qmail Digest 14 May 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1001
Topics (messages 41679 through 41692):
Purpose of this list
41679 by: James
41680 by: Nikki Cook
41681 by: Steffan Hoeke
qmail / mysql (/ldap)
41682 by: Joerg Ebel
Re: Share queue between servers and other questions.
41683 by: Michael Boman
41684 by: richard.illuin.org
41691 by: John White
Re: qmail-smtpd appears to work but doesn't
41685 by: clemensF
Is there a way to relay mail based on username/password ?
41686 by: Dinesh Punjabi
41687 by: Timothy L. Mayo
41690 by: Dale Miracle
Qmail doesn't deliver local mail via localhost
41688 by: Dale Miracle
Re: Filtering
41689 by: clemensF
Disable telnet to port 110
41692 by: Mark Lo
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've received a couple of messages both on this list, and personal email
that consistently suggest that I read the manual before posting here.
Of course I realize that reading the manual, going through the steps of
Life With Qmail or viewing the FAQs is the best first step.. but once one
takes every step mentioned, and things STILL don't work, it's very hard to
maintain calm as people *keep* suggesting that it's a good idea to read
the manual.
Just as those who have been around forever get upset with hearing the same
questions over and over, new users who follow proper steps and STILL have
problems also get tired of hearing about "reading the #$$% manual." For
one example.. I have no idea as to why, when I sent a test message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] during one hour it was rejected multiple times, then
trying again 4 hours later it goes through just fine.. when I changed
*nothing* at all on my server.
And one other soapbox spew.. When I receive a question such as "Are you
sure you are talking to [your ip address here]?" and I answer "How would I
know?".. this doesn't mean I haven't tested ping, or whois, or
whereis etc.. because I have, it means that if there is some *other* way
of knowing, please tell me now.
Many of you have been quite helpful, and I appreciate every answer in
reply because I know it takes time, your valuable time, to try and figure
out a problem.. but it also takes time and determination to decide to
weather out the problems for days in order to make one program work right.
Both sides should be commended for effort.
Whatever I learn on this list I will do what I can to give back to those
who have questions, or run into the same problems I have had here. And
even though I try to be thorough in my question posts, I guess I need to
be more thorough still with every step I have tried.. because I only ask
questions here AFTER I have tried every step I can find in either a FAQ or
HOWTO.
Again, thanks for all the help and please, some of you, try not to be so
hard on those of us asking seemingly trivial questions when often (or at
least in my case) hours have already been spent trying to figure out a
problem before coming here to ask for help.
James
Hi James,
Sad to say, this list's subscribership is just like many of the technical
lists I participate in. There are many who maintain a level of empathy,
exhibit patience and offer resolute advice... BUT ... there a some who
are... uummmm.... not exhibiting those qualities.
That kind of reception creates a restricted maillist where people who have
legitimate needs hesitate to post publicly for fear of a public putdown.
So lurkers are born, waiting in the wings, hoping that someone else will
post their same problem and elicit a solution... or they spend valuable
time searching through archives. Kind of sad, imo.
Not that this will make it all better, but typically members the former
group cringed when they see posts from the latter group that berate a
newbie. I, for one, am glad you posted your comments and would encourage
those who have needs to do exactly what you've done, research a solution,
try it, ask for help, ignore the "non-helpful" folks.
Guess we all have to chalk the nasty posts up to one or more of the following:
1) Having a generally bad day
2) Being constipated
3) Probable immaturity
4) Financial problems
5) Dog died
6) Other
:)
HTH,
Nikki
At 06:55 AM 05/13/2000 , you wrote:
>
>Of course I realize that reading the manual, going through the steps of
>Life With Qmail or viewing the FAQs is the best first step.. but once one
>takes every step mentioned, and things STILL don't work, it's very hard to
>maintain calm as people *keep* suggesting that it's a good idea to read
>the manual.
>
>Just as those who have been around forever get upset with hearing the same
>questions over and over, new users who follow proper steps and STILL have
>problems also get tired of hearing about "reading the #$$% manual."
SunTrix Com Management
Nikki Cook
("The Buck Stops Here")
-o-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SunTrix Com Internet Services
Daytona Beach, Florida
PPP and Shell Accounts (904) 258-5434
WEB Design [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.suntrix.com
WEBBnet IRC Network
irc.webbnet.org | irc.us.webbnet.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 03:55:31AM -0700, James wrote:
> I've received a couple of messages both on this list, and personal email
> that consistently suggest that I read the manual before posting here.
