qmail Digest 11 Aug 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1089
Topics (messages 46388 through 46556):
Re: qmail not receiving email messages
46388 by: Slider
fetchmail bounce headers
46389 by: Thomas.Bell.kkk-ing.de
qmail refuses delivery from fetchmail despite forcecr option
46390 by: Bruno Prior
BADMAIL
46391 by: Slider
Re: Trouble compiling qmail under RedHat v6.2 Intel
46392 by: Steve Woolley
Re: Missing attachment...
46393 by: Slider
46413 by: Guillermo Villasana Cardoza
Re: Protection
46394 by: Brett Randall
46397 by: Austad, Jay
46398 by: Slider
46400 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46410 by: Brett Randall
46502 by: Eric Cox
Re: qmail behind nat looping trying to receive mail form outside
46395 by: Dave Sill
46406 by: Tyler J. Frederick
46408 by: Dave Sill
46427 by: Tyler J. Frederick
46431 by: Dave Sill
Re: Checkpassword not accepting password's when correct! Please Help!!
46396 by: Dave Sill
46412 by: Claus F�rber
46416 by: Slider
46433 by: Jerry Lynde
Re: filters
46399 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46522 by: Raul Beltran
46549 by: Chris, the Young One
Forwarding postmaster account
46401 by: Frans Haarman
46403 by: Petr Novotny
46421 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
46402 by: Jens
Re: Hotmail now based on IIS ?!
46404 by: Paul Farber
46411 by: Claus F�rber
46415 by: John W. Lemons III
46466 by: James R Grinter
46524 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods
46405 by: Bruno Wolff III
46422 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Fastforward - mail groups
46407 by: Vu Vuong
46409 by: Ben Beuchler
Port 113 and POP3
46414 by: pgracia.amira.es
46418 by: Alex Rubenstein
SSL pop access ?
46417 by: Olivier M.
46424 by: Jack Barnett
46426 by: markd.bushwire.net
multilog + qmail-pop3d ... again...
46419 by: Audouy J�r�me
46420 by: Audouy J�r�me
46445 by: Irwan Hadi
Re: How to create Star Alias for Virtually hosted domains!!
46423 by: Magnus Bodin
qmail on IBM AIX 4.3
46425 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
qmail plain install v. freebsd port
46428 by: Ben Beuchler
46429 by: Magnus Bodin
46430 by: Ben Beuchler
46437 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: surge in spam email (fwd) -- spamtest
46432 by: Ben Beuchler
46444 by: Adam McKenna
removimg a msg from the queue
46434 by: martin langhoff
46436 by: Dave Sill
46476 by: Slider
46543 by: Russell Nelson
Multiple POP boxes on one user account
46435 by: Daniel Conlon
46439 by: Charles Cazabon
Have a great day.
46438 by: Frank McCullagh
Have a GREAT day on me.
46440 by: Frank McCullagh
Re: qmailanalog for dummies
46441 by: Dave Sill
spambot subscribed to qmail list recently
46442 by: Charles Cazabon
46443 by: Dave Sill
46533 by: Eric Cox
Relaying and rewriting or ignoring headers
46446 by: Matthew Harrell
Re: impossible to do?
46447 by: Russell Nelson
46464 by: M.B.
46474 by: Barry Smoke
CDB na /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
46448 by: Tomasz Matusiewicz
Qmail MRTG Statcollector v1.0
46449 by: Sean C Truman
46455 by: Sean C Truman
Desperate for help
46450 by: Kevin Smith
46462 by: Kevin Smith
rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
46451 by: Einar Bordewich
46452 by: markd.bushwire.net
46453 by: markd.bushwire.net
46457 by: Einar Bordewich
46458 by: markd.bushwire.net
46459 by: Einar Bordewich
46465 by: Einar Bordewich
46471 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46503 by: Slider
46532 by: Einar Bordewich
46535 by: Einar Bordewich
46539 by: John White
46541 by: Einar Bordewich
qmail-pop3d --- Re: Desperate for help
46454 by: Darren Wyn Rees
RSS vs. rblsmtpd second try
46456 by: pacman.cqc.com
46488 by: Hubbard, David
46544 by: Russell Nelson
HELP! Post vpopmail install, everything bounces
46460 by: Barry Dwyer
46467 by: Barry Dwyer
46469 by: Tony Campisi
46470 by: Barry Dwyer
hosting domain via vpopmail
46461 by: Bill Parker
46463 by: Irwan Hadi
/etc/init.d problems
46468 by: Kevin Smith
46473 by: Brett Randall
Relaying Problems
46472 by: Kevin Smith
qmail-pop3d problem: No mail delivery to Maildirs
46475 by: Jerry Keene
46493 by: Dave Sill
46499 by: Jerry Keene
46504 by: Dave Sill
Re: rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org
46477 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46494 by: Jon Rust
46514 by: Hubbard, David
46515 by: Jon Rust
46554 by: Robert Sander
legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
46478 by: Eric Long
46480 by: Eric Long
46482 by: Eric Long
46483 by: Michael T. Babcock
46485 by: Dave Sill
46486 by: Dave Sill
46496 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46497 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46498 by: Dave Sill
46506 by: Eric Long
46507 by: OK 2 NET - Andr� Paulsberg
46540 by: John White
Re: Redirect query
46479 by: Tim Hunter
46512 by: Dave Sill
46525 by: Adam
Re: How to Annoy People Whose Help You Need
46481 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46501 by: Uwe Ohse
46505 by: Dave Sill
46516 by: Scott D. Yelich
server load?
46484 by: Ross Lawrie
Improper message removal
46487 by: Tony Campisi
qmail not sending remotely if
46489 by: Keith Edwards
46520 by: Keith Edwards
46530 by: Slider
Re: Cool powered by qmail logo.
46490 by: Alexander Jernejcic
46491 by: Sean C Truman
46510 by: Sean C Truman
46511 by: Sean C Truman
46513 by: Murat Guven Mural
46519 by: Nagy Bal�zs
46521 by: Keith Warno \(.HaggleWare.com\)
46527 by: Henrik �hman
46546 by: Russell Nelson
46547 by: Austad, Jay
RH migration
46492 by: Mate Wierdl
46500 by: Vince Vielhaber
Thank you
46495 by: Kevin Smith
Qmail Jobs
46508 by: Jeffrey Skelton
Re: urgent help required
46509 by: Dave Sill
46531 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
virtual domain (vpopmail): no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1)
46517 by: Joel Gautschi
tcp.smtp problems
46518 by: Kevin Smith
46526 by: Dave Sill
qmail on AIX
46523 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
Username refusal
46528 by: Slider
46545 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Mailing list performance
46529 by: P.Y. Adi Prasaja
courier-imap help
46534 by: Barry Smoke
46538 by: Ben Beuchler
changing of Sendmail to QMAIL
46536 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
multiple destinations for one domain
46537 by: Ihnen, David
Mail forwarder
46542 by: Chris Hellberg
46548 by: Chris, the Young One
who to send mail from web
46550 by: wf.echinatex.com
Qmail + sendmail wrapper + PHP's mail()
46551 by: Jason J. Czerak
46553 by: Vladimir Goncharov
46555 by: Mikko H�nninen
Re: Connection refused?
46552 by: Greg White
qmail-smtpd with xinetd
46556 by: Joerg Jung
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi there, A couple of idea's Error looks as though the pop3 may be being filtered out through a switch to that address, or the daemon is not running correctly.... Time to test from a remote location! After trying to connect on port 110 myself I found that there is an immediate message: telnet 195.224.53.102 110 Trying 195.224.53.102... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused This says to me that the pop daemon is not working.. thus svstat the location of the *rc.pop* (possibly /var/run/pop) script and try and follow the logs /var/log/qmail, regards Slider I've managed to partly configure qmail and the test - echo to: ksmith | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject - seems to work okay and results in the following in my /Maildir directory... Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 8843 invoked by uid 108); 8 Aug 2000 20:11:28 -0000 Date: 8 Aug 2000 20:11:28 -0000 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, if I use my Outlook Express client PC to send an email using the POP Server: dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net, it never gets there, but also, it never comes back saying it can't be delivered. Also when I try to check my email setting SMTP: dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net in Outlook Express it can't check it and comes back with the following error :- The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'DWS', Server: 'dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E Any ideas anyone? Many thanks, Kevin Smith
Hi, sounds a bit like off-topic, doesn't it, hope it is not. I installed qmail-1.03 following lwq. My fetchmail version is 5.2.4. In my /etc/tcp.smtp I have the following: 192.168.100.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="2000000" I get the mails for my users from an outside server via fetchmail, so that a message greater than 2 MB bounces. My problem is that the bounce from header look like: fetchmaildaimon@localhost and I want to change it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but where can I do this? BTW I want to add some german explanations to the bounce message. Any hints? Thanks in advance. Thomas
I am new at using qmail, so please forgive me if this is something really obvious. I am fetching my mail from my ISP using fetchmail and passing it to the SMTP port (with qmail as mail server). I believe my ISP is using qpopper, if that makes any difference. This mostly works fine, but occasionally I get the following response, which I can't get past (I get round it by using Netscape to download that message): fetchmail: SMTP< 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html. fetchmail: SMTP listener refused delivery I have read the suggested web-page, but I already had forcecr on in my fetchmailrc (having RTFM) and I can't see any other relevant suggestion of how to fix this. What other FM have I missed? Incidentally, after a few failed download attempts because of this problem, my mail spool at the ISP got corrupted. Could this be connected? Also incidentally, all the messages that cause this problem come from this mailing list, which seems ironic. fetchmail version: 4.4.4 release 2 (this is pretty recent, so according to the web-page, it ought to be alright) qmail version: 1.03 release 9 fetchmailrc: poll mailgate.ftech.net with protocol POP3 user my_user_name there with password my_password is * here options fetchall forcecr I have tried playing around with the last line of the fetchmailrc, taking out "options" and/or "fetchall", in case they confused things, but it makes no difference. I would appreciate any help. Cheers, Bruno Prior [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all, With this is mind is there a way of refusing mail to be sent to a user on the local mail server?? With BADMAILFROM it is usually mail from a remote (different Domain) that yours! Something like a BADMAILTO? so only that one address (That incidently is recieving about 1 mail every 6 seconds) but the user is one of ours and the mailing lists continue to send mail to it! Removing the address still creates alot of bounces... still taking toll on the server, although not much, and I am getting hundreds of bounce reports from it and am failing to see the ones that need attention! Thanks Slider "John McCoy, Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I know to stop them by putting this in [badmailfrom] >@friend.zzn.com >@yes.zzn.com > >Can I do it this way? >@*.zzn.com No, but you could block their IP addresses using tcpserver. -Dave
Peter Green wrote: > Either re-install (with --force) kernel-headers to get all of the proper > symlinks back, or check the following: After doing this I got ALOT further, unfortunately it crapped out on: ... ... rm -f tryshsgr.o tryshsgr ./compile prot.c ./compile coe.c ./compile cdb_hash.c ./compile cdb_unpack.c ./compile cdb_seek.c cdb_seek.c: In function `cdb_bread': cdb_seek.c:19: `EINTR' undeclared (first use in this function) cdb_seek.c:19: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once cdb_seek.c:19: for each function it appears in.) cdb_seek.c:21: `EIO' undeclared (first use in this function) make: *** [cdb_seek.o] Error 1 Sorry if it seems I am a neophyte at this. It is only becuase I am. Thanks for your help. Steve
Are you running any kind of virus protection?? -----Original Message----- From: Guillermo Villasana Cardoza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 August 2000 18:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Missing attachment... Hello guys... I was wondering if anyone knows why do sometimes some email attachments get stripped off the email, is this a server side problem, a client side problem or a protocol problem? Or can someone tell me where I can get documentation about this... Thanks Guillermo Villasana
Yes I do... but it also happened to me before we had the virus protection. Slider wrote: > > Are you running any kind of virus protection?? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Guillermo Villasana Cardoza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 August 2000 18:48 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Missing attachment... > > Hello guys... I was wondering if anyone knows why do sometimes some > email attachments get stripped off the email, is this a server side > problem, a client side problem or a protocol problem? > Or can someone tell me where I can get documentation about this... > > Thanks > Guillermo Villasana
Set up an automatic revenge flood? Maybe not... :> It depends if it is mailing lists or spam. First start by unsubscribing from REAL mailing lists. If it is spam, change your domain name...I would personally sue the ex user for breaching your 'reasonable use policy' (what? you don't have one? doh!) or at least for ongoing damages since you are now virtually permanently committed to wasting bandwidth on unsolicited e-mails. Only other option is to refuse the e-mails (ie using common spam killing techniques) at the last relay before it is transferred over your link. Brett Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Slider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Protection > > > > > Hi all, > > Please can you help with advise about protecting my mail servers > from one of > my on ex users!! He/She has subscribed to about 30 mailing lists with the > address that falls under my mail service! I am now recieving > about 10 mails > a minute for that user! Removing the maildir and letting them > bounce is not > helping as I thought it would... any other suggestions?? > > Slider >
Put a .forward file in with this evil users new email address. Then all mail sent to them will really get to them. If nothing else, it will get them to unsubscribe from all of the lists. -----Original Message----- From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:26 AM To: qmail Subject: RE: Protection Set up an automatic revenge flood? Maybe not... :> It depends if it is mailing lists or spam. First start by unsubscribing from REAL mailing lists. If it is spam, change your domain name...I would personally sue the ex user for breaching your 'reasonable use policy' (what? you don't have one? doh!) or at least for ongoing damages since you are now virtually permanently committed to wasting bandwidth on unsolicited e-mails. Only other option is to refuse the e-mails (ie using common spam killing techniques) at the last relay before it is transferred over your link. Brett Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Slider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Protection > > > > > Hi all, > > Please can you help with advise about protecting my mail servers > from one of > my on ex users!! He/She has subscribed to about 30 mailing lists with the > address that falls under my mail service! I am now recieving > about 10 mails > a minute for that user! Removing the maildir and letting them > bounce is not > helping as I thought it would... any other suggestions?? > > Slider >
Good point! although there is no indication as to the uses new address..... what I want to do is create a .qmail file that will delete any mail that comes in for that user! Anyone know how to do that? slider Put a .forward file in with this evil users new email address. Then all mail sent to them will really get to them. If nothing else, it will get them to unsubscribe from all of the lists. -----Original Message----- From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:26 AM To: qmail Subject: RE: Protection Set up an automatic revenge flood? Maybe not... :> It depends if it is mailing lists or spam. First start by unsubscribing from REAL mailing lists. If it is spam, change your domain name...I would personally sue the ex user for breaching your 'reasonable use policy' (what? you don't have one? doh!) or at least for ongoing damages since you are now virtually permanently committed to wasting bandwidth on unsolicited e-mails. Only other option is to refuse the e-mails (ie using common spam killing techniques) at the last relay before it is transferred over your link. Brett Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Slider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Protection > > > > > Hi all, > > Please can you help with advise about protecting my mail servers > from one of > my on ex users!! He/She has subscribed to about 30 mailing lists with the > address that falls under my mail service! I am now recieving > about 10 mails > a minute for that user! Removing the maildir and letting them > bounce is not > helping as I thought it would... any other suggestions?? > > Slider >
Slider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 9 August 2000 at 14:27:06 +0100 > Good point! although there is no indication as to the uses new address..... > what I want to do is create a .qmail file that will delete any mail that > comes in for that user! Anyone know how to do that? Create a .qmail fail for that user containing the single character "#". That makes the one line a comment, and an existing .qmail file with no delivery instructions means throw it away. -- 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]
There are other ways but how about just putting in: /dev/null instead of ./Mailbox or ./Maildir/ or whatever? I mean you can bounce it, throw it, choke it (ok now i'm just being stupid), but the above will just write it to the bin. Brett Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Slider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 11:27 PM > To: Austad, Jay > Cc: qmail list > Subject: RE: Protection > > > Good point! although there is no indication as to the uses new > address..... > what I want to do is create a .qmail file that will delete any mail that > comes in for that user! Anyone know how to do that? > > slider > > > Put a .forward file in with this evil users new email address. Then all > mail sent to them will really get to them. If nothing else, it will get > them to unsubscribe from all of the lists. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:26 AM > To: qmail > Subject: RE: Protection > > > Set up an automatic revenge flood? Maybe not... :> > > It depends if it is mailing lists or spam. First start by > unsubscribing from > REAL mailing lists. If it is spam, change your domain name...I would > personally sue the ex user for breaching your 'reasonable use > policy' (what? > you don't have one? doh!) or at least for ongoing damages since > you are now > virtually permanently committed to wasting bandwidth on > unsolicited e-mails. > Only other option is to refuse the e-mails (ie using common spam killing > techniques) at the last relay before it is transferred over your link. > > Brett > > > Manager > InterPlanetary Solutions > http://ipsware.com/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Slider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 7:06 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Protection > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Please can you help with advise about protecting my mail servers > > from one of > > my on ex users!! He/She has subscribed to about 30 mailing > lists with the > > address that falls under my mail service! I am now recieving > > about 10 mails > > a minute for that user! Removing the maildir and letting them > > bounce is not > > helping as I thought it would... any other suggestions?? > > > > Slider > > > > >
