qmail Digest 20 Sep 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1129
Topics (messages 48934 through 49008):
Re: Create Mailbox
48934 by: Stano Paska
48939 by: Dave Sill
Re: patch to qmail-remote outgoingip patch
48935 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: port 25 cannot telnet
48936 by: Paul Schinder
48979 by: denpetrov.home.com
48992 by: Paul Schinder
48995 by: denpetrov.home.com
Re: Problems receiving mail
48937 by: Wagner R. Landgraf
48941 by: Austad, Jay
48942 by: Daniel Augusto Fernandes
48947 by: Wagner R. Landgraf
48948 by: Kris Kelley
48952 by: Wagner R. Landgraf
48970 by: Wagner R. Landgraf
unsubscribe qmail
48938 by: hitesh
49007 by: carl
Re: concurrency remote patch
48940 by: Austad, Jay
48949 by: James T. Perry
48955 by: Austad, Jay
48962 by: Peter van Dijk
48964 by: James T. Perry
48966 by: Adam McKenna
48968 by: Peter van Dijk
48977 by: Austad, Jay
48996 by: James T. Perry
Pointers on qmail + vpopmail?
48943 by: Jonathan J. Smith
48946 by: Ben Beuchler
Re: DNS conundrum - more information
48944 by: Stephen F. Bosch
48945 by: Petr Novotny
48950 by: Stephen F. Bosch
48953 by: Petr Novotny
store/forward scenario
48951 by: Dave Gresham
Humorous
48954 by: dG
48956 by: Stephen F. Bosch
48957 by: Erich Zigler
48959 by: Stephen F. Bosch
48961 by: Scott D. Yelich
48963 by: Chris Johnson
No Mail For Root
48958 by: Mark van der Putten
48960 by: wolfgang zeikat
48997 by: Dale Miracle
Virtualdomains - AGAIN
48965 by: Stephen F. Bosch
48976 by: Charles Cazabon
48978 by: Adam McKenna
48980 by: Stephen F. Bosch
48981 by: Charles Cazabon
48982 by: Travis Leuthauser
48985 by: dG
48986 by: Peter van Dijk
48987 by: Travis Leuthauser
49003 by: Stephen F. Bosch
Are we acting as an open relay?
48967 by: Jen Franklin
48969 by: Greg Owen
48971 by: wolfgang zeikat
qmail error
48972 by: Jens Georg
48974 by: Austad, Jay
48975 by: markd.bushwire.net
log analyzers
48973 by: Austad, Jay
abuse.net results...was 'RE: Are we acting as an open relay?'
48983 by: zealot
48984 by: Peter van Dijk
48988 by: Greg Owen
Re: QMAILQUEUE patch
48989 by: Jason Haar
48990 by: wolfgang zeikat
49000 by: Michael French
Qmail and php3 ?
48991 by: Danny Hay
48993 by: Chris Johnson
not receiving, but doin everything else
48994 by: Najati R Imam
Tarpitting help
48998 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
Users don't recieve mail...
48999 by: jim
Two @ signs in RCPT TO - how to reject?
49001 by: Brett Randall
49002 by: Brett Randall
Config problem
49004 by: jjc
How to setup selective relaying at qmail
49005 by: Paulus Hendarwan
49006 by: Brett Randall
Number of user-processes
49008 by: Christoffer Hall-Frederiksen
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
read INSTALL.maildir there is something like this: - create structure ~/Maildir in every user directory with maildirmake $HOME/Maildir - add file .qmail with content ./Maildir/ into user's directory and replace ./Mailbox with ./Maildir/ in /var/qmail/rc Stano. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allama Hicham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 10:08 PM Subject: Create Mailbox > Hi everyone, > I'm working With Unix and Solaris and I'm insttaling Qmail. > When I send a mail to a local user and I open the /var/log/syslog, I > find that message > "delivery26.: failure :Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/" > So I must create a Mailbox! > But I don't now how can i do that! > Thank you for Anser! > >
Allama Hicham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm working With Unix and Solaris and I'm insttaling Qmail. >When I send a mail to a local user and I open the /var/log/syslog, I >find that message > "delivery26.: failure :Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/" >So I must create a Mailbox! What that message means is that the local recipient is not a valid address. That can happen if the recipient: - is not a user - has the UID 0 - doesn't own their home directory - has a home directory that isn't visible to user qmailp - has a username containing uppercase characters - has a username longer than 32 characters - isn't handled by an alias or catch-all .qmail file in ~alias A more complete log snippet would have enabled a more useful response. -Dave
Yes. This answer is _very_ late. On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:20:13AM -0800, Aaron Nabil wrote: > > Thanks for the "qmail-remote outgoingip patch", I was able to Who contributed this, and where? Has anything been done to this further? Making it possible to bind qmail-remote to a specific interface. /magnus (including rest of letter, as it was a couple of months ago ;-) > successfully apply it (by hand) to qmail 1.03. Unfortunatly, it > didn't fix the problem I was having, which was that qmail was > connecting to itself (it was the backup MX for a down system) because the > MX record was bound to a secondary IP address, thus looping mail. The > reason is because ipme still just looks at the primary interface and > qmail-remote uses that to compare against the MX record instead of the > bound address. > > Here is a very lightly (oh, about 5 minutes) tested patch. I was kinda in > a hurry and am not quite sure if [0] of a ip_address is the most or least > significant octet, I was betting on it being the most but this should > still work even if it's the least, as I don't think zero is legal for > either. > > *** ../qmail-ldap/qmail-remote.c Tue Jan 11 01:43:02 2000 > --- qmail-remote.c Sat Feb 12 01:47:31 2000 > *************** > *** 29,34 **** > --- 29,35 ---- > #include "timeoutconn.h" > #include "timeoutread.h" > #include "timeoutwrite.h" > + #include "byte.h" > > #define HUGESMTPTEXT 5000 > > *************** > *** 396,402 **** > > prefme = 100000; > for (i = 0;i < ip.len;++i) > ! if (ipme_is(&ip.ix[i].ip)) > if (ip.ix[i].pref < prefme) > prefme = ip.ix[i].pref; > > --- 407,413 ---- > > prefme = 100000; > for (i = 0;i < ip.len;++i) > ! if (outip.d[0] ? byte_equal(&ip.ix[i].ip,4,&outip.d[0]) : >ipme_is(&ip.ix[i].ip)) > if (ip.ix[i].pref < prefme) > prefme = ip.ix[i].pref; > > -- > Aaron Nabil >
At 8:33 PM -0700 9/18/00, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am trying to install qmail on the Solaris 7 x86 system using Life with >qmail. I have few problems: >1. /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run script is having some errors > >QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` >NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` >exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ > -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 > >when I run the script I get errors -u -g illegal option. I am not sure what >those options are doing, I took them out and replaced with -a that seem to >work. >2. Cannot telnet on the port 25 tried everything but it tells me connection >refused. Sendmail is gone so there is no port "sharing" >I found an error in the qmail log >@4000000039c80c1404df8924 tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number >for gid=100(nofiles) >I think this is my problem, but I do not know how to fix it. Your problem is that id on Solaris is not the same as id under Linux: leprss% id -u qmaild id: illegal option -- u Usage: id [user] id -a [user] Just put the numbers in the script by hand. The error in the log is cause by the fact that NOFILESGID isn't set right. >Please help >Denis -- -- Paul J. Schinder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 693 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am in the process of learning scripts so please be patient. When you said use numbers did you mean gid and uid numbers instead of id -u qmaild id -g qmaild, so it will look something like this QMAILDUID=100 NOFILESGID=1001 than I can take -u and -g from this line -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 correct? Thank you Denis - Original Message ----- From: "Paul Schinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:02 AM Subject: Re: port 25 cannot telnet > At 8:33 PM -0700 9/18/00, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I am trying to install qmail on the Solaris 7 x86 system using Life with > >qmail. I have few problems: > >1. /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run script is having some errors > > > >QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` > >NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > >exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ > > -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 > > > >when I run the script I get errors -u -g illegal option. I am not sure what > >those options are doing, I took them out and replaced with -a that seem to > >work. > >2. Cannot telnet on the port 25 tried everything but it tells me connection > >refused. Sendmail is gone so there is no port "sharing" > >I found an error in the qmail log > >@4000000039c80c1404df8924 tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number > >for gid=100(nofiles) > >I think this is my problem, but I do not know how to fix it. > > Your problem is that id on Solaris is not the same as id under Linux: > > leprss% id -u qmaild > id: illegal option -- u > Usage: id [user] > id -a [user] > > Just put the numbers in the script by hand. > The error in the log is cause by the fact that NOFILESGID isn't set right. > > >Please help > >Denis > > -- > -- > Paul J. Schinder > NASA Goddard Space Flight Center > Code 693 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 1:53 PM -0700 9/19/00, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am in the process of learning scripts so please be patient. >When you said use numbers did you mean gid and uid numbers instead of > >id -u qmaild >id -g qmaild, so it will look something like this QMAILDUID=100 > >NOFILESGID=1001 Yes, exactly. >than I can take -u and -g from this line > -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp No, you leave this just the way it is. >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 >correct? >Thank you >Denis > -- -- Paul J. Schinder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 693 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it worked thank you -----Original Message----- From: Paul Schinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: port 25 cannot telnet >At 1:53 PM -0700 9/19/00, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I am in the process of learning scripts so please be patient. >>When you said use numbers did you mean gid and uid numbers instead of >> >>id -u qmaild >>id -g qmaild, so it will look something like this QMAILDUID=100 >> >>NOFILESGID=1001 > >Yes, exactly. > >>than I can take -u and -g from this line >> -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp > >No, you leave this just the way it is. > >>/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 >>correct? >>Thank you >>Denis >> >-- >-- >Paul J. Schinder >NASA Goddard Space Flight Center >Code 693 >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I cannot receive mail. Let's say that my internal IP is 192.168.1.20 (local net inside the firewall) and my external IP is 200.201.1.1 . If I do (from another machine in the local network) telnet 192.168.1.20 25 , it works fine, and I can send mail to the mail server using telnet commands. However, if I use telnet 200.201.1.1 25 , it can't connect. I though it was a firewall