[qmailtoaster] Redirect email

[rajeshrudramani]

Hi,


We are running a separate physical server with qmail and
configured a single domain. Currently we would like to re-direct the
particular domain like( Infosys, wipro, etc..) to a particular email
id. So kindly give us a fix or solution to this issue.




Regards,
Rajesh

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com
For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com

RE: [qmailtoaster] Re: How to update PHP higher version without affect qmailtoaster

[Biju Jose]

I had to upgrade to php 5.3 in a couple of Qmail Toaster servers, what I did
is as follows. They are all now running fine.

 

I had my server in perfect running condition with PHP 5.1 and then I had
upgraded to PHP 5.3

 

Install Webtatic Repo

rpm -Uvh  
http://mirror.webtatic.com/yum/centos/5/latest.rpm

 

If you have php-mhash or php-ncurses you have to remove them.
yum remove php-mhash php-ncurses

 

Then update to PHP 5.3

yum --enablerepo=webtatic update php

 

You need to set the  time zone in php.ini and restart apache.

 

The detailed instructions are in http://www.webtatic.com/packages/php53/

 

Biju Jose

Mobile : +91 9895 990 272

  _  

P please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

 

 

From: cj yother [mailto:c...@yother.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 9:32 AM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Re: How to update PHP higher version without
affect qmailtoaster

 

I tried over 6 months ago to upgrade to php53 to use some of the newer web
based e mail clients.  Needless to say it wasn't happy.  I am sure you could
sort it out, but I ran out of patience, and migrated to Postfix to
accommodate.  I am not your normal user and it is not mission critical for
me, but one of the issues I see is that in QMTs zeal to be stable it loses
some of it's ability to be on the cutting edge.

I still run 1 iteration of QMT.  It's using the .iso and IMHO that's the
best thing since sliced bread.  Pop it in and 30 minutes later you have a
fully functional QMT/Web server.   A few modifications and off you go, safe,
secure, stable.  I know you're not in favor of keeping the .iso, but it has
it's place for many.

Good luck with the CentOS 6 portion of the project.I'm still listening
in.

.02

Thanks to all who put in so much work to make this work.

Merry Christmas.

CJ

On 12/22/2013 06:12 PM, Chandran Manikandan wrote:

Dear All, 

Thanks for your advise. I am running QMT and Webserver with the same server
and we are developing new website with Word press. Word press is support
only php 5.2 or higher.

I tried to install php53 before upgrade i had removed php5.1 the updated but
it's qmaildmin and other some packages removed itself after that i tried to
install again this some toaster package but it's shows always is conflict
php 5.1.

 

Mr. biju sent one link i tried that link to update. If anyone have any
solution of my help kindly update me.

 

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Eric Shubert  wrote:

Hey Kahn,

First, I would try to avoid running anything other than the hypervisor on
bare iron. Run everything virtualized underneath it.

Generally speaking, KVM performs better with newer kernels. Older kernels
use 10-20% of a cpu when idle. With newer kernels, KVMs use <0.5% cpu when
idle.

I'm not sure exactly what the change is that provides this improvement. It
appears to have happened around 3.4 in the main kernel versions, but it also
appears that RedHat (and thus COS) has backported this change to their
2.6.32 version. BL, COS6 runs well as a KVM, but COS5 does not. I expect
that both hypervisor and guests need to be running the improved version of
the kernel to realize this improvement.

My virtualization platform of choice is ProxmoxVE. It provides a nice web
interface for management, and has been very reliable for me. I've used
versions 2.1-3.1. While PVE is debian based and uses .deb packages, it uses
a RedHat kernel, which give it the performance gains mentioned.

The PVE kernel also provides OpenVZ container support, as does the web
interface. While COS5 guests don't run so well as KVMs, they run quite
nicely as OpenVZ containers. I won't go into the differences here, but
running just about anything linux based as an OpenVZ container should work
ok.

I should emphasize that the point is not that running COS5 as a KVM *won't*
work (it will), it's just that there's some overhead involved that's been
eliminated in more recent kernels. In fact, I've run COS5 as KVMs in
production just fine for a period of time, on as little as a dual-core
1.6GHz machine. It's fine so long as the horsepower's available to run it
(which it quite commonly is, as I've found most servers to be severely
overbuilt).

