qmail Digest 18 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 732
Topics (messages 29081 through 29152):
Lots and lots of qmail-queue's
29081 by: Martin Ouwehand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29082 by: Daniel Jovius - Telenordia AB /Algonet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29116 by: Martin Ouwehand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29145 by: Daniel Jovius - Telenordia AB /Algonet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29150 by: Aaron Nabil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail sighting
29083 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29086 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29112 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29114 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
popbull not delivering to all users
29084 by: "Stephen C. Comoletti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bad deliver
29085 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29087 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29088 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29089 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29090 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29091 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29092 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29093 by: 'Chris Johnson' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29094 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29095 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29096 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29097 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29098 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29100 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29101 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29102 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29103 by: "Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29104 by: Yan Seiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29105 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29106 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29107 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29108 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29113 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29115 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29129 by: "Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29136 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMAP drivers with helper indexes databases (was RE: Inode/filelimits)
29099 by: David A Galbraith CIRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29141 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
orbs defence
29109 by: "Russell P. Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29110 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29111 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How to add X-Envelope-To: to all incoming mails?
29117 by: "Klaus Wissmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29147 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Anti-SPAM and my DNS
29118 by: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29121 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wierd tcpserver DNS failure problem
29119 by: John R Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29130 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HELP! queue not sending
29120 by: User JAMES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29124 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29125 by: User JAMES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29127 by: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29132 by: User JAMES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
postmaster autoresponder
29122 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.qmailadmin-limits problem
29123 by: Martin Paulucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Disconnected Operation
29126 by: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
relay testing
29128 by: Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Queue quiery - strange results.
29131 by: Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29135 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can not get with Netscape or Outlook.
29133 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
29134 by: Dustin Marquess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29138 by: Tkrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
question on big-todo patch
29137 by: "Lyndon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29143 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User Name length restriction
29139 by: "Samar Vijay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29142 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not receiving message from Internet
29140 by: "Samar Vijay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ORBS and other relay blockers
29144 by: John R Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Comments in tcprules
29146 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29148 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Problem with masquerading
29149 by: Jon Luraas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29151 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newbie - Setup question
29152 by: Daniel A. Denes <[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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anybody seen this: from time to time, a whole bunch of qmail-queue's
will accumulate (I'd say up to ~400), apparently doing nothing (ps shows
that most of them have the same WCHAN, but not all of them). Most of
them have 1 as PPID, a few still have qmail-smtpd as parent.
This has a serious impact on the through-put and reliability of our qmail
server. Right now, killing and restarting "tcpserver [...] qmail-smtpd"
fixes the problem, but I'd really like to know what is going on to altogether
avoid this behavior. BTW, this is a Solaris 2.5 machine.
Any idea ?
Martin
--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|_________ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/SIC/SL/info/Martin.html __________
Alors que la philosophie enseigne comment l'homme prétend
penser, la beuverie montre comment il pense vraiment [René Daumal]
Check your tcpserver-log. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a broken M$
mailer that is trying to send the same email to you over and over again,
pretty much like a DOS-attack. This has happened to me several times
and having IIS with SP4 causes it. There's more information in the
Qmail mailinglist-archive. http://www-archive.ornl.gov:8000/
On 17 Aug 1999, Martin Ouwehand wrote:
> Has anybody seen this: from time to time, a whole bunch of qmail-queue's
> will accumulate (I'd say up to ~400), apparently doing nothing (ps shows
> that most of them have the same WCHAN, but not all of them). Most of
> them have 1 as PPID, a few still have qmail-smtpd as parent.
>
> This has a serious impact on the through-put and reliability of our qmail
> server. Right now, killing and restarting "tcpserver [...] qmail-smtpd"
> fixes the problem, but I'd really like to know what is going on to altogether
> avoid this behavior. BTW, this is a Solaris 2.5 machine.
>
> Any idea ?
> Martin
>
>
> --
> | ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
> __|_________ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/SIC/SL/info/Martin.html __________
> Alors que la philosophie enseigne comment l'homme prétend
> penser, la beuverie montre comment il pense vraiment [René Daumal]
>
>
/ daj
--------
] Check your tcpserver-log. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a broken M$
] mailer that is trying to send the same email to you over and over again,
] pretty much like a DOS-attack. This has happened to me several times
] and having IIS with SP4 causes it.
Yes, this seems to be the explanation, but what now ? I can filter out
the faulty machines that I know about, but what if other come along ?
Is there anything I can do ?
Also, how do other MTA cope with this ? I'm asking this because we switched
recently to qmail, but this IIS client went unoticed until now, meaning
that old and big PP (our previous MTA) knew what to handle it.
--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|_________ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/SIC/SL/info/Martin.html __________
La méthode que j'emploie pour te discipliner n'est [Marpa à]
pas faite pour les êtres dégénérés de l'avenir [Milarepa]
> --------
> ] Check your tcpserver-log. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a broken M$
> ] mailer that is trying to send the same email to you over and over again,
> ] pretty much like a DOS-attack. This has happened to me several times
> ] and having IIS with SP4 causes it.
>
> Yes, this seems to be the explanation, but what now ? I can filter out
> the faulty machines that I know about, but what if other come along ?
> Is there anything I can do ?
>
> Also, how do other MTA cope with this ? I'm asking this because we switched
> recently to qmail, but this IIS client went unoticed until now, meaning
> that old and big PP (our previous MTA) knew what to handle it.
>
I try to contact the administrators of the broken systems and convince
them to fix the problem on their side, because that's where the problem is
really. I guess you could change Qmail's behaviour somehow to get rid of
the problem but I don't think it's the right solution.
/ daj
Martin Ouwehand writes...
>Has anybody seen this: from time to time, a whole bunch of qmail-queue's
>will accumulate (I'd say up to ~400), apparently doing nothing (ps shows
>that most of them have the same WCHAN, but not all of them). Most of
>them have 1 as PPID, a few still have qmail-smtpd as parent.
Are they all in TIME_WAIT? It's probably one machine.
Look in the logs (or use netstat or lsof) to get the IP address of the
machine.
Use my recordio patch to record dialog just for that host.
I bet you'll find qmail is dropping the connection with the "bare LF"
message. I've previously given my point of view on qmail's non-RFC
compliance on the list before, find that message, apply the patch.
>This has a serious impact on the through-put and reliability of our qmail
>server. Right now, killing and restarting "tcpserver [...] qmail-smtpd"
>fixes the problem, but I'd really like to know what is going on to altogether
>avoid this behavior. BTW, this is a Solaris 2.5 machine.
>
>Any idea ?
> Martin
--
Aaron Nabil
Bruce Schneier's CRYPTO-GRAM, a monthly newsletter sent to over 20,000
subscribers, uses qmail and ezmlm. This a high-profile list and a
juicy hacker target.
>To subscribe, visit http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html or send a
>blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 August 1999 at 08:16:42 -0400
> Bruce Schneier's CRYPTO-GRAM, a monthly newsletter sent to over 20,000
> subscribers, uses qmail and ezmlm. This a high-profile list and a
> juicy hacker target.
Yep, it does. With regard to which, I'm having trouble understanding
the qmailanalog statistics I get out of this.
Crypto-gram was sent yesterday in the early evening. As of now, I
have only 20 messages in the queue. There was a tiny "pending" file
generated by matchup last night, and only one of the messages was
crypto-gram related (so most of the deliveries had to happen before
the log cutoff last night). Here are the statistics on yesterday and
today so far (zoverall):
Basic statistics
qtime is the time spent by a message in the queue.
ddelay is the latency for a successful delivery to one recipient---the
end of successful delivery, minus the time when the message was queued.
xdelay is the latency for a delivery attempt---the time when the attempt
finished, minus the time when it started. The average concurrency is the
total xdelay for all deliveries divided by the time span; this is a good
measure of how busy the mailer is.
