qmail Digest 20 May 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 646
Topics (messages 25780 through 25844):
Is qmail's log method inefficient?
25780 by: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25781 by: Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25791 by: Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25839 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25844 by: Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mass migration off of qmail because of lack of DSNs?
25782 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25787 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Weird stats?
25783 by: Mark E Drummond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25784 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25792 by: Mark E Drummond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HELP: root can't get mail.....
25785 by: Bruno Boettcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25786 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25796 by: "Julian L.C. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25799 by: Dustin Marquess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25804 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25826 by: "Dan Poynor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail/fictitious domain/ppp connection
25788 by: Eric Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25789 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25809 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25830 by: Rogerio Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
svc -t question
25790 by: "Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25793 by: "Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25795 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25798 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25803 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25805 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25806 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25816 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cgi script
25794 by: Luca Pescatore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25800 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
which .qmail had control
25797 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25832 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Antw: Re: svc -t question
25801 by: "Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-pop3 over dialup
25802 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Help getting qmail to work.
25807 by: "Brian Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25808 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25813 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25817 by: "Brian Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25819 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25821 by: "Brian Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25822 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25823 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Red Hat compile problem
25810 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25812 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25814 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25815 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25818 by: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25829 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Life with qmail
25811 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25825 by: Eddie Irvine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
users/assign setup and aliases?
25820 by: Michael Legart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail users
25824 by: "Brian Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
25827 by: "Tim Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25828 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25831 by: Christopher K Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25834 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25837 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
25833 by: "Andrzej Kukula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ssh and checkpassword
25835 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multiple Domains with Aliases
25836 by: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25838 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25840 by: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25841 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25842 by: Magnus Bodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
32Bits has interview w/ Eric Raymond
25843 by: "koko" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> I'll repeat myself only once more. Go back and check the mail archives.
I checked the archives last night and just now. Dan didn't mention anything
about stopping the support of inetd. Iam sorry, but I don't belive in
others, anything they say.
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Feel free to roll your own patch which send's all it's stuff to syslog.
No need if you use tcpd in inetd:
In /etc/inetd.conf have something like this:
smtp stream tcp nowait.200 qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd smtp
and then in /etc/hosts.allow, have this silliness:
smtp: localhost: setenv RELAYCLIENT:twist { { /usr/bin/tcp-env /usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd
1>&3;} 2>&1|splogger qmail;} 3>&1
smtp: ALL: twist { { /usr/bin/tcp-env /usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd 1>&3;} 2>&1|splogger
qmail;} 3>&1
You'll need to add any other hosts you need to do relaying to the first line.
Yet another example of qmail not needing a patch :-)
Cheers, Phil.
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 04:29:07PM +0200, Balazs Nagy wrote:
> > If you run under tcpserver it's no problem to log to stderr. Everthing
> > you print to stderr will appear in tcpserver's logfile. In fact I'm
> > implementing that right now for qmail-smptd and qmail-pop3d.
> Yeah, but you *should* give a non-sensitive solution. If you use stderr for
> logging, you should remove the dup2ing fd 1 to fd 2 line, but it's for
> compatibility reasons among various inetd's. By the way inetd (from
> netkit-base) actually dup2s fd 1 to fd 2, which will happily puts your logs
> to the socket. Why do you want to determine qmail services whether it runs
> under tcpserver or not? It's a very heavy compatibility issue.
What about djb's errorsto? If you made the pop3d etc
log to stderr, running them under tcpserver is trivial.
Couldn't they be made to work under inetd with errorsto?
Basically it's just
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild errorsto splogger qmail-smtpd
--
Havoc Consulting | unix, linux, perl, mail, www, internet, security consulting
+358 50 5486010 | software development, unix administration, training
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 06:27:45PM +0300, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> What about djb's errorsto? If you made the pop3d etc
> log to stderr, running them under tcpserver is trivial.
> Couldn't they be made to work under inetd with errorsto?
>
> Basically it's just
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild errorsto splogger qmail-smtpd
errorsto is supposed to write to a file. splogger is not a file. I don't
think the above will work.
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 07:53:48AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> errorsto is supposed to write to a file. splogger is not a file. I don't
> think the above will work.
fifo's are your friend.
... errorsto /my/fifo ...
fifo /my/fifo | splogger
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Reliability means never
_/ _/ _/ having to say you're sorry."
_/ _/_/_/ -- D. J. Bernstein
_/ _/ _/ _/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>When you have mailing lists that number in millions, you will usually have
>thousands of messages going to the same [domain].
>
>Using VERPs will require a thousand times as much bandwidth. Each
>individual message will have to be transmitted separately, plus each bounce
>will be returned separately.
"A thousand times" is a huge overstatement. There's a limit to the
number of copies that can be sent with each copy of the message. I
think sendmail defaults to 20 and SMTP limits it to 100.
And. as someone else pointed out, that bandwidth penalty only applies
for messages sent to the same MX, which is typically only a fraction
of mail bandwidth, which is usually only a fraction of one's network
bandwidth.
-Dave
Tasos Kotsikonas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>With so much volume of email going out we need to cut down on the
>number of bounces. As we expect megabytes of bounces each day coming
>back from each such list, we need to keep our lists as clean as
>possible. Nothing else other than DSNs will allow us to be 100%
>successful.
VERP's are more effective than DSN's. And *nothing* will be 100%
successful.
>I am well aware that installing MTAs that do DSNs does not
>necessarily mean that we will not be getting non-DSN bounces back.
Does the DSN-ness of the sending MTA affect the DSN-ness of bounces
from remote MTA's at all? How?
>In fact, our bounce handling code resolves about 99.2% of them (on a
>test of half a million random bounces). But we need to cut down on
>the processing time parsing non-DSN bounces, and indeed DSNs are very
>easy to parse with linear algorithms or better.
As are VERP bounces.
>For enterprise-level delivery needs qmail in its current form does
>not cut it for us.
How, exactly and specifically, does it fail?
>I am not sure where Dan stands on DSNs (although I gather he just
>agree it's the right thing?),
Certainly not. See for DJB on DSN's:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg00037.html
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1998/03/msg00451.html
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1998/03/msg00521.html
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/qsbmf.txt
>and all I can say is that he would have been a millionaire by now
>with the right product for business and a good business strategy.
Mail is one of Dan's passions, not his livelihood.
>You know, despite what we all think of freeware sendmail, they did
>get $6mil in VC funding,
So what? Microsoft sells billions of dollars worth of software every
year, and if you distilled out all the crap you'd be left with a pile
of quality software much less impressive than Dan's singlehanded
output. One can, to some extent, choose whether to produce quality
software or marketable software, but the same product is rarely both
high quality *and* marketable. The market is too competitive and the
sheeple don't care enough about quality. Microsoft proves that. Also,
customers demand more and more features, and are either willing to
accept the resultant bloat and complexity or aren't aware of it.
Dan is able to keep qmail secure, small, reliable, and efficient
because he has no customers, stockholders and investors to please.
>they do have a high speed version of the product (of unknown as yet
>performance capabilities), they will be successful in converting
>large-scale operations using freeware sendmail like AOL.COM (e.g. see
>205.188.156.161), and they are in the process of rewriting their
>product.
Whoop de do. Buy Sendmail stock if that impresses you.
>My apologies to all of you who thought I was trying to stir up the
>waters here. But the similarity of responses I got re: qmail was
>very striking and the message was: use qmail but if your business
>depends on it and you need to get something done by the author, well,
>good luck! That's a chance we cannot afford to take.
That's silly. qmail source is free and there are people very familiar
with the code who will be happy to make it sing and dance for you. But
you *could* afford to be at the mercy of Sendmail, Inc., should they
fail to provide a bug fix or feature you request?
>We may have a need for advisors should we decide to write our own
>SMTP delivery engine.
Good luck. I think you'll find it's a wee but harder than writing your
own MLM.
-Dave
Fred Lindberg wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 11:22:11 -0400, Mark E Drummond wrote:
>
> >What I am wondering about is the apparently long processing time for
> >messages. According to these stats we are processing only ~2722 messages
> >per day (~1.9 per minute) at ~23K each. Yet the average message queue
> >time is 527 seconds?! Why would a message sit in the queue for so long
> >with such a light load? Here's the numbers:
>
> First, you have a very lightly loaded machine, and it's goofing off
> most of the time ;-) This explains the 1.9 messages/min. We've had
> qmail do 1000/min on simple hardware, admittedly with ideal recipients.
