qmail Digest 1 May 2001 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1351
Topics (messages 61669 through 61722):
Re: POP3 Login
61669 by: Chris Johnson
61670 by: qmail mailing list
61671 by: QML Killer
61672 by: Wagner Teixeira
61674 by: Henning Brauer
61685 by: |nix ZixinG
61695 by: Rick Updegrove
61715 by: Tim Legant
Re: How can qmail scale?
61673 by: Henning Brauer
Maildrop : Good info/examples ?
61675 by: Tom Vandeplas
61676 by: Robert Sander
[Announce] oMail-webmail 0.98.2
61677 by: Olivier M.
queue problems
61678 by: Neil Grant
61679 by: Charles Cazabon
61687 by: David Talkington
username@domain@domain relay hole !
61680 by: Nissim Penias
61682 by: Charles Cazabon
61684 by: Nissim Penias
61686 by: Charles Cazabon
61688 by: Robert Geller
61690 by: Markus Stumpf
61691 by: Charles Cazabon
61693 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: Where does the mail goes?
61681 by: Marco Calistri
username@domain@domain relay hole !!!
61683 by: Nissim Penias
wildmat patch ???
61689 by: Nissim Penias
Postmaster : "sorry, no mailbox here with that name" - fastforward problem ?
61692 by: jcarreiro
Postmaster - fastforward problem
61694 by: jcarreiro
¾Ç©f³Q....XXX...
61696 by: ªü±l
[ANNOUNCE] TMDA 0.10 - python-based anti-spam system for qmail
61697 by: Jason R. Mastaler
Problem with virtualdomains and VERPs (with patch)
61698 by: Patrick J. LoPresti
masquerading and autoeresponders
61699 by: David Chait
61716 by: Tim Legant
release qmailinstallmachime0.01
61700 by: Linux!audimed
61717 by: Tim Legant
Stopping Message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
61701 by: Ted Mead
61718 by: Tim Legant
Re: "A news.newusers.questions's Guide to Qmail"
61702 by: Frank Tegtmeyer
Re: Help abot qmail and vpomail
61703 by: Keary Suska
Re: Is qmail "best reserved for mailing list server purposes only"?
61704 by: John R. Levine
61708 by: Oleg Polyakov
61709 by: David L. Nicol
61710 by: David L. Nicol
adding custom bounce headers (was Re: How do you handle the double bounces?)
61705 by: Jason R. Mastaler
Relay for domains in rcpthosts
61706 by: ross.pro-web.ie
61707 by: Daniel Kelley
61719 by: Tim Legant
qmail on OSF/Unix (Digital) and C2security
61711 by: Wiroon Ruangsang
¶W§C»ù15¦TTFT LCD ¿Ã¹õ
61712 by: ªü±l
removing a particular *recipient* from the queue
61713 by: Omar Thameen
61714 by: Adam McKenna
61721 by: Omar Thameen
¥_¤@¤k.......¶W¯Å»¶©f§Ú!
61720 by: ¤ý¥Ð§Q
spmacontrol patch 1.4.2 for qmail .
61722 by: Nissim Penias
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:15:41AM -0500, Aaron Goldblatt wrote: > When I try to retrieve mail via POP3 on the PRIVATE interface, it works, > but where the public side takes about two seconds to complete an empty > transaction, the private one takes as much as 60 seconds to authenticate > (Eudora hangs on "Logging in to server," which is its way of saying > login/password). If Eudora doesn't get sick of waiting it EVENTUALLY > works, but slowly. This question comes up about every three minutes on this list. See the list archives. Try searching for "pop3 slow." Chris
PGP signature
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Aaron Goldblatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:17 PM Subject: Re: POP3 Login Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss the options of tcpserver more thoroughly in LWQ and other qmail howto's.
>>>>> "qmail" == qmail mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- Typical OE luser. -- "Windows isn't a virus, viruses do something."
