qmail Digest 4 Dec 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1203
Topics (messages 53375 through 53398):
Re: please help me
53375 by: Alexander Jernejcic
53377 by: Jenny Holmberg
53392 by: tatsuya kansaki
Re: New release 20001201 is out]
53376 by: Andre Oppermann
Eee; uspi-tcp upgrade back in March (version 0.88)
53378 by: David Dyer-Bennet
53379 by: Mark Delany
More on MAPS RSS
53380 by: Kris Kelley
53395 by: Russ Allbery
Re: Bye
53381 by: kevin.oceania.net
long timeout after connecting
53382 by: megadesign
53383 by: Henning Brauer
53384 by: asantos
53391 by: Timothy Legant
unsuscribe
53385 by: lawyer
ReiserFS
53386 by: ari.doctordata.com.br
53387 by: Henning Brauer
53388 by: Alex Pennace
53389 by: Greg Owen
53390 by: Henning Brauer
Re: AntiVirus!
53393 by: harold.nb.com.sg ()
421 out of memory (#4.3.0)
53394 by: Huseyin YUCE - MARMARA Internet Merkezi
ucspi-tcp docs
53396 by: Jeremy Anthony
53397 by: Alex Pennace
dot qmail aliases files
53398 by: Sébastien ROZIER
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hi andi,
tatsuya kansaki wrote:
> i put all of my machine name in rcpthost in /var/qmail/control/
> when someone send e-mail for example [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is going be normal..
> but when hari@flamboyan send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..the message or
> e-mail can't be send.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the same address with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] error message is at k3.umm.ac.id.
please be so kind and post the output of qmail-showctl and the relevant
lines of your logs showing the defferal of the mail. it would be
much easier to help you.
regards
alexander
tatsuya kansaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> all of my machine name like flamboyan.umm.ac.id , unix.umm.ac.id and
> mail.umm.ac.id I put in to /var/qmail/control/rcpthost on k3.umm.ac.id
> when i send message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> qmail run normally. and my problem is when I send e-mail from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail cannot send this e-mail
> I try to put umm.ac.id in to /var/qmail/doc/rcpthost but it not solve my
^^^
This would seem to be the problem: It should be
/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts, not /var/wmail/doc/rcpthost.
> problem. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the same address with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> what should i do..in order to qmail can send this message
If you mean that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be treated as a local delivery
on k3.umm.ac.id, you also need to put umm.ac.id in
/var/qmail/control/locals.
Hope I've understood you correctly and been of some help.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
i try to make my problem be simple
1. i want to make my machine k3.umm.ac.id be domain for umm.ac.id
2. i put all of my machine name to /var/qmail/control/rcphost on
k3.umm.ac.id
like : mail.umm.ac.id ; unix.umm.ac.id ; k3.umm.ac.id
3. when i send e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail run normal..message from hari@mail deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the same address with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. when i put umm.ac.id in to /var/qmail/control/locals on k3.umm.ac.id,
mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] not to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .. BTW [EMAIL PROTECTED] is different address
with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. i want ..when i send e-mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the mail deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . i want just type
[EMAIL PROTECTED] without the word unix
i try put umm.ac.id in to /var/qmail/control/rcpthost on k3.umm.ac.id
but it didn't solve my problem. email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] cannot
send to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i hope you didn't feel boring with my question
below file from /var/log/maillog on k3.umm.ac.id
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.767619 new msg 141707
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.770707 info msg 141707: bytes
488
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 4805 uid 1022
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.778059 starting delivery 12:
msg
141707 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.779315 status: local 0/10
remote
1/20
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.804336 delivery 12: failure:
Sorry._Although_I'm_listed_as_a_best-preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_isn't_
in_my_control/locals_file,_so_I_don't_treat_it_as_local._(#5.4.6)/
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.809048 status: local 0/10
remote
0/20
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.928109 bounce msg 141707 qp
4807
Dec 4 08:50:04 k3-router qmail: 975919804.935118 end msg 141707
Hi LDAP fans
The new official qmail-ldap release 20001201 is out and available as
usual on
http://www.nrg4u.com
The following things have been added/changed relative to 20000701:
- ~control/maxrcptcount to limit the maximum number of rcpt to's (new)
- ~control/relaymailfrom for envelope sender based mail relaying (new)
- ~control/rbllist to check the sender against a number of RBL's (new)
- LOGLEVEL environment variable for qmail-smtpd to see what's happening
during SMTP transactions (documented)
- DENYMAIL environment varianle for qmail-smtpd to do heavy sanity
checking of the envelope senders domain. Also checking for MX or
A record of sender domain. (documented)
- qmail-reply beautified and some fixes. (new)
- cluster loop protection. (new)
- fixes and enhancements to TLS support. (new)
- bitmask support for debug output, higher debug level now also include
all lower one's. (new)
- fixed maildir++ quota support to do always the right thing (new)
Enjoy
--
Andre
Just noticed the upgrade to ucspi-tcp-0.88, which is dated back in
March. The upgrade info makes it *look* safe for my installation. I
presume the fact that I haven't noticed people discussing it all year
is because it hasn't caused anybody any problems, rather than because
nobody has used it?
