qmail Digest 23 Jan 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1253
Topics (messages 55720 through 55785):
Re: failure notice
55720 by: M. Yu
55721 by: Henning Brauer
Re: bandwidth monitoring/analysis
55722 by: Michael Maier
QMail DOS
55723 by: Andy Abshagen
55725 by: Greg Cope
55727 by: Dave Sill
55728 by: Michael Maier
55730 by: Dave Sill
55732 by: Andy Abshagen
55733 by: Dave Sill
55757 by: Andrew Richards
55762 by: Markus Stumpf
55765 by: Dave Sill
55766 by: Jose AP Celestino
55767 by: Mark Delany
55768 by: Markus Stumpf
55771 by: Chin Fang
55774 by: Russell Nelson
55775 by: Dan Peterson
Re: mail loop problem
55724 by: Chris Johnson
55735 by: Charles Boening
Re: Problem
55726 by: Chris Johnson
Re: POP Toaster
55729 by: Dave Sill
55759 by: Sean Reifschneider
Re: qlogtools compile - error
55731 by: Bruce Guenter
502 unimplemented
55734 by: Stef Hoesli Wiederwald
55764 by: Markus Stumpf
55780 by: Stef Hoesli Wiederwald
55782 by: Stef Hoesli Wiederwald
listening of defined IPs only
55736 by: Mailing List Address
55737 by: Johan Almqvist
55740 by: Mailing List Address
55751 by: Henning Brauer
RFC822
55738 by: Marcio Sa
55739 by: Timo Geusch
55741 by: Marcio Sa
55742 by: Timo Geusch
55744 by: Alex Pennace
55745 by: Marcio Sa
55749 by: Johan Almqvist
55750 by: Henning Brauer
55760 by: Marcio Sa
slow connection init
55743 by: Steve Woolley
55755 by: Tim Hunter
55756 by: Steve Woolley
55758 by: Andrew Richards
tcp.smtp
55746 by: Joanne Pons
55748 by: Chris Johnson
55752 by: Greg Cope
55753 by: Henning Brauer
Load Balancing
55747 by: Federico Edelman Anaya
55754 by: Henning Brauer
Rewriting Headers
55761 by: huma.roku.redroom.com
55783 by: Alex Kramarov
55784 by: OK 2 NET - Andr� Paulsberg
Re: Pine/qmail/sqwebmail
55763 by: Robin S. Socha
Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1)
55769 by: Scott Gifford
55770 by: Keary Suska
55773 by: Scott Gifford
Delivering to Courier imap userdb maildirs
55772 by: Chris
Regarding catchall
55776 by: kamesh
How ?
55777 by: Dennis
55778 by: Robin S. Socha
Patches
55779 by: Sumith Ail
Special Routing setup
55781 by: Lieven Van Acker
qmail-popup process not starting successfully at boot
55785 by: Keith Edwards
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail
Isn't this supposed to be ./Maildir/ (a slash after Maildir)?
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:13:16AM +0800, Ah Sang wrote:
> qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail
^
you missed the / here.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
> OK Thanks but i haven't two ip on my server !
Give it an internal IP, and let it map with your Firewall =)
--
Ciao, Michael..
|
We are in the midst of a security audit performed
by Ernst & Young. They are claiming something about a DOS
situation. What I need to find out is whether there are any known DOS
situations out there. If so what needs to be done to take care of the
problem.
Thanks
Andy
|
> Andy Abshagen wrote:
>
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> They are claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to
> find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there. If
> so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andy
Did they give any concrete evidence ?
Greg
"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
>They are claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to
>find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there. If
>so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
If you're not running qmail-smtpd under some kind of memory limit
(e.g., via ulimit or softlimit) it can be made to consume all
available memory. The "Life with qmail" installation uses
softlimit. See also:
http://cr.yp.to/docs/resources.html
For more background.
-Dave
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> They are claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to
> find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there. If
> so what needs to be done to take care of the problem. ThanksAndy
Just use tcpserver or xinetd!
CYA,
Michael..
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just use tcpserver or xinetd!
No, that's not sufficient.
-Dave
Yes. And no. I just read the preliminary report from them. The report
actually states in it that it only affect qmail 1.02 and older. They
dropped it on the report because they could not get our mail server to
report a version number. Since we are running 1.03 they are removing the
"problem" from the report.
Thanks for the all the responses though.
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Cope" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Qmail Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: QMail DOS
> > Andy Abshagen wrote:
> >
> > We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> > They are claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to
> > find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there. If
> > so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andy
>
> Did they give any concrete evidence ?
>
> Greg
>
"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes. And no. I just read the preliminary report from them. The report
>actually states in it that it only affect qmail 1.02 and older. They
>dropped it on the report because they could not get our mail server to
>report a version number. Since we are running 1.03 they are removing the
>"problem" from the report.
Regardless of what your auditors say, the fact that you're having and
audit conducted--and running qmail--means that you're concerned about
security. In that case, you should verify that you've configured
qmail-smtpd to run with limited memory consumption. This is a real
issue, and it wasn't resolved by 1.03.
-Dave
>We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
>They are claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to
>find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there.
