qmail Digest 3 Dec 2000 11:00:02 -0000 Issue 1202
Topics (messages 53344 through 53374):
Re: Deleteing mail in queue
53344 by: Jenny Holmberg
53347 by: Robin S. Socha
53348 by: Chris Johnson
Re: qmail with snmp
53345 by: Jenny Holmberg
53354 by: Henning Brauer
53363 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
53364 by: Alex Pennace
53365 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
qmail analog
53346 by: Luka Gerzic
smtp authentication aka rfc-2554
53349 by: clemensF
Duplicate Messages and missing trailers.....
53350 by: James Morgenstein
Re: why didn't it send my msg?
53351 by: Henning Brauer
Re: questions about qmail
53352 by: Henning Brauer
Re: qmail vpopmail - Help on logging remote IP
53353 by: Henning Brauer
unsubcribe
53355 by: Boris Wattrelos
Re: Minimum OS Requirement to run Qmail
53356 by: Greg Cope
53357 by: Felix von Leitner
53358 by: Felix von Leitner
53361 by: asantos
53362 by: Felix von Leitner
53366 by: Jon Rust
53367 by: Andrew Buenaventura
53368 by: Andrew Buenaventura
53369 by: Sean Truman
53370 by: asantos
Qmailadmin
53359 by: Amar
53360 by: Peter Green
please help me
53371 by: tatsuya kansaki
53372 by: Cyril Bitterich
53374 by: tatsuya kansaki
Re: inconsistency using qmail/Spamcontrol badrcptto
53373 by: Erwin Hoffmann
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems like I have an email that does not want to be delivered.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] keeps complaining about the host
> not being in it's list of rcphosts file tada yada yada....
>
> I've looked in the local and remote queue dir's but can't see anything. It
> does deliver all other mail to all other hosts (relaying is off of
> course)(Nothing in the queue because it's my devel qmail server)
Is it your own host that complains or is it the recipients host? If
all other mail gets delivered, I would assume that the problem is with
the MX for that domain, not with your own server.
> HELP
Had you told us the real address you're trying to reach you would have
gotten much more help. Why are you lying to the people whose help you want?
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
* Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems like I have an email that does not want to be delivered.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] keeps complaining about the
> host not being in it's list of rcphosts file tada yada yada....
I find qmHandle quite useful for this purpose:
<http://www.io.com/~mick/soft/qmhandle.html>
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 09:01:48AM +1100, Dennis wrote:
> It seems like I have an email that does not want to be delivered.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] keeps complaining about the host
> not being in it's list of rcphosts file tada yada yada....
>
> I've looked in the local and remote queue dir's but can't see anything. It
> does deliver all other mail to all other hosts (relaying is off of
> course)(Nothing in the queue because it's my devel qmail server)
>
> HELP
Why do you need to remove it from your queue right away? qmail will continue to
attempt delivery until queuelifetime has expired, and then the message will
bounce and qmail will remove it from the queue. My advice would be to wait
patiently until that happens.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> is it possible to monitor qmails parameters like current queue length
> /no of messages in queue etc things with HPopenview,
>
> i dont think qmail is snmp enabled , but if some one knows some patches
> etc , which enables snmp fuctionality in qmail then please tell me ?
qmail does not have snmp functionality. You will need to make the snmp
agent on each qmail server check queue length just as it checks free
disk, free swap and whatever other things it checks.
> which anti virtus works best with qmail , ( we are planning to setup
> seperate incoming and out going mail servers, we will also run anti-virus
> software on two saperate boxes i.e one ofr incoming mails and one for out
> going mails ) please tell me which anti-virus works best with qmail ,
This question is at this very moment being discussed in another
thread. I'd suggest you search the mailinglist archives for antivirus;
you will get a lot of hits.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
Am Samstag, 2. Dezember 2000 06:33 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> which anti virtus works best with qmail
How many seconds do you spent on qmail.org ? ;-))
The available packages are listed there.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Prashant Desai
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:11:52PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> Am Samstag, 2. Dezember 2000 06:33 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > which anti virtus works best with qmail
>
> How many seconds do you spent on qmail.org ? ;-))
> The available packages are listed there.
