Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
From: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:32:58 -0400 q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was appalled when [Charles] said please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists. That is a blanket directive that is not necessarily shared by everyone on this list, certainly not me. directive request A few lines of zone records speaks volumes for BINDthinkers and they are well worth the space in the email. BINDthinkers are WRONGthinkers. djbdnsthinkers are RIGHTthinkers. :-) Zone files are as welcome here as sendmail.cf's: not very. DJB went to a great deal of effort to free us from crapware like Sendmail and BIND. Please show him a little respect. -Dave I have shown respect for DJB and everyone on this list. I am looking very seriously at installing djbdns, and I'm sure that djbdns is in fact probably going to show itself to be superior to BIND. BINDthinkers cannot just jump blindly into djbdnsthink. There are going to be a few posts now and again where someone is going to show a few zone records to clarify their point while they transition into qmail/djbdns/etc. Noone should say: please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists. This fellow only showed a few lines, not his entire zonefile. I made one simple request to Charles not to shut down this kind of information and received arguments from Charles which I responded to. In the process of responding to the arguments generated by Charles, I have been accused wrongly of being off-topic. END OF DISCUSSION _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Charles, 1) What are the erroneous assumptions of the Prodygy relay test utility? 2) How is it so clear that the machine didn't relay mail? From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:52:51 -0600 Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tested my qmail smtp server for spam using the Prodygy Solutions relay test utility: [...] And got 2(two) holes on my server: No, you don't. Your machine didn't relay mail, and the tests (hah!) didn't even actually do any testing; they inferred a result from erroneous assumptions. Ignore the tests you did; they're worthless, and tell you nothing about whether your server is an open relay or not. Provided you have /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts, and it contains only your domains, and you're not setting the RELAYCLIENT environment variable for random IP addresses which connect to your SMTP port, then you are NOT an open relay. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. --- _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However... Charles, Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the point clearly. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However... Charles, Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the point clearly. * * * | 1) It's SLOW!-- man tcpserver - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users -- http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX -- list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail -- # line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:06:00 -0600 q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) What are the erroneous assumptions of the Prodygy relay test utility? It assumes that because the RCPT TO: ... command succeeded, the mail will be delivered. This is not required by RFC821/2821, and is not true of qmail or any other MTA which does not have knowledge of the possible final delivery targets during the initial SMTP conversation. It's also making some broken assumptions about how certain conventions in the local-part of an SMTP envelope recipient address translate into implicit relaying requests -- these conventions are not part of the SMTP specification, and qmail doesn't use them. The fact that sendmail (or Domino, or Exchange, or whatever) is broken enough to do so should not implicate properly implemented SMTP servers. I appreciate your describing this in detail. I'm going to need some time to reflect on these assumptions. 2) How is it so clear that the machine didn't relay mail? -these types of questions come up every week on this mailing list -qmail has _never_ relayed mail unless the administrator specifically configures it to do so. I know the qmail documentation says that the default for qmail is not to relay. I need to see proof, not just be told to assume that the documentation is correct. As I said above, I'll need time to reflect on this. I appreciate that someone else suggested asking ORBS to do a relay test. However, that doesn't necessarily reassure me that the Prodygy Solutions relay test results should be ignored. I don't know anything specific about the Prodygy relay test failures but I don't just ignore something because someone else said to. I do appreciate your reply and I realize full well that I may end up deciding to ignore the Prodygy relay test failures someday myself. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
