Re: Million users
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want a little more resilience to whatever failures may come.. While Solaris is good in those regards, a well-built *BSD box will provide plenty of resilience. jms
Re: Web Mail server with Qmail
Hi, There is a perl based package called webmail that might be useful. Please check http://webmail.woanders.de/ Regards, --pgm On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Lucas do R. B. Brasilino da Silva wrote: -I'd like to provide the same service to these students. Is there -some Web based Mail server that works with Qmail ?? -In time: At the same machine is running apache (thanks apache group! :) ). === P G Mohanan E-Mail :[EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Manager Phone :91-824-475984 Central Computer Centre Ext 301 (Off) K R E C Surathkal Fax:91-824-476090 Srinivasnagar POGrams :KARENG D K , Karnataka Telex :0832-298 KREC IN INDIA 574 157 ===
virtual domains and then some. (offline servers who are the actual vdoamins)
Okay -- I think I got the virtdomains down... but my application is a bit weird. I have various LAN's that arn't connected to the internet, but I do want them to receive inet email... so I have them call the server once / day to transmit that days email. The main server is domain.net and all the other offline servers are set up as virtual domains on domain.net (one.domain.net two.domain.net, etc) I can receive the mail fine to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] well my question is how to get the [EMAIL PROTECTED] to then send 'queue' the mail so when the offline server connects it can put the mail in the proper Maildir's on the offline server? I figure it will use either UUCP or serialmail.. but I'm a bit cloudy on how to do this. If someone can help that'd be great. Thanks so much! Adam
Re: changing the VERP delimiter
Harald Hanche-Olsen writes: Putting virtual.dom:foo in virtualdomains and expecting to control this by ~alias/.qmail-foo-default does not work. Hmmm? [EMAIL PROTECTED] is rewritten as foo-joe and delivered locally. The delivery is handled by ~alias/.qmail-foo-joe, -foo-default, or -default. ---Dan
Sorry for this.....
How I could unsuscribe of this list??? Thanx for all
Re: new-inject vs qmail-inject
Len Budney writes: Does the above suggestion imply that new-inject may safely be used instead of qmail-inject, or that you would recommend this? The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is eventually going to replace qmail-inject. It supports several new features and has a much cleaner internal design. ---Dan
Re: getpwnam() bug in freebsd-2.2.8 affects qmail
The simplest workaround is to enable the qmail-users mechanism: qmail-pw2u /etc/passwd /var/qmail/users/assign qmail-newu This is a good idea on all systems, even where getpwnam() isn't buggy, since the getpwnam() API is inherently unreliable. See qmail-getpw.0. ---Dan
Re: Complicated problem with fastforward and aliases
Cristiano Lincoln Mattos writes: alias2: alias1 This is an alias2 wildcard, forwarding to alias1@defaulthost, as you can see with printforward. fastforward doesn't know whether it's in charge of defaulthost, so it goes ahead and forwards the message, ignoring your alias1 wildcard. The message will come back later if fastforward is actually in charge of defaulthost. Apparently you meant [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---Dan
Re: virtual domains and then some. (offline servers who are the actual vdoamins)
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:36:45AM -0500, Adam H wrote: I can receive the mail fine to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] well my question is how to get the [EMAIL PROTECTED] to then send 'queue' the mail so when the offline server connects it can put the mail in the proper Maildir's on the offline server? mkdir ~user/Mail /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake ~user/Mail/one/ echo "./Mail/one/" ~user/.qmail-one-default chown -R user ~user/Mail chown user ~user/.qmail-one-default -- John White [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Re: Mangling From: headers by recipient domain
Paul Halliday writes: Therefore all mail to the internet would be stamped '@ourdomain', but all company mail to companydomain stamped '@ourhost.companydomain'; this is to avoid replied to sensitive company mail being routed via the internet. With the experimental ofmipd program in the mess822 package you can easily set up a gateway that accepts messages from authorized hosts and rewrites @ourhost.companydomain as @ourdomain. The other qmail hosts can use smtproutes to forward outgoing mail to that gateway. ---Dan
Filters with qmail
Hi, I need to setup a filter program with qmail. I have been looking for a while, but haven't found any programs that does the following : Spam-filter. The qmail SMTP server is running as a open-realy, so we need to have some sort of spam filter - like checking if the mail looks like spam, and controlling that the user would only send xx mails within xx minutes. Macro filter : I need to be able to setup some conditions like: if the subject like 'something' and email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' then delete/copy/forward/return to sender. Can anyone help me on how to setup these - or any ideas of what programs to use. Another thing - has anyone made a web interface to control qmail? Thanks, Martin Staael NetGroup A/S St. Kongensgade 40H. 2.th.,1264 København K., Tel.. +45 33691228, Fax. +45 33130066 --- - Origin: Glace Bleu d'origine... :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Million users
