qmail Digest 3 Mar 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1292
Topics (messages 58215 through 58308):
Whats in it for me?
58215 by: info.lifespringmedical.com
58216 by: J.J.Gallardo
italian commercial support
58217 by: Massimiliano Santarelli
New qmail version request
58218 by: Balazs Nagy
58221 by: Peter van Dijk
58222 by: Balazs Nagy
58235 by: Paco Gracia
58239 by: Peter van Dijk
58253 by: Dion_Vansevenant.psdi.com
58259 by: Paco Gracia
58261 by: Davi
58263 by: Dave Sill
58265 by: Edward J. Allen III
58268 by: Charles Cazabon
58269 by: Ian Lance Taylor
58270 by: David Dyer-Bennet
58271 by: Manvendra Bhangui
58275 by: Ian Lance Taylor
58276 by: Dave Sill
58278 by: Chris Garrigues
58280 by: Peter van Dijk
58281 by: Peter van Dijk
58284 by: Mark Lane
58286 by: Charles Cazabon
58288 by: Todd A. Jacobs
58291 by: Mark Delany
58297 by: Charles Cazabon
QMail Problems
58219 by: Leon Mergen
58220 by: Balazs Nagy
58236 by: Leon Mergen
58240 by: Leon Mergen
58243 by: Peter van Dijk
58245 by: Charles Cazabon
58247 by: Leon Mergen
58255 by: Charles Cazabon
first test failed, broken pipe
58223 by: skyper
451 qq trouble creating files in queue with noatime UFS mount option
58224 by: Curtis Generous
Re: Where do I find the logs
58225 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: various timeouts
58226 by: Charles Cazabon
58266 by: Michael Boyiazis
Re: Qmail and time zone
58227 by: Charles Cazabon
best web free public mail service..
58228 by: Luka Gerzic
Re: Thanks & Mailing List Problems!
58229 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Problem receiving mail.
58230 by: Charles Cazabon
58292 by: Grant
58298 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: qmail-pop3d problem
58231 by: Charles Cazabon
58237 by: Saso Dundev
Re: Problems with qmailanalog
58232 by: Charles Cazabon
58257 by: Dave Sill
58290 by: Todd A. Jacobs
Problems Authenticating with IMAP
58233 by: Matt Simonsen
Qmail Queue is out of control ....
58234 by: Frédéric Beléteau
58238 by: Charles Cazabon
Very weird qmail behaviour ...
58241 by: Bedel, Pierre
58244 by: Peter van Dijk
trigger with wrong permission.
58242 by: skyper
58246 by: Charles Cazabon
58250 by: Timothy Mayo
qmail -> listserv
58248 by: Michael McNicholas
58254 by: James Raftery
Qmail config ???
58249 by: Frédéric Beléteau
58256 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: qmail 2.0 exploit
58251 by: David Dyer-Bennet
58260 by: Ian Lance Taylor
58267 by: Ian Lance Taylor
Problem starting the service!! supervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock:
temporary failure
58252 by: Hatem
Re: virtual domain & procmail
58258 by: Dave Sill
58300 by: Agi Subagio
58303 by: Timothy Legant
qmail-iject: fatal: qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0)
58262 by: Hatem
58274 by: Charles Cazabon
58277 by: Dave Sill
Re: Redirect e-mails to 'root'
58264 by: Dave Sill
Log
58272 by: NDSoftware
58289 by: Todd A. Jacobs
Relay of mail from:<spamtest@[ipaddress]>
58273 by: Andy Abshagen
Adding Apparently-To: Field to all Inbound EMail for Virtual Domain
58279 by: schoon.amgt.com
58282 by: schoon.amgt.com
58287 by: Charles Cazabon
qmail-queue problems
58283 by: Chris Brick
processes
58285 by: ktt
mbox POP3 Server w/Virtual Domain Support
58293 by: Ben Schumacher
58299 by: Charles Cazabon
OKAAAY now it works!!! WOWOWOWOGHOOHOHOHOOH but how can I check my e-mails??
58294 by: Hatem
58296 by: Jonathan D. Poole
Re: Lost the Battle
58295 by: Al Lipscomb
Qmail Licensing Terms
58301 by: Manvendra Bhangui
58302 by: Charles Cazabon
Benchmarking qmail -- opinions, please
58304 by: Charles Cazabon
Problem with rss?
58305 by: Todd A. Jacobs
58306 by: Timothy Legant
Problem receiving email.
58307 by: Grant
58308 by: Alex Pennace
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 DAYS LEFT!! SAVE 50%, RECEIVE A FREE BONUS MANUAL AND MONTHLY NEWSLETTER!! Increase Penis Size, Gain Strength, all night Endurance and become a World Class Lover, 100% Guaranteed!! For a limited time, LifeSpring Medical Group is now offering our Penis Enlargement and Performance Enhancement program at a 50% savings. For a Free Recorded Message call 1-800-332-0442 (Use Special Order Code # 0647 when ordering) To receive a Free 135 page Bonus Report on the "Secrets of Advanced Love Making" and LifeSpring Medical Groups Monthly Newsletter, please read on. Save 50% on LifeSpring Medicals Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual, and receive a Free 135 page Bonus Report on the Secrets of Advanced Love Making, a $29.95 value plus our $39.95 monthly newsletter, also absolutely free. If you want to increase your penis size, gain greater confidence and self-esteem and be more successful with women then you must have this information. This manual represents the most comprehensive compilation of groundbreaking information available, with tips, techniques and exercises that are natural, safe, proven with a 100% money back guarantee! The Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual is not just another copycat Penis Enlargement program. It's a complete performance enhancement program that embraces the entire male sexual machine. The Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual features eleven chapters with 136 pages of new dramatic breakthrough information and techniques that places you miles ahead of the average man on the street. For a limited time only, LifeSpring Medical is offering the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual for only $49.90, a savings of 50% off the normal price of $99.95. The program includes specific exercise instructions for increasing penis size and endurance as well as chapters covering male health, nutrition, sexual fitness, impotence, aphrodisiacs and much more. When you order the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual we will also send you absolutely free our newest release of "The Secrets of Advanced Love Making", a $29.95 value! This incredible manual will provide you with information on all the advanced love making skills needed to have your lovers worship the ground you walk on! Full of inside information from women themselves, you will learn what makes you more attractive to women and how they can be easily seduced. This free manual also includes chapters on advanced love making techniques, orgasm control, kissing, erotic massage, advanced oral and anal sex techniques and much more. With the 50% savings on the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual along with the free bonus manual on the Secrets of Advanced Love Making, and our monthly newsletter, you receive a $169.85 value for only $49.90, a savings of $119.95 off the normal price for both manuals and the newsletter. You will now look forward to the first time you show yourself to a new lover. Imagine yourself strutting through the men's locker room with pride and confidence. When a man has the ability to radiate ultimate sexual self-confidence, women find it totally irresistible. Imagine what this program will do for your love life. Using LifeSpring Medicals exclusive, medically proven breakthrough techniques and exercises, you can significantly increase the size of your penis naturally and safely...Guaranteed! You will begin to see positive results in only 3 to 4 short weeks. Armed with the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual, you can expect to receive the following benefits: * You will build a longer, thicker more powerful penis * Even when flaccid, the penis will be more muscular and hang longer * You will have more sex drive and endurance * You will be able to control pre-mature ejaculation and last all night * You will learn to orgasm without ejaculation * You will become multi-orgasmic * You will become an expert at lovemaking * You will have a healthier and stronger Prostate gland * And you will prevent and in some cases, cure impotence We're so confident that you will be totally satisfied with our program, we back it with an unconditional one-year 100% money back guarantee. Studies have shown that men with larger penises have more self-confidence and have more sexual partners. They also have more friends, better jobs and higher incomes. For the price of a good meal for two, you could choose the safe, proven, 100% guaranteed method of permanent penis enlargement offered in the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual. Order your copy of the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual today! We will email you the Ultimate Male Performance Enhancement Manual and the Secrets of Advanced Love Making free bonus Manual and you can have this information in your hands shortly after you place your order. To hear a Free Recorded Message on both of these incredible Manuals, call LifeSpring Medical now!! Toll Free recorded message and order line 1-800-332-0442 (Use Special Order Code 0647 when ordering) Fax Order to: 949-589-1161 Email Orders: Fill in information needed below and reply to this message Visit our new website soon at: http://www.lifespringmedical.com (Opening 4/01/01) Mail Order's go to: LifeSpring Medical Group 22431 - B-160 Antonio Parkway Suite 410 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. 92688 Mail, Fax and Email Orders: Include full name as it appears on credit card: Mailing Address where credit card statement is sent: Email Address: Phone #: Credit Card Type: Credit Card #: Expiration Date: Order Code #: 0647 To receive our free monthly "Sexploration" newsletter please type subscribe in the subject line and reply to this message. The focus is on Men's Health, longevity, hot sex tips, relationships and dating. This is a one time only offer; you do not have to ask to be removed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > 2 DAYS LEFT!! ...... SPAM in this list? Wonderful.
