Re: [vchkpw] vchkpw authentication fails
In the kernel, is UFS_DIRHASH enabled, or whatever the option is? This caused a lot of trouble on another server i admin, where it would be so slow, that at times login sporadically failed. It is enabled by default, and it would be stupid to have been removed, but you never know. Hm...I'm pretty new to BSD (more used to Linux) so I'm not sure how to discover kernel compile options...but AFAIK the guy who set all this stuff up just used a generic 4.6 kernel config. If anything see if it is possible to at least upgrade to the last 4.10 version, as there have been a lot of overall improvements (This is off topic BTW) Yeah, that's on my overly long to-do list. Also, when you manually auth using pop3: telnet localhost 110 user username pass password list What is the output? (Please truncate, if the user has a ton of emails, we don't need the entire list) Or does it die saying can't scan maildir? per my earlier post, it dies with the Maildir scan ERR. Does this only happen for his account, yes and have you tried to mv the Maildir,and then /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake Maildir in the same dir, then chowning it to the right user and then trying to login again to see if it succeeds then? I didn't try that, but when I do, it authenticates correctly. This is good. So now: I read somewhere that it's not a great idea to manipulate the queues directly; what's the consensus? Can I not just move the messages back into the appropriate directories in the new Maildir I just created? Thanks.
Re: [vchkpw] [quite OT] killed email
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:57:06 -0600 Jeremy Kitchen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had to kill this mail... 2.5MB email to the vchkpw mailing list (over 1100 subscribers) kills our puny 400kbit upstream :( Please don't send such large messages to the list.. it's much better to put them up on a website or something and pass out the url. Some of you may have gotten the message, but the rest won't, I had to kill it. Heh, looks like you moved pretty fast. Were, at least, any nice / ugly pics? :) Thanks :) For what? For censorship? No, never ever, I feel like 15-20 years ago when Ceausescu was Romania's leader :)) -- Adrian Pircalabu Public KeyID = 0xF902393A -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/
[vchkpw] auth problem
hello, i've a little problem with the smtp authentication. if a user try to send a mail without authentication mode it work! Can i force to use only the auth mode ?? if i telnet on the port 25 i have this result 250- -=NO UNSOLICITED BULK E-MAIL=- 250-PIPELINING 250-8BITMIME 250-SIZE 0 250 AUTH LOGIN PLAIN thanks, signo
RE: [vchkpw] incorrect usage reporting
Title: Message Hi I tried sending few mails to that account .The usage increase from that 15% to above. When I delete the mails still the usage shows 15% and not 0%. Even some other email accounts which were working properly now started showing usage 16% even if I delete all mails. If I create a new email account that usage shows as 0% and even after I delete all mails it correctly shows 0%. This problem started happening for already existing accounts. Please help if anyone had the similar problem? Thanks Gajen -Original Message- From: shadowplay.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [vchkpw] incorrect usage reporting try sending the account another message. maildirquota is normally only updated on receipt of new mail. kenneth gf brown shadowplay.net -Original Message- From: Gajen Anandamuruga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 29, 2004 12:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [vchkpw] incorrect usage reporting Hi list I am using vpopmail 5.4.6 with IMP Even though I delete all the mails form the IMP web interface of some users and checked the mailbox usage by vuserinfor [EMAIL PROTECTED]' it shows a fix size like 15 or 16 % and not zero% When this happen only for certain mailboxes. Please help Thanks Gajen __ NOD32 1.935 (20041126) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.nod32.com This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
Re: [vchkpw] Custom Maildir Structure
Yes. I'm suggesting that we could use directory names outside of the user namespace so that you could have bigdir support and one-character email addresses at the same time. It would be difficult to handle existing domains though... There would need to be a lot of directory renaming and updating of the user database to pull it off. This is probably a silly idea but... You could always write a dot-file, e.g. .domain-version, that contains the 'version number' of the domain layout. If the file doesn't exist of if the 'version number' is, say, 1, vpopmail uses the old convention for bigdir. If the 'version number' is, say, 2, vpomail uses the new convention. A program could be written to convert between domain versions. The advantage to this is that it wouldn't automatically require conversion for new domains when vpopmail is upgraded. The disadvantages are that it may be overly complex/complicated and, well, it does seem rather silly. (That said, I use something like this on a website so I can track the versions of the SQL schemas so I can pass along intelligent upgrade scripts to the website maintainer.) Sincerely, Chris Ess System Administrator / CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician)
[vchkpw] Re: [qmailadmin-devel] aliases and forwards
