qmail Digest 29 Jul 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1077
Topics (messages 45724 through 45798):
Re: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken
45724 by: Toens Bueker
45727 by: Andrew Richards
Re: qmail & SSL
45725 by: Miroslav Tempir
qmail & mailstart
45726 by: Lydia
45732 by: Dave Sill
message has wrong owner
45728 by: Anders Kvist
45735 by: Dave Sill
Problem building qmail from qmail-1.03+patches-14.src.rpm
45729 by: Adrian Head
45734 by: Chris, the Young One
45738 by: Chris, the Young One
Re: incorrect date..
45730 by: Greg Owen
Re: void main
45731 by: Jan Echternach
Qmail filtering
45733 by: Tyler J. Frederick
45737 by: Petr Novotny
Not getting mail from smtpd
45736 by: Craig L. Ching
45745 by: Dave Sill
45748 by: Craig L. Ching
45749 by: Chris, the Young One
45751 by: Dave Sill
45753 by: Craig L. Ching
45755 by: Dave Sill
45765 by: Craig L. Ching
Re: Clean queue
45739 by: Paul Jarc
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
45740 by: Paul Jarc
45770 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: local-test sends to internet
45741 by: Bruno Wolff III
Handy way to restart qmail
45742 by: Harry Putnam
45743 by: Petr Novotny
45744 by: Dave Sill
45758 by: Harry Putnam
45760 by: Adam McKenna
45761 by: Dave Sill
45763 by: Einar Bordewich
45777 by: Harry Putnam
AMaViS Problems.... Someone please help.
45746 by: Jeremy Fowler
45754 by: Rainer Link
kill -9 (was Re: Handy way to restart qmail)
45747 by: Chris, the Young One
45750 by: James Raftery
Re: dot-qmail deliver help
45752 by: Einar Bordewich
45762 by: Uwe Ohse
45768 by: Einar Bordewich
stats from qmailanalog
45756 by: flitcraft33
45759 by: Dave Sill
45764 by: Kevin Bucknum
The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
45757 by: Einar Bordewich
45766 by: markd.bushwire.net
45767 by: Chris, the Young One
45769 by: Einar Bordewich
45771 by: Einar Bordewich
45772 by: markd.bushwire.net
45779 by: MichaelG.RxAmerica.com
45780 by: markd.bushwire.net
45781 by: Einar Bordewich
SMTP and POP3 connections take too long
45773 by: net admin
45774 by: Charles Cazabon
Mailing list performance question
45775 by: Fernando Costa de Almeida
45778 by: David Dyer-Bennet
user accounts and groups for the qmail binaries and such
45776 by: wolfgang zeikat
45783 by: Chris, the Young One
using RBLSMTPD env var
45782 by: Jon Rust
45785 by: Adam McKenna
45786 by: Chris, the Young One
45787 by: Jon Rust
45788 by: Jon Rust
45789 by: Einar Bordewich
45790 by: Chris, the Young One
45791 by: Jon Rust
conf-split size on different FS's
45784 by: tony.corp.quepasa.com
rcpthosts, relaying, and tcp-env 7.6
45792 by: Todd Finney
duplicating sendmail's virtusertable
45793 by: Sam Carleton
45794 by: Ben Beuchler
multilog patterns
45795 by: Ben Beuchler
45796 by: Russ Allbery
45797 by: Russ Allbery
45798 by: Ben Beuchler
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Reassured I installed the patched version with all the > > nice features (conf-spawn=2045, conf-split=521) -> Success > > - no error. > > On the Solaris 7 platforms, do you > make setup check after you change conf-spawn and > conf-split? I copied the source of the patched qmail-version (including the modified conf-spawn and conf-split) on all platforms, did a make clean, make setup and make check. I generally do a 'newfs' on the filesystem, which holds the queue before re-installing and re-testing a new qmail-version. The installation goes into a separate directory (/var/qmail.patched) in order to allow me to have different qmail-versions installed for easier testing. By Töns -- Linux. The dot in /.
(This post also relevant to the "bare LFs and fixcrio ramifications" thread) Toens, Hmm, I've been watching this thread with interest. I did post a similar message a week ago, which you may like to take a look at in the archive, entitled "Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpd&qmail-queue procs", as well as the referenced posts by TAG on 7th, 8th June. The thread I started centred on a discussion of bare LFs (contributors explained the ramifications), and since fixing those (fixcrio), the systems has been behaving themselves (thank you to all those who contributed). Michael Boyiazis did highlight a URL (I think this message may not have been sent to the list), http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/9/83.ASP, which says (I quote), "With the SMTP service version 1877.19, if you send a message to a server that issues a 4xx response to any of the following: EHLO, MAIL FROM:, RCPT TO:, or DATA The SMTP service may issue a QUIT, and immediately try again, resulting in a potential loop." The actual qmail-smtpd error message re bare LFs is 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html which would trigger the above fault if Microsoft's software does indeed send bare LFs - contributors suggest it does. That would appear to be similar to smtpstone-ing a mail server. It would be interesting to check that smtpstone isn't generating bare LFs, although I doubt that. Anyway, part of my reason for posting was to speculate on why a mailserver might get a flood of SMTP connections. The above bare LF issue is obviously one, as are smtpstone and a DoS. In my case, fixing the bare LF problem fixed the many-procs problem, by fixing the thing that was triggering it, but there may still be something that is 'broken' in Solaris 2.7. If I'm feeling brave, and happen to be working with that system again, I'll try smtpstone-ing it... cheers, Andrew. ---------- From: Toens Bueker[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 27 July 2000 23:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > make setup > > > > make setup > > > I installed an unpatched version of qmail - using an > > Ahh. So it's not make setup, but rather > > patch <somepatch > make setup > > Note quite as clean an answer I'm afraid. Maybe I wasn't precise enough: The error appears on the mentioned Solaris 7 machines with plain unmodified qmail-1.03 and patched qmail-1.03 alike. On the Solaris 2.6 machine both a plain unmodified qmail-1.03 and the same patched version I used on the other machines, did not produce the error. Another hint might be, that the error does not show up on a disk pair, that is mirrored and striped using SDS. > > BTW.: I just edited /usr/include/sys/select.h (changing > > 1024 to 4096), > > Ug. That is not the correct way of doing it. > > Did you read the comments immediately preceeding the line > that you changed? It tells you the correct way to do this. Hm. From what I remember, qmail didn't care about my settings in /etc/system, ulimit, etc. That's why I change select.h during compilation and then change it back. It should illustrate, that the number of open files is most probably not the reason for the error. > > Another hint could be the fact, that the mails, which > > remain in the queue after the first crash seem to be stuck > > Well, that must be different mail as the mail submission that > causes your error never gets into the queue. I just checked it again. The mails were delivered at least. So that was not connected to the problem. > FWIW. Plenty of people, including myself have run very busy qmail > systems on various Solaris versions and not encountered this > problem. That's what I expected when I started off - 'qmail on Solaris 7, shouldn't be a problem'. But have you tested your server with smtpstone? The error doesn't show up in the qmail-smtpd or qmail-send logs. It just produces the '451' error - already the next mail will be accepted and be delivered. I just think, that it is worthwile to find out, where the Solaris bug or misconfiguration is, to prevent others from waisting their time with this stuff. Even if it means to downgrade to Solaris 2.6 or upgrade to Solaris 8. I'd be grateful, if you could tell me where to look for hints, what the problem could be. How I could make qmail more verbose, etc. Thanx. By Töns
http://freshmeat.net/ -> find: stunnel ========= 28/07/00 12:39 by Wilson Fletcher ========= | Can someone tell me where to look to find info on setting up my qmail server | to use SSL with POP ? | | thanks | | Wilson Fletcher | -- Mira Tempír <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---[..čekit...]--- http://www.cekit.cz/ ------------ it's all about Internet
"Lydia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We are using qmail but somehow we can not check our mail under >mailstart.com say. Is there a setting I should put that will allow >this to happen. You need to install and configure a POP3 daemon. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pop-imap-servers -Dave
Hi I'm trying to install a new qmail but when i test it i get this in my syslog: Jul 28 15:21:21 tux qmail: 964790481.074367 delivery 18: deferral: +Sorry,_message_has_wrong_owner._(#4.3.5)/ Jul 28 15:21:21 tux qmail: 964790481.074736 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Iřm testing it with this command: echo to: wazquis | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject <- which is in the documentation anyone? -- Regards/Hilsen Anders Kvist aka wazquis(@freesite.dk) ----------------------------- #!/bin/sh echo "What's your username? " read LUSER rm -rf /home/$LUSER -----------------------------
Anders Kvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm trying to install a new qmail How? From source? RPM? >Jul 28 15:21:21 tux qmail: 964790481.074367 delivery 18: deferral: >+Sorry,_message_has_wrong_owner._(#4.3.5)/ qmail expects messages in the queue to be owned by the qmailq user. The set of qmail UID's in compiled into the binaries at build time. It sounds like you changed the qmail UID's after the build, or installed binaries built on system with UID's. -Dave
