qmail Digest 8 Sep 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1117
Topics (messages 48246 through 48330):
Re: Why qmail can not receive hotmail messages?
48246 by: Jost Krieger
48258 by: Dave Sill
48280 by: Adam McKenna
48290 by: Jack O'Toole
48292 by: Dave Sill
48294 by: Adam McKenna
48301 by: Chris Garrigues
48308 by: hbchen163
48314 by: Brett Randall
48324 by: Petr Novotny
Re: whatsthematternow???
48247 by: Chris K. Young
48248 by: olaf behrendt
48249 by: Thomas Ackermann
48288 by: Adam McKenna
qmail & t-online.de - NAME_lookup_failed_temporarily.
48250 by: Jens Georg
Problems with NFS
48251 by: Thorkild Stray
48253 by: oliver.koch.jk.uni-linz.ac.at
Re: qmail & t-online.de - NAME_lookup_failed_temporarily. bounda
48252 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
Re: offtopic: alien threads
48254 by: Chris K. Young
Re: QMTP
48255 by: Peter van Dijk
48276 by: David Dyer-Bennet
48277 by: Peter van Dijk
mail works kmail/NS messenger don't on private WAN
48256 by: Phil Rhoades
48267 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
48257 by: Dave Sill
48270 by: Ken Jones
48272 by: Peter van Dijk
48295 by: Bryan White
48296 by: Steve Wolfe
48309 by: Bryan White
48311 by: Pro-People
48316 by: Eric Cox
48320 by: Steve Wolfe
SSL + POP3 + SMTPrelay
48259 by: Manuel Gisbert
48302 by: Dale Miracle
sorry
48260 by: Ingo.Lohmar.gmx.de
ezmlm - allowing only few subscribers to post the list
48261 by: Yair Zohar
Forwarding unhandle mail to another server
48262 by: Nicolas MONNET
48263 by: Johan Almqvist
48264 by: Brett Randall
where has holdremote patch gone?
48265 by: Ingo.Lohmar.gmx.de
48310 by: richard.illuin.org
Re: ezmlm killing mail server
48266 by: Dave Sill
48278 by: Michael T. Babcock
48283 by: Dave Sill
48285 by: markd.bushwire.net
.qmail-default vs .qmail-user
48268 by: Manuel Gisbert
48269 by: Guillermo Villasana Cardoza
48271 by: Ken Jones
Re: telltale sign of RBL & DUL
48273 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Timezone]
48274 by: David Benfell
Please i really help! - mailhost question!
48275 by: Linux Curry
48330 by: Robin S. Socha
user masquerading?
48279 by: Enerson, Marty
48284 by: David Dyer-Bennet
48286 by: Petr Novotny
Sqwebmail Problems please help
48281 by: Bob Dakota
48289 by: Tim Hunter
Mail marked as read??
48282 by: Jerry Lynde
48297 by: Jerry Lynde
48298 by: M.B.
48299 by: Adam McKenna
48300 by: Jerry Lynde
qmail queueing limiting mail servers
48287 by: Steven Rice
bouncing old mail
48291 by: M.B.
48293 by: markd.bushwire.net
bare LF - bizarre behaviour
48303 by: Steve Wolfe
48304 by: Chris Garrigues
48305 by: Chris Scheller
48306 by: Adam McKenna
48307 by: Steve Wolfe
48312 by: Chris Scheller
48315 by: Aaron L. Meehan
48318 by: Steve Wolfe
48319 by: Steve Wolfe
VPOPMAIL AUTHENTIFICATION ...URGENT HELP
48313 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
Re: Slightly Off Topic
48317 by: Andy Bradford
Specifying outgoing IP address of qmail-remote
48321 by: Yasuo Ohgaki
48323 by: Yasuo Ohgaki
multiple messages after header rewriting
48322 by: Stefan Witzel
Configure qmail using two ethernet card.
48325 by: Mark Lo
A strange problem delivering local mail (long and hard)
48326 by: Javier Ribelles
Log POP3 Activity
48327 by: Adrian Purnama
bounce mail w/ an attachment how to delete
48328 by: Kimberly Vher
qmail -relay
48329 by: orca
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
> 2) It is *not* the frigging MX record. That has nothing to do with it. Any
> mailer that breaks when there is only an A record is a broken mailer.
And who says so? I'm sure every mailer SHOULD fall back to the A record,
but the RFCs don't demand it.
Jost
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please help stamp out spam! |
| Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine am RZ der RUB |
| Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate |
| William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) |
Jost Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
>> 2) It is *not* the frigging MX record. That has nothing to do with it. Any
>> mailer that breaks when there is only an A record is a broken mailer.
>
>And who says so? I'm sure every mailer SHOULD fall back to the A record,
>but the RFCs don't demand it.
They don't demand it, but they do suggest it, and in practice, that's
the way things work. I've got dozens of systems with no MX entries
that receive mail from all over the Internet without any problems.
-Dave
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:03:55PM +0200, Jost Krieger wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > 2) It is *not* the frigging MX record. That has nothing to do with it. Any
> > mailer that breaks when there is only an A record is a broken mailer.
>
> And who says so? I'm sure every mailer SHOULD fall back to the A record,
> but the RFCs don't demand it.
RFC 974 January 1986
Mail Routing and the Domain System
[snip]
Issuing a Query
The first step for the mailer at LOCAL is to issue a query for MX RRs
for REMOTE. It is strongly urged that this step be taken every time
a mailer attempts to send the message. The hope is that changes in
the domain database will rapidly be used by mailers, and thus domain
administrators will be able to re-route in-transit messages for
defective hosts by simply changing their domain databases.
[snip]
If the response does not contain an error response, and does not
contain aliases, its answer section should be a (possibly zero
length) list of MX RRs for domain name REMOTE (or REMOTE's true
domain name if REMOTE was a alias). The next section describes how
this list is interpreted.
Interpreting the List of MX RRs
NOTE: This section only discusses how mailers choose which names to
try to deliver a message to, working from a list of RR's. It does
not discuss how the mailers actually make delivery.
[snip]
It is possible that the list of MXs in the response to the query will
be empty. This is a special case. If the list is empty, mailers
should treat it as if it contained one RR, an MX RR with a preference
value of 0, and a host name of REMOTE.
Thanks for playing.
--Adam
However, the O'Reilley "DNS and BIND" book does recommend that you always use MX
records (p 94, 3rd ed). Although it is not required, apparently.
Of course, this does not answer the problem which originated this thread. Mr.
McKenna is apparently too snide to care, but it seems he is right, so I guess he may
now gloat at will. Some people are like that.
Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:03:55PM +0200, Jost Krieger wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > > 2) It is *not* the frigging MX record. That has nothing to do with it. Any
> > > mailer that breaks when there is only an A record is a broken mailer.
> >
> > And who says so? I'm sure every mailer SHOULD fall back to the A record,
> > but the RFCs don't demand it.
>
> RFC 974 January 1986
> Mail Routing and the Domain System
>
> [snip]
>
> Issuing a Query
>
> The first step for the mailer at LOCAL is to issue a query for MX RRs
> for REMOTE. It is strongly urged that this step be taken every time
> a mailer attempts to send the message. The hope is that changes in
> the domain database will rapidly be used by mailers, and thus domain
> administrators will be able to re-route in-transit messages for
> defective hosts by simply changing their domain databases.
>
> [snip]
>
> If the response does not contain an error response, and does not
> contain aliases, its answer section should be a (possibly zero
> length) list of MX RRs for domain name REMOTE (or REMOTE's true
> domain name if REMOTE was a alias). The next section describes how
> this list is interpreted.
>
> Interpreting the List of MX RRs
>
> NOTE: This section only discusses how mailers choose which names to
> try to deliver a message to, working from a list of RR's. It does
> not discuss how the mailers actually make delivery.
>
> [snip]
>
> It is possible that the list of MXs in the response to the query will
> be empty. This is a special case. If the list is empty, mailers
> should treat it as if it contained one RR, an MX RR with a preference
> value of 0, and a host name of REMOTE.
>
> Thanks for playing.
>
> --Adam
--
__ Jack O'Toole
__ Vice President
__ QWSI.net Inc.
__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:03:55PM +0200, Jost Krieger wrote:
>>
>> And who says so? I'm sure every mailer SHOULD fall back to the A record,
>> but the RFCs don't demand it.
>
>RFC 974 January 1986
>Mail Routing and the Domain System
>
> It is possible that the list of MXs in the response to the query will
> be empty. This is a special case. If the list is empty, mailers
> should treat it as if it contained one RR, an MX RR with a preference
~~~~~~
> value of 0, and a host name of REMOTE.
>
>Thanks for playing.
The RFC says "should" not "must" or "MUST", so Jost is correct: the
RFC's don't *demand* it.
But, again, in practice, mailers do treat empty MX's in the way the
RFC suggests. At least, I'm not aware of any that don't.
