qmail Digest 17 Dec 1999 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 852
Topics (messages 34406 through 34462):
More troubleshooting a new qmail installation
34406 by: Mike Payson
34414 by: Dave Sill
DUL list and smtproutes
34407 by: Subba Rao
34430 by: cmikk.uswest.net
Re: Allow RELAY by MAIL FROM
34408 by: Chris Johnson
34409 by: Greg Owen
34413 by: Mark Maggelet
Giving up on ...
34410 by: olli
34412 by: Charles Cazabon
Mailer daemon mail, how to handle?
34411 by: Greg Moeller
34416 by: Andy Bradford
Q-Cards
34415 by: Dave Kitabjian
Sorry, but new here
34417 by: Eckehard Schulze
34419 by: Dave Sill
Is there an update on the qmail book
34418 by: Albert Hopkins
34423 by: Dave Kitabjian
34454 by: Andy Bradford
34459 by: Eckehard Schulze
Failed a relay test?
34420 by: Dustin Miller
34421 by: Dave Sill
34422 by: Dustin Miller
34424 by: Dave Sill
34425 by: Dustin Miller
34426 by: Dustin Miller
34427 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
Re: Patching qmail
34428 by: Daniel Mattos
Virus scanning
34429 by: Shawn P. Stanley
34457 by: Hans Sandsdalen
Re: .qmail files
34431 by: Jack O'Toole
Problems sending to local virtual domains
34432 by: Oscar Arranz
Re: IMAP and Mysql !
34433 by: David Harris
Upgrading
34434 by: M. Richardson
Re: AMaViS working ... almost
34435 by: Chris L. Mason
Sendmail vs Qmail?
34436 by: Darren Foo
34437 by: Matthew Brown
34439 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
34440 by: Sam
34445 by: abc
34446 by: cmikk.uswest.net
34449 by: Russell Nelson
34451 by: Ram Prasad
34452 by: Russell Nelson
34456 by: Petr Novotny
RELAYCLIENT domains?
34438 by: Elliott Freis
Forward all but one address ?
34441 by: John Grant (Concordant Networks)
Using Qmail as a dedicated SMTP/POP3 server...
34442 by: Roy Sandgren
34443 by: Patrick Berry
Re: Mac conflict?
34444 by: Florian G. Pflug
(no subject)
34447 by: Stephan Weaver
Here are your coupons
34448 by: rureddy.altavista.com
34455 by: Andy Bradford
sendmail to qmail
34450 by: Yamin Prabudy
alert:unable to opendir mess/0
34453 by: Kristina
local address used as spam sender
34458 by: Gil Prudente
34460 by: Petr Novotny
34461 by: reservations.filonline.com
34462 by: Hans Sandsdalen
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I decided to back up a bit & start over using the instructions in
Life with qmail instead of those in the how-to. Everything looks fine,
but I'm still having one problem. Whenever I execute 'qmail start' it
returns with supervise help messages (supervise: usage:...), and 'ps x'
shows the four supervise processes as zombies. Attempting to inject a
mail message has no effect.
Any idea what's up now?
Thanks!
Mike
Mike Payson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ok, I decided to back up a bit & start over using the instructions in
>Life with qmail instead of those in the how-to. Everything looks fine,
>but I'm still having one problem. Whenever I execute 'qmail start' it
>returns with supervise help messages (supervise: usage:...), and 'ps x'
>shows the four supervise processes as zombies. Attempting to inject a
>mail message has no effect.
>
>Any idea what's up now?
Sounds like a version mismatch between the "qmail" script and
daemontools.
LWQ originally worked with daemontools 0.53. The current version works
with daemontools 0.61.
Recheck LWQ and the version of deamontools you have installed, and
make sure they match.
-Dave
I am currently using dial-up connection for Internet and Intranet access.
For Internet mail, I have defined my isp's smtp server in smtproutes file.
For Intranet mail, I would prefer to use another smtp server. Is that possible?
Can smtproutes be different for different user accounts?
Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
=> Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. <=
http://www.smcinnovations.com
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:56:20 -0500 , Subba Rao writes:
> I am currently using dial-up connection for Internet and Intranet access.
> For Internet mail, I have defined my isp's smtp server in smtproutes file.
> For Intranet mail, I would prefer to use another smtp server. Is that possible
?
> Can smtproutes be different for different user accounts?
It can be different for different destination
addresses, that is all.
So, if your intranet mail is typically to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
you can have
:relay.my-isp.net
mycompany.com:relay.mycompany.com
qmail-remote will find the most "specific" (I beleive by number of
dots) match, and use that.
