qmail Digest 6 Jan 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 872
Topics (messages 35128 through 35167):
Re: OPEN RELAY
35128 by: Lorens Kockum
Re: Local bounces vs. VERP
35129 by: Pavel Kankovsky
35141 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Delivering mail into a SQL table
35130 by: Peter Gradwell
Re: adding a reply-to?
35131 by: Marthe Nesøen Gangfløt
Why Are Virtual Domains So Difficult??
35132 by: CDR Inc
35138 by: Dave Sill
35157 by: Joe Kelsey
35158 by: Marek Narkiewicz
Re: What MUA do you use?
35133 by: Dave Sill
35137 by: Delanet Administration
35147 by: Bruno Wolff III
35151 by: Jedi/Sector One
35152 by: Jedi/Sector One
35153 by: Julian Brown
35154 by: richard.illuin.org
35156 by: Bill Ataras
Re: 7 bit ascii & qmail
35134 by: Dave Sill
35135 by: Dave Sill
35140 by: Fred Lindberg
35150 by: Matthew Brown
35155 by: Sam
35159 by: Len Budney
35160 by: Len Budney
35161 by: Sam
Re: virtual domains.
35136 by: iv0
35142 by: Timothy L. Mayo
Re: Domain relaying (host relaying?) or something
35139 by: Marthe Nesøen Gangfløt
Re: Does qmail-local run more than 1 simultaneous instance?
35143 by: Dave Sill
35144 by: Dave Sill
35145 by: Russell Nelson
Re: creating new users
35146 by: Dave Sill
qmail and pid
35148 by: clifford thurber
35149 by: Dave Sill
Re: ANNOUNCE: getmail v.0.95, a 'fetchmail' replacement
35162 by: Charles Cazabon
Troubleshooting: Probably a FAQ...
35163 by: Mike Payson
Mail Logfiles
35164 by: Dewald Strauss
35165 by: bert hubert
Tcpserver query...
35166 by: Scott Ballantyne
limiting smtp message size depending on domain
35167 by: Robert Varga
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>ORBS obviously succeeds testing:
Not at all obvious, no.
>I don't actually know if this mail is delivered. But they pretend...
Who pretends? ORBS knows very well that most qmail servers do
not relay. Those who (are (mis)configured to) relay don't need
any obscure hacks, and those who don't, don't.
Have you been listed in ORBS? If not, no open relay.
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Pavel Kankovsky writes:
> > And it bounces to "user-bounce-@hostname"
>
> Yup. When the VERP part is empty, then you know that it's an QSBMF,
> but Qmail's Bounce Message Format is Simple to Parse. What's the big
> deal?
1. QSBMF may be Simple to Parse but it cannot be as simple as $EXTn
2. qmail-VERP combo should not be advertised and/or documented as
something *eliminating* the need to parse bounces completely
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Pavel Kankovsky writes:
> 1. QSBMF may be Simple to Parse but it cannot be as simple as $EXTn
Just about. See below.
> 2. qmail-VERP combo should not be advertised and/or documented as
> something *eliminating* the need to parse bounces completely
Sheesh, Pavel, get a life or something! The statement of the problem
that VERP solves is that there are N+1 foreign bounce message formats,
where N is the number that you have seen before. VERP lets you
totally escape having to parse remote bounce messages. Local bounce
messages use QSBMF. Is this such a big deal??
Here's some perl code which splits out bounces, and also prunes some
stupid sendmail warnings.
$list = shift;
$_ = $ENV{LOCAL};
($addr) = m/$list-owner-(.*)/i or die "doesn't match the list name";
if ($addr) {
$addr =~ s/=([^=]*)$/\@$1/;
while(<>) {
exit 99 if /THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY/;
exit 99 if /^Subject: WARNING: message delayed at/;
exit 99 if /^Subject: Warning From uucp/;
exit 99 if /^Subject: Returned mail: Deferred/;
}
&handle_addr($addr);
} else {
$/="";
$_=<>; # get rid of the email header.
$_=<>; # get the QSBMF
/^Hi. This is the/ or die "This is not a qmail bounce message";
while(<>) {
last if /^-/;
/^<(.*)>/ or die "No recipient address";
&handle_addr($1);
}
}
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
At 21:29 03/01/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Are there any patches that let me deliver mail messages into a SQL
>database (mysql preferrably) instead of Maildir ?
you should deliver all mail to a single user
e.g. in virtualdomains
domain.com:saver
domain1.com:saver
and then create the user 'saver' and in ~saver/.qmail-default
put
| deliver.pl
where deliver.pl is a simple perl script that inserts the information into
the mysql database.
