qmail Digest 1 Jun 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1019
Topics (messages 42529 through 42554):
SMTP SIZE command revisited (new patch)
42529 by: Will Harris
Re: doc tarballs
42530 by: Felix von Leitner
Caveat - Re: SMTP SIZE command revisited (new patch)
42531 by: Will Harris
Re: DRAFT RFD - comp.mail.qmail - Comments Sought (Was: qmail advocacy questions)
42532 by: Russell Nelson
42536 by: Timothy L. Mayo
42544 by: Darren Wyn Rees
42551 by: Russ Allbery
Amavis and QMail ?
42533 by: Marco Cintolesi
42535 by: Erwin Hoffmann
42538 by: Rainer Link
FYI - Yahoos mail servers seem to be failing again.
42534 by: Bryan White
a couple of things: MX stuff and filtering
42537 by: Keith Warno
Recipe For A Good Book On Qmail
42539 by: David L. Nicol
42540 by: Chin Fang
42543 by: David L. Nicol
42546 by: clemensF
42547 by: Chin Fang
42548 by: clemensF
Re: DRAFT RFD - comp.mail.qmail - Comments Sought
42541 by: John R. Levine
42542 by: Guillermo Villasana Cardoza
42549 by: Russ Allbery
How to pipe messages
42545 by: Steve Quezadas
SMTP e Qmailadmin problems
42550 by: Edilmar Alves
42553 by: Markus Stumpf
Rumours (was: Re: Recipe For A Good Book On Qmail)
42552 by: Markus Stumpf
Internet mail survey: How to get info about large email site ?
42554 by: Le Dinh Long
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 extended the little patch I wrote earlier to make qmail fully RFC
1870 compliant, including the extended MAIL FROM ... SIZE syntax.
You can also get it from my website, http://will.harris.ch.
regards,
Will
*** qmail-smtpd.c.orig Mon May 29 11:54:41 2000
--- qmail-smtpd.c Wed May 31 11:44:21 2000
***************
*** 52,57 ****
--- 52,58 ----
void err_bmf() { out("553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list
(#5.7.1)\r\n"); }
void err_nogateway() { out("553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
rcpthosts (#5.7.1)\r\n"); }
void err_unimpl() { out("502 unimplemented (#5.5.1)\r\n"); }
+ void err_size() { out("552 sorry, that message size exceeds my databytes limit
+(#5.3.4)\r\n"); }
void err_syntax() { out("555 syntax error (#5.5.4)\r\n"); }
void err_wantmail() { out("503 MAIL first (#5.5.1)\r\n"); }
void err_wantrcpt() { out("503 RCPT first (#5.5.1)\r\n"); }
***************
*** 197,202 ****
--- 198,239 ----
return 1;
}
+ int sizelimit(arg)
+ char *arg;
+ {
+ int i;
+ long r;
+ unsigned long sizebytes = 0;
+
+ if (r < 0) return 0;
+
+ i = str_chr(arg,'<');
+ if (arg[i])
+ arg += i + 1;
+ else {
+ arg += str_chr(arg,':');
+ if (*arg == ':') ++arg;
+ while (*arg == ' ') ++arg;
+ }
+
+ arg += str_chr(arg,' ');
+ if (*arg == ' ') while (*arg == ' ') ++arg;
+ else return 1;
+
+ i = str_chr(arg,'=');
+ arg[i] = 0;
+ if (case_equals(arg,"SIZE")) {
+ arg += i;
+ while (*++arg && *arg > 47 && *arg < 58) {
+ sizebytes *= 10;
+ sizebytes += *arg - 48;
+ }
+ r = databytes - sizebytes;
+ if (r < 0) return 0;
+ }
+ return 1;
+ }
+
int bmfcheck()
{
int j;
***************
*** 227,235 ****
smtp_greet("250 "); out("\r\n");
seenmail = 0; dohelo(arg);
}
void smtp_ehlo(arg) char *arg;
{
! smtp_greet("250-"); out("\r\n250-PIPELINING\r\n250 8BITMIME\r\n");
seenmail = 0; dohelo(arg);
}
void smtp_rset()
--- 264,279 ----
smtp_greet("250 "); out("\r\n");
seenmail = 0; dohelo(arg);
}
+ char size_buf[FMT_ULONG];
+ void smtp_size()
+ {
+ size_buf[fmt_ulong(size_buf,(unsigned long) databytes)] = 0;
+ out("250 SIZE "); out(size_buf); out("\r\n");
+ }
void smtp_ehlo(arg) char *arg;
{
! smtp_greet("250-"); out("\r\n250-PIPELINING\r\n250-8BITMIME\r\n");
! smtp_size();
seenmail = 0; dohelo(arg);
}
void smtp_rset()
***************
*** 240,245 ****
--- 284,290 ----
void smtp_mail(arg) char *arg;
{
