Re: Reverse DNS lookups
"pop corn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2) If they don't add reverse PTR records for my virtual domains, I've > been debating telling the Internic to change my DNS servers for the > virtual domains to the base address of my own dedicated server. It's > not as if my virtual domains are subdomains of my ISP's domain. The > problem is that I only have the one dedicated machine. No, that's not the problem. The in-addr.arpa zones for your addresses are delegated to your ISP. *You* never get the chance to provide data for them until your ISP a) provides the date itself or b) delegates the zones for your addresses to you Regards, Frank
Reverse DNS lookups
I'm dealing with a new ISP that has been pretty much ok until this problem. I realized that they didn't set up the reverse PTR records for my eight IP addresses on a dedicated server. (I will be creating 8 virtual domains - one per IP address). Their staff initially said 1) reverse PTR records were never necessary; 2) delegating my DNS info to my machine are out of the question (they won't admit they don't know how and they won't accept info). They are using BIND and insist that nslookup is never capable of returning the domain name for a given IP address. I've been pounding on them since last week, and just got an email saying that a PTR record is only necessary for the base IP address of the 8 addresses (the hostname is set to this base IP address) and they are going to update their DNS server tonight and promptly closed out the trouble ticket. I've been setting up DNS (classic BIND) for years and simply never heard of setting up A records without the associated PTR record for reverse address mapping. 1) I'm about to open up another trouble ticket to ask them to add PTR records for the remaining seven IP addresses. Am I not correct in telling the ISP that all my virtual domains require reverse DNS resolution? 2) If they don't add reverse PTR records for my virtual domains, I've been debating telling the Internic to change my DNS servers for the virtual domains to the base address of my own dedicated server. It's not as if my virtual domains are subdomains of my ISP's domain. The problem is that I only have the one dedicated machine. The Internic wants two DNS servers per domain. If I leave the existing DNS servers from my ISP, and add my own dedicated server as a third DNS server, will the reverse address search go through all three of my DNS servers until it has success? My hostname is a subdomain of my ISP's domain, so the PTR record for my base address will have to be served by my ISP's dns server and they are in fact doing that for me tonight. My virtual domains are independent domains immediately under .com and registered to the Internic. I'll use the exact same IP addresses that my ISP was serving on their DNS servers, just add the reverse DNS info. My ISP's info about my virtual domains will just be ignored once the Internic makes the change, right? I've been resisting this route because I don't want to create a loop of some kind. 3) If I proceed with step 2, I could use dnscache on 127.0.0.1, tinydns on one IP, and walldns on another IP, right? It doesn't matter which external IP, just so long as they are different IPs because dnscache, tinydns, and walldns are all looking at port 53, right? There is no firewall with this solution in 2) and 3), but these virtual domains don't have any national secrets anyway. However, I will be serving qmail to these domains, so it won't be the safest environment for the email. I'm sorry this post is so long, it's hard for me to verbalize these DNS issues succinctly. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: I get timeouts
Grant writes: > I still get timeouts even thought I have used the flags below. > Intermittent timeouts though, sometimes it will connect to port 25 and > send instantly, others it will timeout. > > root 561 0.0 0.0 1152 60 ?SJul01 0:00 > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -H -R -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u id -u qmaild -g > id -g qmaild 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd > > Have you tried -l 0? And also don't forget to restart qmail-smtpd (CMIIW). Regards, Ahmad Ridha
Re: Mailing from One connection
Hi All, Thank you to all for all the replies I also found that Qmail is definitely better than sendmail. After reading lot of documentation links given here and elsewhere I also found that sending mails concurrently is better than sending mails from one connection. I have checked the mailing lists and archives on the same too. Cheers Rajesh. - Original Message - From: "John White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Mailing from One connection > On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 12:30:52PM -0600, Roger Walker wrote: > > Test with stock qmail on a Solaris workstation, 10,000 copies sent > > to the same email address (obviously the same domain) using qmail-inject: > > 30 minutes. > > > > Test from same workstation with a script to generate 10,000 > > "rcpt to:" lines and send via a single connection: 5 minutes. > > > > In the first example, 10,000 actual copies were delivered to the > > mailbox but in the second, only a single copy was delivered. > > > > Presuming it should take the same amount of time to wait for a > > "rcpt to:" response whether sending a separate message at a time or a > > single message with multiple "rcpt to:" lines, I get the results that I > > expected - to send to the same domain (ignoring VERP requirements), it is > > faster to use a single connection for multiple messages than to use qmail. > > Amazing! I guess you're right. What is this MTA called? > Where can I download it? Let me know, and I'll set it up on a > test box to try to duplicate your test. What were the IP addresses > of the two boxes you did this on? What kind of dns library does > this server use for it's resolution? And what was the name again? > What server did it use for the resolution, and what was the dns latency > for that from the sending boxes? I'm going to try to duplicate your > test as closely as possible. What was the ip of that dns server again? > > Wait, I'm reading your post a bit more closely and it doesn't look > like you benchmarked qmail against your server, but against "a > script to generate 10K rcpt to: lines". Is that right? Now I'm > a bit confused. qmail is an MTA which handles many things like > a safe queue. What are you comparing that to? The case where I > have 10K recipients of one message at one domain which never needs > queue management? How does your script handle new messages? How > does your script handle a randomly mixed list of 10K recipients who > are located at 10 different domains? How does your script handle a > list of 50M recipients at one domain? Does your script accept message > via the smtp protocol? If so, what happens after it replys ok to > the 50M message case, and you power off the box 5 seconds later? > Can you send me the source of this script? > > John >
Re: Mailing from One connection