--
Chris Mikkelson | "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | which, when you looked at it the right way, did not
| become still more complicated." -- Poul Anderson
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 12:35:59AM -0800, Mark Maggelet wrote:
> That page also mentions running smtp on a non-standard port
> as en extra security measure, but doesn't smtp have to run
> on port 25 in order to receive incoming mail from other hosts?
> forgive me if this is a dumb question.
You'd run another, non-relaying, SMTP server on port 25 to receive mail from
other hosts. The SMTP server on the secret port would just be for clients to
relay through, not for the normal delivery of your mail.
Chris
> That page also mentions running smtp on a non-standard port
> as en extra security measure, but doesn't smtp have to run
> on port 25 in order to receive incoming mail from other hosts?
> forgive me if this is a dumb question.
You need an SMTP process running on port 25 to accept incoming mail
from other hosts, but there's nothing to keep you from running a second
daemon on whatever port you want.
So you set up your normal (non-relaying) server on port 25, and a
server that will relay given the correct MAIL FROM on port 2500 or whatever
you want. Then tell the users you want to be able to use that relay to use
the SMTP process at port 2500 or whatever when they send mail.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Chris
could you please explain how to set that up in my config?
here's the smtp line in /etc/httpd.conf:
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
and heres the one in /etc/services:
smtp 26/tcp mail
I'n not sure how to have 2 qmails running, and also, how do I get
them to read different rcpthosts files.
thanks,
- Mark
***********************************************
On 12/16/99 at 9:33 AM Chris Johnson wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 12:35:59AM -0800, Mark Maggelet wrote:
>> That page also mentions running smtp on a non-standard port
>> as en extra security measure, but doesn't smtp have to run
>> on port 25 in order to receive incoming mail from other hosts?
>> forgive me if this is a dumb question.
>
>You'd run another, non-relaying, SMTP server on port 25 to receive mail from
>other hosts. The SMTP server on the secret port would just be for clients to
>relay through, not for the normal delivery of your mail.
>
>
>Chris
Seem to be a slightly offtopic.. Sorry , mebbe someone could anyway give
me some little explanations:
I got strange delivery error from exim.. My qmail said:
194.67.23.37 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: exim in free(): warning: chunk is already free.
Giving up on 194.67.23.37.
Mebbe someone already got somth. like this? I misunderstand the following
thing - is it really fatal error? I'm pretty shure that address where I'm
sending mail is present, at list I got mail from real human about our
frand.. well , in short: these messages explaning errors are not
somthing static or not & what about error code? Well , in log I see:
Dec 16 17:27:32 vgsn qmail: 945376052.927936 delivery 1128: failure:
194.67.23.37_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_exim_in_free():
_warning:_chunk_is_already_free./Giving_up_on_194.67.23.37./
well.. if address is valid - where is a bug - at my side (mebbe giving up
on non-permanent error?) or at remote (anything).
Antiofftopic: I have heared that there is NO WAY to say qmail use second
MX if primary exist. Is it true?
Bye.Olli.
//System administrator of "Russia Young" internet group.
Any info around "Russia Young" & Boris Nemtsov:
http://www.rosmol.ru , http://www.nemtsov.ru , http://www.boris.nemtsov.ru
> Seem to be a slightly offtopic.. Sorry , mebbe someone could anyway give
> me some little explanations:
> I got strange delivery error from exim.. My qmail said:
>
> 194.67.23.37 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: exim in free(): warning: chunk is already free.
> Giving up on 194.67.23.37.
This looks like a debugging message from the remote host running exim --
in other words, the remote server hit a bug and spit out a message which
isn't part of the SMTP spec.
Other than informing the mail admin at that site, there's probably not much
you can (or should) do about this.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
How does everyone handle their daemon mail with Qmail?
We get anywhere from 2400 to 20,000 Email in that mailbox per day.
Wading through it can become a little tedious.
Greg
Thus said Greg Moeller on Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:58:02 CST:
> How does everyone handle their daemon mail with Qmail?
> We get anywhere from 2400 to 20,000 Email in that mailbox per day.
> Wading through it can become a little tedious.
You could setup aliases for root and postmaster and maybe a few others.
Then add in a few maildrop rules to filter the stuff.
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
Hey Folks,
When you get some free time, take a look at:
http://www.kitabjian.com/dave/qmailhelp/
I originally prepared these "Q-Cards" for our intranet to help our internal
(and future) staff debug, diagnose, and maintain our qmail-based email
servers when I'm out of town.
Then it occurred to me that this type of end-to-end or "one hurdle at a
time" sequential approach might be helpful to other beginners in the qmail
community at large.
Anyway, I know there are definite holes in my understanding of the way
qmail works, but I have most of the pieces in place. I'd really value you
guys looking it over for accuracy and usefulness and offering any comments.
