qmail Digest 21 Nov 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1190
Topics (messages 52517 through 52590):
Re: SMTP on a port other than 25
52517 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
52537 by: Rob Hines Jr.
52551 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
52560 by: Rob Hines Jr.
52571 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
Re: Hop count problem in qmail-send
52518 by: Richard van den Berg
52547 by: markd.bushwire.net
Slackware
52519 by: Luka Gerzic
52522 by: Steve Fulton
52525 by: Milen Petrinski
Re: ORBS helps hackers to break into srevers
52520 by: Piotr Kasztelowicz
52523 by: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg
52524 by: Johan Almqvist
52536 by: Adam McKenna
52541 by: Alex Pennace
52583 by: Piotr Kasztelowicz
Information
52521 by: Cleiton Luiz Siqueira
52565 by: Timothy Legant
Re: secrets and lies
52526 by: Michael T. Babcock
52531 by: David Dyer-Bennet
52532 by: Paul Jarc
52533 by: Paul Jarc
52538 by: Adam McKenna
52552 by: Paul Jarc
52553 by: Michael T. Babcock
52556 by: Adam McKenna
52562 by: David Dyer-Bennet
52563 by: Paul Jarc
52564 by: Paul Jarc
52566 by: Jamin Collins
52567 by: Adam McKenna
52577 by: Nathan J. Mehl
dot-qmail help
52527 by: Pat Berry
52528 by: Charles Cazabon
Delivery Service Notification
52529 by: Daniel POGAC
Separation of qmail-smtpd & qmail-remote
52530 by: Gan
smtp/tcp service is flooded
52534 by: Travis Turner
52539 by: Charles Cazabon
52542 by: Alex Pennace
52549 by: markd.bushwire.net
Re: RBL
52535 by: Mate Wierdl
52544 by: Jon Griffin
smtp service being flooded
52540 by: Travis Turner
Re: customizable undeliverable email messages
52543 by: Troy Muller
52558 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Re: run file suddenly disappear!!
52545 by: Mate Wierdl
52554 by: Paul Jarc
52570 by: Mate Wierdl
Re: qmail build problem under SuSE 7.0
52546 by: David Benfell
tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
52548 by: Jon
52555 by: Kris Kelley
52559 by: Charles Cazabon
return receipts
52550 by: Tzabu
52557 by: Gerry Boudreaux
52572 by: David L. Nicol
52574 by: Andy Bradford
52584 by: Daniel POGAC
52587 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
another problem
52561 by: Travis Turner
52575 by: Alex Pennace
still having problems
52568 by: Travis Turner
52569 by: Chris Johnson
databytes option for local mail delivery ?
52573 by: Dennis Kavadas
52576 by: markd.bushwire.net
Best IMAP or Maildir ??
52578 by: Dennis Kavadas
52579 by: Ben Beuchler
Host name not found
52580 by: Kiran
52581 by: Alex Pennace
52582 by: markd.bushwire.net
Backing up IMAP Maildir's ?
52585 by: Dennis
52586 by: Olivier M.
52589 by: Dennis
52590 by: Olivier M.
Re: bounces and mime encapsulation
52588 by: torben fjerdingstad
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > a propos tcpserver with smtp - on Solaris, where zero '0' before > smtp word has been written the program not works. So we uses it > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > and 'smtp' > Errr... and it works??? Those args are supposed to be "IP address" and "port". 0 stands for "all interfaces", and "smtp" stands for 25. If you're writing "25 smtp"... It's NOT supposed to be bound to any interface (is there any kind of int in solaris responding as 25?) RC -- +------------------- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
PGP signature
Just go into /etc/services and make a name alias if you feel more comfortable with that. tcpserver actually looks up 'smtp' in the services file to find out the port number. right now, I am using smtp-ghost in my second tcpserver init, and I set up smtp-ghost in the services file to look at my alternate port. In any case, tcpserver doesn't care if you put smtp, or 25 in that spot. Works just fine for me. Rob Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: > > > > a propos tcpserver with smtp - on Solaris, where zero '0' before > > smtp word has been written the program not works. So we uses it > > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > > and 'smtp' > > > > Errr... and it works??? Those args are supposed to be "IP address" and > "port". 0 stands for "all interfaces", and "smtp" stands for 25. > If you're writing "25 smtp"... It's NOT supposed to be bound to any > interface (is there any kind of int in solaris responding as 25?) > > RC > > -- > +------------------- > | Ricardo Cerqueira > | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 > | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica > | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal > | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- Rob Hines Jr. System Administrator Phone: (317)469-4535 Fax: (317)469-4508 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.joboptions.com
That's not the issue. According to the original mail, he wrote "tcpserver <options> 25 smtp" > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > and 'smtp' That 25 is supposed to be the IP address where tcpserver is supposed to bind itself to. I _know_ you can write whatever you want in the port option, as long as it matches something in /etc/services, or is an integer. But "host" is supposed to be a host, or 0 (for "all interfaces"). 25 shouldn't work. RC On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:27:21PM -0500, Rob Hines Jr. wrote: > Just go into /etc/services and make a name alias if you feel more comfortable > with that. tcpserver actually looks up 'smtp' in the services file to find out > the port number. right now, I am using smtp-ghost in my second tcpserver init, > and I set up smtp-ghost in the services file to look at my alternate port. In > any case, tcpserver doesn't care if you put smtp, or 25 in that spot. > > Works just fine for me. > > Rob > > Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: > > > > > > > a propos tcpserver with smtp - on Solaris, where zero '0' before > > > smtp word has been written the program not works. So we uses it > > > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > > > and 'smtp' > > > > > > > Errr... and it works??? Those args are supposed to be "IP address" and > > "port". 0 stands for "all interfaces", and "smtp" stands for 25. > > If you're writing "25 smtp"... It's NOT supposed to be bound to any > > interface (is there any kind of int in solaris responding as 25?) > > > > RC > > > > -- > > +------------------- > > | Ricardo Cerqueira > > | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 > > | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica > > | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal > > | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature > > -- > Rob Hines Jr. > System Administrator > > Phone: (317)469-4535 > Fax: (317)469-4508 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > URL: http://www.joboptions.com > > -- +------------------- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
Here's my run script in supervise: #!/bin/sh QMAILDUID=`/usr/xpg4/bin/id -u qmaild` NOFILESGID=`/usr/xpg4/bin/id -g qmaild` MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming` exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 4000000 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -H -R -l 0 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \ -u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGID" 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd /bin /checkpassword /bin/true /bin/cmd5checkpw /bin/true 2>&1 & exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 4000000 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -H -R -l 0 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \ -u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGID" 0 ghost-smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtp d /bin/checkpassword /bin/true /bin/cmd5checkpw /bin/true 2>&1 & I guess I'm not understanding the question. Are we missing the realization that ports and interfaces are different? So it doesn't matter if it's 0 25, or 0 smtp, or 127.0.0.1 25, or 127.0.0.1 smtp, or localhost 25, or localhost smtp or whatever, so long as you have an interface, and a port, right? Rob Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: > That's not the issue. According to the original mail, he wrote "tcpserver > <options> 25 smtp" > > > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > > and 'smtp' > > That 25 is supposed to be the IP address where tcpserver is supposed to > bind itself to. I _know_ you can write whatever you want in the port > option, as long as it matches something in /etc/services, or is an integer. > But "host" is supposed to be a host, or 0 (for "all interfaces"). 