[xmail] Re: virus database
On [Thu, 03.06. 14:43], alex wrote: Tracy wrote: At 08:22 6/3/2004, you wrote: This is a CRAZY idea ! In a few time you have banned 50% or more of internet traffic ! alex wrote: It's actually not a crazy idea, because a very large percentage of the virus traffic on the Internet originates from end-user boxes (machines that were never intended to be mail servers, nor to deliver mail directly to MTAs). A lot of places are already blocking dynamic address machines anyway (I block by RDNS on patterns that tend to indicate end user machines, such as adsl-99-25-74-211.dsl.blvloh.ameritech.net). Since these kinds of machines are 1) not intended to deliver mail, and 2) prohibited by their ISP's Terms Of Service or Acceptable Use Policies from running mail servers, there is no reason not to block them. And since these machines That's not entirely true, my isp allows me to setup my own mailserver though our hostnames are something like adsl-111.111.111.111.xs4all.nl :) But I agree with you that it is a very useful filter. Folks, just ignore me if you think I'm riding a dead cow ... I do a similar thing for two months : Every mail reportet to be infected gets a second treatment: * look for originating IP (of SMTP envelope, _not_ headers) * resolve its domain * get the MX for that domain * if the IPs are not equal, block the host, since it is an infected, non MX host. This approach works _very_ fine (not a single complain ever since, opposed to three complaints due to RDNS check, which started the same time) the SMTP load actually is _reduced_ and the SNDRIP=EIPSPAM is constantly rising :-) and of course the virus/day rate is sinking. Since hosts that send you a virus nowadays are very likely sending you the same stuff again soon, blacklisting (IMHO) is a valid option combined with scanning. just my two cents Goesta -- Wiener Hilfswerk - EDV 1072 Wien, Schottenfeldgasse 29 Tel: 512 36 61 DW 407 / Fax 512 36 61 33 -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBQMlaweEKFiIqAG4fAQIlZQf/bmyazXfi+J61B36FPG+oGS2upnF/4Z8r S8gfduo0o5eUh6uWJD42HtPfYebjdJqqUEXSFRUcECujTDAD3Xsiobi3AjauTjIX L1v82EbGRnoV6khBBdbTLkOThQb3Uifaf6OcO8yPmvPWJgWMO+palNqgTJes8jTs l8jY+qpnQ4+LNlLjvb4/7rnO6ep1J5+cys1R5NxcbNyn41RqeVht6QN4dhiBOvtX PkmVeaxj7nZ5xgA5jiooZSEbFCXwS0YQpZwoGtDmVojr/EQauxHvfnK6Sa6kXgqZ cGVJcVeh1z0H8Imxw5mxQIa43ZGggnRQ59bH5fl72as25wjjL2LEjQ== =ngu/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: virus database
On [Mon, 07.06. 08:05], alex wrote: On Jun 7, 2004, at 12:24 AM, Wim Verveen wrote: I am actually trying this out. It doesn't catch a lot until now. Maybe the database needs to grow or more 'points of measurement' are needed? I think they need more points of measurement, the database doesnt really grow because they are only scanning mails on their own mailserver, and they drop ip's after 24h. The main problem of a central database on infected hosts is, that today's malware has a strong local spreading character. let me put it another way to become clear: as far as I can tell about 95% of virus senders come from the same TLD (in our case .at). This is a consequence of the way e-Mail addresses are collected. So such a Blacklist automatically gets a strong local bias an can never possibly contain a reasonable amount of worldwide scum hosts. Except someone puts up a central DB fed by people all 'round the Net. Goesta -- Wiener Hilfswerk - EDV 1072 Wien, Schottenfeldgasse 29 Tel: 512 36 61 DW 407 / Fax 512 36 61 33 -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBQMlePuEKFiIqAG4fAQL9KQgAqJO3+8vLwiBiD7rS53xEB1JUlXL274Uz jfTkMil8nYJ76HRdEpVR/m0tkXCiD/8/cz1gmgdIb3GpOeaT8Ltm5hPpD22mKags h/bDEDs0pi9flk60bOGdpDc4qyv9yq1Ada/AZmD1/yCwHFoVlOgI2114ypOu6gQj CADKCJsYwZA6rcdFQqhJ0c/AYC32JnBaR5F4rDimJsnwIq47ussGUlVQAJ0KsMVx 7bChcTeiG9buziBr7oiwkGQCe70L4/R4uzJxXApNmw1DkgOKxJp+db8+++6Zinq0 HnGVMCmP+yXGYSs40DbM3cbym8reVsMUlDf+iyyy3oNMDs6BrZyqlg== =90It -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: virus database
Goesta Smekal wrote: I do a similar thing for two months : Every mail reportet to be infected gets a second treatment: * look for originating IP (of SMTP envelope, _not_ headers) * resolve its domain * get the MX for that domain * if the IPs are not equal, block the host, since it is an infected, non MX host. This approach works _very_ fine (not a single complain ever since, opposed to three complaints due to RDNS check, which started the same time) the SMTP load actually is _reduced_ and the SNDRIP=EIPSPAM is constantly rising :-) and of course the virus/day rate is sinking. Since hosts that send you a virus nowadays are very likely sending you the same stuff again soon, blacklisting (IMHO) is a valid option combined with scanning. Actually a great idea, because 99.999% of the people who would have a legitimate use for sending you SMTP directly (Running a mailserver or whatever) are computer-literate enough to avoid getting hit by all that virus junk.. So the chances of blocking anyone who's running a mailserver at home (Like me, and yes, my ISP allows that) are slim to none, and if he's blocked, he deserves it.. Care to share that filter? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: virus database
