qmail Digest 14 Dec 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1213
Topics (messages 53950 through 54014):
Re: Qmail source files - developer version
53950 by: Alex Kramarov
Re: Outlook Express Prank
53951 by: Robin S.Socha
53952 by: Jason Brooke
Re: Qmail and RFC1894 - Delivery Status Notifications
53953 by: James Morgenstein
53954 by: Peter Green
53957 by: Norbert Bollow
53965 by: Mark Delany
53968 by: Martijn Koster
53984 by: Alex Pennace
newbie question
53955 by: Dario Rossi
53966 by: Charles Cazabon
53970 by: Dario Rossi
53982 by: Charles Cazabon
54014 by: Dario Rossi
qmail's problem
53956 by: info
53959 by: Tim Hunter
53961 by: info
53963 by: info
53975 by: Tim Hunter
Running qmail-pop3d as non-root user
53958 by: Laurence Brockman
53960 by: Tim Hunter
Re: user alias file
53962 by: gmo.gmx.de
receive SMTP from anybody
53964 by: gmo.gmx.de
Using a RAMDISK for /var/qmail/queue thoughts ?
53967 by: Greg Cope
53976 by: Sean Reifschneider
53979 by: Greg Cope
53980 by: Austad, Jay
53983 by: Sean Reifschneider
53987 by: Felix von Leitner
53990 by: Mark Delany
54000 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Qmail on Solaris 8 (Intel)
53969 by: Kin-San Frank Lo
53971 by: mbailey.journey.net
53973 by: Hubbard, David
54009 by: Piotr Kasztelowicz
>From address problems
53972 by: Peter Woods
53977 by: Mark Delany
53978 by: Mark Delany
Re: Amavis + MySQL on Qmail :)
53974 by: Antonio S. Martins Jr.
[PATCH] limiting email databytes when > 1 recipient
53981 by: CK
LDAP with qmail ?
53985 by: Marcio Sa
53993 by: Olivier M.
How solving this problem?
53986 by: Ould
directory structure/location of mail
53988 by: Peter Brezny
53991 by: Peter Green
web interface options for ezmlm
53989 by: danger
Smtp AUTH
53992 by: Charles Trtanj
Re From address problems
53994 by: Peter Woods
53995 by: Mark Delany
53996 by: Charles Cazabon
Copy Outbound messages
53997 by: Charrua
53998 by: Peter Samuel
users/assign
53999 by: Peter Brezny
Changing double bounce sender from #@[] to anything else
54001 by: Laurence Brockman
badmailto functionality ?
54002 by: James Morgenstein
54003 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: Please Help Me Urgently
54004 by: shukla raghvendra
54005 by: andrew.tic.ch
speed please
54006 by: richard morris
54007 by: andrew.tic.ch
54008 by: Sigbj|rn Lie
rblsmtpd conflict with ucspi -tcp
54010 by: shaolei
54012 by: Alex Pennace
VPOPMAIL Problem
54011 by: Jesus Arnaiz
Converting from vpopmail to vmailmgr
54013 by: Stian Brekmo
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am already doing that to catch bounces passing my server, but what will it
help me ? I don't want to forward a copy of the original e-mail to another
server, I want to send normally to the locals, and forward one with the rest
of recipients. Now then I think about it, I may implement this externally,
processing the copy of the original message, but :
1. How do I make qmail not to send messages to external recipients (and in
the same time I have to get a copy of original e-mail with all recipients)?
2. In the same time, if I make qmail not to send mail to external recipients
(quietly !!!), how can i send the externally modified message (in which the
local recipients are already removed) so it would be still sent as one
message ? I could use telnet to the forwarding server port 25 and just spill
the message there, but I hope there is a better way ...
Alex.
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 7:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Qmail source files - developer version
Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] said:
> Thus spake Alex Kramarov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I want to write an addon to qmail, so it could forward mail
> > to another server before it hits the queve, splitted to several
> > copies, one for each recipient domain. I think many could
> > benefit from this feature, in terms of bandwidth conservation.
>
> This feature can (and should) be implemented externally, i.e. without
> editing the qmail sources at all.
>
> Just take the qmail-smtpd sources and write a new smtpd.
Whoa, whoa, let's not get too excited here. Before you go
rewriting, you should read FAQ 8.2:
] 8.2. How do I keep a copy of all incoming and outgoing mail messages?
]
] Answer: Set QUEUE_EXTRA to "Tlog\0" and QUEUE_EXTRALEN to 5 in extra.h.
] Recompile qmail. Put ./msg-log into ~alias/.qmail-log.
Using this to forward copies however you want is left as a
straightforward exercise for the reader. 'man dot-qmail' will be helpful.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
Quoting Einar Bordewich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Hubbard, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > What does the MUA have to do with an MTA?
> >
> > Show me a competent Unix admin using Outlook or a similar
> > abomination and I won't show you the difference.
> <snip>
>
> So what you are saying, is that to be a good unix admin, you can't
> use Windows? I consider myself a pretty ok unix admin, but I can't
> live without my W2K laptop. It does it's job, and my linux machines
> are doing theirs. Something I prefer doing on my W2K laptop, and
> then agin other I prefer doing on one of my linux'es.
I said Outlook. This message is being written under Win98.
> Just another "MAC is bether than PC", "FreeBSD rulez linux" etc.....
> Can't beat them, join them!
Can beat them. Have beaten them. Will not be assimilated.
> BTW: I know my way around on Windows, MAC, Linux, FreeBSD, NextSTEP,
> etc.... and feel pretty good about it ;-)
Right. You're still using Outlook on a technical mailing list. Your
message still looks bad, has no reference headers (cf. "broken list
archive") and so on. Been there before, no need to discuss this here,
really. Please?
--
Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
@400000003a2ee04c23b0f0a4 delivery 8351: deferral:
Connected_to_168.126.229.1_but_greeting_failed./Remote_host_said:_421_[nMail_1.045_(Windows_NT/2000)_SMTP_Server]_-_Server_too_busy,_retry_later/
> Right. You're still using Outlook on a technical mailing list.
So? You're still a moron - yet that doesn't stop you.
Besides, he's using Outlook Express, not Outlook
> message still looks bad, has no reference headers (cf. "broken list
> archive") and so on.
Looks fine from here. Alpha-numeric chars strung together forming cohesive
sentences - yup, lookin good.
Oh look, a reference header too. You said there wasn't, but there is.
Remarkable!