-Dave
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:03:29PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> >RFC 974 January 1986
> >Mail Routing and the Domain System
> >
> > It is possible that the list of MXs in the response to the query will
> > be empty. This is a special case. If the list is empty, mailers
> > should treat it as if it contained one RR, an MX RR with a preference
> ~~~~~~
> > value of 0, and a host name of REMOTE.
> >
> >Thanks for playing.
>
> The RFC says "should" not "must" or "MUST", so Jost is correct: the
> RFC's don't *demand* it.
>
> But, again, in practice, mailers do treat empty MX's in the way the
> RFC suggests. At least, I'm not aware of any that don't.
The author uses "should" in this fashion all through the document -- I am
inclined to believe that he intends it to be more of an imperative and less
of a suggestion.
adam@beetlejuice:~$ grep should rfc974.txt | wc -l
29
adam@beetlejuice:~$ grep must rfc974.txt | wc -l
5
As an aside, I've been running flounder.net without an MX for 3 years now,
and to my knowledge, I have never had a problem receiving mail from hotmail
or any other source.
--Adam
> From: Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:28:35 -0400
>
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:03:29PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> > The RFC says "should" not "must" or "MUST", so Jost is correct: the
> > RFC's don't *demand* it.
> >
> > But, again, in practice, mailers do treat empty MX's in the way the
> > RFC suggests. At least, I'm not aware of any that don't.
>
> The author uses "should" in this fashion all through the document -- I am
> inclined to believe that he intends it to be more of an imperative and less
> of a suggestion.
>
> adam@beetlejuice:~$ grep should rfc974.txt | wc -l
> 29
> adam@beetlejuice:~$ grep must rfc974.txt | wc -l
> 5
Those darned RFCs with 3 digit numbers....they were so undisciplined in those
days about following the rules that hadn't been written yet. It's amazing
that the ARPAnet worked at all! ;-)
Next you'll be telling us that RFC823 requires us to use 7 bit characters in
all email.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
Hi, Everybody,
Since I was a little bit confused by the discussion on the captioned topic, I took
Adam's advice and tried to find other causes for the problem.
I sent emails to eastran.com from hotmail, 21cn.com (local) and 163.net (local)
respectively. I found out sometimes the messages could reach the destination, but
sometimes nothing happened. One day later, a failure message (like the one I
attached with the first message to this list) was bounced back to the hotmail account.
I've sent a bug report to hotmail staff. No response yet. Maybe it is not their
fault.
Could anyone tell me what is happening?
Hongbiao CHEN
> Next you'll be telling us that RFC823 requires us to use 7 bit
> characters in
> all email.
Doesn't it? :>
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Sep 2000, at 16:03, Dave Sill wrote:
> The RFC says "should" not "must" or "MUST", so Jost is correct: the
> RFC's don't *demand* it.
But doesn't that RFC say that MTA "should" deliver the message,
not "must"? If you think that "should" means "only if it feels like
doing that", there's no hope to get any e-mail delivered reliably. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBObiGmVMwP8g7qbw/EQJd+wCgi9tnTQaz9hBOfw3sQ42IcLYdj6sAoPck
1waeWJ8LmrWYVKmYFXMQq8ep
=s1/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
Quoted from Thomas Ackermann:
> @4000000039b764122c6205bc tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
>
> anyone a clue?
Without more from the logs, probably not.
However, I'll hazard a guess. You're probably trying to set up a
qmail-smtpd service? If that's the case, then you should check to
see if sendmail is still running.
Otherwise, another common (at least from what I see on this list)
mistake, for people using supervise, is backgrounding the process
they're trying to supervise.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't
Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed
Am Thu, 07 Sep 2000 schrieben Sie:
> @4000000039b764122c6205bc tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already
> used
>
> anyone a clue?
hi thomas,
first ensure that no other tcpserver-process is running
ps ax | grep tcpserver
the second thing is maybe the inetd.
i shutdown the deamon in a script,
then sleep 2 seconds
then start tcpserver
and finaly restart the inetd..
--
*******************************************
olaf behrendt <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pace media development gmbh
glogauer strasse 2
10999 berlin
fon: ++49 30 6128084-0
*******************************************
worked out allready, sendmail still running
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:05:31PM +1200, Chris K. Young wrote:
> Otherwise, another common (at least from what I see on this list)
> mistake, for people using supervise, is backgrounding the process
> they're trying to supervise.
Yeah, I did that once, the process table filled up right quick and I had to
cold reboot the box into single user mode to fix it.
--Adam
hi there,
we have a nasty problem with qmail which refuses to send emails to users
at t-online.de. delivery always fails with an errormessage saying:
deferral: CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/
we tried to fix this by compiling qmail again using a patch as advised in
lwq at http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#dns-problem, but this didn't
fix the problem.
so, can somebody image what to do next ? note: the qmail-box is located
behind a firewall (ipchains on linux). maybe this causes the problem ?
regards,
jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
department computer science, university of dortmund
linux ... life's too short for reboots!
begin:vcard
n:Georg;Jens
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:University of Dortmund, Germany;computer science
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Jens Georg
end:vcard
Currently, when qmail delivers mail, it looks in the home directory
for information.
Now, the problem is, when this NFS mount fails (due to hardware or
software errors), the mail is bounced in the same way it bounces when
the directory is not owned by the recipient.
Is there any way of making qmail being a little more stubborn? Make it
try again later etc.
--
Thorkild
On Don, 07 Sep 2000, Thorkild Stray wrote:
>
> Currently, when qmail delivers mail, it looks in the home directory
> for information.
>
> Now, the problem is, when this NFS mount fails (due to hardware or
> software errors), the mail is bounced in the same way it bounces when
> the directory is not owned by the recipient.
>
> Is there any way of making qmail being a little more stubborn? Make it
> try again later etc.
Read FAQ 4.9.
hih,
--
Oliver Koch Registered Linux User 163952
F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm!
> so, can somebody image what to do next ? note: the qmail-box is located
> behind a firewall (ipchains on linux). maybe this causes the problem ?
I use smtproutes to one of their MX. This breaks immediately if they shut
that one MX down, but I will notice that quickly.
Regards, Frank
Quoted from Robin S. Socha:
> It's "Was: <old subject>". "Was: Re:" does not make sense.
Hmpf, I'll bear that in mind. I'm a very ``learn-by-example'' type,
and most people I know took the simple way out:
)^Anew subject (was
(This was in a place where mutt users were a majority---or at least
the most vocal on-list. :-))
[Re: Gnus]
> Naahhh... It's just that it cures *many* problems I've had with mailing
> lists before.
Does it intelligently remove excessive quoting? ;-) (There was one time
when someone posted a message with a 2800% quoted-to-original ratio...)
> Cc: me to your heart's content - I ain't gonna be seeing
> no stinkin' dupes, d00d3...
I used to do the DJB thing and bounce duplicates. Then I realised that
it happened so often, that I'd rather save the bandwidth on my server.
It now just discards duplicates.
> It's also one of the few MUAs with generic
> support for Maildir (mutt being the obvious alternative).
Yes, Maildir rocks. I even wrote a one-line script that will tell me
how many new messages there are in each Maildir folder.
[snip of some very nice features of Gnus, 2 (out of 3) of which mutt
doesn't seem to implement]
Now, there's something mutt implements that Gnus (the one included
with GNU emacs 20.7) doesn't: Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To.
Mail-Followup-To is used to discourage duplicate copies, obviously.
Mail-Reply-To is used to give people a ``real'' address to reply to,
for dumb mailing lists that require subscription before posting.
> >> "nuking Redmond will increase the world's productivity by 900%".
> > After that, you still have AOLers to deal with...
>
> You should consider buying large amounts of cattle-prod shares.
If only I can LART them over the wire... after all, the lusers aren't
invading my home, they're invading my Maildir.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > It's clear that djb's talking about <0a>/LF EXCEPT in line end
> > designators (which can either be CRLF or LF). So basically every message
> > that does not contain LFs that are not line feeds is "safe".
>
> I couldn't gather the "that are not line feeds" part from the docs.
I like that explanation but I still can't make it out of qmtp.txt.
qmtp.txt states 'a message is a sequence of lines' and 'a *message* is
called safe if none of its bytes are <0a>.'
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 7 September 2000 at 14:27:21 +0200
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:02:39PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > > It's clear that djb's talking about <0a>/LF EXCEPT in line end
> > > designators (which can either be CRLF or LF). So basically every message
> > > that does not contain LFs that are not line feeds is "safe".
> >
> > I couldn't gather the "that are not line feeds" part from the docs.
>
> I like that explanation but I still can't make it out of qmtp.txt.
>
> qmtp.txt states 'a message is a sequence of lines' and 'a *message* is
> called safe if none of its bytes are <0a>.'
The line terminator (conventionally a linefeed on Unix) isn't a part
of the line in this definition, I think. At least, taking it that way
makes it all come together. Then it ends up saying that the message
is safe so long as no line contains an embedded linefeed.
