qmail Digest 29 Jan 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1259
Topics (messages 56187 through 56229):
[standards track] Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language
56187 by: Magnus Bodin
Problem with local delivery
56188 by: Tomas TPS Ulej
56190 by: pape.innominate.com
webmail solution
56189 by: M. Yu
56204 by: Sam Trenholme
qmail problem
56191 by: NDSoftware
ANNOUNCE: Checkpassword replacement
56192 by: Lukasz Komsta
Re: Qwest.net & Qmail - online presentation..
56193 by: Henning Brauer
56195 by: Peter van Dijk
56196 by: Peter van Dijk
56201 by: Charles Cazabon
56209 by: Henning Brauer
56210 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
56194 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST
56197 by: courtney.whtz.com
56198 by: Fabrice Scemama
56199 by: Aaron Carr
Re: qmail patch
56200 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Create a bounce message?
56202 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: is there a filter to scan message header and reject accordingly
56203 by: Wolfgang Zeikat
softlimit question
56205 by: Hubbard, David
56206 by: Mark Delany
Re: Specific IP
56207 by: Keary Suska
Moveing mail databases.
56208 by: Alan Lee
Secure IMAP server
56211 by: Rahsheen Porter
56216 by: Andy Bradford
56221 by: Sam Trenholme
Re: The joy of Qmail
56212 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
56213 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory ERROR?
56214 by: Sean Coyle
56215 by: tc lewis
56220 by: Sean Coyle
ipme.c patch
56217 by: James
56219 by: adi
56222 by: Scott Gifford
56225 by: Scott Gifford
56226 by: adi
56227 by: Scott Gifford
temporary lock failure ?
56218 by: dennis
Re: Funny mailing list postings
56223 by: Brett Randall
Re: rewriting outgoing remote mail
56224 by: Michel Boucey
Error: #4.4.2 - connected but connection died
56228 by: Joel Gautschi
Supervise
56229 by: thomas.thuer.com
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hope that you hungry open source implementators out there has seen that the works RFC3028, Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language has hit the RFC stores. http://rfc3028.x42.com/ Now we really want a flexible open source implementation of this language to be nicely plugged into qmail, qmail-ldap etc. /magnus - also waiting for RFC# 2822, 2821 (to hit RFC stores) to replace the old 822 and 821. -- http://x42.com/
root@[SCREEN3.moj /root/Maildir/new] # echo to: root | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -n > 1 root@[SCREEN3.moj /root/Maildir/new] # t 0 110 Trying 0.0.0.0... Connected to 0. Escape character is '^]'. +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> user root +OK pass x +OK stat +OK 1 169 retr 1 +OK Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 28 Jan 2001 03:26:59 -0000 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . +OK root@[SCREEN3.moj /root/Maildir/new] # cat ~alias/.qmail-root /root/Maildir/ root@[SCREEN3.moj /root/Maildir/new] # echo to: root | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject >From syslog: Jan 28 03:29:28 moj qmail: 980652568.556349 new msg 9729 Jan 28 03:29:28 moj qmail: 980652568.564272 info msg 9729: bytes 203 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4945 uid 0 Jan 28 03:29:28 moj qmail: 980652568.638661 starting delivery 10: msg 9729 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 28 03:29:28 moj qmail: 980652568.643403 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Jan 28 03:29:32 moj qmail: 980652572.706560 delivery 10: deferral: Temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery._(#4.3.0)/ Jan 28 03:29:32 moj qmail: 980652572.708355 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Any ideas? -- TPS
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:32:31PM +0100, Tomas TPS Ulej wrote: > root@[SCREEN3.moj /root/Maildir/new] # echo to: root | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject >-n > 1 > > root@[SCREEN3.moj /root/Maildir/new] # cat ~alias/.qmail-root > /root/Maildir/ > qmail never delivers as or to root. You should never read mail as root. Forward mails to root to another account, just touch an empty ~alias/.qmail-root, alias will catch the mails, or put the name of another account in there. # man dot-qmail Gerrit. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] innominate AG the linux architects tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
Hello, Anyone know of a webmail solution for the following setup: - qmail (smtp and pop3) - courier-imap - vmailmgr or vpopmail I need something that doesn't require a full-featured http server (e.g. Apache) to be installed on the mail server (my mail server and web server are 2 different machines). Either the webmail "program" connects to my mail server or it provides its own small http server. I've seen Neomail and oMail but they require that both http and mail server be on the same box. I could probably put up a cgi that does this but I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if there already is one. TIA, M. Yu
What about using a simple http server that has cgi-bin support, such as thttpd? More info: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/ - Sam > I need something that doesn't require a full-featured http server (e.g. > Apache) to be installed on the mail server (my mail server and web server > are 2 different machines).
