qmail Digest 17 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 731
Topics (messages 29036 through 29080):
controls/databytes
29036 by: Dimitri SZAJMAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29037 by: Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29038 by: Faried Nawaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29043 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
receive
29039 by: Kevin Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29041 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Big mama ISP server
29040 by: Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
undelivered messages.
29042 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail case sensitivity
29044 by: "Gum, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29045 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29046 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29048 by: "Mr. Christopher F. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29049 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29055 by: "Gum, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29056 by: "Gum, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29057 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29061 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IMAP drivers with helper indexes databases (was RE: Inode/file limits)
29047 by: David A Galbraith CIRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29050 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29051 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29065 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inode/file limits
29052 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Infamous internic
29053 by: Uwe Ohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DNS 8.2.1 installed
29054 by: Bill Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-start STDOUT
29058 by: "Michael Mertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks and Qmail Date Stamping.
29059 by: "Larry H. Raab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29067 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
queue botched? update
29060 by: Michael Boyiazis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
postmaster autoresponder
29062 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29063 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29064 by: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
stop broken incoming mail connects?
29066 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29068 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29069 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29070 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29071 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29075 by: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virtual Hosting Help.
29072 by: "Larry H. Raab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
long dns records
29073 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29074 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Patch for Aol?
29076 by: "Martin Paulucci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29077 by: "Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-pop3d unbearably slow on a mac
29078 by: mdap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
packages, rpms
29079 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Queue quiery - strange results.
29080 by: Georgi Kupenov <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi !
Please where can I find a documentation about how does the
controls/databytes file works ?
Thank you for your answer !
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
> Hi !
>
> Please where can I find a documentation about how does the
> controls/databytes file works ?
>
> Thank you for your answer !
>
man qmail-smtpd
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
==========================================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dimitri SZAJMAN) writes:
Please where can I find a documentation about how does the
controls/databytes file works ?
See the man page for qmail-smtpd.
In general, read the man page for qmail-control to find out about control/*
files.
Faried.
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote:
> Hi !
>
> Please where can I find a documentation about how does the
> controls/databytes file works ?
If you want to know where the documentation for any of qmail's control
files is try "man qmail-control". That's all it is: pointers to which
program uses which control file. It's my favourite man page. :-)
> Thank you for your answer !
>
--
"Life is much too important to be taken seriously."
Thomas Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (613) 998-2836
hello all. I met a question with maildir format.
When I send a mail to a user. I can found a
new letter in his $HOME/Maidir/new, but when i
receiver letter from netscape under x-window,
The netscape cann't find the new letter.
questin two:
What should I setup the upstream smtp server in qmail
control file?
======================================
Kevin Chang
The Chairman of Beijing Linux Club
Beijing Linux Club's Website at
http://www.linuxchina.org
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BP:(86010)64269988 call 5750
ICQ:4230603
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Kevin Chang wrote:
> hello all. I met a question with maildir format.
> When I send a mail to a user. I can found a
> new letter in his $HOME/Maidir/new, but when i
> receiver letter from netscape under x-window,
> The netscape cann't find the new letter.
if you use Maildir, Netscape can only see the mil through POP. a simple
.qmail dile for that user or the qmail-local setting for the entire system
will change it to mbox delivery, then you can use movemail.
> questin two:
> What should I setup the upstream smtp server in qmail
> control file?
check the manpage about smtproutes if you must have all the mail going out
through one server
at 150K users, the loads on my server aren't impressive, I'm guessing
Israeli users surf and chat more than write Emails, possibly because of
the software limitations (very few Right-to-left clients available, fewer
agree on the encoding of the characters)
My bosses are quite happy with an outgoing Qmail server, so now I want to
make all other functions work on Qmail (local delivery, virtual domains,
pop, ETRN users moving to AUTORUN etc.)
right now an ugly 8 meg password file with a 6 meg shadow sidekick are
pushed around the servers with scp. I'm going to move delivery and RADIUS
auth all to RDBMs... (anyone done this? It's really hard to find useful
info about this online... should I patch them all to lookup CDB files, or
lookup an SQL server maybe?)
the main question I'd like to pose to people, because getting sun machines
just for tests is too expensive an option here, has anyone compared the
speed advantage or loss when moving between the following setups:
1. current: sendmail delivers to a local in-house agent written in C (15k
tool) that tests for a vacation flag for a user, then delivers to a two
level hashed spool directory (/var/spool/mail/u/s/username) mounted from a
net appliance box after checking mail quota limits (not standard fs
quota). a second machine servers pop with qpopper.
2. wanted: qmail uses qmail-users or an external lookup (of CDB or some
SQL?) to deliver to a a single-UID hash of maildirs if within quota, while
checking for a vacation flag and executing if necessary. POP is served
from another machine using qmail-pop3d. no dialup users have a UID or an
entry in the /etc/passwd (YEAH!!!)
is qmail-pop3d up to such volumes? is the 2-order growth in number of
directories and files on the fileserver a speed damper? should I let qmail
deliver to the existing hash and keep Qualcomm's popper poppin'?
all sugestions and experianced tips are welcome, on-list or off it. TIA!
Ira.
(Oh yeah, and Russel, if you have a ready-made solution you can offer for
a fee, send me an offer!)
Braden Manning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 16 August 1999 at 16:42:52 +1000
> G'day,
> small question for anyone who can help me.
>
> I am finding that we are getting a small number of users who are receiving
> email from some people, and not from others. The other end that are sending
> the message, sometimes don't get anything back to say there was an error at
> all, and soemtimes they receive something like
>
> "The recipient was not available to take delivery of the message. Host
> unreachable"
>
> Does anybody have any ideas?