--
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 Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:58:04AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[snip]
> The line terminator (conventionally a linefeed on Unix) isn't a part
> of the line in this definition, I think. At least, taking it that way
> makes it all come together. Then it ends up saying that the message
> is safe so long as no line contains an embedded linefeed.
Hmm. Terminator not part of line. Good point there. But I think you do
agree the text could use some more clarity :)
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
I have a private WAN set up - two Linux servers with a router etc in between:
192.16.0.100 nsw.chu.com.au
and
192.16.8.25 bcb.chu.com.au
- I can use "mail" to send mail from nsw to bcb no problem (therefore
rcpthosts and smtproutes should be OK) but Kmail and Netscape Messenger
fail with a message like:
Sending failed
A SMTP error occurred
Command: RCPT
Response: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
(#5.7.1)
Return code: 533
I have tried putting both server details in rcpthosts and also the wildcard
domain (.chu.com.au) but still no luck . .
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Phil.
-
Philip Rhoades
Pricom Pty Limited (ACN 003 252 275)
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
Mobile: +61:0411-185-652
Fax: +61:2:8923-5363
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phil Rhoades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - I can use "mail" to send mail from nsw to bcb no problem (therefore
> rcpthosts and smtproutes should be OK) but Kmail and Netscape Messenger
> fail with a message like:
>
> Sending failed
> A SMTP error occurred
> Command: RCPT
> Response: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
> (#5.7.1)
> Return code: 533
>
> I have tried putting both server details in rcpthosts and also the wildcard
> domain (.chu.com.au) but still no luck . .
'mail' works because it locally injects mail through the qmail sendmail-wrapper.
Netscape and other programs are failing because they try to inject via SMTP,
and your SMTP server rejects this as a relay attempt.
You need to implement selective relaying for your LAN/private addresses.
You can do this with tcpserver, setting the RELAYCLIENT variable for addresses
inside your private network, or with a SMTP-after-POP solution for roaming
clients, or both. For selective relaying support, see Dave Sill's "Life with
qmail". For SMTP-after-POP, see Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl package. Both
have pointers from www.qmail.org.
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK
My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It takes approximately 6 hours for the script to complete, each
>message invokes a separate qmail-inject process as the mails are
>customised with the persons name / details etc.
You could get a large performance boost by attempting to deliver the
messages yourself via qmail-remote and passing them to qmail-inject
only if the qmail-remote attempt fails. There's a lot of overhead
involved in queueing that's unnecessary if the message is immediately
deliverable. However, since sending a message via SMTP is so slow,
you'll need to massively parallelize this process--e.g., split the
list into 300-500 pieces and spawn as many jobs to send the messages.
Alternatively, you could install the bigconcurrency patch and up your
concurrencyremote to 500 or so, but the gains will be much more
modest.
>> Are you running a local caching DNS server? Can I recommend djdns :>
>
>No Im using our colo's nameserver which is only a hop away , but that
>is a good point I hadnt thought of.
Yes, dnscache from djbdns is what you need.
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My apologies for the last incomplete message
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> a weekly/fortnightly basis.
> I've looked through the archives and there are some excellent tips
> but I'm still hoping to push it further as a full mailout takes
> nearly a day.
>
> My current setup is qmail-1.03 with Russell Nelson's big-todo patch
> conf-split is set to 47
> concurrencyremote is set to 240
> We have written a simple perl script that takes the whole mailout and
> pipes it directly to qmail-inject
>
> The mailout flies with the concurrencyremote being hit after the pipe
> to qmail-inject is closed but it takes a long long long time for the
> qmail-inject process to finish.
>
> Does anyone have any tips on how to analyse the performance
> bottle-necks .. disk / bandwidth etc ( this is a redhat linux 6.1
> box) or tips on a better way of doing this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon E.
I've had good luck with some rate limiting tricks.
1) Inject 500 messages then wait 2 seconds. This seems to give
qmail-send time to process the 500 messages and kick off more
qmail-remotes before it has to deal with the next 500 new messages.
2) Call qmail-queue directly, saves on one fork/exec
3) have the perl script monitor the size of the queue. Slow down
the rate of injection if the queue gets above 10K or if the
todo gets above 2K. Qmail's ability to fork qmail-remote
processes drops when the inode trees get large.
Ken Jones
inter7
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:36:38AM -0500, Ken Jones wrote:
[snip]
>
> I've had good luck with some rate limiting tricks.
>
> 1) Inject 500 messages then wait 2 seconds. This seems to give
> qmail-send time to process the 500 messages and kick off more
> qmail-remotes before it has to deal with the next 500 new messages.
This is the problem sometimes referred to as 'thundering herds', because
*one* process is handling the move from todo/ to local/ and/or remote/,
*and* is spawning new deliveries.
> 2) Call qmail-queue directly, saves on one fork/exec
Hardly relevant savings :)
> 3) have the perl script monitor the size of the queue. Slow down
> the rate of injection if the queue gets above 10K or if the
> todo gets above 2K. Qmail's ability to fork qmail-remote
> processes drops when the inode trees get large.
That's what conf-split helps with :)
The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only injecting a
message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate delivery of one message to
20.000 recipients. It sucks at handling 20.000 separate messages all
injected at the same time.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> a weekly/fortnightly basis.
> I've looked through the archives and there are some excellent tips
> but I'm still hoping to push it further as a full mailout takes
> nearly a day.
>
> My current setup is qmail-1.03 with Russell Nelson's big-todo patch
> conf-split is set to 47
> concurrencyremote is set to 240
> We have written a simple perl script that takes the whole mailout and
> pipes it directly to qmail-inject
There is a qmail patch (big concurrency) that will allow running more
remotes. The default kernal in RedHat 6.1 limits you to 512 total processes
and half that per user. I have recompiled the kernel for 2560 total
processes and 2048 per user. See the file
/usr/src/linux/include/linux/tacks.h.
You may also have to
echo 8192 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
echo 24576 > /proc/sys/fs/inode-max
in order to support large numbers of open files. I just add these lines to
/etc/rc.d/rc.local so they run during boot up.
I can get about 50K emails per hour using 400 remotes. That would take 10
hours with your list. The qmail queue size seems to stabilaze between 10K
and 15K during the run. There is usually between 300-400 remotes running.
Another thing you can try is to comment out the calls to fsync in
qmail-queue.c. I found this dramtically sped up queue but not sending. The
downside is messages will be lost if the box crashes.
>
> The mailout flies with the concurrencyremote being hit after the pipe
> to qmail-inject is closed but it takes a long long long time for the
> qmail-inject process to finish.
>
> Does anyone have any tips on how to analyse the performance
> bottle-necks .. disk / bandwidth etc ( this is a redhat linux 6.1
> box) or tips on a better way of doing this.
I am currently experimenting with bypassing qmail altogether. Using shared
memory I fork off 1000 child processes to chew on a list in parallel. Each
child will call qmail-inject only if its direct attempt fails. My testing
is still rough but it looks like I can get a 5 to 10 fold improvement.
If you are only doing this once a week I doubt you need to go to such
extremes. I don't know what kind of bandwidth you have available but given
your schedule do you really need to compress it down to a short time frame.
> > We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> > a weekly/fortnightly basis.
(snip)
> I can get about 50K emails per hour using 400 remotes. That would take 10
> hours with your list. The qmail queue size seems to stabilaze between 10K
> and 15K during the run. There is usually between 300-400 remotes running.
OK, first, please forgive me for jumping in. I see this sort of question
occasionally, and it makes me wonder why so many steps were necessary. At
one time, I had to send out just over a thousand messages to recipients
across the Internet, and ran the Perl script (calling qmail's sendmail
wrapper) on my lowly machine. It was a Celeron 450, with a 512k connection,
an IDE drive, and concurencyremote/local set to 100. The Perl script
finished within 30-45 seconds (I don't recall the actual time), and the
queue had died down to ~10 undeliverables after just barely over a minute -
which would be about 50,000 per hour, but without any real efforts to speed
it up.
So, it makes me wonder what the culprit is for persons trying to send many
times that number of messages. Anybody want to enlighten this poor soul?
It makes me wish I had a reason to send out that many again, so that I could
experiment a little.
> I am currently experimenting with bypassing qmail altogether. Using
shared
> memory I fork off 1000 child processes to chew on a list in parallel.
Each
> child will call qmail-inject only if its direct attempt fails. My testing
> is still rough but it looks like I can get a 5 to 10 fold improvement.
Nice!
steve
> OK, first, please forgive me for jumping in. I see this sort of
question
> occasionally, and it makes me wonder why so many steps were necessary. At
> one time, I had to send out just over a thousand messages to recipients
> across the Internet, and ran the Perl script (calling qmail's sendmail
> wrapper) on my lowly machine. It was a Celeron 450, with a 512k
connection,
> an IDE drive, and concurencyremote/local set to 100. The Perl script
> finished within 30-45 seconds (I don't recall the actual time), and the
> queue had died down to ~10 undeliverables after just barely over a
minute -
> which would be about 50,000 per hour, but without any real efforts to
speed
> it up.
