qmail Digest 13 Sep 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1122
Topics (messages 48455 through 48548):
domain..
48455 by: Fadli Syarid
48483 by: Robin S. Socha
Re: Comparation between Qmail and IMAP4(UW)
48456 by: Robin S. Socha
48459 by: Dave Sill
Re: tcpserver problems
48457 by: Dave Sill
Re: Questions...
48458 by: Petr Novotny
48465 by: Scott D. Yelich
48466 by: Petr Novotny
48469 by: Scott D. Yelich
48470 by: markd.bushwire.net
48473 by: todd.osogrande.net
48477 by: Scott D. Yelich
48478 by: markd.bushwire.net
48479 by: Scott D. Yelich
48480 by: markd.bushwire.net
48488 by: Michael T. Babcock
48492 by: Michael T. Babcock
48501 by: Scott D. Yelich
48535 by: Petr Novotny
Re: virtualdomains (again)
48460 by: Charles Cazabon
Looking for input on JFS for linux.
48461 by: Sean C Truman
48507 by: Pro-People
48532 by: Robin S. Socha
48540 by: Robin S. Socha
48542 by: Petr Novotny
48543 by: Jason Brooke
Re: Monitoring Email - Clarified
48462 by: Scott D. Yelich
48464 by: Dave Sill
48467 by: David Dyer-Bennet
48484 by: Robin S. Socha
48534 by: Eric Cox
Re: Spamming .....
48463 by: Michael T. Babcock
48474 by: Steve Wolfe
Daemontools
48468 by: Frans Haarman
48485 by: Robin S. Socha
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
48471 by: Chris Shenton
48472 by: Peter van Dijk
48475 by: Petr Novotny
48489 by: Michael T. Babcock
48491 by: Peter van Dijk
48498 by: Jason Haar
48533 by: Petr Novotny
Re: Locals, rcpthosts, tcprules or other?
48476 by: Andy Meuse
Re: duplicate messages
48481 by: Bruno Wolff III
which host name
48482 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
oops
48486 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
I did the "IV. QMail and PINE"
48487 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
pine
48490 by: shawn p. duffy
RBL checks and header modification
48493 by: Michael T. Babcock
48496 by: Robin S. Socha
Return Receipts
48494 by: Michael T. Babcock
step 3 of TEST.deliver
48495 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
ok I do see tail -f maillog
48497 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
more logs
48499 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
MAX NUMBER DE RCPT's
48500 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
48508 by: Raul Miller
rblsmtpd lookup timeouts for slow/broken networks
48502 by: Chris Hardie
48517 by: Chris Johnson
qmail pop
48503 by: James Shelby
48511 by: Chris Johnson
48512 by: James Shelby
48513 by: Chris Johnson
48515 by: Dale Miracle
48516 by: James Shelby
qmail performance under Solaris8
48504 by: Brian Baquiran
48506 by: John White
48522 by: markd.bushwire.net
48523 by: markd.bushwire.net
Which to choose?
48505 by: big_qmail.email.com.cn
48509 by: big_qmail.email.com.cn
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
48510 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
48514 by: Dale Miracle
48519 by: markd.bushwire.net
48525 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
48518 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
48520 by: Magnus Bodin
48521 by: markd.bushwire.net
Good review of qmail on securityfocus.com
48524 by: Karl Vogel
48547 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
actually it is a standard install following the directions even
48526 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
48527 by: Brett Randall
48528 by: markd.bushwire.net
48529 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
48530 by: Brett Randall
48531 by: Robin S. Socha
rcpthosts
48536 by: Stano Pa筴a
48537 by: Jason Brooke
48538 by: wolfgang zeikat
48548 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
linuxpeople thread
48539 by: linuxpeople.hotmail.com
48544 by: Russ Allbery
48545 by: Uwe Ohse
48546 by: Steve Carter
Linuxluser thread (Was: linuxpeople thread)
48541 by: Robin S. Socha
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 all
can i use my domain as my adress
eg..
my host: omni.arc.itb.ac.id
i want my adress like this [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what should i do..?
i am sorry if my english bad cause english not my native..:)
website : www.fadli.za.net
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Fadli Syarid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> can i use my domain as my adress eg.. my host: omni.arc.itb.ac.id i
> want my adress like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] what should i do..?
/var/qmail/doc/FAQ: 1.1. How do I set up host masquerading?
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
* Olivier M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000912 05:31]:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:33:29PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Is there anybody know the main features different between Qmail and
> > IMAP4(UW). I know they support different protocol,I want to choose
> > one of them to construct a mail server.Wish somebody give me some
> > advice.
Qmail with Courier IMAP is an excellent choice.
> well, it's impossible to make a comparaison, because qmail doesn't
> have an integrated imap daemon...
>
> But you can use UW-IMAP or Courier-IMAP with qmail if you want.
> The first one only with Mailbox-type boxes, and the second with
> Maildirs.
He asked for a comparison:
http://search.securityportal.com/query.html?qt=imap+washington&col=topnews&col=other&col=lists&col=lskb
http://search.securityportal.com/query.html?qt=qmail&col=topnews&col=other&col=lists&col=lskb
and while we're there:
http://search.securityportal.com/query.html?qt=imap+courier&col=topnews&col=other&col=lists&col=lskb
IMAO, UW IMAP sucks as bad as pine. YMMV.
"Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But you can use UW-IMAP or Courier-IMAP with qmail if you want.
>The first one only with Mailbox-type boxes, and the second with
>Maildirs.
There's a patch to make UW-IMAP work with maildirs. Cyrus is another
IMAP server that can work with qmail. It uses its own mail store
format. LWQ has info about both:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pop-imap-servers
-Dave
"French, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When I try to telnet to port 25, I
>get a connection refused message. Checked the qmail logs and in the smtpd
>log, I get a message that says"tcpserver: error in loading shared
>libraries:libc.so.6.1:failed to map segment from shared object:Cannont
>allocate memory". This repeats over and over again.
You need to increase the memory limit for qmail-smtpd specified in the
softlimit command. (There's a note about this in LWQ, but it's easy
to miss.) Edit the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run script and
raise the limit to 3000000 or 4000000 or whatever it takes to make the
problem do away.
-Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11 Sep 2000, at 12:03, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
>
> ok, I can't resist:
>
> "WHY" ?
1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in
position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOb4Q/lMwP8g7qbw/EQIItQCguo1XUFwxxQzb8pfbJpg2YeDrvdIAoMUV
VYuhEbESx/1BuegJhKoQxZsR
=bvfk
-----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]
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > ok, I can't resist:
> > "WHY" ?
> 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
> 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in
general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a
"whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses
cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but
doing the same for email -- is?
> I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in
> position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well...
I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement.
It's only impossible until it's not.
Certain types of laws can be changed.
Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation
for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it
is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and
may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial
approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the
seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their
ways and rehabilitate and repent?
Quick Qmail Quiz!!!!
HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone
name all of them!
Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one):
HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two
questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and
without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2000, at 11:11, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> > 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> > again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
>
> AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
Well, Fortran's rules for indexing come from the same teapot.
> What is that site uses cnames for www.domain?
> Why is this not against the law, but doing the same for email -- is?
There already _is_ one chain of CNAMEs. If you send a mail to a
CNAME, MTA first follows the chain, until is finds the first
non-CNAME record. (Example: www.example.com IN CNAME
server.example.com - when mailing to www.example.com, MTA
first follows the CNAME "chain" to server.example.com.) This non-
CNAME is usually a MX. If this MX now points to CNAME, there's
another chain of CNAMEs.
It might be even possible that there arised a cycle; the obvious
cycle
a IN CNAME b
b IN CNAME a
is easy to catch. However, a subtle cycle
a IN CNAME b
b IN MX c
IN A 1.2.3.4
c IN CNAME a
is not a cycle for www (a record) but might be a cycle for mail (mx
record).
Noone claims that DNS system is perfectly designed (read djb's
own comments on it). However, some stuff is illegal (although often
used) - like MX pointing to CNAME or NS pointing to CNAME.
> HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone
> name all of them!
That's not a matter of mailer, I believe, but of DNS software
(resolver).
There _are_ dinosaur programs which actually choke on
MX->CNAME.
> HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
Looking for a flame, aren't we?
How many mailers are "transparent-reliable" - I mean guaranteed to
leave a message intact?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOb5Z6lMwP8g7qbw/EQJNLwCghpAErfYcNTVkdazO8wKLfAnxdhYAnRrq
MAH7LhHezVnYXBZKqAgYnpyO
=0N9d
-----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]
btw: this isn't flame bait... if it's too off topic, since no one else
is participating, I'd be happy to discuss these things in private
emails.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> Well, Fortran's rules for indexing come from the same teapot.
Yes, and we all know how much attention every programmer pays to memory
architecture these days. Writing a program to display today's date --
sure, why not include a web browser in that! What's a GIGABYTE of
RAM these days? :-) (Humor? not funny? sorry.)
> is not a cycle for www (a record) but might be a cycle for mail (mx
> record).
Agreed... but, alas, cycles/loops vs efficiency is still a weak argument
-- in my camp. If you hose your MX cnames, you deserve your lost/queued
mail. Hardly seems any different than 1 month TTLs and then changing
things and dealing with that fallout for a month.
> There _are_ dinosaur programs which actually choke on
> MX->CNAME.
Question: Why are there not so many non-dinosaur programs that
actually choke on MX->CNAME?
> > HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
> Looking for a flame, aren't we?
No. Although it's not qmail... per se... I've constantly had to tell
people "Gee, I run qmail... if your system can't send mail to me, but
other systems seem quite capable of it, I'd tend to put the blame on
your system." And then I get back the usual "but I can send mail to
other systems just fine." to which I respond, "but are they running
qmail"
Most people tell me to "fix" my system. Of course, I refuse. It's
really bad when one of those people is your boss... and he's a little
tweaked that he can't seem to send mail to you. Ya know?
> How many mailers are "transparent-reliable" - I mean guaranteed to
> leave a message intact?
I'm not really sure I follow you.... perhaps the soon-to-be de facto
standard of having the HTML formatted body of the message as an
attachment doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling? and we all know that
visualization of HTML is left up to the display agent. *shudder*
Scott
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:11:48AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > > ok, I can't resist:
> > > "WHY" ?
> > 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
>
> but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
>
> > 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> > again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
>
> AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
>
> Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in
When this rule was devised the web didn't exist. When this rule
was devised there was indeen a single internet backbone and numerous
countries had less bandwidth to that backbone than a DSL line!
> It's only impossible until it's not.
> Certain types of laws can be changed.
Sure. And there are working groups associated with the IETF precisely
for this purpose. You should considering joining one if you're genuinely
interested in advocating changes or in understanding why things haven't
changed. For an example of how difficult it is to change a heavily
entrenced semi-standard application like email you may want to look at
the DRUMS working group archives.
> Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two
> questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and
> without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there.
