qmail Digest 3 Feb 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1264
Topics (messages 56527 through 56585):
ezmlm and sql ?
56527 by: Thomas Ackermann
Re: Qmail in a DMZ
56528 by: Ken Walsh
smtproute logging
56529 by: Steve Woolley
56577 by: Uwe Ohse
when i run smtpd on tcpserver+daemontool, how much merits do i have ?
56530 by: ������
56570 by: Robin S. Socha
Re: qmail under NAT
56531 by: Boris Krivulin
56574 by: Scott Gifford
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
56532 by: Mike Jackson
56536 by: Charles Cazabon
56539 by: Mike Jackson
56540 by: Charles Cazabon
Netsaint and qmail-stat
56533 by: Steve Tylock
Re: System crash
56534 by: Charles Cazabon
56537 by: Lincoln Yeoh
56541 by: Paulo Jan
56543 by: Charles Cazabon
56555 by: Wes Wannemacher
Re: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
56535 by: Charles Cazabon
56546 by: Michel Boucey
hey
56538 by: Chris McCoy
Qmail setup, svscan glitch
56542 by: Matt Simonsen
56544 by: Charles Cazabon
56547 by: Matt Simonsen
Re: I'm drooling here...
56545 by: SF
qmailanalog
56548 by: Steve Woolley
56549 by: Mike Jackson
56550 by: Peter Green
56551 by: Steve Woolley
56553 by: Marcio Cicero de Sa
Re: Newbie: Which Dist Linux, Best?
56552 by: SF
Valid Characters
56554 by: Alan R.
qmail speed solaris
56556 by: Michael Maier
56558 by: Dave Sill
56560 by: Michael Maier
56562 by: Justin Bell
56563 by: Charles Cazabon
56564 by: Mark Delany
56566 by: Choz Sun
qmail complie error
56557 by: tim
56559 by: Justin Bell
AutoTURN / Hello protocol
56561 by: Gavin McCord
qmail Speed
56565 by: Michael Maier
56567 by: Mark Delany
56568 by: Dave Sill
RFC-2554
56569 by: Renato Dobelin
Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
56571 by: Ryan Marsh
56572 by: Tim Hunter
56573 by: Ryan Marsh
56575 by: Chris Johnson
56576 by: Ryan Marsh
56578 by: Ryan Marsh
56579 by: Ryan Marsh
56581 by: Chris Johnson
56584 by: Ryan Marsh
[Announce] oMail-webmail 0.95pre2 released!
56580 by: Olivier M.
Re: Bogus Popularity claims (sendmail.org's reply)
56582 by: Stephen Berg
56583 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: qmail with qmail-ldap patch ?
56585 by: prashant
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hy
i want to build a list based on sql to sync with other databases...
my problem is that i don't know what to do with the hash field in the
subscriber table, any way to figure out what to fill in there ?
thx
thomas
Hi André,
I have emailed you a bounced message...
The main problem I think is this:
ezmlm-send: fatal: I don't distribute bounce messages (#5.7.2)
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 February 2001 10:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail in a DMZ
> Can anyone tell me what is the CORRECT way to do this...
>
>I have a qmail server in my DMZ which accepts email and
>using SMTPROUTES passes emails on to my internal qmail server.
>
> This works fine EXCEPT, if I send an email to an incorrect address on the
internet,
> I don't get a bounced email back to me personally.
> A bounce goes to the postmaster, but not back to the person who sent the
email.
>
> The DMZ Qmail Server knows nothing about my users, it just knows about my
domain.
>
> My Internal server knows about all my users and knows it must send
> all non-local email to the DMZ Qmail Server....
>
>
> Should I rip out the DMZ Qmail Server and put in something else?
> Should I allow email stright into the Internal server
> (whats the point in having the dmz?)
> Am I missing something in my config?
> Should I have a list of users on my DMZ server?
Please show us an complete and unmunged BOUNCE message.
MVH André Paulsberg
I am about to use smtproute to route some email
to another email server. Does using smtproute log any
messages when used?
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:00:24AM -0500, Steve Woolley wrote:
> I am about to use smtproute to route some email
> to another email server. Does using smtproute log any
> messages when used?
no, but you might add some logging to qmail-remote.c between these
lines:
if (relayhost) {
i = str_chr(relayhost,':');
Don't take the easy way, though: qmail-rspawn doesn't expect
qmail-remote to write informational messages to stdout or stderr,
so you need to find some other way to log.
Regards, Uwe
there are two way to run smtpd of qmail.( inet or tcpserver+daemontool)
when i run smtpd on tcpserver+daemoontool (introduced from qmail with life)
how much merits do i have ?
thank you.
* karith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there are two way to run smtpd of qmail.( inet or
> tcpserver+daemontool)
Add xinetd. You did read "B.3. ucspi-tcp"?
> when i run smtpd on tcpserver+daemoontool (introduced from qmail with
> life) how much merits do i have ?
AC+9, WC+9, STR+6
--
Robin "nightfall" Socha <http://socha.net/>
> Make sure you either handle identd or *reject* port 113 connects on
> the outside IP, or outside mail will take a long time.
Things are starting to work, (like pieces of TEST.deliver and TEST.receive) but they
are
^really^ slow. Even local tests in TEST.deliver. It takes about 5-10 minutes before
mail
arrives in /var/spool/mail. Can you suggest remedies ? Also, what do you mean by
"handle"
ident -- where can I read about problems between identd and qmail ? I would like to
keep
identd, since most IRC servers want it.
Thanks for your help,
Boris
"Rick Updegrove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Boris Krivulin wrote"
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to run qmail behind NAT. The local machine is called
> 'galois',
> > with ip number 192.168.1.6. The router is locally called 'euler', and
> > globally is accessible by 'hypervolume.com'.
>
> I have an extremely similar setup.
>
> My router is called NS1.DOMAIN.COM because my primary nameserver is behind
> it.
> The mail server is also behind it on 192.168.0.x and has the name
> MAIL.DOMAIN.COM
> The MX record is for MAIL.DOMAIN.COM is the same IP as NS1.DOMAIN.COM in my
> zone files.
Our setup is similar; we ran into trouble, though, with MX records
that point to us which aren't in control/locals. Because qmail didn't
realize that the MX record was pointing to itself (since it though its
address was 10.x.x.x, and to the outside world it was 63.x.x.x), it
would connect back to its outside address from its inside address, and
so the message would loop. We had to dink with moreipme.c to solve
this.
You may want to look out for this.
>
> > I have set up port forwarding (port 25) from euler to galois. I have ^not^
> > declared an MX -- do I need it if I have only one real IP address ?
>
> I am no expert but I just looked and you have no MX record set.
> I saw someone else say all you need was an A record but I don't see how mail
> can arrive at your server without an MX record.
> I guess I will ask that question on the DNS list if nobody answers. (or look
> up what an A record is heh )
If no MX record exists, mail servers will try to connect to the A
record. But it's still considered good practice to set up an MX
record, so that it's clear what your intentions are, and so that other
mailservers don't have to first search for the MX record, see that
fail, then search again for the A record.
------ScottG.
Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:38:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a user asking about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addressing
> > scheme. I guess this would allow the user to pass foobar as a argument
> > to procmail, etc. It works in sendmail.. Is this implemented in
> > qmail-ldap?
>
> Yes, the user can create a .qmail-foobar file in his homedir, and then
> user-foobar (sorry, it's not a +) is handled by this qmail file.
>
> man dot-qmail for more information.
>
> Greetz, Peter.
Hi,
Thanks for the response. First, the users are all virtual so they can't
create their own aliases. I could create aliases for them, but I would
have to create one for each and every foobar style argument. Some users
have gave these types of email addresses to web pages with a different
ending so they could positively identify which web site sold their email
address, and also to let procmail filter messages, etc. For example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> given when registering at the Netscape web
site
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> given when registering at the iName web site
Sendmail will handle this in a wildcard fashion, with both addresses
being equal to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and no need for an alias for each and
every difference. I am trying to find the similar functionality in
qmail, if a patch or other method is available. The + symbol is needed,
because this is what users have given out over time.
