qmail Digest 2 Feb 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1263
Topics (messages 56457 through 56526):
retr problem
56457 by: pratibha
Re: qmtp and spammers.
56458 by: Faried Nawaz
Security issue: SMTP and qmail
56459 by: Marcus Korte
56461 by: Peter van Dijk
56479 by: Graphic Rezidew
56486 by: Vincent Schonau
56488 by: Bruce Guenter
56498 by: Robin S. Socha
56501 by: Bruce Guenter
Re: qmail under NAT
56460 by: Peter van Dijk
56481 by: Rick Updegrove
qmail speed improvement
56462 by: Michael Maier
56464 by: Charles Cazabon
56467 by: Michael Maier
56471 by: Dave Sill
56472 by: Michael Maier
56474 by: Justin Bell
56477 by: Dave Sill
56478 by: Michael Maier
56482 by: Steve Kennedy
56484 by: Michael Maier
56485 by: Michael Maier
56487 by: Jacques <Frip'> WERNERT
56497 by: Robin S. Socha
56502 by: Boz Crowther
mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
56463 by: Michel Boucey
56465 by: Peter van Dijk
56466 by: Chris Johnson
56468 by: Vincent Schonau
56480 by: Andy Bradford
56519 by: Michel Boucey
Re: mail backup
56469 by: Dave Sill
Re: qmail with qmail-ldap patch ?
56470 by: Dave Sill
logging is sent to console, not to logfiles
56473 by: Filip Sneppe \(Yucom\)
56475 by: Gerrit Pape
56476 by: Chris Johnson
dns and databytes patch for ofmipd
56483 by: Will Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
56489 by: jacksonm.ssh.com
56490 by: Peter van Dijk
msntauth
56491 by: john crawford
SMTP Question
56492 by: Chris McCoy
56493 by: Mark Delany
56495 by: Matt Simonsen
56496 by: Greg White
56499 by: Matt Simonsen
56505 by: Chris McCoy
Hostname
56494 by: NDSoftware
Re: qmail w/ reiserfs on linux 2.4.1
56500 by: Arjan Filius
bsmtp
56503 by: Frans Haarman
56504 by: Peter van Dijk
QMTP protocol spec question
56506 by: David L. Nicol
56508 by: Peter van Dijk
56509 by: Dan Peterson
56513 by: Peter van Dijk
QMail Front Ending Exchange
56507 by: John Hamill
56510 by: Charles Cazabon
blocking email address
56511 by: KIM
56512 by: Matthew Patterson
56523 by: Wolfgang Zeikat
SMTP SIZE not supported
56514 by: Administrator
56515 by: Greg White
56516 by: paul.anastrophe.com
56517 by: frob.webcentral.com.au
pop server setting passed/available in checkpoppasswd ?
56518 by: David Hasbrouck
System crash
56520 by: Paulo Jan
Qmail won't deliver locally.
56521 by: Ryan Marsh
56522 by: Peter Farmer
Qmail in a DMZ
56524 by: Ken Walsh
56526 by: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg
I'm drooling here...
56525 by: Pedro Melo
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dear all,
i have faced a problem regarding retreival of mails from mail browsers..
....the problem is that the mails in my 'new' folder are automatically
transfered to 'cur' folder and the message id gets attached with ":2,". and it
gets appended again and again. the mails are readable using cat but not
downloadable from mail browsers......
the mails are maintained in linux system redhat 5.2......
i have totally no idea what could be wrong.....
your suggestions are highly appreciated.
thanks in advace
regards,
pratibha
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.227 / Virus Database: 109 - Release Date: 1/17/01
Vincent Schonau wrote:
I think you mean Dan's implementation is 'less powerful'; it has nothing to
do with the protocol.
With SMTP, you get
S: 220 hi, it's me!
C: mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
S: 551 go away
With QMTP, you get
C: <message and sender and recipients sent before the server says anything,
tying up the connection for 30 seconds and wasting bandwidth>
S: 7:Dgo away,
Has anyone seen spam enter their network via qmail-qmtpd?
I don't want to wait until it's commonplace before doing something to
keep it out.
Hi,
I have set up an internal mailserver based on qmail and RH6.2 behind a
firewall.
There are some security aspects in which I am not sure about.
If SMTP is opened in the firewall, the machine could easily be hacked I
assume.
Are there any recommendations how to secure smtp on qmail?
Thx!
Marcus
--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:53:48PM +0100, Marcus Korte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have set up an internal mailserver based on qmail and RH6.2 behind a
> firewall.
> There are some security aspects in which I am not sure about.
> If SMTP is opened in the firewall, the machine could easily be hacked I
> assume.
> Are there any recommendations how to secure smtp on qmail?
Make sure you run all assorted daemons on the destined userIDs.
Since you are running qmail, that is about all you need to worry about
:)
Greetz, Peter.
If security is a concern then you might not want to be running RedHat
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:53:48PM +0100, Marcus Korte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have set up an internal mailserver based on qmail and RH6.2 behind a
> firewall.
> There are some security aspects in which I am not sure about.
> If SMTP is opened in the firewall, the machine could easily be hacked I
> assume.
> Are there any recommendations how to secure smtp on qmail?
>
> Thx!
>
> Marcus
>
> --
> Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
>
Marcus Korte writes:
> Hi,
> I have set up an internal mailserver based on qmail and RH6.2 behind a
> firewall.
> There are some security aspects in which I am not sure about.
> If SMTP is opened in the firewall, the machine could easily be hacked I
> assume.
Since you assume that, what's the firewall for?
> Are there any recommendations how to secure smtp on qmail?
Do not divert from the documentation when installing it.
My experience with 'firewalls' that speak SMTP has been depressing, to put
it mildly.
Vince.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:04:03AM -0600, Graphic Rezidew wrote:
> If security is a concern then you might not want to be running RedHat
At least, not an unmodified RedHat. My typical post-install procedure
is to either remove or disable anything that doesn't need to be running
(in terms of network services) down to the minimum necessary. Then I
replace the borken bits (sendmail, BIND, telnet) with more appropriate
solutions.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
* Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:04:03AM -0600, Graphic Rezidew wrote:
>> If security is a concern then you might not want to be running RedHat
> At least, not an unmodified RedHat. My typical post-install procedure
> is to either remove or disable anything that doesn't need to be
> running (in terms of network services) down to the minimum necessary.
> Then I replace the borken bits (sendmail, BIND, telnet) with more
> appropriate solutions.
OK, so after the next GNOMEified update, you start from scratch. Happy,
happy, joy, joy... Unless $LINUX_DISTRO adopts $BSD package-, port- and
CVSup-systems, $LINUX_DISTRO can safely be considered $KIDDY_TOY. Debilian
and Lackware are Better Products(tm) in this regard.
Ro"kernelifrees/wanlids"bin
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 09:03:30PM +0100, Robin S. Socha wrote:
> OK, so after the next GNOMEified update, you start from scratch.
Who puts GNOME on a server? Who puts server software on a GNOME
desktop? To my mind they're seperate. Besides, I generally ignore
updates to critical systems until they prove their stability to the
level required on the system that I would install them, as I would if I
ran anything else.
