qmail Digest 3 Jul 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 690
Topics (messages 27465 through 27550):
Howto
27465 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27469 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27471 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27472 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27473 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27474 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27478 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27479 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27480 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27481 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27482 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27483 by: "Durham, Kenneth J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27484 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27490 by: "Paul J. Schinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27493 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27494 by: "Durham, Kenneth J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27496 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27501 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27502 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27507 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27509 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27515 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27518 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27519 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27521 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27530 by: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27531 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27532 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27534 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27536 by: Asmodeus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27541 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27544 by: "Jason Brooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
databytes
27466 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27467 by: Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
autoconf?
27468 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27475 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27492 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27495 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27516 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27543 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local mail server
27470 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27537 by: Robbie Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What's the syslogd replacement called?
27476 by: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27477 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27538 by: Robbie Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"rcpthosts may include wildcards"
27485 by: Dave Kitabjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27486 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
memphis rpm(Re: Howto)
27487 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
New qmail list et al
27488 by: Dirk Harms-Merbitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Behaviour of qmail about not valid "Mail from:" adresses
27489 by: Diego Puertas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27491 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
info
27497 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27499 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27504 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27520 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is Qmail MAPI 2.0 compliant?
27498 by: Ritchie Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27500 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27542 by: Robbie Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
untopical (Re: Howto)
27503 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Serialmail won't run from cron
27505 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27508 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail List Attitude
27506 by: Kevin King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27539 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27546 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Off topic - What is GFY?
27510 by: "McGinnis, Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27513 by: Vern Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27514 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27533 by: "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27535 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-unsubscribe
27511 by: Jhirley Fonte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I get to be offline for a week!
27512 by: "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
newbie question - aol cname failure patch
27517 by: "Solomon B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27540 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail/tcpserver problem
27522 by: "Johan Van Gompel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27523 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27524 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27525 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27526 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27527 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27528 by: "Johan Van Gompel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27529 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27545 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Strange problem
27547 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27548 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail/tcpserver problem - solved!
27549 by: Johan Van Gompel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(#5.7.1) ???
27550 by: "Oden Eriksson" <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any competent system administrator needs to know the syntax that the base networking daemons on his operating system use, and if he doesn't know the syntax, he should at least know where to look it up." Adam > inetd/xinetd/tcpd and anything running under them > sunrpc (nfsd, statd, lockd, etc.) > portmap > tcpserver > named ok, I think we got inetd covered. xinetd (that's not on my system, nor is it listed in LINUX in a nutshell) is it an x version of inetd? "man xinetd" doesn't show anything, any suggestions? tcpd - hmm.. very useful it seems particularly with regard to my telnet server, also it refers to the hosts_access man page, perhaps that's worth including in the list. sunrpc (don't have it - what is it?) nfsd - hmm... I guess it makes sense in order to understand making files public? no? statd (don't have it) lockd (don't have it) etc. (there are more? are they as a class generally removed from Linux as opposed to another version of unix?) portmap (I don't have man entry for it but it doesn't fail if I type it at the command line) is this any relation to reading the /etc/services file? tcpserver - yes, well, it was on my list too. named - oh cool, what would be really useful would be a nice primer on setting up DNS in relation to QMail's virtualhosts facilities, i.e. start to finish make your own mail domain. Currently I use EasyDNS which although easy, is not free. Since your name will be credited as the inspiration for the web page on things you should know before installing QMail, I'd like to have reasons for these, I am not yet knowledgable enough to say anything about xinetd, sunrpc, statd, lockd, portmap. You will also be quoted for the lovely phrase you added in your email "GFY" which I think encapsulates the essence of your writings, a sentiment which pervades your expression. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 6:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Howto > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 05:31:56PM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > > I never said I didn't understand linux. > > You don't. Or any other unix for that matter. > > > I said I don't know what Adam's "basic networking daemons" knowledge of > > which are required to install qmail. > > You appear to like putting words in people's mouths. Even though I know > every other person on this list knew what I meant when I said that, I'll > clarify, just for you: > > Knowledge of the basic networking daemons of any UNIX is required to be a > competent system administrator on that platform. > > These include, but are not limited to: > > inetd/xinetd/tcpd and anything running under them > sunrpc (nfsd, statd, lockd, etc.) > portmap > tcpserver > named > > > Adam's famous "basic networking daemons" that you must > understand to install > > qmail (or something like that, I'll be sure to quote Adam verbatim so > > everyone will give him proper credit) > > GFY > > --Adam >
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 06:31:49AM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > > inetd/xinetd/tcpd and anything running under them > > sunrpc (nfsd, statd, lockd, etc.) > > portmap > > tcpserver > > named > > ok, I think we got inetd covered. > > xinetd (that's not on my system, nor is it listed in LINUX in a nutshell) > is it an x version of inetd? "man xinetd" doesn't show anything, any > suggestions? xinetd is a replacement for inetd. The 'x' is presumably for 'extended', because this one allows for finer control over the daemons it launches. I have heard of a few people using it with qmail. It is not standard on any unix I know of - you have to build it on your computer from source, or install it as a package on systems like FreeBSD. > sunrpc (don't have it - what is it?) RPC - remote procedure call - introduced by Sun in Solaris. Allows one computer to run programs on another computer. I think it was meant to be an enhancement to the BSD r-utilities. > nfsd - hmm... I guess it makes sense in order to understand making files > public? no? > > statd (don't have it) > lockd (don't have it) NFS-related daemons. > portmap (I don't have man entry for it but it doesn't fail if I type it at > the command line) > is this any relation to reading the /etc/services file? Again this is related to Sun's RPC. -- Anand
Ok So, on a web page giving people a list of things they should know (including links to man pages, other web pages etc.) Should the following be included as Sun only? sunrpc, portmap And the NFS daemons, again, are statd and lockd Sun only? Would something like this be reasonable? Linux basic net daemons you need to know for the potential QMail installer. inetd tcpserver named tcpd nfsd SunOS basic net daemons you need to know for the potential QMail installer: inetd xinetd tcpd sunrpc nfsd statd lockd portmap tcpserver named Any online SunOS man pages I can link to? What about other Unix variants. Any suggestions as to a good list of "Adam's basic network daemons" for those systems? I assume you are of the opinion that xinetd is not really necessary (especially since QMail is moving away from inetd altogether) Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Anand Buddhdev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:17 AM > To: Alex Miller > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Howto > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 06:31:49AM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > > > > inetd/xinetd/tcpd and anything running under them > > > sunrpc (nfsd, statd, lockd, etc.) > > > portmap > > > tcpserver > > > named > > > > ok, I think we got inetd covered. > > > > xinetd (that's not on my system, nor is it listed in LINUX in a > nutshell) > > is it an x version of inetd? "man xinetd" doesn't show anything, any > > suggestions? > > xinetd is a replacement for inetd. The 'x' is presumably for 'extended', > because this one allows for finer control over the daemons it launches. I > have heard of a few people using it with qmail. It is not standard on any > unix I know of - you have to build it on your computer from source, or > install it as a package on systems like FreeBSD. > > > sunrpc (don't have it - what is it?) > > RPC - remote procedure call - introduced by Sun in Solaris. Allows one > computer to run programs on another computer. I think it was > meant to be an > enhancement to the BSD r-utilities. > > > nfsd - hmm... I guess it makes sense in order to understand making files > > public? no? > > > > statd (don't have it) > > lockd (don't have it) > > NFS-related daemons. > > > portmap (I don't have man entry for it but it doesn't fail if I > type it at > > the command line) > > is this any relation to reading the /etc/services file? > > Again this is related to Sun's RPC. > > -- > Anand >
"Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yes. Everything I need is on the Internet, well, except for good >documentation -- Have you read "Life with qmail"? If you have, I'd be happy to hear what you think needs improvement. The URL: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html -Dave
"Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Later, recently, Dave Sill pointed out the reason why, which incidentally, >ISN'T yet in the manual, not the inetd manual, nor any qmail manual. Not yet >anyway. Oh yes it is. "Life with qmail", which is *certainly* a qmail manual, says: 4.For a lightly-used POP server, add an entry to /etc/inetd.conf like: pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup hostname.domain /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir Note: Some systems, notably Red Hat Linux, don't call the POP3 port "pop3". Check /etc/services the name of the service on port 110. Also, check your inetd man page to ensure the entry is formatted correctly. One tricky part is that some inetd's require the first argument to the program (qmail-popup in this example) to be the name of the program. Other inetd's want only the "real" arguments. Pay particular attention to the phrase "check your inetd man page". Granted, this is in the qmail-pop3d section: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pop3d-installation The reason it's not covered in the qmail-smtpd section is that inetd is no longer supported. -Dave
"Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Wether you like it or not, there is going to be a new set of install >documents for QMail. No problem, there's room for plenty more. Before you charge off, though, please take a few minutes to skim "Life with qmail" and a drop me a line telling me where you found it lacking. Also, note that LWQ is a general qmail guide, not a platform-specific how-to. It's relatively easy to sit down at a Red Hat 5.2 box, install qmail, and generate a how-to that contains the *exact* commands necessary to install on a stock RHL 5.2 box. It's *far* harder to write a manual that will work on any version of Red Hat, any version of Debian, any other Linux distribution, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, IRIX, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru64 UNIX, etc. -Dave
It's great. That being said vigorously sincerely, there are a few improvements. 2.8.1 discusses /var/qmail/rc The memphis RPM which, so far, was the only way I could get QMail to function differs from conventional setups in that there is no /var/qmail/rc file. It would be nice if something were mentioned comparing your steps to the Memphis RPM and the Summer RPM. My impression, and I could be wrong is that: The DJB tarball instructions are for the most basic QMail setup, few bells and whistles (a sound idea, fewer things to break), and assumes you will be using inetd.conf The summer RPM is akin to DJB's setup. Your setup is much more complete, and incorporates the best of the QMail extra tools, particularly the tcpserver, start-stop daemons, and other things that make life easier. The Memphis RPM is more akin, but not the same as your setup. 5.11 icompable should be spelled incompatible. Also, reading 5.11 begs the question: Is it reasonable to replace SMTP with QMTP? Will Mail clients like Eudora, Pegasus, Outlook, Mutt, Pine be able to support it? B.3. ucspi-tcp says tcpserver is the only server supported by the author of qmail. well, not exactly. inetd is part of DJB's current tarball install instructions(well, the one I downloaded a few weeks ago) B.11 Maildrop It doesn't say why one would use either procmail or maildrop. For example, since it's a mail filter, is it good for "stamping" subject lines. Can it be used by a shell user like ezmlm, or is it for the sysadmin only. E.2 The aol patch is probably the main reason, I am interested in getting a non-rpm equivalent to the Memphis RPM running. I have been getting failures sending to some AOL addresses. It would be useful if the instructions on rebuilding qmail in 5.10.x were more explicit. That is, assuming I ran wanted to remove the unpatched Memphis RPM, should I install completely using your steps, then take the patch, place it in the right place, and run the step to rebuild.? And that step is? I'm just commenting on your good manual, since you asked, so don't think I'm making these points just because I'm lazy. G.1 QMail doesn't deliver to superusers. Ok, but the Memphis rpm puts a lot of .qmail files that contain &root in the alias user directory. Adam pointed out that I hadn't looked at .qmail-root (he's right, I hadn't). It's empty. Ok, so where does it all go? Nowhere? Should I set up a "rootcatcher" user for those .qmail files? G.4 dcmented should be spelled documented H.5 It killed a dog? j/k No number: The bottom open content icon. Ok, I'm interested in hosting your manual on my server as well. I'd like to help add to it, and possibly integrate some of my impressions of what it's like dipping into QMail. In particular, as I mentioned earlier, I want to put together a Linux distribution that includes QMail (with whatever is the correctly licensed way of distributing it per DJB). So, your manual as well written as it is, should be "the manual" as far as I'm concerned. Missing stuff: Ok, well not missing since QMail is an MTA, but I'd be interested in helping write up extra chapters/separate documents. Using pine with Maildirs. Using mutt with Maildirs. DNS and QMail - how to make a bunch of virtual domains, start to finish EZMLM - how to set up one hundred and one mailing lists. QMail, Mail Clients, and Firewalls - Everything a new QMail Administer ought to know about Unix security. Basic Etiquette for Experienced Unix System Administrators. Extra special comment: 1.1 Life with qmail is aimed at everyone interested in running qmail, from the rank amateur (newbie) who just installed Linux on a spare PC all the way up to the experienced system administrator or mail administrator. If you find it lacking or unclear, please let me know. Send comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is numbered 1.1 as it should be. If you'll notice you have a very helpful personality, and also know what your talking about. Compare this with Adam McKenna's howto. There is no audience section mentioned in his document. His chapter 2 is, of course, titled RTFM. A lovely quote from Adam McKenna (his RTFM chapter) "At this time, it would be a good idea to read some of the official documentation. Of course, you're not going to do that, you're going to continue reading my drivel. I have an almost obscene power over you now. It intoxicates me." Another lovely quote from Adam McKenna "GFY" What a nice guy. Aren't we glad he's around to help and advise folks? Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Howto > > > "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Yes. Everything I need is on the Internet, well, except for good > >documentation -- > > Have you read "Life with qmail"? If you have, I'd be happy to hear > what you think needs improvement. > > The URL: > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html -Dave
>I have installed the line >from FAQ 5.1 >in the ined.conf > >tcpserver -u 501 -g 500 0 smtp /car/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & The FAQ never said to put the above line in inetd.conf. It says put the above line in your sys startup files. tcpserver is used *instead of* inetd. The FAQ cannot really be more specific since there are several ways to start a daemon under Unices. Mate
No magic maybe, but perhaps a different syntax in the inetd that Redhat uses. No, syntax for Rh inetd is the same as in the INSTALL: 16. Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line): smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd Notice: no tcpserver mentioned. Mate
"Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Any other books you can think of that are worthwhile, particularly those | that might help with installing QMail. The Unix Programming Environment, by Kernighan and Pike (It's dated, but seminal.)
