Re: [vchkpw] vdelivermail fault with 5.4.28
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:23:48 pm Matt Brookings wrote: Steve Cole wrote: Moving to the new vpopmail (with the identical CFLAGS configure options for 5.4.23 that I've been using for a long time), I get: What CFLAGS and configure options are you using? ./configure --enable-valias --enable-auth-module=mysql hostname = zeus uname -m = x86_64 uname -r = 2.6.30.5 uname -s = Linux uname -v = #1 SMP Mon Aug 17 11:03:52 EDT 2009 CFLAGS=-Os -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer GCC 4.3.4 !DSPAM:4a96aaa532714587391783!
[vchkpw] vdelivermail fault with 5.4.28
Moving to the new vpopmail (with the identical CFLAGS configure options for 5.4.23 that I've been using for a long time), I get: Aug 25 14:45:47 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30615]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fff74149560 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:47 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30625]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fffc3f26750 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:47 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30633]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 783be570 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:50 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30755]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fff1ac13d40 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:51 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30934]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fffa6073b70 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:51 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30944]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fffc1280c20 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:51 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30945]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fff87a5d550 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Aug 25 14:45:51 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30954]: segfault at 20 ip 0040eff6 sp 7fffa61a3000 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000] Shows up in my syslog and dmesg. OS: Debian Squeeze GCC 4.3.4 GlibC 2.9 MySQL 5.0.51a Also, when I just type vdelivermail I get: vdelivermail: invalid syntax in .qmail-default file !DSPAM:4a94376a32713827114405!
Re: [vchkpw] 5.4.27 marked stable
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 12:43:10 Matt Brookings wrote: I've moved 5.4.27 devel to stable. I also autoreconf'd with an older autoconf for people without the latest version of the toolset. Marked stable? The quota features do not work... worse, they miscalculate quota and cause people to lose mail! !DSPAM:499c762832686044544495!
[vchkpw] 5.4.27 quota issues
Just a note that the quota issues for vpopmail are still present in 5.4.27. It looks like messages are entered into the maildirsize file but do not get accounted for when they are removed. !DSPAM:49808f2632687061418760!
Re: [vchkpw] Strange maildirsize problem
On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Eric Olsen wrote: Hello, I am having a problem with the way the maildirsize file is being updated by vdelivermail. For every message that is delivered to a given maildir two entries are made in the maildirsize file. The first entry that is appended to maildirsize is always about 60 - 80 bytes less than the second entry. The first entry is always smaller that the actual file size of the incoming message. The second entry that is appended for the message is correct; the byte count is the same as the incoming message size. This is a long-standing bug in the last two released versions of vpopmail, first reported early last year. Unfortunately the maintainers haven't seen fit to roll up a version without this bug even though it's been (apparently) fixed in the codebase since last fall. Grab the codebase version or revert to 5.4.23. That's the only honest answer... you don't need to roll back the MySQL tables. *.24 had some issue, unfortunately it's now been so long since a vpopmail release that I don't remember what it was. I'm starting to think someone needs to fork vpopmail (if possible), since the maintainers appear to have no interest in vpopmail anymore. I'd have done it already, pending a study of the license, if I had better coding abilities. As an example, also lapsed is the support in courier-imap for vpopmail because the vpopmail maintainers have stopped submitting or signing off on the vpopmail authentication code in courier-authdaemon. Sorry there isn't better news. -- -- Cheers, Steve !DSPAM:486bf92832351489015702!
Re: [vchkpw] checkuser + user's quota
Pierre GEOFFROY wrote: Thank you for your reply and help. My understanding is that it is enabled (NOT commented): #define CHKUSER_MBXQUOTA_VARIABLE CHKUSER_MBXQUOTA and yes we recompiled PG De : Tonix (Antonio Nati) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : jeudi 7 février 2008 10:41 À : vchkpw@inter7.com Objet : Re: [vchkpw] checkuser + user's quota Did you enable checking of quota in chkuser_settings.h, and recompile? Tonino Pierre GEOFFROY ha scritto: Thank you for your reply. Yes, vpopmail shows the correct size and quota: eg: usage: 97% and while testing I receive MAILER-DAEMON stating the user is over quota. PG -Message d'origine- De : Shane Chrisp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : jeudi 7 février 2008 00:42 À : vchkpw@inter7.com Objet : Re: [vchkpw] checkuser + user's quota What does vpopmail say about the mailbox? Is it showing the correct size and quota for the mailbox? On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 00:20 +0100, Pierre GEOFFROY wrote: Hello We are using checkuser 2.08 and it works fine, rejecting email for non-valid recipients. We are encountering problem trying to have checkuser reject emails based on user's quota. We set CHKUSER_MBXQUOTA=90 in /etc/tcp.smtp but despite the quota being reached emails are accepted by checkuser and the subsequently rejected by qmail. Any advice appreciated. Many thanks It's worth knowing that 5.4.24-5 have broken maildir++ quota handling. I'm very surprised (and a little disappointed) that no bugfix has been released, I rolled back to 5.4.23 and that solved the issue. FYI !DSPAM:47acc771310541834656263!
