RE: badmailfrom didn't work
HUP'ing is NOT necessary for badmailfrom. It gets used with each new call to qmail-smtpd. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: zyrtaf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:56 AM > To: Gary MacKay > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: badmailfrom didn't work > > > did you killall -HUP qmail-send? > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary MacKay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:35 PM > Subject: badmailfrom didn't work > > > > OK. I added this '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' dude to my > badmailfrom and > > still got this last message. What gives? If I telnet to the > box and try > > to send in a message as him, it gets kicked out, why > doesn't the real > > message get kicked out? > > > > - Gary > > >
RE: stopping delivery to remote domain
They don't accept bounces or are so slow to react that bounces don't succeed and so clutter up the queue quite substantially. I just added them to the badmailfrom file since they tried juggling IPs for a while after I blocked them with tcpserver. Badmailfrom did the trick. (It did however take blocking @opt01.edirectnetwork.net @opt02.edirectnetwork.net ... @opt39.edirectnetwork.net @opt40.edirectnetwork.net) -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Blauvelt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:11 AM > To: Charles Cazabon > Cc: qmail-list.cr.yp.to > Subject: Re: stopping delivery to remote domain > > > > We had the same problem with this domain, but of course it > was 'remote' > mail that was hanging, not local. Our solution was to add this domain > to our local DNS so it would be delivered locally and then dumped. > We have also blocked smtp connections from the many IPs that these > hosts resolved to. > > > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Charles Cazabon wrote: > > > Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there a way to stop local mail from being delivered to > a remote domain. > > > I have a domain that keeps filling up my que and never > delivers. the domain > > > is always listed as opt??.edirectnetworks.net For some > reason they never > > > seem to time out and drop out of the que. They just sit > there... and > > > finally will build up to the point that I will have to > reboot the system to > > > clear out the cue enough to start the delivery of my > local mail in a timely > > > manner. > > > > Messages sitting in the queue do not stop local deliveries > from happening. > > Even in-progress remote deliveries which are stalled do not > stop local > > deliveries from happening -- concurrency is maintained > separately for local > > and remote deliveries. > > > > You're micromanaging the queue. Have you actually seen > local mail delivery > > delayed by these "stuck" messages? If so, post the log of > qmail-send during > > the time it was happening. > > > > Charles > > -- > > > -- > - > > Charles Cazabon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > GPL'ed software available at: > http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ > > > -- > - > > > > > Thank you. > > tom blauvelt > > > Thomas Blauvelt NorthNet Internet Services, Inc. >North Country Reference & Research > Resources Council > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7 Commerce Lane Canton NY 13617 USA > (315) 386-4569 >
RE: courier-imap and tcpserver ?
this is working nicely for me... http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/04/msg01189.html -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Oden Eriksson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 8:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: courier-imap and tcpserver ? > > > Hi list, > > I wonder if anyone has courier-imap running under tcpserver, > and if so could > share how it was done? > > Thanks in advance. > > -- > > Regards // Oden Eriksson > Kvikkjokk Networks >
RE: Multilog log file size specification
> -Original Message- > From: Alex Khanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Multilog log file size specification > > > I've read the manpage and it states you should use the ssize action, > So I put this in my /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run: > > #!/bin/sh > exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t > /backup/log/qmail ssize 50 nnum 50 > > That is ignored. > > If I put it this way: > > #!/bin/sh > exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t ssize > 50 nnum 50 /backup/log/qmail make it ... t s500 n50 -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
RE: Problems with SMTP connections
nslookup -type=mx netzero.net netzero.net preference = 10, mail exchanger = inbound-mail.netzero.net telnet inbound-mail.netzero.net 25 should work for you (unless your IP is in the DUL) -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Problems with SMTP connections > > > Graham H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I can send mail to cnmnetwork.com fine. telnet > > cnmnetwork.com 25, and you'll get the MTA. However, domains > > like aol.com, netzero.net, and probably many others, who > > don't run MTAs on x.com, I can't reach. > > This is expected behaviour. > > > Example: telnet aol.com 25. You'll get no response. It > seems as if I have > > to mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in order > to get my > > message across. > > It's not "some random server". It's the mail exchanger(s) > for the domain in > question. DNS records include this information. Use your > favourite DNS query > tool to retrieve the MX records for aol.com, for example. > > qmail does this on its own -- if DNS isn't working, you > shouldn't be able to > send mail anywhere remote (well, except for those domains > you've hardcoded > with smtproutes entries). Post the unedited output of > qmail-showctl, log > entries showing your problem, and a better summary. > > Charles > -- > -- > - > Charles Cazabon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ---
pulling mail from other than new/cur (sorry again...better reply address)
Greetings, We've got a POP3 setup working just fine, but there is a desire to add IMAP servers so that web mail might be added also. The problem I see is that users will be making misc new subdir's in their Maildir on the same level as new and cur, such as stuff_from_joe, spam, whatever. So I've been asked to munge up qmail-pop3d so it can pull mail from all these potential directories, not just new and cur, just in case that user decides to use our POP3 server at a later date to check mail. Think this would be a major undertaking? Snooping around qmail-pop3d.c I see a call to maildir_scan which seems to look in new and cur for mail during its getlist process. Perhaps I could have that code first do a lookup for other directories besides new and cur (and tmp) and loop through that list of directories looking for mail to give to getlist. Am I just making a mess of things here? Is there an easier way to do this? Thanks for any thoughts, good or bad. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
pulling mail from other than new/cur
Greetings, We've got a POP3 setup working just fine, but there is a desire to add IMAP servers so that web mail might be added also. The problem I see is that users will be making misc new subdir's in their Maildir on the same level as new and cur, such as stuff_from_joe, spam, whatever. So I've been asked to munge up qmail-pop3d so it can pull mail from all these potential directories, not just new and cur, just in case that user decides to use our POP3 server at a later date to check mail. Think this would be a major undertaking? Snooping around qmail-pop3d.c I see a call to maildir_scan which seems to look in new and cur for mail during its getlist process. Perhaps I could have that code first do a lookup for other directories besides new and cur (and tmp) and loop through that list of directories looking for mail to give to getlist. Am I just making a mess of things here? Is there an easier way to do this? Thanks for any thoughts, good or bad. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
RE: html based email
We have a subsidiary that sends out this type of mail. It has 3 parts: plain text html for normals html for aol don't know how they do it, but they do it. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Mark Delany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:29 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: html based email >
RE: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"?
