qmail Digest 8 Dec 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1207
Topics (messages 53690 through 53758):
qmail/vpopmail & nfs
53690 by: octave klaba
53747 by: andrew.tic.ch
Re: how many connections?
53691 by: Ken Jones
Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
53692 by: Ken Jones
53693 by: Ken Jones
53696 by: Jenny Holmberg
53699 by: Ken Jones
53701 by: cfm.maine.com
53703 by: Henry, Casa
53714 by: Amitai Schlair
53716 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53720 by: Alex Pennace
53745 by: Sean Reifschneider
53753 by: Jenny Holmberg
a problem about install qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2 release
53694 by: oneflower
53698 by: Timo
53708 by: Frans Haarman
Timing local mail server to get messages from relay
53695 by: Ould
53697 by: Jenny Holmberg
Email all with Qmail
53700 by: Dennis
53702 by: Markus Stumpf
53752 by: Dennis
HOW DO YOU ACCEPT ALL EMAILS SENT TO A DOMAIN
53704 by: Louis Mushandu
53705 by: Charles Cazabon
53706 by: mbailey.journey.net
53727 by: Louis Mushandu
53728 by: Amitai Schlair
53734 by: Alexander Jernejcic
HELP! Error of File Descriptos
53707 by: Federico Edelman Anaya
53709 by: Charles Cazabon
53712 by: Federico Edelman Anaya
53729 by: Aaron L. Meehan
Listserv from Lsoft and .qmail-xxxx
53710 by: Collin B. McClendon
53711 by: Charles Cazabon
How telling my LAN mail server to connect to Relay mail server
53713 by: Ould
How can I patch with big-conrrency.patch?
53715 by: Federico Edelman Anaya
53718 by: James Stevens
53719 by: Federico Edelman Anaya
Performance Testing
53717 by: Eden Akhavi
53721 by: Andrzej Marszalek
53724 by: Eden Akhavi
53755 by: Frans Haarman
It's been a while...
53722 by: Jean Caron
53725 by: Greg Owen
53726 by: Charles Cazabon
53730 by: Felix von Leitner
53731 by: Jean Caron
53735 by: Alexander Jernejcic
53736 by: Ould
53744 by: Al Sparks
Re: Qmail 1.03 Crashes on Sparc (Sun ULTRA-10)
53723 by: Martin Volesky
53732 by: Martin Volesky
53733 by: Martin Volesky
patch to be kind to broken MUAs that do not include host name on a sender line
53737 by: David L. Nicol
53738 by: Peter Samuel
How to get Mail delivery in form cgi�s work
53739 by: Hans-Juergen Schwarz
53740 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53741 by: Peter Samuel
Re: pine.conf /Pine 4.20 patched/Maildir
53742 by: Matt Harrington
53743 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: Procmail weirdness
53746 by: Francisco Jen Ou
53748 by: Timothy Legant
53756 by: Francisco Jen Ou
53757 by: Jenny Holmberg
Virtual domains
53749 by: Codehead-7
53750 by: David Dyer-Bennet
smtproutes - smtp server needs authenication
53751 by: CHIU, Jonathan
53754 by: Jenny Holmberg
smtproutes
53758 by: Wolfgang Zeikat
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
We want to run qmail/vpopmail with nfs.
for vpopmail I guest we have to put /home/vpopmail on nfs
but for qmail ?
/var/qmail ?
/var/qmail/control ?
another ?
thanks for help
Octave
> Hello,
> We want to run qmail/vpopmail with nfs.
> for vpopmail I guest we have to put /home/vpopmail on nfs
> but for qmail ?
> /var/qmail ?
> /var/qmail/control ?
> another ?
The normal use of NFS in a qmail environment is for the back-end mail storage, i.e.
where
the actual Maildirs reside. The Maildir standard is designed to cope with NFS, where
you
might have multiple qmail front ends delivering messages to shared NFS storage.
The thing to avoid is having the queue of the front end machines on NFS: It is not
designed for this. The queue's naming convention is based on i-node number, and this
doesn't map well to NFS. Additionally, NFS will break qmail's guarantee that it won't
lose
messages - since NFS can lie about whether it's written to disk. Finally, you'll
cripple
your performance, with NFS network activity and disk activity on your NFS box (qmail
makes
the assumption that it can manipulate items in the queue with - I think - rename(),
which
is an atomic operation on a local disk, but a nightmare in NFS).
Solution: checkout more on this subject in the archives, and think along the lines of
having local disks for queues (and the rest of /var/qmail) - using NFS only for the
actual
Maildirs (don't even think of using mbox on NFS).
cheers,
Andrew.
Martin Volesky wrote:
>
> On 07/12/00 at 12:32 AM Ken Jones wrote:
>
> >Martin Volesky wrote:
> >>
> >> Ken, I agree with you that the qmail delivery process is possibly more efficient.
>However, when talking to large mail hubs that
> >> use any type of connection queing/throtling mechanisms, the qmail method may run
>into problems.
> >
> >Martin,
> >
> >I understand your problem. However, you do not have any proof.
> >Please provide proof of your imagined "problem" so that real
> >people can design fixes to your "problem".
> >
> >Without real proof and measured performance, your supositions
> >are just fancifal abstractions. And have no real persumption
> >to reality.
>
> I agree with you on the presumption point Ken. And further agree that numbers are
>always nice.
Nice? Nice? why do you disrespect the only reason behind what acatually
matters.
You think numbers are nice? and then... after you dismiss them as nice
you
can now blindly go beyond measurements.
What false world are you liveing in?
You astound me sir.
>What I
> was trying to do is stimulate a discussion about an abstract point and had nothing
>to do with factual
> matters. My wording definately reflects this. Discussion leads to a creative process
>called brainstorming
> which in turn leads to though out development - a cruscial aspect of programming you
>will agree...
If you want to stimumate a disucssion about false reasoning, I think we
did away with your kind in the 1890's.
If you want to stimuate a discussion in the 2000 century, perhaps you
should provide facts behind your "assumptions". How else would a
reasonable
person in our time and age judge this information.
Shall we throw black cats around our heads? Or shall your "simulation"
of discussion cause a false fall back to a lack of reasoning.
Please sir. If you want to present factual information, please do so.
You have already called out a challenge. Please present statistical
information to back up your claim. Otherwise, I hope all good and
wothly people shall judge your false information as a speculation.
And hence, guilty of the worst crime of techinical experience..
And this crime is the crime of false information.
Shall all qmail administrators take your false claim and now waste
hours and hours proving you wrong?
Perhaps you can save us the time, and present real and useful
information to our community,.
Otherwise Sir, I reject you as an abomination, a distraction,
a wayword worthless reject. Please sir. Provide proof for
your clamins.
If you want to consider wild fancial flights of fantasy, that
is your preogative, and we must all suffer your statements for
the good of freedom of speech.
But I think you more worthy than this.
I ask again, one last time. Please present real proof.
Or shall we all go back to burning bushes and howling at the moon, Sir.
Ken Jones
Inter7
Jenny Holmberg wrote:
>
> Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sir. If your users are on your machines, you can just copy your
> > emails to thier directories. But.. it seems like your users
> > are spread over other peoples machines. Hence.. by definition,
> > you are a spammer, sir.
>
> Please. You have no evidence to show he's a spammer. If the
> newsletters are run properly (i.e. with confirmed opt-in), he is doing
> the Right Thing. Furthermore, he's trying to be a responsible
> net-neighbour and not cause problem to other people's mailservers.
> That is something a lot of maillistserver admins would do well to
> emulate.
I appologize to easily catorgorize this person as a spammer.
Howver, the bulk of email produced on the internet is from
spam sites.
