qmail Digest 13 Apr 2001 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1333
Topics (messages 60641 through 60685):
qmail error
60641 by: Abu Arqam
60642 by: Gerrit Pape
Re: A strange behavior.
60643 by: Koh Sato
qmail
60644 by: mauro.costantini.inwind.it
60655 by: Kurth Bemis
Where is tai64nfrac
60645 by: Tom Vandeplas
60646 by: japc.sl.pt
SMTP 554: Invalid data in message
60647 by: esl
Re: CNAME lookup failed
60648 by: Johan Almqvist
Re: qmail rewrite in progress
60649 by: Russell Nelson
isoqlog 1.5 stable is available
60650 by: Ismail YENIGUL
qmail and mailforwarding
60651 by: Jurrien Wijlhuizen
60654 by: Tim Legant
help me
60652 by: andi
60653 by: japc.sl.pt
Re: defaultdelivery method seperate from /var/qmail/rc ?
60656 by: Dave Sill
Re: /usr/local/sbin/qmail: No such file or directory
60657 by: Dave Sill
Re: Again on "Mail-Follow-Up" plus other...
60658 by: Dave Sill
60669 by: Marco Calistri
60671 by: Marco Calistri
xinetd, tcpwrappers and qmail
60659 by: John Evans
60660 by: Dave Sill
60661 by: Tim Hunter
RFCs?
60662 by: David Benfell
60663 by: Brian Reichert
60664 by: Dave Sill
60682 by: Peter van Dijk
Something I'm missing here...
60665 by: Andrew Apold
60666 by: Dave Sill
60667 by: Andrew Apold
60668 by: Willy De la Court
qmail in null client configuration!
60670 by: Gerhard Mourani
60683 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: Another newsletter question..
60672 by: Nick (Keith) Fish
60684 by: Peter van Dijk
Wrong hostname in locals file
60673 by: Steven Katz
60674 by: Greg White
Re: supervise scripts error
60675 by: Carl Jeptha
User Interface for Autoresponder
60676 by: Bill Luckett
60677 by: Nick (Keith) Fish
clustering
60678 by: Brett
60685 by: Peter van Dijk
Best qmail patches for hosting email for many domains
60679 by: Qmail
60681 by: Rick Updegrove
autoresponder Aack,_child_crashed._(#4.3.0)
60680 by: Norbert Veber
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 use qmail and vpopmail and I get some messages :
Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.344673 info msg 34249: bytes 342 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1060 uid 48
Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.355083 starting delivery 62: msg 34249
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.355846 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.359370 delivery 62: deferral:
Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7.0)/
Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.360131 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
What happen with my qmail program, can you help me ?
Thank's
Abu Arqam
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:01:26PM +0700, Abu Arqam wrote:
> I use qmail and vpopmail and I get some messages :
> Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.344673 info msg 34249: bytes 342 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1060 uid 48
> Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.355083 starting delivery 62: msg 34249
> to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.355846 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> Apr 12 16:50:27 ns1 qmail: 987069027.359370 delivery 62: deferral:
> Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7.0)/
That error message tells You all, refer to dot-qmail(5):
If .qmail has the execute bit set, it must not contain any
program lines, mbox lines, or maildir lines. If qmail-
local sees any such lines, it will stop and indicate a
temporary failure.
# chmod -x ~/.qmail
should solve it.
Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
Thanks again. Sorry for my delayed response.
I am also sorry that I don't append the output of
qmail-showctl, since I am not sure whether I am authorized
to do that.
>> Are you enabling selective relaying on smtp2? If so, are you setting
>> RELAYCLIENT to "smpt2.my.domain"?
I even don't know what exactly selective relaying is, but all that
I editied are control/locals and control/rcpthosts of smtp2, both of
them now contain FQDN of smpt2 and the name of the domain which
smtp2 belongs to. (i.e., 'smtp2.my.domain' and 'my.domain', separated
by a newline.)
I also found by connecting from smtp1 (or other hosts in the domain)
to smtp2's port 25 via telnet that even sending a message to
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' causes the error. (smtp2 tries to send it to
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.) But I have also confirmed that
smpt2 accepts the messages to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' if it was sent from other
domains.
# This may not be important, but smtp2 is an NetBSD box. (NetBSD 1.5)
Since it is only used as the secondary server, it is not a major problem
yet. But of cause I am going to study about this by myself, too.
-
Koh Sato
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi at all
I installed qmail as lwq said.
when i try to connect to port 25 i recive nothinks .
It means that i don't recieve any error .
i see the connection typing netstat -a but don't recive the server presentation .
cheers
Mauro
make sure that you have all your DNS stuff running correctly. this is
impearitive......also check you /var/log/qmail/smtp logs....they may yeild
something.
~kurth
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:48:36 +0200
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: qmail
>
> hi at all
> I installed qmail as lwq said.
> when i try to connect to port 25 i recive nothinks .
> It means that i don't recieve any error .
> i see the connection typing netstat -a but don't recive the server presentation .
> cheers
> Mauro
>
>
Hi,
I tried downloading tai64nfrac by using the link supplied on the qmail-page,
but the page isn't available.
Anybody got tips where to get it ?
Thx
For instance at:
http://sunsite.dk/qmail/tai64nfrac
or
http://qmail.sst.com.br/tai64nfrac
Best regards.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 04:59:36PM +0200, Tom Vandeplas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried downloading tai64nfrac by using the link supplied on the qmail-page,
> but the page isn't available.
>
> Anybody got tips where to get it ?
>
> Thx
>
>
>
--
Jose Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning I read the obituaries; if my name's not there,
I go to work."
Hello,
I got this error when delivering to another mail server:
> Remote host said: 554 Invalid data in message
What is this and what is causing it? Any hints or anything (RFCs?) that
I should read to figure this out?
TIA.
LLU
* "Thum Chee Weng, Ronnie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010410 07:33]:
> It's for all the domains i sent emails to including hotmail.com, yahoo.com,
> jaring.my and even my own domain, asiatravelmart.com
> > whose DNS is at fault ?
