Just FYI in case anyone was losing sleep over not being able to use
the QMTP patch and the outgoing IP patche to qmail-remote.c at the
same time. Well, and also to prevent my previous post from being an
archive orphan.
It turns out that the additional qmail_remote.c code for QMTP totally
Does anyone have a qmail-remote.c that has been patched for qmtp AND
outgoingip? I must have botched the patch combination, since I now get:
qmail-remote2001-05-18 17:21:26.339297500 delivery 1: deferral: qmail-remote_crashed./
Thank goodness I backed up the binaries and use RCS on the source
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
Yes, without problems. But also without big impact :)
Regards, Frank
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
I thought about giving it a whirl but wouldnt do much good if im the only
one.
Administrator
Steve Hagerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advancedisp.com/
Phone: 864-220-1594
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:58:26PM -0400, Steve Hagerman wrote:
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
Meaning the modified qmail-remote, running qmail-qmtpd and annoucing this
via MXPS? We do it for everthing hosted here.
I thought about giving it a whirl but wouldnt do much
Steve Hagerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
Yes, many people on this list are using Dan's MXPS proposal. Russell Nelson
and others have QMTP patches for qmail. See qmail.org for details.
Charles
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:58:26PM -0400, Steve Hagerman wrote:
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
I thought about giving it a whirl but wouldnt do much good if im the only
one.
I provide lists that deliver over qmtp if your MX records are
MXPS-compliant. Go to http
* Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010504 20:42]:
Steve Hagerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey just curious is anyone implementing qmtp presently?
Yes, many people on this list are using Dan's MXPS proposal. Russell Nelson
and others have QMTP patches for qmail. See qmail.org for details
Hi!
I'm running Qmail-1.03 (big-dns.patch, big-concurrency.patch,
badmailfrom.patch, AND qmail-1.03-qmtpc.patch), daemontools, ucspi-tcp
on testing servers.
I add on my DNS:
INMX12800mail.myserver.com. ; for SMTP service
INMX12801mail.myserver.com. ; for QMTP service
Federico Edelman Anaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
INMX12800mail.myserver.com. ; for SMTP service
INMX12801mail.myserver.com. ; for QMTP service
I'm running under the supervise script the qmtpd service ... when I send
a mail to myserver.com, the qmail-remote
. ; for SMTP service
INMX12801mail.myserver.com. ; for QMTP service
I'm running under the supervise script the qmtpd service ... when I send
a mail to myserver.com, the qmail-remote communicate to SMTP instead of
QMTP :(
Read http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt. You want to remove the 12800
im looking for usage stats on qmtp. it sounds like something that i'm
interested in however i wonder how many hosts use it
~kurth
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 03:17:30PM -0500, Kurth Bemis wrote:
im looking for usage stats on qmtp. it sounds like something that i'm
interested in however i wonder how many hosts use it
Few. Join us :)
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/ for all the patches you need.
Greetz, Peter.
hi all-
i currently have a setup where one central mail server receives all mail
for a primary domain, then redistributes it to subdomains (eg satellite
offices) as necessary. this is currently done with fastforward and SMTP.
i'd like to try out QMTP, and use this to forward
to try out QMTP, and use this to forward mail from the central
server out to the satellites. is there an easy way to cofigure the cenral
server to know who it can/should speak QMTP with? it seems very
straightforward to receive QMTP messages, but i'm not sure if there's a
great way to decide
with fastforward and SMTP.
i'd like to try out QMTP, and use this to forward mail from the central
server out to the satellites. is there an easy way to cofigure the cenral
server to know who it can/should speak QMTP with? it seems very
straightforward to receive QMTP messages, but i'm not sure if there's
Because of having been offline for six weeks in December/January I
totally missed the QMTP/MXPS discussions. After some reading in the
archive I installed Johan Almqvists patch to enable QMTP through MXPS
(I had running qmtpd for a long while).
