qmail Digest 18 May 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 644
Topics (messages 25652 through 25700):
paternalism?
25652 by: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25653 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Q: Is it possible to bind 2 diffrent qmail instances on 2 diffrent network interfaces
25654 by: Eric Shafto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25695 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail config help
25655 by: "New Hope Hostmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25656 by: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
compiling qmail 1.03 under solaris 2.6
25657 by: "James P Kannengieser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25658 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25659 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25660 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver has long (10 min) delay for some domains?
25661 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25676 by: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cgi script
25662 by: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25663 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25664 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25669 by: James McGlinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25698 by: "A.Wadas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25699 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Problem receiving email.
25665 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25667 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail: full disk?
25666 by: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25668 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25670 by: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25671 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25672 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25673 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25674 by: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25675 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25677 by: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25678 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25680 by: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mass migration off of qmail because of lack of DSNs?
25679 by: Tasos Kotsikonas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25681 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25682 by: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25684 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25685 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25686 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25687 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25688 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25689 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25690 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Naden)
25692 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25693 by: Trevor Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25694 by: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25696 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25700 by: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can't received any mail
25683 by: Chris Yam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-newu via Perl script?
25691 by: "Peter Janett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bcc fields
25697 by: Eike Kiltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > Oops. Unpatched qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD-3.1-RELEASE. I was looking at the > output of qmail-showctl, and didn't understand what paternalism means: > > $ qmail-showctl > qmail home directory: /usr/local/qmail. > user-ext delimiter: -. > paternalism (in decimal): 2. > silent concurrency limit: 120. > subdirectory split: 23. > user ids: 69, 70, 71, 0, 72, 73, 74, 75. > group ids: 70, 71. > > badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. > > [further output snipped] Sorry, I saw this the first time. I have no idea what that exactly means. Only qmail-local uses it as a '&' parameter to see if the homedir is writeable. But I still don't understand it completly. -- Andre
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 12:12:14PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: I figured it out (I think). After you mentioned qmail-local.c I looked at the source code. There, I found a file called conf-patrn, which defines what modes qmail-local.c will tolerate on home directories. > Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > > > Oops. Unpatched qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD-3.1-RELEASE. I was looking at the > > output of qmail-showctl, and didn't understand what paternalism means: > > > > $ qmail-showctl > > qmail home directory: /usr/local/qmail. > > user-ext delimiter: -. > > paternalism (in decimal): 2. > > silent concurrency limit: 120. > > subdirectory split: 23. > > user ids: 69, 70, 71, 0, 72, 73, 74, 75. > > group ids: 70, 71. > > > > badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. > > > > [further output snipped] > > Sorry, I saw this the first time. I have no idea what that exactly > means. Only qmail-local uses it as a '&' parameter to see if the > homedir is writeable. But I still don't understand it completly. > > -- > Andre -- System Administrator See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Anand Buddhdev wrote: > > On Sun, May 16, 1999 at 12:24:05PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > > > That server is violating RFC 1123, section 5.2.5. You can easily work > > > around the problem by putting www.cheetahmail.com into control/helohost. > > > > > > (I'm considering changing the default HELO in qmail-remote in qmail 2.0 > > > to use the bracketed IP address of the client.) > > > > How much of a standard is that? > > RFC821: > > HELO <SP> <domain> <CRLF> > > <domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> > > <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" > > <dotnum> ::= <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> > > <snum> ::= one, two, or three digits representing a decimal > integer value in the range 0 through 255 > > Therefore, > > HELO [199.103.176.41] But so does: HELO [199.103.176.41].#394875.spoon.[100.164.68.209] Is there a reason for that, or is it just underspecified?
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 09:19:29AM -0400, Eric Shafto wrote: > > > > (I'm considering changing the default HELO in qmail-remote in qmail 2.0 > > > > to use the bracketed IP address of the client.) > > > > > > How much of a standard is that? > > > > RFC821: > > > > HELO <SP> <domain> <CRLF> > > <domain> ::= <element> | <element> "." <domain> > > <element> ::= <name> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]" > > <dotnum> ::= <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> > > <snum> ::= one, two, or three digits representing a decimal > > integer value in the range 0 through 255 > > > > Therefore, > > > > HELO [199.103.176.41] > > But so does: > > HELO [199.103.176.41].#394875.spoon.[100.164.68.209] I don't think so. None of the above elements (the bracketed IPs, "spoon" and "#394875") are of class "snum". Therefore the above HELO is not valid. However, RFC 1123 5.2.5 states clearly that no smtp server must refuse mail even if the domain in the HELO greeting is invalid. So in theory, you should be able to say HELO <anything> to an SMTP server, and it would have to accept your email. In practice, many SMTP servers reject such a connection. -- System Administrator See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
I have a few more questions that may help, I hope you don't mind me asking. I'm trying to use the ./Maildir/ format, with checkpassword. Check password appears to be working, as I'm not getting the "auth failed" message anymore, now I'm getting the "-ERR this users has no $HOME/Maildir" error. Here's a line from the poppasswd file, which checkpassword is setup to read: testid:DmIMm9e5Hc8ic:popuser:/var/qmail/popboxes/domain-com/joe And a line from my /var/qmail/users/assign file: =domain-com-joe:popuser:888:231:/var/qmail/popboxes/domain-com/joe::: I've executed the qmail-newu and typed "maildirmake Maildir" from /var/qmail/popboxes/domain-com/joe as user "popuser", so the three folders that maildirmake creates are in there, and have the correct permissions. 1.) I've seen the first part of the inted.conf line written both ways, starting with "pop3" and "pop-3". I don't know which one is right, or if I need both, any idea? Here's what I have: (I put in both just in case): pop-2 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd ipop2d pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup steph.newhope.com /usr/local/sbin/checklocalpwd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup steph.newhope.com /usr/local/sbin/checklocalpwd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir imap stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd imapd # smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtp 2.) I don't know what the value of /etc/login.defs is. Here's what I have: # *REQUIRED* # Directory where mailboxes reside, _or_ name of file, relative to the # home directory. If you _do_ define both, MAIL_DIR takes precedence. # QMAIL_DIR is for Qmail # QMAIL_DIR Maildir #MAIL_DIR /var/spool/mail #MAIL_FILE .mail Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it! Peter Janett New Hope Natural Media
New Hope Hostmaster wrote: -snip- > pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup > steph.newhope.com /usr/local/sbin/checklocalpwd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d > Maildir ^^^^^^^ Try ./Maildir/ -- Andre
Hello. I am having problems compiling 1.03 under solaris 2.6 on a Sun Ultra E450. Gcc is my compiler, /usr/ucb is in my path, and I have even sym linked cc to gcc. At the very least, these are the major points suggested in the FAQ. Here is the error message that I am receiving: # make setup check ./compile qmail-remote.c In file included from qmail-remote.c:4: /usr/local/include/arpa/inet.h:68: sys/bitypes.h: No such file or directory /usr/local/include/arpa/inet.h:72: sys/cdefs.h: No such file or directory *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `qmail-remote.o' If anyone can help me resolve this issue, I'd appreciate it. What makes this problem more strange is that 1.03 compiled nicely under solaris 2.6 for someone I know, and her system also lacked the specified files. Thanks, Jim ********************************NOTICE************************************* This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal and/or attachments in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone (call us collect at +1 212-848-8400) and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you.
