Report messages
Hi, How can i log the messages that are bounced ( like spammer who what to use me as a rely ) ?? Tanx ! HJ Herwin Jan Steehouwer KPMG Management services/KPMG CT Churchilplein 6 2517 JW Den Haag (+31)70 338 2 471
Re: Still 533
Paul Farber wrote: Yeah, I know. But the binary .cdb file is pretty unreadable, don't you think? Paul D. Farber II Farber Technology Ph. 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Adam D . McKenna wrote: That's not a cdb, it's a flat textfile. You need to compile it into a cdb using tcprules. That's the point. The cdb file is NOT supposed to be human-readable; it's a binary format designed to be read by tcpserver (and other programs). See ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/cdb.html. Paulo Jan. DDnet.
Re: Problems while downloading E-Mails with Outlook-Express
Cyril Bitterich wrote: Hi, I read the archieves but haven't foud anything apropriate. some of our Customers (we are a small non-profit ISP) come up with a Problem getting their e-mail via pop3. I use Qmail 1.03 and pop-Server from the qmail package. If there's a bigger amount of messages (70+) in the mailbox OutlookExpress goes on strike and give the following message: Nachricht Nr. 30 konnte nicht abgerufen werden. Konto: 'gunnet ', Server: 'pop gunnet.de', Protokoll: POP3, Serverantwort: 'Vielleicht sollte ich's mal mit "Learning by doing" versuchen???', Anschluss: 110, Secure (SSL): Nein, Serverfehler: 0x800CCC90, Fehlernummer: 0x800420CD. ME TOO!!! (okay, just kidding). We have been having this problem for months with Outlook Express and Outlook; in our case, the error message says something like "there was an unexpected error on the server". The problem happens mostly with messages that have M$-created attachments (Word, Excel, Power Point documents), though it comes and goes depending on the phase of the moon (some weeks it happens almost everyday; other times, like now, it just works without problems). I've also noticed that this happens always with dial-up connections; I have Outlook Express installed in my workstation here at work, and I don't have problems retrieving any of the mails that block our customers. I havbe searched the archives, and even asked myself a question to the list months ago. Apparently it's a mistery... Paulo Jan. DDnet.
Patches revisited
A while back, someone was trying to assemble a comprehensive patch list and archive. I would like to volunteer to host this. My only request - at least, initially - is that patch authors *only* submit to me their patches, along with a blurb of what the patch does and what requirements (outside of QMail) the patch may depend on. Of course, if somebody knows of a site already doing this, that URL is welcome, and I may withdraw my offer. Thanks in advance, :) Lyndon Griffin http://www.bsd4us.org
qmail-local performance
Dear All, How to increase qmail-local performance? (/var/qmail/control/concurrencylocal seems doesn't work) Thanks _Ayip. -- I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
qmail needs rcpt to own home dir ?
I am setting up a webmail system on top of qmail. I thought once I had a /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow entry for a user, that would be sufficient to receive email. This is not the case, unless the user also has a valid home directory owned by that user, qmail says the user does not exist. delivery 1661: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ Is there a way around this ? I would like to avoid creating lots of home directories that will not be used for anything else. I want all freemail users to share the same home directory. ..Chris. begin:vcard n:McCarthy;Chris tel;cell:+353 86 8209078 tel;fax:+353 86 9209078 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Contractor adr:;;;Cork;;;IRELAND version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Software Engineer fn:Chris McCarthy end:vcard
How to patch qmail?
Hi all, I want to use 'qmail-ldap' and also some 'anti-spam' patches, but if I aply a second patch to one file I got so many rejects. What is the way to go?? Bye Sven
Re: How to patch qmail?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10 Sep 99, at 11:42, Sven Veckes wrote: I want to use 'qmail-ldap' and also some 'anti-spam' patches, but if I aply a second patch to one file I got so many rejects. What is the way to go?? a. Review the rejected hunks and apply them manually. (You may then create a cumulative patch for backup purposes, or even publish it.) b. Ask someone to do that for you. c. Pay someone to do that for you. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBN9jh9VMwP8g7qbw/EQLz4ACePv4h/KcRFW+CsZrk94XsLYF8GlMAoPuA zvsWIZZ2UWVOHoucLrNhaigA =6SKN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
Re: Problems while downloading E-Mails with Outlook-Express
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 09:43:29AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote: . . . . . some text This is a known and confirmed bug in various versions of outlook. To make things worse, the bug only bites if the last packet contains just dots. To make a sure way to cause trouble for LookOut ehr.. Outlook users, end your mail with 1501 single dots on single lines, as above. Solution? MS more or less refuses to acknowledge this bug. I would advise users to dump Outlook and use something with fewer bugs made by a company that reacts to bugreports. :) -- Ruben -- Eat more memory!