Completed messages: 1620
Recipients for completed messages: 4971
Total delivery attempts for completed messages: 5126
Average delivery attempts per completed message: 3.1642
Bytes in completed messages: 15183142
Bytes weighted by success: 31852134
Average message qtime (s): 197.403
Total delivery attempts: 25933
success: 24576
failure: 289
deferral: 1068
Total ddelay (s): 66248917.435193
Average ddelay per success (s): 2695.675351
Total xdelay (s): 391021.333365
Average xdelay per delivery attempt (s): 15.078137
Time span (days): 8.0081
Average concurrency: 0.565141
I'm confused by the "completed messages" statistic; is the low value
because it only lists messages for which all deliveries have been
completed (a guess based on the name)? Why does anybody *care* about
such a bizarrely constrained statistic? Also, how do you weight bytes
by success?
A quick check with qmail-qread shows that indeed there are a very few
pending deliveries on crypto-gram. When those finally clear out, one
way or the other, will I suddenly get an *immense* lump in my
"recipients for completed messages" that day? As I say, I think it's
a silly number to compute.
(concurrencyremote on this system is 50; it's a Cyrix 166 running
Linux with 96 meg of ram, IDE disks, no RAID. I'm amazed how well it
digests big lumps like the crypto-gram mailing. A normal day here is
a couple thousand deliveries.)
--
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!
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:39:13 -0500 (CDT), David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>I'm confused by the "completed messages" statistic; is the low value
>because it only lists messages for which all deliveries have been
>completed (a guess based on the name)? Why does anybody *care* about
>such a bizarrely constrained statistic? Also, how do you weight bytes
>by success?
>From matchup you have to collect fd5 output (pending messages) and feed
them in again to the next run of matchup (on the next log file). see
man page.
You're stats are screwed up because you didn't and there are a lot of
deliveries for which the initial log entry is not available to matchup.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Fred Lindberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 August 1999 at 13:31:15 -0500
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:39:13 -0500 (CDT), David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> >I'm confused by the "completed messages" statistic; is the low value
> >because it only lists messages for which all deliveries have been
> >completed (a guess based on the name)? Why does anybody *care* about
> >such a bizarrely constrained statistic? Also, how do you weight bytes
> >by success?
>
> >From matchup you have to collect fd5 output (pending messages) and feed
> them in again to the next run of matchup (on the next log file). see
> man page.
>
> You're stats are screwed up because you didn't and there are a lot of
> deliveries for which the initial log entry is not available to matchup.
I'm collecting the fd5 output, and I'm feeding it back in, really I
am. Only for the last 3 or 4 days at this point, I'm just getting the
log rollover code to do matchup right. There shouldn't be any
significant number of deliveries outstanding over multiple days,
though.
--
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!
Having a slight problem with popbull where it seems not to deliver to
all users. I've been unable to duplicate the exact problem..It affects
users with no mail, and with existing mail in their box at the time the
bulletin was created. The majority of my customers appear to have
received it, however I have had 3 staff who did not. I did not see
anything in the archives quite like this..only posts about multiple
messages...Has anyone else experienced this?
Current system is Qmail 1.03 with the popbull patch, ezmlm 0.53,
ucspi-tcp-0.84, and vchkpw 3.1.3 (modified including parts of 3.4.6) for
virtual domains running on a FreeBSD 3.1 server.
As a side note, We are using SQWebmail for web-email, which obviously
will not work with popbull. Does anyone have any suggestions for an
alternative to popbull that will work with SQWebmail for a customer base
of about 10k pop users? Previously it has been accomplished via a perl
script that grabbed the usernames from the password file. Sloppy and
slow. I've heard of people using ezmlm (cant remember who or find the
post right now). Mainly interested in a solution that will accomodate
SQWebmail and vchkpw both without taking 2-3 hours to run.
Thanks in advance,
--
Stephen Comoletti
Systems Administrator
Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be
*occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers
are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no
similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log
anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then send
it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but the
sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no
header mutilation taking place.
Cris Daniluk
MicroStrategy
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:34:30AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be
> *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers
> are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no
> similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log
> anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then send
> it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but the
> sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no
> header mutilation taking place.
What appears in the header has nothing to do with the recipient of an
SMTP-injected message. The recipient is specified in the envelope, which is
given with the SMTP RCPT TO command.
It may be that you have something screwy in control/virtualdomains or
users/assign and that mail isn't going where you want it to go, but the header
of a message isn't an indicator of who the recipient should have been.
Chris
I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally.
The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage
of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in
replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails
before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to
qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of
300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with.
Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
Version 5.5.2448.0)
id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate
Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT
X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671
EmailID:22196
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Rae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:47 PM
To: Daniluk, Chris
Subject: Re: bad deliver
Have you checked the intended recipient's .qmail file or the qmail/alias
directory for entries that could be redirecting mail elsewhere?
Si
"Daniluk, Chris" wrote:
>
> We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be
> *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers
> are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no
> similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log
> anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then
send
> it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but
the
> sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no
> header mutilation taking place.
>
> Cris Daniluk
> MicroStrategy
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:51:25AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally.
> The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage
> of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in
> replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails
> before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to
> qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of
> 300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with.
>
> Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
These aren't all the headers. Please include Delivered-To lines.
--Adam
> Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
> mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> Version 5.5.2448.0)
> id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
> Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
> by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
> Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
> From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate
> Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT
> X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671
> EmailID:22196
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Rae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:47 PM
> To: Daniluk, Chris
> Subject: Re: bad deliver
>
>
> Have you checked the intended recipient's .qmail file or the qmail/alias
> directory for entries that could be redirecting mail elsewhere?
>
> Si
>
> "Daniluk, Chris" wrote:
> >
> > We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be
> > *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers
> > are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no
> > similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log
> > anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then
> send
> > it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but
> the
> > sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no
> > header mutilation taking place.
> >
> > Cris Daniluk
> > MicroStrategy
>
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:51:25AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally.
> The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage
> of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in
> replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails
> before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to
> qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of
> 300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with.
>
> Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
> mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> Version 5.5.2448.0)
> id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
> Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
> by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
> Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
> From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate
> Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT
> X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671
> EmailID:22196
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What makes you think there's something wrong with this? Take a look at any
message you've received from this mailing list. You received it, but your
address isn't in the To header field or any other header field (except for the
Delivered-To header, which is added by the local delivery agent). You received
it because your address was specified in the SMTP envelope.
Chris
I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question
is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP
server, why are we having this problem now?
[snip]
>What makes you think there's something wrong with this? Take a look at any
>message you've received from this mailing list. You received it, but your
>address isn't in the To header field or any other header field (except for
the
>Delivered-To header, which is added by the local delivery agent). You
received
>it because your address was specified in the SMTP envelope.
>
>Chris
"Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question
>is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP
>server, why are we having this problem now?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. If there was nothing
wrong with the message whose header you posted, why did you post it?
And, if there's nothing wrong, why do you refer to it as a problem?
qmail doesn't randomly deliver messages to the wrong people. Not
occasionally, not rarely, not once in a million deliveries. If you
want to find out what's happening, you'll need to document the problem
better. E.g., show us the log entries for a "misdelivered" message, as
well as the header. Your claim that qmail doesn't log anything
relevant just doesn't cut it.
Chances are good that the problem lies with the injection process, and
qmail is just doing exactly what you told it to do. How are these
"misdelivered" messages being injected?
-Dave
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question
> is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP
> server, why are we having this problem now?
You haven't defined "the problem." You claim that messages aren't being
delivered to the right address, and as evidence you provide a header that
doesn't substantiate your claim. (Your claim can't be substantiated by *any*
header you might provide, because the recipient isn't a function of anything
that might appear in the header.)
So why exactly do you think there's a problem?
Chris
I dont understand why there is so much friction in this thread. When I was
asking for help so that we could implement QMail I received nothing but
helpful information. Now that we are having troubles using it and are trying
to find if there's a problem with QMail, we are receiving nothing but
disreceptive attitudes. Let me go through this:
1. We have been using MS SMTP Server to send out a few hundred thousand
emails per day for close to 3 months now.