Brett Randall wrote: > > Set up an automatic revenge flood? Maybe not... :> > > It depends if it is mailing lists or spam. First start by unsubscribing from > REAL mailing lists. Then the mailing-list admins will never learn to use authenticating managers. Slider: Mailing lists, I say bounce it, definately. ezmlm will simply auto-unsub you, but other, non-authenicating mailing lists will get the spam. Let the mailing list admins unsub you - after all, it's their unsecure lists that allowed this to happen. As for the spammers, start using RBL,RSS, etc,etc,etc... Also, if you're this user's ISP, don't you already have all of his info? Maybe you should threaten to post his credit card number (just kidding!!!) Eric P.s. Just a thought: Once you get rblsmtpd set up, you could write a script to scan for the first Recieved: line with an IP, add the sending IP to your own RBL-style domain. Mail will pile up on the sending end without your intervention, and without loading down your server (to recieve the mails and generate bounces). Then, when it all dies down a bit, take the IPs out of the domain, and you're back to normal... > If it is spam, change your domain name...I would > personally sue the ex user for breaching your 'reasonable use policy' (what? > you don't have one? doh!) or at least for ongoing damages since you are now > virtually permanently committed to wasting bandwidth on unsolicited e-mails. > Only other option is to refuse the e-mails (ie using common spam killing > techniques) at the last relay before it is transferred over your link. > > > Hi all, > > > > Please can you help with advise about protecting my mail servers > > from one of > > my on ex users!! He/She has subscribed to about 30 mailing lists with the > > address that falls under my mail service! I am now recieving > > about 10 mails > > a minute for that user! Removing the maildir and letting them > > bounce is not > > helping as I thought it would... any other suggestions?? > > > > Slider > >
Michael Fiumano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am having troubles receiving mail with qmail. Here is my setup: I am >running qmail on my linux box behind a NAT device. My MX record points to >a name not in my domain (dynamic dns) and that name points to my IP >address (that shouldn't matter much). What seems to be happening is that >my server is looping the mail back to itself because it can't realize that >monkey.fiumano.com is itself. Put monkey.fiumano.com in control/locals and control/rcpthosts and restart qmail. -Dave
He's trying to receive mail for fiumano.com, and he has that in his locals already. - T -- Tyler J. Frederick Systems Administrator Sportsline.com, Inc. On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > Michael Fiumano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I am having troubles receiving mail with qmail. Here is my setup: I am > >running qmail on my linux box behind a NAT device. My MX record points to > >a name not in my domain (dynamic dns) and that name points to my IP > >address (that shouldn't matter much). What seems to be happening is that > >my server is looping the mail back to itself because it can't realize that > >monkey.fiumano.com is itself. > > Put monkey.fiumano.com in control/locals and control/rcpthosts and > restart qmail. > > -Dave >
"Tyler J. Frederick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >He's trying to receive mail for fiumano.com, and he has that in his >locals already. OK, I was just going by what he said: >> ... What seems to be happening is that >> >my server is looping the mail back to itself because it can't realize that >> >monkey.fiumano.com is itself. ~~~~~~ -Dave
*nod* Any other thoughts on his problem? Seems like if his domain is in locals, then it should attempt local delivery and either A) bounce or B) deliver, but it's trying to fwd it out. His smtproutes is empty also. - T -- Tyler J. Frederick Systems Administrator Sportsline.com, Inc. On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > "Tyler J. Frederick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >He's trying to receive mail for fiumano.com, and he has that in his > >locals already. > > OK, I was just going by what he said: > > >> ... What seems to be happening is that > >> >my server is looping the mail back to itself because it can't realize that > >> >monkey.fiumano.com is itself. > ~~~~~~ > > -Dave >
"Tyler J. Frederick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >*nod* Any other thoughts on his problem? Seems like if his domain is in >locals, then it should attempt local delivery and either A) bounce or >B) deliver, but it's trying to fwd it out. His smtproutes is empty also. If I were him, I'd restart qmail, because the only way the config files can be right but qmail behaves wrongly is for it to not be using the current config files. If that fails, I'd run qmail-showctl and post the output here, along with a copy of a test message that was incorrectly forwarded and a snippet of the qmail-send logs covering that time period. -Dave
"UrBuN DeGeNeRaTe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I currently have Qmail 1.03 setup on an Intel based RedHat Linux 6.1 >machine. It is working fine except for a problem which I keep on getting >when trying to check mail through a POP client .. I'm using qmail-pop3d as >my POP server, and this is the exact line which I have in my inetd.conf >file: Have you tried the checkpassword test on www.qmail.org? -Dave
UrBuN DeGeNeRaTe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > It's all on one line. I keep on getting messages about the autentication > failing, and that I have entered the wrong username or password, when I am > sure that they are completly correct! Really? Note that checkpassword is case-sensitive. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de
I take that this is happening in your client (outlook Express??) try telnetting to the box via the ip address and authenticating there... advantage is that if you succeed auth on the telnet then the client is misconfigured, if you fail then you know the problem is on the server side! Try a couple of times just to be sure! Slider UrBuN DeGeNeRaTe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > It's all on one line. I keep on getting messages about the autentication > failing, and that I have entered the wrong username or password, when I am > sure that they are completly correct! Really? Note that checkpassword is case-sensitive. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de
At 10:05 PM 8/8/2000 , UrBuN DeGeNeRaTe wrote: >Hi There. > >I currently have Qmail 1.03 setup on an Intel based RedHat Linux 6.1 >machine. It is working fine except for a problem which I keep on getting >when trying to check mail through a POP client .. I'm using qmail-pop3d as >my POP server, and this is the exact line which I have in my inetd.conf file: > >pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup >jupiter.ddm-webservers.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d >Maildir > >It's all on one line. I keep on getting messages about the autentication >failing, and that I have entered the wrong username or password, when I am >sure that they are completly correct! All of of my system password files >(/etc/passwd) are using MD5 SHADOWED style passwords. I know there is >something going on with checkpassword, but I don't know what. Can someone >out there please help me!! ANY help or advice would be apriciated! Please ! I had the same problem a few weeks ago and this is the response I got from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. The guy with the answers was Jason L. Bubere (credit where due and all that. :o) ) Jason wrote: >Take a look at this: >/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -x/etc/tcp.pop3.cdb -c100 -u0 -g0 0 110 >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup taylor.buberel.org /var/qmail/bin/checkpassword >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir | /var/qmail/bin/splogger >qmail & >The important part is the "-u0 -g0", which tells tcpserver to run >checkpasswd as user 'root', group 'root'. Authentication will fail >otherwise. >-jason That fixed it for me. YMMV. Jerry Lynde Daemonology - Invocation/Evocation, Banishing, et al. Due Diligence Inc. http://www.diligence.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (406) 728-0001 x232 Fax: (406) 728-0006 "It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Dew that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire jitters. The jitters become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." - adapted from the Mentat Litany
Raul Beltran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 9 August 2000 at 00:35:09 CDT > hi, is there a possibility to automatically concatenate a string like > "[qmail] " to the subjects of all the messages coming from this mailing > list? > > That would allow us to filter all messages coming from this list to a > specific folder, or (my particular situation) aviod hotmail delivering them > to the bulk mail folder... Perfectly easy to filter on the "Mailing-List" header instead, which is already there. -- 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'd love to filter by "Mailing-List" or by "To:" but hotmail only allows to filter by "Subject" and "From", thus my petition to attach a "qmail" to the subject or something. Somebody told me to use another mail service... maybe I will do, but I still think that a "qmail-ish" subject would be OK :), even helpful for some people and woludn't hurt anyone... Raul B. Raul Beltran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 9 August 2000 at 00:35:09 CDT > hi, is there a possibility to automatically concatenate a string like > "[qmail] " to the subjects of all the messages coming from this mailing > list? > > That would allow us to filter all messages coming from this list to a > specific folder, or (my particular situation) aviod hotmail delivering them > to the bulk mail folder... Perfectly easy to filter on the "Mailing-List" header instead, which is already there.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 04:01:54AM -0500, Raul Beltran wrote: > Somebody told me to use another mail service... maybe I will do, but I still > think that a "qmail-ish" subject would be OK :), even helpful for some > people and woludn't hurt anyone... Just imagine the number of subscribers who'd get annoyed if the list maintainer actually set up subject tags (or Reply-To fields pointing to the list---but that's another issue). I'd be one of them. Hotmail is a free service, right? Just set up another mailbox, dedicated to receiving messages from the qmail list. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends? Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
Are there any problems which could arise when forwarding postmaster accounts from virtualdomains to a single postmaster account on the same machine ? And what if the postmaster account are on remote machines ? Regards, --Frans
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9 Aug 00, at 16:06, Frans Haarman wrote: > Are there any problems which could arise when forwarding > postmaster accounts from virtualdomains to a single postmaster > account on the same machine ? None, except perhaps privacy issues. > And what if the postmaster account are on remote machines ? It's not wise to have postmaster account on a remote machine; in case of serious configuration screw-up, the postmaster might not get the double bounces indicating the problems. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOZFWflMwP8g7qbw/EQInpQCgjxf0OHoNo87iC/LTdIjbXcZqAuEAn3zx s2zF6kILxpHmaYVc+u8wF44o =ne4z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 9 August 2000 at 16:02:54 +0200 > On 9 Aug 00, at 16:06, Frans Haarman wrote: > > And what if the postmaster account are on remote machines ? > > It's not wise to have postmaster account on a remote machine; in > case of serious configuration screw-up, the postmaster might not > get the double bounces indicating the problems. It's also not wise to have the postmaster mail go to an account not frequently read, because something important may be sent there that requires a quick reaction. Often you have to balance these two issues. If you test your postmaster forwarding at the end of setup, it's not too likely to break, unless the system falls off the net completely. -- 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]
Hi again I've finally managed to convince qmail to send my mail. The problem was, as Armando suspected, a library incompatibility. What I tried first was to move qmail to another machine with a more elaborate setup. No luck there - the CNAME error persisted. The next thing I did was to install a compiler on that machine and compile qmail locally. That version worked great. This is a bit strange though. On all the machines, I'm using the same version of the libraries qmail uses (libc and libresolv). The only difference I can see is the hex number that is displayed by ldd in parentheses after the version number. I know this is a bit off-topic, but what does that number mean? Anyway, the problem seems to be solved and I would like to thank you guys, especially Armando and Holborn, for all your help. Thanks, Jens
They tried to switch to NT a few years ago but it didn't work. My guess is that they are trying to get a press release out of it saying NT/2000 can scale a large as UNIX. Paul Farber Farber Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Walt Mankowski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 10:12:19PM -0600, Irwan Hadi wrote: > > According to http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.hotmail.com , seems > > that Hotmail now is running IIS and not apache with FreeBSD anymore. > > It seems that hotmail will be the second company being delisted at > > www.qmail.org/top.html for using qmail after Red Hat ?! > > They seem to have multiple servers running different OS's. Hit reload > a few times and you'll see the old familiar > > www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 > SSLeay/0.9.0b on FreeBSD > >
Irwan Hadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > According to http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.hotmail.com , seems > that Hotmail now is running IIS and not apache with FreeBSD anymore. > It seems that hotmail will be the second company being delisted at > www.qmail.org/top.html for using qmail after Red Hat ?! Note that that's the webserver. It does not necessarily run the same system as the mailhub. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de
I set up a cron job last week when they first started that monitors what they are running every hour. It has crept up from 4% IIS/W2k initially to about 85% as of today. However, there are some stories from some major mail providers of problems with hotmail cutting their feeds in the last week. Don't know if its related though... -----Original Message----- From: Claus Farber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 5:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hotmail now based on IIS ?! Irwan Hadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > According to http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.hotmail.com , seems > that Hotmail now is running IIS and not apache with FreeBSD anymore. > It seems that hotmail will be the second company being delisted at > www.qmail.org/top.html for using qmail after Red Hat ?! Note that that's the webserver. It does not necessarily run the same system as the mailhub. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de
"John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > about 85% as of today. However, there are some stories from some major mail > providers of problems with hotmail cutting their feeds in the last week. dunno about "cutting their feeds", but I regularly get random bounces to hotmail.com users from some mailing lists I'm involved with. For one list, 13 in the past 24 hours, failed with "Remote host said: 554 Transaction failed" for perfectly valid email address that work for other messages sent to the list that day. (What they have receiving emails does not appear to be qmail, any longer. Their sending systems do seem to be running qmail still, witness: Received: from f188.law10.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (64.4.15.188) by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 12:50:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 83201 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2000 12:49:18 -0000 and that line of itself *really* concerns me.) James.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:18:53AM +0100, James R Grinter wrote: [snip] > (What they have receiving emails does not appear to be qmail, any > longer. Their sending systems do seem to be running qmail still, witness: The receiving system has never been running qmail, at least not in the last 12 months. > Received: from f188.law10.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (64.4.15.188) > by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 12:50:13 -0000 > Received: (qmail 83201 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2000 12:49:18 -0000 > > and that line of itself *really* concerns me.) I've seen it on mail on this list too, IIRC qmail-1.02 looks like that. Greetz, Peter. -- [ircoper] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk / Hardbeat [student] Undernet:#groningen | IRCnet:#koffie/#alliance [developer] _____________ [madly in love] (__VuurWerk__(--*-
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +0000, JuanE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did not think of that. Good suggestion. > > It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down > server out of the rotation relatively quickly. If not, then you'll waste > considerable time polling the busy server (and consequently having your > connections rejected by tcpserver) while all other servers are breezing at > 50% load. That may be hard to do. A lot of places may have the list of IP addresses cached and they typically expire over a time longer than a server will be down.
