qmail Digest 20 Jan 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 886
Topics (messages 35708 through 35773):
How to implement different outgoing queues according to size
35708 by: Petr Novotny
35711 by: Anand Buddhdev
Qmail-Vpopmail-Qmailadmin -------- Alias problem
35709 by: john
bouncing Unknown users
35710 by: Marcelo Costa
35713 by: Anand Buddhdev
35716 by: Marcelo Costa
35717 by: Marcelo Costa
35720 by: Marek Narkiewicz
pb delivering messages
35712 by: Pierre-Yves DESLANDES
35715 by: Pierre-Yves DESLANDES
35725 by: Dave Sill
Ms Exhange server 5.5
35714 by: Hassan Housrom
35743 by: Oscar Arranz
Re: Databytes?
35718 by: thomas.erskine-dated-04e644c689decc9e.crc.ca
How to get the deferral messages
35719 by: zhjyu.km169.net
Relaying for selective users, keeping address constant
35721 by: James Berry
35724 by: Dave Sill
35727 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
Re: recipientmap?
35722 by: jackmc-qmail.lorentz.com
35723 by: Russell Nelson
store and forward? - firewall - not final destination
35726 by: Jennifer Tippens
35729 by: Petr Novotny
35731 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
35732 by: Greg Owen
35733 by: Len Budney
Re: 822bis
35728 by: Dave Sill
Re: About concurrencyremote control file
35730 by: Dave Sill
recipientmap: a patch
35734 by: jackmc-qmail.lorentz.com
Re: SMTP not responding
35735 by: Patterner
35737 by: Patterner
Re: Maildir format
35736 by: Bruce Guenter
35738 by: Tracy R Reed
35739 by: Greg Owen
35741 by: Bruce Guenter
35742 by: Bruce Guenter
35744 by: Anthony DeBoer
35751 by: Greg Owen
35755 by: Magnus Bodin
35759 by: Bruno Wolff III
35766 by: Bruce Guenter
35768 by: Bruce Guenter
Fastforward question
35740 by: Adil Tahiri
Re: passwd and user quota
35745 by: richard.illuin.org
Choosing a queue according to length - solution
35746 by: Petr Novotny
35749 by: richard.illuin.org
35752 by: cmikk.uswest.net
35754 by: Mark Delany
35770 by: Petr Novotny
35771 by: Petr Novotny
smtp problem
35747 by: Patterner
Re: passwd and user quota [off-topic]
35748 by: Tomek Lipski
storage down.
35750 by: Michael Boyiazis
35753 by: Russell Nelson
35757 by: Michael Boyiazis
35758 by: Russell Nelson
35763 by: Juan E Suris
35765 by: Michael Boyiazis
Re: Crispin v. Bernstein (was Re: Maildir format)
35756 by: craig.jcb-sc.com
Re: Help! Qmail not listening on all IP addresses
35760 by: Brian Baquiran
35761 by: Mark Delany
35762 by: Brian Baquiran
35767 by: Anand Buddhdev
POP and pine/elm
35764 by: jay
Help,-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir?
35769 by: michael
SMTP From MSN.COM ?
35772 by: hsilver.pyx.net
Re: Maildir setup
35773 by: Jose Pedro Pereira
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
it seems that my users (at a site in Italy I administer) would not
obey the rules and would keep on trying to send out
simultaneously large e-mails (about 5MB) - it congests the line,
and the connections time out, and many retries are neccessary.
I therefore consider imposing some kind of policy on outgoing mail.
The idea is to have _two_ outgoing queues: One is without
limitations, with concurrencyremote at 20 or 40, and is used for
small mails (where the latency - roundtrip time - plays a large role
in the speed of delivery). The other is for outgoing files larger than a
certain size (like 512kB or 1MB) and concurrencyremote is set to 1.
I believe it would solve most of the problems I am seeing. (The line
upgrade is being discussed for the last two years, with no avail
whatsoever.)
Now how do I implement this policy? (The users inject the mail by
SMTP, never by qmail-inject.)
What I could think of has to do with three qmail installations: One
accepting SMTP connections, and having a catch-all virtual
domain. The .qmail-catchall-default would then check the size of
the message, and invoke qmail2/forward or qmail3/forward
accordingly. (What should the forward line look like BTW?)
I am not sure if it can't be done more efficiently (with less qmail
installations and/or with more effective switch).
Could you please comment? Thanks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOIWryVMwP8g7qbw/EQLjawCgrMGcRBk9XvjUkTF2BzQtxCvIRxoAmwUU
3vI/VcWJsx0tRpgIlvxgBCyG
=u1Om
-----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]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:19:22PM -0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> Now how do I implement this policy? (The users inject the mail by
> SMTP, never by qmail-inject.)
>
> What I could think of has to do with three qmail installations: One
> accepting SMTP connections, and having a catch-all virtual
> domain. The .qmail-catchall-default would then check the size of
> the message, and invoke qmail2/forward or qmail3/forward
> accordingly. (What should the forward line look like BTW?)
I can think of another way: Have 2 qmail installations, one for small
mails and the other for large mails. However, make the decision to
inject the message into one of the 2 queues at the SMTP level, by making
qmail-smtpd invoke one of the 2 qmail-queues. There's a patch somewhere
where you can make qmail-smtpd invoke a program other than qmail-queue,
which can do some checks, and _then_ invoke a qmail-queue of your
choice. Or you could patch your existing qmail-smtpd.c to invoke
different qmail-queues based on size.
--
See complete headers for more info
I am using Qmail with Vpopmail & Qmail admin (Maildir) format. I recently
tried using the alias for a virtual domain. I am using a single account in
the virtual domain and multiple aliases under this account. When I send a
mail it goes and sits in the alias maildir but unfortunately I am unable to
retrieve the mails.
When I check for mails it says invalid password. I am not sure what would be
the password to be used as I am not setting any password in the alias. I
just create the differnet alias for the same popaccount.
Anyone who knows kindly let me know how to go about it. I am infact using %
symbol also. It is working fine for individual accounts in the virtual
domain but for alias I am unable to retrieve the mails.
Regards
John Francis
|
hi folks,
how can i bounce back the unknown
users?
i dont want the postmaster to receive messages
for unknown users
thanks
Marcelo
|
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:50:59AM -0200, Marcelo Costa wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> how can i bounce back the unknown users?
qmail already bounces mail for users that it cannot find on a system.
> i dont want the postmaster to receive messages for unknown users
You are probably referring to double bounces. Try:
assuming you don't have an account called 'blackhole' on your system:
echo blackhole > /var/qmail/control/doublebounceto
echo '#' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-blackhole
Then stop and restart qmail-send.
--
See complete headers for more info
sorry, i will explain better.
i´m using qmail + vpopmail + qmailadmin.
so, every domain has it own directory and every domains has an user
postmaster that receive
any "user unknown" email.
i dont want it. i want that this email bounce back .
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: Marcelo Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Data: Quarta-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2000 10:54
Assunto: Re: bouncing Unknown users
>On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:50:59AM -0200, Marcelo Costa wrote:
>
>> hi folks,
>>
>> how can i bounce back the unknown users?
>
>qmail already bounces mail for users that it cannot find on a system.
>
>> i dont want the postmaster to receive messages for unknown users
>
>You are probably referring to double bounces. Try:
>
>assuming you don't have an account called 'blackhole' on your system:
>
>echo blackhole > /var/qmail/control/doublebounceto
>echo '#' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-blackhole
>
>Then stop and restart qmail-send.
>
>--
>See complete headers for more info
where can i find a good man page or manual for the vpopmail package?