Anti-Spam
Hi everybody, I've installed qmail in a Red Hat 5.1 and I've been noticed that my server is used for spamming purposes. I've tried something in hosts.allow, putting parameters like tcp-env: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx : setenv = RELAYCLIENT where xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is the IP or IP range granted to send messages through my SMTP server, but it seems not to work properly. Can anybody help me? Thanks in advance, Carles Latorre i MusollTcnic de SistemesSTRATEGY Consultors C/ Casp, 106 1er 1 P de la Castellana, 14108010 Barcelona Edificio Cuzco IVTel: 93 232 73 73 28046 MadridFax: 93 231 56 56 Tel: 91 749 80 32 Fax: 91 570 71 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.strategyconsultors.com
Re: Still 533
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Paulo Jan wrote: Paul Farber wrote: Yeah, I know. But the binary .cdb file is pretty unreadable, don't you think? Paul D. Farber II Farber Technology Ph. 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Adam D . McKenna wrote: That's not a cdb, it's a flat textfile. You need to compile it into a cdb using tcprules. That's the point. The cdb file is NOT supposed to be human-readable; it's a binary format designed to be read by tcpserver (and other programs). See ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/cdb.html. That's why Paul DIDN'T post the .cdb file. He posted the contents of the file used to generate it. In an earlier message he also posted his method for generating the .cdb. Did you really want him to post the binary? 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: Patches revisited
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Lyndon Griffin wrote: A while back, someone was trying to assemble a comprehensive patch list and archive. I would like to volunteer to host this. My only request - at least, initially - is that patch authors *only* submit to me their patches, along with a blurb of what the patch does and what requirements (outside of QMail) the patch may depend on. Of course, if somebody knows of a site already doing this, that URL is welcome, and I may withdraw my offer. Have you been to www.qmail.org? 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: Patches revisited
Yeah, I went back, now that you mention it, and I see a lot of work has been done since I wrote it off as a dead-loss for information months ago. No offense, Russ, but the presentation of information there is about as good as any geoshitties site. And yes, that can be taken as an offer to help make things better, hence the reason for starting this thread. -Original Message- From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 3:47 AM To: Lyndon Griffin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Patches revisited On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Lyndon Griffin wrote: A while back, someone was trying to assemble a comprehensive patch list and archive. I would like to volunteer to host this. My only request - at least, initially - is that patch authors *only* submit to me their patches, along with a blurb of what the patch does and what requirements (outside of QMail) the patch may depend on. Of course, if somebody knows of a site already doing this, that URL is welcome, and I may withdraw my offer. Have you been to www.qmail.org? 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 needs rcpt to own home dir ?
Chris McCarthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I am setting up a webmail system on top of qmail. I thought once I had a /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow entry for a user, that would be sufficient to receive email. This is not the case, unless the user also has a valid home directory owned by that user, qmail says the user does not exist. delivery 1661: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ Is there a way around this ? I would like to avoid creating lots of home directories that will not be used for anything else. I want all freemail users to share the same home directory. Checkout the vpopmail (vchkpw) package at http://www.inter7.com/vchkpw/ R.
