qmail Digest 15 Dec 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 850
Topics (messages 34331 through 34371):
Qmail and Email virus protection
34331 by: Hans Sandsdalen
34340 by: Dustin Miller
34358 by: Christopher Seawood
34359 by: Hans Sandsdalen
Telling when secondary MX is used
34332 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
34333 by: Petr Novotny
34334 by: Greg Owen
34339 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
34341 by: farber.admin.f-tech.net
Re: y2k
34335 by: Dave Sill
Re: Oops, someone tried to send you a virus
34336 by: Shawn P. Stanley
Re: multiple queues?
34337 by: Dave Sill
34342 by: Peter Green
34343 by: Dave Sill
34350 by: Pedro Melo
Re: Mac conflict?
34338 by: martin.wonderfrog.net
Defunct qmail-start after reboot
34344 by: Dustin Miller
34349 by: Dave Sill
34353 by: Dustin Miller
check HOST in dot-qmail
34345 by: Patrick Berry
34346 by: Boris Atanassov
34347 by: Patrick Berry
34348 by: Dave Sill
Arbitrary default domain appending
34351 by: Curtis Generous
34352 by: Dave Sill
AMaViS working ... almost
34354 by: Chris L. Mason
34355 by: Dustin Miller
34356 by: Chris L. Mason
34357 by: Charles Cazabon
Qmail NDN and local
34360 by: Elliott Freis
Re: Hotmail
34361 by: Monte Mitzelfelt
34362 by: Kevin Waterson
34364 by: Monte Mitzelfelt
34367 by: Sam
Noticed a single that has a back door open-relay
34363 by: Monte Mitzelfelt
34366 by: Sam
concurrency remote
34365 by: Reece Markowsky
Troubleshooting a new qmail installation
34368 by: Mike Payson
34369 by: Häffelin Holger
34371 by: Mike Payson
Re: Filtering on "MAIL FROM:"
34370 by: Mark Evans
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I am unable to apply the path mentioned in
<http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/10/msg01093.html>
to scanmails.in?
I get this messages:
patching file scanmails.in
Hunk #4 FAILED at 900.
1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file scanmails.in.rej
The scanmails.in.rej is attached.
Any ideas?
--
/hans
***************
*** 897,929 ****
else
echo No virus found - good >> ${tmpdir}/logfile
- if [ "x${deliver}" != "x" ] && [ -x ${deliver} ] ; then
if [ "x$x_header" = "xyes" ] && [ "x${formail}" != "x" ] && [ -x ${formail} ] ;
then
- if [ "x${usingqmail}" != "x" ]; then
- # If invoked as anything other than "scanmails", invoke the real
- # program else fall thru to exit
- if [ "${scanscriptname}" != "scanmails" ] ; then
- cat ${tmpdir}/receivedmail |\
- ${formail} -f \
- -A "${X_Header_String}" \
- | ${scanscriptname}-real "$@"
- fi
- else
- cat ${tmpdir}/receivedmail |\
- ${formail} -f \
- -A "${X_Header_String}" \
- | ${deliver} "$@"
fi
else
- if [ "x${usingqmail}" != "x" ]; then
- # If invoked as anything other than "scanmails", invoke the real
- # program else fall thru to exit
- if [ "${scanscriptname}" != "scanmails" ] ; then
- ${scanscriptname}-real "$@" < ${tmpdir}/receivedmail
- fi
- else
- ${deliver} "$@" <${tmpdir}/receivedmail
- fi
fi
else
pid=$$
--- 900,926 ----
else
echo No virus found - good >> ${tmpdir}/logfile
+ if [ "x${usingqmail}" != "x" ]; then
if [ "x$x_header" = "xyes" ] && [ "x${formail}" != "x" ] && [ -x ${formail} ] ;
then
+ if [ "${scanscriptname}" != "scanmails" ] ; then
+ cat ${tmpdir}/receivedmail |\
+ ${formail} -f \
+ -A "${X_Header_String}" \
+ | ${scanscriptname}-real "$@"
+ fi
+ else
+ if [ "${scanscriptname}" != "scanmails" ] ; then
+ ${scanscriptname}-real "$@" < ${tmpdir}/receivedmail
fi
+ fi
+ elif [ "x${deliver}" != "x" ] && [ -x ${deliver} ] ; then
+ if [ "x$x_header" = "xyes" ] && [ "x${formail}" != "x" ] && [ -x ${formail} ] ;
+then
+ cat ${tmpdir}/receivedmail |\
+ ${formail} -f \
+ -A "${X_Header_String}" \
+ | ${deliver} "$@"
else
+ ${deliver} "$@" <${tmpdir}/receivedmail
fi
else
pid=$$
Try my patch and instructions, available at:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/12/msg00416.html
Give that a go. :)
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans Sandsdalen
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 8:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Qmail and Email virus protection
Hi
I am unable to apply the path mentioned in
<http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/10/msg01093.html>
to scanmails.in?
