qmail Digest 30 Jan 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1260
Topics (messages 56230 through 56333):
Re: DotFiles
56230 by: Webmaster
which operation system us the best use of qmail
56231 by: hari_bhr
56232 by: Robin S. Socha
56233 by: Brett Randall
56249 by: Peter van Dijk
56259 by: Dave Sill
rblsmtpd patch
56234 by: Robert Sander
Re: Secure IMAP server
56235 by: Greg Owen
56250 by: Peter van Dijk
56258 by: Andy Bradford
56276 by: Greg Owen
56298 by: Robin S. Socha
56306 by: Sam Trenholme
doubts about re-compile
56236 by: J.J.Gallardo
56243 by: Jose AP Celestino
56247 by: Alex Kramarov
56248 by: Jose AP Celestino
56251 by: Peter van Dijk
56252 by: J.J.Gallardo
Hi
56237 by: Gon�alo Gomes
56238 by: Greg Owen
56239 by: Brett Randall
56241 by: Greg Owen
56242 by: Jose AP Celestino
56244 by: Richard Zimmerman
56246 by: Robin S. Socha
56299 by: Brett Randall
Re: rblsmtpd
56240 by: Mate Wierdl
56254 by: Martin Randall
appliing Bruce Guenter's patch
56245 by: Michel Boucey
Delivery notification
56253 by: suporte
56256 by: Peter van Dijk
56257 by: Alex Pennace
56260 by: LocaWeb
Re: 2 problems with QMAIL
56255 by: Dave Sill
Re: qmail problem
56261 by: Dave Sill
56263 by: NDSoftware
56264 by: Dave Sill
56265 by: Peter van Dijk
56269 by: Markus Stumpf
56272 by: NDSoftware
Re: is there a filter to scan message header and reject accordingly
56262 by: Dave Sill
56275 by: Wolfgang Zeikat
Moving qmail servers
56266 by: Steve Woolley
56267 by: Alex Kramarov
56271 by: Markus Stumpf
56279 by: Steve Woolley
56283 by: Mark Delany
Sorry about the size of my prevous e-mail (I have beem flamed on this before).
56268 by: Alex Kramarov
56270 by: Alex Pennace
56273 by: Alex Kramarov
56277 by: Markus Stumpf
56278 by: Vince Vielhaber
56280 by: Peter Woods
56281 by: Peter Woods
56285 by: Alex Kramarov
56291 by: Aaron L. Meehan
56293 by: Andy Bradford
56297 by: Matt Bailey
filter
56274 by: Pablo Martin De Natale
56330 by: Sam Trenholme
Re: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST
56282 by: Henry Ong
56286 by: Vince Vielhaber
56289 by: Martin Randall
56307 by: Medi Montaseri
56310 by: Wolfgang Zeikat
56318 by: David Young
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
56284 by: Paul Jarc
test ignore please
56287 by: bogus.chaossolutions.net
QSBMF -
56288 by: Chris McDaniel
56290 by: Dave Sill
56292 by: Scott Gifford
56294 by: Mark Delany
56301 by: Peter van Dijk
56303 by: Dan Egli
56304 by: Peter van Dijk
56312 by: Michael T. Babcock
56315 by: Michael T. Babcock
56331 by: Sam Trenholme
56333 by: Scott Gifford
Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 o r 127.0.0.1)
56295 by: Paul Jarc
56296 by: Greg White
56302 by: Peter van Dijk
56320 by: Scott Gifford
too much headers [was: Re: Moving qmail servers]
56300 by: Peter van Dijk
unsubscribe ??
56305 by: kevin.oceania.net
56319 by: Peter Cavender
56328 by: Sam Trenholme
translating or remapping domains to another domain?
56308 by: Lincoln Yeoh
56309 by: Brett Randall
56313 by: Chris Johnson
56314 by: Lincoln Yeoh
56316 by: Brett Randall
56317 by: Lincoln Yeoh
qmail or postfix for high volume mailing list?
56311 by: Philip Mak
56326 by: Sam Trenholme
Max message size on aliases
56321 by: Raymond Orchison
redirecting to ezmlm
56322 by: Uri Guttman
relay-ctrl-age problem
56323 by: Boz Crowther
56324 by: Boz Crowther
Re: Error: #4.4.2 - connected but connection died
56325 by: Sam Trenholme
Attachment stripping
56327 by: usenet-qmail.ipsware.com
qmail queue problems .. help
56329 by: Jos� Carreiro
Urgent Help
56332 by: Qmail User
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 am not sure what you are asking. > > ~username/.qmail is the file that determines how to process mail sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (where yourmachine.example.org is your > machine, e.g. globalred.com). ~username/.qmail-foo is the file the > determines how to process mail sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~username/.qmail is processed when I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but if I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but ~username/.qmail-test isn't processed. Content of rcpthosts -> A line with yourmachine.example.org Content of virtualdomains -> A line with yourmachine.example.org:yourmachine.example.org What do you think??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Trenholme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 9:05 AM Subject: Re: DotFiles > > I am not sure what you are asking. > > ~username/.qmail is the file that determines how to process mail sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (where yourmachine.example.org is your > machine, e.g. globalred.com). ~username/.qmail-foo is the file the > determines how to process mail sent to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Now, if /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains has a line like this: > > heaven.af.mil:username > > The mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be processed in qmail as > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the ~username/.qmail-foo file). > And mail sent to any undefined address @heaven.af.mil will be processed as > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the ~username/.qmail-default > file). > > Read the relevent Qmail docs, FAQs, and man pages for more information. > > - Sam > > > Hi, I install qmail Memphis version with dt-run services with virtualdomains > > using assign file. And I have a little problem: > > > > The file .qmail is of the user is processed but the files > > .qmail-jkljklsdfsdjkl no. > > > > Any person can say me why??? > > > > Thanks. > >
hi all could some one help me which operation system is the best usage of qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin+mysql+sqwebmail linux freebsd hp sun AIX Solaris thanks _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
* hari_bhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010129 07:51]: > > could some one help me which operation system is the best > usage of qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin+mysql+sqwebmail Stupid, stupid question. And it's operating system, just for the record. > linux freebsd hp sun AIX Solaris You forget one that fits nicely into the "more secure than thou" ideology: OpenBSD. Works like a charm, too.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > could some one help me which operation system is the best > usage of qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin+mysql+sqwebmail I highly suggest that Windows might be the best for you. Have fun. -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:05:58AM +1100, Brett Randall wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > could some one help me which operation system is the best > > usage of qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin+mysql+sqwebmail > > I highly suggest that Windows might be the best for you. Or BeOS. End of thread. Greetz, Peter.