25 > shouldn't work. > > RC > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:27:21PM -0500, Rob Hines Jr. wrote: > > Just go into /etc/services and make a name alias if you feel more comfortable > > with that. tcpserver actually looks up 'smtp' in the services file to find out > > the port number. right now, I am using smtp-ghost in my second tcpserver init, > > and I set up smtp-ghost in the services file to look at my alternate port. In > > any case, tcpserver doesn't care if you put smtp, or 25 in that spot. > > > > Works just fine for me. > > > > Rob > > > > Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: > > > > > > > > > > a propos tcpserver with smtp - on Solaris, where zero '0' before > > > > smtp word has been written the program not works. So we uses it > > > > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > > > > and 'smtp' > > > > > > > > > > Errr... and it works??? Those args are supposed to be "IP address" and > > > "port". 0 stands for "all interfaces", and "smtp" stands for 25. > > > If you're writing "25 smtp"... It's NOT supposed to be bound to any > > > interface (is there any kind of int in solaris responding as 25?) > > > > > > RC > > > > > > -- > > > +------------------- > > > | Ricardo Cerqueira > > > | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 > > > | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica > > > | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal > > > | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature > > > > -- > > Rob Hines Jr. > > System Administrator > > > > Phone: (317)469-4535 > > Fax: (317)469-4508 > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > URL: http://www.joboptions.com > > > > > > -- > +------------------- > | Ricardo Cerqueira > | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 > | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica > | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal > | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- Rob Hines Jr. System Administrator Phone: (317)469-4535 Fax: (317)469-4508 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.joboptions.com
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:14:43PM -0500, Rob Hines Jr. wrote: [ a lot of irrelevant stuff ] Which part of "not writing 0, writing number of port _and_ smtp" didn't you understand? Let me translate: It sounds like he wrote "tcpserver -v -H -R -whateveroptions 25 smtp $QMAIL/qmail-smtpd" Can you see the error NOW? RC P.S. - Here's the mail snippet once again. Try to locate yourself. > > > without to write in command this '0' writting only nummber of port > > > and 'smtp' > > -- +------------------- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
markd wrote: >> I just started using qmail 1.03 a week ago, and made some interesting >> discovery. I had the following .qmail file: >> >> | preline formail -I "Bcc: `some/script`" | qmail-inject >> >> Obviously, this causes a loop since qmail-inject will try to deliver to > > Hmm. When I try the same pipeline I get a bounce alerting me to a loop due > to a potentially duplicate Delivered-To: header. Specifically: > > This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) > > And this is precisely what I'd expect as qmail has very good loop detection. Good point. I rechecked my faulty .qmail file, and it actually reads: | formail -I "Bcc: `some/script`" | qmail-inject I discovered the use of preline after I made the loop. So much for the "very good loop detection" of qmail. One can argue that when you don't use preline, you have misconfigured qmail, but isn't a mailloop always a misconfiguration? >> the Bcc: addresses as well as to the original To: line. The interesting >> bit is that this filled up the /var/mail file system rather quickly. >> What happend is that: >> >> 1) qmail-inject queues a mail for the original To: address >> 2) qmail-send delivers this mail using qmail-lspawn to this same .qmail >> file >> 3) goto 1 > > There's an important point you've missed. Step 2a where qmail-lspawn uses > qmail-local to deliver the mail to .qmail. qmail-local will not deliver > a mail that already has the same Delivered-To: header that it wants to > generate. This is the catch; without preline, there is no Delivered-To: header. I'd figure qmail-local (or any of the steps before it) would also check the hop count. > Alternatively the formail invocation > is somehow removing the Delivered-To: heades. Right on the money. Why is it safe/smart for qmail to depend on this header? > Have you the full headers of one of those bounces? I'm afraid they got lost with the rest of the 100Mb I had to chuck. If I remeber correctly, there were a lot of MBOX lines and a lot of Received: lines inserted by my local qmail. This is how the remote smtpds counted the number of hops, I guess. Sincerely, Richard
> >> 1) qmail-inject queues a mail for the original To: address > >> 2) qmail-send delivers this mail using qmail-lspawn to this same .qmail > >> file > >> 3) goto 1 > > > > There's an important point you've missed. Step 2a where qmail-lspawn uses > > qmail-local to deliver the mail to .qmail. qmail-local will not deliver > > a mail that already has the same Delivered-To: header that it wants to > > generate. > > This is the catch; without preline, there is no Delivered-To: header. > I'd figure qmail-local (or any of the steps before it) would also check > the hop count. Hmm. Whilst the qmail-command manpage does say this: WARNING: The mail message does not begin with qmail-local's usual Return-Path and Delivered-To lines. in relation to pipeline deliveries, I'm struggling to understand *why* that choice was made. When does a pipeline delivery make it ok to loop thru the same .qmail file? I guess one reason is that it's a lot easier to use preline (or echo $DTLINE) to add the header than it is for any script that needs to, to reliably remove an embedded header. There must be another but it's not coming to me right now. And yes, as a fallback qmail-local *could* count Received: lines, just as qmail-smtpd does. Actually qmail-queue would be a better spot for this. A slight complication is that qmail-queue does very little header scanning of the input right now. Having said that, performing the test in qmail-queue has the advantage of catching loops on all queue insertion and eliminates the need for this code in qmail-smtpd (I note no checking seems to be done in qmail-qmqpd). > I'm afraid they got lost with the rest of the 100Mb I had to chuck. If I > remeber correctly, there were a lot of MBOX lines and a lot of Received: > lines inserted by my local qmail. This is how the remote smtpds counted > the number of hops, I guess. You remembered correctly. It turns out to be trivial to reproduce. You just need this: | qmail-inject in the offending .qmail file. Regards.
Does anyone have a slackware startup scripts for qmail w/ qmailpop3d (on tcpserver)? There are some problems when try to fix configure script given on lwq. difference from RH is that slack have /etc/rc.d/ instead /etc/init.d/ and also files rc. instead of rc.dX dir's. greetz
Here's that portion of my rc.local file (in /etc/rc.d) /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-popup pop3.esotericsystems.org \ /bin/checkpassword /usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 2>&1 | \ /usr/local/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d & Works like a charm. Steve. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luka Gerzic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:31 AM Subject: Slackware > Does anyone have a slackware startup scripts for qmail w/ qmailpop3d (on > tcpserver)? > There are some problems when try to fix configure script given on lwq. > difference from RH is that slack have /etc/rc.d/ instead /etc/init.d/ > and also files rc. instead of rc.dX dir's. > > greetz > >
Here is my part of rc.local echo "Starting qmail..." /var/qmail/rc & echo "Starting tcpserver..." env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/bin/ezmlm" /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u1001 -g102 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -u1011 -g104 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup bates.eu.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & I have setup qmail with vpopmail under tcpserver on Slackware 7.0 Milen ----- Original Message ----- From: Luka Gerzic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:31 PM Subject: Slackware > Does anyone have a slackware startup scripts for qmail w/ qmailpop3d (on > tcpserver)? > There are some problems when try to fix configure script given on lwq. > difference from RH is that slack have /etc/rc.d/ instead /etc/init.d/ > and also files rc. instead of rc.dX dir's. > > greetz > >