The mail will be delivered to the perl script on STDIN and you should also
examine the enviroment variables - 'man qmail-command' and 'qmail-local'
AFAIK for info.
peter
--
peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 02:21:07PM -0500, Keith Warno wrote:
> | "Keith Warno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | >I would like to add (or replace) a reply-to line to the header I suppose.
> | >Any idea how this could be achieved on the server side?
> | >
> | >PS -- I don't use any mailing list package nor do I have any intention to
> do
> | >so because the lists are tiny. I just use a couple of .qmail-* files.
> :>
> |
> | Does this sound absurd:
> |
> | I would like to add (or replace) parts to a car engine I suppose.
> |
> | PS -- I don't use tools nor do I have any intention to do
> | so because the engine is tiny. I just use my fingers. :>
> |
> | I suggest you bite the bullet and install ezmlm+ezmlm-idx.
> |>
> If I could get away with using my fingers without much trouble why would I
> use the tools? Qmail already has the capability to do what I want it to do
> out of the box; it's only a matter of actually doing it.
>
> ezmlm is serious overkill for a mailing list that currently serves three
> people and maybe eight sometime in the future.
Overkill? Well, think of this: If you had taken those 2 minutes it takes
to install basic ezmlm, and edit one small file and added those three
users, then you would have a Reply-to in your header yesterday, and even
maybe a prefix for the list :)
Who talks about too-much-trouble?
If it was about installing majordomo, I could've understood you, but
ezmlm?
--
-Marthe
Ano-Tech Computers, www.atc.no
"You humans are a disease, a cancer to this planet..
you are a plague.. and we.. are the cure."
When I first started setting up my RH 6.1 Linux Box, I had thought that
setting up Virtual Domains and such would be easy. I figured that with all
the hoopala of Linux as a Server, it would be very well documented as to how
to set up virtual domains and such. After looking around a while, I came to
discover that it is NOT well documented. Maybe I was just looking in the
wrong place, but the documentation for setting up virtual stuff is not very
prevelant... So I changed my thinking.. I figured my application is unique
and it will be tough going setting it up. A Net Friend turned me on to
QMAIL, saying it would be a good program to set up Virtual Domains...
But now I see all the questions on this list about setting up virtual
domains and such and I am thinking that I am NOT alone.. That others have
the same setup and problems I do..
So here is my question.. Why is there not more support for Virtual Domains
and such in Qmail?? SUre there is a blurb in the FAQ about it, I have seen
some kludges and such. I have gotten one really fine script about it, but
my own inexperience screwed that up..
Is there anything out there about setting up Virtual Domains in QMAIL that a
relatively inexperienced Linux Born Again Virgin can follow? I would think
with all the post I have seen of late re: this problem that there would be
some easy to follow info on how to set these up..
Michale
M I S
"CDR Inc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So here is my question.. Why is there not more support for Virtual Domains
>and such in Qmail??
Virtual domains are fully supported and drop dead easy in qmail.
See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#virtual-domains
If you're still confused after reading that, post a specific question
to the list.
>SUre there is a blurb in the FAQ about it, I have seen
>some kludges and such. I have gotten one really fine script about it, but
>my own inexperience screwed that up..
No script is necessary. Most of the people with questions about
virtual domains either don't understand how they work, or are trying
to use a "virtual users" package, where multiple POP accounts belong
to a single UNIX account.
-Dave
I think that the existing documentation is much too complex for most
situations. The FAQ points out a very simple solution, which becomes
very complex as soon as more than one virtual domain is used.
I think that DJB intends people to use fastforward, since he insists
that a standard qmail distrubution includes fastforward and dotforward.
Therefore, the fastforward solution is to do the following:
for each virtual.domain
do
echo "virtual.domain:alias" >>control/virtualdomains
echo "virtual.domain" >>control/rcpthosts
done
echo "| fastforward /etc/alias.cdb" >/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-default
Now go set up /etc/alias according to the fastforward documentation.
You can now use the fastforward wild cards to arbitrarily forward
various combinations of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to arbitrary places.
You can even import your snedmail alias database intact.
So, why doesn't LWQ or qmail-1.03/FAQ mention this? The fastforward
package doesn't even mention it.