"hari_bhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >could some one help me which operation system is the best >usage of qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin+mysql+sqwebmail Ask ten people and you'll get ten answers--nine of which will be newbie flames. All UNIXes and UNIXlikes will work pretty well with qmail, but there are advantages to using one of the various BSD's. DJB, the author of qmail, has a Berkeley background and runs OpenBSD, and there are places in the code where he assumes BSD semantics for safe and reliable operation. There are workarounds and patches for non-BSD systems, but it's easier to use a BSD variant than to wonder if you've caught them all. -Dave
Hi! I have made a patch to rblsmtpd that allows to call an arbitrary program whenever a connecting mailserver is in one of the lists. I use it to send the postmasters of this host and the respective domains a short mail saying that they have an open relay and they should fix it. This is maybe not what everybody wants, because it generates traffic. But I have my users in the back complaining about not getting mails from the outside. So I started to send out mails manually to the respective postmasters to close their open relays. This was getting too much work, therefore this patch: ftp://epigenomics.org/pub/oss/ucspi-tcp/rblsmtpd.patch When rblsmtpd is called with the new option "-x /path/to/program", it calls the program every time a connecting mailserver is blocked and quits. It calls the given program, which gets all the environment variables from tcpserver and a new one set by rblsmtpd: $RBLMESSAGE, which is the message the connecting mailserver was rejected with. The program now can make decisions based on $TCPREMOTEHOST et. al. to do anything like sending mail to postmaster@$TCPREMOTEHOST. I do know that the error should show up in the logs of the remote host, but when they are misconfigured, it is likely the postmaster does not look into the logs. I do hope she/he is looking into the mailbox... In the ftp-directory is a sample bash script called rblscript that sends a short mail to the postmaster of the remote host. Please feel free to send any additions/corrections to me. Greetings -- Robert Sander Computer Scientist Epigenomics AG Bioinformatics R&D www.epigenomics.com Kastanienallee 24 +493024345330 10435 Berlin
> 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". Next thing you know, they'll be refusing to speak with SMTP clients that send bare linefeeds. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:26:33AM -0500, Greg Owen wrote: > > 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". > > Next thing you know, they'll be refusing to speak with SMTP clients > that send bare linefeeds. Bare linefeeds are indicative of possible data mutilation. 8-bit charactiers in headers are not. I don't know what their definition of 'improperly configured MX records' is. Greetz, Peter.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:08:06 PST, Sam Trenholme wrote: > The only security document I could find in the source tarball for > courier-0.30.0 has this note: courier is not an IMAP package but a MTA like qmail. What you need to get is courier-imap and look there... I just looked there myself and realized that there is no SECURITY file---I must have been thinking of a different package. Sorry about the wild goose chase. Andy
> I don't know what their definition of 'improperly configured MX > records' is. I was also curious, so I took a quick scan through the sources. It appears that this means MX records pointing to recursive CNAME records. This is not apparently configurable. Courier also apparently allows you to block mail with bad return addresses, presumably meaning no A or MX. This is configurable via config file. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
* Sam Trenholme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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". Good to see you again, Sam. *sigh* Still haven't learnt anything, have you? ,----[ Sam Varshavchik in http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users ] | On 14 Jan 2001, Robin S. Socha wrote: | | > OK, this question is as close to a no-brainer as it may get, but I'll | > ask anyway (fully aware of the stupidity of asking "how secure is X"): | > | > How secure is Courier IMAP? | | I'm still waiting for the first reported exploit. `---- So much for that. Far, far more than anything that can be said about UW-crapware, including: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> find pine4.30 -type f | xargs egrep '(sprintf|strcpy|strcat)' | wc -l 4375 Get a life, Sam. Really. -- Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/> "Robin: You are a rude twit." Sam Trenholme in comp.mail.pine
> Get a life, Sam. Really. Sigh, oh, sigh. I haven't heard a word from you in three years, so I thought that you, like me, completely forgot about it. For the other members of the list, I am sorry this personal spat, which I thought I had resolved with Robin three years ago, has been taken to this list. I could post details, but, you know, there is nothing I dislike seeing more on the internet than someone else's flame war. Since I do not think Robin is willing to really listen to me, and since I don't exactly have free time these days, I will simply filter Robin's mail to my spam filter. Since I do, now and again, check the mail that my spam filter stops, I will still read Robin's mail, should be be really interested in resolving this issue at some time in the future. Sorry to waste people's time with this flame war. Take care, Robin, and I hope you find what you are looking for. I apologized for engaging in that flame war three years ago, and I apologize to you again. I really do not want to see any anger you may have stop you from finding your bliss. - Sam
This is a doubt about the best way to compile again qmail: I have my system running qmail perfectly, but some days ago i discovered that qmail has not the patch that "Scott Moorhouse" re-wrote to solve the problem with the "Netscape's download indicator doesn't progress". The file involved is "qmail-pop3d.c". I have tried to compile the file (alone) with the patch apliayed, but may be the file has some dependencies with another files ( I cannot run "cc or gcc" over the file) and so, we have to re-compile all the qmail distribution. Can I compile "qmail" in another machine and later move and/or copy only /var/qmail/bin/*? That's my best option cause only stop the server a minute at the time of day i wish, but i would like to know others opinions about this. Thanks.
Is qmail-pop3d.c the only file affected by the patch? If so why don't you cd the qmail source tree, apply the patch and then: make and copy the qmail-pop3d to /var/qmail/bin ? Best regards. On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:33:28PM +0100, J.J.Gallardo wrote: > This is a doubt about the best way to compile again qmail: > > I have my system running qmail perfectly, but some days ago i discovered > that qmail has not the patch that "Scott Moorhouse" re-wrote to solve > the problem with the "Netscape's download indicator doesn't progress". > The file involved is "qmail-pop3d.c". I have tried to compile the file > (alone) with the patch apliayed, but may be the file has some > dependencies with another files ( I cannot run "cc or gcc" over the > file) and so, we have to re-compile all the qmail distribution. > -- Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || SAPO / PT Multimedia Administração de Sistemas / Operações || http://www.sapo.pt -------------------------------------------------------------- Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;) -- Linus Torvalds, about his failing hard drive on linux.cs.helsinki.fi
If so why don't you cd the qmail source tree, apply the patch and then:
make
and copy the qmail-pop3d to /var/qmail/bin ?
Best regards.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:33:28PM +0100, J.J.Gallardo wrote:
> This is a doubt about the best way to compile again qmail:
>
> I have my system running qmail perfectly, but some days ago i discovered
> that qmail has not the patch that "Scott Moorhouse" re-wrote to solve
> the problem with the "Netscape's download indicator doesn't progress".
> The file involved is "qmail-pop3d.c". I have tried to compile the file
> (alone) with the patch apliayed, but may be the file has some
> dependencies with another files ( I cannot run "cc or gcc" over the
> file) and so, we have to re-compile all the qmail distribution.
>
--
Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || SAPO / PT Multimedia
Administra��o de Sistemas / Opera��es || http://www.sapo.pt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff
on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)
-- Linus Torvalds, about his failing hard drive on linux.cs.helsinki.fi
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
Yeah, right Alex. make = stop qmail = cp qmail-pop3d /var/qmail/bin chown root:qmail /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d = start qmail = FIN. On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:54:58PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > from my experience, the easiest way to effectively kill you server (for some time, >until you solve the problem) is to do just what is proposed by Jose below, and to >forget to set the right permissions and ownership for the copied file. > -- Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || SAPO / PT Multimedia Administração de Sistemas / Operações || http://www.sapo.pt -------------------------------------------------------------- A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:33:28PM +0100, J.J.Gallardo wrote: > This is a doubt about the best way to compile again qmail: > > I have my system running qmail perfectly, but some days ago i discovered > that qmail has not the patch that "Scott Moorhouse" re-wrote to solve > the problem with the "Netscape's download indicator doesn't progress". > The file involved is "qmail-pop3d.c". I have tried to compile the file > (alone) with the patch apliayed, but may be the file has some > dependencies with another files ( I cannot run "cc or gcc" over the > file) and so, we have to re-compile all the qmail distribution. > > Can I compile "qmail" in another machine and later move and/or copy only > /var/qmail/bin/*? > That's my best option cause only stop the server a minute at the time of > day i wish, but i would like to know others opinions about this. You can just - apply the patch - 'make' - copy qmail-pop3d to /var/qmail/bin (you might need to shutdown pop3 for a second to do so) qmail-pop3d is the only program affected by this patch. Greetz, Peter.
