Re: [vchkpw] question about qmail-tap
At 10:34 AM 10/4/2005, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote: as you might guess from my previous message, i'm installing qmail-tap for the first time. something that's not entirely clear is whether qmail-tap is 'self filtering' in the following sense. if i set up a taps file like this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED] will qmail-tap know to not tap the tapaccount? otherwise, i suspect it could create a pretty nasty loop. i'd like to be able to offer this as a 'value added' option for customers, where they can set up an address to receive copies of their own domain's messages - but not have to ship it to a different domain or server. make sense? gee, i'm on a roll. answered my own question by doing - duh - an experiment. set up the taps file as above, it didn't tap it's own messages. kewl. also, just a note on my previous message about the README errno line - on solaris, there's no need to do that patch. Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.energynucleus.com http://www.anastrophe.com http://www.smileglobal.com
Re: [vchkpw] Question about domains in vpopmail
Thanks so much Sylwester ! - Original Message - From: "Sylwester S. Biernacki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fernando Milovich" Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:06 AM Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Question about domains in vpopmail On Saturday, May 14, 2005, 7:44:02 AM, Fernando wrote: People, after i rebuild new 5.4.10 vpopmail version, when i add a new domain from CLI, breaks the typical structure of ~vpopmail/domains/domain.com for this one ~vpopmail/domains/1/domain.com with numbers like 2,3, etc ... before the domain ... why it is this happening? count how much domains you have in your ~vpopmail/domains/ dir - it is very useful if you have 100s of domains - all of them in one directory could grow to the FD limit on the directory and operations on that directory would be very very very slow. It's due to filesystem limits. We have better and better filesystems with journaling but this idea is one of the milestones in all unixes few years ago ;-) you have similar solution in postfix where all mailboxes in domain are divided into directories i.e. servit.com.ar/c/r/y/crypto AFAIR if you don't want to use it check your configure options for --enable-large-site=y and change it to 'n' -- regards, Sylwester Biernacki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [vchkpw] Question about domains in vpopmail
On Saturday, May 14, 2005, 7:44:02 AM, Fernando wrote: > People, after i rebuild new 5.4.10 vpopmail version, when i add > a new domain from CLI, breaks the typical structure of > ~vpopmail/domains/domain.com > for this one > ~vpopmail/domains/1/domain.com > with numbers like 2,3, etc ... before the domain ... why it is this > happening? count how much domains you have in your ~vpopmail/domains/ dir - it is very useful if you have 100s of domains - all of them in one directory could grow to the FD limit on the directory and operations on that directory would be very very very slow. It's due to filesystem limits. We have better and better filesystems with journaling but this idea is one of the milestones in all unixes few years ago ;-) you have similar solution in postfix where all mailboxes in domain are divided into directories i.e. servit.com.ar/c/r/y/crypto AFAIR if you don't want to use it check your configure options for --enable-large-site=y and change it to 'n' -- regards, Sylwester Biernacki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [vchkpw] Question on msg/hour graph
Got it.. I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding what it was.. thanks :) On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:34:40 -0500, Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 17 September 2004 07:34 am, Matt Hoppes wrote: > > Hi, > > On the inter7 qmailmrtg7 graphs.. what exactly is the msg/hour graph > > displaying? > It is displaying the averaged number of messages per hour. > > > I know MRTG takes 5 minute averages but what exactly is > > it averaging? > Every 5 minutes we get an exact count of number of messages > received in the last 5 minutes. qmailmrtg7 multiplies that value > by 12 to change the time scale to msg/hour. That value is handed > to mrtg which averages it with the prior data samples. > > > I know it's doing the messages.. but how do you do > > msg/hour in a 5 minute average? > messages(in 5 minutes) * 12 = msg/hour > > > I guess I'm missing some sort of logic there.. > Most folks find it easier to view msg/hour instead of msg/5 mins. > Hence the multplication. Which means, if you only get 1 message > in 5 minutes, mrtg will show 12msg/hour. > > Ken Jones >