Re: [vchkpw] authdaemond Memory Leak?
Rick Widmer wrote: The only thing that says memory leak is in 5.4.18. There are many bug fixes, and a few new features in 5.4.25, the current stable version. If you are using vpopmaild you would want 5.4.26 the current dev release. If you are on solaris, there is a fix that is only in 5.4.27 which is only available from CVS. I would not suggest 5.4.25, 5.4.23 is the last version which seems to be stable. *.25 has a mail quota bug confirmed by a number of us, I went back to *.23 and no longer have the issue, by way of confirmation. !DSPAM:4750217032002890015292!
Re: [vchkpw] Possible Quota Bug
On Friday 09 November 2007, Michael Johnson wrote: I've recently noticed strange behavior with user quotas after an upgrade to vpopmail 5.4.25 from 5.4.18. The upgrade also moved from the cdb backend to the MySQL backend (due to locking issues I was experiencing). When delivering a message, the size of the message is placed twice in maildirsize. When deleting the message, it is removed only once. This causes quota usage to grow over time, disconnected from the actual size of the mailbox. I am seeing this as well. I haven't had time to track down the issue. Thanks! -- -- Cheers, Steve !DSPAM:4734c26b32001188516162!
Re: [vchkpw] Possible Quota Bug
Michael Johnson wrote: What version and backend are you using? The better it can be narrowed, the easier it will be to determine what change broke it. For me, 5.4.25 with MySQL 5.0x I started to see this with *.25 but I did jump a number of versions when I took the plunge on .25. !DSPAM:4735074632001316315421!
[vchkpw] Decided to make the plunge today on late version of vpopmail
On two (low volume) machines with vpopmail interfaced with mysql as the data store, it seemed to work successfully. I updated the database schema with no issues. This is with v5.4.21 However, when I do a vdeluser on either machine, the program segfaults. On both systems. I tried various things like making sure my LDFLAGS= and CFLAGS=-O only to be sure it wasn't a compiler issue, without luck. So, to be clear, this is on two Debian Etch machines with GCC 4.1.1-15 and MySQL 5.0.32-7etch1 installed. Going back to 5.4.17 seemed to be no issue at all and of course, it works as expected. -- -- Cheers, Steve
Re: [vchkpw] Decided to make the plunge today on late version of vpopmail
On Thursday 06 September 2007, Joshua Megerman wrote: The vpopmail table, and ONLY the vpopmail table, has a column named 'pw_domain'. Every other table should have a 'domain' column, as the earlier UPGRADE document listed (which incorrectly listed vpopmail as having a 'domain' column). No, thankfully. I was the one who reported the inconsistency in the upgrade document when *.20 rolled. I should have mentioned that this same thing happened to one of my test boxes when I tried *.20 but it didn't on another (which it turns out is CDB because it handles two personal domains). So *.20 likely has the problem as well, I didn't delve that deeply the first time. I straced the command and it opens a MySQL connection, does a MySQL query and then segfaults immediately. As I said, the behaviour doesn't occur in the CDB binary. -- -- Cheers, Steve
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail 5.4.20 released
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Rick Widmer wrote: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ 5.4.20 - released 21-Aug-07 Feels odd to ask this, but in the UPGRADE document, it lists the pw_domain columns as requiring updates, but my databases have just domain in them except for the vpopmail table. I've upgraded them manually, but should I be re-naming the columns manually? I'd prefer not to take the plunge and ask instead. :) Moving from 5.4.17. Thanks for any help. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |URL: http://www.kos.net/ 613-549-8667/613-968-7137
[vchkpw] Problem compiling courier-auth 0.59.3+
I can compile courier-authlib version 0.59.2 or lower just fine with vpopmail
5.4.17 but I cannot get newer versions to compile. I tried asking on the
courier-imap list but they say not our problem.