--
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 Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 01:56:54PM -0000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Just noticed the upgrade to ucspi-tcp-0.88, which is dated back in
> March. The upgrade info makes it *look* safe for my installation. I
> presume the fact that I haven't noticed people discussing it all year
> is because it hasn't caused anybody any problems, rather than because
> nobody has used it?
Yep. You don't say what version you're running, but there have been
functional changes along the way.
Regards.
Forgive me for opening this can of worms again, but I have something that
proves that the MAPS RSS *is* listing servers that it suspects are open
relays, even when they aren't.
My home ISP's outbound server was listed on Friday: texas.kingwoodcable.com,
or 208.223.8.79. According to the web page that shows the relay test
(http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rsstest?208.223.8.79), "This host
accepted our relay test message, but does not appear to have returned it."
The page goes on to say, "It may never return the relay test message, which
means it is probably not open to relay." Despite these statements, the
server made the RSS list.
Those more familiar with qmail can examine the bottom of that page and
determine if the test that "failed" would affect qmail.
Interestingly, the RSS site states that they tried to warn Kingwood Cable
about being listed, but that the warning was rejected. This is because they
tried [EMAIL PROTECTED], which doesn't exist. I know that
'postmaster' is supposed to exist for every domain, but still, how hard is
it to set up something that also sends the message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], since that's the domain this server is in
charge of?
Oh well, now back to your regularly scheduled flamefest.
---Kris Kelley
Kris Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Forgive me for opening this can of worms again, but I have something
> that proves that the MAPS RSS *is* listing servers that it suspects are
> open relays, even when they aren't.
Have you reported this to RSS?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Peter Cavender wrote:
>
> >I'm taking a vacation from this list until the level of newbie
> Even though some of the newbie questions make me cringe, the level of
> rudeness and abuse others inject is totally unacceptable.
Having been a newbie and still class myself as one after some
years, I can only implore you to hang about.
I have been called everything from clueless to an idiot
for not having the level of understanding others have.
The last time I tried to get help in regard to the much loved
topic of relaying, I recieved 2 mails pointing to a
solution and countless abusive mails, many off list.
What I found was that I was too scared to post again
and settled for the easier solution and installed
sendmail.
If you were to leave now the ratio of informative to
abusive mails tilts still further to the latter.
Kind regards
Kevin Waterson
hello all, can anybody help me with my problem please ?
(on the begining, sorry for my very bad english...)
i have one machine 'ikarus.visimpex.cz' on my local network (without
dns), where qmail-pop3d and qmail-smtpd is running (all via tcpserver).
i tried to connect to account 'user' from other machine (same network)
with windows os and outlook_express mail client (pop3 and smtp
server=ikarus.visimpex.cz). connecting to ikarus for new mails is ok,
but before new messages are received (or sended) there is too long
timeout. outl_express display message like "connected, but server has no
reaction after 60sec. wait or cancel ?". after click on 'wait' is
another long timeout (40+ sec), but client receive and send all messages
in the end. ping between this machines is ok (<10s). why there is so big
timeout ?
thank you.
mega
Am Sonntag, 26. November 2000 23:56 schrieb megadesign:
connecting to ikarus for new mails is ok,
> but before new messages are received (or sended) there is too long
> timeout. outl_express display message like "connected, but server has no
> reaction after 60sec. wait or cancel ?". after click on 'wait' is
> another long timeout (40+ sec), but client receive and send all messages
> in the end. ping between this machines is ok (<10s). why there is so big
> timeout ?
10 seconds is not ok ;-))
try tcpserver -R to disable ident. i often saw this giving delay about 30sec,
but not 60 - try it.
> thank you.
> mega
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
From: megadesign <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>in the end. ping between this machines is ok (<10s). why there is so big
>timeout ?
Try the -R and -H flags for tcpserver. You'll find more details in
http://binarios.com/miscnotes/ucspi-tcp.html#ucspi_tcp
Armando
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:56:32PM +0100, megadesign wrote:
> hello all, can anybody help me with my problem please ?
> (on the begining, sorry for my very bad english...)
