qmail Digest 26 Jan 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1256
Topics (messages 55911 through 56057):
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
55911 by: Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT
55926 by: Markus Stumpf
55935 by: Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT
55942 by: Markus Stumpf
Things I have noted
55912 by: Rod... Whitworth
55930 by: Markus Stumpf
56012 by: Rod... Whitworth
56044 by: James R Grinter
bcc sucks
55913 by: Matthew Patterson
55915 by: Alex Pennace
55917 by: OK 2 NET - Andr� Paulsberg
55922 by: Alex Pennace
55929 by: Matthew Patterson
56002 by: Brian Reichert
Re: unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
55914 by: Noah Sematimba
qmailadmin
55916 by: info
qmail-pop3d broken LAST command
55918 by: Eng. Ramy M. Hassan
55923 by: Michael Maier
55948 by: Charles Cazabon
can't receive mails via telnet on port 25
55919 by: Thomas K�nig
55920 by: Thomas K�nig
55921 by: Thomas K�nig
55925 by: Alex Pennace
55927 by: Thomas K�nig
Is it safe to recompile and install qmail after patching.
55924 by: Eng. Ramy M. Hassan
55931 by: Markus Stumpf
55934 by: Matthew Patterson
55938 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: A lot of Temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery
55928 by: Markus Stumpf
55933 by: Kaj-Michael Lang
55946 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: rblsmtpd
55932 by: Chris Johnson
55998 by: Martin Randall
56017 by: Peter van Dijk
56018 by: Ian Lance Taylor
Re: Cron <root@ns1> run-parts --report /etc/cron.daily
55936 by: root
55939 by: Matthew Patterson
55940 by: Chris Johnson
55941 by: Henning Brauer
55943 by: Greg Owen
Strange messages in log
55937 by: Marcus Korte
55944 by: pape.innominate.com
55945 by: Brett Randall
How to set routing in qmail?
55947 by: Michail A.Baikov
55949 by: Peter van Dijk
No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient
55950 by: john roberts
55951 by: Markus Stumpf
55953 by: Charles Cazabon
55955 by: john roberts
55957 by: Alex Kramarov
55958 by: Markus Stumpf
55959 by: Markus Stumpf
55976 by: Jon Sharp
Re: No transport provider was available for delivery to this rec
55952 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
55960 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
Re: qmail-pop3d and fetchmail
55954 by: Kris Kelley
55956 by: Peter van Dijk
55963 by: Markus Stumpf
55972 by: Peter van Dijk
qmail compile error
55961 by: Fish Flowers
55967 by: Peter van Dijk
quotas
55962 by: fred
55966 by: fred
qmail+virtualdomain
55964 by: Massimiliano Santarelli
55970 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
55973 by: Markus Stumpf
55977 by: Peter van Dijk
55995 by: Massimiliano Santarelli
56016 by: Peter van Dijk
56021 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
ORBS
55965 by: Marcilio Jorgensen Cassella
55971 by: Chris Johnson
55975 by: Markus Stumpf
55978 by: Peter van Dijk
55989 by: Peter van Dijk
relay controls
55968 by: Dan Egli
55979 by: Chris Johnson
55980 by: Dan Egli
55981 by: Peter van Dijk
55985 by: Chris Johnson
55986 by: Markus Stumpf
55997 by: Charles Cazabon
56003 by: Mark Delany
56004 by: Peter van Dijk
56005 by: Markus Stumpf
56006 by: Charles Cazabon
56008 by: paul.anastrophe.com
Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1)
55969 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
55982 by: Markus Stumpf
55983 by: Greg Owen
55984 by: Dave Sill
55987 by: paul.anastrophe.com
55988 by: Peter van Dijk
55992 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
55999 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
56001 by: Markus Stumpf
56013 by: paul.anastrophe.com
56014 by: Mark Delany
56015 by: Greg Owen
56019 by: Charles Cazabon
56023 by: Scott Gifford
56025 by: D. J. Bernstein
56026 by: Virginia Chism
56028 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
56032 by: Scott Gifford
56033 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
56034 by: Markus Stumpf
56036 by: Pavel Kankovsky
56037 by: Dan Peterson
56038 by: Pavel Kankovsky
how to stop smtp .... there's no sendmail
55974 by: rocael.usa.net
55991 by: Peter van Dijk
55993 by: Markus Stumpf
55996 by: pape.innominate.com
56000 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: in qmail
55990 by: Jeff Krintila
56009 by: Matthew Patterson
56010 by: Tim Hunter
56011 by: Peter van Dijk
56020 by: Charles Cazabon
56022 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
Sqwebmail Documentation
55994 by: Alex Le Fevre
SMTP Time issues
56007 by: Corey Jarvis
56024 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
56027 by: Mahlon Smith
56039 by: James R Grinter
Re: queue is empty, but qmail still complains
56029 by: Keary Suska
supervise fatal errors
56030 by: Fish Flowers
56049 by: Michael Maier
Problem with qmail and SMTP port w/ Debian Linux.
56031 by: John Bowen
56035 by: Keary Suska
56040 by: Charles Cazabon
56042 by: Adam McKenna
56050 by: pape.innominate.com
Install went fine, but won't work
56041 by: Miles Scruggs
56048 by: Vincent Schonau
Re: conf-split
56043 by: James R Grinter
can't connect to smtp
56045 by: Curtis Collicutt
Qmail and GFS
56046 by: msteele.inet-interactif.com
The joy of Qmail
56047 by: qmail.artemas.reachin.com
tcpserver can't find smtp port, formerly "can't connect to smtp"
56051 by: Curtis Collicutt
56052 by: pape.innominate.com
rewriting outgoing remote mail
56053 by: Michel Boucey
56056 by: Alex Kramarov
is there a filter to scan message header and reject accordingly
56054 by: Brian Longwe
56055 by: Alex Kramarov
56057 by: Brian Longwe
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
mails ...
Regards
Frip'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Stumpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT wrote:
> > So I'll make a test with "queuelifetime=0" to see if my number of
> > qmail-remote will increase dramatically.
>
> You surely DON'T want to do this.
> This will cause every message that cannot be delivered with the first
> try to be bounced back to the sender as a failure.
>
> \Maex
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT wrote:
> I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
> mails ...
No, you obviously don't. Otherwise you'd noticed that the the first
retry for a message in the queue starts after 6m40s so any value lower
than 400 has the same effect than setting it to 0.
\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.
ah ok thanx a lot.
Where do u find this value "6m40" ?
Regards
Frip
----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Stumpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Markus Stumpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT wrote:
> > I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
> > mails ...
>
> No, you obviously don't. Otherwise you'd noticed that the the first
> retry for a message in the queue starts after 6m40s so any value lower
> than 400 has the same effect than setting it to 0.
>
> \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 Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:31:58PM +0100, Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT wrote:
> Where do u find this value "6m40" ?
See qmail-send.c. chanskip[remote] ist initialized to 20 and qmail uses
a quadratic retry schedule. This results in the tables that can found at
e.g.
http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/times.html
http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#retry-schedule
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
I have been lurking on this list for a while.
Osmosis!
I <think> I am learning. I certainly know things <not> to ask. ^|~
Some things seem to be somewhat philosophical however and I do not know all the
history.
Perhaps the long-time residents may care to expound. Hopefully other lurkers are
taking notes.
Q1:
I have learnt that qmail does not issue reply codes indicating permanent failure for
invalid users/mailboxes.
I know that these messages will eventually bounce but (apart from the issue of
determining whether a recipient
exists within a valid domain for delivery) is this "less expensive" than the more
obvious 5xx response?
On the face of it I see that a qmail server receiving lots of spurious mail for a
valid domain will be doing
lots lots of work getting rid of messages it could have refused.
Is there a non-obvious upside to the qmail way of doing this?
Q2:
Perhaps I have a user who makes a typo in an address. Say it is in the local-part and
that the domain is
valid.
I have learnt tha qmail does not issue deferral notices. On the server I have worked
with in the past a
deferral after a few hours <may> result in the sender correcting the address. (Some
are so stupid that a 4x4
hardwood billet.... but never mind!) Waiting days doesn't seem like other than a
godlike retribution process
for fallible beings.
Comments?
In the beginning was The Word
and The Word was Content-type: text/plain
The Word of Rod.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:33:18PM +1100, Rod... Whitworth wrote:
> Q1:
> I have learnt that qmail does not issue reply codes indicating permanent failure for
>invalid users/mailboxes.
> I know that these messages will eventually bounce but (apart from the issue of
>determining whether a recipient
> exists within a valid domain for delivery) is this "less expensive" than the more
>obvious 5xx response?
qmail - unlike other mail "systems" - is not one big monolith program
bt has many modules that work together. qmail-smtpd is receiving
the messages and putting it in a queue. qmail-smtpd does not know about
local users, just domains. qmail-local has all the mechanisms to deliver
emails locally. I think someone (Sam?) had a modification to qmail-smtpd
to mimic all of qmail-locals mechanisms to enable it to bounce messages
to non local users, but that way you do all the decisions twice.
For usual use (no attack with a e.g. dictionary spam) qmails way
of handling things is no problem.
> Q2:
> Perhaps I have a user who makes a typo in an address. Say it is in the local-part
>and that the domain is
> valid.
> I have learnt tha qmail does not issue deferral notices. On the server I have worked
>with in the past a
> deferral after a few hours <may> result in the sender correcting the address. (Some
>are so stupid that a 4x4
> hardwood billet.... but never mind!) Waiting days doesn't seem like other than a
>godlike retribution process
> for fallible beings.
I personally *hate* those delay messages. Once I got one every hour for
a whole week from a remote system telling me that it cannot contact the
final delivery system. Really annoying and pretty useless, as there's
nothing I could have done against the problems.
However there is a addon module available at http://www.qmail.org/ that
IMHO does what you want. Search for delayed-mail notifier on qmails
website.
\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 Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:12:25 +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
>I personally *hate* those delay messages. Once I got one every hour for
>a whole week from a remote system telling me that it cannot contact the
>final delivery system. Really annoying and pretty useless, as there's
>nothing I could have done against the problems.
The time I liked it was when I was sending a quote and had
misunderstood the destination address (or mistyped it, I forget which)
and so two things happened: First I had a chance to resend so that my
customer did not have to wait 5 days and maybe I would have lost him.
Secondly I had a number of re-inforcement messages reminding me to get
it right first time!
>
>However there is a addon module available at http://www.qmail.org/ that
>IMHO does what you want. Search for delayed-mail notifier on qmails
>website.
Thanks for that pointer. I didn't go looking because I <just knew> it
wasn't a qmail thing to do!
Back to being a lurking sponge......
Rod
In the beginning was The Word
and The Word was Content-type: text/plain
The Word of Rod.
"Rod... Whitworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:12:25 +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> >However there is a addon module available at http://www.qmail.org/ that
> >IMHO does what you want. Search for delayed-mail notifier on qmails
> >website.
>
> Thanks for that pointer. I didn't go looking because I <just knew> it
> wasn't a qmail thing to do!
but do be careful with that code - it will attempt to send
notifications to many mails that you might not want to send
notifications to (mailing lists, bounces, etc.)
On the subject of notifications, it's becoming more of a problem
because of "similar" domains - you should have typed
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and instead type "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The
latter doesn't even accept mail deliveries, so it hangs around in the
queue for too long.
In the case of typing "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]", qmail as the sender *will* bounce the mail
quickly, if is told there is no such remote mailbox "jo". Similarly as
the receiver, qmail *will* send a bounce message telling the sender
that there is no such mailbox "jo." Your original email implied that
it didn't (not sure which of those two cases you were specifically
referring to), and that puzzles me.
James.
I'm trying to make a Perl program that is called by the .qmail file for a
single account but recieves messages for several extension addresses. To
clarify, a single account, bob, will be recieving for bob-john, bob-jill, etc.
This program is supposed to database certain parts of the message, namely the
message body, the date the message was recieved, and the recipients. The most
important part of this is the recipient. These messages are support emails
going out to customers from an exchange (ugh!) server that will be Bcc'd to the
bob-whatever address. Like I said, the most important piece of information that
we need to get from the email is the bob-whatever address the message was Bcc'd
to, but the rest of the data is still extremely desireable. I would prefer to
not have to write a program that I have to edit a single line of every time we
add a bob-whatever address, and the messages can only be sent to us via Bcc.
The way I understand qmail-command is that by the time the message gets sent
through whatever program the .qmail file calls, the envelope is gone, so
discerning the bob-whatever from there is not an option. And, as we all know,
Bcc doesn't show in headers, otherwise it would fall into the category of
'pointless features'. The best that I got is that I put an alias into ~alias
for each bob-whatever user that calls the Perl program with the whatever from
bob-whatever as an arguement, that I later access through @ARGV.
Any thoughts (that lead to a logical solution) are greatly appreciated here.