Regards,
Mike
Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the response. First, the users are all virtual so they can't
> create their own aliases. I could create aliases for them, but I would
> have to create one for each and every foobar style argument.
Nope. `man dot-qmail` for details. Hint: .qmail-default . In the case of
virtual domain "foo.net", handled by local user account "vdomains" with a
virtualdomains entry of
foo.net:vdomains-foonet
it might be "~vdomains/.qmail-foonet-default"
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon wrote:
>
> Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the response. First, the users are all virtual so they can't
> > create their own aliases. I could create aliases for them, but I would
> > have to create one for each and every foobar style argument.
>
> Nope. `man dot-qmail` for details. Hint: .qmail-default . In the case of
> virtual domain "foo.net", handled by local user account "vdomains" with a
> virtualdomains entry of
>
> foo.net:vdomains-foonet
>
> it might be "~vdomains/.qmail-foonet-default"
>
Hi,
I understand what you are talking about. The .qmail-default works for
addresses containing minus signs, not plus signs. That's what I am
talking about :-))
Mike
Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Cazabon wrote:
> >
> > it might be "~vdomains/.qmail-foonet-default"
> I understand what you are talking about. The .qmail-default works for
> addresses containing minus signs, not plus signs. That's what I am talking
> about :-))
You can change this. `man qmail-users`. Set the 'ext' field to be a +
instead of a -, set up the .qmail-foonet-default file, and your users won't
even notice the switch.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for info and have an offer to make - We have Netsaint running
here to monitor servers / services (plug - http://www.netsaint.org/) and
we wrote a very small plugin to check the queue of mail messages sitting
on the servers.
I would be happy to provide this to anyone looking to do a similar thing.
The problem - 'phantom' qmail-qstat responses.
The qmail archives have a few messages about determining how many messages
are in the queue from back a ways, but I didn't find any touching on this:
qmail-qstat looks at 'messages in queue' by looking for files in the
directories queue/mess/*.
But - we seem to have a condition (relatively infrequently, but often
enough to cause a stir) - where a file is left in this directory <after>
the message has been delivered. (log confirms delivery, no error)
That is, every other file with the same name from that message is gone,
but the mess file remains for some period of time. 0-60 minutes later,
the file is removed.
The best I have been able to guess is that some program is holding onto
an inode, the file is really left there and cleaned up later when it is
used again, or we have some local bug.
Other info - qmail 1.0.3, Linux 2.2.18, MDA is procmail.
(I'd offer more direct info, but it isn't happening right now...-)
[I started this message in January and waited - I'm attaching an 'ls -lr'
on the queue directory showing 2 left over files in 'mess']
I could work around this by changing the way we look for messages in the
queue, or fix this. (and am somewhat thinking I'll see a response -
"your site gets to an empty queue!-)" ((Note - we use the inside the
firewall queue & outside the firewall queue - the inside server should
always get back to a nothing in the queue state. It delivers locally
or gives the messages to the other server to deliver))
any help or advice appreciated,
steve
--
Steven Tylock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Questra Corporation, (716) 381-0260 x521
=========================
>
> .:
> total 40
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 bounce
> drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 5 2000 info
> drwx------ 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 intd
> drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 5 2000 local
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 25 00:03 lock
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jun 2 2000 lost+found
> drwxr-x--- 25 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 5 2000 mess
> drwx------ 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 pid
> drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 5 2000 remote
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 todo
>
> ./bounce:
> total 0
>
> ./info:
> total 92
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 0
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 1
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:41 10
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:41 11
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 12
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 13
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:15 14
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 15
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 16
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 17
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 18
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 19
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 2
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 20
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 21
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 22
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:39 3
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:30 4
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 5
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:56 6
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 7
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:51 8
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 9
>
> ./info/0:
> total 0
>
> ./info/1:
> total 0
>
> ./info/10:
> total 0
>
> ./info/11:
> total 0
>
> ./info/12:
> total 0
>
> ./info/13:
> total 0
>
> ./info/14:
> total 0
>
> ./info/15:
> total 0
>
> ./info/16:
> total 0
>
> ./info/17:
> total 0
>
> ./info/18:
> total 0
>
> ./info/19:
> total 0
>
> ./info/2:
> total 0
>
> ./info/20:
> total 0
>
> ./info/21:
> total 0
>
> ./info/22:
> total 0
>
> ./info/3:
> total 0
>
> ./info/4:
> total 0
>
> ./info/5:
> total 0
>
> ./info/6:
> total 0
>
> ./info/7:
> total 0
>
> ./info/8:
> total 0
>
> ./info/9:
> total 0
>
> ./intd:
> total 0
>
> ./local:
> total 92
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 0
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 1
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:41 10
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:41 11
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 12
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 13
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 11:23 14
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 15
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 16
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 17
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 18
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 19
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 2
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 20
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 21
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 22
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:39 3
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:30 4
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 5
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:56 6
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:45 7
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:51 8
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 9
>
> ./local/0:
> total 0
>
> ./local/1:
> total 0
>
> ./local/10:
> total 0
>
> ./local/11:
> total 0
>
> ./local/12:
> total 0
>
> ./local/13:
> total 0
>
> ./local/14:
> total 0
>
> ./local/15:
> total 0
>
> ./local/16:
> total 0
>
> ./local/17:
> total 0
>
> ./local/18:
> total 0
>
> ./local/19:
> total 0
>
> ./local/2:
> total 0
>
> ./local/20:
> total 0
>
> ./local/21:
> total 0
>
> ./local/22:
> total 0
>
> ./local/3:
> total 0
>
> ./local/4:
> total 0
>
> ./local/5:
> total 0
>
> ./local/6:
> total 0
>
> ./local/7:
> total 0
>
> ./local/8:
> total 0
>
> ./local/9:
> total 0
>
> ./lock:
> total 4
> -rw-r----- 1 qmailq qmail 0 Jan 25 01:46 monitor-msgq
> -rw------- 1 qmails qmail 0 Jan 25 01:46 sendmutex
> -rw-r--r-- 1 qmailr qmail 1024 Jan 25 01:47 tcpto
> prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Jan 29 16:57 trigger
>
> ./lost+found:
> total 0
>
> ./mess:
> total 92
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 0
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 1
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:41 10
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:41 11
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 12
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 13
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:15 14
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 15
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 16
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 17
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 18
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 19
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 2
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 20
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 21
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:16 22
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:39 3
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:30 4
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 5
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:56 6
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 7
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:51 8
> drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:24 9
>
> ./mess/0:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/1:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/10:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/11:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/12:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/13:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/14:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/15:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/16:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/17:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/18:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/19:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/2:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/20:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/21:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/22:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/3:
> total 5452
> -rw-r--r-- 1 qmailq nofiles 5566537 Jan 29 16:58 13481
>
> ./mess/4:
> total 38152
> -rw-r--r-- 1 qmailq nofiles 39020617 Jan 29 16:58 13482
>
> ./mess/5:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/6:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/7:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/8:
> total 0
>
> ./mess/9:
> total 0
>
> ./pid:
> total 0
>
> ./remote:
> total 92
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 11:29 0
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:15 1
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 11:58 10
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 11:57 11
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 12
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 13
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:15 14
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 15
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 11:57 16
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 17
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 09:31 18
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 26 13:51 19
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:15 2
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 14:15 20
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 15:22 21
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 26 16:26 22
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:23 3
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:29 4
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:55 5
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:54 6
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:57 7
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 29 16:47 8
> drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jan 28 18:11 9
>
> ./remote/0:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/1:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/10:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/11:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/12:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/13:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/14:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/15:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/16:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/17:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/18:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/19:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/2:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/20:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/21:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/22:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/3:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/4:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/5:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/6:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/7:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/8:
> total 0
>
> ./remote/9:
> total 0
>
> ./todo:
> total 0
Paulo Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Some minutes later I decide to restart qmail again. qmail-qstat says
> that there are around 250 messages in the queue, of which 140 (more or
> less) are unprocessed. I restart qmail and everything goes fine... for a
> few seconds, after which the box becomes unresponsive.