Charles and James, Some people may have private domains that they don't wish to disclose. These people are usually advanced enough to do a clear job with generic a.b.c notation. I agree that novices probably should stick to the full domain names because they are probably too confused to translate correctly into generic a.b.c notation. From: James Raftery [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:45:27 +0100 On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:14:38AM -0500, q question wrote: Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the point clearly. Because giving real information is *always* right. Giving mangled information is *rarely* right. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) It's somewhere in the Red Hat district -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
I appreciate your pointing this out. From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:24:49 -0500 From: q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:30:52 -0500 From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:06:00 -0600 It's also making some broken assumptions about how certain conventions in the local-part of an SMTP envelope recipient address translate into implicit relaying requests -- these conventions are not part of the SMTP specification, and qmail doesn't use them. The fact that sendmail (or Domino, or Exchange, or whatever) is broken enough to do so should not implicate properly implemented SMTP servers. I appreciate your describing this in detail. I'm going to need some time to reflect on these assumptions. The particular assumption that Charles didn't explain is that user%host2host1 or host2|user@host1 will be relayed by host1 to user@host2. Certainly software that does this is broken, but it's also perfectly legal for first%last@host1 or first!last@host1 to be delivered to an account on that machine. To assume that the only reason such an address would be accepted is to relay it is totally bogus. Chris -- Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com 4314 Avenue C Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500 My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft. attach3 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
What should convince you to ignore those tests is that they are providing a diagnosis (Relay attempt succeeded) which is patently false (it isn't a successful relay unless the mail makes it to the final destination, and they aren't even actually sending the mail, just testing the RCPT TO: command). Charles Relay test 7 MAIL FROM:([EMAIL PROTECTED]@mail.mydomain.com) 250 ok RCPT TO:(nobody%prodigysolutions.com) 250 ok (Failed Test) RSET 250 flushed Relay test 13 MAIL FROM:([EMAIL PROTECTED]@mail.mydomain.com) 250 ok RCPT TO:(prodigysolutions.com!nobody) 250 ok (Failed Test) RSET 250 flushed I see your point, the (Failed Test) occurs immediately after RCPT TO: ... 250 ok This is why your (and Chris's) explanations about the assumptions are very useful, that the mail could be successfully received either for a local delivery, or for a relay, or perhaps not delivered at all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
You don't need to look for any bugs to eat! I haven't installed qmail yet, I'm still in the planning stages. I wanted to know how to test for relays and I appreciate your points. Thanks! :) From: Greg White [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:41:33 -0700 On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:30:52AM -0500, q question wrote: SNIP 2) How is it so clear that the machine didn't relay mail? -these types of questions come up every week on this mailing list -qmail has _never_ relayed mail unless the administrator specifically configures it to do so. I know the qmail documentation says that the default for qmail is not to relay. I need to see proof, not just be told to assume that the documentation is correct. As I said above, I'll need time to reflect on this. I appreciate that someone else suggested asking ORBS to do a relay test. However, that doesn't necessarily reassure me that the Prodygy Solutions relay test results should be ignored. I don't know anything specific about the Prodygy relay test failures but I don't just ignore something because someone else said to. 'Proof'? If the relay test in question was acceptable, the OP would already have proof. A proper relay test involves the _actual receipt of relayed mail_. Try your own relay test, if you have addresses at multiple domains available, along the exact same lines as the 'tests' performed by prodigysolutions[1]. If you don't have another address available, use a friend's email account. If you manage to relay third-party mail through a qmail server with rcpthosts populated only with domains that you should actually deliver for (present in locals or virtualdomains[2]), and a properly set RELAYCLIENT environment variable, I will eat a bug on camera, and give you links to watch it on the web. :) [1] I didn't recall seeing recent results for the 'user@destination@relay' test, so I did them myself. Delivery attempt is to local user 'user@destination', which is unlikely to exist and in any case is not a relay. The '%' and '!' garbage comes up at least once a month, and is known _not_ to be a problem. Check that for yourself as well, if you like. [2] Or, of course, a domain that you're an MX for, but not the best-preference MX. I do appreciate your reply and I realize full well that I may end up deciding to ignore the Prodygy relay test failures someday myself. Avoid the rush! Start ignoring them today! 'Tests' which assume that they know better than the MTA they are testing how it will deliver mail are inherently broken. 'Tests' which do not actually attempt to deliver mail anywhere, and do not only count the _actual receipt of mail_ as a successful relay (failed test) are inherently broken. As far as I am concerned, any 'test' that does not actually attempt delivery should immediately be ignored. SNIP GW _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
