Re: Message headers expose local net
Chris Johnson wrote/schrieb/scribsit: 192.168.1.:allow,TCPREMOTEIP="unknown",TCPREMOTEHOST="unknown",RELAYCLIENT="" Clever! ;-) Invoke tcpserver with -lunknown and the received header will not show the server's internal hostname, too. To really clean up, see FAQ 5.5 and filter the message through formail (from procmail) or reformail (http://i.am/mrsam) before qmail-inject. Both will let you delete certain headers or let ony certain headers go through, AFAIK. Stefan
Re: conf-break
+ Doug McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I changed the character in conf-break to + and have no earthly idea | how to make lists work at this point (or any submailboxes). | user-list fails; user+list fails. I use conf-break = '+' too, and have no problems with that. But beware that the address user+list is controlled by ~user/.qmail-list (and *not* ~uaser/.qmail+list). If user does not exist, however, the address would be controlled by ~alias/.qmail-user+list. There is also a caveat in connection with virtual domains. Assume you have user.dom:user in control/virtualdomains. Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (with a dash not a plus) and treated as local. You can handle this with ~alias/.qmail-user-default. Even if user does exist, delivery will still not be handled by user because there is no + after the user name. The cure is simple: Write instead user.dom:user+virtual and handle the mail with ~user/.qmail-virtual-default. All this may look like madness at first glance, but there's system in't. - Harald
Re: Warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
+ "Oden Eriksson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | | qmail-local.c: In function `main´: | qmail-local.c:448 Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´ | | | Is this severe and if so how do I correct it ? It does not matter one whit because all these program exit via _exit() and never reach the end of main(). - Harald
Re: Warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
Hi Oden, If the exit program is always returning with _exit() then add int in front of main. i.e. int main () the reason you are getting this error is because the function is defined to return nothing i.e. void main () thus you are telling the function to return the exit code (conflict in return interest). This isn't important but a good programmer always ensures that these things are correct (and I believe it is important to understand and correct this error :)) - since they could avoid problems later. Regards lara - Lara Marques mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] InfoLine cellular: 082 656 4665 http://www.infoline.web.za work: 011 402 4116 http://www.mighty.co.za fax: 011 402 4118 - On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: + "Oden Eriksson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | | qmail-local.c: In function `main´: | qmail-local.c:448 Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´ | | | Is this severe and if so how do I correct it ? It does not matter one whit because all these program exit via _exit() and never reach the end of main(). - Harald
Re: Batch loading qmail remotes
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 09:38:51AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: Blaine Lefler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is my first message to the group. I was wondering if there is a way to make qmail open a single qmail connection per domain not per rcpt? No. Yes. Put the domain in virtualdomains, have all mail for that domain delivered to a maildir and periodically run maildirsmtp. I use a similar setup at home here, with maildirqmtp supervised, and a 'run once' trigger from the .qmail and from cron. Greetz, Peter -- | 'He broke my heart,| Peter van Dijk | I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | nognixz - As the sun |Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl | | Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
Re: Default address
On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 03:59:38AM -, Russell Nelson wrote: Steve Berg writes: If the ~alias user directory has a .qmail-default file pointing to a mail address will qmail never generate a bounce message for no such user? You are correct. I'd just have said 'Yes.', to keep it on the vague side. Vague questions, vague answers [weren't those your words? :)] Greetz, Peter -- | 'He broke my heart,| Peter van Dijk | I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | nognixz - As the sun |Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl | | Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
qmail Digest 28 Apr 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 624
qmail Digest 28 Apr 1999 10:00:01 - Issue 624
Topics (messages 24786 through 24858):
qmail 14256 invoked by uid 0
24786 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24789 by: Marlon Anthony Abao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24790 by: "Petr Novotny" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24794 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail-qmtpd
24787 by: "Robin Bowes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24816 by: Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24820 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24821 by: Stefan Paletta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nevermind
24788 by: "Robin Bowes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smtproutes issue?
24791 by: "Robin Bowes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ezmlm + pgp?
24792 by: Mark Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Forged senders with our domain
24793 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24802 by: "Petr Novotny" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24810 by: "Robin Bowes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24812 by: Jeff Hayward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24817 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why users/assign didn't work
24795 by: "Xiaoxia Zhao" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24797 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24832 by: Gordon Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail-pop3d
24796 by: Keith Burdis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24798 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24801 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24835 by: Keith Burdis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
strange problem with qmail
24799 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24811 by: Eric Shafto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24814 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24815 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
»Ø¸´: Why users/assign didn't work
24800 by: "Xiaoxia Zhao" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24807 by: Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail does his job slowly
24803 by: Heiko Romahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24813 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24822 by: ivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~{;X84~}: ~{;X84~}: Why users/assign didn't work
24804 by: "Xiaoxia Zhao" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
testing (please ignore)
24805 by: Marlon Anthony Abao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24808 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a quick question (stupid one at that)
24806 by: "yessure" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24839 by: Ludwig Pummer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
old popdeamons don't do ~user/Mailbox
24809 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24855 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 Questions.
24818 by: Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24819 by: Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help! Queue file getting VERY large
24823 by: "Guenthner, Ralf DIRZ 612" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24827 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail-smtp: ok from linux, deny from windows client
24824 by: "Claudiu Balciza" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24826 by: Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24846 by: "Claudiu Balciza" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Procmail and assign?
24825 by: Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24828 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vacation progam
24829 by: "Richard Shetron" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24830 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24833 by: Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
send/receive mail
24831 by: "Sherrill (Pei-chih) Verbrugge" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
conf-break
24834 by: Doug McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24851 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qmail and Open-SMTP
24836 by: Gordon Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24837 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Will this work? mini-qmail
24838 by: Doug McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message headers expose local net
24840 by: "d. divine" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24841 by: Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24850 by: Stefan Paletta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24852 by: "d. divine" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After qmail install mail is broken
24842 by: "Stephen Lavelle" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24844 by: Justin Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qmail/Ezmlm rewrites headers?
24843 by: phate [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maildir folder
24845 by: BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail 1.03 and RH5.2
24847 by: Michael Mansour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´
24848 by: "Oden Eriksson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~{;X84~}: qmail 1.03 and RH5.2
24849 by: "Xiaoxia Zhao" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
24853 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24854 by: Lara Marques [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey - Getting closer, methinks!
24856 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Batch loading qmail remotes
24857 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Default address
24858 by: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Maildir folder
Hi I have installed the rpm package "qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2.i386.rpm" from ftp://ftp.engr.uark.edu/pub/qmail/qmail-imap/ on my redhat5.2 box, and qmail-1.03-7.i386.rpm also, the later one was from http://yoda.cs.ru.ac.za/qmail/summersoft.html. then I test it with the Netscape Communicator's Messanger as IMAP client, what's the problem I encounted was:: I use the Maildir format in qmail, eg: set a ~/Maildir under the ~/, and put "./Maildir/" into ~/.qmail when I tried to creat a new fd1, I got a plain text file like fd1, not a maildir folder with sub-new,cur,tmp, and then when I try to move some mail from the inbox ( which seems foucus on the ~/Maildir on the server side automaticlly ) on the client side into the fd1, I got a error like: "Not a valible Maildir mailbox:fd1" Does anyone has some advise or idea? is there any problem with the qmail-1.03-7.i386.rpm integrade with the qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2.i386.rpm? or should I install the qmail part from bare qmail source? or some bad with the netscape messanger? Thanks BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How to stop qmail?
I am starting qmail during system startup in conjunction with tcpwrappers. In the ps list is I guess because of this no running qmail process to be found. What is the proper method of stopping qmail in this case? Thanks Ralf
Re: Warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
let me also note that i get this error on almost every platform i've compiled qmail on, linux+glibc, freebsd2.6-3.1, solaris2.5-2.6, linuxppc4.0, etc.. end +-+ |Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Safari Internetwww.safari.net| |Fort Lauderdale, FL1-888-537-9550| +-+ On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Lara Marques wrote: Hi Oden, If the exit program is always returning with _exit() then add int in front of main. i.e. int main () the reason you are getting this error is because the function is defined to return nothing i.e. void main () thus you are telling the function to return the exit code (conflict in return interest). This isn't important but a good programmer always ensures that these things are correct (and I believe it is important to understand and correct this error :)) - since they could avoid problems later. Regards lara - Lara Marques mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] InfoLine cellular: 082 656 4665 http://www.infoline.web.za work: 011 402 4116 http://www.mighty.co.za fax: 011 402 4118 - On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: + "Oden Eriksson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | | qmail-local.c: In function `main´: | qmail-local.c:448 Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´ | | | Is this severe and if so how do I correct it ? It does not matter one whit because all these program exit via _exit() and never reach the end of main(). - Harald
Re: qmail 1.03 and RH5.2
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 04:15:09PM +1000, Michael Mansour wrote: Hi, I have an issue where I installed the qmail rpm into my Redhat 5.2, all installed well and is working. However, my issue is when I try to use ".qmail-default" in the users home directory to accept ALL addresses for his "@domainname.com" it simply doesn't work. I have also tested this with ".qmail-user" in the users home directory for a "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address and this also doesn't work. What have you done to make it so that mail to addresses @domainname.com gets delivered to this user? (What's in control/virtualdomains?) What you need is: domainname.com:user in control/virtualdomains. Give a SIGHUP to qmail-send, and user will control mail to any address @domainname.com. In the absence of other ~user/.qmail-* files, ~user/.qmail-default will handle any mail to any address @domainname.com. If you have things set up this way and it still doesn't work, what's your evidence that it doesn't work? What do your logs say? Chris
which version of qmail is installed?
Hello, how can I find out which version of qmail is installed? I have to maintenance a mailserver on which qmail is installed. But I'm realy confused, because the manpages show me version 1.01 and the owner of the server told me that's a qmamil version 1.03 Thanks in advance, Heiko
Re: old popdeamons don't do ~user/Mailbox
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # ln -s /usr/bin /var/qmail ln -s /usr/bin /var/qmail/bin, I suppose? :) Same thing since /var/qmail is a directory. I'm lazy, so the shorter one appeals to me. -Dave
Re: Qmail/Ezmlm rewrites headers?
