qmail Digest 1 Apr 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 958
Topics (messages 39364 through 39411):
Pop3 and logging?
39364 by: Chris Bond
39396 by: Dave Sill
39399 by: Juan E Suris
39406 by: Benjamin de los Angeles Jr.
Command Line Options
39365 by: System Administrator
39366 by: Jan Stifter
39371 by: Charles Cazabon
39376 by: Charles Cazabon
39377 by: Charles Cazabon
tcpserver fork
39367 by: S Ashok Kumar
39369 by: Peter van Dijk
39379 by: Ricardo D. Albano
39381 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
39382 by: Ricardo D. Albano
39383 by: iv0
39384 by: Steve Wolfe
39405 by: brianb-qmail.technet.evoserve.com
Re: Problem: 552 max. message size exceeded
39368 by: Peter van Dijk
39372 by: Toni Mueller
39375 by: Dave Sill
39385 by: Aaron L. Meehan
Re: how do you use a deferral host in qmail?
39370 by: Peter van Dijk
39378 by: Toni Mueller
39380 by: Dave Sill
39386 by: Ian Lance Taylor
39388 by: Dave Sill
39410 by: Russell Nelson
39411 by: Russell Nelson
Re: qmailanalog
39373 by: Toni Mueller
Virtual Users ?
39374 by: Markus Fischer
Re: qmail-lspawn # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by
default.??./Maibox
39387 by: Dave Sill
Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options?
39389 by: Dave Sill
39392 by: Jon Rust
39394 by: Charles Cazabon
39395 by: Dave Sill
39401 by: Jon Rust
39403 by: jeff
39404 by: Paul Schinder
39407 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
39408 by: Patrick Bihan-Faou
39409 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Re: POP Account
39390 by: Dave Sill
Mailing list question.
39391 by: Williams Martinez
Re: Logging before qmail-send??
39393 by: Dave Sill
Relay based on IP
39397 by: Ricardo D. Albano
39398 by: Dave Sill
pop and smtp sample clients (API) ??
39400 by: Dinesh Punjabi
qmail-smtpd on SCO OSR5.0.5
39402 by: Jon Jenkins
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,
Does anybody know the extra line i need to add so that all incoming pop3
connections will be logged to mail.info (I need the IP Address and
username). Currently I start pop3 with the following:
/usr/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup chef.praceng.co.uk
/usr/bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
Thanks,
Chris
Chris Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anybody know the extra line i need to add so that all incoming pop3
>connections will be logged to mail.info (I need the IP Address and
>username). Currently I start pop3 with the following:
>
>/usr/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup chef.praceng.co.uk
>/usr/bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
Add the "-v" option to tcpserver and tack on "| splogger" to the end
of the command (before the &), and you'll get *some* logging. You
won't get username logged without patching qmail-popup, I think.
-Dave
If you set up qmail-pop3d under supervise, as qmail-smtpd described in LWQ,
and patch checkpassword to dump all the log info I want to stdout or
stderr, will it be logged by multilog?
Thanks,
JES
Dave Sill writes:
> Chris Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Does anybody know the extra line i need to add so that all incoming pop3
> >connections will be logged to mail.info (I need the IP Address and
> >username). Currently I start pop3 with the following:
> >
> >/usr/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup chef.praceng.co.uk
> >/usr/bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
>
> Add the "-v" option to tcpserver and tack on "| splogger" to the end
> of the command (before the &), and you'll get *some* logging. You
> won't get username logged without patching qmail-popup, I think.
>
> -Dave
I have some patches in:
http://members.surfshop.net.ph/~bench/qmail
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> Chris Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Does anybody know the extra line i need to add so that all incoming pop3
> >connections will be logged to mail.info (I need the IP Address and
> >username). Currently I start pop3 with the following:
> >
> >/usr/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup chef.praceng.co.uk
> >/usr/bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
>
> Add the "-v" option to tcpserver and tack on "| splogger" to the end
> of the command (before the &), and you'll get *some* logging. You
> won't get username logged without patching qmail-popup, I think.
>
> -Dave
>
HI
Can anyone help me mail thru command line ?
I need to mail with attachements. i.e mail a user thru command line
options and where in i need to send some files as attachments in the same
mail.
- Admin.
---
Parag Mehta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
System Administrator.
