qmail Digest 30 Nov 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1199
Topics (messages 53016 through 53147):
dot-qmail question (again) :-)
53016 by: Visar Emini
53022 by: Hans-Juergen Schwarz
53032 by: Milen Petrinski
53037 by: Alex Pennace
53042 by: Milen Petrinski
53043 by: Milen Petrinski
53044 by: Charles Cazabon
53046 by: Romeyn Prescott
53053 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53056 by: Alex Pennace
53061 by: Peter Green
53069 by: Romeyn Prescott
53081 by: Charles Cazabon
53106 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53115 by: Milen Petrinski
53116 by: Milen Petrinski
53147 by: Visar Emini
There are mistake?
53017 by: Ould
53024 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: qmail imapd?
53018 by: Jose AP Celestino
Re: IsoQlog Qmail Log Analyzer
53019 by: Ralph Hackl
53020 by: Jose AP Celestino
SSL in qmail
53021 by: Hans-Juergen Schwarz
53130 by: Sean Reifschneider
Re: qmail capasity ?
53023 by: Charles Cazabon
List Courtesy (was Newbie question)
53025 by: Jamin Collins
53026 by: Warren Small
53027 by: Robin S. Socha
53028 by: Henning Brauer
53029 by: Jamin Collins
53030 by: Amitai Schlair
53031 by: Amitai Schlair
53033 by: Jamin Collins
53034 by: Jamin Collins
53035 by: Greg Owen
53036 by: Romeyn Prescott
53038 by: Robin S. Socha
53039 by: Amitai Schlair
53040 by: John W. Lemons III
53041 by: Charles Cazabon
53047 by: John W. Lemons III
53049 by: Dave Sill
53050 by: Matt Brown
53051 by: Dave Sill
53052 by: Barley
53054 by: Kris Kelley
53055 by: Dave Sill
53057 by: Adam McKenna
53058 by: Jamin Collins
53059 by: Jamin Collins
53062 by: Robin S. Socha
53063 by: Barley
53064 by: Barley
53065 by: Matt Brown
53066 by: Barley
53067 by: Tim Hunter
53068 by: Markus Stumpf
53070 by: Markus Stumpf
53071 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53072 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53073 by: Markus Stumpf
53074 by: Bill Carlson
53075 by: Jamin Collins
53076 by: Robin S. Socha
53077 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53078 by: Jamin Collins
53083 by: Peter Green
53084 by: Peter Green
53085 by: Louis Theran
53086 by: Romeyn Prescott
53088 by: Jamin Collins
53090 by: Barley
53091 by: Mark Delany
53093 by: Adam McKenna
53094 by: Barley
53097 by: asantos
53098 by: Tim Hunter
53104 by: Scott Ballantyne
53108 by: Tim Burden
53109 by: Jamin Collins
53110 by: Andy Bradford
53120 by: Eric Garff
53122 by: Henning Brauer
53124 by: Henning Brauer
53132 by: Andy Bradford
53136 by: Jamin Collins
53141 by: Karl Vogel
53144 by: Andy KKS
53145 by: Andy KKS
sending mail to all users
53045 by: defender of the protocol
53048 by: J.J.Gallardo
53146 by: J.J.Gallardo
Re: creating an aliases.cdb without newaliases?
53060 by: Collin B. McClendon
Newbie Question
53079 by: Louis Mushandu
53092 by: Louis Mushandu
53095 by: Bill Carlson
53096 by: Amitai Schlair
53099 by: asantos
53100 by: Robin S. Socha
53125 by: Henning Brauer
Using this list for QMail Support questions...
53080 by: John W. Lemons III
53112 by: Robin S. Socha
53121 by: Russell Nelson
53126 by: Jamin Collins
53133 by: John W. Lemons III
53142 by: Alex Pennace
[HELP] Domain in Sender: is missing
53082 by: montgomery f. tidwell
53102 by: Peter Samuel
my Sender field is incorrect.
53087 by: Montgomery Tidwell
why didn't it send my msg?
53089 by: QBA
53107 by: Markus Stumpf
53127 by: Henning Brauer
inconsistency using qmail/Spamcontrol badrcptto
53101 by: Russ Ringer
Frustrated, please help.
53103 by: Louis Mushandu
53111 by: Peter Green
53113 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
53114 by: Chris Johnson
53117 by: Vincent Schonau
53118 by: Markus Stumpf
53123 by: Alex Pennace
53129 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
53134 by: Henning Brauer
***PAID consultancy required, company will pay ***
53105 by: Louis Mushandu
53119 by: Amitai Schlair
Re: secrets and lies
53128 by: Greg White
53137 by: Ian Lance Taylor
Large amounts of mail
53131 by: drew.ricshaw.com.au
newbie need help
53135 by: Arif Rudiana
53140 by: Andy Bradford
MRTG configuration
53138 by: DG
53139 by: Magnus Bodin
Re: QMail Support and being a newbie -- my $ .02
53143 by: Jessica U. Gothie
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a strange situation. In my .qmail file I specify a local path of my ./Maildir/ where a copy of message should be kept: /path/to/my/maildir/ But this line is treated as e-mail address not as a local path? I get an error saying that: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not listed in control/locals ... etc. Does anyone have an idea what hte problem could be? Thanks Visar
Hallo Visar, Wednesday, November 29, 2000, 11:59:32 AM, you wrote: > I have a strange situation. > In my .qmail file I specify a local path of my ./Maildir/ where a copy of > message should be kept: > /path/to/my/maildir/ > But this line is treated as e-mail address not as a local path? > I get an error saying that: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not listed in control/locals ... etc. I don�t know. I�m using vpopmail and do the same trick to deliver Mails to my local users and it works fine. But vpopmail does it a bit different to the qmail installation, so maybe I�m just lucky that it works. But I would be interessted about the problem, too Regards Hans-Juergen
Hi, will anybody answer this question? I have the same problem :-( I'm trying to write a .qmail file, to allow to forward the messages to that user and to leave a copy in user's maildir. be-01:/home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/mpetrinski# more .qmail ./Maildir/ office As written in dot-qmail man page, this should work fine, but qmail interpretes the ./Maildir/ line as address, not es maildir path. Why? Milen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Visar Emini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:59 PM Subject: dot-qmail question (again) :-) > I have a strange situation. > > In my .qmail file I specify a local path of my ./Maildir/ where a copy of > message should be kept: > /path/to/my/maildir/ > But this line is treated as e-mail address not as a local path? > I get an error saying that: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not listed in control/locals ... etc. > > Does anyone have an idea what hte problem could be? > > Thanks > > Visar > >
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 06:09:04PM +0200, Milen Petrinski wrote: > I'm trying to > write a .qmail file, to allow to forward the messages to that user and to > leave a copy in user's maildir. > > be-01:/home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/mpetrinski# more .qmail > ./Maildir/ > office > > As written in dot-qmail man page, this should work fine, but qmail > interpretes the ./Maildir/ line as address, not es maildir path. Why? What do the logs say?
PGP signature
Nov 29 15:53:17 be-01 qmail: 975513197.754397 new msg 101388 Nov 29 15:53:17 be-01 qmail: 975513197.754867 info msg 101388: bytes 627 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5060 uid 1001 Nov 29 15:53:18 be-01 qmail: 975513198.117625 starting delivery 38: msg 101388 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 15:53:18 be-01 qmail: 975513198.118082 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444056 new msg 101743 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444555 info msg 101743: bytes 749 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5149 uid 1011 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444876 starting delivery 39: msg 101743 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.445124 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.677352 new msg 102149 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.686915 info msg 102149: bytes 749 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5157 uid 1011 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.702107 starting delivery 40: msg 102149 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.710230 status: local 3/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.988794 delivery 38: success: did_0+0+1/ Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.997266 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:22 be-01 qmail: 975513202.005094 end msg 101388 I'm not very experienced, but I don't see anything wrong, exept the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. Milen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Pennace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Milen Petrinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:30 PM Subject: Re: dot-qmail question (again) :-)
Sorry, the previous was not complete, here it is: Nov 29 15:53:17 be-01 qmail: 975513197.754397 new msg 101388 Nov 29 15:53:17 be-01 qmail: 975513197.754867 info msg 101388: bytes 627 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5060 uid 1001 Nov 29 15:53:18 be-01 qmail: 975513198.117625 starting delivery 38: msg 101388 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 15:53:18 be-01 qmail: 975513198.118082 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444056 new msg 101743 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444555 info msg 101743: bytes 749 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5149 uid 1011 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444876 starting delivery 39: msg 101743 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.445124 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.677352 new msg 102149 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.686915 info msg 102149: bytes 749 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5157 uid 1011 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.702107 starting delivery 40: msg 102149 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.710230 status: local 3/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.988794 delivery 38: success: did_0+0+1/ Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.997266 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:22 be-01 qmail: 975513202.005094 end msg 101388 Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.584003 delivery 39: success: POP_user_does_not_exist,_but_will_deliver_to_/home/vpopmail/do mains/bates.eu.com/postmaster/did_0+0+1/ Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.584618 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.584919 end msg 101743 Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.721129 delivery 40: success: did_0+0+1/ Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.721590 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.721865 end msg 102149 I'm using vpopmail and deliver everithing that has no other recipient to postmaster. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Pennace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Milen Petrinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:30 PM Subject: Re: dot-qmail question (again) :-)
Milen Petrinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > will anybody answer this question? I have the same problem :-( I'm trying to > write a .qmail file, to allow to forward the messages to that user and to > leave a copy in user's maildir. > > be-01:/home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/mpetrinski# more .qmail > ./Maildir/ > office > ----- Original Message ----- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not listed in control/locals ... That's not an error that qmail spits out. Your .qmail file does not contain "/path/to/my/maildir/" in it anywhere. We can't help you without better information. Please post the following: -relevant portions of the qmail log file(s) (don't re-type them or remove domain names, etc -- just post them as-is) -the exact text of the error message you are receiving, if any -the output of `qmail-showctl` would also be helpful I'm also suspicious of that "office" line above. It would appear to me to forward a copy to "office@defaultdomain", which doesn't sound like what you want. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try this: --- /path/to/home/Maildir/ &[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ...ROMeyn At 6:09 PM +0200 11/29/00, Milen Petrinski wrote: >Hi, >will anybody answer this question? I have the same problem :-( I'm trying to >write a .qmail file, to allow to forward the messages to that user and to >leave a copy in user's maildir. > >be-01:/home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/mpetrinski# more .qmail >./Maildir/ >office > >As written in dot-qmail man page, this should work fine, but qmail >interpretes the ./Maildir/ line as address, not es maildir path. Why? > >Milen > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Visar Emini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:59 PM >Subject: dot-qmail question (again) :-) > > >> I have a strange situation. >> >> In my .qmail file I specify a local path of my ./Maildir/ where a copy of >> message should be kept: >> /path/to/my/maildir/ >> But this line is treated as e-mail address not as a local path? >> I get an error saying that: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not listed in control/locals ... >etc. > > > > Does anyone have an idea what hte problem could be? > > > > Thanks > > > > Visar > > > > -- signat-url: http://www2.potsdam.edu/dctm/prescor/signat-url.htm cubiclecam: http://digirom.potsdam.edu/~prescor/cubiclecam.html ^^^ <--- Off-line unless someone knows how to get camserv to compile under RedHat 7... *sigh* :-(
Romeyn Prescott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 November 2000 at 12:24:08 -0500 > At 6:09 PM +0200 11/29/00, Milen Petrinski wrote: > >will anybody answer this question? I have the same problem :-( I'm trying to > >write a .qmail file, to allow to forward the messages to that user and to > >leave a copy in user's maildir. > > > >be-01:/home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/mpetrinski# more .qmail > >./Maildir/ > >office > > > >As written in dot-qmail man page, this should work fine, but qmail > >interpretes the ./Maildir/ line as address, not es maildir path. Why? > > > >Milen > Try this: > > --- > /path/to/home/Maildir/ > &[EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- I was thinking along similar lines; but the dot-qmail manpage does sasy that a maildir path begins with a dot or a slash, and it's the maildir path that was failing. Do you know this will fix it, or are you just trying the obvious next thing? -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Milen Petrinski wrote: > Sorry, the previous was not complete, here it is: > > Nov 29 15:53:17 be-01 qmail: 975513197.754397 new msg 101388 > Nov 29 15:53:17 be-01 qmail: 975513197.754867 info msg 101388: bytes 627 > from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5060 uid 1001 > Nov 29 15:53:18 be-01 qmail: 975513198.117625 starting delivery 38: msg > 101388 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, qmail is going to deliver message 101388 to local address bates.eu.com-mpetrinski. > Nov 29 15:53:18 be-01 qmail: 975513198.118082 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444056 new msg 101743 > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444555 info msg 101743: bytes 749 > from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5149 uid 1011 > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.444876 starting delivery 39: msg > 101743 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something messed up the local address here for this message. > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.445124 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.677352 new msg 102149 > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.686915 info msg 102149: bytes 749 > from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5157 uid 1011 > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.702107 starting delivery 40: msg > 102149 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.710230 status: local 3/10 remote 0/20 Ok, qmail is going to deliver message 102149 to local address bates.eu.com-office. > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.988794 delivery 38: success: > did_0+0+1/ > Nov 29 15:53:21 be-01 qmail: 975513201.997266 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 > Nov 29 15:53:22 be-01 qmail: 975513202.005094 end msg 101388 Okay, message 101388 has been delivered to all recipients and has been removed from the system (note that this message number may be reused later). But if the .qmail for bates.eu.com-mpetrinski had any forwarding lines the line "delivery xx: success" would include something like "qp_3511" indicating that for forwarded mail qmail-queue pid 3511 was invoked. But the qp_ note is missing here, one can't be sure precisely where messages 101743 and 102149 came from. > Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.584003 delivery 39: success: > POP_user_does_not_exist,_but_will_deliver_to_/home/vpopmail/do > mains/bates.eu.com/postmaster/did_0+0+1/ > Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.584618 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 > Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.584919 end msg 101743 > Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.721129 delivery 40: success: > did_0+0+1/ > Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.721590 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 > Nov 29 15:53:27 be-01 qmail: 975513207.721865 end msg 102149 Still insufficient information. Please post the output of: 1. /var/qmail/bin/qmail-showctl 2. cat /var/qmail/users/assign 3. /var/qmail/bin/qmail-getpw bates.eu.com-mpetrinski | xargs -0 echo 4. The .qmail file that governs deliveries for the local address bates.eu.com-mpetrinski, if you can find it. When posting, be sure to include the full path and filename of the .qmail file you are posting, so we can double check to see if you got the right one.
[ Sorry to piggyback, but I ... misplaced ... the original post. ] > Milen Petrinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > will anybody answer this question? I have the same problem :-( I'm trying to > > write a .qmail file, to allow to forward the messages to that user and to > > leave a copy in user's maildir. > > > > be-01:/home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/mpetrinski# more .qmail > > ./Maildir/ > > office IIRC, vpopmail .qmail files in the user's directory do NOT support direct delivery, nor do they support program execution. They only support ``forwarding''; if you want delivery or program execution, you will need to set up a .qmail-user file, e.g.: # cat /home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/.qmail-mpetrinski ./mpetrinski/Maildir/ office (Though as Charles wrote, you probably don't want office, you want [EMAIL PROTECTED] or something like that...) HTH! /pg -- Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer.