>If so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
Andy,
The standard DoS is to open lots of SMTP connections to an SMTP server,
which could be qmail, or any other MTA - and leave them open. Since
[vanilla] SMTP is not authenticated, this attack could be initiated from
anywhere. It's unlikely that you'd be able to knock out a whole machine
like this (tcpserver gives the -c option to limit the no. of connections, and
even inetd has a crappy way of limiting connections), but you would be
able to DoS SMTP on a machine (the attacker continues to setup lots
of SMTP connections to force the MTA to its SMTP connection limit, so
that anyone else trying to establish an SMTP connection is likely to fail).
The normal way to reduce the effect of this potential attack is to think
carefully about your setup - maybe you can separate SMTP into "Ingoing"
and "Outgoing" - the latter for, say, the office network only. Then setup
separate tcpserver processes (different IPs) for both, filtered accordingly.
Additionally, you can use other tools like POP3-before-SMTP.
cheers,
Andrew.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:40:13AM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote:
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young. They are
>claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to find out is whether there
>are any known DOS situations out there. If so what needs to be done to take care of
>the problem.
There are two "problems" with a vanilla qmail installation I can think of:
1) if an agressor sends zillions of emails to a non-existing local
address qmail-smtpd will - unlike a lot of other smtpds - accept
the messages, pass it through it's delivery mechanism and bounce
them back creating bounce messages itself.
qmail-smtpd cannot decide at SMTP level wether a user exists or not.
It is IMHO a question of definition whether you will call this a
DoS vulnerability.
2) is only applicable if the qmail server is acting as a relay to the final
MTA. If again an agressor sends zillions of emails to (non-existing) local
addresses (even with multiple RCPT TO commands in one SMTP session)
qmail-remote will send one mail per recipient to the final MTA. If this
final MTA is also qmail you again have situation 1) and if the user does
not exist, qmail will return a bounce message for each message
received, regardless what type of SMTP receiver the final MTA is.
This could cause the receiver of the bounces problems and some ppl
claimed that - because of that - qmail could be used to DoS other systems
(e.g. by faking the sender address).
I'd personally not call any of the two situations DoS vulnerabilities,
other might want to. Your mileage may vary.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Tap, tap, tap. Hello? Is thing on?
Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The standard DoS is to open lots of SMTP connections to an SMTP server,
>which could be qmail, or any other MTA - and leave them open.
No, the "standard" qmail DOS is to make a single connection to
qmail-smtpd and send it either lots of RCPT's or a single
unlimited-length command. Eventually, the qmail-smtpd process will
consume all available memory, preventing other processes from getting
the memory they need.
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/06/msg00317.html
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/06/msg00322.html
>Since
>[vanilla] SMTP is not authenticated, this attack could be initiated from
>anywhere.
Authentication won't help. Since SMTP is (usually) a public service,
it needs to be open to everyone.
>It's unlikely that you'd be able to knock out a whole machine
>like this (tcpserver gives the -c option to limit the no. of connections, and
>even inetd has a crappy way of limiting connections), but you would be
>able to DoS SMTP on a machine (the attacker continues to setup lots
>of SMTP connections to force the MTA to its SMTP connection limit, so
>that anyone else trying to establish an SMTP connection is likely to fail).
That's a different and less severe problem that is shared by any
public network service.
-Dave
You should take a look at the following thread:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2001/01/msg00832.html
Regards.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:40:13AM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote:
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young. They are
>claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to find out is whether there
>are any known DOS situations out there. If so what needs to be done to take care of
>the problem.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andy
--
Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || SAPO / PTM.COM
Administração de Sistemas / Operações || http://www.sapo.pt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge is power -- knowledge shared is power lost.
-- Aleister Crowley
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:32:58PM +0000, Jose AP Celestino wrote:
> You should take a look at the following thread:
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2001/01/msg00832.html
>
> Regards.
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:40:13AM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote:
> > We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young. They are
>claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to find out is whether there
>are any known DOS situations out there. If so what needs to be done to take care of
>the problem.
Of course let us not forget that it is impossible to stop DOS attacks
on publicly connected servers. I hope your consultant are telling you
that all systems connected to the Internet are vulnerable to some form
of DOS?
You can mitigate against the obvious attacks, but that's about
it. Even big players with lots of resources, such as Yahoo and Ebay
cannot stop a determined DDOS.
Regards.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 07:25:20PM -0000, Andrew Richards wrote:
> The standard DoS is to open lots of SMTP connections to an SMTP server,
> which could be qmail, or any other MTA - and leave them open.
Which can easily be dealt with by setting Q/control/timeoutsmtpd to
a lower value (default is 1200 seconds).
\Maex
> Which can easily be dealt with by setting Q/control/timeoutsmtpd to
> a lower value (default is 1200 seconds).
>
> \Maex
I am afraid it's not that straightforward. For instance, for a guy
who is on a slow dial up connection (say 28.8kbps or less), and who is
attempting to send large message (say a message with a 10MB
attachment) to your site, he is capable of tieing up for quite a while
a qmail-smtpd instance of your installation regardless his intention.
Now, assuming on a day your site is unlucky enough to have quite a
few this kind of people banging on your mail server(s), your life
can become somewhat difficult.
I have experienced the above situation once.
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
QMail doesn't run under DOS.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "This is Unix...