I get this messages:
patching file scanmails.in
Hunk #4 FAILED at 900.
1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file scanmails.in.rej
The scanmails.in.rej is attached.
Any ideas?
--
/hans
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Hans Sandsdalen wrote:
> patching file scanmails.in
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 900.
> 1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file scanmails.in.rej
Well, others have mentioned problems with that patch even though I use it
in my rpms. I think the problem is with the line
if [ "x$x_header" = "xyes" ] && [ "x${formail}" != "x" ] && [ -x
${formail} ] ; then
IIRC, that should be all one line even though it's probably copied as two
if you just copy-n-pasted from the archive webpage.
- cls
At 17:15 14.12.99 -0500, Christopher Seawood wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Hans Sandsdalen wrote:
>
>> patching file scanmails.in
>> Hunk #4 FAILED at 900.
>> 1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file scanmails.in.rej
>
>Well, others have mentioned problems with that patch even though I use it
>in my rpms. I think the problem is with the line
Is that a amavis rpm, with qmail patches? If so, where do
I find it?
+------------------------------Sent from homeoffice--+
Hans Sandsdalen Phone Work: +47 77 66 08 09
System Manager Fax: +47 77 65 58 59
Tromsoe - Norway http://www.spacetec.no/~hans/
Kongsberg Spacetec a.s E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all
Is there any way to tell if and when a secondary MX has been in use? Log
files? Does qmail-send/remote log any specific messages to indicate the
message was recieved/delivered because the primary MX was not available?
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 14 Dec 99, at 10:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there any way to tell if and when a secondary MX has been in use?
Do you need to care?
> Log
> files? Does qmail-send/remote log any specific messages to indicate the
> message was recieved/delivered because the primary MX was not available?
No. You'd have to patch them (shouldn't be too difficult to find that
place in code).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOFZvzlMwP8g7qbw/EQIXjgCgsCZ0IJDfyAYy2Wdja7V2x2zUdLwAoJHV
6r4bJwgCl6yNgOxqk7GCVa64
=C2WD
-----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]
> Is there any way to tell if and when a secondary MX has been
> in use? Log files? Does qmail-send/remote log any specific
> messages to indicate the message was recieved/delivered
> because the primary MX was not available?
If you're logging mail transactions, just look at that log and you
can see when and how much it is doing. If it came in because the primary
was unavailable, you'll see a bunch of messages queue up and then all flush
at once when the primary comes back. But the logs don't flat-out tell you
"hey, the primary looks like it is down."
I just set up a secondary last month and one thing I'm noticing is
that it has a low but steady amount of traffic even with the primary
working, and that a disproportionately high amount of it is SPAM. I suspect
some SPAM software targets non-primary MX hosts on the assumption that those
are neglected when anti-SPAM measures are put in place.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, it'll help size spec out the server requirments. Right now running
2 qmails, one on a big box, 2nd on a smaller one. It would seem useless
to have a duplicate server 'just in case'.
Before everyone with unlimited budgets says it a good idea.... I don't
believe that's the most effective way.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On 14 Dec 1999, Petr Novotny wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 14 Dec 99, at 10:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Is there any way to tell if and when a secondary MX has been in use?
>
> Do you need to care?
>
> > Log
> > files? Does qmail-send/remote log any specific messages to indicate the
> > message was recieved/delivered because the primary MX was not available?
>
> No. You'd have to patch them (shouldn't be too difficult to find that
> place in code).
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
> Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
>
> iQA/AwUBOFZvzlMwP8g7qbw/EQIXjgCgsCZ0IJDfyAYy2Wdja7V2x2zUdLwAoJHV
> 6r4bJwgCl6yNgOxqk7GCVa64
> =C2WD
> -----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]
>
I use tcpserver -q -h so I don't get alot of tcpserver/qmail chatter.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Greg Owen wrote:
> > Is there any way to tell if and when a secondary MX has been
> > in use? Log files? Does qmail-send/remote log any specific
> > messages to indicate the message was recieved/delivered
> > because the primary MX was not available?
>
> If you're logging mail transactions, just look at that log and you
> can see when and how much it is doing. If it came in because the primary
> was unavailable, you'll see a bunch of messages queue up and then all flush
> at once when the primary comes back. But the logs don't flat-out tell you
> "hey, the primary looks like it is down."