Well, the error message you quote seems to mean that the *sender's*
MTA (not your qmail installation) was unable to establish a TCP
connection to your system. That seems to indicate much deeper
problems than something in the MTA, to me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
I am using Qmail on a Unix system (Digital Unix) and recently had a
complaint from my customer that a new email user was unable to connect to
the system using Qmail. Evidently the user name needed to be upper and
lower case in their system and possibly in our server also.
Is Qmail RFC compliant with case sensitivity using mailbox user names? The
reason I ask is Qmail seems to take all user names to lower case. I have
heard through my peers that the RFC states that the mailbox user names need
to be accepted as either upper case or lower case and not be converted to
lower case. Is this true? If not would you say that Qmail is RFC
compliant? What is your thoughts with Qmail case sensitivity? Is there a
fix to the lower case conversion if I need to change our Qmail.
Bottom line is if it is not RFC compliant and there is not a fix to the case
sensitivity issue, then I might need to come up with a good argument not to
replace Qmail in our system.
Thank You
Greg Gum
Lockheed Martin
adam@spotted:~$ echo to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | qmail-inject
==> /var/log/qmail/@00000934589497 <==
934815785.584174 new msg 14146
934815785.584186 info msg 14146: bytes 217 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 16516 uid 1000
934815785.623605 starting delivery 26638: msg 14146 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
934815785.623626 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
934815785.678035 delivery 26638: success: did_0+0+2/
934815785.678051 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
934815785.678063 end msg 14146
adam@spotted:~$ telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 flounder.net ESMTP
mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hello
.
250 ok 934815918 qp 16539
==> /var/log/qmail/@00000934589497 <==
934815918.595499 new msg 14146
934815918.595510 info msg 14146: bytes 235 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 16539 uid 71
934815918.634793 starting delivery 26640: msg 14146 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
934815918.634813 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
934815918.685727 delivery 26640: success: did_0+0+2/
934815918.685743 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
934815918.685754 end msg 14146
What's the problem?
--Adam
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Gum, Greg wrote:
>
>
> I am using Qmail on a Unix system (Digital Unix) and recently had a
> complaint from my customer that a new email user was unable to connect to
> the system using Qmail. Evidently the user name needed to be upper and
> lower case in their system and possibly in our server also.
>
> Is Qmail RFC compliant with case sensitivity using mailbox user names? The
> reason I ask is Qmail seems to take all user names to lower case. I have
> heard through my peers that the RFC states that the mailbox user names need
> to be accepted as either upper case or lower case and not be converted to
> lower case. Is this true? If not would you say that Qmail is RFC
> compliant? What is your thoughts with Qmail case sensitivity? Is there a
> fix to the lower case conversion if I need to change our Qmail.
>
> Bottom line is if it is not RFC compliant and there is not a fix to the case
> sensitivity issue, then I might need to come up with a good argument not to
> replace Qmail in our system.
>
> Thank You
> Greg Gum
> Lockheed Martin
>
Gum, Greg writes:
> Is Qmail RFC compliant with case sensitivity using mailbox user names? The
> reason I ask is Qmail seems to take all user names to lower case.
qmail preserves the case of usernames which transit the systems,
however, when it delivers mail on the local machine, it smashes the
case to all-lower when matching a username or extension.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free 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 Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Gum, Greg wrote:
>
>
> I am using Qmail on a Unix system (Digital Unix) and recently had a
> complaint from my customer that a new email user was unable to connect to
> the system using Qmail. Evidently the user name needed to be upper and
> lower case in their system and possibly in our server also.
What do you mean by "connect to"?
If that is a pop connection, the username might be case sensitive.
cucipop seems to accept case insensitive, qmail-popup seems to be
case sensitive.
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/
Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian linux.
> From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:07:51 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Gum, Greg writes:
> > Is Qmail RFC compliant with case sensitivity using mailbox user names?
> The
> > reason I ask is Qmail seems to take all user names to lower case.
>
> qmail preserves the case of usernames which transit the systems,
> however, when it delivers mail on the local machine, it smashes the
> case to all-lower when matching a username or extension.
And in addition, what Russ didn't say, but which I'm sure he intended is that
the RFC leaves it up to the local system to decide what to do with locally
delivered mail, so qmail is not in violation.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com
+1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500
4314 Avenue C
O- Austin, TX 78751-3709
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
Thank you for replying to my email.
Connect was probably the wrong word. Here is the situation. I work on
operational project that uses qmail to receive incoming mail on Digital
Alpha servers. We have found that all user accounts created in the
/etc/passwd file of this server must be made in lower case, because it is
our experience that qmail seems to convert incoming mailbox names (To:) to
lower case.
Question 1: > Is qmail RFC compliant to the best of your
knowledge. Especially with regards to case sensitivity, mailbox user names
and any address conversions that take place?
Question 2: If qmail does convert any of the addresses to lower
case, can you shed any light on why?>
Question 3: I have been told that qmail is RFC compliant, in that
it is case insensitive, but it does alter the case of a mailbox user name.
Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Question 4: What are qmail-getpw, qmail-pw2u, qmail-users? What do
they do? How if at all could they be used to handle mixed-case user names.
Question 5: How do you get qmail to accept and deliver mail to a
user with mixed case user name on a Unix system? For example the Unix
account name is: "GregGum123"
Thanks in advance for your help.
----------
From: Adam D . McKenna
Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 11:06 AM
To: Gum, Greg
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Qmail case sensitivity
adam@spotted:~$ echo to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | qmail-inject
==> /var/log/qmail/@00000934589497 <==
934815785.584174 new msg 14146
934815785.584186 info msg 14146: bytes 217 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qp 16516 uid 1000
934815785.623605 starting delivery 26638: msg 14146 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
934815785.623626 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
934815785.678035 delivery 26638: success: did_0+0+2/
934815785.678051 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
934815785.678063 end msg 14146
adam@spotted:~$ telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 flounder.net ESMTP
mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hello
.