From: James P Kannengieser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : Here is the error message that I am receiving: : : # make setup check : ./compile qmail-remote.c : In file included from qmail-remote.c:4: : /usr/local/include/arpa/inet.h:68: sys/bitypes.h: No such file or directory : /usr/local/include/arpa/inet.h:72: sys/cdefs.h: No such file or directory : *** Error code 1 : make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `qmail-remote.o' For some reason qmail is looking in /usr/local/include instead of /usr/include. The files can be found in /usr/include/arpa. : If anyone can help me resolve this issue, I'd appreciate it. What makes this : problem more strange is that 1.03 compiled nicely under : solaris 2.6 for someone I know, and her system also lacked the specified files. I seriously doubt that. : ********************************NOTICE************************************* : This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client : communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not : the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this : transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this : transmittal is strictly prohibited. Not that this is on topic, but I don't believe this is true. Once I receive a message it is my property and I can do what I want with it. --Adam
"Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | For some reason qmail is looking in /usr/local/include instead of | /usr/include. The files can be found in /usr/include/arpa. gcc searches /usr/local/include, and some versions of bind put their stuff there.
yeah, I meant gcc :) --Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:53 AM Subject: Re: compiling qmail 1.03 under solaris 2.6 : "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : | For some reason qmail is looking in /usr/local/include instead of : | /usr/include. The files can be found in /usr/include/arpa. : : gcc searches /usr/local/include, and some versions of bind put their : stuff there. : :
> Another site can't send mail to my site because the connection times > out. I believe the connection may be timing out because of his DNS. I'd > like to air my reasoning out here so that a) people who understand tcpserver > better can verify what I believe the man page is telling me, and b) people > who understand DNS better can verify what I'm seeing in DNS. Finally got this one solved. Posting the solution in case it bites someone else. My firewall passed DNS-UDP packets from the mail hosts, but not DNS-TCP. The site in question had a large number of PTR records, which would cause a reply large enough to be run over DNS-TCP instead of UDP. Thus, reverse lookups worked for almost everyone, but not this site. Allowing DNS-TCP AND UDP fixed the problem (and should have been the configuration to begin with). -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 01:32:39PM -0400, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote: > My firewall passed DNS-UDP packets from the mail hosts, but not DNS-TCP. > The site in question had a large number of PTR records, which would cause a > reply large enough to be run over DNS-TCP instead of UDP. Thus, reverse > lookups worked for almost everyone, but not this site. Allowing DNS-TCP AND > UDP fixed the problem (and should have been the configuration to begin > with). General safety tip with network/firewall ACLs: turn on logging of rejected packets - that way you would have found out quicker... -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
I am trying to use formmail script ( www.worldwidemart.com )with qmail having variable mailprog set to /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send. Script works but data are not sent. Place above gives scripts to work with sendmail. Is there something similar for qmail? may I kindly ask for a little help from someone who uses cgi scripts with qmail and sends formmails? I appreciate it. Thanks, Andrzej Wadas
On Mon, 17 May 1999, root wrote: > I am trying to use formmail script ( www.worldwidemart.com )with qmail > having variable mailprog set to > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send. Script works but data are not sent. > Place above gives scripts to work with sendmail. Is there something > similar for qmail? Set the variable to either "/var/qmail/bin/sendmail" which is the sendmail wrapper OR if the person that has installed sendmail on your system has read the document "INSTALL" which is part of the _documentation_ then he could have read the following: 15. Make qmail's ``sendmail'' wrapper available to MUAs: # ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail # ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/sbin might not exist on your system. Which means that you can use "/usr/lib/sendmail" instead. and formmail will do fine. cheers, magnus bodin -- "MOST USELESS site of the year 1998" --> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
On Mon, 17 May 1999, root wrote: > I am trying to use formmail script ( www.worldwidemart.com )with qmail > having variable mailprog set to > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send. Script works but data are not sent. > Place above gives scripts to work with sendmail. Is there something > similar for qmail? Set the variable to either "/var/qmail/bin/sendmail" which is the sendmail wrapper OR if the person that has installed sendmail on your system has read the document "INSTALL" which is part of the _documentation_ then he could have read the following: 15. Make qmail's ``sendmail'' wrapper available to MUAs: # ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail # ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/sbin might not exist on your system. Which means that you can use "/usr/lib/sendmail" instead. and formmail will do fine. cheers, magnus bodin -- "MOST USELESS site of the year 1998" --> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
root wrote: > > I am trying to use formmail script ( www.worldwidemart.com )with qmail > having variable mailprog set to > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send. Script works but data are not sent. > Place above gives scripts to work with sendmail. Is there something > similar for qmail? > may I kindly ask for a little help from someone who uses cgi scripts > with qmail and sends formmails? > I appreciate it. > Thanks, Andrzej Wadas Qmail's sendmail emulator works fine with this script. I've left the line unmodified, and haven't had any problems. Regards, James McGlinn -- Entertainz Web Solutions * http://www.entertainz.co.nz/ --
my Linux system is sendmail free. I do not have sendmail in /var/qmail/bin Do I need to have it to solve the problem. if so, how to do it without reinstalling Qmail. Thanks Andrzej Wadas James McGlinn wrote: > root wrote: > > > > I am trying to use formmail script ( www.worldwidemart.com )with qmail > > having variable mailprog set to > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send. Script works but data are not sent. > > Place above gives scripts to work with sendmail. Is there something > > similar for qmail? > > may I kindly ask for a little help from someone who uses cgi scripts > > with qmail and sends formmails? > > I appreciate it. > > Thanks, Andrzej Wadas > > Qmail's sendmail emulator works fine with this script. I've left the > line unmodified, and haven't had any problems. > > Regards, > James McGlinn > > -- > Entertainz Web Solutions * http://www.entertainz.co.nz/ > --