Re: [vchkpw] Question on msg/hour graph
On Friday 17 September 2004 07:34 am, Matt Hoppes wrote: > Hi, > On the inter7 qmailmrtg7 graphs.. what exactly is the msg/hour graph > displaying? It is displaying the averaged number of messages per hour. > I know MRTG takes 5 minute averages but what exactly is > it averaging? Every 5 minutes we get an exact count of number of messages received in the last 5 minutes. qmailmrtg7 multiplies that value by 12 to change the time scale to msg/hour. That value is handed to mrtg which averages it with the prior data samples. > I know it's doing the messages.. but how do you do > msg/hour in a 5 minute average? messages(in 5 minutes) * 12 = msg/hour > I guess I'm missing some sort of logic there.. Most folks find it easier to view msg/hour instead of msg/5 mins. Hence the multplication. Which means, if you only get 1 message in 5 minutes, mrtg will show 12msg/hour. Ken Jones
Re: [vchkpw] Question about Dir Control (.dir-control)
On Jun 30, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Ken Jones wrote:
Yep. Looks like whoever added the Warning message code needed to
ifdef it with the big user dir define.
Added to CVS and scheduled for 5.4.7.
--- vpopmail.c 26 Jun 2004 02:20:56 - 1.28.2.4
+++ vpopmail.c 1 Jul 2004 05:29:45 - 1.28.2.5
@@ -262,9 +262,11 @@
fprintf(stderr, "Failed while attempting to delete domain from
the qmail control files\n");
}
+#ifdef USERS_BIG_DIR
if (vdel_dir_control(domain) != 0) {
- fprintf (stderr, "Failed while attempting to delete domain from
dir_control\n");
+ fprintf (stderr, "Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for
%s\n", domain);
}
+#endif
/* send a HUP signal to qmail-send process to reread control files
*/
signal_process("qmail-send", SIGHUP);
@@ -379,10 +381,12 @@
*/
vdel_limits(domain);
+#ifdef USERS_BIG_DIR
/* delete the dir control info for this domain */
if (vdel_dir_control(domain) != 0) {
fprintf (stderr, "Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for
%s\n", domain);
}
+#endif
/* Now remove domain from filesystem */
/* if it's a symbolic link just remove the link */
--
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] Question about Dir Control (.dir-control)
On Jun 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Tom Collins wrote:
What version of vpopmail? I thought we took care of that error
message ("Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for test.com") during
the development cycle leading up to 5.4.0. It was due to the domain's
directory getting deleted before the dir_control file (for user
directories) inside of it.
vpopmail-5.4.0.tar.gz
Like Ken mentioned, its trying to delete .dir-control with out first
checking if that feature is enabled or not.
Perhaps someone could look into making a patch to add a
--disable-domains-big-dir (or would that be enable?) to disable
hashing when creating new domains. It shouldn't be too hard to ifdef
out the code responsible for hashing.
I think that feature would be a very welcome one.
Brian
--
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] Question about Dir Control (.dir-control)
On Jun 30, 2004, at 4:13 PM, Brian Feeny wrote:
Thanks for answering. I did see that disable-users-big-dir option,
so I configured with it.
It seems to still do the following though:
1. create .dir-control in the domains directory.
2. complain when removing a domain that it can't delete the dir
control.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./vadddomain test.com testcom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./vdeldomain test.com
Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for test.com
Even though /home/cust/vpopmail/domains/test.com is gone,
there is a .dir-control file in /home/cust/vpopmail/domains. I
manually
deleted this file, but every time I add a new domain it creates this
file
again. Not sure why ./vdeldomain would be complaining when there
wasnt a .dir-control in the first place associated with the domain I
was
deleting.
What version of vpopmail? I thought we took care of that error message
("Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for test.com") during the
development cycle leading up to 5.4.0. It was due to the domain's
directory getting deleted before the dir_control file (for user
directories) inside of it.