> 4) I go to the console, and see it filling up with the following
> message: "VM: do_try_to_free_pages_failed_for qmail-remote" (the wording
> may not be exact, though). I try to log in, but the machine isn't
> responding at all (just printing this message as fast as it can), and am
> finally forced to push the button and reboot (ouch).
The machine may have come back had you given it time to recover. It might
probably sitting at a system load of 30-150, and interactive performance
is virtually nil at those times.
> Now, what I'd like to know is: what happened? I certainly didn't expect
> to see this in two pieces of software as robust as qmail and Linux, and
> I usually perform the above operation (stop outgoing mail, do whatever,
> start qmail-send again) without any problems. I don't think that a queue
> of just 250 messages is enough to make either qmail or Linux barf. So...
> what happened?
You may have your concurrency limits set too high for the resources of the
box. But you've posted no useful information with your report, so we can
only guess.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much ram do you have on that box.
How many concurrent qmail-remotes have you configured to run?
What is your MAX_TASKS setting (and related settings) in your kernel?
Link.
At 10:40 AM 2/2/01 +0100, Paulo Jan wrote:
>Hi all:
>
> I just experienced the weirdest thing... or at least something that I
>certainly didn't expect to see in an Unix box. Let me explain:
>
> 1) I have a Red Hat Linux 6.2 as a mail server, with the 2.2.17 kernel
>and qmail 1.03. It's been working great for months, as one could expect.
> 2) Today, for reasons unrelated, I decide to stop all outgoing mail. I
>stop qmail-send and then to a "killall qmail-remote". Everything fine,
>the box is still working. (Note that I did not stop incoming mail, nor
>POP access).
> 3) Some minutes later I decide to restart qmail again. qmail-qstat says
>that there are around 250 messages in the queue, of which 140 (more or
>less) are unprocessed. I restart qmail and everything goes fine... for a
>few seconds, after which the box becomes unresponsive.
> 4) I go to the console, and see it filling up with the following
>message: "VM: do_try_to_free_pages_failed_for qmail-remote" (the wording
>may not be exact, though). I try to log in, but the machine isn't
>responding at all (just printing this message as fast as it can), and am
>finally forced to push the button and reboot (ouch).
>
>
> > Now, what I'd like to know is: what happened? I certainly didn't expect
> > to see this in two pieces of software as robust as qmail and Linux, and
> > I usually perform the above operation (stop outgoing mail, do whatever,
> > start qmail-send again) without any problems. I don't think that a queue
> > of just 250 messages is enough to make either qmail or Linux barf. So...
> > what happened?
>
> You may have your concurrency limits set too high for the resources of the
> box. But you've posted no useful information with your report, so we can
> only guess.
>
Well, I asked mostly because I didn't know what the "VM:
do_try_to_free_pages_failed_for qmail-remote" message meant, but since
then I've been informed that it more or less stand for "out of memory".
As for my server, it's a Pentium III with 128 Mb. of memory and 48Mb. of
swap; concurrencylocal is 50 and concurrencyremote is only 16 (and I
have databytes set to around 9Mb.). I find it a bit strange that a queue
of just 250 messages could be enough to crash the box with those
settings...
Paulo Jan.
DDnet.
Paulo Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, I asked mostly because I didn't know what the "VM:
> do_try_to_free_pages_failed_for qmail-remote" message meant, but since
> then I've been informed that it more or less stand for "out of memory".
> As for my server, it's a Pentium III with 128 Mb. of memory and 48Mb. of
> swap; concurrencylocal is 50 and concurrencyremote is only 16 (and I
> have databytes set to around 9Mb.). I find it a bit strange that a queue
> of just 250 messages could be enough to crash the box with those
> settings...
Perhaps it's too many copies of qmail-smtpd being spawned -- what are you
setting tcpserver's limits to? Are you specifying softlimits for qmail-smtpd?
If not, someone can connect and send an arbitrarily long SMTP command and
cause qmail-smtpd to consume arbitrary amounts of memory.
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 Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 04:36:53PM +0100, Paulo Jan wrote:
> > You may have your concurrency limits set too high for the resources of the
> > box. But you've posted no useful information with your report, so we can
> > only guess.
> >
>
> Well, I asked mostly because I didn't know what the "VM:
> do_try_to_free_pages_failed_for qmail-remote" message meant, but since
> then I've been informed that it more or less stand for "out of memory".
> As for my server, it's a Pentium III with 128 Mb. of memory and 48Mb. of
> swap; concurrencylocal is 50 and concurrencyremote is only 16 (and I
> have databytes set to around 9Mb.). I find it a bit strange that a queue
> of just 250 messages could be enough to crash the box with those
> settings...
>
>
>
> Paulo Jan.
> DDnet.
This is a kernel bug. I found out here at the University the hard way.
My system also has 128 Mb or RAM, but I have 192 Mb swap. I thought, no
way could I be out of memory, so I cronned a job that output the meminfo
in /proc. Sure enough, swap pages seemingly were never freed. Turns out
it is a problem in Linux kernel 2.2.16 and 2.2.17. I upgraded to 2.2.18
and have not had the problem since.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wesley Wannemacher
Instructor / Network Administrator
University of Northwestern Ohio
http://www.unoh.edu/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
"And I don't like doing silly things (except on purpose)."
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Michel Boucey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've nothing else from splogger or syslog in /var/log/messages
> concerning mail so I look in /var/log/maillog !
>
> Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda sendmail[6665]: JAA06665: from=bob, size=46,
> class=0, pri=30046, nrcpts=1,
> msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=bob@localhost
> Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda
> sendmail[6667]: JAA06665: SYSERR(bob): actitraining.com. config error:
> mail loops back to me (MX problem?) Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda
[...]
> sendmail is the wrapper from qmail, isn't it ?
No, you're actually running sendmail. You forgot to stop it, or didn't
take it out of your inetd.conf file, or didn't HUP inetd, or something.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of you are right !
It was a double misconfiguration :
- sendmail wasn't backup to sendmail.bak ...
- sendmail_path of php3.ini was set to default, i.e. to sendmail ...
That's works fine now ... thank you.
Cordialement,
Michel Boucey Administrateur Système
> Société Norm@net +33 2 31 27 13 45 <
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Michel Boucey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've nothing else from splogger or syslog in /var/log/messages
> > concerning mail so I look in /var/log/maillog !
> >
> > Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda sendmail[6665]: JAA06665: from=bob, size=46,
> > class=0, pri=30046, nrcpts=1,
> > msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=bob@localhost
> > Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda
> > sendmail[6667]: JAA06665: SYSERR(bob): actitraining.com. config error:
> > mail loops back to me (MX problem?) Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda
> [...]
> > sendmail is the wrapper from qmail, isn't it ?
>
> No, you're actually running sendmail. You forgot to stop it, or didn't
> take it out of your inetd.conf file, or didn't HUP inetd, or something.
>
> 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
is there a way to block out ALL outgoing mail but 2 email addresses by
smtp. thanks. this is another question from the smtp. i dont have the
execute command availabel because for security reasons. so i dont know how
i will use the qmail-inject to send mail. please help. thanks.
--
Chris McCoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All-
I'm new to Qmail and installing it for the first time. I have a 'server'
install RedHat 6.2 linux box.