Jose AP Celestino escribió: > Is qmail-pop3d.c the only file affected by the patch? I don't know. Is there a way to know it? > If so why don't you cd the qmail source tree, apply the patch and then: > make > and copy the qmail-pop3d to /var/qmail/bin ? I hope. Thanks
Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres a problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap daemon which works with maildir? best regards Gonçalo Gomes
> Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres a > problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap > daemon which works with maildir? Courier supports Maildir (and maildir only). http://www.courier-mta.org and look for the "standalone IMAP package." There are patches to make UW-Imap use Maildir (at www.qmail.org?) but UW-Imap expressly does not support Maildir themselves. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres a > problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap daemon > which works with maildir? Read the FAQ and the docs that come with qmail. There's a start for you. -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
Brett Randall wrote: On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres a > > problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap daemon > > which works with maildir? > > Read the FAQ and the docs that come with qmail. There's a > start for you. Better yet, don't listen to Brett, who doesn't appear to know what the hell he's talking about, and who appears to post only so he can be abusive. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:41:41PM -0000, Gon?alo Gomes wrote: > Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres a > problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap daemon which works > with maildir? > > best regards > Gonçalo Gomes > Courier-IMAP, and it also supports ldap just in case. http://www.courier-mta.org Version 1.3.2 out 4 days ago.... Regards. -- Jose AP Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || SAPO / PT Multimedia Administração de Sistemas / Operações || http://www.sapo.pt -------------------------------------------------------------- Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.
imap-4.5-3mdir4.i386.rpm The above is the UW-IMAP server w/ the Maildir patches alreayd applied. I'm trying to locate the site I downloaded it from but I'll email it to you if you like. http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/ Found it!!!! It works a lot better for me then the Courier-Imap program did.. Goose ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:49 AM Subject: RE: Hi > > Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres a > > problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap > > daemon which works with maildir? > > Courier supports Maildir (and maildir only). > http://www.courier-mta.org and look for the "standalone IMAP package." > > There are patches to make UW-Imap use Maildir (at www.qmail.org?) > but UW-Imap expressly does not support Maildir themselves. > > -- > gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods! > > >
* Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010129 11:09]: > Brett Randall wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now theres > > > a problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best imap daemon > > > which works with maildir? > > > > Read the FAQ and the docs that come with qmail. There's a start for > > you. > > Better yet, don't listen to Brett, who doesn't appear to know what the > hell he's talking about, and who appears to post only so he can be > abusive. Right. Thankss for your input, Greg. You're a really good person. Some would say "treehugger". Next time, don't forget the pointer to http://qmail.org/top.html where all the relevant information can be found. Ah, yes... UW-IMAP sucks big time. Courier IMAP r00l3z supreme. Sam and hist list are excellent sources of information. Just for the record.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Brett Randall wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > Hi, i would like to use maildir instead of mailbox, but now >> > theres a problem, does imap support maildir? what is the best >> > imap daemon which works with maildir? >> >> Read the FAQ and the docs that come with qmail. There's a >> start for you. > > Better yet, don't listen to Brett, who doesn't appear to know what > the hell he's talking about, and who appears to post only so he can be > abusive. My apologies. I haven't slept in three days, working on a huge project, and I didn't think before I hit the send button. I only know that I set up an IMAP server without having to think twice about it, and I guess I took the situation to heart. Best regards -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
> I did note in the earlier mail that rblsmtpd is now in the ucspi-tcp > program and has a -a query. The only thing about this is why it > says "anti-listed" instead of listed. Perhaps you want to read the docs for rblsmtpd for the meaning of the -a flag. Unpatched rblsmtpd blocks using TXT records. Mate
Hello Mate On 29-Jan-01, you wrote: >> I did note in the earlier mail that rblsmtpd is now in the ucspi-tcp >> program and has a -a query. The only thing about this is why it >> says "anti-listed" instead of listed. > > > Perhaps you want to read the docs for rblsmtpd for the meaning of the > -a flag. > > Unpatched rblsmtpd blocks using TXT records. > > Mate > There isn't a man rblsmtpd. what other docs besides DJB's ucspi-tcp (rblsmtmp) http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/rblsmtpd.html Options: -r base: Use base as an RBL source. An IP address a.b.c.d is listed by that source if d.c.b.a. base has a TXT record. rblsmtpd uses the contents of the TXT record as an error message for the client. -a base: Use base as an anti-RBL source. An IP address a.b.c.d is anti-listed by that source if d.c .b.a.base has an A record. In this case rblsmtpd does not block mail. This is the reference to :- "The only thing about this is why it says "anti-listed" instead of listed." That I made. I am not sure why it says "anti-listed". As in not in the rbl. It seems to be saying that if the IP matches then it's allowed. I'd have thought that if they had changed their rbl listing from txt to A-record, then doing a A-record against it and getting a result would be "listed" and then qmail would deny the connection. Obviously, I'm missing something here, but that section of the ucspi-tcp/rblmstpd is just not clear. Regards...Martin -- "Good taste is better than bad taste, but bad taste is better than no taste." - Arnold Bennett.
certainly a newbie question : how to apply the Bruce Guenter's patch from his email to qmail sources ... Thanks. Cordialement, Michel Boucey Administrateur Système > Société Norm@net +33 2 31 27 13 45 <
Hi all,
I'm looking for a way to implement something like 'Delivery Notification'. I want to let my users know that his/her e-mail was delivered successfully to the other side ( or at least have an affirmative return from the other SMTP server... ).
Does anybody know a solution for this problem ?
Thanks
Renato - Brazil.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:21:36PM -0300, suporte wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking for a way to implement something like 'Delivery Notification'. I > want to let my users know that his/her e-mail was delivered successfully to > the other side ( or at least have an affirmative return from the other SMTP > server... ). > > Does anybody know a solution for this problem ? You can use qreceipt to do it on your side (man qreceipt). Greetz, Peter.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:21:14PM -0300, suporte wrote: > I'm looking for a way to implement something like 'Delivery Notification'. I > want to let my users know that his/her e-mail was delivered successfully to > the other side ( or at least have an affirmative return from the other SMTP > server... ). > > Does anybody know a solution for this problem ? qmail does this, its method of indicating a successful delivery is silence.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:21:14PM -0300, suporte wrote: >> I'm looking for a way to implement something like 'Delivery Notification'. I >> want to let my users know that his/her e-mail was delivered successfully to >> the other side ( or at least have an affirmative return from the other SMTP >> server... ). >> >> Does anybody know a solution for this problem ? >qmail does this, its method of indicating a successful delivery is silence. I know I can read it in the logfiles, but I was thinking of something that do that in an automated way, like generating a new confirmation message in the inbox.