>
> I just set up a secondary last month and one thing I'm noticing is
> that it has a low but steady amount of traffic even with the primary
> working, and that a disproportionately high amount of it is SPAM. I suspect
> some SPAM software targets non-primary MX hosts on the assumption that those
> are neglected when anti-SPAM measures are put in place.
>
> --
> gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
"Alvaro Escobar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is qmail full y2k compliance ?
For what it's worth, we saw no problems with qmail on our Y2K test
network.
-Dave
Add to that the fact that some viruses are designed to "clog" mail servers
by sending huge amounts of e-mail. You certainly wouldn't want to make
matters worse by doubling the amount of e-mail sent.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Oops, someone tried to send you a virus
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 04:14:29PM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote:
> > The more I think about it, though, the more I ask myself...
> >
> > Does the receipient REALLY need to know that someone tried to send them
an
> > infected file? If the sender gets a bounce message from MAILER-DAEMON
that
>
> I think you're spot-on. As far as I'm concerned, I think it would be
totally
> appropriate to DELETE ON RECEIVAL any mail message containing a virus. All
> this dicking around with cleaning doesn't stop the fact the the senders
> system is compromised and they need to be fixed before anything can be
> trusted from them. I wouldn't go that far - but I certainly think it's an
> appropriate option :-)
>
> The GPL'ed virus scanner for qmail I'm working on
> (http://www.geocities.com/jhaar/) does send reports to a central
> "virus-reports" address as well as the envelope sender - and it does
remove
> mailing-list/postmaster addresses first...
>
> As you said, the primary objective of a sites virus scanner is to stop
> viruses entering or leaving the site - not to baby-sit other site's
users...
>
> - cold, but true ;-)
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Jason Haar
>
> Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
> Phone: +64 3 3391 377 Fax: +64 3 3391 417
>
Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
>extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver from
>the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
>timeouts and retries are more sane.
Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that this will
improve performance?
>I guess the part I can't figure out is how to make qmail do precisely this,
>especially in the forwarding from one queue to the other.
I think you'd have to hack the source.
-Dave
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
> >extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver from
> >the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
> >timeouts and retries are more sane.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that this will
> improve performance?
None; it's purely speculation on my part. We're seeing the problem many
others have seen during busy periods: up to concurrencyremote number of
connections (180) to hotmail.com (or aol.com or whatever) and the inability
for any of our mail to get through.
Part of the reason for this is that we have our relay server broken apart
from where we actually store the e-mail. Thus, even deliveries to *our*
domains are remote, since they must go from our relay to our POP3/IMAP/&c.
server.
> >I guess the part I can't figure out is how to make qmail do precisely this,
> >especially in the forwarding from one queue to the other.
>
> I think you'd have to hack the source.
I kinda figured this, but I just don't have the ability to do so at this
point. Oh well...
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
>> >extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver from
>> >the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
>> >timeouts and retries are more sane.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that this will
>> improve performance?
>
>None; it's purely speculation on my part. We're seeing the problem many
>others have seen during busy periods: up to concurrencyremote number of
>connections (180) to hotmail.com (or aol.com or whatever) and the inability
>for any of our mail to get through.
>
>Part of the reason for this is that we have our relay server broken apart
>from where we actually store the e-mail. Thus, even deliveries to *our*
>domains are remote, since they must go from our relay to our POP3/IMAP/&c.
>server.
You could install a second qmail for your "remote local" mail. Have
the main qmail route to the secondary qmail using a virtual domain.
-Dave
On 14-Dec-1999 Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>>> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
>>> >extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver
>>> >from
>>> >the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
>>> >timeouts and retries are more sane.
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that this will
>>> improve performance?
>>
>>None; it's purely speculation on my part. We're seeing the problem many
>>others have seen during busy periods: up to concurrencyremote number of
>>connections (180) to hotmail.com (or aol.com or whatever) and the inability
>>for any of our mail to get through.
>>
>>Part of the reason for this is that we have our relay server broken apart
>>from where we actually store the e-mail. Thus, even deliveries to *our*
>>domains are remote, since they must go from our relay to our POP3/IMAP/&c.
>>server.
>
> You could install a second qmail for your "remote local" mail. Have
> the main qmail route to the secondary qmail using a virtual domain.
Or you could decide to have a list of domains that are "bad" for your
concurrencyremote and smtproute'them to a different relay, one that only deals
with that kind of stuff...
