qmail Digest 29 Jul 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1077
qmail Digest 29 Jul 2000 10:00:01 - Issue 1077 Topics (messages 45724 through 45798): Re: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken 45724 by: Toens Bueker 45727 by: Andrew Richards Re: qmail SSL 45725 by: Miroslav Tempir qmail mailstart 45726 by: Lydia 45732 by: Dave Sill message has wrong owner 45728 by: Anders Kvist 45735 by: Dave Sill Problem building qmail from qmail-1.03+patches-14.src.rpm 45729 by: Adrian Head 45734 by: Chris, the Young One 45738 by: Chris, the Young One Re: incorrect date.. 45730 by: Greg Owen Re: void main 45731 by: Jan Echternach Qmail filtering 45733 by: Tyler J. Frederick 45737 by: Petr Novotny Not getting mail from smtpd 45736 by: Craig L. Ching 45745 by: Dave Sill 45748 by: Craig L. Ching 45749 by: Chris, the Young One 45751 by: Dave Sill 45753 by: Craig L. Ching 45755 by: Dave Sill 45765 by: Craig L. Ching Re: Clean queue 45739 by: Paul Jarc Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying! 45740 by: Paul Jarc 45770 by: Peter van Dijk Re: local-test sends to internet 45741 by: Bruno Wolff III Handy way to restart qmail 45742 by: Harry Putnam 45743 by: Petr Novotny 45744 by: Dave Sill 45758 by: Harry Putnam 45760 by: Adam McKenna 45761 by: Dave Sill 45763 by: Einar Bordewich 45777 by: Harry Putnam AMaViS Problems Someone please help. 45746 by: Jeremy Fowler 45754 by: Rainer Link kill -9 (was Re: Handy way to restart qmail) 45747 by: Chris, the Young One 45750 by: James Raftery Re: dot-qmail deliver help 45752 by: Einar Bordewich 45762 by: Uwe Ohse 45768 by: Einar Bordewich stats from qmailanalog 45756 by: flitcraft33 45759 by: Dave Sill 45764 by: Kevin Bucknum The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] 45757 by: Einar Bordewich 45766 by: markd.bushwire.net 45767 by: Chris, the Young One 45769 by: Einar Bordewich 45771 by: Einar Bordewich 45772 by: markd.bushwire.net 45779 by: MichaelG.RxAmerica.com 45780 by: markd.bushwire.net 45781 by: Einar Bordewich SMTP and POP3 connections take too long 45773 by: net admin 45774 by: Charles Cazabon Mailing list performance question 45775 by: Fernando Costa de Almeida 45778 by: David Dyer-Bennet user accounts and groups for the qmail binaries and such 45776 by: wolfgang zeikat 45783 by: Chris, the Young One using RBLSMTPD env var 45782 by: Jon Rust 45785 by: Adam McKenna 45786 by: Chris, the Young One 45787 by: Jon Rust 45788 by: Jon Rust 45789 by: Einar Bordewich 45790 by: Chris, the Young One 45791 by: Jon Rust conf-split size on different FS's 45784 by: tony.corp.quepasa.com rcpthosts, relaying, and tcp-env 7.6 45792 by: Todd Finney duplicating sendmail's virtusertable 45793 by: Sam Carleton 45794 by: Ben Beuchler multilog patterns 45795 by: Ben Beuchler 45796 by: Russ Allbery 45797 by: Russ Allbery 45798 by: Ben Beuchler 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] -- John White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reassured I installed the patched version with all the nice features (conf-spawn=2045, conf-split=521) - Success - no error. On the Solaris 7 platforms, do you make setup check after you change conf-spawn and conf-split? I copied the source of the patched qmail-version (including the modified conf-spawn and conf-split) on all platforms, did a make clean, make setup and make check. I generally do a 'newfs' on the filesystem, which holds the queue before re-installing and re-testing a new qmail-version. The installation goes into a separate directory (/var/qmail.patched) in order to allow me to have different qmail-versions installed for easier testing. By Töns -- Linux. The dot in /. (This post also relevant to the "bare LFs and fixcrio ramifications" thread) Toens, Hmm, I've been watching this thread with interest. I did post a similar message a week ago, which you may like to take a look at in the archive, entitled "Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpdqmail-queue procs", as well as the referenced posts by TAG on 7th, 8th June. The thread I started centred on a discussion of bare LFs (contributors explained the ramifications), and since fixing those (fixcrio), the systems has been behaving themselves
bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ?
Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) : Docs says: - Limits rate of automatic responses (defaults to a maximum of one message every hour). well, I always get _two_ messages, before the Ignoring_message://usr/local/bin/qmail-autoresponder:_SENDER_has_sent_too_many_messages/did_0+0+2/ appears in logs... (with: |/usr/local/bin/qmail-autoresponder -n 1 -t 43200 |/home/paradises.ch/autorespond/msg/oli2 /home/paradises.ch/autorespond/log/oli2 |/usr/local/bin/qmail-autoresponder -t 43200 /home/paradises.ch/autorespond/msg/oli2 |/home/paradises.ch/autorespond/log/oli2 ) Just looked in the source: /* If the user's count is already over the max, * don't record any more. */ if(++count max) return 0; shouldn't it be : /* If the user's count is already over the max, * don't record any more. */ if(++count = max) return 0; ? (it works this way on my system... :) Regards, Olivier PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add it to qmail-autorespond ? Some sample source with this feature is available under : http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/vacation/?cvsroot=vacation PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder respond to this address ? -- _ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland PGP signature
From where to get tcpserver
Dear friends and gurus, Could anybody tell me that from where to get the tar or rpms for tcpserver for qmail, because i need to run qmail with tcpserver not with inetd. i m working on RH 6.2. thanx in advance Tejal Shah
Re: From where to get tcpserver
* tejal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could anybody tell me that from where to get the tar or rpms for tcpserver for qmail, because i need to run qmail with tcpserver not with inetd. i m working on RH 6.2. http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html But if you're not familiar with installing sources, I'd suggest trying the following: robin@radioactive ~ rpmfind --apropos tcpserver Loading catalog to /home/robin/.rpmfinddir/fullIndex.rdf.gz Searching the RPM catalog for tcpserver ... 1: ftp://rpmfind.net/linux/MandrakeCooker/contrib/RPMS/ucspi-tcp-0.88-3mdk.i586.rpm ucspi-tcp : tcpserver and tcpclient for building TCP client-server apps -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
Bruce Guenter wrote: As promised, I've posted the results of the benchmark testing at http://em.ca/~bruceg/bench-qmail-remote/ The receiving server is my PC, which has a DSL connection running at about 1.5Mb downlink bandwidth (the part that was actually used) running qmail, of course. The "-cable-" results were sent from a cable modem which has approximately 384Kb uplink bandwidth. the "-2Mb-" results were sent from a partial DS3 with 2Mb of bandwidth. The receiver had its concurrency set to 128. 20 runs were done of each test, 10 with one connection with multiple recipients, and 10 with multiple connections with one recipient. The min and max columns give the fastest and shortest run times respectively; mean is (T1*T2*T3...*T10)**(1/10); avg is (T1+T2+T3+...+T10)/10. The mean is less biased by unrepresentative results, and so is a better measure of the common case. Conclusions are somewhat tricky. Using mutiple RCPTs tends to be more predictable (less of a spread between min and max), but using multiple connections has the best optimistic behaviour (min is lower than multi-RCPT's min). With small messages (4KB and less), multi-connection is always a win. On our mail proxy, the median message size is 3KB, just for comparison. On the well-connected sender, using multi-RCPTs was never a significant win, which proves DJB's hypothesis about its use for well-connected hosts. Once bandwidth limits become an issue (poorly connected server, large messages), multi-RCPTs win because the latency involved in sending one more RCPT becomes less than the additional time required to send another concurrent copy. This says nothing about bandwidth efficiency, only time efficiency. Obviously, using multi-RCPTs is always a bandwidth win (unless your recipient is larger than your message, highly unlikely). Feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and please don't consider the test addresses I used in the scripts as wide open for mailbombing. Thanks for that - very interesting. Here goes on some feed back ... Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down One of my clients is into sending "customized - personal" messages to their members - and we've been looking at an mta solution. We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places, but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not support. My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ? The reason being is that we use two hosts - one is a SuSe based Linux box (256 meg RAM - 1 9 GIG scsi, and a pentium 600) the a twin ultrasparc 1 gig ram - 1 9 gig scsi that is also our main web server / mysql server. The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at anything above 512 mbits/sec. Thanks again. Greg Cope still awaiting ADSL to be launched in the UK! -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
Here goes on some feed back ... Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down One of my clients is into sending "customized - personal" messages to their members - and we've been looking at an mta solution. We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places, but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not support. But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't be an issue in your evaluation. My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ? The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at anything above 512 mbits/sec. I would say that both of these are well connected. But well connected in this context probable means few packet losses and few timeouts at the various layers including at the application layer (DNS, SMTP). Regards.