problem, but look at this: I have an http server running in another machine (192.168.1.2) in the local network. If I do telnet 192.168.1.2 80 it works ok, connecting to the port 80. If I do 200.201.1.1 80, it also can't connect. However, my http server is running and it's ok. So, it maybe not be a problem with firewall. Can someone help me and explain this? Thank you Wagner R. Landgraf Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Augusto Fernandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: Re: Problems receiving mail > > "Wagner R. Landgraf" wrote: > > > > Ok, now TELNET test is ok (I can receive mail in qmail sending it by > > telnet local connect). However, I cannot send remote-local mail. > > > > My qmail server is under a firewall. I've set the firewall to redirect > > mail packets (port 25) to qmail server. > > > > How are you going to be able to send mail packets to the internet? > > > However, when I send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my IP address), I > > receive a Undeliverable message, saying that "The recipient name is > > not recognized". > > > > As in the man pages: qmail doesn't send msg to root@*. > > > Can someone help me? > > > > I've also tried to set a POP account in my e-mail client, using my POP > > server as 200.201.34.197 (or even 192.168.1.20, my local IP address), > > but the client cannot connect to server. Any ideas? > > > > Thank you all > > > > Wagner R. Landgraf > > Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel Augusto Fernandes (DAF tm) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GCSNet http://www.gcsnet.com.br/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Se voc� n�o encontra > o sentido das coisas > � porque este n�o > se encontra, se cria. > Antoine Saint-Exup�ry
If you're on a machine on the inside and you're trying to hit an ip on the outside of a firewall or router that does NAT, it won't work. I think Checkpoint makes a firewall that works around this problem, but that's the only one I can think of. You need to do your testing from a remote machine if you're hitting the 200.201.1.1 ip. Is 200.201.1.1 the real ip? I tried connecting to both port 80 and 25 and neither worked. In any case though, you won't be able to hit your external ip's from the internal network if the firewall is NATing them. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Wagner R. Landgraf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problems receiving mail I cannot receive mail. Let's say that my internal IP is 192.168.1.20 (local net inside the firewall) and my external IP is 200.201.1.1 . If I do (from another machine in the local network) telnet 192.168.1.20 25 , it works fine, and I can send mail to the mail server using telnet commands. However, if I use telnet 200.201.1.1 25 , it can't connect. I though it was a firewall problem, but look at this: I have an http server running in another machine (192.168.1.2) in the local network. If I do telnet 192.168.1.2 80 it works ok, connecting to the port 80. If I do 200.201.1.1 80, it also can't connect. However, my http server is running and it's ok. So, it maybe not be a problem with firewall. Can someone help me and explain this? Thank you Wagner R. Landgraf Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Augusto Fernandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: Re: Problems receiving mail > > "Wagner R. Landgraf" wrote: > > > > Ok, now TELNET test is ok (I can receive mail in qmail sending it by > > telnet local connect). However, I cannot send remote-local mail. > > > > My qmail server is under a firewall. I've set the firewall to redirect > > mail packets (port 25) to qmail server. > > > > How are you going to be able to send mail packets to the internet? > > > However, when I send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my IP address), I > > receive a Undeliverable message, saying that "The recipient name is > > not recognized". > > > > As in the man pages: qmail doesn't send msg to root@*. > > > Can someone help me? > > > > I've also tried to set a POP account in my e-mail client, using my POP > > server as 200.201.34.197 (or even 192.168.1.20, my local IP address), > > but the client cannot connect to server. Any ideas? > > > > Thank you all > > > > Wagner R. Landgraf > > Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel Augusto Fernandes (DAF tm) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GCSNet http://www.gcsnet.com.br/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Se voc� n�o encontra > o sentido das coisas > � porque este n�o > se encontra, se cria. > Antoine Saint-Exup�ry
"Wagner R. Landgraf" wrote: > > I cannot receive mail. Let's say that my internal IP is 192.168.1.20 (local > net inside the firewall) and my external IP is 200.201.1.1 . If I do (from > another machine in the local network) telnet 192.168.1.20 25 , it works > fine, and I can send mail to the mail server using telnet commands. However, > if I use telnet 200.201.1.1 25 , it can't connect. > > I though it was a firewall problem, but look at this: I have an http server > running in another machine (192.168.1.2) in the local network. If I do > telnet 192.168.1.2 80 it works ok, connecting to the port 80. If I do > 200.201.1.1 80, it also can't connect. However, my http server is running > and it's ok. So, it maybe not be a problem with firewall. > > Can someone help me and explain this? > > . > . > . AFAIK, this can only be a problem in your firewall/router configuration. The routing/firewalling configuration for port 80 should have nothing to do with the port 25 configuration for your net. You should look with who configured your firewall/router to see how does it work with SMTP/port 25 connections. Hope it helps, -------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Augusto Fernandes (DAF tm) [EMAIL PROTECTED] GCSNet http://www.gcsnet.com.br/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Se voc� n�o encontra o sentido das coisas � porque este n�o se encontra, se cria. Antoine Saint-Exup�ry
Hmmm..., that might be correct. However, in an internal machine, I can open the www browser and type http://200.201.1.1 as the URL of web page, and it works. What does it mean? Anyway, if you could test it for me, my real IP is 200.201.34.197 . Thank you Wagner R. Landgraf Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Austad, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Wagner R. Landgraf'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: RE: Problems receiving mail If you're on a machine on the inside and you're trying to hit an ip on the outside of a firewall or router that does NAT, it won't work. I think Checkpoint makes a firewall that works around this problem, but that's the only one I can think of. You need to do your testing from a remote machine if you're hitting the 200.201.1.1 ip. Is 200.201.1.1 the real ip? I tried connecting to both port 80 and 25 and neither worked. In any case though, you won't be able to hit your external ip's from the internal network if the firewall is NATing them. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Wagner R. Landgraf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 7:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problems receiving mail I cannot receive mail. Let's say that my internal IP is 192.168.1.20 (local net inside the firewall) and my external IP is 200.201.1.1 . If I do (from another machine in the local network) telnet 192.168.1.20 25 , it works fine, and I can send mail to the mail server using telnet commands. However, if I use telnet 200.201.1.1 25 , it can't connect. I though it was a firewall problem, but look at this: I have an http server running in another machine (192.168.1.2) in the local network. If I do telnet 192.168.1.2 80 it works ok, connecting to the port 80. If I do 200.201.1.1 80, it also can't connect. However, my http server is running and it's ok. So, it maybe not be a problem with firewall. Can someone help me and explain this? Thank you Wagner R. Landgraf Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Augusto Fernandes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: Re: Problems receiving mail > > "Wagner R. Landgraf" wrote: > > > > Ok, now TELNET test is ok (I can receive mail in qmail sending it by > > telnet local connect). However, I cannot send remote-local mail. > > > > My qmail server is under a firewall. I've set the firewall to redirect > > mail packets (port 25) to qmail server. > > > > How are you going to be able to send mail packets to the internet? > > > However, when I send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my IP address), I > > receive a Undeliverable message, saying that "The recipient name is > > not recognized". > > > > As in the man pages: qmail doesn't send msg to root@*. > > > Can someone help me? > > > > I've also tried to set a POP account in my e-mail client, using my POP > > server as 200.201.34.197 (or even 192.168.1.20, my local IP address), > > but the client cannot connect to server. Any ideas? > > > > Thank you all > > > > Wagner R. Landgraf > > Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel Augusto Fernandes (DAF tm) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GCSNet http://www.gcsnet.com.br/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Se voc� n�o encontra > o sentido das coisas > � porque este n�o > se encontra, se cria. > Antoine Saint-Exup�ry
"Wagner R. Landgraf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmmm..., that might be correct. However, in an internal machine, I can open > the www browser and type http://200.201.1.1 as the URL of web page, and it > works. What does it mean? You originally said that trying to access port 80 using the external address from an internal machine didn't work. Was that a typo? If you *are* able to access the external address from an internal machine using port 80, but not port 25, then it may still be your firewall. Perhaps it is allowing external traffic on port 80 while denying external traffic on port 25. Check the configuration. > Anyway, if you could test it for me, my real IP is 200.201.34.197 . 200.201.34.197 port 80 = success 200.201.34.197 port 25 = failure (connection timed out) ---Kris Kelley
To clarify: I'm not able to connect neither to port 25 or 80 from my internal machine, using *telnet*. However, I can open my web site (using www browser) using my external IP as URL. I don't know too much about this, but I though strange because I think web browser connect to URL (my external IP) using port 80. So, why the browser works and telnet doesn't? Apart that question, you tested it for me and confirmed that port 80 is working and 25 is not. I don't know why, because I've used the same ipchains command to allow port 80 and 25 to come from external net. I will check it anyway. Thank you Wagner R. Landgraf Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Wagner R. Landgraf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmmm..., that might be correct. However, in an internal machine, I can > open > > the www browser and type http://200.201.1.1 as the URL of web page, and > it > > works. What does it mean? > > You originally said that trying to access port 80 using the external address > from an internal machine didn't work. Was that a typo? > > If you *are* able to access the external address from an internal machine > using port 80, but not port 25, then it may still be your firewall. Perhaps > it is allowing external traffic on port 80 while denying external traffic on > port 25. Check the configuration. > > > Anyway, if you could test it for me, my real IP is 200.201.34.197 . > > 200.201.34.197 port 80 = success > 200.201.34.197 port 25 = failure (connection timed out) > > ---Kris Kelley >