I have a problem. The host of qmail is mail.ndsoftware.net and i create a pop account antivirus. Why when a send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with my account [EMAIL PROTECTED] in Outlook or The Bat!, i receveid this message in double ? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Help me please ! Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware http://www.ndsoftware.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED] France: Tel +33 671887502 - Fax N/A UK: Tel +44 8453348750 - Fax +44 8453348751 USA: Tel N/A - Fax N/A
Hello, I have been thought for a long time of setting up msa-auth server using qmail. The idea is simple. Several hosts with no relay, and one host with qmail-msa. The client MUA sends smtp-auth: login: login%other.server.com pass: pop3passfromthatserver Qmail-smtpd checks via pop3 or imap that password on other.server.com; accepts mail for relay if it is proper. It is very good idea for big networks, setting up such a centralised server. A Zmailer solution, made by Artur Urbanowicz (see http://www.zmailer.org/mhalist/1999/msg00605.html) is introduced for example at http://msa.lublin.pl/ in LubMAN network, Poland. But I have decided to set up qmail solution. I wrote checkpassword replacement which invokes fetchmail -c (idea is the same). It requires /etc/remotehosts file with domains and hosts allowed to authorize. For example: # coments start with hash, allowed hosts or domains are colon delimited :host1.domain.com: :.host2.com: Complete code is available at http://www.liap.eu.org/checkremote/ I have been tested it with Mrs.Brisby qmail-smtp-auth patch, and it works fine. But qmail-smtpd patched like that is very slow, even with original checkpassword. If you have any suggestion or bug reports please send it to me. And an ask for qmail.org webmasters -is my code good enough to add info about my program to qmail website? Regards, -- * Lukasz Komsta * ICQ 14892426 * http://www.luke.eu.org/ *
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:42:35AM -0800, Sam Trenholme wrote: > Once the big concurrency patch is installed, it is trivial to get a > concurrency of 500. The 500 number is based on Linux's limits--I would > not be surprised if FreeBSD has far bigger limits. I can't talk for FreeBSD, but on OpenBSD we are having a hidden concurrency limit of 125. I haven't looked for an explanation why - could anybody give me a pointer? > This means we can send out 500 messages at any given instant. > > Let us suppose that 99% of the messages can be delivered to the remote > machine in one second, Nope. A typical SMTP conversation takes 10 seconds, QMTP is _ways_ faster. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 03:05:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:42:35AM -0800, Sam Trenholme wrote: > > Once the big concurrency patch is installed, it is trivial to get a > > concurrency of 500. The 500 number is based on Linux's limits--I would > > not be surprised if FreeBSD has far bigger limits. > > I can't talk for FreeBSD, but on OpenBSD we are having a hidden concurrency > limit of 125. I haven't looked for an explanation why - could anybody give > me a pointer? Add -DFD_SETSIZE=4096 to conf-cc and everything is happy. Our two pop/smtpservers have concurrencylocal and remote both set to 1024, and have been seen reaching either. Greetz, Peter.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:42:35AM -0800, Sam Trenholme wrote: > > [Chris: We're discussing your presentation on the Qmail list] > > On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Steve Fulton wrote: > > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~presentations/cmikk/ > > I notice that Chris Mikkelson and the people at qwest.net use multiple > qmail-sends on multiple queues, with a note that qmail-send is the big > bottleneck. I wonder if they are using the big concurrency patch. That might not be their issue. With high traffic, qmail-send spends so much time handling todo/ that is doesn't even consider actually delivering anything. > Once the big concurrency patch is installed, it is trivial to get a > concurrency of 500. The 500 number is based on Linux's limits--I would > not be surprised if FreeBSD has far bigger limits. We use 1024 for both local and remote. This is because we are afraid to run out of memory because of all the processes if we allow even more :) They have a very good point on the page 'Getting bigger: High-capacity forwarding', btw. I ran into the same problem, that qmail requires double delivery for simple forwards. I 'fixed' this by turning as many forwards as possible (all were from virtual domains to the local domain) into a virtualdomains-entry and a users-assign entry. Works wonderfully, and increases performance by over 100%. Every forward means another todo/ entry, which means qmail-send will stop delivering for a moment. That sucks for performance. Greetz, Peter.
Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. A typical SMTP conversation takes 10 seconds, QMTP is _ways_ faster. I look at the stats from three qmail servers every day. Our average time for an SMTP delivery is very close to two seconds; QMTP is about one second, for the same types of mail. Perhaps our mail traffic isn't typical, or perhaps yours isn't. 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 Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:45:10AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nope. A typical SMTP conversation takes 10 seconds, QMTP is _ways_ faster. > > I look at the stats from three qmail servers every day. Our average time > for an SMTP delivery is very close to two seconds; QMTP is about one second, > for the same types of mail. Perhaps our mail traffic isn't typical, or perhaps > yours isn't. This value isn't from my servers, it came up somewhere in the discussion aboout a modified qmail-remote (the patch available by Russel now). It was eizther from another poster ot from Dan himself in his QMTP desription (http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt), if I remember correct it was the latter. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany
Charles Cazabon writes: > Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nope. A typical SMTP conversation takes 10 seconds, QMTP is _ways_ faster. > > I look at the stats from three qmail servers every day. Our average time > for an SMTP delivery is very close to two seconds; QMTP is about one second, > for the same types of mail. Perhaps our mail traffic isn't typical, or perhaps > yours isn't. That jibes with my first test -- qmtp seems to be about twice as fast as smtp. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "This is Unix... 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Stop acting so helpless." Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | --Daniel J. Bernstein
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 06:40:35PM -0800, Greg White wrote: [snip] > > Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you > > really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send qmail-send > > SIGHUP every once in a while. > I'm no wizard or anything, but isn't ALRM the signal you want for that? Yes. > Doesn't HUP just reread locals and rcpthosts? Yes. Greetz, Peter.