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here goes on some feed back ... Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down One of my clients is into sending "customized - personal" messages to their members - and we've been looking at an mta solution. We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places, but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not support. But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't be an issue in your evaluation. Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we were considereding bining the customised part. My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ? The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at anything above 512 mbits/sec. I would say that both of these are well connected. But well connected in this context probable means few packet losses and few timeouts at the various layers including at the application layer (DNS, SMTP). Sometimes at UK ISP's well connected is a bit of a broad statement ! One of the ISP has trouble staying up all week ! And we do get some horrible ping times... We also run a caching DNS on the Suse box. Greg Regards.
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places, but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not support. But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't be an issue in your evaluation. Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons, for example it might be a late-breaking news email that ages very rapidly. It might be a hot-stock pick which needs to get out before the market notices. were considereding bining the customised part. FWIW. I see the trend going in the opposite direction. Customization is where the industry is headed so it's likely only a matter of time before that requirement comes back. My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ? The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usually an order of magnitude below the US ). I would define well connected at anything above 512 mbits/sec. I would say that both of these are well connected. But well connected in this context probable means few packet losses and few timeouts at the various layers including at the application layer (DNS, SMTP). Sometimes at UK ISP's well connected is a bit of a broad statement ! One of the ISP has trouble staying up all week ! And we do get some horrible ping times... Even so, I think your setup meets the definition. Regards.
POP delete mail on 2 places...
Hi, Im need to rewrite the code for the pop3 server, need to get it delete mail from 2 places (the same mail, that are store on 2 dif. servers with nfs connection). Have looked a bit at qmail-pop3d.c code but dosent relise where it really delete the msg. Plz help me out here, // Magnus Löfqvist
Open letter
Greetings, This is an open letter to the developers of the main SMTP servers that are used all over the Internet. In recent years, we have all seen in the news the many instances where our privacy has been compromised by big corporations or governments. Some recent examples include the recent survey results that showed over 50% of corporations in the USA check their employees Internet usage and e-mails, the Carnivore system from the FBI, aimed at checking e-mails for potential criminal activity, and the UK law that would force the ISPs to send all e-mails from everyone to the government. This is without even talking about the many crackers who use sniffer to peak in on e-mails while they are in transit. The traditional response from the geek community has been to promote e-mail encryption such as PGP. Unfortunatly, this has not worked well because for normal end users, encryption is not an easy task. The encryption software has to be installed, and each correspondant needs his or her own key published. This is where my suggestion comes in. Every SMTP server should build in their own public-key encryption algorithm, to encrypt all transmissions between mail servers. This would cut down on 50% of all security problems, and on the common fact that e-mail is like sending a post card over the Internet. The way to implement this is not with third party software or optional SSL add-ons. This needs to be a feature which by default is turned on. Each SMTP server could compute a random set of keys when it is installed, and a simple new command could be added to retrieve the public key. When any connection is made between the servers, a public key would be fetched. If the remote server has not been upgraded and does not support PKI, then the transmission would continue in a normal way. If both servers support it, then encryption could be established, automatically, using PKI. Of course this is only a suggestion and cannot work unless the popular SMTP servers software implement it. It is an easy thing to implement Internet wise on the server to server side, since only a few server software programs exist. It could also be implemented on the server to client side if the client software makers would collaborate. Simply implement the same mechanism for connections to the client side and allow the client to see if the server software supports PKI. With the same public encryption standard used by every server, the client makers would implement support for it in no time. Thanks for your time, and I hope this open letter will be of benefit to save our freedom and privacy in the Internet world. Patrick Lambert IT Consultant Internet Society Member -- Patrick Lambert - Computer Scientist IT Consultant and Technical Writer Phone: (819) 696-2204 FAX: (425) 740-0422 __ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