If this is Off Topic for this mailing list I apologise - please point me in the right direction. I have this little problem that has been bugging me for a few days with the installation of Bruce Guenter's qmail-1.03+patches-14.src.rpm from http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail+patches/ When building the binary RPM from the source I get the following error from the install script as per the screen dump below. [root@hercules SPECS]# rpm -ba qmail-1.03+patches.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.61330 ..... [Cut] (everything here looks OK to me) ..... /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/qmail-1.03 + /tmp/qmail-root/usr/bin/make-owners /tmp/qmail-root/etc/qmail /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.99466: /tmp/qmail-root/usr/bin/make-owners: Permission denied Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.99466 (%install) What I don't understand is why the permission problem or the real function of make-owners. The permissions of the various files (dirs) are listed below just in case: [root@hercules SPECS]# ll /tmp/qmail-root/usr/bin/make-owners -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 720 Jul 28 23:05 /tmp/qmail-root/usr/bin/make-owners [root@hercules SPECS]# ls -lah /tmp/qmail-root/etc/qmail total 6.0k drwxr-xr-x 6 root qmail 1.0k Jul 28 23:05 . drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 1.0k Jul 28 23:05 .. drwxr-sr-x 2 alias qmail 1.0k Jul 28 23:05 alias drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1.0k Jul 28 23:05 control drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1.0k Jul 28 23:05 owners drwxr-xr-x 2 root qmail 1.0k Jul 28 23:05 users The only thing I have changed was the following lines in the SPEC file to get around the FD_SET() problem with only 1024 descriptors in my kernel. #fds=`ulimit -n` #let spawnlimit='(fds-6)/2' #echo $spawnlimit >conf-spawn echo 400 >conf-spawn ./chkspawn Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors. This means that the qmail daemons could crash if you set the run-time concurrency higher than 509. So I'm going to insist that the concurrency limit in conf-spawn be at most 509. Right now it's 44997. make: *** [spawn.o] Error 1 Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.72813 (%build) The machine is RH6.2 minimal install Linux hercules.local 2.2.14-5.0 #1 Tue Mar 7 21:07:39 EST 2000 i686 unknown I'm not a member of this mailing list so could any correspondence be emailed directly please. If anyone else has had a simular problem and have "it worked for me" solutions then they would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time Adrian Head
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:33:32PM +1000, Adrian Head wrote: ! /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.99466: /tmp/qmail-root/usr/bin/make-owners: Permission ! denied ! ! What I don't understand is why the permission problem or the real ! function of make-owners. Just a stab in the dark, but is it possible that your /tmp is mounted with the ``noexec'' option? ! The only thing I have changed was the following lines in the SPEC file ! to get around the FD_SET() problem with only 1024 descriptors in my ! kernel. A cursory glance at the Linux 2.2 source code doesn't show any way to override the kernel limit of 1024 file descriptors (for select(); poll() doesn't have this limitation, but qmail doesn't use poll() yet). See <linux/posix_types.h>. If I remember correctly, even if you hack the kernel source to allow an fd_set greater than 1024 bits, you still have to change the libc header <bits/types.h> (and possibly others). ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:33:32PM +1000, Adrian Head wrote: ! The only thing I have changed was the following lines in the SPEC file ! to get around the FD_SET() problem with only 1024 descriptors in my ! kernel. Rereading Adrian's message, I now see what's being said. Basically, ``ulimit -n'' was much higher than 1024, and the RPM script failed to recognise that, and so Adrian set conf-spawn manually. So, I take back what I said in the last message. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
> I'm getting the wrong date in my headers > > Received: (qmail 18083 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2000 > 23:57:48 -0000 > > my time zone should be +1000, qmail intentionally uses GMT (-0000) for Received headers, but will correctly use your time zone for the Date: header, which is what end users see. The rationale behind this is that the Received headers are used to debug mail paths, and mail paths often involve machines from different time zones. If everybody used GMT for Received headers, debugging mail paths would be much easier. When I worked for a Xerox subsidiary, mail originating in GMT would go to a bastion host in PST that would forward mail back to my EST location, and trying to figure out why mail was slow sometimes was a pain in the neck. (plus two, minus three- or is that minus two, plus three?) There is a patch on the qmail.org site to modify this behavior, but think twice about why you're doing it, and what you use Received: headers for. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 07:01:10PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote: > The newer djb sources (like djbdns - formerly dnscache) uses > main(int argc,char **argv) > without return value specifications, which, by C standards, mean > implicit int main(). Only by old C standards. The new C99 standard forbids implicit int. Even though void main() might in theory cause effects worse than random exit status, I'm more worried about other C code, like qmail-1.03/substdi.c:oneread() which calls read(2) without a prototype, but with a third argument of type 'int' instead of 'size_t'. I'm wondering if there are any platforms where this breaks. I would expect really nasty effects if 'size_t' is larger than 'int' and not passed to functions in a compatible way. -- Jan
Hi all I'm not sure if this can be done, and it may have been covered recently, but as I just re-subscribed to the list, bear with me please. When the 'love-letter' virus was floating around some time ago, I had seen numerous filters that one could put in their (*cough*) sendmail.cf file that would prevent the server from even accepting a message mathing certain criteria. (It would return a permanent error and tell them to get lost essentially.) With my recent reading on the list, I've seen people mention the 'mess822' package. Will this do something similar? I need to implement a similar filtering system on a qmail server and want to know the best way to do it. I like the idea of having the error return to the client and not even have the server accept the message. What's the best way to do something like this? - T -- Tyler J. Frederick Systems Administrator Sportsline.com, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28 Jul 00, at 10:11, Tyler J. Frederick wrote: > With my recent reading on the list, I've seen people mention the > 'mess822' package. Will this do something similar? No. You may use it to identify some fields in the header, but you are responsible for the filtering, anyway. > I need to > implement a similar filtering system on a qmail server and want to > know the best way to do it. Look for Amavis, scan4virus and similar stuff. > I like the idea of having the error > return to the client and not even have the server accept the message. It's difficult to not accept the message at all; you know, you must see the message (at least a part of it) to recognize a virus. However, a filter around qmail-queue might stop receiving the message as soon as you positively identify a virus (worm, etc.). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOYGJSFMwP8g7qbw/EQLKNQCg1MQ8sUCdTitYlaf+AOcbouk7GIIAnR2B KZ8Sm31aqtjluDkSzOAgGdJj =Ig5p -----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]
Hi! I'm definitely a newbie at mail administration, so please bear with me, or point me to the appropriate document in case I missed it. I've read the TEST.* INSTALL.* and FAQ files but haven't been able to get smtpd to get the mail into my mailbox. I'm using qmail-1.03 with the large packet DNS patch on OpenBSD 2.7. I'm using procmail to deliver the mail to the mail queue. Local mail seems to be working just fine, mail shows up in /var/mail/username, and BSD Mail can read it. I have been working on the remote receive by telneting to port 25 and sending the proper SMTP protocol (following the TEST.receive doc). I've checked the log in /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current and I don't see any errors (I'm at work and the log is at home, so I can't send the log, but it seems that smtpd is fat and happy! I can get them and repost if someone thinks they're of use), in fact I seem to be seeing new text being appended to the log and everything looks like a success! But beyond that I'm not seeing anything. I've checked /var/log/maillog to no avail. Can someone point to the next step? Thanks much for any help! Cheers, Craig
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've checked the log in >/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current and I don't see any errors (I'm at work >and the log is at home, so I can't send the log, but it seems that smtpd is >fat and happy! I can get them and repost if someone thinks they're >of use), Please do. -Dave PS: If you ever write an autobiography, I suggest you call it "I, Ching"
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I've checked the log in > >/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current and I don't see any > errors (I'm at work > >and the log is at home, so I can't send the log, but it > seems that smtpd is > >fat and happy! I can get them and repost if someone thinks they're > >of use), > > Please do. > Okay, will do. Can anyone post what the log should look like for a successful receive by smtpd? > -Dave > > PS: If you ever write an autobiography, I suggest you call it > "I, Ching" > Heh, heard it before, but still funny! Cheers, Craig
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:27:13AM -0500, Craig L. Ching wrote: ! Okay, will do. Can anyone post what the log should look like for a ! successful receive by smtpd? $ tail /service/smtpd/log/main/current @400000003981b5cf063a798c tcpserver: status: 1/40 @400000003981b5cf0649cf54 tcpserver: pid 30380 from 127.0.0.1 @400000003981b5cf073abb1c tcpserver: ok 30380 localhost:127.0.0.1:25 localhost:127.0.0.1:cky:30405 @400000003981b5cf2793d7f4 tcpserver: end 30380 status 0 @400000003981b5cf279f1eac tcpserver: status: 0/40 $ tail /service/qmail/log/main/current @400000003981b5cf1637e39c new msg 12548 @400000003981b5cf16432284 info msg 12548: bytes 2104 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 12047 uid 105 @400000003981b5cf16d538f4 starting delivery 3956: msg 12548 to local cky@localhost @400000003981b5cf16e3c39c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @400000003981b5cf1ba4fcfc delivery 3956: success: did_0+0+2/ @400000003981b5cf1bb890b4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @400000003981b5cf1bbea364 end msg 12548 Hope that helps, ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ heartbleed (OpenBSD/i386) has now been up for Auckland, New Zealand |_ all of 30 days, 14:47:45 http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Okay, will do. Can anyone post what the log should look like for a >successful receive by smtpd? Sure: 964802107.045958 new msg 5878737 964802107.048026 info msg 5878737: bytes 640 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 313391 uid 49491 964802107.175420 starting delivery 9463: msg 5878737 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 964802107.175467 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 964802107.345305 delivery 9463: success: did_1+0+0/ 964802107.378367 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 964802107.378398 end msg 5878737 >Heh, heard it before, but still funny! You're too kind. Thanks for being a good sport about it. BTW, I've heard my share of "sill" puns... -Dave