Perhaps someone could look into making a patch to add a
--disable-domains-big-dir (or would that be enable?) to disable hashing
when creating new domains. It shouldn't be too hard to ifdef out the
code responsible for hashing.
--
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] Question about Dir Control (.dir-control)
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 06:13 pm, Brian Feeny wrote: > Ken, > > Thanks for answering. I did see that disable-users-big-dir option, > so I configured with it. > > It seems to still do the following though: > > 1. create .dir-control in the domains directory. > 2. complain when removing a domain that it can't delete the dir control. Yep. Looks like whoever added the Warning message code needed to ifdef it with the big user dir define. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./vadddomain test.com testcom > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./vdeldomain test.com > Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for test.com > > Even though /home/cust/vpopmail/domains/test.com is gone, > there is a .dir-control file in /home/cust/vpopmail/domains. I manually > deleted this file, but every time I add a new domain it creates this > file > again. Not sure why ./vdeldomain would be complaining when there > wasnt a .dir-control in the first place associated with the domain I was > deleting. > > Any ideas? Looks like the only way to stop domains from being hashed would be in 2 steps: rm -rf /home/vpopmail/domains/.dir-control vadddomain domainname If the /home/vpopmail/domains/.dir-control file does not exist then it creates a default one and puts the domain in /home/vpopmail/domains. So you can fake it out by deleteing the .dir-control every time. Also looks like we need to fix that warning message. Ken > > Brian > > On Jun 30, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Ken Jones wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 June 2004 03:37 pm, Brian Feeny wrote: > >> First, is there a way to disable the Dir Control functionality of > >> vpopmail? > > > > Sure. Use this option > > > > --disable-users-big-dir > > > >> If not, is there any downside to just not using it? > > > > Just the optimization for keeping the number of directories in > > a directory to a efficent level. > > > >> You may ask why I need to do this. > >> > >> We do our own hashing of directories and usernames here, using our own > >> script systems. > >> I like this because the paths that we are creating are predictable > >> since we are determining them > >> instead of dir control/vadduser. > > > > Since you do your own hashing, no need to use vpopmail's. > > > > Cheers, > > Ken Jones > > > >> Brian > >> > >> -- > >> Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Network Engineer p: 318.213.4709 > >> ShreveNet Inc. f: 318.221.6612
Re: [vchkpw] Question about Dir Control (.dir-control)
Ken, Thanks for answering. I did see that disable-users-big-dir option, so I configured with it. It seems to still do the following though: 1. create .dir-control in the domains directory. 2. complain when removing a domain that it can't delete the dir control. [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./vadddomain test.com testcom [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./vdeldomain test.com Warning: Failed to delete dir_control for test.com Even though /home/cust/vpopmail/domains/test.com is gone, there is a .dir-control file in /home/cust/vpopmail/domains. I manually deleted this file, but every time I add a new domain it creates this file again. Not sure why ./vdeldomain would be complaining when there wasnt a .dir-control in the first place associated with the domain I was deleting. Any ideas? Brian On Jun 30, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Ken Jones wrote: On Wednesday 30 June 2004 03:37 pm, Brian Feeny wrote: First, is there a way to disable the Dir Control functionality of vpopmail? Sure. Use this option --disable-users-big-dir If not, is there any downside to just not using it? Just the optimization for keeping the number of directories in a directory to a efficent level. You may ask why I need to do this. We do our own hashing of directories and usernames here, using our own script systems. I like this because the paths that we are creating are predictable since we are determining them instead of dir control/vadduser. Since you do your own hashing, no need to use vpopmail's. Cheers, Ken Jones Brian -- Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Engineerp: 318.213.4709 ShreveNet Inc. f: 318.221.6612
Re: [vchkpw] Question about Dir Control (.dir-control)
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 03:37 pm, Brian Feeny wrote: > First, is there a way to disable the Dir Control functionality of > vpopmail? Sure. Use this option --disable-users-big-dir > > If not, is there any downside to just not using it? Just the optimization for keeping the number of directories in a directory to a efficent level. > > You may ask why I need to do this. > > We do our own hashing of directories and usernames here, using our own > script systems. > I like this because the paths that we are creating are predictable > since we are determining them > instead of dir control/vadduser. Since you do your own hashing, no need to use vpopmail's. Cheers, Ken Jones > > Brian > > -- > Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Network Engineer p: 318.213.4709 > ShreveNet Inc.f: 318.221.6612
Re: [vchkpw] Question about MAX_PW_DOMAIN evaluation in vadddomain function.
