At 22:34 3/02/99 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
>- Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>| I'm not quite sure I understand the second part of that, but
>| certainly the first part about it providing a simple locking
>| mechanism is how it was used by qlist.
>
>No; qlist locked .qmail-list-request
Bruno Wolff III wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> See QMAIL EXTENSIONS in addresses.5.
> The stuff there doesn't seem to apply at the point the qmtp connection
> is being processed.
This problem is on the sending end, since qmail itself cannot do
multiple
i sent him an email because we are going to be doing EXACTLY what he will be
doing.
1: All of our clients are using Outlook or Outlook Express, this is a
requirement, since it checks pop before it does any smtp transactions.
2: All our clients are using SSL
3: I will be releasing a first run ta
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 04:29:57PM +, Matt Garrett wrote:
> This is really directed more toward Paul Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but I
> thought the whole list might get some benefit from my mistakes.
>
> I'm using your checkpoppasswd program derived from the checkpasswd of
> Jedi/Sector One.
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 10:25:37PM +0100,
Stefan Paletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> > Maybe QMTP should be extended in a way that allows for VERP without
> > having to restransmit the message body more than once. Perhaps more than
> > one sender add
Matt Garrett writes:
> Look. I very much doubt that Martin Staael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> REALLY
> wants to run an open relay. What most ISPs want to allow are
Actually, he thinks he does. As I mentioned earlier, usually there's an
inquiry of this kind about once a month on this list.
These organi
I've looked through the FAQ and and also searched through the archived
mailing list but couldn't find any answers to what happened to the "mail
-v" (verbose) command. I know that the mailx command is specific to
sendmail and wouldn't be surprised if it won't work. I assume that there
either is a w
- Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| At 09:33 PM 2/3/99 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
| >- Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| >
| >| Why does qmail object to the execute bit being set? I don't know.
| >
| >Security: It's meant for .qmail files that might be automatically
| >edited, for exa
This is really directed more toward Paul Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, but I
thought the whole list might get some benefit from my mistakes.
I'm using your checkpoppasswd program derived from the checkpasswd of
Jedi/Sector One. I've modified it by putting more intuitive messages into
the syslog mess
Bruno Wolff III wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Maybe QMTP should be extended in a way that allows for VERP without
> having to restransmit the message body more than once. Perhaps more than
> one sender address could be sent.
See QMAIL EXTENSIONS in addresses.5.
Stefan
At 09:33 PM 2/3/99 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
>- Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>| Why does qmail object to the execute bit being set? I don't know.
>
>Security: It's meant for .qmail files that might be automatically
>edited, for example by a mailing list manager. Even if an attack
Look. I very much doubt that Martin Staael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> REALLY
wants to run an open relay. What most ISPs want to allow are
Internet ---> SMTP ---> local users
Internet <--- SMTP <--- local users
local users <--- SMTP <--- local user
and disallow
Internet ---> SMPT ---> Internet
You g
I read the QMTP protocol document and there doesn't seem to be anything
that would indicate VERP is done on messages. In fact doing this could
break things if the envelope sender address couldn't handle VERP.
Maybe QMTP should be extended in a way that allows for VERP without having
to restransmi
Hi guys,
Thanks for your hints
The /var/qmail/bin/ programs had the wrong permissions, though as far as I
can see, the queue structure is ok.
make setup, check worked wonders :-)
That was an unpleasant 2 hours
Cheers
Peter.
--
gradwell dot com ltd - writing the bits of the web you don't s
- Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Can some one help me!! I'm dropping mail left right an centre :-(
Your queue structure is clearly seriously messed up.
Stop qmail, then move /var/qmail/queue to /var/qmail/badqueue and
reinstall ("make setup check").
Then have a look at the messages in t
- Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Why does qmail object to the execute bit being set? I don't know.