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:39:04 -0400, phate wrote: I'm setting up a mailing list using Ezmlm-idx.. I've setup everything properly, but the problem is when the user sends a message to subscribe, he's asked to reply to a cookie based authentication system, problem is that in the reply-to header the part after the '@' is the actual domain name of the server, and not the virtualdomain I've setup the mailing list with. I've tried setting the reply-to header in ezmlm-manage.c to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but it appears something rewrites the part after @ to name of my server.. This is not how it normally works. If the address within the message itself has the virtual domain and the reply-to header does not, something is strange in your virtual domain or MTA setup. Do you rewrite headers anywhere? Do your messages pass through some sendmail installation (???). Do you use any patches to qmail? If they are both wrong, then your list is not set up correctly. In this case, the 'host' argument used in setting up the list was wrong. In general, real data is better than faked. If you write the domain/host names it is possible to check DNS info. If you enclose the confirmation request in question, it's possible to answer questions. If you provide info on your list setup, it's possibe to point out the error. [posted to both ezmlm and qmail lists, but this is more appropriate for the ezmlm list] -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Procmail and Maildir?
Is there anyway to fudge procmail into writing things to a Maildir? I would think that just giving each message a different name based on some variable that could be captured would work. Is anyone doing anything like this? Thanks, andy -- --- Andy WaldenWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MTCO CommunicationsPhone: (800) 859-6826 " Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
Re: hi
Hi Ok, let me make myself clear. what I want to do is: 1. setup a qmail and set the Maildir format as the default mailbox ( casue it's safety over a NFS ) so creat a .qmail under, let's say ~man/ ie: ~man/.qmail and in the ~man/.qmail I write ./Maildir/ and then I maildirmake a Maildir under ~man/ so we got a ~man/Maildir and under the ~man/Maildir there are ( new, cur, tmp ) sub-directory. 2. I intall the qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2.i386.rpm with all default configuration. Then I point the client netscape messanger to the imap server, and the ~man/Maildir was recognized as the inbox on the client side, and I can read message in it. 3. I want to add a new folder with a Maildir format from the client side,so I make it as fd1, but I only got one plain text file like file on the server side.and I can't move any message into the new folder fd1. My question is : Is it possbile to creat a Maildir format folder on the server side through the client? or it's a limit that imapd can't creat a Maildir format new folder, but just can read it? and is it safe enough for us to use a imap plain text format folder under a NFS? | | | 1. it doesn't work when I use the ~/Mailbox format when | I connect to the qmail-imap server using a netscape messanger client, | it seems that the client read the ~/Maildir only as its inbox. | | |I'm not sure about this. Try using ~/ or ~/INBOX. | | | 2. after I made a new folder1 from the client side, I found a | plain text file | called folder1 was created under ~, not in a maildir |mat( | new,cur,tmp) | and I can't move any file from the inbox folder to the folder1. | | |folders look like plain text files under qmail. That's normal. |Folders must be created as peers to INBOX, not subfolders under INBOX. |The folders will indeed be under ~/. | | 3. I used the qmail1.03_7_src_rpm instead the | qmail1.03_src.tar.gz, is there any problem? | |John | | BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Procmail and Maildir?
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:23:47AM -0500, Andy Walden wrote: Is there anyway to fudge procmail into writing things to a Maildir? I would think that just giving each message a different name based on some variable that could be captured would work. Is anyone doing anything like this? Thanks, andy There are some patches available to make procmail deliver to maildirs. Try http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/distrib/procmail-maildir/ A better choice might be to use maildrop instead of procmail: http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/ Maildrop knows about Maildir natively, and is superior to procmail in a lot of ways. Chris
Re: Procmail and Maildir?
On Apr 28 1999, Andy Walden wrote: Is there anyway to fudge procmail into writing things to a Maildir? I would think that just giving each message a different name based on some variable that could be captured would work. Is anyone doing anything like this? Thanks, andy I use basically two ways: 1 - get a patched version of procmail with support for Maildir; 2 - let's say your username is user and that you want to write your messages to the ~/list Maildir. Then, forward each message (that you'd like to write in the maildir) to user-list and let qmail do the rest of the work, putting ./list/ in the file ~user/.qmail-list. Hope this helps, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ (still an) Ugrad. Comp. Science student - "Windows? Linux and X!" Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
trigger getting corrupt? (was: Re: qmail does his job slowly)
On Apr 27 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: Like ... twenty-five minutes? Almost always that means that your /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger file is messed up. Check to make sure that the ownership and permissions match the following: prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Apr 27 10:15 trigger Well, after lurking for quite some time here in the list, I've seen some reports of trigger getting corrupt from time to time. Does anybody have any ideas why it might get different permissions (which, BTW, seem to be the most common case of corruption of this file)? Does any program in the qmail suite change its permission (even if temporarily) in the course of its execution? Then, of course, if a disk crash/power failure occurred, it would be a reasonable explanation... I'm asking this because I've never seen this happen (I've only seen this happen in reports sent to the mailing list), which, I must add, seem quite odd. []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ (still an) Ugrad. Comp. Science student - "Windows? Linux and X!" Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: qmail not fsstnd (Was: old popdeamons ...)
Dave Sill writes: That's why I prefer to install qmail from the directions in INSTALL. Sure, the rpm's make it easier to *install*, but, IMHO, they make it harder to *maintain* since you don't know exactly what they did. Yes you do. rpm -q -l -vv $PACKAGE -- Sam
Re: qmail not fsstnd (Was: old popdeamons ...)
Pike wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 01:38:12PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: Before installing, do: # mkdir /var/qmail /etc/qmail # ln -s /etc/qmail /var/qmail/control # mkdir /usr/doc/qmail # ln -s /usr/doc/qmail /var/qmail/doc # ln -s /usr/bin /var/qmail ln -s /usr/bin /var/qmail/bin, I suppose? :) # mkdir /var/qmailq # ln -s /var/qmail/queue That was my original complaint ... the qmail rpm swoops itself all over your fs symlinking every possible place where someone would possibly look for it. I haven't installed from RPM so I may be wrong, but surely there are only two locations for each file, one in the FSSTND location and one in /var/qmail? -- Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The Beatles never, as far as I can recall, flooded the planet in an attempt to give some beardy old boat builder an unfair advantage in creating the first Zoo."-- Adrian Hadayah
Re: qmail not fsstnd (Was: old popdeamons ...)
"Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why I prefer to install qmail from the directions in INSTALL. Sure, the rpm's make it easier to *install*, but, IMHO, they make it harder to *maintain* since you don't know exactly what they did. Yes you do. rpm -q -l -vv $PACKAGE That only tells you what files/dirs/links the rpm installed. It doesn't tell you which patches were applied to qmail, if any, or what configuration options were selected. -Dave
Re: How to stop qmail?
Text written by Guenthner, Ralf DIRZ 612 at 01:37 PM 4/28/99 +0200: I am starting qmail during system startup in conjunction with tcpwrappers. In the ps list is I guess because of this no running qmail process to be found. Have you tried a ps aux or a ps -ef, depending on your OS? Either way, do a "man ps" and look for an option like "show processes of other users" or "show all processes". When you do a full ps listing, you'll probably want to pipe it through more (or less). - Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. - From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) drop on the floor /vt./ To react to an error condition by silently discarding messages or other valuable data. "The gateway ran out of memory, so it just started dropping packets on the floor." Also frequently used of faulty mail and netnews relay sites that lose messages.
Re: qmail not fsstnd (Was: old popdeamons ...)
Hi That was my original complaint ... the qmail rpm swoops itself all over your fs symlinking every possible place where someone would possibly look for it. I haven't installed from RPM so I may be wrong, but surely there are only two locations for each file, one in the FSSTND location and one in /var/qmail? Yes, you're right ... I charged that :-) except for the docs ( they're _only_ in /usr/doc) and for the mqueue (it's _only_ in /var/qmail) So there are max 2 locations for each file somewhere on your fs, either the fsstnd place or in /var/qmail, or both. Still with me ? The docs and the man-pages don't refer to these fsstnd locations at all, so it's all just very confusing. If it's not fsstnd, don't fake it, and if you do fake it, do it right. Overall conclusion: _don't_use_the_rpm_to_install_qmail_ At least, not my build, which was done by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry david. For clarity, here's exactly what it did: - # mkdir /var/qmail # mkdir /etc/qmail/control # ln -s /etc/qmail/control /var/qmail/control # mkdir /usr/bin/qmail # ln -s /usr/bin/qmail /var/qmail/bin --- It didn't do this: # mkdir /usr/doc/qmail # ln -s /usr/doc/qmail /var/qmail/doc - and it didn't do this: # mkdir /var/qmailq # ln -s /var/qmailq /var/qmail/queue -- cu *PIKE* "I think, therefor I Mac" --- ==--- =---- - --- === ===- =-- --- === ====----- - === ---
Re: Procmail and Maildir?
Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:23:47AM -0500, Andy Walden wrote: Is there anyway to fudge procmail into writing things to a Maildir? There are some patches available to make procmail deliver to maildirs. If you like procmail, and don't want to patch it, then I recommend safecat. You can download it at my web page: http://www.pobox.com/~lbudney/linux/software/safecat.html. Safecat takes stdin and writes it to a file in a Maildir, using the same algorithm as qmail. You can invoke it from procmail (patched or not) with a rule like: :0w |safecat $HOME/Maildir/tmp $HOME/Maildir/new With the 'w' flag, above, procmail+safecat should be as reliable as qmail itself. ~~~ Len Budney | There are many good reasons to ignore Maya Design Group | this cipher...So why bother with [EMAIL PROTECTED]| nitpicks about the code style? | -- Prof. Dan Bernstein ~~~
Quick question
I was just wondering if qmail will support putting users on 2 diffrent servers. I would like to split the load between 2 diffrent machines. The first doing the authentication and storage and the other as a storage. Is this possible. Thanks
Qmail performance statistics
Hi, Has anyone for fun taken a high-end machine and produced the type of statistics that www.lsoft.com is presenting for lsmtp (http://www.lsoft.com/lsmtp.html)? They are obviously geared towards overestimation, but it would be useful for comparison. I realize that qmail is currently limited to a 255 concurrency (without parallel installations) and that the lsmtp stats deal with outgoing traffic only. Has anyone done a direct comparison between lsmtp and qmail for mailing lists? lserv and ezmlm? thanks! -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
* Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more human. *grin* Couldn't help it :-) But he's right, don't fix what isn't broken. -Yves == Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice.
Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Hi I wish I had read a mail like this before I started installing qmail on my server, which is exactly why I'm writing it. Call it frustration. There may be a lot of unjust information in here! If you're seriously reading this, read all the replies too. I hope someone who _really_ knows qmail will correct me where I'm wrong. Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail. They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences' :-) LOL! But beware. That's vaporware. Once you have it up working, qmail is great. It's better than sendmail. It's easier to understand, monitor, configure. Read all about it somewhere else. Qmail is a package of programs, all neatly documented and worked out, to do something like sendmail does. It does it a whole lot different though. If you want it to behave like sendmail, you need to do a lot of things _after_ installing qmail. You even need to install things that are not in the package, which you have to find online somewhere (checkpasswd ?). Therefore, qmail is not a (complete) replacement for sendmail. Should you install qmail ? --- First of all, consider these: * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While installing qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall sendmail. It's a good idea to completely backup your system so you'll be able to swap it back in once you really fall asleep and things are still not working. * There are some differences in securitymechanisms, for better or for worse. * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more human. * Some experience is necessary. It may take you some hours. Don't use an RPM (as of this date); qmail is _not_ fsstnd. Install it 'by hand', step by step. Now, If you're just a single user, you have some sparetime left, you hate sendmail and like the fancy rumours about qmail, try it. Especially, if you've just installed your system out of the box, and never heard of sendmail, never had any mail, this is the moment to install qmail. Don't use sendmail, it's awfull. If you have a server with several users, things may get messy. You've never realised how many users you have untill they all start complaining, believe me, I know :-) If you're have problems with sendmail, qmail may be the solution. The other solution is to hire a Sendmail Guru, someone that actually read the book :-) But here are some of the things you're going to face: - qmail doesn't do /var/spool/mail. it tries to keep the mailboxes in the users' homedirectories (which is better). If you want to do that, move all your mbox files to the users' homedirs .. there u go. If you don't want that, read a whole lot of docs before you install qmail. -in fact, qmail-pop3d doesn't do any mbox format, it wants to use the Maildir format (which really is better). If you want to use that, you should convert all your mbox files to maildirs ... someway. In the package, there is a tool supplied to do the reverse: MailDir to Mbox files :-) - qmail-pop3d doesn't work without a passwordchecker. you need to get it somewhere online and change some lines in some initfiles to get it working. If all of the above 2 things scare you, don't use qmail-pop3d...you need to use some other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you need to update. -qmail doesn't do .forward files, it uses .qmail files (which are better). If you want to use them, edit and rename all .forward files ... ... there u go. There's also a patch (dotforward) for using .forward files. -qmail doesn't read /etc/aliases. It reads info from /var/qmail/ (which is better). ...you get the point. Yes, there is a patch (fastforward) to run if you want /etc/aliases. -- In practice, a lot of things didn't work at my server. I had to move all the mboxes, rename edit all .forward files (dotforward barfed), and decided not to even try fastforward Things were still not working and I had to invent complex workarounds. A lot of handwork ... a week later, I had to do it all over again, to try and fix it. The users got funny errors and received all the mail they left on the server several times even on such a small system as mine, it was HELL. I'm glad I have it running I like it. But would I have known all this, I wouldn't have done it. Sendmail, after all, was working fine. cu *PIKE* ...*..P.i.k.e...* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kw.nl/~pike - desktop icq: 4322610 The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond http://www.redhat.com/knowledgebase/cathedral-bazaar.html I anatomize a successful free-software project, fetchmail, that was run as a deliberate test of some
RE: Quick question
On 28-Apr-99 Durham, Kenneth J wrote: one other quick question. Were can i find a online documantation that can get me through the setup of qmail from start to finish. Im kinda new so please keep this in mind. I also want to setup pop and smtp thanks for all your help. There's a file called INSTALL that's in the source directory. Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
I don't see what this has to do with anything. Sendmail didn't come with a pop3 program. You need checkpasswd only if you're going to use qmail-pop3d. It's true that if you're going to continue to use qpopper, as I have, you need to hack it a little to get ./Mailbox and XTND XMIT working. Note that there is no requirement for qmail to deliver to ~/Mailbox. You can continue to deliver to /var/mail if you like; see /var/qmail/boot/binm* or /var/qmail/boot/proc*. Interesting how only 2/10 of the sample boot scripts deliver to ~/Mailbox and yet Pike totally missed it! Of course, given his other complaints, I suppose it is hardly surprising. Evan
mail filtering
Warning Could not process message with given Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=s9fJI615cBHmzTOP; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
At 09:38 PM Wednesday 4/28/99, Pike wrote: Hi I wish I had read a mail like this before I started installing qmail on my server, which is exactly why I'm writing it. Call it frustration. Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail. They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences' :-) LOL! But beware. That's vaporware. Yeah. Fancy having to do some real homework prior to replacing a fundamental application that probably impacts a whole organisation. That's the pits isn't it? Next thing you know employers will only want to pay the competent responsible system administrators rather than the download-install-complain mob that seem to dominate sysadmin work these days. But wait! It gets worse. Very soon now sysadmins may not even think of inflicting such a change on their user base prior to a professionally conducted impact analysis. Let's just hope you don't wheel out the tiresome "I didn't know" line as ignorance of your ignorance is the original sin when it comes right down to it. Sheesh.
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
I wrote: # * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more # human. #I really doubt it. If you were a hacker, would you go after the SMTP #daemon with a long, documented history of successful exploits, with #exploit code available on the Web, or the one with no history of #successful exploits? The 1000 dollar reward for hacking qmail was never claimed Both good points. But sendmail is also a worldwide standard ... After all, it's not _easy_ to hack sendmail, the hacks are just publically available. Anyway, qmail is for now proven to be much more safe than sendmail. Point for you. [snip] # Sendmail, after all, was working fine. until the next security hole is found :-) Very true. cu *PIKE* "I think, therefor I Mac" --- ==--- =---- - --- === ===- =-- --- === ====----- - === ---
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:38:57PM +0200, Pike wrote: } Hi } } I wish I had read a mail like this before I started installing qmail on my } server, } which is exactly why I'm writing it. Call it frustration. [snip] } You even need to install things that are not in the package, which you have } to find } online somewhere (checkpasswd ?). Therefore, qmail is not a (complete) } replacement } for sendmail. I don't see what this has to do with anything. Sendmail didn't come with a pop3 program. You need checkpasswd only if you're going to use qmail-pop3d. It's true that if you're going to continue to use qpopper, as I have, you need to hack it a little to get ./Mailbox and XTND XMIT working. } } } Should you install qmail ? } --- } } First of all, consider these: } } * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While } installing } qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some } changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall } sendmail. } It's a good idea to completely backup your system so you'll be able to } swap it } back in once you really fall asleep and things are still not working. } } * There are some differences in securitymechanisms, for better or for worse. Yes, qmail actually has them. } } * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more } human. I really doubt it. If you were a hacker, would you go after the SMTP daemon with a long, documented history of successful exploits, with exploit code available on the Web, or the one with no history of successful exploits? [snip] } } cu } *PIKE* } -- Paul J. Schinder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail]
Oop's, let's do it to the list as well.
--
\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
Justin Bell wrote:
# Should you install qmail ?
# ---
#
# First of all, consider these:
#
# * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While
# installing
# qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some
# changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall
# sendmail.
this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while
you install qmail
Yes, the docs say that, but when you try to install qmail (RPM's anyway) it
says it can't because sendmail is installed...yes installed not running. I
killed sendmail but it still wouldn't install. I posted this to the list a few
months ? ago, and was told to delete sendmail first. I did, it then installed
without complaints.
Anyone know if that's an rpm thing or does it apply to tgz as well ?
SNIP
That's all I want to say. For the moment :)
Regards...Martin
--
\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
Re: Qmail performance statistics
On Wed 1999-04-28 (14:20), Fred Lindberg wrote: Hi, Has anyone for fun taken a high-end machine and produced the type of statistics that www.lsoft.com is presenting for lsmtp (http://www.lsoft.com/lsmtp.html)? They are obviously geared towards overestimation, but it would be useful for comparison. I realize that qmail is currently limited to a 255 concurrency (without parallel installations) and that the lsmtp stats deal with outgoing traffic only. Has anyone done a direct comparison between lsmtp and qmail for mailing lists? lserv and ezmlm? This would be useful. Are there any standard (or commonly used) benchmarks used to measure MTA and mailing list performance? Dan: you quoted stats on your web page about qmail's performance. Are the benchmarks you used available anywhere, so that they can be used to apply similar tests to other MTAs? - Keith -Sincerely, Fred -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Hi Thanks for the response Note that there is no requirement for qmail to deliver to ~/Mailbox. You can continue to deliver to /var/mail if you like; see /var/qmail/boot/binm* or /var/qmail/boot/proc*. Interesting how only 2/10 of the sample boot scripts deliver to ~/Mailbox and yet Pike totally missed it! Of course, given his other complaints, I suppose it is hardly surprising. Indeed, moreover, since I don't have any directory /var/qmail/boot at all Looking for it, I find I don't have any file called INSTALL.boot in the docs either. cu *PIKE* "I think, therefor I Mac" --- ==--- =---- - --- === ===- =-- --- === ====----- - === ---
Re: DSN
I got around this problem with my users by telling them that MDN is a better read reciept technology. It provides a true read reciept. DSN is just a delivery reciept. However, I understand that there are a lot of e-mail clients which don't support both forms of read reciepts. - eric "Ferri Andy Ch." escribió: Hi all, I posted this DSN issue last week, and not a single response to it. Is there any body care about this feature? DSN is very important to me, and I believe also important for a lot of people, and it's very shame to discover that qmail (claimed as more advance than sendmail) not support this feature. Security is top priority in qmail, as far as I know, but how come the nice security support feature like DSN is out of questions? Please at least someone give me a good reason why, or maybe explain to me that DSN is not so important as I think now. I really appreciate any kind of response. At least I know that this qmail community is as friendly and helpful as any other Linux community. Best regards, Ferri Andy Ch. -- // chandy a7 cbn 607 net 607 id ---/ // Linux kernel 2.2.5 XFree86 3.3.2.3 //Glib/Gtk 1.2.1 Enlightenment 0.16 // Mozilla 4.51---/ -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spark Sistemas E-mail - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. Tel: 4702-1958 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Re: qmail not fsstnd (Was: old popdeamons ...)
