qmail Digest 9 Jan 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1239
Topics (messages 54863 through 54928):
Re: spam filter
54863 by: Vince Vielhaber
54864 by: Jenny Holmberg
54865 by: Brian Longwe
54868 by: Vince Vielhaber
Re: Stopping a single address
54866 by: Andrew Richards
Timestamp
54867 by: Alessander Salgueirosa
54876 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
54869 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54870 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54872 by: Johan Almqvist
54873 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54874 by: Johan Almqvist
54875 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54883 by: Alex Pennace
54885 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54886 by: Alex Pennace
54888 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54889 by: Vince Vielhaber
54890 by: Alex Pennace
54892 by: Alex Pennace
54895 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
54900 by: Henning Brauer
newbie help
54871 by: M. Yu
54884 by: Henning Brauer
54887 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: dns question
54877 by: I. Herman
54879 by: Johan Almqvist
qmail-scanner (was RE: spam filter)
54878 by: Brian Longwe
54897 by: Jason Haar
Re: Speed Problem
54880 by: Mark Delany
54881 by: Michael Maier
54898 by: Mark Delany
Re: About Qmail & Ldap
54882 by: Henning Brauer
SMTP Auth ?
54891 by: Alexander Meis (simmail]
54893 by: Jose AP Celestino
54894 by: Matthew Patterson
inetd.conf with qpopper and poplock ?
54896 by: Alexander Meis (simmail]
54901 by: Henning Brauer
54904 by: Vince Vielhaber
Relay control
54899 by: Vidal Augusto Zapparoli Castro Melo
54902 by: Matthew Patterson
MS products hanging with SMTP
54903 by: Peter Green
mailroutes vs smtproutes (was: FIX!)
54905 by: Johan Almqvist
54906 by: melo.isp.novis.pt
footer patch??
54907 by: BOFH
54908 by: Johan Almqvist
54911 by: David L. Nicol
54923 by: Johan Almqvist
addition to qmail init script
54909 by: Bill Parker
54925 by: James Raftery
Re: emulating sendmail's [EMAIL PROTECTED] feature?
54910 by: David L. Nicol
Re: badmailpattern
54912 by: Marc-Adrian Napoli
help needed
54913 by: I. Herman
54914 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
54915 by: Andy Bradford
Startup Script Advise
54916 by: Aaron Carr
54917 by: Steve Kapinos
Qmail BlackHole spam/other filter program
54918 by: Chris Kennedy
Re: getting help with tcpserver
54919 by: Neil Grant
patch qmail-ldap
54920 by: one
Re: Mail-Proxy
54921 by: Redak, Dorian
alias' for all users
54922 by: Dennis
hello,how can't attach some word in all outgoing mail,any suggestion is welcome
54924 by: dick
Re: Suggestion regarding qmtp patch to qmail-remote.c
54926 by: Johan Almqvist
The attach becomes -> "file.dat"
54927 by: �rjan V�llestad
strange problems with qmail and vpopmail.
54928 by: Jes�s Arn�iz
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
> "Brian Longwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Harald
> >
> > I'm not running an open relay. I am using tcpserver and allowing relaying
> > only for IP addresses that belong to my network (RELAYCLIENT). The problem
> > here is that it's one of my customers who has an application that is sending
> > out all this junk mail. How do I set up a filter to block until I can get
> > them to disable the application?
>
>
> echo "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
>
>
This won't work. The envelope sender for hahaha is empty. The address
you see in the From line is part of the data.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This won't work. The envelope sender for hahaha is empty. The address
> you see in the From line is part of the data.
You are correct - my apologies. I claim lack of caffeine.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
OK Vince, what will work?
Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:10 PM
> To: Jenny Holmberg
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: spam filter
>
>
> On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
>
> > "Brian Longwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Harald
> > >
> > > I'm not running an open relay. I am using tcpserver and
> allowing relaying
> > > only for IP addresses that belong to my network
> (RELAYCLIENT). The problem
> > > here is that it's one of my customers who has an application
> that is sending
> > > out all this junk mail. How do I set up a filter to block
> until I can get
> > > them to disable the application?
> >
> >
> > echo "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
> >
> >
>
> This won't work. The envelope sender for hahaha is empty. The address
> you see in the From line is part of the data.
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
> 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
> Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
> Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Brian Longwe wrote:
> OK Vince, what will work?
I've been letting them come in then contacting the user and pointing
them to the fix. I've heard that qmail-scanner will detect this tho.
There's a link to it on www.qmail.org.
Vince.
>
> Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:10 PM
> > To: Jenny Holmberg
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: spam filter
> >
> >
> > On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
> >
> > > "Brian Longwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Harald
> > > >
> > > > I'm not running an open relay. I am using tcpserver and
> > allowing relaying
> > > > only for IP addresses that belong to my network
> > (RELAYCLIENT). The problem
> > > > here is that it's one of my customers who has an application
> > that is sending
> > > > out all this junk mail. How do I set up a filter to block
> > until I can get
> > > > them to disable the application?
> > >
> > >
> > > echo "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This won't work. The envelope sender for hahaha is empty. The address
> > you see in the From line is part of the data.
> >
> > Vince.
> > --
> > ==========================================================================
> > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
> > 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
> > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
> > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> > ==========================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
> Phil Barnett writes:
>
> > Is it outlined somewhere how to block a single mail address to a
> > single mail address.
> >
> > I have a user who is being harrassed and I need to intervene.
>
> If someone is harrassing one of your users, then it would be reasonable to
> presume that in doing so, they give up the privilege to email *anyone* at
> your site. Therefore, adding the offender's email address to
> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom will do the trick.
.... alternatively, if you don't want the harrasser to know that they're being
blocked, you could setup a custom .qmail file for the user receiving the
harrassing mails, that filters out anything that looks unpleasant (Do this
by using a "Program delivery" to check the E-mail: Only then deliver
the message if it's not considered harrassing). An example .qmail file
for the harrassed user might look like this,
| harrassment_checker
./Maildir/
where the harrassment_checker program could be shell or Perl script. If
it wishes to reject a message, it can return the error code 99. This should
mean that the harrasser doesn't get any "Message rejected" type error,
and the intended recipient doesn't receive the harrassing message. All
other mail goes through as normal.
See "man dot-qmail" for more details, also search the archive for messages
about writing .qmail files (you could, for example, trivially extend the above
to capture all harrassing E-mails in a separate Maildir).
cheers,
Andrew.
|
Hi all
See, i have a big matter here.
One client have the qmail installed in his server, and the time is set
ok.
But all the messages come whit 1 hour later in time (timestamp i
belive)
Some one knows how to configure it ????
Did i use the qmail-inject command ????
Someone have this problem too ????
I need this help quickly ....
Thanks ....
|
+ "Alessander Salgueirosa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Hi all
|
| See, i have a big matter here.
| One client have the qmail installed in his server, and the time is set ok.
| But all the messages come whit 1 hour later in time (timestamp i belive)
| Some one knows how to configure it ????
