qmail Digest 24 Jan 1999 11:00:15 -0000 Issue 530
qmail Digest 24 Jan 1999 11:00:15 - Issue 530 Topics (messages 20886 through 20894): relay for reserved IPs / proxy question 20886 by: "axw" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20892 by: Ludwig Pummer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (off topic) required mx? 20887 by: Niklas Alberth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Building new mail system 20888 by: spork [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20893 by: Patrick Greenwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20894 by: spork [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmtp issue 20889 by: Balazs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20890 by: Balazs Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cool! 20891 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to the list, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Hi! I have successfuly set up qmail to receive and send mail on a firewall (tis fwtk 2.1) proxy. I know that perhaps I shouldn't have done this for security reasons; however, the trouble is, I can not make qmail pass emails from the internal network (192.168.etc). It means that it's impossible to reach any external account via pop3 nor send any mail. This concerns only windows 95 machines behind the firewall/proxy (which works fine itself). So, my question is: how do I set up qmail to act as a relay (pop3 smtp) for reserved IPs behind the proxy? How to configure qmail on a proxy/firewall? Any help would be greatly appreciated, axw At 05:06 AM 2/23/99 , axw wrote: I have successfuly set up qmail to receive and send mail on a firewall (tis fwtk 2.1) proxy. I know that perhaps I shouldn't have done this for security reasons; however, the trouble is, I can not make qmail pass emails from the internal network (192.168.etc). It means that it's impossible to reach any external account via pop3 nor send any mail. This concerns only windows 95 machines behind the firewall/proxy (which works fine itself). So, my question is: how do I set up qmail to act as a relay (pop3 smtp) for reserved IPs behind the proxy? Proxying POP3 is not a qmail-related thing. If you run a SOCKS server on the qmail/firewall/proxy machine, you can get your Win95 machines to use the SOCKS server. If their mail clients don't support SOCKS, you can use the SocksCap program at www.socks.nec.com to make them go through the SOCKS server. Or you can use something like Linux's masq or FreeBSD's natd and proxy everything. Proxying SMTP could be done by the solution above, or you could develop a messy smtproutes method. A simple, blanket smtproute would work, except that it would stop the mail which goes only behind the firewall. --Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ICQ UIN: 692441 ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Hello I guess this is abit of topic but I don't knew any one else to ask. (bakground: I'm doing a kind of exam work, using linux to set up a (q)mail and web server for the other students at my school, I've only got control over my own server) My qmail server is at student.nystromska.soderkoping.se, I'm only accepting mail for that domain. Is a mx required for that domain? I've tried to set up a dns server but i don't think the rest of the net is aware of it. I can't other A or CNAME i've setup. Please take a look, and if you like - see if I've configured my server right. --Niklas I would stay away from the CMD product. It seems pretty nice, but we've been holding up a similar migration for a few months because CMD cannot help us figure out why the controller "disappears" for a few minutes now and again. We`re running 2.2x with CAM. The mylex is used in wcarchive, and I believe it may be the better candidate just because it's in active use and there are no "unsupported OS" issues. See related thread on freebsd-scsi... Look for "5440" and "spork". Charles --- Charles Sprickman [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Robert Adams wrote: Hello all, We're putting together a new box to handle mail.. thought I would pick your brains a little for advice. Hopefully someone has done this already. We are planning on using 4x9gig Cheetahs in a RAID 0+1 configuration.. Currently we are looking at two RAID-RAID controllers. 1) Mylex 2 CHANNEL RAID W-U SCSI DACSXI 2) CMD CRD-5440 or CRD-5500's Few questions.. can anyone recommend one of the above controllers over the other? If so, for what reasons. Does the RAID 0+1 seem like the way to go? Or should we go with something like RAID 5? The reason we aren't going with something like the DPT controllers is that you have to boot to DOS to fix a failure... which isn't good imho. Any other controller/setup recommendations are welcome.. TIA, Jason --- Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc. Phone: 888-4-SISCOM
Re: Building new mail system
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote: Did you ever consider that that might be your problem, as CAM is constantly being worked on and AFAIK isn't being back-ported to 2.2.X? Oh, did I ever ;) After some email exchanges with one of the CAM folks though, I'm pretty confident that cam is a much more stable choice than the old drivers for the adaptec card I'm using. The stock drivers couldn't even find a second partition on the CMD even with the LUNs wired down in the kernel config. Some informal benchmarking also confirms that performance is greatly enhanced, especially when you have many reads and writes cued up on a busy system. I'm running patches specifically for the 2.2 branch at this time. I believe there will be a final version sometime this month. I've also found that the CMD only handles a total of 64 tagged commands, which is less than the Mylex which I believe has double that. I'm running a couple of CMD based boxes hooked to BSDi boxen and they run flawlessly... Yep, one of the things that sold me was the praise from people already using them. Also I think CMD is the only one that has all the RAID 5 math done in an ASIC, which is probably speedier than the i960 the mylex uses. Then again, it seems the walnut creek folks have had excellent results with their mylex or wcarchive. I also have a quick question for you: What controller are you using? If it's an Adaptec, is disconnection enabled or disabled? I believe the default is enabled. Thanks, Charles /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: (off topic) required mx?