And by all means, let me know if you find them useful!
Thanks!
Dave K
Hi,
I m new user in linux (SuSE6.3) and qmail.
I have to change our existing mail server to qmail.
How can I start without going in trouble too much?
Are there any tips to start?
thanx
Eckehard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>How can I start without going in trouble too much?
>
>Are there any tips to start?
Start with "Life with qmail":
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/qmail.html
German translation coming soon.
-Dave
Has anyone heard about the release date of the O'Reilly qmail book? I'm
really looking forward to this book as I am having trouble finding good
documentation on the Net.
--
Albert Hopkins
Sr. Systems Specialist
Dynacare, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
O'Reilly doesn't even list it under their Upcoming Books :(
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/new.html
A better question might be, "By the time the qmail book comes out, will it
contain anything that we haven't already figured out the hard way?"
Don't forget to check Life With Qmail:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
...and maybe Q-Cards: http://www.kitabjian.com/dave/qmailhelp/
Dave
:)
On Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:56 AM, Albert Hopkins
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard about the release date of the O'Reilly qmail book? I'm
> really looking forward to this book as I am having trouble finding good
> documentation on the Net.
Thus said Albert Hopkins on Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:55:38 CST:
> Has anyone heard about the release date of the O'Reilly qmail book? I'm
> really looking forward to this book as I am having trouble finding good
> documentation on the Net.
Wow, I haven't heard anything about a qmail book... if there is truly
one in the makings, anyone know who the author might be?
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
>> Has anyone heard about the release date of the O'Reilly qmail book? I'm
>> really looking forward to this book as I am having trouble finding good
>> documentation on the Net.
>Wow, I haven't heard anything about a qmail book... if there is truly
>one in the makings, anyone know who the author might be?
>Andy
Hi,
in "SAGE-AU July 1999" I found the hint, that Jhon Levine and Russel Nelson are the
writers, may be published in Sep. 1999 by O'Reilly...
but not seen yet here...
Eckehard
This is strange. It's the third time I've received a similar message from
someone.
I wasn't aware that, in the default config of qmail, you COULD relay mail.
Can someone tell me what I'm going wrong, or that their test for relaying is
faulty?
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:02 AM
To: administrator@[24.131.161.83]; postmaster@[24.131.161.83];
root@[24.131.161.83]
Subject: 24.131.161.83 has failed a mail relay test...
Road Runner Customer at 24.131.161.83,
On Thu Dec 16 12:01:43 EST 1999, Road Runner Security performed a test of
the mail server running on your machine. If you are receiving this message,
your mail server at 24.131.161.83 has failed one of more of our tests for
third-party relay (illustrated below). Your mail server, therefore, may be
vulnerable to third-party relay, and you should to act now to eliminate this
vulnerability. If you fail to do so, your are at increased risk of having
your server hijacked. Keep in mind that an open mail server which is
hijacked affects not only you, but has the potential to detrimentally affect
all of Road Runner.
An Internet mail server performs third-party relay when it processes a
message from a non-local sender to a non-local recipient. Junk e-mailers
abuse this capability at an alarming rate to greatly increase the amount of
spam or unsolicited e-mail they can deliver.
Please visit the site http://mail-abuse.org/tsi/ar-fix.html to learn how to
secure your mail server. If you have any questions regarding this procedure,
please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will do everything that we can to
assist you.
This test is performed as a proactive security measure for Road Runner
subscribers. If you have any questions about this test, which was performed
by Road Runner Security, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Road Runner Security
------------------------------------------
******* 24.131.161.83 *******
Connecting to 24.131.161.83 ...
<<< 220 wfdevelopment.com ESMTP
>>> HELO hrnva-sec01.rr.com
<<< 250 wfdevelopment.com
>>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest@localhost>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> RSET
<<< 250 flushed
>>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> RSET
<<< 250 flushed
>>> MAIL FROM:<>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> RSET
<<< 250 flushed
>>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest@[24.131.161.83]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> RSET
<<< 250 flushed
>>> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> RSET
<<< 250 flushed
>>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest@[24.131.161.83]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[24.131.161.83]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 go ahead
>>> (message body)
<<< 250 ok 945363799 qp 29925
Aarrgghh!
-Dave
Argh doesn't help much, Dave.
My rcpthosts file only contains localhost, my domain name, and a virtual
domain. Nothing more. qmail does, in fact, prohibit relaying by default,
so I'm concerned about getting messages claiming that my mail server allows
open relaying.
Why are you arghing?
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Failed a relay test?
Aarrgghh!
-Dave
"Dustin Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Argh doesn't help much, Dave.
