qmail Digest 29 Jan 1999 11:00:10 -0000 Issue 535
Topics (messages 21043 through 21135):
Bouncing specific users
21043 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21044 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21046 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21049 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21050 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"solutions for spam"
21045 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21051 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21056 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21057 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21060 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21062 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21064 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21067 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21070 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21072 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21074 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21077 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21120 by: "Luca Olivetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21122 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TCPServer and Relaying
21047 by: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21048 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
convert netscape mails to qmail
21052 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21053 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21054 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21055 by: Bart Blanquart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21059 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
checkpassword
21058 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21061 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virtual domains using qmail
21063 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Best way to defer mail from an application
21065 by: Michael Amster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21068 by: Chris Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm stuck
21066 by: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21078 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21085 by: "Brian L. Gentry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21092 by: James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Multiple outgoing messages
21069 by: "Mark Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21073 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21075 by: "Mark Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21076 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21080 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21086 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21087 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21100 by: "Mark Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21101 by: "Mark Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21106 by: "cap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21109 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21110 by: "Mark Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21111 by: Paul Schinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21115 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21117 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21118 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21124 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21125 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21134 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank D. Cringle)
21135 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newbie configuration
21071 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21083 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pattern-matching and filtering
21079 by: Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21084 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21089 by: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21090 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21097 by: "Len Budney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-pop3d
21081 by: Ramesh Vadlapatla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21082 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
two questions about set-up
21088 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21093 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21094 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21098 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21102 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21104 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21107 by: John R Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21113 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
When the book coming out Russell??
21091 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21096 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Complicated problem with fastforward and aliases
21095 by: Cristiano Lincoln Mattos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21099 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If it's not in $HOME/Maildir, where is it?
21103 by: Bob McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21116 by: Bob McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21123 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mirko Zeibig)
FW: Multiple outgoing messages
21105 by: "Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
problems with list?
21108 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21112 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21119 by: Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Another mailing list needed (Was: Re: problems with list?)
21114 by: "Andrzej Kukula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-stmpd receiving mail from ccMail
21121 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
when does a message get split
21126 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21127 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21130 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On local sends, Bounce to sender(user), not to postmaster
21128 by: Joel Shellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21129 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail sending to 'root@localhost'
21131 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Naden)
21132 by: Allen Versfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21133 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mirko Zeibig)
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 09:34:03AM +0100, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
> Perhaps:
>
> exit 100
That should be:
|exit 100
Musn't forget the pipe.
--
Anand
System Administrator
Africa Online Ltd
http://www.anand.org
> That should be:
>
> |exit 100
What about
|bouncesaying 'This address no longer accepts mail'
inside the .qmail file
(man bouncesaying)
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 01:08:30PM +0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > That should be:
> >
> > |exit 100
>
> What about
> |bouncesaying 'This address no longer accepts mail'
> inside the .qmail file
> (man bouncesaying)
That will only work with qmail 1.03. That guy didn't tell us what version
of qmail he was running, and so a pipe to 'exit 100' is the safest to
suggest, else he might come back and ask why qmail complains of not finding
bouncesaying.
--
Anand
System Administrator
Africa Online Ltd
http://www.anand.org
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 08:30:37AM +0000, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've recently aquired control of a new domain and am supporting it under qmail.
>
> My boss wants me to accept mail for all addresses at saiddomain.com and
> deliver them to person x (which is easy using a .qmail-default) but we want
> to reject a specific address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] What do I put in the
> .qmail-pete file?
| bouncesaying "Pete is a bad boy, and cannot receive mail"
This assumes that .qmail-pete really controls mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
At 7:51 am -0600 on 28/1/99, the great Mate Wierdl wrote:
>
>| bouncesaying "Pete is a bad boy, and cannot receive mail"
>
more to the point - I hate being called pete and it amuses me no end that
some spammers have picked up 'pete' rather than 'peter' <g>
thanks
Peter
--
gradwell dot com ltd - writing the bits of the web you don't see
online @ http://www.gradwell.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mail,
> > your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Either
> > them come from dial-up or not.
>
> There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
> some services that we choose not to offer to our customers. If someone wants
> a service we do not offer, we advise the to find someone who does.
This is not a service that you offer, like extra POP accounts, detailed
accounting by the second, whatever. This is something you are _NOT_
providing. Or before users sign the contract, you SPECIFICALLY say, _WE DO
NOT_ accept mail sent directly from dial-ups?
> > Obviously u never lived in a country, where monopolies are the rules, not
> > the exception.
>
> I never have. I'm not sure what to really tell you, other than, you seem to
> have a choice from among change it, leave it, or deal with it.
Change what? :
- the policies? I can't i'm not the government.
- Leave what? the country? sorry unfortunately that's not an option.
(unless someone, offers me a nice job, with a nice salary on a quiet and
peacefull place, offers directly by email please)
- Deal with it? That's what i have done for our entire life.
> > Why would they call you? They would call u and say, i suspect i haven't
> > received some mail that u deleted?
>
> There is no deletion involved if the mail never arrived. I cannot imagine
> any customer that would presume that mail they were expecting to get that
> did not arrive was simply deleted from our server.
AFAIK some people advocate, the acceptance of mail from dial up, and then
delete it. Rejection _is_ fine by me, i can take some exceptions,
deletions of ACK mail, is not an option.
cavorka:/var/qmail/control# v smtproutes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 71 Jan 18 12:47 smtproutes
> If a customer does complain that mail failed to arrive, and if it turns out
It's difficult to know, a mail hasn't arrived. :-)
> it was from a dialup line that tried to connect to us directly, I would tell
> the customer to have the peron who tried to send the mail call us directly to
> resolve the problem. If that person calls, I would advise them to not
> attempt to bypass the normal mail servers, and to use the SMTP server
> designated by their ISP, or get a dedicated IP address for their own SMTP
> server so it can be properly identified as other than a dialup. If they
> say anything that makes if convincing that they are really spammers, I will
> simply, and rudely, hang up.
Spammers simply won't give a damn, normal users do. You are not only
making life more difficult to people in general, you are also making it
more expensive.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
> > > That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mail,
> > > your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Either
> > > them come from dial-up or not.
> >
> > There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
> > some services that we choose not to offer to our customers. If someone wants
> > a service we do not offer, we advise the to find someone who does.
>
> This is not a service that you offer, like extra POP accounts, detailed
> accounting by the second, whatever. This is something you are _NOT_
> providing. Or before users sign the contract, you SPECIFICALLY say, _WE DO
> NOT_ accept mail sent directly from dial-ups?
We _offer_ what we offer. We do not have to say "we do not offer ..." and
list those things that we do not offer. We don't offer donuts and coffee
delivery in the morning, but we don't have to put that in the contract.
> > > Obviously u never lived in a country, where monopolies are the rules, not
> > > the exception.
> >
> > I never have. I'm not sure what to really tell you, other than, you seem to
> > have a choice from among change it, leave it, or deal with it.
>
> Change what? :
>
> - the policies? I can't i'm not the government.
> - Leave what? the country? sorry unfortunately that's not an option.
> (unless someone, offers me a nice job, with a nice salary on a quiet and
> peacefull place, offers directly by email please)
> - Deal with it? That's what i have done for our entire life.
Then if your government, A.K.A., your PTT, decides to change what it is they offer,
and does so under the contractual rules they (the government) has established as
the way things are done, then I guess you will continue to deal with it.
> AFAIK some people advocate, the acceptance of mail from dial up, and then
> delete it. Rejection _is_ fine by me, i can take some exceptions,
> deletions of ACK mail, is not an option.
How is that not an option?
> > If a customer does complain that mail failed to arrive, and if it turns out
>
> It's difficult to know, a mail hasn't arrived. :-)
>
> > it was from a dialup line that tried to connect to us directly, I would tell
> > the customer to have the peron who tried to send the mail call us directly to
> > resolve the problem. If that person calls, I would advise them to not
> > attempt to bypass the normal mail servers, and to use the SMTP server
> > designated by their ISP, or get a dedicated IP address for their own SMTP
> > server so it can be properly identified as other than a dialup. If they
> > say anything that makes if convincing that they are really spammers, I will
> > simply, and rudely, hang up.
>
> Spammers simply won't give a damn, normal users do. You are not only
> making life more difficult to people in general, you are also making it
> more expensive.
That may well be the case. But I am making it less expensive for my business,
and hence for my customers, by choosing to _not_ have to set up the facility to
manage the flood of incoming spam. To satisfy my customers who complain about
spam I need to take some kind of action. There are choices to that and I have
to make the choice that increases the profit of my business, which is generally
some balance between keeping/increasing the customer base (e.g. keep them happy)
and keeping costs down (e.g. not having to buy special complex packages that
require extra staff to maintain, or putting on extra tech support to handle the
complaint calls, etc). If I choose to conduct my business by blocking mail
that comes directly from a dialup port, then I have to answer to my customers
and my P/L statement.
Simply inject your e-mail into the SMTP server of your ISP if you are doing so
from a dialup. Your ISP is offering SMTP service?
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:20:14 +0100 (MET)
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mai
> l,
> > > your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Eithe
> r
> > > them come from dial-up or not.
> >
> > There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
> > some services that we choose not to offer to our customers. If someone w
> ants
> > a service we do not offer, we advise the to find someone who does.
>
> This is not a service that you offer, like extra POP accounts, detailed
> accounting by the second, whatever. This is something you are _NOT_
> providing. Or before users sign the contract, you SPECIFICALLY say, _WE DO
> NOT_ accept mail sent directly from dial-ups?
Hopefully, you do say that you don't allow the sending of SPAM from your
customers. You can then route all your dialup users through a ipmasq firewall
and make sure a line like this is in the firewall's rc files:
/sbin/ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S 10.0.0.0/8 -D default/0 25 -r 25
Now, anything they try to send to port 25 anywhere will be intercepted by qmail
on your firewall and you can filter it out yourselves only allowing outgoing
mail with sender domains which belong to your customers. You aren't
stopping legitimate SMTP traffic, you're simply keeping your customers honest.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues Deep Eddy Internet Consulting
+1 512 432 4046 609 Deep Eddy Avenue O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78703-4513
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mail,
> > > > your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Either
> > > > them come from dial-up or not.
> > >
> > > There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
> > > some services that we choose not to offer to our customers. If someone wants
> > > a service we do not offer, we advise the to find someone who does.
> >
> > This is not a service that you offer, like extra POP accounts, detailed
> > accounting by the second, whatever. This is something you are _NOT_
> > providing. Or before users sign the contract, you SPECIFICALLY say, _WE DO
> > NOT_ accept mail sent directly from dial-ups?
