On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400,
Brent B. Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via
relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay
This should be in the archives. The RSS people dropped the text records,
because of
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 05:21:58PM +0200,
Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I'm using qmail-1.03
I'm having problems sending mail from withing perl scripts. The scirpt I used worked
perfectly on a linux server using sendmail. Now I'n using it on our news server with
qmail. The scirpt
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 08:01:05AM +0200,
Jörgen Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 04:48:44PM -0700, Graham H. wrote:
Wasn't just you. It seemed qmail was down.
It was an electrical upgrade according to http://cr.yp.to/
If you get the messages of changes to the
I finally got around to upgrading mutt to 1.25 and took another look at setting
it up to work correctly with qmail.
My solution (which you might want to mention in your qmail help) is:
set sendmail=/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject -h
set write_bcc=yes
This lets qmail parse the message headers and
djb uses cr.yp.to only because it looks good and is easy to remember,
however. He's not (AFAIK :) related to anybody in Tonga.
.to domains are not controlled by NSI, which some of us perceive as being
a big benefit. I also like their no spamming policy.
The only thing I don't like, is that I
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:52:57AM +0200,
Frank Tegtmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally you will be the enemy of the admins who will get the
double bounces instead. When a bounce is not deliverable it goes to
an administrative account of the sending mailserver.
This is something
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 10:18:45AM +0200,
Robin S. Socha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
· dupes (like, I am on this list and only a complete retard would send
me a Cc: (which makes approx. 31 retards per month which, in return,
makes me wonder when the prices for anti-personnel ammo will
It isn't my list, but if it was I would add the IP addresses of any servers
that sent a virus warning to my list into my tcp rules block list.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:51:02AM -0600,
Andy Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:35:10 CDT, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
It isn't my list, but if it was I would add the IP addresses of any servers
that sent a virus warning to my list into my tcp rules block list
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:07:46AM -,
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a matter of policy, is it reasonable to reject messages that fail a
reverse DNS lookup on HELO's FQDN/authentication?
I don't think this buys you much in the way of spam protection and can
block legitimate
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:23:20AM +0100,
Jrmy Cluzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and wath about scanners ? which is the best one ? and why ?
are they really needed for such antivirus ?
I've heard that some AV (live avp) have their own scanner (which tends to
replace amavis or qmail scanner).
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 04:21:07PM -0500,
Leander Berwers [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am writing an auto-responder in Perl. I have been looking for the ones
publicly available, but I was wondering to what address I have to
respond to, namely: Do you need to look for Reply-To: first and if that
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:19:27PM +0100,
"Robin S. Socha" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recommended reading for obvious newbies like yourself:
http://learn.to/attribute/
I took a look at the attribute page because I had had a recent discussion
with someone over whether or not date and/or time
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:20:32PM -0500,
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Hans-Juergen Schwarz wrote:
Hello all,
when a form processing-cgi requieres a /path/to/mailprog I usually
put the line /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject in it. But is some cases it
doesn´t
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:20:07AM -0800,
Jon Rust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:10:59AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
No it does not. sendmail expects encoded email addresses in the argument
list, while the qmail wrapper expects raw addresses. This cause problems
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 04:18:52PM -0600,
"John W. Lemons III" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with this as well, but certainly you can see that there is some
level
of benefit from a two (or three) tier approach to virus
detection/prevention.
How does doing virus checking twice help? It
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 06:54:01PM -0500,
"Nathan J. Mehl" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, ISTR that the Morris Worm did a pretty good job of spreading over
heterogeneous UNIX-like systems over a variety of transports. And
despite his father's connections, RTM himself was basically a bored
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 02:42:25PM -0600,
"John W. Lemons III" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is true enough, but if the virus can be stopped some of the time before
it even reaches the end user, why not?
Because there are costs in doing so.
Generally if a person needs antivirus
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 08:05:20AM -0800,
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean "someone@domain" as the complete address with no dots on the
right-hand side? Bear in mind that RFC 822 contains *no* address
canonicalization provisions; if you're expecting your local domain to
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 06:13:11PM +1100,
Brett Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Configured with the ability to manually send a complaint back to the
sender, or the postmaster/abuse account there, it could serve as a
I would be shocked if it actually analysed the received headers using
a
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 08:36:06PM -0400,
Francis Abella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Return-Path: "\"joeuser\" joeuser"@mybox.com
From: "joeuser" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What looks like is happening is that the address feild on the from
line is being used as the envelope sender address. This is not
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:16:38AM -0400,
Nick Lekic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that http://cr.yp.to site is down.
