qmail Digest 10 Mar 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 936
Topics (messages 38365 through 38401):
Re: _I_couldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._
38365 by: Crow, Ian
Local or/and virtualdomain?
38366 by: Martin Paulucci
Re: All mail for a domain into a single POP box (HOWTO?)
38367 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Message 252 when VRFYing
38368 by: Anthony DeBoer
Early aborts (Was: qq failure on HP-UX)
38369 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen
38382 by: Pavel Kankovsky
38385 by: Uwe Ohse
qmail-smtp server does not accept connections from other hosts on the network
38370 by: Murthy Raju
38371 by: Dave Sill
Headers going to AOL
38372 by: Dan Barber
multilog: fatal: unable to open directory /var/log/qmail: access denied
38373 by: dukedavide.libero.it
38374 by: Dave Sill
qmail and /bin/mail
38375 by: Donald R. McGregor
38384 by: Uwe Ohse
maillog error sending mail to @yahoo,aol,etc. *slightly OT*
38376 by: Bennett
Re: Unknown recipients
38377 by: Claus Färber
38383 by: Bruno Wolff III
38390 by: Petr Novotny
38395 by: Anand Buddhdev
38396 by: Petr Novotny
38397 by: Pavel Kankovsky
38398 by: Petr Novotny
38399 by: Claus Färber
38400 by: Pavel Kankovsky
Forward and retain a copy
38378 by: Christopher Tarricone
38379 by: Stephen Bosch
38380 by: Mikko Hänninen
38381 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
smtp-poplock-2.04 install problems
38386 by: Kristina
GMT ----> PST
38387 by: Muhammad Ali
send problem?
38388 by: TAG
[Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir (#4.2.1)]
38389 by: Dewald Strauss
Spamming control fails with badmailfrom file
38391 by: Antonio Navarro Navarro
38393 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
imap
38392 by: Kevin waterson
38394 by: Anand Buddhdev
MH folders 2 maildir?
38401 by: Pedro Melo
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I fixed my problem.
After hours of adding arg and env dumping code to qmail-remote, running many
times, etc. I finally got around to running the same command line as qmailr
as I was running under my standard account.
A comparative strace showed me that the qmailr execution couldn't read
various things in /etc, and hence I discovered that /etc had somehow become
chmod 750-ed. Naturally, this was affecting various other things (like the
locate database update), but they were all further down the list than
getting qmail going.
The thing that compounded my problem was that my standard account is in the
root group, so it wasn't affected by the problem. Any other user and I'd
have nailed the problem much sooner.
My thanks to those who responded.
IanC
____________________________________________________________
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal
rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not
copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
____________________________________________________________
|
Hi,
My default domain is working for a couple of months
in both the virtualdomains and the defaultdomain + rcpthosts. Should I take it
out from one of those?. I'm using vpopmail +sqwebmail .
I ran the qmail-lint and it gave me this
output:
# ./qmail-lint-0.54
Error: a host sintesoft.net
in locals also appears in virtualdomains.
Warning: a host in locals
does not appear in rcpthosts.
Warning: a host in locals does not appear
in rcpthosts.
Warning: a host in locals does not appear in
rcpthosts.
Warning: a host mail in locals does not appear in
rcpthosts.
Warning: a host babel in locals does not appear in
rcpthosts.
Warning: a host webmail in locals does not appear in
rcpthosts.
Warning: a host in locals does not appear in
rcpthosts.
Warning: users/assign checking not implemented.
sintesoft.net is the default domain, mail babel and
webmail are aliases of the localhost.
So what should I do?. Also, everything works fine
(that's weird!)
# cd /var/qmail/control
# cat me
babel.sintesoft.net
# cat
locals
localhost
babel.sintesoft.net
mail.sintesoft.net
webmail.sintesoft.net
sintesoft.net
mail
babel
webmail
.sintesoft.net
# cat
virtualdomains
sintesoft.com:sintesoft.com
sintesoft.net:sintesoft.net
#cat plusdomain
sintesoft.net
Many Thanks!
|
Svenne Krap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A firm makes "mailhosting" for us, set up to throw all mail into the
> same box.
>
> How do I accomplish, that the server dials up (actually it isn't the
> network is connected with a router), collects all mail from the
> single popbox. And throws it into the right pop-boxes on the local
> computer ?
>
> Something in me yells "fetchmail" and "serialmail" is that correct ?
