Re: qmail security or email virus?
Henning Brauer wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 10:30:45AM -0700, s. ryu wrote: > > rcpthosts: (Default.) SMTP clients may send messages to any recipient. > > You really want to read some documentation. You are an open relay. Start > with http://www.lifewithqmail.org/. qmail doesn't relay by default. Henning, sei nicht so deutsch =) -Stephen-
Re: Qmail stopped working
Henning Brauer wrote: > So once more the qmail no. 1 FAQ. Read section G10 in life with qmail or > just lurk on the list for more than 2 minutes. > > So the last few days these arrogant assholes like Charles and myself didn't > answer to much on this list, and we've seen what happened. The blind trying > to help the blind, endless threads with wrong advices, endless threads about > the #1 FAQ without real facts and lots of nonsense. It's enough, isn't it? Nobody said you shouldn't be posting to the list, Henning -- just be polite about it. -Stephen-
Robin's observation
I took Robin's advice and filtered the list for Outlook Eudora Pegasus Webmail and the result ABSOLUTELY BLEW ME AWAY. Holy cow, what a difference. I recommend this. -Stephen-
Re: Which RBL replacement?
Chin Fang wrote: > > Thanks. Now I see. > > I have a strong suspect that by announcing this new policy in this > manner, a lot sites that currently use the "direct" mode will get > burned on July 31, 2001 - these sites only know when their mail > servers started acting up.. I had to hunt to find the details of this policy change - it would have been better to have a reference to it on every MAPS service page. I have to question their motives. Not very professional, if you ask me. -Stephen-
Re: Wilson and the Sir.CAM virus
Alan Clegg wrote: > > The *REALLY* odd thing about this is that Sir.CAM will only send itself > out once *PER INFECTION*. That depends on what you mean by a single infection. If you mean a single machine, that's not actually true. SirCAM makes Windows registry changes so that the SirCam.exe file is executed every time an application is opened. This virus is pretty scary. Most viruses don't bother me. This one, however... Fortunately, I'm using Linux -- but I fear it will only be a matter of time before Linux too will be the victim of worm attacks like this. -Stephen-
Re: How to piss people off easily (Was: How to create dynamic users for IMAP Email services) Reply-To: robin@socha.net
"Kirti S. Bajwa" wrote: > > Sorry Business manners have nothing to do whether you pay or not. Right -- it's simple professionalism. It doesn't take much to be polite. You don't have to reply if you don't want to. -Stephen-
Re: TRANSLATE TO ENGLISH
Jamyn wrote:
>
> The email is basically a scam I've seen before, translated to French (for
> 'confidentiality reasons' they say.. *cough*Avoiding US Feds*cough*)
>
> There is another similar email written in english, circulating around the
> web as well. Only the names, places, and dollar amounts are different in
> that version; the rest of it is pretty much verbatim. Basically, they say
> they have $30 Million that they'd like to wire into your account, because
> they 'need your help to move the money from Canada to here due to some
> unfortunate mishaps'. If you're interested, just fax them :
>
> 1) your telephone/fax #
> 2) your address
>
> If you take the time to respond, they'll ask you for a bank account number
> to transfer the money into. Finally, if they get that far with you, they'll
> request co-ownership of your account ("if I can trust you enough to wire
> $30M USD into your account, you can trust me enough to be co-owner of your
> bank account.."
>
> Obviously if they get that far with you, they can visit the nearest bank
> branch, and since they've become co-owner of your account, they will proceed
> to clean it out completely. Short version: This is a scam.
I hope nobody thinks I was taken in by it -- Robin's commentary would
have been funnier if it had any contextual reference to the scam e-mail,
though.
It is sad that there are people who would fall for this, though.
Aesop said it best -- "A fool and his money are soon parted."
-Stephen-
Re: TRANSLATE TO ENGLISH
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Robin S. Socha wrote: > * ABDULKAREEM KASEREKA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010703 16:24]: > > CHER MONSIEUR, > > Eh. Sexual harrassment. USD 6m waiting for me. C007!!!1 Anyway, darling, > your request for steamed frog avec Cous-Cous has been taken. You'll be > served a couple of PDF files shortly. You don't mind them coming in 1k > slices, do you? I take it you didn't understand that e-mail, did you? -Stephen-
Re: Spam Removal
Roger Walker wrote: > > You Wrote: > > >Please let know if you find a way to block all of the domains you mentioned. > >Also do you think someone like arin.net would have there blocks of ips on > >file and then we can just block them ? > > I believe IANA has the master list of IP blocks that lists where > they are assigned to (high level): > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space Unfortunately this list doesn't offer the necessary granularity to allow someone to block addresses in Korea and China. The closest you can come here, it would seem, would be to block the entire Pacific Rim. What about APNIC? -Stephen-
Re: Spam Removal
Jeremy Suo-Anttila wrote: > > I keep getting sent SPAM from this company based in CA trying to sell me a > MasterDisc 2000 which i know is a scam i have followed all there procedures > to remove my domains from there lists and they went and actaully added them > and more to there lists so i ave been getting flooded with there crap mails. > I have faxed in removal requests, emailed them, phoned them and they still > will not remove my domains. I realize this is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, but --- as a general rule, you *never* reply to "To Remove, Send Us An E-mail" lines in a piece of spam. As you have now painfully discovered, 90% of the time that information is used to send you yet more spam. For the spammer, it's a confirmation that the address they have is valid. -Stephen-
Re: rss spam filtering problems
Chris Johnson wrote: > > I tried the above *with* the patch, and it didn't work either. I don't > > think it's working right anymore. My system fails the RSS test at Russ > > Nelson's site. > > Which is because the RSS people removed Russ's IP address from their database. Oh -- really? They don't approve of what he's doing? How can I test it, then? -Stephen-
Re: rss spam filtering problems
Stephen Bosch wrote: > > Chris Johnson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brent B. Powers wrote: > > > > > > I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via > > > relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay > > > list, www.loscabos.gob.mx, or 148.235.5.210, as it is pingable at > > > 210.5.235.148.relays.mail-abuse.org > > > > > > My qmail setup is reasonably similar to that within life with qmail, > > > and, hence, my /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run is: > > > > > > > > > #!/bin/sh > > > > > > QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` > > > NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > > > MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming` > > > > > > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ > > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \ > > > -u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGID" \ > > > 0 smtp \ > > > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \ > > > -rblackholes.mail-abuse.org \ > > > -rdialups.mail-abuse.org \ > > > -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ > > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 > > > > > > Note that the rbl and dul portions are indeed working. I have applied > > > the patch to allow rblsmtpd to work with A records. > > > > Change: > > > > -rrelays.mail-abuse.org > > > > to: > > > > -r 'relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see >http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?query=%IP%>' > > > > Chris > > rblsmtpd.c has to be patched for this to work, does it not? Sorry -- missed that in the above mail. =) Anyway -- this doesn't work for me either. -Stephen-
