qmail Digest 15 Jan 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1245
Topics (messages 55145 through 55184):
Re: newbees guide to the qmail-list [was: problem in delivering mails locally...]
55145 by: Alexander Jernejcic
Re: Hotmail Woes.
55146 by: James R Grinter
55155 by: Mark Delany
55180 by: Joomy Studio
Re: Bogus popularity claims for Sendmail
55147 by: Jurjen Oskam
QMTP MX-question
55148 by: Jurjen Oskam
55149 by: Johan Almqvist
55151 by: Jurjen Oskam
55154 by: Henning Brauer
Re: Some assistance?
55150 by: Alexander Jernejcic
Possible problem with qmail-qmtpc patch
55152 by: Johan Almqvist
55164 by: Russell Nelson
55168 by: Johan Almqvist
55169 by: Jurjen Oskam
55170 by: Johan Almqvist
55177 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: hrm....pop3d
55153 by: Henning Brauer
qmail-inject
55156 by: Tim Cropper
55157 by: Mark Delany
55158 by: Henning Brauer
Converting Sendmail spool emails to Qmail Maildir emails
55159 by: Roberto Samarone Araujo \(RSA\)
55160 by: Mark Delany
Re: Can a queue in Qmail get stuck?
55161 by: Mark Delany
Re: APOP
55162 by: Russell Nelson
looking for mua
55163 by: davidge.jazzfree.com
55165 by: Henning Brauer
55166 by: Olivier M.
55171 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
55172 by: Henning Brauer
55173 by: David Dyer-Bennet
55174 by: Robin S. Socha
55181 by: Justin Bell
Re: Hotmail woes and new situation
55167 by: Corey Jarvis
problem with relaying
55175 by: Jens Georg
55176 by: Henning Brauer
55178 by: Jens Georg
Winbind and Qmail
55179 by: dennis
qmail-smtpd that Verifies PGP
55182 by: Gan
Installing mini-qmail seems to require qmail ids contrary to documentation
55183 by: Yusuf Goolamabbas
Addon
55184 by: Steve Crowder
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Pennace wrote
> How about we try changing the list name to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
significant name - i have to admit
PD Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you do get an smtp connection, your trouble may not be over. You may
> find that they don't 250 at the end (a sporatic problem there) or
> that the user you are sending to is over quota.
Yes, hotmail is very erratic in its mail acceptance (which isn't done
through qmail - they only seem to use qmail for outgoing mail)
On some mailing lists I run, there's usually at least one outgoing
message that will bounce from all the hotmail.com addresses on the list.
> Finally, if your server sends to yahoo, your either lucky or good. I
> find yahoo.com and yahoo.ca to be down 20% of the time.
ditto yahoo.co.uk - for the same reason. Their MX hosts are regularly
too busy.
Many sites also bounce mail with 'unknown user' at certain times of
the day. Anyone would think they weren't updating user-lists
atomically...
James.
On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 04:32:30PM -0800, Boz Crowther wrote:
> > Isn't Hotmail owned by M$ (has been for a while, actually)? So, it would
> > make sense that they run M$ OSes.
>
> Yes, M$ owns Hotmail. They have a bunch of Windooze Servers, but AFAIK the
> real work is done by FreeBSD machines.
Hmm. They may be cloaking, but here's the relevant header from their
email servers, first inbound, then outbound.
Received: from [204.182.55.144] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
MHotMailBC2B194F00C340043198CCB63790B1720; Sun Jan 14 08:05:35 2001
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:08:55 -0800
And here's what their webserver says:
$ telnet www.hotmail.com 80
Trying 64.4.44.7...
Connected to www.hotmail.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 302 Redirected
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:10:21 GMT
Location: http://lc2.law13.hotmail.passport.com/cgi-bin/login
Regards.
What about this ?
http://195.92.95.5/?restriction=site+contains&host=.hotmail.com&position=lim
ited
Did they successful switching to the W2K ?
Joomy.
> Ah, yes. Hotmail is owned by Mirco$oft. The last I heard microsoft tried
> porting Hotmail to Windows NT and it kept crashing and crashing... That
> was before Windows 2k.
>
> So it would make logical sense but is it technically feasible to do so..