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Delanet Administration <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: Marcelo Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Data: Quarta-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2000 12:46
Assunto: Re: bouncing Unknown users
>Which version of vpopmail? any of the recent versions allow you to set
>this feature as follows:
>
>| /export/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox
>
>Instead of
>
>| /export/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail ''
>/export/vpopmail/domains/delanet.com/Postmaster
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Stephen Comoletti
>Systems Administrator
>Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
>ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
>
>
>
>
>
>Marcelo Costa wrote:
>
>> sorry, i will explain better.
>>
>> i´m using qmail + vpopmail + qmailadmin.
>>
>> so, every domain has it own directory and every domains has an user
>> postmaster that receive
>> any "user unknown" email.
>>
>> i dont want it. i want that this email bounce back .
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Para: Marcelo Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Data: Quarta-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2000 10:54
>> Assunto: Re: bouncing Unknown users
>>
>> >On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:50:59AM -0200, Marcelo Costa wrote:
>> >
>> >> hi folks,
>> >>
>> >> how can i bounce back the unknown users?
>> >
>> >qmail already bounces mail for users that it cannot find on a system.
>> >
>> >> i dont want the postmaster to receive messages for unknown users
>> >
>> >You are probably referring to double bounces. Try:
>> >
>> >assuming you don't have an account called 'blackhole' on your system:
>> >
>> >echo blackhole > /var/qmail/control/doublebounceto
>> >echo '#' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-blackhole
>> >
>> >Then stop and restart qmail-send.
>> >
>> >--
>> >See complete headers for more info
>
>
>
The faq on www.inter7.com/vpopmail has an explanation of what you want to do. Also the
docs there
keep expanding so are always worth checking back to.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:06:10 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>where can i find a good man page or manual for the vpopmail package?
>
>-----Mensagem original-----
>De: Delanet Administration <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Para: Marcelo Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Data: Quarta-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2000 12:46
>Assunto: Re: bouncing Unknown users
>
>
>>Which version of vpopmail? any of the recent versions allow you to set
>>this feature as follows:
>>
>>| /export/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox
>>
>>Instead of
>>
>>| /export/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail ''
>>/export/vpopmail/domains/delanet.com/Postmaster
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--
>>Stephen Comoletti
>>Systems Administrator
>>Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
>>ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Marcelo Costa wrote:
>>
>>> sorry, i will explain better.
>>>
>>> i´m using qmail + vpopmail + qmailadmin.
>>>
>>> so, every domain has it own directory and every domains has an user
>>> postmaster that receive
>>> any "user unknown" email.
>>>
>>> i dont want it. i want that this email bounce back .
>>>
>>> -----Mensagem original-----
>>> De: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Para: Marcelo Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Cc: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Data: Quarta-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2000 10:54
>>> Assunto: Re: bouncing Unknown users
>>>
>>> >On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 09:50:59AM -0200, Marcelo Costa wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> hi folks,
>>> >>
>>> >> how can i bounce back the unknown users?
>>> >
>>> >qmail already bounces mail for users that it cannot find on a system.
>>> >
>>> >> i dont want the postmaster to receive messages for unknown users
>>> >
>>> >You are probably referring to double bounces. Try:
>>> >
>>> >assuming you don't have an account called 'blackhole' on your system:
>>> >
>>> >echo blackhole > /var/qmail/control/doublebounceto
>>> >echo '#' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-blackhole
>>> >
>>> >Then stop and restart qmail-send.
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >See complete headers for more info
>>
>>
>>
--
Marek Narkiewicz, Systems Director WelshDragon ltd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/19/2000 at 15:01:47
|
I want to use Maildir format,
what have i to configure ???
deliveries were made in my /var/spool/mail/
directory and i've created a Maildir in my home directory.
i want no links in /var/spool/mail but i want
automatic deliveries in ~/Maildir.
How to do this ??
thanks
|
|
I don't know but is there anythings to put in
/var/qmail/control/aliasempty
regards
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:54
PM
Subject: pb delivering messages
I want to use Maildir format,
what have i to configure ???
deliveries were made in my /var/spool/mail/
directory and i've created a Maildir in my home directory.
i want no links in /var/spool/mail but i want
automatic deliveries in ~/Maildir.
How to do this ??
thanks
|
"Pierre-Yves DESLANDES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know but is there anythings to put in /var/qmail/control/aliasempty
That's not a standard qmail control file, though something like that
ought to be. It would make answering these questions much
easier. Instead, I can only direct you to locate the qmail-start
invocation in your startup procedures, wherever they may be, and
replace "./Mailbox" with "./Maildir/" (note the trailing slash).
-Dave
Hi Sir:
I have my local mail server using Ms Exchange Server, and I have an internet account
in ISP.
So I would like to retrieve my emails from my account to my local server using Dial up
connection.
I will be thankful for your help , if you please send the solution by details.
Thanks for your helping hands
Regards
Hassan Housrom.
Hassan Housrom wrote:
>
> Hi Sir:
>
> I have my local mail server using Ms Exchange Server, and I have an internet
>account in ISP.
> So I would like to retrieve my emails from my account to my local server using Dial
>up connection.
> I will be thankful for your help , if you please send the solution by details.
>
> Thanks for your helping hands
>
> Regards
>
> Hassan Housrom.
The "theory" is that you configure the MS Exchange Internet Mail Service
to Retrieve mail by sending ETRN signal with your domain to your server
mail host.
Your server must support ETRN. In qmail it must have installed the etrn
patch and a file called /var/qmail/control/etrn with a line like this
yourdomain.com X.X.X.X/n X.X.X.X/n
Where the X.X.X.X/n are the IP address or interval where your ISP will
accept ETRN signals from (for yourdomain.com).
Could someone verify that it works? I'm sniffing sessions with this
configuration and I don't see etrn signals at all.
Oscar.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Tonino Greco wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is the databytes file that sits in the /var/qmail/control directory a
> file that has only the size of e-mail that can be sent through the smtp
> server??
For all the files under /var/qmail/control, try "man qmail-control".
It'll tell you which program reads each control file and the default
value. The man-page for that program will tell you the meaning, if it's
not obvious.
> Many thanks -
>
> --Tonino
>
--
"Life is much too important to be taken seriously."
Thomas Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (613) 998-2836
Hi,all:
I am a beginner of qmail. I want to know how to generate the deferral messags as
follows:
Jan 19 19:00:58 **** qmail: 948279658.032706 delivery 14154: deferral: Connect
ed_to_193.79.81.224_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_<***@***>..._Sender_domain_must_resolve/
Thank you for your reply!
zhjyu
Thank you for using the km169.net
I'm trying to get qmail to relay selective users to a different mail
machine. Problem is, I can't just forward the messages as I don't want the
address re-written.
So for example, I have a mailbox "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" on
"salsa.adastra.co.uk". qmail on "jumble.adastra.co.uk" is the main MX for
adastra.co.uk. I also have another email address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" which
is hosted on jumble.
So, for messages to "james" I need to forward the message on to salsa, but
the address given to the SMTP server on salsa needs to be
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as before.
Is there any way that I can do this with qmail? I've been pulling my hair
out trying to find a way...
Best wishes
James
[ Donate food for free, just by clicking: www.thehungersite.com ]
--
Adastra Software Ltd, Edmonton House, Park Farm Close, Folkestone, Kent
Tel: 01303 222700 Fax: 01303 222701 24-hr support: 0701 0702 016
Call handling for GP Co-ops & Deputising services www.adastra.co.uk
"James Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, for messages to "james" I need to forward the message on to salsa, but
>the address given to the SMTP server on salsa needs to be
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as before.
Why?