On Wed 1999-04-28 (20:31), Pike wrote: Hi That was my original complaint ... the qmail rpm swoops itself all over your fs symlinking every possible place where someone would possibly look for it. I haven't installed from RPM so I may be wrong, but surely there are only two locations for each file, one in the FSSTND location and one in /var/qmail? Yes, you're right ... I charged that :-) except for the docs ( they're _only_ in /usr/doc) and for the mqueue (it's _only_ in /var/qmail) So there are max 2 locations for each file somewhere on your fs, either the fsstnd place or in /var/qmail, or both. Still with me ? Well that's easy enough to fix. Just hack the spec file to put the files elsewhere. Perhaps change the spec file to move directories instead of symlinking. The docs and the man-pages don't refer to these fsstnd locations at all, so it's all just very confusing. If it's not fsstnd, don't fake it, and if you do fake it, do it right. You could use Perl to to in place editing of the man pages. Overall conclusion: _don't_use_the_rpm_to_install_qmail_ At least, not my build, which was done by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry david. Well, David just created an rpm that worked for him and was kind enough to share it with the rest of us. He and the other rpm maintainers have been very open to suggestions for improvements and changes. There are other rpms by Mate Wierdl, Bruce Guenter and Mr Sam that I know about. I've used both David's and Mate's rpms and they've worked well for me. RPMS usually provide extra features like init scripts that I find useful, and if you want to understand how the package was installed you can always take a look at the spec file. It lists what patches where applied and the process used to take the source and install it. You can change it as necessary and make a new rpm if you need to. *PIKE* - Keith -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Re: DSN
This time two of fellows answer me, thank you Eric and Dave for such speedy answer. Dave Sill wrote: Apparently not. There aren't any MUA's that I'm aware of that do anything special with DSN's. Dan considered DSN too cumbersome, so he created his own easy-to-parse-but-also-human-readable bounce format. In terms of MUA, yes. As far as I know, only Netscape and ms outlook, can answer "Disposition-Notification-To" header, that is MDN message. That's the other issue, it's nice to know that my counterpart has read or open our mail through MDN, but more important, I need to know whether my own smtp server notify me, that my mail is already sent to my counterpart smtp server. And what is Dan's easy-to-parse-but -also-human-readable bounce format, and how to use it? Security is top priority in qmail, as far as I know, but how come the nice security support feature like DSN is out of questions? How is DSN a security feature? I didn't said "DSN a security feature", I said "nice security support feature", and that's is my own term, not referencing any RFC. I feel more secure and confident, if my own smtp could tell me where (when) my message has been sent, and if (for instance) by mistake I have address my email to the wrong recepient, I could at once take proper action. Best regards, Ferri Andy Ch. -- // chandy a7 cbn 607 net 607 id ---/ // Linux kernel 2.2.5 XFree86 3.3.2.3 //Glib/Gtk 1.2.1 Enlightenment 0.16 // Mozilla 4.51---/
Re: DSN
Eric Dahnke wrote: I got around this problem with my users by telling them that MDN is a better read reciept technology. It provides a true read reciept. DSN is just a delivery reciept. However, I understand that there are a lot of e-mail clients which don't support both forms of read reciepts. - eric -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spark Sistemas E-mail - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. Tel: 4702-1958 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + You are correct Eric, MDN is nicer that DSN, but as you said not a lot of MUA support both MDN and DSN. IMHO, DSN is very useful feature to informed me that my very own smtp server has done it's job properly, and I am not by mistake has sent mail to the wrong recepient. Best regards, Ferri Andy Ch. -- // chandy a7 cbn 607 net 607 id ---/ // Linux kernel 2.2.5 XFree86 3.3.2.3 //Glib/Gtk 1.2.1 Enlightenment 0.16 // Mozilla 4.51---/
Re: DSN
"Ferri Andy Ch." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I posted this DSN issue last week, and not a single response to it. Is there any body care about this feature? Apparently not. There aren't any MUA's that I'm aware of that do anything special with DSN's. Dan considered DSN too cumbersome, so he created his own easy-to-parse-but-also-human-readable bounce format. DSN is very important to me, and I believe also important for a lot of people, and it's very shame to discover that qmail (claimed as more advance than sendmail) not support this feature. Security is top priority in qmail, as far as I know, but how come the nice security support feature like DSN is out of questions? How is DSN a security feature? -Dave
RE: Quick question
one other quick question. Were can i find a online documantation that can get me through the setup of qmail from start to finish. Im kinda new so please keep this in mind. I also want to setup pop and smtp thanks for all your help. -Original Message- From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Quick question "Durham, Kenneth J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was just wondering if qmail will support putting users on 2 diffrent servers. I would like to split the load between 2 diffrent machines. The first doing the authentication and storage and the other as a storage. Is this possible. Thanks If you're delivering to maildirs on nfs server(s), you can have multiple incoming, outgoing, and "reader" systems. -Dave
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
well, a few comments: 1) sendmail does not come with a pop daemon, so throw anything about pop out. 2) the only reason you may find it hard to deal with qmails new rules for mailboxes and alias files is the fact that most major unix releases come with sendmail preinstalled, so it seems that it has become the defacto standard of how unixen should be setup, of course your opinion would be different had qmail be the standard. -xs end +-+ |Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Safari Internetwww.safari.net| |Fort Lauderdale, FL1-888-537-9550| +-+ On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Pike wrote: Hi I wish I had read a mail like this before I started installing qmail on my server, which is exactly why I'm writing it. Call it frustration. There may be a lot of unjust information in here! If you're seriously reading this, read all the replies too. I hope someone who _really_ knows qmail will correct me where I'm wrong. Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail. They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences' :-) LOL! But beware. That's vaporware. Once you have it up working, qmail is great. It's better than sendmail. It's easier to understand, monitor, configure. Read all about it somewhere else. Qmail is a package of programs, all neatly documented and worked out, to do something like sendmail does. It does it a whole lot different though. If you want it to behave like sendmail, you need to do a lot of things _after_ installing qmail. You even need to install things that are not in the package, which you have to find online somewhere (checkpasswd ?). Therefore, qmail is not a (complete) replacement for sendmail. Should you install qmail ? --- First of all, consider these: * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While installing qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall sendmail. It's a good idea to completely backup your system so you'll be able to swap it back in once you really fall asleep and things are still not working. * There are some differences in securitymechanisms, for better or for worse. * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more human. * Some experience is necessary. It may take you some hours. Don't use an RPM (as of this date); qmail is _not_ fsstnd. Install it 'by hand', step by step. Now, If you're just a single user, you have some sparetime left, you hate sendmail and like the fancy rumours about qmail, try it. Especially, if you've just installed your system out of the box, and never heard of sendmail, never had any mail, this is the moment to install qmail. Don't use sendmail, it's awfull. If you have a server with several users, things may get messy. You've never realised how many users you have untill they all start complaining, believe me, I know :-) If you're have problems with sendmail, qmail may be the solution. The other solution is to hire a Sendmail Guru, someone that actually read the book :-) But here are some of the things you're going to face: - qmail doesn't do /var/spool/mail. it tries to keep the mailboxes in the users' homedirectories (which is better). If you want to do that, move all your mbox files to the users' homedirs .. there u go. If you don't want that, read a whole lot of docs before you install qmail. -in fact, qmail-pop3d doesn't do any mbox format, it wants to use the Maildir format (which really is better). If you want to use that, you should convert all your mbox files to maildirs ... someway. In the package, there is a tool supplied to do the reverse: MailDir to Mbox files :-) - qmail-pop3d doesn't work without a passwordchecker. you need to get it somewhere online and change some lines in some initfiles to get it working. If all of the above 2 things scare you, don't use qmail-pop3d...you need to use some other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you need to update. -qmail doesn't do .forward files, it uses .qmail files (which are better). If you want to use them, edit and rename all .forward files ... ... there u go. There's also a patch (dotforward) for using .forward files. -qmail doesn't read /etc/aliases. It reads info from /var/qmail/ (which is better). ...you get the point. Yes, there is a patch (fastforward) to run if you want /etc/aliases. -- In practice, a lot of things didn't work at my server. I had to move all the mboxes, rename edit all .forward files (dotforward barfed), and decided not to even try fastforward Things were still not working and I had to invent complex workarounds. A lot of handwork ... a week later, I had to
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Dave Sill writes: Migrating an entrenched sendmail system to qmail *is* complicated, and shouldn't be attempted by someone who isn't familiar with both sendmail and qmail. Hire an expert if you don't qualify. Or come to my half-day qmail tutorial at the Linux Expo on May 19 in Raleigh, NC. http://www.linuxexpo.org -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´
Hi there, Thanks to everone about the "Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´" thing. I think I'll just wait until the final version of RH6 is out..., I had some other mysterious things going on, so I reinstalled the RH5.2 os today, no sweat. I'll keep the 2.2.6 kernel though. -- Kindest Regards//Oden Eriksson CNE+MCSE UIN: 952113
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Pike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Your response was great. Sendmail, after all, was working fine. Then why on Earth did you switch? I was tempted by the crowdy hurrays everywhere it sounded _very_ easy, which was misleading and ...well ... it has been very educative as well ... forgot to say that :-) *PIKE* -- http://www.kw.nl/~pike/ -- Your Legal Rights are:: 1) Have a hearing before a magistrate or judge, as soon as possible after you are arrested. 2) Be notified of the charges against you. 3) Have a reasonable bail set, if bail is granted. 4) Have a FAIR, IMPARTIAL trial by jury. 5) Be present at all stages of the trial. 6) Confront your accusers. (without the baseball bat) 7) Have your lawyer cross-examine the witnesses. 8) Have your lawyer call on witnesses on your behalf. 9) Be tried for a crime only once. 10) Receive neither crual nor unusual punishment if you are convicted of a crime and sentenced.