How did you check my ports in my IP? I telneted the ports from an external machine and couldn't connect to both ports (80 and 25). How did you connect to port 80? I'm using Windows telnet program, just putting the IP and port number and trying to connect. Is there a more low level way of doing that? Because if port 80 is ok and 25 is not, then the problem is with firewall. However, if I can't connect to 80 I cannot check if port 25 is ok. Thank you Wagner R. Landgraf Automa Consultoria & Inform�tica Ltda. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kris Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Wagner R. Landgraf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Problems receiving mail > > To clarify: I'm not able to connect neither to port 25 or 80 from my > > internal machine, using *telnet*. However, I can open my web site (using > www > > browser) using my external IP as URL. I don't know too much about this, > but > > I though strange because I think web browser connect to URL (my external > IP) > > using port 80. So, why the browser works and telnet doesn't? > > I'm afraid I couldn't say. I did notice that, when telnetting to port 80, > your machine would sometimes take a while to respond. Perhaps you just > weren't allowing enough time when testing the telnet connection. If you're > able to see your web pages, then you should be able to access port 80 from > telnet as well. > > > Apart that question, you tested it for me and confirmed that port 80 is > > working and 25 is not. > > That's correct. > > > I don't know why, because I've used the same ipchains > > command to allow port 80 and 25 to come from external net. I will check it > > anyway. > > I don't know much about firewalls, so I won't be able to help you much on > that point. I hope you find the answer quickly, whatever it is. Good luck! > > ---Kris Kelley >
unsubscribe qmail
Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm: rpm -ivh qmail-1.03-16.src.rpm cd /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES tar zxvf qmail-1.03.tar.gz patch -p0 <big-concurrency.patch Edit qmail-1.03/conf-spawn down to 509 or less so it doesn't blow up because of the FD_SET descriptor limit rm qmail-1.03.tar.gz tar zcvf qmail-1.03.tar.gz qmail-1.03/ rm -rf qmail-1.03 Edit the init script to use multilog instead of splogger if you want cd ../SPEC rpm -ba qmail.spec Then your rpms should magically appear in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/ I guess I should've changed the name of the rpm and all that, but it was late and I was tired. :) As for the FD_SET problem, Dell sucks and ships a RAID card that requires a proprietary driver on their so-called "Linux approved" servers. It's a pain to recompile the kernel with any modifications because that damn module they have might not work. Everyone keeps pushing them to just release the source so it can be incorporated into the kernel, but they're being stupid about it. Jay -----Original Message----- From: James T. Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:01 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch Hi Jay, "Austad, Jay" wrote: > > I grabbed the source rpm and just applied the patch to it and > rebuilt it. Works great. Congrats! Please teach me how you did it! > Except, FD_SET is limited to 1024 descriptors. Don't you hate it when that happens? ;) > How do I change this? I assume I can't just echo something into > /proc... I want to be able to do more than 509 concurrency. I did succeed to raise the concurrency level to 1000, but its an unofficial "dirty hack" and I can't be liable for any damages but here's what I did: (BTW, I am thinking of writing up a mini-howto) This was originally posted to the qmail list at about Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:36:09 +0900 with the title : Re: conf-spawn and FD_SET SUCCESS! but updated a little since I forgot to include some more info. Warning/Disclaimer: This worked for me. I am not responsible if something breaks, or causes any damage to everything or anything related to the person following the steps below to modify their system and/or qmail setup (or whatever...). This was originally posted to the qmail list at about Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:36:09 +0900 with the title : Re: conf-spawn and FD_SET SUCCESS! but updated since I forgot to include some more info. linux kernel 2.2.17 qmail-1.03 procmail rc file (install was accomplished by closely following lwq :) plus localtime, DNS, big-todo, big-concurrency patches in that order changes in qmail configuration: $qmailhome/control/concurrencylocal 500 $qmailhome/control/concurrencyremote 500 $qmailsrc/conf-spawn set to 1000 $qmailsrc/conf-split set to 100 $qmailsrc/conf-cc set to cc -O2 -D__FD_SETSIZE=2048 ucspi-tcp-0.88 daemontools-0.70 1. Inside the big-concurrency patch: it said to modify "/usr/src/linux/include/linux/tasks.h NR_TASKS from 512 to e.g. 2048" - directly quoted - which I did. 2. As P.Y. Adi Prasaja mentioned: raised the __FD_SETSIZE value in /usr/include/bits/types.h from 1024 to 2048 3. Just to be sure: raised the __FD_SETSIZE value in /usr/src/linux/include/linux/posix_types.h from 1024 to 2048 4. As Peter van Dijk mentioned: added -D__FD_SETSIZE=2048 to $qmailsrc/conf-cc 5. Edit the following: $qmailhome/control/concurrencylocal 500 $qmailhome/control/concurrencyremote 500 $qmailsrc/conf-spawn set to 1000 $qmailsrc/conf-split set to 100 $qmailsrc/conf-cc set to cc -O2 -D__FD_SETSIZE=2048 6. make setup: bingo! no compile errors. qmail is idling ok. 7. Change sources back to default value: (incase I break something ;) /usr/include/bits/types.h /usr/src/linux/include/linux/posix_types.h both back to 1024 #---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
Hi Jay, "Austad, Jay" wrote: > > Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm: [snip] Thanks for the information! I gotta get used to building RPMs... (after all, I am using an RPM distro ;) > As for the FD_SET problem, Dell sucks and ships a RAID card > that requires a proprietary driver on their so-called "Linux > approved" servers. It's a pain to recompile the kernel with > any modifications because that damn module they have might > not work. Everyone keeps pushing them to just release the > source so it can be incorporated into the kernel, but they're > being stupid about it. I know _exactly_ what you mean. (see RANT below) I guess I wasn't clear on the info I had previously posted. I didn't recompile the kernel... I just modified the sources to "goose" the qmail compile process and it somehow worked (call me kraziej :). I haven't reached a concurrency greater than 100 (*blush*) yet so I can't say what would exactly happen when the concurrency really hits a high number - above the real 1024 limit (or 509 in qmail). As for performance, my IDE ATA disk is slower than what qmail can really handle so setting the concurrency below 500 may not be a problem after all, now that I think of it... And procmail + /var/spool/mail is another "wide-load" I have which affects performance compared to Maildir. If I were to have a RAID 0+1 spinning above 10000rpms, maybe a different story ( read smokin' gun :) cheers, jamie <RANT> Recently, I am getting more annoyed with big corporations leeching off on all of the efforts the open-source spirit has built up in the past years, giving the community not much good publicity nor credit in return either... Steal everything and yet spitting all over us. Sorry to mention it here folks - no flame please :) </RANT> #---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
>I haven't reached a concurrency greater than 100 (*blush*) yet so >I can't say what would exactly happen when the concurrency really >hits a high number - above the real 1024 limit (or 509 in qmail). I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives). I think even if I could get the concurrency up to 1024 or above, it still wouldn't be enough to make a difference on the box. I'll find out soon if I can make it bounce off of the 509 limit. Our Midday Market Report is due to go out within the hour. Hopefully when the next version of qmail comes out, it will have the big-concurrency and big-todo patch already installed. What happens if I start a second copy of qmail using /var/qmail2, different uids, and bind to another IP on the same box? Will I be able to do 509 concurrency out of each copy since they are running as different users? Jay -----Original Message----- From: James T. Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:41 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch Hi Jay, "Austad, Jay" wrote: > > Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm: [snip] Thanks for the information! I gotta get used to building RPMs... (after all, I am using an RPM distro ;) > As for the FD_SET problem, Dell sucks and ships a RAID card > that requires a proprietary driver on their so-called "Linux > approved" servers. It's a pain to recompile the kernel with > any modifications because that damn module they have might > not work. Everyone keeps pushing them to just release the > source so it can be incorporated into the kernel, but they're > being stupid about it. I know _exactly_ what you mean. (see RANT below) I guess I wasn't clear on the info I had previously posted. I didn't recompile the kernel... I just modified the sources to "goose" the qmail compile process and it somehow worked (call me kraziej :). I haven't reached a concurrency greater than 100 (*blush*) yet so I can't say what would exactly happen when the concurrency really hits a high number - above the real 1024 limit (or 509 in qmail). As for performance, my IDE ATA disk is slower than what qmail can really handle so setting the concurrency below 500 may not be a problem after all, now that I think of it... And procmail + /var/spool/mail is another "wide-load" I have which affects performance compared to Maildir. If I were to have a RAID 0+1 spinning above 10000rpms, maybe a different story ( read smokin' gun :) cheers, jamie <RANT> Recently, I am getting more annoyed with big corporations leeching off on all of the efforts the open-source spirit has built up in the past years, giving the community not much good publicity nor credit in return either... Steal everything and yet spitting all over us. Sorry to mention it here folks - no flame please :) </RANT> #---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:24:00PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: [snip] > > What happens if I start a second copy of qmail using /var/qmail2, different > uids, and bind to another IP on the same box? Will I be able to do 509 > concurrency out of each copy since they are running as different users? Well, that 509 limit is the FD_SET limit, which is per select() call and therefore per running qmail. You might run into global limits tho, but those are tunable thru /proc or sysctl, depending on your OS, usually. The above is long for 'yes'. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