Fine, but what did you think of the 10 entries in the qmail list archive
that come up when you search for CNAME? Is checking the archives first
asking you to do too much?
Regards.
here's my summary of this issue that scott has been preseverating on for
the past year and a half or so:
-the RFC says MX records can't point to CNAMEs
-scott thinks that is silly and doesn't understand why it should be
-others point out that this was originally due to fears of efficiency
(multiple lookups for the same record).
-scott says: 'oh yeah? it's not that inefficient and so are other things
anyway'.
-others say: then change the RFC to be compliant
-scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
-people generally stop taking scott seriously.
i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it
always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive
conversation for anyone?
todd
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > > ok, I can't resist:
> > > "WHY" ?
> > 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
>
> but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
>
> > 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> > again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
>
> AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
>
> Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in
> general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a
> "whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses
> cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but
> doing the same for email -- is?
>
> > I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in
> > position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well...
>
> I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement.
>
> It's only impossible until it's not.
> Certain types of laws can be changed.
>
> Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation
> for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it
> is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and
> may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial
> approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the
> seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their
> ways and rehabilitate and repent?
>
> Quick Qmail Quiz!!!!
>
> HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone
> name all of them!
>
> Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one):
>
> HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
>
> Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two
> questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and
> without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
--
Todd Underwood
Chief Technology Officer
Oso Grande Technologies, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
> -people generally stop taking scott seriously.
no... I simply wonder why it seems only the qmail camp seems to serious
about insisting that sometimes vague RFCs should be adhered to so
tightly when it seems to only cause more problems than fix.
> i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it
> always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive
> conversation for anyone?
You can't fix the world, but you can fix yourself?
Todd -- couldn't you just put me in a kill file?
Anyway, wasn't there an issue with AOL and large DNS responses?
What ever came of that?!
Scott
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 12:25:45PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
> > -people generally stop taking scott seriously.
>
> no... I simply wonder why it seems only the qmail camp seems to serious
> about insisting that sometimes vague RFCs should be adhered to so
> tightly when it seems to only cause more problems than fix.
If you're serious, the answer is that some people view that adherance
to standards is important even if it seems to temporarily hamper
interoperability. "Temporarily"? I'm talking the long-term view
of the Internet not the next couple of years. Standards-rot over the
last 20 years on the Internet has already caused serious problems and
blithely ignoring them, no matter how vague, is a contributor to that
standards-rot.
The fix? Change the standard. Then you'll be arguing from a position
of strength, not from the bleachers. Now you might want to try and
change the standard by coercion (nyah nyah, most of the internet email
programs ignore the standard so change dammit!) or by cooperation.
Microsoft are pretty good at the former, which is your preferred
strategy?
> > i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it
> > always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive
> > conversation for anyone?
>
> You can't fix the world, but you can fix yourself?
>
> Todd -- couldn't you just put me in a kill file?
>
> Anyway, wasn't there an issue with AOL and large DNS responses?
> What ever came of that?!
Yes. AOL changed.
Regards.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you're serious, the answer is that some people view that adherance
> to standards is important even if it seems to temporarily hamper
> interoperability. "Temporarily"? I'm talking the long-term view
> of the Internet not the next couple of years. Standards-rot over the
> last 20 years on the Internet has already caused serious problems and
> blithely ignoring them, no matter how vague, is a contributor to that
> standards-rot.
I think this sums up my opinion. Hence, I do run qmail.
> The fix? Change the standard. Then you'll be arguing from a position
> of strength, not from the bleachers. Now you might want to try and
> change the standard by coercion (nyah nyah, most of the internet email
> programs ignore the standard so change dammit!) or by cooperation.
> Microsoft are pretty good at the former, which is your preferred
> strategy?
which former? coercion? By chance, are you talking about "embrace and
extend" ?
> Yes. AOL changed.
Ah! ok.. great! I thought there was some big-DNS patch for qmail
(which I didn't apply). Of course, I would have preferred that AOL
changed. I'm glad that they did!
Scott
> > The fix? Change the standard. Then you'll be arguing from a position
> > of strength, not from the bleachers. Now you might want to try and
> > change the standard by coercion (nyah nyah, most of the internet email
> > programs ignore the standard so change dammit!) or by cooperation.
> > Microsoft are pretty good at the former, which is your preferred
> > strategy?
>
> which former?
The first one.
Regards.
I'm missing the message where Scott said to ignore the RFC. He may have
several times said the RFC was irrelevant, or hinted at that, but never said
(to my reading) that it should be ignored. In fact, I understood him to be
saying it should be changed.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> here's my summary of this issue that scott has been preseverating on for
> the past year and a half or so:
>
> -the RFC says MX records can't point to CNAMEs
> -scott thinks that is silly and doesn't understand why it should be
> -others point out that this was originally due to fears of efficiency
> (multiple lookups for the same record).
> -scott says: 'oh yeah? it's not that inefficient and so are other things
> anyway'.
> -others say: then change the RFC to be compliant
> -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
> -people generally stop taking scott seriously.
>
> i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it
> always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive
> conversation for anyone?
>
> todd
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > > > ok, I can't resist:
> > > > "WHY" ?
> > > 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
> >
> > but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
> >
> > > 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> > > again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
> >
> > AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
> >
> > Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in
> > general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a
> > "whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses
> > cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but
> > doing the same for email -- is?
> >
> > > I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in
> > > position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well...
> >
> > I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement.
> >
> > It's only impossible until it's not.
> > Certain types of laws can be changed.
> >
> > Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation
> > for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it
> > is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and
> > may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial
> > approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the
> > seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their
> > ways and rehabilitate and repent?
> >
> > Quick Qmail Quiz!!!!
> >
> > HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone
> > name all of them!
> >
> > Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one):
> >
> > HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
> >
> > Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two
> > questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and
> > without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Todd Underwood
> Chief Technology Officer
> Oso Grande Technologies, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you're serious, the answer is that some people view that adherance
> to standards is important even if it seems to temporarily hamper
> interoperability. "Temporarily"? I'm talking the long-term view
> of the Internet not the next couple of years. Standards-rot over the
> last 20 years on the Internet has already caused serious problems and
> blithely ignoring them, no matter how vague, is a contributor to that
> standards-rot.
I'd just like to throw in a little comment, without disagreeing with you
outright, that CNAMEs are not 'prohibited' by any Internet Standards
documents (to my knowledge).
For those reading this who don't know, standards and rfcs are not
equivalent. HTTP, for example (as someone on this list's homepage points
out) is not a standard.
For the sake of answering the original questionner w.r.t. reasoning, from
RFC974 (which is standard 0014):
Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has
a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g.
REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This
can be avoided if aliases are never used in the data section of MX
RRs.
cf. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc974.html
This is the only mention of the non-use of CNAMEs in the mail standards.
Is this offsubject?
> Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has
> a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g.
> REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This
> can be avoided if aliases are never used in the data section of MX
> RRs.
> cf. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc974.html
> This is the only mention of the non-use of CNAMEs in the mail standards.
OLD A:
main.server A IP1
mail.server CNAME main.server
host1 A IP2
MX mail.server
host2 A IP3
MX mail.server
NEW B:
main.server A IP1
mail.server A IP1
host1 A IP2
MX mail.server
host2 A IP3
MX mail.server
For what it's worth, it seems to me that moving from the old style A to
the new style B ... is so trivial, it shouldn't be an issue or a hassle.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2000, at 16:32, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> cf. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc974.html
>
> This is the only mention of the non-use of CNAMEs in the mail
> standards.
I beg to differ. Please have a look at RFC1912, called "Common
DNS errors". Quoting section 2.4:
> Don't use CNAMEs in combination with RRs which point to other names
> like MX, CNAME, PTR and NS. (PTR is an exception if you want to
> implement classless in-addr delegation.) For example, this is
> strongly discouraged:
>
> podunk.xx. IN MX mailhost
> mailhost IN CNAME mary
> mary IN A 1.2.3.4
>
>
> [RFC 1034] in section 3.6.2 says this should not be done, and [RFC
> 974] explicitly states that MX records shall not point to an alias
> defined by a CNAME. This results in unnecessary indirection in
> accessing the data, and DNS resolvers and servers need to work more
> to get the answer. If you really want to do this, you can
> accomplish the same thing by using a preprocessor such as m4 on
> your host files.
>
> Also, having chained records such as CNAMEs pointing to CNAMEs may
> make administration issues easier, but is known to tickle bugs in
> some resolvers that fail to check loops correctly. As a result
> some hosts may not be able to resolve such names.
>
> Having NS records pointing to a CNAME is bad and may conflict badly
> with current BIND servers. In fact, current BIND implementations
> will ignore such records, possibly leading to a lame delegation.
> There is a certain amount of security checking done in BIND to
> prevent spoofing DNS NS records. Also, older BIND servers
> reportedly will get caught in an infinite query loop trying to
> figure out the address for the aliased nameserver, causing a
> continuous stream of DNS requests to be sent.
Other questions? :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOb8iI1MwP8g7qbw/EQL0WgCbB/8Wg5/5QGD1fhFQXICfAPT/PNQAn2E8
eWs9TlvDrtbi3+ehcuKRNYXH
=IpoY
-----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]
ryan p bobko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> and finally, my virtualdomains:
> --------
> Y:bronco15
> mail.Y:bronco15
> --------
>
> My understanding is that all mail to Y or mail.Y will go to user bronco15. However,
>when I send mail to ryan@Y, I get the following message:
>
> --------
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at X.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <ryan@Y>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Mail for ryan@Y will be delivered to bronco15-ryan on the local machine.
If bronco15 doesn't have a .qmail-ryan, and doesn't have a .qmail-default,
it will bounce.
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK
My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
Hey All,
I was doing some research on
linux files systems. and ran across?
Is anyone out there running Qmail on JFS for
linux?? How is it running? Whats the pros/cons?
|
|
jfs for linux is not yet stable.
try reiserfs if you want a journaling fs for linux now.
-makatao
"It is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws,
We must protect
ourselves with mathematics."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:13
PM
Subject: Looking for input on JFS for
linux.
Hey All,
I was doing some research on
linux files systems. and ran across?
Is anyone out there running Qmail on JFS for
linux?? How is it running? Whats the pros/cons?
|
* Pro-People <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Turn this off an fix your quoting, your mail looks terrible.
> jfs for linux is not yet stable. try reiserfs if you want a journaling
> fs for linux now.
Try softupdates for *BSD if you want a stable and fast filesystem for a
production machine. Oh. And ReiserFS is *NOT* stable.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
* Jason Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000913 03:57]:
[fast filesystems]
> Try and grow mentally.
Jawohl, mein Jason. Now, Jason, tell me how to safely run ReiserFS with
NFS and Raid?
