qmail Digest 12 Jan 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1242
Topics (messages 55028 through 55078):
Re: tcpserver: fatal:, cat, svc commands not found
55028 by: Manvendra Bhangui
55029 by: pape.innominate.com
Re: qmail-smtpd-auth
55030 by: Vince Vielhaber
55055 by: Bjorn Nilsen
55058 by: Kris Kelley
55059 by: Vince Vielhaber
55060 by: Kris Kelley
55061 by: Kris Kelley
55062 by: Vince Vielhaber
55063 by: Vince Vielhaber
55064 by: Kris Kelley
55065 by: Vince Vielhaber
some problems with tcpserver
55031 by: Franco Galian
55037 by: Chris Johnson
concurrent connections??
55032 by: TAG
55040 by: Charles Cazabon
55041 by: Laurence Brockman
Re: QMTP running on sources.redhat.com
55033 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: badmailfrom for qmail-qmtpd
55034 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: Was my qmail hacked?
55035 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: Hy
55036 by: Seby
55038 by: Russell Nelson
Re: problem creating single user id
55039 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: speed of machines
55042 by: Alex Kramarov
55043 by: Michael Maier
55044 by: OK 2 NET - Andr� Paulsberg
55053 by: Matthew Patterson
55067 by: Ross Davis - Data Anywhere
qmail and times
55045 by: Paul Farber
55046 by: Charles Cazabon
Migrating from M$ Exchange to Qmail
55047 by: Steve Powell
55048 by: Henning Brauer
Re: Dot in email adress
55049 by: David L. Nicol
how to use eliminate-dups script?
55050 by: B.Negr�o
55075 by: Russell Nelson
Insert text into email redirected
55051 by: Alan R.
fifo smtproutes Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
55052 by: David L. Nicol
55054 by: Mark Delany
qmail uptime - for your amusement
55056 by: Mark Delany
55057 by: Peter van Dijk
55071 by: Mark Delany
max RCPT TOs and RFC821
55066 by: Markus Stumpf
55069 by: David Dyer-Bennet
55070 by: Mark Delany
55078 by: Van Liedekerke Franky
same UID with a lot of email
55068 by: email.mcmug.org
55073 by: Tim Hunter
AIX installation
55072 by: Raymund Cortez
local to local mail problem
55074 by: Peter Drahos
Help needed : qmail users
55076 by: Rohit Gupta
Disk Quota
55077 by: Rohit Gupta
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is in the script
PATH=/var/qmail/bin
The PATH environment variable is overwritten with just one entry. Hence the
shell is not able to figure out where the commands svc, rm, cat are. Suggest
you
replace with the following line
PATH=$PATH:/var/qmail/bin
export PATH
Regards Manny
----- Original Message -----
From: Ould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:22 PM
Subject: tcpserver: fatal:, cat, svc commands not found
> Hello,
>
> In the following several errors I always find when restart,
> stop, start qmail script I got from LWQ. There is also a
> part of this script of interest.
> I don't find what is the problem. The provlem arises
> particularly on Cobalt Raq3. In spite of this thigns works
> (tcpserver is running, sent/receive messages).
> Can anyone helps to fixe this?
>
>
> [root@phoenix qmail-smtpd]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail restart
> Restarting qmail:
> * Stopping qmail-smtpd.
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: svc: command not found
> * Sending qmail-send SIGTERM and restarting.
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: svc: command not found
> * Restarting qmail-smtpd.
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: svc: command not found
> [root@phoenix qmail-smtpd]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: cat: command not found
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: rm: command not found
> Stopping qmail: svscan/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: cat: command
> not found
> qmail/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: svc: command not found
> logging/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: svc: command not found
> .
> [root@phoenix qmail-smtpd]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start
> Starting qmail: svscan/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail: env: command
> not found
> tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number for
> smtpd
>
> ----------------------
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> PATH=/var/qmail/bin
> export PATH
>
> case "$1" in
> start)
> echo -n "Starting qmail: svscan"
> cd /var/qmail/supervise
> env - PATH="$PATH" svscan
> echo $! > /var/run/svscan.pid
> echo "."
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 501 -g 500 0 smtpd
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
> 2>&1 smtpd 3 &
> echo $! > /var/lock/subsys/qmail-smtpd
> ;;
> stop)
> kill `cat /var/lock/subsys/qmail-smtpd`
> rm -f /var/lock/subsys/qmail-smtpd
> echo -n "Stopping qmail: svscan"
> kill `cat /var/run/svscan.pid`
> echo -n " qmail"
> svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*
> echo -n " logging"
> svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*/log
> echo "."
> ;;
> stat)
> cd /var/qmail/supervise
> svstat * */log
> ;;
> doqueue|alrm)
> echo "Sending ALRM signal to qmail-send."
> svc -a /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
> ;;
> queue)
> qmail-qstat
> qmail-qread
> ;;
> reload|hup)
> echo "Sending HUP signal to qmail-send."