--
Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IP - Engenharia de Rede <http://ip.pt/>
Av. Duque de Avila, 23, 1049-071 LISBOA - PORTUGAL
tel: +351 21 3166740/00 (24h/dia) - fax: +351 21 3166701
Frank,
I don't know of any particular problems with this setup...but first and
foremost, this does not appear to be a qmail issue. It appears to be a
Macintosh & DNS problem. ("because no answer was returned by
DNS")....e.g., the Mac thinks it's a DNS server for the zone which your
qmail machine is in, or it's "looking for DNS in all the wrong places".
Was the error message exactly as you reported it below?
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? If so, then there are some serious addressing
issues you need to resolve, since "alias.edu" doesn't exist.
Now, just because DNS is correct on your machine[s] doesn't mean that
the Mac is "seeing" that properly. You could try to convince the Mac
to send all messages via SMTP through your server--I would expect that
it's not a heavily loaded machine, since it /is/ a Mac. :-)
I would perform the following tests, just to verify that all of the
mailserver functionality is performing properly:
telnet to port 25 on the Macintosh from the qmail-machine.
telnet to port 25 of the qmail machine from the Macintosh.
if both of these tests can be performed successfully, your problem is
not an SMTP problem. (Of course it claims to be a DNS problem, so this
should be no surprise.)
Then, (do you have a server on the qmail machine?)...I would try
"browsing" on the FTP/web server on the qmail machine...force the
Macintosh to perform the DNS lookup. If you can connect using IP but
not using name, then the Macintosh is failing DNS lookups.
Next, (most troubling, error message, if you didn't doctor it), I would
find out why the Macintosh email server is trying to send stuff to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At this point, you have found where your problem is. Anyway you cut
it, it doesn't appear to be a qmail problem, so your best bet is to
check out with folks in a mailing-list/group that concern themselves
with Eudora Internet Mail Server.
Good luck,
-Martin
On 13 Dec, Franklin A Hays wrote:
:
: I am running qmail on a Slack(3.6)-Linux 2.2.7 dual pentium machine.
: Recently a local administrator upgraded his Macintosh server to the
: following:
: Mac PPC 7200
: Sys 8.1
: Open Transport 1.3
: TCP/IP 1.3
: Eudora Internet Mail Server (EIMS) 2.2
: After this upgrade email sent from his server to any alias on my server
: would bounce with the following message (this is the message people would
: receive on HIS server):
: "After one day the following message could not be delivered to
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] at host my.alias.edu. The last attempt to send this
: message failed because no answer was returned by a DNS."
:
: Sorry, I don't have header information to send along, though I noted the
: following:
:
: 1) problem only started to occur after his upgrade
: 2) problem does NOT occur with any other server sending mail to aliases on
: my linux box
: 3) DNS configurations and MX records are correct and have NOT been changed
: within the past three weeks (problem started just over a week ago).
: 4) messages take almost a day to bounce back to his server (the Mac).
: 5) No error messages or even proof of existence is found on my linux box
: for the bounced email messages, they simply are not getting through the
: server to my end.
:
: We were able to get a workaround going in which he rerouted mail to
: my aliases to another smtp server. My questions are as follows:
:
: 1) Are there any known conflicts with qmail and the above Mac system? (I
: realise qmail may get along nice with the Mac and no vice versa, my
: counterpart in posting the same questions to a Mac MTA discussion list)
: 2) Potential solutions, or other potential sources that I should look at.
:
: I am new to troubleshooting MTA problems on this system so if information
: above needs more depth or doesn't make sense let me know and I can
: clarify, any and all help is greatly appreciated!!
:
: Thanks in advance,
: Frank
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: frank(at)osucau.okstate.edu
: http://osucau.okstate.edu/~frank
:
: "The best thing about graduating from the university was that I finally
: had time to sit on a log and read a good book."
: --Edward Abbey
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
--
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe Communications --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I recently rebooted my machine (don't ask why, long story), and all of
the sudden, there's no logging, and qmail-start is listed as a
defunct/zombie process if I ps ax | grep qmail as root.
Any ideas what's going on here? I'm running under supervise.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multiple queues?
Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue
has
>> >extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver
from
>> >the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue,
where
>> >timeouts and retries are more sane.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that this will
>> improve performance?
>
>None; it's purely speculation on my part. We're seeing the problem many
>others have seen during busy periods: up to concurrencyremote number of
>connections (180) to hotmail.com (or aol.com or whatever) and the inability
>for any of our mail to get through.