> > > Try this: > > > > --- > > /path/to/home/Maildir/ > > &[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Sorry. It's been a day. I meant to say that I tried this with success on my server. It worked for me. ...ROMeyn -- signat-url: http://www2.potsdam.edu/dctm/prescor/signat-url.htm cubiclecam: http://digirom.potsdam.edu/~prescor/cubiclecam.html ^^^ <--- Off-line unless someone knows how to get camserv to compile under RedHat 7... *sigh* :-(
Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IIRC, vpopmail .qmail files in the user's directory do NOT support direct > delivery, nor do they support program execution. They only support > ``forwarding''; Ah, hence the original user's log of attempted deliveries to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" . Shall we consider this issue closed now? :) Having never used vpopmail, I was unaware of this restriction on .qmail files. Perhaps if they don't behave like other .qmail files, they should have another name (.vpopmail comes to mind). Frankenmail, indeed. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 November 2000 at 14:27:14 -0600 > Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > IIRC, vpopmail .qmail files in the user's directory do NOT support direct > > delivery, nor do they support program execution. They only support > > ``forwarding''; > > Ah, hence the original user's log of attempted deliveries to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" . Shall we consider this issue closed now? :) > Having never used vpopmail, I was unaware of this restriction on .qmail files. > Perhaps if they don't behave like other .qmail files, they should have > another name (.vpopmail comes to mind). In fact, this can be cited as an example of the dangers of asking on the wrong list. It was really a vpopmail question, and I'll bet people over on that mailing list would have spotted this issue considerably sooner. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
> Try this: > > --- > /path/to/home/Maildir/ the same - doesn't matter if it is full path or not > &[EMAIL PROTECTED] putting & makes the message loop > ---
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Cazabon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:53 PM Subject: Re: dot-qmail question (again) :-) > > That's not an error that qmail spits out. Your .qmail file does not contain > "/path/to/my/maildir/" in it anywhere. We can't help you without better > information. > I don't say this is an error, I'm sure the problem is in the .qmail file, buth where? I'v tried this and full path - the same > Please post the following: > -relevant portions of the qmail log file(s) (don't re-type > them or remove domain names, etc -- just post them as-is) I did about 30 min ago > -the exact text of the error message you are receiving, if any no error messages - just that the message is delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -the output of `qmail-showctl` would also be helpful > > I'm also suspicious of that "office" line above. It would appear to me > to forward a copy to "office@defaultdomain", which doesn't sound like what > you want. > this means [EMAIL PROTECTED] - no problem with this, works in other .qmail files I have here is the output of qmail-showctl: ail home directory: /var/qmail. user-ext delimiter: -. paternalism (in decimal): 2. silent concurrency limit: 120. subdirectory split: 23. user ids: 1001, 1002, 1003, 0, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007. group ids: 102, 103. badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON. bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is bates.eu.com. concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10. concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20. databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes. defaultdomain: Default domain name is bates.eu.com. defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is bates.eu.com. doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: bates.eu.com. doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster. envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is bates.eu.com. helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is bates.eu.com. idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is bates.eu.com. localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes bates.eu.com. locals: Messages for localhost are delivered locally. me: My name is bates.eu.com. percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed. plusdomain: Plus domain name is eu.com. qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers. queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds. rcpthosts: SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at bates.eu.com. morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect. morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect. smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 bates.eu.com. smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes. timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds. timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds. timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds. virtualdomains: Virtual domain: bates.eu.com:bates.eu.com Milen
Yes , it works like this ... Thanks V. > # cat /home/vpopmail/domains/bates.eu.com/.qmail-mpetrinski > ./mpetrinski/Maildir/ > office
Hi, I have a doubt if there is no mistake in Sill's script /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run Is qmail-send not forgot in exec /usr/.... qmaill /usr/.... t /var/log/qmail/? Also: are cotes in $MAXSMTPD, $QMAILDUID,$NOFILESGID are necessary? When he included rblmstpd there are cotes only on $MAXSMTPD! Any we must to use? Thanks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Ould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a doubt if there is no mistake in Sill's script > > /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run > > Is qmail-send not forgot in > > exec /usr/.... qmaill /usr/.... t /var/log/qmail/? Dave Sill's script is correct. > Also: > > are cotes in $MAXSMTPD, $QMAILDUID,$NOFILESGID are > necessary? Quoting shell variables is a good habit to get into, lest you have an accident when dealing with someone who supplies a value of "foo ; rm -rf /" for a variable you're dealing with. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
At 02:33 PM 11/28/00 +0100, you wrote: >hello list, > >i'm new to qmail. >i've installed successfully qmail, qmail-smtpd and qmail-pop3d. >i would like to know if there's an imap server - working together with >qmail - too? Try Courier-imap. >regards >achim > japc.
That great! Can you add some user statistics, to view amount of outgouing and incomming mails? thank you Ralph ---------- >Von: Ismail YENIGUL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >An: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Betreff: IsoQlog Qmail Log Analyzer >Datum: Mit, 29. Nov 2000 12:51 Uhr > > hii > i write an qmail log analyzer in PERL > > here is description: > > IsoQlog is a qmail log analysis program written in Perl. It is > designed to scan qmail logfiles and produce usage statistics in HTML > format for viewing through a Web > browser. It produces top domains output according to incoming, > outgoing, and total mails. It maintains your main domain mail statistics > per day and per month, like webalizer. > it is under GPL licences > > if you interest you can get it from > http://www.students.itu.edu.tr/~yenigul > thanx > bye > >
Ismail YENIGUL wrote: > hii > i write an qmail log analyzer in PERL > > here is description: > > IsoQlog is a qmail log analysis program written in Perl. It is > designed to scan qmail logfiles and produce usage statistics in HTML > format for viewing through a Web > browser. It produces top domains output according to incoming, > outgoing, and total mails. It maintains your main domain mail statistics > per day and per month, like webalizer. > it is under GPL licences > Hmm, this doesn work with TAI64N timestamps. Considering using tai64nlocal? > > if you interest you can get it from > http://www.students.itu.edu.tr/~yenigul > thanx > bye --------- Jose AP Celestino SAPO / PT Multimedia SysAdmining ------------------------------
Hello all, I�m running qmail 1.03 and vpopmail 4.9.4 with the --enable-roaming-users feature and smtp-auth. Now I have found a ssl patch under http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~vermeule/qmail/tls.patch does anybody use this one? If yes I got a few questions Does it work together with my configuration? Cause many Clients don�t work with ssl and I need every possibility to control relaying I got many virtuell Users, does everybody need a cert or just the key from the communicating Server? How do I apply the patch to the conf Files? per typing? Is there anywhere a site to find more information about this, cause I think I don�t really understand how it works. Thank you very much Hans-Juergen
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:33:54PM +0100, Hans-Juergen Schwarz wrote: >I�m running qmail 1.03 and vpopmail 4.9.4 with the >--enable-roaming-users feature and smtp-auth. Now I have found a ssl >patch under http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~vermeule/qmail/tls.patch I had tried this patch back in August and found that once applied and I installed the new software, I could no longer send mail to any hosts that had the STARTTLS extension. No diagnostics, qmail-remote would just hang. I don't recall if it hung forever, or eventually timed out and generated some "connection timed out" response. >Does it work together with my configuration? Cause many Clients >don�t work with ssl and I need every possibility to control relaying It uses STARTTLS, which means that the normal connections are the standard SMTP, when the server says it supports "STARTTLS", the client has to respond with "STARTTLS" for it to being doing the SSL stuff. So, it should work with all clients (only clients requesting it will get it). >I got many virtuell Users, does everybody need a cert or just the key >from the communicating Server? It's only a cert for the servers. >How do I apply the patch to the conf Files? per typing? You use the "patch" command. Spefically, you need to be in the top qmail source directory and run "patch -p1 -s <patchfilename". >Is there anywhere a site to find more information about this, cause >I think I don�t really understand how it works. Well, there's the STARTTLS RFC2487, available from www.faqs.org... Probably more than you wanted to know though. ;-) Sean -- Why are Bush supporters acting like they won, when Gore has 350,000 more popular votes? Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
Are Haugsdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would it be difficult, or problematic to allow a customer to use 1 000 pop3 > email accounts ? No. It may be even less of a problem, though, to use a virtual domain mail manager so you don't need to set up system accounts, etc. "vmailmgr" by Bruce Guenter is commonly used; find it at www.vmailmgr.org . Didn't you ask this same question yesterday? Didn't you like the answers you received then? Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've seen snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking for help. I am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. Sure, some of the postings for help may not contain all the information that a more experienced person would have. But to respond to them with a statement to the effect of "send all necessary information" is crazy. There is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or may not be needed to diagnose a problem. As many of the people posting without this level of information are new to either Linux or qmail (or both) there needs to be some understanding on everyone's behalf. And telling someone to RTFM is normally of little to no help. I've been told several times to RTFM without any indication as to which manual. This is of little to no help to anyone. As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the installation instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly inadequate. I tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the source twice, with no luck. Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. It wasn't until I purchased "Running qmail." that I actually got the thing to work. I'm sure that if I went back to either set of instructions (source or LWQ) that both would be adequate for the installation now that I've done it before. However herein lies the problem. The documentation that currently exists is really only helpful to someone that has already installed the software once before. But, I've digressed. IMHO, everyone that is offering help via a list such as this should be courteous to those asking for help. If you can't be courteous, I ask that you please refrain from posting. Snapping at a user asking for help will accomplish nothing more than making the user angry and hesitant from posting in the future. IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other support list. I realize, as do most of the user's posting, that support here is provided by individuals donating their time of their own free will. All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. Jamin W. Collins -----Original Message----- From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:11 AM To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Newbie question Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 15:11 schrieb suresh: Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help off list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should -have read the docs at least twice -checked if you fulfilled the requirements for qmail-ldap, both on you installation and youself (yes, the wonderfull sentence "you should have fairly good knowledge of qmail and ldap..." and so on in bold letters aside to the dowload link on the wepages -if you ask a question, provide all necessary information, in general as much as possible. At least OS, versions (including patch version), _complete_ logs, configuration -checked all logs yourself, including ldap logs, set loglevel to highest possible value - helps a lot > PLEASE DO NOT READ NEWBIE QUESTION IF WANT TO USE THOSE DEROGATORY > STATEMENTS .YU DONT EVEN HELP EITHER .I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO > WOULD LIKE TO HELP! > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:55 AM > To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch > Subject: Re: Newbie question > > > Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 13:24 schrieb suresh: > > You are giving us much to less infos to help you. Check if the file > mentioned > in the error message exists and is world readable. If not, RTFM before > asking > here. > > > Hi > > I have installed qmail-ldap patch,whenever i start the qmail ,i get this > > info > > I have made a file in the control folder and i tried by entering the ip > > address as well as by the dns name > > i am not able start the debug process even after i set the env variable > > ,Is > > > there any particular syntax i should be calling qmail-start for this? > > > > > > bash-2.03# Nov 29 11:11:21 qmailjol qmail: [ID 748625 mail.alert] > > 975467481.7424 > > 69 alert: cannot start qmail-lspawn or it had an error! Check if > > ~control/ldapse > > rver exists > > > > Suresh > > Mithi.com Pvt. Ltd. > > ------------------------------------------ > > Send and receive mail in Indian languages > > Register free at http://www.mailjol.com > > -- > > Henning Brauer | BS Web Services > Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg > www.bsws.de | Germany -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
I absolutely agree with this. I have never seen so many rude and useless responses to pleas for help on any other list that I subscribe to. Yes, there are times when the answer is documented somewhere but the documentation available is poorly organized making it very difficult for someone who is new to their operating system and/or qmail to find the answer. For me, I was able to get qmail working with the INSTALL files for at least my simple test system. I have not tried to install using LWQ but I couldn't help but notice some differences in the way things are installed using LWQ versus the INSTALL files. Now which is right? One of the reasons I am trying qmail is that I heard it was far more efficient than using sendmail especially when handling large volumes of mail. This fact, at least, seems to be true for the tests I have run. My next goal was to migrate all of our domains from sendmail to qmail but considering the documentation and some of the support that has been forthcoming from this list, I have my doubts about reccommending that course of action. Don't get me wrong, I have seen and received useful help from this list. Hopefully, we can all learn to be tolerent of people who ask questions that have "obvious" answers. I think we have all been there before. Warren Small Jamin Collins wrote: > > I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've seen > snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking for help. I > am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. > > Sure, some of the postings for help may not contain all the information that > a more experienced person would have. But to respond to them with a > statement to the effect of "send all necessary information" is crazy. There > is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or may not be > needed to diagnose a problem. As many of the people posting without this > level of information are new to either Linux or qmail (or both) there needs > to be some understanding on everyone's behalf. And telling someone to RTFM > is normally of little to no help. I've been told several times to RTFM > without any indication as to which manual. This is of little to no help to > anyone. > > As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the installation > instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly inadequate. I > tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the source > twice, with no luck. Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. It > wasn't until I purchased "Running qmail." that I actually got the thing to > work. I'm sure that if I went back to either set of instructions (source or > LWQ) that both would be adequate for the installation now that I've done it > before. However herein lies the problem. The documentation that currently > exists is really only helpful to someone that has already installed the > software once before. But, I've digressed. > > IMHO, everyone that is offering help via a list such as this should be > courteous to those asking for help. If you can't be courteous, I ask that > you please refrain from posting. Snapping at a user asking for help will > accomplish nothing more than making the user angry and hesitant from posting > in the future. IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other > support list. > > I realize, as do most of the user's posting, that support here is provided > by individuals donating their time of their own free will. All I ask is > that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. > > Jamin W. Collins > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:11 AM > To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Newbie question > > Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 15:11 schrieb suresh: > > Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help > off > list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is > no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should > > -have read the docs at least twice > -checked if you fulfilled the requirements for qmail-ldap, both on you > installation and youself (yes, the wonderfull sentence "you should have > fairly good knowledge of qmail and ldap..." and so on in bold letters aside > to the dowload link on the wepages > -if you ask a question, provide all necessary information, in general as > much > as possible. At least OS, versions (including patch version), _complete_ > logs, configuration > -checked all logs yourself, including ldap logs, set loglevel to highest > possible value - helps a lot > > > PLEASE DO NOT READ NEWBIE QUESTION IF WANT TO USE THOSE DEROGATORY > > STATEMENTS .YU DONT EVEN HELP EITHER .I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO > > WOULD LIKE TO HELP! > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:55 AM > > To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch > > Subject: Re: Newbie question > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 13:24 schrieb suresh: > > > > You are giving us much to less infos to help you. Check if the file > > mentioned > > in the error message exists and is world readable. If not, RTFM before > > asking > > here. > > > > > Hi > > > I have installed qmail-ldap patch,whenever i start the qmail ,i get this > > > info > > > I have made a file in the control folder and i tried by entering the ip > > > address as well as by the dns name > > > i am not able start the debug process even after i set the env variable > > > > ,Is > > > > > there any particular syntax i should be calling qmail-start for this? > > > > > > > > > bash-2.03# Nov 29 11:11:21 qmailjol qmail: [ID 748625 mail.alert] > > > 975467481.7424 > > > 69 alert: cannot start qmail-lspawn or it had an error! Check if > > > ~control/ldapse > > > rver exists > > > > > > Suresh > > > Mithi.com Pvt. Ltd. > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > Send and receive mail in Indian languages > > > Register free at http://www.mailjol.com > > > > -- > > > > Henning Brauer | BS Web Services > > Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg > > www.bsws.de | Germany > > -- > > Henning Brauer | BS Web Services > Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg > www.bsws.de | Germany
* Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whines: > I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've > seen snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking > for help. I am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. *sigh* Is it September again? Just for completeness' sake: not only is your MUA broken to the degree of utter braindeadness, you've also included 60 linux of *un*quoted quotes. Has anyone called you a clueless luser lately? > There is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or > may not be needed to diagnose a problem. As many of the people > posting without this level of information are new to either Linux or > qmail (or both) there needs to be some understanding on everyone's > behalf. Like what? If you need professional support, there are links galore on http://qmail.org/. If you want to be spoonfed, you're simply looking in the wrong place. > And telling someone to RTFM is normally of little to no help. The qmail docs are terse but exhaustive. We're not talking about running $PORNO_VIEWER.exe but about a mail server - if you're too stupid to manage even the initial setup, you *just* *don't* *need* *one*. > As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the > installation instructions with qmail itself are for the most part > highly inadequate. Not quite. They're just not idiot-proof. But you've found that our yourself already. > I tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the > source twice, with no luck. See, that's your problem: contrary to popular superstition (fed by the New Cultural Imperialism from Redmond) it does not take /luck/ to install software. It takes /knowledge/. You appear to have neither. Well, tough luck. > Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. Yeah, right, Dave Sill really *is* an asshole: charging breathtaking amounts of money for his crappy docs and not even dumbing them down so that an amoeba^W^Wyou can understand them. It's free software, lackwit: contribute nothing, expect nothing. Why didn't you fix the passages that were "inadequate" and send Dave the patches, Jamin? > [...] The documentation that currently exists is really only helpful > to someone that has already installed the software once before. Ummmm... nope. > [...] Snapping at a user asking for help will accomplish nothing more > than making the user angry and hesitant from posting in the future. Do I care about angry lusers? I don't think so. Is it a Good Thing if they don't bother people trying to get some work done? Sure is. So there. > IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other support list. It might come as a suprise to you and your likes, but this is /not/ a support list. It's a discussion list. If you want support, you can find the links to comm... > All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for > help. Sure. Now, be a kind luser and do your reading. When you're done and have reached the minimum level of cluefullness required for running an internet service, come back and ask informed questions. Sometimes I wonder what brings people like you to posting this whining luser shit over and over and over again? This is not your new-age pink treehuggers society - this is a technical discussion list. IT-Darwinism, y'know? Survival of the brightest and, like, stuff. Huh-huh. -- Robin S. Socha Enhanced for MSIE 5.5: <http://socha.net/>