if (!addrparse(arg)) { err_syntax(); return; }
+ if (!sizelimit(arg)) { err_size(); return; }
flagbarf = bmfcheck();
seenmail = 1;
if (!stralloc_copys(&rcptto,"")) die_nomem();
> I made four tarballs from the docs found at cr.yp.to. The tarballs
> are
> ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/doc/daemontools-0.70-doc-0.01.tar.gz
> ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/doc/dnscache-1.00-doc-0.01.tar.gz
> ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/doc/publicfile-0.52-doc-0.01.tar.gz
> ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/doc/ucspi-tcp-0.88-doc-0.01.tar.gz
> They all install the way it is suggested by the instructions for the
> dnscache doc tarball, so you will get
> commands.html, libraries.html and packages.html
> The file
> ftp://moni.msci.memphis.edu/pub/doc/README.doc
> tells you about the tools in the tarballs you can use to update these
> docs.
Is anyone willing to help port the djb docs to man pages?
I have started writing man pages for my libdjb project, specifically the
DNS resolver routines, but in my humble opinion it would be much better
to have the documentation for the user programs as man pages, too. Just
a few days ago I was installing a bastion host for a firewall system,
and of course I didn't have Internet access until everything was set up,
so I couldn't read the documentation.
Luckily I had my laptop with a mirror of cr.yp.to with me, but that
should not be mandatory.
Felix
>I've extended the little patch I wrote earlier to make qmail fully RFC
>1870 compliant, including the extended MAIL FROM ... SIZE syntax.
>
>You can also get it from my website, http://will.harris.ch.
Just a quick caveat - using this patch assumes that you *do* have a
databytes file... otherwise any server supplying a SIZE parameter will have
the mail rejected.
To fix this, in case you for some reason want the patch but don't want a
databytes file (wierd!), change the following added line in the patch from
> void smtp_mail(arg) char *arg;
> {
> if (!addrparse(arg)) { err_syntax(); return; }
>+ if (!sizelimit(arg)) { err_size(); return; }
to
>+ if (databytes && !sizelimit(arg)) { err_size(); return; }
That'll provide some extra security... I've made the change on the patch on
my web page too.
Will
__________________________________________________________________________
"I was going to be a Neo-Deconstructivist, but Mom wouldn't let me..."
multimedia laboratorium [EMAIL PROTECTED]
institut fuer informatik (pgp id) F703D035
der universitaet zuerich (office) +41 1 635 4346
winterthurerstr. 190 (fax) +41 1 635 6809
ch-8057 zuerich (mobile) +41 76 372 0913
switzerland www.ifi.unizh.ch/~harris
__________________________________________________________________________
Russ Allbery writes:
> Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Below, I've quoted a DRAFT RFD proposal for comp.mail.qmail.
>
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, mostly because I don't see the
> distinction between the newsgroup and this mailing list and I also don't
> expect the people using the mailing list to really want to move to a
> newsgroup. Without the core of people on this mailing list that know
> qmail very well and answer most of the questions, the newsgroup is
> unlikely to be all that useful, and I haven't heard much indication that
> those people would really prefer a newsgroup.
I agree with you in general, Russ. The only benefit I can see to
comp.mail.qmail is that there is also a comp.mail.sendmail.
--
-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 Wed, 31 May 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Below, I've quoted a DRAFT RFD proposal for comp.mail.qmail.