urgent help required ! tcpserver tcprules
hello guys thanks for your guys ,i have gone through tcpserver tcprules docs and created a file named /etc/tcp.smtp content of which is 127.0.0.1local ip address then tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp /etc/tcp.smtp as per the documentation of tcpserver and tcprules and also added -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb to my tcpserver command after tcpserver as per docs my tcpserver command as tcpserver -x /etc/tcpsmtpd/cdb -H -t 2 -l FQDN -C 150 -u uid -g gid ipaddress smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd2$1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger recordio qmail-smtpd 3 also recordio is not logging messages to /var/log/messages i am using redhat linux 6.1 , qmail 1-03 with qmail-ldap -2601 patch and openldap packages i want to restrict my qmail-smtpd in a way that will stop smtp clients like microsoft outlook express ,netscape messanger etc sending mails through my qmail-smtpd as i told you befor its gonna be a webmail system like hotmail yahoo so i want to stop relaying of mails through my qmail-smtpd so please tell me why its not working for me i am shacking my heads from last 3-4 days to just achive this please guide me , once more thanks a lot for your help with warmest Regards Prashant Desai
Re: POP delete mail on 2 places...
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 06:53:56PM +0200, Magnus Löfqvist wrote: Have looked a bit at qmail-pop3d.c code but dosent relise where it really delete the msg. pop3_quit(), look for unlink(). Regards, Uwe
Re: dot-qmail deliver help
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:38:11PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: i think you don't want the `;' after "env". -snip- Are you sure? Not any more. Regards, Uwe
RE: urgent help required ! tcpserver tcprules
do you have a ~/control/rcpthosts set up properly? qmail does relay if this file is missing. put you domains in this file (one per line) and your mailserver will only take mails for this domains. with tcp.smtp you specify ip-ranges for witch you are willing to relay - BUT only when ~/control/rcpthosts exists hope that helps ;) a -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 3:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: urgent help required ! tcpserver tcprules hello guys thanks for your guys ,i have gone through tcpserver tcprules docs and created a file named /etc/tcp.smtp content of which is 127.0.0.1 local ip address then tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp /etc/tcp.smtp as per the documentation of tcpserver and tcprules and also added -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb to my tcpserver command after tcpserver as per docs my tcpserver command as tcpserver -x /etc/tcpsmtpd/cdb -H -t 2 -l FQDN -C150 -u uid -g gid ipaddresssmtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd2$1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger recordio qmail-smtpd 3 also recordio is not logging messages to/var/log/messages i am using redhat linux 6.1 , qmail 1-03 with qmail-ldap -2601 patch and openldap packages i want to restrict my qmail-smtpd in a way that will stop smtp clients like microsoft outlook express ,netscape messanger etcsending mails through my qmail-smtpd as i told you befor its gonna be a webmail system like hotmail yahoo so i want to stop relaying of mails through my qmail-smtpd so please tell me why its not working for me i am shacking my heads from last 3-4 days to just achive this please guide me , once more thanks a lot for your help with warmest Regards Prashant Desai
Re: Open letter
This is an open letter to the developers of the main SMTP servers that are used all over the Internet. In recent years, we have all seen in the news the many instances where our privacy has been compromised by big corporations or governments. Some recent examples include the recent survey results that showed over 50% of corporations in the USA check their employees Internet usage and e-mails The problem with your solution is that server to server encryption does not stop government and big corporations from looking at your mail on the mail server after it has arrived. Ask any system admin how hard it is to scan /var/mail or a users home directory. Answer, it's trivial. Since most users do not run their own mail servers, but access one via POP/IMAP, your solution will not affect the vast majority of people. The *real* solution is to use some form of end-to-end encryption. In other words, encrypt your email before it leaves your email program (whether it be on a PC, a server or a handheld device) in such a way that only the recipient can decrypt it. PGP and their ilk already provide this capability. What I do agree with is that doing this is currently way too hard for the average user and any efforts to make this easier are a good thing. But you need to direct your letter at the email client programmers rather then the email server programmers. Regards.