> Been there before, no need to discuss this here,
Yet you still felt you had to
jason
I am somewhat hesitant to rely upon VERP's because I have seen several
problems in how some email programs handle the = sign in the VERP. We all
know that the = sign is a valid character for the local part of an email
address according to the RFC, but there are many mail programs (definitely
some clients, but how MTA's handle VERP's is unknown to me) which incorrect
parse the = sign. The incorrect parsing results in something that looks
like:
list-action-username=userhost@listhost
being interpreted as:
userhost@listhost
Has anyone else found problems with VERP's? I know that I have experienced
several problems with mailto: and reply links when using ezmlm. Some
clients that I know have problems are Yahoo, Excite, etc.
In the short term, I have modified my bounce processor to parse DSN's and
qmail bounce reports.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Reifschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:08 AM
To: James Morgenstein
Cc: qmail list
Subject: Re: Qmail and RFC1894 - Delivery Status Notifications
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:04:14PM -0500, James Morgenstein wrote:
>This appears to be used by most of the public mail servers that I have
>tested against, but when a mail bounces out of one of my local qmail
The problem with DSN is that *EVERY* machine that the message passes through
must support DSN, or it fails. QMail doesn't support DSN (unless there's
a patch, you have looked at www.qmail.org, right?). Check out
VERPs -- Variable Envelope Return Paths. Searching google
should provide some good hits.
Sean
--
I never thought I would live in a country which had a
self-declared president.
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
* James Morgenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 09:23]:
> I am somewhat hesitant to rely upon VERP's because I have seen several
> problems in how some email programs handle the = sign in the VERP. We all
> know that the = sign is a valid character for the local part of an email
> address according to the RFC, but there are many mail programs (definitely
> some clients, but how MTA's handle VERP's is unknown to me) which incorrect
> parse the = sign. The incorrect parsing results in something that looks
> like:
> list-action-username=userhost@listhost
> being interpreted as:
> userhost@listhost
>
> Has anyone else found problems with VERP's? I know that I have experienced
> several problems with mailto: and reply links when using ezmlm. Some
> clients that I know have problems are Yahoo, Excite, etc.
I have seen *exactly* this problem. In fact, the only webmail interface that
appears to do the right thing (make the link, *then* word-wrap) appears to
be sqwebmail. But all of the ``big'' ones like CNN, Hotmail, Yahoo, &c...all
break.
But I don't consider that a reason not to use VERPs. :-)
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
If you're a cowboy and you're dragging a guy behind your horse, I bet it would
really make you mad if you looked back and the guy was reading a magazine.
(Jack Handey)
> Has anyone else found problems with VERP's?
VERPs may cause the 'user name' part of the return-path email
address to become longer than 64 characters, and I have found
that some MTAs will not accept messages with such a return path.
It says in section 4.5.3. of RFC821
: ****************************************************
: * *
: * TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, IMPLEMENTATION *
: * TECHNIQUES WHICH IMPOSE NO LIMITS ON THE LENGTH *
: * OF THESE OBJECTS SHOULD BE USED. *
: * *
: ****************************************************
:
: user
:
: The maximum total length of a user name is 64 characters.
Warm greetings, Norbert.
--
>Strengthen your integrity and it will become your key success factor!
Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland)
Editor, Integrity in Politics Ezine http://integrity-in-politics.com
Tel +41 1 972 20 59 Fax +41 1 972 20 69 http://thinkcoach.com
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:21:16AM -0500, James Morgenstein wrote:
> I am somewhat hesitant to rely upon VERP's because I have seen several
> problems in how some email programs handle the = sign in the VERP. We all
Fair enough. Then use something other than the = sign. And if you're
worried about using a string that ends up being longer than 64
characters, then use a simple database and send the key that
identifies the original recipient. Something like:
bounce-dbkey12345678@listhost
then handle the bounce in ~bounce/.qmail-default by looking up the
database to find the original recipient.
DSN is vastly less reliable and vastly more complicated.
Regards.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:21:16AM -0500, James Morgenstein wrote:
> I have experienced several problems with mailto: and reply links
> when using ezmlm. Some clients that I know have problems are Yahoo,
> Excite, etc.
As far as I am aware Excite Inbox handles mailto's and ezmlm VERPS
just fine. If anyone has a counter example, please send it me
privately.
-- Martijn Koster, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:24:46PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:21:16AM -0500, James Morgenstein wrote:
> > I am somewhat hesitant to rely upon VERP's because I have seen several
> > problems in how some email programs handle the = sign in the VERP. We all
>
> Fair enough. Then use something other than the = sign. And if you're
> worried about using a string that ends up being longer than 64
> characters, then use a simple database and send the key that
> identifies the original recipient. Something like:
>
> bounce-dbkey12345678@listhost
>
> then handle the bounce in ~bounce/.qmail-default by looking up the
> database to find the original recipient.
The current qmail architecture is not conducive to return path styles
beyond its basic VERP. Anything can send a VERP-message by injecting
the message with a special return path; qmail rewrites it for each
individual recipient.
Other return path styles are possible, but a message per recipient
must be injected to enforce the unique <return path, recipient> pairs
required.
Moreover, ezmlm's use of VERPs makes it easy to determine which
address is receiving list messages.
PGP signature
Hello all.
Sorry for boring you, but i have this problem i cannot understand:
I configured qmail with tcpserver following the installation instructions
step by step.
At this point i have a tcpserver at the moment allowing
connections only from localhost.
Everything is working fine and i send and receive e-mails with no
problems.
If i try to do relaying from a host that is not allowed i get the message:
"553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts".
The question is :If i try to send an e-mail to a domain that's contained
in rcpthosts, from an unautorized host, i get no errors and the email
arrives...why this?
with this method can't i be able to mail bomb any e-mail address of this
domain?
Thanks
Dario
Dario Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for boring you, but i have this problem i cannot understand:
> At this point i have a tcpserver at the moment allowing
> connections only from localhost.
You're preventing connections to port 25 completely?
Please post the contents of your smtp.rules file to be more clear on exactly
what you are allowing/disallowing.
> If i try to do relaying from a host that is not allowed i get the message:
> "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts".
Yes, the expected behaviour.
> The question is :If i try to send an e-mail to a domain that's contained
> in rcpthosts, from an unautorized host, i get no errors and the email
> arrives...why this?
> with this method can't i be able to mail bomb any e-mail address of this
> domain?
rcpthosts lists machines/domains which you are willing to accept mail for.
They may be local, or they may be other machines for which you are providing
secondary MX service. This is expected behaviour.
Either you don't quite understand how internet mail works, or you're being
unclear in what you are trying to accomplish here. Could you explain better
what you are trying to do, and why you think it's not correct?
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CC>You're preventing connections to port 25 completely?