Security: It's meant for .qmail files that might be automatically
edited, for example by a mailing list manager. Even if an attacker
manages to sneak in a program delivery in the .qmail fil
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 07:41:06PM +, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Could some one please explain this to me:
>
> 920403544.098213 delivery 317: deferral:
> Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7.0)/
> 920403544.098239 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
The message looks
Hi,
Can some one help me!! I'm dropping mail left right an centre :-(
Im my log I have errors like
920404304.660331 starting delivery 328: msg 321541 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
920404304.660358 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
920404304.668162 delivery 328: deferral:
Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delive
Hi,
Could some one please explain this to me:
920403544.098213 delivery 317: deferral:
Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7.0)/
920403544.098239 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
It looks kinda worrying!
also, is there a way to be copied on all errors?
Cheers
Peter.
--
g
OkI need a little bit of pointing in the right direction yet again.
We are currently running our pop3 server on ns2.mounet.com
We've got the NS configuration setup like so:
IN MX 0 ns2.mounet.com.
Currently, users receive mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with no pr
Pete Kazmier wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Why not integrate rewriting of messages in one common location instead
> of the entry points to the qmail system (ofmipd and new-inject)?
> Perhaps in qmail-queue?
Both new-inject and ofmipd (qmail-inject partially) manipulate the
RFC822 message header, wh
Simply add the rewriting code to qmail-smtpd and check for NOREWRITE.
Is not this aginst rfc821 to do any rewriting during an smtp
connection? Like:
mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but the envelope sender gets transformed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mate
Text written by Martin Staael at 02:30 PM 2/3/99 +0100:
>Sam,
>
>At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>
>>Read the FAQ, and turn off your open relay.
>
>I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our
>customers is not able to send mail through us.
No, you do not. What you n
Jere Cassidy writes:
>
> We are doing something very similar with an Alteon ACEDirector balancing to 4
> Alpha's running Redhat and qmail. Backend network is a Netapp F230 that is
> handling the Maildirs. I was wondering a few things.
>
Just out of curiosity, has anyone thought about, (or trie
I'm wondering if anyone here is running the above combination?
I have qmaild running under tcpserver at the time, but now our machine has
become busy enough that the pop3 service is looping (in inetd) and want to
replace it with tcpserver.
I've also noticed that the single process on the machine
After looking through the mess822 documentation, I'm left with the
following question:
Why not integrate rewriting of messages in one common location instead
of the entry points to the qmail system (ofmipd and new-inject)?
Perhaps in qmail-queue?
I understand that connections via smtp (not ofmip
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Sam wrote:
> No, you don't need an open relay, no matter how convinced you are
> otherwise. The age of open relays has long come, and gone, and it's just
> a matter of time before you'll get listed on any one of several public
> blacklists of open relays, and then you custom
Hi,
I'm seeing some strange things in my qmail log file (see below):
somebody seems to be mailing
to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but when I try to send to one
of the following:
Boghe Bruno
Boghe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boghe_Bruno
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I always get an error with something like "no such user".
"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:
> The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is eventually
> going to replace qmail-inject. It supports several new features and has
> a much cleaner internal design.
Where can I find more information about "new-inject"?
in the mess822
On 3 Feb 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> On bug-free systems, the only way for qmail-rspawn to generate that
> message is for execve() to return an error that fails error_temp():
> normally ENOTDIR, ENAMETOOLONG, ENOENT, ELOOP, EACCES, ENOEXEC, E2BIG,
> or EFAULT. None of these can be caused by te
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>a) Almost all delivery (from sending client to remote client) takes 3 to 4
>minutes. However, If I look in the receiving client's Maildir/new after the
>sending client sends the message, it is there in 5 to 10 seconds. Any POP3
>connection simply d
If you're going to run an open relay, don't run it on port 25. Run it on
1025 or some other high port, and only let your customers know what the port
is.
Yes, this is security through obscurity, but it should keep spammers from
finding your relay.
And, like everyone else is saying, RTFM.
--Ada
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 11:39:07AM -0500, Jere Cassidy wrote:
> Sorry to get a little off topic for this particular thread, but...