>
> The queue time includes deliveries that were repeatedly deferred (host
> unreachable, user over quota try later, etc) that then finally timed
> out their queue life time(something like 7 days). Thus, the average is
> not very useful.
>
> Average ddelay per success (s): 95.132936: This shows you that the
> delivery attempts that were successful took on average 95 s to
> complete. This does not count all the unsuccessful delivery attempts.
>
> Look at other stats in the package. The time taken to complete 50% or
> 80% of the deliveries or the average time for the first 50 or 80% is a
> much more useful measure.
>
> In summary, looks ok and the numbers are a reflection of the
> recipients, not your qmail installation.
I ran zddelay on the logs after posting this and yes, 82% of all
messages are being delivered in under 1 second, 91% in under 2 seconds,
but the last 1-2% are taking _huge_ amounts of time which it skewing the
results.
Here's the run of zddelay:
Distribution of ddelays for successful deliveries
Meaning of each line: The first pct% of successful deliveries
all happened within doneby seconds. The average ddelay was avg.
doneby avg pct
0.49 0.46 10
0.49 0.46 11
0.49 0.47 12
0.49 0.47 13
0.50 0.47 14
0.50 0.47 15
0.50 0.47 16
0.50 0.47 17
0.50 0.47 18
0.50 0.48 19
0.51 0.48 20
0.51 0.48 21
0.51 0.48 22
0.51 0.48 23
0.51 0.48 24
0.52 0.48 25
0.52 0.48 26
0.52 0.49 27
0.52 0.49 28
0.52 0.49 29
0.53 0.49 30
0.53 0.49 31
0.53 0.49 32
0.53 0.49 33
0.54 0.49 34
0.54 0.50 35
0.54 0.50 36
0.54 0.50 37
0.55 0.50 38
0.55 0.50 39
0.55 0.50 40
0.55 0.50 41
0.56 0.50 42
0.56 0.51 43
0.56 0.51 44
0.57 0.51 45
0.57 0.51 46
0.57 0.51 47
0.58 0.51 48
0.58 0.52 49
0.59 0.52 50
0.59 0.52 51
0.59 0.52 52
0.60 0.52 53
0.60 0.52 54
0.61 0.53 55
0.61 0.53 56
0.62 0.53 57
0.62 0.53 58
0.62 0.53 59
0.63 0.53 60
0.64 0.54 61
0.64 0.54 62
0.65 0.54 63
0.65 0.54 64
0.66 0.55 65
0.67 0.55 66
0.68 0.55 67
0.68 0.55 68
0.69 0.56 69
0.70 0.56 70
0.71 0.56 71
0.73 0.56 72
0.74 0.57 73
0.75 0.57 74
0.77 0.57 75
0.79 0.58 76
0.81 0.58 77
0.83 0.59 78
0.86 0.59 79
0.89 0.60 80
0.93 0.60 81
0.98 0.61 82
1.03 0.61 83
1.09 0.62 84
1.16 0.63 85
1.25 0.64 86
1.34 0.65 87
1.45 0.66 88
1.59 0.67 89
1.75 0.69 90
1.92 0.71 91
2.16 0.73 92
2.47 0.76 93
2.88 0.79 94
3.49 0.83 95
4.59 0.89 96
10.00 0.99 97
10.33 1.20 98
100.18 97.06 99
608402.00 100.41 100
- med
--
_________________________________________________________________
Mark E Drummond Royal Military College of Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Services
Linux Uber Alles perl || die
On Wed, 19 May 1999 09:05:21 -0400, Mark E Drummond wrote:
>I ran zddelay on the logs after posting this and yes, 82% of all
>messages are being delivered in under 1 second, 91% in under 2 seconds,
>but the last 1-2% are taking _huge_ amounts of time which it skewing the
>results.
As expected. These are deferred deliveries that ultimately fail when
the queue life time times out. Host unreachable, CNAME lookup failed
temporarily, "no more space of device" permanently, etc.
Success = qmail is done with message. This is successful delivery, or
permanent error. A temporary error becomes permanent at the timeout.
So:
1.75 0.69 90
90% of deliveries get done very fast (probably most are local)
10.33 1.20 98
98% of messages get done very fast, there are some remote ones among
these.
100.18 97.06 99
99% of messages get done ok. There are some slow remote ones among
these.
608402.00 100.41 100
100% takes a long time. The last % contain mainly temporary failures
that ultimately time out.
All as it should be on a very lightly loaded system that does mainly
local work.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Fred Lindberg wrote:
>
> All as it should be on a very lightly loaded system that does mainly
> local work.
Actually it does no local work. It is just a gateway which forwards
"legit" mail to our internal mailhub which the users access. But I'll
still take that as meaning the machine is operating fine. Thanks for all
your input. I really love using qmail but I need to make sure it
performs well because I have to justify it's use over sendmail. I
installed it when we purchased a new gateway machine and the biggest
issue for me was migrating our heavily hand-hacked sendmail.cf to the
latest version. No thanks! Of course, my boss had other concerns like
performance, support, etc.
- med
--
_________________________________________________________________
Mark E Drummond Royal Military College of Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Services
Linux Uber Alles perl || die
Hello,
strange thing: as it seems root can't get mail:
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.461259 info msg 4064: bytes 501 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10976 uid 0
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555195 starting delivery 18439: msg 4064
t o local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555313 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621024 delivery 18439: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662618 bounce msg 4064 qp 10979
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662926 end msg 4064
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663387 new msg 4361
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663611 info msg 4361: bytes 1066 from <>
qp 10979 uid 72
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721585 starting delivery 18440: msg 4361
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721742 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725045 delivery 18440: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725411 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.786842 bounce msg 4361 qp 10981
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787024 end msg 4361
May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787440 new msg 4064
what did i do wrong? this lines are filling the logs and explode /var.....
ciao
bboett
==============================================================
acount at earthling net
http://erm6.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================
Unsolicited commercial email is NOT welcome at this email address
To contact me replace acount by bboett in above addresses
qmail will not deliver mail to the root account, following the instructions
from the INSTALL file you need to setup a file in the ~alias directory called
.qmail-root, either an empty file, which will save mail in the ~alias
account, or file containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED] to forward root mail to
someone else.
Justin
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:33:57PM +0200, Bruno Boettcher wrote:
# Hello,
#
# strange thing: as it seems root can't get mail:
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.461259 info msg 4064: bytes 501 from
# <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10976 uid 0
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555195 starting delivery 18439: msg 4064
# t o local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555313 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621024 delivery 18439: failure:
# Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662618 bounce msg 4064 qp 10979
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662926 end msg 4064
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663387 new msg 4361
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663611 info msg 4361: bytes 1066 from <>
# qp 10979 uid 72
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721585 starting delivery 18440: msg 4361
# to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721742 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725045 delivery 18440: failure:
# Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725411 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.786842 bounce msg 4361 qp 10981
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787024 end msg 4361
# May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787440 new msg 4064
#
# what did i do wrong? this lines are filling the logs and explode /var.....
#
# ciao
# bboett
# ==============================================================
# acount at earthling net
# http://erm6.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
# ===============================================================
# Unsolicited commercial email is NOT welcome at this email address
# To contact me replace acount by bboett in above addresses
#
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
At 08:39 AM 5/19/99 -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
>qmail will not deliver mail to the root account, following the instructions
>from the INSTALL file you need to setup a file in the ~alias directory called
>.qmail-root, either an empty file, which will save mail in the ~alias
>account, or file containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED] to forward root mail to
>someone else.
>
>Justin
>
>On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:33:57PM +0200, Bruno Boettcher wrote:
># Hello,
>#
># strange thing: as it seems root can't get mail:
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.461259 info msg 4064: bytes 501 from
># <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10976 uid 0
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555195 starting delivery 18439:
msg 4064
># t o local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555313 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621024 delivery 18439: failure:
># Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662618 bounce msg 4064 qp 10979
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662926 end msg 4064
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663387 new msg 4361
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663611 info msg 4361: bytes 1066
from <>
># qp 10979 uid 72
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721585 starting delivery 18440:
msg 4361
># to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721742 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725045 delivery 18440: failure:
># Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725411 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.786842 bounce msg 4361 qp 10981
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787024 end msg 4361
># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787440 new msg 4064
>#
># what did i do wrong? this lines are filling the logs and explode /var.....