>
> So, it makes me wonder what the culprit is for persons trying to send
many
> times that number of messages. Anybody want to enlighten this poor soul?
> It makes me wish I had a reason to send out that many again, so that I
could
> experiment a little.
Results for a short test like yours might not relate directly to sustained
throughput. I have noticed that my reported rate of injection is higher for
the first couple of minutes of a job. I suspect this is because qmail-send
does not notice the messages in the queue right away. Someone else
mentioned that injecting for a while and then letting the system catch up
seemed to produce better results. This might be a similar phenomenom. I
don't really have a good explanation.
If you have a sufficiently equipped machine, why don't you install multiple
copies of qmail, each w/ its own concurrencyremote settings to the max?
This way you would have a large number of mails being sent out in parallel.
Set your script to inject to each queue separately.
Just make sure that the processes limit of your system allows this.
-makatao
"It is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws,
We must protect ourselves with mathematics."
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 8:13 AM
Subject: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
> My apologies for the last incomplete message
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> a weekly/fortnightly basis.
> I've looked through the archives and there are some excellent tips
> but I'm still hoping to push it further as a full mailout takes
> nearly a day.
>
> My current setup is qmail-1.03 with Russell Nelson's big-todo patch
> conf-split is set to 47
> concurrencyremote is set to 240
> We have written a simple perl script that takes the whole mailout and
> pipes it directly to qmail-inject
>
> The mailout flies with the concurrencyremote being hit after the pipe
> to qmail-inject is closed but it takes a long long long time for the
> qmail-inject process to finish.
>
> Does anyone have any tips on how to analyse the performance
> bottle-necks .. disk / bandwidth etc ( this is a redhat linux 6.1
> box) or tips on a better way of doing this.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Simon E.
>
>
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Are you using multiple spindes? Can I recommend that you do.
>
> Do you mean separate hard disks for the queue? .. The queue resides
> on a RAID5 hardware controlled array.
>
I seem to remember someone saying that RAID5 is exactly the wrong kind
of RAID for a mail queue. As I understand it, RAID5 does read of the
same sector(?) of all spindles, recalculates parity, then a write back
to all (only one?) spindles. This would be quite a write penalty if
the RAID controller honored fsync's.
You might want to check the archives for it because my feeble memory
may be fooling me, but I've seen lots of people recommend RAID1+0 for
mail queues.
Eric
> I seem to remember someone saying that RAID5 is exactly the wrong kind
> of RAID for a mail queue. As I understand it, RAID5 does read of the
> same sector(?) of all spindles, recalculates parity, then a write back
> to all (only one?) spindles. This would be quite a write penalty if
> the RAID controller honored fsync's.
Well, I don't think it's exactly wrong, but you're right, it's not
optimal. RAID5 is very fast for reads, but writes do have extra overhead.
Raid 0 (simple striping, no redundancy) would be the best choice for a
queue, provided that a disk failure (and hence a one-time loss of everything
in the queue) wouldn't be a terribly bad thing. : )
steve
As there were serveral threads dealing with qmail-smtpd
and possible ways of encrypting smtp traffic with ssl/tls in the last time,
someone might have a solution for this prob to:
vpopmail 4.9
qmail 1.03
I use stunnel to encrypt my pop3 traffic.
Works fine with those popular MS Clients...
Due to that qmail-popup is always invoked with localip 127.0.0.1
which causes vchkpw to add 127.0.0.1 to my tcp.smtp.cdb
Therefor I loose my capability to allow only selected clients to relay via
qmail-smtp
Has anyone ever setup pop3s with dynamic smtprelay
and if so what might be a possible solution?
Thanx
Manuel
Manuel Gisbert wrote:
>
> As there were serveral threads dealing with qmail-smtpd
> and possible ways of encrypting smtp traffic with ssl/tls in the last time,
> someone might have a solution for this prob to:
>
> vpopmail 4.9
> qmail 1.03
>
> I use stunnel to encrypt my pop3 traffic.
> Works fine with those popular MS Clients...
> Due to that qmail-popup is always invoked with localip 127.0.0.1
> which causes vchkpw to add 127.0.0.1 to my tcp.smtp.cdb
> Therefor I loose my capability to allow only selected clients to relay via
> qmail-smtp
>
> Has anyone ever setup pop3s with dynamic smtprelay
> and if so what might be a possible solution?
How are you starting pop3 for qmail, the actual commands I mean? Minus
the stunnel I am using vpopmail and qmail and the relaying works fine.
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
Sorry for that "test message", it was left in my maildir flushed in
ppp-up. I'm experimenting with writing mails offline, and this one
was not intended to ever leave my computer. Won't happen again!
Ingo
Hello,
Is there a way allowing only few subscribers (about 4 ) posting the
list ?
Thanks
Yair
Oh I have a Linux box running qmail handling part of my mail account for
one domain, and I want undelivered mail to be forwarded to an Exchange
machine.
LL ---- LINUX ----- NT
Mail =====> ----->
If an account does'nt exist on the Linux machine, it should be transferred
to the NT machine.
Any idea?
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:44:46PM +0200, Nicolas MONNET wrote:
>
> Oh I have a Linux box running qmail handling part of my mail account for
> one domain, and I want undelivered mail to be forwarded to an Exchange
> machine.
> LL ---- LINUX ----- NT
>
> Mail =====> ----->
/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-default
containing
$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If an account does'nt exist on the Linux machine, it should be transferred
> to the NT machine.
>
> Any idea?
>
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
Edit ~alias/.qmail-default, and add the line:
| forward "$LOCAL"@remotehost.domain.com
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas MONNET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Forwarding unhandle mail to another server
>
>
>
> Oh I have a Linux box running qmail handling part of my mail account for
> one domain, and I want undelivered mail to be forwarded to an Exchange
> machine.
>
> LL ---- LINUX ----- NT
>
> Mail =====> ----->
>
> If an account does'nt exist on the Linux machine, it should be transferred
> to the NT machine.
>
> Any idea?
>
First of all, I have to apologize for bothering the list with what I now
found in the archives to be a frequently discussed question (sep 5,
variable mail delivery). After searching there, I think the holdremote
patch, updated for qmail-1.03, would suit my needs perfectly.
Problem: The only site to download it that I found in the archives was
www.warren.demon.co.uk/....
I could not connect to this server by any means, it just wasn't found.
Where has that patch gone?
Thank you,
Ingo
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> First of all, I have to apologize for bothering the list with what I now
> found in the archives to be a frequently discussed question (sep 5,
> variable mail delivery). After searching there, I think the holdremote
> patch, updated for qmail-1.03, would suit my needs perfectly.
>
> Problem: The only site to download it that I found in the archives was
> www.warren.demon.co.uk/....
>
> I could not connect to this server by any means, it just wasn't found.
> Where has that patch gone?
I don't know if Nick is around still, but I've put a copy of the patch up
on http://www.illuin.org/Software/
RjL
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
Steven Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you went out and bought a machine, if it's a p something you will run
>into the limits of qmail-queue way before you will even come close to
>the limits of the hardware. Setting concurrencyremote and
>concurrencylocal will not help. Even if you have it set to 1000, you
>are limited by qmail-queue and the speed of the other guy's server.
>Qmail-queue simply sucks.
No it doesn't.
>Here's why:
>
> If you need to send 20,000 to server/domain A, 15,000 to
> server/domain B, 10,000 to server/domain C and you have
> listA, ListB, listC, (one for each domain), and you send
> a message to listA, ListB, ListC, one after another, or
> even at the same time, ezmlm will process listA, first,
> and send the whole list to qmail-queue. Qmail-queue WILL
> NOT process anything until a message is known to either
> seceed or fail. The concurrencyremote ratio can fall to
> 10/1000 and stay there until the list is finsh.
Here's why you're wrong:
qmail-queue just drops messages in the queue and tells
qmail-send about them. What you say is kind of true if you
replace "qmail-queue" with "qmail-send", but the bit about not
processing anything until a message suceeds or fails is, um,
nonsense.
The problem you seem to have with qmail-send is that it processes
deliveries in the order in which they're received. This property is
known as "fairness", and it's perfectly reasonable in a queuing system
that doesn't support multiple priorities.
It's possible to implement a multiple-priority queue with qmail using
additional qmail installations on the same system (e.g., /var/qmail,
/var/qmail2, etc.) and injecting messages to the appropriate
installation depending upon their priority.
Your monster list server, for example, could have a separate qmail
installation for each of the megalists, as well as one for routine
mail.
> If there where 12 lists like this, it could easily take
> 4 hours to send 120,000 messages, when your machine and
> connection allow qmail-send to handle 120,000 message in
> thirty minutes.
