"Ramzi S. Abdallah" wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to migrate from sendmail to qmail. The compilation and tests
were successful however I can not seem to be able to run the qmail daemon.
When I telnet to port 25 I get"telnet: Unable to connect to remote host:
Connection refused"
I am
Is there any way to setup qmail with sendmail's Fallback MX host option? My
DSL line sometimes has problems with certain places and i would like to
route it out my ISDN as a backup automatically.
Thanks
Shane Wise
For the latest Nashville Weather Conditions
Check
Hi ALL,
What is the prefered platform for qmail to run on - say I have a 100 000
mailboxes that are VERY busy - what do I want to run this on .
Your advise is greatly appreciated...
Thanks
Tonino
--
TAG (Tonino [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ # 38609461 )
TAG wrote:
Hi ALL,
What is the prefered platform for qmail to run on - say I have a 100 000
mailboxes that are VERY busy - what do I want to run this on .
Your advise is greatly appreciated...
Unix.
Badoomboom-Crash! *roaring laughter*
But, seriously folks
I've heard that
Hi Chris,
|echo 'No such user'; exit100
This is same as using ``|bouncesaying "No such user"''.
in the first line which bounces the mail, but no mail is put into the
defaultalias mailbox.
Is there anyway to do both?
Yes. Put your mailbox _before_ the bouncesaying line. e.g.,
work? i would assume it should if the maildir is right, but i
have the right
maildir there and it doesn't want to deliever to that directory!
Make sure that the mail directory you are trying to deliver to is owned by
the appt user and group (ie the one who is receiving the mail) and that they
Hi,
I have a problem with qmail. A mail sent through the qmail-smtp to a local
user
is delivered properly, but when I send the same mail through another smtp
server
I get this error message:
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Transcript
1) 4.4.4 is not the current version.
2) Since fetchmail isn't working correctly, have you checked:
a) the fetchmail website http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/fetchmail/ ?
b) the fetchmail mailing list?
c) the fetchmail FAQ?
Vince.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Bruno Prior wrote:
A short while
qmail Digest 17 Aug 2000 10:00:01 - Issue 1095
Topics (messages 46776 through 46849):
How to host a partial domain using fastforward
46776 by: Chris Harris
46777 by: Brett Randall
46793 by: Chris Harris
46827 by: Brett Randall
alert: cannot start:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Aug 2000, at 21:59, Chris, the Young One wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|bouncesaying "No such user"
This should work without requiring tweaks to ownership.
This will NOT work. Excerpt from man dot-qmail:
qmail-local handles forwarding
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:04:23PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
What you describe will not work. You would have to forward to two
pseudo-accounts, "deliverer" and "bouncer"; bouncer would call
"bouncesaying".
Okay, I stand corrected. Marc-Adrian, please disregard my last post.
(Note to self:
Hi folks
I just installed rblsmtpd last nite, and it seems to work correctly. Here
is my command line:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/rules/smtp.cdb -u 1003 -g 102 0 25 \
/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \
-r rbl.maps.vix.com \
-r dul.maps.vix.com \
-r
also sprach eric:
TAG wrote:
What is the prefered platform for qmail to run on - say I have a 100 000
mailboxes that are VERY busy - what do I want to run this on .
It really comes down to how much you're willing to spend on hardware,
then what OS supports your hardware the best, what you
Hi,
i have successfully installed qmail with the help of "Life with qmail".
(Very good dokumentation, thanks to Dave Sill!)
Now I want to set up qmail with the ldap-patch, because we need that for a
bigger pop-toaster.
Is there no good dokumentation on using qmail with ldap?
I have patched
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Aug 2000, at 8:06, Tyler J. Frederick wrote:
[root@mail:~]# nslookup rbl.maps.vix.com
Server: ns1.supplyguys.net
Address: 205.247.132.3
*** smtp.supplyguys.net can't find rbl.maps.vix.com: Non-existent
host/domain
It's a domain, not
also sprach tyler:
What I don't understand is this,
HOW can the rbl and dul work if my machine can't resolve those
names?