To all of the sarcastic "geniuses" on this list I'm using lotus notes, via a web interface at the moment, and I CAN NOT (READ THAT AS A BIG DIFFERENCE THEN DON"T KNOW HOW) look at any header information. I don't appreciate other insulting my intelligence without knowing half the facts. I apologize to everyone else on the list, who has to endure all of this mail traffic, but there are a select bunch on this listserver who choose to act like five-year-olds.
Bernie Courtney
Dear Bernie, you could at the very least download your mail.nsf file, open it through your local Notes client (windows version can be downloaded for a free 90-day trial on Lotus web site, and can even be run with wine, for un*x users), and have full access to the headers. I'm pretty sure everybody on the qmail list is very proud to help you that much in your learning of email basics. Best regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > To all of the sarcastic "geniuses" on this list I'm using lotus notes, > via a web interface at the moment, and I CAN NOT (READ THAT AS A BIG > DIFFERENCE THEN DON"T KNOW HOW) look at any header information. I > don't appreciate other insulting my intelligence without knowing half > the facts. I apologize to everyone else on the list, who has to > endure all of this mail traffic, but there are a select bunch on this > listserver who choose to act like five-year-olds. > > > > Bernie Courtney -- "If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers." - Homer Simpson
The reason you are taking a beating from members of this list is that you call yourself a sys admin, yet you act ignorant and rude.Ignorance and rudeness on this, or I would guess ANY list will result in a flame 100% of the time.How about instead of all of this time wasted whining to the list (which is pointless, since we certainly can't read your mail headers to you), you configure an MUA that DOES let you view the header info so that you know what to send in to unsubscribe?
Franco Galian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, I've been reading about an exploit that was made available for > vpopmail-3.4.10a/vpopmail-3.4.11[b-e]. > Is that worked out or should I apply the 40 char limit patch to qmail-popup? It's not a bug in qmail. It's a bug in vpopmail. I believe that a later version of vpopmail fixed the bug. Patching qmail in this instance is inappropriate. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hubbard, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I occasionally get subscribed to spam ads from big > companies that don't always honor their unsubscribe > requests/web page submittals. I notice that these > emails often have a return path specified that looks > like some type of processor on their end that might > remove my address if it receives a bounce while trying > to contact me. So, I'd like to use that return path > address and make the server think it bounced the > email to me, but how do I do that? With spam, this is unlikely to help -- the envelope sender address is most commonly forged to point at (someone else's) legitimate domain. Sending a bounce message will just end up going to some poor mail administrator who is busy dealing with thousands of other people's bounces. The only way that this might get you off a spammer's list is if your SMTP server returned a permananent failure code during the initial SMTP conversation -- and even then it won't help if the message has come through a relay -- i.e., this will only help with direct-to-MX spamming. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous episode (26.01.2001), Brian Longwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >If I knew how to write perl I probably wouldn't be asking....thanks for the tip anyway here is an idea (not necessarily guru-approved but maybe worth a thought): a ~/.qmail file catches every mail for the user and sends the mail to a shell script: #~/.qmail ./filter #/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-devnul # #~/.qmail-real ./Maildir/ #!/bin/bash #~/filter cat > /tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt if [ "$(grep 'Subject: whatever' /tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt)" = "Subject: whatever" ] then cat "/tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt" | qmail-inject devnul else cat "/tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt" | qmail-inject $USER-real fi rm -f /tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-devnul will delete every mail sent to devnul and you could add further commands to the "then" part, like qmail-inject -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] $SENDER < your.readymade.reply in order to inform the sender ... i enjoyed experimenting to make this, hope it helps :) cheers wolfgang
Hi all,I've got a question about softlimit, I'll use generic numbers, etc. sinceit's not service specific:I want softlimit to limit a tcpserver process. Let's assume that I set tcpserverto answer up to 10 concurrent connections for a service that takes up a megof ram for each connection. So if I reach my maximum of 10 connections, I'llhave 10 megs of ram in use. Do I need to set softlimit to 10 megs plus alittle for tcpserver or something else?Thanks,Dave
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:40:11PM -0500, Hubbard, David wrote: > Hi all, > I've got a question about softlimit, I'll use generic numbers, etc. > since > it's not service specific: > > I want softlimit to limit a tcpserver process. Let's assume that I set > tcpserver > to answer up to 10 concurrent connections for a service that takes up a meg > of ram for each connection. So if I reach my maximum of 10 connections, > I'll > have 10 megs of ram in use. Do I need to set softlimit to 10 megs plus a > little for tcpserver or something else? No. The limits are inherited on a per-process basis. If you want each smtp server to consume a maximum of 1MB of memory, set your softlimit to 1MB. Regards.
