On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
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
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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)
Hi Aaron,
I am that poor soul you mentioned!
I've looked at VERPS and it looks pretty good for being able to handle
bounces and guaranteeing correct mail addresses, but this still doesn't
address the issue of automated bounce handlers. More to the point: I'm
trying to find out what rules these
Hi all,
I'm using qmail 1.03, i'd like to log every IP connection to my qmail
smtp server, i've noticed that tcpserver is not logging this info for now,
my tcpserver runs like follows:
tcpserver -R -c 100 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 7170 -g 1100 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
21 |
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:53:34AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
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
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
[snip]
PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although
it is most probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original
orbs probe messages in my mail logs had the following line:-
Received: from unknown (HELO
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although it is most
probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original orbs probe messages
in my mail logs had the following
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:01:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
Our company hosts the relaytester because some of our techies believe
the ORBS-project is worth supporting. All opinions I post are mine,
possibly but not necessarily shared by zero or more of my co-workers.
For what
Hi all,
I have a ~alias/.qmail-bouncer file with the contents
|bouncesaying 'This is an automated bounce message' exit 0
When I send this address a messages I expect to have it bounced back at
me...
My logs show:
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe smtpd: 964425870.197821 tcpserver: status: 0/40
Jul 24
Hi *,
when I try to torture my brand new qmail installation
(qmail-1.03 + bigtodo + bigconcurrency on Solaris 7, queue
on a separate 9 GB disk, mounted with 'noatime',
conf-split 521 or 321) a little bit, I get this error
message after about 1000 mails:
451 qq trouble creating files in queue
Hello,
i have a problem with Qmail and Maildir. I installed qmail and vpopmail
and everything
works fine for local accounts.
So if i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the mail is put into
~philipp/Maildir/new.
Thats nice !
But if i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the log gives me
this
One other thing is that each of the home directories must have a .qmail file
which contains ./Maildir/ as well (exactly as I have typed it), and make
sure that it contains a Maildir naturally with the owner and group being the
same as who will be accessing it.
Brett Randall.
Manager
Brett Randall wrote:
One other thing is that each of the home directories must have a .qmail file
which contains ./Maildir/ as well (exactly as I have typed it), and make
sure that it contains a Maildir naturally with the owner and group being the
same as who will be accessing it.
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
/usr/bin/tcpserver 0 pop3 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup
diavolos.oberberg-online.de /bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
Here is definitely an error - if you use vpopmail you cannot use the
checkpassword provided by DJB.
I found this in the
OK, try changing the ownership of the Maildir and the .qmail file to the
actual person that the mail is being delivered to...When qmail-local tries
delivering there, it relies on those permissions to be able to write to the
Maildir
Brett
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
Brett Randall wrote:
OK, try changing the ownership of the Maildir and the .qmail file to the
actual person that the mail is being delivered to...When qmail-local tries
delivering there, it relies on those permissions to be able to write to the
Maildir
Hmm, i cannot do this, because the
qmail Digest 24 Jul 2000 10:00:00 - Issue 1072
Topics (messages 45349 through 45402):
poor performance under tcpserver
45349 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
45351 by: asantos
Checkpoppasswd again! HELP!!!
45350 by: Manav
Re: Attitude
45352 by: Russell
OK...I didn't know virtual users actually existed. Somewhere along the line
qmail has to know where to deliver the mail to, and this is pulled
(eventually, no matter how many virtualhosts and aliases you have) from the
passwd file or NIS map. It will go to the home directory, open .qmail and
see
You cannot do more than check a single IP address and get a yes or no
response without having a signed agreement with the RBL team. At the
moment, I don't believe they even allow you to download their whole list
at all since they're reworking the agreement.
Wrong. You can perform
I found this in the qmail-FAQ, Question 5.3: how do i set up qmail-pop3d.
So there is a problem with my startup script ?
Definitely. You will not be able to get mails by POP3 for virtual
domains.
created and i can log on the virtual pop account using sqwebmail.
That would surprise me. Are
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
give you the entire list.
Without signing the document?
That sounds like a bug, since they say on the web page that they didn't
intend to allow that without someone signing.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
give you the entire list.
Without signing the document?
That sounds like a bug, since they say on the web
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
! Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
! give you the entire list.
!
! Without signing the document?
Yes. DJB has posted on [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Jul 00, at 22:54, Chris, the Young One wrote:
! Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-)
! That'll give you the entire list.
!
! Without signing the document?
Yes. DJB has posted on [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
give you the entire list.
Without signing the document?