>
>Part of the reason for this is that we have our relay server broken apart
>from where we actually store the e-mail. Thus, even deliveries to *our*
>domains are remote, since they must go from our relay to our POP3/IMAP/&c.
>server.
You could install a second qmail for your "remote local" mail. Have
the main qmail route to the secondary qmail using a virtual domain.
-Dave
"Dustin Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I recently rebooted my machine (don't ask why, long story), and all of
>the sudden, there's no logging, and qmail-start is listed as a
>defunct/zombie process if I ps ax | grep qmail as root.
>
>Any ideas what's going on here? I'm running under supervise.
Is this the first time you've rebooted since installing or modifying
your startup files? If so, you probably need to debug them.
If the scripts worked before, but don't work now, you should to try to
identify what's changed since they last worked.
Failing that, show us exactly what you're doing, and tell us what
platform you're on.
-Dave
/var/qmail/rc:
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/ multilog t /var/log/qmail
/service/qmail/run:
*symlinked to /var/qmail/rc*
/etc/rc.d/rc.local:
[snip]
supervise /service/qmail &
[snip]
Here are the processes running once the whole shebang starts up (these same
processes are running when you svc -d /service/qmail followed by an svc -u
/service/qmail):
609 ? S 0:00 tcpserver 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
wfdevelo
4126 tty1 S 0:00 supervise /service/qmail
4127 tty1 S 0:00 qmail-send
4128 tty1 Z 0:00 [qmail-start <defunct>]
4129 tty1 S 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Maildir/
4130 tty1 S 0:00 qmail-rspawn
4131 tty1 S 0:00 qmail-clean
6601 pts/0 S 0:00 grep qmail
No logging taking place.
And the funny thing was: The only change I made was made earlier last week,
and I had svc -d and svc -u the qmail service to instance that change. This
happened all of the sudden (unless I made a change somewhere and forgot
about it)
Running RH6.1
Thanks in advance for the help!
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 1:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Defunct qmail-start after reboot
"Dustin Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I recently rebooted my machine (don't ask why, long story), and all
of
>the sudden, there's no logging, and qmail-start is listed as a
>defunct/zombie process if I ps ax | grep qmail as root.
>
>Any ideas what's going on here? I'm running under supervise.
Is this the first time you've rebooted since installing or modifying
your startup files? If so, you probably need to debug them.
If the scripts worked before, but don't work now, you should to try to
identify what's changed since they last worked.
Failing that, show us exactly what you're doing, and tell us what
platform you're on.
-Dave
I've set up an alias to allow mail to be sent to all the people in our
office. I would like to protect this alias from the 'outside'...
Would there be any problems with just doing a simple check ala
if [ $HOST != freestyleinteractive.com ]
go away
else
everything is cool and go ahead and deliver
fi
Is there something bad that could happen that I might be over looking in my
approach? Would it be best to execute an external shell script from the
dot-qmail file and check the return value of that script and then decide
what to do?
Pat
--
Freestyle Interactive | http://www.freestyleinteractive.com | 415.778.0610
Check the ip-chains howto to disable access from the outside to the SMTP port.
--Bobby
Patrick Berry wrote:
> I've set up an alias to allow mail to be sent to all the people in our
> office. I would like to protect this alias from the 'outside'...
>
> Would there be any problems with just doing a simple check ala
> if [ $HOST != freestyleinteractive.com ]
> go away
> else
> everything is cool and go ahead and deliver
> fi
>
> Is there something bad that could happen that I might be over looking in my
> approach? Would it be best to execute an external shell script from the
> dot-qmail file and check the return value of that script and then decide
> what to do?
>
> Pat
> --
> Freestyle Interactive | http://www.freestyleinteractive.com | 415.778.0610
on 12/14/99 10:10 AM, Boris Atanassov had the thought:
> Check the ip-chains howto to disable access from the outside to the SMTP port.
> --Bobby
That might be bad since we actually do want mail from the outside world.
I'm just afraid that the alias might get out in some sales person message as
a cc: and then some bozo will reply to all and thus spam our entire office.
I just want to exclude outside hosts on that alias.
Pat
--
Freestyle Interactive | http://www.freestyleinteractive.com | 415.778.0610
Patrick Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've set up an alias to allow mail to be sent to all the people in our
>office. I would like to protect this alias from the 'outside'...
>
>Would there be any problems with just doing a simple check ala
>if [ $HOST != freestyleinteractive.com ]
> go away
>else
> everything is cool and go ahead and deliver
>fi
>
>Is there something bad that could happen that I might be over looking in my
>approach? Would it be best to execute an external shell script from the
>dot-qmail file and check the return value of that script and then decide
>what to do?