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Stop acting so helpless."
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | --Daniel J. Bernstein
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> QMail doesn't run under DOS.
If we get 20 people together...
--
Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://danp.net
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0800, Charles Boening wrote:
> I'm running qmail 1.03 on a RH 7 (kernel 2.2.17) system. This is an
> internal server providing DNS (internal and forwarding for external
> resolution), mail and web services. I'm running vpopmail 4.9.4. Everything
> seems to be working fine except sending from the mail server to an address
> hosted on the mail server (local mail). Incoming mail from the rest of the
> Internet seems to work, mail from other servers internally seems to work,
> again, just mail initiated locally is broken.
>
> I'm also hosting other domains on this same system and they are behaving
> similarly ... mail from outside works, mail initiated from the mail server
> doesn't.
>
> all the domains are listed in rcpthosts and virtual domains properly.
>
> Here's what I see in my bounced message (it gets bounced to root@localhost
> and placed in an mbox)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> 553 5.3.5 mail.jahl.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> 554 5.3.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Local configuration error
That's sendmail talking, not qmail. How are you injecting this mail? Is
/usr/sbin/sendmail (or wherever sendmail is on your system) a symlink to
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail?
Chris
Thanks. I'll be damned if I didn't remove the sendmail RPM ... could have
sworn I did that!
Thanks again.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:46 AM
To: Charles Boening
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: mail loop problem
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0800, Charles Boening wrote:
> I'm running qmail 1.03 on a RH 7 (kernel 2.2.17) system. This is an
> internal server providing DNS (internal and forwarding for external
> resolution), mail and web services. I'm running vpopmail 4.9.4.
Everything
> seems to be working fine except sending from the mail server to an address
> hosted on the mail server (local mail). Incoming mail from the rest of
the
> Internet seems to work, mail from other servers internally seems to work,
> again, just mail initiated locally is broken.
>
> I'm also hosting other domains on this same system and they are behaving
> similarly ... mail from outside works, mail initiated from the mail server
> doesn't.
>
> all the domains are listed in rcpthosts and virtual domains properly.
>
> Here's what I see in my bounced message (it gets bounced to root@localhost
> and placed in an mbox)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> 553 5.3.5 mail.jahl.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> 554 5.3.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Local configuration error
That's sendmail talking, not qmail. How are you injecting this mail? Is
/usr/sbin/sendmail (or wherever sendmail is on your system) a symlink to
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail?
Chris
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:10:01PM +0530, M Natanasigamani wrote:
> I want to ascertain whether my client as the capability to read HTML mail.
Why don't you ask him?
Chris
Sean Reifschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 12:26:09AM -0600, Peder Angvall wrote:
>>
>>The virtualhosts file has:
>>webscripting.net:webscripting-net
>
>So, you're forwarding mail for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to
>"webscripting-net-user" *AT WHAT DOMAIN*?
virtualdomains entries can't redirect to remote domains.
-Dave
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:00:02AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>>So, you're forwarding mail for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to
>>"webscripting-net-user" *AT WHAT DOMAIN*?
>
>virtualdomains entries can't redirect to remote domains.
Hmm, seems that envnoathost isn't used for delivery of virtual domains.
While that's probably what you want, it's not what I expect. Not after
being biten by msglog trying to be delivered to msglog@envnoathost
Sean
--
Jackie Trehorn treats objects like women, man...
-- _The_Big_Lebowski_
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> sorry, I used the wrong make but now it does not work anyway:
>
> gmake: *** No rules to make target 'qlogselect', needed by 'all'. Stop.
>
> what is wrong? on my Debian it compiles perfect but not under FreeBSD
Did you remove the "qlogselect" program while trying to build it?
Please direct further messages on this topic to the bgware mailing list,
as this is off-topic for this list.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
Hi there
We use qmail on one of our systems (How do I find out what version it
is? Did not install it myself...). Sometimes, it throws back '502
unimplemented' errors with no apparent reason. I also tried to connect
manually via telnet to port 25. Sometimes I can send a message without
problems, and sometimes I get the 502 error, but not at the same
point, i.e. arbitrarily after any of the helo, mail, rcpt or data
commands.
Any idea what this could be?
Stef
--
IT freelancer
President SOS-ETH
ETH Zurich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hoes.li
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:20:56PM +0100, Stef Hoesli Wiederwald wrote:
> manually via telnet to port 25. Sometimes I can send a message without
> problems, and sometimes I get the 502 error, but not at the same
> point, i.e. arbitrarily after any of the helo, mail, rcpt or data
> commands.
How about you show examples of the situation where the 502 is returned.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:21:53PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:20:56PM +0100, Stef Hoesli Wiederwald wrote:
> > manually via telnet to port 25. Sometimes I can send a message without
> > problems, and sometimes I get the 502 error, but not at the same
> > point, i.e. arbitrarily after any of the helo, mail, rcpt or data
> > commands.
>
> How about you show examples of the situation where the 502 is returned.
OK, here is one: I tried three times. The first two times it went
without any problem (I always used exactly the same parameters). The
third time I got the 502 after rcpt:
sos:~> telnet <QMAIL HOST> 25
Trying <QMAIL HOST IP>...