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Adam McKenna wrote: > Hello, this list is for discussion of qmail, if you wish to discuss orbs > please take this to SPAM-L or elsewhere. The answer for all subscibers, Adam, I am not sure that this is disscusion for spam-l rather than qmail list. Qmail is one MTA only, which suports and propagates ORBS "moral" and technical thus availablility to connect with qmail platform to ORBS and reject mail from listed by ORBS hosts. Neither sendmail nor postfix is interested with ORBS anty-spam system and don't support ORBS. The ORBS system is also by sendmail's and postfix's team not accepted. There only qmail administrators may use ORBS. If qmail team will resign to support ORBS their criminal story will be finished. Also you as qmail propagator too has more to deceide with them. This is also great question to you. In my opinion ORBS - there are hackers supporters and first of all the hackers use the effects of its test to search "good" for hacking hosts. I have presented it on this list. Addtionaly - this is difficult to discuss with ORBS, while no person's name, who manage with them has been listed on ORBS WWW page. This is realy last posting form me on this subject and I think all has been said. I hope to be reason to think about this problem, which depends me personal and as I suppose the many host's admin Piotr Kasztelowicz, MD Vicepresident of Polish Medical Internet Society --- Piotr Kasztelowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
> Qmail is one MTA only, which suports and propagates ORBS "moral" and > technical thus availablility to connect with qmail platform to ORBS > and reject mail from listed by ORBS hosts. > > Neither sendmail nor postfix is interested with ORBS anty-spam system and don't >support ORBS. > The ORBS system is also by sendmail's and postfix's team not accepted. > There only qmail administrators may use ORBS. This is NOT true, and you are way off mark. 1. There is no official support of ORBS to my knowledge from QMAIL and its authors, not in the way you are implying in your posting to this list. 2. Sendmail and postfix and ALL other mailprograms/MTA's that support RBL-type blocking, will automaticly support ORBS and any other lists like it. 3. There are several conserend QMAIL admins how desperatly try to make their workload less affected by other mail-administrators poorly secured servers. 4. There are several other mail admins that run other MTA-software, who also run with ORBS with or without the "support" of the MTA-vendor. > If qmail team will resign to support ORBS their criminal story will be finished. > Also you as qmail propagator too has more to deceide with them. > This is also great question to you. You seem to mean that ORBS has done something wrong to you and/or others, yet you have little or no evidence of your claims about criminal activities. > In my opinion ORBS - there are hackers supporters and first of all the > hackers use the effects of its test to search "good" for hacking hosts. You seemed to have messed up you server and are now blaming ORBS for it, your hacker visits could JUST aswell found your server like they did BEFORE you where reported to ORBS and subsequently listed there. > I have presented it on this list. > Addtionaly - this is difficult to discuss with ORBS, > while no person's name, who manage with them has been listed on ORBS WWW page. His name is Alan Brown, and on his www.orbs.org page he has a [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the contact address which should get you in contact with the adminitrators. > This is realy last posting form me on this subject and I think > all has been said. I hope to be reason to think about this problem, > which depends me personal and as I suppose the many host's admin You should realy get your server RE-TESTET, if it is secure it will be removed but this is only possible if you are NOT blocking ORBS. Your earlyer mails said you where blocking ORBS, maybe ORBS administrators are TRYING to get in contact with you? Regards André Paulsberg
[sorry but this was just too much...] On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:33:22PM +0100, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote: > Qmail is one MTA only, which suports and propagates ORBS "moral" and > technical thus availablility to connect with qmail platform to ORBS > and reject mail from listed by ORBS hosts. > Neither sendmail nor postfix is interested with ORBS anty-spam system > and don't support ORBS. The ORBS system is also by sendmail's and > postfix's team not accepted. There only qmail administrators may > use ORBS. That is WRONG. I use ORBS on a number of servers that run sendmail, postfix and Exim. It works like a charm, keeps out spam and has a few too many false positives, which come in thru my secondary MX's (real spammers don't usually retry sending to a fallback host...) > If qmail team will resign to support ORBS their criminal story > will be finished. Also you as qmail propagator too has more > to deceide with them. This is also great question to you. Who is the qmail team? I have never heard of them and would like to make their acquaintance. > In my opinion ORBS - there are hackers supporters and first of > all the hackers use the effects of its test to search "good" for > hacking hosts. I have presented it on this list. Addtionaly - this > is difficult to discuss with ORBS, while no person's name, who > manage with them has been listed on ORBS WWW page. > This is realy last posting form me on this subject and I think > all has been said. I hope to be reason to think about this problem, > which depends me personal and as I suppose the many host's admin Can you please provide proof for ORBS supporting script kiddies? If you mean that the OBRS list of potential relaying host as such constitutes help to script kiddies, why does this not apply to other RBL lists? And what technical solution to spreading such lists of IP's in a secure manner do you propose? > Piotr Kasztelowicz, MD > Vicepresident of Polish Medical Internet Society -Johan Almqvist First Executive President of the International Swedish Society for Spam Prevention, Yet To Be Founded. -- Johan Almqvist
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:33:22PM +0100, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Adam McKenna wrote: > > > Hello, this list is for discussion of qmail, if you wish to discuss orbs > > please take this to SPAM-L or elsewhere. > > The answer for all subscibers, Adam, I am not sure that this is disscusion > for spam-l rather than qmail list. *PLONK* --Adam
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 07:08:33AM +0100, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote: > It not difficult to spuppose, that if MTA were old and > insecure=possible for open relay the rest of sotwares > are insecure too. There are many insecure hosts that are not on the ORBS list simply because they are not running an open relay. There are many hosts listed in ORBS that are otherwise secure but someone made an oopsie. In particular, I believe many older but still prevalent Linux distributions came with MTAs that were open relays by default but were otherwise secure. > There is problem with them, tha > the list of "relay host's" is widely published on net, > instead to send it interested admin. Let's entertain your thoughts on security: if a host is truly comprimised either by being an open relay or other vulnerability, why should other hosts have to endure abuse from it? ORBS allows other administrators to block out a certain subset of hosts. And even without ORBS there are still plenty of ways for the local script kiddie to find your system.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg wrote: > This is NOT true, and you are way off mark. > > 1. There is no official support of ORBS to my knowledge from QMAIL and its authors, > not in the way you are implying in your posting to this list. > > 2. Sendmail and postfix and ALL other mailprograms/MTA's that support RBL-type >blocking, > will automaticly support ORBS and any other lists like it. OK, you are right, I'm sorry Piotr --- Piotr Kasztelowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [http://www.am.torun.pl/~pekasz]
Hi all,I just started using qmail 1.03 a week ago too, I have had some problems with it,
and I've not found in the FAQ the solutions for these problems.
Qmail is using postgres to authenticate the users. The authentications is working
well.
I used checkpassword daemon to connect in the database and authenticate the
users.
My problems are with SMTP. I installed the "qmail-1_03.tgz" package in a
FreeBSD 3.4 Box. When I send a message for a local user, this message doesn't
get in the mailbox. And the qmail-send answer me that the mailbox doesn't exist, but
the mailbox exist, and it is with the right permissions. I use qmail with maildir option.
The domain is in the locals, me and rcpthosts files.
I've started pop3 and smtp in the inetd.conf file with the follow lines:pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup ab.com.br /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpdI use the shell script in the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/qmaild.sh with the follow lines:
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail &Another thing is when I send a message from the local network to other domains,
it answers me that these domains aren't in the rcpthosts files, but it's is very strange!!!
Can you imagine if I put in the rcpthosts files whole the domains that exist in the
Internet networking?
I understood that the rcpthosts file is to avoid spam from the other networks,
and not to filter the destination addresses.
If you could help me about it I would thank.