/Joe
CDR Inc writes:
> When I first started setting up my RH 6.1 Linux Box, I had thought that
> setting up Virtual Domains and such would be easy. I figured that with all
> the hoopala of Linux as a Server, it would be very well documented as to how
> to set up virtual domains and such. After looking around a while, I came to
> discover that it is NOT well documented. Maybe I was just looking in the
> wrong place, but the documentation for setting up virtual stuff is not very
> prevelant... So I changed my thinking.. I figured my application is unique
> and it will be tough going setting it up. A Net Friend turned me on to
> QMAIL, saying it would be a good program to set up Virtual Domains...
>
> But now I see all the questions on this list about setting up virtual
> domains and such and I am thinking that I am NOT alone.. That others have
> the same setup and problems I do..
>
> So here is my question.. Why is there not more support for Virtual Domains
> and such in Qmail?? SUre there is a blurb in the FAQ about it, I have seen
> some kludges and such. I have gotten one really fine script about it, but
> my own inexperience screwed that up..
>
> Is there anything out there about setting up Virtual Domains in QMAIL that a
> relatively inexperienced Linux Born Again Virgin can follow? I would think
> with all the post I have seen of late re: this problem that there would be
> some easy to follow info on how to set these up..
>
>
> Michale
> M I S
>
Best advice I can give. Use vpopmail. www.inter7.com
even if you decide it's not what you need you can get started and learn about how it
works.
Also hang about on #qmail on efnet, that channel is run by inter7 and if anyone's
awake you
can learn a lot. Look out for iv0 he helped me a lot.
Maybe us newbies can pool together and get some docs on what we found to be lacking
instead of bemoaning the lack of em.
chhers for now,
--
Marek Narkiewicz, Webmaster Intercreations
Reply to <-marek @ intercreations . com->
"Dogs are everywhere"
Pulp
Dogs are Everywhere
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Just curious what people are using to read/send mail from X.
VM under XEmacs.
-Dave
For Linux/FreeBSD you can use KDEMail for multiple pop3 accounts. The 1.0 version was
not
all that stable, but the newer one seems ok..it's not got all the bells and whistles
like
Netscape or Outlook, but it's functional. I currently use Netscape for my primary
account
and webmail for all else under FreeBSD.
--
Stephen Comoletti
Systems Administrator
Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com
ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
Subba Rao wrote:
> On 0, Bill Ataras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just curious what people are using to read/send mail from X. I was using
> > netscape (SMTP/POP) that came with my redhat dist, but wanted something
> > with more features (multiple POP accts, filtering etc). I've been playing
> > with "spruce" (check freshmeat). Its pretty good. But I'm curious what you
> > guys are using. Now that I have an industrial strength mail server (qmail)
> > I'd like a really good MUA. Maybe to help me use different mail accounts
> > for different maillists and for usenet etc etc. Have you found a good mail
> > client that will let you live on multiple maillists, usenet, spam/filter
> > yada yada?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I use Mutt and like it very much.
>
> Regarding a single MUA that deals with multiple mail accounts, using one
> user account, I am not aware of one for Linux. Please correct me if I am
> wrong. For Windows and OS/2, there are MUAs that can do that. On *nix, I haven't
> heard of one. Probably Mutt might have that feature, among the zillion features it
>has.
>
> Subba Rao
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/
>
> => Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. <=
> http://www.smcinnovations.com
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 09:53:49PM -0500,
"Mark E. Drummond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Communicator. Spawning a browser to view some goofballs HTML mail, which
> I receive a lot of, is a pain in the ass. Lacks some of the features I
> was used to in mutt and pine, not nearly as configurable, doesn't do
> pgp/gpg, I use a Verisign cert for now, but overall it has reduced my
> headaches and I have learned to live with the mssing features. Strictly
> IMAP from work and home.
>
> Personally I would prefer mutt or pine, but Communicator is our
> officially supported product, so it also helps to use the same tool my
> lusers are using. ;-(
You can use a mailcap definition to pipe html attachments through lynx.
This works well for mutt. The html attachments look like plain text
attachments.
Be carefull when using a browser to read email. People can tell when you
read their email by looking to see when image links in the message are
referenced. Scripting can also be used to do unfriendly things to you.
If you are a Gnome user, check out the latest releases of BALSA.
Although the first snapshots were a bit poor, that MUA has now lotsa
nifty features like filtering and Maildir support. The multi-threaded
mail fetching is also an unique feature.
Checkout :
http://www.balsa.net
--
Frank DENIS aka Jedi/Sector One aka DJ Chrysalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-> Software : http://www.jedi.claranet.fr <-
-> Music : http://www.mp3.com/chrysalis <-
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Be carefull when using a browser to read email. People can tell when you
> read their email by looking to see when image links in the message are
> referenced. Scripting can also be used to do unfriendly things to you.
