Re: Fwd: round robin rcpt's
hey all,
i was wondering if anyone knew of a package that did this, or perhaps
something qmail might allready have that will round robin messages to
different rcpt's, for example:
Hiya ...
I have written a program that does just this, we use it for our help@rucus
address. It round robins between any number of people, and does mail
threading (so that one person always deals with the same query irrespective
of the number of messages sent). It also ensures that all outgoing and
incomming mail can be archived (usefull for preparing faqs, etc) and
provides a followup method for unresolved queries.
Basically each message is issued with a ticket and a unique id number which
is used by the program to keep track of, and distribute the mail. The
information is stored in a flatfile database that is easily queried (grep :)
when people want to make follow up queries.
The program wasn't originally intended for distribution (arm pulling by
other sysadmin who is on this list ;) so is rather poorly documented. The
code should be self explanitory though.
If you would like to look at and/or play arround with the script, it is
available under GPL from
ftp://rucus.ru.ac.za/pub/mail/other/tracker.tgz
All I ask is that you let me have a copy of any improvements that you make :)
Oh, and I am not on this list, so please direct any comments/queries to me
at the email address below.
- Guy
--
Mon Dieu! Nous sommes dans la merde
(o o) __ __ (o o)
_oOOo__(_)__oOOo___(__)_(__)___oOOo__(_)__oOOo
| The ideas and opinions expressed | Rhodes University, South Africa | J
| above are mine, not yours. They | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | A
| could be for a small fee though. | http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~guy | P
|_oOOo___oOOo| H
(__) (__) |(__) (__)
Re: vsm - /Maildir/ migration script
On 03/16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe smd. has written already a script which will create the proper ~/Maildir/ for every user in /etc/passwd ? I would really be happy to get this one (: My modified checkpassword does that... just rip off main() from maildirmake.c and insert it into your checkpasswd. 4 mkdirs, that's all. -- Roman V. Isaev http://www.gunlab.com.ru Moscow, Russia
Re: CNAME_
- RJP [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | | G'Day. | I have been sporadically trying to set up Qmail-1.03 for about 3 weeks | now and keep running into: | | Mar 16 09:07:53 SedricWorks qmail: 921575273.166915 status: local 0/10 | remote 2/20 | Mar 16 09:07:53 SedricWorks qmail: 921575273.276501 delivery 4: | deferral: CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/ Could you please tell us what address this is trying to deliver to? Then we can start looking for a DNS problem. | grep says that the deferral: message emanates from qmail-send.c | line 935 which just after a call to read(), that is where I lose it at | the moment through not knowing enough about how the unix libraries work. | Presumably read()'s file handle is actually the end of a pipe which is | expected to be connected through to the ISP server but isn't? No, the pipe leads eventually to qmail-remote, which is calling temp_dnscanon() from line 304 in qmail-remote.c. - Harald
Re: [LONG QUOTE] Re: dot-qmail security
This is an extract from proftpd menual: Has anyone managed to get proftpd to actually chroot? Yes :-)
Re: rblsmtp - I need to change the bounce report.
