qmail Digest 24 Jul 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1072
Topics (messages 45349 through 45402):
poor performance under tcpserver
45349 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
45351 by: asantos
Checkpoppasswd again! HELP!!!
45350 by: Manav
Re: Attitude
45352 by: Russell Nelson
45361 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Re: Duplicate Msgs
45353 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
45354 by: Russell Nelson
45357 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
45360 by: markd.bushwire.net
45362 by: John White
45363 by: John White
45364 by: markd.bushwire.net
45365 by: markd.bushwire.net
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
45355 by: Russell Nelson
45356 by: Peter van Dijk
45373 by: Nathan J. Mehl
45374 by: Eric Cox
45375 by: Eric Cox
45376 by: Adam McKenna
45377 by: David Benfell
45378 by: David Dyer-Bennet
45379 by: Adam McKenna
45381 by: David Dyer-Bennet
45382 by: Russell Nelson
45383 by: Russ Allbery
45384 by: Russ Allbery
45385 by: Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia)
45386 by: Adam McKenna
45387 by: Russ Allbery
45390 by: Peter van Dijk
45391 by: Peter van Dijk
45392 by: Russ Allbery
45393 by: Peter van Dijk
r all these possible with qmail
45358 by: reach_prashant.zeenext.com
45359 by: wolfgang zeikat
Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpd&qmail-queue procs
45366 by: Andrew
45367 by: Charles Cazabon
45371 by: Jamie Heilman
qmailanalog compatible with multilog?
45368 by: John Conover
45369 by: Ronny Haryanto
45370 by: Bruce Guenter
Qmail 1.03
45372 by: Bob Ross
Re: qmail: cannot mail to root
45380 by: John L. Fjellstad
Re: bounce management
45388 by: Thomas Duterme
log connections using tcpserver?
45389 by: Enrique Vadillo
Bouncesaying question
45394 by: Gavin Cameron
451 qq trouble creating files in queue (again) ...
45395 by: Toens Bueker
MailDir
45396 by: Philipp Steinkrüger
45397 by: Brett Randall
45398 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
45399 by: Philipp Steinkrüger
45400 by: Philipp Steinkrüger
45401 by: Brett Randall
45402 by: Philipp Steinkrüger
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hi friends
thanks for your help , now the system is working perfectly , ecxcept one
problem
i have observed that when i run qmail-smtpd under inetd.conf , the
responce time ( time it will take to go mails from microsofts outlook or
other mailclient or even perl programe of www interface is much much less)
from qmail-smtpd
compared to time taken by qmail-smtpd running under tcpserver may be i
have done some bad config of tcpserver as i dont know much about tcpserver
i have just installed V 0.88 of ucspi-tcpserver programme with
qmail-ldap ,
installation of tcpserver is default ( i have just untared
ucspi-tcpserver tarball then make setup check ,make install etc )
and got tcpserver bin files in /usr/local/bin/
if you have any idea then please tell me what could be the reason
its (qmail-smtpd) really really taking much time (2-3 times) under
tcpserver then under inetd.conf
thanks once again
with warmest regards
Prashant Desai
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>compared to time taken by qmail-smtpd running under tcpserver may be i
>have done some bad config of tcpserver as i dont know much about tcpserver
Add -R to tcpserver. Probably its taking that much time because it is trying
to ident the remote host.
http://binarios.com/miscnotes/ucspi-tcp.html#_tcpserver might come in handy
to check all the parameters.
Armando
Hi All, I am a newbie to linux and qmail (it couldnt go any worse!), but even
after seeing numerous posts on the topic, I still couldnt configure my qmail.
1. Installed qmail according to instructions by DBJ.
2. I now want support for multiple domains, so I followed the instructions by
PG. Here is what I have now:-
/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains : zoot.com:zoot-com
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts : proton.com zoot.com
(/var/qmail/control/locals does not contain zoot.com )
/var/qmail/users/assign :
=zoot-com-joe:popuser:510:503:/home/popuser/popboxes/zoot-com/joe
where 510 is the UID and 503 is the GID of system user popuser.
/var/qmail/users/poppasswd :
joe:xxxx:popuser:/home/popuser/popboxes/zoot-com/joe
/home/popuser/popboxes/zoot-com/joe/.qmail : ./Maildir/
/etc/inetd.conf : pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup zoot.com /bin/checkpoppasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
Now the problem is, when i try to POP mails using Microsoft Outlook Express or
even telnet, it gives me "-ERR authentication failure".
1. I use PG's mkpasswd.pl to generate the password. Once again the question is
what seed do i specify? If i dont specify any, then checkpoppasswd takes the
first two characters as seed, right? But it doesnt work!
2. Do I need to have a new line for in /etc/inetd.conf for each domain that I
support?
3. Is there a single document (is that asking too much?) that specifies the
intricacies involved with installing qmail and other patches?
TIA,
Manavendra Gupta.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
> > language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
> > the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT clear to
> > you; sorry about that!
>
> Yes, let me translate for David:
>
> "Shut Up and Go Away"
No, that's unfair to David. He's not saying that. Instead, he's
(collectively) apologizing for an attempt to short-circuit the topic.
It's not a question of attitude, it's a question of "That's a basic
design decision of qmail. You cannot easily change it. Therefore, if
you find that an actual problem is created (as opposed to a perceived
problem), you should switch to a different MTA."