do we know that he meant for remote delivery? your answer is not necessarily correct. checking the FAQ or lifewithqmail *would* be better since it would include info about both local and remote deliveries. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 1:59 PM > To: Jason Brooke > Cc: Chris; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"? > > > > > hi jason why not just say /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote > > add it there...have a good day. > > > On Fri, 4 May 2001, Jason Brooke wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:35:45 +1000 > > From: Jason Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: How to increase the qmail "concurrency"? > > > > > my qmail-mrtg show that the qmail concurrency value 20 is > not enough. anyone > > > can tell me how to increase it. > > > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > Hi Chris > > > > Please read 'FAQ' in your source directory, or have a look at > > http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html which is linked from > www.qmail.org > > > > jason > > > > > > >
qmail@list.cr.yp.to
To keep one of his customers/users from sending to all 10 million of his closest friends telling them about how they too can get a diploma online and cheap. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: alexus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:01 PM > To: Alan R.; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Max Email for each user > > > just out of curiosity.. why would you want to do something like that? > > - Original Message - > From: "Alan R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 6:56 PM > Subject: Max Email for each user > > > > Someone Knows how can i limit the number of email sent in a > day by each > user > > ? > > > > Thanks, > > Alan > > > > >
RE:
tcp.smtp.cdb exists, but your startup script is looking for tcp.smtp.cbd -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:52 PM > To: VPOPMail; QMAIL > Subject: > > > I am receiving the following error and he file really is > there. Can anyone > help. > > tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to read > /etc/tcp.smtp.cbd: > file does not exist > > --- StartUp Script > > env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \ > qmail-start ./Maildir/ /usr/local/bin/accustamp \ > | /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/cyclog > /var/log/qmail & > > echo -n "qmail " > > env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \ > tcpserver -H -R -c100 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \ > $HOSTNAME \ > /var/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & > echo -n "pop " > > > env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin" \ > tcpserver -p -R -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cbd \ > -u503 -g501 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 > /dev/null & > echo "smtp" > > - Directoriy Listing > [root@tar-valon /etc]# ls -l tcp.smtp* > -rw-rw-rw-1 qmaild nofiles30 Apr 16 14:44 tcp.smtp > -rw-r--r--1 vpopmail vchkpw 2094 Apr 17 16:33 tcp.smtp.cdb > -rw-rw-rw-1 qmaild nofiles61 Apr 16 14:38 tcp.smtp~ > [root@tar-valon /etc]# > > > Configure Directives > ./configure --enable-tcpserver-file=/etc/tcp.smtp \ > --enable-ip-alias-domains=y \ > --enable-roaming-users=y \ > --enable-default-domain=pds2k.com\ > --enable-logging=y >
qmail and IMAP and checkpassword
Hi, We're need a IMAP product that uses Maildir's and we'd like to authenticate using our own hacked checkpassword. I've read in the archives that courier-imap uses Maildirs, but can it use checkpassword for authentication or will I need something like that mentioned below and wrap checkpassword with some perl scripts? http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/04/msg01189.html Thanks, Mike.
Re: 10,000 outbound emails
I concur. We do this often. It saves me from the marketing department's requests to let everyone know about "great new features." There's no need to mail to someone who never reads their mail. This keeps you from that hassle. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 10,000 outbound emails > > > Bill Parker writes: > > I have qmail running on a pent-133 w/32MB, kernel 2.2.14, > > tcpserver, qmailadmin, vpopmail, amavis-0.2.1, and NAI's anti-virus > > software. Everything is working just fine, however, one of the > > supervisors wants to send 10,000 emails through the box to various > > users (aka a mass mailing). Does anyone see any problems with > > doing something like this, or would you need more information about > > my current configuration of qmail? > > You'd do better to use my qmail-popbull program (on www.qmail.org). > That way, you only ever have one copy of the piece of email, and only > the people who read their mail ever see it. It also lets you tell > people about temporal things, and then after the time has passed, you > can remove the bulletin. >
RE: HELP SMTP problem
Are you using tcpserver w/ the -x option? if so, make sure your tcprules-created-file exists and is noted after the x in the tcpserver startup script. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: vikas sinha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: HELP SMTP problem > > > I just installed qmail1.03-i386.rpm on my RedHat6.0(kernel 2.2.9) > It seems SMTP is not working properly. When I try to send > e-mail by pine. > It complained "SMTP greeting failure: 421 SMTP connection went away". > > IF I try to telnet localhost 25, here is the response > telnet localhost 25 > Trying 127.0.0.1... > Connected to localhost. > Escape character is '^]'. > Connection closed by foreign host. > > When i Checked the /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd status > it showed > 220 hostname ESMTP > 502 unimplemenetd (#5.5.1) >
Re: question with qmail-remote
> -Original Message- > From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 7:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: question with qmail-remote > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 02:43:50PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 10:41:36PM -0800, Rick Yang wrote: > > > I recently installed qmail on my server with virtual > domain support, and I found this snapshot while checking the > processes. > > > > > > 1141 ?S 0:00 qmail-remote > newsletter.join4free.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > This domain was never allowed to relay on my qmail > configuration. And it seems that this domain is trying to > email his mailing list through my qmtp server. > > > > Why do you think it got relayed? > > I'd say it's a bounce resulting from a SPAM to a non existing user. > > The line indicated that the messsage will be delivered to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the host it will be > delivered to is > > newsletter.join4free.com > > > > > How would I block off this domain through qmail configuration? > > > > Add > > @newsletter.join4free.com > > to > > /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom > > Or unsubscribe the user. join4free are double opt-in spammers that let > you unsubscribe honestly and easily. > > Greetz, Peter. My observation of them is that they don't do a good job of collecting bounces. I have a crapload of them trying to get back to them which never quite do, clogging my inbound mail server queues. mail1.wlv.netzero.net# nslookup -type=mx newsletter.join4free.com Server: maildns.wlv.netzero.net Address: 209.247.163.138 Non-authoritative answer: newsletter.join4free.compreference = 5, mail exchanger = returns2.optinmail.cc mail1.wlv.netzero.net# telnet returns2.optinmail.cc 25 Trying 198.173.175.23... Connected to returns2.optinmail.cc. Escape character is '^]'. and that's where things hang...(at least for 15 minutes beginning at 2:30pm PST 3/12) -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
RE: various timeouts
> Michael Boyiazis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Occasionally our inbound mail servers need a reboot after > patching and > > sometimes there is lots of mail that needs to find its way > home to the sender > > due to bounces. Sometimes those remote sites are either > having difficulties > > or are so swamped that nothing much gets to them. I'd like > to cut down on > > the time the server spends waiting on them. > [...] > > Seems like a non-responsive server is fine at 1 minute, but > 20 minutes seems > > to be an excessive amount of time to hold up one of my > concurrent connects > > for a buffer of data or just a reply. Would it be safe to > lower this value > > to say also 1 minute? I don't want to mess with the > defaults if this would > > be a bad thing to do, but I cannot think of why it would be. > > Have you actually noticed connections hanging around for that long? > Probably not. But if you're worried about it, increase your > qmail-smtpd > concurrency to compensate for a few sessions being tied up by > really slow > remote senders. actually don't know if they hang around 20 minutes, but does seem like the remote connections are not decreasing when sites are not taking connects. i'd hope all the "problem" sites would time out pretty quickly and have qmail move on to more pressing items like the inbound mail that can be delivered. > To reduce the amount of time the bounces stay in the queue, you could > reduce queuelifetime from its default value of a week to three days or > so. I'm not so worried about the stuff lingering in the queue (it is now set to 4 days) but just would like to not "dwell" on slow sites. > Charles > -- > Charles Cazabon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