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:47:48AM -0600, Matthew Patterson wrote:
> I'm trying to make a Perl program that is called by the .qmail file for a
> single account but recieves messages for several extension addresses. To
> clarify, a single account, bob, will be recieving for bob-john, bob-jill, etc.
> This program is supposed to database certain parts of the message, namely the
> message body, the date the message was recieved, and the recipients. The most
> important part of this is the recipient. These messages are support emails
> going out to customers from an exchange (ugh!) server that will be Bcc'd to the
> bob-whatever address. [...] I would prefer to
> not have to write a program that I have to edit a single line of every time we
> add a bob-whatever address, and the messages can only be sent to us via Bcc.
> The way I understand qmail-command is that by the time the message gets sent
> through whatever program the .qmail file calls, the envelope is gone, so
> discerning the bob-whatever from there is not an option.
Sure it is. The recipient address for that local delivery is stored in
the environment variable RECIPIENT. Additionally if instructions for
the delivery are in a .qmail-...-default file the part of the address
covered by the -default wildcard is in the environment variable
DEFAULT. See man qmail-command.
> I'm trying to make a Perl program that is called by the .qmail file for a
> single account but recieves messages for several extension addresses. To
> clarify, a single account, bob, will be recieving for bob-john, bob-jill, etc.
> This program is supposed to database certain parts of the message, namely the
> message body, the date the message was recieved, and the recipients. The most
> important part of this is the recipient. These messages are support emails
> going out to customers from an exchange (ugh!) server that will be Bcc'd to the
> bob-whatever address. Like I said, the most important piece of information that
> we need to get from the email is the bob-whatever address the message was Bcc'd
> to, but the rest of the data is still extremely desireable. I would prefer to
> not have to write a program that I have to edit a single line of every time we
> add a bob-whatever address, and the messages can only be sent to us via Bcc.
> The way I understand qmail-command is that by the time the message gets sent
> through whatever program the .qmail file calls, the envelope is gone, so
> discerning the bob-whatever from there is not an option. And, as we all know,
> Bcc doesn't show in headers, otherwise it would fall into the category of
> 'pointless features'. The best that I got is that I put an alias into ~alias
> for each bob-whatever user that calls the Perl program with the whatever from
> bob-whatever as an arguement, that I later access through @ARGV.
>
> Any thoughts (that lead to a logical solution) are greatly appreciated here.
The envelope recipient can be found in the Delivered-To: field in the headers.
MVH André Paulsberg
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:16:47PM +0100, OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg wrote:
[trying to deduce bcc address for program delivery]
> The envelope recipient can be found in the Delivered-To: field in the headers.
Program deliveries don't get messages with a Delivered-To: header, see
man qmail-command. The Delivered-To: header that would be used is
stored in the environment variable DTLINE, a program such as preline
can use DTLINE (and RPLINE) to give a program such headers, see man
preline.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:47:48AM -0600, Matthew Patterson wrote:
>> I'm trying to make a Perl program that is called by the .qmail file for a
>> single account but recieves messages for several extension addresses. To
>> clarify, a single account, bob, will be recieving for bob-john, bob-jill, etc.
>> This program is supposed to database certain parts of the message, namely the
>> message body, the date the message was recieved, and the recipients. The most
>> important part of this is the recipient. These messages are support emails
>> going out to customers from an exchange (ugh!) server that will be Bcc'd to the
>> bob-whatever address. [...] I would prefer to
>> not have to write a program that I have to edit a single line of every time we
>> add a bob-whatever address, and the messages can only be sent to us via Bcc.
>> The way I understand qmail-command is that by the time the message gets sent
>> through whatever program the .qmail file calls, the envelope is gone, so
>> discerning the bob-whatever from there is not an option.
>
>Sure it is. The recipient address for that local delivery is stored in
>the environment variable RECIPIENT. Additionally if instructions for
>the delivery are in a .qmail-...-default file the part of the address
>covered by the -default wildcard is in the environment variable
>DEFAULT. See man qmail-command.
Sounds like just what I needed. The man page doesn't specify it the enviornment
variables are set locally to the program or are globally set, I assume local to
the program, but I want to make absolutely sure
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:27:34AM -0600, Matthew Patterson wrote:
> >Sure it is. The recipient address for that local delivery is stored in
> >the environment variable RECIPIENT. Additionally if instructions for
> >the delivery are in a .qmail-...-default file the part of the address
> >covered by the -default wildcard is in the environment variable
> >DEFAULT. See man qmail-command.
>
> Sounds like just what I needed. The man page doesn't specify it the enviornment
> variables are set locally to the program or are globally set, I assume local to
> the program, but I want to make absolutely sure
The manpage for qmail-command(8) describes the environment variables
that qmail-local sets when it executes a program.
Since those variables change from message to message, there's no
'global' setting; what your program recieves in the enviroment
pertains only to that message delivery...
>
> --
> ***********************************
> Matthew H Patterson
> Unix Systems Administrator
> National Support Center, LLC
> Naperville, Illinois, USA
> ***********************************
>
--
Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
37 Crystal Ave. #303 Daytime number: (603) 434-6842
Derry NH 03038-1713 USA Intel architecture: the left-hand path
I think he has been using majordomo in the past. It is expected.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would think someone skilled enough to run a SMTP server would know how
> to unsubscribe from a mailing list.
>
> With ezmlm-style lists, you send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In this case, that would be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> - Sam
>
> > unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
|
Hello!!!
is there a way to set max number of account for
each different domain name?
Thanks
|
I noticed that qmail-pop3d always responds with: <
+OK 0 to the pop3 command LAST
This behavior makes pop3 clients like fetchmail unable to know which
messages are new and thus download all the messages. So running fetchmail
two successive times without deleting mail from the pop3 server would retrieve
two copies of all messages.
Is there any patch out for that ?
Thanks
> I noticed that qmail-pop3d always responds with: < +OK 0 to the pop3
> command LAST
> This behavior makes pop3 clients like fetchmail unable to know which
> messages are new and thus download all the messages. So running
> fetchmail two successive times without deleting mail from the pop3
> server would retrieve two copies of all messages.
> Is there any patch out for that ?
>
> Thanks
http://homepages.munich.netsurf.de/Franz.Sirl/qmail-pop3d-1.03.diff
--
CYA, Michael
Eng. Ramy M. Hassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed that qmail-pop3d always responds with: < +OK 0 to the pop3
> command LAST.
LAST is a broken design; it requires the server to maintain state information
which really should be stored on the client.
> This behavior makes pop3 clients like fetchmail unable to know which
> messages are new and thus download all the messages.
No. Your POP3 retriever should just use the UIDL command to get a unique
signature for the message, and keep a list of signatures which it has already
seen.
My own POP3 retriever, getmail, does this. It works quite happily with
qmail-pop3d and every other POP3 daemon I've tried. There are a few ancient
POP3 servers out there which don't support UIDL, though.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've installed qmail, ezmlm and vpopmail on redhat 6.2.
Now I make some tests.
Sending mails on the machine himself it's ok.
e.g. local user to virtuell pop user and return.
test via telnet will not work:
user@anyhost:~ > telnet 10.10.4.4 25
Trying 10.10.4.4...
Connected to 10.10.4.4.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 host.domain.de ESMTP
helo dude
250 host.domain.de
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Testmail
1234567
.
250 ok 980423461 qp 21369
quit
221 host.domain.de
Connection closed by foreign host.
/var/log/qmail:
980423461.547169 new msg 1564388
980423461.547178 info msg 1564388: bytes 211 from <> qp 21369 uid 503
980423461.572821 starting delivery 10220: msg 1564388 to local
@host.domain.de
980423461.572834 status: local 1/30 remote 0/100
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
980423461.573239 delivery 10220: success:
980423461.573415 status: local 0/30 remote 0/100
980423461.573658 end msg 1564388
The Server is currently "standalone" and does not have an DNS MX record.
where is my problem?
thanks, tom
Hi,
I've installed qmail, ezmlm and vpopmail on redhat 6.2.
Now I make some tests.
Sending mails on the machine himself it's ok.
e.g. local user to virtuell pop user and return.
test via telnet will not work:
user@anyhost:~ > telnet 10.10.4.4 25
Trying 10.10.4.4...
Connected to 10.10.4.4.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 host.domain.de ESMTP
helo dude
250 host.domain.de
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Testmail
1234567
.
250 ok 980423461 qp 21369
quit
221 host.domain.de
Connection closed by foreign host.
/var/log/qmail:
980423461.547169 new msg 1564388
980423461.547178 info msg 1564388: bytes 211 from <> qp 21369 uid 503
980423461.572821 starting delivery 10220: msg 1564388 to local
@host.domain.de
980423461.572834 status: local 1/30 remote 0/100
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
980423461.573239 delivery 10220: success:
980423461.573415 status: local 0/30 remote 0/100
980423461.573658 end msg 1564388
The Server is currently "standalone" and does not have an DNS MX record.
where is my problem?
thanks, tom
The Problem is the same, when i try
telnet 127.0.0.1 25
---------------
Hi,
I've installed qmail, ezmlm and vpopmail on redhat 6.2.
Now I make some tests.
Sending mails on the machine himself it's ok.
e.g. local user to virtuell pop user and return.
test via telnet will not work:
user@anyhost:~ > telnet 10.10.4.4 25
Trying 10.10.4.4...
Connected to 10.10.4.4.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 host.domain.de ESMTP
helo dude
250 host.domain.de
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Testmail
1234567
.
250 ok 980423461 qp 21369
quit
221 host.domain.de
Connection closed by foreign host.
/var/log/qmail:
980423461.547169 new msg 1564388
980423461.547178 info msg 1564388: bytes 211 from <> qp 21369 uid 503
980423461.572821 starting delivery 10220: msg 1564388 to local
@host.domain.de
980423461.572834 status: local 1/30 remote 0/100
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
980423461.573239 delivery 10220: success:
980423461.573415 status: local 0/30 remote 0/100
980423461.573658 end msg 1564388
The Server is currently "standalone" and does not have an DNS MX record.
where is my problem?
thanks, tom
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:24:29PM +0100, Thomas König wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've installed qmail, ezmlm and vpopmail on redhat 6.2.
>
> Now I make some tests.
> Sending mails on the machine himself it's ok.
> e.g. local user to virtuell pop user and return.
>
> test via telnet will not work:
>
> user@anyhost:~ > telnet 10.10.4.4 25
> Trying 10.10.4.4...
> Connected to 10.10.4.4.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 host.domain.de ESMTP
> helo dude
> 250 host.domain.de
> mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
Of course it's not working, your rcpt command is flawed. Try:
MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OK
it's my mistake ... :-(
many thanks
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Alex Pennace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2001 13:54
An: Thomas König
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Betreff: Re: can't receive mails via telnet on port 25
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:24:29PM +0100, Thomas König wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've installed qmail, ezmlm and vpopmail on redhat 6.2.
>
> Now I make some tests.
> Sending mails on the machine himself it's ok.
> e.g. local user to virtuell pop user and return.
>
> test via telnet will not work:
>
> user@anyhost:~ > telnet 10.10.4.4 25
> Trying 10.10.4.4...
> Connected to 10.10.4.4.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 host.domain.de ESMTP
> helo dude
> 250 host.domain.de
> mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
Of course it's not working, your rcpt command is flawed. Try:
MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On a production environment is it safe to patch qmail source and make
setup check once again.
Any precautions should be taken ?
Thanks.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:49:15PM +0000, Eng. Ramy M. Hassan wrote:
> On a production environment is it safe to patch qmail source and make
> setup check once again.
Yes.
> Any precautions should be taken ?
You should shut down all qmail services before doing a "make setup",
otherwise some programs might not be installable due to "Text file busy".
\Maex
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Eng. Ramy M. Hassan wrote:
>
>On a production environment is it safe to patch qmail source and make
>setup check once again.
>Any precautions should be taken ?
>
>Thanks.
>
----------------------------------------
Content-Type: text/html; name="unnamed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description:
----------------------------------------
I've only had to do that a couple times, and the only precautions I took were
that I made a backup copy of /var/qmail/bin. Just so that you know, I would
also recommend doing 'make', stopping the mail service, then doing 'make setup
check'
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:49:15PM +0000, Eng. Ramy M. Hassan wrote:
> On a production environment is it safe to patch qmail source and make
> setup check once again.
> Any precautions should be taken ?
Yes, stop qmail while doing 'make setup check', and make sure your
patches don't break anything.
Applying the big-todo patch onto a production environment is not
trivial, for example.
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:06:52AM +0200, Kaj-Michael Lang wrote:
> I'm having a very serious problem.. the mail queue is full of messages
> (about 31k) and local delivery is very slow if at all. I get lot of those
> temporary delivery errors in the logs.
Sorry, I can't find the error message in your mail.