I have read everything I could find but have run into a glitch. I am
installing exactly like the "Life with qmail" document says to and am at
step 2.7. I went to test the build by following the instructions at
http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/svscan.html#boot . Well, I added the line it
said to to the end of my initab which looks like this:
#
# inittab This file describes how the INIT process should set up
# the system in a certain run-level.
#
# Author: Miquel van Smoorenburg, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Modified for RHS Linux by Marc Ewing and Donnie Barnes
#
# Default runlevel. The runlevels used by RHS are:
# 0 - halt (Do NOT set initdefault to this)
# 1 - Single user mode
# 2 - Multiuser, without NFS (The same as 3, if you do not have
networking)
# 3 - Full multiuser mode
# 4 - unused
# 5 - X11
# 6 - reboot (Do NOT set initdefault to this)
#
id:3:initdefault:
# System initialization.
si::sysinit:/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit
l0:0:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 0
l1:1:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 1
l2:2:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 2
l3:3:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 3
l4:4:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 4
l5:5:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 5
l6:6:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 6
# Things to run in every runlevel.
ud::once:/sbin/update
# Trap CTRL-ALT-DELETE
ca::ctrlaltdel:/sbin/shutdown -t3 -r now
# When our UPS tells us power has failed, assume we have a few minutes
# of power left. Schedule a shutdown for 2 minutes from now.
# This does, of course, assume you have powerd installed and your
# UPS connected and working correctly.
pf::powerfail:/sbin/shutdown -f -h +2 "Power Failure; System Shutting Down"
# If power was restored before the shutdown kicked in, cancel it.
pr:12345:powerokwait:/sbin/shutdown -c "Power Restored; Shutdown Cancelled"
# Run gettys in standard runlevels
1:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty1
2:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty2
3:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty3
4:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty4
5:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty5
6:2345:respawn:/sbin/mingetty tty6
# Run xdm in runlevel 5
# xdm is now a separate service
x:5:respawn:/etc/X11/prefdm -nodaemon
#This is for svscan
SV:123456:respawn:env - PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/bin svscan
/servic
e </dev/null >/dev/console 2>/dev/console
When I do a "kill -HUP 1" then ps all I get is
[root@skip daemontools-0.70]# ps
PID TTY TIME CMD
10732 pts/1 00:00:00 su
10733 pts/1 00:00:00 bash
13992 pts/1 00:00:00 ps
I am new to this, please help me if you can see what I did wrong. I followed
the instructions precisesly so I'm not sure what went wrong. Or maybe it
worked and I'm not seeing something...
Thanks
Matt
Matt Simonsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm new to Qmail and installing it for the first time. I have a 'server'
> install RedHat 6.2 linux box.
[...]
> Well, I added the line it said to to the end of my initab which looks like
> this:
[...]
> When I do a "kill -HUP 1" then ps all I get is
>
> [root@skip daemontools-0.70]# ps
> PID TTY TIME CMD
> 10732 pts/1 00:00:00 su
> 10733 pts/1 00:00:00 bash
> 13992 pts/1 00:00:00 ps
Read the man page for ps. With no arguments, it will only show you processes
owned by you. You probably need to do 'ps auxw' to get meaningful results
here. This is more of a general Unix newbie question than anything specific
to qmail.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right.... I'll cope "RTF Man page" to the whiteboard 20 times. Sorry.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail setup, svscan glitch
Matt Simonsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm new to Qmail and installing it for the first time. I have a 'server'
> install RedHat 6.2 linux box.
[...]
> Well, I added the line it said to to the end of my initab which looks like
> this:
[...]
> When I do a "kill -HUP 1" then ps all I get is
>
> [root@skip daemontools-0.70]# ps
> PID TTY TIME CMD
> 10732 pts/1 00:00:00 su
> 10733 pts/1 00:00:00 bash
> 13992 pts/1 00:00:00 ps
Read the man page for ps. With no arguments, it will only show you
processes
owned by you. You probably need to do 'ps auxw' to get meaningful results
here. This is more of a general Unix newbie question than anything specific
to qmail.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say - it would certainly help with the load placed upon mail
administrators and network infrastructure. I would imagine this would also
be a more secure way to send receive mail, as right now, the way the mail
passes from server to server leaves a number of doors open for attack.
Anyway, thanks for pointing this out...
SF
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Melo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I'm drooling here...
Hi,
I just read this: http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html
nice, very very nice...
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
I am using qmail with the svscan method of
supervising the processes. I would also like to use
qmailanalog to do some stats/analysis. Under the
old "inetd" method of process management. The
qmail logs were under /var/log/qmail, now they
are stored under /var/service/qmail/log/main. This
is not a problem per se, but....
The timestamps under the old method were in the
following form: 901967408.116537
now they are in the form: @400000003a76ca281592e16c
Is there some preprocessor that I am should run this through?
or maybe some type of awk statement?
Or should I be looking in a totally different place for my logs?
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Woolley wrote:
>
> I am using qmail with the svscan method of
> supervising the processes. I would also like to use
> qmailanalog to do some stats/analysis. Under the
> old "inetd" method of process management. The
> qmail logs were under /var/log/qmail, now they
> are stored under /var/service/qmail/log/main. This
> is not a problem per se, but....
> The timestamps under the old method were in the
> following form: 901967408.116537
> now they are in the form: @400000003a76ca281592e16c
This is tai64 international format.
> Is there some preprocessor that I am should run this through?
> or maybe some type of awk statement?
> Or should I be looking in a totally different place for my logs?
Tai64nlocal works for me.
Mike
* Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010202 11:58]:
> > Is there some preprocessor that I am should run this through?
> > or maybe some type of awk statement?
> > Or should I be looking in a totally different place for my logs?
>
> Tai64nlocal works for me.
Maybe for you, but not for qmailanalog. It still expects the older TAI
format.
Bruce Guenter, among others, has a tai64n2tai program in his qlogtools that
will act as a filter. Piping your logs through this before sending them to
qmailanalog will get you what you want.
<http://em.ca/~bruceg/qlogtools/current/>
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
"MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years
of careful development."
(By [EMAIL PROTECTED])
I apologize but I am unfamiliar with what you mean by
Tai64nlocal
Is this a command line option for multilog or something else?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: qmailanalog
> Steve Woolley wrote:
> >
> > I am using qmail with the svscan method of
> > supervising the processes. I would also like to use
> > qmailanalog to do some stats/analysis. Under the
> > old "inetd" method of process management. The
> > qmail logs were under /var/log/qmail, now they
> > are stored under /var/service/qmail/log/main. This
> > is not a problem per se, but....
> > The timestamps under the old method were in the
> > following form: 901967408.116537
> > now they are in the form: @400000003a76ca281592e16c
>
> This is tai64 international format.
>
> > Is there some preprocessor that I am should run this through?
> > or maybe some type of awk statement?
> > Or should I be looking in a totally different place for my logs?
>
> Tai64nlocal works for me.
>
> Mike
>
Steve Woolley wrote:
Hi Steve,
> I am using qmail with the svscan method of
> supervising the processes. I would also like to use
> qmailanalog to do some stats/analysis. Under the
> old "inetd" method of process management. The
> qmail logs were under /var/log/qmail, now they
> are stored under /var/service/qmail/log/main. This
> is not a problem per se, but....
> The timestamps under the old method were in the
> following form: 901967408.116537
> now they are in the form: @400000003a76ca281592e16c
>
Its seens that you was using syslog and now you are using multilog.
I have a very simple
script to convert multilog to syslog format to use MRTG (multilog
format) and qmailanalog
(syslog format) at same time. If this is your problem i can send to you.
Marcio
>
> Is there some preprocessor that I am should run this through?
> or maybe some type of awk statement?
> Or should I be looking in a totally different place for my logs?
>
> Steve Woolley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moin Felix!
Das selbe habe ich auch gedacht.
I think you hit the head on the nail - since writing the email - in which I
realized how many mistakes I made (i.e. dist vs. *nix flavor, shell, etc) in
explaining my question - I have tried out two more linux dists and didn't
like them for a number of reasons. I haven't been able to get ahold of
Slackware yet because of interruptions in downloading the software. I also
am going to take a different approach to this DNS/mail box. DNS will go on
another box and mail on its own. Anyway, I think I'm making some progress.