Re: rss spam filtering problems
Chris Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:17:24PM -0400, Brent B. Powers wrote: > > > > I don't seem to be filtering out relay sites via > > relays.mail-abuse.org. The address that gets through is on the relay > > list, www.loscabos.gob.mx, or 148.235.5.210, as it is pingable at > > 210.5.235.148.relays.mail-abuse.org > > > > My qmail setup is reasonably similar to that within life with qmail, > > and, hence, my /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run is: > > > > > > #!/bin/sh > > > > QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` > > NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > > MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming` > > > > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "$MAXSMTPD" \ > > -u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGID" \ > > 0 smtp \ > > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd \ > > -rblackholes.mail-abuse.org \ > > -rdialups.mail-abuse.org \ > > -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 > > > > Note that the rbl and dul portions are indeed working. I have applied > > the patch to allow rblsmtpd to work with A records. > > Change: > > -rrelays.mail-abuse.org > > to: > > -r 'relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see >http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?query=%IP%>' > > Chris rblsmtpd.c has to be patched for this to work, does it not? I tried the above *with* the patch, and it didn't work either. I don't think it's working right anymore. My system fails the RSS test at Russ Nelson's site. -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Hullo again... Dave Sill wrote: > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> my /var/log/maillog fills up with stuff like this: > >> > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.411296 end msg 1005715 > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507199 new msg 1005716 > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507323 info msg 1005716: bytes > >> 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27390 uid 502 > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.573170 end msg 1005716 > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660653 new msg 1005715 > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660776 info msg 1005715: bytes > >> 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27403 uid 502 > >> Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.732709 end msg 1005715 > >> > >> and so on, and so on, and so on. It goes back months like this (I would > >> never have noticed it had it not been for some other issues I was > >> working on). Is this normal? My other qmail installations don't do that. > > It's normal for qmail-send to log its actions. It's not normal to see > messages "end" without a delivery being logged, or for no "status:" > messages to be logged. So, is Charles right? Does this indicate somebody is reattempting delivery? > It's not normal to have a qmail-send/log > service when you're logging via splogger/syslog. > > >> [root@hotcube qmail]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stat > >> qmail-send: up (pid 27564) > >> qmail-smtpd: up (pid 27566) > >> qmail-send/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist > >> qmail-smtpd/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist > > That means supervise isn't running for the log services. > > >> Okay. So I checked for sticky bits on the appropriate directories: > >> > >> [root@hotcube supervise]# ls -ld /var/qmail/supervise/* > >> 927870 drwxr-xr-t4 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 > >> /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/ > >> 712830 drwxr-xr-t4 root qmail1024 Dec 18 10:27 > >> /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/ > > Were they set when the services were started? Yes. I've started and stopped them numerous times to no avail. At least, I have started and stopped them using the /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail script you provided (at the time) in LWQ. It all seems to work, except for this peculiar problem above. > >> qmail-smtpd/log: > >> 733311 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 94 Sep 1 2000 run* > > No "supervise" directory... Further evidence that supervise isn't > running. *rattles head* So... okay... where is supervise invoked again? I need to eat something... Your suggestion to migrate to the new LWQ setup is looking more appealing by the minute. -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Charles Cazabon wrote: > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave Sill wrote: > > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >Well, my logs are filling up with garbage > > > > > > Garbage or log entries? Sample, please? > > > > Sorry -- it's just that I quoted it at great length before... > [...] > > > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507323 info msg 1005716: bytes > > > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27390 uid 502 > > > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660776 info msg 1005715: bytes > > > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27403 uid 502 > > > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.815629 info msg 1005716: bytes > > > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27416 uid 502 > > > Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.939013 info msg 1005715: bytes > > > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27450 uid 502 > > Each of those messages has a different qmail-queue PID. From this, you can > deduce that the sender is connecting to your server, sending the message, > and somehow disconnecting or misinterpreting qmail's response to the DATA > command. The sender thinks the delivery failed, so it tries again, and again, > ad infinitum. > > Capture one of the messages' SMTP conversation using recordio. That should > tell you exactly how the sender's MTA is broken. You can then inform > postmaster at that domain. What's the syntax for that? Does it come with a man page? > Or block their IP address from connecting to your SMTP daemon. You choice. That would mean I would be blocking myself - that "from" information indicates a local user. Is this really what's happening? I am beginning to worry that something is majorly misconfigured here... but the server works perfectly! All the mail that is sent arrives, nobody has problems sending out... *bangs head* So... if the queue is empty, this log stuff indicates that something is repeatedly trying to send. If it's a local user, then... could it be a broken application? Oh boy. -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Hello... Dave Sill wrote: > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Well, my logs are filling up with garbage > > Garbage or log entries? Sample, please? Sorry -- it's just that I quoted it at great length before... okay, I'll get it. Stephen Bosch wrote: > > Hello, gentlemen: > > I've looked in