Tomas TPS Ulej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ >qmail-start '|dot-forward .forward >./Maildir' splogger qmail& That should be: ./Maildir/' splogger qmail (note the trailing slash) -Dave
"NDSoftware" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 ? What's in antivirus' .qmail file? What Do The Logs Say? (tm) -Dave
The logs say only for one message ! [REDACTED], NDSoftware http://www.ndsoftware.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED] France: Tel [REDACTED] - Fax N/A UK: Tel +44 8453348750 - Fax +44 8453348751 USA: Tel N/A - Fax N/A -----Original Message----- From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail problem "NDSoftware" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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 ? What's in antivirus' .qmail file? What Do The Logs Say? (tm) -Dave
"NDSoftware" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The logs say only for one message ! OK, but I'd still like to see a sample. And you never answered by other question: >>What's in antivirus' .qmail file? -Dave
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:25:25PM +0100, NDSoftware wrote: > The logs say only for one message ! I don't think so. What do the logs say? (we are not asking for your interpretation. We are asking for logfile excerpts). Greetz, Peter.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:25:25PM +0100, NDSoftware wrote: > The logs say only for one message ! And the headers of the emails please. Possibly the MUA does a Fcc and as the mail is to yourself you end up with two copies, a local saved one and a sent and received one. \Maex
Mail1: Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 2389 invoked by uid 503); 29 Jan 2001 19:17:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO billy) (193.253.221.190) by ns207.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 19:17:26 -0000 From: "NDSoftware" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:13:14 +0100 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Mail2: Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 2389 invoked by uid 503); 29 Jan 2001 19:17:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO billy) (193.253.221.190) by ns207.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Jan 2001 19:17:26 -0000 From: "NDSoftware" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:13:14 +0100 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal [REDACTED], NDSoftware http://www.ndsoftware.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED] France: Tel [REDACTED] - Fax N/A UK: Tel +44 8453348750 - Fax +44 8453348751 USA: Tel N/A - Fax N/A -----Original Message----- From: Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:02 PM To: NDSoftware Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail problem On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:25:25PM +0100, NDSoftware wrote: > The logs say only for one message ! And the headers of the emails please. Possibly the MUA does a Fcc and as the mail is to yourself you end up with two copies, a local saved one and a sent and received one. \Maex
Wolfgang Zeikat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >#!/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 Why not just not re-inject it? Also, save a fork/exec by doing: qmail-inject $USER-real < /tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt instead of "cat ... | qmail-inject ...". -Dave
In the previous episode (29.01.2001), Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>#!/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 > >Why not just not re-inject it? i wasnt sure if i could use that "if" construction directly in a .qmail file (can that be done?), and cat was the only thing i could think of to "keep the data in mind" in order to handle them differently depending on the result of "if" (i also tried storing the mail in a variable as in MESSAGE="$(cat)", but that screwed things up ... >Also, save a fork/exec by doing: > > qmail-inject $USER-real < /tmp/to$RECIPIENT.txt > >instead of "cat ... | qmail-inject ...". yeah, good idea ;) wolfgang
I recently tried (unsuccessfully) to replace one of my qmail servers (Red Hat Linux 6.2) by: 1) creating new qmail server (lets call it mail2) 2) tar'ing up the following dirs: /var/qmail/control /var/qmail/queue /var/qmail/users /home/vpopmail/domains (cause I use vpopmail) /home/vpopmail/users (cause I use vpopmail) 3) stopping the qmail processes on mail1 (the qmail server to be replaced) and mail2 4) un-tar'ing the files on the mail2 5) shutdown server mail1 6) rename and re-IP mail2 to mail1 by editting the following: /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 /etc/hosts /etc/sysconfig/network /etc/HOSTNAME 7) bring up new qmail server (now known as mail1) The hopes were by following this pattern I would: * experience very little down time * if a problem occured, all I had to do was simply shutdown new qmail server and bring up old one * no DNS changes to make The only problem was it didn't work. Everything seemed to come up OK. Email could be queued up but would not get delivered UNTIL I bounced the box. In this case all the mail that was queued up got sent but any new mail still experienced the problem (it would queue up but would not be delivered until I rebooted the box). After a few frustrating attempts at fixing, I simply shut the new box down and brought up the old one. The only thing I could guess was the when qmail is compiled, I remember the instructions were specific about making sure (hostname -f) responded with the FQDN. Since at the time the box was compiled, the FQDN of the new qmail server was mail2.domainname.com, this caused some problem when I shifted the FQDN to mail1.domainname.com. Questions: Is their a better way to perform this task? Did I miss some key task when I renamed and re-IP'd the new qmail server? Steve Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hat Linux 6.2)
by:
1) creating new qmail server (lets call it mail2)
2) tar'ing up the following dirs:
/var/qmail/control
/var/qmail/queue
/var/qmail/users
/home/vpopmail/domains (cause I use vpopmail)
/home/vpopmail/users (cause I use vpopmail)
3) stopping the qmail processes on mail1 (the qmail server to be
replaced) and mail2
4) un-tar'ing the files on the mail2
5) shutdown server mail1
6) rename and re-IP mail2 to mail1 by editting the following:
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
/etc/hosts
/etc/sysconfig/network
/etc/HOSTNAME
7) bring up new qmail server (now known as mail1)
The hopes were by following this pattern I would:
* experience very little down time
* if a problem occured, all I had to do was simply shutdown new
qmail server and bring up old one
* no DNS changes to make
The only problem was it didn't work. Everything seemed to come up OK. Email
could be queued up
but would not get delivered UNTIL I bounced the box. In this case all the
mail that was queued
up got sent but any new mail still experienced the problem (it would queue
up but would not be
delivered until I rebooted the box).
After a few frustrating attempts at fixing, I simply shut the new box down
and brought
up the old one.
The only thing I could guess was the when qmail is compiled, I remember the
instructions were specific about making sure (hostname -f) responded with
the
FQDN. Since at the time the box was compiled, the FQDN of the
new qmail server was mail2.domainname.com, this caused some problem
when I shifted the FQDN to mail1.domainname.com.
Questions:
Is their a better way to perform this task?
Did I miss some key task when I renamed and re-IP'd the new qmail server?
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:55:26PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > The problem is probably with you moving the queue directory (which is a definite >no-no, because the filenames in there must correspond to their inode numbers). Check >out queue-fix on qmail-org, it should help at least one of your problems. an easy way to "move" the queue would have been to - allow relaying for mailold on mailnew - make mailold:/var/qmail/control/smtproutes consist of one single line :mailnew.domain - on mailold: # kill -ALRM pidof(qmail-send) \Maex
> The problem is probably with you moving the queue directory (which is a definite no-no, because the filenames in there must So would the proper order have been to: first: halt qmail processes on original qmail server then: copy /var/qmail/control and /var/qmail/users to new qmail server This would have halt qmail from accepting new emails. The transmitting email servers would have attempted a resend preiodically and once the new email server was up, everyone would be happy. Steve
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:23:14PM -0500, Steve Woolley wrote: > > The problem is probably with you moving the queue directory (which is a > definite no-no, because the filenames in there must > > So would the proper order have been to: > > first: halt qmail processes on original qmail server I'd leave everything running except your network services, smtp, pop. Just let the old system run for a week, draining it's queue. The full sequence is: 1a. Compile and install qmail on your new system 1b. Install all control and user files as needed 1c. Start qmail on the new system (but not popd or smtpd) 1d. Test thoroughly 2a. Stop smtp and pop on the old system 2b. Wait for local deliveries on the old system to complete (Normally a matter of seconds) 3a. Stop qmail on old system 3b. Remove control/virtualdomains 3c. Change control/locals (or me) to something different (oldserver.yourdomain?) 3d. Start qmail on old system (but not popd or smtpd) 4. Move user mailboxes to new system 5. Start smtpd and popd on the new system 6. Wait for mailq on old system to empty (could take days). 7. newfs old system If you're using Maildirs and don't mind users seeing empty mailboxes for a while, you can do step 5 before step 4 and your users will see much less down-time. Note that step 3 is necessary to forward all bounces to the new system. If you don't care about bounces, ignore step 3. There are variations on this theme. For example, you can set smtproutes on the old machine to forward all mail to the new machine. That way you don't have to wait very long for the queue to drain on the old system. Regards.