On Apr 29, 2004, at 7:04 PM, Sean Plaice wrote:
2) Change the evaluation in vadddomain() to use MAX_PW_DIR instead of
MAX_PW_DOMAIN.
Thanks for finding that. You are correct.
--- vpopmail.c 4 Mar 2004 05:17:54 - 1.28.2.1
+++ vpopmail.c 30 Apr 2004 03:49:42 -
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@
* We dont want to start creating dirs and putting entries in
* the assign file etc if the path is going to be too long
*/
- if (strlen(dir)+strlen(DOMAINS_DIR)+strlen(DomainSubDir) >=
MAX_PW_DOMAIN) {
+ if (strlen(dir)+strlen(DOMAINS_DIR)+strlen(DomainSubDir) >=
MAX_PW_DIR) {
/* back out of changes made so far */
dec_dir_control(dir_control_for_uid, uid, gid);
chdir(calling_dir);
In CVS, will be in the next 5.4 release.
--
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] question
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 00:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sir, > > I do not understand this log message here; > > /// > Feb 22 09:32:54 ns qmail: 1077409974.518163 info msg 3670324: bytes 1742 > from <> > qp 24127 uid 507 > Feb 22 09:32:54 ns qmail: 1077409974.700893 starting delivery 82: msg > 3670324 to > remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 22 09:32:54 ns qmail: 1077409974.700968 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 > Feb 22 09:33:04 ns qmail: 1077409984.706173 delivery 82: success: > 192.166.87.34_ > accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok:_queued_as_4C44C103D1/ > // > I looks that QMAILS(ui507) success to send the message to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] you are correct. > But Who did this thing? it's a bounce, look at the from on the top line (second line due to wrapping) > I have no idea of this. > Somebody operate my system who I do not want? someone sent an email to a non-existant user on your domain, or for whatever reason the message bounced. If you look further up in the logs you'll see the original message come in and you'll see why it bounced. I do have to say though, you provided a very good report along with your question. :) -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kitchen @ #qmail on EFNet - Join the party! . Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. www.inter7.com 866.528.3530 toll free 847.492.0470 int'l 847.492.0632 fax GNUPG key ID: 93BDD6CE
RE: [vchkpw] question
You will notice the message has come from <> which means its likely a bounce message. Without turning on more logging it's a little hard to say for certain. Shane >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2004 2:42 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [vchkpw] question > >Sir, > >I do not understand this log message here; > >/// >Feb 22 09:32:54 ns qmail: 1077409974.518163 info msg 3670324: >bytes 1742 >from <> > qp 24127 uid 507 >Feb 22 09:32:54 ns qmail: 1077409974.700893 starting delivery 82: msg >3670324 to > remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Feb 22 09:32:54 ns qmail: 1077409974.700968 status: local 0/10 >remote 1/20 >Feb 22 09:33:04 ns qmail: 1077409984.706173 delivery 82: success: >192.166.87.34_ >accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok:_queued_as_4C44C103D1/ >// > >I looks that QMAILS(ui507) success to send the message to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >But Who did this thing? >I have no idea of this. >Somebody operate my system who I do not want? > >/ >tcp.smtp >127.0.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >192.168.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >192.168.100.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >61.113.45.177-189:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >/ > >This network is 61.113.45.176-61.113.45.191 > >Aki > > > > > >
RE: [vchkpw] Question about roaming
Andrea, Running every minute or clearing the rules every 15 is probably a little paranoid. You might want to look into SMTP AUTH so that you don't have to worry about opening a relay. I set my open relay to 1 day due to people not checking their email often enough to keep the relay open when they are sending. If your going to keep the same setup you only need to run clearopensmtp every 15 minutes or so. I don't think you will see any problem running it every 15 minutes. Regards, Brad Davis -Original Message- From: Andrea Riela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [vchkpw] Question about roaming Shane Chrisp wrote: > I run 15 minutes for open relay and clearopensmtp every minute from > crontab. I'm sorry, Shane, but I'm very tired and I don't understand. --enable-relay-clear-minutes=15 */1 * * * * /home/vpopmail/bin/clearopensmtp 2>&1 > /dev/null ? Thanks Andrea