I don't see your problem. he was on the wrong list as this is qmail-ldap specific. he posted to the qmail-ldap list too, so nobody can tell me he didn't know about this list. I answered anyway. I asked him if the file mentioned in the error msg exists. if so, i requested more info than one line of log. if not this had proven that he didn't read a single line of documentation. in general everybody posting questions here should have a thought who's answering, and that these people are no paid support staff. so i can expect that the poster has -read the docs -spent some thoughts one what he's writing -spent some thoughts on what information would be needed for support -provided full logs somewhere for download If he only posts a single line from the log without even mentioning the file exists and it is readable, without telling us os, qmail version, patch version, ldap server and version, it's somehow sure that he hasn't spent any thought on that. Dan used a subject of "How to discourage free software support" on a mail regarding this on the dns list. that's exactly the point IMHO. btw, i did my first qmail installation (long tome ago...) within one hour and without any third party documentation aside from a problem with daemontools, i solved this with a short look to lwq. i don't know why you did not succeed, but telling us "the docs are all so bad because i couldn't install qmail with them" is an inadequate statement. Greetings Henning -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
How exactly is my MUA broken? I've included the original text of the message I've responded to. I've simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line of the original message. Now, you've resorted to name calling? Quite the original. How does a request for common courtesy indicate a need for professional help? Telling someone to RTFM would be helpful, if the manual being referenced as indicated. As there are several files in the qmail distribution that all refer to other documents, it is possible that some may not locate the correct manual. When exactly did I call Dave Sill an asshole? I simply made meantion that his HOWTO did not assist in my configuration of qmail. This is not a derogatory statement in any fashion. Simply a statement of fact. As for providing clarifications to the document, I very well may once I have qmail configured the way I would like it. If you see the questions of users on this list as bothersome, I'm sorry. However, as membership to the list is voluntary, you are not being forced to read them. In short, if you don't like them, don't read them. What brings me to post? Simple, I like to help people learn more about computing. I also like to learn what I can where I can. Again, I'm sorry this doesn't fight your perception of the computer industry. Jamin W. Collins -----Original Message----- From: Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:19 AM To: qmail mailing list Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) * Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whines: > I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've > seen snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking > for help. I am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. *sigh* Is it September again? Just for completeness' sake: not only is your MUA broken to the degree of utter braindeadness, you've also included 60 linux of *un*quoted quotes. Has anyone called you a clueless luser lately? > There is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or > may not be needed to diagnose a problem. As many of the people > posting without this level of information are new to either Linux or > qmail (or both) there needs to be some understanding on everyone's > behalf. Like what? If you need professional support, there are links galore on http://qmail.org/. If you want to be spoonfed, you're simply looking in the wrong place. > And telling someone to RTFM is normally of little to no help. The qmail docs are terse but exhaustive. We're not talking about running $PORNO_VIEWER.exe but about a mail server - if you're too stupid to manage even the initial setup, you *just* *don't* *need* *one*. > As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the > installation instructions with qmail itself are for the most part > highly inadequate. Not quite. They're just not idiot-proof. But you've found that our yourself already. > I tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the > source twice, with no luck. See, that's your problem: contrary to popular superstition (fed by the New Cultural Imperialism from Redmond) it does not take /luck/ to install software. It takes /knowledge/. You appear to have neither. Well, tough luck. > Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. Yeah, right, Dave Sill really *is* an asshole: charging breathtaking amounts of money for his crappy docs and not even dumbing them down so that an amoeba^W^Wyou can understand them. It's free software, lackwit: contribute nothing, expect nothing. Why didn't you fix the passages that were "inadequate" and send Dave the patches, Jamin? > [...] The documentation that currently exists is really only helpful > to someone that has already installed the software once before. Ummmm... nope. > [...] Snapping at a user asking for help will accomplish nothing more > than making the user angry and hesitant from posting in the future. Do I care about angry lusers? I don't think so. Is it a Good Thing if they don't bother people trying to get some work done? Sure is. So there. > IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other support list. It might come as a suprise to you and your likes, but this is /not/ a support list. It's a discussion list. If you want support, you can find the links to comm... > All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for > help. Sure. Now, be a kind luser and do your reading. When you're done and have reached the minimum level of cluefullness required for running an internet service, come back and ask informed questions. Sometimes I wonder what brings people like you to posting this whining luser shit over and over and over again? This is not your new-age pink treehuggers society - this is a technical discussion list. IT-Darwinism, y'know? Survival of the brightest and, like, stuff. Huh-huh. -- Robin S. Socha Enhanced for MSIE 5.5: <http://socha.net/>
on 11/29/00 9:47 AM, Jamin Collins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. The people who often provide help simply expect the same sort of courtesy. Remember who's doing whom the favor, and that this list is about qmail, not Unix. If you want to learn Unix, either find a Unix (list|book|shell) and use it, or cleverly couch your Unix difficulties to appear as politely framed qmail questions. - Amitai
on 11/29/00 11:10 AM, Jamin Collins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you see the questions of users on this list as bothersome, I'm sorry. > However, as membership to the list is voluntary, you are not being forced to > read them. In short, if you don't like them, don't read them. Sure. And if you don't like the responses you get, you're also free to ignore them, or to unsubscribe. - Amitai
Since you've asked, my problem with your posting specifically is as follows: >Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help >off >list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is >no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should There is no need to refer to his posting as "such nonsense". Additionally, there is no call/need for the statement about "busy people". I believe it is well known that people read this list on their time and any answer is essentially a donation from their time. However, conversely, no one is forced to read or answer these postings. Everyone (to my knowledge) does this of their own free will. As such, asking for help (whether on the right list or not) is in no way wrong. Berating someone for doing so is rude. I'm glad your installation went so smoothly. However, many other's do not. I'm sure that many of these come down to simply syntax errors. I will admit that I had a few in my first installations. These would have been easily corrected by another set of eyes. However, due to the repeatedly rude and snappy reply's from this list, I did not post concerning my initial problems. As for the statement you claim I made "the docs are all so bad because i couldn't install qmail with them", I did not say this. I simply stated that I was unsuccessfull in my attempts to install qmail using them. I did not state they were bad, I even stated that I was sure they would be of help if I were to use them at my current point. In short, I believe they may be a little lacking when it comes to helping someone completely new to qmail. This may not be the case of all new users, but it is the case for at least a few. Jamin W. Collins -----Original Message----- From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:35 AM To: Jamin Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) I don't see your problem. he was on the wrong list as this is qmail-ldap specific. he posted to the qmail-ldap list too, so nobody can tell me he didn't know about this list. I answered anyway. I asked him if the file mentioned in the error msg exists. if so, i requested more info than one line of log. if not this had proven that he didn't read a single line of documentation. in general everybody posting questions here should have a thought who's answering, and that these people are no paid support staff. so i can expect that the poster has -read the docs -spent some thoughts one what he's writing -spent some thoughts on what information would be needed for support -provided full logs somewhere for download If he only posts a single line from the log without even mentioning the file exists and it is readable, without telling us os, qmail version, patch version, ldap server and version, it's somehow sure that he hasn't spent any thought on that. Dan used a subject of "How to discourage free software support" on a mail regarding this on the dns list. that's exactly the point IMHO. btw, i did my first qmail installation (long tome ago...) within one hour and without any third party documentation aside from a problem with daemontools, i solved this with a short look to lwq. i don't know why you did not succeed, but telling us "the docs are all so bad because i couldn't install qmail with them" is an inadequate statement. Greetings Henning -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
I'm sorry, I don't recall having posted a Unix question to this list. However, if some did perchance make that mistake, is it really so difficult to politely point them to the correct list? Jamin W. Collins -----Original Message----- From: Amitai Schlair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) on 11/29/00 9:47 AM, Jamin Collins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. The people who often provide help simply expect the same sort of courtesy. Remember who's doing whom the favor, and that this list is about qmail, not Unix. If you want to learn Unix, either find a Unix (list|book|shell) and use it, or cleverly couch your Unix difficulties to appear as politely framed qmail questions. - Amitai
> How exactly is my MUA broken? It isn't, the user is broken. The user incorrectly decided that everyone would just love to see the full text of the original message (perhaps in case they inexplicably missed it the first time!), and that it needed no marking to make it clear to readers that it isn't new material. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sometimes I wonder what brings people like you to posting this whining >luser shit over and over and over again? This is not your new-age pink >treehuggers society - this is a technical discussion list. IT-Darwinism, >y'know? Survival of the brightest and, like, stuff. Huh-huh. >-- >Robin S. Socha If this list were, as it seems you, sir/ma'am (sorry, your name is gender-neutral), would prefer, populated exclusively by people who already know all there is to know about qmail; about what (I'm curious) would you discuss? Perhaps we should ask someone to start a qmail-newbies list so that A) the newbies can go somewhere where they know they stand a chance of at least having their issues addressed by other more knowledgeable individuals who don't MIND helping the "clueless" because they were "there" too one day; and B) the elitists won't be bothered anymore and can commence to posting messages in binary and stop catering to us idiots who are still hung up on the inefficiencies of English as a language. :-| ...ROMeyn -- signat-url: http://www2.potsdam.edu/dctm/prescor/signat-url.htm cubiclecam: http://digirom.potsdam.edu/~prescor/cubiclecam.html ^^^ <--- Off-line unless someone knows how to get camserv to compile under RedHat 7... *sigh* :-(
* Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How exactly is my MUA broken? * Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" * No reference headers (*GREAT* for breaking archives) * 6 attribution lines * No citation leader * Trailing blank line > I've included the original text of the message I've responded to. How very useful. > I've simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line > of the original message. Rather "I'm too fscking stupid to even find it among 2001 menues in Outlook", eh? > How does a request for common courtesy indicate a need for > professional help? In general or in your particular case? > What brings me to post? Simple, I like to help people learn more > about computing. The blind leading... C'mon, Jamin, you've had your 264 lines of fame. Now go away, will you? You're about to start a war you'll never understand. -- Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
on 11/29/00 11:22 AM, Jamin Collins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As such, asking for help (whether on the right list or not) is in no way > wrong. Berating someone for doing so is rude. It might also be considered rude to post to the wrong list, or to ask for help without providing useful information. > However, due to the repeatedly rude and snappy reply's from this list, I did > not post concerning my initial problems. You most definitely won't get help that way! > In short, I believe [the docs] may be a little lacking when it comes to > helping someone completely new to qmail. s/qmail/Unix/, and I'd agree. But I wouldn't call that a shortcoming of the documentation. - Amitai
I've seen this over and over and over. Someone joins the list, probably because they are having problems (the same reason I joined), posts a question, and then has to wade through the wave of crap thrown back at them by a bunch of rude jerks with nothing better to do with their time that to berate you and tell you they are too busy to be bothered. The mind boggles at how important their work is that they are unable to help, yet they have plenty of time to post novella's about how busy they are and how lazy you are for not solving the problem without their help. I gotta hint, don't wanna bother with a person's question? DON'T ANSWER IT! There, wasn't that easy? On a side note, I've tried to unsubscribe from the list because of exactly this kind of crap from self-important jerks who seem to get a charge out of kicking people when they are down, but the damn server tells me I'm not subscribed so it can't unsubscribe me. Go figure. -----Original Message----- From: Jamin Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:22 AM To: 'Henning Brauer'; Jamin Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) Since you've asked, my problem with your posting specifically is as follows: >Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help >off >list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is >no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should There is no need to refer to his posting as "such nonsense". Additionally, there is no call/need for the statement about "busy people". I believe it is well known that people read this list on their time and any answer is essentially a donation from their time. However, conversely, no one is forced to read or answer these postings. Everyone (to my knowledge) does this of their own free will. As such, asking for help (whether on the right list or not) is in no way wrong. Berating someone for doing so is rude. I'm glad your installation went so smoothly. However, many other's do not. I'm sure that many of these come down to simply syntax errors. I will admit that I had a few in my first installations. These would have been easily corrected by another set of eyes. However, due to the repeatedly rude and snappy reply's from this list, I did not post concerning my initial problems. As for the statement you claim I made "the docs are all so bad because i couldn't install qmail with them", I did not say this. I simply stated that I was unsuccessfull in my attempts to install qmail using them. I did not state they were bad, I even stated that I was sure they would be of help if I were to use them at my current point. In short, I believe they may be a little lacking when it comes to helping someone completely new to qmail. This may not be the case of all new users, but it is the case for at least a few. Jamin W. Collins -----Original Message----- From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:35 AM To: Jamin Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) I don't see your problem. he was on the wrong list as this is qmail-ldap specific. he posted to the qmail-ldap list too, so nobody can tell me he didn't know about this list. I answered anyway. I asked him if the file mentioned in the error msg exists. if so, i requested more info than one line of log. if not this had proven that he didn't read a single line of documentation. in general everybody posting questions here should have a thought who's answering, and that these people are no paid support staff. so i can expect that the poster has -read the docs -spent some thoughts one what he's writing -spent some thoughts on what information would be needed for support -provided full logs somewhere for download If he only posts a single line from the log without even mentioning the file exists and it is readable, without telling us os, qmail version, patch version, ldap server and version, it's somehow sure that he hasn't spent any thought on that. Dan used a subject of "How to discourage free software support" on a mail regarding this on the dns list. that's exactly the point IMHO. btw, i did my first qmail installation (long tome ago...) within one hour and without any third party documentation aside from a problem with daemontools, i solved this with a short look to lwq. i don't know why you did not succeed, but telling us "the docs are all so bad because i couldn't install qmail with them" is an inadequate statement. Greetings Henning -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How exactly is my MUA broken? > > I've included the original text of the message I've responded to. I've > simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line of the > original message. Hence the breakage. Netiquette dictates that replies be identified by prefacing each line with '> ' or '>' -- many peoples' MUAs highlight text by looking for these markers. It makes reading your mail much more difficult for the rest of us. > If you see the questions of users on this list as bothersome, I'm sorry. Most of us don't mind users asking questions, after they have made a reasonable effort to understand the problem themselves, by doing _all_ of the following: -read all the documentation that comes with qmail, preferably at least twice. This includes the man pages and other text documentation. -especially read Dan's FAQs (the one included with the source, and the one at cr.yp.to) -read the various hints & tips at www.qmail.org, and the various user-contributed documentation that are referenced there -read "Life with qmail" by Dave Sill -read through the archives of this list for people with similar problems in the past. We've seen all of these questions. Anyone who posts one of the most-commonly asked questions to the list, without having done all the above, is (in effect) saying "My time is more valuable than the time of the people I am asking for help". Some people tend to get a little annoyed at this type of attitude. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree with anything you said. My mail wasn't aimed at the people who politely say RTFM and provide pointers to said FM. It was aimed at the jack asses that spend their time berating newbies and clogging the group with diatribes about how important their time is, rather than providing constructive input. If they don't believe the person "deserves" their input, why spend all that time belittling them? I don't see how I misunderstood anything. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 11:34 AM To: John W. Lemons III Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) "John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The mind boggles at how important their work is that they are unable > to help, yet they have plenty of time to post novella's about how > busy they are and how lazy you are for not solving the problem > without their help. This shows just how much you misunderstand. The people who know qmail are not mad at you and the people you're defending because they're too busy, or anything like that. It's the attitude that mailing lists like this are free resources that can be exploited. Places you can take from without giving. Get this through your head: NOTHING IS FREE. Nobody is obligated to help you for free. Whining because nobody is willing to do your work for you for no recompense is NOT appreciated. Sure, nobody gets paid for giving advice here, but it doesn't mean that it's for free. The cost of being helped is that YOU have to do most of the work. If you don't like that fee structure, then go to somebody you pay dollars for. People will willingly volunteer their expertise, their knowledge; they will NOT volunteer to do all the hard work for you. Why do you expect them to?