> Unless you don't tell us which domain it is about, we can't tell either.
[stupid outlook-style quoting]
That would suggest that your DNS is broken. An efficient way to fix this
(and avoid other problems) is to install dnscache from djbdns. Start at
http://cr.yp.to or http://www.djbdns.org/
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Dave Sill writes:
> In comp.security.unix, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, DJB wrote:
> >A complete rewrite is in progress. Several pieces have already been
> >released. In the meantime, the current qmail version works.
>
> I wonder what pieces he's referring to. Maybe daemontools and
> ucspi-tcp?
djbdns has the resolver library that qmail 2.0 will use. That's why
he wrote djbdns -- because the bind resolver library is so
bletcherous. And daemontools (svscan, /service, multilog) is part of
it. So is mess822. So is ucspi-tcp.
--
-russ nelson will be speaking at http://www.osdn.com/conferences/brie/
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | T-568-B rules!
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | T-568-A drools!
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Go T-568-B !
hi i released isoqlog 1.5 stable
what is new :
-Version 1.5 Stable 12 April 2001
- 0 MB problem corrected . if your domains incoming total byte is less
than 1MB , it will be printed as a KB
-Full Language Support has been added
-Strange "<" characters has been removed :)
-Portuguese language support has been added (Thanks to Edson Lima Monteiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> )
you can download newest version at http://www.enderunix.org/isoqlog
byee
Ismail YENIGUL
http://www.enderunix.org
http://yenigul.net
Hi all,
At the moment I'm trying to migrate from Sendmail to qmail because I
would like to have a more consistent serverfarm. There is only one thing
I'm unable to fix with qmail.
I've got a couple of domains of customers who have their MX records only
pointing to our SMTP servers. Our SMTP servers just relaying their mail
to their own SMTP server. The reason for this setup is safety. A wannabe
hacker only sees our SMTP servers and not the poorly configured
Microsoft Exchange server of our customers.
In Sendmail I'm using the /etc/mail/mailertable feature like:
customer.com relay:[192.168.1.2]
or
customer.com relay:[mail.customer.com]
Sendmail will send the email directly to 192.168.1.2 or
mail.customer.com, regardless the MX records of those hostnames.
In qmail the only way I find out how to do it, is adding a MX record to
the DNS or using QMTP. Both solutions aren't possible as you noticed. So
I was wondering if qmail is able to do this.
--
Best regards,
Jurrien Wijlhuizen
Systemadministrator
............................................................
G U T S Digital Communications BV
Gyroscoopweg 50 1042 AC Amsterdam
Tel 020.799 GUTS (020.799 4887) Fax 020.799 4888
www.guts.nl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
............................................................
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 06:48:29PM +0200, Jurrien Wijlhuizen wrote:
> In qmail the only way I find out how to do it, is adding a MX record to
> the DNS or using QMTP. Both solutions aren't possible as you noticed. So
> I was wondering if qmail is able to do this.
man qmail-remote
See the CONTROL FILES section, specifically the "smtproutes" file.
Tim
may i know , where i can found document about
how to change mailbox format to Maildir.
thanks before
andi hari
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 11:59:13PM +0700, andi wrote:
>
> may i know , where i can found document about
> how to change mailbox format to Maildir.
>
>
http://www.qmail.org
> thanks before
>
>
You're welcome, but next time search the mailing list
(http://www-archive.ornl.gov:8000) before asking.
>
> andi hari
>
--
Jose Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning I read the obituaries; if my name's not there,
I go to work."
"Steven Katz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why does Life with qmail suggest separating the defaultdelivery from
>the /var/qmail/rc file? The advantage isn't obvious to me.
If defaultdelvery is just "./Maildir/" or some other simple one-liner,
there's not much advantage other than putting all the configuration
settings in one place.
But since defaultdelivery is a .qmail file, it can be quite
complicated--multiple lines--and embedding a *file* in a single
command line argument is messy. Putting it in a separate file also
removes shell quoting problems.
-Dave
"Steven Katz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I get the following message when running any part of /usr/local/sbin/qmail
>
> /usr/local/sbin/qmail: No such file or directory
See:
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge_base/view.phtml/aid/1200/fid/223
>I don't appear to have /var/run/svscan.pid, though I've gone over the
>daemontools installation a few times already..
Do "mkdir /var/run" before starting qmail the first time.
-Dave
Marco Calistri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...here my file contents:
>
>[ik5bcu@linux ik5bcu]$ cat .lists
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Then I can show you the latest message's header I received from that M.L.:
>#---
>XF-Source: ik5bcu
>X-RDate: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:18:54 +0200 (CEST)
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[snipped]
>From: Criss74 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [angolinux] ide-scsi e Mdk 7.2
>#---
>As you can see this M.L. is using qmail and ezmlm!!
You misunderstand. The Mail-Followup-To field will only be added by
qmail-inject to messages *you* send *to* the list--not all messages
you receive from the list.
>Another very annoying line is the X-Fetchmail-Warning that I'm unable
>to wipe away.
That's a fetchmail issue.
-Dave
On 12-Apr-2001 Tim Legant wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 02:19:12AM +0200, Marco Calistri wrote:
>> Great!= Tim you guess the problem:XFMail actually uses SMTP,
>> and sincerly I ignored completely that Mail-Follow-Up can't
>> works with SMTP;however XFMail can works with sendmail too
>> which was the default setting...
>>
>> if I would choice to use the symbolic link to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail
>> (I've completely wiped away original SENDMAIL from disk)
>> would I have some worsing performances respect to use qmail via SMTP?
>
> Nothing that you'd notice. And you'd gain the benefit of QMAILMFTFILE.
>
> Tim
Hello Tim,using XFMail with symbolic link to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail
produced the expected "Mail-Follow-Up" into message headers.