the archives for this little issue. Lots of people report > it, but I *think* I've got my system correctly configured. > > A couple of problems: > > my /var/log/maillog fills up with stuff like this: > > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.411296 end msg 1005715 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507199 new msg 1005716 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507323 info msg 1005716: bytes > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27390 uid 502 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.573170 end msg 1005716 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660653 new msg 1005715 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660776 info msg 1005715: bytes > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27403 uid 502 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.732709 end msg 1005715 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.815510 new msg 1005716 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.815629 info msg 1005716: bytes > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27416 uid 502 > Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.873183 end msg 1005716 > Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.938896 new msg 1005715 > Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.939013 info msg 1005715: bytes > 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27450 uid 502 > Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.981100 end msg 1005715 > Jun 12 14:09:43 hotcube qmail: 992376583.097289 new msg > 1005716 > > and so on, and so on, and so on. It goes back months like this (I would > never have noticed it had it not been for some other issues I was > working on). Is this normal? My other qmail installations don't do that. > > The queue is empty. > > Then, there's this: > > [root@hotcube qmail]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stat > qmail-send: up (pid 27564) > qmail-smtpd: up (pid 27566) > qmail-send/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist > qmail-smtpd/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist > > Okay. So I checked for sticky bits on the appropriate directories: > > [root@hotcube supervise]# ls -ld /var/qmail/supervise/* > 927870 drwxr-xr-t4 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 > /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/ > 712830 drwxr-xr-t4 root qmail1024 Dec 18 10:27 > /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/ > [root@hotcube supervise]# > > It looks like I have all the files I need... > > qmail-send: > total 3 > 1120382 drwxr-xr-t2 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 log/ > 927871 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 29 Sep 1 2000 run* > 497666 drwx--2 root qmail1024 Jun 12 14:19 > supervise/ > > qmail-send/log: > total 1 > 1120383 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 88 Sep 1 2000 run* > > qmail-send/supervise: > total 1 > 497791 prw---1 root qmail 0 Jun 12 14:19 control| > 497667 -rw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 lock > 497793 prw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 ok| > 497805 -rw-r--r--1 root root 18 Jun 12 14:19 status > > qmail-smtpd: > total 4 > 733310 drwxr-xr-t2 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 log/ > 712915 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 246 Dec 18 10:27 run* > 712831 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 240 Sep 1 2000 run~* > 667722 drwx--2 root qmail1024 Jun 12 14:19 > supervise/ > > qmail-smtpd/log: > total 1 > 733311 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 94 Sep 1 2000 run* > > qmail-smtpd/supervise: > total 1 > 667729 prw---1 root qmail 0 Jun 12 14:19 control| > 667728 -rw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 lock > 667731 prw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 ok| > 667723 -rw-r--r--1 root root 18 Jun 12 14:19 status > > /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/run contains: > > #!/bin/sh > exec /var/qmail/rc > > and /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run contains: > > #!/bin/sh > QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` > NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ > -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd > 2>&1 There you have it, in all its ugliness. -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Dave Sill wrote: > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Dave Sill wrote: > >> > >> Logging via splogger (syslog). > > > >Which is deprecated in LWQ, now, correct? > > Yes. > > >> Sure that's qmail-smtpd/log/run? Looks more like qmail-smtpd/run. > > > >D'oh! > > > >#!/bin/sh > >exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t > >/var/log/qmail/smtpd > > OK, now refresh my memory...what was the problem? And is that command > all on one line? Well, my logs are filling up with garbage (and I get that silly "file does not exist" error when I run qmail stat), and yes, that command was all on one line. -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Dave Sill wrote: > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Okay, here is what I have in /var/qmail/rc: > > > >#!/bin/sh > > > ># Using splogger to send the log through syslog. > ># Using procmail to deliver messages to /var/spool/mail/$USER by > >default. > > > >exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ > >qmail-start '|preline procmail' splogger qmail > > Logging via splogger (syslog). Which is deprecated in LWQ, now, correct? Boy -- it's obviously been a while since I configured this machine. It ran so well... I never had to do anything to it. At least, I thought I didn't. Maybe I did and didn't realize it. > >The run file for qmail-smtpd/log contains: > > > >#!/bin/sh > >QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` > >NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` > >exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ > >/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ > >-u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd > >2>&1 > > Sure that's qmail-smtpd/log/run? Looks more like qmail-smtpd/run. D'oh! #!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/log/qmail/smtpd -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Dave Sill wrote: > > Frank Tegtmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> qmail-send/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist > > > >There is no need for qmail-send/log. > > Sure there is, if you want the logging supervised. > > >qmail-send starts up the logger > >by itself as given on it's command line. See /var/qmail/rc. > > This is the old-fashioned way to log. But Dave... what's wrong with my setup? =) Should I just reconfigure everything according to the new LWQ? Why do that if everything is otherwise working? I don't have the overview here -- this supervise logging stuff is really opaque for me. -Stephen-
Re: yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote: > > Stephen Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > qmail-send/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist > > There is no need for qmail-send/log. qmail-send starts up the logger > by itself as given on it's command line. See /var/qmail/rc. > > Seems that you simply messed up the logging. What do you have in > /var/qmail/rc, and in the run file for qmail-smtpd/log? Okay, here is what I have in /var/qmail/rc: #!/bin/sh # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. # Using procmail to deliver messages to /var/spool/mail/$USER by default. exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ qmail-start '|preline procmail' splogger qmail The run file for qmail-smtpd/log contains: #!/bin/sh QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 Hope you can help. Thanks, Stephen