Those aren't names to be resolved; they are zones in which rblsmtpd checks
an IP address for an entry.
IOW, if 1.2.3.4 connects to
HI,
Thanks for the reply - BUT what if I have accesss to a IBM H70 and D40
configuration - 4 way 2gb ram - against a SUN E450 4 way 1.5G ram and a
A5100 network storage array.
Which is better - or are they both below a Intel machine ???
Runnign BSD or Redhat or Mandrake
Any ideas??
Thanks
A! Thanks. I had been reading the list archives last nite, and
people having problems with other listings were asked "well, is it
pingable?" and such, so thought it was a host. Thanks for clearing that
up. How bout the logging thing now?
- T
--
Tyler J. Frederick
Systems Administrator
Bruno Prior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A short while before the self-righteous thread on How To Annoy People
Whose Help You Need, I posted a request for help with a problem I was
experiencing.
Pardon me for trying to humorously and constructively address a
problem the list has been having.
I'll
"Shane Wise" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to setup qmail with sendmail's Fallback MX host
option?
No, qmail doesn't need that capability since it's not a bloated,
inefficient pig. :-)
My
DSL line sometimes has problems with certain places and i would like to
route it out my ISDN
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 04:58:43PM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:55:22PM -, John Conover wrote:
Is it wise to run auth/identd on an email gateway?
It's up to you. Since your gateway
[root@mail:~]# nslookup rbl.maps.vix.com
Server: ns1.supplyguys.net
Address: 205.247.132.3
*** smtp.supplyguys.net can't find rbl.maps.vix.com: Non-existent host/domain
and I get the same response if I lookup DUL. Makes no sense.
You are using NSLOOKUP to find a A, CNAME or PTR record
Please friend
I need these information than say you
Send me please...
I am trying install qmail with mysql for authentification but i have
little information about it...
Thanks you
Friend Joerg
Juan Enciso
LIMA - PERU
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Joerg Ebel wrote:
Hi,
i have
Hi out there! :-)
Is there a way to crate Mailforwardings (without using openldap)? (Like
sendmails virtusertable)
Best Regards,
Joerg
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Bruno Prior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A short while before the self-righteous thread on How To Annoy People
Whose Help You Need, I posted a request for help with a problem I was
experiencing.
The thread wasn't self-righteous; it was humourous and tongue-in-cheek. Your
post is self-righteous.
Joerg Ebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to crate Mailforwardings (without using openldap)? (Like
sendmails virtusertable)
I don't know sendmail from a hole in the ground, but look into qmail's
virtual domains capability, /var/qmail/users/assign, /var/qmail/users/mailnames,
I am having the following problem on my qmail server ...
running the LATEST version of qmail 1.03
Sun E-450 2CPU, 1G RAM
The server hangs and is unresponseive to anything but pings
load on the server skyrokets to 300+
server is NOT loggin anything, in fact the server is doing nothing (cron
can
I have a problem with qmail. A mail sent through the
qmail-smtp to a local user is delivered properly, but
when I send the same mail through another smtp server
I get this error message:
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
I assume you mean virtual hosts?
yes, too. but i dont want to store the mails locally. i want to redirect
them.
sendmails has a file in which these redirects are listed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Best Regards,
Joerg
Brian Estes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am having the following problem on my qmail server ...
running the LATEST version of qmail 1.03
Sun E-450 2CPU, 1G RAM
The server hangs and is unresponseive to anything but pings
load on the server skyrokets to 300+
server is NOT loggin anything,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Aug 2000, at 11:21, Brian Estes wrote:
The server hangs and is unresponseive to anything but pings
load on the server skyrokets to 300+
server is NOT loggin anything, in fact the server is doing nothing
(cron can not even run)
Can "top"
Is it wise to run auth/identd on an email gateway?
If you do run it, then you don't have to worry about delays or time
penalties when doing mail transactions with other servers that do ident
lookups.