Puretech Internet Pvt. Ltd. http://puretech.co.in/
77 Atlanta. Nariman Point.
Mumbai - 400021. India. Tel: +91-22-2833158
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:01:13 +0530 (IST), System Administrator
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>HI
>
>Can anyone help me mail thru command line ?
>
>I need to mail with attachements. i.e mail a user thru command line
>options and where in i need to send some files as attachments in the same
>mail.
>
>- Admin.
>
>---
>Parag Mehta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>System Administrator.
>
>Puretech Internet Pvt. Ltd. http://puretech.co.in/
>77 Atlanta. Nariman Point.
>Mumbai - 400021. India. Tel: +91-22-2833158
>
>
how about uuencode?
e.g.
$ uuencode firstfile < firstfile >mail.txt
$ uuencode secondfile < secondfile >>mail.txt
$ mailx -s "2 files as attachement" [EMAIL PROTECTED] < mail.txt
jan stifter
System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can anyone help me mail thru command line ?
>
> I need to mail with attachements. i.e mail a user thru command line
> options and where in i need to send some files as attachments in the same
> mail.
This is an MUA issue. One easy way to get full MIME encoding from the
commandline would be to install mutt (www.mutt.org) and call it from
the commandline:
mutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] -a attachment1.txt -a attachment2.txt <<EOF
From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Recipient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mail with attachments sent from commandline
Here are your attachments
EOF
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can anyone help me mail thru command line ?
>
> I need to mail with attachements. i.e mail a user thru command line
> options and where in i need to send some files as attachments in the same
> mail.
This is an MUA issue. One easy way to get full MIME encoding from the
commandline would be to install mutt (www.mutt.org) and call it from
the commandline:
mutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] -a attachment1.txt -a attachment2.txt <<EOF
From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Recipient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mail with attachments sent from commandline
Here are your attachments
EOF
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can anyone help me mail thru command line ?
>
> I need to mail with attachements. i.e mail a user thru command line
> options and where in i need to send some files as attachments in the same
> mail.
This is an MUA issue. One easy way to get full MIME encoding from the
commandline would be to install mutt (www.mutt.org) and call it from
the commandline:
mutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] -a attachment1.txt -a attachment2.txt <<EOF
From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Recipient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mail with attachments sent from commandline
Here are your attachments
EOF
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
error message is:
tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
failure
This value (1247) does not change even when I increase RAM from 512MB to
1GB or decrease it to 128MB. My question is what causes fork to not run
a new process. I know it is a non qmail question. But someone over here
who has already solved this problem may help me or point me to some URLs
to troubleshoot this.
Thanks.
- Ashok
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:06:10PM +0000, S Ashok Kumar wrote:
> RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
> qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
> it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
> error message is:
>
> tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
> failure
>
> This value (1247) does not change even when I increase RAM from 512MB to
> 1GB or decrease it to 128MB. My question is what causes fork to not run
> a new process. I know it is a non qmail question. But someone over here
> who has already solved this problem may help me or point me to some URLs
> to troubleshoot this.
You are out of processes. A little tweaking with 'ulimit' might help, or
perhaps you need to tune your kernel somewhere deeper.
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 the same problem.
I'm running qmail as inbound relay server of a large site, te server is a
4xPII 400Mhz - 1Gb RAM, but when the tcpserver processes reach about ~400,
My linux box crash (Shared library errors and 'no more forks').
How can I increment this number ?
RDA.-
>RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
>qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
>it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
>error message is:
>
>tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
>failure
>
>This value (1247) does not change even when I increase RAM from 512MB to
>1GB or decrease it to 128MB. My question is what causes fork to not run
>a new process. I know it is a non qmail question. But someone over here
>who has already solved this problem may help me or point me to some URLs
>to troubleshoot this.
>
>Thanks.
>
>- Ashok
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:29:37PM -0300, Ricardo D. Albano wrote:
>
> I have the same problem.
> I'm running qmail as inbound relay server of a large site, te server is a
> 4xPII 400Mhz - 1Gb RAM, but when the tcpserver processes reach about ~400,
> My linux box crash (Shared library errors and 'no more forks').
Actually, this is more of a Linux issue...
Anyway, try this:
echo 65536 > /proc/sys/fs/inode-max
echo 16384 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
Regards;
Ricardo
>
> How can I increment this number ?