-Dave
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:40:30AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> "James Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >So, for messages to "james" I need to forward the message on to salsa, but
> >the address given to the SMTP server on salsa needs to be
> >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as before.
>
> Why?
And this, my dear James, is the essence of the learning curve. By just stating 'Why?',
Dave has drawn your attention from the answer to your question to the question itself,
because your question is based on false preassumptions.
Just had to say that :)
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/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++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Big Brother tells me that Anand Buddhdev said:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:11:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Now, mail stays local. Since I no longer have recipientmap, I
> > wonder what the solution is. One solution is to put qmail.org into
> > mail.chicago.qmail.org's virtualdomains file. Then I can create
> > aliases for all of the local users. The problem is that I must also
> > create aliases for EVERY qmail.org user, so that anyone not on the
> > local machine has their mail sent to the main server. This would be
> > a pain to administer, especially when there are dozens of local offices.
>
> recipientmap was a feature of qmail 1.01, and was withdrawn in qmail
> 1.02 and above. The functionality of recipientmap is now incorporated
> into virtualdomains. Read the qmail-send man page more carefully, and
> you'll find your solution. Basically you're on the right track, but
> you've missed something.
Not exactly. If you put something like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:example
into virtualdomains, it will convert the address to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and treat it as local. I would then have to create an alias file for each
user. This is considerably more complicated than just putting a line into
a recipientmap file.
The trick is that the application I need this for is a company with
dozens of offices all over the country. I want to have a central mail
server, and then a mail server in each office. By using recipientmap,
I can create a single file on the main server:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, all mail from the outside world coming in for qmail.org gets
resent to the appropriate office's mail server. By maintaining this
one master list on the main server, updates are easy: Whenever a user
is added, removed, or even changes offices, all that is necessary is
that this recipientmap file gets copied to all mail servers. With an
exact copy of this file in chicago, for example, if charles sends email
to cheryl, it stays local. If charles sends email to allan, it gets
sent directly to the atlanta server, without having to go through the
main server.
This is considerably more complicated if I have to use virtualdomains
with aliases. I can create a file recipientmap as above, and then write
a script that converts its data to a virtualdomains file and a bunch of
aliases. However, this script has to account for removed users (that are
no longer in the file) by removing old entries and .qmail files.
Is there a patch anywhere where I can restore the recipientmap file?
It should only be less than a dozen lines, I would think, so perhaps I
could write one...
- --
Jack McKinney
The Lorentz Group http://www.lorentz.com
F4 A0 65 67 58 77 AF 9B FC B3 C5 6B 55 36 94 A6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOIXUI0Zx0BGJTwrZAQEV2gQAhllIr5syAVea1L2JV4StRvGOFxPFGNWN
1PhProNjZl5/ubsnIe9rs+E2bhSNF1bLdFQ1Hms/eHQquOssngss8jtVxjkZcyS0
0KX55XJR4VhaFsFAVXWc3V1AYkUolB5RKpVxarOUmC+iGYyGajowcoPpxvnMKK8p
AXP/UlN3MsE=
=z6HG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
/usr/bin/perl -e 'chdir("/var/qmail/alias")or
die;chmod(03755,".");opendir(D,".");while($_=readdir(D)){next
unless/^\.qmail/;unlink($_);}closedir(D);while(<>){chomp;next unless/ >
(.*)\@qmail\.org:(.*)/;open(M,">.qmail-$1")or die;print M"&$2\n";close
M;};chmod(02755,".");#untested'<<EOF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Big Brother tells me that Anand Buddhdev said:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 04:11:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Now, mail stays local. Since I no longer have recipientmap, I
> > > wonder what the solution is. One solution is to put qmail.org into
> > > mail.chicago.qmail.org's virtualdomains file. Then I can create
> > > aliases for all of the local users. The problem is that I must also
> > > create aliases for EVERY qmail.org user, so that anyone not on the
> > > local machine has their mail sent to the main server. This would be
> > > a pain to administer, especially when there are dozens of local offices.
> >
> > recipientmap was a feature of qmail 1.01, and was withdrawn in qmail
> > 1.02 and above. The functionality of recipientmap is now incorporated
> > into virtualdomains. Read the qmail-send man page more carefully, and
> > you'll find your solution. Basically you're on the right track, but
> > you've missed something.
>
> Not exactly. If you put something like:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:example
>
> into virtualdomains, it will convert the address to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and treat it as local. I would then have to create an alias file for each
> user. This is considerably more complicated than just putting a line into
> a recipientmap file.
> The trick is that the application I need this for is a company with
> dozens of offices all over the country. I want to have a central mail
> server, and then a mail server in each office. By using recipientmap,
> I can create a single file on the main server:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Now, all mail from the outside world coming in for qmail.org gets
> resent to the appropriate office's mail server. By maintaining this
> one master list on the main server, updates are easy: Whenever a user
> is added, removed, or even changes offices, all that is necessary is
> that this recipientmap file gets copied to all mail servers. With an
> exact copy of this file in chicago, for example, if charles sends email
> to cheryl, it stays local. If charles sends email to allan, it gets
> sent directly to the atlanta server, without having to go through the
> main server.
> This is considerably more complicated if I have to use virtualdomains
> with aliases. I can create a file recipientmap as above, and then write
> a script that converts its data to a virtualdomains file and a bunch of
> aliases. However, this script has to account for removed users (that are
> no longer in the file) by removing old entries and .qmail files.
>
> Is there a patch anywhere where I can restore the recipientmap file?
> It should only be less than a dozen lines, I would think, so perhaps I
> could write one...
>
> - --
> Jack McKinney
> The Lorentz Group http://www.lorentz.com
> F4 A0 65 67 58 77 AF 9B FC B3 C5 6B 55 36 94 A6
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBOIXUI0Zx0BGJTwrZAQEV2gQAhllIr5syAVea1L2JV4StRvGOFxPFGNWN
> 1PhProNjZl5/ubsnIe9rs+E2bhSNF1bLdFQ1Hms/eHQquOssngss8jtVxjkZcyS0
> 0KX55XJR4VhaFsFAVXWc3V1AYkUolB5RKpVxarOUmC+iGYyGajowcoPpxvnMKK8p
> AXP/UlN3MsE=
> =z6HG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
EOF
Next problem.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Hello,
I need ideas on what to do in my situation:
Our company's web server is on the other side of the country. We get
mail at our domain here because I have the zone file set up that way.
So mail comes to our firewall, no problem. What we would like to do is
have all mail forwarded through the firewall to an internal machine. I
understand that I could do this with .forward or fastforward, but I
thought that if I did that and the internal mail server went down for
any weird reason that the mail would bounce. What I would like is for
the mail to spool up on the firewall if the internal server is down. I
thought about fetchmail, but I didn't really want everyone to have to
maintain a .fetchmailrc and launch fetchmail -- and I have no idea what
everyone's passwords are either. The user names on both the firewall
and the internal machine are the same in every case.
What is the best way to handle this? We have a lot of users.
Thanks!
Jennifer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Jan 00, at 9:37, Jennifer Tippens wrote:
> Hello,
> I need ideas on what to do in my situation:
> Our company's web server is on the other side of the country. We get
> mail at our domain here because I have the zone file set up that way.
> So mail comes to our firewall, no problem. What we would like to do
> is have all mail forwarded through the firewall to an internal
> machine. I understand that I could do this with .forward or
> fastforward, but I thought that if I did that and the internal mail
> server went down for any weird reason that the mail would bounce.
> What I would like is for the mail to spool up on the firewall if the
> internal server is down. I thought about fetchmail, but I didn't
> really want everyone to have to maintain a .fetchmailrc and launch
> fetchmail -- and I have no idea what everyone's passwords are either.