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:01:50PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > Maybe a maximum-mail size has to be set on the box running this list, to prevent >such errors from happening again. a simple > > echo 2000 >/var/qmail/control/databytes > > would suffice ... You do realize that a limit of 2000 bytes will reject nearly every message, right?
> Maybe a maximum-mail size has to be set on the box running this list, to prevent such errors from happening again. a simple
>
> echo 2000 >/var/qmail/control/databytes
>
> would suffice ...
You do realize that a limit of 2000 bytes will reject nearly every
message, right?
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:12:54PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > well, that was in the heat of the moment, make it 5000. But 2000 can make people >send in plain text, someone has already proposed this here. Why should anyone impose artificial limits on the size of messages to this mailing list, only because a) you use a broken MUA b) you are unable to configure it correctly c) you seem to be the only one that has permanent problems with a) and b) \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 Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:12:54PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > > well, that was in the heat of the moment, make it 5000. But 2000 can make people >send in plain text, someone has already proposed this here. > > Why should anyone impose artificial limits on the size of messages > to this mailing list, only because > a) you use a broken MUA > b) you are unable to configure it correctly > c) you seem to be the only one that has permanent problems with a) and b) Not to mention the fact that every mail he sends out has an attachment of HTML 4-5 times the size. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
216.25.232.3 216.25.232.4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 1/29/01, 2:20:39 PM, Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Re: Sorry about the size of my prevous e-mail (I have beem flamed on this before).: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Markus Stumpf wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:12:54PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > > > well, that was in the heat of the moment, make it 5000. But 2000 can make people send in plain text, someone has already proposed this here. > > > > Why should anyone impose artificial limits on the size of messages > > to this mailing list, only because > > a) you use a broken MUA > > b) you are unable to configure it correctly > > c) you seem to be the only one that has permanent problems with a) and b) > Not to mention the fact that every mail he sends out has an attachment > of HTML 4-5 times the size. > Vince. > -- > ========================================================================== > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net > 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > ==========================================================================
Add me to "Sorry list". pasted into the wrong reply. Peter Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Re: Sorry about the size of my prevous e-mail (I have beem flamed on this before).: > 216.25.232.3 > 216.25.232.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > On 1/29/01, 2:20:39 PM, Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding > Re: Re: Sorry about the size of my prevous e-mail (I have beem flamed on > this before).: > > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Markus Stumpf wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:12:54PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: > > > > well, that was in the heat of the moment, make it 5000. But 2000 can make > people send in plain text, someone has already proposed this here. > > > > > > Why should anyone impose artificial limits on the size of messages > > > to this mailing list, only because > > > a) you use a broken MUA > > > b) you are unable to configure it correctly > > > c) you seem to be the only one that has permanent problems with a) and b) > > Not to mention the fact that every mail he sends out has an attachment > > of HTML 4-5 times the size. > > Vince. > > -- > > > ========================================================================== > > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.pop4.net > > 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > > > ==========================================================================
>Why should anyone impose artificial limits on the size of messages
>to this mailing list, only because
>a) you use a broken MUA
>b) you are unable to configure it correctly
>c) you seem to be the only one that has permanent problems with a) and b)I do not use a broken MUA. I use an MUA that helps me construct a more personal e-mail by adding backgrounds and other multimedia elements. If you want to check that out, there is a link to it's site on the bottom of my e-mail. Noone I have sent a customised e-mail have ever complained, except (understandably) people on this list, and only because it was sent in error. I think, that in the future of e-mail is to become more customisable through html presentation, thus bigger size. CNET counts 122000 downloads of this MUA and it's growing by thousands a day, and it's website is in the top 5000 rated by ALEXA and i think that with time I will not be the only one posting to this list using this MUA. Please don't think I am trying to advertize it to you, I am just presenting the situation as I see it. About my ability to configure it correctly, I am able to do so, but it's human nature to sometimes make mistakes, this is why I proposed to help correct these mistakes before they multiply by 1500 times (I think that the number of subscribers on this list)
Thank you for you time, and accept my deepest apologies. I will personally setup a filter on my mail server (since I rewrote qmail-scanner to do just this kind of things with smtp-incoming e-mail, like I posted before) to limit the size of outgoing messages to the list if the list desides that it's not appropriate to limit the size of the messages.
__________________________________________________
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
Quoting Alex Kramarov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > >Why should anyone impose artificial limits on the size of messages > >to this mailing list, only because > >a) you use a broken MUA > >b) you are unable to configure it correctly > >c) you seem to be the only one that has permanent problems with a) and b) > I do not use a broken MUA. Yes, you do. It doesn't even wrap your blasted lines properly; your entire email was on two lines, one for each paragraph. What, you think that when your GUI moves the cursor down a line it's actually putting a carriage return in there? Think again. Broken. It doesn't add a References header to your replies. That messes up web archives. Broken. Your mailer seems to insist on putting a "Re:" in the Subject even when it is already there. Broken. In short, your MUA is broken. Am I starting to sound like a broken record? I think so. You're using a broken mailer and sending html in your email to a mailing list for a UNIX MTA, populated by BOFHs. I can't imagine what on Earth you're thinking... Aaron
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:48:21 +0200, "Alex Kramarov" wrote: > I do not use a broken MUA. I use an MUA that helps me construct > a more personal e-mail by adding backgrounds and other multimedia > elements. If you want to check that out, there is a link to it's site > on the bottom of my e-mail. Noone I have sent a customised e-mail > have ever complained, except (understandably) people on this list, > and only because it was sent in error. I think, that in the future If it's so configurable, can you customize it to wrap lines properly ad a reasonbale length please? Andy p.s and turn off the HTML if you can... :-)
Or better yet get off the list..
Hello! I'm a new user of qmail. I need filter a direction [EMAIL PROTECTED], how can I do it? Thanks Pablo
> Hello! I'm a new user of qmail. I need filter a direction [EMAIL PROTECTED], > how can I do it? I am not sure what you are asking, but I assume that you need to filter mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The method of doing this depends on whether yyy.zzz is a virtualdomain, or is the name of the mail server in question. For simplicity's sake, I will assume the latter. Assuming that xxx is a user on the machine yyy.zzz, make a file in xxx's home directory called .qmail. Put in that file: |/path/to/filter/program If this does not meet your needs, I assume that you speak Spanish far better than I do. In that case, the Spanish Qmail docs are here: http://www.es.qmail.org/ The English docs are at: http://www.qmail.org/ - Sam
haha. i sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few times but i'm still getting mail messages from the list server.... :-) -henry On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Hubbard, David wrote: > I know this can be very complicated but try sending an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the address you subscribed > with, and this is the qmail list, not a dam list. :-) > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST > > > I have tried multiple times to unsubscribe from this list- I have no clue > why it has not worked. I wish to remove any addresses @whtz.com AS WELL as > @z100.com. I am the sys admin in charge of these domains, amd do not wish > to receive any more mailings!!!! > > > GET ME OFF THIS DAM LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > BERNARD J. COURTNEY > Z100/WHTZ RADIO > MIS/ENGINEERING DEPT. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ============================== name : Henry Ong web : http://www.ensim.com email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone : (408) 541-4438 ==============================
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Henry Ong wrote: > haha. i sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few times > but i'm still getting mail messages from the list server.... > > :-) Look at your headers, are you unsubscribing with the address ezmlm thinks you should be using? Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Hello Henry On 29-Jan-01, you wrote: > haha. i sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few times > but i'm still getting mail messages from the list server.... > > :-) > > -henry The same account as your using to post now ? Your not multiple subscribed ? Anyone can post to this list whether they are subscribed or not. (the bogus mail was just verifying it). So just because you can post doesn't mean anything. Look at your headers. Look for the X-Return-Path This is mine. X-Return-Path [EMAIL PROTECTED] The username in my case is marrandy the domain chaossolutions.org What you see in your headers is the name AND domain you are subscribed to the list under. You need to unsubscribe from that account. If your MTA is changing the domain from, for example I'll use mine, chaossolutions.org to mail.chaossolutions.org that may be enough to prevent your unsubscription...something else to check. Remember...it's what it says in that X-Return-Path header that is critical. Hope this helps. Regards...Martin -- A fool and his money are soon parted.