2. It sucks. It sends slow, it's junk. I decide QMail would be better
3. I ask QMail list, they concur
4. We build a test server running a raid0 stripe with a heavy scsi cache for
queueing performance
5. We test it by turning the MS SMTP Server smarthost to our qmail box, so
that no software reconfigurations need to be made. MS SMTP Server can smart
host messages at about 50 per second. It can only send to the Internet at 5
per second. SMTP Server obviously is STILL not sending fast enough, but
still fast enough to make qmail worthwhile.
6. After a few days of testing, we find that people are inexplicably
receiving other people's emails. We dont know why, we have NO clue. Headers
are all the way they should be. QMail doesn't report any errors, but they
just aren't delivered to the right location. So, I'm asking you for help...
not to be continuously and repeatedly accused of this or that. You have all
the information I have, and I'm not asking for a solution, I'm asking for
reasonable and plausible possibilities as many of you have been using qmail
since its inception and therefore may know anything that may cause this, or
have heard of other people who have had similar problems.
Again, this problem does not happen when we're using just ms smtp server,
but when we go to qmail, it happens. That DOES NOT mean qmail is the
problem, but obviously either qmail or something related to the problem is
and we need to get to the bottom of it. That in mind, if you're just going
to tell me the same argumentative things you have been, please don't.
Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary
receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is
all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Again, in
the past, everyone has been exceedingly helpful to me. I don't quite
understand why this isn't the case right now, but I'm trying to supply what
everyone is asking for, and I haven't made any accusations against the
integrity of qmail, nor am I intending to. I simply have a problem and am
wondering if anyone has any constructive thoughts.
Cris Daniluk
MicroStrategy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Chris Johnson' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:41 PM
> To: Daniluk, Chris
> Cc: QMail (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: bad deliver
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> > I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I
> posted it. My question
> > is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a
> different SMTP
> > server, why are we having this problem now?
>
> You haven't defined "the problem." You claim that messages
> aren't being
> delivered to the right address, and as evidence you provide a
> header that
> doesn't substantiate your claim. (Your claim can't be
> substantiated by *any*
> header you might provide, because the recipient isn't a
> function of anything
> that might appear in the header.)
>
> So why exactly do you think there's a problem?
>
> Chris
>
Daniluk, Chris writes:
> Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary
> receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is
> all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem.
Can we see one of these pieces of email, with all headers intact?
--
-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!
Daniluk, Chris writes:
> I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question
> is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP
> server, why are we having this problem now?
Only you can find out the answer to that one. Given your earlier confusion
regarding message headers versus the SMTP envelope, I would suggest that
you brush up on the relevant RFCs, and examine ALL software that is being
used. Qmail does not create messages out of thin air. Something must
generate those messages in the first place, and you will need to examine
that software as well.
--
Sam
Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
Version 5.5.2448.0)
id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate
Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT
X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671
EmailID:22196
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Strategy.com - Investment Channel
http://home.strategy.com
8/13/99
Dear Ian:
The following stocks in your portfolio, "MY PORTFOLIO", have
experienced changes in EPS consensus estimate:
NOKIA CORP ADS (NOK) estimate for quarter ending 9/99 up
$0.01 to $0.51/share.
Earnings Details:
Stock Qtr End Curr Est Prev Est # Est High Low Yr Ago Est
NOK 9/99 $0.51 $0.50 13 $0.54 $0.46 $0.44
Quote Details:
Stock Last Change High Low 52Wk High 52Wk Low
NOK 82 13/16 -Unch- N/A N/A 99 3/8 67 11/16
Quotes supplied by Standard & Poor's ComStock, Inc.
http://www.spcomstock.com/. Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes for NYSE and
AMEX, 15 minutes for NASDAQ.
Additional data provided by Zacks Investment Research.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:59 PM
> To: QMail (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: bad deliver
>
>
> Daniluk, Chris writes:
> > Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone
> named Cezary
> > receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's
> email address is
> > all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem.
>
> Can we see one of these pieces of email, with all headers intact?
>
> --
> -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!
>
Daniluk, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 August 1999 at 11:51:48 -0400
> 6. After a few days of testing, we find that people are inexplicably
> receiving other people's emails. We dont know why, we have NO clue. Headers
> are all the way they should be. QMail doesn't report any errors, but they
> just aren't delivered to the right location. So, I'm asking you for help...
> not to be continuously and repeatedly accused of this or that. You have all
> the information I have, and I'm not asking for a solution, I'm asking for
> reasonable and plausible possibilities as many of you have been using qmail
> since its inception and therefore may know anything that may cause this, or
> have heard of other people who have had similar problems.
And none of us have ever experienced anything vaguely like this as a
qmail problem, even in the pre-release-1 days. It's just not
something we've seen qmail do; so the immediate suspicion is that
something else is at fault.
Also, we *don't* have all the information you have. The log files
would make it possible to trace a message from injection to delivery,
and show a much clearer view of the path it followed. And I know at
least one other contributor to the thread asked about the log files
previously.
Because of your special setup originating the messages, you also
probably know some "invariants" in your head that we don't (the
messages always have the user's name *here* and *here* and address
*here*, that sort of thing).
My best guess, actually, is that the message maker is injecting
messages with headers inconsistent with their envelope addresses. If
that's it, it will be clearly traceable in the logs on your qmail
system.
> Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary
> receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is
> all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Again, in
> the past, everyone has been exceedingly helpful to me. I don't quite
> understand why this isn't the case right now, but I'm trying to supply what
> everyone is asking for, and I haven't made any accusations against the
> integrity of qmail, nor am I intending to. I simply have a problem and am
> wondering if anyone has any constructive thoughts.
It's clearly a *business* problem in your situation. I understand
that these emails are not ending up where you want them to.
It is *NOT* clear that it's a technical problem. The contents of the
headers do *NOT* control where a message is sent; that's controlled by
the SMTP envelope. And most of us on this list, especially the people
with the best technical understanding of qmail, look at it very much
from the technical viewpoint.
--
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!
As previously stated, THIS HEADER IS NOT COMPLETE!!!!! Where is the header
with the SMTP 'RCPT To:' address? This is normally in a 'Delivered To:'
header or something similar. This set of headers does NOT tell you who
the message was addressed to!
The recipient of an email message is NOT the address listed in the To:
header in all cases. NONE of the messages from this list include your
email address in the To: header yet you will not deny that the list
messages are intended for you. Please provide the COMPLETE header as
asked so we can help you find the systems that are messing up. If any
really are.
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
> mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> Version 5.5.2448.0)
> id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
> Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
> by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
> Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
> From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate
> Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT
> X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671
> EmailID:22196
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Strategy.com - Investment Channel
> http://home.strategy.com
>
> 8/13/99
>
> Dear Ian:
>
> The following stocks in your portfolio, "MY PORTFOLIO", have
> experienced changes in EPS consensus estimate:
>
> NOKIA CORP ADS (NOK) estimate for quarter ending 9/99 up
> $0.01 to $0.51/share.
>
> Earnings Details:
> Stock Qtr End Curr Est Prev Est # Est High Low Yr Ago Est
> NOK 9/99 $0.51 $0.50 13 $0.54 $0.46 $0.44
>
> Quote Details:
> Stock Last Change High Low 52Wk High 52Wk Low
> NOK 82 13/16 -Unch- N/A N/A 99 3/8 67 11/16
>
>
>
> Quotes supplied by Standard & Poor's ComStock, Inc.
> http://www.spcomstock.com/. Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes for NYSE and
> AMEX, 15 minutes for NASDAQ.
> Additional data provided by Zacks Investment Research.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:59 PM
> > To: QMail (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: bad deliver
> >
> >
> > Daniluk, Chris writes:
> > > Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone
> > named Cezary
> > > receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's
> > email address is
> > > all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem.
> >
> > Can we see one of these pieces of email, with all headers intact?
> >
> > --
> > -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!
> >
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
Daniluk, Chris writes:
> Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
> mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> Version 5.5.2448.0)
> id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
> Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
> by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
> Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
> From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Okay, clearly the envelope sender is not being set correctly. Can you
consult the logfile to find the envelope information for pid the email
received by 24678 ? Probably not, since this email is four days old.