> svc -h /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
>
> Thanks
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:52:09AM -0800, Ould wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the following several errors I always find when restart,
> stop, start qmail script I got from LWQ. There is also a
> part of this script of interest.
> I don't find what is the problem. The provlem arises
> particularly on Cobalt Raq3. In spite of this thigns works
> (tcpserver is running, sent/receive messages).
> Can anyone helps to fixe this?
>
You do not have the daemontools binaries in Your $PATH.
> ----------------------
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> PATH=/var/qmail/bin
add /usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/bin for example.
Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Bjorn Nilsen wrote:
> I'm considering patching qmail with the qmail-smtpd-auth patch. The reason
> is that the roaming user pop before smtp function in vpopmail doesn't work
> very well with my clients mail clients. In particular if Outlook has mail in
> the Outbox it will always send that first no matter what. It does not have
> the option to just check pop.
> I am rather nervous about patching rock solid qmail with a 3rd party patch.
> So I'm interested in what experience people have had with it and if it works
> well. Also if it works well with vpopmail which I also depend on.
David Harris wrote smtp-poplock which doesn't require patching qmail.
You should be able to find it on www.qmail.org.
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 12/1/01 12:15 AM, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Bjorn Nilsen wrote:
>
>> I'm considering patching qmail with the qmail-smtpd-auth patch. The reason
>> is that the roaming user pop before smtp function in vpopmail doesn't work
>> very well with my clients mail clients. In particular if Outlook has mail in
>> the Outbox it will always send that first no matter what. It does not have
>> the option to just check pop.
>> I am rather nervous about patching rock solid qmail with a 3rd party patch.
>> So I'm interested in what experience people have had with it and if it works
>> well. Also if it works well with vpopmail which I also depend on.
>
> David Harris wrote smtp-poplock which doesn't require patching qmail.
> You should be able to find it on www.qmail.org.
>
> Vince.
smtp-poplock is just another implementation of "pop before smtp" which I
already have with vpopmail. I will explain in more detail why this solution
doesn't work for me. Many mail clients the default or only action is to send
mail before checking mail. So what happens is the mail client happily sends
all mail in the outbox then checks there mail via pop. This works fine until
all that mail just sent gets bounced right back from the smtp server because
the mail client had not authenticated with pop first allowing them relay
access. Then I end up with a very annoyed and confused user (is there any
other kind?). So the best solution I can see for this is smtp auth.
Also another question with qmail-smtp-auth if a host is already set up as a
relay client do they need to still provide a login password to get relay
access?
cheers,
Bjorn
--
Bjorn Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Manux Solutions Ltd
Ph +64 3 343 2031 Fax +64 3 343 3064
Level 1, 39 Leslie Hills Drive, Riccarton
PO Box 3074 Christchurch
Bjorn Nilsen wrote:
> I'm considering patching qmail with the qmail-smtpd-auth patch...
> I am rather nervous about patching rock solid qmail with a 3rd party
patch...
You're not going to find any ESMTP AUTH solutions for qmail that don't
involve patching qmail's source. I use Krzysztof Dabrowski's patch, and it
works like a charm. There was no problem applying the patch, no problem
compiling the patched source, and it has worked as advertised.
> Also another question with qmail-smtp-auth if a host is already set up as
a
> relay client do they need to still provide a login password to get relay
> access?
No. If the remote server doesn't try to authenticate itself, the
RELAYCLIENT environment variable is not changed. That means that if the
variable was already set by tcpserver, it will remain set.
---Kris
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Kris Kelley wrote:
> You're not going to find any ESMTP AUTH solutions for qmail that don't
> involve patching qmail's source.
This is completely false. smtp-poplock doesn't require patching the
qmail source. You can find a link to it on www.qmail.org.
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 wrote:
> > You're not going to find any ESMTP AUTH solutions for qmail that don't
> > involve patching qmail's source.
>
> This is completely false. smtp-poplock doesn't require patching the
> qmail source. You can find a link to it on www.qmail.org.
If I'm wrong, my apologies. I'm not familiar with smtp-poplock, and I was
basing what I said on Bjorn Nilsen's last reply, which said, "smtp-poplock
is just another implementation of 'pop before smtp.'"
---Kris Kelley
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > You're not going to find any ESMTP AUTH solutions for qmail that don't
> > involve patching qmail's source.
>
> This is completely false. smtp-poplock doesn't require patching the
> qmail source. You can find a link to it on www.qmail.org.
If I'm wrong, my apologies. I'm not familiar with smtp-poplock, and I was
basing what I said on Bjorn Nilsen's last reply, which said, "smtp-poplock
is just another implementation of 'pop before smtp.'"
---Kris Kelley
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Bjorn Nilsen wrote:
> on 12/1/01 12:15 AM, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Bjorn Nilsen wrote:
> >
> >> I'm considering patching qmail with the qmail-smtpd-auth patch. The reason
> >> is that the roaming user pop before smtp function in vpopmail doesn't work
> >> very well with my clients mail clients. In particular if Outlook has mail in
> >> the Outbox it will always send that first no matter what. It does not have
> >> the option to just check pop.
