Re: [vchkpw] [vpopmail] handle 'postmaster' as non existing user (reject mails)
Ken Jones wrote: Lars Uhlmann wrote: We only need this mailbox for »qmailadmin« to log in. Is it possible to treat this account as non existing? I've tried a domain-global '.qmail-postmaster' (... bounce-no-mailbox) and a '.qmail' (same content) inside the folder 'postmaster' but nothing worked. Create a .qmail-postmaster file with the same permissions and ownership and in the same directory as the .qmail-default file. Then put a single # character in the file. qmail-local treats a single # charater as delete the email. It is probably the most efficent way, since vdelivermail does not need to be envoked. I've been thinking of setting up all new domains with this way. Nobody really reads postmaster email. Well this is pretty horrifying considering the source. I don't know where you hang out, but this sort of thing is frowned upon by the community of mail server operators, and will get you blacklisted both privately and publicly if discovered. http://rfc-ignorant.org/rfcs/rfc2821.php - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Virtual SMTP Greeting?
Jeremy Oddo wrote: Lately, our mail has had trouble getting to Yahoo, Hotmail, and a smaller ISP. Sometimes the mail ends up in the spam folders so I know our mail is getting to their box. I checked the big blacklist sites and we are not listed. I then ran our domain through the test at http://www.dnsreport.com/. Everything came up clean except for two things: 1. No SPF record (which I've fixed) That didn't need to be fixed because it wasn't an error. 2. Mail server host name in greeting Because I'm using Vpopmail with virtual domains, my mail server address doesn't match my host address name in the SMTP greeting. Does anyone know how to fix this? Is there even a fix for it? That's also not an error. The dnsreport.com site mixes opinion with fact and should not be considered a reliable source of information. - Ron
[vchkpw] Tip for using chkuser with Maildrop
Thought I'd share this tip with the crowd... The chkuser patch, which ensures an address is valid in the given domain before accepting a message, would be defeated if you simply replace your vdelivermail line with a Maildrop delivery line in .qmail-default. After taking a peek at how the chkuser patch works, I realized that it will work correctly if you instead comment-out the vdelivermail line and add your Maildrop line after. #| /home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox | maildrop .mailfilter Chkuser sees the bounce-no-mailbox it needs to see this way, without altering the patch. A little klugey maybe, but it works. - Ron
[vchkpw] Hooks ignored / vpopmail daemon
I'm looking to use the .qmailadmin-hooks to call my vadduser shell script which turns on my spam handling system for new mailboxes by default. My problem is, my .qmailadmin-hooks file seems to be being ignored. Whether I put it in ~vpopmail/etc or in the domain's directory itself, the mailbox gets created, but my script is clearly not being run. Any idea what I might have done wrong? (I'm running qmailadmin 1.2.1 and vpopmail 5.4.2) On a side note, I've been looking at the posts about the vpopmail daemon, and although calling the vpopmail API seems obvious, that may make it not useful to people such as myself for whom the vadduser I want to run is really a BASH script with enhanced functionality, not the (limited, from my perspective) functionality provided by the library call. My two cents would be to implement the .qmailadmin-hooks in any such daemon. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Blackholing a sender
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 09:07, Devendra Singh wrote: I have a peculiar requirement of just trashing a particular Mail From: to any of the virtual domains hosted on a Server. In that case even I do not want to bounce the mail just trash (/dev/null) it. Since you haven't gotten an answer yet that does what you want, I'll throw this thought out. It's probably more trouble to you than it's worth just for this, but here goes... My setup uses Maildrop. Under this scenario, I got rid of most of my .qmail files, and thus all mail is handled by .qmail-default, which calls Maildrop. In my Maildrop script, I can silently blackhole a specific sender without any bounce whatsoever. Given that I use one master mailfilter for the entire server (with includes to customize it per-domain and per-user), I can therefore blackhole any sender from the entire server by doing so in the system-wide filter script. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] single letter local part
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 17:02, Alastair Battrick wrote: Can someone explain why vpopmail won't let me have [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a valid email address. Single characters are reserved for directory hashes. Is there any way around this? Use a dot-qmail file (.qmail-u) to alias the desired address to a valid vpopmail user. - Ron
RE: [vchkpw] vpopbull question
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 10:55, Tom Walsh wrote: Also any aliased domains will have duplicate emails delivered Learned that one the hard way... What version of vpopmail? I'm just curious if that behavior remains in the development version. That sounds like a bug. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Maildrop, Qmail, Qmail-Scanner, Spamassassin,filterto folders.