>#
># ciao
># bboett
You know, I never did understand why everyone says Qmail does not allow you
to receive email as root because I have it set up to do just that. I had
the exact same problem, and resolved it by setting up a root email account.
Coincidentally I can read the messages to see if there is anything truly
wrong.
Regards,
Julian L.C. Brown
// Interware Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.interware.net
http://www.domainonhold.com -- Register your domain name for free!
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Julian L.C. Brown wrote:
> At 08:39 AM 5/19/99 -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> >qmail will not deliver mail to the root account, following the instructions
> >from the INSTALL file you need to setup a file in the ~alias directory called
> >.qmail-root, either an empty file, which will save mail in the ~alias
> >account, or file containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED] to forward root mail to
> >someone else.
> >
> >Justin
> >
> >On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:33:57PM +0200, Bruno Boettcher wrote:
> ># Hello,
> >#
> ># strange thing: as it seems root can't get mail:
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.461259 info msg 4064: bytes 501 from
> ># <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10976 uid 0
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555195 starting delivery 18439:
> msg 4064
> ># t o local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555313 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621024 delivery 18439: failure:
> ># Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621160 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662618 bounce msg 4064 qp 10979
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662926 end msg 4064
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663387 new msg 4361
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663611 info msg 4361: bytes 1066
> from <>
> ># qp 10979 uid 72
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721585 starting delivery 18440:
> msg 4361
> ># to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721742 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725045 delivery 18440: failure:
> ># Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725411 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.786842 bounce msg 4361 qp 10981
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787024 end msg 4361
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787440 new msg 4064
> >#
> ># what did i do wrong? this lines are filling the logs and explode /var.....
> >#
> ># ciao
> ># bboett
>
> You know, I never did understand why everyone says Qmail does not allow you
> to receive email as root because I have it set up to do just that. I had
> the exact same problem, and resolved it by setting up a root email account.
> Coincidentally I can read the messages to see if there is anything truly
> wrong.
Delivering email to ~root/Mailbox or ~root/Maildir would require
having qmail-local run as root to deliver the mail, which is a security
risk.
-Dustin
"Julian L.C. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You know, I never did understand why everyone says Qmail does not allow you
>to receive email as root because I have it set up to do just that.
What they mean is that qmail never delivers mail *as* root. I.e.,
qmail-local never runs as root. Sure, you can have some other user
(e.g., "alias") deliver to a mailbox called "root" (but owned by
"alias"), but that's not the same as delivering mail to root, as
root, because you can't have a .qmail file that runs with root
privileges.
>From INSTALL.alias:
* root. Under qmail, root never receives mail. Your system may generate
mail messages to root every night; if you don't have an alias for root,
those messages will bounce. (They'll end up double-bouncing to the
postmaster.) Set up an alias for root in ~alias/.qmail-root. .qmail
files are similar to .forward files, but beware that they are strictly
line-oriented---see dot-qmail.0 for details.
-Dave
I solved this by having just my username in the .qmail-root file in the
/var/qmail/alias directory. That is I use "dan" rather than "./Maildir/" or
even "/home/dan/Maildir/" to receive emails sent to root. Now any cron
notices or other emails sent to root are automatically deposited to my
personal user account and I can easily retrieve them from remote locations.
Cheers,
DAN
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Dustin Marquess
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 9:22 AM
To: Julian L.C. Brown
Cc: qmail mailing list
Subject: Re: HELP: root can't get mail.....
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Julian L.C. Brown wrote:
> At 08:39 AM 5/19/99 -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
> >qmail will not deliver mail to the root account, following the
instructions
> >from the INSTALL file you need to setup a file in the ~alias directory
called
> >.qmail-root, either an empty file, which will save mail in the ~alias
> >account, or file containing &[EMAIL PROTECTED] to forward root mail
to
> >someone else.
> >
> >Justin
> >
> >On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 05:33:57PM +0200, Bruno Boettcher wrote:
> ># Hello,
> >#
> ># strange thing: as it seems root can't get mail:
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.461259 info msg 4064: bytes 501
from
> ># <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 10976 uid 0
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555195 starting delivery 18439:
> msg 4064
> ># t o local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.555313 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621024 delivery 18439: failure:
> ># Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.621160 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662618 bounce msg 4064 qp 10979
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.662926 end msg 4064
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663387 new msg 4361
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.663611 info msg 4361: bytes 1066
> from <>
> ># qp 10979 uid 72
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721585 starting delivery 18440:
> msg 4361
> ># to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.721742 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725045 delivery 18440: failure:
> ># Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.725411 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.786842 bounce msg 4361 qp 10981
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787024 end msg 4361
> ># May 16 06:51:43 erm1 qmail: 926830303.787440 new msg 4064
> >#
> ># what did i do wrong? this lines are filling the logs and explode
/var.....
> >#
> ># ciao
> ># bboett
>
> You know, I never did understand why everyone says Qmail does not allow
you
> to receive email as root because I have it set up to do just that. I had
> the exact same problem, and resolved it by setting up a root email
account.
> Coincidentally I can read the messages to see if there is anything truly
> wrong.
Delivering email to ~root/Mailbox or ~root/Maildir would require
having qmail-local run as root to deliver the mail, which is a security
risk.
-Dustin
Once again, no network is an island, and I'm being reminded of that by
bounced mail.
Scenario:
I'm connecting one of my linux boxes to the net via a UU.net ppp account.
Internally, I've got 2 linux boxes: 1 is the PPP host, mail host, DNS host
and soon to be IP Masquerade host, and the other one is my general
workstation all nicely configured for all of my computing needs.
I've got fetchmail configured to retrieve mail from several different
accounts and send the mail directly to my workstation, bypassing the
qmail/ppp host, though qmail on the qmail/ppp host is configured with an
alias which forwards all mail to my workstation. Fine.
The one other issue is that I've set up DNS on the qmail/ppp host as both a
caching as well as the nameserver for my fictitious internal network,
ericberg.com. Now, here's where I think that I run into problems.
Problems:
Most mail works just fine, but some domains require the domain from which
mail originates to resolve -- a reasonable requirement. Anyway, ericberg.com
doesn't.
Here's the log entry for the failure:
May 19 08:57:37 moby qmail: 927118657.368399 delivery 1: deferral:
Connected_to_199.182.120.56_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._Domain_must_resolve/
How should a qmail Admin go about thinking about this and solving the
problem?
-Eric.
--
Eric Berg http://www.nylug.org/~eberg
Vice President, New York Linux Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Eric Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: May 19 08:57:37 moby qmail: 927118657.368399 delivery 1: deferral:
Connected_to_199.182.120.56_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._Domain_must_resolve/
:
: How should a qmail Admin go about thinking about this and solving the
: problem?
Put a domain that resolves into /var/qmail/control/helohost
You might want to consider sending all of your mail through your ISP's mail
relay. This is the best way to make sure that all of your mail will get
delivered.
: -Eric.
--Adam
Eric Berg wrote:
> The one other issue is that I've set up DNS on the qmail/ppp host as both a
> caching as well as the nameserver for my fictitious internal network,
> ericberg.com. Now, here's where I think that I run into problems.
>
> Problems:
>
> Most mail works just fine, but some domains require the domain from which
> mail originates to resolve -- a reasonable requirement. Anyway, ericberg.com
> doesn't.
You need to re-write your local domain name.
For "local" users (ie running on one of the Linux boxes) look at setting
QMAILHOST (see man qmail-inject).
For "remote" users (ie relaying via SMTP) either make sure the mail
address is set correctly in the MUA or look into using qmail-ofmipd from
the mess822 package. If you get the latter working, let me know - I
gave up :o)
R.
--
Two rules to success in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
-- Sassan Tat
On May 19 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
> Eric Berg wrote:
> > The one other issue is that I've set up DNS on the qmail/ppp host as both a
> > caching as well as the nameserver for my fictitious internal network,
> > ericberg.com. Now, here's where I think that I run into problems.
>
> You need to re-write your local domain name.