How do you figure that? qmail will keep concurrencyremote
qmail-remotes busy (assuming the resources are available), regardless
of how big the lists are or how many of them there are.
>There's a few thing that needs to be done to improve it:
>
> - qmail-[send] should not handle mail first come, first serve
> This may have worked two or three years ago, but today with
> with dual pII 600 machines for 3 grand, it just doesn't cut it.
Please explain.
> - qmail-queue should not hold up qmail-send
> It should be smart enough that if you have 2000 messages to
> one slow server (sendmail or exchange) it shouldn't hold up
> the whole qmail-send becuase it's trying to send first come
> first serve.
qmail-queue *doesn't* hold up qmail-send. What makes you think it
does?
> - qmail-queue should handle on per server basis and figure out through
> some type of database the aveage speed of servers/domain
> and adjust the queue for servers, so it will send as fast as
>possiable
I disagree. Such "intelligence" is tremendously complicating. I prefer
my qmail simple.
-Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The problem you seem to have with qmail-send is that it processes
> deliveries in the order in which they're received. This property is
> known as "fairness", and it's perfectly reasonable in a queuing system
> that doesn't support multiple priorities.
Actually, its just FIFO. Fairness would involve queuing and re-ordering of
some form. Fairness infers intelligence on the part of the queuer. Now you
can say that there is fairness built in to the randomness of the queue's
order, but its not "fairness" in a queuing sense. SFQ comes to mind w.r.t.
IP packets.
Incidentally, I don't agree with the original poster's assumptions. But
qmail-send isn't "fair" -- thats a level of complexity that wasn't added and
won't (probably) be added because of possible implications for security and
stability.
"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, its just FIFO. Fairness would involve queuing and re-ordering of
>some form.
Oops, brain fart. Yes, fairness requires multiple queues and lots of
additional complexity.
-Dave
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:10:07PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > The problem you seem to have with qmail-send is that it processes
> > deliveries in the order in which they're received. This property is
> > known as "fairness", and it's perfectly reasonable in a queuing system
> > that doesn't support multiple priorities.
>
> Actually, its just FIFO. Fairness would involve queuing and re-ordering of
> some form. Fairness infers intelligence on the part of the queuer. Now you
> can say that there is fairness built in to the randomness of the queue's
> order, but its not "fairness" in a queuing sense. SFQ comes to mind w.r.t.
> IP packets.
That depends totally on what characteristic(s) of the email you use to
process the queue. FIFO is absolutely fair in the sense of submission order. You
want it to be fair based on some other characteristic. Fine.
> Incidentally, I don't agree with the original poster's assumptions. But
> qmail-send isn't "fair" -- thats a level of complexity that wasn't added and
When you say it "isn't fair" what you mean is you want a different ordering
characteristic than the one currently coded into qmail-send. Lot's of people
claim they want queue processing on lots of different characteristics - but
that's got nothing to do with "fairness" it's got to do with their own
preferences in their environment.
Regards.
Hello everybody,
running
qmail 1.03
vpopmail 4.9
I discovered the following prob, which confuses me a lot:
I have set up virtualdomain without any users, instead i
use .qmail-user files in that dir to add all incoming mail to maildirs in
another virtual domain.
What confuses me is, that in case of .qmail-default being present and
nonempty .qmail-default is
processed instead of .qmail-user while in case of .qmail-default being
absent the
mail is correctly routed to the proper maildir...
Why is .qmail-default processed if .qmail-user is present and nonempty???
Thanx
Manuel
Please send what you have in .qmail-default and in .qmail-user, I think
that will help to see what the problem might be
Manuel Gisbert wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> running
> qmail 1.03
> vpopmail 4.9
>
> I discovered the following prob, which confuses me a lot:
>
> I have set up virtualdomain without any users, instead i
> use .qmail-user files in that dir to add all incoming mail to maildirs in
> another virtual domain.
> What confuses me is, that in case of .qmail-default being present and
> nonempty .qmail-default is
> processed instead of .qmail-user while in case of .qmail-default being
> absent the
> mail is correctly routed to the proper maildir...
> Why is .qmail-default processed if .qmail-user is present and nonempty???
>
> Thanx
> Manuel
Manuel Gisbert wrote:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> running
> qmail 1.03
> vpopmail 4.9
>
> I discovered the following prob, which confuses me a lot:
>
> I have set up virtualdomain without any users, instead i
> use .qmail-user files in that dir to add all incoming mail to maildirs in
> another virtual domain.
> What confuses me is, that in case of .qmail-default being present and
> nonempty .qmail-default is
> processed instead of .qmail-user while in case of .qmail-default being
> absent the
> mail is correctly routed to the proper maildir...
> Why is .qmail-default processed if .qmail-user is present and nonempty???
>
> Thanx
> Manuel
Look into how qmail-local processes mail. It is the local delivery
agent. According to the qmail-local man page, it will look for
.qmail-user first and if found use it. It will only look at
.qmail-default if a .qmail-user file is not found.
Permissions and ownerships of the .qmail files are always a
good thing to check.
ken jones
inter7
Duane L. writes:
>
> I've been placed in charge of our mail servers, although its not my area..
> I'm apparently the best candidate. (heaven help us)
>
> Question: I need to determine what, if any anti spam methods are set up
> eg; MAPS RBL - MAPS Realtime Blackhole List.
> MAPS TSI - MAPS Transport Security Initiative.
> MAPS DUL - MAPS Dial-up User List.
> MAPS RSS - MAPS Relay Spam Stopper
>
> I think I can safely assume that RBL is setup, since the response to test
> email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] reflects that IPs listed in MAPS
> RBL are rejected. How about the other ones ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(etc).
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Damn the firewalls!
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Full connectivity ahead!
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:05:12PM +0000, Stephen F. Bosch wrote:
>
> I'm curious -- how does my mail appear in your mailbox? Does it show UTC
> or local time of arrival?
>
I am running Mutt (with qmail, of course) and my locale is Pacific
Daylight Time. My system clocks are synchronized with NTP. The
headers on this e-mail appeared as follows:
Return-Path:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from earth
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.3.0)
for benfell@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:07:40
-0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 714 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 21:06:13 -0000
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
by area66-1.dsl.speakeasy.net with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 21:06:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 9025 invoked by uid 1002); 30 Aug 2000 17:06:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 32373 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 17:06:15
-0000
Received: from dsl-cap-209-115-249-138-cgy.nucleus.com (HELO
dsl-ch-l15-c80-n249-i138-cgy.nucleus.com) (209.115.249.138)
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 17:06:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 21192 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2000 11:05:37
-0600
Received: from dsl-mr-207-34-113-i28-cgy.nucleus.com (HELO
vodacomm.ca) (207.34.113.28)
by dsl-cap-209-115-249-138-cgy.nucleus.com with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000
11:05:37 -0600
Sender: sfbosch@earth
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:05:12 +0000
From: "Stephen F. Bosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.17-0.16mdk i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Timezone]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--
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]
PGP signature
Please i really need help ..
regards
rajat
--- Linux Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 03:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Linux Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: multiple mail servers - design issue!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> hi everyone!
>
> what i have here is this,
>
> __________________
> MX --> | host.domain.com |
> ------------------
> with qmail-ldap
> with pr. dns
> with openldap (common for h1,h2,h3,
> host )
> _____________ _____________ _____________
> |h1.domain.com| |h2.domain.com| |h3.domain.com|
> ------------- ------------- -------------
> with qmail-ldap with qmail-ldap with qmail-ldap
>
> the primary dns has entries of the hosts h1,h2,h3
> now we DONT have system users but QMAIL-LDAP users
> with mail ids as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
>
> now ldap entries for "user" is like :
> user1
> mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mailhost:h1.domain.com
>
> user2:
> mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mailhost:h2.domain.com
>
> user3:
> mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mailhost:h3.domain.com
>
> and so on ...............
>
> and now on my host.domain.com which is defined in MX
> for domain.com , i had configured ~control/rcpthost
> to
> accept mails for domain.com and localhost.
>
> i had also configured ~control/rcpthost on h1, h2,
> h3
> to accept mails for domain.com and localhost
>
>
~control/me=h1.domain.com,h2.domain.com,h3.domain.com
> for hosts h1, h2, h3 respectively
>
> Is this configuration correct or any suggestins
> ........
>
> in other terms in layman language i want .. whenever
> the mail comes for any "user" of domain.com then
> qmail
> looks up in ldap and gets its "mailhost" then sends
> a
> smtp connection to h1/h2/h3.domain.com .. whatever
> is
> the mailhost pointing to ... their the qmail-ldap is
> also running .. the smtp connection gets esablished
> and then that qmail on host h1/h2/h3 again looks up
> in
> ldap for the user and gets the mailhost details and
> then try to deliver it in the users's "Maildir" ....
>
> will it work ..... ????????????