Jenny, how much experience do you have with spam sites?
have you designed, operated and maintained a spam site?
I suggest the bulk of evidence is that a person who askes
this type of question is a spammer.
Not only that.. Everyone who is not a spammer would be
extremly reticent to ask such a question.
I respect his reasonableness for being responsible.
And I respect you trying to defend his actions.
However, he has not shown any evidence that he is,
or is not a spammer.
Shall we all now agreee that anyone who sends out
bulk emails is not a spammer?
I see a lack of evidence that this person is not
a spammer. Why else would a person be sending out
large amounts of emails to non local domains
Ken Jones
Wayne Chu wrote:
>
> I feel our discussion starts to become OT.
> I tried to be calm and I won't discuss it any more after this.
Obviously this is a hot topic for you.
So, without furthre evidence, you are obviously a person
who will exploit the edge of spam related email.
I have a question for you Sir.
Are you going to be sending these "emails" to your local
list of accounts. Or will this be going out to other
lists?
How have you received these lists of emails?
Ken Jones
>
> From: "Ken Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Ah.. So you are not a spammer, except you assume all your
> > "customers" want your email. Besides that moral issue,
> > do you have measured information about the delivery
> > statistics of qmail version other options?
>
> I said "subscriber", that means we send e-mail to users who
> willingly "subscribe" our newsletters on our web page.
> We don't send unsolicited emails to people who did not
> subscribe our newsletters.
>
> We surveyed other email options. We chose qmail because
> the information we gathered told us that qmail is one of the
> fastest MTA sending outgoing email. And we like the VERPs
> capability of qmail. With it we could effectively eliminate
> expired addresses.
>
> > Are you saying that your country is a pirate economy?
> > Shall I embarrase you and trace your email? or do you wish
> > to reveal which country you are from?
> > Does your country harbor pirates?
>
> If you so insist, I am from Taiwan.
> Here is my company:
> http://www.etwebs.com/
> http://www.etmc.com.tw/
> These pages are writen in Chines language.
> Welcome to give us a little more pageview count.
>
> > Sir. If your users are on your machines, you can just copy your
> > emails to thier directories. But.. it seems like your users
> > are spread over other peoples machines. Hence.. by definition,
> > you are a spammer, sir.
>
> What's your definition of "spammer"?
> If you mean anyone who send large quantity of email on the net,
> regardless unsolicited or solicited. I feel that this classification may
> not be fair.
>
> I don't know why you are so harsh at this issue. Maybe you have
> seen a lot of hateful spammers in your email admin career?
> But I say it again, we don't want to cause any people annoyance.
>
> If you feel discussing mass-mailing techniques on the list will benefit
> or encourage potential spammers. I agree. I did not thought about
> this danger at first. But please don't berascal people (and their country!)
> who just ask questions.
> Thank you.
>
> >
> > Ken Jones
Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I appologize to easily catorgorize this person as a spammer.
> Howver, the bulk of email produced on the internet is from
> spam sites.
>
> Jenny, how much experience do you have with spam sites?
> have you designed, operated and maintained a spam site?
I am postmaster at one of the largest ISPs in Sweden, and I have been
working with antispam issues since 1995. I certainly have never been
in any way involved in designing, operating and maintaining spam
sites. But I am involved in running a mailinglist server, for
confirmed opt-in mailinglists, and find the issues of how to handle
mailinglist traffic in a non-abusive way quite important.
Consider, for instance, that one of our mailinglist (say, the one
about cat care and feeding) has a whole lot of subscribers from one of
our competitors - not an unlikely scenario for a Swedish mailinglist,
as there aren't really that many big providers here. When a listmail
goes out, depending on our concurrencyremote settings , it's entirely
possible that that provider's mailserver will be tied up handling the
list mail for quite some time. This might upset them - I know I'd get
upset if someone was doing it to my servers. In fact, I've been forced
to temporarily block maillist servers which behaved that way - not
because the mails themselves were spam, but because the behaviour of
the listserver caused problems for my servers.
The original poster was trying to discuss how to handle this very
issue, as an MTA which makes one connection per address may quite
easily cause such problems. Thus, his question was quite on-topic for
this list. Your reply was not.
> However, he has not shown any evidence that he is,
> or is not a spammer.
Exactly.
> Shall we all now agreee that anyone who sends out
> bulk emails is not a spammer?
No. Anyone who sends out *unsolicited* bulk email is a spammer. The
original poster has repeatedly stated that he is working with
solicited email. Unless you have any reason to doubt this, please stop
making false statements.
> I see a lack of evidence that this person is not
> a spammer. Why else would a person be sending out
> large amounts of emails to non local domains
How about because they run confirmed opt-in mailinglists which are
interesting to a lot of people outside their own domains?
However, this has nothing to do with qmail. If you have any further
issues with bulk emailing, I suggest you take them to SPAM-L or some
other forum where it is on-topic.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
Jenny Holmberg wrote:
>
> Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I appologize to easily catorgorize this person as a spammer.
> > Howver, the bulk of email produced on the internet is from
> > spam sites.
> >
> > Jenny, how much experience do you have with spam sites?
> > have you designed, operated and maintained a spam site?
>
> I am postmaster at one of the largest ISPs in Sweden, and I have been
> working with antispam issues since 1995. I certainly have never been
> in any way involved in designing, operating and maintaining spam
> sites. But I am involved in running a mailinglist server, for
> confirmed opt-in mailinglists, and find the issues of how to handle
> mailinglist traffic in a non-abusive way quite important.
A very valid point of view. However you do not offer any proof of
the prior persons orignal posting.
Of course there are valid reasons why we should develop the most
effiecent method to deliver large quantities of email. Of course.
This is part of most large ISP's daily activies.
>
> Consider, for instance, that one of our mailinglist (say, the one
> about cat care and feeding) has a whole lot of subscribers from one of
> our competitors - not an unlikely scenario for a Swedish mailinglist,
> as there aren't really that many big providers here. When a listmail
> goes out, depending on our concurrencyremote settings , it's entirely
> possible that that provider's mailserver will be tied up handling the
> list mail for quite some time. This might upset them - I know I'd get
> upset if someone was doing it to my servers. In fact, I've been forced
> to temporarily block maillist servers which behaved that way - not
> because the mails themselves were spam, but because the behaviour of
> the listserver caused problems for my servers.
Excuse me, My point was not a valid email list. My point was the
original poster did not present a valid argument why this activity
should occur.
We are not stupid. We know this type of activity is valid for
a norrmal ISP.
My point is: shall we provide technology to pirates?
<Please excuse me for deleting the rest of yoru email..
I agree with you on your points. My only disagreement
is that we are handing away exploitive technology to
abusive people.
Not only are we giving away exploitive technology,
we are helping them become rich. And hence offering
them a step up into the uppper reaches of society.
Do you want to support pornographers becoming the
benefactors in your local town. I do not want to.
Ken Jones
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:39:26AM -0600, Ken Jones wrote:
> Wayne Chu wrote:
> >
> > No, I am NOT spamming.
> >
> > Our company runs serveral daily e-newsletter, with totally about a
> > half million of subscribers. We are planning to make an "open"
> > newsletter plateform, let our web site members create their own
> > personal newsletter ( authenticated and supervised by our staff to
> > prevent spam mail ). we estimated the total number of subscribers and
> > the number of newsletter will grow even more. Surely our member
> > would want their newsletters to be sent ASAP. So we have to
> > increase concurrency.
>
> Ah.. So you are not a spammer, except you assume all your
> "customers" want your email. Besides that moral issue,
> do you have measured information about the delivery
> statistics of qmail version other options?