If you don't run it, that is one less service you have to worry
about the
has anyone experienced this or anything like this
not the same...
just qmail-smtpd crashed ones with the following message in the logs:
--- from /var/log/messages ---
Jul 31 05:42:59 joshua -- MARK --
Jul 31 05:52:52 joshua kernel: Oops:
Jul 31 05:52:52 joshua kernel: CPU:0
Jul 31
I have a very simple question here that I'm discussing with a
local ISP about their POP3 server: Should the POP3 server send
or not the "Return-Path:" header and its contents when the
client issues the RETR command?
I've checked RFC 1939 and it only
Brian Estes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your logging configuration for qmail on that box? If you're going
to the syslog, that could be your problem. syslog has been known to bring
even large boxes to their knees with a busy qmail server. Try
multilog or something instead.
Is there any way to change the queue time to where it will retry more often?
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 11:12:30AM -0500, Shane Wise wrote:
Is there any way to change the queue time to where it will retry more often?
No, I'm afraid not.
However, giving qmail-send and ALRM signal will cause all deferred
deliveries to be retried.
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54) -
Sounds like an IP routing issue.
Set up a static route for the destinations that your DSL link can't reach.
Then traffic to that host will go out your isdn.
David
-Original Message-
From: Shane Wise [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:45 PM
To: [EMAIL
Shane Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at 11:12:30 -0500
Is there any way to change the queue time to where it will retry more often?
No. Why do you think you need this?
The current algorithm is essentially exponential backoff by host. It
tries more often at first, and
"Ricardo Albano" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello, I was installed a NETRA T1 Server with RH6.2/sparc and QMAIL-1.03, When I put
my new box in production I get tons of errors in my console like this :
eth0: Link is up using external transceiver at 100Mb/s, Half Duplex.
eth0: Error interrupt
Quoting Dale Miracle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
"Ihnen, David" wrote:
[...]
SO - My conclusion is that the system *MUST* be talking to some other
service, than qmail-smtpd, or it would say something more like "syntax error
(#5.5.4)" or "out of memory (#4.3.0)", rather than just "4.7.1".
Rogerio Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a very simple question here that I'm discussing with a
local ISP about their POP3 server: Should the POP3 server send
or not the "Return-Path:" header and its contents when the
client issues the RETR command?
The current algorithm is probably fine for most users, but what about
configuring the initial frequency? I can see some people being interested
in trying again in 5 or 30 seconds, and others wanting to wait a few hours.
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everyone. I have a strange occurance with my first qmail server ever
installed, so I appologize if this is a stupid question.
Up until today I was running eight different domains off the system
flawlessly. This morning I added a ninth customer and sent them off on
their way to the website
What is the correct way to configure a secondary MX machine (qmail using
qmqp) so that the messages are sent with the standard exponential backoff
until '24 hours', and then every day for two weeks?
I've been asked to secondary a machine that is down sometimes for extended
periods of time (they
Hi all,
Long story short here. I need to convince a business partner's admin that
we are correct in sending their users bounce messages with a null envelope
sender.
The partner is using Exchange and they are relaying a bounce message from
us to one of their internal non-M$ systems and rewriting
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:28:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
may choose to use that feature, but you MUST support it when used by
another MTA delivering a message to yours. I think my argument is sound
here.
RFC1123, section 5.2.9: "An empty reverse path MUST be supported.".
Regards,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:57:18PM +0100, James Raftery wrote:
RFC1123, section 5.2.9: "An empty reverse path MUST be supported.".
Apologies for following my own message...
Section 5.3.3 is probably more useful:
"If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message,
the receiver-SMTP
Particularly if the message may not have reached its final recipient, its
important that the Return-Path header be in place.
David
-Original Message-
From: Rogerio Brito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Required POP3
This doesn't even make sense, are you looking to configure a different time
period for different users?