>
> Of course I realize that reading the manual, going through the steps of
> Life With Qmail or viewing the FAQs is the best first step.. but once one
> takes every step mentioned, and things STILL don't work, it's very hard to
> maintain calm as people *keep* suggesting that it's a good idea to read
> the manual.
I don't know if you did this, but it MIGHT be a good idea to actually STATE
that you've read Dave Sill's LWQ and the FAQ's and the appropriate man page
before posting....
I don't know if you've noticed, but there are *a lot* of questions posted to
this list which could have *easily* been resolved by reading the appropriate
material.
The people on this list are not *mind readers*. If you don't tell them you've
read all the material they, logically, assume that you haven't.
Some people find it easier to ask ("stupid") questions on the list then to
read the rather plentyful documentation.
Another recent example was that someone changed his domain name in a post
on this list.
When he finally told the domain name the problem was *immediately* solved...
> And one other soapbox spew.. When I receive a question such as "Are you
> sure you are talking to [your ip address here]?" and I answer "How would I
> know?".. this doesn't mean I haven't tested ping, or whois, or
> whereis etc.. because I have, it means that if there is some *other* way
> of knowing, please tell me now.
You're right, but if you don't *STATE* that you've done ping, whois, nslookup
etc. again nobody *knows* you did this ;-)
> Whatever I learn on this list I will do what I can to give back to those
> who have questions, or run into the same problems I have had here. And
> even though I try to be thorough in my question posts, I guess I need to
> be more thorough still with every step I have tried.. because I only ask
> questions here AFTER I have tried every step I can find in either a FAQ or
> HOWTO.
This may be a natural path/assumption for you, but not for others on this list.
> James
My 2 cents worth,
Steffan
--
http://therookie.dyndns.org
Hi,
is there a qmail-mysql-module, like qmail-ldap?
Or does anyone have some scripts to bring a database from mysql to ldap?
Best Regards,
Joerg Ebel
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 10:07:34AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
> > I _need_
>
> What is need, compared to the path?
>
> > Share queue between
> ...
> > several servers (atleast 4 servers) on
> > different sites can process the queue.
>
> I'm heavily editing here, but are you REALLY saying you want a queue
> shared between different sites which:
>
> > spread all over the world, and the connection to the HQ is not
> > always acceptible when it comes to speed and quality (not becasue HQ
> > is in a bad place, but that the braches don't have that high-speed
> > and good lines to the 'net).
>
> So your sites are:
>
> 1) seperated by great distance, which rules out any SAN or NAS
>
> 2) Connected by questionable data links, which may suffer from low
> performance or occassional downtime.
>
> So, because of the distance, you'll need to use a networked
> filesystem like NFS, AFS, etc. But networked filesystems are designed for
> LAN environments where performance is reasonable and link downtime is rare.
> If you attempt to share your queue (or your mail store) like this, you are
> guaranteeing that performance and reliability will suffer.
>
> > Please help me with a solution to this problem else I'll end
> > up installing sendmail sometime next week.
>
> You don't want a solution to your problem, you want an
> implementation for your solution. But your proposed solution is suboptimal
> to say the least.
>
> Why don't you state the problem instead?
What I want is to be able to share the queue between n+2 servers on each
loocation as well as be able to split a single domain's mailstorage so each
users doesn't need to download his/hers email from the other end of the world.
Best regards
Michael Boman
>
> --
> gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M L T D - Your Online Office Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #04-00, Singapore 347778
Voice : (+65) 844 3228 [extension 118] Fax : (+65) 842 7228
Pager : (+65) 92 93 29 49 ICQ : 5566009
Mobile: (+65) 97 87 39 14
eMail : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
On Sat, 13 May 2000, Michael Boman wrote:
> What I want is to be able to share the queue between n+2 servers on
> each loocation as well as be able to split a single domain's
> mailstorage so each users doesn't need to download his/hers email from
> the other end of the world.
the queue itself cannot be shared due to qmail's way of ensuring
consistancy, however you can share the load between the two machines in
several ways:
a) give each cluster of machines in each location a local IP address from
RFC1918 and configure a name to point to that set of IP addresses. by
using IP routing divert traffic to those IP addresses at each location to
the cluster of machines.
b) use a transport-layer switch to route the trafic
c) simpler version of (a) point the same name to all of the machines and
don't worry if your user's traffic goes to the wrong location. configure
your DNS servers to return IP addresses closest to the user to minimize
this
as far as mail storage goes, move that off onto a separate cluster of
machines and get the mail routers to deliver mail to the machine closest
to where the user is, then pick one of a) b) or c) above
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 10:02:24PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:
> What I want is to be able to share the queue between n+2 servers on each
> loocation as well as be able to split a single domain's mailstorage so each
> users doesn't need to download his/hers email from the other end of the world.