If these are **personalized** emails, then how they get queued will
depend on how they are built. One person wants a,g,f,t,z and
another wants a,t,q,p,z. If they want them ASAP, then it's not
obvious concurrency is an issue at all; perhaps newsletters with
p go out whenever p changes and triggers them. Maybe changes in
some of the topics do not trigger new email, but wait on a clock,
etc.... In either case, they may still be different per subscriber
because of the other selections (else they are not personalized).
Even with half a million subscribers, depending on the number of
options and the subscriber base you might still be sending only
a very few messages to each site. And if they are truly personalized,
it's not at all clear to me how one would build them so they could
go in the queue more than one by one.
Roughly:
SELECT email_address, topics FROM subscribers WHERE email ='$1' ORDER
BY topics,email_address;
for (@email_address) {
build message(@topics);
qmail-inject message # we do these ourselves one-by-one; personalized
}
Qmail will not be the hard part :-)
If, OTOH, they are a personal selection of independant, non-personalized
messages, batching will make sense - but that's not "personalized".
As usual, a clear statement of the situation will help.
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/
Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Could someone direct me to the instructions to un-subscribe from this list?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 9:02 AM
To: Ken Jones
Cc: Wayne Chu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:39:26AM -0600, Ken Jones wrote:
> Wayne Chu wrote:
> >
> > No, I am NOT spamming.
> >
> > Our company runs serveral daily e-newsletter, with totally about a
> > half million of subscribers. We are planning to make an "open"
> > newsletter plateform, let our web site members create their own
> > personal newsletter ( authenticated and supervised by our staff to
> > prevent spam mail ). we estimated the total number of subscribers and
> > the number of newsletter will grow even more. Surely our member
> > would want their newsletters to be sent ASAP. So we have to
> > increase concurrency.
>
> Ah.. So you are not a spammer, except you assume all your
> "customers" want your email. Besides that moral issue,
> do you have measured information about the delivery
> statistics of qmail version other options?
If these are **personalized** emails, then how they get queued will
depend on how they are built. One person wants a,g,f,t,z and
another wants a,t,q,p,z. If they want them ASAP, then it's not
obvious concurrency is an issue at all; perhaps newsletters with
p go out whenever p changes and triggers them. Maybe changes in
some of the topics do not trigger new email, but wait on a clock,
etc.... In either case, they may still be different per subscriber
because of the other selections (else they are not personalized).
Even with half a million subscribers, depending on the number of
options and the subscriber base you might still be sending only
a very few messages to each site. And if they are truly personalized,
it's not at all clear to me how one would build them so they could
go in the queue more than one by one.
Roughly:
SELECT email_address, topics FROM subscribers WHERE email ='$1' ORDER
BY topics,email_address;
for (@email_address) {
build message(@topics);
qmail-inject message # we do these ourselves one-by-one; personalized
}
Qmail will not be the hard part :-)
If, OTOH, they are a personal selection of independant, non-personalized
messages, batching will make sense - but that's not "personalized".
As usual, a clear statement of the situation will help.
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/
Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
on 12/7/00 6:36 AM, Ken Jones at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wayne Chu wrote:
>>
>> I feel our discussion starts to become OT.
>> I tried to be calm and I won't discuss it any more after this.
>
> Obviously this is a hot topic for you.
Seems a little hotter for you. Of the two of you, which is asking technical
questions and attempting to be civil, and which is imputing malicious intent
and generally ranting?
Interestingly, I'd rather read mail like his than mail like yours.
- Amitai
Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 7 December 2000 at 00:39:26 -0600
> Wayne Chu wrote:
> >
> > No, I am NOT spamming.
> >
> > Our company runs serveral daily e-newsletter, with totally about a
> > half million of subscribers. We are planning to make an "open"
> > newsletter plateform, let our web site members create their own
> > personal newsletter ( authenticated and supervised by our staff to
> > prevent spam mail ). we estimated the total number of subscribers and
> > the number of newsletter will grow even more. Surely our member
> > would want their newsletters to be sent ASAP. So we have to
> > increase concurrency.
>
> Ah.. So you are not a spammer, except you assume all your
> "customers" want your email. Besides that moral issue,
> do you have measured information about the delivery
> statistics of qmail version other options?
You're jumping way ahead of the facts here, Ken. He doesn't *use* the
word "customers". He *does* use the word "subscribers". Subscribers
pretty clearly implies the act of subscribing, i.e., opting in. His
description sounds to me rather like e-groups or topica, except
oriented towards "newsletters" rather than mailing lists.
(Of course, a clever spammer who wanted our help could just lie about
stuff, and if they weren't up and running there'd be no way to check,
but there's nothing we can do about that, and I see no reason to
suspect that Wayne Chu is lying.)
--
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 Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 05:36:13AM -0600, Ken Jones wrote:
> Wayne Chu wrote:
> >
> > I feel our discussion starts to become OT.
> > I tried to be calm and I won't discuss it any more after this.
>
> Obviously this is a hot topic for you.
>
> So, without furthre evidence, you are obviously a person
> who will exploit the edge of spam related email.
>
> I have a question for you Sir.
>
> Are you going to be sending these "emails" to your local
> list of accounts. Or will this be going out to other
> lists?
>
> How have you received these lists of emails?
I have a suggestion for you: stop busting this guy's balls unless you
can prove he is sending unsolicited bulk mail.
PGP signature
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:45:49AM -0500, Thomas Duterme wrote:
>2) Qmail is set to open 20 SMTP connections at a time
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Try at least doubling that.
Unfortunately, you can't say "20 per destination" or "20 per domain",
but setting it to "20 total" is really going to kill performance.
Going from 240 to 20 may have been a bit of an over-reaction. Can you
try 120? That'll help a LOT.
If you have to leave it at 20, you may want to turn your SMTP timeout
down to like 5 seconds at the beginning of a mailing, so all the slow
to respond mail servers are bypassed, then increase it to like 30 after
an hour or two, then to 200 after another hour or two and do a
"killall -ALRM qmail-send". Wacky, but it might get the job done...
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
Sean Reifschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Try at least doubling that.
> Unfortunately, you can't say "20 per destination" or "20 per domain",
> but setting it to "20 total" is really going to kill performance.
> Going from 240 to 20 may have been a bit of an over-reaction. Can you
> try 120? That'll help a LOT.
If there's one domain in particular which tends to croak or deny your
connections if you make too many connections, you could also set up a
separate qmail installation with a low concurrencyremote and use
smtproutes to route all mails to that domain via that installation.
This can be done either as a separate server or as a separate
installation with its own queue directory on your current server
(although in that case it must of course listen on another port, and
you'll need to include the port number in your smtproutes entry).
It's an ugly kludge, but it works. It also has the advantage that the
mails to other domains won't be held up while qmail is trying to
process the queue for the domain which is having trouble.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
Hello:
I met a problem when I installed qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2release.
I input ' csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &', qmail runs well.
I add 'smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd' to inetd.conf.
It only open smtp port.
How can I let qmail start automatically when FreeBSD start???
Best Regards,
oneflower
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Put it in /etc/rc.local
2. Create a qmail startup script in /usr/local/etc/rc.d
3. Simplest: Use the qmail port on FreeBSD4.2; it does (2) for you and makes
the installation a lot easier.
-----Original Message-----
From: oneflower [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 07 December 2000 11:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: a problem about install qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2 release
Hello:
I met a problem when I installed qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2release.
I input ' csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &', qmail runs well.
I add 'smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd' to inetd.conf.
It only open smtp port.
How can I let qmail start automatically when FreeBSD start???