\Maex
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:06:52AM +0200, Kaj-Michael Lang wrote:
> > I'm having a very serious problem.. the mail queue is full of messages
> > (about 31k) and local delivery is very slow if at all. I get lot of those
> > temporary delivery errors in the logs.
>
> Sorry, I can't find the error message in your mail.
Read the subject... anyway we have found the reason. Probably a messed up
solaris filesystem that says it has lots of space free but when you write
you have no free space.
Kaj-Michael Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Read the subject... anyway we have found the reason. Probably a messed up
> solaris filesystem that says it has lots of space free but when you write
> you have no free space.
You're probably just out of inodes.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 04:35:58AM -0500, Robin S. Socha wrote:
> * Agi Subagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010125 03:00]:
> > How to add more rblsmtpd process to check another blacklist resource like
> > "relays.mail-abuse.org", "blackholes.mail-abuse.org" or
> > "dialups.mail-abuse.org"?
>
> (lart@socha):(~)$ cat /service/smtp/run
> #!/bin/sh
> QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild`
> NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
> exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x tcp.cdb \
> -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \
> -rrelays.orbs.org -rrbl.maps.vix.com \
> -r blackholes.mail-abuse.org \
> -r dialups.mail-abuse.org \
> -r 'relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see
> <URL:http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?%IP%>' \
I think this last entry requires a patched rbslmptd. You could instead use:
-r relays.msci.memphis.edu
relays.msci.memphis.edu is a mirror of relays.mail-abuse.org, but it runs Dan's
rbldns and gives out the TXT record that rblsmtpd needs.
Chris
Hello Chris
On 25-Jan-01, you wrote:
>
> I think this last entry requires a patched rbslmptd. You could instead
> use:
>
> -r relays.msci.memphis.edu
>
> relays.msci.memphis.edu is a mirror of relays.mail-abuse.org, but it runs
> Dan's rbldns and gives out the TXT record that rblsmtpd needs.
>
> Chris
>
Funny, I was just about to look at rblsmtpd later today or this evening.
Apparently the records changed from txt to ?? last August.
I was hoping that as ucspi-tcp had been overhauled and rblsmtpd is now
within it, at 0.88 this inter-operability problem had been fixed.
What is the status of this problem ?
Further, what's the -a option all about ?
Whilst I'm here....I noticed that most mail servers connecting have
cutomised greetings and endings during the 220, 250 and 221 responses. I
searched the docs plus Dave Sills archives but couldn't find anything on
this.
Just curious...
Regards...Martin
--
1) If you have to ask, you're not entitled to know.
2) If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked.
== Abbott's Law
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:06:58PM -0500, Martin Randall wrote:
[snip]
> Whilst I'm here....I noticed that most mail servers connecting have
> cutomised greetings and endings during the 220, 250 and 221 responses. I
> searched the docs plus Dave Sills archives but couldn't find anything on
> this.
man qmail-smtpd, look for smtpgreeting.
Greetz, Peter.
Martin Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whilst I'm here....I noticed that most mail servers connecting have
> cutomised greetings and endings during the 220, 250 and 221 responses. I
> searched the docs plus Dave Sills archives but couldn't find anything on
> this.
Naturally qmail provides this essential customization. See the
smtpgreeting control file.
Ian
I keep receiving this message but I don't know what's wrong with it
Has anyone experienced anythink like that?
Many thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cron Daemon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Cron <root@ns1>
run-parts --report /etc/cron.daily
> /etc/cron.daily/cfengine:
> cf:ns1:/etc/cfengine/cfengine.conf:26: parse error
> cfengine:ns1::26: Warning: actionsequence is empty
> cfengine:ns1::26: Warning: perhaps cfengine.conf has not yet been set up?
> cfengine:ns1::Execution terminated after parsing due to errors in program
> /etc/cron.daily/cnews:
> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
access parent directories
> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
access parent directories
> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
access parent directories
> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
access parent directories
> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
access parent directories
> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
> cd_links: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
access parent directories
> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
> cd_links: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
directories
>
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, root wrote:
>I keep receiving this message but I don't know what's wrong with it
>Has anyone experienced anythink like that?
>Many thanks
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cron Daemon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Cron <root@ns1>
>run-parts --report /etc/cron.daily
>
>
>> /etc/cron.daily/cfengine:
>> cf:ns1:/etc/cfengine/cfengine.conf:26: parse error
>> cfengine:ns1::26: Warning: actionsequence is empty
>> cfengine:ns1::26: Warning: perhaps cfengine.conf has not yet been set up?
>> cfengine:ns1::Execution terminated after parsing due to errors in program
>> /etc/cron.daily/cnews:
>> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
>access parent directories
>> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
>access parent directories
>> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
>access parent directories
>> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
>access parent directories
>> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
>access parent directories
>> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>> cd_links: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>> job-working-directory: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot
>access parent directories
>> shell-init: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>> cd_links: could not get current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent
>directories
>>
Call alaire tech support.
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:30:16PM -0800, root wrote:
> I keep receiving this message but I don't know what's wrong with it
> Has anyone experienced anythink like that?
It looks like you sent this to the wrong list. This is the qmail list.
Chris
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:30:16PM -0800, root wrote:
> I keep receiving this message but I don't know what's wrong with it
> Has anyone experienced anythink like that?
> Many thanks
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cron Daemon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Cron <root@ns1>
> run-parts --report /etc/cron.daily
>
>
> > /etc/cron.daily/cfengine:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is this cronjob generating thos mails. It is in no way qmail related,
it would send exactly the same message with sendmail/exim/postfix/...
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
> >I keep receiving this message but I don't know what's wrong with it
...
> >> /etc/cron.daily/cfengine:
>
> Call alaire tech support.
cfengine is cfengine (http://www.iu.hioslo.no/cfengine/), not
Allaire ColdFusion.
And neither of these products has anything to do with qmail. Please
ask in a more appropriate place.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
Dear all,
I got after startup of qmail (setup regarding to LWQ) many of the following
messages in
/var/log/qmail/current:
2001-01-25 13:22:29.687206500 alert: cannot start: unable to read controls
Does anybody know the root cause of the problem?
Which files do you need to analyze this problem?
Regards,
Marcus
--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:42:11PM +0100, Marcus Korte wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I got after startup of qmail (setup regarding to LWQ) many of the following
> messages in
> /var/log/qmail/current:
> 2001-01-25 13:22:29.687206500 alert: cannot start: unable to read controls
>
> Does anybody know the root cause of the problem?
>
qmail cannot find or read the control files in /var/qmail/control/. Check the
files in that directory and the installation steps of LWQ again.
Regards, Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I got after startup of qmail (setup regarding to LWQ) many of the
> following messages in /var/log/qmail/current: 2001-01-25
> 13:22:29.687206500 alert: cannot start: unable to read controls
>
> Does anybody know the root cause of the problem?
>
> Which files do you need to analyze this problem?
>
> Regards,
> Marcus
>
qmail is having trouble reading the files in /var/qmail/control
. Ensure they actually exist, and make sure that they are readable
by all users (or even just the user that qmail-send runs as).
--
B r e t t R a n d a l l
http://xbox.ipsware.com/
brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
Hello.
I'm setup two mail servers (powered by qmail).
#1 server maintained only local users pop3 and smtp (i.e. all mail for local
users do not send to server #2 and placing direct into users mailbox) and
working only for local network.
#2 server maintained only smtp service and look to internet. All mail for
local users must be route to server #1.
How to set it?
Please help, and thanks for advance!
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:21:31PM +0300, Michail A.Baikov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm setup two mail servers (powered by qmail).
>
> #1 server maintained only local users pop3 and smtp (i.e. all mail for local
> users do not send to server #2 and placing direct into users mailbox) and
> working only for local network.
> #2 server maintained only smtp service and look to internet. All mail for
> local users must be route to server #1.
Assuming that you mean that #1 is not directly attached to the
internet, simply point your MX to #2 and set an smtproutes entry for
your domain to #1. man qmail-remote will explain that nicely.
Also don't forget to put the domain into rcpthosts.
Greetz, Peter.
I sometimes get this message when I am trying to send mail from Outlook 2000
or 97 to qmail 1.03 server:
No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient.
The crazy part of it is that sometimes I will get that message several times
on a message then I can go a day or two w/o getting it again. Most of my
users in my company experience the same problem. I have looked at
microsofts explanation on why this happens but that didn't help. Then I
thought maybe qmail-smtpd was not running when I sent them mail....not sure
what to do from here. Any help would be appreciated!
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 07:53:48AM -0800, john roberts wrote:
> I sometimes get this message when I am trying to send mail from Outlook 2000
> or 97 to qmail 1.03 server:
>
> No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient.
Dies this message pop up immediately or after some kinda timout?
What do the qmail logs say?
Maybe tcpservers max connection limit was hit at that time?
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
john roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient.
This comes up a lot -- if you search the qmail mailing list archives,
one of the pointers is to this MS kb article:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q197/4/17.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
Basically, they're violating the SMTP spec by not enclosing addresses in
<>.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in /var/log/maillog when this happens. Its like it never
gets to the mailserver to process. Typically the message sits in the
outlook outbox for a few seconds before I get the message back "no
delivery". How do I look to see what the tcpservers max connection limit
is?
John
>From: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: john roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: No transport provider was available for delivery to this
>recipient
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:11:03 +0100
>
>On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 07:53:48AM -0800, john roberts wrote:
> > I sometimes get this message when I am trying to send mail from Outlook
>2000
> > or 97 to qmail 1.03 server:
> >
> > No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient.
>
>Dies this message pop up immediately or after some kinda timout?
>
>What do the qmail logs say?
>Maybe tcpservers max connection limit was hit at that time?
>
> \Maex
>
>--
>SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
>Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89)
>32356-299
>Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
>asleep yet.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|
>john roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> No transport provider was available for delivery to this
recipient.
>This comes up a lot -- if you search the qmail
mailing list archives,
>one of the pointers is to this MS kb
article:
From my experience, it's not the brackets - I have and exchange
server relaying all messages to qmail server - never got this problem,
except when had a problem with the Internet mail connector definitions in
exchange |
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here
|
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:17:07AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> john roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient.
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q197/4/17.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
>
> Basically, they're violating the SMTP spec by not enclosing addresses in
> <>.
Dan "fixed" this (i.e. added the workaround for non RFC compliant
clients) in at least qmail-1.03 (just verified, works).
The problem only happens with pre qmail-1.03 versions (our old
qmail-1.01 server does not accept addresses withou the <>).
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:40:12AM -0800, john roberts wrote:
> delivery". How do I look to see what the tcpservers max connection limit
> is?
tcpservers option "-c" defines the number of simultaneous connections.
Default is 40.
See
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html
You have to check your qmail-smtpd startup script to see what value
you are using.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
We've experienced this error a few times here, generally when sending large
files (>2Mb). I thought it was a timeout problem with Outlook so I set the
server timeout to a higher figure in the internet email service and it
doesn't happen now.
-----Original Message-----
From: john roberts [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: No transport provider was available for delivery to this
recipient
There is nothing in /var/log/maillog when this happens. Its like it never
gets to the mailserver to process. Typically the message sits in the
outlook outbox for a few seconds before I get the message back "no
delivery". How do I look to see what the tcpservers max connection limit
is?
John
>From: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: john roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: No transport provider was available for delivery to this
>recipient
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:11:03 +0100
>
>On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 07:53:48AM -0800, john roberts wrote:
> > I sometimes get this message when I am trying to send mail from Outlook
>2000
> > or 97 to qmail 1.03 server:
> >
> > No transport provider was available for delivery to this recipient.
>
>Dies this message pop up immediately or after some kinda timout?
>
>What do the qmail logs say?
>Maybe tcpservers max connection limit was hit at that time?
>
> \Maex
>
>--
>SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
>Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89)
>32356-299
>Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
>asleep yet.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Sounds more like an internal Outlook-problem.
> thought maybe qmail-smtpd was not running when I sent them mail....not sure
Possibly your concurrency setting for tcpserver (SMTP) is too low. Check
the logs and correct the -c switch of tcpserver.
Regards, Frank
> How do I look to see what the tcpservers max connection limit
If the -c switch is not used it's tcpservers standard setting of 40.
See http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html
Frank
This question probably belongs in a fetchmail forum. Unfortunately, my
recent attempts to subscribe to the fetchmail mailing list have ended in
failure, so you may not have any luck finding a fetchmail forum.
> I was trying to use fetchmail to retrieve messages from a pop3 account
> on a server running qmail-pop3d using tcpserver and vchkpw. It retrieved
> all the messages although I did not specify "--all" flag to fetchmail. I
> tried several time and every time fetchmail retrieves all the messages
> again and again.
Try forcing fetchmail to use message UIDLs, that is, use the "--uidl" flag.