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 23 July 2000 at 02:49:36 -0400
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
> > language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
> > the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT clear to
> > you; sorry about that!
>
> Yes, let me translate for David:
>
> "Shut Up and Go Away"
Thanks, but actually I didn't mean anything of the sort.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sumith Ail writes:
> Hi All...
>
> My Setup qmail+vpopmail. I'd like to eliminate
> duplicate msgs... so I installed eliminate-dup package
> and made the necessary .qmail file under
> /home/vpopmail/domains/test.com/sumith/
>
> now instead of only the duplicate msgs getting deleted
> all the messages are getting deleted... Any IDEA whats
> going wrong....
What does the log file say about those deliveries?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
>
> o DNS overhead is not counted
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail. You'd have to.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
> In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
> real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
> sendmail.
And I have never seen numbers, only Dan's claims. It's hard to argue using
them without being backed up by numbers.
Regards, Frank
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:14:57AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
> >
> > o DNS overhead is not counted
>
> In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
> real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
> sendmail. You'd have to.
Of course. All I want this script to do is give people a hint as to
whether they're wasting their time worrying about it or not.
If the hint says "don't even bother thinking about it", good. If it says
"hey man you *may* be able to save a lot of bandwidth" good. At least
it's a starting point to work from.
Since many claim (myself included) that most people will end up in the
don't even bother thinking about it" camp, the caveats are intended
to make the hint conservative so that no one can accuse it of favouring
qmail. In other words, this script is doing everything it can to trend
the numbers against qmail - I don't think that's going to significantly
change the outcome that most people get.
Regards.
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> o DNS overhead is not counted
I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
there's no difference in the dns traffic between the two
methods?
John
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target
Again, why? I thought the whole argument was to trade speed for
"network good-neighbor"-ness.
John
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:06:57AM -0700, John White wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > o DNS overhead is not counted
>
> I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
> part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
> there's no difference in the dns traffic between the two
> methods?
Laziness. A perl script that's scanning qmail logs has no easy access
to this information.
Regards.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:08:16AM -0700, John White wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target
>
> Again, why? I thought the whole argument was to trade speed for
> "network good-neighbor"-ness.
Again, laziness. The perl script doesn't do any DNS lookups - it just
reads a log file and gives a (hopefully) moderately useful hint. Sure it's
not perfect, but it's got to be better starting point than all that
speculation...
Regards.
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
>
> > Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
> > orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that
> > anyone uses ORBS.
>
> Ugly all around.
Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
> >
> > > Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
> > > orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that
> > > anyone uses ORBS.
> >
> > Ugly all around.
>
> Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
> position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
> they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
Argh. Get that misconception *out your head*.
People who disallow ORBS to scan them get listed as *untestable*, not as
*open relays*. ORBS doesn't block. It provides listing which admins can use
to block, or tag, or defer, or *whatever*. It leaves the choice of blocking
only open relays or also untestable hosts to the *admin*.
That djb's rblsmtpd implemented this incorrectly is not Alan's (Brown, the
ORBS dude) fault.
Hint: use outputs.orbs.org instead of relays.orbs.org if your RBL-checker
is buggy. That way it will only block open relays and allow untested hosts
through.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
In the immortal words of Eric Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> I can't comment on this latest battle of wills between MAPS and
> ORBS, because I know nothing of BGP routing. But in the last one,
> when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in the right. I saw
> grown men, (admins!) trying to defend the position that by ORBS
> sending up to 16 messages through their servers a few times a _year_,
> ORBS was abusing the email system. Mind you, these were servers
> that relayed 200K to a million messages a day - the ORBS tests
> amounted to a tiny fraction a of fraction of the spam it would
> have prevented.
Were those messages:
- sent in bulk? Yes.
- unsolicited by the owner of the server? Almost always.
- impossible to opt out of except by blocking the sender's
networks? Completely.
This is an area where reasonable people may disagree. If you believe
spam is defined by content, then no, the ORBS probes are not spam.
If, however, you believe that spam is defined by all or some subset of
the above criteria, then they are. If you own your own network, you
craft your filters accordingly.
And please, please, please let's stop calling this a MAPS-vs-ORBS
issue. This is ORBS vs. AboveNet, and Alan is trying desperatly to
bring MAPS into it for reasons which should be transparently obvious.
MAPS is not AboveNet, any more than DJB is the University of Illinois.
-n
-------------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Many argue that it is an outrage to expect Elián González to live in a place
that tolerates no dissent or freedom of political expression. But I don't think
Miami is so bad." (--Maureen Dowd)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>-------------------------------------------------
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Eric Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But in the last one, when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in
> > the right. I saw grown men, (admins!) trying to defend the position
> > that by ORBS sending up to 16 messages through their servers a few times
> > a _year_, ORBS was abusing the email system.
>
> You're aware that some machines *which didn't relay* were being tested by
> ORBS as frequently as once a *day*, aren't you? Or are you just going by
> Alan Brown's account of what he does, which tends to be a little...
> sanitized?
Once a day? Doesn't the test take almost a week? It did in my case.