Best Regards,
oneflower
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 07 December 2000 12:41, oneflower wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I met a problem when I installed qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2release.
>
> I input ' csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &', qmail runs well.
> I add 'smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd' to inetd.conf. It only open smtp port.
>
> How can I let qmail start automatically when FreeBSD start???
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> oneflower
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
It is adviced that you use tcpserver with qmail.
(/usr/ports/sysutils/ucspi-tcp/)
And also, you could use the daemontools package!
(/usr/ports/sysutils/daemontool53/)
Information about installing these things can be found
on qmail.org (look for the life with qmail tutorial, that one did it
for me)
-- Frans
Hi,
My lan mail server and my mail relay are separated by
firewall IPFWADM based.
I want to tell to local mail server to connect to the
relay(which is in DMZ) to get incoming
mail each 5 minutes. I want to avoid that relay forward
automatically each message received to the lan mail server.
How I can do this?
PS: I have no control/locals on the relay, no user having
Maildir on it. Actually (firewall is not yet installed),
the relay is configured so that mail are not stocked
locally, but they are forwarded automatically to the lan
mail server.
Thanks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Ould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to tell to local mail server to connect to the
> relay(which is in DMZ) to get incoming
> mail each 5 minutes. I want to avoid that relay forward
> automatically each message received to the lan mail server.
I think the serialmail package might be right for you - take a look at
<http://cr.yp.to/serialmail.html>. You'll have to make a virtual user
for your lan server on the relay, though.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
Hi all...
Quick and dirty question... sorry if it's been asked before.
How would I implement an "email all" feature in qmail ?
Cheers
Dennis
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:13:07PM +1100, Dennis wrote:
> Quick and dirty question... sorry if it's been asked before.
> How would I implement an "email all" feature in qmail ?
What exactly is your definition of "all" in "email all" ??
Where and how is the information about "all" kept?
\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.
All as in "all email accounts on my qmail system"
As for where and how, thats my question.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 8 December 2000 1:06 AM
> To: Dennis
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Email all with Qmail
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:13:07PM +1100, Dennis wrote:
> > Quick and dirty question... sorry if it's been asked before.
> > How would I implement an "email all" feature in qmail ?
>
> What exactly is your definition of "all" in "email all" ??
> Where and how is the information about "all" kept?
>
> \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.
>
> All,
>
> Is there a way of making a mail server accept all emails pointed to its
> domain.
>
> Thanks
Louis Mushandu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a way of making a mail server accept all emails pointed to its
> > domain.
As in, a catch-all account for a domain? Yes. This is a FAQ. Depending on
how you want to do this, you could use a virtual domain controlled by user
joe, and have ~joe/.qmail-vdomain-default control all messages for that
domain, or an ~alias/.qmail-default might do the trick for you.
Read the qmail FAQ and the man pages for qmail-control, dot-qmail,
and qmail-send for details.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~alias
.qmail-default
enjoy
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Louis Mushandu wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Is there a way of making a mail server accept all emails pointed to its
> > domain.
> >
> > Thanks
>
Previous posting
_______________
All,
Is there a way of making a mail server accept all emails pointed to its
domain.
Thanks
___________
All,
I have checked the .qmail-default file and the FAQ and I am not able to find
information relating to my previous posting. Any other FAQ which holds
examples.
on 12/7/00 1:36 PM, Louis Mushandu at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there a way of making a mail server accept all emails pointed to its
> domain.
>
> [...]
>
> I have checked the .qmail-default file and the FAQ and I am not able to find
> information relating to my previous posting.
If the domain is in virtualdomains, its delivery instructions are controlled
by the user you specify. Create a .qmail-default in that user's directory
containing the delivery instructions you want.
If the domain is in locals, its delivery instructions are controlled by the
`alias' user. Create ~alias/.qmail-default containing the delivery
instructions you want.
See dot-qmail(5) and qmail-send(8), at least.
- Amitai
hi,
take a look at ~/qmail/control/rcpthosts and ~/qmail/control/locals
and you might read Dave Sills excellent Life With Qmail (often referred to
as LWQ) http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html (chapter 3 may cover your
problem)
;)
alexander
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Mushandu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:37 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: HOW DO YOU ACCEPT ALL EMAILS SENT TO A DOMAIN
>
>
> Previous posting
> _______________
> All,
>
> Is there a way of making a mail server accept all emails pointed to its
> domain.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ___________
>
> All,
>
> I have checked the .qmail-default file and the FAQ and I am not
> able to find
> information relating to my previous posting. Any other FAQ which holds
> examples.
>
>
I am running Qmail with big-concurrency.patch and the conf-spawn
with 400 of limit of concurrency, my control/concurrencylocal and
control/concurrencyremote set to 400 ....
The hard:
- Dual Pentium II 450 Mhz
- RAM 512 MB
- HD 8.4 GB
- Linux Debian Kernel 2.2.17 (in the /usr/src/linux/include/linux/task.h
set NR_TASK to 2048)
But, the Qmail say in log's:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Report of Qmailanalog:
- Errors of FD?:
24 6.36 /bin/sh: /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: Too many open files in
system/
16 28.13 /bin/sh: /usr/bin/ezmlm-weed: Too many open files in
system/
92 27.81 /bin/sh: error in loading shared libraries: libc.so.6:
cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
59 41.43 /bin/sh: error in loading shared libraries: libdl.so.2:
cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
48 63.30 /bin/sh: error in loading shared libraries:
libncurses.so.5: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
58 18.57 /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: error in loading shared libraries:
libc.so.6: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
106 37.99 /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: error in loading shared libraries:
libcrypt.so.1: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
4 1.46 /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: error in loading shared libraries:
libm.so.6: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
- Other error:
851 3182.23 Connected to 200.41.50.10 but connection died. (#4.4.2)/
1 60.03 Connected to 200.41.50.7 but connection died. (#4.4.2)/
316 12453.57 Connected to 200.41.50.9 but connection died. (#4.4.2)/
1 0.20 Sorry, I couldn't find any host by that name. (#4.1.2)/
3 0.74 bin/qmail-local: error in loading shared libraries:
libc.so.6: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
_____________________________________________________________________________
What's did Y forget to do?????? :) :)
Help me please! :)
Federico Edelman Anaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am running Qmail with big-concurrency.patch and the conf-spawn
> with 400 of limit of concurrency, my control/concurrencylocal and
> control/concurrencyremote set to 400 ....
Not a qmail issue. `man ulimit` for details.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
/proc/sys/fs/file-max: 4096:
/proc/sys/fs/file-nr: 1009 246 4096:
/proc/sys/fs/inode-max: 16384:
/proc/sys/fs/inode-nr: 16385 13846:
/proc/sys/fs/inode-state: 16385 13847 0 0 0
0 0:
Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Federico Edelman Anaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Charles:
> > ulimit is unlimited
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> for file in /proc/sys/fs/{file,inode}* ; do
> echo "$file: `cat $file`:
> done
>
> What does the output of that say?
>
> Charles
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK
> My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Federico Edelman Anaya ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> /proc/sys/fs/file-max: 4096:
> /proc/sys/fs/file-nr: 1009 246 4096:
> /proc/sys/fs/inode-max: 16384:
> /proc/sys/fs/inode-nr: 16385 13846:
Looks like you may be running out of inodes. Try increasing them, and
read Documentation/sysctl/fs.txt in the kernel source tree. You
*need* to familiarize yourself with all of that in order to
successfully operate a busy linux box (there are other files in that
directory that need perusing, as well).
Aaron
Hello,
I've been using listserv on so far on a sendmail platform, I'm moving the
server to qmail. However I've had some wierd problems.