Hmm. I thought maybe it's just because qmail tends to use UTC for
timestamps, but that can't be it, since you're in timezone -0200.
(-0200? I guess Brazil stretches even further east than I knew.)
So I think the clock must be set wrong on the server.
If you are concerned about the UTC problem, maybe this reference will
give you a hint:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/muas.html#mailx
Note that qmail always uses UTC for Received header fields, and there
is nothing you can do about it without patching qmail. Most mail
clients create their own Date header field (usually obeying the local
timezone), in which case qmail won't touch it. And in case they
don't, just make sure your client calls datemail instead of the
sendmail clone and it should be stamped with local time.
| Did i use the qmail-inject command ????
I don't know. Did you?
| I need this help quickly ....
Then please don't send us 10 KB graphics files attached to your
messages, and people will be more inclined to help. (We don't really
need the html part either.)
- Harald
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +0000, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:00:49AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory
> > > allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's
> > > code. I have released a new version, available from
> > >
> > > http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
> > >
> > > I'm still very eager to hear your comments. I'll stick with the mailroutes
> > > design for now, though :->
> >
> > One comment: if smtproutes is compatible with mailroutes, why not use
> > smtproutes instead of mailroutes?
>
> Because the name is too confining... It implies smtp. mail is more generic
> :)
> But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good
> tradition of the multiple qmail conf files)
There can be only one! ;)
Seriously, if we need to change names, then use a single file. It's a
precedence nightmare managing multiple files...
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best...
I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:36:25AM +0000, James Raftery wrote:
> My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for
> smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed
> first, thereby winning in any conflict situation.
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:21:25PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best...
> I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though.
> > My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for
> > smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed
> > first, thereby winning in any conflict situation.
There may be situations when we want to force smtp over qmtp, and that's
not possible with the two-files design if there's a wildcard in
qmtproutes. It's an off chance that somebody would want to do this, but I
feel uncomfortable about doing it...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Hi
My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
Best regards.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:42:07PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:21:25PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best...
> > I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though.
> > > My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for
> > > smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed
> > > first, thereby winning in any conflict situation.
>
> There may be situations when we want to force smtp over qmtp, and that's
> not possible with the two-files design if there's a wildcard in
> qmtproutes. It's an off chance that somebody would want to do this, but I
> feel uncomfortable about doing it...
>
> -Johan
> --
> Johan Almqvist
> http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:40:04PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
That I can accept. mailroutes (for smtp and qmtp routes) and smtproutes,
mailroutes has priority over smtproutes?
Everyone OK with that?
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:40:04PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> > backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
>
> That I can accept. mailroutes (for smtp and qmtp routes) and smtproutes,
> mailroutes has priority over smtproutes?
No, opposite: smtproutes has priority over mailroutes. Backwards compatibility...
> Everyone OK with that?
I think you will be ok, because people who want two files can use
mailroutes for qmtproutes... :)
Summary:
- smtproutes is processed. If found there, use it and stop.
- mailroutes is processed.
this is backwards compatible. If you have confliting rules, then remove
the confliting rules from smtproutes and use mailroutes.
Best regards.
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
>
> backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
to rename the file.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> >
> > backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
>
> Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> to rename the file.
and why change it? is it broken?
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:08:33PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> > >
> > > backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
> >
> > Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> > to rename the file.
>
> and why change it? is it broken?
Its broken with respect to QMTP support, yes.
I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled
like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:08:33PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > > > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> > > >
> > > > backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
> > >
> > > Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> > > to rename the file.
> >
> > and why change it? is it broken?
>
> Its broken with respect to QMTP support, yes.
>
> I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled
> like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes.
A symlink get's the job done, granted. But I would prefer that the patch
doesn't change the current smtproutes behaviour if we can.
Image this:
- i have a stock qmail server with a smtproutes;
- i decide that I want to use qmtp with mxps
- i patch qmail with Russell's or Johan patch
- suddenly, my smtproutes stop working... because I forgot to rename
the smtproutes file.
Why? Is is that much trouble to have Johan patch read smtproutes first
and then mailroutes (or qmtproutes), and giving precedence to the
first? It gives you a clean upgrade path , and doesn't force you to
change the configuratio (mv smtproutes mailroutes) just because you
patched qmail...
My view: patches should add funcionality. They should make their best
not to force changes on a working situation.
But, maybe that's just me :)
Best regards,
PS: I've been sending my messages to both the list and private
Cc'ing. Sorry for that. I had Shift+L wrongly configured in mutt :)
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> >
> > backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
>
> Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> to rename the file.
Is Dan putting out a 1.04? I thought he was working on qmail2. Did
I miss something?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:33:48PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled
> > like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes.
>
> A symlink get's the job done, granted. But I would prefer that the patch
> doesn't change the current smtproutes behaviour if we can.
>
> Image this:
> - i have a stock qmail server with a smtproutes;
> - i decide that I want to use qmtp with mxps
> - i patch qmail with Russell's or Johan patch
> - suddenly, my smtproutes stop working... because I forgot to rename
> the smtproutes file.
Or imagine:
- I have a stock qmail server with smtproutes,
- I decide that I want to use QMTP,
- I setup an appropriate mailroutes file,
- It doesn't work, because I forgot to patch qmail.
> Why? Is is that much trouble to have Johan patch read smtproutes first
> and then mailroutes (or qmtproutes), and giving precedence to the
> first?
Why give smtproutes priority? If mailroutes doesn't exist than
smtproutes will be used anyway, if smtproutes support is kept.
> It gives you a clean upgrade path , and doesn't force you to
> change the configuratio (mv smtproutes mailroutes) just because you
> patched qmail...
Why must every outdated configuration be supported because some people
can reconcile using patch -p1 < johans-patch but can't reconcile mv
onecontrolfile anothercontrolfile? People should be following
directions in README, INSTALL, and UPGRADE.
> My view: patches should add funcionality. They should make their best
> not to force changes on a working situation.
Patches always change a working situation, by definition.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:36:36AM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> > to rename the file.
>
> Is Dan putting out a 1.04? I thought he was working on qmail2. Did
> I miss something?
I don't know, but I was citing such a hypothetical example to make my point.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:48:26AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
>
> Or imagine:
>
> - I have a stock qmail server with smtproutes,
> - I decide that I want to use QMTP,
> - I setup an appropriate mailroutes file,
> - It doesn't work, because I forgot to patch qmail.
That's not a problem with the patch :) That's a problem with qmail,
not having support for qmtp builtin :)
> > Why? Is is that much trouble to have Johan patch read smtproutes first
> > and then mailroutes (or qmtproutes), and giving precedence to the
> > first?
>
> Why give smtproutes priority? If mailroutes doesn't exist than
> smtproutes will be used anyway, if smtproutes support is kept.
Johan patch, as far as I've read, does not read smtproutes anymore.