I just checked the logs and found
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:28:33AM +0100, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Because of having been offline for six weeks in December/January I
totally missed the QMTP/MXPS discussions. After some reading in the
archive I installed Johan Almqvists patch to enable QMTP through MXPS
(I had running qmtpd
Where can I get help about qmail with qmtp?
* Federico Edelman Anaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010216 12:29]:
Where can I get help about qmail with qmtp?
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/qmail-qmtpc.html
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Where can I get help about qmail with qmtp?
Describe your problem, then someone may be able to help you.
If you want to run qmail-qmtpd - that's not different from qmail-smtpd. If
you want to use one of the qmtp-patches to qmail-remote you have to get
them first. Look at www.qmail.org
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:42:04PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
* Federico Edelman Anaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010216 12:29]:
Where can I get help about qmail with qmtp?
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/qmail-qmtpc.html
And when you have that set up, go to http://www.dataloss.nl/services
-tcp-0.88
The system run under supervise script ( service/qmail , service/qmail-smtpd ,
service/qmail-qmtpd)
Well.. I sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
verify my configuration ..
but I am under a firewall. I received a mail from this server. My server 1
send a mails to qmtp service. But, when
But.. I don't understand how qmail work with control/mailroutes.. I can't get
help for this implementation..
This is documented in the updated man page for qmail-remote.
but I am under a firewall. I received a mail from this server. My server 1
send a mails to qmtp service. But, when I sent
.
but I am under a firewall. I received a mail from this server. My server 1
send a mails to qmtp service. But, when I sent a mail from Server 1 to Server
2, the mail was sent to SMTP service .. I don't know what I do because
I don't know exactly work the qmail qmtp service .. or mailroutes
Yeah.. the port 209 is firewalled .. but.. the server1 and server2 are locals
machines ..
How do you route between them?
If you used smtproutes before you have to use mailroutes now.
server1.example.com:[192.168.1.1]:209:qmtp
and
server2.example.com:[192.168.1.2]:209:qmtp
at the other
U.. I'd like the Qmail send to QMTP if the remote host have this service ..
but if the remote host don't have running de QMTP service .. my sever send to
SMTP service .. :) Is this way the qmail work?
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Yeah.. the port 209 is firewalled .. but.. the server1
U.. I'd like the Qmail send to QMTP if the remote host have this service ..
but if the remote host don't have running de QMTP service .. my sever send to
SMTP service .. :) Is this way the qmail work?
No, this is only the fallback of the qmtp-patch. The actual patch
implementation
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Sam Trenholme wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Faried Nawaz wrote:
With QMTP, you get
C: message and sender and recipients sent before the server says anything,
tying up the connection for 30 seconds and wasting bandwidth
S: 7:Dgo away,
This also wastes
QMTP may be faster than SMTP for sending mail, but it seems less powerful in
our spam-happy Internet era. How would one go about rejecting incoming QMTP
mail? The protocol suggests that there is no way of writing some equivalent
of rblsmtpd. The shipped qmail-qmtpd.c in qmail 1.03 doesn't
Faried Nawaz writes:
QMTP may be faster than SMTP for sending mail, but it seems less
powerful in our spam-happy Internet era.
I think you mean Dan's implementation is 'less powerful'; it has nothing to
do with the protocol.
Has anyone seen spam enter their network via qmail-qmtpd
Vincent Schonau wrote:
I think you mean Dan's implementation is 'less powerful'; it has nothing to
do with the protocol.
With SMTP, you get
S: 220 hi, it's me!
C: mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S: 551 go away
With QMTP, you get
C: message and sender and recipients sent before the server
the QMTP spec includes:
8. Examples
A client opens a connection and sends the concatenation of the
following strings:
"246:" 0a
"Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 0);"
" 29 Jul 1996 09:36:40 -" 0a
"D
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:23:07PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
[snip]
The server sends the following response, indicating acceptance:
"21:Kok 838640135 qp 1390,"
"21:Kok 838640135 qp 1391,"
"21:Kok 838640135 qp 1391,"
The client closes the connection.
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two recipients, two responses. Looks like a bug in the document.
There are three recipients across two messages. The first has one, the
second has two.