various timeouts
Greetings, Occasionally our inbound mail servers need a reboot after patching and sometimes there is lots of mail that needs to find its way home to the sender due to bounces. Sometimes those remote sites are either having difficulties or are so swamped that nothing much gets to them. I'd like to cut down on the time the server spends waiting on them. There seems to be 3 control files to do this: timeoutsmtpd which is amt of time for each new *buffer* of data from a remote SMTP client. (default 20 minutes) timeoutconnect which is how long qmail-remote waits for a connection (default 1 minute) timeoutremote which appears to be like timeoutsmtpd but for each response, not each buffer (also 20minute default). Seems like a non-responsive server is fine at 1 minute, but 20 minutes seems to be an excessive amount of time to hold up one of my concurrent connects for a buffer of data or just a reply. Would it be safe to lower this value to say also 1 minute? I don't want to mess with the defaults if this would be a bad thing to do, but I cannot think of why it would be. Thanks, -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
why prime? [was high volume server configurations)
How come the conf-split should be prime? I've read it and (unfortunately) repeatedly ignored. And does it hamper things greatly by it not being so (yet)? -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: high volume server configurations > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:12:14PM -0600, Sid Wilroy wrote: > > The reason I have 200 in the conf-split so 200 sub queue > directories will be > > created to increases file access time by reducing inode > table seek time. > > conf-split should be a *prime* number. > > Also, a large conf-split only makes sense if you have more than 20.000 > messages *in your queue*. This won't usually happen. > > > I also went ahead a made the file system of /var/qmail/queue xfs.. > > That might be a good idea indeed. It also takes away most of the > reasons for a big conf-split. > > Greetz, Peter. >
RE: virtualdomain/smtproute
Thanks to Lincoln (and Chris J) and James A. Brown for taking a stab at my problem. Indeed it was as Chris had suggested to Lincoln. I think I had seen the response and lost it from my mail box and convinced myself that I hadn't seen it... I'll move these people to a virtual domain and then the ones with "non-standard" email addresses will be in their own .qmail file. New employees w/ "standard" email addresses will be picked up by the default .qmail file for that virtual domain and forwarded... :) -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Lincoln Yeoh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 6:46 PM > To: Michael Boyiazis > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: virtualdomain/smtproute > > > I asked something _similar_ last week. But it's not exactly the same. > > See Chris Johnson's answer to "translating or remapping > domains to another > domain", 2001/01/29 > > My situation was I wanted: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > to go to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > No changes to the username portion. > > The answer to my situation (thanks to Chris) : > > echo 'corp.rocketcash.com' >> /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts > echo 'corp.rocketcash.com:alias-rocketcash' >> > /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains > echo '| forward "$DEFAULT"@corp.netzero.net' > \ >/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-rocketcash-default > > > But my understanding of your situation is: > > Outside - > firewall -> MSX with AV -> Internal mailservers > u@aimtv -> u@aimtv -> u@aimtv > f@rocketcash -> fipl@netzero -> fipl@netzero > And now you also want > fipl@rocketcash -> fipl@netzero -> fipl@netzero > > Looks possible but may require some modification - depends > how you do the > firstname to longname thing. > > Cheerio, > Link. > > At 02:51 PM 05-02-2001 -0800, you wrote: > >I have a situation which leaves me (I think) caught between > >virtualdomain and smtproute files... > > > >We have qmail running on a firewall box and forwarding > >to the corporate exchange server... > > > >We have users from one domain: > >aimtv.com which we use smtproutes to forward directly > >to a virus scan box... all the email addresses in the aimtv > >domain match those found on the forwarding domain, so > >smtproutes is appropriate. > > > >I'd like all our domains to be that way, but each domain that > >the virus scan box checks needs extra licensing ($$)... > > > >so, we have another domain, corp.rocketcash.com... > >some email addresses are [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >the mail comes in and I use a .qmail file to forward these to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >future new addresses will be along the line of > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] which will forward > >to the equivalent on corp.netzero.net > > > >is there a way to catch all those future addresses and > forward them to > >@corp.netzero.net w/o using smtproutes and without creating > a separate > >.qmail for each new employee? would a catchall .qmail > >file be able to do that? i don't see how. it makes sense > to use smtproutes > >but i cannot from what i can see. > > > >any suggestions? > > > >Thanks, > >-- > >Michael Boyiazis > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > >
virtualdomain/smtproute
I have a situation which leaves me (I think) caught between virtualdomain and smtproute files... We have qmail running on a firewall box and forwarding to the corporate exchange server... We have users from one domain: aimtv.com which we use smtproutes to forward directly to a virus scan box... all the email addresses in the aimtv domain match those found on the forwarding domain, so smtproutes is appropriate. I'd like all our domains to be that way, but each domain that the virus scan box checks needs extra licensing ($$)... so, we have another domain, corp.rocketcash.com... some email addresses are [EMAIL PROTECTED] the mail comes in and I use a .qmail file to forward these to [EMAIL PROTECTED] future new addresses will be along the line of [EMAIL PROTECTED] which will forward to the equivalent on corp.netzero.net is there a way to catch all those future addresses and forward them to @corp.netzero.net w/o using smtproutes and without creating a separate .qmail for each new employee? would a catchall .qmail file be able to do that? i don't see how. it makes sense to use smtproutes but i cannot from what i can see. any suggestions? Thanks, -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
RE: A firestorm of protest?
how about: stuff-to-make-qmail-a-reasonable-tool-to-use-with-a-few-million-users-that-m ay-encourage-others-to-write-stuff-that-may-introduce-security-holes-and-mak e-the-original-author-uneasy i'm grateful that qmail is security bug free. but i have the need to control the max number of recipients per email and to prevent broken ms SMTP servers from bringing my servers to their knees, etc. while i wrote a similar "enhancement" to qmail to control max rcpt's to what was on the qmail.org site (before i knew to cruise the site for good stuff), i wouldn't want to do that for things like big todo "patch" and perhaps the big concurrancy "patch". if i had a few or ten thousand users, i'd gladly use qmail "out of the box." i'd have someone watch the logs 24/7 and if they see too many connections from one IP, block them with a tcpserver rule. unfortunately i have too many servers and too many users to be doing that. i need the help that others have provided to assist qmail be accepted and usable in many heterogeneous real world environments. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
RE: www.abuse.net test and mail Qmail server - Help
Perhaps Russ can make "SEARCH THE ARCHIVES" appear in large blinking text on www.qmail.org so people will see it. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Roberto Samarone Araujo (RSA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:37 AM > To: Qmail-List > Subject: www.abuse.net test and mail Qmail server - Help > > > Hi, > > I was testing my qmail server against relay ... I went to > www.abuse.net/relay.html and asked to test. The test returned > me that my > email server is accepting relay :( . Look at the last result > of the test : > > Relay test 6 > > >>> RSET > <<< 250 flushed > >>> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <<< 250 ok > >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <<< 250 ok > > Relay test result > Hmmn, at first glance, host appeared to accept a message for relay. > > Does anyone could please help me to set up my > qmail in order > to block this ?
RE: AntiVirus!