Sorry.
>My rcpthosts file only contains localhost, my domain name, and a virtual
>domain. Nothing more. qmail does, in fact, prohibit relaying by default,
>so I'm concerned about getting messages claiming that my mail server allows
>open relaying.
>
>Why are you arghing?
Because I'm frustrated. These relaying tests are misleading. qmail
didn't actually relay any messages. Buried in the report they sent you
is the phrase "Your mail server, therefore, may be vulnerable to
third-party relay". The key word is "may".
They should either follow up possible positives on the first test with
an actual relay attempt, or they should change their message to make
it very clear that there may not be any problems with your system.
-Dave
Well, I wonder -- because e-mail was sent "apparently from" blah@localhost,
RCPT to someone at RR.COM.
And it delivered.
What happens if SpamCo decides to send mail from weluvspam@localhost to
everyone else in the free world using my mail server, seems like RR did it.
I DO allow relay from 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1/24, not from anywhere else.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: John White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:19 AM
To: Dustin Miller
Subject: Re: Failed a relay test?
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:16:13AM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote:
> Argh doesn't help much, Dave.
>
> My rcpthosts file only contains localhost, my domain name, and a virtual
> domain. Nothing more. qmail does, in fact, prohibit relaying by default,
> so I'm concerned about getting messages claiming that my mail server
allows
> open relaying.
>
> Why are you arghing?
Because the test is faulty, not because of you.
John
I was wrong.
It did not deliver.
Now I'm going to raise holy hell with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Everyone, spam away.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Dustin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:24 AM
To: John White
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Failed a relay test?
Well, I wonder -- because e-mail was sent "apparently from" blah@localhost,
RCPT to someone at RR.COM.
And it delivered.
What happens if SpamCo decides to send mail from weluvspam@localhost to
everyone else in the free world using my mail server, seems like RR did it.
I DO allow relay from 127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1/24, not from anywhere else.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: John White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:19 AM
To: Dustin Miller
Subject: Re: Failed a relay test?
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:16:13AM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote:
> Argh doesn't help much, Dave.
>
> My rcpthosts file only contains localhost, my domain name, and a virtual
> domain. Nothing more. qmail does, in fact, prohibit relaying by default,
> so I'm concerned about getting messages claiming that my mail server
allows
> open relaying.
>
> Why are you arghing?
Because the test is faulty, not because of you.
John
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 11:10:01AM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote:
> This is strange. It's the third time I've received a similar message from
> someone.
>
> I wasn't aware that, in the default config of qmail, you COULD relay mail.
>
> Can someone tell me what I'm going wrong, or that their test for relaying is
> faulty?
As Dave said: Arrrggggh....
More clearly: their test is faulty :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/womanizer/pretending coder
|
| 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
| C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.'
| Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
Patch is pretty much default on all Unix's but, if you really don't have
it or it is too old, get one at gnu.org. Don't forget to read the man
pages.
Good luck!
Daniel
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Jorge Rocha wrote:
: I'm want to patch my qmail, i've read how-to's telling do it
:using 'patch' in qmail source, but i can't find it. Where i can download
:it?
:
:
:Tks
:
:--
:Jorge Rocha
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:ICQ#: 2017297
:www.pagenet.com.br - Pager 61914
:
----------------------------------
Daniel Mattos Tribeca Internet Initiatives Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tiii.com
-----------------
I've seen lots of mail on this list about patching to get various virus
scanners to work, and the goofy things they do once they do work.
Is there a recommended virus scanner for qmail that's not too difficult to
set up?
"Shawn P. Stanley" wrote:
>
> I've seen lots of mail on this list about patching to get various virus
> scanners to work, and the goofy things they do once they do work.
>
> Is there a recommended virus scanner for qmail that's not too difficult to
> set up?
Been working on this, and got it working.
1 - get amavis from <http://www.amavis.org>
2 - get McAfee from
<http://www.nai.com/asp_set/buy_try/try/products_evals.asp>
3 - read
<http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/10/msg01093.html>
I'm not good at this, but I had to use "patch -l" to patch
scanmails.in...
I've made myself a cron-job which get updates of dat-files to the
virusscanner from
<ftp://ftp.mcafee.com/pub/datfiles/english>.
Thanks to people on the list, espesially Dustin Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and
Christopher Seawood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
/hans
.qmail-unsubscribe should be owned by user alias and should contain one line:
&clifmail
and in the clifmail home directory, there should be a .qmail file with
./Mailbox
as its contents.
and Mailbox should not be readable by anyone but user clifmail (600)
>
Hi.
I have installed qmail with tcpserver and vpopmail.