--
Dan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://danp.net
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:08:32AM +0459, Faried Nawaz wrote:
QMTP may be faster than SMTP for sending mail, but it seems less powerful in
our spam-happy Internet era. How would one go about rejecting incoming QMTP
mail? The protocol suggests that there is no way of writing some equivalent
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 05:16:45AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Johan Almqvist writes:
Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Don't believe everything you read. :-)
My original design made QMTP-only mail exchangers easier but made
QMTP+SMTP mail exchangers harder. This was a bad
D. J. Bernstein writes:
Johan Almqvist writes:
Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Don't believe everything you read. :-)
My original design made QMTP-only mail exchangers easier but made
QMTP+SMTP mail exchangers harder. This was a bad tradeoff.
Clients should interpret
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:05:16PM +0100, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
[snip]
However, when I query for crynwr.com, I get:
crynwr.com 86354 MX 12801 pdam.crynwr.com
crynwr.com 86354 MX 12816 pdam.crynwr.com
This set of MX records compensates for a bug in Russell's QMTP
implementation (that has
Johan Almqvist writes:
Quoting http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Don't believe everything you read. :-)
My original design made QMTP-only mail exchangers easier but made
QMTP+SMTP mail exchangers harder. This was a bad tradeoff.
Clients should interpret a QMTP priority as ``try QMTP, then try
Situation:
The primary MX for quadpro.stupendous.org is capable of accepting mail
via QMTP, and regularly does so. Of course, it is also capable of
accepting mail via SMTP. The 'secondary' MX is only capable of doing
SMTP.
What are the correct MX-records I should create?
I made
E.ORG
IN MX 12816 C.EXAMPLE.ORG
[...]
A sender with a message for B.EXAMPLE.ORG will try A.EXAMPLE.ORG by
QMTP, then C.EXAMPLE.ORG by SMTP. If it does not support QMTP, it may
try SMTP instead of QMTP, or it may skip A.EXAMPLE.ORG."
Note the "...or it may skip...
l try A.EXAMPLE.ORG by
QMTP, then C.EXAMPLE.ORG by SMTP. If it does not support QMTP, it may
try SMTP instead of QMTP, or it may skip A.EXAMPLE.ORG."
Note the "...or it may skip..." part.
I've read that page a few times myself. Since I'm not a native English
speaker, I'm having
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:38:40PM +0100, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
But I'm interested in the case where an MXPS-aware QMTP-capable sender
tries to deliver a message to quadpro.stupendous.org (with MX records
set according to [1], but finds port 209 (QMTP) unavailable. Will such
a sender
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:38:23PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Now, who wants to work on cqmtp (compressed quick mail transport
protocol)? :) No reason why you couldn't run gzip on the whole chunk
before sending it off.
Save the children! Save Dave and Virginia!
QMTP-delivering sublist up and running. Send to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to use it.
The host does SMTP too, if you feel like just using a closer sublist
and not even care about QMTP.
Will create more sublists as people show demand.
Greetz, Peter.
I installed QMTP on sources.redhat.com. sources.redhat.com, formerly
sourceware.cygnus.com, is the host of a number of free software
projects, including gcc, gdb, and the GNU binutils. It sends out over
100,000 e-mail messages per day.
The system has received exactly one mail message via QMTP
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Russ, thanks for writing the QMTP patches. Now, when are you going to
start using QMTP to send out FSB?
:) Good point. Okay, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, and the mgetty
list are all being delivered via qmtpd
:
success: 192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_978720863_qp_22711/
Current qmtp:
success: qmtp:_ok_978720977_qp_22786/All_received_okay_by_192.203.178.8/
Suggested qmtp:
success:
qmtp:192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_ok_978720977_qp_22786/
Then a triv
I started writing a qmail version who use a new SMTP syntax to start a
QMTP conversation over a SMTP protocol:
S 220 ready
C HELO mail.test
S 250 mail.test
C PROTO QMTP
After this command, a standard smtp server returns a 5xx reply:
sendmail: 500 Command unrecognized: "PROTO QMTP"
Am Dienstag, 9. Januar 2001 11:36 schrieb Johan Almqvist:
Do we want smtp to say:
success:
smtp:192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_978720863_qp_
22711/
I'd not change the this, it makes smtp log entries incompatible with stock
qmail. Even if it's more logical.