RE: [vchkpw] Question about roaming
Andrea, Yes that is what I meant. Sorry, im also very tired myself and though I knew what I meant I probably typed it in shorthand :) I should also add that im running a MySQL backend in my setup and that 1 minute for clearopensmtp is probably overkill, but it doesn't really add any load to the system, so I don't see the harm. I would rather have the relay cleared from the table sooner than later. Shane >-Original Message- >From: Andrea Riela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, 17 January 2004 10:40 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [vchkpw] Question about roaming > >Shane Chrisp wrote: >> I run 15 minutes for open relay and clearopensmtp every minute from >> crontab. > >I'm sorry, Shane, but I'm very tired and I don't understand. >--enable-relay-clear-minutes=15 >*/1 * * * * >/home/vpopmail/bin/clearopensmtp >2>&1 > /dev/null > >? >Thanks >Andrea > >
RE: [vchkpw] Question about roaming
Shane Chrisp wrote: > I run 15 minutes for open relay and clearopensmtp every minute from > crontab. I'm sorry, Shane, but I'm very tired and I don't understand. --enable-relay-clear-minutes=15 */1 * * * * /home/vpopmail/bin/clearopensmtp 2>&1 > /dev/null ? Thanks Andrea
Re: [vchkpw] Question about .qmail exit codes.
> > If a program invoked from a .qmail file returns an exit status of 99 > > (per qmail-command man page) shouldn't it just stop processing the > > qmail file? It seems to be deferring the message and trying to > > redeliver it later. > > I just checked the ChangeLog, and that was fixed in 5.3.9. You might > want to look at 5.3.30 as a replacement for 5.3.8. The next release > will probably be 5.4.0-pre1, and currently only includes documentation > and build changes from 5.3.30. vpopmail-5.2.2 also includes that fix Michael.
Re: [vchkpw] Question about .qmail exit codes.
On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 09:19 PM, Yermo M. Lamers wrote: I am running the Qmail Toaster as available from www.qmailtoaster.com. (vpopmail-toaster-5.3.8). There's something about the behavior of the .qmail files in the individual vpopmail account directories that I don't understand. If a program invoked from a .qmail file returns an exit status of 99 (per qmail-command man page) shouldn't it just stop processing the qmail file? It seems to be deferring the message and trying to redeliver it later. I just checked the ChangeLog, and that was fixed in 5.3.9. You might want to look at 5.3.30 as a replacement for 5.3.8. The next release will probably be 5.4.0-pre1, and currently only includes documentation and build changes from 5.3.30. Relevant ChangeLog entries: 09/11/02 Dave Boodman dave at boodman dot com - vdelivermail missing case for exit code 99 when exec'ing users .qmail programs. Needed for processing of autorepsond result codes of 99 09/05/02 "Steve Fulton" steve at esoteric dot ca - vdelivermail now handles error return codes 100 and 99 when processing users .qmail files. Support for autoresponder exiting with 99. -- 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] question about adding a new domain
> Gary wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Ok i'm got vpopmail installed on my qmail server, now i have a quick > > question about adding domains > > > > when setting up a new domain do i set it up as just > > > > vadddomain domain.com > > or as > > vadddomain mail.domain.com ( assuming mail. is the mx record in dns ) > > Hi, > > What ever the @domain part is on your email address. > > If you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] then vadddomain domain.com password > > If you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] then vadddomain mail.domain.com password > > Regards, > > Rick > > > Thanks Rick that is what I thought, but just needed to be sure.