> > I'm experiencing a curious issue with qmail-popup/pop3d. > [snip] > > When I try to retrieve mail via POP3 on the PUBLIC interface, all > goes well. > > When I try to retrieve mail via POP3 on the PRIVATE interface, it works, > but where the public side takes about two seconds to complete an empty > transaction, the private one takes as much as 60 seconds to authenticate > (Eudora hangs on "Logging in to server," which is its way of saying > login/password). If Eudora doesn't get sick of waiting it EVENTUALLY > works, but slowly. > Thank you. It's a DNS matter. The delay u're experimenting is due to the reverse DNS checking - certainly the server cannot get the intranet clients' name using theyr IP and your clients must wait for the DNS timeout. Wagner
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:21:32PM +0200, qmail mailing list wrote: > Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss the options of tcpserver more > thoroughly in LWQ and other qmail howto's. Dave already has this issue on his list for lwq. -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Hi. I also have the same problem 2 days ago. And I solved it after some kind soul helped me out. Anyway, just add -R and the -H switch to tcpserver. -R disables IDENT -H disables reverse DNS lookups Your new line should look like this /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup wndrgrl.goldblatt.net /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & Best Regards David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Goldblatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 4:15 PM Subject: POP3 Login > I'm experiencing a curious issue with qmail-popup/pop3d. > > qmail-popup is being called by tcpserver. It even works. > > POP3 server: wndrgrl.goldblatt.net 208.190.130.82/27 > Other interface: 10.1.1.10 > > The 208.190.130.82 works quickly, efficiently, as expected, but in > public. This interface is a 10 megabit NIC. > > The 10.1.1.10 interface is a totally separate 100 megabit LAN that I use to > run my private services, like printer sharing, NFS, all the stuff I need > but don't want exposed to the public. > > When I try to retrieve mail via POP3 on the PUBLIC interface, all goes well. > > When I try to retrieve mail via POP3 on the PRIVATE interface, it works, > but where the public side takes about two seconds to complete an empty > transaction, the private one takes as much as 60 seconds to authenticate > (Eudora hangs on "Logging in to server," which is its way of saying > login/password). If Eudora doesn't get sick of waiting it EVENTUALLY > works, but slowly. > > qmail-popup is invoked as follows: > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup > wndrgrl.goldblatt.net /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & > > > Per the documentation in various places, the FQDN is > wndrgrl.goldblatt.net. Do I need -two- instances of qmail-popup -- one for > each interface? Or does tcpserver bind to both interfaces at once? > > My gut reaction is that tcpserver binds to both interfaces, based on the > fact that retrieval from the private interface does work, albeit slowly. > > Pointers toward a resolution or where to start looking, including FAQs and > docs I've missed, are welcome. > > Thank you. > > age >
From: "|nix ZixinG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -R disables IDENT > -H disables reverse DNS lookups Actually thats not always enough. I had -H and -R and still had the dreaded slow response times. http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html says (and LWQ should also) -l localname: Do not look up the local host name in DNS; use localname for the environment variable $TCPLOCALHOST. A common choice for localname is 0. To avoid loops, you must use this option for servers on TCP port 53. Mine look like: tcpserver -l0 -v -H -R 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup (and so on) tcpserver -l0 -v -p -H -R -x /home/vpopmail/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" ( and so on) Hope that helped, Rick Up P.S. Should we all just just add the response to this FAQ our signatures?
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:02:24AM -0700, Rick Updegrove wrote: > P.S. Should we all just just add the response to this FAQ our signatures? What a great idea! Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:30:07AM +0800, Foo Ji-Haw wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to set up qmail to support a 200,000 user domain. Can someone pls > recommend a feasible way to do this? I don't think adding 200,000 records in > /etc/passwd is such a good idea. It's even not possible on 32bit-systems. You need a virtual user manager like vmailmgr or vpopmail I'd go with qmail-ldap for this amount - http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/ -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Hi all, I am experimenting with dropmail in a combination with qmail... Problem is it doesn't seem to work properly. Does anybody know where I can find some good information / examples. What I tried: in ~/.qmail |/usr/local/bin/maildrop in ~/.mailfilter if(/^From: *[EMAIL PROTECTED]/) { to INBOX.qMail List } in /etc/maildroprc DEFAULT="./Maildir" Thx