I also hope that you're not actually sending mail from
qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com, because that name does not have an A
record. A host that sends email MUST have correct reverse DNS, and
that PTR entry MUST have the same string as that presented by the HELO
command. Otherwise you risk being mistaken for a spammer.
--
-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 doesn't look to me like there will be a Delivered-To line, since it
appears qmail is accepting it via smtp and then sending it via smtp to
another host, mailgate.strategy.com.
I'm leaning towards a misconfiguration, perhaps in smtproutes. Think
we need to see the delivery logs and what's in his control files.
Aaron
Quoting Timothy L. Mayo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> As previously stated, THIS HEADER IS NOT COMPLETE!!!!! Where is the header
> with the SMTP 'RCPT To:' address? This is normally in a 'Delivered To:'
> header or something similar. This set of headers does NOT tell you who
> the message was addressed to!
>
> The recipient of an email message is NOT the address listed in the To:
> header in all cases. NONE of the messages from this list include your
> email address in the To: header yet you will not deny that the list
> messages are intended for you. Please provide the COMPLETE header as
> asked so we can help you find the systems that are messing up. If any
> really are.
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
>
> > Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by
> > mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service
> > Version 5.5.2448.0)
> > id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400
> > Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> > Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
> > by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 -0000
> > Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with
> > Microsoft SMTPSVC;
> > Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400
> > From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate
> > Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT
> > X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671
> > EmailID:22196
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via
tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is
logged. Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send
them in an earlier message. Again:
34578188.651364 starting delivery 622: msg 2230 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
34578188.651413 status: local 0/10 remote 8/8
...
34578193.505918 delivery 622: success:
199.173.152.28_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/
...
934578193.515841 status: local 0/10 remote 7/8
934578193.516751 end msg 2230
The dots of course represent entries from other messages being delivered at
the same time.
Cris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 5:11 PM
> To: QMail (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: bad deliver
>
>
> Daniluk, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17
> August 1999 at 11:51:48 -0400
>
> > 6. After a few days of testing, we find that people are
> inexplicably
> > receiving other people's emails. We dont know why, we have
> NO clue. Headers
> > are all the way they should be. QMail doesn't report any
> errors, but they
> > just aren't delivered to the right location. So, I'm
> asking you for help...
> > not to be continuously and repeatedly accused of this or
> that. You have all
> > the information I have, and I'm not asking for a solution,
> I'm asking for
> > reasonable and plausible possibilities as many of you have
> been using qmail
> > since its inception and therefore may know anything that
> may cause this, or
> > have heard of other people who have had similar problems.
>
> And none of us have ever experienced anything vaguely like this as a
> qmail problem, even in the pre-release-1 days. It's just not
> something we've seen qmail do; so the immediate suspicion is that
> something else is at fault.
>
> Also, we *don't* have all the information you have. The log files
> would make it possible to trace a message from injection to delivery,
> and show a much clearer view of the path it followed. And I know at
> least one other contributor to the thread asked about the log files
> previously.
>
> Because of your special setup originating the messages, you also
> probably know some "invariants" in your head that we don't (the
> messages always have the user's name *here* and *here* and address
> *here*, that sort of thing).
>
> My best guess, actually, is that the message maker is injecting
> messages with headers inconsistent with their envelope addresses. If
> that's it, it will be clearly traceable in the logs on your qmail
> system.
>
> > Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone
> named Cezary
> > receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's
> email address is
> > all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a
> problem. Again, in
> > the past, everyone has been exceedingly helpful to me. I
> don't quite
> > understand why this isn't the case right now, but I'm
> trying to supply what
> > everyone is asking for, and I haven't made any accusations
> against the
> > integrity of qmail, nor am I intending to. I simply have a
> problem and am
> > wondering if anyone has any constructive thoughts.
>
> It's clearly a *business* problem in your situation. I understand
> that these emails are not ending up where you want them to.
>
> It is *NOT* clear that it's a technical problem. The contents of the
> headers do *NOT* control where a message is sent; that's controlled by
> the SMTP envelope. And most of us on this list, especially the people
> with the best technical understanding of qmail, look at it very much
> from the technical viewpoint.
> --
> 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'd have to agree. A valid, if not necessarily correctly stated,
concern. Nothing in the original post to warrant the near-flames that
followed.
Lighten up, everyone.
Yan
"Daniluk, Chris" wrote:
>
> I dont understand why there is so much friction in this thread.
--
__ __
| / /
/------/
-- / \ / \ --
/ /\ \ / /\ \
| / | \/--|-- |
\ / \ /
~~ ~~
"The older I get, the faster I was."
> From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:19:32 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Daniluk, Chris writes:
> > Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152)
>
> I also hope that you're not actually sending mail from
> qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com, because that name does not have an A
> record. A host that sends email MUST have correct reverse DNS, and
> that PTR entry MUST have the same string as that presented by the HELO
> command. Otherwise you risk being mistaken for a spammer.
Note the 10.x.x.x addresses...this is clearly all behind a firewall.
Presumably, he has an internal DNS that does have A and PTR records for
qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com.
(Just thought I'd stick my nose in and say something in Chris' defense since
he's been on the receiving end of quite a bit.)
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
Daniluk, Chris writes:
> I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via
> tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is
> logged. Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send
> them in an earlier message.
>
> 34578188.651364 starting delivery 622: msg 2230 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail is delivering the mail to the party it's supposed to.
You aren't, um, mounting the queue over NFS, are you?
Wait a second. You said that you were striping the disk. Could there
be a bug in your striping? What OS are you using?
--
-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!
Chris Garrigues writes:
> Note the 10.x.x.x addresses...this is clearly all behind a firewall.
> Presumably, he has an internal DNS that does have A and PTR records for
> qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com.
That doesn't help me if he contacts my smtp server, and it says "HELO
hostname doesn't match the forward DNS of the reverse DNS? You're a
spammer -- go away".
--
-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!
"Daniluk, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I dont understand why there is so much friction in this thread.
I repeat:
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
You made an extraordinary claim ("Qmail appears to be *occaisionally*
delivering email to the wrong people") without providing any
evidence. You eventually produced some (message with header and log
entries), but in the meantime you ignored some responses (such as
mine) and simultaneously denied claiming there was a problem in the
evidence you provided as proof of the problem. You still haven't
provided any details about how the messages are generated, other than
they come from a Microsoft box.
My suggestion is that you turn on full SMTP session logging via
recordio:
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/faq/servers.html#recordio
Log the entire SMTP dialogue with the Microsoft box. The next time you
get a report of a misdirected message, look it up in the SMTP log. I'm
pretty sure you'll find that the envelope recipient doesn't match the
To header field, which means that qmail is doing the right thing and
the message creation process or the Microsoft MTA is botching
something.
-Dave
Daniluk, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 August 1999 at 12:21:07 -0400
> I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via
> tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is
> logged.
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.119294 new msg 39077
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.123654 info msg 39077: bytes 4463 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1039 uid 70
This shows a message being received via smtp. The clue is the "uid
70" where 70 is the qmaild uid. The address shown is the envelope
sender.
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.158059 starting delivery 112225: msg 39077 to
local @gw.dd-b.net
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.162167 status: local 1/10 remote 2/50
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.162554 starting delivery 112226: msg 39077 to
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.163222 status: local 1/10 remote 3/50
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.185655 delivery 112225: success:
Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.186046 status: local 0/10 remote 3/50
Aug 17 12:02:45 gw qmail: 934909365.650676 delivery 112226: success:
166.84.0.213_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok:_queued_as_9000518C0A/
This particular message got both a local and a remote delivery. The
local isn't important here, but the remote shows us some more; where
it says "to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]", that's the envelope sender it's
delivering to remotely.
The "msg #" and "delivery #" are what ties this together. The "new
msg #" and "info msg #" lines let us identify the incoming message,
and then the deliveries each say what message they're delivering, so
that lets you tie a delivery number back to a message number.