>
> RDA.-
>
>
> >RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
> >qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
> >it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
> >error message is:
> >
> >tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
> >failure
> >
> >This value (1247) does not change even when I increase RAM from 512MB to
> >1GB or decrease it to 128MB. My question is what causes fork to not run
> >a new process. I know it is a non qmail question. But someone over here
> >who has already solved this problem may help me or point me to some URLs
> >to troubleshoot this.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >- Ashok
>
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis - Engenharia / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 21 3166730/00 (24h/dia) - Fax: +351 21 3166701
Thank's, but this doesn't work.
At 350 tcpserver forks it crash with 'can not open shared library....' ...
'no more forks... etc.
RDA.-
>On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 12:29:37PM -0300, Ricardo D. Albano wrote:
>>
>> I have the same problem.
>> I'm running qmail as inbound relay server of a large site, te server is a
>> 4xPII 400Mhz - 1Gb RAM, but when the tcpserver processes reach about
~400,
>> My linux box crash (Shared library errors and 'no more forks').
>
>Actually, this is more of a Linux issue...
>
>Anyway, try this:
>
>echo 65536 > /proc/sys/fs/inode-max
>echo 16384 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
>
> Regards;
> Ricardo
>
>>
>> How can I increment this number ?
>>
>> RDA.-
>>
>>
>> >RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
>> >qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
>> >it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
>> >error message is:
>> >
>> >tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
>> >failure
>> >
>> >This value (1247) does not change even when I increase RAM from 512MB to
>> >1GB or decrease it to 128MB. My question is what causes fork to not run
>> >a new process. I know it is a non qmail question. But someone over here
>> >who has already solved this problem may help me or point me to some URLs
>> >to troubleshoot this.
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >- Ashok
>>
>
>--
>+-------------------
>| Ricardo Cerqueira
>| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
>| Novis - Engenharia / Rede Técnica
>| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
>| Tel: +351 21 3166730/00 (24h/dia) - Fax: +351 21 3166701
I think the standard linux kernel supports 512 processes. So you are
probably
running into that limit. You need to modify your kernel to support more
processes. There are some HOWTO's to do this on the linux sites
--
Ken Jones
http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail/
"Ricardo D. Albano" wrote:
>
> I have the same problem.
> I'm running qmail as inbound relay server of a large site, te server is a
> 4xPII 400Mhz - 1Gb RAM, but when the tcpserver processes reach about ~400,
> My linux box crash (Shared library errors and 'no more forks').
>
> How can I increment this number ?
>
> RDA.-
>
> >RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
> >qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
> >it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
> >error message is:
> >
> >tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
> >failure
> >
> >This value (1247) does not change even when I increase RAM from 512MB to
> >1GB or decrease it to 128MB. My question is what causes fork to not run
> >a new process. I know it is a non qmail question. But someone over here
> >who has already solved this problem may help me or point me to some URLs
> >to troubleshoot this.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >- Ashok
--
Ken Jones
http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail/
> I think the standard linux kernel supports 512 processes. So you are
> probably
> running into that limit. You need to modify your kernel to support more
> processes. There are some HOWTO's to do this on the linux sites
Unfortunately, I haven't come across docs that are correct on how to do
it. Most docs say that it's not necessary to modify the kernel source as
it previous versions, but the tricks they suggest haven't worked for me on
2.2 or 2.3 kernels, I've still had to modify the header files as the older
docs suggest.
steve
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:06:10PM +0000, S Ashok Kumar wrote:
> > RedHat 6.1 with qmail-1.03 and ucspi - 0.84.
> > qmail-smtpd is run by tcpserver and the -c value is 2000. But as soon as
> > it reaches 1247 sessions, it is not able to fork further processes, the
> > error message is:
> >
> > tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to fork: temporary
> > failure
> >
>
> You are out of processes. A little tweaking with 'ulimit' might help, or
> perhaps you need to tune your kernel somewhere deeper.
For Linux, you need to increase NR_TASKS. Edit your
/usr/src/linux/includes/linux/tasks.h and recompile the kernel.
I've already bumped up NR_TASKS to 1024, then again to 2048. From the
comments in tasks.h, the limit for NR_TASKS is 4096 on intel, but I
haven't been able to get it to boot when set to 4096 (this is on
2.2.14, IIRC, so newer/development kernels may be different.)