>
> Regards
>
>
> George Patterson
>
> Boz Crowther wrote:
>
> > Isn't Hotmail owned by M$ (has been for a while, actually)? So, it
would
> > make sense that they run M$ OSes.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stefan Laudat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 4:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hotmail Woes.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I see you have Linux 2.4.0-test11.
> >> Did you BY (BIG) MISTAKE compile TCP congestion notification in it?
> >> Hotmail is quite mad about this. Maybe their routers run M$ windows.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:36:53PM -0500, Corey Jarvis wrote:
> >>
> >>> To whomever,
> >>> I am having a wierd problem with hotmail.com smtp connections,
> >>> Anyone in the world can send to me however when I send to hotmail.com
it
> >>> won't accept any smtp connection.
> >>> I can send to yahoo or whomever accept to hotmail and certain other
> >>> domains. I know I am not black listed since this machine is brand
new.
> >>> Any ideas? And I have checked my reverse maps and they work properly.
> >>> Signed,
> >>> Corey
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stefan Laudat
> >> -------------
> >> If rabbits feet are so lucky, what happened to the rabbit?
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Powered by http://se-ed.net
>
On 13 Jan 2001 22:16:34 -0000, "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I suspect
>that qmail now handles more Internet mail deliveries than Sendmail does,
>although I don't know a good way to measure this.
With this in mind, isn't it a great time to promote QMTP? For example,
by using the QMTP-enabled qmail-remote Russ made?
end
--
Jurjen Oskam * carnivore! * http://www.stupendous.org/ for PGP key
assassinate nuclear iraq clinton kill bomb USA eta ira cia fbi nsa kill
president wall street ruin economy disrupt phonenetwork atomic bomb sarin
nerve gas bin laden military -*- DVD Decryption at www.stupendous.org -*-
Situation:
The primary MX for quadpro.stupendous.org is capable of accepting mail
via QMTP, and regularly does so. Of course, it is also capable of
accepting mail via SMTP. The 'secondary' MX is only capable of doing
SMTP.
What are the correct MX-records I should create?
I made:
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
However, when I query for crynwr.com, I get:
crynwr.com 86354 MX 12801 pdam.crynwr.com
crynwr.com 86354 MX 12816 pdam.crynwr.com
Here you have two MX-priorities (or distances) for the same name.
Is it a good idea to change the MX records for quadpro.stupendous.org
so that the result is:
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12832 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
or
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12832 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
?
end
--
Jurjen Oskam * carnivore! * http://www.stupendous.org/ for PGP key
assassinate nuclear iraq clinton kill bomb USA eta ira cia fbi nsa kill
president wall street ruin economy disrupt phonenetwork atomic bomb sarin
nerve gas bin laden military -*- DVD Decryption at www.stupendous.org -*-
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:05:16PM +0100, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
> What are the correct MX-records I should create?
> I made:
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
That is correct.
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12832 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
" Example:
[...]
B.EXAMPLE.ORG IN MX 12801 A.EXAMPLE.ORG
IN MX 12816 C.EXAMPLE.ORG
[...]
A sender with a message for B.EXAMPLE.ORG will try A.EXAMPLE.ORG by
QMTP, then C.EXAMPLE.ORG by SMTP. If it does not support QMTP, it may
try SMTP instead of QMTP, or it may skip A.EXAMPLE.ORG."
Note the "...or it may skip..." part.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:12:09 +0100, Johan Almqvist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
>
>" Example:
>[...]
> B.EXAMPLE.ORG IN MX 12801 A.EXAMPLE.ORG
> IN MX 12816 C.EXAMPLE.ORG
>[...]
> A sender with a message for B.EXAMPLE.ORG will try A.EXAMPLE.ORG by
> QMTP, then C.EXAMPLE.ORG by SMTP. If it does not support QMTP, it may
> try SMTP instead of QMTP, or it may skip A.EXAMPLE.ORG."
>
>Note the "...or it may skip..." part.
I've read that page a few times myself. Since I'm not a native English
speaker, I'm having trouble figuring out what it *exactly* means. In
particular, the "it" in "If it does not support QMTP, ...". Does "it"
refer to "a sender with a message for B.EXAMPLE.ORG"? (That would make
sense.) In that case, you have the possibilities: 1) MXPS-aware sender
with *no support* for QMTP. Such a sender would most likely skip
A.EXAMPLE.ORG. (But it could just as well deliver via SMTP) 2) A
'normal' sender, without MXPS or QMTP. Such a sender would just
deliver to the lowest preference using SMTP only.
