operation.
oh, the post servers could have been writing the mail into pop mailboxes
over NFS, except we were using SMTP to move it to the pop mail servers
which wrote locally. If qmtp had been built into the qmail-remote
servers we would probably have used that too.
Richard Letts,
Austin, Texas
ptying its queue). You'll then have tested your
big server's ability to cope with large queues and sudden influxes of
mail as well as moved the mail off the smaller machines.
Hope this helps.
Richard Letts
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Robert Varga wrote:
That is exactly what I want to override...
I want to do address rewriting for my users the same way it can be done
with the generics table in sendmail. That is, I want to ensure that my
users do not try to send mail in someone else's name.
you're
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Robbie Walker wrote:
Doug,
This is a stumper. The lack of responses means "I don't know what's going
on here. I'm not going to speculate!"
There is (most likely!!!) an obvious solution, but it's not apparent to me.
Exactly what OS are you running? How often does
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
Ok, so we've beaten the dead horse with the fact that MX records can't
be CNAMES... so why does bind allow this? Go figure.
for years bind allowed '_' in domain names. at one version they 'fixed'
this and thousands of zone files around the world had
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Richard Letts wrote:
for years bind allowed '_' in domain names. at one version they 'fixed'
this and thousands of zone files around the world had to be fixed. Who is
to say at some point in the future the server won't implement the
checking.
I guess bind doesn't check
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Doug Lumpkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qmail seems to continue to run (i.e. qmail-smtpd and qmail-send are
both running)
qmail-smtpd should only be running when there's an active incoming
SMTP seesion.
I run qmail-smtpd off supervise+tcpserver, and
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Karl Lellman wrote:
Richard,
Thanks for that info working on the theory that I've never ever modified
qmail source before, can you explain which file I need to change and
recompile and also whether this is an existing line that I'm changing or a
new one that I'm
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Mylo wrote:
That's sounding happy, but how do you limit the number of qmail-remote's that are
gonna get spawned. Aren't you running the risk of thousands, or should I say
millions of them starting at once.
maintain a list of current running children. when one dies start
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Hotdog wrote:
Hi,
I am using qmail 1.03 and sendmail 8.9.1 at the same server. Qmail used for receive
inbound letters and using sendmail -bs send our mailing list.
I had to say sometime sendmail is better than qmail,for example,
while talk to qmail,
rcpt to: [EMAIL
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Joergen Persson wrote:
Hi
Does anyone have experience from Qmail under Mac OS X? It ought to work but
I thought I better ask...
I would look carefully at the filesystem; in particular does MacOS X allow
you to determine the inode number of a file? I'm not familiar with
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote:
Hello,
I am new to qmail. We have been sending messages all weekend long. We are
running qmail on an Ultra 5 with 512 MB RAM. Current state of the
/var/qmail disk:
Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on
/dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7
-
From: Richard Letts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:57 AM
To: Tina Stewart
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: qmail: full disk?
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote:
Hello,
I am new to qmail. We have been sending messages all
53% + 47% fragmentation=100%
there is a mention of this problem in relation to web caches in
the squid faq, http://squid.nlanr.net/Squid/FAQ/FAQ-14.html#ss14.1
""
disk write error: (28) No space left on device
You might get this error even if your disk is not full, and is not out of
inodes.
On Mon, 3 May 1999, Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
Having a problem with getting qmail started after a system upgrade...(from
Solaris 2.5.1 to 2.6). This is what I had in my startup script (which used
to work fine!):
nice -20 env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
| Because it is easier to track delays via Received: headers when they
| all use the same time zone.
I don't mean to flame (I think this list is a little esoteric and
hot-tempered as it is), but this seems like a bogus statement, considering
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
From: Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Notice also that you might be sent a reply that is smaller than 512
: bytes, but, because of information in your cache, the resolver might
: hand you more bytes than that.
This is what I don't
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
That's easy. The maximum for concurrencyremote is 256.
I think this is mainly because the processes communicate by writing a
single byte backwards to qmail-send. does the semantics of readwrite of
multiple-byte values mean that if I write 2 bytes into a
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
Remember that we're talking about sending one message to a large number of
addresses on the same remote host. In general qmail is faster, but I think in
this case any MTA that does multiple rcpt to's will be quicker.
if the effect latency of the
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
A short-term, special purpose fix for "customized spam" applications
would be a high-speed queuer that does the queuing and preprocessing
of qmail-queue and qmail-send. E.g.,
1) stop qmail
2) invoke custom queuer which:
a) puts cutomized
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
Sorry to post is here, but I am getting tons of messages in my logs that
look like this:
What does the .qmail file which is being used for the delivery contain?
then the procmail fans can tell what's up...