On 30 Apr 2001 14:50:31 +0200, Tom Vandeplas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in ~/.qmail > |/usr/local/bin/maildrop > > in ~/.mailfilter > if(/^From: *[EMAIL PROTECTED]/) > { > to INBOX.qMail List > } > > in /etc/maildroprc > DEFAULT="./Maildir" You really want to subscribe to any mailing-list using an address like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then put ./Maildir/.qmail/ into ~vandeplas/.qmail-qmaillist and receive all the list's mails to that directory. Greetings -- Robert Sander Computer Scientist Epigenomics AG Bioinformatics R&D www.epigenomics.com Kastanienallee 24 +493024345330 10435 Berlin
Bonjour! A new version of oMail-webmail is now available: this is version 0.98.2, with some news: Major changes since 0.97: * Security fix: remote IP is checked again * new configuration variables (fixed/variable font) * FreeBSD fixes * new translation for Czech * and a completely redesigned addressbook, with backward compatibity Todo: better design for the addressbook. I won't be able to work on it the next weeks, so patches are welcome! Import routines (from OE, NS, Eudora) are also on this todo list (too much work currently, sorry...). You will find more infos about this GPL-licensed software, as well as an online demo of latest version under http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about * Download: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/omail/omail-webmail-0.98.2.tar.gz * Other URL's: (cvs, releases, etc) http://freshmeat.net/projects/omail-webmail/ * If you are interested to help, fell free to get the files from the anonymous CVS, and you are welcome on the devel mailing list. * There are currently 2 mailing lists : - omail-news : read-only announce mailing list (for new release announces) > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/omail-news < - omail-devel : public mailing list for devel & support. > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/omail-devel < * Changelog: 30.apr.01 - Version 0.98.2 - om <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * added some more fields to the address book * fix for tmp attach dir creation * added more save buttons on prefs screen * automatic focus on password field if login is known [nr] * release 0.98.2 out. 21.apr.01 - Version 0.98.1 - om <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * javascript fixes [jn] * unread mails are now in bold [idea from mz] * small html/lang fixes * added translation for Czech [jn] * updated translation for Polish [pk] * updated translation for Danish [te] 20.apr.01 - Version 0.98.0 - om <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * completely redesigned the addressbook, keeping backward compatibility: old addressbook will be converted on first access. TODO: - add all new strings - nicer forms - implement import routines for outlook/ns messenger/mutt/pine * fixed logout, and removed trash_empty from sub logout() * improved error messages from verifiysession (too old, non existant, etc.) * dead attachments from older sessions will also be removed automaticaly * updated translations for en/de/fr (addressbook stuff) 20.apr.01 - Version 0.97.1 - om <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * security fix: $check_remote_host is now checked again. * onelogin fixes * updateted &verifysession in omail-prefs.pl * new configuration variable : display email in variable or fixed-width font * possibiltity to define the fonts in the .lang files (suggested by Jakub) * applied patch from Jon Mansey about the behavior of $> and $< under FreeBSD * applied patch from Jakub sent on 18 Feb 2001 ($#headers pb.) * minor html/style fixes Greetings, Olivier -- _________________________________________________________________ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch
hi how can I completely purge queue of messages and fix the annoying bounce message? ... unforunately half asleep I noticed a problems with a message and deleted without stopping qmail 2001-04-29 01:47:12.220485500 delivery 4: deferral: Connected_to_139.222.230.4_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_ho st_said:_451_rejected:_temporarily_unable_to_verify_sender_address_(try_agai n_later)_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/ 2001-04-29 01:47:12.220507500 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 2001-04-29 01:53:17.305329500 starting delivery 5: msg 16099 to remote ****@uea.ac.uk 2001-04-29 01:53:17.305344500 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 2001-04-29 01:53:17.327085500 delivery 5: failure: qmail-spawn_unable_to_open_message._(#4.3.0)/I'm_not_going_to_ try_again;_this_message_has_been_in_the_queue_too_long./ 2001-04-29 01:53:17.370680500 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 2001-04-29 01:53:17.548407500 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later 2001-04-29 01:55:21.579339500 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later 2001-04-29 01:57:25.606358500 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later 2001-04-29 01:59:29.633383500 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later 2001-04-29 02:01:33.660444500 warning: trouble injecting bounce message, will try later I deleted the message then the next delivery of the mail failed and I thought darn I forgot to stop qmail, so I restarted it and then errors on bounce messages started appearing the problems are that the hostname I set qmail up under was fbm.sdns.net and sdns.net keeps dissappearing so I changed all the qmail control files to fbm.yi.org but when I sent from elsewhere it still used the sdns.net address also there has been problems with the mail servers at uea (norwich uni) now there are more messages in my queue that are undeliverable, so I would like to clear the queue safely, I presume they would expire after a while but I would like to get rid of them so I can test that I have qmail working without getting tonnes of old error messages from old emails Neil PS sorry to obscure part of my logs but my sisters email address isnt relivant _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Neil Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... unforunately half asleep I noticed a problems with a message and deleted > without stopping qmail Download queue-fix from the link at www.qmail.org and compile it -- if you're using the big-todo patch for qmail, you'll also need to patch queue-fix. Then stop qmail, and run queue-fix on your queue. It should be able to handle this. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Charles Cazabon wrote: >Neil Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> ... unforunately half asleep I noticed a problems with a message and deleted >> without stopping qmail > >Download queue-fix from the link at www.qmail.org and compile it -- Doesn't seem to be reachable at the moment. Here's a direct link: http://www.netmeridian.com/e-huss/ - -d - -- David Talkington http://www.spotnet.org PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQEVAwUBOu2D8b1ZYOtSwT+tAQFP2gf/Yehi9jpWjQ/3/sQV6uzFbBIl/MYDbv5H aBOFPEhZoNXK3t3N4IazuRokh1XjuxfwgynGdgJRxn4h/2UH/tRni90jk0sPpR1H +Sj5Wu4ucGX9ONd0Vw9lkQBNdlkJDATfvkvaFhT9JKMkPOd8sz16hcVxAvAUlCuV aUBhem/jqpkHXy5CTYk9K3o8lgcDqJpmatrC56j5DzQ8Y0bUBN1nh2EiIlaqcIqw gO6FTCn0pUvH+WAa4X9zXofjh9S8lc16E4i86rUzE+GR/56HmVY3xopoaj0+VJCL vmbRtPKfDhDoZeNwiITghTiRbRHmsAb2Xl8S7h8ywnV6ydPhs3RzfQ== =cGYQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nissim Penias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have recently installed a new qmail server an i am interested in working > with soon but i figured out that qmail doesn't solve the situation of > relaying this address type: > > username@domain@domain [...] > I am sure that you all concerned about this as I do because it makes your > server an open relay to this trick . No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does? To qmail, there's nothing special about an '@' symbol inside the local-part of an email address. For example, a message to <foo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, handled by a qmail server which handles mail for baz.net, will be delivered to local user "foo@bar". If you don't have such a user, the message will bounce. In no circumstances will the message be relayed to the server which handles mail for domain "bar". 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: Nissim Penias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: Re: username@domain@domain relay hole ! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: username@domain@domain relay hole ! > > > > Nissim Penias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I have recently installed a new qmail server an i am interested in > working > > > with soon but i figured out that qmail doesn't solve the situation of > > > relaying this address type: > > > > > > username@domain@domain > > [...] > > > I am sure that you all concerned about this as I do because it makes > your > > > server an open relay to this trick . > > > > No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does? To qmail, there's nothing > > special about an '@' symbol inside the local-part of an email address. > > For example, a message to <foo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, handled by a qmail server > which > > handles mail for baz.net, will be delivered to local user "foo@bar". If > you > > don't have such a user, the message will bounce. > > > > In no circumstances will the message be relayed to the server which > handles > > mail for domain "bar". > > > > 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. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hello Charles , > > What I meen is that if I am sending mail using the SMTP protocol > telnet mailserver 25 ) and > I am using address foo@[EMAIL PROTECTED] and I am holding kuku.com the mail > will be relayed > from my mail server kuku.com to foo@bar . > > I tried it and the qmail-smtpd log says delivering foo@bar insted of > dropping it . > > This meens that users outside my domain can use any qmail server this > way to relay to outside > existing adresses . > > Thanks , > Nissim . >
Nissim Penias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > username@domain@domain > > > [...] > > > > I am sure that you all concerned about this as I do because it makes > > > > your server an open relay to this trick . > > > No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does? To qmail, there's > > > nothing special about an '@' symbol inside the local-part of an email > > > address. > > What I meen is that if I am sending mail using the SMTP protocol telnet > > mailserver 25 ) and I am using address foo@[EMAIL PROTECTED] and I am holding > > kuku.com the mail will be relayed from my mail server kuku.com to foo@bar Prove it -- show us the unedited logs of this happening. What I think is your log shows your system trying to deliver to local user "foo@bar", and you're misreading it. 