Re: [vchkpw] question about adding a new domain
Gary wrote: Hi all, Ok i'm got vpopmail installed on my qmail server, now i have a quick question about adding domains when setting up a new domain do i set it up as just vadddomain domain.com or as vadddomain mail.domain.com ( assuming mail. is the mx record in dns ) Hi, What ever the @domain part is on your email address. If you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] then vadddomain domain.com password If you use [EMAIL PROTECTED] then vadddomain mail.domain.com password Regards, Rick
Re: [vchkpw] question about exit code of vdelivermail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I´ve found the solution myself ... in the ChangeLog it sais that with version 5.2.1 "EXITCODE checking for vdelivermail" has been put in and I´m currently using 5.2 :( So forget about my question, please give me an answer for this one: Is it save to upgrade from 5.2 to 5.2.1 on an running system? Is there anything I should be aware of or is it just backuping the /bin/ directory and just making the ./configure & make & make-install ? Thanks again Thomas Just before you do the upgrade, shut down the install, upgrade and restart :).
Re: [vchkpw] question about exit code of vdelivermail
I´ve found the solution myself ... in the ChangeLog it sais that with version 5.2.1 "EXITCODE checking for vdelivermail" has been put in and I´m currently using 5.2 :( So forget about my question, please give me an answer for this one: Is it save to upgrade from 5.2 to 5.2.1 on an running system? Is there anything I should be aware of or is it just backuping the /bin/ directory and just making the ./configure & make & make-install ? Thanks again Thomas -- Sie schrieben: -- > Hi everybody, > > I´ve got a question concerning the internal strucutre of vpopmail. > I´ve set up a qmail system together with vpopmail ( qmail 1.03 & vpopmail 5.2 ). > I´m testing with two different domains and everything is working fine for me. > > What I now wanted to do is set up some kind of simple anti-spam tool to avoid the > huge amount of spam in some Maildirs. I tried to get a php script to work ( php > script called from a .qmail file ) that sould analyse the mail and in case of spam > it should copy it to some destination and then the script should return a exit code > to tell the delivery process to stop delivering the message. > > What I´m not shure is which program does the delivery in this case. > The .qmail file ( created with qmailadmin ) resides inside the vpopmail structure of > the virtual domain and looks like > > |/path-to-phpscript/phpscript.php > /path/to-vpopmail/domains/virtualdomain1/adress/Maildir/new/ > > but everytime I send a mail to that adress, the php script tells me that it is spam, > it copies it to the sepcial destionation ( so the script works fine to me ) BUT the > mail delivery process is not stopped, the mail gets into the Maildir asif my script > did not return an exit code. > > I´ve tried it with return code 99 & 100 ( according to the .qmail-command manpages > and some notes I found on the return codes of vdelivermail ) but nothing happened. > > So my question is, have I missed something? > Which value should my returncode have, the one qmail is expecting or the one > vdelivermail is expecting? > And why does nothing happen to that delivery process? > > Thank you for your help! > > Thomas > > > >
Re: [vchkpw] question about autoresponder change
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 15:31, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > For the sake of vacation replies (since I'm sure those are used far more > than "Mail robots") I'm going to release a new version with changes to > the exit codes, but also place a bug report with qmailadmin about this > activity. oops, I apologize. I didn't realize there was a sourceforge project for autorespond. I submitted my patch to there and made some comments on some other bug reports and such :) -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen Systems Administrator . Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. www.inter7.com 866.528.3530 toll free 847.492.0470 int'l 847.492.0632 fax GNUPG key ID: 93BDD6CE