CC>Please post the contents of your smtp.rules file to be more clear on exactly
CC>what you are allowing/disallowing.
the rule is :
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
CC>
CC>> If i try to do relaying from a host that is not allowed i get the message:
CC>> "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts".
CC>
CC>Yes, the expected behaviour.
Ok never said the opposit
CC>
CC>> The question is :If i try to send an e-mail to a domain that's contained
CC>> in rcpthosts, from an unautorized host, i get no errors and the email
CC>> arrives...why this?
CC>> with this method can't i be able to mail bomb any e-mail address of this
CC>> domain?
CC>
CC>rcpthosts lists machines/domains which you are willing to accept mail for.
CC>They may be local, or they may be other machines for which you are providing
CC>secondary MX service. This is expected behaviour.
CC>Either you don't quite understand how internet mail works, or you're being
CC>unclear in what you are trying to accomplish here. Could you explain better
CC>what you are trying to do, and why you think it's not correct?
Well probably i was not clear!
I am a "son of Sendmail" and i am trying to set up qmail in the best way,
to understand its full possibilities. Obviously it 's not really easy to
do this, using the mess of documentation that's around...anyway taking the
time needed i am trying to do this.
Let's do an example:
I put the domain foo.com in rcpthosts.
Now qmail will accept mails for *@foo.com.
I put a rule in tcpservers to allow relaying only from localhost and
my LAN hosts.
Now i telnet to another host, not autorised to do relaying; from here:
telnet my qmail machine port 25
220 <welcome message>
helo cippalippa.org
250 <welcome message>
mail from:k
250 Ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 OK
data
354 go ahead
PRRRRTTT
.
250 ok 976727180 qp 4190
quit
Well i think this is not fair.
Infact anyone could send mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and any other
standard address, being completely anonymous.
I think i missed something in configuration or otherwise i didnt
understand well how qmail works.
My previous mail was NOT to claim that qmail is bugged as some1 could
have understood.
Now i hope things are clearer
Thnx
Dario
Dario Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CC>You're preventing connections to port 25 completely? CC>Please post the
> CC>contents of your smtp.rules file to be more clear on exactly CC>what you
> CC>are allowing/disallowing.
>
> the rule is :
>
> 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
Okay, you're not denying connections at all. You're setting the RELAYCLIENT
only if the remote IP address is 127.*.*.* .
> I put the domain foo.com in rcpthosts.
> Now qmail will accept mails for *@foo.com.
> I put a rule in tcpservers to allow relaying only from localhost and
> my LAN hosts.
> Now i telnet to another host, not autorised to do relaying; from here:
>
> telnet my qmail machine port 25
>
> 220 <welcome message>
> helo cippalippa.org
> 250 <welcome message>
> mail from:k
> 250 Ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 OK
> data
> 354 go ahead
> PRRRRTTT
> .
> 250 ok 976727180 qp 4190
> quit
>
> Well i think this is not fair.
> Infact anyone could send mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and any other
> standard address, being completely anonymous.
The mail transaction above is not an example of (unauthorized) relaying.
By putting the domain in rcpthosts, you have told qmail-smtpd "I am willing
to accept mail from anyone which has an envelope recipient of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
If foo.com is in your locals file, the message will be delivered locally.
If foo.com is in your virtualdomains file, it will be treated as a virtual
domain and delivered to a local user.
If foo.com is in neither locals nor controls, qmail will attempt to deliver
it to the highest priority MX for foo.com, and therefore serving as a
secodary MX for foo.com.
> I think i missed something in configuration or otherwise i didnt understand
> well how qmail works.
Yes, it's a problem with your understanding of qmail. To receive mail
from the world at large, you have to allow everyone to connect to your
SMTP port. You should then accept/reject mail based on the envelope
recipient -- accepting mail which is for addresses in your local domain(s)
and virtual domains (if any), and possibly a few others for which you
provide backup MX service, and rejecting everything else.
Then, in addition, you can set the RELAYCLIENT variable as you did above
for certain IP addresses (typically those on your company LAN or private
network), to allow only those IP addresses to relay mail to anywhere else
in the world through your server. In this case you are serving as a
"smarthost" for dumb clients (like MUAs on Windows machines, etc).
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Charles Cazabon wrote:
CC>The mail transaction above is not an example of (unauthorized) relaying.
CC>By putting the domain in rcpthosts, you have told qmail-smtpd "I am willing
CC>to accept mail from anyone which has an envelope recipient of
CC>[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
CC>
CC>If foo.com is in your locals file, the message will be delivered locally.
CC>If foo.com is in your virtualdomains file, it will be treated as a virtual
CC>domain and delivered to a local user.
CC>If foo.com is in neither locals nor controls, qmail will attempt to deliver
CC>it to the highest priority MX for foo.com, and therefore serving as a
CC>secodary MX for foo.com.
CC>
CC>> I think i missed something in configuration or otherwise i didnt understand
CC>> well how qmail works.
CC>
CC>Yes, it's a problem with your understanding of qmail. To receive mail
CC>from the world at large, you have to allow everyone to connect to your
CC>SMTP port. You should then accept/reject mail based on the envelope
CC>recipient -- accepting mail which is for addresses in your local domain(s)
CC>and virtual domains (if any), and possibly a few others for which you
CC>provide backup MX service, and rejecting everything else.
CC>
CC>Then, in addition, you can set the RELAYCLIENT variable as you did above
CC>for certain IP addresses (typically those on your company LAN or private
CC>network), to allow only those IP addresses to relay mail to anywhere else
CC>in the world through your server. In this case you are serving as a
CC>"smarthost" for dumb clients (like MUAs on Windows machines, etc).
CC>
CC>Charles
CC>
THANKS CHARLES !
This solved all my questions!
Thanks a lot.
Dario
Hi everybody
I have a problem
I've set up
qmail-1.03 and all the others packages,
webmail,vpopmail,signup,
autoresponders,etc...
all working fine form
domain.com
Now i have few others domains...
domain1.com which can send and
receive e-mail internally, for the network
192....
I can also send e-mail
outside of the 192 net, but i CANNOT receive any
e-mail from the outside
world, these for each virtual domain i try to set up
Any idea? would be very
appreciate.
The main domain.com works fine also from the outside
I'm going
nuts.....
Thank you in
advance
|
|
Can you post
relevant unedited logs to the list PLEASE!
The relevant
/var/qmail/control files would help too.
Without seeing the
error and setup we cannot help.
Hi everybody
I have a problem
I've set up
qmail-1.03 and all the others packages,
webmail,vpopmail,signup,
autoresponders,etc...
all working fine form
domain.com
Now i have few others domains...
domain1.com which can send
and receive e-mail internally, for the network
192....