If it's a Perl script, you can do it something like this: open(mail,"|/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject "); print(mail "From: Theda Bara <femmefetish\@telia.com>\n"); print(mail "To: Fred Backman <fredrick.backman\@pmail.net>\n"); print(mail "Subject: Lunch with me?\n\n"); printf(mail "The main message goes here....\n"); close(mail); "A.Wadas" wrote: > my Linux system is sendmail free. I do not have sendmail in /var/qmail/bin > Do I need to have it to solve the problem. if so, how to do it without > reinstalling Qmail. > Thanks > Andrzej Wadas > > James McGlinn wrote: > > > root wrote: > > > > > > I am trying to use formmail script ( www.worldwidemart.com )with qmail > > > having variable mailprog set to > > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send. Script works but data are not sent. > > > Place above gives scripts to work with sendmail. Is there something > > > similar for qmail? > > > may I kindly ask for a little help from someone who uses cgi scripts > > > with qmail and sends formmails? > > > I appreciate it. > > > Thanks, Andrzej Wadas > > > > Qmail's sendmail emulator works fine with this script. I've left the > > line unmodified, and haven't had any problems. > > > > Regards, > > James McGlinn > > > > -- > > Entertainz Web Solutions * http://www.entertainz.co.nz/ > > --
We're running a combination of qmail-1.01 on a box and qmail-1.03 on a box. Both setups are working fine, and we are utilizing tcpserver. The problem is that a local internet competitor cannot email our customers "sometimes" -- I just sent a test message to their webmaster address and it completed fine, however, i have some of THEIR customers calling me, as well as some of MY customers calling me telling me about it. I know the problem exists, but i cant track it down. They of course blame it on us. They are running NT, here is a cap from their port 25: Connected to zianet.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 nova.zianet.com WindowsNT SMTP Server v3.02.13/1.abcm ready at Mon, 17 May 1999 12:17:25 -0600 ^] They told us to check and see if we were on ORBS (which were not) and other then that made no effort to help me trouble shoot the problem. Does anybody have any clues on what could cause some mail NOT to go through properly? _ __ _____ __ _________ ______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------] 12:15pm up 101 days, 19:18, 3 users, load average: 0.48, 0.19, 0.11
I just checked a couple of things. They appear to have 2 mail hosts (mail-gw.zianet.com and mail.zianet.com). I just tried to send to mail.zianet.com and it worked fine. I then tried to connect to mail-gw.zianet.com and it failed (Connection refused) I wonder if the failures happen when the 2ndary mailer (mail-gw) is being used. That could at least part of the problem. Also, can you paste any failure messages from this ISP to the list ? Those will be of great use. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:22 PM > To: qmail-list > Subject: Problem receiving email. > > We're running a combination of qmail-1.01 on a box and qmail-1.03 on a > box. Both setups are working fine, and we are utilizing tcpserver. The > problem is that a local internet competitor cannot email our customers > "sometimes" -- > > I just sent a test message to their webmaster address and it completed > fine, however, i have some of THEIR customers calling me, as well as > some > of MY customers calling me telling me about it. I know the problem > exists, > but i cant track it down. They of course blame it on us. > > They are running NT, here is a cap from their port 25: > > Connected to zianet.com. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 nova.zianet.com WindowsNT SMTP Server v3.02.13/1.abcm ready at > Mon, 17 > May 1999 12:17:25 -0600 > ^] > > They told us to check and see if we were on ORBS (which were not) and > other then that made no effort to help me trouble shoot the problem. > > Does anybody have any clues on what could cause some mail NOT to go > through properly? > > _ __ _____ __ _________ > ______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech > __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! > _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 > /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com > [---------------------------------------------[system > info]-----------] > 12:15pm up 101 days, 19:18, 3 users, load average: 0.48, 0.19, > 0.11
Hello, I am new to qmail. We have been sending messages all weekend long. We are running qmail on an Ultra 5 with 512 MB RAM. Current state of the /var/qmail disk: Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% /var/qmail But the messages file and log files complain that the disk is full. /var/adm/messages file: May 17 10:47:55 mako unix: NOTICE: realloccg /var/qmail: file system full May 17 10:47:55 mako qmail: 926963275.386806 alert: unable to append to bounce message; HELP! sleeping... We ran into this problem last week, I newfs'd the drives and things were fine for 6 days... here is a ps: # ps -elf | sort -nr +9 | more 8 S root 592 1 0 41 20 634c2740 1086 634c2938 May 13 ? 41:31 ./wmpm 8 S root 23230 1 0 41 20 632cee78 1080 632cf070 May 15 ? 0:51 ./wmdm 8 S root 155 1 0 40 20 60b3c1c8 754 60b3c870 May 11 ? 30:57 /usr/sbin/syslogd -n -z 13 8 S root 250 1 0 41 20 60ed8f60 701 600c03e6 May 11 ? 0:00 /usr/dt/bin/dtlogin -daemon 8 S qmails 185 179 0 41 20 60c9c010 642 60c9c208 May 11 ? 226:45 qmail-send 8 S root 253 1 0 50 20 60dea6d8 308 600c045e May 11 ? 0:58 /usr/local/sbin/snmpd 8 S root 151 1 0 41 20 60c9e890 299 ef20be84 May 11 ? 0:02 /usr/lib/autofs/automountd 8 S root 211 210 0 40 20 60dead98 298 600c054e May 11 ? 0:02 /usr/sbin/nsrexecd -s slan 8 S root 174 1 0 41 20 60b3ad88 295 60b3af80 May 11 ? 1:25 /usr/sbin/nscd and a top: last pid: 15453; load averages: 0.00, 0.04, 0.04 10:50:41 57 processes: 56 sleeping, 1 on cpu CPU states: 95.6% idle, 0.2% user, 2.6% kernel, 1.6% iowait, 0.0% swap Memory: 512M real, 51M free, 15M swap in use, 753M swap free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND 15451 root 1 20 0 2008K 1536K cpu 0:00 1.20% top 155 root 13 34 0 6288K 4848K sleep 30:58 0.12% syslogd 23230 root 1 33 0 8640K 4792K sleep 0:52 0.08% wmdm 15447 qmaild 1 23 0 1416K 848K sleep 0:00 0.06% qmail-smtpd 180 root 1 33 0 1416K 576K sleep 0:51 0.04% splogger 181 qmaild 1 23 0 1552K 536K sleep 0:30 0.02% tcpserver 174 root 7 33 0 2352K 1544K sleep 1:25 0.02% nscd 15445 qmaild 1 33 0 1416K 848K sleep 0:00 0.02% qmail-smtpd 15443 qmaild 1 33 0 1416K 848K sleep 0:00 0.01% qmail-smtpd 15441 qmaild 1 33 0 1416K 848K sleep 0:00 0.00% qmail-smtpd 199 qmailq 1 -25 0 824K 400K sleep 231:06 0.00% qmail-clean 185 qmails 1 33 0 5136K 1520K sleep 226:44 0.00% qmail-send The disk seems fine - why do the send processes fall off and start thinking the disk is full? Is there a memory leak or qmail misconfiguration? -- Tina Stewart Havas Interactive Online Services Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 425.649.9800 x5890