Fastforward works with my old aliases as long as there is no local user of
the same name as the alias, i.e. listserv doesn't get
sent to fastforward. If I put a .qmail-listserv entry I do get deliveries.
Has anyone set up qmail and listserv?
Thanks,
Collin
Collin B. McClendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using listserv on so far on a sendmail platform, I'm moving the
> server to qmail. However I've had some wierd problems.
> Fastforward works with my old aliases as long as there is no local user of
> the same name as the alias, i.e. listserv doesn't get
> sent to fastforward. If I put a .qmail-listserv entry I do get deliveries.
This is documented; qmail gives preference to local users over virtual domains
and such. You can override this with mailnames if you want.
You may want to look into switching from listserv to ezmlm or ezmlm-idx.
They're designed specifically for qmail, and have many additional features.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
It is possible to configure my local
mail server to connect to my relay each 5, 10 minutes to
get
messages. And tell to the relay to stock messages temporary
and wait request from the lan server?
actually the relay sent directely messages to the lan
server (in the abscence of firewall).
Thanks
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Hi! .. Does anybody run a Qmail with a big-concurrency.patch and don't
have any problem? :)
cd /usr/src/
cat big-concurrency.patch | patch -p0
cd qmail-1.03
echo "400" > conf-spawn (say 1000)
......and?......
Edit a kernel headers and recompile?
or echo "-O2 -DFD_SETSIZE=16384" > conf-cc ?
or what??
Thanks!
Raise Hand...
--JT
James:
I have many problems with FD ..
- I am running Qmail + big-concurrency.patch on Linux Debian Kernel 2.2.17
(Dual Pentium II 450 Mhz RAM 512 MB)
Report of Qmailanalog:
- Errors of FD?:
24 6.36 /bin/sh: /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: Too many open files in
system/
16 28.13 /bin/sh: /usr/bin/ezmlm-weed: Too many open files in system/
92 27.81 /bin/sh: error in loading shared libraries: libc.so.6:
cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
59 41.43 /bin/sh: error in loading shared libraries: libdl.so.2:
cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
48 63.30 /bin/sh: error in loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5:
cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
58 18.57 /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: error in loading shared libraries:
libc.so.6: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
106 37.99 /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: error in loading shared libraries:
libcrypt.so.1: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
4 1.46 /usr/bin/ezmlm-return: error in loading shared libraries:
libm.so.6: cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
- Other error:
851 3182.23 Connected to 200.41.50.10 but connection died. (#4.4.2)/
1 60.03 Connected to 200.41.50.7 but connection died. (#4.4.2)/
316 12453.57 Connected to 200.41.50.9 but connection died. (#4.4.2)/
1 0.20 Sorry, I couldn't find any host by that name. (#4.1.2)/
3 0.74 bin/qmail-local: error in loading shared libraries: libc.so.6:
cannot open shared object file: Error 23/
James Stevens wrote:
> Actually the patch on my system was simple. Didn't have any problems.
>
> Running under a Linux and can hadle 1000 Concurrent SMTP/QMQP and 1000
> Concurrent on the POP3/IMAP although thats never been tested as of yet.
> But otherwise I never really had a problem with the patches any of them.
>
> --JT
Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
the server starts to degrade performance.
Thanks
Eden
Eden Akhavi wrote:
>
> Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
> connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
> the server starts to degrade performance.
POP3+SMTP:
Postal, homepage http://www.coker.com.au/postal/
Regards,
Andrzej
Thanks for this - it looks ideal!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: root [mailto:root]On Behalf Of Andrzej Marszalek
> Sent: 07 December 2000 18:53
> To: Eden Akhavi
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Performance Testing
>
>
> Eden Akhavi wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
> > connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
> > the server starts to degrade performance.
>
> POP3+SMTP:
> Postal, homepage http://www.coker.com.au/postal/
>
> Regards,
> Andrzej
>
On Thursday 07 December 2000 18:53, Andrzej Marszalek wrote:
> Eden Akhavi wrote:
> > Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
> > connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
> > the server starts to degrade performance.
>
> POP3+SMTP:
> Postal, homepage http://www.coker.com.au/postal/
>
> Regards,
> Andrzej
This guy needs some help porting his app to BSD systems. He said he needed
a programmer who understanded threading on BSD or something like that :)
I'm not a programmer but maybe someone on this lists could help him out ?
Regards,
-- Frans
Hi folks,
It's been a while since I had to even think of qmail (it really runs that
good!).
But now I need to change my network architecture, and I would appreciate
some help with a few things.
First question, I have to move my mail server behind my firewall (it was
in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall accept all mail for
the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail server, inside.
A dumb relay, is all I need. I believe
(from looking up my notes and searching the archive) that I have to create
a control/smtproutes file containing ":<my mail server's IP>" on the
firewall. As for the control/rcpthosts file, does it suffice to put
"mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>" or do I need a list of machine names,
ie: "mail.mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>", etc... Then, what's needed
in control/locals, control/me and control/virtualdomains (I have no
virtual domain), only the firewall's hostname (except for virtualdomains)?
On my mail server itself, all I do is create control/smtproutes and put it
the following; ":<my firewall's IP>" ?
I am using both tcpserver and tcprules on the firewall already. The rule
was to relay from any host inside to the mail server. It still needs to
relay... but what should be in there exactly now ? Like I started by
saying, it's been a while...
Am I missing anything to get this show on the road ?
[private network + mail server] <==> [firewall] <==> [big bad Internet]
And on a different note, I've been looking for a web interface which would
work nicely with qmail (Pine is nice, but not nice enough). Oh BTW, and
I guess at this point I should confess to still be using Mailbox
format. I know I should start by doing something about that, yet I
don't know where to start. Most web interfaces I've looked at required
me to move to maildir. Any suggestions ? (I know...move to maildir,
right?) Ok, say I do, which package should I then use ? How hard is it to
move to maildir ? A good procedure would come handy at this point...
Sleeves are rolled up, here comes my w/end qmail refresher course.
Thanks,
Jean
-
Jean Caron
Network Security Consultant
NORAC inc. - Network Optimization Research & Analysis Canada
Quebec, Canada
(613) 277-6672
> a control/smtproutes file containing ":<my mail server's IP>" on the
> firewall.
Actually, that would forward ALL mail - for your domain, or being
sent out from your domain! - to the internal server. You want
"mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>" in smtproutes on the firewall.
> As for the control/rcpthosts file, does it suffice to put
> "mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>" or do I need a list of
> machine names, ie: "mail.mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>",
> etc...
You're confusing smtproutes syntax and rcpthosts syntax here. On
the firewall, you want "mydomain.com" in the rcpthosts file. If you also
intend to accept mail for hosts in your domain (i.e., mail.myodmain.com),
you can put them in one by one or wildcard them with ".mydomain.com". Make
sure MX records exist in global DNS pointing to firewall.mydomain.com for
any hosts or domains you want it to relay.
> Then, what's needed
> in control/locals, control/me and control/virtualdomains (I have no
> virtual domain), only the firewall's hostname (except for
> virtualdomains)?
control/locals should be empty; you are forwarding mail. If you
want mail for firewall.mydomain.com to stay on the firewall instead of being
forwarded, you can put that there (and make sure firewall.mydomain.com or
.mydomain.com is in rcpthosts).
control/me should be the firewall's hostname.
control/virtualdomains can be deleted.
> On my mail server itself, all I do is create
> control/smtproutes and put it
> the following; ":<my firewall's IP>" ?
Yes. Also add "mydomain.com" to rcpthosts and locals (and, again,
any hosts or wildcards you also want to accept mail for).