> Why must every outdated configuration be supported because some people
> can reconcile using patch -p1 < johans-patch but can't reconcile mv
> onecontrolfile anothercontrolfile? People should be following
> directions in README, INSTALL, and UPGRADE.
Because the patch is not official qmail. A patch that is not official
qmail, should not be incompatible with previous working configuration of
qmail. Even a big patch like qmail-ldap did that. It added several
features (the patch is 1/3 of qmail in size....) and a normal
configuration of qmail still works.
> > My view: patches should add funcionality. They should make their best
> > not to force changes on a working situation.
>
> Patches always change a working situation, by definition.
"working situation" no. they change features available.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
[smtproutes vs mailroutes]
my point of view:
if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes
against stock qmail.
if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README.
There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over
smtproutes. I personally would ignore the whole smtproutes file in this case,
but giving mailroutes precedence makes sense.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Hello all,
I am new to this list and qmail itself. I am using Bruce Guetner's qmail
RPMs on a RH6.2+updates system. I support IMAP via Courier-IMAP and POP3
via qmail-pop3d. Most of my clients are Internet cafes. I am planning to
give them unlimited number of e-mail addresses subject to the following
restrictions:
- I want to restrict the diskspace each user takes up to a set limit no
matter which e-mail address takes up more space
- I want to be able to allow each user to create e-mail addresses on their
own (without any need to inform me)
- I want each e-mail address to be downloadable by a person who knows the
password for that particular e-mail address
- As much as possible, allow user to specify e-mail address instead of
forcing him to use the form [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any tips/ideas how to do this?
Thanks!
M. Yu
P.S. Why doesn't Dan B. release an official RPM of qmail?
Am Montag, 8. Januar 2001 13:33 schrieb M. Yu:
> Hello all,
>
> I am new to this list and qmail itself. I am using Bruce Guetner's qmail
> RPMs on a RH6.2+updates system. I support IMAP via Courier-IMAP and POP3
> via qmail-pop3d. Most of my clients are Internet cafes. I am planning to
> give them unlimited number of e-mail addresses subject to the following
> restrictions:
>
> - I want to restrict the diskspace each user takes up to a set limit no
> matter which e-mail address takes up more space
In gerneral, your os quota system may help.
> - I want to be able to allow each user to create e-mail addresses on their
> own (without any need to inform me)
you'll have to write a management interface then.
> - I want each e-mail address to be downloadable by a person who knows the
> password for that particular e-mail address
Thats always the case...
> - As much as possible, allow user to specify e-mail address instead of
> forcing him to use the form [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same as above, write something
> Any tips/ideas how to do this?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> M. Yu
>
> P.S. Why doesn't Dan B. release an official RPM of qmail?
RPMs are limited to Linux (are their other OSes using rpm?) while Dans source
distribution works on all Unix Flavors. I'd have trouble with rpms on
OpenBSD...
But I can do the same as you: Why doesn't Dan release a package for OpenBSD?
And one for FreeBSD, NetBSD, a Debian package, a Solaris package, ...
The answer is obvious, isn't it?
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:33:58PM +0800, M. Yu wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am new to this list and qmail itself. I am using Bruce Guetner's qmail
> RPMs on a RH6.2+updates system. I support IMAP via Courier-IMAP and POP3
> via qmail-pop3d. Most of my clients are Internet cafes. I am planning to
> give them unlimited number of e-mail addresses subject to the following
> restrictions:
I think you need a virtual account system of some kind. qmail-ldap,
vpopmail and vmailmgr come to mind - check them out on
http://www.qmail.org/
Then, you'll have
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
etc. Quota, web admin interfaces etc are also possible...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
there is a list archive for BIND/DNS at:
http://www.isc.org/ml-archives/bind-users/
ALso on there you can join the list, which is a crossover to the newsgroup:
comp.protocols.dns.bind (i think that is what it's called).
As for the MX record. The MX record is what tells the world to send mail to
the domain being resolved, which you already know. You may be able to ping
it, but can you see it via nslookup (on a 'NIX machine).
First, if you do a NSLOOKUP and it says "non-authoritive answer", then it's
cached in your DNS and won't be able to truly test the outside availability.
The best way to tell if ppl can see it is find a UNIX box, and do the
following (or email me directly, and I'll look it up):
nslookup
>set type=mx
>mail.xyz.com
and see what it gives you. Personally, I would make sure it's in the zone
file of my serving DNS machines. It's only 1-2 lines in the zone files and
may save future headaches down the road.
Just my $.02 worth.
Izzie
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:15:25AM +0000, Andrew Alford wrote:
> Is it necessary, even if you can ping on the internet your "mail.xyz.com
> or smtp.xyz.com", to have your mx server listed with your registrar?
That depends. If your mail addresses are of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED], you will
need either the host xyz.com "pingable" and running an SMTP server, or an
MX record for xyz.com pointing to mail.xyz.com.
If your mail addresses are [EMAIL PROTECTED], you will be fine without MX
records - if the host mail.xyz.com is running an SMTP server.
If you want _real_ help, give us the _real_ domain names.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
OK, I'm looking at the qmail-scanner option and installing all the
prerequisite applications. From what I see in the documentation, it looks
like there might be significant increase in my memory/cpu overhead. I'm a
bit worried about this does anyone have experience with qmail-scanner in a
production environment?
Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:10 PM
> To: Brian Longwe
> Cc: Jenny Holmberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: spam filter
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Brian Longwe wrote:
>
> > OK Vince, what will work?
>
> I've been letting them come in then contacting the user and pointing
> them to the fix. I've heard that qmail-scanner will detect this tho.
> There's a link to it on www.qmail.org.
>
> Vince.
>
>
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:10 PM
> > > To: Jenny Holmberg
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: spam filter
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8 Jan 2001, Jenny Holmberg wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Brian Longwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Harald
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not running an open relay. I am using tcpserver and
> > > allowing relaying
> > > > > only for IP addresses that belong to my network
> > > (RELAYCLIENT). The problem
> > > > > here is that it's one of my customers who has an application
> > > that is sending
> > > > > out all this junk mail. How do I set up a filter to block
> > > until I can get
> > > > > them to disable the application?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > echo "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This won't work. The envelope sender for hahaha is empty.
> The address
> > > you see in the From line is part of the data.
> > >
> > > Vince.
> > > --
> > >
> ==========================================================================
> > > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pop4.net
> > 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
> > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
> > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> >
==========================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:27:45PM +0300, Brian Longwe wrote:
>
> OK, I'm looking at the qmail-scanner option and installing all the
> prerequisite applications. From what I see in the documentation, it looks
> like there might be significant increase in my memory/cpu overhead. I'm a
> bit worried about this does anyone have experience with qmail-scanner in a
> production environment?
Qmail-Scanner can do what you want - but it is intended for bigger/more
general things than blocking Emails with a certain From: header/etc...
There are already other anti-spam patches referred to on www.qmail.org that
can do what you want - with much less overhead that perl-based solutions
like Qmail-Scanner.