But I'm interested in the case where an MXPS-aware QMTP-capable sender
tries to deliver a message to quadpro.stupendous.org (with MX records
set according to [1], but finds port 209 (QMTP) unavailable. Will such
a sender then (directly after the failure to deliver to
a.mx.stupendous.org using QMTP): 1) try to deliver to
b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org using SMTP or 2) try to deliver to
a.mx.stupendous.org using SMTP? And if I change the MX-records to [2],
will that behaviour change?
[1]
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
[2]
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12832 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
end
--
Jurjen Oskam * carnivore! * http://www.stupendous.org/ for PGP key
assassinate nuclear iraq clinton kill bomb USA eta ira cia fbi nsa kill
president wall street ruin economy disrupt phonenetwork atomic bomb sarin
nerve gas bin laden military -*- DVD Decryption at www.stupendous.org -*-
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:38:40PM +0100, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
> But I'm interested in the case where an MXPS-aware QMTP-capable sender
> tries to deliver a message to quadpro.stupendous.org (with MX records
> set according to [1], but finds port 209 (QMTP) unavailable. Will such
> a sender then (directly after the failure to deliver to
> a.mx.stupendous.org using QMTP): 1) try to deliver to
> b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org using SMTP or 2) try to deliver to
> a.mx.stupendous.org using SMTP? And if I change the MX-records to [2],
> will that behaviour change?
In theory you option no. 2 is the best way, it says "try a.mx via qmtp, on
failure try a.mx via smtp, on failure use b.mx via smtp". In practice you
could also use option 1, as the only MXPS capable sender is Russels patched
qmail-remote AFAIK, and everbody using it will support qmtp (everything
else, e. g. the port is closed within the firewall, i would call a
misconfiguration).
Anyway I'd vote for option 2, it's the clearest ;-)
> [1]
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> [2]
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12816 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12832 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I need to be able to send/relay all of the messages in a maildir (the
> default/catchall for that domain) back out to that domain,
> there was a 'cessation' of the domains real mail server, and it is
> operational again so the desire is to hand
> these messages back to that machine.
>
> Can anyone point me in the right direction to do this in a clean
> fashion? Failing that another way that isn't manual?
one way - not the most elegant - would be, to let fetchmail do the job on
the "up again" mail server
:) alexander
Hi!
I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
running) this failure will be logged as
deferral: Connected_to_194.47.249.19_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
which means that the message will not be retried at the next best MX but
go back to the queue.
There is also a minor glitch in my patch that would make qmail-remote try
SMTP if a QMTP connection can't be established, even if QMTP is forced by
control/mailroutes. I think this is NOT what people would expect?
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Johan Almqvist writes:
> Hi!
>
> I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
> it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
>
> If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> running
That's a misconfiguration. I'd rather that the email bounced than it
got delivered via SMTP silently. It could be that someone unaware of
the MXPS standard (which admittedly includes 99.999999% of the world's
population) could have set their MX priority to 12801. If so, it's
best to ask them to change their MX priority.
It's much more likely that someone intends that the email be
delivered via qmtpd but it is failing to run for some reason. If we
fall back to smtp, they'll never know that it's failing unless they're
watching their qmail logs carefully.
--
-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.
* Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010114 19:39]
> That's a misconfiguration. I'd rather that the email bounced than it
> got delivered via SMTP silently.
Well, at the moment it'll only be bounced after queuelifetime...
> It could be that someone unaware of the MXPS standard (which admittedly
> includes 99.999999% of the world's population) could have set their MX
> priority to 12801. If so, it's best to ask them to change their MX
> priority.
Agreed. What happens if they don't?
> It's much more likely that someone intends that the email be
> delivered via qmtpd but it is failing to run for some reason. If we
> fall back to smtp, they'll never know that it's failing unless they're
> watching their qmail logs carefully.
...or look at their Received: lines from time to time. After setting up
QMTP service and MXPS I suspect most people will watch their logs rather
closely for a few days...
-Johan
PS: Love the double spacing...
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:39:01 -0500 (EST), Russell Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Johan Almqvist writes:
> > If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> > running
>That's a misconfiguration. I'd rather that the email bounced than it
>got delivered via SMTP silently. It could be that someone unaware of
What happens in the following case:
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12817 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
...when qmtpd isn't reachable on a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org?
