I was wrong.
A week or so ago, I argued that Dan Bernstein could and should have done more to help Redhat ship qmail. I thought about it some more, and I was wrong. I think the right principle to apply is the same one applied to traffic accidents: the last person who could have prevented the accident is at fault. Redhat burned the master CD, and could have put smail or exim on it. They didn't, so the fault is all their own, and not Dan's. I'm sorry I said it was yours, Dan. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: Control files
virtualdomains file read as follows: ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters mail.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters www.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters Do the MX records for these domains point at your machine? (Is your machine mail.ntmasters.net? If it is, then why is it a virtualdomain; if it is not then the MX does not point at your machine: nslookup -query=mx mail.ntmasters.net Server: dns1.memphis.edu Address: 141.225.253.21 Non-authoritative answer: mail.ntmasters.net preference = 10, mail exchanger = mail.ntmasters.net Authoritative answers can be found from: mail.ntmasters.net internet address = 209.85.33.100 But the DNS records are weird: besides mail.ntmasters.net, www.ntmasters.net is also an A record with IP 209.85.33.100 Finally, there is no PTR record for 209.85.33.100: nslookup 209.85.33.100 Server: dns1.memphis.edu Address: 141.225.253.21 Authoritative answers can be found from: mail.ntmasters.net internet address = 209.85.33.100 *** dns1.memphis.edu can't find 209.85.33.100: Non-existent host/domain Mate --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
pop3/tcp server failing (looping)
Hello, I had set up this qmail abt a month. Suddenly client cannot connect to pop server. In syslog i had this log. Jan 8 10:15:41 kids inetd[80]: pop3/tcp server failing (looping), service terminated Restart with 'shutdown -r now' does not work. Switch off/on system after shutdown bring back the pop3. I had this in inetd.conf pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup po.monja.com.sg /usr/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir In rc.M # Start the qmail daemon: if [ -x /var/qmail/bin/qmail-start ]; then echo "Starting qmail daemon ..." csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &' fi # # Start the tcpserver smtp: if [ -x /usr/local/bin/tcpserver ]; then /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -c66 -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u7791 -g2108 0 smtp \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd & fi # Pls help interpret the error log and advise what might have possibly gone wrong. Thank you Soo Aun MediaManager Pte Ltd
Re: Hardware selection help
On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 03:57:03PM -0700, Sean Rietze wrote: > OK, little advice. Getting ready to order a Dell Poweredge 2300 machine > to run qmail and about 35,000 pop accounts on. Is this Hardware RAID? Our sysadm could never make RH work on our Dell server with RAID. Dell was less than cooperative; they just do not care about Linux. Why do not you try one of the servers similar to muncher? (Read about it on DJB's home page). The company sells the machines with Linux, or BSD installed and configured to use RAID*. -- --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Re: FormMail
On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 09:06:35PM -0600, Graphic Rezidew wrote: > anyone know if FormMail from Matt's script archive, will with Qmail? > I took a quick look and don't see why it wouldn't but I don't know. > > > scripts archive = http://www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/ > Yep, we use it here. It envokes the qmail version of sendmail. Ken Jones http:/www.inter7.com/qmail/ Inter7 Internet Technologies
Re: Control files
Thanks for all the help everyone!!! I got everything working great now. Seek3r -Original Message- From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Seek3r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 6:31 PM Subject: Re: Control files >On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 06:05:22PM -0800, Seek3r wrote: >> @IN CNAME www.ntmasters.net. >> @IN MX 10 mail >> wwwIN A 209.85.33.100 >> IN MX 209.85.33.100 >> mail IN A 209.85.33.100 >> IN MX 10 mail >> >> OK, so your saying that the first line here needs to go >> I have this here in case someone goes to http://ntmasters.net it will >> properly take them to http://www,ntmasters.net Im not sure this is critical, >> but I guess I have to remove it to make the email work properly. > >It mustn't be a CNAME. Just change it to an A record: > >@ IN A 209.85.33.100 > >Then http://ntmasters.net will still work, and your MX record won't be hidden >by the CNAME. > >Also, the MX record for www shouldn't be pointing to an IP address--it has to >point to a host name (but that's a separate issue). > >> What about the other question I had, it would also solve this >> I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains file >> is like this >> myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r >> >> I read somewhere that I could put a dot in front of it like this: >> .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r >> >> Any ideas about this? > >I don't have any virtual domains like this, but according to the qmail-send man >page it should work that way. Have you tried it? If so and it doesn't seem to >work, can you provide any details? > >Chris >
FormMail