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 9 August 2000 at 09:12:29 -0500 > On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +0000, > JuanE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I did not think of that. Good suggestion. > > > > It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down > > server out of the rotation relatively quickly. If not, then you'll waste > > considerable time polling the busy server (and consequently having your > > connections rejected by tcpserver) while all other servers are breezing at > > 50% load. > > That may be hard to do. A lot of places may have the list of IP addresses > cached and they typically expire over a time longer than a server will > be down. Which is why, if using round-robin DNS instead of a local load-balancing front-end, I'd want to keep a couple of spare configured servers ready to configure with the IP of the down machine. (This might well be cheaper than the load-balancing system.) -- 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]
hi,Can anyone tell me why my maillist doesn't work? I use fastword and I have successfully created group files. I placed them in /etc/mail/groups/ and have used newinclude to update the bin file. I created 4 group files and only one doesn't work. The server keeps spitting back with "Sorry, no mailbox here by that name." I know that I did it correctly and tested the other files, but nothing I did seems to work. I even changed it's name and update my /etc/aliases file. The only thing that is different about this file versus the others is that it's bigger; containing 91 lines (87 are email addresses, 4 are comments).Could it be that group files have a limit in size? Thank muchvav
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 10:27:51AM -0400, Vu Vuong wrote: > Can anyone tell me why my maillist doesn't work? I use fastword and I > have successfully created group files. I placed them in /etc/mail/groups/ Not without seeing the "group" files and the aliases file used to call it. The relevant section of your log would also be useful. We're not psychic. -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Hello everyone,
Is there any way of setting up qmail-pop3d so the authentification doesn't need a query through port 113?
Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paco Gracia
Director T�cnico
Amira Sistemas
man tcpserver: -r (Default.) Attempt to obtain TCPREMOTEINFO from the remote host. -R Do not attempt to obtain TCPREMOTEINFO from the remote host. On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Is there any way of setting up qmail-pop3d so the authentification > doesn't need a query through port 113? > > Thanks > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Paco Gracia > Director T�cnico > Amira Sistemas
Hi, Is there anybody using a working SSL-POP3 solution with qmail (and eventually vmailmgr) on a production server ? I've looked on the qmail homepage, and there is only a "highly experimental" patch. Thanks for any hint or links! Regards, Olivier -- _________________________________________________________________ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
> Hi, > > Is there anybody using a working SSL-POP3 solution with > qmail (and eventually vmailmgr) on a production server ? > > I've looked on the qmail homepage, and there is only a "highly > experimental" patch. Thanks for any hint or links! > > Regards, > Olivier > -- > _________________________________________________________________ > Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland You might be able to get qmail-pop3d to run under stunnel. I haven't tried this, but don't see why it wouldn't work. http://www.stunnel.org/ Jack
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 11:25:30AM -0500, Jack Barnett wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Is there anybody using a working SSL-POP3 solution with > > qmail (and eventually vmailmgr) on a production server ? > > > > I've looked on the qmail homepage, and there is only a "highly > > experimental" patch. Thanks for any hint or links! > > > > Regards, > > Olivier > > -- > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland > > You might be able to get qmail-pop3d to run under stunnel. I haven't tried > this, but don't see why it wouldn't work. > > http://www.stunnel.org/ Yep. I've gotten this to work without a problem. Unfortunately, that was a while ago and I no longer have the setup details, but stunnel is pretty straighforward. Regards.
I try to log pop3 connexions but even if qmail-pop3d works well, it logs nothing :( my supervise/qmail-pop3d/run is: #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -l mail-adsl.mxm 0 pop-3 \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail-adsl.mxm /bin/checklocalpwd \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir and my supervise/qmail-pop3d/log/run is: #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t s2500000 \ /var/log/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d P.S: - the pop-3 line is commented in my /etc/inetd.conf. - i have only the pop-3 line in my /etc/services i'm sure that it's a little and stupid mistake (perhaps newbie) but if someone can help quickly i'll doesn't lose too much time. thx. Dji. -- Audouy J�r�me - 3rd year student in E.S.S.I. (Ecole Sup�rieure en Sciences Informatiques) e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] www : http://djidji.citeweb.net / http://www.essi.fr/~audouy
ouuups, i forget the -v option for tcpserver ... sorry :) -- Audouy J�r�me - 3rd year student in E.S.S.I. (Ecole Sup�rieure en Sciences Informatiques) e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] www : http://djidji.citeweb.net / http://www.essi.fr/~audouy
At 05:33 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Audouy J�r�mevRtZQ== wrote: > I try to log pop3 connexions but even if qmail-pop3d works well, it > logs nothing :( > >my supervise/qmail-pop3d/run is: > #!/bin/sh > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -l mail-adsl.mxm 0 pop-3 \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail-adsl.mxm /bin/checklocalpwd \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir this mine. You can consult to this, and compare to the one at your server [see you forget to add 2>&1 at /qmail-pop3d/run] [irwan@server irwan]$ cd /var/qmail/supervise [irwan@server supervise]$ ls -ls total 3 1 drwxrwxr-t 4 root root 1024 Apr 15 18:49 qmail-pop3d/ 1 drwxrwxr-t 4 root root 1024 Apr 2 20:58 qmail-send/ 1 drwxrwxr-t 4 root root 1024 May 18 02:02 qmail-smtpd/ [irwan@server supervise]$ cd qmail-pop3d [irwan@server qmail-pop3d]$ ls -ls total 3 1 drwxrwxr-x 3 root root 1024 May 23 05:07 log/ 1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 196 Apr 15 17:56 run* 1 drwx------ 2 root root 1024 Aug 3 10:02 supervise/ [irwan@server qmail-pop3d]$ cat run #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ tcpserver -v -c 200 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup suatu.host.or.id \ /vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 [irwan@server qmail-pop3d]$ cd log [irwan@server log]$ ls -ls total 2 1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 115 May 4 07:06 run* 1 drwx------ 2 root root 1024 Aug 3 10:02 supervise/ [irwan@server log]$ cat run #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill \ /usr/local/bin/multilog t n10 s5000000 /var/log/qmail/qmail-pop3d [irwan@server log]$ su Password: [root@server log]# cd supervise/ [root@server supervise]# ls -ls total 1 0 prw------- 1 root root 0 Apr 15 18:48 control 0 -rw------- 1 root root 0 Apr 15 17:57 lock 0 prw------- 1 root root 0 Apr 15 17:57 ok 1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18 Aug 3 10:02 status [root@server supervise]# pwd /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/log/supervise [root@server supervise]# cd .. [root@server log]# cd .. [root@server qmail-pop3d]# ls -ls total 3 1 drwxrwxr-x 3 root root 1024 May 23 05:07 log 1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 196 Apr 15 17:56 run 1 drwx------ 2 root root 1024 Aug 3 10:02 supervise [root@server qmail-pop3d]# cd supervise/ [root@server supervise]# ls -ls total 1 0 prw------- 1 root root 0 Apr 15 18:48 control 0 -rw------- 1 root root 0 Apr 15 17:57 lock 0 prw------- 1 root root 0 Apr 15 17:57 ok 1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18 Aug 3 10:02 status [root@server supervise]# exit exit -------------
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:37:54PM -0700, Mitul Limbani wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have a lil problem in created star alias i.e. anything @ domainname.com > should reach to a particular box if the user email box is not present on the > system...rather then bouncing back to the sender... > and hence i tried puttin this in the > .qmail-default file the main users name i.e. > > .qmail-default contains mitul (this is the main user for that site..i also > puttin &mitul but it also didnt work..) leave the qmail file empty and he will get the mail by default delivery means. or put in ./Mail/specialmailbox if you want to. see further in http://qmail.x42.com/man/man5/dot-qmail.html /magnus -- http://x42.com/
hello friends is there any one who is running qmail on IBM AIX 4.3 , if yes , then please guide me how to deal with sendmail which gets installed by default with AIX 4.3 os installation , i have installed qmail-ldap on redhat 6.1 my test system not i have to install it on AIX 4.3 which is my production system , i have gone through life with qmail and other docs but didt found any docs which explains this specific senerio , "removing sendmail which gets installed by default while installing AIX 4.3 os installation process, so , how to remove or ignore it so that my qmail installation will work specifically related to creation of those /usr/lib/sendmail and /usr/sbin/sendmail/ links , renaming /usr/sbin/sendmail and /usr/lib/sendmail to sendmail.old how can i do this with AIX 4.3 , unfortunately i dont know much about IBM AIX 4.3 please help me , Thanks & Regards Prashant Desai
I installed and am using a normal install of qmail on a FreeBSD 4.0 box. I just noticed today that it was also included in the ports collection and is patched during the install process. I am just curious if anyone knows what the patch is for, as I have not experienced any problems. Here's the patch, if your interested: --- qmail-1.03/dns.c.103 Mon Aug 17 16:06:58 1998 +++ qmail-1.03/dns.c Wed Aug 26 16:28:56 1998 @@ -21,10 +21,12 @@ static unsigned short getshort(c) unsigned char *c; { unsigned short u; u = c[0]; return (u << 8) + c[1]; } -static union { HEADER hdr; unsigned char buf[PACKETSZ]; } response; +static struct { unsigned char *buf; } response; +static int responsebuflen = 0; static int responselen; static unsigned char *responseend; static unsigned char *responsepos; +static u_long saveresoptions; static int numanswers; static char name[MAXDNAME]; @@ -45,18 +47,33 @@ errno = 0; if (!stralloc_copy(&glue,domain)) return DNS_MEM; if (!stralloc_0(&glue)) return DNS_MEM; - responselen = lookup(glue.s,C_IN,type,response.buf,sizeof(response)); + if (!responsebuflen) + if (response.buf = (unsigned char *)alloc(PACKETSZ+1)) + responsebuflen = PACKETSZ+1; + else return DNS_MEM; + + responselen = lookup(glue.s,C_IN,type,response.buf,responsebuflen); + if ((responselen >= responsebuflen) || + (responselen > 0 && (((HEADER *)response.buf)->tc))) + { + if (responsebuflen < 65536) + if (alloc_re(&response.buf, responsebuflen, 65536)) + responsebuflen = 65536; + else return DNS_MEM; + saveresoptions = _res.options; + _res.options |= RES_USEVC; + responselen = lookup(glue.s,C_IN,type,response.buf,responsebuflen); + _res.options = saveresoptions; + } if (responselen <= 0) { if (errno == ECONNREFUSED) return DNS_SOFT; if (h_errno == TRY_AGAIN) return DNS_SOFT; return DNS_HARD; } - if (responselen >= sizeof(response)) - responselen = sizeof(response); responseend = response.buf + responselen; responsepos = response.buf + sizeof(HEADER); - n = ntohs(response.hdr.qdcount); + n = ntohs(((HEADER *)response.buf)->qdcount); while (n-- > 0) { i = dn_expand(response.buf,responseend,responsepos,name,MAXDNAME); @@ -66,7 +83,7 @@ if (i < QFIXEDSZ) return DNS_SOFT; responsepos += QFIXEDSZ; } - numanswers = ntohs(response.hdr.ancount); + numanswers = ntohs(((HEADER *)response.buf)->ancount); return 0; } -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:17:59PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote: > I installed and am using a normal install of qmail on a FreeBSD 4.0 box. > I just noticed today that it was also included in the ports collection > and is patched during the install process. I am just curious if anyone > knows what the patch is for, as I have not experienced any problems. > Here's the patch, if your interested: Link from http://www.qmail.org/ Christopher K. Davis has a patch to accept oversize DNS packets which works on both qmail's dns.c and tcpserver's dns.c. http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/qmail-103.patch /magnus -- http://x42.com/
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 07:20:32PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:17:59PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote: > > I installed and am using a normal install of qmail on a FreeBSD 4.0 box. > > I just noticed today that it was also included in the ports collection > > and is patched during the install process. I am just curious if anyone > > knows what the patch is for, as I have not experienced any problems. > > Here's the patch, if your interested: > > Link from http://www.qmail.org/ > > Christopher K. Davis has a patch to accept oversize DNS packets which works > on both qmail's dns.c and tcpserver's dns.c. So THAT'S what that is... Does anyone have any experience concerning how necessary that patch is? Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I installed and am using a normal install of qmail on a FreeBSD 4.0 box. > > > I just noticed today that it was also included in the ports collection > > > and is patched during the install process. I am just curious if anyone > > > knows what the patch is for, as I have not experienced any problems. [re: big-DNS patch] > Does anyone have any experience concerning how necessary that patch is? It has at times in the past been necessary, as a few ISPs started returning oversize responses to MX queries. AOL was frequently cited, and I have seen bigfoot.com and others do the same. Most folks don't seem to see it as necessary anymore, as the ISPs seem to have stopped returning oversize responses. It probably won't hurt to leave it in, though. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 10:31:34AM -0700, Darin O. wrote: > >petra:~$ ./spamtest 139.134.5.153 > >rbl.maps.vix.com => > >rss.maps.vix.com => > >dul.maps.vix.com => > >relays.orbs.org => 127.0.0.4 > >outputs.orbs.org => > > How can I get "spamtest" .. is this a script? Is > this useful tool available publicly? I've had several requests for this, so I just stuck the code up on my website. http://www.squad51.net/spamtest.html Thanks, Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
I've seen a surge in spam from network solutions lately.. I just added their spam domain (mail-router.e-dialog.com) to my badmailfrom file, actually. --Adam On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:48:26PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 10:31:34AM -0700, Darin O. wrote: > > > >petra:~$ ./spamtest 139.134.5.153 > > >rbl.maps.vix.com => > > >rss.maps.vix.com => > > >dul.maps.vix.com => > > >relays.orbs.org => 127.0.0.4 > > >outputs.orbs.org => > > > > How can I get "spamtest" .. is this a script? Is > > this useful tool available publicly? > > I've had several requests for this, so I just stuck the code up on my > website. > > http://www.squad51.net/spamtest.html > > Thanks, > Ben > > -- > Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 > Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net >
hi list, a girl from accounting came crying she needed a particular email stopped from being delivered. as we don't have a permanent connection, I told her she was lucky and I did the following - skimmed the qmail-send, qmail-queue and qmail-remote manpages and found nothing - searched /var/qmail/queue and removed info/10/227894 mess/10/227894 remote/10/227894 and now I stand here and ask myself: did I do something terribly wrong? qmail-qread and qmail-qstat don't see the message, and apparently it hasn't been submitted. but maybe I did break something ... and, for the next time, is there a 'proper way' of performing the above mentioned deed cleanly? martin
martin langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - searched /var/qmail/queue and removed > info/10/227894 > mess/10/227894 > remote/10/227894 > > and now I stand here and ask myself: did I do something terribly wrong? >qmail-qread and qmail-qstat don't see the message, and apparently it >hasn't been submitted. but maybe I did break something ... qmail-send might complain that files it's looking for aren't there. > and, for the next time, is there a 'proper way' of performing the above >mentioned deed cleanly? The correct procedure is: 1) stop qmail 2) remove queue files 3) start qmail -Dave
With a similar thing that happened to me I found a little programme on the qmail.org site called queue-fix-1.4 Download and run this little guy and all your worries will be gone! If not take 2 asprin and call me in the morning ;-) Slider martin langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - searched /var/qmail/queue and removed > info/10/227894 > mess/10/227894 > remote/10/227894 > > and now I stand here and ask myself: did I do something terribly wrong? >qmail-qread and qmail-qstat don't see the message, and apparently it >hasn't been submitted. but maybe I did break something ... qmail-send might complain that files it's looking for aren't there. > and, for the next time, is there a 'proper way' of performing the above >mentioned deed cleanly? The correct procedure is: 1) stop qmail 2) remove queue files 3) start qmail -Dave
martin langhoff writes: > and, for the next time, is there a 'proper way' of performing the above > mentioned deed cleanly? Yes. You could also have run this program except that it didn't exist earlier today. It will cause the email to be bounced. This is appropriate in the situation you outlined, but may not be for others. Hand it any one of these filenames: > info/10/227894 > mess/10/227894 > remote/10/227894 -- #! /usr/bin/perl chdir("/var/qmail/queue") or die; $queuelifetime = 10*24*60*60; if (open(F, "</var/qmail/control/queuelifetime")) { my($q) = <F>; $queuelifetime = chomp $q; close(F); } $t = time - $queuelifetime; while(<>) { chomp; s!.*?/!info/!; utime($t, $t, $_) or die; } -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
Greetings, I am in the process of setting up a server for a hosting company, each of their packages offers a number of POP 3 mail boxes. Is there a way that I can set up just one UNIX user account for each package and then be able to set up multiple POP 3 boxes within it. I read somewhere about being able to do POP boxes in the format username+alias but cannot find any good documentation on this. Thanks in advance. Daniel Conlon ########################## Tel: +44 8707 41 41 51 Fax: +44 8707 41 51 07 http://www.0risknames.com ##########################
Daniel Conlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a way that I can set up just one UNIX user account for each package > and then be able to set up multiple POP 3 boxes within it. vmailmgr does exactly this. Look at: http://www.em.ca/~bruceg/vmailmgr/ 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.frankiefantastic.20m.com/
Are you sick of commercial sites that bombard you with banner after banner of advertising?
