Re: Mail Forwarding Service
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:20:37AM -0400, Philip Mak wrote: On 28 Jul 2001, MarkD wrote: By volume I meant how many emails per hour. Number of users is largely irrelevant. Okay... I just did grep | wc (count lines matching a pattern) on my qmail log directory. In the last 10 minutes (I only have logs going back that far, because the logs are limited to 1 MB total), there were 1300 deliveries to local users. It's a quiet time of the day right now, so I suspect it might get even more heavily loaded later. If you're doing this per delivery, I'm not surprised. But it should be easy to measure for sure with vmstat/top/acct, etc. Yes, it's per delivery. The forwarding program tends to take up around 5% of CPU according to top. We have a similar script. Watch a mailing list hit and the load average goes way up. We only use it where WYSIWYG changes to forwarding addresses are required; the per email compilation is way out of line. I've always assumed the right way would be some sort of UNIX socket connection with a persistent daemon and a local database server + backup cache or exit 111. I wonder if one could not put a filter in front of some app-server to do just that If changes happen infrequently relative to time to rebuild the cdb file, then doing that for each change sounds like it would be simplest AND most efficient. The only complexity would be triggering that rebuild on db change. Not so easy with mySQL but maybe your mechanism for updating could do it. At least it solves MY problem; that will work nicely for us. :-) cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
what can be done about 'in order to have your advice...'
Can anyone help me figure out a way to handle this recent virus? It typically tags email in body: '...in order to have your advice...' and sends random attachments .2 to 2Mb in size. We're getting a lot of these already, and I'm worried that a flood will jam us up, amounting to a DOS. At the very least, this is going to cost us a lot of bandwidth $$$. Seems to me the only way to stop it is to scan the body before the mail is accepted. Yeech. And as soon as we get variations on '...in order to have your advice...' it will be just about indistinguishable from normal email with attachments. All I can think of is setting up a colocated MX where bandwidth is cheap and filtering all mail there, then accepting only from that IP. Hmmm, is there a mailscrubber.com ASP that provides that service reliably? cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: [OT] qmail php
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:43:03PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote: Quoth Bill Andersen: OK, I hate to go back on list with this, but since I got about 30 replies, it's easier to go back to the list then to reply to each of you. THANKS for all the replies though. Almost all the replies were did you set up links to qmail's sendmail wrapper... Yes! I've had qmail running for 6 months without any problems. Followed LWQ to the letter and have since re-verified the links are in place... ... 1) Stopped qmail and removed the symlinks 2) Installed sendmail (from RPM) 3) Did a complete install (./configure blah blah, make, make install) for both PHP and Apache (per their instructions) 4) Uninstalled sendmail using RPM 5) Re-create the symlinks to qmail's sendmail 6) Restarted qmail (actually restared the machine, qmail's working) STILL, get the error: mail() is not supported in the PHP build The only thing I haven't tried is the suggestion from Michael Geier below. Nothing personal Michael, but Hell, I don't want to have to start from scratch... surely I don't need to re-install Linux! Anybody else? Yeah, look at the source. yeesh. -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: Repeated Identical Messages
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:39:11AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: Steve Crowder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I have now received as fourteen separate instances at these times: [...] All mails are identical and I'm sure Charles is not resending the same mail. Nope, just the once. Does anyone know why this should be happening or better still how to fix it ? FWIW We see this very, very, very rarely. I've never seen it in email from this list. I see this too sometimes; it seems to be bursty. I'll get lots of duplicates for a day or two, then none for a week or three. Dan has mentioned in the past that packet loss on the UIC link during the day regularly hits 25% -- since list.cr.yp.to sits on that network, it might be not seeing the successful response to the DATA command if the connection gets broken before then, and therefore has to re-send the mail (and logging "possible dupe" messages in Dan's logs). I do note that the duplicates are generally received on weekdays during North American office hours, and I only notice them on mail coming from list.cr.yp.to -- not from other ezmlm-managed lists. Perhaps djb himself could comment on whether the network saturation at UIC is causing duplicates? cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: Still having mutiple delivery problems.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 03:03:20PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote: i am having the *exact* same problem. it only happens with mails originating outside our domain, and tehre's no rhyme or reason to it. our logs do show seems to happen more often with hotmail and yahoo. it's also happend with this list! the only constant i can see between the three is that they all (i think) use qmail for outgoing mail. i can't comfirm that this has happend at all when the mail server is anything but qmail. how could this be the common link? Are you seeing this as SMTP level? We get duplicated messages frequently but it's always (as far as I can tell) a pop issue. It is always solved by deleting an improperly formatted multipart mime message, almost always from outlook. The logs show somthing like "unable to lock mailbox; connection lost" or something similar. That's with cucipop. dan On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Kep Brown wrote: Ok I am still having problems with the same emails getting delivered multiple times. And am baffled by what to do. The higher ups are pushing REAL hard to switch to Microsoft Exchange so I need at least some ideas on what to try next. History, Certain email messages, sent from outside our local network, with the Reply to header set to our home domain, ie. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent using local ISPs email server, get delivered multiple times. It is not consistant, one time a message sent to certain users will only get delivered once, the next time a message sent to the same users will start looping, get delivered multiple times. Information Far servers logs show a lost connection while sending end of data. local sever shows no errors in maillog or messages. With recordio turned on the conversations look the same for correctly delivered messages as incorrectly delivered messages. ANY help or suggestions or.. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Kep Kep Brown Systems, Network and Database Administrator phone: (805) 560-3781 fax: (805) 560-3991 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: Still having mutiple delivery problems.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:00:29PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote: aha! we use cucipop as well. there's only one 'error locking' message in the logs, but there are plenty of these: cucipop[20914]: Invalid command capa - - i've tried to figure out what this means, but i have no clue. could this be indicative of what you're talking about? if outlook clients are sending messages that cause this, what steps can be taken to prevent it? thanks- dan It looks like this: Mar 5 18:02:29 gray cucipop[15401]: Error locking hwware's mailbox Mar 5 18:02:29 gray cucipop[15401]: lost hwware 208.148.249.48 240, 16 (752895), 0 (0) Note that this is a client issue, not qmail. You need to find out what "getting delivered multiple times" **really** means. Get the headers. Anytime anyone uses passive tense to describe what is going on - red flags. On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 03:03:20PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote: i am having the *exact* same problem. it only happens with mails originating outside our domain, and tehre's no rhyme or reason to it. our logs do show seems to happen more often with hotmail and yahoo. it's also happend with this list! the only constant i can see between the three is that they all (i think) use qmail for outgoing mail. i can't comfirm that this has happend at all when the mail server is anything but qmail. how could this be the common link? Are you seeing this as SMTP level? We get duplicated messages frequently but it's always (as far as I can tell) a pop issue. It is always solved by deleting an improperly formatted multipart mime message, almost always from outlook. The logs show somthing like "unable to lock mailbox; connection lost" or something similar. That's with cucipop. dan On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Kep Brown wrote: Ok I am still having problems with the same emails getting delivered multiple times. And am baffled by what to do. The higher ups are pushing REAL hard to switch to Microsoft Exchange so I need at least some ideas on what to try next. History, Certain email messages, sent from outside our local network, with the Reply to header set to our home domain, ie. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent using local ISPs email server, get delivered multiple times. It is not consistant, one time a message sent to certain users will only get delivered once, the next time a message sent to the same users will start looping, get delivered multiple times. Information Far servers logs show a lost connection while sending end of data. local sever shows no errors in maillog or messages. With recordio turned on the conversations look the same for correctly delivered messages as incorrectly delivered messages. ANY help or suggestions or.. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Kep Kep Brown Systems, Network and Database Administrator phone: (805) 560-3781 fax: (805) 560-3991 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: Time zones in Qmail.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:23:29AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 04:50:35PM -0800, Sam Trenholme wrote: How do I change the timezone information that qmail puts in the received header? Qmail is running on openbsd 2.8. ... [1] Sales people are nortorious for wanting to have a time stamp for the exact time they sent or received an email. In their time zone. ... There's a very good reason these headers are in UTC. If you send a mail to the other side of the world, the next Received: line will also be UTC. This means you don't have to do timezone calculations to see how long a mail really took. Calculations a provincial, fat, balding, ugly american sysdmin like me will almost always get wrong because of EST, DST and God's time are sometimes different sometimes not. Tell your salespeople that the net is run geeks like me. :-) Don't even get into clock skew and why ntp died on that machine. UTC is good. People requesting otherwise in their Received: header are confused. !meaningful cookie cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: ucspi-tcp man pages?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 11:47:38PM -0500, Peter Cavender wrote: I just installed the latest ucspi-tcp from the tarball on cr.yp.to, and there are no man pages. My previous install almost 2 years ago included them, and I am wondering if they are no longer included or if I missed something. Yeah, I have that problem too. The qmail environment is so reliable I forget how it goes together and where are the sources. :-) Thank you to everyone that made that possible. cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
how do I block this SPAM?