> The user names on both the firewall and the internal machine are the
> same in every case. What is the best way to handle this? We have a
> lot of users.
Don't deliver the mail at the firewall host - route it to the internal
host by the means of smtproutes. Don't worry about outages of
internal servers unless they are longer than a week. qmail will
accept the mail for the domain, keep it in queue, and forward to the
internal server when it's online.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOIXsNlMwP8g7qbw/EQJ5LwCfY8nrdZCLbhcEM9nJPD/iXv5nojwAn0JH
bU6gRrbityhGgx7cAqxJF4wV
=B4F+
-----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]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 04:54:15PM -0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 19 Jan 00, at 9:37, Jennifer Tippens wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Don't deliver the mail at the firewall host - route it to the internal
> host by the means of smtproutes. Don't worry about outages of
> internal servers unless they are longer than a week. qmail will
> accept the mail for the domain, keep it in queue, and forward to the
> internal server when it's online.
Elaborated:
- put your domainname in control/rcpthosts on the firewalling MX
- set your primary MX to be the firewalling box
- put domainname:internalhost in control/smtproutes
- make sure your domainname isn't in control/locals or control/virtualdomains on the
firewalling host.
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/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++
> What we would like to do is have all mail forwarded through the
> firewall to an internal machine.... What I would like is for the
> mail to spool up on the firewall if the internal server is down.
Essentially, you want to set up a mail relay. Very simple.
Let's assume your domain is "example.com," your internal mail host
is "mail.example.com," and your external mail relay is "relay.example.com."
Your MX records should point to "relay.example.com," and you should have the
following qmail control files on "relay":
rcpthosts containing "example.com" (see 'man qmail-smtpd')
smtproutes containing "example.com:mail.example.com" (see 'man
qmail-remote')
You should have the following qmail control files on "mail":
rcpthosts containing "example.com"
locals containng "example.com" (see 'man qmail-send')
"relay" will pay attention to "smtproutes" and forward the mail, even though
it is the highest MX. "mail" will pay attention to "locals" and accept the
mail, despite not being an MX. If "mail" is down, "relay" will keep the
mail in the queue for "queuelifetime" seconds (see 'man qmail-send') before
bouncing it. Of course, you can adjust "queuelifetime" if you need to
during an outage.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jennifer Tippens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So mail comes to our firewall, no problem.
Big problem, if you were running sendmail. You don't want anyone
owning your firewall!
A better idea, if you have the resources, is to create a DMZ, put your
mail server in it (running qmail), and pass packets for firewall:25
through to mailserver:25 with your filtering/forwarding rules.
Since your outside firewall should consider the DMZ untrusted, losing
your mail server to crackers doesn't directly endanger your entire
network.
> What we would like to do is have all mail forwarded through the firewall
> to an internal machine. I understand that I could do this with .forward
> or fastforward...
A better way is my suggestion above: don't forward messages; forward
at the connection level.
> but I thought that if I did that and the internal mail server went
> down for any weird reason that the mail would bounce.
Only if it goes down and stays down for several days. MTA's know about
temporary failure, and they try again.
> What I would like is for the mail to spool up on the firewall if the
> internal server is down.
It already spools up on the MTA machines; why bring the resource cost
upon yourself? Hopefully, your internal mail server is approximately
as reliable as your firewall, of course. It's not in a public cluster,
being used to play freecell, right?
> What is the best way to handle this? We have a lot of users.
Best or not, my suggestion dramatically saves resources. It likely
enhances security, as well. Your firewall shouldn't even have normal
users (except one for you). Qmail is invulnerable, but moving your
mail queue inside reduces exposure and avoids duplication of queues,
and the need for a big disk on your firewall box.
HTH,
Len.
--
Are they aware that the Internet doesn't _have_ a reliable receipt
mechanism? Netscape is advertising a feature that it can't deliver.
-- Dan Bernstein
"Alex Shipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anyone have a URL to a copy of 822bis mentioned in
>qmail-smtpd and DJB's page:
>http://cr.yp.to/docs/smtplf.html
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-07.txt
And 821bis:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-10.txt
Both seem to be dead in the water.
-Dave
±ióI·Ô <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to provide qmail's SMTP service to our user for outgoing
>mail.Our SMTP server's hardware:CPU PII450
>RAM 256M,OS:FreeBSD 3.4¡CI would like to have maxmius throughput performance
>and stabile system.How can i set the control file-concurrencyremote and
>concurrencylocal.
You mean how high can you set them?
The old saw about how hard to tighten a nut applies here: tighten it
until it strips, then back off half a turn.
I.e., raise the concurrency{local|remote} until they're too high, then
lower them a comfortable percentage.
-Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have rewritten recipientmap into qmail 1.03. Here is the diff for
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOIXlwEZx0BGJTwrZAQF4UAP7Bwlvz+U5HuWL7lgYvT5AwGb6WFj4sfhC
CZVXfsqlV231/bN7zOgSCRdCC/ismocAyyDrYVwOu0GV8VysD/C5NrOV9xU9Ph3J
1CU5USDQS53jhsJd1PJVU24DyEmAe+08P/ZRuxs1mnwR/aLIL2ePeGssTIdd6eIJ
h/JPbd5EpFA=
=nErE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
qmail-send.c:
52a53,54
> stralloc rmap = {0};
> struct constmap maprmap;
139a142,146
> if(x = constmap(&maprmap,addr.s,addr.len))
> {
> if(*x)
> if(!stralloc_copys(&addr,x)) return 0;
> }
149,150c156,158
< for (i = 0;i <= addr.len;++i)
< if (!i || (i == at + 1) || (i == addr.len) || ((i > at) && (addr.s[i] == '.')))
---
> for(i = 0;i <= addr.len;++i)
> if(!i || (i == at + 1) || (i == addr.len) ||
> ((i > at) && (addr.s[i] == '.')))
1469a1478,1483
> switch(control_readfile(&rmap,"control/recipientmap",0))
> {
> case -1: return 0;
> case 0: if (!constmap_init(&maprmap,"",0,1)) return 0; break;
> case 1: if (!constmap_init(&maprmap,rmap.s,rmap.len,1)) return 0; break;
> }
1473a1488
> stralloc newrmap = {0};
1477c1492
< int r;
---
> int r,r2;
1484a1500,1503
> r = control_readfile(&newrmap,"control/recipientmap",0);
> if (r == -1)
> { log1("alert: unable to reread control/recipientmap\n"); return; }
>
1486a1506
> constmap_free(&maprmap);
1491c1511
< if (r)
---
> if(r)
1497a1518,1525
>
> if(r2)
> {
> while (!stralloc_copy(&rmap,&newrmap)) nomem();
> while (!constmap_init(&maprmap,rmap.s,rmap.len,1)) nomem();
> }
> else
> while (!constmap_init(&maprmap,"",0,1)) nomem();
--
Jack McKinney
The Lorentz Group http://www.lorentz.com
F4 A0 65 67 58 77 AF 9B FC B3 C5 6B 55 36 94 A6
--- Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:19 -0800 (PST)
> From: Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: SMTP not responding
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I am running qmail 1.03 on Mandrake 6.0 with tcpserver 0.84. I am trying to
> allow my Windoze clients to send mail through the server. Prior to applying
> the fix in FAQ 5.4 we could send and receive local mail and receive remote
> mail, from my client on the server(netscape) I was able to also send remote
> mail. After applying FAQ 5.4 we can only receive remote mail (and presumably
> local mail as well, but since no one can send local mail I have not been able
> to test that :). Also, I am now unable to send from the server. The problem
> *seems* to be related to the tcprules which I had set to:
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 216.71.32.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>
> in /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd, but when I set them back to the defaults
> which
> were:
>
> 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 216.71.32.74:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" # this is the IP of the server
> however, this also does not work. I have also noticed that when I try to
> telnet to port 25 either on 216.71.32.74 *or* 127.0.0.1 I immediately get a
> Connection closed by foreign host. Prior I could telnet to both of these IPs
> on port 25 and access the SMTP server. Any thoughts?