There is one intrinsic problem IMVHO with this fake-domain
recipe that everybody seems to be adopting: what if you sent a
message to a person in your local domain but also make a
carbon copy to a person outside your domain. What address of
your should the message report in its envelope or From:
header?
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
(still an) Ugrad. Comp. Science student - "Windows? Linux and X!"
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Hi
I installed the daemontools today, but when I tried to restart/shutdown qmail with svc
-t /var/run/qmail the following entry turned up in the log:
May 19 17:06:19 mail-2 qmail: 927126379.724078 status: exiting
May 19 17:06:21 mail-2 smtpd: 927126380.949428 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind:
address already used
I then issued a svc -d which seemed to stop everything. Then svc -u restarted qmail.
Am I doing this correctly??
Thanks
Ralf
Hi
I installed the daemontools today, but when I tried to restart/shutdown qmail with svc
-t /var/run/qmail the following entry turned up in the log:
May 19 17:06:19 mail-2 qmail: 927126379.724078 status: exiting
May 19 17:06:21 mail-2 smtpd: 927126380.949428 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind:
address already used
Why is tcpserver still running?
Thanks for any hints
Ralf
"Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I then issued a svc -d which seemed to stop everything. Then svc -u =
| restarted qmail. Am I doing this correctly??
No. The procedure is
1) svc -d
-either-
2a) wait for qmail-send to exit (could take hours):
while testfilelock /var/run/qmail/lock
do sleep 60
done
-or-
2b) do a ps to find any qmail-remote processes, and manually kill them
3) svc -u
I think svc should send signals to an entire process group, not
just to the child it is controlling.
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>| I then issued a svc -d which seemed to stop everything. Then svc -u =
>| restarted qmail. Am I doing this correctly??
>
>No. The procedure is
>
>1) svc -d
>-either-
>2a) wait for qmail-send to exit (could take hours):
> while testfilelock /var/run/qmail/lock
> do sleep 60
> done
>-or-
>2b) do a ps to find any qmail-remote processes, and manually kill them
>3) svc -u
I do:
svc -d /var/supervise/qmail-smtpd
svc -t /var/supervise/qmail-send
svc -u /var/supervise/qmail-smtpd
Seems to work.
-Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| svc -t /var/supervise/qmail-send
If you have no qmail-remote processes waiting, then there's no problem,
but if one of them is in the middle of a slow conversation then
qmail-send will wait for it, and you can't restart qmail until it exits
first.
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If you have no qmail-remote processes waiting, then there's no problem,
>but if one of them is in the middle of a slow conversation then
>qmail-send will wait for it, and you can't restart qmail until it exits
>first.
I don't consider it a "problem" that qmail-send waits for
qmail-remotes to finish. Normally, I'm not in a big hurry, and I'd
like things to proceeed normally. If I am in a hurry, I know where the
big hammer is.
-Dave
"Ralf Guenthner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> svc -d /var/supervise/qmail-smtpd
>> svc -t /var/supervise/qmail-send
>> svc -u /var/supervise/qmail-smtpd
>
>I like that one better. If I put all three lines in a script called
>qrestart, it should work, shouldn't it? Provided the /var/supervise
>in your example is the same as the default /var/run/qmail directory??
If you're supervising both qmail-send and qmail-smtpd (via tcpserver),
you'll need two different "supervise" directories. You can call them
whatever you want.
-Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't consider it a "problem" that qmail-send waits for
| qmail-remotes to finish. Normally, I'm not in a big hurry, and I'd
| like things to proceeed normally. If I am in a hurry, I know where the
| big hammer is.
The problem is that there is no programmatic way to invoke the big
hammer. You have to locate and kill the qmail-remotes by hand in that
case. That's pointless and error prone make-work, since supervise
could just as easily have handled it for you.
Just my opinion.
>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
Hi,
when i try to execute sendmail i get that error :
server:/var/qmail/bin# ./sendmail
sendmail: fatal: unable to run qmail-inject
qmail-inject is present! :((
Best Regards,
Luca Pescatore
_ _ ___
| \ / __| Luca Pescatore . Unix Sysadm & Network Manager
| \__ \ Network&Solutions Srl . Via Resegone 11 . Arese (Mi) . ITALY
|_\_,___/Srl Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Phone: +39-02-9383575
Luca Pescatore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hi,
> when i try to execute sendmail i get that error :
>
>server:/var/qmail/bin# ./sendmail
>sendmail: fatal: unable to run qmail-inject
>
>qmail-inject is present! :((
"unable to run qmail-inject" doesn't mean "qmail-inject is not
present"
For example, is the qmail-inject file executable? Is it a valid,
properly functioning binary? Can you run it directly?
Do you have a truss/trace/strace/par command you can use to trace the
system calls executed by "sendmail"?
-Dave
I'm in the process of setting up configurable autoresponders for
our customers. We have a qmail (1.01) environment with about 5000 virtual
domains on a POP host.
Customers are grouped by customer handles (chd) POP-Boxes are named
by <chd>nnn where "nnn" is a incrementing number (this is historical
from pre-qmail, I couldn't change that when migrating to qmail for
IMHO obvious reasons).
Directory-Layout:
..../<chd>
..../<chd>/DOMAINS/
..../<chd>/DOMAINS/example.com/
..../<chd>/DOMAINS/example.com/.qmail-user1
-> ..../<chd>/<chd>001/
..../<chd>/DOMAINS/example.com/.qmail-user2
-> ..../<chd>/<chd>001/
..../<chd>/<chd>001/Maildir/
..../<chd>/<chd>002/Maildir/
I'm planning to add an extra directory tree
..../<chd>/AUTO/
..../<chd>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/auto.txt
..../<chd>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/auto.db
..../<chd>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/auto.txt
..../<chd>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/auto.db
And users can then en/disable autoresonders and alter the auto.txt via
a web interface.
So far so good :-)
My problem is, if there exists e.g. a
.qmail-user1-default
and the user wants an autoresponder I have problems mapping it to
..../<chd>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/auto.txt
from the ENV-variables I get from qmail.
Any ideas or would I have to rebuild the qmail algorithm and test
for the existance of the ..../<chd>/AUTO/*@example.com directories?
Thanks,
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
Sorry folx, sometimes Wednesday afternoons are like early Monday mornings ...
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 06:20:02PM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> from the ENV-variables I get from qmail.
>
> Any ideas or would I have to rebuild the qmail algorithm and test
> for the existance of the ..../<chd>/AUTO/*@example.com directories?
I don't need any ENV variables, the info I need is the parameter to the
vacation program *sigh*
Sorry again,
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
Hi Dave and Scott
>I do:
> svc -d /var/supervise/qmail-smtpd
> svc -t /var/supervise/qmail-send
> svc -u /var/supervise/qmail-smtpd
I like that one better. If I put all three lines in a script called qrestart, it
should work, shouldn't it? Provided the /var/supervise in your example is the same as
the default /var/run/qmail directory??
Cheers
Ralf
Hello all,
I have some remote servers using a 33.6 dialup for smtp,http,ftp and
whenever qmail-pop3 starts up, it cannot resolve the hostname, ergo the
pop3deamon dosen't work.
can I put the domain on the command line or must is use the DNSlookup as
it currently is?
Thanks
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
Ph. 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> How do you know it runs fine ?
Ok, I guess it is not running "fine". However it is bouncing mail back to
me.
> Have you followed the instruction ?
yes.
> Are you installed it using .rpm or from .gz ?
.gz
Brian.
> On 18 May 99, at 15:38, Brian Moon wrote:
>
> > hi, new to the list. I just installed qmail on my Solaris 2.6 box. It
is
> > running fine and bouncing messages. I can not however get anything out
of
> > it. No mail is appearing. it is not bouncing, it just doesn't seem to
be
> > going anywhere. thanks for the help.
> >
> > Brian.
> > ------------------------------
> > http://brian.threadnet.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Have a nice day,
>
> Regards,
>
> Sobari Tanuwijaya
> looking for metal chair ?
> Why don't stop by at our web
> http://chitose-indonesia.com or http://www.chitose.co.id
>
Does anything show up in the qmail log file, if so please can you post a
sample here (or email me)?
Brian Moon wrote:
> > How do you know it runs fine ?
>
> Ok, I guess it is not running "fine". However it is bouncing mail back to
> me.