And to get this a little more on topic:
http://www.jedi.claranet.fr/qmail-reiserfs-howto.html
So, Jason, can you tell me why I would want to do this:
|If you run a personal mail server and don't mind losing mails if you got
|a system crash or a power outage, you can apply this patch to Qmail.
|This is a RFC violation, but you'll get a very fast server and you can
|skip the rest of this section.
The rest of this page does not sound very pleasant, either. So, Jason,
will you please enlighten us what leads you to your statement? Or were
you just trying to veil your ignorance with 3rd rate flamebait, Jason?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> And to get this a little more on topic:
> http://www.jedi.claranet.fr/qmail-reiserfs-howto.html
1. What's that? qmail's queue can be mounted noatime? Huh!
Please try "grep atime /usr/src/qmail/qmail-1.03/*c" and then
withdraw your claims. atime is used to identify ossified files in the
queue.
2. Why would you want to patch qmail to skip fsync() calls?
Doesn't mounting your queue with "nosync" have the same effect?
(It's a very silly idea to do so, though.) The sync/nosync can be
changed with a simple remount - patched qmail has to be
recompiled, stopped and replaced.
3. I am not sure the "sync" patch from that article is sufficient; you
don't only need "link" but also open/creat, unlink and rename to be
"post-synced" the same way.
To anyone reading the article mentioned: Please take it with a
grain of salt. There are some good ideas and there are some
misconceptions.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOb8yAFMwP8g7qbw/EQJeNQCg+MhEPMx/lD7xflq8HPkmkgNyJNoAoJlI
z4FvVulAtbiygCccg3767Ip2
=XRKN
-----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]
You seem to be addressing me regarding someone else's comments. The one
and only line from your email that was typed by me is "Try and grow
mentally." which I sent directly to you, not to the list.
Why you felt compelled to send that privately-sent line to this list,
and not only include someone else's comments from another email _on_ the
list in the reply with it, but then respond to those unrelated comments
as if they were my words, is beyond me.
jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for input on JFS for linux.
> * Jason Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000913 03:57]:
>
> [fast filesystems]
> > Try and grow mentally.
>
> Jawohl, mein Jason. Now, Jason, tell me how to safely run ReiserFS
with
> NFS and Raid?
>
> And to get this a little more on topic:
> http://www.jedi.claranet.fr/qmail-reiserfs-howto.html
>
> So, Jason, can you tell me why I would want to do this:
>
> |If you run a personal mail server and don't mind losing mails if you
got
> |a system crash or a power outage, you can apply this patch to Qmail.
> |This is a RFC violation, but you'll get a very fast server and you
can
> |skip the rest of this section.
>
> The rest of this page does not sound very pleasant, either. So, Jason,
> will you please enlighten us what leads you to your statement? Or were
> you just trying to veil your ignorance with 3rd rate flamebait, Jason?
>
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600
> > The favorite is always:
> > Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
> > A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
> > Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I
> > want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number
> > in society -- some people don't care to be that way.
> Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it
> myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of
> these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach
> their actual goal. Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't
> know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while
> suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to
> determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me.
Yes, sometimes. But should one really assume that everyone is just
nothing but a clueless qqqq'n newbie and thus simply assume to have the
right to think for them and proceed to do so?
How about... another example. Perhaps this one is clearer and/or more
close to home:
Q : How do I install qmail?
A : You install postfix by blah blah blah.
QQ: I asked about qmail.....
AA: No one uses qmail, everyone uses postfix because it's better. Hell,
use sendmail, if you have to, just don't use qmail. No one uses
qmail... see, even FAQs say don't use qmail.
Understand? There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for
people to answer a question with what they want, regardless of what they
were asked. This doesn't just mean that a person is asking about qmail
on a qmail list and is only being told about qmail -- this is just a
general observation. Sometimes corporate or clients demand something...
sometimes people want to experiment or try things out. Sometimes one
size just won't fit all. Sometimes people may just have to make their
own mistakes. After all, if shouldn't we all just be using mircosoft
solutions... and exchange? It *is* the best MTA, right? :-/
Anyway, it's no biggy... just a little something to chuckle at. It's
like ending a sentence with a preposition.
Scott
ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's
having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+
hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I
finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list.
"Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Understand? There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for
>people to answer a question with what they want, regardless of what they
>were asked.
I agree that this is "no biggy". This list is a completely free,
voluntary and open forum, and both questioners and answerers are free
to be stupid, wrong, irrelevant, irreverent, annoying, etc. So if Joe
takes every question referring to mailbox formats as an opportunity to
sing the praises of maildir, so what? If you ask a question and nobody
answers it, so what? You want a refund? :-)
>... I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+
>hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I
>finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list.
I hope you reported the fault to the author. I also hope you thanked
him for the FAQ/HOWTO he wrote, because without it you would doubtless
have struggled even more than 3+ hours.
-Dave
Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 12 September 2000 at 10:12:15 -0600
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600
> > > The favorite is always:
> > > Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
> > > A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
> > > Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I
> > > want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number
> > > in society -- some people don't care to be that way.
> > Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it
> > myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of
> > these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach
> > their actual goal. Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't
> > know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while
> > suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to
> > determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me.
>
> Yes, sometimes. But should one really assume that everyone is just
> nothing but a clueless qqqq'n newbie and thus simply assume to have the
> right to think for them and proceed to do so?
Absolutely not; that would be completely wrong, and quite rude. But
you'll notice that isn't what I suggested. The whole point was to
*not* make assumptions, but instead to ask for clarification when
there was some cause for doubt. *That*, IMHO, is responsible, polite,
and producive.
> ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's
> having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+
> hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I
> finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list.
Well, be sure to report the errors you found, if possible with a
suggested way to fix them!
--
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]
* Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Asking for XYZ when everyone knows XYZ is a dumb thing to do]
>> Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it
>> myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of
>> these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach
>> their actual goal.
People that told me how XZY were the ones that made me put /etc under
CVS. Just in case...
>> Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't know this for
>> sure. So my options are to answer the question, while suspecting I'm
>> not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to determine what
>> answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me.
> Yes, sometimes. But should one really assume that everyone is just
> nothing but a clueless qqqq'n newbie and thus simply assume to have
> the right to think for them and proceed to do so?
Absolutely. I vividly remember asking how to run an alpha version of
Gnus. Without using a backup recipe in procmail. *smack* 1500 mails
gone. I would not have minded telling *why* I wanted to run this
particular version of dangerous software. Modern Linux distributions
go to great lenghts to a) win the version size war and b) enable
users to run software that is likely to do considerable harm to their
systems.
Clueless newbies come in two flavours: dick-size challenged lusers and
people who are genuinely lost. Guess which group will appreciate an
affirmative question?
> How about... another example. Perhaps this one is clearer and/or more
> close to home:
> Q : How do I install qmail?
> A : You install postfix by blah blah
> blah.
> QQ: I asked about qmail.....
> AA: No one uses qmail, everyone uses postfix because it's better.
> Hell, use sendmail, if you have to, just don't use qmail. No one
> uses qmail... see, even FAQs say don't use qmail.
> Understand?
Never saw this on this list. Remember the OP in this[1] thread? A luser
wanted to make copies of all incoming/outgoing mail. He got a correct,
concise and (give the circumstances (the solution is advertised in
<b>bold</b> letters in the FAQ)) polite answer. I mean, face it: if
you're too fscking stoopid to recompile a freaking mailserver (one of
the tools most likely to wreak havoc on unsuspecting admins if
configured improperly), you *do* *not* *need* one.
> There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for people to answer
> a question with what they want, regardless of what they were asked. This
> doesn't just mean that a person is asking about qmail on a qmail list and
> is only being told about qmail -- this is just a general observation.
Well, thanks for bringing your observation to our attention. Happens
to me every day. "Yo, d00d3, how much for the Bentley?" "Err, Sir, I
think you'd rather take a look at those matchbox Bentleys..." Does not
happen on this list, though. Sorry for blowing your attempt at making
a point. Next time, maybe. Gotta try harder, Scott.
> Sometimes corporate or clients demand something... sometimes people
> want to experiment or try things out.
You do not want to experiment with an MTA. Or with a newsserver. Unless
you know what you're doing. In which case you're not experimenting but
evaluating possibilities.
> Sometimes one size just won't fit all.
Only if your solution is too small. My experience in this field is
extremely limited. Thanks, God.
> Sometimes people may just have to make their own mistakes. After all,
> if shouldn't we all just be using mircosoft solutions... and exchange?
> It *is* the best MTA, right? :-/
No, Scott, it isn't. But making a mistake with an MTA *sucks* if you're
connected.
> Anyway, it's no biggy... just a little something to chuckle at. It's
> like ending a sentence with a preposition.
Prepositions are no good thing to end a sentence with, Scott.
> ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's
> having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+
> hours...
I've been struggling with it ever since I installed it. Good software.
> I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I finally
> figured it out and I even resisted asking the list.
man diff
We're lightyears OT, reply-to set. Happy reading, Scott.
Footnotes:
[1] Courtesy of Microsoft Crapware(tm), we're now in thread number
four, but who cares these days?
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
"Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
>
> Understand? There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for
> people to answer a question with what they want, regardless of what they
> were asked.
Or perhaps they just don't know the answer to that exact question, so they
"nibble around the edges" a bit, and give the questioner the benefit of
what knowledge they _do_ have.
Is no answer better?
> ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's
> having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+
> hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I
> finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list.
Which FAQ is faulty? it might make it easier to improve them if you
volunteered the information.
Eric
On which note, it is quite useful to create your newsletter in HTML on a
website, and then make a mailing list that simply gives the major headings
and points back to that website for the actual newsletter (many large
newsletters do this to save bandwidth and create a nicer looking
newsletter).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That being the case, you will probably need to look toward things like
Ezmlm
> and do the whole mailing list thing. IMHO ..... YOu might notofy your ISP
> that you are running a listserv or going to email out that much. THe
> provider I work for , we monitor that kind of traffic and when you decide
to
> send 100k emails in a very short timespan , someone is very likely to
notice
> and it wil raise an eyebrow or two. There is I would think better ways to
> disseminate this information than mass emails. Takes up to much servers
> space and just eats bandwitdh if you plan on doing this on any kind of
> regular basis ..
> > Shhh, don't tell. If he's stupid enough to ask for advice, he
might
> > just be stupid enough to put his real email address in...
>
> I'll agree that asking about bulk mailing on this list is a little
> suicidial, (especially since www.qmail.org/top.html talks about mailing
> lists with ezmlm) but considering how many people don't speak English
> natively on this list, I think it is a little rude to go insulting them
for
> their errors... We don't know what his situation is so we don't have the
> right to call him 'stupid'.
You're right, and I publicly apologize. Since he had misunderstood the
meaning of "spamming", he isn't the sort of person I made him out to be.
(However, had he understood the meaning of "spamming" and still asked for
help, I would have stuck to my statement. : ) )
steve
Ok I'm running a qmail server for a few months
without problems. But since I'm not a very
experienced UNIX admin I want to make sure
everything keeps working as it should.