>
> We _offer_ what we offer. We do not have to say "we do not offer ..." and
> list those things that we do not offer. We don't offer donuts and coffee
> delivery in the morning, but we don't have to put that in the contract.
Off course. But Don't u offer mail to your customers? How do u state it.
We offer you an email account where you can receive mail?
or
We offer you an email account where you can receive almost all mail sent
to you?
> > > > Obviously u never lived in a country, where monopolies are the rules, not
> > > > the exception.
> > >
> > > I never have. I'm not sure what to really tell you, other than, you seem to
> > > have a choice from among change it, leave it, or deal with it.
> >
> > Change what? :
> >
> > - the policies? I can't i'm not the government.
> > - Leave what? the country? sorry unfortunately that's not an option.
> > (unless someone, offers me a nice job, with a nice salary on a quiet and
> > peacefull place, offers directly by email please)
> > - Deal with it? That's what i have done for our entire life.
>
> Then if your government, A.K.A., your PTT, decides to change what it is they offer,
> and does so under the contractual rules they (the government) has established as
> the way things are done, then I guess you will continue to deal with it.
Yes it's called. No options.
> > AFAIK some people advocate, the acceptance of mail from dial up, and then
> > delete it. Rejection _is_ fine by me, i can take some exceptions,
> > deletions of ACK mail, is not an option.
>
> How is that not an option?
I refuse to accept that as a reasonable policy.
[forcing legitimate users to call you, cause u don't accept mail from
them]
> > Spammers simply won't give a damn, normal users do. You are not only
> > making life more difficult to people in general, you are also making it
> > more expensive.
>
> That may well be the case. But I am making it less expensive for my business,
> and hence for my customers, by choosing to _not_ have to set up the facility to
> manage the flood of incoming spam. To satisfy my customers who complain about
> spam I need to take some kind of action. There are choices to that and I have
Agreed. I just don't agree that the measuse u are advocatin is reasonable.
> to make the choice that increases the profit of my business, which is generally
> some balance between keeping/increasing the customer base (e.g. keep them happy)
> and keeping costs down (e.g. not having to buy special complex packages that
> require extra staff to maintain, or putting on extra tech support to handle the
> complaint calls, etc). If I choose to conduct my business by blocking mail
> that comes directly from a dialup port, then I have to answer to my customers
> and my P/L statement.
>
> Simply inject your e-mail into the SMTP server of your ISP if you are doing so
> from a dialup. Your ISP is offering SMTP service?
Apart from the fact that i don't use an ISP, yes he does. Only he doesn't
provide the reliability, speed (among other things) that i can provide
myself.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 11:28:45AM -0600, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:20:14 +0100 (MET)
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > > That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mai
> > l,
> > > > your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Eithe
> > r
> > > > them come from dial-up or not.
> > >
> > > There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
> > > some services that we choose not to offer to our customers. If someone w
> > ants
> > > a service we do not offer, we advise the to find someone who does.
> >
> > This is not a service that you offer, like extra POP accounts, detailed
> > accounting by the second, whatever. This is something you are _NOT_
> > providing. Or before users sign the contract, you SPECIFICALLY say, _WE DO
> > NOT_ accept mail sent directly from dial-ups?
>
> Hopefully, you do say that you don't allow the sending of SPAM from your
> customers. You can then route all your dialup users through a ipmasq firewall
> and make sure a line like this is in the firewall's rc files:
>
> /sbin/ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S 10.0.0.0/8 -D default/0 25 -r 25
>
> Now, anything they try to send to port 25 anywhere will be intercepted by qmail
> on your firewall and you can filter it out yourselves only allowing outgoing
> mail with sender domains which belong to your customers. You aren't
> stopping legitimate SMTP traffic, you're simply keeping your customers honest.
Errr.. HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! (excuse the caps :)
You _are_ stopping legitimate SMTP traffic. Suppose one of your customers is hosting
a website with some webhosters. He gets his (business) mail from the webhoster's POP3
server. But ofcourse the webhoster won't allow his customer to relay thru him. The
customer should use the mailhost of his own ISP. You are preventing him from doing
that.
And.. no, I don't think he should pay you more to get a clear path because he's
a business user, because he might not be one. Lots of people have websites just
for fun, not for business.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 11:28:45AM -0600, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> /sbin/ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S 10.0.0.0/8 -D default/0 25 -r 25
>
> Now, anything they try to send to port 25 anywhere will be intercepted by qmail
> on your firewall and you can filter it out yourselves only allowing outgoing
> mail with sender domains which belong to your customers. You aren't
> stopping legitimate SMTP traffic, you're simply keeping your customers honest.
Booooo! Are you saying that if one of your users is using an address that you
don't know about that his mail is not legitimate and that he's dishonest? What
about all those places that offer forwarding addresses, like pobox.com? You
won't relay mail for a user if he uses a pobox.com address? An organization I'm
associated with offers forwarding addresses with our domain name; lots of our
members use them. Do you consider them to be doing something wrong?
ISPs shouldn't restrict what their users can use as an envelope address.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > We _offer_ what we offer. We do not have to say "we do not offer ..." and
> > list those things that we do not offer. We don't offer donuts and coffee
> > delivery in the morning, but we don't have to put that in the contract.
>
> Off course. But Don't u offer mail to your customers? How do u state it.
> We offer you an email account where you can receive mail?
> or
> We offer you an email account where you can receive almost all mail sent
> to you?
We offer services that are consistent with the efficient, secure, and cost
effective operation of our service. We reserve the right to update and modify
the services we offer. This offering can be superceded by a specific offering
in an individual contract signed between the provider and customer. Customers
who are affected by a change in our offering are eligible for termination of
service effective on the date the changes take place, or up to 60 days after
the changes take place if we fail to provide 60 or more days notice of the
changes and date, without penalty if a penalty would otherwise be applicable.
> > Then if your government, A.K.A., your PTT, decides to change what it is they offer,
> > and does so under the contractual rules they (the government) has established as
> > the way things are done, then I guess you will continue to deal with it.
>
> Yes it's called. No options.
Well, I'm not the PTT. If I were, and thus you were forced to use my service,
then I could understand your complaint (although in the capacity of the PTT,
perhaps my official duty would be to disregard your complaint).
There is even less I can do about your PTT than you can do about it. Well, I
suppose I could start a protest in front of your country's embassy in the US.
But I doubt if that would have any more effect than reducing my bank account
by the cost of airfare, hotel bill, sticks, cardboard, and some magic markers.
> > > AFAIK some people advocate, the acceptance of mail from dial up, and then
> > > delete it. Rejection _is_ fine by me, i can take some exceptions,
> > > deletions of ACK mail, is not an option.
> >
> > How is that not an option?
>
> I refuse to accept that as a reasonable policy.
>
> [forcing legitimate users to call you, cause u don't accept mail from
> them]
What if these "legitimate" users wanted to send mail to my customers using some
oddball protocol someone made up? The mail can be just as legitimate, but why
do I have to start putting up servers for every protocol someone wants to make?
I do _not_ support "sending mail" by means of an ssh session that invokes the
program to inject mail. Yet such a method could indeed function, and thus make
those who want to use it "legitimate". So I'll decide to not offer that service
(of receiving mail from those who want to send it by ssh) unless I come to see
a business case for offering it.
Likewise I don't offer the service of receiving mail that bypasses the normal
delivery mechanisms through the dialup's local mail server.
> > That may well be the case. But I am making it less expensive for my business,
> > and hence for my customers, by choosing to _not_ have to set up the facility to
> > manage the flood of incoming spam. To satisfy my customers who complain about
> > spam I need to take some kind of action. There are choices to that and I have
>
> Agreed. I just don't agree that the measuse u are advocatin is reasonable.
We agree to disagree. I suspect the disagreement is based on disagreeing about
how business costs and profits often dictate these decisions.
> > to make the choice that increases the profit of my business, which is generally
> > some balance between keeping/increasing the customer base (e.g. keep them happy)
> > and keeping costs down (e.g. not having to buy special complex packages that
> > require extra staff to maintain, or putting on extra tech support to handle the
> > complaint calls, etc). If I choose to conduct my business by blocking mail
> > that comes directly from a dialup port, then I have to answer to my customers
> > and my P/L statement.
> >
> > Simply inject your e-mail into the SMTP server of your ISP if you are doing so
> > from a dialup. Your ISP is offering SMTP service?
>
> Apart from the fact that i don't use an ISP, yes he does. Only he doesn't
> provide the reliability, speed (among other things) that i can provide
> myself.
You are unclear here.
Are you running your own SMTP server over a dialup to an ISP, bypassing their
SMTP server because yours runs better? Maybe this is because your ISP's SMTP
server is clogged with spam? Is static IP and reverse delegation not an option
to make your SMTP server look legitimate?
Are you running your own SMTP server somewhere else, like at work?
Are you running something that only appears to be an SMTP server, such as
"Spam Master 2000 Gold"?
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 11:28:45AM -0600, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> /sbin/ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S 10.0.0.0/8 -D default/0 25 -r 25
>
> Now, anything they try to send to port 25 anywhere will be intercepted by qmail
> on your firewall and you can filter it out yourselves only allowing outgoing
> mail with sender domains which belong to your customers. You aren't
> stopping legitimate SMTP traffic, you're simply keeping your customers honest.
Booooo! Are you saying that if one of your users is using an address that you
don't know about that his mail is not legitimate and that he's dishonest? What
about all those places that offer forwarding addresses, like pobox.com? You
won't relay mail for a user if he uses a pobox.com address? An organization I'm
associated with offers forwarding addresses with our domain name; lots of our
members use them. Do you consider them to be doing something wrong?
ISPs shouldn't restrict what their users can use as an envelope address.
Chris
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:20:14 +0100 (MET)
[snip]
> Hopefully, you do say that you don't allow the sending of SPAM from your
I say no such thing, since i don't have customers. :-)
> customers. You can then route all your dialup users through a ipmasq firewall
> and make sure a line like this is in the firewall's rc files:
>
> /sbin/ipfwadm -I -a accept -P tcp -S 10.0.0.0/8 -D default/0 25 -r 25
>
> Now, anything they try to send to port 25 anywhere will be intercepted by qmail
> on your firewall and you can filter it out yourselves only allowing outgoing
> mail with sender domains which belong to your customers. You aren't
> stopping legitimate SMTP traffic, you're simply keeping your customers honest.