Or (plug) 'getmail' -- http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/getmail/
You might find it easier to configure and use than 'fetchmail'.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, actually it *could*, under certain conditions. If you don't
> have any .qmail-.*default's, you could create a CDB containing all the
> valid addresses, which qmail-smtpd could consult after sufficient
> patching. However, that still has the problem of giving away your
> valid addresses to spammers. And, .qmail-.*default files are *so*
> useful.
There are situations in which you do want to selectively decline certain
RCPT TO:s. Real-life example: corporate firewall relays to internal
hosts. User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gets popular with the
spammers then departs for greener pastures. I still need to accept mail
from the Internet for all foo.internal.example.com users and try to relay
it to them, but I *know* that mail for bob is going to turn into a
bounce-o-gram and end up doublebouncing to me 9 times out of 10. Being
able to say "550 Unknown User" in the initial SMTP conversation for that
one selected address would save everybody a lot of trouble.
What I picture would be a CDB consulted by qmail-smtpd; it would inhale
the job of rcpthosts and morercpthosts. For each RCPT address, it would
progressively break it down and check for a match, which would contain an
instruction "bounce with $MSG" or "accept for relaying". Eg. for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> it would check [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], host.example.com, and then .example.com
(followed presumably by .com and "root" lookups, if we get that far, but
nothing useful could be configured at the root level). Or we could just
check for a user@host record and accept any and all extensions if the
user is valid, thereby saving lookup steps. Or the user@host record
could say to backup and try extensions if we want to setup such
fine-grained control for that user.
In the default case, you'd setup a single host.example.com:accept record,
but you'd have the option of [EMAIL PROTECTED]:accept, likewise
for the other users, and then host.example.com:550_unknown_user.
Being able to say "550 moved - try <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" would be
nice too, not that the crap MTAs of the world ever actually tell the user
the actual text from the SMTP rejection.
BTW, is the possibility of spammers checking for valid users via the RCPT
command a real-world problem? If they really cared, they could set up a
valid mailer to match their MAIL FROM and analyze the bounce. IMHO
weighing that against the other problem of filling your queues with
bounces-to-spam and having them all doublebounce into your lap does call
for a value judgement here.
--
Anthony DeBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ Uwe Ohse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
|
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| > crt0: ERROR: mmap failed for dld (data) errno:000000012
| > Unable to forward message: qq permanent problem (#5.3.0).
|
| this can only happen "if ((exitcode >= 11) && (exitcode <= 40))",
| which qmail-queue doesn't return in case of "out of memory".
I assume this happened before the program entered main().
Which brings up a natural question: What, in general, is supposed to
happen if a program is unable to proceed before it enters main(),
e.g., because the dynamic loader could not get the memory it needs?
Clearly, it is too late for the original process to return from
exec(), yet the programmer has no influence over what will happen.
For packages like qmail, it is important to recognize the situation so
it can be dealt with properly, yet this is clearly impossible unless
there is a documented behaviour one can rely on.
(My guess would have been that the process should commit suicide
rather than just exiting, perhaps by sending itself a SIGSEGV or
SIGABRT.)
- Harald
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> Which brings up a natural question: What, in general, is supposed to
> happen if a program is unable to proceed before it enters main(),
> e.g., because the dynamic loader could not get the memory it needs?
...
> (My guess would have been that the process should commit suicide
> rather than just exiting, perhaps by sending itself a SIGSEGV or
> SIGABRT.)
Every dynamic linker I know (and I have seen having fatal problems during
startup) commits suicide with SIGKILL. This is probably the best thing you
can do.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 05:57:23PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> I assume this happened before the program entered main().
me too.
> Which brings up a natural question: What, in general, is supposed to
> happen if a program is unable to proceed before it enters main(),
1003.1, 3.2 "Process Termination"
There are two kinds of process termination:
(1) Normal termination occurs by a return from main() or when requested
with the exit() or _exit() functions.
(2) Abnormal termination occurs when requested by the abort() function
or when some signals are received (see 3.3.1.1).
[...] the status made available to wait() or waitpid() by abort() shall
be that of a process terminated by the SIGABRT signal.
Regards, Uwe
Hi,
I have just installed qmail on Redhat 6.1. I installed qmail-smtp to run
under tcpserver. when I try to make a connection to the Qmail smtp server,
The server does not seem to respond.
When i telnet the qmail server at the port 25, I do not get any typical
SMTP greeting or server ready prompt like I used to get under Sendmail.