---
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 10606 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 00:26:54 -0000
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.7p2 on Linux
---
But using sendmail link,
now I get a new problem (may be caused by setting sender to this domain?)
some mail servers do not accept my domain because it is not public:
---
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at linux.ik5bcu.ampr.org.
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]>:
Connected to 199.183.24.194 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 553 5.4.3 For MAIL FROM address
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the policy analysis reports DNS error with your
source domain.
---
TKS!
--
Regards,: Marco Calistri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
gpg key available on http://www.qsl.net/ik5bcu
Xfmail 1.4.7p2 on linux RedHat 6.2
On 12-Apr-2001 Dave Sill wrote:
> Marco Calistri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>...here my file contents:
>>
>>[ik5bcu@linux ik5bcu]$ cat .lists
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Then I can show you the latest message's header I received from that M.L.:
>>#---
>>XF-Source: ik5bcu
>>X-RDate: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:18:54 +0200 (CEST)
>>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>[snipped]
>>From: Criss74 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [angolinux] ide-scsi e Mdk 7.2
>>#---
>>As you can see this M.L. is using qmail and ezmlm!!
>
> You misunderstand. The Mail-Followup-To field will only be added by
> qmail-inject to messages *you* send *to* the list--not all messages
> you receive from the list.
>
>>Another very annoying line is the X-Fetchmail-Warning that I'm unable
>>to wipe away.
>
> That's a fetchmail issue.
>
> -Dave
Thanks Dave,now things appear more clear and Tim Legant guessed
exactly the reasons why M-F-U was not injected.
Now that it works I don't remember why I want to add such line,
considering that my Mail Client doesn't interpret or see it (!!)
Now I should resolve the problem that some mailing list do not
accept my MAILFROM that appear as an unknow domain.
--
Regards,: Marco Calistri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
gpg key available on http://www.qsl.net/ik5bcu
Xfmail 1.4.7p2 on linux RedHat 6.2
I've read through the archives and I'm still having problems with allowing
selective relaying. Here are the settings that I am using:
-------- /etc/xinetd.conf
defaults
{
log_type = FILE /var/log/servicelog
log_on_success = HOST PID EXIT DURATION
log_on_failure = HOST RECORD
}
service smtp
{
socket_type = stream
wait = no
protocol = tcp
user = qmaild
group = nofiles
flags = REUSE NAMEINARGS
server = /usr/sbin/tcpd
server_args = /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env -R
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
}
--------
-------- hosts.allow
tcp-env: LOCAL, .foo.org, .foo.com: setenv RELAYCLIENT
--------
When I attempt to send mail from localhost (via SMTP) or from an allowed
domain, I alway receive the message:
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Of course, mail going to my rcpthosts works just fine...
I am missing something in my settings, but I just can't find what it is.
I tried using tcpserver and that worked for allowing selective relaying, but
connections to any port from systems other than localhost usually took 30-45
seconds between getting the socket and getting the banner from the server.
There is no tcpserver mailing list that I could find and none of the man pages
or online documenation told me how to fix this problem. Please don't suggest
that I use tcpserver to resove this issue because it introduces larger
problems.
Thank you!
--
John Evans
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
John Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am missing something in my settings, but I just can't find what it is.
What you're missing is that you should be using tcpserver.
>I tried using tcpserver and that worked for allowing selective relaying, but
>connections to any port from systems other than localhost usually took 30-45
>seconds between getting the socket and getting the banner from the server.
This is the MFAQ (Most Frequently Asked Question) on this list. See:
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html
And note the -R, -H, and -l options.
>There is no tcpserver mailing list that I could find and none of the man pages
>or online documenation told me how to fix this problem. Please don't suggest
>that I use tcpserver to resove this issue because it introduces larger
>problems.
Nonsense. tcpserver instroduces no problems whatsoever.
-Dave
I will suggest tcpserver since it is the "proper" and recommend way of
running qmail, and probably 95% of your support on this list will come with
tcpserver related answers.
The reason you were getting 30+ second responses is due to DNS not setup or
resolving properly. You can get around it by adding "-l 0 -R" to your
tcpserver flags.
It is a very very FAQ.
-- Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: John Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: xinetd, tcpwrappers and qmail
I've read through the archives and I'm still having problems with allowing
selective relaying. Here are the settings that I am using:
-------- /etc/xinetd.conf
defaults
{
log_type = FILE /var/log/servicelog
log_on_success = HOST PID EXIT DURATION
log_on_failure = HOST RECORD
}
service smtp
{
socket_type = stream
wait = no
protocol = tcp
user = qmaild
group = nofiles
flags = REUSE NAMEINARGS
server = /usr/sbin/tcpd
server_args = /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env -R
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
}
--------
-------- hosts.allow
tcp-env: LOCAL, .foo.org, .foo.com: setenv RELAYCLIENT
--------
When I attempt to send mail from localhost (via SMTP) or from an allowed
domain, I alway receive the message:
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
Of course, mail going to my rcpthosts works just fine...
I am missing something in my settings, but I just can't find what it is.
I tried using tcpserver and that worked for allowing selective relaying, but
connections to any port from systems other than localhost usually took 30-45
seconds between getting the socket and getting the banner from the server.
There is no tcpserver mailing list that I could find and none of the man
pages
or online documenation told me how to fix this problem. Please don't suggest
that I use tcpserver to resove this issue because it introduces larger
problems.
Thank you!
--
John Evans
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Hello all,
Damn. This is going to sound like a troll. And I don't know how to
avoid that short of not asking the question.
I keep hearing rumblings about how Dan plays fast and loose with the
RFCs in qmail and his other programs. All I know is I'm a happy qmail
(and djbdns and publicfile and ezmlm+idx) user. It all works for me.
I do a Google search and it seems I have to go back a very long ways
(mostly to mailing list postings dated in 1999) to find much griping
about this. For the most part, I don't see any specific complaints
about Qmail not being RFC-compliant, just articles of faith that it
isn't. Forgive me for finding these stunningly unimpressive.