Here's the errors:
--
authvchkpw.c: In function 'auth_vchkpw_login':
authvchkpw.c:40: warning: empty declaration
authvchkpw.c:43: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
In file included from authvchkpw.c:63:
libhmac/hmac.h:15: error: storage class specified for parameter 'hmac_h_rcsid'
libhmac/hmac.h:15: error: parameter 'hmac_h_rcsid' is initialized
libhmac/hmac.h:50: warning: empty declaration
libhmac/hmac.h:54: error: storage class specified for parameter 'hmac_md5'
libhmac/hmac.h:54: error: storage class specified for parameter 'hmac_sha1'
libhmac/hmac.h:54: error: storage class specified for parameter 'hmac_sha256'
libhmac/hmac.h:61: error: storage class specified for parameter 'hmac_list'
In file included from authvchkpw.c:64:
cramlib.h:17: warning: empty declaration
cramlib.h:19: error: storage class specified for
parameter 'auth_cram_callback'
cramlib.h:26: warning: empty declaration
authvchkpw.c:71: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
authvchkpw.c:87: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
authvchkpw.c:106: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
authvchkpw.c:170: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
authvchkpw.c:177: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
authvchkpw.c:227: error: parameter 'authvchkpw_info' is initialized
authvchkpw.c:229: error: 'auth_vchkpw' undeclared (first use in this function)
authvchkpw.c:229: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
authvchkpw.c:229: error: for each function it appears in.)
authvchkpw.c:231: error: 'authvchkpwclose' undeclared (first use in this
function)
authvchkpw.c:232: error: 'auth_vchkpw_changepass' undeclared (first use in
this function)
authvchkpw.c:238: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__'
before '{' token
authvchkpw.c:240: error: old-style parameter declarations in prototyped
function definition
authvchkpw.c:240: error: expected '{' at end of input
make[2]: *** [authvchkpw.lo] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/netsrc/courier-authlib-0.59.3.20070721'
--
This is NOT just for the pre-release, before anyone asks. I tried it because
they mentioned some authvchkpw fixes.
--
--
Cheers,
Steve
Re: [vchkpw] vchkpw smtp-after-imap patch
On Thursday 07 June 2007, Dvorkin Dmitry wrote: I found two problems in courier-imap-authlib: AFAIK, SMTP-After-IMAP is not supported in the current Courier IMAP, so you're spinning your wheels here. It's likely that it also isn't supported by Courier Authlib and that's your problem. But also, I'd recommend considering SMTP-AUTH available in qmail patches and also in the program called SpamDyke which IMHO is an excellent tool for the vpopmail qmail communities. If you REALLY MUST go with SaI then i have a copy of Courier IMAP v3 kicking around here. -- -- Cheers, Steve
[vchkpw] everyone seen this?
http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/Qmail_Sucks -- Cheers, Steve -- -- Cheers, Steve
[vchkpw] 5.4.17
Any word on rolling up a new tarball release? -- Cheers, Steve
[vchkpw] New version of vpopmail?
It's been over a month now... any word on a release with the issues identified in 5.4.16 resolved? I recall Tom saying that we should expect a version mid last week, but Sourceforge isn't reflecting that.
Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail 5.4.14 released (finally)
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 14:50, Tom Collins wrote: This release brings in the vpopmail daemon (vpopmaild) from the 5.5 development series, and fixes a few bugs from 5.4.13. Bad news... -- cut libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_select_next':vpalias.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `valias_select_next' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0x160): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_select_next' changed from 73 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 159 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_select':vpalias.c: (.text+0xa0): multiple definition of `valias_select' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0x1550): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_select' changed from 357 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 381 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_insert':vpalias.c: (.text+0x220): multiple definition of `valias_insert' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0x1470): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_insert' changed from 212 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 554 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_remove':vpalias.c: (.text+0x450): multiple definition of `valias_remove' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0x13a0): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_remove' changed from 205 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 71 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_delete':vpalias.c: (.text+0x4a0): multiple definition of `valias_delete' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0x12d0): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_delete' changed from 198 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 425 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_select_all':vpalias.c:(.text+0xb50): multiple definition of `valias_select_all' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0xfb0): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_select_all' changed from 365 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 256 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function `valias_select_all_next':vpalias.c:(.text+0xc50): multiple definition of `valias_select_all_next' libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o):vauth.c:(.text+0x1b0): first defined here /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `valias_select_all_next' changed from 93 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vauth.o) to 119 in libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o) collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [valias] Error 1 -- cut -- Cheers, Steve
Re: [vchkpw] Vpopmail 5.4.14 released (finally)
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 15:48, Tom Collins wrote: Bad news... Can you email me your configuration options? In particular, I need to know which backend (cdb, mysql, postgres) and whether you have --enable-valias selected. --enable-valias --enable-auth-module=mysql --enable-libdir=/usr/lib gcc 4.02 glibc 2.3.5 mysql 4.1.15 (debian testing system, basically) -- Cheers, Steve
[vchkpw] 5.4.14
Any word? Originally we were to have a stable version of the new code for vdelivermail, etc. a week ago. -- Cheers, Steve
Re: [vchkpw] 5.4.14
Tom Collins wrote: I don't have any changes since releasing 5.4.13. It should be safe to use 5.4.13 on production servers -- I've been using it on my server since it was released and haven't experienced any problems. The new vdelivermail code was originally released on March 20th, and hasn't had any significant changes since July 4th. I've moved it from the vpopmail-beta releases on SourceForge to vpopmail-stable. I knew that. I just thought I would prod the alpha dog a little. :D
Re: [vchkpw] How expensive is reloading the tcp.smtp.cdb?
ISP Lists wrote: Related to my earlier post, how expensive is it - resource-wise - to reload a tcp.smtp file of 100-1000 lines? If it becomes expensive, you can use the SQL patch and do it with SQL. There's no hit at all to adding or removing items in that case (may be some with SQL, but I haven't had any performance issues, and after all, checkuser + vpopmail would both be using SQL in the first place).
Re: [vchkpw] How expensive is reloading the tcp.smtp.cdb?
Wouter van der Schagt wrote: I think his question was more on if reloading has any effect on running processes from qmail, rather than the reloading itself. Our mailserver is pretty busy and we reload it regularly without any problems. However we have less lines in the tcp.smtp file. well, 10,000 lines in a CDB is practically NOTHING on a modern processor... but as for whether it will affect tcpserver, it could potentially but I can only imagine that the cdb driver is smart enough to figure things out... it's possible I suppose that a process may not get the latest update during the process either way since everything else is using the SQL server (an assumption on my part, but some small servers use the cdb back-end) he may as well patch tcpserver and use that too.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add functionality to it and much more. Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added in the form of patches, and it is suffering greatly from age now. qmail is very powerful and vpopmail makes it relatively simple to use, but it is stagnant, old, hard to use without patches and just plain old doesn't work at all if you try to use the original source on a modern system (it'll fail to compile or do strange things). DJB let this baby into the wild, but didn't allow it to find its own way. If it weren't secure and relatively well supported, it would die. I'll go a step further, if it hadn't been a godsend in 1996 compared to Sendmail, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But, times have moved on! DJB should let it go under some license - maybe BSD or GPL, so that the community can do something with it. UCSPI-TCP and Daemontools, too. It's also hard to program for. A lot of DJB's code relationships are like a foreign language. Not that it's wrong, just that