qmail Digest 12 Apr 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 969
Topics (messages 39860 through 39926):
Re: Qmail Anti-Spam HOWTO
39860 by: Jonathan McDowell
Re: How do I unsubscribe?
39861 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: Redirecting email messages into a local database
39862 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: special user
39863 by: Markus Stumpf
Minimal MX Mail and Proxy Confusion
39864 by: Steve Craft
39867 by: Soffen, Matthew
Re: Adding users...
39865 by: Albert Hopkins
39873 by: Irwan Hadi
Re: Machine Specs
39866 by: Peter van Dijk
39872 by: markd.bushwire.net
39875 by: Jeff Commando Sherwin
39876 by: markd.bushwire.net
39877 by: Greg Owen
39879 by: Jeff Commando Sherwin
39880 by: markd.bushwire.net
39882 by: Jeff Commando Sherwin
39890 by: markd.bushwire.net
39895 by: Jeff Commando Sherwin
39901 by: markd.bushwire.net
39907 by: Jeff Commando Sherwin
39919 by: John White
39920 by: Bruce Guenter
39921 by: Juan E Suris
Re: Problems with qmail-pw2u
39868 by: Dave Sill
39886 by: Chris Tolley
39899 by: Charles Cazabon
39902 by: Chris Tolley
39903 by: Dave Sill
39905 by: Chris Tolley
39908 by: Charles Cazabon
39913 by: Chris Tolley
Re: Maildir format info
39869 by: Charles Cazabon
39871 by: Duncan Watson
39900 by: Peter van Dijk
Re: qmail stopped responding
39870 by: Dave Sill
Patch Installation
39874 by: Scott Wilson
39885 by: Dave Sill
39898 by: Charles Cazabon
Replacing syslogd
39878 by: Ricardo D. Albano
39889 by: Dave Sill
Messages don't get deleted
39881 by: System Administrator
39883 by: markd.bushwire.net
39884 by: Gabriel Ambuehl
39887 by: Soffen, Matthew
39888 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen
39891 by: markd.bushwire.net
39892 by: markd.bushwire.net
39893 by: Peter Green
39894 by: Gabriel Ambuehl
39897 by: Russell Nelson
39911 by: Rogerio Brito
39912 by: Rogerio Brito
39916 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen
39924 by: Petr Novotny
39926 by: Jos Backus
Virtual Domain/ Email
39896 by: Ronaldo Miranda
39904 by: Dave Sill
39906 by: Magnus Bodin
Anti-Spam Filter
39909 by: Travis Rail
39910 by: Charles Cazabon
39914 by: Duane Schaub
39915 by: Charles Cazabon
forwarding maildir messages
39917 by: Manfred Bartz
39918 by: Bruno Wolff III
No MAILER-DAEMON Mails from virtual domains using vpopmail ?
39922 by: Markus Fischer
how insert program between reception&qmail
39923 by: Eric Poubeau
virtual domain
39925 by: fadli syarid
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 Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:35:52AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> Except it doesn't. Closer examination reveals it's failing on the test
> to make sure we ip_scaned the entire string, but I can't see why.
<snip>
> + if (!remotehost[ip_scan(remotehost, &ip)]) {
Except that should be remoteip, not remotehost.
Doh.
Sorry if I wasted anyones time.
J.
--
] http://www.earth.li/~noodles/ [] What have you got in your pocket? [
] PGP/GPG Key @ keys.pgp.net or [] [
] finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] [] [
] PGP: 4DC4E7FD / GPG: 5B430367 [] [
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:26:04AM +0530, Murthy Raju wrote:
> Can somebody tell me how to unsubscribe from the list?
You can't.
If you haven't read and saved the first confirmation message for the
mailing list or written an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (as stated
in the header of every list mail) you're trapped in this list.
Just as I am for about THREE whole years now ...
\Maex ;-)
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:44:19AM +0800, ywshum wrote:
> I would like my qmail server to able to write messages received for the
> local recipients to a local database . It can or cannot be at the
> expense of local delivery to Maildir.
>
> So how do i do it? Is that some configuration file for me to set so that
> it invokes an executable whenever a mail arrive etc.
Yes, it's called .qmail and usually lives in every $HOME of every
local user. Just put a line in there
|/some/bin/uploadtodatabase
and the program "uploadtodatabase" will get the email with full headers
on stdin.
You did provide very little detail about "local recipients".
With the qmail-users mechanism e.g. you are able to control all
emails for local users in one directory via a .qmail-default
file. Just put the same line in this file.
For more information have a look at
$ man dot-qmail
$ man qmail-command
$ man qmail-users
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:06:04AM +0800, Jason Huang wrote:
> I have a special user account as [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> The specail user just can receive some designated domain(or just localhost ) .
> Thought SENDER environment variable in dot-qmail can do it ,
> but it still can be faked .
> Have a idea ?
eMail IS unsecure.
You can NEVER trust the SENDER of an email.
If you want security, use something like PGP.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Slightly OT -
My proxy server has 3 "holes" through it passing port 23,25,143 traffic
directly to my qmail box. I am trying to get the mail traffic to my mail
server from both sides of the proxy. Can anyone example me the minimal DNS
MX record entry/entries necessary to make this work? Thanks if you can
help.
Umm.. What do you mean ?
A little more info might be useful.
1) Does your mail server have multiple interfaces/domains (i.e. 2 NIC cards.
One for outside traffic and one for inside traffic). Or is the mail server
a "real" machine (a valid routable IP address) ?
2) Can you get INSIDE mail to work (i.e. connections from behind the proxy
server into the mail server) ?
3) Can you telnet from OUTSIDE through your proxy into the mail server's
port 23, 25, or 143 ?
Matt Soffen
Web Intranet Developer
http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Craft [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:08 AM
> To: qmail
> Subject: Minimal MX Mail and Proxy Confusion
>
> Slightly OT -
>
> My proxy server has 3 "holes" through it passing port 23,25,143 traffic
> directly to my qmail box. I am trying to get the mail traffic to my mail
> server from both sides of the proxy. Can anyone example me the minimal
> DNS
> MX record entry/entries necessary to make this work? Thanks if you can
> help.
>
Set up the /etc/skel directory as you would want the default user's home
directory. Also, consider the "newusers" command available in Red Hat 6.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Steve Peace wrote:
> I am a relative newbie to qmail. I have setup a RedHat 6.0 server
> running qmail. After a couple of days I finally got everything
> working. It all workings 100% perfect for what I need it to do. I
> only have one problem, I am setting this up for my employer and need
> to create about 200 email accounts. I can create each account
> manually by using the adduser command, set each password, login as the
> user and run maildirmake, edit the assign file and run qmail-newu. I
> have tried to run the qmail-pw2u file, but it seems to hang my box.
