Hello all,
I am trying to give a guy some assistance with qmail, he is running a
linux box which is on a private network (i.e. the FQDN is NOT known to the
internet)...now when he sends mail with Outlook Express (on his lan to the
Linux box) he gets the following:
heres the error (i thin
At 00:52 12/02/99 +, Robin Bowes wrote:
>I'm experimenting with running both qmail-smtpd and qmail-ofmipd on the
>same box but on different IP addresses.
>
>I've added a second IP address to my ethernet interface:
>How do I go about binding ofmipd to listen on the alias IP address
>rather tha
I'm experimenting with running both qmail-smtpd and qmail-ofmipd on the
same box but on different IP addresses.
I've added a second IP address to my ethernet interface:
grafter:/ $ ifconfig -a
loLink encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Bcast:127.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.
"Eric Dahnke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Remove the file rcpthosts from /var/qmail/control
Well Dan, are you convinced yet to remove this Pro-Spam misfeature from
the next release?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If its up and not behind a firewall it matters. Though granted it will not
> necessarily get him black listed but it could get his isp blacklisted. This
> type of stuff is exactly what the long discussion about blocking dialups was
> caused by.
To that, I say a big ph
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
> hell does it matter.
given the number of hacking attempts I see against this machine when I'm
online, and the ammount of mail some people try a and relay though me yes,
it does ma
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 02:45:36PM -0800, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
> hell does it matter.
Justifications like this for shoddy work will always bite back
eventually.
Why set up relay prevention in what is currently a protected
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
> hell does it matter.
I had a dedicated dialup ppp customer get his NT box relayed off of...not
sure exactly how many mails the guy got off, though. If this is a static
IP, it wou
If its up and not behind a firewall it matters. Though granted it will not
necessarily get him black listed but it could get his isp blacklisted. This
type of stuff is exactly what the long discussion about blocking dialups was
caused by.
Davidm
Quoting Eric Dahnke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> If hi
On 11-Feb-99 Eric Dahnke wrote:
> If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
> hell does it matter.
For one thing, many areas are getting wired with adsl and cable. One day
he switches to that and forgets he's wide open. Ain't it best to do
it right the first
If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
hell does it matter.
- eric
>
>DO NOT do this, you will get blacklisted in one qucik hurry.
>
>
>Quoting Eric Dahnke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Remove the file rcpthosts from /var/qmail/control
>>
>> Qmail will then accept ma
If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
hell does it matter.
- eric
>
>DO NOT do this, you will get blacklisted in one qucik hurry.
>
>
>Quoting Eric Dahnke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Remove the file rcpthosts from /var/qmail/control
>>
>> Qmail will then accept ma
DO NOT do this, you will get blacklisted in one qucik hurry.
Quoting Eric Dahnke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Remove the file rcpthosts from /var/qmail/control
>
> Qmail will then accept mail destined for whereever.
>
> Tah - eric
>
>
> >
> >It's late and I'm probably being silly, but..
> >
Remove the file rcpthosts from /var/qmail/control
Qmail will then accept mail destined for whereever.
Tah - eric
>
>It's late and I'm probably being silly, but..
>
>I have qmail running on my Linux system at home, this has a dial-up
>connection to my ISP. It sends and receives mail quit
Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 11 February 1999 at 22:11:00 +
> It's late and I'm probably being silly, but..
>
> I have qmail running on my Linux system at home, this has a dial-up
> connection to my ISP. It sends and receives mail quite happily from
> the Linux system.
It's late and I'm probably being silly, but..
I have qmail running on my Linux system at home, this has a dial-up
connection to my ISP. It sends and receives mail quite happily from
the Linux system. It also allows other users on the home network to
receive mail using POP3 from the qmail PO
At 03:21 PM 2/11/99 +, Niall R. Murphy wrote:
>
>I'm wondering if anyone out there has had experience with qmail and disabling
>dot-file support.
>
>As a medium-size ISP we're considering switching to qmail for delivery purposes,
>but because of various spam attacks we'd prefer not to allow o
Hello all,
I have tons of virtualdomains setup. I have web-pages off these
domains that send various kinds of mail. Is there a way I can push the
QMAILHOST,QMAILNAME,QMAILUSER and QMAILINJECT env vars into .qmail so
that envelope info overrides the default localdomain settings? I know i
cou
At 10:47 AM 2/11/99 +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have a list of approx. 3000 addresses, and I need to send a mail to
>them. What I do now is plit this list in pieces of 50 addresses ech, and
>then send the mail via talking to smtp port 25 directly.