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 12:30:52PM -0600, Roger Walker wrote: > Test with stock qmail on a Solaris workstation, 10,000 copies sent > to the same email address (obviously the same domain) using qmail-inject: > 30 minutes. > > Test from same workstation with a script to generate 10,000 > "rcpt to:" lines and send via a single connection: 5 minutes. > > In the first example, 10,000 actual copies were delivered to the > mailbox but in the second, only a single copy was delivered. > > Presuming it should take the same amount of time to wait for a > "rcpt to:" response whether sending a separate message at a time or a > single message with multiple "rcpt to:" lines, I get the results that I > expected - to send to the same domain (ignoring VERP requirements), it is > faster to use a single connection for multiple messages than to use qmail. Amazing! I guess you're right. What is this MTA called? Where can I download it? Let me know, and I'll set it up on a test box to try to duplicate your test. What were the IP addresses of the two boxes you did this on? What kind of dns library does this server use for it's resolution? And what was the name again? What server did it use for the resolution, and what was the dns latency for that from the sending boxes? I'm going to try to duplicate your test as closely as possible. What was the ip of that dns server again? Wait, I'm reading your post a bit more closely and it doesn't look like you benchmarked qmail against your server, but against "a script to generate 10K rcpt to: lines". Is that right? Now I'm a bit confused. qmail is an MTA which handles many things like a safe queue. What are you comparing that to? The case where I have 10K recipients of one message at one domain which never needs queue management? How does your script handle new messages? How does your script handle a randomly mixed list of 10K recipients who are located at 10 different domains? How does your script handle a list of 50M recipients at one domain? Does your script accept message via the smtp protocol? If so, what happens after it replys ok to the 50M message case, and you power off the box 5 seconds later? Can you send me the source of this script? John
Re: FYI: Windows is better
* Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > * no quote string > > * no attribution line > > Corrected. Nope. > > * HTML to bloat your crap mail even more > > Fixed. Nuh uh: I 1 [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 3.1K] I 2 [text/plain, 7bit, iso-8859-1, 0.8K] I 3 [text/html, quoted, iso-8859-1, 1.8K] -- Drew
Re: Help, I broke my mail server
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I broke my qmail server. I tried to erase the mail queue. [...] > qmail-inject: fatal: qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0) > > message when I try to send mail. What did I erase, and how can I fix it. You've got several options: -do "make setup check" from the qmail source directory -download, compile, and run queue-fix (link from qmail.org) -try my new program queue-repair, available from the link in my .sig Basic documentation is now included in the tarball, and is also available on the website. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Help, I broke my mail server
I broke my qmail server. I tried to erase the mail queue. It was crapped up with a bunch of messages that couldn't be sent, and they had been there for several weeks. So I went in to the /var/qmail/queue/mess and the other directories that had the files in them and did an `rm -rf *`. Anyway, now I get a: qmail-inject: fatal: qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0) message when I try to send mail. What did I erase, and how can I fix it. I'm sure its related to erasing the queue because it just started after I did that. Heres what an `ls -al` on that dir looks like, I already tried chmod 777 to see if may I screwed permissions up: drwxr-x--- 11 qmailq qmail 512 Jun 30 20:03 . drwxr-xr-x 12 rootqmail 512 Jul 3 02:54 .. drwx-- 2 qmails qmail 512 Jul 9 20:32 bounce drwx-- 2 qmails qmail 3072 Jul 9 20:32 info drwx-- 2 qmailq qmail 512 Jul 9 20:32 intd drwx-- 2 qmails qmail 3072 Jul 9 20:33 local drwx-- 2 qmailq qmail 512 Jun 30 20:03 lock drwx-- 2 qmailq qmail 3072 Jul 9 20:35 mess drwx-- 2 qmailq qmail 512 Jul 9 20:42 pid drwx-- 2 qmails qmail 3072 Jul 9 20:35 remote drwx-- 2 qmailq qmail 512 Jul 9 20:32 todo
Re: Mailing from One connection
* Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010709]: > "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >-Dave > > That's bizarre. What I actually sent was: > > http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#multi-rcpt > > -Dave > > -Dave > If I could make a guess, in the original message you had "http: www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#multi-rcpt" right under the headers.I would imagine it was seen as a header and possibly hidden from view. -Ryan
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Wait a minute now... Who said anything about straight? --JT - Original Message - From: "Adam McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon? On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:14:58PM +0200, Lukas Beeler wrote: > as he already said in another posting, it's a 386, and he was mistaken.. Well, I'm sure glad we got that straightened out. --Adam
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:14:58PM +0200, Lukas Beeler wrote: > as he already said in another posting, it's a 386, and he was mistaken.. Well, I'm sure glad we got that straightened out. --Adam
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
nodnod, been forever since I've checked on the poor thing It was basically a set it up and forget it thing in which case untill now it was forgotten (laugh). --JT - Original Message - From: "Lukas Beeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ricardo SIGNES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon? as he already said in another posting, it's a 386, and he was mistaken.. On Monday 09 July 2001 18:45, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > In a message dated Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:21:35PM +0300, Mike Jackson wrote: > > James Stevens wrote: > > > I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* > > > 286 I had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on > > > it and > > Am I getting senile, or is Linux 386+ only? -- Lukas "Maverick" Beeler / Telematiker Project: D.R.E.A.M / every.de - Your Community Web: http://www.projectdream.org Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
as he already said in another posting, it's a 386, and he was mistaken.. On Monday 09 July 2001 18:45, Ricardo SIGNES wrote: > In a message dated Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:21:35PM +0300, Mike Jackson wrote: > > James Stevens wrote: > > > I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* > > > 286 I had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on > > > it and > > Am I getting senile, or is Linux 386+ only? -- Lukas "Maverick" Beeler / Telematiker Project: D.R.E.A.M / every.de - Your Community Web: http://www.projectdream.org Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Yes you could do that unless your parnoid about things.. Just make sure you
tell your NAT/Firewall which IP to allow inbound outbound connections on
port 53 to. In that case it would be that machine. The whole slowdown in my
case was a stupid mistake of not mapping port 53 in the first place but even
after mapping the port I found much more performance when I added the DNS
server into the loop. Might be a old computer but it don't need to be
powerfull to do it's job .. Just needs memmory which it has 128megs which
was tough to find in the old 32pin memmory (shesh - don't even ask)
BTW, this is for my office pop3/imap4 services not my outgoing mail
services. My outgoing mail servers have 3 deddicated DNS servers which are
housed on newer 650mhzPIII's with lotsa memmory and yes still using bind
(yeah, yeah I know djbdns)
--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Will Yardley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Well if the problem is name resolutions, why not just install bind on the
machine itself (in a caching-only configuration)? Then make it listen only
on 127.0.0.1 and make this the primary resolver for the machine.