Right, and many Netscrap and Grootlook users are sending HTML mails
(and even HTML + plain text) for a plain text content, or just ugly and
useless colors or background.
Wotta stupid bandwidth starvation : the content is the same than a
plain text message, but with twice its size.
--
Frank DENIS aka Jedi/Sector One aka DJ Chrysalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-> Software : http://www.jedi.claranet.fr <-
-> Music : http://www.mp3.com/chrysalis <-
I think you mean Nutscrape Masturbator
Just thought I should correct you.
Julian
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Be carefull when using a browser to read email. People can tell when you
> read their email by looking to see when image links in the message are
> referenced. Scripting can also be used to do unfriendly things to you.
Right, and many Netscrap and Grootlook users are sending HTML mails
(and even HTML + plain text) for a plain text content, or just ugly and
useless colors or background.
Wotta stupid bandwidth starvation : the content is the same than a
plain text message, but with twice its size.
--
Frank DENIS aka Jedi/Sector One aka DJ Chrysalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-> Software : http://www.jedi.claranet.fr <-
-> Music : http://www.mp3.com/chrysalis <-
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Jedi/Sector One wrote:
> Wotta stupid bandwidth starvation : the content is the same than a
> plain text message, but with twice its size.
I have to ask if email is a significant portion of most sites external
bandwidth and so if this is really worth sysadmins time worrying about? At
most Universities certainly one person editing documents on the local
networkor browsing the web probably consumes more bandwidth in one day
than the whole company does for email. (look at http://bill.ja.net/ for
breakdown of international network traffic for UK Universities)
obSome sites like AOL etc will be moving alot of email, but even then I'm
quite sure the size of the email messages being moved is fairly
insignificant to the number of messages being moved. even if message
doubled on size by using HTML this would have much less of an effect on
machines than doubling the number of messages. Looking at he performance
patches for qmail they are all geared towards: larger number of messages
in the queue, delivering more messages in parallel.
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
I mailed both authors to ask them
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000, Jedi/Sector One wrote:
> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 01:26:02 +0100
> To: Bill Ataras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Jedi/Sector One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: What MUA do you use?
>
> Bill Ataras wrote:
> > Ok. Now here's a question. Compare the above balsa web page to this web
> > page:
> > This is the web page for SPRUCE. Spruce is a mail app I'm currently
> > using. But balsa and spruce look exactly the same (the gui as well as
> > web page). What's the deal?
>
> Oh !!! That is really funny. I never peeked at Spruce before, but yes,
> they look very similar. The features list, however, is not exactly the
> same. I can't leech and try Spruce right now, but I'll do ASAP in order
> to compare them. Really strange, anyway.
>
> --
> Frank DENIS aka Jedi/Sector One aka DJ Chrysalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -> Software : http://www.jedi.claranet.fr <-
> -> Music : http://www.mp3.com/chrysalis <-
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Brown writes:
>
>> The difference is that sendmail makes a halfhearted attempt at compliance,
>> and qmail doesn't.
>
>Agreed. Now, which one would you rather have?
I'd rather have qmail, of course. How silly. Half-assed attempts at
compliance are no better than non-attempts, and are frequently worse.
>> > The correct way to handle that is to reject them in the first place.
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that, for the sake of these saintly, antiquated
>> 7 bit only mailservers, we should drop people's emails on the floor?
>
>No, and that's the whole point. If you forward it along without encoding
>it as quoted-printable, it *WILL* be dropped on the floor.
An MTA will pass unencoded 8-bit messages as-is, encode them before
passing them on, or reject them. No reasonable MTA will drop them on
the floor.
>> Also, let me put it this way: is there any MTA out there that only accepts
>> 7bit mail that should not be upgraded for many other reasons?
>
>Yes. aol.com. As long as their 7bit mail relay handles almost a hundred
>million messages per day, I think it's pretty safe to say that it does its
>job as it should.
I don't give a pea squeaking tinker's f*ck about what AOL does or
doesn't do. 800 lb gorilla or not, they just aren't that important to
me, and I hope people don't start kowtowing to them.
-Dave
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>RFC 821 is certainly not archaic, ...
Good one, Sam. :-)
-Dave
On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 23:38:27 GMT, Sam wrote:
>> Nonconformance with archaic very US-centric part of rfc. Anyone in a
>
>I wouldn't describe all of RFCs 2045-2048 as "archaic".
>
>RFC 821 is certainly not archaic, and it has a blanked prohibition against
I didn't adress the entire rfc, only said that this part of rfc821 et
al (like the restriction of the size of reciplocal) is archaic. How
would you describe it?