Re: Maildir format mailbox
Warning Could not process message with given Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=+jhVVhN62yS6hEJ8; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Pike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail. It is. It's just not a 100% compatible sendmail replacement. It performs the same high-level functions, but almost all of the details differ. They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences' :-) LOL! But beware. That's vaporware. No, read the docs *first*. Qmail is a package of programs, all neatly documented and worked out, to do something like sendmail does. It does it a whole lot different though. If you want it to behave like sendmail, you need to do a lot of things _after_ installing qmail. You even need to install things that are not in the package, which you have to find online somewhere (checkpasswd ?). Therefore, qmail is not a (complete) replacement for sendmail. s/checkpassword/dot-forward/, perhaps. If you want complete sendmail compatibility, you need some add-ons. Many sites don't require this level of compatibility, so these packages are not included with qmail. * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. No, they can co-exist until you decide to flip the switch. While installing qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall sendmail. Not if you're careful. It's a good idea to completely backup your system... Not really necessary, but always a good idea before major surgery. * There are some differences in securitymechanisms, for better or for worse. Definitely for better. * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more human. Hmm? I don't follow. I think qmail is clearly more secure, so cracker activity shouldn't be too worrisome. * Some experience is necessary. It may take you some hours. Don't use an RPM (as of this date); qmail is _not_ fsstnd. Install it 'by hand', step by step. True. Practice on a spare machine, if you can. - qmail doesn't do /var/spool/mail. it tries to keep the mailboxes in the users' homedirectories (which is better). It can use /var/spool/mail, if you want it to. other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of the qmail package. No, you're still using qmail when you use a third-party POP/IMAP daemon. In practice, a lot of things didn't work at my server. I had to move all the mboxes, rename edit all .forward files (dotforward barfed), and decided not to even try fastforward Migrating an entrenched sendmail system to qmail *is* complicated, and shouldn't be attempted by someone who isn't familiar with both sendmail and qmail. Hire an expert if you don't qualify. Things were still not working and I had to invent complex workarounds. A lot of handwork ... a week later, I had to do it all over again, to try and fix it. The users got funny errors and received all the mail they left on the server several times even on such a small system as mine, it was HELL. Mostly because you didn't know what you were doing. I'm glad I have it running I like it. But would I have known all this, I wouldn't have done it. Come back in a couple years and tell us if you still feel that way. Sendmail, after all, was working fine. Then why on Earth did you switch? -Dave
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Hi Thanks for the response # First of all, consider these: # * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while you install qmail true ! thanks. I installed from an RPM - see Martin's mail. # If all of the above 2 things scare you, don't use qmail-pop3d...you need to # use some # other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit # And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of # the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you # need to update. that is complete BS sendmail does NOT have a pop daemon, never has POP is COMPLETELY independent of MTA use your head OK..so why call it qmail-pop3d and ship it with the package ? It looks to me as if the Qmail gods intented me to use the tool to pop. Sure, use anything else .. be creative .. Question is: can you sell qmail as a cool tool to a moron like me who just popped a RedHat CD out of a box ? Because really, this _is_ the way it's presented, at http://www.qmail.org A warning is in place. And it's not only : 'use your head'. you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing! that is common sense That would be a nice warning on the qmail homepage ! [snip] dotforward works fine [snip] fastforward works WONDERFULLY I'm very happy for you, but if it don't work here and it does work there... ...what's the use of barfing ? bye *PIKE* "I think, therefor I Mac" --- ==--- =---- - --- === ===- =-- --- === ====----- - === ---
Re: mail filtering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are there any filters like procmail available that can deliver to mailboxes in maildir format? The most important purpose is to redirect some mails, as from this list, for example, to appropriate directories. I posted one solution earlier today: safecat. It's a small program which duplicates the standard input to a file in a maildir. I wrote it as an exercise in understanding DJB code, and worked very hard to make it as reliable as qmail's own delivery. You can get it at the URL: http://www.pobox.com/~lbudney/linux/software/safecat.html. It can be used under an unpatched procmail, using a recipe like the following: :0w |safecat $HOME/Maildir/tmp $HOME/Maildir/new Your example, filtering mailing lists, is also pretty easy--especially if you use qmail extensions. For example, I'm subscribed under the address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". To deliver to a maildir called "$HOME/Mail/qmail", I just put the following in .qmail-lists-default: |safecat $HOME/Mail/$EXT2/tmp $HOME/Mail/$EXT2/new As you can see, I can subscribe to as many mailing lists as I want, and qmail+safecat will deliver each list's traffic to the right place. The reason safecat takes two arguments, is so that you can (for example) make the first argument "$HOME/tmp". It's a minor violation of the maildir algorithm, but makes no difference as long as both directories are on the same filesystem. Len. -- 40. Strive not with your Superiers in argument, but always Submit your Judgment to others with Modesty. -- George Washington, "Rules of Civility Decent Behaviour"
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
# Should you install qmail ? # --- # # First of all, consider these: # # * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While # installing # qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some # changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall # sendmail. this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while you install qmail # * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more # human. The 1000 dollar reward for hacking qmail was never claimed # But here are some of the things you're going to face: # # - qmail doesn't do /var/spool/mail. it tries to keep # the mailboxes in the users' homedirectories (which is better). If you want # to do that, # move all your mbox files to the users' homedirs .. there u go. If you don't # want that, # read a whole lot of docs before you install qmail. you SHOULD read a whole lot of docs before you install qmail anyway! # -in fact, qmail-pop3d doesn't do any mbox format, it wants # to use the Maildir format (which really is better). If you want to use # that, you should # convert all your mbox files to maildirs ... someway. In the package, there # is a tool # supplied to do the reverse: MailDir to Mbox files :-) # # - qmail-pop3d doesn't work without a passwordchecker. you need to get it # somewhere # online and change some lines in some initfiles to get it working. # # If all of the above 2 things scare you, don't use qmail-pop3d...you need to # use some # other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit # And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of # the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you # need to update. that is complete BS sendmail does NOT have a pop daemon, never has POP is COMPLETELY independent of MTA use your head # -qmail doesn't do .forward files, it uses .qmail files (which are better). # If you want # to use them, edit and rename all .forward files ... ... there u go. # There's also a patch (dotforward) for using .forward files. dotforward works fine # -qmail doesn't read /etc/aliases. It reads info from /var/qmail/ (which is # better). # ...you get the point. Yes, there is a patch (fastforward) to run if you # want /etc/aliases. fastforward works WONDERFULLY # Things were still not working and I had to invent complex workarounds. # A lot of handwork ... a week later, I had to do it all over again, to try # and fix it. # The users got funny errors and received all the mail they left on # the server several times even on such a small system as mine, # it was HELL. you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing! that is common sense # Sendmail, after all, was working fine. until the next security hole is found
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
From: Pike [EMAIL PROTECTED] :# First of all, consider these: :# * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. :this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while :you install qmail : :true ! thanks. I installed from an RPM - see Martin's mail. This is a Redhat/RPM dependency problem, not a qmail problem. :OK..so why call it qmail-pop3d and ship it with the package ? :It looks to me as if the Qmail gods intented me to use the tool :to pop. Sure, use anything else .. be creative .. You're thinking in sendmail terms. The qmail "package" includes a whole suite of programs, which may or may not be of use to the person who is using them. The fact that a pop3 server is included does not mean that you are required to use it. :Question is: can you sell qmail as a cool tool to a moron like :me who just popped a RedHat CD out of a box ? Because really, :this _is_ the way it's presented, at http://www.qmail.org I don't believe that this is the way it's presented. If that's what you got then perhaps you aren't reading carefully enough. (but then, we knew that already, didn't we?) :you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing! :that is common sense : :That would be a nice warning on the qmail homepage ! It would be nice if everyone read the docs. :[snip] :dotforward works fine :[snip] :fastforward works WONDERFULLY : :I'm very happy for you, but if it don't work :here and it does work there... :...what's the use of barfing ? If it doesn't work for you, then it's because you haven't set it up properly. You don't appear to even have a handle on the basic precepts of being a system administrator. I suggest you walk down to your local Barnes and Noble and pick up a few O'Reilly books. PS, why don't you get rid of that ludicrous mac signature. --Adam
Re: failover for an NFS mounted maildir spool?
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Racer X wrote:
What I think is happening: qmail-local attempts to change to the root path,
and the chdir for THAT fails because the NFS mount is down. Around line 90
in qmail-local.c:
if (chdir(dir) == -1) { if (error_temp(errno)) _exit(1); _exit(2); }
Now according to the documentation, temporary failures are supposed to have
an exit code of 111, but for the moment I'll assume the "error_temp" stuff
is working as it's supposed to. The problem then becomes, why is
qmail-local apparently interpreting the error (NFS read timeout?) as
permanent and not temporary?
No, that's the code in maildir_child, which is exiting a subprocess
of the delivering qmail-local. It would probably be helpful to set
up a test bed to replicate the problem and do a system call trace of
qmail-lspawn and children to see what's actually going on.
If it really is bouncing immediately on NFS failure it shouldn't be.
It doesn't here.
-- Jeff Hayward
Garbage for usernames.
I keep seeing stuff like this in my usernames and bounce messages.
starting delivery 275: msg 216123 to local ^[EMAIL PROTECTED]
starting delivery 540: msg 216146 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
starting delivery 542: msg 216146 to local _{[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ideas?