Hello, i'm a system administrator of an italian ISP, i'm looking for a an italian commercial support for developing a qmail solution. If there's someone who can help me, lease reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- __________________________ CALTANET S.p.A. Via di Torre Spaccata, 172 00169 Roma - Italy www.caltanet.it _ _ _ ___ __ _| | |_ __ _ _ __ ___| |_ / __/ _` | | __/ _` | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| (_| | | || (_| | | | | __/ |_ \___\__,_|_|\__\__,_|_| |_|\___|\__|
In my humble opinion Qmail is riped to a new version. Here're my suggestions. These tips aren't enough for a 2.0 version but for a 1.04 or 1.1. - djblib changes new library functions - daemontools service configurator like in djbdns - patches big-dns patch - new features per-user handling of /var/qmail/users/ using ~/.qmail/... instead of .qmail-... (or it should check each) qmail-remote QMTP and QMQP handling (smtproutes, qmtproutes, qmqproutes, or just routes which can handle all of them) introducing qmail-filter placed just before qmail-queue, which can be configured to run virus scanners, mail rewriters, measuring tools or other kind of stuff. - new architecture /var/qmail is outdated. These files should place to - /var/qmail/bin to {conf-home}/bin - /var/qmail/alias: maybe it's the right place, but I should put it to a {sysconfdir}/alias dir. - /var/qmail/users: it should be handled with ~alias/ (maybe as .users.data and .users.cdb) - /var/qmail/control: /service/<service>/env - /var/qmail/queue: /var/spool/qmail (it should be put to /var/spool, but it's just a cosmetic change). - /var/qmail/man/: man pages should be eliminated in favor to html pages, but it would be great if there would have a correct html2man generator (it must not to be the part of the package) It's not exactly qmail-related, but a rblsmtpd should be configured more sophisticated (eg. not from command line). Any opinions? -- Nagy Balazs, LSC
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:44:16PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote: [snip] > - new features > per-user handling of /var/qmail/users/ > using ~/.qmail/... instead of .qmail-... (or it should check each) This is configurable. man qmail-users > qmail-remote QMTP and QMQP handling (smtproutes, qmtproutes, qmqproutes, > or just routes which can handle all of them) qmail-remote shouldn't do QMQP. There are patches for QMTP. > - new architecture > /var/qmail is outdated. These files should place to > - /var/qmail/bin to {conf-home}/bin conf-home=/var/qmail > - /var/qmail/alias: maybe it's the right place, but I should put it to > a {sysconfdir}/alias dir. > - /var/qmail/users: it should be handled with ~alias/ (maybe as > .users.data and .users.cdb) No, /var/qmail/users works essentially different than ~alias. > - /var/qmail/control: /service/<service>/env Lots of files in control can be several 1000's of lines long. > - /var/qmail/queue: /var/spool/qmail (it should be put to /var/spool, > but it's just a cosmetic change). Why? /var is /var. All of qmail lives in /var/qmail. Feel free to ln -s /var/spool/qmail /var/qmail/queue Greetz, Peter.
On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:44:16PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote: > [snip] > > - new features > > per-user handling of /var/qmail/users/ > > using ~/.qmail/... instead of .qmail-... (or it should check each) > > This is configurable. man qmail-users Yes, you're right, but I don't want to put every user into qmail-users. Why? It's not for user administration but for special case handling. > > qmail-remote QMTP and QMQP handling (smtproutes, qmtproutes, qmqproutes, > > or just routes which can handle all of them) > > qmail-remote shouldn't do QMQP. There are patches for QMTP. Yup, but I'd like to see an official QMTP-aware solution. Maybe QMQP-handling is not a good thing in qmail-remote > > - new architecture > > /var/qmail is outdated. These files should place to > > - /var/qmail/bin to {conf-home}/bin > > conf-home=/var/qmail 'ts no an answer. If you set conf-home to /haha/qmail, the installer will put everything under /hehe/qmail instead of /var/qmail. Again: I don't want to configure the installer, I just want to see an official release what can handle this. > > - /var/qmail/alias: maybe it's the right place, but I should put it to > > a {sysconfdir}/alias dir. > > - /var/qmail/users: it should be handled with ~alias/ (maybe as > > .users.data and .users.cdb) > > No, /var/qmail/users works essentially different than ~alias. Oh, I just forgot that. Sorry. > > - /var/qmail/control: /service/<service>/env > > Lots of files in control can be several 1000's of lines long. What about .cdb files? You can put it to /service/<service>/cdb/<database>.cdb It's just a small problem I think. > > - /var/qmail/queue: /var/spool/qmail (it should be put to /var/spool, > > but it's just a cosmetic change). > > Why? /var is /var. All of qmail lives in /var/qmail. Feel free to > ln -s /var/spool/qmail /var/qmail/queue Not /var/spool/qmail is the point. /var/qmail structure is. -- Nagy Balazs, LSC http://www.lsc.hu/
I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in the official qmail release. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Balazs Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Subject: Re: New qmail version request
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote: > I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in > the official qmail release. Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen, and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that are already available. Greetz, Peter.
Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail administrator having to download and install a series of patches that affect the core functionality of qmail? Being new, I may be off base with these questions, but I am just trying to get a better understanding of what the future of qmail is. If DJB is no longer interested, or able, to continue development of qmail, could he not pass the reins to someone else? There seems to be a great pool of talent on this list, I'm sure someone would be interested in continuing development. (although I am not one who could, due to my pathetic programming skills) Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to get a better understanding of the reasons. Thanks for your time. Dion Vansevenant Internetwork Administrator MRO.com Peter van Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <peter@datalo cc: ss.nl> Subject: Re: New qmail version request 2001/03/02 10:43 On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote: > I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in > the official qmail release. Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen, and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that are already available. Greetz, Peter.
I agree... qmail won't have new versions??? It's a great program but it's far from being complete... imho ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: Re: New qmail version request > > Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a > statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may > not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? > > What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, > some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of > those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would > make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail > administrator having to download and install a series of patches that > affect the core functionality of qmail? > > Being new, I may be off base with these questions, but I am just trying to > get a better understanding of what the future of qmail is. If DJB is no > longer interested, or able, to continue development of qmail, could he not > pass the reins to someone else? There seems to be a great pool of talent on > this list, I'm sure someone would be interested in continuing development. > (although I am not one who could, due to my pathetic programming skills) > > Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to get a better > understanding of the reasons. > > Thanks for your time. > > Dion Vansevenant > Internetwork Administrator > MRO.com > > > > > Peter van > Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <peter@datalo cc: > ss.nl> Subject: Re: New qmail version request > > 2001/03/02 > 10:43 > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote: > > I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in > > the official qmail release. > > Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen, > and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that are > already available. > > Greetz, Peter. > > > > >
I really agree with Dion. I've been using qmail in several servers in different enterprises with incredible success. But there's a lot of time that I stopped using the pure qmail-1.03 with LWQ instructions. And I bet a lot of are in the same situation. I've did several scripts to compile tcpserver and install, then copy its man pages (different package) to the right place, the same to supervise, then apply several patches to qmail, compile it, install it, create /service stuff, create and install init scripts for svscan and qmail and etc. Isn't it a lot of work? And I need to install gcc & friends in most machines just to install qmail. I've got binaries of course, but I don't use them in different enterprises, since AFAIK DBJ license doesn't permit it. If I'm not responsable for the machine I believe I'll be redistributing the binaries. I agree that keeping qmail frozen is a tremendous security advantage and DBJ license is a really secure one, but c'mon, shouldn't we've some more flexibility? Isn't it time at least for a new version with those few patches Peter said? With a more flexible license? []s Davi On Friday 02 March 2001 14:35, you wrote: > Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a > statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may > not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? > > What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, > some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of > those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would > make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail > administrator having to download and install a series of patches that > affect the core functionality of qmail? > > Being new, I may be off base with these questions, but I am just trying to > get a better understanding of what the future of qmail is. If DJB is no > longer interested, or able, to continue development of qmail, could he not > pass the reins to someone else? There seems to be a great pool of talent on > this list, I'm sure someone would be interested in continuing development. > (although I am not one who could, due to my pathetic programming skills) > > Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to get a better > understanding of the reasons. > > Thanks for your time. > > Dion Vansevenant > Internetwork Administrator > MRO.com > > > > > Peter van > Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <peter@datalo cc: > ss.nl> Subject: Re: New qmail version > request > > 2001/03/02 > 10:43 > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote: > > I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in > > the official qmail release. > > Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen, > and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that are > already available. > > Greetz, Peter.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a >statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may >not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? Dan's got plans for qmail, he just hasn't released anything recently. >What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Some are for things that Dan has already explained why he doesn't like them. Others are for things you can already do easily enough. Still others are just bad ideas. Yes, that leaves a handful of good ideas. What's the probability that Dan hasn't already thought of them? Not very high. By all means, discuss features you'd like to see in the next release. Just don't be surprised if they don't make it. -Dave
Peter, Of course you can do all of these things. It isn't that difficult either. But it would be nice if I didn't have to patch the program to install a filter. I know how to patch the program. I know C, and can figure out how the patch works, etc. I am a new qmail administrator and had it set up with plenty of usefull patches in less than a week (about 36 hours of billable work, actually). My small site (60 users or so) works great. Qmail needs to grow and evolve. A new version number does not need to be a security update. The most important reason for the common patches and support programs to be incorporated into the distribution is that this allows for a standard distribution that can be tested for security flaws. Sure qmail 1.03 is secure. Is *my* version with all of the patches secure? Furthermore, another thread of conversation is concerning the Documentation. It needs to be updated. It needs in BIG FSCKING LETTERS DO NOT USE inet.d. An expereinced administrator knows this allready. I am not an idiot and did not rely on one source of documentation to install qmail. Most people ARE idiots. There is nothing wrong with incorporating common patches into the distribution. This is how open source development works. ---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is Edward J. Allen III's Administrative account. Send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get my current PGP key.