> Happy,
> happy, joy, joy... Unless $LINUX_DISTRO adopts $BSD package-, port- and
> CVSup-systems, $LINUX_DISTRO can safely be considered $KIDDY_TOY.
So, I take it you don't believe in anything other than top-down software
control?
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:09:09AM -0800, Boris Krivulin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to run qmail behind NAT. The local machine is called 'galois',
> with ip number 192.168.1.6. The router is locally called 'euler', and
> globally is accessible by 'hypervolume.com'.
>
> I have set up port forwarding (port 25) from euler to galois. I have ^not^
> declared an MX -- do I need it if I have only one real IP address ?
Just an A record would do fine, but an MX pointing to the name for
this A is nice and clean.
> Also, what do I put in controls/me ? 'galois' or 'hypervolume.com' ?
Whatever you want your machine to show to the outside world. Probably
hypervolume.com
> What else am I missing to get this working ?
Make sure you either handle identd or *reject* port 113 connects on
the outside IP, or outside mail will take a long time.
Greetz, Peter.
"Boris Krivulin wrote"
> Hi,
>
> I would like to run qmail behind NAT. The local machine is called
'galois',
> with ip number 192.168.1.6. The router is locally called 'euler', and
> globally is accessible by 'hypervolume.com'.
I have an extremely similar setup.
My router is called NS1.DOMAIN.COM because my primary nameserver is behind
it.
The mail server is also behind it on 192.168.0.x and has the name
MAIL.DOMAIN.COM
The MX record is for MAIL.DOMAIN.COM is the same IP as NS1.DOMAIN.COM in my
zone files.
> I have set up port forwarding (port 25) from euler to galois. I have ^not^
> declared an MX -- do I need it if I have only one real IP address ?
I am no expert but I just looked and you have no MX record set.
I saw someone else say all you need was an A record but I don't see how mail
can arrive at your server without an MX record.
I guess I will ask that question on the DNS list if nobody answers. (or look
up what an A record is heh )
> Also, what do I put in controls/me ? 'galois' or 'hypervolume.com' ?
> What else am I missing to get this working ?
I did a ./config-fast mail.domain.com in the qmail source dir and mine works
great.
I hope this helps
> Thank you,
> Boris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to
send out 500.000 e-Mails for Testing.
I setup a Remote Concurrency of 400 and have queue Directory Split + Big
Todo Server Patches.
Why are there just average of 4 concurrent qmail-remote Processes ?
How to improve it ?
--
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to send out
> 500.000 e-Mails for Testing. I setup a Remote Concurrency of 400 and have
> queue Directory Split + Big Todo Server Patches. Why are there just average
> of 4 concurrent qmail-remote Processes ?
Depends on your setup. Could be syslog is taking 80+% of your CPU if you're
logging with that. It could be that you're testing over an internal network
with microsecond latency and your deliveries all complete in a millisecond. It
could be any of a hundred things. You haven't given us any information to
diagnose your situation.
Your qmail logs will contain information on this. Analyze those. If you
have trouble doing that, post a relevant section of your logs showing
concurrency not growing above 4.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm using multilog for logging.
And here is a Cut from Logs...
--
2001-02-01 16:07:00.591559500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-01 16:07:01.136160500 new msg 709520
2001-02-01 16:07:01.176806500 info msg 709520: bytes 5581 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 25704 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:02.265784500 end msg 697387
2001-02-01 16:07:02.356404500 delivery 67273: success:
205.188.156.129_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/
2001-02-01 16:07:02.386210500 status: local 0/250 remote 3/400
2001-02-01 16:07:02.386383500 delivery 67274: success:
152.163.224.122_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/
2001-02-01 16:07:02.427978500 status: local 0/250 remote 2/400
2001-02-01 16:07:02.544169500 new msg 710041
2001-02-01 16:07:02.556813500 info msg 710041: bytes 5267 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27810 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:03.080165500 starting delivery 67275: msg 698429 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2001-02-01 16:07:03.080480500 status: local 0/250 remote 3/400
2001-02-01 16:07:03.081277500 end msg 695824
2001-02-01 16:07:03.135796500 new msg 710562
2001-02-01 16:07:03.143146500 info msg 710562: bytes 4864 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 706 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:03.224924500 end msg 699992
2001-02-01 16:07:03.302477500 new msg 711083
2001-02-01 16:07:03.326604500 info msg 711083: bytes 5300 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 2831 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:03.505963500 starting delivery 67276: msg 699471 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2001-02-01 16:07:03.505979500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-01 16:07:03.505987500 end msg 698950
2001-02-01 16:07:03.560075500 new msg 712125
2001-02-01 16:07:03.569882500 info msg 712125: bytes 5273 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 7278 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:03.670697500 new msg 713167
2001-02-01 16:07:03.670707500 info msg 713167: bytes 4860 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 11492 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:03.754286500 starting delivery 67277: msg 700513 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2001-02-01 16:07:03.754304500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-01 16:07:03.786734500 new msg 713688
2001-02-01 16:07:03.794230500 info msg 713688: bytes 5282 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 13649 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:03.883307500 new msg 720982
2001-02-01 16:07:03.895637500 info msg 720982: bytes 4861 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 15475 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:04.133091500 starting delivery 67278: msg 702597 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2001-02-01 16:07:04.133110500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-01 16:07:04.250982500 new msg 721503
2001-02-01 16:07:04.250989500 info msg 721503: bytes 4880 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 17503 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:04.439898500 new msg 722024
2001-02-01 16:07:04.470841500 info msg 722024: bytes 4860 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 19692 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:04.714957500 starting delivery 67279: msg 703639 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2001-02-01 16:07:04.714977500 status: local 0/250 remote 7/400
2001-02-01 16:07:04.714984500 delivery 67278: success:
194.45.170.86_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Mail_accepted/
2001-02-01 16:07:04.774655500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-01 16:07:04.897669500 new msg 722545
2001-02-01 16:07:04.909640500 info msg 722545: bytes 5275 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 21935 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:05.232365500 end msg 702597
2001-02-01 16:07:05.311545500 delivery 67272: success:
205.188.156.229_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/
2001-02-01 16:07:05.345557500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-01 16:07:05.345569500 delivery 67275: success:
128.11.22.89_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_dirdel/
2001-02-01 16:07:05.403328500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-01 16:07:05.445345500 new msg 723066
2001-02-01 16:07:05.463266500 info msg 723066: bytes 4847 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 24021 uid 101
2001-02-01 16:07:05.852987500 starting delivery 67280: msg 704681 to remote
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2001-02-01 16:07:05.853006500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
Thanks,
Michael..
Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Depends on your setup. Could be syslog is taking 80+% of your CPU if you're
> logging with that. It could be that you're testing over an internal network
> with microsecond latency and your deliveries all complete in a millisecond. It
> could be any of a hundred things. You haven't given us any information to
> diagnose your situation.
>
> Your qmail logs will contain information on this. Analyze those. If you
> have trouble doing that, post a relevant section of your logs showing
> concurrency not growing above 4.
>
> Charles
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to
>send out 500.000 e-Mails for Testing.
How? 500,000 separate messages or one message with 500,000 recipients?
If the former, have you tried stopping qmail-send until the messages
are injected--and do you really need to send each recipient a
different message?