yet more trouble with daemontools and supervise
Hello, gentlemen: I've looked in the archives for this little issue. Lots of people report it, but I *think* I've got my system correctly configured. A couple of problems: my /var/log/maillog fills up with stuff like this: Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.411296 end msg 1005715 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507199 new msg 1005716 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.507323 info msg 1005716: bytes 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27390 uid 502 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.573170 end msg 1005716 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660653 new msg 1005715 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.660776 info msg 1005715: bytes 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27403 uid 502 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.732709 end msg 1005715 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.815510 new msg 1005716 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.815629 info msg 1005716: bytes 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27416 uid 502 Jun 12 14:09:12 hotcube qmail: 992376552.873183 end msg 1005716 Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.938896 new msg 1005715 Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.939013 info msg 1005715: bytes 266 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 27450 uid 502 Jun 12 14:09:42 hotcube qmail: 992376582.981100 end msg 1005715 Jun 12 14:09:43 hotcube qmail: 992376583.097289 new msg 1005716 and so on, and so on, and so on. It goes back months like this (I would never have noticed it had it not been for some other issues I was working on). Is this normal? My other qmail installations don't do that. The queue is empty. Then, there's this: [root@hotcube qmail]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stat qmail-send: up (pid 27564) qmail-smtpd: up (pid 27566) qmail-send/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist qmail-smtpd/log: unable to open supervise/ok: file does not exist Okay. So I checked for sticky bits on the appropriate directories: [root@hotcube supervise]# ls -ld /var/qmail/supervise/* 927870 drwxr-xr-t4 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/ 712830 drwxr-xr-t4 root qmail1024 Dec 18 10:27 /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/ [root@hotcube supervise]# It looks like I have all the files I need... qmail-send: total 3 1120382 drwxr-xr-t2 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 log/ 927871 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 29 Sep 1 2000 run* 497666 drwx--2 root qmail1024 Jun 12 14:19 supervise/ qmail-send/log: total 1 1120383 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 88 Sep 1 2000 run* qmail-send/supervise: total 1 497791 prw---1 root qmail 0 Jun 12 14:19 control| 497667 -rw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 lock 497793 prw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 ok| 497805 -rw-r--r--1 root root 18 Jun 12 14:19 status qmail-smtpd: total 4 733310 drwxr-xr-t2 root qmail1024 Sep 1 2000 log/ 712915 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 246 Dec 18 10:27 run* 712831 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 240 Sep 1 2000 run~* 667722 drwx--2 root qmail1024 Jun 12 14:19 supervise/ qmail-smtpd/log: total 1 733311 -rwxr-xr-x1 root qmail 94 Sep 1 2000 run* qmail-smtpd/supervise: total 1 667729 prw---1 root qmail 0 Jun 12 14:19 control| 667728 -rw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 lock 667731 prw---1 root qmail 0 Sep 1 2000 ok| 667723 -rw-r--r--1 root root 18 Jun 12 14:19 status /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/run contains: #!/bin/sh exec /var/qmail/rc and /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run contains: #!/bin/sh QMAILDUID=`id -u qmaild` NOFILESGID=`id -g qmaild` exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -R -H -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ -u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 *catches breath* So... what is going on here? Everything seems to be in order, but if it isn't working properly I'm sure I've missed something. What is it? -Stephen-
Re: people are definately starting to harvest emailadresses on this list...
"James T. Perry" wrote: > > Alexander Jernejcic wrote: > > > > hi, > > only for my interest: was this from Money Maker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ? > > i received that today. Oh, crap... you mean to tell me that the qmail list is the reason I'm suddenly getting spammed? God help me... and I kept my e-mail clean for so long... This makes me angry. What can we do about it? -Stephen-
Re: smtp speed limit??
"Austad, Jay" wrote: > > Woohoo! Figured it out. The stupid windows mailserver didn't log anything > useful, so I took one of the messages and used 'nc' to pipe it into qmail. > The message was autogenerate by some .asp file somewhere and had a stray > in it. Shitabulous ASP. -Stephen-
Re: Best Winbloze Mail Client?
"Hubbard, David" wrote: > Show me a GUI client that can do SSL IMAP, SSL POP3 and LDAP. Well, Netscape Messenger can... > Seperate accounts with seperate inboxes is much more than > a regular expression. I can check email on all of my accounts and > when I reply, select the account I want my reply to show as coming > from in a drop down "From" box, very helpful when I need to be > postmaster at a number of different domains easily. Robin was referring to the highly inefficient mail filter tool built into Outlook. It is a royal pain in the derriere to use. > Since you had nothing productive to say, why don't you just be > happy with your orderly, modularized unix client and not post to the > list? I don't like Microsoft for much but OE5 makes my life easier so > I choose to use it and it works great in combination with my linux based > Qmail/Courier-IMAP w/SSL installation as a secure way to check a lot of > email accounts. My experience with Outlook has been similarly dismal. Outlook buggers up quotes, misinterprets message times when they come off of IMAP (I get the times in GMT rather than in the local time zone -- grr) and crashes with ample frequency. Never thought I'd say it, but Netscape is more stable, and I'm using it instead =) -Stephen-
Re: daemontools
Andy Bradford wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:33:21 +0200, "Frans Haarman" wrote: > > > I see constant disk activity when using daemontools to > > monitor qmail. > > It is possible that the programs being spawned are exiting, in which > case supervise will start another copy. This could be due to any > number of things. For example, if it is unable to lock the directory it > will die and then start another. Unless you start svscan from the > command line you will probably not see these error message since they > get sent to stdout/stderr. One thing you could do is run "ps -ef" and > watch to see if your daemons such as dnscache, tinydns, qmail-send are > already running before starting svscan. Launch svscan from the command > line and not a script, etc... If they are already running it is likely > that another copy is trying to start up ad infinitum. *sounds familiar* Okay... my turn! All together now... "What do the logs say?"TM (svscan ails silently... =) ) -Stephen-
Re: Postfix: This release introduces DSN style notification of bounced or delayed mail, as per RFC 1894.