There is something about an SMTP SIZE command.
I found Evan Champion ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) saying, "Interesting how
when qmail doesn't meet one set of "standards", it is an awful MTA,
but when it is one of the rare few that meets another set (immensely
more important IMHO), it is shrugged off as inconsequential."
Continuing on, I find Greg Andrews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who seems to have
reduced one claim of RFC non-compliance to an Outlook Express bug at
http://www.cm.nu/~shane/lists/comp.mail.sendmail/2001-01/0301.html
At http://www.tks.buffalo.edu/usg/Public/Qmail/qmail-upgrade.0.html, I
find:
6. Unlike sendmail, qmail-inject doesn't replace host
names with canonical names. Example: qmail-inject
won't change [EMAIL PROTECTED] in your
header to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The send-
mail documentation claims that qmail-inject's behavior
is illegal under RFC 822 and RFC 1123; that claim is
based on a questionable interpretation of an ambiguous
phrase in RFC 822. Besides, do you want to have host-
names changed behind your back?
In http://www.gnus.org/list-archives/ding/199912/msg00745.html ,
Stainless Steel Rat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes, "Rewriting
headers of an RFC 822 message for canonicity is a good thing. But if
a message is not an RFC 822 message, qmail-inject has absolutely no
grounds for turning it into an RFC 822 message. And even then,
rewriting To and Cc is a Really Bad Idea because it can and eventually
will cause mail not to be delivered properly (see my response to Kai's
message for some details)."
Next, I find
http://list.nessus.org/listarch-nessus/1999-05/msg00096.html , which
seems more like a rant than anything else. The start of the thread
there sheds little light for me. It has something to do with qmail
replying with a 250 message, appearing to allow relaying, when in
fact it doesn't deliver the message. (Is this somehow related to the
ORBS nuttiness?)
There are some interesting notes at
http://vader.kootenay.net/qmail/misc/THOUGHTS.html The stuff that's
clearly identified as having to do with RFCs looks like it's okay.
But I don't know enough about the RFCs to see if anything else there
is related.
Robert Banz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) says, "the author [DJB] has been
known to 'scoff' at the thought of RFC compliance (from Lisa '98)" in
http://linux.umbc.edu/lug-mailing-list/1999-04/msg00096.html , but
again, this isn't specific, at all.
Michael H. Warfield ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) wrote in
http://mlarchive.ima.com/linux-net/1999/3174.html , "qmail:obtuse
code, difficult to debug, requires special utilities to work on spool
files, binary data in spool files, spool file names linked to inode
numbers, random brain farts, poor error recovery, some non-compliance
to RFC's, obstinant author who refuses to recognize when he has a bug
(from personal experience)." Again, no specifics relating to RFCs.
So, I give up. I'm guessing other MTA's have at least as many real,
documented issues with RFC compliance as qmail. And I only see a
couple things that might be important. Am I wrong? What's the deal?
--
David Benfell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html
PGP signature
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 11:44:10AM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Damn. This is going to sound like a troll. And I don't know how to
> avoid that short of not asking the question.
>
> I keep hearing rumblings about how Dan plays fast and loose with the
> RFCs in qmail and his other programs. All I know is I'm a happy qmail
> (and djbdns and publicfile and ezmlm+idx) user. It all works for me.
The only other thing I recall someone bitching about is that he
invented a new header field 'Delivered-To', wherein the
convention/standard (when you are inventing such things) is to
prepend them with an 'X-', ie: 'X-Delivered'To'.
> --
> David Benfell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
> Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html
--
Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
37 Crystal Ave. #303 Daytime number: (603) 434-6842
Derry NH 03038-1713 USA Intel architecture: the left-hand path
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 11:44:10AM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
>>
>> I keep hearing rumblings about how Dan plays fast and loose with the
>> RFCs in qmail and his other programs. All I know is I'm a happy qmail
>> (and djbdns and publicfile and ezmlm+idx) user. It all works for me.
>
>The only other thing I recall someone bitching about is that he
>invented a new header field 'Delivered-To', wherein the
>convention/standard (when you are inventing such things) is to
>prepend them with an 'X-', ie: 'X-Delivered'To'.
That's not a standard.
One thing DJB does thumb his nose at is the RFC821 prohibition against
transmitting 8-bit characters. Chicken Little notwithstanding, the sky
remains intact.
Standards are great but they shouldn't be followed blindly.
-Dave
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 11:44:10AM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> Continuing on, I find Greg Andrews ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who seems to have
> reduced one claim of RFC non-compliance to an Outlook Express bug at
> http://www.cm.nu/~shane/lists/comp.mail.sendmail/2001-01/0301.html
True. qmail deals with RFC821, not 822, except for qmail-inject.
> 6. Unlike sendmail, qmail-inject doesn't replace host
> names with canonical names. Example: qmail-inject
> won't change [EMAIL PROTECTED] in your
> header to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The send-
> mail documentation claims that qmail-inject's behavior
> is illegal under RFC 822 and RFC 1123; that claim is
> based on a questionable interpretation of an ambiguous
> phrase in RFC 822. Besides, do you want to have host-
> names changed behind your back?
Indeed, sendmail even does this stuff behind your back on
SMTP-injected mail. I call that a bug.
> In http://www.gnus.org/list-archives/ding/199912/msg00745.html ,
> Stainless Steel Rat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes, "Rewriting
> headers of an RFC 822 message for canonicity is a good thing. But if
> a message is not an RFC 822 message, qmail-inject has absolutely no
> grounds for turning it into an RFC 822 message. And even then,
> rewriting To and Cc is a Really Bad Idea because it can and eventually
> will cause mail not to be delivered properly (see my response to Kai's
> message for some details)."
Rewriting headers is not a good thing. Remember that :)
> Next, I find
> http://list.nessus.org/listarch-nessus/1999-05/msg00096.html , which
> seems more like a rant than anything else. The start of the thread
> there sheds little light for me. It has something to do with qmail
> replying with a 250 message, appearing to allow relaying, when in
> fact it doesn't deliver the message. (Is this somehow related to the
> ORBS nuttiness?)