me too....
where is the instruction for unsubscribing...Henry Ong wrote:
haha. i sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few times
but i'm still getting mail messages from the list server....:-)
-henry
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Hubbard, David wrote:
> I know this can be very complicated but try sending an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the address you subscribed
> with, and this is the qmail list, not a dam list. :-)
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST
>
>
> I have tried multiple times to unsubscribe from this list- I have no clue
> why it has not worked. I wish to remove any addresses @whtz.com AS WELL as
> @z100.com. I am the sys admin in charge of these domains, amd do not wish
> to receive any more mailings!!!!
>
>
> GET ME OFF THIS DAM LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> BERNARD J. COURTNEY
> Z100/WHTZ RADIO
> MIS/ENGINEERING DEPT.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>--
==============================
name : Henry Ong
web : http://www.ensim.com
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone : (408) 541-4438
==============================-- ======================================================================= Medi Montaseri, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 408-450-7114 Lockheed Martin IMS (Prepass), IT/Operations, Software Eng. =======================================================================
when you send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] you get a reply - sent to the address that you mailed from of course - to which you have to reply once more for confirmation (so that nobody can subscribe your adress by forging it)i just tried it ... wolfgang -- if it is there and you can see it it is real if it is there and you can not see it it is transparent if it is not there and you can see it it is virtual if it is not there and you can not see it it is gone roy wilks 1983, tcp/ip networking In the previous episode (29.01.2001), Medi Montaseri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >me too.... >where is the instruction for unsubscribing... > >Henry Ong wrote: > >> haha. i sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few times >> but i'm still getting mail messages from the list server.... >>
Title: Re: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST >From http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#support
To specify a subscription/unsubscription address, say [EMAIL PROTECTED], send the message to:
* listname[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Medi Montaseri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: PrePass
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:09:00 -0800
To: Henry Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Hubbard, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST
me too....
where is the instruction for unsubscribing...
Henry Ong wrote:
haha. i sent email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few times--
but i'm still getting mail messages from the list server....
:-)
-henry
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Hubbard, David wrote:
> I know this can be very complicated but try sending an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the address you subscribed
> with, and this is the qmail list, not a dam list. :-)
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: SOMEONE GET ME OFF THIS LIST
>
>
> I have tried multiple times to unsubscribe from this list- I have no clue
> why it has not worked. I wish to remove any addresses @whtz.com AS WELL as
> @z100.com. I am the sys admin in charge of these domains, amd do not wish
> to receive any more mailings!!!!
>
>
> GET ME OFF THIS DAM LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> BERNARD J. COURTNEY
> Z100/WHTZ RADIO
> MIS/ENGINEERING DEPT.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
==============================
name : Henry Ong
web : http://www.ensim.com
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone : (408) 541-4438
==============================
=======================================================================
Medi Montaseri, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 408-450-7114
Lockheed Martin IMS (Prepass), IT/Operations, Software Eng.
=======================================================================
Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:30:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > > 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? > Doesn't HUP just reread locals and rcpthosts? Right, sorry. /me rereads man qmail-send. paul
forget this
Hi, I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My desire is to change the bounce messages to something more professional (we've had some complaints) and the req'd "Hi. This is the" would probably be the first thing to go. So, if I change it to something else, what will I break? Chris McDaniel Consulting Systems Analyst - Internet Hosting Services TELUS Integrated Communications
Chris McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My desire is to >change the bounce messages to something more professional (we've had some >complaints) Seriously? Sheesh. >and the req'd "Hi. This is the" would probably be the first >thing to go. So, if I change it to something else, what will I >break? Well, anything that parses QSBMF. I'm not sure offhand what the consequences would be, though. Most bounce handlers are pretty flexible, by necessity. I'll have to check the code to be sure. -Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My > >desire is to change the bounce messages to something more > >professional (we've had some complaints) > > Seriously? Sheesh. We got similar complaints for our mail system. > >and the req'd "Hi. This is the" would probably be the first thing > >to go. So, if I change it to something else, what will I break? > > Well, anything that parses QSBMF. I'm not sure offhand what the > consequences would be, though. Most bounce handlers are pretty > flexible, by necessity. I'll have to check the code to be sure. We made a change like this nearly a year ago, and have had zero issues. ------ScottG.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:01:02PM -0500, Scott Gifford wrote: > Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Chris McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My > > >desire is to change the bounce messages to something more > > >professional (we've had some complaints) > > > > Seriously? Sheesh. > > We got similar complaints for our mail system. Not complaints. But I've seen people reply in the mistaken belief that something that "chatty" must come from a real person. Quite amusing sometimes. Regards.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:30:13PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: [snip] > >and the req'd "Hi. This is the" would probably be the first > >thing to go. So, if I change it to something else, what will I > >break? > > Well, anything that parses QSBMF. I'm not sure offhand what the > consequences would be, though. Most bounce handlers are pretty > flexible, by necessity. I'll have to check the code to be sure. I am not aware of any software parsing QSMBF. Are you? Greetz, Peter.
I'm not even sure what QSMBF is. -----Original Message----- From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: QSBMF - On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:30:13PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: [snip] > >and the req'd "Hi. This is the" would probably be the first > >thing to go. So, if I change it to something else, what will I > >break? > > Well, anything that parses QSBMF. I'm not sure offhand what the > consequences would be, though. Most bounce handlers are pretty > flexible, by necessity. I'll have to check the code to be sure. I am not aware of any software parsing QSMBF. Are you? Greetz, Peter.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:52:33PM -0700, Dan Egli wrote: > I'm not even sure what QSMBF is. http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt (yes, some of us were misspelling it :) Greetz, Peter.