Peter van Dijk wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:34:27AM +0200, Olivier M. wrote: > > As seen on freshmeat.net this morning... > > Any chance so see such improvments to qmail comming? > > No, because DSN is not an improvement. It's a bug. It is a misdesigned > fix for a problem that can be solved much better with VERP. What is DSN, anyway? Can someone explain? /sarcasm WHAT AM I MISSING? sarcasm/ -Stephen-
Re: Virtualdomains - AGAIN
Hello =) Charles Cazabon wrote: > > You can probably see by now that I have a common user space. What I want to > > do is prevent mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from also being > > accepted as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look at the above virtualdomains > > scenario and ask myself why I am even bothering with virtualdomains, since > > putting both domains in control/locals and control/rcpthosts will get me the > > same result. > > If you mean to say that you _want_ email to any_address@vdomain1 and > any_address@vdomain2 to be interchangeable with mail to any_address@localdomain, > then just putting those domain names into locals makes more sense. > Virtual domains add flexibility for other things, though. Actually, I want to make sure that mail addressed to address_set1@vdomain1 will only be accepted if it is sent to address_set1@vdomain1, but bounced or dumped if it is sent to address_set1@vdomain2; mail addressed to address_set2@vdomain2 will be accepted while mail to address_set2@vdomain1 will be bounced or dumped -- WHERE address_set1 and address_set2 are part of the total user space on the qmail box (that is, recipient exists only once on the system; recipient may be part of address_set1 *or* address_set2 but not both simultaneously)... air! *INHALES* Is that better? Stephen Bosch
Virtualdomains - AGAIN
Okay, this is a foolish newbie question. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the problem. We have two ways of accepting mail for a domain. We can either treat it as a local, *real* domain, or we can treat it as a virtual domain which supplements a real domain. If we treat it as a local real domain, we put it in control/rcpthosts and control/locals. Mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered to the local user foobar. If we treat it as a virtual domain, we put it in control/rcpthosts and control/virtualdomains but *not* control/locals. In control/virtualdomains we put @virtualdomain.org:username (question - is the prepend *required*?) Now all mail to virtualdomain.org will be sent to the local extension address [EMAIL PROTECTED] But I still want to make sure that mail is delivered to the local user recipient, so I create the file ~username/.qmail-recipient and I put &recipient in it. You can probably see by now that I have a common user space. What I want to do is prevent mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from also being accepted as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I look at the above virtualdomains scenario and ask myself why I am even bothering with virtualdomains, since putting both domains in control/locals and control/rcpthosts will get me the same result. Did that make any sense? Thanks, Stephen Bosch
Re: Humorous
Oh, and I couldn't resist: > Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate > tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a > kernel"? I take it he speaks from personal experience? BTW... what *IS* a kernel, anyway? Stephen Bosch
Re: Humorous
dG wrote: > For all fans of linuxpeople, this is the latest news on his website, > www.linuxpeople.cc. > > September 14th, qmail: WHAT @ FSCKING JOKE! > Brought to you from the "Do not even waste your time department" > > Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate > tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a > kernel"? In other words swallowing razor blades would have been a more > pleasurable experience. > [More info] How about: Trying to help linuxpeople is like eating broken glass, or drinking hot liquid nylon! Ever a fan of linuxpeople, I am Stephen Bosch
Re: OT: Need some help with SSL
Jamie Heilman wrote: > We got your first message just fine, no need to keep sending it over and > over again. I only sent it once. Did you get two? > To setup an SSL wrapper around UW's IMAP server I suggest you go to > stunnel.org and read the documentation. > > It is, ofcourse, probably worth mentioning that any security you gain from > using SSL connections you're going to circumvent by using something as > poorly written as UW's IMAP server. There's every indication that that > the programers at UW just don't give a damn about security. I suggest you > look into courier-imap instead, provided that it's Maildir-only nature > doesn't interfere with your plans. Is this still the case? I don't know of any known vulnerabilities with the latest release of UW IMAP, but I'd sure like to hear about them if there are some. The README acknowledges that there have been problems in the past but that these have been corrected and that they changed the process by which they developed the software to prevent glaring holes from appearing in future... I know many of you hate UW IMAP, but Courier doesn't support /var/spool/mail =) I tried to compile the SSL version of UW IMAP, but it's not working... is the stunnel wrapper easier to set up? -Stephen-
OT: Need some help with SSL
Hello, all: I am trying to set up SSL with a UW IMAP server. Before I bother the list with this I thought I'd ask if anybody knew of a mailing list for SSL e-mail... Thank you, -Stephen-
Re: linuxpeople thread
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > so at great distress I post these lines : > > [root@www qmail-1.03]# make setup check > /compile qmail-local.c > In file included from qmail-local.c:1: > /usr/include/sys/types.h:26: features.h: No such file or directory > /usr/include/sys/types.h:30: bits/types.h: No such file or directory > /usr/include/sys/types.h:123: time.h: No such file or directory > In file included from qmail-local.c:2: > /usr/include/sys/stat.h:26: features.h: No such file or directory > /usr/include/sys/stat.h:28: bits/types.h: No such file or directory > /usr/include/sys/stat.h:89: bits/stat.h: No such file or directory > make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 1 > > I am sorry I included so many but I think you need them all. > > Ok those files are also on the hard drive. They are all in > /usr/i386-glibc21-linux/include/ They're not the same files =( Are you really sure you want the misery of running a mail server on a 486 with only 8 Mb of RAM? -Stephen-
Re: Linuxluser thread (Was: linuxpeople thread)
"Robin S. Socha" wrote: > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000913 04:32]: > > Hello I have documented each step up until they fail. > > Damn, you are *STUPID*. When someone tells you to post a *SHORT* and > *PREGNANT* error message, why do you send > 600 lines? And HOT damn, you are rude! Got too much free time on your hands? Nice to see you are leading by example. People can do silly things, that doesn't mean you need mow them down. No class. -Stephen-
You sure do (was Re: I have a problem)
Ima Guru wrote: > I have a problem with qmail. Can someone tell me how to fix it? Thanks! Sure! Reconfigure your frombulator and make sure that the permissions are correct on your flarm scripts. HTH, Stephen
Re: rcpthosts prob