We're getting dozens of these SPAM now every day just on a single admin account. There is a flood going to user mail boxes too. I've not been successful blocking it with badmailfrom or badmailpatterns. procmail yes, but I'd rather push them back. It's coming from all over the place. We're running qmail-1.03 with the SPAMCONTROL patch. Can anyone help me with this please? Thanks, cfm From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jan 01 18:30:53 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6035 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 18:30:52 - Received: from gray.maine.com (204.176.0.13) by sooshi.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 18:30:52 - Received: (qmail 13886 invoked by uid 64010); 1 Jan 2001 18:19:29 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 13883 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 18:19:28 - Received: from rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (152.163.225.160) by gray.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 18:19:28 - Received: from tot-tg1-th.proxy.aol.com (tot-tg1-th.proxy.aol.com [152.163.213.3]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA12608 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (AC928F2E.ipt.aol.com [172.146.143.46]) by tot-tg1-th.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f01IIR421070 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Hahaha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VER0HE7WPQVW9YB0567WDEZOLYVKLM3S1" X-Apparently-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jan 1 13:19:28 gray qmail: 978373168.993475 new msg 217092 Jan 1 13:19:28 gray qmail: 978373168.995066 info msg 217092: bytes 35410 from qp 13883 uid 71 Jan 1 13:19:29 gray qmail: 978373169.065436 starting delivery 14530: msg 217092 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 1 13:19:29 gray qmail: 978373169.066836 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: how do I block this SPAM? Clarification
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 07:25:49PM +, Mark Delany wrote: badmailfrom won't work on this. See the archives for discussions on why not (it checks Return-Path). Perhaps speak to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as it looks to be originating in there. My mistake, I was unclear. These are coming to us from all over the net, presumably from legitimate accounts. Looks to me like they - oemcomputer (AC928F2E.ipt.aol.com) in this case - have a virus of some sort. But it is not just that one user. Below is another one just in. Is this just a local "maine" thing or has anyone else seen it? Best, cfm From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jan 01 19:32:31 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6104 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 19:32:30 - Received: from gray.maine.com (204.176.0.13) by sooshi.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 19:32:30 - Received: (qmail 14946 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2001 19:21:05 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 14943 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 19:20:56 - Received: from 1087-maine-56k.ime.net (HELO pavilion) (209.90.240.137) by gray.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 19:20:56 - From: Hahaha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VE7K1EZWPU3" Status: RO Content-Length: 31628 Lines: 421 VE7K1EZWPU3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Today, Snowhite was turning 18. The 7 Dwarfs always where very educated and polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a *huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven Dwarfs enter... VE7K1EZWPU3 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="sexy virgin.scr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="sexy virgin.scr" Regards. On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 02:21:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're getting dozens of these SPAM now every day just on a single admin account. There is a flood going to user mail boxes too. I've not been successful blocking it with badmailfrom or badmailpatterns. procmail yes, but I'd rather push them back. It's coming from all over the place. We're running qmail-1.03 with the SPAMCONTROL patch. Can anyone help me with this please? Thanks, cfm From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jan 01 18:30:53 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6035 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 18:30:52 - Received: from gray.maine.com (204.176.0.13) by sooshi.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 18:30:52 - Received: (qmail 13886 invoked by uid 64010); 1 Jan 2001 18:19:29 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 13883 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 18:19:28 - Received: from rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (152.163.225.160) by gray.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2001 18:19:28 - Received: from tot-tg1-th.proxy.aol.com (tot-tg1-th.proxy.aol.com [152.163.213.3]) by rly-ip02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA12608 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (AC928F2E.ipt.aol.com [172.146.143.46]) by tot-tg1-th.proxy.aol.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f01IIR421070 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:18:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Hahaha [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VER0HE7WPQVW9YB0567WDEZOLYVKLM3S1" X-Apparently-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jan 1 13:19:28 gray qmail: 978373168.993475 new msg 217092 Jan 1 13:19:28 gray qmail: 978373168.995066 info msg 217092: bytes 35410 from qp 13883 uid 71 Jan 1 13:19:29 gray qmail: 978373169.065436 starting delivery 14530: msg 217092 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 1 13:19:29 gray qmail: 978373169.066836 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
what is *.da.uu.net?