To repeat what I said yesterday, I apologize for some of you getting that crap from our corporate mail server which has (in my opinion) overzealous virus and spam protection enabled. But those aren't my mail servers to govern and many of my coworkers have shown the inability to refrain from double clicking on binary attachments. So arguments I voice are ignored. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Andy Bradford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AntiVirus! > > > On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:18:33 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote: > > > By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of > virus scanners, > > please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not > making this up): > > I can verify this---I too received a similar bounce from their group > and sent them back a *fix your MTA* email. They responded and said > that they had removed the person that was subscribed (not fixing the > root of the problem). In fact, it was to the same [EMAIL PROTECTED] > address. > > Andy >
RE: AntiVirus!
yeah. my apologies to those of you on this thread that get that returned to you. that's another department's fun to decide (correctly and otherwise) what is spam and virus and whatnot and protect the uninformed amongst those of us who know what not to click on. sorry. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AntiVirus! > > > Thus spake John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > >Based on the fact that your virus scanner detected a few > outgoing virii, > > >you assert not only that it has detected all of them. > > Please quote where I indicated perfection. > > You said that you are happy that you have not become one of the places > that spread virii. > > By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of virus > scanners, > please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not > making this up): > > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 5 01:32:07 2000 > Return-Path: <> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 28608 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 > 00:32:07 - > Received: from scream.wlv.netzero.net (HELO mailfw.nzdom) > (209.247.163.9) > by fefe.de with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 00:32:07 - > Received: from ([255.255.255.255]) by mailfw.nzdom with > MailMarshal (3,3,0,0) >id ; Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:37:26 -800 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:37:26 -800 > Subject: Your e-mail message was blocked > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; >boundary="--=_NextPart_5e5c99df-bbb5-11d4-b9fe-009027858a3a" > Content-Length: 723 > > =_NextPart_5e5c99df-bbb5-11d4-b9fe-009027858a3a > Content-Type: text/plain; >charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > NetZero Mail server has > stopped the following e-mail for one of the following reasons: > > * It contains a disallowed subject line, text message, a > chain or hoax letter. > Message: B000ef930.0001.mml > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AntiVirus! > > If you believe the above e-mail to be business related please > contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to arrange for the > message to be > released to its intended recipients. > > The blocked e-mail will be automatically deleted after 7 days. > > =_NextPart_5e5c99df-bbb5-11d4-b9fe-009027858a3a-- > > > What will happen when someone writes a Virus called "the"? > > Felix >
RE: SMTP on a port other than 25
We actually *insist* that our dialup providers either block port 25 or let us do the DNS/radius filterting so we can do it ourselves. Like was mentioned below, *we* didn't want people creating account after account and abusing other services. We trust our antispam methods more than we trust the endless supply of open relays out there. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: -dsr- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 8:01 PM > To: Amitai Schlair > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SMTP on a port other than 25 > > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 10:36:50PM -0500, Amitai Schlair wrote: > > on 11/19/00 4:23 PM, Phil Barnett at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Several of my pop before smtp users have found that their > providers > > > are blocking outbound traffic destined for port 25. > > > > I'm having the same problem, so far with EarthLink. Have > you encountered any > > other ISPs that do this? If there isn't already a list > somewhere, please > > send your villains to me, and I'll compile and post the results. > > They aren't really villains, per se. > > Imagine that you are an ISP. You've grown large enough to > want to expand > outside your original area of operations; you aren't rich > enough to place > physical dialup POPs all over the country/continent/world. > What do you do? > > You contract with one of the big players to provide modem service for > your customers. AT&T, UUnet, Genuity all sell dialup service > in bulk to > smaller ISPs - who then provide the customer service, the servers, the > tech support and marketing and so on. > > In fact, this is reasonably cost-effective for large ISPs > too: AOL does > it, NetZero does it. And what do we know about where spam > comes from? Spam > comes from sources where there is no trust between the ISP > and the customer, > so that the miscreant can create a thousand throw-away > accounts and lose > them at will. abuse@whereever takes a beating. Pretty soon, ISPs close > down relaying for anyone who is not a customer. Shortly > thereafter, spammers > start sending SMTP directly from dial-up smarthosts. > > Now the ISP is off the hook: the spam no longer contains any > particular > links to them. (Well, it doesn't have to, anyway.) But the > giant dialup > provider has supplied the IP address for the spammer, and > pretty soon the > calls start rolling in to abuse@dialup. > > To prevent this, the dialup providers now put in a new > element to their > contracts with the local ISPs: port 25 will be restricted on > each connection > to only talk to the local ISP's mailserver and backup MX. > > ...and that's where we are in the cycle now. The onus for > removing spammers > is back in the hands of the ISPs who sign them up as > customers, but as a > result, honest folk get restrictions on what they can do with > their mail. > > -dsr- >
RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
We have found inbound mail to be very disk i/o bound w/o doing much to the cpu. so we added another disk and have two instances running. it lets us handle twice the load. you need the box to handle 2 IPs; for the second instance recompile w/ the value in: /export/home/qmail-1.03/conf-qmail to hold the home of the second queue, say /var/qmail2 instead of the default /var/qmail the spot in your tcpserver line that says 0 smtp should be changed to be: mail_instance_1.domain.com smtp and repeat the tcpserver startup for another instance. make sure to both qmail instances are started in your init script. -- Michael Boyiazis Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Goran Blazic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:23 PM > To: 'James Stevens'; Qmail > Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server... > > > I dont really see no good point on why you would want to run > multiple copies > of qmail... > Or what you would understand by that ??!!?? > > Goran > > -Original Message- > From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:19 AM > To: Qmail > Subject: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server... > > > Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation > of setting up > concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits > I need to make > to avoid conflicks.. > > Thanks in advance.. > > --JT >
RE: assign and deferring mail.
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 03:08:42PM -0700, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > > if /var/qmail/alias/assign is being used as a forwarding > > mechanism, that qmail-getpw is not used and that qmail-local > > is the delivery agent. > > qmail-local is always the delivery agent. However, it has two > mechanisms > it uses to determine how to perform local delivery. It first tries to > use the users/assign method. If that's not in use it invokes > qmail-getpw > to lookup passwd file entries. actually it appears that qmail-lspawn is the one that decides which of the qmail-local or qmail-getpw to call. so i guess i could patch that and remove it from qmail-getpw or put it in qmail-local also. > > Another question: will the assign mechanism be slow w/ > > 500K+ entries, if need be? > > The assign mechanism uses a hashed database (in users/cdb) for speedy > lookups. It's likely to be a lot quicker than 500K passwd > file entries! > I'm sure there are large users/assign users on the list who could give > some idea of performance at that level -- I'm afraid I can't. i will give it a go. i just noticed the files work across platforms. (sun/linux/bsd). that'll save me a few seconds per day passing tcpserver cdb and assign/cdb files around.8^) -- Michael Boyiazis Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
assign and deferring mail.