The problem I have with RH is that they customize certain things - which I
don't think is inherently bad - but make it difficult to follow howto's or
guidelines like LWQ - because things don't *necessarily* work like you would
expect. I fooled around with FreeBSD a bit, but also had issues. (I think
because of my lack of knowledge...) So, I'm getting somewhere, but not
where I want to be at this point. Anyway, I'll keep trying.
Thanks for all the advice,
SF
-----Original Message-----
From: Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:26 PM
To: SF
Subject: Re: Newbie: Which Dist Linux, Best?
Thus spake SF ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I've been working for about 4 weeks now at setting up qmail on my RH 7.0
> box. I'm somewhat new to linux (my real sys admin background is in WinNT,
> etc. - but I lost the desire to deal with their licensing schemes...) and
> I've given up on the RH dist for a number of reasons including the issues
I
> have had with setting up qmail - dealing with xinitd vs. more typical
"boot"
> scripts and other things I don't understand enough.
If you have to ask, don't use Linux.
The correct way is to try each one until you are fed up with it.
If one does not bother you, stick with it.
Felix
Hi all !!!
I am using alias in qmail for redirection of email. I was wondering which
are the valid characters that I can use for .qmail-XXXXXX . Are "!" and "$"
valid characters ?
Can you tell me which characters I can use?
Thanks in advance,
Alan Rubin
Setup is Solaris 7 and qmail + big todo + big concurrency
What's going wrong here ?
Thanks for Answer!
2001-02-02 18:31:10.045668500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:10.626628500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:10.988526500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:11.242266500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:12.498209500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:12.758255500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:13.512637500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-02 18:31:13.512677500 status: local 0/250 remote 3/400
2001-02-02 18:31:14.110244500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-02 18:31:15.217011500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:16.326612500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:17.261962500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:18.288743500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:18.344190500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:19.068162500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:19.513895500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:21.045123500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:21.519778500 status: local 0/250 remote 9/400
2001-02-02 18:31:21.876854500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:22.181505500 status: local 0/250 remote 9/400
2001-02-02 18:31:22.592612500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:22.906265500 status: local 0/250 remote 9/400
2001-02-02 18:31:23.378089500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:24.121749500 status: local 0/250 remote 9/400
2001-02-02 18:31:24.247379500 status: local 1/250 remote 9/400
2001-02-02 18:31:24.661445500 status: local 1/250 remote 10/400
2001-02-02 18:31:24.724051500 status: local 0/250 remote 10/400
2001-02-02 18:31:24.929906500 status: local 0/250 remote 9/400
2001-02-02 18:31:25.111401500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:25.123478500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:25.283466500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:25.928988500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:26.061302500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:26.309151500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:26.666340500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:27.110578500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:27.271065500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:27.768450500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:28.140657500 status: local 0/250 remote 8/400
2001-02-02 18:31:28.845633500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-02 18:31:29.469632500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:29.508004500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:29.572893500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-02 18:31:29.771258500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:30.622597500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:30.698784500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:31.363765500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:31.638018500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:31.658633500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-02 18:31:31.673940500 status: local 0/250 remote 3/400
2001-02-02 18:31:31.817495500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-02 18:31:32.349743500 status: local 0/250 remote 3/400
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Setup is Solaris 7 and qmail + big todo + big concurrency
>What's going wrong here ?
>Thanks for Answer!
You asked this yesterday. Do you think the answer is different today?
In my responses to you yesterday, I *twice* asked if you'd tried
turning off qmail-send during the injection of your mass of
messages. You never answered that question.
What you're trying to do (send 500,000 separate messages ASAP) will
tax any decent MTA. If you could achieve a massive performance gain
simply by stopping qmail-send while you're queueing the messages, why
not do it?
-Dave
Dave Sill wrote:
> You asked this yesterday. Do you think the answer is different today?
Yes, may depend on You!
> In my responses to you yesterday, I *twice* asked if you'd tried
> turning off qmail-send during the injection of your mass of
> messages. You never answered that question.
Yes I did. I don't answer to lame Questions because I can figure this
Point out my own, sorry.
> What you're trying to do (send 500,000 separate messages ASAP) will
> tax any decent MTA.
Sending 500,000 seperate Messages for www.payback.de (Service like
Paypal)
Where Users get personalized e-Mails and personalized Info.
For more Details www.flatfox.com should help.
> If you could achieve a massive performance gain
> simply by stopping qmail-send while you're queueing the messages, why
> not do it?
What in my Situation is exactly.
The Messages are out of the todo queue. They should be sent out. But that
is too slow because
there are just so few qmail-remote Processes!!! They don't come up like
on Linux.
Just about 15-20. That's not much. On Linux it goes much higher.
And there appeared another Situation now. Because the queue Directory is
overloaded there are too many
fsyncs. But that is not the Main Issue because it's just the Effect of a
very overloaded queue.
> -Dave
--
Michael..
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:00:38PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
# What in my Situation is exactly.
# The Messages are out of the todo queue. They should be sent out. But that
# is too slow because
# there are just so few qmail-remote Processes!!! They don't come up like
# on Linux.
# Just about 15-20. That's not much. On Linux it goes much higher.
# And there appeared another Situation now. Because the queue Directory is
# overloaded there are too many
# fsyncs. But that is not the Main Issue because it's just the Effect of a
# very overloaded queue.
check the logfiles, see if there are process limit issues
try upping the ulimit
--
Justin Bell
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What in my Situation is exactly. The Messages are out of the todo queue.
> They should be sent out. But that is too slow because there are just so few
> qmail-remote Processes!!!
[...]
> Because the queue Directory is overloaded there are too many fsyncs. But that
> is not the Main Issue because it's just the Effect of a very overloaded
> queue.
That may be the main issue right there. Try putting the queue on its own
15kRPM SCSI disk, so nothing else is on that disk and sucking up I/O
bandwidth. If that's not enough, put the queue on a pair of 15kRPM
striped disks on their own hardware RAID controller.
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 Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:00:38PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > You asked this yesterday. Do you think the answer is different today?
>
> Yes, may depend on You!
>
> > In my responses to you yesterday, I *twice* asked if you'd tried
> > turning off qmail-send during the injection of your mass of
> > messages. You never answered that question.
>
> Yes I did. I don't answer to lame Questions because I can figure this
> Point out my own, sorry.
Er, do you call everyone who tries to help you, lame?
As it happens Dave rarely asks lame questions - in fact if you think
the Dave's questions lame, it usually means you don't understand the
full implications of the question.
> What in my Situation is exactly.
> The Messages are out of the todo queue. They should be sent out. But that
> is too slow because
> there are just so few qmail-remote Processes!!! They don't come up like
> on Linux.
> Just about 15-20. That's not much. On Linux it goes much higher.
Right. Well, this calls for proper investigation of your system
performance - not guesswork. It could be that something else is
consume a lot of resources, we don't know unless we see something like
vmstat/iostat output. qmail-send may be having problems forking, we
don't know unless you show us *all* of the log messages.
> And there appeared another Situation now. Because the queue Directory is
> overloaded there are too many
> fsyncs. But that is not the Main Issue because it's just the Effect of a
> very overloaded queue.
If you don't know why your mail is going slow, it sounds to me like
speculation rather than the results of a definitive analysis.
How did you conclude that there are "too many fsyncs" and why don't
you share that information with us if you want help?
Regards.
I heard that the 15k rpm drives from Seagate have a difficult time under
some RAID cards?
Is this still true?
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Cazabon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: qmail speed solaris
> Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What in my Situation is exactly. The Messages are out of the todo
queue.
> > They should be sent out. But that is too slow because there are just so
few
> > qmail-remote Processes!!!
> [...]
> > Because the queue Directory is overloaded there are too many fsyncs. But
that
> > is not the Main Issue because it's just the Effect of a very overloaded
> > queue.
>
> That may be the main issue right there. Try putting the queue on its own
> 15kRPM SCSI disk, so nothing else is on that disk and sucking up I/O
> bandwidth. If that's not enough, put the queue on a pair of 15kRPM
> striped disks on their own hardware RAID controller.