Are you sick of web sites that just want to sell you something?
Do you find most web sites cold and methodical, unfriendly even?
Well if you do visit FrankieFantastic, the friendliest web site on the web. It's friendly because it's my own private web site. But it's so much more. I have a message board, advice page, joke of the week, my view of the week, TV, book, film and music reviews. You can search the web from my web site too using my own search engine. I have top class links with something for everybody. Place a vote in "My poll of the week". I have personal info on my family and I and the funniest pics on the web. Most importantly interact with myself and others by leaving a message on my board or e-mailing me directly. I'd love to hear your views on my opinions and comments as well as my site it self.
EVERYONE is welcome, european, african, asian, oceananic, men, women, boys, girls, white, black, blue, orange and pink, it doesn't matter because there is something on my site for everybody.
Come to my web site to experience a different side of the web�the nice, funny, entertaining side.
Give me a go�I guarantee you'll be enjoy it.
Just Click the link above to visit the Best Personal Site on the Web.
http://www.frankiefantastic.20m.com/
Are you sick of commercial sites that bombard you with banner after banner of advertising?
Are you sick of web sites that just want to sell you something?
Do you find most web sites cold and methodical, unfriendly even?
Well if you do visit FrankieFantastic, the friendliest web site on the web. It's friendly because it's my own private web site. But it's so much more. I have a message board, advice page, joke of the week, my view of the week, TV, book, film and music reviews. You can search the web from my web site too using my own search engine. I have top class links with something for everybody. Place a vote in "My poll of the week". I have personal info on my family and I and the funniest pics on the web. Most importantly interact with myself and others by leaving a message on my board or e-mailing me directly. I'd love to hear your views on my opinions and comments as well as my site it self.
EVERYONE is welcome, european, african, asian, oceananic, men, women, boys, girls, white, black, blue, orange and pink, it doesn't matter because there is something on my site for everybody.
Come to my web site to experience a different side of the web�the nice, funny, entertaining side.
Give me a go�I guarantee you'll be enjoy it.
Just Click the link above to visit the Best Personal Site on the Web.
"Tony Campisi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Our qmail server has been up for 2 days and everything is working fine. I >would like to use qmailanalog to analyze activity. >I have read through the archive but need more answers. >I installed qmailanalog-0.70 qmailanalog requires timestamps in a particular format that's no longer supported by cyclog, and has never been supported by syslog. If you're using cyclog, you'll need to find a utility on www.qmail.org to convert them to the old format for qmailanalog. -Dave
Hi, all, I think someone has recently subscribed an email harvester to the qmail list. Two messages I've sent today have both resulted in almost immediate spam with subject "Have a GREAT day on me.". The mail appears to be forged to look like it was relayed through a hotmail server. Anyone else experiencing this today? I've run the messages through spamcop, but I'm not hopeful. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think someone has recently subscribed an email harvester to the qmail list. Nope. They're sending the spam directly to the list. -Dave
Charles Cazabon wrote: > > Hi, all, > > I think someone has recently subscribed an email harvester to the qmail list. > Two messages I've sent today have both resulted in almost immediate spam > with subject "Have a GREAT day on me.". The mail appears to be forged to > look like it was relayed through a hotmail server. > > Anyone else experiencing this today? I've run the messages through spamcop, > but I'm not hopeful. Unless this spammer is a complete dumbass, (which I suppose is likely), his domain appears to have been created for the sole purpose of messing with people: Non-authoritative answer: Name: frankiefantastic.20m.com Address: 127.0.0.1 Aliases: www.frankiefantastic.20m.com Sheesh. I LARTed 20m.com, hopefully they have some on-the-ball people there that will squash this guy... Eric
I've got a qmail system in my firewall that's sending email out for my whole network. Unfortunately, some of the recipients are checking all the received headers and telling me that a.domain.com doesn't exist even though it was relayed through domain.com which _does_ have a valid DNS name. I'm not sure I understand all the documentation on tcpserver and RELAYCLIENT but I was wondering if this is the correct route to go? Basically, since it's a private network I guess I need to either remove the offending headers or rewrite them to eliminate the private hosts. Thanks for any tips -- Matthew Harrell Behind every great computer sits Bit Twiddlers, Inc. a skinny little geek. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M.B. writes: > I wrote the list last week about a script I found in the archives > which will bounce email if a certain subject is found. I would > like instead to deliver this mail to an alternative email address > at the same domain. Is this a doable thing? I don't mind if > it also delivers to the original mailbox, I just need to get another > copy someplace else. |condredirect [EMAIL PROTECTED] grep "fuck" ./Maildir/ -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
This works perfectly. Thanks again for your help. Time to re-read the qmail tutorial manual. :) mike. > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> > > M.B. writes: > > I wrote the list last week about a script I found in the archives > > which will bounce email if a certain subject is found. I would > > like instead to deliver this mail to an alternative email address > > at the same domain. Is this a doable thing? I don't mind if > > it also delivers to the original mailbox, I just need to > get another > > copy someplace else. > > |condredirect [EMAIL PROTECTED] grep "fuck" > ./Maildir/ _______________________________________________ Why pay for something you could get for free? NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
is this a way to check for viruses, and bounce....like the "I Love You"? What was the way to simply bounce..? ----- Original Message ----- From: M.B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: Re: impossible to do? > This works perfectly. Thanks again for your help. > Time to re-read the qmail tutorial manual. :) > > mike. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> > > > > M.B. writes: > > > I wrote the list last week about a script I found in the archives > > > which will bounce email if a certain subject is found. I would > > > like instead to deliver this mail to an alternative email address > > > at the same domain. Is this a doable thing? I don't mind if > > > it also delivers to the original mailbox, I just need to > > get another > > > copy someplace else. > > > > |condredirect [EMAIL PROTECTED] grep "fuck" > > ./Maildir/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Why pay for something you could get for free? > NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html >
Hello I have _BIG_ spammers list in /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom file. I would like have it in CDB file becouse I think that looking for from domain in CDB file is faster than doing this same at plain text file. Any ideas, patches or something else ? Thanks for help. Tommy
Hi All, I've partly managed to setup qmail, but I find that I cannot get my client PC to check whether there is email awaiting me on the mailserver, it comes back with this error using Outlook Express when attempting to check the mailserver, any ideas what this means? The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'DWS', Server: 'dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E Many thanks, Kevin Smith
Wow... thanks for everyones help with this problem. That was certainly the exact problem and it's working well now.... :-) One last thing and this should do the trick with my setup... I need to setup qmail-smtpd and this was quoted as something I need to install, as below.. where can I get this from? Answer: Three steps. First, install tcp-wrappers, available separately, including hosts_options. Second, change your qmail-smtpd line in inetd.conf to Many thanks, Kevin Smith ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kevin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Desperate for help > Kevin Smith wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I've partly managed to setup qmail, but I find that I cannot get my client > > PC to check whether there is email awaiting me on the mailserver, it comes > > back with this error using Outlook Express when attempting to check the > > mailserver, any ideas what this means? > > > > The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'DWS', Server: > > 'dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL): No, > > Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Kevin Smith > > I am no expert here but I was able to find some SMALL info about these > error codes on M$ web site after a bit of a search. It may help towards > finding the problem. > Search for "0x800CCC0E". > > Dave. > > -- > David Ryan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.snowy.net.au > Smart Radio Systems Phone: 02 64525555 Fax: 02 64524317 > Cooma, NSW 2630, Australia > Secretary Cooma Bushfire Brigade >
Is there any solutions to set a limit on numbers of rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:/Cc:/Bcc: recipients from qmail-smtpd/qmail-queue? I have a tormentor sending out to 1000+ recipients. Makes my queue not exactly surveyable, and in my opinion both for me and for him, he strictly should use a mailinglist solution instead. I guess some limitations would speed things up.... BTW: The last round was on 1006 recipients where 14 of theme was "hanging", making my qmail-queue output on 1178 lines. regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > Is there any solutions to set a limit on numbers of rcpt to|cc|bcc and > To:/Cc:/Bcc: recipients from qmail-smtpd/qmail-queue? > I have a tormentor sending out to 1000+ recipients. Makes my queue not > exactly surveyable, and in my opinion both for me and for him, he strictly > should use a mailinglist solution instead. I guess some limitations would > speed things up.... > > BTW: The last round was on 1006 recipients where 14 of theme was "hanging", > making my qmail-queue output on 1178 lines. Hmm. Either he is allowed to use the mail server like this or he's not. If he's not, block him. If he is, then maybe your setup needs to cater for it. To answer your question directly, there is no standard qmail solution for this though there are possibly some patches on www.qmail.org. Regards.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:58:53PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > Is there any solutions to set a limit on numbers of rcpt to|cc|bcc and > > To:/Cc:/Bcc: recipients from qmail-smtpd/qmail-queue? > > I have a tormentor sending out to 1000+ recipients. Makes my queue not > > exactly surveyable, and in my opinion both for me and for him, he strictly > > should use a mailinglist solution instead. I guess some limitations would > > speed things up.... > > > > BTW: The last round was on 1006 recipients where 14 of theme was "hanging", > > making my qmail-queue output on 1178 lines. > > Hmm. Either he is allowed to use the mail server like this or he's not. > > If he's not, block him. If he is, then maybe your setup needs to cater > for it. > > To answer your question directly, there is no standard qmail solution > for this though there are possibly some patches on www.qmail.org. I forgot to add that a max recipients solution wont work if your tormentor is smart and submits multiple emails with the number of recipients just below your threshold. The net effect on your server is actually worse if he does this... Regards.
My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the users. This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct if I'm wrong. And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back that up. 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: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:00 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:58:53PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > Is there any solutions to set a limit on numbers of rcpt to|cc|bcc and > > > To:/Cc:/Bcc: recipients from qmail-smtpd/qmail-queue? > > > I have a tormentor sending out to 1000+ recipients. Makes my queue not > > > exactly surveyable, and in my opinion both for me and for him, he strictly > > > should use a mailinglist solution instead. I guess some limitations would > > > speed things up.... > > > > > > BTW: The last round was on 1006 recipients where 14 of theme was "hanging", > > > making my qmail-queue output on 1178 lines. > > > > Hmm. Either he is allowed to use the mail server like this or he's not. > > > > If he's not, block him. If he is, then maybe your setup needs to cater > > for it. > > > > To answer your question directly, there is no standard qmail solution > > for this though there are possibly some patches on www.qmail.org. > > I forgot to add that a max recipients solution wont work if your > tormentor is smart and submits multiple emails with the number of > recipients just below your threshold. The net effect on your server > is actually worse if he does this... > > > Regards. >
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:40:06AM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. > > The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly > will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic > to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more > correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the > users. > > This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail > with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this > number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct > if I'm wrong. It's your service, you define it. For some, 1000 is fine, for others 10 may be unacceptable. > And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's > deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't > belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back > that up. And what hardware/software do you propose to use to back up the policy that says he can't make multiple submissions? One solution that generally covers it is to charge them for the number of recipients or the total bytes sent or whatever. Naturally self regulating then. You can generate billing information for the mail logs. Regards.