Re: [vchkpw] question about autoresponder change
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 18:08, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > This is more of an opinion question than a request for help. > replying to my own request for advice. After looking further at the code, it appears that it may be acting properly if it were only to be used as a standalone autoresponder. However, qmailadmin also uses this for its 'vacation replies' and I would assume that people wouldn't want their mailing list messages bouncing (which then causes them to possibly get removed from the list) when they're on vacation, or a whole plethora of other situations where the autoresponder is acting improperly. So, there's the dilemma, it appears that one package is trying to have two different purposes in life, and those two purposes conflict with each other. For the sake of vacation replies (since I'm sure those are used far more than "Mail robots") I'm going to release a new version with changes to the exit codes, but also place a bug report with qmailadmin about this activity. -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen Systems Administrator . Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. www.inter7.com 866.528.3530 toll free 847.492.0470 int'l 847.492.0632 fax GNUPG key ID: 93BDD6CE
Re: [vchkpw] question about autoresponder change
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 13:20, Flavio Curti wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 06:08:39PM -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > > AUTORESPOND: I can't handle a message with a Mailing-List header. > sadly this is not the only time autorespond uses the wrong exit code: > AUTORESPOND: too many received from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (this gets triggered when a user sends more than defined mails in a > period) i don't think the mail should bounce then! instead, autorespond > should simply not send a vacation to the sender, but allow further > deliveries. I will look for this. > i just searched an replaced all exits, because in my opinion > no failures of autorespond are fatal enough to stop the mail from ending > up in the users mailbox! interesting point. I will review the exits and see if there are any others that need changed before posting the next version :) -- Jeremy Kitchen Systems Administrator . Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. www.inter7.com 866.528.3530 toll free 847.492.0470 int'l 847.492.0632 fax GNUPG key ID: 93BDD6CE
Re: [vchkpw] question about autoresponder change
Hi Jeremy On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 06:08:39PM -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > AUTORESPOND: I can't handle a message with a Mailing-List header. sadly this is not the only time autorespond uses the wrong exit code: AUTORESPOND: too many received from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this gets triggered when a user sends more than defined mails in a period) i don't think the mail should bounce then! instead, autorespond should simply not send a vacation to the sender, but allow further deliveries. i just searched an replaced all exits, because in my opinion no failures of autorespond are fatal enough to stop the mail from ending up in the users mailbox! thank you & hope it helps Flavio -- http://no-way.org/~fcu/
Re: [vchkpw] Question regarding courier
At 08:49 AM 9/10/2003, Ewald Geschwinde wrote: Have I done something wrong with the vpopmail installation? /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lvpopmail collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Ewald... Make sure you have the following two files: /var/qmail/vpopmail/etc/inc_deps /var/qmail/vpopmail/etc/lib_deps I had to create them: /var/qmail/vpopmail/etc/inc_deps Inside: -I/var/qmail/vpopmail/include -I/usr/include/mysql /var/qmail/vpopmail/etc/lib_deps Inside: -L/var/qmail/vpopmail/lib /var/qmail/vpopmail/lib/libvpopmail.a -L/usr/lib/mysql /usr/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient.a -lz (the above is one line, watch for wrap) --- Anthony Baratta President Keyboard Jockeys "Conformity is the refuge of the unimaginative."