250 ok 934815918 qp 16539
==> /var/log/qmail/@00000934589497 <==
934815918.595499 new msg 14146
934815918.595510 info msg 14146: bytes 235 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qp 16539 uid 71
934815918.634793 starting delivery 26640: msg 14146 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
934815918.634813 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
934815918.685727 delivery 26640: success: did_0+0+2/
934815918.685743 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
934815918.685754 end msg 14146
What's the problem?
--Adam
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Gum, Greg wrote:
>
>
> I am using Qmail on a Unix system (Digital Unix) and recently had
a
> complaint from my customer that a new email user was unable to
connect to
> the system using Qmail. Evidently the user name needed to be
upper and
> lower case in their system and possibly in our server also.
>
> Is Qmail RFC compliant with case sensitivity using mailbox user
names? The
> reason I ask is Qmail seems to take all user names to lower case.
I have
> heard through my peers that the RFC states that the mailbox user
names need
> to be accepted as either upper case or lower case and not be
converted to
> lower case. Is this true? If not would you say that Qmail is RFC
> compliant? What is your thoughts with Qmail case sensitivity?
Is there a
> fix to the lower case conversion if I need to change our Qmail.
>
> Bottom line is if it is not RFC compliant and there is not a fix
to the case
> sensitivity issue, then I might need to come up with a good
argument not to
> replace Qmail in our system.
>
> Thank You
> Greg Gum
> Lockheed Martin
>
Thank you for replying to my email.
Connect was probably the wrong word. Here is the situation. I work on
operational project that uses qmail to receive incoming mail on Digital
Alpha servers. We have found that all user accounts created in the
/etc/passwd file of this server must be made in lower case, because it is
our experience that qmail seems to convert incoming mailbox names (To:) to
lower case.
Question 1: > Is qmail RFC compliant to the best of your
knowledge. Especially with regards to case sensitivity, mailbox user names
and any address conversions that take place?
Question 2: If qmail does convert any of the addresses to lower
case, can you shed any light on why?>
Question 3: I have been told that qmail is RFC compliant, in that
it is case insensitive, but it does alter the case of a mailbox user name.
Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Question 4: What are qmail-getpw, qmail-pw2u, qmail-users? What do
they do? How if at all could they be used to handle mixed-case user names.
Question 5: How do you get qmail to accept and deliver mail to a
user with mixed case user name on a Unix system? For example the Unix
account name is: "GregGum123"
Thanks in advance for your help.
----------
From: Mr. Christopher F. Miller
Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 11:17 AM
To: Gum, Greg
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Qmail case sensitivity
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Gum, Greg wrote:
>
>
> I am using Qmail on a Unix system (Digital Unix) and recently had
a
> complaint from my customer that a new email user was unable to
connect to
> the system using Qmail. Evidently the user name needed to be
upper and
> lower case in their system and possibly in our server also.
What do you mean by "connect to"?
If that is a pop connection, the username might be case sensitive.
cucipop seems to accept case insensitive, qmail-popup seems to be
case sensitive.
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME
04039
1.207.657.5078
http://www.maine.com/
Database publishing, e-commerce, office/internet integration, Debian
linux.
"Gum, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Question 1: > Is qmail RFC compliant to the best of your
>knowledge. Especially with regards to case sensitivity, mailbox user names
>and any address conversions that take place?
Yes.
> Question 2: If qmail does convert any of the addresses to lower
>case, can you shed any light on why?>
Because many people assume that the local part is case insensitive.
> Question 3: I have been told that qmail is RFC compliant, in that
>it is case insensitive, but it does alter the case of a mailbox user name.
>Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Regarding case sensitivity, qmail is RFC compliant. The why has
already been explained in to you in a previous message.
> Question 4: What are qmail-getpw, qmail-pw2u, qmail-users?
Pieces of qmail.
>What do they do?
RTFM.
>How if at all could they be used to handle mixed-case user names.
Don't know, but you could certainly remove the case folding, if that's
what you want.
> Question 5: How do you get qmail to accept and deliver mail to a
>user with mixed case user name on a Unix system? For example the Unix
>account name is: "GregGum123"
Easy: address it to GregGum123, greggum123, GRegGUm123, ...
If the question is, how do you get qmail to deliver mail to both
GregGum123 and greggum123, where these represent different users, the
answer is: you hack out the case folding. If you don't know how to do
that, find someone who does. If nobody volunteers, offer to pay.
-Dave
Gum, Greg writes:
> Thank you for replying to my email.
>
> Connect was probably the wrong word. Here is the situation. I work on
> operational project that uses qmail to receive incoming mail on Digital
> Alpha servers. We have found that all user accounts created in the
> /etc/passwd file of this server must be made in lower case, because it is
> our experience that qmail seems to convert incoming mailbox names (To:) to
> lower case.
>
> Question 1: > Is qmail RFC compliant to the best of your
> knowledge. Especially with regards to case sensitivity, mailbox user names
> and any address conversions that take place?
Answer 1: Yes, it is RFC compliant. The RFC states that a host may,
at its option, differentiate between local parts based on the case.
Therefore, any MTA that sends mail MUST preserve the case of an
address that is presented to it.
And indeed, qmail does just that. However, when it delivers mail, it
never does so to a username with upper-case letters.
> Question 2: If qmail does convert any of the addresses to lower
> case, can you shed any light on why?>
Answer 2: Because too many users think that email is case-insensitive,
and happily send mail in either case.