On Nov 30, 2004, at 1:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 05.24 30/11/2004, you wrote: During development of 1.2, we combined aliases and forwards into one. You can now have addresses that forward to multiple addresses, either local or remote. This is nice but i need to limit aliases and forwards for billing, i'll try to modify the source but i think it would be useful for other people to allow separate limits. What do you think about it? How do you define an alias vs. a forward? Do you count the number of email addresses the customer can create, or the number of addresses each message forwards to? I assume your logic is that you allow more aliases (local addresses) since it doesn't use any bandwidth and limit forwards (remote addresses) due to bandwidth usage. Or maybe it's just that forwarding to a remote address is more valuable and therefore worth more money? We're moving in a direction with QmailAdmin where you can have forwards that: 1) Delete email received (blackhole). The real interface isn't done, but you can create blackholes by entering # for a forwarding address. 2) Bounce email back with an error message (see qmail's bouncesaying program for details). Again, no interface yet but it's in the planning stages. 3) Forward to any number of local and/or remote addresses. How should we handle limits? It would seem that there should be no limit on blackhole and bounce addresses, since anyone can set their catchall to deleted or bounce-no-mailbox. Resource usage for 10 forwards to a single address aren't much different than 1 forward to 10 addresses, so do we start counting the number of addresses forwarded-to, instead of forwarded-from? If so, how do you explain that to the customer? Perhaps the ultimate form of billing is based on bandwidth and disk utilization. In any given month, come up with the total bandwidth used by inbound and outbound email (maybe excluding spam), and an average daily disk usage and bill accordingly. I don't see a simple solution to the problem. I'm open to a discussion about it, preferably on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list where there are more end-users who can weigh in. If you're not on that list YaP, please subscribe and join in the discussion ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). -- Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED] QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
Re: [vchkpw] incorrect usage reporting
On Nov 30, 2004, at 5:48 AM, Gajen Anandamuruga wrote: I tried sending few mails to that account .The usage increase from that 15% to above. When I delete the mails still the usage shows 15% and not 0%. Even some other email accounts which were working properly now started showing usage 16% even if I delete all mails. If I create a new email account that usage shows as 0% and even after I delete all mails it correctly shows 0%. This problem started happening for already existing accounts. Please help if anyone had the similar problem? Delete your maildirsize files and they'll get recreated with correct values. -- Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED] QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
Re: [vchkpw] auth problem
On Nov 30, 2004, at 4:00 AM, signo wrote: if i telnet on the port 25 i have this result 250- -=NO UNSOLICITED BULK E-MAIL=- 250-PIPELINING 250-8BITMIME 250-SIZE 0 250 AUTH LOGIN PLAIN thanks, signo That doesn't look like qmail, but maybe you've just got a patched up version. What SMTP AUTH patch did you use, and what does your qmail-smtpd/run file look like? If it has /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw hostname /bin/true in it, try removing the hostname. It was necessary in older SMTP AUTH patches, but creates an open relay with the newer patches. -- Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED] QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
Re: [vchkpw] vchkpw authentication fails
John Berliner wrote: In the kernel, is UFS_DIRHASH enabled, or whatever the option is? This caused a lot of trouble on another server i admin, where it would be so slow, that at times login sporadically failed. It is enabled by default, and it would be stupid to have been removed, but you never know. Hm...I'm pretty new to BSD (more used to Linux) so I'm not sure how to discover kernel compile options...but AFAIK the guy who set all this stuff up just used a generic 4.6 kernel config. The FreeBSD handbook and FAQ (directly linked from http://www.freebsd.org) makes an excellent reading and goes to great lengths explaining the details, which in the end boils down to editing one file and executing a handful of commands (in the right sequence. The UFS_DIRHASH options is - TTBOMK - only useful when creating new filesystems. It doesn't have any effect later-on. Well, shouldn't. ;-) UFS_DIRHASH was introduced with or post-RELENG_4_6, IIRC, together with making softupdates the default at installtime If anything see if it is possible to at least upgrade to the last 4.10 version, as there have been a lot of overall improvements (This is off topic BTW) Yeah, that's on my overly long to-do list. It should be on top. ;-) 4.6 contains numerous vulnerabilites and is no longer supported. Looking at it, it was released in June 2002 - that's a long time in FreeBSD-land. If you have a test-machine, you can try going from 4.6 to 4.10 directly via cvsup. Otherwhise, I'm not 100%sure if going straight from 4.6 to 4.10 works (it should, but