And no, I don't believe anything unless I test it myself. During the last
bruhaha, I reported my own mailer as an open relay, so I could have it
tested. After it was tested, I reported it again, to which ORBS responded
that it had been tested recently, and could not be tested again for 30/60/90
days (I don't remember which). During the original test, I recieved 2 of the
16 or so test messages in my admin box. Considering the ORBS list blocks
between 10 and 30 spams a day, even at my puny corporate site, I don't mind
one bit. (RBL blocks somewhere between 0 and 5 per day)
And, here are the results of my latest test, on the 7th of this month:
------
Database Check - 63.78.39.192
63.78.39.192 is not in the main automated open relay database
------
and, if I try to get it checked again:
------
--> 63.78.39.192 has previously been tested by ORBS and doesn't seem to permit
relay.
------
It seems to me that if ORBS is testing every day, there's some kind of
problem. Why not try to work with them to get the problem fixed, instead
of declaring "nuke the site from orbit" immediately?
> You're also aware that ORBS continues to spam the postmasters of machines
> which have never relayed in their entire existence?
Wasn't aware of that.
> You're also aware that ORBS provides a service to spammers, providing a
> downloadable database of open relays and essentially inviting spammers to
> please use them?
All of which are blocked by ORBS. RBL provides a similar list of
spam-friendly domains, all of which are blocked by RBL. What's your
point?
> That, all by itself, is entirely and completely within
> the domain of spam support services and should get them put directly on
> the RBL. I think it's actually rather inconsistent of the RBL that
> they're *not* on it for doing that, although I can understand the
> political reasons for not doing so given that Alan Brown seems to have an
> endless capacity for duping people like yourself who aren't looking at
> what's actually going on and are buying his stories hook, line, and
> sinker.
Hardly. You've got it completely backwards. I'm looking at my own spam
numbers (that's what going on), and seeing that ORBS is helping much more
than MAPS.
Whatever happened to helping other people make their services better,
rather than declaring all-out war on them and trying to destroy them?
We're misplacing all of the anger that we have for spammers onto ORBS
simply because a few test messages find their way in just like spam,
and declaring war without even thinking it through.
Eric
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
> >
> > > Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
> > > orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that
> > > anyone uses ORBS.
> >
> > Ugly all around.
>
> Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
> position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
> they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
relays for spammers to use. That is assuming they don't also
vigilantly patrol their own netspace for spammers.
Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed
ORBS - they do have a competing service, do they not?
Eric
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
> There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
> that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
> relays for spammers to use. That is assuming they don't also
> vigilantly patrol their own netspace for spammers.
>
> Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed
> ORBS - they do have a competing service, do they not?
By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins can run
any combination of RSS, RBL, ORBS and DUL (not to mention several other
similar services).
--Adam
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:10:42PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
>
> Whatever happened to helping other people make their services better,
> rather than declaring all-out war on them and trying to destroy them?
> We're misplacing all of the anger that we have for spammers onto ORBS
> simply because a few test messages find their way in just like spam,
> and declaring war without even thinking it through.
>
That's uncalled for.
ORBS has stepped way over the line on numerous occasions. Instead of
"helping other people make their services better," they apply a
sledgehammer. If anyone started this war, it's ORBS.
As for the supposed benefits of ORBS and RBL and whatever else, I find
a good mailfilter or procmail script to be the most effective.
But this is all way off topic for this list.
--
David Benfell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ 59438240 [e-mail first for access]
---
There are no physicists in the hottest parts of hell, because the
existence of a "hottest part" implies a temperature difference, and
any marginally competent physicist would immediately use this to
run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool.
This is obviously impossible.
-- Richard Davisson
[from fortune]
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 23 July 2000 at 19:53:13 -0400
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
> > There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
> > that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
> > relays for spammers to use. That is assuming they don't also
> > vigilantly patrol their own netspace for spammers.
> >
> > Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed
> > ORBS - they do have a competing service, do they not?
>
> By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
> running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins can run
> any combination of RSS, RBL, ORBS and DUL (not to mention several other
> similar services).
That's not at all the way the word is usually used. Coke and Pepsi
are competing products, even though I can buy and drink both. Ford
and Chrysler are in competition even though people can buy multiple
cars. And so forth.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
> > running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins can run
> > any combination of RSS, RBL, ORBS and DUL (not to mention several other
> > similar services).
>
> That's not at all the way the word is usually used. Coke and Pepsi
> are competing products, even though I can buy and drink both. Ford
> and Chrysler are in competition even though people can buy multiple
> cars. And so forth.
I don't think that context is appropriate in this case. What MAPS is doing
isn't preventing anyone from running ORBS.
--Adam
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 23 July 2000 at 21:43:27 -0400
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > > By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
> > > running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins can run
> > > any combination of RSS, RBL, ORBS and DUL (not to mention several other
> > > similar services).
> >
> > That's not at all the way the word is usually used. Coke and Pepsi
> > are competing products, even though I can buy and drink both. Ford
> > and Chrysler are in competition even though people can buy multiple
> > cars. And so forth.
>
> I don't think that context is appropriate in this case. What MAPS is doing
> isn't preventing anyone from running ORBS.
I agree, and neither are most other pairs of "competing" products. I
feel that "competing" is a perfectly reasonable description.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter van Dijk writes:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
> > position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
> > they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
>
> Argh. Get that misconception *out your head*.
>
> People who disallow ORBS to scan them get listed as *untestable*, not as
> *open relays*. ORBS doesn't block.
Are these records in relays.orbs.org? How can you say that ORBS
doesn't block them, then? Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
for the DNS zone entries. Semantics which nobody else uses.
> Hint: use outputs.orbs.org instead of relays.orbs.org if your RBL-checker
> is buggy. That way it will only block open relays and allow untested hosts
> through.