Hi Jay, "Austad, Jay" wrote: > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives). Which RAID level? I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform faster than 3 (or 5 obviously ;). I can't confirm this since I don't have that kind of artillery here at home. Anybody? > I think even if I could get the concurrency up to 1024 or above, > it still wouldn't be enough to make a difference on the box. I'll > find out soon if I can make it bounce off of the 509 limit. Our > Midday Market Report is due to go out within the hour. Good luck. > Hopefully when the next version of qmail comes out, it will have > the big-concurrency and big-todo patch already installed. AMEN. But I also remember reading a kernel related doc somewhere which mentioned that the kernel is limited to 1024 file descriptors deliberately, since more open files become a major time loss for excessive CPU usage which results in more performance loss (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). I also remember DJB mentioning in one of his docs that multiple files in a single directory becomes a performance lag (e.g. /var/spool/mail). That is why I thought "no wonder the queue directory is full of directories", and I edited conf-split to 100 (default was 20 I think) and recompiled so now I have 100 directories under each queue/* directory :) I don't know, I could be totally off. I wish I had more time/hardware/brains to get different setups rolling so I could really check all of this out and come up with decent figures. > What happens if I start a second copy of qmail using /var/qmail2, > different uids, and bind to another IP on the same box? Will I > be able to do 509 concurrency out of each copy since they are > running as different users? I have never tried it, but I read somewhere in the qmail related docs that you could have a few instances of qmail running for heavy loads (e.g. multiple virt domains and multiple mailing lists), exactly like the setup you have mentioned above. Darn, can't remember where I read it :( And of course, DNS resolving and other network related stuff (e.g. non qmail and/or slow servers on the other end of the line) etc tend to lag things down... relativity sucks...in this case at least. Oh well :) cheers jamie #---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote: > > Hi Jay, > > "Austad, Jay" wrote: > > > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit > > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with > > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives). > > Which RAID level? > I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform > faster than 3 (or 5 obviously ;). > I can't confirm this since I don't have that kind of artillery > here at home. Anybody? You need at least 3 disks to do raid 5, and 4 to do 0+1. Since he mentioned that he only has two disks, and that they are "striped", it's pretty likely that he's talking about raid 0. (BTW, what is raid 3? I've never heard of that.) Raid 0+1 will always be faster than raid 5, (with an equivalent number of disks per stripe) due to the lack of a need to calculate and store parity information. --Adam
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote: [snip] > > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit > > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with > > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives). > > Which RAID level? > I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform > faster than 3 (or 5 obviously ;). > I can't confirm this since I don't have that kind of artillery > here at home. Anybody? I know that RAID5 sucks on Mylex DAC1100 controllers, and that RAID0+1 is blindingly fast :) Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
RAID 5 sucks for writes in the first place, but is excellent for reads. I'm running raid 5 on my mailing list box for availability reasons, but that distributes to my qmqp servers which are all RAID 0. I don't care that much if I lose a drive on the QMQP servers since I can have a new one built in about 15 minutes. I'll just lose my queue, which is only newsletter subscriptions anyway. It would suck to lose the queue, but it's not mission critical and the chances of it happening are low. Although, I'm sure it will happen sometime. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:30 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote: [snip] > > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit > > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with > > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives). > > Which RAID level? > I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform > faster than 3 (or 5 obviously ;). > I can't confirm this since I don't have that kind of artillery > here at home. Anybody? I know that RAID5 sucks on Mylex DAC1100 controllers, and that RAID0+1 is blindingly fast :) Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
Hi Adam, Adam McKenna wrote: > You need at least 3 disks to do raid 5, and 4 to do 0+1. Since > he mentioned that he only has two disks, and that they are "striped", > it's pretty likely that he's talking about raid 0. oops. sorry, you are right...it was 4:20 AM... (kernel back trace: ffffffff ffffffff ffffffff just kidding :) > (BTW, what is raid 3? I've never heard of that.) RAID Level 3 is 3 disks spanned and 1 dedicated disk for ecc parity data. (I live in Japan and I see a lot of RAID 3 advertised in magazines/ads etc, don't know if its popular though.) BTW, found a diagram: http://info.berkeley.edu/courses/is257/f99/Lecture11_257/sld010.htm Cheers, jamie #---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------#---------# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
Anyone willing to spend a little time and a few emails to help clear some things up for me? I appreciate the time. Jonathan Smith
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 11:42:53AM -0400, Jonathan J. Smith wrote: > Anyone willing to spend a little time and a few emails to help clear > some things up for me? I appreciate the time. Sure. But if you ask your questions actually on the list others with similar questions will be able to read them... Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
As I am back at the site I can now provide some log information. (PS: I have set the line length longer to avoid wrapping log information) Okay, here is normal message to a real user: Sep 19 09:06:25 hotcube qmail: 969375985.801584 new msg 643380 Sep 19 09:06:25 hotcube qmail: 969375985.801693 info msg 643380: bytes 523 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10712 uid 1005 Sep 19 09:06:25 hotcube qmail: 969375985.885090 starting delivery 1: msg 643380 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 09:06:25 hotcube qmail: 969375985.885192 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 09:06:26 hotcube qmail: 969375986.038075 delivery 1: success: did_0+0+1/ Sep 19 09:06:26 hotcube qmail: 969375986.038179 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 09:06:26 hotcube qmail: 969375986.038206 end msg 643380 The above message was actually delivered. Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.679441 new msg 643380 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.679544 info msg 643380: bytes 555 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10911 uid 1005 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.762849 starting delivery 2: msg 643380 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay, this is me trying to send to the alias... Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.762941 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.862814 new msg 643385 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.862918 info msg 643385: bytes 658 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10914 uid 1004 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.961686 starting delivery 3: msg 643385 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay, the address you see there is the hostname of the external connection on the firewall, edited to at least pretend that I am being secure here. It's the same as the address in "me", which makes sense since that is probably where it came from. It is not the same as the hostname on the box, which is "hotcube" (a bogus hostname). I've put it in /etc/hosts like so: 192.168.0.102 hotcube dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.961782 status: local 1/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.961811 delivery 2: success: did_0+1+0/qp_10914/ Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.961835 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 09:08:51 hotcube qmail: 969376131.961857 end msg 643380 So far so good. Now the trouble begins: Sep 19 09:09:52 hotcube qmail: 969376192.060626 delivery 3: deferral: Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/ Wha? What's going on here? This would make sense if qmail were trying to resolve the above hostname using DNS, for two reasons: 1. the nature of the firewall/proxy is such that it cannot forward requests to internal services through the external interface 2. there is no forwarded SMTP port on the external firewall interface anyway but it shouldn't be doing that, because I put dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com in /etc/hosts. Is there something wrong with my /etc/hosts entry? A better question - how exactly should I deal with this problem? Now, yet more fun =) I try to clear the queue using qmHandle. Oh, it clears the queue all right... and does a whole lot more: Sep 19 09:09:52 hotcube qmail: 969376192.060724 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 09:10:52 hotcube qmail: 969376252.279645 status: exiting Sep 19 09:10:52 hotcube qmail: 969376252.487147 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 09:10:53 hotcube qmail: 969376253.304521 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running Sep 19 09:10:54 hotcube qmail: 969376254.324637 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running Sep 19 09:10:55 hotcube qmail: 969376255.344992 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running Sep 19 09:10:56 hotcube qmail: 969376256.365005 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running Sep 19 09:10:57 hotcube qmail: 969376257.385589 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running Aiee! You get the idea. I addressed this problem by killing qmail-lspawn, like so: Sep 19 09:11:34 hotcube qmail: 969376294.263644 alert: oh no! lost spawn connection! dying... Sep 19 09:11:34 hotcube qmail: 969376294.263747 status: exiting Sep 19 09:11:35 hotcube qmail: 969376295.137356 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 but that's just a bandage, it doesn't fix qmHandle... any idea why this might be happening? Thanks, Stephen Bosch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19 Sep 2000, at 15:47, Stephen F. Bosch wrote: > I've put it in /etc/hosts like so: > > 192.168.0.102 hotcube dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com qmail ignores /etc/hosts, completely. If you need to override IP address, put dsl-XXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com:192.168.0.102 