the devil is a squirrel, as we say here around) - read /usr/src/UPDATING for more information. Also, when you manually auth using pop3: telnet localhost 110 user username pass password list What is the output? (Please truncate, if the user has a ton of emails, we don't need the entire list) Or does it die saying can't scan maildir? per my earlier post, it dies with the Maildir scan ERR. Does this only happen for his account, yes and have you tried to mv the Maildir,and then /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake Maildir in the same dir, then chowning it to the right user and then trying to login again to see if it succeeds then? I didn't try that, but when I do, it authenticates correctly. This is good. So now: I read somewhere that it's not a great idea to manipulate the queues directly; what's the consensus? Can I not just move the messages back into the appropriate directories in the new Maildir I just created? The queue is in /var/qmail/queue and it *is* a bad idea to manipulate it directly (unless You Know What You Are Doing (TM). But what you're manipulating here is the maildir. If you shut down qmail while you move the mail to the old place, you are 100% safe. As it crashes with POP, the error should be in the top-level maildirectory somewhere, I assume. If you're bored, you can truss -p the process after you connected with telnet and before you authenticated ;-) If you have further ambitions with your Qmail-installation, you might want to check-out Matt Simerson's Qmail-FreeBSD-Toaster at http://www.tnpi.biz. Though it's geared towards ISPs, it does also work very nicely for smaller installations. cheers, Rainer -- === ~ Rainer Duffner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ ~ Freising - Munich - Germany ~ ~Unix - Linux - BSD - OpenSource - Security ~ ~ http://www.ultra-secure.de/~rainer/pubkey.pgp ~ ===
Re: [vchkpw] auth problem
Please use your MUA's 'new' function to start new threads. You read a post, clicked reply, removed the subject and body, and typed in your new message. This is bad because those of us who have mail clients with threading support, as well as the list archives, will be broken. Evidence of your wrongs can be found in the header of your email: References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That being said: On Tuesday 30 November 2004 06:00 am, signo wrote: hello, i've a little problem with the smtp authentication. if a user try to send a mail without authentication mode it work! Can i force to use only the auth mode ?? just make sure no users have the RELAYCLIENT environment variable set for their connections. Perhaps you have a pop-before-smtp implementation in place? Perhaps your tcprules file (assuming you're running tcpserver) is configured to set RELAYCLIENT when their IP connects? -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen ++ Systems Administrator ++ Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ www.inter7.com ++ 866.528.3530 ++ 815.776.9465 int'l kitchen @ #qmail #gentoo on EFnet IRC ++ scriptkitchen.com/qmail GnuPG Key ID: 481BF7E2 ++ jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpPPSm8J51my.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [vchkpw] [quite OT] killed email
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 01:33 am, Adi Pircalabu wrote: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:57:06 -0600 Jeremy Kitchen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had to kill this mail... 2.5MB email to the vchkpw mailing list (over 1100 subscribers) kills our puny 400kbit upstream :( Please don't send such large messages to the list.. it's much better to put them up on a website or something and pass out the url. Some of you may have gotten the message, but the rest won't, I had to kill it. Heh, looks like you moved pretty fast. Were, at least, any nice / ugly pics? :) no, I believe the filename was vpopmail-skel.tar.gz or something.. something that 1) would probably be better distributed in a patch (I assume it was just the tarr'ed up vpopmail tree, potentially with binaries), and second, better placed on a website. I don't know who it was from or exactly what it was, I was just trying to get a quick handle of what it was before I deleted it, as we REALLY needed our internet. Thanks :) For what? For censorship? No, never ever, I feel like 15-20 years ago when Ceausescu was Romania's leader :)) it wasn't censorship. If I hadn't done it, we would have had basically no internet (because it was eating all of our upstream) for at least 4 hours. Please note that I said kills our puny 400kbit upstream. -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen ++ Systems Administrator ++ Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ www.inter7.com ++ 866.528.3530 ++ 815.776.9465 int'l kitchen @ #qmail #gentoo on EFnet IRC ++ scriptkitchen.com/qmail GnuPG Key ID: 481BF7E2 ++ jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpTkLoqEHRra.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [vchkpw] Re: [qmailadmin-devel] aliases and forwards
On Nov 30, 2004, at 8:32 AM, Tom Collins wrote: How do you define an alias vs. a forward? Do you count the number of email addresses the customer can create, or the number of addresses each message forwards to? This should have gone to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list -- if you're interested in the topic, please post followups there. -- Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED] QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