That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
relays.orbs.org? Who told them that they would find DNS entries
belonging to hosts which had never spammed? This is other than what
people were led to expect. It's Yet Another reason why ORBS is not to
be trusted.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes,
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
Eric Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> You're aware that some machines *which didn't relay* were being tested
>> by ORBS as frequently as once a *day*, aren't you? Or are you just
>> going by Alan Brown's account of what he does, which tends to be a
>> little... sanitized?
> Once a day? Doesn't the test take almost a week? It did in my case.
It takes however long Alan decides to make it take. The rules change
arbitrarily depending on who the target is and what mood he's in, and
they're not reflected on the web pages.
> And no, I don't believe anything unless I test it myself. During the
> last bruhaha, I reported my own mailer as an open relay, so I could have
> it tested. After it was tested, I reported it again, to which ORBS
> responded that it had been tested recently, and could not be tested
> again for 30/60/90 days (I don't remember which).
You haven't annoyed Alan.
> It seems to me that if ORBS is testing every day, there's some kind of
> problem. Why not try to work with them to get the problem fixed,
> instead of declaring "nuke the site from orbit" immediately?
Because of the sheer number of these sorts of "problems" that have
occurred, generally denied to have ever existed. It's all anecdotal, I
realize. But I don't hear these things about RSS or about the RBL.
>> You're also aware that ORBS continues to spam the postmasters of
>> machines which have never relayed in their entire existence?
> Wasn't aware of that.
I get spam from them on a regular basis. Sure, it's a lot less in volume
than the spam I get from other sources... at least right now. But I've
made them aware that it's unwanted, those machines have *never* relayed,
and it continues.
It's unsolicited, and it's sent in bulk. It's spam. And it does nothing
to stop spam.
>> You're also aware that ORBS provides a service to spammers, providing a
>> downloadable database of open relays and essentially inviting spammers
>> to please use them?
> All of which are blocked by ORBS.
Ah, I see, so extortion is a good way to fight spam?
> RBL provides a similar list of spam-friendly domains, all of which are
> blocked by RBL.
You cannot do more than check a single IP address and get a yes or no
response without having a signed agreement with the RBL team. At the
moment, I don't believe they even allow you to download their whole list
at all since they're reworking the agreement. ORBS, in stark contrast,
makes the entire list available as a convenient download on their web
site, suitable for being fed into spamming software. Seems to me that
part of the goal here is to force people into using ORBS by increasing the
spam of everyone who doesn't, or at least it sure gives that impression.
> Hardly. You've got it completely backwards. I'm looking at my own spam
> numbers (that's what going on), and seeing that ORBS is helping much
> more than MAPS.
MAPS is a bunch of separate black-lists.
ORBS is not comparable to the RBL; their goals are completely different.
The purpose of ORBS is to filter spam. The purpose of the RBL is not to
filter spam. The purpose of the RBL is to be a sufficiently large stick
that it will scare people away from spamming in the first place, and it's
quite effective at being that.
ORBS is more directly comparable to the RSS. RSS requires evidence that a
relay is actually being spammed through before it lists them, and RSS
doesn't scan people's networks. ORBS doesn't care if the relay has ever
been abused, and ORBS actively scans. Because of that, ORBS is more
effective at blocking spam. ORBS is also more effective at blocking
things that aren't spam. The false positive rate and the politics I have
to accept by using ORBS are too much to ask, as far as I'm concerned.
> Whatever happened to helping other people make their services better,
> rather than declaring all-out war on them and trying to destroy them?
Why don't you ask Alan that? Maybe he should stop picking fights.
> We're misplacing all of the anger that we have for spammers onto ORBS
> simply because a few test messages find their way in just like spam, and
> declaring war without even thinking it through.
No, sir, I think you should speak for yourself. I'm not misplacing any
anger. I'm angry at ORBS because they're abusing the Internet in
precisely the same way that spammers do, supposedly for a good cause
(which spammers also claim) and in the process they're making fighting
spam *harder* because people who want to put a stop to abuse of their
resources are confused with fanatics like Alan Brown. I've tried very
hard to give ORBS the benefit of the doubt, but particularly with this
latest all-out attack against AboveNet I'm seeing a lot more in common
between ORBS and the spammers than between ORBS and the legitimate users
of the Internet.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Eric Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed ORBS -
> they do have a competing service, do they not?
And ORBS is both spamming and operating a spam support service under the
definition of that service. Suppose you run a security consulting service
and as part of that service you publish vulnerabilities in commonly used
products, as well as provide a network scanner. Now suppose you find a
security vulnerability in someone else's network scanner. Do you publish
that vulnerability?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
this list. My question was:-
"Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
is received for multiple bad (non-local) mailboxes?"
I guess the simple answer is, NO. (Is this correct?)
PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although
it is most probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original
orbs probe messages in my mail logs had the following line:-
Received: from unknown (HELO relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl) (unknown)
Does this mean that vuurwerk.nl is part of orbs and postings
from people at vuurwerk.nl shouldn't be viewed as the comments
of an innocent mail administrator?!!
PPS qmail rules.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
> Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
> this list. My question was:-
>
> "Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
> bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
> is received for multiple bad (non-local) mailboxes?"
>
> I guess the simple answer is, NO. (Is this correct?)
The answer is, "qmail does NOT DO THAT except in certain configurations."