Regards Cleiton.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:33:22AM -0200, Cleiton Luiz Siqueira wrote: > Hi all, > > I just started using qmail 1.03 a week ago too, I have had some Welcome! > problems with it, and I've not found in the FAQ the solutions for > these problems. [snip authentication stuff...] > My problems are with SMTP. I installed the "qmail-1_03.tgz" > package in a FreeBSD 3.4 Box. When I send a message for a local user, > this message doesn't get in the mailbox. And the qmail-send answer me > that the mailbox doesn't exist, but the mailbox exist, and it is with > the right permissions. I use qmail with maildir option. Ok. > The domain is in the locals, me and rcpthosts files. > I've started pop3 and smtp in the inetd.conf file with the follow > lines: > > pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup > ab.com.br /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir > smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd Ok, although tcpserver is recommended these days rather than inetd. I've run qmail on FreeBSD 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 4.x with tcpserver and I prefer that configuration. > I use the shell script in the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/qmaild.sh with > the follow lines: > > #!/bin/sh > > # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. > # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default. > > exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ > qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail & ^^^^^^^^^ The first argument to qmail-start tells qmail how to deliver local mail. In your case, you've said to deliver it to a mbox-style mailbox called Maildir in the user's home directory, *not* a maildir. If you add a trailing slash, like this: ./Maildir/, you are saying to deliver to a maildir-style directory named Maildir in the users home directory. If your users have .qmail files in their home directories, they can specify different delivery instructions. Otherwise, the default delivery instruction from the qmail-start command-line is followed. If there is no mbox file named $HOME/Maildir, then qmail is correct - the mailbox doesn't exist. Add the slash at the end and see if that works better. > Another thing is when I send a message from the local network to > other domains, it answers me that these domains aren't in the > rcpthosts files, but it's is very strange!!! You need to enable selective relaying. See http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#relaying for information on how to configure this. > Can you imagine if I put in the rcpthosts files whole the domains > that exist in the Internet networking? The rcpthosts file should contain only domains that you want to receive mail *for*. NOT domains you want to send mail *to*. Again, to allow other machines to use your qmail installation to send mail, you must enable relaying for those machines. See above. > I understood that the rcpthosts file is to avoid spam from the other > networks, and not to filter the destination addresses. > If you could help me about it I would thank. > > > Regards Cleiton. > -thl
Just like many others, IANAL, but ... Paul Jarc wrote: > "Pavel Kankovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But there are ABSOLUTELY no references to dist.html or softwarelaw.html in > > the source tarballs. > > So what? So when a lot of people download the files, they don't know what the licensing is and have to ask on the list(s) -- if he refered to those URLs at least (in all distributions) and/or included text versions (is it really that hard?), people would know what they're getting. > I see no theories of his there. The only part there he attributes to > himself is: He wrote it all -- its all DJB's theories -- they may be right or wrong, but he's not a lawyer so its not even really worth trusting his theories at all. > which makes it clear to me that downloading, e.g., qmail-1.03.tar.gz > won't get me in trouble. No, because there's no statement about whether the University he works at thinks that they own the Copyright on software he may have worked on while being paid by them -- he doesn't include a waiver statement by them either. In fact, the only thing that's very clear from his documents on Copyright is that he either doesn't like licenses, or he is afraid to use one because it won't hold up in court and he'll lose the control he likes having. Both those reasons are valid to me, btw. -- Michael T. Babcock, C.T.O. FibreSpeed http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 November 2000 at 10:34:23 -0500 > Just like many others, IANAL, but ... > > Paul Jarc wrote: > > I see no theories of his there. The only part there he attributes to > > himself is: > > He wrote it all -- its all DJB's theories -- they may be right or wrong, but > he's not a lawyer so its not even really worth trusting his theories at all. But his statements about what he will and won't do in the future might be considered binding. For that matter, his belief that it's okay for us to download stuff from his server, coupled with his placing stuff on his server, could be interpreted as permission for us to download that stuff. Or not. I'd be happier with a clearcut license, and if I were trying to get qmail into corporate environments I'd probably find the lack of license a big problem. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 09:05:04PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > > : I don't know which of these theories will succeed in court. I also > > : don't think you should have to care. So I promise I won't sue you > > : for copyright violation for downloading documents from my server. > > > > which makes it clear to me that downloading, e.g., qmail-1.03.tar.gz > > won't get me in trouble. > > Unless Dan decides at a later date to remove that page from his website. At > that point, how will you prove that you obtained the software legitimately? The same way as if rights.html were included in qmail-1.03.tar.gz: I'd ask people who had copies to present them, to support my claim. There would be more such copies if it were included in qmail-1.03.tar.gz, but I'm not going to waste time worrying about it. It's the same situation as with, say, Emacs. The GPL doesn't give you permission to get a copy of Emacs; it only specifies what you can do once you have. The nearest I could find to explicit permission to download it is "By FTP we provide source code for all GNU software, free of charge." at <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware>, and that covers only the GNU site itself, not mirrors. I think rights.html is clearer. paul
"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Jarc wrote: > > "Pavel Kankovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But there are ABSOLUTELY no references to dist.html or > > > softwarelaw.html in the source tarballs. > > > > So what? > > So when a lot of people download the files, they don't know what the > licensing is and have to ask on the list(s) True, but not relevant to the question of what is legal. > > I see no theories of his [in rights.html]. The only part there he > > attributes to himself is: > > He wrote it all -- its all DJB's theories -- they may be right or wrong, but > he's not a lawyer so its not even really worth trusting his theories at all. Have you even read rights.html? When talking about what might be the correct interpretation of the law, it says "Some people think ..." and "Other people ...". It doesn't say "I think". Are you saying that these are simply false statements, and that no one actually holds the views that Dan says some do? Even if so, why does it matter? He says "I promise I won't sue you for copyright violation for downloading documents from my server." Would you be more satisfied with something like "I hereby waive my right to sue ..."? It still wouldn't be a contract. He could still go back and edit it. You'd still need others' copies to support your claim that you got it legally. > > which makes it clear to me that downloading, e.g., qmail-1.03.tar.gz > > won't get me in trouble. > > No, because there's no statement about whether the University he > works at thinks that they own the Copyright on software he may have > worked on while being paid by them -- he doesn't include a waiver > statement by them either. There's also no statement that he wrote any of his software on the University's time. He could publish a statement (by himself, or by University officials) that he in fact is the copyright holder, but why would you trust such an explicit statement over the implicit one, since that statement could be false anyway? If I really cared, I'd want a signed document from the University. Otherwise, the present situation is as good as any other. paul
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:43:44AM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > The same way as if rights.html were included in qmail-1.03.tar.gz: I'd > ask people who had copies to present them, to support my claim. There > would be more such copies if it were included in qmail-1.03.tar.gz, > but I'm not going to waste time worrying about it. You're not, because you're not thinking from the perspective of someone who wants to distribute. > It's the same situation as with, say, Emacs. The GPL doesn't give you > permission to get a copy of Emacs; it only specifies what you can do > once you have. The nearest I could find to explicit permission to > download it is "By FTP we provide source code for all GNU software, > free of charge." at > <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware>, and > that covers only the GNU site itself, not mirrors. I think > rights.html is clearer. You're still thinking too narrowly. I want an unambiguous license included with the software that explicitly defines what I am allowed to do with it. If you don't need that then fine, but please don't argue that it's not needed, because there are clearly a number of people on this list that desire it. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires." 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_ 12:35pm up 163 days, 10:52, 11 users, load average: 0.14, 0.10, 0.03
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I want an unambiguous license included with the software that > explicitly defines what I am allowed to do with it. If you don't > need that then fine, but please don't argue that it's not needed, > because there are clearly a number of people on this list that > desire it. Please don't confuse need with desire. You may not like dist.html or softwarelaw.html or rights.html, but I don't see ambiguity in them, and I don't see how including them in the software distributions would make them any more legally significant. paul
