qmail Digest 17 Sep 2001 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1490
Topics (messages 69521 through 69546):
Re: qmail moreipme patch
69521 by: Adrian Ho
69539 by: Scott Gifford
Spam exclusion lists?
69522 by: Bob Maple
69523 by: Guido van Driel
69524 by: Peter van Dijk
69525 by: Guido van Driel
69532 by: Charles Cazabon
Interesting hotmail anti-spam feature
69526 by: Christophe Saout
69528 by: Peter van Dijk
69529 by: Christophe Saout
Re: QMQP speed (Was: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces)
69527 by: Pavel Kankovsky
69534 by: Matthias Andree
Re: pref_ambigmx() and friends
69530 by: richard.illuin.org
Stupid Question
69531 by: PC Tech
Ezmlm-test: Has anyone ever had the ezmlm-clean tests fail
69533 by: Mark
Pop Deamon doesn't start
69535 by: St�phane Lagrange
69538 by: Charles Cazabon
looking for Qmail professional
69536 by: Veikko Wuensche
Re: qmail-pop3d finds no maildir
69537 by: Ruprecht Helms
qmail + amavis
69540 by: qmail
How to move mail from remote to local?
69541 by: Ash
69542 by: Magnus Bodin
extra.h | awk '/^$/ { exit } /^[mM][eE][sS][sS][aA][gG][eE]-/ { print }'
69543 by: qmail
Spamming...........cjk
69544 by: Constantine Koulis
69545 by: Peter van Dijk
retrieve bad mail address from bounce mail
69546 by: Michael Cheung
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 04:29:41AM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
> Here's a patch I used on a qmail system I used to run which ran behind
> a NAT load balancer. It solves a problem qmail has when it doesn't
> know all of the IP addresses that connect to it.
Not to belittle your effort, but qmail isn't the only thing that can
break under such circumstances. /Any/ app running on a server behind a
NAT box that doesn't get its own address back on a query may break when
it tries to use that address for whatever purpose.
The problem the OP faced is, strictly speaking, a DNS misconfiguration
(or lack of configuration, perhaps). I've lost count of the number of
clients who've encountered similar problems with MTAs and other apps,
that magically disappeared when I inserted a DNS map (or server, in some
case) that handed back the proper IPs.
--
Adrian Ho Tinker, Drifter, Fixer, Bum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ListArchive: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=qmail>
Useful URLs: <http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html> <http://www.qmail.org>
<http://www.lifewithqmail.org/> <http://qmail.faqts.com/>
Adrian Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 04:29:41AM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
> > Here's a patch I used on a qmail system I used to run which ran behind
> > a NAT load balancer. It solves a problem qmail has when it doesn't
> > know all of the IP addresses that connect to it.
>
> Not to belittle your effort, but qmail isn't the only thing that can
> break under such circumstances. /Any/ app running on a server behind a
> NAT box that doesn't get its own address back on a query may break when
> it tries to use that address for whatever purpose.
In my experience, most services have no trouble with such a
configuration. Mail delivery happens to be one that does, requiring
the MTA to take special care. Postfix and sendmail handles this by
looking at the EHLO/HELO response line, and assuming a loop if their
own name shows up there. qmail doesn't handle it well, which is why I
wrote the patch.
> The problem the OP faced is, strictly speaking, a DNS misconfiguration
> (or lack of configuration, perhaps). I've lost count of the number of
> clients who've encountered similar problems with MTAs and other apps,
> that magically disappeared when I inserted a DNS map (or server, in some
> case) that handed back the proper IPs.
Proper DNS configuration doesn't solve all of the mail loop issues.
Because the entire DNS isn't under the control of one person, it's
easy for somebody to, deliberately or accidentally, use your external
IP address as the MX record for a domain. When your server receives
messages addressed to this domain, it will get in a tight loop and
suck up all of your CPU cycles. If you end up with many such
messages, such as a blast of SPAM, it can wreak serious havoc; havoc
is doubled if the bounce message goes to the same domain.
This may seem like an unlikely scenario, but if you're handling very
many domains, it's easy for modifications of locals and MX records to
get out of sync, particularly if the DNS isn't under your control. A
domain that was accidentally removed from locals nearly quadrupled the
load on a 25 server qmail farm I used to operate, which inspired this
patch.
