Re: [SLUG] email server
if your running your webserver and your mail server on the same machine then you just need https, connections from squirelmail to imap wont go through the internet and so dont need to be encrypted Dean Michael Fox wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:42:26 +1100, Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am trying my hand at setting up an email server with webmail access. Fedora 3 comes with squirrelmail but the login uses plain text transfer. Can anyone recommend webmail software that forces at least encrypted login but possibly secure transfer of mail as well? Configure the domain.com/squirrelmail/ logon to be on https (instead of http server). -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] email server
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:42:26 +1100, Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am trying my hand at setting up an email server with webmail access. > Fedora 3 comes with squirrelmail but the login uses plain text transfer. Can > anyone recommend webmail software that forces at least encrypted login but > possibly secure transfer of mail as well? Configure the domain.com/squirrelmail/ logon to be on https (instead of http server). -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] email server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tuesday 04 Feb 2003 12:58 pm, Jeff wrote: > I have done a netstat -an | grep 25 . Attached is the output. That shows sendmail listening quite happily to anyone who cares to speak to it. Read my previous email about what I believe is the problem, i.e. the NAT box is not forwarding connections on port 25 to the server. > By the way this is from the machine in question. Red Dwarf fan by some chance ? :-) - -- Chris SamuelWollongong, NSW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBPj8qKI1yjaOTJg85AQGlMwgAp3GbDVPf/5NrG5UJDnAVfmInKXLVxcww AC4FG8C/e0ORb0qZ746m1O/+yTsTQ+2i5tPSDuRH+p/bW1w/e8ryIXrhLfllStbe Lbc+W6n/E4MJFs1S+NtHomkJwYoMqoAjf5GNkFu0vpYyn/z1PjWfRPbexQElfKkr b2iIWu8/BmqgW57iSThaDcdmyiIR3uBQWOg/GI5eCl2fCajsej4SA9KUV1EZqTR6 BH2K9LSAZjdAthI8W/2DMv5ZVVMDhrvRl4Ihv9IpneJioQYTfbPoWELb47oX6anb 6eMOOc6SpBRhr21dJ2Fl+pAa+zQCBrugADP7rlQYP67gasURm4fXBQ== =FU5P -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] email server errors
Ben, I think you should be fine if you get the new box all up and running before hand and then just plug it in in place of the old box. Obvioulsy test it out and make sure it all going to work thoroughly beforehand. Why would you whack a desktop distro on the box instead of debian woody? Not sure about the errors, however my pick for MTA/pop server is postfix and courier. dave - Original Message - From: "Ben Donohue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: [SLUG] email server errors > Hi Slugs, > > We are getting lots of "unrouteable mail domain" messages both from internal > messages going out and we are hearing from others emailing us that emails > have been sent but bounced back from us. (Even this message bounced back > once) > I'm looking into "frozen messages" errors from the exim logs. > > I suspect the email server, which is currently running debian and > exim/qpopper, is on a very underpowered machine. (pentium 90 64Mb for > 350-400 users.) I'm looking at setting up a more powerful PC running (most > likely) Mandrake 8.2. > > Just looking for clues as to how you would migrate over to a new box without > interrupting the email flow. Clients are windows boxes with outlook clients > and a hard coded ip address for the debian mail server. Just looking for > pointers in the right direction and any gotcha's that anyone has had. > > TIA > Ben > > > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
- Original Message - From: Mikolaj J. Habryn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > On 30 Dec 2000 18:03:23 +1100, Crossfire wrote: > > [Brought back onto the list - if you have anything you wish to add... - XF] > > From: Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:54:05PM +1100, Crossfire wrote: > > > > From: "Colin Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hence why its bad. For large sites, you constantly have to watch the inode > > free count on the mail volume. With sendmail or mbox systems, one inode per > > spool, just watch your free disk space. > > And the qualitative difference between monitoring disk space alone or > disk space and inode count is what, exactly? The median mail message > weighs in at 3-4k in size. The average big ext2 filesystem comes > formatted with one inode per 4k of disk space. Good match, wouldn't you > say? ext2, yes - I rarely speak just of linux. I prefer systems that perform consistantly between platforms - its far easier to run one system everywhere, than a different mailer on each architecture. I prefer mbox anyway. And yes, this is a personal preference. > > Also, most POP3 and IMAP daemons > > work with mbox, not mailfolder. Same with mailreaders. > > Boggle. How many POP3 daemons do you want to run? They don't exactly > vary a huge amount in terms of featureset. As for IMAP - I can think of > three major open source contenders off the top of my head. Of those, one > may or may not be mbox only, but shouldn't be touched by a ten foot pole > (as a security expert, I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about), > one is maildir only, and one uses it's own entirely funky storage > subsystem and glares daggers at any foreign software. I'll admit this is more a "I don't like maildir" rant on my behalf. mbox works. It might be slow - but if thats a problem, split you mbox every n days, where n prevents you from having an oversized mbox. And yes, you get performance limitations in threaded designs with mbox because only one thread can have the mbox open for writing at any given time. maildir probably also works, just I don't like the idea of having lots of tiny little files scattered about many directories. and besides, ext2 would *hate* my mailtree if I did that. [I used to subscribe to debian-devel - 2 weeks of debian-devel in maildir on a ext2 system would probably start to reach the large-directory-performance-hit point] > > And *NO* high performance system should ever run out of a inetd/tcpserver > > style system. You're introducing unnecessary overhead, and this *WILL* > > force your load up every time. > > Somebody go and count the cycles involved in half a dozen fork/execs - > /especially/ under Linux - and compare it to the cost of fsyncing one > block of data to disk. Reality check? This is the CGI vs persistant application server argument. The Persistant application server won last time I looked. Like I said, I'm not arguing just for linux, but as it has been pointed out, there is a standalone mode for the smtpd - so this arguement isn't that valid anyway. Also Reinvoking applications rapidly is guaranteed to push your load averages up, even if its not a performance hit. If you're running load average monitoring as part of a network management system, and you're not careful with your trigger thresholds, those alarm bells are going to sound a little prematurely as a result. You solve this with the standalone mode. 'nuff said. > > and lazyiness is not an excuse. I don't care how much "more complicated" it > > would make qmail to do multiple envelope delivery, its is irresponsible to > > waste bandwidth when you could be saving it. Especially here. > > You've said a lot about mailing lists, and, with all due respect, > grossly misrepresented dib's view on them (which directly relates to how > and why qmail does what it does). I don't think large scale mailing > lists are a topic of interest to the original poster, so I'll just say > that djb did some rather extensive benchmarking and testing of his > design versus the more orthodox approach, and documented his priorities > and results quite extensively. IMO, qmail is fine for just recieving, or pushing around messages for a `small' number of people who aren't going to push to multiple recipients. I talk mostly about large scale lists because thats what I do at the moment. If you want to hear me mention a mailer that isn't qmail or sendmail... One other
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
> > First, lets verify with the maths: a 56K modem's uplink is 33.6Kbps, 10 > > bits per byte [due to Async framing]. thats a maximum transfer speed of > > 3.3KB/sec. your 12K message would take approximately 3 seconds (actually, a > > little over) to transmit. > > Next, let's re-verify the maths. Async framing went out with the loaves > and fishes. Ever since MNP4, modem links have been synchronous, clocking > in at 8 + epsilon bits to transfer each byte of data. But wait, there's > more! Ever since MNP5, modem links have been compressed. Modem > compression isn't really worth all that much, except in the very limited > realm of repetitive plain text. Like email, to pick a random example. > And what better way to make it repetitive than to send the same thing to > n destinations? The point is still valid regardless of the transfer method. > > Yes. Aliases are most easily managed via the older aliases style. They're > > more space efficent. And I'm sure sendmail's alias hashes are faster to > > read too. > > By one person, for one person, yes. The thing about virtual domains, > see, is that they're usually for the benefit of multiple owners. And > these multiple owners, pesky and arrogant individuals that they are, > want to make changes to delivery rules at odd hours of the morning with > depressing regularity. There's something very, very appealing about > putting all the control for any given domain in the hands of a separate > user, and then washing your hands of the matter. But then, I'm an > anti-control freak. black vs white. choose whats appropriate, thus the value of opensource. > And the qualitative difference between monitoring disk space alone or > disk space and inode count is what, exactly? The median mail message > weighs in at 3-4k in size. The average big ext2 filesystem comes > formatted with one