I can also send
e-mail outside of the 192 net, but i CANNOT receive any
e-mail from the
outside world, these for each virtual domain i try to set up
Any idea?
would be very appreciate.
The main domain.com works fine also from the
outside
I'm going nuts.....
Thank you in
advance
|
thanks tim
on my control's file i have:
locals: it's empity as i use vpopmail and i
followed the instructions
rcpthosts:
domain.com
domain1.com
domain2.com
virtualdomains:
domain.com:domain.com
domain1.com:domain1.com
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:30
AM
Subject: RE: qmail's problem
Can you post
relevant unedited logs to the list PLEASE!
The relevant
/var/qmail/control files would help too.
Without seeing the
error and setup we cannot help.
Hi everybody
I have a problem
I've set up
qmail-1.03 and all the others packages,
webmail,vpopmail,signup,
autoresponders,etc...
all working fine form
domain.com
Now i have few others domains...
domain1.com which can send
and receive e-mail internally, for the network
192....
I can also send
e-mail outside of the 192 net, but i CANNOT receive any
e-mail from the
outside world, these for each virtual domain i try to set up
Any idea?
would be very appreciate.
The main domain.com works fine also from the
outside
I'm going nuts.....
Thank you in
advance
|
|
where can i find relevant logs for qmail?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:30
AM
Subject: RE: qmail's problem
Can you post
relevant unedited logs to the list PLEASE!
The relevant
/var/qmail/control files would help too.
Without seeing the
error and setup we cannot help.
Hi everybody
I have a problem
I've set up
qmail-1.03 and all the others packages,
webmail,vpopmail,signup,
autoresponders,etc...
all working fine form
domain.com
Now i have few others domains...
domain1.com which can send
and receive e-mail internally, for the network
192....
I can also send
e-mail outside of the 192 net, but i CANNOT receive any
e-mail from the
outside world, these for each virtual domain i try to set up
Any idea?
would be very appreciate.
The main domain.com works fine also from the
outside
I'm going nuts.....
Thank you in
advance
|
This depends on how you installed qmail, commonly this is
/var/log/qmail/current (if using LWQ and daemontools)
or /var/log/mail* if using syslog.
Also back to your original message, can you receive any mail for domain.com
from the internet?
If you posted your real hostnames we can verify if this a DNS issue as it
looks to be.
-----Original Message-----
From: info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:49 PM
To: Tim Hunter
Cc: qmail
Subject: Re: qmail's problem
where can i find relevant logs for qmail?
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Hunter
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:30 AM
Subject: RE: qmail's problem
Can you post relevant unedited logs to the list PLEASE!
The relevant /var/qmail/control files would help too.
Without seeing the error and setup we cannot help.
-----Original Message-----
From: info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: qmail's problem
Hi everybody
I have a problem
I've set up qmail-1.03 and all the others packages, webmail,vpopmail,signup,
autoresponders,etc...
all working fine form domain.com
Now i have few others domains...
domain1.com which can send and receive e-mail internally, for the network
192....
I can also send e-mail outside of the 192 net, but i CANNOT receive any
e-mail from the outside world, these for each virtual domain i try to set up
Any idea? would be very appreciate.
The main domain.com works fine also from the outside
I'm going nuts.....
Thank you in advance
Is there any reason why I couldn't run qmail-pop3d as a non-root user? Using
tcpserver to start the process I could easily set it to run as a qmail user
(Or yet another user, with almost no permissions). Is this possible? And if
so, is there anything that I should be looking out for?
Thanks,
Laurence
--
Laurence Brockman
Unix Administrator
Videon Cablesystems Alberta Inc
10450-178 St.
Edmonton, AB
T5S 1S2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(780) 486-6527
You have to make sure the user it runs as can access the $HOME/Maildir for
every user.
Usually this is only the root user, however if you have virtual domains ONLY
this might be an option.
-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Brockman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:05 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Running qmail-pop3d as non-root user
Is there any reason why I couldn't run qmail-pop3d as a non-root user? Using
tcpserver to start the process I could easily set it to run as a qmail user
(Or yet another user, with almost no permissions). Is this possible? And if
so, is there anything that I should be looking out for?
Thanks,
Laurence
--
Laurence Brockman
Unix Administrator
Videon Cablesystems Alberta Inc
10450-178 St.
Edmonton, AB
T5S 1S2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(780) 486-6527
Thanks all for the help, it works now.
--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
Hello,
i've 2 qmail-server, one intern (LAN) and one extern (DMZ), so how can i
configure, that qmail-extern received email per SMTP from anybody and can
send to anybody email per SMTP? Now i've set the remote hosts and domains in
the file rcpthosts.
And then, i want send the received mails to qmail-intern. I use the
dnscache/tinydns on both server. It's the same domain name, but different IP
address rooms.
Have you any idee? Thank for the help
best regards
Gustav
--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
Dear All
I am considering using a RAMDISK for /var/qmail/queue by buying another
256 meg DIM, as RAM prices appear to be quite low at the moment ;-)
This is for a personalised (time dependant) newsletter system. The RAM
disk would be made / formatted at boot, along with copying an empty
qmail queue structure onto it.
Newsletters tend to be in small batches, made quite often. If the
RAMDISK goes pop and the queue is lost this is not a major issue as the
batch could be re-run. This means someone may get it twice - this is
accpetable as long as this type of failure is not often (often > yearly
).
Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
Greg
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
>Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
>(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
>5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
10ns is much faster than 5.3ms... It works, I've done it, it's reasonably
fast, but you still have to worry about things like swamping the todo
and on top of that you may have to worry about filling up your queue
disc. You can get QMail into a situation where it's completely wedged
until you manually remove some files from the ram disc to give it enough
space to continue delivering mail.
Sean
--
I never thought I'd live in a country where physical violence would be used
to disenfranchise voters. Have you heard about Bush supporters rioting?
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> >(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> >5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> 10ns is much faster than 5.3ms... It works, I've done it, it's reasonably
> fast, but you still have to worry about things like swamping the todo
> and on top of that you may have to worry about filling up your queue
> disc. You can get QMail into a situation where it's completely wedged
> until you manually remove some files from the ram disc to give it enough
> space to continue delivering mail.
Thanks for that:
Queue disk filling is an issue - I was thinking of a 256 meg ram disk -
and small jobs - i.e try to leave a lot of room - i.e. if the av message
size is 10 K, not inject more than 25000 messages at once - although
this leaves little headroom.
Ok given that I can:
control job size
control job inject fequency (by looking at the queue size / space left)
control injection speed (avoid / stop todo swaping)
Would this still be a good idea ? As a 256 meg dim is 108 UK pounds
sterling - or less than a SCSI card ...