> >> I am rather nervous about patching rock solid qmail with a 3rd party patch.
> >> So I'm interested in what experience people have had with it and if it works
> >> well. Also if it works well with vpopmail which I also depend on.
> >
> > David Harris wrote smtp-poplock which doesn't require patching qmail.
> > You should be able to find it on www.qmail.org.
> >
> > Vince.
>
> smtp-poplock is just another implementation of "pop before smtp" which I
> already have with vpopmail. I will explain in more detail why this solution
> doesn't work for me. Many mail clients the default or only action is to send
> mail before checking mail. So what happens is the mail client happily sends
> all mail in the outbox then checks there mail via pop. This works fine until
> all that mail just sent gets bounced right back from the smtp server because
> the mail client had not authenticated with pop first allowing them relay
> access. Then I end up with a very annoyed and confused user (is there any
> other kind?). So the best solution I can see for this is smtp auth.
I've been using it for over a year and the only problem any of my
customers have had was when they didn't understand they had to check
mail first. Noone's ever complained about losing outgoing mail because
of it. The SMTP transaction should fail before it completes so the
mail should remain in the user's queue. I chose this version over the
other one(s) BECAUSE I didn't have to patch qmail.
> Also another question with qmail-smtp-auth if a host is already set up as a
> relay client do they need to still provide a login password to get relay
> access?
Nope, they're renewed for a configurable time period (I have it set for
10 minutes) each time they check mail. As long as they're sending from
the IP that checked mail RELAYCLIENT is set.
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 Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Kris Kelley wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > > You're not going to find any ESMTP AUTH solutions for qmail that don't
> > > involve patching qmail's source.
> >
> > This is completely false. smtp-poplock doesn't require patching the
> > qmail source. You can find a link to it on www.qmail.org.
>
> If I'm wrong, my apologies. I'm not familiar with smtp-poplock, and I was
> basing what I said on Bjorn Nilsen's last reply, which said, "smtp-poplock
> is just another implementation of 'pop before smtp.'"
It does the same thing - allow any client to send mail provided they
successfully authenticated with the POP3 server first - but that's
the only way they're the same. smtp-poplock reads a log (or pipe,
it's configurable) and updates its database with the IP. When someone
attempts to connect to qmail-smtpd it checks the database and sets
RELAYCLIENT before launching it, just like tcpserver would if the IP
was in the cdb file it looks at. It works off of the same concept as
qmail - modular and simple.
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 wrote:
> > If I'm wrong, my apologies. I'm not familiar with smtp-poplock, and I
was
> > basing what I said on Bjorn Nilsen's last reply, which said,
"smtp-poplock
> > is just another implementation of 'pop before smtp.'"
>
> It does the same thing - allow any client to send mail provided they
> successfully authenticated with the POP3 server first - but that's
> the only way they're the same.
No, ESMTP AUTH is different from pop-before-smtp. With ESMTP AUTH, clients
authenticate themselves via the SMTP server for each SMTP session. The POP
server is not involved at all.
The way the qmai-smtpd-auth patch works, if a client connects to the SMTP
server and successfully authenticates itself, the patched qmail-smtpd
process sets RELAYCLIENT for that session, thereby allowing relaying. When
the SMTP session is closed, the relaying permissions, along with the rest of
that process, disappear.
---Kris Kelley
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Kris Kelley wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > If I'm wrong, my apologies. I'm not familiar with smtp-poplock, and I
> was
> > > basing what I said on Bjorn Nilsen's last reply, which said,
> "smtp-poplock
> > > is just another implementation of 'pop before smtp.'"
> >
> > It does the same thing - allow any client to send mail provided they
> > successfully authenticated with the POP3 server first - but that's
> > the only way they're the same.
>
> No, ESMTP AUTH is different from pop-before-smtp. With ESMTP AUTH, clients
> authenticate themselves via the SMTP server for each SMTP session. The POP
> server is not involved at all.
>
> The way the qmai-smtpd-auth patch works, if a client connects to the SMTP
> server and successfully authenticates itself, the patched qmail-smtpd
> process sets RELAYCLIENT for that session, thereby allowing relaying. When
> the SMTP session is closed, the relaying permissions, along with the rest of
> that process, disappear.
Ok it is different, but the same drawback remains... You have to patch
your qmail installation. I got stuck running a 1.02 for awhile after
1.03 came out because of patches. That was the last version I patched.
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
==========================================================================
Hi, although I can retrieve & send messages via pop3 and smtp, I have
detected some problems while using tcpserver. Sometimes I get long timeouts,
specially when I have not connected to the mailserver for some time (ie.
first time I look at mails in the moorning).
Because of this problem I started to play around with the optional
parameters, and now I seldom get a timeout, but I still get long delays the
first time I try to connect.