The specific configuration where this happens is when the qmail server is
acting as an intermediary, such as a secondary MX. In this case, upon
receiving the multiple-rcpt message, it will forward it on as many separate
messages (since this is what qmail does), and the destination host (whether
it is qmail or not) will send out the required number of bounce messages.
--Adam
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
> this list. My question was:-
> "Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
> bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
> is received for multiple bad (non-local) mailboxes?"
> I guess the simple answer is, NO. (Is this correct?)
Not quite. The answer is that qmail doesn't do this under normal
circumstances. It only does this if you're accepting mail that you're not
sure is valid and then forwarding it to another system for delivery; if
that happens, the single message with multiple recipients ends up being
split apart into multiple messages.
I bet you could find ways of doing exactly the same thing to sendmail. I
really don't think this is a problem peculiar to qmail.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:53:34AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Peter van Dijk writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
> > > position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
> > > they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
> >
> > Argh. Get that misconception *out your head*.
> >
> > People who disallow ORBS to scan them get listed as *untestable*, not as
> > *open relays*. ORBS doesn't block.
>
> Are these records in relays.orbs.org? How can you say that ORBS
> doesn't block them, then? Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
> for the DNS zone entries. Semantics which nobody else uses.
There are no defined standards for these zone entries. ORBS uses one
standard. MAPS uses another.
> > Hint: use outputs.orbs.org instead of relays.orbs.org if your RBL-checker
> > is buggy. That way it will only block open relays and allow untested hosts
> > through.
>
> That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
> relays.orbs.org? Who told them that they would find DNS entries
> belonging to hosts which had never spammed? This is other than what
> people were led to expect. It's Yet Another reason why ORBS is not to
> be trusted.
I admit that this is a design misfeature. Moving the untestable hosts from
the relays.orbs.org zone to another, leaving just relays in
relays.orbs.org, is one of the main changes we are proposing to Alan.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
[snip]
> PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although
> it is most probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original
> orbs probe messages in my mail logs had the following line:-
>
> Received: from unknown (HELO relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl) (unknown)
>
> Does this mean that vuurwerk.nl is part of orbs and postings
> from people at vuurwerk.nl shouldn't be viewed as the comments
> of an innocent mail administrator?!!
Our company hosts the relaytester because some of our techies believe the
ORBS-project is worth supporting. All opinions I post are mine, possibly
but not necessarily shared by zero or more of my co-workers.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
>> PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although it is most
>> probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original orbs probe messages
>> in my mail logs had the following line:-
>> Received: from unknown (HELO relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl) (unknown)
>> Does this mean that vuurwerk.nl is part of orbs and postings from
>> people at vuurwerk.nl shouldn't be viewed as the comments of an
>> innocent mail administrator?!!
> Our company hosts the relaytester because some of our techies believe
> the ORBS-project is worth supporting. All opinions I post are mine,
> possibly but not necessarily shared by zero or more of my co-workers.
For what it's worth, while I strongly disagree with the position (see my
other messages), I *can* understand why people may feel that the existing
blacklists are insufficient and something like ORBS is needed. And I've
yet to hear anything from anyone @vuurwerk.nl to make me feel about them
the way that I feel about orbs.org; they don't seem to get involved in
things like the recent business with AboveNet.
So in answer to the original question, I'd expect at least some folks at
vuurwerk.nl to have a bias, but I've yet to see anything from them that
didn't seem reasonable to some degree.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:01:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
> > Our company hosts the relaytester because some of our techies believe
> > the ORBS-project is worth supporting. All opinions I post are mine,
> > possibly but not necessarily shared by zero or more of my co-workers.
>
> For what it's worth, while I strongly disagree with the position (see my
> other messages), I *can* understand why people may feel that the existing
> blacklists are insufficient and something like ORBS is needed. And I've
> yet to hear anything from anyone @vuurwerk.nl to make me feel about them
> the way that I feel about orbs.org; they don't seem to get involved in
> things like the recent business with AboveNet.
Thank you :)
> So in answer to the original question, I'd expect at least some folks at
> vuurwerk.nl to have a bias, but I've yet to see anything from them that
> didn't seem reasonable to some degree.
Ofcourse we are biased. Everybody is. I like ORBS because it gives people a
choice. I hate how most negative discussions about ORBS are based on
misconceptions. I admit that there are flaws in how ORBS handles stuff
technically, but admins can work around any of these.
The real problem with ORBS, IMHO, is that it takes education to allow
admins to *really* take the choice they want.
Note that my opinion about ORBS hasn't changed one bit since we started
hosting the relay-tester - we started hosting it because some of us like
the project and wanted it to continue regardless of AboveNet hindering it.