In my opinion it's an honest thing to use other mail address than the one
the providers assigns you. Either you use their relay or u send mail
directly.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
I have not changed my system or qmail -- yet, my qmail has
stopped working. I'm seeing that I can connect to qmail-popup
and give the user USER and pass PASS commands, but it always
tells me that the authorization failed. I have tested the same
user and password combinations with FTP and they do work there.
Is there any way to *easily* debug or trace checkpassword to
see what it is doing and why it thinks that authorization has
failed? There don't appear to be any syslogs, logs, -v or -h
options.
Thanx.
Scott
ps: I'm off to find the checkpassword software (again) to see
if there's anything in there about debugging.
Scott D. Yelich writes:
> Is there any way to *easily* debug or trace checkpassword to
> see what it is doing and why it thinks that authorization has
> failed?
Yes. You can use the instructions on http://www.qmail.org/top.html#checkpassword
to discern whether the problem is in the pop setup or checkpassword
itself. You can also (if you're using Linux) run strace on the
tcpserver: strace -ff -o /tmp/pop -p <pid of tcpserver>
That will give you the system calls, which very often tells you what's
going on, even if you're not a programmer. "open" opens a file, eh?
And write shows you what's written to it.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [forcing legitimate users to call you, cause u don't accept mail from
> > them]
>
> What if these "legitimate" users wanted to send mail to my customers using some
> oddball protocol someone made up? The mail can be just as legitimate, but why
> do I have to start putting up servers for every protocol someone wants to make?
Isn't that a _totally_ different thing? This has nothing to do with the
matter. The sender would have to pass his protocol trough a system which
make a conversion. It's called a gateway.
> I do _not_ support "sending mail" by means of an ssh session that invokes the
> program to inject mail. Yet such a method could indeed function, and thus make
> those who want to use it "legitimate". So I'll decide to not offer that service
> (of receiving mail from those who want to send it by ssh) unless I come to see
> a business case for offering it.
I think this has nothing to do with our discussing matter.
> Likewise I don't offer the service of receiving mail that bypasses the normal
> delivery mechanisms through the dialup's local mail server.
Normal according to what? An RFC? Or to you?
> > > Simply inject your e-mail into the SMTP server of your ISP if you are doing so
> > > from a dialup. Your ISP is offering SMTP service?
> >
> > Apart from the fact that i don't use an ISP, yes he does. Only he doesn't
> > provide the reliability, speed (among other things) that i can provide
> > myself.
>
> You are unclear here.
Ok i will clarify it.
> Are you running your own SMTP server over a dialup to an ISP, bypassing their
Yes.
> SMTP server because yours runs better? Maybe this is because your ISP's SMTP
Yes mine runs better. Because:
1- It runs qmail.
2- the queue only has my own messages, i don't share it with someone else,
thus i don't have have to share delivery time with someone else (and
believe it, i would have to share it with a lot of people)
3- The smtp relay machine is sometimes overloaded (not to mention down)
It handles SMTP, HTTP,shell accounts, pop and who knows what else.
4- I don't trust the admins (it's bad enough, the messages i lose due to
bouncing cause of misconfigurations and other 'things')
5- I not exactly when the mail has arrived, if i use the relay i can only
hope it has arrived.
> server is clogged with spam? Is static IP and reverse delegation not an option
> to make your SMTP server look legitimate?
Why isn't my server legitimate?
starting delivery 1161: msg 25817 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
delivery 1161: success:
206.97.151.5_accepted_message../Remote_host_said:_250_GAA21302_Message_accepted_for_delivery/
It seems your server hasn't any problems with mine.
> Are you running your own SMTP server somewhere else, like at work?
Nope i'm running it at home.
> Are you running something that only appears to be an SMTP server, such as
> "Spam Master 2000 Gold"?
Nope i'm running qmail, just like you.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> There is even less I can do about your PTT than you can do about it. Well, I
> suppose I could start a protest in front of your country's embassy in the US.
> But I doubt if that would have any more effect than reducing my bank account
> by the cost of airfare, hotel bill, sticks, cardboard, and some magic markers.
You could give support to the 1st European Internet Strike :-)
See my sig for details, or http://www.telecom.eu.org and
http://www.unmetered.org.uk
- --
Luca Olivetti http://www.luca.ddns.org
UNETE A LA HUELGA EUROPEA DE INTERNET - EL 31 DE ENERO NO TE CONECTES
JOIN THE EUROPEAN INTERNET STRIKE - DON'T CONNECT ON JANUARY 31st
- ------------------[ http://www.internautas.org ]---------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2sMOiCQPXTRx9NmQRAgssAKC+YXxk6OMr1UZLNHbcJTcSF2cH1gCdEFft
M7WfadzLnPfmEIMf5f9sst4=
=G3e4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What if these "legitimate" users wanted to send mail to my customers using some
> > oddball protocol someone made up? The mail can be just as legitimate, but why
> > do I have to start putting up servers for every protocol someone wants to make?
>
> Isn't that a _totally_ different thing? This has nothing to do with the
> matter. The sender would have to pass his protocol trough a system which
> make a conversion. It's called a gateway.
Of course it's different. Showing difference doesn't work if you show something
that is the same thing.
The sender may well not be converting anything. If the sender's and receiver's
systems are entirely proprietary from MUA to MUA, that isn't conversion. But
whether it is or isn't does not matter. If they want to do something weird and
if I don't support it where they need me to support it, then they are out of
luck unless they can convince me of the worth of supporting it (and for their
account alone it probably isn't).
> > I do _not_ support "sending mail" by means of an ssh session that invokes the
> > program to inject mail. Yet such a method could indeed function, and thus make
> > those who want to use it "legitimate". So I'll decide to not offer that service
> > (of receiving mail from those who want to send it by ssh) unless I come to see
> > a business case for offering it.
>
> I think this has nothing to do with our discussing matter.
It has everything to do with it. The issue is whether an ISP should be required
to specifically handle things that are unusual. You might not think your way is
unusual, but I do.
> > Likewise I don't offer the service of receiving mail that bypasses the normal
> > delivery mechanisms through the dialup's local mail server.
>
> Normal according to what? An RFC? Or to you?
Normal as in most common. It happens to be RFC'd, but that's not my basis. If
99% of the market wants to use SSH instead of SMTP, I'd go with that. That's the
way business works.
If large numbers of people want to send mail direct from a dialup to my server and
large numbers of my customers want to receive it, then it is "normal". But that's
not the case at all (when discounting spammers).
> > Are you running your own SMTP server over a dialup to an ISP, bypassing their
>
> Yes.
The ISP is utl.pt?
> > SMTP server because yours runs better? Maybe this is because your ISP's SMTP
>
> Yes mine runs better. Because:
>
> 1- It runs qmail.
> 2- the queue only has my own messages, i don't share it with someone else,
> thus i don't have have to share delivery time with someone else (and
> believe it, i would have to share it with a lot of people)
> 3- The smtp relay machine is sometimes overloaded (not to mention down)
> It handles SMTP, HTTP,shell accounts, pop and who knows what else.
> 4- I don't trust the admins (it's bad enough, the messages i lose due to
> bouncing cause of misconfigurations and other 'things')
> 5- I not exactly when the mail has arrived, if i use the relay i can only
> hope it has arrived.
I can understand why you want to do what you do. I would want to do so if I were
in your place, as well. But I also realize others have no obligation to accept
it like that, since it is not the usual way things are done.
You really really really really really really need to get a better ISP. And "get"
may be anything from forcing the issue in your government politics to showing to
your news media of the PTT incompetence.
If things are so closed and tight in your country, how is it that you are sure that
running an SMTP server is even legal and that they just haven't bother to block you,
yet (perhaps due to incompetence)?
Another option you might have is to rent a dedicated or colocated server in another
country and tunnel in. Or I might even consider leasing tunnels into mine. Your
PTT doesn't block tunnels do they? The vppp program can "tunnel" on any TCP port,
so it would be pretty hard for them to block it, anyway.
BTW, competition does indeed help to improve the quality of services, because those
whose don't have quality enough to keep the customer base happy will switch to some
other provider. The lack of it probably explains why the PTT there is so bad (as
you say).
> > server is clogged with spam? Is static IP and reverse delegation not an option
> > to make your SMTP server look legitimate?
>
> Why isn't my server legitimate?
The exact rule to determine that is not well established. But one way to possibly
do so is if your server has an MX record. And to be sure your server name is not
forged, your IP address would need a PTR that names your server, and your A record(s)
identify your IP and include the MX pointing back to your server. You need a static
IP for that.
So how do you receive your mail? Does it really come to your server?
> starting delivery 1161: msg 25817 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> delivery 1161: success:
>
>206.97.151.5_accepted_message../Remote_host_said:_250_GAA21302_Message_accepted_for_delivery/
>
> It seems your server hasn't any problems with mine.
Because I have not implemented anything to actually block it. I don't even
have qmail on this server (it's going on another project). Just because I do
not block something does not mean I offer it. If the costs of not blocking
it exceed the costs of blocking it, then I will block it. If the profits of
offering it exceed the loss of not offering it, I will offer it.
> > Are you running your own SMTP server somewhere else, like at work?
>
> Nope i'm running it at home.
>
> > Are you running something that only appears to be an SMTP server, such as
> > "Spam Master 2000 Gold"?
>
> Nope i'm running qmail, just like you.
Well, I'm still on sendmail on this machine. I have qmail on a machine at home
for testing.
--
Phil Howard | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phil | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
at | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ipal | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
Thanks for the help on setting up the virtual hosting, that is now
working,
However the tcpserver refuses to run, with the configuration below, the
paths exist everythin runs when inetd calls qmail-smtpd direct.
venus:/var/qmail/bin# /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
-c100 -u7791 -g2108 0 smtp \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
[1] 30531
Tcpserver runs and goes into background...
When a SMTP connection is established...
venus:/var/qmail/bin# tcpserver: warning: dropping connection,
unable to run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd: file does not exist
tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to run
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd: file does not exist
Any ideas, im beginning to run out of patience , been without internet
mail for 36+ hours now.
> venus:/var/qmail/bin# /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R
> -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
> -c100 -u7791 -g2108 0 smtp \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
> [1] 30531
>
> Tcpserver runs and goes into background...
>
> When a SMTP connection is established...
>
> venus:/var/qmail/bin# tcpserver: warning: dropping connection,
> unable to run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd: file does not exist
> tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to run
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd: file does not exist
The extra backslash is the problem; in the original files, it was
there at the end of the line (suggesting that the line goes on). Now
it prefixes a space and system is looking for a directory called " "
(space). Remove it.