I believe the point was that you read your car manual to see where the power connects are for the stereo your also reading a manual for to install. Or, in other words, read your linux manual to learn how to use your inetd correctly while you read the qmail manual as you install it. You guys make this issue way too academic. Instead of lecturing Alex what he was supposed to do, it would have been better to read his startup command he put in inetd.conf: he was trying to run tcpserver from it. The qmail-smtpd startup command in INSTALL works perfectly well with RH Linux---or any other Linux I have seen. Do not forget, that command is used by D Summer's rpm... Mate
Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have to understand that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not newbies. The text as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any sense at all to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text that were in simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand -----Original Message----- From: Mate Wierdl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Howto I believe the point was that you read your car manual to see where the power connects are for the stereo your also reading a manual for to install. Or, in other words, read your linux manual to learn how to use your inetd correctly while you read the qmail manual as you install it. You guys make this issue way too academic. Instead of lecturing Alex what he was supposed to do, it would have been better to read his startup command he put in inetd.conf: he was trying to run tcpserver from it. The qmail-smtpd startup command in INSTALL works perfectly well with RH Linux---or any other Linux I have seen. Do not forget, that command is used by D Summer's rpm... Mate
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have to understand > that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not newbies. The text > as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any sense at all > to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text that were in > simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand I've noticed something in my years on internet mailing lists - the tone in which a question is answered usually matches the tone in which it is asked. I don't think anyone here had a problem with alex asking questions. I think that they had a problem with his accusatory tone and whining when he found out that he actually had to do a little reading in order to accomplish what he wanted to do. He hasn't let up with this attitude yet. It's like he's Scott Jr. or something. --Adam
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: } Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have to understand } that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not newbies. The text } as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any sense at all } to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text that were in } simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand But what *you* have to understand is that if you're that much of a newbie, you probably shouldn't be trying to install qmail. First learn Linux, which means learning very basic things like learning how to use man. Then learn how to install packages less important than an smtp server from source. qmail is actually very easy to install and very flexible, but you have to, *before you start to install qmail or any other critical package*, know some fundamental things about your system works, and what to do if things go wrong. -- -------- Paul J. Schinder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, Things I find objectionable: RTFM, particularly, when the issue is misunderstanding what was read, or not having the right prior knowledge, instead of when the user didn't actually read the manual. In India, confessions are prohibited in the courts because it is recognized that their use leads to sloppy or inhumane efforts by the police. RTFM should be just as excluded, since it is generally misapplied. On my list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], RTFM comments will be prohibited. I should clarify, RTFM is not the same as, for example, Dave Sill's generally helpful pointers to relevant manual entries, specifically, often by number. RTFM is an accost, an assault, the F in it is actually a profanity. The lecturing about "why don't you try to understand" is an accost. Berating someone from discussing a topic that is not of personal interest to one reader. Once Mate pointed out, last week, that a firewall might be the cause of remote servers I didn't post much and spent my spare time, reading up on firewalls and watching the list to see what other people were experiencing with it. Sure enough, someone brings it up, only to be squelched with complaints about the subject. When I pointed out that I was very interested in other people's security problems, particularly in their QMail setups I was told that it's inappropriate. What was it you said Adam, "there are no MTA-specific issues relating to firewalls" (oh, is that not an exact quote, well excuse me) Profanity Unacceptable on a mailing list. Threats of law suits should I elaborate? This stuff is very visible. Don't think that the behavior on this list isn't completely public, and potentially newsworthy. There are lot's of people starting to learn LINUX, set up KDE, etc. What should they expect? What kind of experience will it be for them if they try to install some new software? Will it be like an example experience with QMail? People should write to mailing lists as if their comments are going to be published, as examples of the good and the bad in the internet world. Already, I'm making a web page (a helpful one) for things that beginners should know who want to install QMail. Already, the list on it, "Adam's List" is taking shape, and will be useful. I've learned a lot already, from soliciting it, and will learn plenty more, following those man pages and collecting them onto a web page. So even from Adam's efforts to be hostile something good can come from it. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 10:54 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Howto > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > > Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have > to understand > > that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not > newbies. The text > > as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any > sense at all > > to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text > that were in > > simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand > > I've noticed something in my years on internet mailing lists - the tone in > which a question is answered usually matches the tone in which it > is asked. > > I don't think anyone here had a problem with alex asking > questions. I think > that they had a problem with his accusatory tone and whining when he found > out that he actually had to do a little reading in order to > accomplish what > he wanted to do. He hasn't let up with this attitude yet. It's like he's > Scott Jr. or something. > > --Adam >
Alex, As you quoted "Don't think that the behavior on this list isn't completely public, and potentially newsworthy." This is a very public mailing list and from what i remember freedom of speach is still in affect. One of the greatist things in america is that if someone does not like something or does not agree with someone, they can voice there opinion even though it may be taken as profanity, or offensive. You take remarks the way you feel. Others may make comments and take them in a diffrent mannor. Please understand the guys on here, especialy the ones that have helped me out in the past thanks guys, Just expect the minimal from you. By common sense you should know to read all documentations via web pages, man files, and or any text files availible befor askin someone a question. Imagine this. If someone called General Motors but does not know how to drive example General Motors doesn't have a help line for people who don't know how to drive. Imagine if they did... HelpLine: General Motors HelpLine, how can I help you? Customer: I got in my car and closed the door and nothing happened! HelpLine: Did you put the key in the ignition slot and turn it? Customer: What's an ignition? HelpLine: It's a starter motor that draws current from your battery and turns over the engine. Customer: Ignition? Motor? Battery? Engine? How come I have to know all these technical terms just to use my car? This is what would happen. How can someone help this person if they dont know the basics. I do admit that I did ask some dumb questions. But I made sure to read the text, man pages, and other documents befor askin. Just a FYI for later Ken -----Original Message----- From: Alex Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 9:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Howto Actually, Things I find objectionable: RTFM, particularly, when the issue is misunderstanding what was read, or not having the right prior knowledge, instead of when the user didn't actually read the manual. In India, confessions are prohibited in the courts because it is recognized that their use leads to sloppy or inhumane efforts by the police. RTFM should be just as excluded, since it is generally misapplied. On my list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], RTFM comments will be prohibited. I should clarify, RTFM is not the same as, for example, Dave Sill's generally helpful pointers to relevant manual entries, specifically, often by number. RTFM is an accost, an assault, the F in it is actually a profanity. The lecturing about "why don't you try to understand" is an accost. Berating someone from discussing a topic that is not of personal interest to one reader. Once Mate pointed out, last week, that a firewall might be the cause of remote servers I didn't post much and spent my spare time, reading up on firewalls and watching the list to see what other people were experiencing with it. Sure enough, someone brings it up, only to be squelched with complaints about the subject. When I pointed out that I was very interested in other people's security problems, particularly in their QMail setups I was told that it's inappropriate. What was it you said Adam, "there are no MTA-specific issues relating to firewalls" (oh, is that not an exact quote, well excuse me) Profanity Unacceptable on a mailing list. Threats of law suits should I elaborate? This stuff is very visible. Don't think that the behavior on this list isn't completely public, and potentially newsworthy. There are lot's of people starting to learn LINUX, set up KDE, etc. What should they expect? What kind of experience will it be for them if they try to install some new software? Will it be like an example experience with QMail? People should write to mailing lists as if their comments are going to be published, as examples of the good and the bad in the internet world. Already, I'm making a web page (a helpful one) for things that beginners should know who want to install QMail. Already, the list on it, "Adam's List" is taking shape, and will be useful. I've learned a lot already, from soliciting it, and will learn plenty more, following those man pages and collecting them onto a web page. So even from Adam's efforts to be hostile something good can come from it. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 10:54 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Howto > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > > Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have > to understand > > that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not > newbies. The text > > as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any > sense at all > > to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text > that were in > > simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand > > I've noticed something in my years on internet mailing lists - the tone in > which a question is answered usually matches the tone in which it > is asked. > > I don't think anyone here had a problem with alex asking > questions. I think > that they had a problem with his accusatory tone and whining when he found > out that he actually had to do a little reading in order to > accomplish what > he wanted to do. He hasn't let up with this attitude yet. It's like he's > Scott Jr. or something. > > --Adam >
> But what *you* have to understand is that if you're that much of a > newbie, you probably shouldn't be trying to install qmail. Respectfully, you're wrong. QMail does what I need it to do. Sendmail doesn't. The fact that I still haven't resolved my firewall problems or can't set up my own DNS without having to use a service, albeit a great one, like EasyDNS does NOT mean I shouldn't be installing QMail. It has already benefitted me, and will benefit me some more. My life is better with QMail than it was with Sendmail. Also, relating my experience to others, commenting on documentation, writing some, all of these things are positive. > qmail is actually very easy to install and very flexible, but you have > to, *before you start to install qmail or any other critical package*, > know some fundamental things about your system works, and what to do > if things go wrong. Yes, you're right. And if you'd care to contribute as others have to my new web page list (I'm writing it) of things people should know to install something like QMail, please do. It's already begun to take shape, and could use plenty of constructive feedback. Alex Miller P.S. your very polite > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul J. Schinder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:52 AM > To: Durham, Kenneth J > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Howto > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > } Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have > to understand > } that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not > newbies. The text > } as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any > sense at all > } to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text > that were in > } simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand > > But what *you* have to understand is that if you're that much of a > newbie, you probably shouldn't be trying to install qmail. First > learn Linux, which means learning very basic things like learning how > to use man. Then learn how to install packages less important than an > smtp server from source. > > qmail is actually very easy to install and very flexible, but you have > to, *before you start to install qmail or any other critical package*, > know some fundamental things about your system works, and what to do > if things go wrong. > > > -- > -------- > Paul J. Schinder > NASA Goddard Space Flight Center > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Profanity isn't that complicated. A single paragraph, that says, "GFY" is profanity. It is an acronym and unlike the RTFM acronym, it's actual meaning is meant as full value. That's what I'm referring to. Alex Miller P.S. I wasn't quoting anyone, or if I did that was a typo. I was SAYing "Don't think that the behavior on this list isn't completely public, and potentially newsworthy." Them's my words ;-) Of course, technically, NOW I'm quoting myself, or quoting you quoting me .... escher ... esch .... e .... P.P.S. > But I made sure to read the text, man pages, and other documents befor askin. I did. And I printed them out. And I highlighted the important parts. And I used a pencil for a checklist, and I posted questions on many things that weren't clear. Does that mean I thought of all the man pages I could have printed, no, it doesn't. It does mean that I read the manual. > -----Original Message----- > From: Durham, Kenneth J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 12:24 PM > To: 'Alex Miller'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Howto > > > Alex, > As you quoted "Don't think that the behavior on this list isn't > completely public, and potentially newsworthy." This is a very public > mailing list and from what i remember freedom of speach is still > in affect. > One of the greatist things in america is that if someone does not like > something or does not agree with someone, they can voice there > opinion even > though it may be taken as profanity, or offensive. You take > remarks the way > you feel. Others may make comments and take them in a diffrent mannor. > Please understand the guys on here, especialy the ones that have helped me > out in the past thanks guys, Just expect the minimal from you. By common > sense you should know to read all documentations via web pages, man files, > and or any text files availible befor askin someone a question. Imagine > this. If someone called General Motors but does not know how to drive > example > > General Motors doesn't have a help line for people who don't know how > > to drive. Imagine if they did... > > HelpLine: General Motors HelpLine, how can I help you? > > Customer: I got in my car and closed the door and nothing happened! > > HelpLine: Did you put the key in the ignition slot and turn it? > > Customer: What's an ignition? > > HelpLine: It's a starter motor that draws current from your battery > and turns over the engine. > > Customer: Ignition? Motor? Battery? Engine? How come I have to know > all these technical terms just to use my car? > > This is what would happen. How can someone help this person if they dont > know the basics. I do admit that I did ask some dumb questions. > But I made > sure to read the text, man pages, and other documents befor askin. Just a > FYI for later > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 9:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Howto > > > Actually, > > Things I find objectionable: > > RTFM, particularly, when the issue is misunderstanding what was > read, or not > having the right prior knowledge, instead of when the user didn't actually > read the manual. In India, confessions are prohibited in the > courts because > it is recognized that their use leads to sloppy or inhumane efforts by the > police. RTFM should be just as excluded, since it is generally misapplied. > On my list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], RTFM comments will be prohibited. I > should clarify, RTFM is not the same as, for example, Dave Sill's > generally > helpful pointers to relevant manual entries, specifically, often > by number. > RTFM is an accost, an assault, the F in it is actually a profanity. The > lecturing about "why don't you try to understand" is an accost. > > Berating someone from discussing a topic that is not of personal > interest to > one reader. Once Mate pointed out, last week, that a firewall might be the > cause of remote servers I didn't post much and spent my spare > time, reading > up on firewalls and watching the list to see what other people were > experiencing with it. Sure enough, someone brings it up, only to be > squelched with complaints about the subject. When I pointed out that I was > very interested in other people's security problems, particularly in their > QMail setups I was told that it's inappropriate. What was it you > said Adam, > "there are no MTA-specific issues relating to firewalls" (oh, is > that not an > exact quote, well excuse me) > > Profanity > Unacceptable on a mailing list. > > Threats of law suits > should I elaborate? > > This stuff is very visible. Don't think that the behavior on this > list isn't > completely public, and potentially newsworthy. There are lot's of people > starting to learn LINUX, set up KDE, etc. What should they > expect? What kind > of experience will it be for them if they try to install some new > software? > Will it be like an example experience with QMail? People should write to > mailing lists as if their comments are going to be published, as > examples of > the good and the bad in the internet world. > > Already, I'm making a web page (a helpful one) for things that beginners > should know who want to install QMail. Already, the list on it, "Adam's > List" is taking shape, and will be useful. I've learned a lot > already, from > soliciting it, and will learn plenty more, following those man pages and > collecting them onto a web page. So even from Adam's efforts to be hostile > something good can come from it. > > Alex Miller > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 10:54 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Howto > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > > > Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have > > to understand > > > that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not > > newbies. The text > > > as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any > > sense at all > > > to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text > > that were in > > > simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand > > > > I've noticed something in my years on internet mailing lists - > the tone in > > which a question is answered usually matches the tone in which it > > is asked. > > > > I don't think anyone here had a problem with alex asking > > questions. I think > > that they had a problem with his accusatory tone and whining > when he found > > out that he actually had to do a little reading in order to > > accomplish what > > he wanted to do. He hasn't let up with this attitude yet. > It's like he's > > Scott Jr. or something. > > > > --Adam > > >
> General Motors doesn't have a help line for people who don't know how > to drive. Imagine if they did... You mean a help line like their web page? http://www.gm.com/vehicles/us/owners/partners_safety/e830.html Wouldn't the person on the help line be just a bit negligent if they failed to ask. Do you have a learner's permit and are you seated next to a licensed driver over 18? Do I understand you correctly, that you believe that installing QMail ought to be as familiar a task to the unitiated as the need to use a key while driving. That is, if you ask your average non-driver, how do you start a car, they would say, "well, you use the key". If you asked your average non-QMail administrator, well how would you start QMail they would answer correctly? So your comparing someones inability, to, for example get smtp running following the tarball instructions, but able to get it running using the Memphis RPM, roughly akin to not understanding that a key starts most cars. Let me ask you this. If you got into an airplane, a Cessna 150, and I handed you a key, could you start it? Is the key what starts it? Should you turn it like a car key? Is there a difference between turning it left or right? Would you be an idiot if I handed you the manual and after reading it for a week, you made mistakes attempting to start it. If you read the manual, highlighted all the items you thought were important, had 10 questions about things you didn't understand, would you find it justified if I said to you, NEXT time you want to take a flying lesson read the manual. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Durham, Kenneth J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 12:24 PM > To: 'Alex Miller'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Howto > > > Alex, > As you quoted "Don't think that the behavior on this list isn't > completely public, and potentially newsworthy." This is a very public > mailing list and from what i remember freedom of speach is still > in affect. > One of the greatist things in america is that if someone does not like > something or does not agree with someone, they can voice there > opinion even > though it may be taken as profanity, or offensive. You take > remarks the way > you feel. Others may make comments and take them in a diffrent mannor. > Please understand the guys on here, especialy the ones that have helped me > out in the past thanks guys, Just expect the minimal from you. By common > sense you should know to read all documentations via web pages, man files, > and or any text files availible befor askin someone a question. Imagine > this. If someone called General Motors but does not know how to drive > example > > General Motors doesn't have a help line for people who don't know how > > to drive. Imagine if they did... > > HelpLine: General Motors HelpLine, how can I help you? > > Customer: I got in my car and closed the door and nothing happened! > > HelpLine: Did you put the key in the ignition slot and turn it? > > Customer: What's an ignition? > > HelpLine: It's a starter motor that draws current from your battery > and turns over the engine. > > Customer: Ignition? Motor? Battery? Engine? How come I have to know > all these technical terms just to use my car? > > This is what would happen. How can someone help this person if they dont > know the basics. I do admit that I did ask some dumb questions. > But I made > sure to read the text, man pages, and other documents befor askin. Just a > FYI for later > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 9:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Howto > > > Actually, > > Things I find objectionable: > > RTFM, particularly, when the issue is misunderstanding what was > read, or not > having the right prior knowledge, instead of when the user didn't actually > read the manual. In India, confessions are prohibited in the > courts because > it is recognized that their use leads to sloppy or inhumane efforts by the > police. RTFM should be just as excluded, since it is generally misapplied. > On my list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], RTFM comments will be prohibited. I > should clarify, RTFM is not the same as, for example, Dave Sill's > generally > helpful pointers to relevant manual entries, specifically, often > by number. > RTFM is an accost, an assault, the F in it is actually a profanity. The > lecturing about "why don't you try to understand" is an accost. > > Berating someone from discussing a topic that is not of personal > interest to > one reader. Once Mate pointed out, last week, that a firewall might be the > cause of remote servers I didn't post much and spent my spare > time, reading > up on firewalls and watching the list to see what other people were > experiencing with it. Sure enough, someone brings it up, only to be > squelched with complaints about the subject. When I pointed out that I was > very interested in other people's security problems, particularly in their > QMail setups I was told that it's inappropriate. What was it you > said Adam, > "there are no MTA-specific issues relating to firewalls" (oh, is > that not an > exact quote, well excuse me) > > Profanity > Unacceptable on a mailing list. > > Threats of law suits > should I elaborate? > > This stuff is very visible. Don't think that the behavior on this > list isn't > completely public, and potentially newsworthy. There are lot's of people > starting to learn LINUX, set up KDE, etc. What should they > expect? What kind > of experience will it be for them if they try to install some new > software? > Will it be like an example experience with QMail? People should write to > mailing lists as if their comments are going to be published, as > examples of > the good and the bad in the internet world. > > Already, I'm making a web page (a helpful one) for things that beginners > should know who want to install QMail. Already, the list on it, "Adam's > List" is taking shape, and will be useful. I've learned a lot > already, from > soliciting it, and will learn plenty more, following those man pages and > collecting them onto a web page. So even from Adam's efforts to be hostile > something good can come from it. > > Alex Miller > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 10:54 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Howto > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > > > Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have > > to understand > > > that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not > > newbies. The text > > > as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any > > sense at all > > > to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text > > that were in > > > simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand > > > > I've noticed something in my years on internet mailing lists - > the tone in > > which a question is answered usually matches the tone in which it > > is asked. > > > > I don't think anyone here had a problem with alex asking > > questions. I think > > that they had a problem with his accusatory tone and whining > when he found > > out that he actually had to do a little reading in order to > > accomplish what > > he wanted to do. He hasn't let up with this attitude yet. > It's like he's > > Scott Jr. or something. > > > > --Adam > > >
"Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Let me ask you this. If you got into an airplane, a Cessna 150, and I handed >you a key, could you start it? Is the key what starts it? Should you turn it >like a car key? Is there a difference between turning it left or right? > >Would you be an idiot if I handed you the manual and after reading it for a >week, you made mistakes attempting to start it. If you read the manual, >highlighted all the items you thought were important, had 10 questions about >things you didn't understand, would you find it justified if I said to you, >NEXT time you want to take a flying lesson read the manual. If you try to fly a plane, and you don't even know how to start the engine, you're an idiot. If you try to fly a UNIX box, and you don't even know how to start a network daemon, you're ignorant (AKA a newbie). If you're a newbie and you don't realize it, you're probably an idiot. If you whine repeatedly about how hard it is to become a non-newbie, and how newbie-intolerant the world is, you're probably a whining idiot. If you think you can "learn UNIX" by reading manuals for a week or two, you're wrong. Yes, it would be nice if all documentation was newbie friendly. But it isn't. Yes, it would be nice if everyone on every mailing list was infinitely newbie and idiot tolerant. But they aren't. Yes, it would be nice if newbies and idiots would refrain from posting stupid, inflammatory, and/or off-track messages to mailing lists. But they won't. So what can we do? Experts/old-timers: be more tolerant of newbies and idiots most newbies will either catch on or move on eventually ignore them if you can't produce more newbie-friendly documentation Newbies/idiots: be more tolerant of experts and old-timers don't cop an attitude: your ignorance is not their fault ignore them if you can't avoid annoying the people most likely to have the answers you seek Everyone else: be more tolerant ignore those you can't tolerate -Dave
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > Ok, so we've beaten the dead horse with the fact that MX records can't > be CNAMES... so why does bind allow this? Go figure. for years bind allowed '_' in domain names. at one version they 'fixed' this and thousands of zone files around the world had to be fixed. Who is to say at some point in the future the server won't implement the checking. I guess bind doesn't check for this because it would be quite an expensive check to perform, given MX resords are cnames in a zone file don't have to refer to other entries in the same zone file. you could end up by performing a couple of thousand DNS queries every time a zone file were loaded in order to check this. Richard
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 3:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Howto > > > "Alex Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Let me ask you this. If you got into an airplane, a Cessna 150, > and I handed > >you a key, could you start it? Is the key what starts it? Should > you turn it > >like a car key? Is there a difference between turning it left or right? > > > >Would you be an idiot if I handed you the manual and after > reading it for a > >week, you made mistakes attempting to start it. If you read the manual, > >highlighted all the items you thought were important, had 10 > questions about > >things you didn't understand, would you find it justified if I > said to you, > >NEXT time you want to take a flying lesson read the manual. > > If you try to fly a plane, and you don't even know how to start the > engine, you're an idiot. > Technically, if you try to fly a plane, and you don't even know how to start the engine, your instructor is an idiot, or you are paying for on a demonstration lesson. They might let you turn the key for the thrill, or even control the plane (mostly), but you wouldn't actually be able to start the plane unless you knew the correct procedure. The instructor is PIC "Pilot in Command", and like the captain of a ship has sole authority and responsibility of what happens in the plane. So, it's entirely up to the instructor how much knowledge the student must have before going. If the student begins "real" lessons, it's the instructors responsibility to make sure that the student understands each part of the standard checklist. When the student solo's the student is PIC. A student pilot can for example, refuse the commands of the tower (not so rare), because as PIC has final say over what is or is not safe. > If you try to fly a UNIX box, and you don't even know how to start a > network daemon, you're ignorant (AKA a newbie). If you're a newbie and > you don't realize it, you're probably an idiot. If you whine > repeatedly about how hard it is to become a non-newbie, and how > newbie-intolerant the world is, you're probably a whining idiot. If > you think you can "learn UNIX" by reading manuals for a week or two, > you're wrong. > > Yes, it would be nice if all documentation was newbie friendly. But it > isn't. > > Yes, it would be nice if everyone on every mailing list was infinitely > newbie and idiot tolerant. But they aren't. > Yes, it would be nice if newbies and idiots would refrain from posting > stupid, inflammatory, and/or off-track messages to mailing lists. But > they won't. > > So what can we do? > > Experts/old-timers: > be more tolerant of newbies and idiots > most newbies will either catch on or move on eventually > ignore them if you can't > produce more newbie-friendly documentation > > Newbies/idiots: > be more tolerant of experts and old-timers > don't cop an attitude: your ignorance is not their fault > ignore them if you can't > avoid annoying the people most likely to have the answers you seek also: create alternatives, answer questions of other newbies, ask what books are recommended, read them, provide feedback to those who are trying to write good documentation, point out the distinction between unacceptable behavior (using profanity, for example) and acceptable behavior (being honestly wrong), collect everything you "take" from the list, and put it back together in a package for the next newbie, adding to the general newbie-friendliness of the resources. > > Everyone else: > be more tolerant > ignore those you can't tolerate Some things should not be reasonably tolerated. Use of profanity is one of them. Phrases like "your an idiot" is another. I understand where you are coming from, you are a very tolerant person. Too much tolerance leads to a tacit approval of unacceptable behaviors. Being profane is one of those lines which just shouldn't be crossed. > > -Dave >
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Richard Letts wrote: > for years bind allowed '_' in domain names. at one version they 'fixed' > this and thousands of zone files around the world had to be fixed. Who is > to say at some point in the future the server won't implement the > checking. > > I guess bind doesn't check for this because it would be quite an expensive > check to perform, given MX resords are cnames in a zone file don't have to > refer to other entries in the same zone file. you could end up by > performing a couple of thousand DNS queries every time a zone file were > loaded in order to check this. urgh my fault for posting as soon as I come home from work. the last paragraph should have read: Since MX OR CNAME RECORDS in a zone don't have to refer to other entries in the same zone: you might end up by performing a couple of thousand DNS queries every time a zone file were loaded in order to check this. I know CNAME!=MX records.