That AboveNet then started pestering us is another issue which is not to be
discussed here. Yes, we have been nullrouted at times, causing 15.000
websites and 50.000 domains for email to be unreachable for AboveNet
customers.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
hello friends
i am planning to config qmail server for a big production system ,
but am confused what to use (sendmail or qmail) , i am a newbie as far as
qmail is concern , but was using sendmail for past some time
i have installed and tested qmail , but still have some doubts
, please help me
1> how can i load balance as well as run redundent qmail processes ( like
qmaild,qmail-smtpd , others )
so that in case of some software/hardware failure will not cause any
mail service outage
2> how can i tell my qmail to relay just for some range of ip networks
3> how can i tell my qmail to accept mails only from those domains who
have valid DNS MX records
4> suppose my mail server is accepting mails for first.com ,second.com etc
domains ,
so how can i masquarade mails relayed through my qmail-SMTP server ( that
coming from SMTP clients like microsoft's outlook , netscape messanger etc
clients)
means if UID belongs to first.domain then it should be masquaraded as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] if otheruser belongs to second domain then it should go as
a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i think in SMTP it simply passes address that user had configured in
his/her SMTP client , so how to masquarade that address with
qmail,
5> users belonging to same domain can have mailboxes on seperate hosts
i am using qmail-ldap patch
in which there are atteributes like
MailMessageStore
Mailhost
but its not working
for say "user1" have id "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with
MailMessageStore : /home/user1/email/Maildir
Mailhost : Host1
and "USER2" have ID "[EMAIL PROTECTED] " with
MailMessageStore : /home/USER2/email/Maildir
Mailhost : host2
both these are virtual users and does't have system account , they are
there in LDAP ,
have ~/control/ldapuid
~/control/ldapgid
having uid and gid of one system user that i have created just to
specify here (in ldapuid,ldapgid control file)
this user owns home directory of all the users who doent have system
account and just have LDAP account
but my problem is when i specify diff MailHost ? ( other then the host
on which i have created that special system user) who should own
homedir/maildir on that other Mailhost ,
is there any work around for this problem
with warmest regards
thanks a lot
Prashant Desai
see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq.html
and Life with qmail at http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
for answers to at least some of your questions.
Hi All,
Going through the archives to research a problem I've
"seen with my own eyes", I'd appreciate any feedback,
war stories, comments from readers of this list:
I'm working with a company that sometimes sees it's
qmail servers take a huge hit, with very many qmail-smtpd
and qmail-queue processes suddenly appearing. This
appears superficially to be a DoS attack, and I understand
that high numbers of SMTP connections originate from the
same source IP. Qmail is setup under Solaris 2.7.
Reading through the archives, there appear to be various
possibilities:
- 1. It really is a malicious DoS attack.
- 2. Solaris is broken (esp. posts on this list from TAG on
7th June and 8th June)
- 3. The sending IP is using a broken mailer that's
generating bare LFs, and this mailer regards the
resulting temporary error code generated by qmail
as 'Please try again straightaway'.
I'd be particularly interested to know if anyone has come
across the 3rd possibility...
Note that the systems concerned don't currently use
the fixcrio filter - but I don't necessarily want to use this
for fear of breaking perfectly good E-mails at the same time.
I'd appreciate your comments on this.
cheers,
Andrew.
Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - 3. The sending IP is using a broken mailer that's
> generating bare LFs, and this mailer regards the
> resulting temporary error code generated by qmail
> as 'Please try again straightaway'.
>
> I'd be particularly interested to know if anyone has come
> across the 3rd possibility...
Some versions of MS Exchange are known to do this; I don't remember if it's
currently fixed or not. There may be other NT-based MTAs which also do
this (Lotus?).
Best bet is to find the IP in question, and connect to its SMTP port. If
it's a broken MTA, try to contact its postmaster and encourage them to get
the latest update or patch.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - 3. The sending IP is using a broken mailer that's
> generating bare LFs, and this mailer regards the
> resulting temporary error code generated by qmail
> as 'Please try again straightaway'.
>
> I'd be particularly interested to know if anyone has come
> across the 3rd possibility...
Yup, I see it happen on occasion. I usually sniff the message off the wire
to see if its anything I care about then toss a deny rule into my tcprules
for that ip to stop the hammering. Sending the remote party a message is
nice too though I rarely get any cluefull responses.
--
Jamie Heilman http://wcug.wwu.edu/~jamie/
"We must be born with an intuition of mortality. Before we know the words
for it, before we know there are words, out we come bloodied and squalling
with the knowledge that for all the compasses in the world, there's only
direction, and time is its only measure." -Rosencrantz
Is qmailanalog compatible with multilog when qmail is run under tcpserver?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover Tel. 408.370.2688 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
631 Lamont Ct. Cel. 408.772.7733
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602 http://www.johncon.com
On 23-Jul-2000, John Conover wrote:
> Is qmailanalog compatible with multilog when qmail is run under tcpserver?
I'm using qmailanalog 0.70 and I need to pipe the logs to tai64nfrac
first before feeding them to matchup. You can find tai64nfrac from
http://qmail.org/top.html
Ronny
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:20:31PM -0000, John Conover wrote:
> Is qmailanalog compatible with multilog when qmail is run under tcpserver?
Yes and no. Multilog produces tai64n timestamps, while qmailanalog only
understands the older tai timestamps. A couple of conversion programs
exist.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
I'm going to try and ask this the best I can.
I already have Qmail with TCP running, and has been doing so for almost
three years. I'm getting ready to change domain names.
The questoin is I want to add the new domain righ now so that users will be
able to collect mail sent to either domain to make the transiction easier.
Do I just add the new domain in the same locations as the old domain under
the /var/qmail/control files? to allow mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to show up in the same mailbox?.
This would allow me to setup the users much easier than just droping one and
dealing with all the support calls that will be generated.
Thanks
Bob Ross
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:39:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oookay... I've read those... But i still don't quite get it. Am I now
> supposed to put into the .qmail-root my own account's email-address or the email
> for the root's account? (the latter seems pretty dull)
Just yours. For instance, in my ~alias/.qmail-root, I have "&john" (no quotes), which
means forward to john on local host.