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Hi,
anybody has a script for converting (or resending) netscape mail messages to
qmail format. The netscape mail messages are also in some kind of Maildir
format, but when I change the name to (timestamp).$$.`hostname` and
I try reading them (using POP3), I get the correct number of messages, but
there's nothing in them (empty subject, content, sender...).
Franky
Van Liedekerke Franky writes:
> Hi,
>
> anybody has a script for converting (or resending) netscape mail messages to
> qmail format. The netscape mail messages are also in some kind of Maildir
> format, but when I change the name to (timestamp).$$.`hostname` and
> I try reading them (using POP3), I get the correct number of messages, but
> there's nothing in them (empty subject, content, sender...).
AFAIK Netscape stores all mail in mailbox files. Each folder is a separate
mailbox file. Just split them up using formail or reformail.
When I say Netscape mail messages, I mean this on the server side. There
each message is stored seperately in a users Inbox, ready for POP3. Is that
also mailbox format?
> ----------
> From: Sam[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 5:06 PM
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: convert netscape mails to qmail
>
> Van Liedekerke Franky writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > anybody has a script for converting (or resending) netscape mail
> messages to
> > qmail format. The netscape mail messages are also in some kind of
> Maildir
> > format, but when I change the name to (timestamp).$$.`hostname` and
> > I try reading them (using POP3), I get the correct number of messages,
> but
> > there's nothing in them (empty subject, content, sender...).
>
> AFAIK Netscape stores all mail in mailbox files. Each folder is a
> separate
> mailbox file. Just split them up using formail or reformail.
>
Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
> anybody has a script for converting (or resending) netscape mail messages to
> qmail format. The netscape mail messages are also in some kind of Maildir
> format, but when I change the name to (timestamp).$$.`hostname` and
> I try reading them (using POP3), I get the correct number of messages, but
> there's nothing in them (empty subject, content, sender...).
You might, use fetchmail to retrieve all mail from the NS POP3-server and have it sent
to qmail via smtp.
This will only work if you have a list of all usernames and their passwords (or if you
can change all passwords) seen the fact that fetchmail logs on as a regular POP-client.
[do read the fetchmail docs. There are a few options that should be used when sending
mail to qmail]
bt
--
Bart Blanquart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel (02)50 51 916 fax (02)50 51 930
The revolution will not be televised, but the proceedings will be available online.
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 04:51:28PM +0100, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
> anybody has a script for converting (or resending) netscape mail messages to
> qmail format. The netscape mail messages are also in some kind of Maildir
> format, but when I change the name to (timestamp).$$.`hostname` and
> I try reading them (using POP3), I get the correct number of messages, but
> there's nothing in them (empty subject, content, sender...).
Could you perhaps tell us what those files look like?
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 10:49:13AM +0100, Martin Staael wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I have this configuration - starting qmail-pop3d
>
> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail.xx.net \
> /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d ./ &
>
> I have this user list that checkpassword should follow
>
> #xx: /var/qmail/users > cat assign
> =martin:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:::
> +martin-:martin:1120:0:/webdisk/mail/martin:-::
> .
>
> But when checkpassword chdir's into the users directory it follow the
> /etc/passwd file and NOT the users/assign file as it should. Why??
users/assign applies only to mail delivery. checkpassword never looks at it.
> Any fix to this - or any other programs that I can use?
There are different versions of checkpassword that use your own password file
instead of (or in addition to) /etc/passwd. See the checkpassword section of
www.qmail.org for various implementations. I use a checkpassword that uses a
separate poppasswd file after checking /etc/passwd for a system account.
Chris
> > /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d ./ &
blah!
my previously working checkpassword just stopped working. How strange.
I'm sure it's something other than checkpassword, but since I can log
in, I wonder what it could be that is making checkpassword fail. Has
anyone else experienced this?
Scott
Is lakesedge.org also in control/locals, by chance? If so, take it out and HUP
qmail-send.
Chris
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 08:43:06AM +0000, Chris Naden wrote:
> Hi; I've managed, after some help from various members
> of this list (primarily Mate) to get qmail set up and running,
> and it's delivering localhost messages very well. However;
>
> The test domain that I'm using as a virtual domain is
> lakesedge.org ; the files that are relevant are, as I
> understand the instructions;
>
> /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
> ######################################
> localhost
> gwydion.highwayone.net
> lakesedge.org
> ######################################
>
> /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
> ######################################
> lakesedge.org: leorg
> ######################################
>
> and for the test example
>
> /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-leorg-lyrdarath
> ######################################
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ######################################
>
> This congiguration *should* take incoming messages for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and forward them to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The mailer is serving incoming messages to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] perfectly well; however, when
> I test-sent a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail generated
> this response;
>
> ######################################
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at gwydion.highwayone.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
>
> ######################################
>
> Can anybody tell me what I've done wrong?
>
> ~Chris
>
>
>
Hi:
We are writing an application which takes mail and uses a database to do
some operations before delivery. If the database server is down (it
happens), we'd like to defer the mail rather than build a temporary
queue. What's the best way to defer an incoming mail without causing
bounces? Is it safest to just take down the mail server until the
database is brought back up?
Thanks,
-MA
--
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-WEBEASY-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Michael Amster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 300 Tel: 310.576.0770
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Fax: 310.576.2011
Have your application exit with error 111 if the db server is down, qmail
will try the delivery again later.
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Michael Amster wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:58:27 -0800
> From: Michael Amster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Fred Leeflang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Best way to defer mail from an application
>
> Hi:
>
> We are writing an application which takes mail and uses a database to do
> some operations before delivery. If the database server is down (it
> happens), we'd like to defer the mail rather than build a temporary
> queue. What's the best way to defer an incoming mail without causing
> bounces? Is it safest to just take down the mail server until the
> database is brought back up?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -MA
>
> --
> ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-WEBEASY-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
> Michael Amster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 300 Tel: 310.576.0770
> Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Fax: 310.576.2011
>
>
>
Hello All,
I have this in my inetd.conf
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd
/var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
This makes it so that hosts.allow file is used to allow boxes to send mail
to this box. Although now I cannot send anything to the box. It gives me a
read error connection reset. If I dont have this line everyone is allowed
to relay. Has anyone delt with this problem before?
Thanks,
Dave
- Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I have this in my inetd.conf
| [...]
I think the only standard response you get from this list these days
to that kind of question is "Don't use inetd, use tcpserver instead."
(For qmail-smtpd, that is, not necessarily all services.) It's to be
found in the ucspi-tcp package, at Dan's FTP server.
- Harald
Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have this in my inetd.conf
>
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd
> /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
Are the two lines above on one line in inetd.conf?
Have you looked in syslog and/or messages ? There may be some
informative messages from tcpd in there. I'm guessing that either:
a) hosts.all and hosts.deny aren't set up right, so tcpd is rejecting
the connection.
b) The lines in inetd.conf are on two seperate lines and inetdj isn't
reading them as one line.
I'll add my voice to the chorus for tcpserver: tcpserver is really
nice. It allows you to control the number of simultaneous incoming
connections, set rules for who can connect, and set environmental
variables to allow some hosts to relay. Use it if you can.
--
Brian L. Gentry
Technical Analyst
Sprint Paranet
Seahawks Branch -- Boca Raton, FL
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have this in my inetd.conf
>
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd
> /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
If this is actually how it looks in your /etc/inetd.conf file, your
problem is that it's not all on one line. Try putting a backslash \ at
the end of the first line, or re-edit the file with an editor that won't
wrap it, like vi.
James Smallacombe Internet Access for The Delaware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Valley in PA, NJ and DE
PlantageNet Internet Ltd. http://www.pil.net
=====================================================================
ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99
Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration.
=====================================================================
I've looked through the archives for this problem. I gather that there
is nothing I can do about it, but I want to be sure we're talking
about the same thing.
I am using qmail with a dial-up ISP who isn't running qmail. If I have
a message that has two different addresses in the "To:" field, qmail
splits it into two messages before sending it out. I've tried routing it
directly to the ISP's smtp server with smtproutes, but qmail still
splits it. Is there any way around this? We often send messages
with attachments and don't want the line tied up with the duplicate
traffic. Has anyone come up with a patch/hack to "solve" this yet?
Thanks,
Mark
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:21:39PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> I've looked through the archives for this problem. I gather that there
> is nothing I can do about it, but I want to be sure we're talking
> about the same thing.
>
> I am using qmail with a dial-up ISP who isn't running qmail. If I have
> a message that has two different addresses in the "To:" field, qmail
> splits it into two messages before sending it out. I've tried routing it
> directly to the ISP's smtp server with smtproutes, but qmail still
> splits it. Is there any way around this? We often send messages
> with attachments and don't want the line tied up with the duplicate
> traffic. Has anyone come up with a patch/hack to "solve" this yet?
That's the way it is with qmail, and it's been the subject of much debate on
this list. At some point during the debate, someone usually says, "qmail isn't
always the best solution for a host which isn't well connected."
Chris
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
8<---snip
> > splits it. Is there any way around this? We often send messages
> > with attachments and don't want the line tied up with the duplicate
> > traffic. Has anyone come up with a patch/hack to "solve" this yet?
>
> That's the way it is with qmail, and it's been the subject of much debate on
> this list. At some point during the debate, someone usually says, "qmail isn't
> always the best solution for a host which isn't well connected."
>
> Chris
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
>together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
>this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
If qmail doesn't fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
www.postfix.org.
(See Wietse, I'm not a mindless qmail fan. :-)
-Dave
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
In those situations in which you're sending big files to someone, you could
point your mail program straight at your ISP's SMTP server (assuming you're
injecting these messages with SMTP).
Do you have a full-time connection and a static IP address? If so, you might
get some nice person (like your ISP) to accept mail from you by QMQP. They'd
have to install qmail, but it wouldn't interfere with sendmail or whatever
they're using. This would let you supply a single message and as many
recipients as you like, and queue the whole thing remotely.
Chris
Mark Carpenter writes:
> Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
consider compressing your outgoing email. In principle, it's possible
to write a program which collates messages out of a maildir (after
it's been put there by a wildcard smtproute delivering into the
maildir), compresses them, uploads them to your server, decompresses
them, and mails them, but I don't know of any. Unfortunately the
matching code to compress incoming mail before downloading it also
doesn't exist.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
> consider compressing your outgoing email.
That recalls something I've pondered lately. Why not implement a
QMQP-like protocol in which the "data" portion of the exchange is
compressed?
