Re: Handy way to restart qmail
Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's >> daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: >> >> qmail restart > >OK, so much for the quessing game. I find no address to acquire this >script at: >http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html >http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.txt It's there: http://Web.InfoAve.net/~dsill/qmail-script-dt61.txt Note, however, that you can't just plop this script onto any qmail installation and expect it to work. It assumes a qmail installation compatible with the installation instructions provided in LWQ, section 2. For most newbies, it'd be easier to reinstall following LWQ than to retrofit the script onto an existing installation. -Dave
Re: stats from qmailanalog
[Dan, please configure your mailer to wrap lines that are longer than 80 characters.] "flitcraft33" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I ran the tai64local program against a copy of a log and got human >time stamps. I followed the steps on the matchup and got as far as a >file that had my log with a question mark on each line. Show us: 1) a sample line from your logs, untouched 2) the same line passed through tai64nlocal 3) a sample line from the output of matchup >After that >errors all around. the next instructions on the manpage follow > > out.1 5>pending.2 > cat pending.2 log.2 | matchup >out.2 5>pending.3 > cat pending.3 log.3 | matchup >out.3 5>pending.4 > >Is this some kind of log rotation or what? What's the deal with 5> in >the first line? What on earth does that do? cyclog (and multilog) automatically rotates the logs, and some of the transactions at the end of one file might not be completed until the beginning of the next file. matchup outputs these incomplete--or pending--entries to file descriptor 5. >Is there a how-to or a kind soul who can explain step by step (with >some expanations of what a given command is doing) for me. I would be >glad to codify this for some kind of mini-how to or for inclusion >with the scripts with the permission of the appropriate people. There's not a good HOWTO for qmail-analog, and things are in something of a state of flux at the moment, so now's probably not the best time to undertake writing one. qmail-analog depends upon timestamps in the format used by cyclog, but cyclog has been superceded by multilog, which uses a different timestamp format. There are utilities available that will convert the timestamps. -Dave
RE: Not getting mail from smtpd
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >k, thanks! If I remember correctly (I know, this is purely speculation!), >this is pretty much what my smtpd log looked like, only I'm looking in >/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current. I didn't realize there were logs in >/service, so maybe I'll see something different there. There's not really a standard location for logs. I suspect you were looking in the right place. >What should the >smtpd do with the message if the log looks like this? qmail-smtpd doesn't log anything. The log entries posted were from tcpserver, which logs the SMTP connection, and qmail-send, which logs the delivery. If you want to see how the pieces fit together, check out: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pictures >Is it then processed >by my /var/qmail/rc script? No, the rc script just starts qmail. >In that case (I'm using procmail right now, >just trying to get this to work) should it then end up on my queue? qmail-smtpd puts the message in the queue. qmail-send passes it off to qmail-lspawn for local delivery. qmail-lspawn looks for a .qmail file or uses the default delivery specification on the qmail-start command line (from /var/qmail/rc) to determine how to deliver the message. If it's to be delivered via procmail, qmail-local execs procmail. -Dave
Re: FW: Not getting mail from smtpd
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Okay, will do. Can anyone post what the log should look like for a >successful receive by smtpd? Sure: 964802107.045958 new msg 5878737 964802107.048026 info msg 5878737: bytes 640 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 313391 uid 49491 964802107.175420 starting delivery 9463: msg 5878737 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 964802107.175467 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 964802107.345305 delivery 9463: success: did_1+0+0/ 964802107.378367 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 964802107.378398 end msg 5878737 >Heh, heard it before, but still funny! You're too kind. Thanks for being a good sport about it. BTW, I've heard my share of "sill" puns... -Dave
Re: Not getting mail from smtpd
"Craig L. Ching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've checked the log in >/var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/current and I don't see any errors (I'm at work >and the log is at home, so I can't send the log, but it seems that smtpd is >fat and happy! I can get them and repost if someone thinks they're >of use), Please do. -Dave PS: If you ever write an autobiography, I suggest you call it "I, Ching"
Re: Handy way to restart qmail
Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Is there a one move handy way to restart qmail? If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: qmail restart The complete set of commands is: stop -- stops mail service (smtp connections refused, nothing goes out) start -- starts mail service (smtp connection accepted, mail can go out) pause -- temporarily stops mail service (connections accepted, nothing leaves) cont -- continues paused mail service stat -- displays status of mail service cdb -- rebuild the tcpcontrol cdb file for smtp restart -- stops and restarts smtp, sends qmail-send a TERM & restarts it doqueue -- sends qmail-send ALRM, scheduling queued messages for delivery reload -- sends qmail-send HUP, rereading locals and virtualdomains queue -- shows status of queue alrm -- same as doqueue hup -- same as reload >I've been calling `ps waux |grep qmail', then `kill -9' on qmails pid then >calling (using bash) `/var/qmail/rc &' (From the doc/INSTALL >document). > >Seems a little cumbersom. Yeah, and dangerous, too. A plain "kill" (no -9) on the qmail-send process is much safer. -Dave
Re: message has wrong owner
Anders Kvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm trying to install a new qmail How? From source? RPM? >Jul 28 15:21:21 tux qmail: 964790481.074367 delivery 18: deferral: >+Sorry,_message_has_wrong_owner._(#4.3.5)/ qmail expects messages in the queue to be owned by the qmailq user. The set of qmail UID's in compiled into the binaries at build time. It sounds like you changed the qmail UID's after the build, or installed binaries built on system with UID's. -Dave
Re: qmail & mailstart
"Lydia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We are using qmail but somehow we can not check our mail under >mailstart.com say. Is there a setting I should put that will allow >this to happen. You need to install and configure a POP3 daemon. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pop-imap-servers -Dave
Re: single username and multiple domains
Robert Spraggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have tried to find some documentation on how to configure a single >username to be used with multiple domains. an example would be: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to user1 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to user2 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to user3 > >All domains and users are on one server and are considered local by >qmail. No can do. The *only* way to have separate namespaces is to use virtual domains. (Of course, one can be the real, local domain and the other two can be virtual.) >unfortunately if I put the domains in the virtualdomains file than nothing >is delivered to the local users. You don't just put the domains in virtualdomains, you also specify a local address to handle the domain, e.g.: domain1.com:user1 domain2.com:user2 domain3.com:user3 A message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered to user1-bill, so user1 needs either a ~/.qmail-bill or a ~/.qmail-default to catch that message. -Dave
Re: stop postmaster to make more acounts..