Hmmm... I never got the original message, and I've just realized why:
$ host -t mx zeenext.com
zeenext.com mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.zeenext.com
$ host mail.zeenext.com
mail.zeenext.com has address 203.197.173.3
$ host 3.173.197.203.relays.mail-abuse.org
3.173.197.203.relays.mail-abuse.org has address 127.0.0.2
Looks like you've got bigger things to worry about than virii. Search for
"selective relay" in qmail.org.
RC
>
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Prashant Desai
>
> --
>
> Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
> Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
> www.bsws.de | Germany
--
+-------------------
| 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
PGP signature
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 12:07:37AM +0000, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:11:52PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 2. Dezember 2000 06:33 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > which anti virtus works best with qmail
> >
> > How many seconds do you spent on qmail.org ? ;-))
> > The available packages are listed there.
>
> Hmmm... I never got the original message, and I've just realized why:
>
> $ host -t mx zeenext.com
> zeenext.com mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.zeenext.com
> $ host mail.zeenext.com
> mail.zeenext.com has address 203.197.173.3
> $ host 3.173.197.203.relays.mail-abuse.org
> 3.173.197.203.relays.mail-abuse.org has address 127.0.0.2
>
> Looks like you've got bigger things to worry about than virii. Search for
> "selective relay" in qmail.org.
Prashant sent the message to the list, so it would not have been
caught by your RBL filter.
Anyway, Prashant complained a few months ago on this list that he was
added to the RBL. Why is he still listed there?
alex@buick:~$ telnet mail.zeenext.com smtp
Trying 203.197.173.3...
Connected to mail.zeenext.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.zeenext.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.9.3/8.8.7; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:35:44 +0530
HELO pennace.org
250 mail.zeenext.com Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED] [129.63.206.57], pleased to meet
you
MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender ok
RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Recipient ok
QUIT
221 mail.zeenext.com closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
He's STILL running an open relay (and it's not even qmail).
Prashant, hire a consultant. Your situation is just too hopeless for
this list.
PGP signature
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:31:37PM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
>
> Prashant sent the message to the list, so it would not have been
> caught by your RBL filter.
Not all implementations of RBL-filtering are based on TCP connections, you
know?
In my case, all incoming messages go through a filter which looks at
headers.
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
PGP signature
Does anyone have idea where can i find good and detailed
documentation of qmailanalog?
thank you
will there be authentication added to qmails smtp like rfc-2554?
clemens (pls cc: me)
Has anyone ever had the problem where messages are delivered more than once?
On what appears to be random occasions, messages are delivered twice to my
lists. I did notice this at one point happening to the qmail and ezmlm
lists.
Also on random occasions, messages distributed to my lists do not appear to
have the designated trailer included in the messages. Again, no real
pattern to this one either.
I am running the latest version of qmail and ezmlm/ezmlm-idx on Redhat 6.2
with double confirmation disabled (I am doing the double-opt in elsewhere).
Thanks for the help.
James
Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2000 22:59 schrieb QBA:
> And one more thing - Henning Brauer wrote that using inetd is not to good
> idea. Can anyone tell me why?
Performance increases dramatically when using tcpserver instead of inetd, i
have also some considerations regarding security against inetd. If you are
running your private mailserver only, this may be not an issue for you.
Back to your problem: maybe name resolution fails? have you checked your
tcp.smtp file (oh, it's hosts.allow and hosts.deny with inetd if i'm not
wrong - sory, never used inetd)?
try if "ping qba.dyndns.org" works from the machine. as telnet localhost 25
works, qmail-smtpd runs.
>
> QBA
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Am Samstag, 2. Dezember 2000 00:35 schrieb emailsys:
> > hi,
> I need your help:
> I had success make freebsd+qmail+vpopmail,
You are on the wrong list, check the vpopmail-list for help.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Am Samstag, 2. Dezember 2000 06:41 schrieb qaz ':
> Hi,
>
> vpopmail[58140]: vchkpw login [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's an issue for the vopomail mailing list.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> Thus spake asantos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I find MySQL to be reliable and stable.