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've seen >snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking for help. I >am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. I'm not a big fan of newbie smackdowns, though a repeat offendor might warrant one. I think newbies generally respond better to reward than punishment. E.g., instead of: Your mailer is broken. I'd say something like: Please don't include messages you're replying to as appendages to your own messages. It's a waste of bytes, and it annoys many people--most of whom are too polite and/or busy to bother complaining. Instead, quote small passages, prefixing each line with ">". This puts the relevant information right where it's needed, and makes it easy for people to tell who said what. The former approach *might* work, but is more likely to offend the newbie. The latter is polite and informative. An educated, unoffended newbie is much more likely to want to change his ways. >As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the installation >instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly inadequate. Ouch. "... LWQ ... [is] ... highly inadequate." In a way, of course, I completely agree. I've tried to make it newbie friendly, but nobody knows better than I that it still leaves some newbies behind. However, I have to ask why you didn't complain to me when you were having problems with it. Without such feedback, there's not much chance of it getting fixed. -Dave
"John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The mind boggles at how important their work is that they are unable > to help, yet they have plenty of time to post novella's about how > busy they are and how lazy you are for not solving the problem > without their help. This shows just how much you misunderstand. The people who know qmail are not mad at you and the people you're defending because they're too busy, or anything like that. It's the attitude that mailing lists like this are free resources that can be exploited. Places you can take from without giving. Get this through your head: NOTHING IS FREE. Nobody is obligated to help you for free. Whining because nobody is willing to do your work for you for no recompense is NOT appreciated. Sure, nobody gets paid for giving advice here, but it doesn't mean that it's for free. The cost of being helped is that YOU have to do most of the work. If you don't like that fee structure, then go to somebody you pay dollars for. People will willingly volunteer their expertise, their knowledge; they will NOT volunteer to do all the hard work for you. Why do you expect them to? -Matt -- | Matthew J. Brown - Senior Network Administrator - NBCi Shopping | | 1983 W. 190th St, Suite 100, Torrance CA 90504 | | Phone: (310) 538-7122 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Cell: (714) 457-1854 | Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Warren Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have not tried to install using LWQ but I couldn't >help but notice some differences in the way things are installed using LWQ >versus the INSTALL files. Now which is right? Question: Which of the following is the right way to remove a file in the current directory named "-i": A. rm ./-i B. rm `pwd`/-i C. rm -i foo -i D. rm -- -i E. all of the above Answer: E -Dave
> The blind leading... C'mon, Jamin, you've had your 264 lines of fame. Now > go away, will you? You're about to start a war you'll never understand. > -- Man, this Robin character is nuts. Coder-superiority syndrome big time. Why is it that tech geeks are so sure that their field of knowledge is the only one that indicates general intelligence? If Robin is anything like his/her mailing list personality in real life, I'm sure few people would consider him/her nearly as intelligent as he/she considers him/herself. True intelligence is indicated by a broader understanding of things, and the contributions that many different people have to offer. You mentioned Darwinism in a former post, Robin. How exactly is an angry geek who knows a whole lot about electronic boxes, but less than nothing about interacting successfully with the 5 billion other real-live people on the planet suited for survival in a Darwinian sense? Something tells me if you and I were dropped in the wilderness together, I'd be the one coming out alive, if only because I had you skewered on a spit over a fire within the first day. In fact it's hard to envision a role for you at all in any world that wasn't utterly computer-dependant. Try to remember that there are a lot of fields of knowledge and that your sweeping name-calling, that people are "too fscking stupid" etc is utterly absurd. For all you know the people you call "stupid" because they don't know about qmail just invented the cure for cancer, or the 100 mpg car. The carpenter who built your house. Your doctor. Your grandmother. Are they all stupid too because they don't know about qmail? Now why don't you go answer some questions instead of flaming me back. Show us all how clever you are, Robin. Gregg > Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/> >
> > How exactly is my MUA broken? > > It isn't, the user is broken. The user incorrectly decided that > everyone would just love to see the full text of the original message > (perhaps in case they inexplicably missed it the first time!), and that it > needed no marking to make it clear to readers that it isn't new material. Heh-heh, well, there's that, but there's also at least one technical gaffe in the MUA he uses. The same gaffe is in your MUA also, Mr. Owen. While the RFCs don't say specifically one way or the other, the general rule is that the subject in a reply should be prepended with "Re: " (case sensitive), not "RE: ". The latest IETF draft for message formats (http://www.imc.org/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt) defines the rule a bit more explicitly, saying that the subject MAY start with "Re: ". Some versions of Outlook and Outlook Express prepend "RE: ". While I don't worry so much about aesthetics, I believe that past discussion in this list indicated that many MUA's that use "RE: " also don't supply the message history information necessary to properly organize discussion threads in the qmail mailing list archives. As you have noticed, that makes some list subscribers quite livid. Corrections welcome. ---Kris Kelley
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As for the statement you claim I made "the docs are all so bad because i >couldn't install qmail with >them", I did not say this. I simply stated that I was unsuccessfull in my >attempts to install qmail using them. I did not state they were bad, I even >stated that I was sure they would be of help if I were to use them at my >current point. In short, I believe they may be a little lacking when it >comes to helping someone completely new to qmail. This may not be the case >of all new users, but it is the case for at least a few. You called the docs "highly inadequate", not "a little lacking when it comes to helping someone completely new to qmail". In my book, calling something highly inadequate *is* calling it bad. -Dave
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 08:47:25AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote: > I realize, as do most of the user's posting, that support here is provided > by individuals donating their time of their own free will. All I ask is > that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. This suresh guy routinely (for the last few months or so) has been posting newbie questions to the list, and providing no information whatsoever. From what I've seen, people have been ignoring him for the most part. I suppose someone just got tired of it. --Adam
Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes: > I'm not a big fan of newbie smackdowns, though a repeat > offendor might > warrant one. I think newbies generally respond better to reward than > punishment. E.g., instead of: > > Your mailer is broken. > > I'd say something like: > > Please don't include messages you're replying to as appendages to > your own messages. It's a waste of bytes, and it annoys many > people--most of whom are too polite and/or busy to bother > complaining. Instead, quote small passages, prefixing each line > with ">". This puts the relevant information right where it's > needed, and makes it easy for people to tell who said what. > > The former approach *might* work, but is more likely to offend the > newbie. The latter is polite and informative. An educated, unoffended > newbie is much more likely to want to change his ways. Thank you, and yes, the later would have been much better. > >As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and > the installation > >instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly > inadequate. > > Ouch. "... LWQ ... [is] ... highly inadequate." In a way, of > course, I > completely agree. I've tried to make it newbie friendly, but nobody > knows better than I that it still leaves some newbies behind. Again thank you. > However, > I have to ask why you didn't complain to me when you were having > problems with it. Without such feedback, there's not much > chance of it > getting fixed. I have every intention on supply statements to you once I have a completed my installation. As for why I didn't complain to you, I figured I would look elsewhere for the information, rather than pestering the author with questions. Jamin W. Collins
Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > * Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > How exactly is my MUA broken? > > * Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" And which RFC does this violate? > * No reference headers (*GREAT* for breaking archives) I've checked RFC 822 and it would appear that this is an optional item. Thus, an MUA is not "broken" for not having it. Granted it might be nice for the MUA to have this, but you can't have everything can you. > * 6 attribution lines Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If it is, which one? > * No citation leader Once again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If it is, which one? > * Trailing blank line And yet again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If it is, which one? Unless I'm wrong it would appear that your complaints are all optional or preferential items. This being the case, the MUA is not broken. > > I've included the original text of the message I've responded to. > > How very useful. Some would see it as such. > > I've simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line > > of the original message. > > Rather "I'm too fscking stupid to even find it among 2001 menues in > Outlook", eh? And I see that we are back to name calling. Again, how original. I can see that you don't like Outlook. I don't much either, but there are reasons for it (which have nothing to do with qmail so I won't bother listing them). > > How does a request for common courtesy indicate a need for > > professional help? > > In general or in your particular case? Since you asked, in general. > > What brings me to post? Simple, I like to help people learn more > > about computing. > > The blind leading... C'mon, Jamin, you've had your 264 lines > of fame. Now > go away, will you? You're about to start a war you'll never > understand. And I see that once again you have resorted to name calling. Just because you may have more expertise (for whatever reason) on a topic than someone else does not in any way mean that the other person is blind. Additionally, it does not ensure that the other person does not know more about some other topic than you. Jamin W. Collins
* Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >* Some other luser: >> How exactly is my MUA broken? > It isn't, the user is broken. Indeed. Tell me, Jamin, does your inflatable sheep talk? If so, do you wait for it to ask you for a fag, then repeat everything it said during intercourse (including the funny noises your mother and the new neighbour were making as well as the TV) and then ask if you were /really/ good? More to the point: why do you not repeat everything that /your/ sheep said but rather Suresh's (two weeks ago, while thumbing the Sear's catalogue)? You don't? Then why do you behave this way on mailing lists, i.e. full quote including signature and everything below your text? > The user incorrectly decided that everyone would just love to see the > full text of the original message (perhaps in case they inexplicably > missed it the first time!), and that it needed no marking to make it > clear to readers that it isn't new material. The archives, man, the archives... No reference headers means no threads means no archives. *sigh* Can we make this end? -- Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
Robin, you are decidedly an asshole. I can't believe how abusive you feel the need to be. Must stem from some geek-angst I don't understand. You feel like you're so bloody smart because you spend most of your waking hours in front of a computer and can make people who don't feel stupid. Well, some people would say you are a "luser" (and it's loser, loser), and more importantly sad for only being able to feel good about yourself by trashing on others. IT-Darwinism? What a moron. You figured everything out on your own did you? Born using bash? Never took a single lesson. I've never wanted to email a punch in the face to someone more than to you. Your ego astounds me. I know a LOT of people that would make you look REALLY stupid were you to have a conversation with them. Try to remember that you aren't nearly as cool as your qmail setup would indicate. I can't believe the level to which this list has sunk. It's like the angry neo-nazi geeks list now. And it used to be quite helpful. There are many of us, newbies to qmail ourselves, who don't mind answering basic questions within our ability. I try to do so when I know an answer. There's just no point in being such an asshole. Post an answer or not at all, Robin. There has to be a newsgroup whenre you and your geek friends can talk about how stupid the rest of us are, but it isn't the qmail list. And learn to spell, dipshit. > Sometimes I wonder what brings people like you to posting this whining > luser shit over and over and over again? This is not your new-age pink > treehuggers society - this is a technical discussion list. IT-Darwinism, > y'know? Survival of the brightest and, like, stuff. Huh-huh. > -- > Robin S. Socha > Enhanced for MSIE 5.5: <http://socha.net/> >
I want to second what was said here. The manuals are often inadequate for newbies. I never would have gotten qmail set up without the patient and generous help of those on this list. Thanks to everyone who helped me! I'm sure glad I wasn't raked over the coals like some of the recent posters. To Mr. Brauer, who seems on a quest to post nothing but flames here, we realize that no one is paid staff here. But you flaming everyone who posts doesn't help a thing. No one is getting paid to sift through your angry posts, either. If you don't have something helpful to say, don't say a damn thing. Even if the original poster WAS wasting list bandwidth, you only waste more telling him not to, and then we all waste bandwidth on threads like this. It has been a real bummer to watch you trashing on newbies, as I am sure you will trash on me for this. Remember that these people you insult are probably a LOT better at some stuff than you are, and don't need to be treated like imbeciles because they don't know about qmail. Typical angry geek syndrome. No one is smart unless they know what you know. I'll remember to flame the hell out of you if you ever post questions in my fields of expertise on other newsgroups. Gregg > I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've seen > snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking for help. I > am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. > > Sure, some of the postings for help may not contain all the information that > a more experienced person would have. But to respond to them with a > statement to the effect of "send all necessary information" is crazy. There > is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or may not be > needed to diagnose a problem. As many of the people posting without this > level of information are new to either Linux or qmail (or both) there needs > to be some understanding on everyone's behalf. And telling someone to RTFM > is normally of little to no help. I've been told several times to RTFM > without any indication as to which manual. This is of little to no help to > anyone. > > As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the installation > instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly inadequate. I > tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the source > twice, with no luck. Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. It > wasn't until I purchased "Running qmail." that I actually got the thing to > work. I'm sure that if I went back to either set of instructions (source or > LWQ) that both would be adequate for the installation now that I've done it > before. However herein lies the problem. The documentation that currently > exists is really only helpful to someone that has already installed the > software once before. But, I've digressed. > > IMHO, everyone that is offering help via a list such as this should be > courteous to those asking for help. If you can't be courteous, I ask that > you please refrain from posting. Snapping at a user asking for help will > accomplish nothing more than making the user angry and hesitant from posting > in the future. IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other > support list. > > I realize, as do most of the user's posting, that support here is provided > by individuals donating their time of their own free will. All I ask is > that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. > > Jamin W. Collins > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:11 AM > To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Newbie question > > > Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 15:11 schrieb suresh: > > Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help > off > list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is > no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should > > -have read the docs at least twice > -checked if you fulfilled the requirements for qmail-ldap, both on you > installation and youself (yes, the wonderfull sentence "you should have > fairly good knowledge of qmail and ldap..." and so on in bold letters aside > to the dowload link on the wepages > -if you ask a question, provide all necessary information, in general as > much > as possible. At least OS, versions (including patch version), _complete_ > logs, configuration > -checked all logs yourself, including ldap logs, set loglevel to highest > possible value - helps a lot > > > > PLEASE DO NOT READ NEWBIE QUESTION IF WANT TO USE THOSE DEROGATORY > > STATEMENTS .YU DONT EVEN HELP EITHER .I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO > > WOULD LIKE TO HELP! > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:55 AM > > To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch > > Subject: Re: Newbie question > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 13:24 schrieb suresh: > > > > You are giving us much to less infos to help you. Check if the file > > mentioned > > in the error message exists and is world readable. If not, RTFM before > > asking > > here. > > > > > Hi > > > I have installed qmail-ldap patch,whenever i start the qmail ,i get this > > > info > > > I have made a file in the control folder and i tried by entering the ip > > > address as well as by the dns name > > > i am not able start the debug process even after i set the env variable > > > > ,Is > > > > > there any particular syntax i should be calling qmail-start for this? > > > > > > > > > bash-2.03# Nov 29 11:11:21 qmailjol qmail: [ID 748625 mail.alert] > > > 975467481.7424 > > > 69 alert: cannot start qmail-lspawn or it had an error! Check if > > > ~control/ldapse > > > rver exists > > > > > > Suresh > > > Mithi.com Pvt. Ltd. > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > Send and receive mail in Indian languages > > > Register free at http://www.mailjol.com > > > > -- > > > > Henning Brauer | BS Web Services > > Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg > > www.bsws.de | Germany > > -- > > Henning Brauer | BS Web Services > Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg > www.bsws.de | Germany >