Geir Ove =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D8ksnes?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My customers have paid for like 100 email accounts >and one postmaster account... how to i restrict him >from making more than 100 email accounts?... >this is on a virtual domain.. Run a cron job periodically that removes/disables any .qmail*-default files and any .qmail* files in excess of 100. -Dave
Re: local-test sends to internet
Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >OK, starting to get somewhere here. Setting QMAILHOST has stopped my >outgoing messages from bouncing. That now works. > >With /var/qmail/rc containing the stock procmail usage rc file: > > #!/bin/sh > > # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. > # Using procmail to deliver messages to /var/spool/mail/$USER by default. > > exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ > qmail-start '|preline procmail' splogger qmail& See http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#procmail for some tips for running procmail under qmail. >Local delivery still does not work as I expected. Logged in as reader >and calling: > echo to: reader | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject >Dutifully delivers a message to ~/Mailbox > >However, if I su -l to root, get roots env, and then call: > echo to: reader | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject >The message is *not* dutifully delivered although the log messages look >as if it has been. Curious... > Jul 27 05:00:27 satellite qmail: 964699227.933357 delivery 21: > success: > >procmail:_[2844]_Thu_Jul_27_05:00:27_2000/procmail:_Assigning_"LOGFILE=/home/reader/.procmail.log"/procmail:_Opening_"/home/reader/.procmail.log"/did_0+0+1/ This appears to a case where qmail and procmail disagree about the meaning of "success". See the link above. Basically, what's happening is that the procmail delivery failed for some reason (see procmail's logs), but procmail isn't returning an exit status that qmail interprets as indicating a failure. >Further, eventhough I've symlinked `binmail' to the >/var/qmail/bin/sendmail binary. Huh? binmail should be calling /usr/lib/sendmail, which should be linked to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail. Linking /var/qmail/bin/sendmail to binmail is wrong. >And symlinked ~/Mailbox to the normal >FreeBSD delivery inbox /var/mail/reader. > > cat .bashrc|mail -s TEST reader >No message appears in /home/reader/Mailbox >Although log messages look as if it has been delivered: > > Jul 27 05:09:05 satellite qmail: 964699745.660930 delivery 24: > success: > >procmail:_[2946]_Thu_Jul_27_05:09:05_2000/procmail:_Assigning_"LOGFILE=/home/reader/.procmail.log"/procmail:_Opening_"/home/reader/.procmail.log"/did_0+0+1/ Again, see the procmail logs. -Dave
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to >64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to >send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It >calls qmail-remote once with all the recipients (multi-RCPT), and once >for each recipient (multi-connection). I only have preliminary results >so far, and I plan to run a more complete set of tests tonight after I >leave work. I'll post my full results and scripts once I've completed >the tests. Great. How about soliciting bit-bucket addresses from various places around the 'net? I could donate a few. Or is it not important for your tests that the recipients be distributed? -Dave
Re: news: redhat switches to postfix + mailman
>> ... This migration will not only address >> performace issues that have arisen due to the number of lists/members on Red >> Hat lists, but also highly improve ease of use for list members. They don't mention whether their performance issues were Smartlist or qmail related. If they have evidence that Postfix is faster than qmail at serving Mailman lists, I'd sure like to see it. Smartlist vs. Mailman is a no-brainer. Mailman vs. ezmlm is far more interesting. Mailman is prettier, with its fancy web interface. But ezmlm has automatic VERP-based bounce handling and doesn't require a web server or the use of a web interface. I'd like to know if they decided against ezmlm primarily because of Mailman's web interface. Or perhaps they just decided to switch to Postfix and Mailman was the best list manager available. -Dave
Re: Problems with virtual domains
Nicklas af Ekenstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My /var/qmail/controls/virtualdomain looks like this: > >fett.org:nille-fett >nille.org:nille-nille > >In ~nille/ I have the following files: >.qmail-fett-default >.qmail-nille-default > >The both contain this line: >nille > >I have also set rcpthosts & locals so that mail to these domains are accepted. Oops. Take them out of locals. -Dave
Re: Double Forwarding
"Neil D. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have a little problem with creating a double alias. The situation is >the following: I have a mail server running qmail, which holds normal >mail boxes for POP3 clients, it also holds virtual domains which get >forwarded to local mail boxes for POP3 clients and it also has mail >queue´s for domains. What do you mean by "mail queues for domains"? >The problem is that one of my clients wants to have >redirected his email address to a) his mail box & b) his mail queue. You mean he wants to file a copy in his mailbox and forward another copy elsewhere? That's easy: just put two lines in his .qmail file: one for the mailbox and another for the forward. >The >local email addresses would be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and his mail queue would >be "@domain.es" for example. He wants me to have "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" go to >his mail queue and also go to his "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I created a file >in the home directory for the mail queue called ".qmail-user". Inside >this file I have placed "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]", so this part works. Right >now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail queue but >goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so that it also >goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the >".qmail-user" file because it would loop. Any ideas as to what I can do Yow, my head hurts. I can't figure out what you're talking about. You need to identify: 1) the local user's username 2) the local system's domain name 3) the virtual domain name 4) the virtual username 5) the remote address to which you want the message copied Or give another example with real domain names and user names and identify which are real/local and which are virtual. -Dave
Re: Mails not bouncing for virtual domains
Ruchir Chandra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have Virtual domains and locals running on my qmail server. For the >domains hosted in locals, any incoming mail to a wrongly spelled ID gets >bounced immediately to the sender. Right. >In case of domains under virtualdomains file the incoming mail for the >wrongly spelled user doesn't bounce back, Then you must have a catch-all .qmail file for the virtual domain. What do you have in control/virtualdomains, what .qmail files to you have for the domain, and what do they contain? >instead the qmail takes it as an >remote user and put it to Relay mail server. Since that domain is hosted >from the same qmail server the mail comes back, this happens 25 times and >then a error message is posted too many hops and then the mail bounce back. Copies of log entries or a complete copy of one of the bounce messages would be instrumental in analyzing this problem. -Dave
Re: forwarding to another host
Jochen E. Führing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How can I do forwarding to another host ? I have setup several >virtualdomains and now all the mail for the domain example.com should >be redirected to host.mydomain.com. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do since you mention virtual domains, but if example.com is not a virtual domain, you can put the following in control/smtproutes: example.com:[IP address of host.mydomain.com] .example.com:[IP address of host.mydomain.com] If example.com *is* virtual, then you'll need to put something in the -default .qmail file for the domain to forward the mail to the appropriate address. Perhaps if you describe more clearly what you're trying to achieve, we can provide better assistance. -Dave
Re: Yet another /var/spool/mail questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote: >Well, qmail-local can deliver to maildirs or mboxes anywhere, but >there's no way to describe a maildir or mbox in a user-dependent way >except by using a path relative to the user's home directory. So >/var/spool/mail/user can be used in users' .qmail files, but not as >the default delivery instruction. You're absolutely correct. I spoke too strongly. -Dave
RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpd&qmail-queue procs
"James Blondin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave Sill wrote: >> In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting >> messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort >> necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it >> was worth--especially considered that 822bis prohibits bare LF's. >> >This basically answers my question. My only other query would be as to >what made allowing messages to contain LFs so troublesome. Any specific >reasons? qmail stores messages in the queue in the standard UNIX format: lines terminated with newlines (LF's). In SMTP, the line terminator is . qmail replaces that with when it writes the message to disk. qmail could have used to terminate lines in the queue files, but that would require converting to on the fly during delivery to files/programs. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >That said, in a case-law country, I can do pretty much whatever I think >is legal to do until he sues me. At that point, the courts decide. > >Most importantly, will he allow full-modification and redistribution >with a new name (GPL style). IE, forking. It's clear from http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html that that would be against his wishes without his prior approval. Rest assured that Dan is willing to engage in a legal battle. Consider Bernstein v. Justice. -Dave
Re: Yet another /var/spool/mail questions