I wouldn't bother. Send that lo
At 11:45 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Dongping Deng wrote:
>Let's consider a hypothetical situation: a machine needs to host 100,000
>mailing lists, each list has subscribers, say, less than 15; and the
>traffic for each list is less than 3 a day.
Lemme see. 100,000 * 15 * 3 = 4.5million deliveries a day.
At 06:37 PM 2/11/99 +0800, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
>hello,
>
> with the release of the new linux kernel, the limit of concurrent
>processes is now raised. according to conf-spawn we cannot raise the qmail
>concurrency limit past 256. is there any reason for this?
>
> i know raisi
qmail People,
- I have a private network with a number of Linux and Windows machines
(192.168.0.x).
- The linux machines all use qmail to send mail to the main server
192.168.0.100.
- Four users I have setup so far can use Eudora to send/retrieve mail from
the main server but can't send mail to o
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:08:22 -0600 (EST), Chuck Milam wrote:
>ust going to create [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Problem solved...well, problem looks
>easier now, anyway. Now, on to the implementation.
I know you want majordomo, but for others: this is the way to do it
when you want
- "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| [date][hostname] qmail: 91850531.791142 alert: cannot start: unable to
| switch to queue directory
That means exactly what it says. qmail-send, running as user qmails
and group qmail, cannot chdir("queue") from /var/qmail/. Either the
directory doe
Hey I have been asking that for a while. What I got till now was:
run tcpserver ...
If you really find out how to do it, PLEASE let me know???
thanx a lot!
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|
--
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Chuck Milam wrote:
> > Does Majordomo get the entire virtual domain?
>
> Unfortunatey, no. That's what makes it a little tougher.
I've convinced the users to take a compromise. Instead of trying to
maintain [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'm
just going to cre
I just finished one last week, I have to get my bosses approval to relase it
though.
Joe
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 10:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Tarpitting
>
>
> There was some discussion a whil
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 07:45:56 -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>compare the methods used under Majordomo. Is not there Majordomo
>emulation under ezmlm-idx?
Yes. ezmlm-request can do that and the ezmlm-idx package has some
support scripts to set it up (see FAQ). It works on top of ezmlm, so it
just tra
Hello,
i try to masq. all outgoing mail as coming from @domain.com.
Putting domain.com into control/defaulthosts works fine, but
now all local root mails leave the system (via maildirsmtp)
as [EMAIL PROTECTED], despite a local ~alias/.qmail-root pointing
to a local user. I have a .qmail-default
At 11:45 pm -0800 10/2/99, Dongping Deng wrote:
>Let's consider a hypothetical situation: a machine needs to host 100,000
>mailing lists, each list has subscribers, say, less than 15; and the
>traffic for each list is less than 3 a day. Will ezmlm be more suitable
>for such situation?
one would
At 8:08 am -0600 11/2/99, Chuck Milam wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Chuck Milam wrote:
>
>> > Does Majordomo get the entire virtual domain?
>>
>> Unfortunatey, no. That's what makes it a little tougher.
>
>I've convinced the users to take a compromise. Instead of trying to
>maintain [EMAIL PROTEC
It's solaris 2.6, and when I do ulimit -a as a normal user I get:
core file size (blocks) unlimited
data seg size (kbytes) 2097148
file size (blocks) unlimited
open files 64 -> this I'll change using your
suggestion!!
pipe size (512 bytes) 10
stack
Hi,
What is the best way to get a snapshot of qmail´s current health.
Currently I use ps and top and a perl script to see the size of the
queue. But there has got to be a better way.
I looked at the archives, web site, and FAQ but didn´t see anything.
What the hell is concurrency remote?
Th
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As an administrator, getting to know ezmlm took around an hour. As a
> user, it took about five minutes.
Do you have shell access to the ezmlm directories for all of the lists
that you manage? ezmlm is very easy to work with if
I'm wondering if anyone out there has had experience with qmail and disabling
dot-file support.
As a medium-size ISP we're considering switching to qmail for delivery purposes,
but because of various spam attacks we'd prefer not to allow ordinary users to
be able to use .qmail files. Of course
- Joergen Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I'm about to write a script to parse the maillog (to trace errors
| among other things - haven't found such).
Did you look at DJB's qmailanalog?
| I have one question though, what does the status line stand for
| (open connections and deliveries?).
It t
At 02:31 PM 2/11/99 +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote:
>A small corrections: there are also a number of mails for local delivery (and
>forwarding).
>
>I witness the following behaviour:
>
>the first x mails go through without any problems (no problem with the
>concurrency: the number of remote pr
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The cool thing about ezmlm is that you don't need to "know" it. You
> just use it. There are no problems, no annoying bounces, etc. It just
> works.