inode per 4k of disk space. Good match, wouldn't you > say? If your running big mail servers lots of disk is important anyway, but saving it is still good. mbox isnt great, i like maildir and most apps have been adapted or writen for maildir support. qmail can run as mbox anyway, and if your really desperate you could just pop into your local machine. > > Also, most POP3 and IMAP daemons > > work with mbox, not mailfolder. Same with mailreaders. > > Boggle. How many POP3 daemons do you want to run? They don't exactly > vary a huge amount in terms of featureset. As for IMAP - I can think of > three major open source contenders off the top of my head. Of those, one > may or may not be mbox only, but shouldn't be touched by a ten foot pole > (as a security expert, I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about), > one is maildir only, and one uses it's own entirely funky storage > subsystem and glares daggers at any foreign software. There are pop / imap servers for both. what does it matter how many there are? > > And *NO* high performance system should ever run out of a inetd/tcpserver > > style system. You're introducing unnecessary overhead, and this *WILL* > > force your load up every time. > > Somebody go and count the cycles involved in half a dozen fork/execs - > /especially/ under Linux - and compare it to the cost of fsyncing one > block of data to disk. Reality check? depends on how things are implemented. No doubt some poor coding would make an inetd/tcpserver solution higher performance. > > and lazyiness is not an excuse. I don't care how much "more complicated" it > > would make qmail to do multiple envelope delivery, its is irresponsible to > > waste bandwidth when you could be saving it. Especially here. > > You've said a lot about mailing lists, and, with all due respect, > grossly misrepresented dib's view on them (which directly relates to how > and why qmail does what it does). I don't think large scale mailing > lists are a topic of interest to the original poster, so I'll just say > that djb did some rather extensive benchmarking and testing of his > design versus the more orthodox approach, and documented his priorities > and results quite extensively. > > m, who reluctantly withdrew a paper on large scale mail architecture > from linux.conf.au recently. Crossfire spams for a living, he has some knowledge of MTA's and has caused me to reconsider my preferance of qmail (expecially after having recently installed exim as the mail relay for our exchange machines at PCL) Find whats good for you, if you dont like it attack the code with vi (or nano, i like nano) then recompile. Dean -- BONG: http://www.bong.com.au EMAIL... [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 16867613 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
On 30 Dec 2000 18:03:23 +1100, Crossfire wrote: > [Brought back onto the list - if you have anything you wish to add... - XF] > From: Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:54:05PM +1100, Crossfire wrote: > > > From: "Colin Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If you are at all concerned about security, then you really only have > > > > two choices qmail or postfix. > > > sendmail is fine damnit. Just don't run a version with known > > > vunerabilities, and keep an eye open for advisories [like any good > sysadmin > > > should]. > > And which version would that be? > IIRC, 8.9.2 is fairly good. I'm sure others will be able to tell you which > versions of sendmail are "safe". Sigh. Rewind and reality check. Everybody get the irony in there? Good. > First, lets verify with the maths: a 56K modem's uplink is 33.6Kbps, 10 > bits per byte [due to Async framing]. thats a maximum transfer speed of > 3.3KB/sec. your 12K message would take approximately 3 seconds (actually, a > little over) to transmit. Next, let's re-verify the maths. Async framing went out with the loaves and fishes. Ever since MNP4, modem links have been synchronous, clocking in at 8 + epsilon bits to transfer each byte of data. But wait, there's more! Ever since MNP5, modem links have been compressed. Modem compression isn't really worth all that much, except in the very limited realm of repetitive plain text. Like email, to pick a random example. And what better way to make it repetitive than to send the same thing to n destinations? > Yes. Aliases are most easily managed via the older aliases style. They're > more space efficent. And I'm sure sendmail's alias hashes are faster to > read too. By one person, for one person, yes. The thing about virtual domains, see, is that they're usually for the benefit of multiple owners. And these multiple owners, pesky and arrogant individuals that they are, want to make changes to delivery rules at odd hours of the morning with depressing regularity. There's something very, very appealing about putting all the control for any given domain in the hands of a separate user, and then washing your hands of the matter. But then, I'm an anti-control freak. > Hence why its bad. For large