HTH,
Brian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.baquiran.com
AIM: bbaquiran
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 11:17:16AM -0800, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yes, this same thing happens when sending messages larger than 1Mb to
> hotmail.com nowadays. There was a good thread about it, if I
> remember. The deal was that hotmail is expecting the peer to
> implement ESMTP SIZE if it gets "EHLO blah."
qmail-remote says HELO, not EHLO.
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++
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 04:01:31PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 11:17:16AM -0800, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> > implement ESMTP SIZE if it gets "EHLO blah."
>
> qmail-remote says HELO, not EHLO.
thank you. So it's time to move to qmail-1.04, which will presumably
not only support ESMTP, but also incorporate that bunch of patches
floating around? (Ok, what would it cost to do it?)
Or is qmail dead due to Postfix success?
Best Regards,
--Toni++
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>thank you. So it's time to move to qmail-1.04, which will presumably
>not only support ESMTP, but also incorporate that bunch of patches
>floating around?
I seriously doubt there will be a 1.04. I also seriously doubt the
next release of qmail will incorporate "that bunch of patches floating
around".
>(Ok, what would it cost to do it?)
Are you asking for a price quote? If so, please contact qmail
consultants off list.
>Or is qmail dead due to Postfix success?
Yeah, that's the ticket: qmail's dead. :-)
Postfix is pretty nice, but it borrows heavily from qmail. Where it
diverges, I think it generally suffers--often in the name of sendmail
compatibility. I find its configuration cumbersome compared to
qmail. It's modular, but not as usefully as qmail. The code is solid,
but DJB's code is substantially more robust.
-Dave
Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 11:17:16AM -0800, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes, this same thing happens when sending messages larger than 1Mb to
> > hotmail.com nowadays. There was a good thread about it, if I
> > remember. The deal was that hotmail is expecting the peer to
> > implement ESMTP SIZE if it gets "EHLO blah."
>
> qmail-remote says HELO, not EHLO.
Ahh, yes, that was why hotmail's behavior was so utterly broken!
I didn't recall that fact. Thanks.
Aaron
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:29:21PM -0800, Jon Rust wrote:
> At 4:08 PM -0500 3/30/00, Jeremy Hansen wrote:
> >You're cocky and absolutely useless.
> >
> >Thanks
> >-jeremy
>
> Whoa, you're so far off base now, I'd guess you just lost all
> interest from anyone else worthwhile on the list.
Mine anyway...
> Dave Sill has been, and continues to be, a tremendous support
> resource on the list and through LWQ. Just because he didn't give the
> answer you wanted doesn't mean he's "absolutely useless".
Correct. Dave rulez :)
> Take a deep breath, play some Q3A or whatever, and realize that he
> and John Levine have pointed you in the right direction.
Correct.
Now, I want killfiles for mutt :)
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++
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:23:21PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Logging with multilog is very cheap.
sounds interesting... where do I look?
> deal. Have you bumped up concurrencyremote to account for deferalls?
good idea,
> >In my case it seems lke it would be useful. I'm delivering 1 - 2 million
> >messages a day and a large percentage of that gets deferred.
>
> ``Profile. Don't speculate.''
:-) Just an idea on how to split the mail:
I guess that "a large percentage" of said deferred mail goes to a
handful of domains. So I would take that spare machine and set it
up to handle such mail, and configure the main mail server to
forward that mail to the second mail server using "smtproutes".
So you would deliver most of that mail immediately to the
secondary server, thus freeing the main server's resources,
and have the secondary mail server trying the slower deliveries.
The remaining problem is to have a current set of smtproutes
available which could probably be generated from log file
analysis in near-realtime.
One remaining question is how qmail actually handles retries.
My impression so far was that it looks up where to send mail
only the very first time a delivery is tried, not on every
retry. This would obviously make the method described above
ineffective...
Best Regards,
--Toni++
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:23:21PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>> Logging with multilog is very cheap.
>
>sounds interesting... where do I look?
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/daemontools.html
>:-) Just an idea on how to split the mail:
>
>I guess that "a large percentage" of said deferred mail goes to a
>handful of domains. So I would take that spare machine and set it
>up to handle such mail, and configure the main mail server to
>forward that mail to the second mail server using "smtproutes".
>So you would deliver most of that mail immediately to the
>secondary server, thus freeing the main server's resources,
>and have the secondary mail server trying the slower deliveries.