into control/smtproutes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOcd+4lMwP8g7qbw/EQKUvwCgpzCYBClr9K5m45o4gycTn8jGCsEAn2+t wU9SKJO89KQ+Fknci3lgyeqF =133z -----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 wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 19 Sep 2000, at 15:47, Stephen F. Bosch wrote: > > > I've put it in /etc/hosts like so: > > > > 192.168.0.102 hotcube dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com > > qmail ignores /etc/hosts, completely. If you need to override IP > address, put > dsl-XXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com:192.168.0.102 > into control/smtproutes. Okay, I put dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com in /var/qmail/control/smtproutes. Have a look at *these* interesting logs, now =) Sep 19 10:16:23 hotcube qmail: 969380183.237423 end msg 643385 Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.369849 new msg 643385 Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.369953 info msg 643385: bytes 5257 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14125 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.451952 starting delivery 23: msg 643385 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.452043 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.452077 delivery 22: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380189_qp_14125/ Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.452102 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:16:29 hotcube qmail: 969380189.452125 end msg 643388 Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.444483 new msg 643388 Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.444590 info msg 643388: bytes 5478 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14130 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.527891 starting delivery 24: msg 643388 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.527986 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.528019 delivery 23: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380193_qp_14130/ Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.528044 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:16:33 hotcube qmail: 969380193.528067 end msg 643385 Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.693808 new msg 643385 Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.693914 info msg 643385: bytes 5699 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14137 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.784263 starting delivery 25: msg 643385 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.784353 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.784384 delivery 24: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380199_qp_14137/ Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.784409 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:16:39 hotcube qmail: 969380199.784432 end msg 643388 Sep 19 10:16:45 hotcube qmail: 969380205.918219 new msg 643388 Sep 19 10:16:45 hotcube qmail: 969380205.918324 info msg 643388: bytes 5920 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14153 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:16:46 hotcube qmail: 969380206.001659 delivery 25: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380205_qp_14153/ Sep 19 10:16:46 hotcube qmail: 969380206.001751 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 10:16:46 hotcube qmail: 969380206.001783 starting delivery 26: msg 643388 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:16:46 hotcube qmail: 969380206.001807 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:16:46 hotcube qmail: 969380206.001829 end msg 643385 Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.142644 new msg 643385 Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.142754 info msg 643385: bytes 6141 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14157 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.224766 starting delivery 27: msg 643385 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.224859 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.224892 delivery 26: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380212_qp_14157/ Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.224916 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:16:52 hotcube qmail: 969380212.224938 end msg 643388 Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.383719 new msg 643388 Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.383830 info msg 643388: bytes 6362 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14161 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.458827 starting delivery 28: msg 643388 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.458918 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.458951 delivery 27: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380218_qp_14161/ Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.458976 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:16:58 hotcube qmail: 969380218.458999 end msg 643385 Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.599775 new msg 643385 Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.599881 info msg 643385: bytes 6583 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 14168 uid 1005 Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.681876 starting delivery 29: msg 643385 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.681968 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.682001 delivery 28: success: 192.168.0.102_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_969380224_qp_14168/ Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.682026 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Sep 19 10:17:04 hotcube qmail: 969380224.682048 end msg 643388 Is it me, or does this remote host like saying ok? The message is still in the queue, and it's not showing up in the sfbosch's mailbox... *sigh* Stephen Bosch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19 Sep 2000, at 16:38, Stephen F. Bosch wrote: > Petr Novotny wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2000, at 15:47, Stephen F. Bosch wrote: > > > > > I've put it in /etc/hosts like so: > > > > > > 192.168.0.102 hotcube > > > dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com > > > > qmail ignores /etc/hosts, completely. If you need to override IP > > address, put dsl-XXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com:192.168.0.102 into > > control/smtproutes. > > Okay, I put dsl-XXXXXXXXXXXXXX-cgy.nucleus.com in > /var/qmail/control/smtproutes. > > Have a look at *these* interesting logs, now =) Wait! Just tell me - who's 192.168.0.102? Is it yourself? Well, in that case we've just created endless mailloop! If you want to say that dsl-XXX... is local, you put it in control/locals. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOceO5FMwP8g7qbw/EQIpSQCeKlVGGOLIsm4Spa6Rp/C3tLE7LiUAnjBu RuCF4cBAHfy1RLqTEsYlnuI6 =4AQ3 -----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]
Hello, I have been tasked to come up with a solution, but before I go into it, i thought some background information would be prudent: Currently, we have about 1000 mail users. Currently, we have two Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5/SP3 running. (names mail1/mail2) In front of Exchange is two Windows NT Server 4.0 Machines with Norton Anti-virus (name av1/av2) in front of the Anti-virus gateways we have a Cisco Local Director that manages traffic to the two anti virus gateways. we also currently have a secondary qmail server on FreeBSD 4.1, which is working quite well. It just queues up messages until the primary comes back on-line. (name qmail2) What we are now looking to do, is to replace the Norton Anti-Virus Machines, with a new FreeBSD Box. What we would like to do is install Qmail and the AVP virus software package. At somepoint, we are looking to have both Norton Anti-virus machines replaced with Qmail/AVP. One of our issues is, that we want email to come into the Qmail box, have AVP check for virus', and if it is clean, first we want to store each message into a User Mailbox, and then forward it to Exchange for ultimate delivery. The reason we want to do this, is that if for any reason our exchange server goes down, that it would be possibly via a pop client for a user to get their email. The issues that I am looking at, Need a way to make sure accounts exist on both Exchange and Qmail are synced somehow. We are only wanting to keep email stored for a few weeks, maybe a month at most. So some sort of purge/mail box trim with date sensitivity is needed. One thing I am now looking into, how does AVP fit into the Qmail Picture. Currently, with Norton Anti-virus, it works on port 25, and after passing the virus scan sends it to Exchange. There is no storage of messages here. I am looking into AVP Today, and how it fits into the Qmail Picture. Their website doesn't have a lot of documentation, and i'll probably need to download a copy to see if there is any further info on it. The Big question is, how do I get it to store a message in a users mailbox, and then forward it. I am looking at qmails forwarding options, and i believe that i will have to forward it specifically to mail1.lifetimefitness. What impact will this have on the message itself, header, etc. Looking for anyones experience in this area Dave Gresham
For all fans of linuxpeople, this is the latest news on his website, www.linuxpeople.cc. September 14th, qmail: WHAT @ FSCKING JOKE! Brought to you from the "Do not even waste your time department" Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a kernel"? In other words swallowing razor blades would have been a more pleasurable experience. [More info] Somewhat Qmail related :)
dG wrote: > For all fans of linuxpeople, this is the latest news on his website, > www.linuxpeople.cc. > > September 14th, qmail: WHAT @ FSCKING JOKE! > Brought to you from the "Do not even waste your time department" > > Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate > tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a > kernel"? In other words swallowing razor blades would have been a more > pleasurable experience. > [More info] How about: Trying to help linuxpeople is like eating broken glass, or drinking hot liquid nylon! Ever a fan of linuxpeople, I am Stephen Bosch
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 01:16:14PM -0500, dG wrote: > Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate > tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a > kernel"? In other words swallowing razor blades would have been a more > pleasurable experience. > [More info] I actually found this article quite informative. I personally have never had any trouble posting to this mailing list with technical issues. I think the keyword there is legitimate. And the fact that the main email address on that domain is for a hotmail.com account really goes a long way in securing his credibility. -- Erich Zigler Chief Technical Officer What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people have stopped banging their heads against? -- Lary Wall
Oh, and I couldn't resist: > Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate > tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a > kernel"? I take it he speaks from personal experience? BTW... what *IS* a kernel, anyway? Stephen Bosch