That would help bandwidth-challenged hosts (especially dialup users),
and _might_ offer a performance gain when the recipient MX supports
CQMQP. "Might" because, of course, that would need to be profiled...
Len.
--
He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken
down, and without walls. --Proverbs 25:28
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> >together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> >this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
>
> If qmail doesn't fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
> www.postfix.org.
>
> (See Wietse, I'm not a mindless qmail fan. :-)
>
> -Dave
>
Will Postfix allow me to send a single message with multiple
recipients to my ISP via SMTP and have them handle the delivery?
Thanks,
Mark
Having the client dump straight to the ISP via SMTP is my top
choice at the moment. The fact that the client machine couldn't
just dump the mail and then be able to log-off isn't going over very
well, though. Sending a large file at the end of the day would keep
the person from logging off for a while.
We have a static IP and a dedicated phone line at the ISP, but I'm
using diald because the telco doesn't have flat rates for
businesses. I'll talk to my ISP, but I kinda doubt they'll go for it. It's
worth a shot. My preference would be ISDN to make the problem
moot, but it's too pricey for management's taste at the moment.
We're a pretty small company. We have RoadRunner in the area,
but it's for personal accounts only right now. Hmmm....maybe set-
up an old 486 on my new RR account and run QMQP from there.
My personal machine is dual-boot with W95, so that one wouldn't
be up all the time, but I could have the 486 masquerade.
Thanks for the ideas!
Mark
> In those situations in which you're sending big files to someone, you could
> point your mail program straight at your ISP's SMTP server (assuming you're
> injecting these messages with SMTP).
>
> Do you have a full-time connection and a static IP address? If so, you might
> get some nice person (like your ISP) to accept mail from you by QMQP. They'd
> have to install qmail, but it wouldn't interfere with sendmail or whatever
> they're using. This would let you supply a single message and as many
> recipients as you like, and queue the whole thing remotely.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Mark Carpenter writes:
> > Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> > together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
>
> Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
> consider compressing your outgoing email. In principle, it's possible
> to write a program which collates messages out of a maildir (after
> it's been put there by a wildcard smtproute delivering into the
> maildir), compresses them, uploads them to your server, decompresses
> them, and mails them, but I don't know of any. Unfortunately the
> matching code to compress incoming mail before downloading it also
> doesn't exist.
>
That would be uucp.
Batched mail with compression on both ends. Remember we have a lot more
bandwidth than we used to and uucp was made for that(low bandwidh)
situation.
Hey some of us youngins weren't around for the low bandwidth (modem) email
days, which is what UUCP was created for. I couldn't even begin to tell you
how to set up UUCP it my life depended on it. >:) The funny part about
this is that I am old enough to remeber a pre-web Internet.
Anyway he is correct that is the best way to do it. Unfortunately qmail
won't do that, only one I know of is the beast, Sendmail.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Multiple outgoing messages
>
>
> >
> > Mark Carpenter writes:
> > > Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got
> everything working
> > > together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > > this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
> >
> > Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
> > consider compressing your outgoing email. In principle, it's possible
> > to write a program which collates messages out of a maildir (after
> > it's been put there by a wildcard smtproute delivering into the
> > maildir), compresses them, uploads them to your server, decompresses
> > them, and mails them, but I don't know of any. Unfortunately the
> > matching code to compress incoming mail before downloading it also
> > doesn't exist.
> >
> That would be uucp.
>
> Batched mail with compression on both ends. Remember we have a lot more
> bandwidth than we used to and uucp was made for that(low bandwidh)
> situation.
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> > Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> > together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
>
> In those situations in which you're sending big files to someone, you could
> point your mail program straight at your ISP's SMTP server (assuming you're
> injecting these messages with SMTP).
>
> Do you have a full-time connection and a static IP address? If so, you might
> get some nice person (like your ISP) to accept mail from you by QMQP. They'd
> have to install qmail, but it wouldn't interfere with sendmail or whatever
> they're using. This would let you supply a single message and as many
> recipients as you like, and queue the whole thing remotely.
>
> Chris
>
Bingo! Our service provider recently changed hands. Turns out we
can get a virtual machine that I can have configuration control over
for $5 less a month than we are paying for now, plus get quite a bit
more disk space. I'll just set up QMQP there. Cool.
Thanks all,
Mark
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:04:06PM -0500, Joe Garcia wrote:
} Hey some of us youngins weren't around for the low bandwidth (modem) email
} days, which is what UUCP was created for. I couldn't even begin to tell you
} how to set up UUCP it my life depended on it. >:) The funny part about
} this is that I am old enough to remeber a pre-web Internet.
}
} Anyway he is correct that is the best way to do it. Unfortunately qmail
} won't do that, only one I know of is the beast, Sendmail.
qmail won't do what? qmail is perfectly capable of working with uucp.
I have it set up to do that myyself. See the FAQ.
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:04:20PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> > > Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> > > together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > > this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
> >
> > In those situations in which you're sending big files to someone, you could
> > point your mail program straight at your ISP's SMTP server (assuming you're
> > injecting these messages with SMTP).
> >
> > Do you have a full-time connection and a static IP address? If so, you might
> > get some nice person (like your ISP) to accept mail from you by QMQP. They'd
> > have to install qmail, but it wouldn't interfere with sendmail or whatever
> > they're using. This would let you supply a single message and as many
> > recipients as you like, and queue the whole thing remotely.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Bingo! Our service provider recently changed hands. Turns out we
> can get a virtual machine that I can have configuration control over
> for $5 less a month than we are paying for now, plus get quite a bit
> more disk space. I'll just set up QMQP there. Cool.
Now that I think of it, QMQP won't give your users the instant gratification
they're looking for (i.e. not having to wait for the entire message to be
transferred over the phone line). Since with mini-qmail there's no local queue,
they're still going to have to wait until the message is queued at the remote
end of the phone line before their MUA cuts them loose. If you want mail queued
locally, you're back to where you started.
Perhaps, as someone suggested, UUCP is your best option.
Chris
cap writes:
> > consider compressing your outgoing email. In principle, it's possible
> > to write a program which collates messages out of a maildir (after
> > it's been put there by a wildcard smtproute delivering into the
> > maildir), compresses them, uploads them to your server, decompresses
> > them, and mails them, but I don't know of any. Unfortunately the
> > matching code to compress incoming mail before downloading it also
> > doesn't exist.
> >
> That would be uucp.
No. UUCP does not take multiple separate messages, differing only in the
list of recipients, and merge them into one message.
>Now that I think of it, QMQP won't give your users the instant gratification
>they're looking for (i.e. not having to wait for the entire message to be
>transferred over the phone line). Since with mini-qmail there's no local
queue,
>they're still going to have to wait until the message is queued at the remote
>end of the phone line before their MUA cuts them loose. If you want mail
queued
>locally, you're back to where you started.
>
>Perhaps, as someone suggested, UUCP is your best option.
Well, that wont help as it happens. First off, qmail is going to do multiple
deliveries to the local uucp queue, so you'll still end up sending the
contents of the mail twice.
Second off, uucp was originally designed largely to cope with the error
rates of modem connections at the time. It wasn't designed particularly to
minimize transfer times. After all, uucp itself has no compression, it either
relies on the higher layers as with compressed news batches or lower layers
as in (more recently) V.42bis. Furthermore, the original 'g' protocol uses a
3x64 sliding window protocol which is way too small for line speeds over
2400bps.
All I'm saying is that uucp per se wasn't specifically designed to be
efficient, it was designed to work in the face of high error rates. Even
modern versions of uucp (such as those with protocol 'i') are not going to
be significantly more efficient at transfers than, say, a PPP connection
over the same line.
This is not to say that you can't layer a compressed mail transfer over uucp
such as compressed BSMTP, but that doesn't help solve the first problem and
in all cases you need special code at the other end.
A simple-ish solution is to plonk all your outbound mail into a Maildir,
then whenever you establish your PPP link, run a script which tar/gzips the
outbound Maildir and send the gzipped file to the other end to be unpacked
and injected into their mail system.
There are any number of ways to transfer the gzipped file depending on the
capabilities allowed at the other end. You could ssh it, you could
uucp-over-tcp it, you could ftp it...
The key is that you get to gzip all of the pending mails together, which
gives quite good compression for nearly identical mails. This is vastly
superior to simply gzipping each individual mail.
Here's an example. The text of this mail was duplicated in a file 1, 2, 4
and 10 times. Each file was gzipped. Here are the numbers:
Original size: 2242
1 copy gzipped: 1145
2 copies gzipped: 1177
4 copies gzipped: 1221
10 copies gzipped: 1336
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:42:03PM -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:04:20PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> > > > Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> > > > together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > > > this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
> > >
> > > In those situations in which you're sending big files to someone, you could
> > > point your mail program straight at your ISP's SMTP server (assuming you're
> > > injecting these messages with SMTP).
> > >
> > > Do you have a full-time connection and a static IP address? If so, you might
> > > get some nice person (like your ISP) to accept mail from you by QMQP. They'd
> > > have to install qmail, but it wouldn't interfere with sendmail or whatever
> > > they're using. This would let you supply a single message and as many
> > > recipients as you like, and queue the whole thing remotely.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> > Bingo! Our service provider recently changed hands. Turns out we
> > can get a virtual machine that I can have configuration control over
> > for $5 less a month than we are paying for now, plus get quite a bit
> > more disk space. I'll just set up QMQP there. Cool.
>
> Now that I think of it, QMQP won't give your users the instant gratification
> they're looking for (i.e. not having to wait for the entire message to be
> transferred over the phone line). Since with mini-qmail there's no local queue,
> they're still going to have to wait until the message is queued at the remote
> end of the phone line before their MUA cuts them loose. If you want mail queued
> locally, you're back to where you started.
Admittedly, I do not understand this well, but I thought that the following
happens: when the connection with the ISP is established, the mail gets sent
by the MUA. The messages are given to qmqp which then connects to the ISPs
qmqpd, and then they get queued at the ISP's box.
So a message with multiple recipients does not get split on the local
machine, and as a single message goes through the serial line.
Mate
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 08:20:32PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:42:03PM -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
> > Now that I think of it, QMQP won't give your users the instant gratification
> > they're looking for (i.e. not having to wait for the entire message to be
> > transferred over the phone line). Since with mini-qmail there's no local queue,
> > they're still going to have to wait until the message is queued at the remote
> > end of the phone line before their MUA cuts them loose. If you want mail queued
> > locally, you're back to where you started.
