand(tp.millitm); //seed rand() with milliseconds
>
> for (j=0; j < (serverindex.len*2); j++)
> {
> randj = (serverindex.len*1.0)*rand()/(RAND_MAX+1.0);
> doit(servers.s + serverindex.pos[randj]);
> }
>
>
> _exit(lasterror);
> }
>
Has anyone made an auto-responder to work with ezmlm (or others??) that
would reply to messages containing such "remove" messages to the list
and ask the sender if they wished to unsubscribe (with the proper
instructions)??
Guy Rosinbaum wrote:
> REMOVEremove
Oh boy...
After a forward from this list...
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:34:28 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > We are in the process of migrating all Red Hat lists from the current list
> > manager software/server running qmail/Smartlist to a new server running
> > postfix and GNU Mailman (*).
Very cool "design win", Wietse.
Len
----- End forwarded message -----
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
Anyone have any interesting insight on the switch from tai64 to tai64n
in daemontools? It appears (from my limited understanding) to break
lots of existing log analysis tools (including qmailanalog) without
adding anything of use.
I must be missing something. My faith in the almighty DJB is shaken and
I don't like that...
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Does Russ' qmail-mrtg work with the new daemontools and it's fondness
for tai64n? I know there are pipes, filters, etc to convert... Native
support WOULD be nice, though.
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
No, this is not a re-hash of the old debate. I've seen the archives.
:)
But, according to DJB's (and others') suggestions I'm trying to hook awk
up to the recordio + qmail-smtpd output and log it to syslog (via
splogger).
This seems to me like it should be easy. However, as soon as I add the
additional pipe to awk, I no longer get _anything_ logged to syslog.
Before:
/usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 4000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x
/usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -t 15 -u 71 -g 1013 0 25
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
After:
/usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 4000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x
/usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -t 15 -u 71 -g 1013 127.0.0.1 25 recordio
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /usr/bin/gawk '{if ($2 != "<") print}'
| /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
Is there something wrong with the pipes I've set up? If I take out the
"awk..." part and replace it with "cat" then everything works as
expected (iow, I get _all_ the smtp output).
What is the problem with swapping in awk like this?
Please copy me on any responses (I'm not subscribed currently). Thanks.
From: Jim Breton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Is there something wrong with the pipes I've set up? If I take out the
>"awk..." part and replace it with "cat" then everything works as
>expected (iow, I get _all_ the smtp output).
On the "Before" you had bound to 0, on the "After" you bound to 127.0.0.1.
Are you sure you were smtp'ing trough 127.0.0.1 ?
Armando
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:11:54AM +0000, Jim Breton wrote:
> This seems to me like it should be easy. However, as soon as I add the
> additional pipe to awk, I no longer get _anything_ logged to syslog.
I am only guessing ... could it be some buffering problem?
gawk is not doing output on every line but in e.g 2/4/8 K blocks?
I don't know what exactly you wish to accomplish, but I did a simple
patch to recordio.c that looks for a ENV variable "RECORDIO" and if not
set it does nothing.
This makes it very easy to trace only connections from certain IP
addresses by adding
RECORDIO=""
to the cdb that tcpserver uses and it's easily (un)set by building a new
CDB.
It's rather easy, in main() just add a
char *do_recordio;
do_recordio = env_get("RECORDIO");
and then put the fork() construct in
if (do_recordio) {
[ ... fork() ... ]
}
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:39:34AM -0000, asantos wrote:
> On the "Before" you had bound to 0, on the "After" you bound to 127.0.0.1.
> Are you sure you were smtp'ing trough 127.0.0.1 ?
Sorry, I should have clarified that. Until I get this working I'm
binding tcpserver to 127.0.0.1 -- in case I screw something up I don't
want any mail coming in from the outside. Normally I bind it to "0" so
connections from the outside are still permitted.
From: Jim Breton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sorry, I should have clarified that. Until I get this working I'm
>binding tcpserver to 127.0.0.1 -- in case I screw something up I don't
>want any mail coming in from the outside. Normally I bind it to "0" so
>connections from the outside are still permitted.
Right. In that case I'd start by validating the gawk call, that is, I'd put
simply a '{print;}' in the gawk part and see what happens.
Armando
Hi there,
Would anyone give me some example to use recordio to record qmail SMTP server log?
When I put the recordio before calling qmail-smtpd, qmail-smtpd did not work.
Regards,
Edward.
Hi all,
I am running a free popmail server using Autoturn and getting my mail via
a dialup link from my mail server metta.lk to col7.metta.lk and things
are working well for the larst year or so.
I find that qmail is taking my maildir and sending <last in first out>
I would like to have qmail changed to do a
sort mailbox by seize and
send the smallest first.