Paul Jarc wrote: > It's the same situation as with, say, Emacs. The GPL doesn't give you > permission to get a copy of Emacs; it only specifies what you can do > once you have. The nearest I could find to explicit permission to > download it is "By FTP we provide source code for all GNU software, > free of charge." at > <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware>, and > that covers only the GNU site itself, not mirrors. I think > rights.html is clearer. For a lot of people, being able to obtain said software isn't the problem -- its the right to use it in the ways they wish to do so in the long term. That's what licenses are about. The fact that GNU software happens to be mirrored all over the globe pretty much eliminates the obtaining factor ... especially since anyone who has a copy has full rights to redistribution under the GPL. -- Michael T. Babcock, C.T.O. FibreSpeed http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:21:16PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I want an unambiguous license included with the software that > > explicitly defines what I am allowed to do with it. If you don't > > need that then fine, but please don't argue that it's not needed, > > because there are clearly a number of people on this list that > > desire it. > > Please don't confuse need with desire. You may not like dist.html or > softwarelaw.html or rights.html, but I don't see ambiguity in them, You don't, but others do. For instance, I can distribute a package that contains pristine qmail source and patches, and include a script which applies the patches, changes conf-home, and compiles and installs qmail. According to dist.html, that would be fine. But what if Dan found out someone was doing this and got angry? Maybe he'd think about changing dist.html. After he changed it, could I then continue distributing this package without fear of being sued? > and I don't see how including them in the software distributions would > make them any more legally significant. Including them in the tarball would set specific terms on specific pieces of software. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires." 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_ 2:52pm up 163 days, 13:08, 11 users, load average: 0.28, 0.08, 0.03
Paul Jarc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 November 2000 at 13:21:16 -0500 > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I want an unambiguous license included with the software that > > explicitly defines what I am allowed to do with it. If you don't > > need that then fine, but please don't argue that it's not needed, > > because there are clearly a number of people on this list that > > desire it. > > Please don't confuse need with desire. You may not like dist.html or > softwarelaw.html or rights.html, but I don't see ambiguity in them, > and I don't see how including them in the software distributions would > make them any more legally significant. Equally, you should not confuse *your* needs (or lack thereof) with other people's needs. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe he'd think about changing dist.html. After he changed it, > could I then continue distributing this package without fear of > being sued? If the new dist.html said no, then it would seem clear that you couldn't. This is not an ambiguity in the current or potential future dist.html, but I think I see your point now: you want to know what you will *always* be allowed to do with qmail, not just what you are allowed to do today. (Right?) Well, barring future changes in copyright law (which could potentially invalidate *any* statement we might make today), you will always be allowed to patch, compile, back up, and run qmail. You will always be allowed to distribute your patches, since you hold copyright on them (I think). Additionally, you can redistribute vanilla qmail today. You do not have the guarantee that you will always be allowed to redistribute qmail, but this is not ambiguous - it's clearly, if implicitly, unspecified. If you agree with this but call it "ambiguous" instead of "unspecified", then I guess we'll just have to be more careful how we use such words to avoid confusion. paul
"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Jarc wrote: > > The GPL doesn't give you permission to get a copy of Emacs; it > > only specifies what you can do once you have. > > For a lot of people, being able to obtain said software isn't the > problem -- its the right to use it in the ways they wish to do so in > the long term. Yes, I know, but the message I was responding to addressed this point specifically. paul
I may be missing some of the point here, but the way I see it, there is a distinct desire to have a license provided with the software indicating what is and isn't allowed. This is a fairly normal practice in the software industry (open and closed source alike). IMHO, the license included with the software serves as a static marker of sorts. While future versions of the license may change and be included with future versions of the software, they don't apply to previous versions of the software that where shipped with another license. It is this peace of mind that I too would like to see. I'm in no way attempting to take away the author's right to change a license for their software. However, if I've accepted one license on a piece of software because it meets my needs and I can deal with any requirements of the license, I would like to know that the license is not going to change. This is not too much to ask. If the author then wants to put a web page up with the most current version of the license, great. However, I think there are many others like myself out there, that would like to see a copy of the license (as it pertains to the software at the time the software was released) included with the software. Note: If anyone out there knows of a company that successfully changed their license for software and made those changes effective retroactively, I would like to know. Jamin W. Collins -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: secrets and lies Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe he'd think about changing dist.html. After he changed it, > could I then continue distributing this package without fear of > being sued? If the new dist.html said no, then it would seem clear that you couldn't. This is not an ambiguity in the current or potential future dist.html, but I think I see your point now: you want to know what you will *always* be allowed to do with qmail, not just what you are allowed to do today. (Right?) Well, barring future changes in copyright law (which could potentially invalidate *any* statement we might make today), you will always be allowed to patch, compile, back up, and run qmail. You will always be allowed to distribute your patches, since you hold copyright on them (I think). Additionally, you can redistribute vanilla qmail today. You do not have the guarantee that you will always be allowed to redistribute qmail, but this is not ambiguous - it's clearly, if implicitly, unspecified. If you agree with this but call it "ambiguous" instead of "unspecified", then I guess we'll just have to be more careful how we use such words to avoid confusion. paul
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 04:21:51PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Maybe he'd think about changing dist.html. After he changed it, > > could I then continue distributing this package without fear of > > being sued? > > If the new dist.html said no, then it would seem clear that you > couldn't. This is not an ambiguity in the current or potential future > dist.html, but I think I see your point now: you want to know what you > will *always* be allowed to do with qmail, not just what you are > allowed to do today. (Right?) Allowing someone to download and use a piece of software under certain terms, and then changing the terms after that person has made an investment of time/money in order to use that software is not acceptable. All I'm saying is that I'd like the redistribution terms/terms of use to come with the software. That way I don't have to be paranoidically checking dist.html every day to make sure Dan hasn't changed the terms. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes, http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires." 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_ 5:37pm up 163 days, 15:53, 11 users, load average: 0.23, 0.14, 0.05
([EMAIL PROTECTED] snipped due to overwhelming qmail-centrism) In the immortal words of Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > You don't, but others do. For instance, I can distribute a package that > contains pristine qmail source and patches, and include a script which > applies the patches, changes conf-home, and compiles and installs qmail. > According to dist.html, that would be fine. But what if Dan found out > someone was doing this and got angry? Maybe he'd think about changing > dist.html. After he changed it, could I then continue distributing this > package without fear of being sued? IANAL, but my feeling is that the documents in question pretty unambiguously lead to the conclusion that you'd be SOL in that case, and I would further suspect that Dan keeps the only notices about qmail's distribution terms in a centralized place to leave himself the option of refining the terms were such a case to arise. As he wrote the code, this is unquestionably his right. As I peronally could care less about the alleged moral tonic of "Free" or "Open Source" software and my needs are satisfied by qmail's default configuration, this isn't really an issue for me personally. People with personal or business needs for such things should probably consider the MTAs which explicitly set such terms, rather than hoping that qmail might one day satisfy them. Based on past experience, it's not likely to. ------------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <sunshine> Dear Future Employer: Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy? I think we know. Thanks! $100,000 a year, I'll be there on monday, please. -chelleMarie <http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
Hi all, Preface: I've been through dot-qmail, qmail-command, and the list archives and I just not getting it. Problem: I have a dot-qmail file in ~alias that goes to a number of people and I would like to restrict it so that only a single host may send mail to that alias. I'm pretty sure I need to check $QMAILHOST, no? If in the dot-qmail file I do something like this: |/path/to/shellscript and the shell script checks the envars to make sure the sending host is cool, then how do I just have it go ahead and process the delivery to a bunch of people? Pat -- Freestyle Interactive | http://www.freestyleinteractive.com/ | 415.869.7400
Pat Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Problem: I have a dot-qmail file in ~alias that goes to a number of people > and I would like to restrict it so that only a single host may send mail to > that alias. > > I'm pretty sure I need to check $QMAILHOST, no? If in the dot-qmail file I > do something like this: > > |/path/to/shellscript > > and the shell script checks the envars to make sure the sending host is > cool, then how do I just have it go ahead and process the delivery to a > bunch of people? Have your .qmail file look like this: |/path/to/shellscript &address1@domain &address2&domain [...] Have your script exit 0 if you want to allow the message to be delivered. Have the script exit 99 to silently drop the message on the floor and not forward it to anyone else. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is qmail support Delivery Service Notification ??? If the answer is yes, how i can enable it....
Daniel POGAÈ
Tech. Support
TatraSoft Group s.r.o
Sibírska 4
83102 Bratislava
tel: +421-7-55574033
fax: +421-7-55566385
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi! I want to separate my mail server into 2 machines , (simple relaying but too many users) , How can I do that? Should i use controls/smtproutes file ?