Greg
>
> Sean
> --
> I never thought I'd live in a country where physical violence would be used
> to disenfranchise voters. Have you heard about Bush supporters rioting?
> Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Reifschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 12:12 PM
>
> 10ns is much faster than 5.3ms... It works, I've done it,
> it's reasonably
I was thinking about doing this awhile back. I made a ramdisk and used both
bonnie and bonnie2 to do some benchmarking on it, and I actually got worse
performance on the Ramdisk. You still have the overhead of the file system,
and you have no hardware DMA controller with a Ramdisk. It was slower in my
experience.
The box I tested it on had 1GB of Ram, and a 512MB ramdisk. No swap was
being used during the tests.
Jay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Reifschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 12:12 PM
> To: Greg Cope
> Cc: qmail mailing list
> Subject: Re: Using a RAMDISK for /var/qmail/queue thoughts ?
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I
> may expect
> >(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI
> system (eg 10k,
> >5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> 10ns is much faster than 5.3ms... It works, I've done it,
> it's reasonably
> fast, but you still have to worry about things like swamping the todo
> and on top of that you may have to worry about filling up your queue
> disc. You can get QMail into a situation where it's completely wedged
> until you manually remove some files from the ram disc to
> give it enough
> space to continue delivering mail.
>
> Sean
> --
> I never thought I'd live in a country where physical
> violence would be used
> to disenfranchise voters. Have you heard about Bush
> supporters rioting?
> Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD,
> Firewalls, Python
>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:43:25PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
>Would this still be a good idea ? As a 256 meg dim is 108 UK pounds
>sterling - or less than a SCSI card ...
I can't say... I used such a setup on a system with 1GB RAM sending
out 1+million e-mails of the sort you are. It was more painful to
manage, but worked. If you need the performance, then there's not
much choice.
Sean
--
I thought Bush and Gore were both bad choices. However, Bush seems
to be doing his best to prove he's the greatest of two evils.
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
Thus spake Greg Cope ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> (as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> 5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
Why would you expect a speed increase at all?
And even if there were one, would anyone notice? Who looks at his
email every millisecond and would even notice the improvement?
I would suspect that your mail service, like everyone else's, is not
limited by disk throughput, but by network throughput. Or are you
delivering all those emails locally?
Felix
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:31:48PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Greg Cope ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> > (as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> > 5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> Why would you expect a speed increase at all?
Er, perhaps because a disk seek/fsync is slower to a real disk than it
is to a ramdisk?
> And even if there were one, would anyone notice?
Sure. When you deliver thousands or millions of emails a day. And
plenty of people do that right now.
> Who looks at his email every millisecond and would even notice the
> improvement?
Er, I believe the discussion is about queue processing, not MUA
reading?
> I would suspect that your mail service, like everyone else's, is not
> limited by disk throughput, but by network throughput.
"suspect" being the operative word here. Mostly qmail thruput on large
systems *is* spindle bound. A lot of these sort of systems are housed
at co-los where there is a *lot* of available bandwidth. I have seen
plenty of qmail systems run out of spindle first so I don't know what
led you to conclude that "..like everyone else's, is not limited by
disk throughput".
Regards.
Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13 December 2000 at 20:31:48 +0100
> Thus spake Greg Cope ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> > (as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> > 5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> Why would you expect a speed increase at all?
> And even if there were one, would anyone notice? Who looks at his
> email every millisecond and would even notice the improvement?
>
> I would suspect that your mail service, like everyone else's, is not
> limited by disk throughput, but by network throughput. Or are you
> delivering all those emails locally?
Um, most reporting measured results from optimizing high-traffic
qmail-based mail servers have found that disk activity on the queue
disk is the first limit they hit.
--
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/
I want to get Qmail runs on a Solaris 8 (Intel) machine. Would you mind
telling me where to get the Qmail in the form of Solaris 8 (Intel) packages?
I hereby wish you every success in the new year.
Thank you,
Frank
I don't think there is a "package"
why not just compile it?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Kin-San Frank Lo wrote:
> I want to get Qmail runs on a Solaris 8 (Intel) machine. Would you mind
> telling me where to get the Qmail in the form of Solaris 8 (Intel) packages?
>
> I hereby wish you every success in the new year.
>
> Thank you,
> Frank
>
>
Yes, if you can't find a qmail package, just go to
http://www.sunfreeware.com and you can download
the GCC package for your Sol 8 x86 box and
you'll be ready to compile your own qmail, just
following the instructions from Dave Sill's LWQ
paper linked on www.qmail.org should get you through
it.
Good luck,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 12:32 PM
To: Kin-San Frank Lo
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail on Solaris 8 (Intel)
I don't think there is a "package"
why not just compile it?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Kin-San Frank Lo wrote:
> I want to get Qmail runs on a Solaris 8 (Intel) machine. Would you mind
> telling me where to get the Qmail in the form of Solaris 8 (Intel)
packages?
>
> I hereby wish you every success in the new year.
>
> Thank you,
> Frank
>
>
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Kin-San Frank Lo wrote:
> I want to get Qmail runs on a Solaris 8 (Intel) machine. Would you mind
> telling me where to get the Qmail in the form of Solaris 8 (Intel) packages?
you must get binaries package for gcc (gnu cc compiler) ver. 2.95.2
from Sun WWW Page (there are link to software page, this same link
is on http://www.gnu.org) and compile qmail with gcc from sources
Piotr
---
Piotr Kasztelowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
I have a file (/tmp/message) that looks like:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test
This is a test.
For some odd reason that I can't explain the
from address keeps getting rewritten to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (which was
the old hostname).
cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -n
shows the proper header info, but the from gets
rewritten for:
cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
My me file contains: advice.domainname.com
My defaulthost file contains: advice.domainname.com
My helohost file contains: advice.domainname.com
The hostname is: advice.domainname.com
Am I missing something obvious? This is driving
me nuts.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:40:26PM +0000, Peter Woods wrote:
> I have a file (/tmp/message) that looks like:
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Test
> This is a test.
>
> For some odd reason that I can't explain the
> from address keeps getting rewritten to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which was
> the old hostname).
>
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -n
>
> shows the proper header info, but the from gets
> rewritten for:
>
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
>
> My me file contains: advice.domainname.com
> My defaulthost file contains: advice.domainname.com
> My helohost file contains: advice.domainname.com
>
> The hostname is: advice.domainname.com
>
> Am I missing something obvious?