anyone know if FormMail from Matt's script archive, will with Qmail? I took a quick look and don't see why it wouldn't but I don't know. scripts archive = http://www.worldwidemart.com/scripts/ -- The word "spine" is, of course, an anagram of "penis". This is true in almost fifty percent of the languages of the Galaxy, and many people have attempted to explain why. Usually these explanations get bogged down in silly puns about "standing erect" -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Graphic Rezidew [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Graphic.Rezidew.net
Re: Control files
On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 06:05:22PM -0800, Seek3r wrote: > @IN CNAME www.ntmasters.net. > @IN MX 10 mail > wwwIN A 209.85.33.100 > IN MX 209.85.33.100 > mail IN A 209.85.33.100 > IN MX 10 mail > > OK, so your saying that the first line here needs to go > I have this here in case someone goes to http://ntmasters.net it will > properly take them to http://www,ntmasters.net Im not sure this is critical, > but I guess I have to remove it to make the email work properly. It mustn't be a CNAME. Just change it to an A record: @ IN A 209.85.33.100 Then http://ntmasters.net will still work, and your MX record won't be hidden by the CNAME. Also, the MX record for www shouldn't be pointing to an IP address--it has to point to a host name (but that's a separate issue). > What about the other question I had, it would also solve this > I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains file > is like this > myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r > > I read somewhere that I could put a dot in front of it like this: > .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r > > Any ideas about this? I don't have any virtual domains like this, but according to the qmail-send man page it should work that way. Have you tried it? If so and it doesn't seem to work, can you provide any details? Chris
Re: Control files
Umm...putting IPs in MX records is a big no-no. I have a little DNS experience, so here's what I'd change it to: @ IN A 209.85.33.100 @ IN MX 10 mail www IN CNAME ntmasters.net. IN MX 10 mail mailIN CNAME ntmasters.net. IN MX 10 mail#is this line necessary? --Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ICQ UIN: 692441 ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Re: Control files
>> I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains fil >> e >> is like this >> myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r >> >> I read somewhere that I could put a dot in front of it like this: >> .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r > >Include both the line with the dot and the one without. OH I got it Thanks!
Re: Control files
> From: "Seek3r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:05:22 -0800 > > @IN CNAME www.ntmasters.net. > @IN MX 10 mail > wwwIN A 209.85.33.100 > IN MX 209.85.33.100 > mail IN A 209.85.33.100 > IN MX 10 mail > > OK, so your saying that the first line here needs to go > I have this here in case someone goes to http://ntmasters.net it will > properly take them to http://www,ntmasters.net Im not sure this is critical > , > but I guess I have to remove it to make the email work properly. and A record is the only real way to do that... > What about the other question I had, it would also solve this > I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains fil > e > is like this > myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r > > I read somewhere that I could put a dot in front of it like this: > .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r Include both the line with the dot and the one without. Chris -- Chris Garrigues Deep Eddy Internet Consulting +1 512 432 4046 609 Deep Eddy AvenueO- http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78703-4513 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. PGP signature
Re: Control files
@IN CNAME www.ntmasters.net. @IN MX 10 mail wwwIN A 209.85.33.100 IN MX 209.85.33.100 mail IN A 209.85.33.100 IN MX 10 mail OK, so your saying that the first line here needs to go I have this here in case someone goes to http://ntmasters.net it will properly take them to http://www,ntmasters.net Im not sure this is critical, but I guess I have to remove it to make the email work properly. What about the other question I had, it would also solve this I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains file is like this myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r I read somewhere that I could put a dot in front of it like this: .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r Any ideas about this? -Original Message- From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Seek3r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 5:58 PM Subject: Re: Control files >On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 05:50:20PM -0800, Seek3r wrote: >> ok fine, you want real details ;p >> I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and >> saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont know >> where the www came from. Any ideas about this? >> >> I didnt want to us the real address, because I made a fix my making my >> virtualdomains file read as follows: >> ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters >> mail.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters >> www.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters >> >> I undid the fix in case you want to test it. > >The problem is that ntmasters.net has a CNAME record pointing to >www.ntmasters.net, and when you send mail to ntmasters.net the domain is >getting canonicalized. > >The solution is to get rid of the CNAME record and replace it with an A record >or an MX record. > >Chris >
Control files take two!