The only thing that bothers me with PVE is that beginning with 3.1 (which is
the current release), they've introduced a subscription based structure for
their repos, sort of like RHEL. The cost isn't excessive for small users,
but it still rubs me the wrong way. They do still provide a free repo, but
all the latest changes aren't guaranteed to be there. We'll see how things
pan out in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised to see a COS-type
counterpart to PVE spring up and provide all of the PVE software for free,
only lagging slightly in when it's released.

I should also probably mention that I started using virtualization with
VMware Server 1.0. After VMware discontinued VMware Server 2.0, I be

Re: [qmailtoaster] Re: How to update PHP higher version without affect qmailtoaster

[cj yother]

  
  
I tried over 6 months ago to upgrade to php53 to use some of the
newer web based e mail clients.  Needless to say it wasn't happy.  I
am sure you could sort it out, but I ran out of patience, and
migrated to Postfix to accommodate.  I am not your normal user and
it is not mission critical for me, but one of the issues I see is
that in QMTs zeal to be stable it loses some of it's ability to be
on the cutting edge.

I still run 1 iteration of QMT.  It's using the .iso and IMHO that's
the best thing since sliced bread.  Pop it in and 30 minutes later
you have a fully functional QMT/Web server.   A few modifications
and off you go, safe, secure, stable.  I know you're not in favor of
keeping the .iso, but it has it's place for many.

Good luck with the CentOS 6 portion of the project.    I'm still
listening in.

.02

Thanks to all who put in so much work to make this work.

Merry Christmas.

CJ
On 12/22/2013 06:12 PM, Chandran
  Manikandan wrote:


  Dear All,
Thanks for your advise. I am running QMT and Webserver with
  the same server and we are developing new website with Word
  press. Word press is support only php 5.2 or higher.
I tried to install php53 before upgrade i had removed
  php5.1 the updated but it's qmaildmin and other some packages
  removed itself after that i tried to install again this some
  toaster package but it's shows always is conflict php 5.1.


Mr. biju sent one link i tried that link to update. If
  anyone have any solution of my help kindly update me.
  
  

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Eric
  Shubert 
  wrote:
  Hey Kahn,

First, I would try to avoid running anything other than the
hypervisor on bare iron. Run everything virtualized
underneath it.

Generally speaking, KVM performs better with newer kernels.
Older kernels use 10-20% of a cpu when idle. With newer
kernels, KVMs use <0.5% cpu when idle.

I'm not sure exactly what the change is that provides this
improvement. It appears to have happened around 3.4 in the
main kernel versions, but it also appears that RedHat (and
thus COS) has backported this change to their 2.6.32
version. BL, COS6 runs well as a KVM, but COS5 does not. I
expect that both hypervisor and guests need to be running
the improved version of the kernel to realize this
improvement.

My virtualization platform of choice is ProxmoxVE. It
provides a nice web interface for management, and has been
very reliable for me. I've used versions 2.1-3.1. While PVE
is debian based and uses .deb packages, it uses a RedHat
kernel, which give it the performance gains mentioned.

The PVE kernel also provides OpenVZ container support, as
does the web interface. While COS5 guests don't run so well
as KVMs, they run quite nicely as OpenVZ containers. I won't
go into the differences here, but running just about
anything linux based as an OpenVZ container should work ok.

I should emphasize that the point is not that running COS5
as a KVM *won't* work (it will), it's just that there's some
overhead involved that's been eliminated in more recent
kernels. In fact, I've run COS5 as KVMs in production just
fine for a period of time, on as little as a dual-core
1.6GHz machine. It's fine so long as the horsepower's
available to run it (which it quite commonly is, as I've
found most servers to be severely overbuilt).

The only thing that bothers me with PVE is that beginning
with 3.1 (which is the current release), they've introduced
a subscription based structure for their repos, sort of like
RHEL. The cost isn't excessive for small users, but it still
rubs me the wrong way. They do still provide a free repo,
but all the latest changes aren't guaranteed to be there.
We'll see how things pan out in the long run. I wouldn't be
surprised to see a COS-type counterpart to PVE spring up and
provide all of the PVE software for free, only lagging
slightly in when it's released.

