qmail Digest 25 Jun 2001 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1406
Topics (messages 64831 through 64848):
Re: Why conf-split prime?
64831 by: Pavel Kankovsky
64832 by: Pavel Kankovsky
Re: courier-imapd, folders and delivery
64833 by: Russell Nelson
64838 by: Ricardo SIGNES
qmail collecting POP3 mail
64834 by: John P
64835 by: Charles Cazabon
anti-virus program for Qmail
64836 by: Alex Tsang
64837 by: Chris Johnson
64848 by: Rick Stanley
Odd error
64839 by: Mike Hodson
64840 by: Chris Johnson
Re: I'm sorry
64841 by: Nancy Lovette
Mail Headers, Exchange and Qmail.
64842 by: Ivan Menendez
64844 by: Charles Cazabon
Can't receive local or remote emails
64843 by: newbieportal
64845 by: Charles Cazabon
SMTP Error !
64846 by: Qmail
64847 by: Chris Johnson
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 Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Dave Sill wrote:
> i = fmt_ulong(s,id % auto_split); len += i; if (s) s += i;
>
> I can't see that primality would do anything special here.
I am going to give the secret away right here to save your time. :)
It is obvious the distribution of B(i) = A(i) mod k will be very
non-uniform (i.e. very suboptimal when the values of B(i) are used as
hash values) when A(i) or its large subsequences can be expressed
as A(i+1) = A(i) + p such that gcd(p, k) > 1.
Our A(i)'s are inode numbers assigned to files holding the contents of
queued messages (queue/mess/*/*). An average implementation of a unix-like
filesystem assigns inode numbers less or more sequentially, i.e. the next
assigned number is often the last one plus 1. Of course, if we had
A(i+1) = A(i) + 1, there would be no problem. Alas, there are 2, 3, or
even 4 (or perhaps even more) files per a message in the qmail queue:
there are files in mess, as well as files in info, local, and remote.
This means A(i)'s are often incremented by 2, 3, or 4, and the risk of
uneven distribution of B(i)'s is rather high.
Using a prime number for k eliminates this risk for a very small price.
After all the set of primes is quite dense for reasonable values (<1000)
and you can always find a prime close to the number you want to use.
> However, the default, 23, is prime, and in his only message to the
> list on the topic of conf-split, DJB suggested a value of 401, also
> prime, for a queue with 100000 entries:
401 is quite close to sqrt(100000). It means the sizes of the 1st and 2nd
level are quite balanced. But I can only guess why DJB suggested 401
rather than any prime closer to that square root.
> Why would DJB use primes if they weren't necessary? He uses round
> numbers elsewhere (concurrencies, for example), so I don't think he
> just likes them.
There is a notation based on the (unique) factorization of numbers.
1 is (0) (or ()), 2 is (1), 3 is (0,1), 6 is (1,1) etc. It has some
interesting properties: like an incredible ease of multiplication (and an
incredible difficulty of addition). Prime numbers are the *round* ones in
this notation. :)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Dave Sill wrote:
> Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >It does -- a large series of random numbers, modulo some number I, will result
> >in an even distribution of results if and only if I is prime. If I isn't
> >prime, the results are skewed noticeably towards the low end.
>
> Hmm.
>
> On first reading that, I didn't believe it. I couldn't imagine how
> the primality of the divisor could "magically" guarantee an even
> distribution.
Indeed. Given a source A(i) of natural numbers uniformly distributed in
a given interval [0, N-1] (lrand48() is *supposed* to be such a source
for N = 2^31), it is trivial to show that the distribution D_B(x) of
B(i) = A(i) mod k for any natural k > 0 is as follows:
/ ceil(N/k)/N if x < N mod k
D_B(x) = < for each x \in [0, k-1]
\ floor(N/k)/N if x >= N mod k
You can see the results are skewed but for k << N, prime or not, the skew
is negligible and the resulting distribution is almost uniform. A test
showing anything different demonstrates nothing but an imperfection in
your PRNG or a flaw in the test itself.
Profiling may beat speculation but mathematical reasoning beats profiling
anytime. :)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Dave Sill wrote:
> BTW, I modified my modhash program to read numbers from stdin, fed it
> lists of real, live inode numbers, and guess what? It still makes no
> difference whether you use a prime hash or not.
What "real, live inode numbers"? Have you picked the inode numbers of
messages stuffed in queue/mess/*? With all due respect, I doubt it.
Any profiling is pointless when you test something different than you
intented to.
If you still feel the need, feed your qmail with a large number of
messages that will get stuck in the queue (there are four important
cases: 1. qmail-send is not running, 2. local deliveries keep failing
temporarily, 3. remote deliveries keep failing, 4. both local and
remote deliveries keep failing) and test the inode numbers of files in
queue/mess/*.