sites, you constantly have to watch the inode > free count on the mail volume. With sendmail or mbox systems, one inode per > spool, just watch your free disk space. And the qualitative difference between monitoring disk space alone or disk space and inode count is what, exactly? The median mail message weighs in at 3-4k in size. The average big ext2 filesystem comes formatted with one inode per 4k of disk space. Good match, wouldn't you say? > Also, most POP3 and IMAP daemons > work with mbox, not mailfolder. Same with mailreaders. Boggle. How many POP3 daemons do you want to run? They don't exactly vary a huge amount in terms of featureset. As for IMAP - I can think of three major open source contenders off the top of my head. Of those, one may or may not be mbox only, but shouldn't be touched by a ten foot pole (as a security expert, I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about), one is maildir only, and one uses it's own entirely funky storage subsystem and glares daggers at any foreign software. > And *NO* high performance system should ever run out of a inetd/tcpserver > style system. You're introducing unnecessary overhead, and this *WILL* > force your load up every time. Somebody go and count the cycles involved in half a dozen fork/execs - /especially/ under Linux - and compare it to the cost of fsyncing one block of data to disk. Reality check? > and lazyiness is not an excuse. I don't care how much "more complicated" it > would make qmail to do multiple envelope delivery, its is irresponsible to > waste bandwidth when you could be saving it. Especially here. You've said a lot about mailing lists, and, with all due respect, grossly misrepresented dib's view on them (which directly relates to how and why qmail does what it does). I don't think large scale mailing lists are a topic of interest to the original poster, so I'll just say that djb did some rather extensive benchmarking and testing of his design versus the more orthodox approach, and documented his priorities and results quite extensively. m, who reluctantly withdrew a paper on large scale mail architecture from linux.conf.au recently. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
>> > qmail's smtpd via inetd is inefficent, making you use the author's silly >> > tcpserver thing (which is just as bad IMO). More cruft to install. :/ >> >> tcpserver is a godsend, and not at all cruft. Logging via IP, and defining >exactly what can and can't connect is a Good Thing[tm] > >IP filtering is your protection and IP access logging layer. > >And *NO* high performance system should ever run out of a inetd/tcpserver >style system. You're introducing unnecessary overhead, and this *WILL* >force your load up every time. This is a furphy. qmail can run standalone also. With IP filtering and logging too. I won't comment on the other points. Some have some basis, some just come down to personal preference and adaptability. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
> [Brought back onto the list - if you have anything you wish to add... - XF] > > If you want my professional opinion, qmail does not belong anywhere near > mail-hubs, mailing lists, or other high-volume mail areas. Surely arguments involving Sendmail and qmail are B!!!111 topics by now? - Jeff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://linux.conf.au/ -- The Unix Way: Everything is a file. The Linux Way: Everything is a filesystem. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
- Original Message - From: Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Alan Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > 3) Virtual hosting. [SNIP] >Virtual Domain handling for outbound messages is handled via the >mailertable. Bleck - I mustn't have been drinking enough coffee when I wrote this - the table in question is the genericstable, not the mailertable. -- +--+ | Crossfire | This message was brought to you | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on 100% recycled electrons | +--+ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
[Brought back onto the list - if you have anything you wish to add... - XF] - Original Message - From: Steve Kowalik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:54:05PM +1100, Crossfire wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Colin Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "Alan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:11 AM > > Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > > > > > If you are at all concerned about security, then you really only have > > > two choices qmail or postfix. > > > > sendmail is fine damnit. Just don't run a version with known > > vunerabilities, and keep an eye open for advisories [like any good sysadmin > > should]. > > > And which version would that be? IIRC, 8.9.2 is fairly good. I'm sure others will be able to tell you which versions of sendmail are "safe". > > Bwargh. If I hear another "qmail is good" rant, I'm gonna barf. I'm not > > going to dispute smail, postfix or exim, or any other mailer