>
> Good luck to you, then.
> You will need it.
You may be wishing alot of people luck as I've used it fir 18 months
with no problems ....
>
> > I only keep logs for 6 months, so in
> > the last 6 months I've had MySQL 3.22.23 running for vpopmail-3.4.11-2 over
> > qmail-1.03+ezmlm-0.53, managing more than 260 virtual domains (about 500
> > Maildirs, many of which are "catch-all" accounts for a single domain), with
> > a overall trafic of more than 85000 messages a month, of which roughly 90%
> > are incoming. Not a single failure in the above software. That's on Linux
> > 2.2.14 SMP.
>
> > Is this the cue for "profile, don't speculate"?
>
> If your servers never crash and you never have unexpected hardware
> failures, mysql may be for you.
>
> Mysql users are consistently being bitten by data loss when one of their
> servers crashes. Mysql is notorious for being "SQL for kids", i.e. fine
> for playing around but not for production use. Use an SQL database that
> offers transactional integrity instead.
I wont ask why ....
Why the negative attitude, many people use MySQL with qmail / vpopmail
combo with very few problems.
Please, suggest idea's, based on facts, without hersay and insults.
Otherwise you just appear as a ranter with a chip on his / her shoulder.
Greg
>
> Mysql recently added transactional integrity by integrating Berkeley DB,
> which is the single database that caused the most data loss on all of my
> machines combined. I would never use anything relying on Berkeley DB
> ever again. You just need to look at their source code to see what I
> mean.
>
> But in the end, the choice is yours. But don't whine when you use Mysql
> and lose all your data eventually. Keep good and current backups. If
> your data are read-only, then Mysql may even be a prudent choice.
>
> Felix
Thus spake Andrew Buenaventura ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Thank you very much for your very polite reply. I have been a Windows user
> for the past 6 years and an Exchange admin for 3 years. The reason why I am
> planning to migrate to linux is because it is free, very stable, and most
> importantly, lists/communities (i.e. gurus like you) like this exists to
> help newbies like me.
> Since you are very knowledgeable with MTAs/Qmail, please feel free to block
> all postings coming from me so as not to make your bad day even worse with
> my very basic qustions.
You miss the point, Andrew.
People like you install Linux and qmail all over the world.
They insert the CD and follow the newbie instructions in the manual and
leave a ton of security holes wide open.
Then, hackers break into their machines and the poor admins don't even
know what hit them and claim Linux is insecure. Or, even better, they
remember the only software they installed was qmail, so they say that
qmail is insecure.
And in many cases, those hacked Linux boxes are used as relay for
distributed denial of service attacks.
Thus, you are not only a threat to your own data and users, you are a
threat to the whole Internet. Unless you let someone do the
installation for you who knows what he is doing.
If you want to install qmail (or any other MTA) on a server with an
operating system you are not familiar with, then spend a few months
becoming familiar with it. This is not like a vacuum that you plug in
and it works. This is more like a Boeing 747 where some helpful
salesguy has hidden all those confusing pilot knobs behind a friendly
wizard to increase sales.
Felix
Thus spake asantos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Which just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about. The
> architecture that I described in the previous message does not require
> transactions (nor the code bloat that cames with support for it). It's a
> single, non relational, lookup:
> select pw_name, pw_passwd, pw_uid.... from vpopmail where pw_name='abcdef'
> and pw_domain='ghijk.com';
> The (infrequent) updates to the database occur when a user is added or a
> password is changed, and even then its a single row update. Transactional ou
> relational integrity are not needed.
> That being said, I encouraje you to thing about the nature and filosophy of
> qmail: simple modules, interconnected, each doing its part of the work. Why
> in hell would I need Oracle or Sybase or whatever when what I need is a
> simple lookup and a modicum of scaling capability?
For this setup, using mysql is even more stupid than in general.
mysql adds tons of unnecessary complexity to the system and wastes system
resources.