That sounds like a bug, since they say on the web
Brett Randall wrote:
OK...I didn't know virtual users actually existed. Somewhere along the line
qmail has to know where to deliver the mail to, and this is pulled
(eventually, no matter how many virtualhosts and aliases you have) from the
passwd file or NIS map. It will go to the home
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
www.orbs.org/database.html
ORBS only provides dumps consisting of hosts over 30 days old. From RSS,
tho, a current list is easily obtained as Alan outlines there.
That claims a straight-forward zone transfer works. Grr. Okay, off to
mail the RSS
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 10:54:38PM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
! Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
! give you the entire list.
!
!
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:01:23PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
! Do you mean the same one as I do? That one doesn't do anything
! else than "bruteforce-downloading" the entire zone on host-by-host
! basis (the only "speedups" come from the possibility of having the
! entire /24, /16 or even /8
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
and now, it refuses the query :-)
I hate replying to myself, but it still works. Must have been a momentary failure.
RC
--
+---
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
and now, it refuses the query :-)
I hate replying to myself, but it still works. Must have been a
momentary failure.
I've mailed them and made the same arguments that I was
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 04:45:31AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
and now, it refuses the query :-)
I hate replying to myself, but it still works. Must have been a
momentary
This had happened serveral times before:
My qmail+ezmlm mailling-list server suddenly stopped all delivery.
No mail could be send from remote to local, local to remote,
or even local to local. All qmail-inject return success.
And no error messages were logged.
But then I log in as root, and
hi list,
it seems that my qmail setup is bouncing messages every once in a
while. lists managed by ezmlm send me warnings such as :
Messages to you from the vmailmgr mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I received.
and
Thomas Duterme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've looked at VERPS and it looks pretty good for being able to handle
bounces and guaranteeing correct mail addresses, but this still doesn't
address the issue of automated bounce handlers. More to the point: I'm
trying to find out what rules these
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
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:
Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed
ORBS - they do have a
Hi.
I would like to be able to setup multiple pop3 email accounts using the
virtual domains file allowing the following.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do I do this with regard to
It seems that all of a sudden my RH had a resource limit problem. DNS is
fine, but after 61 qmail-remotes it wouls appear that RH ran out of
resources.
I searched the archives and added some ulimit commands to the qmail.init
script, but I couldn't find a way to determine how many files to allow
Wow! you do this in such a complex way! Install fastforward, then set up
virtualdomains as:
bloggs.com:alias
{literally the word 'alias'}
Then edit /etc/aliases and add aliases:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then run newaliases to update the database
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incidentally, is there a discussion in the past that I've missed about 'void
main' declarations? :-)
Yes. A quick search of the archives for "void main" yields:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg01898.html
-Dave
No offense to DJB at all, but you have a very strange view of open sourced
software if you don't believe in using patches. I presume you don't use
rolled distributions of Linux (if you run Linux at all) either, seeing as
they're usually packed with patches.
Patches are basically the equivalent
Joe Kelsey wrote:
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 keep from crashing / giving them
headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose
I must have mistakenly added the message to the list. As my own comment stated,
I didn't mean to subject the list to our discussion.
I wrote:
That said, I'm leaving this off the list because I don't like noise,
so I'm not going to subject others to it.
Joe Kelsey wrote:
You don't bother
- 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
Chester Chee wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone has an experience using procmail with vpopmail (virtual domain)?
I am trying to setup procmail to filter "junk" mail to specific mail folder
for vpopmail user. And it does not seem to work at all. My vpopmail users
access their mail via IMAP instead of
Score:
Apology for indirection: 1
Asanine comments: 1
Thanks everyone. I think this discussion has been very helpful to the Qmail
cause ... really.
Adam McKenna wrote:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic,
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
"Shut Up and Go Away"
You're not gonna SUGA down yer comments, are ya?
Why not pour a little SUGA on this thread?
Scott
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VERP was proposed by DJB as a way to identify bounce recipients. VERP
requires that each recipient have their own From: as well as To:.
Not quite: it's envelope senders and recipients, not To: and From:
fields. (So recipients can still receive
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question I have is, and
excuse my ignorance if it's something silly: why not just accept the bare
linefeeds? From what I can understand in RFC822, there's nothing wrong
with bare linefeeds in the body of the messages as long as the headers
have all
This is what I've asked for too -- and been given "do it yourself".
Best of luck.
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
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,
"Bob Ross" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 make the transiction easier.
Do I just add the new domain in the same locations as the old domain under
the /var/qmail/control files? to
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No offense to DJB at all, but you have a very strange view of open sourced
software if you don't believe in using patches.
One last time.
Qmail is not "open source software". Is not now. Has never been. In
all probability
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enrique Vadillo) wrote:
I'm using qmail 1.03, i'd like to log every IP connection to my qmail
smtp server, i've noticed that tcpserver is not logging this info for now,
my tcpserver runs like follows:
tcpserver -R -c 100 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 7170 -g 1100 0 smtp
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation, is probably
the original question.