Greg, he's not calling people stupid for what they don't know, but for what they couldn't be bothered to try, for the effort they couldn't be bothered to expend when it's just so easy to try and get someone else to do the hard work. -Matt -- | Matthew J. Brown - Senior Network Administrator - NBCi Shopping | | 1983 W. 190th St, Suite 100, Torrance CA 90504 | | Phone: (310) 538-7122 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Cell: (714) 457-1854 | Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> Greg, he's not calling people stupid for what they don't know, but for > what they couldn't be bothered to try, for the effort they couldn't be > bothered to expend when it's just so easy to try and get someone else > to do the hard work. > > -Matt Matt, I dig. You folks who have done a lot of hard work and are knowledgable should not have to do the work for newbies who can't be bothered. But the easiest way to avoid exerting any effort on their behalf seems to me to be to ignore them. This Robin person just seems to need to take out his/her dissatisfaction with life on newbies on this list, some of whom seem to have made efforts to solve problems themselves. I must say that my personal experience with this list has always been extremely helpful and I can't say enough how much I value those of you who have helped me. I certainly do my best to read the docs and solve problems myself before posting, so maybe that's all it is. I just think it's crappy to have to read full-on verbal abuse, personal attacks, and sweeping name-calling. This Robin person has NO IDEA who he/she is really talking to, only that they don't know as much about qmail. This is no reason to call someone "too fscking stupid". I wish people would simply choose not to reply to questions they consider a waste of their time. Gregg
(excuse my outlook 2000) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamin Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) > > > I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've seen > snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking > for help. I > am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. I will agree that there are snappy rude responses on this list, many other lists too that are only around to provide free support of a product that is wonderful in many aspects. > > Sure, some of the postings for help may not contain all the > information that > a more experienced person would have. But to respond to them with a > statement to the effect of "send all necessary information" is > crazy. There > is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or may not be > needed to diagnose a problem. As many of the people posting without this > level of information are new to either Linux or qmail (or both) > there needs > to be some understanding on everyone's behalf. And telling > someone to RTFM > is normally of little to no help. I've been told several times to RTFM > without any indication as to which manual. This is of little to > no help to > anyone. A good start would be the documentation included or www.qmail.org/top.html or the FAQs there. Commonly we point people to LWQ or something similar. > > As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the > installation > instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly inadequate. I > tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the source > twice, with no luck. Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. It > wasn't until I purchased "Running qmail." that I actually got the thing to > work. I'm sure that if I went back to either set of instructions > (source or > LWQ) that both would be adequate for the installation now that > I've done it > before. However herein lies the problem. The documentation that > currently > exists is really only helpful to someone that has already installed the > software once before. But, I've digressed. > First time I installed qmail was over 3 years ago, no LWQ and only the install instructions, I was a fairly unix newbie with no professional experience and only 1 year personal experience. I installed it perfectly even with procmail and fastforward to keep sendmail aliases and delivery. I eventually read LWQ and completely reworked my install, I have since pointed this source to many newbie friends who want to setup a mailserver and have hardly needed to answer questions, much less trivial questions. Some of the questions to this list could be solved with google.com and are very typical of the new linux generation. > IMHO, everyone that is offering help via a list such as this should be > courteous to those asking for help. If you can't be courteous, I ask that > you please refrain from posting. Snapping at a user asking for help will > accomplish nothing more than making the user angry and hesitant > from posting > in the future. IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other > support list. > The goals of this list IMHO is not to answer FAQ's or help with learning common unix tasks, there are far to many resources to cover here. Snapping at a user should make them hesitant to post, maybe then will they at least attempt to search for the correct information. > I realize, as do most of the user's posting, that support here is provided > by individuals donating their time of their own free will. All I ask is > that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help. > We ask the same, I have over 100 messages just from this list, I consider about 1/3 of them actually attempted to make efforts to find out from their own accord what they needed. How much time do you think people on this list need to allocate to read 60+ unnecessary emails? > Jamin W. Collins > > -----Original Message----- <snipped for uselessness> -- Tim Hunter
Ok, I have read the whole thread now. We had that before and we will have that in the future. As for the experience needed to set up qmail: I have recommended qmail to some 5-10 people with different experiences. Some never set up a mail server but have some Unix experience, some were new to Unix. I told them where to get qmail and LWQ, read the INSTALL and LWQ and they all managed to set up qmail without any bigger problems, some even without ANY problems. Some of them run qmail with 10-50 virtual domains and and some 100 POP accounts. So I don't think it is too complicated to set up and run qmail if one really seriously tries. As for the hostility of this list: It's now about three years that I've posted my "Xmas story" to this list. I'd written it in a similar thread and I think it's still true. You can read either at http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/articles/xmasstory/ or in the list archive http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/12/msg00816.html \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:10:56AM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote: > If you see the questions of users on this list as bothersome, I'm sorry. > However, as membership to the list is voluntary, you are not being forced to > read them. In short, if you don't like them, don't read them. Sure, or don't answer them and get 10 eMails followed shortly after like "I still have the problem and no one helps me. This list is sooo unpolite" \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 November 2000 at 13:32:36 -0500 > Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I may be out of line here. However, this is not the first time I've seen > >snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking for help. I > >am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent. > > I'm not a big fan of newbie smackdowns, though a repeat offendor might > warrant one. I think newbies generally respond better to reward than > punishment. I think this has been pretty well established in animal training, child psychology, and behavioral psych circles for some time now, for essentially all animals, not just newbies. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 November 2000 at 10:10:56 -0600 > How exactly is my MUA broken? > > I've included the original text of the message I've responded to. I've > simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line of the > original message. Well, you're sending in a system-specific character set that I can only access with some difficulty (saving to a file and then treating as straight ASCII, which loses me any unusual characters in the text). And not following standard quoting conventions is a big problem; lots of us use software that depends on those conventions to properly present your message, and to properly manipulate it. Finally, I do sometimes find people overly snappish responding here. I try to avoid doing so myself, despite feeling the urge sometimes. It seems to me that we often encounter people who aren't knowledgable enough to be doing a Unix sysadmin's job, who are trying to set up their own mail server. Some of us resent doing sysadmin 101 training more than others of us. As to the qmail documentation; I'm *not* a professional Unix sysadmin, though I've been in charge of a SunOS system or two in my professional life. Most of my admin experience is on my own Linux boxes. But I installed early versions of qmail and got them working from the instructions Dan sent with them (the various external documentation hadn't appeared yet) with very little trouble. You just have to read what they say, and pay attention. There isn't a lot of redundancy, and they're written for people who understand Unix. But I'd say they're reasonably good; not "inadequate". Add in the external sources such as LWQ, and I'd say the doc is better than any other Unix package I've installed. As to "which is right" when the various docs differ -- guess what? There isn't an official "right" handed down from on high. Qmail conforms to the Unix philosophy, and should be best regarded as a mail transfer toolkit. You get to use that toolkit to set up the mail transfer you want to happen. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:36:32AM -0800, Barley wrote: > True > intelligence is indicated by a broader understanding of things, and the > contributions that many different people have to offer. So ... this says that all those that cannot describe their problems properly are idiots, because they are lacking the broader understanding of the problems they have and thus are unable to ask the right questions. Where's the difference between what Robin said and what you say? \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Barley wrote: > > > The blind leading... C'mon, Jamin, you've had your 264 lines of fame. Now > > go away, will you? You're about to start a war you'll never understand. > > -- > Man, this Robin character is nuts. Coder-superiority syndrome big time. Why Damn, I forgot to bring any marshmellows with me today! Hmmm, marshmellows. Bill Carlson -- Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Opinions are mine, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | not my employer's. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics |
Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > You called the docs "highly inadequate", not "a little lacking when it > comes to helping someone completely new to qmail". In my > book, calling > something highly inadequate *is* calling it bad. Now, we are getting into a matter of semantics. It was not my intention to say the documentation was bad. I would say that your documentation is actually, better than what comes with qmail. However, I do still see it as lacking where a new user is concerned. Jamin W. Collins
* Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think newbies generally respond better to reward than punishment. E.g., > instead of: > Your mailer is broken. > I'd say something like: > Please don't include messages you're replying to as appendages to > your own messages. It's a waste of bytes, and it annoys many > people--most of whom are too polite and/or busy to bother > complaining. Instead, quote small passages, prefixing each line with > ">". This puts the relevant information right where it's needed, and > makes it easy for people to tell who said what. 1. This is the most basic netiquette. Last time I checked, this list was not <news:microsoft.we.give.a.toss.about.standards>? 2. Been there, done that. I still don't like the "fuck off, geek" t-shirt I got. 3. If this is a technical discussion list, clean and easily accessible archival of information is paramount. Want me to count the "possible followup"s and broken threads caused by missing reference headers? > The former approach *might* work, but is more likely to offend the > newbie. The latter is polite and informative. An educated, unoffended > newbie is much more likely to want to change his ways. That might have been true in 1994 (when I trimmed by beautifully crafted 2-screen signature back to 4 lines after being flamed by 99% of that mailinglist). But this is the 00's. You cannot tell people to "fix their MIME settings" or use another MUA because they are so damned dense they believe that the internet comes with their Windos-CD and Outlook is configured correctly out-of-the-box. I don't mind helping, but I also don't mind giving back to the net what the net gave to me: rough justice. We're talking about an MTA, a tool which, if used by lackwits, is quite likely to wreak havoc on unsuspecting admins. Maybe a "qmail-newbies"-list might be warranted? -- Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
Barley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 29 November 2000 at 10:36:32 -0800 > Try to remember that there are a lot of fields of knowledge and that your > sweeping name-calling, that people are "too fscking stupid" etc is utterly > absurd. For all you know the people you call "stupid" because they don't > know about qmail just invented the cure for cancer, or the 100 mpg car. > > The carpenter who built your house. Your doctor. Your grandmother. Are they > all stupid too because they don't know about qmail? Then again, it's also true that a lot of doctors, and often good doctors, kill themselves flying airplanes. It's widely believed that the reason so many do it is the combination of 1) being able to afford higher-performance airplanes than most private pilots, and 2) being unable to conceive of being as ignorant about anything as they, in fact, are about flying. I'd have to say that when a doctor kills himself in an airplane that's really more than he can handle, in conditions he's really not up to flying in, that it's a stupid mistake. It could have been avoided by a more realistic assessment of his own capabilities. Now, luckily, even our most aggressive flamers are not good enough that anybody's life is at stake here. (And I hope there aren't many places where email systems are life-critical, either). But some of the principle remains. When you're in so far over your head that you not only can't see daylight, but can't even tell which way the surface is, you've probably done something stupid to get yourself there. No matter how "smart" you may seem to be in other contexts. Not many people actually need to run their own MTAs. Setting up qmail, in particular (the only one I know well), requires making a lot of decisions about how you want to do things, and then implementing them. Both parts of that are difficult or impossible if you don't know anything about being a Unix sysadmin. The same flexibility that makes it adaptable to so many different situations also makes it hard to write a cookbook for. My impression here is that people are very willing to help people who don't understand qmail well, and even people who make the occasional stupid mistake (as we all do), so long as they show a minimal competence in the Unix environment (including configuration debugging) and some ability and willingness to do their research. And sometimes will help even without those things. At the same time, we have our share of people who are so frustrated at the continual string of people needing really basic help, stuff any vaguely competent sysadmin should be able to figure out for themselves 95% of the time, parading through here that they sometimes lash out. A number of people on the net, some of them here, seem to have decided that the disparity of numbers is so large that only full frontal assault gives them a chance to survive. I don't happen to agree with them; on the other hand, I'll be a lot of newbies come to understand the situation much better through reading threads like this one, which wouldn't happen without all three groups present. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Sure, or don't answer them and get 10 eMails followed shortly > after like > "I still have the problem and no one helps me. This list > is sooo unpolite" I'm not saying that some of the user's are rude, or that they do not post statements like the above. Does this however mean that because there are some people out there that it is alright to berate newbies before they have done so? IMHO no. Jamin W. Collins
* Barley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 15:14]: > Well, some people would say you are a "luser" > (and it's loser, loser) Um, no. ``luser'' stands for ``local user'' originally. Of course, it's taken on something of a double entendre to describe the more clue-deprived of the bunch. > IT-Darwinism? What a moron. You figured everything out on your own did you? Probably not. However, the questions I've been Robin ask on mailing lists (and there have been some pretty stupid oversights! ;) have been fairly full of description, log entries, command lines he tried, &c. And lo and behold! he got a helpful, polite response every single time! (BTW, I just assume Robin is a guy. (Sorry if I offend, Robin.) In my little sheltered world, I like to think women aren't as foul-mouthed as he is. ;) > Born using bash? Never took a single lesson. I've never wanted to email a > punch in the face to someone more than to you. Your ego astounds me. I know > a LOT of people that would make you look REALLY stupid were you to have a > conversation with them. Try to remember that you aren't nearly as cool as > your qmail setup would indicate. Incidentally, I have seen Robin ask questions re: qmail and addons on other mailing lists. He isn't perfect (horrors!). However, he is always fairly thorough in his question-asking. I think therein lies his (and others') frustration: people frequently come in *demanding* (not asking for) help, not posting any real details about their environment, and get all freaky when someone tells them, basically, ``We can't help you if you don't post details.'' Yeah, that's what it boils down to. > I can't believe the level to which this list has sunk. It's like the angry > neo-nazi geeks list now. And it used to be quite helpful. There are many of > us, newbies to qmail ourselves, who don't mind answering basic questions > within our ability. I try to do so when I know an answer. I'm being dead serious here: unsubscribe. Or create your own list. I don't find Robin obnoxious (well, not *overly* so). Y'know why? Because I don't give a crap what he writes. *They're* *just* *words*. There are plenty of people on the list who help (of which Robin is one), but neither this list *nor* *qmail* is for the faint-hearted. About the ``neo-nazi'' [sic] attitude toward things like quoting text, line wrapping, and whatnot, it's probably a reaction toward people using tools they have no idea how to use (i.e., mail clients). Yeah it's a little elitest, but some of us (apparently yourself included, mostly) have invested a good deal of time in understanding netiquette (forget RFCs). We appreciate when people follow commonly-accepted standards and get upset (at one level or another) when people knowingly or unknowingly break those ``standards''. It's really not that big of a deal to me...however, to be the best ``net neighbor'' (gag!) people should really do a better job of trying to adhere to those long-standing practices. Or not. Whatever. /pg -- Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) (Seen somewhere on the net.)