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:20 AM 4/30/01 -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: >Nissim Penias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I have recently installed a new qmail server an i am interested in working > > with soon but i figured out that qmail doesn't solve the situation of > > relaying this address type: > > > > username@domain@domain >[...] > > I am sure that you all concerned about this as I do because it makes your > > server an open relay to this trick . > >No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does? To qmail, there's nothing >special about an '@' symbol inside the local-part of an email address. >For example, a message to <foo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, handled by a qmail server which >handles mail for baz.net, will be delivered to local user "foo@bar". If you >don't have such a user, the message will bounce. > >In no circumstances will the message be relayed to the server which handles >mail for domain "bar". > >Charles >-- Charles, I think Nissim is correct. I have tested several qmail servers and this does happen. -Rob Sportsline Operations Dept. 954-351-2120 x4528 or x4234 AIM: rg1454bb ICQ: 30834081 http://cbs.sportsline.com
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:27:57AM -0400, Robert Geller wrote: > I think Nissim is correct. I have tested several qmail servers and this > does happen. I am sure he is not: $ telnet mail.space.net smtp Trying 195.30.0.8... Connected to mail.space.net. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail.space.net ESMTP MAIL FROM: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@space.net> 250 ok DATA 354 go ahead Subject: relay test . 250 ok 988645099 qp 20023 quit 221 mail.space.net Connection closed by foreign host. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@space.net No such user. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That other have relay open/misconfigured qmail servers isn't a prove :-) \Maex
Robert Geller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > username@domain@domain > >[...] > > > I am sure that you all concerned about this as I do because it makes your > > > server an open relay to this trick . > > > >No, it doesn't. [...] > >In no circumstances will the message be relayed to the server which handles > >mail for domain "bar". > I think Nissim is correct. I have tested several qmail servers and this > does happen. No, he is incorrect. The example you sent me in private mail doesn't show this happening either. I have yet to see the logs of a single instance of this form of relaying being allowed to happen through a qmail server. Sending mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@baz.net> will be accepted by qmail if baz.net is in rcpthosts. If it's local, qmail will try to deliver it to local user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- qmail knows the difference between a local recipient and a remote recipient, so it won't try to send this on to the MX for bar.com. If baz.net is in rcpthosts, but not in locals or virtuals, qmail will then forward the whole thing on to the primary MX for baz.net. If this is what is happening, it's not (unauthorized) relaying at all, and doesn't involve bar.com at any point. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:37:20AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > If baz.net is in rcpthosts, but not in locals or virtuals, qmail will then > forward the whole thing on to the primary MX for baz.net. If this is what is > happening, it's not (unauthorized) relaying at all, and doesn't involve > bar.com at any point. An if there is a .qmail-default file for the domain baz.net that forwards all emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] this is no unauthorized relaying either :-))) \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.
On 30-Apr-2001 Tim Legant wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 01:40:15AM +0200, Marco Calistri wrote: >> If my $HOME doesn't contains any dot qmail or even it is empty, >> where the incoming mail is stored? > > Does the file exist, or not? If it doesn't exist, qmail follows the > default delivery instructions provided on the 'qmail-start' command > line. If it does exist but has no delivery instructions, i.e. no > forwards, no commands, no mailboxes or maildirs, but only comments, > qmail throws the mail away. > > Tim Gosh! 54 messages lost! ... TKS Tim! --Marco
Àsô,¤µ¦~¯uªº¤£¦n¹L,§Ú¤w¸g´«¤FNÓ¤u§@..
§@«á¤½¥q¤S˳¬¤F...³o¤@®a¤½¥qÆZ¦nª±ªº..
§Ú¦b¬ü°ê¦³¸òElena¤@°_ª±¹L....¥xÆW¤]¯u¥ý¶i..
§A¦n¦n¬Ý¬Ý..§Ṳ́]¥i¥H¶}¤@¶¡......
--------«ö¤U±ªº³s µ²-------------
©P¬ü¶³.......
p.s. ¬P´Á¤» Friday's ¨£±!!
I'm pleased to announce a new "major" release of my Tagged Message Delivery Agent (TMDA). New in release 0.10: * The amkCrypto package is no longer necessary. With this release, only the core Python language distribution version 1.5.2 or higher is required to run TMDA. See the `UPGRADE' file if you are upgrading from a previous TMDA release. * Many new features added, and some small bugs fixed. Further release announcements will take place on the tmda-announce mailing list <http://libertine.org/lists/listinfo/>. About TMDA: TMDA is an OSI certified Python application for qmail systems designed to significantly reduce (or eliminate) the amount of SPAM/UCE you receive by using unique, cryptographically enhanced (called tagged) e-mail addresses. TMDA can both filter your incoming e-mail, and tag your outgoing address. For more information, download locations, and installation instructions, visit the TMDA homepage: <URL:http://tmda.sourceforge.net/> Enjoy, Jason R. Mastaler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <P><A HREF="http://tmda.sourceforge.net";>TMDA 0.10</A> - A qmail-based anti-SPAM system. (30-Apr-2001)