This will enable fetchmail to keep track of what messages it has and hasn't
downloaded using a local list of message IDs.
> I tried fetchmail with another pop3 account on a server running
> sendmail/qpoper and it worked fine, only new messages was retrieved.
> Anybody knows why that happens ?
Probably because that other pop3 server allows for the "LAST" POP3 command.
"LAST" returns the number of the last message downloaded. Ideally this
should be enough to determine which messages are new, but only after some
assumptions that aren't always correct. The most recent POP3 RFC deprecated
the "LAST" command, and not all POP3 servers support it.
---Kris Kelley
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:26:33AM -0600, Kris Kelley wrote:
[snip]
> Probably because that other pop3 server allows for the "LAST" POP3 command.
> "LAST" returns the number of the last message downloaded. Ideally this
> should be enough to determine which messages are new, but only after some
> assumptions that aren't always correct. The most recent POP3 RFC deprecated
> the "LAST" command, and not all POP3 servers support it.
LAST can only be reliable on a mailserver where message-order is
preserved from session to session. qmail-pop3d sorts messages based on
size, so supporting LAST would yield wrong results anyway.
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> qmail-pop3d sorts messages based on
> size, so supporting LAST would yield wrong results anyway.
Hmmm ... are you sure?
>From looking at the code I'd say it's sorted by modification time.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > qmail-pop3d sorts messages based on
> > size, so supporting LAST would yield wrong results anyway.
>
> Hmmm ... are you sure?
> From looking at the code I'd say it's sorted by modification time.
You are right.
I am confused now. I am quite sure there is some Maildir application that
sorts by size.
Must be lack of sleep.
Greetz, Peter.
Hi --
I'm trying to install qmail on a Solaris box, and when running "make setup
check" I'm getting the following string:
... [happy compile messages] ...
./compile dns.c
"/usr/include/arpa/nameser.h", line 127: warning: const is a keyword in
ANSI C
"/usr/include/arpa/nameser.h", line 127: syntax error before or at: const
"/usr/include/arpa/nameser.h", line 127: cannot recover from previous
errors
make: *** [dns.o] Error 10
#
The relevant lines of /usr/include/arpa/nameser.h are:
typdef struct __ns_msg {
const uchar_t *_msg, *_eom;
uint16_t _id, _flags, _counts[ns_s_max];
const uchar_t *_sections[ns_s_max];
ns_sect _sect;
int _rrnum;
const uchar_t *_ptr;
} ns_msg;
Does anyone have any pointers on how to resolve this?
Thanks,
Fish Flowers.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:06:49AM -0600, Fish Flowers wrote:
[snip]
> typdef struct __ns_msg {
Are you sure it says 'typdef' there? It should be 'typedef'. Looks
like someone messed with your includefiles.
Greetz, Peter.
Hello,
I have add a 'vmailmgrquotas' file in /var/qmail/control/
What have I to do to made qmail read this file ?
whitch daemon must be restarted ?
This is my ps :
176 ? S 0:00 supervise qmail
186 ? S 0:00 qmail-send
187 ? S 0:00 splogger qmail
188 ? S 0:00 unixserver -U -q /tmp/.qmail-qstat
/usr/bin/qmail-qst
189 ? S 0:00 unixserver -U -q /tmp/.qmail-qread
/usr/bin/qmail-qre
191 ? S 0:00 supervise vmailmgrd
198 ? S 0:00 unixserver -v -- /var/service/vmailmgrd/socket
vmailm
201 ? S 0:00 multilog t /var/log/vmailmgrd
226 ? S 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Maildir/
227 ? S 0:00 qmail-rspawn
228 ? S 0:00 qmail-clean
182 ? S 0:00 supervise pop3d
190 ? S 0:00 tcpserver -dHRvX -c 20 -x
/etc/tcpcontrol/pop-3.cdb 0
197 ? S 0:00 splogger pop3d
Hello,
I have add a 'vmailmgrquotas' file in /var/qmail/control/
What have I to do to made qmail read this file ?
whitch daemon must be restarted ?
This is my ps :
176 ? S 0:00 supervise qmail
186 ? S 0:00 qmail-send
187 ? S 0:00 splogger qmail
188 ? S 0:00 unixserver -U -q /tmp/.qmail-qstat
/usr/bin/qmail-qst
189 ? S 0:00 unixserver -U -q /tmp/.qmail-qread
/usr/bin/qmail-qre
191 ? S 0:00 supervise vmailmgrd
198 ? S 0:00 unixserver -v -- /var/service/vmailmgrd/socket
vmailm
201 ? S 0:00 multilog t /var/log/vmailmgrd
226 ? S 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Maildir/
227 ? S 0:00 qmail-rspawn
228 ? S 0:00 qmail-clean
182 ? S 0:00 supervise pop3d
190 ? S 0:00 tcpserver -dHRvX -c 20 -x
/etc/tcpcontrol/pop-3.cdb 0
197 ? S 0:00 splogger pop3d
HI! i've compiled qmail on mi server and it works well!
Now, i'm still trying to add a virtualdomain,
modifying the locals/rcpthost files ,
and in virtualdomain file (newvirtualdomain:newuser).
But if i try to send mail to newuser@hostname, the delivery happen! so the
account newuser@newvirtualdomain and newuser@hostname seems to be the same
thing for the user called "newuser"!!!!
How can i solve this problem and split different users with different
virtualdomain??
Massimiliano
> thing for the user called "newuser"!!!!
> How can i solve this problem and split different users with different
> virtualdomain??
Is virtualdomain still in "locals"?
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:05:48PM +0100, Massimiliano Santarelli wrote:
> modifying the locals/rcpthost files ,
> and in virtualdomain file (newvirtualdomain:newuser).
A domain has to be either in locals OR virtualdomains, not in both
(if you have it in both, locals overrides virtualdomains).
Don;t forget to kill -HUP `pidof qmail-send` after making changes
to locals and/or virtualdomains file.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:05:48PM +0100, Massimiliano Santarelli wrote:
> HI! i've compiled qmail on mi server and it works well!
> Now, i'm still trying to add a virtualdomain,
> modifying the locals/rcpthost files ,
> and in virtualdomain file (newvirtualdomain:newuser).
> But if i try to send mail to newuser@hostname, the delivery happen! so the
> account newuser@newvirtualdomain and newuser@hostname seems to be the same
> thing for the user called "newuser"!!!!
> How can i solve this problem and split different users with different
> virtualdomain??
Make sure that any domain you want to handle virtually is *not*
mentioned in locals.
If you mention a domain in locals *and* in virtualdomains, locals
takes precedence.
Greetz, Peter.
Well, if i try to delete the virtualdomain from "locals" file,leaving it only in
the "virtualdomains" file, i obtain:
<newuser@virtualdomain>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
thans
Massimiliano
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:05:48PM +0100, Massimiliano Santarelli wrote:
> > HI! i've compiled qmail on mi server and it works well!
> > Now, i'm still trying to add a virtualdomain,
> > modifying the locals/rcpthost files ,
> > and in virtualdomain file (newvirtualdomain:newuser).
> > But if i try to send mail to newuser@hostname, the delivery happen! so the
> > account newuser@newvirtualdomain and newuser@hostname seems to be the same
> > thing for the user called "newuser"!!!!
> > How can i solve this problem and split different users with different
> > virtualdomain??
>
> Make sure that any domain you want to handle virtually is *not*
> mentioned in locals.
>
> If you mention a domain in locals *and* in virtualdomains, locals
> takes precedence.
>
> Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Massimiliano Santarelli wrote:
> Well, if i try to delete the virtualdomain from "locals" file,leaving it only in
> the "virtualdomains" file, i obtain:
>
> <newuser@virtualdomain>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Your virtualdomain is not called 'virtualdomain' so stop lying about
that.
Show us the contents of your configfiles, especially locals and
virtualdomains, please.
Greetz, Peter.
> Well, if i try to delete the virtualdomain from "locals" file,leaving it only in
> the "virtualdomains" file, i obtain:
>
> <newuser@virtualdomain>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Of course you have to provide a .qmail file that catches your address.
In the case of this address it would be ~newuser/.qmail-newuser or
~newuser/.qmail-default.
Try to understand how the extension mechanism in qmail works - after that
you will understand how virtual domains may be implemented.
Two packages that handle virtual domains for you are mentioned on
www.qmail.org.
Regards, Frank
Hi,
My SMTP server is in the ORBS list because:
X-Token: qlyzkfjxdlcfhlrh
X-Envelope-Sender: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Envelope-Recipient: RCPT
TO:<orbs-relaytest%manawatu.co.nz@[200.18.178.4]>
How to fix it, please ?
Thanks,
Marcilio
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:18:53PM -0200, Marcilio Jorgensen Cassella wrote:
> My SMTP server is in the ORBS list because:
>
>
> X-Token: qlyzkfjxdlcfhlrh
> X-Envelope-Sender: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Envelope-Recipient: RCPT
> TO:<orbs-relaytest%manawatu.co.nz@[200.18.178.4]>
You might be listed in ORBS, but I doubt this is why. If you're running qmail
and haven't enabled percenthack, then this won't get you into ORBS.
Chris
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:18:53PM -0200, Marcilio Jorgensen Cassella wrote:
> TO:<orbs-relaytest%manawatu.co.nz@[200.18.178.4]>
> How to fix it, please ?
You probably have a
control/percenthack
file. Remove it.
\Maex
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:18:53PM -0200, Marcilio Jorgensen Cassella wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My SMTP server is in the ORBS list because:
>
>
> X-Token: qlyzkfjxdlcfhlrh
> X-Envelope-Sender: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Envelope-Recipient: RCPT
> TO:<orbs-relaytest%manawatu.co.nz@[200.18.178.4]>
Headers for a relayed message look like:
--->--- CUT HERE
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 81844 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2001 18:01:41
-0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cronopio.ibase.org.br) (200.18.178.15)
by massive.dataloss.net with SMTP; 25 Jan 2001 18:01:41 -0000
Received: from alternex.com.br (ax.alternex.com.br [200.18.178.1])
by cronopio.ibase.org.br (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24946
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:59:23 -0200
(EDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from shadow.alternex.com.br (shadow.alternex.com.br
[200.18.178.4])
by alternex.com.br (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA27300
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:59:15 -0200 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:59:15 -0200 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 19929 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2001 17:58:01 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 19915 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2001 17:57:52
-0000
Received: from router-office.vuurwerk.net (HELO moi) (62.250.3.59)
by shadow.alternex.com.br with SMTP; 25 Jan 2001 17:57:52 -0000
To: "undisclosed-recipients:;"@alternex.com.br
test
---<--- CUT HERE
Message comes into your qmailbox (shadow), is delivered to
ax.alternex.com.br (a sendmail box) through something you do with the alias
user. This box then sends it to cronopio.ibase.org.br, which delivers
the message to it's final recipient.
Both of these sendmail boxes are misconfigured - they treat the
address 'peter%dataloss.net@[someIP]' as '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Ask
your sendmail admin to disable that ugly percenthack.
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:52:35PM -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:18:53PM -0200, Marcilio Jorgensen Cassella wrote:
> > My SMTP server is in the ORBS list because:
> >
> >
> > X-Token: qlyzkfjxdlcfhlrh
> > X-Envelope-Sender: MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > X-Envelope-Recipient: RCPT
> > TO:<orbs-relaytest%manawatu.co.nz@[200.18.178.4]>
>
> You might be listed in ORBS, but I doubt this is why. If you're running qmail
> and haven't enabled percenthack, then this won't get you into ORBS.
It does in his case, because he relays to misconfigured sendmailboxes.
Greetz, Peter.
I am quite a new Qmail user, and so I'm looking for some help here.
We have a QMAIL server that our previous sysadmin left in open relay
mode. I am trying to close the security holes, but I don't understand Qmail
worth a damb (having used sendmail and being groomed on sendmail my entire
unix life).
I have a tcprules file the directory it appears my predecessor left the
setup files in, and acording to the runline in PS (I still cannot find where
he is actually launching tcpserver for smtp but it is running) the file
should be /var/service/qmail-smtpd/tcprules.cdb
This file does exist, and it is readable, containing the following rule:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
209.254.33.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
yet if I jump onto a machine that is not in these rules, and I telnet into
port 25, I can setup a mail from outside the realm to outside the realm.
I do not understand Qmail at all so I need some major help here.
Thanks!
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:39:26AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> We have a QMAIL server that our previous sysadmin left in open relay
> mode. I am trying to close the security holes, but I don't understand Qmail
> worth a damb (having used sendmail and being groomed on sendmail my entire
> unix life).