RE: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error
That's an error from the SMTP server; unless you have smtp auth or something like that built into it, vpopmail would not be involved. David -Original Message- From: Remo Mattei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 6/7/2003 7:31 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: Subject: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error Hi guys can someone give me more info on why someone that is trying to send a message to me gets this error? 553 sorry, your envelope sender has been denied I am almost positive that her email client is not setup correctly Any fee back are welcomed. Thanks, -- Remo Mattei --cell 801-209-8554 http://www.italy1.com Freelance Networking-Security/Consultant MCSE, MCP, MCP+I, MCT Linux Trainer & Firewall Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error
If you search google for the error message you're wondering about, the second match is the third-party patch that is causing your qmail to produce the message. David > -Original Message- > From: Remo Mattei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:47 PM > To: David Hubbard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error > > > This user is not even on my box :) > She is just sending message to one of my client which is on > this box :) Thanks and I am open for more suggestions .. > -- Remo Mattei --cell 801-209-8554 >http://www.italy1.com >Freelance Networking-Security/Consultant >MCSE, MCP, MCP+I, MCT >Linux Trainer & Firewall Development >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > From: "David Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:11:44 -0400 > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error > > > > That's an error from the SMTP server; unless you have > > smtp auth or something like that built into it, vpopmail > would not be > > involved. > > > > David > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Remo Mattei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sat 6/7/2003 7:31 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Cc: > > Subject: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error > > > > > > > > Hi guys can someone give me more info on why someone that > is trying to > > send a message to me gets this error? > > > > 553 sorry, your envelope sender has been denied > > > > > > I am almost positive that her email client is not setup > correctly > > Any fee back are welcomed. Thanks, > > > > > > -- Remo Mattei --cell 801-209-8554 > > http://www.italy1.com > > Freelance Networking-Security/Consultant > > MCSE, MCP, MCP+I, MCT > > Linux Trainer & Firewall Development > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error
This user is not even on my box :) She is just sending message to one of my client which is on this box :) Thanks and I am open for more suggestions .. -- Remo Mattei --cell 801-209-8554 http://www.italy1.com Freelance Networking-Security/Consultant MCSE, MCP, MCP+I, MCT Linux Trainer & Firewall Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "David Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 20:11:44 -0400 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error > > That's an error from the SMTP server; unless you have > smtp auth or something like that built into it, vpopmail > would not be involved. > > David > > -Original Message- > From: Remo Mattei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sat 6/7/2003 7:31 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Cc: > Subject: [vchkpw] Question on 553 error > > > > Hi guys can someone give me more info on why someone that is trying to send > a message to me gets this error? > > 553 sorry, your envelope sender has been denied > > > I am almost positive that her email client is not setup correctly Any > fee back are welcomed. > Thanks, > > > -- Remo Mattei --cell 801-209-8554 > http://www.italy1.com > Freelance Networking-Security/Consultant > MCSE, MCP, MCP+I, MCT > Linux Trainer & Firewall Development > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
Re: [vchkpw] question re faq
- Original Message - From: "Paul Theodoropoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:24 AM Subject: [vchkpw] question re faq > > faq item 34 discusses getting courier-imap to use vpopmail's roaming users > functionality. i just noticed in the changelog for courier-imap, it states: > > > 2001-02-08 Chris Seawood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * authlib: Added check for open_smtp_relay in -lvpopmail > > so, does that mean that faq item 34 is obsolete? I also noticed that a couple of weeks go. Thanks for reminding me (the list) I wanted to know also.
Re: [vchkpw] question re faq
As far as I know, roaming users doesn't work with the courier-imap authlib, at least with authdaemond. I've patched my version and when I get cycles planned on submitting a patch to Mr. Sam to allow authdaemond to have it work. The problem is that vpopmail relies on environment variables that are set in the couriertcpd and aren't passed to the daemon. I've patched my version and have had it working for over a month now. Eliminating all those fork/exec's have reduced CPU dramatically (as well as my patch to vpopmail vipmap API to only fork/exec tcprules if a new IP is added to the table). I used to be at 99% CPU, now I'm at 98% idle... Brian > faq item 34 discusses getting courier-imap to use vpopmail's roaming users > functionality. i just noticed in the changelog for courier-imap, it states: > > > 2001-02-08 Chris Seawood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * authlib: Added check for open_smtp_relay in -lvpopmail > > > > so, does that mean that faq item 34 is obsolete? > > > Paul Theodoropoulos > http://www.anastrophe.com > http://folding.stanford.edu > The Nicest Misanthrope on the Net