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 02:48:09PM +0100, torben fjerdingstad wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 11:19:30PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: - torben fjerdingstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | At the same time I think it should be modified to be able to take | multiple -r flags. Would be useful. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. 8-) Not done yet. I don't code much. One more question. Do the rblsmtpd dns lookups happen concurrently in this case? (I hope so): tcpserver -x /usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ -v -p -t 5 -c 400 -b 40 -u 203 -g 200 0 \ smtp /usr/local/bin/smtplog \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.orbs.org \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrbl.maps.vix.com \ /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdul.maps.vix.com \ /usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 21 \ | /usr/local/bin/accustamp \ | /usr/local/bin/cyclog -s14000 -n2 /var/adm/smtpd smtpd 3 P.S. last saturday the out-of-the-country connection was down. So was rblsmtp because there are no nameservers for maps.vix.org in my here. Every smtp connection was severely crawling, waiting for dns replies. -- Med venlig hilsen / Regards Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group UNI-C Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41Mail: UNI-C Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
Re: Back-up scheme, 2 qmail servers
My question is, will there be any implications "Out_There" of suddenly having a new IP and hostname for our mailserver, assuming we make the appro DNS changes? Maybe you could arrange it on your router via port forwarding? You set it up to forward all conenction for ports 25 i 110 to first machine. set up the secod to monitor the first one and in an event of failure, dynamicaly reconfigure port forwarding on your router to point to the second machine. later on , when your first machine is up and running you can manualy revert your router to the previous state (or even make it automatic too). Hope you've got what i mean (sorry for bad english). Kris
Re: Back-up scheme, 2 qmail servers
Eric Dahnke wrote: Hello List, We have a server moving about 9000 msgs per day and want to have a second qmail server waiting on our network to take over in the event of a failure. Our current thinking is: - an identical qmail installation on a backup machine - daily copy of /home /control and /alias to backup machine - in the event of a massive failure unplug the ethernet from the main server and plug into the backup machine. (I realize we will lose the queue --normally just full of waiting bounces-- and all msgs received for local users since the last backup) My question is, will there be any implications "Out_There" of suddenly having a new IP and hostname for our mailserver, assuming we make the appro DNS changes? Any other comments on this kind of idle machine waiting backup scheme? (the main mail server is dpt raid fived) cheers - eric Why don't you just set up your second server as an MX server and use the handy dandy MX routing feature in named to automatically reroute mail in the event of a failure. The MX server will hold all the messages while you repair your server and automatically resend them when everything is back online. This is probably the perfect solution for you, *especially* since you have a raid 5. Don't be looking for a harddrive failure anytime soon :) Your harddrives are the only irreplaceable components because they contain your data, so anything else could be repairable in the time it takes you to scrounge up the hardware. -- Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Digital Services Network, Inc. http://www.dsnet.net 1129 Niles-Cortland Road, Warren, Ohio 44484 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (330) 609-8624 ext. 20 Fax (330) 609-9990 The Web Hosting Specialists -
Re: Back-up scheme, 2 qmail servers
Andy Walden escribió: - an identical qmail installation on a backup machine - daily copy of /home /control and /alias to backup machine - in the event of a massive failure unplug the ethernet from the main server and plug into the backup machine. (I realize we will lose the queue --normally just full of waiting bounces-- and all msgs received for local users since the last backup) My question is, will there be any implications "Out_There" of suddenly having a new IP and hostname for our mailserver, assuming we make the appro DNS changes? If its not going to be online unless failure occurs, why would you give it a different ip or hostname? Because the two machines are connected via a second 192. network which does the backup. Therefore, must have different IP's and hostname. thx - eric
Re: Back-up scheme, 2 qmail servers
Cris Daniluk escribió: Eric Dahnke wrote: Hello List, We have a server moving about 9000 msgs per day and want to have a second qmail server waiting on our network to take over in the event of a failure. Our current thinking is: - an identical qmail installation on a backup machine - daily copy of /home /control and /alias to backup machine - in the event of a massive failure unplug the ethernet from the main server and plug into the backup machine. (I realize we will lose the queue --normally just full of waiting bounces-- and all msgs received for local users since the last backup) My question is, will there be any implications "Out_There" of suddenly having a new IP and hostname for our mailserver, assuming we make the appro DNS changes? Any other comments on this kind of idle machine waiting backup scheme? (the main mail server is dpt raid fived) cheers - eric Why don't you just set up your second server as an MX server and use the handy dandy MX routing feature in named to automatically reroute mail in the event of a failure. The MX server will hold all the messages while you repair your server and automatically resend them when everything is back online. This is probably the perfect solution for you, *especially* since you have a raid 5. Don't be looking for a harddrive failure anytime soon :) Your harddrives are the only irreplaceable components because they contain your data, so anything else could be repairable in the time it takes you to scrounge up the hardware. OK, I was thinking about something similar, but you've got me here. You say "The MX server will hold all the messages while you repair your server and automatically resend them when everything is back online." What do you mean by hold all the messages? Our mailserver does both smtp and pop, so therein lies the problem. Great, so the MX rolls and the backup server accepts smtp for our domains. But what about pop? When the primary server comes back up, users would need to pop both servers to get all their mail, and that would turn into a mess. Or am I not understanding. thx - eric
Re: Fwd: round robin rcpt's
elite, thats exactly what i need. i was gonna take the code someone else
had posted and write my own ticketing system, but this is much cooler.
thanks to everyone.