> Wouldn't the person on the help line be just a bit negligent if they failed > to ask. Do you have a learner's permit and are you seated next to a licensed > driver over 18? No, I'm sorry, I really don't think it's GM's responsibility to make sure that everyone using their product is legally entitled to do so and is personally qualified to do so. In particular, I don't want GM to give me a driving test before they allow me to purchase a vehicle. > Let me ask you this. If you got into an airplane, a Cessna 150, and I handed > you a key, could you start it? Is the key what starts it? Should you turn it > like a car key? Is there a difference between turning it left or right? No, I couldn't. Which is why I would not get in a Cessna 150 and attempt to fly it. I'm not fucking qualified to do it so I'm not going to attempt to do it. Can you grasp that concept? If I wanted to learn, I'd contact a qualified flight instructor who makes a living teaching people to fly. I would not post to the cessna-lovers mailing list and ask for instructions on how to start the engine. Incidentally, there are a number of qualified qmail instructors listed on www.qmail.org who make a living teaching people how to use and install qmail. shag ===== Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170 Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065 ...yours is not the less noble because no drum beats before you when you go out into your daily battlefields, and no crowds shout about your coming when you return from your daily victory or defeat. --Robert Louis Stevenson
> > >Let me ask you this. If you got into an airplane, a Cessna 150, > > and I handed > > >you a key, could you start it? Is the key what starts it? Should > > you turn it > > >like a car key? Is there a difference between turning it left or right? > > Technically, if you try to fly a plane, and you don't even know how to start > the engine, your instructor is an idiot, or you are paying for on a > demonstration lesson. They might let you turn the key for the thrill, or > even control the plane (mostly), but you wouldn't actually be able to start > the plane unless you knew the correct procedure. When you first asked the question, the "instructor" was nowhere in sight (unless you are presumed to be the instructor). So let's not call the missing instructor the idiot here. If you're not sure if you know how to fly a plane, then you clearly DON'T KNOW HOW TO FLY THE PLANE. If you aren't sure if you know how to fly the plane and you insist on attempting to fly it anyway, then you are the only idiot. shag
> Care to add to the list? I'm going to make a website on things you should > know, skills you should have, before attempting to install qmail. I'll > devote a special section called Why not just point people to lwq (which, no offense intended, is probably infinitely better than a resource from someone who can't get qmail to work, plus the last time I read it, it didn't have any snide personal comments)? I'm sure that Dave would accept any worthwhile contributions that you think would improve it. Troy
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote: > Threats of law suits > should I elaborate? rcpthosts... need I say more? ... anyway, wait until you get some idiot who wants to sue you because you are no longer an open relay. Scott
Ok, as a flying newbie I can understand what you are trying to say. As someone more experienced let me just explain that in reality, flying a plane is very different than driving a car. The physical skills are similar but the standards of access are quite different. It's understandable that as a flying newbie, you would think that handed a set of keys, it would be "up to you" to know how to use the plane. It just doesn't happen that way, at least not without hitting the news, as a declared hijacking. As a newbie to flying you shouldn't be expected to have a sense of this. The standards of responsibility are very clearly delineated in flying, in open source software mailing lists, I'm sorry there is no real comparison. The point I was making is that the analogy made of a person not knowing that a car is started with a key is simply not a good match to the situation that the analogy was intended to describe, someone attempting to install QMail according to the instructions. In the car situation, the person would seem like an idiot to most people on the internet today. Having difficulty installing QMail is not an idiot situation, much as the more aggressive folks would like to maintain. Installing QMail is much closer to attempting to learn to fly. The newbies preconceptions are often wrong, and the more experienced people know it. The newbie flyer is NOT idiotic for not knowing the difference between the starting an airplane with a key and starting a car with key. The newbie QMail installer is not idiotic for not knowing things that are not clearly described in the manual or presume knowledge that is not in the manual. The driver analogy was chosen to demonstrate idiotness to a degree which is very very rare, and comparing it to QMail difficulty which would be far more common. My guess is that the population in the U.S. of people who don't know what they need to know to install QMail as is on a system with a firewall already installed without assistance, and the population of people in the U.S. who don't know how to start a Cessna 150 even when handed a key, without assistance are very comparable. The population of people in the U.S. who don't know that you need a key to start a car is extremely small, and if you exclude people with Alzheimers, or other serious illness, almost non-existent among adults. Analogies have to be comparative. To compare something very common with something very rare is not a good analogy. My attempt was to repair the poorly written analogy with one that was comparable in population incidence. Incidentally, most people would describe their introduction to flying a Cessna as fun, maybe "the thrill of a lifetime". Compare that with installing QMail. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Racer X [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 5:14 PM > To: Alex Miller; Dave Sill; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Howto > > > > > >Let me ask you this. If you got into an airplane, a Cessna 150, > > > and I handed > > > >you a key, could you start it? Is the key what starts it? Should > > > you turn it > > > >like a car key? Is there a difference between turning it left or > right? > > > > Technically, if you try to fly a plane, and you don't even know how to > start > > the engine, your instructor is an idiot, or you are paying for on a > > demonstration lesson. They might let you turn the key for the thrill, or > > even control the plane (mostly), but you wouldn't actually be able to > start > > the plane unless you knew the correct procedure. > > When you first asked the question, the "instructor" was nowhere in sight > (unless you are presumed to be the instructor). So let's not call the > missing instructor the idiot here. If you're not sure if you know how to > fly a plane, then you clearly DON'T KNOW HOW TO FLY THE PLANE. > > If you aren't sure if you know how to fly the plane and you insist on > attempting to fly it anyway, then you are the only idiot. > > shag > > >
> It's understandable that as a flying newbie, you would think that > handed a set of keys, it would be "up to you" to know how to use > the plane. I would? I know that planes are fairly complicated and dangerous pieces of machinery and that a pilot's license is required to fly legally in most parts of the world. If you or anyone else gave me the keys to a plane and said, "Take off," I'd politely return the keys and say no thanks. On the other hand, if someone held a gun to my head and said "Fly the damn plane," or if I was stuck on a desert island with just myself and the plane, I'm pretty sure that with a little work on my part, I could probably figure out how to start the engine and get the plane off the ground. In this case I'd have no choice but to figure it out for myself. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to land it, but given the choice between zero chance and some chance I'd give it a shot. > Installing QMail is much closer to attempting to learn to fly. The Installing qmail is nowhere near as dangerous as learning to fly. Flying requires not only knowledge of theory but a large amount of practical skill, and a lack of skill has serious consequences when learning to fly. > My guess is that the population in the U.S. of people who don't know > what they need to know to install QMail as is on a system with a > firewall already installed without assistance, and the population > of people in the U.S. who don't know how to start a Cessna 150 even > when handed a key, without assistance are very comparable. That doesn't mean that installing qmail is comparable to learning to fly a Cessna. shag
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Racer X wrote: > > Installing QMail is much closer to attempting to learn to fly. The > > Installing qmail is nowhere near as dangerous as learning to fly. Flying > requires not only knowledge of theory but a large amount of practical > skill, and a lack of skill has serious consequences when learning to fly. It depends on your priorities. If you have an existing mail setup for a company (lets say you work for them), if the mail goes down, you're up to your eyeballs in llama doo-doo. If you're installing/upgrading a package on a live box that simply *cannot* go down, for any reason, then yes, its akin to learning to fly. Not that I've got my pilot's license... :-) .Shawn
On 2 Jul 1999, Joe Kelsey wrote: > I just can't stand listening to Scott prattle on endlessly about his own > ignorance anymore... isn't that incorrect... I'm not prattling on endlessly about my ignorance. I mean, if you think trying to clarify things means that I'm ignoreant, so be it, but that's not what you said. > Scott D. Yelich writes: > Dan writes his software the best way. Please enlighten us as to where > he is wrong. You seem to have all the answers, please let us know. I don't have all the answers... in fact, I'm looking for a few answers -- but if what works for someone else doesn't work for me -- I'm called an idiot. If I then ask for another solution or any other ideas or quote someone or something that isn't much liked on this list -- I'm told that I must know all the answers... I don't. I wish I did. > > (2) This list expects everyone to be an expert in everything (including > > qmail) inherently and has this as a prerequesite to existing... > Anyone who chooses to try to install and configure ANY MTA must by > definition be an expert system administrator and able to "go with the > flow" and think on their feet. RTFM and when that doesn't work, RTFS. Everyone agrees that sendmail is much more complicated than qmail? right? Don't be afraid to agree -- you know you want to... Well, I've never had to read the source of sendmail in order to get it to do something that I needed it to do. Sorry. > Scott, you have proven over and over that you attempt to do things > without even referencing the FAQ. I followed the directions in the FAQ > and the various INSTALL, etc. files and had absolutely no trouble Someone else stated that the FAQ was unable to get more specific than a generic inetd reference. That's BS -- think about it -- look at the qmail uid install instructions that come with qmail 1.03 -- are those not specific? The faq could easily say: inetd syntax may be different on different systems -- please be aware of your system's requirements.... and then give two examples (ie: solaris and linux) that show not only how to do inetd on those two systems -- but that just also happen to illustrate two different inetd syntaxes! whoa! the faq just got better *and* more specific! > installing and running qmail in under 3 hours on Solaris 7. Yes, I even > found the conf-cc and conf-ld files and fixed them myself without > pissing and moaning on the list---in fact, I wasn't aware of the list > when I did it! ME TOO! So, I bear questions for other sysadmins. The list happily attributes it all to me -- it's not *my* fault that people here *assume* and are being hostile to *me* for something that really isn't even an issue to me. That why I say in private messages, I'm not upset... I think it's mildly amusing, actually. > > (3) If one is not an expert and speaks publically on the list, the > > overly belligerent and pugnacious list has a habit of tearing them a new > > virtual bodily orifice? > The overly beligerence and pugnacity is all in your mind. You come here > and prove your ignorance every time you post. You respond to simple > answers with anger and whining. You have shown no desire to even try to > fix what you perceive to be mistakes. Put up or shut up. Do I prove my ignorance? What about Adam? What about Alex? What about the people who tell me to use taildir when it won't run even after fighting it to get it to compile? What about the people who tell me to use ipfilter for solaris 7? What about the people who berate me for not having cc installed!?! This guy says that CC has been installed, default, on every system he has ever used and adminned for the last 7 years -- WELL GOOD FOR HIM -- now I invite him to install solaris. The point is -- I look for solutions -- for ideas -- discussion... choices. does this list provide any? this list tells me that if I can't get qmail to work or if I have problems with the documentation -- to write better documentation. So this list wants a "qmail newbie" to write qmail documentation? I've stated that I thought that was a silly thing to suggest. Now someone is tearing Alex apart for his desire to do just this! Ok, so I put together a qmail 1.03 with rbl, patches for tarpitting, all kinds of stuff and I want to share it and release it? can I? nope -- dan will sue. Go figure. > > (4) If that same person then makes anything less than a godly effort to > > solve every problem affecting the universe, oh and qmail as well, then > > they are berated into the oblivion of obscurity? > > You don't need to make a godly effort. Just show by your own words that > you have some understanding of the concepts involved in networking. You > continually express ignorance of the most basic subjects, such as how to > search through the RFC index to find the appropriate RFC. Everyone has > to go through the same pain---the index just isn't that good. But, the > RFC's themselves are fairly small and it really doesn't take much time > to find what you need. You obviously do not want to spend any of your > oh so precious time doing any research on your own though. time me. go Fri Jul 2 18:34:12 MDT 1999 ok, I found: http://rfc.x42.com/ <A HREF="http://rfc2219.x42.com/">2219</A> Use of DNS Aliases for Network Servi\ ces. M. Hamilton, R. Wright. October 1997. (Format: TXT=17858 bytes) (Also BCP0017) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) Note that in this scenario no information about ph.hivnet.fr should exist in the DNS other than the CNAME record. For example, ph.hivnet.fr could not contain a MX record. it doesn't say why.... it only says that none should be there -- bind allows it... shouldn't bind NOT allow it if the rfc[s] state it shouldn't be allowed? that's the only real reference to MX in that rfc. 