> >
> > I'm not sure this is a good idea, mostly because I don't see the
> > distinction between the newsgroup and this mailing list and I also don't
> > expect the people using the mailing list to really want to move to a
> > newsgroup. Without the core of people on this mailing list that know
> > qmail very well and answer most of the questions, the newsgroup is
> > unlikely to be all that useful, and I haven't heard much indication that
> > those people would really prefer a newsgroup.
>
> I agree with you in general, Russ. The only benefit I can see to
> comp.mail.qmail is that there is also a comp.mail.sendmail.
>
I seem to recall having this discussion 4 years ago and we decided at that
point that comp.mail.qmail was not a good idea. :) Oh well, here we go
again.....
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:18:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, mostly because I don't see the
> distinction between the newsgroup and this mailing list
^^^^^^^^^^^
Funnily enough, I don't see much of a distinction between
comp.mail.mutt and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe it's a "usenet thing".
What do you think ?
--
this is my .sig, show me yours
Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:18:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is a good idea, mostly because I don't see the
>> distinction between the newsgroup and this mailing list
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Funnily enough, I don't see much of a distinction between comp.mail.mutt
> and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe it's a "usenet thing".
> What do you think ?
Not reading those, I'm not sure. Usenet tends to attract more basic
questions from beginners, at least at first, and mailing lists tend to
have slightly more in-depth discussions, at least for most of the
technical topics I'm aware of where I read both the newsgroups and the
mailing list (comp.lang.perl.* vs. perl5-porters is a great example).
If we were swamped by basic questions that might have better been dealt
with in Usenet, I could see the point of that sort of distinction, but it
really doesn't feel to me like that's currently the case here.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Hi all,
anyone have a minimal documentation for setting amavis under QMail ?
Thanks for now
Marco
Hi,
check
http://satan.oih.rwth-aachen.de/AMaViS/
cheers.
eh.
At 16:06 31.5.2000 +0200, Marco Cintolesi wrote:
>Hi all,
>anyone have a minimal documentation for setting amavis under QMail ?
>
>Thanks for now
>Marco
>
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| fff hh http://www.fehcom.de Dr. Erwin Hoffmann |
| ff hh |
| ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 |
| fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln |
| ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm |
| ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 |
| ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Marco Cintolesi wrote:
> Hi all,
> anyone have a minimal documentation for setting amavis under QMail ?
Please see http://dev.amavis.org ....
HTH
best regards,
Rainer Link
I have not dug into it yet but on the surface it looks like it did a couple
of months ago. Back then a yahoo server would stop responding in the middle
of a mail connection, leaving qmail to wait for a time out. It tends to tie
up large numbers of remotes. Right now yahoo is consuming 80% of my qmail
remotes and the queue is growing.
Last time it took them 4 or 5 days to get it straightened out.
Greetings. I have a couple of requests for suggestions, the first related
to MX lookups (and how to avoid them) and the second related to filtering of
mail.
1) I have a small cluster of Linux boxes (4), all of which are running qmail
1.03. One of these boxes is listed as the mail exchanger for the domain
that all four boxes are in. This MX box allows relaying for all of its
friends on the same net. The users of the 4 different linux boxes would
like to be able to send mail to the users of the other linux boxes,
bypassing the MX box if possible. The only method I have come up with is to
maintain control/smtproutes on each box. Eg:
box1.linux.net:box1.linux.net
box2.linux.net:box2.linux.net
box3.linux.net:box3.linux.net
box4.linux.net:box4.linux.net
This is silly, but otherwise we get bounces like:
Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
Methinks of letting all the mail go through the MX anyway, and throw a
control/smtproutes on the MX box only. A new issue arises. Some of the
linux boxes have aliases (eg, CNAMES). My users interchange the real names
with the CNAMES depending on their mood, the phase of the moon, and how much
alcohol is in their blood. The issue is best illustrated by example (the
attached text file). I am not sure if the issue is normal behavior; please
take a look and I would appreciate your comments.
2) Filtering. Dave Sill had a suggestion posted somewhere (the URL escapes
me...) about how to implement filtering (ie virus scanning, etc) of
messages. The suggestion involved installing qmail twice on the same
machine. I would like to do filtering (at least of incoming messages) using
two installations of qmail, each installation being on one of two separate
machines. The first machine would do the filtering and then send the
message off to the second for final delivery if everything is "OK". If
everyting is not "OK", do something else. From what I understand this is
common practice out there in coporate land.