--
---
Andy WaldenWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO CommunicationsPhone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
# # First of all, consider these: # # * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. # this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while # you install qmail # # true ! thanks. I installed from an RPM - see Martin's mail. As far as I know, installing the RPM is NOT a good way of installing Qmail and is unspported # # If all of the above 2 things scare you, don't use qmail-pop3d...you need to # # use some # # other popdeamon and get it to cooporate with qmail. There's a techy bit # # And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of # # the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you # # need to update. # # that is complete BS # # sendmail does NOT have a pop daemon, never has # POP is COMPLETELY independent of MTA # use your head # # OK..so why call it qmail-pop3d and ship it with the package ? # It looks to me as if the Qmail gods intented me to use the tool # to pop. Sure, use anything else .. be creative .. why NOT? you can still use the pop server you currently have setup # Question is: can you sell qmail as a cool tool to a moron like # me who just popped a RedHat CD out of a box ? Because really, # this _is_ the way it's presented, at http://www.qmail.org no, it isn't you need to READ the WHOLE docs # you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing! # that is common sense # # That would be a nice warning on the qmail homepage ! what? common sense??? # [snip] # dotforward works fine # [snip] # fastforward works WONDERFULLY # # I'm very happy for you, but if it don't work # here and it does work there... # ...what's the use of barfing ? then keep trying until it DOES work! like EVERYONE else does and get rid of the STUPID mac signature it shows up as control characters -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson| Attention span is quickening.| |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \ http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ --/
failure notice (fwd)
here is another bounce that I'm getting. i sent the orginal message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], This is what bounced back. All should work. Notice the garbage characters. I'm getting like 50 of these a minute.. -- --- Andy WaldenWork Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MTCO CommunicationsPhone: (800) 859-6826 " Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. " -- Forwarded message -- Date: 28 Apr 1999 21:47:45 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at leviathan-tu1.mtco.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. @leviathan-tu1.mtco.com: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) ð@leviathan-tu1.mtco.com: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 12062 invoked by uid 218); 28 Apr 1999 21:47:45 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 13702 invoked from network); 28 Apr 1999 21:47:45 - Received: from vision.tigerteam.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by leviathan-tu1.mtco.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 1999 21:47:45 - Received: (from andy@localhost) by vision.tigerteam.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA15922 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:37:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:37:50 -0500 From: andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test test
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
| # Question is: can you sell qmail as a cool tool to a moron like | # me who just popped a RedHat CD out of a box ? Because really, | # this _is_ the way it's presented, at http://www.qmail.org It goes without saying that "morons like you who just popped a RedHat CD out of a box" have no business setting up mail servers, at _all_. I tried to stay out of this thread, but now I have to comment. I installed qmail because sendmail was _not_ working for me (fairly recently -- less than six months ago), and I was pretty sure that if I had an intimate understanding of its esoteric .cf format I could have fixed it, but I wasn't interested (and didn't really have the time) to learn that format. So I looked for alternatives. Qmail was one, and I was quite taken with its security implications. Now, please don't misunderstand, I am a sysadmin for a private box that is used by pretty much family only -- it's not a critical server. YMMV, if that doesn't hold true for you. When I started installing qmail, I was able to compile it, get it running, (including dotforward and fastforward) in _one_evening_, even though I had no idea what I was doing, really. This speaks volumes to me for the documentation that is included with qmail, and is obviously available from the website. Since then, I have read this list, tried to read as much information as I could get my hands on from websites, etc. I still am not a "grand master" with respect to qmail, but I do consider myself "adept" (I can follow most of the messages on this list, anyway). Learning about qmail was _not_ easy, and nobody on this list was going to jump in and do it for me. (And yes, I was a little disappointed at that too :) ). But when someone asked a question (not me), and the response was "RTF#5.5" I decided to go and _read_ it. Eventually, it all started making sense. But it was _never_ easy. Anyway, I guess my point is that qmail has a bigger learning curve than I've encountered in some time, but once that is overcome it *is* much better (IMHO, of course) than Sendmail. Troy
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Pike wrote: you should install on a test box before you attempt the real thing! that is common sense That would be a nice warning on the qmail homepage ! If that piece of advice comes as a surprise to you, then you deserve every bit of trouble your users have given you. You seem to have attempted to replace a fundamental piece of your computing infratructure without really understanding what you're doing and, in particular, without knowing how the new software works. Now, if that isn't asking for trouble, I don't know what is. R. -- Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. -- Sassan Tat
Re: [Fwd: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail]
this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while you install qmail Yes, the docs say that, but when you try to install qmail (RPM's anyway) it says it can't because sendmail is installed...yes installed not running. I killed sendmail but it still wouldn't install. I posted this to the list a few months ? ago, and was told to delete sendmail first. I did, it then installed without complaints. Anyone know if that's an rpm thing or does it apply to tgz as well ? It's an RPM thing. You can get round it by "--force"-ing the qmail installation. tgz is probably the best^H^H^H^Hmost satisfactory way to install since you have to read the docs to know what you're doing. That's the trouble with RPMs - you can install as easy as "rpm -Uvh" but have no inkling of what the software you've just installed actually does! -- Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. -- Sassan Tat
RE: failure notice (fwd)
On 28-Apr-99 Andy Walden wrote: here is another bounce that I'm getting. i sent the orginal message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], This is what bounced back. All should work. Notice the garbage characters. I'm getting like 50 of these a minute.. [snip] -- Forwarded message -- Date: 28 Apr 1999 21:47:45 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at leviathan-tu1.mtco.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. @leviathan-tu1.mtco.com: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) ð@leviathan-tu1.mtco.com: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 12062 invoked by uid 218); 28 Apr 1999 21:47:45 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looks here like it was delivered to mom. Is there a .qmail file with a buncha junk in it? Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Re: which version of qmail is installed?
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:32:39 +0200, Heiko Romahn wrote: Hello, how can I find out which version of qmail is installed? I have to maintenance a mailserver on which qmail is installed. But I'm realy confused, because the manpages show me version 1.01 and the owner of the server told me that's a qmamil version 1.03 The easiest is to reinstall. With a standard install, you should get both binaries and man pages. qmail-local contains the string "DEFAULT" from 1.02, i.e. 1.01 doesn't have it. I don't know a similar way to tell 1.02 from 1.03. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:38:57PM +0200, Pike wrote: Should you install qmail ? --- First of all, consider these: * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While installing qmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall sendmail. It's a good idea to completely backup your system so you'll be able to swap it back in once you really fall asleep and things are still not working. * There are some differences in securitymechanisms, for better or for worse. * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more human. * Some experience is necessary. It may take you some hours. Don't use an RPM (as of this date); qmail is _not_ fsstnd. Install it 'by hand', step by step. Should you install sendmail ? --- First of all, consider these: * You have to deinstall qmail before starting to install sendmail. While installing sendmail, you won't be able to do mail. Also, you will probably make quite some changes to your fs, which makes it hard to just give up and reinstall qmail. It's a good idea to completely backup your system so you'll be able to swap it back in once you really fall asleep and things are still not working. * There are some differences in security mechanisms, for better or for worse. * Sendmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because there have been so many vulnerabilities posted. * Some experience is necessary. It may take you some hours. Don't use an RPM as the recommend way of configuring sendmail (AFAIK) is to build the config file from the original M4 sources which you have (of course) tweaked. Either that or stand on your head and pound your keyboard with your fists, at which point you will come up with some sensible configuration rules like the following (which has a "glaring" error, according to the LSMTP home page :-): S90 R$* $- . $+ $* $: $1$2 $(mailertable .$3 $@ $1$2 $@ $2 $) $4 R$* $- : $+ $* $# $2 $@ $3 $: $4 R$* . $+ $* $@ $90 $1 . $2 $3 R$* $* $* $: $(mailertable . $@ $1$2 $) $3 R$+ : $- $* $# $1 $@ $2 $: $3 R $* $* $@ $2 Sorry for the sarcasm, but all of these arguments apply the same way if you were going from qmail to sendmail. If you have a server with several users, things may get messy. You've never realised how many users you have untill they all start complaining, believe me, I know :-) If you don't know how many users you have until after you've pissed them all off, tough luck. You're a sysadmin. You're supposed to know. And then you're not really 'running qmail', you're just using some bits of the qmail package. Things may get tricky when all the bugs arrive and you need to update. I hope you're not referring to bugs in qmail. I've been using qmail 1.01 on some of my servers for over two years (I know, a short time). The upgrade to 1.03 was fairly minor in scope and for several of the servers was basically irrelevant. -- Bruce Guenter, QCC Communications Corp. EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (306)249-0220 WWW: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/
Performance check and qmailanalog
Hi, First pardon me if my questions are wrong or stupid. We have been using Qmail for a few months now. Overall we are very happy with Qmail. Just recently I installed the qmailanalog to analyze qmail logs. Our average concurrency is around 10 from zoverall and it has been in the range of (3, 18). Right now the total number of deliveries is less than 100,000 and we expect it double or triple in the near future. Our system is running Solarise 2.6 and is 300 MHz Sparc II and has 768 MB memory. The qmail is located on a RAID system with SCSI III. I have included one copy of results from zoverall and zddist with this email. My questions are 1) From zddist it seems that Qmail took 8 hours to deliver 95 % mails and almost 2 hours for the first 10%. Probablly I misinterpretted the meaning of the zddist result. Are they because that the number of failures and deferrals were high (14% of all deliveries)? Is it going to get worse when we double our email deliveries? 2) The instruction on zoverall says that average concurrency is "a good measure of how busy the mailer is", what is the acceptable average number? Say less then 1? Was our number of 17 too high? If it is, could someone tell us what we should do to improve our system performance? 3) The average message qtime is 20541 seconds (the lowerest at one day was 30 seconds). Is it because the failures of the deliveries? Thanks for your time. Scott Liu Software Developer 831 460 4318 P.S. 1) zoverall result Basic statistics qtime is the time spent by a message in the queue. ddelay is the latency for a successful delivery to one recipient---the end of successful delivery, minus the time when the message was queued. xdelay is the latency for a delivery attempt---the time when the attempt finished, minus the time when it started. The average concurrency is the total xdelay for all deliveries divided by the time span; this is a good measure of how busy the mailer is. Completed messages: 79915 Recipients for completed messages: 79912 Total delivery attempts for completed messages: 81574 Average delivery attempts per completed message: 1.02076 Bytes in completed messages: 308819271 Bytes weighted by success: 289642486 Average message qtime (s): 20541 Total delivery attempts: 87057 success: 76036 failure: 4076 deferral: 6945 Total ddelay (s): 1629455636.245614 Average ddelay per success (s): 21430.054662 Total xdelay (s): 1062732.982771 Average xdelay per delivery attempt (s): 12.207324 Time span (days): 0.684 Average concurrency: 17.9827 2) zddist result Distribution of ddelays for successful deliveries Meaning of each line: The first pct% of successful deliveries all happened within doneby seconds. The average ddelay was avg. doneby avg pct 6276.99 2489.81 10 7115.49 2940.18 11 8421.76 3411.12 12 10015.50 3831.50 13 10215.10 4244.41 14 2.50 4646.91 15 12013.90 5074.76 16 12861.80 5498.08 17 13786.00 5897.38 18 14324.20 6322.25 19 15093.00 6708.94 20 15721.00 7108.48 21 16807.00 7528.98 22 17821.60 7877.66 23 18305.20 8090.87 24 18387.60 8299.90 25 18442.30 8474.10 26 18511.40 8741.10 27 18654.30 8995.07 28 18876.30 9223.15 29 19171.20 9476.65 30 19420.50 9789.08 31 20682.90 10030.29 32 20859.10 10282.91 33 21195.10 10378.52 34 21216.50 10581.76 35 21310.20 10772.49 36 21371.20 11002.63 37 21509.30 11208.76 38 21690.10 11450.43 39 21908.80 11665.06 40 22076.70 11841.74 41 22217.50 11978.77 42 22314.70 12149.78 43 22432.10 12365.24 44 22792.90 12562.65 45 23036.50 12751.03 46 23212.90 12940.97 47 23429.30 13072.44 48 23525.90 13226.68 49 23670.40 13325.81 50 23716.90 13431.41 51 23769.10 13542.53 52 23825.70 13622.61 53 23851.60 13746.65 54 23988.60 13844.28 55 24041.90 13967.67 56 24129.50 14090.14 57 24203.60 14186.23 58 24246.80 14287.92 59 24302.00 14417.13 60 24550.10 14575.69 61 24918.60 14735.01 62 25142.00 14882.95 63 25349.00 15023.95 64 25504.40 15159.64 65 26261.50 15227.51 66 26286.00 15392.45 67 26571.10 15543.14 68 26823.60 15686.92 69 27023.50 15831.58 70 27207.50 16011.07 71 27667.80 16165.72 72 27874.10 16303.56 73 28145.10 16401.72 74 28235.50 16480.40 75 28308.50 16555.71 76 28371.30 16679.30 77 28472.50 16770.79 78 28542.80 16857.72 79 28579.70 16928.41 80 28606.50 16992.03 81 28631.40 17106.50 82 28808.60 17265.18 83 29111.50 17402.04 84 29365.90 17545.20 85 29593.80 17670.42 86 29732.10 17788.30 87 29871.00 17928.83 88 30015.00 17991.64 89 30047.90 18093.50 90 30128.00 18240.09 91 30408.80 18308.21 92 30436.80 18370.61 93 30462.60 18489.85 94 30555.20 18623.89 95 30763.00 18718.13 96 30824.60 18811.63 97 30920.10 19047.58 98 42927.80 19451.23 99 52067.70 19451.91 100 . TAPESTRY.NET - On Target, Online Recruiting 111 Mission St.