>
> Admittedly, I do not understand this well, but I thought that the following
> happens: when the connection with the ISP is established, the mail gets sent
> by the MUA. The messages are given to qmqp which then connects to the ISPs
> qmqpd, and then they get queued at the ISP's box.
>
> So a message with multiple recipients does not get split on the local
> machine, and as a single message goes through the serial line.
But since the queue is at the remote end of the phone line, the user's MUA will
have to wait until the message has been completely transferred before it
reports success. Furthermore, if the phone line is disconnected for the moment,
the user's MUA will report a (temporary) failure, and he'll have to try again
later.
What would be nice is a mini-qmail setup with local queueing--mail would be
transferred quickly from the user's MUA to the local SMTP server, queued there
for the moment, and then transferred to the remote, well connected, host via
QMQP. I haven't thought this all the way through, and there are probably things
wrong with this model, but a setup that involved local queueing and a smart
host that understands QMQP (and VERPifying) would be well suited for
hosts/networks connected to the Internet by slow and/or non-permanent links.
Chris
"Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey some of us youngins weren't around for the low bandwidth (modem) email
> days, which is what UUCP was created for. I couldn't even begin to tell you
> how to set up UUCP it my life depended on it. >:) The funny part about
> this is that I am old enough to remeber a pre-web Internet.
>
> Anyway he is correct that is the best way to do it. Unfortunately qmail
> won't do that, only one I know of is the beast, Sendmail.
Hmmm... when I look at the headers of your message as received here, I
see that it reached me via UUCP/BSMTP.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 7714 invoked by uid 5); 28 Jan 1999 22:26:29 -0000
Received: from lilly.ping.de by cliwe.ping.de with BSMTP (rgsmtp-qm-ot 0.5)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 28 Jan 1999 22:26:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 4892 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1999 22:01:35 -0000
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
by lilly.ping.de with SMTP; 28 Jan 1999 22:01:35 -0000
--
Frank Cringle, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (+49 2304) 467101; fax: 943357
At 10:14 AM 1/29/99 +0100, Frank D. Cringle wrote:
>"Joe Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hey some of us youngins weren't around for the low bandwidth (modem) email
>> days, which is what UUCP was created for. I couldn't even begin to tell you
>> how to set up UUCP it my life depended on it. >:) The funny part about
>> this is that I am old enough to remeber a pre-web Internet.
>>
>> Anyway he is correct that is the best way to do it. Unfortunately qmail
>> won't do that, only one I know of is the beast, Sendmail.
>
>Hmmm... when I look at the headers of your message as received here, I
>see that it reached me via UUCP/BSMTP.
Ahh. But he might be being especially clever and saying that only sendmail
is able to be arranged to issue an rmail with multiple recipients. Is it F=m
that enables this feature in the mailer definition?
Regards.
>On 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> If you don't understand a term or phrase you read, trust me, you
>> *have* to go find its definition before you proceed.
>
>Where can I find definitions for this stuff? Are there any
>mailing lists, FAQs, RFCs I should look at? And by the way,
>what is an MX? <g>
Well, I forgot to mention some resources I found very helpful.
Along with the man pages qmail provides -- some of which are not
prefaced with "qmail-", so make sure you follow up *all* the ones
listed at the "SEE ALSO" sections!! -- make sure you check out
/usr/doc/qmail-1.03/* -- read all the stuff here, over and
over again. Especially the INTERNALS file!! :)
During roughly the same timeframe that I've been getting qmail,
serialmail, and fetchmail up and running, I've also been reading
the O'Reilly and Associates books "TCP/IP Network Administration"
"DNS and BIND", and "Stopping Spam". (I haven't really made enough
sense of the DNS stuff to change my own configuration -- /etc/hosts
and friends seem adequate for me, given that I've already got the
default cache-only configuration RedHat provides, AFAICT.)
Now, the ORA books are generally considered among the best in their
class, and I'd tend (offhand) to agree. (Disclaimer: I did a bit
of contract work for ORA around 1985, not UNIX-related though.)
But, I've found more bugs and confusing things in those books
than I've found in the qmail, serialmail, and fetchmail *software*
put together.
IMO, if the *documentation* for those products was brought up anywhere
near the quality of the software, those products would be unbeatable,
and the docs actually would exceed ORA's in quality.
I mean, rarely, if ever, is documentation for freely available software
as good as it is for qmail et al anyway, but it definitely seems like
the weak point compared to the software (okay, maybe I'm in my
"honeymoon" period wrt to the software, but it sure *seems* great).
Not having the docs be as good as the software does have its
advantages. E.g., it's easier to filter out non-technical types
by making it less likely they'll think they understand what's
going on (especially advantageous, as I found out in my own
project, for "young" software); it can give an outfit like ORA
more incentive to write a great book on the software, giving it
more legitimacy; and it might make it easier for experts to find
consulting work setting up and maintaining the software.
So, you definitely have to be very pro-active reading up on how
to set up qmail, serialmail, fetchmail, and so on. Russ Nelson
has posted an overview document on email itself (which I've
squirreled away, but haven't yet read), look for "A bit about
email" as one of the first headers in the document (this is
different from an email header :).
(Hmm, if you want to give this a try, for Russ's document, look
for Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and
it might be in the qmail database as message 26404, if I'm reading
the email headerage right.)
For me, the biggest hurdle was really just understand the Internet's
take on email -- terminology and so on. I've used email systems
of various sorts for over two decades now, and been a "surface user"
of the Internet, but haven't explored the ins and outs of email
configuration/administration since well before I got involved with
the Internet, so I had a lot to learn, and the qmail docs tend to
assume you've already got that knowledge. That's why Russ's document
might help.
tq vm, (burley)
> And by the way, what is an MX? <g>
.Ah "How a client finds a server"
An SMTP client can choose an SMTP server several ways. The most
common way is that the SMTP client found delivery information in the
domain name system (DNS -- http://www.crynwr.com/rfc1035/). An SMTP
client can look up the mail exchanger (MX) record for a hostname, and
deliver the mail to one of the hosts listed in that record. The line
in the zone file for example.com would look like this:
example.com. IN MX 0 mail.crynwr.com.
This is an MX record with a priority of zero (the highest possible).
A hostname can have multiple MX records, each with a specified
priority. If you use the same priority, the SMTP client should choose
one at random.
Caution: the right-hand-side of an MX record MUST be a hostname. Some
versions of BIND (aka named) allow you to put an IP address, however
because it is not allowed in the DNS standard, you cannot rely on all
SMTP clients being able to parse it.
If there is no MX record (and it is optional to have one), the SMTP
client would look up an address (A) record for the hostname. If it
finds one, the client connects to the SMTP server at that address.
A client might also choose a server by using it as a "smarthost".
Many, many client workstations do not keep their own email queues, but
instead relay email to a server. This smarthost then routes the mail
to its destination SMTP server, whether locally or remotely. There's
nothing in the DNS to designate a server as a smarthost. It must be
configured by hand.
Yet another method of locating the right server is to use information
from outside the DNS. This would be unusual, since the DNS is usually
correct. The client might be working around an error in the DNS, or a
software incompatibility, or mere whim. If you find yourself needing
to do this for qmail's SMTP client (qmail-remote), you would insert a
record into control/smtproutes.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Text written by Len Budney at 05:07 PM 1/27/99 -0500:
>
>Does any non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a
>message? The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which,
>of course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
>handle them appropriately.
Yes. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), among many
other organizations, has a mass mailing list that you can get on by going
to their Web site and signing up for it. It has their reports on depictions
of queers in TV, radio, news and other media, and goes out every two to
three days. Naturally, they don't want everyone on the list to have
everyone else's email address. (And of course, with any queer organization
there are serious outing/closeting and privacy issues to be considered --
what if someone at the Pentagon subscribed to the list just to check for
other .mil addresses?) So they send out their news updates two or three
times a week using the Bcc: field. I have no idea how many people are on
their list, but I'm quite confident that it's at least in four or five digits.
>Does any non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a
>message? ^^^^^^^^^
And, depending on what you mean by "routine", *I* might do such things. I
and my house throw parties on a quasi-regular basis -- anywhere from once a
month to every six months, depending on time of year, what else is
happening on the scene, and what our schedules and motivation are like.
When we throw these things, we invite a fairly disparate crowd that
includes goth/punk freaks, queer activists, club-goers, techies and
cyber-libertarians, some writers and artists, a few martial artists, and
some other folks we know through a variety of circles.
(Hey, it's the San Francisco Bay Area. Our nightlife is kind of
heterogeneous.)
Some of these folks are privacy activists or just generally
privacy-oriented for any of various reasons. And aside from that, not
everyone wants their email address blasted all over the group of people we
invite to our parties. (It's one thing to go to a party with someone, it's
another to give them your email address.) So we usually send out our
invites To: our own address (which anyone coming to our party ought to
recognize instantly) and Bcc: everyone else. This is a list of anywhere
from 50 to 100 people. About the only question is whether we do it
"routinely" or not.
Just because spammers use the Bcc: field doesn't make all use of it evil.
After all, spammers use the Internet, too.
--Kai MacTane.
Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Text written by Len Budney at 05:07 PM 1/27/99 -0500: Does any
> >non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a message?
> >The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which, of
> >course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
> >handle them appropriately.
>
> Yes. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), among
> many other organizations, has a mass mailing list...
Oops, you're correct. I was ignoring real mailing lists because I had
something special in mind for them--which I then forget to specify.
To achieve the Spam-Free World of Tomorrow (tm), majordomo must be
outlawed. The only permitted mailing list managers will be
qmail/ezmlm, and any other manager which implements VERPs. Hence, they
will already be towing the mark of "one envelope recipient per email".
Further, so that such mails aren't dropped by "BCC filters", a header
must always be introduced which includes the recipient address. I
suggest "Resent-to".
> Just because spammers use the Bcc: field doesn't make all use of it evil.
> After all, spammers use the Internet, too.
Though you are correct, it doesn't matter. No price is too high to
stop filthy spammers. Collateral damage is a fortune of war. Wear a
flak-jacket if you're frightened.
Len.
--
A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over
them. --Proverbs 20:26
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 03:31:53PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Text written by Len Budney at 05:07 PM 1/27/99 -0500: Does any
> > >non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a message?
> > >The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which, of
> > >course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
> > >handle them appropriately.
> >
> > Yes. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), among
> > many other organizations, has a mass mailing list...
>
> Oops, you're correct. I was ignoring real mailing lists because I had
> something special in mind for them--which I then forget to specify.