>Why are there just average of 4 concurrent qmail-remote Processes ?
>How to improve it ?
What else is the system doing beside sending your mails? What kind of
disk is the queue on? What is your network connectivity? What is the
mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
-Dave
> How? 500,000 separate messages or one message with 500,000 recipients?
> If the former, have you tried stopping qmail-send until the messages
> are injected--and do you really need to send each recipient a
> different message?
They are seperate messages and Yes it's needed because those are
personalized e-Mails!
> >Why are there just average of 4 concurrent qmail-remote Processes ?
> >How to improve it ?
>
> What else is the system doing beside sending your mails?
Beeing failover Apache Webserver. But Main Job is Mailserver!
> What kind of
> disk is the queue on?
SCSI Disk (SUN UFS)
> What is your network connectivity?
10 MBit Internet Connection.
Lan is 100 MBit.
> What is the
> mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
> -Dave
--
Michael..
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
# > mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
#
# Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
the correct response would be 'African or European?'
--
Justin Bell
Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How? 500,000 separate messages or one message with 500,000 recipients?
>> If the former, have you tried stopping qmail-send until the messages
>> are injected--and do you really need to send each recipient a
>> different message?
>
>They are seperate messages and Yes it's needed because those are
>personalized e-Mails!
OK, no need to get excited. So, have you tried stopping qmail-send
until the messages are injected?
I think you're seeing the combination of two problems: the first is
disk bandwidth on the queue partition, and the second is the
single-threaded nature of qmail-send: it can't simultaneously hand
messages off to qmail-remote and process new messages coming into the
queue. Run iostat on the queue disk to see how busy it is.
>SCSI Disk (SUN UFS)
Do you have DiskSuite? If so, making the queue filesystem a Trans
device (logging) should help.
>> What is the
>> mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
>
>Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
Wrong. The right answer is "European or African?" :-)
-Dave
Justin Bell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> # > mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
> #
> # Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
>
> the correct response would be 'African or European?'
>
> --
> Justin Bell
If you are Monty Python, yes! :-)
--
Michael..
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 06:03:37PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> Justin Bell wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> > # > mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
> > # Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
> > the correct response would be 'African or European?'
> > Justin Bell
> If you are Monty Python, yes! :-)
what's your favourite colour ?
Steve
--
NetTek Ltd tel +44-(0)20 7483 1169 fax +44-(0)20 7483 2455
Flat 2, 43 Howitt Road, Belsize Park, London NW3 4LU
mobile 07775 755503 Epage [EMAIL PROTECTED] [body only]
Dave Sill wrote:
> OK, no need to get excited. So, have you tried stopping qmail-send
> until the messages are injected?
>
> I think you're seeing the combination of two problems: the first is
> disk bandwidth on the queue partition, and the second is the
> single-threaded nature of qmail-send: it can't simultaneously hand
> messages off to qmail-remote and process new messages coming into the
> queue. Run iostat on the queue disk to see how busy it is.
>
> >SCSI Disk (SUN UFS)
>
> Do you have DiskSuite? If so, making the queue filesystem a Trans
> device (logging) should help.
The Disk is allright. But then if qmail-send is single threaded that's a very
big Bottleneck in the
complete Package slowing it down rapidely. This should be improved really!
--
Michael..
Steve Kennedy wrote:
> what's your favourite colour ?
>
> Steve
Blue! Uhmm... No Yellow! ;-)
--
--^..^--------------------------------------------------
michael maier - system & development administrator
flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
d-60314 frankfurt am main
fon +49.(0)69.50 95 98-308
fax +49.(0)69.50 95 98-101
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
url http://www.flatfox.com - m a k e m y d a y
--------------------------------------------------------
Hello
I've exactly the same problem :))
I use U60.880 with a concurrency of 3000 but no more than 50 qmail-remote
processes running
I've built a solution with 10 qmail-queues and a dispatcher using the
QMAIL-QUEUE patch
Please feel free to contact me if u want any informations
Regards
Frip'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Maier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: qmail speed improvement
> Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to
> send out 500.000 e-Mails for Testing.
> I setup a Remote Concurrency of 400 and have queue Directory Split + Big
> Todo Server Patches.
> Why are there just average of 4 concurrent qmail-remote Processes ?
> How to improve it ?
> --
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
* Steve Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 06:03:37PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
>> Justin Bell wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
>>>> mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
>>> Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
>>> the correct response would be 'African or European?' Justin Bell
>> If you are Monty Python, yes! :-)
> what's your favourite colour ?
This is not a firewall list for the middle management, dammit! f2p
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
But you presumably consider it perfectly appropriate to create a
browser-bomb as your homepage and publish it to a mailing list? Given that
one might visit another's homepage as published on a list to get some
insight into the other person's personality, I guess it works.
Ok, now bag on me for the quality of my flame.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: qmail speed improvement
> * Steve Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 06:03:37PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
> >> Justin Bell wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
>
> >>>> mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
> >>> Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
> >>> the correct response would be 'African or European?' Justin Bell
> >> If you are Monty Python, yes! :-)
> > what's your favourite colour ?
>
> This is not a firewall list for the middle management, dammit! f2p
> --
> Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
>
SYSERR(the_sender_on_the_machine): the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. config
error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
Feb 1 14:56:28 yoda
sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
configuration error
help ! and thanks for help ...
Cordialement,
Michel Boucey Administrateur Système
> Société Norm@net +33 2 31 27 13 45 <
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Michel Boucey wrote:
>
> SYSERR(the_sender_on_the_machine): the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. config
> error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> Feb 1 14:56:28 yoda
> sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
> ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
> xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
> relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
> configuration error
This message is unreadable (what encryption standard is this, and
where is the key?)
Seriously: you molested the log output. Please provide real log
output, this is confusing.
Greetz, Peter.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:51:07PM +0000, Michel Boucey wrote:
> SYSERR(the_sender_on_the_machine): the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. config
> error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> Feb 1 14:56:28 yoda
> sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
> ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
> xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
> relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
> configuration error
This is sendmail stuff. Do you mean to be running qmail?
In the future, don't disguise your domain information
(the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine, xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx). Many people will
simply ignore your question if you do this.
Chris
Michel Boucey writes:
> SYSERR(the_sender_on_the_machine): the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. config
> error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> Feb 1 14:56:28 yoda
> sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
> ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
> xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
> relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
> configuration error
That's not a qmail log.
> help ! and thanks for help ...
How could we help?
Vince.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:56:26 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
> > ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
> > xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
> > relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
> > configuration error
>
> This message is unreadable (what encryption standard is this, and
> where is the key?)
You need to put on your sendmail Urim and Thummim[1]
> Seriously: you molested the log output. Please provide real log
> output, this is confusing.
It is not even qmail output... :-)
Andy
[1] If you don't know what this is see the following:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=boolean&q1=urim&operator1=Or&q2=thummim&operator2=And&q3=&rgn=verse&restrict=All&size=First+100
Hi ...
Excuse me ...
I've nothing else from splogger or syslog in /var/log/messages
concerning mail so I look in /var/log/maillog !
Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda sendmail[6665]: JAA06665: from=bob, size=46,
class=0, pri=30046, nrcpts=1,
msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=bob@localhost
Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda
sendmail[6667]: JAA06665: SYSERR(bob): actitraining.com. config error:
mail loops back to me (MX problem?) Feb 2 09:47:21 yoda
sendmail[6667]: JAA06665: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
ctladdr=bob (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00,
mailer=esmtp, relay=actitraining.com. [195.115.97.8], stat=Local
configuration error
is it better or what ...
sendmail is the wrapper from qmail, isn't it ?
Cordialement,
Michel Boucey Administrateur Système
> Société Norm@net +33 2 31 27 13 45 <
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Andy Bradford wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:56:26 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > > sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
> > > ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
> > > xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp,
> > > relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
> > > configuration error
> >
> > This message is unreadable (what encryption standard is this, and
> > where is the key?)
>
> You need to put on your sendmail Urim and Thummim[1]
>
> > Seriously: you molested the log output. Please provide real log
> > output, this is confusing.
>
> It is not even qmail output... :-)
>
> Andy
>
> [1] If you don't know what this is see the following:
>
>
>http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=boolean&q1=urim&operator1=Or&q2=thummim&operator2=And&q3=&rgn=verse&restrict=All&size=First+100
>
>
"Kris Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Incoming messages are first stored in ~/Maildir/tmp. They are only moved to
>~/Maildir/new once the file write is complete. Therefore, as long as you
>are only backing up ~/Maildir/cur and ~/Maildir/new, you shouldn't have any
>risk of incomplete file back-ups.
No need to skip Maildir/tmp...if you back up a partially delivered
file and later restore the maildir, the message fragment will sit in
tmp until something deletes it--it won't be moved to new.
>> Does Amanda works fine?
>
>Not familiar with this program, but any file copier should do, even plain
>old "cp -r".
Amanda (www.amanda.org) is a network backup system that uses dump or
GNU tar. It works quite well.
-Dave
"dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Being a newbie to qmail and ldap
Danger, Will Robinson! qmail-ldap is not for newbies.
>I am wondering if there is a qmail with the
>qmail-ldap patch already applied.
Perhaps, but if you can't handle applying the patch, you're definitely
not ready for qmail-ldap.
-Dave
I have set up a second mailrelay on a linux box. Mailrelaying appears to be
working fine. However, I don't get any loggings in the logfiles. Instead,
logging info is sent to the console that was used to start the qmail
daemons.
I have the following:
[root@yuclnx2 /root]# head -25 /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail
#!/bin/sh
PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
export PATH
case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Starting qmail: svscan"
cd /var/qmail/supervise
env - PATH="$PATH" svscan &
echo $! > /var/run/svscan.pid
echo "."
;;
stop)
echo -n "Stopping qmail: svscan"
kill `cat /var/run/svscan.pid`
echo -n " qmail"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*
echo -n " logging"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*/log
echo "."
;;
stat)
cd /var/qmail/supervise
svstat * */log
When I do start qmail and telnet to the mailserver's port 25, I get the
following on the console:
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start
Starting qmail: svscan.
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# tcpserver: status: 0/500
status: local 0/10 remote 0/100
tcpserver: status: 1/500
tcpserver: pid 1061 from 172.16.10.133
tcpserver: ok 1061 :172.16.10.36:25 :172.16.10.133::1045
new msg 354821
info msg 354821: bytes 195 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1064 uid 502
starting delivery 1: msg 354821 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status: local 0/10 remote 1/100
delivery 1: success:
195.162.196.21_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_RAA21933_Message_acce
pted_for_delivery/
status: local 0/10 remote 0/100
end msg 354821
tcpserver: end 1061 status 0
tcpserver: status: 0/500
When I stop everything, I get:
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop
Stopping qmail: svscan qmailstatus: exiting
loggingsvc: warning: unable to control /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log:
file does not exist
svc: warning: unable to control /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log: file
does not exist
.
Some more info:
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# cat /var/qmail/rc
#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
#exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
#qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail
exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start "`cat /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery`"
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# ls -R -l /var/qmail/supervise/
/var/qmail/supervise/:
total 8
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Jan 24 10:52 qmail-send
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Jan 24 10:52 qmail-smtpd
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send:
total 12
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 1 15:28 log
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 29 Jan 23 11:28 run
drwx------ 2 root root 4096 Feb 1 17:07 supervise
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log:
total 12
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 89 Feb 1 15:00 run
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 120 Feb 1 14:59 run.bak
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 1 17:09 supervise
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/supervise:
total 0
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/supervise:
total 4
prw------- 1 root root 0 Feb 1 17:07 control
-rw------- 1 root root 0 Jan 24 10:52 lock
prw------- 1 root root 0 Jan 24 10:52 ok
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18 Feb 1 17:07 status
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd:
total 12
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Feb 1 15:01 log
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 305 Jan 23 15:37 run
drwx------ 2 root root 4096 Feb 1 17:07 supervise
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log:
total 12
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 94 Feb 1 15:01 run
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 125 Feb 1 15:00 run.bak
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 1 17:09 supervise
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log/supervise:
total 0
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/supervise:
total 4
prw------- 1 root root 0 Feb 1 17:07 control
-rw------- 1 root root 0 Jan 24 10:52 lock
prw------- 1 root root 0 Jan 24 10:52 ok
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18 Feb 1 17:07 status
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# cat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/
log run supervise
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# cat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /var/qmail/rc
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# cat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t
/var/log/qmail
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# cat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run
#!/bin/sh
QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \
-u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGID" 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# cat /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log/run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t
/var/log/qmail/smtpd
[root@yuclnx2 init.d]# ls /var/log/qmail/ -l -R
/var/log/qmail/:
total 4
drwxr-xr-x 2 qmaill root 4096 Jan 24 10:48 smtpd
/var/log/qmail/smtpd:
total 0
What am I overlooking ? What else should I look at ? This seems pretty
common to me...
-Filip
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:15:02PM +0100, Filip Sneppe (Yucom) wrote:
> I have set up a second mailrelay on a linux box. Mailrelaying appears to be
> working fine. However, I don't get any loggings in the logfiles. Instead,
> logging info is sent to the console that was used to start the qmail
> daemons.
>
I guess You forgot to chmod +t /var/qmail/supervise .
Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:15:02PM +0100, Filip Sneppe (Yucom) wrote:
> I have set up a second mailrelay on a linux box. Mailrelaying appears to be
> working fine. However, I don't get any loggings in the logfiles. Instead,
> logging info is sent to the console that was used to start the qmail
> daemons.
[snip]
> [root@yuclnx2 init.d]# ls -R -l /var/qmail/supervise/
> /var/qmail/supervise/:
> total 8
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Jan 24 10:52 qmail-send
> drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Jan 24 10:52 qmail-smtpd
You need to chmod +t the qmail-send directory. svscan starts supervise in
DIR/log only if DIR has the sticky bit set.
Chris
Just in case anyone is interested...
I have made a patch to support two features I sorely missed in ofmipd - DNS
envelope sender checking, and databytes size limiting.
I have adapted Nagy Balazs' DNS mfcheck patch to work with ofmipd, and
added qmail's databytes checking mechanism.