>
> > Have you followed the instruction ?
>
> yes.
>
> > Are you installed it using .rpm or from .gz ?
>
> .gz
>
> Brian.
>
> > On 18 May 99, at 15:38, Brian Moon wrote:
> >
> > > hi, new to the list. I just installed qmail on my Solaris 2.6 box. It
> is
> > > running fine and bouncing messages. I can not however get anything out
> of
> > > it. No mail is appearing. it is not bouncing, it just doesn't seem to
> be
> > > going anywhere. thanks for the help.
> > >
> > > Brian.
> > > ------------------------------
> > > http://brian.threadnet.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Have a nice day,
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sobari Tanuwijaya
> > looking for metal chair ?
> > Why don't stop by at our web
> > http://chitose-indonesia.com or http://www.chitose.co.id
> >
Look for "mail.*" in the file /etc/syslog.conf. Then check the last 20-30 lines
or which look something like these:
May 19 21:50:08 localhost qmail: 927143408.951531 running
May 19 21:50:12 localhost qmail: 927143412.421693 new msg 313551
May 19 21:50:12 localhost qmail: 927143412.422017 info msg 313551: bytes 224
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 3861 uid 0
May 19 21:50:12 localhost qmail: 927143412.509703 starting delivery 1: msg
313551 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 19 21:50:13 localhost qmail: 927143413.673811 delivery 1: success:
did_0+0+0/
A good idea is to run "tail -30 logfile", where logfile is the name of the
logfile. Esp. check for occurencies of "failure" or "deferral" in the qmail
logs.
Brian Moon wrote:
> Well, I can not find the quail log file.
>
> Brian.
> ------------------------------
> http://brian.threadnet.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Brian Moon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Help getting qmail to work.
>
> > Does anything show up in the qmail log file, if so please can you post a
> > sample here (or email me)?
> >
> > Brian Moon wrote:
> >
> > > > How do you know it runs fine ?
> > >
> > > Ok, I guess it is not running "fine". However it is bouncing mail back
> to
> > > me.
> > >
> > > > Have you followed the instruction ?
> > >
> > > yes.
> > >
> > > > Are you installed it using .rpm or from .gz ?
> > >
> > > .gz
> > >
> > > Brian.
> > >
> > > > On 18 May 99, at 15:38, Brian Moon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > hi, new to the list. I just installed qmail on my Solaris 2.6 box.
> It
> > > is
> > > > > running fine and bouncing messages. I can not however get anything
> out
> > > of
> > > > > it. No mail is appearing. it is not bouncing, it just doesn't seem
> to
> > > be
> > > > > going anywhere. thanks for the help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian.
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > http://brian.threadnet.com
> > > > >
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.633680 new msg 32376
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.635340 info msg 32376: bytes 1235
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2135 uid 102
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.705775 starting delivery 82: msg
32376 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.707170 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.808022 delivery 82: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.844514 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.958575 bounce msg 32376 qp 2138
May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.979978 end msg 32376
May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.028874 new msg 32377
May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.030245 info msg 32377: bytes 1766
from <> qp 2138 uid 107
May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.097052 starting delivery 83: msg
32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.098124 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.587327 delivery 83: success:
209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_KAA22283_Message_acc
epted_for_delivery/
May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.603808 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.605089 end msg 32377
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.244913 new msg 32376
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.246572 info msg 32376: bytes 1359
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2372 uid 102
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.325313 starting delivery 84: msg
32376 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.326695 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.447936 delivery 84: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.480715 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.594673 bounce msg 32376 qp 2375
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.616083 end msg 32376
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.673425 new msg 32377
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.674651 info msg 32377: bytes 1889
from <> qp 2375 uid 107
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.749806 starting delivery 85: msg
32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.750961 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
May 19 14:59:57 sun00713 qmail: 927140397.785391 delivery 85: success:
209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_PAA22915_Message_acc
epted_for_delivery/
May 19 14:59:57 sun00713 qmail: 927140397.830569 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
May 19 14:59:57 sun00713 qmail: 927140397.831852 end msg 32377
brian.
BTW, I found this in /var/log/syslog
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! It appears to me that you haven't set up any
of those users that you are trying to send messages to. Check if users "brian"
or "phorum" exist. Another problem might be that the users exist, but the
mailboxes don't.
Have you read the install doc INSTALL.mbox or whatever it's called?
Brian Moon wrote:
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.633680 new msg 32376
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.635340 info msg 32376: bytes 1235
> from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2135 uid 102
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.705775 starting delivery 82: msg
> 32376 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.707170 status: local 1/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.808022 delivery 82: failure:
> Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.844514 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.958575 bounce msg 32376 qp 2138
> May 19 10:45:57 sun00713 qmail: 927125157.979978 end msg 32376
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.028874 new msg 32377
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.030245 info msg 32377: bytes 1766
> from <> qp 2138 uid 107
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.097052 starting delivery 83: msg
> 32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.098124 status: local 0/10 remote
> 1/20
> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.587327 delivery 83: success:
> 209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_KAA22283_Message_acc
> epted_for_delivery/
> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.603808 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.605089 end msg 32377
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.244913 new msg 32376
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.246572 info msg 32376: bytes 1359
> from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2372 uid 102
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.325313 starting delivery 84: msg
> 32376 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.326695 status: local 1/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.447936 delivery 84: failure:
> Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.480715 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.594673 bounce msg 32376 qp 2375
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.616083 end msg 32376
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.673425 new msg 32377
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.674651 info msg 32377: bytes 1889
> from <> qp 2375 uid 107
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.749806 starting delivery 85: msg
> 32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> May 19 14:59:55 sun00713 qmail: 927140395.750961 status: local 0/10 remote
> 1/20
> May 19 14:59:57 sun00713 qmail: 927140397.785391 delivery 85: success:
> 209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_PAA22915_Message_acc
> epted_for_delivery/
> May 19 14:59:57 sun00713 qmail: 927140397.830569 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 14:59:57 sun00713 qmail: 927140397.831852 end msg 32377
>
> brian.
>
> BTW, I found this in /var/log/syslog
As a matter of fact no they do not. Those are my bounces. What I am
interested in is:
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.028874 new msg 32377
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.030245 info msg 32377: bytes
1766
> from <> qp 2138 uid 107
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.097052 starting delivery 83: msg
> 32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.098124 status: local 0/10 remote
> 1/20
> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.587327 delivery 83: success:
>
209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_KAA22283_Message_acc
> epted_for_delivery/
> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.603808 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.605089 end msg 32377
Where is this one?
Brian.
------------------------------
http://brian.threadnet.com
Are you 100% sure they have not arrived at that mailbox [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Does it work sending to that address the way you usually send emails?
If you have access to the mail server for ultra-design.com, try checking the
logs on that machine. If not, I'm afraid I'm running out of ideas.....
Brian Moon wrote:
> As a matter of fact no they do not. Those are my bounces. What I am
> interested in is:
>
> > May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.028874 new msg 32377
> > May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.030245 info msg 32377: bytes
> 1766
> > from <> qp 2138 uid 107
> > May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.097052 starting delivery 83: msg
> > 32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.098124 status: local 0/10 remote
> > 1/20
> > May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.587327 delivery 83: success:
> >
> 209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_KAA22283_Message_acc
> > epted_for_delivery/
> > May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.603808 status: local 0/10 remote
> > 0/20
> > May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.605089 end msg 32377
>
> Where is this one?
>
> Brian.
> ------------------------------
> http://brian.threadnet.com
"Brian Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> May 19 10:45:58 sun00713 qmail: 927125158.097052 starting delivery 83: msg
>> 32377 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> May 19 10:46:08 sun00713 qmail: 927125168.587327 delivery 83: success:
>> 209.113.253.214_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_KAA22283_Message_acc
>> epted_for_delivery/
>
>Where is this one?
An MX lookup on ultra-design.com reveals that spinal.ultra-design.com
(209.113.253.214) is the preferred mail exchanger. Your log shows that
209.113.253.214 accepted the message. By doing so, according to RFC821
(SMTP), it has committed itself to delivering the message.
Short answer: it was delivered.
Where did it end up? Ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] Provide the time
stamps and message identifier (KAA22283) so he can check his
(sendmail) logs.