Also note the "qp #" in the info msg line; that same qp # will appear
in the header of the message after it's been sent on, like this (this
example is actually your message coming in from the qmail list; it's
*not* the same message the previous examples used since that's a
private user message which I don't have access to and shouldn't
publish if I did):
In my mail log:
Aug 17 11:21:49 gw qmail: 934906909.153289 new msg 39065
Aug 17 11:21:49 gw qmail: 934906909.153961 info msg 39065: bytes 4717 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 32452 uid 70
Aug 17 11:21:49 gw qmail: 934906909.265442 starting delivery 111799: msg 39065 to
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And in the header of the message as it was delivered to me:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 32456 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 1999 16:21:49 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 32452 invoked from network); 17 Aug 1999 16:21:48 -0000
The bottom received line shows qmail 32452 invoked from network,
meaning smtp. The log entries show msg 39065 injected via uid 70
(also meaning smtp) and being handled by qmail process 32452. Process
numbers can repeat as the system wraps around, so verifying that the
timestamps are close is necessary to be really sure. Qmail, as you
see, likes GMT (the "-0000" shows that).
So you haven't actually showed us enough logs to tell much.
I'm not all that fond of the way qmail logs things myself. I find
other mailer's logs easier to read. *Some* of the constraints come
about because of the segmentation of qmail functions, which is an
important part of its security architecture. Some of the differences
are just personal preference. qmail logs are, I think, easier to
parse in a program, which is useful. But the information to trace
what was done with a message is all there; you just need different
approaches to finding it than with other mailers. (I should note that
I've never run sendmail, and am not familiar with its logs other than
as posted by people in discussion groups; the other mailer I've run on
unix is smail.)
Hope this helps. I'm curious as to what's going on in your setup.
Incidentally, while I'm writing, let me mention that I learned quite a
bit from the earlier performance analysis discussion that you started
and participated in. Thanks!
Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send
> them in an earlier message. Again:
>
> 34578188.651364 starting delivery 622: msg 2230 to remote
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 34578188.651413 status: local 0/10 remote 8/8
> ...
> 34578193.505918 delivery 622: success:
> 199.173.152.28_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/
> ...
> 934578193.515841 status: local 0/10 remote 7/8
> 934578193.516751 end msg 2230
>
> The dots of course represent entries from other messages being delivered at
> the same time.
--
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!
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 August 1999 at 13:33:38 -0500
> This particular message got both a local and a remote delivery. The
> local isn't important here, but the remote shows us some more; where
> it says "to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]", that's the envelope sender it's
> delivering to remotely.
Eep! I meant, of course, "envelope *recipient*".
--
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!
> From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:39:59 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Chris Garrigues writes:
> > Note the 10.x.x.x addresses...this is clearly all behind a firewall.
> > Presumably, he has an internal DNS that does have A and PTR records for
> > qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com.
>
> That doesn't help me if he contacts my smtp server, and it says "HELO
> hostname doesn't match the forward DNS of the reverse DNS? You're a
> spammer -- go away".
If your SMTP server gets a packet from a 10.x.x.x address, you won't even be
able to ACK it and he'll never even get a chance to say "HELO hostname".
I'm on a system who's IP address is 10.2.252.1 and who's name is
backstroke.deepeddy.com; when I send mail to you it goes through an
IP-masq firewall and looks to you like it came from a system with a real IP
address and a real hostname.
It's the nature of internal-only addresses.
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
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 12:21:07PM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote:
> I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via
> tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is
> logged. Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send
> them in an earlier message. Again:
Actually, you were asked to include the recordio program in your
qmail-smtpd invocation, thereby recording all smtp traffic.
Part of the reason you seem to be getting increasingly abrasive
messages is that you aren't apparantly reading the offers for
help that you're getting.
--
John White johnjohn
at
triceratops.com
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
The imap server (From the all the code in maildir.c) never changes
a message. The only thing it changes is flags which are file name
changes.
The question is what sort of performance gain would you get using a
database alongside (Assuming you can't use locking so you have to copy
the entire thing for every update you want to make to the database)
When you make your local copy should you use that copy for the entire
session of the imap and only copy it back when you are done (or do some
sort of checkpointing of moving it back every 10 minutes or so) Or
copy/move it for every single change?
How big would the database get with about 1000-2000 messages.
I guess the only way to know for sure is to write the code and measure the
perfomance, but any ideas? Would it really help?
I can help write the code (or write it) if people think it might speed
things up... I have already tweaked the UW/Imap code to split the Maildir
cur directory into 10 sub directories so that each sub directory has a
balanced number of messages in it. (This increases speed for flag changes
significantly since flag changes are filename changes, which if you have
5000 files in a single directory can be time consuming :) The next step
would be to use a database for UID/Header/Flag data. Where the Maildir is
still an "Authority" on the data but there is a helper database that can
be consulted.
-d.
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, David Harris wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Galbraith dgalb@ University Of New Mexico |
| Systems Analyst unm.edu (505)-277-8499 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> The imap server (From the all the code in maildir.c) never changes
> a message. The only thing it changes is flags which are file name
> changes.
Right. I was wrong when I thought it did.
> The question is what sort of performance gain would you get using a
> database alongside (Assuming you can't use locking so you have to copy
> the entire thing for every update you want to make to the database)
>
> When you make your local copy should you use that copy for the entire
> session of the imap and only copy it back when you are done (or do some
> sort of checkpointing of moving it back every 10 minutes or so) Or
> copy/move it for every single change?
>
> How big would the database get with about 1000-2000 messages.
Hum.. you bring up some valid concerns with the "copy and move" strategy for
maintaining a database without locking. I'll have to do some more thinking and
investigation and see what I come up with. For example, I'm not even sure what
header information should be stored in the database.
> I guess the only way to know for sure is to write the code and measure the
> perfomance, but any ideas? Would it really help?
Well, I'm particularly concerned about web based e-mail clients, which I
suspect have to grab a listing of all the messages in a folder whenever they
show the Inbox, whereas terminal clients would only grab a listing once a
session or less if they store their own database.
I think it would be a good idea to do some testing with a real web-based e-mail
client and the current Maildir driver. I could setup recordio to capture the
IMAP conversation between the server and the client, as well as running a
strace on the client to see how labored things get with lots of messages.
> I can help write the code (or write it) if people think it might speed
> things up... I have already tweaked the UW/Imap code to split the Maildir
> cur directory into 10 sub directories so that each sub directory has a
> balanced number of messages in it. (This increases speed for flag changes
> significantly since flag changes are filename changes, which if you have
> 5000 files in a single directory can be time consuming :) The next step
> would be to use a database for UID/Header/Flag data. Where the Maildir is
> still an "Authority" on the data but there is a helper database that can
> be consulted.
It would be great if I could get my hands on this patch from you. The patch you
describe and any summary database that we might develop would go a long way
towards making the Maildir driver more robust for large mailboxes, and I'd like
to post them on www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/.
Also, you mention the idea of moving the UID/Header/Flag data into a database
while keep reverse compatibility. I'm not sure that we have to really keep
reverse compatibility, because the 10 hashed cur directories that you have
created already killed the ability for other Maildir clients to read the
Maildir, right?
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
According to the www.orbs.org battery of tests,
the qmail smtp daemon "fails" in the case:
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RCPT TO:<victim%target@{relay}>
{relay} is tested as both [IP.address] and reverse.DNS.name.
Heavily exploited by spammers and mailbombers.
Most Lotus Notes/Domino installations fail this. Recently fixed - see
[ See: http://www.orbs.org/envelopes.cgi for this reference.
Test out your qmail daemon using the http://maps.vix.com/tsi/ar-test.html
engine.]
This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which
is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database?
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
"Russell P. Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>According to the www.orbs.org battery of tests,
>the qmail smtp daemon "fails" in the case:
>
> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO:<victim%target@{relay}>
>
> {relay} is tested as both [IP.address] and reverse.DNS.name.
>
> Heavily exploited by spammers and mailbombers.
> Most Lotus Notes/Domino installations fail this. Recently fixed - see
>
>[ See: http://www.orbs.org/envelopes.cgi for this reference.
> Test out your qmail daemon using the http://maps.vix.com/tsi/ar-test.html
> engine.]
>
>This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which
>is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database?