Re: Patches revisited
Lyndon Griffin writes: Of course, if somebody knows of a site already doing this, that URL is welcome, and I may withdraw my offer. http://www.qmail.org/top.html#addons . You can argue that it needs improvement, but it's the canonical list. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
RE: Patches revisited
Lyndon Griffin writes: Yeah, I went back, now that you mention it, and I see a lot of work has been done since I wrote it off as a dead-loss for information months ago. No offense, Russ, but the presentation of information there is about as good as any geoshitties site. And yes, that can be taken as an offer to help make things better, hence the reason for starting this thread. No offense, but your web site sucks? How *am* I supposed to take that other than as offensive? I mean, c'mon, really. If you think it sucks, say so, but don't think you can say it without hurting my feelings. It's best to strike the phrase "No offense, but" from your vocabulary. I prefer to list everything on one page because it minimizes latency. You download the page once, which doesn't take too awful long because there's almost no graphics. Then you use your browser's search function to find things that the internal navigation links don't bring you to by browsing. This, instead of the usual "click, wait. click, wait" you get from most other web sites. You can't do much with a small wait, but you can usually find something to do with a big wait to download a big page. So, since you think you can do better, what would you do differently? Split the page up? That would waste people's time. Add more information? I'm fine with that -- "send code", as they say. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: qmail distro and UID
Kevin Waterson writes: I am putting together a redhat clone and have omitted sendmail entirely. of course exmh nmh fetchmail etc complain, but that can be remedied later. I have been looking and reading up on qmail-run and var-qmail packages. Ask redhat to change the dependency from "sendmail" to "mailtransferagent". If I use the qmail-run-4-4.i386.rpm functions-3-3.i386.rpm What should I use in the way of var-qmail. My understanding is that it needs to be compiled on each machine, but as this is a fresh install, but maybe used for upgrades, I am concerned about UID's. Should I simply create a .rpm from the source supplied or can someone recommend a better method. If I was making a distribution, *I* would reserve some UIDs 100. The chances that you'll run into a conflict in an upgrade a very small. I'd include a program to check for a conflict, and reassign the existing UID. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: Patches revisited
So, since you think you can do better, what would you do differently? Split the page up? That would waste people's time. Add more information? I'm fine with that -- "send code", as they say. There's always the approach of "one big page with an index at the top where the index links point to anchors within the page." (I'm not saying there's a natural way to split the page up, but you can split the page up without increasing latency, although it won't be quite the same as splitting it up the normal way.) In another message, you wrote: If I was making a distribution, *I* would reserve some UIDs 100. The chances that you'll run into a conflict in an upgrade a very small. I'd include a program to check for a conflict, and reassign the existing UID. Of course, once a site starts making use of network filesystems, it doesn't matter what UIDs are "reserved" by new operating systems, and no simple tool can make reassigning UIDs easy. Eventually someone is going to feel some pain. It happens.
Re: qmail distro and UID
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 08:42:08AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: Kevin Waterson writes: I am putting together a redhat clone and have omitted sendmail entirely. of course exmh nmh fetchmail etc complain, but that can be remedied later. I have been looking and reading up on qmail-run and var-qmail packages. Ask redhat to change the dependency from "sendmail" to "mailtransferagent". Hello Kevin, what Distro do you use, at least on my system (RH 6.0): mirko@picard:[mirko] rpm -qi --requires nmh Name: nmh Relocations: (not relocateable) Version : 0.27 Vendor: Red Hat Software Release : 8 Build Date: Son 18 Apr 1999 22:10:30 CEST Install date: Mon 21 Jun 1999 14:56:59 CEST Build Host: porky.devel.redhat.com Group : Applications/Internet Source RPM: nmh-0.27-8.src.rpm Size: 4758227 License: freeware Packager: Red Hat Software http://developer.redhat.com/bugzilla Summary : A capable mail handling system with a command line interface. [...] smtpdaemon [...] mutt and fetchmail only require smtpdaemon as well. smtpdaemon is provided eg. in the RPMs Mate has built? Regards Mirko
Re: Still 533
The jist of the response was, no, I didn't use a plain text file for the .cbd file in tcpserver. Thanks. Paul D. Farber II Farber Technology Ph. 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, James Smallacombe wrote: On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Paul Farber wrote: Yeah, I know. But the binary .cdb file is pretty unreadable, don't you think? unreadable by you, but it's what tcpserver reads. AFAIK, tcpserver can't read unhashed plaintext. The command to do this changed in recent tcpservers; You now use tcprules instead of tcpmakectl...it does pretty much the same thing. You can also use tcprulescheck to check it against an ip. Also, if the following isn't all on one line (ie, if you edit it with pico without using -w), make sure you put a \ on the end of the first line. 28500 ? S 0:01 tcpserver -v -H -R -c100 -x /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.cdb -u81 -g80 0 smtp qmail-smtpd
Re: qmail distro and UID