I have no > > experience with. > > > > qmail is not good. qmail is disgusting. Why? > > > I think you're wrong. The way it is setup takes getting used too, but it works, amd works well. > > > qmail is incrediably network inefficent[1]. > > > No, it isn't. It can hardly be called inefficent when it delivered a 12K message to 5 recipiets on 5 different mail servers in just under 7 seconds. I had to pick my jaw up (my 56K link is flaky at the best of times.) First, lets verify with the maths: a 56K modem's uplink is 33.6Kbps, 10 bits per byte [due to Async framing]. thats a maximum transfer speed of 3.3KB/sec. your 12K message would take approximately 3 seconds (actually, a little over) to transmit. The fact you sent it to 5 distinct hosts, in under 7 seconds immediately indicates that you are mistaken about either the time to deliver to all 5 recipiants, or of the size of your message. If sendmail was transmitting to a smart-hub on the other side of the modem link, it would take the 4 or 5 seconds - the message would be sent as a single envelope to the smart-hub for further processing. Otherwise, you'd be looking at a minimum of 5*3 = 15 seconds to send it to each distinct host. Qmail, however, doesn't support multiple recipients for envelopes, so those 5 recipients become 5 distinct envelopes. All 5 envelopes must be delivered seperately. You automatically take a minimum of 5*3 = 15 seconds to transmit that 12K message. This also affects smart-hosts under qmail IIRC. > > qmail does address aliases in a truely disgusting manner (whatever happened > > to just using /etc/mail/aliases and ~/.forward, hmm?). Having to create > > 'users' just to contain mail alias folders is just plain stupid. > > > "echo 'username' > /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-alias" is plain stupid? Apart from the fact its actually ~alias/.qmail-alias, or if you're running virtual domains, ~vhostaliasuser/.qmail-alias, yes - it is. More uncessary inode and disk space wastage - each of those files is a minimum of one block, and use one inode. Yes. Aliases are most easily managed via the older aliases style. They're more space efficent. And I'm sure sendmail's alias hashes are faster to read too. > > The `mailfolders' message storage scheme is just plain filesystem > > unfriendly[2]. > > Only because it uses one inode (or more) per message, but it's _fast_, and works well. Hence why its bad. For large sites, you constantly have to watch the inode free count on the mail volume. With sendmail or mbox systems, one inode per spool, just watch your free disk space. Also, most POP3 and IMAP daemons work with mbox, not mailfolder. Same with mailreaders. > > qmail's smtpd via inetd is inefficent, making you use the author's silly > > tcpserver thing (which is just as bad IMO). More cruft to install. :/ > > tcpserver is a godsend, and not at all cruft. Logging via IP, and defining exactly what can and can't connect is a Good Thing[tm] IP filtering is your protection and IP access logging layer. And *NO* high performance system should ever run out of a inetd/tcpserver style system. You're introducing unnecessary overhead, and this *WILL* force your load up every time. > > When under heavy mail loads, qmail will happily blow a single processor PIII > > system load up to 60+. This basically renders loadaverage monitoring > > useless. > > > Really? And what do yo
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
- Original Message - From: "Colin Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Alan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > If you are at all concerned about security, then you really only have > two choices qmail or postfix. sendmail is fine damnit. Just don't run a version with known vunerabilities, and keep an eye open for advisories [like any good sysadmin should]. > Qmail is very different, but I like it. The licence it is under, makes > binary distribution basically impossible, but if you follow one of the > howtos its pretty straight forward. There are addons if you would like > /etc/aliases support and the like. I would suggest courier-imap for > imap, imaps, pop and pops. vpopmail can automate virtual domains for > you, and qmail-admin provides a web admin interface. sqwebmail gives you > web-mail. (And if you are feeling particularly keen, wrap your Maildir > directories up in a Resierfs, for some excelent performance) Bwargh. If I hear another "qmail is good" rant, I'm gonna barf. I'm not going to dispute smail, postfix or exim, or any other mailer I have no experience with. qmail is not good. qmail is disgusting. Why? qmail is incrediably network inefficent[1]. qmail does address aliases in a truely disgusting manner (whatever happened to just using /etc/mail/aliases and ~/.forward, hmm?). Having to create 'users' just to contain mail alias folders is just plain stupid. The `mailfolders' message storage scheme is just plain filesystem unfriendly[2]. qmail's smtpd via inetd is inefficent, making you use the author's silly tcpserver thing (which is just