>
> Jaye Mathisen wrote:
>
> > I did not save all my testdata unfortunately, but at one time, I had 2
> > FreeBSD P6 boxes, NFS mounting a Netapp F540, using Maildir
- Matthias Pigulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| "D. J. Bernstein" wrote:
| > The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is [...]
|
| Where can I find more information about "new-inject"?
Get the mess822 package from Dan's FTP server.
- Harald
- Andrzej Szydlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I'd like to queue messages and then send them all when the network link is up.
| I know I can use uucp over TCP for that, but it may decrease security.
| I'd prefer to avoid uucp.
|
| Can I find any docs or examples somwhere?
Use serialmail. Available fr
- Pietro Femmino' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I'm using Qmail on a Linux Debian system. What's the problem? If I send mail
| to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where nonex is a non-existant user, I (the user krazy)
| receive that mail. Root is aliased to krazy. Postmaster (and mailer-daemon)
| put their mail on a
"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:
> The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is eventually
> going to replace qmail-inject. It supports several new features and has
> a much cleaner internal design.
Where can I find more information about "new-inject"?
Matthias
--
w e b f a c t o r y
Sorry to get a little off topic for this particular thread, but...
Jaye Mathisen wrote:
> I did not save all my testdata unfortunately, but at one time, I had 2
> FreeBSD P6 boxes, NFS mounting a Netapp F540, using Maildir for delivery,
> and several boxes generating the email in front. The P6'
Hi,
I'd like to queue messages and then send them all when the network link is up.
I know I can use uucp over TCP for that, but it may decrease security.
I'd prefer to avoid uucp.
Can I find any docs or examples somwhere?
Any suggestions welcome.
Thanks,
Andrzej
Hi Qmailers.
I'm using Qmail on a Linux Debian system. What's the problem? If I send mail
to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where nonex is a non-existant user, I (the user krazy)
receive that mail. Root is aliased to krazy. Postmaster (and mailer-daemon)
put their mail on a file.
Where should I investigate t
as far as i'm concerned this started because russ suggests rejecting mail
from sites that don't meet certain DNS tests (PTR and or MX records)
because sites that meet these criteria are often dial-up spam sources.
i suggest blocking traffic from places that have a history of sending
spam. like y
Martin Staael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 3 February 1999 at 15:00:35 +0100
> Our customers will always use another ISP for dial-in, or have a direct
> connection. But we will still have to provide them with a SMTP server, that is
> the reason for the needed open-relay.
>
> So we can't te
On 3 Feb 1999 07:56:25 -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>This is a bug in your operating system.
Yes. This is where a small change in qmail could cause it to be more
robust, even on a less-than-perfect OS.
>On bug-free systems, the only way for qmail-rspawn to generate that
>message is for execve(
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Martin Staael wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> At 13:42 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>
> >> I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our
> >> customers is not able to send mail through us.
>
> >Read the FAQ again. Ideally your customers should be using their I
Petr,
At 15:11 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>1. If your customers have static IP, setup a database for tcpserver
>which exports RELAYCLIENT="" for those special IPs (see FAQ 5.4)
They don't. The use dial-in from around the world.
What I need is a program to check that a user is not sending more
On 03-Feb-99 Martin Staael wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> At 13:42 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>
>>> I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our
>>> customers is not able to send mail through us.
>
>>Read the FAQ again. Ideally your customers should be using their ISP's
>>own
Andy,
At 13:42 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>> I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a
open-realy - or our
>> customers is not able to send mail through us.
>Read the FAQ again. Ideally your customers should be using
their ISP's
>own mail server.
Our customers will always use another
Martin Staael wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Sam,
>
> At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
> I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our
> customers is not able to send mail through us.
I think we'd be glad to hear why someone needs an open mail relay and to
propose anothe
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Martin Staael wrote:
> Sam,
>
> At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>
> >Read the FAQ, and turn off your open relay.
>
> I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our
> customers is not able to send mail through us.
Read the FAQ again. Ideally you
Sam,
At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote:
>Read the FAQ, and turn off your open relay.
I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our
customers is not able to send mail through us.