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Edward S. Marshall wrote: Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running a free Unix. Why not? No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded proxies. By the time you deal with 1M mails a day (and not mailing list traffic) you want a little more resilience to whatever failures may come.. That's suit mentality, frankly. I've run both Solaris and Linux systems in heavily loaded situations, and have had greater long-run stability from a well-tuned linux system. That's basically my point. Whether Solaris, Linux or BSD is "better" (whatever that means in this case) is not too relevant to me. They would all, I think, do a more than adequate job. And NT/Exchange simply can't cope with much more than a light load. Matthew
Fetchmail QMail
Hi together! Ive got a little Problem with fetchmail/qmail. How do i tell fetchmail (running as daemon and is fetching mail every x hours via dialup-connection) to put mails like [EMAIL PROTECTED] on my Intranet-Mailserver (server.home.mydomain.com) running qmail-pop3d ? Due to ulimited POP3 useraccounts on mydomain.com i have to put the mail to the according Mailbox (like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) on my homeserver. Now my question: Can i use /var/qmail/bin/sendmail as MDA in .fetchmailrc? If so, which parameters are needed? Or should i use qmail-inject as MDA, if so which parameters i need? TX in advance Thorsten
Re: Filters with qmail
Martin Staael writes: Hi, I need to setup a filter program with qmail. I have been looking for a while, but haven't found any programs that does the following : Spam-filter. The qmail SMTP server is running as a open-realy, so we need to have some sort of spam filter - like checking if the mail looks like spam, and controlling that the user would only send xx mails within xx minutes. Read the FAQ, and turn off your open relay. "Macro" filter : I need to be able to setup some conditions like: if the subject like 'something' and email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' then delete/copy/forward/return to sender. man dot-qmail man qmail-command
Re: Million users
Matthew Kirkwood writes: That's basically my point. Whether Solaris, Linux or BSD is "better" (whatever that means in this case) is not too relevant to me. They would all, I think, do a more than adequate job. And NT/Exchange simply can't cope with much more than a light load. Linux+Samba is faster than NT server under the exact same hardware. http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html
Re: Filters with qmail
Sam, At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote: Read the FAQ, and turn off your open relay. I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our customers is not able to send mail through us. "Macro" filter : I need to be able to setup some conditions like: if the subject like 'something' and email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' then delete/copy/forward/return to sender. man dot-qmail man qmail-command I have to disappoint you, but this was not what I were looking for - sorry. Please read again my letter, to understand what I mean. Martin,
Re: Filters with qmail
Martin Staael wrote/schrieb/scribsit: Sam, At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote: I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our customers is not able to send mail through us. I think we'd be glad to hear why someone needs an open mail relay and to propose another solution for you or improve qmail. "Macro" filter : man dot-qmail man qmail-command I have to disappoint you, but this was not what I were looking for - sorry. Please read again my letter, to understand what I mean. I wonder why Sam in particular did not point you at his maildrop. Look for maildrop at Sam's page anyway: http://i.am/mrsam. You can also use procmail. Stefan
Re: Filters with qmail
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Martin Staael wrote: Sam, At 13:17 03-02-99 +, you wrote: Read the FAQ, and turn off your open relay. I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our customers is not able to send mail through us. Read the FAQ again. Ideally your customers should be using their ISP's own mail server. -- Andy J. Smith ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... http://www.strugglers.net/andy Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key, or check the key servers .. KeyID: 0xBF15490B FP: 0E42 36CB 5295 1E14 5360 6622 2099 B64C BF15 490B
Re: Filters with qmail
Andy, At 13:42 03-02-99 +, you wrote: I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our customers is not able to send mail through us. Read the FAQ again. Ideally your customers should be using their ISP's own mail server. Our customers will always use another ISP for dial-in, or have a direct connection. But we will still have to provide them with a SMTP server, that is the reason for the needed open-relay. So we can't tell our customers to use another mail-server (SMTP) - and this would often be confusing for many customers. Martin Staael NetGroup A/S St. Kongensgade 40H. 2.th.,1264 København K., Tel.. +45 33691228, Fax. +45 33130066 --- - Origin: Glace Bleu d'origine... :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Filters with qmail
On 03-Feb-99 Martin Staael wrote: Andy, At 13:42 03-02-99 +, you wrote: I know how to turn off my open-realy. But I need a open-realy - or our customers is not able to send mail through us. Read the FAQ again. Ideally your customers should be using their ISP's own mail server. Our customers will always use another ISP for dial-in, or have a direct connection. But we will still have to provide them with a SMTP server, that is the reason for the needed open-relay. Check solutions in www.qmail.org for SMTP after POP solutions that will allow you to put login/password style security in your SMTP server. Much better... And you will be able to send me mail also.. :) --- Pedro Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP - Engenharia http://ip.pt/ Tel: +351-1-3166740 Av. Duque de Avila, 23 Fax: +351-1-3166701 1049-071 LISBOA - PORTUGAL Linux: up 13 days and 13:05, 4 users, load average: 0.09, 0.50, 0.57
Re: Unable to run qmail-remote from resource exthaustion PERMENENT error?