Sigh. It's getting to the point that anti-spam tactics and propaganda
are consuming more resources than spam.
qmail will only allow hosts listed in control/percenthack to
successfully relay using %-style addresses. If ORBS is taking
qmail-smtpd's failure to immediately reject such addresses as
confirmation that the message will be relayed, it's wrong.
-Dave
This is incorrect. ORBS only includes host which actually relay the mail,
not just accept it. That is, it has to be *delivered* to the test RCPT TO:
address.
--Adam
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:50:48PM -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
> According to the www.orbs.org battery of tests,
> the qmail smtp daemon "fails" in the case:
>
> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO:<victim%target@{relay}>
>
> {relay} is tested as both [IP.address] and reverse.DNS.name.
>
> Heavily exploited by spammers and mailbombers.
> Most Lotus Notes/Domino installations fail this. Recently fixed - see
>
> [ See: http://www.orbs.org/envelopes.cgi for this reference.
> Test out your qmail daemon using the http://maps.vix.com/tsi/ar-test.html
> engine.]
>
> This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which
> is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database?
>
> --
> Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
> Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
> CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
>
I have found some solutions to insert a X-Envelope-To: header in the list
archives but all of them suggest doing something like this in the users
home directory:
echo '|(echo "X-Envelope-To: $EXT@$HOST";cat) | qmail-inject --
"$USER-mailbox"' >.qmail
echo './Mailbox' >.qmail-mailbox
This solution isn't useable for us because most of our customers use some
kind of IAS which depends on the X-Envelope-To: Header. Is there a solution
which puts the X-Envelope-To: Header in all incoming mails?
Claude
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP-Public-Key
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 08:43:59PM +0200, Klaus Wissmann wrote:
You could deliver *all* mail using a delivery agent like maildrop, and
have it add that header to all messages. Just change your default
delivery like this:
qmail-start '|preline maildrop -f "$SENDER"' splogger qmail
And then have a maildrop filter doing something like:
-- start filter --
xfilter 'reformail -I"X-Envelope-To: $RECIPIENT"'
-- end filter --
> I have found some solutions to insert a X-Envelope-To: header in the list
> archives but all of them suggest doing something like this in the users
> home directory:
>
> echo '|(echo "X-Envelope-To: $EXT@$HOST";cat) | qmail-inject --
> "$USER-mailbox"' >.qmail
> echo './Mailbox' >.qmail-mailbox
>
> This solution isn't useable for us because most of our customers use some
> kind of IAS which depends on the X-Envelope-To: Header. Is there a solution
> which puts the X-Envelope-To: Header in all incoming mails?
--
See complete headers for more info
It just came to my attention that my domain is getting rejected for
what appear to be Anti-SPAM / DNS related issues. Could one of the DNS
gurus on the list check me on what I think is wrong?
My mail server is sassafrass.softlock.com (204.165.216.231). We are
suddenly getting bounces, with log messages as follows:
Aug 17 08:32:07 sassafrass qmail: 934893127.225645 delivery 52940:
failure: Connected_to_212.54.64.155_but_sender_was_rejected./
Remote_host_said:_555_does_not_resolve_-_check_your_DNS_(#5.1.2)/
Aug 17 12:40:02 sassafrass qmail: 934908002.875160 delivery 53661:
failure: Connected_to_195.60.31.17_but_sender_was_rejected./
Remote_host_said:_501_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._Sender_domain_must_exist/
Aug 17 13:17:05 sassafrass qmail: 934910225.563674 delivery 53788:
failure: Connected_to_199.246.69.20_but_sender_was_rejected./
Remote_host_said:_550_'<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'_sender_address_target_
'softlock.com'_is_not_a_valid_e-mail_domain./
'softlock.com' has an MX record pointing to
'sassafrass.softlock.com.' Sassafrass resolves to 204.165.216.231. There's
also an A record for 'softlock.com' that points to 208.218.134.68. Neither
'softlock.com' nor 'sassafrass' have PTR records for reverse DNS, which I
believe is the problem. I'm trying to get the DNS admin to fix this, but is
there anything else wrong here while I'm at it?
Part of the mystery is why this seems to be suddenly happening. One
of the recipients causing an error above went through fine on August 5th.
And there was a deferral here which doesn't make sense:
Aug 17 13:40:53 sassafrass qmail: 934911653.029886 delivery 53856:
deferral: Connected_to_207.69.231.11_but_sender_was_rejected./
Remote_host_said:_450_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
_Sender_domain_not_compliant_with_RFC_822,_section_6.2.7/
I've read 6.2.7 (Explicit Path Specification) and I don't see what
that has to do with anything in the sender domain.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Greg Owen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> It just came to my attention that my domain is getting rejected for
> what appear to be Anti-SPAM / DNS related issues. Could one of the DNS
> gurus on the list check me on what I think is wrong?
>
> My mail server is sassafrass.softlock.com (204.165.216.231). We are
> suddenly getting bounces, with log messages as follows:
>
> Aug 17 08:32:07 sassafrass qmail: 934893127.225645 delivery 52940:
> failure: Connected_to_212.54.64.155_but_sender_was_rejected./
> Remote_host_said:_555_does_not_resolve_-_check_your_DNS_(#5.1.2)/
I saw on NANOG this morning that h.root-servers.net was returning
authoritative NXDOMAIN for a time. After seeing your post, I looked
in our mail logs and see a lot of our customers sent email early this
morning that was bounced for DNS errors.
Aaron
I am running tcpserver to run qmail-smtpd. I have patches applied to let
me use rules based on reverse DNS as well as IP range (yes, I know that's
insecure) although they don't seem to be the problem here. I also have a
small tarpitting patch to qmail-smtpd.c, but it's not active for the site
in question.
This site can't deliver mail to me:
Aug 17 15:02:30 xuxa qmail-smtpd: MAIL FROM MX (temporary) check failed
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[193.164.172.32] (HELO hydrogen.electronic-vending.net)
When I do a lookup, it doesn't have an MX but its forward A record and
reverse PTR appear to be fine. I've restarted BIND, qmail-send, and
tcpserver, doesn't make any difference. Any ideas?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
Quoting John R Levine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> This site can't deliver mail to me:
>
> Aug 17 15:02:30 xuxa qmail-smtpd: MAIL FROM MX (temporary) check failed
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> [193.164.172.32] (HELO hydrogen.electronic-vending.net)
>
> When I do a lookup, it doesn't have an MX but its forward A record and
> reverse PTR appear to be fine. I've restarted BIND, qmail-send, and
> tcpserver, doesn't make any difference. Any ideas?
I got a SERVFAIL when querying for an MX record. It would seem that
the antispam patch doesn't go on to look for an A record if SERVFAIL
is the result of an MX check. I'm not sure if this is appropriate
behavior or not, really. I got the same result when I telnetted
to port 25 and used hydrogen.electronic-vending.net in mail from.
Aaron
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> mx hydrogen.electronic-vending.net
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 6
qmail v 1.03 with the "AOL patch" and Maildir support...was working fine
for months and then:
It's acting very strangely...the queue started out a a couple hundred
emails this morning and is up to about 730 now, for no apparent reason.
Some emails are being delivered and some aren't...I couldn't even
subscribe to this list from my normal account; I had to use a sendmail
box, yet that account is still getting mail from other lists.
I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't
working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no
avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant.
the only problems I've had recently are: 2 days ago /var filled up, which
screwed up the syslog and I'm sure didn't help the queue any. I've since
purged the offending logfiles and gotten syslog working again. We also
had a local DNS problem last night and this morning which has been fixed.
I've got a few customers whose outgoing email really needs to be
delivered, but while the ALRM signal doesn't even get qmail to attempt to
deliver their email, although it does for a few, more recent emails.
Any hints/help appreciated!
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote:
>
> qmail v 1.03 with the "AOL patch" and Maildir support...was working fine
> for months and then:
>
> It's acting very strangely...the queue started out a a couple hundred
> emails this morning and is up to about 730 now, for no apparent reason.
> Some emails are being delivered and some aren't...I couldn't even
> subscribe to this list from my normal account; I had to use a sendmail
> box, yet that account is still getting mail from other lists.