qmail-send handles virtual domains (by prepending the virtual domain prefix) before it creates a Variable Envelope Return Path. This creates problems for me on my master mail server. For example, if I am the user "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", and I address a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", and I request a VERP (say, by setting the "r" flag in QMAILINJECT), and control/virtualdomains has the following line: foo.com:blah ...then the VERP reads "sender-blah-recip=foo.com" instead of the correct "sender-recip=foo.com". Incidentally, I noticed this because ezmlm is not removing dead accounts from my mailing lists because the VERPs are wrong. The appended patch seems to fix the problem. - Pat diff -u -r1.2 qmail-send.c --- qmail-send.c 2001/04/23 15:40:29 1.2 +++ qmail-send.c 2001/04/30 17:00:25 @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ int j; int k; + recip = stripvdomprepend(recip); i = str_len(sender); if (i >= 4) if (str_equal(sender + i - 4,"-@[]"))
Greetings, Forgive my newbieness, this is the first Unix based mail project that I have had to bring up to production standards.. Currently I have Qmail functioning in all respects but 2, #1 being Qmail must be able to rewrite the headers of outgoing mail so that it all looks to be coming from bonair.stanford.edu instead of fops-monitor.stanford.edu. The accounts on both machines are identical and currently I want to be able just to have bonair .forward to fops-monitor for our trial stages. #2 being I cannot seem to get this autoresponder working properly, on our current machine (sendmail), the vacation program seems to function fine, though under Qmail when I tried it, it started a massive message loop. Any ideas or instructions would be greatly appreciated. -David Chait
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:38:04PM -0700, David Chait wrote: > #1 being Qmail must be able to rewrite > the headers of outgoing mail so that it all looks to be coming from > bonair.stanford.edu instead of fops-monitor.stanford.edu. qmail doesn't rewrite any headers. Either the users' MUAs must be configured to use the correct From: header or to use no From: header at all. If the latter is chosen, qmail will construct the From: header from the user name, which it finds in QMAILUSER, MAILUSER, USER, or LOGNAME, whichever comes first, and the contents of .../control/defaulthost. > #2 being I cannot seem > to get this autoresponder working properly, on our current machine > (sendmail), the vacation program seems to function fine, though under Qmail > when I tried it, it started a massive message loop. vacation doesn't work with qmail. Visit http://www.qmail.org/ and search for vacation or autoresponder. People tend to recommend the one from Bruce Guenter. Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
Hello list. I've made this script to get qmail1.03 working on a redhat machine in one step. I've installed so and it works, any way it must be no complete. Give me your comments the steps are: 1##put the sig 4 .gz in /usr/src/qmail and qmailinstallmachine.txt there too ##qmail-1.03.tar.gz ##ucspi-tcp-0.88.tar.gz ##daemontools-0.70.tar.gz ##checkpassword-0.90.tar.gz 2##edit qmailinstallmachine.....txt an with vi and follow the steps there say at: #2 TWO!!#edit this file with vi editor. 3##definition of variables##use any editor only 2 var's 4######################## run it ! cd /usr/src/qmail/ <<you must be here ! $>./qmailinstallmachine.txt if it say "text file bussy" (i don't know whi ???? $>cp qmailinstallmachine.txt anyname.sh $> ./anyname.sh ###################that is all############################### this is a resume, more specified in the same script. then read "life with qmail" so you will can do maildirs and fine configurations. I stiil are not happy with the log method. I hear for sugestions or examples. the file is at: http://www.audimed.com.ar/lucas/qmail103/qmailinstallmachine0-01.txt THX qmail list !
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:57:21PM -0300, Linux!audimed wrote: > Hello list. > I've made this script to get qmail1.03 working on a redhat machine in one > step. We thank you for posting this. Twice. This is much clearer than Life With Qmail, and shorter, too. Only one step! (although it appears to have four sub-parts, somewhat negating your possible claim to a One-Step Patent). Dave, you've been outclassed. Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
Folks, Everytime an email is sent to my qmail server, I receive a message to the postmasters account indicating that msglog is an unknown user on my domain. "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. vpopmail (#5.1.1)" My .qmail-mslog file contains nothing but comments. Is there someway to stop this? Thanks, Ted
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:03:10PM -0400, Ted Mead wrote: > Everytime an email is sent to my qmail server, I receive a message to the > postmasters account indicating that msglog is an unknown user on my domain. > > "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. vpopmail (#5.1.1)" > > My .qmail-mslog file contains nothing but comments. > > Is there someway to stop this? Perhaps you could spell ".qmail-mslog" like this: ".qmail-msglog"? Don't know if that's really the problem, though.... Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
"Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bet they'll never publish my comments... I'm afraid the same will be true for mine.