It's also easy to argue that adding some IP addresses to a file is
less work than designing and implementing split DNS. :)
-----ScottG.
Hi all - I'm new to qmail and the list. I'm just getting it setup this
weekend to replace a very old homegrown mail system at my domain.
I've been browsing around the list archives and various qmail web pages,
looking at SMTPd patches people have written for filtering, and haven't quite
found what I've been looking for. Figured I'd ask before I embark on patching
qmail-smtpd myself.
Here is the basic logic of my current homegrown SMTPd:
<-- HELO whatever.com
--> (howdy back - remember address)
<-- MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--> (OK - remember address)
<-- RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At this point, I do a bunch of checks:
Is the RCPT a valid person? If no, reject with 'user unknown'; else
Is the RCPT mailbox unfiltered? If yes, allow the message; else
Is the FROM address on the "nice list"? If yes, allow the message; else
Is the HELO domain on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
Is the FROM on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
[person wins! email goes through!]
So basically my SMTPd has a concept of "filtered" and "unfiltered" mailboxes,
but this is done on the SMTP end before the message data is ever received. I
know I can filter my head off with procmail or similar, but I don't even want
to waste the bandwidth on the crap in the first place.
I prefer to be a hard-nose and reject everything that matches something on my
filters, whereas a couple of people get mail at my domain that need to bypass
the filters (they actually get legitimate mail from people at hotmail! The
horrors!).
With all of this, I'd still like some smarter spam tools than what I have now,
such as verifying the HELO hostname and FROM envelope as valid domains (I
reject lots of mail based on bogus and ill-formed HELO hostnames which are
sure signs of spammers who don't know what they are doing, even though the
HELO hostname isn't terribly important rfc-wise last I checked)
So, anything like this exist without post-processing after the message has
already been received, or should I pull up my text editor and get cracking?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions. So far I'm loving qmail; I started
with a sendmail book, but decided I didn't need that kind of angst in my life
and downloaded qmail. I got it setup in less than an hour, and am just now
trying to work out these spam issues before I switch it on live.
: Bob Maple (Brazilian) : When love is gone, there's always justice. :
: bobm at burner dot com : And when justice is gone, there's always :
: : force. And when force is gone, there's :
: http: burner.com : always Mom. Hi, Mom! - Laurie Anderson :
* Bob Maple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all - I'm new to qmail and the list. I'm just getting it setup this
> weekend to replace a very old homegrown mail system at my domain.
Hello Bob,
>
<snip>
>
> Here is the basic logic of my current homegrown SMTPd:
>
> <-- HELO whatever.com
> --> (howdy back - remember address)
> <-- MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --> (OK - remember address)
> <-- RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At this point, I do a bunch of checks:
>
> Is the RCPT a valid person? If no, reject with 'user unknown'; else
qmail does that for you
> Is the RCPT mailbox unfiltered? If yes, allow the message; else
That qmail doesn't do for you, it's more of an MDA kinda task. see [1]
> Is the FROM address on the "nice list"? If yes, allow the message; else
See [1] as well.
> Is the HELO domain on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
I think some RFC says that this is a no-no, Charles wrote on that subject somewhere in
the
past few weeks. Check the archives.
> Is the FROM on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
~qmail/control/badmailfrom . Rulez!
> So basically my SMTPd has a concept of "filtered" and "unfiltered" mailboxes,
> but this is done on the SMTP end before the message data is ever received. I
> know I can filter my head off with procmail or similar, but I don't even want
> to waste the bandwidth on the crap in the first place.
>
> I prefer to be a hard-nose and reject everything that matches something on my
> filters, whereas a couple of people get mail at my domain that need to bypass
> the filters (they actually get legitimate mail from people at hotmail! The
> horrors!).
>
> With all of this, I'd still like some smarter spam tools than what I have now,
> such as verifying the HELO hostname and FROM envelope as valid domains (I
> reject lots of mail based on bogus and ill-formed HELO hostnames which are
> sure signs of spammers who don't know what they are doing, even though the
> HELO hostname isn't terribly important rfc-wise last I checked)
I'll check the archives as well, blocking based on HELO AFAIK is a no-no RFC-wise.