"David Bouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Everything works nicely, but I would like to have all mail be delivered in >the the /var/spool/mail directory instead of $HOME/$USER/Mailbox.. > >I read the INSTALL files, but I can't figure out something.. > >You run the command 'qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail' to deliver to >Mailbox file >When I read the documentation what you need to change in order to get the >delivery in your /va/spool directory they tell you, you need to use Procmail >(or binmail) to deliver your mail to /var/spool/mail.. > >Is this correct? Yes. The qmail delivery agent *only* delivers to mailboxes under the user's home directory. >Isn't there a easier way? Nope. This is intentionally "hard" to do with qmail because it's inferior to storing them in the user's home directory. The central mail spool is security nightmare. -Dave
RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpd&qmail-queue procs
"James Blondin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The answer you gave was useful, Dave, but although I didn't realize it at >first, my question is really relating to the RFCs more than to qmail's >implementation. It's just that qmail's implementation of it led me to >asking the question. In that case, qmail is not strictly RFC822 compliant in rejecting messages with bare linefeeds. Apparently Dan felt that the effort necessary to allow messages to contain LF's was more trouble than it was worth--especially considered that 822bis prohibits bare LF's. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license >agreement before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is >and/or where the license is embedded in C source files ... qmail is copyrighted by DJB. You have no rights to copy or use it other than those he provides you, which are outlined in his pages. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#license -Dave
Re: void main (no, not a long one)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) wrote: >Theoretically, BIND's noncompliance with standards is wrong. In >practice, it interoperates with most of the world (i.e., itself) just >fine. But I care. I'll care about "void main" when it causes me problems. Until then, I've got real problems to worry about. -Dave
Re: void main (no, not a long one)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break >void main(), I will happily advise everyone to use a different >compiler" engenders any trust in someone's ability to write C code. The proof of Dan's pudding is in the eating. Theoretically, "void main" is wrong. In practice, it works just fine. Personally, I could not care less. Please stop trying to make mountains out of old, dead molehills. If you have a serious, practical problem, we'll be glad to help. -Dave
Re: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpd&qmail-queue procs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation, >is probably the original question. Probably? If you don't know, why bother guessing? I answered the question I thought was asked. If the person who asked the question isn't satisfied with that answer, he can say so. -Dave
Re: log connections using tcpserver?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enrique Vadillo) wrote: >I'm using qmail 1.03, i'd like to log every IP connection to my qmail >smtp server, i've noticed that tcpserver is not logging this info for now, >my tcpserver runs like follows: > >tcpserver -R -c 100 -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 7170 -g 1100 0 smtp >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \ >2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 & > >Any suggestions so i can log IP connections too? The -v should cause connections to be logged. Try putting it first, e.g.: tcpserver -v -R ... -Dave
Re: Qmail 1.03
"Bob Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The questoin is I want to add the new domain righ now so that users will be >able to collect mail sent to either domain to make the transiction easier. >Do I just add the new domain in the same locations as the old domain under >the /var/qmail/control files? to allow mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] to show up in the same mailbox?. Yes, add the new domain to control/rcpthosts and control/locals. -Dave
RE: Solaris / DoS / Broken bare LF mailers / thousands of qmail-smtpd&qmail-queue procs
"James Blondin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The question I have is, and >excuse my ignorance if it's something silly: why not just accept the bare >linefeeds? From what I can understand in RFC822, there's nothing wrong >with bare linefeeds in the body of the messages as long as the headers >have all the right CRLFs. From looking through qmail archives and reading >a few webpages, all I can find is some reference to the fact that you >shouldn't have bare linefeeds after the smtpd process. Anyone have any >more specifics about this? Is it to protect mailers that don't know how >to interpret bare linefeeds? Or something integral to the MTA? The problem is simple. If a message contains a bare linefeed, qmail will convert it to a premature end-of-line if it resends the message. E.g.: This message consists of one line\012with an embedded linefeed. Will become: This message consists of one line with an embedded linefeed. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Incidentally, is there a discussion in the past that I've missed about 'void >main' declarations? :-) Yes. A quick search of the archives for "void main" yields: http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg01898.html -Dave
Re: bounce management
Thomas Duterme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've looked at VERPS and it looks pretty good for being able to handle >bounces and guaranteeing correct mail addresses, but this still doesn't >address the issue of automated bounce handlers. More to the point: I'm >trying to find out what rules these automated bounce handlers follow to >determine: delete address, try again, no action, etc. Any ideas? Look at what ezmlm does. -Dave
Re: more forced queueing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Ok, I have been digging and digging, but to no avail as of yet. How >can I force qmail to arbitrarily queue /all/ outgoing mail and >deliver nothing until I "flip the switch" back, so to speak. To stop delivery, set concurrencyremote and concurrencylocal to 0, restart qmail. To re-enable delivery, set them back to the desired values. >Also, >on the original subject, is there perhaps a way to make qmail retry >sending messages rejected by the next server in line several times a >la deferred mail? No. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Microsoft ended up with good software at some point in time ... best of its >class even ... then stopped making it better. For a second there I thought you were serious. Ha, ha. Good one. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Mark Mentovai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I use "should" in the same manner that it is used in the documents which >define the very standards and practices over which we are arguing. In order >to be a good 'net neighbor, an MTA (note that I am not singling any MTA out >here) should not open 25 SMTP connections to the same host to transfer the >same message specifying a different destination address each time when it >can just as easily open a single connection and specify 25 destination >addresses. And which RFC says that? What is the universal "maximum simultaneous SMTP connections" constant? It seems odd not to allow more capable systems to use more connections to speed the flow of mail. Imagine if AOL could only keep one (or ten or 100) SMTP connection(s) open to Earthlink/Mindspring. >Is it as fast as possible? In the situation above, what I suggest should >happen is actually faster and makes better use of network resources than >qmail's current implementation. You *are* familiar with the concept of latency and aware of the number of round trips that SMTP requires? >I use qmail because it meets most of my needs better than anything else I've >seen or used. That doesn't mean I have to accept everything that it does as >the best possible implementation given current standards and practices. If >we all were to do that, very little progress would be made. Never assume >that there is no room for improvement. Hah. It is DJB's ability to see past the limitations of existing practices that led to the quantum performance improvements in qmail. And that's nothing compared to the improvements possible with the IM2000 infrastructure he proposed here yesterday. qmail 1.x is not going to change. Dan's already thought more about this issue for qmail 2.x than all of us combined, so we should probably wait and see what it does before we go off half cocked. And for really fundamental improvements to the e-mail infrastructure, IM2000 is the place to direct your efforts. >Am I really the only one that feels this way? No, Wieste Venema agrees with you. >Does nobody else agree with me or recognize my concerns? I'm sure you're not alone, but as someone who's lived with qmail for five years, I have to say that the periodic Chicken Little cries that the sky is falling simply have no basis in reality. If the single-RCPT issue is a make-or-break for you, use Postfix instead. It's pretty darned good, too. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Mark Mentovai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Why not? You can have your cake and eat it too. Efficient network >utilization doesn't mean delayed or slow delivery. Say you have 100 different messages to deliver to various users at AOL. Which will be faster: 1) Opening one connection to a single AOL MX and feeding them through single-file, or 2) Opening N connections to M AOL MX's and feeding one message to each? Answer: 2 Now say you have one message to deliver to 5000 recipients at various locations. Which will be faster: 1) Sorting the list by MX or domain name, opening a single connection to each, and feeding one or more messages through single-file, or 2) Opening N connections to N recipient's MX's, delivering one message through each connection? Answer: 2 >When an MTA receives a message that should be sent out remotely, it should >determine, in order of preference, which remote hosts are candidates for >relaying the message. It should then attempt delivery to the >best-preference host it can find, unless a certain number of active SMTP >sessions to that host are already open. There's a lot of up-front DNS lookup overhead there. Even Postfix, which tries to be neighborly, only sorts by FQDN. >(This number can be one, or it can >be something else small in the interests of allowing for parallel delivery. >It should not be unlimited.) If there are already too many active SMTP >sessions to the remote host, the message should wait until one of those >sessions has finished transferring a message. Instead of closing the SMTP >session, the sender would then transfer the new, waiting message. When a >new message hits the queue and a delivery is attempted, any other messages >in the queue waiting to be delivered to the same host should also be sent >across the same session, or set of sessions. That's ten times as complicated as qmail's one-qmail-remote-per-delivery method. If you can write such a complex beast as correctly, reliably, efficiently, and securely as qmail-rspawn/qmail-remote, by all means, do so. I will bow to your greatness as I do to DJB's. >An MTA should not split the same message up into multiple messages when >transferring them beyond reason. Although RFC 821 recommends that an SMTP >server implementation place no arbitrary limitation on the number of >recipients per message, it mandates that mail servers must be able to >process up to 100 recipients. If an MTA receives a message with 100 >recipients with the same MX, there is no reason to transfer the message to >the remote mail exchanger 100 times. One good reason: VERP. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