This is simply not true. How do you subscribe to an ezmlm list? How do
you un
Hi there,
if I send an email (locally and remotely) througt Qmail-SMTPD, it often
freezes during processing of larger mails (mostly larger than 50 kb).
E.g. Netscape stops delivering that mail (even after killing Netscape or
other mail programs, qmail-smtpd is still in the process list). The
proc
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| But the vacation works only the first time when it's enabled.
| The first time it sends back the vacation message as expected,
| but then never again.
Isn't that how the vacation program is supposed to work? Only one
message to each address. If someone else sends a messa
Sam,
Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly *how*
the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed. What should it look
like? And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of RFC8
A small corrections: there are also a number of mails for local delivery (and
forwarding).
I witness the following behaviour:
the first x mails go through without any problems (no problem with the
concurrency: the number of remote processes is always less then 30).
Then, at a sudden point, I see
Hi
I'm about to write a script to parse the maillog (to trace errors among
other things - haven't found such). I have one question though, what does
the status line stand for (open connections and deliveries?).
---
Feb 7 11:11:59 gyllenborst qmail: 918382319.243386 status: local 3/10
remote 4/20
Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to know how SMTP authentization works, you should read
> the corresponding RFC (hey gurus, what's the corresponding RFC?).
Is there an RFC for SMTP AUTH? A quick scan of the index doesn't reveal
one, or any Internet draft apart from draft-
hey, I've got a different question about the vacation program.
It doesn't seem to be on any of my RedHat Linux boxes. What RPM do I need to
get it?
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues Deep Eddy Internet Consulting
+1 512 432 4046 609 Deep Eddy Avenue
Dirk Vleugels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i try to masq. all outgoing mail as coming from @domain.com.
^^^
You probably don't mean _all_. As you noticed, root mails really
should not be masqueraded. Cron jobs and other administrative tasks
generate mails which should be strictly
On 11-Feb-99 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Petr Novotny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If you want to know how SMTP authentization works, you should read
>> the corresponding RFC (hey gurus, what's the corresponding RFC?).
>
> Is there an RFC for SMTP AUTH? A quick scan of the index doesn't reveal
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>The address ranges reserved for private network addressing are listed in
>>RFC 1918 as:
>>
>>A 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
>>B 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
>>B 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
No, that *is* a C on that last line.
>Thanks for cor
There was some discussion a while back about tarpitting. If you don't know what
that is (I didn't when it first came up), it's the process of inserting a small
sleep in an SMTP session for each RCPT TO after some set number of RCPT TOs.
The idea is to thwart spammers who would hand your SMTP serve
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Does Majordomo get the entire virtual domain?
Unfortunatey, no. That's what makes it a little tougher.
> If not, there are a few ways to do it. One way is to put the
> individual users that Majordomo needs (LIST, LIST-owner, LIST-request,
> and LI
> > Does anyone know of qmail patches AND clients to implement
> > draft-myers-smtp-auth-12.txt ?
> > If not, has anyone tried implementing the AUTH=LOGIN scheme
> > available in latest Netscape Communicator?
>
> The only authtication method I know to be working with qmail and
> probably any MUA
>A class A is xxx.*.*.*
>A class B is xxx.xxx.*.*
>A class C is xxx.xxx.xxx.*
>
>BUT THE REVERSE IS NOT TRUE.
Indeed, and I understand that. Just was confused about 192.168.N.0,
where N was non-zero. Thanks for the clarifications, y'all!
tq vm, (burley)
At 05:38 AM 2/11/99 PST, Eric Dahnke wrote:
>Hi,
>
>What is the best way to get a snapshot of qmail´s current health.
>
>Currently I use ps and top and a perl script to see the size of the
>queue. But there has got to be a better way.
Correct. There are *lots* of ways and they all boil down to o
Hello!
I have a little problem with qmail 1.03 on Solaris 2.6
with /var/mail as spool directory.
Everything works fine except the vacation program!!!
I used the used the vacation program from Solaris (sendmail).
But the vacation works only the first time when it's enabled.
The first time it se
Thanks for all of you trying to help, but this is not what I was asking
for.
I didn't want to start another thread about how to restrict relaying
(tcpserver, smtp-after-pop, ...).
Someone recently mentioned this thread starts about once a month.
I just want to know whether someone out there has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> I need to come up with a method to allow
> relaying from unknown IP adresses while preventing spam.