Re: [vchkpw] vchkpw authentication fails
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:49 AM, Rainer Duffner wrote: John Berliner wrote: In the kernel, is UFS_DIRHASH enabled, or whatever the option is? This caused a lot of trouble on another server i admin, where it would be so slow, that at times login sporadically failed. It is enabled by default, and it would be stupid to have been removed, but you never know. Hm...I'm pretty new to BSD (more used to Linux) so I'm not sure how to discover kernel compile options...but AFAIK the guy who set all this stuff up just used a generic 4.6 kernel config. The FreeBSD handbook and FAQ (directly linked from http://www.freebsd.org) makes an excellent reading and goes to great lengths explaining the details, which in the end boils down to editing one file and executing a handful of commands (in the right sequence. The UFS_DIRHASH options is - TTBOMK - only useful when creating new filesystems. It doesn't have any effect later-on. Well, shouldn't. ;-) UFS_DIRHASH was introduced with or post-RELENG_4_6, IIRC, together with making softupdates the default at installtime Did not know this. Stepped into freeBSD from Linux in RELENG_4_6_2, and then did a reinstall for RELENG_4_7. If anything see if it is possible to at least upgrade to the last 4.10 version, as there have been a lot of overall improvements (This is off topic BTW) Yeah, that's on my overly long to-do list. It should be on top. ;-) 4.6 contains numerous vulnerabilites and is no longer supported. Looking at it, it was released in June 2002 - that's a long time in FreeBSD-land. If you have a test-machine, you can try going from 4.6 to 4.10 directly via cvsup. Otherwhise, I'm not 100%sure if going straight from 4.6 to 4.10 works (it should, but the devil is a squirrel, as we say here around) - read /usr/src/UPDATING for more information. I suggest a clean reinstall, if you pick RELENG_4_10, it will be a clean start, as there are a ton of old libraries that are in RELENG_4_6. Personally i suggest RELENG_5_3 though, has given me a more stable system, that is far more responsive, but i guess it is personal choice. Also, when you manually auth using pop3: telnet localhost 110 user username pass password list What is the output? (Please truncate, if the user has a ton of emails, we don't need the entire list) Or does it die saying can't scan maildir? per my earlier post, it dies with the Maildir scan ERR. Does this only happen for his account, yes and have you tried to mv the Maildir,and then /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake Maildir in the same dir, then chowning it to the right user and then trying to login again to see if it succeeds then? I didn't try that, but when I do, it authenticates correctly. This is good. So now: I read somewhere that it's not a great idea to manipulate the queues directly; what's the consensus? Can I not just move the messages back into the appropriate directories in the new Maildir I just created? The queue is in /var/qmail/queue and it *is* a bad idea to manipulate it directly (unless You Know What You Are Doing (TM). But what you're manipulating here is the maildir. If you shut down qmail while you move the mail to the old place, you are 100% safe. As it crashes with POP, the error should be in the top-level maildirectory somewhere, I assume. If you're bored, you can truss -p the process after you connected with telnet and before you authenticated ;-) I did that when i had the same problem, and did not find anything. It seems to happen when some message is screwed up in some way. But this user i was tryingt it out on had over 60,000 emails, so finding the culprit woulda been painfull. If you have further ambitions with your Qmail-installation, you might want to check-out Matt Simerson's Qmail-FreeBSD-Toaster at http://www.tnpi.biz. Though it's geared towards ISPs, it does also work very nicely for smaller installations. Shameless plug url:http://bsdguides.org/guides/freebsd/mailserver/ qmail+vpopmail+qmailadmin.php. Guide was written by me, site owned by a friend of mine. It is geared to using the FreeBSD ports tree to make install easier. And includes all the standard stuff you would want (imap, pop3, sa, qmailadmin, qmail, vpopmail) cheers, Rainer Good luck with your install. X-Istence
Re: [vchkpw] incorrect usage reporting
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Tom Collins wrote: On Nov 30, 2004, at 5:48 AM, Gajen Anandamuruga wrote: I tried sending few mails to that account .The usage increase from that 15% to above. When I delete the mails still the usage shows 15% and not 0%. Even some other email accounts which were working properly now started showing usage 16% even if I delete all mails. If I create a new email account that usage shows as 0% and even after I delete all mails it correctly shows 0%. This problem started happening for already existing accounts. Please help if anyone had the similar problem? Delete your maildirsize files and they'll get recreated with correct values. cd to the domain of your choice, and then run: find . -name maildirsize -delete That will delete all the maildirsize files it finds. Run it without the -delete if you just want to see a list of what it would delete if you would add the -delete. -- Tom Collins - [EMAIL PROTECTED] QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/ Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/ X-Istence