>delivered via qmtpd but it is failing to run for some reason. If we
>fall back to smtp, they'll never know that it's failing unless they're
>watching their qmail logs carefully.
But isn't that a bit in contradiction with the concept of backup
MX'es?
end
--
Jurjen Oskam * carnivore! * http://www.stupendous.org/ for PGP key
assassinate nuclear iraq clinton kill bomb USA eta ira cia fbi nsa kill
president wall street ruin economy disrupt phonenetwork atomic bomb sarin
nerve gas bin laden military -*- DVD Decryption at www.stupendous.org -*-
* Jurjen Oskam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010114 20:25]
> What happens in the following case:
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12801 a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> quadpro.stupendous.org 86323 MX 12817 b.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org
> ...when qmtpd isn't reachable on a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org?
That's the problem I tried to describe. In my experience, the message goes
back to the queue and will be retried to a.mx.quadpro.stupendous.org by
QMTP later. And this will happen until qmail-send decides the message has
been in the queue too long, whereupon it will be bounced.
However, I'm not 100% sure about this, as my network setup is a little too
small and limited by university-controlled firewalls and university-
administered DNS servers.
> >delivered via qmtpd but it is failing to run for some reason. If we
> >fall back to smtp, they'll never know that it's failing unless they're
> >watching their qmail logs carefully.
> But isn't that a bit in contradiction with the concept of backup
> MX'es?
Er, yes.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
* Johan Almqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010114 15:45]:
> I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
> it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
> If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> running) this failure will be logged as
> deferral: Connected_to_194.47.249.19_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
> which means that the message will not be retried at the next best MX but
> go back to the queue.
Ok, as I said, my test setup wasn't the best, so this only happens if the
host is _there_ but not running qmtpd. That's probably what we want
anyhow...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 12:11:57AM -0500, Kurth Bemis wrote:
> having a bit of a problem with qmail-poop3d. when i start it fro mmy init script i
>get this funky error in the log file.
>
> Jan 12 06:54:30 noname pop3d: 979300470.784986 tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure
>out port number for pop-3
> Jan 12 06:54:31 noname qmail: 979300471.799484 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
>
> any have any idea what could be causing this? when i telnet to the box/ip on port
>110 i get no connection. I'm running openbsd 2.8 with qmail 1.03 and daemon tools
>.70 with checkpassword .81
That's easy. You are giving pop-3 as port for tcpserver (check your run file
/ startup script), but there is no pop-3 entry in /etc/services. Either put
pop3 instead of pop-3 in your script (and check if it exists in
/etc/services) or hardwire port 110 instead of using a name. man tcpserver
is your friend ;-))
> ~kurth
>
>
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Hi all,
If log in as root and send mail to a remote host using qmail-inject,
the mail I receive is not from root but from my tcropper account.
I been trying to figure this our for hours ... Any help would be
appreciated.
Below are the steps I go through to send the mail
I ssh to the host and the su to root
check my id: uid=0(root) gid=0(root)
groups=0(root),1(bin),2(daemon),3(sys),4(adm),6(disk),10(wheel)
echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
Retrieve mail from hotmail:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 4 Jan 2001 05:49:08 -0000
>From qmail-header man page: If there is no From field, qmail-inject
adds a new From field with the name of the user invoking qmail-inject.
How can this happen when I was logged in as root when sending to
qmail-inject???
Thanks
-Tim
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:28:51AM -0600, Tim Cropper wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If log in as root and send mail to a remote host using qmail-inject,
> the mail I receive is not from root but from my tcropper account.
> I been trying to figure this our for hours ... Any help would be
> appreciated.
Do you mean login literally, or do you mean su?
Login as root as you do when you have this problem and show us the
output of:
# env
# qmail-inject -n anyone </dev/null
Regards.
>
> Below are the steps I go through to send the mail
>
> I ssh to the host and the su to root
>
> check my id: uid=0(root) gid=0(root)
> groups=0(root),1(bin),2(daemon),3(sys),4(adm),6(disk),10(wheel)
>
> echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
>
> Retrieve mail from hotmail:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: 4 Jan 2001 05:49:08 -0000
>
> From qmail-header man page: If there is no From field, qmail-inject
> adds a new From field with the name of the user invoking qmail-inject.