What is happening to my server any clues. Nov 19 13:53:49 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:04:09 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:21:56 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:45:46 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:56:31 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 15:08:53 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 15:20:07 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Regards, Travis Turner Information Technology Manager Applied Integration Corporation Tucson, Arizona U.S.A. Phone (520) 743-3095 Fax (520) 623-1683 "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Travis Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is happening to my server any clues. > > Nov 19 13:53:49 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:04:09 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ Presumably you are receiving several mail connections in quick succession, and qmail-smtpd accepts mail and then exits -- but its happening quickly enough to trigger inetd's broken connection rate limiting. Switch to tcpserver for qmail-smtpd and this 'problem' will go away. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:26:41AM -0700, Travis Turner wrote: > What is happening to my server any clues. > > Nov 19 13:53:49 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:04:09 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ [snip] http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#tcpserver-smtpd
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:27:03AM -0700, Travis Turner wrote: > What is happening to my server any clues. inetd has primitive tests that it thinks checks for loops and/or failing services. Check your inetd manpage, particularly the -r option. inetd simply wasn't well designed for high volume smtp which is why many people switch to tcpserver. It's pretty straightforward to switch over, so you'll want to consider doing so. Regards. > > Nov 19 13:53:49 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:04:09 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:21:56 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:45:46 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:56:31 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 15:08:53 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 15:20:07 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > > Regards, > > > Travis Turner > Information Technology Manager > Applied Integration Corporation > Tucson, Arizona U.S.A. > Phone (520) 743-3095 > Fax (520) 623-1683 > > "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy > and taste good with ketchup." > > >
> msci.memphis.edu This should be relays.msci.memphis.edu. How did you enter these domains? Why did you enter both dul.maps.vix.com and dialups.mail-abuse.org What is the difference? Mate
I think I entered the names that I got off of the anti-spam doc on qmail.org. I could have messed up also, thanks for the corrections. At 11:32 AM 11/20/00 -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote: > > msci.memphis.edu > >This should be relays.msci.memphis.edu. > >How did you enter these domains? >Why did you enter both > >dul.maps.vix.com > >and > >dialups.mail-abuse.org > >What is the difference? > >Mate
What is happening to my server any clues. Nov 19 13:53:49 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded) stopping service for 10 minutes$ Nov 19 14:04:09 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:21:56 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:45:46 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 14:56:31 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 15:08:53 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Nov 19 15:20:07 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being flooded$ Please reply directly to me because as you can see this is the problem Regards, Travis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
David et all, See below: -- Troy Muller Sr. Unix Administrator SAGEport, Inc I laughed, I cried, I then used Debian Linux. -----Original Message----- From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:11 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: customizable undeliverable email messages Troy Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 November 2000 at 15:37:16 -0800 > Hi all, > > Being new to qmail, I thought this would be the appropriate place to ask > this question. > > How do I (or can I?) go about handling undeliverable email messages > differently than what is currently being used. What I am looking to do is > to intercept the message going to any user (all of them), re-write the > message to make it a bit more clear for users to debug these problems > themselves and also give them suggested hints as to what they could do to > verify that the email address is correct, etc. > > I know if my site (domain) generates the error, I log it and also send this > type of info to the user on the other end, but I want to do this when the > final destination fails to deliver the message and the remote system replys > with an undeliverable email message. I want to be able to intercept these > undeliverable email messages and put them in a format that I think is > appropriate. My basic advice is "it's best not to mess with it". This is a large, complex, can of worms, and it's not (in practice) governed by standards or even written documentation. >> If this is the case, how come all most all mtu's have a similar format to bounced mail? >> Maybe this is a case for making it a standard? Since we want complete inoperability between all the >> mailers out there, we should push for a standard. If you *must* do it, do a lot of research on what bounce formats various software recognizes. Relevant software includes mailing list managers, MUAs (many offer the option to retry or resend a bounce), and any sort of auto-responder. You will be doing the net a grave disservice if you break these. >> I was afriad of this. Sound like a lot of work. Does anyone have a starting point? -troy Then, what you need to put your new software in control of nonexistent addresses is a .qmail-default file in the appropriate place. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Troy Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 November 2000 at 09:46:09 -0800 >> My basic advice is "it's best not to mess with it". This is a >> large, complex, can of worms, and it's not (in practice) governed >> by standards or even written documentation. > If this is the case, how come all most all mtu's have a similar > format to bounced mail? Maybe this is a case for making it a > standard? Since we want complete inoperability between all the > mailers out there, we should push for a standard. (Your quoting came out backwards; I've fixed it above to prevent confusion). If you think MTAs mostly have similar formats, you're not looking at a wide enough variety of traffic. A new standard would almost certainly not be widely adopted, so a new one would only *add* to the confusion. The existing DSN spec is not supported by qmail, and is in general too complex to be a good choice. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:58:13PM +0800, Eric Yu wrote: > Mate Wierdl wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:03:31PM +0800, eric yu wrote: > > > /service/qmail-send/log/run > > > > > > #!/bin/sh > > > SETUIDGID=/usr/local/bin/setuidgid # directory for setuidgid > > > MULTILOG=/usr/local/bin/multilog # directory for multilog > > > PROG=smtpd > > > LOGDIR=/var/log/qmail # directory for qmail-send log > > > LOGUSER=qmaill # user to own logs > > > LOGNUM=10 # number of log files. > > > LOGSIZE=5000000 # maximum file size for log files. > > > > > > exec $SETUIDGID $LOGUSER $MULTILOG t n$LOGNUM s$LOGSIZE $LOGDIR > > > > So your $LOGDIR is /var/log/qmail, but then Please read the line above---again. > > > > > /service/qmail-smtpd/log/run > > > > > > #!/bin/sh > > > # This is the run file for supervise to execute the qmail-smtpd's log. > > > > > > SETUIDGID=/usr/local/bin/setuidgid # directory for setuidgid > > > MULTILOG=/usr/local/bin/multilog # directory for multilog > > > PROG=smtpd > > > LOGDIR=/var/log/qmail/$PROG # directory for qmail-smtpd log > > > LOGUSER=qmaill # user to own logs > > > LOGNUM=10 # number of log files > > > LOGSIZE=5000000 # maximum file size for log files > > > > > > exec $SETUIDGID $LOGUSER $MULTILOG t n$LOGNUM s$LOGSIZE $LOGDIR > > > > so the $LOGDIR is a subdir of qmail-send's logdir which is again > > /var/log/qmail. > > the log directory for qmail-smtpd is /var/log/qmail/smtpd Yes, but the logdir for qmail-send is /var/log/qmail !! What are the permissions on /var/log/qmail and /var/log/qmail/smtpd ? Mate
Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:58:13PM +0800, Eric Yu wrote: > > the log directory for qmail-smtpd is /var/log/qmail/smtpd > > Yes, but the logdir for qmail-send is /var/log/qmail !! But this should not cause problems. multilog (running in /var/log/qmail) won't notice or touch any file named "smtpd". paul
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:52:21PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:58:13PM +0800, Eric Yu wrote: > > > the log directory for qmail-smtpd is /var/log/qmail/smtpd > > > > Yes, but the logdir for qmail-send is /var/log/qmail !! > > But this should not cause problems. multilog (running in > /var/log/qmail) won't notice or touch any file named "smtpd". But *could* cause problems: what if neither directory exists, and qmail-smtpd would start before qmail-send (remember that svscan does not start services in any predetermined order). This is why I asked about the permissions on these directories. It certainly does not explain the disappearing run file. I'd like to see an output that would show this: Show me the run file in question with `ls -l' , then restart/reboot, whatever, then run ls -l again. Mate
Eek! Looks like my update didn't make it... I did get it to compile and I think it's working... Yay! On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:19:38AM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 07:16:07PM -0800, David Benfell wrote: > > > I serioulsy suggest that you downgrade to your OS's latest supported glibc, > > > unless there is a specific reason you need a later one. Building glibc from > > > source is not for amateurs. > > > > > I think I've done just that: > > > > benfell:~ # ls -al /lib/libc* > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4070534 Sep 20 09:07 /lib/libc.so.6 > > Er, why is libc.so.6 not a symlink? Doesn't ldconfig give a warning? > Hmmm... ldconfig does not complain. > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Nov 14 10:39 /lib/libcom_err.so.2 -> >libcom_err.so.2.0 > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8133 Jul 29 07:33 /lib/libcom_err.so.2.0 > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 61180 Sep 20 09:07 /lib/libcrypt.so.1 > > benfell:~ # rpm -qf /lib/libc.so.6 > > shlibs-2.1.3-163 > > > > This is the latest version of glibc that SuSE offers. "rpm -vf > > /lib/libc.so.6 --verify" returns no output, so I presume all is well, > > but just to be sure, I did "rpm -a --verify | less" and saw output > > consistent with what I believe I've done to the system. > > > > Next, I went looking for libresolv (note the before and after shots > > separated by an updatedb): > > How about resolv.h? I'd remove everything glibc-related in /usr/local/lib > and /usr/local/include if I were you. > Yup. This was it. I'd nailed /usr/local/lib, but not /usr/local/include. Maybe next time I'll remember. > > I think this is the wrong place for a religious war on Debian, but I > > guess I did start it. I'll only say that from what I've seen, they > > have lots of problems with their unstable branch. And they do warn > > you about this. My approach has, so far, generated less difficulty, > > mainly because I focus on packages for which there have been security > > alerts. The solution for a security alert on "su" turns out to be > > building against glibc 2.1.3 or higher. So I upgraded glibc (I think > > this is a lot easier than it used to be) on my other systems and > > rebuilt sh-utils successfully. Admittedly, in this case, it was > > unnecessary to upgrade to glibc 2.2. > > I'm not sure you understand what Debian unstable is. It's the most recent > version of every package, rather than a set of packages that has been deemed > "stable". So, of course there will be problems. The question is, how bad > will those problems be? You can stop updating your