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Waterson writes: I am putting together a redhat clone and have omitted sendmail entirely. of course exmh nmh fetchmail etc complain, but that can be remedied later. I have been looking and reading up on qmail-run and var-qmail packages. Ask redhat to change the dependency from "sendmail" to "mailtransferagent". It looks like they have changed it to smtpdaemon in Redhat 6.0, although I am not an rpm expert, so maybe I misunderstand. $ rpm -q --whatrequires sendmail no package requires sendmail $ rpm -q --whatrequires smtpdaemon fetchmail-5.0.0-1 mutt-0.95.4us-4 nmh-0.27-8 -- Frank Cringle, [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (+49 2304) 467101; fax: 943357
relay rules question
Okay, I have our smtp running under tcpserver and only machine in the office can send mail through it. But now, we have people dialing in from home and wanting to use our smtp server. They can't use the ISPs smtp server because they want to send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and most people don't like you doing that... Unfortunately people are also dialing into MSN and want to use the mailserver. I don't want to allow the IP range for all of MSN... Any suggestions? Pat -- Patrick Berry --- Code Creation --- Freestyle Interactive --- 415.778.0610 http://www.freestyleinteractive.com
Re: qmail relay detection
Mr. Christopher F. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 September 1999 at 13:45:29 -0500 Or given a list of valid usernames on one system, forge email to that user's associates elsewhere. Or spam in his name, etc... All of which can be done to anybody who posts in public (like, say, here) anyway. And it's much easier to harvest email addresses from deja and web pages and list archives than it is to play VRFY games on systems. -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: relay rules question
You make your users use the MSN smtp server, I have several users using our office mailserver remotely with MSN and no reported problems sending mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED] through MSN's smtp servers. I *assume* that MSN lets any of its IP addresses send mail regardless of hostname. Tim At 12:02 PM 9/10/99 -0700, you wrote: Okay, I have our smtp running under tcpserver and only machine in the office can send mail through it. But now, we have people dialing in from home and wanting to use our smtp server. They can't use the ISPs smtp server because they want to send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and most people don't like you doing that... Unfortunately people are also dialing into MSN and want to use the mailserver. I don't want to allow the IP range for all of MSN... Any suggestions? Pat -- Patrick Berry --- Code Creation --- Freestyle Interactive --- 415.778.0610 http://www.freestyleinteractive.com
RE: Patches revisited
From the presentation of information perspective, the site is not all that good. Technically speaking, it is very good - fast loading, not a lot of BS graphics, accessible with all browsers, including the elite few of us who still use Lynx. I am concerned about the quality and quantity of information on the site. Certainly, QMail is a force in the industry, and I imagine that you and Dan Bernstein and countless others want it to be an even more powerful force. QMail is making money, of that there can be no doubt. Dan has a book deal, and you have a consultancy. People that use QMail are also making money - Hotmail, Blue Mountain Arts, NetDynamics, for instance. I like QMail, I want to continue to use QMail. I want to be informed about QMail, and my previous experience from www.qmail.org is that it is not a place to get informed. Yes, there is a patch list now on the page, and I applaud that effort. I never would have looked if I hadn't been slammed, however, because I had already written off www.qmail.org as a dead-loss for information. I know other people that have come away from the site with that same impression - even worse, I've had people tell me that the product must suck because the web site sucks. I don't argue with them because - number one, I've had a lot of trouble getting to the information I want, number two image is everything. It's the American Way, it's why companies advertise, and it's why people spend billions of dollars on the Internet. QMail is not a product that can continue to stand on it's own merits - people obviously have a lot of trouble with it, just look at the volume on this mailing list. It's time that information about QMail becomes as robust as QMail itself. Hearing from me that the site sucks shouldn't make you feel bad - after all, what do you know about me? I'm certainly no guru on QMail, which is the foundation of my criticism for the QMail site. There isn't a nice way to say that something sucks, lest you not get the message across. I prefer to be blunt. I got your attention. The current site, in my opinion, hurts QMail more that it helps. I have offered to help you, and my offer stands. It's easy to say something sucks. It's hard to do something about it. Let's do something about it. -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:31 AM To: QMail List Subject: RE: Patches revisited Lyndon Griffin writes: Yeah, I went back, now that you mention it, and I see a lot of work has been done since I wrote it off as a dead-loss for information months ago. No offense, Russ, but the presentation of information there is about as good as any geoshitties site. And yes, that can be taken as an offer to help make things better, hence the reason for starting this thread. No offense, but your web site sucks? How *am* I supposed to take that other than as offensive? I mean, c'mon, really. If you think it sucks, say so, but don't think you can say it without hurting my feelings. It's best to strike the phrase "No offense, but" from your vocabulary. I prefer to list everything on one page because it minimizes latency. You download the page once, which doesn't take too awful long because there's almost no graphics. Then you use your browser's search function to find things that the internal navigation links don't bring you to by browsing. This, instead of the usual "click, wait. click, wait" you get from most other web sites. You can't do much with a small wait, but you can usually find something to do with a big wait to download a big page. So, since you think you can do better, what would you do differently? Split the page up? That would waste people's time. Add more information? I'm fine with that -- "send code", as they say. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: Patches revisited