Connected to <QMAIL HOST>
Escape character is '^]'.
220 <QMAIL HOST> ESMTP
helo sos.ethz.ch
250 <QMAIL HOST>
mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt to:<QMAIL ADDRESS>
250 ok
502 unimplemented (#5.5.1)
Stef
--
IT freelancer
President SOS-ETH
ETH Zurich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hoes.li
> helo sos.ethz.ch
> 250 <QMAIL HOST>
> mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:<QMAIL ADDRESS>
> 250 ok
> 502 unimplemented (#5.5.1)
After that I said:
quit
and got a
451 timeout (#4.4.2)
some minutes later...
Stef
--
IT freelancer
President SOS-ETH
ETH Zurich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hoes.li
Hi.
I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to?
Regards!
J.M.Roth
* Mailing List Address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 17:58]:
> I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
> How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to?
man tcpserver?
HINT: The zero in tcpserver's arguments means bind to all interfaces...
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Sorry, should've looked more carefully <g>
thanks anyway
Johan Almqvist writes:
> * Mailing List Address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 17:58]:
>> I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
>> How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to?
>
> man tcpserver?
>
> HINT: The zero in tcpserver's arguments means bind to all interfaces...
>
> -Johan
> --
> Johan Almqvist
> http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:58:56PM +0000, Mailing List Address wrote:
> Hi.
> I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
> How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to?
man tcpserver
> Regards!
> J.M.Roth
>
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Hello,
i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because second
one looks like
a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and the
only information
related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
":" like my header.
I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same. Header
looks like ok (only
from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
Thanks, Marcio
This is my example :
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test one
teste one body
.
250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test two
test two body
.
Here is my Mailbox:
# more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
-0000
Subject: Test one
teste one body
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
-0000
Subject: Test two
test two body
The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
T.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFC822
Hello,
i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
second
one looks like
a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and
the
only information
related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
":" like my header.
I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
Header
looks like ok (only
from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
Thanks, Marcio
This is my example :
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test one
teste one body
.
250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test two
test two body
.
Here is my Mailbox:
# more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
-0000
Subject: Test one
teste one body
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
-0000
Subject: Test two
test two body
Timo Geusch wrote:
> The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
> the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
> as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
>
> OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
Hello,
Thanks for you response.
yes, this is my script:
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
Marcio Sa
>
>
> T.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFC822
>
> Hello,
>
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
> second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and
> the
> only information
> related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
> ":" like my header.
> I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
> Header
> looks like ok (only
> from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
>
> Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
> Thanks, Marcio
>
> This is my example :
>
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> .
> 250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
> .
>
> Here is my Mailbox:
>
> # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
> -0000
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
> -0000
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
Mario,
as I pointed out the delivery into a Mailbox file
inside a Maildir is a bit suspicious. How are you
trying to access the email?
Maybe this would shed some light on your problem.
To be honest, I don't think it has anything to do
with RFC compliance; my money is on a config
problem.
Regards,
Timo
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 17:10
To: Timo Geusch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC822
Timo Geusch wrote:
> The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line
without
> the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is
used
> as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
>
> OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
Hello,
Thanks for you response.
yes, this is my script:
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
Marcio Sa
>
>
> T.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFC822
>
> Hello,
>
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
> second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages
and
> the
> only information
> related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from
withou
> ":" like my header.
> I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
> Header
> looks like ok (only
> from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
>
> Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
> Thanks, Marcio
>
> This is my example :
>
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> .
> 250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
> .
>
> Here is my Mailbox:
>
> # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
17:03:51
> -0000
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
17:04:16
> -0000
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 02:52:15PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and the
> only information
> related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
> ":" like my header.
[...]
> Here is my Mailbox:
>
>
> # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
> -0000
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
>
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
> -0000
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
All that's kosher, the message separator in mbox files is a line
beginning with "From ".
Timo Geusch wrote:
> Mario,
> as I pointed out the delivery into a Mailbox file
> inside a Maildir is a bit suspicious. How are you
> trying to access the email?
Hi Timo,
i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
create local Mailbox instantly too.
>
> Maybe this would shed some light on your problem.
> To be honest, I don't think it has anything to do
> with RFC compliance; my money is on a config
> problem.
>
Ok, i'll try some changes. But header message is a qmail-inject
problem isn't it ? I have looked to it and i didn't find any kind
of configuration. I can change a start script but the procedure
to generate a header is the same , isn't it ?
Thanks,
Marcio
>
> Regards,
>
> Timo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 17:10
> To: Timo Geusch
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFC822
>
> Timo Geusch wrote:
>
> > The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line
> without
> > the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is
> used
> > as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
> >
> > OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> > Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for you response.
> yes, this is my script:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
> # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
> exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
>
> Marcio Sa
>
> >
> >
> > T.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RFC822
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
> > second
> > one looks like
> > a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages
> and
> > the
> > only information
> > related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from
> withou
> > ":" like my header.
> > I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
> > Header
> > looks like ok (only
> > from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
> >
> > Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
> > Thanks, Marcio
> >
> > This is my example :
> >
> > mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > data
> > 354 go ahead
> > Subject: Test one
> >
> > teste one body
> >
> > .