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification. R. Elz, R. Bush. July 1997. (Format: TXT=36989 bytes) (Updates RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123) (Updated by RFC2535) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) 10.3. MX and NS records The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of the value of a MX resource record must not be an alias. Not only is the specification clear on this point, but using an alias in either of these positions neither works as well as might be hoped, nor well fulfills the ambition that may have led to this approach. This domain name must have as its value one or more address records. it doesn't say why.... it only says that none should be there -- bind allows it... shouldn't bind NOT allow it if the rfc[s] state it shouldn't be allowed? that's the only real reference to MX in that rfc. Searching for either NS or MX records causes "additional section processing" in which address records associated with the value of the record sought are appended to the answer. This helps avoid needless extra queries that are easily anticipated when the first was made. um. so? Additional section processing does not include CNAME records, let alone the address records that may be associated with the canonical name derived from the alias. Thus, if an alias is used as the value of an NS or MX record, no address will be returned with the NS or MX value. This can cause extra queries, and extra network burden, on every query. Aha! something... but is that entirely true (about no data/information being returned?) 1912 Common DNS Operational and Configuration Errors. D. Barr. February 1996. (Format: TXT=38252 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1537) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) Whoa! this one looks good. 2.4 CNAME records A CNAME record is not allowed to coexist with any other data. In other words, if suzy.podunk.xx is an alias for sue.podunk.xx, you can't also have an MX record for suzy.podunk.edu Strange... bind seems to support this? Don't use CNAMEs in combination with RRs which point to other names like MX, CNAME, PTR and NS. (PTR is an exception if you want to implement classless in-addr delegation.) For example, this is strongly discouraged: podunk.xx. IN MX mailhost mailhost IN CNAME mary mary IN A 1.2.3.4 [RFC 1034] in section 3.6.2 says this should not be done, and [RFC 974] explicitly states that MX records shall not point to an alias defined by a CNAME. This results in unnecessary indirection in accessing the data, and DNS resolvers and servers need to work more to get the answer. If you really want to do this, you can accomplish the same thing by using a preprocessor such as m4 on your host files. aha! not only a reason why... (indirection, repeated lookups), but a way to avoid it -- by using m4! Now there's useful information. Also, having chained records such as CNAMEs pointing to CNAMEs may make administration issues easier, but is known to tickle bugs in some resolvers that fail to check loops correctly. As a result some hosts may not be able to resolve such names. Aha! So, some buggy software might also not work with this.... should the software be fixed? <A HREF="http://rfc1537.x42.com/">1537</A> Common DNS Data File Configuration E\ rrors. P. Beertema. October 1993. (Format: TXT=19825 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC1912) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) This one doesn't even seem to have the text "cname" in it anywhere. 1536 doesn't seem to talk about it either. Fri Jul 2 18:54:08 MDT 1999 20 minutes? not quite 5... but I have not done some homework and even put it here for the people who simply assume that I didn't look at faqs or rfcs. Ok, no RFC says that CNAMES are valid for MXes. Several tend to talk about why CNAMES might be bad for certain records, etc., ok, fine. I'll chage my question to a new one: WHY DOES BIND ALLOW THIS IF IT IS SO UNIVERSALLY APPALED AND CONDEMNED? Seems just a wee bit silly to me. Next I'll find that it's become standard practice not to allow hostnames with "_"s in them or some other arbitrary char... ok, so "@" might be bad, I can see that... but why "_" -- oh, for the same reason. Oh not! What about the letter "A" ? > > (5) If that person returns from oblivion with suggestions that just > > might make qmail a better place - they are then subjected to repeated > > ridicule for any perceived weakness in their character simply for > > attempting to help make the (qmail) world a better place? > You have never made a single constructive suggestion on this list. I am > waiting for your first suggestion. What is it? My suggestion is that the list be a little more forgiving for those who are apparently attempting to learn qmail. Doesn't that account for *anything* ? Why assume that someone is the enemy just because they are asking a question about why something is so? If they don't accept your answer on faith -- hell, they don't know you from Adam (sorry, I thought the joke would fit in well...) and perhaps just want a little more information. Here is my conclusion... and what I tell peopel who ask *me* why CNAMES aren't allowed for MXes: ``CNAMES are basically aliases and have been deemed to be apparently only appropriate in certain DNS record specifications. The reasons for this appear not to be entirely clear or well documented, but may stem from reasons concerning multiple-repeated use of resources which may be wasteful or from historic or other archaic reasons. However, in the case MX records pointing to CNAMES, this is easily overcome by having the target of the MX record simply having an A record -- as multiple A records is valid, at least for now. This technique more than likely accomplishes what was intended through the use of the CNAME target for the MX without going against the DNS specifications. However, the case and solution isn't as clear for other DNS records and what is valid where -- luckily these records don't have the limelight that MX records have.'' or something like that... > answers with anger and whining. You have shown no desire to even try to > fix what you perceive to be mistakes. Put up or shut up. [DELETED] > You have never made a single constructive suggestion on this list. I am > waiting for your first suggestion. What is it? I simply ask why... and sometimes when I'm given an answer I find difficult to accept, I ask why again. At that point I am berated and insulted. I find it reprehensible to insult people for their opinions when they are trying to learn! You know, they might just be trying to form a new opinion. Please think about that. Scott
> isn't that incorrect... > I'm not prattling on endlessly about my ignorance. > I mean, if you think trying to clarify things means that I'm ignoreant, > so be it, but that's not what you said. Can we please drop this? Thanks jason
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Janos Farkas wrote: > > > > On 1999-07-02 at 11:09:56, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote: > > > I have a small question about the databytes control file: > > > does a mail first get stored on local disk before the size is checked? > > > > No, qmail-smtpd checks it continously while passing the message data to > > qmail-queue. As soon as it founds itself bumping into the limit, it > > reports and error to the client, and qmail-queue will abort the message, > > so qmail won't allow a single message to use significantly larger space > > than you allow. > > > > (Or a least, that's how the source looks to me.) > > Hmmm... Where does it count? Where is the loop? Do I have tomatoes on > my eyes? (I do sometimes, I know) > > Look at put() in qmail-smtpd.c. It's called from blast() which is called by smtp_data(). When bytestooverflow is exhausted, qmail_fail() is called. 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 ==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Janos Farkas wrote: > > > > > > On 1999-07-02 at 11:09:56, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote: > > > > I have a small question about the databytes control file: > > > > does a mail first get stored on local disk before the size is checked? > > > > > > No, qmail-smtpd checks it continously while passing the message data to > > > qmail-queue. As soon as it founds itself bumping into the limit, it > > > reports and error to the client, and qmail-queue will abort the message, > > > so qmail won't allow a single message to use significantly larger space > > > than you allow. > > > > > > (Or a least, that's how the source looks to me.) > > > > Hmmm... Where does it count? Where is the loop? Do I have tomatoes on > > my eyes? (I do sometimes, I know) > > > > > > Look at put() in qmail-smtpd.c. It's called from blast() which is called > by smtp_data(). When bytestooverflow is exhausted, qmail_fail() is > called. Ahhh! Now I get it! Thanks! -- Andre
Russ Allbery writes: > Also note that Dan is reinventing parts of autoconf in his build process; > that's what all those try programs are. He's doing precisely the same > thing that autoconf does, namely write out a little program, compile it, > and see what happens. So he's actually using precisely those "child's > babblings" that you're dismissing, and using them in a similar way; he > just hasn't surrounded them with m4 macros. Well, Russ, I guess you've never been bitten by config.cache. autoconf needs it because it's monolithic. Unix doesn't *do* monolitic. Not Unix done right anyway. Take Dan's makefile for instance. It's complicated, sure, but unlike the makefiles created by autoconf, it's readable. And it's comprehensive. Change one thing, and only those files that depend on it get rebuilt. Sorry, Russ, but autoconf is a lose (compared to Dan's methods -- obviously it's much better than the old "edit the Makefile; edit config.h; make; iterate" way). It's just wrong, all the way. Something can solve a problem but still be the wrong solution. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:11:03 -0400 (EDT), Russell Nelson wrote: >Sorry, Russ, but autoconf is a lose (compared to Dan's methods -- >obviously it's much better than the old "edit the Makefile; edit >config.h; make; iterate" way). It's just wrong, all the way. >Something can solve a problem but still be the wrong solution. A problem with Dan's system [for others] is that the tools are not released . Thus, for modifying his programs, one has to either reinvent his wheel (ezmlm for some reason comes with the stub files that list dependencies so it could be done) or go to the "edit Makefile by hand" method. Dan's portability stuff builds an order of magnitude faster than autoconf stuff. OT: You can sell libc-based applications. I don't know what rights you have to sell programs that use e.g. the stralloc() string implementation (which is excellent, IMHO). It would be nice if some of these things were available/public domain (it is explicitly stated in the cdb package that one can do whatever one wants with the c files, so a considerable subset are there). Also, a libdjb would save a bit of space now that many of use run qmail, ezmlm, tcpserver, cyclog, svc, cdb, ... As for buffers, Dan's library is just a little bit more low-level. He chooses ceratain buffer sizes in his applications, but that's not a requirement of his library. I would think that his choice for his applications is better than what designers of libc do at a global level. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Russell Nelson writes: > Russ Allbery writes: > > Also note that Dan is reinventing parts of autoconf in his build process; > > that's what all those try programs are. He's doing precisely the same > > thing that autoconf does, namely write out a little program, compile it, > > and see what happens. So he's actually using precisely those "child's > > babblings" that you're dismissing, and using them in a similar way; he > > just hasn't surrounded them with m4 macros. > > Well, Russ, I guess you've never been bitten by config.cache. Well, I don't really know what "bitten by config.cache" means. There were times when I had to remove config.cache, but I wouldn't characterize those situations to be problematic. > autoconf needs it because it's monolithic. Unix doesn't *do* > monolitic. Not Unix done right anyway. Take Dan's makefile for autoconf is not monolothic. autoconf is a collection of macros. You pick the ones you want or need to use. > instance. It's complicated, sure, but unlike the makefiles created by > autoconf, it's readable. And it's comprehensive. Change one thing, > and only those files that depend on it get rebuilt. That, generally is how automake-generated Makefiles work. autoconf, by itself, has very little to do with any Makefile. My only complaint is that sometimes traditional SYSV/BSD-derived makes choke on automake-generated Makefiles, and you need to use the GNU make. -- Sam