>
> chris
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
As a further update, I have just tested it and it seems that we *cannot*
receive remote mail...which makes sense considering that nothing can connect
SMTP.
chris
--- Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:42:19 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: SMTP not responding
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I am running qmail 1.03 on Mandrake 6.0 with tcpserver 0.84. I am trying
> to
> > allow my Windoze clients to send mail through the server. Prior to
> applying
> > the fix in FAQ 5.4 we could send and receive local mail and receive remote
> > mail, from my client on the server(netscape) I was able to also send remote
> > mail. After applying FAQ 5.4 we can only receive remote mail (and
> presumably
> > local mail as well, but since no one can send local mail I have not been
> able
> > to test that :). Also, I am now unable to send from the server. The
> problem
> > *seems* to be related to the tcprules which I had set to:
> > 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > 216.71.32.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> >
> > in /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd, but when I set them back to the defaults
> > which
> > were:
> >
> > 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > 216.71.32.74:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" # this is the IP of the server
> > however, this also does not work. I have also noticed that when I try to
> > telnet to port 25 either on 216.71.32.74 *or* 127.0.0.1 I immediately get a
> > Connection closed by foreign host. Prior I could telnet to both of these
> IPs
> > on port 25 and access the SMTP server. Any thoughts?
> >
> > chris
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > http://im.yahoo.com
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 12:25:09PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> 1) Integrate support for some sort of calendaring. I've run both IMAP and
> Exchange based environments, and for all its faults, the integrated
> calendaring that Exchange does is extremely useful. None of the web-based
> calendaring systems I've seen compare.
As much as I would like scheduling, this is an "mailbox" program, which
handles email. I believe that proper support for scheduling would add
too much to the protocol, given that this is supposed to be "simple".
> 3) Integrate configuration info onto the server, like ACAP or IMSP tries to
> do. All you should need to tell your client is you username, password, and
> server; it'll go do the rest to the best of its abilities.
Do you have an URL for a specification of ACAP or IMSP? I've never
heard of them, but what you've described is a good idea.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 10:35:09AM -0600, Tim Tsai wrote:
> What do you guys do for backup's? Do you put two NIC cards in each
> server and maintain a separate network for that?
We actually use a couple Storagetek 9710 tape libraries. 10 DLT 7000 drives
and something like 800 slots for tapes. We direct attach a couple drives to
each big machine that needs to be backed up. Veritas Netbackup coordinates the
actions of the drives and the robot and actually performs the backup. Smaller
machines we do back up over the network although usually on the same NIC and
network we use for regular operations. This may be overkill for your situation
depending on how much data you have to back up. If an autochanging tape
library is out of your league direct attached DLT is still the way to go.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings."
-Heinrich Heine
Warning: opinions, little to do with qmail or maildir.
Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 12:25:09PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> > 1) Integrate support for some sort of calendaring. I've
> > run both IMAP and Exchange based environments, and for all
> > its faults, the integrated calendaring that Exchange does
> > is extremely useful. None of the web-based calendaring
> > systems I've seen compare.
>
> As much as I would like scheduling, this is an "mailbox"
> program, which handles email. I believe that proper support
> for scheduling would add too much to the protocol, given that
> this is supposed to be "simple".
True. I was attacking the question not from the "what simple things
can we add" POV, but the "if you were designing a replacement, what needs
would you try to fulfill?"
A good calendaring system requires that users receive requests for
meetings and can answer them, and have trouble screwing them up (i.e.
putting the metainfo in the subject line is easy to screw up). Email is the
ideal medium for this communication, because it meshes well with our
existing work patterns. However, as I see it, there are three types of
calendar systems:
1) Those that integrate so closely with email that the user can't screw it
up
2) Those that can't integrate closely enough with email, and users screw it
up
3) Those that don't integrate with email, and are hard to use.
I don't expect there is much sympathy for my sort of "big system"
thinking on this list. But there are cases where throwing more into the pot
results in a win. IMAP and SMTP are an example - IMAP is a mailbox access
protocol only. It does not support sending mail. How much of the traffic
on this list deals with allowing mail sending without relaying? One could
conceivably have looked at SMTP when writing the IMAP spec and said, "Gee,
the lack of authentication in SMTP is a real pain in the ass. Let's add a
POST command that allows insertion of mail from an authenticated IMAP user,
then we don't have to worry about relaying issues in SMTP." Reinventing the
wheel? Maybe. But sometimes you should consider how well the wheel works
on today's vehicles and roads.
> > 3) Integrate configuration info onto the server, like ACAP
> > or IMSP tries to do. All you should need to tell your client
> > is you username, password, and server; it'll go do the rest
> > to the best of its abilities.
>
> Do you have an URL for a specification of ACAP or IMSP? I've never
> heard of them, but what you've described is a good idea.
A good page for ACAP is http://asg.web.cmu.edu/acap/. ACAP is
derived from IMSP; there's an RFC for the latter at
http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/rfc/imsp.html.
I'm not sure how far ACAP is moving forward. Presumably that'll
depend on whether or not people start trying to add this sort of
functionality into directory services as they start blooming.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 01:22:11PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> Warning: opinions, little to do with qmail or maildir.
Indeed. I should start up a list just to discuss this.
> > As much as I would like scheduling, this is an "mailbox"
> > program, which handles email. I believe that proper support
> > for scheduling would add too much to the protocol, given that
> > this is supposed to be "simple".
>
> True. I was attacking the question not from the "what simple things
> can we add" POV, but the "if you were designing a replacement, what needs
> would you try to fulfill?"
That is also my thinking, but my key phrase is "desigining a *simple*
replacement".
> A good calendaring system requires that users receive requests for
> meetings and can answer them, and have trouble screwing them up (i.e.
> putting the metainfo in the subject line is easy to screw up). Email is the
> ideal medium for this communication, because it meshes well with our
> existing work patterns.
OK, then, how do you see it integrating with email?
> A good page for ACAP is http://asg.web.cmu.edu/acap/. ACAP is
> derived from IMSP; there's an RFC for the latter at
> http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/rfc/imsp.html.
So, then, if there is a defined spec for ACAP, that defines a link
protocol and everything, why should it be added to the mailbox protocol?
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:36:05PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> > A good calendaring system requires that users receive requests for
> > meetings and can answer them, and have trouble screwing them up (i.e.
> > putting the metainfo in the subject line is easy to screw up). Email is the
> > ideal medium for this communication, because it meshes well with our
> > existing work patterns.
> OK, then, how do you see it integrating with email?
Let me clarify some of my questions:
- Would there be a seperate part of the protocol designed to support
calendaring, or should the events be presented as email messages?
- Would the calendar be a seperate mailbox of a special type?
- How would multiple calendars be dealt with?
- Would the events be plain email messages or something else?
- How would the events be transmitted to other users?
- Would the TA (transfer agent) or the UA (user agent) be responsible
for coordinating responses to calendar events (acknowledgements and
rejections)?