My reason is that I might have someone with a large 1-2 MB attachment to
be sent and I do not like to send that during daytime when phone charges
are very high, but would like to send smaller messages first
and then I let cron cut the connection after x minutes. The larger
messages could then go at night where the x minutes is set to a higher
value.
I would much appriciate if someone could tell me if this is possible
and could help me with a hack on the source files to send smallest first.
I am presently using qmail-smtpd and do not mind changing to qmail-qmtpd
as that is what is recommended for faster transfer.
Thank you in advance
Jacob
Yesterday, a guy from the data center has upgraded a memory on my server,
and this morning I discovered a cpu load problem. What I'd figured out is
that multilog just can't access /var/log/qmail/* so the supervise has been
retrying on and on....
I checked the ownership of /var/log/qmail as follow:
[root@ns qmail]# ls -al
total 960
drwxr-xr-x 4 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 26 01:30 .
drwx------ 9 root root 4096 Jul 23 04:02 ..
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 97999 Jul 20 05:35
@400000003976c7e118727dd4.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98092 Jul 20 06:35
@400000003976d5ee08bbaa14.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98137 Jul 20 14:37
@40000000397746f123398654.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98112 Jul 21 02:00
@400000003977e7180e5bed1c.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98062 Jul 21 04:04
@400000003978040e333ffccc.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98326 Jul 21 20:03
@400000003978e4df05f4e8f4.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98018 Jul 22 03:36
@4000000039794f17081c6c74.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98145 Jul 24 05:28
@40000000397c0c632df9c48c.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 98063 Jul 25 05:12
@40000000397d5a0c054330dc.s
-rwxr--r-- 1 qmaill nofiles 37543 Jul 25 15:28 current
drwxr-xr-x 2 qmaill root 4096 Jul 21 02:18 pop3d
drwxr-xr-x 2 qmaill root 4096 Jul 26 01:33 smtp
The startup script is just like those in LWQ and I haven't done anything
related to qmail since.
Can someone please tell me what's going on here? Or more info is needed?
I've now diabled supervise multiloging so qmail itself is running.. though I
hate this.
Thanks
kittiwat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 26 Jul 00, at 14:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yesterday, a guy from the data center has upgraded a memory on my
> server, and this morning I discovered a cpu load problem. What I'd
> figured out is that multilog just can't access /var/log/qmail/* so the
> supervise has been retrying on and on....
>
> I checked the ownership of /var/log/qmail as follow:
>
> [root@ns qmail]# ls -al
> total 960
> drwxr-xr-x 4 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 26 01:30 .
> drwx------ 9 root root 4096 Jul 23 04:02 ..
That is your problem. Only root can access subdirectories of
/var/log. Change permissions of /var/log to 711 or 755. (Why are
you so restrictive on log directory? Sensitive logs are protected as
files...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOX6CRFMwP8g7qbw/EQKbtgCgmsxkiwwHtKxr4O1ZFEaN1x14a28AnR8e
9/4u3Iodv+9W03cLPVnBatY8
=FXnf
-----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]
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:13:01PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ls -l /var/log/qmail]
! drwx------ 9 root root 4096 Jul 23 04:02 ..
With those kinds of permissions, the qmaill user (which apparently
does all your logging) can't even touch the /var/log/qmail directory,
let alone write in it.
Try ``chmod 755 /var/log''. Just make individual logs unreadable if
you think they're sensitive.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
ooppss... yes, please blame me. it works now!
thanks a lot
kittiwat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: multilog problem--quite urgent please
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 26 Jul 00, at 14:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Yesterday, a guy from the data center has upgraded a memory on my
> > server, and this morning I discovered a cpu load problem. What I'd
> > figured out is that multilog just can't access /var/log/qmail/* so the
> > supervise has been retrying on and on....
> >
> > I checked the ownership of /var/log/qmail as follow:
> >
> > [root@ns qmail]# ls -al
> > total 960
> > drwxr-xr-x 4 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 26 01:30 .
> > drwx------ 9 root root 4096 Jul 23 04:02 ..
>
> That is your problem. Only root can access subdirectories of
> /var/log. Change permissions of /var/log to 711 or 755. (Why are
> you so restrictive on log directory? Sensitive logs are protected as
> files...)
yeah, thanks a lot. it's my false. it works now.
kittiwat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris, the Young One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: multilog problem--quite urgent please
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:13:01PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [ls -l /var/log/qmail]
> ! drwx------ 9 root root 4096 Jul 23 04:02 ..
>
> With those kinds of permissions, the qmaill user (which apparently
> does all your logging) can't even touch the /var/log/qmail directory,
> let alone write in it.
>
> Try ``chmod 755 /var/log''. Just make individual logs unreadable if
> you think they're sensitive.
>
> ---Chris K.
> --
> Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
> Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
> http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
> PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
>