I'm posting this question here as it seems that there's no tcpserver mailing
list.
I have test it on 2 different places, getting the same result
1)
tcpserver -R -H -D -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 502 -g 101 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
tcpserver -H -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup _some_domain_1
/home/vpopmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
On that subnet qmailserver is running on a SuSE Linux with /etc/resolv.conf
pointing to a localnameserver which is running dnscache.
2)
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -o -d -H -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
_some_domain_2 \
/usr/local/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1
| \
/var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d &
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u2850 -g32750 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
On that subnet qmail is running on the same machine that runs dnscache and
the others use dnscache as their nameserver
I'm shure that there's something I'm doing wrong because the rest of the
time tcpserver has proven to be ok for the job.
Thanks in advance,
Franco
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:20:14AM -0300, Franco Galian wrote:
> Hi, although I can retrieve & send messages via pop3 and smtp, I have
> detected some problems while using tcpserver. Sometimes I get long timeouts,
> specially when I have not connected to the mailserver for some time (ie.
> first time I look at mails in the moorning).
> Because of this problem I started to play around with the optional
> parameters, and now I seldom get a timeout, but I still get long delays the
> first time I try to connect.
> I'm posting this question here as it seems that there's no tcpserver mailing
> list.
>
> I have test it on 2 different places, getting the same result
> 1)
> tcpserver -R -H -D -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 502 -g 101 0 smtp
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
> 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
> tcpserver -H -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup _some_domain_1
> /home/vpopmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
Try adding -l0 (that's ell zero) to your tcpserver options. That'll keep your
server from trying to look up its own name.
Chris
Hi ALL,
I have a simple question, How Do I tell the ammount of concurrent
connections to the mail server ???
Thanks
Tonino
TAG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a simple question, How Do I tell the ammount of concurrent
> connections to the mail server ???
`man netstat`
This isn't a qmail-specific issue. It's a general Unix issue.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IPADDRESS=<Whatever your IP address is>
netstat -an | grep "$IPADDRESS\.25 " | grep ESTABLISHED | wc -l
This will give you all current connections at that particular instance that
are still active on port 25.
Laurence
--
Laurence Brockman
Unix Administrator
Videon Cablesystems Alberta Inc
10450-178 St.
Edmonton, AB
T5S 1S2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(780) 486-6527
-----Original Message-----
From: TAG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: concurrent connections??
Hi ALL,
I have a simple question, How Do I tell the ammount of concurrent
connections to the mail server ???
Thanks
Tonino
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:38:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Now, who wants to work on cqmtp (compressed quick mail transport
> protocol)? :) No reason why you couldn't run gzip on the whole chunk
> before sending it off.
Save the children! Save Dave and Virginia!
http://cr.yp.to/sarcasm/modest-proposal.txt
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:18:03PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Johan apparently did something wrong, the patch itself 403's.
> It's on http://www.dataloss.net/qmtpd-badmailfrom-1.1.patch for now.
mutt's paranoid umask got in my way. A chmod 644 later, all is in order.
Sorry 'bout that.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 06:05:09PM -0500, Chris Gray wrote:
> Received: (qmail 30238 invoked by uid 2526); 8 Jan 2001 01:26:14 -0000
> Date: 8 Jan 2001 01:26:14 -0000
> Received: (qmail 2256 invoked by uid 2526); 7 Jan 2001 20:55:18 -0000
> Date: 7 Jan 2001 20:55:18 -0000
> Received: (qmail 5604 invoked by uid 2526); 7 Jan 2001 20:59:37 -0000
> Date: 7 Jan 2001 20:59:37 -0000
This means that qmail was indeed invoked once for every one of those many,
many messages.
Who is user 2526 in your /etc/passwd?
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Seby writes:
> > Can i see what mails i'm reciving at a moment...
>
> You mean email that hasn't been successfully queued yet? Well, you
> could look for invocations of qmail-queue, but you can't see what
> email they're currently receiving. What exactly *do* you mean?
MAils that are sent to my host ... from another host...
Seby...
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
>
---------------
-=Ionita Sebastian=-
http://lapd.cj.edu.ro/~seby
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------
I have a dream. I have a dream that one day, on the red hills of Georgia,
the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to
sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Seby writes:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Seby writes:
> > > Can i see what mails i'm reciving at a moment...
> >
> > You mean email that hasn't been successfully queued yet? Well, you
> > could look for invocations of qmail-queue, but you can't see what
> > email they're currently receiving. What exactly *do* you mean?
> MAils that are sent to my host ... from another host...
Well, the mail will exist as a file in the queue's mess directory, but
it won't be accessible in any documented fashion.
Perhaps you could explain the problem that you are trying to solve?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
vishwanath kalbagilmath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have installed qmail and its running pretty fine.
> I have lots of users in my domain, Having one shell
> account per user account is not feasible, So how do i
> change to a single system account and still have
> thousands of user account.