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a > statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may > not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? No, it's not dead or dying. Indeed, qmail is growing. The author, however, from various statements he has made, is unlikely to do much in the way of development on the 1.x version. He has plans for a version 2 which will be significantly different/better. > What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, > some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of > those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would > make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail > administrator having to download and install a series of patches that > affect the core functionality of qmail? No. Nothing goes into qmail until the author is satisfied of various issues, including: -security -reliability -correctness -proper design -- i.e. is there a better/more modular way to do it Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above, at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", and anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a > statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may > not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? > > What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, > some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of > those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would > make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail > administrator having to download and install a series of patches that > affect the core functionality of qmail? > > Being new, I may be off base with these questions, but I am just trying to > get a better understanding of what the future of qmail is. If DJB is no > longer interested, or able, to continue development of qmail, could he not > pass the reins to someone else? There seems to be a great pool of talent on > this list, I'm sure someone would be interested in continuing development. > (although I am not one who could, due to my pathetic programming skills) In my experience (which is certainly not as long as others on this list) DJB never comments as to whether he is going to make another release. Nor does he comment on what another release would contain, except via web pages such as http://cr.yp.to/qmail/future.html http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html This does not mean that anything is wrong with qmail. qmail is fine. Software does not require a steady infusion of new releases. It does not decay over time. If you really feel that you need a new qmail release, then the thing to do is to start a project along the lines of ezmlm-idx. ezmlm-idx (http://www.ezmlm.org/) is a unified set of patches to apply to DJB's ezmlm. Similarly, there could be a unified set of patches to apply to qmail. Don't bother to wait for DJB to officially bless such an effort before you start. He might bless it, or he might reject it, but more likely he will maintain a inscrutable silence. Don't bother to wait for somebody else to start this project. Most people, including myself, are satisfied with the set of patches at http://www.qmail.org/. Ian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a > statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may > not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? This is a complicated and rather politicized set of questions. I can give you my opinion, which I believe is reasonably informed and fairly objective. Dan is, we think, working on qmail 2, but it's a radically different queueing mechanism, rather than an incremental development. He doesn't talk about release dates. > What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, > some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of > those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would > make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail > administrator having to download and install a series of patches that > affect the core functionality of qmail? Dan's is the only opinion that matters, in terms of getting features into future releases. He likes the approach of using external tools as much as possible. It's secure and flexible. He *doesn't* like messing with core functionality without big paybacks; anything you mess with there can break security or reliability, so it takes very careful work and testing. Keeping qmail small and simple is also important for security and performance. -- 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/
Agree. Applying all the patches are a pain. Also If you apply some patches some other patches fail and you have to manually edit the files to add the patches. Regards Manny ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 11:05 PM Subject: Re: New qmail version request > > Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a > statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may > not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse? > > What is wrong with some of the requests that have been asked for? Granted, > some of the functionality is available as a patch, but should not some of > those patches be incorporated into the main code base if doing so would > make qmail easier to setup, configure, and run without the new qmail > administrator having to download and install a series of patches that > affect the core functionality of qmail? > > Being new, I may be off base with these questions, but I am just trying to > get a better understanding of what the future of qmail is. If DJB is no > longer interested, or able, to continue development of qmail, could he not > pass the reins to someone else? There seems to be a great pool of talent on > this list, I'm sure someone would be interested in continuing development. > (although I am not one who could, due to my pathetic programming skills) > > Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just trying to get a better > understanding of the reasons. > > Thanks for your time. > > Dion Vansevenant > Internetwork Administrator > MRO.com > > > > > Peter van > Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <peter@datalo cc: > ss.nl> Subject: Re: New qmail version request > > 2001/03/02 > 10:43 > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote: > > I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in > > the official qmail release. > > Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen, > and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that are > already available. > > Greetz, Peter. > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
"Edward J. Allen III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is nothing wrong with incorporating common patches into the > distribution. This is how open source development works. qmail is not open source. It does not obey condition 3 of the Open Source Definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html Ian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >But there's a lot of time that I stopped using the pure qmail-1.03 with LWQ >instructions. And I bet a lot of are in the same situation. What patch(es) did you find necessary? >Isn't it a lot of work? And I need to install gcc & friends in most machines >just to install qmail. I've got binaries of course, but I don't use them in >different enterprises, since AFAIK DBJ license doesn't permit it. Wrong. See: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html >I agree that keeping qmail frozen is a tremendous security advantage and DBJ >license is a really secure one, but c'mon, shouldn't we've some more >flexibility? What you want, or what the majority of qmail users wants, is largely irrelevant. It's Dan's software, and he'll license however he sees fit. >Isn't it time at least for a new version with those few patches Peter said? I'd like to see the documentation updated to include installation of ucspi-tcp and daemontools, to make everything slashdoc/slashpackage/ slashcommand compliant[1], and there are minor enhancements like the 0.0.0.0, QMTP, big-todo, and big-concurrency patches that could be added. But what I'd rather see is a ``qmail 2.0'' that incorporates all of these items with zeroseek and the rest of the stuff mentioned in http://cr.yp.to/qmail/future.html, as well as whatever other goodies DJB has dreamed up--which always exceed my expectations[2]. -Dave Footnotes: [1] http://cr.yp.to/slashdoc.html http://cr.yp.to/slashcommand.html http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage.html [2] Kind of like Hofstader's Law, q.v.: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~econra1/doc/hofstadter.html
> From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:25:21 -0600 > > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above, > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong > with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", > and anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit. I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his standards. Of course, from what I've seen this means he'll have to write his own LDAP library and probably his own server as well. Not that that would be a bad thing, but securing everything that an MTA needs does seem to distract him into rather extensive tangents. Chris -- Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com 4314 Avenue C Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500 My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 12:20:37PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Edward J. Allen III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > There is nothing wrong with incorporating common patches into the > > distribution. This is how open source development works. > > qmail is not open source. It does not obey condition 3 of the Open > Source Definition: > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html Open Source is something else than open source. qmail is open source. qmail is not Open Source. Please do not respond, this subject has been discussed over and over. Greetz, Peter.
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:39:28PM -0600, Chris Garrigues wrote: > > From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:25:21 -0600 > > > > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above, > > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong > > with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", > > and anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit. > > I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his standards. > Of course, from what I've seen this means he'll have to write his own LDAP > library and probably his own server as well. Not that that would be a bad > thing, but securing everything that an MTA needs does seem to distract him > into rather extensive tangents. LDAP is not part of an MTA. It's an extension. Greetz, Peter.
unsubscribe
Chris Garrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above, > > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong > > with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", and > > anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit. > > I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his > standards. As you said, the existing LDAP libraries are probably crap. But why does qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script which extracts user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd format, and feeds it to qmail-pw2u? Then cron it every hour or something. Voila, instant qmail+LDAP with no patches. If you want to set it up with virtualdomains-type use, have the script output qmail-users style output directly. We do something similar for NIS; it works well. Every day I'm more and more impressed with the modularity of qmail. The only patches I see as necessary anywhere are big-concurrency and big-todo. Everything else is just sugar. 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 Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Balazs Nagy wrote: > - /var/qmail/man/: man pages should be eliminated in favor to html > pages, but it would be great if there would have a correct html2man > generator (it must not to be the part of the package) Um, man is a standard. Man is searchable. Man doesn't require an administrator to install lynx or some other program just to view the help. And no one should EVER be forced to use a GUI on a server platform (unless you like running MS OSes), especially not for the sole "privelege" of running Netscape in order to read documentation. > It's not exactly qmail-related, but a rblsmtpd should be configured > more sophisticated (eg. not from command line). sophisticated != GUI Since qmail doesn't have a controlling TTY, how can rblsmtpd be a non-CLI utility? Or did you have something else in mind? -- Todd A. Jacobs CodeGnome Consulting, LTD
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 05:17:01PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Chris Garrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above, > > > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong > > > with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", and > > > anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit. > > > > I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his > > standards. > > As you said, the existing LDAP libraries are probably crap. But why does > qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script which extracts > user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd format, and > feeds it to qmail-pw2u? Then cron it every hour or something. Voila, Better yet, why not make a replacement qmail-getpw? That's how I built an LDAP-aware qmail a couple of years ago. One problem with replacing qmail-getpw is that the domain isn't know. which is a problem for multi-domain systems, so I modified qmail-lspawn to pass the domain to qmail-getpw. The code is no big deal, but I'm hopeful DJB will consider the idea in a future release as it increases the ease with which alternative user databases can be supported in an unmodified qmail. Regards.
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But why does qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script > > which extracts user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd > > format, and feeds it to qmail-pw2u? Then cron it every hour or something. > > Voila, > > Better yet, why not make a replacement qmail-getpw? That's how I built an > LDAP-aware qmail a couple of years ago. But if the LDAP query fails in qmail-getpw-ldap, you have to either defer or bounce. With qmail-users built periodically from the server, the information is always available -- and if the build process fails, you leave the old qmail-users db in place, so deliveries continue normally. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.874820 info msg 572816: bytes 1413 fr
om <#@[]> qp 29028 uid 2522
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.881470 starting delivery 19432: msg 5
72816 to remote postmaster@localdomain
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.883734 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.890462 delivery 19432: failure: Sorry
,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_named_localdomain._(#5.1.2)/
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.893113 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.895363 triple bounce: discarding boun
ce/572816
Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.897527 end msg 572816This is said when sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook:Mar 2 06:25:53 localhost qmail: 983535953.105853 new msg 572567
Mar 2 06:25:53 localhost qmail: 983535953.106570 info msg 572567: bytes 3393 fr
om <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 29053 uid 2020
Mar 2 06:25:53 localhost qmail: 983535953.114436 starting delivery 19433: msg 5
72567 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 2 06:25:53 localhost qmail: 983535953.114512 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Mar 2 06:25:54 localhost qmail: 983535954.753795 delivery 19433: success: 212.7
2.39.208_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OAA97974_Message_accepted_for_d
elivery/
Mar 2 06:25:54 localhost qmail: 983535954.753895 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Mar 2 06:25:54 localhost qmail: 983535954.753917 end msg 572567
This is about all I know. I tried to find a solution on QMail's website, but I couldn't find a troubleshooting. I don't know if this error was here all the time, all I know is that it is here now. Any idea how I can fix it, or what is wrong?