Sorry for not including the real info, I have this domain in production, and you guys probably wouldnt be abot to test it properly because I had made a temp fix, by setting my virtualdomains file to read as follows: ntmasters.net:seek3r mail.ntmasters.net:seek3r www.ntmasters.net:seek3r I have put the domain back where it fails to recieve, and hopefully we can fix it, then I can apply a proper perminent fix. Heres the email with true info: OK, I have a couple of questions. I want @anything.ntmasters.net to get recieved, my virtualdomains file is like this ntmasters.net:seek3r I read somewhere that I could put a . in front of it like this: .ntmasters.net:seek3r and that would do what I want, but that doesnt not seem to be the case. Does anyone know how I do this? I also have a weird issue, that may be dns related, but Im not sure. I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont know where the www came from. Any ideas about this? Thanks for the help, and sorry for not giving the full, complete details up front! Seek3r
Re: Control files
On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 05:50:20PM -0800, Seek3r wrote: > ok fine, you want real details ;p > I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and > saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont know > where the www came from. Any ideas about this? > > I didnt want to us the real address, because I made a fix my making my > virtualdomains file read as follows: > ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters > mail.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters > www.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters > > I undid the fix in case you want to test it. The problem is that ntmasters.net has a CNAME record pointing to www.ntmasters.net, and when you send mail to ntmasters.net the domain is getting canonicalized. The solution is to get rid of the CNAME record and replace it with an A record or an MX record. Chris
Re: Control files
ok fine, you want real details ;p I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont know where the www came from. Any ideas about this? I didnt want to us the real address, because I made a fix my making my virtualdomains file read as follows: ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters mail.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters www.ntmasters.net:seek3rntmasters I undid the fix in case you want to test it. -Original Message- From: Todd Larason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Seek3r <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Control files >On 990107, Seek3r wrote: >> I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and >> saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont >> know where the www came from. Any ideas about this? > >Bizarre. myvirtualdomain.com doesn't even seem to be assigned! >-- >ICQ UIN: 124151944 >
Re: Control files
Seek3r wrote: > OK, I have a couple of questions. > I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains file > is like this > myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r > > I read somewhere that I could put a . in front of it like this: > .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r > > and that would do what I want, but that doesnt not seem to be the case. Does > anyone know how I do this? > > I also have a weird issue, that may be dns related, but Im not sure. > I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and > saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont > know where the www came from. Any ideas about this? > > Thanks for the help! No one here can test for DNS problems without your real domain.
Re: Control files
On 990107, Seek3r wrote: > I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and > saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont > know where the www came from. Any ideas about this? Bizarre. myvirtualdomain.com doesn't even seem to be assigned! -- ICQ UIN: 124151944
Control files
OK, I have a couple of questions. I want @anything.myvirtualdomain.com to get recieved, my virtualdomains file is like this myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r I read somewhere that I could put a . in front of it like this: .myvirtualdomain.com:seek3r and that would do what I want, but that doesnt not seem to be the case. Does anyone know how I do this? I also have a weird issue, that may be dns related, but Im not sure. I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it was getting bouced, and saying that it could not deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I dont know where the www came from. Any ideas about this? Thanks for the help!
Re: Hardware selection help
Sam wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Sean Rietze wrote: > > > So, when I order these machines my question remains the same. Do we run the queue > > on one fast 10,000 RPM > > SCSI drive or do we go with mulitple heads by using a raid controller card running > > 3 disks on Raid 0? Does it > > matter? I figure with the alteon we will easily be able to handle the load by just > > adding a front-end machine if > > needed. > > I'd say go with multiple disks and RAID. With everything happening on one > box, you're going to have a lot of concurrency, and multiple spindles will > help things a lot. Have to agree. The addition of RAID to my server helped me a lot. Couple the RAID configuration with 10k RPM disks and controller with plenty of RAM on it, and you've got a scorcher.