w
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:32:53AM -0700, James Stevens wrote:
> I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286
I
> had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
> installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
> added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the
primary
> DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I
don't
> know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
> you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
> machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
> DNS service on that machine.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --JT
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Balatero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Chin Fang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
>
>
> Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
>
> -- David Balatero
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
>
>
> I recently have a user reported me the following:
>
> I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple
computers
> access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then,
my
> Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
> attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
> "status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for
> upwards
> of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
> email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
>
> None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
> know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
>
> I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I
telneted
> to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
>
> popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
> pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
> venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
> holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
> cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
>
> I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
> still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
> the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
>
> The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
> used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
> delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
> regardless.
>
>tcpserver \
>-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
>0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
>$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
> /var/log/pop3d &
>
> I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
> handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
> into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
>
> We use qmail 1.03.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chin Fang
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
In a message dated Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:21:35PM +0300, Mike Jackson wrote: > James Stevens wrote: > > I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I > > had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and Am I getting senile, or is Linux 386+ only? -- rjbs PGP signature
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I initially thought about it. But upon reviewing the user's report (see the underlined part) I ruled that out. He clearly said that he had his cable modem for a while, and before he got his Netgear RP114, he didn't experience any symptom. That means the reverse lookup was fine with his connection Thanks for the suggestion however.. Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED] > could be reverse DNS checking... > > -davidu > > > I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers > access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my ^ > Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when ^^ > attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The ^^ > "status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for upwards > of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading > email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has. > [...]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Well if the problem is name resolutions, why not just install bind on the
machine itself (in a caching-only configuration)? Then make it listen only
on 127.0.0.1 and make this the primary resolver for the machine.
w
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:32:53AM -0700, James Stevens wrote:
> I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I
> had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
> installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
> added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the primary
> DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I don't
> know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
> you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
> machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
> DNS service on that machine.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --JT
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Balatero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Chin Fang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
> Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
>
>
> Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
>
> -- David Balatero
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
>
>
> I recently have a user reported me the following:
>
> I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
> access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
> Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
> attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
> "status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for
> upwards
> of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
> email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
>
> None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
> know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
>
> I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
> to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
>
> popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
> pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
> venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
> holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
> cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
>
> I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
> still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
> the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
>
> The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
> used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
> delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
> regardless.
>
>tcpserver \
>-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
>0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
>$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
> /var/log/pop3d &
>
> I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
> handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
> into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
>
> We use qmail 1.03.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chin Fang
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
James Stevens wrote: > > I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I > had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and > installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and > added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the primary > DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I don't > know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but > you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail > machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the > DNS service on that machine. djbdns.
Re: Mailing from One connection
>I beg to differ... Only quoted the evidence... >Wheras >qmail just cranks out each message in it's own instance and does not have to >deal with all those extra commands and can open as many as (in my case) 400 >connections to a single remote server at one shoot, limiting my bandwidth to >1600k I can still crank out something like 1400 messages a minute sustained >using qmail.. Can Sendmail do the same?? I think not. I didn't say anything about sendmail. All I did was: telnet smtp.host 25
Re: Mailing from One connection
I beg to differ... I have a list of 40k I'll use to race ya.. Hell I'll even let you use a list of 10k to race my list of 40k.. Me using qmail and you using Sendmail.. I'll even go beyond that I'll limit the bandwidth my server can consume to 1600kb/s and you can use whatever you want.. I'll still win.. Speed is not the key here. The key is in how mail is handled. Sendmail opens up a single connection and dumps all similiar address for that domain into that connection one obvious slow down is in response time waiting for the server to acknoledge the User address, accept the message and then reset. Whereas qmail just cranks out each message in it's own instance and does not have to deal with all those extra commands and can open as many as (in my case) 400 connections to a single remote server at one shoot, limiting my bandwidth to 1600k I can still crank out something like 1400 messages a minute sustained using qmail.. Can Sendmail do the same?? I think not. --JT - Original Message - From: "Roger Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:30 AM Subject: Re: Mailing from One connection >"Rodney Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >This has been hashed, rehashed, and re-re-hashed on this list. It >inevitably ends in a flameware, somebody telling somebody else to >profile rather then speculate, and a series of past analyses of these >events supporting both sides of the argument being dredged up. Test with stock qmail on a Solaris workstation, 10,000 copies sent to the same email address (obviously the same domain) using qmail-inject: 30 minutes. Test from same workstation with a script to generate 10,000 "rcpt to:" lines and send via a single connection: 5 minutes. In the first example, 10,000 actual copies were delivered to the mailbox but in the second, only a single copy was delivered. Presuming it should take the same amount of time to wait for a "rcpt to:" response whether sending a separate message at a time or a single message with multiple "rcpt to:" lines, I get the results that I expected - to send to the same domain (ignoring VERP requirements), it is faster to use a single connection for multiple messages than to use qmail. -- Roger Walker Tier III Messaging/News Team Internet Applications, National Consumer IP TELUS Corporation 780-493-2471
Re: Mailing from One connection
Roger Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip bogus test] > I get the results that I expected - to send to the same domain (ignoring > VERP requirements), it is faster to use a single connection for multiple > messages than to use qmail. Fine. Don't use qmail. This discussion is closed. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: Mailing from One connection
"Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >-Dave That's bizarre. What I actually sent was: http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#multi-rcpt -Dave -Dave
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I take that back, it's a 386... Drrr
Writting the message on it made me log into it just to check up on it been
awhile
--JT
- Original Message -
From: "James Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Balatero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chin Fang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I
had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the primary
DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I don't
know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
DNS service on that machine.