That's an interesting approach. I'm still unclear about the advantages
of splitting the load between servers by deliverability vs. some
arbitrary scheme. How does having the main server pumping out all
highly deliverable mail and the fallback server plodding away on
frequently deferred mail win over two (or three or N) servers doing a
mix of both?
>The remaining problem is to have a current set of smtproutes
>available which could probably be generated from log file
>analysis in near-realtime.
Doing it anywhere near realtime would require many qmail restarts on
both systems, which is not good for performance.
-Dave
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:37:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>The remaining problem is to have a current set of smtproutes
>available which could probably be generated from log file
>analysis in near-realtime.
Doing it anywhere near realtime would require many qmail restarts on
both systems, which is not good for performance.
smtproutes is read by qmail-remote, and a new qmail-remote process is
spawned for each outgoing mail message anyhow. This plan shouldn't
have a significant performance impact. (Well, I suppose a very large
smtproutes file might be problematical.)
But I agree that using distributing the mail randomly across multiple
outgoing mail servers seems like a better and simpler approach.
Ian
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>smtproutes is read by qmail-remote, and a new qmail-remote process is
>spawned for each outgoing mail message anyhow.
Of course. Thanks.
-Dave
Jeremy Hansen writes:
> I'm wondering if it's possible to setup a deferral host in qmail? If a
> message gets deferred, then the mail goes to another machine in charge of
> just retrying deferred messages instead of clogging up the main mailer
> machine.
This is not necessary. Sendmail gets clogged up and needs this
feature. Qmail does not and does not.
--
-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.
Jeremy Hansen writes:
>
> You're cocky and absolutely useless.
And your qmail server gets "clogged up" with deferrals.
That's two things you've said that go counter to my experience.
--
-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.
Hello all,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 08:42:07PM +0200, S.P. Hoeke wrote:
> I'm wondering if there's a FAQ or HOW-TO with regards to qmailanalog...
> The man pages are, for me, not sufficient to get it running :-(
I had it running once, but it didn't produce the desired results.
What irks me is that it's a real hack of awk and the like that
I don't understand (read "unmaintainable for me"). Does anyone
know if there is perchance a Perl version floating around?
Other than that running qmailanalog was a two-stage processing of
the qmail log files, as far as memory serves. First I had to
produce an intermediate format which was then processed by
various programs to generate the different reports.
Best Regards,
--Toni++
Hello list,
I've read the documentation about virtual domains and it seems
fairly clear to me. I also came over vchkpw (oder vpoper
nowadays). In 'vchkps' is described how to create pop accounts
vor virtual users, e.g. users that are not in /etc/passwd but in
a flat text file or even in a mysql database.
Is there a way to configure qmail to look up users from a simple
flat text file (so not /etc/passwd) or even a mysqldatabase
(okok, performance penalty) when accepting mails for local
deilvery via port 25 ? [and this for virtual domains, too]
thanks for your time,
Markus Fischer
--
Markus Fischer, http://josefine.ben.tuwien.ac.at/~mfischer/
EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://josefine.ben.tuwien.ac.at/~mfischer/C2272BD0.asc
PGP Fingerprint: D3B0 DD4F E12B F911 3CE1 C2B5 D674 B445 C227 2BD0
- Free Software For A Free World -
em9652015 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have problem, while I try ps ax show this,
>
>qmail-lspawn # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by
>default.??./Maibox
>
>How I can turn off this option?
This isn't an option, it's a misconfiguration. Look at the script that
runs qmail-start: it's botched.
-Dave
Chris Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've been observing what seems to be a lack of clear and concise
>documentation about anti-spam/security options for the novice and/or
>average qmail user.
LWQ doesn't cover anti-spam options in depth because I've personally
never felt the need to implement MTA-level spam control and nobody who
does use them has contributed such coverage.
qmail's anti-spam options are limited because there's simply no
reliable way to differentiate spam and legitimate mail. DJB refuses to
engage in an arms race with spammers.
There are few security options in qmail: security was designed into
it. Exceptions are relaying control via rcphosts and RELAYCLIENT, and
process limits such as those provided by
concurrencyremote/concurrencylocal, tcpserver, and softlimit. These
are, I think, adequately covered by LWQ.
LWQ doesn't cover relay control via STARTTLS and AUTH patches, but it
will eventually since I've recently done this.
>Only after scouring the mailing list archive was I able to determine that
>that "DENYMAIL" patch is the apparently recommended way of doing this, and
>of course everyone says "get it from the qmail website".