Trouble is I an very unclear as to how to attack this, considering that the
filter box would be relaying mail for multiple domains for which it would be
an MX. Any pointers on where to begin would be appreciated greatly!
Thanks much,
kw
/* Keith Warno
** Developer & Sys Admin
** http://www.HaggleWare.com/
*/
The issue is that two "deliveries" are required to deliver one message when the
message is sent
to an address that has, as the host, a CNAME and control/smtproutes contains route
info for
the host using its real name (as opposed to the CNAME).
Some notes:
0) Line numbers in square brackets (in mail log stuff below) inserted for
readability.
1) develop.muao-inc.net is an alias (CNAME) for muao-inc.net.
2) The MX box (mx.muao-inc.net, which is the same physical box as smtp.muao-inc.net)
has in its control/smtproutes:
muao-inc.net:muao-inc.net
3) I sent a message from my window$ box to ``[EMAIL PROTECTED]'' via
smtp.muao-inc.net [03]
4) Line 12 is where I say "erf?" Why is the MX connecting to itself? I assume a
lookup was done
on develop.muao-inc.net and someone noticed that it's really muao-inc.net and so
a new delivery
is started. Is this correct?
5) The second "delivery" is avoided if control/smtproutes contains, in addition to
that in (2),
develop.muao-inc.net:develop.muao-inc.net
This makes sense but I'd hate to have to throw every alias in there for every
machine to avoid the
extra tcpserver work as seen in [12]. Argh... a tradeoff.
Opions/comments as to what would be "proper" for this sort of situation are welcome.
Should we just throw
in the real names and let tcpserver do some extra work, or throw in every name & alias?
[01]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.155003 tcpserver: status: 1/40
[02]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.155684 tcpserver: pid 19753 from 10.1.10.158
[03]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.158461 tcpserver: ok 19753
smtp.muao-inc.net:10.1.10.213:25 keith.muao-inc.net:10.1.10.158::1194
[04]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.183068 new msg 30605
[05]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.183228 info msg 30605: bytes 730 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 19754 uid 203
[06]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.185391 tcpserver: end 19753 status 0
[07]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.185829 tcpserver: status: 0/40
[08]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.202205 starting delivery 7724: msg 30605 to
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[09]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.202376 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
[10]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.251671 tcpserver: status: 1/40
[11]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.252497 tcpserver: pid 19756 from 10.1.10.210
[12]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.254918 tcpserver: ok 19756
mx.muao-inc.net:10.1.10.210:25 mx.muao-inc.net:10.1.10.210::4246
[13]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.264725 new msg 30606
[14]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.264904 info msg 30606: bytes 932 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 19757 uid 203
[15]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.266359 tcpserver: end 19756 status 0
[16]May 31 12:20:06 curly smtp: 959790006.266761 tcpserver: status: 0/40
[17]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.286448 starting delivery 7725: msg 30606 to
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[18]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.286607 status: local 0/10 remote 2/20
[19]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.286671 delivery 7724: success:
10.1.10.210_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_959790006_qp_19757/
[20]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.286721 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
[21]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.286766 end msg 30605
[22]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.307154 delivery 7725: success:
10.1.10.3_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_959790038_qp_31495/
[23]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.307323 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
[24]May 31 12:20:06 curly qmail: 959790006.307371 end msg 30606
Here I go stating the obvious again, but it seems what we are saying is
that the archives of this list, plus the documentation that already is
in existence, makes up a "book" for those who can access it, ergo
what is required might not be an _author_ to create a new, comprehensive
restatement but rather an __editor__ to select from the documentation
which exists (man pages, LWQ, FAQ lists, et cetera) and compile a compendium.
This editor would preferably _NOT_ be someone who "knows a lot about qmail"
they would be a quality technical writer with perhaps gardening background.
This editor would be assigned the task, they would have to start from zero
(zero being a PC with the debian potato installed on it by someone else)
and configure and maintain, telling their story and including the documents
they find most helpful (with permission of the various authors). That's the
first half, in which Linda Potter goes from zero to MTA administrator.