Luckily I am located in the same country as this particular list. It seems to get better though. I do agree that to work better the list needs more input both locally and around the world. wim=20 -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Goesta Smekal Verzonden: vrijdag 11 juni 2004 9:25 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: [xmail] Re: virus database =20 On [Mon, 07.06. 08:05], alex wrote: =20 On Jun 7, 2004, at 12:24 AM, Wim Verveen wrote: =20 I am actually trying this out. It doesn't catch a lot until now.=20 Maybe the database needs to grow or more 'points of=20 measurement' are needed? I think they need more points of measurement, the database doesnt=20 really grow because they are only scanning mails on their own=20 mailserver, and they drop ip's after 24h. =20 The main problem of a central database on infected hosts is,=20 that today's malware has a strong local spreading character. =20 let me put it another way to become clear: as far as I can=20 tell about 95% of virus senders come from the same TLD (in=20 our case .at). This is a consequence of the way e-Mail=20 addresses are collected. =20 So such a Blacklist automatically gets a strong local bias an=20 can never possibly contain a reasonable amount of worldwide=20 scum hosts. Except someone puts up a central DB fed by people=20 all 'round the Net. =20 Goesta =20 -- Wiener Hilfswerk - EDV 1072 Wien, Schottenfeldgasse 29 Tel: 512 36 61 DW 407 / Fax 512 36 61 33 =20 -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis -- =20 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) =20 iQEVAwUBQMlePuEKFiIqAG4fAQL9KQgAqJO3+8vLwiBiD7rS53xEB1JUlXL274Uz jfTkMil8nYJ76HRdEpVR/m0tkXCiD/8/cz1gmgdIb3GpOeaT8Ltm5hPpD22mKags h/bDEDs0pi9flk60bOGdpDc4qyv9yq1Ada/AZmD1/yCwHFoVlOgI2114ypOu6gQj CADKCJsYwZA6rcdFQqhJ0c/AYC32JnBaR5F4rDimJsnwIq47ussGUlVQAJ0KsMVx 7bChcTeiG9buziBr7oiwkGQCe70L4/R4uzJxXApNmw1DkgOKxJp+db8+++6Zinq0 HnGVMCmP+yXGYSs40DbM3cbym8reVsMUlDf+iyyy3oNMDs6BrZyqlg=3D=3D =3D90It -END PGP SIGNATURE- =20 =20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe=20 xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a=20 message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: virus database
At 03:09 6/11/2004, Goesta Smekal wrote: I do a similar thing for two months : Every mail reportet to be infected gets a second treatment: * look for originating IP (of SMTP envelope, _not_ headers) * resolve its domain * get the MX for that domain * if the IPs are not equal, block the host, since it is an infected, non MX host. This approach works _very_ fine (not a single complain ever since, opposed to three complaints due to RDNS check, which started the same time) the SMTP load actually is _reduced_ and the SNDRIP=EIPSPAM is constantly rising :-) and of course the virus/day rate is sinking. This will break rather spectacularly on some larger ISP traffic, since many larger ISPs (AOL, RoadRunner, Comcast, a number of others) do not send their mail from the same machines which receive it. MX records are for machines that receive mail - while a *lot* of places also send mail from the same machines, a lot of places (especially high volume sources of mail) do not. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] email to mailing list delivered several times
Hi Davide, the same situation happened again. Now I have gathered all the data, I hope it would help to find the problem. To remind the situation: one e-mail sent to the mailing list causes sometimes that several messages to mailing list users are multiplicated inside the XMail queue into more identical messages that are all being delivered. End user then receives single e-mail in several copies. This happens when mailing list user's mailserver is temporarily unreachable in the moment of sending email *and* XMail has been running for a long time without restarting. I don't know which of these two conditions (if any) is the important one. I have put messages from the XMail queue (with removed message body to make it smaller) and their slog files to http://customer.iclub.cz/mail.zip (112 KB). Archive contains three subdirectories, each of them contains all multiplicated copies of a message to a single mailing list user (and their slog flies). I can provide another ones if necessary. Archive also contain smtp and smail log files - smtp log is filtered for specific message ID of the message sent to the mailing list (SEC41), smail log is filtered for three addresses corresponding to three directories described above. Please note that two of them aren't in the smail log file (that means message is multiplicated and no copy has been delivered to mailing list user yet) and one of them is in the smail log file for several times (that means several copies of that message has been delivered already and some of them were still in the queue - directory 3). I'm using XMail 1.20 on Win2000. As this situation causes me troubles, I would be very grateful for any help. Thanks, Roman At 10:45 20.5.2004, you wrote: Yes, one message to the mailing list is multiplicated into several messages that are all being delivered. No change of mailing list users for a long time. [EMAIL