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:27:13AM -0500, Craig L. Ching wrote: > ! Okay, will do. Can anyone post what the log should look like for a > ! successful receive by smtpd? > > $ tail /service/smtpd/log/main/current > @400000003981b5cf063a798c tcpserver: status: 1/40 > @400000003981b5cf0649cf54 tcpserver: pid 30380 from 127.0.0.1 > @400000003981b5cf073abb1c tcpserver: ok 30380 > localhost:127.0.0.1:25 localhost:127.0.0.1:cky:30405 > @400000003981b5cf2793d7f4 tcpserver: end 30380 status 0 > @400000003981b5cf279f1eac tcpserver: status: 0/40 > > $ tail /service/qmail/log/main/current > @400000003981b5cf1637e39c new msg 12548 > @400000003981b5cf16432284 info msg 12548: bytes 2104 from > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp > 12047 uid 105 > @400000003981b5cf16d538f4 starting delivery 3956: msg 12548 > to local cky@localhost > @400000003981b5cf16e3c39c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 > @400000003981b5cf1ba4fcfc delivery 3956: success: did_0+0+2/ > @400000003981b5cf1bb890b4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 > @400000003981b5cf1bbea364 end msg 12548 > k, thanks! If I remember correctly (I know, this is purely speculation!), this is pretty much what my smtpd log looked like, only I'm looking in /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current. I didn't realize there were logs in /service, so maybe I'll see something different there. What should the smtpd do with the message if the log looks like this? Is it then processed by my /var/qmail/rc script? In that case (I'm using procmail right now, just trying to get this to work) should it then end up on my queue? Thanks for the help, I'm still in the "trying to understand it all" phase. I'll get my logs and repost (sounds like a good lunch thing to do!). > Hope that helps, > ---Chris K. > -- > Chris, the Young One |_ heartbleed (OpenBSD/i386) has now > been up for > Auckland, New Zealand |_ all of 30 days, 14:47:45 > http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ > PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ > Cheers, Craig
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >k, thanks! If I remember correctly (I know, this is purely speculation!), >this is pretty much what my smtpd log looked like, only I'm looking in >/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current. I didn't realize there were logs in >/service, so maybe I'll see something different there. There's not really a standard location for logs. I suspect you were looking in the right place. >What should the >smtpd do with the message if the log looks like this? qmail-smtpd doesn't log anything. The log entries posted were from tcpserver, which logs the SMTP connection, and qmail-send, which logs the delivery. If you want to see how the pieces fit together, check out: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pictures >Is it then processed >by my /var/qmail/rc script? No, the rc script just starts qmail. >In that case (I'm using procmail right now, >just trying to get this to work) should it then end up on my queue? qmail-smtpd puts the message in the queue. qmail-send passes it off to qmail-lspawn for local delivery. qmail-lspawn looks for a .qmail file or uses the default delivery specification on the qmail-start command line (from /var/qmail/rc) to determine how to deliver the message. If it's to be delivered via procmail, qmail-local execs procmail. -Dave
> There's not really a standard location for logs. I suspect you were > looking in the right place. > Okay. > qmail-smtpd doesn't log anything. The log entries posted were from > tcpserver, which logs the SMTP connection, and qmail-send, which logs > the delivery. > Oh, okay. Here's my entry from /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current. This is a diff of current from before to after I did the TEST.receive: 52,56d51 < @400000003981c1c90c20f524 tcpserver: status: 1/40 < @400000003981c1c90c3271b4 tcpserver: pid 15431 from 192.168.0.3 < @400000003981c1c90dd8559c tcpserver: ok 15431 sumo.craig-home.org:192.168.0.3:25 sumo.craig-home.org:192.168.0.3:root:28777 < @400000003981c1f2287da384 tcpserver: end 15431 status 0 < @400000003981c1f2288377b4 tcpserver: status: 0/40 Here's what I typed into the telnet session: sumo# telnet sumo 25 Trying 192.168.0.3... Connected to sumo. Escape character is '^]'. 220 sumo.craig-home.org ESMTP helo dude 250 sumo.craig-home.org mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 ok rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 ok data 354 go ahead Subject: Testing SMTP receive Did you get it? . 250 ok 964805092 qp 22566 quit 221 sumo.craig-home.org Connection closed by foreign host. sumo# > If you want to see how the pieces fit together, check out: > > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pictures > Yep, I've got those and am looking at them. > >Is it then processed > >by my /var/qmail/rc script? > > No, the rc script just starts qmail. > Okay. > >In that case (I'm using procmail right now, > >just trying to get this to work) should it then end up on my queue? > > qmail-smtpd puts the message in the queue. qmail-send passes > it off to Is there anyway to see what's in the queue? Where is the queue? How do I trace where the message is getting lost? Sorry for the basic questions, but I haven't seen these documented anywhere before, no doubt I've missed something. > qmail-lspawn for local delivery. qmail-lspawn looks for a .qmail file > or uses the default delivery specification on the qmail-start command > line (from /var/qmail/rc) to determine how to deliver the message. If > it's to be delivered via procmail, qmail-local execs procmail. > Thanks, this clarifies a lot for me! > -Dave > Thanks for the help! Cheers, Craig
"Nguyen Hong Son" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > _ How to delete messages in queue ? This is answered at <URL:http://qmail.sgi.net/qmail/top.html#tips>. (grep for `week'.) First, identify the message you want to kill. The full message appears in /var/qmail/queue/mess/N/12345, where N is a number between 1 and conf-split, and 12345 is the inode number of the file. Then do: # touch -d '1 week ago' /var/qmail/queue/info/N/12345 The message will bounce as if it had been stuck in the queue for a week. > _ How to extend queue (current is 23 ?) in qmail for a very busy server ? You'd have to recompile qmail and use a fresh installation, letting the old one run long enough to empty its queue. Once the queue split is set (in conf-split) at compile time, those binaries will be unusable for other queue sizes. paul
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 04:59:27PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: > > 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. > > VERP expansion is handled at the moment delivery is done, irregardless > of how the message came in. By qmail, sure. But I'm asking about protocols. Does QMTP require servers to expand VERPs? I think it doesn't, which unfortunately means that a QMTP client can't send a single copy of a message with multiple recipients on the same host if it wants VERPs. paul
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:20:26PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 27 Jul 00, at 18:13, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > > You might get listed as 'untestable', yes. Not, ever, as an open > > relay. > > You mean not listed under relays.orbs.org? Or do you refer to your > proprietary handling of the zone? I am refering to the documented, non-propietary way that ORBS marks hosts in the relays.orbs.org zone. I think you would consider this a 'yes' to your second question. Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:05:54PM -0700, Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks ... Nice page. Not sure I understand why qmail strips out the > `^From ' line though. Necessitating hacks and add on guff, like > `preline'. You don't want to use the from line anyway. There isn't a unique inverse mapping back from the From line to possible envelope sender addresses.
Running Freebsd 4.0 qmail-1.03 Is there a one move handy way to restart qmail? None of the pids I see displayed with: `ps waux|grep qmail' Seem to be responsive to `kill -HUP <pid>' I've been calling `ps waux |grep qmail', then `kill -9' on qmails pid then calling (using bash) `/var/qmail/rc &' (From the doc/INSTALL document). Seems a little cumbersom.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28 Jul 00, at 8:47, Harry Putnam wrote: > Running Freebsd 4.0 > qmail-1.03 > > Is there a one move handy way to restart qmail? To restart, send qmail-send a SIGTERM and way for it and all qmail-remotes (and qmail-locals) to go out. Then start /var/qmail/rc or something again. To reread locals and virtualdomains, send qmail-send a SIGHUP. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOYGekVMwP8g7qbw/EQKQnACePLdoCKwCcoHtR/b47VnzUcFN25YAnRMo uhC2VGAr2LcEjMtqj07MWh9v =r2GA -----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]
Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Is there a one move handy way to restart qmail? If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: qmail restart The complete set of commands is: stop -- stops mail service (smtp connections refused, nothing goes out) start -- starts mail service (smtp connection accepted, mail can go out) pause -- temporarily stops mail service (connections accepted, nothing leaves) cont -- continues paused mail service stat -- displays status of mail service cdb -- rebuild the tcpcontrol cdb file for smtp restart -- stops and restarts smtp, sends qmail-send a TERM & restarts it doqueue -- sends qmail-send ALRM, scheduling queued messages for delivery reload -- sends qmail-send HUP, rereading locals and virtualdomains queue -- shows status of queue alrm -- same as doqueue hup -- same as reload >I've been calling `ps waux |grep qmail', then `kill -9' on qmails pid then >calling (using bash) `/var/qmail/rc &' (From the doc/INSTALL >document). > >Seems a little cumbersom. Yeah, and dangerous, too. A plain "kill" (no -9) on the qmail-send process is much safer. -Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Is there a one move handy way to restart qmail? > > If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's > daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: > > qmail restart OK, so much for the quessing game. I find no address to acquire this script at: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.txt Lots of mentions of what to call for this or that situation *IF* you installed `qmail script' but no URL where it can be gotten. No mention of it in my source package or /var/qmail/doc Google searchs turn up many threads in various mail groups but still no URL.