Sorry for prolonging this most likely annoying thread, but I completely disagree with you. On the currentsite you've got simple access to qmail sources, man pages, list archives, patches, support, etc and it is well organized. What do you want animated gifs and sound? - eric Lyndon Griffin escribió: From the presentation of information perspective, the site is not all that good. Technically speaking, it is very good - fast loading, not a lot of BS graphics, accessible with all browsers, including the elite few of us who still use Lynx. I am concerned about the quality and quantity of information on the site. Certainly, QMail is a force in the industry, and I imagine that you and Dan Bernstein and countless others want it to be an even more powerful force. QMail is making money, of that there can be no doubt. Dan has a book deal, and you have a consultancy. People that use QMail are also making money - Hotmail, Blue Mountain Arts, NetDynamics, for instance. I like QMail, I want to continue to use QMail. I want to be informed about QMail, and my previous experience from www.qmail.org is that it is not a place to get informed. Yes, there is a patch list now on the page, and I applaud that effort. I never would have looked if I hadn't been slammed, however, because I had already written off www.qmail.org as a dead-loss for information. I know other people that have come away from the site with that same impression - even worse, I've had people tell me that the product must suck because the web site sucks. I don't argue with them because - number one, I've had a lot of trouble getting to the information I want, number two image is everything. It's the American Way, it's why companies advertise, and it's why people spend billions of dollars on the Internet. QMail is not a product that can continue to stand on it's own merits - people obviously have a lot of trouble with it, just look at the volume on this mailing list. It's time that information about QMail becomes as robust as QMail itself. Hearing from me that the site sucks shouldn't make you feel bad - after all, what do you know about me? I'm certainly no guru on QMail, which is the foundation of my criticism for the QMail site. There isn't a nice way to say that something sucks, lest you not get the message across. I prefer to be blunt. I got your attention. The current site, in my opinion, hurts QMail more that it helps. I have offered to help you, and my offer stands. It's easy to say something sucks. It's hard to do something about it. Let's do something about it. -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:31 AM To: QMail List Subject: RE: Patches revisited Lyndon Griffin writes: Yeah, I went back, now that you mention it, and I see a lot of work has been done since I wrote it off as a dead-loss for information months ago. No offense, Russ, but the presentation of information there is about as good as any geoshitties site. And yes, that can be taken as an offer to help make things better, hence the reason for starting this thread. No offense, but your web site sucks? How *am* I supposed to take that other than as offensive? I mean, c'mon, really. If you think it sucks, say so, but don't think you can say it without hurting my feelings. It's best to strike the phrase "No offense, but" from your vocabulary. I prefer to list everything on one page because it minimizes latency. You download the page once, which doesn't take too awful long because there's almost no graphics. Then you use your browser's search function to find things that the internal navigation links don't bring you to by browsing. This, instead of the usual "click, wait. click, wait" you get from most other web sites. You can't do much with a small wait, but you can usually find something to do with a big wait to download a big page. So, since you think you can do better, what would you do differently? Split the page up? That would waste people's time. Add more information? I'm fine with that -- "send code", as they say. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool! -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spark Sistemas - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. Tel: 4702-1958 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
RE: Patches revisited
What do you want animated gifs and sound? - eric Apparently, you neglected to read my previous post. Simply having a link to the list archive is not helpful. Lyndon Griffin escribió: From the presentation of information perspective, the site is not all that good. Technically speaking, it is very good - fast loading, not a lot of BS graphics, accessible with all browsers, including the elite few of us who still use Lynx. I am concerned about the quality and quantity of information on the site. Maybe it's subjective, but I disagree - I don't feel that the site is well organized. Yes, there are sections of seemingly related material, which I guess is what you deem to be well organized. I do agree with you that this may no longer be the forum for this discussion. As you all can probably gather, I'm anxious to continue this discussion, however.