it's difficult. Qmail is a master piece, I can assure you that. I don't know why most of the distributors do not include qmail but nobody can deny that qmail has became the most powerfull and secure mailserver ever and has been growing very very fast. It was a masterpiece in 1996. Now it's just a solid mail server with just enough functionality added by patch maintainers to get the job done. No doubt it's a workhorse, I have at least 10 machines using qmail for Internet e-mail, but I've seen strange things in the 9 years I've been using it. I'm relatively happy with vpopmail + qmail + patches, but saying that qmail is some wondrous software package is bunk. It's looking mighty old these days... vpopmail and qmail should be one package that gets distributed along with modernization patches, and it would be that way if DJB didn't have his claws of death on a piece of code that he last updated in 1997. That's abandonment, and the software really is starting to creak in terms of relevancy. (go to qmail.org, i'm the one who designed the look of it... don't blame me if you don't like the layout, though...) -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote: Most of the GNU/linux distributors are using sendmail but I can assure you that the mailserver most robust, efficient and secure is by far qmail. This is simply not true anymore. It was true in 1997, and maybe right up to 1999 (I'll throw you a bone). But in 2005, qmail is far from the most efficient mail server out there. It's quite secure, but can be DDOS'ed into oblivion by someone who knows the (simple) method of doing so. Just because something works fairly well once it's up and running doesn't mean that it can't stand criticism. There's plenty of things to be critical with qmail in July of 2005. Shock... horror... the maildir format is one of them! Sendmail has been out there for a long time and too many security bugs have been found. They have been fixed though. Sendmail is now robust, secure and has extremely powerful features that qmail is completely off the map with in comparison. It's also still inefficient... but fast if you have the hardware to throw at it. That said, I don't like its licensing, I don't have the time to grok its configuration language and I have little reason to move from qmail which has been working relatively reliably on many machines of mine since 1996. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net. |(forgive me if I'm terse, I answer hundreds of e-mails a day)
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote: Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh, I think netqmail has addressed that problem. Don't quote problem. It has real problems. errno.h is a nice start. netqmail is at best a hacked-together solution for a small set of problems. It offers very little functionality over the original qmail. A big thank-you to the maintainers of netqmail, however. Stagnant? Depends on what you mean by that. Hrm, let's see. It doesn't have a spam or antivirus subsystem, API, hooks, etc. at all. Slapping alternatives into qmail-queue works but it's the least elegant solution I can imagine. While other products are including in-process checking for spam viruses (using libclamav, for example) with extensibility, we have... erhm... ugly, buggy, inefficient roll-it-yourself solutions to the problem. Inter7 has a more reasonable solution to the problem, but they have to eat, so it's partially commercial. Don't even try to tell me that spam and virus activity isn't anything to do with e-mail today. How about a management interface? vpopmail has limited visibility out there in the world because it's a separate package, and it could be more integrated if the qmail code wasn't locked up in a restrictive license. But all-in-all, it's an add-on in the broadest sense of the word. Other mail systems have this kind of support integrated, now. What about logging? qmail's logging is poor, spotty, undocumented and depends on other packages to do the brunt of the work. Effiency - in a modern mail system (vpopmail + spam + virus protection), qmail is a dog. If you run it clean without any features except shovelling files around, it will do just OK with a good deal of tuning. In stock form, it is nowhere near enterprise-ready (hell, won't even compile on most systems anymore). Dropping antispam/antivirus functionality to procmail and PERL scripts destroys a mail server in short order. This has made a lot of qmail users turn to Barracuda or an outsourced spam/virus checking service. If they'd chosen something else as a mail server sometime after 1999 when it made sense, they wouldn't be required. POP3, IMAP, POP3S, IMAPS. SMTP-AUTH, SQL support, fine-grained limitations, a finished QMTP. qmail's pop3 server is stone-age and everything else is just not there. How about flow control? Need to say, I need to limit senders to 1,000 addresses in a single e-mail. And furthermore, I need to limit them to a maximum of 512MB of data transfer per message. And another thing, I need to set up mailbox quotas with flexible accounting that doesn't depend on file system quotas - or UNIX users in fact. Some patches are available, but they're very hacky, buggy, and not well integrated into qmail. actually really like the way qmail works for the purpose --- I know exactly what it's doing, why, and how. Good. But you're not the only one using qmail. while understandably hard or inconveninent for people who do not know C or who prefer the ./configure interface for turning on features, is a good way to do it for the security-paranoid who would rather trace out each addition rather than review code and try to untangle giant webs of #ifdef's. If it was in the base tarball source, what's to prevent you from doing the same? This is a poor argument, IMHO. I wish it had a license like that too. On the other hand, he put his name (and $500) behind it - something he really couldn't do if just anybody could add code to it and call it qmail. Then he let it quietly age and more or less die. If it weren't for legacy mail systems and long-time believers, qmail would be dead right now. It more or less is... almost nobody ships it as a default, and from what I have seen, most distributions hack/slash/move/modify the crap out of it until a long-time