> i'm getting this > > [root@proxy control]# tcprulescheck /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb > default: > allow connection > [root@proxy control]# > > does this mean that it's not working correctly? > > i reran: > > tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp > > and got: > > [root@proxy control]# tcprulescheck /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb > rule : > allow connection > [root@proxy control]# > > so what am i missing? Aren't you supposed to specify the IP address you are checking when you use tcprulescheck? -Stephen-
outgoing mail masquerading and /bin/mail
Hello, all: I have been trying to do something very, very simple for two days now. No real luck yet. I have a user on a machine behind a firewall that has a bogus domain name - "hotcube" The prompt looks like this: [oracle@hotcube oracle] _ I want to send mail using /bin/mail but *change* the "From:" field on the outgoing mail, since replying to oracle@hotcube (or even [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is not what I desire; I want the "From" field to contain the e-mail addresses of our customer service managers - but I can't go and change the hostname on this box and I can't make an account with a name identical to the customer service manager's external (email) userid; there are multiple addresses and the From has to change depending on the purpose of the sent e-mail. I have been trying to do this using sendmail, but sendmail is, well, a beast -- and it only lets you masquerade the domain name. I need to be able to specify the *username* as well. For example: Instead of From: Oracle User or From: Oracle User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I need From: Grapple-Grommets Customer Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have looked at nmh, and it is a bit more powerful than /bin/mail, but still, it only seems to let you change the domain name -- it still insists on using the userid in the e-mail address. So, to summarize briefly: Can I use qmail just to transmit outgoing mail, even if I don't have a proper FQDN configured on the qmail server? I can't have things locking up... Are there any good *command-line* mail clients (like /bin/mail or mh or nmh) that will let me specify the "From:" field? Is there any that would work with qmail to accomplish this? I can use a hand here - any help is appreciated. -Stephen-
Re: SMTP-after-IMAP? (was Re: Unable to connect to SMTP)
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Kris Kelley wrote: > Stephen F. Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *Everybody* says that =) But I am using IMAP, and as far as I know AT&T > > has the entire 12. class A... unless there are some major spammers at > > AT&T, I should be okay... > > That leads to a question that I was about to ask anyway. Is there anything > out there for qmail that offers SMTP-after-IMAP authentication and relay > control? The email system that I am putting together is going to be > offering IMAP and SMTP service to arbitrary users across the Internet, and > could really use something like this. See? See? =) -Stephen-
Re: linux filesystem
Hi, Franky: You might be thinking of ReiserFS, a journaling filesystem that is crash-tolerant. There is also the ext3fs project - ext3fs will also be journaling, but it is still in development, AFAIK. Anyway, lots of people have had great success with ReiserFS. Give it a try. -Stephen- On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Van Liedekerke Franky wrote: > A while back there was talk about a good filesystem for linux (next to > ext2fs). Anybody remebers how this is called, and does anybody use it with > satisfaction? I have looked through the archives, but I'm just not able to > fill in the right search terms to find the answer... > > Franky >
Re: Unable to connect to SMTP
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Stephen F. Bosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about assigning this user a special SMTP port? Can I do this with > > qmail? Run an additional SMTP service at a custom port number? That > > would bypass such a block. > > Yes. Run another copy of qmail-smtpd on an arbitrarily chosen high port. How is this done? I take it there is a switch for it...? > Also, you might want to use a smarter relay control mechanism than opening up > an entire /16 for relaying; you could easily get hit that way. Perhaps an > SMTP-after-POP solution, like Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl package. *Everybody* says that =) But I am using IMAP, and as far as I know AT&T has the entire 12. class A... unless there are some major spammers at AT&T, I should be okay... I know that sounds really dumb. Has anybody got a better idea? I'm open. If I knew the exact address ranges of above person's dialup I would be able to narrow it down significantly, but I have no real way of determining this - and AT&T is unlikely to be very cooperative, given their decision to close all internal to external SMTP traffic. -Stephen- PS to Charles: Are those Develnet guys still around in Sask?
Unable to connect to SMTP
I have just added a new user who uses an AT&T dialup account that is typically assigned an address in the 12.72. range. I have added this range to my tcprules file. Below is the exact content of tcprules: 209.115.249.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 12.72.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow For some reason, however, this person can't connect - not even with telnet to port 25 (it tells her that her connection failed). She can telnet normally, however. What else should I be looking for? /etc/hosts.deny and /etc/hosts.allow do not contain any addresses, either. Thanks, Stephen
This is what I got for my troubles
...from Mr. Fortin: A header with no details and no message =) --- Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 14990 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2000 11:38:13 -0700 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 14987 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2000 11:38:07 -0700 Received: from revelex.com (HELO ) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by dsl-ch-l15-c80-n249-i138-cgy.nucleus.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2000 11:38:07 -0700 faggot... --- Stephen Bosch
RE: How...
Here we go again. > -Original Message- > From: Jonathan Fortin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: March 23, 2000 12:27 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How... > > > > > Hello, > > This is what I was trying to get done for the last fiew days... We know. > I added ourdomain.com in rcpthosts.. > > but what happen was, i couldnt send email out but only to ourdomain.com.. > but noone could relay. > > but the thing im trying to get done, > > how do i setup qmail so i can email anydomain.com using our ourdomain.com > but anydomain.com cant email to anydomain.com using our ourdomain.com. Have you bothered to read *any* of the documentation that's available for qmail? > Clearing this up.. > > only users from ourdomain.com can relay inside/out but noone else > can relay. > > thank you. I think this must be the third, fourth or fifth time you've asked this question -- and people have even answered you. Go to www.qmail.org and read the documentation posted there. Stephen
RE: Bounce Loops?
> (Note: This story is only to-the-best-of-my-recollection; if you want to > repost it elsewhere or otherwise distribute it, please let me > know and I'll > see if I can get my friend to write it up with the details in place and > corrected so you can send out the true and accurate version > rather than my > messed-up retelling. Thanks.) Oh, you MUST get him to give a detailed recollection -- that story is gold! -Stephen- PS: Please tell Mr. Mahler to stop sending me spam, too.