> Question 3: I have been told that qmail is RFC compliant, in that
> it is case insensitive, but it does alter the case of a mailbox user name.
> Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Answer 3: It does NOT alter the case of a mailbox username. Case is
ignored when matching a user name or extension. The case of the
username is always preserved, however.
> Question 5: How do you get qmail to accept and deliver mail to a
> user with mixed case user name on a Unix system? For example the Unix
> account name is: "GregGum123"
Answer 5: Use qmail-users and run qmail-pw2u with the -u flag.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free 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!
It seems to me that the easiest way would be to use a gdbm file which
uses the maildir name as the key and the data is all the fields in the
header that would be userful. (throw out the Recieved lines and other
misc junk that imap doesn't normally ask for) Then when the imap server
asks for header data that isn't in the dbm file it gets it out of the
message file and then stores it into the dbm file also. When a message is
expunged right before it is deleted off the disk you delete it out of the
dbm file.
If the dbm file isn't there no big deal it gets created... corruption
would be harder to detect assuming it was simply missing data... but
since reading a message has to load the same fields that the dbm file has
you could do a store of the data when you read a message if there were
differences.
The problem I have with doing this, is what happens if the dbm file is
held on NFS. The great thing aboug Maildir is that it is NFS "robust".
To add something like this will change that. How does gdbm act if it goes
to read a record and because of NFS cacheing from another client only
half the record is there... that sort of thing... Otherwise I would have
written the code into the maildir.c file for UW's Imap long ago :)
-d.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Galbraith dgalb@ University Of New Mexico |
| Systems Analyst unm.edu (505)-277-8499 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
David A Galbraith CIRT wrote:
> The problem I have with doing this, is what happens if the dbm file is
> held on NFS. The great thing aboug Maildir is that it is NFS "robust".
> To add something like this will change that. How does gdbm act if it goes
> to read a record and because of NFS cacheing from another client only
> half the record is there... that sort of thing... Otherwise I would have
> written the code into the maildir.c file for UW's Imap long ago :)
The simple way to get around locking with database files is whenever you want
to update the file, make a complete copy to a unique filename and modify that
file. Then move the temporary file over the original file to do an update. This
keeps you from corrupting the database file without locking, but concurrent
updates get lost.
What if the whole side-by-side index code was written like this:
When you read a maildir, first make your own private copy of the database file.
Then you readdir() all of the cur and new directories and compare with the keys
in the database file. Delete any messages from the database file that don't
exist in the maildir. Then read in the header information from any new messages
found in the Maildir into the database file. From there you are ready to roll.
You see, the problem is that other programs may be delivering and receiving
from the maildir, so we can only really trust the database file to have
information for some messages, but we can't be assured that any message in the
maildir will be in the index. The maildir is authoritative. So, whenever we
want to use the index we update it, which requires reading the directories and
then reading header info from any new messages.. not too bad.
Because we don't trust the index to be complete, we can live with the
concurrent update problem where some updates will get lost. Sometimes messages
will be read into the index twice. No big problem.
However, if you allow people to modify the messages once in the Maildir, then
we have a problem because when the index is rebuilt, each message file has to
be stat()'ed to see if it has changed.. this is an inode lookup so we can
easily end up bouncing all around the filesystem causing lots of seeks in the
hard drive. Not good.
Maildir is really not that well designed for creating an efficient IMAP client.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, David Harris wrote:
What if the whole side-by-side index code was written like this:
[good implementation description deleted...]
However, if you allow people to modify the messages once in the Maildir, then
we have a problem because when the index is rebuilt, each message file has to
be stat()'ed to see if it has changed.. this is an inode lookup so we can
easily end up bouncing all around the filesystem causing lots of seeks in the
hard drive. Not good.
Forgive my ignorance of this IMAP issue, but does the IMAP spec
permit a mail message to be modified (excluding flags) without
assigning it a new UID? If not, there is no need for stat as long
as the maildir file name changes.
-- Jeff Hayward
Jeff Hayward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance of this IMAP issue, but does the IMAP spec
> permit a mail message to be modified (excluding flags) without
> assigning it a new UID? If not, there is no need for stat as long
> as the maildir file name changes.
Hey, you are right!
I don't know much about the nitty-gritty details of the IMAP protocol, so I
just did a test. I'm using Outloook 98 as my IMAP client, and the server is the
latest RPM available from www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
I setup a maildir with one message:
$ md5sum `find Maildir -type f`
b862d13ec755ade64c204f83ca994e48
Maildir/cur/934827988.10150.hobbes.drh.net:2,S
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e Maildir/.uidvalidity
Then modified that message and saved the changes, and this is how the maildir
looked:
$ md5sum `find Maildir -type f`
b862d13ec755ade64c204f83ca994e48
Maildir/cur/934827988.10150.hobbes.drh.net:2,ST
c2784ffaa223c6fab44e64108a5c0536
Maildir/cur/934842373.15905.000000000.hobbes.drh.net:2,S
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e Maildir/.uidvalidity
So, I think we are guaranteed at least the IMAP client will not go changing
the messages without changing their name.
In my mind, this makes an IMAP server with a side-by-side database a real
possibility. Any thoughts?
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
john smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am concerned with running up against file/inode limits with maildirs.
>However, I have no real knowledge of the underlying file system to base
>this fear on. Can anyone recommend somewhere where I can learn more
>about this?
Hmm, I can't think of a good reference off-hand. Your OS documentation
should have various pieces of the puzzle. A good UNIX system
administration book should cover this, too, but beware that this is OF
and filesystem specific.