Cheers,
--JT
- Original Message -
From: "David Balatero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chin Fang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
-- David Balatero
-Original Message-
From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
"status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for
upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d &
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I
had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the primary
DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I don't
know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
DNS service on that machine.
Cheers,
--JT
- Original Message -
From: "David Balatero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chin Fang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
-- David Balatero
-Original Message-
From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
"status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for
upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d &
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing from One connection
>"Rodney Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >This has been hashed, rehashed, and re-re-hashed on this list. It >inevitably ends in a flameware, somebody telling somebody else to >profile rather then speculate, and a series of past analyses of these >events supporting both sides of the argument being dredged up. Test with stock qmail on a Solaris workstation, 10,000 copies sent to the same email address (obviously the same domain) using qmail-inject: 30 minutes. Test from same workstation with a script to generate 10,000 "rcpt to:" lines and send via a single connection: 5 minutes. In the first example, 10,000 actual copies were delivered to the mailbox but in the second, only a single copy was delivered. Presuming it should take the same amount of time to wait for a "rcpt to:" response whether sending a separate message at a time or a single message with multiple "rcpt to:" lines, I get the results that I expected - to send to the same domain (ignoring VERP requirements), it is faster to use a single connection for multiple messages than to use qmail. -- Roger Walker Tier III Messaging/News Team Internet Applications, National Consumer IP TELUS Corporation 780-493-2471
Re: Distinct user@domain routing
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is expected behaviour. If you want separate namespaces, those domains > should be virtual, not local. See the qmail documentation and FAQ. If it's only necessary to separate some aliases he could also put these addresses into virtualdomains and handle them differently. If the setup is very static it's a simpler approach. Regards, Frank
Re: Mailing from One connection
-Dave
RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
-- David Balatero
-Original Message-
From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
"status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for
upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d &
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Chin Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he > still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by > the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so. A common cause of this can be your POP server taking a long time to resolve his IP address into a name, and possibly his name back into an IP address. If the RP114 is doing NAT or acting as a proxy, he could be connecting from a different IP address than before. To test this, when he is connected, use lsof(8) or fuser(1) to find out what address he's coming from. Then try using whatever name lookup tools you have at your disposal (probably nslookup came with your OS) to look up his IP address, then again to look up the resulting name. If either step is slow or fails, there's your problem. Otherwise, the way I usually diagnose these things is with strace(1) or truss(1) attached to the tcpserver process. This only works if it's a pretty slow day, or you have him connected to a test server of some kind; otherwise there's too much background noise. Good luck! --ScottG. [...]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Chin Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently have a user reported me the following:
>
> I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
> access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
> Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
> attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
> "status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for upwards
> of 30 seconds, before continuing.
[...]
>tcpserver \
>-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
>0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
>$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
> /var/log/pop3d &
This is the #1 most commonly asked qmail question. See the FAQ and list
archives.
Charles
--
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
---
Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
"status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d &
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing from One connection
"Rodney Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> D Rajesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DR> > If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and > the > DR> > rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single > DR> > qmail-remote process and dump all messages to be sent to hotmail on > one > DR> > connection and open another connection for all yahoo messages > > CC> qmail is designed specifically _not_ to do this. sendmail does this. > > DR> > I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly > > CC> No, it slows it down tremendously. That's why qmail doesn't do it. > > > * From Rodney: > > I haven't tested qmail against sendmail, infact I've barely even used qmail. > But I have done a bit of network programming, so let me open a few points > for consideration: [...] This has been hashed, rehashed, and re-re-hashed on this list. It inevitably ends in a flameware, somebody telling somebody else to profile rather then speculate, and a series of past analyses of these events supporting both sides of the argument being dredged up. Please don't continue with this unless you have read through the archives and know what you're getting into. :) -ScottG.
Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
"status" display of the process shows "Logging into POP server" for upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d &
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distinct user@domain routing
Kevin DeGraaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I run a qmail server that handles mail for 8 domains, all of which are in > my "rcpthosts" and "locals" files. It works fine, but I'd like to have a > bit more control over specific user@domain combinations. > > Currently, sending mail to "kevin" at any of the 8 domains works fine, and > the mail is delivered to /var/spool/mail/kevin. This is expected behaviour. If you want separate namespaces, those domains should be virtual, not local. See the qmail documentation and FAQ. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: Mailing from One connection
Rodney Broom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> D Rajesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: re: batched recipients per-MX or per-domain > DR> > I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly > > CC> No, it slows it down tremendously. That's why qmail doesn't do it. > > ===> If you send a single messager to a given domain, then the activity on > your side should look something like this: > > - Lookup recipient domain. > This requires getting the current MX for the recipient. No network load after the first one; it will be in your DNS cache. You are running a local DNS cache on every mail server, aren't you? > - Open a socket to the mail server for the recipient domain (connect). On a good OS, this is negligible, and qmail is very efficient. > - Tell the recipient mail server who you are. (trivial, but existant) > - Send the mail (headers and body) > - Close the socket connection. None of this is different with per-domain batching. > According to the input from Charles, qmail repeats this entire process for > EVERY message sent to a given domain. Yes. It's faster because it parallelizes well, and you have fewer round-trip waits. With batching, you have to do: send one RCPT wait for response send next RCPT wait for response ... By the time you've listed ten or twenty recipients, qmail has finished delivering all ten or twenty copies in parallel. > Hmm, only one copy of the body got sent to 5000 recipients. Let's see, 5000 > times 1K... Hey, that's 5 megabytes! qmail is designed for well-connected hosts. If you want to send a message to 20k recipients over a narrowband line, don't use qmail. > See, we've missed 5000 name lookups and socket connections. I'll admit that > a decent name server helps this. Also, that creating a socket isn't very > expensive on today's hardware, but it's at least a little bit of the load. Not on my systems -- qmail simply is a negligible load on a decent OS, even when sitting at a constant concurrencyremote of 100-150. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: Mailing from One connection
"Rodney Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ===> OK, to be fair I'll include the example of sending a bunch of mail to > this same domain with a single connection but with differing message bodies. Note that VERP, which is very useful for mailing lists, requires this approach, because the one connection approach doesn't permit a different envelope sender for each recipient. > - Lookup recipient domain. > This requires getting the current MX for the recipient. > - Open a socket to the mail server for the recipient domain (connect). > - Tell the recipient mail server who you are. (trivial, but existant) > - For each message: > * Send the mail (headers and body) > - Close the socket connection. > > See, we've missed 5000 name lookups and socket connections. I'll admit that > a decent name server helps this. Also, that creating a socket isn't very > expensive on today's hardware, but it's at least a little bit of the load. > What will become expensive is establishing the actuall connection with the > remote machine (which happens after the socket is created and before data is > sent). You have correctly demonstrated that an approach other than the qmail uses will reduce the number of bytes sent over the network. If you pay for your network usage by the byte, then this could be important. For people with a flat rate connection, however, minimizing message delivery latency is usually more interesting. qmail sends many messages in parallel, which helps to overcome the round trip latency inherent in the SMTP protocol. Overall, the messages will be delivered faster using qmail. This has all been discussed in the archives before. I encourage you to check them. Ian
Re: selective relaying
"~darkage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > This is what my tcp.smtp.cdb looks like - > > 10.1.0.28.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > :allow Do you mean to say that's what your /etc/tcp.smtp file looks like? If that's really what's in /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb, that's your problem; it should be in /etc/tcp.smtp, and the tcprules command you list below will build /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb, which is a binary file. If it was just a typo, you'll need to post exactly what happens when you try to log (what you have looks right), and what the logs say when it happens. > I've ran "tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp" > too.. [...] Good luck! ScottG.
Re: Distinct user@domain routing
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#multi-virtual and the rest of http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html -tcl. On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Kevin DeGraaf wrote: > I run a qmail server that handles mail for 8 domains, all of which are in > my "rcpthosts" and "locals" files. It works fine, but I'd like to have a > bit more control over specific user@domain combinations. > > Currently, sending mail to "kevin" at any of the 8 domains works fine, and > the mail is delivered to /var/spool/mail/kevin. > > I'd like to set up some aliases that behave differently depending on the > domain. I'd like to be able to specify, for example, that > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" gets sent to one user, but "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is sent to > another user. > > If I make an ~alias/.qmail-foo file, then anything sent to "foo", at any > of our domains, goes to foo's mailbox. I've been RTFMing all morning. > Ideas? > > - > Kevin DeGraaf > > > > >
Re: selective relaying
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, ~darkage wrote: > 10.1.0.28.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" having a trailing dot here is a problem since you are specifying all bits. /* Regards, Jason Kawaja, UF-ECE Sys Admin */
Re: selective relaying
arrrghh.. your right, the little dot was the prob.. It must be late I didn't even notice the dot.. Thanxs for the help.. Its working perfect now.. (: silly me.. - Original Message - From: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "~darkage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:38 AM Subject: Re: selective relaying > On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:35:36AM -0700, ~darkage wrote: > > 10.1.0.28.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >^ > > You probably don't want that '.' there. You can use this: > > 10.1.0.28:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > to allow just 10.1.0.28 to relay, or: > > 10.1.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > to allow the whole 10.1.0.* network to relay. > > Chris >
Re: selective relaying
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, ~darkage wrote: > from the document mentioned above it seems like all u need to do is to add > this "-x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb" to tcpserver for qmail-smtpd & to make sure u > have a properly formatted tcp.smtp.cdb file.. > > > This is what my tcp.smtp.cdb looks like - Sounds like you are backwards...you need a tcp.smtp that is formatted correctly. > I've ran "tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp" This then builds the .cdb so you actually edit /etc/tcp.smtp and make text changes there -- David Raistrick note: [EMAIL PROTECTED] email should be directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from now on.