> I am using both tcpserver and tcprules on the firewall
> already. The rule was to relay from any host inside to
> the mail server. It still needs to relay... but what
> should be in there exactly now ? Like I started by
> saying, it's been a while...
That can stay as is, unless you want to tighten the rules so
outgoing mail can only come from the internal mail server. As long as the
internal mail server is allowed to relay in the existing rules, you're fine.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
First off, you posted this as a reply to an unrelated message -- makes it
a little less likely you'll get an answer from this list.
> First question, I have to move my mail server behind my firewall (it was
> in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall accept all mail for
> the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail server, inside.
> A dumb relay, is all I need. I believe
> (from looking up my notes and searching the archive) that I have to create
> a control/smtproutes file containing ":<my mail server's IP>" on the
> firewall.
Yes, providing that's all it has to do.
> As for the control/rcpthosts file, does it suffice to put
> "mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>" or do I need a list of machine names,
> ie: "mail.mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>", etc...
Wrong format. No colons; just machine/domain names:
bar.foo.com
baz.foo.com
.example.org
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus spake Jean Caron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> First question, I have to move my mail server behind my firewall (it was
> in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall accept all mail for
> the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail server, inside.
> A dumb relay, is all I need.
Don't do that.
It degrades performance and reliability and increases the complexity of
the system and with that the risk for security problems.
If what your signature is right, i.e. that you are working on network
optimization, than you should see why this is a bad idea.
Felix
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Jean Caron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > First question, I have to move my mail server behind my firewall (it was
> > in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall accept all mail for
> > the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail server, inside.
> > A dumb relay, is all I need.
>
> Don't do that.
> It degrades performance and reliability and increases the complexity of
> the system and with that the risk for security problems.
>
> If what your signature is right, i.e. that you are working on network
> optimization, than you should see why this is a bad idea.
>
> Felix
>
Felix,
Sometimes the "best option" is no longer an option...
I agree with you, however... the network architecture is changing and the
mail server is being moved behind the firewall.
Jean
-
Jean Caron
Network Security Consultant
NORAC inc. - Network Optimization Research & Analysis Canada
Quebec, Canada
(613) 277-6672
hi,
Jean Caron wrote:
--snip--
> First question, I have to move my mail server behind my firewall (it was
> in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall accept all mail for
> the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail server, inside.
> A dumb relay, is all I need.
--snip--
this might be a philosophical approach, but have you considered to
portforward smtp to your local (inside) mail-server?
ready to get flamed
;)
alexander
Hi,
I have mostly a simular problem, this seems to be a hard
problem. I beneficied of helps of several people but have
stil some problems.
In my case I have mail relay in DMZ and mail server in LAN.
[internet]-----[Routeur]-----[DMZ]----[Firewall]-----[LAN]
without setting a firewall all work fine. But when setting
firewall, I can only sent (outcoming messages), but no
incoming ones can reach to me. My relay does not stock
messages, it forward them directly to the local mail one.
Is a simular fierwall with only two cards is appropriated?
Can it communicate in the two senses (in/out)?
What I must doing in order to let it works in the two
sense?
Thanks for any helps.
--- Jean Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit : >
> Hi folks,
>
> It's been a while since I had to even think of qmail (it
> really runs that
> good!).
>
> But now I need to change my network architecture, and I
> would appreciate
> some help with a few things.
>
> First question, I have to move my mail server behind my
> firewall (it was
> in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall
> accept all mail for
> the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail
> server, inside.
> A dumb relay, is all I need. I believe
> (from looking up my notes and searching the archive) that
> I have to create
> a control/smtproutes file containing ":<my mail server's
> IP>" on the
> firewall. As for the control/rcpthosts file, does it
> suffice to put
> "mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>" or do I need a list
> of machine names,
> ie: "mail.mydomain.com:<my mail server's IP>", etc...
> Then, what's needed
> in control/locals, control/me and control/virtualdomains
> (I have no
> virtual domain), only the firewall's hostname (except for
> virtualdomains)?
>
> On my mail server itself, all I do is create
> control/smtproutes and put it
> the following; ":<my firewall's IP>" ?
>
> I am using both tcpserver and tcprules on the firewall
> already. The rule
> was to relay from any host inside to the mail server. It
> still needs to
> relay... but what should be in there exactly now ? Like I
> started by
> saying, it's been a while...
>
> Am I missing anything to get this show on the road ?
>
> [private network + mail server] <==> [firewall] <==> [big
> bad Internet]
>
> And on a different note, I've been looking for a web
> interface which would
> work nicely with qmail (Pine is nice, but not nice
> enough). Oh BTW, and
> I guess at this point I should confess to still be using
> Mailbox
> format. I know I should start by doing something about
> that, yet I
> don't know where to start. Most web interfaces I've
> looked at required
> me to move to maildir. Any suggestions ? (I know...move
> to maildir,
> right?) Ok, say I do, which package should I then use ?
> How hard is it to
> move to maildir ? A good procedure would come handy at
> this point...
>
> Sleeves are rolled up, here comes my w/end qmail
> refresher course.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jean
> -
> Jean Caron
> Network Security Consultant
> NORAC inc. - Network Optimization Research & Analysis
> Canada
> Quebec, Canada
> (613) 277-6672
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Some of the posts on this thread (and others) seem to be referring to
the mail server receiving the mail from the outside as the "firewall".
Actually a mail server that receives mail and then passes the mail on
to the internal mail server for further processing should probably be
called a mail proxy server because it has about the same functionality
as a web proxy server.
Of course you could run mail software on a firewall depending on what
kind of platform and OS you run your firewall on, but it�s not
recommended from a security point of view. The more services you run
on your firewall, the more vulnerable you make it.
What I would recommend is a separate mail server to receive mail
outside your firewall (or in the DMZ), and forward that mail to your
mail server with all the accounts, inside the firewall. The theory
being that if someone invades your "proxy" mail server, your internal
mail server isn�t bothered (it just stops being able to receive and
send mail to the outside).
=== Al
--- Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Jean Caron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > First question, I have to move my mail server behind my firewall (it was
> > in front until now). My goal is to have the firewall accept all mail for
> > the domain, and forward "everything" "as is" to the mail server, inside.
> > A dumb relay, is all I need.
>
> Don't do that.
> It degrades performance and reliability and increases the complexity of
> the system and with that the risk for security problems.
>
> If what your signature is right, i.e. that you are working on network
> optimization, than you should see why this is a bad idea.
>
> Felix
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
On 07/12/00 at 6:54 AM Strange wrote:
>The box "comes down"? Meaning...? Any errors written to console? What
>happens? When you say it seems more stable without Daemontools, on what
>do you base that? More detail would help a lot -- log files around the
>crash time, crash dumps if any, etc.
That's the strange thing. There is nothing in any log, and the console is either dead
or says "Unable to handle kernel NULL dereference pointer" or something to that
effect. I never catch the core dumps. I did catch one when I ran it through supervise,
and it occured in INIT. I have been unable to get one lately and pass it through
ksymoops.
>I run Qmail on Ultras and pre-Ultra Sparcs under Solaris and OpenBSD
>without a hitch. I run daemontools on same. Again, some detail would
>help.
>
This is where my SPARC linux question comes in. Those boxes obviously ran Solaris
before, and smail without any problems. They were migrated to linux recently, and only
started having problems when qmail was installed.
PS - That's so funny.. I just named my two new desktop machines "Strange" and
"Charmed" after quarks and I got this email....
Martin Volesky - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO - Deijlabs Corporation
1221 Mackay, Suite 200
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3G 2H5
Tel.: 514.399.9930 Fax.: 514.399.1117
>Never happened to me, and I have been running qmail under sparclinux for
>years.