Now I hear people talking about daemonstools,
how it restarts the service when it dies.
At the moment I simply run a small program
which makes a connection to the localhost
and sents an `helo' command. If it fails
I'll stop and start qmail.
Should I start using daemontools ?
--Frans
* Frans Haarman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should I start using daemontools ?
Absolutely. You'll probably like multilog, too. And while you're at it,
also install ucspi-tcp. Basically, install everything written by DJ
Bernstein - the man is a living programming marvel.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:47:37 +0200, Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Peter> The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only
Peter> injecting a message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate
Peter> delivery of one message to 20.000 recipients.
Peter> It sucks at handling 20.000 separate messages all injected at
Peter> the same time.
Can you be more specific on the last bit? It can't suck more than
sendmail, can it?
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 02:05:27PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:47:37 +0200, Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Peter> The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only
> Peter> injecting a message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate
> Peter> delivery of one message to 20.000 recipients.
>
> Peter> It sucks at handling 20.000 separate messages all injected at
> Peter> the same time.
>
> Can you be more specific on the last bit? It can't suck more than
> sendmail, can it?
The specifics are that it keeps on switching between handling one
message from the todo queue and spawning one local/remote delivery,
which, somehow, seems to be fatal for performance.
I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once, because
of it's nature.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
> todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once,
> because of it's nature.
However, sendmail (by default) also has a single queue directory
(like todo is); it is hit by the very same problem (scandir(), open(),
unlink() taking *too*long* in large directories) as qmail.
If you get a big-todo patch for qmail, then 20000 messages in todo
queue are no problem...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOb5lUlMwP8g7qbw/EQKTYwCfXTtYT9HyLD7KttHP1nl4IGtkq2MAn2Xq
yySr8DZyzhEPDee/mtfYRahI
=ciew
-----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]
How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
> > todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once,
> > because of it's nature.
>
> However, sendmail (by default) also has a single queue directory
> (like todo is); it is hit by the very same problem (scandir(), open(),
> unlink() taking *too*long* in large directories) as qmail.
>
> If you get a big-todo patch for qmail, then 20000 messages in todo
> queue are no problem...
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
Basically, ext2fs sucks and FreeBSD FFS rocks (especially with
softupdates). I hear good things about ReiserFS. Now only if it was
stable. (don't come saying it is, I've seen too many people with trashed
ReiserFS partitions lately).
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:18:09PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
> > todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once,
> > because of it's nature.
>
> However, sendmail (by default) also has a single queue directory
> (like todo is); it is hit by the very same problem (scandir(), open(),
> unlink() taking *too*long* in large directories) as qmail.
Bzzzzzt! Please don't erroneously compare CURRENT sendmail with CURRENT
(that's 1.0.3) Qmail. Qmail has a single queue directory, sendmail-8.11
ALLOWS you to have multiple.
I'm afraid sendmail is catching up... :-)
People for years have hacked sendmail to do multiple queues for large sites
- just like Qmail has been hacked... But Sendmail officially supports it,
Qmail doesn't.
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2000, at 16:06, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
Any system which doesn't scan directories in linear order but using
binary search (keeping directory entries sorted, or indexed) helps a
lot. Not only ReiserFS, but also NTFS lie in that domain. (Well, I
*think* ReiserFS lies in that domain; I *know* NTFS does.)
Further profiling is needed, though; it may be the case that a
filesystem with sorted/indexed directories (and logaritmic access
dependency) scales well but speed sucks with "close-to-empty"
directories, making it much slower under "normal" circumstances.
Hell, I would like to see ext2 with much better scaling - Maildirs
would finally stop to suck when overcrowded. But *personally* I
trust more the code from the "mainstream distribution" (read: ext2)
then patching my kernel (read: reiserFS). I'll wait until a better
filesystem claws its way into RedHat distro. :-)
Meanwhile, I'll stick to a big-todo patch.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOb8b/1MwP8g7qbw/EQJFIACeMRjx12BSfjYVM4191wqY1ilf3aUAoPLC
EfkEm3flQsVy5VW4YYHCj1fV
=wp+R
-----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]
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 03:12:33PM -0400, Andy Meuse wrote:
> > I have a web server off-site, web.mydomain.com. A java
> process on this
> > server sends mail using my local qmail server,
> qmail.mydomain.com. As seen
> > in the header below, firewall.mydomain.com, which is the
> offsite firewall
> > for the web server is also in on the deal somehow. Here is
> a header of a
> > successfully sent email from web.mydomain.com to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snip]
> > The IP of qmail.mydomain.com is the 4.17.165.190 address,
> the 216.35.89.70
> > address is the firewall IP. I have gotten this to work by
> removing my
> > rcpthosts file (duh), but I would like it to work the proper way.
> >
> > The relaying rules on qmail.mydomain.com work for the web
> server and the
> > firewall (tested with rcpthosts present using sendmail) so
> that doesn't seem
> > to be the problem.
> >
> > Should I put firewall.mydomain.com and\or web.mydomain.com
> in locals and\or
> > rcpthosts to make this work?
>
> No, use tcp.smtp and tcpserver to set RELAYCLIENT when connections
> from 4.17.165.190 come in. Its in the Life With Qmail book,
> http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html
My tcprules allow for the whole 4.17.165.0 network, and I have other servers
(including the web server) on that network that Relay through the qmail
server fine. It's this javamail thing that contacts qmail directly that
doesn't work.
The webserver sends mail from the qmail server like a local desktop would,
I think. Or maybe I just don't get exactly what RELAYCLIENT does.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:53:20PM -0700,
Christopher Taranto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
>
> My post of a couple of days ago has a similar problem - but no one has
> responded to my message.
I don't think I have the answer to your problem, but one thing you
should be aware of is that qmail does not try to remove duplicate
addresses the way sendmail does.
regarding INSTALL.ctl
There's one big exception. You MUST tell qmail your hostname. Just run
the config-fast script:
# ./config-fast your.full.host.name
config-fast puts your.full.host.name into control/me. It also puts it
into control/locals and control/rcpthosts, so that qmail will accept
mail for your.full.host.name.
My host name is something.local because it is a masquaraded machine with an
IP of 192.168.0.33
The hostname of the firewall / gateway machine that has ports 25 and 110
forwarded back to 192.168.0.33
|
this got sent incomplete the first time so
disregard the first one - oops
regarding INSTALL.ctl
which states:
"There's one big
exception. You MUST tell qmail your hostname. Just run
the config-fast
script:
# ./config-fast
your.full.host.name
config-fast puts your.full.host.name into
control/me. It also puts it
into control/locals and control/rcpthosts, so
that qmail will accept
mail for your.full.host.name.
My host name
is really "www" because it is a masquaraded machine mail, ftp, www server
with an IP of 192.168.0.33
The hostname of the firewall / gateway machine
that has ports 25 and 110
forwarded back to 192.168.0.33 is supposed to be
updegrove.net I have 2 DNS servers 1 internal and 1
external.
Was I
correct?
qmail is running (I think)
Sep 12 12:27:38 www qmail: 968786858.153688 status:
local 0/10 remote 0/20
root
702 0.0 0.0 1092 0 pts/1
SW 12:27 0:00
[supervise]
qmails 704 0.0 0.0
1144 0 pts/1 SW
12:27 0:00 [qmail-send]
qmaill 707
0.0 0.0 1112 0 pts/1
SW 12:27 0:00
[splogger]
root 708 0.0
0.0 1104 0 pts/1 SW
12:27 0:00 [qmail-lspawn]
qmailr
709 0.0 0.0 1100 0 pts/1
SW 12:27 0:00
[qmail-rspawn]
qmailq 710 0.0 0.0
1092 0 pts/1 SW
12:27 0:00 [qmail-clean]
root
732 0.0 14.6 2656 972 pts/1
R 12:48 0:01 ps -aux
but when using PINE to send an e-mail I get the
following:
[Sending mail |
0% |]
[Error sending: Connection failed to
updegrove.net,25: Connection timed out]
I realize this is probably not qmail related but
someone may know whats going on.
Back to the docs
|
|
Did I mention
I did this:
IV. QMail and PINE
If you are using pine,
put:
sendmail-path=/usr/sbin/sendmail
-t
inbox-path=$MAIL
into /usr/lib/pine.conf.
|
I have got a question about qmailand pine...
I have qmail running on Slackware Linux 7 and it works fine, however, when I
use pine, I have to put localhost in inbox path : {localhost/pop3}
I never installed sendmail on installation of slack so the last posting about
qmail and pine won't work.
essentially, I want pine to refresh with new messages without having to exit
and enter again., and not have to enter name and password everytime I go into
pine.
I tried setting inbox path to Maildir and every other variation of it and it
doesn't work....
any ideas?
shawn
--
got root?
Does anyone have a program that does the checks rblsmtpd does, except that
it allows the modification of the message header instead of blocking the
mail?
I've mentionned this before, but after trying some things, didn't manage to
get it to work right.
Basically:
- incoming message from server a.b.c.d
- software checks if a.b.c.d is in RBL (or RSS, etc.)
- if so, adds "X-RBL-Failure: http://www...blah" (which is the failure
line)
- if not, ignores the message (as is currently done).
* Michael T Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone have a program that does the checks rblsmtpd does, except
> that it allows the modification of the message header instead of
> blocking the mail?
Procmail, preferably in conjunction with rblcheck:
http://www.procmail.org/jari/pm-tips-body.html
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
I'm aware of how qmail currently handles receipts, but am wondering if it
would be possible (of course ;-) to (by adding a header?) request that
qmail-remote or qmail-local generate a return-receipt-verified E-mail once
they succeeded?
It doesn't seem that difficult to return a confirmation message (on request)
once the sending server has successfully delivered the message to where it
was going. The user may not have received it yet, etc., but it is sent.
Is this the correct reply address? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If so this step doesn't work or offer any suggestions on what to do if it
does not.
Has anyone experienced this step not working?
3. Local-local test: Send yourself an empty message. (Replace ``me''
with your username. Make sure to include the ``to:'' colon.)
% echo to: me | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
The message will show up immediately in your mailbox, and syslog
will show something like this:
qmail: new msg 53
qmail: info msg 53: bytes 246 from <me@domain> qp 20345 uid 666
qmail: starting delivery 1: msg 53 to local me@domain
qmail: status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
qmail: delivery 1: success: did_1+0+0/
qmail: status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
qmail: end msg 53
(53 is an inode number; 20345 is a process ID; your numbers will
probably be different.)
NOTE this works:
2. Do a ps and look for the qmail daemons. There should be four of
them, all idle: qmail-send, running as qmails; qmail-lspawn, running
as root; qmail-rspawn, running as qmailr; and qmail-clean, running
as qmailq. You will also see splogger, running as qmaill.
I get nothing in /var/log/messages or in /var/log/maillog
I get nothing in my mailbox.