On 3 Feb 1999 07:56:25 -, D. J. Bernstein wrote: This is a bug in your operating system. Yes. This is where a small change in qmail could cause it to be more robust, even on a less-than-perfect OS. On bug-free systems, the only way for qmail-rspawn to generate that message is for execve() to return an error that fails error_temp(): normally ENOTDIR, ENAMETOOLONG, ENOENT, ELOOP, EACCES, ENOEXEC, E2BIG, or EFAULT. None of these can be caused by temporary failures; they are permanent (and quite serious) configuration errors. Permanent(OS) and Permanent(mail) are 2 different things. I don't see why e.g. ENOENT should cause the message to be bounced. It's not a permanent problem with the message, and over the queue-life of the message it's not a permanent config problem either. If the sysadmins doesn't fix it, it becomes a (mail) permanent error when the message times out in the queue. What happened to you, presumably, is that crt0.o tried to load a shared library, failed because it was out of memory, and incorrectly decided to exit with some arbitrary code, never mind the fact that exit codes have meanings. It should instead have terminated the process with SIGKILL. More or less. Again, the error is permanence from the point of view of the application, but shouldn't cause the message to bounce immediately. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
I'm receiving non-exixstant users' mail...
Hi Qmailers. I'm using Qmail on a Linux Debian system. What's the problem? If I send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where nonex is a non-existant user, I (the user krazy) receive that mail. Root is aliased to krazy. Postmaster (and mailer-daemon) put their mail on a file. Where should I investigate to understand my problem? Thanks, and bye. --+ Pietro Femmino' [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'The Krazy One' +-- "To Reign is Worth Ambition, Though in Hell. Better to Reign in Hell Than Serve in Heaven" --- *** TaRT_Tagline: Any given program will expand to fill available memory.
Queue only + send manually (schedule)
Hi, I'd like to queue messages and then send them all when the network link is up. I know I can use uucp over TCP for that, but it may decrease security. I'd prefer to avoid uucp. Can I find any docs or examples somwhere? Any suggestions welcome. Thanks, Andrzej
Re: I'm receiving non-exixstant users' mail...