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to qmail. We have been sending messages all weekend long. We are > running qmail on an Ultra 5 with 512 MB RAM. Current state of the > /var/qmail disk: > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% /var/qmail > > But the messages file and log files complain that the disk is full. what version of solaris? could it be that you've got horrendous file system fragmentation and that switching from time to space optimisation and reducing the root-reserved space allocation to 1% will fix the problem try fsck[1] on the filesystem and see what it'll do for you? RjL [1]I've tried to find another tool whoch reports the fragmenation statistics, but can't..
We're running Solaris 5.6 Generic_105181-03. Last week before I did a newfs, I ran fsck - the disk was 31% fragmented but this still did not fix the problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Letts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:57 AM > To: Tina Stewart > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I am new to qmail. We have been sending messages all > weekend long. We are > > running qmail on an Ultra 5 with 512 MB RAM. Current state of the > > /var/qmail disk: > > > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > > > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% /var/qmail > > > > But the messages file and log files complain that the disk > is full. > > what version of solaris? > > could it be that you've got horrendous file system > fragmentation and that > switching from time to space optimisation and reducing the > root-reserved > space allocation to 1% will fix the problem > > try fsck[1] on the filesystem and see what it'll do for you? > > RjL > [1]I've tried to find another tool whoch reports the fragmenation > statistics, but can't.. >
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote: > We're running Solaris 5.6 Generic_105181-03. Last week before I did a > newfs, I ran fsck - the disk was 31% fragmented but this still did not fix > the problem. yes, but have you chnaged the alloocation scheme from Time (default) to Space using tunefs? you should proabably reduce minfree to 1% if it's still 10%. qmail has lots and lots of small configuration files, queue files, etc which will only consume part of a block and time allocation leaves you with lots of part-used blocks. (it's almost the degenerate case) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Letts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:57 AM > > To: Tina Stewart > > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > > > > On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am new to qmail. We have been sending messages all > > weekend long. We are > > > running qmail on an Ultra 5 with 512 MB RAM. Current state of the > > > /var/qmail disk: > > > > > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > > > > > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on > > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% /var/qmail > > > > > > But the messages file and log files complain that the disk > > is full. > > > > what version of solaris? > > > > could it be that you've got horrendous file system > > fragmentation and that > > switching from time to space optimisation and reducing the > > root-reserved > > space allocation to 1% will fix the problem > > > > try fsck[1] on the filesystem and see what it'll do for you? > > > > RjL > > [1]I've tried to find another tool whoch reports the fragmenation > > statistics, but can't.. > > > RjL ================================================================== The problems of the world || Fax: +44 870 0521198 can't be solved by fixing || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the working -- C. Daniluk || Phone: +44 385 275 394
From: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : qmail has lots and lots of small configuration files, queue files, etc : which will only consume part of a block and time allocation leaves you : with lots of part-used blocks. (it's almost the degenerate case) Wouldn't that affect the free inode count though? --Adam
From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail : > > : > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% /var/qmail Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a ludicrously large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and running out of space? --Adam
We sent 247,000 messages and there are about 85,000 more to go in the todo queue. The body of the message is just under 2k. -tina > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:29 PM > To: Tina Stewart > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > : > > > : > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > Mounted on > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% > /var/qmail > > Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a > ludicrously > large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and > running out of > space? > > --Adam > >
maybe it's a mount problem. I've seen this with linux before -- I don't have a lot of solaris experience. Try stopping qmail, unmounting and mounting the filesystem and restarting. --Adam ----- Original Message ----- From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Adam D. McKenna' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 5:38 PM Subject: RE: qmail: full disk? : We sent 247,000 messages and there are about 85,000 more to go in the todo : queue. The body of the message is just under 2k. : : -tina : : > -----Original Message----- : > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] : > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:29 PM : > To: Tina Stewart : > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? : > : > : > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail : > : > > : > : > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity : > Mounted on : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% : > /var/qmail : > : > Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a : > ludicrously : > large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and : > running out of : > space? : > : > --Adam : > : > :