Yes. You haven't shown us that qmail is rewritting that header. At
what point is it rewritten? You need to experiment and catch the email
at each point thru the delivery process and determine at which point
it gets rewritten. Are you sure it's not rewritten after it leaves
qmail?
Regards.
> > For some odd reason that I can't explain the
> > from address keeps getting rewritten to
> > Am I missing something obvious?
>
> Yes. You haven't shown us that qmail is rewritting that header. At
> what point is it rewritten? You need to experiment and catch the email
> at each point..
And here's how:
0. Stop qmail.
1. Check at initial injection:
1-1. Inject a local delivery email with qmail-inject
1-2. Inject a remote delivery email with qmail-inject
1-3. Search thru /var/qmail/queue for the emails - rewritten?
2. Check at queue processed:
2-1. Backup your /var/qmail/control/concurrency* files
2-2. Change both concurrency control files to have zero in them
2-3. Start qmail.
2-4. Search thru /var/qmail/queue for the emails - rewritten?
3. Check final delivery:
3-1. Restore your backup concurrency files.
3-2. Restart qmail.
3-3. Examine final delivery destinations - rewritten?
Tell us what you discover.
Regards.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Rainer Link wrote:
> "Antonio S. Martins Jr." wrote:
> > There are someone using Amavis with Qmail? I had a Qmail+MySQL server
> > and want to put Amavis on it... I had tryed, and aparently all are working
> > but the load of the server start to increase until the watchdog process
> > reboot it!
> >
> > Without Amavis all work ok! I'll begin to debug what are doing wrong.
> > Thanks for any info!
>
> Which version of AMaViS do you use? AMaViS 0.2.1 or AMaViS-Perl-10? How
> high is your server load?!
>
> Btw, we do run mailing lists for AMaViS (see www.amavis.org). As our
> time is limited, we do not read all the mailing lists/newsgroups for the
> supported MTAs on a regular basis. But of course we read our own mailing
> lists :-)
I'm using Amavis 0.2.1, I'm guessing my problem is with the userid, I
didn't have users on /etc/passwd then the "id" command used to find the
username (on the "myname" var) didn't work properly. This impacts on some
filenames.
My server (K6-II 450 with 128Mb) had an avg load of about 0.3 - 0.5
normaly, with 1 - 3 running process. But when Amavis start the zipsecure
the load grows rapidly to about 30! with up to 40 running process.
I'm hacking this part of the script to make a test.
Is Amavis-perl-10 more fast? Or the problem is on zipsecure?
Thanks,
Antonio.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Antonio S. Martins Jr. - System Analist | "Only The Shadow Knows |
| WorldNet Internet Maringa - PR - Brasil | what evil lurks in the |
| E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Heart of Men!" |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | !!! Linux User: 52392 !!! |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This e-mail message is 100% Microsoft free!
/"\
\ / CAMPANHA DA FITA ASCII - CONTRA MAIL HTML
X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
/ \
This is a patch which gives similar functionality to qmail as
the databytes setup, but totaldatabytes instead. It looks at
the number of recipients a message is going to and applys the
value of /var/qmail/control/totaldatabytes as the limit when
size is multiplied by number of recipients. This is so users
can't send one large email to many people without a limitation,
this will limit that. We had problems with users sending the
current 'christmas movies/pictures' to lots of people using Cc:
so the multiple emails leaving our server from that one email
would create a large amount of traffic. This patch now will
keep that to whatever it is setup to limit to in totaldatabytes,
and prevent unlimited flooding potential from our users. It
makes a person have to send the message possibly more than
once when wanting to send it to many people, so they have to
think actually about it and work at it. This saves us from
the blind sending of large files to many people when taking advantage of
multiple rcpt to's feature by users of qmail. If anything
looks like it could be improved I welcome sugestions, thanks.
I included it below, but if mangled it is also available from:
http://www.groovy.org/source/Qmail/
diff -ru qmail-1.03/qmail-smtpd.c qmail-1.03-totaldb/qmail-smtpd.c
--- qmail-1.03/qmail-smtpd.c Mon Jun 15 05:53:16 1998
+++ qmail-1.03-totaldb/qmail-smtpd.c Wed Dec 13 11:09:20 2000
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
#define MAXHOPS 100
unsigned int databytes = 0;
+unsigned int totaldatabytes = 0;
int timeout = 1200;
int safewrite(fd,buf,len) int fd; char *buf; int len;
@@ -121,7 +122,12 @@
x = env_get("DATABYTES");
if (x) { scan_ulong(x,&u); databytes = u; }
if (!(databytes + 1)) --databytes;
-
+
+ if (control_readint(&totaldatabytes,"control/totaldatabytes") == -1)
die_control();
+ x = env_get("TOTALDATABYTES");
+ if (x) { scan_ulong(x,&u); totaldatabytes = u; }
+ if (!(totaldatabytes + 1)) --totaldatabytes;
+
remoteip = env_get("TCPREMOTEIP");
if (!remoteip) remoteip = "unknown";
local = env_get("TCPLOCALHOST");
@@ -221,6 +227,7 @@
int flagbarf; /* defined if seenmail */
stralloc mailfrom = {0};
stralloc rcptto = {0};
+int rcptcount = 0;
void smtp_helo(arg) char *arg;
{
@@ -245,6 +252,7 @@
if (!stralloc_copys(&rcptto,"")) die_nomem();
if (!stralloc_copys(&mailfrom,addr.s)) die_nomem();
if (!stralloc_0(&mailfrom)) die_nomem();
+ rcptcount = 0;
out("250 ok\r\n");
}
void smtp_rcpt(arg) char *arg; {
@@ -261,6 +269,7 @@
if (!stralloc_cats(&rcptto,"T")) die_nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(&rcptto,addr.s)) die_nomem();
if (!stralloc_0(&rcptto)) die_nomem();
+ if (totaldatabytes) ++rcptcount;
out("250 ok\r\n");
}
@@ -280,6 +289,7 @@
struct qmail qqt;
unsigned int bytestooverflow = 0;
+unsigned int totalbytestooverflow = 0;
void put(ch)
char *ch;
@@ -287,6 +297,9 @@
if (bytestooverflow)
if (!--bytestooverflow)
qmail_fail(&qqt);
+ if (totalbytestooverflow)
+ if (!--totalbytestooverflow)
+ qmail_fail(&qqt);
qmail_put(&qqt,ch,1);
}
@@ -374,6 +387,7 @@
if (!rcptto.len) { err_wantrcpt(); return; }
seenmail = 0;
if (databytes) bytestooverflow = databytes + 1;
+ if (totaldatabytes) totalbytestooverflow = (totaldatabytes + 1) /
rcptcount;
if (qmail_open(&qqt) == -1) { err_qqt(); return; }
qp = qmail_qp(&qqt);
out("354 go ahead\r\n");
@@ -389,6 +403,7 @@
if (!*qqx) { acceptmessage(qp); return; }
if (hops) { out("554 too many hops, this message is looping
(#5.4.6)\r\n"); return; }
if (databytes) if (!bytestooverflow) { out("552 sorry, that message
size exceeds my databytes limit (#5.3.4)\r\n"); return; }
+ if (totaldatabytes) if (!totalbytestooverflow) { out("552 sorry, that
message size exceeds my totaldatabytes limit (#5.3.4)\r\n"); return; }
if (*qqx == 'D') out("554 "); else out("451 ");
out(qqx + 1);
out("\r\n");
Thanks,
Chris K
Chris Kennedy / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I-Land Internet Services / Network Operations Center
\|/ ____ \|/
"@'/ .. \`@"
/_| \__/ |_\
\__U_/
-Linux SPARC Kernel Oops
Hello,
did anyone use a qmail without put users in /etc/passwd or qmail-users , like
using
LDAP ? Is it possible ? I want to use qmail without creating users or mboxes
and
using LDAP. Its possible with sendmail but i preffer to use qmail.