>
> I have a tcprules file the directory it appears my predecessor left the
> setup files in, and acording to the runline in PS (I still cannot find where
> he is actually launching tcpserver for smtp but it is running) the file
> should be /var/service/qmail-smtpd/tcprules.cdb
>
> This file does exist, and it is readable, containing the following rule:
>
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 209.254.33.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>
> yet if I jump onto a machine that is not in these rules, and I telnet into
> port 25, I can setup a mail from outside the realm to outside the realm.
Does /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts exist? If not, you should create it, and you
should put in it a list of domains for which you're willing to receive mail,
one per line.
See http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html for lots of good qmail information.
Chris
rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
any domain in existance. such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:17 AM
To: Dan Egli
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: relay controls
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:39:26AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> We have a QMAIL server that our previous sysadmin left in open relay
> mode. I am trying to close the security holes, but I don't understand
Qmail
> worth a damb (having used sendmail and being groomed on sendmail my entire
> unix life).
>
> I have a tcprules file the directory it appears my predecessor left the
> setup files in, and acording to the runline in PS (I still cannot find
where
> he is actually launching tcpserver for smtp but it is running) the file
> should be /var/service/qmail-smtpd/tcprules.cdb
>
> This file does exist, and it is readable, containing the following rule:
>
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 209.254.33.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>
> yet if I jump onto a machine that is not in these rules, and I telnet into
> port 25, I can setup a mail from outside the realm to outside the realm.
Does /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts exist? If not, you should create it, and
you
should put in it a list of domains for which you're willing to receive mail,
one per line.
See http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html for lots of good qmail
information.
Chris
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:39:26AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
[snip]
> I have a tcprules file the directory it appears my predecessor left the
> setup files in, and acording to the runline in PS (I still cannot find where
> he is actually launching tcpserver for smtp but it is running) the file
> should be /var/service/qmail-smtpd/tcprules.cdb
tcpserver is running from /var/service/qmail-smtpd/run. /var/service
is your service directory, as used by svscan (which is also running,
probably). Read up on it at http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html
> This file does exist, and it is readable, containing the following rule:
>
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 209.254.33.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
ok. Here's the fix.
- rename the file to 'tcprules' instead of 'tcprules.cdb'
- add a line at the bottom that just says ':allow'
- type 'tcprules tcprules.cdb tcprules.cdb.tmp < tcprules'
- Done. Hopefully.
Some recommended reading for you:
http://www.lifewithqmail.org/
http://www.qmail.org/ (with links to all kinds of documentation)
http://cr.yp.to/ (with the author's documentation for qmail, including
a FAQ).
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
> primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
> any domain in existance. such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
You should try reading the FAQ and other documentation (like the link I sent in
my previous message). You must use rcpthosts; the situation you're describing
is common and is well covered by the documentation.
Chris
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:39:26AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> This file does exist, and it is readable, containing the following rule:
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 209.254.33.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> yet if I jump onto a machine that is not in these rules, and I telnet into
> port 25, I can setup a mail from outside the realm to outside the realm.
>
> I do not understand Qmail at all so I need some major help here.
Do you have a file called
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
if that file does not exist your mailserver is relay open.
$ man qmail-smtpd (located in /var/qmail/man)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ... ]
rcpthosts
Allowed RCPT domains. If rcpthosts is supplied,
qmail-smtpd will reject any envelope recipient
address with a domain not listed in rcpthosts.
Exception: If the environment variable RELAYCLIENT is
set, qmail-smtpd will ignore rcpthosts, and will
append the value of RELAYCLIENT to each incoming
recipient address.
rcpthosts may include wildcards:
heaven.af.mil
.heaven.af.mil
Envelope recipient addresses without @ signs are
always allowed through.
[ ... ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
Dan Egli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We have a QMAIL server that our previous sysadmin left in open relay
> mode. I am trying to close the security holes, but I don't understand Qmail
> worth a damb (having used sendmail and being groomed on sendmail my entire
> unix life).
Post the output of `qmail-showctl`. Your tcpserver invocation didn't seem
to set the RELAYCLIENT variable for inappropriate IP addresses, altough the
text you posted isn't what tcpserver uses -- it uses a compiled version of
that. It's probably a matter of rcpthosts. The command above will tell us.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
No you don't. You want to accept mail for a small subset of the known
domains in the universe.
> primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
> any domain in existance.
You said receive above and send here. Which are you talking about? The
direction *is* important as they are handled by separate mechanisms
within qmail.
rcpthosts is for inbound mail that your server delivers. RELAYCLIENT
stuff in tcpserver is used to identify which IP addresss can use your
server as a sending relay for any domain.
> such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
So? Having a huge file is not a problem for qmail. Is it hard for you
to create it?
Check out the man page for qmail-newmrh. qmail especially knows how to
handle a large list of domains efficiently.
Regards.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:17 AM
> To: Dan Egli
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: relay controls
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:39:26AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> > We have a QMAIL server that our previous sysadmin left in open relay
> > mode. I am trying to close the security holes, but I don't understand
> Qmail
> > worth a damb (having used sendmail and being groomed on sendmail my entire
> > unix life).
> >
> > I have a tcprules file the directory it appears my predecessor left the
> > setup files in, and acording to the runline in PS (I still cannot find
> where
> > he is actually launching tcpserver for smtp but it is running) the file
> > should be /var/service/qmail-smtpd/tcprules.cdb
> >
> > This file does exist, and it is readable, containing the following rule:
> >
> > 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > 209.254.33.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> >
> > yet if I jump onto a machine that is not in these rules, and I telnet into
> > port 25, I can setup a mail from outside the realm to outside the realm.
>
> Does /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts exist? If not, you should create it, and
> you
> should put in it a list of domains for which you're willing to receive mail,
> one per line.
>
> See http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html for lots of good qmail
> information.
>
> Chris
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
> primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
> any domain in existance. such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
You are not understanding, it seems. You are mixing up two concepts.
Concept one is rcpthosts. rcpthosts specifies which domains *your
server* handles. rcpthosts should contain all domains for which you
want to receive mail *from* the Internet. Do not care about outside
domains your users want to mail to, right now.
Concept two is tcprules. tcprures specifies which IP-blocks are
allowed to use your server to send to anywhere on the Internet.
I hope this clears it up a bit.
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
> rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
> primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
> any domain in existance. such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
So what? qmail has no problems with huge files.
Mine has some 60,000 records.
What you describe is a relay open mailserver, and that's what you have
now.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
Dan Egli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
> primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
> any domain in existance. such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
You're suffering from a common misunderstanding. rcpthosts doesn't really
list all the domains you want to be able to send mail to; it lists the domains
which you are willing to relay mail to from anyone in the world.
Short answer: read Life with Qmail, djb's FAQ, www.qmail.org.
Hint: only your domains should be in rcpthosts in most situations. Then
to allow your company machines to use it as a smart relay, you use tcpserver
to set the RELAYCLIENT for those (and only those) IPs.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
see also 'morercpthosts'.
'Chris Johnson' writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:26:09AM -0700, Dan Egli wrote:
>> rcpthosts is no good. We want to accept mail for ALL domains. This is a
>> primary mail server for many virtual domains. I need to be able to send to
>> any domain in existance. such a rcpt hosts file would be HUGE!
>
> You should try reading the FAQ and other documentation (like the link I sent in
> my previous message). You must use rcpthosts; the situation you're describing
> is common and is well covered by the documentation.
>
> Chris
---------------------------------
Paul Theodoropoulos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Syntactically Subversive Services, Inc.
http://www.anastrophe.net
Downtime Is Not An Option
Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security
challenge".
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
bug...
Patrick.
"Scott Gifford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Matt Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This has been a feature of recent spam, which is probably why it's now
> > an issue. Several spam senders are now having sender addresses of
> > <spammer>@<spamdomain>, where <spamdomain> resolves via DNS to
> > '0.0.0.0'.
> >
> > Eventually qmail rejects the message because it recognises that it's
> > looped around too much, of course.
>
> Right, but it's a very effective (perhaps inadvertant) DOS tool. If
> you can generate a stream of 10 messages/sec of these, it's the
> equivalent of generating about 300 messages/sec --- a great way of
> turning a puny dial-up connection into a mail server crushing machine.
>
> We had a spammer sending a huge number of messages to users at this
> address (<sigh> their fake bounce addresses are now getting on each
> others' list...), which was causing our not-processed queues to hover
> around 100, which was causing regular messages to be processed very
> slowly.
>
> Since qmail works around this simple mail loop for other address
> referring to the local machine, it should do so for 0.0.0.0 as well.
>
> ------ScottG.
>
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:40:47PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security
> challenge".
> http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
> If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
> bug...
You quote it, but have you also read the document?
Especially the "Rules" section, part 1. (and also 8.1)
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
> Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the
> "qmail security challenge".
>
> http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
I don't think so. The challenge says:
"Bugs that qualify for the prize, subject to the other conditions
outlined in these rules, must be one of the following:
- Remote exploits that give login access.
- Local or remote exploits that grant root privileges.
- Local or remote exploits that grant read or write access to a
file the user can't normally access because of UNIX access controls
(owner/group/mode).
- Local or remote exploits that cause any of the long-lived qmail
processes (currently: qmail-send, qmail-rspawn, qmail-lspawn, or
qmail-clean) to terminate."
This attack merely causes messages to loop a bit before bouncing.
This barely even qualifies as a DOS attack.
Note also that at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html:
"I also specifically disallowed denial-of-service attacks: they are present
in every MTA, widely documented, and very hard to fix without a massive
overhaul of several major protocols"
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
"Patrick Bihan-Faou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security
>challenge".
>
>http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
>
>
>If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
>bug...
Sure, it's a bug. Dan didn't anticipate that spammers would set up
MX's pointing to 0.0.0.0. But it's not a security bug, and it wouldn't
have won the Security Challenge if it was still in effect.
-Dave
??
definitely not eligible. where's the exploit?
Patrick Bihan-Faou writes:
>
>
> Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security
> challenge".
>
>
>
>
> If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
> bug...
>
>
>
> Patrick.
>
>
>
>
> "Scott Gifford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Matt Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This has been a feature of recent spam, which is probably why it's now
>> > an issue. Several spam senders are now having sender addresses of
>> > <spammer>@<spamdomain>, where <spamdomain> resolves via DNS to
>> > '0.0.0.0'.
>> >
>> > Eventually qmail rejects the message because it recognises that it's
>> > looped around too much, of course.
>>
>> Right, but it's a very effective (perhaps inadvertant) DOS tool. If
>> you can generate a stream of 10 messages/sec of these, it's the
>> equivalent of generating about 300 messages/sec --- a great way of
>> turning a puny dial-up connection into a mail server crushing machine.
>>
>> We had a spammer sending a huge number of messages to users at this
>> address (<sigh> their fake bounce addresses are now getting on each
>> others' list...), which was causing our not-processed queues to hover
>> around 100, which was causing regular messages to be processed very
>> slowly.
>>
>> Since qmail works around this simple mail loop for other address
>> referring to the local machine, it should do so for 0.0.0.0 as well.
>>
>> ------ScottG.
>>
>
---------------------------------
Paul Theodoropoulos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Syntactically Subversive Services, Inc.
http://www.anastrophe.net
Downtime Is Not An Option
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:40:47PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
>
>
> Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the "qmail security
> challenge".
>
> http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
>
> If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
> bug...
>
It's a bug. However, it would not qualify:
8. The following types of bugs are specifically disqualified:
+ Exploits that involve corrupting DNS data, breaking TCP/IP, breaking
NFS, or denying service (except for the case above).
Also, http://cr.yp.to/qmail/guarantee.html specifically mentions that
DoS is not part of the deal.
Greetz, Peter.
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:40:47PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> > Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the
> "qmail security
> > challenge".
> > http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
> > If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
> > bug...
>
> You quote it, but have you also read the document?
> Especially the "Rules" section, part 1. (and also 8.1)
>
Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
exploit. It is a bug.
<sarcasm>
I like these rules that say "yeah we are setting up a challenge, but there
is no way that you could ever win it"...
If you ask me, qmail is far from bug free... The first security issue with
this product is itself: the code is completely obfuscated (I know I know,
style is a matter of taste), there is 0 line of comments in the code (hey
isn't the fact that qmail code is "small" one of its selling points ? remove
comments and you reduced the code size...)
Read Bruce Schneier's comment on these type of contests in his latest
book...
</sarcasm>
This 0.0.0.0 problem can easily be deflected by saying "some stupid people
mis-configure DNS to cause you problem (clause 8)", but the facts are:
- other MTA handle this properly (not qmail)
- this sort of "attack" is in use and causing problems with site that
selected qmail as their MTA
So saying "it does not fit our challenge because you need to use DNS to
perform the attack" is like saying "well qmail is perfectly safe if you
don't use it in the real world"... Good PR move guys, and a cheap one too!
Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"
Patrick.
Oh and for the fact that the challenge is closed. I mean cool more money to
FSF.