>
>It is not a qmail issue. Try another kernel version or look for flaky
>RAM chips.
Thanks Felix. I think I'll try the RAM sawp. I have two other identical boxes. Could
you please tell me what distro you are running and what kernel version
has been the most stable for you? Are you running qmail from rebuilt RPMs with
supervise and daemontools? What is your qmail setup?
Martin Volesky - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO - Deijlabs Corporation
1221 Mackay, Suite 200
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3G 2H5
Tel.: 514.399.9930 Fax.: 514.399.1117
On 07/12/00 at 6:54 AM Strange wrote:
>The box "comes down"? Meaning...? Any errors written to console? What
>happens? When you say it seems more stable without Daemontools, on what
>do you base that? More detail would help a lot -- log files around the
>crash time, crash dumps if any, etc.
That's the strange thing. There is nothing in any log, and the console is either dead
or says "Unable to handle kernel NULL dereference pointer" or something to that
effect. I never catch the core dumps. I did catch one when I ran it through supervise,
and it occured in INIT. I have been unable to get one lately and pass it through
ksymoops.
>I run Qmail on Ultras and pre-Ultra Sparcs under Solaris and OpenBSD
>without a hitch. I run daemontools on same. Again, some detail would
>help.
>
This is where my SPARC linux question comes in. Those boxes obviously ran Solaris
before, and smail without any problems. They were migrated to linux recently, and only
started having problems when qmail was installed.
PS - That's so funny.. I just named my two new desktop machines "Strange" and
"Charmed" after quarks and I got this email....
Martin Volesky - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CTO - Deijlabs Corporation
1221 Mackay, Suite 200
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3G 2H5
Tel.: 514.399.9930 Fax.: 514.399.1117
a pathologially selective listserv that needs to be replaced
brought to my attention the fact that my MUA has been inserting
a
Sender: david
line in the headers of my messages, out of accordance with rfc 850
which apparently specifies that the host-name is supposed to go there.
Rather than change MUA, I have modified qmail-smtpd.c to add
@remotehost
to incomplete sender lines it might receive.
Here's what I did:
***************
*** 345,350 ****
--- 348,380 ----
qmail_put(&qqt,ch,1);
}
+ void TweakSendera(pch)
+ char *pch;
+ { /* add @host to sender header if not provided */
+ char *qch;
+
+ qch = "(ABBAZA)";
+ while (*qch){ qmail_put(&qqt,qch++,1); }
+
+
+ }
+ void TweakSender(pch)
+ char *pch;
+ { /* add @host to sender header if not provided */
+ char ch;
+ char *qch;
+
+ for(ch = *pch; ch != '\r' ;substdio_get(&ssin,&ch,1)){
+ if (ch == '@') {*pch = ch; return; }/* no tweaking required */
+ put(&ch);
+ } /* finishing the loop means \r was encountered before @ */
+ *pch = ch;
+ qmail_put(&qqt,"@",1);
+ qch = remotehost;
+ while (*qch){ qmail_put(&qqt,qch++,1); }
+ }
+
+
void blast(hops)
int *hops;
{
***************
*** 355,361 ****
int flagmaybex; /* 1 if this line might match RECEIVED, if fih */
int flagmaybey; /* 1 if this line might match \r\n, if fih */
int flagmaybez; /* 1 if this line might match DELIVERED, if fih */
!
state = 1;
*hops = 0;
flaginheader = 1;
--- 385,392 ----
int flagmaybex; /* 1 if this line might match RECEIVED, if fih */
int flagmaybey; /* 1 if this line might match \r\n, if fih */
int flagmaybez; /* 1 if this line might match DELIVERED, if fih */
! int flagmaybes; /* 1 if this line might match SENDER, if fih */
!
state = 1;
*hops = 0;
flaginheader = 1;
***************
*** 369,379 ****
if (pos < 8)
if (ch != "received"[pos]) if (ch != "RECEIVED"[pos]) flagmaybex = 0;
if (flagmaybex) if (pos == 7) ++*hops;
if (pos < 2) if (ch != "\r\n"[pos]) flagmaybey = 0;
if (flagmaybey) if (pos == 1) flaginheader = 0;
}
++pos;
! if (ch == '\n') { pos = 0; flagmaybex = flagmaybey = flagmaybez = 1; }
}
switch(state) {
case 0:
--- 400,413 ----
if (pos < 8)
if (ch != "received"[pos]) if (ch != "RECEIVED"[pos]) flagmaybex = 0;
if (flagmaybex) if (pos == 7) ++*hops;
+ if (pos < 6)
+ if (ch != "sender"[pos]) if (ch != "SENDER"[pos]) flagmaybes = 0;
+ if (flagmaybes) if (pos == 6) TweakSender(&ch);
if (pos < 2) if (ch != "\r\n"[pos]) flagmaybey = 0;
if (flagmaybey) if (pos == 1) flaginheader = 0;
}
++pos;
! if (ch == '\n') { pos = 0; flagmaybes = flagmaybex = flagmaybey = flagmaybez =
1; }
}
switch(state) {
case 0:
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> a pathologially selective listserv that needs to be replaced
> brought to my attention the fact that my MUA has been inserting
> a
> Sender: david
> line in the headers of my messages, out of accordance with rfc 850
> which apparently specifies that the host-name is supposed to go there.
This was discussed a week ago:
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:25:32 -0800
From: montgomery f. tidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SOLUTION] Re: [HELP] Domain in Sender: is missing
Howdy,
ok, i found the answer.
it is indeed Netscape that is being bad, not qmail.
the solution is to add the following line to the
preferences.js file:
user_pref("mail.suppress_sender_header", true);
--
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"
Hello all,
when a form processing-cgi requieres a /path/to/mailprog I usually
put the line /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject in it. But is some cases it
doesn�t work especially when the default path is /usr/bin/sendmail
-t. It seems not to work with qmail. Is there a default way to get
these work? I�m not really into perl and stuff.
regards
Hans-Juergen
Hans-Juergen Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 8 December 2000 at 00:17:04 +0100
> Hello all,
> when a form processing-cgi requieres a /path/to/mailprog I usually
> put the line /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject in it. But is some cases it
> doesn�t work especially when the default path is /usr/bin/sendmail
> -t. It seems not to work with qmail. Is there a default way to get
> these work? I�m not really into perl and stuff.
Qmail supplies a sendmail wrapper; a thing that looks like
/usr/lib/sendmail for many of the purposes that's invoked in scripted,
but which actually call qmail-inject. Try pointing the scripts at
that.
(Installation isn't very standardized, but you should know or be able
to figure out where it got installed on your system.)
--
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 Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Hans-Juergen Schwarz wrote:
> Hello all,
> when a form processing-cgi requieres a /path/to/mailprog I usually
> put the line /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject in it. But is some cases it
> doesn�t work especially when the default path is /usr/bin/sendmail
> -t. It seems not to work with qmail. Is there a default way to get
> these work? I�m not really into perl and stuff.
Use qmail's sendmail wrapper
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail -t
It behaves just like
/usr/bin/sendmail -t
--
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"
You have to edit maildir.c in imap/src/osdep/unix (i think; recalling from
memory). There are 3 options as "#define" in the C source. one of them
needs to be switched to "#undef" to enable reading from a directory which
contains "Maildir" in the path. I don't know why this option is there.
---Matt
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 03:53:00PM -0800, Matt Harrington wrote:
>
>
> You have to edit maildir.c in imap/src/osdep/unix (i think; recalling from
> memory). There are 3 options as "#define" in the C source. one of them
> needs to be switched to "#undef" to enable reading from a directory which
> contains "Maildir" in the path. I don't know why this option is there.