>
> 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 Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 11:48:51AM -0600, tim wrote:
#
We need a little more information
--
Justin Bell
This may not be the best place to ask, but I'm looking
for more info on AutoTURN and the hello protocol.
I have two machines, west my mailhub, and east, a workstation.
west gets external mail and puts it into a maildir
in /var/qmail/autoturn.
On east, I use fetchmail to poll west and forward
the mail. I use proto etrn in the .fetchmailrc
even though it isn't supported by the qmail server
on west. It exits with a client/server protocol
error, but the mail is transferred ok from west to east.
However, I'd like something a bit more elegant.
This hello protocol mention in djb's documentation, looks
interesting, but isn't a standard service on my Slackware 7.1
box. I've done a search on google, but it only brings up
a bare description of the protocol and it's service no.
If someone could give me a clearer idea of what's needed,
I'd be grateful.
--
I'm Keyser Soze...No, I'm Keyser Soze. I'm Keyser Soze and so's my wife!
(Monty Python play The Usual Suspects.)
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/12/msg00465.html
This here exactly describes the Situation!
--
Michael..
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:38:10PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/12/msg00465.html
>
> This here exactly describes the Situation!
No it doesn't. You said that there was nothing in todo. In other
words, no new messages.
But, it is true that disk i/o on the queue is usually the first thing
you run out of. If you are so sure of your problem, the you'll know
the solution - more disk i/o capacity.
Regards.
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/12/msg00465.html
>
>This here exactly describes the Situation!
Please stop yelling!
OK, so now the question is where the new messages to be processed are
coming from. If they're bounces or other unrelated incoming mail, you
could set up a separate qmail installation to handle incoming mail. In
other words, install qmail again with the same UID's under
/var/qmail2, and have /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd listen to port 25 and
use /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject to inject your 500,000 messages. That
would free up the /var/qmail installation to deliver your messages
uninterrupted.
-Dave
Hello for everybody,
I accompany that list the plenty time and I see that he/she always has patch
for Qmail, not that it is bad, on the contrary it is good to know that a
real community exists if pawning so that he continues developing this great
MTA.
Is my question been anybody he knows if he will have or does he already have
a patch for for RFC-2554, is he well guided by RCFs, will it be that will
have a version with that support?
I know that other alternatives exist, but my interest is only for for
RFC-2554.
Thank you for the Attention.
Renato Dobelin
Technical support
I have other users on the sytem. Mail sent to them bounces too. What's the
simplest way to configure delivery from outside (SMTP) to a local user?
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and hubris,
but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> Ryan,
>
> Read INSTALL.alias, inparticular the section that starts
>
> * root. Under qmail, root never receives mail.
>
> HTH
>
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Farmer
> Systems Engineer
> blueyonder
> ICQ - 55297879
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:47 AM
> Subject: Qmail won't deliver locally.
>
>
> > I've been fsking with qmail for a week now trying to get it to deliver
> > locally. I've read every piece of documentation available, yet, when I
> > use qmail-inject or qmail-local. Nothing shows up in the user's
> > mailboxes (i.e. /root/Mailbox). When I send email by telneting to port
> > 25 on the mail server, mail just bounces:
> >
> > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
> > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> > addresses.
> > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
> >
> > --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
> >
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Received: (qmail 9454 invoked from
> > network); 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34 -0000
> > Received: from cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net (HELO )
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net with SMTP;
> > 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34
> > -0000
> > test
> >
> >
> > My /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery says:
> > ./Mailbox splogger qmail
> >
> > None of the users have .qmail files in their directories so
> > theoretically it should just create a ~/Mailbox. I tried creating
> > .qmail's for each user. That didn't work either.
> >
> > Right now these are running
> > 9428 ? 00:00:00 qmail-send
> > 9431 ? 00:00:00 qmail-lspawn
> > 9432 ? 00:00:00 qmail-rspawn
> > 9433 ? 00:00:00 qmail-clean
> >
> > Attached is the output of qmail-showctl.
> >
> > Butterflysoft.org has already been moved over to this server.
> > Ryanmarsh.com is really pointing to a different server but in this
> > instance im running my own DNS which resolves to my server (where I will
> > eventually move my domain if I can get qmail to work). I tried emailing
> > users at both domains and root at both domains.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > -ryan
> >
> > The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience,
> > and hubris, but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> >
You must have a misconfiguration, please show the (unedited) output of
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-showctl
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Marsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 3:44 PM
To: Peter Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
I have other users on the sytem. Mail sent to them bounces too. What's the
simplest way to configure delivery from outside (SMTP) to a local user?
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and hubris,
but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> Ryan,
>
> Read INSTALL.alias, inparticular the section that starts
>
> * root. Under qmail, root never receives mail.
>
> HTH
>
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Farmer
> Systems Engineer
> blueyonder
> ICQ - 55297879
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:47 AM
> Subject: Qmail won't deliver locally.
>
>
> > I've been fsking with qmail for a week now trying to get it to deliver
> > locally. I've read every piece of documentation available, yet, when I
> > use qmail-inject or qmail-local. Nothing shows up in the user's
> > mailboxes (i.e. /root/Mailbox). When I send email by telneting to port
> > 25 on the mail server, mail just bounces:
> >
> > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
> > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> > addresses.
> > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
> >
> > --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
> >
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Received: (qmail 9454 invoked from
> > network); 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34 -0000
> > Received: from cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net (HELO )
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net with SMTP;
> > 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34
> > -0000
> > test
> >
> >
> > My /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery says:
> > ./Mailbox splogger qmail
> >
> > None of the users have .qmail files in their directories so
> > theoretically it should just create a ~/Mailbox. I tried creating
> > .qmail's for each user. That didn't work either.
> >
> > Right now these are running
> > 9428 ? 00:00:00 qmail-send
> > 9431 ? 00:00:00 qmail-lspawn
> > 9432 ? 00:00:00 qmail-rspawn
> > 9433 ? 00:00:00 qmail-clean
> >
> > Attached is the output of qmail-showctl.
> >
> > Butterflysoft.org has already been moved over to this server.
> > Ryanmarsh.com is really pointing to a different server but in this
> > instance im running my own DNS which resolves to my server (where I will
> > eventually move my domain if I can get qmail to work). I tried emailing
> > users at both domains and root at both domains.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > -ryan
> >
> > The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience,
> > and hubris, but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> >
I'd like to thank you guys in advance for helping me with this. Please note
that if you check up on ryanmarsh.com it's DNS is in the process of being
migrated. The DNS on my network shows it being hosted by me (so in this
case, for all intents and purposes it is). The DNS host registered with
internic is different though. It will remain this way until I get qmail
working. In the mean time butterflysoft.org is being hosted by me but no one
can get mail because of this problem. My DNS server is 24.221.171.160.
I'm sure that none of this has anything to do with local delivery though.
here is qmail-showctl:
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal): 2.
silent concurrency limit: 120.
subdirectory split: 23.
user ids: 103, 100, 101, 0, 102, 104, 105, 106.
group ids: 501, 500.
badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed.
bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON.
bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10.
concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20.
databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes.
defaultdomain: Default domain name is ryanmarsh.com.
defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster.
envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
locals:
Messages for deathstar.ryanmarsh.com are delivered locally.
Messages for cocoon.butterflysoft.org are delivered locally.
me: My name is deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed.
plusdomain: Plus domain name is .
qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers.
queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds.
rcpthosts:
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at ryanmarsh.com.
SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at butterflysoft.org.
morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect.
morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect.
smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 deathstar.ryanmarsh.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.
virtualdomains:
Virtual domain: butterflysoft.org:ryan
defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does.