"Frank Tegtmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If VERPs are used you have different senders. Different *envelope* senders, yes: that's how VERP works. But the originator is one entity (a user or a mail list handler). >So bundling receivers of >the same message at one host is a non issue at all (at least with SMTP). Assume you have one message sent to many recipients on a single host. With VERP, since the envelope return path contains the recipient's encoded address, each message *much* be delivered separately. Without VERP, the message can be sent once with multiple RCPT's. -Dave
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Petr Novotny wrote: >> >> This horse has been beaten to death. What do you mean by >> "should"? And why "limited number"? > >To be friendly to your neighbours ... Ah... And are your HTTP, FTP, etc. clients and servers also "friendly to your neighbours"? Or do they do their job as quickly as they can? And are you providing services to your neighbors or your users? >> Of course, your MTA might have different priorities. Nobody >> coerced you into using qmail, right? > >No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't >have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or >not, Of course it does. >so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while we're at it? Not mine, thank you. >There's nothing wrong with using intelligent queuing to reorder messages and >reduce session #'s. "wrong"? No, of course not. Unless you're trying to do VERP's or deliver messages as quickly as possible. And you don't mind the additional complexity and the bugs--security and otherwise--that come with it. >If just getting the mail out FAST is all that matters, >fine. But that's NOT all that matters. It's not *all* that matters. It's also important to do it reliably, securely, and RFC-legally. Thankfully, qmail accomplishes this. -Dave
RE: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Mark Mentovai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >qmail-send's behavior for remote deliveries (which includes how it deals >with qmail-rspawn and qmail-remote) is something that's bothered me for a >while. The system really should manage remote deliveries better. At >present, we have one SMTP connection per remote address. This should at >least be modified to give one SMTP connection for each remote mail server >that needs to be contacted for any given message. The ideal case would >allow for a limited number of SMTP connections (to allow for parallel >delivery) to any remote host at any given time, and the capability to >transfer multiple messages in a single SMTP session. What you want, apparently, is Postfix. See www.postfix.org. >There's a difference between being the target of a denial-of-service attack >and being involved in one as a tool used by an attacker. As participants on >the public Internet, we have to be willing to acknowledge our own >susceptibility to being targets, and take measures to handle them as our >personal or organizational requirements dictate. We must not be willing to >promote abusive activities by knowingly supporting, directly or indirectly, >bad practices. Do you have any evidence that qmail has been used in this manner? If so, present it. Otherwise, this is a tempest in a teapot. -Dave
Re: Slow Slow Mail Delivery, Not Trigger Permissions
"Julian Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ok so you guys want me to attach my log or something? If you're sure that's >what you need I would be more than happy. Let me know I'll send it to your >private boxes. No, I don't want a copy of your entire mail log. If you can't post the last 30 lines or so to the list, I guess you'll have to investigate other options like hiring a consultant, figuring it out yourself, or switching to another MTA. -Dave
RE: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
This topic has been beaten to death on the list at various times in the past. Please go read: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#multi-rcpt Before you post another message in this thread. -Dave
Re: Slow Slow Mail Delivery, Not Trigger Permissions
"Julian Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ok, here's my configuration. If anyone can tell me why I have slow mail >delivery, I checked the Trigger permissions and they are supposedly fine. >Any insight would be so greatly appreciated. > >Pentium III 550 >256 Megs of Ram >FreeBSD 3.3 >Rackspace.Com Network (Multiple OC3 - Peering on several backbones) > >Top reports the system as being 97.3% Idle. >Qmail-Qstat reports : > >Messages In Queue: 44 >Message in Queue but notyet preprocessed: 0 > >And the number does not drop too quickly. In fact, it takes several hours >for mail to clear out. That's all good information, but I asked for: >> 1) hardware configuration >> 2) software configuration (OS, other apps) >> 3) network configuration >> 4) output of qmail-showctl, qmail-qstat, vmstat, iostat, top >> 5) tail of qmail-send log Why did you stop at #3? -Dave
Re: Maildir support for emacs vm
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Not to start a mailer holy war, Uh oh. >but you might want to try Mutt -- it's >MIME support is excellent, along with pgp/gpg support, and total >configurability. Try www.mutt.org. Mutt is a fine mailer. Really. I use it at home and occasionally at work, but its MIME support doesn't compare to VM's: it can't display in-line images or HTML/rich-text because it's character-based. -Dave
Re: tcpserver and NAT
Lars Brandi Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have tried to telnet to port 25 ( telnet 10.1.x.x 25 ) locally and it >works fine. I have send and recived mails locally and it works out fine. >I have send mails outside my net and it works fine. But to recieve mails >from outside isn't working. I have tried to telnet to port 25 from >outside and there was no response ( telnet www.my.dk 25 ). Sounds like your router isn't sending incoming port 25 connections to your qmail system. This is a NAT/router problem. -Dave
Re: Slow Slow Mail Delivery, Not Trigger Permissions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Anyone know why mail delivery could be extremely slow? 1) trigger probs 2) server is busy doing other stuff 3) network probs 4) insufficient hardware (memory, CPU, disk bandwidth) 5) poor connectivity >My trigger file is setup correctly and I am looking for some really >really helpful answers, soon *gulp* We'll need lots more data to be able to diagnose this. E.g.: 1) hardware configuration 2) software configuration (OS, other apps) 3) network configuration 4) output of qmail-showctl, qmail-qstat, vmstat, iostat, top 5) tail of qmail-send log -Dave
Re: forced queeuing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Does anyone know if there is a way to force qmail to queue mail rather than >bouncing it? No need. It does that automatically. >i.e., qmail is set to relay all mail to a different mail server. >But then the mail server process on the second machine goes down, so >the machine reponds but refuses smtp connections. Qmail begins >bouncing all incoming mail. If the machine doesn't respond, the message is deferred (held in the queue) and the following is logged: delivery 3426: deferral: Sorry,_I_wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/ If your messages are bouncing, it means the remote end is doing something more than not accepting connections. How about posting one of the bounces and relevant log clippings? -Dave
Re: the bounce bounced!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >cut-- >Hi. This is the maildirbounce program at terramenta.de. >I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce bounced! > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >195.20.224.204 said: 503 Valid RCPT TO must precede DATA > >--- Below this line is the original bounce. > >Return-Path: <> >Received: (qmail 2419 invoked for bounce); 20 Jul 2000 16:31:09 - >cut-- What is "maildirbounce"? It seems to be not speaking proper SMTP. At least, 195.20.224.204 is claiming that it sent a DATA comamnd before a RCPT command, which is seriously wrong. Is this problem repeatable? -Dave
Re: help pls
Kimberly Vher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >i set up a virtual domain then got this error > >ul 20 15:00:59 tunayna qmail: 964076459.040630 delivery 50: failure: >This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/ >Jul 20 15:00:59 tunayna qmail: 964076459.041007 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 >Jul 20 15:00:59 tunayna qmail: 964076459.141130 bounce msg 942563 qp 712 > >what is my problem here? Insufficient data. *How* did you set up the virtual domain? You've obviously made a mistake, but until we see what you did, we can't tell what it was. -Dave
Re: qmail-inject problem
"William D. Wilmoth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am getting the following error when trying to mail from any user >without root access: > >qmail-inject: fatal: read error > >I am pretty sure that this is a permissions issue, but where??? Run qmail-inject via a system call tracer (strace/truss/par/etc.) to where it's failing. -Dave