RE: Qmail Relay Question; A Newbie Speaks
> I have been watching this list for a few weeks now. And the people on > here are the most un-helpful people I have seen. Your typical answer to a > question is man this or man that. Hmn. Perhaps we need a mailing list on how to submit to mailing lists. Just so you all know, I've only been running Linux for three months, and q-mail for about one month. I am a newbie in every sense of the word. Here is my PRIMER ON HOW TO GET A DECENT RESPONSE ON THE QMAIL LIST *for the lost and confused* 1. At the very least, read the q-mail man pages, and the FAQ. Have look at what's on www.qmail.org, because it will point towards many other useful resources. If you don't understand how to unpack the q-mail archive, it's questionable whether you should be administering a mail server, but okay: read the man pages for "tar", that should get you started. Failing that, the man pages are availabe in HTML on-line. 2. Make a reasonable attempt now to follow the aforementioned documentation. Countless people have mentioned "Life with qmail" which is an excellent primer -- but there are others. 3. Here's the part where you get stuck. First and foremost, RECORD THE ERROR OUTPUT - you'll want to put this (preferably UNEDITED) in your e-mail to the list. So few people understand how important this is it staggers me. Nothing is more useless than questions like "I did this, that, and the other thing, and now my qmail installation doesn't work. What's wrong?" How are *we* supposed to know? Shall we come over to your office in person? Sure -- I'm getting in my car. See you in 32 hours. 4. In addition to the error output, you should collect copies of things that may be peripherally relevant to the problem, for example, if you are having errors related to tcpserver, include your rules file (the uncompiled text version); perhaps your /var/qmail/control/locals and your /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts, for example (I use these since many problems that people have seem to be related to these). 5. Give a clear explanation of *what* you are trying to accomplish. Follow these five (I should add - EASY) steps, and you WILL get a useful, very often verbose response from the many talented people who frequent this mailing list. I did. NOW - thought you were going to get away, huh? I have a question: First, I've done a bit of looking but it's not immediately obvious to me where qmail puts its logs -- in fact, I don't even know where to find the system logs. Would somebody kindly point me in the right direction? Thanks, Stephen Bosch
RE: 2nd qmail-server
> -Original Message- > From: Petr Novotny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: March 13, 2000 11:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 2nd qmail-server > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 13 Mar 00, at 11:08, Stephen Bosch wrote: > > That's all fine for receiving e-mails when the primary is down -- but > > what if the server is running, say, IMAP, and users want to retrieve > > their mail? > > Until the mail gets delivered to the primary, the users see nothing. Ah haaa... *penny drops* > > What if the secondary receives a bunch of mail and then > > the primary comes back up? Will users still be able to see the mail > > that the secondary server received? > > After some while, yes. It may take some period for the secondary > to realize that the primary is up and running. You may speed it up > by running qmail-tcpok and ALRMing qmail-send on the secondary. Okay -- what you're saying is that the secondary will pass on the mail to the primary once it's back up? *sound of gears grinding* We put the primary in the rcpthosts of the secondary so that the secondary will accept mail addressed to the primary, but we don't put it in control/locals because we want to prevent the secondary from attempting to deliver locally (which wouldn't work because we don't have users configured locally, nor a delivery agent like POP3 or IMAP). All right -- what's the mechanism by which this received mail is passed on to the primary when it becomes operational again? Does this mail sit parked in a mail queue? Which queue? Always learning, Stephen Bosch
RE: 2nd qmail-server
Hello: This problem is interesting, and I have a question. > > hi all, > > i have a qmail-server, which handles mails for a small company. i > > would like to setup a second mail-server, with an MX record with lower > > priority as the first one, so that if the first fails, the second one > > will receive the mails. after the first one is alife again, the second > > one should deliver him the received mails. > > > > how could i implement the second server? any comments, RTFM's are > > welcome. > > Put the domain(s) you're secondary for into rcpthosts. Do NOT put > them in locals or virtualdomains. > > Don't forget that lower number at MX is higher priority. That's all fine for receiving e-mails when the primary is down -- but what if the server is running, say, IMAP, and users want to retrieve their mail? What if the secondary receives a bunch of mail and then the primary comes back up? Will users still be able to see the mail that the secondary server received? DNS will point them to the primary, but the mail is still sitting on the secondary. If there's something I've missed here I'd be happy if someone pointed it out. Cheers, Stephen Bosch
RE: Forward and retain a copy
> Is there a way in qmail to forward a copy of an e-mail to another > accoutn but still retain a copy on my server for archive purposes. > > Example > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] receives and e-mail a copy is sent to thier aol > account but mydomain.com's mail server retains a copy. I've always just put the local address and the forward address in the .forward file -- that's never caused a loop so I'm assuming that the MTA knows enough to interpret this as a request to leave a copy in the local mailbox. Of course, that was with sendmail... I don't actually know what qmail does, since I haven't had to use this since I started using qmail. Anybody else? -Stephen-
RE: Email 101; place horse before cart
> Im in need of a decent reference for the email newbie targeted > more towards > qmail then sendmail, which is all I have been able to find. Im > needing to > setup a mail server that will act as a relay for CCmail to pull > mail from. Whoa, slow down, eh? I think you need to get a working installation of qmail up and running first, then you can worry about piping CCmail into it. > As > this is my first leap into email servers, and this thing has to be up and > running by Sunday night I think you are being optimistic. If you are facing a deadline I'd ask for an extension right now. Have you looked at the qmail pages on the web, like www.qmail.org? There are also at least two qmail how-to's and a very useful page from Dave Sill called "Life with qmail" : http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html. Good luck, Stephen
RE: I spoke too soon.
> > 24.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > 209.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > 192.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > :deny > Not only is the deny wrong, but the 192., 24., and 209. are too > permissive. They let 3/256ths of the Internet relay off your machine. Meaning that the operative variable is the RELAYCLIENT portion, not just the allow. The server will only relay if the RELAYCLIENT variable is set, correct? But I need the allow all at the end to ensure that I can receive mail from the outside... I understand that the other networks in there are a bit broad -- those entries were to be temporary until I can get the exact subnets and hosts I want to permit to relay. Thanks for the assistance =) Stephen Bosch > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what > your country > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other > people to > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." > -Perry M. >
Selective relaying fixed
Thanks for your help =) - didn't add -x parameter to tcpserver invocation... Stephen Bosch
I am trying to set up selective relaying...