I'm not sure, but I don't think that patch was ever updated for 1.03.
>Whether or not this particular example is valid, it definitely seems like
>one has to do a lot of work to figure out the best way to set up a secure
>(but not draconian) and spam-unfriendly (but not malicious) qmail system.
A standard LWQ install is reasonably secure and, at least, not an open
relay.
-Dave
I agree with most of what you said here Dave, but I'd have to say
that rejecting mail with envelope sender domains that don't exist is
a good thing (either an A or CNAME record, or an MX). If for no other
reason, you can't bounce back to them. I don't consider this aspect
an arms race with spammers, just common sense. You give me a false
from address, I reject your mail.
I guess it could be done using dot-qmail, maildrop/procmail and a
little elbow grease on a per user basis. For me, that's not ideal,
but would work.
jon
At 2:24 PM -0500 3/31/00, Dave Sill wrote:
>Chris Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I've been observing what seems to be a lack of clear and concise
>>documentation about anti-spam/security options for the novice and/or
>>average qmail user.
>
>LWQ doesn't cover anti-spam options in depth because I've personally
>never felt the need to implement MTA-level spam control and nobody who
>does use them has contributed such coverage.
>
>qmail's anti-spam options are limited because there's simply no
>reliable way to differentiate spam and legitimate mail. DJB refuses to
>engage in an arms race with spammers.
<snip>
Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with most of what you said here Dave, but I'd have to say
> that rejecting mail with envelope sender domains that don't exist is
> a good thing (either an A or CNAME record, or an MX). If for no other
> reason, you can't bounce back to them. I don't consider this aspect
> an arms race with spammers, just common sense. You give me a false
> from address, I reject your mail.
Except you're supposing that if a domain is valid, you can resolve it. They
aren't the same thing. I see the daily mail logs here every day, and we always
have a few legitimate mails which are rejected by a receiver doing this;
the problem is, their DNS is down, or their resolver is broken, or their
BIND has decided to take a field day. Result? They reject our legitimate
mail.
Admittedly, it's a small number (5-50 a day out of thousands of deliveries)
but I'm sure the mail users at those remote sites would be less than
pleased to find out that their email is being needlessly delayed because
of an anti-spam measure that doesn't buy you much.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree with most of what you said here Dave, but I'd have to say
>that rejecting mail with envelope sender domains that don't exist is
>a good thing (either an A or CNAME record, or an MX). If for no other
>reason, you can't bounce back to them.
You have two choices: accept the mail or reject it. If you accept it,
it may be unreplyable, but at least the message has been delivered. If
you reject it, the mail doesn't go through, which is kind of counter
to the whole idea of SMTP.
Now, the envelope sender could be bad for one of two reasons: it could
be intentionally bad, i.e., spam, or it could be unintentionally bad,
e.g., a typo or a DNS fubar. If it's spam, and you reject it, you
win. If it's not spam and you reject it, you lose.
OK, so you're willing to throw out the baby with bathwater, and you
start rejecting them. Lots of other people start doing that, too.
Do the spammers:
1) throw up their hands and admit defeat, or
2) start using valid (but wrong) domains in their envelope return
paths, thereby defeating your rejection and escalating the arms
race?
Note that many are already doing (2), of course.
-Dave
Points (Charles' too) taken. Both good arguments. Dunno know if they
changed my mind, but got my thinking anyway...
jon
At 3:06 PM -0500 3/31/00, Dave Sill wrote:
>Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I agree with most of what you said here Dave, but I'd have to say
>>that rejecting mail with envelope sender domains that don't exist is
>>a good thing (either an A or CNAME record, or an MX). If for no other
>>reason, you can't bounce back to them.
>
>You have two choices: accept the mail or reject it. If you accept it,
>it may be unreplyable, but at least the message has been delivered. If
>you reject it, the mail doesn't go through, which is kind of counter
>to the whole idea of SMTP.
>
>Now, the envelope sender could be bad for one of two reasons: it could
>be intentionally bad, i.e., spam, or it could be unintentionally bad,
>e.g., a typo or a DNS fubar. If it's spam, and you reject it, you
>win. If it's not spam and you reject it, you lose.
>
>OK, so you're willing to throw out the baby with bathwater, and you
>start rejecting them. Lots of other people start doing that, too.