>> "Macro" filter :
>> I need to be able to setup some conditions like:
>> if the subject
Matthew Kirkwood writes:
> That's basically my point. Whether Solaris, Linux or BSD is "better"
> (whatever that means in this case) is not too relevant to me. They would
> all, I think, do a more than adequate job.
>
> And NT/Exchange simply can't cope with much more than a light load.
Linux
Martin Staael writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I need to setup a filter program with qmail. I have been looking for a while,
> but haven't found any programs that does the following :
>
> Spam-filter.
> The qmail SMTP server is running as a open-realy, so we need to have some sort
> of spam filter - like c
Hi together!
I´ve got a little Problem with
fetchmail/qmail.
How do i tell fetchmail (running as daemon and
is fetching mail every x hours via dialup-connection) to put mails like [EMAIL PROTECTED] on my
Intranet-Mailserver (server.home.mydomain.com) running qmail-pop3d ? Due to
ulimited
qmail Digest 3 Feb 1999 11:00:11 - Issue 540
Topics (messages 21339 through 21417):
Using esmtp's flag size set
21339 by: Lara Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21342 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virtual domains + Username length
21340 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Edward S. Marshall wrote:
> > > > Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running
> > > > a free Unix.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
> > for everything expect a few routers and
Hi,
I need to setup a filter program with qmail. I have been looking for
a while, but haven't found any programs that does the following :
Spam-filter.
The qmail SMTP server is running as a open-realy, so we need to have
some sort of spam filter - like checking if the mail looks like spam, and
co
Paul Halliday writes:
> Therefore all mail to the internet would be stamped '@ourdomain', but all
> company mail to companydomain stamped '@ourhost.companydomain'; this is to
> avoid replied to sensitive company mail being routed via the internet.
With the experimental ofmipd program in the me
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:36:45AM -0500, Adam H wrote:
>
> I can receive the mail fine to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> well my question is how to get the [EMAIL PROTECTED] to then send
> 'queue' the mail so when the offline server connects it can put the mail
> in the proper Maildir's
Cristiano Lincoln Mattos writes:
> alias2: alias1
This is an alias2 wildcard, forwarding to alias1@defaulthost, as you can
see with printforward.
fastforward doesn't know whether it's in charge of defaulthost, so it
goes ahead and forwards the message, ignoring your alias1 wildcard
Fred Lindberg writes:
> Jan 26 11:56:10 id qmail: 917351770.832994 delivery 7497: failure:
> Unable_to_run_qmail-remote./
This is a bug in your operating system.
On bug-free systems, the only way for qmail-rspawn to generate that
message is for execve() to return an error that fails error_temp()
The simplest workaround is to enable the qmail-users mechanism:
qmail-pw2u < /etc/passwd > /var/qmail/users/assign
qmail-newu
This is a good idea on all systems, even where getpwnam() isn't buggy,
since the getpwnam() API is inherently unreliable. See qmail-getpw.0.
---Dan
Len Budney writes:
> Does the above suggestion imply that new-inject may safely be used
> instead of qmail-inject, or that you would recommend this?
The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is eventually
going to replace qmail-inject. It supports several new features and has
a mu
How I could unsuscribe of this list???
Thanx for all
Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
> Putting virtual.dom:foo in virtualdomains and
> expecting to control this by ~alias/.qmail-foo-default does not work.
Hmmm? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is rewritten as foo-joe and delivered locally. The
delivery is handled by ~alias/.qmail-foo-joe, -foo-default, or -default.
Okay -- I think I got the virtdomains down... but my application is a bit
weird.
I have various LAN's that arn't connected to the internet, but I do want
them to receive inet email... so I have them call the server once / day to
transmit that days email.
The main server is domain.net
and all the o
Hi,
There is a perl based package called webmail that might be
useful.
Please check http://webmail.woanders.de/
Regards,
--pgm
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Lucas do R. B. Brasilino da Silva wrote:
->I'd like to provide the same service to these students. Is there
->some Web based Mail server that works
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
> for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the
> time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want
> a little more resilience
67 matches
Mail list logo