-xs
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Guy Antony Halse wrote:
hey all,
i was wondering if anyone knew of a package that did this, or perhaps
something qmail might allready have that will round robin messages to
different rcpt's, for example:
Hiya ...
I have written a program that does just this, we use it for our help@rucus
address. It round robins between any number of people, and does mail
threading (so that one person always deals with the same query irrespective
of the number of messages sent). It also ensures that all outgoing and
incomming mail can be archived (usefull for preparing faqs, etc) and
provides a followup method for unresolved queries.
Basically each message is issued with a ticket and a unique id number which
is used by the program to keep track of, and distribute the mail. The
information is stored in a flatfile database that is easily queried (grep :)
when people want to make follow up queries.
The program wasn't originally intended for distribution (arm pulling by
other sysadmin who is on this list ;) so is rather poorly documented. The
code should be self explanitory though.
If you would like to look at and/or play arround with the script, it is
available under GPL from
ftp://rucus.ru.ac.za/pub/mail/other/tracker.tgz
All I ask is that you let me have a copy of any improvements that you make :)
Oh, and I am not on this list, so please direct any comments/queries to me
at the email address below.
- Guy
--
Mon Dieu! Nous sommes dans la merde
(o o) __ __ (o o)
_oOOo__(_)__oOOo___(__)_(__)___oOOo__(_)__oOOo
| The ideas and opinions expressed | Rhodes University, South Africa | J
| above are mine, not yours. They | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | A
| could be for a small fee though. | http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~guy | P
|_oOOo___oOOo| H
(__) (__) |(__) (__)
Mail loop problem
Hi folks. I put my new qmail based MX into production yesterday and it is working great. However, I have one problem and I am not sure which end I should look to for the answer. My setup is an external gateway machine running qmail (our MX), forwarding mail for our domain to our internal mailhub running Netscape Messaging Server (NMS) which all our users access using IMAP. The problem is that mail to a non-existant or mispelled address within our domain gets sent to the internal hub, which checks it and does not find a valid RCPT, and so it sends the email back to the MX. Now the MX, instead of bouncing the email back to the sender, it returns it to the internal hub, which then sends it back again to the MX. An example, someone outside our domain ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) sends an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The MX for mydomain.com checks the RCPT and sees that it is destined for our domain so it relays the message on to our internal hub. The hub, realising that unknownuser does not exist should bounce the message. Only the message gets sent back to the MX, which for some reason returns the message back to the hub instead of returning it the original sender. This is probably just a lack of understanding on my part (I'm relatively new to postmaster duties) leading to a misconfiguration somewhere. My question is, is this qmail's problem or NMS's problem? -- _ Mark E Drummond Royal Military College of Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing Services Linux Uber Alles perl || die
Re: ezmlm and delay notifies (was: Re: mini-bounce)
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:22:50 -0500, Justin Bell wrote: but vacation messages shouldnt be replying to list email, right? 1. ezmlm lists can be set up via DIR/headeradd to contain "Precedence: Bulk". Vacation programs should not respond to these. ezmlm-idx since quite a while does this by default. 2. ezmlm-0.53 has ezmlm-weed which weeds out delivery (delay) notifications. As long as the notifications conform to that format, they will not be seen as bounces. Again, I don't see the point in sending delivery notifications to "Precedence: bulk" messages. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
keeping users from running shells