Distinct user@domain routing
I run a qmail server that handles mail for 8 domains, all of which are in my "rcpthosts" and "locals" files. It works fine, but I'd like to have a bit more control over specific user@domain combinations. Currently, sending mail to "kevin" at any of the 8 domains works fine, and the mail is delivered to /var/spool/mail/kevin. I'd like to set up some aliases that behave differently depending on the domain. I'd like to be able to specify, for example, that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" gets sent to one user, but "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is sent to another user. If I make an ~alias/.qmail-foo file, then anything sent to "foo", at any of our domains, goes to foo's mailbox. I've been RTFMing all morning. Ideas? - Kevin DeGraaf
Re: Mailing from One connection
> Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> D Rajesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DR> > If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and the DR> > rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single DR> > qmail-remote process and dump all messages to be sent to hotmail on one DR> > connection and open another connection for all yahoo messages CC> qmail is designed specifically _not_ to do this. sendmail does this. DR> > I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly CC> No, it slows it down tremendously. That's why qmail doesn't do it. * From Rodney: I haven't tested qmail against sendmail, infact I've barely even used qmail. But I have done a bit of network programming, so let me open a few points for consideration: ===> If you send a single messager to a given domain, then the activity on your side should look something like this: - Lookup recipient domain. This requires getting the current MX for the recipient. - Open a socket to the mail server for the recipient domain (connect). - Tell the recipient mail server who you are. (trivial, but existant) - Send the mail (headers and body) - Close the socket connection. According to the input from Charles, qmail repeats this entire process for EVERY message sent to a given domain. ===> If you handle a bunch of mail to this same domain with a single connection (we'll assume for the moment that the body is the same for each message), then the activity on your side should look something like this: - Lookup recipient domain. This requires getting the current MX for the recipient. - Open a socket to the mail server for the recipient domain (connect). - Tell the recipient mail server who you are. (trivial, but existant) - Send the mail (headers, a potentially really long recipient list, and body) - Close the socket connection. Hmm, only one copy of the body got sent to 5000 recipients. Let's see, 5000 times 1K... Hey, that's 5 megabytes! ===> OK, to be fair I'll include the example of sending a bunch of mail to this same domain with a single connection but with differing message bodies. - Lookup recipient domain. This requires getting the current MX for the recipient. - Open a socket to the mail server for the recipient domain (connect). - Tell the recipient mail server who you are. (trivial, but existant) - For each message: * Send the mail (headers and body) - Close the socket connection. See, we've missed 5000 name lookups and socket connections. I'll admit that a decent name server helps this. Also, that creating a socket isn't very expensive on today's hardware, but it's at least a little bit of the load. What will become expensive is establishing the actuall connection with the remote machine (which happens after the socket is created and before data is sent). Something else to consider is manually sending all of the messages from your program. Not too tough, in Perl you'd just use Net::SMTP, do the afore mentioned name lookup (I use Net::DNS for this), get a connection to that server, send your messages, then close that connection. The reason for doing it this way is mostly to save on the total number of processes spawned on your machine. The importance of this will depend heavily on the power and load level of your system. ===> So, after all of that, here's my suggestion to you Mr/Ms Rajesh (dunno which, you didn't give your first name): If you haven't already done so, install sendmail. You don't need to configure it to receive, which means that it won't conflict with your running qmail. Then, use sendmail for your MUA. Make sure that you have sendmail's queue set up to a long enough time to let your program transfer all of the messages into sendmail. I would guess that 10 minutes would be plenty for 2 messages at a stroke. That way when sendmail wakes up and goes to sending mail, he'll handle tasks like grouping messages and sending with fewer connections. If you acutally do these tests, please let us know what happens. I'm very interested in hearing input on performance from an impartial person. That is; not partial to qmail or sendmail. (I'm slowly putting aside my sendmail bias. ;-) ) --- Rodney Broom Programmer: Desert.Net
selective relaying
I've read the relaying doc at http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html, but still I can't get relaying based on ip going.. This is how I startup qmail, so it works with qmailmrtg - env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 2850 -g 32750 0 smtp \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 & env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \ qmail-start ./Maildir/ | /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill \ /usr/local/bin/multilog t n100 s100 /var/log/qmail & from the document mentioned above it seems like all u need to do is to add this "-x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb" to tcpserver for qmail-smtpd & to make sure u have a properly formatted tcp.smtp.cdb file.. This is what my tcp.smtp.cdb looks like - 10.1.0.28.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow I've ran "tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp" too.. hmm still it doesn't override the rcpthosts file..I try to control it via inetd but that doesn't sound like a good idea.. thanxs for the help.. :)
verh archive@jab.org header patch
After patching qmail-remote.c with Frederik Lindbergs qmail-verh-0.06, the only problem I encountered was with To: header fields of the form archive@jab.org where each mailing recipient, apart from the verh bounce and reply addresses, would get a "personal" message with his address in the To: field. The solution above makes qmail-inject add the default domain to the resulting header, as it can't find the dot in the domain part of the address. I couldn't find any imediate solution for this so the patch I came up with is attached to this mail. The modifications are made only to qmail-inject.c, as it's not a big deal, or otherwise I would have had to touch at least 3 files (the token files and headers)... don't take my head off. The perfect reply to this would be "hehe... you could have just removed file x" or thelike... A+ from Paris Dan qmail-inject.c.diff
Re: EZMLM+idx-0.53 on Solaris8 - bug during compilation
* Piotr Kasztelowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010709 09:37]: > > I have apply to compile ezmlm-0.53 + idx-0.40 with > and such error has been reported 1. You are on the wrong list. Consult http://ezmlm.org/ 2. In the meantime, check this: http://untroubled.org/ezmlm-browse/
Re: Mailing from One connection
you're asking for the perfect spam solution your targets get mail messages without a To: header or a bogus one, and if they're lucky enough to receive mail on one address but reply with another, you'll never know who's it coming from it's clearly not the right way to do things dan - Original Message - From: D Rajesh To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 2:28 PM Subject: Mailing from One connection Hi All, I am sending different mails to 20,000 recipients at a time. So, each qmail-remote sends a mail to each recipient. or am I wrong If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and the rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single qmail-remote process and dump all messages to be sent to hotmail on one connection and open another connection for all yahoo messages I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly Cheers, rajesh.