>Some of my questions: Does the size of the drive affect the
>maximum number of files? What are the average practical limits?
There are (at least) four factors that potentially limit the number of
files on a filesystem:
1) Free space. If the filesystem is full, you can't create more
files--even if you have free inodes.
2) The size of the filesystem. All other things equal, bigger
filesystems can have more files.
3) The type of filesystem. Traditional UNIX filesystems, like
those based on the Berkeley Fast File System (FFS), allocate a
chunk of space at initialization for inodes, and when that
space is used up, you can't create more files, even if the
filesystem has gigabytes of data space free. SGI XFS doesn't
preallocate inode space, so as long as the filesystem isn't
full, you can create more files.
4) How much space was preallocated for inodes. The newfs/mkfs
commands that create filesystems for filesystem types that
preallocate inode space allow you to specify the size of the
average file. Smaller files require more inodes.
Your "df" command should have option to show you inode usage.
-Dave
Hello,
> It would, eg, be handy if the followup surveys were reported and whether
> there was a trend that indicated increasing or decreasing change. Clearly
> with just two sample points no such conclusion can be drawn.
smtp-19990117.html: 2731 53.33 Sendmail
smtp-19990216.html: 3399 53.24 Sendmail
smtp-19990316.html: 3910 52.68 Sendmail
smtp-19990417.html: 3929 52.31 Sendmail
smtp-19990516.html: 4095 51.11 Sendmail
smtp-19990616.html: 4141 50.57 Sendmail
smtp-19990716.html: 4289 49.88 Sendmail
smtp-19990816.html: 4642 49.27 Sendmail
This survey checks mail servers which have, in the last 90 days, sent
mail to one of the (qmail) servers at work (ISP).
Regards, Uwe
>On Sat, Aug 14, 1999 at 04:28:31PM -0400, Chris Johnson wrote:
>> You're in the right direction. If your server doesn't know the answer to a
>> question (it's not authoritative and the answer isn't in cache), it'll ask
>> someone else. This may be a root server if no information at all about the
>> request is cached, or it may be something further down the line. (Maybe it
>> already has cached the fact that koobera.math.uic.edu is authoritative for
>> cr.yp.to, but it doesn't know what the mail exchanger is for cr.yp.to.
It won't
>
>Of course, who the root servers are is something that you have to
>keep up to date in your bind installation. That is, bind doesn't
>automatically know who the root servers are. That's something that
>it looks to a file for. And it's up to you to keep the file up to
>date.
>
Which brings me to my next question since qmail is dependent on DNS
for proper operation, I downloaded a script from the DNS How-to at
sunsite.unc.edu/LDP...can someone take a look at it to see if it
is workable for Linux via cron?
#!/bin/sh
#
# Update the nameserver cache information file once per month.
# This is run automatically by a cron entry.
#
# Original by Al Longyear
# Updated for bind 8 by Nicolai Langfeldt
# Miscelanious error-conditions reported by David A. Ranch
# Ping test suggested by Martin Foster
#
(
echo "To: hostmaster <hostmaster>"
echo "From: system <root>"
echo "Subject: Automatic update of the root.hints file"
echo
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:
export PATH
cd /var/named
# Are we online? Ping a server at your ISP
case `ping -qnc some.machine.net` in
*'100% packet loss'*)
echo "The network is DOWN. root.hints NOT updated"
echo
exit 0
;;
esac
dig @rs.internic.net . ns >root.hints.new 2>&1
case `cat root.hints.new` in
*NOERROR*)
# It worked
:;;
*)
echo "The root.hints file update has FAILED."
echo "This is the dig output reported:"
echo
cat root.hints.new
exit 0
;;
esac
echo "The root.hints file has been updated to contain the following
information:"
echo
cat root.hints.new
chown root.root root.hints.new
chmod 444 root.hints.new
rm -f root.hints.old
mv root.hints root.hints.old
mv root.hints.new root.hints
ndc restart
echo
echo "The nameserver has been restarted to ensure that the update is
complete."
echo "The previous root.hints file is now called
/var/named/root.hints.old."
) 2>&1 | /usr/lib/sendmail -t
exit 0
Now in the To: field, what goes here (forgive me for being stupid
sounding, but I have never done something like this...The From:
entry should be root@<mydomain.com> from what I see there...
Can anyone assist?
-Bill
Hi there,
I have a question to someone who is familar with the qmail-start
internals. I changed my rc file of qmail in a way, that
qmail-start is piping all its information to my own accounting parser.
qmail-start | /var/qmail/bin/acctlog >>/var/log/acct.1 2>>/var/log/acct.2
The odd thing is, that nothing is written to STDOUT, STDERR is filled
properly. If I change my statetment from
printf( to fprintf( stderr everything works fine, except error messages
and accounting data get mixed ;)
Any hints on this, I guess I should open up a new file or write to the
database instead of trusting on STDOUT.
--Michael
I would like to thank everyone for helping me get my Qmail up and going.
Now I just need to know how to get the date on emails that I recieve and
send. It has the time on it but not the date. If anyone can suggest
something I would be greatful.
Thanks.
Larry
Larry H. Raab writes:
> I would like to thank everyone for helping me get my Qmail up and going.
>
> Now I just need to know how to get the date on emails that I recieve and
> send. It has the time on it but not the date. If anyone can suggest
> something I would be greatful.
Read the help file for your E-mail software.
--
Sam
Well, I found out what a large part of the problem was...
During the crashes and confusion on the box,
/var/qmail/queue/intd disappeared!!!
I remade the directory and the queue pretty much cleared
itself right out. Still 86 messages are still complaining
about qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe...Maybe they'll end
up bouncing away?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Boyiazis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 1:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: queue botched?