>
>Do the spammers:
>
> 1) throw up their hands and admit defeat, or
> 2) start using valid (but wrong) domains in their envelope return
> paths, thereby defeating your rejection and escalating the arms
> race?
>
>Note that many are already doing (2), of course.
>
>-Dave
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 03:10:08PM -0800, Jon Rust wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I'm in the exect same place. Finally implemented rblsmtpd, and would
> now like to reject addresses with fake domains. I found this:
> http://qmail.area.com/qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch, but have not yet
> tried it. I was hoping to get some feedback from list on it, but
> apparently no one here uses it.
hi
just wanted to mention this patch which was reccomended to me but i haven't seen
mentioned: http://www.flame.org/qmail/
you want poor documentation? this guy's consists of "I won't explain how to apply
these patches. I assume you know what you're doing."
according to this page the patch provides dns lookups on the smtp MAIL FROM line,
checks headers against a 'badheaders' file, rejects based on RBL, and adds a warning
header to matches against the MAPS DUL.
before i go applying this.. any commentary from users of this patch, or judgements on
how it compares to other antispam patches?
i am suspect of this patch because flame.org is full of antispam rhetoric and links,
but doesn't seem to link to this patch.
thanks
jeff
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
collab.net | open source | do what's right | now hiring people with clue
At 3:06 PM -0500 3/31/00, Dave Sill wrote:
>Do the spammers:
>
> 1) throw up their hands and admit defeat, or
> 2) start using valid (but wrong) domains in their envelope return
> paths, thereby defeating your rejection and escalating the arms
> race?
>
>Note that many are already doing (2), of course.
I've had several emails using my @pobox.com address as the MAIL FROM
bounced because spammers use phony @pobox.com addresses. I've never
seen a single spam that originated on pobox's servers. Most of the
spam I see comes from China or relay raped machines outside the US.
And, of course, I've seen numerous pieces of spam with phony
@yahoo.com, @hotmail.com, @aol.com, etc.
>
>-Dave
--
--
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 693
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
From: "Paul Schinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 3:06 PM -0500 3/31/00, Dave Sill wrote:
> >Do the spammers:
> >
> > 1) throw up their hands and admit defeat, or
> > 2) start using valid (but wrong) domains in their envelope return
> > paths, thereby defeating your rejection and escalating the arms
> > race?
> >
> >Note that many are already doing (2), of course.
>
> I've had several emails using my @pobox.com address as the MAIL FROM
> bounced because spammers use phony @pobox.com addresses. I've never
> seen a single spam that originated on pobox's servers. Most of the
> spam I see comes from China or relay raped machines outside the US.
> And, of course, I've seen numerous pieces of spam with phony
> @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com, @aol.com, etc.
>
Maybe one way to deal with this is:
1. verify that the domain of MAIL FROM is correct
2. verify that the address of the server sending the mail
resolves to that domain...
This is probably not the best answer, but if you apply that to some key
domains, then you should be able to cut down on a fairly good volume of spam
with fake addresses. Also it should be fairly easy to implement a scheme
like this in qmail (although it also means more DNS lookups for a good
number of incoming mail messages).
Patrick.
> Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with most of what you said here Dave, but I'd have to say
> > that rejecting mail with envelope sender domains that don't exist is
> > a good thing (either an A or CNAME record, or an MX). If for no other
> > reason, you can't bounce back to them. I don't consider this aspect
> > an arms race with spammers, just common sense. You give me a false
> > from address, I reject your mail.
>
> Except you're supposing that if a domain is valid, you can resolve it.
They
> aren't the same thing. I see the daily mail logs here every day, and we
always
> have a few legitimate mails which are rejected by a receiver doing this;
> the problem is, their DNS is down, or their resolver is broken, or their
> BIND has decided to take a field day. Result? They reject our legitimate
> mail.
Well there are other ways to test if a domain *at least* exists. You can
check it with whois.
OK this is not *the* good answer either, but at least it gives you an good
indication that the domain name is potentially working...
The problem with spam is that there is no reliable way to split spam from
legitimate mail. If you try to filter-out spam, you will always end-up
filtering out proper mail as well. The key is to try to keep track as much
as possible of what is accepted and what is rejected.
Also the tolerable lost email / killed spam ratio is somewhat a personal
decision...
Patrick.
Patrick Bihan-Faou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 March 2000 at 23:53:31 -0500
> Maybe one way to deal with this is:
> 1. verify that the domain of MAIL FROM is correct
> 2. verify that the address of the server sending the mail
> resolves to that domain...