umounted the disk and ran fsck - 47% fragmentation... mako{root}: fsck /var/qmail 526455 files, 950898 used, 872324 free (872324 frags, 0 blocks, 47.8% fragmentation) I restarted qmail and now it is taking up lots of CPU... last pid: 803; load averages: 1.16, 0.95, 0.58 48 processes: 46 sleeping, 1 running, 1 on cpu CPU states: 0.0% idle, 0.4% user, 99.6% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap Memory: 512M real, 65M free, 768M swap free PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND 693 qmails 1 -25 0 1208K 936K run 7:56 94.90% qmail-send 803 root 1 33 0 2000K 1536K cpu 0:00 1.15% top 496 root 1 33 0 1792K 1488K sleep 0:07 0.05% sshd1 795 qmaild 1 34 0 1416K 864K sleep 0:00 0.03% qmail-smtpd 691 root 1 33 0 1416K 1016K sleep 0:00 0.02% splogger 155 root 6 8 0 3232K 1712K sleep 0:00 0.02% syslogd 801 qmaild 1 33 0 1416K 864K sleep 0:00 0.02% qmail-smtpd > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:47 PM > To: Tina Stewart > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > maybe it's a mount problem. I've seen this with linux before > -- I don't > have a lot of solaris experience. Try stopping qmail, unmounting and > mounting the filesystem and restarting. > > --Adam > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Adam D. McKenna' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 5:38 PM > Subject: RE: qmail: full disk? > > > : We sent 247,000 messages and there are about 85,000 more to > go in the todo > : queue. The body of the message is just under 2k. > : > : -tina > : > : > -----Original Message----- > : > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > : > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:29 PM > : > To: Tina Stewart > : > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > : > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > : > > : > > : > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > : > : > > > : > : > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > : > Mounted on > : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% > : > /var/qmail > : > > : > Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a > : > ludicrously > : > large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and > : > running out of > : > space? > : > > : > --Adam > : > > : > > : >
53% + 47% fragmentation=100% there is a mention of this problem in relation to web caches in the squid faq, http://squid.nlanr.net/Squid/FAQ/FAQ-14.html#ss14.1 "" disk write error: (28) No space left on device You might get this error even if your disk is not full, and is not out of inodes. Check your syslog logs (/var/adm/messages, normally) for messages like either of these: NOTICE: realloccg /proxy/cache: file system full NOTICE: alloc: /proxy/cache: file system full In a nutshell, the UFS filesystem used by Solaris can't cope with the workload squid presents to it very well. The filesystem will end up becoming highly fragmented, until it reaches a point where there are insufficient free blocks left to create files with, and only fragments available. At this point, you'll get this error and squid will revise its idea of how much space is actually available to it. You can do a "fsck -n raw_device" (no need to unmount, this checks in read only mode) to look at the fragmentation level of the filesystem. It will probably be quite high (>15%). Sun suggest two solutions to this problem. One costs money, the other is free but may result in a loss of performance (although Sun do claim it shouldn't, given the already highly random nature of squid disk access). The first is to buy a copy of VxFS, the Veritas Filesystem. This is an extent-based filesystem and it's capable of having online defragmentation performed on mounted filesystems. This costs money, however (VxFS is not very cheap!) The second is to change certain parameters of the UFS filesystem. Unmount your cache filesystems and use tunefs to change optimization to "space" and to reduce the "minfree" value to 3-5% (under Solaris 2.6 and higher, very large filesystems will almost certainly have a minfree of 2% already and you shouldn't increase this). You should be able to get fragmentation down to around 3% by doing this, with an accompanied increase in the amount of space available. " On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote: > umounted the disk and ran fsck - 47% fragmentation... > mako{root}: fsck /var/qmail > 526455 files, 950898 used, 872324 free (872324 frags, 0 blocks, 47.8% > fragmentation) > > I restarted qmail and now it is taking up lots of CPU... > > last pid: 803; load averages: 1.16, 0.95, 0.58 > > 48 processes: 46 sleeping, 1 running, 1 on cpu > CPU states: 0.0% idle, 0.4% user, 99.6% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap > Memory: 512M real, 65M free, 768M swap free > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND > 693 qmails 1 -25 0 1208K 936K run 7:56 94.90% qmail-send > 803 root 1 33 0 2000K 1536K cpu 0:00 1.15% top > 496 root 1 33 0 1792K 1488K sleep 0:07 0.05% sshd1 > 795 qmaild 1 34 0 1416K 864K sleep 0:00 0.03% qmail-smtpd > 691 root 1 33 0 1416K 1016K sleep 0:00 0.02% splogger > 155 root 6 8 0 3232K 1712K sleep 0:00 0.02% syslogd > 801 qmaild 1 33 0 1416K 864K sleep 0:00 0.02% qmail-smtpd > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:47 PM > > To: Tina Stewart > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > > > > maybe it's a mount problem. I've seen this with linux before > > -- I don't > > have a lot of solaris experience. Try stopping qmail, unmounting and > > mounting the filesystem and restarting. > > > > --Adam > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: 'Adam D. McKenna' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 5:38 PM > > Subject: RE: qmail: full disk? > > > > > > : We sent 247,000 messages and there are about 85,000 more to > > go in the todo > > : queue. The body of the message is just under 2k. > > : > > : -tina > > : > > : > -----Original Message----- > > : > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > : > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:29 PM > > : > To: Tina Stewart > > : > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > : > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > : > > > : > > > : > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > : > : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > > : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > > : > : > > > > : > : > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > > : > Mounted on > > : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% > > : > /var/qmail > > : > > > : > Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a > > : > ludicrously > > : > large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and > > : > running out of > > : > space? > > : > > > : > --Adam > > : > > > : > > > : > > > RjL ================================================================== The problems of the world || Fax: +44 870 0521198 can't be solved by fixing || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the working -- C. Daniluk || Phone: +44 385 275 394