> > 250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
> > mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > data
> > 354 go ahead
> > Subject: Test two
> >
> > test two body
> > .
> >
> > Here is my Mailbox:
> >
> > # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -0000
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> > Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
> 17:03:51
> > -0000
> > Subject: Test one
> >
> > teste one body
> >
> > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -0000
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> > Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
> 17:04:16
> > -0000
> > Subject: Test two
> >
> > test two body
* Marcio Sa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 18:09]:
> Timo Geusch wrote:
>
> > The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
> > the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
> > as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
> >
> > OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> > Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for you response.
> yes, this is my script:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
> # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
> exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what is this? Why did you put this
here?
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:34:56PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
> only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
> create local Mailbox instantly too.
> > qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
I see your problem, its relatively easy. It has nothing to do with RFCs. You
told qmail to place new Mails in an mbox ~/Maildir/new/Mailbox, and you are
using qpop3d. qpop3d supports only Maildirs, no mboxes, and therfore treats
your Mailbox-file as a single Mail.
There is no way I'm aware of to use qmail-ldap with Maildirs, unless you
find another pop3-daemon which can use the ldap directory to authentificate
the users.
In any way I'd _really_ recommend using Maildirs instead of Mailboxes, there
is lots of other stuff in qmail-ldap only working with Maildirs (quotas for
example). It was written with Maildirs in mind, not Mailboxes.
To use Maildirs, just change you /var/qmail/rc:
qmail-start ./Maildir/
Every new mail will then be a file in Maildir/new with a timestamp as name.
You should also retire from splogger and user multilog, but thats another
story. I'd recommend reading http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:34:56PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> > i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
> > only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
> > create local Mailbox instantly too.
> > > qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
>
> I see your problem, its relatively easy. It has nothing to do with RFCs. You
> told qmail to place new Mails in an mbox ~/Maildir/new/Mailbox, and you are
> using qpop3d. qpop3d supports only Maildirs, no mboxes, and therfore treats
> your Mailbox-file as a single Mail.
> There is no way I'm aware of to use qmail-ldap with Maildirs, unless you
> find another pop3-daemon which can use the ldap directory to authentificate
> the users.
> In any way I'd _really_ recommend using Maildirs instead of Mailboxes, there
> is lots of other stuff in qmail-ldap only working with Maildirs (quotas for
> example). It was written with Maildirs in mind, not Mailboxes.
> To use Maildirs, just change you /var/qmail/rc:
>
> qmail-start ./Maildir/
Hi Henning,
thank you. I didnt put a slash after Maildir and in my wrong solution, i think
that .../new/Mailbox work.
Ok, now is working, thank you !!!!
Marcio
>
>
> Every new mail will then be a file in Maildir/new with a timestamp as name.
> You should also retire from splogger and user multilog, but thats another
> story. I'd recommend reading http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/.
> --
> Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
> Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
> http://www.bsws.de | Germany
I am running a Red Hat v6.2 (w/ patches) server
on a AMD Athlon 800MHz with 256M RAM -- and have
been fairly pleased with its performance.
The problem is I want to migrate my existing RH 6.2
qmail mail server (a slower Pentium II).
The problem is, when first started the server
flys (very fast). After aprox one day, any
connection into this server (sshd, telnet , pop,
smtp, etc) takes a while to initiate. Sometimes
more than 60 seconds -- which of course times out
most POP connections. Once connected, everything seems to
act normal (connections initiated quickly).
I have looked into the logs and looked at netsat -pa
to get some insight into this slowdown, but have not
had very good luck. I know this is probably not
directly related to qmail, but I am a little woried
about the svscan process and how quickly it can wake
up a process.
P.S> I can see the correct processes running when I get
in this process initiation hang so I don't think they've
died. Could it be some reverse name resolution problem?
HELP!?!?!?!
--
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My experienced guess would this would be DNS related, perhaps you should
look into running djbdns locally or close to the Mail server.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: slow connection init
I am running a Red Hat v6.2 (w/ patches) server
on a AMD Athlon 800MHz with 256M RAM -- and have
been fairly pleased with its performance.
The problem is I want to migrate my existing RH 6.2
qmail mail server (a slower Pentium II).
The problem is, when first started the server
flys (very fast). After aprox one day, any
connection into this server (sshd, telnet , pop,
smtp, etc) takes a while to initiate. Sometimes
more than 60 seconds -- which of course times out
most POP connections. Once connected, everything seems to
act normal (connections initiated quickly).
I have looked into the logs and looked at netsat -pa
to get some insight into this slowdown, but have not
had very good luck. I know this is probably not
directly related to qmail, but I am a little woried
about the svscan process and how quickly it can wake
up a process.
P.S> I can see the correct processes running when I get
in this process initiation hang so I don't think they've
died. Could it be some reverse name resolution problem?
HELP!?!?!?!
--
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I had this problem with my mail server as well...
> qmail logs extensively, and if you have it using the generic logging
> stuffs, the files get HUGE and the entire system drags like a dog.
>
Thanks for the input Teep. Since this is a new box (and I also
verified) the size of the log files are (so far) very small.
Thx
>flys (very fast). After aprox one day, any
>connection into this server (sshd, telnet , pop,
>smtp, etc) takes a while to initiate. Sometimes
>more than 60 seconds -- which of course times out
>most POP connections. Once connected, everything seems to
>act normal (connections initiated quickly).