How do I solve this problem?
I do not have DNS running. Is this causing a problem? I normally use my
ISp's DNS as I connect to the Net only occassionally and the local machines
of our local network are on the hosts file. What are the other aleternatives?
Thanks for the help in advance.
Raju
Murthy Raju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When i telnet the qmail server at the port 25, I do not get any typical
>SMTP greeting or server ready prompt like I used to get under Sendmail.
>
>How do I solve this problem?
Show us how you're starting tcpserver/qmail-smtpd.
>I do not have DNS running. Is this causing a problem?
Not this problem. :-)
>I normally use my
>ISp's DNS as I connect to the Net only occassionally and the local machines
>of our local network are on the hosts file.
qmail doesn't use the hosts file. See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#etc-hosts
-Dave
Hello,
Has anyone else run into a problem where the headers (From:,
To:) are empty when an AOL user opens email from a qmail
box? Everyone else seems to be fine.
If so, vould you please post the solution?
thanks,
Dan Barber
The first time i launch Qmail i get this error.
I've tried 2 times the installation on 2 different linux version but
every time
i get this error, i've tried to gave the full permission to
/var/log/qmail but
i still get this error.
I've installed qmail reading "life with qmail" and "qmail howto" and
after the
problem i've read the faq but i haven't find nothing about this error.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The first time i launch Qmail i get this error. I've tried 2 times
>the installation on 2 different linux version but every time i get
>this error, i've tried to gave the full permission to /var/log/qmail
>but i still get this error. I've installed qmail reading "life with
>qmail" and "qmail howto" and after the problem i've read the faq but
>i haven't find nothing about this error.
Post the output of:
ls -ld /var/log/qmail /var/log /var /
cat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run
-Dave
I'm running RH linux 6.0 and attempting to get qmail to put
incoming messages into the traditional /var/spool/mail/username
place. it seems the RH version of /bin/mail has different
arguments than expected in the standard 1.03 source distro.
RH linux seems to be BSD-style /bin/mail. The binm1+df file
in the boot directory includes this snippet:
/bin/mail -f "${SENDER:-MAILER-DAEMON}" -d "$USER"'
But the linux /bin/mail complains about both -f and -d
args. What's a better way to get this done? What are the
magic args to /bin/mail to get this to work?
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 11:55:35AM -0800, Donald R. McGregor wrote:
> /bin/mail -f "${SENDER:-MAILER-DAEMON}" -d "$USER"'
>
> But the linux /bin/mail complains about both -f and -d
> args. What's a better way to get this done? What are the
> magic args to /bin/mail to get this to work?
/bin/mail "$USER" -- -f "${SENDER:-MAILER-DAEMON}"
may work for you, or you may boot/proc.
The /bin/mail interface has not been very stable under linux.
Regards, Uwe
Bit of a strange question. my qmail server is running fine any dandy as
long as I only send mail to 85% of the internet.... whenever I try to
send mail to someone at yahoo,aol,bigfoot, and a few others it will just
sit in the queue trying and trying with the error message that the
connection died. OCCASIONALLY it will actually send the message, but that
is rather rare.
However I have a very strong suspision that this is not an error w/in
q-mail because my server is underneith *3* levels of nats, and when I try
to telnet to the respective ip addresses (yahoo, aol, etc's mail server)
port 25, the connection will die on me also.
I suppose my question is, is there anything (besides removing all the
nats, which isn't an option until I move in june) I can do to remedy this
minor problem?
For now I just telnet into my iquest shell account and send mail to those
addresses that way, but needless to say it's a wee bit annoying.
Thanks,
Bennett Thede
Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> No there isn't. qmail's design is such that it does no recipient
> verification when accepting an email. I wish there were some way to do
> this though. Perhaps qmail-smtpd can look up a file list users/assign.
Well, the question here is, what's better: A security hole allowing
remote attackers to find out which email address is valid without
waiting for the bounce (and giving a valid return address in advance) or
a security hole allowing remote attackers to start a DoS attack by
sending messages which eventually double bounce?
I believe it's better not to accept that mail in the first place.
Unfortunatly, qmail-smtpd has absolutly no access to the list of valid
addresses, maybe not even users. I have spent some thinking about this
and ended up with the following idea: A separate daemon validating
addresses by looking if there is a .qmail file or a default action for
that address (and maybe caching the results). Of course, if you need
~alias/.qmail-default, this would not help. Further, to check whether a
.qmail file for .qmail-user-anything exists, you would have to start a
process with this user's id to be able to read the directory...