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 23:20, Steve Schofield wrote: Hi Ron, I'm still having some questions. I changed the .qmail-default file from |preline /usr/local/bin/spamc|/usr/local/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' /usr/local/vpopmail/domains/mail.adminblogs.com/steve to | maildrop mailfilter altered the mailfilter to incorporate the items above, things stick in the queue. any ideas? Have you tested your filter? There may be syntax errors. Check your log file for qmail-send for something like: @40003f3f03c220ba9bd4 delivery 13799: deferral: .mailfilter(19):_Syntax_error./ Also check permissions/ownership of the mailfilter file. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] qmail+SMTP auth
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 20:08, eLgino wrote: i have installed qmail with SMTP-Auth, and all works fine with Outlook Express of MS!, but when i try to connect via telnet telnet host 25 and do a auth login and enter my username (VALID!) and password (VALID!) it comes: user invalid --z 235 auth failure, but go ahead, is use it with vpopmail my startscript: Just a thought... you know it's looking for Base64 input there and not plaintext, right? If not, encode your ID and PW and it will probably work for you then. http://makcoder.sourceforge.net/demo/base64.php Also see this for an example SMTP Auth dialog (It's using Sendmail, but that's irrlevant here): http://www.jonfullmer.com/smtpauth/ - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Maildrop, Qmail, Qmail-Scanner, Spamassassin, filterto folders.
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 21:30, steve schofield wrote: What is the best way once the email has went through qmail-scanner, and spamassassin to place it in the folders i want vs going directly into INBOX? That's where Maildrop comes in. There's more than one way to do this, but since you're using Maildrop, that's how you'd do it. There's also more than one Maildrop recipe floating around, but they all look more or less like this one: http://wotsit.thingy.com/haj/mailfilter-spamassassin-vpopmail.shtml There's some examples of Maildrop filtering to look at included with Maildrop at: http://www.courier-mta.org/maildropex.html The full reference is at: http://www.courier-mta.org/maildropfilter.html - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail documentation initiative
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 17:23, Ajai Khattri wrote: Also, do you have an FAQ of some kind? (I haven't looked). We ought to have some sort of cookbook will tried and proven solutions to common scenarios... Let's start one. I'll get into the DocManager after business hours today and see what we've got to work with. I'm not sure what's available in there yet. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Re: vpopmail documentation initiative
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 20:05, Paul L. Allen wrote: Ron Guerin writes: I don't think spending an evening wandering around Google and hitting dead links is a substitute for proper documentation. I would agree there - googling is very much a last resort. And the whole point of open source is that we all put back in whatever way we can, so a collaberative documentation effort can pay dividends very quickly. Obviously, I agree! I'd also say that search the archives is no substitute for a proper FAQ. I remember the days when newsgroups and mailing lists DID have FAQs. Then search engines came along and everybody saw them as a substitute for an FAQ. And for a few months people were correct. For a few months a google search would be just as quick and effective as a real FAQ. But after a couple of years, a google search is a complete pain. HUNDREDS of results pages with people asking the question you want answered and the response is invariably do a google search of the archive. The original answer to that question is ZILLIONS of pages down the list and unless you have a few months to waste you'll never find it. I remember back around that time there was also the popular belief that things committed to the Web were preserved for the ages. I'll refer back to a specific piece of qmail documentation I'd been looking for... I found plenty of references to the document in the first 10 results. The problem is the actual document itself has nearly fallen off the face of the earth. I say nearly, because I _did_ find it. In the WayBack machine, which truly is the last station before oblivion. Search the archives equates to nobody can be bothered to maintain an FAQ because nobody has realized just how useless a google search is when dealing with a large archive where most questions are answered with 'search the archives.' The qmail list is one of the worst I've seen for this. Yes, if you have a lot of time to spare you can eventually find the answer. But search the archive is never going to be as quick a solution as the answer is in the FAQ. There will probably always be gems in the archives that appear nowhere else. But search the archives should only be the answer for very recent, or very obscure things that have yet to find their way into the documentation. Archives should supplement documentation, not _be_ documentation. My apologies if I've offended anyone, but it's late, I've had a lot of wine, and I've wanted to get that one off