Are you blind? It's right there in the middle of the page. It's under Section 2.8 "Start qmail". --Adam On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 09:39:45AM -0700, Harry Putnam wrote: > Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Is there a one move handy way to restart qmail? > > > > If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's > > daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: > > > > qmail restart > > OK, so much for the quessing game. I find no address to acquire this > script at: > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.txt > > Lots of mentions of what to call for this or that situation *IF* you > installed `qmail script' but no URL where it can be gotten. > > No mention of it in my source package or /var/qmail/doc > > Google searchs turn up many threads in various mail groups but still > no URL. >
Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's >> daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: >> >> qmail restart > >OK, so much for the quessing game. I find no address to acquire this >script at: >http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html >http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.txt It's there: http://Web.InfoAve.net/~dsill/qmail-script-dt61.txt Note, however, that you can't just plop this script onto any qmail installation and expect it to work. It assumes a qmail installation compatible with the installation instructions provided in LWQ, section 2. For most newbies, it'd be easier to reinstall following LWQ than to retrofit the script onto an existing installation. -Dave
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Putnam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 6:39 PM Subject: Re: Handy way to restart qmail > > If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's > > daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: > > > > qmail restart > > OK, so much for the quessing game. I find no address to acquire this > script at: > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.txt > > Lots of mentions of what to call for this or that situation *IF* you > installed `qmail script' but no URL where it can be gotten. > > No mention of it in my source package or /var/qmail/doc > > Google searchs turn up many threads in various mail groups but still > no URL. > Well, if you had read the lwq document, you would have found the script. It's there, but to use it you have to follow the lwq recipe ;-) (rtfm) -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are you blind? It's right there in the middle of the page. It's under > Section 2.8 "Start qmail". Er yes... but only since I got too broke to buy liquor, and started drinking rubbing alcohol.
Setup: Redhat 6.1 Linux server, running qmail-1.03. I ran: ./configure --enable-debug -enable-logfile --enable-x-header=yes make make install I moved /usr/sbin/amavis to /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue and copied of the original qmail-queue to qmail-queue-real. Sent three test emails from Outlook. A plain text email, a plain test email with an attached EICAR.COM, and a plain text email with an attached Excel spreadsheet. The first one went though fine. The second one amavis caught the EICAR.COM file and sent out two notification emails. One to virusalert and the other to the sender of the email. No notification was sent to the recipient. The last one with the Excel spreadsheet didn't go through at all. It just hangs. Other people in the office were sending email to the server as well and two others emails got stuck. I have attached the logs. The three processes to look at are 11580, 11731, and 11739. All three of these processes I had to kill. From the debug file I can see that the virus scanners are working from the emails that went through, but on those three processes that hang, it appears it they don't even reach the scanners. I attached the smtp and qmail log files, as well as the debug and the amavis.log files. One other thing I noticed, is that even though I specified the --enable-x-header=yes, no x-header is appended to the headers of scanned emails. I believe it is a problem with one of my perl modules, or even perl itself. So I am debating whether or not to remove my entire perl installation and start from scratch, or to try to figure out what is going wrong and where in the current setup. Any help from you folks is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeremy Fowler
amavis.log
Jeremy Fowler wrote: [To: Jeremy: please subscribe to amavis-user first before posting. And don't post such large attachments. Thanks ] > Sent three test emails from Outlook. A plain text email, a plain test email > with an attached EICAR.COM, and a plain text email with an attached Excel > spreadsheet. The first one went though fine. The second one amavis caught > the EICAR.COM file and sent out two notification emails. One to virusalert > and the other to the sender of the email. No notification was sent to the > recipient. The last one with the Excel spreadsheet didn't go through at all. That's normal behaviour currently in AMaViS-Perl. Wo do not send virus notification messages to recipient(s) as it's not regarded as good behaviour to post them in mailing lists. Maybe this will be configurable in one of the next releases. > It just hangs. Other people in the office were sending email to the server It hungs on all Excel files? Strange. I will test it later. > One other thing I noticed, is that even though I specified > the --enable-x-header=yes, no x-header is appended to the headers of scanned > emails. This is a known issue of AMaViS-Perl-7. It's fixed in CVS stuff. > I believe it is a problem with one of my perl modules, or even perl itself. See README file which Perl modules we use. Please have a look at search.cpan.org if you're using the latest ones. > So I am debating whether or not to remove my entire perl installation and > start from scratch, or to try to figure out what is going wrong and where in > the current setup. Any help from you folks is greatly appreciated. I will forward your mail also to Lars, as he is currently working on AMaViS-Perl (I'm currently working most of my time on the "old" AMaViS stuff) best regards, Rainer Link (AMaViS Developer) -- Rainer Link | Student of Computer Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | University of Applied Sciences, Furtwangen, Germany rainer.w3.to | http://www.computer-networking.de/
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:59:22AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: ! Yeah, and dangerous, too. A plain "kill" (no -9) on the qmail-send ! process is much safer. Personal observation: some people type ``kill -9'' subconsciously. I suggest that the kill command be modified, so that you have to type ``kill -supercalifragilisticexpialidocious'' in order to send SIGKILL. I know people can set up aliases, but that's very hard to subconsciously achieve. :-) ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 04:18:11AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote: > Personal observation: some people type ``kill -9'' subconsciously. Yes; definitely. I have caught myself about to type that quite a few times. For a supervised qmail, 'svc -t /service/qmail' does that job perfectly. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375 "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Einar Bordewich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 11:04 AM Subject: dot-qmail deliver help > |if [ -d "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.einar.$EXT2/new" ]; \ > then maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.einar.$EXT2/; \ > else maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi > > I'm a little tired of the above script in my .qmail-einar-default file. > Since I'm no script expert, I would appreciate som help to expand this > "script" to a even more flexible solution. > > I use IMAP to read my mail, and creating new directories. When I subscribe > to a new list, I basicly create a directory under einar with the name > qmail-newlist and subscribe with this address > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail is the delivered to this > subdirectory. |TEST=`echo $EXT | cut -d"-" --output-delimiter="." -f1-4` ; if [ -d "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST" ]; then maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST/ ; else env ; maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi The above line does what I want. -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:46:25PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > |TEST=`echo $EXT | cut -d"-" --output-delimiter="." -f1-4` ; if [ -d > "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST" ]; then maildirdeliver > $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST/ ; else env ; maildirdeliver > $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi > > The above line does what I want. i think you don't want the `;' after "env". Regards, Uwe
----- Original Message ----- From: "Uwe Ohse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:14 PM Subject: Re: dot-qmail deliver help > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:46:25PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > |TEST=`echo $EXT | cut -d"-" --output-delimiter="." -f1-4` ; if [ -d > > "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST" ]; then maildirdeliver > > $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST/ ; else env ; maildirdeliver > > $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi > > > > The above line does what I want. > > i think you don't want the `;' after "env". -snip- Are you sure? If I remove it, the env results does'nt show up in the logs. If I keep it there, everything is like I expect it. It's show the env, then deliver the mail to default maildir. This happens only if the recipient does'nt resolv to a maildir according to EXT. regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
cat pending.2 log.2 | matchup >out.2 5>pending.3
cat pending.3 log.3 | matchup >out.3 5>pending.4Is this some kind of log rotation or what? What's the deal with 5> in the first line? What on earth does that do? As you can tell I am totally lost. I really have tried to find this stuff in man pages, manuals and by searching the net, but I'm lost.Is there a how-to or a kind soul who can explain step by step (with some expanations of what a given command is doing) for me. I would be glad to codify this for some kind of mini-how to or for inclusion with the scripts with the permission of the appropriate people.Thank youDan Sichelpuzzled newbie
[Dan, please configure your mailer to wrap lines that are longer than 80 characters.] "flitcraft33" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I ran the tai64local program against a copy of a log and got human >time stamps. I followed the steps on the matchup and got as far as a >file that had my log with a question mark on each line. Show us: 1) a sample line from your logs, untouched 2) the same line passed through tai64nlocal 3) a sample line from the output of matchup >After that >errors all around. the next instructions on the manpage follow > > <log.1 matchup >out.1 5>pending.2 > cat pending.2 log.2 | matchup >out.2 5>pending.3 > cat pending.3 log.3 | matchup >out.3 5>pending.4 > >Is this some kind of log rotation or what? What's the deal with 5> in >the first line? What on earth does that do? cyclog (and multilog) automatically rotates the logs, and some of the transactions at the end of one file might not be completed until the beginning of the next file. matchup outputs these incomplete--or pending--entries to file descriptor 5. >Is there a how-to or a kind soul who can explain step by step (with >some expanations of what a given command is doing) for me. I would be >glad to codify this for some kind of mini-how to or for inclusion >with the scripts with the permission of the appropriate people. There's not a good HOWTO for qmail-analog, and things are in something of a state of flux at the moment, so now's probably not the best time to undertake writing one. qmail-analog depends upon timestamps in the format used by cyclog, but cyclog has been superceded by multilog, which uses a different timestamp format. There are utilities available that will convert the timestamps. -Dave
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/06/msg00325.html That is the link to the script that I'm using to process my mail logs. It has been pointed out to me that the conversion routine (orginally posted by Jos ?? Someone - I can't find the orginal in the archive for some reason) that I'm using is 10 second off from tai64nlocal, but it is close enough for my needs. -----Original Message----- From: flitcraft33 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: stats from qmailanalog I am new to qmail and I am trying to set up the qmailanalog scripts to provide statistics and process the log files. I can't get any of it to work, I read the read-mes and man pages and am clueless. My installation follows the defaults in qmail, appears to work fine and uses mail directories owned by the user and placed beneath their home directories. I ran the tai64local program against a copy of a log and got human time stamps. I followed the steps on the matchup and got as far as a file that had my log with a question mark on each line. After that errors all around. the next instructions on the manpage follow <log.1 matchup >out.1 5>pending.2 cat pending.2 log.2 | matchup >out.2 5>pending.3 cat pending.3 log.3 | matchup >out.3 5>pending.4 Is this some kind of log rotation or what? What's the deal with 5> in the first line? What on earth does that do? As you can tell I am totally lost. I really have tried to find this stuff in man pages, manuals and by searching the net, but I'm lost. Is there a how-to or a kind soul who can explain step by step (with some expanations of what a given command is doing) for me. I would be glad to codify this for some kind of mini-how to or for inclusion with the scripts with the permission of the appropriate people. Thank you Dan Sichel puzzled newbie