-Dave
Hi all,
I'm having a problem compiling qmail v.1.00 on Linux Red Hat 5.2. This
is what I get:
# make
cat warn-auto.sh conf-cc.sh make-cmds.sh > make-commands
chmod 755 make-commands
cat warn-auto.sh conf-cc.sh find-systype.sh > find-systype
chmod 755 find-systype
./find-systype > systype
./make-commands "`cat ./systype`" compile > compile
chmod 755 compile
./make-commands "`cat ./systype`" load > load
chmod 755 load
( ( ./compile tryvfork.c && ./load tryvfork ) >/dev/null 2>&1 \
&& cat fork.h2 || cat fork.h1 ) > fork.h
rm -f tryvfork.o tryvfork
[snip]
./compile qmail-home.c
./load qmail-home libsubstdio.a liballoc.a liberror.a libstr.a \
libfs.a
./compile qmail-inject.c
./compile hfield.c
./compile newfield.c
./compile date822fmt.c
./compile token822.c
./compile control.c
./compile headerbody.c
./load qmail-inject hfield.o newfield.o datetime.o \
date822fmt.o now.o signal.o quote.o token822.o control.o \
headerbody.o qqtalk.o libenv.a libgetopt.a libgetline.a \
libfd.a \
libwait.a \
libopen.a \
libsubstdio.a libstralloc.a liballoc.a liberror.a libstr.a libfs.a
/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0x36): undefined reference to `main'
make: *** [qmail-inject] Error 1
Anyone know what this is and how to fix it?
Cheers
Fred
Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm having a problem compiling qmail v.1.00 on Linux Red Hat 5.2.
1.00 is ancient. It'll work, but you should install 1.03.
>./load qmail-inject hfield.o newfield.o datetime.o \
>date822fmt.o now.o signal.o quote.o token822.o control.o \
>headerbody.o qqtalk.o libenv.a libgetopt.a libgetline.a \
>libfd.a \
>libwait.a \
>libopen.a \
>libsubstdio.a libstralloc.a liballoc.a liberror.a libstr.a libfs.a
>/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0x36): undefined reference to `main'
>make: *** [qmail-inject] Error 1
>
>Anyone know what this is and how to fix it?
Sounds like your compiler and/or libraries aren't installed
correctly. Either way, it's a Red Hat problem, not a qmail problem, so
you might want to ask a bunch of Red Hat experts.
Have you ever compiled a program successfully on this box at 5.2? Did
you upgrade to 5.2, or was it a fresh install?
-Dave
Dave Sill wrote:
> >Yes I have compiled the same bunch of sources successfuly on my machine,
> >and I doubt it's the hacks/patches as they work perfectly on a Solaris
> >(and they _did_ work on my Linux). No Linux os or software upgrades since
> >last successful compilation. I totally love qmail, so I'm not saying it's
> >a qmail problem....might be Linux, but then why did it work before and
> >not now?
>
> Did you copy the build tree from another system or are you building
> from the virgin tarball? If the former, which your comment above re:
> hacks and patches leds to believe is the case, then maybe you carries
> over some .o files from an incompatible system. Did you do a "make
> clean" first? If so, make sure it removed all the *.o's, *.a's and
> binaries.
I'm beginning to feel stupid. There's a new problem now!
I copied the system as a tarball from a Solaris 2.5.1. Tarball contained only
*.c and *.h and Makefile, which just made me realise that perhaps the *.sh
files are differing between the two systems, so I just tried making a new
tarball, and I got a new compile problem now:
# make
[snip]
( ./compile trysalen.c >/dev/null 2>&1 \
&& echo \#define HASSALEN 1 || exit 0 ) > auto-hassalen.h
rm -f trysalen.o
./compile ipme.c
./compile ip.c
./compile tcpto.c
./compile ipalloc.c
./compile timeoutread.c
./compile timeoutwrite.c
./compile timeoutconn.c
./make-commands "`cat ./systype`" loaddns > loaddns
chmod 755 loaddns
./loaddns qmail-remote signal.o control.o dns.o ipme.o ip.o \
tcpto.o lock.o ndelay.o ipalloc.o now.o \
quote.o timeoutread.o timeoutwrite.o timeoutconn.o constmap.o \
libseek.a \
libcase.a \
libopen.a \
libgetline.a libstralloc.a libsubstdio.a liballoc.a liberror.a \
libstr.a libfs.a
dns.o: In function `resolve':
dns.o(.text+0x1bd): undefined reference to `dn_expand'
dns.o: In function `findname':
dns.o(.text+0x258): undefined reference to `dn_expand'
dns.o(.text+0x2c7): undefined reference to `dn_expand'
dns.o: In function `findip':
dns.o(.text+0x33c): undefined reference to `dn_expand'
dns.o: In function `findmx':
dns.o(.text+0x430): undefined reference to `dn_expand'
dns.o(.text+0x4c1): more undefined references to `dn_expand' follow
dns.o: In function `dns_init':
dns.o(.text+0x50a): undefined reference to `res_search'
dns.o(.data+0x10): undefined reference to `res_query'
make: *** [qmail-remote] Error 1
[root@localhost qmail-1.00]#
Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I copied the system as a tarball from a Solaris 2.5.1. Tarball contained only
>*.c and *.h and Makefile,
That's not enough--it misses some important files.
>which just made me realise that perhaps the *.sh
>files are differing between the two systems, so I just tried making a new
>tarball, and I got a new compile problem now:
That's still not enough. Grab *everything*, copy it to the Linux box,
do a "make clean", verify that all the *.o's and *.a's are gone, and
follow the INSTALL directions.
-Dave
Dave,
Actually it turned out to be those missing *.sh files! The dn_expand problem was
easily fixed and after that the whole thing compiled without any problems! I
probably hacked the *.sh files too and forgot about it (it's been two years ago
since I started).
Anyway, thanks a lot for helping me! And nice job on "Life with qmail" - got
something to read now when I go to bed :-)
cheers
Fred
Dave Sill wrote:
> Fred Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I copied the system as a tarball from a Solaris 2.5.1. Tarball contained only
> >*.c and *.h and Makefile,
>
> That's not enough--it misses some important files.
>
> >which just made me realise that perhaps the *.sh
> >files are differing between the two systems, so I just tried making a new
> >tarball, and I got a new compile problem now:
>
> That's still not enough. Grab *everything*, copy it to the Linux box,
> do a "make clean", verify that all the *.o's and *.a's are gone, and
> follow the INSTALL directions.
>
> -Dave
Fred Backman writes:
> I'm beginning to feel stupid. There's a new problem now!
>
> I copied the system as a tarball from a Solaris 2.5.1. Tarball contained only
> *.c and *.h and Makefile, which just made me realise that perhaps the *.sh
> files are differing between the two systems, so I just tried making a new
> tarball, and I got a new compile problem now:
Why the hell are you screwing around like that, when it will only take a
minute or so to download the original source code tarball?
--
Sam
I've written a manual for qmail called "Life with qmail". It's not
100% finished, but there's enough there that it's useful. The idea was
to put together a one-stop guide for qmail that binds all of the
available documentation and web pages into one place. It doesn't
duplicate everything in the man pages and other documents: it
describes them on a high level and points to them via links and
references.
I don't see "Life with qmail" as competing with the upcoming book. The
book will contain a lot more information, but will be on paper, and
won't be free. "Life with qmail" will be smaller, but free (GPL) and
electronic (hypertext, searchable). Text, Postscript, PDF, and POD
versions will be made available once it's complete.
Comments, criticism, suggestions, and contributions are welcome.
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
-Dave
Hi Dave,
Thanks - Looks great! I'll print it out when I get to work.
Dave Sill wrote:
>
> I've written a manual for qmail called "Life with qmail". It's not
> 100% finished, but there's enough there that it's useful. The idea was
...
> Comments, criticism, suggestions, and contributions are welcome.
>
> http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
>
> -Dave
--
Eddie
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/eirvine/index.html
________________________________________________
Hi!
I'm setting up a mailserver with alot of virtual domains.
Maildelevery is controlled by users/assign with lines like:
=wiktor-dk-badpixel:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/wiktor-dk/badpixel:::
But how do i create aliases? And mailinglists (ezmlm)? users/assign is
generated from a perlscript with info from our sqldatabase with userinfo.