Use something like the following as the first line in the list file:
|if [ "$HOST" == "freestyleinteractive.com" ; then exit 0; else \
echo "you're not authorized to send to this address"; exit 100; fi
[lines broken for readability]
If the host is OK, qmail will deliver to the rest of the lines in the
file. If it's not, it bounces with the "not authorized" message.
-Dave
Hi:
Is /var/qmail/control/defaultdomain the only mechanism to inform
QMAIL programs what domain name to tack on any unqualified address? Is
there instead a way to specify this either via command line args to
qmail-smtpd, or maybe via an environment variable (possibly set by
TCPSERVER)?
We are running SMTPD listeners on multiple ports (1025,1026,1027,etc...)
to handle various customers, each with their own default domain. We are
seeing cases of either misconfigured boxes or older software not
FQDN'ng the recipient data and because we're running these on the
same box, have a single qmail/control directory. I would rather
avoid having to have multiple qmail/control directories if possible.
Thanks,
--curtis
Curtis Generous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is /var/qmail/control/defaultdomain the only mechanism to inform
>QMAIL programs what domain name to tack on any unqualified address? Is
>there instead a way to specify this either via command line args to
>qmail-smtpd, or maybe via an environment variable (possibly set by
>TCPSERVER)?
There are environment variables for qmail-inject, but injections via
SMTP are really supposed to have the right information. Dan's "broken
client" FAQ outlines a way to get around this:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#network-rewriting
However, you *can* use the RELAYCLIENT environment variable, which, if
set, is appended to each incoming recipient address. That's not
generally useful for rewriting, though.
-Dave
I've been attempting to setup qmail with AMaViS, and I just wanted to say
thanks to Dustin Miller and Christopher Seawood for their extremely useful
posts.
Basically everything is working perfectly, except I don't want mail with
virus attachments to be bounced back to the user. I've tried this both
with and without the mime patch, and there is a problem in either case:
- Without the mime patch, the message bounces okay, but if it passes
through another virus scanner, it can trigger an alert
- With the patch, the bounce is also scanned and a virus found, resulting
in multiple virus alerts and the bounce bouncing.
Here's some background on how I'm using qmail. I am setting up a mail
gateway on a DMZ that will do no local mail delivery. The system just
accepts mail from internal systems for external delivery and visa versa.
The goal is to have this system scan all incoming and outgoing mail for
viruses. Based on this, I've renamed qmail-remote to qmail-remote-real and
setup a symbolic link from qmail-remote to scanmails.
To get things working, I would like scanmails (masquerading as
qmail-remote) to just drop the mail in case a virus is found, after sending
an alert to the adminstrator and the user. Unfortunately I can't figure
out how to do this. If I don't call qmail-remote-real and just "exit 0",
the mail is bounced. I've tried echoing results codes such as:
rK0.0.0.0 Message containing virus dropped
but this doesn't seem to work. I guess what I'm really looking for is the
correct way to tell qmail-lspawn that the message should be considered to
have been delivered successfully (which should cause it to be removed from
the queue.)
Any help on how to do this, or alternatives on how to address this in a
better way, would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris
Well, the scanmails script is responsible for calling qmail-remote-real and
qmail-local-real and sending a number of messages. If you want to change or
remove a particular mail (sender, recipient, or virusalert), simply edit
that portion of the scanmails script.
I'm glad the patch has proved somewhat useful for you. There were minor
tweaks to be made, but they seem to be working well for me on this end.
Best of luck,
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris L. Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AMaViS working ... almost
I've been attempting to setup qmail with AMaViS, and I just wanted to say
thanks to Dustin Miller and Christopher Seawood for their extremely useful
posts.
Basically everything is working perfectly, except I don't want mail with
virus attachments to be bounced back to the user. I've tried this both
with and without the mime patch, and there is a problem in either case:
- Without the mime patch, the message bounces okay, but if it passes
through another virus scanner, it can trigger an alert
- With the patch, the bounce is also scanned and a virus found, resulting
in multiple virus alerts and the bounce bouncing.
Here's some background on how I'm using qmail. I am setting up a mail
gateway on a DMZ that will do no local mail delivery. The system just
accepts mail from internal systems for external delivery and visa versa.
The goal is to have this system scan all incoming and outgoing mail for
viruses. Based on this, I've renamed qmail-remote to qmail-remote-real and
setup a symbolic link from qmail-remote to scanmails.