Re: Open letter
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Patrick Lambert wrote: compromised by big corporations or governments. Some recent examples include the recent survey results that showed over 50% of corporations in the USA check their employees Internet usage and e-mails, the Carnivore system from the FBI, aimed at checking e-mails for potential criminal activity, and the UK law that would force the ISPs to send all e-mails from everyone to the government. This is without even talking about the many crackers AFAIK, (and I could be wrong about this), the UK law also has a section about PGP, making it a felony to NOT produce your PGP key on demand. " The Bill means the UK government - specifically the Home Office and Home Secretary Jack Straw - can demand encryption keys to any and all data communications, with a prison sentence of two years for those who do not comply with the order. (source "http://uk.news.yahoo.com/000728/101/aedvu.html")" Most email transmitted now doesn't require PGP protection, (or warrant it). I know that with the amount of email I get in a day, I wouldn't want the extra overhead of having to decrypt it all. just my $0.02
invalid characters in a email address?
Hi All, Could someone give me a list of characters (ascii) which are NOT valid in a e-mail address...We had a problem with a user interface, and want to add code to prevent occurance from happening again... -Bill
Re: invalid characters in a email address?
On 29-Jul-2000, Bill Parker wrote: Could someone give me a list of characters (ascii) which are NOT valid in a e-mail address...We had a problem with a user interface, and want to add code to prevent occurance from happening again... It's in RFC 822 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html See also http://cr.yp.to/mess822.html Ronny
Re: Open letter
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 11:33:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I do agree with is that doing this is currently way too hard for the average user and any efforts to make this easier are a good thing. But you need to direct your letter at the email client programmers rather then the email server programmers. I would have agreed with this 5 years ago, but the current version of WinPGP for windows is so easy to use, that I don't believe this is the reason anymore. I think the majority of people don't use PGP/PKI for the following reaons: 1) They don't know it exists 2) They don't want to spend the money on PGP (if they're not eligible to use the freeware version 3) They just don't consider their privacy to be important enough to warrant the installation of a new software package. --Adam
Re: Open letter
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 04:39:42PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote: On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 11:33:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I do agree with is that doing this is currently way too hard for the average user and any efforts to make this easier are a good thing. But you need to direct your letter at the email client programmers rather then the email server programmers. I would have agreed with this 5 years ago, but the current version of WinPGP for windows is so easy to use, that I don't believe this is the reason anymore. I think the majority of people don't use PGP/PKI for the following reaons: 1) They don't know it exists 2) They don't want to spend the money on PGP (if they're not eligible to use the freeware version 3) They just don't consider their privacy to be important enough to warrant the installation of a new software package. Key management is a non-zero effort, installation is a non-zero effort, cost is a non-zero effort and actual usage is a non-zero effort. Total transparency is what I define as "easy to use" in the context of the average email user (who probably has an email address at AOL). I'm afraid anything less won't get there. Regards.