Nope, mail.swishmail.com cannot be a CNAME if you want to point your MX record at it. It's forbidden. And please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists -- they're meaningless to anyone who doesn't do BINDthink. Instead, tell us what's happening (mail.foo.net is an MX record which points to mail.bar.org with distance 10, which has an A record of 10.20.30.40). That at least means something to everyone who understands a little about DNS. 1) I appreciated Kris's short excerpt from his BIND zonefiles. They were exactly what I needed to see to understand what Kris was saying about his CNAMES. 2) I find the sentence format that describes what is happening mail.foo.net is an MX record which points to ... to be more confusing than seeing the exact records. 3) The people that don't do BINDthink aren't going to understand either the sentence format or the exact record layout. I think people either know or don't know DNS, and they don't fall into a middle ground that can be addressed by the sentence layout. 4) You have stated repeatedly that people must provide detailed information in their emails to this list. Kris did so, and you protest that it is too detailed. You really can't have it both ways. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
Which is pointless. You can't receive mail without advertising the domain in the DNS, so trying to hide the information here achieves precisely nothing. That's not true. I've dealt with plenty of internal corporate email situations that are not exposed to the internet email. Not all email goes out on the internet. Hiding the domain here just makes the job of list members tougher. I encourage everyone to ignore messages with falsified domain information or logs. I think everyone should be free to describe their situation using either generic a.b.c notation or valid domain addresses. Granted, if you are a novice, it is preferred that you use the valid domain addresses because you may incorrectly use the wrong generic addressing. * * * | 1) It's SLOW!-- man tcpserver - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users -- http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX -- list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail -- # line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:10:23 -0600 q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists -- [...] Instead, tell us [the contents of the DNS records] 4) You have stated repeatedly that people must provide detailed information in their emails to this list. Kris did so, and you protest that it is too detailed. You really can't have it both ways. I didn't mean don't give us the DNS information. I meant give us the DNS information in a format that does not require an intimiate knowledge of BIND zonefile format. After all, you don't need to know anything about BIND to be a knowledgable mail admin. Actually, I think I could never have solved the sendmail configuration problems that I have solved without knowing BIND thoroughly. Mail administration maintenance doesn't need detailed BIND, but the initial sendmail configuration in a complex environment absolutely needs thorough DNS/BIND knowledge. You just need to understand some DNS basics. I, unfortunately, have had to learn a bit here and there about BIND zonefiles, but I still prefer the information in a non-proprietary format. BINDthink is painful, and in this list, completely unnecessary. Charles, I understand what it is like to be somewhat familiar with something but not thoroughly familiar. There are so many technical topics that it is impossible for all of us to maintain a full level of expertise in everything at all times. Even once one has mastered a particular topic, it is quite easy to become rusty after only a few weeks away from the topic. I understand that you are asking for the sentence explanation for those who are not into BINDthink. I think it is fine to ask for the sentence explanation and say this is helpful for those not into BINDthink. Please respect those people who do understand BINDthink and realize that it is instantly more clear to us to see the actual records rather than to suppress the display of the actual records on the email list. You do not own this email list. You are sharing this space with a lot of people who have a wide range of technical expertise in a wide range of topics. Just because you prefer something in one particular way, does not mean your opinion must dominate. I thought it was terrific when Kris showed the actual zone records. I'm happy if he wants to take the time to make a sentence summary of it to please you and others who may be hazy about DNS. I was appalled when you said please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists. That is a blanket directive that is not necessarily shared by everyone on this list, certainly not me. A few lines of zone records speaks volumes for BINDthinkers and they are well worth the space in the email. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Is qmail best reserved for mailing list server purposes only?