To get things working, I would like scanmails (masquerading as
qmail-remote) to just drop the mail in case a virus is found, after sending
an alert to the adminstrator and the user. Unfortunately I can't figure
out how to do this. If I don't call qmail-remote-real and just "exit 0",
the mail is bounced. I've tried echoing results codes such as:
rK0.0.0.0 Message containing virus dropped
but this doesn't seem to work. I guess what I'm really looking for is the
correct way to tell qmail-lspawn that the message should be considered to
have been delivered successfully (which should cause it to be removed from
the queue.)
Any help on how to do this, or alternatives on how to address this in a
better way, would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 03:42:29PM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote:
> Well, the scanmails script is responsible for calling qmail-remote-real and
> qmail-local-real and sending a number of messages. If you want to change or
> remove a particular mail (sender, recipient, or virusalert), simply edit
> that portion of the scanmails script.
>
> I'm glad the patch has proved somewhat useful for you. There were minor
> tweaks to be made, but they seem to be working well for me on this end.
>
Hi Dustin,
I've already made some changes to the email that is sent regarding the
virus alerts, and that works fine. The problem is the actual queued
message being processed. In the case of a non-virus email, the real
qmail-remote program is run, and if it delivers the message okay, it
somehow signals this to qmail-lspawn (I believe), which results in the
message being cleared from the queue.
Because of the qmail-lspawn and qmail-remote interaction, having the
scanmails script just exit results in the original email being bounced.
This is what I'm trying to avoid. I'd like to just tell qmail-lspawn that
everything was delivered okay (basically lie to it), so that there is no
bounce generated.
Any ideas?
Chris
Chris L. Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've already made some changes to the email that is sent regarding the
> virus alerts, and that works fine. The problem is the actual queued
> message being processed. In the case of a non-virus email, the real
> qmail-remote program is run, and if it delivers the message okay, it
> somehow signals this to qmail-lspawn (I believe), which results in the
> message being cleared from the queue.
>
> Because of the qmail-lspawn and qmail-remote interaction, having the
> scanmails script just exit results in the original email being bounced.
> This is what I'm trying to avoid. I'd like to just tell qmail-lspawn that
> everything was delivered okay (basically lie to it), so that there is no
> bounce generated.
Hmm -- in a .qmail file, an exit code of 99 is supposed to tell it that the
delivery was OK, but not to process further delivery instructions. Would
that be useful in this circumstance? I haven't looked into how AMaViS hooks
into the qmail system, so I don't know myself.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
Good day everyone. I have a question. I am assuming from what I have
read this is impossible, but I thought I would pass it by all of you
before I gave up.
Is there a way for qmail to not only reply to incorrect e-mail
addresses with an NDN but also send a copy of the message to a local
mailbox?
Thank you!
-Elliott
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Tim Hunter wrote:
> In my queue I have 9 messages with attachments for hotmail.com, I noticed
> the problem about a week ago, it has probably been longer. Any ideas for
> contacting hotmail and letting them know how upsetting this makes us Admins?
I sent mail to every damn contact address that I could find. I encourage
all others to do the same.
Monte
Monte Mitzelfelt wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Tim Hunter wrote:
>
> > In my queue I have 9 messages with attachments for hotmail.com, I noticed
> > the problem about a week ago, it has probably been longer. Any ideas for
> > contacting hotmail and letting them know how upsetting this makes us Admins?
>
> I sent mail to every damn contact address that I could find. I encourage
> all others to do the same.
I find it easier to do something like
echo "@hotmail.com" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
I encourage all others to do the same
Kevin
> I find it easier to do something like
> echo "@hotmail.com" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
That doesn't clean out your queue of outgoing crap, or did I miss
something there? Easier is nice when it works, but I tend to prefer
effective over easy. This way they get complaints about your service
which on average they care fairly little about, not about their screwed up
service which is causing us grief.
Although even after I implemented the pre-bounce of oversized messages to
them, I did still leave some quantity to live out their life in the queue
just to help them see my the point.
Monte
Monte Mitzelfelt writes:
>
> > I find it easier to do something like
> > echo "@hotmail.com" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
>
> That doesn't clean out your queue of outgoing crap, or did I miss
> something there? Easier is nice when it works, but I tend to prefer
> effective over easy. This way they get complaints about your service
> which on average they care fairly little about, not about their screwed up
> service which is causing us grief.
Well, you can always temporarily put hotmail.com into smtproutes for
127.0.0.1, then rehup qmail-send. This will immediately bounce everything
that's queued up for hotmail.com, after a minor expenditure in CPU time and
disk space, as the crap rotates through the queue, a couple of times,
before it finally figures out where it wants to go. The sender will get an
obnoxious bounce, but your queue will be clear.