I should also probably mention that I started using
virtualization with VMware Server 1.0. After VMware
discontinued VMware Server 2.0, I began looking for
something KVM based, and have been using PVE since

Re: [qmailtoaster] Re: How to update PHP higher version without affect qmailtoaster

[Khan Mohamed Ashraf]

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Eric Shubert  wrote:

> Hey Kahn,
>
> First, I would try to avoid running anything other than the hypervisor on
> bare iron. Run everything virtualized underneath it.
>
> Generally speaking, KVM performs better with newer kernels. Older kernels
> use 10-20% of a cpu when idle. With newer kernels, KVMs use <0.5% cpu when
> idle.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what the change is that provides this improvement. It
> appears to have happened around 3.4 in the main kernel versions, but it
> also appears that RedHat (and thus COS) has backported this change to their
> 2.6.32 version. BL, COS6 runs well as a KVM, but COS5 does not. I expect
> that both hypervisor and guests need to be running the improved version of
> the kernel to realize this improvement.
>
> My virtualization platform of choice is ProxmoxVE. It provides a nice web
> interface for management, and has been very reliable for me. I've used
> versions 2.1-3.1. While PVE is debian based and uses .deb packages, it uses
> a RedHat kernel, which give it the performance gains mentioned.
>
> The PVE kernel also provides OpenVZ container support, as does the web
> interface. While COS5 guests don't run so well as KVMs, they run quite
> nicely as OpenVZ containers. I won't go into the differences here, but
> running just about anything linux based as an OpenVZ container should work
> ok.
>
> I should emphasize that the point is not that running COS5 as a KVM
> *won't* work (it will), it's just that there's some overhead involved
> that's been eliminated in more recent kernels. In fact, I've run COS5 as
> KVMs in production just fine for a period of time, on as little as a
> dual-core 1.6GHz machine. It's fine so long as the horsepower's available
> to run it (which it quite commonly is, as I've found most servers to be
> severely overbuilt).
>
> The only thing that bothers me with PVE is that beginning with 3.1 (which
> is the current release), they've introduced a subscription based structure
> for their repos, sort of like RHEL. The cost isn't excessive for small
> users, but it still rubs me the wrong way. They do still provide a free
> repo, but all the latest changes aren't guaranteed to be there. We'll see
> how things pan out in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised to see a
> COS-type counterpart to PVE spring up and provide all of the PVE software
> for free, only lagging slightly in when it's released.
>
> I should also probably mention that I started using virtualization with
> VMware Server 1.0. After VMware discontinued VMware Server 2.0, I began
> looking for something KVM based, and have been using PVE since then. I
> realize that there is a free VMware version, but it's very limited to
> certain enterprise grade hardware. I'm looking for something more
> affordable that can run on generic hardware. VMware undoubtedly is the
> leader in server virtualization, but RedHat is making substantial gains in
> that arena.
>
> VirtualBox has grown up out of Desktop Virtualization. It's a very nice
> platform for virtualizing desktops, and I consider them the leader in this
> arena. Desktop virtualization has much different needs though, as desktops
> are used much differently than servers. I don't look for VB to become a
> substantial player in the server virtualization market.
>
> Let me know if you have any further questions. I hope we'll get this sort
> of info available on the new wiki at github in the future. There is some
> virtualization info on the present wiki, but it's pretty outdated.
>
> Thanks for the questions.
>
> --
> -Eric 'shubes'
>
>
> On 12/22/2013 12:23 AM, Khan Mohamed Ashraf wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Eric Shubert > >wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2013 08:48 PM, Biju Jose wrote:
>>
>> You may want have a look at
>> http://www.webtatic.com/__packages/php53/
>>
>> 
>>
>> *Biju Jose*
>>
>> Pplease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>
>> *From:*Chandran Manikandan [mailto:tech2m...@gmail.com
>> ]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:14 AM
>> *To:* qmailtoaster-list@__qmailtoaster.com
>> 
>>
>> *Subject:* [qmailtoaster] How to update PHP higher version without
>>
>> affect qmailtoaster
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am running centos 5.7 with qmailtoaster + dovecot and don't
>> have any
>> issue.
>>
>> My PHP is 5.1 version.
>>
>> I would like to install wordpress with php 5.2 or higher version
>> compatible.
>>
>> If i try to update php53 or higher version it's
>> squirrelmail,qmailadmin,__vqadmin toasters affected and removed.
>>
>>
>> Could you please anyone help me to solve this issue without affect
>> qmailtoaster need to be update php updated version.
>

Re: [qmailtoaster] Re: How to update PHP higher version without affect qmailtoaster

[Chandran Manikandan]

Dear All,
Thanks for your advise. I am running QMT and Webserver with the same server
and we are developing new website with Word press. Word press is support
only php 5.2 or higher.
I tried to install php53 before upgrade i had removed php5.1 the updated
but it's qmaildmin and other some packages removed itself after that i
tried to install again this some toaster package but it's shows always is
conflict php 5.1.