Felix
From: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For this setup, using mysql is even more stupid than in general.
>mysql adds tons of unnecessary complexity to the system and wastes system
>resources.
>
Don't whine. Be consistent. Grow up. Have your mama spank you, it's good for
the soul (tough *you* might like it). Oh, and get an education: respect your
elders.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Why should I worry about system
resources when the system load doesn't go above 5% ? And I monitor it, of
course, I don't just throw crap in the air as you do.
Armando
Thus spake asantos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >For this setup, using mysql is even more stupid than in general.
> >mysql adds tons of unnecessary complexity to the system and wastes system
> >resources.
> Don't whine. Be consistent. Grow up. Have your mama spank you, it's good for
> the soul (tough *you* might like it). Oh, and get an education: respect your
> elders.
> Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Why should I worry about system
> resources when the system load doesn't go above 5% ? And I monitor it, of
> course, I don't just throw crap in the air as you do.
Armando, please come back when you know what you are talking about.
Complexity has nothing to with the load and although comparing
complexity is subjective, it is clear that "a" has less complexity than
"a plus mysql".
There is no excuse for wasting resources, whether they seem to be
available when you install the system or not. If you think otherwise,
you are not a good admin and deserve all the mysql that you appear to be
running already.
If your data are mostly stable, than the probability for data corruption
is not as high as for other people with mysql, but it is still there.
Whether you want it or not, you have an unnecessary risk of data
corruption.
Good system engineering means that you minimize the risk for data loss,
corruption or unauthorized manipulation while maximizing performance.
By installing mysql without need, you violate all of the above points.
Whine and insult my mother all you want, you are still a bad admin with
bad spelling.
Felix
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:50:39PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> You miss the point, Andrew.
>
> People like you install Linux and qmail all over the world.
> They insert the CD and follow the newbie instructions in the manual and
> leave a ton of security holes wide open.
<snip drivel>
And YOU miss the point Felix. Your crass, mean-spirited responses do
nothing to quell the problems you speak of. "If you're not part of the
solution, you're part of the problem," as the saying goes. You have yet
to help anyone, and in fact, you've chased people off of this list who
are very helpful and more clueful than yourself, because they're tired
of your crap. We had a good list once upon a time.
jon (who swore he would stay out of this mess)
that's more like it Felix! you explain yourself better, you get your message
across, people don't get offended, and most of all....threads like this are
avoided. Please keep it up.
I thank you for your concern about our as well as the whole internet's
security.
At the moment, I am just at the point of evaluating things. Lucky for me, I
have an open deadline so I intend to spend lots of time with qmail/linux
before I put it in the production line. It's my butt on the line so I know I
have to do good. Of course I intend to make it as secure as possible. In
fact, I received lots of suggestions and one of them is to use OpenBSD which
I gathered is very secure even when the default installation is used. I
will also not install X in that box.
Don't worry, I am going to follow your advice, I am going to take my time,
learn the OS well, secure it (of course gurus like you are always around to
help me out), then install qmail, learn a lot, secure it, have it tested
(and if you and the other gurus out there are not busy, you may want to help
me test my system...pro bono of course, I can't afford to pay you :) ), and
if all goes well I can put it in the production line. I am also not known
to whine, I've always looked at myself as a gentleman who knows how to
accept "his faults even if it's his butt who will be fried".
>You miss the point, Andrew.
>
>People like you install Linux and qmail all over the world.
>They insert the CD and follow the newbie instructions in the manual and
>leave a ton of security holes wide open.
>
>Then, hackers break into their machines and the poor admins don't even
>know what hit them and claim Linux is insecure. Or, even better, they
>remember the only software they installed was qmail, so they say that
>qmail is insecure.
>
>And in many cases, those hacked Linux boxes are used as relay for
>distributed denial of service attacks.
>
>Thus, you are not only a threat to your own data and users, you are a
>threat to the whole Internet. Unless you let someone do the
>installation for you who knows what he is doing.