The thread talks about how qmail accepts a message for, for example,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if the server is configured to accept
vuurwerk.nl. Some broken tools then consider a qmail box to be an open
relay, which is a mistake. qmail accepts the address because it was
configured that way. 'peter%dataloss.net' can very well be a valid
local username. This trick can not ever be used for relaying (except
when you configure percenthack too, but I've never done that).
> There are some interesting notes at
> http://vader.kootenay.net/qmail/misc/THOUGHTS.html The stuff that's
> clearly identified as having to do with RFCs looks like it's okay.
> But I don't know enough about the RFCs to see if anything else there
> is related.
That is actually straight from the qmail docs.
> Michael H. Warfield ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) wrote in
> http://mlarchive.ima.com/linux-net/1999/3174.html , "qmail:obtuse
> code, difficult to debug, requires special utilities to work on spool
> files, binary data in spool files, spool file names linked to inode
> numbers, random brain farts, poor error recovery, some non-compliance
> to RFC's, obstinant author who refuses to recognize when he has a bug
> (from personal experience)." Again, no specifics relating to RFCs.
Let's see.
- obtuse code: matter of taste. I like djb's coding style. Lots of
people hate it and have trouble digesting it.
- difficult to debug: because qmail's design actually makes sense,
it's a lot easier to debug than sendmail, once you understand how it
all fits together.
- requires special utilities to work on spool files: yes, because the
spool was designed to be reliable, not to be edited by humans.
- binary data in spool files: see previous point.
- spool file names linked to inode numbers: is a design decision that
has it's benefits. I see no downsides in that.
- random brain farts: whatever :)
- poor error recovery: no idea what he means.
- some non-compliance to RFC's: not that I know of
- obstinant author who refuses to recognize when he has a bug: I know
of only one bug in qmail-1.03 (STAT in qmail-pop3d), and indeed djb hasn't
responded to that. For the rest, qmail has no known bugs.
> So, I give up. I'm guessing other MTA's have at least as many real,
> documented issues with RFC compliance as qmail. And I only see a
> couple things that might be important. Am I wrong? What's the deal?
The deal is that people think sendmail should be considered a
reference implementation of the mail RFCs (like BIND for the DNS
RFCs). sendmail isn't (and BIND isn't), but people think that anything
that's "different" is wrong. It's not. Sendmail is wrong.
Phew. And all that on a hangover :)
Greetz, Peter.
|
well, first, hello.
I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, though its
probably any number of things. I've been
trying to get this to work for about a week
now....
I'm running on RH 7. Using qmail
1.03. I first tried using the mail administrator HOWTO
I got from linux.org, then went to trying an RPM
(memphis), gave up on both (removed the
rpm), and finally found "life with qmail".
I've read this about a dozen times, plus most of
the FAQs that I know about and seemed to relate to
my problems.... I tried to follow LWQM
exactly, but still no avail. I can send mail out using mail name@domain from command promp.
Any of the mail clients I've tried, the connection
seems refused, this includes on the same machine
trying localhost, or using the domain name
(nmore.com), or on other machines elsewhere attempting
to access it. Most of the people who need to
use it (about 4) are running windows and using outlook
express. A couple of them are on machines
using the same box as the mail server as their gateway,
via ip masquerading. I've only moved over to
linux for about two months, so some things are not
intuitive to me yet.
instcheck had been saying that my ../bin/sendmail
had wrong permissions. Okay, I saw there
was a sendmail with different permissions in the
installation directory so I copied that one over,
now it complains of the wrong group... don't
know if this would cause all the problems or not.
How is this fixed?
Anyway, the guide says to supply as much info as
possible. okay...
my rctphosts:
nmore.com
mail.nmore.com
localhost
dsl-64-129-102-217.telocity.com
(yes, I'm using them, so sue me. The last one
is the one that gets put in if I do ./config, even though it says
my server is named nmore.com. I've put it
otherwise using ./config-fast, didn't help, went back and manually
added them)
locals:
same as rcpthosts
Since I was able to send (somewhat limited) but not
receive, I tried installing pop3d. This seems to allow
the
mail client to listen w/out errors, but doesn't
seem to receive non-local mail.
I tried setting up tcpserver after all this (is
this different than the ucspi I installed with LWQM?) instead of
inetd...
however, my /var/maillog file shows numerous
"tcpserver: fata: unable to bind: address is already used"
mised in with a number 'f "tcpserver: status 0/40",
"tcpserver: status 1/40", etc...
I also see a number of
"Sorry_Although_I'm_listed_as_best_preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_isn't_in_my_locals_file"...
messages. But nmore.com is in my
/var/qmail/control/locals file.
lastly, when trying the local connect via telnet to
port 25, I get "connection refused". I somewhat gather that until this
this port can be connected to I will not be able to
send mail...
Anyway, I've a ton of problems. I've already
started over 3 times... though not sure how to wipe it clean for a
fresh
restart. I don't know what is wrong, I figure
it could be anything from bad DNS (I'm using a 3rd party as my nameserver,
they
say it is set up correctly), some kind of
permissions off, or something I have no clue about...
Any help would be greatly appreciated, even if it
is "go read XXX document"...
Thanks,
Andrew Apold
DBA/programmer (I mainly do php)
nmore.com
|
"Andrew Apold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... finally found "life with qmail". I've read this about a dozen
>times, plus most of the FAQs that I know about and seemed to relate
>to my problems.... I tried to follow LWQM exactly, but still no
>avail. I can send mail out using mail name@domain from command
>promp.
OK, good, so qmail-send is running. What does:
/usr/local/sbin/qmail stat
say? And:
ps -ef|grep qmail
ps -ef|grep supervise
>Any of the mail clients I've tried, the connection seems refused,
>this includes on the same machine trying localhost, or using the
>domain name (nmore.com), or on other machines elsewhere attempting
>to access it.