Dave Sill wrote:
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question I have is, and
excuse my ignorance if it's something silly: why not just accept the bare
linefeeds? From what I can
Gavin Cameron writes:
I have a ~alias/.qmail-bouncer file with the contents
|bouncesaying 'This is an automated bounce message' exit 0
bouncesaying tries to execvp() the given program; it doesn't use a
shell to run the program. So it can't run a shell built-in command.
Instead of above,
I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break void main(), I
will
happily advise everyone to use a different compiler" engenders any trust in
someone's ability to write C code.
Qmail is well written, sure. But void main() is and always has been wrong on 99%
of platforms and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation,
is probably the original question.
Probably? If you don't know, why bother guessing? I answered the
question I thought was asked. If the person who asked the question
isn't satisfied with that answer,
Michael T. Babcock wrote:
I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break void
main(), I will happily advise everyone to use a different compiler"
engenders any trust in someone's ability to write C code.
Qmail is well written, sure. But void main() is and always has been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break
void main(), I will happily advise everyone to use a different
compiler" engenders any trust in someone's ability to write C code.
The proof of Dan's pudding is in the eating. Theoretically, "void
main"
Russell Nelson wrote:
Are these records in relays.orbs.org? How can you say that ORBS
doesn't block them, then? Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
for the DNS zone entries. Semantics which nobody else uses.
That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
I just restarted it with "tcpserver -v -R ..." and still nothing!
I *only* get this in /var/log/syslog for mail delivery from a remote host:
Jul 24 10:54:51 mail qmail: 964454091.551368 new msg 223505
Jul 24 10:54:51 mail qmail: 964454091.551743 info msg 223505: bytes 199 from
[EMAIL
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theoretically, "void main" is wrong. In practice, it works just
fine. Personally, I could not care less.
Theoretically, BIND's noncompliance with standards is wrong. In
practice, it interoperates with most of the world (i.e., itself) just
fine. But I care.
Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation,
is probably the original question.
Probably? If you don't know, why bother guessing? I answered the
question I thought was asked. If the person who asked the question
isn't
Philipp Steinkrüger wrote:
Here is definitely an error - if you use vpopmail you cannot use the
checkpassword provided by DJB.
I found this in the qmail-FAQ, Question 5.3: how do i set up qmail-pop3d.
So there is a problem with my startup script ?
Just a poor assumption -- qmail-pop3d
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement
before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is and/or where the license
is embedded in C source files ...
"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No offense
Dan's comment was that 'void main()' was done because 'int main()'
caused compiler warnings. If so, int main() should now prevail because
void main() causes the warnings.
Dave Sill wrote:
I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break
void main(), I will happily advise
Well said, considering how often DJB waxes eloquent about non-standards
compliant and/or broken software.
Paul Jarc wrote:
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theoretically, "void main" is wrong. In practice, it works just
fine. Personally, I could not care less.
Theoretically, BIND's
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:
Qmail is not "open source software". Is not now. Has never been. In
all probability never will be.
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement
before downloading it
Those license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote:
Theoretically, BIND's noncompliance with standards is wrong. In
practice, it interoperates with most of the world (i.e., itself) just
fine. But I care.
I'll care about "void main" when it causes me problems. Until then,
I've got real problems to worry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Jul 00, at 12:55, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Dan's comment was that 'void main()' was done because 'int main()'
caused compiler warnings. If so, int main() should now prevail
because void main() causes the warnings.
The newer djb sources
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license
agreement before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is
and/or where the license is embedded in C source files ...
qmail is copyrighted by DJB. You have no rights to copy or use it
other than
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The answer you gave was useful, Dave, but although I didn't realize it at
first, my question is really relating to the RFCs more than to qmail's
implementation. It's just that qmail's implementation of it led me to
asking the question.
In that case,
I was hoping for an admission of guilt rather than a fight.
Petr Novotny wrote:
However, what do you expect, Michael? qmail-1.04 which would
only "fix" void main()?
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do. That said, I have still seen nothing about the
licensing of his software besides that he doesn't care about anything
that isn't implicitly illegal.
That said, in a case-law country, I can do pretty
"David Bouw" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything works nicely, but I would like to have all mail be delivered in
the the /var/spool/mail directory instead of $HOME/$USER/Mailbox..
I read the INSTALL files, but I can't figure out something..
You run the command 'qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
I was hoping for an admission of guilt rather than a fight.
Why? Does it excite you or something? It all looks more to me like
you've been trying to pick a fight.
Vince.