Which part of qmail? For qmail-remote, you need a patch if you don't want it using the default host (it will only bind to localhost if that's the only host available, IIRC). For qmail-smtpd, you can specify that through tcpserver. No other part should be sensitive to address. -K > From: Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Linux > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:24:39 +0100 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Specific IP > > Hi. > > There is a method to run qmail on a specific IP address. > For example binding on 111.222.222.222:25 instead of 0.0.0.0:25 > > Thanks >
Hi. I wish to move the email server from one machine to antoher (Both have the same ver of qmail). What is the best way? Just copy /home/vpopmail to the new box? Regards, Alan Lee
I'm extremely happy with qmail and the other software available from DJB, but I've yet to hear anything about an IMAP server that takes security into consideration. I'm running Courier-IMAP right now, but I haven't actually opened the port to the world yet because I'm not confident in it's security (since I can't seem to find any docs on it that mention the word). Any recommendations on this subject? /StriderZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thus said Rahsheen Porter on Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:27:14 EST: > I'm extremely happy with qmail and the other software available from > DJB, but I've yet to hear anything about an IMAP server that takes > security into consideration. I'm running Courier-IMAP right now, but I > haven't actually opened the port to the world yet because I'm not > confident in it's security (since I can't seem to find any docs on it > that mention the word). Why would you be more confident in an IMAP daemon from DJB? (No offense DJB). Why are you not confident in it's security? While courier-imap isn't coded in the same style that DJB uses, I do believe that it has been built with security in mind. Having said that, I cannot say for certain that it *is* indeed secure merely because I have not seen a security audit on the code, but I do believe for the most part it is secure. For more on it's security I believe there is a document called SECURITY in the code tree somewhere which discusses it's approach to security---you might have a look at that. Andy -- [-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------] 11:26pm up 88 days, 1:46, 5 users, load average: 1.04, 1.09, 1.08
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Andy Bradford wrote: > For more on its security I believe there is a document called > SECURITY in the code tree somewhere which discusses it's approach to > security---you might have a look at that. The only security document I could find in the source tarball for courier-0.30.0 has this note: This document discloses security-oriented issues regarding the SqWebMail CGI application. However, the web pages make references to Courier's security model. The writers of Courier are a pedantic bunch. They reject mail with 8-bit info in the headers and will not send mail to places with "improperly configured MX records". - Sam
Hi, > >>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. I'd like to set the record straight. I am not on a crusade against qmail. More the contrary, I find that it is a great MTA. However it has its own set of quirks that I grew more and more uncomfortable with as time passed. At this time, I use it along with other MTAs to get what I want done. And when it comes to select an MTA, I base my choice on my knowledge of the alternatives, it may or may not be qmail for a given task. As Sam mentioned, sometimes interacting with qmail is *very* frustrating. But this is the same with any piece of software that exists. The key is to use it the way it works best. Regarding the 0.0.0.0 issue and all of that I guess that people are split between calling it a bug or not. Well does it really matter ? Can the patch for this issue be integrated in qmail and the issue die off ? It seems to me that it would be more important to not have the undesirable side effect than to argue endlessly on what to call it. I would also like to add a note on qmail and security. This piece of code was created with security in mind and it fulfills this goal really well apparently(1). Security requirements are somewhat changing these days and restricting it to mean "root-exploit" feels a bit outdated now. But again, when you look at the overall picture, qmail succeeded where so many MTAs still fail miserably today. The fact that people are arguing about an issue that could eventually lead to a DOS more than 2 years after qmail was released speaks for itself: DJB did a really good job with qmail. (1) I use apparently, because it would be futile to say that it will never ever fail. It is very very very unlikely but is it impossible ? I think that if DJB thought that "impossible" is the answer, he would not have bothered with setting up a contest in the first place. He put is money behind his work and never had to pay up. Draw your own conclusion. Finally, to put my quote more in context, what I meant is that people who are not happy with free software do not have to stick with it. This does not say that qmail is inapropriate or bad or anything like that. As for my choices, I am the only person responsible for them. Patrick.
> >>Well my answer to this is "don't use qmail"<< > > This note from Patrick intrigued me. I should add that if I offended anybody with my comments, I hope that they will accept my appologies. Patrick.