Re: Hardware selection help
Let me explain a little more. We are planning in the next month on buying an Alteon switch for layer 4 load balancing and a Netapp filer for maildir storage. My plan is for 3 dell 2300 servers used as front-end machines running both pop/smtp. They will all NFS to the NetApp for the common maildir storage. We will keep a queue on each front-end machine, but in the meantime I have to roll some mailboxes to one mail server and that was my orginal question. We are planning on buying one 2300 right now and rolling all our mail up to it and then breaking it out into the Aleon/NetApp/FEP's solution when we get the rest of the hardware. So, when I order these machines my question remains the same. Do we run the queue on one fast 10,000 RPM SCSI drive or do we go with mulitple heads by using a raid controller card running 3 disks on Raid 0? Does it matter? I figure with the alteon we will easily be able to handle the load by just adding a front-end machine if needed. Thanks. "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > In what way would you break this into two separate machines? Would you be > using NFS or Coda to do some network mounting scheme, or would you just > split the users down the middle assigning half to one box and half to the > other? > > At 03:13 PM 1/7/99 -0800, you wrote: > >On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Sean Rietze wrote: > > > >> OK, little advice. Getting ready to order a Dell Poweredge 2300 machine > >> to run qmail and about 35,000 pop accounts on. > >> > >> Like some advice on the setup of the disks: > >> > >> Base machine will be dual 400 with 512MB RAM running RH 5.2 > > > >You'd be better off with two seperate boxes rather than a single dual > >processor box. > > > >You are going to be I/O bound before you ever run out of processor. > > > >Make one a POP server, and one the mail server. > > > >> My questions are about the mail spool and queue areas. > >> My thoughts have been dual-controller DPT card (32MB cache onboard) > > > >I use DPT PM3334UW's for redundancy(RAID 0+1) but not for speed. They > >aren't particularly fast cards in my experience. > > > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > >Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v > > CTO (925) 377-1212 v > >NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f > >Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com > >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > >
Re: Hardware selection help
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In what way would you break this into two separate machines? Would you be > using NFS or Coda to do some network mounting scheme, or would you just > split the users down the middle assigning half to one box and half to the > other? Well, since NFS + Maildir are a safe combo, that would seem to be the easiest way to go. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Hardware selection help
In what way would you break this into two separate machines? Would you be using NFS or Coda to do some network mounting scheme, or would you just split the users down the middle assigning half to one box and half to the other? At 03:13 PM 1/7/99 -0800, you wrote: >On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Sean Rietze wrote: > >> OK, little advice. Getting ready to order a Dell Poweredge 2300 machine >> to run qmail and about 35,000 pop accounts on. >> >> Like some advice on the setup of the disks: >> >> Base machine will be dual 400 with 512MB RAM running RH 5.2 > >You'd be better off with two seperate boxes rather than a single dual >processor box. > >You are going to be I/O bound before you ever run out of processor. > >Make one a POP server, and one the mail server. > >> My questions are about the mail spool and queue areas. >> My thoughts have been dual-controller DPT card (32MB cache onboard) > >I use DPT PM3334UW's for redundancy(RAID 0+1) but not for speed. They >aren't particularly fast cards in my experience. > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ >Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v > CTO (925) 377-1212 v >NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f >Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >
Re: Hardware selection help