>
>
> We had some difficulties yesterday...
>
> Our qmail servers are connected to a netfiler.
>
> Someone plugged something into port 1 on the switch on the network
> and everything freaked out for a while.
>
> Anyway, many switch and box reboots later I'm having problems with
> qmail on one of the boxes.
>
> When I start up qmail it says a bunch of items are accepted for
> delivery, but then I get qmail-spawn_unable_to_create_pipe
> (this comes from spawn.c)
>
> Has the queue been corrupted? Is it fixable using the queue-rename
> patch I found in the archives by Pedro Melo?
>
> I have qmail running on a second disk in the server w/
> the disk mounted onto /var/qmail...
>
> (it is a Sun E450 running 2.6 and qmail 1.03)
>
> ********
> a couple of usernames replace by joe/josieuser...
>
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.287240 status: local
> 0/10 remote
> 31/110
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320082 delivery 156: deferral:
> qmail-spaw
> n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.320303 status: local
> 0/10 remote
> 30/110
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325023 starting
> delivery 157: msg
> 116965
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325242 status: local
> 0/10 remote
> 31/110
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325710 delivery 157: deferral:
> qmail-spaw
> n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.325919 status: local
> 0/10 remote
> 30/110
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340023 starting
> delivery 158: msg
> 116748
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.340239 status: local
> 0/10 remote
> 31/110
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356327 starting
> delivery 159: msg
> 116687
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.356563 status: local
> 0/10 remote
> 32/110
> Aug 13 12:24:33 mail6 qmail: 934572273.367017 delivery 158: deferral:
> qmail-spaw
> n_unable_to_create_pipe._(#4.3.0)/
>
>
> plus a lot of these...
>
> Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.525128 warning:
> trouble injecting
> bounce message, will try later
> Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.583448 warning:
> trouble injecting
> bounce message, will try later
> Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.650093 warning:
> trouble injecting
> bounce message, will try later
> Aug 13 12:55:29 mail6 qmail: 934574129.708559 warning:
> trouble injecting
> bounce message, will try later
> Aug 13 12:55:43 mail6 qmail: 934574143.765686 warning:
> trouble injecting
> bounce message, will try later
> Aug 13 12:56:40 mail6 qmail: 934574200.819155 warning:
> trouble injecting
> bounce message, will try later
>
--
mike b. ---------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.sprynet.com/~boyiazis/mikehome.htm
"I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." Calvin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Hi,
I'm toying with the idea of setting up an autoresponder for "postmaster@"
mail. Reason: there's too many people, both customers and outsiders, who
don't read the part about "this is the qmail program" and attempt to reply
to postmaster with questions. (Granted, they don't read the abuse
autoresponder either, particularly the part about "this is an autogenerated
message", but at least this way they know they won't be getting a personal
response...)
Basically, I'd like to set up an autoresponder that looks for messages to
postmaster, and sends the autoreply if the message is not also FROM
postmaster (or mailerdaemon, or whatever). Are there any pitfalls involved
in setting this kind of thing up for "important" addresses like postmaster?
Thanks-
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
Quoting Racer X ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm toying with the idea of setting up an autoresponder for "postmaster@"
> mail. Reason: there's too many people, both customers and outsiders, who
> don't read the part about "this is the qmail program" and attempt to reply
> to postmaster with questions. (Granted, they don't read the abuse
> autoresponder either, particularly the part about "this is an autogenerated
> message", but at least this way they know they won't be getting a personal
> response...)
>
> Basically, I'd like to set up an autoresponder that looks for messages to
> postmaster, and sends the autoreply if the message is not also FROM
> postmaster (or mailerdaemon, or whatever). Are there any pitfalls involved
> in setting this kind of thing up for "important" addresses like postmaster?
Yeah, unfortunately, there are.
We had a major problem here once when NAI.COM, whose network admins
you would think were clueful, sent an email to an invalid address
here. Well, their autoresponder sent an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and our autoresponder sent one back to them.
Now, of course, I set this up to send the autoresponse with a NULL
return path; it didn't make a damn bit of difference because NAI's
responder looked at what was in the From header. It really pissed me
off.
When I came into work on a Saturday morning because my pager was
beeping, I discovered more than 4,000 queued emails to MAILER-DAEMON.
Emails to NAI did not elicit a response (well, my email to them wasn't
exactly _nice_ ;).
Except for that one incident and a couple other minor ones, it hasn't
been a big deal. Our autoresponse basically tells them that the
qmail-send program isn't a human, and to send questions to support.
Make sure to not look at what's in From to figure out how to deal
with the message. Look at the return path!
Incidentally, did you mean email sent to MAILER-DAEMON or really
to postmaster?
Aaron
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Racer X wrote:
Basically, I'd like to set up an autoresponder that looks for messages to
postmaster, and sends the autoreply if the message is not also FROM
postmaster (or mailerdaemon, or whatever). Are there any pitfalls involved
in setting this kind of thing up for "important" addresses like postmaster?
I wouldn't do it for 'postmaster', that's the address of last resort
when all your nice autoresponders fail.
You may mean that you want to set up an autoresponder for
'mailer-daemon', or whatever control/bouncefrom is set to. If you
do, be sure to respond to the envelope sender address, and use a
null envelope sender address on the reply.
-- Jeff Hayward
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
How does one stop this with qmail (only?) That is -- what do people
suggest be done on my receiving side that is running qmail?