Re: Selective forwarding using .qmail
At 3:01 pm -0400 10/9/99,the wonderful Dave Sill wrote: Damon Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone use their .qmail files to selectively forward messages to different addresses? Say "if from=??? or subj=???" How about passing the messages to a script for processing? Sure. These are very common. Tools like maildrop and procmail make it very easy, but it can be done directly from .qmail files. how can you do it just in the .qmail file? I'd like to have a list of 'important' from addresses (in a line delimited text file) that I forward mail to an 'important'pop3 account, with the rest being junked. - kinda opposite to procmail, which appears to prefer forwarding mail if it matches. But creating a 3 line entry for each matching person might take some time... peter -- peter at gradwell dot com; http://www.gradwell.com/ gradwell dot com Ltd. Enabling the internet you don't see. ** Cheap and easy ecommerce: http://www.gradwell.net/ **
Re: qmail distro and UID
Sam wrote: That has been the case at least since 4.0. The problem is that Red Hat's installer forces a sendmail install no matter what, even if another package provides smtpdaemon. Yes, but in this case I have removed the sendmail rpms from the distro Kevin
Re: qmail distro and UID
David Harris wrote: If you are going to be installing a bunch of machines, you might invest in modifying the base package by modifying the installer's package groupings so that qmail is installed instead of sendmail. You see, sendmail is in the "base" group which is always installed. If you just modify this group, problem solved. Modify the groups by editing the RedHat/base/comps file and using the genhdlist utility to write the RedHat/base/hdlist file. The format is easy enough to understand. Yes .This is what I have done Kevin
RE: Patches revisited
Lyndon Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 September 1999 at 13:53:56 -0700 Maybe it's subjective, but I disagree - I don't feel that the site is well organized. Yes, there are sections of seemingly related material, which I guess is what you deem to be well organized. I do agree with you that this may no longer be the forum for this discussion. As you all can probably gather, I'm anxious to continue this discussion, however. Well, if Russell wants to announce that he doesn't care to hear our opinions, I could be convinced to cease offering them. I'm hoping, however, that a polite and detailed discussion of the site design may help come up with some suggestions that would significantly improve it, and if we do and since people seem to be willing to help, perhaps could actually be implemented. And nearly everything *is* subjective, I'm certainly with you there. Let me start with a big *thank you* to Russell Nelson for creating the site, and keeping it pretty current. I've gone there a number of times looking for specific things like the big dns patch, and I've always found them. Point 1: I find the categories things are grouped into somewhat arbitrary. In particular, I think somebody new to qmail would find them very confusing. [addons] Big -- and yet there are at least two or three others that are just breakouts from here. [author's software] I think I see why these have a separate category -- BUT they're essentially addons. [qmail book] [commercial support] These two categories are clear and to the point. [checkpassword] This is a particular class of addon, which newbies won't understand the purpose of. It's not even really for qmail as such. [ezmlm] I guess it makes sense to break out this author-written addon into its own section [maildir] This is mostly glue for interfacing other things to maildir; so the section title is reasonably appropriate. [tips] These are pretty useful; but are actually rather different from the other sections it seems to me. [user software] These are essentially addons too. [user documentation] [high-volume servers] Another useful specialized category, I guess. I wonder if what's really needed is a hierarchy more than 1 level deep? And maybe with some cross-referencing? Also, there isn't much editorial content. I can certainly see reasons why, but what people really need is *advice* about how to proceed with qmail, rather than a menu of everything that's available. Point 2: I think it would be nice if the front page had *less* technical stuff, and in particular if it looked less like a large collection of enhancements and fixes for things. It presents the appearance of a product that's in some disarray, which I think is an unfortunate impression to make on a newcomer. Point 3: I think I know why qmail.org is avoiding this role (time), but it would be *really nice* if qmail.org laid out several paths into qmail, with some discussion as to which path is appropriate for what situation. I suppose it's also possible that Russell just doesn't want to take the abuse the putting specific recommended paths on qmail.org is likely to generate (from a small minority). (I don't even know who is likely to object; it's just that I'm pretty sure standing up is likely to get one shot at, as a general rule). I'm thinking of paths like "personal fully-connected server" and "intermittently connected personal system" and "high-volume mail sender" and "large POP user community" and "internal node in big organization that uses qmail overall". They wouldn't claim to be the *only* or even *best* way -- but they'd describe a path and some of the tradeoffs made. This sort of thing would help new users *a lot* I think. I guess this is back to the "advice" concept I mentioned under point 1. -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: Patches revisited