> So, anything like this exist without post-processing after the message has
> already been received, or should I pull up my text editor and get cracking?
Before you do that have a look at [1], it realy shines and development is fast
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions. So far I'm loving qmail; I started
> with a sendmail book, but decided I didn't need that kind of angst in my life
> and downloaded qmail. I got it setup in less than an hour, and am just now
> trying to work out these spam issues before I switch it on live.
Dave sill (of lifewithqmail.net fame) has written a Qmail book, with all sorts
of niceties surrounding Qmail.
[1] http://tmda.sf.net
Tagged Message Delivery Agent is a great way of blocking spam and avoiding spam
by introducing time restricted mail-adresses. go check it out.
>
> : Bob Maple (Brazilian) : When love is gone, there's always justice. :
> : bobm at burner dot com : And when justice is gone, there's always :
> : : force. And when force is gone, there's :
> : http: burner.com : always Mom. Hi, Mom! - Laurie Anderson :
>
>
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
PGP signature
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Guido van Driel wrote:
[snip]
> > Is the RCPT a valid person? If no, reject with 'user unknown'; else
> qmail does that for you
It doesn't.
> > Is the RCPT mailbox unfiltered? If yes, allow the message; else
>
> That qmail doesn't do for you, it's more of an MDA kinda task. see [1]
True.
> > Is the FROM address on the "nice list"? If yes, allow the message; else
>
> See [1] as well.
qmail has badmailfrom, no goodmailfrom or something like that.
[snip]
> > Is the FROM on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
>
> ~qmail/control/badmailfrom . Rulez!
Why do you have a user 'qmail'?
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
* Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:24:51PM +0200, Guido van Driel wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Is the RCPT a valid person? If no, reject with 'user unknown'; else
> > qmail does that for you
>
> It doesn't.
You're right. should have read the question better.
> > > Is the RCPT mailbox unfiltered? If yes, allow the message; else
> >
> > That qmail doesn't do for you, it's more of an MDA kinda task. see [1]
>
> True.
>
> > > Is the FROM address on the "nice list"? If yes, allow the message; else
> >
> > See [1] as well.
>
> qmail has badmailfrom, no goodmailfrom or something like that.
I thought I had said that.
>
> [snip]
> > > Is the FROM on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
> >
> > ~qmail/control/badmailfrom . Rulez!
>
> Why do you have a user 'qmail'?
I don't, I have a qmaill user. typo.
Groet&Guido
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
PGP signature
Bob Maple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is the RCPT a valid person? If no, reject with 'user unknown'; else
As noted, qmail-smtpd has no concept of what users exist and what users
don't. It's a violation of djb's separation of tasks, and qmail's
aliases and address extensions make it a very tricky task.
People have patched qmail-smtpd to do all the same checks that
qmail-send/qmail-getpw do, but I haven't used these.
> Is the RCPT mailbox unfiltered? If yes, allow the message; else
Difficult; the address specified doesn't really need to be a "mailbox".
> Is the FROM address on the "nice list"? If yes, allow the message; else
Badmailfrom does that opposite; TMDA can be used otherwise.
> Is the HELO domain on the banned list? If yes, reject the message; else
Bad idea. HELO verification/filtering bounces (in djb's words) "a huge
amount of legitimate mail, and a moderate amount of spam". It's also
forbidden in the RFCs.
> I prefer to be a hard-nose and reject everything that matches something on my
> filters, whereas a couple of people get mail at my domain that need to bypass
> the filters (they actually get legitimate mail from people at hotmail! The
> horrors!).
Letting each user control their settings is best done at the MDA level.
TMDA can do this, I understand.
> So, anything like this exist without post-processing after the message has
> already been received, or should I pull up my text editor and get cracking?
My recommendation is: ignore it. I deal with spam, and I don't use any
of these methods.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello!
I just found this interesting entry in out logs:
Sep 16 16:32:40 mail qmail: 1000650760.042276 delivery 747: failure:
213.165.64.100_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_550_{mx14}_The_recipient_does_not_accept_mails_from_'hotmail.com'_over_foreign_mailservers/Giving_up_on_213.165.64.100./
Someone from hotmail.com sent a mail to a local user which had
configured the account (via vmailmgr) to send a copy to her private
address at gmx.de. gmx is using a modified version of qmail.