Anyone knows where I can download qmail, uscpi-tcp and daemontools from?
Thanks Nick
My guess is that the transformer fire in Chicago may have had an effect.
It
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles McLagan writes:
Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
if there
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:27:42AM +0200,
Martin Jespersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with tcpserver is that it doesn't use libwrap and this is
absolutely nescessry since i have automated hosts.allow and hosts.deny
generation by programs that i haven't written and are not a good
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 06:22:51PM -0300,
Eric Dahnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we can send html formatted messages. can we send an html email which
includes a form or link that when submitted would contact a web server
and refresh the original html message with new cgi generated content?
By far most double bounces I see are spam with bogus return addresses
listed for old email addresses here. Those I ignore. Some are for broken
list servers, some of which don't accept bounce messages. Sometimes I
write filter rules for those to forward future crap to their postmaster
and list
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:33:21PM +0200,
Frans Haarman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see constant disk activity when using daemontools to
monitor qmail.
Is this bad for my hd ? Someone told me changes
of my disks dying with constat disk activity are
much higher!
If they are making noise
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:22:40AM -0700,
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, is there a downside to this that I just can't see? Am I
asking for trouble by having a bot listen in on this list?
You have probably thought of this already, but make sure it doesn't
reply to answers to
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 06:44:58PM -,
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I receive email for a domain via uucp, and send out mail via smtp to a
commercial relay host, (why, is a rather complicated issue,) which is
the default in smtproutes for non-local domain delivery.
Incoming
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:53:20PM -0700,
Christopher Taranto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jamie,
My post of a couple of days ago has a similar problem - but no one has
responded to my message.
I don't think I have the answer to your problem, but one thing you
should be aware of is that
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 06:23:47AM -,
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anyone using tcpserver on a few daemon sockets as an alternative to
a firewall?
That isn't such a good idea. That will potentially protect those ports,
but won't do much for other ports on the system. You can
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 01:29:02PM +0200,
Magnus Bodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that qmail folds letters to lower case, which actually is correct
-- but only for the postmaster address.
No. Except for postmaster and the null address 'local' parts of the address can
be treated
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 04:00:42PM +0200,
Fat Toolz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi qmail,
I just opened the firewall on port 113, the logon is quite faster and I'm quite
lucky to miss this dumb Outlook Express-Screen "Your Server has not responded for 60
seconds" :-) . I want to enable
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 11:27:24AM -0400,
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 01:29:02PM +0200,
Magnus Bodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that qmail folds letters to lower case, which actually is correct
-- but only
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 02:44:49PM -0400,
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=?windows-1255?B?5+np7SDk7PT47w==?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why does it say in all the qmail manuals and LWQ to start smtpd with
tcpserver with the -p switch
to check dns addresses?
Just being cautious. A bad
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:39:52PM -0400,
John Steniger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having an issue which I believe is tcpserver; I've searched the archives
and haven't found anything.
I have qmail up and running under tcpserver, and using a client like Outlook
I am able to both send
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:46:32PM -0700,
"Aaron L. Meehan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How they can allow their users to send lots of mail--to such places as
AOL, any network for that matter that has external mail gateways that
forward to internal hosts--and when it bounces NOT know about it
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +,
JuanE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not think of that. Good suggestion.
It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down
server out of the rotation relatively quickly. If not, then you'll waste
considerable time polling
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:05:54PM -0700,
Harry Putnam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks ... Nice page. Not sure I understand why qmail strips out the
`^From ' line though. Necessitating hacks and add on guff, like
`preline'.
You don't want to use the from line anyway. There isn't a
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 01:08:36AM -0700,
Doug Oucharek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've searched the archives on this topic and though there are a lot of
people who have reported this issue, I have not really seen a solution yet.