>
> Regards
> Rajat
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from
> anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
* Linux Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000907 12:56]:
> Please i really need help ..
http://qmail.org/top.html#paidsup
And you'll not make a lot of friends by reposting a message including
commercial banners for a site driven by MSExchange and NT.
I am trying to change all messages that go out from my box from root to show
up as "admin".
I followed the web page about setting this up and it did not work. My
question is when it talks about the "enviroment" to put the commands into,
does it me my .bash_profile file? here is the page
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/appearance.html#host-masquerading
Any help would be appreciated.
---------------------------------------
Marty Enerson
Network Administrator
CBS MarketWatch.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 612-752-1150 | mobile: 612-308-4624
www.cbs.marketwatch.com
www.bigcharts.com
Enerson, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 7 September 2000 at 12:10:04 -0500
> I am trying to change all messages that go out from my box from root to show
> up as "admin".
>
> I followed the web page about setting this up and it did not work. My
> question is when it talks about the "enviroment" to put the commands into,
> does it me my .bash_profile file? here is the page
> http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/appearance.html#host-masquerading
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
It's talking about Unix "environment variables". One place to set
them is your bash startup files, if you're running bash, yes.
These only work when the message is injected via qmail-inject. If the
message is instead submitted via SMTP, it's the stuff in the headers
of the message as sent that governs. So what will work depends on how
you are sending the messages, among many other things.
--
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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Sep 2000, at 12:10, Enerson, Marty wrote:
> I am trying to change all messages that go out from my box from root
> to show up as "admin".
You may want to get mess822 package from cr.yp.to and use
omfipd [sp?] to rewrite headers of SMTP-injected messages and
new-inject to rewrite headers of locally injected messages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBObfFAVMwP8g7qbw/EQKkqwCeLSkwOnqi9IKsL1QnFsTvx8LAZv8AoJ1i
lnv0ME5volWe6uzBKnK0VPrR
=flkH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
I am having real problems with sqwebmail. Yesterday it just stopped
authenticating users. Only if you are trying to get your mail via the
webmail, if you use outlook or something you can get e-mail no problem. I
did not do anything to it and it just stopped working. When you try to log
in via webmail you get an invalid username or password error, and I have no
idea why. Please help me.
Thank you
........................................................
iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
........................................................
This would be better addressed on the sqwebmail list
([EMAIL PROTECTED]), however we need more information.
What authentication method are you using, if authdaemon is it running?
-- Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Dakota [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sqwebmail Problems please help
I am having real problems with sqwebmail. Yesterday it just stopped
authenticating users. Only if you are trying to get your mail via the
webmail, if you use outlook or something you can get e-mail no problem. I
did not do anything to it and it just stopped working. When you try to log
in via webmail you get an invalid username or password error, and I have no
idea why. Please help me.
Thank you
........................................................
iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
........................................................
Hello all,
I have a quick feature question. Our old mail server (an NT based, web
administered thinger) had the capability to mark mail as read if it had
been accessed via POP, but not deleted. Does anyone know if qmail can do
this? If so, where in TFM can I find docs to R? :o)
Thanks,
Jerry Lynde
System Administrator
Due Diligence Inc.
http://www.diligence.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (406) 728-0001 x232
Fax: (406) 728-0006
At 11:33 AM 9/7/2000, Jerry Lynde wrote:
>Hello all,
>
> I have a quick feature question. Our old mail server (an NT
> based, web administered thinger) had the capability to mark mail as read
> if it had been accessed via POP, but not deleted. Does anyone know if
> qmail can do this? If so, where in TFM can I find docs to R? :o)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jerry Lynde
>System Administrator
>Due Diligence Inc.
>http://www.diligence.com
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Phone: (406) 728-0001 x232
>Fax: (406) 728-0006
>
<hand raised high> Anybody know the answer to my question?
I scoured Google, Life with qmail, the FAQTS, the qmail FAQ, etc... am I
out of luck? or is there a way? I don't need a cookbook, just a pointer :o)
isn't that what the "cur" directory is used for?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Lynde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mail marked as read??
>
>
> At 11:33 AM 9/7/2000, Jerry Lynde wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> > I have a quick feature question. Our old mail server (an NT
> > based, web administered thinger) had the capability to mark
> mail as read
> > if it had been accessed via POP, but not deleted. Does
> anyone know if
> > qmail can do this? If so, where in TFM can I find docs to R? :o)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Jerry Lynde
> >System Administrator
> >Due Diligence Inc.
> >http://www.diligence.com
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Phone: (406) 728-0001 x232
> >Fax: (406) 728-0006
> >
>
> <hand raised high> Anybody know the answer to my question?
>
> I scoured Google, Life with qmail, the FAQTS, the qmail FAQ,
> etc... am I
> out of luck? or is there a way? I don't need a cookbook, just
> a pointer :o)
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:32:19PM -0600, Jerry Lynde wrote:
> At 11:33 AM 9/7/2000, Jerry Lynde wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> > I have a quick feature question. Our old mail server (an NT
> > based, web administered thinger) had the capability to mark mail as read
> > if it had been accessed via POP, but not deleted. Does anyone know if
> > qmail can do this? If so, where in TFM can I find docs to R? :o)
> >
>
> <hand raised high> Anybody know the answer to my question?
>
> I scoured Google, Life with qmail, the FAQTS, the qmail FAQ, etc... am I
> out of luck? or is there a way? I don't need a cookbook, just a pointer :o)
>From what I've been told, qmail-pop3d does not support the (deprecated)
"LAST" command. (And is not required to per RFC.) I never verified this
information. A better solution if you are going to access your mail from
several different places is IMAP.
--Adam
Oh yeah! and Life with qmail happens to have a patch to make qmail-pop3d
work with that...
'tis a fine day to learn "patch", a fine day indeed.. :o)
now I'll just patch that sucka and rebuild the binaries and move
qmail-pop3d to it's proper home and all should be well...
Thanks Michael !!
Jer
At 03:40 PM 9/7/2000, you wrote:
>isn't that what the "cur" directory is used for?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Lynde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:32 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Mail marked as read??
> >
> >
> > At 11:33 AM 9/7/2000, Jerry Lynde wrote:
> > >Hello all,
> > >
> > > I have a quick feature question. Our old mail server (an NT
> > > based, web administered thinger) had the capability to mark
> > mail as read
> > > if it had been accessed via POP, but not deleted. Does
> > anyone know if
> > > qmail can do this? If so, where in TFM can I find docs to R? :o)
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Jerry Lynde
> > >System Administrator
> > >Due Diligence Inc.
> > >http://www.diligence.com
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Phone: (406) 728-0001 x232
> > >Fax: (406) 728-0006
> > >
> >
> > <hand raised high> Anybody know the answer to my question?
> >
> > I scoured Google, Life with qmail, the FAQTS, the qmail FAQ,
> > etc... am I
> > out of luck? or is there a way? I don't need a cookbook, just
> > a pointer :o)
"Michael T. Babcock" wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The problem you seem to have with qmail-send is that it processes
> > deliveries in the order in which they're received. This property is
> > known as "fairness", and it's perfectly reasonable in a queuing system
> > that doesn't support multiple priorities.
>
> Actually, its just FIFO. Fairness would involve queuing and re-ordering of
> some form. Fairness infers intelligence on the part of the queuer. Now you
> can say that there is fairness built in to the randomness of the queue's
> order, but its not "fairness" in a queuing sense. SFQ comes to mind w.r.t.
> IP packets.
>
> Incidentally, I don't agree with the original poster's assumptions. But
> qmail-send isn't "fair" -- thats a level of complexity that wasn't added and
> won't (probably) be added because of possible implications for security and
> stability.
Stability is something I could see as a major problem. Security could
be a problem if not built in. I think the biggest problems is how
everything will work together while addressing these issues and not
being to complex as to degrade qmail simplicity, which we all love.
I thought about it a little last night and I have been applying what has
been said today. There is allot of issues to consider, however I do
believe something should done to change the way qmail handles queuing to
increase speed. I need to get more information on how things are really
handle, look at some code, and build a plan. Hopefully I will post a
plan next week or even next month for review. In the meantime, I will
just run fourteen qmail processes to get around the queuing problems.
Steven Rice
We have lots of old mail sitting in users' mailboxes and rather
than just purge it after a certain time, it has been requested that
I bounce it back to the sender.
I know how to get individual mail from maildirs to qmail-inject,
but how can I get them to go back to the sender as a bounce?
Thanks for any guidance.
mike.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:27:01PM -0700, M.B. wrote:
> We have lots of old mail sitting in users' mailboxes and rather
> than just purge it after a certain time, it has been requested that
> I bounce it back to the sender.
>
> I know how to get individual mail from maildirs to qmail-inject,
> but how can I get them to go back to the sender as a bounce?
Primarily you should set Return-Path: to <> and probably replace
the From: line. Having a look at a qmail generated bounce is a good
idea.