--
Am Donnerstag, 1. Januar 1970 00:59 schrieb Tullio Andreatta:
I started writing a qmail version who use a new SMTP syntax to start a
QMTP conversation over a SMTP protocol:
May be it's a good idea, but the task is too big for me.
Someone interested?
It's no good idea to start a SMTP
' in other parts of the patch, so it
could here too.
However, the log will be incompatible anyhow, because right now, an
eventual analysis tool will just not see the qmtp deliveries at all. To
fix that, my patch minus the protocol information must be used, and maybe
(depending on the log analysis tool
Am Dienstag, 9. Januar 2001 13:13 schrieb Johan Almqvist:
However, the log will be incompatible anyhow, because right now, an
eventual analysis tool will just not see the qmtp deliveries at all. To
fix that, my patch minus the protocol information must be used, and maybe
(depending
Hi!
I'm very keen on getting this list via qmtp, as to not abuse the SMTP
gateway I'm currently using.
Unless we can get DJB to replace his qmail-remote, I can see one solution:
someone "close" to the cr.yp.to machines puts up a sublist and uses the
patched qmail-remote.
Any offer
Greg Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It also seems to me that one of the design traits of qmail is
simplicity of config files - I can't find the reference, but I thought
somewhere DJB said that having to parse complex config files is a cause of
problems.
See:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:15:16PM +0100, Tullio Andreatta wrote:
[snip]
May be it's a good idea, but the task is too big for me.
It's not a good idea.
- by the time your method has started QMTP, all or most of the latency
that QMTP tries to avoid has been introduced by the negotiation
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:11:30PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
Hi!
I'm very keen on getting this list via qmtp, as to not abuse the SMTP
gateway I'm currently using.
Unless we can get DJB to replace his qmail-remote, I can see one solution:
someone "close" to the cr.yp.to mac
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:13:24AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
[snip]
Doesn't even need to be close, just well-connected. I'd be happy to do
that on my server (to which I will move my qmail.org mirror soon, too).
Everything seems to be up and running now, *but* list.cr.yp.to refuses
to
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:28:26PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said Ricardo Cerqueira on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:50:16 GMT:
Hmmm... OK, disregard my previous mail.
Personally, I'd rather have one file for SMTP, and another for QMTP. Does
anyone else here agree with me?
I'd really like
Andy Bradford said:
Thus said Ricardo Cerqueira on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:50:16 GMT:
Personally, I'd rather have one file for SMTP, and another
for QMTP. Does anyone else here agree with me?
This seems more logical to me as it allows finer control
over the entire system
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said Ricardo Cerqueira on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:50:16 GMT:
Hmmm... OK, disregard my previous mail.
Personally, I'd rather have one file for SMTP, and another for QMTP. Does
anyone else here agree with me?
This seems more logical to me
Hi!
Having caught the qmtp virus, I set up a service for qmtp testing - hey,
it'd been a lot easier for me to set this up if there'd been such a
service.
If anyone dinks around with it too much, it will disappear without further
notice.
The following four addresses exist:
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:59:18PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
Not to be picky, but why not call the file qmtproutes instead of
mailroutes? :-)
Because it contains both SMTP and QMTP routes. I figured that would be a
better idea, and so did other people.
Quoting Alex:
I like the mailroutes
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 04:12:11PM -0600, Timothy Legant wrote:
The following four addresses exist:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I couldn't get a correct response from the first one - just a bounce
from MAILER-DAEMON with the qmail-send message "Sorry, no mailbox here
by that
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:56:47AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:59:18PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
Not to be picky, but why not call the file qmtproutes instead of
mailroutes? :-)
Because it contains both SMTP and QMTP routes. I figured that would be a
better
Thus said Ricardo Cerqueira on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:50:16 GMT:
Hmmm... OK, disregard my previous mail.