--
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:47:00AM +0100,
Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the question here is, what's better: A security hole allowing
> remote attackers to find out which email address is valid without
> waiting for the bounce (and giving a valid return address in advance) or
> a security hole allowing remote attackers to start a DoS attack by
> sending messages which eventually double bounce?
>
> I believe it's better not to accept that mail in the first place.
Stopping either one has little benefit.
> Unfortunatly, qmail-smtpd has absolutly no access to the list of valid
> addresses, maybe not even users. I have spent some thinking about this
> and ended up with the following idea: A separate daemon validating
> addresses by looking if there is a .qmail file or a default action for
> that address (and maybe caching the results). Of course, if you need
> ~alias/.qmail-default, this would not help. Further, to check whether a
> .qmail file for .qmail-user-anything exists, you would have to start a
> process with this user's id to be able to read the directory...
If your goal is to get rid of spam double bounces, you don't have to get
the list exactly right. You just accept stuff for valid_user, valid_user-.*
and names defined in ~alias.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9 Mar 00, at 10:47, Claus Färber wrote:
> Well, the question here is, what's better: A security hole allowing
> remote attackers to find out which email address is valid without
> waiting for the bounce (and giving a valid return address in advance)
> or a security hole allowing remote attackers to start a DoS attack by
> sending messages which eventually double bounce?
>
> I believe it's better not to accept that mail in the first place.
Correction: It would be better if it was for free. Unfortunately,
checking whether a username exists (against large database) can
be arbitrarily slow; unless you're planning to overload your busy
box, forget it; qmail-smtpd just carries on the conversation,
qmail-queue writes down the message, fsync()es it and you're done.
Adding one zillion system calls to validate the username is a DoS
attack waiting to happen, too. Which one would you rather have?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOMifCVMwP8g7qbw/EQI5HACg1gKjmLRMDMVxAs2RdS7lQHFjSFEAoOqK
KLsNxe2tK+N6gskkYeM2Pi/a
=Phrj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 09:06:48AM +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > I believe it's better not to accept that mail in the first place.
>
> Correction: It would be better if it was for free. Unfortunately,
> checking whether a username exists (against large database) can
> be arbitrarily slow; unless you're planning to overload your busy
> box, forget it; qmail-smtpd just carries on the conversation,
> qmail-queue writes down the message, fsync()es it and you're done.
Are you saying that spending a few more resources checking up valid
usernames is better than accepting possibly large emails, and then
attempting to bounce them, and spending bandwidth, time and qmail-remote
slots, which would be better used for genuine outgoing emails?
I think the problem of slow lookups in large databases has gone away
with CDB.
--
See complete headers for more info
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Mar 00, at 12:36, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> Are you saying that spending a few more resources checking up valid
> usernames is better than accepting possibly large emails, and then
> attempting to bounce them, and spending bandwidth, time and
> qmail-remote slots, which would be better used for genuine outgoing
> emails?
Yes, in a way. ("Don't speculate, profile." And I _am_ speculating.
Aren't you as well?) How many _large_mails_ to nonexistent users
do you receive? The ones I receive are around 5kB; bandwidth hit is
negligible. More importantly, in case of overloaded box, most of the
actions neccessary to generate the bounce is rescheduled for
later. (Simple queue the mail, and "wait" for the load to drop - I
mean, wait till qmail-send is free to do something about the
message.)
> I think the problem of slow lookups in large databases has gone away
> with CDB.
1. Can you really describe all your users in CDB? Even all the
user-ext stuff? Do you disallow user access to "ezmlm-make"? Or
do you force CDB rebuild after each .qmail-* editing?
2. CDB lookup may be much faster than an ordinary database
lookup, but it still requires disk activity; I wouln't assume that the
whole CDB fits into the memory.
3. Of course, YMMV :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOMi2HlMwP8g7qbw/EQKwrwCgmJlP2oX3T1E/xJ9PEzsgM+uIRrsAniuK
QZSeSbmf5lLqFYN1TKJoIk9s
=pxKW
-----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 Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> Adding one zillion system calls to validate the username is a DoS
> attack waiting to happen, too. Which one would you rather have?