Use a virtual domain manager package -- Bruce Guenter's vmailmgr is a popular
choice. It allows you to run each virtual domain under a separate local user
account. See http://www.vmailmgr.org/ for details.
> And i just want to know how to tune Timeouts for
> sending mails to out side domains like the one
> sendmail has in sendmail.cf file
`man qmail-remote`
> and how do i forcibely push the mails out like "sendmail -q -v" in qmail.
`man qmail-send`
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
>They are two P166's with 64M ram and plenty of disk space. There
are about
>2000 emails per day going through the existing mail
server. My servers will
>be on a dedicated 10MB
connection.
>How may mails a day should I be able to
handle?
I think (judging from my experience), that you can handle at
least 20000 mails a day. i have P550 with 128MB ram and I sometimes take
more then 200000 a day.
-------Original Message-------
From: Ross Davis - Data
Anywhere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, January 11,
2001 04:29:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: speed of
machines
I am about to take over the hosting of a website and want
know if my 2 mail
servers are going to be able to handle the
volume.
They are two P166's with 64M ram and plenty of disk space.
There are about
2000 emails per day going through the existing mail
server. My servers will
be on a dedicated 10MB connection.
How
may mails a day should I be able to handle?
Thanks in
advance
Ross Davis
|
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here |
Alex Kramarov wrote:
> I think (judging from my experience), that you can handle at least
> 20000 mails a day. i have P550 with 128MB ram and I sometimes take more
> then 200000 a day.
I tested it single threaded! Got 40 Mails/s on an AMD Athlon 888 MhZ, 256 MB
RAM & IBM DTLA307030 30,7 GB HD (UDMA 100)
--^..^--------------------------------------------------
michael maier - system & development administrator
flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
d-60314 frankfurt am main
fon +49.(0)69.50 95 98-308
fax +49.(0)69.50 95 98-101
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
url http://www.flatfox.com - m a k e m y d a y
--------------------------------------------------------
Please remove your "extras" when sending to this mailinglist,
no matter how plesent it looks or feels your mail gets is 10 times bigger.
You are not paying for more than 1 copy of this message in bandwith,
but the nice guys that offer their bandwidth to give you and others
the shared knowledge of the qmail community have to use X times
the bandwidth compared to you (where X is the number of members)
MVH Andr&yod; Paulsberg
during the whole ILOVEYOU fiasco, our mail server was hit with approx 5000
messages during the first hour. granted the box was not particularly happy
about this, but it did keep chugging away. the box was a pentium 100Mhz with
32MB ram and a 4GB drive. however, one of our clients had a PIII 500 with
256MB ram and a 20GB hd, but was running exchange. their box was down after
that first hour.
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Ross Davis - Data Anywhere wrote:
I am about to take over the hosting of a website and want know if my 2 mail
servers are going to be able to handle the volume.
They are two P166's with 64M ram and plenty of disk space. There are about
2000 emails per day going through the existing mail server. My servers will
be on a dedicated 10MB connection.
How may mails a day should I be able to handle?
Thanks in advance
Ross Davis
I thank all of your for assurance. It is good to be able to pass on these
kind of success stories to my client.
Ross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ross Davis - Data Anywhere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: speed of machines
during the whole ILOVEYOU fiasco, our mail server was hit with approx 5000
messages during the first hour. granted the box was not particularly happy
about this, but it did keep chugging away. the box was a pentium 100Mhz with
32MB ram and a 4GB drive. however, one of our clients had a PIII 500 with
256MB ram and a 20GB hd, but was running exchange. their box was down after
that first hour.
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Ross Davis - Data Anywhere wrote:
I am about to take over the hosting of a website and want know if my 2 mail
servers are going to be able to handle the volume.
They are two P166's with 64M ram and plenty of disk space. There are about
2000 emails per day going through the existing mail server. My servers will
be on a dedicated 10MB connection.
How may mails a day should I be able to handle?
Thanks in advance
Ross Davis
hello all,
What's the correct way to get qmail to report the correct time (local,
EST) in the logs.. or is this a RH issue? (qmail-smtpd is the only
program logging with -0000 as the offset) mail server is using ntp for
its internal time so that's going to be pretty accurate (synced with
stratum-3 in state collage, PA).
If there is no fix, what is the correct offset for EST?
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's the correct way to get qmail to report the correct time (local,
> EST) in the logs..
The timestamps in the logs probably come from your logger. Timestamps in
the headers of email are in UTC for good reason. If you want to change
that, you'll have to hack the source.
> If there is no fix, what is the correct offset for EST?
Surely you can look this up on your own? It's definitely not a qmail issue.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are trying to migrate about 1800 users from M$ Exchange 2000 to Qmail
and was wondering if anyone has any experience with this? We'd like to
do it without losing any of the email if at all possible.
Thanks in advance.