PROTECTED] appears only once in the mailing list. This doesn't happen very often, it seems to me like it happens when some special kind of temporary delivery error appears. Something like message is duplicated in this situation. Roman At 23:50 19.5.2004, you wrote: On Wed, 19 May 2004, Roman Dusek wrote: Hi, from time to time it happens that mail sent to a mailing list is delivered several times to some of the mailing list members. Here are the smtp-log file records for such a mailing: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]SA272 RCPT=OK [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]SA272 RECV=OK [EMAIL PROTECTED] 527406 and smail-log records for one user ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) of the mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): backhost.iclub.cz 1084968706189.1000.backhost SA272 ^^^ If you look at this field, they really are different messages. Maybe a change of the mailing list users file while XMail is reading it?! - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: smtp connection problems
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Hicks Sent: Friday, 11 June 2004 1:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] smtp connection problems -snip- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] adrianh]$ telnet merlin 25 Trying 202.42.186.82... Connected to merlin (202.42.186.82). Escape character is '^]'. 220 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [XMail 1.17 (Linux/Ix86) ESMTP Server] service ready; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:28:06 +0800 ehlo maverick.sing.auston.com 250-sing.auston.com 250-VRFY 250-ETRN 250-8BITMIME 250-PIPELINING 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN CRAM-MD5 250 SIZE 10485760 auth login [EMAIL PROTECTED] (password removed) 334 VXNlcm5hbWU6 helo maverick.sing.auston.com 334 UGFzc3dvcmQ6 mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adrian, I do believe that you cannot have a space after the : ie. mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob :) 501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 OK rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Relay denied - Adrian Hicks -- MIS Facilities Manager Auston Int'l Group Ltd, Singapore 45 Middle Rd, #01-00 Auston Unicentre Tel: (65) 6339 4800 ext. 229 Fax: (65) 6339 7600 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: virus database
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Liron Newman wrote: Goesta Smekal wrote: I do a similar thing for two months : Every mail reportet to be infected gets a second treatment: * look for originating IP (of SMTP envelope, _not_ headers) * resolve its domain * get the MX for that domain * if the IPs are not equal, block the host, since it is an infected, non MX host. This approach works _very_ fine (not a single complain ever since, opposed to three complaints due to RDNS check, which started the same time) the SMTP load actually is _reduced_ and the SNDRIP=EIPSPAM is constantly rising :-) and of course the virus/day rate is sinking. Since hosts that send you a virus nowadays are very likely sending you the same stuff again soon, blacklisting (IMHO) is a valid option combined with scanning. Actually a great idea, because 99.999% of the people who would have a legitimate use for sending you SMTP directly (Running a mailserver or whatever) are computer-literate enough to avoid getting hit by all that virus junk.. So the chances of blocking anyone who's running a mailserver at home (Like me, and yes, my ISP allows that) are slim to none, and if he's blocked, he deserves it.. I personally use an even simpler approach in my post-data filter. If the message has only one Received: header (the XMail one) *and* contains a suspicious extension attachment, it's a worm/virus. It works 100% here, w/out even going to DNS checks. Not that I care much about viruses though, since Pine always did the Right Thing for me. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: smtp connection problems
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Rob Arends wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Hicks Sent: Friday, 11 June 2004 1:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] smtp connection problems -snip- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] adrianh]$ telnet merlin 25 Trying 202.42.186.82... Connected to merlin (202.42.186.82). Escape character is '^]'. 220 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [XMail 1.17 (Linux/Ix86) ESMTP Server] service ready; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:28:06 +0800 ehlo maverick.sing.auston.com 250-sing.auston.com 250-VRFY 250-ETRN 250-8BITMIME 250-PIPELINING 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN CRAM-MD5 250 SIZE 10485760 auth login [EMAIL PROTECTED] (password removed) 334 VXNlcm5hbWU6 helo maverick.sing.auston.com 334 UGFzc3dvcmQ6 mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adrian, I do believe that you cannot have a space after the : ie. mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it's the whole transaction that is bogus. That's not the correct LOGIN syntax. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: email to mailing list delivered several times