* Barley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 15:38]: > I dig. You folks who have done a lot of hard work and are knowledgable > should not have to do the work for newbies who can't be bothered. But the > easiest way to avoid exerting any effort on their behalf seems to me to be > to ignore them. This Robin person just seems to need to take out his/her > dissatisfaction with life on newbies on this list, some of whom seem to have > made efforts to solve problems themselves. heh, have you ever read any of djb's responses to those he doesn't feel are putting forth enough effort? It's about par for the list... :) > I just think it's crappy > to have to read full-on verbal abuse, personal attacks, and sweeping > name-calling. This Robin person has NO IDEA who he/she is really talking to, > only that they don't know as much about qmail. This is no reason to call > someone "too fscking stupid". I wish people would simply choose not to reply > to questions they consider a waste of their time. Doesn't Outlook have filtering capabilities? Perhaps you could figure out how to just filter mail from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> into the bit bucket; that should basically take care of the problem, eh? /pg -- Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- If you go to a costume party at your boss's house, wouldn't you think a good costume would be to dress up like the boss's wife? Trust me, it's not. (Jack Handey)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamin Collins) writes: > As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the > installation instructions with qmail itself are for the most part > highly inadequate. I tried setting qmail up just from the > instructions included with the source twice, with no luck. > Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck. It wasn't until I > purchased "Running qmail." that I actually got the thing to work. > I'm sure that if I went back to either set of instructions (source > or LWQ) that both would be adequate for the installation now that > I've done it before. However herein lies the problem. The > documentation that currently exists is really only helpful to > someone that has already installed the software once before. But, > I've digressed. Really? Is this a digression because you've already contacted LWQ's author with suggestions? Have you posted anything to this list about the specific problems you had with INSTALL? If you think that new users aren't well served by the available documentation, then you should contribute. Somebody else wrote qmail for you. Somebody else wrote LWQ for you. You've even gotten help from the qmail list. Complaining about other posters won't help any new users. If that's what you actually care about, try fixing the ``inadequate'' instructions. ^L
At 10:01 AM -0800 11/29/00, Barley wrote: >I want to second what was said here. The manuals are often inadequate for >newbies. I never would have gotten qmail set up without the patient and >generous help of those on this list. Thanks to everyone who helped me! I'm >sure glad I wasn't raked over the coals like some of the recent posters. At the risk of seeming to be on the side of the geek-elitist ilk on this list, I would like to say that while they don't go out of their way to say as such, the docs (both provided and those by other parties as listed on qmail.org) DO assume a certain level of knowledge about Linux/Unix as a whole, without which you undoubtedly will get lost. I'm not exactly a Linux newbie, but I'm far from an expert/administrator. I'm in that "knows enough to be dangerous" category. :-) In my self-studies of Linux I have come across lots of reading material. Not a lot of it sticks with me, but I do so love the following quote and I think it says rather nicely what some of the dinks here don't seem to be able to articulate: ---------- Any system reference will require you to read it at least three times before you get a reasonable picture of what to do. If you need to read it more than three times, then there is probably some other information that you really should be reading first. If you are only reading a document once, then you are being too impatient with yourself. It is very important to identify the exact terms that you fail to understand in a document. Always try to back-trace to the precise word before you continue. It is usually cheaper and faster to read a document three times than to pay someone to train you. Don't be lazy. Don't learn new things according to deadlines. Your Unix knowledge is going to evolve by grace and fascination, not by pressure. ---------- I really love that. (It's from RUTE User Tutorial and Exposition, available somewhere at linuxdoc.org.) It is good advice that a good friend of mine is constantly drilling me with. You won't learn anything if other people are always giving you the answers. I installed qmail myself. Without help from this list or anyone else. But it was NOT easy (for me). I read the docs. All of them. Then I read them again. Then I started. And I STILL made mistakes. I read again. I gradually found and corrected all my mistakes. Now it works. Yay for me. But it was a lot of WORK. But given that this was a scant two weeks ago, I'm deeply sympathetic to others experiencing the problems I had. Maybe in a few weeks/months after tweaking and sitting on a happy system I'll turn into yet another callous asshole with better things to do with my life. If I do, someone smack me. Don't hate me for using the word "dink," :-D ...ROMeyn -- signat-url: http://www2.potsdam.edu/dctm/prescor/signat-url.htm cubiclecam: http://digirom.potsdam.edu/~prescor/cubiclecam.html ^^^ <--- Off-line unless someone knows how to get camserv to compile under RedHat 7... *sigh* :-(
Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:36:32AM -0800, Barley wrote: > > True > > intelligence is indicated by a broader understanding of > things, and the > > contributions that many different people have to offer. > > So ... this says that all those that cannot describe their problems > properly are idiots, because they are lacking the broader > understanding of > the problems they have and thus are unable to ask the right questions. > > Where's the difference between what Robin said and what you say? > The difference is that Robin seems to take the stance that if you are not a Linux or Unix GOD then you are an idiot. Barley on the other hand indicates that one can be intelligent and yet not know anyone about a given area. Jamin W. Collins
> "lusers" is a derogatory way to refer to system users by system administrators. Isn't it great the way English expands in this flexible way? ;) OK, so the people Robin likes to flame ARE "lusers"...my bad... whereas Robin him or herself is actually still a "loser" in the conventional sense. Homonyms...what fun. > > It really is spelled that way in common usage, though I doubt you will find > it in a dictionary. >
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:53:40PM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote: > Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > You called the docs "highly inadequate", not "a little lacking when it > > comes to helping someone completely new to qmail". In my > > book, calling > > something highly inadequate *is* calling it bad. > > Now, we are getting into a matter of semantics. It was not my intention to > say the documentation was bad. I would say that your documentation is > actually, better than what comes with qmail. However, I do still see it as > lacking where a new user is concerned. So what did Dave think of your feedback and suggestions? You did contacted Dave with suggested material to fill the "lacking" parts as soon as you could, right? This list hears a lot of people suggest that documentation doesn't support new users sufficiently, but when the list suggests that the complainant is absolutely the best person to provide feedback to the document authors (as their experience is fresh and relevant), the response to the above question is near universal silence or a lame excuse as to why they haven't yet but will do so Real Soon Now. In short, most complainants complaint, few do anything to fix it for the next new user who comes along. Complaints have much better credibility if they act to fix things where they can. Regards.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:15:04AM -0800, Barley wrote: > > Greg, he's not calling people stupid for what they don't know, but for > > what they couldn't be bothered to try, for the effort they couldn't be > > bothered to expend when it's just so easy to try and get someone else > > to do the hard work. > > Matt, > > I dig. You folks who have done a lot of hard work and are knowledgable > should not have to do the work for newbies who can't be bothered. But the > easiest way to avoid exerting any effort on their behalf seems to me to be > to ignore them. This Robin person just seems to need to take out his/her > dissatisfaction with life on newbies on this list, some of whom seem to have > made efforts to solve problems themselves. While I agree that Robin is overly caustic at some times, I do for the most part find his posts pretty funny, and I think (or hope) that that is what he intends. That being said, there are also some situations where overt abuse is the only way to get something across to someone , and I'm happy that Robin is here to provide it. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires." 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_ 4:58pm up 172 days, 15:15, 10 users, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.01
> Maybe a "qmail-newbies"-list might be warranted? Here here. Then those who don't mind newbie level questions can answer those and others can ignore the list entirely. I think qmail-newbies list is a great idea. > -- > Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/> >
From: Barley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Robin, you are decidedly an asshole. > >I can't believe how abusive you feel the need to be. Must stem from some >geek-angst I don't understand. You feel like you're so bloody smart because Robin's no geek. He's just a kid, and fairly ignorant at that. For example, nobody told him that there is no such thing as HTML "programming", as he is proud to include in his http://socha.net/professional.english.html page. Or that XEmacs is not an operating system. For that matter, he doesn't even know that there is no operating system named Dos, nor Dos95 nor Dos NT. For someone with such a doubtfull sense of humour as he shows to have welcoming IE users the way he does at http://socha.net/, he seems to be inordinately proud of listing among his "computer skills" Microsoft Office. Therefore, I sugest you just ignore him. All he "contributes" is background noise. Armando Santos
I am sure everyone can agree on this. Constructive criticism works best, makes it much easier to fix how it lacks if told how it lacks. If you think the documentation sucks, PLEASE tell Dave (or Dan, or whatever else documentation you are reading) that it sucks and why it sucks, and if your really feeling useful fix it for them or give them some pointers. That's why free software and support are good. -- Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamin Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) > > > Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > You called the docs "highly inadequate", not "a little lacking when it > > comes to helping someone completely new to qmail". In my > > book, calling > > something highly inadequate *is* calling it bad. > > Now, we are getting into a matter of semantics. It was not my > intention to > say the documentation was bad. I would say that your documentation is > actually, better than what comes with qmail. However, I do still > see it as > lacking where a new user is concerned. > > Jamin W. Collins >
We old timers used to consider it rude to discuss anything but technical issues on a technical mailing list. If someone had a problem with someones manner of expression, or personality, they took it off list. Please do so in the future. sdb -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Such a list would pobably be ignored by the people that can really help. And sometimes the stupid questions aren't from newbies, they are from genuinely stupid lackwits like me. Anyway RTFM is usually good advice. Sometimes we really are lazy or busy setting up all kinds of crap on our systems and just hoping that someone with a qmail-capacity brain will be kind enough to spew out some ready tips. > > Maybe a "qmail-newbies"-list might be warranted? > > Here here. Then those who don't mind newbie level questions can answer those > and others can ignore the list entirely. I think qmail-newbies list is a > great idea. > > > -- > > Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/> > > >
Louis Theran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Really? Is this a digression because you've already contacted LWQ's > author with suggestions? Have you posted anything to this list about > the specific problems you had with INSTALL? No to both, because I have not yet completed my configuration. Once I have, I will rebuild it again, and possibly one more time. Just to be sure I have what I want and that I know exactly how I did it. Then, I will compare what I've done with what is in the instructions for LWQ and possibly INSTALL. Then I will submit my findings as appropriate. > If you think that new users aren't well served by the available > documentation, then you should contribute. Somebody else wrote qmail > for you. Somebody else wrote LWQ for you. You've even gotten help > from the qmail list. I absolutely agree, and fully plan to. > Complaining about other posters won't help any new users. If that's > what you actually care about, try fixing the ``inadequate'' > instructions. Again, I absolutely agree. However, there is one thing missing here. None of this justifies beratting someone for asking for assistance. Jamin W. Collins
Thus said "asantos" on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:13:18 -0100: > For someone with such a doubtfull sense of humour as he shows to have > welcoming IE users the way he does at http://socha.net/, he seems to be > inordinately proud of listing among his "computer skills" Microsoft Office. Bah! That's a lot nicer than what I used to have on my webpage: http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/fun.html Andy p.s. only works with 9x not NT [-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------] 5:35pm up 27 days, 19:55, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
"Robin S. Socha" wrote: <snip> > Indeed. Tell me, Jamin, does your inflatable sheep talk? If so, do you > wait for it to ask you for a fag, then repeat everything it said during > intercourse (including the funny noises your mother and the new neighbour > were making as well as the TV) and then ask if you were /really/ good? > More to the point: why do you not repeat everything that /your/ sheep said > but rather Suresh's (two weeks ago, while thumbing the Sear's catalogue)? > You don't? Then why do you behave this way on mailing lists, > i.e. full quote including signature and everything below your text? How does this post belong in a mature discussion/support/etc. list? It seems like it belongs in something like alt.sex.discussion.<fill in the blank>, or the like. This is just downright offensive, and tiring. I feel as though I'm in middle school listening to the jocks. Everyone has to get thier word in (hey, look, I'm guilty too). Pride is an evil, evil thing, and looks to be something most of you need to get over. Robin, a few questions: Did your parents berate/abuse you as a child (perhaps they called it rough justice to quote a post by you later)? Or perhaps you were spoiled monetarily, yet ignored. Did the other school children look down upon you? Do you need anti depressives? I only ask these questions because of my background of misguided schooling in mental issues (thank god I changed my major to CS, mental health is too depressing), and have seen many many a case study. <snip> I know this list gets quite a lot of mail, but perhaps it would be best moderated, with a few choice moderators that are kind, who believe in humility, not anger. This would also stop all of the childish talk of fornication with blow up creatures. Another side note, I'm not sure about the qmail-newbies idea. The issue is that it WOULD go ignored and who is to prevent "newbies" from posting to this list? Now please excuse me while I bow out. -- Eric Garff MyComputer.com System Admin Our Tools. Your Site. Just remember, if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off. --
Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 17:22 schrieb Jamin Collins: > There is no need to refer to his posting as "such nonsense". Calling me an asshole on one hand (this weren't his words, it's just my conclusion) and asking me for help off-list does not fit. > Additionally, > there is no call/need for the statement about "busy people". I believe it > is well known that people read this list on their time and any answer is > essentially a donation from their time. Nice that you believe this is well known, obviously some people don't think about that. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 19:01 schrieb Barley: > To Mr. Brauer, who seems on a quest to post nothing but flames here, we > realize that no one is paid staff here. But you flaming everyone who posts > doesn't help a thing. You should reread my mails. Then you would notice i gave somehow detailed instructions how to supply the needed information. Nonetheless he was on the false list, ans this was the main issue i addressed with my first mail. > Gregg -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
Thus said Jamin Collins on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:45:04 CST: > > * 6 attribution lines > > Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If it is, > which one? > > > * No citation leader > > Once again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. If > it is, which one? > > > * Trailing blank line > > And yet again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC. > If it is, which one? Ok, You need to spend more time in the books and less time flapping the jaw. Each one of those violates RFC 1855 to some extent. Here is the link to the RFC and just to make things easy on you, I will quote relevant parts of it here (you should still read it though): - Be brief without being overly terse. When replying to a message, include enough original material to be understood but no more. It is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including all the previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material. * Did you do this? - Do not include control characters or non-ASCII attachments in messages unless they are MIME attachments or unless your mailer encodes these. If you send encoded messages make sure the recipient can decode them. * Are you 100% certain that everyone on the list can read your goofy windows font/content-type - Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via FLAME ON/OFF enclosures. For example: FLAME ON: This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth it takes to send it. It's illogical and poorly reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with me. FLAME OFF * Is not your original post based on emotional response to someone elses? Just because they respond emotionally, does that justify your ignorance of the same? - A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these "flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames. * No comment. Cheers, Andy p.s. BTW, this applies to anyone on the list---not that I am a netiquette cop by any means. ;-) -- [-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------] 7:58pm up 27 days, 22:18, 4 users, load average: 1.06, 1.21, 1.23
Andy Bradford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes: > - Be brief without being overly terse. When replying to > a message, > include enough original material to be understood but > no more. It > is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including > all the previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material. > > * Did you do this? Originally, no. Have I been since it was pointed out? Yes. Sorry for the error on my part there. However, that was not one of the items in the list you quoted. > - Do not include control characters or non-ASCII attachments in > messages unless they are MIME attachments or unless your mailer > encodes these. If you send encoded messages make sure the > recipient can decode them. > > * Are you 100% certain that everyone on the list can read your goofy > windows font/content-type I must admit that I can not guarantee that everyone on this list can read it, but I dare say that you or anyone else out there would be hard pressed to be 100% certain that everyone could read their messages. As for the character set, it is a modified version of ISO-8859-1. I would be interested to know how many people on this list do have problems reading it (please e-mail me privately). > - Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you > have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via > FLAME ON/OFF enclosures. For example: > FLAME ON: This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth > it takes to send it. It's illogical and poorly > reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with me. > FLAME OFF > > * Is not your original post based on emotional response to someone > elses? Just because they respond emotionally, does that justify your > ignorance of the same? My original posting could be consider emotional. However, it was not a spur of the moment response. I have watch the rude responses to questions on this list for quite some time. This is not the only list that I'm subscribed to, it does however have more rude responses than any of the others I'm subscribed to. > - A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and > liberal in what you receive. You should not send > heated messages > (we call these "flames") even if you are provoked. On the other > hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's > prudent not to respond to flames. > > * No comment. Only one person here has been flaming IMHO, no need to mention names. Thank you for your kind and informative response. Jamin W. Collins
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:13:18 -0100, >> "asantos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: A> Robin's no geek. He's just ... ^^^^ Are you sure? This picture plus the signature makes me wonder... http://socha.net/Gnus/screenshots/mime.html -- Karl Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When anyone asks me how I can best describe my experience in nearly forty years at sea, I merely say, uneventful... I never saw a wreck and never have been wrecked nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort. --E. J. Smith, 1907, Captain, RMS Titanic
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy KKS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jamin Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:34 AM Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamin Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Andy Bradford'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > - Do not include control characters or non-ASCII attachments in > > > messages unless they are MIME attachments or unless your mailer > > > encodes these. If you send encoded messages make sure the > > > recipient can decode them. > > > > > > * Are you 100% certain that everyone on the list can read your goofy > > > windows font/content-type > Actually problem is not in body of message, problem is that some poeple like to use "weird" characters in subject. Some mail servers (not mine) or relay stations, can't handle message and reject it then. A while ago I got 2 such mails every day, and it was quite anoyying. I talked to sysadmin of cable network I am part of, and he said that he can't do anything since, it's not his server, that rejects mails with "bad" subject. So this should be reminder, to *everyone*, not to post weird chars in subject or from addy. I am sure this should be written in one of your RFC's right? Andy
> > Doesn't Outlook have filtering capabilities? Perhaps you could figure out > how to just filter mail from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> into the bit bucket; that > should basically take care of the problem, eh? But where would the *fun* be then. I haven't had so much to laugh, for a quite a while now. I am on several lists, few of them technical (like this one), but even when war brooke out on one of them I haven't seen so much flamming. Once upon a time I read document Netiquete, and as I can remember there was no word that computer geeks (Robin) can be abusive toward newbies. I myself am a programmer, and if somone politely asks me a question, I give answer, without making that person feel like an idiot. It's people like him (Robin), that give programers (and wizards) like us bad name. So far people from this list have been quite helpful on areas, I didn't know about, since I didn't use them, but if some newbies get here and are greated by Robin, they will probably decide against using software, for which this should be support list. Andy
how can i make an alias (like [EMAIL PROTECTED]) that sends a message to all the users on my system? i have several domains hosted. - jeremy
defender of the protocol escribi�: > how can i make an alias (like [EMAIL PROTECTED]) that sends a message to all the > users on my system? i have several domains hosted. > > - jeremy If you are using "vpopmail" look at "vpopbull" command. Really simple.