If anyone wants the patch, it can be found at
http://will.harris.ch/ofmipd-dns-databytes.tar.gz
regards,
Will Harris
__________________________________________________________________________
"I was going to be a Neo-Deconstructivist, but Mom wouldn't let me..."
multimedia laboratorium [EMAIL PROTECTED]
institut fuer informatik (pgp id) F703D035
der universitaet zuerich (office) +41 1 635 4346
winterthurerstr. 190 (fax) +41 1 635 6809
ch-8057 zuerich (mobile) +41 76 372 0913
switzerland www.ifi.unizh.ch/~harris
__________________________________________________________________________
Hi,
I have a user asking about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addressing
scheme. I guess this would allow the user to pass foobar as a argument
to procmail, etc. It works in sendmail.. Is this implemented in
qmail-ldap?
Regards,
Mike
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:38:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a user asking about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addressing
> scheme. I guess this would allow the user to pass foobar as a argument
> to procmail, etc. It works in sendmail.. Is this implemented in
> qmail-ldap?
Yes, the user can create a .qmail-foobar file in his homedir, and then
user-foobar (sorry, it's not a +) is handled by this qmail file.
man dot-qmail for more information.
Greetz, Peter.
How does one integrate msntauth with qmail smtpd?
I've downloaded the latest version of msntauth (v2.0) and have
it running on my FreeBSD machine. It appears not to be
a "checkpassword compatible" program. I'd like to be
able to call its functionality to resolve accounts with an NT
domain, as I currently do with checkpassword locally with
smtpd and AUTH.
QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild`
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
-u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
/var/qmail/qmaild-only/checkpassword /usr/bin/true \
/bin/cmd5checkpw /usr/bin/true \
2>&1
Do I need to build a interlude script, or can someone point
me in the right direction? msntauth accepts a
username and password on standard input and will return OK
if the username/password is valid for the domain, or ERR
if there was some problem.
Thanks
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
I provide free hosting and have a large amount of users everyday. I only
have relaying from 127.0.0.1 because of I send an email out for
verification from my php signup script. I have this one issue. Someone was
trying to send 1000's of emails from a script on the web making the
machine thinking its 127.0.0.1 localhost. the only reason i have the
127.0.0.1 for relay is because of sending out that email for
verification. other than that i dont need relay. how can i fix this
problem so people cant send mail from our server on our web page? any help
is greatful. (this is a freebsd machine) thanks.
--
Chris McCoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:46:22PM -0500, Chris McCoy wrote:
> I provide free hosting and have a large amount of users everyday. I only
> have relaying from 127.0.0.1 because of I send an email out for
> verification from my php signup script. I have this one issue. Someone was
> trying to send 1000's of emails from a script on the web making the
> machine thinking its 127.0.0.1 localhost. the only reason i have the
> 127.0.0.1 for relay is because of sending out that email for
> verification. other than that i dont need relay. how can i fix this
> problem so people cant send mail from our server on our web page? any help
> is greatful. (this is a freebsd machine) thanks.
Why not change your php script to submit the email via the
qmail-inject command rather than SMTP? Then you can turn off you
127.0.0.1 listener.
It's obscurity, but another alternative is put your listener on
127.0.0.2 and create an alias on your loopback interface.
Regards.
OK, I'm new here, but I'll reply anyway.
Couldn't you use IPChains to filter incoming mail to you machine that says
it is from 127.0.0.1? If this is not a good idea, why?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Delany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMTP Question
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:46:22PM -0500, Chris McCoy wrote:
> I provide free hosting and have a large amount of users everyday. I only
> have relaying from 127.0.0.1 because of I send an email out for
> verification from my php signup script. I have this one issue. Someone was
> trying to send 1000's of emails from a script on the web making the
> machine thinking its 127.0.0.1 localhost. the only reason i have the
> 127.0.0.1 for relay is because of sending out that email for
> verification. other than that i dont need relay. how can i fix this
> problem so people cant send mail from our server on our web page? any help
> is greatful. (this is a freebsd machine) thanks.
Why not change your php script to submit the email via the
qmail-inject command rather than SMTP? Then you can turn off you
127.0.0.1 listener.
It's obscurity, but another alternative is put your listener on
127.0.0.2 and create an alias on your loopback interface.
Regards.
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:46:22PM -0500, Chris McCoy wrote:
> I provide free hosting and have a large amount of users everyday. I only
> have relaying from 127.0.0.1 because of I send an email out for
> verification from my php signup script. I have this one issue. Someone was
> trying to send 1000's of emails from a script on the web making the
> machine thinking its 127.0.0.1 localhost. the only reason i have the
> 127.0.0.1 for relay is because of sending out that email for
> verification. other than that i dont need relay. how can i fix this
> problem so people cant send mail from our server on our web page? any help
> is greatful. (this is a freebsd machine) thanks.
>
> --
> Chris McCoy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
So, if I understand this right, the mail is actually coming from
localhost, because the spam is being generated by a script
hosted on the mail machine, right? Ouch. My first inclincation would be
to kick that user off my machine, immediately and without notice, and
bar him from my network. Dirty spammer. Your AUP does not allow spam,
right? Given that this may be difficult or impossible, I think that
Mark Delany had the right idea -- use qmail-inject directly, and deny
relay for localhost....
--
Greg White
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
I took this message to mean that the script was a hacker located just "on
the web" trying to relay with a spoffed IP address, not a user on his own
box. If it were the latter I'd certainly start by giving the user the
boot... which is it, though? I'm just curious...
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMTP Question
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:46:22PM -0500, Chris McCoy wrote:
> I provide free hosting and have a large amount of users everyday. I only
> have relaying from 127.0.0.1 because of I send an email out for
> verification from my php signup script. I have this one issue. Someone was
> trying to send 1000's of emails from a script on the web making the
> machine thinking its 127.0.0.1 localhost. the only reason i have the
> 127.0.0.1 for relay is because of sending out that email for
> verification. other than that i dont need relay. how can i fix this
> problem so people cant send mail from our server on our web page? any help
> is greatful. (this is a freebsd machine) thanks.
>
> --
> Chris McCoy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
So, if I understand this right, the mail is actually coming from
localhost, because the spam is being generated by a script
hosted on the mail machine, right? Ouch. My first inclincation would be
to kick that user off my machine, immediately and without notice, and
bar him from my network. Dirty spammer. Your AUP does not allow spam,
right? Given that this may be difficult or impossible, I think that
Mark Delany had the right idea -- use qmail-inject directly, and deny
relay for localhost....
--
Greg White
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
hes gone. i just wanna prevent this in the future.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Matt Simonsen wrote:
> I took this message to mean that the script was a hacker located just "on
> the web" trying to relay with a spoffed IP address, not a user on his own
> box. If it were the latter I'd certainly start by giving the user the
> boot... which is it, though? I'm just curious...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SMTP Question
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:46:22PM -0500, Chris McCoy wrote:
> > I provide free hosting and have a large amount of users everyday. I only
> > have relaying from 127.0.0.1 because of I send an email out for
> > verification from my php signup script. I have this one issue. Someone was
> > trying to send 1000's of emails from a script on the web making the
> > machine thinking its 127.0.0.1 localhost. the only reason i have the
> > 127.0.0.1 for relay is because of sending out that email for
> > verification. other than that i dont need relay. how can i fix this
> > problem so people cant send mail from our server on our web page? any help
> > is greatful. (this is a freebsd machine) thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Chris McCoy
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> So, if I understand this right, the mail is actually coming from
> localhost, because the spam is being generated by a script
> hosted on the mail machine, right? Ouch. My first inclincation would be
> to kick that user off my machine, immediately and without notice, and
> bar him from my network. Dirty spammer. Your AUP does not allow spam,
> right? Given that this may be difficult or impossible, I think that
> Mark Delany had the right idea -- use qmail-inject directly, and deny
> relay for localhost....