For the second half, Linda Potter (our fictionalized hero) builds on the
experiences in the first half, going on to install custom patches, to do
what exactly? Maybe the first half is all that is needed.
Potato to qmail+EZMLM in five or six short chapters.
I addition to people participating in this thread on the qmail list,
I am CCing a retired technical writer who teaches at UMKC in case this
project might appeal to them for collaboration later this summer.
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Rodney Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Qmail & ezmlm is now getting so popular that someone has to get their
> > arse in gear and get a book to print. The Idea is a certain winner so
> > com'on O'reilly, Que, or Sam's if your listening in get your finger out
> > guys where drowning out here.
>
> I don't believe that publisher interest is the hold-up. To publish a
> book, someone has to write it first, and one would hope that the people
> doing so would actually know a decent amount about qmail. :) Those
> people are somewhat rare; qmail hasn't been around for that long yet.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
find / -name core|perl -ne'chomp;unlink'
I would say a reasonable thing to do is to make a survey on the list
and see the scope of such a book, if one is ever written.
I say this because I believe that for any intellectual project
(writing a book definitely falls in this category), it's always a
fruitful exercise to define the scope of the project first, before
spending further effort. You wan to be clear what you would like to
accomplish in a project. This is one of the basics of any project
management I suppose.
To set up qmail for a home system and to set it up for say millions of
active users require quite a different level of effort and
understanding. The latter of course is much more demanding. So, what
audience the book intends to address? Once the scope of the book is
defined, no one can come back and say "this is a lousy book, it
doesn't talk about this or that... etc".
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Here I go stating the obvious again, but it seems what we are saying is
> that the archives of this list, plus the documentation that already is
> in existence, makes up a "book" for those who can access it, ergo
>
> what is required might not be an _author_ to create a new, comprehensive
> restatement but rather an __editor__ to select from the documentation
> which exists (man pages, LWQ, FAQ lists, et cetera) and compile a compendium.
>
> This editor would preferably _NOT_ be someone who "knows a lot about qmail"
> they would be a quality technical writer with perhaps gardening background.
>
> This editor would be assigned the task, they would have to start from zero
> (zero being a PC with the debian potato installed on it by someone else)
> and configure and maintain, telling their story and including the documents
> they find most helpful (with permission of the various authors). That's the
> first half, in which Linda Potter goes from zero to MTA administrator.
>
> For the second half, Linda Potter (our fictionalized hero) builds on the
> experiences in the first half, going on to install custom patches, to do
> what exactly? Maybe the first half is all that is needed.
>
> Potato to qmail+EZMLM in five or six short chapters.
>
>
> I addition to people participating in this thread on the qmail list,
> I am CCing a retired technical writer who teaches at UMKC in case this
> project might appeal to them for collaboration later this summer.
[...]
"John R. Levine" wrote:
>
> >This editor would preferably _NOT_ be someone who "knows a lot about qmail"
> >they would be a quality technical writer with perhaps gardening background.
>
> Having written quite a lot of technical books, I can say that's not
> likely to work, especially with an editor who doesn't know the
> material. The qmail list is a swell way to get specific questions
> answered, but it's a lousy way to get introduced to qmail, and also
> not a very good way to get answers to questions that aren't phrased
> concretely.
I left out that the "book" would have to go through a beta period
of sorts, with public comment, and a "find the bugs" program with
money for the first to discover an inaccuracy or make an incremental
improvement. It could be The First Bazaar-Style Technical Manual.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JAPH
> Chin Fang:
> I would say a reasonable thing to do is to make a survey on the list
> and see the scope of such a book, if one is ever written.
>
> To set up qmail for a home system and to set it up for say millions of
> active users require quite a different level of effort and
> understanding. The latter of course is much more demanding. So, what
> audience the book intends to address? Once the scope of the book is
> defined, no one can come back and say "this is a lousy book, it
> doesn't talk about this or that... etc".
this is a good idea. i'd say the book should serve the maintainer of a
collaborating group of five individuals, who share a computer for email-
exchange, annotated for scalability problems where applicable.
--
clemens
Also,
I think an inspiring author(s) also need to consider the depth of the
coverage. For instance, in general, qmail processes are quite small in
size, but improperly used, they can be really bloated.