Greetings, Last week or so i mentioned that i have a mechanism to queue mail when a control file exists. This is through a hack to qmail-getpw.c. Someone else commented that if /var/qmail/alias/assign is being used as a forwarding mechanism, that qmail-getpw is not used and that qmail-local is the delivery agent. My question: can i then put in the same hack to qmail-local.c to exit w/ a 111 to defer mail when this control file is present or is it too late? Another question: will the assign mechanism be slow w/ 500K+ entries, if need be? Thanks, -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
RE: NFS without a user database?
since you have already gone into qmail-getpw.c, play with it a bit more. what we did was modify it to exit 111 if a control file exists in /var/qmail/control/... hmm. i guess this only works when you know ahead of time you'll be bring stuff down or have noticed a major problem occurring.markd seems to have a good solution for intermittent NFS problems. -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Kris Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 1:19 PM > To: QMail Mailing List > Subject: NFS without a user database? > > > Is there a way to make qmail defer messages in the event of > an NFS outage > that does *not* involve creating a user database? >
RE: Urgent
missing the closing double quote before /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Sean Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 3:57 PM > To: Qmail Mail List > Subject: Urgent > > > I am currently running qmail-1.03 with tcpserver. > > I attempted to update the rblsmtpd to utilize RSS when all hell broke > loose. > > Now when I start tcpserver with the following command (All on > one line); > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -u $QMAILDUSER -g $QMAILDGROUP -p -x > /etc/tcpcontrol/tcp/smtp.cdb -c 60 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -r "relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - > see <http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?%IP%> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &NEEDS a " above --/
virtual/assign/newu or alternative?
We are taking over a domain and their users. i put their domain in virtualdomains as: ifreedom.com:if and ifreedom.com was added to rcpthosts so any mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will go to if-joejoe and be delivered locally. in /var/qmail/users/assign i've placed =if-joejoe:mailq:25312:103:path_to_his_new_account::: . and i ran /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu to create "cdb"... mail forwards just fine to joejoe's new mailbox... i might need 10 entries in this file. is this method the most efficient to getting mail delivered locally or should i go another route? each entry in assign will drop mail into a different mailbox. Thanks for your insight, mike.
RE: Mypoints.com is not nice to us qmail admins (was: C API for queueing messages)
you should feel lucky to only have 40 in your queue. after a quick check i find 390 in the queue on just *1* of many inbound servers. i had noticed the numerous bounces not making it home and just hadn't got around to complaining to them yet. it appears that they don't care anyway. pitty i may just have to block them too. mike. > -Original Message- > From: Aaron L. Meehan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 12:40 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Mypoints.com is not nice to us qmail admins (was: C API for > queueing messages) > > > Quoting Jay Balakrishna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > [...] > > Any help will be appreciated. Any other ideas are also most welcome > > Thanks and Regards, > > Wow, Mypoints! > > I think Mark is helping admirably with your question, but I will offer > some help myself in another area that Mypoints needs assistance: > > I will write a program to collect your bounces and weed the stale > addresses from your mailing lists--because you never do! I've > complained for a year and a half that you don't--I finally just > firewalled your network at our border router a month ago (phone calls > to mypoints gave me a run-around), yet still I see rejected packets > from your various mail servers. None of our customers can get to your > web site, so it's unlikely they are signing up (and I assume, hope > rather, that third-parties can't sign them up without you sending > email confirmation, hmm?). > > (OK, I'm not really meaning to air dirty laundry, but this is sort of > qmail-related in an abstract way ;-), and like I said their network is > blackholed by us and phone calls have been useless.) > > Since mypoints.com sends email with invalid return paths, such as > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", our mail servers can't _ever_ deliver > bounces back to them, and their administration team seems quite > unwilling to fix it, despite my numerous recommendations to do so. I > once found around 40 (!!) bounces queued for various unreachable > mlbx*.mypoints.com servers. I'll bet this would be a pet peeve for > many of you as well. >
RE: Bouncing mail w/ no reverse DNS
> Forgive me if this is somewhere in the Docs, I can't find it. > > I would like to bounce inbound mail that comes in that can't resolve > reverse DNS. > > A lot of net admins out there have started to not setup DNS > entries for > their dial-up accounts believing that this is a better approach than > registering w/ the MAPS/DUL list. > > Personally I don't agree... but I'm getting a lot of trespass spam via > non resolved DNS. > > Any ideas? I tried it for about two days. I had sales people complaining that they couldn't get mail from their contacts; I had tech(!) firms' mail bouncing back to them; etc. While some spam comes from these unlisted people, most comes from hijacked servers used for relay, which have perfectly set up DNS entries. Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: spam dissguised as bounce
> Return-Path: <> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 6404 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 - > Received: from dialup-209.244.147.13.orlando1.level3.net (HELO > mail.localhost.com) (209.244.147.13) > by mail2-2.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 - > Message-ID: < 806637@ 899648> > From: <> > Bcc: > Subject: > Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:48:47 -0400 (EDT) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > umm... so it was 209.244.147.13 all along (but that was what was in my tcprules file). i've been misstating it as 137.13...my question still stands was he forging an IP or relaying silently thru something else and munging the header? _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: spam dissguised as bounce
Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6404 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 - Received: from dialup-209.244.147.13.orlando1.level3.net (HELO mail.localhost.com) (209.244.147.13) by mail2-2.wlv.netzero.net with SMTP; 13 Jun 2000 00:20:17 - Message-ID: < 806637@ 899648> From: <> Bcc: Subject: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:48:47 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess then that he was relaying through someone else and munged the header. I never meant to imply that tcpserver was broken. I'm back to my original question of how to stop an attack that has qmail-smtpd convinced that it is coming from a particular IP when it is apparently not. One option is the DUL, but if he's faking his IP, I don't see that working either, right? > You may receive mail from that host if it was relayed through some other host > from which you accept mail, but that has nothing to do with things being > disguised as bounces or anything "slipping by" tcpserver. > > Chris _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: spam dissguised as bounce
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c 550 -x /etc/security/tcprules/inbound.cdb \ -u qmaild -g nofiles 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & with aforementioned line present in the inrules file compiled to create inbound.cdb did let it through. i don't know why. qmail-smtp is modified to print out the IP of the sender. that was 209.244.137.13. Level3 communications eliminated the user connected to that IP. That is when he went away. The mail flowed until then. My servers were bogged down to prove it. Everything works w/ tcpserver for every other situation except for this character yesterday and I believe the same guy a few weeks back. > No. If everything is set up correctly and you have the above > deny line in your > rules file, then connections from 209.244.137.13 will not be > allowed, period. > There's no way for anything to "slip past" tcpserver. > qmail-smtpd will never be > invoked if the connection is from 209.244.137.13, so no > manipulation of > envelope sender or disguising something as a bounce or > anything else will allow > mail from this IP address to get through. > > As someone else said, tcpserver doesn't know anything about > mail. All it can do > is either allow or deny a connection and set environment > variables based on IP > address. > > Chris _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: spam dissguised as bounce
Unfortunately I have a few spams to prove it in my mail box and records of a huge amount of bounces (from all the users that didn't exist on our end). And our access provider was able to wipe that user off their dialups (eventually). Plus, we log the from-IP and recipient email address in qmail-smtpd and sender and recipient list in qmail-queue. All pointed to that IP and an empty sender/from. Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin > -Original Message- > From: Ronny Haryanto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: spam dissguised as bounce > > Could you show that the mail that you think slips past tcpserver in > fact came from 209.244.137.13? Maybe scan your logs for 209.244.137.13 > and see if it's denied or not. _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: spam dissguised as bounce
sorry. forget everyone doesn't have ESP... the following line appears in my "inrules" file which was compiled into a cdb... 209.244.137.13:deny tcprules inbound.cdb inbound.tmp < inrules there are other lines in there of course, but this is/was at the top and should have been read and executed immediately, right? There is nothing wrong w/ the tcpserver line. It works to prevent connection from other IPs blocked w/ denies. It just seems that in this case (and in a previous attack) that the spam, which is disquised as a bounce, (no "from" info) slips past tcpserver, perhaps because qmail considers the mail to be from the person receiving the mail instead of being from the spammer(?) I don't mind being terribly wrong w/ my hypothesis; that's why I'm not calling it a theory. Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin > -Original Message- > From: Ronny Haryanto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: spam dissguised as bounce > > > On 12-Jun-2000, Michael Boyiazis wrote: > > I've tried putting that IP in my tcprules file (bad-guy-IP:deny) > > but still the mail gets through. > > Be more specific. Which file? Have you recreated the cdb file? How > does the mail get through? From which IP? Is the IP blocked by your > rules? What do the logs say? > > Ronny _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
spam dissguised as bounce
Greetings, I know I cannot block mail that is coming from <> because of course I would be preventing bounces from coming in, but lately I've been getting hit with spam sent to multiple users disguised as a bounce. I've tried putting that IP in my tcprules file (bad-guy-IP:deny) but still the mail gets through. Any thoughts on how to prevent this mess? mike. _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Re: Enabling Identd using Tcpserver
ftp works just fine under tcpserver. I'd imagine telnet does too. mike. > You don't have to choose between inetd and tcpserver; > you can use them both. > Use inetd for services like ident and ftpd and telnet, and > use tcpserver for SMTP and POP and so forth. tcpserver > doesn't prevent inetd from working. __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
max recipients killing instead of bouncing.