>
>
> --
> Greg White
> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
> revolution inevitable.
> -- John F. Kennedy
>
--
Chris McCoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I want force to qmail to use hostname mail.ndsoftware.net.
In the qmail's configuration i have the host of my computer :( !
I have edit all files in /var/qmail/control for mail.ndsoftware.net !
My DNS loookup and the host of my computer is not mail.ndsoftware.net.
I think of edit source :))
hostname.c
#include "substdio.h"
#include "subfd.h"
#include "readwrite.h"
#include "exit.h"
char host[256];
void main()
{
host[0] = 0; /* sigh */
gethostname(host,sizeof(host));
host[sizeof(host) - 1] = 0;
substdio_puts(subfdoutsmall,host);
substdio_puts(subfdoutsmall,"\n");
substdio_flush(subfdoutsmall);
_exit(0);
}
I thinks of this file read the hostname of the computers, how modify for
only read mail.ndsoftware.net ?
Thanks for help.
Note: I search to add in headers X-Complaint-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] !
Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware
http://www.ndsoftware.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
France: Tel +33 671887502 - Fax N/A
UK: Tel +44 8453348750 - Fax +44 8453348751
USA: Tel N/A - Fax N/A
Hello,
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Matthew Patterson wrote:
> I know it is still very early to be asking this question,
Why early?
# mount |grep qmail
/dev/vg_3/lv_qmail on /var/qmail type reiserfs (rw)
# uname -a
Linux sjoerd 2.4.1-pre12 #5 Tue Jan 30 19:46:26 CET 2001 i686 unknown
> but here goes. I remember seeing a notice that qmail was incompatible
with reiserfs unless you patched the reiserfs
> sources. The just-released Linux kernel 2.4.1 includes support for reiserfs. Does
>anyone know if it is the patched version that works with qmail, or if it is the
>version that
> will be incompatible?
I'm running qmail on reiserfs for some time now, just as a local MTA, on
reiserfs on LVM. No problems i know of (yet).
Greatings,
--
Arjan Filius
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi some people asked me if I could set up some sort of bsmtp service for them.
I had the idea to set up a second qmail daemon listening to a `bsmtp' ip. I
was thinking of increasing the queue lifetime a bit and run a cron every 10 minutes
which does a qmail-tcpok and sends an ALRM signal to the bsmtp-qmail daemon(tm).
I'm not expecting alot of traffic yet, but I want to be prepared for it!
Anything wrong with this setup, better solutions at hand ?
Regards,
Frans Haarman
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:09:03AM +0100, Frans Haarman wrote:
> Hi some people asked me if I could set up some sort of bsmtp service for them.
>
> I had the idea to set up a second qmail daemon listening to a `bsmtp' ip. I
> was thinking of increasing the queue lifetime a bit and run a cron every 10 minutes
> which does a qmail-tcpok and sends an ALRM signal to the bsmtp-qmail daemon(tm).
>
> I'm not expecting alot of traffic yet, but I want to be prepared for it!
>
> Anything wrong with this setup, better solutions at hand ?
It would work.
However, look at serialmail (http://cr.yp.to/serialmail.html I
suppose) and then specifically the part about AutoTURN.
Greetz, Peter.
the QMTP spec includes:
> 8. Examples
>
> A client opens a connection and sends the concatenation of the
> following strings:
>
> "246:" <0a>
> "Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 0);"
> " 29 Jul 1996 09:36:40 -0000" <0a>
> "Date: 29 Jul 1996 11:35:35 -0000" <0a>
> "Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <0a>
> "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <0a>
> "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Bernstein)" <0a>
> <0a>
> "This is a test." <0a> ","
> "24:" "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ","
> "30:" "26:[EMAIL PROTECTED]," ","
>
> "356:" <0d>
> "From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <0d 0a>
> "To:" <0d 0a>
> " Hate." <22> "The Quoting" <22>
> "@SILVERTON.berkeley.edu," <0d 0a>
> " " <22> "\\Backslashes!" <22>
> "@silverton.BERKELEY.edu" <0d 0a>
> <0d 0a>
> "The recipient addresses here could"
> " have been encoded in SMTP as" <0d 0a>
> "" <0d 0a>
> " RCPT TO:<Hate.The\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <0d 0a>
> " RCPT TO:<\\[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <0d 0a>
> <0d 0a>
> "This ends with a partial last line, right here" ","
> "0:" ","
> "83:" "39:Hate.The [EMAIL PROTECTED],"
> "36:\[EMAIL PROTECTED]," ","
>
> The server sends the following response, indicating acceptance:
>
> "21:Kok 838640135 qp 1390,"
> "21:Kok 838640135 qp 1391,"
> "21:Kok 838640135 qp 1391,"
>
> The client closes the connection.
I am confused. Why are there three responses for two recip. addrs?
The zero length is the envelope sender -- Is that acceptable?
Is the is the second server response doubled
in the http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt document?
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"gorkulator borked. Please investigate."
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:23:07PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
[snip]
> > The server sends the following response, indicating acceptance:
> >
> > "21:Kok 838640135 qp 1390,"
> > "21:Kok 838640135 qp 1391,"
> > "21:Kok 838640135 qp 1391,"
> >
> > The client closes the connection.
>
>
> I am confused. Why are there three responses for two recip. addrs?
Looks like a duplication by accident.
Test:
$ echo -ne '10:\nhoihoihoi,0:,15:5:peter,4:root,,' | nc localhost 209
20:Kok 981074304 qp 404,20:Kok 981074304 qp 404,
Two recipients, two responses. Looks like a bug in the document.
> The zero length is the envelope sender -- Is that acceptable?
Yes, that's normal for mails from MAILER-DAEMON (bounces and the like)
> Is the is the second server response doubled
> in the http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt document?
I think the first one shouldn't be there, because it will usually give
the same response for each recipient.
Either way, there's one response too many in there.
Greetz, Peter.
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two recipients, two responses. Looks like a bug in the document.
There are three recipients across two messages. The first has one, the
second has two.
--
Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://danp.net
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 04:51:51PM -0800, Dan Peterson wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Two recipients, two responses. Looks like a bug in the document.
>
> There are three recipients across two messages. The first has one, the
> second has two.
Thank you. That explains the 2 qp values of which the second is
doubled.
djb illustrates the asynchronity (I woke up 2 minutes ago, ok? :) of
the protocol that way.
Greetz, Peter.
I was wondering if I could get a bit of help with qmail configuration. I
didn't setup either of the servers so I am trying to find my way around a
tad blindly.