Re: Please help me out on this
"Hitesh Thakkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >1. I have IBM's WEBSPHERE with EJB and servelts in JAVA applets developed in >JDK 1.1.6. I can use JAVA MAIL API to write mail message for specific users >as per the logic in java scripts. I am stuck with how can invoke QMAIL so >that, it delivers a load of 100 to 1000 mail receipents as a time. Assuming the message to all recipients is identical, you could list the recipients in a .qmail file and send the message once to the controlling address. Or you could list them in the To/CC/BCC header fields and inject via "sendmail -f". >2. It may be possible to start executing some scripts or commands moment the >specific mail address is received by QMAIL. Sure, put the scripts/commands in a .qmail file. >Sy [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the mail address will be used by application >so that, moment it is received it will take the necessary values from mail >content and will start application to update it as new bid value in purchase >order database. > >So,qmail has to remove domain address part from email address of receipent >and take the user name part i.e. alert-newpo. Start the action of say java >Main.update_bidvalue_po.class script/program which will insert new value as >per the mail only after confirming that, sender e-mail address is valid. > >Please can you help me with this kind of functionality that can be used >using Qmail. I come to know that, it is possible in SENDMAIL using aliases >but that is very combersome and I don't want to use sendmail just for that. What you describe sounds like it'd be straightforward to accomplish via a .qmail file, but I'd have to see a more concrete example to be sure. -Dave
Re: | preline procmail
"Devinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have added | preline procmail in my ~user/.qmail file >When the the new mail arrives procmail is spawned and the mail is processed >and sento the appropriate folder >However everyone who has logged into the machine get a warning.. >*** >ourserv procmail[21174]: Couldn't rename bogus "/var/spool/mail/anand" into >"/var/spool/mail/BOGUS.Y5eB" >*** >Now why is this happening.. As i can make out this is a typical sendmail >response to a ln in /var/spool/mail/user.. How do i disable this .. We are >using procmail v3.11pre7. No, this has nothing to do with sendmail. It's a procmail thing. I think it has something to do with locking, but I'm not sure. Personally, I don't believe in the "links in /var/spool/mail" thing. Better to convince the mailer to look for the mailbox where it really lives. But if you really want to fix this problem, contact a procmail expert. -Dave
Re: several mail domains on one machine
Thomas Haberland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sample: > mail.one.com(users A, B, C) > mail.two.com(users D, E, F) > mail.three.de (users G, H and A, D) > >Of course a mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is not allowed, and so on. Any mail domai >has it own user base. > >Qmail is installed and seems to run fine. But no matter what I tried I ca >send mail to user A in any configured domain, not only to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make two or all three of the domains virtual. Right now, you're trating them all as local (in control/locals) so they share the same username space. If you, for example, remove mail.two.com from locals (but leave it in rcphosts) and add line to control/virtualdomains like: mail.two.com:alias-two Then ~alias/.qmail-two-d, ~alias/.qmail-two-e, ~alias/.qmail-two-f, etc. can be used to file or redirect mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. -Dave
Re: Defining <> as local and not remote
Robert Spraggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I was thinking( I know a dangerous concept :-) ) would putting the >following in the tcp.smtp.cbd file be as effective: >127.0.0.1:allow >199.175.103.1:allow <--- the IP of the mail host ---> > >That would make sure that only local messages would be delivered, right? Assuming you really meant tcp.smtp, that you include a ":deny" line at the end, and that you don't want *any* remote systems to contact the mail host via SMTP, yes. -Dave
Re: Multilog problem
Audouy Jérôme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >i try to install Qmail, but i have a problem when i launch the script >svscan before launching qmail > >Multilog: ...can't acces to the directories /var/log/qmail/qmail-send >Multilog: ...can't acces to the directories /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd > >this error print infinite messages on the term ... and it is'nt pretty to >read ;) > >i haven't forget the qmail log directory with the righ access: > >chown qmaill /var/log/qmail >chown qmaill /var/log/qmail/* Access to /var/log/qmail/qmail-send requires more than just the correct owner. The mode on the directory has to be right, as does the mode of all of the parent directories. Do: ls -ld / /var /var/log /var/log/qmail /var/log/qmail/* and post the results. -Dave
Re: Mail to user@localhost.mydomain.com
Ryan Hayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi, I'm using qmail 1.03 on a Debian 2.1 system with the >vchkpw/vpopmail programs. Whenever I try to send mail to >user@localhost, qmail interprets this as [EMAIL PROTECTED], >which is not in the DNS at all. Is there a way to fix this? Don't send mail to user@localhost. :-) Instead, send to "user" and let qmail-inject supply the defaulthost/defaultdomain. >For reference, qmail-showctl: Cool. Someone actually supplied sufficient data to answer their question. :-) -Dave
Re: Autorespond & Forward Problem
wolfgang zeikat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >|/var/qmail/alias/autorespond 1 100 /var/tmp/autor.txt >/var/tmp/autorespond/no-mailbox > >(that is one line, no matter how your email client wrapped it here) Actually, your e-mail client wrapped it. Mine doesn't wrap, and it came in on two lines. -Dave
Re: Users all of a sudden have to download all email from server???
Dan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have salesmen that connect to my server via dialup. They are using >MS Outlook 97. Yes, I know its not very good, but does what we need it >to do. > >I have their accounts setup to not delete their email from the >server. How? >Now all of a sudden, they are downloading all of their e-mail, as if >this was the first time they ever accessed their accounts from their >boxes. I can't find anything fishy in log files other than their >messages listed as New. Anyone have any ideas as to what might be >happening? Insufficient data. What server are they accessing to retrieve their mail? qmail-pop3d? Some other POP3 daemon? An IMAP daemon? -Dave
Re: Qmail speed
"Erik Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've been running Qmail now for a couple of years without incident and >without any real problems. But I was wondering what makes Qmail faster than >most mailers. Can someone enlighten me on the various reasons. Thanks in >advance. That's a good question. Basically, qmail is fast because it was designed to be fast and because the code was written by a talented programmer. Specifically, qmail blasts mail out quickly because: 1) Each recipient of a message gets its own qmail-remote, so qmail-rspawn doesn't have to spend lots of time looking up MX's, sorting, combining, etc. 2) Up to concurrencyremote qmail-remotes run simultaneously, unlike Sendmail which delivers to one recipient at a time. 3) All of the qmail processes are small, so they use up less memory, resulting in less swapping and paging. 4) qmail's queue is split into multiple directories to minimize the penalty of linear directory searches. For incoming mail, qmail is less dramatically faster than other MTA's because there's less room for improvement. Of course, the small processes and queue splitting help. qmail 2.0 promises to raise the bar with its "zeroseek" queue. See ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/future.html for more information. -Dave
Re: No log being generated by Qmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >We just installed a new qmail server with virtual domains... and now to our >surprise no logs files are being generated ( in /var/log/qmail). If that's where you've configured qmail to log, then something's wrong with your configuration. Post your qmail-send/run and qmail-send/log/run scripts. >Also In /var/log/qmail-smtpd the log file says... TCP server fatal >error..unable to bind to address.. address already in use That means tcpserver is trying to listen to port 25 but something else (either another tcpserver or inetd or sendmail or ...) is already doing that. Make sure sendmail isn't running. >Please note that however all the mails are working perfectly fine and we >are able to send emails to our users and also to the internet including >the Virtual domains that we had setup... Are you receiving mail *from* the Internet? Do the headers show that qmail is processing them? -Dave
Re: How to make the local address appears in FROM: rather than the system user address using qmail ???
Lavender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >When I sent mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], then the mail will be in Maildir-mirza. >My problem is that when I replied, the addr in FROM: is [EMAIL PROTECTED] >instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it possible to make [EMAIL PROTECTED] appears >instead ??? Sure. You can use anything whatsoever in the From field. Normally, this is done by configuring your mailer to use the desired address. With locally-injected mail (versus port 25-injected mail) you can use various environment variables to override the mailer's settings. See "man qmail-inject" or: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#QMAILUSER http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#QMAILHOST -Dave
Re: Quota Limit
Mark Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I would like to ask how to set up a quota limit in qmail for >each user or any other alternative to set up a quota for each mail user. You can, of course, use filesystem quotas to limit user mailboxes. If you need a mailbox quota specifically, look on www.qmail.org for patches or add-ons. -Dave
Re: msglog@localhost ?