Sorry for the late reply, but this isn't a qmail problem, it's a unix file permissions problem. # groupadd shellusr # vi /etc/group # chown root.shellusr /bin/csh # chmod 750 /bin/csh # chown root.shellusr /bin/sh # chmod 750 /bin/sh # chown root.shellusr /bin/ksh # chmod 750 /bin/ksh etc.. Of course you need to be careful when doing this and make sure every user that could possibly need shell access is included (including any users that have cron jobs running under their UID).. etc.. but this is possible without modifying qmail (and taking out a very important feature). --Adam
Re: Mail loop problem
- Mark E Drummond [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | My setup is an external gateway machine running qmail (our MX), | forwarding mail for our domain to our internal mailhub running | Netscape Messaging Server (NMS) which all our users access using | IMAP. | | The problem is that mail to a non-existant or mispelled address | within our domain gets sent to the internal hub, which checks it and | does not find a valid RCPT, and so it sends the email back to the | MX. That's your problem, as far as I can understand it. Your NMS needs to be told that it, and it alone, is the final authority on what is a valid email address within your domain, and so it should produce a proper bounce message if it is not. | Now the MX, instead of bouncing the email back to the sender, it | returns it to the internal hub, which then sends it back again to | the MX. As well it should: How can it tell the difference between this message and any other message destined for your domain? Bounce creation needs to happen where the final delivery was supposed to happen; anything else just gets too difficult. | My question is, is this qmail's problem or NMS's problem? You will never get anyone on this list to admit it's qmail's problem. 8-) - harald
Re: dot-qmail security
Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote: But it would fix in no way the problems in this thread. Maybe it would be too much for the person who originally brought the question, because users would be unable to do anything with their .qmail while what the guy wanted was only to prevent them from running programs. But I fail to see why the problem wouldn't be solved. If only .qmail-extension is disabled, people can still pipe data into a shell in their .qmail file. Matthias -- w e b f a c t o r y | matthias pigulla www.webfactory.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Should tcpserver block connections once conccurrency has been reached
At 09:14 AM 3/16/99 +, Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote: Hi, I am currently using tcpserver on a Linux 2.0.36 box/RH 5.2 box I have setup tcpserver with a limit of 5 connections via -c5 and backlog of 1 with -b1 However, when I start up the 7th and subsequent connection, I basically get held up waiting for the smtpgreeting string which will occur as soon as I close some other connection. This is often a function of your OS. tcpserver is merely using listen/accept/connect and it relies on the OS to handle the cases where, eg, the backlog value in listen() is exceeded. On some OSes, as I understand it, the listen() value uis silently ignored or constrained so the value you set via tcpserver may not be the actual value used by the OS. are in the ESTABLISHED state. If I were to increase concurrency limit to something higher, is there a possibility that the OS TCP tables might become full, with most entries primarily waiting for connections to complete. In general, I would expect that you'd run out of other resources before running out of some OS table associated with the accept queue. Resources, such as memory or disk. I've always set concurrency based on have much of the main system resources I wanted to allocate to that particular service (disk, memory, CP, bandwidth). In other words, set concurrency to values that make sense for the main resources you have and the amount of service you want to offer and the OS accept queue sizes are unlikely to be relevant. Would it be better to refuse connection ? I'm not sure it's defined what happens when the backlog value is exceeded. Here's what Freebsd has on the listen() manpage: * If a connection request arrives with the queue * full the client may receive an error with an indication of ECONNREFUSED, * or, if the underlying protocol supports retransmission, the request may * be ignored so that retries may succeed. Note the inconclusive use of "may". Check your Linux manpage to see what it says. Is there a patch to tcpserver which does something similar or this concept/idea is bogus :-) I haven't looked lately, but I'd guess that sendmail is making the same system calls. Regards.