Sean Rietze wrote: > My thoughts have been dual-controller DPT card (32MB cache onboard) > with 4 9GB drives on one channel for the mailboxes and operating system > and on the > other channel a really fast 2 to 4.5GB SCSI drive for the queue. Anyone > see > any problems with this? Well, how are you planning on partitioning these? You need to keep your system partitions (/, /usr/ and /var) preferrably on a completely separate disk from your mailboxes. Else you'll end up in a world of pain when something unexpected happens, and the mailbox drive chews itself up. But then, you already knew that. You might want to look around at what other people have available before marrying yourself to DPT, also. > Is it better to put the queue drive on a separate SCSI controller? Generally, yes. With a dual 400 of course, pretty much no matter what you do, you're going to be blocked by insufficient I/O well before the processor is even breathing hard. As mentioned by someone else, two separate machines would probably be a better idea. > Besides this, > is it better to get a caching RAID card and run the queue on a RAID 0 > configuration? Eh? Only if you plan to have it span multiple disks, which isn't really necessary. -- Erik Nielsen, Cyberhighway Internet Services NOC Remember though that THERE IS NO GENERAL RULE FOR CONVERTING A LIST INTO A SCALAR. -- Larry Wall in the perl man page
mailing list outage
Several messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] were incorrectly bounced today, thanks to a silly configuration error. I apologize for the inconvenience. It's safe to resend the messages now. ---Dan
Re: Hardware selection help
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Sean Rietze wrote: > OK, little advice. Getting ready to order a Dell Poweredge 2300 machine > to run qmail and about 35,000 pop accounts on. > > Like some advice on the setup of the disks: > > Base machine will be dual 400 with 512MB RAM running RH 5.2 You'd be better off with two seperate boxes rather than a single dual processor box. You are going to be I/O bound before you ever run out of processor. Make one a POP server, and one the mail server. > My questions are about the mail spool and queue areas. > My thoughts have been dual-controller DPT card (32MB cache onboard) I use DPT PM3334UW's for redundancy(RAID 0+1) but not for speed. They aren't particularly fast cards in my experience. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell(800) 299-1288 v CTO (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Hardware selection help
OK, little advice. Getting ready to order a Dell Poweredge 2300 machine to run qmail and about 35,000 pop accounts on. Like some advice on the setup of the disks: Base machine will be dual 400 with 512MB RAM running RH 5.2 My questions are about the mail spool and queue areas. My thoughts have been dual-controller DPT card (32MB cache onboard) with 4 9GB drives on one channel for the mailboxes and operating system and on the other channel a really fast 2 to 4.5GB SCSI drive for the queue. Anyone see any problems with this? Is it better to put the queue drive on a separate SCSI controller? Besides this, is it better to get a caching RAID card and run the queue on a RAID 0 configuration? Any advice from the field would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks, Sean Rietze
Re: Fw: Anonymous Qmail Denial of Service
On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 12:52:25AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 09:01:23AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > > I've sent a response to bugtraq explaining how to identify the uid that > > filled up the queue. > > > > My message also explains a much more powerful series of four attacks > > against all MTAs, including the IBM Secure Mailer. These attacks can be > > carried out from anywhere on the Internet, not just the local machine. > > They keep the mail queue flooded for several days. > > So... > > 1) qmail-clean will clean up the files after deciding that they're old >enough to be garbage Yep. > 2) DOS is something which has already been granted out as basically >impossible to protect against in today's environment Yep. > 3) The resource starvation is not anonymous. When using process accounting, yes. Greetz, Peter. -- AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE| Peter van Dijk hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] < 37); | $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] < 99); |-x- available -x-
Envelope-Test2 (Please ignore)
Sorry, but my provider told me to try envelope-to for delivery of this list via fetchmail -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] surfto:http://sites.inka.de/picard
Envelope-Test
Sorry, just a test for Envelope-To: in fetchmailrc Mirko -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] surfto:http://sites.inka.de/picard
Re: /etc/aliases - fastforward question
That's the way the code in qmail-lspawn is written, however qmail-pw2u insists on inserting an ``alias'' user which matches any address not otherwise found. This does not look bad default; Indeed, does not the inclusion of this alias makes sure that if a user is not in assign (and include) then the administrator can handle the user's mail with ~alias/.qmail* files ? (Somehow I remember as if this capability was one of the motivations to create qmail-users).