--
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do. That said, I have still seen nothing about the
licensing of his software besides that he doesn't care about anything
that isn't implicitly illegal.
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I have still seen nothing about the licensing of his
software besides that he doesn't care about anything that isn't
implicitly illegal.
See URL:http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html.
paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, in a case-law country, I can do pretty much whatever I think
is legal to do until he sues me. At that point, the courts decide.
Most importantly, will he allow full-modification and redistribution
with a new name (GPL style). IE, forking.
It's clear from
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:31:05AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
This is what I've asked for too -- and been given "do it yourself".
Almost certainly because:
a) It's hard to arrange a reproducable set of deliveries that
can be run on qmail and sendmail. Even a couple of hours
Greg Owen writes:
Yup. If you have one qmail box forwarding to a second qmail box
which is the mail store, you get this amplification.
No, you don't get any amplification. You only get amplification if
you can get someone else's machine to expend resources that you
didn't.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:10:45PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
I was hoping for an admission of guilt rather than a fight.
It's nice to hope for things. However, the only thing you're going to get is
membership in a lot of procmail filters. (I've just added you to mine.)
--Adam
Dave Sill wrote:
In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting
messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort
necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it
was worth--especially considered that 822bis prohibits bare LF's.
This
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 09:06:43AM -0400, Brian Johnson wrote:
yes, but most people only have enough money for so many cars, or can only
drink so much pepsi or coke. an admin can use as many or as few of the
lists as they want without any cost/limit. when you go to buy a car, you
generally
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The qmail delivery agent *only* delivers to mailboxes under the
user's home directory.
Well, qmail-local can deliver to maildirs or mboxes anywhere, but
there's no way to describe a maildir or mbox in a user-dependent way
except by using a path relative to
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting
messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort
necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it
was worth--especially considered
I'm getting this message from my pop3 clients.
Could not login in to mail server.
The server responded:
This user has no $HOME/Maildir
Well, the user does have a Maildir. I can see new mail piling up in
Maildir/new.
It's being started as follows:
supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote:
Well, qmail-local can deliver to maildirs or mboxes anywhere, but
there's no way to describe a maildir or mbox in a user-dependent way
except by using a path relative to the user's home directory. So
/var/spool/mail/user can be used in users' .qmail files,
The question is: does DJB prefer that one modify (should they wish to) 55% of
the source code (say) and make this mod available as a patch, or simply rename
it to "rmail" (or whatever) and mention that it is derived from Qmail,
available at ... blah ...
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
I understand
Never mind, I found the problem, dnsfq is failing to return my hostname
correctly.
That said, any thoughts on this:
[root@mail control]# /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03/dnsfq mail.sattel.com
hard error
[root@mail control]#
[root@mail control]# hostname
mail.sattel.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Jul 00, at 18:15, Bruce Edge wrote:
That said, any thoughts on this:
[root@mail control]# /usr/local/src/qmail-1.03/dnsfq mail.sattel.com
hard error
[snip]
Name:mail.sattel.com
Address: 192.168.1.100
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
The question is: does DJB prefer that one modify (should they wish to) 55% of
the source code (say) and make this mod available as a patch, or simply rename
it to "rmail" (or whatever) and mention that it is derived from Qmail,
available at ...
Dave Sill wrote:
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting
messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort
necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it
was
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do.
Very few people understand copyright law in general. Free software advocates
are not much better at it than others; RMS is a notable exception.
That
Argh. Get that misconception *out your head*.
People who disallow ORBS to scan them get listed as *untestable*,
not as *open relays*. ORBS doesn't block.
Are these records in relays.orbs.org?
How can you say that ORBS doesn't block them, then?
Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg writes:
Never has the policies of ORBS have ANYTHING directly to do with SPAM,
it is an validated Open Relay database which for obvious reason also
contains those who deny/decive ORBS testing by blocking it.
In other words, it's a good place to go to find open
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 06:03:00PM -0700, Bruce Edge wrote:
I'm getting this message from my pop3 clients.
Could not login in to mail server.
The server responded:
This user has no $HOME/Maildir
Well, the user does have a Maildir. I can see new mail piling up in
Maildir/new.
Greg Owen writes:
Yes, there is amplification. It does work, I have tested it, what
follows is a description of how it works.
Yes, you have described the situation accurately, and yes, I was
wrong. In the main, though, you've laid out yet another argument
against secondary MX.
--
In the main, though, you've laid out yet another argument
against secondary MX.
If so, it's the first anti-secondary-MX argument I've seen that
didn't boil down to "incompetent machine administration causes problems,"
which is true with or without multiple MX - it's just easier for
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 22:54:44 -0700
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
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