as bad IMO). More cruft to install. :/ When under heavy mail loads, qmail will happily blow a single processor PIII system load up to 60+. This basically renders loadaverage monitoring useless. All this said and done, qmail's only redeeming feature is that it flushes its spools moderately quickly. Mind you, in my eyes - thats its only redeeming feature. [1] The "Lets send out multiple recipiants as individual envelopes" idea is just plain stupid. [2] unless you're running your mail spool on reiserfs, which is NOT recommended given that reiser is still not "stable". -- --==-- Crossfire | This email was brought to you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on 100% Recycled Electrons --==-- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
- Original Message - From: Alan Lee To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:44 AM Subject: [SLUG] Email Server > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to > config, and keeps working. Its required to be able to support > multipical domains, and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > .. What do other people use? OK, First of all - this reflects my *personal* views, because I know people are going to jump and and down, and complain about what I'm going to say. Sendmail should be your first choice for an MTA. Sendmail is moderately efficent [especially when compared to qmail], keeps on working, is easy to install, supports Virutal Domains, etc - and is easy enough to configure once you know how (Yes, there is a "secret" that would be better known if people bothered to read manuals). 1) Installation. Use whatever package you have for sendmail with your system. If you can't use that, download a recent release, and compile it following the build instructions - they've worked on everything I've thrown it at in the past. If you are building, be sure to build (or install) Berkeley DB *first*, since hash map support is a Good Thing(tm). 2) Configuration. look at sendmail.cf, release that its the most disgusting format ever, then ignore it. Use the m4 scripts instead. (The m4 scripts are the secret to an easy configuration process). The m4 scripts are also very well documented - and you should definately read their manual. Fortunately, if you get things right, you only ever need to do the sendmail.mc and cf files once ever - and configure everything else elsewhere. You probably want to enable the cw file (local hostnames), virtusertable, mailertable, and accessdb (relay/block control) features at least. 3) Virtual hosting. Sendmail has two features for this. Virtual Domain handling for inbound messages is handled via the virtusertable. Virtual Domain handling for outbound messages is handled via the mailertable. Read the quick overview at sendmail.org. The sendmail system is quite simple and powerful. The main thing to remember is to run makemap to rebuild the tables after editing them. 4) Web Admin Interface Are you nuts? What would you want such a beast for? It should be trivial to write a CGI/PHP/Mason system to edit virtuserhosts, mailertable, access table, etc though. Sendmail, once its running, is incrediably easy to look after though. C. -- --==-- Crossfire | This email was brought to you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on 100% Recycled Electrons --==-- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/06/msg00193.html That is the problem I am getting; As soon as qmailadmin is used, this file will be restored to what it used to be, the unworking used to be that is. I have tryed everything I can think of, and there dosn't seem to be much information about this problem, or even a real solution? Regards, Alan Lee - Original Message - From: "Dave Kempe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Alan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:44, Alan Lee wrote: > > Hey; > > > > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to config, > > and keeps working. Its required to be able to support multipical domains, > > and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > > > .. What do other people use? > > What sort of web interface? to configure it or like a client MUA type > interface? > If you are looking for a configuration tool then webmin www.webmin.com > configures sendmail and postfix. > Postfix is my favorite btw for MTA stuff. However for MUA, things I haven't > found a really great web interface yet :/ I dunno if its meant to work that > way neway. > > Dave > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