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Roman Dusek wrote: Hi Davide, the same situation happened again. Now I have gathered all the data, I hope it would help to find the problem. To remind the situation: one e-mail sent to the mailing list causes sometimes that several messages to mailing list users are multiplicated inside the XMail queue into more identical messages that are all being delivered. End user then receives single e-mail in several copies. This happens when mailing list user's mailserver is temporarily unreachable in the moment of sending email *and* XMail has been running for a long time without restarting. I don't know which of these two conditions (if any) is the important one. I have put messages from the XMail queue (with removed message body to make it smaller) and their slog files to http://customer.iclub.cz/mail.zip (112 KB). Archive contains three subdirectories, each of them contains all multiplicated copies of a message to a single mailing list user (and their slog flies). I can provide another ones if necessary. Archive also contain smtp and smail log files - smtp log is filtered for specific message ID of the message sent to the mailing list (SEC41), smail log is filtered for three addresses corresponding to three directories described above. Please note that two of them aren't in the smail log file (that means message is multiplicated and no copy has been delivered to mailing list user yet) and one of them is in the smail log file for several times (that means several copies of that message has been delivered already and some of them were still in the queue - directory 3). I'm using XMail 1.20 on Win2000. As this situation causes me troubles, I would be very grateful for any help. If you look inside some slog file, you'll see End of socket stream data errors, that means that the connection has been dropped while XMail was trying to read data from the remote SMTP server. If this data happened to be the ack response to the SMTP DATA command, XMail will *obviously* consider the delivery as failed, while the remote server, if not performing checks correctly, might consider the message as received. This smells a lot like either broken MTAs ar very broken firewalls in the middle path. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] problem seting up the xmail server
I am tring to setup xmail as my pop3 server. I have created a domain called italycomnet.it and some users inside. I can access the pop3 server using outlook. So I think the domain and user configuration is fine. The server send correctly the mail. The server respond to a telnet request at port 25 and 110. But when from outside I send an email the xmail dosen't accept it giving this error to the sendere: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mxd1.aruba.it. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) Any help please??? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Domain mailproc
This conversation seems to have died - but is important. How many of us currently use: \domain\mailproc.tab How many of us currently use: \user\mailproc.tab For those that do - please comment on this thread. I beleive the logic in the present mail.proc is less usable than it could be. Your thoughts could help. Tony - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 6:00 PM Subject: [xmail] Re: Domain mailproc Absolutely correct. We need to turn some things on or off at the domain level (for all in the domain), but still other filters must be run on individual basis. As long as mailbox is not encountered in the domain mailproc.tab, processing should continue with the user mailproc.tab. There are LOTS of good reasons, but for us, the xmail control server works best when it does not have to return a large number of lines. Having the fine grain control to place filters in domain and/or user mailproc.tab's is the best way to reduce the number of lines we have to read and then write back again using xmail control server. Having single user options rune from the individual user mailproc makes great sense! This way, if two users change their options at the same time, they do not both try to access domain mailproc.tab at the same time. Davide please consider this - Anyone else? That's because logic dictates that a domain-scope mailproc doesn't replace individual mailboxes' mailproc (or cmdalias), but is run in addition to them, before them.. Like an inhereting ACL permission system (May be a good thing to add a no inheritance switch to the mailbox mailproc.tab/cmdalias). Anyone has any opinions? Am I going the right way or am I a weirdo here? :) Let's vote. :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: problem seting up the xmail server