Re: dot-qmail security
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is very easy to make users ftp in only to their ~home/public_html, thus they will not be able to alter the .qmail files. chroot() is broken on Solaris 2.5.1, which is running on the server. But it doesn't matter anyway, since I made a patch for the problem myself. On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 06:30:59PM -0800, Mark Delany wrote: Often admins (at ISPs especially) give users some form of write access to their home directories so they can fiddle with their ~user home page or plonk stuff down for remote ftp. Pashah / Joel Eriksson
[Fwd: Qmail smtp delivery]
I'm looking for a way to have qmail 1.03 deliver mail to Maildir's which all have the same uid/gid. I'm have vchkpw-3.1.3 running, and I know I can accomplish the task via this method, however I do not want to require 7.5k users to change their mail settings to include the domain name in the login for pop3. Right now, I have my dialup users authenticating via radius on a Sun Netra running Solaris 2.6. My current mail server is a Sparc20 with Solaris 2.6 and qmail 1.03. We are using SSH to rsync the passwd/shadow files to the mail server when updates are made. Maildirs are created on the mail server only. The sparc20 is on it's last legs however. I'm setting up a new machine with FreeBSD 3.1 and qmail 1.03. I'm moving from an alias based system to the vchkpw method for handling virtual domains, which works fine. I do not want to overwrite the passwd/shadow on my bsd server with a copy from the Solaris machine, so I rename the files on copy and have modified vchkpw to check these renamed files instead of those defined in pwd.h for that system. So far, everything works fine except smtp which is where I'm stuck. I'd like to have mail delivered to the Maildirs which all use the same uid/gid so as to not conflict with any existing ID's on the servers original passwd/shadow..using the vpopmail ID instead in a similar manner to vchkpw, but without needing a 'user@domain' for the login as vchkpw requires for virtual domains. The passwd/shadow copied from the radius server would be for authentication and path information only. Any help would be appreciated. -- Stephen C. Comoletti Asst. Systems Administrator DELANET, Inc. http://www.delanet.com TEL: (302) 326-5800, FAX: (302) 326-5802
Re: dot-qmail security
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Brad Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you have to do is create it as root and make it readable by the mail process for the user. They can read it, but they can't replace it. Not true. If the user can write the directory, they can replace it. They can _read_ it, but not write to it at all. :-) Maildir and other files / directories must be made by root and chown'ed to the user. -Dave / Joel Eriksson
Re: Back-up scheme, 2 qmail servers
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote: What do you mean by hold all the messages? Our mailserver does both smtp and pop, so therein lies the problem. Great, so the MX rolls and the backup server accepts smtp for our domains. But what about pop? When the primary server comes back up, users would need to pop both servers to get all their mail, and that would turn into a mess. Or am I not understanding. I have one subdomain with something like this: - primary mail server, has lower MX records, users, pop, imap, etc. - secondary mail server, higher MX records, no users, no pop, etc. If the primary mail server goes down, messages are queued on the backup server. This is accomplished by making the backup server a "null client" as defined in the qmail FAQ. When the primary server comes back online after a failure, the queued messages on the backup server are delivered to the primary server. Pop users would have an interuption in service, but no lost messages. In the case of an extened outage of the primary server, you could build or fall back to a entirely different primary server by changing the MX records for your mail domain, and changing the qmail/control/smtproutes file. - Ari -- Ari Rubenstein Unix Operations Engineer Digex, West Coast Sun Cert'd SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-873-4256
Re: dot-qmail security
Joel Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Brad Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you have to do is create it as root and make it readable by the mail process for the user. They can read it, but they can't replace it. Not true. If the user can write the directory, they can replace it. They can _read_ it, but not write to it at all. :-) Maildir and other files / directories must be made by root and chown'ed to the user. I didn't say "write", I said "replace". E.g.: Script started on Tue Mar 16 15:39:17 1999 sh-2.00$ ls -la total 40 drwxr-xr-x2 de5 user 40 Mar 16 15:39 . drwxr-xr-x 54 de5 user 20480 Mar 16 15:37 .. -r--r--r--1 root sys0 Mar 16 15:38 bar -rw-r--r--1 de5 user 0 Mar 16 15:39 typescript sh-2.00$ cat bar sh-2.00$ echo foobar sh: bar: Permission denied sh-2.00$ rm bar bar: 444 mode. Remove ? (yes/no)[no] : y sh-2.00$ ls -la total 40 drwxr-xr-x2 de5 user 28 Mar 16 15:39 . drwxr-xr-x 54 de5 user 20480 Mar 16 15:37 .. -rw-r--r--1 de5 user 0 Mar 16 15:39 typescript sh-2.00$ exit script done on Tue Mar 16 15:39:53 1999 -Dave
Did this work?
A test. -- Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. -- Sassan Tat
Re: Did this work?