> There has to be a faster way to create users. I would love to look
> into it more myself, but I have a boss that is gettin rather fidgety
> and wants his email by yesterday. Any help would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> S. Peace
>
--
Albert Hopkins
Sr. Systems Specialist
Dynacare, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:58 10/04/2000 -0400, Steve Peace wrote:
>
> I am a relative newbie to qmail. I have setup a RedHat 6.0 server running
> qmail. After a couple of days I finally got everything working. It all
> workings 100% perfect for what I need it to do. I only have one problem, I
> am setting this up for my employer and need to create about 200 email
> accounts. I can create each account manually by using the adduser command,
> set each password, login as the user and run maildirmake, edit the assign
> file and run qmail-newu. I have tried to run the qmail-pw2u file, but it
> seems to hang my box. There has to be a faster way to create users. I would
> love to look into it more myself, but I have a boss that is gettin rather
> fidgety and wants his email by yesterday. Any help would be greatly
> appreciated.
For 200 usernames it is better NOT to use system account (/etc/passwd)
just make it virtual
check
www.inter7.com/vpopmail for your reference, and you *will* be very satisfied.
Thanks to inter7.com ;)
-------
AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:20:03PM -0400, blue wrote:
> I am looking at purchasing a new machine to set-up qmail. We are estimating
> a build up to
> appx 250,000 emails a day. What kind of system (PC) would you recommend for
> this
> kind of traffic ?
A simple PII/350 with 128mbyte will do just fine. Your needs are not very
complicated or outrageous, so don't worry about getting top-notch stuff.
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++
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 03:25:45PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:20:03PM -0400, blue wrote:
> > I am looking at purchasing a new machine to set-up qmail. We are estimating
> > a build up to
> > appx 250,000 emails a day. What kind of system (PC) would you recommend for
> > this
> > kind of traffic ?
>
> A simple PII/350 with 128mbyte will do just fine. Your needs are not very
> complicated or outrageous, so don't worry about getting top-notch stuff.
Hmm. Would that depend on whether the 250K are mostly in or outbound?
It might also depend on what they are using to access the email, if it's
qpopper and /var/mail then I'd want more memory. If it's qmail-pop3d, then
it's probably ok.
I'd think that the CPU and memory will be fine, but I'd suggest he gets
a couple of spindles so that he can separate out the queue.
It might also depend on what they are using to access the email, if it's
qpopper and /var/mail then I'd want more memory. If it's qmail-pop3d, then
it's probably ok.
But yes, the requirements aren't huge but I'd still want to leave plenty
of headroom so that he doesn't have to reassess the situation in 3-6 months
depending on his growth.
Mark.
Im also in the process of spec'in out some machines.
>
> Hmm. Would that depend on whether the 250K are mostly in or outbound?
>
If my mails are mostly inbound, (usr dirs over nfs).
> It might also depend on what they are using to access the email, if it's
> qpopper and /var/mail then I'd want more memory. If it's qmail-pop3d, then
> it's probably ok.
>
im not useing pop or imap. (least on those machines).
> I'd think that the CPU and memory will be fine, but I'd suggest he gets
> a couple of spindles so that he can separate out the queue.
>
ah! ok. this is the big question. multiple queues. is the best way of
doing this with multiple installations of qmail (/var/qmail0 /var/qmail1,
...) or is there away of creating multiple queues (with multiple instances
of all the servers) per each ip address? Also, how easy is it to have
some master queues break down to smaller queues (say to handle all email
from hotmail, or something)?
I realize that was a load of questions, and may be off topic from the
subject heading, but I cant find alot of specific info on this in the
archives.
thanx,
jeff...
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:30:49PM -0400, Jeff Commando Sherwin wrote:
> Im also in the process of spec'in out some machines.
>
> >
> > Hmm. Would that depend on whether the 250K are mostly in or outbound?
> >
>
> If my mails are mostly inbound, (usr dirs over nfs).
>
> > It might also depend on what they are using to access the email, if it's
> > qpopper and /var/mail then I'd want more memory. If it's qmail-pop3d, then
> > it's probably ok.
> >
>
> im not useing pop or imap. (least on those machines).
So you are saying that this machine is inbound mostly and it delivers to Maildirs
on NFS?
> ah! ok. this is the big question. multiple queues. is the best way of
I wouldn't think so for those volumes unless they have an unusual delivery
distibution.
> doing this with multiple installations of qmail (/var/qmail0 /var/qmail1,
> ...) or is there away of creating multiple queues (with multiple instances
> of all the servers) per each ip address? Also, how easy is it to have
> some master queues break down to smaller queues (say to handle all email
> from hotmail, or something)?
>
> I realize that was a load of questions, and may be off topic from the
> subject heading, but I cant find alot of specific info on this in the
> archives.
I think you need to give us a better idea of the big picture. The first post
made it sound like a single machine, now you talk about NFS servers, multiple
IP addresses, separate access server, etc.
Regards.
> > I'd think that the CPU and memory will be fine, but I'd
> > suggest he gets a couple of spindles so that he can
> > separate out the queue.
>
> ah! ok. this is the big question. multiple queues.
He said multiple spindles, not multiple queues.
Multiple spindles simply means that the queue (/var/qmail/queue/*)
is physically located on a disk that isn't used for other things (like final
mail delivery). If both the queue and the final delivery destination (like
/var/spool/mail) are on the same physical disk, that means the disk head is
constantly sprinting back and forth between queue and spool, and it hurts
performance.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I think you need to give us a better idea of the big picture. The first post
> made it sound like a single machine, now you talk about NFS servers, multiple
> IP addresses, separate access server, etc.
Fair enough, I thought i was going to be able to sneak this one in as a
small question. I guess not.
My boss says that I need to design a system to send and receive mail (not
through imap or pop) that can scale feasibly to millions of users down the
road; It will start small and get larger. Bearing that in mind, and the
hopeful growth of out revenue, id like to start out cheap.
I envisioned two or more qmail servers sending and receiveing mail behind
a load balancer. I was of the understanding that trying to route all mail
through one smtp server was a bad idea as smtp negotations can be slow. So
I figured if the load balancer would round robin smtp requests to multiple
machines each running multiple qmail servers, i might get the most out of
my money.
So now I have multiple qmail servers per box, each box now having multiple
queues. There may also be a need to priortize mail by sender (route al
incoming hotmail or the like to its own queue) but i can worry about that
later.
For now the user directories will be over nfs, but that can be upgraded
later as well. There will be seperate machines for dealing with access to
the nfs server (for user interaction) but ultimately, outbound mail will
be move through qmail aswell. Authentication of users is handles on this
side aswell (with in house work).
Is my thinking wrong? I am curious as to how to construct the multiple
queue boxes, and to see who else has has success/problems with it.
thanx,
jeff...
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 01:01:33PM -0400, Jeff Commando Sherwin wrote:
>
>
> > I think you need to give us a better idea of the big picture. The first post
> > made it sound like a single machine, now you talk about NFS servers, multiple
> > IP addresses, separate access server, etc.