--
Steve Powell - Systems Administrator
Solution Pro, Inc.
http://www.spro.net
(208)321-4705
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:43:12PM -0700, Steve Powell wrote:
> We are trying to migrate about 1800 users from M$ Exchange 2000 to Qmail
> and was wondering if anyone has any experience with this? We'd like to
> do it without losing any of the email if at all possible.
1. make your qmail running (without user accounts yet)
2. put your domains in rcpthosts, but NOT locals
3. write smtproutes (echo "domain.com:exchangeserverhostname" >
/var/qmail/control/smtproutes)
4. Let the MX point to your qmail
5. Wait until _all_ mail goes trough your qmail box, use the time to create
the user accounts
6. finally take out the smtpsoutes and put your domain(s) in locals
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Steve Powell - Systems Administrator
> Solution Pro, Inc.
> http://www.spro.net
> (208)321-4705
>
>
>
>
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Johan Almqvist wrote:
> man 5 dot-qmail
>
> replace the dot (.) with a colon (:) in the name of the .qmail file, ie
> .qmail-ar:rubin
>
> -Johan
that man page says:
> WARNING: For security, qmail-local replaces any dots in ext with colons
> before checking .qmail-ext. For convenience, qmail-local converts any
> uppercase letters in ext to lowercase.
What exactly is the threat this is supposed to guard against? Is
it directory descending on vms, or access to the .. directory somehow?
I am not aware of a special case where dots in a file name will
unexpectedly hork a unix file system -- is it an obsolete fear, or a current
one that I don't know about?
This seems, without knowing what the threat is, an arbitrary exception.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"people with fish eyes and brown socks"
|
Hy all,
I'm using qmail + vpopmail and Maildirs. I didn't
understand how to set the eliminate-dups script in order to eliminated our
multiplicated messages.
Could someone show me a practice
example??
thank you,
-------------------------------------------------
-- Bruno
Negr�o -- Suporte
-- Plugway Acesso Internet Ltda.
--
(31)34812311
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
B.Negrão writes:
> Hy all, I'm using qmail + vpopmail and Maildirs. I didn't
> understand how to set the eliminate-dups script in order to
> eliminated our multiplicated messages. Could someone show me a
> practice example??
|bin/eliminate-dups Mailbox
./Mailbox
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
Hi All !!!
I am using alias files in alias account to redirect emails.
I want to insert a predefined text to the messages that are
redirected.
Example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has his alias file in my qmail server (myhost.com), that is,
there exists a file named .qmail-joe, with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
If someone sends a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message
"message for you", joe should receive in his mailbox "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
"message for you
inserted text"
Any tips ?
Thanks in advance,
Alan R.
what if /var/qmail/control/smtproutes was replaced with a fifo that
gave a different relay every time it was read?
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
while(++$count){
unlink '/var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
system 'mkfifo /var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
$c=$count % 5; # or however many there are
open R,">/var/qmail/control/smtproutes"; #block until it is read
print R ":bsdrelay$c.macrosys.com\n";
};
__END__
Will the above cause unexpected freezes?
A less intensive solution might be to overwrite the tenth
character in the static file every few seconds, to load up that
relay.
"Collin B. McClendon" wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Sounds good.
> Thanks,
> Collin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:58 AM
> To: Collin B. McClendon
> Subject: Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
>
> several slave BSD boxes with high concurrencies and a hacked qmail-remote
> that round-robins through them.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"people with fish eyes and brown socks"
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 03:46:55PM +0000, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> what if /var/qmail/control/smtproutes was replaced with a fifo that
> gave a different relay every time it was read?
>
>
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl
> while(++$count){
> unlink '/var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
> system 'mkfifo /var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
> $c=$count % 5; # or however many there are
> open R,">/var/qmail/control/smtproutes"; #block until it is read
> print R ":bsdrelay$c.macrosys.com\n";
> };
> __END__
>
>
> Will the above cause unexpected freezes?
Perhaps not, but unexpected results:
1. Nothing stops a pipe being opened by multiple readers at once. What
will the second and subsequent reader get? Almost certainly eof with
no data.
2. You have a timing window between the mkfifo and the unlink where a
qmail-remote instance will find no smtproutes file.
Doesn't plan9 have something that does this properly, where you open a
file system object and each open gets a matching process on the other
side?
Regards.
Discovered on a box near by:
uptime
1:14PM up 848 days, 19:42, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
uname -sr
FreeBSD 2.2.6-RELEASE
And the qmail bit?