And of course, you should repeat the test for different supported
unix-like systems.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> Using a prime number for k eliminates this risk for a very small price.
> After all the set of primes is quite dense for reasonable values (<1000)
> and you can always find a prime close to the number you want to use.
If course I assume the prime number used is high enough to be different
from 2, 3, or perhaps 5, because these small primes are likely to have
gcd(k, p) > 1.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Peter Schuller writes:
> I want to switch from POP3 to IMAP (finally).
I cannot imagine why any enterprise would want to switch from POP3 to
IMAP. They are designed to do completely different things. POP3
exists to get the email the heck off your server as quickly as
possible, whereas IMAP is designed to keep the email on your server
forever.
Unless you chose the wrong protocol in the first place, why are you
switching?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude <windows.h>
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
In a message dated Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 07:04:36AM +0200, Peter Schuller wrote:
> My problem is that IMAP folders aren't separate Maildirs. So how do I
> accomplish the task of delivering mail to specific IMAP folders using
> procmail (or some other equivalent tool; I only need to filter for
> mailinglists, nothing advanced)?
There is a courier-imap mailing list! Join it!
In the meantime, it's pretty simple. Set $MAILDIR and $DEFAULT to $HOME/Maildir/
Then,
:0
* From:.*[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.satan/
Will write messages to the Maildir used for that folder under a default
Courier install.
--
rjbs
PGP signature
If I have a load of mail on a system with a single POP3 mailbox for various
users, can I get qmail to 'pick up' this mail and deliver it to local users'
mailboxes?
We currently have another system (running S**dmail) that 'pushes' this mail
to our server and we want to change it over so we can pick up the mail if
there's any problems with our server's Internet connection (as there has
been recently).
Or is this something completely separate from qmail?
Thanks
John
--
John Portwin
John P <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I have a load of mail on a system with a single POP3 mailbox for various
> users, can I get qmail to 'pick up' this mail and deliver it to local users'
> mailboxes?
If the POP3 server is running qmail as well, you can install Dan's AutoTURN
package -- an automatic ETRN-like way of getting the mail delivered. It's not
"picking up" so much as telling the POP3 server "my connectio is up, you can
deliver mail to me now".
> We currently have another system (running S**dmail) that 'pushes' this mail
> to our server and we want to change it over so we can pick up the mail if
> there's any problems with our server's Internet connection (as there has
> been recently).
Unnecessary. Make your box the primary MX for your domain, and the other box
a secondary MX.
> Or is this something completely separate from qmail?
It's not part of qmail proper. If all else fails (and the admin of the other
box is uncooperative) you could always use a POP3 retriever to get the mail,
and then deliver it on your box. As it happens, v.2.1.0 of getmail was
released yesterday :). See the link in my .sig if you're interested.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all
Is there any anti-virus program for qmail?
Regards
Alex Tsang
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 07:52:25AM -0700, Alex Tsang wrote:
> Is there any anti-virus program for qmail?
Check http://www.qmail.org/top.html#microsoft
Chris
PGP signature
I use a combination of McAfee's uvscan for Ainti-Virus,
(http://www.mcafee.com), and Jason Haar's qmail-scanner for running uvscan,
and for filtering, (http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/). I've been very
happy with the results!
At 07:52 AM 6/24/2001 -0700, Alex Tsang wrote:
>Dear all
>
> Is there any anti-virus program for qmail?
>
>Regards
>
>Alex Tsang
I just changed over my maildirs and virtual domains from one server to
another, and all seems to be working well. Until now that is.
While watching a log tail -f of my qmail-send logs as logged via
daemontools piped thru tai64nlocal.
2001-06-24 11:39:57.372243500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:40:40.231316500 warning: trouble opening local/16/755083; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:41:16.231304500 warning: trouble opening local/17/755084; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:39:57.372243500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:42:01.231287500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:42:44.231286500 warning: trouble opening local/16/755083; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:43:20.231255500 warning: trouble opening local/17/755084; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:44:05.231240500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try again
later
2001-06-24 11:44:48.231239500 warning: trouble opening local/16/755083; will try again
later
What does this mean exactly, and is this a large problem or a minor
error?
Also, this seems like a serious problem I got while trying to actually
send this message via my own server:
220 thor.mystica.cx ESMTP
EHLO ODIN
250-thor.mystica.cx
250-PIPELINING
250 8BITMIME
RSET
250 flushed
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
DATA
354 go ahead
.
451 qq trouble creating files in queue (#4.3.0)
QUIT
221 thor.mystica.cx
--
Mike Hodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 11:59:38AM -0600, Mike Hodson wrote:
> I just changed over my maildirs and virtual domains from one server to
> another, and all seems to be working well. Until now that is.
> While watching a log tail -f of my qmail-send logs as logged via
> daemontools piped thru tai64nlocal.