This feature could be interesting, since most spam mails use a hotmail
sender address, but usually only the mails that come directly from one
of the hotmail servers are real mails.
I'd like to block hotmail completely but then our customers would start
complaining...
--
The idea: A new control file where you can speficy domains with a list
of allowed SMTP sender ip adresses or something like a DNS lookup where
the domain name is checked to match the MAIL FROM.
What do you think?
Ciao, Chtephan!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:06:28PM +0200, Christophe Saout wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I just found this interesting entry in out logs:
>
> Sep 16 16:32:40 mail qmail: 1000650760.042276 delivery 747: failure:
>
>213.165.64.100_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_550_{mx14}_The_recipient_does_not_accept_mails_from_'hotmail.com'_over_foreign_mailservers/Giving_up_on_213.165.64.100./
>
> Someone from hotmail.com sent a mail to a local user which had
> configured the account (via vmailmgr) to send a copy to her private
> address at gmx.de. gmx is using a modified version of qmail.
>
> This feature could be interesting, since most spam mails use a hotmail
> sender address, but usually only the mails that come directly from one
> of the hotmail servers are real mails.
You show us a legitimate message being blocked, and then continue to
describe this as a 'great anti-spam' feature?
Somehow that confuses me.
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
Peter van Dijk wrote:
>>I just found this interesting entry in out logs:
>>
>>Sep 16 16:32:40 mail qmail: 1000650760.042276 delivery 747: failure:
>>213.165.64.100_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_550_{mx14}_The_recipient_does_not_accept_mails_from_'hotmail.com'_over_foreign_mailservers/Giving_up_on_213.165.64.100./
>>
>>Someone from hotmail.com sent a mail to a local user which had
>>configured the account (via vmailmgr) to send a copy to her private
>>address at gmx.de. gmx is using a modified version of qmail.
>>
>>This feature could be interesting, since most spam mails use a hotmail
>>sender address, but usually only the mails that come directly from one
>>of the hotmail servers are real mails.
>>
>
> You show us a legitimate message being blocked, and then continue to
> describe this as a 'great anti-spam' feature?
>
> Somehow that confuses me.
I didn't say it was great, but interesting.
Better than totally blocking anything@hotmail. (I know several people
doing this).
And who said hotmail users do have any rights? ;-)
This is the first time I saw this in our logs (server running for ~6
months).
You could also look into the Received-Headers, but that would mean to
accept the mail first. Hmm. And headers can be faked.
Apart from this, only mails that were relayed somehow (e.g. forwarding)
would be blocked. None of our customers is doing this at the moment.
Ciao, Chtephan!
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2001, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>
> > How huge is ``huge''? Ten times faster? 5 percent faster?
>
> Depends on the client. qmail-remote does not use PIPELINING even if the
> other side offers ist.
Indeed. But I want to see numbers. Profile, don't speculate! ;)
> > How is the difference affected by the size of messages?
>
> Not at all.
Difference per one message is not affected. Difference per one byte of
data is affected: there are less roundtrips in SMTP when you send one
1MB-message than when you send 100 10kB-messages. QMQP would save some
roundtrips too but less than SMTP, ergo the difference would become
smaller for bigger messages.
> > How is the difference affected by SMTP pipelining?
>
> Approximately the same. SMTP PIPELINING and QMQP get closer to each
> other the more recipients the mail has.
Approximately the same == not at all? If the answer to the previous
question was not ``not at all'', it would make some sense.
> > How is the difference affected when multiple concurrent connections are
> > used (amortizing RTT-induced delays in SMTP)?
>
> Small, that's why qmail spawns multiple qmail-remote clients if it has
> more than one mail to send.
Excuse me? Do you want the say ``the difference would be small'' or ``the
difference would not be affected much''? (I suppose you meant the latter.)
> Neither example counts RTTs for the mail body or for huge mail
> envelopes, which can occur if the window is too small because you have
> real-high-latency links or high bandwidth.