Good! :-)
> Does anyone know of qmail patches AND clients to implement
> draft-myers-smtp-auth-12.txt ?
> If not, has anyone tried implementing the AUT
Hi folks,
since we do global dialin roaming, I need to come up with a method to
allow
relaying from unknown IP adresses while preventing spam.
Does anyone know of qmail patches AND clients to implement
draft-myers-smtp-auth-12.txt ?
(found e.g. on ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts)
If not, has
qmail Digest 11 Feb 1999 11:00:11 - Issue 548
Topics (messages 21758 through 21817):
Maildir location
21758 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21759 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Error in /var/log/maillog
21760 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21761 b
hello,
with the release of the new linux kernel, the limit of concurrent
processes is now raised. according to conf-spawn we cannot raise the qmail
concurrency limit past 256. is there any reason for this?
i know raising this limit would break some unix boxes. is there a
theo
I just did this yesterday.
increase the concurrencyremote to 120.( this is the max number by the
default qmail setup. if you need more, you will need to recompile qmail
with this number redefined)
Increase the number of qmail processes that can run at one time may also
improve the delivery tim
Hi,
I have a list of approx. 3000 addresses, and I need to send a mail to
them. What I do now is plit this list in pieces of 50 addresses ech, and
then send the mail via talking to smtp port 25 directly.
Now, the time between sending and delivery (all remote addresses) can be
up to 13 hours! This
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:23:16PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] is not an Internet mail address. It's not even
> remotely close to an Internet mail address. I don't know what the client
> that's generating such things is trying to talk to, but it's not trying to
> talk t
On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 10:00:15AM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> I see a potential problem for you: when you send a mail from your
> linux machine to another machine in isbd.mynet, the envelope sender's
> address will have isbd.demon.co.uk as the domain part.
>
This isn't a problme as I don't send
Let's consider a hypothetical situation: a machine needs to host 100,000
mailing lists, each list has subscribers, say, less than 15; and the
traffic for each list is less than 3 a day. Will ezmlm be more suitable
for such situation?
dp
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ezmlm is very easy to work with if you do and understand standard Unix
>> commands and files. But list owners don't normally have that kind of
>> access at nearly all list hosting sites that I'm aware of.
> A
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Do you have shell access to the ezmlm directories for all of the lists
:that you manage?
Yes.
:ezmlm is very easy to work with if you do and understand
:standard Unix commands and files. But list owners don't normally have
:that kind of access at nearly
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As an administrator, getting to know ezmlm took around an hour. As a
> user, it took about five minutes.
Do you have shell access to the ezmlm directories for all of the lists
that you manage? ezmlm is very easy to work with if you do and understand
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] is not an Internet mail address. It's not even
:remotely close to an Internet mail address. I don't know what the client
:that's generating such things is trying to talk to, but it's not trying to
:talk to an Internet mail server.
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Differences are things that you have to know.
:
:You have to know ezmlm. Majordomo has ways of doing all of those things
:that are different than ezmlm, and therefore people moving from Majordomo
:to ezmlm would have to learn something new. When supporting
Rik Ling wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Perhaps you could explain exactly *how* the To: line is broken and how
> it might be fixed.
> What should it look like? And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of
> RFC822?
This is not an RFC822 issue; it is rather a matter of RFC821 compliance.
[1] For mail
Rik Ling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
> the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly
> *how* the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed.
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] is not an Internet mail addres
Adam D McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> First off, let me say this: Before anyone gets excited, ezmlm is NOT
>> an option. I have users and list owners that want to use Majordomo and
>> only Majordomo. They know Majordomo, they like Majordomo, they
Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I want to set up Majordomo to work within several qmail virtual domains.
> There will be instances where [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] will have to
> work, so renaming the list isn't an option.
Does Majordomo get the entire virtual domain? If
Rik Ling writes:
> Sam,
>
> Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
> the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly *how*
> the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed.
If the To: header looks like the following, as it was indicated:
From: Chuck Milam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:First off, let me say this: Before anyone gets excited, ezmlm is NOT an
:option. I have users and list owners that want to use Majordomo and only
:Majordomo. They know Majordomo, they like Majordomo, they demand
:Majordomo. Therefore, I have to make this
Sam,
Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly *how*
the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed. What should it look
like? And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of RFC822? Is that
secti
First off, let me say this: Before anyone gets excited, ezmlm is NOT an
option. I have users and list owners that want to use Majordomo and only
Majordomo. They know Majordomo, they like Majordomo, they demand
Majordomo. Therefore, I have to make this work with Majordomo. Clear?
Ok, then.
77 matches
Mail list logo