That's really about all there is to it. You of course will want to set the
subject accordingly as well as provide a reason for the bounce at the
top of the email, nothing a little perl magic can't do.
Regards.
OK, this is bizarre.
I was trying to get our network monitoring software (WhatsUp Gold) to send
emails on less-critical systems instead of pages. However, it was not able
to send email through our qmail server, and when I watched the debug out
put, the program was getting:
451 Put ,E=\r\n at the end of Mether, Mtcp, or Msmtp in sendmail.cf if you
are using Solaris 2.5 (fixed in 2.5.1). I cannot accept messages with stray
newlines. Many SMTP servers will time out waiting for \r\n.\r\n.
So, I thought I'd take a look in the qmail source and see where that was
coming from - but that *isn't* in the qmail source. For a moment I worried
that perhaps sendmail was running (shudder), but all occurences of SMTP in
/etc/inetd.conf are commented out, and ps -aef | grep sendmail doesn't show
a thing.
Then, I thought that I *must* have screwed up and put in the wrong IP
address, but I double-checked, and it's hitting the right server. So, my
questions are:
1. Where could that be coming from?
2. Anybody had WhatsUp Gold work with qmail?
steve
> From: "Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:20:30 -0600
>
>
> OK, this is bizarre.
>
> I was trying to get our network monitoring software (WhatsUp Gold) to send
> emails on less-critical systems instead of pages. However, it was not able
> to send email through our qmail server, and when I watched the debug out
> put, the program was getting:
>
> 451 Put ,E=\r\n at the end of Mether, Mtcp, or Msmtp in sendmail.cf if you
> are using Solaris 2.5 (fixed in 2.5.1). I cannot accept messages with stray
> newlines. Many SMTP servers will time out waiting for \r\n.\r\n.
>
>
> So, I thought I'd take a look in the qmail source and see where that was
> coming from - but that *isn't* in the qmail source. For a moment I worried
> that perhaps sendmail was running (shudder), but all occurences of SMTP in
> /etc/inetd.conf are commented out, and ps -aef | grep sendmail doesn't show
> a thing.
>
> Then, I thought that I *must* have screwed up and put in the wrong IP
> address, but I double-checked, and it's hitting the right server. So, my
> questions are:
>
> 1. Where could that be coming from?
> 2. Anybody had WhatsUp Gold work with qmail?
I don't know anything about whatsup gold, but basically it's writing things to
the SMTP port with lines that end with "\n" and those all need to be changed
to "\r\n" to follow the standards.
I had to fix some other software in the same way a while back.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
> 1. Where could that be coming from?
i won't get into the crlf deal...
> 2. Anybody had WhatsUp Gold work with qmail?
yes i had the same problem and to fix this i had wug send its message through
another mail server(other than our main server) and added the fixcrio to
the qmail-smtpd call. like so...
exec /usr/local/bin/fixcrio /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
(note, that is from a wrapper sript i saw somewhere but don't remember where)
there is no chance of fixing wug so this is the easy solution...
>
> steve
>
>
>
Chris Scheller
Network One Internet, inc.
http://www.networkone.net/
System/Network Administration
1-888-GOT-NET1
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:20:30PM -0600, Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> OK, this is bizarre.
>
> I was trying to get our network monitoring software (WhatsUp Gold) to send
> emails on less-critical systems instead of pages. However, it was not able
> to send email through our qmail server, and when I watched the debug out
> put, the program was getting:
>
> 451 Put ,E=\r\n at the end of Mether, Mtcp, or Msmtp in sendmail.cf if you
> are using Solaris 2.5 (fixed in 2.5.1). I cannot accept messages with stray
> newlines. Many SMTP servers will time out waiting for \r\n.\r\n.
>
> So, I thought I'd take a look in the qmail source and see where that was
> coming from - but that *isn't* in the qmail source. For a moment I worried
> that perhaps sendmail was running (shudder), but all occurences of SMTP in
> /etc/inetd.conf are commented out, and ps -aef | grep sendmail doesn't show
> a thing.
>
> Then, I thought that I *must* have screwed up and put in the wrong IP
> address, but I double-checked, and it's hitting the right server. So, my
> questions are:
>
> 1. Where could that be coming from?
not qmail, unless someone edited the source. qmail replies with the
following:
451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.
There is a workaround called "fixcr" that will enable qmail to accept email
with bare LF's in it, I believe that procedure is outlined in the FAQ.
--Adam
> > 1. Where could that be coming from?
> i won't get into the crlf deal...
Well, I know *why* it's happening, I'm just wondering where the message
comes from, as the qmail source doesn't appear to have it, and we're
certainly not running a second MUA on the machine. : )
> yes i had the same problem and to fix this i had wug send its message
through
> another mail server(other than our main server) and added the fixcrio to
> the qmail-smtpd call. like so...
>
> exec /usr/local/bin/fixcrio /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> (note, that is from a wrapper sript i saw somewhere but don't remember
where)
> there is no chance of fixing wug so this is the easy solution...
Crap. Thanks for the info, though.
steve
> Well, I know *why* it's happening, I'm just wondering where the message
> comes from, as the qmail source doesn't appear to have it, and we're
> certainly not running a second MUA on the machine. : )
sorry about that, a quick grep on the source turns up
qmail-smtpd.c line 50
void straynewline() { out("451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.\r\n");
flush(); _exit(1); }
this would be the error you saw
Chris Scheller
Network One Internet, inc.
http://www.networkone.net/
System/Network Administration
1.888.GOT-NET1
Quoting Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > 451 Put ,E=\r\n at the end of Mether, Mtcp, or Msmtp in sendmail.cf if you
> > are using Solaris 2.5 (fixed in 2.5.1). I cannot accept messages with stray
> > newlines. Many SMTP servers will time out waiting for \r\n.\r\n.
...
> > 1. Where could that be coming from?
>
> not qmail, unless someone edited the source. qmail replies with the
> following:
>
> 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.
>
> There is a workaround called "fixcr" that will enable qmail to accept email
> with bare LF's in it, I believe that procedure is outlined in the FAQ.
Oops, but that error message is from qmail--version 1.01 and earlier
if my memory serves. I'll bet djb decided it was too verbose and put
up a web page instead.
Aaron
> > Well, I know *why* it's happening, I'm just wondering where the
message
> > comes from, as the qmail source doesn't appear to have it, and we're
> > certainly not running a second MUA on the machine. : )
> sorry about that, a quick grep on the source turns up
> qmail-smtpd.c line 50
>
> void straynewline() { out("451 See
http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.\r\n"); flush(); _exit(1); }
>
> this would be the error you saw
That's just it - that's *not* the error that I saw. That's why I've been
scratching my head... I know for a fact that sendmail isn't running on the
machine.... maybe tomorrow I'll get time to dig around some more.
steve
> Oops, but that error message is from qmail--version 1.01 and earlier
> if my memory serves. I'll bet djb decided it was too verbose and put
> up a web page instead.
AH!
That explains it... thanks. Now I feel more comfortable that really
screwy things aren't happening on that machine.
(Well, at least not with mail, anyway)
steve
PLEASE
Dears Friends
I have installed vpopmail... but have a problem
My users can't donwload their e-mails from my server
I don't none virtualdomains ... I have a only domain
and don't would have never.
I can send emails a my users and it arrive their Maildir directory
They have their Maildir here: /usr/vpopmail/users/michael/Maildir
The arrives are OK...
But the authentication isn't Ok.
I need have my users of this way:
pop authentication user name is: user
only user ... No user%domain
my file /var/qmail/control/locals
have this:
localhost
my.server.com.pe
and also , I compiled vpopmail of this way:
./configure --enable-defaul-domain=my.server.com.pe
I don't want roaming users, no emzlm.
How I should setup ?
Please
I made all of here:
www.inter7.com/vpopmail/Qmail-FreeBSD.txt
Why no turn good?
PLEASE HELP ME .. I need this done before of Satureday
else I will haven't job..
Thanks for all
Juan Enciso
===========
Thus said "Shane Wise" on Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:43:35 CDT:
> I have 2 dsl connections to the internet with seperate providers. As it
> stands know if the one with the default route dies I am sunk unless I am
> here to change. I would like to have 2 default routes and have it use one
> as the primary and the other as the secondary default route. I have tried
> many different things but cannot get it to work. I have tried putting both
> in as default and one having a slightly higher metric and pulled the plug on
> the main on, but nothing goes out until I plug it back in.
This sounds like a job for your nearest routing protocol... It would
automatically detect that the link is down and then not advertise it as
the best route. Or, you could write a simple script that sends out a
ping every minute. If it comes back, don't change the default route,
if it doesn't come back then change it. Then, continue to monitor the
downed link and when it is available change back. This is really
probably better handled by a routing protocol though. :-)
Andy
--
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
12:16am up 43 days, 3:30, 5 users, load average: 1.06, 1.20, 1.24
Hello all. I'm relatively new to qmail.