What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like the famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? The attachements is only earlier postings regarding the same non-existing user, and my own bounces. How about some manual action ex. ezmlm-unsub qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-) BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
And my previous message about a broken mailer generated a bounce from *another* broken mailer... ----- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 23018 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 -0000 Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 -0000 Received: from mta1.infoteen.com (media1.infoteen.com [216.35.114.216] (may be forged)) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01713 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:15:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mta1.infoteen.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA12144; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:51 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:51 -0700 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Returned Mail: user [EMAIL PROTECTED] unknown! To: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Dagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 No such user here Content-Type: text/plain The following email has been returned to you. Error 550: User [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not an existing InfoTeen.com account. Please make sure that the email address you specified, [EMAIL PROTECTED]@infoteen.com is valid. Email Message Follows --------------------- >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 22 09:06:51 2000 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181]) by mta1.infoteen.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA12140 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 13465 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Jul 2000 16:14:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 12106 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:14:09 -0000 Received: from envy.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:14:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 40488 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:13:45 -0000 Received: from kesteren.vuurwerk.nl (HELO daemon.vuurwerk.nl) (194.178.232.59) by envy.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:13:45 -0000 Received: (nullmailer pid 23406 invoked by uid 11109); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:13:44 -0000 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:13:44 +0200 From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: some broken mailer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Returned mail: User unknown] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Somebody is using a *very* broken mailer. ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 -0000 Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 -0000 Received: from ns.albertsons.com ([167.234.1.10]) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA31786 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:33:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14290 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:48 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (roll.mcit.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA131978 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:10 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DE Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DD Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:29:04 +0200 From: (Peter van Dijk) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying! ----- End forwarded message ----- Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper] ----- End forwarded message ----- Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
Somebody is using a *very* broken mailer. ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 -0000 Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 -0000 Received: from ns.albertsons.com ([167.234.1.10]) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA31786 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:33:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14290 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:48 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (roll.mcit.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA131978 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:10 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DE Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DD Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:29:04 +0200 From: (Peter van Dijk) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying! ----- End forwarded message ----- Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
Why am I getting bounces when the message is indeed getting to the list? Also, who is GCS Client Services? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Date: 22 Jul 2000 05:29:39 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E00015629 Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:29:26 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:29:08 -0400 From: (Michael T Babcock) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: (Charles Cazabon) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Yeah, I've gotten about 10 of these. I put them into my RBL domain with a message that should (hopefully) let the admin of this busted mailer know something is wrong. 'Course now his mailer is constantly beating on mine trying unsuccessfully to deliver all those bounces. I hope this guy pulls his head out soon... Eric Brett Randall wrote: > > Does anybody else get this bounceback when posting to this qmail list? I get > it for EVERY e-mail I send to here! And I'm not bcc'ing or cc'ing to this or > any other user... Whichever gateway is having trouble here is also probably > defying a few internet standards by the incorrect use of a nonexistant FQDN, > wouldn't you say? > > Brett. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > > > > *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** > > > > ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- > > Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (unrecoverable error) > > Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error)
Yea, I think I've gotten some of these, too. In fact, sometimes I get a bounce message a MONTH or more after I posted something to this list! Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 7:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown * from this list! > > > Does anybody else get this bounceback when posting to this > qmail list? I get > it for EVERY e-mail I send to here! And I'm not bcc'ing or > cc'ing to this or > any other user... Whichever gateway is having trouble here is > also probably > defying a few internet standards by the incorrect use of a > nonexistant FQDN, > wouldn't you say? > > Brett. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > > > > > > > > *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** > > > > ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- > > Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (unrecoverable error) > > Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (unrecoverable error) > > > > RFC822 Header may follow: > > > > X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > X-End-of-Envelope: > > X-Internal-ID: 3973070E0001B625 > > Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com > > (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 > > 03:32:37 -0700 > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:27:16 +1000 > > From: (Brett Randall) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Double Forwarding > > > > > >
Does anybody else get this bounceback when posting to this qmail list? I get it for EVERY e-mail I send to here! And I'm not bcc'ing or cc'ing to this or any other user... Whichever gateway is having trouble here is also probably defying a few internet standards by the incorrect use of a nonexistant FQDN, wouldn't you say? Brett. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > > > > *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** > > ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- > Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (unrecoverable error) > Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) > > RFC822 Header may follow: > > X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-End-of-Envelope: > X-Internal-ID: 3973070E0001B625 > Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com > (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 > 03:32:37 -0700 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 20:27:16 +1000 > From: (Brett Randall) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Double Forwarding > >
Yep, same thing here. I think someone (probably <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, since it appears in the bounces tough the original message was no addressed to said individual) has a mail forwarder that gags with semicolon separated addresses in the To: field. Armando
*** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3981272900000126 Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:03:21 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:00:45 +0200 From: (Einar Bordewich) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: (Qmail-mailing list) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: preventing postmasters to make more than paid acounts then they have paid fo
*** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3981272900000135 Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:12:38 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:04:48 +0200 From: (Einar Bordewich) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: (Qmail-mailing list) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: dot-qmail deliver help
*** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** ----- Delivery could not be made to the following recipients ----- Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 398127290000182D Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:48:40 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:46:25 +0200 From: (Einar Bordewich) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: (Qmail-mailing list) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: dot-qmail deliver help
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like the > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. Regards.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:26:31AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ! You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. If you deny them, they will retry. If you allow, but send a 5xx code, they won't (hopefully :-)). 167.234.1.10:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Good mailers don't bounce to header senders" Cheers, ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:26 PM Subject: Re: The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like the > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. -snip- Nope, thats the Return-Path: field The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom gives: 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP helo hell2000 250 hellriser.bordewich.net mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) or Chris K. might have a better solution. The result is the same with a 5xx return code. 167.234.1.10:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Good mailers don't bounce to header senders" Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 30504 invoked by uid 505); 28 Jul 2000 17:09:46 -0000 Received: from by hellriser with scan4virus-0.53 (iscan: v3.1/v5.170-0617/748/20225. uvscan: v4.0.70/v4088. sweep: 1.8/3.33 Beta. hbedv: 6.2.0.3. fsecure: 4.08/2030/2000-07-27/2000-07-28/2000-06-27. . Clean. Processed in 3.069411 secs); 28/07/2000 19:09:42 X-Scan4Virus-Mail-From: via hellriser X-Scan4Virus-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Scan4Virus: 0.53 (No viruses found. Processed in 3.071213 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO ns.albertsons.com) (167.234.1.10) by hellriser.bordewich.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 17:09:42 -0000 Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA02136 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:50:56 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (dubs0001.albertsons.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:49:06 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 3981272900001838 Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like > the > > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. > -snip- > > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > gives: YES, I was wrong and YOU where right, and you, you'r always right, right ;-) sorry about that. Chris K. example is now used. regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 09:03:24PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses > like > > the > > > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > > > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > > > > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > > > > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. > > -snip- > > > > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in > badmailfrom > > gives: > YES, I was wrong and YOU where right, and you, you'r always right, right > ;-) Well, hang on a sec here... badmailfrom is checked against the envelope senders address which *is* the Mail From: parameter, which *is* put into the Return-Path: header. qmail-smtpd does *not* look at the From: header at all! I actually don't understand the last post of Einar's as the SMTP transcript doesn't appear to be consistent with the headers in the (assumed) corresponding email. Regards.