But still my comment is more on "what constitute a problem with qmail". I
don't really care for the challenge itself, but more on the attitude of
saying "this is not a qmail issue, but something else's fault".
Patrick.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
> exploit. It is a bug.
If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserver
this will for sure also cause you problems.
But neither is a *security* bug.
> the code is completely obfuscated (I know I know,
> style is a matter of taste), there is 0 line of comments in the code
The ability to read the code depends on your C language skills.
The ability to work with the code depends on the tools you have and use
(ever given ctags a try?).
Limited capabilities don't mean the code is obfuscated.
A book written in Kishuaheli will look obfuscated to most people on
this planet and it doesn't have comments, too. However this is not
a criteria for the quality of the book.
> Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"
Nobody says you have to.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
begone, troll.
Patrick Bihan-Faou writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:40:47PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
>> > Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the
>> "qmail security
>> > challenge".
>> > http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
>> > If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
>> > bug...
>>
>> You quote it, but have you also read the document?
>> Especially the "Rules" section, part 1. (and also 8.1)
>>
>
>
> Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
> exploit. It is a bug.
>
>
> <sarcasm>
>
> I like these rules that say "yeah we are setting up a challenge, but there
> is no way that you could ever win it"...
>
> If you ask me, qmail is far from bug free... The first security issue with
> this product is itself: the code is completely obfuscated (I know I know,
> style is a matter of taste), there is 0 line of comments in the code (hey
> isn't the fact that qmail code is "small" one of its selling points ? remove
> comments and you reduced the code size...)
>
> Read Bruce Schneier's comment on these type of contests in his latest
> book...
>
> </sarcasm>
>
>
> This 0.0.0.0 problem can easily be deflected by saying "some stupid people
> mis-configure DNS to cause you problem (clause 8)", but the facts are:
> - other MTA handle this properly (not qmail)
> - this sort of "attack" is in use and causing problems with site that
> selected qmail as their MTA
>
> So saying "it does not fit our challenge because you need to use DNS to
> perform the attack" is like saying "well qmail is perfectly safe if you
> don't use it in the real world"... Good PR move guys, and a cheap one too!
>
> Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"
>
>
>
> Patrick.
>
---------------------------------
Paul Theodoropoulos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Syntactically Subversive Services, Inc.
http://www.anastrophe.net
Downtime Is Not An Option
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> So saying "it does not fit our challenge because you need to use DNS to
> perform the attack" is like saying "well qmail is perfectly safe if you
> don't use it in the real world"... Good PR move guys, and a cheap one too!
>
> Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"
Patrick. If you're that bitter about people accurately explaining to
you that a bug is not necessarily the same as a security exploit, then
it's probably best if you take your own advice.
You're not forced to use qmail. You're not forced to particiate here
and listen to answers you don't want to hear. If qmail doesn't suit
you, or the qmail community doesn't suit you then it's in your and our
best interest to pick an MTA that suits your ideals. You'll feel
better and we won't notice your absence.
Regards.
> Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not
> quite DNS related exploit. It is a bug.
I'll buy that, but it isn't a security hole. You did note the word
"security" between "qmail" and "challenge," yes? Its in the titlebar, the
large words at the top of the page, and the first paragraph.
> I like these rules that say "yeah we are setting up a
> challenge, but there is no way that you could ever win it"...
It wasn't a bug hunt, it was a security challenge. The rules listed
are reasonable, if you keep that in mind.
> If you ask me, qmail is far from bug free...
Okay, but how many of those bugs can be exploited to breach
security? (NOTE: a DOS is not a security breach.) Please, go find one,
there is still a $500 prize available.
> - this sort of "attack" is in use and causing problems with site that
> selected qmail as their MTA
This sort of "attack" causes little more trouble than
double-bounces. Frankly, we've discussed DOS scenarios with qmail that make
this look like a piece of wet popcorn. Note that qmail's integral mail loop
detection stops this attack quickly.
> So saying "it does not fit our challenge because you need to
> use DNS to perform the attack" is like saying "well qmail is
> perfectly safe if you don't use it in the real world"... Good
> PR move guys, and a cheap one too!
Nobody said that. We said it wasn't a security breach, it was a
DOS, and an extremely limited DOS at that. If you don't understand the
difference, go read some more.
Let's read that line again:
"bugs are specifically disqualified:
Exploits that involve corrupting DNS data, breaking TCP/IP, breaking NFS, or
denying service (except for the case above). "
You apparently stopped at the first comma. Try going all the way to
the period.
> Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"
Given your logic, you should stop using computers. I've noticed
bugs at all levels, from the BIOS and CPU on up. But then you wouldn't get
to go trolling, now would you?
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
Patrick Bihan-Faou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
> exploit. It is a bug.
>
> <sarcasm>
>
> I like these rules that say "yeah we are setting up a challenge, but there
> is no way that you could ever win it"...
The only reason it couldn't be won was that there were no security bugs
in qmail. The exact same conditions, attached to sendmail of the time,
would have resulted in many, many winners.
> If you ask me, qmail is far from bug free... The first security issue with
> this product is itself: the code is completely obfuscated (I know I know,
> style is a matter of taste), there is 0 line of comments in the code (hey
> isn't the fact that qmail code is "small" one of its selling points ? remove
> comments and you reduced the code size...)
Don't like it? Don't use it. There's plenty of other MTAs out there.
If you want djb to eat crow _and_ give you money, he's offering a USD$500
guarantee on the security of djbdns. Go wild; find a security bug. I fully
expect that money to remain unclaimed.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the
> > "qmail security challenge".
> >
> > http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
>
> I don't think so. The challenge says:
Obviously, the purpose of reporting this bug wasn't to win the expired
qmail challenge. It's not a security bug, but a correctness bug, and
a DoS bug (it seriously horked our mail servers).
[ ... ]
> This attack merely causes messages to loop a bit before bouncing.
> This barely even qualifies as a DOS attack.
>
A message sent into the system, sent to a user at a 0.0.0.0 MX host,
from a user at a 0.0.0.0 MX host, passes through qmail-smtpd,
qmail-queue, qmail-send, and qmail-remote 60 times before it's gone
from your system (30 before it bounces, and another 30 trying to
deliver the bounce). That means that if you have 2% of your messages
addressed this way, deliberately or accidentally, you need 120% more
power (over twice as much) to process the bounces. It means that a
user sending a steady stream of 10 (small) messages/sec over a dialup
connection makes your system deal with 600 messages/sec, which would
normally take a T1. A user on a T1 or fast DSL sending 600
messages/sec makes your system deal with 36,000 messages/sec, which
would normally take 2 T3s. It makes it possible for a home user with
relatively few resources to take down a medium-sized qmail
installation with no real effort. And they can even do it
accidentally, if they're spamming or dealing with a mailing list.
Our mail system at OneMain.COM processes over 23 million messages a
day with no problem, and this bug brought it to its knees.
It's a serious bug.
But it's relatively easy to fix (in ipme.c), or to work around (don't
allow connections from 127.0.0.1 to qmail-smtpd).
-------ScottG.
Patrick Bihan-Faou writes:
> If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
> bug...
In fact, it's not a bug; it's a portability problem. If you were using
OpenBSD, you'd see outgoing connections to 0.0.0.0 rejected with EINVAL.
---Dan
Among other thins, Patrick Bihan-Faou said:
>>Read Bruce Schneier's comment on these type of contests in his latest
book...<<
Name of book, please.
>>Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"<<
So, what do you recommend?
Patrick.
> >>Read Bruce Schneier's comment on these type of contests in his latest
> book...<<
>
> Name of book, please.
"Secrets and Lies" if my memory serves me right.
> >>Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"<<
>
> So, what do you recommend?
>
I am not recommending anything, choose a solution based on your needs. I
looked at many MTA. Qmail is really nice for a large number of things and is
usually reliable. But as I started to want things that do not fit with its
design assumptions it became really difficult to play with it.
As far as overall code quality and design quality goes, postfix is the best
MTA I have seen so far (IMO). But as with a lot of things this is a matter
of personal preferences and even religion for some.
I currently use both qmail and postfix. Any new system I build uses postfix.
I don't want to start a holy war on these issues as they are not worth the
effort. My main motivations to move to postfix were:
- qmail obscure licensing terms (for my needs)
- postfix is generally more flexible and easier to configure for fancy
things
- postfix performance is on par with qmail
- and a few other reasons that are not worth mentioning
Why I used qmail in the past:
- easier to configure than sendmail
- more reliable than sendmail
- only true alternative to sendmail (at the time)
- good performance
- easy to use for "simple" cases (where "simple" does not mean
simplistic/useless, but means "typical")
Patrick.
Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> > Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
> > exploit. It is a bug.
>
> If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserver
> this will for sure also cause you problems.
No it won't. qmail will give an error that the MX records points back
to itself, and bounce the message.
qmail knows that MX records that point back to you are a problem, it
just doesn't know that 0.0.0.0 points back to itself.
That's why it's a bug.
------ScottG.
Hi Mark,
> Patrick. If you're that bitter about people accurately explaining to
> you that a bug is not necessarily the same as a security exploit, [...]
Well I guess I disagree on the meaning of a security problem. If you can use
this trick to create a DOS attack on a system, to me that would qualify as a
security problem. Of course this trick will not provide the attacker with
root access to the machine, so in a stricter sense it is not a security
exploit, but I find that definition a bit too narrow.
I am not bitter about it, I am just a bit hot tempered at times :).
<off topic>
However I find it a bit extreme to be called an idiot because I state some
of my views. I certainly did not intend to call people names, and I don't
think I did. I find it a bit disturbing that people are always ready to call
you names as soon as you state even the slightest negative comment about
qmail. I guess I will never understand that kind of passion (zealotery ?),
but it is always amusing to witness.
</off topic>
Patrick.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:32:47PM -0500, Scott Gifford wrote:
> Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserver
> > this will for sure also cause you problems.
>
> No it won't. qmail will give an error that the MX records points back
> to itself, and bounce the message.
I don't think that any mailserver out there will be able to handle
the load if AOL or Hotmail will change the MX record to point at that
system (without prior notice).
This would be a DOS just like the 0.0.0.0 is.
> qmail knows that MX records that point back to you are a problem, it
> just doesn't know that 0.0.0.0 points back to itself.
> That's why it's a bug.
I never said it's not a bug, it's IMHO just not a security bug.
It's triggered by a DNS misconfiguration (done on purpose).
And, btw., thanks for finding it and supplying a fix.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
On 25 Jan 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> In fact, it's not a bug; it's a portability problem. If you were using
> OpenBSD, you'd see outgoing connections to 0.0.0.0 rejected with EINVAL.
This OpenBSD idiosyncracy is almost exactly two years old [1], i.e.
OpenBSD 2.4 and earlier are affected (well, sane people have probably
upgraded in the meantime). It isn't even documented properly, their
connect(2) [2] says:
[EINVAL] A TCP connection with a local broadcast, the all-ones or a
multicast address as the peer was attempted.
In fact, they did not even bother to mention the change in their
Daily Changelog [3] and CVS log entry say "netinet merge of NRL
stuff. some indent and shrinkage needed; NRL/cmetz". And the funny thing
is that everyone appears to call the equivalence of 0.0.0.0 and 127.0.0.1
for TCP connects a *BSDism* (undocumented, as usual), ergo the change
does probably qualify as "a frivolous incompatibility."
Now, how old qmail 1.03 is? CHANGES in qmail-1.03.tar.gz say it was
released on June 15 1998. Hmm...this predates the change in question
(January 11 1999), doesn't it? Did you code qmail with a crystal ball in
your hand? With all due respect, aren't you just looking for lame excuses
(like playing with words and renaming bugs to portability problems) in
order not to have to admit there is even the slightest imperfection in
your creation?
[1] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c?r1=1.31&r2=1.32
[2]
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=connect&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html
[3] http://www.openbsd.org/plus25.html
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Pavel Kankovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, how old qmail 1.03 is? CHANGES in qmail-1.03.tar.gz say it was
> released on June 15 1998. Hmm...this predates the change in question
> (January 11 1999), doesn't it?
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c
Revision 1.20; dated Feb 28 1998.
Please, stop now.
--
Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://danp.net
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Dan Peterson wrote:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c
> Revision 1.20; dated Feb 28 1998.
Hmm...hmm...right. Ok, I missed it. It did not occur to me 0.0.0.0 is a
broadcast address in Canada. :)
Anyway, qmail 1.00 was released on February 20, 1997. Was there any
handling for 0.0.0.0 in qmail 1.00?
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Hi!
I trying to stop smtp and pop-3...
when I did netstat -l I got this:
LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:pop-3 *:
* LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:smtp
So I want to stop both of them in order to use qmail, but I don't know how, I
did a ps ax and there is no sendmail process, it means that if I do a killall
-9 sendmail nothing happen (I did) and the smtp and pop will be there.