Hello again there guys, I have one final question before my qmail installation becomes truly "installed". I am getting this error below from 'qmail-send'. @400000003a74201f3a196f9c starting delivery 96: msg 299022 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @400000003a74201f3a1a7d24 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @400000003a74202003bb391c delivery 96: deferral: Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/ @400000003a74202003bc65e4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 I have installed (and it is working mind you) vmailmgr, omail, qmail+patches, and relay-ctrl-2.5. Virtual users are working 100% correctly using vmailmgr. What I seem to be having a problem with is mail delivery with local users. Domain = g0thic.com (is local & localhost) Qmail-lint output gives off no errors Qmail-showctl output below: [root@www qmail]# qmail-showctl qmail home directory: /var/qmail. user-ext delimiter: -. paternalism (in decimal): 2. silent concurrency limit: 509. subdirectory split: 23. user ids: 890, 891, 892, 0, 893, 894, 895, 896. group ids: 890, 891. aliasempty: Default delivery target contains: ./Maildir badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. bindroutes: (Default.) No binding routes. bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON. bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is g0thic.com. checkpassword: Password checking program is checkvpw /usr/sbin/relay-ctrl-allow. concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10. concurrencypop3d: (Default.) POP-3 daemon concurrency is 20. concurrencyqmqpd: (Default.) QMQP daemon concurrency is 20. concurrencyqmtpd: (Default.) QMTP daemon concurrency is 20. concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20. concurrencysmtpd: (Default.) SMTP daemon concurrency is 20. concurrencyspop3d: (Default.) SSL POP-3 daemon concurrency is 20. databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes. defaultdomain: Default domain name is g0thic.com. defaulthost: Default host name is g0thic.com. doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: g0thic.com. doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster. envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is g0thic.com. helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is g0thic.com. idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is g0thic.com. localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes g0thic.com. locals: Messages for localhost are delivered locally. Messages for g0thic.com are delivered locally. Messages for mail.g0thic.com are delivered locally. logger: (Default.) Logging is done via: splogger. me: My name is g0thic.com. percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed. plusdomain: (Default.) Plus domain name is g0thic.com. qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers. queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds. rcpthosts: SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at g0thic.com. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.g0thic.com. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at worldvibe.org. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.worldvibe.org. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at .worldvibe.org. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at planet-sun.com. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.planet-sun.com. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at optikalcomputing.com. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.optikalcomputing.com. morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect. morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect. smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 g0thic.com. smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes. timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds. timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds. timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds. ulimitcpu: (Default.) Maximum amount of CPU time in seconds is unlimited. ulimitdata: (Default.) Maximum process data size in kbytes is unlimited. virtualdomains: Virtual domain: worldvibe.org:worldvibe Virtual domain: .worldvibe.org:worldvibe Virtual domain: planet-sun.com:planet_mail Virtual domain: .planet-sun.com:planet_mail Virtual domain: optikalcomputing.com:optikalmail Virtual domain: .optikalcomputing.com:optikalmail defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does. concurrencyincoming: I have no idea what this file does.
> Default delivery target contains: ./Maildir you want this to be "./Maildir/", not "./Maildir", assuming you actually want to deliver to a maildir-style layout. check how you're starting qmail and make sure that / is on the end of the "Maildir" string. -tcl. On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Sean Coyle wrote: > Hello again there guys, > > I have one final question before my qmail installation becomes truly > "installed". I am getting this error below from 'qmail-send'. > > @400000003a74201f3a196f9c starting delivery 96: msg 299022 to local > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > @400000003a74201f3a1a7d24 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 > @400000003a74202003bb391c delivery 96: deferral: > Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/ > @400000003a74202003bc65e4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 > > I have installed (and it is working mind you) vmailmgr, omail, > qmail+patches, and relay-ctrl-2.5. > > Virtual users are working 100% correctly using vmailmgr. What I seem to > be having a problem with is mail delivery with local users. > > Domain = g0thic.com (is local & localhost) > > Qmail-lint output gives off no errors > > > Qmail-showctl output below: > > [root@www qmail]# qmail-showctl > qmail home directory: /var/qmail. > user-ext delimiter: -. > paternalism (in decimal): 2. > silent concurrency limit: 509. > subdirectory split: 23. > user ids: 890, 891, 892, 0, 893, 894, 895, 896. > group ids: 890, 891. > aliasempty: > Default delivery target contains: ./Maildir > badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. > bindroutes: (Default.) No binding routes. > bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON. > bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is g0thic.com. > checkpassword: Password checking program is checkvpw > /usr/sbin/relay-ctrl-allow. > concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10. > concurrencypop3d: (Default.) POP-3 daemon concurrency is 20. > concurrencyqmqpd: (Default.) QMQP daemon concurrency is 20. > concurrencyqmtpd: (Default.) QMTP daemon concurrency is 20. > concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20. > concurrencysmtpd: (Default.) SMTP daemon concurrency is 20. > concurrencyspop3d: (Default.) SSL POP-3 daemon concurrency is 20. > databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes. > defaultdomain: Default domain name is g0thic.com. > defaulthost: Default host name is g0thic.com. > doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: g0thic.com. > doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster. > envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is g0thic.com. > helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is g0thic.com. > idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is g0thic.com. > localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes g0thic.com. > locals: > Messages for localhost are delivered locally. > Messages for g0thic.com are delivered locally. > Messages for mail.g0thic.com are delivered locally. > logger: (Default.) Logging is done via: splogger. > me: My name is g0thic.com. > percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed. > plusdomain: (Default.) Plus domain name is g0thic.com. > qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers. > queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds. > rcpthosts: > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at g0thic.com. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.g0thic.com. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at worldvibe.org. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.worldvibe.org. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at .worldvibe.org. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at planet-sun.com. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.planet-sun.com. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at optikalcomputing.com. > SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.optikalcomputing.com. > morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect. > morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect. > smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 g0thic.com. > smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes. > timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds. > timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds. > timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds. > ulimitcpu: (Default.) Maximum amount of CPU time in seconds is unlimited. > ulimitdata: (Default.) Maximum process data size in kbytes is unlimited. > virtualdomains: > Virtual domain: worldvibe.org:worldvibe > Virtual domain: .worldvibe.org:worldvibe > Virtual domain: planet-sun.com:planet_mail > Virtual domain: .planet-sun.com:planet_mail > Virtual domain: optikalcomputing.com:optikalmail > Virtual domain: .optikalcomputing.com:optikalmail > defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does. > concurrencyincoming: I have no idea what this file does. > >
Tc, That worked like a charm.. I have one more question for the list and yourself (if anyone is able to answer it). My local mailbox is now receiving mail properly. In fact, everything is working exactly as expected, save for pop-3 on local mailboxes. When a virtual user checks mail, and there is mail in their maildir, everything works just great! when the local user checks their mail, the connection is made without error, but it will always come back that there is no new mail. It makes no sense to me. tc lewis wrote: > >> Default delivery target contains: ./Maildir > > you want this to be "./Maildir/", not "./Maildir", assuming you actually > want to deliver to a maildir-style layout. check how you're starting > qmail and make sure that / is on the end of the "Maildir" string. > > -tcl. > > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Sean Coyle wrote: > >> Hello again there guys, >> >> I have one final question before my qmail installation becomes truly >> "installed". I am getting this error below from 'qmail-send'. >> >> @400000003a74201f3a196f9c starting delivery 96: msg 299022 to local >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> @400000003a74201f3a1a7d24 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 >> @400000003a74202003bb391c delivery 96: deferral: >> Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/ >> @400000003a74202003bc65e4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 >> >> I have installed (and it is working mind you) vmailmgr, omail, >> qmail+patches, and relay-ctrl-2.5. >> >> Virtual users are working 100% correctly using vmailmgr. What I seem to >> be having a problem with is mail delivery with local users. >> >> Domain = g0thic.com (is local & localhost) >> >> Qmail-lint output gives off no errors >> >> >> Qmail-showctl output below: >> >> [root@www qmail]# qmail-showctl >> qmail home directory: /var/qmail. >> user-ext delimiter: -. >> paternalism (in decimal): 2. >> silent concurrency limit: 509. >> subdirectory split: 23. >> user ids: 890, 891, 892, 0, 893, 894, 895, 896. >> group ids: 890, 891. >> aliasempty: >> Default delivery target contains: ./Maildir >> badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. >> bindroutes: (Default.) No binding routes. >> bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON. >> bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is g0thic.com. >> checkpassword: Password checking program is checkvpw >> /usr/sbin/relay-ctrl-allow. >> concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10. >> concurrencypop3d: (Default.) POP-3 daemon concurrency is 20. >> concurrencyqmqpd: (Default.) QMQP daemon concurrency is 20. >> concurrencyqmtpd: (Default.) QMTP daemon concurrency is 20. >> concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20. >> concurrencysmtpd: (Default.) SMTP daemon concurrency is 20. >> concurrencyspop3d: (Default.) SSL POP-3 daemon concurrency is 20. >> databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes. >> defaultdomain: Default domain name is g0thic.com. >> defaulthost: Default host name is g0thic.com. >> doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: g0thic.com. >> doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster. >> envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is g0thic.com. >> helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is g0thic.com. >> idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is g0thic.com. >> localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes g0thic.com. >> locals: >> Messages for localhost are delivered locally. >> Messages for g0thic.com are delivered locally. >> Messages for mail.g0thic.com are delivered locally. >> logger: (Default.) Logging is done via: splogger. >> me: My name is g0thic.com. >> percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed. >> plusdomain: (Default.) Plus domain name is g0thic.com. >> qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers. >> queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds. >> rcpthosts: >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at localhost. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at g0thic.com. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.g0thic.com. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at worldvibe.org. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.worldvibe.org. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at .worldvibe.org. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at planet-sun.com. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.planet-sun.com. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at optikalcomputing.com. >> SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at mail.optikalcomputing.com. >> morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect. >> morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect. >> smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 g0thic.com. >> smtproutes: (Default.) No artificial SMTP routes. >> timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds. >> timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds. >> timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds. >> ulimitcpu: (Default.) Maximum amount of CPU time in seconds is unlimited. >> ulimitdata: (Default.) Maximum process data size in kbytes is unlimited. >> virtualdomains: >> Virtual domain: worldvibe.org:worldvibe >> Virtual domain: .worldvibe.org:worldvibe >> Virtual domain: planet-sun.com:planet_mail >> Virtual domain: .planet-sun.com:planet_mail >> Virtual domain: optikalcomputing.com:optikalmail >> Virtual domain: .optikalcomputing.com:optikalmail >> defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does. >> concurrencyincoming: I have no idea what this file does. >> >> >
There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_ of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that aren't familiar with qmail's code in the dark. So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to work around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch? Thanks.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:39:36AM +0000, James wrote: > So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to work > around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch? Try this patch. Use with your own risk. And don't forget to say thank to Scott Gifford @ tir.com. Regards, P.Y. Adi Prasaja--- ipme.c Mon Jun 15 17:53:16 1998 +++ /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03/ipme.c Mon Jan 29 13:48:00 2001 @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ byte_copy(&ix.ip,4,&sin->sin_addr); if (ioctl(s,SIOCGIFFLAGS,x) == 0) if (ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_UP) + ip_scan("0.0.0.0", &ix.ip); if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(s); return 0; } } #else @@ -84,6 +85,7 @@ if (ifr->ifr_addr.sa_family == AF_INET) { sin = (struct sockaddr_in *) &ifr->ifr_addr; byte_copy(&ix.ip,4,&sin->sin_addr); + ip_scan("0.0.0.0", &ix.ip); if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(s); return 0; } } #endif
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c > to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the > original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_ > of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that aren't familiar with > qmail's code in the dark. > > So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to > work around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch? Thanks. Here's a patch that implements my recommendation. Note that for reasons discussed in my earlier messages, this isn't the patch that we actually use in production machines, so I can't guarantee it won't break anything, but it looks like an obvious fix. Still, I would test it on a development machine first. You can verify that this patch has worked by running "ipmeprint" after applying it. 0.0.0.0 should be printed out first, followed by all of your IP addresses, each on their own line. If anybody can report success or failure with this patch, I'd appreciate it. I'll put it up on my Web page and post the URL when I can. ------ScottG.--- qmail-1.03/ipme.c Mon Jun 15 06:53:16 1998 +++ qmail-1.03-sg/ipme.c Mon Jan 29 02:27:38 2001 @@ -46,6 +46,11 @@ ipme.len = 0; ix.pref = 0; + /* 0.0.0.0 is a special address which always refers to + * "this host, this network", according to RFC 1122, Sec. 3.2.1.3a. + */ + byte_copy(&ix.ip,4,"\0\0\0\0"); + if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { return 0; } if ((s = socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM,0)) == -1) return -1; len = 256;
Adi's patch is actually not correct. It adds "0.0.0.0" *instead of* your other interfaces, instead of *in addition to* your other interfaces. ipmeprint shows this. Here's qmail's normal ipme: [sgifford@sghome qmail-1.03]$ ./ipmeprint 127.0.0.1 10.0.0.8 here it is with Adi's patch: [sgifford@sghome qmail-1.03-adi]$ ./ipmeprint 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 and here it is with the patch I just posted: [sgifford@sghome qmail-1.03-sg]$ ./ipmeprint 0.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 10.0.0.8 Thanks for taking a stab at it, though, Adi! :) -----ScottG. adi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:39:36AM +0000, James wrote: > > So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to > > work around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch? > > Try this patch. Use with your own risk. > And don't forget to say thank to Scott Gifford @ tir.com. > > Regards, > > P.Y. Adi Prasaja > > --- ipme.c Mon Jun 15 17:53:16 1998 > +++ /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03/ipme.c Mon Jan 29 13:48:00 2001 > @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ > byte_copy(&ix.ip,4,&sin->sin_addr); > if (ioctl(s,SIOCGIFFLAGS,x) == 0) > if (ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_UP) > + ip_scan("0.0.0.0", &ix.ip); > if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(s); return 0; } > } > #else > @@ -84,6 +85,7 @@ > if (ifr->ifr_addr.sa_family == AF_INET) { > sin = (struct sockaddr_in *) &ifr->ifr_addr; > byte_copy(&ix.ip,4,&sin->sin_addr); > + ip_scan("0.0.0.0", &ix.ip); > if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(s); return 0; } > } > #endif