An example (which Dr. Bernstein has waned in qmail-smtpd man page in
subtle ways): qmail-smtpd in general is quite small - 1.5 MB or less.
However, if a newbie ISP admin comes in and slaps up a big rcpthosts
(rather than a morercpthosts in cdb format), then qmail-smtpd can be
as big as say 10MB or bigger, combined with high CPU utliization!
To understand this, one needs to read the source code of both
qmail-smtpd.c and control.c, and see what control_readfile() (a linear
search) does.
But, how many people would run into this, and whether it's fruitful to
cover such topics need to be carefully considered. Compromises have to
be made somewhere..
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To set up qmail for a home system and to set it up for say millions of
> > active users require quite a different level of effort and
> > understanding. The latter of course is much more demanding. So, what
> > audience the book intends to address? Once the scope of the book is
> > defined, no one can come back and say "this is a lousy book, it
> > doesn't talk about this or that... etc".
>
> this is a good idea. i'd say the book should serve the maintainer of a
> collaborating group of five individuals, who share a computer for email-
> exchange, annotated for scalability problems where applicable.
>
> --
> clemens
>
> Chin Fang:
> An example (which Dr. Bernstein has waned in qmail-smtpd man page in
> subtle ways): qmail-smtpd in general is quite small - 1.5 MB or less.
> However, if a newbie ISP admin comes in and slaps up a big rcpthosts
> (rather than a morercpthosts in cdb format), then qmail-smtpd can be
> as big as say 10MB or bigger, combined with high CPU utliization!
>
> But, how many people would run into this, and whether it's fruitful to
> cover such topics need to be carefully considered. Compromises have to
> be made somewhere..
yes, but not here. every aspect of configuration has to be outlined in the
book. your own example makes it clear: in light of the trouble a newbie
should avoid, the reader has to be told why there are two controls in
different formats, but covering the same purpose.
--
clemens
>I agree with you in general, Russ. The only benefit I can see to
>comp.mail.qmail is that there is also a comp.mail.sendmail.
I suppose it might work with a two-way gateway between the newsgroup and
this list, and registration to post as it is now. I've been doing that
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a while and it works
reasonably well.
But I do agree that other than the moderately greater visibility on
usenet, there's not much benefit to be gained. In years past, the
volume of traffic on a usenet group would swamp any plausible mail
server. Now, with almost free computrons and fast mail software like
qmail, that's much less of an issue.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
I know this is not a qmail question... but I've been trying to get my
hands on an news server address as I have none from where to see any
newsgroups. Would someone please ... give me one :) if it is not much
trouble
Thanks a lot
Guillermo
"John R. Levine" wrote:
>
> >I agree with you in general, Russ. The only benefit I can see to
> >comp.mail.qmail is that there is also a comp.mail.sendmail.
>
> I suppose it might work with a two-way gateway between the newsgroup and
> this list, and registration to post as it is now. I've been doing that
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a while and it works
> reasonably well.
>
> But I do agree that other than the moderately greater visibility on
> usenet, there's not much benefit to be gained. In years past, the
> volume of traffic on a usenet group would swamp any plausible mail
> server. Now, with almost free computrons and fast mail software like
> qmail, that's much less of an issue.
>
> --
> John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
> Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Guillermo Villasana Cardoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know this is not a qmail question... but I've been trying to get my
> hands on an news server address as I have none from where to see any
> newsgroups. Would someone please ... give me one :) if it is not much
> trouble
<http://www.newsguy.com/> will let you purchase basic Usenet access using
your own ISP for Internet access for some fairly low price (something like
$30 a year). You can also use <http://www.deja.com/> for free, but the
interface sucks.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
|
I am trying to pipe the messages in qmail to go
into another program called dmail. I am trying to pipe it in the rc file, but it
is not working. Here is my rc file as it is right now.
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH"
\
qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail
This works. But if I change the second line
to:
# qmail-start | /bin/dmail splogger
qmail
It does NOT work. I am a bit confused about what
this line does. What exactly is "splogger"? I can
technically pipe dmail by altering the dot-qmail files, but I need this program
to be invoked with EVERY new account that comes in.