>RFC 2045-2048 *is* the right way to do this. In fact, strictly-conformant
>servers have every right to reject 8bit mail that is not received with the
>8BITMIME extension.
It violates the more important rule to be lenient on accept. The only
reason to reject a 8-bit message [for that reason] is an inability to
handle it.
Still, you are correct, just not right ;-)
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Sam wrote:
> Matthew Brown writes:
> > The difference is that sendmail makes a halfhearted attempt
> > at compliance, and qmail doesn't.
>
> Agreed. Now, which one would you rather have?
Noncompliance rather than semi-compliance.
> > Are you seriously suggesting that, for the sake of these
> > saintly, antiquated 7 bit only mailservers, we should drop
> > people's emails on the floor?
>
> No, and that's the whole point. If you forward it along
> without encoding it as quoted-printable, it *WILL* be
> dropped on the floor.
WILL? That's a bit extreme. I have NEVER seen any MTA drop a message for
such a reason.
The most that will EVER happen is that the message will be flattened to
seven bits and the eighth-bit-on characters will come out a bit strange. An
annoyance, but No Big Deal.
>
> > Also, let me put it this way: is there any MTA out there
> > that only accepts 7bit mail that should not be upgraded
> > for many other reasons?
>
> Yes. aol.com. As long as their 7bit mail relay handles
> almost a hundred million messages per day, I think it's
> pretty safe to say that it does its job as it should.
No, just that it does its job adequately as far as AOL is concerned. I
assume they use some system of their own devising?
> It's possible that AOL's mail relays will properly handle
> transparent 8bit mail now, I really don't know. But even
> if they do, if they suddenly decide that they want to make
> their relays fully RFC-compliant, they're going to
> do it, and they will start dropping your non-compliant mail
> on the floor, whether you like it, or not. And there's not
> a damn thing you will be able to do about it.
a) They don't do this
b) There's no reason for them to do this
c) It violates the liberal-acceptance implicit policy behind all email
systems
d) They won't.
They won't because I'm sure that dropping them would be more of a pain in
the ass than accepting them, both from the mailserver load POV, the added
customer service POV, the bad publicity POV ...
Even QMAIL (and we know how stubborn Dan can be) goes to some effort to
accept mail from grossly uncompliant systems.
-Matt
--
Matt Brown ---- UNIX Administrator ---- tickets.com
Phone: (714) 327-5571 --- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Matthew Brown wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> > Matthew Brown writes:
> > > The difference is that sendmail makes a halfhearted attempt
> > > at compliance, and qmail doesn't.
> >
> > Agreed. Now, which one would you rather have?
>
> Noncompliance rather than semi-compliance.
Except that Qmail isn't "non-compliant", it violates the protocol.
There's a huge difference between not implementing the standard, and
deliberately violating it.
> > No, and that's the whole point. If you forward it along
> > without encoding it as quoted-printable, it *WILL* be
> > dropped on the floor.
>
> WILL? That's a bit extreme. I have NEVER seen any MTA drop a message for
> such a reason.
I have. More than once. I've had more than one message bounced by
@sec.gov for that reason.
> The most that will EVER happen is that the message will be flattened to
> seven bits and the eighth-bit-on characters will come out a bit strange. An
> annoyance, but No Big Deal.
Not true. Apparently there are other systems out there who feel the same
way that I do, and refuse to handle non-compliant mail.
> > It's possible that AOL's mail relays will properly handle
> > transparent 8bit mail now, I really don't know. But even
> > if they do, if they suddenly decide that they want to make
> > their relays fully RFC-compliant, they're going to
> > do it, and they will start dropping your non-compliant mail
> > on the floor, whether you like it, or not. And there's not
> > a damn thing you will be able to do about it.
>
> a) They don't do this
I said that they don't do this *NOW*.
> b) There's no reason for them to do this
There's no reason for them to do this *NOW*. I can certainly speculate on
possible reasons they might want to implement this restriction in the
future.
> c) It violates the liberal-acceptance implicit policy behind all email
> systems
And this is how SMTP became the mess that it is right now. It's time to
change that.
> d) They won't.
I don't share your confidence.
> They won't because I'm sure that dropping them would be more of a pain in
> the ass than accepting them, both from the mailserver load POV, the added
> customer service POV, the bad publicity POV ...
I will be happy to point to you to a shitload of documented cases where,
in the past, AOL has certainly dropped a lot of legitimate mail.
Their subscriber rolls keep on growing.