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 03:26:49PM -0000, Anthony DeBoer wrote:
>>> [ protocol wishlist ]
> >
> > That should include something that makes sense for a host that's behind a
> > firewall and/or NAT and/or dynamic-IP dialup to authenticate and download
> > mail for multiple users (to basically do what people try to do with
> > fetchmail/multidrop or ETRN or other dodgy solutions nowadays).
>
> Would it be acceptable to ensure that each message has an accessable
> envelope sender address, or are you thinking of something else or more?
You'd want the envelope recipient, actually, not the sender.
The protocol should allow for a single piece of mail to have multiple
envelope recipients; if you're trying to do an RFC-level protocol and
get it used by other MTA communities, you have to allow for the ones
that don't split deliveries. You would want to specify that the client
mailhost strip other-envelope-recipient information, in case another
recipient was Bcc'ed.
Considering, in fact, that people sending the same PowerPoint or AVI to
all the folks in an office account for a big chunk of bandwidth, there
might be motivation for the queue-handling software to identify multiple
queue entries that were in fact the same message, and merge them to a
single copy with multiple recipients. Whether that would be a win would
hinge largely on the popularity of big attachments at a given host and
the size of their pipe. Note that the need for this would be pretty much
MTA-independent, since the remote host that gave you the large message to
multiple recipients might be running qmail. :-)
I guess an existing protocol that does most of what's wanted would be
UUCP, but nobody wants non-IP solutions anymore. Maybe you could use
UUCP's IP transport mode, though. :-)
--
Anthony DeBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 01:22:11PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> > Warning: opinions, little to do with qmail or maildir.
>
> Indeed. I should start up a list just to discuss this.
Bruce,
If you start up such a list, let me know.
You are asking good questions, questions which force me to say, "I
don't know." I was halfway through a response when I realized that I was
doing too much justification of poorly-thought-through opinions, so I'm
backing off for now to go reconsider.
In specific, the question to ask is really "Where the seperate parts
of the whole exist as standards, do products that correctly integrate them
exist? If not, why not?" I want to go look at the state of calendaring
standards before I shove my foot much deeper into my mouth.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 10:53:09AM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
> Do you have an URL for a specification of ACAP or IMSP? I've never
> heard of them, but what you've described is a good idea.
Actually, the ACAP chapter of O'Reillys "Programming Internet Email" (ISBN
1-56592-479-7) is free!
Read it here:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/progintemail/chapter/ch12.html
The protocol:
[ACAP] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.
http://rfc2244.x42.com/ -- by far the easiest URL to rfc:s to remember.
/magnus
--
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Say NO to HTML in email and news
x
There is a new GNU project starting up called GLUE that seems to be concerned
with at least some of the same things you are (plus other stuff). You
can start looking at their goals at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/glue/glue.html
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:46:16PM -0600,
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:36:05PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> > > A good calendaring system requires that users receive requests for
> > > meetings and can answer them, and have trouble screwing them up (i.e.
> > > putting the metainfo in the subject line is easy to screw up). Email is the
> > > ideal medium for this communication, because it meshes well with our
> > > existing work patterns.
> > OK, then, how do you see it integrating with email?
>
> Let me clarify some of my questions:
>
> - Would there be a seperate part of the protocol designed to support
> calendaring, or should the events be presented as email messages?
> - Would the calendar be a seperate mailbox of a special type?
> - How would multiple calendars be dealt with?
> - Would the events be plain email messages or something else?
> - How would the events be transmitted to other users?
> - Would the TA (transfer agent) or the UA (user agent) be responsible
> for coordinating responses to calendar events (acknowledgements and
> rejections)?
> --
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 03:31:57PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> > Indeed. I should start up a list just to discuss this.
> If you start up such a list, let me know.
I have started up two lists, actually:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first is to discuss an authenticated protocol multiplexer. That is,
a front-end protocol that handles authentication details before handing
off to one of potentially multiple back-ends that require
authentication. I've put up a work-in-progress document at
http://em.ca/~bruceg/apx/
The second is to discuss issues related to building a simple internet
message access protocol. I've made a web page at
http://em.ca/~bruceg/simap/
but there's nothing there yet.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 11:42:56PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> I have started up two lists, actually:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are, of course, ezmlm lists, so to subscribe, send a blank email
to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
respectively.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Hi ,
Does fastforward support list-owner entries on /etc/aliases ?
Thanks
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> search is still linear. The BSDs on the other hand make a DB database
> out of the /etc/passwd, and so it's much faster to lookup.
really, one should qualify what version of BSD you mean here. if I dig up
a system running BSD 4.2 or 4.3 will it really store the password in a
database? I think not.
Personally unless users actually login to a machine I would keep them out
of /etc/passwd and put them somewhere else. it's one less security problem
to worry about.
RjL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
it gave me a bit of trouble to actually implement the splitting. Here's
what I did (after creating a qmail2 and qmail3 trees):
1. Have a
:alias-mailsize
catchall entry in qmail/control/virtualdomains.
2. In ~alias/.qmail-mailsize-default, I have
|./maildecide
maildecide is a program I have written in C which counts the bytes,
rewinds stdin and invokes /var/qmail{2,3}/bin/forward. I didn't
succeed with condredirect - it fails to pass the $HOST to the
redirected address.
maildecide.c looks like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void main(void)
{
int len=0;
while (!feof(stdin))
{ fgetc(stdin); len++; }
rewind(stdin);
if (len>=128000)
system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
else
system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
}
I would like to hear comments on efficiency of this solution. (I am
also deciding what to do to get rid of the
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
line in the headers.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOIYk2FMwP8g7qbw/EQK1ZwCg4QFKCoXW06YVByDNdnehCrISGP8AmwVv
DpfBRCX3L4m9zN8tn19Zn5+E
=+6Oh
-----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]
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> maildecide is a program I have written in C which counts the bytes,
> rewinds stdin and invokes /var/qmail{2,3}/bin/forward. I didn't
> succeed with condredirect - it fails to pass the $HOST to the
> redirected address.
>
> maildecide.c looks like this:
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> void main(void)
> {
> int len=0;
> while (!feof(stdin))
> { fgetc(stdin); len++; }
> rewind(stdin);
ugh, byte-at-a-time reading for stdin, and then rewind it.
>
> if (len>=128000)
> system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> else
> system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> }
>
Here is a version which should run much faster; it doesn't read anyhting out of the
file.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void main(void)
{
long len=0L;
fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_END);
len=ftell(stdin);
fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_SET);
if (len>=128000L)
system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
else
system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
}
-----
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:05:24 +0000 (GMT) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> void main(void)
> {
> long len=0L;
>
> fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_END);
> len=ftell(stdin);
> fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_SET);
> if (len>=128000L)
> system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> else
> system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> }
ugh... two seeks? Stat() is sooo much nicer ;-)
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
int main(void) {
struct stat st;
if (fstat(0, &st) < 0) _exit(111);
if (lseek(0,0,SEEK_SET)< 0) _exit(111);
if (st.st_size >= 128000L)
system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
else
system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
return 0;
}
--
Chris Mikkelson | If you throw your bread upon the waters, it shall come
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | back threefold, but only if you are willing to throw the
| recipe upon the waters as well... -- Terry Lambert
Indeed. One of the neat things about mail delivered via qmail-local
is that stdin is *the* queue file.
That it's a file is confirmed by this sentence in the qmail-local manpage.
The standard input for qmail-local must be a seekable
file, so that qmail-local can read it more than once.