unstable dist whenever > you want, or update selected packages. > At least with unstable, they're warning you. And with their scheme of things, I accept that you're taking your life in your hands when you use unstable. Fine, you're going for the ride, scary as it might be, but that's your choice. Hell, I run development kernels on production boxes and blithely upgrade glibcs. Who am I to criticize you for that? Their process is not one I trust. In theory, it should be a good one because it includes the ability to audit code. In practice, I keep hearing about major problems where they really, really break things, and not just in unstable. So I don't think their process is working well. I won't soon forget how I had to run around to a bunch of my co-workers' machines with a floppy disk. They had installed Debian, for whatever reason it is that people choose Debian. And now they didn't have a working dhcpcd. That made it tougher for them to download any other fixes that needed to be applied. So there I was, with my version of dhcpcd from a SuSE system... This was not a new bug. I had encountered it on two previous attempts to install Debian. But when I ask Debian advocates about the dhcpcd episode, all I hear is silence. Lately, I've seen on an internal mailing list how they've gone and broken about three packages in stable and are denying that there's any problem whatsoever. A bunch of people where I work are pretty unhappy about that. If I recall correctly, one of those packages is mutt. This strikes me as really, really strange. I think I've downloaded and built most of the versions that have come out in the last couple years. While it doesn't seem to handle Maildirs as well as I'd like, I can't say I've actually had a broken one. So I'm wondering what happened to break it on Debian. Note I am specifically not criticizing Debian for its decision to drop support for slink. While there's been plenty of grumpiness about that, I believe they kept it on artificial life support for far too long. From what I've seen on the lists, it's pretty much agreed that potato took far too long to come out. But, this is a volunteer effort. Life is like that. Now one of our most talkative system administrators is crowing about their decision to go with Red Hat. (This, after he arrived at the company singing the praises of Debian.) And yes, he dared to say this after Red Hat 7.0 came out. [Head bangs against top of monitor...] Obviously, your mileage varies. So, evidently, does a lot of other people's. > Personally, I'm running unstable on several machines and I have never had a > major problem. But I tend to keep on top of the debian mailing lists, so I > generally find out ahead of time if there's a problem and avoid updating > until it's resolved. > I'm subscribed to a few of those lists myself. They generate a lot more mail than I have time to go through. But yes, this would be the way to do it. > Whatever you wind up doing, I would caution against upgrading glibc unless > there is a specific need. glibc is *supposed* to be backward-compatible, but > there are always problems that could occur with binaries that were built with > older versions. > This I thought was the purpose of installing your upgraded glibc in /usr/local/lib -- the old one is still around for whatever's linked against it. That and, umm, not hosing your system while you try to copy the library in with non-standalone utilities! (Yes, I've done that. Ouch. But that's how I found out what glibc was for.) -- David Benfell [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The grand leap of the whale up the Fall of Niagara is esteemed, by all who have seen it, as one of the finest spectacles in nature. -- Benjamin Franklin. [from fortune]
Hi Everyone, When I started up qmail today (it has worked before) I got this error in my /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current - @400000003a19660f0523d96c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used I am running Solaris and the current version of qmail. Any ideas of what the problem is and how I can fix it, Thanks, Jon
Jon wrote: > When I started up qmail today (it has worked before) I got this error in my > /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current - > > @400000003a19660f0523d96c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already > used Something else is hogging the port. Is sendmail running on your system? ---Kris Kelley
Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When I started up qmail today (it has worked before) I got this error in my > /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current - > > @400000003a19660f0523d96c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already > used Something is already bound to port 25 on your machine. Perhaps one of your Solaris patches re-enabled sendmail? They've been known to do that. Otherwise, check your inetd.conf and ensure it's not trying to listen for smtp traffic for you. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a MUA, not a MTA issue... If the MUA honors the receipt request then the MTA will carry it. Hope this helps Gerry At 11:58 AM 11/20/2000, Tzabu wrote: >Hi... > >Some of my clients use Netscape and it's feature Return Receipts. Can >anyone tell me what can I do to get them working in qmail? Any patches >available that add this functionality?
Gerry Boudreaux wrote: > > This is a MUA, not a MTA issue... > > If the MUA honors the receipt request then the MTA will carry it. > > Hope this helps > > Gerry What about the "notification on delivery" stuff -- is that not an MTA feature? Is it deprecated? Rather it would be a feature of the MDA, has anyone added it to qmail-local? -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I must report that I am in the fortunate position of having logged and categorized my nightmares over the past 37 years." -- Bob Dehnhardt
Thus said "David L. Nicol" on Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:12:46 CST: > What about the "notification on delivery" stuff -- is that not > an MTA feature? Is it deprecated? Rather it would be a feature > of the MDA, has anyone added it to qmail-local? You mean something like what is covered in "man qreceipt" ? It depends on what the user is expecting I guess... If it is Disposition-Notification-To then it has nothing to do with the MTA, however, if it is Notice-Requested-Upon-Delivery-To then that is covered... Andy -- [-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------] 8:24pm up 18 days, 22:43, 4 users, load average: 1.11, 1.11, 1.04
This is problem of qmail, I think because qmail doesn’t support Delivery Service Notification but something not standard.
When i send mail from Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger, with delivery notice, mail have in header field
Return receipt to: but qreceipt is looking for Notice-Requested-Upon-Delivery-To: I think that is the problem why you aren’t
able to receive return receipt....
But sorry i can’t help you... I need return receipt too....
Daniel POGAČ
Tech. Support
TatraSoft Group s.r.o
Sibírska 4
83102 Bratislava
tel: +421-7-55574033
fax: +421-7-55566385
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Tzabu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: return receipts
Hi...
Some of my clients use Netscape and it's feature Return Receipts. Can anyone tell me what can I do to get them working in qmail? Any patches available that add this functionality?
> But sorry i can't help you... I need return receipt too.... Why didn't you try the way I described? If it is too complicated, pay someone to do it. Regards, Frank
This is another problem that I am getting. Again if you could send your response to my address I would appreciate it. Thanks Travis Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.appliedi.com. I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 63.145.215.13 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 554 too many hops, this message is looping (#5.4.6) --- Below this line is the original bounce. Return-Path: <> Received: (qmail 3045 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:36 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3041 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:36 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3037 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:36 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3033 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3029 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3025 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3021 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3017 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3013 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3009 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 3005 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:34 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 3001 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2997 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2993 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2989 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2985 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2981 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2977 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2973 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2969 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2965 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2961 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2957 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2953 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2949 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2945 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 2941 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2937 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2933 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2929 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2925 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2921 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2917 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2913 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2909 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2905 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2901 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2897 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2893 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2889 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2885 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2881 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2877 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 2873 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2869 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2865 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2861 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2857 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2853 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from mail.appliedi.com (HELO hello?this?is?an?Applied?Integration?machine) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 2849 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2000 18:01:19 -0000 Received: from gately.com (HELO gately01.gately.com) (216.54.12.154) by mail.appliedi.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2000 18:01:19 -0000 Received: by GATELY01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <W5KB9ZVT>; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:47:54 -0500 Message-ID: <84C3AB1A3A24D311BC9100500410A17E427A84@GATELY01> From: System Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Delivered: Receipt of Information on InCharge 3000 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:28:55PM -0800, Travis Turner wrote: > This is another problem that I am getting. Again if > you could send your response to my address I would > appreciate it. > Thanks Travis > > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at > mail.appliedi.com. > I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, > but the bounce bounced! > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 63.145.215.13 failed after I sent the message. > Remote host said: 554 too many hops, this message is > looping (#5.4.6) It looks like your control files don't list appliedi.com as a local domain (either through me, locals or virtualdomains) and you have created a mail loop for appliedi.com with smtproutes. What is the output of qmail-showctl?