- Pietro Femmino' [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I'm using Qmail on a Linux Debian system. What's the problem? If I send mail | to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where nonex is a non-existant user, I (the user krazy) | receive that mail. Root is aliased to krazy. Postmaster (and mailer-daemon) | put their mail on a file. | | Where should I investigate to understand my problem? Look for ~alias/.qmail-default, which controls mail to non-existent users. If the file does not exist, such mail ought to bounce. Exception: A wildcard entry in /var/qmail/users/cdb (plain text in users/assign) can have the same effect. Failing all these, look at your virtualdomains file, if you have one. When everything else fails, look at Delivered-To: header fields in the incoming mail for clues. - Harald
Re: new-inject vs qmail-inject
- Matthias Pigulla [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | "D. J. Bernstein" wrote: | The mess822 package is still experimental, but new-inject is [...] | | Where can I find more information about "new-inject"? Get the mess822 package from Dan's FTP server. - Harald
Re: Million users
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) Almost all delivery (from sending client to remote client) takes 3 to 4 minutes. However, If I look in the receiving client's Maildir/new after the sending client sends the message, it is there in 5 to 10 seconds. Any POP3 connection simply does not notice the file is there even though it is present on all 4 servers (via the Netapp, of course). There was someone a few days agos (yesterday?) who had this problem; the reason was that the POP3 Maildir reader ignored mails dated in the future, the solution was obviously to sync the times on the machines. Syncing times on networked machines is also very useful/important in investigating all manner of network problems; NTP is your friend. Is there some URL for qmail-2.0 yet that may shed some light on the changes and the timetable for its release? Changes, dunno, timetable, certainly not, it'll be out when it's ready (forgot who said that, Russ or mrsam IIRC). -- #include std_disclaim.h Lorens Kockum
Re: Filters with qmail
If you're going to run an open relay, don't run it on port 25. Run it on 1025 or some other high port, and only let your customers know what the port is. Yes, this is security through obscurity, but it should keep spammers from finding your relay. And, like everyone else is saying, RTFM. --Adam -Original Message- From: Martin Staael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Filters with qmail :Petr, : :At 15:11 03-02-99 +, you wrote: : :1. If your customers have static IP, setup a database for tcpserver :which exports RELAYCLIENT="" for those special IPs (see FAQ 5.4) : :They don't. The use dial-in from around the world. : :What I need is a program to check that a user is not sending more than xx :mails within yy minutes. (ie. 30 mails within 5min). : :It would be nice if a program could do a match on the mails - so that if :someone has send 5 mails in a row that a program did match the previous :mail - and if at least 70% percent of the previous mail were matched then :this mail would probally be spam. With spam mails normally the :receiver/sender and some of the content is changed. So it is actually very :easy to do a match whether a mail is spam - if just enough of these has :been sent. : :Can you follow this? : :2. If your customers ahve dynamic IPs (or connect from all around :theh world), go to www.qmail.org and find there Open-SMTP patches (in :fact it means that after successful POP3 authentication, you open a :relay for that IP for some time - like 5 or 10 minutes). : :I have considered this solution. But most POP3 clients such as Netscape and :Eudora actually DO send mail by SMTP first, rather than checking mail first. : :I'm really without a clue here. I hope someone has developed as spam filter :that do a match on mails - for preventing spam or check whether the host is :sending more than xx mails within yy min. : :Martin, :
Re: Unable to run qmail-remote from resource exthaustion PERMENENTerror?
On 3 Feb 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote: On bug-free systems, the only way for qmail-rspawn to generate that message is for execve() to return an error that fails error_temp(): normally ENOTDIR, ENAMETOOLONG, ENOENT, ELOOP, EACCES, ENOEXEC, E2BIG, or EFAULT. None of these can be caused by temporary failures; they are permanent (and quite serious) configuration errors. According to Single Unix Spec v2, execve() may fail with ENOMEM and ETXTBSY too. And they are interpreted as temporary failures by qmail. You don't remember the details of your own code. :) Anyway, I do not think it should be a PERMANENT error when qmail-rspawn can't execute qmail-remote for WHATEVER reason. Indeed, it is a serious configuration error if qmail-remote is corrupted, deleted, or having bad permission but it seems to be a bit harsh not to give an administrator a chance to fix the problem. --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "NSA GCHQ KGB CIA nuclear conspiration war weapon spy agent... Hi Echelon!"
Re: Filters with qmail
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Sam wrote: No, you don't need an open relay, no matter how convinced you are otherwise. The age of open relays has long come, and gone, and it's just a matter of time before you'll get listed on any one of several public blacklists of open relays, and then you customers won't be able to send E-mail through your server to many destinations anyway. A lot good will Oh, tosh. I've got a server listed on those lists - has been for close to a year. It runs mail lists, and in that year, I've had exactly two people show up from places that honored those blocks. I deleted them from the list, and told them to resubscribe from a less anal ISP. mike
Message rewriting with new-inject and ofmipd
After looking through the mess822 documentation, I'm left with the following question: Why not integrate rewriting of messages in one common location instead of the entry points to the qmail system (ofmipd and new-inject)? Perhaps in qmail-queue? I understand that connections via smtp (not ofmip) should not be subject to rewriting, but running both qmail-smtpd and ofmipd seems overkill. I'm also imagining the trouble an administrator who is trying to force message rewriting would have. For example, if users simply pointed to the qmail-smtpd port rather than the ofmipd port then message rewriting would be bypassed. Does anyone see any benefits to setting an environment variable via tcpserver such as NOREWRITE. If NOREWRITE is set, then rewriting should not occur. A site administrator would only have to determine which ip addresses are non-local. Even if the rewriting is not integrated into one common location, this might be a better alternative than running ofmipd and qmail-smtpd. Simply add the rewriting code to qmail-smtpd and check for NOREWRITE. Comments?