TIA,
--
michael legart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] muuuh.
Do I have to setup the user with qmail? I read Install.mbox again. I have
no boxes in /var/spool/mail. I do not even have a dir by that name. The
closest I have is /var/spool/mqueue
Brian.
------------------------------
http://brian.threadnet.com
Hey, I'm pretty new to qmail but love it so far. Unfortunately I have 1
minor issue with it.
Everytime a user sends a message to aol.com, I get
May 19 13:27:07 mail qmail: 927134827.225231 starting delivery 2: msg 69468
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 19 13:27:07 mail qmail: 927134827.225670 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
May 19 13:27:13 mail qmail: 927134833.032636 delivery 2: deferral:
CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
Is there an easy way to get around this? I have just noticed this, but it
has been going on since I setup the mail server. One of my users just got a
bounce from a message that was sent over a MONTH ago!
> Hey, I'm pretty new to qmail but love it so far. Unfortunately I have 1
> minor issue with it.
> Everytime a user sends a message to aol.com, I get
> May 19 13:27:07 mail qmail: 927134827.225231 starting delivery 2: msg
69468
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> May 19 13:27:07 mail qmail: 927134827.225670 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
> May 19 13:27:13 mail qmail: 927134833.032636 delivery 2: deferral:
> CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
>
> Is there an easy way to get around this? I have just noticed this, but it
> has been going on since I setup the mail server. One of my users just got
a
> bounce from a message that was sent over a MONTH ago!
Yup, search the archives for "oversized DNS" and check out the patch on
www.qmail.org described as:
"Chuck Foster has a patch which works on both qmail's dns.c and tcpserver's
dns.c which make them work with oversize DNS packets."
There's another patch which does something similar, but I believe it's
mentioned in the archives and not on the qmail page.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Everytime a user sends a message to aol.com, I get [...]
>> deferral: CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
>> Is there an easy way to get around this?
> Yup, search the archives for "oversized DNS" and check out the patch on
> www.qmail.org described as:
> "Chuck Foster has a patch which works on both qmail's dns.c and tcpserver's
> dns.c which make them work with oversize DNS packets."
> There's another patch which does something similar, but I believe it's
> mentioned in the archives and not on the qmail page.
There are, AFAIK, three patches that fix this bug.
1. Just bump the packet buffer size up to 65536.
Works with recent BIND resolver libraries, which will automatically
do a TCP query within the library code if the reply comes back with
the truncation bit set. This is the simplest fix, though it's also
the most wasteful of memory (and/or swap space allocation, depending
on how your system does copy-on-write and its page size and so on).
2. Chuck Foster's patch <URL:http://www.qmail.org/big-dns-patch>.
This patch dynamically reallocates the buffer based on the size
returned by the resolver library (repeating as necessary to make
it big enough). This also requires resolver libraries that do the
TCP retry, and might have problems if the resolver code returns
the number of bytes placed in the buffer instead of the number of
bytes in the full response (though I've never seen this behavior,
I vaguely recall someone saying they'd seen it).
3. My patch <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/qmail-103.patch>.
This is an adaptation of Chuck Foster's patch (see #2) which should
work with any resolver library, no matter how old, and uses a guard
byte to avoid the "number of bytes placed in the buffer" library
bug. It reallocates only once, to 65536, rather than just to the
size needed, so it can be less memory-efficient than Chuck's patch
(though like his patch it only reallocates if the response is larger
than PACKETSZ, which defaults to 512 bytes). After reallocating, it
forces a TCP query, rather than requiring the resolver library to do
so (avoiding an extra round-trip between qmail and the name server,
though if they're on the same machine or local network this is not a
big worry).
Since last time this question came up (also regarding AOL), there was a
question as to why some people didn't have trouble reaching it, I would
also like to explain that. Basically, depending on the timing and
ordering of queries made to your local nameserver, the size of the
response to an ANY query for "aol.com" may be larger than the 512 byte
limit of a UDP packet, or it may not.
"May not" is likely to happen if the A and MX records time out but the
NS records don't; since the .COM servers set a 2 day TTL on those but
AOL sets a 1 hour TTL on their records, this will often happen on lower
traffic nameservers. Higher traffic nameservers are more likely to
have those records in cache at any given time, frustrating an unpatched
qmail's attempts to check for CNAMEs.
A better test is to send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; if it
clears your queue and winds up bouncing from here, your MTA can send
mail to hosts with MX lists that exceed 512 bytes. (By using a single
RRset with a single TTL that exceeds 512 bytes, the problem can be seen
without depending on the timing and ordering of other queries.)
--
Christopher Davis * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/>
Put location information in your DNS! <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/dns-loc/>
"Tim Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Everytime a user sends a message to aol.com, I get ...
| CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
|
| Is there an easy way to get around this? I have just noticed this, but it
| has been going on since I setup the mail server. One of my users just got a
| bounce from a message that was sent over a MONTH ago!
Yes, there's a simple fix. Change line 24 of dns.c from
static union { HEADER hdr; unsigned char buf[PACKETSZ]; } response;
to
static union { HEADER hdr; unsigned char buf[1<<15]; } response;
Notice that this doesn't increase the working set of any part of qmail
by more than one page, since unneeded pages are never touched. More
complex solutions have been proposed which involve dynamic memory
allocation and more queries of DNS, all of which cost something too.
Christopher K Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| ... This is the simplest fix, though it's also
| the most wasteful of memory (and/or swap space allocation, depending
| on how your system does copy-on-write and its page size and so on).
I don't think copy-on-write is a factor. Demand paging, like every
Unix has had for years and years and years should take care of the
whole issue. If you don't touch a page, it doesn't consume RAM, just
backing store, which is not in short supply.
> From: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:05:36 -0500
> Reply-to: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Priority: Normal
> Subject: Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
> What do you think of that ???
I think the "Red Hat Linux release 5.2 (Apollo) Kernel 2.0.36 on an
i686" and the "FortKnox Proxy Telnet (Version 4.0)", and the "FortKnox
Proxy Transparent FTP (Version 4.0)" and others are all messed up.
Try telnetting to mailhost.temex.fr, ports 21 and 25 using Windows'
telnet and you'll see why... :-)
> As I complained to sorena (the editor of ZMailer) of errors 500
> generated when there was a connection in between Qmail and Zmailer,
> here was their answer... Any idea ?
>
> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
> >
> >yep, it is definite, QMAIL violates RFC 2197, and should *NOT*
> >claim support for PIPELINING.
> >
> >MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BODY=8BITMIME
> >RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >250 ok
> >250 ok
> >
> >After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT
> >To:", but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after
> >"RCPT To:" processing. /Matti Aarnio
Regards,
Andrzej Kukula
Has anyone successfully used ssh to provide a secure channel
for POP3 authentication?
Actually, I'm looking for a more general case of secure
checkpassword authentication for any tcpserver app.
--
John White johnjohn
at
triceratops.com
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
I am sorry if this has been touched on before, but after going through a
plethora of messages, I have been unable to find what I am looking for.
I am trying to set up multiple domains with multiple aliases. For example:
Joe B. has a login of joeb and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet Joe
H. has a login in as joeh and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
I am able to set alias so that Any mail sent to joe at any domain will go to
whoever I choose. I just can not get it to where I can have the same alias
name with different domains and still keep the mail separated. I am
currently using the .qmail-joe format for my alias forwards and then put in
the addresses that accept that mail. How do I set it up so that the mail for
the joe alias from the domain foo.com only goes to the joeb account????
Any help is greatly appreciated as I am pulling hair out on this one.
Sincerely,
Michael Hamson
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Michael wrote:
>I am sorry if this has been touched on before, but after going through a
>plethora of messages, I have been unable to find what I am looking for.
np, were here to help =)
>
>I am trying to set up multiple domains with multiple aliases. For example:
>Joe B. has a login of joeb and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet Joe
>H. has a login in as joeh and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
This is very very simple to do. What you want to do is set up your virtual
domains like normal, and make sure neither domain is in the 'locals' file,
that way the /var/qmail/alias directory is to be checked.
Add an acocunt for joeb
Add an account for joeh
on the machine locally, or on any other machine that you plan to have them
check pop mail from.
Now, in the /var/qmail/alias directory, create two files.