What should I do? what are the commands in order to do this?
I'm using RedHat6.2.
Thank you for your help,
Rocael.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:55:01AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
> I trying to stop smtp and pop-3...
> when I did netstat -l I got this:
> LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:pop-3 *:
> * LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:smtp
> So I want to stop both of them in order to use qmail, but I don't know how, I
> did a ps ax and there is no sendmail process, it means that if I do a killall
> -9 sendmail nothing happen (I did) and the smtp and pop will be there.
> What should I do? what are the commands in order to do this?
qmail-smtpd and qmail-popup is either running from tcpserver or inetd.
Look for 'tcpserver' processes, and check /etc/inetd.conf.
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:55:01AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> when I did netstat -l I got this:
> LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:pop-3 *:
> * LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:smtp
This is probably inetd listening on that ports.
Edit /etc/inetd.conf and comment the lines for "smtp" and "pop"/"pop3"
(i.e. put a '#' as the first char on that line).
After that do a
kill -HUP `pidof inetd`
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen
asleep yet.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:55:01AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
> I trying to stop smtp and pop-3...
> when I did netstat -l I got this:
> LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:pop-3 *:
> * LISTEN tcp 0 0 *:smtp
> So I want to stop both of them in order to use qmail, but I don't know how, I
> did a ps ax and there is no sendmail process, it means that if I do a killall
> -9 sendmail nothing happen (I did) and the smtp and pop will be there.
> What should I do? what are the commands in order to do this?
>
Check Your inetd configuration in inetd.conf .
Regards, Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I trying to stop smtp and pop-3...
> So I want to stop both of them in order to use qmail, but I don't know how, I
> did a ps ax and there is no sendmail process, it means that if I do a killall
> -9 sendmail nothing happen (I did) and the smtp and pop will be there.
> What should I do? what are the commands in order to do this?
Edit inetd.conf, comment out (or remove) the sendmail line and whatever
POP3 daemon line you have, and HUP inetd.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a request to see if our qmail system can accommodate the following:
The customer wants to have his individual accounts receive mails addressed
to them, but in addition, he would like to have a copy of mail for specific
accounts cc'd to a "central repository" mail account.
Anyone done this? Can qmail handle this? If so, how-to would be greatly
appreciated!
Thanks in advance,
J
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Jeff Krintila wrote:
>I've had a request to see if our qmail system can accommodate the following:
>
>The customer wants to have his individual accounts receive mails addressed
>to them, but in addition, he would like to have a copy of mail for specific
>accounts cc'd to a "central repository" mail account.
>
>Anyone done this? Can qmail handle this? If so, how-to would be greatly
>appreciated!
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>J
in the .qmail files for those accounts, add a line with the central address on
it
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
Easiest way is to add a .qmail-user file with an additional delivery
instruction
Remotely
in .qmail-user:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Maildir/
Locally
in .qmail-user
/home/otheruser/Maildir/
./Maildir/
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Krintila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:43 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Cc: in qmail
I've had a request to see if our qmail system can accommodate the following:
The customer wants to have his individual accounts receive mails addressed
to them, but in addition, he would like to have a copy of mail for specific
accounts cc'd to a "central repository" mail account.
Anyone done this? Can qmail handle this? If so, how-to would be greatly
appreciated!
Thanks in advance,
J
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:43:26AM -0700, Jeff Krintila wrote:
> I've had a request to see if our qmail system can accommodate the following:
>
> The customer wants to have his individual accounts receive mails addressed
> to them, but in addition, he would like to have a copy of mail for specific
> accounts cc'd to a "central repository" mail account.
>
> Anyone done this? Can qmail handle this? If so, how-to would be greatly
> appreciated!
Put 2 lines in his .qmail file, or on the qmail-start line.
./Maildir/
¢ralaccount
Where ./Maildir/ is your normal delivery instruction (might be
different for your system) and 'centralaccount' is an account able to
receive mail.
Greetz, Peter.
Jeff Krintila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've had a request to see if our qmail system can accommodate the following:
>
> The customer wants to have his individual accounts receive mails addressed
> to them, but in addition, he would like to have a copy of mail for specific
> accounts cc'd to a "central repository" mail account.
Create .qmail files for those users which he wants a copy of the mail
stored for. Put in the normal delivery instruction (i.e. "./Maildir/"), plus
an additional one "&mailstore@localhost"). Then have a file
~alias/.qmail-mailstore which has a delivery instruction to store all this
mail.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone done this?
Daily.
> Can qmail handle this?
Easily :)
> If so, how-to would be greatly
> appreciated!
Read the dot-qmail man page.
Short recipe:
Put this into ~user1/.qmail :
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Maildir/
This will send a copy to the given address and save the message in
user1's Maildir.
You can make this more intelligent so that centralspy never generates any
bounces but this does the job.
Regards, Frank
I know this is the wrong place to ask, but the
sqwebmail mailing list is incredibly slow/unpopulated.
Do any of you know where I could find documentation
for that package? I'm trying to do things like set up
multiple virtual domains, change my timeout time, etc.
Thanks,
Alex Le Fevre
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
To all and anyone willing to listen,
I have qmail installed and running on Slackware 7.1, I have a wierd
problem with outbound
mail saying that it was sent the day after and not the current time.
I am running 2.4.0 and the BIOS clock
shows proper, my date shows proper in the system and my timezone is set
correctly. Is there anywhere in particular
where the SMTP for qmail gets it time from. Oh and I am running it
under tcpserver.
Thanks,
Corey
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:06:57PM -0500, Corey Jarvis wrote:
> To all and anyone willing to listen,
> I have qmail installed and running on Slackware 7.1, I have a wierd
> problem with outbound
> mail saying that it was sent the day after and not the current time.
> I am running 2.4.0 and the BIOS clock
> shows proper, my date shows proper in the system and my timezone is set
> correctly. Is there anywhere in particular
> where the SMTP for qmail gets it time from. Oh and I am running it
> under tcpserver.
qmail ignores timezone and prints all timestamps in UTC. This makes
reading mailheaders easier because you don't have to compensate for
the timezone of any mailserver involved.
Greetz, Peter.
Just to stick in another random opinion:
I've been pretty pine die hard for almost 3 years now.
I tried out mutt about a month ago, and just couldn't make the switch.
Went back to pine and Mailbox, despite personally preferring Maildir.
Tried it again about 3 days ago due to peer pressure and disgust with
Mailbox format - and something clicked. I'd now recommend it to
anyone that wants MUA Maildir support, regardless whether or not they
are a pine fan. It only took about an hour to make it do everything
I was used to in pine - and the stuff I couldn't reprogram my fingers
to do (x is for expunge, dammit!) I just re-binded. Very slick.
And the pgp support... delicious. :D
(Now if I could only figure out how to color code tagged messages...)
> OK, on your advice I will look into mutt and give it a whirl, but god
> knows I have better things to do with my time than evaluate MUA's.
Give it a serious hour of your time. You won't be disappointed.
--
Mahlon Smith
InternetCDS
http://www.internetcds.com
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:32:29AM +0000, James R Grinter wrote:
> > But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real
> > reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point
> > Pine at that.
> >
> > Seems pretty simple to me.
>
> How about this: Use a non-crappy, open source e-mail client instead?
no need to tell me - (for the record I've never ever used Pine, though
I think I did compile it for someone else once.)
but for people to complain that they want to use it, but that it
doesn't natively support Maildir which they also want to use, is just
madness.
James.
Try:
/var/qmail/queue -type f
If there are *any* references in the numbered subdirectories in *any* of the
queues, you may get the message in question. Be sure to delete them all.
-K
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to
anger."
> From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:27:14 -0600
> To: Qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: queue is empty, but qmail still complains
>
> Keary Suska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Qmail stores references to messages in multiple locations in the queue. What
>> this error likely means is that there are references to messages in the todo
>> directory that don't exist in the mess directory. Find the messages via
>> something like find /var/qmail/queue -name '*MESSAGEID*' where MESSAGEID is
>> the id number of the message. Delete every instance of the troublesome
>> message ID's.
>
> Actually, I'm quite aware of this -- that's why in my original message,
> I posted (among other things) the result of `find /var/qmail/queue -type f`
> showing that there are _no_ files in the queue directory other than
> lock/tcpto and lock/sendmutex. queue-fix (with the big-todo patch) says
> the queue is fine.
>
> To sum up: this is not simple queue corruption, caused by manually
> removing files in the queue hierarchy. Something distinctly odd is going
> on. I can stop qmail, verify no qmail processes are running, verify there
> are no files in the queue structure other than the two mentioned above,
> start qmail, and _still_ get error output about these particular files
> in mess/*/ being missing. Where is qmail getting the necessary state
> information to determine that these files should exist?
>
> I've also just noticed something else odd about the error messages -- aren't
> the files in the split directories normally named by inode number? In this
> case, the "missing" files all share the names of the split directories that
> qmail thinks they should be in -- i.e. mess/13/13, mess/14/14, etc.
>
> Here's a listing of /var/qmail/queue/mess:
>
> [root@charon mess]# pwd
> /var/qmail/queue/mess
> [root@charon mess]# ll
> total 92
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 0/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Apr 9 1999 1/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 10/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 11/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 12/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 27 2000 13/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 27 2000 14/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 27 2000 15/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 27 2000 16/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 27 2000 17/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Feb 14 2000 18/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 May 11 2000 19/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Apr 9 1999 2/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 27 2000 20/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 21/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 22/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 3/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 4/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 5/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 6/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 7/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 8/
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 24 15:04 9/
>
> I just don't get it. I've searched the archives of the list, and can't find
> any occurrences of this. I'd appreciate any thoughts on what might be
> causing this.
>
> Charles
>
>>> [root@charon queue]# ps auxw | grep qmail
>>> [root@charon queue]# pwd
>>> /var/qmail/queue
>>> [root@charon queue]# find . -type f
>>> ./lock/sendmutex
>>> ./lock/tcpto
>>> [root@charon queue]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start
>>> Starting qmail: done.
>>> [root@charon queue]# tail /var/log/maillog
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.839878 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/13/13
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.841153 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/14/14
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.841305 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/15/15
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.841445 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/16/16
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.841572 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/17/17
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.845169 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/18/18
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.845323 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/19/19
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.845463 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/20/20
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.848179 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/21/21
>>> Jan 24 16:02:49 charon qmail: 980373769.851135 warning: unable to stat
>>> mess/22/22
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I've gotten qmail to compile, and my init scripts set up, but when I run
"qmail start", I get the following:
Starting qmail: svscan
.
supervise: fatal: unable to acquire qmail-send/supervise/lock: temporary
failure
supervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary
failure
supervise: fatal: unable to acquire qmail-smtpd/supervise/lock: temporary
failure
supervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary failure
The supervise fatal errors repeat every couple of seconds.
This is a SunOS 5.7 box, running qmail-1.03. Any thoughts?
Fish.
Just go into the affected Directories and delete those lock Files manually.
Because UFS Solaris is a bit laggy in I/O this Problem occurs when you
stop and start your qmail Programs too fast!
--
Michael Maier / http://www.shell-provider.net
Fish Flowers wrote:
> I've gotten qmail to compile, and my init scripts set up, but when I run
> "qmail start", I get the following:
>
> Starting qmail: svscan
> .
> supervise: fatal: unable to acquire qmail-send/supervise/lock: temporary
> failure
> supervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary
> failure
> supervise: fatal: unable to acquire qmail-smtpd/supervise/lock: temporary
> failure
> supervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary failure
>
> The supervise fatal errors repeat every couple of seconds.
>
> This is a SunOS 5.7 box, running qmail-1.03. Any thoughts?
>
> Fish.
Hi,
Having a problem, here's my story: I did a clean install of Debian Potato
Linux on a P100 machine, I did NOT install exim [selected option 5/do not
configure mail] when doing the install. I followed the Life With Qmail
document to the letter, installing qmail 1.03, the daemontools, and
ucspi-tcp. I also installed the POP3 module that came with qmail. The 4
qmail-XXXX processes are running and locally everything seems to work okay
[verified with a ps and a qmail-inject to myself from an echo on the command
line].
Now, I can send mail from my machine to other local accounts and external
domains just fine. I can check POP3 remotely just fine. However my big
problem is that I'm not receiving outside mail sent to my domain. I
verified DNS is setup correctly and goes to the correct IP address. The
bounce message I'm getting is:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection refused by
> mail.birthmachine.com.
...on top of this, I can't telnet into my own port 25 [telnet on 127.0.0.1
25 AND outside by IP both fail with "could not open a connection"], which
makes me think I'm missing some SMTP daemon/port listener that should have
been installed with exim that qmail expects to use. A portscan on my
machine verifies that port 25 isn't open.
I did absolutely nothing fancy on the qmail/Linux install, haven't
installed ANYTHING but what I mentioned above. I'm pretty much a Linux
ignoramus and have no idea where to go from here.