If you want build root support, I've got a patch to the qmail-1.03 distribution that adds that in. Well, does not something like DESTDIR=/okidoki make make man mkdir -p $DESTDIR/var/qmail chmod 755 $DESTDIR/var/qmail echo $DESTDIR/var/qmail > conf-qmail make install make instcheck ./install ./instcheck do it? Mate
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, Russ, I guess you've never been bitten by config.cache. No, I can honestly say that I've never been bitten by config.cache. I've run configure, seen a bunch of things show up as cached when I knew I didn't have a valid cache, and deleted the cache file and started again. But anyone who's compiling software for multiple platforms out of the same source area is going to need to deal with issues like that. That's what make distclean is for. > autoconf needs it because it's monolithic. autoconf most certainly is not monolithic. It *generates* a monolithic shell script, precisely because that shell script is performing workarounds for things that Dan doesn't deal with and is producing output in a form that Dan doesn't use. The output forms autoconf uses aren't that ideal for small packages; for a large package, they're workable and relatively efficient and Dan's method would be *very* annoying to deal with IMO. I wouldn't want to have to remember what thirty-two different autogenerated header files I needed to include for that particular set of features. But the autoconf package itself is no more monolithic than Dan's tests are. It's a bunch of completely separate macros you can take or leave as you want. > Take Dan's makefile for instance. It's complicated, sure, but unlike > the makefiles created by autoconf, it's readable. autoconf doesn't create Makefiles; I'm wondering if you're objecting to autoconf because you don't actually know very much about it. And Dan's makefile most certainly is not very readable; it has all the rules in alphabetical order rather than grouped by either order of dependency or by function, making figuring out how anything is working an excercise in tons of grepping. > And it's comprehensive. Change one thing, and only those files that > depend on it get rebuilt. That has to do with dependencies and has nothing to do with autoconf at all. > Sorry, Russ, but autoconf is a lose (compared to Dan's methods -- > obviously it's much better than the old "edit the Makefile; edit > config.h; make; iterate" way). It's just wrong, all the way. I appreciate that you think so. I disagree. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Yeah, that works. But it gets a tad more annoying when you want to install everything as root when you build the package and then have the RPM file apply the user and group ownerships. Also when you want to provide a packaged instcheck utility. I just created a conf-qmail_pack and conf-users_pack and conf-groups_pack which produce an install_pack and instcheck_pack. Just had to modify the makefile rules a tad. Eh, I think it's more elegant. - David Harris Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services -----Original Message----- From: Mate Wierdl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: autoconf? If you want build root support, I've got a patch to the qmail-1.03 distribution that adds that in. Well, does not something like DESTDIR=/okidoki make make man mkdir -p $DESTDIR/var/qmail chmod 755 $DESTDIR/var/qmail echo $DESTDIR/var/qmail > conf-qmail make install make instcheck ./install ./instcheck do it? Mate
Is there a particular reason why you don't want QMail to work beyond the scope of your network? SMTP handling will send mail out to the world POP-3 and IMap will handle sending and recieving mail via remote machines (i.e. not the localhost machine running QMail) I don't have Pop3 working yet (to the outside world) most likely because of my firewall, so ironically, my local network is the only way Outlook or Outlook express can use qmail, lol. As for getting it to work with Outlook express for you windows boxes., let's look at a normal case, which doesn't specifically restrict the more worldly capabilities. Let's say you have a domain mydomain.com and that points to your Linux box running QMail. In /var/qmail/control/rcpthost put mydomain.com. You should already have localhost in there, and possibly already mydomain.com. On my system, my cable modems name was already put there by virtue of the install. In /var/qmail/control/locals (spelling?) add mydomain.com This means that mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be sent over to the ~myusername folder. Within that directory will be the users .qmail files which do many things, and are the heart of QMail. .qmail will specify a ./Maildir/ if you are using Maildirs (not the default QMail behavior but better) It actually won't affect Outlook Express. The .qmail-xxxx files are a way of extending the users email address allowing among other things user owned mailing lists. EZMLM, the mailing list manager, is good enough reason to use QMail. Your Outlook Express settings will be SMTP server: whatever one you currently use, but if it's strictly a local setup you won't be sending mail out. Incoming Server: mydomain.com Username: myusername Password: the user's shell account password. If it doesn't work, several things could be at issue. Mydomain.com might not really point to your server (using pine or mutt on the server shell will help determine that. Both require some tweaking to make work with Maildirs though) Checkpassword might not be working or not installed (on the qmail.org page there is a quick test to see if it works - I can't remember the syntax off the top of my head) Your pop3 server might not be working correctly. There are a lot of emails on this list about that. Ignore the rudeness, and if you have a question post it. If you are having particular trouble ... beware of predators. Ultimately, QMail should provide you with a lot of facilities regardless of your email relationship with the outside world. QMail supports virtual hosting (somewhat different configuration than the host setup I described above). So for example, you could create a virtual host, user1.mydomain.com., user2.mydomain.com, user3.mydomain.com, etc. Special email address could be used with each one of them even a catchall email address. Outlook Express can filter by account so you could set up separate shell accounts to handle the different emails. (MS Outlook DOESN'T have that feature though - silly Microsoft) At any rate, by using QMail on your local system you will be able to configure your email addresses, accounts easily with QMail. QMail is fairly easy to use, it was designed that way, it's just not that easy to install, yet. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Lavelle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 1:23 PM > To: qmail > Subject: local mail server > > > I would like to set up a local mail server to service win98 boxes each > running outlook express. This is in an attempt to stop the office paper > chase. I am using RedHat 5.2 (2.0.36 kernel) with Samba for file > and print > sharing on the network. I have qmail installed but am not using it. > How easy would it be to implement a local mail system with qmail? > Regards, > Stephen > > > >
Very Easy... depending on your level of skill. If you follow the directions in the tarball exactly (read EVERYTHING first, especially the FAQ) you can do it first try. I run the same system for an ISP mail server and it works, FLAWLESSLY. Outlook Express on Win98 are no problem. You should definitely read at http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html by Dave Sill. qmail is an excellent program in every sense of the word. It is fast, reliable, modular, and once you get used to the differences in the way it operates: (many small programs that interoperate) vs monolithic program (Sendmail), you'll find that it is much more flexible as well. If you need ANY pointers, email me privately and I'll talk you through them, unless you'd like to make any such messages public for the edification of others in your shoes. If you got Samba working with Win98 clients relatively easily, you shouldn't have much trouble with qmail. At 12:35 PM 7/2/99 , you wrote: >I would like to set up a local mail server to service win98 boxes each >running outlook express. This is in an attempt to stop the office paper >chase. I am using RedHat 5.2 (2.0.36 kernel) with Samba for file and print >sharing on the network. I have qmail installed but am not using it. >How easy would it be to implement a local mail system with qmail? >Regards, >Stephen > > ______________________ NovaMetrix Development Robbie Walker, head muckety-muck and programmer P.O. Box 635 or 910-653-4006 106-B S. Main St 800-773-5647 Tabor City, NC 28463 910-653-2052 FAX
There was discussion a while ago about a faster syslogd replacement (part of the qmail distribution or something separate?), could someone point me at some informaiton about it please. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 03:09:24PM +0100, Chris Green wrote: You're looking for cyclog, which is part of the daemontools package. Find it at: ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/pub/software/daemontools-0.53.tar.gz > There was discussion a while ago about a faster syslogd replacement > (part of the qmail distribution or something separate?), could someone > point me at some informaiton about it please. -- Anand
cyclog. Part of Dan's daemontools package. ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/daemontools.html At 10:09 AM 7/2/99 , you wrote: >There was discussion a while ago about a faster syslogd replacement >(part of the qmail distribution or something separate?), could someone >point me at some informaiton about it please. > >-- >Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/ ______________________ NovaMetrix Development Robbie Walker, head muckety-muck and programmer P.O. Box 635 or 910-653-4006 106-B S. Main St 800-773-5647 Tabor City, NC 28463 910-653-2052 FAX
This is probably very simple, but indulge me. man for qmail-smtpd says: rcpthosts may include wildcards: heaven.af.mil .heaven.af.mil So is the "." the wildcard? My current understanding is: heaven.af.mil - will allow all email to <anyone>@heaven.af.mil .heaven.af.mil - will allow all email to <anyone>@<anyhost>.heaven.af.mil So you need both entries to block *heaven.af.mil. Is this correct? Also, does the same explanation apply to "virtualdomains" and "smtproutes"? Thanks in advance! Dave
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 10:55:33AM -0400, Dave Kitabjian wrote: > > This is probably very simple, but indulge me. > > man for qmail-smtpd says: > > rcpthosts may include wildcards: > > heaven.af.mil > .heaven.af.mil > > So is the "." the wildcard? My current understanding is: > > heaven.af.mil - will allow all email to <anyone>@heaven.af.mil > .heaven.af.mil - will allow all email to <anyone>@<anyhost>.heaven.af.mil > > So you need both entries to block *heaven.af.mil. Is this correct? As far as I have been able to tell, yes. > > Also, does the same explanation apply to "virtualdomains" and "smtproutes"? I'm relatively sure it does. If you man qmail-send, it tells you the exact syntax of all of the control files. --Adam
Finally, I installed the Memphis RPM, I noticed immediate differences. 1) First, there is no rc file in /var/qmail. The README in my ftp directory explains the differences between the tarball and the rpm's setup. 2) There were additional daemons running, particularly the tcp server. Again, README. 3) My rc#.d directories were filled with special scripts. Those are all links except the ones in init.d. The all start different qmail daemons. 4) The alias folder had MANY .qmail files rather than the 3 specified in the tarball distribution. (Oddly they all point to root, which according to the docs is a no-no) This for RH compatibility. The sendmail package sets up these aliases. They all point to root, because in my experience, most RH LInux boxes have a single administrator, and so one just has to specify the where root's mail should go. (Oddly they all point to root, which according to the docs is a no-no) It is not a no-no. Under qmail, root does not receive mail in it home. That has nothing to do with aliases pointing at root. The point is that one has to set up an alias for root. Under the Memphis rpm, .qmail-root is empty, so all mail to root goes to ~alias/Mailbox. I still cannot run pop remotely, but that's something else. This has something to with your DNS/Fierwall setup. Mate
That would be after the signup process. Dirk On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 11:10:49PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: > Dirk Harms-Merbitz writes: > > How do you identify an idiot during the signup process? > > They respond to off-topic postings. > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson > Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Sam wrote: > Diego Puertas writes: > > > When I put wrong email adresses (i.e.: "|/sbin/mkmess [EMAIL PROTECTED]" , or > > "//@%^&*|" ) in the mail from command of a qmail server, the server does > > not protest, as sendmail does. Postfix does the same as qmail. > > > > What are the reasons and beneficts of this behaviour? > > The server saves about .25 seconds by not issuing an extra DNS lookup. > > -- > Sam But, in the case of sendmail, does the server makes a DNS look up or just check that the adress format is valid?