>
> This is probably not the best answer, but if you apply that to some key
> domains, then you should be able to cut down on a fairly good volume of spam
> with fake addresses. Also it should be fairly easy to implement a scheme
> like this in qmail (although it also means more DNS lookups for a good
> number of incoming mail messages).
Remember how we're telling people on the road with laptops that they
shouldn't try to relay through their home ISP, they should relay
through the ISP they connected to the net through? (so that IP-based
relay checking works right). Your suggestion causes their mail to be
rejected by the receiving server. NOT a good idea.
Also, lots of people who have their own domain, hosted through an ISP,
end up sending email with their domain in the envelope sender, but
through a server that resolves back to their ISP.
I think this idea breaks so much it's hopeless. And what does it
really buy you anyway?
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hemanta Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have two different users, one want to get email in
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>which is no problem and the other one want to get it in
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>which is creating the problem
>
>The problem is that when the message is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the
>user [EMAIL PROTECTED] get the message instead.
>
>Pls suggest the necessary configs. and the way to do it
Assuming that abc.com is a real, local domain and 123.abc.com is a
virtual domain...
Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be handled by local user "hemanta"
abc.com.
Say you want [EMAIL PROTECTED] to go to local user "hemanta123".
Add:
123.abc.com
to control/rcphosts.
Add:
123.abc.com:alias-123
to control/virtualdomains.
Put:
&hemanta123
in ~alias/.qmail-123-hemanta.
Restart qmail.
-Dave
Hi List.
I'm a pretty new with qmail. In fact I just drop sendmail few days ago.
I manage to define a new list (with qmailadmin) but I need to put in
this list a very large list of users that exists in a virtual domain.
The question is: how can i do that, without typing one by one?
Thanks in advance!!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Okay, I've read the docs and man pages, but still want to know if I Got
>It...
>
>First chain:
> tcpserver | qmail-smptd | qmail-queue
>
>Second chain:
> qmail-send | qmail-rspawn | qmail-local | splogger
Yeah, approximately.
>This means log1() (see qsutil.h) works anywhere in the second chain (because
>it gets piped to splogger), but not in the first chain (no splogger). Do I
>have this right?
qmail-send logs to standard output, which is fed to splogger. If
-rspawn or -local give errors, qmail-send logs them.
>How would I add qmail logging to the first chain (pre-qmail-send)?
tcpserver logs to standard output, but it doesn't log errors or output
from -smtpd or or -queue. If you want qmail-smtpd to log, you'll have
to patch it to do so, since it simply doesn't. And you'll have to call
syslog rather than write to standard output or standard error since
tcpserver doesn't pass them through for you.
What is it you want to log?
-Dave
How can I set qmail to accept relaying from a set of IPs ?
I wan't to set qmail to accept relaying from some local nets.
RDA.-
"Ricardo D. Albano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How can I set qmail to accept relaying from a set of IPs ?
>I wan't to set qmail to accept relaying from some local nets.
See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying
-Dave
I need to incorporate the ability to send
and receieve email (including all incoming email
housekeeping) in my C++ and/or Java application.
Is there any sample C++/Java classes that can be
readily used to do this sort of a thing ?
Is there any sample C code that shows how to access
the POP/SMTP servers for displaying and sending
email.
In short, my application will need to build a front
end client that communicates with POP/SMTP.
Any pointers to documentation urls and/or
books will be appreciated.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Greetings,
I'm having a problem whereby SMTP connections from certain mail-servers work
fine and from other servers there is a big problem (all packets appear to
disappear or get disregarded). Most of the ISP's servers fail (including the
secondary MX).
The ISP has:
1) Traced the packets as far as the ISDN router.
2) Double checked the router config.
and say that everything is fine ...
The router (CISCO 801) maps ports 25 and 53(TCP & UDP) through to the SCO
box.
qmail-smtpd is running under tcpserver with -v for logging purposes ...
The config for qmail is very simple.
Some servers at the ISP can (and do) telnet to port 25 and get a "good"
connect and manage to get through the smtp session and mail entered is
delivered.
Others receive the "banner" but everything else sent gets "lost" and
eventually
the session times-out.
There are no "deny's" on the router or on SCO,(that I can find)
What can any-one suggest ... depression is setting in.
Jon Jenkins