Regards.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 02:29:03PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:05:24 +0000 (GMT) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > void main(void)
> > {
> > long len=0L;
> >
> > fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_END);
> > len=ftell(stdin);
> > fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_SET);
> > if (len>=128000L)
> > system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> > else
> > system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> > }
>
> ugh... two seeks? Stat() is sooo much nicer ;-)
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
>
> int main(void) {
> struct stat st;
> if (fstat(0, &st) < 0) _exit(111);
> if (lseek(0,0,SEEK_SET)< 0) _exit(111);
> if (st.st_size >= 128000L)
> system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> else
> system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> Chris Mikkelson | If you throw your bread upon the waters, it shall come
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | back threefold, but only if you are willing to throw the
> | recipe upon the waters as well... -- Terry Lambert
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Jan 00, at 14:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ugh... two seeks? Stat() is sooo much nicer ;-)
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
>
> int main(void) {
> struct stat st;
> if (fstat(0, &st) < 0) _exit(111);
> if (lseek(0,0,SEEK_SET)< 0) _exit(111);
> if (st.st_size >= 128000L)
> system("/var/qmail3/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> else
> system("/var/qmail2/bin/forward \"$DEFAULT@$HOST\"");
> return 0;
> }
Yeah, it works, thanks.
Now I am trying to get rid of the mid-inserted
Delivered-To: alias-mailsize-something@somewhere
line. I wouldn't care about this line, but it matters for forwarding
(This_message_is_looping:_It_already_has_my_Delivered_To_line)
a lot.
I tried to filter out the Delivered-To: line before piping the text to
/var/qmail?/bin/forward, but it doesn't help. (When I piped the
message to "tee test.log | /var/qmail?/bin/forward", I saw no
Delivered-To line in test.log.)
Who actually appends the line then? forward? How do I get rid of
it? Deleting DTLINE and/or RPLINE from environment?
Thanks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOIbma1MwP8g7qbw/EQKXswCg/cG319bpDMYfWeg6DvG2f1OyK0YAoJTC
XIqMrnUhabTUgH4zJmuB9aJy
=TyOL
-----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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Jan 00, at 10:41, Petr Novotny wrote:
> Now I am trying to get rid of the mid-inserted
> Delivered-To: alias-mailsize-something@somewhere
> line. I wouldn't care about this line, but it matters for forwarding
> (This_message_is_looping:_It_already_has_my_Delivered_To_line) a lot.
>
> Who actually appends the line then? forward? How do I get rid of it?
> Deleting DTLINE and/or RPLINE from environment?
It seems that setting DTLINE to an empty string did the trick.
(Warning to followers: Do not unset DTLINE - forward would throw
up and bounce the messages.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOIboQ1MwP8g7qbw/EQLSZgCfRZp8tteB6BYny6r2C2NZMnaO6QoAn2S3
vaKT84bZLYQe0NmKnLyHJxH/
=AySI
-----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]
Ok, well I modified the permissions on the qmail-smtpd.cdb file and it blew
though my queue in no time flat....however, I still cannot send mail. What I
get now when I try to telnet into port 25 is:
421 unable to read controls (#4.3.0)
Connection closed by foreign host.
I *thought* this might be another permissions issue on the files in the
/var/qmail/control dir so I looked and they were all uid/gid root, not knowing
which uid to use I tried to chgrp them all to gid qmail and then chmod them to
660, but this does not seem to have worked either. Any ideas?
chris
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> > search is still linear. The BSDs on the other hand make a DB database
> > out of the /etc/passwd, and so it's much faster to lookup.
>
> really, one should qualify what version of BSD you mean here. if I dig up
> a system running BSD 4.2 or 4.3 will it really store the password in a
> database? I think not.
hmm.. who is installing 4.2 or 4.3 BSD nowadays ? all major versions of
*BSD are running on 4.4 BSD for quite a long time. :)
Tomasz Lipski
Hi all.
I was wondering what I might do to queue up mail coming in
for users with id's beginning w/ say b or q while
maintenance (planned or unplanned) was done on the
storage that holds their email. Other mail would be processed
as usual w/o delay...
We have a script to simulate "no mail" to fake out pop sessions
but I'd like to prevent bounces for email coming in to these users.
I had thought about maybe a simple control file to hold bad first
characters and returning a 4XX error to the sender to defer the
mail for a while until the storage is back online and we can clear
the control file and accept mail for the users again.
drawbacks:
1) I have to do a small bit of coding
2) Broken Microsoft SMTP servers which begin to chatter when
given a 451 (for stray line feeds).
but 2) may not be a problem as the storage should be back
online w/in a couple of hours after an outage long before the chattering
becomes too nasty.
Does anyone have a non-coding alternative?
Michael Boyiazis -----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetZero
Mail/Sys/Network Admin
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Michael Boyiazis writes:
> I was wondering what I might do to queue up mail coming in
> for users with id's beginning w/ say b or q while
> maintenance (planned or unplanned) was done on the
> storage that holds their email.
The answer depends very highly on how you associate their email
address with their storage. If it's done through the standard
qmail-getpw, which checks /etc/passwd, that code checks to see if the
user owns their own homedir. If the homedir is inaccessible, you're
hosed; the mail bounces. If it's done through a replacement
qmail-getpw, then you could simply have the replacement code exit with
111 if their storage was being worked on.
> 2) Broken Microsoft SMTP servers which begin to chatter when
> given a 451 (for stray line feeds).
Don't worry about that, because the mail has already been accepted,
and is sitting in the queue.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Thanks Russell,
We have a hacked version of getpw which gets the home
based on a hash function. All maildirs are owned
by mailq. So it seems that an exit of 111 will tell
qmail-lspawn/local to queue it up for later, right?
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Michael Boyiazis writes:
> > I was wondering what I might do to queue up mail coming in
> > for users with id's beginning w/ say b or q while
> > maintenance (planned or unplanned) was done on the
> > storage that holds their email.
>
> The answer depends very highly on how you associate their email
> address with their storage. If it's done through the standard
> qmail-getpw, which checks /etc/passwd, that code checks to see if the
> user owns their own homedir. If the homedir is inaccessible, you're
> hosed; the mail bounces. If it's done through a replacement
> qmail-getpw, then you could simply have the replacement code exit with
> 111 if their storage was being worked on.
>
> > 2) Broken Microsoft SMTP servers which begin to chatter when
> > given a 451 (for stray line feeds).
>
> Don't worry about that, because the mail has already been accepted,
> and is sitting in the queue.
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
>
> -
> Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
> Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
mike b. ---------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.sprynet.com/~boyiazis/mikehome.htm
"I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." Calvin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Michael Boyiazis writes:
> We have a hacked version of getpw which gets the home
> based on a hash function. All maildirs are owned
> by mailq. So it seems that an exit of 111 will tell
> qmail-lspawn/local to queue it up for later, right?
It has the effect you describe, however since the mail is *already* in
the queue, what actually happens is that the mail is left in the queue
for later.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
>Michael Boyiazis writes:
> > We have a hacked version of getpw which gets the home
> > based on a hash function. All maildirs are owned
> > by mailq. So it seems that an exit of 111 will tell
> > qmail-lspawn/local to queue it up for later, right?
>
>It has the effect you describe, however since the mail is *already* in
>the queue, what actually happens is that the mail is left in the queue
>for later.
>
What if your outage is for a couple of hours, wouldn't your queue keep
growing (possible more than the system can handle)?
JES
We have a lot of servers to spread out the load, but
yes, eventually that would be a problem.
Juan E Suris wrote:
> >
> What if your outage is for a couple of hours, wouldn't your queue keep
> growing (possible more than the system can handle)?
Michael Boyiazis -----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NetZero Mail/Sys/Network Admin
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
A few people have responded to my earlier query/rant/whatever about
writing high-quality software. A couple of these have asked me to
keep them notified about what I learn, if possible. Another identified
the starting-point of a resource.