However, if you think you may soon want more than just header blocks - e.g.
header regex matching, attachment blocking and anti-virus scanning, then
Qmail-Scanner may be more for you..
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Special Projects, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:14:58AM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> Hi again!
> I'm running qmail with big concurrency and big todo patch under Solaris
> 7 on a mirrored Disk.
> It's horrible slow and sometimes there is a Message while sending Mail:
> "451 qq trouble creating files in queue(#4.3.0)"
Sigh. What do you mean by slow? 1000 deliveries a second? One delivery
a day? You haven't defined what you mean by slow and haven't shown how
what happens is different.
How about some log files showing what you think are slow deliveries?
Remember, we know nothing about your system so imagine someone came to
you and said "my mail is slow". What sort of information would you
need to solve that problem? Then imagine that we need that information
too.
Btw. The log message you "sort of" showed indicates a problem with your
particular installation.
Regards.
> Possible Bottlenecks could be the semaphore Mechanism or the Solaris
> File System but it's very uncommon.
> So maybe you People could help me out of this Disaster! It's a SUN Netra
> T1 Machine. qmail Config is:
>
> qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
> user-ext delimiter: -.
> paternalism (in decimal): 2.
> silent concurrency limit: 2045.
> subdirectory split: 521.
> user ids: 100, 101, 102, 0, 103, 104, 105, 106.
> group ids: 100, 101.
>
> badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
>
> bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON.
>
> bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> concurrencylocal: Local concurrency is 250.
>
> concurrencyremote: Remote concurrency is 400.
>
> databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
>
> defaultdomain: Default domain name is flatfox.de.
>
> defaulthost: Default host name is hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
>
> envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> locals:
> Messages for flatmail.flatfox.de are delivered locally.
> Messages for flatmail.flatfox.com are delivered locally.
> Messages for zeus.flatfox.de are delivered locally.
> Messages for hermes.flatfox.de are delivered locally.
> Messages for localhost are delivered locally.
>
> me: My name is hermes.flatfox.de.
>
> percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
>
> plusdomain: Plus domain name is flatfox.de.
>
> qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
>
> queuelifetime: Message lifetime in the queue is 259200 seconds.
>
> rcpthosts:
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at flatfox.de.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at flatmail.flatfox.de.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at zeus.flatfox.de.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at flatfox.com.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at flatfox.co.uk.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at flatfox.fr.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost.
> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at e-trend.de.
>
> morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
>
> morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
>
> smtpgreeting: SMTP greeting: 220 flatfox service.
>
> smtproutes:
>
> timeoutconnect: SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds.
>
> timeoutremote: SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds.
>
> timeoutsmtpd: SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds.
>
> virtualdomains: (Default.) No virtual domains.
>
> defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does.
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
> Michael..
>
Mark Delany wrote:
> Sigh. What do you mean by slow? 1000 deliveries a second? One delivery
> a day? You haven't defined what you mean by slow and haven't shown how
> what happens is different.
>
> How about some log files showing what you think are slow deliveries?
>
> Remember, we know nothing about your system so imagine someone came to
> you and said "my mail is slow". What sort of information would you
> need to solve that problem? Then imagine that we need that information
> too.
>
> Btw. The log message you "sort of" showed indicates a problem with your
> particular installation.
>
> Regards.
With slow I mean 2,5 Mails/Second
And here the Log (tail -50)
@400000003a560097224f16b4 end msg 993330
@400000003a5611343730e60c new msg 993330
@400000003a561134373487bc info msg 993330: bytes 730 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2383 uid 60001
@400000003a56113501ad86fc starting delivery 3850: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a56113501b06944 status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a56113510332204 delivery 3850: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a56113510f8045c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
@400000003a56113510ff66fc end msg 993330
@400000003a5679b306f91a54 new msg 993330
@400000003a5679b306fcb81c info msg 993330: bytes 864 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3406 uid 60001
@400000003a5679b30d41b31c starting delivery 3851: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a5679b30d44994c status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a5679b32d659adc delivery 3851: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a5679b32e4e3d8c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
@400000003a5679b32e55b79c end msg 993330
@400000003a567b0510862fbc new msg 993330
@400000003a567b05108656cc info msg 993330: bytes 829 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3411 uid 60001
@400000003a567b0516447e2c starting delivery 3852: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a567b0516476844 status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a567b051a6dc51c delivery 3852: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a567b051b45c5fc status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
@400000003a567b051b4d112c end msg 993330
@400000003a57591829e1bbac new msg 993330
@400000003a57591829e5846c info msg 993330: bytes 917 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5479 uid 60001
@400000003a5759183162efcc starting delivery 3853: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a57591831631eac status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a575919049bc964 delivery 3853: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a575919058cc0e4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
@400000003a57591905943af4 end msg 993330
@400000003a57c2e8339af9c4 new msg 993330
@400000003a57c2e8339b20d4 info msg 993330: bytes 768 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 6674 uid 60001
@400000003a57c2e838bf2b14 starting delivery 3854: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a57c2e838bf5224 status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a57c2e90d7a66bc delivery 3854: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a57c2e90e85d3ac status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
@400000003a57c2e90e8d45ec end msg 993330
@400000003a5869cb2dff620c new msg 993330
@400000003a5869cb2dff8d04 info msg 993330: bytes 728 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 8079 uid 60001
@400000003a5869cb3469696c starting delivery 3855: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a5869cb3469907c status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a5869cc085673ec delivery 3855: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a5869cc0949114c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
@400000003a5869cc09507004 end msg 993330
@400000003a58ceec349c9314 new msg 993330
@400000003a58ceec349cba24 info msg 993330: bytes 839 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 9943 uid 60001
@400000003a58ceed00c5902c starting delivery 3856: msg 993330 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003a58ceed00c5de4c status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
@400000003a58cef10f297264 delivery 3856: success:
213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
@400000003a58cef11007a91c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:43:26PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
>
> > Sigh. What do you mean by slow? 1000 deliveries a second? One delivery
> > a day? You haven't defined what you mean by slow and haven't shown how
> > what happens is different.
> >
> > How about some log files showing what you think are slow deliveries?
> >
> > Remember, we know nothing about your system so imagine someone came to
> > you and said "my mail is slow". What sort of information would you
> > need to solve that problem? Then imagine that we need that information
> > too.
> >
> > Btw. The log message you "sort of" showed indicates a problem with your
> > particular installation.
> >
> > Regards.
>
> With slow I mean 2,5 Mails/Second
>
> And here the Log (tail -50)
>
> @400000003a560097224f16b4 end msg 993330
> @400000003a5611343730e60c new msg 993330
> @400000003a561134373487bc info msg 993330: bytes 730 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2383 uid 60001
A wrapped log is no fun.
In any event this log shows nothing about anything. What makes you
conclude anything from this? Where do you get the 2.5 Mails/second as
a maximum rate for this server? You aren't confusing latency with
thruput are you?
Again, tell us what you expect and show us, in the logs, where that
expectation isn't met.