Ould escribi�: > If I dont use "vpopmail", what I can do to send message for all users > in my domaine? I have prohibited in my company the creation of alias that contents all the user of my system (or company or ISP), cause someone (internal or external) can known it and the malicius-spammer bomb all your user (and of course, i lost my job). I prefer to create a shell that do it (allways as root with the right permissions in my own opinion). Cause i have vpopmail i don't have this shell written but it's posible that someone has done it. (Please, post questions/answers to the list; may be interesting for more people)
Yes, it was my fault...I didn't realize that they were dependent, I looked in the fast forward directory and found its own cdbmake. Thanks! I still can't send mail to root even if .qmail-root is set to any other address.. wierd. -Collin -----Original Message----- From: Alex Pennace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:26 PM To: Collin B. McClendon Cc: Qmail List (E-mail) Subject: Re: creating an aliases.cdb without newaliases? On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:46:04AM -0500, Collin B. McClendon wrote: > I've looked and not found much so here goes: > I have used newaliases on several systems, however it only creates an > aliases.db. The man page for newaliases indicates otherwise. > Perhaps I'm overlooking something simple. I've gotten the cdb source, used > cdbmake, doesn't > seem compatible, cdbmake-12 does the same thing. I end up with a .cdb file > however > printforward won't read it. cdbs are application dependant. A cdb for fastforward won't work for tcpserver, for example.
Dear All, Fits qmail installation and all was fine until I tried to send email to the box. It produces the following error message This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) I have done rtfm bit, hones,t but now I seem to be going round in circles. I am using ./Maildir/ /var/qmail/rc #!/bin/sh # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to Maildir format by default. exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail & and below is control details /var/qmail/control :::::::::::::: bouncefrom :::::::::::::: postmaster :::::::::::::: concurrencyincoming :::::::::::::: 20 :::::::::::::: defaultdomain :::::::::::::: .wonder.com :::::::::::::: locals :::::::::::::: mail.wonder.com:mcuser01 wonder.com :::::::::::::: me :::::::::::::: mail.wonder.com :::::::::::::: plusdomain :::::::::::::: wonder.com :::::::::::::: rcpthosts :::::::::::::: mail.wonder.com :::::::::::::: virtualdomains :::::::::::::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks in advance.
> Dear All, > > Fits qmail installation and all was fine until I tried to send email to > the box. It produces the following error message > > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) > > I have done rtfm bit, hones,t but now I seem to be going round in circles. > > I am using ./Maildir/ > > /var/qmail/rc > > #!/bin/sh > # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. > # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to Maildir format by default. > > exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ > qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail & > > and below is control details > > /var/qmail/control > > :::::::::::::: > bouncefrom > :::::::::::::: > postmaster > :::::::::::::: > concurrencyincoming > :::::::::::::: > 20 > :::::::::::::: > defaultdomain > :::::::::::::: > .wonder.com > :::::::::::::: > locals > :::::::::::::: > mail.wonder.com:mcuser01 > wonder.com > :::::::::::::: > me > :::::::::::::: > mail.wonder.com > :::::::::::::: > plusdomain > :::::::::::::: > wonder.com > :::::::::::::: > rcpthosts > :::::::::::::: > mail.wonder.com > :::::::::::::: > virtualdomains > :::::::::::::: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Thanks in advance.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Louis Mushandu wrote: > Dear All, > > Fits qmail installation and all was fine until I tried to send email to the > box. It produces the following error message > > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You need mail.mongrel.com listed in /var/qmail/control/locals, from the info you provided it isn't in that file. HTH, Bill Carlson -- Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Opinions are mine, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | not my employer's. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics |
on 11/29/00 3:17 PM, Louis Mushandu at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) [...] > locals > :::::::::::::: > mail.wonder.com:mcuser01 > wonder.com qmail has told you exactly what the problem is. Would you prefer a less helpful error message? :-p You might want mongrel.com to be in control/virtualdomains instead, though. - Amitai
From: Louis Mushandu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, >it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) > >I have done rtfm bit, hones,t but now I seem to be going round in circles. Follow the thread starting at man qmail-control, then man qmail-send, and check your locals file. On a sligthly more palatable form (IMHO), try http://binarios.com/miscnotes/qmail.html#q-control. Armando
* Louis Mushandu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried to send email to the box. It produces the following error message > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry. Although I'm listed as a > best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals > file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) > locals > :::::::::::::: > mail.wonder.com:mcuser01 > wonder.com That is certainly wrong. mail.mongrel.com should be in there. > virtualdomains > :::::::::::::: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And so is this. -- Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 21:17 schrieb Louis Mushandu: > locals > > mail.wonder.com:mcuser01 > wonder.com > > virtualdomains > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > You mixed two files here. In locals just list every domain you are delivering myil locally for, on per line. in virtualdomains the mapping to users is done, so: locals: mail.wonder.com wonder.com any.other.domain virtualdomains: wonder.com:user1 mail.wonder.com:user2 and so on > > > Thanks in advance. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
>From Dan's own page: "But please don't send me email of the following types: qmail support questions. Send them to the qmail mailing list instead. " Kinda blows that "this isn't a support mailing list" idea out of the water, eh?
Quoting John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > From Dan's own page: > > "But please don't send me email of the following types: > qmail support questions. Send them to the qmail mailing list instead. " > > Kinda blows that "this isn't a support mailing list" idea out of the water, > eh? Rock bottom must hurt, when you hit it: http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#qmail: qmail: For discussion of the qmail package, the qmailanalog package, the dot-forward package, and the fastforward package. To subscribe, send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is unmoderated and high-volume. There is a hypertext archive of the mailing list at ORNL. Please read FAQ, PIC.*, and the other documentation in the qmail package before sending your question to the qmail mailing list. May I (gently) draw your attention to the last paragraph? And may I also invite you to read: http://qmail.org/top.html#paidsup ? Popcorn anyone? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/ "If you are too low a lifeform to be able to learn how to use the manual page subsystem, why should we help you?" (Theo de Raadt)
John W. Lemons III writes: > >From Dan's own page: > > "But please don't send me email of the following types: > qmail support questions. Send them to the qmail mailing list instead. " > > Kinda blows that "this isn't a support mailing list" idea out of the water, > eh? Sure. The problem is that there is a wide range of expertise here, and questions as well. That might be solved by splitting the list into "qmail-hard-questions" and "qmail-easy-questions", except that anybody who can't figure out the answer to their question thinks it's a hard question to answer. So, hard questions get answered, and frequently asked questions get flamed. If you want an answer to your question without worrying whether it's frequently asked, consult http://www.qmail.org/top.html#paidsup -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Robin S.Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#qmail: > qmail: For discussion of the qmail package, the qmailanalog package, > the dot-forward package, and the fastforward package. To subscribe, > send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is > unmoderated and high-volume. There is a hypertext archive of the > mailing list at ORNL. > > Please read FAQ, PIC.*, and the other documentation in the qmail > package before sending your question to the qmail mailing list. > > > May I (gently) draw your attention to the last paragraph? And may I > also invite you to read: http://qmail.org/top.html#paidsup ? This reinforces the statement that the qmail list a support list. Granted it asks that you "please" read the appropriate document before posting. However, it does indicate that the list is an appropriate place to send questions regarding qmail. Jamin W. Collins
You are, of course, right. Dan doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to QMail and his mailing list. Guess we should ignore his request to direct support questions to this list, after all, what does he know? -----Original Message----- From: Robin S.Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Using this list for QMail Support questions... Quoting John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > From Dan's own page: > > "But please don't send me email of the following types: > qmail support questions. Send them to the qmail mailing list instead. " > > Kinda blows that "this isn't a support mailing list" idea out of the water, > eh? Rock bottom must hurt, when you hit it: http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#qmail: qmail: For discussion of the qmail package, the qmailanalog package, the dot-forward package, and the fastforward package. To subscribe, send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is unmoderated and high-volume. There is a hypertext archive of the mailing list at ORNL. Please read FAQ, PIC.*, and the other documentation in the qmail package before sending your question to the qmail mailing list. May I (gently) draw your attention to the last paragraph? And may I also invite you to read: http://qmail.org/top.html#paidsup ? Popcorn anyone? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/ "If you are too low a lifeform to be able to learn how to use the manual page subsystem, why should we help you?" (Theo de Raadt)
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 08:29:55PM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote: > > Robin S.Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#qmail: > > > > Please read FAQ, PIC.*, and the other documentation in the qmail > > package before sending your question to the qmail mailing list. > > This reinforces the statement that the qmail list a support list. Granted > it asks that you "please" read the appropriate document before posting. > However, it does indicate that the list is an appropriate place to send > questions regarding qmail. It is an appropriate place provided you RTFM. People who RTFM not only usually get help with their current problem, they learn about other nifty qmail features and find new ways of using qmail. People who don't RTFM and instead use the list to solve one problem at a time typically remain ignorant of the bigger picture, and persist in using the list as a hand-holding forum. Not healthy.
Howdy, i just noticed that mail sent out by my qmail server does not put my domain in to the Sender: field. it is going out as "Sender: mtidwell" and not "Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" like it should. what have i done wrong?? TIA \\//_
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, montgomery f. tidwell wrote: > Howdy, > > i just noticed that mail sent out by my qmail server does > not put my domain in to the Sender: field. it is going > out as "Sender: mtidwell" and not "Sender: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > like it should. > > what have i done wrong?? Chosen to use Netscape as your MUA. This is a known problem with Netscape and has nothing to do with qmail. Normally it isn't a problem as well behaved MUAs will not use the Sender: field to generate a reply address, but unfortunately some broken systems do (I don't know off hand which ones they are). If the Sender: field is not fully qualified, this leads to the local MTA trying to deliver the message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards Peter ---------- Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate) Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739 e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada "If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
Title:Howdy,
i just noticed that the Sender field in all of my outgoing mail is incorrect. it is
sending "Sender: mtidwell" and s/b "Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]".
what have i done wrong??