I put up a web page on my site on this topic, which I intend to maintain
as a repository for resources and other stuff discovered during my
(not quite full-time) search for how to write high-quality software:
<http://world.std.com/~burley/quality.html>
It's not much, but, for now, it's probably better than nothing.
tq vm, (burley)
I did some checks last night. I telnetted to ports 25 and 110 on 192.168.0.2 and
discovered that it was taking a minute and a half for the smtp or POP3 servers
to issue a greeting. By then, most MUAs will have given up.
When I checked early this morning, it was working fine again on both the live IP
and 192.168.0.1. I had not changed any settings.
Is this a tcpserver problem (I can use inetd) or a qmail problem? This seems to
be the second tim e it has happened to this installation.
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
US Fax: (603) 908-0727
AIM: bbaquiran
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 07:57:18AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> I did some checks last night. I telnetted to ports 25 and 110 on 192.168.0.2 and
> discovered that it was taking a minute and a half for the smtp or POP3 servers
> to issue a greeting. By then, most MUAs will have given up.
>
> When I checked early this morning, it was working fine again on both the live IP
> and 192.168.0.1. I had not changed any settings.
Did you check from the same IP address each time?
What output did you capture from tcpserver that leads you to believe that it
may be a tcpserver problem?
> Is this a tcpserver problem (I can use inetd) or a qmail problem? This seems to
> be the second tim e it has happened to this installation.
There's a third possibility that it's an administrator/setup problem.
Which of the follow options are you using with tcpserver?
-h, -H, -r, -R and -t and why?
Regards.
Hi Mark,
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 07:57:18AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> > I did some checks last night. I telnetted to ports 25 and 110 on 192.168.0.2 and
> > discovered that it was taking a minute and a half for the smtp or POP3 servers
> > to issue a greeting. By then, most MUAs will have given up.
> >
> > When I checked early this morning, it was working fine again on both the live IP
> > and 192.168.0.1. I had not changed any settings.
>
> Did you check from the same IP address each time?
Both times, I checked from the mail server itself, from another server on the
192.168.0.x network, and from another server to poke at the live IP address.
> What output did you capture from tcpserver that leads you to believe that it
> may be a tcpserver problem?
Well, it's affected both qmail's SMTP and POP3. I figured if it were qmail, it
would affect only qmail-smtpd, as I understand the pop3 part is independent of
the rest. Also, the TCP connection is established (not refused), so I'm guessing
that tcpserver accepted the connection, but didn't run qmail-smtpd right away.
> > Is this a tcpserver problem (I can use inetd) or a qmail problem? This seems to
> > be the second tim e it has happened to this installation.
>
> There's a third possibility that it's an administrator/setup problem.
That's certainly a possibility. It's my first qmail installation. Strange thing
is, it has been working OK for the past couple of weeks.
> Which of the follow options are you using with tcpserver?
> -h, -H, -r, -R and -t and why?
I'm currently using -H (Do not look up the remote host name). I put it there the
last time we had this problem because we were having DNS problems at the same
time, and I thought not having to do a DNS lookup might help (it didn't). I
didn't remove it when the DNS problems went away and everything was working
again.
Thanks,
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
US Fax: (603) 908-0727
AIM: bbaquiran
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 08:34:20AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> > Which of the follow options are you using with tcpserver?
> > -h, -H, -r, -R and -t and why?
>
> I'm currently using -H (Do not look up the remote host name). I put it there the
> last time we had this problem because we were having DNS problems at the same
Having -R also helps if you don't need ident lookups, because they also
add to the delay.
--
See complete headers for more info
Here's the deal. I set up vpopmail (or vchkpass, whatever
you want to call it) for pop mail. It keeps everything in
/home/vpopmail. But some of my users want to be able to
check their mail with pine if they need to, or be able to
download it if they need to. (like if they are on the road,
pine is more convenient)
I'm very new to qmail and am still a bit confused about how
it works, so can anyone give me any suggestions on how to
make this work?
For instance... I set up a pop account [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Someone sends mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it goes into
/home/vpopmail/domains/domain.com/jay/Maildir
but I also want it to go into /home/jay/Maildir, so I can
check it in pine as well...
Thanks for any help....
|
I am using RH6.0 with qmail server!
All other thing is OK, but
pop3 service?
I use Maildir format, I use maildirmake
Maildir:
drwx------ 2 sting
users 1024 Jan 20 21:18
cur
drwx------ 2 sting
users 1024 Jan 21 00:21
new
drwx------ 2 sting
users 1024 Jan 21 00:21 tmp
Telnet result:
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is
'^]'.
+OK <2123.948385520@/bin/checkpassword>
user sting
+OK
pass xxxx
-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir
Connection closed by
foreign host.
I use tcpserver, in qmail-pop3.init:
if [ -e $CDB ];
then
supervise $DIR
\
tcpserver $VERBOSE -c$CONCURRENT -x $CDB -u$USERID -g$GROUPID 0 $PORT
\
qmail-popup $HOST $CHKPASS $COMMAND Maildir
\
2>&1 | setuser $LOGUSER accustamp
\
|
setuser $LOGUSER cyclog $FILESIZE $FILENO $LOGDIR
&
else
supervise $DIR
\
tcpserver $VERBOSE -c$CONCURRENT -u$USERID -g$GROUPID 0 $PORT
\
qmail-popup $HOST $CHKPASS $COMMAND Maildir
\
2>&1 | setuser $LOGUSER accustamp
\
|
setuser $LOGUSER cyclog $FILESIZE $FILENO $LOGDIR
&
fi
What is wrong with my qmail-pop3?
Who can help me?
|
One of my clients has an employee that travels quite a bit
with a notebook computer. That employee uses Windows 95 and
Eudora Pro email client software. That employee also uses
msn.com for his ISP.
My client runs qmail-1.03. The pop3 services works very well
for receiving email when the employee is on the road. pop3
and SMTP works well locally on my clients LAN.
However, when the employee in on the road and dials into msn.com
from various locations around the country, SMTP attempts at relaying
through my client's server and the result in a #553 message.
The employee and I tried setting the SMTP server to msn.com in the
outgoing SMTP server setting in Eudora without success at sending
out email. We then tried email.msn.com and then smtp.email.msn.com
and were also not successful at sending out email. He can not
successfully send email out with my client's company email address
in the From: field.
I've read and re-read section 5.4 of the qmail FAQ and I concluded
that because the employee dials in from various locations, he doesn't
have a static IP address to add to /etc/hosts.allow as RELAYCLIENT
or as described in section 5.4 of the FAQ.
Obviously, putting all of .msn.com in the /etc/hosts.allow in
RELAYCLIENT at the client site is out of the question.
So what I am wondering is without having to recompile and re-install
the entire qmail package with various patches, is there a relatively
simple solution ? What are msn.com users doing with Eudora Pro that
allows them to use yahoo.com and hotmail.com as second email boxes ?
Thanks in advance,
Harley Silver
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Jose Pedro Pereira wrote:
>
> > Try /etc/skel ...
> > The name says it all...
>
> hmm, there is nothing in this dir?
> What should be there?
> Could I be missing something?
>
> Kind regards
> Kevin
>
>
Yap... This is the default directory for creating user areas... That
means...
You you issue adduser, Linux searches for /etc/skel and puts the contents
of this directory on the user homedir... SO if you put Maildir into this
directory, every user you add to your system will have a Maildir directory
by default...
This is for RedHat based systems... For Debian I think the default
directory is not /etc/skel... issue
locate skel
and you'll find out where the directory is...
Hope it helps
JP