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:54:10AM -0500, Scott Gifford wrote: > ipmeprint shows this. Here's qmail's normal ipme: > > [sgifford@sghome qmail-1.03]$ ./ipmeprint > 127.0.0.1 > 10.0.0.8 > > here it is with Adi's patch: > > [sgifford@sghome qmail-1.03-adi]$ ./ipmeprint > 0.0.0.0 > 0.0.0.0 Arggh.. thanks again! Our mailserver currently being attack by navidad.exe ;-( I didn't received your patch, yet. Anyway, I think this patch would be more correct than previous one :-) % ./ipmeprint 127.0.0.1 10.0.7.21 10.0.7.20 10.0.100.1 10.0.100.2 10.0.100.3 10.0.100.4 10.0.100.5 0.0.0.0 Regards, P.Y. Adi Prasaja--- ipme.c Mon Jun 15 17:53:16 1998 +++ /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03/ipme.c Mon Jan 29 16:09:15 2001 @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ #endif x += len; } + ip_scan("0.0.0.0", &ix.ip); + if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(s); return 0; } close(s); ipmeok = 1; return 1;
adi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [ ... ] > Arggh.. thanks again! > > Our mailserver currently being attack by navidad.exe ;-( > I didn't received your patch, yet. Anyway, I think this patch would > be more correct than previous one :-) Yep, that patch looks fine; mine's pretty much the same, but puts the IP address first instead of last, and uses byte_copy instead of ip_scan to fill in the ix structure. -----ScottG. > > % ./ipmeprint > 127.0.0.1 > 10.0.7.21 > 10.0.7.20 > 10.0.100.1 > 10.0.100.2 > 10.0.100.3 > 10.0.100.4 > 10.0.100.5 > 0.0.0.0 > > Regards, > > P.Y. Adi Prasaja > > --- ipme.c Mon Jun 15 17:53:16 1998 > +++ /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03/ipme.c Mon Jan 29 16:09:15 2001 > @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ > #endif > x += len; > } > + ip_scan("0.0.0.0", &ix.ip); > + if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(s); return 0; } > close(s); > ipmeok = 1; > return 1;
Hi all... I seem to be having a problem with my daemon tools install ? I keep getting these errors... supervise: fatal : unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary failure. supervise: fatal : unable to acquire qmail-smtp/supervise/lock: temporary failure. The error keeps repeating. Suggestions ? Dennis
This is just for a bit of fun...if you're not interested in this posting (in all your lack of humour), please add it to your killfile or equivalent. Does anyone here have any funny recollections of people sending postings that were meant to go to someone totally unrelated to the mailing list, to a mailing list? (ie list-serv)? Just curious, thought it might give a few people a bit of a laugh :) Later... -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
Sure I am. Thanks ... Cordialement, Michel Boucey Administrateur Système > Société Norm@net +33 2 31 27 13 45 < On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Alex Kramarov wrote: > if anyone is still interested in that rewritten and scaled down qmail-scanner, I >have got it up and running, and can send it to anyone who is is interested. > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Alex Kramarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 06:35:04 PM > To: Qmail list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: rewriting outgoing remote mail > > Yes, it's as simple as that (only you have to put it in two places - the read loop >of the message and the envelope header). Right now I am in process of rewriting the >qmail-scanner script to do only, and only that, without ANYTHING related to virus >scanning. > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Michel Boucey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 06:26:19 PM > To: Alex Kramarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: rewriting outgoing remote mail > > and does it work ? > > is it just something like s/\@foo.org/\@foo.fr/ at the right place to do > or is it very much more complicated ?
hi, I get this error when user try to send a message to freesurf.ch. Is this my problem, or is it the problem of freesurf.ch? cya Joel ---- from /var/log/syslog (XXXXXX, XXXXXX2, XXXXXX3 aren't the real user names of course) Jan 29 11:30:20 joshua qmail: 980764220.330603 starting delivery 1: msg 1507332 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 29 11:30:20 joshua qmail: 980764220.331727 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Jan 29 11:30:20 joshua qmail: 980764220.408456 starting delivery 2: msg 1507333 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 29 11:30:20 joshua qmail: 980764220.408918 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Jan 29 11:30:20 joshua qmail: 980764220.479722 starting delivery 3: msg 1507331 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 29 11:30:20 joshua qmail: 980764220.480098 status: local 0/10 remote 3/20 Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.483799 delivery 1: deferral: Connected_to_194.230.0.8_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/ Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.484239 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20 Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.832453 delivery 2: deferral: Connected_to_194.230.0.8_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/ Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.832823 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.856358 delivery 3: deferral: Connected_to_194.230.0.8_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/ Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.856679 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 ----
Hi together I've got a PIII 1400 Mhz Server with 384 Mb SDRAM, the qmail is installed with supervise-mode. Now the problem is, the supervise need the whole time 4% of the processor-capacity. Can you explain me, is that normal?? THX for your inspirations. Greets Th�r