Title: RE: The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boy - Andy was right when he said everyone can be famous for 15 min. -- I am the Famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I must apologize that everyone is getting bounced mail with my address. I have started to migrate off of a legacy email system to qmail. thought i had it working fine - but see the bounced emails. I believe that these started when i tried to send email from legacy system to new qmail system on the rxamerica.com domain. Was originally on the amstr.com domain(american stores), which switched to albertsons.com domain (which i believe is the user of gcs.gateway). I have talked to the original dns admins. to clear up the old dns records so that the MX and A records point to our new dns. but still seem to get bounced email when it goes thru the gcs.gateway(who owns it? i don't know). I am currently working with the albertsons email admins. to try and track where the problem lies. I appreciate your patience and understand your frustration.
if anyone has suggestions as to where/who is gcs.gateway so that i may chat or phone them would be greatly appreciated.
my humblest apologies,
mike garcia
-----Original Message-----
From: Einar Bordewich [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 1:03 PM
To: Qmail-mailing list
Subject: Re: The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote:
> > > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses
like
> the
> > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
> >
> > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now...
> >
> > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces?
> >
> > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules.
> -snip-
>
> Nope, thats the Return-Path: field
> The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in
badmailfrom
> gives:
YES, I was wrong and YOU where right, and you, you'r always right, right
;-)sorry about that.
Chris K. example is now used.
regards
--
--------------------------------------------
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:50:16PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. > -snip- > > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > gives: > 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP > helo hell2000 > 250 hellriser.bordewich.net > mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 250 ok > rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) Did you construct this smtp conversation or is it an actual transcript? As I correctly surmised, the offending mail server is indeed sending Mail From: <> and results in a Return-Path: <> which means that you cannot put anything useful into badmailfrom to stop it. If you are seeing something different then I suspect that you have some intervening server doing something. And that something is as much an offender as ns.albertsons.com if it replaces an empty envelope sender with <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Regards. > > or Chris K. might have a better solution. The result is the same with a 5xx > return code. > 167.234.1.10:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Good mailers don't bounce to header senders" > > > Return-Path: <> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 30504 invoked by uid 505); 28 Jul 2000 17:09:46 -0000 > Received: from by hellriser with scan4virus-0.53 (iscan: > v3.1/v5.170-0617/748/20225. uvscan: v4.0.70/v4088. sweep: 1.8/3.33 Beta. > hbedv: 6.2.0.3. fsecure: 4.08/2030/2000-07-27/2000-07-28/2000-06-27. . > Clean. Processed in 3.069411 secs); 28/07/2000 19:09:42 > X-Scan4Virus-Mail-From: via hellriser > X-Scan4Virus-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Scan4Virus: 0.53 (No viruses found. Processed in 3.071213 secs) > Received: from unknown (HELO ns.albertsons.com) (167.234.1.10) > by hellriser.bordewich.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 17:09:42 -0000 > Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com > [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP > id KAA02136 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:50:56 -0600 > Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (dubs0001.albertsons.com [162.120.128.9]) > by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:49:06 -0600 > X-Internal-ID: 3981272900001838 > Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex > 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > -------------------------------------------- > IDG New Media Einar Bordewich > Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------- > >
> > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > > gives: > > > 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP > > helo hell2000 > > 250 hellriser.bordewich.net > > mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 250 ok > > rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) > > Did you construct this smtp conversation or is it an actual transcript? -snip- Yes, I did construct that smtp conversation based on my first opinion. When I realized that I was wrong ( seconds after I sent the mail), I followed up with a new mail, where I apologized and telling that you where right (and I was wrong). -snip- > YES, I was wrong and YOU where right, and you, you'r always right, right ;-) > > sorry about that. -snip- Thanks for your information and feedback clearing up things. regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 11:55 PM Subject: Re: The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:50:16PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > > > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > > > > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > > > > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. > > -snip- > > > > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > > gives: > > > 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP > > helo hell2000 > > 250 hellriser.bordewich.net > > mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 250 ok > > rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) > > Did you construct this smtp conversation or is it an actual transcript? > > As I correctly surmised, the offending mail server is indeed sending > Mail From: <> and results in a Return-Path: <> which means that you cannot > put anything useful into badmailfrom to stop it. > > If you are seeing something different then I suspect that you have some > intervening server doing something. And that something is as much an > offender as ns.albertsons.com if it replaces an empty envelope sender > with <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > Regards. > > > > > or Chris K. might have a better solution. The result is the same with a 5xx > > return code. > > 167.234.1.10:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Good mailers don't bounce to header senders" > > > > > > Return-Path: <> > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Received: (qmail 30504 invoked by uid 505); 28 Jul 2000 17:09:46 -0000 > > Received: from by hellriser with scan4virus-0.53 (iscan: > > v3.1/v5.170-0617/748/20225. uvscan: v4.0.70/v4088. sweep: 1.8/3.33 Beta. > > hbedv: 6.2.0.3. fsecure: 4.08/2030/2000-07-27/2000-07-28/2000-06-27. . > > Clean. Processed in 3.069411 secs); 28/07/2000 19:09:42 > > X-Scan4Virus-Mail-From: via hellriser > > X-Scan4Virus-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > X-Scan4Virus: 0.53 (No viruses found. Processed in 3.071213 secs) > > Received: from unknown (HELO ns.albertsons.com) (167.234.1.10) > > by hellriser.bordewich.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 17:09:42 -0000 > > Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com > > [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP > > id KAA02136 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:50:56 -0600 > > Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (dubs0001.albertsons.com [162.120.128.9]) > > by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308 > > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:49:06 -0600 > > X-Internal-ID: 3981272900001838 > > Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex > > 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------- > > IDG New Media Einar Bordewich > > Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > >
Hi Folks; I have qmail-1.03 running on FreeBSB and one of the virtual domains for which we handle mail for is a small company with some users on a local NT network connected to the net by DSL. They are using a Netscream DSL router/firewall combo. Connections from clients to our SMTP/POP server take 25 - 50 Secs their firewall is configured to allow everything out and nothing in (some other NT integrator is doing this for them/to them) I went through our DNS zone files to find any problems but none (MX is pointing to our SMTP/POP server) connections get established but just takes too long. We host their web site and mail services they get DSL from Pacbell. Where else should I look for more clues obout this slow down if it is caused by our mailserver or how to speed things up. Dan
net admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have qmail-1.03 running on FreeBSB and one of the virtual domains for which > we handle mail for is a small company with some users on a local NT network > connected to the net by DSL. They are using a Netscream DSL router/firewall > combo. Connections from clients to our SMTP/POP server take 25 - 50 Secs > their firewall is configured to allow everything out and nothing in (some > other NT integrator is doing this for them/to them) I went through our DNS > zone files to find any problems but none (MX is pointing to our SMTP/POP > server) connections get established but just takes too long. We host their > web site and mail services they get DSL from Pacbell. > > Where else should I look for more clues obout this slow down if it is caused > by our mailserver or how to speed things up. Please get your mail program to wrap long lines in future. Turn off the name lookup and ident lookup options for tcpserver for the instance running qmail-smtpd. `man tcpserver` for details. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im wondering if there is a list manager that deliveries emails according with the domain, in a single smtp connection. Let me explain better: Im trying to implement a newsletter mail system, so the same mesg will have to be sent to a lot of users (maybe in the same domain, may be not). Its intutive that the best way is to send the body one time for a lot of rcpt`s, instead a lot of emails. This feature, plus some parallelism in this proccess could make the proccess very fast. Before try to write something to do this, I would like to know if someone knows a tool that does the service for me. :-) The choice for qmail as the MTA is based in your efficiency. I hope that I was clear. Regards, -- _________________________ Fernando Costa de Almeida ICQ - 72293951