Re: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken
Andrew Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SMTP service may issue a QUIT, and immediately try again, resulting in a potential loop." The actual qmail-smtpd error message re bare LFs is 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html which would trigger the above fault if Microsoft's software does indeed send bare LFs - contributors suggest it does. [...] Anyway, part of my reason for posting was to speculate on why a mailserver might get a flood of SMTP connections. Now, I'm testing qmails behaviour under these conditions, 'cause I need to relay a quite reasonable amount of mail through it a few times a week. This is no spam, though. The above bare LF issue is obviously one, as are smtpstone and a DoS. In my case, fixing the bare LF problem fixed the many-procs problem, by fixing the thing that was triggering it, but there may still be something that is 'broken' in Solaris 2.7. If I'm feeling brave, and happen to be working with that system again, I'll try smtpstone-ing it... That'd be great. Because I can't imagine, why the 'bare-LFs' thing should only affect qmails on Solaris 7 - and why it should trigger this undeterministic. If bare LFs would be the reason, it should trigger on the first mail, right? By Töns -- Linux. The dot in /.
Forwarding local account messages to POP mailbox.
I have Hylafax set up on my server. I sent faxes from my username of paulb. Whenever a fax is sent, Hylafax notifies me by email to my local machine account, i.e. a message is sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] These messages sit in the local queue. I need to have them forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where I can pick them up via POP3. Any ideas? Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forwarding local account messages to POP mailbox.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 05:58:54PM +0100, Paul Broadwith wrote: I have Hylafax set up on my server. I sent faxes from my username of paulb. Whenever a fax is sent, Hylafax notifies me by email to my local machine account, i.e. a message is sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] These messages sit in the local queue. I need to have them forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where I can pick them up via POP3. Any ideas? Um, create a .qmail on machine in ~paulb containing "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? Or a .qmail-paulb in ~alias if ~paulb doesn't exist? J. -- A conscience can sometimes be a pest. Ask me about server colocation - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:17:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote: My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ? When the bandwidth required to send its mail is significantly smaller than the bandwidth available. That is, if you have to send 100,000 5K messages over a 1 hour period, you would need a T1, and you would fill it to over 75% capacity. In general, the concept of "well connected" is dependant on your mail volume. If you only have to send a few non-time-sensitive emails a day, your 9.6Kb modem is well connected. If you have to pay by the kilo/mega/giga-byte of traffic, you're probably not well connected. If opening up concurrencyremote connections and sending mail kills your link for other applications using the network, you're not well (enough) connected. -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ PGP signature
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 03:30:08PM +, Greg Cope wrote: Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we were considereding bining the customised part. If you *need* customized email per recipient, over a short time, the general consensus is that you need a two-stage solution. The first stage is to attempt to send each message directly, possibly re-using qmail-remote to do the sending. Run as many qmail-remotes as you can, possibly using qmail-rspawn to help with handling everything. If sending a message fails temporarily (which will be the uncommon case), inject it into the qmail queue. That way, deliveries that succeed never get queued, and don't hit the queue I/O penalty. -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ PGP signature
Re: bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ?
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:35:56PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote: Currently trying qmail-autoresponder (http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/) : Great! Docs says: - Limits rate of automatic responses (defaults to a maximum of one message every hour). well, I always get _two_ messages, shouldn't it be : /* If the user's count is already over the max, * don't record any more. */ if(++count = max) return 0; You are right. The logic worked before the rewrite for 0.92, and I guess I missed that one. The tests also failed to catch this. I'll make sure they work this time. PS: the thing with "-s" is ok, but I like the "original" vacation feature with $SUBJECT in _BODY_ much better : do you plan to add it to qmail-autorespond ? Reluctantly, yes. Would something like "%S" work for you? That would greatly simplify the parsing logic. PPS: if there is a From: or a Reply-To: field, should the autoresponder respond to this address ? I think not. Responding to the envelope sender is pretty much the only safe thing to do, and it neatly avoids all the trouble one would get into to properly parse an address field. -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ PGP signature