On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Leon Mergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with PHP, it works fine. > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook, it works fine. > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with PHP, it doesn't work. > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook, it *DOES* work. (this >is the strange part) PHP uses /usr/sbin/sendmail instead of sending it via SMTP. > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.872563 new msg 572816 > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.874820 info msg 572816: bytes 1413 fr > om <#@[]> qp 29028 uid 2522 > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.881470 starting delivery 19432: msg 5 > 72816 to remote postmaster@localdomain It's a bounced message and not the real one. BTW Use setenv("QMAILHOST=yourhost.com"); setenv("QMAILUSER=someuser"); mail(...); in PHP. -- Nagy Balazs, LSC
So the solution would be to make PHP use SMTP instead of PHP? And the anwser is what you put below? Leon Mergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] President of Technical Operations BlazeBox, Inc. T: +31 31 735 03 03 F: +31 31 735 03 08 ICQ: 55677353 ************************ The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s)or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and permanently delete the email from any computer. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Balazs Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:15 PM Subject: Re: QMail Problems > On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Leon Mergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with PHP, it works fine. > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook, it works fine. > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with PHP, it doesn't work. > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook, it *DOES* work. (this is the strange part) > > PHP uses /usr/sbin/sendmail instead of sending it via SMTP. > > > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.872563 new msg 572816 > > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.874820 info msg 572816: bytes 1413 fr > > om <#@[]> qp 29028 uid 2522 > > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.881470 starting delivery 19432: msg 5 > > 72816 to remote postmaster@localdomain > > It's a bounced message and not the real one. BTW Use > setenv("QMAILHOST=yourhost.com"); > setenv("QMAILUSER=someuser"); > mail(...); > in PHP. > -- > Nagy Balazs, LSC >
Okay, now I am getting this: Mar 2 09:25:14 localhost qmail: 983546714.909828 delivery 19666: failure: Connected_to_212.72.39.208_but_sender_was_rejected. I tried to use the PHP solution, but the setenv() function doesn't exist. I tried to use php.ini , doesn't work either. So, I added SETENV QMAILHOST=localhost SETENV QMAILUSER=leon to httpd.conf, and now "the sender is rejected" (whatever that means) . The IP address of my server is 216.117.25.210 , and the one of dolfijn.nl 's email ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is the example email i'm using) is 212.72.39.208 . What should I do to fix it? Leon Mergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] President of Technical Operations BlazeBox, Inc. T: +31 31 735 03 03 F: +31 31 735 03 08 ICQ: 55677353 ************************ The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s)or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and permanently delete the email from any computer. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Balazs Nagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:15 PM Subject: Re: QMail Problems > On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Leon Mergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with PHP, it works fine. > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook, it works fine. > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with PHP, it doesn't work. > > If I want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Outlook, it *DOES* work. (this is the strange part) > > PHP uses /usr/sbin/sendmail instead of sending it via SMTP. > > > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.872563 new msg 572816 > > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.874820 info msg 572816: bytes 1413 fr > > om <#@[]> qp 29028 uid 2522 > > Mar 2 06:24:40 localhost qmail: 983535880.881470 starting delivery 19432: msg 5 > > 72816 to remote postmaster@localdomain > > It's a bounced message and not the real one. BTW Use > setenv("QMAILHOST=yourhost.com"); > setenv("QMAILUSER=someuser"); > mail(...); > in PHP. > -- > Nagy Balazs, LSC >
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 05:12:05PM +0100, Leon Mergen wrote: > Okay, now I am getting this: > > Mar 2 09:25:14 localhost qmail: 983546714.909828 delivery 19666: failure: > Connected_to_212.72.39.208_but_sender_was_rejected. > > I tried to use the PHP solution, but the setenv() function doesn't exist. I > tried to use php.ini , doesn't work either. So, I added > > SETENV QMAILHOST=localhost > SETENV QMAILUSER=leon 212.72.39.208 doesn't accept @localhost addresses, because these are *always* bogus. Greetz, Peter.
Leon Mergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mar 2 09:25:14 localhost qmail: 983546714.909828 delivery 19666: failure: > Connected_to_212.72.39.208_but_sender_was_rejected. > > I tried to use the PHP solution, but the setenv() function doesn't exist. I > tried to use php.ini , doesn't work either. So, I added > > SETENV QMAILHOST=localhost > SETENV QMAILUSER=leon Typically "sender was rejected" means the server is doing DNS verification of the envelope sender domain (itself a bad idea, but...). In this case, you're using "localhost". Change that to the FQDN of the machine instead and see if it helps. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ehrm... so how can I fix this? And btw: the From: field is not localhost, if that was what you tought.... Leon Mergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] President of Technical Operations BlazeBox, Inc. T: +31 31 735 03 03 F: +31 31 735 03 08 ICQ: 55677353 ************************ The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s)or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please contact the sender and permanently delete the email from any computer. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter van Dijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:25 PM Subject: Re: QMail Problems > On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 05:12:05PM +0100, Leon Mergen wrote: > > Okay, now I am getting this: > > > > Mar 2 09:25:14 localhost qmail: 983546714.909828 delivery 19666: failure: > > Connected_to_212.72.39.208_but_sender_was_rejected. > > > > I tried to use the PHP solution, but the setenv() function doesn't exist. I > > tried to use php.ini , doesn't work either. So, I added > > > > SETENV QMAILHOST=localhost > > SETENV QMAILUSER=leon > > 212.72.39.208 doesn't accept @localhost addresses, because these are > *always* bogus. > > Greetz, Peter. >
Leon Mergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ehrm... so how can I fix this? > > And btw: the From: field is not localhost, if that was what you tought.... It's not the From: header that matters, it's the envelope sender. > > > SETENV QMAILHOST=localhost To fix it, as I said in my other message, change this to your FQDN instead of "localhost". 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. qmail compiled like a charm and installatioin was pretty easy. ..but..when i try to run the first test (local-to-local) it fails :> all qmail-daemons are running (4 + splogger) [startet via /var/qmail/rc &] echo "to: skyper" | ltrace -f /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject ... chdir("/var/qmail") = 0 open("control/me", 2048, 00) = 4 ...some more opens here... close(4) = 0 open("control/idhost", 2048, 027777772714) = -1 read(0, "to: skyper\n", 8192) = 11 read(0, "", 8192) = 0 pipe(0xbffff5c4, 0x080514f8, 0, 0x08050f80, 1) = 0 pipe(0xbffff5bc, 0x080514f8, 0, 0x08050f80, 1) = 0 vfork(1, 0x08049558, 0, 0x08050df0, 1 <unfinished ...> --- SIGCHLD (Child exited) --- <... vfork resumed> ) = 17129 close(4) = 0 close(6) = 0 getpid() = 17128 getpid() = 17128 write(5, "Date: 2 Mar 2001 13:48:53 -0000\n"..., 136 <unfinished ...> --- SIGPIPE (Broken pipe) --- <... write resumed> ) = -1 close(5) = 0 close(7) = 0 waitpid(17129, 0xbffff5e8, 0, 0x0804d2c4, 0x08051720) = 17129 write(2, "qmail-inject: fatal: qq crashed "..., 41qmail-inject: fatal: qq crashed (#4.3.0) ) = 41 _exit(111) = <void> hu ? :> is there any kind of voodoo-dance i must perform before becoming a happy qmail admin ? :> skyper -- PGP: dig @segfault.net skyper axfr|grep TX|cut -f2 -d\"|sort|cut -f2 -d\;
According to Toens Bueker: > > when I try to torture my brand new qmail installation > (qmail-1.03 + bigtodo + bigconcurrency on Solaris 7, queue > on a separate 9 GB disk, mounted with 'noatime', > conf-split 521 or 321) a little bit, I get this error > message after about 1000 mails: > > 451 qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0) > > Has anybody else seen this in a qmail+Solaris 7 > environment? What can I do to stop it? > > The queue is completely empty at the start of the test, > the filesystem on the disk is just created. Has anyone else observed this behavior with qmail+Solaris 7? We've seen this error on qmail+Solaris 7 but _not_ on qmail+Solaris 8. >From looking at where the failure happens (via truss(1)), it doesn't make sense why the error would be induced by a noatime UFS. The error is occuring in qmail-queue.c. The 'noatime' mount option does otherwise cause some slight performance gain. Also, the fact that we haven't seen this on qmail+Solaris 8 is perplexing. TIA, --curtis qmail-queue.c: void main() { unsigned int len; char ch; .... sig_pipeignore(); sig_miscignore(); sig_alarmcatch(sigalrm); sig_bugcatch(sigbug); alarm(DEATH); pidopen(); if (fstat(messfd,&pidst) == -1) die(63); messnum = pidst.st_ino; messfn = fnnum("mess/",1); todofn = fnnum("todo/",1); intdfn = fnnum("intd/",1); if (link(pidfn,messfn) == -1) die(64); >>>>> if (unlink(pidfn) == -1) die(63); flagmademess = 1; ------ truss done on Solaris 7: ... 6954/1: 0.9187 umask(033) = 077 6954/1: 0.9190 chdir("/var/qmail") = 0 6954/1: 0.9194 chdir("queue") = 0 6954/1: 0.9197 getpid() = 6954 [540] 6954/1: 0.9200 getuid() = 0 [7794] 6954/1: 0.9203 time() = 983482560 6954/1: 0.9207 sigaction(SIGPIPE, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9211 sigaction(SIGVTALRM, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9215 sigaction(SIGPROF, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9219 sigaction(SIGQUIT, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9222 sigaction(SIGINT, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9226 sigaction(SIGHUP, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9323 sigaction(SIGXCPU, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9328 sigaction(SIGXFSZ, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9343 sigaction(SIGALRM, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9346 sigaction(SIGILL, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9349 sigaction(SIGABRT, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9391 sigaction(SIGFPE, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9398 sigaction(SIGBUS, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9401 sigaction(SIGSEGV, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9412 sigaction(SIGSYS, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9414 sigaction(SIGEMT, 0xFFBEF580, 0x00000000) = 0 6954/1: 0.9417 alarm(63) = 0 6954/1: 0.9425 open("pid/6954.983482560.1", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0644) = 4 6954/1: 0.9433 fstat(4, 0x0002662C) = 0 6954/1: 0.9963 link("pid/6954.983482560.1", "mess/209/306680") = 0 6954/1: 0.9976 unlink("pid/6954.983482560.1") Err#2 ENOENT 6954/1: 1.0088 _exit(63)