BTW: "Michael Samuel has a patch that limits the number of RCPT TO: commands per message via SMTP" on www.qmail.org is a dead end. Anyone that have this "lying around" ? Anyone have any experience with Chris Johnson's tarpitting patch for qmail-smtpd? Seems like a neat idea. -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
> > This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail > > with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this > > number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct > > if I'm wrong. > > It's your service, you define it. For some, 1000 is fine, for others 10 > may be unacceptable. I agree. > > And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's > > deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't > > belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back > > that up. > > And what hardware/software do you propose to use to back up the > policy that says he can't make multiple submissions? That is what I'm looking for now. In this case software limitations is the solution. The tarpitting idea from Chris Johnson on www.qmail.org is so far the best choice, it seems. > One solution that generally covers it is to charge them for the > number of recipients or the total bytes sent or whatever. Naturally > self regulating then. You can generate billing information for the > mail logs. Not a solution for us. We have other mailservers handling large (1000+ rcpt) distribution of mail, both with ezmlm and majordomo. The bandwith is not the issue here, but the mailserver is. No doubt that this mailserver can handle his and others 1000+ rcpt, but my personal opinion is that this belongs on a mailing list. The recipients is customers of him/his company. It's the same recipients every week. Those two sentence together gives me: mailing list service. regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 00:40:06 +0200 > My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. > > The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly > will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic > to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more > correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the > users. > > This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail > with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this > number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct > if I'm wrong. > > And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's > deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't > belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back > that up. If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more thoroughly. -- 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]
Another couple of ideas; 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you hosting him and has a constant ip address? 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his connection to a slower mail service! 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for investigation in iether situation! 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as to the best course of action... Slider Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 00:40:06 +0200 > My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. > > The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly > will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic > to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more > correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the > users. > > This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail > with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this > number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct > if I'm wrong. > > And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's > deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't > belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back > that up. If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more thoroughly. -- 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]
> 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you > hosting him and has a constant ip address? He's one of our dialup customers (random ip) > 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his > connection to a slower mail service! > 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for > investigation in iether situation! I don't want to scare the customer away, but I want him over on our mailing list service. The customer is a company, and our relationship to this customer is very good except for the huge mailing from them once a week and sometimes more. There is no performance problems on this server, but I just like a clean mail queue. With huge recipients from a clients addressbook, there is always some bounce candidates keeping the whole recipientslist in the queue. The mails going out is product information/advertising to their customers/contacts. In other words low priority mails that can use the time it takes on a mailing list server to process. Our international bandwith is a E3 line and domestic it's 100mbps, and the mails is mainly domestic. I'm just tired of having this huge list of recipients hanging in the queue until all mails are delivered or bounced. This server is our main mailhub, and I think of our other customers when I want to move obvious hunks of mail to where they belong. It takes time to deliver mails to 1000+, making the other users mail wait on their turn. Just don't see the point to let this customer use the main mail hub, when we have dedicated servers for this. My customers are spoilt with instant delivery of their 1/2/3/4 mails, and I intend to keep it this way :-) > 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with > > "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto > send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" > (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) And of course patch qmail-smtpd.c with the tarpit-path ;-) > 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected > at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering > the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client > and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! > > Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY > starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being > that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as > to the best course of action... Have patched my home mailserver with this patch, and will try it out here first. Have'nt got any feedback on my question about experience with this patch installed. Looks good so far. -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Slider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:57 AM Subject: RE: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > > Another couple of ideas; > > 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you > hosting him and has a constant ip address? > 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his > connection to a slower mail service! > 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for > investigation in iether situation! > 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with > > "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto > send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" > (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) > > 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected > at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering > the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client > and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! > > Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY > starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being > that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as > to the best course of action... > > Slider > > > > Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 00:40:06 > +0200 > > My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our > mailserver. > > > > The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most > likly > > will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit > drastic > > to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more > > correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all > the > > users. > > > > This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a > mail > > with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this > > number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please > correct > > if I'm wrong. > > > > And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's > > deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't > > belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to > back > > that up. > > If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use > with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that > setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you > implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) > mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more > thoroughly. > -- > 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] > > >
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:24 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use > with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that > setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you > implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) > mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more > thoroughly. Well, on a mailing list server where 1000+ mails is going out you will occupy all remote resources (?) and keep the server bussy for a while. But on a dedicated mailinglist server you don't have (well, at least not me) single users sending out one mail at the time. My opinion is that candidates for mailing list is low priority mail, and single users sending mail is high priority (understand me right here, I want alle the mail delivered a.s.a.p). Sending a mail to the qmail list, I know that it will arrive. Sometimes it takes seconds, and othertimes it comes through after a while. Sending a mail to my co-workers or one of my customers that I'm on the phone with, I expect it delivered a second ago ;-) regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 11:49:56PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > Well, on a mailing list server where 1000+ mails is going out you will > occupy all remote resources (?) and keep the server bussy for a while. But > on a dedicated mailinglist server you don't have (well, at least not me) > single users sending out one mail at the time. My opinion is that candidates > for mailing list is low priority mail, and single users sending mail is high > priority (understand me right here, I want alle the mail delivered a.s.a.p). I'm getting the impression that you use separate hardware or queues for your mailing list server and non-mailing list mail server. Why not tell the customer to send his 1000+ recipient message to the mailing list server? Won't that solve your problem? John
----- Original Message ----- From: "John White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "qmail mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:28 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > I'm getting the impression that you use separate hardware or queues > for your mailing list server and non-mailing list mail server. Thats correct. > Why not tell the customer to send his 1000+ recipient message to > the mailing list server? Won't that solve your problem? Well, I do want him to send regular mails through the mail hub of support reason, and use the mailing list service for his "bulk" mails. It seems things goes the way I/we want, using the tarpit patch. He has been warned that it's time to pull out his finger from where ever it's stuck, and move over to the mailing list server. Majordomo or ezmlm, that is what he kan choose from. regards -- -------------------------------------------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 10:45:06PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote: > The connection to the server has failed. Account: 'DWS', Server: > 'dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net', Protocol: POP3, Port: 110, Secure(SSL): No, > Socket Error: 10061, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E Are you running a pop3 daemon listening on port 110 (of the box with qmail) ? Read the FAQ (Section 5.3) for info on installing qmail-pop3d. -- Darren Wyn Rees [EMAIL PROTECTED] ASK your ISP to add the NEW england.* Newsgroups http://www.england.news-admin.org/accessfaq.html
I hope no one has done anything with that patch I sent out last night. It works, but it is against an old version of rblsmtpd, and it conflicts with an option in the newer one. http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/rblsmtpd-rss/ now has patches for both rblsmtpd-0.70 and ucpsi-tcp-0.88, supporting the following syntax: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver-qmail -pR -c50 -u70 -g70 -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 \ smtp /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -b \ -r "relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see <http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?%IP%>" \ /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -b /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 2 & If the -r options contains a colon, everything before the colon is taken as a DNSBL zone _without_ TXT records, and the stuff after the colon is used as the error message. This seems clean enough to me since domain names can't have colons in them, and it doesn't conflict with having multiple -r's, which ucspi-tcp-0.88 allows. And this, unless someone complains, will be my final attempt :)
I'm a little confused what this patch is for? Did something change with mail-abuse.org? Did this affect just relays.mail-abuse.org or the RBL list too? Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RSS vs. rblsmtpd second try I hope no one has done anything with that patch I sent out last night. It works, but it is against an old version of rblsmtpd, and it conflicts with an option in the newer one. http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/rblsmtpd-rss/ now has patches for both rblsmtpd-0.70 and ucpsi-tcp-0.88, supporting the following syntax: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver-qmail -pR -c50 -u70 -g70 -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 \ smtp /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -b \ -r "relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see <http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?%IP%>" \ /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -b /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 2 & If the -r options contains a colon, everything before the colon is taken as a DNSBL zone _without_ TXT records, and the stuff after the colon is used as the error message. This seems clean enough to me since domain names can't have colons in them, and it doesn't conflict with having multiple -r's, which ucspi-tcp-0.88 allows. And this, unless someone complains, will be my final attempt :)
Hubbard, David writes: > I'm a little confused what this patch is for? Did something > change with mail-abuse.org? Did this affect just relays.mail-abuse.org > or the RBL list too? Just relays.mail-abuse.org. It's a huge zone. They're trying to make it smaller by eliminating the "redundant" TXT records. I can see why they're doing it, but the TXT records are awfully useful. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
I've got a client site down right now because: 1. I installed vpopmail into their functioning qmail system; 2. I stupidly set up a virtual domain with the *same* name as their primary domain; 3. I immediately deleted the virtual domain; 4. But everthing sent to the domain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) bounces, with a qmail-send error message saying the domain "is not in controls/locals". I've checked the locals file and it's got the following entries: localhost mail.nethan.com nethan.com The rcpthosts file has the same entries. Our backup server is picking up the inbound mail but I need to fix this ASAP and am stumped. Thanks, Barry Dwyer
Problem solved with a reboot. Nothing helpful in the logs: the alert log showed line after line after line of "can't start - qmail-send already running" (or something to that effect), starting long before the vpopmail install this afternoon. Odd, given that if I did a 'qmail stop', qmail-stat showed all three (send, smtp and pop3) down. A subsequent 'qmail start', followed by a 'stat' showed all new pids. I ran ./configure, then had someone at the site reboot the mail server. It works. One of life's mysteries. Barry
> I ran ./configure, then had someone at the site reboot the mail server. > It works. = If you ran a ./config you might want to re-check your /control/locals and /control/rcpthosts. I did that the other day and it removed the information I had in it. HTH, tonyC
I had to manually edit the locals and rcpthosts file to add the line "nethan.com" b/c ./configure only had "mail.nethan.com". Tony Campisi wrote: > > I ran ./configure, then had someone at the site reboot the mail server. > > It works. > = > If you ran a ./config you might want to re-check your /control/locals and > /control/rcpthosts. I did that the other day and it removed the information > I had in it. > > HTH, > tonyC
Hi All, I have qmail v1.03, vpopmail, tcpserver, and qmailadmin installed at my site...question I have is: assume that www.someplace.com brings up a web page assume that www.someplace.com is in our Class C assume that mail.someplace.com has a priority of 10 assume also that mail.someplace.com points to the IP of my linux box which has qmail installed on it...am I correct that by using vadddomain program I can process pop3 mail for this domain, and also if memory serves, some files in /var/qmail/control need to be modified as well? Last question...ORA qmail book...how soon guys, and will it contain information about vpopmail, tcpserver, etc? -Bill
At 04:15 PM 8/9/00 -0700, Bill Parker wrote: > assume also that mail.someplace.com points to the >IP of my linux box which has qmail installed on it...am >I correct that by using vadddomain program I can process pop3 >mail for this domain, and also if memory serves, some files >in /var/qmail/control need to be modified as well? Just use ./vadddomain some.domain.com it will automaticcaly update your rcpthosts, virtualdomains and users at /var/qmail/control > Last question...ORA qmail book...how soon guys, and >will it contain information about vpopmail, tcpserver, etc? > >-Bill
Hi All, Have I got this correct, if I put the following line in a file called qmail-tcpserver in the directory /etc/init.d when the server is rebooted, this should be automatically restarted? I've check the -u and -g flags for the user qmaild and they are correct and the tcp.smtp is setup correctly to... if I run it at the command line manually it works fine... ish... accept I cannot relay messages. /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 112 -g 104 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & The contents of tcp.smtp.cdb before I tcprules it is : 24.26.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 212.159.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 216.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 206.154.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 195.8.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow My host is 212.159 and I can't relay... :-( And if I put this into /etc/inetd.conf tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net \ /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & And put this into qmailq in the directory /etc/init.d exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail & All this should start at boot time right? Or, have I missed something?? All this is running under Solaris v2.6 Many thanks, Kevin