The minfree value is at 1% right now and we are optimized for space. Here is a breakdown of the number of files in each of the /var/qmail/queue directories. Does this look right? todo 85504 info 118361 intd 85506 local 142 mess 204527 remote 118299 bounce 66 > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Letts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 3:40 PM > To: Tina Stewart > Cc: 'Adam D. McKenna'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: qmail: full disk? > > > > 53% + 47% fragmentation=100% > > there is a mention of this problem in relation to web caches in > the squid faq, http://squid.nlanr.net/Squid/FAQ/FAQ-14.html#ss14.1 > > "" > disk write error: (28) No space left on device > > You might get this error even if your disk is not full, and > is not out of > inodes. Check your syslog logs > (/var/adm/messages, normally) for messages like either of these: > > NOTICE: realloccg /proxy/cache: file system full > NOTICE: alloc: /proxy/cache: file system full > > In a nutshell, the UFS filesystem used by Solaris can't cope with the > workload squid presents to it very well. The filesystem will end up > becoming highly fragmented, until it reaches a point where there are > insufficient free blocks left to create files with, and only fragments > available. At this point, you'll get this error and squid > will revise its > idea of how much space is actually available to it. You can > do a "fsck -n > raw_device" (no need to unmount, this checks in read only > mode) to look at > the fragmentation level of the filesystem. It will probably > be quite high > (>15%). > > Sun suggest two solutions to this problem. One costs money, > the other is > free but may result in a loss of performance (although Sun do claim it > shouldn't, given the already highly random nature of squid > disk access). > > The first is to buy a copy of VxFS, the Veritas Filesystem. This is an > extent-based filesystem and it's capable of having online > defragmentation > performed on mounted filesystems. This costs money, however > (VxFS is not > very cheap!) > > The second is to change certain parameters of the UFS > filesystem. Unmount > your cache filesystems and use tunefs to change optimization > to "space" > and to reduce the "minfree" value to 3-5% (under Solaris 2.6 > and higher, > very large filesystems will almost certainly have a minfree > of 2% already > and you shouldn't increase this). You should be able to get > fragmentation > down to around 3% by doing this, with an accompanied increase in the > amount of space available. > > " > > > On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tina Stewart wrote: > > > umounted the disk and ran fsck - 47% fragmentation... > > mako{root}: fsck /var/qmail > > 526455 files, 950898 used, 872324 free (872324 frags, 0 > blocks, 47.8% > > fragmentation) > > > > I restarted qmail and now it is taking up lots of CPU... > > > > last pid: 803; load averages: 1.16, 0.95, 0.58 > > > > 48 processes: 46 sleeping, 1 running, 1 on cpu > > CPU states: 0.0% idle, 0.4% user, 99.6% kernel, 0.0% > iowait, 0.0% swap > > Memory: 512M real, 65M free, 768M swap free > > > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND > > 693 qmails 1 -25 0 1208K 936K run 7:56 94.90% > qmail-send > > 803 root 1 33 0 2000K 1536K cpu 0:00 1.15% top > > 496 root 1 33 0 1792K 1488K sleep 0:07 0.05% sshd1 > > 795 qmaild 1 34 0 1416K 864K sleep 0:00 0.03% > qmail-smtpd > > 691 root 1 33 0 1416K 1016K sleep 0:00 0.02% splogger > > 155 root 6 8 0 3232K 1712K sleep 0:00 0.02% syslogd > > 801 qmaild 1 33 0 1416K 864K sleep 0:00 0.02% > qmail-smtpd > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:47 PM > > > To: Tina Stewart > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > > > > > > > maybe it's a mount problem. I've seen this with linux before > > > -- I don't > > > have a lot of solaris experience. Try stopping qmail, > unmounting and > > > mounting the filesystem and restarting. > > > > > > --Adam > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: 'Adam D. McKenna' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 5:38 PM > > > Subject: RE: qmail: full disk? > > > > > > > > > : We sent 247,000 messages and there are about 85,000 more to > > > go in the todo > > > : queue. The body of the message is just under 2k. > > > : > > > : -tina > > > : > > > : > -----Original Message----- > > > : > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > : > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:29 PM > > > : > To: Tina Stewart > > > : > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > : > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? > > > : > > > > : > > > > : > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > : > : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on > > > : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 1494062 26% /var/qmail > > > : > : > > > > > : > : > > Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity > > > : > Mounted on > > > : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 1823222 948752 856238 53% > > > : > /var/qmail > > > : > > > > : > Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a > > > : > ludicrously > > > : > large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and > > > : > running out of > > > : > space? > > > : > > > > : > --Adam > > > : > > > > : > > > > : > > > > > > > RjL > ================================================================== > The problems of the world || Fax: +44 870 0521198 > can't be solved by fixing || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > the working -- C. Daniluk || Phone: +44 385 275 394 >
Hi all, I am not a subscriber of this list so if you have any relevant comments please copy me too. Our company is looking around for qmail replacements that do DSNs, after having sent a couple of emails to Dan and received no replies on this issue. While talking to various people about it, the following comments by one prominent entity in the email world [identity withheld] was not atypical: << However, the author of qmail is a problem. besides simply being one of the more obnoxious people in the world, he is entirely rigid and unresponsive to user requests, as his non-conforming bounce format demonstrates. I would strongly encourage looking at exim. I've heard very good things about it and the web page for it has an excellent tone. I'm told there is a pretty serious mass migration from qmail to exim. Many of us are delighted to hear it. >> So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? Ever? Is there a reason we can buy why? Please understand I do not want to be part of the politics, I am just asking a very specific question to which I have had no responses yet from Dan. thanks tasos