Steve,
Also take a look at the -R, -H and -l options to tcpserver - these
relate to DNS and identd lookups - try using all three (see the
man page) and see if the behaviour of the box changes. If so,
investigate why - then either leave these options in, or address
the issues these options work around.
cheers,
Andrew.
I am having trouble sending mail from an application
running on the same server as the mail server. If the
domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read the
section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and from what
I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting
host (listed with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a
message. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Joanne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:05:13AM -0800, Joanne Pons wrote:
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application running on the same
> server as the mail server. If the domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the
> tcp.smtp list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts" error. I've read the section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and
> from what I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting host (listed
> with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a message.
Don't do that! That'll make your server an open relay. What you probably want
is:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
This assumes that your application delivers mail by making an SMTP connection
to localhost. If it connects to your public interface instead, then make sure
that IP is allowed to relay.
Chris
Joanne Pons wrote:
>
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application
> running on the same server as the mail server. If the
> domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
> list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
> list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read thetcprules
> section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and from what
> I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting
> host (listed with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a
> message. Am I missing something?
you need a line like:
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
In your tcp.smtpd file (which you then build into your tcp.smtpd.cdb)
I've put these files in /etc so to rebuild on my box requires:
/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
Which means that tcpserver will set the RELAYCLIENT ENV variable - this
is then allows qmail to relay the mail.
Does this help ?
Greg
>
> Thanks,
> Joanne
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:05:13AM -0800, Joanne Pons wrote:
>
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application
> running on the same server as the mail server. If the
> domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
> list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
> list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read the
> section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and from what
> I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting
> host (listed with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a
> message. Am I missing something?
yes, 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" ;-))
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Actually, I have a server called MLM and 4 servers called MLM1,2,3,4
..
MLM is a central server with Qmail and EZMLM, and the other servers are
the RELAY with qmail.
MLM -> (smtproutes) -> MLMRELAY (dns roundrobin ) -> MLM1
-> MLM2
-> MLM3
-> MLM4
Can I change the ROUNDROBIN DNS for a Load Balancing system? Exist any
software for this implementation?
Thanks
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:07:27PM -0300, Federico Edelman Anaya wrote:
> Can I change the ROUNDROBIN DNS for a Load Balancing system?
Round Robin is Round Robin, no load balancing possible.
> Exist any
> software for this implementation?
halinux.org (or was it linuxha.org?) comes to my mind, . Unfortunately I
havent found anything running on *BSD yet - if anybody knows something...
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
How qmail can rewrite _any_ header of outgoing mail? Is there some rules
system to do this?
thanks
David Gómez
"The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of
whether submarines can swim." -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
|
I have already asked this question here twice without a definitive
answer. I ended up applying the qmail-queue patch and using qmail-scanner
to do what I needed with incoming e-mail. I have disabled most of the
scanning features of qmail-scanner and put a few :
if (/^header-name/i)
{
$_=~s/old-header/newheader/i;
}
in the working_copy function , where is reads stdin.
you can find all related info on qmail-scanner and qmail-queue patch
on www.qmail.org
-------Original Message-------
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, January 22,
2001 10:29:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Rewriting
Headers
How qmail can rewrite _any_ header of outgoing mail? Is
there some rules
system to do this?
thanks
David
G�mez
"The question of whether computers can think is just like the
question of
whether submarines can swim." -- Edsger W.
Dijkstra
|
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here |
Please don't use html or pictures when sending E-Mail to mailinglists,
it increases the mailsize dramaticly and the bandwidth used for duplicating your
message.
MVH Andr&yod; Paulsberg
* mrorange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can I use Pine with qmail/sqwebmail?
Yes/no.
> Apparently sqwebmail is dependent upon a maildir directory format and
> when I run Pine it sets up a regular mail directory (/var/mail/spool?)...
Do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about?
> Is there a config I'm missing somewhere?
Somewhere between your ears, yes. Read before you write.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
> users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
> following MX record:
>
> groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
>
> When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
> the mail. 0.0.0.0 connects to 127.0.0.1, so qmail ended up connected
> to itself. It continued to deliver the message to itself, and because
> 127. is allowed to relay on my system, the message was accepted. Then
> qmail would immediately begin delivering the message to itself again.
> Wash, rinse, repeat.
[ ... ]
Further investigation of this problem has led me to what seems to be a
subtle bug in qmail.
in ipme.c, qmail tries to decide what IP addresses will connect back
to itself. It does this by finding the IP addresses of all network
interfaces on the system, and putting them into an ipalloc structure
called ipme. Then, in qmail-remote.c, it deals with the situation
where the best-preference MX for a domain is itself, but this domain
doesn't appear in control/locals, by issuing a permanent failure for
the message, via perm_ambigmx(), which displays the familiar error
message:
Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
This is necessary to prevent a tight internal mail loop, like the one
I encountered below. Otherwise, qmail will see that the message isn't
local, qmail-remote will connect to its own IP address, and the
message will be re-injected.