My qmail rc file says:
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start "`cat /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery`"
and defaultdelivery says:
./Mailbox splogger qmail
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and hubris,
but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> You must have a misconfiguration, please show the (unedited) output of
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-showctl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Marsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 3:44 PM
> To: Peter Farmer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
>
>
> I have other users on the sytem. Mail sent to them bounces too. What's the
> simplest way to configure delivery from outside (SMTP) to a local user?
>
> Regards,
> -ryan
>
> The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and
hubris,
> but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
>
>
> > Ryan,
> >
> > Read INSTALL.alias, inparticular the section that starts
> >
> > * root. Under qmail, root never receives mail.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > Peter Farmer
> > Systems Engineer
> > blueyonder
> > ICQ - 55297879
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ryan Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:47 AM
> > Subject: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> >
> >
> > > I've been fsking with qmail for a week now trying to get it to deliver
> > > locally. I've read every piece of documentation available, yet, when I
> > > use qmail-inject or qmail-local. Nothing shows up in the user's
> > > mailboxes (i.e. /root/Mailbox). When I send email by telneting to port
> > > 25 on the mail server, mail just bounces:
> > >
> > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
> > > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> > > addresses.
> > > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
> > >
> > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
> > >
> > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Received: (qmail 9454 invoked from
> > > network); 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34 -0000
> > > Received: from cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net (HELO )
> > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net with
SMTP;
> > > 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34
> > > -0000
> > > test
> > >
> > >
> > > My /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery says:
> > > ./Mailbox splogger qmail
> > >
> > > None of the users have .qmail files in their directories so
> > > theoretically it should just create a ~/Mailbox. I tried creating
> > > .qmail's for each user. That didn't work either.
> > >
> > > Right now these are running
> > > 9428 ? 00:00:00 qmail-send
> > > 9431 ? 00:00:00 qmail-lspawn
> > > 9432 ? 00:00:00 qmail-rspawn
> > > 9433 ? 00:00:00 qmail-clean
> > >
> > > Attached is the output of qmail-showctl.
> > >
> > > Butterflysoft.org has already been moved over to this server.
> > > Ryanmarsh.com is really pointing to a different server but in this
> > > instance im running my own DNS which resolves to my server (where I
will
> > > eventually move my domain if I can get qmail to work). I tried
emailing
> > > users at both domains and root at both domains.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > -ryan
> > >
> > > The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience,
> > > and hubris, but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> > >
>
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0800, Ryan Marsh wrote:
> virtualdomains:
> Virtual domain: butterflysoft.org:ryan
Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be controlled by ~ryan/.qmail-whoever or
~ryan/.qmail-default. Does at least one of these files exist?
Chris
I created .qmail-default in /home/ryan. The file says "./Mailbox". But still
I get bounced mail
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and hubris,
but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0800, Ryan Marsh wrote:
> > virtualdomains:
> > Virtual domain: butterflysoft.org:ryan
>
> Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be controlled by ~ryan/.qmail-whoever
or
> ~ryan/.qmail-default. Does at least one of these files exist?
>
> Chris
Even more wierd, why is qmail 0wnZ0rIng :-) the files in my home. here is
ls -la /home/ryan
drwx------ 3 501 nofiles 4096 Feb 2 07:50 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Dec 20 16:04 ..
-rw------- 1 ryan qmail 71 Dec 19 10:15 .bash_history
-rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 24 Dec 19 07:58 .bash_logout
-rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 230 Dec 19 07:58 .bash_profile
-rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 124 Dec 19 07:58 .bashrc
drwxr-xr-x 3 ryan qmail 4096 Dec 19 07:58 .kde
-rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 321 Dec 19 07:58 .kderc
-rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 3651 Dec 19 07:58 .screenrc
-rw------- 1 ryan qmail 401 Dec 19 08:00 .viminfo
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and hubris,
but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> I created .qmail-default in /home/ryan. The file says "./Mailbox". But
still
> I get bounced mail
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.
>
> Regards,
> -ryan
>
> The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and
hubris,
> but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
>
>
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0800, Ryan Marsh wrote:
> > > virtualdomains:
> > > Virtual domain: butterflysoft.org:ryan
> >
> > Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be controlled by
~ryan/.qmail-whoever
> or
> > ~ryan/.qmail-default. Does at least one of these files exist?
> >
> > Chris
Ok, so I deleted the user's home and recreated it and now everything works
fine. I have no idea why everything got so messed up. Why would qmail chgrp
the files?
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and hubris,
but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> Even more wierd, why is qmail 0wnZ0rIng :-) the files in my home. here is
> ls -la /home/ryan
>
> drwx------ 3 501 nofiles 4096 Feb 2 07:50 .
> drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Dec 20 16:04 ..
> -rw------- 1 ryan qmail 71 Dec 19 10:15 .bash_history
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 24 Dec 19 07:58 .bash_logout
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 230 Dec 19 07:58 .bash_profile
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 124 Dec 19 07:58 .bashrc
> drwxr-xr-x 3 ryan qmail 4096 Dec 19 07:58 .kde
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 321 Dec 19 07:58 .kderc
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan qmail 3651 Dec 19 07:58 .screenrc
> -rw------- 1 ryan qmail 401 Dec 19 08:00 .viminfo
>
> Regards,
> -ryan
>
> The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and
hubris,
> but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
>
>
> > I created .qmail-default in /home/ryan. The file says "./Mailbox". But
> still
> > I get bounced mail
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -ryan
> >
> > The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience, and
> hubris,
> > but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Ryan Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0800, Ryan Marsh wrote:
> > > > virtualdomains:
> > > > Virtual domain: butterflysoft.org:ryan
> > >
> > > Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be controlled by
> ~ryan/.qmail-whoever
> > or
> > > ~ryan/.qmail-default. Does at least one of these files exist?
> > >
> > > Chris
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 03:03:42PM -0800, Ryan Marsh wrote:
> Why would qmail chgrp the files?
It didn't.
Chris
Maybe I'm missing something then. Why did that directory listing show
qmail as owning some?
On 02 Feb 2001 21:39:07 -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 03:03:42PM -0800, Ryan Marsh wrote:
> > Why would qmail chgrp the files?
>
> It didn't.
>
> Chris
--
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience,
and hubris, but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
Hejsan,
The second prerelease of oMail-webmail 0.95 is ready to be downloaded!
Main changes since last release in Novemeber 2000:
* important bugfix in omail-prefs.pl (cut'n'paste error)
* update from german lang file [mz]
* little bugfix with timestamp conversion [Alan Low]
* applied patch from [ddb] solving some tainting problem
* applied patch from [sk] about attachments
* applied big patch from [sk] about japanese support
* improved INSTALL informations a bit [om]
You will find more infos about this software, as well as an
online demo on http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about
(version of the demo = currently 0.94, will be updated.)
Download:
http://download.sourceforge.net/oMail/omail-webmail-0.95pre2.tar.gz
Other URL's: (cvs, releases, etc)
http://freshmeat.net/projects/omail-webmail/
If you are interested to help, fell free to get the files from the
anonymous CVS, and you are welcome on the devel mailing list.
There are currently 2 mailing lists :
- omail-news : read-only announce mailing list (for new
release announces)
>>> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/omail-news <<<
- omail-devel : public mailing list for devel & support.
>>> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/omail-devel <<<
Thanks a lot for all the people who sent me patches (check the CREDITS
file!) emails and comments these last months! I'm using omail-webmail
and omail-admin on about 10 linux qmail+vmailmgr+qmail-scanner
servers, and (at least for the moment) everybody is happy :)
Kind regards,
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
PGP signature
After I got this email on the list I sent an email to sendmail.org
asking for some supporting material to their website's claim of
sendmail powering "the vast majority" of email servers. They replied
with the mail that I'm including below as their response.
Seems to me that sendmail.org has decided to redefine the word
"majority" as being 40% instead of more than half like Webster's
unabridged dictionary. (Kind of reminds you of a big computer
company redefining standards eh? But I won't mention microsoft with
that thought.) By the survey they reference that sendmail runs on
41% of mail servers, but they still call that a majority.