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
qmails 17267 0.1 0.1 8200 340 p0- S 30Oct98 992:49.77 qmail-send
qmaill 17268 0.0 0.1 164 244 p0- S 30Oct98 251:12.41 splogger qmail
root 17269 0.0 0.1 164 172 p0- I 30Oct98 2:05.77 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
qmailr 17270 0.0 0.1 180 208 p0- S 30Oct98 373:56.66 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 17271 0.0 0.1 156 212 p0- S 30Oct98 170:14.57 qmail-clean
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:40:48PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
[snip]
> USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
> qmails 17267 0.1 0.1 8200 340 p0- S 30Oct98 992:49.77 qmail-send
> qmaill 17268 0.0 0.1 164 244 p0- S 30Oct98 251:12.41 splogger qmail
> root 17269 0.0 0.1 164 172 p0- I 30Oct98 2:05.77 qmail-lspawn
>./Mailbox
> qmailr 17270 0.0 0.1 180 208 p0- S 30Oct98 373:56.66 qmail-rspawn
> qmailq 17271 0.0 0.1 156 212 p0- S 30Oct98 170:14.57 qmail-clean
Hmm, reminds me of the one time that I found my qmail-send process
with PID 31337 (spelling 'eleet'), which had been running that way for
several months (I play around and patch too much to really gain high
uptimes on qmail processes...).
Greetz, Peter
Someone asked how busy this box is. Not very, it's a backup MX and
doesn't come into play much.
This is a recent log line:
Jan 11 16:34:40 mail-backup qmail: 979259680.056726 starting delivery 19926311: ...
So less than 20 million deliveries in 2+ years or just 2,500 a day.
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:40:48PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
> Discovered on a box near by:
>
> uptime
> 1:14PM up 848 days, 19:42, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
>
> uname -sr
> FreeBSD 2.2.6-RELEASE
>
> And the qmail bit?
>
> USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND
> qmails 17267 0.1 0.1 8200 340 p0- S 30Oct98 992:49.77 qmail-send
> qmaill 17268 0.0 0.1 164 244 p0- S 30Oct98 251:12.41 splogger qmail
> root 17269 0.0 0.1 164 172 p0- I 30Oct98 2:05.77 qmail-lspawn
>./Mailbox
> qmailr 17270 0.0 0.1 180 208 p0- S 30Oct98 373:56.66 qmail-rspawn
> qmailq 17271 0.0 0.1 156 212 p0- S 30Oct98 170:14.57 qmail-clean
>
>
> Regards.
I am going to patch qmail-smtpd to have a maximum number of rcpt to's
it will accept in one session. (I regularily see spammers that try
to send to a lot of (valid) adresses in one bulk).
The value I am thinking of is around 20 and after that I will reject
the recipients with a "451 Too many recipients." message.
Looking at RFC821 I find (Page 42)
recipients buffer
The maximum total number of recipients that must be
buffered is 100 recipients.
Thus this patch would violate RFC821. Do you think this violation is
critical? A correctly implemented smtp server should resend those
"451 ack'd" addresses anyways, shouldn't it?
Hmmm ... thinking about that quote (maybe it's my bad english) does that
make a sense at all? What's the meaning? Wouldn't
The MINIMUM total number of recipients that must be
buffered is 100 recipients.
make more sense if one would like to impose a limit?
And why (some lines later at that page) would one reject too many
recipients with a "552 Too many recipients.", i.e. a permanent failure
code instead of a 4xx temporary code?
Puzzled,
\Maex
Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 12 January 2001 at 02:47:26 +0100
> I am going to patch qmail-smtpd to have a maximum number of rcpt to's
> it will accept in one session. (I regularily see spammers that try
> to send to a lot of (valid) adresses in one bulk).
> The value I am thinking of is around 20 and after that I will reject
> the recipients with a "451 Too many recipients." message.
>
> Looking at RFC821 I find (Page 42)
> recipients buffer
> The maximum total number of recipients that must be
> buffered is 100 recipients.
>
> Thus this patch would violate RFC821. Do you think this violation is
> critical? A correctly implemented smtp server should resend those
> "451 ack'd" addresses anyways, shouldn't it?
>
> Hmmm ... thinking about that quote (maybe it's my bad english) does that
> make a sense at all? What's the meaning? Wouldn't
> The MINIMUM total number of recipients that must be
> buffered is 100 recipients.
> make more sense if one would like to impose a limit?
It's certainly a funny sentence. It could be interpreted to forbid
supporting more than 100 recipients in one transaction; I wonder if
that was the intention, though?
Setting a minimum seems more likely than setting a maximum, but that
sentence clearly doesn't set a minimum.
> And why (some lines later at that page) would one reject too many
> recipients with a "552 Too many recipients.", i.e. a permanent failure
> code instead of a 4xx temporary code?
No clue, sorry.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 02:47:26AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> I am going to patch qmail-smtpd to have a maximum number of rcpt to's
> it will accept in one session. (I regularily see spammers that try
> to send to a lot of (valid) adresses in one bulk).
> The value I am thinking of is around 20 and after that I will reject
> the recipients with a "451 Too many recipients." message.
>
> Looking at RFC821 I find (Page 42)
> recipients buffer
> The maximum total number of recipients that must be
> buffered is 100 recipients.
>
> Thus this patch would violate RFC821. Do you think this violation is
> critical? A correctly implemented smtp server should resend those
> "451 ack'd" addresses anyways, shouldn't it?