.qmail-foo-joe
containing:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
.qmail-foobar-joe
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make sure that you add these domains to the virtualhosts file too.
>
>I am able to set alias so that Any mail sent to joe at any domain will go to
>whoever I choose. I just can not get it to where I can have the same alias
>name with different domains and still keep the mail separated. I am
>currently using the .qmail-joe format for my alias forwards and then put in
>the addresses that accept that mail. How do I set it up so that the mail for
>the joe alias from the domain foo.com only goes to the joeb account????
>
>Any help is greatly appreciated as I am pulling hair out on this one.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Michael Hamson
>
>
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
10:00pm up 104 days, 5:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.07
hmmm... we tried your steps.. but seem the mail bounces if we do not have
our locals.... sigh.... we have been mussing with this for the last two
months (sad to say) and have tried everything that we have and even tried to
experiment.... we almost think its a bug.... but that does not seem likely
since it works for other people.
-Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple Domains with Aliases
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> >I am sorry if this has been touched on before, but after going through a
> >plethora of messages, I have been unable to find what I am looking for.
>
> np, were here to help =)
>
> >
> >I am trying to set up multiple domains with multiple aliases. For
example:
> >Joe B. has a login of joeb and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet
Joe
> >H. has a login in as joeh and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
> This is very very simple to do. What you want to do is set up your virtual
> domains like normal, and make sure neither domain is in the 'locals' file,
> that way the /var/qmail/alias directory is to be checked.
>
> Add an acocunt for joeb
> Add an account for joeh
>
> on the machine locally, or on any other machine that you plan to have them
> check pop mail from.
>
> Now, in the /var/qmail/alias directory, create two files.
>
> .qmail-foo-joe
>
> containing:
>
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> and
>
> .qmail-foobar-joe
>
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Make sure that you add these domains to the virtualhosts file too.
>
> >
> >I am able to set alias so that Any mail sent to joe at any domain will go
to
> >whoever I choose. I just can not get it to where I can have the same
alias
> >name with different domains and still keep the mail separated. I am
> >currently using the .qmail-joe format for my alias forwards and then put
in
> >the addresses that accept that mail. How do I set it up so that the mail
for
> >the joe alias from the domain foo.com only goes to the joeb account????
> >
> >Any help is greatly appreciated as I am pulling hair out on this one.
> >
> >
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Michael Hamson
> >
> >
>
> _ __ _____ __ _________
> ______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
> __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
> _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
> /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
> [---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
> 10:00pm up 104 days, 5:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.07
>
>
works fine for me. Would you be willing to give me a shell account on the
machine so i can verify your settings?
What bounce shows up?
Did you make sure to put the domain in the 'virtualdomains' file?
Did you kill -HUP the qmail-send daemon?
Do the local counts exist?
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Michael wrote:
>hmmm... we tried your steps.. but seem the mail bounces if we do not have
>our locals.... sigh.... we have been mussing with this for the last two
>months (sad to say) and have tried everything that we have and even tried to
>experiment.... we almost think its a bug.... but that does not seem likely
>since it works for other people.
>
>-Michael
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 9:03 PM
>Subject: Re: Multiple Domains with Aliases
>
>
>> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Michael wrote:
>>
>> >I am sorry if this has been touched on before, but after going through a
>> >plethora of messages, I have been unable to find what I am looking for.
>>
>> np, were here to help =)
>>
>> >
>> >I am trying to set up multiple domains with multiple aliases. For
>example:
>> >Joe B. has a login of joeb and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet
>Joe
>> >H. has a login in as joeh and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>>
>> This is very very simple to do. What you want to do is set up your virtual
>> domains like normal, and make sure neither domain is in the 'locals' file,
>> that way the /var/qmail/alias directory is to be checked.
>>
>> Add an acocunt for joeb
>> Add an account for joeh
>>
>> on the machine locally, or on any other machine that you plan to have them
>> check pop mail from.
>>
>> Now, in the /var/qmail/alias directory, create two files.
>>
>> .qmail-foo-joe
>>
>> containing:
>>
>> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> and
>>
>> .qmail-foobar-joe
>>
>> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Make sure that you add these domains to the virtualhosts file too.
>>
>> >
>> >I am able to set alias so that Any mail sent to joe at any domain will go
>to
>> >whoever I choose. I just can not get it to where I can have the same
>alias
>> >name with different domains and still keep the mail separated. I am
>> >currently using the .qmail-joe format for my alias forwards and then put
>in
>> >the addresses that accept that mail. How do I set it up so that the mail
>for
>> >the joe alias from the domain foo.com only goes to the joeb account????
>> >
>> >Any help is greatly appreciated as I am pulling hair out on this one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Sincerely,
>> >
>> >Michael Hamson
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _ __ _____ __ _________
>> ______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
>> __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
>> _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
>> /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
>> [---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
>> 10:00pm up 104 days, 5:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.07
>>
>>
>
>
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
11:25pm up 104 days, 6:28, 3 users, load average: 0.83, 0.26, 0.13
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Michael wrote:
>
> >I am trying to set up multiple domains with multiple aliases. For
> example:
> Joe B. has a login of joeb and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet
> Joe H. has a login in as joeh and an email address of - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Repeating and summarizing several different solutions:
SOLVING THE PROBLEM WITH VIRTUALDOMAINS - THE ALIAS WAY
=======================================================
1. Domain handling
Put the all the domains in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts like this:
foobar.net
foo.net
and in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains put this:
foobar.net:alias-foobar
foo.com:alias-foo
DO NOT put the domains in locals if you have them in virtualdomains!
2. Create aliases
Now all mail to foobar.net is handled by ~alias/.qmail-foobar-*
which means that you can create a ~alias/.qmail-foobar-joe and put
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in this file. And with this in mind it is easy to understand that
foo.com is handled by ~alias/.qmail-foo-* and you can now construct
a file ~alias/.qmail-foo-joe where you put
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(in this case popserver.net could be handled by the same machine - e.g.
in locals and the users joeb and joeh can be regular users of the
machine)
3. Finally
give qmail-send a kill -HUP
SOLVING THE PROBLEM WITH VIRTUALDOMAINS - THE ONE DOMAIN PER USER WAY
=====================================================================
This is very similar to the previous solution, but is a common one for
servers where domain-owner-users reside.
1. Domain handling
Put the all the domains in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts like this:
foobar.net
foo.net
and in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains put this:
foobar.net:joeh
foo.com:joeb
DO NOT put the domains in locals if you have them in virtualdomains!
2. Create aliases
Now all mail to foobar.net is handled by ~joeh/.qmail-*
which means that you can create a ~joeh/.qmail-joe and put
./Maildir/
or whatever delivery joeh wants. And as with all other examples it
follows that foo.com is handled by ~joeb/.qmail-* and you can construct
a file ~joeb/.qmail-joe where you put
./Mailbox
or whatever delivery joeb is pleased with.
3. Finally
give qmail-send a kill -HUP
[NOTE: Worthwhile to know is that if the localhost is named
popserver.net then [EMAIL PROTECTED] is ALSO delivered to
~joeb/.qmail-joe]
SOLVING THE PROBLEM WITH LOCALS
===============================
0. Install the fastforward package
(http://pobox.com/~djb/fastforward.html)
1. Domain handling
put the all the domains in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts like this:
foobar.net
foo.com
and in /var/qmail/control/locals put this:
foobar.net
foo.com
DO NOT put the domains in virtualdomains if you have them in locals!
2. Create aliases
Now all mail is handled by local users and finally by the user "alias".
And all aliases that are not explicitily "~alias/.qmail-*" is
delivered to fastforward through ~alias/.qmail-default.
Therefore:
put this in /etc/aliases
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:joeh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:joeb
3. Finally
give qmail-send a kill -HUP and run /var/qmail/bin/newaliases
(See further the documentation for fastforward)
[
NOTE that both users still have these addresses, as the mail for the
domains is handled locally:
joeh: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AND [EMAIL PROTECTED]
joeb: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AND [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
Sincerely,
magnus bodin
--
"MOST USELESS site of the year 1998" --> http://x42.com/urlcalc/
Hey! 32Bits has an interview with Eric Raymond.
Just wanted to let everyone know. It's very good.
I think the site is at www.32bitsonline.com