When I send a message from a local address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) to
an external account, it works fine
but when I send a message to other address in the same server it doesn't
work and puts a message like this on /var/log/syslog
delivery 13: deferral:
Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7.0)
What's the meaning of this?
Thanks in advance.
If you search the archives for posts of a week or two ago from me, you will
find some relevant stuff on this topic.
Basic summary: I have the technology to do this - I can authenticate users
based on any criteria in my patched up UW-IMAP server. However, there needs to
be some more work done to nicely package up my work so that others can easily
use it: creating an interface to checkpassword, writing documentation, creating
a web-site, etc. I kind of said on the list "hey, I can do this, but people
need to want it" and I only heard from a few people that said they want my
code.
Basically, I'm waiting to hear from the "community" that this is a wanted thing
before I spend the time to package it up.
So, if you want a checkpassword (and any other interface people write the C
glue code for) compatible bundled POP3/IMAP server that talks Maildir, send me
an e-mail and let me know you want it.
(I've had a few people lobby me to specifically lay this out and ask the list
for a yes or a no on this project, so that's why I'm writing this e-mail.)
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Seyyed Hamid Reza Hashemi Golpayegani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 5:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IMAP and Mysql !
Hi ,
I have installed qmail and checkpassword with mysql patch support to store
my users in a mysql table . So I want to have an IMAP daemon that can
support Maildir (I mean QMail) and can authenticate via a mysql table like
qmail-mysql patch or can Authenticate via checkpassword utility that have
patched to authenticate via Mysql table .
any suggestion ?
Thank You
Hamid Hashemi
Morva.net Admin
|
Hi,
I'm currently running qmail
0.93 ( I think, but I'm not sure ) and I'm wanting some opinions from qmail
users as to how stable and reliable the upgrading process is as I'm managing a
mail server with about 850 users, so I'm a little cautious about it.
Any and all opinions
appreciated.
Thanks for your time.
Michael.
|
>
> Hmm -- in a .qmail file, an exit code of 99 is supposed to tell it that the
> delivery was OK, but not to process further delivery instructions. Would
> that be useful in this circumstance? I haven't looked into how AMaViS hooks
> into the qmail system, so I don't know myself.
Hi,
Nope it doesn't, but that gave me an idea. I just modified qmail-rspawn to
return "KMessage containing virus dropped" if qmail-remote exits with 99,
and it works great this way.
Btw, I am implementing this under Solaris and I found that many of the
command-line options had to be modified for the AMaViS script to work.
Also, I found a bunch of the archiver sections had the wrong command-line
options, and the "rm $E" part was often missing (the binhex stuff also had
some problems.) I also modified the email warnings to include the header
of the original email so that the sender can better track down the
offending piece of mail.
Also, I found that the little-endian/big-endian check in zipsecure was
mixed up. I simply swapped the values in each check and this fixed it.
Another big pain was that the /etc/magic file on Solaris is missing a whole
bunch of stuff which caused most archive formats to be unrecognized, so I
had to add a bunch to that (and swap bytes for shorts!).
I've made enough changes now that I'm considering re-implementing it in
perl with a bunch of optimizations and better error-detection. If anyone's
interested in my current hacked-up scanmails script, let me know.
Chris
Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm trying to convince
people to switch to qmail, but they're view is: Everyone uses sendmail,
so we should too.
--
Darren Foo
> Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm
> trying to convince people to switch to qmail, but they're
> view is: Everyone uses sendmail, so we should too.
Sendmail's biggest advantage is that pretty much every UNIX admin has at
least a passing familiarity with it. It's better known, at least as far as
the simple stuff goes. It's always going to be harder to find someone with
qmail expertise.
There are a couple of ways that sendmail is easier to configure than qmail.
They're overweighed by all the ways that qmail is easier to configure than
sendmail is, IMHO.
-Matt
--
Matt Brown ---- UNIX Administrator ---- tickets.com
Phone: (714) 327-5571 --- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another thing. If something DOES have a security hole in it, ie. qmail and
sendmail at the same time, i can pretty much guarantee you that since
sendmail is on the larger percentage of machines it will be the first one
that the scr1pt k1ddez target and exploit.
(the modularity of qmail makes it much more secure then a single bloated
program running as root)
Qmail has been proven to be a more robust solution.
IMHO qmail is easier to learn and just makes much more sense.
The qmail list ROCKS :)
What more could you ask for?
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Matthew Brown wrote:
>> Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm
>> trying to convince people to switch to qmail, but they're
>> view is: Everyone uses sendmail, so we should too.
>
>Sendmail's biggest advantage is that pretty much every UNIX admin has at
>least a passing familiarity with it. It's better known, at least as far as
>the simple stuff goes. It's always going to be harder to find someone with
>qmail expertise.