>
> How can this happen when I was logged in as root when sending to
> qmail-inject???
>
> Thanks
> -Tim
>
>
>
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:28:51AM -0600, Tim Cropper wrote:
> I ssh to the host and the su to root
> Retrieve mail from hotmail:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: 4 Jan 2001 05:49:08 -0000
> How can this happen when I was logged in as root when sending to
> qmail-inject???
You weren't logged in as root, you were logged in as tcropper and su'ed to
root. This is a difference.
man su.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Hi,
I always used Qmail in all my jobs so, I don't know work with
sendmail. At the old week I went to visit a client that is using sendmail. I
saw sendmail running and, after some minutes looking at how sendmail work, I
concluded that sendmail virtual email when you need to you m4 is really
hilarious hehhehehe and very suxx, so I proposed to the client to use Qmail.
But now, I have a question. Are there any way to convert Sendmail
spool emails to qmail Mailldir emails ??
Thanks,
Roberto Samarone Araujo
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:55:28PM -0300, Roberto Samarone Araujo (RSA) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I always used Qmail in all my jobs so, I don't know work with
> sendmail. At the old week I went to visit a client that is using sendmail. I
> saw sendmail running and, after some minutes looking at how sendmail work, I
> concluded that sendmail virtual email when you need to you m4 is really
> hilarious hehhehehe and very suxx, so I proposed to the client to use Qmail.
> But now, I have a question. Are there any way to convert Sendmail
> spool emails to qmail Mailldir emails ??
Sure is. Check out www.qmail.org for programs that convert mailboxes
to Maildirs in the "User-Contributed Maildir Support" section.
Or do you mean convert the existing queue? The easiest way to do that
is simply let the queue drain since sendmail and qmail can coexist
(with care).
Regards.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 11:41:25AM -0500, Collin B. McClendon wrote:
> I do have some relevant log files, however they are quite large. I am
> running RedHat Linux
> 6.2. Previously I was using OpenBSD 2.7. Thanks for the tip on qmail-qmqpc,
> I'll look into this.
and also:
> Hello all,
> Per Mark's suggestion I have put my maillogs up for perusal at this URL:
> http://listserv.investorlinks.com/qmail/
>
> I am using Qmail 1.03 on RedHat Linux 6.2. I have applied big-concurrency,
> big-todo, fastforward and dotforward.
> I also am use the tcpserver from uscpi tools. I have soft linked my rc file
> and controls directory as well.
> My kernel FD_DESCRIPTORs are set at 4096 and I used systctl.conf to change
> my fs.inode-max to 65536 and
> my fs.file-max to 16384. The symptoms so far have been an increase in
> delivery times unless I restart qmail every day or so.
> I also have noticed my queue stays around 300 or so permanently and
> unprocessed mailings are around 10 during high load, 2 during normal
> operation. If there is any other relevant information that you can think of
> let me know. Thanks, I'd really appreciate any input you can give.
Just looking at maillog.1.gz:
It appears that your list needs cleaning up. Presumably your listserv
isn't dealing with bounces and rejections very well as the log shows
17,000+ "Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/", and
13,000+ "Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/"
messages.
Now a lot of these are going to be retries, but it still seems like a
lot to me.
More convincing is that the 17,000+ "does_not_like_recipient"
messages.
So I'd really work hard to try and clean up that list. Are you sure
that the unsubscribe and bounce handling of listserv is actually
working and removing dead addresses?
Apart from that, your qmail install seems to be running just fine. Can
you identify the time and domain that "gets stuck" in maillog.1.gz?
Regards.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Delany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 11:31 AM
> To: Qmail List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Can a que in Qmail get stuck?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:44:33AM -0500, Collin B. McClendon wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I was wondering if anyone else has had this issue. I am running listserv
> > lists with about 10k in one list and 20k in the other.
> > It seems that since i switched to Linux as the operating system instead of
> > BSD, the que gets stuck on one domain and takes forever.
> > The only way to get mail out in a reasonable amount of time is to kill all
> > qmail daemons and restart. When I was using BSD
> > this was never an issue. I have to use Linux since the listserv program
> runs
> > on this server as well and Listserv doesn't make a
> > Linux binary available. (I've tried emulation, no good).
> > Thanks for any input,
>
> Of course if you showed relevant log files of your problem then we'd
> be able to have a technical discussion rather than a seance...