> Huh? You are thinking of locals or virtualdomains here. The domain must be > in locals if qmail should accept and queue mail fro that domain. Yes, but *only* if the domain should not be treated as a virtual domain, or if the domain used the standard /etc/passwd for user verification. -K "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup." > From: Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:05:21 +0200 > To: Qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Help abot qmail and vpomail > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:26:06PM -0600, Keary Suska wrote: >> If you want qmail to act as a mail gateway to the NT >> machine, simply put the NT domain in the SMTProutes control file, and do >> _not_ accept delivery (i.e. don't have the domain in your rcpthosts file). > > Huh? You are thinking of locals or virtualdomains here. The domain must be > in locals if qmail should accept and queue mail fro that domain. > > -- > Henning Brauer | BS Web Services > Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg > http://www.bsws.de | Germany > > Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. > (Dennis Ritchie) >
>One last note on this thread. While rereading the FAQ, I came across this >which indicates qmail has brakes to keep from generating denial of service >attacks. > >http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/efficiency.html > >Does qmail back off from dead hosts? >Answer: Yes. qmail has three backoff features: ... Qmail backs off very well, but doesn't work all that well with sendmail under heavy load. The problem is that sendmail keeps accepting connections even when it doesn't have enough system resources to accept mail, and tends to thrash to death. (Qmail systems usually use tcpserver which enforces a maximum number of simultaneous connections rejecting any beyond that limit.) But since sendmail doesn't reject connections, qmail can't tell that the recipient system isn't responding. Sendmail users tend to assume that anything sendmail does must be right, and anything different must be wrong, so they often blame qmail for opening "too many" connections. In reality, the connections could just as easily come from any other mail system, of course. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
--- "John R. Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Qmail backs off very well, but doesn't work all that well with > sendmail under heavy load. The problem is that sendmail keeps > accepting connections even when it doesn't have enough system > resources to accept mail, and tends to thrash to death. well - it's VERY misconfigured sendmail ;) > (Qmail > systems usually use tcpserver which enforces a maximum number > of > simultaneous connections rejecting any beyond that limit.) > But since > sendmail doesn't reject connections, qmail can't tell that the > recipient system isn't responding. It rejects, really > Sendmail users tend to assume that anything sendmail does must > be > right, and anything different must be wrong, so they often > blame qmail > for opening "too many" connections. In reality, the > connections could > just as easily come from any other mail system, of course. I'm not sure how qmail works if you are sending 100 messages from server to another one. Does it open 100 connections concurrently? --- Oleg > -- > John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 > 6869 > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, > http://iecc.com/johnl, > Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited > Commercial E-mail __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Russ Allbery wrote: > Rather, it tries to bounce them and the bounce bounces as undeliverable. > The solution is for ORBS to stop probing systems from which no spam has > ever been sent and for which there is no reason to suspect a lack of > security. they were a lot easier to igore when they were still calling themselves "dorkslayers" -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Parse, munge, repeat.
Oleg Polyakov wrote: > > I'm not sure how qmail works if you are sending 100 messages > from server to another one. > Does it open 100 connections concurrently? it opens "maxconcurrency" connections. It doesn't have per-site concurrency limit, unles you patch it. It is reccommended, if you are having a problem killing a particular smtp peer, to trap all outgoing mail for it by defining it as a local virtual host, and then passing the stack of mail in the local virtual host's MailDir to the peer with something called "serialmail." -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Parse, munge, repeat.
Frank Tegtmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If the TMDA-bounces would be marked somehow (inserted header or > something like that) they could be sorted out from the double > bounces. For that tmda-filter would have to inject a self made > bounce message and use a result code of 99 instead of 100. It's a > little more complicated but would heavily increase my acceptance of > TMDA (speaking as postmaster, of course). [copying the qmail list on this one to solicit a wider audience] I'm willing to entertain this because I also want the ability to add a "Reply-To" header to bounce messages containing the valid tagged address so that legitimate senders can reply more easily to bounces. While I'm there I could add a second header distinguishing the bounce as TMDA generated. But the question is how to best implement this. Is there an "easy" way to add custom headers to qmail bounce messages? I'd like to avoid duplicating qmail-send's bounce generation code. This could get complicated having to take into account qmail-control settings like `bouncefrom', `bouncehost' and stuff. Any suggestions? -- (TMDA - http://tmda.sourceforge.net/) (A qmail-based SPAM reduction system)