Then of course they include a bunch of company propaganda and
advertising stuff.
I've CC:'d this to the sendmail employee that replied so he knows
that I've forwarded his reply to the qmail list and maybe he can
explain to all of us the difference between 41% and "vast majority".
On 13 Jan 2001 22:16:34 -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>I've set up a web page to combat Sendmail Inc.'s false advertising on
>this topic: http://cr.yp.to/surveys/sendmail.html
>
>Sendmail dropped below 50% of the Internet's SMTP servers---including
>idle workstations---last year; qmail has climbed past 10%. I suspect
>that qmail now handles more Internet mail deliveries than Sendmail does,
>although I don't know a good way to measure this.
Here's what I sent to sendmail.org:
> Your website claims that sendmail powers the "vast majority" of
> internet SMTP servers. I'm curious how you determined that and if
> you have the results of such a survey available.
And here's the reply I got from them:
Sirana Survey Puts Sendmail Way Out in Front
Checking the brand name of 513,797 Internet mail servers, company
finds 41
percent using sendmail, 15.7 percent using Ipswitch IMail, and 9.4
percent
using Microsoft Exchange Server as their external Internet mail
server.
Jan. 25, 2000
Sirana Software has released what it calls the most extensive survey
of
Internet mail servers ever compiled. In the dot-com domain, 38
percent of
the mail servers support sendmail, while 20 percent support Ipswitch
Imail
Server. Microsoft Exchange Server had around an 11 percent share, and
no
other product was in the double digits.
The shareware package sendmail, predominantly the current version
8.9.3,
had more than half the mail servers found in the (net) domain, with
Ipswitch second at 14 percent and Microsoft out of the money with 5
percent. Sendmail had 42 percent of the (org) domain, 43 percent of
the
Canada (ca) domain, 45 percent of the Germany (de) domain, and 37
percent
of the Australia (au) domain. Microsoft and Ipswitch trailed by wide
margins in each case.
Over in the U.S. military's (mil) domain, the story was quite the
opposite. Exchange had a 32 percent share, and sendmail had only 14
percent. However, fully 23 percent came up in the Sirana survey as
unknown. Novell, Lotus, Netscape, and Software.com were all at one
percent
or below.
Entire Internet
Across the entire Internet, sendmail had a 41 percent share. Ipswitch
had
16 percent and Exchange had 9 percent. Nothing else was higher than 4
percent. This survey of course counts mail servers as its unit -- not
email users -- but it ranks the major players in a rather different
order
than one might expect.
Vendor Hosts Percent
Sendmail 210,902 41.0%
Ipswitch 80,721 15.7%
Microsoft 48,362 9.4%
Qmail 19,802 3.9%
Software.com 18,058 3.5%
Gordano Ltd 17,228 3.4%
Unknown 16,851 3.3%
Lotus 6,924 1.3%
Eudora 6,832 1.3%
Novell 6,802 1.3%
NetWin 6,263 1.2%
Netscape 6,216 1.2%
Checkpoint Software Technologies 5,399 1.1%
Seattle Lab 4,973 1.0%
Exim.org 4,957 1.0%
Others 53,507 10%
Total: 513,797 100%
Source: Sirana Software
http://www.sirana.com/smtp/results.asp
Annual Year-End Survey
It's once again time for Messaging Today to gather reports and
statistics
from the messaging industry, working towards the publication of a
Dec. 31,
1999 installed base report by month's end. That process already has
started. Recently, Messaging Today checked in with Rockliffe Inc., as
it
prepares to launch MailSite 4 next month. The company is making a
major
bet that ISPs and ASPs can be coaxed away from sendmail to a
commercial
platform, and from Unix to Windows 2000. It's not just MailSite
that's
used as bait, it's also all the other applications and tools that
work
with the Windows NT family that the company hopes will attract
service
providers.
New Version Next Month
MailSite(3) is in use at some 2,000 customer sites, with a total of
around
2.5 million users, according to company president John Davies. He
said the
launch of this newest version is scheduled for mid-February, to
coincide
with the Feb. 17 launch of Windows 2000 and the Feb. 15-17 ISPCON
Europe
2000 show in London. He said the major enhancements over version 3,
released last march, are in the areas of Webmail and scalability.
"We've been able to achieve better scalability through integration
with
SQL server databases," Davies said, "and also by adding in some code
to
support clustering. We designed it so you can start with two nodes,
and
you should be able to take it up to four, eight, or ten machines. You
can
host a single domain over multiple MailSite machines."
The user directory can be run on one machine, using a centralized SQL
Server 7 database. The message store can run on another machine,
optimized
for high volumes of file reads and writes. Then multiple machines can
be
run as MailSite application nodes. This architecture, Davies said,
has
already scaled up to half a million users, and can probably go to a
million users. The architecture gets around some of the high-volume
filing
problems of the Windows NT filing system by using a Network Appliance
Inc.
file server for the message store function. In that way, he said he
can
get the reliability and scalability of Unix at NT prices.
Looking for Non-Unix ISPs
"We're targeting high-end service providers. We're competing with
Unix
solutions, and with other NT solutions. And we think we have some
advantages on both," Davies said. Large and established ISPs still
prefer
Unix, but if they're starting small and want to scale along with
traffic,
or if they want Webmail along with POP3 client access, Davies said
they
might find MailSite attractive. If they plan on getting to a million
users
in no time, they'll probably use a Unix solution. But only a handful
are
that ambitious about their own growth, and only a few dozen have ever
gotten that big.
Application Service Providers (ASPs), however, seem more receptive to
Windows NT, he said, because they usually set up their clients one
per
machine, and NT has a lower cost for that type of configuration.
Also, he
said the ASPs find it easier to pick from the array of applications
available for NT, and then to integrate them into the server for a
customer.
What Davies said he hopes also will attract ASPs and ISPs is the
simplicity of the new MailSite Express Webmail interface, which is
both
easy to customize and feature-rich, given its avoidance of Java,
JavaScript, and ActiveX controls. The Webmail interface looks and
feels
like Hotmail, but it also supports folders, address books,
forwarding,
changing passwords, and updating your own directory entry. It uses
the
IMAP protocol to talk to MailSite, so all messages remain stored on
the
server. That way, a user can switch from Webmail to an Outlook client
without missing any messages. If they read them on a borrowed Webmail
connection and don't delete them, they can read them again using
Outlook,
saving a copy locally.
Webmail-to-Outlook Contact Synch
The MailSite Express online address book can import and export
contacts
from an Outlook client, so users can travel with their name and
number
lists stored in their Webmail interface, reachable through any Web
browser. Davies said Rockliffe wrote an Outlook service provider that
adds
a new button to the Outlook toolbar. When the button is pressed, the
utility displays lists of the MailSite Express and Outlook contacts.
Users
can synchronize them in either direction. Customizing the interface
to
suit an ISP's look and feel is a process of editing three files,
Davies
said. Pricing will be around $1 per user.
2000 Messaging Online, Inc.
Stephen Berg
//- USAF Instructor -/- Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer -//
//- Home = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
//- Work = [EMAIL PROTECTED] -//
//- http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/ -/- http://www.3c0x1.com -//
Stephen Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems to me that sendmail.org has decided to redefine the word
> "majority" as being 40% instead of more than half like Webster's
> unabridged dictionary.
Technically they have a plurality, not a majority, if you believe these
figures -- which I don't. 41% for sendmail, 3.9% for qmail? There must
be an awful lot of microscopes running sendmail (see last RISKS for reference).
Although Dan doesn't exactly qualify as a disinterested observer, his surveys
appear to be more rigorous than the undisclosed methodology used in this
marketing survey.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
visit www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/
there is a very nice documentation available at this url written by henning
hope this helps
prashant desai
----- Original Message -----
From: dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:17 AM
Subject: qmail with qmail-ldap patch ?
> Hi all...
>
> Being a newbie to qmail and ldap I am wondering if there is a qmail with
the
> qmail-ldap patch already applied.
>