>
> In the absence of any information about your system, your mail setup
> or your delivery logs, we can only assure you that lots of places run
> qmail without problems on varying versions of Linux (dunno about your
> version, you didn't say what it is), so it's probably something
> specific to your system.
>
> As an aside, if you still have the BSD machine and you cannot solve
> this particular problem, you may want to consider using qmail-qmqpc on
> Linux forwarding to your BSD box. That way you get listserv running on
> Linux and mail delivery running on BSD.
>
>
> Regards.
keng heng writes:
> Is it any way to do APOP with qmail?
Yes.
--
-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,
Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
get ride of pine because only has mbox.
David Gómez
"The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of
whether submarines can swim." -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
> get ride of pine because only has mbox.
The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention mutt. From
these I'd use mutt ;-))
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:47:46PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
> > get ride of pine because only has mbox.
>
> The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention mutt. From
> these I'd use mutt ;-))
Hey, I think you forgot to speak about mutt! That's incredible... :)
Olivier
PS: do you know a way to send a gnupg message encrypted with two or three
keys to a single address ? We have an ezmlm-based list, and all
the posts should be encrypted. But when I send a mail to the list,
I can only encrypt with one key... Thanks for any hint!
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:54:51PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:47:46PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
> > > get ride of pine because only has mbox.
> >
> > The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention mutt. From
> > these I'd use mutt ;-))
>
> Hey, I think you forgot to speak about mutt! That's incredible... :)
And I use another MUA that supports maildirs very well. It even uses the
new/cur/tmp dirs as it should, instead of relying on "Status" headers. It's
called "mutt" ;-)
RC
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis Telecom - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:23:52PM +0000, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:54:51PM +0100, Olivier M. wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:47:46PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
> > > > get ride of pine because only has mbox.
> > > The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention mutt. From
> > > these I'd use mutt ;-))
> > Hey, I think you forgot to speak about mutt! That's incredible... :)
> And I use another MUA that supports maildirs very well. It even uses the
> new/cur/tmp dirs as it should, instead of relying on "Status" headers. It's
> called "mutt" ;-)
Oh, maybe you are on many mailing lists. Then a good List reply is a must,
so your choice should be different. For this special case I'd recommend...
eh, you got the idea - mutt ;-))
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 14 January 2001 at 19:47:46 +0100
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
> > get ride of pine because only has mbox.
>
> The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention mutt. From
> these I'd use mutt ;-))
Yes, unfortunately several of my users very much don't like mutt.
--
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/
* David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 14 January 2001 at 19:47:46 +0100
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I
>> > want to get ride of pine because only has mbox.
Patch pine with the patch mentioned at http://qmail.org/ and you're in
business. OTOH:
Look, Ma, 4299 accidents waiting to happen:
find pine4.21 -type f | xargs egrep '(sprintf|strcpy|strcat)' | wc -l
4299
>> The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention
>> mutt. From these I'd use mutt ;-))
> Yes, unfortunately several of my users very much don't like mutt.
mutt is pretty nifty. Another good choice would be Gnus http://www.gnus.org/
which also supports Maildir natively if you use nnmaildir. Otherwise, Maildir
is available as a regular mail backend. It's about 150x as big as mutt,
but it's got a lot of extremely useful features mutt lacks (I use both
extensively).
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/Gnus/>
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:47:46PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
# On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 07:28:15PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# >
# > Hi,
# >
# > Is there any good MUA out there that supports Maildir format? I want to
# > get ride of pine because only has mbox.
#
# The three greatest: mutt, mutt and mutt. I should also mention mutt. From
# these I'd use mutt ;-))
Mutt is pretty good also
--
Justin Bell
To Stefan,
I thank you all for your help and I am sorry for the response that I
sent to the list. Stefan: You were right about the kernel, I did have
ecn on. I have another situation which I am looking at fixing. Case
insensitive emails, with login and passwords being case sensitive.
Currently I use my own hack for it, however is there a better way that
is built in that I don't know about.
I currently run kernel 2.4 with qmail-1.03 running under tcpserver, with
relay-ctrl being the only additional mod. And yes if I have a reason to
continue to post its all t he lovely flaming responses I got to my
sarcastic remark.