Diego Puertas writes: > Sam wrote: > > > Diego Puertas writes: > > > > > When I put wrong email adresses (i.e.: "|/sbin/mkmess [EMAIL PROTECTED]" , or > > > "//@%^&*|" ) in the mail from command of a qmail server, the server does > > > not protest, as sendmail does. Postfix does the same as qmail. > > > > > > What are the reasons and beneficts of this behaviour? > > > > The server saves about .25 seconds by not issuing an extra DNS lookup. > > > > -- > > Sam > > But, in the case of sendmail, does the server makes a DNS look up or just > check that the adress format is valid? The default sendmail configuration does issue a DNS look up on the sender. Also, most sendmail configurations also validate local recipient addresses. -- Sam
Hi May sombody point me where I should send msg to unsubscribe from this list. I'm taking vacation and may mailbox will be very fast full......... Jozef
> May sombody point me where I should send msg to unsubscribe >from this list. I'm taking vacation and may mailbox will be very fast >full......... See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#mailing-lists -Dave
The way to unsubscribe from an ezmlm list is based on it's name. This name of this list is [EMAIL PROTECTED] (via the People's Republic of Tonga) So to unsubscribe send a blank email to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from your subscribing email address. For more about ezmlm check out http://www.ezmlm.org it has a lot of convenient features, for example, when you get back from vacation, you can get all the past emails by number. Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 1:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: info > > > Hi > May sombody point me where I should send msg to unsubscribe > from this list. I'm taking vacation and may mailbox will be very fast > full......... > > Jozef >
If you insist on doing this, could do please do the rest of the list a favor and not CC us on replies? We already know how to unsubscribe from the mailing list because we read the welcome message when we subscribed in the first place. shag ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Qmail@List. Cr. Yp. To <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Fri 2 Jul 1999 11.32 Subject: RE: info > The way to unsubscribe from an ezmlm list is based on it's name. > > This name of this list is [EMAIL PROTECTED] (via the People's Republic of > Tonga) > > So to unsubscribe send a blank email to this address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] from your subscribing email address. > > For more about ezmlm check out http://www.ezmlm.org it has a lot of > convenient features, for example, when you get back from vacation, you can > get all the past emails by number. > > Alex Miller > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 1:44 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: info > > > > > > Hi > > May sombody point me where I should send msg to unsubscribe > > from this list. I'm taking vacation and may mailbox will be very fast > > full......... > > > > Jozef > > > >
We just set up a RedHat 6.0 server to be used as a mail server in our deparment at school. Is Qmail MAPI 2.0 compliant? I am not really sure what his even is, but one of the professers is hesitant to let us dump Groupwise and switch to qmail if it isn't. Also, is there an easy way to go from groupwise to qmail? Ritchie
Ritchie Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We just set up a RedHat 6.0 server to be used as a mail server in our >deparment at school. Is Qmail MAPI 2.0 compliant? I am not really sure >what his even is, but one of the professers is hesitant to let us dump >Groupwise and switch to qmail if it isn't. MAPI is a Windows API. qmail doesn't run on Windows, so the answer is "no". Seems to me like you'd want MAPI in a Windows MUA, not an SMTP/POP server. See also: http://www.eudora.com/developers/mapi.html#WhatIsMapi >Also, is there an easy way to go from groupwise to qmail? Sorry, I don't know the first thing about groupwise. -Dave
As Dave said, MAPI is a Windows API. Your professor is confusing the term MAPI Server to mean a mail-server (such as qmail or Sendmail) and the client-server behavior of a MAPI Server providing messaging services to other applications running on the same machine... Yes. I know they don't "have" to be running on the same machine, but that's rare and confusing. At 01:45 PM 7/2/99 , you wrote: >We just set up a RedHat 6.0 server to be used as a mail server in our >deparment at school. Is Qmail MAPI 2.0 compliant? I am not really sure >what his even is, but one of the professers is hesitant to let us dump >Groupwise and switch to qmail if it isn't. Also, is there an easy way >to go from groupwise to qmail? > >Ritchie > ______________________ NovaMetrix Development Robbie Walker, head muckety-muck and programmer P.O. Box 635 or 910-653-4006 106-B S. Main St 800-773-5647 Tabor City, NC 28463 910-653-2052 FAX
"Durham, Kenneth J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | General Motors doesn't have a help line for people who don't know how | to drive. "An analogy is like a cup of instant coffee. It can wake you up, but it's not the real thing." --- Peter da Silva | Imagine if they did... http://www.gm.com/vehicles/us/owners/driver_ed/professional/overview.html http://www.gm.com/vehicles/us/owners/partners_safety/e810.html http://www.gm.com/vehicles/us/owners/partners_safety/e830.html | HelpLine: General Motors HelpLine, how can I help you? | | Customer: I got in my car and closed the door and nothing happened! | | HelpLine: Did you put the key in the ignition slot and turn it? http://www.acdelco.com/parts/1390_set.htm | Customer: What's an ignition? | | HelpLine: It's a starter motor that draws current from your battery | and turns over the engine. http://www.acdelco.com/parts/1530.htm | Customer: Ignition? Motor? Battery? Engine? How come I have to know | all these technical terms just to use my car? http://www.gm.com/vehicles/us/owners/partners_safety/e819.html http://www.acdelco.com/parts/1390a.htm
Hello, I'm using serialmail-70 over a ppp link for outgoing mail on a linux box. From the ip-up scripts it runs perfectly. However, if the conection stays up, I call serialmail from a crontab on the hour. I have the path to tcpclient set as a system wide path, and call serialmail from the crontab as root. Neither serialmail nor fetchmail run when called from the crontab if they are currently running. When called from the crontab, syslog always spits one (or both) of the 2 following errors: Jul 2 10:00:02 gateway serialmail: 930920402.294743 maildirserial: fatal: unabl e to get scanner status: no child processes Jul 2 11:00:01 gateway serialmail: 930924001.911220 maildirserial: fatal: unabl e to run tcpclient: file does not exist Anyone? Cheers - eric + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spark Sistemas E-mail - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. Tel: 4702-1958 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'm using serialmail-70 over a ppp link for outgoing mail on a linux >box. From the ip-up scripts it runs perfectly. However, if the conection >stays up, I call serialmail from a crontab on the hour. Smells like an environment difference. >I have the path to tcpclient set as a system wide path, What's that? >and call serialmail from the crontab as root. Neither serialmail nor >fetchmail run when called from the crontab if they are currently >running. What do you mean? You have some kind of locking mechanism? >When called from the crontab, syslog always spits one (or both) of the 2 >following errors: > >Jul 2 10:00:02 gateway serialmail: 930920402.294743 maildirserial: >fatal: unable to get scanner status: no child processes > >Jul 2 11:00:01 gateway serialmail: 930924001.911220 maildirserial: >fatal: unable to run tcpclient: file does not exist Don't know about the first one, but the second clearly says that tcpclient wasn't in the PATH. I would create a script called run_serialmail that does nothing but: #!/bin/sh PATH=$PATH:/var/qmail/bin:/path/to/tcpclient:/path/to/anything/else export PATH (serialmail command from your current crontab) then tell cron to run run_serialmail. -Dave
My "experience" with this list has been overall farely pleasant - despite my stupid newbie questions. People like Dave Sill have been very patient. BUT, because I'm a newbie, sometimes even when I "RTFM" things don't always click. I agree with Adam McKenna, if you ask nicely, you'll probably get a nice answer. With good advice, you don't have to be a good SYSADMIN to get Qmail running - but learning it inside and out is why I "endure" this mailing list. :-)
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Kevin King wrote: > My "experience" with this list has been overall farely pleasant - despite > my stupid newbie questions. People like Dave Sill have been very patient. > BUT, because I'm a newbie, sometimes even when I "RTFM" things don't > always click. I agree with Adam McKenna, if you ask nicely, you'll probably > get a nice answer. With good advice, you don't have to be a good SYSADMIN to get >Qmail running - but learning it inside and out is why I > "endure" this mailing list. :-) Asking nicely is only a part of the equation. You really have to show that you made at least some kind of an effort to figure things out by yourself. I really don't feel motivated to help anyone who fails to prove presence of any measurable brain activity, no matter how nice they are.
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 July 1999 at 21:05:09 -0400 > On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Kevin King wrote: > > > My "experience" with this list has been overall farely pleasant - despite > > my stupid newbie questions. People like Dave Sill have been very patient. > > BUT, because I'm a newbie, sometimes even when I "RTFM" things don't > > always click. I agree with Adam McKenna, if you ask nicely, you'll probably > > get a nice answer. With good advice, you don't have to be a good SYSADMIN to get >Qmail running - but learning it inside and out is why I > > "endure" this mailing list. :-) > > Asking nicely is only a part of the equation. You really have to show > that you made at least some kind of an effort to figure things out by > yourself. I really don't feel motivated to help anyone who fails to prove > presence of any measurable brain activity, no matter how nice they are. To recast this slightly, I'd say I'm less likely to begin a response when, from the details presented and the way the question was asked, it looks like I'll have to write a 30,000 word treatise on being a sysadmin. Which I'm not really competent to do in the first place. I'm entirely sympathetic to people who, after a few years of this, start getting a bit tired of it, and start being a little snappish towards people asking questions showing they have 0 knowledge. I'm sure I've done it myself, if not here then in other contexts. I'm also entirely sympathetic to people who are doing their best, really want to run qmail, run into trouble, and need help. And who don't like being snapped at. I don't believe there *is* an actual "solution". Everybody just has to manage to ignore some of the things and people that annoy them. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
I've tried and tried, but can't seem to figure out why "GFY" is so offensive. Obviously I haven't figured out the real meaning. "Good for you" is all I can come up with. -Tom
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, McGinnis, Tom wrote: > > I've tried and tried, but can't seem to figure out why "GFY" is so > offensive. Obviously I haven't figured out the real meaning. "Good for > you" is all I can come up with. When I first saw it, I too thought it was "Good For You" but based on whats-his-name's reaction to it I've come to realize it has a more existential meaning such as "Go Find Yourself" or something equally as meaningful. ;-) Cheers, Vern -- \ \ / __| _ \ \ | Vern Hart \ \ / _| / . | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \_/ ___|_|_\_|\_|
Ah, now you've pinpointed the logic behind my use of an acronym.. (they're so fun!) Alex assumed that the acronym stood for some sort of insult or profanity. Why? If you'll read the paragraph that I was replying to, you can tell that it was blatant flamebait. Alex proved this with his reaction. --Adam On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 03:20:36PM -0400, McGinnis, Tom wrote: > I've tried and tried, but can't seem to figure out why "GFY" is so > offensive. Obviously I haven't figured out the real meaning. "Good for > you" is all I can come up with. > > -Tom >
> Alex assumed that the acronym stood for some sort of insult or profanity. > Why? If you'll read the paragraph that I was replying to, you > can tell that > it was blatant flamebait. Alex proved this with his reaction. Actually Adam, I proposed making a web site.... In your negative response you wrote GFY. That was your PUBLIC response here on this list. Your PRIVATE email to me regarding making the web site was hardly "Good For You" and you know it. There are two kinds of people. Honest people and dishonest people. Do your really want me to post your private email to me, the one which clarifies you allegedly "Good For You" attitude toward the creation of that particular web site with that particular content? Alex Miller > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam D . McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 3:46 PM > To: McGinnis, Tom > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Off topic - What is GFY? > > > Ah, now you've pinpointed the logic behind my use of an acronym.. > (they're > so fun!) > > Alex assumed that the acronym stood for some sort of insult or profanity. > Why? If you'll read the paragraph that I was replying to, you > can tell that > it was blatant flamebait. Alex proved this with his reaction. > > --Adam > > On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 03:20:36PM -0400, McGinnis, Tom wrote: > > I've tried and tried, but can't seem to figure out why "GFY" is so > > offensive. Obviously I haven't figured out the real meaning. "Good for > > you" is all I can come up with. > > > > -Tom > > >
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote: > In your negative response you wrote GFY. > That was your PUBLIC response here on this list. > Your PRIVATE email to me regarding making the > web site was hardly "Good For You" and you know it. > There are two kinds of people. Honest people and dishonest people. > > Do your really want me to post your private email to me, > the one which clarifies you allegedly "Good For You" > attitude toward the creation of that particular web site > with that particular content? > > Alex Miller Please send it to me. I'm archiving all of this. I've also noted a vast different in what people say publically to this list and what they say privately. However, for me, it's always been that I've witnessed great rudeness on the list and amazing politeness in private. I'll have to say that *all* of the email that I have received privately has been polite and much more of what I would expect to receive from this list. There are a lot of good people here -- but there are some really obnioxious people too (you can label me how ever you want). Scott
Title: qmail-unsubscribeqmail-unsubscribe
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 09:01:35PM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > Chris, when you get that filter written would you mind sharing a copy? > Unless I get a few minutes to do it myself, then I'll share. > > Scott, can you say **plonk** ? Maybe the freds could extend ezmlm with an rfish option? From the man page: DESCRIPTION rfish sends a request asking rfishd(8) to slap the speci- fied user with a fish. If no hostname is specified, rfish assumes the recipient is on the local host. Regardless of whether the recipient is local or remote, the target host must be running rfishd (or another compatible server pro- gram) for the request to be satisfied. So to everyone being dumb on this list: Message from Fish Daemon at 12:39 Fish apparently sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED]: __ ,dHMMHb. ,HMMMMMMMMH\ __. _,ood##########HMMMMMMMMMMMM| .,o##MMMM| .,o#HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM#ooo\________ ._____oo#MMMMMMMMMP _o#MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMT .#HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM| MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMb. `#HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM####*###HMMMMMMMMH, `""`"*#HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMHb\ `""""##MMH `"`"""*HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? ``#MMMMMT `"#MMMMMM?"""""'``*#MMMMMM| """" `*HMMMD "`"*## `*#' A very remote fish. -- The 5 year plan: In five years we'll make up another plan. Or just re-use this one.