OK, you are obviously a little new to this... > Have I got this correct, if I put the following line in a file called > qmail-tcpserver in the directory /etc/init.d when the server is rebooted, > this should be automatically restarted? You virtually asked this question twice so I will answer it once...Check your OS documentation. If you're running Solaris, then I'd damn well make sure that you know how to put things into startup scripts! Also, read the info on using tcpserver either in Life With qmail or on www.qmail.org. Use of qmail with inetd is no longer encouraged, use tcpserver instead. > My host is 212.159 and I can't relay... :-( That is because the config file should be tcp.smtp, not tcp.smtp.cdb. tcp.smtp.cdb is a binary version of tcp.smtp, and must be converted via (with the correct paths, of course): /usr/local/bin/tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp each time you change /etc/tcp.smtp. Regards Brett Randall Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/
I have setup the following file tcp.smtp.cdb which after I tcprules it I then run the command : tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 112 -g 104 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & tcp.smtp contains the following : 24.26.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 212.159.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 216.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 206.154.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 195.8.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow The only problem is, it does not work, I have the exact same configuration on another mailserver, however, I did not install that one, which might explain why this one does not work... ;-) My IP always begins with 212.159. but even I could relay an email... I just get the error : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 195.224.150.194 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 Relaying is prohibited Giving up on 195.224.150.194. I also have run the following from the command line manually : exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail & tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net \ /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & Any ideas? Regards, Kevin Smith
Hello All: I'm trying to set up qmail-pop3d to pick up mail from the Maildir directories of users that I've defined on the local qmail host. For example, I've defined a user, Jim.Morley. When I send test msgs to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", the Qmail Mailer- Daemon returns "Sorry, no mailbox here by that name." I know that the chkpassword function of qmail-pop3d is working because I can authenticate and check the always empty contents of /home/Jim.Morley/Maildir. The test msgs never make their way to /home/Jim.Morley/Maildir. I have religiously perused available documentation but have foolishly missed some important element or two. The pop3d log msgs don't help much. They indicate lots of pop3d activity but don't tell me why test msgs never make it to Maildirs of my test users. Do the test users need to be defined under /control/users/assign in order to have this work? None of them are listed there, but the FAQ I used for setting up pop3d didn't mention this? Thanks for any help. My /var/service/pop3d/run, /var/service/qmail/run config files and the results of "ps ax |grep qmail" are attached. **************The contents of /var/service/pop3d/run: #!/bin/sh service=pop3d . /usr/lib/qmail/run-functions uid="0" gid="`id -g qmaild`" hostname="`hostname`" readdefault concurrency concurrencypop3d 20 readdefault checkpass checkpassword checkpassword do_ulimits exec tcpserver -u "$uid" -g "$gid" -c "$concurrency" -v -R -X \ -x /etc/tcpcontrol/pop-3.cdb 0 pop-3 \ qmail-popup "$hostname" \ $checkpass \ qmail-pop3d Maildir ***************/var/service/qmail/run contents #!/bin/sh . /usr/lib/qmail/run-functions readdefault aliasempty aliasempty ./Mailbox make-owners /var/qmail exec qmail-start "$aliasempty" *****************Results of "ps ax |grep qmail" command [root@netgate qmail]# ps ax |grep qmail 400 ? S 0:00 supervise qmail 820 ? S 0:00 splogger qmail 832 ? S 0:00 qmail-send 884 ? S 0:00 qmail-lspawn |dot-forward .forward?./Maildir/ 885 ? S 0:00 qmail-rspawn 886 ? S 0:00 qmail-clean 1007 ? S 0:01 qmail-remote Ka.scseng.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1452 1628 pts/0 S 0:00 grep qmail *************************End of Config info I Jerry R. Keene Senior Systems Analyst SCS ENGINEERS Partners With EPA Through The Landfill Methane Outreach Program Phone: 703.471.6150 Fax: 703.471.6676 http://www.scsengineers.com ------- End of forwarded message ------- Jerry R. Keene Senior Systems Analyst SCS ENGINEERS Partners With EPA Through The Landfill Methane Outreach Program Phone: 703.471.6150 Fax: 703.471.6676 http://www.scsengineers.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >For example, I've defined a user, Jim.Morley. When I send test >msgs to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", the Qmail Mailer- >Daemon returns "Sorry, no mailbox here by that name." qmail doesn't deliver mail to users whose usernames contain uppercase letters. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#uppercase-usernames -Dave
Dave: Thanks for the heads up on qmail's upper case user "gotcha". I stopped getting the "no mailbox here by that name" msgs when I adhered to lower case users. Still no success however, but logs did shed a bit of light. Delivery errors for my tests have changed from "no mailbox here by that name" to "delvery deferred:_dot-forward:_command_not_found". Is the "dot-forward" a package that I've failed to install, or is my config in need of a tweak?" Hopefully I'm getting closer? //jrkeene > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >For example, I've defined a user, Jim.Morley. When I send test msgs > >to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", the Qmail Mailer- Daemon returns > >"Sorry, no mailbox here by that name." > > qmail doesn't deliver mail to users whose usernames contain uppercase > letters. See: > > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#uppercase-usernames > > -Dave Jerry R. Keene Senior Systems Analyst SCS ENGINEERS Partners With EPA Through The Landfill Methane Outreach Program Phone: 703.471.6150 Fax: 703.471.6676 http://www.scsengineers.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Still no success however, but logs did shed a bit of light. Delivery >errors for my tests have changed from "no mailbox here by that >name" to "delvery deferred:_dot-forward:_command_not_found". > >Is the "dot-forward" a package that I've failed to install, or is my >config in need of a tweak?" dot-forward is a separate package that implements Sendmail .forward file compatibility. It's usually configured into qmail via the defaultdelivery specification in the qmail-start command line (e.g., in /var/qmail/rc). If you need .forward compatibility, install dot-forward (available from DJB's web/ftp server). If you don't need it, change the qmail-start command line to specify ./Mailbox or ./Maildir/ and restart qmail. See also: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#dot-forward >Hopefully I'm getting closer? Yep. -Dave
Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 10:35:18 -0700 > Odd that this issue has been so quiet. Are there really so few people > using rblsmtpd? Nothing to say. I need to apply the patch and update my config lines, but haven't yet. -- 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]
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:55:57PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: > I've been reading more of the archives about this > rblsmtpd issue lately and I think what has happened > is that the relays.mail-abuse.org DNS no longer > has the TXT entries in it that rblsmtpd looks for. > Did this spam that got through your server come > from a host in the open-relays database or the > maps? Does anyone know if the other services, > not relays.mail-abuse.org, have made the same change > or are going to? If they did, it would prevent > rblsmtpd from working with them too correct? Do you > think DJB would make a new rblsmtpd release to make it > work with these new no-TXT maps DNS servers? > > Thanks, > > Dave Correct. I did some research too (should have before posting :-/). rblsmtpd works by rejecting connections from servers with TXT records at the various "RBLs." On Aug 8th, RSS stopped using TXT records entirely. All along there has also been an A record for each listed address, so you can still use that, and in fact, rblcheck uses the A records for its check. I applied the patch at http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/rblsmtpd-rss/ posted by pacman Aug 9th I believe. This patch allows you to tell rblsmtpd to use A records for certain RBLs. It seems to be working just fine. Odd that this issue has been so quiet. Are there really so few people using rblsmtpd? jon
I've been reading more of the archives about this rblsmtpd issue lately and I think what has happened is that the relays.mail-abuse.org DNS no longer has the TXT entries in it that rblsmtpd looks for. Did this spam that got through your server come from a host in the open-relays database or the maps? Does anyone know if the other services, not relays.mail-abuse.org, have made the same change or are going to? If they did, it would prevent rblsmtpd from working with them too correct? Do you think DJB would make a new rblsmtpd release to make it work with these new no-TXT maps DNS servers? Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jon Rust To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 8/10/00 12:33 PM Subject: rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org While checking out a spam I received this morning I noticed that rblcheck finds it in the RSS. Hrmf. I run rblsmtpd so I'm not clear on how it got through: <snip> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -t10\ -r rbl.maps.vix.com \ -r dul.maps.vix.com \ -r relays.mail-abuse.org <snip> According to the RSS it was added yesterday at 1700 PDT. The address is 133.5.173.200 if you want to test for yourself. I vaguely remember someone mentioning a patch for rblsmtpd, but not a whole lot of discussion on why it's not working anymore. Anyone got the low-down? Anyone tried the patch? Thanks, jon
While checking out a spam I received this morning I noticed that rblcheck finds it in the RSS. Hrmf. I run rblsmtpd so I'm not clear on how it got through: <snip> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -t10\ -r rbl.maps.vix.com \ -r dul.maps.vix.com \ -r relays.mail-abuse.org <snip> According to the RSS it was added yesterday at 1700 PDT. The address is 133.5.173.200 if you want to test for yourself. I vaguely remember someone mentioning a patch for rblsmtpd, but not a whole lot of discussion on why it's not working anymore. Anyone got the low-down? Anyone tried the patch? Thanks, jon
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:33:22AM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: > <snip> /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -t10\ > -r rbl.maps.vix.com \ > -r dul.maps.vix.com \ > -r relays.mail-abuse.org <snip> It seems to me that rblsmtpd can only take one "-r" at a time, as I have version 0.70 that may be a bit old. But they can be ordered in a row, as in rblsmtpd -r rbl.maps.vix.com \ rblsmtpd -r dul.maps.vix.com \ rblsmtpd -r relays.mail-abuse.org ... That seems to be fixed with the version of rblsmtpd in ucspi-tcp 0.86 Greetings -- Robert Sander Epigenomics AG www.epigenomics.de Kastanienallee 24 +493024345330 10435 Berlin
A user on my system is subscribed to a large volume mailing list. When mail is sent to the user on my system, it never gets delivered because qmail bounces it due to an error 553, the server is not in my list of rcpthosts. I previously passed this off as being a problem on the other end, but it has been explained to me that large volumes of e-mails are distributed as follows: 1. Mail list server has 500 identical e-mails to send. 2. It gives that list of addresses to the mailserver, along with the e-mail message. 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. This system, in the overall scheme of things, is designed to reduce traffic across the internet, because if your network happens to hose 3 of the domains onteh list, it's able to take a lot of traffic off the internet and send it internally instead. Also, with mail going out of the country, one Australian server would end up relaying to other .au hosts, saving taffic over global pipelines. Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? -Eric
on 8/10/00 2:31 PM, Michael T. Babcock at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What you're describing, if it is indeed happening, sounds more like an > unintentional result of open relays and strange mailing list server logic. > > To justify my opinion; how could this reduce Internet traffic unless the > mailing list server chose E-mails _purposely_ (not just "20 or so") for a > given mail server that had other servers "behind it" on the Internet? If > they were just out on the public Internet and the server receiving this set > of addresses were just another mail server, it would relay the messages, > yes, but at no bandwidth savings over the original MDA simply sending it > directly to the resulting host. My thoughts exactly. For all this other admin knows, my .com could actually be hosted on a machine in another country therefore rendering his theory useless. AFAIK, there is no rhyme or reason to how mail is divided up and sent/relayed through other servers from this sendmail system. Even so, I'm not sure I would want to rely on other people's systems to deliver important mailing list messages from a list I would host. -Eric
on 8/10/00 2:25 PM, David Dyer-Bennet at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> qmail denies it because it denies all relaying that's not expressly >> permitted. The scheme you describe is vulnerable to spamming simply by >> including a local address at the beginning of the list of recipients. > > The interesting thing about this scheme, I think, is that servers that > supported it might not test as open to ORBS / RSS. Maybe that's why > somebody is trying to push the idea? This particular server passes all 18 tests on abuse.net (or however many there actually are). The server is a Redhat linux server running sendmail with listar. I still agree that it is a bizarre theory, but why does qmail deny the delivery of mail from this server to the legit user on my system? -Eric
What you're describing, if it is indeed happening, sounds more like an unintentional result of open relays and strange mailing list server logic. To justify my opinion; how could this reduce Internet traffic unless the mailing list server chose E-mails _purposely_ (not just "20 or so") for a given mail server that had other servers "behind it" on the Internet? If they were just out on the public Internet and the server receiving this set of addresses were just another mail server, it would relay the messages, yes, but at no bandwidth savings over the original MDA simply sending it directly to the resulting host. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 1. Mail list server has 500 identical e-mails to send. > 2. It gives that list of addresses to the mailserver, along with the e-mail > message. > 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's > an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). > Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. > 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid > receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then > relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over.
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The interesting thing about this scheme, I think, is that servers that >supported it might not test as open to ORBS / RSS. Maybe that's why >somebody is trying to push the idea? Perhaps, but, of course, if the idea catches on, spammers will catch onto it, too. Then ORBS/RSS/whatever will start testing for it. -Dave
Eric Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's >an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). >Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. > >4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid >receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then >relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. Fascinating... And there are MTA's that support this scheme? >Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow >this type of relaying. Why? qmail denies it because it denies all relaying that's not expressly permitted. The scheme you describe is vulnerable to spamming simply by including a local address at the beginning of the list of recipients. -Dave
Eric Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 14:17:11 -0500 > This system, in the overall scheme of things, is designed to reduce traffic > across the internet, because if your network happens to hose 3 of the > domains onteh list, it's able to take a lot of traffic off the internet and > send it internally instead. Also, with mail going out of the country, one > Australian server would end up relaying to other .au hosts, saving taffic > over global pipelines. > > Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow > this type of relaying. Why? I've never heard of this type of relaying before, and all the normal anti-relaying precautions I'm familiar with will block it. I subscribe to mailing lists from egroups and topica and I think one other big service, and none of them do this, or I'd be rejecting the mail myself. I think the explanation you're getting is bogus. -- 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]
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 15:23:23 -0400 > Eric Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's > >an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). > >Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. > > > >4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid > >receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then > >relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. > > Fascinating... And there are MTA's that support this scheme? > > >Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow > >this type of relaying. Why? > > qmail denies it because it denies all relaying that's not expressly > permitted. The scheme you describe is vulnerable to spamming simply by > including a local address at the beginning of the list of recipients. The interesting thing about this scheme, I think, is that servers that supported it might not test as open to ORBS / RSS. Maybe that's why somebody is trying to push the idea? -- 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]
Eric Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I still agree that it is a bizarre theory, but why does qmail deny the >delivery of mail from this server to the legit user on my system? What evidence do you have that it does? I just did a quick test: $ telnet 0 25 Trying 0.0.0.0... Connected to 0. Escape character is '^]'. 220 sws5.ctd.ornl.gov ORNL/WS ESMTP mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) data 354 go ahead testing... . 250 ok 965937482 qp 723103 quit And I got the message. -Dave
Apparently, I was mistaken. As far as the user knows, he was still receiving mail while the error messages were received on the mailserver of the mailing list. But he doesn't know for sure as the admin removed him from the mailing list because of the "problems on my end." This appears to be a feature in sendmail, but where can I look to specifically find which method is correct? -Eric on 8/10/00 3:07 PM, Dave Sill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Eric Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I still agree that it is a bizarre theory, but why does qmail deny the >> delivery of mail from this server to the legit user on my system? > > What evidence do you have that it does? I just did a quick test: > > $ telnet 0 25 > Trying 0.0.0.0... > Connected to 0. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 sws5.ctd.ornl.gov ORNL/WS ESMTP > mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 250 ok > rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 250 ok > rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) > data > 354 go ahead > testing... > . > 250 ok 965937482 qp 723103 > quit > > And I got the message. > > -Dave >