>
>If you want to install qmail (or any other MTA) on a server with an
>operating system you are not familiar with, then spend a few months
>becoming familiar with it. This is not like a vacuum that you plug in
>and it works. This is more like a Boeing 747 where some helpful
>salesguy has hidden all those confusing pilot knobs behind a friendly
>wizard to increase sales.
>Felix
that's more like it elix! you explain yourself better, you get your message
across, people don't get offended, and most of all....threads like this are
avoided. Please keep it up.
I thank you for your concern about our as well as the whole internet's
security.
At the moment, I am just at the point of evaluating things. Lucky for me, I
have an open deadline so I intend to spend lots of time with qmail/linux
before I put it in the production line. It's my butt on the line so I know I
have to do good. Of course I intend to make it as secure as possible. In
fact, I received lots of suggestions and one of them is to use OpenBSD which
I gathered is very secure even when the default installation is used. I
will also not install X in that box.
Don't worry, I am going to follow your advice, I am going to take my time,
learn the OS well, secure it (of course gurus like you are always around to
help me out), then install qmail, learn a lot, secure it, have it tested
(and if you and the other gurus out there are not busy, you may want to help
me test my system...pro bono of course, I can't afford to pay you :) ), and
if all goes well I can put it in the production line. I am also not known
to whine, I've always looked at myself as a gentleman who knows how to
accept "his faults even if it's his butt who will be fried".
>You miss the point, Andrew.
>
>People like you install Linux and qmail all over the world.
>They insert the CD and follow the newbie instructions in the manual and
>leave a ton of security holes wide open.
>
>Then, hackers break into their machines and the poor admins don't even
>know what hit them and claim Linux is insecure. Or, even better, they
>remember the only software they installed was qmail, so they say that
>qmail is insecure.
>
>And in many cases, those hacked Linux boxes are used as relay for
>distributed denial of service attacks.
>
>Thus, you are not only a threat to your own data and users, you are a
>threat to the whole Internet. Unless you let someone do the
>installation for you who knows what he is doing.
>
>If you want to install qmail (or any other MTA) on a server with an
>operating system you are not familiar with, then spend a few months
>becoming familiar with it. This is not like a vacuum that you plug in
>and it works. This is more like a Boeing 747 where some helpful
>salesguy has hidden all those confusing pilot knobs behind a friendly
>wizard to increase sales.
>Felix
Encore!
Sean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Rust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Felix von Leitner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Minimum OS Requirement to run Qmail
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:50:39PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> >
> > You miss the point, Andrew.
> >
> > People like you install Linux and qmail all over the world.
> > They insert the CD and follow the newbie instructions in the manual and
> > leave a ton of security holes wide open.
> <snip drivel>
>
> And YOU miss the point Felix. Your crass, mean-spirited responses do
> nothing to quell the problems you speak of. "If you're not part of the
> solution, you're part of the problem," as the saying goes. You have yet
> to help anyone, and in fact, you've chased people off of this list who
> are very helpful and more clueful than yourself, because they're tired
> of your crap. We had a good list once upon a time.
>
> jon (who swore he would stay out of this mess)
From: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Armando, please come back when you know what you are talking about.
yaddayaddayadda.
>There is no excuse for wasting resources, whether they seem to be
>available when you install the system or not. If you think otherwise,
>you are not a good admin and deserve all the mysql that you appear to be
>running already.
Ah, but I'm not an admin. No sirre. Got better things to do with my life
than to be slave to a computer system, thank you. OTOH, if your life's
purpose is to admin, go ahead. For sure you wouldn't ever "admin" anything I
owned.
>If your data are mostly stable, than the probability for data corruption
>is not as high as for other people with mysql, but it is still there.
>Whether you want it or not, you have an unnecessary risk of data
>corruption.
Sure, there is a risk of data curruption. By using Linux, qmail, vpopmail
and MySQL, indeed by using a computer at all I run a risk of data
corruption. Unnecessary, it isn't. There is no better solution that I know
of, when considering the needs I have. As I mentioned before, I'm talking
260 plus virtual domains and a fair trafic.