Sorry if you are seeing this twice. I don't think
it made it to the list.
I've done the below w/ a 5XX series error and the exit(1).
Unfortunately I seem to be tossing mailing list emails out,
not just the joker trying to mail to 2000 people at once.
My understanding was that the mailing list software should
be able to deal w/ the bounce given the 5XX error? Would
they not get one due to the exit(1)? If so (not getting the
bounce), how should I rig this so they would?
Thanks,
Mike.
> From: Ricardo Cerqueira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> OK, here goes maxrcpt for qmail 1.03. I've given it its own
> error code (666 :) ). RFC fanatics, strip it out yourselves ;-)
>
> One note. The default maxrcpt behavior is to deliver it's max
> number of messages, and dropping the others. If you want it
> to reject everything, change
>
> void err_excessrcpt() { out("666 Too many recipients specified
(#5.5.4)\r\n"); }
> to
> void err_excessrcpt() { out("666 Too many recipients specified
(#5.5.4)\r\n"); _exit(1); }
__
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
maxrcpt.patch
> -Original Message-
> From: Ricardo Cerqueira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 12:20 PM
>
> OK, here goes maxrcpt for qmail 1.03. I've given it its own
> error code (666 :) ). RFC fanatics, strip it out yourselves ;-)
>
> One note. The default maxrcpt behavior is to deliver it's max
> number of messages, and dropping the others. If you want it
> to reject everything, change
>
> void err_excessrcpt() { out("666 Too many recipients
> specified (#5.5.4)\r\n"); }
>
> to
>
> void err_excessrcpt() { out("666 Too many recipients
> specified (#5.5.4)\r\n"); _exit(1); }
I've done the above w/ a 5XX series error and the exit(1).
Unfortunately I seem to be tossing mailing list emails out,
not just the joker trying to mail to 2000 people at once.
My understanding was that the mailing list software should
be able to deal w/ the bounce given the 5XX error? Would
they not get one due to the exit(1)? If so (not getting the
bounce), how should I rig this so they would?
Thanks,
Mike.
__
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Re: storage down.
We have a lot of servers to spread out the load, but yes, eventually that would be a problem. Juan E Suris wrote: > > > What if your outage is for a couple of hours, wouldn't your queue keep > growing (possible more than the system can handle)? Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Re: storage down.
Thanks Russell, We have a hacked version of getpw which gets the home based on a hash function. All maildirs are owned by mailq. So it seems that an exit of 111 will tell qmail-lspawn/local to queue it up for later, right? Russell Nelson wrote: > > Michael Boyiazis writes: > > I was wondering what I might do to queue up mail coming in > > for users with id's beginning w/ say b or q while > > maintenance (planned or unplanned) was done on the > > storage that holds their email. > > The answer depends very highly on how you associate their email > address with their storage. If it's done through the standard > qmail-getpw, which checks /etc/passwd, that code checks to see if the > user owns their own homedir. If the homedir is inaccessible, you're > hosed; the mail bounces. If it's done through a replacement > qmail-getpw, then you could simply have the replacement code exit with > 111 if their storage was being worked on. > > > 2) Broken Microsoft SMTP servers which begin to chatter when > > given a 451 (for stray line feeds). > > Don't worry about that, because the mail has already been accepted, > and is sitting in the queue. > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M. > > - > Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V. > Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- mike b. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.sprynet.com/~boyiazis/mikehome.htm "I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." Calvin --- __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
storage down.
Hi all. I was wondering what I might do to queue up mail coming in for users with id's beginning w/ say b or q while maintenance (planned or unplanned) was done on the storage that holds their email. Other mail would be processed as usual w/o delay... We have a script to simulate "no mail" to fake out pop sessions but I'd like to prevent bounces for email coming in to these users. I had thought about maybe a simple control file to hold bad first characters and returning a 4XX error to the sender to defer the mail for a while until the storage is back online and we can clear the control file and accept mail for the users again. drawbacks: 1) I have to do a small bit of coding 2) Broken Microsoft SMTP servers which begin to chatter when given a 451 (for stray line feeds). but 2) may not be a problem as the storage should be back online w/in a couple of hours after an outage long before the chattering becomes too nasty. Does anyone have a non-coding alternative? Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: line feeds with carriage return
> Subject: Re: line feeds with carriage return > > > Was it sixdgrees? I got one from them today! Well two in fact. Telling me some of their users couldn't send to us even though *they* pointed out that RFC822bis disallowed the bare line feeds. I told them I knew it and pointed them to the MS patch site http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/9/83.ASP (though they appear to be running sendmail.) I told them to fix their outgoing mail w/ fixcr if needbe... Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
straynewline, patch found.
Just in case any of you decides to block those
chattering bare/stray line feed MS SMTP servers
until they are patched and want to give the patch
home in addition to the explanatory link in the bounce
message,
qmail-smtpd.c:void straynewline() { out("451 See
http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.\r\n"); flush(); _exit(1); }
we decided that the 451 becomes a 551...
here is the link to MS's patch courtesy one of the people
I blocked through tcpserver...
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q224/9/83.ASP
mike.
__
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: Benchmarks
void straynewline() { out("451 See
http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.\r\n"); flush(); _exit(1); }
my guess would be making that 451 a 551.
Michael Boyiazis -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetZero
Mail/Sys/Network Admin
>
> And that one byte would be?