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Stephen Bosch wrote: > Oh, and I couldn't resist: > > Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate > > tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a > > kernel"? > BTW... what *IS* a kernel, anyway? > Stephen Bosch RTF(q)M Scott
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 01:16:14PM -0500, dG wrote: > For all fans of linuxpeople, this is the latest news on his website, > www.linuxpeople.cc. > > September 14th, qmail: WHAT @ FSCKING JOKE! > Brought to you from the "Do not even waste your time department" I'm famous! From http://www.linuxpeople.cc/qmail.htm: "Even Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> author of 'The qmail newbie's guide to relaying' acted like a complete jerk." Chris
I did ----------- Installed q-mail 1.03 OK Computer response ------------ Oke Everybody is getting the mail they should have. Here is no problem But the root doesn't get ANY mail no more. This is strange especially since every other mail is delivered oke. The only thing that I see is different is the maildir (The environment variable) normal users have ~/Maildir and root has /var/qmail/aliases/Maildir. This dir does exist. But I can't find where this variable is set. I run Redhat 6.2 Does anyone have an idee? Mark van der Putten. end ------------------------------------------ God is REAL, unless DECLARED AS INTEGER ------------------------------------------ E-mail at work [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail at home [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail at School [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the file INSTALL.alias in qmail-1.03.tar.gz it says: * root. Under qmail, root never receives mail. Your system may generate mail messages to root every night; if you don't have an alias for root, those messages will bounce. (They'll end up double-bouncing to the postmaster.) Set up an alias for root in ~alias/.qmail-root. .qmail files are similar to .forward files, but beware that they are strictly line-oriented---see dot-qmail.0 for details. (and in the file INSTALL it says: read INSTALL.alias *evil grin*) cheers wolfgang
Mark van der Putten wrote: > > I did > ----------- > Installed q-mail 1.03 OK > > Computer response > ------------ > Oke > Everybody is getting the mail they should have. Here is no problem > But the root doesn't get ANY mail no more. This is strange especially since every >other mail is delivered oke. > > The only thing that I see is different is the maildir (The environment variable) >normal users have ~/Maildir and root has /var/qmail/aliases/Maildir. This dir does >exist. But I can't find where this variable is set. > > I run Redhat 6.2 Root doesn't get mail under qmail. If you want to catch any mail send to root, go into the alias directory under qmail and edit the .qmail-root and put in the e-mail address you want mail redirected to. -- Dale Miracle System Administrator Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
Okay, this is a foolish newbie question. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the problem. We have two ways of accepting mail for a domain. We can either treat it as a local, *real* domain, or we can treat it as a virtual domain which supplements a real domain. If we treat it as a local real domain, we put it in control/rcpthosts and control/locals. Mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered to the local user foobar. If we treat it as a virtual domain, we put it in control/rcpthosts and control/virtualdomains but *not* control/locals. In control/virtualdomains we put @virtualdomain.org:username (question - is the prepend *required*?) Now all mail to virtualdomain.org will be sent to the local extension address [EMAIL PROTECTED] But I still want to make sure that mail is delivered to the local user recipient, so I create the file ~username/.qmail-recipient and I put &recipient in it. You can probably see by now that I have a common user space. What I want to do is prevent mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from also being accepted as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look at the above virtualdomains scenario and ask myself why I am even bothering with virtualdomains, since putting both domains in control/locals and control/rcpthosts will get me the same result. Did that make any sense? Thanks, Stephen Bosch
Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, this is a foolish newbie question. I'm having trouble wrapping my > head around the problem. A newbie who has apparently read, and understood, most of the documenation, FAQs, Life with qmail, ... what a novelty! > In control/virtualdomains we put > > @virtualdomain.org:username > > (question - is the prepend *required*?) If you mean whatever is after the colon, yes -- an empty prepend means the domain is not virtual. If you mean an optional "-extension" after a username after the colon, then that is indeed optional. It's one of the few areas which I find djb's documentation isn't perfectly clear on. > Now all mail to virtualdomain.org will be sent to the local extension address > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > But I still want to make sure that mail is delivered to the local user > recipient, so I create the file > > ~username/.qmail-recipient > > and I put > > &recipient > > in it. > > You can probably see by now that I have a common user space. What I want to > do is prevent mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from also being > accepted as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look at the above virtualdomains > scenario and ask myself why I am even bothering with virtualdomains, since > putting both domains in control/locals and control/rcpthosts will get me the > same result. If you mean to say that you _want_ email to any_address@vdomain1 and any_address@vdomain2 to be interchangeable with mail to any_address@localdomain, then just putting those domain names into locals makes more sense. Virtual domains add flexibility for other things, though. > Did that make any sense? Mostly. Charles -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer. --------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 02:34:16PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Okay, this is a foolish newbie question. I'm having trouble wrapping my > > head around the problem. > > A newbie who has apparently read, and understood, most of the documenation, > FAQs, Life with qmail, ... what a novelty! No, this is Dave Sill playing a trick on us, I think. :) --Adam
Hello =) Charles Cazabon wrote: > > You can probably see by now that I have a common user space. What I want to > > do is prevent mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from also being > > accepted as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look at the above virtualdomains > > scenario and ask myself why I am even bothering with virtualdomains, since > > putting both domains in control/locals and control/rcpthosts will get me the > > same result. > > If you mean to say that you _want_ email to any_address@vdomain1 and > any_address@vdomain2 to be interchangeable with mail to any_address@localdomain, > then just putting those domain names into locals makes more sense. > Virtual domains add flexibility for other things, though. Actually, I want to make sure that mail addressed to address_set1@vdomain1 will only be accepted if it is sent to address_set1@vdomain1, but bounced or dumped if it is sent to address_set1@vdomain2; mail addressed to address_set2@vdomain2 will be accepted while mail to address_set2@vdomain1 will be bounced or dumped -- WHERE address_set1 and address_set2 are part of the total user space on the qmail box (that is, recipient exists only once on the system; recipient may be part of address_set1 *or* address_set2 but not both simultaneously)... air! *INHALES* Is that better? Stephen Bosch
Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I want to make sure that mail addressed to > address_set1@vdomain1 will only be accepted if it is sent to > address_set1@vdomain1, but bounced or dumped if it is sent to > address_set1@vdomain2; mail addressed to address_set2@vdomain2 will be > accepted while mail to address_set2@vdomain1 will be bounced or dumped > -- WHERE address_set1 and address_set2 are part of the total user space > on the qmail box (that is, recipient exists only once on the system; > recipient may be part of address_set1 *or* address_set2 but not both > simultaneously)... Use virtual domains, controlled by a user account. For virtual domain 1, controlled by vuser1, have .qmail-extension files for each address you want to be valid. Ditto for virtual user/domain 2. Make sure that vuser1 does not have any .qmail-extension files for addresses who should be in virtual domain 2 only, and vice versa. Ensure that neither user has .qmail-default files. Note that prepend values change the above slightly if you use them. > Is that better? Clearer. Charles -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer. --------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Bosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Virtualdomains - AGAIN > > > Hello =) > > Charles Cazabon wrote: > > > > You can probably see by now that I have a common user space. What I want to > > > do is prevent mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from also being > > > accepted as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look at the above virtualdomains > > > scenario and ask myself why I am even bothering with virtualdomains, since > > > putting both domains in control/locals and control/rcpthosts will get me the > > > same result. > > > > If you mean to say that you _want_ email to any_address@vdomain1 and > > any_address@vdomain2 to be interchangeable with mail to any_address@localdomain, > > then just putting those domain names into locals makes more sense. > > Virtual domains add flexibility for other things, though. > > Actually, I want to make sure that mail addressed to > address_set1@vdomain1 will only be accepted if it is sent to > address_set1@vdomain1, but bounced or dumped if it is sent to > address_set1@vdomain2; mail addressed to address_set2@vdomain2 will be > accepted while mail to address_set2@vdomain1 will be bounced or dumped > -- WHERE address_set1 and address_set2 are part of the total user space > on the qmail box (that is, recipient exists only once on the system; > recipient may be part of address_set1 *or* address_set2 but not both > simultaneously)... If I understand what you're wanting properly, then what you want to do is list your virtual domains in control/virtualdomains and in the home directory for each virtual domain, define .qmail files for EVERY address @virtualdomain.com, but do not put a .qmail-default file. That will cause qmail to look for .qmail files in the home directories and if it does not find one, then it will bounce the mail. Hope that helps and makes sense, Travis Leuthauser Network Administrator WinConX Online, Inc. 225-751-0959 225-752-6517
.qmail files for EVERY address > @virtualdomain.com, but do not put a .qmail-default file. What would the naming format and contents of those .qmail filez be? If its in the docs then RTFM works for me :)