>
>There are a couple of ways that sendmail is easier to configure than qmail.
>They're overweighed by all the ways that qmail is easier to configure than
>sendmail is, IMHO.
>
>-Matt
>
>--
>Matt Brown ---- UNIX Administrator ---- tickets.com
>Phone: (714) 327-5571 --- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
4:45pm up 147 days, 3:04, 4 users, load average: 0.10, 0.20, 0.17
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Darren Foo wrote:
> Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm trying to convince
> people to switch to qmail, but they're view is: Everyone uses sendmail,
> so we should too.
Qmail is not always the best solution for everyone, so you have to
evaluate your individual needs, to see which mailer is a better fit for
you.
Qmail is faster in some (but not all) situations, plus it demands far less
in terms of CPU and I/O resources. On the other hand, Qmail supports very
little beyond basic SMTP. Qmail, without extensive patching, does not
support authenticated SMTP, does not have any kind of spam filtering, and
does not use RFC 1894 delivery status notifications.
--
Sam
At 19:06 16/12/99 -0500, Sam wrote:
>Qmail is not always the best solution for everyone, so you have to
>evaluate your individual needs, to see which mailer is a better fit for
>you.
>
>Qmail is faster in some (but not all) situations, plus it demands far less
>in terms of CPU and I/O resources. On the other hand, Qmail supports very
>little beyond basic SMTP. Qmail, without extensive patching, does not
>support authenticated SMTP, does not have any kind of spam filtering, and
>does not use RFC 1894 delivery status notifications.
HOw about othert MTAs like postfix, exim ?
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:07:00 -0800 , Darren Foo writes:
> Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm trying to convince
> people to switch to qmail, but they're view is: Everyone uses sendmail,
> so we should too.
I would list a few things in sendmail's favor:
1) The ability to rewrite headers "up front" without
requiring double delivery (once to a rewriting
program, then again to the destination).
1a) The ability to forward mail, up front....
2) The ability (even if theoretical) to deliver a
message without fsync()ing it into the queue, unless
absolutely necessary.
To be fair, I think qmail has some nice advantages:
1) Elegance -- it just feels like it was designed
by a mathematician ;-)
2) The queue handling -- one persistent process
incrementally creates the queue in memory, so the
queue is read fully only on restart. This beats
the "run the entire queue every <n> minutes" approach
of sendmail.
--
Chris Mikkelson | Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Darren Foo writes:
> Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm trying to convince
> people to switch to qmail, but they're view is: Everyone uses sendmail,
> so we should too.
According to Dan's surveys, "everyone" is 65% and dropping.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Can any one give the way to setup and use Qmail in easy english,
point-by-point. I am not an expert but would like to use qmail
Ram Prasad writes:
> Can any one give the way to setup and use Qmail in easy english,
> point-by-point. I am not an expert but would like to use qmail
I'm working on a qmail book (although most recently I've been
Mr. World Traveller), but until that gets done, the next best thing is
Dave Sill's Life with Qmail document. There's a link to it from
http://www.qmail.org/top.html#userdoc
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Dec 99, at 20:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would list a few things in sendmail's favor:
>
> 1) The ability to rewrite headers "up front" without
> requiring double delivery (once to a rewriting
> program, then again to the destination).
Nice - but any program with root privileges doing header rewriting is
a recipe for disaster.
It also depends on what you mean by "delivery"; qmail's logic is
much simpler, but internally sendmail will do "almost" the same,
without giving you so many chances to inspect and debug.
> 1a) The ability to forward mail, up front....
Sorry?
> 2) The ability (even if theoretical) to deliver a
> message without fsync()ing it into the queue, unless
> absolutely necessary.
I don't find that a plus... I prefer to stay on the safe side, rather than
(potentially) losing messages for the sake of speed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOFn+HlMwP8g7qbw/EQLr3gCZAe7ykE8JrVrdOUoqsmjMyRYiDggAoJm0
IjL3LrasrXgtNEYi9Znmfktz
=IcLp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Is there any simple way to allow *pacbell.net to allow relay?
thanks!
-----------------------------
Elliott Freis
Manager of Information Services
415.551.1510 ext. 303
************************************************
OpenTable.com, Inc.
The real-time restaurant reservation network
http://www.opentable.com <http://www.opentable.com/>
Where would you like to make online reservations?
Tell us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
************************************************
Well after a successful installation that receives
email for a domain and just sends it on to the real server I have hit a snag.
Current fix: smtproutes contains the following:
domain_to_relay.com:server_to_relay_to
Alas *one* email address at domain_to_relay.com
has to stay local to my server (without getting relayed
on and then back (tried that approach).