I'm wondering if someone made newer version of following patch. (or like)
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg00261.html
I really need this kind of patch, since some mail servers are configured to
reject mail
if source IP address does not match host name that qmail claimes.
(I'm running qmail 1.03 with sevral IPs are assigned)
If there is, please let me know where I can get it.
Thank you for your information!!
Yasuo
I follow up myself..
> Hello all. I'm relatively new to qmail.
>
> I'm wondering if someone made newer version of following patch. (or like)
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg00261.html
>
> I really need this kind of patch, since some mail servers are configured
to
> reject mail
I finally find what I need in this list.
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/05/msg01636.html
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/02/msg00491.html
look like both of them will do what I need.
Yasuo
Hello,
I try to do header rewritíng as described by Tim Goodwin in the qmail
mailing list
(http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg01800.html).
tcp.smtp (172.16.1.1 is the IP address of my desktop computer with MUA):
172.16.1.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@fixme"
~alias/.qmail-fixme-default:
| /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
When I send a mail with "To: rec1@somewhere; rec2@somewhere" (MUA: Outlook)
I see:
1.) The message is sent once from my MUA to the mail server (one check by
tcpserver in maillog).
2.) qmail reports (2 log entries!):
Sep 8 08:18:18 helios qmail: 968393898.683985 starting delivery 14033: msg
9603
15 to local fixme-rec1@somewhere@fixme
Sep 8 08:18:18 helios qmail: 968393898.685207 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Sep 8 08:18:18 helios qmail: 968393898.687252 starting delivery 14034: msg
9603
15 to local fixme-rec2@somewhere@fixme
Sep 8 08:18:18 helios qmail: 968393898.689632 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20
3.) These 2 mails are processed by ~alias/.qmail-fixme-default and each one
produces
2 news mails. So ervery recepient get 2 (identical) mails:
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.304989 info msg 960317: bytes 890
from <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 98098 uid 1002
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.487251 starting delivery 14035: msg
9603
17 to remote rec1@somewhere
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.487892 status: local 2/10 remote 1/20
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.489510 delivery 14033: success:
did_0+0+
2/
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.493910 status: local 1/10 remote 1/20
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.495003 delivery 14034: success:
did_0+0+
2/
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.511270 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.512362 starting delivery 14036: msg
9603
17 to remote rec2@somewhere
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.591193 info msg 960338: bytes 890
from <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 98100 uid 1002
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.743735 starting delivery 14037: msg
9603
38 to remote rec1@somewhere
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.744343 status: local 0/10 remote 3/20
Sep 8 08:18:19 helios qmail: 968393899.745715 starting delivery 14038: msg
9603
38 to remote rec2@somewhere
Is there any solution for this problem?
Thank in advance.
Stefan
Stefan Witzel -----------------------------------
Universitaet Goettingen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stabsstelle DV -----------------------------------
Gosslerstrasse 5-7 fon: +49 551 394160
37073 Goettingen fax: +49 551 399612
Germany -----------------------------------
|
Hi,
I have some technical issue to
ask. Okay..I have a web server and mail server located side by side.
The web server is used to send all of the on-line inquires to the
mail server. So I would like to ask how to configure qmail to
accept incoming messages by using specific etherent card. From web
server's ethernet care directly to mail server's ethernet card. Assume I
have two ethernet card for both web and mail server. one ethernet card is
to listen from the outside world.
Thank you
Mark
|
Hi all, first of all, sorry for some of my poor english expresions
you'll find in my mail, but it's been long since I last used it ;)
Well, I have a problem which I don't know how dangerous for my system
may be, this is it.
I've installed qmail-1.03 with ucspi-tcp-0.88, fastforward 0.51 and
qpopper3.0.2 with checkpassword 0.81 on a RedHat Linux 6.2 (PIII 450 128 MB RAM
8 GB SCSI). It was working perfectly... 'till I did an administrative stop.
I had to install a 20 GB IDE ATA2 HD for users' home, so I halted the
system, installed the new HD, init 1, changed mount directories, got the right
perms and reboot.
New partitions where:
[root@hermes qmail]# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda2 888M 535M 308M 63% /
/dev/hda1 19G 1.3G 16G 7% /home
/dev/sda3 486M 38k 461M 0% /var/spool
/dev/sda4 7.0G 36k 6.6G 0% /var/spool/mail
When I started qmail, all seemed to work fine... Mail was correctly
delivered inside an outside the server. But I like to send mail through
telneting port 25, so I did this:
telnet localhost 25
HELO aimplas.es
MAIL FROM: jribelles
RCPT TO: jribelles
DATA
hola
.
quit
This is the log of that message:
(in /var/log/maillog)
Sep 8 09:57:54 hermes qmail: 968399874.922874 new msg 91797
Sep 8 09:57:54 hermes qmail: 968399874.923021 info msg 91797: bytes 194 from
<jribelles> qp 11831 uid 502
Sep 8 09:57:54 hermes qmail: 968399874.988017 starting delivery 12: msg 91797 to
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sep 8 09:57:54 hermes qmail: 968399874.988102 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Sep 8 09:57:55 hermes qmail: 968399875.033522 delivery 12: success: did_0+0+1/
Sep 8 09:57:55 hermes qmail: 968399875.033633 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Sep 8 09:57:55 hermes qmail: 968399875.033683 end msg 91797
So, everything seems to be right... Now let's take a look at users' inbox
(/var/spool/mail/jribelles) ...
From jribelles Fri Sep 08 07:57:54 2000
Return-Path: <jribelles>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 11831 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2000 07:57:53 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO aimplas.es) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by localhost with SMTP; 8 Sep 2000 07:57:53 -0000
hola
Well, all I can see here is that the header is missing, fields "From", "To",
and "Date" should appear after second "Received:" line, but they do not... Of
course this only happens when delivering to a local user... And I have
discovered why...
Mail clients do send the header after the DATA tag, like this...
...
DATA
Date: Fri Sep 08 07:57:54 2000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hola
...
This would be the DATA they would send... doing that makes it work
fine... If you put only a "Subject" or "From" field, and you do not specify
all the fields (or maybe only the date), it will ignore the rest of the
message, and will show you only the fields you've entered...
I tried making it work by removing completely /var/qmail (rm -Rf
/var/qmail/*) and reinstalling qmail and fastforward and ucspi, but that
doesn't solve the problem.. maybe it's not a qmail problem, but procmail's? But
I don't understand why it's happened after rebooting the system...
Maybe the problem is in qmail-local or qmail-smtpd->qmail-queue, as
doing
echo "To: jribelles" | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
works fine...
I don't know if in this large mail I've failed to remember something,
but I think all is on... Could anyone please tell me if this is to make me
suffer any kind of problem and how to solve it, or why has it happened? I
can't do anything more with my qmail knowledge... ThanX!!!!
One last thing... I run qmail-smtpd from tcpserver
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -u 502 -g 501 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd &
--
JAVIER RIBELLES ASCÓ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
********************************************************************
AIMPLAS Instituto Tecnologico del Plastico
Unidad de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones
Valencia Parc Tecnologic. C-Gustave Eiffel, 4.
46980 PATERNA (Valencia) -SPAIN-
Tel.: (+34) 96.136.60.40 / Fax.:(+34) 96.136.60.41
http://www.aimplas.es
********************************************************************
Does anyone know how to log POP3 Activities on Qmail (qmail-pop3d) ?
I need to log which email that retrieved by a pop3 users.
For example, here what Post Office does:
20000905175728+0700:POP3-Server:Login:[x.x.x.x]:myemail
20000905175728+0700:POP3-Server:Retrieve:[x.x.x.x]:myemail:4176:0:<myfriend@
mydomain.com>
20000905175730+0700:POP3-Server:Logout:[x.x.x.x]:myemail:2
>From that example log, I'm sure that email from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has been downloaded
by user "myemail", from ip "x.x.x.x",
at "September 5, 2000, 17:57:28 GMT+7".
I'm using qmail+vpopmail.
Best Regards,
Adrian Purnama
>hello,
>
>please help me with this problem. if qmail failed to deliver the emails to
the destination then automatically it will be bounce to the sender right?
if the bounces email have an attachment then how can i remove the
attachment so that only the text file or only the header not the body
will be bounce to the sender.
>
>please help!
>
>thanks in advance
Hi
Please help.
I have problem.
My qmail-server works correctly.
I set to mode stand-up from
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html.
Create a file in /etc called tcp.smtp. I read :
192.168.0.3:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
this is OK
# tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.temp < /etc/tcp.smtp
This is OK
I don't finalize stand-up because if I write my symbol string after a
pattern from http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html.>
tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 503 -g 504 0 smtp /QMAIL/bin/qmail-smtpd
&
My server answer > tcpserver: fatal : unable to bind: address already used
I am afraid but I don't know about what address think my server.
Thank You for your help.
ps: I am sorry my English.
andrej
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