Any suggestions?
- Steve
|
Hi all,
I'd like to solve the following problems:
1. SMTP: I configured tcp.smtp like this, to accept
e-mails only for these IP subnets:
192.168.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
200.241.184.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
However, I entered from other ISP, with
address 200.212.255.25 and SMTP sents
my email. I boot Linux but the same behaviour
continues to occurr.
2. QMailAdmin: for 10, 20, 50 users, I think
QMailAdmin is very nice. However, I already
have more than 600 users, and when I enter
with postmaster, to administer the email accounts,
I have to spent more than FIVE minutes, using
Netscape. I'm using the "graphical interface" from
lynx, cause performance !!!
Is there a way to change the HTML skeleton pages
to show only the buttons, NOT the users list. I think
the access may be faster than.
2. QMailAdmin II: I created some users (+/- 103 users)
into a domain. All Maildir folders was created into
.../domains/fes.br/ (fes.br is my domain). After these 103,
folders like 0/, 1/, ... was created automatically by QMail.
At this point, no problems!
However, if one of these new users created into these folders
try to use QMailAdmin to change password, the system arises
an exception talking about "There already is a user logged with
postmaster" (something like this) and the new doesnt get to
change your password. I have to change password user per
user, with postmaster account.
The major users were created with QMailAdmin and some with
vadduser. Both users arises the exception.
The strange is: the first users created get to change password
into Web QMailAdmin...
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:22:00PM -0300, Edilmar Alves wrote:
> I'd like to solve the following problems:
> 1. SMTP: I configured tcp.smtp like this, to accept
> e-mails only for these IP subnets:
> 192.168.0.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> 200.241.184.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> However, I entered from other ISP, with
> address 200.212.255.25 and SMTP sents
> my email. I boot Linux but the same behaviour
> continues to occurr.
1a) you probably want an additional line
:allow
in tcp.smtp
1b) you have compiled tcp.smtp into a CDB file using tcprules?
1c) you have told tcpserver to use this CDB via the -x switch?
Can't say anything to the other questions, as I don't use that tool.
\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 Wed, May 31, 2000 at 03:36:32PM -0700, Chin Fang wrote:
> An example (which Dr. Bernstein has waned in qmail-smtpd man page in
> subtle ways): qmail-smtpd in general is quite small - 1.5 MB or less.
> However, if a newbie ISP admin comes in and slaps up a big rcpthosts
> (rather than a morercpthosts in cdb format), then qmail-smtpd can be
> as big as say 10MB or bigger, combined with high CPU utliization!
>
> To understand this, one needs to read the source code of both
> qmail-smtpd.c and control.c, and see what control_readfile() (a linear
> search) does.
Ok, we have a "huge" rcpthosts file (no "morercpthosts")
about 21,700 lines, 350 KB
This makes about 10,000 domains, 2 lines for each domain, usual setup.
The smtpd has a RSS of about 1.5 MB.
To go for 10 MB the rcpthosts file would hold about 2.5 million domains.
Not a task for a single machine and a newbie ISP admin I'd say.
We have about 45,000 - 50,000 incoming smtp connects per day.
Each incoming messages generates an extra local delivery to an awk
script to log additional accounting information.
The machine is a P686/300MHz, 128 MB RAM running FreeBSD 2.2.2-R
and besides SMTP relay (this is a "dispatcher" mailer) it also runs
"dial smtp" deliveries for some 50 hosts every 3 minutes via serialsmtp
(and yes, we have ETRN also).
I have just checked the monitoring data for the last month and the CPU
load is rarely, really rarely higher than 1.5 in a 15 minutes average
(taken from "uptime", monitored every 3 minutes).
So please, measure, don't speculate.
\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.
Hello,
I'm making a survey about internet mail (focus on number of large sites):
which kind of servers used, amount of accounts hosted, etc. I don't know
how to get this info, the only thing I can is look into the full header of
the mails. I don't know that info either critical or not. Anybody here can
point me where and how to find some pieces of info for this ? If you are
administrators of that sites, can you give me some advices ?
I'm working for an ISP which would like to switch from Netscape Messaging
to qmail.
Thanks in advance.