martin langhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had to quickly recover from a full server crash, and, together >with many things, I've had to re-contrsuct my qmail control files from >scratch. I forgot to change 'me' and had many bounces from >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and that prompted a question ... does qmail >keep all sent msgs there? what is exaclty the purpouse of this msglog@x? I think CC'ing "msglog" is a feature of one the qmail RPM's. The purpose is to allow you to log information from each message that passes through the system--up to and including the entire message. See "man dot-qmail" for tips on constructing an appropriate ~alias/.qmail-msglog. -Dave
Re: qmail supervise/tcpserver
kapil sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am running a qmail server under supervise. I don't know the differnce >between running a server in supervise or through tcpserver. "supervise" (from daemontools) watches/controls a process. "tcpserver" (from ucspi-tcp) listens to a port and passes connections to a daemon. >Which one is best choice You're essentially comparing a fruit with a wristwatch. Neither is "better". The fruit is better at satisfying hunger, and the wristwatch is better at keeping time. >and what is the use of running smtp/pop3 service in >supervise mode. To allow the service to be monitored, manually started and stopped, and automatically restarted, if necessary. -Dave
Re: Cluster Awareness of qmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Is qmail a cluster aware application. How can we create cluster on our >system using qmail on Red Hat Linux 5.2 or 6.2 "Cluster aware"? That's a new one to me. If I had a cluster of systems, I'd designate one to be the mailhub and install a normal qmail on it. The rest of the nodes would be null clients; forwarding all outgoing mail to the mailhub. Incoming mail to all nodes would be redirected to the mailhub via MX records. For reading, I'd deliver everything to maildirs on the mailhub. I'd run POP and/or IMAP for remote access, and/or NFS-mount user home dirs on the nodes for "local" access. If you require lots of redundancy, each node can be a full mailhub and MX backup for all the other nodes provided you NFS-share user home dirs among all nodes. Is that cluster awareness? -Dave
Re: deferral: Unable_to_switch_to_/home/mailhome/s/simonyjh:_access_denied._(#4.3.0)/
spoon fork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Pardon my ignorance, but I get this: > >[root@www din91]# ls -ld / /home /home/mailhome /home/mailhome/d >/home/mailhome/d/din91 > 4 drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Jul 5 05:56 // > 4 drwxr-xr-x 27 root root 4096 Jul 11 17:39 /home/ > 4 drwx-- 40 aliasnofiles 4096 Jul 11 17:47 >/home/mailhome/ > 4 drwx-- 133 aliasnofiles 4096 Apr 3 04:00 >/home/mailhome/d/ > 4 drwx--3 aliasnofiles 4096 Nov 18 1999 >/home/mailhome/d/din91/ Are you using a virtual user set-up? Is "din91" listed in the /etc/passwd? How is mail getting to /home/mailhome/d/din91? >From the error message and the ls output above, it seems that delivery is *not* occuring as user "alias", which is the only user with access to that directory. -Dave
Re: speeding up smtp?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Does anyone have an idea on how to spead up the smtp side of qmail?? Allow more connections using the "-c N" option, where N is the maximum number of simultaneous connections allowed. THe default is 40. What symptoms are you seeing that lead you to believe that qmail-smtpd is a bottleneck? -Dave
Re: deferral: Unable_to_switch_to_/home/mailhome/s/simonyjh:_access_denied._(#4.3.0)/
spoon fork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Jul 11 11:42:31 www qmail: 963286951.576043 delivery 8: deferral: >Unable_to_switch_to_/home/mailhome/d/din91:_access_denied._(#4.3.0)/ What does: ls -ld / /home /home/mailhome /home/mailhome/d /home/mailhome/d/din91 show? -Dave
Re: problems with qmail...
"Filip Balas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >@40003969b54d169f8eac tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to >read /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb: file does not exist > >the result is that I can't connect to the >qmail server on port 25. I'm wondering >where my tcp.smtp.cdb file wondered off to, No idea. Perhaps you neglected to create it? >where I can get a replacement and, Re-run the "qmail cdb" command. >if I'm lucky, >an explanation of what that file is for ? Its used to allow selected hosts to use your system as a relay. Here's the relevant piece of the LWQ installation instructions: Allow the local host to inject mail via SMTP: echo '127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""' >>/etc/tcp.smtp /usr/local/sbin/qmail cdb -Dave
Re: Limiting Bandwidth Usage
"Abraham T. Rooter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >While on my glorious journey to work today, I thought about all of >the domains I host on my machines. Is there any way to cap the >bandwidth used by them ? qmail itself has no bandwidth limiting features other than indirectly via concurrencyremote. -Dave
Re: tcpserver launching more than once?
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm launching tcpserver for my POP service from /var/qmail/rc, which looks >like this: > >--- > >#!/bin/sh > ># Using splogger to send the log through syslog. ># Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default. > >exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ >qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail & > ># Starts up qmail-smtpd ># Currently no logging. Will be fixed. > >/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -q -p -x /etc/smtprules/tcp.smtp.cdb -u79 -g1003 0 smtp \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 & > ># Starts up POP3 server > >/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -q -R -u79 -g1003 0 pop3 \ > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup amazhan.bitstream.net \ > /var/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & > >--- > >The odd thing is that I frequently end up with two tcpserver processes >for POP3, both with identical command lines. As you can see, I am not >running svscan or any of the daemontools... Yeah: run svscan and some of the daemontools. :-) Homegrown startup scripts are great for those who can grow their own. Others should use proven scripts like those in LWQ. You could end up with two POP3 tcpservers if your re-ran your script without killing the old one off. -Dave
Re: Qmail not doing much...
"Filip Balas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm new to linux as well as qmail >and I've gone through the basic >installation and the qmail daemons >are running but when I deliver mail >to myself (as suggested by TEST.deliver) >nothing happens. I don't even know >whats wrong because I don't know >where the error log is found, if it is >an error. > >If anyone has any ideas on how to >proceed they would be greatly >appreciated. =) "Life with qmail" is a good start: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html In particular, the troubleshooting section: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#troubleshooting -Dave
Re: supervise lock problem on startup/install
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >[root@samurai /root]# /var/qmail/rc: default: command not found Oops, you never mentioned that little detail. :-) Your rc script is wrong. -Dave
Re: supervise lock problem on startup/install
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >/var/qmail/supervise: >total 8 >drwxrwxrwx4 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 3 00:42 qmail-send >drwxrwxrwx4 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 3 00:42 qmail-smtpd > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send: >total 12 >drwxrwxrwx3 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 3 00:42 log >-rwxr-xr-x1 qmaill nofiles29 Jul 2 23:20 run >drwxrwxrwx2 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 7 10:08 supervise > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log: >total 8 >-rwxr-xr-x1 qmaill nofiles88 Jul 5 21:51 run >drwxrwxrwx2 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 5 21:55 supervise > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/supervise: >total 4 >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 control >-rwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 lock >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 ok >-rw-r--r--1 qmaill nofiles18 Jul 5 21:55 status > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/supervise: >total 4 >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 6 11:55 control >-rwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 4 18:46 lock >-rwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 lock.old >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 ok >-rw-r--r--1 root root 18 Jul 7 10:08 status > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd: >total 12 >drwxrwxrwx3 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 3 00:42 log >-rwxr-xr-x1 qmaill nofiles 230 Jul 6 14:08 run >drwxrwxrwx2 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 7 10:08 supervise > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log: >total 8 >-rwxr-xr-x1 qmaill nofiles94 Jul 5 21:52 run >drwxrwxrwx2 qmaill nofiles 4096 Jul 5 21:55 supervise > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/log/supervise: >total 4 >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 control >-rwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 lock >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 ok >-rw-r--r--1 qmaill nofiles18 Jul 5 21:55 status > >/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/supervise: >total 4 >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 6 11:55 control >-rwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 lock >prwxrwxrwx1 qmaill nofiles 0 Jul 3 00:42 ok >-rw-r--r--1 root root 18 Jul 7 10:08 status Owners/groups/modes are a mess, but I don't think that's your problem. Kill off all the processes, then do: rm -r /var/qmail/supervise/*/supervise rm -r /var/qmail/supervise/*/log/supervise chown -R root:qmail /var/qmail/supervise chmod -R go-w /var/qmail/supervise Then run "qmail start" again. Everything else looks OK. If that fails, post the output of: ps -ef|egrep 'qmail|supervise|sv|log' qmail stat Before you clean anything up. -Dave
Re: mail filtering with splogger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >we are designing webmail using qmail as our mail server , we want to >give users a facility to create folders under their directory , >and filter incoming mails based on from address and then they can choose >to get their mails from specific from address to specific folder they have >created under their home directory , > > how can i do this with qmail , i am not using procmail but using >splogger for delievering mails to users maildirs You're confused. splogger is a logger, not a delivery agent. -Dave
Re: supervise lock problem on startup/install
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Still having the service lock problem -- thanks Dave, I've followed >your suggestions here: > >>The general approach to fixing this problem is: >> >> 1) Stop all qmail-related processes including svscan, supervises, >> anything running as a "qmail" user, qmail-send, multilogs, >> etc. *Everything*. > >ps -a shows no qmail related services running prior to sending the >start command. If I let the error loop in one term window I see >svscan and TWO service entries (with one or both >depending on how quickly I run ps). I looked for clues as to the >origin of the two instances, but couldn't find anything obvious. You mean "supervise"? You should see four: one each for qmail-send, qmail-smtpd, and two for "log"--the logs associated with them. >> 2) Double check directory names/owners/groups/modes and the >> contents of "run" scripts against LWQ. Check for extraneous >>ampersands (&) at the ends of lines. > >I have probably messed this up from standard... I recursively set >ownership of /var/qmail/supervise and its subdirectories to >qmaill.nofiles. The directories I opened up to 777. I reran the chmod >commands in LWQ on the run files in those directories setting >them to 755. I have no idea whether these changes would make >my problem worse, but the results have not changed... Post the output of the following: ls -lR /var/qmail/supervise cat /var/qmail/supervise/*/run cat /var/qmail/supervise/*/log/run -Dave
Re: CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)
Robert Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 01:12:42PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: >> Claudinei Luis Bianchini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I had applied the patch for this and work very well with BIND. >> >recently, I changed to DNScache and this message came back. >> > >> >where's the problem ?? >> >> Exactly. What makes you think this message indicates a problem on your >> end? > >That exactly was my question about one week ago. How do I know where the >problem is? It's a DNS problem. qmail couldn't resolve a host name, and the resolver said the problem was temporary. Normally, you don't have to do anything except wait for the name server problem to be fixed. If you know for a fact that the name is resolvable, then you might have a problem that demands your attention. But it's not specifically a qmail problem. -Dave
Re: Muchos "warning: trouble opening remote/local"...