>
> Fair enough, I thought i was going to be able to sneak this one in as a
> small question. I guess not.
>
> My boss says that I need to design a system to send and receive mail (not
> through imap or pop) that can scale feasibly to millions of users down the
> road; It will start small and get larger. Bearing that in mind, and the
> hopeful growth of out revenue, id like to start out cheap.
>
> I envisioned two or more qmail servers sending and receiveing mail behind
> a load balancer. I was of the understanding that trying to route all mail
> through one smtp server was a bad idea as smtp negotations can be slow. So
For inbound SMTP you don't need a load balancer or layer 4 switch, simply
use multiple MX entries. Let the DNS do the "load balancing" and let the
sending MTAs figure out when a server isn't available.
If you have internal people sending to SMTP servers, that's a case that
can benefit from a layer 4 switch*.
> So now I have multiple qmail servers per box, each box now having multiple
> queues.
Unless you are doing this for functional seperations reasons, I don't see
a lot of benefit. If it's to have multiple queues on multiple spindles, why
not stripe the file system? If it's that you are able to handle higher
concurrencies than 250 I can understand. I would not do something like this
unless you had a very real reason for doing it.
Btw. routing by email address is hard. You can't tell it's to hotmail until
you've accepted the connection and you cannot tell hotmail which MX to use
(leastwise not easily, a smart DNS could answer to hotmail differently from
other sites, but that's another story).
> For now the user directories will be over nfs, but that can be upgraded
> later as well. There will be seperate machines for dealing with access to
> the nfs server (for user interaction) but ultimately, outbound mail will
> be move through qmail aswell. Authentication of users is handles on this
> side aswell (with in house work).
>
> Is my thinking wrong? I am curious as to how to construct the multiple
> queue boxes, and to see who else has has success/problems with it.
This is a very common scenario you describe. Mostly ISPs hit it first,
but large corps also have the same issues.
In general, you'll want to separate out the inbound SMTP from the outbound SMTP,
so that resources can be reserved for your sending customers.
You'll want some sort of common file store for the mailboxes (I use that word
in the general sense, not for V7 vs Maildir distinction), making that truly
redundant is hard so people tend to opt for high-av solutions like Netapps.
* One decision you have is to decide whether to make this transparent to your
customer base or not. Some people propose using the DNS to distribute
customers, such as using their name as part of the smtp server, eg,
john.smtp.example.dom others suggest using DNS and L4 switches to present
an image of a single server. I prefer the latter approach, but it's not
necessarily better and does tend to involve an L4 switch (+ backup).
Regards.
Ok, some of this is above my head (which obviously needs to be resolved
:) ), but maybe i can clarify more here.
> For inbound SMTP you don't need a load balancer or layer 4 switch, simply
> use multiple MX entries. Let the DNS do the "load balancing" and let the
> sending MTAs figure out when a server isn't available.
>
> If you have internal people sending to SMTP servers, that's a case that
> can benefit from a layer 4 switch*.
>
All of these smtp servers will be on an internal network, with one
ipaddress at port 25 pointing to the round robin machine to the internal
machines. So the Mx record points to the the one public ip, and that
forwards to one of many 10.1.1.* addesses which handle mail. This system
has a limited number of external ips.
>
> Unless you are doing this for functional seperations reasons, I don't see
> a lot of benefit. If it's to have multiple queues on multiple spindles, why
> not stripe the file system? If it's that you are able to handle higher
> concurrencies than 250 I can understand. I would not do something like this
> unless you had a very real reason for doing it.
>
I was under the impression that SMTP negotation (just the HELO, FROM,
and TO) could take longer than the actual data xfer. If thats the case, it
seems i could be underutilizeing each box w/100 mbps nic. So I figured if
I had 4 internal ips per machine, tcp server could mux the request and
route it to the appropriate qmail-smtp. From, there I would than need
multiple queues. Still a bad idea?
> Btw. routing by email address is hard. You can't tell it's to hotmail until
> you've accepted the connection and you cannot tell hotmail which MX to use
> (leastwise not easily, a smart DNS could answer to hotmail differently from
> other sites, but that's another story).
>
Yeah, Im not going to worry about this for now.
> > For now the user directories will be over nfs, but that can be upgraded
> > later as well. There will be seperate machines for dealing with access to
> > the nfs server (for user interaction) but ultimately, outbound mail will
> > be move through qmail aswell. Authentication of users is handles on this
> > side aswell (with in house work).
> >
> > Is my thinking wrong? I am curious as to how to construct the multiple
> > queue boxes, and to see who else has has success/problems with it.
>
> This is a very common scenario you describe. Mostly ISPs hit it first,
> but large corps also have the same issues.
>
> In general, you'll want to separate out the inbound SMTP from the outbound SMTP,
> so that resources can be reserved for your sending customers.
>
If I have a seperate box for outbound messages, what are best
optimizations?
> You'll want some sort of common file store for the mailboxes (I use that word
> in the general sense, not for V7 vs Maildir distinction), making that truly
> redundant is hard so people tend to opt for high-av solutions like Netapps.
>
I was thinking along the same lines, for down the road. I assume
upgradeing to fiber or pure scsi will happen as my company utilzes this
more.
Im not sure if there is one, but a doc on large scale qmail design
questions and answers would be helpful.
Thanx for the help, BTW...
jeff...
> > For inbound SMTP you don't need a load balancer or layer 4 switch, simply
> > use multiple MX entries. Let the DNS do the "load balancing" and let the
> > sending MTAs figure out when a server isn't available.
> >
> > If you have internal people sending to SMTP servers, that's a case that
> > can benefit from a layer 4 switch*.
> >
> All of these smtp servers will be on an internal network, with one
> ipaddress at port 25 pointing to the round robin machine to the internal
> machines. So the Mx record points to the the one public ip, and that
> forwards to one of many 10.1.1.* addesses which handle mail. This system
> has a limited number of external ips.
Is the front end SMTP server doing anything more than relaying? If it's only
relaying then take it out of the picture. It's only adding a point of failure
for you.
> I was under the impression that SMTP negotation (just the HELO, FROM,
> and TO) could take longer than the actual data xfer. If thats the case, it
> seems i could be underutilizeing each box w/100 mbps nic. So I figured if
> I had 4 internal ips per machine, tcp server could mux the request and
> route it to the appropriate qmail-smtp. From, there I would than need
> multiple queues. Still a bad idea?
As long as you are accepting connections for every MTA that wants to connect
at any given time, then there is nothing more you can do.
Have all your real SMTP servers accept connections and make sure they have
enough qmail-smtpd concurrency (via tcpserver, which can be trivially monitored),
and that's it.
> If I have a seperate box for outbound messages, what are best
> optimizations?
One box? I'd tend to give my outbound more redundancy than inbound. If no one
can send email because this box is down, the complainst will come thick and
fast. If inbound is down for a little while, no one tends to knows.