Regards.
> @400000003a56113501ad86fc starting delivery 3850: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a56113501b06944 status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a56113510332204 delivery 3850: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a56113510f8045c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
> @400000003a56113510ff66fc end msg 993330
> @400000003a5679b306f91a54 new msg 993330
> @400000003a5679b306fcb81c info msg 993330: bytes 864 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3406 uid 60001
> @400000003a5679b30d41b31c starting delivery 3851: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a5679b30d44994c status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a5679b32d659adc delivery 3851: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a5679b32e4e3d8c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
> @400000003a5679b32e55b79c end msg 993330
> @400000003a567b0510862fbc new msg 993330
> @400000003a567b05108656cc info msg 993330: bytes 829 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3411 uid 60001
> @400000003a567b0516447e2c starting delivery 3852: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a567b0516476844 status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a567b051a6dc51c delivery 3852: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a567b051b45c5fc status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
> @400000003a567b051b4d112c end msg 993330
> @400000003a57591829e1bbac new msg 993330
> @400000003a57591829e5846c info msg 993330: bytes 917 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 5479 uid 60001
> @400000003a5759183162efcc starting delivery 3853: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a57591831631eac status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a575919049bc964 delivery 3853: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a575919058cc0e4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
> @400000003a57591905943af4 end msg 993330
> @400000003a57c2e8339af9c4 new msg 993330
> @400000003a57c2e8339b20d4 info msg 993330: bytes 768 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 6674 uid 60001
> @400000003a57c2e838bf2b14 starting delivery 3854: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a57c2e838bf5224 status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a57c2e90d7a66bc delivery 3854: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a57c2e90e85d3ac status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
> @400000003a57c2e90e8d45ec end msg 993330
> @400000003a5869cb2dff620c new msg 993330
> @400000003a5869cb2dff8d04 info msg 993330: bytes 728 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 8079 uid 60001
> @400000003a5869cb3469696c starting delivery 3855: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a5869cb3469907c status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a5869cc085673ec delivery 3855: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a5869cc0949114c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
> @400000003a5869cc09507004 end msg 993330
> @400000003a58ceec349c9314 new msg 993330
> @400000003a58ceec349cba24 info msg 993330: bytes 839 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 9943 uid 60001
> @400000003a58ceed00c5902c starting delivery 3856: msg 993330 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @400000003a58ceed00c5de4c status: local 0/10 remote 1/400
> @400000003a58cef10f297264 delivery 3856: success:
> 213.61.184.157_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok/
> @400000003a58cef11007a91c status: local 0/10 remote 0/400
>
>
Am Montag, 8. Januar 2001 11:15 schrieb one:
> > Hi :
> How I config qmail and ldap ?
> Why I cannot patch qmail-ldap and How ? Is error.
> Where I can find more info about qmail-ldap ?
> Can you help me ?
We have our own mailing list for qmail-ldap, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Documentation lives on http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/
Before posting to the list, make sure
-you _understood_ stock qmail and have some experience with it
-you _understood_ ldap
-you have read all available documentation carefully
"life with qmail-ldap" at the above mentioned URL guides you through the
compiling and setup and should have solutions for common problems.
Just to remember, the qmail-ldap mantra:
Note: This is NOT point-and-click-and-then-it-works ware!
You should have fairly good prior knowledge of qmail and LDAP.
Greetings
Henning
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Hi...
is there a possibility with qmail to do a pop-before-smtp for authenticating
a user
to qmail so that all users can send mail to my qmail ?
Regards,
Alexander Meis
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:45:32PM +0100, Alexander Meis (simmail] wrote:
> Hi...
>
> is there a possibility with qmail to do a pop-before-smtp for authenticating
> a user
> to qmail so that all users can send mail to my qmail ?
>
Of course. Go to www.qmail.org, search auth. You'll find something.
Also look at a recent thread on this mailing list.
C ya.
--
Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.sapo.pt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Think of your family tonight. Try to crawl home after the computer crashes.
take a look at vchkpw from www.inter7.com
they keep a rules list based on the tcpserver rules list that gets an ip added
to it when a user pops their mail off, then removes it after a configurable
amount of time.
MHP
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, Alexander Meis (simmail] wrote:
Hi...
is there a possibility with qmail to do a pop-before-smtp for authenticating
a user
to qmail so that all users can send mail to my qmail ?
Regards,
Alexander Meis
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
Hi...
i hope this is the support list for smtp-poplock v2.0
How does the pop line in the inetd.conf should look like when i want
to ust the poplick with qpopper?
This is the original.
pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/local/lib/popper qpopper -s
Thanks for helping
Alex
Am Montag, 8. Januar 2001 19:00 schrieb Alexander Meis (simmail]:
> Hi...
>
> i hope this is the support list
There are no support lists, there are just mailing lists with users.
> for smtp-poplock v2.0
> How does the pop line in the inetd.conf should look like when i want
> to ust the poplick with qpopper?
??? You are on the false list. qpopper has nothing to do with qmail (i can be
used with qmail in "compatibility mode", but it is not common). I never heard
about smtp-poplock. And using inetd is also uncommon for qmail installations.
> This is the original.
> pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/local/lib/popper qpopper -s
>
> Thanks for helping
>
> Alex
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Henning Brauer wrote:
> Am Montag, 8. Januar 2001 19:00 schrieb Alexander Meis (simmail]:
> > Hi...
> >
> > i hope this is the support list
>
> There are no support lists, there are just mailing lists with users.
>
> > for smtp-poplock v2.0
> > How does the pop line in the inetd.conf should look like when i want
> > to ust the poplick with qpopper?
>
> ??? You are on the false list. qpopper has nothing to do with qmail (i can be
> used with qmail in "compatibility mode", but it is not common). I never heard
> about smtp-poplock. And using inetd is also uncommon for qmail installations.
smtp-poplock was done by David Harris. If you're using mbox for qmail
delivery you can use qpopper. I had it set up for quite some time this
way before moving to solidpop. The current qpopper I believe will log
successful logins with IP address. The way I had set it up was to log
username, IP and date/time to stderr then I used tcpserver to run qpopper
and routed stderr to a file called /var/log/poplog. smtp-poplock's
readlog reads this file (I'm just using tail -f) and feeds it to poplock.
What I like about smtp-poplock as opposed to the other solution(s) is that
you don't have to patch any programs to make it work (if you use the newer
qpopper, otherwise you do).
Here's the startup line for qpopper:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /usr/local/bin/popper 2> /var/log/poplog &
and here's the startup line for qmail-smtpd:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -g 1001 -u 1004 0 25
/usr/sbin/relaylock /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2> /var/log/smptdlog &
To see what IPs are allowed to relay you use the program called
showallowed and you get an output like this:
ipaddr (and netmask) access window expires
-------------------------------- ----------------------------
123.45.67.89 Mon Jan 8 15:09:35 2001
You do need to make sure that smtp-poplock.conf has the right
parse_log_sub that matches your log output.