TIA
\\//_
Hi, I have a problem and can't understand its source. I hope you can help me solve it. And here's the point: I have a dial-up connection to my isp so I can't have my own official domain name. But I have joined dyndns.org project and registered there as qbaroot.dyndns.org. I've also downloaded a ddup program and now I start it everytime I connect to internet (it happens automaticaly 'cause I added this program to /etc/ppp/ip-up.local). And while being online if I type "www.qbaroot.dyndns.org" in my webbrowser I can see my websites. And this is cool. But today I wanted to check if when I send a message (while online) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it will come directly to my mailbox. Unfortunately it didn't. And I don't know why. I must add that after I got my own domain name on dyndns.org I've changed some qmail's configuration files (to be precise I changed 3 files from /var/qmail/control directory: defaultdomain, defaulthost and me. Instead of "localhost.localdomain" I put there "qbaroot.dyndns.org". I had to do so 'cause some pop3 servers rejected my all e-mails.) As a attachment I send my last maillog when I was trying to send a msg (hope it will be useful). I'd like to know why it didn't work and what to do to make it working. Thank you all 4 help, QBANov 29 22:00:13 localhost qmail: 975531613.680894 new msg 28139 Nov 29 22:00:13 localhost qmail: 975531613.681071 info msg 28139: bytes 444 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1309 uid 501 Nov 29 22:00:13 localhost qmail: 975531613.738866 starting delivery 2: msg 28139 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nov 29 22:00:13 localhost qmail: 975531613.738959 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Nov 29 22:00:15 localhost qmail: 975531615.261675 delivery 2: deferral: Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:53:03PM +0100, QBA wrote: > Instead of "localhost.localdomain" I put there "qbaroot.dyndns.org". > I had to do so 'cause some pop3 servers rejected my all e-mails.) > As a attachment I send my last maillog when I was trying to send a msg > (hope it will be useful). I'd like to know why it didn't work and > what to do to make it working. Nov 29 22:00:13 localhost qmail: 975531613.681071 info msg 28139: bytes 444 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1309 uid 501 Nov 29 22:00:13 localhost qmail: 975531613.738866 starting delivery 2: msg 28139 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you add qbaroot.dyndns.org to your control/locals file? And if so, did you kill -HUP <pid of qmail-send> ?? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 22:53 schrieb QBA: The error "sorry, couldn't establish smtp connection" means that on the remote host no MTA reacted on port 25. Could be a wrong host, could be a wrong name resolution, could be you don't have qmail-smtpd enabled. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
I'm using qmail 1.03/spamcontrol 1.03 (yes, I know, I haven't put in 1.04 yet) and have a list of invalid names in badrcptto. It works most of the time, but occasionally, mail comes through to the bad rcptto name. The maillog shows the mail was blocked due to invalid recipient address, but it gets delivered anyway. I examined the mail and the rcpt to: match the file and the msg/log timestamps match. This is not a major problem, but it is puzzling. Any of you wizards care to speculate as to how/why this happens? -->Russ Ringer
All, I cannot get qmail to accept messages from the outside, i posted a missive before and the replies that I got whilst swift and appreciated have not resolved by problem. The recieved error message is Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) I was using ./Maildir/ but I have now changed to Mailbox in desperation. My locals files is populated with mail.wonder.com, but still no cigar for me. Here are the contents of the files in my control directory [mcuser01@mail control]$ more * :::::::::::::: bouncefrom :::::::::::::: postmaster :::::::::::::: concurrencyincoming :::::::::::::: 20 :::::::::::::: defaultdomain :::::::::::::: .mongrel.com :::::::::::::: locals :::::::::::::: mail.mongrel.com mongrel.com :::::::::::::: me :::::::::::::: mail.mongrel.com :::::::::::::: plusdomain :::::::::::::: mongrel.com :::::::::::::: rcpthosts :::::::::::::: mail.mongrel.com :::::::::::::: virtualdomains :::::::::::::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Louis Mushandu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 19:46]: > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) Note that this error pertains to a different host than you previously posted. > I was using ./Maildir/ but I have now changed to Mailbox in desperation. > My locals files is populated with mail.wonder.com, but still no cigar for > me. Is it? > :::::::::::::: > locals > :::::::::::::: > mail.mongrel.com > mongrel.com > :::::::::::::: Um, nope. Put all of the domains for which you will accept e-mail in rcpthosts. If the mail is to be delivered locally (i.e., on the same machine), put it in locals as well. /pg -- Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Ok, I'm just uploading the new version of the kernel, v1.3.33, also known as "the buggiest kernel ever". (Linus Torvalds, on releasing 1.3.33)
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:22:02PM -0000, Louis Mushandu wrote: > I was using ./Maildir/ but I have now changed to Mailbox in desperation. That has nothing to do with it. > My locals files is populated with mail.wonder.com, Is it? > :::::::::::::: > locals > :::::::::::::: > mail.mongrel.com > mongrel.com Doesn't seem to be. RC -- +------------------- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis Telecom - Engenharia ISP / Rede T�cnica | P�. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7� E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:22:02PM -0000, Louis Mushandu wrote: > I cannot get qmail to accept messages from the outside, i posted a missive > before and the replies that I got whilst swift and appreciated have not > resolved by problem. > > The recieved error message is > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) This message means exactly what it says: a message for [EMAIL PROTECTED] arrived at your server because your server was listed as the mail exchanger for mail.wonder.com, but you don't have mail.wonder.com listed in locals (or virtualdomains), so your server doesn't know what to do with it. Chris
Louis Mushandu writes: > All, > > I cannot get qmail to accept messages from the outside, i posted a missive > before and the replies that I got whilst swift and appreciated have not > resolved by problem. > The recieved error message is > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) (same error message as before) > I was using ./Maildir/ but I have now changed to Mailbox in desperation. > My locals files is populated with mail.wonder.com, but still no cigar for > me. Did you send qmail-send a HUP signal, or restart it? man qmail-send mentions that a HUP signal will cause qmail-send to reread locals and virtualdomains. Vince.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:22:02PM -0000, Louis Mushandu wrote: > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) Your configs look rather fine now. You might want to remove the "virtualdomains" file completely. The problem looks like you didn't "kill -HUP <pid of qmail-send>" \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:21:40PM -0000, Louis Mushandu wrote: > All, > > I cannot get qmail to accept messages from the outside, i posted a missive > before and the replies that I got whilst swift and appreciated have not > resolved by problem. > > The recieved error message is > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) > > I was using ./Maildir/ but I have now changed to Mailbox in desperation. > My locals files is populated with mail.wonder.com, but still no cigar for > me. [snip] > virtualdomains > :::::::::::::: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bad virtualdomains file format, fix per man qmail-send. Check the output of qmail-showctl to ensure that mail.wonder.com is being registered by qmail as local. Also, "mail" is a pretty lame name for any host, read <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1178.txt>.
> Your configs look rather fine now. No, it doesn't. mail.wonder.com isn't referred to in locals (or anywhere else, for that matter), and virtualdomains has a completely incorrect content. RC -- +------------------- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis Telecom - Engenharia ISP / Rede T�cnica | P�. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7� E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
Am Donnerstag, 30. November 2000 00:22 schrieb Louis Mushandu: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) vs > locals > > mail.mongrel.com > mongrel.com > should have shown you the error! the error message sais that mail.wonder.com isnt in control/locals, and, oh wonder, it really isnt. > rcpthosts > mail.mongrel.com hmm, you are posting files + error msgs not belonging togehther. mail.wonder.com must be in rcpthosts to. > virtualdomains > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] reread the documentation about virtualdomains, the format is nonsense. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg www.bsws.de | Germany
A contractor will be brought in tomorrow to try and resolve the problem; if you feel you can do it by tonight, email back in a hurry. I jest not. Problem. Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) For further info please email.
on 11/29/00 6:34 PM, Louis Mushandu at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A contractor will be brought in tomorrow to try and resolve the problem; if > you feel you can do it by tonight, email back in a hurry. I jest not. > > Problem. > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.mongrel.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, > it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) Cool. Will you pay me to refer you to the FAQ? <URL:http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/admin.html#newdomains> - Amitai
Russell Nelson wrote: > > Greg White writes: > > Paul Jarc wrote: > > > Dan's software isn't open source. > > > > Oh, really? By whose definition? > > By the Open Source Initiative's, the vice-president of which is yours > truly. It's okay if you don't believe us when we say it's not Open > Source, but you'll find yourself in a small minority (dare I call them > fanatics?) > That's the one I was waiting for. I notice your use of: Open Source Please find that reference, and not: open source in the mail that I replied to. There's a big difference between the two, and the first reference does not exist. Nor does it refer to either 'free software' or 'Free Software'. That was my point, which in hindsight should have been made clear. A piece of software is not 'open source' when its source is closed. A piece of software is not 'Open Source' when it does not comply with the stated policies of the Open Source Initiative. I made the (obviously incorrect) assumption that people on this list would have immediately seen the subtle difference. I can't see any circumstances where any of Dan's sofware can be deemed closed source. GW SNIP
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:34:59 -0800 From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I can't see any circumstances where any of Dan's sofware can be deemed closed source. It is not the case that all software is either open source or closed source. There is a broad continuum of licensing possibilities. I already mentioned an important freedom which Dan does not permit. The lack of that freedom means that Dan's software is not open source. Saying that Dan's software is not open source does not mean that it is closed source. Dan's software is almost open source, it just isn't quite all the way there. Ian
Hi, I have recently installed qmail-1.03 using ./Maildir/ and pop. I am using qmail-pop3d and checkpasswords. The problem I am having is that when a user gets large amounts of mail ie. 2000+ it will not scan their maildir. This is the message I am getting: Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost Escape character is '^]'. +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> user excesstest +OK pass xxxxxx -ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir Connection closed by foreign host. It works fine for all other aspects just when a user gets excessive amounts of mail it stops scanning their maildir. Everyone elses still works though. I found a post on the mailing list that made me think I had worked it out but the amount of memory was not the case. I am using a Pentium Celeron 400mhz with 384MB of RAM running FreeBSD 4.1. Another post told me I might need to change the limits could the number of openfiles have anything to do with it. Here are my resource limits: Resource limits (current): cputime infinity secs filesize infinity kb datasize 524288 kb stacksize 65536 kb coredumpsize infinity kb memoryuse infinity kb memorylocked infinity kb maxprocesses 531 openfiles 1064 sbsize infinity bytes If anyone has any insights could they please help me it would be much appreciated. Drew Andrew Toussaint Richardson-Shaw Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear allMaybe my question had already been answered, but i'm having difficulties to find in archive files... I think it's better to post my questions to this millist
I have two questions :
first : my host name is = sis01 and my domain = cc.divlat.telkom.co.id
in recipient the sender username appears like this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] what should i do if i want in recipients
the sender username appear like : [EMAIL PROTECTED] without sis01second: there is no problem if our email server received mail from users with
domains .telkom.co.id but we have trouble if receiving mail from
another domain (like .com , .org , .indosat.co.id and so on) . is there any
something wrong with our qmail's configutaration? or our problem come
from outside ( like proxy or DNS Server) ?
Thank very much
ARIF R
Computer&Communication Group
DIVLAT-Telkom
Thus said Arif Rudiana on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:14:42 +0700: > to find in archive files... I think it's better to post my questions to > this millist Please turn of HTML in your emails. ;-) > in recipient the sender username appears like this > [EMAIL PROTECTED] what should i do if > i want in recipients > the sender username appear like : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] without sis01 You should probably configure this in your clients but if they are sending mail directly from the server then you will probably also want to read the man page for qmail-send and qmail-inject and read up on setting "envnoathost" and/or "defaultdomain" in /var/qmail/control > second: there is no problem if our email server received mail from > users with > domains .telkom.co.id but we have trouble if receiving > mail from > another domain (like .com , .org , .indosat.co.id and > so on) . is there any > something wrong with our qmail's configutaration? or our > problem come > from outside ( like proxy or DNS Server) ? As far as I can tell there are network problems. I cannot traceroute to your host, nor can I even ping it. DNS seems to resolve it fine and it will also return the proper MX so my guess is that you have some network problems (maybe not in your network). Here is the final part of a traceroute: 15 hssi1-0-gw3.cibinong.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.2) 762.458 ms 715.068 ms 761.583 ms 16 FE4-1-0-sm2.jakarta.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.133) 713.796 ms 708.392 ms 765.980 ms 17 S12-1-5.kbl.surabaya.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.38) 908.190 ms 828.817 ms 952.539 ms 18 S0-0.jpt.bandung.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.49) 915.910 ms 955.823 ms 934.870 ms 19 * * * 20 * * * This continues until it reaches the maximum hop count. Andy -- [-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------] 11:12pm up 28 days, 1:31, 4 users, load average: 1.48, 1.35, 1.22
Hi, Would someone mind shedding some light on the configuration of mrtg and qmail-mrtg? I have been going over the short how-to on http://x42.com/qmail/mrtg/ but it is rather vague and I am confused. What I have gathered is that mrtg uses snmp for its statistics gathering. Does qmail by default use snmp? If so how do i access it and if not how do i activate it? The how-to says to change mrtg.cfg to reflect my own site name. The only entries i see are those in the form of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am i supposed to be making an entry like that? Also it mentions the location of cyclog-log-dir? How and what is that? If someone has a config file to let me look at i would be much appreciative. Thanks, David Gadoury
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:47:01PM -0500, DG wrote: > Hi, > > Would someone mind shedding some light on the configuration of mrtg and > qmail-mrtg? I have been going over the short how-to on > http://x42.com/qmail/mrtg/ but it is rather vague and I am confused. It is brief and still uses the old daemontools versions, sorry. > What I have gathered is that mrtg uses snmp for its statistics gathering. > Does qmail by default use snmp? If so how do i access it and if not how do > i activate it? qmail does not use SNMP. qmail-mrtg gatheres data by scanning through your logfiles as a cron jog. > The how-to says to change mrtg.cfg to reflect my own site name. The only > entries i see are those in the form of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Am i supposed > to be making an entry like that? Also it mentions the location of > cyclog-log-dir? How and what is that? cyclog was the old logging utility in daemontools-0.53. > If someone has a config file to let me look at i would be much appreciative. Real soon now ;-) /magnus -- http://x42.com/
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > and questions as well. That might be solved by splitting the list > into "qmail-hard-questions" and "qmail-easy-questions", except that > anybody who can't figure out the answer to their question thinks it's > a hard question to answer. True enough! The question you do not know the answer to is a hard question. I agree that people attempting to install and run mail servers should be fairly technically clued, comfortable with the OS the mail server stuff is to be installed on, and able to read/understand documentation. In an ideal world, this would be the case. We do not live in an ideal world. In the real world, your mail server is crashing every three days, it's on a non-multitasking OS, on proprietary software. It auths out of a flat text file. Oh, and 1200 users are going to jump up and down on your corpse if you don't come up with something pronto. Linux scares you and you can barely get it installed and to a reasonably recent patch level. You don't understand users and groups. File permissions are a mystery. You know a teeny bit of C and nothing about Perl but you have the llama book. You don't really understand cron, chmod, chgrp, or adduser. You have JUST figured out how to look at man pages with different numbers. All you have is an x86 box, a RedHat CD, and an internet connection. The x86 isn't spiffy enough to run NT on, and besides, NT mail servers are expensive. You've seen NT run a web server. You do not wish it to run a mail server. Your job is to get a new mail server up, running smtp and POP3, backward-compatible to the old system, and solid...without spending any money. Oh, yes. Because you were an idiot the first time around, your nameserver is the same IP and hostname as your old mailserver (because it was all one box and MCI only gave you 32 IP addresses and, well, you didn't want to waste them but that was three years ago and now the piper has presented his bill) and you'd like the new box on a different IP and hostname yet you do not wish to reconfigure all the user email clients over the phone. Also, you're the only employee for the ISP so you have to answer the phone and do tech support while you're working on this. You don't have a computer at home and don't know what SSH is anyway, so that isn't an option. You can't understand the instructions for sendmail. Everyone you know runs sendmail, but it's just way too confusing, and you have the sneaking suspicion that it's insecure. There isn't anyone you know personally who runs qmail, but it LOOKS a lot simpler and more organized than sendmail. So you choose qmail. That's the real world. That was me. I did that, with *much* handholding and support and patient explanation from those who fought the good fight and herded an idiot through the basics... for free, without compensation, step-by-step, patiently explaining the bloody obvious points that had been asked by legions before me. That was me, fighting the shame of having to ask someone for help, for being unable to do this simple little thing. For those who never ever asked "what's a compiler?", for those who never deleted /dev/null or other relatively important part of the system, for those who never undertook a project with half-vast clue, for those who never failed to solve a bloody obvious problem without asking for help -- my hat's off to you. Ya'll are smarter, better folk than I am. For those who are where I was...Try. Try again. Reread the documentation at least twice, hopefully three times. Read the FAQ. Remove and reinstall the software. Do all of the tests that come with the install package. Read the hints at the bottom of the qmail web page, plus check out the other web pages referred to therein. Read the man pages for qmail/tcpserver/whatever. Try again. And again. Restart qmail, just for giggles. Look at your log files. Check the world wide wunnerful for anything relevant to your error messages (if any). Have a cup of coffee, walk around the block, pause for a smoke, anything to not be staring at the darned thing. Sometimes it helps to take a break. Try again. This is the world of *n*x, where the race is not only to the swift, but also to the persistant. If you have exhausted all avenues, then... THEN, ask for help. Jessica U. Gothie -- admin, bedford.net, Inc.