The problem is that 0.0.0.0 is a special IP address which refers to
"This host on this network" (RFC 1122, 3.2.1.3a), although it isn't
the address of any of the interfaces on a host. According to Paul
Vixie in the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains FAQ (Q5.15):
0.0.0.0 is just an alias for the first interface address assigned
after a system boot [ ... ]
The IP stacks I've checked (Solaris and Linux) behave consistently
with this.
Because qmail doesn't recognize 0.0.0.0 as an IP address which refers
to the local host, when it sees an MX record with that address, it
doesn't recognize it as being an address that will connect back to
itself. This causes the looping scenario that ipme is designed to
prevent.
The simple solution to this problem is to add 0.0.0.0 to ipme, by
adding something like:
ip_scan("0.0.0.0",&ix.ip);
if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(moreipme_fd); return 0; }
into ipme.c, around line 96.
The solution we actually used took advantage of an internal patch
which allows us to list additional addresses to be added to ipme in
"control/moreipme", which works around some other problems qmail has
when addresses that refer to it go through any kind of address
translation or proxying, and it can't recognize them as local. We
just added 0.0.0.0 to the beginning of this file, and all was well.
I'd be happy to hear any comments on this problem.
-----ScottG.
This would definitely be a bug of concern--even sendmail (yoiks!) knows how
to handle 0.0.0.0. But shouldn't qmail bounce the message as a possible MX
loop?
-K
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste
good with ketchup."
> From: Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:20:49 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or
> 127.0.0.1)
>
> Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
>> users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
>> following MX record:
>>
>> groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
>>
>> When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
>> the mail. 0.0.0.0 connects to 127.0.0.1, so qmail ended up connected
>> to itself. It continued to deliver the message to itself, and because
>> 127. is allowed to relay on my system, the message was accepted. Then
>> qmail would immediately begin delivering the message to itself again.
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Further investigation of this problem has led me to what seems to be a
> subtle bug in qmail.
>
> in ipme.c, qmail tries to decide what IP addresses will connect back
> to itself. It does this by finding the IP addresses of all network
> interfaces on the system, and putting them into an ipalloc structure
> called ipme. Then, in qmail-remote.c, it deals with the situation
> where the best-preference MX for a domain is itself, but this domain
> doesn't appear in control/locals, by issuing a permanent failure for
> the message, via perm_ambigmx(), which displays the familiar error
> message:
>
> Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
> it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
>
> This is necessary to prevent a tight internal mail loop, like the one
> I encountered below. Otherwise, qmail will see that the message isn't
> local, qmail-remote will connect to its own IP address, and the
> message will be re-injected.
>
> The problem is that 0.0.0.0 is a special IP address which refers to
> "This host on this network" (RFC 1122, 3.2.1.3a), although it isn't
> the address of any of the interfaces on a host. According to Paul
> Vixie in the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains FAQ (Q5.15):
>
> 0.0.0.0 is just an alias for the first interface address assigned
> after a system boot [ ... ]
>
> The IP stacks I've checked (Solaris and Linux) behave consistently
> with this.
>
> Because qmail doesn't recognize 0.0.0.0 as an IP address which refers
> to the local host, when it sees an MX record with that address, it
> doesn't recognize it as being an address that will connect back to
> itself. This causes the looping scenario that ipme is designed to
> prevent.
>
> The simple solution to this problem is to add 0.0.0.0 to ipme, by
> adding something like:
>
> ip_scan("0.0.0.0",&ix.ip);
> if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(moreipme_fd); return 0; }
>
> into ipme.c, around line 96.
>
> The solution we actually used took advantage of an internal patch
> which allows us to list additional addresses to be added to ipme in
> "control/moreipme", which works around some other problems qmail has
> when addresses that refer to it go through any kind of address
> translation or proxying, and it can't recognize them as local. We
> just added 0.0.0.0 to the beginning of this file, and all was well.
>
> I'd be happy to hear any comments on this problem.
>
> -----ScottG.
>
Keary Suska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would definitely be a bug of concern--even sendmail (yoiks!) knows how
> to handle 0.0.0.0. But shouldn't qmail bounce the message as a possible MX
> loop?
It should, but does not. Putting it into ipme would cause it to.
See my original post that triggered this, at:
http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail0101/326.html
-----ScottG.
|
What's the best way to tell qmail to deliver mail
to virtual maildirs ?
I have Courier imap setup for userdb
authentication, with mailboxes under /home/vmail/maildir-user
TIA,
- Chris
|
Hi ,
I have Installed Qmail On RH 6.2 with Vpopmail
4.8.5 in Maidir format. Also Courier Imap 0.36 is
installed and it working fine.
Now we have the following requirement.
Any mails sent to invalid or nonexistent user
should go to a catchall mailbox instead of
bouncing back.
How to do it for Maildir?
I tried using .qmail-default with
| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail \'\'
> /home/vpopmail/domains/foo.com/user
But its not working.
Can u help me in fixing this.
Regards,
kamesh
-----------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.sify.com
How do you guys support Outlook's Calendar for your windows users ?
Dennis
* Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010123 04:01]:
> How do you guys support Outlook's Calendar for your windows users ?