This isn't even possible, or neccessary. This is not a feature that really
even affects a user. qmail will continue to deliver throughout the week in
the essentially exponential backoff by
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at 13:30:37 -0400
What is the correct way to configure a secondary MX machine (qmail using
qmqp) so that the messages are sent with the standard exponential backoff
until '24 hours', and then every day for two weeks?
I've
I might be wrong since I do not use mysql, but my guess would be that the
new domain admin is adding users, apparently too fast for your machine to
process.
Each time a new user is added it attempts to recompile the vpasswd file to
cdb; correct?
Check what the tcprules process it doing, it
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Tim Hunter wrote:
This doesn't even make sense, are you looking to configure a different time
period for different users?
This isn't even possible, or neccessary.
Hmm. I think this'd be a pretty useful feature actually.
If I send an email to mother
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:32:00 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Tim Hunter wrote:
This doesn't even make sense, are you looking to configure a different time
period for different users?
This isn't even possible, or neccessary.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at 11:32:00 -0700
I can't see much harm in being able to define the queuelifetime on
an individual submission - perhaps limited to between 0 and some
multiple of control/queuelifetime.
The harm is in the increased complexity of
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at
11:32:00 -0700
I can't see much harm in being able to define the queuelifetime on
an individual submission - perhaps limited to between 0 and some
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at
13:30:37 -0400
What is the correct way to configure a secondary MX machine (qmail
using
qmqp) so that the messages are sent with the standard
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:49:00 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at 11:32:00 -0700
I can't see much harm in being able to define the queuelifetime on
an individual submission - perhaps limited
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 11:59:08AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:49:00 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at 11:32:00 -0700
I can't see much harm in being able to
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at 14:52:40 -0400
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at
11:32:00 -0700
I can't see much harm in being able to
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:07:24 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The information is passed via the environment variable
QMAILQUEUELIFETIME to qmail-inject, which uses a new code (L) in the
todo file. qmail-send moves this new code over to the info file, and
honors it when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Tim Hunter wrote:
This doesn't even make sense, are you looking to configure a different time
period for different users?
This isn't even possible, or neccessary.
Hmm. I think this'd be a pretty
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:13:11PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:07:24 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The information is passed via the environment variable
QMAILQUEUELIFETIME to qmail-inject, which uses a new code (L) in the
todo file.
The user only had five email addresses to add, no where near the 75
processes I've had running.
Should tcprules be running once per instance?
Is a mysqld process spawned for each user authentication?
That sounds a bit extreme if not absurd. I could understand if a client
was being invoked,
If I send an email to mother saying "I'll be home for lunch" I'd like to tell my
MTA to drop/bounce the mail after that event has occurred.
One frequently-proposed (and possibly implemented) solution for such
time-critical email is to avoid queuing the message in the first place.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. A more devious hack might be to adjust the mtime of the info file to be
time() + QMAILQUEUELIFETIME - control/queuelifetime. The cost would be
much closer to zero then - albeit at the cost of a misleading info file...
And qmail-send would be using the tail end of
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Cazabon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I send an email to mother saying "I'll be home for lunch" I'd like to
tell my
MTA to drop/bounce the mail after that event has occurred.
One frequently-proposed (and possibly implemented) solution for such
Jeff Garvas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The user only had five email addresses to add, no where near the 75
processes I've had running.
Sounds more like a script which is looping due to an uncaught error
somewhere, or a return value not understood. We don't know enough about
your setup to tell
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:21:33 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Off tangent, how does an SMTP submission get at this feature? Interestingly,
it should probably be something that each MTA knows about to be truly useful,
consider secondary MXes gateway systems, etc. Ahh, a change in
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One frequently-proposed (and possibly implemented) solution for such
time-critical email is to avoid queuing the message in the first place.
Instead, you call qmail-remote directly with your message. If it succeeds,
you know immediately that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One frequently-proposed (and possibly implemented) solution for such
time-critical email is to avoid queuing the message in the first place.