No patching.. That's what I like.
>
> > This is the original.
> > pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/local/lib/popper qpopper -s
Use tcpserver for this instead of inetd. It's more robust, stable and
reliable. In fact I've dumped inetd.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Please,
I'm using a e-mail server running qmail-1.03. How can I implement relay
control.
The problem is that I need to allow any mail for or from my domain and
relay from some IP addresses only.
Thanks
Vidal Melo
check out cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, you
wrote: Please,
I'm using a e-mail server running qmail-1.03. How can I implement relay
control.
The problem is that I need to allow any mail for or from my domain and
relay from some IP addresses only.
Thanks
Vidal Melo
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
This isn't *strictly* a qmail problem, but we are running qmail and seeing
some weird behavior.
I just upgraded our firewall to Redhat 7.0 w/ 2.2.16-22 kernel running
ipchains. We *were* at 2.0.38 w/ ipfwadm. Ever since, Outlook Express
(5.50.4522.1200) hangs in sending e-mail, but only in odd moments. (Eudora
Light 5.02 seems to work sporadically at best, Netscape 4.76 bombs in the
same way as OE, Mozilla 0.6 works just fine.) All running on Win98...
The temporary solution has been to run a packet sniffer like ``ngrep "*" -d
eth1 >& /dev/null''. For some bizarre reason, when the packet sniffer is
there, Outlook (and others) doesn't hang.
To try to track it down, I turned off the sniffer and attempted to send
e-mail. It hung. About five seconds after it hung, I started the sniffer up
again. After a second or two, it went through successfully.
The very first thing the sniffer found (all six times I ran this test, with
all of the problematic clients) was:
T 10.0.0.61:1060 -> 204.253.132.6:25 [AP]
0d 0a 2e 0d 0a .....
IIRC, that's "\r\n.\r\n" signifying the end of the DATA section, right?
Mail sent inside the firewall doesn't hang. Mail sent *anywhere* through the
firewall (via SMTP) hangs until either Outlook times out or the remote
server boots it. All other traffic remains unaffected; web browsing, for
instance, works just fine. I don't have any SMTP-specific firewall rules
either...
I've also asked on the linux-net mailing list, and am awaiting any thoughts
from there. Does anyone here have any clue what may be going on?
Thanks,
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
After watching my newly-retired dad spend two weeks learning how to make a new
folder, it became obvious that "intuitive" mostly means "what the writer or
speaker of intuitive likes".
(Bruce Ediger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], in comp.os.linux.misc, on X the
intuitiveness of a Mac interface.)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:21:28PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> [smtproutes vs mailroutes]
> if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes
> against stock qmail.
> if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README.
> There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over
> smtproutes. I personally would ignore the whole smtproutes file in this case,
> but giving mailroutes precedence makes sense.
Yes. This I like. I'll just ignore smtproutes if mailroutes exists! And
the README (or whatever) will say "cp smtproutes mailroutes" and not "mv"
- that guarantees that things will work as they used to if the user
decides to go back to not using my patch.
The code for reading the files will of course be the same, I'll even use
the same filehandle, just pointing to different files depending on the
existence of control/mailroutes. But I won't tell people you can have
:qmtp in smtproutes as that will break things when you go back to not
using QMTP. Oops, I told...
Thanks, Henning!
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Fine by me... as long as installing thew patch does not affect current config :)
Best regards :)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:24:14PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:21:28PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > [smtproutes vs mailroutes]
> > if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes
> > against stock qmail.
> > if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README.
> > There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over
> > smtproutes. I personally would ignore the whole smtproutes file in this case,
> > but giving mailroutes precedence makes sense.
>
> Yes. This I like. I'll just ignore smtproutes if mailroutes exists! And
> the README (or whatever) will say "cp smtproutes mailroutes" and not "mv"
> - that guarantees that things will work as they used to if the user
> decides to go back to not using my patch.
>
> The code for reading the files will of course be the same, I'll even use
> the same filehandle, just pointing to different files depending on the
> existence of control/mailroutes. But I won't tell people you can have
> :qmtp in smtproutes as that will break things when you go back to not
> using QMTP. Oops, I told...
>
> Thanks, Henning!
>
> -Johan
> --
> Johan Almqvist
> http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
Hi!
is there any patch, which add some text at the bottom of each sending
message?
__
WS
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:00:24PM +0100, BOFH wrote:
> is there any patch, which add some text at the bottom of each sending
> message?
It can be done using the QMAILQUEUE patch by Bruce G - but it's dangerous
as it may break MIME. Or complicated, as you'll have to parse the MIME
message, add the footer and then en-MIME it again.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Johan Almqvist wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:00:24PM +0100, BOFH wrote:
> > is there any patch, which add some text at the bottom of each sending
> > message?
>
> It can be done using the QMAILQUEUE patch by Bruce G - but it's dangerous
> as it may break MIME. Or complicated, as you'll have to parse the MIME
> message, add the footer and then en-MIME it again.
>
> -Johan
if you don't mind jamming it on at end of MIME,you could open up qmail-remote
and stick it within blast(), like this:
char *Footer = "\r\nAlmqvist Industries makes no claims of\r\n"
"the accurracy of any claims made by any of\r\n"
"our employees.\r\n"; /* new */
void blast()
{
int r;
char ch;
for (;;) {
r = substdio_get(&ssin,&ch,1);
if (r == 0) break;
if (r == -1) temp_read();
if (ch == '.')
substdio_put(&smtpto,".",1);
while (ch != '\n') {
substdio_put(&smtpto,&ch,1);
r = substdio_get(&ssin,&ch,1);
if (r == 0) perm_partialline();
if (r == -1) temp_read();
}
substdio_put(&smtpto,"\r\n",2);
}
substdio_put(&smtpto,Footer,strlen(Footer),102); /* new */
flagcritical = 1;
substdio_put(&smtpto,".\r\n",3);
substdio_flush(&smtpto);
}
Does that work?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Warning: may contain incomprehensible strings of random letters"
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:34:17PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> if you don't mind jamming it on at end of MIME,you could open up qmail-remote
> and stick it within blast(), like this:
> char *Footer = "\r\nAlmqvist Industries makes no claims of\r\n"
> "the accurracy of any claims made by any of\r\n"
> "our employees.\r\n"; /* new */
That would stick it in all mail that goes off the system. That may or may
not be wanted. QMAILQUEUE patch would let you control that from tcprules.
(Use one queueing program for mail that needs the footer and the original
qmail-queue for the rest).
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Hi All,
I was wondering, would it be possible to add the following to
my init script for qmail so that I can process tcprules changes on
a easier basis:
tcprules)
cp /etc/tcp.smtp /etc/tcp.smtp.bak
echo -n "tcprules file backed up..."
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
echo -n "installing new rules file..."
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
;;
Would something like this work, or could someone post an example if
they have already done this?
-Bill
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:16:27PM -0800, Bill Parker wrote:
> tcprules)
>
> cp /etc/tcp.smtp /etc/tcp.smtp.bak
> echo -n "tcprules file backed up..."
> tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
> echo -n "installing new rules file..."
> chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
> ;;
>
> Would something like this work, or could someone post an example if
> they have already done this?
Not really. Once you say 'qmail tcprules' (or whatever) /etc/tcp.smtp
and /etc/tcp.smtp.bak have the same contents. That's not much use!
The logic needs to be something like:
If tcp.smtp is good, make a backup; else leave current backup alone.
That should leave you with your current config (tcp.smtp) and your last
good config (tcp.smtp.bak).
Try:
tcprules)
echo -n "installing new rules file..."
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp && cp
/etc/tcp.smtp /etc/tcp.smtp.bak
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
;;
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54)
"Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like
herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Harrington wrote:
> Great! that does it. Any idea how to include a newline in the error
> though?
>
> along the lines of...
>
> | bouncesaying '\nMy new address is:\n\[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>
> ---Matt
how about
| bouncesaying [EMAIL PROTECTED] echo My new address is
More than that, opening up bouncesaying.c and adding
your own verbiage should not be too difficult; or
making any other program that exits 100.
Does that work, or does the bounce protocol only have room
for a one-line reason?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"the toad doesn't know..."
no,
i dont mean the badmailfrom file, i use that successfully already.
i want to block all mails with a particular pattern inside them. i see there
is a "badmailpattern" control file on the qmail webpage but no one can
verify if it works or not. (it doesnt work for me, ive already tried. i was
wondering if it worked for anyone else).
Regards,
Marc-Adrian Napoli
Network Admin
Connect Infobahn Australia
+61 2 9212 0387
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > has anyone used this file with success?
> >
> > and if not why is it still in the docs?
>
> Do you mean badmailfrom? Yes I have used it with success, very easy to
use.
> --
> B r e t t R a n d a l l
> http://xbox.ipsware.com/
> brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
>
I am getting the following all of a sudden. My control files all have that
domain in them.
Here is what I'm getting. This is a normal user account.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
x.x.x.x does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address
rejected: Relay access denied
Giving up on x.x.x.x.
--
Izzie M. Herman
******************
http://www.madhorizons.com
"Under construction and coming to a webpage near you."
You probably need to setup your machine to relay properly, it sounds like
you are using the rcpthosts as a substitute for this. If i'm wrong, did
you kill -HUP the qmail-send process after you added this to rcpthosts?
If im right, see:
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, I.Herman wrote:
| I am getting the following all of a sudden. My control files all have that
| domain in them.
|
| Here is what I'm getting. This is a normal user account.
|
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| x.x.x.x does not like recipient.
| Remote host said: 554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address
| rejected: Relay access denied
| Giving up on x.x.x.x.
| --
| Izzie M. Herman
| ******************
| http://www.madhorizons.com
| "Under construction and coming to a webpage near you."
|
--
John Gonzalez / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tularosa Communications, Inc. (505) 439-0200 voice / (505) 443-1228 fax
http://www.tularosa.net / ASN 11711 / JG6416
[----------------------------------------------[ sys info ]-----------]
4:55pm up 123 days, 23:24, 4 users, load average: 0.27, 0.34, 0.29
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:50:29 EST, wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> x.x.x.x does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address
> rejected: Relay access denied
> Giving up on x.x.x.x.
Hmm, this is not a qmail error message. In fact, if I do the following
it looks like you are connecting to a Postfix machine:
[andyb@work:desk andyb]$ telnet 24.165.127.56 25
Trying 24.165.127.56...
Connected to 24.165.127.56.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 pagan.madhorizons.com ESMTP Postfix (Postfix-19991231-pl08) (Linux-Mandrake)
MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Ok
RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied
QUIT
221 Bye
Connection closed by foreign host.
Looks like you forgot to disable Postfix or something...
Andy
I've set up a qmail server on an RH 6.2 box. I have a startup script for
qmail, what I'm looking for now is the most effective manner for starting up
qmail-pop3d and qmail-smtpd using tcpserver.
I've gone through tons and tons of docs, but what I'm curious about is-
Is it most effective to have one script that starts both qmail-pop3d and
qmail-smtpd, and how would that need to be written? Which one should be
called first? Does that matter? Etc....
Or, should I have a separate startup script for each?
I'm checking because lasts time I set this up, I believe I tried to have a
script for each, but they didn't work together. Once qmail-pop3d started,
qmail-smtpd didn't want to start up. It appeared to start fine, but when
attempting to send mail, the session would time out as though there was no
smtp daemon listening.
Anyone seen this type of thing?
In the near future, I'm going to enable webmail, but I want everything
functioning at a basic level before I move on that direction.
Any help anyone has would be super.
Thank much.
Aaron
Attached is the qmail script I use for qmail on my rh system. You'll have
to edit the line in the pop3 startup for your server. This one runs qmail's
maildir format, uses accustamp and cyclog for its logging, and smtp has
included the things for smtp-after-pop relaying. So depending on your
setup, you'll have to modify it some.. but this rc script is based on things
from HOWTOs, submissions from the list, etc.. and is pretty complete for a
standard smtp+pop3 setup without all the crazy virtual user add-ons, etc.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Carr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Startup Script Advise
I've set up a qmail server on an RH 6.2 box. I have a startup script for
qmail, what I'm looking for now is the most effective manner for starting up
qmail-pop3d and qmail-smtpd using tcpserver.
I've gone through tons and tons of docs, but what I'm curious about is-
Is it most effective to have one script that starts both qmail-pop3d and
qmail-smtpd, and how would that need to be written? Which one should be
called first? Does that matter? Etc....
Or, should I have a separate startup script for each?
I'm checking because lasts time I set this up, I believe I tried to have a
script for each, but they didn't work together. Once qmail-pop3d started,
qmail-smtpd didn't want to start up. It appeared to start fine, but when
attempting to send mail, the session would time out as though there was no
smtp daemon listening.
Anyone seen this type of thing?
In the near future, I'm going to enable webmail, but I want everything
functioning at a basic level before I move on that direction.
Any help anyone has would be super.
Thank much.
Aaron
qmail.rc
I have a program that is available under the GPL at
http://www.groovy.org/open.shtml
called BlackHole. It can be used in a .qmail file, and uses the major
RBL/ORBS type sites plus has recipient good/bad lists using regular
expressions. It is in Perl and can log and keep the email it blocks, and
has a configurable bounce message. It can be extended to do any number of
header checks, and would be useful for allowing users to do their own
badmailfrom checks/virus header/spam checking.
Thanks,
Chris Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi
I am having problems using tcpserver, I am trying to run sshd under it.
There doesnt seem to a list related to ucspi-tcp stuff so I am asking here.
Please reply off list. Is there a mailing list I can join about tcpserver?
anyone run sshd from tcpserver?
My problem is that sshd is setup and works fine as a stand alone demaen, but
I am wanting to run it under tcpserver, and using the -v switch I can see
that the tcpserver accepts the server but sshd doesnt seem to pick up the
connection.