> 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, > says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). > Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. I've never seen I mailing list do this, it not only sounds stupid - it is stupid. > 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. > if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then > relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. I've never ever seen this behaviour on a relay protected server, this is in any cirumstance a relay security problem ... > This system, in the overall scheme of things, > is designed to reduce traffic across the internet, > because if your network happens to hose 3 of the domains onteh list, > it's able to take a lot of traffic off the internet and send it internally instead. > Also, with mail going out of the country, > one Australian server would end up relaying to other .au hosts, > saving taffic over global pipelines. BULL, there is NO WAY the mailinglist server KNOWS where mail is hosted, insted of saving bandwith it will waste RANDOM bandwith around the Internet. There is also NO WAY the mailinglist server knows the queue-status of all the other servers it would use for "delivery", or their bandwith capabilities or other neceserry resurcses it might need/use. Worst case a mailinglist server in US send all .au mail to a server in chile who is hosting a .au domain for one of it's customers, causing all E-mail to be sent over several slow lines before being split up and sendt back over the same lines and over to australia. This server might even be on a 64kbps line and mail might be delay for several hours if the lines are congested allready, or if the server has several large outgoing mails in it's queue. The only one saving bandwidth is the abusive mailinglist server, who is "living off" all others on the Internet without their permission. > Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because > it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? WHAT! Your server is correctly denying this server from unautherized relaying, the fact that the server is wronly sending you recipients at the cost of your CPU and BANDWITH (at least this is what it hopes to do). should make you wanna kick their butts. MVH Andr� Paulsberg
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Eric Long wrote: > 1. Mail list server has 500 identical e-mails to send. > > 2. It gives that list of addresses to the mailserver, along with the e-mail > message. > > 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's > an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). > Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. > > 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid > receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then > relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. So.... In step 3, you say "20 or so." What limits that to 20? Volunteerism? What stops me from relaying my entire 50K subscriber mailing list off of your server, as long as you have -one- subscriber to the list? John
This should be relatively easy with something like vpopmail/qmailadmin. www.inter7.com just have forwards instead of real addresses, even a (fairly) simple web based admin for you or the site. -- Tim -----Original Message----- From: Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Redirect query I am hoping to use qmail a a redirection and POP3 mailbox service. I work for an internet company which serves mail to the employees on an internal network and redirects for the customers, eg.: *@customerscompany.com redirects to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We currently achieve this using other operating systems. However I am attracted to linux and qmail for stability. Firstly, could anybody tell me if this is possible using qmail under RH 6.2 and secondly how to configure qmail mail to do this. Thanks very much, Adam
Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Firstly, could anybody tell me if this is possible using qmail under RH 6.2 >and secondly how to configure qmail mail to do this. Dan's fastforward package will do this via /etc/aliases. See: ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/fastforward.html -Dave
I am hoping to use qmail a a redirection and POP3 mailbox service. I work for an internet company which serves mail to the employees on an internal network and redirects for the customers, eg.: *@customerscompany.com redirects to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We currently achieve this using other operating systems. However I am attracted to linux and qmail for stability. Firstly, could anybody tell me if this is possible using qmail under RH 6.2 and secondly how to configure qmail mail to do this. Thanks very much, Adam
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 09:43:09 -0400 > Say you're having a problem with qmail, and you want to request help > from some people who might be able to help, and--at the same time--you > want to annoy the hell out of them. Here are a few tips: Thanks, Dave, for this useful guide. Almost as clear as Life with Qmail! I see I've been doing it all wrong, and I'll strive to do better in future. -- 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]
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:29:10AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > > There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most > > effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next > > to your screen. > > It says my print error occurred. How to fix? Ask Dave to print it and send it by snail mail. Why fix a problem if it can be used to annoy others? Regards, Uwe
Say you're having a problem with qmail, and you want to request help from some people who might be able to help, and--at the same time--you want to annoy the hell out of them. Here are a few tips: 1) Post the message multiple times. To be even more annoying, change the subject each time--or even the body. Slight rewordings and small additions are especially effective. Be sure not to mention the previous "editions" of your request. 2) Describe your problem in the most general terms possible. Something like: "My qmail doesn't work. Why?" is a good start. If somebody else just asked that question, that's even better! (See #3) Under no circumstances should you include detailed error messages, message headers, log entries, qmail-showctl output, etc. OK, there's one exception to this rule: see #4. 3) Ask a FAQ. This is not as effective as the previous two techniques because most old timers automatically ignore FAQs. 4) If you do post details, be sure to alter them! Change domain names, usernames, and UID's to something else. Try not to be obvious. Use your imagination! Have fun. And, of course, don't mention these little alterations. 5) Whine, insult, and/or threaten to use Sendmail instead of qmail. Don't let the fact that these people are providing free tech support get in the way. There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next to your screen. -Dave
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote: > There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most > effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next > to your screen. It says my print error occurred. How to fix? Scott
Hi, I noticed that the load on my qmail server was running higher than I expected to, although I don't know should be normal for a qmail mail server. Perhaps someone here can tell me if this is normal, or if I should look at fixing something? I haven't yet applied the Russ Nelson's big-todo patch, would it clean up some of this stuff? I've got qmail 1.03, vpopmail 4.8.2 (yup, I should upgrade) and qmailadmin 0.34 running on a RedHat 6.2 system using tcpserver (not inetd). There are only around 30 virtual domains on this server, and it only allows relaying for our office mail, our virtual domains are not sending through this server at all. I have read the Life with qmail document, although it's entirely possible I missed the page that tells me the answer. ===TOP OUTPUT=== 45 processes: 42 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 55.9% user, 16.7% system, 0.0% nice, 27.2% idle Mem: 127952K av, 124660K used, 3292K free, 4016K shrd, 55848K buff Swap: 265032K av, 4732K used, 260300K free 32496K cached PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 16756 vpopmail 12 0 22436 21M 280 S 0 59.9 17.5 0:03 qmail-inject 16757 qmailq 9 0 328 328 260 R 0 5.7 0.2 0:00 qmail-queue 16753 vpopmail 0 0 500 500 376 S 0 0.5 0.3 0:00 vdelivermail 16677 root 1 0 1024 1024 824 R 0 0.3 0.8 0:00 top 14791 root 0 0 576 176 112 R 0 0.1 0.1 0:00 sshd 16754 vpopmail 0 0 756 756 628 S 0 0.1 0.5 0:00 sh 1 root 0 0 108 52 44 S 0 0.0 0.0 0:04 init ===SNIP=== Thanks for any help. Ross Lawrie
This was brought up yesterday and I know what to do next time. I am one of the people that forcibly removed a message from the queue without properly stopping qmail. When I run Russ' qsanity it tells me: message has no entry in info: 256004 message is neither local nor remote: 256004 message has no entry in info: 256015 message has no entry in mess: 256015 .. My logs are showing these quite regularly. 2000-08-10 09:29:45.582458500 warning: trouble opening local/0/256013; will try again later 2000-08-10 09:30:20.752585500 warning: trouble opening info/2/256015; will try again later 2000-08-10 09:30:42.762486500 warning: trouble opening remote/12/256002; wi ll try again later My question. Will these messages, which aren't really there, be bounced to me eventually? If queue-fix-1.4 will fix this, I will run it tonight. *OR* my question before I read the "How to annoy People" My gear be broken. What now? :) Thanks, tonyC
First time I've used a newsgroup - not too sure of etiquette apologies in advance I am transferring in dns to our dns/mailserver from our ISP. Over the next few weeks I shall be transferring in the mail accounts as well - but in the mean time I am pointing the MX record to remote mail exchangers - in fact some mail accounts will remain on remote hosts of our clients' choosing. When I try and send mail from a local user [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED], qmail seems to insist on trying to send things locally even if DNS has a remote MX record. That's fine for the mail accounts that we have built locally - but not much good for the remainder. There is no entry in /var/qmail/control/locals and I have checked/removed entries in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains and passwd files. What is it that is telling send-mail to ignore DNS and try locally? If I remove dns entries completely - all is well - but that's not an option if we have to host dns but not mail! Thanks anyone/everyone
Great stuff - I needed to comment out entries in control/virtualdomains and control/rcpthosts ..... AND do the HUP. I'd have more hair left if I'd joined the newsgroup yesterday. Many thanks Petr Novotny wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10 Aug 00, at 13:41, Keith Edwards wrote: > > > What is it that is telling send-mail to ignore DNS and try locally? > > control/locals and control/virtualdomains. qmail _fist_ decides if it's > local or remote and _then_ checks DNS. > > Have you HUPped qmail-send after editing control/locals? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 > Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > > iQA/AwUBOZKWaFMwP8g7qbw/EQKrwQCeMRKGj5i10V5AmZUdPBBe3KF/gJMAnjzN > VoIEwnZE7UqWBlOsPZjikmmn > =I9rR > -----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]
what entries are there in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts? Or more precisely is test.co.uk in the rcpthosts file? First time I've used a newsgroup - not too sure of etiquette apologies in advance I am transferring in dns to our dns/mailserver from our ISP. Over the next few weeks I shall be transferring in the mail accounts as well - but in the mean time I am pointing the MX record to remote mail exchangers - in fact some mail accounts will remain on remote hosts of our clients' choosing. When I try and send mail from a local user [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED], qmail seems to insist on trying to send things locally even if DNS has a remote MX record. That's fine for the mail accounts that we have built locally - but not much good for the remainder. There is no entry in /var/qmail/control/locals and I have checked/removed entries in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains and passwd files. What is it that is telling send-mail to ignore DNS and try locally? If I remove dns entries completely - all is well - but that's not an option if we have to host dns but not mail! Thanks anyone/everyone
hi, i like it. and i am going to use it... ;) a > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean C Truman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:18 PM > To: Nagy Bal�zs > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. > > > Revised: Thanks > > Sean > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nagy Bal�zs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Sean C Truman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. > > > > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Sean C Truman wrote: > > > > > Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. > > > > Could you pull up that q to the top? It looks a bit funny with that > inverse > > thing. Nothing informal at the bottom and the same is true at the > left > > upper corner. > > -- > > Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon > >
pbqmail.JPG
Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Sean ----- Original Message ----- From: Henrik �hman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. > But you've got it wrong. It should be a small q in qmail. I think you > should redo it > before you advertise it further, and I think the majority of the qmail > community > agrees with me. :) > > Henrik. > > At 10:49 AM 8/10/00 -0400, you wrote: > >Hey all, > > > > I created a cool little powered by qmail logo in B/W so it should > > match just about any page. > > > > > >Cheers > >Sean Truman > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://www.prodigysolutions.com/
pbqmail2.JPG
Revised: Thanks Sean ----- Original Message ----- From: Nagy Bal�zs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sean C Truman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. > On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Sean C Truman wrote: > > > Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. > > Could you pull up that q to the top? It looks a bit funny with that inverse > thing. Nothing informal at the bottom and the same is true at the left > upper corner. > -- > Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon
pbqmail3.JPG
You still have the logo with big Q letter @ http://www.prodigysolutions.com/ maybe u forgot it ? :) mgm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean C Truman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Henrik �hman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. > Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. > > Sean
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Sean C Truman wrote: > Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Could you pull up that q to the top? It looks a bit funny with that inverse thing. Nothing informal at the bottom and the same is true at the left upper corner. -- Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon
Heh. tis a nice logo but indeed, should be a small q. Whatever happened to the qmail shirt idea? Last I knew most people agreed "don't queue mail with sendmail; send mail with qmail" was the slogan of choice, but where'd it go from there? Regards, kw /* Keith Warno ** Developer & Sys Admin ** http://www.HaggleWare.com/ */ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henrik �hman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 10 August 2000, Thursday 11:26 Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. But you've got it wrong. It should be a small q in qmail. I think you should redo it before you advertise it further, and I think the majority of the qmail community agrees with me. :) Henrik. At 10:49 AM 8/10/00 -0400, you wrote: >Hey all, > > I created a cool little powered by qmail logo in B/W so it should > match just about any page. > > >Cheers >Sean Truman ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.prodigysolutions.com/
But you've got it wrong. It should be a small q in qmail. I think you should redo it before you advertise it further, and I think the majority of the qmail community agrees with me. :) Henrik. At 10:49 AM 8/10/00 -0400, you wrote: >Hey all, > > I created a cool little powered by qmail logo in B/W so it should > match just about any page. > > >Cheers >Sean Truman ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.prodigysolutions.com/
Keith Warno \(@HaggleWare.com\) writes: > Whatever happened to the qmail shirt idea? Last I knew most people agreed > "don't queue mail with sendmail; send mail with qmail" was the slogan of > choice, but where'd it go from there? Remember this posting? Russ Nelson writes: >Vern Hart writes: > > > http://www.nerdgear.com/search.php?@category=100 > > > > Those prices at nerdgear are pretty good. Especially for > > embroidery. Even with shipping. > >The extra-large is $18.18 with shipping. I'll let the list know if >the shirts don't suck. They don't suck. I've already worn it to a customer's site. :) -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
If anyone is interested in printing up a bunch of these, my friend works for a place here in Minneapolis called Signature Concepts and he gets a hefty discount (they do all of the University of MN stuff). We printed up some shirts for the DSM Racing club (http://www.dsm.org) and it cost us around $9 for a short sleeve and $12 for a long sleeve shirt. Good quality too, heavy cotton. Drop me an email if you're interested and I'll get you in touch with him. If you can send a JPG of what you want printed on the shirts, that would be even better. The more colors, the higher the cost. We had 2 colors on our shirts. The turn around time is usually pretty quick (a week or two depending on the season), so we had people send their money first so we knew how many to print up. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:38 PM To: qmail Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. Keith Warno \(@HaggleWare.com\) writes: > Whatever happened to the qmail shirt idea? Last I knew most people agreed > "don't queue mail with sendmail; send mail with qmail" was the slogan of > choice, but where'd it go from there? Remember this posting? Russ Nelson writes: >Vern Hart writes: > > > http://www.nerdgear.com/search.php?@category=100 > > > > Those prices at nerdgear are pretty good. Especially for > > embroidery. Even with shipping. > >The extra-large is $18.18 with shipping. I'll let the list know if >the shirts don't suck. They don't suck. I've already worn it to a customer's site. :) -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
So RedHat finally migrated her mailinglist server to postfix (they now use mailman). Mate
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Mate Wierdl wrote: > So RedHat finally migrated her mailinglist server to postfix (they now > use mailman). That the same redhat/mailman combo I read about on bugtraq a week or two ago? Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
I would just like to say to everyone that helped me with my qmail problems, "Thank you!". Everything seems to be working as needed. :-) All the best, Kevin Smith
I am looking for qmail developers and operation specialists to work in Lakewood, NJ. Alternative site is Newark, NJ. Please send resumes to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > is there any one who knows how to install qmail on AIX 4.3 , i have >installed it on RedHat 6.1, >but in case of AIX i dont know how to remove sendmail and creation of the >links /usr/sbin/sendmail, /usr/lib/sendmail etc > > please help me ASAP , else i have to switch over to sendmail ,which i dont >like ,but have to bcoz my boss wants that as we are not getting any help >for qmail-aix You've asked--repeatedly--if anyone has installed qmail on AIX 4.3. Apparently nobody here has, or wants to admit it. :-) So, you can either switch to sendmail, or you can describe in detail the problems you're having, and we can try to help you get around them. I've installed qmail under AIX--not 4.3, but I can't imagine anything has changed so drastically that qmail won't work. -Dave