>
> To achieve the Spam-Free World of Tomorrow (tm), majordomo must be
> outlawed. The only permitted mailing list managers will be
> qmail/ezmlm, and any other manager which implements VERPs. Hence, they
> will already be towing the mark of "one envelope recipient per email".
>
> Further, so that such mails aren't dropped by "BCC filters", a header
> must always be introduced which includes the recipient address. I
> suggest "Resent-to".
Ok. So the spammer will put a Resent-To header in his mails. Not too hard
to do, I've already gotten some spams which had my address in the To: field.
BCC filters don't cut it anymore.
> > Just because spammers use the Bcc: field doesn't make all use of it evil.
> > After all, spammers use the Internet, too.
>
> Though you are correct, it doesn't matter. No price is too high to
> stop filthy spammers. Collateral damage is a fortune of war. Wear a
> flak-jacket if you're frightened.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kai MacTane writes:
> Text written by Len Budney at 05:07 PM 1/27/99 -0500:
> >
> >Does any non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a
> >message? The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which,
> >of course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
> >handle them appropriately.
> So they send out their news updates two or three times a week using
> the Bcc: field.
Yes, but they don't *include* the BCC's in their message. The whole
point behind a BCC is that it gets moved OUT of the body and into the
envelope. In general, only spammers are stupid enough to include the
whole thing.
Hmmm... I ought to add that as a paragraph in my "A bit about email"
chapter.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Further, so that such mails aren't dropped by "BCC filters", a header
> > must always be introduced which includes the recipient address. I
> > suggest "Resent-to".
>
> Ok. So the spammer will put a Resent-To header in his mails. Not too hard
> to do, I've already gotten some spams which had my address in the To: field.
>
> BCC filters don't cut it anymore.
Er, that was my whole point from the beginning. Any pattern-matching
on email headers and bodies is doomed, in the end, to fail.
However, BCC filters _at_the_recipient_end_ don't cut it anymore. If
no host ever allowed multiple envelope recipients, then today's spam
software would instantly be broken. Tomorrow's spam software would
send one email per recipient, and Whacko! Spam is moving again.
Again, any pattern-matching on email headers and bodies is doomed, in
the end, to failure.
That leaves (with SMTP as we know it):
1. Per-host blocking a la tcpserver and badmailfrom.
2. Per-user blacklists.
3. Non-technical solutions, like lawsuits.
Measure 1 may work, but boils down to a race against spammers. This is
likely to converge to a steady state in which spammers change
providers/accounts at a predictable rate, and the volume of spam in
the SMTP ether will be essentially constant.
Measure 2 simply doesn't work, because SMTP is not an authenticating
protocol. Blacklisting every envelope sender of spam will result in
lots of innocent users getting blacklisted. They will sue.
Measure 3 _must_ work, in this sense: spammers desire someone to give
them money for something. Thus, contact information of some sort must
be provided.
For the record, I don't mind much the anti-spam measures being taken
today, particularly when they are fairly simple to implement. On the
other hand, observing the fundamental futility of such measures is
useful, if it moves us to spend our main energies seeking _real_
solutions.
Len.
--
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the
wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. --Proverbs 29:2
> Hello!
>
> I am trying to follow the instructions on your web site to start a
> qmail-pop3d.
> But when I use the below command, I get a message saying that the port
> is already in use.
>
> I do not have a qmail-pop3d running. So how can I find out what is
> already running on that port and how do I disable it?
>
> tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup YOURHOST \
> /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Ramesh
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 12:23:45PM -0800, Ramesh Vadlapatla wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am trying to follow the instructions on your web site to start a
> > qmail-pop3d.
> > But when I use the below command, I get a message saying that the port
> > is already in use.
> >
> > I do not have a qmail-pop3d running. So how can I find out what is
> > already running on that port and how do I disable it?
> >
> > tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup YOURHOST \
> > /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
Look for a pop3 (or pop-3 or whatever it is on your system) entry in
/etc/inetd.conf. Comment it out and HUP inetd.
Chris
Question one. If I set up ~/control/me to read foo.bar for all servers in a
multi-server environment (more that one host doing relay for a domain) is it
possible to screw up the message id, or should I not use ~/control/me and
set up idhost, domainhost, etc. individually??
Question two. Can someone suggest a way that I can get qmail to do
tarpitting, or at least point me to a good wrapper to do tarpitting??
Joe
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 03:44:19PM -0500, Joe Garcia wrote:
> Question one. If I set up ~/control/me to read foo.bar for all servers in a
> multi-server environment (more that one host doing relay for a domain) is it
> possible to screw up the message id, or should I not use ~/control/me and
> set up idhost, domainhost, etc. individually??
According to the docs for mini-qmail, all of the various control/whatever files
can be shared except for idhost, which should be unique on each host (to avoid
message-id collisions). I realize you're not using mini-qmail, but the same
reasoning applies.
> Question two. Can someone suggest a way that I can get qmail to do
> tarpitting, or at least point me to a good wrapper to do tarpitting??
What's tarpitting?
Chris
Joe Garcia writes:
> Question one. If I set up ~/control/me to read foo.bar for all servers in a
> multi-server environment (more that one host doing relay for a domain) is it
> possible to screw up the message id, or should I not use ~/control/me and
> set up idhost, domainhost, etc. individually??
Individually. Otherwise you'll give yourself a headache, trying to
figure out which host a piece of mail came from.
> Question two. Can someone suggest a way that I can get qmail to do
> tarpitting, or at least point me to a good wrapper to do tarpitting??
John Levine has such a thing. He's deep in the throes of finishing a
book, and I don't know if he kibos, so I'll CC: him just to get his
attention.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
> > Question two. Can someone suggest a way that I can get qmail to do
> > tarpitting, or at least point me to a good wrapper to do tarpitting??
>
> What's tarpitting?
Tarpitting is when a spammer tries to send a bunch, say 100,000, of mail
messages through your server. When that spammer reaches N messages sent,
the MTA starts to put in X number of seconds pause before it will accept the
next one for processing. For example, a spammer hits me with 100,000 mail
messages when he reaches the 100th message I start putting in a 5 second
pause between accepting messages. This means that it would take him 5.78125
days to send all 100,000. Very effective at making him pay for sending spam
through you. This combined with pop before smtp pretty much locks out
spammers from your site while still allowing clients who are spread out
through the internet to use it.
Joe
Is the list slow today?
I have a system where qmail-popup has been working fine...
inetd sez:
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup spy.org /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
Now whenever I try to use pop, even with an account with a password that
has been verified with FTP, I receive:
-ERR authorization failed
*sigh* Is there any way to debug this without resorting to guessing
at what might have changed or what might be confusing qmail?
Scott
What has this got to do with this subject thread?? Please create you own
subject thread so as not to confuse the others.
Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott D. Yelich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:32 PM
> To: Joe Garcia
> Cc: qmail-general
> Subject: RE: two questions about set-up
>
>
>
> Is the list slow today?
>
> I have a system where qmail-popup has been working fine...
>
> inetd sez:
> pop3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> qmail-popup spy.org /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir
>
> Now whenever I try to use pop, even with an account with a password that
> has been verified with FTP, I receive:
>
> -ERR authorization failed
>
>
> *sigh* Is there any way to debug this without resorting to guessing
> at what might have changed or what might be confusing qmail?
>
> Scott
>
> > Question two. Can someone suggest a way that I can get qmail to do
> > tarpitting, or at least point me to a good wrapper to do tarpitting??
>
> John Levine has such a thing. He's deep in the throes of finishing a
> book, and I don't know if he kibos, so I'll CC: him just to get his
> attention.
I have a small patch that sticks sleeps in front of each read call in
qmail-smtpd. It's not a real tarpit, but it does slow spammers down.
It's controlled by a TARPIT environment variable that I set in
hosts.allow. Will package it up and send it along.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
Hmmm Maybe I can play with it and turn it into a real tarpit, I am rather
rough when it comes to C programing, let me take a look when I get it. Also
what do you mean by hosts.allow, I have come up to speed on qmail pretty
quickly, but I don't remember any mention of hosts.allow
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John R Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:51 PM
> To: Russell Nelson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: two questions about set-up
>
>
> > > Question two. Can someone suggest a way that I can get qmail to do
> > > tarpitting, or at least point me to a good wrapper to do tarpitting??
> >
> > John Levine has such a thing. He's deep in the throes of finishing a
> > book, and I don't know if he kibos, so I'll CC: him just to get his
> > attention.
>
> I have a small patch that sticks sleeps in front of each read call in
> qmail-smtpd. It's not a real tarpit, but it does slow spammers down.
>
> It's controlled by a TARPIT environment variable that I set in
> hosts.allow. Will package it up and send it along.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
> for Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl,
> Sewer Commissioner
> Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E
> 9E A6 36 A3 47
>
What is the ETA of the book nowadays Russell??
Joe Garcia writes:
> What is the ETA of the book nowadays Russell??
Depends on the production schedule and all, so I have no authoritative
information. I'd guess some time in August, assuming that johnl and I
stick to our part of the schedule.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Hi,
I am migrating a Solaris 2.5.1 box from Sendmail to
qmail 1.03.. i have had no problems, with delivery to normal
accounts, up until now. We have a large /etc/aliases file,
which we want to keep.. so i installed fastforward, to handle
it. All works fine, except for one problem: if there is an
account, say, john, and an alias in /etc/aliases called john-hl,
qmail will deliver it to john, before looking in
~alias/.qmail-default. Having a .qmail-hl at ~john is not an
option, neither is giving up on this style (-l) of aliases we
have here.
So, i searched here in the list, and this had been posted
before. Solution: put mydomain.com:alias-local in virtualdomains,
and handle it from ~alias/.qmail-local-default. I done this, and
this is my .qmail-local-default:
| fastforward -p -d /etc/aliases.cdb
| forward $EXT2
This works fine, but for one problem... if i have this sort
of entry in /etc/aliases:
alias2: account1,account2,account3
And i send email to alias2, the fastforward called above
will work fine, and send email to all 3 accounts. But if i have:
alias1: account1,account2,account3
alias2: alias1
It will give me an error message saying that the mailbox
alias1 doesn't exist... so, from what i understood, an alias will
work ok if the destination are normal accounts/logins, but if it
is another alias, it wont.
Anyone have any help here? I know it's not exactly great
to have this type of thing (alias2 -> alias1), etc, but we have
to live with it here, at least for the time being.