>
> Paul Farber
> Farber Technology
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ph 570-628-5303
> Fax 570-628-5545
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Sam wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Unless you get a bare linefeed. At which point you need
> to find the
> > > offending smtp connection and kill it.
> > >
> > > I average about one "broken?" MTA or two a week. Causes
> logfiles to swell
> > > and general performance problems.
> >
> > I would suggest changing one byte in qmail-smtpd.c,
> bouncing such mail
> > immediately, instead of deferring it.
> >
> > --
> > Sam
>
__
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: Rejecting messages with more than X recipients.
At the qmail web site, in the "Yet More Qmail Addons" section there is the following: Michael Samuel has a patch that limits the number of RCPT TO: commands per message via SMTP. Real mailing list software will figure out how to deal w/ the bounce. Spammers generally don't. However, eventually they'll figure out your limit and will lower the amount they send... Look also into the tarpitting patch that is available too. Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin > -Original Message- > From: Ricardo Cerqueira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 10:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Rejecting messages with more than X recipients. > > > Hi there, everyone... > > I'm currently in charge of a large network (covering > all portuguese schools, and most of the libraries), and I'm > facing a spam problem... > All mail is handled by us, not the schools, so it's > actually my problem. So... what's happening is quite simple: > Spammers are sending one single e-mail, with all available > e-mails (each school has at least an info@school e-mail) as > the recipients, in the "To:" header. Something like > > To: , ... ... > > > and so on. > This turns out to be rather annoying, especially > because Outlook Express and MS Mail usually crash when they > try to read these huge headers. (and I have to go to the > users' maildirs and erase the message by hand). > Does anyone now if there's any way to count the number > of recipients, and return the message to its sender if the > count is higher than X? (let's say, 100). Or, if that's not > possible, return it if the header is bigger than X Kb (or lines)? > > Regards, and thanks in advance; >Ricardo > Cerqueira __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: snoop and bare line feeds
Thanks to Judd and Markus for your replies.
I just may add the snippet in there. A daily report
of who is bogging down our servers would let me
get them out of there instead of waiting a few days
for the things to time out or go away for whatever
reason they do.
I was talking with an admin who was wondering if we
were blocking his servers. I mentioned the problem
w/ the bare line feeds and he said he had installed a
patch to get rid of it. So at least I have something to
tell these people. "Patch your broken server...and
have you looked into qmail?" 8^)
Michael Boyiazis -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetZero
Mail/Sys/Network Admin
> -Original Message-
> From: Racer X [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: snoop and bare line feeds
>
>
> This is a known bug in the Microsoft SMTP server (the thing
> that comes with
> the NT Option Pack). It correctly interprets temporary
> errors as temporary
> and retries the message, but unfortunately it tries again
> IMMEDIATELY, which
> causes a lot of useless traffic.
>
> I can't advise as to what the problem is with that particular
> message; I've
> seen the problem pop up with various temporary errors, but
> it's always MS
> SMTP on the other end.
>
> The solution is to tell the remote to get a real mail server - this is
> pretty broken behavior. You can also, if you have the
> tarpitting patches
> installed, tarpit the remote server, which will at least slow
> it down until
> the remote administrator fixes it.
and:
> What I did was to patch qmail-smtpd.c to report stray newlines:
> There is a function called straynewline().
> To that function I've added:
>logerr("protoerror: "); logerrpid(); logerrf("error: stray
newlines\n");
> (before the _exit(1); :-)
> To make it work you also need the following code snippet:
> char strnum[FMT_ULONG];
> char sserrbuf[512];
> substdio sserr = SUBSTDIO_FDBUF(write,2,sserrbuf,sizeof(sserrbuf));
> void logerr(s) char *s; { if(substdio_puts(&sserr,s) == -1) _exit(1); }
> void logerrf(s) char *s; { if(substdio_puts(&sserr,s) == -1) _exit(1);
> if(substdio_flush(&sserr) == -1) _exit(1); }
> void logerrpid() { strnum[fmt_ulong(strnum,getpid())] = 0; logerr("pid ");
loger
> r(strnum); logerr(": ");}
> (this is only tested with qmail-1.01 but should also work finde with 1.03)
__
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
snoop and bare line feeds
Greetings, I occasionally have smtp servers begin to "chatter" with my servers and 99% of the time, a telnet to port 25 of the offending server yields the dreaded: Microsoft SMTP MAIL So I block the IP to prevent the chatter as they just keep coming over and over again trying to deliver mail which my servers must be saying no way to. I ass/u/me that this is a bare-line-feed issue. Since everything I've read says do the fixcr with "clients" sending buggy mail, my option seems to be to block those IP's from sending (tcpserver) and try to get mail to them telling them they've been blocked. I've tried running snoop to see if I could see anything odd with the smtp packets, but I really don't know what to look for that is out of the ordinary so I can tell these folks what to fix. Any suggestions as to what might look odd? and what to tell them to fix their mail server? Thanks, mike. __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: A second strange problem.
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Subject: Re: A second strange problem. > > > So, the point here is that smtpd responded with +OK for everything, > leading me to believe the mail had been accepted and was delivered. > However, the mail *never* showed up in the queue. The qmail log was > blank and the smtpd log showed an exit code of 256. I could be way wrong here, but didn't someone see the 256 as the return code from the bare-line-feed problem in a log someplace? Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: Error Message text
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > another quick question. Someone once told me that I can > customize the text > of Qmail error messages (e.g. Sorry no mailbox here by that > name- try the > hose next door, etc.) > > is this indeed possible and if so how? cd your-qmail-src-directory grep -i sorry *.c edit it to whatever you wish and recompile. Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: save mail on server question
Sam, What he really wanted to do was to force the user to have to check 'do not leave messages on the server' so that they'd know it ahead of time and not be surprised when the mail they just cleared out of their PC was the only copy. Being privy to a lot of the support mail that comes in, I know that is asking a lot of your normal messenger/outlook user. I'd prefer the cron method myself. We'll see where things end up... Thanks, > > Michael Boyiazis writes: > > > I disabled UIDL on qmail permanently, but I did not get > this error again. > > > > Does anyone one know how to get this behavior all the time? > (get the error > > message) > > Add code to pop3d which deletes everything that hasn't been > deleted yet > when pop3d receives a QUIT. > > Don't do something stupid like deleting everything just > before the process > terminates. Or someone who crashes in a middle of > downloading the first > message in a hundred message mailbox will wind up with losing > all of his > mail. > > A much better solution would be a cron job that goes through > everyone's > Maildir/cur and Maildir/new, and deletes all messages older > than a certain > number of days. > Michael Boyiazis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
save mail on server question
>From a coworker doing some qmail fiddling: Is there any way to modify the qmail server so that it forces the mail client to disallow save mail on server? I got an error from Netscape Mail once that read: The POP3 mail server does not support UIDL, which Netscape Mail needs to implement the "Leave on Server" and "Maximum Message Size" options. To download your mail, turn off these options in the MailServer panel of Preferences. I disabled UIDL on qmail permanently, but I did not get this error again. Does anyone one know how to get this behavior all the time? (get the error message) Thanks, mike. NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: race condition in qmail-popbull
What I found was that if someone (me) has 'leave messages on the server' set and reads the message from work, that's the last time it is seen. The bulletin link gets moved from the new to cur directory and stays there unreadable and unremovable even before the bulletin is pulled. (Having 'pull messages from server' has no effect when I try to read mail at home. The link is untouchable unless I get on the server and delete it by hand.) > Subject: race condition in qmail-popbull > > > I think I've found a race condition in qmail-popbull. If you delete a > bulletin just after qmail-popbull has run, but before the user has > started to download that message, qmail-pop3d says "-ERR unable to > open that message". If you delete a bulletin just after qmail-popbull > has run, but the user doesn't get a chance to download the message, > qmail-pop3d will leave that symlink lying around forever. > > So, to see if this is more than a theory, could people running > qmail-popbull check to see if they have dangling symlinks in their > user's directories? > > The fix, if necessary, is for qmail-pop3d to remove dangling symlinks > when it finds them. > NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
bare line feed?