is there any one who knows how to install qmail on AIX 4.3 , i have installed it on RedHat 6.1, but in case of AIX i dont know how to remove sendmail and creation of the links /usr/sbin/sendmail, /usr/lib/sendmail etc please help me ASAP , else i have to switch over to sendmail ,which i dont like ,but have to bcoz my boss wants that as we are not getting any help for qmail-aix Thanks & regards Prashant Desai
hi, 1. every user in /var/lib/vpopmail/users works fine 2. every user in /var/lib/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com doesn't work ;( if I send a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] i get the following error in the mail.log --- from /var/log/mail.log --- Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.712606 new msg 1507345 Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.713055 info msg 1507345: bytes 618 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 31023 uid 64011 Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.767276 starting delivery 520: msg 1507345 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.767613 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.007641 delivery 520: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._vpopmail_(#5.1.1)/ Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.071573 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.130812 bounce msg 1507345 qp 31026 Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.145955 end msg 1507345 --- the virtual domain directory looks like that: joshua:/var/lib/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com# ls -la total 12 drwx------ 6 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 12 11:54 . drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 5 10:34 .. -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 34 Jul 12 11:54 .dir-control -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 46 Jul 5 10:34 .qmail-default -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 0 Jul 5 10:34 .vpasswd.lock drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 5 10:40 info drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 10 09:51 info2 drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 12 11:54 info3 drwx------ 3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 5 10:34 postmaster -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 356 Jul 12 11:54 vpasswd -rw------- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 2492 Jul 12 11:54 vpasswd.cdb I created the virtualdomain with vadddomain and the virtualdomain users with vadduser any idea what's wrong? do you need more information (log files or whatever...)? btw: does the virtualdomain need an MX entry on the DNS server? cya Joel
Hi All, I have a config file in /etc/tcp.smtp which contains the following: 24.26.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 212.159.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 216.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 206.154.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 195.8.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow I then use the following to turn it into a binary, stored into /etc/tcp.smtp/cdb tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb tcp.smtp.temp < tcp.smtp Then in my start-up script I run tcpserver like this : /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 112 -g 104 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & But I can't relay any email, the error I got when the email was returned is..... and my ISDN dial IP address is 212.159.51.38, so it should go through. <mail returned> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at merlins.force9.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 195.224.150.194 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 Relaying is prohibited Giving up on 195.224.150.194. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: (qmail 16659 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2000 08:17:39 -0000 Received: from ruin.servers.plus.net.uk (212.159.2.66) by merlins.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 08:17:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 25749 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2000 08:01:45 -0000 Received: from dyn38-51.sftm-212-159.plus.net (HELO NSLimited) (212.159.51.38) by ruin.servers.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 08:01:45 -0000 Message-ID: <002301c002a1$b3de62a0$26339fd4@NSLimited> Reply-To: "Kevin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Kevin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Wendell E. Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Test Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:05:08 +0100 Organization: Lemon Lainey Design MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Test </mail returned> The bizarre thing about all this is my defaultdomain is dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net, if I send an email there is works fine and doesn't get bounced. I do have the domain iin.org in the /var/qmail/control/locals and /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts file, I also have in the virutaldomains file the following : iin.org:wendray Does anyone have any ideas? Could any who replies, also reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Kevin Smith ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:01 AM Subject: RE: /etc/init.d problems > OK, you are obviously a little new to this... > > > Have I got this correct, if I put the following line in a file called > > qmail-tcpserver in the directory /etc/init.d when the server is rebooted, > > this should be automatically restarted? > You virtually asked this question twice so I will answer it once...Check > your OS documentation. If you're running Solaris, then I'd damn well make > sure that you know how to put things into startup scripts! > > Also, read the info on using tcpserver either in Life With qmail or on > www.qmail.org. Use of qmail with inetd is no longer encouraged, use > tcpserver instead. > > > My host is 212.159 and I can't relay... :-( > That is because the config file should be tcp.smtp, not tcp.smtp.cdb. > tcp.smtp.cdb is a binary version of tcp.smtp, and must be converted via > (with the correct paths, of course): > /usr/local/bin/tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp > each time you change /etc/tcp.smtp. > > Regards > > Brett Randall > > Manager > InterPlanetary Solutions > http://ipsware.com/ > > Kevin Smith Netsmith Limited http://www.netsmith.ltd.uk
"Kevin Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But I can't relay any email, the error I got when the email was returned >is..... >and my ISDN dial IP address is 212.159.51.38, so it should go through. > ><mail returned> >Hi. This is the qmail-send program at merlins.force9.net. >I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. >This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. This shows that your message *was* accepted by the qmail system, but that it was unable to deliver it. ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >195.224.150.194 does not like recipient. >Remote host said: 550 Relaying is prohibited >Giving up on 195.224.150.194. The reason the delivery failed is that the MX for iin.org rejected it. 195.224.150.194 is orac.digitalworkshop.co.uk, which either doesn't realize it's supposed to handle iin.org, or isn't supposed to handle iin.org. Either way, it's not a configuration problem on your end. -Dave
hello friends is there any one who is running qmail-1.03 on AIX 4.3 ? thanks Prashant Desai
Hi all! I am trying to refuse mail from any address that starts with [EMAIL PROTECTED] The TO: address is fine although the FROM addresses are [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not want to ban the WHOLE domain.com (in BADMAILFROM) as there are legitimate users there mailing to my users! I just want to ban all FROM addresses that start with "nobody"! Any ideas? Thanks Slider
Slider writes: > I am trying to refuse mail from any address that starts with > [EMAIL PROTECTED] The TO: address is fine although the FROM addresses are > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not want to ban the WHOLE domain.com (in > BADMAILFROM) as there are legitimate users there mailing to my users! I just > want to ban all FROM addresses that start with "nobody"! Well, badmailfrom lets you ban a single envelope sender (just put "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" into control/badmailfrom), but it doesn't let you ban all envelope senders that start with "nobody". You'd have to be a little more clever about that, and when you do, it's going to have to happen after the mail has made it through qmail-smtpd. Or you can grovel through www.qmail.org looking for an appropriate anti-spam patch. You might find one in the shiny new, chrome-plated spam prevention section of the site. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:30:47AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: > Motonori seems to have thought that the "smtp" service entry in > master.cf controlled outgoing concurrency, when, in fact, it controls > incoming concurrency. I think still this is not correct. Actually there are two 'smtp', one for incoming (smtpd daemon), one for outgoing (smtp daemon). I think, Monotori was not make any mistakes with this regard. > It could be a factor if any of the test addresses had duplicate > hostnames. Since they were of the form nobody@FQDN, they were > apparently all unique. Where such a conclusion come from? The author never mentions about the number of domains in the evaluations. > Firstly, those rates are for DNS queries, not SMTP deliveries. Second, > a steeper slope doesn't necessarily mean it's faster. The equation is: > > y = N x + a > > and the "a" can be a significant factor. Better you consult the graph's legend and read 'How to read the graphs'. In this regard, 'a' mean, number of message(s) sent after the first dns query. As you see in postfix, it has negative value, so it 'doesn't mean' anything, in this regard. > Perhaps...that hasn't been proven in a published test, to my > knowledge. I'd also like to see the effect of running a local > dns cache (both djbdns and BIND). You're right. I just do a little, very unscientific test :-) BTW, if you're right, i.e the evaluation just do single rcpt to deliveries, then I did't see any reason to say that postfix is better than qmail and vice versa. Salam, P.Y. Adi Prasaja
I need some help with a new problem with courier-imap.... Is there a developers list for that I can join? Problem is There is a rpm build problem in the new Redhat 7.0 Beta that didn't exist in RedHat 6.2 I am on the redhat rpm-devel-list, and got around the problem for builds as root, but the courier-imap requires it's rpm to be built as a non-root user. I need to discuss this further with those who know. :-) thanks, Barry Smoke
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:30:51PM -0500, Barry Smoke wrote: > I need some help with a new problem with courier-imap.... Is there a > developers list for that I can join? There is a courier-users list monitored by the sole developer. It is linked to from the courier home page. Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Hello Managers... I need change my sendmail MTA to QMAIL, Do you have the information step by step? Please.... I'm looking www.es.qmail.org and www.qmail.org... but it confusion me I don't understand.... Please... Somebody have the step .... I need install it on a Digital-Alpha with Tru64 4.0F ... The Qmail will run very good? The qmail no need the file /etc/passwd ?.... Do it use a database? why? Thanks P.D. Somebody speak spanish
I must configure a number of domains statically through smtproutes. It would be nice if I could specify more than one possible relay-to address, in case an address is down. For instance: test.com:mail1.test.com test.com:mail2.test.com test.com:mail3.test.com Would relay only to mail3 if mail1 and 2 were down, mail 2 only if mail 1 was down, and only mail1 if it is up. Sort of like an artificial MX record pile. Is this currently supported, or are all subsequent (or only the last entry) ignored? David David Ihnen Integration Engineer myCIO 503-670-4018
I'm trying to set up my system to that all mail goes through an SMTP relay or forwarder. This is because the firewall I'm behind only allows email out through this forwarder. Ok, so I put the FQDN in the /var/qmail/control/bouncehost. No joy; I suspect it's still trying direct. I change it to the hostname in the bouncehost file. Nothing. Change it to the ip address. Nothing. The host is in the /etc/hosts file. There could be a problem with getting the host resolved though as the DNS I'm going through is a bit dodgy. Would this have any affect even though the host is in the /etc/hosts file? Syslog gives me the message: unable to establish an SMTP connection. Anyone have any suggestions? Regards Chris Hellberg
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 01:18:56PM +1200, Chris Hellberg wrote: > I'm trying to set up my system to that all mail goes through an SMTP > relay or forwarder. This is because the firewall I'm behind only allows > email out through this forwarder. Read qmail-remote(8). See section on smtproutes. > Ok, so I put the FQDN in the /var/qmail/control/bouncehost. The bouncehost file serves a different purpose: namely, what gets put into the From field of bounce messages. ---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
Hi, I don't know the best way to explain my problem, but here it goes. :) Dev machine is a RedHat 6.2 install. Apache 1.3.12 with PHP 4.0.1pl2 and stock sendmail. Server is Redhat 6.2 apache 1.3.12 PHP 4.0.1pl2 with qmail (and vpopmail) I got a php script that I developed on the dev machine.. every thing works. it calls mail() proper headers and whatnot.. sendmail connects to my server sends the mail and works. Things here O.K. Move the web code to the server. Try the php script. nothing... no erros no nothing. I do a 'tail -f' on the qmail log files. nothing shows up... I double and tripple check eveyr thing. /usr/lib/sendmail is symbolic linked to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail (the sendmail wrapper naturally). /usr/sbin/sendmail --> /var/qmail/bin/sendmail. I run sendmail manually and it works. run qmail-inject the same way. works. use -t and -t and -i -t works from command line usr /bin/mail all works. A-OK. but via php's mail() call. nothing. nada. talking to a few ppl on IRC. we dig into things. apache is running as use 'nobody'. I think a little... su to root. then so to nobody. try to run sendmail, I get this error. [root@neworder jason]# su nobody bash$ sendmail qmail-inject: fatal: read error Then I was asked to 'strace' sendmail. we find this. open("/root/.lists", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied) ( I can provide the whole output if one needs it). It was determined something about the env - PATH="$PATH" was needed to be appeded before apache started up. I'm still confused on what this actully is. The command line problem is SOLVED but suING to nobody like this su - nobody sendmail works fine. qmail-inject works. /bin/mail works.... Apache started FROM THAT SESSION still doesn't work... I even went as far as chaging apache's user to a test user. apache was started as user 'test' and group 'test' same result. nothing. AS other side noted. I ran the phpinfo() and varified that /var/qmai/bin/sendmail -t (and other various combinations of switches) was being used by php. This problem just doesn't make sence at all. the apche installed on my system is the one from readhat 6.2 CD. php is an RPM I found off the net. And, qmail was DLed in rpm and tar formats (used RPM were I could to save time and hassel). As a temporary fix I'm going to install apache (on another port) and php on another server with a standard sendmail install. So I don't wanna get a compleate hack but more of a real fix for the problem.... Thank you. -- Jason J. Czerak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Linux Systems Evangelist Jasnik Services, LLC http://www.Jasnik.net
Hi, > >I don't know the best way to explain my problem, but here it goes. :) > >Dev machine is a RedHat 6.2 install. Apache 1.3.12 with PHP 4.0.1pl2 and stock >sendmail. > >Server is Redhat 6.2 apache 1.3.12 PHP 4.0.1pl2 with qmail (and vpopmail) > >I got a php script that I developed on the dev machine.. every thing works. >it calls mail() proper headers and whatnot.. sendmail connects to my server >sends the mail and works. Things here O.K. > > >Move the web code to the server. Try the php script. nothing... no erros no >nothing. I do a 'tail -f' on the qmail log files. nothing shows up... It seems that mail() function from php 4.0.1pl2 expects to find _real_ sendmail. At least, it use the following code: sendmail = popen(sendmail_path, "w"); if (sendmail) { fprintf(sendmail, "To: %s\n", to); fprintf(sendmail, "Subject: %s\n", subject); if (headers != NULL) { fprintf(sendmail, "%s\n", headers); } fprintf(sendmail, "\n%s\n", message); ret = pclose(sendmail); if (ret == -1) { return 0; } else { return 1; } } As quick hack, could you try to insert use the following: move /var/qmail/bin/sendmail -> /var/qmail/bin/sendmail-bin and create fake script /var/qmail/bin/sendmail: #!/bin/bash /var/qmail/bin/sendmail-bin -t $* -t flags means using qmail-inject with flag -H instead of -a (i.e. using header receipients) WBR, Vladimir Goncharov
Jason J. Czerak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Fri, 11 Aug 2000: > open("/root/.lists", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied) This is the lists/Mail-Followup-To feature in qmail-inject, it will add a Mail-Followup-To header to your mail if you're sending mail to a mailing list you're subscribed to, as listed in your ~/.lists file. Unfortunately, in su-situations, qmail-inject apparently gets a little confused about where it should try to look for the file. Sorry that I can't really be helpful, as I don't know how this can be fixed or how this feature can be turned off, but hopefully you can at least understand what is going on. I also think the error reporting on qmail-inject's part in this case is not really good enough... Hope this helps, Mikko -- // Mikko H�nninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs / "Youth has nothing to do with age; it's all about attitude." -- MIMP
----- Original Message ----- From: Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Steve Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:07 PM Subject: Re: Connection refused? I see two places you might inquire further. First, if you have lsof, you can use it to double-check what address[s] tinydns is really listening on, to make sure that part of the config really worked right. And second, "Connection refused" _Really_Really_ sounds like a TCP error; UDP doesn't do connections. Tinydns doesn't do TCP. I don't know dig, but if the query you're attempting requires TCP DNS service, you need to bring up axfrdns alongside tinydns to cover that. -Bennett Acutally, dig is trying to be helpful, I believe. It's getting back an ICMP UDP-port-unreachable response ( the UDP equivalent of TCP-RST), saying 'no such daemon here!' Try 'dig'ging on a server not running DNS (or another daemon on UDP 53) and you'll get back the same error message... I'll bet you're right about which address tinydns is listening on. GW
hi, i�m new to qmail and have a prob with qmail-smtpd. i run it from xinetd. qmail works fine, and relays mess. ( that�s what i want to do with qmail ) sent by qmail-inject. but when i try to send by qmail-smtpd via telnet, qmail-smtpd says everything was fine, but won�t put the mess. into the queue. by the way , qmail won�t write ti syslog, though splogger was started. here�s xinetd.conf: service smtp { socket_type = stream protocol = tcp wait = no user = qmaild id = smtp server = /PRODUCTION/data/qmail/bin/tcp-env server_args = /PRODUCTION/data/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd #BEGIN_ACCESS #END_ACCESS } thx for any help joerg IQENA GmbH J�rg Jung Customer Solutions IQENA GmbH - Dechenstrasse 14 - 53115 Bonn - Germany T +49. (0)228. 72620-522 - F +49. (0)228. 72620-580 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.iqena.com