In a couple of ways. Usually, rebooting helps. If not, the other
three R-Principles(tm) of Mircosoft Support Wankers Inc. apply:
* Restart
* Reinstall
* Reformat
If by any chance you are instead looking for native calendar support for
Outofluck, try this: http://www.openmail.com/ - no it's not qmail. Other
tools are available at: http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=outlook as per
usual.
|
Dear All
We are planning to install Qmail on
a production server which will have
around 500+ virtual domains. I am aware
that some patches need to be
applied to qmail before it can be used on a
production server.
Can someone please let me know on what are the
necessary patches to be
applied. I am using the latest memphis RPM's of
Qmail, daemontools and
ucspi-tcp package. So I would like to know on which
are the most
required patches to these RPM's
Thanks in
advance.
Regards
Sumith
|
Hi,
I have to solve a special mail routing problem. Hope anyone can give som
remarks about the way I planned to setup this config:
Setup of a special mail-relayer (MR) for a bunch of domains:
mail from cust.mailserv --------> MR ---------> dest-mx
| ^
| |
V |
MAILPROCESSOR
mail to cust.domain ------------> MR ----------> cust.postoffice
| ^
| |
V |
MAILPROCESSOR
So all mail to and from a couple of mail-domains has to be routed via MR
to MAILPROCESSOR (Virusscanning, other processing)
So I have to set my smtproutes on MR depending on the initiator of the
smtp conversation to MR.
I plan to configure MR as follows:
cust.domain MX: MR
run two copies of qmail: one that is listing only to MAILPROCESSOR to
accept SMTP conv's, and another that handles all other incoming SMTP
conv's.
As there is are no two different processes that can bind to port 25, I
should run one process on another port, say 2500.
Via low level ip filtering (IPCHAINS), I can redirect all traffic that
comes from MAILPROCESSOR to the qmail process sitting on port 2500.
This way, I can have two qmail-configs, one to route msgs to
MAILPROCESSOR, and another to route the rest.
Does anyone has an idea for other, or better solutions to solve this
problem?
(on one MR-host).
Lieven
Still trying with this one - but maybe it's obvious to someone .....
When our SUN box reboots pop3d does not start.
The when you check mail you get
"An error occurred while sending your username to the mail server
......."
All other qmail services appear to start - and when you re-run
/etc/init.d/qmaild stop/start
qmail-popup starts OK.
I think that this is an environment/path problem ........
In /nohup.out is the line
'env: No such file or directory'
caused by the 'nohup /var/qmail/start-pop3d' command.
Any pointers as to the possible cause of this problem would be
appreciated.
Many thanks
The following 4 diagnostics represent two outputs of ps -ef
and the two files that 'do the work'.
=============================
1).
Here are the processes running after reboot:
i.e no qmail-popup process
ps -ef|grep qmail
qmails 179 1 0 08:36:06 ? 0:00 qmail-send
root 187 1 0 08:36:07 ? 0:00 /usr/local/bin/supervise
/var/lock/qmail-smtpd /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x/v
qmaill 188 1 0 08:36:07 ? 0:00 accustamp
qmaill 189 1 0 08:36:07 ? 0:00 cyclog -s500000
/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
qmaill 181 179 0 08:36:06 ? 0:00 splogger qmail
root 182 179 0 08:36:06 ? 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
qmailr 183 179 0 08:36:06 ? 0:00 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 184 179 0 08:36:06 ? 0:00 qmail-clean
qmaild 191 187 0 08:36:07 ? 0:00 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v
-x/var/qmail/etc/tcprules.cdb -uNNN -gNNN 0 25 csh
=============================
2).
Here are the process running after re-starting qmal
ps -ef|grep qmail
qmaill 344 1 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 cyclog -s500000
/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd
vpopmail 347 1 0 08:41:13 pts/0 0:00 tcpserver -uNNN -gNNN 0
pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup my.mailserver.com /hom
root 339 1 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 /usr/local/bin/supervise
/var/lock/qmail-smtpd /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x/v
qmailq 343 335 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 qmail-clean
qmaill 342 1 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 accustamp
qmailr 341 335 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 qmail-rspawn
qmaild 340 339 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v
-x/var/qmail/etc/tcprules.cdb -u110 -g103 0 25 csh
root 338 335 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox
qmaill 336 335 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 splogger qmail
qmails 335 1 0 08:41:10 pts/0 0:00 qmail-send
=============================
3).
#!/bin/sh
#
# /etc/init.d/qmaild
# START BIT ONLY OF Script for starting and stopping mail service
#
PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin:/var/qmail/bin
USERID=<NNN>
GROUPID=<NNN>
case "$1" in
'start')
echo "Starting qmail local delivery agent..."
nohup /var/qmail/start-qmaild >/dev/null 2>&1
echo "Starting qmail SMTP daemon..."
nohup /var/qmail/start-smtpd >/dev/null 2>&1
echo "Starting qmail POP3 daemon..."
nohup /var/qmail/start-pop3d
echo "Starting qmail IMAP4 daemon..."
nohup /var/qmail/start-imapd >/dev/null 2>&1
sleep 2
echo "Mail Server started."
;;
=============================
4).
Here is the script that is called
#!/bin/sh
#
# /var/qmail/start-pop3d
# Startup script for pop3d using tcpserver and vchkpw
#
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" \
tcpserver -uNNN -gNNN 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \
my.mailserver.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
=============================