At 12:46 PM 11/20/2000 -0500, you wrote: I have followed the faq but I am still getting errors upon trying to telnet to the localhost using tcpserver. What I did was 1. Created a file under /var/qmail called tcpserver with the start up script described in the FAQ. 2. Created links in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d - rc5.d to point to the tcpserver. 3. created the tcprules cdb 4. rebooted. Still no joy. Here are the two scripts that I made. /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 502 -g 501 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 & on this one I have spaces between everything. Do i need some tabs? a.b.c.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" a.b.c.d:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" a.b.c.d:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" I still cannot connect to port 25. If I uncomment the lines in inetd.conf it comes right up after giving a -HUP to inetd. Thanks for the suggestions. Regards, Travis On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:26:41AM -0700, Travis Turner wrote: > What is happening to my server any clues. > > Nov 19 13:53:49 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ > Nov 19 14:04:09 mail inetd[516]: smtp/tcp server failing (looping or being > flooded$ [snip] http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#tcpserver-smtpd __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 03:19:17PM -0800, Travis Turner wrote: > At 12:46 PM 11/20/2000 -0500, you wrote: > I have followed the faq but I am still getting errors > upon trying to telnet to the localhost using > tcpserver. What I did was > 1. Created a file under /var/qmail called tcpserver > with the start up script described in the FAQ. > 2. Created links in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d - rc5.d to point > to the tcpserver. > 3. created the tcprules cdb > 4. rebooted. Still no joy. Here are the two scripts > that I made. > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 502 -g 501 -x > /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | > /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 & Is this all on one line? It has to be, or you need to continue your lines with a '\' . > a.b.c.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > a.b.c.d:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > a.b.c.d:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" a.b.c, a.b.c.d, etc. were supposed to be examples; you're supposed to use real IP addresses. Does your file really say this? Chris
Hi all... I'm aware of the databytes options for remote SMTP... anyone know if there is an option to also set a databytes size for "LOCAL" mail delivery ? Cheers Dennis Dennis Kavadas Network Support Officer University of New South Wales Cornea Contact Lens Research Unit Level 4, Gate 14 Barker Street Kensington NSW 2052 Ph: (02) 9385 7448
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 02:19:21PM +0000, Dennis Kavadas wrote: > Hi all... > > I'm aware of the databytes options for remote SMTP... anyone > know if there is an option to also set a databytes size for "LOCAL" > mail delivery ? There isn't one. The simplest strategy is to use quotas if you can. Regards.
Hi all... Another question. Just wanted to know, from users experience, the best/suggested IMAP server to use with QMail, I need it to be bullet proof (what else :)) Any suggestions appreciated. Cheers Dennis Dennis Kavadas Network Support Officer University of New South Wales Cornea Contact Lens Research Unit Level 4, Gate 14 Barker Street Kensington NSW 2052 Ph: (02) 9385 7448
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 04:46:59PM +0000, Dennis Kavadas wrote: > Just wanted to know, from users experience, the best/suggested > IMAP server to use with QMail, I need it to be bullet proof (what else > :)) I'm very happy with Courier-IMAP. Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
defaultdelivery : ./Mailbox
defaultdomain : lists.dom1.com
locals : lists.dom1.com
me : lists.dom1.com
moretcpthosts : lists.dom2.com
plusdomain : lists.dom2.com
rcpthosts : lists.dom1.com
lists.dom2.com
virtualdomains : lists.dom2.com:usernameThanks in Advance
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 12:41:51PM +0530, Kiran wrote: > Hi, > > I set up my qmail 1.03 on Red hat Linux 6.1 for lists.dom1.com. I am able to send >and receive mails for this domain. > But when I tried to setup a 2nd domain lists.dom2.com and try sending a mail to >lists.dom2.com, i get an error - > > Connecting to lists.dom2.com.dom2.com. via esmtp... > Host unknown (Name server: lists.dom2.com.dom2.com.: host not found) I suspect that the MX record for "lists.dom2.com" is messed up in the BIND zonefile, though I can't perform an MX lookup from here because you helpfully provided bogus domain names.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 12:42:13PM +0530, Kiran wrote: > The following are the files present in the /var/qmail/control directory and their >contents: > > concurrencyincoming : 20 Bogus file. concurrencylocal and concurrencyremote are the real files. concurrencyincoming is some invention of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > defaultdelivery : ./Mailbox Bogus file. There is no reference to this in qmail. It's yet another invention of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > defaultdomain : lists.dom1.com > locals : lists.dom1.com > me : lists.dom1.com > moretcpthosts : lists.dom2.com Typo. You mean either rcpthosts or morercpthosts, but not (sic) moretcpthosts > plusdomain : lists.dom2.com > rcpthosts : lists.dom1.com > lists.dom2.com > virtualdomains : lists.dom2.com:username Wow Kiran. You went to a lot of trouble to retype that didn't you? All you've done is to waste a lot of your time and a lot of ours. Why not take the easy path and run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-showctl and cut-and-paste the output to an email for this list? No that would be too useful and too simple. If you feel it's important to hide your domain then buy commercial support and don't bug this list. If you want free support, give us real data, not the adulterated junk you posted above. Sorry for being so harsh, but it's tiresome to see so many people spend so much time hiding their real details (why, do they have an ego problem?) This makes it much harder for the list to understand the real situation. If you make it hard for the list, you are unlikely to get a useful response. If you make it easy for the list by providing real, unadulterated data, then you are likely to find a response that solves your problem. Your call. Regards.
Hi all... Yes, I'm asking the question again... Is there a formal way of backing up IMAP Maildir's ? What application or method is used ? Cheers Dennis
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 08:38:34AM +1100, Dennis wrote: > Yes, I'm asking the question again... > Is there a formal way of backing up IMAP Maildir's ? > What application or method is used ? tar cvIF ? :) (what do you exactely want to do ? imap maildirs are normal directories... can be backed up as any other file) Olivier -- _________________________________________________________________ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
Oliver Sure, but will a running qmail complain if the dir's are being accessed while the backup is taking place ? Also, I'd like the backup to be automated for tape aka BRU, company policy. And i'm talking about 20 to 50 gigs of email. Suggestions ? Cheers Dennis > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 21 November 2000 8:58 PM > To: Dennis > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Backing up IMAP Maildir's ? > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 08:38:34AM +1100, Dennis wrote: > > Yes, I'm asking the question again... > > Is there a formal way of backing up IMAP Maildir's ? > > What application or method is used ? > > tar cvIF ? :) > (what do you exactely want to do ? imap maildirs are normal > directories... can be backed up as any other file) > > Olivier > -- > _________________________________________________________________ > Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland > qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch >
On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:00:54AM +1100, Dennis wrote: > Sure, but will a running qmail complain if the dir's are being accessed > while the backup is taking place ? if you just read the maildirs, I don't think there will be a problem. Maybe you can stop delivery during the backup, but I guess it takes quite a lot of time. > And i'm talking about 20 to 50 gigs of email. wow... that must be a very big company :) Olivier -- _________________________________________________________________ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:30:17PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > torben fjerdingstad writes: > > When I as postmaster receive bounces from mailer-daemon on > > my qmail system, the spam is concatenated in-line to the > > bottom of the error mail. > > > > How do I get it as a mime attach instead? > > Is this what you're looking for? > > <li>Fred Lindberg has a patch which causes qmail-send to preserving > the MIME-ness when<a > href="http://www.ezmlm.org/pub/patches/qmail-mime.tgz">bouncing MIME > messages</a>. It requires and includes a patch to ezmlm, since it > breaks <a href="http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt">QSBMF</a>. Exactly. Thanks! ;) > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital. -- Med venlig hilsen / Regards Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group UNI-C Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41 Mail: UNI-C Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