(I am still waiting to hear a word on how to name the 2 machines 1.)
router/gateway/nameserver1 and 2.) the masquaraded www, ftp, mail and
nameserver2 - see the post entitled "which host name" and the 3 subsequent
posts
[root@www log]# tail -f maillog
Sep 12 17:13:51 www qmail: 968804031.708313 delivery 35: deferral:
/bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
Sep 12 17:13:51 www qmail: 968804031.710696 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Sep 12 17:14:43 www qmail: 968804083.883235 starting delivery 36: msg 86907
to local root@
Sep 12 17:14:43 www qmail: 968804083.885455 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Sep 12 17:14:45 www qmail: 968804085.855165 delivery 36: deferral:
/bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
Sep 12 17:14:45 www qmail: 968804085.857371 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Sep 12 17:17:45 www qmail: 968804265.025859 starting delivery 37: msg 86908
to local root@
Sep 12 17:17:45 www qmail: 968804265.028077 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Sep 12 17:17:46 www qmail: 968804266.661371 delivery 37: deferral:
/bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
Sep 12 17:17:46 www qmail: 968804266.663861 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
When I try step 5 in TEST.deliver
5. Local-remote test: Send an empty message to your account on another
machine.
% echo to: me@wherever | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
qmail: new msg 53
qmail: info msg 53: bytes 246 from <me@domain> qp 20372 uid 666
qmail: starting delivery 4: msg 53 to remote me@wherever
qmail: status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
qmail: delivery 4: success: 1.2.3.4_accepted_message./...
qmail: status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
qmail: end msg 53
There will be a pause between ``starting delivery'' and ``success'';
SMTP is slow. Check that the message is in your mailbox on the other
machine.
I get the following:
Sep 12 17:26:16 www qmail: 968804776.495455 delivery 42: deferral:
Connected_to_216.33.238.136_but_my_name_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_501_
HELO_requires_domain_address/
Sep 12 17:26:16 www qmail: 968804776.497676 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.554074 starting delivery 43: msg 86907
to local root@
Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.556274 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.936574 delivery 43: deferral:
/bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.938775 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
I can't find any reading on /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ which
I think would help
Hi friends...
I need setup the number max of rcpt than qmail can send.
For example :
I have a client remote than send 600 messages into a issue of a
only e-mail,
I'd like than my users only could send 100 messages max by e-mail
or 100 messages max by hour.
Is it possible?
Thanks friends
Juan Enciso
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:07:59PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I need setup the number max of rcpt than qmail can send.
> For example :
> I have a client remote than send 600 messages into a issue of a
> only e-mail,
> I'd like than my users only could send 100 messages max by e-mail
> or 100 messages max by hour.
Do you mean you'd like no more than that number added to the queue
per hour?
If so, modify qmail-queue so that it keeps track of the current number
of messages sent, by the current user, and have it fail when more than
100 have been sent per hour.
The details, of course, depend on precisely what you're trying to achieve,
and how you write code.
--
Raul
> Is it possible?
>
> Thanks friends
>
> Juan Enciso
>
>
>
Hi folks.
I've got ucspi-tcp-0.88 with rblsmtpd and qmail-1.03 on FreeBSD 4.0.
We recently had some problems where a large part of our area network was
working fine, but our link to the outside world was having problems and
periodically went down. This meant that when an smtp connection was made
to our server, the conversation couldn't happen because rblsmtpd couldn't
connect to the RBL server to do the lookup. Despite not having an
internet connection, there were still lots of messages that could be
delivered locally, and it would have been nice if they'd gone through.
I looked through the rblsmptd documentation and related sites and couldn't
find anything that mentions this sort of behavior.
A few questions, then:
-If rblsmtpd can't talk to the RBL server, what sort of error does it
issue to the connecting server? Temporary or permanent? Is it just the
default 60 second timeout?
-Is there a way to tell rblsmtpd to "carry on like normal" if the lookup
doesn't happen in the first X seconds? The "-t" option appears to be a
timeout related option, but doesn't seem to do this particular thing.
-Any other bits of advice/strategy for rblsmtpd being used in that sort
of situation?
Thanks,
Chris
-- Chris Hardie -----------------------------
----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------
-------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 07:06:47PM -0500, Chris Hardie wrote:
> -If rblsmtpd can't talk to the RBL server, what sort of error does it
> issue to the connecting server? Temporary or permanent? Is it just the
> default 60 second timeout?
>From http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/rblsmtpd.html:
There are several error-handling options for RBL lookups:
-B: (Default.) Use a 451 error code for IP addresses listed in the RBL.
-b: Use a 553 error code for IP addresses listed in the RBL.
-C: (Default.) Handle RBL lookups in a ``fail-open'' mode. If an RBL lookup
fails temporarily, assume that the address is not listed; if an anti-RBL lookup
fails temporarily, assume that the address is anti-listed. Unfortunately, a
knowledgeable attacker can force an RBL lookup or an anti-RBL lookup to fail
temporarily, so that his mail is not blocked.
-c: Handle RBL lookups in a ``fail-closed'' mode. If an RBL lookup fails
temporarily, assume that the address is listed (but use a 451 error code even
with -b). If an anti-RBL lookup fails temporarily, assume that the address is
not anti-listed (but use a 451 error code even if a subsequent RBL lookup
succeeds with -b). Unfortunately, this sometimes delays legitimate mail.
The default -C seems to cover you in this case.
Chris
Hi All,
well being the newbie on this list and new to qmail I figure I would start
off with the typical how do I question and see what kind of experts we have
on here. :)
So far qmail has been easy to install with the exception of the pop service.
I have the 110 port open and it does function however it states this user
has no $HOME/Maildir when in fact the Maildir does exist in the /home/user
directory. Also needing to find information on how to do a .forward or
something to that effect as I have installed the dotforward package and
can't seem to find a how to faq on that part either....
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
James
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:11:32PM -0600, James Shelby wrote:
> So far qmail has been easy to install with the exception of the pop service.
> I have the 110 port open and it does function however it states this user
> has no $HOME/Maildir when in fact the Maildir does exist in the /home/user
> directory.
How exactly are you starting qmail-pop3d?
> Also needing to find information on how to do a .forward or something to that
> effect as I have installed the dotforward package and can't seem to find a
> how to faq on that part either....
Depending on what you want to do, you may not need the dotforward package. See
the dot-qmail man page.
Chris
Thanks for the help Chris....here is what I have...
In the inetd.conf file I have
pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
I will research the dot-qmail...What I am trying to accomplish is having a
local email account on the domain that all of the servers can send to and
then have it forward to an offsite email that may change every so often such
as maybe a pager address today and yahoo email the next. This way it would
be easier to update one dotforward then all the servers and applications
pointing to the addresses.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:31 PM
To: James Shelby
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: qmail pop
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:11:32PM -0600, James Shelby wrote:
> So far qmail has been easy to install with the exception of the pop
service.
> I have the 110 port open and it does function however it states this user
> has no $HOME/Maildir when in fact the Maildir does exist in the
/home/user
> directory.
How exactly are you starting qmail-pop3d?
> Also needing to find information on how to do a .forward or something to
that
> effect as I have installed the dotforward package and can't seem to find a
> how to faq on that part either....
Depending on what you want to do, you may not need the dotforward package.
See
the dot-qmail man page.
Chris
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:37:17PM -0600, James Shelby wrote:
> In the inetd.conf file I have
>
> pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
I hardly use inetd for anything, so I'm no expert, but I expect it needs to
look like this (all on one line):
pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup
mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
> I will research the dot-qmail...What I am trying to accomplish is having a
> local email account on the domain that all of the servers can send to and
> then have it forward to an offsite email that may change every so often such
> as maybe a pager address today and yahoo email the next. This way it would
> be easier to update one dotforward then all the servers and applications
> pointing to the addresses.
dot-qmail is all you need.
Chris
'Chris Johnson' wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:37:17PM -0600, James Shelby wrote:
> > In the inetd.conf file I have
> >
> > pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> > mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
>
> I hardly use inetd for anything, so I'm no expert, but I expect it needs to
> look like this (all on one line):
>
> pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup
> mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
I just looked at my commented out entry in my inetd.conf for pop3
(before I switched over to tcpserver) and mine looks like this (all on
one line):
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup
atlas.teoi.net /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
The only difference is the pop3 . Look at the /etc/services for the
pop3 and see how it is listed there then just use what it has there on
the inetd.conf line. Some systems have pop-3 and other have pop3 .
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
Thanks Dale, still no luck...same error message. Here is a little more
information that might tell someone that I have it configured wrong...
Say I have a user called johnd in /home/johnd I have a Mail and Maildir
directories along with a Mailbox file. In /var/spool/mail I have a johnd
link that goes to the /home/johnd/Mailbox
Does any of this sound like a misconfiguration?
Thanks
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Miracle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:12 PM
To: 'Chris Johnson'
Cc: James Shelby; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: qmail pop
'Chris Johnson' wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:37:17PM -0600, James Shelby wrote:
> > In the inetd.conf file I have
> >
> > pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> > mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
>
> I hardly use inetd for anything, so I'm no expert, but I expect it needs
to
> look like this (all on one line):
>
> pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup
> mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
I just looked at my commented out entry in my inetd.conf for pop3
(before I switched over to tcpserver) and mine looks like this (all on
one line):
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup
atlas.teoi.net /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
The only difference is the pop3 . Look at the /etc/services for the
pop3 and see how it is listed there then just use what it has there on
the inetd.conf line. Some systems have pop-3 and other have pop3 .
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon
DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance
(http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html)
"publicfile achieves similar results under other operating systems, except Solaris.
Solaris adds an incredible amount of bloat to every process invocation."
DJB didn't indicate which version of Solaris. Does this still apply to Solaris8?
Thanks,
Brian
Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats
network processes.
All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris
latform.
However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
John
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:56:35AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon
>DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance
>(http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html)
>
> "publicfile achieves similar results under other operating systems, except Solaris.
>Solaris adds an incredible amount of bloat to every process invocation."
>
> DJB didn't indicate which version of Solaris. Does this still apply to Solaris8?
Probably. But unless you're pushing the limits of your hardware I don't think
that it's particularly important. I've run qmail on many Solarises, both Sparc
and intel, from 2.4 to 2.8. They generally work, but if I need a screamer
system I go for a FreeBSD boxen for the best price/performance.
Regards.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:22:02PM -0700, John White wrote:
> Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats
> network processes.
>
> All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris
> latform.
>
> However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
> of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
Without starting an OSwar, it may be that they are a total Solaris shop,
in that case it may be more convenient to run Solaris x86 and not have
to deal with OS sysadmin differences.
Secondly, their management may feel better with the level of support
they can get from Sun than what they can get from the FreeBSD support
services. Eg, they may have a site support contract.
Thirdly, they may be running additional products on their system that
only run on Solaris and therefore they need to use that OS.
