Our qmail+ldap installation seems to be losing track of the number of
local deliveries going on. We have it set up to limit concurrent
local deliveries to 50, and after running for a while, it will think
that it already has 50 local deliveries running, and won't start any
more up. In reality,
"Peter Janett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's all working OK, but now I need to be able to access the accounts via
IMAP. I have been looking into Courier-IMAP, but if possible, I'd like the
IMAP server to use the same checkpasswd I'm using for POP3 access.
I solved this problem with a hack.
Here's one interesting solution I heard about not too long ago:
http://www.whalemail.com/
Another interesting solution would be to teach your MTA to
automatically replace MIME attachments with a link to a Web page and a
password, and decode and store the attachments on a Web server.
I have a farm of qmail servers sitting behind a load balancer. I'm
having a problem with being a secondary MX for a domain, because the
individual qmail servers in the farm don't realize that the IP address
of the load balancer actually points to them. They keep trying to
re-deliver to the load
If that server is going to be connecting to other mail servers and
sending them mail, common practice requires a PTR record, and an A or
CNAME record for that name that refers to the same IP address. Many
mail servers will refuse to accept your mail otherwise.
ScottG.
Cyril Bitterich
Interestingly, I'm in a similar situation, only my messages are still
in the queue. Normally, I would just put ":new.server.name" in my
smtproutes, and have it dump its queue, but it's already put all of
the local messages in the "local" section of the queue, which doesn't
look at smtproutes.
directory, move it onto the new machine in a temp
directory, run qmail-qfix, and then rename the files over into their
new locations?
would or wouldn't work?
Thanks much,
-ScottG.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Scott Gifford wrote:
Interestingly, I'm
Gabriel Ambuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It works exactly the same as SSL and IMAP. You can encapsulate any
TCP connection in an SSL tunnel. This includes IMAP, POP3, telnet, or
even ssh or another SSL session, although the last two are pretty
pointless.
May anyone explain me what
Gabriel Ambuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Scott,
Monday, July 03, 2000, 5:54:00 PM, you wrote:
May anyone explain me what sense a SSL tunnel for POP3 does have (I've
been wondering about that for long...)?
[ ... ]
To protect the POP password.
But wouldn't it be way easier to
"clemensF" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Gifford:
[ ... ]
POP over SSL solves both of these, by making no changes to the POP
protocol, but just encrypting the whole session.
i've checked around here in germany: isp's offer pop3 access plus
web access. with freenet (mobi
"clemensF" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Gifford:
to use apop, germanynet (calisto) barked, thay would not change their
entire setup for just one customer, when i asked them for apop. i dared
to ask only because their greeting looks like an apop prompt, and it
ev
It is not an issue. I don't remember if qmail will silently drop
these messages or return a bounce for them, but it most certainly will
not run any programs as root because of them.
ScottG.
John Steniger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
Running a network test against my recent qmail
Is there anything about AOL or any of AOL's IP addresses in your
tcpserver setup (especially the database that tcpserver uses to block
connections and set environment variables)?
And do you see anything in your logs about these messages?
-ScottG.
"Matt Taft" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PipE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear All i wanna find more detail about ETRN what it mean how
to work who can give me information or Document ?
See RFC 1985:
http://www.geektools.com/rfc/rfc1985.txt
Hope this helps,
ScottG.
"Neil D. Roberts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail
queue but goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so
that it also goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the ".qmail-user" file because it
Albert Hopkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The new location is on another (non-qmail) server. Basically this
user is wanting her currently delivered email to be send to the
other email address (the one I put in her .qmail). I'm not sure if
it's called requeuing or what but basically I want
"Darrell Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have written a patch to force clients to say helo first.
Out of curiosity and not unpleasantness, why would one want such a
patch? I've seen that sendmail has options to do the same thing, and
have never understood exactly what it accomplishes.
Keith Warno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One one my lusers insists on using emacs rmail for reading mail. I'm
not an emacs user so I don't know a lick about it, but I do know it
doesn't talk to the Maildir format. It wants mbox format.
Three comments:
1. GNUS, another EMACS mail/news reader,
Keith Warno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for the help from those who have assisted.
I've not used maildir2mbox in the past; I know it "does not protect
against simultanous access by another maildir2mbox" (from maildir(5))
but is it safe to use over NFS?
NFS is only less safe than
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Our one qmail/vpopmail server is about to become a node in a load
balanced pool of mail servers. I plan to mount the queue via NFS (I am
now, in fact) but am wondering about the control files. It seems that
at least SOME of them should be safe to
"Jonathan J. Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need to be able to send/relay all of the messages in a maildir (the
default/catchall for that domain) back out to that domain,
there was a 'cessation' of the domains real mail server, and it is
operational again so the desire is to hand
these
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try applying two patches to the same program.
While this may require some manual reconciliation between
conflicting packages, it's far better than needing a seperate full
distribution of components of qmail for every possible combination of
patches.
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Johan Almqvist writes:
Hi!
I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
running
That's a
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scott Gifford writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try applying two patches to the same program.
While this may require some manual reconciliation between
conflicting packages, it's far better than needing a seperate
We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
following MX record:
groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
the mail.
Bjorn Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need to allow open relay on my mail server for a certain domain eg:
*.somedomain.com. tcpserver does not seem to support domain names is there
some other way that I can do this?
You should be able to use
=.somedomain.com:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Brauer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 07:35:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question is, is it possible to run multiple instances
of qmail, sharing the same disk structure, configuration, etc..
at least /var/qmail/queue/ must be local.