Thanks in advance,
Marcio
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 05:01:20PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> Hello,
> did anyone use a qmail without put users in /etc/passwd or qmail-users , like
> using
> LDAP ? Is it possible ? I want to use qmail without creating users or mboxes
> and
> using LDAP. Its possible with sendmail but i preffer to use qmail.
There are LDAP extensions made in Switzerland for qmail, have
a look at http://www.nrg4u.com/
Cheers,
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
Hello,
I have two domaines: sendamildom.com (MTA is sendmail
maintained by my ISP) and qmaildom.com (MTA is qmail, it
will be my local mail server for all users).
All users receive/sent their mails fromto sendmaildom.com.
I created an account for each user on my local qmail
server.
How I can configurate my qmail(qmaildom.com) to
receive/sent temporary mails of sendamildom.com users
until the total migration to qmaildom.com?
PS: I have two qmail servers one is local (in my Lan)
and the second (relay) in DMZ. qmail works fine under this
configuration for qmaildom.com domaine.
Thanks
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Hello,
I'm working on configuring qmail with vpopmail.
I would like to be able to specify the location for mail storage
specifically for each virtual domain.
Is there a way to do this?
Thanks for your help.
Peter Brezny
SysAdmin Services Inc.
* Peter Brezny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 14:46]:
> I'm working on configuring qmail with vpopmail.
Er, you'd probably be better off, then, on the vpopmail mailing list. Send
e-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to subscribe.
> I would like to be able to specify the location for mail storage
> specifically for each virtual domain.
>
> Is there a way to do this?
I don't *think* so, but there is with vmailmgr (<http://www.vmailmgr.org/>).
In fact, vmailmgr sort of revolves around this construct.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[...] but this is generally not a real limitation (it means that you can't
have timeouts longer than 248 days on a x86, tough luck).
(Linus, discussing how kernel timeouts should be implemented.)
I haved qmailadmin and I love it but I am not in love with its ezmlm interface
any one know of other options?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi I just want to know if there is a solution for Smtp AUTH. I
tried qmail-smtpd-auth-0.26.tar.gz but it doesn't work :-( .......
Please
help me cause i spend more than 5 hours on this fu..... problem
thx
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
Comment: GET MY LATEST PGP-KEY AT www.0x01.net
iQA/AwUBOjfHavc9SI1u6Li4EQIiWACfV4AwLJdqKr4sxhdIfsx7qrprBqgAoJeC
KVBZyNeWgRqZqjf/wNKB6ie1
=E9Tb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thanks for the response. Could you please expand upon
this procedure? I am not familiar and I am not having much
luck with this procedure.
> 0. Stop qmail.
> 1. Check at initial injection:
> 1-1. Inject a local delivery email with qmail-inject
> 1-2. Inject a remote delivery email with qmail-inject
> 1-3. Search thru /var/qmail/queue for the emails - rewritten?
I was unable to find any email with a matching time stamp.
I am using:
cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
Is this ok?
I don't understand why these two are different:
cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -n
The -n version shows the proper "from" contained in /tmp/message.
> 2. Check at queue processed:
> 2-1. Backup your /var/qmail/control/concurrency* files
I don't have any concurrency* files at all. Is this normal?
> 2-2. Change both concurrency control files to have zero in them
> 2-3. Start qmail.
> 2-4. Search thru /var/qmail/queue for the emails - rewritten?
> 3. Check final delivery:
> 3-1. Restore your backup concurrency files.
> 3-2. Restart qmail.
> 3-3. Examine final delivery destinations - rewritten?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 07:11:12PM +0000, Peter Woods wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response. Could you please expand upon
> this procedure? I am not familiar and I am not having much
> luck with this procedure.
Which bit didn't you understand?
> > 0. Stop qmail.
> > 1. Check at initial injection:
> > 1-1. Inject a local delivery email with qmail-inject
> > 1-2. Inject a remote delivery email with qmail-inject
> > 1-3. Search thru /var/qmail/queue for the emails - rewritten?
>
> I was unable to find any email with a matching time stamp.
You say you stopped qmail and then you injected the new mail and that
no file in /var/qmail/queue contained the text that matches
/tmp/message?
How did you look? Show us.
> I am using:
>
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
>
> Is this ok?
Yes.
> I don't understand why these two are different:
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -n
You haven't yet given *any* evidence to suggest they are different?
When are they different exactly? Show us the real before and after.
> > 2. Check at queue processed:
> > 2-1. Backup your /var/qmail/control/concurrency* files
>
> I don't have any concurrency* files at all. Is this normal?
Yes. It's fine. Thus restoring them in this case means to remove the
temporary ones.
>
> > 2-2. Change both concurrency control files to have zero in them
> > 2-3. Start qmail.
> > 2-4. Search thru /var/qmail/queue for the emails - rewritten?
>
> > 3. Check final delivery:
> > 3-1. Restore your backup concurrency files.
> > 3-2. Restart qmail.
> > 3-3. Examine final delivery destinations - rewritten?
I repeat. Show us before and after, with all headers.
Regards.
Peter Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why these two are different:
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
> cat /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -n
>
> The -n version shows the proper "from" contained in /tmp/message.
>From the man page for qmail-inject:
-fsender Pass sender to qmail-queue as the envelope sender
address. This overrides Return-Path and all envi�
ronment variables.
-N (Default.) Feed the resulting message to qmail-
queue.
-n Print the message rather than feeding it to qmail-
queue.