Scott Gifford wrote: > Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Chris McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My > > >desire is to change the bounce messages to something more > > >professional (we've had some complaints) > > > > Seriously? Sheesh. > > We got similar complaints for our mail system. Every site that I've set up loves it. I've reworded it in some cases to be more informative than it is by default (yes, more), and use similar wording in my version of qmail-notify (to notify users of delayed delivery -- the right way to handle delivery notification). Anyone who doesn't like the qmail wording surely can't be asking for the old sendmail system back ... I've had _hundreds_ (if not thousands) of users beg me to tell them what "this stupid message from MAILER-DAEMON is." I've had nobody ask me what the "I'm sorry it didn't work out" message was. -- Michael T. Babcock (PGP: 0xBE6C1895) http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/
Peter van Dijk wrote: > I am not aware of any software parsing QSMBF. Are you? It would be nice if someone convinced Microsoft et. al. (in the Windows E-mail client world) to support the reading and parsing of QSBMF in the same way Outlook already does this for Exchange server based E-mail. For those who don't know, if you send a message using Outlook via an Exchange server and the message fails, the Exchange server sends back a message to Outlook which is displayed in your Inbox as would be expected. The message is also automatically parsed and the message it relates to in your "Sent" folder is tagged with whatever failure occured so that if you go through your messages in your sent folder you can see an additional "header" added at the top of the window of "Delivered on xxxxxxx" or "Read at xxxxxx on the xxxx of xxx ..." or "Failed because ... " -- Michael T. Babcock (PGP: 0xBE6C1895) http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Michael T. Babcock wrote: > It would be nice if someone convinced Microsoft et. al. (in the Windows > E-mail client world) to support the reading and parsing of QSBMF in the > same way Outlook already does this for Exchange server based E-mail. I don't think will happen any time soon. Microsoft knows that there is a lot of money in the server business. They know that many technically minded people do not like Microsoft. So, they go to some effort to make their client software make their own proprietary, expensive, low-performance servers look more attractive to the end user using Microsoft software than any non-Microsoft product that performs the same functions. They figure, if enough end-users demand Microsoft servers so "They can get more helpful bounce messages in Exchange" or what-not, that some shops will make the migration. Look at Front Page extensions. Not that this is any threat to Qmail. As long as end-users subscribe to mailing lists on Egroups [1], people can and will complain if a Microsoft client can't handle a Qmail server correctly. - Sam [1] I believe Egroups is one of the most visible Qmail installations out there.
Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [ a bunch of stuff about changing qmail's default bounce message] > We made a change like this nearly a year ago, and have had zero > issues. I got a question off-list about how to make this change, from a person whose email is at usa.net. Since usa.net has, from all accounts, a completely insane policy of blocking mail servers, I cannot respond directly, so I'll send the response here. It might be of general interest anyways. Pretty much the whole trick is to go into qmail-send.c, around line 708 (search for "Hi"), and just change the message that is output. As with any source change, you'll want to test it first, and make sure the message is reasonably formatted, has all important information, and the proper headers and envelope. -----ScottG.
Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. But this doesn't involve any real network connections - it's all on loopback. So it wouldn't saturate an actual T1, if that's what you were saying. Right? paul
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:56:38PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. > > But this doesn't involve any real network connections - it's all on > loopback. So it wouldn't saturate an actual T1, if that's what you > were saying. Right? I believe that the Scott's point is best illustrated this way (and forgive me if I'm wrong here, Scott): A user on a dialup sending 10 messages per second can start a DoS attack normally only possible for a user with a T1, consisting of 600 messages per second. Thus, a lowly dialup user can now mount a much nastier DoS attack than he could against MTAs which do not exhibit this problem. -- Greg White Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -- John F. Kennedy
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:17:14PM -0800, Greg White wrote: [snip] > A user on a dialup sending 10 messages per second can start a DoS > attack normally only possible for a user with a T1, consisting of > 600 messages per second. And with only the system-load (taken as a broad concept :) associated with that attack. There is no network-bandwidth-abuse involved. (localhost is not considered a network, here). Greetz, Peter.
Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:56:38PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > > Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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. > > > > But this doesn't involve any real network connections - it's all on > > loopback. So it wouldn't saturate an actual T1, if that's what you > > were saying. Right? > > I believe that the Scott's point is best illustrated this way (and > forgive me if I'm wrong here, Scott): > > A user on a dialup sending 10 messages per second can start a DoS > attack normally only possible for a user with a T1, consisting of > 600 messages per second. > > Thus, a lowly dialup user can now mount a much nastier DoS attack > than he could against MTAs which do not exhibit this problem. Right. It doesn't actually consume any Internet bandwidth, just mail server resources. ------ScottG.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:55:26PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote: [snip] Do you really find it necessary to send us 26 lines of X- headers? Greetz, Peter.
how do I unsubscribe? there is no info on qmail.org?? Kevin
Read the first message you got when you subscribed to the list, it tells you how. Since the list is run by ezmlm, maybe you should look at the documentation for it. I also offer a service where I can get you unsubscribed for $59.95. I accept payment by paypal or cash, but you must be willing to type an email message exactly as I instruct from the proper address. If you are unable to do so, I can subcontract with Kelly Temporary services to send a computer-literate secretary to your site to do the typing for you. Additional fees equalling their charges will apply. If none of these options are acceptable, I can fly to your site, and for $50 an hour plus actual expenses, perform the unsubscribe at your location. If this fails, we can hire a negotiation/moderation consulting firm to contact DJB personally to arrainge an unsubscribe. If he is unwilling to negotiate, I can hire team of lawyers in his jurisdiction to take the matter before the courts. If this proves fruitless, and you are determined, a team of mercenaries equipped with white phosphorus grenades may be able to take out the server hosting this list. (this offer may not be available at all locations). But if the sever is housed in a hardened bunker, repeated strikes with thermonuclear devices may be necessary to get you unsubscibed. I can contact former USSR personnel for current rates. Unfortunately, since the internet was designed to deal with catastrophic faults of this exact nature, you still may not be removed from the mailing list. If repeated strikes with multi-megaton devies are needed, my fees will includes the cost of constructing a personal sustainable biosphere. Local taxes will apply. If you are still reading this and think I am serious, please be advised that this is satyrical. RTFFMYG! (read the first frigging message you got) --P On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > how do I unsubscribe? > there is no info on qmail.org?? > > Kevin >
Kevin asked: > how do I unsubscribe? > there is no info on qmail.org?? Normally, we charge a one-time fee of $59.95 for this service, as Peter has explained. However, I am offering a special contest, since it is the year 2001 (a Qmail odyssey). The winner of this contest will get a message from the Qmail list server asking for their subscription to be confirmed. In order to enter this contest, simply reply to this message or send an entry form to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wish you the best of luck! And, oh, Peter, you know that Dan's server runs Open-BSD, so those Russian thermonuclear devices will not harm the server. He just has to enter (and hopefully win) the contest, just like everyone else has to. - Sam
Hi, How do I do this: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> XXX@finaldomaincom That is to say mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is sent/forwarded/redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the To: etc should not be rewritten, just the RCPT TO: ). Right now I'm doing this with sendmail. But I would like to switch to qmail. I've taken a look at qmail's virtualdomains but it seems like that's for entire domains going to a SINGLE user. Similarly for users/assign. I tried defining domain1.com and domain2.com as local, and putting | forward $[EMAIL PROTECTED] in .alias-default This seemed to work but it's rather ugly/kludgy and I'm hoping there's a better way to do it. Cheerio, Link.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > How do I do this: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> XXX@finaldomaincom In smtproutes (on Server A) - domain1.com:mx.finaldomain.com domain2.com:mx.finaldomain.com In locals (on Server A) - {empty} In locals (on Server B) - domain1.com domain2.com In rcpthosts (on both servers) - domain1.com domain2.com This should work easy. -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:52:52AM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > Hi, > > How do I do this: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> XXX@finaldomaincom > > That is to say mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is sent/forwarded/redirected to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the To: etc should not be rewritten, just the RCPT > TO: ). Is finaldomain.com hosted on the same box as domain1.com? If so, and finaldomain.com is local, make domain1.com local too. If finaldomain.com is virtual, create another entry in virtualdomains identical to the entry for finaldomain.com, but change the domain name to domain1.com. If finaldomain.com is hosted elsewhere and you just want to forward everything, you can do this: echo 'domain1.com:alias-domain1' > /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains echo '|forward "$DEFAULT"@finaldomain.com' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-domain1-default Why don't you just change domain1.com's MX record so that the mail just goes directly to whatever host handles finaldomain.com? Chris
Thanks, but will the RCPT TO: be changed accordingly? e.g. External client to Server A Mail from:<> rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> data blahblahblah crlfdotcrlf Then: Server A to Server B Mail from:<> rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> data blahblahblah crlfdotcrlf Because Server B will only accept mails in the form of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I have limited control over Server B (it's not running qmail either). Thanks again, Link. On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, you wrote: > In smtproutes (on Server A) - > > domain1.com:mx.finaldomain.com > domain2.com:mx.finaldomain.com >
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks, but will the RCPT TO: be changed accordingly? <snip> > Because Server B will only accept mails in the form of > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > I have limited control over Server B (it's not running qmail > either). In that case, since you have to readdress the e-mail, the best way I can think of doing is using .qmail files for each user. I've never done this, but try having just one .qmail file (say /etc/qmail), and symbolically linking the files from each user, so if you have to change servers you just change the one file. I might be wrong though. Its been awhile since I've had to configure qmail (it works by itself now), so if I am wrong then someone will let us know ;) -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Chris Johnson wrote: > > If finaldomain.com is hosted elsewhere and you just want to forward everything, > you can do this: > > echo 'domain1.com:alias-domain1' > /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains > echo '|forward "$DEFAULT"@finaldomain.com' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-domain1-default YES! This looks like it might work. Previously I saw | forward "$LOCAL"@domain.com somewhere in the FAQ and tried that. But that didn't work as the RCPT TO: ended up being something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Will there be any security issues passing $DEFAULT in that way? > Why don't you just change domain1.com's MX record so that the mail just goes > directly to whatever host handles finaldomain.com? Because there's no direct access to the host from the Internet. Thanks very much, Link.