John P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > @400000003a8bf1aa33d789ac.s > > @400000003a8c1ee106d5040c.s > > @400000003a8cb8c72584e19c.s > > @400000003a8d8c130207ff24.s > > @400000003a8ee3b217506fec.s > > @400000003a90ad7a24735644.u > > @400000003a90c3cd0b5ae604.u > > Is there an easy way to convert these filenames to dates etc. (or any > sequential coding eg. messages.0, messages.1 etc) for past reference? Those are sequential, in fact, just not contiguous. Any alphabetical sort on them will always give them to you sorted oldest-to-newest, just like if they were named "log.1", "log.2", etc. And as someone else suggested, `ls | tai64nlocal` works a treat for figuring out when it was rotated out. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Boyiazis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Occasionally our inbound mail servers need a reboot after patching and > sometimes there is lots of mail that needs to find its way home to the sender > due to bounces. Sometimes those remote sites are either having difficulties > or are so swamped that nothing much gets to them. I'd like to cut down on > the time the server spends waiting on them. [...] > Seems like a non-responsive server is fine at 1 minute, but 20 minutes seems > to be an excessive amount of time to hold up one of my concurrent connects > for a buffer of data or just a reply. Would it be safe to lower this value > to say also 1 minute? I don't want to mess with the defaults if this would > be a bad thing to do, but I cannot think of why it would be. Have you actually noticed connections hanging around for that long? Probably not. But if you're worried about it, increase your qmail-smtpd concurrency to compensate for a few sessions being tied up by really slow remote senders. To reduce the amount of time the bounces stay in the queue, you could reduce queuelifetime from its default value of a week to three days or so. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Boyiazis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Occasionally our inbound mail servers need a reboot after > patching and > > sometimes there is lots of mail that needs to find its way > home to the sender > > due to bounces. Sometimes those remote sites are either > having difficulties > > or are so swamped that nothing much gets to them. I'd like > to cut down on > > the time the server spends waiting on them. > [...] > > Seems like a non-responsive server is fine at 1 minute, but > 20 minutes seems > > to be an excessive amount of time to hold up one of my > concurrent connects > > for a buffer of data or just a reply. Would it be safe to > lower this value > > to say also 1 minute? I don't want to mess with the > defaults if this would > > be a bad thing to do, but I cannot think of why it would be. > > Have you actually noticed connections hanging around for that long? > Probably not. But if you're worried about it, increase your > qmail-smtpd > concurrency to compensate for a few sessions being tied up by > really slow > remote senders. actually don't know if they hang around 20 minutes, but does seem like the remote connections are not decreasing when sites are not taking connects. i'd hope all the "problem" sites would time out pretty quickly and have qmail move on to more pressing items like the inbound mail that can be delivered. > To reduce the amount of time the bounces stay in the queue, you could > reduce queuelifetime from its default value of a week to three days or > so. I'm not so worried about the stuff lingering in the queue (it is now set to 4 days) but just would like to not "dwell" on slow sites. > Charles > -- > Charles Cazabon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
Kari Suomela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> It'll be different, if I use a client, which inserts the time zone. > >> Exactly. For that matter, it'd be different if you viewed the messages >> through a client that displayed times in headers in current timezone, too. > > No, it's not! That's how I noticed it. Someone was blaming my client for it, > but the problem is the same with all of them. I have tested it with various > Netscapes, Outlook 98, Outlook 2000, Outlook Express, PMMail Pro 2000, > Sqwebmail and Adjewebmail. All those clients are broken, then. A non-broken client will translate timestamps in the headers of a message to local time if you configure it that way. And no, the idea that all the major proprietary MUAs are simultaneously broken is not farfetched. Not by a long shot. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
what is best web interface software to use with qmail to serve public mail service. Something like hotmail/yahoo mail services. I like to make a free public web mail server with qmail. Anyone have any ideas for this? Thank's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do have one problem with receiving mail from any mailing list. It simply > bounces!! Not sure where to look on this one. The setup here is qmail > configured as an SMTP gateway for an entire domain, pullmail running on NT to > inject mail from gateway. While looking at the headers, all emails from the > different mailing lists have the To: field - not too surprised about that. > What I need to know is, which field should I set pullmail to look for to > handle mailing lists?? Am I thinking correctly?? Thanks again! qmail is > awesome... I don't know what pullmail does -- if it's retrieving mail from the qmail server via POP3 or IMAP, and re-injecting with SMTP into an Exchange server, then it's a broken design. However, if that is what it does, and you require it to do that for some reason, pullmail should be looking at the last Delivered-To: header to extract the envelope recipient, and Return-Path: to extract the envelope sender. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have followed Dave Sill's tutorial to install qmail, what could I have > missed in order to get this error? Thanks... > ... delivery 2: failure: > This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/ > ... delivery 3: success: > 202.21.11.98_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_983508323_qp_15414/ I don't see a problem. The first message was looping, as the error message says, so qmail stops delivering it. The second one worked fine. What's the problem? 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is, no mail can be delivered to the host because of the looping error. I don't know where the loop is, or how to fix it. On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have followed Dave Sill's tutorial to install qmail, what could I have > > missed in order to get this error? Thanks... > > > ... delivery 2: failure: > > This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/ > > > ... delivery 3: success: > > 202.21.11.98_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_983508323_qp_15414/ > > I don't see a problem. The first message was looping, as the error message > says, so qmail stops delivering it. The second one worked fine. > > What's the problem? > > Charles >
Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is, no mail can be delivered to the host because of the > looping error. I don't know where the loop is, or how to fix it. The loops will be clearly indicated in the headers of the message -- look at the Delivered-To: and Received: lines. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan MacMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I connect to the internal interface (192.168.1) (1st ethernet card) via > telnet on port 110 I get an immediate response (OK). If I connect to the > external interface (2nd ethernet card) I get a long delay (40 sec +) before > I get the OK prompt. This is just about the most frequently asked question of all. Read Dan's FAQ, plus the documentation at www.qmail.org. Hint: pay special attention to the documentation for ucspi-tcp. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that you are right. tcpserver is looking for the dns name of the remote host. Please find attached the tcpserver man page, to see how to disable this lookup( only during testing). You should install and use a dns server. Cheers Sasun ----- Îðèãèíàëíî ïèñìî ------ Îò: Duncan MacMillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Îòíîñíî: qmail-pop3d problem Äî : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Èçïðàòåíî íà: 02.03.2001 09:31:16 ---------- Hi All, I have inherited a box that is running Slackware with QMail. Qmail is setup to use tcpserver and rblsmtpd. The box is masquerading an internal address as well. If I connect to the internal interface (192.168.1) (1st ethernet card) via telnet on port 110 I get an immediate response (OK). If I connect to the external interface (2nd ethernet card) I get a long delay (40 sec +) before I get the OK prompt. If I connect from a machine that is one hop away on the internal network to the 192.168.1 ethernet card I get the 40 sec + delay). Once the connection happens the system is very quick. The problem I am having is that some mail clients are timing out when connection to the pop service. Due to the fact I inherited the box recently I am not aware of patch levels but the versions installed on the box are as follows. Qmail 1.03 rblsmtpd 0.70 tcpserver 0.84 daemontools 0.70 I think it may be some sort of network lookup that is being done but I don't really know enough about the box to know where to look. The box is not under resourced at all as it has more memory that it needs and the processors never go over 10%. Any ideas or pointers at reading material would be appreciated. Cheers Duncan ---------- Òâîÿòà èíôîðìàöèÿ, òâîèòå èíòåðåñè, ÒÂÎß Ãþâå÷... http://my.gbg.bgD. J. Bernstein
TCP/IP
ucspi-tcpThe tcpserver program
tcpserver accepts incoming TCP connections.Interface
tcpserver opts host port progopts is a series of getopt-style options. host is one argument. port is one argument. prog consists of one or more arguments.tcpserver waits for connections from TCP clients. For each connection, it runs prog, with descriptor 0 reading from the network and descriptor 1 writing to the network. It also sets up several environment variables.
The server's address is given by host and port. port may be a name from /etc/services or a number; if it is 0, tcpserver will choose a free TCP port. host may be 0, allowing connections to any local IP address; or a dotted-decimal IP address, allowing connections only to that address; or a host name, allowing connections to the first IP address for that host. Host names are fed through qualification using dns_ip4_qualify.
tcpserver exits when it receives SIGTERM.
Options
General options:Connection options:
- -q: Quiet. Do not print error messages.
- -Q: (Default.) Print error messages.
- -v: Verbose. Print error messages and status messages.
Data-gathering options:
- -c n: Do not handle more than n simultaneous connections. If there are n simultaneous copies of prog running, defer acceptance of a new connection until one copy finishes. n must be a positive integer. Default: 40.
- -x cdb: Follow the rules compiled into cdb by tcprules. These rules may specify setting environment variables or rejecting connections from bad sources. You can rerun tcprules to change the rules while tcpserver is running.
- -X: With -x cdb, allow connections even if cdb does not exist. Normally tcpserver will drop the connection if cdb does not exist.
- -B banner: Write banner to the network immediately after each connection is made. tcpserver writes banner before looking up $TCPREMOTEHOST, before looking up $TCPREMOTEINFO, and before checking cdb. This feature can be used to reduce latency in protocols where the client waits for a greeting from the server.
- -g gid: Switch group ID to gid after preparing to receive connections. gid must be a positive integer.
- -u uid: Switch user ID to uid after preparing to receive connections. uid must be a positive integer.
- -U: Same as -g $GID -u $UID. Typically $GID and $UID are set by envuidgid.
- -1: After preparing to receive connections, print the local port number to standard output.
- -b n: Allow a backlog of approximately n TCP SYNs. On some systems, n is silently limited to 5. On systems supporting SYN cookies, the backlog is irrelevant.
- -o: Leave IP options alone. If the client is sending packets along an IP source route, send packets back along the same route.
- -O: (Default.) Kill IP options. A client can still use source routing to connect and to send data, but packets will be sent back along the default route.
- -d: Delay sending data for a fraction of a second whenever the remote host is responding slowly. This is currently the default, but it may not be in the future; if you want it, set it explicitly.