I have a Linux box (Redhad 5.?) which I use as a
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 12:04:59PM +0200,
TAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way of keeping a local copy of the RBL lists and using those
instead of trying to get it from the remote site - should this not speed
things up - I also know that the list is updated all the time - but can
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 10:44:49AM -0400,
Paul Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, RBL onlt requires that you do that if you want certian levels of
filtering (namely DNS).
uscpi-tcp-88 has RBL built in.. www.qmail.org
But this program does a remote lookup each time. The original question
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 06:10:45AM -,
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Version 0.90 of qmail-autoresponder is now available at:
http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-autoresponder/
I took a look at it any it seems pretty nice. However around here we
still use reflectors on the main
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 09:07:19AM -0600,
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 09:08:45AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I took a look at it any it seems pretty nice. However around here we
still use reflectors on the main mailservers and having a check
This is because qmail-inject expects to be passed unencoded email addresses
and mutt passes rfc 821 encoded email addresses. They do this because
sendmail treats addresses as being rfc 822 encoded, and some unencoded
addresses won't work.
If you want these addresses to work you can modify the
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 04:22:11PM +0200,
Magnus Bodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you mean that mutt encodes the addresses?
It passes the address like this: "address with spaces"@x42.com
nothinge else.
Most likely you the address you are really referring to is:
address with [EMAIL
As I see it, qmail-inject does not like quoted-strings in local-part on the
command line.
No, it treats the addresses on the command lines as raw addresses. If there
are quotes in the raw address (and almost certainly there won't be), then
they would be included on the command line.
The
OK. It's just that I can't really find the guilty part.
When using a perl wrapper with mutt, mutt sends
-f [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "address with spaces"@x42.com
on the command line to the mail queuer.
Doing this manually works. But letting mutt do it directly to qmail-inject
fails by
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 10:35:41AM -0500,
Eric Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a domain name similar to another domain name registered by another
company. It appears that their users have no regard for how to correctly
type their own domain name, so they forget one letter and end up
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 10:49:54AM -0500,
Positive it's not happening. People sending from legit addresses don't get
a bounced message saying the message could not be delivered to xyz user on
my system. It just delivers to the postmaster account and the person that
wrote the message hasn't
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 01:10:51PM -0700,
David Benfell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He's right. If you do a traceroute to just about anything, you'll see
that 25 hops is ample. When it takes more than 25 hops, it's getting
lost.
The kind of hops counted by traceroute aren't the ones that
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 04:13:44PM -0500,
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone familiar with any weirdness betwixt qmail and webboard mail
servers?
My experience with webboard mail servers is that they are broken. They
don't accept as a valid envelope sender address. As far as I
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 02:36:24PM -0700,
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I will be able to use them again as I only want to block inputs
and outputs, since the ORBS seems to catch sites faster than the RSS.
That's because RSS
- ORBS blocks "unfriendly" sites criticising ORBS
Is there a site with documentation on this? I'd like to
check it out for myself.
There is a bit more to it then that. Some people who disagree with how the
ORBS is run block their relay tests. The ORBS considers this grounds for
being
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 12:27:49PM +0200,
Pablo Martínez Schroder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having some problems sending mail to a specific domain...
When qmail tries to send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from our mail server
(212.49.139.237) and the sender is [EMAIL PROTECTED], bt.es mail
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 03:37:30PM +0200,
Pablo Martínez Schroder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
There isn't any MX or A record associated with hidratel.com. Some sites
check for the existance of an A record or MX record and refuse email
if there isn't one. Not all sites
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:13:24AM -0700,
Ryan Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes perfect sense, from a certain point of view. The ORBS guys want
to list relays. The run across an address block that has a number of open
relays, and the adminitrators of that block aren't responsive
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:09:57PM +0200,
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends on your filtering software. It seems djb's rblsmtpd does not
have an option to change this. That sucks. Your choice is hereby reduced
(by DJB, not by any people at ORBS) to 'block everything ORBS
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 07:33:08AM -0500,
Troy Frericks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anybody given an explanation as to why this simple change has not been
implemented on this list. Kinds of seems silly that it has not been done,
especially given the extra messages not having it
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:41:39AM +1000,
Michael Waples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a client that needs various mailing lists and needs to send
around 100,000 messages a day - he needs to handle bounces and
subscriptions automatically-
ezmlm-idx seems perfect but for one thing -
he
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 04:58:58PM -0300,
Rogerio Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave is impressive, indeed. But Dan's got to get the prize.