If you are at all concerned about security, then you really only have two choices qmail or postfix. I am told that the setup and operation of postfix is quite similar to that of sendmail... Qmail is very different, but I like it. The licence it is under, makes binary distribution basically impossible, but if you follow one of the howtos its pretty straight forward. There are addons if you would like /etc/aliases support and the like. I would suggest courier-imap for imap, imaps, pop and pops. vpopmail can automate virtual domains for you, and qmail-admin provides a web admin interface. sqwebmail gives you web-mail. (And if you are feeling particularly keen, wrap your Maildir directories up in a Resierfs, for some excelent performance) Check out www.inter7.com and www.qmail.org for links to most of this stuff. -Colin Dean Hamstead wrote: > > sendmail is installed on most systems by default. > It works, and its not too bad when all is said and done > > im a fan of qmail and exim. > > i think exim maybe a little easier to set up but possibly > qmail has more available software. > > www.qmail.org > www.exim.org > > smail is supposed to be good > > have a look on freshmeat.net, have a fiddle with them and > see what works for you. > > Dean > > > Alan Lee wrote: > > > > Hey; > > > > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to > > config, and keeps working. Its required to be able to support > > multipical domains, and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > > > .. What do other people use? > > > > Regards, Alan Lee > > -- > BONG: http://www.bong.com.au > EMAIL... > [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ICQ: 16867613 > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
Qmail has always been straight forward for me. Just follow the install docs and when its working start changing stuff =) (thats my policy when installing something new and/or unknown) Dean Alan Lee wrote: > > Qmail is what im using at the moment, I have 2 installs of it. One is > working perfectly, but the other is haveing nothing but problems. > > The machine which dosn't have any problems whatso ever, is sitting on 64k > ISDN, which we are going to terminate shortly in the new year. > > I have another machine sitting on 10mbit+ of bandwidth, which im trying to > get qmail to work correctly. > > Its kidna buggering me up.. heh > > Regards, Alan Lee > - Original Message - > From: "Dean Hamstead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Alan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > > > sendmail is installed on most systems by default. > > It works, and its not too bad when all is said and done > > > > im a fan of qmail and exim. > > > > i think exim maybe a little easier to set up but possibly > > qmail has more available software. > > > > www.qmail.org > > www.exim.org > > > > smail is supposed to be good > > > > have a look on freshmeat.net, have a fiddle with them and > > see what works for you. > > > > Dean > > > > > Alan Lee wrote: > > > > > > Hey; > > > > > > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to > > > config, and keeps working. Its required to be able to support > > > multipical domains, and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > > > > > .. What do other people use? > > > > > > Regards, Alan Lee > > > > -- > > BONG: http://www.bong.com.au > > EMAIL... > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ICQ: 16867613 > > > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug -- BONG: http://www.bong.com.au EMAIL... [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 16867613 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:44, Alan Lee wrote: > Hey; > > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to config, > and keeps working. Its required to be able to support multipical domains, > and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > .. What do other people use? What sort of web interface? to configure it or like a client MUA type interface? If you are looking for a configuration tool then webmin www.webmin.com configures sendmail and postfix. Postfix is my favorite btw for MTA stuff. However for MUA, things I haven't found a really great web interface yet :/ I dunno if its meant to work that way neway. Dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
Qmail is what im using at the moment, I have 2 installs of it. One is working perfectly, but the other is haveing nothing but problems. The machine which dosn't have any problems whatso ever, is sitting on 64k ISDN, which we are going to terminate shortly in the new year. I have another machine sitting on 10mbit+ of bandwidth, which im trying to get qmail to work correctly. Its kidna buggering me up.. heh Regards, Alan Lee - Original Message - From: "Dean Hamstead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Alan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Email Server > sendmail is installed on most systems by default. > It works, and its not too bad when all is said and done > > im a fan of qmail and exim. > > i think exim maybe a little easier to set up but possibly > qmail has more available software. > > www.qmail.org > www.exim.org > > smail is supposed to be good > > have a look on freshmeat.net, have a fiddle with them and > see what works for you. > > Dean > > > Alan Lee wrote: > > > > Hey; > > > > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to > > config, and keeps working. Its required to be able to support > > multipical domains, and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > > > .. What do other people use? > > > > Regards, Alan Lee > > -- > BONG: http://www.bong.com.au > EMAIL... > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ICQ: 16867613 > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
> Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to config, and > keeps working. Its required to be able to support multipical domains Gosh! You must be talking about Postfix! :) I've tried almost everything else (if you cite an esoteric MTA on Freshmeat that no one in their right mind would use, that doesn't count), but I don't have time for anything but Postfix or Exim these days. The rest are just a PITA. [ One popular feature of the minute is missing in Postfix tho; if you want to do external filtering during processing, it won't be your best bet. Filtering on delivery, sure. ] > and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. Ugh... Whilst we're on it, I need a web interface to HTTP. ;) Lots of people have recently mentioned to me that Webmin is pretty cool. It's in my 10 Foot Bargepole category of software (with friends such as linuxconf), but the Postfix plugin seems to work well, and the contextual help is quite good. - Jeff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://linux.conf.au/ -- ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server
sendmail is installed on most systems by default. It works, and its not too bad when all is said and done im a fan of qmail and exim. i think exim maybe a little easier to set up but possibly qmail has more available software. www.qmail.org www.exim.org smail is supposed to be good have a look on freshmeat.net, have a fiddle with them and see what works for you. Dean > Alan Lee wrote: > > Hey; > > Im looking for an email server, which is easy to install, easy to > config, and keeps working. Its required to be able to support > multipical domains, and would be nice to have a web interface to it.. > > .. What do other people use? > > Regards, Alan Lee -- BONG: http://www.bong.com.au EMAIL... [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 16867613 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server Questions
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 09:04:40PM +1100, Jason Rennie wrote: > But how do i get sendmail to accept mail as a secondary mail server ? You have to configure your sendmail to relay for that domain. Exactly how depends upon the version of sendmail you have. For 8.8, add the domain to /etc/mail/relay_allow. For 8.9, add it to /etc/mail/access and rebuild the database. See http://www.sendmail.org/m4/anti-spam.html for details. Cheers, John -- whois [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server Questions
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Terry Collins generated: >Jason Rennie wrote: > >> But how do i get sendmail to accept mail as a secondary mail server ? > >As I understand it, you don't. You just set it up as a mail server that >collects the mail and passes it onto the main later, or have your >clients poll it as well. That is how I saw it; you set your secondary server exactly the same as the primary one, but perhaps with a cron job that polls the primary server, and sends the spool off to it, so your users need have only one place to collect their mail from. -- jamesw Usenet is essentially a HUGE group of people passing notes in class. -- R. Kadel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server Questions
> As I understand it, you don't. You just set it up as a mail server that > collects the mail and passes it onto the main later, or have your > clients poll it as well. > > However, it still relies on bigpond, or whoever provides your MX records > listing your secondary mail server in their nameserver and if the > problem is their nameserving, then you are still stuffed. Thanks terry, thats what i wanted to know. Funny how quickly this went around after i got off the phone bitching to tech support and being told nothing was wrong. Jason -- GnuPG Key 2450EEDC Jason Rennie<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key fingerprint = 1A2B 5E34 B45A 2871 A488 99C7 7579 5FFC 2450 EEDC -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] Email Server Questions
Jason Rennie wrote:
> But how do i get sendmail to accept mail as a secondary mail server ?
As I understand it, you don't. You just set it up as a mail server that
collects the mail and passes it onto the main later, or have your
clients poll it as well.
However, it still relies on bigpond, or whoever provides your MX records
listing your secondary mail server in their nameserver and if the
problem is their nameserving, then you are still stuffed.
I stand to be corrected, but that is how I understand it.
--
Terry Collins {:-)}}} Ph(02) 4627 2186 Fax(02) 4628 7861
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.woa.com.au
or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WOA Computer Services
snail: PO Box 1047, Campbelltown, NSW 2560.
"People without trees are like fish without clean water"
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