Current implementation does not avoid the execution of "one zillion system
calls", it postpones it until qmail-send decides to deliver the message
later. Yes, there are benefits: reduced latency of qmail-smtpd, ability to
absorb briefs peaks of load but sooner or later, you have to do the
validation anyway.
Let us assume the implementation of "early validation" is simpleminded and
does the validation twice (both in qmail-smtpd, and in qmail-local or
whatever does the final delivery), and let us assume its installation X
collapses when fed with at least N deliveries per second. Then the same
installation with vanilla qmail collapses at no more than 2N deliveries
per second because it needs no less than 50 % of X's CPU time to do its
work. DoS attack waiting to happen? It depends. Unless you network link is
slow...
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10 Mar 00, at 10:56, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> Current implementation does not avoid the execution of "one zillion
> system calls", it postpones it until qmail-send decides to deliver the
> message later. Yes, there are benefits: reduced latency of
> qmail-smtpd, ability to absorb briefs peaks of load but sooner or
> later, you have to do the validation anyway.
Agreed.
> Let us assume the implementation of "early validation" is simpleminded
> and does the validation twice (both in qmail-smtpd, and in qmail-local
> or whatever does the final delivery), and let us assume its
> installation X collapses when fed with at least N deliveries per
> second. Then the same installation with vanilla qmail collapses at no
> more than 2N deliveries per second because it needs no less than 50 %
> of X's CPU time to do its work.
I beg to differ. qmail-smtpd's are running in parallel, and need the
validation reasonably fast (otherwise SMTP connection times out,
and is retried; with suboptimal retry schedules of some MTA, that's
a disaster, quite likely). On the other hand, the validation in
qmail-local does not have to be that fast and can be run in serial
(the only problem being the queue growing up).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOMi6RVMwP8g7qbw/EQINuACfX42qCoZaae2XPyCJynCxL1a+IU4An0jF
ZuMe20DyUskrjTdPvkULAqI2
=JmMn
-----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]
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> If your goal is to get rid of spam double bounces, you don't have to
> get the list exactly right. You just accept stuff for valid_user,
> valid_user-.* and names defined in ~alias.
This does not work with invalid addresses for virtual domains: If a mail
is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is handled by user-virtual, you
have to know whether ~user/.qmail-virtual-invalid exists.
--
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> I beg to differ. qmail-smtpd's are running in parallel, and need the
> validation reasonably fast (otherwise SMTP connection times out,
> and is retried; with suboptimal retry schedules of some MTA, that's
> a disaster, quite likely). On the other hand, the validation in
> qmail-local does not have to be that fast and can be run in serial
> (the only problem being the queue growing up).
And when the queue fills up, qmail-smtpd will start refusing messages and
with suboptimal retry schedules of some MTA... well, in this scenario,
some messages would probably be delivered.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Is there a way in qmail to forward a copy of an e-mail to another
accoutn but still retain a copy on my server for archive purposes.
Example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] receives and e-mail a copy is sent to thier aol
account but mydomain.com's mail server retains a copy.
> Is there a way in qmail to forward a copy of an e-mail to another
> accoutn but still retain a copy on my server for archive purposes.
>
> Example
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] receives and e-mail a copy is sent to thier aol
> account but mydomain.com's mail server retains a copy.
I've always just put the local address and the forward address in the
.forward file -- that's never caused a loop so I'm assuming that the MTA
knows enough to interpret this as a request to leave a copy in the local
mailbox.
Of course, that was with sendmail... I don't actually know what qmail does,
since I haven't had to use this since I started using qmail.
Anybody else?
-Stephen-
Christopher Tarricone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 09 Mar 2000:
> Is there a way in qmail to forward a copy of an e-mail to another
> accoutn but still retain a copy on my server for archive purposes.
Put this in the .qmail file for the account:
remote@address
./Mailbox
... this will forward to remote@address as well as store a copy in the
local mail folder called "Mailbox" in the user's home dir. If you use
Maildir, replace ./Mailbox with "./Maildir/". For more information
what you can do in .qmail, do "man dot-qmail".
Hope this helps,
Mikko
--
// Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs /
Bumper sticker: I brake for no apparent reason.
Yes, we do this for customers that want a copy of their email, plus a copy
sent to a pager, or any other device :)
Modify your .qmail file in the home directory, and just put each recipient
on a seperate line in the file.
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Mailbox
or whatever format you are storing in.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Stephen Bosch wrote:
>
>
>> Is there a way in qmail to forward a copy of an e-mail to another
>> accoutn but still retain a copy on my server for archive purposes.