With the operative word being "correctly". MTAs may be better but my
experience is that most clients don't do it properly so if your SMTP
server is used by local clients, such as Eudora, then large recipient
mails will fail.
> Hmmm ... thinking about that quote (maybe it's my bad english) does that
> make a sense at all? What's the meaning? Wouldn't
> The MINIMUM total number of recipients that must be
> buffered is 100 recipients.
> make more sense if one would like to impose a limit?
> And why (some lines later at that page) would one reject too many
> recipients with a "552 Too many recipients.", i.e. a permanent failure
> code instead of a 4xx temporary code?
>
> Puzzled,
Like numerous things in that standard, they look confusing from
today's perspective.
Regards.
btw, there's already a patch going around that does this, you can use that
one and configure the controlfile to accept only 20 rcptto's. It would
violate the RFC I guess...
F.
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2001 2:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: max RCPT TOs and RFC821
I am going to patch qmail-smtpd to have a maximum number of rcpt to's
it will accept in one session. (I regularily see spammers that try
to send to a lot of (valid) adresses in one bulk).
The value I am thinking of is around 20 and after that I will reject
the recipients with a "451 Too many recipients." message.
Looking at RFC821 I find (Page 42)
recipients buffer
The maximum total number of recipients that must be
buffered is 100 recipients.
Thus this patch would violate RFC821. Do you think this violation is
critical? A correctly implemented smtp server should resend those
"451 ack'd" addresses anyways, shouldn't it?
Hmmm ... thinking about that quote (maybe it's my bad english) does that
make a sense at all? What's the meaning? Wouldn't
The MINIMUM total number of recipients that must be
buffered is 100 recipients.
make more sense if one would like to impose a limit?
And why (some lines later at that page) would one reject too many
recipients with a "552 Too many recipients.", i.e. a permanent failure
code instead of a 4xx temporary code?
Puzzled,
\Maex
i telnet to imap, and list all the email in my Inbox i found that most of the email
is same UID, how to solve it?
Nick
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.mcmug.org/webmail.html
@mcmug.org @mcdull.net
DOWNLOAD McMug 2001 Calendar la.. .
http://www.mcmug.org
Powered by Outblaze
I dont understand why it shouldn't have the same UID...
what am I missing?
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 8:56 PM
Subject: same UID with a lot of email
> i telnet to imap, and list all the email in my Inbox i found that most
of the email is same UID, how to solve it?
>
> Nick
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Get your free email from http://www.mcmug.org/webmail.html
> @mcmug.org @mcdull.net
> DOWNLOAD McMug 2001 Calendar la.. .
> http://www.mcmug.org
>
> Powered by Outblaze
>
Hi,
I've encountered an error during install of make setup check
it says:
/bin/sh: ./auto-uid: 0403-006 Execute permission denied.
make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 1.
Can someone help.
ray
Hi all,
I have 2 linux servers web and e-mail. Both servers are on the same network
in the same domain.
Users on the Web server fill out a HTML form and this form using CGI is
being send (using postfix) out to the e-mail server (qmail).
It all seems to work just fine as long as the user is from other place than
the local domain name.
I feel that something is not setup correct with local to local mail.
Logs do not show anything special as far as I can tell. It all seems to be
heading the right direction, but they never arrive at the destination at
the qmail server.
(if someone would tell me in which log and what to look for??? TX)
All other mail is getting to the e-mail server no problem. All the forms
filled out by locations other than the subnet arrive on the e-mail server.
As you can see I have a hard time sending test e-mails since I never
receive them, yet it works from other domains??? Any ideas???
Please comment on any setting or suggest settings that are missing. I would
really appreciated.
Thank you for all your help. Peter D.
here is the output from qmail-showctl
[root@ebox bin]# ./qmail-showctl
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
silent concurrency limit: 120.
subdirectory split: 23.
user ids: 502, 503, 504, 0, 505, 506, 507, 508.
group ids: 506, 507.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON.
bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is mydomain.com.
concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10.
concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
defaultdomain: Default domain name is mydomain.com.
defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is mydomain.com.
doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: mydomain.com.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is mydomain.com.
helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is mydomain.com.
idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is mydomain.com.
localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes mydomain.com.
locals:
Messages for localhost are delivered locally.
Messages for mail.mydomain.com are delivered locally.
Messages for ebox.mydomain.com are delivered locally.
me: My name is mydomain.com.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
plusdomain: Plus domain name is mydomain.com.
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts:
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost.
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.mydomain.com.
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mydomain.com.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 mydomain.com.
smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes.
timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds.
timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds.
timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds.
virtualdomains:
Virtual domain: mydomain.com:mydomain-com
|
Well the vpopmgr is good enough but what i need is
a single domain with enormous amount of users but with a maybe a single uid or
more but not separate for each user and users are not going to access there mail
via pop3 or imap...
it is going to be web based email
system...
pls help!
|
|
Any any out to actually fix up a disk quota for
allthe virtual usrers...
pls help
|