EZMLM+idx-0.53 on Solaris8 - bug during compilation
Hello I have apply to compile ezmlm-0.53 + idx-0.40 with and such error has been reported Please help fix it: ./load ezmlm-list subdb.a fs.a getconf.o slurpclose.o slurp.o \ strerr.a getln.a getopt.a substdio.a stralloc.a \ alloc.a error.a open.a str.a case.a `head -1 conf-sqlld` ./compile ezmlm-sub.c ezmlm-sub.c: In function `main': ezmlm-sub.c:32: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' ./load ezmlm-sub subdb.a getconf.o slurpclose.o slurp.o \ log.o now.o fs.a strerr.a getopt.a fs.a \ getln.a substdio.a stralloc.a alloc.a error.a str.a case.a \ open.a lock.a `head -1 conf-sqlld` ./compile ezmlm-unsub.c ezmlm-unsub.c: In function `main': ezmlm-unsub.c:27: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' ./load ezmlm-unsub subdb.a getopt.a getconf.o slurpclose.o slurp.o \ log.o now.o fs.a strerr.a fs.a \ getln.a substdio.a stralloc.a alloc.a error.a str.a case.a \ open.a lock.a `head -1 conf-sqlld` ./compile ezmlm-cgi.c ezmlm-cgi.c:888: conflicting types for `getdate' /usr/include/time.h:156: previous declaration of `getdate' *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `ezmlm-cgi.o' --- Piotr --- Piotr Kasztelowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
Re: Mailing from One connection
D Rajesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and the > rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single > qmail-remote process and dump all messages to be sent to hotmail on one > connection and open another connection for all yahoo messages qmail is designed specifically _not_ to do this. sendmail does this. > I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly No, it slows it down tremendously. That's why qmail doesn't do it. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: autoresponder: saving copy of messages
Jens Hassler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "|/var/qmail/bin/autoresp bla". > > It works, but the problem is: The message which causes the autoresponder to > reply is lost. As soon as you create a .qmail file to hand delivery of a message over to your script, the default delivery instructions (the ones that ended up putting it in your inbox) are no longer used. `man dot-qmail` for details. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: Intranet qmail server and totally exposed sendmail server
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:01:58PM +0200, Carlo Borelli wrote: > Boss's company asked me to realize this scenario: > an internal qmail server to serving co-workers on port 25 (smtp) and 110 > (pop3); > trhough a FW1 the qmail server must talks on port 24 with a sendmail server echo ':sendmail.server.name:24' > /var/qmail/control/smtproutes This will cause all non-local mail on your qmail server to be forwarded to your sendmail server via SMTP on port 24. (Replace sendmail.server.name with the name or IP address of your sendmail server.) > that can be sacrified because totally exposed; > the sendmail mta server does at this point some relaying for the intranet > qmail mta server on the same port (24) with smtp service; > I've not problem to configure sendmail on this rules, but I've some problem > to do the same with qmail. > I tried to add another service like /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run > changing the port from smtp to 24. I've no clue how can I do to add another > listener smtp on the 24 port. That's exactly how you do it. Did it not work? Chris PGP signature
Intranet qmail server and totally exposed sendmail server
Hi all, Boss's company asked me to realize this scenario: an internal qmail server to serving co-workers on port 25 (smtp) and 110 (pop3); trhough a FW1 the qmail server must talks on port 24 with a sendmail server that can be sacrified because totally exposed; the sendmail mta server does at this point some relaying for the intranet qmail mta server on the same port (24) with smtp service; I've not problem to configure sendmail on this rules, but I've some problem to do the same with qmail. I tried to add another service like /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run changing the port from smtp to 24. I've no clue how can I do to add another listener smtp on the 24 port. Any suggestion would be very appreciated. Carlo Borelli Project Management Business Unit Tecnologie Data Center Akros Informatica S.r.l. Via Cavina 7 Ravenna, Italy Office +39 0544 503688, Mobile +39 348 6160660, Fax +39 0544 503551 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mailing from One connection
> I am sending different mails to 20,000 recipients at a time. > So, each qmail-remote sends a mail to each recipient. > or am I wrong No, that's more-or-less how it works. > If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are > yahoo and the rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible > to open a single qmail-remote process and dump all messages > to be sent to hotmail on one connection and open another > connection for all yahoo messages Not without alot of patching. > I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly Nope. It's pretty much a myth. Maybe you gain a little by opening fewer connections, but chances are some of them will timeout in the process and have to start over. This is covered in the archives, and discussed at some length in the ezmlm mailing list archives. --joshua.
Mailing from One connection
Hi All, I am sending different mails to 20,000 recipients at a time. So, each qmail-remote sends a mail to each recipient. or am I wrong If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and the rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single qmail-remote process and dump all messages to be sent to hotmail on one connection and open another connection for all yahoo messages I guess this speeds up the mail delivery amazingly Cheers, rajesh.