> I was thinking along the same lines, for down the road. I assume
> upgradeing to fiber or pure scsi will happen as my company utilzes this
> more.
It's not the media that's important, it's redundancy I'm talking about.
What if the fibre channel breaks? What if the Netapps fails, what if
the disks fail? What if the scsi cable melts?
> Im not sure if there is one, but a doc on large scale qmail design
> questions and answers would be helpful.
I'm not sure that this sort of problem yet lends itself to a HOWTO
style doc. Getting it right on a large scale is still something
that is definitely *not* off-the-shelf. People either learn from their
mistakes as they go or pay someone who has already made the mistakes :>
Oftentimes they end up paying someone about one week after their first
attempts start melting and they don't know why...
Regards.
> Is the front end SMTP server doing anything more than relaying? If it's only
> relaying then take it out of the picture. It's only adding a point of failure
> for you.
no, the front end is not smtp relaying.... its like an f5 box, essentially
port forwarding to one of many internal ip addresses.
> As long as you are accepting connections for every MTA that wants to connect
> at any given time, then there is nothing more you can do.
Are you saying that it is a complete waste to have multiple queues running
on the same box, as the load on those boxes rises?
>
> Have all your real SMTP servers accept connections and make sure they have
> enough qmail-smtpd concurrency (via tcpserver, which can be trivially monitored),
> and that's it.
>
> > If I have a seperate box for outbound messages, what are best
> > optimizations?
>
> One box? I'd tend to give my outbound more redundancy than inbound. If no one
> can send email because this box is down, the complainst will come thick and
> fast. If inbound is down for a little while, no one tends to knows.
>
Not one seperate box, but a "model" multiple box that I can replicate.
> It's not the media that's important, it's redundancy I'm talking about.
The redundancy would be taken care of at the hardware level... I'm not
going to worry about the disc side of things just yet. Ill get to that
later, assuming I build a robust enough system that can handle
compatibilty to emc/netapps/whatever i choose.
>
> What if the fibre channel breaks? What if the Netapps fails, what if
> the disks fail? What if the scsi cable melts?
these are issues of fail safe-ness on disc. Im not so concerned with that
now as i am in handeling the traffic in a scaleable manner. the route to
storage can change.
jeff...
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 02:51:50PM -0400, Jeff Commando Sherwin wrote:
>
> > Is the front end SMTP server doing anything more than relaying? If it's only
> > relaying then take it out of the picture. It's only adding a point of failure
> > for you.
>
> no, the front end is not smtp relaying.... its like an f5 box, essentially
> port forwarding to one of many internal ip addresses.
Right. I don't see much point in it then for inbound SMTP. Let the DNS and
MX prefs do the job they were designed to do. IP address space isn't *that*
expensive.
> > As long as you are accepting connections for every MTA that wants to connect
> > at any given time, then there is nothing more you can do.
>
> Are you saying that it is a complete waste to have multiple queues running
> on the same box, as the load on those boxes rises?
No. I was answering your concern about SMTP having high latency and not
utilizating your 100Mb (or whatever it was).
I stand by my original comments:
> > Have all your real SMTP servers accept connections and make sure they have
> > enough qmail-smtpd concurrency (via tcpserver, which can be trivially monitored),
> > and that's it.
High latency means (relatively) low load per connection and high concurrency rates.
What I'm saying is that your inbound is likely to require more attention
focussed on you concurrency needs rather than your queue loads.
It's hard to be more specific without actually seeing your inbound profile.
If you don't know what the inbound profile will be, then we're all speculating,
and I'm doing it based on experience.
> > > If I have a seperate box for outbound messages, what are best
> > > optimizations?
> >
> > One box? I'd tend to give my outbound more redundancy than inbound. If no one
> > can send email because this box is down, the complainst will come thick and
> > fast. If inbound is down for a little while, no one tends to knows.
> >
>
> Not one seperate box, but a "model" multiple box that I can replicate.
Right. You didn't say that. You said "a seperate box". We can only respond
to the data you give.
> > It's not the media that's important, it's redundancy I'm talking about.
>
> The redundancy would be taken care of at the hardware level... I'm not
> going to worry about the disc side of things just yet. Ill get to that
> later, assuming I build a robust enough system that can handle
> compatibilty to emc/netapps/whatever i choose.
>
> >
> > What if the fibre channel breaks? What if the Netapps fails, what if
> > the disks fail? What if the scsi cable melts?
>
> these are issues of fail safe-ness on disc. Im not so concerned with that
> now as i am in handeling the traffic in a scaleable manner. the route to
> storage can change.
Sure. Your choice. I'm just giving you advice based on having done these
systems and seeing what happens. My advice is that the mailstore is the
most important and hardest bit to get right. Everything else is easy by
comparison. Good luck.
Regards.
>
> Right. I don't see much point in it then for inbound SMTP. Let the DNS and
> MX prefs do the job they were designed to do. IP address space isn't *that*
> expensive.
>
its just that our current situation does not yeild me extra ip space. So I
dont have access to it. Therefore, Im useing an f5 like situation.
> > > As long as you are accepting connections for every MTA that wants to connect
> > > at any given time, then there is nothing more you can do.
> >
> > Are you saying that it is a complete waste to have multiple queues running
> > on the same box, as the load on those boxes rises?
>
> No. I was answering your concern about SMTP having high latency and not
> utilizating your 100Mb (or whatever it was).
>
> I stand by my original comments:
>
> > > Have all your real SMTP servers accept connections and make sure they have
> > > enough qmail-smtpd concurrency (via tcpserver, which can be trivially monitored),
> > > and that's it.
>
> High latency means (relatively) low load per connection and high concurrency rates.
>
> What I'm saying is that your inbound is likely to require more attention
> focussed on you concurrency needs rather than your queue loads.
>
I agree. But given that I may want to have multiple queues, I'm looking
for a pointer on how to handle multiple queues, hopefully with the
benefits and drawbacks the setup.
> It's hard to be more specific without actually seeing your inbound profile.
> If you don't know what the inbound profile will be, then we're all speculating,
> and I'm doing it based on experience.
>
> > > > If I have a seperate box for outbound messages, what are best
> > > > optimizations?
> > >
> > > One box? I'd tend to give my outbound more redundancy than inbound. If no one
> > > can send email because this box is down, the complainst will come thick and
> > > fast. If inbound is down for a little while, no one tends to knows.
> > >
> >
> > Not one seperate box, but a "model" multiple box that I can replicate.
>
> Right. You didn't say that. You said "a seperate box". We can only respond
> to the data you give.
>
Im sorry for the confusion. Given boxes that are only for outbound
traffic, are there specific optimizations for qmail servers justy for
outbound traffic?
> > > It's not the media that's important, it's redundancy I'm talking about.