I don't recall the text of your original message; did you have a
Return-Path: header in it? Also, are any of $USER, $QMAILUSER, $MAILUSER,
$LOGNAME, $QMAILHOST, or $MAILHOST set?
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 all,
I have been searching the whole message list and I have not found any clear
answer to my doubt.
My query is as follows:
I need to copy every message that goes out or that comes in to a determined
user to another local or remote mailbox.
I have learnt how to do it with the inbound messages but I do not know how
to do it with the outbound messages, that is to say with the messages that
the user sends.
If anybody has any idea or any helpfull suggestion I'll be
gratefull. Thank you...
Andr�s Segovia
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Charrua wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been searching the whole message list and I have not found any clear
> answer to my doubt.
> My query is as follows:
>
> I need to copy every message that goes out or that comes in to a determined
> user to another local or remote mailbox.
> I have learnt how to do it with the inbound messages but I do not know how
> to do it with the outbound messages, that is to say with the messages that
> the user sends.
>
> If anybody has any idea or any helpfull suggestion I'll be
> gratefull. Thank you...
Have a look at the FAQ
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/admin.html#copies
Then craft a suitable filter to place in ~alias/.qmail-log
--
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"
Is the /var/qmail/users/assign file the only file that needs to be changed
to specify a new location for mail per virtual domain?
Peter Brezny
SysAdmin Services Inc.
Is there a way to do this easily? I want to change the Mail from address of
double bounces from #@[] to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this possible?
Thanks,
Laurence
--
Laurence Brockman
Unix Administrator
Videon Cablesystems Alberta Inc
10450-178 St.
Edmonton, AB
T5S 1S2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(780) 486-6527
All-
Is there a way to block the delivery of messages through my smtp servers to
particular addresses?
I have qmail acting as a local relay sending mail from inside my network to
users on the outside. The users that I want to block would be on the
outside, but the mail is sent from the inside.
I can use the badmailfrom control file to block mail from someone, but I am
looking to block mail to a list of people.
As always, thanks for the help.
James
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 07:26:01PM -0500, James Morgenstein wrote:
> Is there a way to block the delivery of messages through my smtp servers to
> particular addresses?
You may want to take a look at the SPAMCONTROL patch avail at
http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/qmail_en.html
It has this (and also a wildcard version) - among other things.
If you only want badmailto functionality it shouldn't be too hard
to extract just that from the patch(es).
\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.
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:20:42PM -0800, shukla raghvendra wrote:
> i have installed the qmail accordingly to life
> with qmail but after
> running it it says --
> if i do qmail queue
>
> messages in queue :1
> messages in queue but not yet preprossed :1
>
> how to debug it . what's it is doing .
Please send your questions to the qmail mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris
Shukla,
> i have installed the qmail accordingly to life
> with qmail but after
> running it it says --
> if i do qmail queue
>
> messages in queue :1
> messages in queue but not yet preprossed :1
>
> how to debug it . what's it is doing .
You're probably running qmail-smtpd, which will accept E-mail and place it in the queue
("not yet preprocessed"), but qmail itself (qmail-send, qmail-clean, qmail-lspawn,
qmail-rspawn) isn't running, to process messages in the queue. Fix this by running
qmail-start (see Life with Qmail for details). You can verify whether qmail is running
by
using ps -elf or ps -auxw (depending on your system) and looking for the above ...send
..clean ...lspawn ...rspawn processes. If they're not there, qmail isn't running.
cheers,
Andrew.
|
Hi All,
I'm a newbie at Linux and qmail. The
problem I'm having is when doing a send / receive from outlook express it
connects to the server instantly but takes about 60 seconds plus to complete the
action?
any suggestions? please.
Richard.
|
Richard,
> I'm a newbie at Linux and qmail. The problem I'm having is when doing a
> send / receive from outlook express it connects to the server instantly
> but takes about 60 seconds plus to complete the action?
>
> any suggestions? please.
This is a qmail FAQ - see the description of tcpserver,
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html and checkout Dave Sill's Life with Qmail - see
www.qmail.org. Basically look at the -H, -R and -l options to tcpserver.
cheers,
Andrew.
Do you have any trouble with your DNS?
Vennlig hilsen
Sigbj|rn Lie
Fauske Videreg}ende Skole
Tlf. 75 600 343
Mob. 40 87 19 42
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: richard morris [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sendt: 14. desember 2000 06:16
Til: qmail help
Emne: speed please
Viktighet: H|y
Hi All,
I'm a newbie at Linux and qmail. The problem I'm having is when doing a send /
receive from outlook express it connects to the server instantly but takes
about 60 seconds plus to complete the action?
any suggestions? please.
Richard.
<<Fil: ATT00001.html>>
when I install rblsmtpd-0.70-1.i386.rpm
it need qmail-smtpd>=qmail-smtpd>=1.03+patches-7,
after I install qmail-smtpd>=1.03+patches-16
it need ucspi-tcp>=0.86-1
so I install ucspi-tcp and qmail-smtpd
but when I tried to install rblsmtpd.
it reported conflict with ucspi-tcp
what can I do??
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 03:08:45PM +0800, shaolei wrote:
> when I install rblsmtpd-0.70-1.i386.rpm
> it need qmail-smtpd>=qmail-smtpd>=1.03+patches-7,
> after I install qmail-smtpd>=1.03+patches-16
> it need ucspi-tcp>=0.86-1
> so I install ucspi-tcp and qmail-smtpd
> but when I tried to install rblsmtpd.
> it reported conflict with ucspi-tcp
> what can I do??
Don't install rblsmtpd, it's now a part of ucspi-tcp.
PGP signature
Hi Everyone!
I use qmail as my MTA and I have vpopmail installed. The problem is I create
a virtualdomain with virtual users and I want to do this: All e-mail sent
to a pop user put the mail in the Maildir of the user, and all e-mail sent to
an address which do not exists like ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) should be sent to
an external address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). I do this:
I create the popusers.
----.qmail-default------
| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------
----.qmail-postmaster---
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------
I think this should work but all e-mail I send goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Can anybody help me?.
Thanks in advance
--
Jes�s Arn�iz
Departamento de Sistemas
ARCOMEDIA.COM
Probably not supposed to talk about these addons here....but anyways:
I have vpopmail setup on a box now in use. Was wondering if there was some
tips on how to gently switch to vmailmgr.
Thinking about changing, since vmailmgr has also IP based vpop not only
namebased + directory struckture feature.
Another question while I'm posting. Is there any big differences between
vpopmail and mailmgr, besides IP based popaccounts. Are they both as
relyable and so on?
Thanks,
-Stian