That means tcpserver isn't listening to port 25. What does
/var/log/qmail/smtpd/current say?
>instcheck had been saying that my ../bin/sendmail had wrong
>permissions.
Doing "make setup" should fix that.
>Okay, I saw there was a sendmail with different permissions in the
>installation directory so I copied that one over, now it complains of
>the wrong group... don't know if this would cause all the problems
>or not. How is this fixed?
"make setup"
>Since I was able to send (somewhat limited) but not receive, I tried
>installing pop3d. This seems to allow the mail client to listen
>w/out errors, but doesn't seem to receive non-local mail.
The pop server has no messages to serve. You'll have to fix smtp
first.
>I tried setting up tcpserver after all this (is this different than
>the ucspi I installed with LWQM?) instead of inetd... however, my
>/var/maillog file shows numerous "tcpserver: fata: unable to bind:
>address is already used" mised in with a number 'f "tcpserver: status
>0/40", "tcpserver: status 1/40", etc...
Hmm... I wonder if something else is listening to port 25, preventing
tcpserver (for qmail-smtpd) from grabbing it. You don't still have
sendmail or some other MTA running, do you? And there shouldn't be an
smtp entry in xinetd.dir or inetd.conf.
>I also see a number of
>"Sorry_Although_I'm_listed_as_best_preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_isn't_in_my_locals_file"...
>messages. But nmore.com is in my /var/qmail/control/locals file.
Have you HUP'd qmail-send since adding nmore.com to locals? How about
posting a few lines from the log, not just the error message?
>lastly, when trying the local connect via telnet to port 25, I get
>"connection refused". I somewhat gather that until this
>this port can be connected to I will not be able to send mail...
You won't be able to receive mail from other systems or inject mail
via SMTP, but local injections (qmail-inject) will work.
>Anyway, I've a ton of problems. I've already started over 3
>times... though not sure how to wipe it clean for a fresh
>restart.
/usr/local/sbin/qmail stop
rm -rf /var/qmail
-Dave
> OK, good, so qmail-send is running. What does:
>
> /usr/local/sbin/qmail stat
>
> say? And:
qmail-send: up (pid 2285) 4660 seconds
qmail-smtpd: up (pid (6783) 1 seconds
qmail-send/log: up (pid 30169) 4174 seconds
qmail-smtpd/log: up (pid 30171) 4174 seconds.
stat always seems to report up, even after I do a qmail-stop
> ps -ef|grep qmail
root 15800 1 0 13:20 ? 00:00:00
/var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d
root 30163 16138 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 supervise qmail-send
root 30165 16138 1 13:43 ? 00:01:18 supervise qmail-smtpd
qmaill 30169 30164 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00
/usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/l
qmaill 30171 30166 0 13:43 ? 00:00:13
/usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/l
qmails 2285 30163 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 qmail-send
root 2287 2285 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 qmail-lspawn
./Maildir
qmailr 2288 2285 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 qmail-rspawn
qmailq 2289 2285 0 13:44 ? 00:00:00 qmail-clean
root 20396 20840 1 15:05 pts/0 00:00:00 grep qmail
> ps -ef|grep supervise
root 30163 16138 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 supervise qmail-send
root 30164 16138 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 supervise log
root 30165 16138 0 13:43 ? 00:01:26 supervise qmail-smtpd
root 30166 16138 0 13:43 ? 00:00:00 supervise log
root 3086 15798 0 15:14 ? 00:00:00 [supervise <defunct>]
root 3087 15798 0 15:14 ? 00:00:00 [supervise <defunct>]
root 3088 15798 0 15:14 ? 00:00:00 [supervise <defunct>]
root 3089 15798 0 15:14 ? 00:00:00 [supervise <defunct>]
root 3485 20840 0 15:14 pts/0 00:00:00 grep supervise
> >Any of the mail clients I've tried, the connection seems refused,
> >this includes on the same machine trying localhost, or using the
> >domain name (nmore.com), or on other machines elsewhere attempting
> >to access it.
>
> That means tcpserver isn't listening to port 25. What does
> /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current say?
bash: /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current: Permission denied
Hmmm. that doesn't sound good
> >instcheck had been saying that my ../bin/sendmail had wrong
> >permissions.
>
> Doing "make setup" should fix that.
I had done "make setup check" before... okay, running again..
hmmm.
install: fatal: unable to write .../bin/qmail-lspawn: text busy
make: *** [setup] Error !!!
make setup check had no problems before (just tried it again, same error.
tried qmail stop,
tried again, same result. I was able to get it to work by deleting the
files in this direcory
then running make setup. I'm guessing by the output that "make setup check"
differs only
in creating the instcheck file... anyway, the (previous) isntcheck file now
reports no
errors.
> >Since I was able to send (somewhat limited) but not receive, I tried
> >installing pop3d. This seems to allow the mail client to listen
> >w/out errors, but doesn't seem to receive non-local mail.
>
> The pop server has no messages to serve. You'll have to fix smtp
> first.
>
> >I tried setting up tcpserver after all this (is this different than
> >the ucspi I installed with LWQM?) instead of inetd... however, my
> >/var/maillog file shows numerous "tcpserver: fata: unable to bind:
> >address is already used" mised in with a number 'f "tcpserver: status
> >0/40", "tcpserver: status 1/40", etc...
>
> Hmm... I wonder if something else is listening to port 25, preventing
> tcpserver (for qmail-smtpd) from grabbing it. You don't still have
> sendmail or some other MTA running, do you? And there shouldn't be an
> smtp entry in xinetd.dir or inetd.conf.
sendmail was installed as an rpm, which I removed.
there is an smtp entry in intd.conf. I'm pulling it out now
the only entry left is a
3976 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/sock /usr/sbin/sock
I then rebooted. still can't telnet to 25.
>>I also see a number of
>
>"Sorry_Although_I'm_listed_as_best_preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_isn
't_in_my_locals_file"...