Aug 16 16:34:35 ns1 tcp-env[29535]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:40 ns1 tcp-env[29537]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:40 ns1 tcp-env[29537]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:42 ns1 tcp-env[29538]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:42 ns1 tcp-env[29538]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:47 ns1 tcp-env[29539]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:47 ns1 tcp-env[29539]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:50 ns1 tcp-env[29540]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:50 ns1 tcp-env[29540]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:53 ns1 tcp-env[29541]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:53 ns1 tcp-env[29541]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:59 ns1 tcp-env[29543]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:59 ns1 tcp-env[29543]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:34:59 ns1 tcp-env[29542]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:34:59 ns1 tcp-env[29542]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:35:05 ns1 tcp-env[29554]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:35:05 ns1 tcp-env[29554]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
Aug 16 16:35:07 ns1 tcp-env[29555]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 16 16:35:07 ns1 tcp-env[29555]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
(etc?)
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN7iRnB4PLs9vCOqdAQEiXAQAs1HElG0zZPafS4WDDUPNXCy3TCgygMtb
h8GzIx9/8hR85F1J/wFMcORyKb1KGdD6jJZ/SoTJJoC9XHoyoPAYqITux+onQ1jG
IEEC9IrpQJMG2I1Q4bh0mIWNQ7Hq9AO++qGXhl/DUR0mpnh2siex/kr5JLmKRz8p
0DUrl/AWBH4=
=kZKS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scott D. Yelich writes:
> How does one stop this with qmail (only?) That is -- what do people
> suggest be done on my receiving side that is running qmail?
>
> Aug 16 16:34:35 ns1 tcp-env[29535]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
> Aug 16 16:34:40 ns1 tcp-env[29537]: warning: can't verify hostname:
>gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Speaking for myself, I just refuse to accept mail from these people.
My personal experience is that the likelyhood of a given IP address lacking
a functional reverse DNS is directly proportion of the likelyhood that the
same IP address is running an open relay, and that all I'll get from them
will be spam.
So, unless I succesfully resolve the IP address backwards, and I resolve it
forwards to the same IP address, I reject the mail. If I get a temporary
DNS failure, it's a temporary rejection. If I get a permanent DNS failure,
it's going to be a permanent rejection.
--
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I just refuse to accept mail from these people.
I agree...
> So, unless I succesfully resolve the IP address backwards, and I resolve it
> forwards to the same IP address, I reject the mail. If I get a temporary
> DNS failure, it's a temporary rejection. If I get a permanent DNS failure,
> it's going to be a permanent rejection.
But... the site is connecting every 3 seconds and tcp-env is refusing it.
I can't seem to get it to stop using tcp-env and hosts.deny, etc.
I would like to know what can be done using just qmail... to stop this.
I mean, isn't there a fancy 10 line pipe I can put in place to accept
this connection and give it some permanent error so it will stop trying
to reconnect? That's the qmail way, right?
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN7iULx4PLs9vCOqdAQGOZAQA5fF/8kdtzuO/lkIRD0oE/SBzFA2+zTvT
ESQzfZIXRbZlswhAyjFHXXr6QPiqZPi0nlWStLnaAwa56p3TOaYtKTMGvpK+QYJl
zfvIMK83gh/XgypouzkSD1sacfcsuFvjoGtyMkfJjBF4bVIOLLi9NHhaNzeZa9xI
XR750z4bNTU=
=x/Dz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich writes:
> Speaking for myself, I just refuse to accept mail from these people.
Sorry to post a second response...
[575]> egrep -i refuse /tmp/w | wc -l
20958
/tmp/w is a 'tcp-env' egrep for "warn|refuse"
so, I have a few sites that are attempting to send me mail:
Aug 16 16:02:53 ns1 tcp-env[28420]: warning: host name/name mismatch: sunshine.hcr.net
!= ns.hcr.net
Aug 16 16:02:53 ns1 tcp-env[28420]: refused connect from 208.240.246.4
Aug 15 19:08:23 ns1 tcp-env[6387]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(nehealth1.mint.net) failed
Aug 15 19:08:23 ns1 tcp-env[6387]: refused connect from 208.220.39.236
and about 6 others...
but the above ones are trying to connect very often.
The mint.net one is trying every 3 seconds, and the other
one tries not quite so often -- but the problem is that
*every* machine that is refused, is repeatedly trying to
reconnect and send. I really wanna tell them to stop it
in a not so polite way.
Scott
ps: yes, some are hostname mismatches from places like
ATM*.home.net and stuff... probably spam.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN7iVlB4PLs9vCOqdAQGflAQAuO3/EjPvBt2qm/yRGrJVIIbYLgSkOefx
k90j9J8W18WlEE2vTUX7Yo9z1mBsTexVQRARjfxvQFmBd3nOlc76LEz6yCgAISC9
St+7aYuleAOPyT1E2VZN8Eu/O/SS8+nmlZvfggxzMQxR6CoV8rwCiAU8bH5S0TOq
1WnN9g7Oysk=
=csIa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scott D. Yelich writes:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
> > Speaking for myself, I just refuse to accept mail from these people.
>
> I agree...
>
> > So, unless I succesfully resolve the IP address backwards, and I resolve it
> > forwards to the same IP address, I reject the mail. If I get a temporary
> > DNS failure, it's a temporary rejection. If I get a permanent DNS failure,
> > it's going to be a permanent rejection.
>
>
> But... the site is connecting every 3 seconds and tcp-env is refusing it.
> I can't seem to get it to stop using tcp-env and hosts.deny, etc.
>
> I would like to know what can be done using just qmail... to stop this.
I've hacked my Qmail to reject all RCPT TOs from these connections with a
permanent 500 error. That usually does it.
> I mean, isn't there a fancy 10 line pipe I can put in place to accept
> this connection and give it some permanent error so it will stop trying
> to reconnect? That's the qmail way, right?