We have a qmail server as our primary mail server and it automatically
forwards email onto our Exchange server for internal users to collect mail.
We have MX records setup with qmail as higher priority. And I also note that
we have smtproute filled in as well which is where the auto forwarding comes
in (I hope).
What I would like to do, is to be able to reject mail on the qmail server
for users who don't exist at our site. This is people who leave the company
etc and various spammers who send to any address at our domain. Is there a
"simple" way I can have a list of users so that the mailboxes can be
verified prior to onforwarding to the exchange box. I am a bit worried if I
create a list of users in qmail-users assign file that mail will not
automatically be onforwarded to exchange. Also I cannot seem to find much
documentation about rejecting users. There is quite a lot about how to
forward on unrecognised user names, but I want to discard them :-)
John Hamill
John Hamill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I would like to do, is to be able to reject mail on the qmail server
> for users who don't exist at our site. This is people who leave the company
> etc and various spammers who send to any address at our domain. Is there a
> "simple" way I can have a list of users so that the mailboxes can be
> verified prior to onforwarding to the exchange box.
Stock qmail doesn't do this, because the program which receives the mail
(qmail-smtpd) has no knowledge of users, only domains. Therefore, if a
messages comes in with an envelope recipient which is in any of the domains
you have told qmail to receive mail for (the ones in rcpthosts), it will
be accepted and queued. If the domain is local or virtual and no appropriate
user exists, the message will later be bounced.
The other reason that determining local users in advance is difficult is
because of qmail's extension addresses system -- if user joe has no .qmail-*
files in his home directory, only joe@domain is valid. But if joe wants,
he can create .qmail-foobar and put a delivery instruction in it, and
then joe-foobar@domain is valid as well. qmail doesn't know this until
it tries a local delivery.
I believe someone did patch qmail-smtpd to do the same types of local
user checks as qmail-local. Check the mailing list archives if you want that.
But this domain isn't local or virtual; it's just being forwarded in
smtproutes...so you'd probably have to fiddle with making it a virtual
domain, creating .qmail-username files for everyone in the domain, and
then implementing this check.
> I am a bit worried if I create a list of users in qmail-users assign file
> that mail will not automatically be onforwarded to exchange. Also I cannot
> seem to find much documentation about rejecting users. There is quite a lot
> about how to forward on unrecognised user names, but I want to discard them
> :-)
They get 'discarded' when the message bounces. The other way you could do
it is to have an ~alias/.qmail-default which contains only '#'; this would
cause all messages which don't match a given user/etc to be discarded.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi to all,
How can i block a specific email address in qmail?
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001, KIM wrote:
>Hi to all,
>
>How can i block a specific email address in qmail?
echo "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
echo "@another.domain.name" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
--
***********************************
Matthew H Patterson
Unix Systems Administrator
National Support Center, LLC
Naperville, Illinois, USA
***********************************
In the previous episode (01.02.2001), Matthew Patterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001, KIM wrote:
>>Hi to all,
>>
>>How can i block a specific email address in qmail?
>
>echo "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >>
>/var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
>echo "@another.domain.name" >> /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom
>
note that badmailfrom will block the SMTP envelope sender address (shown
in the mail as Return-Path:) tho,
which is not necessarily the same as the address in the From: line in the
actual mail:
in case of this mail i reply to:
envelope sender:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mail header:
From: Matthew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wolfgang
My initial posting was going to make some fairly pointed comments about qmail but it
*appears* that this list server is also using that software and the problem doesn't
happen there. Anyway, on with the story ...
Some of my users have found that when they send e-mail to particular organisations,
the mail simply disappears into the ether with no error message being reported back to
the user. The one thing that these organisations have in common is that they use the
same ISP who is using qmail. Investigation of the log shows that their server reports
a syntax error when our server sends the SIZE command and it quits the connection
after that.
The ISP in question (WebCentral) is located in Australia and is part of the OzEmail
group of companies (I am led to believe). They say they have 30,000 domains
registered at their site so that's 30,000 domains full of users who are not going to
get e-mail from part of the world, apparently, because their server simply drops the
mail.
We spent some time researching this and discovered that it had been discussed (and
solved) on this list so we sent the URL which describes the patch. Their response
was:
"... patching / recompiling applications from source code will require stopping the
services (necessitating downtime) for a situation that has been reported only once in
the history of our operation"
closely followed by
"the code is a patch against a different version of the qmail source code (and one
that has yet to be audited) there is no guarantee that
such a patch would compile correctly or even patch cleanly against the source code or
any other modifications our administrators/developers have made".
One wonders what sort of other modifications their administrator/developers might have
made. Perhaps those mods are the cause of the problem. Anyway, I am curious to know
what other qmail site admins have to say about this and also what the qmail developer
thinks. Personally, I think it's really bad PR for qmail.
David Stafford
Melbourne, Australia
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 06:01:18PM +1100, Administrator wrote:
> My initial posting was going to make some fairly pointed comments about qmail but it
>*appears* that this list server is also using that software and the problem doesn't
>happen there. Anyway, on with the story ...
>
> Some of my users have found that when they send e-mail to particular organisations,
>the mail simply disappears into the ether with no error message being reported back
>to the user. The one thing that these organisations have in common is that they use
>the same ISP who is using qmail. Investigation of the log shows that their server
>reports a syntax error when our server sends the SIZE command and it quits the
>connection after that.
>
> The ISP in question (WebCentral) is located in Australia and is part of the OzEmail
>group of companies (I am led to believe). They say they have 30,000 domains
>registered at their site so that's 30,000 domains full of users who are not going to
>get e-mail from part of the world, apparently, because their server simply drops the
>mail.
What MTA are you using? The server in question returns 554 -- syntax
error, which is a permanent failure code. Your MTA should _not_ drop the
mail, it should bounce it, unless I completely misunderstand SMTP error
codes...
That said, stock qmail-1.03 does _not_ exhibit this behaviour, either.
It does not act on the SMTP SIZE extensions, but neither does it return
any error message -- it simply ignores it. The spamcontrol patch set
against qmail-1.03 apparently implements it fully, but I have not had
the need for it yet....
--
Greg White
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
Don't know about bad PR for qmail, but it's certainly bad PR for
WebCentral/OzEmail.
Administrator writes:
> The ISP in question (WebCentral) is located in Australia and is part of the OzEmail
>group of companies (I am led to believe). They say they have 30,000 domains
>registered at their site so that's 30,000 domains full of users who are not going to
>get e-mail from part of the world, apparently, because their server simply drops the
>mail.
> One wonders what sort of other modifications their administrator/developers might
>have made. Perhaps those mods are the cause of the problem. Anyway, I am curious to
>know what other qmail site admins have to say about this and also what the qmail
>developer thinks. Personally, I think it's really bad PR for qmail.
---------------------------------
Paul Theodoropoulos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Unix Systems Administrator
Syntactically Subversive Services, Inc.
http://www.anastrophe.net
Downtime Is Not An Option
On 02-Feb-2001 Administrator wrote:
> The ISP in question (WebCentral) is located in Australia and is part
> of the OzEmail group of companies (I am led to believe). They say they
> have 30,000 domains registered at their site so that's 30,000 domains
> full of users who are not going to get e-mail from part of the world,
> apparently, because their server simply drops the mail.