>Good system engineering means that you minimize the risk for data loss,
>corruption or unauthorized manipulation while maximizing performance.
>By installing mysql without need, you violate all of the above points.
Nope. Good system engineering means that I must use only so much complexity
as the problem at hand requires, no more. And that when problems happen that
I can find where they came from. Also, it's better when I design a solution
based on my experience than on the doubtfull earsay ans speculations of
others.
>Whine and insult my mother all you want, you are still a bad admin with
>bad spelling.
As I said, I'm not an admin. As for the spelling, I bet I have much less
spelling errors in English than you have in my mother tongue. I haven't
insulted your mother, BTW, nor did I intend to. I was recomending some
things for you... because you may think you are an admin, but you can't be a
good admin with the lack of personal communication skills you display. As
for the technical side, I'm allways open to hard information, something that
your rantings do not provide.
Armando
Hey,
when i added a pop acc via qmailadmin,
it accepted it
but, when i do try to receive mail
it keeps prompting me for the password again and again
well..
i have added the domain though
Regards,
Rick
* Amar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001202 14:02]:
> Hey,
> when i added a pop acc via qmailadmin,
This question belongs on the qmailadmin mailing list. Send e-mail to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to subscribe.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
We come to bury DOS, not to praise it.
(Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED], paraphrasing a quote of Shakespeare)
i am a beginner
i try to using qmail be an mx ( mail exchange )
i use qmail in my machine k3.umm.ac.id
i want to make my machine k3.umm.ac.id be an mx for domain umm.ac.id
i put all of my machine name in rcpthost in /var/qmail/control/
when someone send e-mail for example [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is going be normal..
but when hari@flamboyan send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..the message or
e-mail can't be send.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the same address with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] error message is at k3.umm.ac.id.
i try to put umm.ac.id in rcpthost , but it's not the answer
sory if my question..is old for all of you..
i'm join to this milis to know the answer of my question
please give me your advice
thanks before
best regards
andi
Hi andi ?,
> i want to make my machine k3.umm.ac.id be an mx for domain umm.ac.id
> i put all of my machine name in rcpthost in /var/qmail/control/
I must aknowledge that I have trouble to understand what you want to
talk about. Iz's not the context but your english that _I_ have trouble
with.
But you have read
http://www.qmail.org/qmail-manual-html/misc/FAQ.html#3.
have you?
And maybe
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#multiple-hostnames
will help you as well.
Regards,
Cyril
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Cyril Bitterich wrote:
> Hi andi ?,
>
> > i want to make my machine k3.umm.ac.id be an mx for domain umm.ac.id
> > i put all of my machine name in rcpthost in /var/qmail/control/
>
all of my machine name like flamboyan.umm.ac.id , unix.umm.ac.id and
mail.umm.ac.id I put in to /var/qmail/control/rcpthost on k3.umm.ac.id
when i send message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail run normally. and my problem is when I send e-mail from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail cannot send this e-mail
I try to put umm.ac.id in to /var/qmail/doc/rcpthost but it not solve my
problem. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the same address with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what should i do..in order to qmail can send this message
give me your apologize for my language
best regards
andi hari
Hi,
actually, this was a small bug in this early version of SPAMCONTROL.
Please upgrade to a new one.
You find the current releases at: http://www.fehcom.de/qmail
Thanks for using SPAMCONTROL.
cheers.
eh.
At 02:46 1.12.2000 +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:41:13PM -0800, Russ Ringer wrote:
>> 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.
>
>If it slipped through you should see some information in the logfiles
>right after the reject line like :
>
>new msg 27065
>info msg 27065: bytes 2462 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1469 uid 101
>starting delivery 711036: msg 27065 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>delivery 711036: success: did_1+0+0/
>end msg 27065
>
>Could you please send those and also the line with the reject message
>and the reject pattern?
>
> \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.
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| fff hh http://www.fehcom.de Dr. Erwin Hoffmann |
| ff hh |
| ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 |
| fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln |
| ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm |
| ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 |
| ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