Mr. biju sent one link i tried that link to update. If anyone have any
solution of my help kindly update me.


On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Eric Shubert  wrote:

> Hey Kahn,
>
> First, I would try to avoid running anything other than the hypervisor on
> bare iron. Run everything virtualized underneath it.
>
> Generally speaking, KVM performs better with newer kernels. Older kernels
> use 10-20% of a cpu when idle. With newer kernels, KVMs use <0.5% cpu when
> idle.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what the change is that provides this improvement. It
> appears to have happened around 3.4 in the main kernel versions, but it
> also appears that RedHat (and thus COS) has backported this change to their
> 2.6.32 version. BL, COS6 runs well as a KVM, but COS5 does not. I expect
> that both hypervisor and guests need to be running the improved version of
> the kernel to realize this improvement.
>
> My virtualization platform of choice is ProxmoxVE. It provides a nice web
> interface for management, and has been very reliable for me. I've used
> versions 2.1-3.1. While PVE is debian based and uses .deb packages, it uses
> a RedHat kernel, which give it the performance gains mentioned.
>
> The PVE kernel also provides OpenVZ container support, as does the web
> interface. While COS5 guests don't run so well as KVMs, they run quite
> nicely as OpenVZ containers. I won't go into the differences here, but
> running just about anything linux based as an OpenVZ container should work
> ok.
>
> I should emphasize that the point is not that running COS5 as a KVM
> *won't* work (it will), it's just that there's some overhead involved
> that's been eliminated in more recent kernels. In fact, I've run COS5 as
> KVMs in production just fine for a period of time, on as little as a
> dual-core 1.6GHz machine. It's fine so long as the horsepower's available
> to run it (which it quite commonly is, as I've found most servers to be
> severely overbuilt).
>
> The only thing that bothers me with PVE is that beginning with 3.1 (which
> is the current release), they've introduced a subscription based structure
> for their repos, sort of like RHEL. The cost isn't excessive for small
> users, but it still rubs me the wrong way. They do still provide a free
> repo, but all the latest changes aren't guaranteed to be there. We'll see
> how things pan out in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised to see a
> COS-type counterpart to PVE spring up and provide all of the PVE software
> for free, only lagging slightly in when it's released.
>
> I should also probably mention that I started using virtualization with
> VMware Server 1.0. After VMware discontinued VMware Server 2.0, I began
> looking for something KVM based, and have been using PVE since then. I
> realize that there is a free VMware version, but it's very limited to
> certain enterprise grade hardware. I'm looking for something more
> affordable that can run on generic hardware. VMware undoubtedly is the
> leader in server virtualization, but RedHat is making substantial gains in
> that arena.
>
> VirtualBox has grown up out of Desktop Virtualization. It's a very nice
> platform for virtualizing desktops, and I consider them the leader in this
> arena. Desktop virtualization has much different needs though, as desktops
> are used much differently than servers. I don't look for VB to become a
> substantial player in the server virtualization market.
>
> Let me know if you have any further questions. I hope we'll get this sort
> of info available on the new wiki at github in the future. There is some
> virtualization info on the present wiki, but it's pretty outdated.
>
> Thanks for the questions.
>
> --
> -Eric 'shubes'
>
>
> On 12/22/2013 12:23 AM, Khan Mohamed Ashraf wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Eric Shubert > >wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2013 08:48 PM, Biju Jose wrote:
>>
>> You may want have a look at
>> http://www.webtatic.com/__packages/php53/
>>
>> 
>>
>> *Biju Jose*
>>
>> Pplease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>
>> *From:*Chandran Manikandan [mailto:tech2m...@gmail.com
>> ]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:14 AM
>> *To:* qmailtoaster-list@__qmailtoaster.com
>> 
>>
>> *Subject:* [qmailtoaster] How to update PHP higher version without
>>
>> affect qmailtoaster
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>

[qmailtoaster] Re: How to update PHP higher version without affect qmailtoaster

[Eric Shubert]

Hey Kahn,

First, I would try to avoid running anything other than the hypervisor 
on bare iron. Run everything virtualized underneath it.