Supervise/Tcpserver/cyclog
I'm wondering if anyone here is running the above combination? I have qmaild running under tcpserver at the time, but now our machine has become busy enough that the pop3 service is looping (in inetd) and want to replace it with tcpserver. I've also noticed that the single process on the machine that is a hog is the syslog process, so i also want to replace this with cyclog. What my question is: I'm running qmail1.03 with Bruce Guenters vmailmgrd package (a checkpw replacement) -- what kind of command lines is everyone else running? I need one for qmail and for qmail-pop3d -- anyone have some suggestions? Linux/Slackware. ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 11:20am up 115 days, 14:59, 4 users, load average: 0.12, 0.15, 0.10
Re: Message rewriting with new-inject and ofmipd
Simply add the rewriting code to qmail-smtpd and check for NOREWRITE. Is not this aginst rfc821 to do any rewriting during an smtp connection? Like: mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] but the envelope sender gets transformed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mate
RE: Message rewriting with new-inject and ofmipd
Pete Kazmier wrote/schrieb/scribsit: Why not integrate rewriting of messages in one common location instead of the entry points to the qmail system (ofmipd and new-inject)? Perhaps in qmail-queue? Both new-inject and ofmipd (qmail-inject partially) manipulate the RFC822 message header, while qmail-queue (and qmail-smtpd of course) don't care to look at it. Doing RFC822 parsing/rewriting in qmail-queue breaks modularity, i.e. you cannot let messages flow completely apart from any rewriting or parsing. qmail tries to parse as little as possible, what is an advantage in general. Does anyone see any benefits to setting an environment variable via tcpserver such as NOREWRITE. If NOREWRITE is set, then rewriting should not occur. A site administrator would only have to determine which ip addresses are non-local. Your wish is granted: #!/bin/sh if [ -n "$OFMIPCLIENT" ] ; then exec /usr/local/sbin/ofmipd else exec /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd fi Stefan
Virtual Domain Configuration Help
OkI need a little bit of pointing in the right direction yet again. We are currently running our pop3 server on ns2.mounet.com We've got the NS configuration setup like so: IN MX 0 ns2.mounet.com. Currently, users receive mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with no problems. We are gonna build another box to replace the existing mail server running qmail named qmail.mounet.com We also gonna be doing e-mail services for etsu.mounet.com on the same machine. We have already determined we wont have the problem of two users trying to use the same login name such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that isnt a problem. I need to figure out how to get my qmail box setup so our regular users can receive mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the etsu users can receive mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED], but not vice versa (if possible). Also, what would happen if someone has their e-mail configuration setup to retrieve mail from qmail.mounet.com and they should be using etsu.mounet.com? Could that have any effect on anything? Ive got it working so that accounts on qmail.mounet.com can check their POP3 mail fine, but I havent even began working on the virtual domain part yet. Will I have to specify a file that lists what users should receive mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and which should receive for [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Any help will be very appreciative. I've scanned through several of the archives on virtual domains, but havent really seen a good HOWTO on setting these up for this situation. Thanks again!
Re: Filters with qmail
Look. I very much doubt that Martin Staael [EMAIL PROTECTED] REALLY wants to run an open relay. What most ISPs want to allow are Internet --- SMTP --- local users Internet --- SMTP --- local users local users --- SMTP --- local user and disallow Internet --- SMPT --- Internet You generally must have a pretty firm idea as to who your local users are and what their IP numbers will be, whether they're local dialup lines or remote network machines. Simply use tcpserver with a /etc/tcprules.d/ file like so: 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" local IP:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" # standard operating procedure local users' IP:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" range of local users' IPs:allow:RELAYCLIENT="" # I appear as an open relay to my local users... :allow # but not to the rest of the Internet Ta da! Done. The only reason I can think of that Martin can't use this scheme is if he has so many users that the rules file would be unmanagably large, or that his users are allowed to change their IP numbers at random. In that case, the pop-before-smtp patches already spoken of would be the only way to go. Open relay is a bad idea in any language. Much more preferable to teach all of your users to "check your mail before sending new mail" than to have your carefully configured open relay cut off from all of the sites your users want to e-mail. -- Matt Garrett, Network Engineer Superior Open Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._
At 09:33 PM 2/3/99 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: - Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Why does qmail object to the execute bit being set? I don't know. Security: It's meant for .qmail files that might be automatically edited, for example by a mailing list manager. Even if an attacker manages to sneak in a program delivery in the .qmail file, this feature will stop him from exploiting it. I'm not quite sure I understand the second part of that, but certainly the first part about it providing a simple locking mechanism is how it was used by qlist. Regards.