> >messages. But nmore.com is in my /var/qmail/control/locals file.
>
> Have you HUP'd qmail-send since adding nmore.com to locals? How about
> posting a few lines from the log, not just the error message?
okay, this is around one of those messages... not sure if the
prefixs are important... incidentally this was 2 days ago, so that
error message might be outdated:
new msg 487118
info msg 487118
starting delivery 9: msg 487118 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
delivery 8: failure:
Sorry,_Although_I'm_listed_as_a_best_preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_is
n't......
status local 1/10 remote 4/20
bounce msg 486144
delivery 4:
216.33.238.135_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_552_Requested_mail
_action_aborte:_exceeded_storage_allocation/Giving_up_on_216.3/238.135./
status local 1/30 remote 3/20
end msg 487118
new msg 486144
uid 509
starting delivery 11: msg 486144
etc.
note, there are occasional success message further down
last night, I got a ton of messages saying:
alert: unable to opendir todo, sleeping
the log entries for today started with:
tpcserver: status 0/40
tcpserver: status 1/40
tcpserver pid 21894 from 64.129.102.217
tcpserver ok 21894 dsl-64-129.102.217.telocity.com:64.129.102.217:110
dsl-64-102.217.telocity.com:64.129.102.217::1148
tcpserver: end 21894 status 256
tcpserver: status 0/40... and repeats
it keeps repeting this until about 3:20 today, when I got a
tcpserver: end 18091 status 256
tcpserver: status: 0/40
tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind:$bind: address already used
tcpserver: status: 0/40
tcpserver: fatal unable to bind:$bind: address is already used
tcpserver: status 0/40
and that's the last entry
> >lastly, when trying the local connect via telnet to port 25, I get
> >"connection refused". I somewhat gather that until this
> >this port can be connected to I will not be able to send mail...
>
> You won't be able to receive mail from other systems or inject mail
> via SMTP, but local injections (qmail-inject) will work.
thanks very much for the help...
"Andrew Apold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Snip]
>I tried setting up tcpserver after all this (is this different than
>the ucspi I installed with LWQM?) instead of inetd... however, my
>/var/maillog file shows numerous "tcpserver: fata: unable to bind:
>address is already used" mised in with a number 'f "tcpserver: status
>0/40", "tcpserver: status 1/40", etc...
try this
rpm -qa|grep sendmail
if it gives you a line with sendmail and some version number do
/etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail stop
rpm -e sendmail
to remove sendmail and do a
make setup in the qmail source dir to install the qmail variant of sendmail
then restart the tcpserver and the message should go away.
If you want look at http://www.quint.be/projects/qmail-install-HOWTO.html
which has some nice instruction on installing the ready made rpm's
with these rpms and some changes to the /etc/tcpserver/smtp.rules file to
allow relaying you should have qmail up and running in about 10 minites
after you rebuild the rpm's
Willy De la Court
Hi,
I setup qmail as null client for one of our server to send all internal
messages to the central mail hub server and qmail is unable to send the
messages and keep them in queue. Below is my configuration of different
part of qmail config files. I highly suspect that the small problem may
comes from here. Please let me know if I forget something in my qmail
config files for null client or something else. thank you.
less /var/qmail/control/me
ns1.domain.com
less /var/qmail/control/defaultdomain
domain.com
less /var/qmail/control/locals
(nothing in locals file)
less /var/qmail/control/plusdomain
domain.com
less /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
localhost
ns1.domain.com
less /var/qmail/control/smtproutes
:smtp.domain.com
--
Gerhard Mourani - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Operation & Development Manager
OpenNA.com - http://www.openna.com/
--
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:41:18PM -0400, Gerhard Mourani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I setup qmail as null client for one of our server to send all internal
> messages to the central mail hub server and qmail is unable to send the
> messages and keep them in queue. Below is my configuration of different
> part of qmail config files. I highly suspect that the small problem may
> comes from here. Please let me know if I forget something in my qmail
> config files for null client or something else. thank you.
[snip]
config looks ok at first glance. What do the logs say?(tm)
Greetz, Peter.
Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 04:24:54PM -0400, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
> [snip]
> > Sure. You could even run an entirely separate copy of qmail processes
> > that interfaces with the same queue when you send out the newsletter.
>
> What do you mean by 'the same queue'?
>
> Greetz, Peter.
I meant that it would interface with the same queue directory (and
therefore messages) as the original qmail program. Does this not seem
feasible?
--
Keith
Network Engineer
Triton Technologies, Inc.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 06:16:48PM -0400, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
> Peter van Dijk wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 04:24:54PM -0400, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Sure. You could even run an entirely separate copy of qmail processes
> > > that interfaces with the same queue when you send out the newsletter.
> >
> > What do you mean by 'the same queue'?
>
> I meant that it would interface with the same queue directory (and
> therefore messages) as the original qmail program. Does this not seem
> feasible?
Not at all. Only one qmail process can work with one queue. You can't
run 2 qmail's on the *same* queue.
Btw, I am on the list, so please don't Cc me.
Greetz, Peter.
My test messages are bouncing with the following error:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ip162.mydomain.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. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that
host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as
local. (#5.4.6)
This probably has something to do with the way qmail detected my
hostname compared to my DNS configuration:
MX 10 mail.mydomain.com.
mail CNAME myhostname
myhostname A myIP
ip162 A myIP
What would qmail like to see in the locals file? I tried replacing
ip162 with myhostname, as well as simply using mydomain, but in both
cases, ip162.mydomain.com appeared at the top of the bounce (above).
Where does it get that from?
Thanks again for any help offered.
Steven
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 04:16:01PM -0700, Steven Katz wrote:
> My test messages are bouncing with the following error:
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ip162.mydomain.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. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that
> host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as
> local. (#5.4.6)
This is very straightforward -- put 'mydomain.com' in locals. (But see
below).