I think that it would be really useful if qmail.org had an "apps" section similar to freshmeat.net or linuxapps.com. If I could search through names and decriptions of apps, that would be *very useful*. For instance, if I hear about this cool program called "vchkpw", that's an addition for qmail, and I go to www.qmail.org, a simple search is not going to find it, because the places that vchkpw is mentioned on the qmail page do not lead to the actual software. vchkpw is listed as the following: Christopher Johnson (EI39-1) wrote a virtual domains package with the following features. Inter7 is now maintaining the current version. For someone who searches for "virtual domains", this is fine. However, if I've used vchkpw before and just can't remember the link, then it's going to be hard for me to find this on the page. Especially since it's listed under "Alternative checkpassword implementations." It's obvious to you or me why your checkpassword program relates to virtual domains, but that is not obvious at all to a newbie. Another thing that database searches are good for is that you can have descriptions with words appearing out of order. For instance, a search for "virtual domains" will find a document with "virtual mail domains" as well. Anyway, just my 2 cents. I think the qmail page is definitely a very valuable resource, but I can see how it would be confusing for newbies. --Adam
Re: qmail relay detection
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyhow, I realize that giving information "up front" on working usernames on the system is probably at least a small security risk, so I'd rather not do that, I've yet to see anyone make a cogent argument for this, instead of accepting it as a given. It's pretty obvious. Given two systems, one that advertises users and one that doesn't, and an infinite supply of kiddie krackers doing brute-force searches for accounts with easy-to-guess passwords, the It's much easier to scrape the same accounts from the web or Usenet. Furthermore, you ignored the rest of my post, which compared whatever miniscule benefit you get from practicing security through obscurity weighed against your server now being a willing accomplice in a denial-of-service attack. The same script kiddies are far less likely to select a nailed down service in order to mailbomb someone by proxy, instead it's much easier to shove a few thousand messages with a few thousand bad recipients into Qmail's queue, then sit back and watch Qmail unload a few million messages into the target's mailbox. system that advertises usernames will be broken into first, on average, because the crackers will waste less time trying to break into nonexistent accounts. I've yet to hear of a single documented case of someone using sendmail in this fashion in order to crack into accounts. If a cracker wants to collect valid addresses to try to crack into, they're far less likely to start banging on port 25 which is usually logged on sendmail boxes, and be notices, instead of simply harvest the addresses off the search engines or Dejanews, which is virtually undetectable.
Re: qmail relay detection
I agree with Sam on this one. My experience supports his view. I've never seen any systematic attempts to grab usernames via SMTP. I've seen quite a few mailbombs with bounces, though. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Sam wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyhow, I realize that giving information "up front" on working usernames on the system is probably at least a small security risk, so I'd rather not do that, I've yet to see anyone make a cogent argument for this, instead of accepting it as a given. It's pretty obvious. Given two systems, one that advertises users and one that doesn't, and an infinite supply of kiddie krackers doing brute-force searches for accounts with easy-to-guess passwords, the It's much easier to scrape the same accounts from the web or Usenet. Furthermore, you ignored the rest of my post, which compared whatever miniscule benefit you get from practicing security through obscurity weighed against your server now being a willing accomplice in a denial-of-service attack. The same script kiddies are far less likely to select a nailed down service in order to mailbomb someone by proxy, instead it's much easier to shove a few thousand messages with a few thousand bad recipients into Qmail's queue, then sit back and watch Qmail unload a few million messages into the target's mailbox. system that advertises usernames will be broken into first, on average, because the crackers will waste less time trying to break into nonexistent accounts. I've yet to hear of a single documented case of someone using sendmail in this fashion in order to crack into accounts. If a cracker wants to collect valid addresses to try to crack into, they're far less likely to start banging on port 25 which is usually logged on sendmail boxes, and be notices, instead of simply harvest the addresses off the search engines or Dejanews, which is virtually undetectable.