Anyway, both SMTP (with PIPELINING) and QMQP would probably suffer in a
less or more equivalent way in this case.
> > How many people using ``a typical modem link'' send enough email to
> > feel that ``huge difference''?
>
> Personally, my mails have up to 10 recipients, more only in exceptional
> cases, uusually only 1 recipient.
I do not send many multi-recipient mail (esp. across a modem link) either.
But it does not matter. You yourself showed (E)SMTP + PIPELINING can be as
fast or even faster than serialized QMQP (yes, serialized: it is not a
good idea to run too many paralel connections through a slow modem link,
is it?) when the number of messages is something like 4 or 5 or higher. On
the other hand, the for a smaller number of messages, the differences
would be too small, measured in seconds in the worst case. So, where is
the *huge* benefit of QMQP?
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> > Depends on the client. qmail-remote does not use PIPELINING even if the
> > other side offers ist.
>
> Indeed. But I want to see numbers. Profile, don't speculate! ;)
Still in the works, not a priority item here, SMTP PIPELINING is fast
enough for me.
> > > How is the difference affected by SMTP pipelining?
> >
> > Approximately the same. SMTP PIPELINING and QMQP get closer to each
> > other the more recipients the mail has.
>
> Approximately the same == not at all? If the answer to the previous
> question was not ``not at all'', it would make some sense.
Depends on what you compare it against. Ask your question again
precisely please.
> > > How is the difference affected when multiple concurrent connections are
> > > used (amortizing RTT-induced delays in SMTP)?
> >
> > Small, that's why qmail spawns multiple qmail-remote clients if it has
> > more than one mail to send.
>
> Excuse me? Do you want the say ``the difference would be small'' or ``the
> difference would not be affected much''? (I suppose you meant the latter.)
Parallel connections can fill the idle gaps that round trip delays
cause, however, they require additional overhead for connection
establishment -- which you do not have for a single SMTP PIPELINING
connection (maildirsmtp).
> > Personally, my mails have up to 10 recipients, more only in exceptional
> > cases, uusually only 1 recipient.
>
> I do not send many multi-recipient mail (esp. across a modem link) either.
> But it does not matter. You yourself showed (E)SMTP + PIPELINING can be as
> fast or even faster than serialized QMQP (yes, serialized: it is not a
> good idea to run too many paralel connections through a slow modem link,
It doesn't matter, but keep in mind TCP is not fair, so the first
connection you open may starve those subsequently started.
> is it?) when the number of messages is something like 4 or 5 or higher. On
> the other hand, the for a smaller number of messages, the differences
> would be too small, measured in seconds in the worst case. So, where is
> the *huge* benefit of QMQP?
Ask that the inventor.
--
Matthias Andree
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Stevie O wrote:
> At 10:26 PM 9/15/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Stevie O wrote:
> >
> > > When the NYC disaster took out the route to my box, whisper.qrpff.net, I
> > > asked my friend on the west coast to setup his machine,
> > zlotnik.oilcan.org,
> > > as a backup mx for qrpff.net. The problem: Mail kept bouncing with
> > messages
> > > stating that there were too many hops. zlotnik's syslog clearly indicated
> > > that qmail was delivering mail to itself, which is obviously a dumb thing
> > > to do. The thing was, I was fairly certain that qmail was guarded against
> > > that. It wasn't until just now that I figured out the problem.
> > >
> > > backup mx for qrpff.net: 65.85.11.85
> > > zlotnik.oilcan.org ip: 192.168.1.105
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > >
> > > Zlotnik's IP address is really a private one, because it's located
> > behind a
> > > NAT firewall. 65.85.11.85 traffic is routed to it.
> >
> >okay, so out onf the BBI I see...
> >
> >
> >so? mail.illuin.org is behind a NAT firewall, but you can't tell that --
> >its supposed to be transparent.
>
> NAT is only transparent until protocols start involving IP addresses.
>
>
> >you need entries in the DNS zone for qpff.net like this:
> >
> >
> >whisper.qpff.net IN MX 10 whisper.qpff.net.
> > IN MX 20 zlotnik.oilcan.org.