Greetings, I log smtp connects to a file and at certain times one user will seem to be getting pounded with mail from a particular IP. When I check the maildir there is nothing new there. There are no errors going to the syslog. Could this be the bare linefeed issue? Would that cause the chatter between my server and the sender's? If this is a linefeed issue, would adding the fixcr program to the tcpserver line for smtp program handle that without putting undo strain on the box to deal with just a few hosts that send out garbage? Thanks, mike. NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
fastforward
How would fastforward handle multi 100K - millions of users? Good idea? Poor idea? NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: tcpserver and qmail-pop3d
Title: RE: tcpserver and qmail-pop3d I do use it for my smtp to control relay, but is it actually used in pop3d? It appears that it is ignored or not applicable to pop3d. mike b. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin > > man tcpserver > > No, you don't have to use the -x option to tcpserver. It's up to you. > > At 03:13 AM 8/25/99 , you wrote: > >Is there a reason why I have the check of the rules.cdb in my pop3d > >line of tcpserver other than to slow everything down? Theoretically > >we allow pop from anywhere (and the rules call on the pop3d > line doesn't > >seem to be preventing anything [but maybe quicker downloads])... > > > >/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c 2050 -x > /etc/security/tcprules/rules.cdb 0 > >pop3 > >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup pop.netzero.net /bin/checkpassword > >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popbull /var/spool/bulletins > >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & > > > >the above all being on one line of course... > > > >Thanks,
reverse DNS
I went through qmail-smtpd and added a bit of code to do a gethostbyaddr. If I don't get a value, I refuse the mail due to no reverse DNS. Now looking over some comments in this list and with a little closer look at the setup routine in qmail-smtpd.c it appears if the name cannot be resolved, remoteip and/or remotehost get set to 'unknown'. Would it make sense to deny mail if either of these is 'unknown'. and/or set tcpserver option -p? Thanks, mike. NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
RE: queue botched? update
Well, I found out what a large part of the problem was... During the crashes and confusion on the box, /var/qmail/queue/intd disappeared!!! I remade the directory and the queue pretty much cleared itself right out. Still 86 messages are still complaining about qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe...Maybe they'll end up bouncing away? > -Original Message- > From: Michael Boyiazis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 1:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: queue botched? > > > We had some difficulties yesterday... > > Our qmail servers are connected to a netfiler. > > Someone plugged something into port 1 on the switch on the network > and everything freaked out for a while. > > Anyway, many switch and box reboots later I'm having problems with > qmail on one of the boxes. > > When I start up qmail it says a bunch of items are accepted for > delivery, but then I get qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe > (this comes from spawn.c) > > Has the queue been corrupted? Is it fixable using the queue-rename > patch I found in the archives by Pedro Melo? > > I have qmail running on a second disk in the server w/ > the disk mounted onto /var/qmail... > > (it is a Sun E450 running 2.6 and qmail 1.03) > > > a couple of usernames replace by joe/josieuser... > > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.287240 status: local > 0/10 remote > 31/110 > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320082 delivery 156: deferral: > qmail-spaw > n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/ > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320303 status: local > 0/10 remote > 30/110 > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325023 starting > delivery 157: msg > 116965 > to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325242 status: local > 0/10 remote > 31/110 > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325710 delivery 157: deferral: > qmail-spaw > n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/ > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325919 status: local > 0/10 remote > 30/110 > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340023 starting > delivery 158: msg > 116748 > to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340239 status: local > 0/10 remote > 31/110 > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356327 starting > delivery 159: msg > 116687 > to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356563 status: local > 0/10 remote > 32/110 > Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.367017 delivery 158: deferral: > qmail-spaw > n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/ > > > plus a lot of these... > > Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.525128 warning: > trouble injecting > bounce message, will try later > Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.583448 warning: > trouble injecting > bounce message, will try later > Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.650093 warning: > trouble injecting > bounce message, will try later > Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.708559 warning: > trouble injecting > bounce message, will try later > Aug 13 12:55:43 mail6 qmail: 934574143.765686 warning: > trouble injecting > bounce message, will try later > Aug 13 12:56:40 mail6 qmail: 934574200.819155 warning: > trouble injecting > bounce message, will try later > -- mike b. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.sprynet.com/~boyiazis/mikehome.htm "I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." Calvin --- NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
queue botched?
We had some difficulties yesterday... Our qmail servers are connected to a netfiler. Someone plugged something into port 1 on the switch on the network and everything freaked out for a while. Anyway, many switch and box reboots later I'm having problems with qmail on one of the boxes. When I start up qmail it says a bunch of items are accepted for delivery, but then I get qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe (this comes from spawn.c) Has the queue been corrupted? Is it fixable using the queue-rename patch I found in the archives by Pedro Melo? I have qmail running on a second disk in the server w/ the disk mounted onto /var/qmail... (it is a Sun E450 running 2.6 and qmail 1.03) a couple of usernames replace by joe/josieuser... Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.287240 status: local 0/10 remote 31/110 Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320082 delivery 156: deferral: qmail-spaw n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/ Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320303 status: local 0/10 remote 30/110 Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325023 starting delivery 157: msg 116965 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325242 status: local 0/10 remote 31/110 Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325710 delivery 157: deferral: qmail-spaw n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/ Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325919 status: local 0/10 remote 30/110 Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340023 starting delivery 158: msg 116748 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340239 status: local 0/10 remote 31/110 Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356327 starting delivery 159: msg 116687 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356563 status: local 0/10 remote 32/110 Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.367017 delivery 158: deferral: qmail-spaw n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/ plus a lot of these... Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.525128 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.583448 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.650093 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.708559 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Aug 13 12:55:43 mail6 qmail: 934574143.765686 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later Aug 13 12:56:40 mail6 qmail: 934574200.819155 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later -- mike b. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.sprynet.com/~boyiazis/mikehome.htm "I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." Calvin --- NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you? Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
disk mirroring
Greetings, We are thinking of using OpenDiskSuite to mirror a disk which contains /var/qmail so that if the disk dies we have (hopefully) not lost the mail in the queue. Will this work? Would I then need to run the queue through the queue recovery script or should it be okay without? Would it be better to use Veritas or something else? Thanks, mike. __ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