Hello, I am looking into hosting a high volume discussion list (~3000 users, 20 MB of messages per month). The available hardware will probably be a RaQ3 server with 32 MB of RAM (should I pay for more RAM? if so, how much?), so I wouldn't have much system resources to spare. My preferred MLM is Listar. I'm looking into MTAs; from the various mailing list archives I've read on the web, it seems that qmail and postfix are the top MTAs. I could not find information to tell me which one would work better for my situation, however. Can someone tell me: Should I use qmail or postfix to run this discussion list? I am not very concerned about configuration difficulties since I only have to set it up one time, but performance will be important. -Philip Mak ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Oh boy, since this is cross-posted to both the qmail and to the Postfix list, this could become a holy war. I myself have never used Postfix, but have used Qmail. My general sense: * Postfix and Qmail both are very hi-performance MTAs * Qmail apprently has slightly better performance for mailing list stuff, Postfix has slightly more performance for indivudal mailboxes. * Postfix is more open-source than Qmail * Postfix is easier to configure than Qmail * Qmail is more flexible than Postfix You will be happy with whatever choice you make. And oh, I would up your RAM to 128 megs. - Sam > Can someone tell me: Should I use qmail or postfix to run this discussion > list?
i am using fetchmail to get all my pop mail and it directs it all to my user name and i use my .qmail to redirect it to a mail filter (a perl script using Mail::Procmail). that script detects messages to my lists and resends them back to qmail which should forward them to the ezmlm code. it seems to work when i subscribe from this box as me. but from an outside account, the ezmlm confirm reply gets sent to me and not to the address that requested the subscribe. here is the message that ezmlm generated was sent to me and not to the other guy Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: (qmail 1654 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2001 01:07:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jan 2001 01:07:03 -0000 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Authentication-Warning: syslang.localhost.localdomain: steveo owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:45:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-X-Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Test shit Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] main> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Uidl: H&K"!3=8!!o<6!!Fhd"! Status: RO X-Mailer: Perl5 Mail::Internet v1.32 Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> so it seems qmail/ezmlm didn't use the reply-to or from headers but the return-path or sender ones. how can i get this redirection to look like it came from the originator? the goal obviously is to get this sent back to the originator and not to me. for those who care this is how i am redirecting any list messages back to qmail. it is from my filter script. for ( qw( drum mmg ) ) { if ( $m_TO =~ /$_([^@]+)?\@sysarch\.com/i and $m_mailing_list !~ /$_/ ) { $m_obj->delete( 'Delivered-To' ) ; pm_resend( "uri-$_$1\@sysarch.com" ) ; } } i am deleting delivered-to stop qmail from throwing this out. i just prepend my user name to the address as that is how i set up ezmlm lists for me. any ideas? thanx, uri -- Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
I'm trying to run relay-ctrl-age to allow for smtp relaying after pop3 authentication. I'm trying to run it from root-crontab, but even if I run it from the command line as root I get an "access denied" error on the tcprules directory. Has anyone else had this problem, and if so, what's the resolution? Thanks.
Skip it. I'm a dope, and must have screwed something up. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boz Crowther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail@List. Cr. Yp. To" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:22 PM Subject: relay-ctrl-age problem > I'm trying to run relay-ctrl-age to allow for smtp relaying after pop3 > authentication. I'm trying to run it from root-crontab, but even if I run > it from the command line as root I get an "access denied" error on the > tcprules directory. > > Has anyone else had this problem, and if so, what's the resolution? Thanks. > >
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Joel Gautschi wrote: > 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 > Jan 29 11:30:57 joshua qmail: 980764257.483799 delivery 1: deferral: > Connected_to_194.230.0.8_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/ This comes up because either you, or the ISP you are talking to has a flakey internet connection which dies before the message can be sent. How large are these messages that keep getting deferred? A lot of places can not handle 20 meg attachments and what not. - Sam (Who recently had our entire system upgraded so people could send us 100 meg attachments)
Hi All I am looking for a way to selectively strip attachments from e-mails based on their extension. I can probably make up a way myself, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel if someone has already done this. I don't mind if it includes patches, other software packages, filtering tools, or whatever. (I think Mr Socha might have a few ideas up his little sleeve?) I've looked all over the archives with no pointers to any real solutions. TIA -- B r e t t R a n d a l l http://xbox.ipsware.com/ brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
i'm wondering if exists some binaries or scripts to cleanup/fix
the qmail queue
( /opt/qmail/queue/mess
/remote
/info
/bounce)
because i got error messages in logs like :
"cannot stat mess/[message N�]"
"cannot open message" .... will try again later"
when i run /opt/qmail/bin/qmail-qstat, i always have about 1000
messages in queue ....
i'm also receiving messages from foreign hosts about outgoing messages
bouncing from my server ...
thx for help.Jos� Carreiro
----------------------------
URBANET S.A
Vallombreuse 51
1000 Lausanne 22
http://www.urbanet.ch
Hi, I am running qmailadmin-0.38 on qmail-1.03 and vpopmail. My customers are dialup customers whose dialup details like password (for dialup)I maintain in an Oracle DataBase while for their mailbox qmail/vpopmail does the job for me. I would like to link the two databases together with a common front page - wherein the customer when he changes his password it updates my Oracle database as also his mailbox's on qmail. Hence I need to provide my enduser with a page where he can change both his mailbox password and dialup password (on a different db.)- is it possible to provide another front end other than the qmailadmin home page but should also execute the same functions. My current page runs on NT-IIS while my mailserver runs Qmail-1.03 on Linux 6.2. This is a little urgent. Raghu __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