> >
> > The redundancy would be taken care of at the hardware level... I'm not
> > going to worry about the disc side of things just yet. Ill get to that
> > later, assuming I build a robust enough system that can handle
> > compatibilty to emc/netapps/whatever i choose.
> >
> > >
> > > What if the fibre channel breaks? What if the Netapps fails, what if
> > > the disks fail? What if the scsi cable melts?
> >
> > these are issues of fail safe-ness on disc. Im not so concerned with that
> > now as i am in handeling the traffic in a scaleable manner. the route to
> > storage can change.
>
> Sure. Your choice. I'm just giving you advice based on having done these
> systems and seeing what happens. My advice is that the mailstore is the
> most important and hardest bit to get right. Everything else is easy by
> comparison. Good luck.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 04:29:23PM -0400, Jeff Commando Sherwin wrote:
> > Right. I don't see much point in it then for inbound SMTP. Let the DNS and
> > MX prefs do the job they were designed to do. IP address space isn't *that*
> > expensive.
> >
>
> its just that our current situation does not yeild me extra ip space. So I
> dont have access to it. Therefore, Im useing an f5 like situation.
Port forward the smtp traffic to a single qmail box.
The point at which you need to multiplex qmail for incoming connections
is the point at which incoming smtp traffic is overwhelming your queue.
Even two external IP addresses would allow you to RR your smtp connections
without layer 4 hardware, but that's a situation you're more in touch with
than we are.
However, you certainly don't need to RR physical boxes, just to multiple
queue's on the same box by using tcpserver.
> > What I'm saying is that your inbound is likely to require more attention
> > focussed on you concurrency needs rather than your queue loads.
Geez, I'm not sure that's true. The first problem run into by high
volume incoming SMTP folks is the point at which qmail is unable to
preprocess fast enough. That's a queue issue, not a concurrency one.
A very good solution is to feed SMTP traffic to multiple queues on the
same machine.
> I agree. But given that I may want to have multiple queues, I'm looking
> for a pointer on how to handle multiple queues, hopefully with the
> benefits and drawbacks the setup.
tcpserver lets you do this in a couple different ways. First off, you
can set up your tcpserver to load balance qmail instances by originating
IP address. This isn't that attractive unless you have specific stats
in hand on originating IPs, and are willing to constantly monitor this.
The other method is to have multiple IPs on the box, have each tcpserver
bind to a specific IP, have each tcpserver feed to a specific qmail
instance, and RR smtp traffic to the IPs via some external mechanism.
DNS is very good for the last step, but you might have to use hardware,
as you don't seem to have that option.
> Im sorry for the confusion. Given boxes that are only for outbound
> traffic, are there specific optimizations for qmail servers justy for
> outbound traffic?
When you say outbound, you mean out to the internet? But the volume
is a small fraction of the incoming? The only thing to keep is mind
is that the PC should be able to cache all it's RAM, and that RAM
dictates quite a bit of your concurrency. These days, it's tough
not to buy 128MB of ram. Does one need 256MB? Probably not, unless
you plan multiple qmail instances with high concurrency, and you're
not running into your OS's process limit.
BTW, when you're ready to scale, check out cubix for their SBC based
chassis. 8 machines in 7U! Add redundant power, a layer 4 switch,
and a multi-host RAID 1+0 to act as the queue, and you're cooking.
Hmmm... qmail inc. anyone?
John
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:50:43PM -0700, John White wrote:
> tcpserver lets you do this in a couple different ways. First off, you
> can set up your tcpserver to load balance qmail instances by originating
> IP address. This isn't that attractive unless you have specific stats
> in hand on originating IPs, and are willing to constantly monitor this.
>
> The other method is to have multiple IPs on the box, have each tcpserver
> bind to a specific IP, have each tcpserver feed to a specific qmail
> instance, and RR smtp traffic to the IPs via some external mechanism.
> DNS is very good for the last step, but you might have to use hardware,
> as you don't seem to have that option.
The other way could be to run a custom front end that picks one out of a
set of qmail-smtpd's to execute. Picking one at random each time should
in most cases be adequate, but you could also use the current time to
pick a new one to execute every second (or every sub-second, using
gettimeofday). If you code this in C, it can happen very fast, and
doesn't take up extra IPs (which can be a rare commodity if you have to
use Internet-visible IPs).
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
John White writes:
> BTW, when you're ready to scale, check out cubix for their SBC based
> chassis. 8 machines in 7U! Add redundant power, a layer 4 switch,
> and a multi-host RAID 1+0 to act as the queue, and you're cooking.
This sounds interesting to me. What would be a good example of a mutli-host
RAID 1+0 configuration?
JES
> Hmmm... qmail inc. anyone?
>
> John
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oops...Here is the output from 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-getpw alias'
>from the RPM install:
We already know that that works OK. Now we need to see what qmail-pw2u
is doing. Try:
strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd >/etc/qmail/users/assign
-Dave
Here is 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd
>/etc/qmail/users/assign' from the source install:
execve("/usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u", ["/usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u"], [/* 26
vars */]) = 0
brk(0) = 0x8052e20
open("/etc/ld.so.preload", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=22440, ...}) = 0
mmap(0, 22440, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x40013000
close(3) = 0
open("/lib/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=4118299, ...}) = 0
read(3, "\177ELF\1\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\3\0\1\0\0\0\250\202"..., 4096)
= 4096
mmap(0, 993500, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x40019000
mprotect(0x40104000, 30940, PROT_NONE) = 0
mmap(0x40104000, 16384, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED, 3,
0xea000) = 0x40104000
mmap(0x40108000, 14556, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x40108000
close(3) = 0
mprotect(0x40019000, 962560, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE) = 0
mprotect(0x40019000, 962560, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC) = 0
munmap(0x40013000, 22440) = 0
personality(0 /* PER_??? */) = 0
getpid() = 10575
brk(0) = 0x8052e20
brk(0x8052fc0) = 0x8052fc0
brk(0x8053000) = 0x8053000
chdir("/var/qmail") = 0
open("users/include", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3) = 0
open("users/exclude", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3) = 0
open("users/mailnames", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3) = 0
read(0, "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash\n"..., 8192) = 1196
read(0, "", 8192) = 0
write(2, "qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to fin"..., 45qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable
to find alias user
) = 45
_exit(111) = ?