I'm sure there's a qmail solution for this one too, but I prefer to use my
own solutions instead. There are some situations where a modular approach
makes sense, and some situations where it does not, and, I believe that
this is one of those situations that does not, so I rolled my own.
--
Sam
"Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The mint.net one is trying every 3 seconds, and the other
| one tries not quite so often -- but the problem is that
| *every* machine that is refused, is repeatedly trying to
| reconnect and send. I really wanna tell them to stop it
| in a not so polite way.
Instead of hanging up on them, you could try accepting the connection,
but tell smtpd to answer with a fatal 5xx reply. Invoking it with
DATABYTES=1 is the easiest way to do that, unless you've installed the
BOUNCEMAIL patch or are using rblsmtpd. (It's probably easier to use
tcpserver than to figure out how to make tcpd do what you want.)
I know I have asked dumb questions but this time I just don't understand
the HOW-TO.
I have 3 domains that I want to do email for but I don't understand
how to do it. I know I need a .qmail-(domanin name) but does that
replace the normal .qmail file in the HOME dir? And what do I put in
the file?
Again I am sorry of my stupidity....and any help would be great.
Thanks again for all the help.
Larry H. Raab
How long are these? Can you give me an example?
How can I test a dns patch?
I started noticing entries in my ftp log like:
Aug 15 15:36:59 moni proftpd[28583]: refused PORT 192,168,0,2,17,58
from
adsl-216-103-86-10.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (address mismatch)
Is this related or proftpd is doing its job?
Thx
Mate
Mate Wierdl writes:
> How long are these? Can you give me an example?
> How can I test a dns patch?
>
> I started noticing entries in my ftp log like:
>
> Aug 15 15:36:59 moni proftpd[28583]: refused PORT 192,168,0,2,17,58
> from
> adsl-216-103-86-10.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (address mismatch)
>
> Is this related or proftpd is doing its job?
No, it's not related. It's ProFTPD doing its job.
Either someone has a misconfigured proxy, or someone's trying to poke
around your network, using this lame FTP trick.
--
Sam
Hi everybody,
Thanks for all the replies I've got!..
I have one more question, is the aol patch still needed in version
1.03 or it's already fixed (by aol or qmail)?.
Thanks!!
Best regards,
Martin Paulucci
http://www.ServiRED.COM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
Telephone/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
Patch is still needed... it should be noted that this isn't a patch
specifically for AOL, but AOL is the most common (and first, I think) to
illuminate this 'bug' in the qmail code.
<:) Lyndon Griffin
Systems Engineer
||| Naviant |||
*** This message is made with 100% recycled bytes. ***
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Paulucci [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 4:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Patch for Aol?
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> Thanks for all the replies I've got!..
> I have one more question, is the aol patch still needed in version
> 1.03 or it's already fixed (by aol or qmail)?.
>
> Thanks!!
> Best regards,
>
> Martin Paulucci
> http://www.ServiRED.COM
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cell Phone: 15-4935-4246
> Telephone/Fax: (+54-11)4-961-3204
>
Hi everyone, I'm still in my rookie season (48 hours) of running qmail as
our ISP server, but one thing I've learned already that we're getting tons
of complaints about slooooow POP on a Mac. It doese't matter if they're
using Outlook, Netscape, or Eudora, they're all slow. No complaints from
anyone running on Windows, and it looks fine Popping from a unix box.
The problem's not in the validation of the user, it's in the actual
retrieval of the message (1K messages taking 2-3 minutes on a 48K connect).
We're running a Xeon Pentium II 450 w/512 Meg of ram, server load is 0.01
to 0.25 most of the time.
Suggestions please, my Mac customers are looking for a tall tree and a
short rope!
Henry Van Bogaert
qmail Postmaster in Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the directory
ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/qmail/
you find
1) qmail binary distributions in var-qmail/. README.var-qmail tells
you more.
2) qmail-run packages in qmail-run/. README.qmail-run tells you more.
In particular, the tarball qmail-run-4.tar.gz obsoletes
qmail-initscripts (please update www.qmail.org).
The var-qmail and qmail-run rpms *together* should properly upgrade
the so called "memphis" rpm.
3) tcpserver-initscripts in qmail-run/. Keith Burdis was kind enough
to show me how to include sshd.
4) qmail sources with patches in qmail-patch/. This directory contains
a kit that creates a spec file which then builds qmail with the
patches you selected. Presently, you can choose from 5 patches: rbl,
verh, qmqpc, dns (by Scott Schwartz), big-todo. But you can easily
add more once you understood my primitive kit. The rpm in var-qmail
was also made with this kit. Obviously, no binary rpms in this
directory. Read README.qmail-patch for details.
Any feedback on how these patched rpms work is appreciated. Our Linux
lab (running qmail and mini-qmail) got replaced by NT boxes, and our
department's main qmail mailserver's load will be transferred our
Univ's new Netscape MTA. Hence I have much less room to test.
5) rblsmtpd, checkpassword and friends are in qmail-addons/.
Those people who are frustrated that my site accepts only 10
simultaneous ftp logins should consider mirroring. I do not know how
long the load on our network will be tolerated (in the month of July,
just the qmail src rpm alone was downloaded by more than 2000
different sites).
6) Keith: when you have time, please update your notes on the
installation of the memphis rpm. It changed completely (though the
endproduct is the same.)
7) Somebody sent me an improvement for the functions rpm, but I lost
it. Could you send it to me again?
Mate
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
(qmail-1.03, tcpserver 0.80,
all mail is forwarded to a "smart relay")
myhost:~# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 2
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
myhost:~# qmail-qread
myhost:~#
Any ideas?
--
Georgi Kupenov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