Cristiano Lincoln Mattos Recife / Brazil
On 28-Jan-99 Cristiano Lincoln Mattos wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am migrating a Solaris 2.5.1 box from Sendmail to
> qmail 1.03.. i have had no problems, with delivery to normal
> accounts, up until now. We have a large /etc/aliases file,
> which we want to keep.. so i installed fastforward, to handle
> it. All works fine, except for one problem: if there is an
> account, say, john, and an alias in /etc/aliases called john-hl,
> qmail will deliver it to john, before looking in
> ~alias/.qmail-default. Having a .qmail-hl at ~john is not an
> option, neither is giving up on this style (-l) of aliases we
> have here.
> So, i searched here in the list, and this had been posted
> before. Solution: put mydomain.com:alias-local in virtualdomains,
> and handle it from ~alias/.qmail-local-default. I done this, and
> this is my .qmail-local-default:
> | fastforward -p -d /etc/aliases.cdb
> | forward $EXT2
> This works fine, but for one problem... if i have this sort
> of entry in /etc/aliases:
> alias2: account1,account2,account3
> And i send email to alias2, the fastforward called above
> will work fine, and send email to all 3 accounts. But if i have:
> alias1: account1,account2,account3
> alias2: alias1
> It will give me an error message saying that the mailbox
> alias1 doesn't exist... so, from what i understood, an alias will
> work ok if the destination are normal accounts/logins, but if it
> is another alias, it wont.
>
> Anyone have any help here? I know it's not exactly great
> to have this type of thing (alias2 -> alias1), etc, but we have
> to live with it here, at least for the time being.
>
> Cristiano Lincoln Mattos Recife / Brazil
>
>
>
You're overcomplicating things. Look in the source dir at conf-break.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2
Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com
"There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat
than the federal government" -- Tony Snow
==========================================================================
I just started learning Linux last week and am installing a few internet
services to include qmail.
When I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] my /etc/maillog reports that
everything went fine, however when I try to retrieve the email using
POP3 I have no messages. And when I look in /home/bob/Maildir there is
nothing in cur,new, or tmp. So it appears that the mail is goinng
somewhere else, I just can't figure out where. (bob is just the example
I am using I haven't created any other functional mail accounts yet)
My /var/qmail/rc file looks like this;
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
And my /etc/inetd.conf looks like this;
pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
(all on one line of course)
The MAIL=$HOME/Maildir environment variable in my /etc/profile is set
and verified.
I used maildirmake on bob's home directory and chowned it for him.
I am running Redhat Linux
What am I missing?
--
Bob McLaren
An interesting side-note I thought I'd add, qmail-inject from the command
line works perfectly. Using qmail-inject the message goes to
~bob/Maildir/new the way it's suppose to. So the question still stands, how
do I configure qmail-smtpd to place mail where it's supposed to?
The SMTP entry in my inetd.conf looks like this:
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
qmail-smtpd
Bob McLaren wrote:
> I just started learning Linux last week and am installing a few internet
>
> services to include qmail.
> When I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] my /etc/maillog reports that
> everything went fine, however when I try to retrieve the email using
> POP3 I have no messages. And when I look in /home/bob/Maildir there is
> nothing in cur,new, or tmp. So it appears that the mail is goinng
> somewhere else, I just can't figure out where. (bob is just the example
>
> I am using I haven't created any other functional mail accounts yet)
>
> My /var/qmail/rc file looks like this;
> exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
>
> And my /etc/inetd.conf looks like this;
> pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> qmail-popup mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir
> (all on one line of course)
>
> The MAIL=$HOME/Maildir environment variable in my /etc/profile is set
> and verified.
>
> I used maildirmake on bob's home directory and chowned it for him.
> I am running Redhat Linux
> What am I missing?
>
> --
> Bob McLaren
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:29:45 -0800, Bob McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The MAIL=$HOME/Maildir environment variable in my /etc/profile is set
>and verified.
I think this should be MAIL=$HOME/Maildir/ with an ending slash.
Regards
Mirko
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] myhome_aka_~:http://sites.inka.de/picard
RedHat=~/rh52_isdn.html teles16.3c=~/teles163c/teles163c_contents.html
life's a http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~etcetera
Please don't use postfix, as if I remember correctly it is not OSS in the
sense that anytime IBM feels like it they can tell you to buy it or stop
using it.....in other words they let everybody on the internet help add
little tidbits to it then they can say to you...well pay for this or stop
using it....NOW!
Not a good thing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Multiple outgoing messages
>
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> > >together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > >this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
> >
> > If qmail doesn't fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
> > www.postfix.org.
> >
> > (See Wietse, I'm not a mindless qmail fan. :-)
> >
> > -Dave
> >
>
> Will Postfix allow me to send a single message with multiple
> recipients to my ISP via SMTP and have them handle the delivery?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
Has anyone else been receiving multiple copies of any messages to the
list? I seem to be getting multiple copies (like 3 or 4) of any message
that's sent to the list as well as to me.
If no one else has had this problem, feel free to ignore. I don't have
any mail filters set up but I suppose it could be some problem with our
mail server, but I'm feeling lazy today so before I go look through all
that stuff I figured I'd bother everyone here :)
Feel free to mail me off the list.
Thanks-
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Racer X wrote:
> Has anyone else been receiving multiple copies of any messages to the
> list? I seem to be getting multiple copies (like 3 or 4) of any message
> that's sent to the list as well as to me.
no, I'm not getting that problem, however I'm seeing loads of email that
seems to belongs to some other list dealing with spammers and the
such-like.
Richard
Text written by Racer X at 02:03 PM 1/28/99 -0800:
>Has anyone else been receiving multiple copies of any messages to the
>list? I seem to be getting multiple copies (like 3 or 4) of any message
>that's sent to the list as well as to me.
Yeah, I've gotten about 3 or 4 copies of Len Budney's satirical (I hope)
post about banning Majordomo and getting a flak jacket. But that's about
it; I'm not getting triples or quadruples of the entire list (thank Goddess!).
--Kai MacTane.
On 28 Jan 99 at 22:12, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Racer X wrote:
>
> > Has anyone else been receiving multiple copies of any messages to the
> > list? I seem to be getting multiple copies (like 3 or 4) of any message
> > that's sent to the list as well as to me.
>
> no, I'm not getting that problem, however I'm seeing loads of email that
> seems to belongs to some other list dealing with spammers and the
> such-like.
Indeed. I observed that is is not a one-day discussion. The same was
with RedHat not distributing qmail. Thus, could we ask you, Dan, to
provide a separate list for those who are interested in miscellaneous
qmail discussions?
Regards,
Andrzej Kukula.
We've setup a external qmail-1.03 BSDI machine to relay
email in/out to an internal ccMail machine.
Mail from the internet happily flows to the ccMail machine.
However mail from ccMail to qmail-smtpd is never correctly
received and processed.
Is this a known problem? Are there any fixes or patches for it?
Ken Jones
Inter7
With all the talk about passing mail through serialline: When does a
message with multiple recipients get split?
More precisely, following TOISP in the serialmail package: Is the
message already split when it is in ~alias/pppdir/, or they get split
after (by maildirsmtp?!).
Thx
Mate
At 22:40 28/01/99 -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>With all the talk about passing mail through serialline: When does a
>message with multiple recipients get split?
By qmail-send. It makes the decision to split a multi-recipient mail into
individual deliveries.
>More precisely, following TOISP in the serialmail package: Is the
>message already split when it is in ~alias/pppdir/, or they get split
>after (by maildirsmtp?!).
Since the mail has gone thru qmail-send to qmail-local to a Maildir, then
it's split in this circumstance.
Regards.
At 04:57 PM 1/29/99 +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
>At 22:40 28/01/99 -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>>With all the talk about passing mail through serialline: When does a
>>message with multiple recipients get split?
>
>By qmail-send. It makes the decision to split a multi-recipient mail into
>individual deliveries.
And if you need to know when qmail-send is involved. Have a look at the
INTERNALS file.
Dan. A mini-qmail diagram in there would be handy.
Regards.
I am a recent convert from sendmail to qmail (of just
several days) and have run into a difficulty. Using
sendmail, if I automatically sent email from a cgi script,
and it bounced--it would bounce back to the user. However,
right now with the qmail setup, I (being the postmaster) am
getting all the returned mail. How can I fix this?
Here is an example:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 7386 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jan 1999
03:42:13 -0000
Date: 29 Jan 1999 03:42:13 -0000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Life Styles Plus - Your submission & Info
Those are the headers of the email that bounced. Apparently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't exist. Why was this
email not bounced back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? I see the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (which would indeed
go to me)--is that the problem?
Thank you,
Joel Shellman
knOcean Interactive
http://corp.knOcean.com/
From: Joel Shellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Those are the headers of the email that bounced. Apparently
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't exist. Why was this
:email not bounced back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? I see the
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (which would indeed
:go to me)--is that the problem?
yes, mail bounces to the return-path. Add a return-path header to your cgi
script.
:Thank you,
:
:Joel Shellman
--Adam
Hello again everyone.
I read in the instructions that under qmail no mail is delivered
to root@localhost, so you had to put in an alias to root; I did this.
/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-root
#####################################
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#####################################
However; all mail, both internal and external, directed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is bounced with the error
'this_message_already_has_my_Delievered_to_line'
Can anyone tell me what to do about this?
~Chris
Chris Naden wrote:
>
> Hello again everyone.
>
> I read in the instructions that under qmail no mail is delivered
> to root@localhost, so you had to put in an alias to root; I did this.
>
> /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-root
> #####################################
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> #####################################
This alias is taking mail addressed to root, and sending it to root.
Probably not what you had in mind ;-)
What you need to do is have the alias pointing to your personal
account. My .qmail-root files contains:
&moe
which sends to user 'moe' on the local machine. I suppose I could have
put ' &[EMAIL PROTECTED] ', though.
>
> However; all mail, both internal and external, directed to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is bounced with the error
>
> 'this_message_already_has_my_Delievered_to_line'
>
> Can anyone tell me what to do about this?
>
> ~Chris
--
Allen Versfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wandata
"I hate quotations" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:45:19 +0000, Chris Naden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-root
>#####################################
>&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>#####################################
You have to point to a real user, like chris@gwydion (BTW is that sth.
celtic?).
Your entry will cause a loop, as qmail will use your .qmail-root again, but
since qmail is really clever, by inserting always a "Delivered to" it will
detect the loop and stop delivery.
Regards
Mirko
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] myhome_aka_~:http://sites.inka.de/picard
RedHat=~/rh52_isdn.html teles16.3c=~/teles163c/teles163c_contents.html
life's a http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~etcetera