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Niklas Alberth wrote: Hello I guess this is abit of topic but I don't knew any one else to ask. (bakground: I'm doing a kind of exam work, using linux to set up a (q)mail and web server for the other students at my school, I've only got control over my own server) My qmail server is at student.nystromska.soderkoping.se, I'm only accepting mail for that domain. Is a mx required for that domain? I've tried to set up a dns server but i don't think the rest of the net is aware of it. I can't other A or CNAME i've setup. There is an A record pointing to your server. That's enough to receive mail. To run your own nameserver, you would have to get the admin for nystromska to set an NS pointer to your machine. Please take a look, and if you like - see if I've configured my server right. I think everything's ok. Greetz, Peter. -- squeezer AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE| Peter van Dijk squeezer hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] squeezer @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d squeezer $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] 37); | squeezer $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] 99); |* blah *
Re: qmtp issue
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:27:07AM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote: Hiyas, I want to write an article about Qmail for a Linux related special issue of the Hungarian Chip and it's work but I don't know whether I can give my readers a solution for send letters via QMTP protocol. There's a qmail-qmtpd which accepts connections from qmtp-capable clients but I cannot find any client for this task. Is QMTP a hypothetical protocol? I use QMTP. The only QMTP client is serialqmtp, part of serialmail. Greetz, Peter. -- squeezer AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE| Peter van Dijk squeezer hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] squeezer @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d squeezer $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] 37); | squeezer $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] 99); |* blah *
tool to convert/simulate Exchange to normal mbox/maildir
Hello, I installed qmail in a company and it just runs like it should. Now these guys want to install some workflow-program which will only work with MAPI and Exchange´s "Shared Folders". Is there any way to simulate these sick MS-implementations using qmail+. Regards Mirko -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] myhome_aka_~:http://sites.inka.de/picard RedHat=~/rh52_isdn.htmlteles16.3c=~/teles163c/teles163c_contents.html life's a http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~etcetera
RE: relay for reserved IPs / proxy question
Axw, Use the fwtk as follows for SMTP coming in: - Setup the smtp port in /etc/inetd.conf to invoke the fwtk's smap program. - Have smapd running as a background process (this calls sendmail) - Have a mail program (e.g. sendmail) running say once per day from cron to clear out anything left behind in the mail queue - You'll need to edit /usr/local/etc/netperm-table for the above - You'll need your DNS setup too, with the real mail machine having a greater priority than the firewall For POP, you'll probably need to mess with the plug proxy (plug-gw) application. cheers, Andrew Richards. -- From: Ludwig Pummer[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 24 January 1999 03:00 To: axw; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: relay for reserved IPs / proxy question At 05:06 AM 2/23/99 , axw wrote: I have successfuly set up qmail to receive and send mail on a firewall (tis fwtk 2.1) proxy. I know that perhaps I shouldn't have done this for security reasons; however, the trouble is, I can not make qmail pass emails from the internal network (192.168.etc). It means that it's impossible to reach any external account via pop3 nor send any mail. This concerns only windows 95 machines behind the firewall/proxy (which works fine itself). So, my question is: how do I set up qmail to act as a relay (pop3 smtp) for reserved IPs behind the proxy? Proxying POP3 is not a qmail-related thing. If you run a SOCKS server on the qmail/firewall/proxy machine, you can get your Win95 machines to use the SOCKS server. If their mail clients don't support SOCKS, you can use the SocksCap program at www.socks.nec.com to make them go through the SOCKS server. Or you can use something like Linux's masq or FreeBSD's natd and proxy everything. Proxying SMTP could be done by the solution above, or you could develop a messy smtproutes method. A simple, blanket smtproute would work, except that it would stop the mail which goes only behind the firewall. --Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ICQ UIN: 692441 ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
qmail stats (mostly GNU/Linux)
The entries in my xferlog* files start on Jan 03.