Finally, running Solaris x86 is not necessarily a wrong choice. It may
not be optimal according to your criteria, but it's not a wrong choice.
In other words, if he's happy with that OS and isn't trying to squeeze
performance to the limits, then he'll almost certainly find Solaris x86
quite an acceptable OS for qmail.
Regards.
I'd like to know why to choose Qmail or IMAP4(UW).
What's their merit and disadvantage?
----------------------------------------------
欢迎您使用 百家商务电子邮件系统 http://www.email.com.cn
Welcome to E-mail business system
I do know IMAP is a protocol.What I said is IMAP4,a software package developed by UW.
It can also act as a MTA,right?
> I'd like to to know which I should put in my car - oil or gas.
>
> You do realize that qmail is a Mail Transfer Agent, and IMAP4 is a
> User<->mail interaction protocol daemon?
>
> David
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:09 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Which to choose?
> >
> >
> > I'd like to know why to choose Qmail or IMAP4(UW).
> > What's their merit and disadvantage?
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > 欢迎您使用 百家商务电子邮件系统 http://www.email.com.cn
> > Welcome to E-mail business system
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------
欢迎您使用 百家商务电子邮件系统 http://www.email.com.cn
Welcome to E-mail business system
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
is the line in inetd.conf
but I have no
var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
file
I am supposed to?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> is the line in inetd.conf
>
> but I have no
>
> var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> file
>
> I am supposed to?
Yes it should be there along with quite a few other files. You can use
find to see if it got placed somewhere else by typing this as the root
user
find / -name qmail-smtpd
If it should happen to find it you can either copy or move it to
/var/qmail/bin . If it doesn't find it you will need to either
re-install it (if you used an rpm) or if you have the source go into the
directory where you have the qmail source (for example
/usr/src/qmail-1.03 and type make setup check
Take Care,
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> is the line in inetd.conf
>
> but I have no
>
> var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
> file
>
> I am supposed to?
If you've installed qmail, yes. Have you got a /var/qmail? Have you got
a /var/qmail/bin? If so, what's does ls -l /var/qmail/bin show?
Regards.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
> > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > is the line in inetd.conf
> >
> > but I have no
> >
> > var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> >
> > file
> >
> > I am supposed to?
>
> If you've installed qmail, yes.
[root@www /root]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980 /var/qmail/bin ->
/usr/bin
and
>Have you got a /var/qmail?
[root@www qmail]# pwd
/var/qmail
Have you got
> a /var/qmail/bin?
[root@www bin]# pwd
/var/qmail/bin
If so, what's does ls -l /var/qmail/bin show?
[root@www bin]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980 /var/qmail/bin ->
/usr/bin
Thanks!
>
>
> Regards.
>
I get this a lot on the logs
delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
Please tell me where it comes from it might solve all my problems with
qmail
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:35:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I get this a lot on the logs
>
> delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
>
> Please tell me where it comes from it might solve all my problems with
> qmail
You are delivering mail to a .qmail-file that includes a
| <command-that-could-not-be-found-by-qmail-local-when-executing-dot-qmail>
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:35:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I get this a lot on the logs
>
> delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
>
> Please tell me where it comes from it might solve all my problems with
> qmail
It sounds like you've started qmail with a default command of something like:
| dot-forward
I have no idea how you might have arrived at this as it's not mentioned
anywhere in the install instructions. Perhaps you should tell us exactly
how you installed qmail and which instructions you followed.
Regards.
http://www.securityfocus.com/focus/linux/articles/qmail.html
Replacing your MTA with qmail
Jeremy Rauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Monday, Aug 28 2000
... By taking a modular approach, and running with the lowest possible
privileges, qmail is able to markedly improve the security stance of
machines it is installed on. Unlike many security related packages,
however, it is easy to build, install and configure. With qmail being
as easy to use as it is, there are few reasons more people shouldn't be
running it. ...
--
Karl Vogel
ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.securityfocus.com/focus/linux/articles/qmail.html
> Replacing your MTA with qmail
Hm. It's neither a review nor is the title correct.
It's only an excerpt from BLURB and INSTALL as far as I can see.
It's good to have qmail mentioned on securityfocus but this article could
provide much more than it actually does.
Regards, Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:51 PM
Subject: actually it is a standard install following the directions even
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:28 PM
> Subject: Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>
>
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 10:24:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
> > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env
> tcp-env
> > > > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > > > > is the line in inetd.conf
> > > > >
> > > > > but I have no
> > > > >
> > > > > var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> > > > >
> > > > > file
> > > > >
> > > > > I am supposed to?
> > > >
> > > > If you've installed qmail, yes.
> > > [root@www /root]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin
> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980
/var/qmail/bin ->
> > > /usr/bin
> >
> > This is a truly non-standard qmail install. You are mostly on your own
> > if you want to deviate this much from that standard instructions. I have
> > probably installed qmail on over 100 different sites around the planet
> > and I have never seen this. I hope whoever set it up really understands
> > what they are doing. If not you will have no end of trouble and qmail
> > doesn't deserve that because when it's installed according to the
> instructions
> > it works as advertised.
>
Actually it is a standard qmail rpm install. What else can I say? I cannot
compile without getting errors. Install wants 2 iforgetnowtheexactname.h
files that I can find on the hard drive but locate can't find.
I will start over and document the steps better. I cannot compile without
getting errors. I can install the rpms with rpm -ivvh and watch the
install.
Your other questions were asked in earlier posts I assume you will see them
eventually.
rpm -ivvh qmail-1.03+patches-7.i386.rpm
rpm -ivvh qmail-utils-1.03+patches-7.i386.rpm
and their deps
I did not do a --force or --nodep I also followed the source install
directions again making certian each step had been done from the rpm
install
(or so I thought)
So you got me.
If you know a good resource for a rpm install onto red hat 6.0 that already
a 2.2.16 kernel and all security updates up to date let me know.
Thanks
> >
> >
> > Regards.
> >
>
OK...I haven't been following this thread, but two things:
1. Could you PLEASE turn off request for read receipt...it is getting very
annoying
2. Another annoying thing is how, in the same thread, you keep changing
subjects. For people reading archives later, and even people following this
thread now, this is annoying, tiring, inefficient, and a lack of netiquette.
I hope this is taken the right way. I am not meaning an attack, but this is
getting annoying...Thanks.
Brett.
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 10:53:35PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > If you've installed qmail, yes.
> > > > [root@www /root]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin
> > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980
> /var/qmail/bin ->
> > > > /usr/bin
> > >
> > > This is a truly non-standard qmail install. You are mostly on your own
> Actually it is a standard qmail rpm install. What else can I say? I cannot
> compile without getting errors. Install wants 2 iforgetnowtheexactname.h
> files that I can find on the hard drive but locate can't find.
Actually, it's not. A standard install in my book is to download the
sources from a recognized mirror and do a make setup.
> I will start over and document the steps better. I cannot compile without
> getting errors. I can install the rpms with rpm -ivvh and watch the
> install.
If the rpms don't work, speak to the people who made the rpm. Mostly you
are dealing with an rpm issue, not a qmail issue.
> If you know a good resource for a rpm install onto red hat 6.0 that already
> a 2.2.16 kernel and all security updates up to date let me know.
There are zero security updates to qmail-1.03 - any sort of packaging is a
convenience and in the case of Redhat is possibly more marketing than substance.
Download the sources, do a make setup and be amazed how easily it works.
Regards.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:55 PM
Subject: RE: actually it is a standard install following the directions even
> OK...I haven't been following this thread, but two things:
>
> 1. Could you PLEASE turn off request for read receipt...it is getting very
> annoying
I already did hours ago.
> 2. Another annoying thing is how, in the same thread, you keep changing
> subjects. For people reading archives later, and even people following
this
> thread now, this is annoying, tiring, inefficient, and a lack of
netiquette.
Please direct me to this mailing list's HOWTO or README! I am a newbie to
this form of help. I do not understand "threads" I have never actually
participated in one of these. I thought we were just emailing back and
forth. Also, I today I would spend an hour on trying to fix 1 error message
then I eliminate that myself with no help, so I feel that the subject
changes, and I no longer need a reply. Then what do I do? Thanks for
understanding.
> I hope this is taken the right way. I am not meaning an attack, but this
is
> getting annoying...Thanks.
Getting annoying eh? If anyone had bothered to take the 30 seconds to reply
like you eventually did ... the matter would have been cleared up hours ago.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond with your comments. Thank you.
note
I help people for many hours a day writing for my website
http://linuxpeople.cc which is newbie-friendly and and features no paid
advertising or sponsorship whatsoever. I am patient with slow people such
as myself when I help in #linuxpeople on irc.dal.net But it seems it is
much easier for some l33t people to make a newbie feel stupid, than to lend
a hand, no matter where us newbies turn. Please remember we were all
newbies once and some of us actually read the HOWTOs, READMEs, etc and still
get stuck! (which is why you have these alternate forms of support ?)
I am not going giving up. I use rpms when I can since they work well on red
hat, and compile if I have to.
Please just tell me now if there is legitimate support here or am I wasting
my time?
Do you support the installation of the RPMs? They install but don't work
properly.
Do you support the installation of the source? That is when I encountered
the error.
You can rest assured that once I learn what I am doing I will help as many
people as I can.
Thanks again
>
> Brett.
>
>
> Manager
> InterPlanetary Solutions
> http://ipsware.com/
>
>
> I do not understand "threads"
Threads are simply many messages with same subject, all about same
topic...usually in reply to one another, but sometimes just as a statement.
> Also, I today I would spend an hour on trying to fix 1 error message
> then I eliminate that myself with no help, so I feel that the subject
> changes, and I no longer need a reply. Then what do I do? Thanks for
> understanding.
No, I don't understand ;) You should always keep the same subject when
dealing with the one problem, or problems that arise because of it... It is
much easier for the rest of us to follow.
> I appreciate you taking the time to respond with your comments.
> Thank you.
No problem
> But it seems it is much easier for some l33t people to make a newbie
> feel stupid, than to lend a hand, no matter where us newbies turn.
> Please remember we were all newbies once and some of us actually read
> the HOWTOs, READMEs, etc and still get stuck! (which is why you have
> these alternate forms of support ?)
Yes...I haven't followed this thread so I don't know what you have been
asking about, but around 70% of the questions on this list I would
approximate are actually answered or dealt with in the docs, and in the end
the annoyance that the longer-term users have builds up, even with the
nicest people...
> I am not going giving up. I use rpms when I can since they work
> well on red hat, and compile if I have to.
As a general rule, I advise against this, especially if you want to help
others. qmail is not hard to compile and install yourself, and it gives you
a much better understanding of how it works. This isn't a matter of hardcore
vs puniness, this is a matter of knowing how your system works.
> Please just tell me now if there is legitimate support here or am
> I wasting my time?