Hajime Lucky Okada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"qmail: 962478354.405231 warning: trouble opening local/22/1105816; >will try again later" > >Many massage like this are appearing in the log forever >What is occurring and how to eliminate them? Sounds like your queue is corrupt. Try running qmail-qsanity or queuefix from www.qmail.org. >- >2. What means (#x.x.x) number in the maillog? > >I encounter it sometimes like.. >"delivery 10: deferral: connected_to_aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/" > >What means "(#4.4.2)" and where can I look up them? >From RFC 1893, Enhanced mail system status codes. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1893.txt: 4.X.X Persistent Transient Failure X.4.X Network and Routing Status X.4.2 Bad connection >- >3. About IDENT processing from smtp > >Essentially, qmail smtp daemon is necessary (mandatory) for IDENT >connection? And if I prohibit it, what would happen? No, IDENT isn't mandatory. If you don't run a daemon, that information will be left out of the Received fields of messages that pass through your system. -Dave
Re: temporary failure in qmail-lspawn
"Darren Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I recently changed IP addresses on all of our Linux boxex. I also >had to change the 2 Nameserver Names and IP addresses. That doesn't sound like something that would the problems you're seeing. >962594383.506605 starting delivery 3503: msg 55319 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] >962594383.506837 status: local 4/10 remote 0/20 >962594387.568616 delivery 3503: deferral: Temporary_failure_in_qmail-lspawn./ That's usually due to a shortage of some system resource such as memory or file descriptors. >Also, users in the virtual domains cannot log in to their POP >accounts, the just keep getting a password request. No password >seems to work. Has this ever worked, or are you in the process of setting it up? -Dave
Re: Strange Problem with qmail config
"Mitul Limbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My problem is when i send all the users message frm the console mode thru >pine the messages get transferred to the users >./Maildir/ directory >but if i send the same thru my pop box using my isp as my relay server the >mail gets stored in the ./Mailbox of the users.. qmail doesn't treat local and remote injection differently: the same recipient's mail will be delivered the same way regardless of where it comes from. What's your default delivery method? Does the user in question have a .qmail file? What's in it? Post log entries for both deliveries. >Now the second part of the problem is >I m using qmail-pop3d on the pop end.. >but i m getting this error message cant find $HOME/Maildir for the user so >the pollin is not happening for the users.. >i checked out the enviromental variable $Mail which says the users >homedirectory/Maildir/ The MAIL environment variable is irrelevant. Does $HOME/Maildir exist? Is it owned by the user? Is it really a maildir (e.g., created using maildirmake)? -Dave
Re: Changing bounce message
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I *do* like it! I don't want to change it. I'm just trying to come up >with reasonable arguments defending my position. Feel free to change it, but if you do, be careful not to break QSBMF (qmail-send bounce message format), which bounce parsers like those in ezmlm depend upon. See: ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/qsbmf.txt -Dave
Re: Clearing "dead" mail from queues
Barry Dwyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How do I clear the queue of these messages? I don't care if they get >deleted in the process. You have several choices: 1) Do nothing: they'll be purged automatically either by being delivered or bounced. 2) Stop qmail, delete the queue files associated with the messages, restart qmail. 3) "touch" the queue files associated with the messages a week into the past and send qmail-send an ALRM signal. They'll bounce immediately. -Dave
Re: Moving vpopmail users
Charles Boening <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I can get everything working just fine. It's when I try to copy my domains >directory from my current production server that all goes bonkers. No kidding? Bonkers? Bummer... Perhaps if you were more specific about how exactly it went "bonkers" we could help. -Dave
Re: QMAIL delivery delay problem
Peter Mitev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have just installed the QMAIL package (i've done this many times). >It seems to be running KO, except that when a message is delivered to >the queue - nothing happens. QMAIL waits for about 10-20-60 minutes >and then it sends the messages that are in the queue. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#trigger -Dave
Re: Mails vanished when remote2local via fetchmail
Karl Voit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When my fetchmail sends all mails from my provider-server (sbox) to my >> server (tux), the mails don't come to my account. In fact, I don't know, >> where they're delivered to anyway :( That's a fetchmail issue. What's in your .fetchmailrc? Have you looked in alias's mailbox? >> starting delivery 157: msg 57507 to remote vk@localhost "localhost" is remote? What's in control/locals? >... and ALL mails e.g. from this mailinglist aren't accepted too (because >the address of the mailinglist has no alias yet and the default doesn't >work?). First, qmail has to be told that localhost is local. Then you can use ~alias/.qmail-default to catch mail to all addresses that don't match existing users or aliases. -Dave
Re: qmail install question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Upon starting qmail, I get a looping error as svscan attempts to >acquire these two directories, returning this error: > >supervise: fatal: unable to acquire qmail-send/supervise/lock: >temporary failure >supervise: fatal: unable to acuire qmail-smtpd/supervise/lock: >temporary failure > >Can anyone suggest a fix? Or even a little insight into what these >locks accomplish... svscan runs supervise for each "service" in the directory it's scanning. To ensure that only one supervise is supervising a service at a time, supervise tries to acquire a lock by opening supervise/lock exclusively. I can think of several things that could cause this error, including, of course, the fact that another supervise has already acquired the lock. Another would be file/directory owner/mode/existence problems. The general approach to fixing this problem is: 1) Stop all qmail-related processes including svscan, supervises, anything running as a "qmail" user, qmail-send, multilogs, etc. *Everything*. 2) Double check directory names/owners/groups/modes and the contents of "run" scripts against LWQ. Check for extraneous ampersands (&) at the ends of lines. 3) Restart svscan via "qmail start". If the problem doesn't go away, repeat 1 & 2, and re-run 3 with "sh -x /usr/local/sbin/qmail start". Cut and paste the output and post it to the list. -Dave
Re: Bounce questions
"Ian Layton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thank you for all the comments I received about my previous question. > >I am now needing to make a program that will analyses bounced messages from >Qmail and be able to distinguish between hard (permanent bounces) and soft >(temporary) bounces. Is there any standard out there on how to recognize the >difference. Also, I would like this program to execute upon delivery of a >bounce message. I believe it's possible but I'm not sure how. Russ Nelson used to have something called "bounceman" that did that. He's no longer distributing it because ezmlm incorporates similar (but apparently better) functionality. -Dave
Re: CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)
Claudinei Luis Bianchini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I had applied the patch for this and work very well with BIND. >recently, I changed to DNScache and this message came back. > >where's the problem ?? Exactly. What makes you think this message indicates a problem on your end? -Dave
Re: qmailq problem