- -D: Never delay sending data; enable TCP_NODELAY.
- -h: (Default.) Look up the remote host name in DNS to set the environment variable $TCPREMOTEHOST.
- -H: Do not look up the remote host name in DNS; remove the environment variable $TCPREMOTEHOST. To avoid loops, you must use this option for servers on TCP port 53.
- -p: Paranoid. After looking up the remote host name in DNS, look up the IP addresses in DNS for that host name, and remove the environment variable $TCPREMOTEHOST if none of the addresses match the client's IP address.
- -P: (Default.) Not paranoid.
- -l localname: Do not look up the local host name in DNS; use localname for the environment variable $TCPLOCALHOST. A common choice for localname is 0. To avoid loops, you must use this option for servers on TCP port 53.
- -r: (Default.) Attempt to obtain $TCPREMOTEINFO from the remote host.
- -R: Do not attempt to obtain $TCPREMOTEINFO from the remote host. To avoid loops, you must use this option for servers on TCP ports 53 and 113.
- -t n: Give up on the $TCPREMOTEINFO connection attempt after n seconds. Default: 26.
Todd A. Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm running this following command: > > tai64nfrac < /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current | \ > /usr/local/qmailanalog/bin/matchup > > And getting output like the following: > > ? 983523225.508134500 tcpserver: status: 0/20 [...] > But when I pipe it through any of the z* commands, I get nothing except > the column headers from the z* command itself. What am I doing wrong? Does the log contain some leading garbage on each line? 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Todd A. Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm running this following command: > > tai64nfrac < /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current | \ > /usr/local/qmailanalog/bin/matchup > >But when I pipe it through any of the z* commands, I get nothing except >the column headers from the z* command itself. What am I doing wrong? You're trying to analyze tcpserver's logs, not qmail-send's logs. -Dave
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Dave Sill wrote: > You're trying to analyze tcpserver's logs, not qmail-send's logs. You're right. I changed /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current to /var/log/qmail/current and it works fine. Thanks. -- Todd A. Jacobs CodeGnome Consulting, LTD
Hello all: First, please let me know if I have not included enough information or am posting inappropriately. I belive I have followed the install instructions in each package and have researched thisproblem, but I just don't know enough about these packages to figure it out. I am running Qmail 1.03 using a RedHat 6.2 system. I have 2 virtual domains setup through the VPopMail add-on from Inter7, the server accepts new email for my recipitents and outgoing SMTP works. I then compiled Courier-Imap, it is using the default AUTHMODULES. It starts both the POP and IMAP server from my Qmail script perfectly, I don't see any errors (but perhaps I am not looking in the right place). What is the best way to go about figuring out where my problem is? I have checked the logs, the most helpful thing I could find is from the maillog which shows: Mar 2 01:53:46 eunomia imaplogin: Connection, ip=[::ffff:24.177.136.195] Mar 2 01:53:53 eunomia imaplogin: LOGIN FAILED, ip=[::ffff:24.177.136.195] Mar 2 01:54:01 eunomia imaplogin: LOGIN FAILED, ip=[::ffff:24.177.136.195] Mar 2 01:54:01 eunomia imaplogin: LOGOUT, ip=[::ffff:24.177.136.195] Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, if you need any more info or details, let me know. Matt Simonsen
Hi everyone, I seems as if I have a problem with my qmail queue. A lots of mails are stuck in it and I do not know how to send them. Thank you for your help....
Frédéric Beléteau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I seems as if I have a problem with my qmail queue. A lots of mails are > stuck in it and I do not know how to send them. Having messages in the queue isn't a problem -- that's what a queue is for. Why do you think it's a problem? It's probably just mail to servers which are slow or down or poorly connected. Show us the log entries which make you think that the messages in your queue are a problem. 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, I'm currently trying to get qmail working on a small LAN (10 pc's). I've set up smtp and qmail-pop3d. The problem is the following : - just after booting, I do a 'ps aux' and no qmail process shows up...however, when telneting from another pc on ports 25 and 110 I do get a response from qmail. But there's nothing in the targeted Maildir. - if I stop qmail and restart it, and do a 'ps aux' the qmail processes are present...and I find the mails I telneted in the right maildirs. Thanks for any advice, Pierre ********************************************************************** In KPMG's opinion, non-encrypted communication via the Internet is not to be considered secure. For that reason, it is KPMG's policy that uninvited use of the Internet concerning exchange of confidential information with our clients must not take place. When exchanging information, the client is held liable. This e-mail may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the addressee, and any disclosure of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify us immediately and delete this mail. **********************************************************************
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 05:11:12PM +0100, Bedel, Pierre wrote: [snip] > I'm currently trying to get qmail working on a small LAN (10 pc's). I've set > up smtp and qmail-pop3d. The problem is the following : > - just after booting, I do a 'ps aux' and no qmail process shows > up...however, when telneting from another pc on ports 25 and 110 I do get a > response from qmail. But there's nothing in the targeted Maildir. That means your tcpserver processes are running (or qmail-smtpd and pop3d from inetd), but qmail isn't. > - if I stop qmail and restart it, and do a 'ps aux' the qmail processes are > present...and I find the mails I telneted in the right maildirs. That makes perfect sense if qmail wasn't running at first. Greetz, Peter.
Hi. qmail compiled like a charm and everything looked fine...until i came to the first test: local-2-local delivery. The TEST.deliver says the mail should appear instantly in my ~user/Mailbox file. echo to: skyper | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject ...it took the mail 10+mins until it appeared in my Mailbox :> I started debugging and found that /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger was: prw------- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 2 15:36 trigger and qmail-queue -rws--x--x 1 qmailq qmail 12k Mar 2 10:45 qmail-queue well...this is not good. qmail-queue can never trigger qmail-send to start delivering. A strace confirmed the curiosity. qmail-queue failed to open the trigger :/ I set ownership and permissioins to: prw-r----- 1 qmailq qmail 0 Mar 2 15:51 trigger is this a known bug ? Any security problems with my modifications ? (i dont see any....) skyper -- PGP: dig @segfault.net skyper axfr|grep TX|cut -f2 -d\"|sort|cut -f2 -d\;
skyper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I started debugging and found that /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger was: > prw------- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 2 15:36 trigger [...] > I set ownership and permissioins to: > > prw-r----- 1 qmailq qmail 0 Mar 2 15:51 trigger > > is this a known bug ? Any security problems with my modifications ? > (i dont see any....) Leave the ownership of the trigger alone, and change the permissions to rw--w--w- . 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 Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:23:47PM +0000, skyper wrote: > > I started debugging and found that /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger was: > prw------- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 2 15:36 trigger > and qmail-queue > -rws--x--x 1 qmailq qmail 12k Mar 2 10:45 qmail-queue > > well...this is not good. qmail-queue can never trigger qmail-send > to start delivering. > A strace confirmed the curiosity. > qmail-queue failed to open the trigger :/ > > > I set ownership and permissioins to: > > prw-r----- 1 qmailq qmail 0 Mar 2 15:51 trigger > > is this a known bug ? Any security problems with my modifications ? > (i dont see any....) Right problem, wrong fix. trigger should be: prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 2 15:36 trigger This is not a bug in qmail, something went wrong with your install. -- --------------------------------- Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior System Administrator The National Business Network Inc. localconnect(sm) http://www.localconnect.net/ The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/ One Monroeville Center, Suite 850 Monroeville, PA 15146 (412) 810-8888 Phone (412) 810-8886 Fax
I am using ezmlm now, but users are looking for the sub-topic functionality of listserv. Does anyone have any war stories about using listserv on top of qmail? thanks, michael
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 12:04:31PM -0500, Michael McNicholas wrote: > I am using ezmlm now, but users are looking > for the sub-topic functionality of listserv. > Does anyone have any war stories about using > listserv on top of qmail? I'm currently using LISTSERV for Linux under FreeBSD without a hitch. One small gotcha; use preline. See http://lists.omnipotent.net/qmail/199701/msg00006.html james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