Here is 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd
>/etc/qmail/users/assign' from the RPM install:
execve("/usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u", ["/usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u"], [/* 25
vars */]) = 0
brk(0) = 0x8052e20
open("/etc/ld.so.preload", O_RDONLY) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=24081, ...}) = 0
mmap(0, 24081, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x40013000
close(3) = 0
open("/lib/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=4118299, ...}) = 0
read(3, "\177ELF\1\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\3\0\1\0\0\0\250\202"..., 4096)
= 4096
mmap(0, 993500, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x40019000
mprotect(0x40104000, 30940, PROT_NONE) = 0
mmap(0x40104000, 16384, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED, 3,
0xea000) = 0x40104000
mmap(0x40108000, 14556, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x40108000
close(3) = 0
mprotect(0x40019000, 962560, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE) = 0
mprotect(0x40019000, 962560, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC) = 0
munmap(0x40013000, 24081) = 0
personality(0 /* PER_??? */) = 0
getpid() = 14876
brk(0) = 0x8052e20
brk(0x8052fc0) = 0x8052fc0
brk(0x8053000) = 0x8053000
chdir("/var/qmail") = 0
open("users/include", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3) = 0
open("users/exclude", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3) = 0
open("users/mailnames", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3) = 0
read(0, "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash\n"..., 8192) = 1478
read(0, "", 8192) = 0
write(2, "qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to fin"..., 45qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable
to find alias user
) = 45
_exit(111) = ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Problems with qmail-pw2u
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oops...Here is the output from 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-getpw alias'
>from the RPM install:
We already know that that works OK. Now we need to see what qmail-pw2u
is doing. Try:
strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd >/etc/qmail/users/assign
-Dave
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd
> >/etc/qmail/users/assign' from the source install:
> read(0, "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash\n"..., 8192) = 1196
> read(0, "", 8192) = 0
> write(2, "qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to fin"..., 45qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable
> to find alias user
> ) = 45
> _exit(111) = ?
And what does ls -ld ~alias give you? It looks like you don't have the
user account 'alias' created.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No...I've been through all that... Check my previous posts. But here is
the output you asked for:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Nov 15 17:38 /var/qmail/alias ->
../../etc/qmail/alias
I've even tried changing the /etc/passwd entry to match the hard link, with
no difference.
-Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 2:07 PM
To: Chris Tolley
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problems with qmail-pw2u
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd
> >/etc/qmail/users/assign' from the source install:
> read(0, "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash\n"..., 8192) = 1196
> read(0, "", 8192) = 0
> write(2, "qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to fin"..., 45qmail-pw2u: fatal:
unable
> to find alias user
> ) = 45
> _exit(111) = ?
And what does ls -ld ~alias give you? It looks like you don't have the
user account 'alias' created.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd
>>/etc/qmail/users/assign' from the source install:
>
>...
>read(0, "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash\n"..., 8192) = 1196
>read(0, "", 8192) = 0
>write(2, "qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to fin"..., 45qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable
>to find alias user
>) = 45
So qmail-pw2u read through your /etc/password and didn't find an entry
for "alias" (or whatever user was listed in auto_usera.c during the
build).
Something screwy is going on like a compiler bug, corrupted binary,
botched build, corrupted password file, etc.
I've pretty much reached the limit of my ability to debug this problem
via proxy. Sorry.
-Dave
Thanks for the effort. If anyone else has any other ideas, drop me a line.
I'm going to download new source and start from scratch.
-Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Problems with qmail-pw2u
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is 'strace /usr/bin/qmail/qmail-pw2u </etc/passwd
>>/etc/qmail/users/assign' from the source install:
>
>...
>read(0, "root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash\n"..., 8192) = 1196
>read(0, "", 8192) = 0
>write(2, "qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to fin"..., 45qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable
>to find alias user
>) = 45
So qmail-pw2u read through your /etc/password and didn't find an entry
for "alias" (or whatever user was listed in auto_usera.c during the
build).
Something screwy is going on like a compiler bug, corrupted binary,
botched build, corrupted password file, etc.
I've pretty much reached the limit of my ability to debug this problem
via proxy. Sorry.
-Dave
Chris Tolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No...I've been through all that... Check my previous posts. But here is
> the output you asked for:
Nonetheless, qmail is failing to find the "alias" user in your /etc/passwd.
That is why qmail is failing. Why it can't find the alias user is anyone's
guess; everything I can think of has already been posted here.
My only other suggestion would be to try to force it:
-change /etc/passwd so alias's homedir is /var/qmail/alias
mkdir /var/qmail/alias
chown alias:users /var/qmail/alias
cp -a (former alias homedir -- /etc/qmail/alias was it?)/{.*,*} /var/qmail/alias
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My thanks, Bruce. This fixed everything.
-Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Guenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:00 PM
To: Chris Tolley
Subject: Re: Problems with qmail-pw2u
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 03:04:09PM -0500, Chris Tolley wrote:
> Thanks for the effort. If anyone else has any other ideas, drop me a
line.
> I'm going to download new source and start from scratch.
I'm jumping in kinda late on this, but...
Do you have a users/include file? If so, and it's empty, delete it.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Duncan Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just started using maildirs with mutt and procmail. I am planning on
> writing a utility to allow me to search all of my maildir folders for mail
> matching certain regexps and then linking them into a result folder also a
> maildir that I could then browse with mutt.
You might find that `find` and `egrep` can do what you want with little
extra glue. Maildir format is so simple you don't have to worry about it --
one message per file under /new and /cur, ignore everything under /tmp.
> Relatively simple but I am looking for details on maildir format so that I
> dump my results without cheating. Does anyone have any ideas or pointers?
djb's page on the Maildir format is here:
http://cr.yp.to/proto/maildir.html
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:11:23AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Duncan Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I just started using maildirs with mutt and procmail. I am planning on
> > writing a utility to allow me to search all of my maildir folders for mail
> > matching certain regexps and then linking them into a result folder also a
> > maildir that I could then browse with mutt.
>
> You might find that `find` and `egrep` can do what you want with little
> extra glue. Maildir format is so simple you don't have to worry about it --
> one message per file under /new and /cur, ignore everything under /tmp.
Very close to my intent. Find, regexps and python as glue. I may use tkinter
as a front end for prettiness.
>
> > Relatively simple but I am looking for details on maildir format so that I
> > dump my results without cheating. Does anyone have any ideas or pointers?
>
> djb's page on the Maildir format is here:
> http://cr.yp.to/proto/maildir.html
Excellent. The astute may note that I currently don't use qmail on my office
box but I really love Maildir.
/Duncan
--
Duncan Watson
nCube
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:40:54AM -0700, Duncan Watson wrote:
[snip]
> Excellent. The astute may note that I currently don't use qmail on my office
> box but I really love Maildir.
One dutch ISP (cistron, the people who brought you Cistron radiusd) have
implemented their own Maildir MDA, spawned from sendmail.
You don't need qmail to do Maildir. I also know people who keep their
~/mail/ folders in Maildir, and have mutt save their incoming mail to a
Maildir on quit.
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++
Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Suddenly qmail stopped responding today. Telnet to port 25 gave me
>the standard telnet "connected to" and "escape character is ^]" but
>no smtp prompt. ps aux showed many smtp processes.
This is precisely the behavior one observes when tcpserver's
connection limit is reached.
>Since the phone
>was ringing off the hook, I had to hurry and didn't have time to look
>farther. I stopped the qmail service, waited about 30 seconds, then
>restarted it. It's answering again, but I don't know for how long.