Hello, everyone: I'm trying to set up selective relaying. When I first installed qmail I had the local hosts and their virtual domains in the 'rcpthosts' file. With the system set up like this I couldn't mail out (if the e-mail I was sending wasn't to a name in the rcpthosts file, it didn't arrive). I have tcpserver configured using the following rules file: 24.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 209.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 192.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :deny (this is copied directly) tcpserver starts with an entry in rc.local: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -u 503 -g 502 -c 50 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \ 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smptd 3 & it appears in ps output (also copied directly): USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 1 0.1 0.2 1148 68 ?S14:32 0:04 init [5] root 2 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 14:32 0:00 [kflushd] root 3 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 14:32 0:00 [kupdate] root 4 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 14:32 0:00 [kpiod] root 5 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 14:32 0:00 [kswapd] root 118 0.0 0.0 11440 ?SW 14:33 0:00 [apmd] bin262 0.0 0.9 1144 280 ?S14:33 0:00 portmap root 314 0.0 0.7 1348 216 ?S14:33 0:00 syslogd root 324 0.0 0.0 14040 ?SW 14:33 0:00 [klogd] daemon 339 0.0 0.9 1172 304 ?S14:33 0:00 /usr/sbin/atd root 354 0.0 0.6 1368 208 ?S14:33 0:00 crond root 373 0.0 0.5 1308 160 ?S14:33 0:00 inetd root 388 0.0 0.0 13600 ?SW 14:33 0:00 [lpd] qmails 418 0.0 0.7 1168 240 ?S14:33 0:00 qmail-send qmaill 421 0.0 0.6 1140 204 ?S14:33 0:00 splogger qmail root 422 0.0 1.1 1132 352 ?S14:33 0:00 qmail-lspawn |pre qmailr 423 0.0 1.1 1132 364 ?S14:33 0:00 qmail-rspawn qmailq 424 0.0 0.4 1124 124 ?S14:33 0:00 qmail-clean root 437 0.0 1.0 1180 332 ttyS0S14:33 0:00 gpm -t MouseMan xfs458 0.0 3.3 2560 1016 ?S14:33 0:00 xfs -port -1 root 473 0.0 0.0 21600 ?SW 14:33 0:00 [smbd] root 483 0.0 1.8 1740 584 ?S14:33 0:00 nmbd -D qmaild 513 0.0 0.5 1380 160 ?S14:33 0:00 /usr/local/bin/tc root 514 0.0 1.0 1128 324 ?S14:33 0:00 /var/qmail/bin/sp root 517 0.0 0.0 11240 tty1 SW 14:33 0:00 [mingetty] root 518 0.0 0.0 11240 tty2 SW 14:33 0:00 [mingetty] root 519 0.0 0.0 11240 tty3 SW 14:33 0:00 [mingetty] root 520 0.0 0.0 11240 tty4 SW 14:33 0:00 [mingetty] root 521 0.0 0.0 11240 tty5 SW 14:33 0:00 [mingetty] root 522 0.0 0.0 11240 tty6 SW 14:33 0:00 [mingetty] root 523 0.0 0.0 60080 ?SW 14:33 0:00 [prefdm] root 527 0.0 13.4 8880 4148 ?S14:33 0:01 /etc/X11/X -auth root 528 0.0 8.4 6172 2588 ?S14:33 0:00 -:0 sfbosch559 0.0 4.1 2284 1272 ?S14:35 0:00 imapd sfbosch560 0.1 4.0 2276 1236 ?S14:35 0:03 imapd root 573 0.0 2.9 1792 916 ?S14:39 0:01 telnetd: dsl-ch-l root 574 0.0 3.9 2316 1216 pts/0S14:39 0:00 login -- sfbosch sfbosch575 0.0 3.8 2060 1196 pts/0S14:39 0:00 -bash root 599 0.0 3.0 2016 944 pts/0S14:42 0:00 su root 600 0.0 4.0 2116 1248 pts/0S14:42 0:00 bash root 612 0.0 2.9 1792 916 ?S14:47 0:00 telnetd: dsl-ch-l root 613 0.0 3.9 2316 1216 pts/1S14:47 0:00 login -- sfbosch sfbosch614 0.0 3.8 2064 1192 pts/1S14:47 0:00 -bash sfbosch777 0.0 2.7 2512 860 pts/1R15:31 0:00 ps aux When I use tcprulescheck, the output is consistent with the rules I have set. My rcpthosts file is below (copied directly): vodacomm.ca vodacomm.com nucleus.com localhost.nucleus.com dsl-ch-l15-c80-n249-i138-cgy.nucleus.com Now: With the above rcpthosts file in place and the rules I have already listed, I am unable to send mail from allowed hosts to any host that is not in the rcpthosts file. The way I am currently working around this is to not have a rcpthosts file, but I am uncomfortable doing this. It seems to me I've made a mistake in the way I've configured tcpserver, but I can't be sure and I don't know exactly where I should be looking. Any ideas? -Stephen Bosch-
Time zones? Qué?
Hello, everyone: Okay -- I know that this question has been asked before, and I know it's been answered before, but I've sifted through all the the FAQs I could find, heeded some of the advice, looked through the archives, and I'm no closer to a clear answer or a solution. The question: How do I modify/configure qmail so that the messages I *receive* have the appropriate time stamp on them? All my incoming mail appears in UTC. I have checked my system clock. Hardware clock is in UTC, system timer shows correct local time with offset. I have switched from /var/qmail/bin/sendmail to /var/qmail/bin/datemail. This has had no visible effect. Outgoing mail seemed to have the correct timestamp on it before anyway -- or at least, the webmail client I was using to test this feature was translating the timestamp in the header correctly. I have implemented John Saunders patch, and this has had no effect either. The problem persists. [question: I ran "make setup check" after patching the source -- is that all I have to do, or am I supposed to move any binaries?] Of note is that if I am using Netscape Messenger to retrieve e-mail, it will show the correct local time of receipt. If I use Outlook, it will not. I want the time to appear correctly in either one. (I haven't been able to find any place in Outlook where you can set how headers are interpreted.) Your assistance is much appreciated. Even if somebody tells me "at present, there is no way to resolve this problem" I'd be happy. Thanks, Stephen Bosch
Dates and timezones
Hello, everyone: Okay -- I know that this question has been asked before, and I know it's been answered before, but I've sifted through all the the FAQs I could find, heeded some of the advice, looked through the archives, and I'm no closer to a clear answer or a solution. The question: How do I modify/configure qmail so that the messages I *receive* have the appropriate time stamp on them? All my incoming mail appears in UTC. I have checked my system clock. Hardware clock is in UTC, system timer shows correct local time with offset. I have switched from /var/qmail/bin/sendmail to /var/qmail/bin/datemail. This has had no visible effect. Outgoing mail seemed to have the correct timestamp on it before anyway -- or at least, the webmail client I was using to test this feature was translating the timestamp in the header correctly. I have implemented John Saunders patch, and this has had no effect either. The problem persists. Of note is that if I am using Netscape Messenger to retrieve e-mail, it will show the correct local time of receipt. If I use Outlook, it will not. I want the time to appear correctly in either one. (I haven't been able to find any place in Outlook where you can set how headers are interpreted.) Your assistance is much appreciated. Even if somebody tells me "at present, there is no way to resolve this problem" I'd be happy. Thanks, Stephen Bosch