Re: Anyone have a Pine 4.10 with Maildir support?
XxEDGExX writes: Preferable an rpm for Red Hat Linux. [root@ny SRPMS]# ls -l pine* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2852846 Mar 31 19:53 pine-4.10-1-maildir.src.rpm This is my own RPM. No problems so far. If anyone wants to put this up on the web, somewhere, I can E-mail it to you, I just don't have the time to throw together a page of my own. This is Red Hat's own RPM, with the well-known-maildir-patch-whose-name- escapes-me, for an earlier version of pine - 4.02, I think, with minor fixes needed to have the patch apply to the 4.10 source. Also, this probably will NOT work with any maildir IMAP server that's based on the same patch -- which takes a rather fascinating approach of storing IMAP UIDLs in the timestamp portion of each message's inode, according to the documentation. I have this nonsense disabled in this patch. -- Sam
Re: qmail not fsstnd (Was: old popdeamons ...)
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 20:31:32 +0200, Pike wrote: Overall conclusion: _don't_use_the_rpm_to_install_qmail_ At least, not my build, which was done by [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry david. Overall conclusion: If you can do it better and you care about it, don't use rpm. If you can't do it better or you don't care about it, use an rpm (and count yourself lucky that there is one). Most sysadmins fall into the second category for the vast majority of the programs on their systems. I want to use qmail in my way (and happen to think that the files are exactly in the right location in the default install). I still use rpms for most packages (emacs, ...) and couldn't care less where they are as long as they work. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Re: failover for an NFS mounted maildir spool?
sigh, after further testing i realized it was something else. yes, the
failover works fine if the mount isn't there. thanks for your help.
i do have one question tho - what happens to qmail-local processes that are
in the middle of delivery when the mount goes down? will they block until
the mount is back up?
thanks-
shag
=
Judd Bourgeois| CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect| 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Hayward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: failover for an NFS mounted maildir spool?
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Racer X wrote:
What I think is happening: qmail-local attempts to change to the root
path,
and the chdir for THAT fails because the NFS mount is down. Around
line 90
in qmail-local.c:
if (chdir(dir) == -1) { if (error_temp(errno)) _exit(1); _exit(2); }
Now according to the documentation, temporary failures are supposed to
have
an exit code of 111, but for the moment I'll assume the "error_temp"
stuff
is working as it's supposed to. The problem then becomes, why is
qmail-local apparently interpreting the error (NFS read timeout?) as
permanent and not temporary?
No, that's the code in maildir_child, which is exiting a subprocess
of the delivering qmail-local. It would probably be helpful to set
up a test bed to replicate the problem and do a system call trace of
qmail-lspawn and children to see what's actually going on.
If it really is bouncing immediately on NFS failure it shouldn't be.
It doesn't here.
-- Jeff Hayward
Re: DSN
Dave Sill writes: Apparently not. There aren't any MUA's that I'm aware of that do anything special with DSN's. That's because MUAs are not supposed to do anything with DSNs at all. Furthermore it would be rather difficult for them to do anything with DSNs, given that DSNs are part of the message envelope, and that the relevant RFC makes it explicitly clear that MTAs are *NOT* to insert anything into the headers or body in order to indicate the presence, or an absence of, a DSN. -- Sam
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:38:57PM +0200, Pike wrote: They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences' :-) LOL! But beware. That's vaporware. I'm sorry to be a bother, but can you reference the instructions to install qmail prior to reading the documentation? -- John White johnjohn at triceratops.com PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
Pike writes: * You have to deinstall sendmail before starting to install qmail. While installing qmail, you won't be able to do mail. I won't be a part of this flamewar, except to say that at one point I had both Qmail and sendmail running on the same box, without experiencing much trouble. -- Sam
Question about security tools with qmail
Hi I have question about using stunnel package with qmail. has anyone done it? My current config. is qmail + tcpserver for smtp and pop3 would like to use SSL function for both using stunnel any suggestion, sample, idea, scripts appriciated.
Re: Re: Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´
Oden Eriksson writes: Hi there, Thanks to everone about the "Warning: return type of `main´ is not `int´" thing. I think I'll just wait until the final version of RH6 is out..., I had some other mysterious things going on, so I reinstalled the RH5.2 os today, no sweat. I'll keep the 2.2.6 kernel though. This warning comes from egcs. gcc does not issue this warning. AFAIK RH 6.0 comes with egcs as the default compiler, so you'll still have that warning. Furthermore, since egcs will become the "official" gcc shortly, expect to deal with this error from now on. The warning is completely harmless, and is merely annoying. -- Sam
Re: which version of qmail is installed?
Try man qmail: This documentation describes version 1.03 of qmail. See http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html for other qmail-related software. R. Heiko Romahn wrote: Hello, how can I find out which version of qmail is installed? I have to maintenance a mailserver on which qmail is installed. But I'm realy confused, because the manpages show me version 1.01 and the owner of the server told me that's a qmamil version 1.03 Thanks in advance, Heiko -- Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. -- Sassan Tat
Qmail to multiple users on same system
Hello All, I have an interesting question, I am using .qmail to forward a copy of a message received by a user on my linux box (qmail v1.03), and I have the username@location and it works fine for a single entry, now how can I send a message in this way: Want to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also want joe (who is a valid user on the box) to forward received mail to addresses [EMAIL PROTECTED] AND [EMAIL PROTECTED] this be accomplished w/o too much fuss via entries in .qmail? -Bill
Re: DSN
Sam wrote: Security is top priority in qmail, as far as I know, but how come the nice security support feature like DSN is out of questions? Very funny. Thanks for a good laugh. DSNs offer no security whatsoever. My pleasure, that's is IMHO, and thank you for the credit. No, it is important, and I agree that DSNs are superior to Return-Receipts, and provide very usefull functionality. However, I urge you to read RFCs 1891 through 1894, and see for yourself what a bitch they are to implement in any mail server. People who write free or semi-free stuff do it in their spare time, and all of them have paying day jobs. If you set out to design a mail server from scratch, given a right design, I suppose, the implementation of DSN can be done reasonably well. However, retro-fitting DSN into an existing mail server is unlikely to be a very easy thing to do, and is probably more trouble than its worth. The most likely result is some monstrosity that you'll spend the next two years debugging, before it works properly. I'll get those RFC, I really appreciate your advice. I am just an ordinary user asking about feature that I had with my old mail server, and don't have intention to urge developer to implement that. At least I know that this qmail community is as friendly and helpful as any other Linux community. Qmail community is not a Linux community. Really? Never mind, at least I already got a response ;), Thank you very much! Best regards, Ferri Andy Ch. -- // chandy a7 cbn 607 net 607 id ---/ // Linux kernel 2.2.5 XFree86 3.3.2.3 //Glib/Gtk 1.2.1 Enlightenment 0.16 // Mozilla 4.51---/
RE: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
If you go to the authors FAQ you'll find that he STILL offers a $500US reward for anyone that can find a security hole in qmail. My 2c worth. Michael. -Original Message- From: Pike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 29 April 1999 6:14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail I wrote: # * Qmail is probably also more inviting to hackers, just because it's more # human. #I really doubt it. If you were a hacker, would you go after the SMTP #daemon with a long, documented history of successful exploits, with #exploit code available on the Web, or the one with no history of #successful exploits? The 1000 dollar reward for hacking qmail was never claimed Both good points. But sendmail is also a worldwide standard ... After all, it's not _easy_ to hack sendmail, the hacks are just publically available. Anyway, qmail is for now proven to be much more safe than sendmail. Point for you. [snip] # Sendmail, after all, was working fine. until the next security hole is found :-) Very true. cu *PIKE* "I think, therefor I Mac" ? ???---? ??==??--?-? ??=??---?-? ?????-? ???---? ?===??? ?===?-? ?=??--? ???---? ?===??? ?=???===??---???--? ?-? ?===??? ???---? ? ??
RE: [Fwd: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail]
If reading the RPM docs for the installation of qmail it tells you to: rpm -e sendmail To remove it entirely. Michael. -Original Message- From: Robin Bowes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 29 April 1999 8:03 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fwd: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail] this is completely untrue, the docs tell you to KEEP SENDMAIL RUNNING while you install qmail Yes, the docs say that, but when you try to install qmail (RPM's anyway) it says it can't because sendmail is installed...yes installed not running. I killed sendmail but it still wouldn't install. I posted this to the list a few months ? ago, and was told to delete sendmail first. I did, it then installed without complaints. Anyone know if that's an rpm thing or does it apply to tgz as well ? It's an RPM thing. You can get round it by "--force"-ing the qmail installation. tgz is probably the best^H^H^H^Hmost satisfactory way to install since you have to read the docs to know what you're doing. That's the trouble with RPMs - you can install as easy as "rpm -Uvh" but have no inkling of what the software you've just installed actually does! -- Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. -- Sassan Tat
Changing servers and being seemless...?