Hello I'm a long-time Windows user, but can see many advantages to Linux, but I've got a lot yet to learn... I've been reading this list and it has been quite helpful in installing qmail successfully. I've installed the memphis rpms, according to Keith Burdis' how-to instructions. I've downloaded the chkhdr patch, but yet, I still have the cname failure for aol addresses. This is probably where I went wrong: After doing the rpm -rebuild on functions-2-1.src.rpm, daemontools-0.53-16.src.rpm, ucspi-tcp0.84-1.src.rpm and the rpm -U qmail-1.03-14ucspi.src.rpm, I then did a cd to /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/qmail-1.03/ and ran 'patch dns.c qmail-103.patch' and it reported that it had patched the file. I then finished with the rpm -bb qmail-1.03-ucspi.spec and then rpm -U on functions, daemontools, ucspi-tcp, qmail-1.03-14ucspi. What did I do wrong, and what do I do now? Thanks in advance... Solomon
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Solomon B. Smith wrote: > Hello > > I'm a long-time Windows user, but can see many advantages to Linux, but I've > got a lot yet to learn... I've been reading this list and it has been quite > helpful in installing qmail successfully. > > I've installed the memphis rpms, according to Keith Burdis' how-to > instructions. I've downloaded the chkhdr patch, but yet, I still have the > cname failure for aol addresses. > > This is probably where I went wrong: > > After doing the rpm -rebuild on functions-2-1.src.rpm, > daemontools-0.53-16.src.rpm, ucspi-tcp0.84-1.src.rpm and the rpm -U > qmail-1.03-14ucspi.src.rpm, I then did a cd to > /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/qmail-1.03/ and ran 'patch dns.c qmail-103.patch' and > it reported that it had patched the file. > > I then finished with the rpm -bb qmail-1.03-ucspi.spec and then rpm -U on > functions, daemontools, ucspi-tcp, qmail-1.03-14ucspi. > > What did I do wrong, and what do I do now? Have no idea. Take the dns.c file you ended up with, then diff it against the original dns.c out of the tarball. See if the patch actually got applied.
Hello, Despite following the necessary instructions (#5.4) we are still experiencing an outgoing mail problem with qmail 1.03. Unless I remove /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts nobody can send mail outside the LAN. This is what I put in /etc/tcp.smtp: -- 192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" -- The content of /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts is: -- alro.be recitech.be wca.be 192.168.1.99 -- I use '192.168.1.99' as a hostname in the tcpserver (0.84) invocation. The IP addresses of alro.be, recitech.be and wca.be are not in the 192.168. range. (194.7.something) Does anyone have a clue as to what is wrong? I don't want to become mr. Spam Relay. -- Johan Van Gompel
How are you starting tcpserver? Did you remember to compile your /etc/tcp.smtp into /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb using tcprules? --Adam On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 04:22:24AM +0200, Johan Van Gompel wrote: > Hello, > > Despite following the necessary instructions (#5.4) we are still > experiencing an outgoing mail problem with qmail 1.03. Unless I remove > /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts nobody can send mail outside the LAN. > > This is what I put in /etc/tcp.smtp: > > -- > 192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > -- > > The content of /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts is: > > -- > alro.be > recitech.be > wca.be > 192.168.1.99 > -- > > I use '192.168.1.99' as a hostname in the tcpserver (0.84) invocation. The > IP addresses of alro.be, recitech.be and wca.be are not in the 192.168. > range. (194.7.something) > > Does anyone have a clue as to what is wrong? I don't want to become mr. > Spam Relay. > > -- > Johan Van Gompel >
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 04:22:24AM +0200, Johan Van Gompel wrote: > Hello, > > Despite following the necessary instructions (#5.4) we are still > experiencing an outgoing mail problem with qmail 1.03. Unless I remove > /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts nobody can send mail outside the LAN. Do you really mean that nobody can send mail outside the LAN, or do you mean that nobody on the LAN can get your local SMTP server to accept mail via SMTP if that mail is to be relayed? Can you send mail out from the box itself? (I suspect that you can, since removing rcpthosts fixes the problem.) > This is what I put in /etc/tcp.smtp: > > -- > 192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > -- > > The content of /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts is: > > -- > alro.be > recitech.be > wca.be > 192.168.1.99 > -- > > I use '192.168.1.99' as a hostname in the tcpserver (0.84) invocation. The > IP addresses of alro.be, recitech.be and wca.be are not in the 192.168. > range. (194.7.something) This host has more than one interface? If that's the case, you shouldn't even need any tcprules file, assuming that you want to allow anyone on your internal network to relay. If you're listening to port 25 only on the internal interface, then you can remove the rcpthosts file without fear of being used as a relay from the outside. I take it you don't receive mail via SMTP from outside of your own network. This doesn't explain why your setup doesn't work, but the use of tcprules shouldn't be necessary in this case. Chris
| This host has more than one interface? If that's the case, you shouldn't even | need any tcprules file, assuming that you want to allow anyone on your internal | network to relay. If you're listening to port 25 only on the internal | interface, then you can remove the rcpthosts file without fear of being used as | a relay from the outside. No, don't ever remove rcpthosts, no matter what! It's much better to configure tcpserver properly. Let's please avoid accidents.
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Scott Schwartz wrote: > | This host has more than one interface? If that's the case, you shouldn't even > | need any tcprules file, assuming that you want to allow anyone on your internal > | network to relay. If you're listening to port 25 only on the internal > | interface, then you can remove the rcpthosts file without fear of being used as > | a relay from the outside. > > No, don't ever remove rcpthosts, no matter what! It's much better to > configure tcpserver properly. Let's please avoid accidents. If tcpserver is bound only to the internal interface of a bastion host, then there's no danger of being used as a relay from the outside world. There's nothing improper about removing rcpthosts in this case, since the SMTP port is visible only to hosts from which he'd like to allow relaying. Chris
Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | If tcpserver is bound only to the internal interface of a bastion host, then | there's no danger of being used as a relay from the outside world. ...until one day someone accidently changes something, or misunderstands or misapplies that advice. Given that it's absolutely simple to do the right thing with tcpserver, please, let's not risk confusing anyone by suggesting that they should also run the rest of qmail in open relay mode, regardless of their network topology.
Adam D . McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How are you starting tcpserver? > Did you remember to compile your /etc/tcp.smtp into /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb using > tcprules? It did everything as described in FAQ #5.4, including compiling the rules in /etc/tcp.smtp into /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb using tcprules. A mere 20 minutes later, Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied: > Do you really mean that nobody can send mail outside the LAN, or do you mean > that nobody on the LAN can get your local SMTP server to accept mail via SMTP > if that mail is to be relayed? Can you send mail out from the box itself? (I > suspect that you can, since removing rcpthosts fixes the problem.) I mean the latter. When I add e.g. 'hotmail.com' to rcpthosts, everyone inside the LAN is able to send messages to that host. If I don't, they get that darn 'not found in rcpthosts' message. I haven't tried sending mail out from the box itself, but I too suspect it works. Finally, Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was quick to note: > No, don't ever remove rcpthosts, no matter what! It's much better to > configure tcpserver properly. Let's please avoid accidents. My idea exactly. -- Johan Van Gompel
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 05:27:54AM +0200, Johan Van Gompel wrote: > Adam D . McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How are you starting tcpserver? --Adam
"Johan Van Gompel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I mean the latter. When I add e.g. 'hotmail.com' to rcpthosts, everyone | inside the LAN is able to send messages to that host. If I don't, they get | that darn 'not found in rcpthosts' message. Let's try a simple test. Our goal is to verify that network connections from your client systems are being recognized and flagged by tcpserver with the RELAYCLIENT environment variable, which authorizes them to use the full power of SMTP. So, the idea is that we'll run a program that connects from localhost (127.0.0.1, which I assume you have in your smtp.cdb file) and uses the same rules as your qmail-smtpd invocation, but that just prints the environment. When it does, check to see that RELAYCLIENT is there. Edit the PATH and RULES lines below, as necessary. #!/bin/sh # --- tcprules exerciser # Customize PATH for your site: PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin # Customize RULES for your site: RULES=/var/qmail/rules/smtp.cdb # Launch tcpserver asynchronously, letting it choose the port number. # Use env to make sure it starts with a pristine environment, and # have it run env to report the environment that it sets. port=/tmp/port.$$ env - PATH="$PATH" \ tcpserver -R -1 -x "$RULES" 0 0 env >"$port" & pid=$! # Read what env reports about tcpserver's environment. tcpcat 0 `cat "$port"` # Cleanup. rm "$port" kill "$pid" # My output looks like this. Notice that RELAYCLIENT has been set # to "", as expected. # # PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin # PROTO=TCP # TCPLOCALPORT=42845 # TCPREMOTEIP=127.0.0.1 # TCPLOCALIP=127.0.0.1 # TCPREMOTEPORT=42846 # TCPLOCALHOST=localhost # TCPREMOTEHOST=localhost # RELAYCLIENT=
Here's a dumb one. Can anyone tell me why this is happening? adam@spotted:~$ cat ~alias/.qmail-root adam-root adam@spotted:~$ cat ~adam/.qmail-root ./Mail/root/ I tried changing ~alias/.qmail-root to be adam-rt instead of adam-root but the same thing happens. ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at virtual-estate.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: (qmail 3654 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 3652 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- End forwarded message -----
OK, I figured it out (sort of). ~alias/.qmail-postmaster was forwarding to root.. When I changed it to adam-postmaster, mail to root started working again. Anyone have an idea why this happened? --Adam On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 12:27:00AM -0400, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > Here's a dumb one. Can anyone tell me why this is happening? > > adam@spotted:~$ cat ~alias/.qmail-root > adam-root > adam@spotted:~$ cat ~adam/.qmail-root > ./Mail/root/ > > I tried changing ~alias/.qmail-root to be adam-rt instead of adam-root but > the same thing happens. > > ----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: failure notice > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at virtual-estate.net. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: (qmail 3654 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 3652 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 > Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 -0000 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- >
Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- [Let's try a simple test] So, the idea is that we'll run a program that connects from localhost (127.0.0.1, which I assume you have in your smtp.cdb file) and uses the same rules as your qmail-smtpd invocation, but that just prints the environment. When it does, check to see that RELAYCLIENT is there. [script snipped] -- The output is identical to yours, except for the port numbers. At first, tcpcat returned a 'cannot connect to 127.0.0.1 port xxx] error though, but that was quickly solved by changing '127.' in /etc/tcp.smtp to '127.0.0.1' and rebuilding /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb using tcprules. I still get the 'sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)' error message though. Some people wanted to see my tcpserver invocations. Here is the qmail startup script I wrote: -- [beginning snipped] tcpserver -u 1009 -g 1008 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb & [end snipped] -- Oh no. :-) Of course, '-x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb' should be given as an argument to tcpserver and not to qmail-smtpd. I corrected it and qmail now works as expected. I won't make *that* mistake ever again. :-) Thanks for your support, people. You were all very helpful in retrieving this unforgivably stupid mistake. :-) -- Johan Van Gompel -- Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
Hi, Sorry if this is an stupid question, but... Is there a explaination somewhere about: "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)" What I mean is the part (#5.7.1), and other simular errors. ? -- V�nliga h�lsningar / Oden Eriksson CNE+MCSE+Linux UIN: 952113 0971-554 52 070-346 43 02