thanks, but in fact our mails are stuck in the queue since we had some troubles with the qmail config, these messages came during the reconfiguration, and it can't deliver them anymore it seems ... i tried a recursive touch on the queue files and i tried too a kill -ALRM signal to the qmail-send program, no effects ! i have some mails in the pre-process state too ! i don't know how i could handle them... it appears in a qmail-qstat. i installed some packages as qmHandle and mailRemove.py to remove spam from the queue. i read again and again FAQ and all stuff dealing with qmail i find qmail really useful but it's a pitty to see how difficult is the configuration, and there's no magic lessons on the net to do what i need !!! my server work well but so many troubles with spam, rcpthosts, adding tcpserver rules, adding ipchains rules ... i tried and tried ... these 4 last days ... Does anybody has a config description working well with qmail / vpopmail / tcpserver / rcpthosts / virtualdomains ... ??? a config which allow relaying for local hosts, reject external relaying enabling customers using vpopmail at the same time as well as pop3 identified ... ??? really thanks for your help. -----Message d'origine----- De : Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : vendredi 2 mars 2001 16:38 À : Qmail Objet : Re: Qmail Queue is out of control .... Frédéric Beléteau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I seems as if I have a problem with my qmail queue. A lots of mails are > stuck in it and I do not know how to send them. Having messages in the queue isn't a problem -- that's what a queue is for. Why do you think it's a problem? It's probably just mail to servers which are slow or down or poorly connected. Show us the log entries which make you think that the messages in your queue are a problem. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frédéric Beléteau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [a lot of stuff] Which part of "show us the log entries" did you not understand? To tell you what the problem is (bad DNS, corrupted queue, qmail not running, a million other things) we need to see the log entries. Charles Cazabon wrote: > Show us the log entries which make you think that the messages in your > queue are a problem. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Obviously there isn't anything wrong with qmail. And obviously these > bug reports are highly misleading in implying that there is a bug > which needs to be fixed in qmail. But I do think that the bug reports > have a point: if you install qmail-1.03 according to a reasonable > reading of the instructions which come with the tar file, your system > may be vulnerable to a theoretical denial of service attack. The fact > that other people tell you to install qmail in a different way is > interesting, but does not change the fact that qmail-1.03 comes with > installation instructions which at least some people will naturally > follow. I certainly did in my first qmail installation. Even if you *do* use softlimit to block that *particular* issue, you are *still* subject to various theoretical DOS attacks. *Any* server is subject to theoretical DOS attacks. -- 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/
"Jason Brooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's all well and good though, until your comment about tcpserver not > preventing this DOS. If this is true then I have to withdraw. > > I run qmail under tcpserver on variety of slackware 7.1 installs and and a > couple of slackware 4.0 installs, and none of these are affected by this DOS. > There may be some limit in place on slackware 4.0/7.1 that I don't know > about - but I haven't put any in myself. I've also seen other services spiral > up the loadavg at an alarming rate under certain conditions until the box > practically grinds to a halt, so this limit must be very selective if it > exists :) The DoS attack is based on growing the memory used by an instance of qmail-smtpd, so that it fills up the available swap space. It is softlimit which prevents that growth, not tcpserver. softlimit can be used with the -m option to set a limit on the amount of memory space which the child process may obtain. For more information, see http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/softlimit.html http://cr.yp.to/docs/resources.html Also, note the use of softlimit in Life With Qmail in the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run file. Ask yourself why it is there. Note that the load average is not affected by this DoS, except indirectly as programs get swapped out. I don't know how you were running qmail under tcpserver, so I don't know whether there was a memory limit. I also don't know what limits Slackware may apply normally. A process started at boot time by root typically does not have a memory limit on most Unix systems. If you use bash, you can run the builtin `ulimit -a' to see what memory limits are applied to your process. As I said in my original post, when the Linux kernel runs out of swap space, it will randomly kill a user process. It is reasonably likely that it will kill the large qmail-smtpd, since on an otherwise stable system that will typically be the process requesting more memory. In that case, you aren't going to see a serious DoS. You will just see a qmail-smtpd get larger and larger and larger until it suddenly dies. While it is large, your system may slow down due to increased swapping. If you are unfortunate enough to have the kernel kill some other process, you may see more serious consequences. Ian
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Obviously there isn't anything wrong with qmail. And obviously these > > bug reports are highly misleading in implying that there is a bug > > which needs to be fixed in qmail. But I do think that the bug reports > > have a point: if you install qmail-1.03 according to a reasonable > > reading of the instructions which come with the tar file, your system > > may be vulnerable to a theoretical denial of service attack. The fact > > that other people tell you to install qmail in a different way is > > interesting, but does not change the fact that qmail-1.03 comes with > > installation instructions which at least some people will naturally > > follow. I certainly did in my first qmail installation. > > Even if you *do* use softlimit to block that *particular* issue, you > are *still* subject to various theoretical DOS attacks. *Any* server > is subject to theoretical DOS attacks. Well, sure. This whole thing is not an engineering issue. It is a political issue. (I don't personally find it surprising that somebody with the personality that DJB displays on the Internet is the target of political attacks.) I was just trying to look at the bug reports to see whether they were complete fabrications. I happen to think that they do have a vague connection to reality. That doesn't mean that this is an significant issue. As I said above, ``Obviously there isn't anything wrong with qmail.'' It just means that I believe that the bug reports are not complete fabrications. DJB's earlier message asked whether people would be willing to testify in court, suggesting that he may be thinking of bringing a court case. If he is indeed thinking of this, I would urge him to not do it. I expect, since the bug reports are not actually lies, that he would lose. Ian
2.8.5. Start qmail
Finally, you can start qmail:
/usr/local/sbin/qmail startAnd guess what!! it gave me the following errors:supervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary failuresupervise: fatal: unable to acquire lqmail-send/supervise/lock: temporary failuresupervise: fatal: unable to acquire log/supervise/lock: temporary failuresupervise: fatal: unable to acquire lqmail-smtpd/supervise/lock: temporary failure::and keeps going and going ...Can some one help me out here !!!is it permission problem? a missing directory? what!!Thanks in advance!Hatem
Agi Subagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains : >testing.com:myname >mail.testing.com:myname > >and i have a .procmailrc in /home/myname directory : >:0 >/home/myname/testing.txt > >1. If i run TEST.deliver and send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], >qmail gave me a "Sorry_no_mailbox..." result, why? Because of the way that virtual domains work. For example, to accept mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED], you should have a .qmail-xyz or .qmail-default file (containing the procmail invocation). >2. Should I use .qmail in /home/myname? .qmail-something, yes. >3. Is there any documentations or mail archives about this? "Life with qmail", http://www.lifewithqmail.org/, specifically: http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#virtual-domains -Dave
At 01:09 PM 3/2/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Agi Subagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains : > >testing.com:myname > >mail.testing.com:myname > > > >and i have a .procmailrc in /home/myname directory : > >:0 > >/home/myname/testing.txt > > > >1. If i run TEST.deliver and send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED], > >qmail gave me a "Sorry_no_mailbox..." result, why? > >Because of the way that virtual domains work. For example, to accept >mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED], you should have a .qmail-xyz or >.qmail-default file (containing the procmail invocation). i have /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains like this : testing.com:agi mail.testing.com:agi i have /home/agi/.qmail-default like this : |preline /usr/bin/procmail and i have /home/agi/.procmailrc like this : :0 /home/myname/testing.txt :1 |"/usr/local/apache/cgi-bin/freemail/mail.cgi" $1 (<=== script cgi for Alias Mail (www.solutionscripts.com)) i used /var/qmail/rc like this : #!/bin/sh exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ qmail-start "./Mailbox" If i run TEST.deliver and deliver locally to any users at domain 'testing.com', still i have the same unsucessful result like this : [root@mail agi]# echo to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject new msg 216 info msg 216: bytes 210 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1570 uid 0 starting delivery 17: msg 216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status: local 1/10 remote 0/40 delivery 17: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ status: local 0/10 remote 0/40 [root@mail agi]# bounce msg 216 qp 1573 end msg 216 new msg 218 info msg 218: bytes 759 from <> qp 1573 uid 510 starting delivery 18: msg 218 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status: local 1/10 remote 0/40 delivery 18: success: did_1+0+0/ status: local 0/10 remote 0/40 end msg 218 [root@mail agi]# echo to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject new msg 216 info msg 216: bytes 212 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1585 uid 0 starting delivery 19: msg 216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status: local 1/10 remote 0/40 delivery 19: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/ status: local 0/10 remote 0/40 bounce msg 216 qp 1588 end msg 216 new msg 218 info msg 218: bytes 763 from <> qp 1588 uid 510 [root@mail agi]# starting delivery 20: msg 218 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] status: local 1/10 remote 0/40 delivery 20: success: did_1+0+0/ status: local 0/10 remote 0/40 end msg 218 why ? how to change an incoming message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and rewritten to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? did someone has try alias mail with qmail?