Neil
|
Hi All
I want to setup qmail for ldap. I
patch src of qmail by command
# patch -p1 <
qmail-ldap-1.03-20001201.patch
But this command is alert error
:
Hunk #1 failed at line 0.
Hunk #2
failed at line 431.
Hunk #3 failed at line 1.
Hunk #4 failed at line
20.
Hunk #5 failed at line 136.
Hunk #6 failed at line 280.
Hunk #7
failed at line 386.
Hunk #8 failed at line 404.
Hunk #9 failed at line
432.
Hunk #10 failed at line 444.
Hunk #11 failed at line 457.
Hunk #12
failed at line 492.
Hunk #13 failed at line 703.
Hunk #14 failed at line
755.
Hunk #15 failed at line 779.
Hunk #16 failed at line 795.
Hunk #17
failed at line 806.
Hunk #18 failed at line 841.
Hunk #19 failed at line
1074.
Hunk #20 failed at line 1171.
Hunk #21 failed at line 1188.
Hunk
#22 failed at line 1213.
Hunk #23 failed at line 1268.
Hunk #24 failed at
line 1283.
Hunk #25 failed at line 1302.
Hunk #26 failed at line
1338.
Hunk #27 failed at line 1348.
Hunk #28 failed at line 1437.
Hunk
#29 failed at line 1446.
Hunk #30 failed at line 1458.
Hunk #31 failed at
line 1509.
Hunk #32 failed at line 1536.
Hunk #33 failed at line
1554.
Hunk #34 failed at line 1743.
Hunk #35 failed at line 2139.
Hunk
#36 failed at line 0.
Hunk #37 failed at line 0.
Hunk #38 failed at line
0.
Hunk #39 failed at line 0.
patch: Memory mapping error: Not enough
space
What happen about it?
Can you tell me ?
Thank you
someone
|
Sorry for the late reply and thanks a lot to all of you.
My Exhcange Server f...... (sorry) up alot of message in the past few days,
so I couldn't find your answers.
Me as a not so exerienced but very convinced unix admin would really
appreciate a documentation like this. It's not only that some admins are too
unexperienced, sometimes it's also a question of time.
cheers Dorian
-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:29 PM
To: Ould
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mail-Proxy
Am Samstag, 6. Januar 2001 04:06 schrieb Ould:
> Thank you Henning for reply.
>
> In my research to put architecture
> like this:
>
> Internet--Routeur--Fierwall--DMZ--fierwall--Lan
>
> Qmail Relay Qmail Lan
>
> I never find an explicitely DOC telling me: put in your me,
> rcphosts, locals, ... files of Qmail Relay blah, blah...,
> and in those of your Qmail Lan blah, blah,..., ET VOILA!
> and don't post to the mailing list a lot of mails dealing
> with this idea ;)
> I think that any begineer needs strongly DOCs like this and
> no getting a part of solution of his problem somtimes from
> you, Dave, Greg, and so on. But, I never find a detailled
> DOCS which do that. So, my goal is to make it available in
> the future. I had experienced several frustrations even
> with qmail installation, and want newbe's to avoid going
> "dans tous les sens"! Are you ready?
As I've written: an experienced unix administrator won't have problems
setting this up without an explicit documentation IMHO, but it looks like
there are more and more people switching to unix and qmail the same time (ar
lets say: trying to get qmail running without much unix knowledge and mail
in
general). Especially for those this could be a good help, so go on writing.
> About the architecture, I think that I'm true. I read
> recently several articles by consultants in security,
> architects,... about this subject (i.e. putting smtp relay
> in DMZ and real mail server in the Lan, and the appriate
> related fierwall configuration).
This is a common architecture. Not suitable for us as we are an ISP, but
common and IMHO good.
> This is not so older or
> frequent architecture as the IBM PC! Particularly with MTA
> like qmail.
I just wouldn't call qmail new - the newest version is 1.03,
qmail-1.03.tar.gz is dated june 1998. It is anyway modern ;-))
> Another example: are you already seeing a DOCs tolking
> about how setting up a web based mail using qmail with the
> fameous IMP/Horde webmail whatever the emplacement of your
> web site (on the Relay or the Lan servers)? If you know it
> please inform me.
Yes. Read the documentation for courier-imap and the doumentation for IMP
;-))
I prefer sqwebmail anyway.
> Anyway I'm still looking for a complete list of control
> files from you :-(
---setup-qmail-proxy.sh---
#!/bin/sh
if [ $# -ne 2 ]; then
echo usage: $0 domain lanservershostname
exit
fi
echo `hostname` > /var/qmail/control/me
echo $1 > /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
echo $1:$2 > /var/qmail/control/smtproutes
--------------------------
(not tested, but should be complete)
> Do You Yahoo!?
No.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Hi all...
Quick question.
Is it possible to set up[ alias' for all email accounts ?
Can I have an alias to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
Is this possible or will I need seperate accounts ?
Cheers
Dennis
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 07:05:02PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
> Russ offers: http://qmail.org/qmail-1.03-qmtpc.patch
> Feedback: Given a sample of one, this patch seems to work. Nice work.
> Suggestion: What about making the log file entries more consistent
> with the current format?
>
> Current smtp:
> success: 192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_978720863_qp_22711/
> Current qmtp:
> success: qmtp:_ok_978720977_qp_22786/All_received_okay_by_192.203.178.8/
>
> Suggested qmtp:
> success:
>qmtp:192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_ok_978720977_qp_22786/
> Then a triv change to the smtp output and we have parsing consistency.
Do we want smtp to say:
success:
smtp:192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_978720863_qp_22711/
and qmtp as suggested above?
Thoughts, anyone?
BTW: Done with mailroutes vs smtproutes. I just want to fix this too
before I rerelease the patch again...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
I really don't figure this out, I need to know why files become *.dat
files, when I send them with "sendfiles", and open/read them from
webmail or outlook.
What goes wrong?
I tried to just rename the file, but the file was not readable at all...
Med hilsen
Ørjan Vøllestad
i|Networkconsulent, iTet System as
t|Alkeveien 4, Postboks 2033
e|9265 Tromsø
t|Telefon: 77 64 78 22 / 77 67 91 00
|Mobil: 959 24 677
a|Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s|Web: http://www.itet.no
Hi everyone!
I use qmail and vpopmail. I install a new system and I put all domains there, it works
fine, but
when I create a new one (with vadddomain) this don't work. It creates it with an
extrange owner and
group (different from vpopmail.vchkpw), and even if I change this it don't work.
I get this in the maillog if I try to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 9 11:58:34 main qmail: 979037914.190687 delivery 5299: deferral:
Unable_to_switch_to_/home/vpopmail/domains/dominio.com:_access_denied._(#4.3.0)/
I use Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 (Potato).
Can anybody help me?.
Thanks in advance
--
Jesús Arnáiz
Departamento de Sistemas - ARCOMEDIA.COM