--
Sam
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Matthew Brown wrote:
> > WILL? That's a bit extreme. I have NEVER seen any MTA drop a
> > message for such a reason.
>
> I have. More than once. I've had more than one message bounced by
> @sec.gov for that reason.
dropped != bounced. Saying "dropped" when you mean "bounced" is
inflammatory, nearly to the point of slander.
Len.
I should have kept reading...
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will be happy to point to you to a shitload of documented cases
> where, in the past, AOL has certainly dropped a lot of legitimate mail.
> Their subscriber rolls keep on growing.
If you actually mean "dropped", then you're describing unforgiveable
incompetence. If you really meant to say "bounced", then you're describing
a policy descision--and slandering AOL.
Len.
Len Budney writes:
> I should have kept reading...
>
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I will be happy to point to you to a shitload of documented cases
> > where, in the past, AOL has certainly dropped a lot of legitimate mail.
> > Their subscriber rolls keep on growing.
>
> If you actually mean "dropped", then you're describing unforgiveable
> incompetence. If you really meant to say "bounced", then you're describing
> a policy descision--and slandering AOL.
Sue me.
--
Sam
P.S. I think I need to check if there's a full moon out tonite.
I was looking at something similar yesterday. A vhosting setup where
each domain put it's web files under a users directory and wanted to put
thier vpopmail email under that users directory too.
>From the vpopmail code I thought of a way to handle it. Currenly it
assumes the ~vpopmail/domains directory. But if instead
it parsed that information from the /var/qmail/users/assign file.
And change the vadddomain program to allow setting which uid/gid and
directory to use for the domain directory.
Ken Jones
www.inter7.com
> Rich Stock wrote:
>
> I am somewhat new to qmail, but i have successfully(for the most part
> anyhow) setup qmail on a couple servers, It so far has been easy to
> install and maintain.
> However when i decided i would like to setup virtual domains I feel I
> dont really understand how or why qmail works the way it does, and how
> i can get it to work the way i would like(or something close to the
> way i would like). I am writing this with the hope that someone will
> know what i need to do to get qmail completely setup the way I
> envision.
>
> I would like qmail to handle virtual domains by putting mail from a
> virtualdomain that ~user owns in ~user/mail/somevirtualpopuser instead
> of vpopmail having directories for each domain under its sub directory
> i could care less if the ~user even owns the mail directory, i more or
> less would like a quota limitation on mail in a per-domain basis so
> that all users wouldn't suffer (as much) it someone got their domain
> email bombed or something else which would have the same effect. then
> i would like qmail-pop3d to check to what domain a pop3 connection
> request was issued to (sortof like wu-ftpd will with virtual ftp
> servers and chroot to the directory of the user that owns the domain
> the request came for) so it could only serve mail for users@thatdomain
> and unlike vchkpw where you enter the user%domain to login you just
> have the pop client configured to get mail from your domain, and you
> wouldn't need any special user names.
>
> but im not picky, and could just do symbolic links or something to get
> the virtualdomains mail to their users directories that own them. any
> suggestions that anyone may have, probably short of learning c(because
> i need a sort of quick fix) would be appriciated. feedback as to why
> this would be dumb/impractical is also welcome.
>
> -Rich Stock
I'm doing this very patch to both vpopmail and courier-imap as you discuss
it. I will pass my changes back to you when I complete them later today.
:)
The change was very simple to make but it does not allow you to override
the uid or gid fields any longer. :(
Tim
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, iv0 wrote:
>
> I was looking at something similar yesterday. A vhosting setup where
> each domain put it's web files under a users directory and wanted to put
> thier vpopmail email under that users directory too.
>
> From the vpopmail code I thought of a way to handle it. Currenly it
> assumes the ~vpopmail/domains directory. But if instead
> it parsed that information from the /var/qmail/users/assign file.
> And change the vadddomain program to allow setting which uid/gid and
> directory to use for the domain directory.
>
> Ken Jones
> www.inter7.com
>
> > Rich Stock wrote:
> >
> > I am somewhat new to qmail, but i have successfully(for the most part
> > anyhow) setup qmail on a couple servers, It so far has been easy to
> > install and maintain.
> > However when i decided i would like to setup virtual domains I feel I
> > dont really understand how or why qmail works the way it does, and how
> > i can get it to work the way i would like(or something close to the
> > way i would like). I am writing this with the hope that someone will
> > know what i need to do to get qmail completely setup the way I
> > envision.