>
> I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't
> working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no
> avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant.
I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as
to why a message was deferred.
Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok.
Chris
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote:
> >
> >
> > I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't
> > working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no
> > avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant.
>
> I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as
> to why a message was deferred.
Like I said, it doesn't show anything that I can see:
Aug 17 14:02:03 richard2 qmail: 934912923.663159 end msg 274702
Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.571908 new msg 274702
Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.573256 info msg 274702: bytes
780 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 20832 uid 1825
Aug 17 14:02:12 richard2 qmail: 934912932.925614 new msg 274705
> Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok.
I did, per the FAQ...
anything else?
check that you've got enough smtp ports available. I've seen our queue
build like that when we hit tcpservers default 40 smtp sessions limit.
(On a side note am i correct in saying that tcpservers 40 default is not
the same as concerrency remote)?
is port 25 slow to respond?
and how about syslog, is it eating a lot of cpu?
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Spark Sistemas
- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
Tel: 4702-1958
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
- eric
User JAMES escribió:
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't
> > > working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no
> > > avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant.
> >
> > I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as
> > to why a message was deferred.
>
> Like I said, it doesn't show anything that I can see:
>
> Aug 17 14:02:03 richard2 qmail: 934912923.663159 end msg 274702
> Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.571908 new msg 274702
> Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.573256 info msg 274702: bytes
> 780 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 20832 uid 1825
> Aug 17 14:02:12 richard2 qmail: 934912932.925614 new msg 274705
>
> > Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok.
>
> I did, per the FAQ...
>
> anything else?
...as it turns out...another reboot fixed it. Not sure why the first
didn't (could be the syslog problem that was fixed afterwards), but some
child processes went crazy, and I didn't wait long enough for them to stop
during one of my stop-and-restarts.
Thanks to everyone who responded!
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> check that you've got enough smtp ports available. I've seen our queue
> build like that when we hit tcpservers default 40 smtp sessions limit.
> (On a side note am i correct in saying that tcpservers 40 default is not
> the same as concerrency remote)?
>
> is port 25 slow to respond?
>
> and how about syslog, is it eating a lot of cpu?
>
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Spark Sistemas
> - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A.
> Tel: 4702-1958
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>
> - eric
>
> User JAMES escribió:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Chris Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't
> > > > working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no
> > > > avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant.
> > >
> > > I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as
> > > to why a message was deferred.
> >
> > Like I said, it doesn't show anything that I can see:
> >
> > Aug 17 14:02:03 richard2 qmail: 934912923.663159 end msg 274702
> > Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.571908 new msg 274702
> > Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.573256 info msg 274702: bytes
> > 780 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 20832 uid 1825
> > Aug 17 14:02:12 richard2 qmail: 934912932.925614 new msg 274705
> >
> > > Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok.
> >
> > I did, per the FAQ...
> >
> > anything else?
>
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 03:00:06PM -0700,
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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...)
Humans should read your postmaster email. People are supposed to ask for
help there. Often a postmaster can figure out the correct address for a local
user or definitively say the person has moved on and the address is no longer
useful.
Hi everyone,
I finally configured the qmailadmin + qmail and everythings seems to be
working well.
I only have 2 problems now:
1) the .qmailadmin-limits file works, but for example, if you erase one
alias (and you previously reached the max # of aliases allowed) so you
would have 1 free to add, it still says that the max # was reached, even
if you have one alias available.
2) As ken said, no implementation of support for local users is still
not done in qmailadmin, anybody resolved this?
3) When creating a new user with the vchkpw command "vadduser" for the
local domain, it doesn't create the file .qmail (containing:
"./Maildir/") so the mail is not delivered to that account, how can I
fix this?. I'm using Solaris 2.6...any idea?.
Thanks 4 everything!.
Martin.
Hello everyone,
I've got a mail server on a private network (192.168.x.x) which
I want to periodically pick up mail from my server that's
co-located elsewhere. Both servers are running qmail.
The public server has MX records for my domain, pointing to
it. Mail to/from there seems to be working just fine.
I want the private server to periodically dialin, pick up
the messages, send any that are queued (this is already
working), and deliver via POP (also already working).
SO, do I switch the public server from handling the mail
as a standard domain to a virtual domain? How do I get
the private server (which has a DYNAMIC IP address) to
pickup the mail?
I've looked at both fetchmail and serialmail. I think I
understand how to do this with fetchmail, but I cannot
make heads or tails of the serialmail "docs".
Any advice, suggestions, etc?
Thanks in advance,
-Scott
Just to make sure I went and tried the relay test that MAPS' tester says
may be a problem. The message was accepted however the % imparted no
special meaning to how the local address was treated and a bounce message
was sent, since there was no local address with a % in it.
About the only problem with this, is that in these days of spammers, it
would be nice to have the message refused rather than generate a bounce
message locally and end up with double bounces for a lot of spam.
At 11:11 AM 8/17/1999 +0300, Georgi Kupenov wrote:
>myhost:~# qmail-qstat
>messages in queue: 2
>messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
>myhost:~# qmail-qread
>myhost:~#
>
>Any ideas?
I get that during FreeBSD's periodic scripts (I had to modify them to use
qmail's commands instead of sendmail). A similar thing happened under sendmail.
The message is in the queue because it's being piped from somewhere else
(like the periodic script), but there's no info for it because it isn't
"finished" yet.
The script mails its own output, and part of its output is a list of what's
in the mail queue. So the script's own mail is partially in the queue, but
not completed yet, so there's no info on it.
If that's not the case, take a look at the queue/mess and /info directories.
--Ludwig Pummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Georgi Kupenov wrote:
> myhost:~# qmail-qstat
> messages in queue: 2
> messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
> myhost:~# qmail-qread
> myhost:~#
>
> Any ideas?
Yes. It is quite simple (TM). You probably are receiving two messages
concurrently and qmail has already written them (partially) on queue
(to be more exact /var/qmail/queue/mess/?/xxx) but hasn't written the
"rest" of the message on /var/qmail/queue/[mess | remote] so qmail-qread
doesn't ack the messages since they are not entirely queued.
Don't worry about it it's normal.
--
Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394
Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca.
Recem empossado (engajado) cidadao da republica das bananas.
Beethoven was this deaf, he thought all the time he was a painter.
I installed qmail 1.03 on a fully updated Mandrake 6.0 box. The testing
in TEST.receive and TEST.deliver all work. At the moment I am not
using Maildir. My problem is that trying to access my email from
Netscape or Outlook fails. My mail is there. I can read it with pine
if I log directly into the email server. There are no log file errors
to speak of. I know that I am not giving specifics, but mainly I am
asking for ideas as to what might be my problem. Is pop messed up?
Port 110 seems to be working. I have an identical setup on a Mandrake
5.3 box that works just fine. Mandrake 6.0???????
ACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the help!
Dan
At 04:11 PM 8/17/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I installed qmail 1.03 on a fully updated Mandrake 6.0 box. The testing
>in TEST.receive and TEST.deliver all work. At the moment I am not
>using Maildir. My problem is that trying to access my email from
>Netscape or Outlook fails. My mail is there. I can read it with pine
>if I log directly into the email server. There are no log file errors
>to speak of. I know that I am not giving specifics, but mainly I am
>asking for ideas as to what might be my problem. Is pop messed up?
>Port 110 seems to be working. I have an identical setup on a Mandrake
>5.3 box that works just fine. Mandrake 6.0???????
>
>ACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Thanks for the help!
>
>Dan
Your pop3 daemon is probably looking for /var/spool/mail/username. The
default qmail setup delivers mail to ~username/Mailox. Read the docs, it
explains this..
-Dustin
Dustin Marquess wrote:
> At 04:11 PM 8/17/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I installed qmail 1.03 on a fully updated Mandrake 6.0 box. The testing
> >in TEST.receive and TEST.deliver all work. At the moment I am not
> >using Maildir. My problem is that trying to access my email from
> >Netscape or Outlook fails. My mail is there. I can read it with pine
> >if I log directly into the email server. There are no log file errors
> >to speak of. I know that I am not giving specifics, but mainly I am
> >asking for ideas as to what might be my problem. Is pop messed up?