Let's see. The man is a teacher, active researcher writing
papers about Number Theory (that's what I want to be when I
grow
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 05:14:46PM -0600,
Steve Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there should be no need to "hack" qmail
And there isn't! Why do people persist on insecure MUAs?
I'll chime in on this, even though my view may not be the same as
everyone else's.
The problem
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 05:14:46PM -0600,
Steve Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I sent my analysis of the "iloveyou" virus to BugTraq, I was
deluged with email - all of them bounces. Because my message started with
"ilove you", many, many mail servers had blocked it. That was
On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 04:35:01PM -0500,
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone point me to the IETF RFC describing e-mail addresses
of the form david@[10.10.10.10] Although web pages refer to
this construction as a "821-compliant address" I found no discussion
of
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 02:56:38AM -0600,
Neil Schemenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 07:28:32PM -0400, Searcher wrote:
exit(31) if /name="LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs"/o;
Am I missing something here?
Nothing except that fact that the real solution is to fix
Also, Do people see the benifit in doing resolvable name checks. Doesn't
it hurt in the above scenario
It encourages spammers to abuse real domain names so that someone can sue
them. There have been a couple of successful law suits over sending spam
with someone else's domain name.
It keeps
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:42:10AM +0100,
Horses for courses, PGP has its place but not on mailing lists for
example.
I disagree. It can be important to establish you always sign messages to
lend credibility for when you want to deny posting/sending some message.
PGP signed messages will
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 01:53:39PM -0400,
"Timothy L. Mayo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please do NOT use HTML on this list. :) Quite a few of us use pine or
mutt to read our mail.
But we're the lucky ones, the people who are probably going to get hosed
are the ones reading their mail with
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:54:08PM +1000,
Manfred Bartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the easiest way to forward a whole bunch of messages in a
maildir to a different user account on a different system?
Tag all of the messages and then mass bounce or forward them to the other
user. This
On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 02:59:51PM -0400,
"Vaz, Len" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More of a email format rather than a qmail question, so I apologize for
posting this here up front. Could not get the answer in Dan's pages.
If I were to get a bounced message, is it possible to re-direct the
On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 12:12:24AM +0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any component of qmail/ucspi-tcp that would initiate identd
lookups on a remote host? A network admin has complained that his
server has been receiving a large amount of identd queries to his
server coming from our
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 05:37:19PM -0500,
Erich Zigler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 03:19:10PM -0700, Joel Dudley wrote:
How does one set up ezmlm so that when someone replies to a message they
recieved from the list it is replied to the list, and not the author of
This sounds a little like a problem that was reported to the bugtraq
list last week.
There are some places that are sending back broken packets. From memory,
it was in response to pactkets setting socket options and these options
were sent back as data. This primarily affects linux systems.
On
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 06:57:18AM -0600,
Troy Frericks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it would be nice if it were part of the displayable portion of each post.
Almost all other mailing lists do it. This list is being run on qmail, and
qmail has the ability to attach a footer (part of the text
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:09:09PM -0700,
Irwan Hadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After waiting for long time, the SMTP banner then up again
how this could be happened ?
so when I telnet localhost 25, I must wait about 3 minutes to wait until
the SMTP banner up. (qmail is ready)
how to fix
ezmlm looks at the envelope sender address, not the from header, and not
the nonstandard errors-to header, when checking for subscribed addresses.
You can manually add other addresses that are allowed to post messages,
and that is probably the easiest solution to your problem.
On Thu, Mar 23,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 09:14:34AM -0600,
Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually intercept outgoing traffic to point 25 and send it to my own
server. I've only had one person notice this and when I explained why, he
decided that he could see how that might be useful and
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:58:33PM -0500,
stanislav shalunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A (clueless) relative of my wife sent her an "animated Purim greeting
card." She showed me the message asking how she can stop seeing such
mail or somesuch.
I have the same problem and have been trying to
On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 12:22:21PM -0500,
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have the same problem and have been trying to educate my relatives.