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Rosario Pingaro wrote: I am tring to setup xmail as my pop3 server. I have created a domain called italycomnet.it and some users inside. I can access the pop3 server using outlook. So I think the domain and user configuration is fine. The server send correctly the mail. The server respond to a telnet request at port 25 and 110. But when from outside I send an email the xmail dosen't accept it giving this error to the sendere: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mxd1.aruba.it. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. Well, like you can see above, it is not XMail that is talking to you but qmail. Likely you MX record is not correctly setup. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Domain mailproc
Hello, =20 This conversation seems to have died - but is important. How many of us currently use: \domain\mailproc.tab How many of us currently use: \user\mailproc.tab =20 For those that do - please comment on this thread. I=20 beleive the logic in the present mail.proc is less usable than it could be. Your=20 thoughts could help. just a quick response. I currently use domains\DOMAIN\mailproc.tab; in my opinion it'd be the = right way for it to take precedence over mailboxes' mailproc.tab. Perhaps a keyword stop may solve this dilema: if a domains\DOMAIN\mailproc.tab shouldn't be overridden, then it should contain stop (Xmail stops = after, well, a stop line further processing of mailproc.tabs), otherwise = continue. Regards, Manuel Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Domain mailproc
mailbox line in domain mailproc.tab would be the logical Stop as it delievers the mail. If no mailbox line found in domain mailproc.tab, then continue processing with user mail.proc.tab. Any one else? - Original Message - From: Manuel Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: [xmail] Re: Domain mailproc Hello, =20 This conversation seems to have died - but is important. How many of us currently use: \domain\mailproc.tab How many of us currently use: \user\mailproc.tab =20 For those that do - please comment on this thread. I=20 beleive the logic in the present mail.proc is less usable than it could be. Your=20 thoughts could help. just a quick response. I currently use domains\DOMAIN\mailproc.tab; in my opinion it'd be the = right way for it to take precedence over mailboxes' mailproc.tab. Perhaps a keyword stop may solve this dilema: if a domains\DOMAIN\mailproc.tab shouldn't be overridden, then it should contain stop (Xmail stops = after, well, a stop line further processing of mailproc.tabs), otherwise = continue. Regards, Manuel Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Compiling Xmail on OpenBSD 3.4
Anyone with any insight into what missing dependancy this error is referring to: g++ -o bin/MkMachDep MkMachDep.o -lkvm -pthread -lc_r /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lc_r collect2: ld returned 1 exit status gmake: *** [bin/MkMachDep] Error 1 Thanks, - Ken -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis -- -- Type: application/ms-tnef -- File: winmail.dat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Compiling Xmail on OpenBSD 3.4
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Ken Larkman wrote: Anyone with any insight into what missing dependancy this error is referring to: g++ -o bin/MkMachDep MkMachDep.o -lkvm -pthread -lc_r /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lc_r collect2: ld returned 1 exit status gmake: *** [bin/MkMachDep] Error 1 Try to remove -lc_r from Makefile.bsd (in the OpenBSD section). - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Domain mailproc
I use user mailproc and I would love to use domain mailproc too in addition to that (In a way that is unsupported now). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This conversation seems to have died - but is important. How many of us currently use: \domain\mailproc.tab How many of us currently use: \user\mailproc.tab For those that do - please comment on this thread. I beleive the logic in the present mail.proc is less usable than it could be. Your thoughts could help. Tony - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 6:00 PM Subject: [xmail] Re: Domain mailproc Absolutely correct. We need to turn some things on or off at the domain level (for all in the domain), but still other filters must be run on individual basis. As long as mailbox is not encountered in the domain mailproc.tab, processing should continue with the user mailproc.tab. There are LOTS of good reasons, but for us, the xmail control server works best when it does not have to return a large number of lines. Having the fine grain control to place filters in domain and/or user mailproc.tab's is the best way to reduce the number of lines we have to read and then write back again using xmail control server. Having single user options rune from the individual user mailproc makes great sense! This way, if two users change their options at the same time, they do not both try to access domain mailproc.tab at the same time. Davide please consider this - Anyone else? That's because logic dictates that a domain-scope mailproc doesn't replace individual mailboxes' mailproc (or cmdalias), but is run in addition to them, before them.. Like an inhereting ACL permission system (May be a good thing to add a no inheritance switch to the mailbox mailproc.tab/cmdalias). Anyone has any opinions? Am I going the right way or am I a weirdo here? :) Let's vote. :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