Personally, I'd rather have one file for SMTP, and another for QMTP. Does
anyone else here agree with me?
This seems more logical to me as it allows finer control over the
entire system
:_250_ok_978720863_qp_22711/
Current qmtp:
success: qmtp:_ok_978720977_qp_22786/All_received_okay_by_192.203.178.8/
Suggested qmtp:
success: qmtp:192.203.178.8_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_ok_978720977_qp_22786/
Then a triv change to the smtp output and we have parsing consistency.
Regards.
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
[snip]
It's clear that djb's talking about 0a/LF EXCEPT in line end
designators (which can either be CRLF or LF). So basically every message
that does not contain LFs that are not line feeds is "safe".
I couldn't
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 7 September 2000 at 14:27:21 +0200
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
[snip]
It's clear that djb's talking about 0a/LF EXCEPT in line end
designators (which can either be CRLF or LF). So basically every
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:58:04AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[snip]
The line terminator (conventionally a linefeed on Unix) isn't a part
of the line in this definition, I think. At least, taking it that way
makes it all come together. Then it ends up saying that the message
is safe so
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:06:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
Austad, Jay [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
I am glancing over qmtp.txt and it's mostly quite clear to me, except
the stuff about 'safe messages'. If none of the bytes in a safe
message can be 0a, when the hell *do* we see a
Where would I find detailed specs on the QMTP protocol? I've found some
stuff at http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt, but I need more.
We're writing a little piece of code that's going to sit on a couple of
hundred Win2000 webservers that can talk QMTP to our qmail box for faster
delivery. Users
The code for serialmail comes with code to send via qmtp.
- Original Message -
From: "Austad, Jay" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:35 AM
Subject: QMTP
Where would I find detailed specs on the QMTP protocol? I've found some
stu
: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 12:51 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: QMTP
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:08AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
Where would I find detailed specs on the QMTP protocol? I've found some
stuff at http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt, but I need more.
What part
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:47:38PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
I understand it fine. I just have to get as much info as possible for our
developers so they can code it up. Just want to make sure they don't have
to do a ton of debugging due some subtle mistake somewhere.
QMTP is too simple
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:08AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
Where would I find detailed specs on the QMTP protocol? I've found some
stuff at http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt, but I need more.
What part of that document is unclear to you, or what don't you
understand? You might want to read
Your arguments are interesting in so far as they pertain to the use of QMTP, but
my concern is more that at some point the Qmail community may want to have QMTP
as RFCxyz and used as a standard feature of mail exchange. With that goal (in my
mind, maybe not yours), my proposal seemed to have
To make this a little more QMTP compatible, and to agree with some of Peter
Norton's comments from late 1998, the sending MTA could also immediately
'transfer' the request to the QMTP by opening a new connection on the QMTP
port when it 'saw' the QMTP response from the foreign SMTP MTA. It would
DJB mentions on his 'future of qmail' page that a way to encode that a
host supports QMTP into its MX data is in the works. What method for
doing so is proposed?
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 05:32:17PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
DJB mentions on his 'future of qmail' page that a way to encode that a
host supports QMTP into its MX data is in the works. What method for
doing so is proposed?
http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt, I imagine.
Regards,
james
will be
_magic.s.* I can receive mail by SMTP
_magic.q.* I can receive mail by QMTP
_magic.qs.* I can receive mail by QMTP or SMTP
with the possibility of future extensions such as
_magic.abcdqrsz.*
-X-
James Raftery wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 05:32:17PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote
I was wondering if it wouldn't be smart to use an extension to EHLO as a
way to detect QMTP availability on an MX. I decided to check and 'QMTP'
'EHLO' only appear together 4 times. Chuck Foster seems to be the
first to have asked whether it wouldn't be smart to add a "250 QMTP&qu
preferences. The basic options will be
I think that's a silly idea. Better to pick a "magic" MX preference,
and try qmtp. If it fails, then fall back to smtp. The number of
people who happen to use that preference AND who have something
listening on the qmtp port is either zero now, or will b
I've read the information in the four page printout that covers Quick
Mail Transfer Protocol (QMTP-19970201).