Thanks in advance for any pointers or help...
- John
Did you configure qmail-smtpd? It either needs to be always running or
invoked via tcpserver or inetd. It sounds like this is not the case.
-K
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste
good with ketchup."
> From: John Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:26:39 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Problem with qmail and SMTP port w/ Debian Linux.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Having a problem, here's my story: I did a clean install of Debian Potato
> Linux on a P100 machine, I did NOT install exim [selected option 5/do not
> configure mail] when doing the install. I followed the Life With Qmail
> document to the letter, installing qmail 1.03, the daemontools, and
> ucspi-tcp. I also installed the POP3 module that came with qmail. The 4
> qmail-XXXX processes are running and locally everything seems to work okay
> [verified with a ps and a qmail-inject to myself from an echo on the command
> line].
>
> Now, I can send mail from my machine to other local accounts and external
> domains just fine. I can check POP3 remotely just fine. However my big
> problem is that I'm not receiving outside mail sent to my domain. I
> verified DNS is setup correctly and goes to the correct IP address. The
> bounce message I'm getting is:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection refused by
>> mail.birthmachine.com.
>
> ...on top of this, I can't telnet into my own port 25 [telnet on 127.0.0.1
> 25 AND outside by IP both fail with "could not open a connection"], which
> makes me think I'm missing some SMTP daemon/port listener that should have
> been installed with exim that qmail expects to use. A portscan on my
> machine verifies that port 25 isn't open.
>
> I did absolutely nothing fancy on the qmail/Linux install, haven't
> installed ANYTHING but what I mentioned above. I'm pretty much a Linux
> ignoramus and have no idea where to go from here.
>
> Thanks in advance for any pointers or help...
> - John
>
John Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now, I can send mail from my machine to other local accounts and external
> domains just fine. I can check POP3 remotely just fine. However my big
> problem is that I'm not receiving outside mail sent to my domain. I
> verified DNS is setup correctly and goes to the correct IP address. The
> bounce message I'm getting is:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection refused by
> > mail.birthmachine.com.
>
> ...on top of this, I can't telnet into my own port 25 [telnet on 127.0.0.1
> 25 AND outside by IP both fail with "could not open a connection"], which
> makes me think I'm missing some SMTP daemon/port listener that should have
> been installed with exim that qmail expects to use. A portscan on my
> machine verifies that port 25 isn't open.
Starting qmail does not start the SMTP daemon. YOu have to start that
separately. If it was RedHat, with Bruce Guenter's startup scripts, you
do:
/etc/rc.d/init.d/smtpd start
But I haven't used Debian since 1.3, and don't know how qmail is packaged
for Debian.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:59:05PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> But I haven't used Debian since 1.3, and don't know how qmail is packaged
> for Debian.
He said he followed LWQ, which would lead me to believe he's not using the
Debian package.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
10:14pm up 229 days, 20:32, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 03:26:39PM -0800, John Bowen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Having a problem, here's my story: I did a clean install of Debian Potato
> Linux on a P100 machine, I did NOT install exim [selected option 5/do not
> configure mail] when doing the install. I followed the Life With Qmail
> document to the letter, installing qmail 1.03, the daemontools, and
> ucspi-tcp. I also installed the POP3 module that came with qmail. The 4
> qmail-XXXX processes are running and locally everything seems to work okay
> [verified with a ps and a qmail-inject to myself from an echo on the command
> line].
>
> Now, I can send mail from my machine to other local accounts and external
> domains just fine. I can check POP3 remotely just fine. However my big
> problem is that I'm not receiving outside mail sent to my domain. I
> verified DNS is setup correctly and goes to the correct IP address. The
> bounce message I'm getting is:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Deferred: Connection refused by
> > mail.birthmachine.com.
>
The tcpserver running qmail-smtpd has not been started, check with
svstat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
if You exactly follow lwq.
You may consider using the not debian compliant var-qmail package I provide:
http://innominate.org/~pape/Debian/qmail.html
Regards, Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
Sorry if this is a repeat to the list but I just subscribed
The install went just find but I have a problem
1.) I can't seem to to set the enviroment variable to allow me to have
certain hosts relay. Below is the contents of my tcp.smtp
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
192.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
65.193.90.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
Then I ran the
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
And here is my tcpserver startup line which is in
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtp/run
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x
/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 1003 -g 102 0 smtp rblsmtpd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
2>&1
I have restarted smtpd just to make sure the changes took, I don't know if
this is nessary or if they are on the fly.
Miles Scruggs
Miles Scruggs writes:
> Sorry if this is a repeat to the list but I just subscribed
> The install went just find but I have a problem
> 1.) I can't seem to to set the enviroment variable to allow me to have
> certain hosts relay. Below is the contents of my tcp.smtp
>
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
This allows anything in the 192.168.1.* subnet to relay through your host.
> 192.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
This allows anything in the 192.* net to relay through your host. I'm sure
you do not mean that.
> 65.193.90.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
And I have a feeling yo do not mean this, either (all hosts in 65.193.90.*?
Do you trust them all to relay through you?)
> :allow
>
> Then I ran the
> tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
>
> And here is my tcpserver startup line which is in
> /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtp/run
>
> exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x
> /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 1003 -g 102 0 smtp rblsmtpd
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1
You're only using rbl.maps.vix.com for rblsmtpd (since you don't supply any
options).
> I have restarted smtpd just to make sure the changes took, I don't know if
> this is nessary or if they are on the fly.
You do not need to restart tcpserver to activate changes to
/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb.
However, you're not telling us what the problem is; from which IP you're
connecting to the smtpd, or what the error message was, or what the logs
say.
Can you connect to port 25 on that machine? Can you send mail to a user
local to that machine (via smtp)?
Vince.
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:12:32AM +0000, James R Grinter wrote:
> [snip]
> > Indeed, qmail already uses a split queue/mess/ directory structure and
> > it was a bit of an omission to assume that there would never be a
> > surge of mail in one go (VERP list expansion is definitely good for
> > creating this situation) and thus many messages in todo/ at once.
>
> VERP expansion happens on delivery, not on queue injection, unless you
> are doing something very wrong.
It's always good to question and investigate what is happening -
thanks to Peter for the prompting - the answer seems to be that the
"majordomo-inject" script we've been using since 1998 was indeed
expanding upon queue injection (it was doing the VERP itself.)
Anyone out there using this - *do* switch to mjinject instead - Giles
Lean and Russ Allbery's replacement script.
James.
(Only 2 and a half years to spot and nail the problem. Not bad...)
Hi,
I'm trying to diagnose the reason why I can't connect
to port 25 on the localhost. I've tried with #telnet
localhost 25 and #mconnect and I get:
tcpclient: unable to connect to 127.0.0.1 port 25:
connection refused
with both.
I've just installed qmail following the howto found at
http://www.flounder.net/qmail/qmail-howto.html.
$ ps ax | grep qmail
22825 ?? S 8:39.46 supervise qmail-smtpd
25256 p0 R+ 0:00.00 grep qmail (sh)
20531 C0- S 10:04.16 supervise qmail-send
Shows that qmail-smtpd is running, but I can't
connect.
tcpserver rules are:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
So I should be able to connect, as far as I know.
Anything else I can look at? I'm so stumped.
Thanks for any help.
Curtis.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Hi folks, I'm was playing around with the possibility of using
some kind of NFS based system to do server clustering
for load balancing and high availability. I came across
an alternate solution called global file system (GFS).
It's a file system that can be put onto a network block
device and exported to clients as a local device
(like NFS).
To quote their web site (http://www.sistina.com):
"The Global File System (GFS) is a shared storage device, cluster file
system for Linux.
GFS supports multi-client journaling and rapid recovery from client
failures.
Nodes within a GFS cluster physically share the same storage by means of
Fibre
Channel (FC), shared SCSI devices, or network block devices.
The file system appears to be local on each node and GFS synchronizes
file access
across the cluster. GFS is fully symmetric. In other words,
all nodes are equal and there is no server which could be either a
bottleneck or a
single point of failure. GFS uses read and write caching while
maintaining full UNIX file system semantics."
I'd like to get a bit of advice on this one. I know that NFS
is a big no-no when using qmail due to the way it handles the
queue. I also know that qmail may have trouble with certain
journaling filesystems (for example, reiserfs) because qmail
assumes that link() and unlink() are syncronous operations
(according to the reiserfs FAQ).
So my question boils down to, has anyone ever tried using
qmail and GFS? I've been following the mailing list for a
while now, without any mention of it.
In the short term, my plan would be to setup one machine
to act as a fileserver using the gndb facilities of
GFS, and eventually switch to fiberchannel shared storage.
Regards
Mark Steele
VP research and development
Inet Technologies Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a personal note, I apologize for my last posting chewing out someone
for sending an unsubscribe request to the list. It was a personal email
which I inadvertently posted to the list.
For anyone wondering how to get off this list, just send a friendly email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or send a rude note about how
terrible Qmail is. Doesn't matter what you say, as long as you say it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"<<
This note from Patrick intrigued me. It intrigued me because I remember
myself being so frustrated with Qmail, I cursed and said "The only reason
I am using Qmail is because it is too hard to switch over to something
else." There were times when I wanted to scream in frustration.
One exmaple: What happens to qmail-smtpd if qmail-queue does not have the
correct suid permissions? The helpful error message 'unable to open qq'
comes up. I finally resolved this by reading the source code of qmail,
which, to address another of Patrick's concerns, was fairly easy to read.
After using Qmail for four years, I have gotten to the point that I know
the big gotchas. (The other big gotcha is that qmail binaries have the
uids of the qmail users hard coded in them.)
I hope Patrick finds what he is looking for. He mentioned Postfix--maybe
this will meet his needs better. I know that Qmail, whicle being very
powerful, is not the easiest MTA to get used to. My main qualm with
Postfix is that it is not flexible enough to work with the program I wrote
and have up at http://kiwispam.sourceforge.net. Postfix only has a single
"umbrella" or "default" address per virtualdomain, and does not have "plus
addressing".
- Sam
Hi,
When booting, this message gets sent to the console:
tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number for
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
Anyone know how to fix this? Or how to better diagnose
the problem?
Here is the command I use to start qmail-smtpd with
tcpserver:
# start qmtpd with tcpserver
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u
2850 -g 32750 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
and the tcp.smtp rules look like:
127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
Thanks for any help.
Curtis.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:16:53AM -0800, Curtis Collicutt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When booting, this message gets sent to the console:
>
> tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure out port number for
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> Here is the command I use to start qmail-smtpd with
> tcpserver:
>
> # start qmtpd with tcpserver
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u
> 2850 -g 32750 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
>
Your are missing one argument to tcpserver, the host, use
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u
2850 -g 32750 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
^^^
Regards, Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
Hi !
I have installed an intranet qmail server on, say, foo.org ; and I want,
for all the mail which is send to an Internet domain, for all the outgoing
mail from the foo.org intranet domain, to rewrite the sender address from
the intranet domain foo.org to the Internet domain foo.fr . Is it possible
with the new qmail-inject from mess822 to rewrite the sender's domain name
for the outgoing intranet mail to a valid Internet domain name ?
Thanks for help ...
Cordialement,
Michel Boucey Administrateur Système
> Société Norm@net +33 2 31 27 13 45 <
|
Michel Boucey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>I have installed an intranet qmail server on, say, foo.org ; and
I want,
>for all the mail which is send to an Internet domain, for
all the outgoing
>mail from the foo.org intranet domain, to rewrite
the sender address from
>the intranet domain foo.org to the Internet
domain foo.fr . Is it possible
>with the new qmail-inject from
mess822 to rewrite the sender's domain name
>for the outgoing
intranet mail to a valid Internet domain name ?
I have asked this question here two weeks ago and no one answered, so
I ended up modifying qmail-scanner to rewrite the messages. |
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here
|
Is there a filter that I can use to scan incoming & outgoing message headers
and reject messages based on pre-defined criteria (text string)?
I want to deal with the W32/Hybris virus
Thanks,
Brian
|
Brian Longwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>Is there a filter that I can use to scan incoming & outgoing
message headers
>and reject messages based on pre-defined criteria
(text string)?
Use qmail-scanner, and next time you should visit qmail.org
before asking these questions ! |
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here
|
|
You've assumed that I haven't
already been there...I have...I've already looked at qmail-scanner and I'm
afraid that the overhead will be too much on my system. I don't want a
full-fledged virus-guard, is there something more lightweight that can do regex
filtering on the subject line?
|
Brian Longwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>Is there a filter that I can use to scan incoming &
outgoing message headers
>and reject messages based on pre-defined
criteria (text string)?
Use qmail-scanner, and next time you should visit qmail.org
before asking these questions ! |
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally
evolved - Click
Here
|