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 11:07:42AM +0700, Agi Subagio wrote: > >Agi Subagio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If i run TEST.deliver and deliver locally to any users at domain > 'testing.com', still i have the same unsucessful result like this : > > [root@mail agi]# echo to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject > > new msg 216 > info msg 216: bytes 210 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1570 uid 0 > starting delivery 17: msg 216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove testing.com and mail.testing.com from /var/qmail/control/locals. Tim
Hatem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried to test local-local part in the TEST.deliver.. > but unfortunately I got the above error!! Next time include the error in the body of your message, not just the subject. Possible problems causing this error include the queue disk being full or out of inodes, or qmail-queue not being SUID to user qmailq. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hatem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I tried to test local-local part in the TEST.deliver.. >but unfortunately I got the above error!! > >Can someone help me out here!! You didn't follow the installation instructions carefully. Either blow everything away and start from scratch, or go back through them step-by-step and verify that you did everything you were supposed to do. If that fails, tell us which instructions you followed, which OS and release you're using, and the output of of "ls -lR /var/qmail/queue". -Dave
"John P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > - Our server handles mail for office.domain.com (this value is in 'me') >> >> > - This works OK, but messages to root (cron et al) get delivered to >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] which isn't under our control (domain.com is our >webserver) >> > so I don't get to see them. This is why I want to forward them. > >And I've just realised that any messing about with root@ forwards won't >work.. as it's not delivering to local root anyway. > >The machine 'office.internal' is portfowarded to (SMTP/POP-3) from our >firewall which has the external name 'office.mobiletones.com' hence the >different names in there. BIND is set up to map all office.internal >addresses correctly. I've puzzled over these messages, and I just can't deduce what behavior you're trying to achieve vs. what you're seeing. If you could give a couple of representative examples of each, I'd be happy to look them over. -Dave
Hi, I have many questions. I have read qmail.org and lifewithqmail.org. 1/ Autoresponders + POP How i can a autoresponders on the POP account ? I want when someone send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and receive by the autorespondeurs a message and me i can get the mail my the [EMAIL PROTECTED] account. 2/ Logs How i can logs POP *and* SMTP access for disconnect the account used for spam on my server with ip and domain used like http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#recordio but with POP and domains used for send (smtp.ndsoftware.net for exemple...) ? 3/ X-Complaint-To: I have meodified the qmail source for add a X-Complaint-To for outgoing messages but it's not added :( How i can add X-Complaint-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] for all outgoing messages ? 4/ RBL What is the best solution for use many blacklist like RBL witch qmail ? Thanks 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 --- Note: All HTML email sent to me can be deleted for security reasons.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, NDSoftware wrote: > 4/ RBL > What is the best solution for use many blacklist like RBL witch qmail ? You can specify multiple instances of rblsmtpd. For example, to use all the mail-abuse lists, edit /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run as follows: #!/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 /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdialups.mail-abuse.org \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 This should take care of things for you. -- Todd A. Jacobs CodeGnome Consulting, LTD
Is there any way that the email below could be totally denied relaying? We currently use the not so secure patch of allowing relaying passed on the envelope sender. However the ip address is not suppose to be allowed to relay. And it is still allowed through. Any suggestions? Andy Abshagen System Administrator Data-Vision, Inc. 888-925-8625, 219-243-8625 Fax 219-243-8630 www.d-vision.com, www.loanquoter.com, www.remotedocs.com, www.plankeeper.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for reading!! My setup is this: qmail server setup as a gateway for my domain. Using pullmail to retrieve email from single POP3 account on gateway and then sending it to the Exchange SMTP server. Pullmail seems to have problems with email sent from various email lists because the To: field is the mailing list address - which bounces on my system. Pullmail supports To: or Apparently-To: field in the header of each email and uses this in the RCPT-TO command to the SMTP server. What I'd like qmail to do is to add an Apparently-To: field to every messages with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and not the [EMAIL PROTECTED] that is found in Delivery-To: My last question, is this the right approach to solving this problem?? Thanks again! .mark "Windows 95/98 /n./ 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition." use Disclaimer; my $opinion_only;
Thanks for reading!! My setup is this: qmail server setup as a gateway for my domain. Using pullmail to retrieve email from single POP3 account on gateway and then sending it to the Exchange SMTP server. Pullmail seems to have problems with email sent from various email lists because the To: field is the mailing list address - which bounces on my system. Pullmail supports To: or Apparently-To: field in the header of each email and uses this in the RCPT-TO command to the SMTP server. What I'd like qmail to do is to add an Apparently-To: field to every messages with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address and not the [EMAIL PROTECTED] that is found in Delivery-To: My last question, is this the right approach to solving this problem?? Thanks again! .mark "Windows 95/98 /n./ 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition." use Disclaimer; my $opinion_only;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My setup is this: qmail server setup as a gateway for my domain. Using > pullmail to retrieve email from single POP3 account on gateway and then > sending it to the Exchange SMTP server. Pullmail seems to have problems > with email sent from various email lists because the To: field is the > mailing list address - which bounces on my system. Pullmail supports > To: or Apparently-To: field in the header of each email and uses this in > the RCPT-TO command to the SMTP server. Tell the pullmail author to support Delivered-To. Or, don't do delivery by SMTP injection (getmail runs under Windows as well). If neither of these work, then: 1. Make the domain virtual on the qmail server. 2. Have the relevant .qmail file deliver with a script that inserts an Apparently-To: header. Knowing your virtualdomain setup, this should be easy with the various env variables available. See the manpage for qmail-command. 3. Deliver to a Maildir. 4. Use pullmail to pull the messages as per usual. 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 folks, I have a single qmail-queue process that is eating all of my resources. I have used the queue-fix program in test mode and it has not found any problems. When I run the utility to list the queue, there are only about 20 messages in and all have been preproccessed. I am currently searching the archives for answers, but if anyone has tackled this issue in the past, I would appreciate your input. Thanks, Chris
ps ax showing these processes, repeating about 12 times. and slowing my computer. is that natural? 277 ?? I 0:00.00 cron 279 ?? Is 0:00.02 /bin/sh -c /home/vpopmail/bin/clearopensmtp 2>&1 > /d 281 ?? D 0:00.02 /home/vpopmail/bin/clearopensmtp 282 ?? RV 230:47.84 /home/vpopmail/bin/clearopensmtp __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
For various reasons, I need to find a good POP3 which can handle both the mbox server and virtual domains. Basically I need to be able to allow my users to have both shell and POP3 access to their mail, and since they will be using clients such as Pine, elm and others, I'm going to need to support the mbox format. Could somebody please point me in the direction of a good mbox format POP3 server. I've looked into qpopper and spop3d, but neither of these have native support for virtual domains as well. Thanks in advance, Ben Schumacher
Ben Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For various reasons, I need to find a good POP3 which can handle both the > mbox server and virtual domains. Basically I need to be able to allow my > users to have both shell and POP3 access to their mail, and since they > will be using clients such as Pine, elm and others, I'm going to need to > support the mbox format. Wrong question: you should have said "I'm going to deliver virtual domain users to Maildirs, but some clients will have shell access. Where can I find MUAs which support Maildir?" The answer then is mutt.org plus see qmail.org for pointers to Maildir- patched versions of pine. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally I got my lovely qmail working very well, by following the awsome documentation of Dave Still... (Thanks Dave! :) But I do not know how to check my e-mails on my linux box? I tried mail , but it does not seem to be knowledgable of qmail at all. I've sent e-mails to my linux box [EMAIL PROTECTED] and did not return an error!! Checked the /var/log/syslog,and it tells me there is an e-mail recieved to hatem from home.com!! Anyway..how can I check my e-mails??? thanks.
Try Popping in with a popmail client, patch pine, or install mutt and set your inbox path to ~/Maildir/ At 06:41 PM 3/2/2001 -0800, Hatem wrote: >Finally I got my lovely qmail working very well, by following the awsome >documentation of Dave Still... (Thanks Dave! :) >But I do not know how to check my e-mails on my linux box? > >I tried mail , but it does not seem to be knowledgable of qmail at all. > >I've sent e-mails to my linux box [EMAIL PROTECTED] and did not return an >error!! > >Checked the /var/log/syslog,and it tells me there is an e-mail recieved to >hatem from home.com!! >Anyway..how can I check my e-mails??? > >thanks.
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:19:34AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: > >My qmail project, only 1 week away from implementation, was canned, we are > >now moving to Lotus Notes. > > Well, it's not a total loss. At least you learned something about > qmail. > Shoot, its not over until Notes is working. I went through a Notes implementation and a few months later watched Exchange come in. -- | I am not sure how many monkeys it would take to type out the works of Shakespear. I do know how many cats it would take to spam a maillist if I leave my computer on. AA4YU http://www.beekeeper.org http://www.q7.net
Manvendra Bhangui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just want to know if the Qmail Licensing allows me to modify qmail for my own > use or my company's use. Basically I want to shorten the text in the > qmail-send.c for bounce messages. Does the licensing permit me to make such > changes This is a FAQ. djb's licensing terms (or rather views on licensing and distribution) are well-documented on his site, and there have been many, many discussions on the list about them. See the list archives for details. Secondly, changing the bounce messages is a bad idea. See http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt for reasons why. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings, A while ago I read a document on the 'net (which I can no longer find) that claimed low values of conf-split (i.e. 1 or 2) were better on Linux machines than the default 23. The rationale presented was that Linux does a very good job of caching directory entries, and therefore conf-split should be set at 1 for workstations and moderately busy servers, and 2 for very busy servers. I've been trying to prove this -- I'm in the early stages of benchmarking this, but queue injection at least seems to agree with this; I see either no performance change or a small performance drop as conf-split increases from 1 to various values during queue injection. I will write up the results, with graphs, when I am done. In addition, I will release the (simple) tools I have written to do the benchmarking. In the meantime, I would like input on the following: when testing queue injection speed, how should I be limiting the number of parallel qmail-queue processes? I've tried various maximums between 1 and 100, and see little difference in the resulting queueing speed. Should I just keep raising the maximum number of qmail-queue processes until the machine begins to swap, then back off? With a maximum of 100 qmail-queue processes on an old PC (P90, 64MB), I am CPU bound, not I/O or memory. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ My opinions are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm running the following script as /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run. As you can see, rblsmtpd is setup to query all three mail-abuse.org services. However, when testing using [EMAIL PROTECTED], the RSS lookup is apparently failing. Has anyone else had a similar problem, or have some ideas about how I can debug this further? #!/bin/sh # This is /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run 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 $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdialups.mail-abuse.org \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 -- Todd A. Jacobs CodeGnome Consulting, LTD
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:54:56PM -0800, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > I'm running the following script as /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run. > As you can see, rblsmtpd is setup to query all three mail-abuse.org > services. However, when testing using [EMAIL PROTECTED], the RSS > lookup is apparently failing. Has anyone else had a similar problem, or > have some ideas about how I can debug this further? > > #!/bin/sh > # This is /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run > QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` > NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming` > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \ > -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \ > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdialups.mail-abuse.org \ > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 Well, first, you could try simplifying it a bit.... exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \ -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \ -rdialups.mail-abuse.org -rrelays.mail-abuse.org -rblackholes.mail-abuse.org \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 You don't need three invocations of rblsmtpd. Next, you need to get a patch for rblsmtpd. MAPS removed all the TXT records in the RSS zone and now only replies to A record queries. rblsmtpd only understands TXT records. See the second bullet at http://www.qmail.org/top.html#spam Tim
I don't understand this. The machine is setup exactly like any other machine (apparently) but it keeps giving these errors on any incoming email... What else can I check? Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 3 Mar 2001 07:34:41 -0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hob.conprojan.com.au. 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]>: This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: (qmail 1896 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2001 07:34:41 -0000 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 1893 invoked by uid 0); 3 Mar 2001 07:34:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webster.conprojan.com.au) (202.21.11.98) by raw130515-8.gw.connect.com.au with SMTP; 3 Mar 2001 07:34:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 17717 invoked by uid 523); 3 Mar 2001 07:32:08 -0000 Received: from localhost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Mar 2001 07:32:08 -0000 Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:32:08 +1000 (EST) From: Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII test
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 05:36:48PM +1000, Grant wrote: > I don't understand this. The machine is setup exactly like any other > machine (apparently) but it keeps giving these errors on any incoming > email... What else can I check? Thanks. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: 3 Mar 2001 07:34:41 -0000 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: failure notice [snip] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: (qmail 1896 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2001 07:34:41 -0000 > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is in ~hob/.qmail? > Received: (qmail 1893 invoked by uid 0); 3 Mar 2001 07:34:40 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO webster.conprojan.com.au) (202.21.11.98) > by raw130515-8.gw.connect.com.au with SMTP; 3 Mar 2001 07:34:40 -0000 Don't run qmail-smtpd as root. This problem is completely separate from the issue that prompted your query.