Fernando Costa de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 28 July 2000 at 18:04:35 -0300 > > Im wondering if there is a list manager that deliveries emails > according with the domain, in a single smtp connection. Let me explain > better: > Im trying to implement a newsletter mail system, so the same mesg > will have to be sent to a lot of users (maybe in the same domain, may be > not). Its intutive that the best way is to send the body one time for a > lot of rcpt`s, instead a lot of emails. This feature, plus some > parallelism in this proccess could make the proccess very fast. > Before try to write something to do this, I would like to know if > someone knows a tool that does the service for me. :-) > The choice for qmail as the MTA is based in your efficiency. I hope > that I was clear. Qmail won't do this for you. Qmail doesn't do multi-rcpt mails. However, while it's intuitive, it's not always *right* that this is a win. We've just had *another* unpleasant round of this discussion (it comes up frequently) so I won't start it up again if I can help it. Qmail with ezmlm+idx is *very* good for mailing lists, including newsletters. It automates bounce handling better than anything else because it uses "VERP", so that any bounce at all back to the mailing list an be accurately and automatically recognized as to what user caused it. And it delivers the mails very fast. On my otherwise very lightly loaded system, there's a monthly newsletter that gets sent to more than 43000 addresses (last I looked). The system is a Pentium 166 with 96 meg of ram, and the net connectivity is 768k household-level DSL. The last issue of that newsletter was about 33k, and as I say goes to over 43000 addresses. I don't really notice when it goes out, and the mail log for the next day isn't any bigger than normal. (The log two days later is big again with the bounces :-) ). -- Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i am about to install qmail in a fresh linux installation ... while looking at the qmail installation i currently have i noticed that all the qmail* users have /bin/bash as their login shell, same with the user alias ... is that necessary for the programm to work properly? i rather tend to have */passwd or /bin/true as login shells for users and am wondering if i could install the new qmail without that /bin/bash there greetings wolfgang
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:27:00PM +0200, wolfgang zeikat wrote: ! is that necessary for the programm to work properly? ! i rather tend to have */passwd or /bin/true as login shells for users and ! am wondering if i could install the new qmail without that /bin/bash there Since no one logs in to those accounts, you can use whatever you want as the shell. /sbin/nologin is a favourite among BSD users, otherwise /bin/false is just as good. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
I was just denying all Yesmail connections in my tcp.smtp.cdb file. After watching the thread today on blocking mail, I wanted to use the RBLSMTPD var instead. Like so: # Yesmail.com 63.88.133.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 63.89.82.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 63.238.242-243.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 63.79.151.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 207.154.137.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 207.154.208.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 208.44.19.:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 216.80.61.240-255:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 216.229.132.128-143:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 64.208.162.128-143:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" 216.52.151.64-95:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Yesmail email is not wanted here" Just for fun, I added one of my own IPs to the list as a test. The test failed. :-( host:~{503} $ telnet mail.vcnet.com 25 Trying 209.239.239.15... Connected to mail.vcnet.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 rblsmtpd.local Connection closed by foreign host. host:~{504} $ I thought it was supposed to spit out the contents of RBLSMTPD? And no 553 either. What did I miss? (I tried with both a space after the hyphen and without.) jon
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: [...] > I thought it was supposed to spit out the contents of RBLSMTPD? And no > 553 either. What did I miss? (I tried with both a space after the hyphen > and without.) Nope. If RBLSMTPD is set, rblsmtpd skips the RBL check. --Adam > > jon >
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: ! host:~{503} $ telnet mail.vcnet.com 25 ! Trying 209.239.239.15... ! Connected to mail.vcnet.com. ! Escape character is '^]'. ! 220 rblsmtpd.local ! Connection closed by foreign host. I presume that the connection didn't get closed immediately. I know that rblsmtpd closes the connection after 60 seconds. If you issue SMTP commands, they will all result in error messages (if you need a quick SMTP reference, see http://cr.yp.to/smtp.html). Hey, vcnet.com, aren't they those cool people hosting the boycott Microsoft site? :-) ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: > [...] > > I thought it was supposed to spit out the contents of RBLSMTPD? And no > > 553 either. What did I miss? (I tried with both a space after the hyphen > > and without.) > > Nope. If RBLSMTPD is set, rblsmtpd skips the RBL check. > > --Adam I don't think we're on the same page here. If the environment variable RBLSMTPD is set to something besides an empty string, it should give an error code, either 4xx or 5xx depending on command line options, and whether or not the var starts with a hyphen. It's not doing that. I quote from the rblsmtpd man page: "If $RBLSMTPD is set and is empty, rblsmtpd does not block mail. "Normally, if $RBLSMTPD is set, rblsmtpd uses a 451 error code in its limited SMTP conversation. This tells legitimate clients to try again later. It gives innocent relay operators a chance to see the problem, prohibit relaying, get off the RBL, and get the mail delivered. "However, if $RBLSMTPD begins with a hyphen, rblsmtpd removes the hyphen and uses a 553 error code. This tells legitimate clients to bounce the message immediately." The last paragraph is what I'm trying to achieve. Any help there? jon
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:39:30AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: > ! host:~{503} $ telnet mail.vcnet.com 25 > ! Trying 209.239.239.15... > ! Connected to mail.vcnet.com. > ! Escape character is '^]'. > ! 220 rblsmtpd.local > ! Connection closed by foreign host. > > I presume that the connection didn't get closed immediately. I know > that rblsmtpd closes the connection after 60 seconds. If you issue > SMTP commands, they will all result in error messages (if you need > a quick SMTP reference, see http://cr.yp.to/smtp.html). It closes in < 1 second. > Hey, vcnet.com, aren't they those cool people hosting the boycott > Microsoft site? :-) That is one of customers, yes. We comp that space to him. :-> jon
try puting into your tcp.smtp.cdb file 127.0.0.2:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Go away" then >telnet 127.0.0.2 25 <Trying 127.0.0.2... <Connected to 127.0.0.2. <Escape character is '^]'. <220 rblsmtpd.local >helo test <250 rblsmtpd.local >mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <250 rblsmtpd.local >rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <553 Go away See if that works. Just so you know you are on the right track :) -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Rust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 12:53 AM Subject: Re: using RBLSMTPD env var > On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:39:30AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: > > ! host:~{503} $ telnet mail.vcnet.com 25 > > ! Trying 209.239.239.15... > > ! Connected to mail.vcnet.com. > > ! Escape character is '^]'. > > ! 220 rblsmtpd.local > > ! Connection closed by foreign host. > > > > I presume that the connection didn't get closed immediately. I know > > that rblsmtpd closes the connection after 60 seconds. If you issue > > SMTP commands, they will all result in error messages (if you need > > a quick SMTP reference, see http://cr.yp.to/smtp.html). > > It closes in < 1 second. > > > Hey, vcnet.com, aren't they those cool people hosting the boycott > > Microsoft site? :-) > > That is one of customers, yes. We comp that space to him. :-> > > jon >
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:53:04PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: ! > I presume that the connection didn't get closed immediately. I know ! > that rblsmtpd closes the connection after 60 seconds. If you issue ! > SMTP commands, they will all result in error messages (if you need ! > a quick SMTP reference, see http://cr.yp.to/smtp.html). ! ! It closes in < 1 second. Some possibilities I can see: 1. You invoked rblsmtpd with ``-t 1'' (unlikely, if you said that it closed in less than 1 second). 2. End of input. 3. Internal error. You are using rblsmtpd from ucspi-tcp-0.88, aren't you? (That's the version whose source I'm reading right now.) Also, when the connection closes, a line of the form ``end xxxxx status yyy'' gets logged: what value of yyy did you get? (I don't claim that any of this is anything more than wild guesses---I don't have the magic pill today, sorry. :-)) ! > Hey, vcnet.com, aren't they those cool people hosting the boycott ! > Microsoft site? :-) ! ! That is one of customers, yes. We comp that space to him. :-> Ahh, cool. :-) ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 11:12:12AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:53:04PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: > ! It closes in < 1 second. > > Some possibilities I can see: > > 1. You invoked rblsmtpd with ``-t 1'' (unlikely, if you said that it > closed in less than 1 second). Ah yes. '-t 2' actually. Guess I really should have timed it before claiming < 1. :-/ Damnit. So it was just timing out the connection before it got a chance to say "553 yada yada yada." I did a copy and paste of HELO, mail from, etc and it did give the 553 error message. Thanks. I gotta go increase that 2 second timeout. What was I thinking?! jon
Hi, I found a post from Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dated 2000, Jan 01 (Thank you Russell) where he recommends: a "reasonable [conf-split] size given the performance of the file system on the available hardware. That is, in my experience, about 3,000 for ext2 fs." I have been having large queue performance issues on Linux I think are related to the conf-split. I have changed my conf-split to 2999 (on a single IDE disk, single proc pent II 350) but have not had a queue spike yet. When I was investigating this problem I came to the conclusion that I should change the conf-split, but I completely missed the guess on what a large jump I should make. I originally moved it to 83. I also run Solaris 7.0 (SPARC) and FreeBSD 3.4 (Intel), are there maximum conf-split recommendations for single proc, single IDE disk systems with UFS and FFS? -- Tony Hansmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Director of Technical Services Quepasa.com, INC. 602-716-0100