Well, you didn't pay for this did you? ;) We will help all we can but if we
get annoyed, its probably because you could have searched the archives (find
them on www.qmail.org) and found the answers to your question...No
guarantees, again I haven't followed this thread, but I would almost bet on
it.
> Do you support the installation of the RPMs? They install but don't work
> properly.
We support users having trouble with qmail. We need to know how your qmail
is setup. Virtually no one here would know how the RPM is set up because we
don't need to...we all have specific needs and need to fulfill them by
compiling qmail manually, and it isn't our job to watch for each
implementation of qmail and remember it. Just remember this is a discussion
list, not a product support forum. None of us are paid, we just all have a
desire to learn.
> Do you support the installation of the source? That is when I encountered
> the error.
See above...and 99% of us do use the source, and if you follow the
instructions in either INSTALL or Life With Qmail, it will work...Trying to
use any more than one source without experience is suicide.
> You can rest assured that once I learn what I am doing I will help as many
> people as I can.
To learn, read the archives, install the source, play with addons, try
things that are too hard for you.
Hope this helps...
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
* linuxpeople <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^
Get a name, luser.
> Actually it is a standard qmail rpm install. What else can I
> say?
That you'll learn to use a decent MUA before you post next time and
learn how to view the contents of an rpm.
> I cannot compile without getting errors. Install wants 2
> iforgetnowtheexactname.h files that I can find on the hard drive but
> locate can't find.
I *love* the GNU Generation... iforgetnowtheexactname.h is most likely a
kernel include file. Have you got your kernel sources installed?
> I will start over and document the steps better. I cannot compile
> without getting errors. I can install the rpms with rpm -ivvh and
> watch the install.
Ok. Does ls -al /var/qmail/bin/ yield any results?
> Your other questions were asked in earlier posts I assume you will see
> them eventually.
Well great. Will you now stop fscking finally stop making subject
changes every 10 seconds?
> rpm -ivvh qmail-1.03+patches-7.i386.rpm
What does less qmail-1.03+patches-7.i386.rpm say? Anyway, your setup is
fscked - rpm -e everything.
> If you know a good resource for a rpm install onto red hat 6.0 that
> already a 2.2.16 kernel and all security updates up to date let me
> know.
Get the sources. They will complie. If not, post a short, pregnant error
message.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
|
I receive this error message (from Outlook
Express):
The message could not be sent because one of
the recipients was rejected by the server. The rejected e-mail address was '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Subject 'spoj-von',
Account: 'paska@spoj', Server: 'linuxsps.spoj.army.sk', Protocol: SMTP, Server
Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
(#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 553, Error Number:
0x800CCC79
I want send mail everywhere.
I have listed some domains in
rcpthosts.
But it is stupid add in rcpthosts ALL domains
in world... (.com, .edu, .org, .net, .sk, ............)
What I must type in rcpthosts (some
widcards)?
Stano.
|
In your qmail src tree there's a file called FAQ. It tells you how to
allow certain hosts to relay mail through your server.
jason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stano Paška" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "qmail konferencia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 5:54 PM
Subject: rcpthosts
I receive this error message (from Outlook Express):
The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected
by the server. The rejected e-mail address was '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Subject
'spoj-von', Account: 'paska@spoj', Server: 'linuxsps.spoj.army.sk',
Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server
Error: 553, Error Number: 0x800CCC79
I want send mail everywhere.
I have listed some domains in rcpthosts.
But it is stupid add in rcpthosts ALL domains in world... (.com, .edu,
.org, .net, .sk, ............)
What I must type in rcpthosts (some widcards)?
Stano.
rcpthosts only lists the domains that your server accepts mail for (to
deliver it to the user for example) ... to reach other domains, you use
relaying.
for more info see:
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#authorized-relay
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying
cheers
wolfgang
Also sprach Stano Pa9ka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 13.09.2000:
I receive this error message (from Outlook Express):
The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected
by the server. The rejected e-mail address was '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Subject
'spoj-von', Account: 'paska@spoj', Server: 'linuxsps.spoj.army.sk',
Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list
of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error:
553, Error Number: 0x800CCC79
I want send mail everywhere.
I have listed some domains in rcpthosts.
But it is stupid add in rcpthosts ALL domains in world... (.com, .edu,
.org, .net, .sk, ............)
What I must type in rcpthosts (some widcards)?
Stano.
> I have listed some domains in rcpthosts.
> But it is stupid add in rcpthosts ALL domains in world... (.com, .edu, .org, .net,
>.sk, ............)
> What I must type in rcpthosts (some widcards)?
No.
You should use tcpserver and set the RELAYCLIENT environment variable.
This is explained in the FAQ (see
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#authorized-relay )
If your client adresses are dynamically assigned you may use Russell
Nelsons open-smtp patch for that. You can find it at
http://www.qmail.org/open-smtp4.tar.gz
Eventually look also at
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html
Regards, Frank
Hello I have documented each step up until they fail.
I just started fresh after rebooting and re-downloading the source. I am
now stuck where I was previously and begging for help. I do not see what to
do if the compile fails. I am not blaming qmail which is the general
impression I get from this list. I am just trying to install it and see if
I want to use it, and recommend it to other newbies. Unfortunately I am the
smartest newbie I know, and I know a lot of newbies.
[root@www local]# tar -zxvf qmail-1.03.tar.gz
[root@www local]# cd /usr/local/qmail-1.03/
[root@www qmail-1.03]#ls
BIN.Makefile
BIN.README
BLURB
BLURB2
BLURB3
BLURB4
CHANGES
FAQ
FILES
INSTALL
INSTALL.alias
INSTALL.ctl
INSTALL.ids
INSTALL.maildir
INSTALL.mbox
INSTALL.vsm
INTERNALS
Makefile
PIC.local2alias
PIC.local2ext
PIC.local2local
PIC.local2rem
PIC.local2virt
PIC.nullclient
PIC.relaybad
PIC.relaygood
PIC.rem2local
README
REMOVE.binmail
REMOVE.sendmail
SECURITY
SENDMAIL
SYSDEPS
TARGETS
TEST.deliver
TEST.receive
THANKS
THOUGHTS
TODO
UPGRADE
VERSION
addresses.5
alloc.3
alloc.c
alloc.h
alloc_re.c
auto-gid.c
auto-int.c
auto-int8.c
auto-str.c
auto-uid.c
auto_break.h
auto_patrn.h
auto_qmail.h
auto_spawn.h
auto_split.h
auto_uids.h
auto_usera.h
binm1+df.sh
binm1.sh
binm2+df.sh
binm2.sh
binm3+df.sh
binm3.sh
bouncesaying.1
bouncesaying.c
byte.h
byte_chr.c
byte_copy.c
byte_cr.c
byte_diff.c
byte_rchr.c
byte_zero.c
case.3
case.h
case_diffb.c
case_diffs.c
case_lowerb.c
case_lowers.c
case_starts.c
cdb.3
cdb.h
cdb_hash.c
cdb_seek.c
cdb_unpack.c
cdbmake.h
cdbmake_add.c
cdbmake_hash.c
cdbmake_pack.c
cdbmss.c
cdbmss.h
chkshsgr.c
chkspawn.c
coe.3
coe.c
coe.h
commands.c
commands.h
condredirect.1
condredirect.c
conf-break
conf-cc
conf-groups
conf-ld
conf-patrn
conf-qmail
conf-spawn
conf-split
conf-users
config-fast.sh
config.sh
constmap.c
constmap.h
control.c
control.h
date822fmt.c
date822fmt.h
datemail.sh
datetime.3
datetime.c
datetime.h
datetime_un.c
direntry.3
direntry.h1
direntry.h2
dns.c
dns.h
dnscname.c
dnsdoe.c
dnsdoe.h
dnsfq.c
dnsip.c
dnsmxip.c
dnsptr.c
dot-qmail.9
elq.sh
env.3
env.c
env.h
envelopes.5
envread.c
error.3
error.c
error.h
error_str.3
error_str.c
error_temp.3
error_temp.c
except.1
except.c
exit.h
extra.h
fd.h
fd_copy.3
fd_copy.c
fd_move.3
fd_move.c
fifo.c
fifo.h
fifo_make.3
find-systype.sh
fmt.h
fmt_str.c
fmt_strn.c
fmt_uint.c
fmt_uint0.c
fmt_ulong.c
fmtqfn.c
fmtqfn.h
forgeries.7
fork.h1
fork.h2
forward.1
forward.c
gen_alloc.h
gen_allocdefs.h
getln.3
getln.c
getln.h
getln2.3
getln2.c
gfrom.c
gfrom.h
headerbody.c
headerbody.h
hfield.c
hfield.h
hier.c
home+df.sh
home.sh
hostname.c
idedit.c
install-big.c
install.c
instcheck.c
ip.c
ip.h
ipalloc.c
ipalloc.h
ipme.c
ipme.h
ipmeprint.c
lock.h
lock_ex.c
lock_exnb.c
lock_un.c
maildir.5
maildir.c
maildir.h
maildir2mbox.1
maildir2mbox.c
maildirmake.1
maildirmake.c
maildirwatch.1
maildirwatch.c
mailsubj.1
mailsubj.sh
make-compile.sh
make-load.sh
make-makelib.sh
mbox.5
myctime.c
myctime.h
ndelay.c
ndelay.h
ndelay_off.c
newfield.c
newfield.h
now.3
now.c
now.h
open.h
open_append.c
open_excl.c
open_read.c
open_trunc.c
open_write.c
pinq.sh
predate.c
preline.1
preline.c
prioq.c
prioq.h
proc+df.sh
proc.sh
prot.c
prot.h
qail.sh
qbiff.1
qbiff.c
qlx.h
qmail-clean.8
qmail-clean.c
qmail-command.8
qmail-control.9
qmail-getpw.9
qmail-getpw.c
qmail-header.5
qmail-inject.8
qmail-inject.c
qmail-limits.9
qmail-local.8
qmail-local.c
qmail-log.5
qmail-lspawn.8
qmail-lspawn.c
qmail-newmrh.9
qmail-newmrh.c
qmail-newu.9
qmail-newu.c
qmail-pop3d.8
qmail-pop3d.c
qmail-popup.8
qmail-popup.c
qmail-pw2u.9
qmail-pw2u.c
qmail-qmqpc.8
qmail-qmqpc.c
qmail-qmqpd.8
qmail-qmqpd.c
qmail-qmtpd.8
qmail-qmtpd.c
qmail-qread.8
qmail-qread.c
qmail-qstat.8
qmail-qstat.sh
qmail-queue.8
qmail-queue.c
qmail-remote.8
qmail-remote.c
qmail-rspawn.8
qmail-rspawn.c
qmail-send.9
qmail-send.c
qmail-showctl.8
qmail-showctl.c
qmail-smtpd.8
qmail-smtpd.c
qmail-start.9
qmail-start.c
qmail-tcpok.8
qmail-tcpok.c
qmail-tcpto.8
qmail-tcpto.c
qmail-upq.sh
qmail-users.9
qmail.7
qmail.c
qmail.h
qreceipt.1
qreceipt.c
qsmhook.c
qsutil.c
qsutil.h
quote.c
quote.h
rcpthosts.c
rcpthosts.h
readsubdir.c
readsubdir.h
readwrite.h
received.c
received.h
remoteinfo.c
remoteinfo.h
scan.h
scan_8long.c
scan_ulong.c
seek.h
seek_cur.c
seek_end.c
seek_set.c
seek_trunc.c
select.h1
select.h2
sendmail.c
sgetopt.3
sgetopt.c
sgetopt.h
sig.h
sig_alarm.c
sig_block.c
sig_bug.c
sig_catch.c
sig_child.c
sig_hup.c
sig_misc.c
sig_pause.c
sig_pipe.c
sig_term.c
slurpclose.c
slurpclose.h
spawn.c
splogger.8
splogger.c
str.h
str_chr.c
str_cpy.c
str_diff.c
str_diffn.c
str_len.c
str_rchr.c
str_start.c
stralloc.3
stralloc.h
stralloc_arts.c
stralloc_cat.c
stralloc_catb.c
stralloc_cats.c
stralloc_copy.c
stralloc_eady.c
stralloc_opyb.c
stralloc_opys.c
stralloc_pend.c
strerr.h
strerr_die.c
strerr_sys.c
subfd.h
subfderr.c
subfdin.c
subfdins.c
subfdout.c
subfdouts.c
subgetopt.3
subgetopt.c
subgetopt.h
substdi.c
substdio.c
substdio.h
substdio_copy.c
substdo.c
tcp-env.1
tcp-env.c