> >
> > I would like qmail to handle virtual domains by putting mail from a
> > virtualdomain that ~user owns in ~user/mail/somevirtualpopuser instead
> > of vpopmail having directories for each domain under its sub directory
> > i could care less if the ~user even owns the mail directory, i more or
> > less would like a quota limitation on mail in a per-domain basis so
> > that all users wouldn't suffer (as much) it someone got their domain
> > email bombed or something else which would have the same effect. then
> > i would like qmail-pop3d to check to what domain a pop3 connection
> > request was issued to (sortof like wu-ftpd will with virtual ftp
> > servers and chroot to the directory of the user that owns the domain
> > the request came for) so it could only serve mail for users@thatdomain
> > and unlike vchkpw where you enter the user%domain to login you just
> > have the pop client configured to get mail from your domain, and you
> > wouldn't need any special user names.
> >
> > but im not picky, and could just do symbolic links or something to get
> > the virtualdomains mail to their users directories that own them. any
> > suggestions that anyone may have, probably short of learning c(because
> > i need a sort of quick fix) would be appriciated. feedback as to why
> > this would be dumb/impractical is also welcome.
> >
> > -Rich Stock
>
---------------------------------
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
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 08:03:27AM -0500, Greg Owen wrote:
> > And, should I have to add the domains in rcpthosts? I tried to
> > add some domains and such in smtproutes(and rcpthosts), but it seems to
> > me that qmail checks the MX record anyway, and just forwards the mail
> > to the right mx host.
>
> They should be in rcpthosts. I haven't tested to know what happens
> if they are in MX but not rcpthosts, so I can't advise, but I'd probably
> generally advise to follow the docs in any case ;>.
Hehe ok. I just had to wonder, if I had gotten it all wrong, by adding
it to rcpthosts. I would get "not in my rcpthosts file" if I didn't add
it.
> > I'm told that Sendmail wil do this better than qmail, but since the
> > one who told me doesn't really like qmail I would appreciate some
> > ideas/thoughts on this matter from you all :)
>
> Why are you running a relay? Is it for security or performance
> reasons? If security, then the case against sendmail is pretty well made.
> If for performance, either sendmail or qmail will handle most "normal"
> loads, but my experience is that qmail handles the "mail has backed up here
> for days and must now be passed on to the newly-up destination" case with
> far less pain than sendmail - which is exactly the case a mail relay expects
> to find itself in.
It's for security reasons.. it will run sendmail on the mailservers
(behind the relay) because it will be on a (allmost) locked network and
security doesn't really matter. But the mail-relay will be in a dmz, so
I installing qmail is actually the best here :) Even though its a
bit more work relaying with qmail than Sendmail ;-)
Thanks for nice answers Greg :-)
--
-Marthe
Ano-Tech Computers, www.atc.no
"You humans are a disease, a cancer to this planet..
you are a plague.. and we.. are the cure."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>How do I start Qmail. Also How do I know how it is running.
See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
Specifically:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#start-qmail
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#troubleshooting
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyone know if more the one instance of qmail-local can be run
>simultaneously?
Yeah, lot's people know the answer to that.
Oh, OK, I'll answer it: yes. Up to concurrencylocal copies of
qmail-local can be run simultaneously.
See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#concurrencylocal
-Dave
Dave Sill writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Anyone know if more the one instance of qmail-local can be run
> >simultaneously?
>
> Yeah, lot's people know the answer to that.
Ask a silly person, and you get a silly answer. :)
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Franklin A Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am trying to create new users on my system (qmail/intel Linux) and
>having trouble.
What kind of trouble? Creating users is a Linux thing, not a qmail
thing. Unless you're already using qmail-users, you don't need to do
anything to give new users access to mail.
-Dave
Hello,
I have looked at the qmail script in /etc/init.d and read the docs and I
still can't figure out where qmail stores its PID file.
Can someone enlighten me as to its whereabouts.
Thanks in advance.
Cliff
Clifford Thurber
Web Systems Administrator
LiveUniverse.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
565 5th Ave. 29th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Ph:212 883 6940 (131)
Fax:212 856 9134
clifford thurber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have looked at the qmail script in /etc/init.d and read the docs and I
>still can't figure out where qmail stores its PID file.
>Can someone enlighten me as to its whereabouts.
What PID file?
Which /etc/init.d script are you using? E.g., where'd you get it?
-Dave
Slightly off-topic (flames in private mail, please), but applicable to
qmail users:
getmail 0.95 is now available from
http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/getmail/
getmail is intended as a simple replacement for fetchmail, for those who
don't need all of its various features, configuration options, and bugs.
It retrieves mail only from POP3 servers, and delivers reliably to Maildirs.
mbox delivery has been added as of v.0.94.