Probably until another 99 connections come in. :-) Sounds like you
might need to raise the limit.
>A feel rusty since it's been so long since anything has gone with my
>qmail installation. :-/ What should have I done to track down the
>culprit?
Look at the qmail-smtpd (really tcpserver) logs.
-Dave
I am new to Linux and Qmail and need information on how to apply the various
Qmail patches. I have searched the Mailing List Archives and qmail.org but
have not been able to find detailed information on how to apply the patches.
I am running Red Hat Linux 6.1 and Qmail 1.03 and would like to apply the
big-dns patch and others. Can someone please give me detailed instruction on
how do this or point me to a web page were I can find this information.
Thank you,
Scott Wilson
Information Systems Manager
AAA Alabama
(205) 978-7051
Fax: (205) 978-7027
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am new to Linux and Qmail and need information on how to apply the various
>Qmail patches. I have searched the Mailing List Archives and qmail.org but
>have not been able to find detailed information on how to apply the patches.
Patch installation isn't qmail-specific. Have you read the "patch" man
page?
Also, see:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#patches
>I am running Red Hat Linux 6.1 and Qmail 1.03 and would like to apply the
>big-dns patch and others.
(A) You probably don't *really* need a big DNS patch. AOL has changed
their ways and I just don't see messages bouncing due to DNS
problems.
(B) If big DNS results *are* a problem, I would much sooner install
DJB's DNScache package, which fixes that problem and gives you
much better DNS performance to boot.
>Can someone please give me detailed instruction on
>how do this or point me to a web page were I can find this information.
If you have a specific question, you'll probably get a better answer.
Nobody's going to whip up a general patching guide for you.
-Dave
Scott Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am running Red Hat Linux 6.1 and Qmail 1.03 and would like to apply the
> big-dns patch and others. Can someone please give me detailed instruction on
> how do this or point me to a web page were I can find this information.
If you're not familiar with patches and compiling from source, you might be
better off with an RPM for your RedHat Linux system.
Bruce Guenter has a qmail+patches RPM which includes most of the
desirable patches, plus a few other goodies. It's available from:
http://www.em.ca/~bruceg/
Perhaps give that a shot.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear that multilog is a good choice to replace syslogd, where can I get
the sources and how to install multilog to log the qmail logs ?
Tnx.
RDA.-
"Ricardo D. Albano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I hear that multilog is a good choice to replace syslogd, where can I get
>the sources
http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html
>and how to install multilog to log the qmail logs ?
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#start-qmail
-Dave
hi
can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur , please
?
also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list too
long.
pine takes around half an hour minimum to open the inbox, and then once we
start marking the messages for deletion ti ahngs after about 2-3 minutes
and rthe only option left is kill the pine session and restart.
- 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
THis is more a Unix question than qmail. The easiest way if it's all messages,
is this:
mv cur cur.old
mkdir cur
rm -rf cur
Make sure that cur has appropriate ownership and permissions.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:56:17PM +0530, System Administrator wrote:
> hi
>
> can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur , please
> ?
>
> also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list too
> long.
>
> pine takes around half an hour minimum to open the inbox, and then once we
> start marking the messages for deletion ti ahngs after about 2-3 minutes
> and rthe only option left is kill the pine session and restart.
>
>
>
> - 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
>
>
Hello System,
> can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur , please
> also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list too
> long.
What stops you from using, say
rm 91*
rm 92*
rm 93*
and so on? That should help (I'm not sure about the naming, is it
simply done by the number of seconds since the epoque? If yes, you'll
most likely have to use something like 9XX1* 9XX2). Oh, what about
$ cd..
$ rm -rf cur
$ mkdir cur
?
Stop qmail first or you risk deleting valid mail ...
(or do a mv cur cur.del; mkdir cur) .
Then do a rm -rf cur.del
Matt Soffen
Web Intranet Developer
http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabriel Ambuehl [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 1:24 PM
> To: System Administrator
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Messages don't get deleted
>
> Hello System,
> > can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur ,
> please
> > also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list
> too
> > long.
>
> What stops you from using, say
> rm 91*
> rm 92*
> rm 93*
> and so on? That should help (I'm not sure about the naming, is it
> simply done by the number of seconds since the epoque? If yes, you'll
> most likely have to use something like 9XX1* 9XX2). Oh, what about
> $ cd..
> $ rm -rf cur
> $ mkdir cur
> ?
>
+ Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Hello System,
| > can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur , please
| > also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list too
| > long.
|
| What stops you from using, say
| rm 91*
| rm 92*
| rm 93*
Easier is:
find . -type f -print | xargs rm -f
- Harald
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:19:56AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> THis is more a Unix question than qmail. The easiest way if it's all messages,
> is this:
>
> mv cur cur.old
> mkdir cur
> rm -rf cur
Er, I meant of course
rm -rf cur.old
Hopefully this typo is obvious to all but me :>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 02:32:51PM -0400, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
> Stop qmail first or you risk deleting valid mail ...
No, that's not true or necessary.
Delivery only involves tmp and new, furthermore delivery to a specific user
can be defered as discussed in the dot-qmail manpage with
chmod +t $HOME
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:27:31PM +0200, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> + Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | Hello System,
> | > can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur , please
> | > also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list too
> | > long.
> |
> | What stops you from using, say
> | rm 91*
> | rm 92*
> | rm 93*
>
> Easier is:
>
> find . -type f -print | xargs rm -f
Or just:
find . -type f -exec rm -f {} \;
YMMV,
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Or just:
> find . -type f -exec rm -f {} \;
Thanks for showing me once again that my decision of using NT as
desktop was right...
Best regards,
Gabriel
Gabriel Ambuehl writes:
> > Or just:
> > find . -type f -exec rm -f {} \;
>
> Thanks for showing me once again that my decision of using NT as
> desktop was right...
Go troll for flamage on Usenet. This is the qmail mailing list.
--
-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.
On Apr 11 2000, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
> Stop qmail first or you risk deleting valid mail ...
Well, that's not the case here. qmail will never deliver mail
to cur, only to new (otherwise, I got the semantics wrong).
Anyway, even if it did, it wouldn't make sense to stop qmail
for a whole machine just because one user wants to mess with
his mails.
That's, BTW, why Dan has adopted the convention of turning on
the sticky bit on a user's home directory. :-)
Ain't qmail neat? :-) BTW #2, where are those qmail t-shirts?
Any word on them?
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Apr 11 2000, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> > Or just:
> > find . -type f -exec rm -f {} \;
>
> Thanks for showing me once again that my decision of using NT as
> desktop was right...
Indeed, if you find that simple line complicated... :-)
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
+ Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:27:31PM +0200, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
| > | Hello System,
| > | > can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from [...]
| > find . -type f -print | xargs rm -f
|
| Or just:
|
| find . -type f -exec rm -f {} \;
At the price of 25000 fork/exec pairs, yes.
| YMMV,
Indeed. xargs exists for precisely this reason.