I don't think the characterization of DJB is entirely fair. He has incorporated many user requested features in qmail. He does, however, have a very rigorous approach to issues of design and implementation. By that I mean he scrutinizes things carefully and rejects those that do not measure up. As to obnoxiousness, he is certainly pugnacious and does not suffer fools well. If that is a reason not to use software we'd better all ditch our M$ products. I believe Dan has shared some of his thoughts on DSN with this list in the past. I would not recommend Exim. I don't know of any published and accepted security audit that would make me comfortable with it. The author has specifically disclaimed any comprehensive security awareness in writing Exim. I'd probably use one of the commercial products if Netscape/Outlook compatibility is the issue, because the commercial vendors will stuff in any random garbage that they think will sell some product. Sendmail does DSN's, and Weitse Venema has indicated an interest in doing DSN in Postfix at some future time. I personally would strip DSN on any messages to me anyway, as I don't wish to be providing that level of visibility within my site to J. Random miscreants. Good luck. -- Jeff Hayward On Mon, 17 May 1999, Tasos Kotsikonas wrote: Hi all, I am not a subscriber of this list so if you have any relevant comments please copy me too. Our company is looking around for qmail replacements that do DSNs, after having sent a couple of emails to Dan and received no replies on this issue. While talking to various people about it, the following comments by one prominent entity in the email world [identity withheld] was not atypical: << However, the author of qmail is a problem. besides simply being one of the more obnoxious people in the world, he is entirely rigid and unresponsive to user requests, as his non-conforming bounce format demonstrates. I would strongly encourage looking at exim. I've heard very good things about it and the web page for it has an excellent tone. I'm told there is a pretty serious mass migration from qmail to exim. Many of us are delighted to hear it. >> So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? Ever? Is there a reason we can buy why? Please understand I do not want to be part of the politics, I am just asking a very specific question to which I have had no responses yet from Dan. thanks tasos
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:50:24PM +0000, Tasos Kotsikonas wrote: > Hi all, > > So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? Ever? Is there a > reason we can buy why? Please understand I do not want to be You are right - there is no DSN support and there probably won't be from Dan because he totally dislikes it/doesn't believe it works/whatever. No one else has come up with a patch to do this (it may not even be possible - it could be fundamentally incompatible with qmail internals) - so your options are to either drop qmail and go to sendmail (latest release of exim-2.12 still only has "initial" DSN support) or do what I'm planning to do: use sendmail for outgoing Email and Qmail for incoming... Real sad :-( The only reason I need sendmail is because of DSN... -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
DNS's (IMNSHO): a) are lame b) are an invasion of privacy (if you can't turn them off) c) should be handled by the MUA --Adam
On 18-May-99 Jeff Hayward wrote: > I don't think the characterization of DJB is entirely fair. He has > incorporated many user requested features in qmail. He does, > however, have a very rigorous approach to issues of design and > implementation. By that I mean he scrutinizes things carefully and > rejects those that do not measure up. As to obnoxiousness, he is > certainly pugnacious and does not suffer fools well. If that is a > reason not to use software we'd better all ditch our M$ products. I > believe Dan has shared some of his thoughts on DSN with this list in > the past. Here's how I figure it Jeff. I don't recall Dan acting in the way this guy describes *hearing* in at least a year, maybe longer. Everyone on this list knows where Dan's been and anyone that has followed the news lately also knows. When someone shows up like this and acts as some of those old microsoft folks did years back (remember the IBM/M$ split?), I figure they're just here to stir up trouble and should be ignored. If they really wanted to know something, they wouldn't have been asking all over the place after visiting Dan's site and www.qmail.org, they would've come here before going to someone prominent whose name is witheld (could have even been Wietse!). Someone must feel threatened by qmail's ever increasing popularity! Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
On 18-May-99 Jason Haar wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:50:24PM +0000, Tasos Kotsikonas wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? Ever? Is there a >> reason we can buy why? Please understand I do not want to be > > You are right - there is no DSN support and there probably won't be from Dan > because he totally dislikes it/doesn't believe it works/whatever. > > No one else has come up with a patch to do this (it may not even be possible > - it could be fundamentally incompatible with qmail internals) - so your > options are to either drop qmail and go to sendmail (latest release of > exim-2.12 still only has "initial" DSN support) or do what I'm planning to > do: use sendmail for outgoing Email and Qmail for incoming... > > Real sad :-( The only reason I need sendmail is because of DSN... *yawn* Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Tasos Kotsikonas writes: > I am not a subscriber of this list so if you have any relevant comments > please copy me too. Our company is looking around for qmail > replacements that do DSNs, Why? Why not just contract with one of the commercial support organizations (http://www.qmail.org/top.html#paidsup) that specialize in qmail ? Even taking the cost of that into account, qmail is still going to be cheaper to support. > While talking to various people about it, the following comments by > one prominent entity in the email world [identity withheld] was not > atypical: > > << > However, the author of qmail is a problem. besides simply being one of the > more obnoxious people in the world, he is entirely rigid and unresponsive > to user requests, as his non-conforming bounce format demonstrates. This is completely unfair. The RFC for bounces is not widely supported. Calling qmail "non-conforming" because it has its own bounce format is like calling Eric Allman "non-conforming" just because he's gay. Many other Open Source authors are fags (if you're homophobic, stay clear of free software), and many other MTAs do not support DSNs. Dan is completely within reason to not support DSNs. As Phil Karn once said, "A author of quality software has a duty not to support brain-damaged standards". He was talking about IEEE 802.3 at the time, but the principle holds true. > I would strongly encourage looking at exim. I've heard very good things > about it and the web page for it has an excellent tone. I'm told there is > a pretty serious mass migration from qmail to exim. Many of us are > delighted to hear it. I see no evidence for this. Exim is Yet Another Monolithic MTA. After working with qmail for a number of years, I can see many good reasons for keeping your MTA small, and relying on external packages for optional features. Basically, my feeling is that qmail is the only genuine Unix MTA. > So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? How deep are your pockets? I'm not saving this part of the world from itself (I have my eye on saving a different part), so I don't share Dan's opinion of DSNs. If you want me to implement them, just send me a proposal and I'll quote you a price for it. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Good parenting creates 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | an adult, not a perfect Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | child.