It is written in Python and released under the GPL version 2.
It can retrieve all mail, or only unread messages, from an unlimited number
of POP3 mailboxes on one or more POP3 servers. Configuration and usage is
straightforward and simple. getmail does not yet support delivery to
different users per message from a single POP3 mailbox ('domain mailbox'
or 'multidrop mailbox').
Changes since version 0.94:
-getmail now uses a simpler, more flexible .getmailrc configuration file
format.
-some cleanups in the code.
-getmail now requires at least version 1.5.2 of the Python standard libraries.
This was necessary for future features.
Any questions, feedback, etc, is greatly appreciated, but should be done
in private email.
Charles Cazabon
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
My opinions are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just set up my qmail server, but I'm having some last minute
problems... I just tried to sign up for a mailing list but the mailing
list choked on my headers. Below are the fiull headers as forwarded from
the mailing list administrator, & the error message generated by the
list server. Also attached are the full headers from a second message I
sent to myself at my current address. Any idea what I'm missing?
Thanks!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: L-Soft list server at Bibliofind (1.8c)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Aaron W. West; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; from the Bibliofind offices
Subject: Problem processing mail file from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An error occurred while processing file 11873 from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: "Mail message sent to the LISTSERV address
contains invalid RFC822 fields and could not be parsed successfully".
RFC822 parser messages follow:
<W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored.
<W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored.
<E> Mail origin cannot be determined.
<E> Original tag data was -> mpayson
------------------- Message causing the problem (17
lines) --------------------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ubdnet.net (sense-sea-MegaSub-1-492.oz.net) by
biblio.bibliofind.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 2:17:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 7689 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2000 07:16:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ubdnet.net) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by sense-sea-megasub-1-492.oz.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2000 07:16:40 -0000
Sender: mpayson
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:09:02 -0800
From: Mike Payson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
join news
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Received:
from ubdnet.net
(sense-sea-MegaSub-1-492.oz.net [216.39.145.238]) by
mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) with SMTP id
XAA05279 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:17:47 -0800
Received:
(qmail 7696 invoked from network); 6 Jan
2000 07:17:02 -0000
Received:
from unknown (HELO ubdnet.net)
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by
sense-sea-megasub-1-492.oz.net with SMTP; 6
Jan 2000 07:17:02 -0000
Sender:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:09:24 -0800
From:
Mike Payson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer:
Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i586)
X-Accept-Language:
en
MIME-Version:
1.0
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
test
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
X-Mozilla-Status:
8001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
00000000
X-UIDL:
9d29cd0b32e3d580a517270da2667bec
Hi everybody,
Slight offtopic question...
Can anyone recommend a program to analyze the maillog files
generated by qmail ?
Anything that will show the amount of mail sent and received
will do at the moment.
thanks
Deew
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:32:07AM +0200, Dewald Strauss wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a program to analyze the maillog files
> generated by qmail ?
> Anything that will show the amount of mail sent and received
> will do at the moment.
qmailanalog - available on www.qmail.org
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
There doesn't seem to be a list for the ucspi tools, or my eye slipped
over it on Dan's mailinglist page...
Are there known problems with tcpserver under OpenBSD 2.6? I've been
trying to bring up a 2.6 system, and using the same command line that
worked under SunOS 4 doesn't cut it here. anonftpd prints it's banner,
and then exits immediately. It works correctly from inetd.
Regards,
sdb
------------------
bash-2.03# PATH="/var/databases/ftp/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" tcpserver -R -v -B"You
have reached SSR.COM's anonymus FTP server..." 0 ftp anonftpd 68 68 &
bash-2.03# ftp localhost
tcpserver: status: 1/40
tcpserver: pid 31145 from 127.0.0.1
Connected to localhost.
tcpserver: ok 31145 localhost:127.0.0.1:21 localhost:127.0.0.1::42866
You have reached SSR.COM's anonymus FTP server...220 Hi there! This is anonftpd.
tcpserver: end 31145 status 0
tcpserver: status: 0/40
----------
Is there a way to limit the maximum message size the qmail-smtpd accepts
varying from domain to domain.
Eg. I would like to have mail's going out of my LAN to have no size limit,
mail routed internally (from inside to inside through the mail hub) have
no size limit, but messages coming from outside have size limit, and
preferably even different limit for each domain.
I would not like to do this somewhere after qmail-smtpd, because that way
the message gets accepted and hence transferred to our machine even if it
exceeds the size limit.
Is somewhere a patch for this?
Robert Varga