>
> This probably has something to do with the way qmail detected my
> hostname compared to my DNS configuration:
>
> MX 10 mail.mydomain.com.
>
> mail CNAME myhostname
> myhostname A myIP
> ip162 A myIP
>
A few issues with this -- 1. This is _not_ your DNS configuration. Don't
lie to the list -- mydomain.com exists, and does not have DNS anything
like this. This is a public mailserver, with public DNS entries -- what
do you gain by mangling data? 2. Never point MX at a CNAME. Feel free to
create a CNAME called mail.mydomain.com, but point the MX at a FQDN with
an A record, like so (in BINDspeak):
MX 10 myhostname.mydomain.com
myhostname A myIP
ip162 A myIP
mail CNAME myhostname
>What would qmail like to see in the locals file? I tried replacing
> ip162 with myhostname, as well as simply using mydomain, but in both
> cases, ip162.mydomain.com appeared at the top of the bounce (above).
> Where does it get that from?
I've never violated the RFCs and pointed MX at CNAME, so I don't know
what this might be doing to your mail setup. At any rate, in every setup
I've ever done, every A record gets and entry in locals or
virtualdomains -- all of them. As for why ip162 appears in the bounce,
examine the contents of /var/qmail/control/me -- I'll bet your answer is
there.
>
> Thanks again for any help offered.
>
> Steven
>
You're welcome. :)
--
Greg White
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jeptha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 7:25 PM
Subject: superscripts error
> Hi,
> Thanks for your help. But I cannot rebuild the supervise scripts. It ends
> with an error - cannot find the command: Patch.
>
> Could you please assist? Thank you.
>
> You have a good day now
>
> Carl A Jeptha
>
Hi,
I've just started using Bruce Guenter's autoresponder but I was wondering
if anyone had written a user interface for it. I'd like my users to be able
to set their own responses when they want it without bugging me but I don't
want them creating files on the mailserver--God forbid!
I have some ideas (like an address they can send their request to and the
program sends them back a confrimation request ala ezmlm then once
confirmed, it sets up the files) and believe I could do it myself but hate
to re-invent the wheel...
Anybody done this already and feel like sharing?
*******************************************
Bill Luckett
Director of Information Systems
Phi Theta Kappa International Honor Society
1625 Eastover Dr.
Jackson, MS 39211
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph : 601-984-3559
Fax: 601-984-3506
*******************************************
Bill Luckett wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've just started using Bruce Guenter's autoresponder but I was wondering
> if anyone had written a user interface for it. I'd like my users to be able
> to set their own responses when they want it without bugging me but I don't
> want them creating files on the mailserver--God forbid!
>
> I have some ideas (like an address they can send their request to and the
> program sends them back a confrimation request ala ezmlm then once
> confirmed, it sets up the files) and believe I could do it myself but hate
> to re-invent the wheel...
>
> Anybody done this already and feel like sharing?
Well, we haven't done it yet, but we are going to write a PHP page that
will interface with a MySQL database to determine rather or not the user
wishes to have an autoresponder message set in place based upon an entry
in another field of the database. I'll be sure to post it when we get
around to it, though.
--
Keith
Network Engineer
Triton Technologies, Inc.
Can someone point me towards documentation on the subject of clustering
qmail machines? That is, we're going to be setting up several machines all
with the big concurrency patch in an effort to send out more mail faster.
Tying all these qmail installations together through a controller machine is
where I start to get hazy. If somebody's done it before and can offer some
pointers, I'd be much appreciative. The search engine always says it's
broken when I try to search the archives so I apologize if this is in there
somewhere. Thanks in advance.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 06:37:35PM -0700, Brett wrote:
> Can someone point me towards documentation on the subject of clustering
> qmail machines? That is, we're going to be setting up several machines all
> with the big concurrency patch in an effort to send out more mail faster.
> Tying all these qmail installations together through a controller machine is
> where I start to get hazy. If somebody's done it before and can offer some
> pointers, I'd be much appreciative. The search engine always says it's
> broken when I try to search the archives so I apologize if this is in there
> somewhere. Thanks in advance.
I have a central box that generates all configfiles and puts them in a
directory called /conf/mail on a NetApp fileserver, from which all
qmail boxes copy their configuration periodically.
Make sure you copy stuff to tmpfiles and then move 'm (also when
generating files to go into /conf/mail). Especially over
NFS, doing it any different is guaranteed trouble.
It works like a charm.
Greetz, Peter.
I'm looking to upgrade our existing hacked qmail system.
We running v1.02 with a custom web interface to a virtual mail manager.
It works great. But the code requires an IP per domain to do POP.
I know there are other options at this point, and I'd like not to be the
only one maintaining the code, if at all.
Can anyone suggest some patches that will give me:
Virtual POP/SMTP (IMAP would be nice)
A web interface to add/delete/change passwords/setup forwards (auto
responders would be nice)
Only 1 IP per server
Niceties:
mySQL backend
simple way to count and bill per account/domain.
quota per domain
Lance
> Can anyone suggest some patches that will give me:
> Virtual POP/SMTP (IMAP would be nice)
vpopmail
> A web interface to add/delete/change passwords/setup forwards (auto
> responders would be nice)
qmailadmin
> Only 1 IP per server
> Niceties:
> mySQL backend
> simple way to count and bill per account/domain.
> quota per domain
all at http://inter7.com/freesoftware/index.html
Rick Up
Hi,
I am having a weird problem with Eric Huss's autoresponder. It seems to be
crashing.
My .qmail file looks like this:
|/usr/local/bin/autorespond 10000 5
|/home/vpopmail/domains/creatingprosperity.net/TEST/message
|/home/vpopmail/domains/creatingprosperity.net/TEST
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was created by qmailadmin.
Anyone else have this problem?
I tried to reproduce this by running it from the command line, but I'm not
sure what exactly it wants on STDIN, so I want able to get it to do
anything..
What I would like is to have an "out of office" type of feature. Are there
any other alternatives that might work better?
Thanks,
Norbert