RE: QMTP + VERP
Bruno Wolff III wrote/schrieb/scribsit: Maybe QMTP should be extended in a way that allows for VERP without having to restransmit the message body more than once. Perhaps more than one sender address could be sent. See QMAIL EXTENSIONS in addresses.5. Stefan
checkpoppasswd permissions problems
This is really directed more toward Paul Gregg [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I thought the whole list might get some benefit from my mistakes. I'm using your checkpoppasswd program derived from the checkpasswd of Jedi/Sector One. I've modified it by putting more intuitive messages into the syslog messages and got it working, authenticating users at one point, but now it's failing with the log message "Couldn't setgid (888)." I'm running qmail-pop3d.init with the uid and gid of the qmaild user (81 and 80 respectively. It was originally root, but I thought that might be a security hazard and changed it to the same uid/gid of the other qmail servers. Is there a valid reason for having qmail-pop3d run as root? Is it because qmail-pop3d has to be able to delete files owned by others? I put qmaild into the popuser group (888) but it still failed at the same point. Anyone, please advise. -- Matt Garrett, Network Engineer Superior Open Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QMTP + VERP
On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 10:25:37PM +0100, Stefan Paletta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Wolff III wrote/schrieb/scribsit: Maybe QMTP should be extended in a way that allows for VERP without having to restransmit the message body more than once. Perhaps more than one sender address could be sent. See QMAIL EXTENSIONS in addresses.5. Stefan The stuff there doesn't seem to apply at the point the qmtp connection is being processed. Another way to extend QMTP would be to have sender addresses that end with -@[] expanded with VERP information. It looks like qmail would have to be changed to delay the expansion of VERPs from qmail-send until qmail-remote, since the protocol by which the message will be transmitted won't be known until then.
RE: Filters with qmail
i sent him an email because we are going to be doing EXACTLY what he will be doing. 1: All of our clients are using Outlook or Outlook Express, this is a requirement, since it checks pop before it does any smtp transactions. 2: All our clients are using SSL 3: I will be releasing a first run tarpit patch sometime late today, early tommorow, that will make them pay should they figure out 1 and 2, and give you time to hunt them down. VERY simple and it will close you down pretty damn well considering that most spammers have the brainpower of a twig. Joe -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 4:44 PM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Filters with qmail Matt Garrett writes: Look. I very much doubt that Martin Staael [EMAIL PROTECTED] REALLY wants to run an open relay. What most ISPs want to allow are Actually, he thinks he does. As I mentioned earlier, usually there's an inquiry of this kind about once a month on this list. These organizations provide either web hosting, or other non-dialup services, and they do not maintain any dialup facilities on their own. Their clients have their own dialup accounts with separate ISPs. For some reason he believes that his clients cannot use the mail relays from their own ISPs, and are required to use his. Either that, or he does sell dialup access, but believes that his clients should be allowed to access his mail servers from other ISPs. What these people are not realizing is that this business model is simply no longer compatible with the way that the Internet is right now. This kind of a setup - open relaying for everyone - might've been acceptable and the norm some time ago, but these days, it no longer is. They can't expect to enforce their own business model onto the rest of the Internet, they must somehow fit their business model within the established guidelines and requirements, that's it. There are many technical solutions available that will allow his customers to authenticate themselves, and he should simply choose the best one for his situation.
Re: qmail_has_prog_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._
At 22:34 3/02/99 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: - Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | I'm not quite sure I understand the second part of that, but | certainly the first part about it providing a simple locking | mechanism is how it was used by qlist. No; qlist locked .qmail-list-request in order to avoid several copies of qlist stomping on the .qmail-list file at the same time. The man page further stated: qlist automatically sets the execute bit on qmail-list, so qmail-local will ignore any program or file instructions in qmail-list. The point being that if a user could somehow coerce qlist into putting the line |rm -fr * into .qmail-list, it still would not do any harm (unless the list owner turned off the execute bit without checking the file). Ahh, yes. That'll teach me relying on a knowingly faulty human memory. Regards.