Outlook Groupware Functions
Hello everybody, I have already installed qmail on SuSE Linux 6.2 with Windows clients and it works really fine. We have almost 15 clients running Outlook 97/98/2000. Now my question is, if it is possible to use the groupware function of that MUA with qmail, or are there any questions to do so ? I really don't want to use M$ Exchange to use the wanted features of Outlook. Thank you for your answers best regards Stephan
Re: qmail relay detection
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 07:55:52PM -0400, Sam wrote: Furthermore, you ignored the rest of my post, which compared whatever miniscule benefit you get from practicing security through obscurity weighed against your server now being a willing accomplice in a denial-of-service attack. The same script kiddies are far less likely to select a nailed down service in order to mailbomb someone by proxy, instead it's much easier to shove a few thousand messages with a few thousand bad recipients into Qmail's queue, then sit back and watch Qmail unload a few million messages into the target's mailbox. So aside from debating the value of doing it, can somebody address the main point of my initial post: How do you configure qmail to PREVENT such a thing from happening? I'm a qmail newbie, and haven't seen anything in the documentation that says how to get qmail to reject messages with bogus "to" fields up front, rather than delaying and then bouncing the message. -- Rod Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.bellatlantic.net/~smithrod Author of _Special Edition Using Corel WordPerfect 8 for Linux_, from Que
Re: Patches revisited
On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 12:33:28PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote: From the presentation of information perspective, the site is not all that good. imagine that you and Dan Bernstein and countless others want it to be an even more powerful force. One simple question. Have you *seen*, as in 'with your own eyes', the pages Dan Bernstein has made? It all boils down to the question of form versus function. *Anything* about qmail chooses function. The tiniest detail like your SMTP-greeting has a well chosen function. (Do NOT tell who you are and what version. It might give people too much info..) A fancy box, nice manual and slick webpages will not add *function*, just form. -- Ruben -- Eat more memory!
Re: qmail distro and UID
What should I use in the way of var-qmail. My understanding is that it needs to be compiled on each machine, but as this is a fresh install, but maybe used for upgrades, I am concerned about UID's. Should I simply create a .rpm from the source supplied or can someone recommend a better method. Since this will be your distribution, you can just reserve the qmail uids. In this case, you can get away with a very simple spec file to build qmail (I can tell you if you need it). But you might be concerned about people who would like to upgrade their RH system to yours (probably bad idea though). Then you could test and remove their qmail users if they are not with the specified uids. Or use the var-qmail package as it is now. It does not have to be compiled on the install system at all. As the README explains: 1) take qmail-1.03-*.src.rpm (this does not contain the qmail sources, but the qmail binaries), do rpm --rebuild qmail-1.03-*.src.rpm This adds the qmail users if they do not yet exist, edits the binaries for the qmail uids/gids, and builds qmail-1.03-*.i386.rpm 2) which then can be installed in the usual way. Since you install qmail with the base system, and compilation does not happen, users will not notice at all that you are doing a bit nonstandard rpm install. Mate
Qmail dies over and over
Hi folks, my freebsd box (3.2-Stable) running qmail dies over and over,
several about 1/2 times a week. Here is what i get at log:
937023957.591990 alert: oh no! lost spawn connection! dying...
937023957.617105 status: exiting
I decide to trace qmail syscalls, using the utility truss, i got that:
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall stat("bounce/275998",0xbfbfd454)
errno 2 'No such file or directory'
syscall write(0,0x804eba1,8)
returns 8 (0x8)
syscall write(0,0x8055500,6)
returns 6 (0x6)
syscall write(0,0x804e6c9,1)
returns 1 (0x1)
syscall unlink(0x8051270)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall write(5,0x8051270,12)
returns 12 (0xc)
syscall read(0x6,0x80550d0,0x400)
returns 1 (0x1)
syscall gettimeofday(0xbfbfd970,0x0)
returns 0 (0x0)
SIGNAL 20
syscall select(0x9,0xbfbfda30,0xbfbfd9b0,0x0,0xbfbfd99c)
returns 1 (0x1)
syscall gettimeofday(0xbfbfd970,0x0)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall read(0x2,0x8054090,0x800)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall write(0,0x804e667,46)
returns 46 (0x2e)
syscall utimes(0x8051270,0xbfbfd940)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall utimes(0x8051270,0xbfbfd940)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall utimes(0x8051270,0xbfbfd940)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall utimes(0x8051270,0xbfbfd940)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall utimes(0x8051270,0xbfbfd940)
returns 0 (0x0)
syscall write(0,0x804efc6,16)
returns 16 (0x10)
syscall exit(0x0)
process exit, rval = 0
please, can anyone help me?
How to avoid these error? Before, what is happenning ?
Is this serious, or can be solved ?
Thanks a lot for your time and cooperation.