Richard
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, John Grant wrote:
So, is anybody using XMIT ? Since it's a standard feature in qpopper I would
hope that someone is doing this...
it may be a standard feature in qpopper, the issue here is that it's not
part of the POP standard, and so most mail clients don't seem to
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Peter C. Norton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
netstat -a |fgrep '*:qmtp'
or the low-level C equivalent.
I'm not concerned with this. I'm concerned with Fred's proposal
relying on the status of the remote smtp and
On 7 Apr 1999, Dirk Vleugels wrote:
Hello,
I deliver mails from a Maildir to a dial customer via
serialmail-0.72. The customer is runninc ccMail (don't know which
version), quit yields: "221 ccMail Link to SMTP closing connection".
The problem seems to be that the DATA submission end
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, R Aldridge wrote:
Guys,
I'm considering building a replicated mail service. If the primary goes
down for any reason (software or hardware), I need to be able to switch
over to the backup service, simply by changing the MX. Minimal mail
should therefore be lost or
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Paul Farber wrote:
BZZT... but joe blow can't delete SYSTEM FILES, or any file the he does
not own. Log on a a LUSER and try rm -rf /etc see what gets deleted. Not
a darn thing. Same for /bin /sbin etc etc etc.
funny, that doesn't work on my windows NT system when I
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Paul Farber wrote:
You SHOULD have to type into a special "admin" account to install/remove a
program. Single user or not. You cannot make it any "righter" by saying
a single user is only hurting himself. It's just a bad policy/secruity
measure to alway log in as
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
From: Richard Letts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Windows already supports user profiles, why not extend that into a super
: user that you must change to to modify the system?
: it does
It does, IF you have set up NT properly. If your system
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Mark E Drummond wrote:
Here we have a serious problem folks. Sendmail had a "fix" out for
Melissa very shortly after it came out, and we are sitting pretty. I
made a big push here to move our org to qmail because qmail seemed to be
way superior. Now I am really ticked by
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Joel Eriksson wrote:
Is it possible to restrict dot-qmail capabilities for some users and
allow it for others. I have not found any info on this in the FAQ /
README / etc.
The thing I'm worried about is the feature of pipe'ing the message to a
command.
If there
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Czeh Istvan wrote:
% nslookup foo1.bar.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:foo1.bar.com
Address: 10.10.10.10
Aliases: foo.bar.com
$ to doughnuts foo1.bar.com has something like:
foo1.bar.comIN
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Francisco Yepes Candel wrote:
3. run "sendmail -q" to force the delivery of messages that are still in
the sendmail queue
if you start sendmail with the -qxx parameter but not -bd then it will sit
there processing the queue every xx hours/minutes etc until the queue is
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Roman V. Isaev wrote:
BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I never saw any good SMTP
authentication schemes -- all of them send the password in clear :(
Also, it's quite possible that users will send their passwords to
wrong servers... this means passwords must be
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Paul Gregg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Robert Adams wrote:
user on the system. Anyone know of a way to get around this? Say, to tell
qmail to drop all mail to something like /mail/u/s/username?
I don't believe qmail can
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter Gradwell wrote:
Second to that, perhaps you could make them primary MX, so that mail is
delivered directly to them if poss, but on fall back, it comes to you,
and then you dleiver it using the above scenario.
in general this is bad idea: the lowest valued MX
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Sam wrote:
What kind of a stupid compiler would let this go by? Different
prototypes, you should get at least a warning.
What prototypes?
Richard
-
#ifndef STRALLOC_H
#define STRALLOC_H
#include "gen_alloc.h"
GEN_ALLOC_typedef(stralloc,char,s,len,a)
extern
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Racer X wrote:
Has anyone else been receiving multiple copies of any messages to the
list? I seem to be getting multiple copies (like 3 or 4) of any message
that's sent to the list as well as to me.
no, I'm not getting that problem, however I'm seeing loads of email
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Daniel Garcia wrote:
hi,
I sent few hundred emails, after few days I got almost all of them back
with the same error below :
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at .
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Dax Kelson wrote:
Has anyone (Dan?) done real-world bandwidth measurements of how qmail
compares bandwidth wise to sendmail/zmailer/exim/postfix?
A common complaint I hear is "qmail would use way more bandwidth, then XXX
MTA".
It would be nice to point them at
40 matches
Mail list logo