Hello everyone... I am upgrading the hardware of my main mail server. p166 - pII450 w/ RAID. So I need a good method of moving over everyones maildir's, and I'm assuming doing a rcp just wont work, since the filenames correspond to the inode tables right? I'm not sure how to use the serialmail package, but I think that may work? Thanks for any assistance... And if anyone knows of a good sync tool for my users and other nbinaries, let me know! ;) Adam H./
Correct syntax -u -g in tcpserver
Does it make a difference when one puts a space between the user and group symbols (-u -g) and the numbers when starting tcp server? (For my examples, lets pretend that the qmaild uid=123 and the nofiles gid=456) In the document at: http://qmail-docs.surfdirect.com.au/docs/qmail-antirelay.html The suggested startup line for tcpserver is: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c100 -u123 -g456 0 smtp ... The -c100 -u123 -g456 have no spaces between the -c, -u or -g and the values. The FAQ says the tcp server line is: tcpserver -v -u 123 -g 456 0 smtp ... The -u 123 -g 456 have spaces before the values. *** So, when I originally set up qmail, I used the first method for tcpserver, -u123 and -g456. Although tcpserver worked fine, it ocasionally crashed or disappeared from the process list. I would then have to manually restart it. I would say this crash occurred around 20+ times in a 3 month period. Qmail continued on just fine. When I had problems and reinstalled, I used the second method, -u 123 -g 456. I have not had a crash since, it has been about 1 month. So, my question is, does the space matter between the -u and the value or not? Could this have been the source of my tcpserver crashes? Does it simply not matter? Joe Junkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DSN
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 10:47:41PM +, Sam wrote: Dave Sill writes: Apparently not. There aren't any MUA's that I'm aware of that do anything special with DSN's. That's because MUAs are not supposed to do anything with DSNs at all. Not true (in practice). User chooses "Delivery Receipt" in their MUA's options, and the MUA ensures the Email message is submitted to it's MTA with DSN enabled. Under sendmail that is done via the MUA calling "sendmail -N failure,success", under SMTP mailers it's done by the SMTP client itself. All this talk about "Disposition-Notification-To:" is interesting - it looks like an extension of "Return-Receipt-To:" - i.e. the delivery receipt solution in pre-DSN days! [So it wasn't so bad after all! ;-)] -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
Re: Changing servers and being seemless...?
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Adam H wrote: So I need a good method of moving over everyones maildir's, and I'm assuming doing a rcp just wont work, since the filenames correspond to the inode tables right? I'm not sure how to use the serialmail package, but I think that may work? Uhm... I may be wrong, but isn't it the _queue_ which is stored by inode. The maildir files are just the servername and the time, IIRC. (I think they can be named whatever you want, too) My view--no more, no less. .Shawn
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:38:57PM +0200, Pike wrote: Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail. They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences' :-) LOL! But beware. That's vaporware. We use qmail for nearly two years now on all our systems. We migrated from a heavily hacked zmailer. We had at that time about 3000 domains and about 1 POP Boxes. Before switching the mail servers (one "relay" server with a few dial-on-demand deliveries and one POP server) I read the INSTALL, FAQ and the qmail manpages, looked through the list archives and made a PLAN and a test installation to play with. After some mails to this list about "strategies" (thanks again mainly to Russell and Harald) the migration was really easy. The whole process on the "hot" systems took about 4 or 5 hours, with a ten minute downtime of the "relay" server (stop zmailer, move aside its queue, start qmail) and about 3 hours on the pop server (due to converting from mbox to maildir and to the new structure of the "filesystem" layout we now use to organize customers, domains and mailboxes). However I think I was "well prepared", and had some tiny scripts to convert from the zmailer config files to qmail config files and create the new structure. I admit, though, that "just do it" is not enough. But I don't think it is a practicable solution to any case where you switch software. \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses Research Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| a mouse to delete files D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
Re: Qmail to multiple users on same system
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 04:46:02PM -0700, Bill Parker wrote: Want to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also want joe (who is a valid user on the box) to forward received mail to addresses [EMAIL PROTECTED] AND [EMAIL PROTECTED] this be accomplished w/o too much fuss via entries in .qmail? Maybe I miss the point but you can put any number of "" lines into .qmail files (and other deliveries, too, of course) so simply create a .qmail files in joe's homedir containing [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] That should do the job and if you also want local storage add a ./Mailbox or ./Maildir/ line. \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses Research Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| a mouse to delete files D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
IMAP and timezones
I have been using qmail for about 6 months now and I'm quite happy with it. Recently, I changed from POP3 to IMAP, however, and now, when reading my mail with MS Outlook, all the times are wrong. Outlook thinks the messages are received GMT. I thought this was Outlook's problem, but the more I look at the headers, it seems that qmail stamps the messages received at a GMT time. I see this: Received: (qmail 2707 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181) by xx.mydomain.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - Received: (qmail 21984 invoked by uid 1002); 29 Apr 1999 03:04:53 - It seems that qmail should be adding the offset for Pacific time, but is not. I tried adding TZ to /var/qmail/rc, like this: exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" TZ=PST8PDT \ qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail but that had no effect. If anyone has info on how I can correct this problem, I would be so grateful. It's 9pm and my mail says is 3am. Somewhat frustrating. THANK YOU! -Brandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qmail book question...
Does anyone have an estimated street-date for this book? I'm trying to cobble a Linux box at home, and would like to use Qmail, but for some odd reason, I have not been quite able to get things working as I would like them w/QM. Probably what I get for using Red Hat and the RPM tech. :P (This from the looney who setup Slackware and X Windows on a Compaq laptop...) Yes, yes, I know... RTFM! (I should get my ass in gear and set up DNS on the home Linux server, I know) Thanks! end -- Pax, Amor, Concordia, Conchobar mac Gabhann e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.auborneoaks.com/~gvantass ~ You've gotta dance like nobody's watching, And love like it ain't ever gonna hurt. ~
RE: IMAP and timezones
I've had the identical problem with qmail and MS Outlook as an IMAP client...would love to hear of a solution from somebody. -Tupshin -Original Message- From: Brandon Pulsipher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IMAP and timezones I have been using qmail for about 6 months now and I'm quite happy with it. Recently, I changed from POP3 to IMAP, however, and now, when reading my mail with MS Outlook, all the times are wrong. Outlook thinks the messages are received GMT. I thought this was Outlook's problem, but the more I look at the headers, it seems that qmail stamps the messages received at a GMT time. I see this: Received: (qmail 2707 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181) by xx.mydomain.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - Received: (qmail 21984 invoked by uid 1002); 29 Apr 1999 03:04:53 - It seems that qmail should be adding the offset for Pacific time, but is not. I tried adding TZ to /var/qmail/rc, like this: exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" TZ=PST8PDT \ qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail but that had no effect. If anyone has info on how I can correct this problem, I would be so grateful. It's 9pm and my mail says is 3am. Somewhat frustrating. THANK YOU! -Brandon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Qmail book question...
Geordon VanTassle writes: Does anyone have an estimated street-date for this book? It'll be months yet. Production and distribution alone looks to take two months. Just go ahead and ask questions on this list. The only stupid questions are the ones in the FAQ (distributed as FAQ in qmail-1.03.tar.gz). -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: IMAP and timezones
Brandon Pulsipher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have been using qmail for about 6 months now and I'm quite happy with it. Recently, I changed from POP3 to IMAP, however, and now, when reading my mail with MS Outlook, all the times are wrong. Outlook thinks the messages are received GMT. I thought this was Outlook's problem, but the more I look at the headers, it seems that qmail stamps the messages received at a GMT time. I see this: Received: (qmail 2707 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181) by xx.mydomain.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - Received: (qmail 21984 invoked by uid 1002); 29 Apr 1999 03:04:53 - qmail only ever uses GMT in Received headers. There's no way of changing this short of modifying the qmail code. Dan feels that all timestamps in mail should be in GMT so that people don't have to add and subtract time zones all the time (and so that in the worst cases people don't have to play "guess the time zone offset"), so this is unlikely to change. However, Outlook should be looking at the Date header of the message, not at the Received headers, and the Date header normally contains whatever the person sending the message put into it. qmail will use GMT if no Date header is provided, but if one has already been generated, I believe it is preserved. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Occasional multiple copies of the same email?
Occasionally users are getting several copies of the same email periodically. We are running qmail 1.03 on RedHat 5.2. Has anyone else had this expierience? Regards, Eric P.S. I'm still digesting the many (wonderful) replies to the "Unique situation?" thread and will report back what worked for us in this situation. Consultant, MCP, GMT, Linux Geek Ornaco Technologies GoldMine® GoldSync Solution Provider - "Turn Your Contacts Into Gold!®" www.ornaco.com www.wiredpenguin.com - inexpensive computers for the geek in all of us! 7095 Hollywood Blvd. #874 Hollywood, CA, 90028 (323) 512-4119 FAX (323) 850-0366
Re: Occasional multiple copies of the same email?
Eric S. writes: Occasionally users are getting several copies of the same email periodically. We are running qmail 1.03 on RedHat 5.2. Has anyone else had this expierience? Just some users? Or all users? What's in your /var/qmail/rc.d? The last time I saw this problem, it was due to two program deliveries from the same .qmail file, where the second one of them can fail temporarily. If it does, the first program delivery gets executed again. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
qmail-imap guide
Hi Does anyone know any guide document to the qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2 BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail-imap guide
From: BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: qmail-imap guide Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:43:02 +0900 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does anyone know any guide document to the qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2 FYI: ftp://ftp.engr.uark.edu/pub/qmail/qmail-imap/ ---Ryoji Help a cow in need! http://www.jwntug.or.jp/rc5/
Re: IMAP and timezones
Brandon Pulsipher writes: I have been using qmail for about 6 months now and I'm quite happy with it. Recently, I changed from POP3 to IMAP, however, and now, when reading my mail with MS Outlook, all the times are wrong. Outlook thinks the messages are received GMT. I thought this was Outlook's problem, but the more I look at the headers, it seems that qmail stamps the messages received at a GMT time. I see this: Received: (qmail 2707 invoked from network); 29 Apr 1999 02:05:09 - That's right, so it's Outlook's problem: it's too stupid to know what your local timezone is, so it doesn't convert it. It seems that qmail should be adding the offset for Pacific time, but is not. I tried adding TZ to /var/qmail/rc, like this: The Qmail server can be in a completely different timezone than your Outlook client, so guessing what timezone it should use for messages on a server whose users can be in 26 different potential timezones is not really possible. but that had no effect. If anyone has info on how I can correct this problem, I would be so grateful. It's 9pm and my mail says is 3am. Somewhat frustrating. Complain to Microsoft. Tell them to fix Outlook. -- Sam