Jason Haar writes: > On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:50:24PM +0000, Tasos Kotsikonas wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? Ever? Is there a > > reason we can buy why? Please understand I do not want to be > > You are right - there is no DSN support and there probably won't be from Dan > because he totally dislikes it/doesn't believe it works/whatever. I happen to be looking over RFC189[1234] recently. Bottom line - forget about DSNs in Qmail. Qmail has to be rewritten in a major way in order to generate DSNs. DSNs require a lot of per-message envelope metadata. -- Sam
Adam D. McKenna writes: > DNS's (IMNSHO): > > a) are lame > b) are an invasion of privacy (if you can't turn them off) DSNs are no more an invasion of privacy than a Qmail bounce. They carry no more information than a regular bounce. The only difference is that its format is machine-parseable, and the sender has some control over what conditions trigger a DSN. -- Sam
At 06:30 AM 5/18/99 GMT, Mr Sam set digit to keypad: >format is machine-parseable, and the sender has some control over what >conditions trigger a DSN. Something I've thought for a while but never had the guts to say. Why could one want a machine-parseable, sender-manipulable bounce message? Presumeably because you want to differentiate between bounces and you want a machine to parse the responses. To me, that says 'Spam-checking domains for real mail addresses'... cHris
Chris Naden writes: > At 06:30 AM 5/18/99 GMT, Mr Sam set digit to keypad: > > >format is machine-parseable, and the sender has some control over what > >conditions trigger a DSN. > > Something I've thought for a while but never had the > guts to say. > > Why could one want a machine-parseable, sender-manipulable > bounce message? To handle mailing list bounces efficiently. -- Sam
Ease up everyone... Tasos isn't a flame-baiting troller... he probably really needs DSN (I feel your pain Tasos, I need it too). Anyway, he's also the author of Listproc (yeah!), which I'm still using to this day because everything else (read majordomo) I've tried sucks hard; anyway, he's cool. -Trevor ps. here's a good reason for DSN: SMTP<->X.400 gateways. X.400 supports all kinds of return receipts, and right now, DSN is the way our X.400 MTA provider interfaces this stuff. I've got a sendmail box that I have to keep using because we need to be able to turn on DSN when we send messages into X.400. However, DSN is also a major cause of headaches for us, either Micros~1 Exchange MTA's saying that they support it, but they really don't, to someone else's home-grown bad implementation, to firewall smtp filters rejecting it, etc. >>> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/17 9:08:24 PM >>> Tasos Kotsikonas writes: > I am not a subscriber of this list so if you have any relevant comments > please copy me too. Our company is looking around for qmail > replacements that do DSNs, Why? Why not just contract with one of the commercial support organizations (http://www.qmail.org/top.html#paidsup) that specialize in qmail ? Even taking the cost of that into account, qmail is still going to be cheaper to support. > While talking to various people about it, the following comments by > one prominent entity in the email world [identity withheld] was not > atypical: > > << > However, the author of qmail is a problem. besides simply being one of the > more obnoxious people in the world, he is entirely rigid and unresponsive > to user requests, as his non-conforming bounce format demonstrates. This is completely unfair. The RFC for bounces is not widely supported. Calling qmail "non-conforming" because it has its own bounce format is like calling Eric Allman "non-conforming" just because he's gay. Many other Open Source authors are fags (if you're homophobic, stay clear of free software), and many other MTAs do not support DSNs. Dan is completely within reason to not support DSNs. As Phil Karn once said, "A author of quality software has a duty not to support brain-damaged standards". He was talking about IEEE 802.3 at the time, but the principle holds true. > I would strongly encourage looking at exim. I've heard very good things > about it and the web page for it has an excellent tone. I'm told there is > a pretty serious mass migration from qmail to exim. Many of us are > delighted to hear it. I see no evidence for this. Exim is Yet Another Monolithic MTA. After working with qmail for a number of years, I can see many good reasons for keeping your MTA small, and relying on external packages for optional features. Basically, my feeling is that qmail is the only genuine Unix MTA. > So, is the final answer NO DSNs from qmail? How deep are your pockets? I'm not saving this part of the world from itself (I have my eye on saving a different part), so I don't share Dan's opinion of DSNs. If you want me to implement them, just send me a proposal and I'll quote you a price for it. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Good parenting creates 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | an adult, not a perfect Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | child.
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 08:00:52AM +0100, Chris Naden wrote: > Why could one want a machine-parseable, sender-manipulable > bounce message? Presumeably because you want to differentiate > between bounces and you want a machine to parse the responses. > > To me, that says 'Spam-checking domains for real mail addresses'... > Try: s/Spam/Mailing-lists/g I agree with Dan that DSN doesn't do what was mainly wanted from it. The old sendmail Return-receipt did a better job at delivery receipts and Dans VERP is soooo much better for mailing-list maintainence. Unfortunately my company uses Outlook/Exchange - so DSN is needed so pratty delivery-receipts work... The worse thing is DSN is so convoluted that it's impossible to write some wrapper around it to do the job. -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 18 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > This is completely unfair. No it't not. It's the truth. > Calling qmail "non-conforming" because it has its own > bounce format is like calling Eric Allman "non-conforming" just > because he's gay. Eric Allman's GAY? Scott -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN0Envx4PLs9vCOqdAQFk4QQAqhwNrc8aHhSZd+8iLRia5cFCf7eEhYeq uZrpgyx0u1I/cIc2OFokCh5tKG6fpU79EQpPhULc8bZgt3jLCaUj7HLQkfKzCVHs agj7C9tRbjSUcEoyBGqzle9zu56TyGA8E44TQfda3oE6TWXyDzd5B5TmF0VcmMJz df/YWmsRZmY= =gKTj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scott D. Yelich wrote: > > Calling qmail "non-conforming" because it has its own > > bounce format is like calling Eric Allman "non-conforming" just > > because he's gay. > > Eric Allman's GAY? Yes, he shares his life with Kirk McKusick (one of the BSD fathers). See http://www.mckusick.com/~mckusick/index.html -- Andre
Title: I can't received any mail
I just setup my Qmail, But I have a few problem !
1. I can send the mail out by using Qmail to exchange, but when I reply that email, I come
up the error message say :This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
The following destination addresses were unknown (please check
the addresses and re-mail the message):SMTP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. How can I set up the Qmail to make forward the mail message ?
Thanks
I am setting up a Perl script that will create new POP accounts, and need to run the "qmail-newu" program within a Perl script. When I try to run it, I get permission problems. I have tried everything I can think of as far as permission combination, but can't find a solution. Has anyone been able to execute the qmail-newu command via a Perl script? Is there another way to accomplish what qmail-new does without executing the command? Thanks, Peter Janett http://www.healthwell.com
Hi, for some stuipid reason a customer sent out a message containing 1500 (!) ','-seperated entries in the bcc: header using AK-Mail with a qmail 1.03 smtp server for outgoing mail. qmail-header(5) says qmail-inject deletes any Bcc field and RFC822 says there is no length limit on the header but what happened was that several adresses bounced and the bounced messaged were sent to all the 1500 adresses listed only in the bcc field. Obviously qmail-inject did not remove the bcc correctly. So, is there a limititation on the header in qmail? The header above was about 29469 bytes long, the bcc field about 27617 bytes. Any idea? -Eike