Instead, you call qmail-remote directly with your message. If it succeeds,
you know immediately that
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:27:35PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. A more devious hack might be to adjust the mtime of the info file to be
time() + QMAILQUEUELIFETIME - control/queuelifetime. The cost would be
much closer to zero then - albeit at the cost of a
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 11:05:51PM -0300, Ricardo Albano wrote:
Hello, I was installed a NETRA T1 Server with RH6.2/sparc and
QMAIL-1.03, When I put my new box in production I get tons of errors
in my console like this :
check your ethernet configuration.
"Happy Meal" is the name for the
why not just run 2 instances of qmail. one w/ a queuelifetime of a few
days or a week and one with a lifetime of a few hours. if it has to go
out and can't it'll end up bouncing out of the queue quickly. it'll be
queued often in that short amount of time as desired.
--
Michael Boyiazis
Hi,
I'd like to block any email sent to my host using Multimailer, since it's a
well kown program widely used to send SPAM.
The header line that identifies Multimailer is: X-Mailer: MultiMailer (3.1.0)
I'm using qmail 1.03 with tcpserver with syslog logging.
How can this be done? thanks..
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:39:11PM -0700, M.B. wrote:
why not just run 2 instances of qmail. one w/ a queuelifetime of a few
days or a week and one with a lifetime of a few hours. if it has to go
out and can't it'll end up bouncing out of the queue quickly. it'll be
queued often in that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you only go to an hour granularity and assume a queuelifetime of no
more than seven days, then you only need 168 instances. I was kinda thinking
of something a little more elegant than that...
How about using Netscape's X-Priority header to set the queue
- Original Message -
From: "Mate Wierdl" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:55:53AM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:08:28AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
That would not allow for the rapid changes necessary in a blackhole
list. Imagine you are an
Hi!
Just a little question ;-)
My box running qmail 1.03 was primary designed to host lot of mails for
virtualdomains... so I installed vpopmail and I am happy with it.
But now I am creating more and more accounts NOT into virtualhost. I
explain : my box is joke.xinus.net and I am creating
"Aaron L. Meehan" wrote:
Quoting Dale Miracle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
"Ihnen, David" wrote:
[...]
SO - My conclusion is that the system *MUST* be talking to some other
service, than qmail-smtpd, or it would say something more like "syntax error
(#5.5.4)" or "out of memory (#4.3.0)",
Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
Hi!
Just a little question ;-)
My box running qmail 1.03 was primary designed to host lot of mails for
virtualdomains... so I installed vpopmail and I am happy with it.
But now I am creating more and more accounts NOT into virtualhost. I
explain : my box is
On Aug 17 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
The harm is in the increased complexity of the queue itself, and in
the programs that manage and access it. Increased complexity costs
in reliability, security, and resources consumed.
As far as I can see (but I may be wrong here), there's no
On Aug 17 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
The current algorithm is essentially exponential backoff by host.
I don't think so. qmail uses a quadratic schedule for
deliveries (both local and remote, with the difference being
the coefficient of the quadratic function -- a
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 11:35:51AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
If you don't run it, that is one less service you have to worry
about the security of (read, the possibility of buffer overflows).
Under Linux and BSD, you can run identd as ``nobody'' (or any other user
you care to name). Under
Hi,
does anyone know if the dir numbering scheme (0..22) for some of
qmail's queue subdirs sits follows some logic?
Thanks,
Kai
Hi all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|bouncesaying "No such user"
This should work without requiring tweaks to ownership.
This will NOT work. Excerpt from man dot-qmail:
qmail-local handles forwarding
after all other instructions, so any error in another type of
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:34:21PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
The best approach to this is to have rblsmtpd use A records, as it should
have from the beginning (that's what you get for optimising solely for
speed, not for correctness).
But then the TXT record is really useful: it does
On Aug 17 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'd agree for simply changing the schedule (assuming the new
algorithm isn't more complicated). My response was to a proposal
for making the schedule *variable* by message.
Oh, sorry for responding to a different matter (I confess that
88 matches
Mail list logo