I have all of them undef. The first two suck when #define'd and I
couldn't care less about the third :)
This works in combination with 'inbox-path=$MAIL' in the global
pine.conf for supporting maildir in /var/spool/mail, as long as $MAIL is
set correctly.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
Thanks for your feedback.
Tried out your suggestion, but the problem continues. The weirdness is just
this: procmail says recipies OK (forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), but
qmail-local delivers a copy to original recipient.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Francisco Jen Ou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Procmail weirdness
> * Francisco Jen Ou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001206 21:59]:
> > Procmail log reports no problems executing recipies, but the messages
that
> > are supposed to be dumped to /dev/null continue to get delivered by
> > qmail-local.
>
> I haven't seen your particular problem. However, you might try setting up
a
> dummy user; put just ``#'' (that's a hash with nothing else) in
> ~alias/.qmail-nobody. Then, instead of ``delivering'' to /dev/null,
forward
> the offending e-mails to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> where example.com is your
> domain. That will effectively throw those messages into the bitbucket.
>
> /pg
> --
> Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
> Oh, and this is another kernel in that great and venerable "BugFree(tm)"
> series of kernels. So be not afraid of bugs, but go out in the streets
> and deliver this message of joy to the masses.
> (Linus, in the announcement for 1.3.27)
>
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:25:39PM -0200, Francisco Jen Ou wrote:
> The weirdness is just this: procmail says recipies OK (forwarded to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]), but qmail-local delivers a copy to original
> recipient.
How are you calling procmail? In a .qmail file? From the qmail-start
command line? Please show us the whole file.
-thl
Here they go. Thanks.
1) $HOME/.qmail:
|/usr/sbin/qmail-procmail
./Maildir/
2) $HOME/.procmail:
SHELL=/bin/sh
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir
LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmaillog
VERBOSE=yes
:0 HB
* ! ^From:.*postmaster@xxx
* ^Content-Type:.*multipart
*
^.*name=.*.(avi|mp3|com|exe|sys|bat|bin|pcx|gif|jpg|jpeg|bmp|pps|mpg|mpeg|pi
f|scr)
/dev/null
3) /usr/sbin/qmail-procmail:
#!/bin/sh
# Copyright (c) 1998 Software in the Public Interest
<http://www.debian.org/>
# Written by Philip Hands <phil@xxxxxxxxx>. Distributed under the GNU GPL
# $Id: qmail-procmail,v 1.2 1998/03/24 19:31:27 phil Exp $
/var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/bin/procmail -m -p .procmailrc && exit 0
# check if procmail returned EX_TEMPFAIL (75)
[ $? = 75 ] && exit 111
# otherwise return a permanent error
exit 100
4) sample .procmaillog:
procmail: [27698] Thu Dec 7 00:06:38 2000
procmail: Match on ! "^From:.*postmaster@xxx"
procmail: Match on "^Content-Type:.*multipart"
procmail: Match on
"^.*name=.*.(avi|mp3|com|exe|sys|bat|bin|pcx|gif|jpg|jpeg|bmp
|pps|mpg|mpeg|pif|scr)"
procmail: Assigning "LASTFOLDER=/dev/null"
procmail: Opening "/dev/null"
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Dec 07 02:06:38 2000
Subject: Fw: CUIDADO com os Clubes de Nudismo..
Folder: /dev/null
42135
procmail: Notified comsat: "abc@0:/dev/null"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Legant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: Procmail weirdness
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:25:39PM -0200, Francisco Jen Ou wrote:
> > The weirdness is just this: procmail says recipies OK (forwarded to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]), but qmail-local delivers a copy to original
> > recipient.
>
> How are you calling procmail? In a .qmail file? From the qmail-start
> command line? Please show us the whole file.
>
> -thl
>
"Francisco Jen Ou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here they go. Thanks.
>
> 1) $HOME/.qmail:
>
> |/usr/sbin/qmail-procmail
> ./Maildir/
You have two lines here. One which calls procmail and one which makes
a local delivery. Remove the ./Maildir/ line if you don't want local
delivery.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
I'm hosting multiple domains on my machine. Would like to use qmail, but
I'm not sure how to solve the following.
Say I have 3 users: joe, john, brenda. Each of them is "associated" with a
different domain I host, say [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the webmaster for
www.domain1.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is webmaster for www.domain2.net, etc.
If mail arrives for [EMAIL PROTECTED], I can have it delivered to user joe
by setting up a virtual user in control/virtualdomains and adding a line
to users/assign. But if someone writes to [EMAIL PROTECTED], qmail will
deliver it to joe, because there exists a real user 'joe' on the system.
But joe is not "supposed" to have an email account under domain2.net.
Any pointers will be appreciated.
ch7
Codehead-7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 7 December 2000 at 22:52:15 -0500
> I'm hosting multiple domains on my machine. Would like to use qmail, but
> I'm not sure how to solve the following.
>
> Say I have 3 users: joe, john, brenda. Each of them is "associated" with a
> different domain I host, say [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the webmaster for
> www.domain1.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is webmaster for www.domain2.net, etc.
>
> If mail arrives for [EMAIL PROTECTED], I can have it delivered to user joe
> by setting up a virtual user in control/virtualdomains and adding a line
> to users/assign. But if someone writes to [EMAIL PROTECTED], qmail will
> deliver it to joe, because there exists a real user 'joe' on the system.
> But joe is not "supposed" to have an email account under domain2.net.
I don't use virtual users, only domains (in control/virtualdomains;
the virtual users are controlled by qmail files under the user
directory that control/virtualdomains associates with that domain);
but your example doesn't seem to depend on them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a
virtual user, but you say that joe is a *real* user, and that there is
no joe user defined for domain2 (either as a virtual user in
control/virtualdomains.com, or as a user in the virtual domain
controlled by a ~domain2/.qmail-joe file, where "~domain2" should be
the home directory of the user controlling your virtual domain2). Um,
there isn't a ~domain2/.qmail-default that forwards to local user joe
by any chance is there?
Short of the things listed above, or anything I've overlooked :-),
this shouldn't happen; if it happens for you, something is
misconfigured, or your test isn't testing what you're thinking. I'm
user ddb on this system. I host a virtual domain mnstf.org, in which
there is no user ddb. When I send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it bounces,
as shown below:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: failure notice
Date: 8 Dec 2000 04:56:19 -0000
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at dd-b.net.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 14996 invoked by uid 501); 8 Dec 2000 04:56:19 -0000
Date: 8 Dec 2000 04:56:19 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(One complication; I'm user ddb, but I also receive email as
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and that's my standard from: and envelope from. ddb is
my actual local username, though, so [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the proper
analogy to your [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
--
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/
Hi,
Originally I use smtproutes to route all outgoing messages to my isp smtp
server. However, now, they set up rules to control email relaying. They
implement smtp after pop. I need to login first before I can send out mail.
Can anybody share with me your experiences?
Thanks.
Regards,
Jonathan
"CHIU, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Originally I use smtproutes to route all outgoing messages to my isp smtp
> server. However, now, they set up rules to control email relaying. They
> implement smtp after pop. I need to login first before I can send out mail.
> Can anybody share with me your experiences?
If they do that even when you're coming from their own network, my
first suggestion would be to change to a better ISP.
My second suggestion is to write a perl script which logs in to their
POP server every time you connect, or run the script via cron every
fifteen minutes or so. There are good examples in the documentation
for the Net::POP3 module. Or you could use fetchmail for the same
purpose.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
is it possible to have more than one smtproute for the same destination
for the case that the first relay cannot be reached? if so, how?
wolfgang