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 05:29:28PM -0500, dG wrote: > .qmail files for EVERY address > > @virtualdomain.com, but do not put a .qmail-default file. > > What would the naming format and contents of those .qmail filez be? If its > in the docs then RTFM works for me :) man dot-qmail for contents, man qmail-local for naming format when using virtualdomains I think. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
It's in the docs, sorry I can't say exactly where though.. they work the same as all the other .qmail files. .qmail-address Contents: &account to deliver mail to Travis Leuthauser Network Administrator WinConX Online, Inc. 225-751-0959 225-752-6517 ----- Original Message ----- From: "dG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Virtualdomains - AGAIN > .qmail files for EVERY address > > @virtualdomain.com, but do not put a .qmail-default file. > > What would the naming format and contents of those .qmail filez be? If its > in the docs then RTFM works for me :) > >
Travis Leuthauser wrote: > Stephen Bosch wrote: > > > Actually, I want to make sure that mail addressed to > > address_set1@vdomain1 will only be accepted if it is sent to > > address_set1@vdomain1, but bounced or dumped if it is sent to > > address_set1@vdomain2; mail addressed to address_set2@vdomain2 will be > > accepted while mail to address_set2@vdomain1 will be bounced or dumped > > -- WHERE address_set1 and address_set2 are part of the total user space > > on the qmail box (that is, recipient exists only once on the system; > > recipient may be part of address_set1 *or* address_set2 but not both > > simultaneously)... > > If I understand what you're wanting properly, then what you want to do is > list your virtual domains in control/virtualdomains and in the home > directory for each virtual domain, define .qmail files for EVERY address > @virtualdomain.com, but do not put a .qmail-default file. That will cause > qmail to look for .qmail files in the home directories and if it does not > find one, then it will bounce the mail. > > Hope that helps and makes sense, It does. Thanks for all the help, everyone -- I followed your instructions and I am getting the desired results. I guess I didn't fully understand how the virtualdomains feature worked; I didn't realize that qmail would bounce the mail without a corresponding .qmail-[recipient] or .qmail-default. That's perhaps one area, though, that the documentation or LWQ might be made *just a tad* clearer -- it's great so far, but I imagine that one extra line of text would be enough to minimize confusion even further. I'll see if I can come up with that magic line *chuckles* it's all a bit funny to me right now. I'm feeling decidedly like a punch-card computer scientist at the moment =) Again, thanks -Stephen- > > Travis Leuthauser > Network Administrator > WinConX Online, Inc. > 225-751-0959 > 225-752-6517
Today the postmaster "account" recevied about 20 messages stating unable to deliver mail, unable to return to sender. Neither address was a local address in any of these cases. Our rcpthosts file only lists our domains. When I telneted into port 25 however and tried to mail from: a remote address and rcpt to: a remote address I recevied a 250 ok. I am new to qmail but I have read the "Qmail newbie's guide to relaying" and I thought when I sent from a remote email address to a remote email address I should have received a 553 domain not in allowed rcpthosts message. None of the mail i was trying to deliver has appeared in the remote accounts I was using. I am concerned that we may be acting as an open relay. How can I check/fix this? Jjen Jennifer Franklin Assistant Application Designer Labour Operations Applications Development Human Resources Development Canada
> I am new to qmail but I have read the "Qmail newbie's guide > to relaying" and I thought when I sent from a remote email > address to a remote email address I should have received a > 553 domain not in allowed rcpthosts message. None of the > mail i was trying to deliver has appeared in the > remote accounts I was using. That is not correct - the newbies guide to relaying tells you how to configure your mail server to accept mail from anyone, to anyone, as long as the connection is from a trusted address. The list of trusted addresses is in the /etc/tcp.smtp file (compiled into tcp.smtp.cdb and referenced in the tcpserver command line). Following those instructions, if you test from your own box and your tcp.smtp file allows that box to relay, then the test will work. The real test is what happens when mail is sent from an outside address, one not owned by you or your users. > I am concerned that we may be acting as an open relay. How > can I check/fix this? You can use an automated relay tester, but beware that qmail appears not to pass the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" test (and the test usually says "This is not conclusive unless you actually got mail"). There's a test at http://www.abuse.net/relay.html. If you have an external account, you can try to test from there, manually. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i telnetted into port 25 (not sure if this is the machine you wrote about tho) and got this: 220 info.load-otea.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca ESMTP mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) if you telnet from a machine that is in your relayclients, you wont get the 553, could that explain it? if someone sent mail(s) to non-existent_users@your_machine with a non-existing envelope sender adress (as spammers often do), the mail failure notes could not be delivered and would bounce ... wolfgang Also sprach Jen Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 19.09.2000: Our rcpthosts file only lists our domains. When I telneted into port 25 however and tried to mail from: a remote address and rcpt to: a remote address I recevied a 250 ok.
hi, while sending emails to AOL qmail reports the following error-messages: Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s) Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address i did not find anything about this in the faqs. somebody here who can help me ? regards, jens
Make sure your files in /var/qmail/control have the correct settings in them. I ran into this yesterday and it turned out I had bad info in defaultdomain, locals, me, and plusdomain. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Jens Georg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:56 PM To: qmail mailinglist Subject: qmail error hi, while sending emails to AOL qmail reports the following error-messages: Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s) Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address i did not find anything about this in the faqs. somebody here who can help me ? regards, jens
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 03:07:11PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Make sure your files in /var/qmail/control have the correct settings in > them. I ran into this yesterday and it turned out I had bad info in > defaultdomain, locals, me, and plusdomain. Or more specifically, helohost. If that's not present, then me. Regards. > > Jay > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Georg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:56 PM > To: qmail mailinglist > Subject: qmail error > > > hi, > > while sending emails to AOL qmail reports the following error-messages: > > Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s) > Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address > > i did not find anything about this in the faqs. somebody here who can > help me ? > > regards, > > jens
So what do most people consider the best log analyzer for qmail logs (I'm using multilog)?I'd like to see real-time stats if possible, or at least near realtime... :)Jay----------
Jay Austad
Network Administrator
CBS Marketwatch
612.817.1271
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://cbs.marketwatch.com
http://www.bigcharts.com
Results from http://www.abuse.net/cgi-bin/relaytest show that 8 out of 9 relay tests fail when probing my machine. However, the last test produced the following message: Relay test 9 >>> RSET <<< 250 flushed >>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest@[216.227.21.225]> <<< 250 ok >>> RCPT TO:<"relaytest%abuse.net"> <<< 250 ok It appears that my Qmail setup allows relaying when % is between uername and domain. Why would that happen? > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:43 PM > Subject: RE: Are we acting as an open relay? > > > You can use an automated relay tester, but beware that qmail appears > not to pass the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" test (and the test > usually says > "This is not conclusive unless you actually got mail"). There's a test at > http://www.abuse.net/relay.html.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:19:50PM -0500, zealot wrote: > Results from http://www.abuse.net/cgi-bin/relaytest show that 8 out of 9 > relay tests fail when probing my machine. However, the last test produced > the following message: > > Relay test 9 > >>> RSET > <<< 250 flushed > >>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest@[216.227.21.225]> > <<< 250 ok > >>> RCPT TO:<"relaytest%abuse.net"> > <<< 250 ok > > It appears that my Qmail setup allows relaying when % is between uername and > domain. Why would that happen? It just *accepted* the message, it never said it will relay, and, if your box is configured correctly, it *won't*. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
> > You can use an automated relay tester, but beware that > > qmail appears not to pass the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > test (and the test usually says "This is not conclusive > > unless you actually got mail"). > > It appears that my Qmail setup allows relaying when % is > between uername and domain. Why would that happen? I apologize, I don't seem to have worded that correctly. "qmail appears not to pass the mail%target... test, BUT IT DOES PASS; that particular subtest is a false positive for qmail" So, failing that one test is a false positive; ignore it and consider yourself safe. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:33:03PM -0400, French, Michael wrote: > I got the QMAILQUEUE patch the other day so I could get scan4virus > working. When I tried running the patch on the qmail source, it failed out. >... > Could this be because I used the DNS qmail patch? If so, should I Gaaa! Please remember such fundemental things next time! Yes this is why it failed. As is usually the case, patches are against UNTOUCHED sources. The qmailqueue patch needs to be against the original 1.03 sources, otherwise you _might_ get some failures, depending on what other patches you've already put on it. People who do this alot obviously have to know enough about what they're doing that they can work around such failures - usually you just eyeball it and work it out. -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
how would you apply more than one patch then? wolfgang Also sprach Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 20.09.2000: Yes this is why it failed. As is usually the case, patches are against UNTOUCHED sources.