Basically, it works like this. Someone writes a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail checks the /etc/password (or user assign) file for the user.
Finds the user root and retrieves the home directory location.
Checks the permission for the home directory (/root). It won't deliver to any directory
with owner root.
Forwards the mail to user alias.
qmail-local checks for .qmail-root.
Finds it.
Checks delivery instructions in .qmail-root.
Follows the instructions.
There is a nice picture for it in qmail/doc/PIC.local2alias
--
John______________________________________________________________________
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
icq: thales @ 17755648
Hi Aaron,
I am that poor soul you mentioned!
I've looked at VERPS and it looks pretty good for being able to handle
bounces and guaranteeing correct mail addresses, but this still doesn't
address the issue of automated bounce handlers. More to the point: I'm
trying to find out what rules these automated bounce handlers follow to
determine: delete address, try again, no action, etc. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Thomas
At 10:40 AM 7/17/00 -0700, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
>Quoting Thomas Duterme ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> I'm new to managing bounces, so please bear with me. I've had a very tough
>> time finding any good documentation which could guide me to building some
>> scripts to parse through my bounces and semi-automate them. I do fairly
>> large mailings at a time, and I'd like to properly manage my bounces.
>> Basically, I'm curious to what everyone else is doing for managing bounces
>> and if anyone has any good online documentation they could point me to.
>
>Man, don't even worry about parsing all those different bounces.
>Another poor soul on this list has said he needs to parse 70,000 or so
>of them--that sounds awfully painful.
>
>Use the method that djb pioneered to handle bounces: VERP. Details at
>http://cr.yp.to/proto/verp.txt. Set QMAILINJECT="r" in your
>environment when sending the mail to generate VERP return paths (see
>the return path of this list message to see what VERP does to the
>return address). See qmail-inject's man page for details on the
>QMAILINJECT environment variable.
>
>Aaron
>
Hi all,
I'm using qmail 1.03, i'd like to log every IP connection to my qmail
smtp server, i've noticed that tcpserver is not logging this info for now,
my tcpserver runs like follows:
tcpserver -R -c 100 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 7170 -g 1100 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
Any suggestions so i can log IP connections too?
Thanks!
Enrique-
Hi all,
I have a ~alias/.qmail-bouncer file with the contents
|bouncesaying 'This is an automated bounce message' exit 0
When I send this address a messages I expect to have it bounced back at
me...
My logs show:
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe smtpd: 964425870.197821 tcpserver: status: 0/40
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.198741 new msg 15035
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.199292 info msg 15035: bytes 938
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 74098 uid 82
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.205003 starting delivery
108963: msg 15035 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.205801 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.220733 delivery
108963: success: did_0+0+1/
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.222576 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Jul 24 18:04:30 maybe qmail: 964425870.223126 end msg 15035
The man page says
bouncesaying feeds each new mail message to program with
the given arguments. If program exits 0, bouncesaying
prints error and bounces the message.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance
Gavin
[]-----------------------------------+------------------------------------[]
| Gavin Cameron | ITworks Consulting |
| Ph : +61 3 9642 5477 | Level 8, 488 Bourke Street |
| Fax : +61 3 9642 5499 | Melbourne, Victoria |
| Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Australia, 3000 |
[]-----------------------------------+------------------------------------[]
Hi *,
when I try to torture my brand new qmail installation
(qmail-1.03 + bigtodo + bigconcurrency on Solaris 7, queue
on a separate 9 GB disk, mounted with 'noatime',
conf-split 521 or 321) a little bit, I get this error
message after about 1000 mails:
451 qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0)
Has anybody else seen this in a qmail+Solaris 7
environment? What can I do to stop it?
The queue is completely empty at the start of the test,
the filesystem on the disk is just created.
The test-tool I use is 'smtpstone'.
Thanx for any hints.
By
Töns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
Hello,
i have a problem with Qmail and Maildir. I installed qmail and vpopmail
and everything
works fine for local accounts.
So if i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the mail is put into
~philipp/Maildir/new.
Thats nice !
But if i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the log gives me
this error message:
Jul 20 15:16:13 diavolos qmail: 964098973.224255 delivery 8: failure:
Sorry,_no
_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
I created the POP account with qmailadmin, and there is a dir in
~vpopmail/domain/virtualdomain/
but it stays empty....
Here is my qmail startup script:
case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Starting mail-transfer agent: qmail"
/usr/sbin/qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail &
/usr/bin/tcpserver 0 pop3 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup
diavolos.oberberg-online.de /bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir &
echo -s "Starting Pop Service"
# prevent denial-of-service attacks, with ulimit
ulimit -v 2048
/usr/bin/tcpserver -S -u 71 -g 65534 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp
/usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | logger -t qmail -p mail.notice &
echo -n "Starting Smtp Service"
echo "."
;;
stop)
As far as i see the "./Maildir/" parameter should tell the qmail
deliverer to not use Mailbox. I think that
there is a problem with vpopmail. Where is the mail given from qmail to
vpopmail ? Or do you think
there is another problem ?
Thank you for you help.
Philipp Steinkrüger
One other thing is that each of the home directories must have a .qmail file
which contains ./Maildir/ as well (exactly as I have typed it), and make
sure that it contains a Maildir naturally with the owner and group being the
same as who will be accessing it.