What kind of service is *.tnt.city.state.da.uu.net, or for example 1Cust147.tnt7.fort-lauderdale.fl.da.uu.net? SPAM from these addresses is not being blocked by DULS. traceroute suggests to me an above.net colo at uu.net? (my guess) We're running the collected SPAMPATCH patches. Does it make sense to block *.da.uu.net in badmailpatterns or might there better way of doing it with tcpserver? Frankly, depending on what tnt is I'm tempted to block all da.uu.net. The addresses along the path change with each instance; only the source address seems consistent. Can anyone tell me what this is and suggest the best approach to stopping this sort of SPAM? Thanks, cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 10 15:43:17 2000 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 1322 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2000 15:43:16 - Received: from gray.maine.com (204.176.0.13) by sooshi.maine.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2000 15:43:16 - Received: (qmail 26767 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2000 15:42:35 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 26749 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2000 15:42:33 - Received: from co-location.ibtoday.iasiaworks.ne.kr (HELO ns.asiatrans.com) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by gray.maine.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2000 15:42:33 - Received: from mail1.joymail.com (1Cust147.tnt7.fort-lauderdale.fl.da.uu.net [63.25.243.147]) by ns.asiatrans.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA15685 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:40:45 +0900 Message-ID: From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Subject: RE: Your Christmas Present. Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:20:52 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Content-Length: 509 Lines: 19 and: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 10 15:43:20 2000 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 1334 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2000 15:43:19 - Received: from gray.maine.com (204.176.0.13) by sooshi.maine.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2000 15:43:19 - Received: (qmail 26799 invoked by uid 501); 10 Dec 2000 15:42:38 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 26787 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2000 15:42:37 - Received: from unknown (HELO mail.megatrans.co.kr) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by gray.maine.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2000 15:42:37 - Received: from mail1.joymail.com (1Cust147.tnt7.fort-lauderdale.fl.da.uu.net [63.25.243.147]) by mail.megatrans.co.kr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA17694 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:43:18 +0900 Message-ID: From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Subject: RE: Your Christmas Present. Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:20:53 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Content-Length: 547 Lines: 19 You have seen it on TV! Hard Copy, Howard Stern, Extra, Inside Edition, Etc... You have heard about it from friends! Now go and see for yourself! Click http://1082394634/hardcore_celeb/index.html The site they don't want you to see. The site that they want shut down, but the first amendment protects us! Click http://1082394634/hardcore_celeb/index.html If link does not work, cut and paste in your browsers window. remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] ll 91317
Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 12:39:26AM -0600, Ken Jones wrote:
Wayne Chu wrote:
No, I am NOT spamming.
Our company runs serveral daily e-newsletter, with totally about a
half million of subscribers. We are planning to make an "open"
newsletter plateform, let our web site members create their own
personal newsletter ( authenticated and supervised by our staff to
prevent spam mail ). we estimated the total number of subscribers and
the number of newsletter will grow even more. Surely our member
would want their newsletters to be sent ASAP. So we have to
increase concurrency.
Ah.. So you are not a spammer, except you assume all your
"customers" want your email. Besides that moral issue,
do you have measured information about the delivery
statistics of qmail version other options?
If these are **personalized** emails, then how they get queued will
depend on how they are built. One person wants a,g,f,t,z and
another wants a,t,q,p,z. If they want them ASAP, then it's not
obvious concurrency is an issue at all; perhaps newsletters with
p go out whenever p changes and triggers them. Maybe changes in
some of the topics do not trigger new email, but wait on a clock,
etc In either case, they may still be different per subscriber
because of the other selections (else they are not personalized).
Even with half a million subscribers, depending on the number of
options and the subscriber base you might still be sending only
a very few messages to each site. And if they are truly personalized,
it's not at all clear to me how one would build them so they could
go in the queue more than one by one.
Roughly:
SELECT email_address, topics FROM subscribers WHERE email ='$1' ORDER
BY topics,email_address;
for (@email_address) {
build message(@topics);
qmail-inject message # we do these ourselves one-by-one; personalized
}
Qmail will not be the hard part :-)
If, OTOH, they are a personal selection of independant, non-personalized
messages, batching will make sense - but that's not "personalized".
As usual, a clear statement of the situation will help.
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/
Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: AntiVirus!