# cat xferlog*|awk '{ print $9, $7 }' | grep qmail-1.03-11ucspi.src.rpm |
sort -k 2| uniq -1|wc -l
653
# cat xferlog*|awk '{ print $9, $7 }' | grep "qmail.*.rpm" |
sort -k 2| uniq -1|wc -l
898
# cat xferlog*|awk '{ print $9, $7 }' | grep pub/qmail |
sort -k 2| uniq -1|wc -l
1462
What is the estimated number of sites that run qmail?
Mate
Re: qmail stats (mostly GNU/Linux)
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:24:20PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
The entries in my xferlog* files start on Jan 03.
# cat xferlog*|awk '{ print $9, $7 }' | grep qmail-1.03-11ucspi.src.rpm |
sort -k 2| uniq -1|wc -l
653
# cat xferlog*|awk '{ print $9, $7 }' | grep "qmail.*.rpm" |
sort -k 2| uniq -1|wc -l
898
# cat xferlog*|awk '{ print $9, $7 }' | grep pub/qmail |
sort -k 2| uniq -1|wc -l
1462
What is the estimated number of sites that run qmail?
I think djb as a rough estimate, because of the line in INSTALL that reads:
% ( echo 'First M. Last'; cat `cat SYSDEPS` ) | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Greetz, Peter.
--
squeezer AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE| Peter van Dijk
squeezer hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent: | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
squeezer @date = localtime(time); | realtime security d00d
squeezer $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] 37); |
squeezer $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] 99); |* blah *
tcpd and paranoid mode
Strange problem. I compiled a new copy of my tcp wrapper program with Paranoid mode turned off so as to allow mail to get through from sites that have a problem with this. The new problem is whenever I use the new copy it stops us from using that server for SMTP on our local lan. Its as if the tcpd is not even looking at the hosts.allow file. Im stuck between a rock and a hard place, we have to be able to use the machine to rely, but im getting heaps of complaints about mail not getting through. Anyone come across this one? Thanks, Martin Martin Searancke The Really Useful Solutions Group Ltd. Level 6, 90 Symonds St Auckland, New Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED] +64 21 778592 "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams
RE: tcpd and paranoid mode
On 24-Jan-99 Martin Searancke wrote: Strange problem. I compiled a new copy of my tcp wrapper program with Paranoid mode turned off so as to allow mail to get through from sites that have a problem with this. The new problem is whenever I use the new copy it stops us from using that server for SMTP on our local lan. Its as if the tcpd is not even looking at the hosts.allow file. Im stuck between a rock and a hard place, we have to be able to use the machine to rely, but im getting heaps of complaints about mail not getting through. Anyone come across this one? Don't use tcp-wrappers. It's no longer supported. You'll find that Dan's tcpserver package (ucspi-tcp-0.84.tar.gz on koobera.math.uic.edu) is more robust and will solve both problems. Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Searchable Campground Listingshttp://www.camping-usa.com "There is no outfit less entitled to lecture me about bloat than the federal government" -- Tony Snow ==