I appreciate your pointing this out. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John R. Levine) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is qmail best reserved for mailing list server purposes only? Date: 30 Apr 2001 19:15:38 -0400 One last note on this thread. While rereading the FAQ, I came across this which indicates qmail has brakes to keep from generating denial of service attacks. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/efficiency.html Does qmail back off from dead hosts? Answer: Yes. qmail has three backoff features: ... Qmail backs off very well, but doesn't work all that well with sendmail under heavy load. The problem is that sendmail keeps accepting connections even when it doesn't have enough system resources to accept mail, and tends to thrash to death. (Qmail systems usually use tcpserver which enforces a maximum number of simultaneous connections rejecting any beyond that limit.) But since sendmail doesn't reject connections, qmail can't tell that the recipient system isn't responding. Sendmail users tend to assume that anything sendmail does must be right, and anything different must be wrong, so they often blame qmail for opening too many connections. In reality, the connections could just as easily come from any other mail system, of course. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Which IMAP do you prefer with qmail?
I appreciated hearing from you about Courier. I'm going to start out with Courier. Wish me luck! I have a big job ahead of me with installing qmail, courier, ldap, etc. By the way, your http://my.gnus.org website is very impressive. From: Robin S. Socha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Which IMAP do you prefer with qmail? Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:47:29 -0400 * q question [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010429 16:38]: Your parents must hate you. I'm curious, not to really try to create a survey, but of those of you on this list using qmail with IMAP, which IMAP are you using? Courier - what else? Cyrus is nice but uses proprietary formats noone really needs and UW IMAP is brought to you by the security Gods that brohgt you pine. Mbwhahaha... http://mail.socha.net/about/ for a setup that makes me and my users equally happy. -- Robin S. Socha http://my.gnus.org/ - To boldly frobnicate what no newbie has grokked before. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: slow smtp connection
Hi John, I hope you don't unsubscribe from this email list. You are not alone in spending days printing and reading and feeling lost. I'm really dreading my installs. Actually, I know sendmail really well. I saved one company from spending $100,000 on a software package to solve a Unix/PC email problem that they had on their internal servers by rewriting the sendmail configuration files on their Unix servers so they would be able to send email directly between their PC and Unix users. I've also solved a lot of other tough pure Unix sendmail configuration issues over the years that others couldn't solve. But, actually I feel none of that sendmail knowledge is helping me with qmail, IMAP, LDAP, etc. To some extent it does, but not really. I also don't feel the slow connection problem that is reported so frequently is addressed well in the FAQ. I respect the person who is simply putting a summary reference/answer in his standard email footer. From: John Hogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: slow smtp connection Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 11:13:23 -0500 you know, i've had about enough of you guys... on and off the list... please don't email me anymore... i will be unsubscribing this morning i would be the first to admit that i'm not the 'guru' that you guys are... i've spent the last four full days trying to figure out qmail/tcpserver/qpopper/ezmlm and procmail - mostly because i thought that the open-source community was cool and helpful - you know TEAMWORK? - i have found that documentation is poorly written and poorly organized since i joined this list, i have gotten nothing but grief for my questions... i would estimate that i have printed/read over 200 pages of documentation on the various source packages, patches, add-ons and cetera that i have had to install... you would think that a few guys who know all there is to know wouldn't mind helping out the new guy on the block - boy, was i wrong - seems like the main function of the list is to distribute the links to faqs or more documentation i am sorry to have troubled you all... i would have liked to progress to your level... now, i realize that there's nothing to envy adios - hogan On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:53:01AM -0500, John Hogan wrote: i'm sorry to have trouble you... for future reference, what sort of question would qualify for your enlightened views? Perhaps one that you couldn't answer yourself with a minimum of effort. Chris _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: POP3 Login
Yes, it is a great idea! From: Tim Legant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: POP3 Login Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:24:37 -0500 On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:02:24AM -0700, Rick Updegrove wrote: P.S. Should we all just just add the response to this FAQ our signatures? What a great idea! Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW!-- man tcpserver - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users -- http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX -- list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail -- # line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file * * * | 1) It's SLOW!-- man tcpserver - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users -- http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX -- list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail -- # line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Which IMAP do you prefer with qmail?