What education do people sending you cards need? Apparently I need it,
too.
That I don't read
On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 03:13:19PM +,
Jorge Rocha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
Anybody know a way to solve this problem?
Tell the people doing the testing to fix their test.
There is nothing wrong with accepting that email as long as you don't
blindly
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:47:00AM +0100,
Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the question here is, what's better: A security hole allowing
remote attackers to find out which email address is valid without
waiting for the bounce (and giving a valid return address in advance) or
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 04:41:44AM +0100,
Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 10:17:22PM -0500, andy huhn wrote:
What is the difference between ident-lookups and DNS? And why would
either one affect incoming mail?
Ident lookups try to gather information about
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 03:29:06PM +0100,
Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hoi folx,
just had a discussion with a support person. Their MUA is not deleting
Bcc: Lines from the header.
They claim it's within the repsonsibility of the MTA to look at the
headers and "do the right
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 10:03:33AM -0600,
Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back in the 80's, when I was a Lisp Machine administrator, the Symbolics email
system would send bcc'd mail *with* the bcc header to those who were on the
BCC list and without it to those who weren't.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:34:11AM -,
Lorens Kockum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:04 AM 2/20/00 -0800, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
Just imagine what happens when some script kiddie uses a few ten
thousand trojaned cable/dsl connected home
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients.
All these recipients will bounce the message - separately. There's your
amplification :)
This is a gain if you are sending the original message
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 03:06:16PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 08:03:04AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients
The tcpserver options I copied over included -q. I should know better than
to ask questions late at night.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 12:43:46AM -0600,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am setting up qmail on a new box and am trying to use multilog (which I
wasn't on my old box
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 03:44:44PM -0500,
ari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, i believe that running files as their own separate user is not good
enough; if at all possible, services should be in their own chroot()'ed
environment. There is no excuse for named to run either as root or
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 03:27:17PM -0500,
"Mark E. Drummond" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently using rblsmtpd to block spammers on the RBL. I may add ORBS as
well. Think I'll wait, gather some stats on how much is being blocked by RBL,
and then compare with RBL+ORBS.
Also look at the
I am setting up qmail on a new box and am trying to use multilog (which I
wasn't on my old box). It seems to work OK for qmail, but I also was going
to try to use it for qmail-smtpd. I think the multilog stuff is set up
correctly, but I am not getting anything logged. Is this normal? Is there
a
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:02:24AM +0100,
Hans Sandsdalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just want to remove the "host!" part of the string. I could of
course use .qmail files, but this will be a lot of work. There
is not a fixed number of hosts nor users at each host.
You can use the catch
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:50:46AM +0100,
Hans Sandsdalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
How do I make qmail understand addresses like host!user@domain?
I have installed HP jetadmin on a Solaris 7 system, and when
there are printing errors it sends a mail to the user with
addresses like
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:43:37AM -0600,
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True; but if you're modifying existing files, the directory data to
locate it is already safely on disk; only the timestamp might be
wrong. This isn't the qmail situation, but it's an important real
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:46:17AM -0500,
Brian R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My isp blocks port 25, I was looking for suggestions to get around this. The
only thing I can come up with is: setting up a relay from an outside box to
another port on my machine. Is this plausible?
I am assuming
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:29:03AM -0500,
Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Wilson Fletcher wrote:
I ried to send to wilson@[203.26.11.154] but it failed. Can someone tell me why ?
Because this form of addressing is obsolete and deprecated. Once upon a
time MX records
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
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 09:53:49PM -0500,
"Mark E. Drummond" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Communicator. Spawning a browser to view some goofballs HTML mail, which
I receive a lot of, is a pain in the ass. Lacks some of the features I
was used to in mutt and pine, not nearly as configurable,
On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 05:57:30PM +0100,
Arne Hanssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Some days ago on this list, some guys were discussing whether
Return-Path is set by the MUA or the MTA. This is an issue for
me as I have (had?) problems with this, using mutt. Even if I try
to include a
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 01:55:19PM -0500,
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Brown writes:
Actually, in this case, it was a completely automated system. I don't
believe malice here.
Yes, and it did the right thing in this case -- to send email to all
likely receipients
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
