David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And either ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke or MAPS is really
putting the boot in in their private way, in ways I can't approve of.
ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke. Either that, or Alan Brown has
literally no clue whatsoever how
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've written a little perl script to analyze a qmail log.
Have you looked at qmailanalog? Could it help you if it does not
already do what you want?
This scripts gives a hint as to what you might save in bandwidth
if qmail
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:49:51PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
Again a security problem with outlook : look at the announce
on securityfocus:
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?section=solutionvid=1481
Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a workaround
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:27:36AM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:49:51PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?section=solutionvid=1481
Check out qmail-qfilter, and write a filter that looks for date lines
longer than 80 characters
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 04:18:21PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is
to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other
MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT clear to
you; sorry about
Russ Allbery wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And either ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke or MAPS is really
putting the boot in in their private way, in ways I can't approve of.
ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke. Either that, or Alan Brown has
Jens Georg wrote:
hi,
i have a little confusing problem with qmail:
i can send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (where bob is a real user), but i cannot
send email to i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] where bobby is a virtual user. somebody
can help me please ? this works sometimes, but after
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't comment on this latest battle of wills between MAPS and ORBS,
because I know nothing of BGP routing.
Short version: ORBS's upstream ISP is intentionally asking AboveNet to
advertise a netblock that includes ORBS despite AboveNet making it clear
qmail Digest 23 Jul 2000 10:00:01 - Issue 1071
Topics (messages 45269 through 45348):
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
45269 by: Michael T. Babcock
45270 by: Michael T. Babcock
45271 by: Michael T. Babcock
45272 by: Michael T. Babcock
hi friends
thanks for your help , now the system is working perfectly , ecxcept one
problem
i have observed that when i run qmail-smtpd under inetd.conf , the
responce time ( time it will take to go mails from microsofts outlook or
other mailclient or even perl programe of www
Hi All, I am a newbie to linux and qmail (it couldnt go any worse!), but even
after seeing numerous posts on the topic, I still couldnt configure my qmail.
1. Installed qmail according to instructions by DBJ.
2. I now want support for multiple domains, so I followed the instructions by
PG. Here
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compared to time taken by qmail-smtpd running under tcpserver may be i
have done some bad config of tcpserver as i dont know much about tcpserver
Add -R to tcpserver. Probably its taking that much time because it is trying
to ident the remote host.
Adam McKenna writes:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT
Sumith Ail writes:
Hi All...
My Setup qmail+vpopmail. I'd like to eliminate
duplicate msgs... so I installed eliminate-dup package
and made the necessary .qmail file under
/home/vpopmail/domains/test.com/sumith/
now instead of only the duplicate msgs getting deleted
all the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
o DNS overhead is not counted
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail. You'd have to.
--
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that
anyone uses ORBS.
Ugly all around.
Yup.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
orbs.org and the accusations he makes of
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail.
And I have never seen numbers, only Dan's claims. It's hard to argue using
them without being backed up by numbers.
Regards, Frank
hello friends
i am planning to config qmail server for a big production system ,
but am confused what to use (sendmail or qmail) , i am a newbie as far as
qmail is concern , but was using sendmail for past some time
i have installed and tested qmail , but still have some doubts
,
see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq.html
and Life with qmail at http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
for answers to at least some of your questions.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:14:57AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
o DNS overhead is not counted
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 02:49:36 -0400
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
the
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o DNS overhead is not counted
I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
there's no difference in the dns traffic between the two
methods?
John
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target
Again, why? I thought the whole argument was to trade speed for
"network good-neighbor"-ness.
John
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:06:57AM -0700, John White wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o DNS overhead is not counted
I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
there's no
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:08:16AM -0700, John White wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target
Again, why? I thought the whole argument was to trade speed for
"network good-neighbor"-ness.
Again, laziness. The perl
Hi All,
Going through the archives to research a problem I've
"seen with my own eyes", I'd appreciate any feedback,
war stories, comments from readers of this list:
I'm working with a company that sometimes sees it's
qmail servers take a huge hit, with very many qmail-smtpd
and qmail-queue
Is qmailanalog compatible with multilog when qmail is run under tcpserver?
Thanks,
John
--
John ConoverTel. 408.370.2688 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
631 Lamont Ct. Cel. 408.772.7733
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602 http://www.johncon.com
On 23-Jul-2000, John Conover wrote:
Is qmailanalog compatible with multilog when qmail is run under tcpserver?
I'm using qmailanalog 0.70 and I need to pipe the logs to tai64nfrac
first before feeding them to matchup. You can find tai64nfrac from
http://qmail.org/top.html
Ronny
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:20:31PM -, John Conover wrote:
Is qmailanalog compatible with multilog when qmail is run under tcpserver?
Yes and no. Multilog produces tai64n timestamps, while qmailanalog only
understands the older tai timestamps. A couple of conversion programs
exist.
--
- 3. The sending IP is using a broken mailer that's
generating bare LFs, and this mailer regards the
resulting temporary error code generated by qmail
as 'Please try again straightaway'.
I'd be particularly interested to know if anyone has come
across the 3rd
I'm going to try and ask this the best I can.
I already have Qmail with TCP running, and has been doing so for almost
three years. I'm getting ready to change domain names.
The questoin is I want to add the new domain righ now so that users will be
able to collect mail sent to either domain to
In the immortal words of Eric Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I can't comment on this latest battle of wills between MAPS and
ORBS, because I know nothing of BGP routing. But in the last one,
when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in the right. I saw
grown men, (admins!) trying to
Russ Allbery wrote:
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But in the last one, when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in
the right. I saw grown men, (admins!) trying to defend the position
that by ORBS sending up to 16 messages through their servers a few times
a _year_, ORBS
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
relays for spammers to use. That is assuming they don't also
vigilantly patrol their own
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:10:42PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
Whatever happened to helping other people make their services better,
rather than declaring all-out war on them and trying to destroy them?
We're misplacing all of the anger that we have for spammers onto ORBS
simply because a few
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 19:53:13 -0400
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
relays for
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins can run
any combination of RSS, RBL, ORBS and DUL (not to mention several
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:39:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oookay... I've read those... But i still don't quite get it. Am I now
supposed to put into the .qmail-root my own account's email-address or the email
for the root's account? (the latter seems pretty dull)
Just yours. For
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 21:43:27 -0400
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins
Peter van Dijk writes:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
Argh. Get that
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
You're aware that some machines *which didn't relay* were being tested
by ORBS as frequently as once a *day*, aren't you? Or are you just
going by Alan Brown's account of what he does, which tends to be a
little... sanitized?
Once a
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed ORBS -
they do have a competing service, do they not?
And ORBS is both spamming and operating a spam support service under the
definition of that service. Suppose you run a security
Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
this list. My question was:-
"Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
is received for multiple bad (non-local) mailboxes?"
I guess the simple answer is, NO. (Is this
45 matches
Mail list logo