Anyone have a good suggestion how to relay all,
but that one special address ?
---
John
Greetings to all of you!
I'm running Qmail today, but I have a few wishes that I'm not able to
fullfill by myself.
What I want/need Qmail to do/perform is:
I want to be able to have several mail-accounts for one or more
domains without needing to create local accounts on the Linux.
Within a domain, mail that are sent to a user that doesn't exist
is supposed to be put into a sort of admin-mailbox. Completely
separate from the other domains. The mailboxes are to be
retrieved using POP3.
I also want to use the "mailserver" for outgoing mail. That is
the users will use the server as SMTP-server when they send mail.
Today I just get that the domain I'm sending to isn't specified
in the rcpthost file. I also want to prevent non-authorized users
from using the mail-server for outgoing mail. Not only this, I
also want to be able (myself) to send mail using the server when
I'm connected to the net from home. There I'm using a quite large
ISP (In Sweden it's one of the largest), but I don't want other
that are using the same ISP to be able to use the server for
sending mail.
I hope it's solveable, otherwise I guess I'm bound to write my
own mail-daemon.
Thanks in advance.
With best regards,
Roy Sandgren
on 12/16/99 4:20 PM, Roy Sandgren had the thought:
> Greetings to all of you!
>
> I'm running Qmail today, but I have a few wishes that I'm not able to
> fullfill by myself.
>
[wishes snipped]
It sounds like all of your needs can be meet with any number of solutions
available from http://www.qmail.org
Pat
--
Freestyle Interactive | http://www.freestyleinteractive.com | 415.778.0610
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:54:59AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Frank,
>
> I don't know of any particular problems with this setup...but first and
> foremost, this does not appear to be a qmail issue. It appears to be a
> Macintosh & DNS problem. ("because no answer was returned by
> DNS")....e.g., the Mac thinks it's a DNS server for the zone which your
> qmail machine is in, or it's "looking for DNS in all the wrong places".
Hi
Is your DNS-Setup straight forward, or somehow complicated?
I noticed an error in the Mac DNS-Resolver library.
If you use the Tips from an certain RFC for reverse dns authority finer
grained than class-c subnets (by using cnames in reverse lookups), than the
Mac is unable to resolve those ip-addr -> name mappings.
greetings, Florian Pflug
Hello!
i really like qmail.
I was wondering how to disable somethings.
if i telnet localhost 25
and i type 'help'
i get a response with a link to the qmail's homepage.
i dont want that, for security reasons.
mabee you guys can help me out?
thnx alot!
stephan weaver
Here are some coupons for you. No need to register your
E-Mail address or anything else. Just print and save.
Merry Christmas !!
http://www.nobull.bigstep.com/generic.html;$sessionid$DYSB0EAAAABJTWGIHUVHBMWYZA4S1PX0?pid=27
If you feel that you have received this in error, please
forward it back to sender and you will be removed from our mailing list. Thank You.
Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:12:33 MST:
>
> Here are some coupons for you. No need to register your
> E-Mail address or anything else. Just print and save.
> Merry Christmas !!
>http://www.nobull.bigstep.com/generic.html;$sessionid$DYSB0EAAAABJTWGIHUVHBMWYZA4S1PX0?pid=27
> If you feel that you have received this in error, please
> forward it back to sender and you will be removed from our mailing list. Thank You.
How did this email creep in? Is the list setup to allow posts from
non-subscribers? I wouldn't know if this chump is or isn't since I
have no moderator status, however, I would think that it is prudent to
have ezmlm setup in this way. I was on the linux-kernel mailing list
for a while until I got fed up with the number of spams that went to
the list because it wasn't configured to block those types of posts...
Andy
--
+====== Andy ====== TiK: garbaglio ======+
| Linux is about freedom of choice |
+== http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/ ===+
How to convert the mbox format to Maildir format
I need to convert my sendmail format to qmail with Maildir
--
----------------
Yamin Prabudy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
StarNET
*****Sorry for sending this twice!****
I am new to qmail and I have just installed and compiled qmail-1.03 on
ultrasparc Solaris 7. When I start qmail I get the following error in
syslog:
Dec 17 16:10:16 host1 qmail: 945414616.234284 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Dec 17 16:10:17 host1 qmail: 945414617.771422 alert: unable to opendir mess/0
, sleeping...
I understand the first line is not an error, but the second line definitely
looks like one.
Does anyone know what is causing this,
Thanks in advance,
Kristina
Hi,
Someone used a non-existent address in our domain
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) to send spam and we're getting
hundreds of bounced messages, which in turn are
double-bounced because the mailbox does not exist.