qmail admin will be pulling out her hair in frustration trying to figure out what they did to the filesystem layout. And really, putting everything in /var/qmail was ridiculous. So is daemontools, even if it works... but that's another discussion. But look at it this way: there's nothing in the license that says you can't take qmail, rename it to (mySweetMailserver, for example), and release it under the GPL. That nobody's done that says something. Yes, there certainly is. The license (as I understand it) prohibits it. I disagree - I find most of the code refreshingly straightforward. Comments might help, but I think it's really pretty simple to decipher. Many people disagree with you. This is subjective, I guess. It's looking mighty old these days... You say that like old is a bad thing. In the software industry, it's anathaema. like the Franklin Stove, it still does exactly what it was designed to do. How many Franklin Stoves are they selling today? :) But in terms of complaints over nearly a decade, that's a stunningly low number of problems, none of them actually
[vchkpw] qsheff 1.0
In passing, qsheff version 1.0 was released. This is the best solution for qmail spam and virus protection I've yet seen for qmail, and in my testing it seems less buggy than most. http://www.enderunix.org/qsheff/ enderunix has a reputation for building efficient useful software. I haven't tried 1.0 yet, but I've been using qsheff as a clam antivirus checker to bolster the Barracuda spam firewalls I'm using. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:20, James McMillan wrote: Why should I use qmail? Then, the answer is probably: If you're already using it, and it's adequate or too costly to switch. These days, that pretty much sums it up. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:28, Ken Jones wrote: We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and it never breaks. I've had it stop running enough times that I run /etc/init.d/qmailq start every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K mail per day, and queues infuriate users). It only quits maybe once a month or so, but luckily running /etc/init.d/qmailq doesn't break anything. never is a strong word, that's all. :) -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe you have some other issues... I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the symptoms are the same... qmail-send dies. I'm sorry, what was the question again? -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:45, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure). i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious. I agree. It should be. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Re: smtp after pop
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:50, Peter Palmreuther wrote: Hello List, On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7:24:19 PM patrick wrote: by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with vpopmail? regards That's exactly 'roaming users' feature of vpopmail. Yes. Just so everyone is aware, it won't work with the latest versions of Courier-IMAP. You will need to find a 3.x series Courier-IMAP if you want to use that feature. SMTP-Auth is more flexible and works better, IMHO. It usually comes with LDAP baggage in the patch, though... if you don't need that functionality, you could perhaps hack it back out (I haven't tried). It also has traditionally conflicted with the chkuser patch, which I need for my Barracuda spam firewalls. Hope this helps. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:19, Bruno Negrão wrote: What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly, and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break down and cry. Sqwebmail is easy and ugly, IMP is handsome and very complicated to install. How about Squirrelmail? TWIG is a little fugly, but it's back in releases again and works very well. But we're happy with Qmailadmin though. But could be nicer if Sqwebmail and Qmailadmin were integrated and very good looking, providing a continuos look and feel pattern. Not workable, IMHO. Not necessarily desirable, either. Qmailadmin has some little warts but works very well. I'm relatively happy with it, personally. Big improvements are needed in vqadmin, however. I don't understand about licensing, but I researching on Qmail-ldap, I heard it is licensed under BSD which is DFSG-free - having this licensing, could it be shipped with the distributions? Do you have some opinion on Qmail-ldap? qmail-ldap is a patch. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:43, Alex Borges wrote: So, where can i find the documents to move my vpopmail install from qmail to postfix? I haven't done it. Too many problems and risks for me. But Google probably has the answer to that. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net.
Re: [vchkpw] Why does Inter7 opt Qmail?
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:45, Kyle Wheeler wrote: Ahh... well, don't get too anxious for people to drop their MS Outlooks. I've yet to see a webmail that provides the speed and convenience (and offline access) that a good client-side mail browser can (not that I'm defending MS Outlook or anything). Here's how: PHP4.x eaccelerator, zend accelerator or turck-mmcache Squirrelmail w/Zlib compression turned on ImapProxyD Courier Imap w/Inotify(Dnotify if you must) Linux 2.6 kernels all around I'm always amazed when I have to use our webmail for some reason. It's blinding fast. hand before, and I currently use the Debian package -- they're about Great. Now apt-get install imapproxy, configure and marvel. :) The best I've gotten here is a homemade tiny squirrelmail plugin that puts a link to qmailadmin on the squirrelmail login page. If anyone's interested, I can post it (though it's really and truly trivial). Sure, if it's a plugin. That would possibly save me some editing time for updates. -- Cheers, Steve |President Systems Administrator, Kingston Online Services |(e pluribus unix) Multiple-T3/OC3 URL: http://www.kos.net/ |Business and Education partners in SouthEastern Ontario | |Through the firewall, out the router, down the OC3, across the |backbone, bounced from satellite, it's nothing but net. |(forgive me if I'm terse, I answer hundreds of e-mails a day)