You again failed to tell us why you want to share the queue.
For the second time, what failure modes are you trying to protect against?
John
> Dale Miracle (Fri 12.0500-18:13):
> Mailbox or Maildir file (depending on which method you are using). You
> should be able to view the Mailbox or Maildir with a text editor or with
> the more or less pager less filename.ext or more filename.ext .
...or with your favourite mail program (like i do7^).
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it possible to setup relaying based purely on
username and password? There are users that
use dial up accounts under many ISP's. It becomes
very difficult to track users based on IPs and/or
domains.
Is there a way to authenticate users, based on
some password (possibly the same one as their
email account!) which will determine their ability
to relay email (smtp).
Thanks, I am extremely grateful to this mailing
list for all your continued help and support.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
That's what the POP before SMTP solution does. See qmail.org for a couple
of different implementations.
There has been some work done on authenticated SMTP but it is not
universally supported yet.
On Sat, 13 May 2000, Dinesh Punjabi wrote:
> Is it possible to setup relaying based purely on
> username and password? There are users that
> use dial up accounts under many ISP's. It becomes
> very difficult to track users based on IPs and/or
> domains.
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
Dinesh Punjabi wrote:
> Is it possible to setup relaying based purely on
> username and password? There are users that
> use dial up accounts under many ISP's. It becomes
> very difficult to track users based on IPs and/or
> domains.
>
> Is there a way to authenticate users, based on
> some password (possibly the same one as their
> email account!) which will determine their ability
> to relay email (smtp).
>
> Thanks, I am extremely grateful to this mailing
> list for all your continued help and support.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
A real easy one to setup and configure is vpopmail from
www.inter7.com/vchkpw , I haven't personally tried that feature but it
does support that.
Later,
Dale
Bob Brown and I seem to have a similar problem with qmail. I had
this working originally before I started working on vpopmail, but after
trying to help Bob out with his problem I found I now have the problem
as well.
I can't speak for Bob on this part but I know that I can send e-mail to
my account and I get the message and see the info in the log file
showing that. If I try to e-mail an account on my system qmail reports
it sent the mail but there is no mail to be found. I have disabled
vpopmail, pop3 daemons, the only thing running currently is qmail and
qmail-smtpd.
To me it sounds like a problem with qmail local can't deliver mail that
is created locally because I can get mail from another account fine.
Here is something interesting someone could explain to me. I found this
in my log it is a previous (before working on vpopmail) entry :
new msg 28803
info msg 28803: bytes 205 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 7636 uid 0
starting delivery 1: msg 28803 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
delivery 1: success: did_1+0+0/
status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
end msg 28803
Here is what my log says now when I try to e-mail my self on the same
machine:
new msg 28807
info msg 28807: bytes 214 from <> qp 23995 uid 2850
starting delivery 3: msg 28807 to local @atlas.teoi.net
status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
delivery 4: success:
status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
end msg 28807
Notice the info msg line it says from <> uid 2850 (which on my system
uid 2850 is qmaild), on the log entry above that, that worked originally
the info msg line says <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uid 0 (root).
I have enabled vpopmail and tried to e-mail a virtual domain and the
same thing happened, re-disabled vpopmail and pop3d until this is
working.
Something is stripping the address out of locally created messages
because smtpd delivered messages work fine.
I am using Openbsd 2.6 and qmail 1.03
Anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks!
Dale
> Patrick Berry (Fri 12.0500-15:52):
>
> Try using /var/qmail/control/databytes
i was about to ask the same question, but your answer made me check my
installation and upgrade to 1.03. however, i miss the functionality of
control/recipientmap, since several automatic processes on my system use
different methods to denote "localhost". can i rely entirely on
control/locals? or should i (ab)use control/virtualdomains to canonicalize
the name of this local-host? i am puzzled: how have meanings changed from
1.01 to 1.03?
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still
let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using
tcpserver)
Thank You
Mark