tcp-environ.5
tcpto.c
tcpto.h
tcpto_clean.c
timeoutconn.c
timeoutconn.h
timeoutread.c
timeoutread.h
timeoutwrite.c
timeoutwrite.h
token822.c
token822.h
trigger.c
trigger.h
triggerpull.c
triggerpull.h
trycpp.c
trydrent.c
tryflock.c
trylsock.c
trymkffo.c
trynpbg1.c
tryrsolv.c
trysalen.c
trysgact.c
trysgprm.c
tryshsgr.c
trysysel.c
trysyslog.c
tryulong32.c
tryvfork.c
subfdout.c
subfdouts.c
subgetopt.3
subgetopt.c
subgetopt.h
substdi.c
substdio.c
substdio.h
substdio_copy.c
substdo.c
tcp-env.1
tcp-env.c
tcp-environ.5
tcpto.c
tcpto.h
tcpto_clean.c
timeoutconn.c
timeoutconn.h
timeoutread.c
timeoutread.h
timeoutwrite.c
timeoutwrite.h
token822.c
token822.h
trigger.c
trigger.h
triggerpull.c
triggerpull.h
trycpp.c
trydrent.c
tryflock.c
trylsock.c
trymkffo.c
trynpbg1.c
tryrsolv.c
trysalen.c
trysgact.c
trysgprm.c
tryshsgr.c
trysysel.c
trysyslog.c
tryulong32.c
tryvfork.c
trywaitp.c
uint32.h1
uint32.h2
wait.3
wait.h
wait_nohang.c
wait_pid.c
warn-auto.sh
warn-shsgr
[root@www qmail-1.03]#
[root@www qmail-1.03]#more /usr/local/qmail-1.03/INSTALL
1. Create the qmail home directory:
# mkdir /var/qmail
[root@www qmail-1.03]# mkdir /var/qmail
2. Read INSTALL.ids. You must set up the qmail group and the qmail
users before compiling the programs.
[root@www qmail-1.03]# more INSTALL.ids
Linux:
# groupadd nofiles
# useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail/alias alias
# useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail qmaild
# useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail qmaill
# useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail qmailp
# groupadd qmail
# useradd -g qmail -d /var/qmail qmailq
# useradd -g qmail -d /var/qmail qmailr
# useradd -g qmail -d /var/qmail qmails
So I did:
groupadd nofiles
useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail/alias alias
useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail qmaild
useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail qmaill
useradd -g nofiles -d /var/qmail qmailp
groupadd qmail
useradd -g qmail -d /var/qmail qmailq
useradd -g qmail -d /var/qmail qmailr
useradd -g qmail -d /var/qmail qmails
3. Compile the programs and create the qmail directory tree:
# make setup check
[root@www qmail-1.03]# make setup check
( cat warn-auto.sh; \
echo CC=\'`head -1 conf-cc`\'; \
echo LD=\'`head -1 conf-ld`\' \
) > auto-ccld.sh
cat auto-ccld.sh make-load.sh > make-load
chmod 755 make-load
cat auto-ccld.sh find-systype.sh > find-systype
chmod 755 find-systype
/find-systype > systype
( cat warn-auto.sh; ./make-load "`cat systype`" ) > load
chmod 755 load
cat auto-ccld.sh make-compile.sh > make-compile
chmod 755 make-compile
( cat warn-auto.sh; ./make-compile "`cat systype`" ) > \
compile
chmod 755 compile
( ( ./compile tryvfork.c && ./load tryvfork ) >/dev/null \
2>&1 \
&& cat fork.h2 || cat fork.h1 ) > fork.h
rm -f tryvfork.o tryvfork
/compile qmail-local.c
qmail-local.c:1: sys/types.h: No such file or directory
qmail-local.c:2: sys/stat.h: No such file or directory
make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 1
[root@www qmail-1.03]#
DARN!!!
however,
[root@www qmail-1.03]# locate types.h
/usr/include/security/_pam_types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/kmap_types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/posix_types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/ioctl-types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/inttypes.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/posix_types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/qnxtypes.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/sunrpc/types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/nl_types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/rpc/types.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/bitypes.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/types.h
[root@www qmail-1.03]#
and
[root@www qmail-1.03]# locate stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/ustat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/kernel_stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/rpcsvc/rstat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/ustat.h
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/ustat.h
[root@www qmail-1.03]#
reveals that these files are indeed on the drive someplace.
Ok thats when I tried installing the RPMS from the link at
http://www.qmail.org/top.html and joined this mailing list and got verbally
and mentally abused by the entire world for being "so fscking like the GNU
generation" or some such nonsense.
So ... I went and did "rpm -e" on the 2 rpms and everything named qmail
anyplace on the drive I could find with "locate qmail"
I just started fresh after rebooting and re-downloading the source. I am
now stuck where I was previously and begging for help. I do not see what to
do if the compile fails. I am not blaming qmail which is the general
impression I get from this list. I am just trying to install it and see if
I want to use it, and recommend it to other newbies. Unfortunately I am the
smartest newbie I know, and I know a lot of newbies.
Thanks,
Rick Up
http://linuxpeople.cc
Please don't post hundreds of lines of directory listings of the qmail
source.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> /compile qmail-local.c
> qmail-local.c:1: sys/types.h: No such file or directory
> qmail-local.c:2: sys/stat.h: No such file or directory
There's something seriously wrong with your system include files; both of
those files should be in /usr/include. This is *not* a problem with your
kernel sources as another person said (if it were, sys/types.h would be
found and linux/types.h would be missing); it's a problem at an even
earlier level than that.
Your system's development environment is either corrupted or only
partially installed at a very fundamental level.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 01:32:16AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> qmail-local.c:1: sys/types.h: No such file or directory
> qmail-local.c:2: sys/stat.h: No such file or directory
/usr/include/sys/stat.h (types.h) is missing. This is an developement
environment installation problem. You are possibly missing some
-dev or kernel-source packages.
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/types.h
i suspect the C compiler doesn't look there by default.
You _may_ get away by adding "-I/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/"
to conf-cc, so that it looks like:
cc -O2 -I/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/
that may help to compile the sources. You possibly *need* to to
add -L/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/ to conf-ld, too.
> reveals that these files are indeed on the drive someplace.
yeah, but not where your compiler expects them.
> Ok thats when I tried installing the RPMS from the link at
> http://www.qmail.org/top.html and joined this mailing list and got verbally
> and mentally abused by the entire world for being "so fscking like the GNU
> generation" or some such nonsense.
No. I call that SuSE generation :-)
> impression I get from this list. I am just trying to install it and see if
> I want to use it, and recommend it to other newbies. Unfortunately I am the
> smartest newbie I know, and I know a lot of newbies.
Mail server installation is not exactly newbie stuff, but qmail may also
be installed by newbies on linuxmachines if the machines are installed
properly. Your's isn't, sorry.
Regards, Uwe
...
> qmail-local.c:1: sys/types.h: No such file or directory
> qmail-local.c:2: sys/stat.h: No such file or directory
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 1
> [root@www qmail-1.03]#
>
> DARN!!!
>
> however,
>
> [root@www qmail-1.03]# locate types.h
> /usr/include/security/_pam_types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/kmap_types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/posix_types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/ioctl-types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/inttypes.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/posix_types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/qnxtypes.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/sunrpc/types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/nl_types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/rpc/types.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/bitypes.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/types.h
> [root@www qmail-1.03]#
>
> and
>
> [root@www qmail-1.03]# locate stat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/asm/stat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/stat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/bits/ustat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/kernel_stat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/linux/stat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/rpcsvc/rstat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/stat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/ustat.h
> /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/ustat.h
> [root@www qmail-1.03]#
>
> reveals that these files are indeed on the drive someplace.
I get this:
bash$ locate sys/types.h
/usr/include/sys/types.h
/usr/lib/bcc/include/sys/types.h
/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/include/sys/types.h
bash$ locate sys/stat.h
/usr/include/sys/stat.h
/usr/lib/bcc/include/sys/stat.h
/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/include/sys/stat.h
bash$
I reckon you've got a duff linux install. If /usr/include does
not exist, try
$ ln -s /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include /usr/include
if /usr/include does but /usr/include/sys doesn't, try
$ ln -s /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys /usr/include/sys
if _that_ exists too, try
$ cp /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/stat.h /usr/include/sys/
$ cp /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/sys/types.h /usr/include/sys/
This is what I'd do to get going and try qmail out, but I'd try to
get to the bottom of why you don't have /usr/include/sys/types.h in
the first place. What linux distribution are you using?
> got verbally and mentally abused by the entire world for being
> "so fscking like the GNU generation" or some such nonsense.
Relax about that; the majority of folks on this list don't hold that
poster's opinion, or if they do, they're a bit more patient...
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000913 04:32]:
> Hello I have documented each step up until they fail.
Damn, you are *STUPID*. When someone tells you to post a *SHORT* and
*PREGNANT* error message, why do you send > 600 lines?
> /compile qmail-local.c
> qmail-local.c:1: sys/types.h: No such file or directory
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 1
/usr/src/linux/include/linux/types.h
Which part of "did you install your kernel sources" from, like, a day
ago, do I have to read out s-l-o-w-l-y to you again?
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/09/msg00774.html