Qmail and Qmtp has been set up on a linux machine. I can telnet into
port 209 (no problems).
The problem is, while writing a piece of software, I cannot "QMTP" e-
mail to
Hi,
I'd like to know whether there are significant differences between
QMQP and QMTP. I know that qmail-qmqpc is used in place of qmail-queue
so mail isn't safely stored on the QMQP client, whereas a QMTP client
could be used in place of qmail-remote ( I'm thinking about writing a
patch
Brian Baquiran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the difference between QMTP and QMQP? When and where should I use them?
QMTP (Quick Mail Transfer Protocol) is a modified, high-performance
SMTP replacement. See http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt.
QMQP (Quick Mail Queueing Protocol) is a mail queuing
What's the difference between QMTP and QMQP? When and where should I use them?
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
US Fax: (603) 908-0727
AIM: bbaquiran
(from sendmail).
The Solution:
Write a small QMTP fowarding program (serialmail wasn't really
what I wanted). Add the following two lines to my .qmail file:
|if $HOME/bin/tcpclient my.domain 209 $HOME/bin/qmtp
$SENDER neil; then exit 99; else exit 0; fi $HOME/qmtp.log
21
Title: QMTP
Are there any NT implementations of QMTP available? I'd like to drastically speed the time that it takes our MS SMTP Server to populate the qmail queue and this is one logical and probably most efficient way to do it. If there's no such thing available, are there any open source
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:21:52 -0400, Daniluk, Cris wrote:
We want to speed the time it takes to inject mail into the qmail queue.
Currently with smtp we can only inject ~500 messages per second. To speed
this up, based on the recommendation of many on the list, I want to
implement QMTP
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 07:40:59PM -0400, Peter C. Norton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
netstat -a |fgrep '*:qmtp'
or the low-level C equivalent.
I'm not concerned with this. I'm concerned with Fred's proposal
relying on the status
On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 08:53:29AM -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
Since SMTP and QMTP are linked anyway, the advertizing of QMTP by the
SMTP server could easily be linked to QMTP being up. Thus, a working
smtpd with a failed qmtpd (admin forgot to start?) would not advertize
QMTP. This would
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Peter C. Norton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
netstat -a |fgrep '*:qmtp'
or the low-level C equivalent.
I'm not concerned with this. I'm concerned with Fred's proposal
relying on the status of the remote smtp
From: Richard Letts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:06:04 +0100 (BST)
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Peter C. Norton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
netstat -a |fgrep '*:qmtp'
or the low-level C equivalent.
I'm not concerned
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:37:48 -0400, Chris Johnson wrote:
Why not just implement QMTP in qmail-smtpd? qmail-smtpd would advertise QMTP in
its banner, and then the host connecting would be free to start firing away in
QMTP lingo. There would never be any question of QMTP being up, since
qmail-smtpd
On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 10:37:48AM -0400, Chris Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 08:53:29AM -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
Since SMTP and QMTP are linked anyway, the advertizing of QMTP by the
SMTP server could easily be linked to QMTP being up. Thus, a working
smtpd with a failed qmtpd
On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 09:42:18AM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Well extend it a bit to ignore qmtp in smtp banners for like one hour if qmtp turns
out to be _not_ available. No big deal.
Right. I just wanted to throw that into the proposal. An hour is
probably a good long time.
-Peter
Instead of MX magic, would it be possible to use a local cache to keep
track of QMTP-capable hosts?
QMTP is most useful for hosts that we talk to often and [with
multi-recipient protocols] with smarthosts, etc. Thus, it should be
possible to use SMTP by default, recognize from the banner
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:57:37PM -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
When sending, one would look up host names in the cdb, and if
QMTP-capable start a QMTP dialog. If it fails, the db can be updated
with that info (it doesn't matter if it takes a while to make it to the
cdb since this should
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