Brett Randall.
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Philipp Steinkrüger
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 6:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: MailDir
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> i have a problem with Qmail and Maildir. I installed qmail and vpopmail
> and everything
> works fine for local accounts.
> So if i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the mail is put into
> ~philipp/Maildir/new.
> Thats nice !
>
> But if i send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the log gives me
> this error message:
>
> Jul 20 15:16:13 diavolos qmail: 964098973.224255 delivery 8: failure:
> Sorry,_no
> _mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
>
> I created the POP account with qmailadmin, and there is a dir in
> ~vpopmail/domain/virtualdomain/
> but it stays empty....
>
> Here is my qmail startup script:
>
> case "$1" in
> start)
> echo -n "Starting mail-transfer agent: qmail"
> /usr/sbin/qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail &
>
> /usr/bin/tcpserver 0 pop3 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup
> diavolos.oberberg-online.de /bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir &
> echo -s "Starting Pop Service"
>
> # prevent denial-of-service attacks, with ulimit
> ulimit -v 2048
>
> /usr/bin/tcpserver -S -u 71 -g 65534 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp
> /usr/sbin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | logger -t qmail -p mail.notice &
> echo -n "Starting Smtp Service"
> echo "."
> ;;
> stop)
>
> As far as i see the "./Maildir/" parameter should tell the qmail
> deliverer to not use Mailbox. I think that
> there is a problem with vpopmail. Where is the mail given from qmail to
> vpopmail ? Or do you think
> there is another problem ?
>
> Thank you for you help.
>
> Philipp Steinkrüger
>
>
> /usr/bin/tcpserver 0 pop3 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup
> diavolos.oberberg-online.de /bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir &
Here is definitely an error - if you use vpopmail you cannot use the
checkpassword provided by DJB.
Regarding the delivery you should first try to use the commandline tools
of vpopmail for creating virtual domains and POP accounts.
If that doesn't work please ask on the vpopmail mailinglist because this
is not a qmail issue.
Regards, Frank
Brett Randall wrote:
> One other thing is that each of the home directories must have a .qmail file
> which contains ./Maildir/ as well (exactly as I have typed it), and make
> sure that it contains a Maildir naturally with the owner and group being the
> same as who will be accessing it.
>
Allright, there was no .qmail in the vpopmail virtual domain directory. i
created one
and made vpopmail the owner, because the Maildir directory is owned my
vpopmail, too.
Unfortunately, i still have the same problem and error message in my logfile.
When i asked for help in the IRC chat channel on efnet, someone told me that
qmail tries
to deliver to a mailbox, instead of Maildir
(Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/)
^^^^^^^
I think i started qmail correctly to use Maildir.
What else could be wrong ??
Thanx,
Philipp
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
> > /usr/bin/tcpserver 0 pop3 /usr/sbin/qmail-popup
> > diavolos.oberberg-online.de /bin/checkpassword /usr/sbin/qmail-pop3d
> > Maildir &
>
> Here is definitely an error - if you use vpopmail you cannot use the
> checkpassword provided by DJB.
I found this in the qmail-FAQ, Question 5.3: how do i set up qmail-pop3d.
So there is a problem with my startup script ?
> Regarding the delivery you should first try to use the commandline tools
> of vpopmail for creating virtual domains and POP accounts.
> If that doesn't work please ask on the vpopmail mailinglist because this
> is not a qmail issue.
I added a domain with the commandline tool, vadddomain, and added a pop
account
using qmail-admin. as far as i see everything went ok, because the
directories were
created and i can log on the virtual pop account using sqwebmail.
I think that there is problem with qmail giving the mail to vpopmail. Is it
possible that
my mistake in the startup script is responsible? If, what would be the
correct startup
command ?
Thank you,
Philipp
OK, try changing the ownership of the Maildir and the .qmail file to the
actual person that the mail is being delivered to...When qmail-local tries
delivering there, it relies on those permissions to be able to write to the
Maildir
Brett
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Philipp Steinkrüger
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:32 PM
> To: Brett Randall; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MailDir
>
>
> Brett Randall wrote:
>
> > One other thing is that each of the home directories must have
> a .qmail file
> > which contains ./Maildir/ as well (exactly as I have typed it), and make
> > sure that it contains a Maildir naturally with the owner and
> group being the
> > same as who will be accessing it.
> >
>
> Allright, there was no .qmail in the vpopmail virtual domain directory. i
> created one
> and made vpopmail the owner, because the Maildir directory is owned my
> vpopmail, too.
> Unfortunately, i still have the same problem and error message in
> my logfile.
>
> When i asked for help in the IRC chat channel on efnet, someone
> told me that
> qmail tries
> to deliver to a mailbox, instead of Maildir
> (Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/)
>
> ^^^^^^^
> I think i started qmail correctly to use Maildir.
>
> What else could be wrong ??
>
> Thanx,
> Philipp
>
Brett Randall wrote:
> OK, try changing the ownership of the Maildir and the .qmail file to the
> actual person that the mail is being delivered to...When qmail-local tries
> delivering there, it relies on those permissions to be able to write to the
> Maildir
>
Hmm, i cannot do this, because the user the mail is deliverd to does not exist
in
/etc/passwd. the account is virtual like the domain.
qmail works fine for local accounts but not for the virtual domains, as i
described in my
first mail.
Still an idea what could be wrong ?
Philipp