I'm curious, not to really try to create a survey, but of those of you on this list using qmail with IMAP, which IMAP are you using? Thanks in advance! _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Is qmail best reserved for mailing list server purposes only?
One of the reasons I was interested in qmail was the security aspect of it. I've been impressed that noone has won the reward that is available from Dan Bernstein. This is probably the most negative comment I have seen about qmail while surfing for info: http://www.orbs.org/otherresources.html Qmail admins: Qmail's current version is secure by default, but earlier versions were insecure. Most admins know enough to follow the instructions for securing it before putting qmail into service, however it usually drops ORBS test messages checking for UUCP pathing vulnerabilities - ! pathing - into the admin mailbox. As ! is a standard network addressing indicator, this can only be charitably described as yet another Qmail bug. Qmail is extremely network unfriendly and generates denial of service attacks on other mailservers in its enthusiasm to deliver as many messages as possible in a short period of time. For this reason it is best reserved for mailing list server purposes only. Do you all agree with this opinion that qmail is best reserved for mailing list server purposes only? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Is qmail best reserved for mailing list server purposes only?
Hi Russ, John, and Jason, I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my question about the ORBS opinion. I felt I should check it out before installing qmail and unexpectedly becoming an infamous generator of denial of service attacks! Russ, I appreciated hearing some of the background issues in communication difficulties between the ORBS and qmail groups. John, I started to shrug it off when I read it because I had the exact same thought immediately that you expressed, which was why would an mta that supposedly generates denial of service attacks be especially suited to being a mailing list server? It seems to me that it would be especially UNsuitable for that task. Jason, I agree with you that there is no real distinction between list subscribers and regular mail recipients. You can get an equally high volume either way, and not all lists restrict the members to text only emails. Some lists promote the html email, but these lists are of course usually not technical lists. Thanks for the feedback! - (I'm getting the error messages from the qmail list about soleil as well.) _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Is qmail best reserved for mailing list server purposes only?
One last note on this thread. While rereading the FAQ, I came across this which indicates qmail has brakes to keep from generating denial of service attacks. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/efficiency.html Does qmail back off from dead hosts? Answer: Yes. qmail has three backoff features: Each message is automatically retried on a quadratic schedule, with longer and longer intervals between delivery attempts. If a remote host does not respond to two connection attempts (separated by at least two minutes with no intervening successful connections), qmail automatically leaves the host alone for an hour. At the end of the hour it ``slow-starts,'' allowing one connection through to see whether the host is up. Some mailers opportunistically bombard a host with deferred messages as soon as the host comes back online. qmail does not do this. Each message waits until the appropriate retry time. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: A news.newusers.questions's Guide to Qmail
Hi Brett, I had no intention of correcting or offending you or anyone. If you'll note, I said a simple FYI. I did notice the difference in the article in which the list. was left off. I was just describing the the method that worked for me yesterday so that no one would feel that they needed to make the effort to test signing up again to see exactly what worked. Regards! From: Brett Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: question question [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A news.newusers.questions's Guide to Qmail Date: 28 Apr 2001 09:38:03 +1000 question == question question [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Compare your statement with mine. You: FYI, I did successfully subscribe to this mailing list yesterday by sending an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] per the instructions on the following webpage: Me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) @list.cr.yp.to != @cr.yp.to -- BUG, n.: An undesirable, poorly-understood undocumented feature. - The Devil's Dictionary to Computer Studies _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Receiving mail for multiple domains
I agree that it is difficult to figure out the domain configurations. My favorite documentation on that at the moment is at: http://x42.com/qmail/cookbook/domains/ Mark wrote: How can I configure qmail to accept mail for mail.domaina.com and mail.domainb.com? Nothing in the FAQ could be found. Thanks, Mark _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