>>
>> Example
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] receives and e-mail a copy is sent to thier aol
>> account but mydomain.com's mail server retains a copy.
>
>I've always just put the local address and the forward address in the
>.forward file -- that's never caused a loop so I'm assuming that the MTA
>knows enough to interpret this as a request to leave a copy in the local
>mailbox.
>
>Of course, that was with sendmail... I don't actually know what qmail does,
>since I haven't had to use this since I started using qmail.
>
>Anybody else?
>
>-Stephen-
>
>
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
2:30pm up 44 days, 22:27, 4 users, load average: 0.50, 0.52, 0.46
I have qmail on Solaris7 sparc and I tried to install smptp-poplock but
when I do make install I get the following errors.
Any help greatly appreciated.
Kristina
******ERROR******
%cd /usr/src
%zcat smtp-poplock-2.04.tar.gz
%cd smtp-poplock-2.04
% make install
installing /usr/sbin
installing /usr/sbin/fifo-safety
find: cannot follow symbolic link /usr/sbin/.qmail-postmaster: No such file
or d
irectory
install: fifo-safety was not found anywhere!
*****My .qmail-postmaster is configured as in the Life with qmail manual******
echo dave > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-root
echo dave > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-postmaster
ln -s .qmail-postmaster /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-mailer-daemon
chmod 644 /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-root /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-postmaster
|
i want to change time from GMT to PST..........
How?
|
Hi,
When I send to a specific domain I get the following error message:
delivery 24129: failure:
Connected_to_160.124.122.142_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_501_unacceptable_mail_address/
Is this a proble on my side or theirs??
Thanks
Tonino
> Hi everybody,
>
I have a server with RedHat 6.0, qmail 1.03 + vpopmail and multiple domains
hosted on this machine.
> Since yesterday I started getting the following messages in my maillogs:
> delivery 460 deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir (#4.2.1)
>
> there are hundreds of these messages, but only for one domain
> The rest of the mail gets delivered as usual.
>
> I sent a mail from the console (echo test | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> and right after that these messages started to appear.
> Did I break something by doing this, or is it just coincidence ?
>
> The permissions on my Maildir is exactly the same as other Maildirs,
> and no other changes was made to the machine
>
> Anybody have a suggestion for me ?
(I looked at the archive for this list, but that did not solve my problem)
> Regards
> Dewald
Hi all !
I have a badmailfrom file for controling spammers, but it doesn't works as
I expected. If someone sends mail with an empty mailfrom (MAIL FROM:<>),
qmail is unable to check it against the badmailfrom database, even if the
header of the mail contains a From: field.
So I'm looking for one or several patches or add-ons for qmail that allows me:
1.- Reject all mail that contains a 'From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' line in
the first n lines of the mail.
2.- Reject all mail that contains an specific text in the subject (For
example HAPPY99.EXE)
2.- Reject all mail that comes from an specific mail server.
Where could I look for this add-ons ?
Regards,
Antonio Navarro Navarro
BemarNet Management
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bemarnet.es
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 10:09:30AM +0100, Antonio Navarro Navarro wrote:
> 2.- Reject all mail that comes from an specific mail server.
This one (misnumbered, btw) could be done with your tcpserver access lists.
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder
|
| 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
| C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.'
| Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
I have installed David Summers imap-4.5-3mdir4.i386.rpm
but do not seem to be able to access IMAP
in my /etc/inetd.conf I have
imap stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd imapd
What might I be missing
Kevin
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 09:22:18AM +1100, Kevin waterson wrote:
> I have installed David Summers imap-4.5-3mdir4.i386.rpm
> but do not seem to be able to access IMAP
> in my /etc/inetd.conf I have
>
> imap stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd imapd
>
> What might I be missing
After putting that line in /etc/inetd.conf, did you HUP inetd?
If you did, then what happens when you try to "telnet localhost imap"?
Do you get a prompt of any sort?
You really must supply more information, if anyone is to help you.
--
See complete headers for more info
Hi!
Does anybody knows about a script to convert MH folders into Maildir's, keeping
the status (read, unread) of each message?
I'm moving to Mutt + maildrop comming from xfmail, and I would like to preserve
the 100Mbytes of mail in about 50 mh folders I have... :)
If not, I'll have to hack something with Mail::Folder...
--
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