> > IN A whatever.its.ip-address.is
>
> Wtf is this? tinydns doesn't have anything like this.
you did not say you were using tinydns, so i providd the bind zone file
version.
the tinydns version is
@whisper.qpf.neta::whisper.qpf.net:10
@zlotnik.oilcan.org::zlotnik.oilcan.org:20
if you need to return different IP addresses for people outside your
firewall than people inside the firewall then you need to look at the
configuration of your dns server to return different IP addresses
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/faq/tinydns.html
question "How do I send different client...."
> >now, we'll try to connect to whisper, discover its not there and send mail
> >to oilcan. oilcal will accept it and try to forward it to whisper.
> >oilcan removes itself and any higher preference MX hosts from the list of
> >machine it will try to forward mail to.
> zlotnik ("oilcan") doesn't remove itself from the list, because zlotnik is
> 192.168.1.105,
> which isn't anywhere on the mx list.
how does my machine know to deliver to zlotnik instead of whisper if
zlotnik is not on the list?
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
Has anyone successfully used Daemontools 0.76 with LifeWithQmail? I know
that it's written for DT 0.70, and that 0.76 has some big changes in the way
it does things.
If you have, could you please let me know how you got it to work? Thank
you.
I have an interesting problem. I don't know why be for some reason
ezmlm-clean is not working right. Now I have compiled ezmlm-0.53
and ezmlm-idx-0.40 before and I didn't have this problem. Any ideas?
Mark
Hi everybody,
Thank you for advising me to use the Life With Qmail Manual. Big time !
Ok, so now I have Qmail set up on my RedHAt 7.1 server fine.
I manage to send mail (SMTP) with an Outlook client from an allowed computer.
I have sent myself a mail to check if SMTP and POP work.
I send okay (the log acknowledge that) but I cannot receive (POP) the mail
I sent myself.
I had a deep look through the archives of this mailing list and I have
changed pop3 to pop-3 on both tcp and udp protocols.
With "netstat -l" only smtp is listening but not pop-3.
So I have decided to run : /service/qmail-pop3d/run (by hand)
and I get the following message : "tcpserver: status: 0/40"
So the pop server starts all right.
"netstat -l" shows me that pop-3 is listening now too.
I check with my Outlook client, it works
(except that I have no idea how to manage my username and password, I get
authentication errors, has anyone an idea about what the ID should be ?)
So here is my problem :
- why doesn't the pop deamon start when I run qmailctl start ?
(I followed and double-checked all the steps in the manual)
- what is the ID and Paswword to get POP mail ? is it the Linux Username
and Password or is there another one ?
Please let me know.
Regards,
S. Lagrange.
St�phane Lagrange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "netstat -l" shows me that pop-3 is listening now too.
> I check with my Outlook client, it works
> (except that I have no idea how to manage my username and password, I get
> authentication errors, has anyone an idea about what the ID should be ?)
Depends entirely on what checkpassword you're using. If you're using
dbj's, it authenticates out of /etc/passwd.
> So here is my problem :
> - why doesn't the pop deamon start when I run qmailctl start ?
Do you have your pop3d service directory symlinked into /service?
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
looking for Qmail professional
Because of a current resource limitation Lightwerk GmbH is looking for
a Qmail professional who can work for 5 to 10 days in Germany at a
Lightwerk customer. Experience with qmail-scanner, smtp-auth, TLS and
MySQL is required.
Regards,
Veikko W�nsche
CEO [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Lightwerk.com/
Fax: +49-711-674 08 43 Phone: +49-711-674 08 65
Lightwerk GmbH * Nobelstr. 15 * 70569 Stuttgart * Germany
Hi,
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:07:00PM +1000, speedboy wrote:
> > I had this on friday. A client had over 1000 messages in Maildir/cur, I set
> > Outlook Express to _not_ leave a copy on the server, it removed them and
> > it worked fine again.
in this case the new message were readed by OE. After reading the messages
will be put from Maildir/new to Maildir/cur. In my case Maildir/cur is empty.
Maildir/new contrains some mails, looking here
rhelms@linux:~/Maildir/new > ls
1000540060.8014.linux 1000540195.8180.linux 1000540442.8484.linux
1000540147.8114.linux 1000540220.8216.linux 1000540756.8793.linux
1000540163.8134.linux 1000540325.8344.linux 1000540878.8957.linux
> ressource limits. It's in the archives.