Steffan Hoeke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 11:41:16AM -0400, Sill, Dave wrote: >> Steffan Hoeke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >What *does* the last number in >> >@4000395b7d5233ba0ecc delivery 123: success: did_1+0+0/ >> >stand for ? >> > >> >The first number is a local delivery >> >The second number is a remote delivery >> >The third number is .. ? >> >> program deliveries > >Could you please elaborate ? >by program do you mean a |preline e.a. in a .qmail file or something >else ? Yeah, .qmail lines starting with a "|". Actually, the first number is *file* deliveries (mbox or maildir) and the second number is *forward* deliveries (lines starting with "&" or [a-zA-z0-9]), which coule be either local or remote. -Dave
Re: qmailq problem
Steffan Hoeke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What *does* the last number in >@4000395b7d5233ba0ecc delivery 123: success: did_1+0+0/ >stand for ? > >The first number is a local delivery >The second number is a remote delivery >The third number is .. ? program deliveries -Dave
Re: URGENT!!! HELP!!! HP-UX fault
"Eldar Imangulov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >my qmail start script runs Ok, but qmail stops. When? Shortly after rebooting? >When I restart qmail deamon manualy it keeps runing. Until you reboot? If so, it sounds like you need to disassociate qmail from the controlling tty, e.g. by "nohup"'ing it: nohup '/var/qmail/bin/qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail &' && echo -n ' qmail' The csh should be doing that automatically, but maybe HP's csh is different. -Dave
Re: Error message - Again
Roberto Samarone Araújo (RSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I don't have any alias ... If a remote host send me an email , the qmail >doesn't put it in Maildir ... it logs the error message : > > delivery 38: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/ Did you check ~alias/Maildir? It's not just used for aliases... -Dave
Re: Queue Problems
"Cedric Revest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >When I issue a /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qstat i get: > >messages in queue: 4 >messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0 > >Straight after I issue a /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread and get: > >nothing at all You've probably got some junk in the queue that'll be cleaned out automatically after a couple days. If you're concerned, look at the files and read INTERNALS. >Also clients have been getting times out when trying to send mail... These problems are probably unrelated. Are you logging errors? What do you see when you telnet to port 25 and manually inject a message? -Dave
Re: Multilog: fatal: the final answer (hopefully)
Steffan Hoeke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 12:21:33PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: >> Steffan Hoeke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 01:55:14AM +0200, clemensF wrote: >> >> > Steffan Hoeke: >> >> >> >> > "Ok, the /var/log/qmail permissions weren't the problem >> >> > /var/qmail/supervise and all in it needed to be owned by qmaill as well ;)" >> >> >> >> why that? >> >No other reason than : Before the permission change qmail start would >> >freak out with unable to change to current directory. When i changed >> >the permissions on /var/qmail/supervise and it's subs to qmaill.qmail >> >it worked like a charm. >> >> The real reason is that multilog runs as user qmaill. >> >> >I know it's not a scientific approach, but i couldn't find anything >> >in lwq about the proper permissions (Dave, if you're reading this >> >;-)) >> >> It's in there: >> >> Then set up the log directories: >> >> mkdir -p /var/log/qmail/smtpd >> chown qmaill /var/log/qmail /var/log/qmail/smtpd > >Nope, this talks about the /var/log/qmail subtree. >I'm talking about the /var/qmail/supervise subtree ;-) Sorry, I read that too fast. You're right: LWQ doesn't set the owner for the supervise directories because everything that accesses them runs as root. I can't explain the errors you saw... -Dave
Re: Sorry newbie question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >But for some reason this install is acting very wierd. I did a "standard" >(if there is such a thing) install of qmail. The standard qmail install is detailed in "INSTALL" in the source tree. Is that what you did? >Everything worked fine up >until the test email. I am using Maildir. When i try to stop/restart/start >qmail i get this message > >"qmailsvc: warning: unable to chdir to /var/qmail/supervise/run: not a >directory" > >why is it trying to chdir to the that dir ?? is that a file for running >/var/qmail/rc ? It's supposed to be. How are you doing things like "stop/restart/start qmail"? Exactly what commands are you entering? If you're running scripts, what do they contain? -Dave
Re: too many files
Kimberly Vher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >im almost finished thanks to all of you guys, but >i noticed that if im using ./Maildir/ qmail creat one file for all the >incoming mail meaning one mail one file. if i have so many users then many >incoming mail for every users meaning i have so many many files in my >system in their home directory right? do i need to worry in filehandle error? Filehandles are only used on open files, so no, you don't have to worry about them with Maildirs. Inodes, on the other hand, are used by all files on disk. If you run out of inodes, you can't create more files--even if the disk has lots of free space. THe only was you can add inodes is by backing up the filesystem, re-newfs/mkfs'ing it with more space for inodes, and restoring from the backup. -Dave
Re: Change hostname & IP Address
Iman Budi Setiawan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have problem with qmail when changing my hostname and IP address. >Please, tell me the steps to set my qmail's configuration (like change the >files in /var/qmail/control directory). 1) stop qmail 2) for all files in /var/qmail/control change old hostname to new hostname 3) restart qmail -Dave
Re: qmailq problem
"°í¿µÈÆ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Two days ago, I killed qmail proceses while it has many queues for >local delivery and system was restarted. > >after that , I see so many qmail-clean proceses running on my system >owned by qmailq. > >and when I run 'qmail-qstat' , it answers more than 27000 queues are >exist. but qmail does not delivery mail queues What Do The Logs Say? (tm) -Dave
Re: /VAR/SPOOL/MAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Reading the docs, i've found that changing the file /var/qmail/rc and adding >the line: > >exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ >qmail-start '|preline procmail' splogger qmail > >it should work. >(Sorry, but i'am a novice with qmail) >Restarting qmail, and trying to post a message for one of my users, the system >continue to send the mails to /home/$USER/Mailbox and not to >var/spool/mail/$USER. >Someone can give me an hand to look at the log (i don't >know how) and resolve the problem. What does "ps -ef | grep qmail-start" show? Does /home/$USER/.qmail or /home/$USER/.qmail-default exist? What do they contain? -Dave
Re: fork:cannot allocate memory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >FORK:CANNOT ALLOCATE MEMORY > >Anyone knows this problem? It means you've run out of memory (RAM + swap). Add RAM or swap, or lower your concurrencies or stop unneeded processes. -Dave
Re: Netscape + Maildir
Nico Schottelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Can I use NetscapeMail together with the Maildir ? Sure. >Or is that just a problem of qmaild-pop3 and has nothing >to do with the client ? Correct. -Dave
Re: TCPSERVER
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I not able to telnet to port 25 in my SMTP Server. Started SMTP with >command tcpserver -u 508 -g 507 -c 40 -v -x /etc/tcpcontrol/smtp.cdb 0 >smtp qm and receive answer from TCPSERVER: What is "qm"? Shouldn't that be "/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd"? >tcpserver: warning: dropping connection, unable to run qm: access denied Hmm, you have a "qm", but it's not executable. -Dave