my chest for well over three years. I even put my money where my mouth is. If there is an FAQ (on whatever) and I have something useful I submit it to the maintainer. But all too often the FAQ has been abandoned in favour of search the archive. I don't think anyone's going to be offended. The fact that we don't have more documentation is our responsibility and no one else's. In an Open and Free project like this, particularly one with so many users, the developers shouldn't be producing the admin and user documentation. I consider that a waste of their valuable time, when they can be writing more code, doing more code analysis, ripping more code _out_, stuff that developers do. The exception there would be that obviously, some non-trivial amount of developer participation would be required for documenting the vpopmail API. Speaking for myself, I can't put a line of C code together, but I can string some words together into a sentence. That should be true of many others here, and together, we have the potential for translations (most important for the FAQ) into many languages. It could be only a few of us will work on it sporadically. And that's ok too. The important thing is to get started on it. I was going to fix some things for myself, and now I'm going to submit those fixes for everyone else's benefit. It's how much of the code gets written in Free and Open software. Someone who can, scratches an itch and makes it available to everyone else. Good to have you on-board! - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Re: vpopmail documentation initiative
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 23:27, Adam Hooper wrote: I might as well add something *constructive* to all this: I've heard and seen nothing but good things from Wikis. Sourceforge has all you need to set one up :). (I've used phpwiki, but as far as I know they're all quite similar.) I think a vpopmail Wiki could be quite useful. I need to give the SourceForce Documentation Manager a proper once-over, I've only glanced at it, but Wiki has crossed my mind just about every time I think about this. The other thought that keeps crossing my mind is that DocBook is sort of the holy grail of documentation these days as you can go from DocBook to anything else. The LDP's online documentation collaboration system will be using WikiText on the front-end. http://www.tldp.org/ldpwn/ldpwn-2002-04-30.html There's also a Wiki to DocBook converter that's part of that project. http://www.tldp.org/wt2db/ WikiWords lend themselves nicely to terse but highly-specific, answers too. It's not much more effort to say That's the FAQ vpopmailWithMaildrop than It's in the FAQ someplace. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Detailed installation instructions on FreeBSD -attached
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 13:34, Evren Yurtesen wrote: Here is the detailed installation instructions from my own installation on FreeBSD! [snip] I also think that this might be included in vpopmail distribution. I came to 0.0.6 version of this document while fixing the mistakes in it though :) I am almost certain that I eliminated all the mistakes I did. I was typing up an e-mail about this at about the same time you were typing this message. ;) I was fixing errors in a local copy of the html man pages last week when I realized there must be other people who've fixed the same errors, and that my time might be better spent trying to gather documentation back into the project so we can all use it and improve upon it. - Ron
[vchkpw] vpopmail documentation initiative
Greetings all, I know some of you (like myself) have probably poked around in the vpopmail docs and maybe fixed a spelling error or added a new command line option to your local documentation. Others may have prepared HOWTO documents describing their setup, as I also was thinking of doing. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get together and produce comprehensive vpopmail documentation? Wouldn't it be even nicer if we could distribute that documentation with vpopmail? We can! And I'd like to start the ball rolling by asking everyone on the list if they've got some documentation they've written stashed on their system that they'd like to contribute to the project. Once we know what we have to start with, we can figure out what to do next. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail documentation initiative
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 14:16, Evren Yurtesen wrote: You have a point but you cant possibly make a documentation which describes every possible situation. You can give the basics and let the user use it as required. I agree 100% complete documentation of all possible scenarios is impossible. But completeness is always a desirable goal. So is readability, and too much information can be a bad thing. I think the most important thing which needs documentation is the ./configure switches of these programs. The rest is quite trivial, there is more than enough examples in google etc. I don't think spending an evening wandering around Google and hitting dead links is a substitute for proper documentation. I just had a qmail experience like that, and it's part of what motivates my desire to get this stuff gathered into vpopmail. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Why support imap?