I don't think so in my case. I have patched the qmail-pop3d but I get the same
result. I use qmail-pop3d by starting by inetd.conf. The qmail-smtpd
instead is starting by tcpserver.
Regards,
Ruprecht
I try to install Amavis anti-virus with qmail by:
./configure --prefix=/home/amavis --enable-qmail --enable-logging=yes
--with-logdir="/home/amavis/log" --enable-syslog=no
--enable-virusbackup=yes --with-virus="/home/a
mavis/infected" --with-mailto=amavis
but I find this error:
... ...
checking for gtar... /bin/gtar
checking for reformime... no
checking for metamail... /usr/bin/metamail
configure: warning: We recommend to use reformime instead of metamail!
reformime comes with maildrop (http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/)
checking for grep... /bin/grep
checking for fgrep... /bin/fgrep
checking for egrep... /bin/egrep
checking for expr... /usr/bin/expr
checking how to make grep be quiet... -q
checking for uncompress... no
checking for gunzip... /bin/gunzip
checking for bunzip2... /usr/bin/bunzip2
checking for unrar... no
checking for unarj... no
checking for lha... no
checking for xbin... no
checking for uudecode... /usr/bin/uudecode
checking if uudecode works in a pipe... no
checking for zoo... no
checking for arc... no
checking for unfreeze... no
checking for mailx... no
checking for mail... /bin/mail
checking for logger... /usr/bin/logger
checking for tnef... /usr/local/bin/tnef
checking TNEF flag for extracting in a specific dir... --directory=
checking for procmail... /usr/bin/procmail
checking for formail... /usr/bin/formail
checking for sendmail... no
configure: error: Sorry, sendmail or a sendmail-like wrapper is required
<---this!
I only install qmail and remove all the postfix b4.
how can I do?
any one share their experience of config qmail + amavis to me?
or where can I find detail setup for this? Thanks~
A domain that I once did secondary MX on has died I've changed
virtualdomains to deliver the mail locally. This works correctly.
I've unfortunately got about 2500 messages in the queue that seem to
be quite certain the domain is not local. (All the old messages are
still in the remote queue, but new mail delivers fine.)
How to fix?
--
Ash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Cry havoc, and let slip the hamsters of polite disagreement!"
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 12:33:16AM -0700, Ash wrote:
> A domain that I once did secondary MX on has died I've changed
> virtualdomains to deliver the mail locally. This works correctly.
>
> I've unfortunately got about 2500 messages in the queue that seem to
> be quite certain the domain is not local. (All the old messages are
> still in the remote queue, but new mail delivers fine.)
>
> How to fix?
If you have a secondary server, the problem is solved.
Put in a temporary smtp-routes-line for the domain.
Shut down the incoming smtp.
Restart the server. Watch the mail go out from the queue.
When the queue is empty, remove the smtp-routes-line, restart and start the
incoming server.
/magnus
--
Word of the week: ya shua (toothbrush) * JOIN EFF NOW! Freedom is not terrorism.
<http://x42.com/i/cn/pct/yashua.jpg> * <http://www.eff.org/>
I use the extra.h as example in Life with Qmail
In my ~alias/.qmail-log:
| awk '/^$/ { exit } /^[mM][eE][sS][sS][aA][gG][eE]-/ { print }'
but it didn't have any message.in log
how to seperate this email into individual files via awk? could any one
give me example please?
Hello all.
I would like to know where i can read about spamming.Which file do i have to
edit in order to activate spamming.
Sincerely
Tks & Best Regards
Koulis Constantine.
Bucharest Romania
Phone :+40-93979131 , +40-92222764
Phone GR :+30-974293018
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:15:54AM +0300, Constantine Koulis wrote:
> Hello all.
> I would like to know where i can read about spamming.Which file do i have to
> edit in order to activate spamming.
Are you sure you want to spam?
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
Hi;
I use qmail + vpopmail.
I want to retrive all the bad mail address from the bounce mail.
(include local bounce, and remote bounce). Like maillist use probe to validate
mail address.
Is there any addons to do it, or any similar sample code?
Thanks in advance.
Regards;
Michael