*Cough* As senior admin/developer, I can assure you that our servers
don't simply drop mail. David, I'm not aware of the particulars of
this issue, if you'd like to mail me details off-line I'll chase it
up with Ops.
Use the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
Rick.
--
Rick Lyons
WebCentral
Hello,
Am working on setting up qmail on our servers for our clients to use.
Everything seems to be working very well and much cleaner than what
sendmail did :-)
Anyways, trying to do a few changes in the POP3 part of the system.
We would like to allow, for example, the pop account of "webmaster" to
be setup by multiple domains.
The way we see this being done is to read in the POP3 server name
during the checkpoppasswd program and look in that directory for the
corresponding password file.
But, we haven't found a way to read in that POP3 server setting. Only
the username and password passed.
Is there a variable that would be storing this POP3 server setting
(the server setting the email client is setup with) in checkpoppasswd?
If not, is there a way to pass this from the qmail-popup with minor
modifications?
Thanks for any ideas regarding this.
Best regards,
David mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all:
I just experienced the weirdest thing... or at least something that I
certainly didn't expect to see in an Unix box. Let me explain:
1) I have a Red Hat Linux 6.2 as a mail server, with the 2.2.17 kernel
and qmail 1.03. It's been working great for months, as one could expect.
2) Today, for reasons unrelated, I decide to stop all outgoing mail. I
stop qmail-send and then to a "killall qmail-remote". Everything fine,
the box is still working. (Note that I did not stop incoming mail, nor
POP access).
3) Some minutes later I decide to restart qmail again. qmail-qstat says
that there are around 250 messages in the queue, of which 140 (more or
less) are unprocessed. I restart qmail and everything goes fine... for a
few seconds, after which the box becomes unresponsive.
4) I go to the console, and see it filling up with the following
message: "VM: do_try_to_free_pages_failed_for qmail-remote" (the wording
may not be exact, though). I try to log in, but the machine isn't
responding at all (just printing this message as fast as it can), and am
finally forced to push the button and reboot (ouch).
Now, what I'd like to know is: what happened? I certainly didn't expect
to see this in two pieces of software as robust as qmail and Linux, and
I usually perform the above operation (stop outgoing mail, do whatever,
start qmail-send again) without any problems. I don't think that a queue
of just 250 messages is enough to make either qmail or Linux barf. So...
what happened?
Paulo Jan.
DDnet.
I've been fsking with qmail for a week now trying to get it to deliver
locally. I've read every piece of documentation available, yet, when I
use qmail-inject or qmail-local. Nothing shows up in the user's
mailboxes (i.e. /root/Mailbox). When I send email by telneting to port
25 on the mail server, mail just bounces:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Received: (qmail 9454 invoked from
network); 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34 -0000
Received: from cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net (HELO )
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net with SMTP;
2 Feb 2001 01:44:34
-0000
test
My /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery says:
./Mailbox splogger qmail
None of the users have .qmail files in their directories so
theoretically it should just create a ~/Mailbox. I tried creating
.qmail's for each user. That didn't work either.
Right now these are running
9428 ? 00:00:00 qmail-send
9431 ? 00:00:00 qmail-lspawn
9432 ? 00:00:00 qmail-rspawn
9433 ? 00:00:00 qmail-clean
Attached is the output of qmail-showctl.
Butterflysoft.org has already been moved over to this server.
Ryanmarsh.com is really pointing to a different server but in this
instance im running my own DNS which resolves to my server (where I will
eventually move my domain if I can get qmail to work). I tried emailing
users at both domains and root at both domains.
--
Regards,
-ryan
The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience,
and hubris, but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
Ryan,
Read INSTALL.alias, inparticular the section that starts
* root. Under qmail, root never receives mail.
HTH
Peter
Peter Farmer
Systems Engineer
blueyonder
ICQ - 55297879
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Marsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: Qmail won't deliver locally.
> I've been fsking with qmail for a week now trying to get it to deliver
> locally. I've read every piece of documentation available, yet, when I
> use qmail-inject or qmail-local. Nothing shows up in the user's
> mailboxes (i.e. /root/Mailbox). When I send email by telneting to port
> 25 on the mail server, mail just bounces:
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at deathstar.ryanmarsh.com.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
>
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Received: (qmail 9454 invoked from
> network); 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34 -0000
> Received: from cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net (HELO )
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by cpe-24-221-171-149.ca.sprintbbd.net with SMTP;
> 2 Feb 2001 01:44:34
> -0000
> test
>
>
> My /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery says:
> ./Mailbox splogger qmail
>
> None of the users have .qmail files in their directories so
> theoretically it should just create a ~/Mailbox. I tried creating
> .qmail's for each user. That didn't work either.
>
> Right now these are running
> 9428 ? 00:00:00 qmail-send
> 9431 ? 00:00:00 qmail-lspawn
> 9432 ? 00:00:00 qmail-rspawn
> 9433 ? 00:00:00 qmail-clean
>
> Attached is the output of qmail-showctl.
>
> Butterflysoft.org has already been moved over to this server.
> Ryanmarsh.com is really pointing to a different server but in this
> instance im running my own DNS which resolves to my server (where I will
> eventually move my domain if I can get qmail to work). I tried emailing
> users at both domains and root at both domains.
>
> --
> Regards,
> -ryan
>
> The three great virtues of programming are laziness, impatience,
> and hubris, but bigotry makes the open-source world go round.
>
Hi,
Can anyone tell me what is the CORRECT way to do this...
I have a qmail server in my DMZ which accepts email and
using SMTPROUTES passes emails on to my internal qmail server.
This works fine EXCEPT, if I send an email to an incorrect address
on the internet, I don't get a bounced email back to me personally.
A bounce goes to the postmaster, but not back to the person who
sent the email.
The DMZ Qmail Server knows nothing about my users, it just knows
about my domain.
My Internal server knows about all my users and knows it must send
all non-local email to the DMZ Qmail Server....
Should I rip out the DMZ Qmail Server and put in something else?
Should I allow email stright into the Internal server (whats the
point in having the dmz?)
Am I missing something in my config? Should I have a list of users
on my DMZ server?
Ken
> Can anyone tell me what is the CORRECT way to do this...
>
>I have a qmail server in my DMZ which accepts email and
>using SMTPROUTES passes emails on to my internal qmail server.
>
> This works fine EXCEPT, if I send an email to an incorrect address on the internet,
> I don't get a bounced email back to me personally.
> A bounce goes to the postmaster, but not back to the person who sent the email.
>
> The DMZ Qmail Server knows nothing about my users, it just knows about my domain.
>
> My Internal server knows about all my users and knows it must send
> all non-local email to the DMZ Qmail Server....
>
>
> Should I rip out the DMZ Qmail Server and put in something else?
> Should I allow email stright into the Internal server
> (whats the point in having the dmz?)
> Am I missing something in my config?
> Should I have a list of users on my DMZ server?
Please show us an complete and unmunged BOUNCE message.
MVH André Paulsberg
Hi,
I just read this: http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html
nice, very very nice...
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel: +351 21 0104340 - Fax: +351 21 0104301