--
Sam
I just switched from MAPS RBL to MAP RSS. Seems to hit a little bit
better without taking away too much real stuff.
Then I had a customer complain that someone, could not send him mail and
was getting an open relay message. So I connected to the offending host in
my log and tried a few simple relays and it looked fine. Then I noticed
to my delight that they run qmail. So trying to be helpful, I sent a
request to have them taken off. This was the result.
>>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 553 Sorry, you can't relay through me (#5.7.1)
>>> RSET
<<< 250 flushed
>>> MAIL FROM:<>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 go ahead
>>> (message body)
<<< 250 ok 945215583 qp 29881
Does anyone know how this could be setup like that?
Thanks,
Monte
Monte Mitzelfelt writes:
> >>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 553 Sorry, you can't relay through me (#5.7.1)
> >>> RSET
> <<< 250 flushed
> >>> MAIL FROM:<>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> DATA
> <<< 354 go ahead
> >>> (message body)
> <<< 250 ok 945215583 qp 29881
>
> Does anyone know how this could be setup like that?
This is a custom hack of some kind. Note that the no-relay message is not
the standard message you get from plain vanilla qmail.
--
Sam
I have concurrencyremote as default (20). My remote queue is full
(over 2000 messages) - only a few qmail-remotes running at any given time.
I usually see about 3-5 running at any given moment.
Any ideas why I don't see 20?
Thanks,
Reece
I've just installed qmail on SuSE Linux 6.3. I followed the instructions
in the how-to, as well as reading the various install files, man pages,
etc., but it's not working.
After executing startup commands, the only process showing up after 'ps
x' is the supervise process, and executing 'echo to: mpayson |
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject' has no apparent effect. Attempting to send
a message with Netscape says "server replied 'Null'".
Any suggestions on how to proceed with my troubleshooting?
Thanks!
Mike
Hi!
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Mike
> Payson
> Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 1999 05:31
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Troubleshooting a new qmail installation
>
> I've just installed qmail on SuSE Linux 6.3. I followed the
> instructions
> in the how-to, as well as reading the various install files,
> man pages,
> etc., but it's not working.
Did you stop all the sendmail stuff. In Suse 6.3 you'll have to set
START_SMTP=No in rc.config. And you'll have to edit inetd.conf. Otherwise
sendmail sits on your smtp port.
>
> After executing startup commands, the only process showing up
> after 'ps
> x' is the supervise process, and executing 'echo to: mpayson |
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject' has no apparent effect.
Did you check /var/log/mail?
> Attempting to send
> a message with Netscape says "server replied 'Null'".
This message is normally displayed, if you are not allowed to establish a
smtp connection. It might be caused by your tcpserver-configuration.
>
> Any suggestions on how to proceed with my troubleshooting?
>
> Thanks!
> Mike
>
CU
Holger
> > I've just installed qmail on SuSE Linux 6.3. I followed the
> > instructions
> > in the how-to, as well as reading the various install files,
> > man pages,
> > etc., but it's not working.
> Did you stop all the sendmail stuff. In Suse 6.3 you'll have to set
> START_SMTP=No in rc.config. And you'll have to edit inetd.conf. Otherwise
> sendmail sits on your smtp port.
I've removed Sendmail from the system, so that's not the problem.
> > After executing startup commands, the only process showing up
> > after 'ps
> > x' is the supervise process, and executing 'echo to: mpayson |
> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject' has no apparent effect.
> Did you check /var/log/mail?
There's one "status: local 0/10 remote 0/20" followed by "cannot start:
qmail-send already running" an hour or so later. The system has been
restarted more then once since than, but no further entries have been
recorded. This may (or may not...) be because I switched from trying to
start it with inetd to the recommended tcpserver.
> > Attempting to send
> > a message with Netscape says "server replied 'Null'".
> This message is normally displayed, if you are not allowed to establish a
> smtp connection. It might be caused by your tcpserver-configuration.
Possibly. Netscape's running on a different machine, so maybe I don't
have everything configured properly between the two. That had crossed my
mind, but I wasn't sure if the problem was related or not. Again, I
configured the tcp.smtp file based on the how-to (verbatim-- it looks
like it should be the smae on my network), so I *think* it's correct.
>
> On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 11:02:16AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > Another problem is that some places have started blocking messages with
> > empty envelope sender addresses, because some spammers use them to get
> > past the domain blocking.
>
> Yeah, but one must be really a stupid sysadmin to do this.
There appear some of these arround. Apparently reading manuals or
RFC's is beyond them...