Scott Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
following MX record:
groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
When we received the message
Matt Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has been a feature of recent spam, which is probably why it's now
an issue. Several spam senders are now having sender addresses of
spammer@spamdomain, where spamdomain resolves via DNS to
'0.0.0.0'.
Eventually qmail rejects the message because
Greg Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the
"qmail security challenge".
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
I don't think so. The challenge says:
Obviously, the purpose of reporting this bug wasn't to win the
Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
exploit. It is a bug.
If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserver
this
Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:32:47PM -0500, Scott Gifford wrote:
Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserver
this will for sure also cause you problems.
No it won't
"D. J. Bernstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patrick Bihan-Faou writes:
If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
bug...
In fact, it's not a bug; it's a portability problem. If you were using
OpenBSD, you'd see outgoing connections to 0.0.0.0 rejected with
"James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c
to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the
original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_
of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that aren't
PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:39:36AM +, James wrote:
So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to
work around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch?
Try this patch. Use with your own risk.
And don't forget to say thank to Scott Gifford
adi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ ... ]
Arggh.. thanks again!
Our mailserver currently being attack by navidad.exe ;-(
I didn't received your patch, yet. Anyway, I think this patch would
be more correct than previous one :-)
Yep, that patch looks fine; mine's pretty much the same, but puts
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My
desire is to change the bounce messages to something more
professional (we've had some complaints)
Seriously? Sheesh.
We got similar complaints for
Scott Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ a bunch of stuff about changing qmail's default bounce message]
We made a change like this nearly a year ago, and have had zero
issues.
I got a question off-list about how to make this change, from a
person whose email is at usa.net. Since usa.net
"James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c
to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the
original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_
of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that aren't
"Andrew Wafula" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I was at the ORBS site the other day and I saw that as from 1st Feb 2001
relays.orbs.org would be deleted.
This may seem dumb but here goes :).
Now, does it mean that we can no longer use it to check for open
relays
No, they just
Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am I right in think qmail-smtpd will never give this error?
Yes.
As I see it qmail-smtpd will only check the domain of the message to see
if it is valid, ie it will accept any valid username for localhost whether
the user actually exists on the system or
Claudio Nieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
www.qmail.org mentions Scott Gifford's patch making qmail recognize
0.0.0.0 as local IP address. But the link to the patch
http://www.tir.com/~sgifford/qmail/qmail-0.0.0.0.patch
is invalid:
Not Found
The requested URL
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above,
at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong
with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable,
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LDAP is not part of an MTA. It's an extension.
LDAP may not be part of an MTA (although it certainly can be, if it
contains aliases), but it's a quite reasonable part of an MDA, which
qmail also includes in qmail-local. It's certainly as reasonable a
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 01:12:13PM -0500, John R Levine wrote:
The usual mailbox vs. maildir war has flared up on inet-access, and points
out a bug in qmail-pop3d. When you do a LIST command, it gives you the
size of each message. Pop3d just
Andre Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Delany wrote:
[ ... ]
Elias also talks about an emulation layer for LISTSERV. I've not heard
of anyone providing that for ezmlm.
I don't know if there is any mailing list software out there having
an emulation layer for LISTSERV... Worst
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:57:52PM -0700, Frank Precissi wrote:
My question: Does ucspi-tcp support hostnames? If so, would they be
added as:
domain.com:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
or
Hadn't seen this mentioned here, and thought it might be of general
interest.
RFCs 2821 and 2822 were published today, obsoleting the venerable RFCs
821 and 822, covering SMTP and the Internet Message Format,
respectively.
They're available from the usual places, including:
Kittiwat Manosuthi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anybody know how to delay failed authentication attempts to prevent
brute force pwd cracking on POP3 server using qmail vpopmail?
You might be able to do this via PAM, if you have a checkpassword that
supports PAM (available from www.qmail.org):
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric Bonharme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a problem with the 'for' line being stripped out when delivering
Bcc'ed messages to the Bcc'ed recipient locally.
qmail doesn't remove any headers. What is a for header? I've never seen
such a
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
michael writes:
This question I suppose is directed at Russell since he is the
writer of qmail-popbull...
We're trying to get courier-imap running and the desire is to
also have bulletin ability. Since qmail-popbull is called as
part
Tonino Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
What the idea is - MS EXchange does not work that good :) - and we
need to replace it - but the exchange server does a poll to another
Primary server at a ISP. This hold the mail spool - and when the
exchange server dials in - gets the mail and
Reid Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Most likely I'll have to store password somewhere and replace it in the
shadow file with a 'x' when suspended, and put the crypt password back once
the account is restored.
Not qmail related, but a trick I like to use is to just prepend
Gianni Campanile [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
My problem is to speed up the injection of mails.
The system I am setting up must send mail to different people
based on external triggers, so in peak times it must send
up to 1 different mails to different recipients as soon as
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 11:00:12PM +0200, Arjen van Drie wrote:
[snip]
You will see this if you use `cat -ve' on the file.
Thanks all. It works now. How does one read hexdumps? Is there
a howto or a table somewhere?
[...]
For reading
~darkage [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
This is what my tcp.smtp.cdb looks like -
10.1.0.28.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=
:allow
Do you mean to say that's what your /etc/tcp.smtp file looks like?
If that's really what's in /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb, that's your problem; it
should be in /etc/tcp.smtp, and
Rodney Broom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D Rajesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DR If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and
the
DR rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single
DR qmail-remote process and
Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
A common cause of this can be your POP
John Groseclose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 1:22 AM +0200 7/11/01, Henning Brauer wrote:
The Realtek cards and in special the netgear ones are pure crap, but I'm not
aware about such problems with them.
The original revision of the NetGear cards apparently used a real
tulip driver - I
59 matches
Mail list logo