Hi, I'm trying to set up a virtual pop server, and I've run into a problem that I can't solve. I've been talking with a knowledgeable friend and qmail advocate, and I have him stumped. He recommended that I forward my problem to this list, in the hope of finding a solution. Rather than restate everything and probably get something wrong, my discussion with him follows. qmail is running, I can inject mail into it and it will be delivered. I also have a few accounts set up on it, and mail is being properly delivered to them. I can also mail directly from the command line on the machine. The problem: domain.org is the domain that is set up on qmail. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid account on the system. If I try to send mail to any host not listed in control/rcpthosts, it bounces with a 553, "sorry that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts". I thought, "That looks suspiciously like a FAQ". Sure enough. question 5.4 seemed relevant, reproduced here for reference: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.4. How do I allow selected clients to use this host as a relay? I see that qmail-smtpd rejects messages to any host not listed in control/rcpthosts. Answer: Three steps. First, install tcp-wrappers, available separately, including hosts_options. Second, change your qmail-smtpd line in inetd.conf to smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/local/bin/tcpd /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd (all on one line) and give inetd a HUP. Third, in tcpd's hosts.allow, make a line setting the environment variable RELAYCLIENT to the empty string for the selected clients: tcp-env: 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3.5: setenv = RELAYCLIENT Here 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.5 are the clients' IP addresses. qmail-smtpd ignores control/rcpthosts when RELAYCLIENT is set. (It also appends RELAYCLIENT to each envelope recipient address. See question 5.5 for an application.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found a message in the mail archives that says that removing rcpthosts will open up the machine, but this is of course not a solution. I moved rcpthosts as a test, and all messages are delivered properly. My /etc/inetd.conf line reads: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd and my /etc/hosts.allow line reads: tcp-env: 209.218.13.127: setenv = RELAYCLIENT 209.218.13.127 is the ip address of my linux box here at home, behind which my Windows box running Eudora (crash.domain.com) lives. Looking at tcpdmatch, I can't understand why this is being declined: [root@sonata tcp_wrappers_7.6]# /usr/sbin/tcpdmatch -d tcp-env 209.218.13.127 client: address 209.218.13.127 server: process tcp-env access: granted >Let's see if I understand what you are doing. > >You have a machine which I will call mail.domain.org. You have setup >qmail as the MTA. If you use a program on that machine to send mail from >[EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it works. If you go over >to otherDomain.com and send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it gets delivered. > >Correct so far? This is correct. >Now you take a windows box, crash.otherDomain.com, and you configure >Eudora to get mail from mail.domain.org through POP3, and to use >[EMAIL PROTECTED] as the sender, and that mail.domain.org will be your SMTP >host. > >This doesn't work. Right? I can pop mail off the server using the [EMAIL PROTECTED] account just fine with Eudora. Mail sent to any valid address in domain.org is delivered properly. The problem comes in sending mail to any domain not listed in control/rcpthosts from any @domain.org account, when the mail originates from the Windows box. mail.domain.org refuses to accept the message for delivery with the mentioned error. ( Here's a handy chart in case anyone is having a problem following that mess: The domain other.com is in control/rcpthosts. The domain other2.com is not. Originating Machine Sender Recipient Result mail.domain.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] success mail.domain.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] success mail.domain.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] success crash.other.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] success crash.domain.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] success crash.domain.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] success crash.domain.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] failure ) >Things to note: > >1. qmail does not include a POP3 or IMAP daemon. Tell qmail to use >mailboxes instead of maildirs and use any daemon, or let qmail use >maildirs and get a POP3 or IMAP daemon that understands them. I'm running the qmail-pop3d daemon, and it appears to be working fine. >2. qmail doesn't want to be insecure out of the box, so it doesn't allow >relaying. What you want is to set up relaying for the relevant external >boxes that you want to use mail.baldmonkey.org as their smarthost. That's what I think I'm doing by adding that odd line to /etc/hosts_allow. I'm referencing question 5.4 in the FAQ, which seems to address my problem. I think that the problem might be that I don't have hosts_options enabled in my tcp-wrappers. I'm running a 7.6 RedHat RPM, and I don't know if hosts_options is enabled or not. I'm assuming that it is not, based on the docs in the source distribution. Unfortunately. I can't get version 7.5 to compile, and I can't find version 8. This is the error that I get after running 'make linux' on the 7.6 dist: -DBROKEN_SO_LINGER -Dvsyslog=myvsyslog -DALWAYS_HOSTNAME -c diag.c cc -O -DFACILITY=LOG_MAIL -DHOSTS_ACCESS -DPARANOID -DGETPEERNAME_BUG -DBROKEN_FGETS -DLIBC_ CALLS_STRTOK -DDAEMON_UMASK=022 -DREAL_DAEMON_DIR=\"/usr/sbin\" -DPROCESS_OPTIONS -DSEVERITY=LOG_ INFO -DRFC931_TIMEOUT=10 -DHOSTS_DENY=\"/etc/hosts.deny\" -DHOSTS_ALLOW=\"/etc/hosts.allow\" -DBROKEN_SO_LINGER -Dvsyslog=myvsyslog -DALWAYS_HOSTNAME -c percent_m.c percent_m.c:17: conflicting types for `sys_errlist' /usr/include/stdio.h:553: previous declaration of `sys_errlist' make[1]: *** [percent_m.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/tcp_wrappers_7.6' make: *** [linux] Error 2 That's everything. I again apologize for the length of the post, but I wanted to include every snippet of information that I have so far. I've just subscribed to the list, so if anyone who replies could be so kind as to cc me so I don't miss any messages, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks, Todd Finney
I am switching over to qmail from sendmail. I am no expert in sendmail, I simply know that sendmail's virtusertable would allow incoming mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be mapped to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I need to do this with qmail, how do I go about doing that? I also need to change the from header from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am trying to stealth my user account because it is the only account able to su in as root. I would prefer if folks do not know the user name on the account:) (No, it isn't sam, that is simply my example <g>) Sam
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:52:16PM -0400, Sam Carleton wrote: > I am switching over to qmail from sendmail. I am no expert in sendmail, > I simply know that sendmail's virtusertable would allow incoming mail > sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be mapped to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I need > to do this with qmail, how do I go about doing that? > > I also need to change the from header from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am trying to stealth my user account because > it is the only account able to su in as root. I would prefer if folks > do not know the user name on the account:) (No, it isn't sam, that is > simply my example <g>) Both of these can be accomplished using fastforward, available from http://www.qmail.org. If, however, you have a large number of virtual domains to manage, I highly recommend vpopmail. This is available from http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
I'm trying to use multilog's pattern matching to not log the non-stop health checks from our load balancers. This is the command line I'm using: exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \ s10000000 \ -*216.243.128.254* \ -*slb01* \ /var/log/qmail/smtpd And here's the log entries I'm trying to filter out: @4000000039824fe91baaa634 tcpserver: pid 9376 from 216.243.128.254 @4000000039824fe91c11535c tcpserver: ok 9376 mail.bitstream.net:216.243.128.140:25 slb01.bitstream.net:216.243.128.254::1035 Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be filtering it out. I'm assuming that I'm misunderstanding the pattern matching abilities of multilog... And while I've got your attention, any way to tell multilog to reject the 'end <pid>' entry corresonding to the same entries? Probably not. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm trying to use multilog's pattern matching to not log the non-stop > health checks from our load balancers. This is the command line I'm > using: > exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \ > s10000000 \ > -*216.243.128.254* \ > -*slb01* \ > /var/log/qmail/smtpd > And here's the log entries I'm trying to filter out: > @4000000039824fe91baaa634 tcpserver: pid 9376 from 216.243.128.254 > @4000000039824fe91c11535c tcpserver: ok 9376 mail.bitstream.net:216.243.128.140:25 >slb01.bitstream.net:216.243.128.254::1035 multilog filter patterns don't work like filename globs. You want: '-* * * * * *:216.243.128.254' instead. (There are several other ways of writing it too.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm trying to use multilog's pattern matching to not log the non-stop >> health checks from our load balancers. This is the command line I'm >> using: >> exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t \ >> s10000000 \ >> -*216.243.128.254* \ >> -*slb01* \ >> /var/log/qmail/smtpd >> And here's the log entries I'm trying to filter out: >> @4000000039824fe91baaa634 tcpserver: pid 9376 from 216.243.128.254 >> @4000000039824fe91c11535c tcpserver: ok 9376 mail.bitstream.net:216.243.128.140:25 >slb01.bitstream.net:216.243.128.254::1035 > multilog filter patterns don't work like filename globs. You want: > '-* * * * * *:216.243.128.254' Sorry, '-* * * * * *:216.243.128.254*' -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 09:14:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> @4000000039824fe91baaa634 tcpserver: pid 9376 from 216.243.128.254 > >> @4000000039824fe91c11535c tcpserver: ok 9376 >mail.bitstream.net:216.243.128.140:25 slb01.bitstream.net:216.243.128.254::1035 > > > multilog filter patterns don't work like filename globs. You want: > > > '-* * * * * *:216.243.128.254' > > Sorry, '-* * * * * *:216.243.128.254*' OK, I guess that make an odd sort of sense. Thanks! Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