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 14:06, Adam Hooper wrote: I can't speak for squirrelmail, but as far as I know, sqwebmail is just a Maildir client. It does not open any IMAP or POP connections, just reads and writes files. (Note: This saves processor cycles!) I have always considered that _the_ key feature of sqwebmail. No POP, no IMAP, just Maildirs and the authentication systems of your choice. I had a user who had some problem (I forget) with sqwebmail and I headed straight for OMail because it also reads Maildirs. That said, I'm running my first couple of Courier IMAP servers now and I've found it solves some problems nicely, for example I have some people who may replace their address that forwards to multiple POP accounts with a shared IMAP folder. You didn't mention what kind of mail server you operate. If you're running a private (corporate) mail server you're likely to see things differently than the operator of a public (ISP) mail server would. I've presently got some of each under my purview, and on the private servers, once IMAP is available, it seems everyone wants it. On the public servers, it is offered as a service enhancement. One thing I've found applies in either case is people who didn't need a quota before do now because these users retain large amounts of mail in their inboxes, which was their problem under POP3, and under IMAP it has become mine. - Ron
Re: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:21, Matt Simerson wrote: Apparently a server named ns1.inter7.com is doing the delivery for the vchkpw mailing list. This wouldn't be a problem except that it doesn't have reverse DNS. I started blocking connections to my mail server from servers who don't have DNS and my vpopmail and qmailadmin list traffic stopped. You'll be losing a lot more legit mail than just this list if you do that. - Ron
RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:55, Nick Harring wrote: We currently run our hosted systems requiring reverse DNS and haven't really had any complaints about mail not being received. While there's no rule requiring reverse DNS, systems without it are much more likely to be spam originators in my experience with our system. The few systems I've come across that legitimately send mail but had broken reverse DNS were more than happy, and able, to fix it quickly and understood immediately the point of rejecting connections on such a condition. If you've chosen to deliberately break your mail server like this, that is of course your choice to make. I just hope you've informed your customers. - Ron
RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 11:05, Nick Harring wrote: Rather than questioning why we would refuse to accept from non-reversible hosts, why don't we ask why anyone would set a host up without reverse DNS? Rather than question why you've deliberately broken your mail server, I should explain to you why some people running legit servers don't comply with your arbitrary requirements? A better question is why I'm wasting my time trying to explain things to someone who top-posts and sends HTML to mailing lists. - Ron
RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:22, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: rather than trumping up your argument with etiquette fascism, how about pointing out a relevant RFC that backs up your [baseless] opinion that a mailserver must accept messages from a site without reverse DNS? Please, spare me your righteous anger. You may continue to operate a broken mail server. I never said you couldn't. I frankly don't care who you don't get mail from. My mistake for letting the other fellow know what a bad idea it is. - Ron
RE: [vchkpw] Inter7 mail server doesn't have reverse DNS!
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:40, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: translation: i don't know the RFC's, I have no basis for claiming that other's mailserver are broken, and I'll continue to evade directly confronting my error and apologizing for my mistaken claim by pretending to take 'the high road' I'm not mistaken, I'm just not interested in your diversion. The RFCs also don't say it's wrong to reject every third connection. you didn't say what a bad idea it is. you said his mailserver was broken. prove it. put up or shut up. Oh please. Get a clue you ass. - Ron
RE: test spam; should be rejected
On Sun, 2001-12-02 at 06:36, Lou Hevly wrote: At 12:17 02/12/01, Tren Blackburn wrote: It's pretty simple: % ezmlm-make -+u DIR If you want complete details, search the archives, but this horse has been beaten to death already. Sorry, then. I must have missed it. You missed it, but it's worth bringing up again, because this list is a spam-haven, and is rightly becoming RBLed because of it. The best way to get chatter about the spam from this list stopped is to stop the spam, not by enduring it silently. Like anything else, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Ron
Re: why use we .qmail-default file...
On Sat, 2001-11-10 at 21:23, osman kazým wrote: why use we .qmail-default file and what must be in it. http://www.qmail.org/man/man5/dot-qmail.html waht doest mean bounce no mailbox. http://inter7.com/vpopmail/doc/vdelivermail.html
RE: Autorespond 2.0.
Brad Dameron wrote: Anyone have any additions they want to see in the new autorespond or any bugs? I noticed tonight the autorespond 1.x doesn't honor Reply-to headers, and it doesn't appear the 2.0 does either. I'm not sure if this is a bug to fix, or a feature request. ;) Ron
RE: EPS - Email Processing System
Any possibility of adding a third level, for domain-specific filtering? (in addition to global and user filtering) The present vpopmail filtering does this, and it's quite useful for multiple-domain installations. I'm sure this could be done in the global filter, but that makes allowing each domain to manage their own domain global filters more difficult I'd imagine. Ron
vpopmail filtering
I understand [EMAIL PROTECTED] is working on integrated filtering for vpopmail. Could we hear some details on how it's going to work, operationally? Will it support multiple-levels (server, domain, user) of filtering? Ron
RE: vpopmail filtering
Tim Hunter wrote: The thing I liked about the filter option in vpopmail is that it would look for a .vpopfilter file in my virtual home dir and then follow the delivery instructions there. I also liked that it worked its way down to your home directory. First it applied rules for the entire server, then your entire domain, then your personal rules. Very useful. Ron
RE: Next 5.0 features
The only thing I wish for not on the list is integrated (lightweight) filtering. The current filtering patch would be great if it worked a little better (it's got some issues, alas), but anything else like it would be great too. And of course, qmailadmin support so users can set their own filters. Ron