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:47:53AM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote: If running a virus scanner would be free (i.e. does not reduce security, does not eat up CPU time on the email server, does not use memory, does not cost time and money to maintain) then I would not be against it. Antivirus, not **antigravity**. ;^ -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content management, electronic commerce, internet integration, Debian linux
Re: (Fwd) ezmlm response
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:37:09PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Received: from mail01.sherwin.com (HELO ehub1.sherwin.com) (148.141.15.156) Received: from cbdserv4.sherwin.com ([148.141.17.249]) by ehub1.sherwin.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3) What is cbdserv4? Does that mean your mail got through the first hub before bouncing or is it same machine too? The fine folks at sherwin.com claim I am the ONLY ISP on the planet who has trouble with this, that it simply MUST be on my end. And really, with the two other mail servers that I run, I don't have trouble sending email to sherwin.com...so their argument has some validity. When I started as ISP 7 years ago a local BBS operator shared with me his favorite like "It only happens on your system|modem| server so it MUST be your problem." YMMV :-) cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
Re: Where did this BOGUS file come from.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:30:09PM -0400, Alex Pennace wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:00:58PM -0700, Duane L. wrote: [...] Had a user complaining that an important email never arrived. Poking around in their home directory I found this file ... -rw--- 1 root users 12618 Oct 24 08:34 BOGUS.LtFK There is a mail client that creates BOGUS.* files. I can't remember which one. looking at its contents... there are 3 emails in it. 2 addressed to the user implicitly and another to a list he subscribed to. Questions: Why weren't these messages piped to the users .mail file ? Is the BOGUS.* file a normal qmail operation ? and if so, what might help to prevent this problem in the future. No, qmail doesn't generate BOGUS files by itself. Something is causing qmail to generate it. What do the logs say? -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
Re: can't send to addresses w/ in them.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 09:43:57AM -0700, Duane L. wrote: One of our customers is upset because he can't email his brother at his bigfoot address. The address has an ampersand in the username portion eg; DNB[EMAIL PROTECTED] which qmail (1.03) apparently translates to "dnb^[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and the message is returned as undeliverable. Of course this customer has to point out that the sister with the MSN account can send to it, with no problems. DOH! I know for a fact that qmail can send to addresses with a in them because I once had a mailing list that sent them unquoted, backgrounded itself, resent them because it did not complete, ad infinitem until I caught it and fixed the quoting. In a nutshell the **shell** was the issue, not qmail. cfm I'm not necessarily trying to correct or work around the problem, but I wish I had an RFC I could quote that explains why this isn't working, and why MSN shouldn't deliver it either, except it is their nature to ignore/bend/break established protocols and procedures. Any insight would be greatly apreciated. TIA Duane L - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
Re: Running instructions in mail bodies
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 03:35:08PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was asked to do some research on "running instructions contained in a mail body", that is, users send their requests by mails and the server parse the messages and then run the instructions assigned by the requesters in the message body and perhpas if any output, send the result back by mail to the requesters. It works just like You certainly can't let it run arbitrary commands. But for a limited command set it is fine. What else, for example, is procmail? We do this all the time. Someone correct me, but I figure the security issues associated with it are the same as allowing login shells. In a typical example on our system, an email address like foo-order@ might take mail with *ML markup and parse it into an order. That's just one example. Anything nasty that a login user could do can be done by programs run from their .qmail file. OTOH, I'm pretty confident in qmail's security model that it cannot do **more**. -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
Re: Segmentation faults
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:51:56PM -0600, Andy Bradford wrote: Thus said Ian Shaughnessy on Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:24:00 PDT: One of my users has been signed up to a number of mailing lists, and he is now unable to access his Maildir/cur or Maildir/new directories. I as root can not touch them either.. ls reports a segmentation fault. Du does as well, and rm -rf also. Basically this is a pretty big problem, as I have no access to his directories with any standard binary tools. my question is, what the heck is happening here, and why would an extremely large load of messages completely kill my binary tools? I doubt he has over a few thousand messages, which granted is alot, but I would assume qmail is able to handle that. Has qmail gone and written something funny This doesn't really sound like a qmail problem at all. It sounds more like you have run out of space on your root partition (which is commonly where /home is left). This is a bad thing because when you run out of space there, things can get funky. However, if ls and a few other binarys are segfaulting then maybe you should consider the fact that you may have been hacked. At any rate, see if you can run df and possibly free (maybe you're out of memory to boot). I've also seen this happen if a process hangs. I think waiting on IO is what ps says. That might apply to mail. -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
Re: Qmail Relay Question
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:19:42PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: "Lee Trotter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have been watching this list for a few weeks now. And the people on here are the most un-helpful people I have seen. I don't think you're being fair. Even people who "rudely" tell someone to read the FAQ or a man page are being helpful. Truly unhelpful people don't reply at all, even curtly. Of the many lists to which I subscribe this has by far the best signal-to-noise ratio. Others deteriorate, good people leave and the resource is wasted. Now I practice "rude behavior" on other lists. ;^) Put a free and unguarded resource out there, people will piss on it, waste it and wreck it. $.02 -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
qmail and mailing list of Real Audio attachments
Has anyone had experience with qmail and the sending of large attachments like Real Audio to mailing lists 500 or so recipients? Other than the huge bandwidth suck am I likely to run into anything other than the usual MUA confusion? Some mailing list software gets really confused. How about ezmlm? Thanks, cfm -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher[EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 (MTRF 3-5pm)http://www.maine.com/