Signed,
Corey Jarvis
hi,
i am running a linuxbox with qmail serving several virtual maildomains.
i have passwd-users for pop3. now, i would like to open my system to
some secure ip-adresses of some of my customers networks for them to send
there emails via my system. i put them to /etc/tcp.smtp and built a new
database using tcprules. after restarting qmail, it accept smtp-connection
from my customers network, but refuses to handle emails except for those
domains, who are listed in ~qmail/control/rctphosts.
i don't understand, why qmail doesn't accept emails for foreign domains ?
i thought, new tcp.smtp.cdb file will allow clients listed there to relay ?
--
gruss,jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices
http://www.instant-networks.de
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:58:11PM +0100, Jens Georg wrote:
> hi,
>
> i am running a linuxbox with qmail serving several virtual maildomains.
> i have passwd-users for pop3. now, i would like to open my system to
> some secure ip-adresses of some of my customers networks for them to send
> there emails via my system. i put them to /etc/tcp.smtp and built a new
> database using tcprules. after restarting qmail, it accept smtp-connection
> from my customers network, but refuses to handle emails except for those
> domains, who are listed in ~qmail/control/rctphosts.
> i don't understand, why qmail doesn't accept emails for foreign domains ?
> i thought, new tcp.smtp.cdb file will allow clients listed there to relay ?
Not to be rude, but... have you ever read a single piece of documetation for
qmail? Did you ever thought about what information might by helpful for this
question if you are _really_ unable to get it from the docs (this is nearly
impossible)? At least your tcp file - then some guys here had mailed you
"RTFM, and add RELAYCLIENT="" here"...
> --
> gruss,jens
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices
> http://www.instant-networks.de
>
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
hello,
the problem was solved by me. the problem was caused by the ip's given
to me. those ip's are part of an dhcp-pool and of course the workstations
of my customers got different ip's whenever they have been started. no
wonder why relaying didn't work at 100% :-(.
but, anyway, thanks for all your great responses ! thanks !
Jens Georg wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> i am running a linuxbox with qmail serving several virtual maildomains.
> i have passwd-users for pop3. now, i would like to open my system to
> some secure ip-adresses of some of my customers networks for them to send
> there emails via my system. i put them to /etc/tcp.smtp and built a new
> database using tcprules. after restarting qmail, it accept smtp-connection
> from my customers network, but refuses to handle emails except for those
> domains, who are listed in ~qmail/control/rctphosts.
> i don't understand, why qmail doesn't accept emails for foreign domains ?
> i thought, new tcp.smtp.cdb file will allow clients listed there to relay ?
>
> --
> gruss,jens
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices
> http://www.instant-networks.de
--
gruss,jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices
http://www.instant-networks.de
Hi all...
Has anyone investigated the use of "Winbind" with "Qmail" for the auth'ing
off an NT domain ?
Much like Qmail-LDAP but an NT domain being the password database.
Feedback appreciated.
Cheers
Dennis
I am trying to create system (on RedHat Linux)
where message is PGP verified before message reaches qmail-queue
does anyone did this kind of programm before?
does any knows what PGP programm should i use?
According to Dan's page on mini-qmail
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/mini.html, installing mini-qmail doesn't require
qmail entries in /etc/passwd or /etc/group. So one should conceptually
just have to unpack qmail-1.03.tar.gz, create /var/qmail and run make
setup check
However, on doing this this is the error message received
./load auto-gid substdio.a error.a str.a fs.a
( ./auto-uid auto_uida `head -1 conf-users` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uidd `head -2 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uidl `head -3 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uido `head -4 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uidp `head -5 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uidq `head -6 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uidr `head -7 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-uid auto_uids `head -8 conf-users | tail -1` \
&&./auto-gid auto_gidq `head -1 conf-groups` \
&&./auto-gid auto_gidn `head -2 conf-groups | tail -1` \
) > auto_uids.c.tmp && mv auto_uids.c.tmp auto_uids.c
fatal: unable to find user alias
So, does the installation of mini-qmail require creating of user-ids for
installation and then one can delete them subsequently
--
Yusuf Goolamabbas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
I've been scouring documentation to find an answer but to no avail. Perhaps
someone can point me to the right place to help me with the following:
Currently running qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.1, I would like to add an extra
item of text to every email that is sent from all our users when they mail
externally to our domain.
Any help much appreciated.
Thanks
Steve
--
Steve Crowder
Systems Support Engineer
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