Re: /etc/aliases - fastforward question
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Priit Poldoja wrote: > > If you running fastforward program , it not read the file /etc/aliases but > read /etc/aliases.cdb file. Also you need create in /var/qmail/alias file > .qmail-default . In this file you write only one line > | fastforward -d /etc/aliases.cdb > > I hope you now , all files .qmail* is 644 chmod ! > > > Regards > Priit > > Sure Pritt, ALL my aliases are functioning, i have my .qmail-default in /etc/aliases the problem is with aliases with an - character; ex: how do you resolves an ALIAS (not your personal "mailing list" .qmail-poldoja) to your username "pritt" [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Worst yet: my problem remains with a valid username like user-name deliveries are searching for a name@domain mailbox living in /home/user ! i'm trying this morning with Mate Wierdl's and Russell Nelson's approaches. Thanks Abel Lucano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: mail attachment losing content type in delivery failures
The problem was because the qmail files were not under /var/qmail/bin/ as expected. Otherwise, the fix works just fine. Thanks. Ramesh | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 08:29 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: mail attachment losing content type in delivery failures | | | On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:48:20 +0530, Ramesh Panuganty wrote: | | > Thanks for replying to my question again. I also | >looked it again, done strace and found that it is looking at | >/var/qmail/bin/ directory. Debian linux, by policy, installs | >the binaries in /usr/sbin/. I now created a link to /usr/sbin | >from /var/qmail/bin and it works fine. | > | >Thanks for all the help. | | Dear Ramesh: | | Would you please post something as a follow-up to your post to the | qmail list, i.e. that you didn't set conf-qmail right when rebuilding | qmail-send. Several people are worried that there is a problem with my | patch, and this clearly is unrelated. | | Thanks! | | -Sincerely, Fred | | (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA) | |
Re: Fw: Anonymous Qmail Denial of Service
On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 09:01:23AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > I've sent a response to bugtraq explaining how to identify the uid that > filled up the queue. > > My message also explains a much more powerful series of four attacks > against all MTAs, including the IBM Secure Mailer. These attacks can be > carried out from anywhere on the Internet, not just the local machine. > They keep the mail queue flooded for several days. So... 1) qmail-clean will clean up the files after deciding that they're old enough to be garbage 2) DOS is something which has already been granted out as basically impossible to protect against in today's environment 3) The resource starvation is not anonymous. Is that it? -- John White [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Re: /etc/aliases - fastforward question
It does not press on at all. I just tested it. It is also "documented" in the FAQ/4.9, last sentence. I now see that it is not what is documented in the FAQ; it is about the effect of qmail-pw2u. Mate
Re: /etc/aliases - fastforward question
Chris Johnson writes: > On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 10:08:14PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: > > [snip - what are you doing, writing a qmail book? ;-)] > > > Caution: Once you create a users/assign file, and build the users/cdb > > database using qmail-newu, it stops deliveries based on /etc/passwd. > > When you add a user, you MUST add them to users/assign, or re-run > > qmail-pw2u. > > Say what? I've got a users/assign file and a users/cdb file, full of entries. > This hasn't stopped deliveries based on /etc/passwd. qmail-lspawn will look in > users/cdb first, but if it doesn't find what it's looking for there it'll press > on and look for a system account in /etc/passwd. Or do I misunderstand what > you're saying here? That's the way the code in qmail-lspawn is written, however qmail-pw2u insists on inserting an ``alias'' user which matches any address not otherwise found. Try doing ``grep "^+:" /var/qmail/users/assign''. If it's found, then qmail is definitely not running qmail-getpw. You can verify this by ``chmod 0 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-getpw''. If, on the other hand, you've removed that line from users/assign, then you'll definitely get a mixed bag of deliveries, some through users/assign and some through qmail-getpw. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: /etc/aliases - fastforward question
On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 10:08:14PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: [snip - what are you doing, writing a qmail book? ;-)] > Caution: Once you create a users/assign file, and build the users/cdb > database using qmail-newu, it stops deliveries based on /etc/passwd. > When you add a user, you MUST add them to users/assign, or re-run > qmail-pw2u. Say what? I've got a users/assign file and a users/cdb file, full of entries. This hasn't stopped deliveries based on /etc/passwd. qmail-lspawn will look in users/cdb first, but if it doesn't find what it's looking for there it'll press on and look for a system account in /etc/passwd. Or do I misunderstand what you're saying here? Chris It does not press on at all. I just tested it. It is also "documented" in the FAQ/4.9, last sentence. Mate
Re: alias and automated mail->news
> Mirko Zeibig writes:
> > Hello,
> > I now use this alias-definition to post every mail to a list to a
> > newsgroup as well. Any ideas to do this more efficient?
> > Thanx
> > Mirko
> > ** /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-all **
> > | { echo "Newsgroups: local.announce"; cat - } | sed '/^Received:/d' |
> > sed '/^\ \ by\ unknown\ with\ SMTP/d' | rpost localhost -M
This approach will break if something is tweaked in the systems, headers
will look slightly differently, or someone happens to quote a message with
full headers in the body of the post. The sed will happily remove those.
Not only that but the sed does not handle Received continuation
lines either:
by wierdlmpc.msci.memphis.edu with SMTP; 7 Jan 1999 05:50:05 -
Date: 7 Jan 1999 05:47:00 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the above script breaks almost every message.
Mate