I was afraid of just "eyeballing it" and really screwing it up. No, I don't know exactly what I am doing, I am LEARNING, that is why I asked for help with a qmail related issue which is what I thought the purpose of this list was. If you have problems answering a question politely, don't bother saying anything at all. I realize this list can sometimes get repeative, but I made the effort to search the list archives and nothing was said about this except for a few unanswered requests for help. Someone even told me " don't bother this mailing list" with this question. I don't understand how a question pertaining to qmail (ie patching the source) does not belong on this list and why replies to questions have to terse or even down right rude. Don't get me wrong, people like Dave Sill and Ken Grieve have been very helpful and patient but others of you only gone out of your way to be rude. I am not trying to start a flame war a la "linuxpeople", I am just asking for some common courtsey. Michael French Asheville Citizen-Times IT Dept. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Haar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 6:06 PM Subject: Re: QMAILQUEUE patch On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:33:03PM -0400, French, Michael wrote: > I got the QMAILQUEUE patch the other day so I could get scan4virus > working. When I tried running the patch on the qmail source, it failed out. >... > Could this be because I used the DNS qmail patch? If so, should I Gaaa! Please remember such fundemental things next time! Yes this is why it failed. As is usually the case, patches are against UNTOUCHED sources. The qmailqueue patch needs to be against the original 1.03 sources, otherwise you _might_ get some failures, depending on what other patches you've already put on it. People who do this alot obviously have to know enough about what they're doing that they can work around such failures - usually you just eyeball it and work it out. -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
hi, I am currently running a website which is pretty much all php, part of the websites function is to send user's their username and password via email, this was all working fine with sendmail.. so my problem is when a user signs up or requests a password they get the message that the password is sent although nothing shows up in the email log as the mail being sent and i get an error is httpd logs, the error in the httpd log is newaliases: fatal: unable to create /etc/aliases.tmp: access denied newaliases: fatal: unable to create /etc/aliases.tmp: access denied newaliases: fatal: unable to create /etc/aliases.tmp: access denied The email is being sent using the php mail function which is the same as just using the "mail" command. The mail command works fine from the command line, if anyone could give me an idea as to why this is happening it would be greatly appreciated Cheers Danny
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 09:26:07AM +1000, Danny Hay wrote: > hi, I am currently running a website which is pretty much all php, part of > the websites function is to send user's their username and password via > email, this was all working fine with sendmail.. so my problem is when a > user signs up or requests a password they get the message that the password > is sent although nothing shows up in the email log as the mail being sent > and i get an error is httpd logs, the error in the httpd log is > > newaliases: fatal: unable to create /etc/aliases.tmp: access denied > newaliases: fatal: unable to create /etc/aliases.tmp: access denied > newaliases: fatal: unable to create /etc/aliases.tmp: access denied This looks like sendmail stuff. Did you make /usr/sbin/sendmail (and /usr/lib/sendmail if you have it) a symlink to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail? Chris
okay, here's the deal. I've got qmail sending from my subdomain to anywhere else and I can also send messages (from my mail client on my machine (not the server)) to the other user accounts on the machine and can get those messages back to my machine (recieve them) so it looks like pop is working (recieving) and the smtpd is running (sending to other machine users) but when anywhere else tries to mail me (i.e. if I log on to hotmail and mail something to this server) I can find /no/ evidence of it whatsoever, in none of the logs and no bounce backs, it just dissappears, my friend is having the same problem and where both new users so its probably something easy, but I read the INSTALL and followed it to a tee, its just that remote-local isn't work. We're both using tcpserver (when he switched to inetd his started working =( but I don't wanna do that) and I'm using the qmail mail format (maildir, I believe) and he wasn't so... I'm guessing the probs with tcpserve, but I couldn't find anything, it was also 6:00 am (before sleep, not after) when I was looking. Thanks for the help later Najati -- morals are sacrificing for, not for sacrificing
Dears Friends I need your help. I'd like use tarpitting-patch for run on my dial-up users I have very users spamers, and need than ever users send a max of 15 e-mails for each message. I am looking your web site: http://www.palomine.net/qmail/tarpit.patch But I don't understand how use that patch, please say me how should do step by step for have all ready.. I little know pacth programs. Please, Give all the setps. Very Thanks Juan Enciso
Hi, I'm new to qmail and one year old in linux. I'm trying to set up a mail server and having problems. I want to use my slackware 7.1 linux as a local mail server for a small LAN; maybe eventualy for an external domain later. I want clients to use their Win Outlook to retrieve mail, so I should be able to send a mail to my main user accound and retrieve it from the same or different workstations, but it doesn't work. When I send the message it looks like it works, it doesn't error out or anything. But when I telnet into my linux box, I can't find the email anywhere. I had a heck of a time shuffling thru the directions/installation documents. It didn't seem very clear, but it was probably me. I'm using the ./Maildir method. My .qmail file is: ./Maildir/ My rc is: #!/bin/sh # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default. exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail there is nothing in my /var/qmail/users directory. From what I could make out, there should be an assign file in there but I'm not clear on the format. I tried to use the command qmail-pw2u but it just hangs up and does nothing, I have to hit the Control-C to stop it. Am I using it wrong? From what I read it should take your /etc/psswd file and make an assign file under /var/qmail/users, but it doesn't. Another thing, my main user account has 2 uppercase letters, so I tried using the -u option, but nothing again. I believe I have all the daemons running: alita:/var/qmail# ps aux | grep qmail qmails 115 0.0 0.3 1096 388 ? S 20:24 0:00 qmail-send qmaill 120 0.0 0.3 1068 412 ? S 20:24 0:00 splogger qmail root 121 0.0 0.2 1056 336 ? S 20:24 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Ma qmailr 122 0.0 0.2 1056 328 ? S 20:24 0:00 qmail-rspawn qmailq 123 0.0 0.2 1048 348 ? S 20:24 0:00 qmail-clean root 394 0.0 0.2 1072 308 pts/1 S 21:38 0:00 /var/qmail/bin/qm root 508 0.0 0.3 1164 412 pts/0 S 22:24 0:00 grep qmail I didn't instal the anti-spamming package or the daemontools since it's a very small LAN. I'm using inetd instead of ucspi-tcp. I wasn't sure if I need the POP3 thing, but I installed it anyways since I notice the properties on my windows mail server account has POP indicated. I put in my inetd too, just like the documentation said. Before I installed the POP3, I created a dummy account (flapjack) and sent some mail to it thru the win workstation. It showed up in the ~/Maildir/new dir. I was excited for a moment. I tried another and it worked too. But I could never retrieve mail from the qmail server, that's why I thought I needed to install POP3. Now I can't send anything to the dummy account, I took a step back. Frustrated, I found this mailing list since I depleted my HOW-TO documentation. Here is the bottom portion of my /var/logs/messages file: Sep 19 22:26:58 alita gnu-pop3d[511]: User 'flapjack' logged in with mailbox '/d ev/null' Sep 19 22:26:58 alita gnu-pop3d[511]: Session ended for user: flapjack Sep 19 22:31:59 alita gnu-pop3d[526]: connect from 192.168.0.112 Sep 19 22:31:59 alita gnu-pop3d[526]: Incoming connection opened Sep 19 22:31:59 alita gnu-pop3d[526]: User 'flapjack' logged in with mailbox '/d ev/null' Sep 19 22:31:59 alita gnu-pop3d[526]: Session ended for user: flapjack Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.977697 starting delivery 28: msg 287124 t o local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.977842 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.987402 delivery 28: deferral: Uh-oh:_home _directory_is_writable._(#4.7.0)/ Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.987591 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 19 22:37:01 alita gnu-pop3d[531]: connect from 192.168.0.112 Sep 19 22:37:01 alita gnu-pop3d[531]: Incoming connection opened Sep 19 22:37:01 alita gnu-pop3d[531]: User 'flapjack' logged in with mailbox '/d ev/null' Sep 19 22:37:01 alita gnu-pop3d[531]: Session ended for user: flapjack Sep 19 22:40:32 alita su[536]: - pts/0 DillWeed-root Sep 19 22:40:35 alita su[537]: + pts/0 DillWeed-root Sep 19 22:41:21 alita gnu-pop3d[541]: connect from 192.168.0.112 Sep 19 22:41:21 alita gnu-pop3d[541]: Incoming connection opened Sep 19 22:41:21 alita gnu-pop3d[541]: User 'flapjack' logged in with mailbox '/d ev/null' Sep 19 22:41:21 alita gnu-pop3d[541]: Session ended for user: flapjack alita:/var/log# You guys seem like you know what this is all about, could you please help me? Any ideas? Jim
There's a long story that I don't want to tell, but is there any way of rejecting e-mail with two @ signs in the 'RCPT TO' part of the SMTP conversation? We have problems in our particular system of mail being relayed through a particular machine because they are being addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]@our.relay.com (because a particular piece of SMTP virus scanning software decides it has something special about that type of mail). We are looking at replacing this virus scanning software VERY soon, but until then, we would like to deny any e-mail with two @ symbols in the RCPT TO. Any ideas/patches? I'm not great in C... /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/
Oh, and in case you're wondering...qmail doesn't reject it because we have an smtp route for all traffic which isn't delivered locally or taken care of by another smtp route for a specific domain... Thanks! Brett Randall Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 3:54 PM > To: qmail > Subject: Two @ signs in RCPT TO - how to reject?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm trying install qmail on a Mandrake 7.1 server. I get a unauthorized message when I try login via pop3 locally or remotely. checkpassword seems don't work. This system uses shadowed passwords. I was unable to execute qmail-pw2u on /etc/passwd. Thanks jjc
Dear Qmail-ers, I want to setup selective relaying at my qmail servers but until now I still got open. My qmail server running on AIX v4.3.3 platform. How to implement POP-before-SMTP at qmail ? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Paulus Hendarwan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/
> How to implement POP-before-SMTP at qmail ? Look at open-smtp on www.qmail.org/top.html. The doco isn't very good (actually, it's crap but I think Russ was paid to make it by a client, then distributed it after without doco for free, so that's understandable). But take a look, and I hope you have some initiative, cos you're gonna need it... /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/
I am currently running with a concurrencylocal of 40. But if problems arise with a mailbox (eg. no more quota) peoples procmail processes hang for a long time and ties up all the local processes. I can soulve this partially with /etc/procmailrc but thats not really a solution. Will qmail handle a pr. user process-limit (set by the OS) of eg 5 or 10 gracefully or are there any pitfalls or bette ways to limit the problem? -- Christoffer