>
> 2001-06-24 11:39:57.372243500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:40:40.231316500 warning: trouble opening local/16/755083; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:41:16.231304500 warning: trouble opening local/17/755084; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:39:57.372243500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:42:01.231287500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:42:44.231286500 warning: trouble opening local/16/755083; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:43:20.231255500 warning: trouble opening local/17/755084; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:44:05.231240500 warning: trouble opening local/15/755082; will try
>again later
> 2001-06-24 11:44:48.231239500 warning: trouble opening local/16/755083; will try
>again later
>
> What does this mean exactly, and is this a large problem or a minor
> error?
Did you move your queue from one machine to the other? If so, your queue needs
to be fixed. Look for "queue-fix" at http://www.qmail.org/top.html
Chris
Please pardon this interuption. I am sending this
Email because I have a very good news for you.
If you think that the information below is not for you,
the removal instruction is at the end of this message
Dear Friend,
They all laughed when I try the system, But not When I ..........
- Fly for FREE Korea, Hongkong, Europe, etc
- Buy $100,000 house for $600
- Turn $1000 to $4.8 million in 18 months
- Get 50% annual return guaranteed by US government
- Etc, etc, etc .................
Now It's Your Turn!
To Learn More, go to:
http://track.ezinetactics.com/?id=lovette-1225
Sincerely,
Nancy Lovette
============================================================
REMOVAL INSTRUCTION
To remove yourself from our mailing list
Please mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write REMOVE in the subject line
Hi there,
I have an Exchange server that sends it SMTP mail through a Qmail Server;
the Exchange Server creates a lot of headers revealing a lot of information
about our network structure, creating a security risk..... Is there any way
to delete/modify those headers in Qmail server?.
Thanks a lot for yourr help. Best regards.
Ivan Menendez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have an Exchange server that sends it SMTP mail through a Qmail Server;
> the Exchange Server creates a lot of headers revealing a lot of information
> about our network structure, creating a security risk..... Is there any way
> to delete/modify those headers in Qmail server?.
Yes; Bruce Guenter's QMAILQUEUE patch (and his qmil-qfilter addon) could be
used to strip these headers. See untroubled.org for his software.
However, I think you're tilting at windmills. Providing your network is
firewalled, the type of information you see in mail headers shouldn't make
much of a difference.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Everyone
I'm keep getting this error and I'm not able to receive any emails to my
server.
@400000003b36734d34995adc status: local 0/10 remote 0/500
@400000003b36738c3629a384 starting delivery 26: msg 1425658 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003b36738c362a246c status: local 1/10 remote 0/500
@400000003b36738c37a35ad4 starting delivery 27: msg 1425652 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@400000003b36738c37a3bc7c status: local 2/10 remote 0/500
@400000003b36738d03e0f15c delivery 26: deferral:
procmail:_Couldn't_create_"/var/spool/mail/admin"/procmail:_Lock_failure_on_
"/var/spool/mail/admin.lock"/procmail:_Error_while_writing_to_"/var/spool/ma
il/admin"/
@400000003b36738d03e1e38c status: local 1/10 remote 0/500
@400000003b36738d058454a4 delivery 27: deferral:
procmail:_Couldn't_create_"/var/spool/mail/admin"/procmail:_Lock_failure_on_
"/var/spool/mail/admin.lock"/procmail:_Error_while_writing_to_"/var/spool/ma
il/admin"/
@400000003b36738d05852f64 status: local 0/10 remote 0/500
newbieportal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm keep getting this error and I'm not able to receive any emails to my
> server.
[...]
> @400000003b36738d03e0f15c delivery 26: deferral:
> procmail:_Couldn't_create_"/var/spool/mail/admin"/procmail:_Lock_failure_on_
> "/var/spool/mail/admin.lock"/procmail:_Error_while_writing_to_"/var/spool/ma
> il/admin"/
procmail thinks its delivering to /var/spool/mail, and can't create a lockfile
in /var/spool/mail. If you're not doing /var/spool/mail deliveries, fix your
procmail configuration. Or dump procmail altogether; it's not very necessary
with qmail for most purposes.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
i have qmail installed and working on my server. when i m trying to send a
mail using the smtp server i get the message attached below. i have
mail.ccipl.com and ccipl.com added to the rcpthosts, locals, plusdomain and
me. what could me the problem. what changes should i make to get it working
??
The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected by
the server. The rejected e-mail address was '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
Subject 'Re: [010622-18982-0047]', Account: 'Arun Hubballi', Server:
'mail.ccipl.com', Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain
isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No,
Server Error: 553, Error Number: 0x800CCC79
best regards
Arun Hubballi
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 09:09:41AM +0530, Qmail wrote:
> Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts (#5.7.1)'
See http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying
Chris