> >Port 110 seems to be working. I have an identical setup on a Mandrake
> >5.3 box that works just fine. Mandrake 6.0???????
> >
> >ACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >Thanks for the help!
> >
> >Dan
>
> Your pop3 daemon is probably looking for /var/spool/mail/username. The
> default qmail setup delivers mail to ~username/Mailox. Read the docs, it
> explains this..
>
>
>-Dustin
I do have the spool files setup correctly. They are also setup the same on both
boxes. I am really stumped. :(
Dan
I just installed the big-todo patch on one of my servers, and am running a
mailing of around 350k names. I am frequently getting the following error:
find: cannot open queue/todo/117188: No such file or directory
find: cannot open queue/todo/117514: No such file or directory
any idears?
Thanks,
<:) Lyndon Griffin
Systems Engineer
||| Naviant |||
********************************************
100 buckets of bits on the bus
100 buckets of bits
Take one down, short it to ground
FF buckets of bits on the bus
FF buckets of bits on the bus
FF buckets of bits
Take one down, short it to ground
FE buckets of bits on the bus...
Lyndon Griffin writes:
> I just installed the big-todo patch on one of my servers, and am running a
> mailing of around 350k names. I am frequently getting the following error:
>
> find: cannot open queue/todo/117188: No such file or directory
> find: cannot open queue/todo/117514: No such file or directory
>
> any ideas?
Did you clean out the queue after installing the patch?
--
-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!
|
Is there any way to increase the username length to
more that 8 characters
that freeBSD imposes?
I have moved to Qmail
recently and I have a few users who would like to use
their previous
mail
address.
Thanks in
anticipation.
-Samar
|
Samar Vijay writes:
> Is there any way to increase the username length to more that 8
> characters that freeBSD imposes? I have moved to Qmail recently
> and I have a few users who would like to use their previous mail
> address.
I think, Samar, that you're failing to make a distinction between a
username and an email address. Unix doesn't help you make that
distinction, since both concepts are merged into one. However, there
is no reason why that should be so.
The Unix machine expects a username for authorization and
authentication. qmail as shipped will make a perfect match between
username and email address, because that is traditional. You can,
though, create your own mapping from username to email address and
email address to username.
qmail delivers mail using multiple algorithms. Basically, though,
users/assign gets a chance and if it doesn't find a match, it falls
back to qmail-getpw. If that doesn't match, there is no such local
address. So, if you don't use users/assign, then the standard
qmail-getpw runs, and it looks in /etc/passwd.
Now, in your case, you have a simpler problem than remapping all of
your usernames. You just have to create some aliases. Like this:
echo '&[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >~alias/.qmail-samarvijay
Forward the mail to their current username. Configure their email
client so it generates email using the long version of their name.
--
-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!
|
HI, Our email server wont receive mails from
certain domains while it =
does receive from others.
Is there any filter
that does it? How can I find out the reason for the
=
problem.
Thanks
-Samar
|
>>This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which
>>is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database?
It's true that ORBS generally lists only hosts that actually return
relay spam, but it's not invariably true -- he listed some of my
addresses for a while because he was mad at me.
ORBS probes come from a single IP address so it's easy just to block
them with tcpserver rules. While you're at it, you might as well
block some of the other SMTP relay scanners:
# ORBS
202.36.148.5:deny
# null.dk
194.192.207.9:deny
# IMRSS
199.0.22.2:deny
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
am I incredibly blind? I would like to put comments into my
/etc/tcp.smtp (source file for tcprules) to tell me which host is
which, when I put it there and why. I read the manpage for tcprules
and I just can't find that - what on Earth is the start-of-comment
character? It is '#' mark?
Thanks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBN7ppjVMwP8g7qbw/EQKBqACfYxEJ3HhmJMiY6qTShH61ekLuZf8AoPdd
Z+hYCKguoYBeRdQDfYxRfXNU
=RnBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 09:06:38AM +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
>From the tcprules manpage:
"RULE FORMAT
A rule takes up one line. A file containing rules may
also contain comments: lines beginning with # are ignored."
> am I incredibly blind? I would like to put comments into my
> /etc/tcp.smtp (source file for tcprules) to tell me which host is
> which, when I put it there and why. I read the manpage for tcprules
> and I just can't find that - what on Earth is the start-of-comment
> character? It is '#' mark?
--
See complete headers for more info
Hello!
I have a masquerade problem.
Description:
host1.domain.no - Smart host, relay's all mail from host2 & host3
to internet. Converted from sendmail to qmail with
no problem.
host2.domain.no - New qmail installation with problem when sending to
internet because host2.domain.no is not in the global
DNS. The ISP reject the mail's with senders from this
host.
host3.domain.no - Old sendmail installation with no problems.
If I log into host2 with telnet and sends a mail with Mutt everything is
okay. I use 'control/defaulthost' and the masquerading is okay.
The problem is that all the client's have Win95/98 and use SMTP/POP3
to handle the mail. I am not able to masquerade the adresses for these
users.
I have tried the following solutions:
*TCPREMOTEHOST setting to "domain.no" for tcpserver
* -H & -l"domain.no" for tcpserver
Help!
Jon
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 10:17:05AM +0200, Jon Luraas wrote:
> Description:
> host1.domain.no - Smart host, relay's all mail from host2 & host3
> to internet. Converted from sendmail to qmail with
> no problem.
> host2.domain.no - New qmail installation with problem when sending to
> internet because host2.domain.no is not in the global
> DNS. The ISP reject the mail's with senders from this
> host.
> host3.domain.no - Old sendmail installation with no problems.
>
> If I log into host2 with telnet and sends a mail with Mutt everything is
> okay. I use 'control/defaulthost' and the masquerading is okay.
This is OK. qmail-inject (which is called by mutt) does header rewriting
and can do masquerading.
> The problem is that all the client's have Win95/98 and use SMTP/POP3
> to handle the mail. I am not able to masquerade the adresses for these
> users.
qmail-smtpd does *not* rewrite headers. It is the responsibility of the
the win95/98 clients to submit the correct envelope sender when sending
mail via SMTP. However, if you really cannot convince them to do that,
then you could consider running ofmipd instead of qmail-smtpd on host2.
ofmipd is designed for header rewriting. It is part of the mess822
package, which you can get from:
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/software/mess822-0.58.tar.gz
--
See complete headers for more info
Hi list,
before going on with some ideas i'm not really sure about i'd like to
throw some simple questions in - i was so far unable to find the
definite right answers in the docs (lwq, faq, mailqueue).
Here i have a lan of about 50 machines; 11 of them are NT WS's so far,
the others will follow soon. All run NW 3.12; i use a linux box for
administration purposes (remote administration, virus checking, server
log checks and much more). Finally they decided that, as the internet
obviously won't disappear very soon, it'd make sense to set up eMail
and later all the other nice things it offers.
Some domains were reserved. We have a provider who puts all the mails
for all the domains in one account where we can poll them through
pop3. For some reasons we use an isdn router to connect, so there's no
difficulties setting up the ppp link.
I got qmail and several recommended packages (rblsmtpd, daemontools,
serialmail and some others i don't remember) and set up the system
quite easily to accept clients in the local net (so they can send and
receive with outlook) using maildir (have you ever tried maildirmake
-h? Nice experience 8^). What i'm not really sure about is how to
get/send from/to the rest of the world...is the recommended way to use
the serialmail - package to send and fetchmail to get the messages? I
suppose i won't be able to convince my provider to change his
systems...besides that, looking at the log files it seems i have to
modify qmail's regular behaviour to wait for the delivery somehow
because i get these CNAME_LOOKUP FAILED TEMPORARILY messages over and
over again - of course i do as there's no DNS who could help.
If anyone has done something similar before (and i suppose most of you
have) you'd do me a big favour if you could tell me how you did it;
maybe you're even willing to answer one question or the other
afterwards so i don't have to spam the list with this...
TIA,
Daniel