Re: autoresponder: saving copy of messages
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 12:59:17PM +0200, Jens Hassler wrote: > So... How can save a copy of the incoming message into the users Maildir and > send back a short autoresponder message? 'man dot-qmail'. It clearly says that ".qmail contains one OR MORE lines" (emphasis my own). - Adrian
autoresponder: saving copy of messages
Hi there, I'm using an autoresponder which is invoked in a .qmail file through piping "|/var/qmail/bin/autoresp bla". It works, but the problem is: The message which causes the autoresponder to reply is lost. So... How can save a copy of the incoming message into the users Maildir and send back a short autoresponder message? Thx4help, Jens
qmail Digest 9 Jul 2001 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1420
qmail Digest 9 Jul 2001 10:00:00 - Issue 1420 Topics (messages 65715 through 65730): Re: Blank lines in .qmail files 65715 by: Tetsu Ushijima Re: qmail-queue-patch and qmail-scanner 65716 by: Adrian Ho 65717 by: Andreas Grip 65719 by: Jason Haar queue-repair v.0.8.3 65718 by: David Talkington 65720 by: Charles Cazabon smtp Daemon! 65721 by: Qmail 65727 by: Frank Tegtmeyer Re: queue-repair v.0.8.4 65722 by: Charles Cazabon 65730 by: Frank Tegtmeyer Additional MAIL-FROM anti-spam checking: 65723 by: Tim Philips 65724 by: Charles Cazabon two people with the same name but different domain 65725 by: Essy Ren 65726 by: Troy Settle 65728 by: Frank Tegtmeyer R: two people with the same name but different domain 65729 by: Carlo Borelli 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] -- John R. Levine writes: > I see that if the first line of a .qmail file is blank, qmail-local > dies with a temporary failure code. Other blank lines are ignored, > but there's a specific test and a failure message "Uh-oh: first line of > .qmail file is blank. (#4.2.1)" > > Anyone know why? It's documented in the man page, but even for DJB > code, it seems awfully arbitrary. Just guessing, but suppose that a .qmail file consists of one or more blank lines only. Since it is not empty, the default delivery instruction does not apply. And it does not contain any instruction for qmail-local to follow. By requiring that the first line of a .qmail file is not blank, qmail-local can always identify a set of delivery instructions. -- Tetsu Ushijima On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 09:19:19PM +0200, Andreas Grip wrote: > Well, a smtp-server receiving a lot of mail can reach the limit of > maximum allowed simultanius connection. If the smtp server close the > connection faster there will be more time over and the server is able to > receive more mail. So I think a server, that are faster with closing the > connection should be more efficient. If scanning incoming mail takes that long, either upgrade your hardware or push the scanning problem to the end-users (ie. get them to buy an anti-virus package or something). Trying to accept even more mail, when you're already having trouble clearing the mail you've already received, is IMO A Really Bad Idea In A World Full Of Bad Ideas. - Adrian Charles Cazabon wrote: > > Andreas Grip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think this is a great idea; it means you have to accept every message, > > > then scan them, then generate late bounces, instead of rejecting them during > > > the initial SMTP conversation. > > > > qmail-scanner do not reject them, it just bounce them. > > I think you're mistaken, although I don't use qmail-scanner. Issuing a 4xx or > 5xx code after DATA _is_ rejecting a message -- it's also a bounce, although > if it's done during the SMTP conversation, the sending MTA is responsible for > generating the bounce message. Nope, I'm not misstaken. An infected mail is not rejected while my smtp server is receiving the mail, it turn of the connection with an ok. No bounce at this time. And then it sends an bounce to the sender with virus warning message. > > And what diffrent should that make if the bunce is a few minutes late? It > > will be late for the sender anyway because they use their ISP:s smtp server > > and the mail will be sended from that to my smtp server that scan the mail. > > There's a big difference. See above. Late bounces have to be generated by > your MTA and delivered; if the message is bounced during the initial SMTP > conversion, the bounce message is the responsibility of the sending MTA, not > the receiving one. Maybe there should be an idea to change the behavior of qmail-scanner so it reject the mail instead of accepting it. But then where can not be so much details in the virus report because the sending smtp do not know anything about the virus. > > > What problem are you trying to solve? Why do you think making the SMTP > > > client wait a minute or two is a bad idea? > > > > Well, a smtp-server receiving a lot of mail can reach the limit of maximum > > allowed simultanius connection. If the smtp server close the connection > > faster there will be more time over and the server is able to receive more > > mail. So I think a server, that are faster with closing the connection > > should be more efficient. > > Profile, don't speculate. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't > exist. I'm not trying to solve a problem that dosen't exist. I'm just trying to make sure that there will not be any problems.
Re: ANN: queue-repair v.0.8.4
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > queue-repair version 0.8.4 incorporates this fix. You write software faster than I can keep up with reading your mails :)
R: two people with the same name but different domain
Hi, try to follow the instructions of Paul Gregg at http://qmail.3va.net/single-uid-howto.html I've configured a multiple domain qmail server and works fine. Carlo Borelli Project Management Business Unit Tecnologie Data Center Akros Informatica S.r.l. Via Cavina 7 Ravenna, Italy Office +39 0544 503688, Mobile +39 348 6160660, Fax +39 0544 503551 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Messaggio originale- Da: Essy Ren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Inviato: lunedì 9 luglio 2001 3.27 A: qmail Oggetto: two people with the same name but different domain Haiii ... I have installed the qmail and it's worked fine (finally ..!!) I create two virtual domain so I have two account like this : [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about if there's two different man with a same name , for example dave at test.local and the other is different people but with same name for example dave at cobalt.local How can I separate this two different man ? I've try send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vice versa, and the email was drop into the same Maildir, so [EMAIL PROTECTED] has the same password to login (check the email) with [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder if qmail can separate the Maildir from this two virtual domain ? If it can, can you help me to make the different Maildir (and password) for the people who have the same name but in different domain ? thanks for your help
Re: two people with the same name but different domain
"Essy Ren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How can I separate this two different man ? Have a look at the man page for qmail-send. Look for the paragraph about the controlfile virtualdomains. Hint: If you add a domain to virtualdomains you *must* remove it from locals. There are also complete packages that handle virtual domains also for POP access: http://vmailmgr.org/ and http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail/ Regards, Frank
Re: smtp Daemon!
"Qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > what could be the problem and how do i resolve it. What do the logs say? What is the content of your smtpd run script? Regards, Frank
RE: two people with the same name but different domain
http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail -- Troy Settle Pulaski Networks 540.994.4254 - 866.477.5638 http://www.psknet.com -Original Message-From: Essy Ren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:27 PMTo: qmailSubject: two people with the same name but different domain Haiii ... I have installed the qmail and it's worked fine (finally ..!!) I create two virtual domain so I have two account like this : [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about if there's two different man with a same name , for example dave at test.local and the other is different people but with same name for example dave at cobalt.local How can I separate this two different man ? I've try send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and vice versa, and the email was drop into the same Maildir, so [EMAIL PROTECTED] has the same password to login (check the email) with [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder if qmail can separate the Maildir from this two virtual domain ? If it can, can you help me to make the different Maildir (and password) for the people who have the same name but in different domain ? thanks for your help