(Have we scared that NT guy sufficiently yet?)
- Harald
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11 Apr 00, at 23:56, System Administrator wrote:
> can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur ,
> please ?
How did the messages get there in the first place? (There was a
bug in some Maildir'ized POP3 servers - they wouldn't clear deleted
messages from cur; that's why I'm asking.)
> also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list
> too long.
I don't know if bash has this problem. Anyway, this is exactly what
xargs is for. Just try
ls -f -1|xargs rm -f
and see.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOPQfLVMwP8g7qbw/EQIUCQCfY8XLWy/zyf8aXcL8+R7zkRCmIVEAnjQo
qvnwxwfvN+6w40PyUa/EYrt0
=akBZ
-----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]
[Yes, I know this is off-topic...]
> find . -type f -exec rm -f {} \;
find . -type f -print | perl -ne 'chop; unlink;'
or, depending on your level of paranoia and your find supporting -print0,
find . -type f -print0 | perl -0ne 'chop; unlink;'
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ "Reliability means never
_/ _/ _/ having to say you're sorry."
_/ _/_/_/ -- D. J. Bernstein
_/ _/ _/ _/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
Hi,
my host has 2 domains
- foo.com
- bar.com
and 2 unix account
- paul (paul wells)
- pyoung (paul young)
how to do emails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes paul and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to pyoung.
all mails are stored at /var/mail/$user
tia
Att,
________________________________________________________________
Ronaldo Miranda
DiviNet/ISP - internet Solution Provider
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.isp.com.br
(37) 222-8870 (37) 9102-6102
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>my host has 2 domains
> - foo.com
> - bar.com
>
>and 2 unix account
> - paul (paul wells)
> - pyoung (paul young)
>
>how to do emails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes paul and
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to pyoung.
Make bar.com a virtual domain. See:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#virtual-domains
-Dave
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 03:58:52PM +0000, Ronaldo Miranda wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> my host has 2 domains
> - foo.com
> - bar.com
>
> and 2 unix account
> - paul (paul wells)
> - pyoung (paul young)
>
> how to do emails send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes paul and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to pyoung.
>
> all mails are stored at /var/mail/$user
See my examples of virtual domains.
There are a few different ways to solve it:
http://x42.com/qmail/cookbook/domains/
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
Is there anyway that Qmail can filter incoming message for certain words.
Basically what I need is some kind of “Rejected Words List”. A message
comes in and is scanned and checked against a file containing a list of
words that the postmaster would like to reject. If the email message
contains one of these words it is marked rejected and turned back to the
sender. Does anyone know of an Add-On or anything like this I can use with
Qmail?
==========================================================================
Travis Rail, Web Master |Terra World, Inc - Connecting The Planet
Terra World, Inc. |Southeast Kansas' Leading Provider
200 Arco Place, Suite 252 |Flat Fee - Never an hourly Charge
Independence, Kansas 67301 |Where Service is Top Priority!
Voice (316) 332-1616 |http://www.terraworld.net
FAX: (316) 332-1451 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==========================================================================
Travis Rail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anyway that Qmail can filter incoming message for certain words.
> Basically what I need is some kind of “Rejected Words List”. A message
> comes in and is scanned and checked against a file containing a list of
> words that the postmaster would like to reject. If the email message
> contains one of these words it is marked rejected and turned back to the
> sender. Does anyone know of an Add-On or anything like this I can use with
> Qmail?
If you want to do this at the time of the SMTP receipt, you'll have to patch
qmail-smtpd. But if you want to do it at delivery time, you can put
something like this in your .qmail file:
|egrep -qw '(word1|word2|...)' && exit 99
./Maildir/
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We used to use NTMail which had this feature built-in.
Unfortunately, grepping won't work as the words are actually multi-word
phrases each and there must be a copy in EVERY users directory....
Example List:
angie.mackay
Newport Internet Marketing
Neuport Internet Marketing
702 Mangrove Avenue
Stealth Mass
jtsr-stock.com
888-295-6365
904-282-0945
NEWSGROUP BULK ADVERTISING SOFTWARE
EXTRAORDINARY ELECTRONIC MULTI-LEVEL
There are about 150 phrases in our list and we prefer it to be done at the
SMTP level. The response should be:
"550 Error - Message is either SPAM or contains a Virus"
Any patching suggestions would be helpful as I am not comfortable coding
this myself.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 4:32 PM
To: Travis Rail
Cc: Qmail Discussion List
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Filter
Travis Rail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anyway that Qmail can filter incoming message for certain words.
> Basically what I need is some kind of “Rejected Words List”. A message
> comes in and is scanned and checked against a file containing a list of
> words that the postmaster would like to reject. If the email message
> contains one of these words it is marked rejected and turned back to the
> sender. Does anyone know of an Add-On or anything like this I can use
with
> Qmail?
If you want to do this at the time of the SMTP receipt, you'll have to patch
qmail-smtpd. But if you want to do it at delivery time, you can put
something like this in your .qmail file:
|egrep -qw '(word1|word2|...)' && exit 99
./Maildir/
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Schaub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, grepping won't work as the words are actually multi-word
> phrases each and there must be a copy in EVERY users directory....
[...]
> Any patching suggestions would be helpful as I am not comfortable coding
> this myself.
You might look at
ftp://ftp.mira.net/unix/mail/qmail/wildmat-0.2.patch
as a start -- it allows you to reject mail at the time of SMTP injection
by matching the envelope sender against patterns. Of course, you'd have
to change it to scan the body, issue the reject after the <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>
instead of after the RCPT TO:, etc.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the easiest way to forward a whole bunch of messages in a
maildir to a different user account on a different system?
Thanks
--
Manfred Bartz
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:54:08PM +1000,
Manfred Bartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the easiest way to forward a whole bunch of messages in a
> maildir to a different user account on a different system?
Tag all of the messages and then mass bounce or forward them to the other
user. This is easy to do using mutt (T*;bemail_address). Most MUAs have
some relatively easy way to do this.
Hello,
I've now up&running qmail 1.03 and vpopmail (latest stable). But
when sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the sender
gets no notification that the email could not be delivered. It's
silently delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but the
sender gets no error mail back.
I tried to mv the ~vpopmail/valid-virtual.domain,.qmail-default
file out of the way, and then the sender gets back a
MAILER-DAEMON mail (delivery failed), but also with *valid*
mailboxes in ~vpopmail/valid-virtual.domain .
Any ideas whats going wrong ?
thanks in advice,
Markus
--
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 -
Hi,
sorry for no reponse from message above(was in holidays)
So, I want to insert program who change the body of mails sent:
recept by port (ex:port25) change body and sent by qmail...but I can't
find a solution.
Is it possible?
Thanks in advance
____________.Eric._____________
I tried virtual domain
and did not work.
i got error message like this
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
what sould i do..?