No problem! You've explained your problem better than many native
English speakers on this list.
> i have one machine 'ikarus.visimpex.cz' on my local network (without
> dns), where qmail-pop3d and qmail-smtpd is running (all via tcpserver).
> i tried to connect to account 'user' from other machine (same network)
> with windows os and outlook_express mail client (pop3 and smtp
> server=ikarus.visimpex.cz). connecting to ikarus for new mails is ok,
> but before new messages are received (or sended) there is too long
> timeout. outl_express display message like "connected, but server has no
> reaction after 60sec. wait or cancel ?". after click on 'wait' is
> another long timeout (40+ sec), but client receive and send all messages
> in the end. ping between this machines is ok (<10s). why there is so big
> timeout ?
As others have indicated, you will want to use the -R and -H flags on
the tcpserver command line. If your machine cannot find it's own name
through a DNS lookup, you will also want to add -l0 to tcpserver's
command line. That's a lowercase 'L' and the digit 0.
man tcpserver for more information on all three of those flags.
> thank you.
You're welcome - I hope this helps.
> mega
-thl
Hi,
Is it possible to run qmail in a Reiser File System? If so, can you tell
me about how it is running?
Thanks,
Ari
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2000 02:51 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to run qmail in a Reiser File System? If so, can you
> tell me about how it is running?
What has qmail to do with the underlaying file system? This is hidden by the
OS of course.
> Thanks,
>
> Ari
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 11:51:02PM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to run qmail in a Reiser File System? If so, can you tell
> me about how it is running?
qmail will run on almost all Unix file systems, including
reiserfs. Note that a patch is necessary to qmail to facilitate
reliable writes to reiserfs queues, search
<http://www.qmail.org/>. Granted, this patch shouldn't be necessary;
reiserfs should provide a synchronous metadata option either per
filesystem or per directory tree.
PGP signature
> What has qmail to do with the underlaying file system? This
> is hidden by the OS of course.
qmail relies heavily on proper operation of the underlying
filesystem to be truly reliable. Not much except BSD meets qmail's
definition of "proper." Ext2 and reiserfs are discussed thoroughly in the
archives.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2000 03:11 schrieb Greg Owen:
> > What has qmail to do with the underlaying file system? This
> > is hidden by the OS of course.
>
> qmail relies heavily on proper operation of the underlying
> filesystem to be truly reliable. Not much except BSD meets qmail's
> definition of "proper." Ext2 and reiserfs are discussed thoroughly in the
> archives.
uups... there's always something left to learn...
so i'm happy that I'm running qmail(-ldap) on ffs (OpenBSD) ;-))
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Matt Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > If running a virus scanner would be free (i.e. does not reduce security,
: > does not eat up CPU time on the email server, does not use memory, does
: > not cost time and money to maintain) then I would not be against it.
: Nothing is free. All that is possible is that the cost is less than
: the benefits.
(Hi Felix)
I would say the cost is higher than normally reckoned: you end up
with dumber users, and that's pretty expensive.
I've been thinking of a scheme in which attachments of certain
"dangerous" types get mangled, such that the filenames or types
are intentionally misdeclared. So the user ends up with a plain
base64 text file, which is meaningless, but which he can trivially
decode to the original.
This places the burden of vigilance back on the user where it
belongs, rather than breeding a generation of click-happy users.
And if he does decode and run it, and it is a virus, you can point a
very accusing finger instead of a palms-up shrug.
-harold
Hi,
I have smtp-auth patches applied (http://nimh.org/hacks/qmail-smtpd.c)
220 xxxx.xxxx.xxx.xx ESMTP
EHLO testx
250-xxxx.xxxx.xxx.xx
250-AUTH=LOGIN
250-PIPELINING
250 8BITMIME
AUTH LOGIN
334 VXNlcm5hbWU6
xxxxxxx
334 UGFzc3dvcmQ6
xxxx
421 out of memory (#4.3.0)
535 auth failure
can you help me!
--
Huseyin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is there any *real* documentation for ucspi-tcp? i'm sorry, but dan's is
really not very descriptive
- jeremy
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 02:45:59AM -0500, Jeremy Anthony wrote:
> is there any *real* documentation for ucspi-tcp? i'm sorry, but dan's is
> really not very descriptive
What questions do you have that aren't answered by the man pages?
PGP signature
|
Hello,
I tried to create a file
".qmail-firstname.lastname" in /var/qmail/aliases
This doesn't work, my qmail configuration is
working properly and other aliases without any dots are also working
.
Is the dot forbidden in a dot-mail alias file
?
How could I create this alias then ?
Thanx
S. ROZIER
|