Generally speaking, KVM performs better with newer kernels. Older 
kernels use 10-20% of a cpu when idle. With newer kernels, KVMs use 
<0.5% cpu when idle.


I'm not sure exactly what the change is that provides this improvement. 
It appears to have happened around 3.4 in the main kernel versions, but 
it also appears that RedHat (and thus COS) has backported this change to 
their 2.6.32 version. BL, COS6 runs well as a KVM, but COS5 does not. I 
expect that both hypervisor and guests need to be running the improved 
version of the kernel to realize this improvement.


My virtualization platform of choice is ProxmoxVE. It provides a nice 
web interface for management, and has been very reliable for me. I've 
used versions 2.1-3.1. While PVE is debian based and uses .deb packages, 
it uses a RedHat kernel, which give it the performance gains mentioned.


The PVE kernel also provides OpenVZ container support, as does the web 
interface. While COS5 guests don't run so well as KVMs, they run quite 
nicely as OpenVZ containers. I won't go into the differences here, but 
running just about anything linux based as an OpenVZ container should 
work ok.


I should emphasize that the point is not that running COS5 as a KVM 
*won't* work (it will), it's just that there's some overhead involved 
that's been eliminated in more recent kernels. In fact, I've run COS5 as 
KVMs in production just fine for a period of time, on as little as a 
dual-core 1.6GHz machine. It's fine so long as the horsepower's 
available to run it (which it quite commonly is, as I've found most 
servers to be severely overbuilt).


The only thing that bothers me with PVE is that beginning with 3.1 
(which is the current release), they've introduced a subscription based 
structure for their repos, sort of like RHEL. The cost isn't excessive 
for small users, but it still rubs me the wrong way. They do still 
provide a free repo, but all the latest changes aren't guaranteed to be 
there. We'll see how things pan out in the long run. I wouldn't be 
surprised to see a COS-type counterpart to PVE spring up and provide all 
of the PVE software for free, only lagging slightly in when it's released.


I should also probably mention that I started using virtualization with 
VMware Server 1.0. After VMware discontinued VMware Server 2.0, I began 
looking for something KVM based, and have been using PVE since then. I 
realize that there is a free VMware version, but it's very limited to 
certain enterprise grade hardware. I'm looking for something more 
affordable that can run on generic hardware. VMware undoubtedly is the 
leader in server virtualization, but RedHat is making substantial gains 
in that arena.


VirtualBox has grown up out of Desktop Virtualization. It's a very nice 
platform for virtualizing desktops, and I consider them the leader in 
this arena. Desktop virtualization has much different needs though, as 
desktops are used much differently than servers. I don't look for VB to 
become a substantial player in the server virtualization market.


Let me know if you have any further questions. I hope we'll get this 
sort of info available on the new wiki at github in the future. There is 
some virtualization info on the present wiki, but it's pretty outdated.


Thanks for the questions.

--
-Eric 'shubes'

On 12/22/2013 12:23 AM, Khan Mohamed Ashraf wrote:

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Eric Shubert mailto:e...@shubes.net>>wrote:

On 12/20/2013 08:48 PM, Biju Jose wrote:

You may want have a look at
http://www.webtatic.com/__packages/php53/


*Biju Jose*

Pplease consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

*From:*Chandran Manikandan [mailto:tech2m...@gmail.com
]
*Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:14 AM
*To:* qmailtoaster-list@__qmailtoaster.com

*Subject:* [qmailtoaster] How to update PHP higher version without

affect qmailtoaster

Dear All,

I am running centos 5.7 with qmailtoaster + dovecot and don't
have any
issue.

My PHP is 5.1 version.

I would like to install wordpress with php 5.2 or higher version
compatible.

If i try to update php53 or higher version it's
squirrelmail,qmailadmin,__vqadmin toasters affected and removed.

Could you please anyone help me to solve this issue without affect
qmailtoaster need to be update php updated version.

--

*Thanks,*

*Manikandan.C*

*System Administrator*


I haven't put php5.3 on COS5, but I've heard that it can be done.

That being said, if you're not in a big hurry for WP, you might wait
for the ne