I have temporarily redirected these bounced messages
to a file by creating an alias, to get rid of the
double-bounces.
What's the best way to deal with this? The spammer
even used msc.net.ph in the greeting, but the receiving
server was able to record the IP as 152.200.184.186.
Received: from msc.net.ph (98C8B8BA.ipt.aol.com [152.200.184.186])
by mailqwest.qwest.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA07910
mail_from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:22:41 -0700 (MST)
Attached at the bottom is the entire message.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Gil Prudente
----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailqwest.qwest.net (mailqwest.qwest.net [199.117.27.2])
by mx4-e.mail.home.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27497;
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:22:48 -0800 (PST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from msc.net.ph (98C8B8BA.ipt.aol.com [152.200.184.186])
by mailqwest.qwest.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA07910
mail_from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:22:41 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Who's next?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:25:54
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Apparently-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Increase your revenues by up to 1500%
by accepting credit cards & electronic checks!
Minimal Credit Requirements ~ Prior Bankruptcy OK! ~ Internet Business New Start
ups ~ Home Office ~ Mail / Phone Order ~ Retail Stores
99% approval! ~ No set-up fees! ~ Low monthly fees ~ Full Warranty!
Transactions processed & credited directly to your bank electronically ~ Custome
r service 24/7!
(Note - This Is Not An Application For Personal Credit Cards)
(Sorry - This Offer Only Applies To U.S. Residents)
Click Below For More Information!
http://216.33.20.4/bc2/rhndfg93/index.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Dec 99, at 17:13, Gil Prudente wrote:
> Someone used a non-existent address in our domain
> ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) to send spam and we're getting
> hundreds of bounced messages, which in turn are
> double-bounced because the mailbox does not exist.
Pity you.
> I have temporarily redirected these bounced messages
> to a file by creating an alias, to get rid of the
> double-bounces.
That looks like a reasonable way to do. The even more reasonable
way would be to find out the recipient of the bounce, and point
_that_ account to bit hell (/dev/null). You don't have to generate the
second bounce, and you're not missing some (more important)
double bounces.
> What's the best way to deal with this? The spammer
> even used msc.net.ph in the greeting, but the receiving
> server was able to record the IP as 152.200.184.186.
Not much to do. It's a feature (agruably weakness) of SMTP
protocol. You can only trace further 152.200.184.186, and
undertake legal action or something, but you need to live
with the bounces.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOFoSuFMwP8g7qbw/EQJU7QCeL1XVNFxF5mYseS8TgrO8IPF7hhsAoMK8
oeY4nPoc/urnWr+pm3xiJdDQ
=VVsq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Petr Novotny wrote:
>
> That looks like a reasonable way to do. The even more reasonable
> way would be to find out the recipient of the bounce, and point
> _that_ account to bit hell (/dev/null). You don't have to generate the
> second bounce, and you're not missing some (more important)
> double bounces.
Tried putting /dev/null in the .qmail but I get this error:
Error_while_writing_message._(#4.3.0)
Any ideas? Haven't had time to search the docs/web though.
> > What's the best way to deal with this? The spammer
> > even used msc.net.ph in the greeting, but the receiving
> > server was able to record the IP as 152.200.184.186.
>
> Not much to do. It's a feature (agruably weakness) of SMTP
> protocol. You can only trace further 152.200.184.186, and
> undertake legal action or something, but you need to live
> with the bounces.
If my trace is right, it is from an AOL dialup. Do you think
they will be cooperative in tracing the actual user?
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
-- Gil Prudente
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Petr Novotny wrote:
> >
> > That looks like a reasonable way to do. The even more reasonable
> > way would be to find out the recipient of the bounce, and point
> > _that_ account to bit hell (/dev/null). You don't have to generate the
> > second bounce, and you're not missing some (more important)
> > double bounces.
>
> Tried putting /dev/null in the .qmail but I get this error:
>
> Error_while_writing_message._(#4.3.0)
>
> Any ideas? Haven't had time to search the docs/web though.
make .qmail an empty file, or a file with only comments.
I think that will do
>
> > > What's the best way to deal with this? The spammer
> > > even used msc.net.ph in the greeting, but the receiving
> > > server was able to record the IP as 152.200.184.186.
> >
> > Not much to do. It's a feature (agruably weakness) of SMTP
> > protocol. You can only trace further 152.200.184.186, and
> > undertake legal action or something, but you need to live
> > with the bounces.
>
> If my trace is right, it is from an AOL dialup. Do you think
> they will be cooperative in tracing the actual user?
>
> Anyway, thanks for the reply.
>
> -- Gil Prudente
--
/hans