I want to allow relaying of all domains in my rcpthosts file. While I know this is a very bad thing to do this is only a very temporary measure. I have searched high and low for this...and I cant find the answer! Thanks, ross
i think you're essentially referring to how to maintain a secondary MX. qmail will not attempt local delivery to any host that is in rcpthosts, but is not in locals/me. if you are running under tcpserver, make sure that you're not preventing any connections you want, and you should be fine. On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I want to allow relaying of all domains in my rcpthosts file. While I > know this is a very bad thing to do this is only a very temporary measure. > > I have searched high and low for this...and I cant find the answer! > > Thanks, > > ross > > >
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:33:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I want to allow relaying of all domains in my rcpthosts file. While I > know this is a very bad thing to do this is only a very temporary measure. Perhaps solution 2 or 3, below? Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
Hi all, How I can use qmail on OSF/Unix (Digital) and C2security ? I cann't authen password by checkpassword program. Can you help me ? How to? Thank you SOC
ªü²», ÁÙ¦b¥Î¬M¹³ºÞªº¿Ã¹õ¶Ü? ¨ì®É«á¤Ó¦h¿ç®g½u¨S¦³¿ìªk"¼"°_¨Ó!!! ¨Ó¬Ý¬Ý³o¤@Óºô¯¸...¦³ LCD TFT ªº¿Ã¹õ³á!! http://www.megarats.com ¤p«}
How do I stop qmail from attempting to deliver a message to a particular recipient? I don't want to remove the entire message from the queue; I just want it to stop trying to deliver to a broken mail server. I already know about qmHandle, and that won't work here. I'm running qmail 1.03 and ezmlm-idx 0.40. Several mail servers are broken - they close the SMTP connection before verifying that they received the message, causing qmail to re-attempt delivery later (as it should). This results in ...connection_died._Possible_duplicate!_(#4.4.2) log messages, which, in fact, are true - the recipient is getting a copy every time qmail re-attempts delivery. I've looked at the qmail queue files and see that remote/NN/XXXXXX contains a list of addresses. From what I can deduce, those separated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] are deliveries that are unsuccessful, whereas [EMAIL PROTECTED] are successfully completed. I presume this is where qmail-qread gets its information. Could I possibly hand-edit the remote/NN/XXXXXX file and remove the particuar address? Any other ideas, like perhaps tricking qmail-remote into thinking that the address is to be locally delivered? Thanks, Omar
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:23:21PM -0400, Omar Thameen wrote: > How do I stop qmail from attempting to deliver a message to a particular > recipient? I don't want to remove the entire message from the queue; > I just want it to stop trying to deliver to a broken mail server. > I already know about qmHandle, and that won't work here. > > I'm running qmail 1.03 and ezmlm-idx 0.40. Several mail servers are > broken - they close the SMTP connection before verifying that they > received the message, causing qmail to re-attempt delivery later (as > it should). This results in > ...connection_died._Possible_duplicate!_(#4.4.2) > log messages, which, in fact, are true - the recipient is getting > a copy every time qmail re-attempts delivery. > > I've looked at the qmail queue files and see that remote/NN/XXXXXX > contains a list of addresses. From what I can deduce, those separated > by [EMAIL PROTECTED] are deliveries that are unsuccessful, whereas > [EMAIL PROTECTED] are successfully completed. I presume this is > where qmail-qread gets its information. > > Could I possibly hand-edit the remote/NN/XXXXXX file and remove the > particuar address? Any other ideas, like perhaps tricking qmail-remote > into thinking that the address is to be locally delivered? Yes, but why? Are you worried that this is polluting your logs? Why intentionally break something to accomplish something that your qmail system will do on its own after queuelifetime expires? As far as being tricky, man qmail-remote. --Adam
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:38:54PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:23:21PM -0400, Omar Thameen wrote: > > How do I stop qmail from attempting to deliver a message to a particular > > recipient? I don't want to remove the entire message from the queue; > > I just want it to stop trying to deliver to a broken mail server. > > I already know about qmHandle, and that won't work here. [...] > > Could I possibly hand-edit the remote/NN/XXXXXX file and remove the > > particuar address? Any other ideas, like perhaps tricking qmail-remote > > into thinking that the address is to be locally delivered? > > Yes, but why? Are you worried that this is polluting your logs? Why > intentionally break something to accomplish something that your qmail system > will do on its own after queuelifetime expires? Not at all. The problem is that people who have accounts on broken mail servers are not ones to understand that it's *their* admin's fault that they're getting 20+ copies of the same message. I'm happy to unsubscribe them from the list, but I think I need to stop the delivery attempts since that's what's irking them in the first place. > As far as being tricky, man qmail-remote. Yeah, I looked, but the only thing I could come up with was to insert the domain into smtproutes and force it to be delivered to another server which treats the domain as local. This affects all email address at that domain, and for some bizarre reason, other addresses at the same domain aren't exhibiting the same behavior (disconnecting SMTP before sending final receipt acknowledgement of the message). If anyone can think of a per-address hack, I'm all ears. Omar
Àsô,¤µ¦~¯uªº¤£¦n¹L,§Ú¤w¸g´«¤FNÓ¤u§@..
§@«á¤½¥q¤S˳¬¤F...³o¤@®a¤½¥qÆZ¦nª±ªº..
§A¦n¦n¬Ý¬Ý..§Ṳ́]¥i¥H¶}¤@¶¡......
--------«ö¤U±ªº³s µ²-------------
©P¬ü¶³.......
p.s. ¬P´Á¤» Friday's ¨£±!!