On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 11:03:23PM +, Robin Bowes wrote: A test. Depending on what you're trying, I think it did :) Greetz, Peter. -- .| Peter van Dijk | mo|VERWEG stoned worden of coden .| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mo|VERWEG dat is de levensvraag | mo|VERWEG coden of stoned worden | mo|VERWEG stonend worden En coden | mo|VERWEG hmm | mo|VERWEG dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
Re: Did this work?
Peter van Dijk wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 11:03:23PM +, Robin Bowes wrote: A test. Depending on what you're trying, I think it did :) g I'm testing my mailing list -- newsgroup gateway. I *think* I've just about got to the bottom of it, except the program I use to re-write messages ready for posting to my newsgroup is completely broken. I am using DNews 5.0f on Linux 2.2.2ac7 which comes with a program called drobot. Anyone got any better suggestions? I've seen mention of mail2new and newsgate - any good? R. -- Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. -- Sassan Tat
Re: keeping users from running shells
"Adam D. McKenna" wrote: Sorry for the late reply, but this isn't a qmail problem, it's a unix file permissions problem. # groupadd shellusr # vi /etc/group # chown root.shellusr /bin/csh # chmod 750 /bin/csh # chown root.shellusr /bin/sh # chmod 750 /bin/sh # chown root.shellusr /bin/ksh # chmod 750 /bin/ksh etc.. Of course you need to be careful when doing this and make sure every user that could possibly need shell access is included (including any users that have cron jobs running under their UID).. etc.. but this is possible without modifying qmail (and taking out a very important feature). --Adam Isn't there a *real* way to do this? I swear there is... -- Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Digital Services Network, Inc. http://www.dsnet.net 1129 Niles-Cortland Road, Warren, Ohio 44484 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (330) 609-8624 ext. 20 Fax (330) 609-9990 The Web Hosting Specialists -
Re: Back-up scheme, 2 qmail servers
Eric Dahnke wrote: Cris Daniluk escribió: Eric Dahnke wrote: Hello List, We have a server moving about 9000 msgs per day and want to have a second qmail server waiting on our network to take over in the event of a failure. Our current thinking is: - an identical qmail installation on a backup machine - daily copy of /home /control and /alias to backup machine - in the event of a massive failure unplug the ethernet from the main server and plug into the backup machine. (I realize we will lose the queue --normally just full of waiting bounces-- and all msgs received for local users since the last backup) My question is, will there be any implications "Out_There" of suddenly having a new IP and hostname for our mailserver, assuming we make the appro DNS changes? Any other comments on this kind of idle machine waiting backup scheme? (the main mail server is dpt raid fived) cheers - eric Why don't you just set up your second server as an MX server and use the handy dandy MX routing feature in named to automatically reroute mail in the event of a failure. The MX server will hold all the messages while you repair your server and automatically resend them when everything is back online. This is probably the perfect solution for you, *especially* since you have a raid 5. Don't be looking for a harddrive failure anytime soon :) Your harddrives are the only irreplaceable components because they contain your data, so anything else could be repairable in the time it takes you to scrounge up the hardware. OK, I was thinking about something similar, but you've got me here. You say "The MX server will hold all the messages while you repair your server and automatically resend them when everything is back online." What do you mean by hold all the messages? Our mailserver does both smtp and pop, so therein lies the problem. Great, so the MX rolls and the backup server accepts smtp for our domains. But what about pop? When the primary server comes back up, users would need to pop both servers to get all their mail, and that would turn into a mess. Or am I not understanding. thx - eric I think you are a bit confused as to what an MX really is. Your MX server, once properly configured, will put the mail messages sent to users on your regular server in a holding queue. Once this server is back online, the MX server will jump in and send off these messages that it has been holding. There is no POP involved on this server. As far as POP access on your other server, yes, it IS down, but no messages will be lost. Once the server goes back up, the MX will send off the mail and users will get all their messages. They'll never notice anything happened, except for the annoying inconvenience of the server being down for a while. -- Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Digital Services Network, Inc. http://www.dsnet.net 1129 Niles-Cortland Road, Warren, Ohio 44484 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (330) 609-8624 ext. 20 Fax (330) 609-9990 The Web Hosting Specialists -
Re: keeping users from running shells
From: Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Isn't there a *real* way to do this? I swear there is... By "real way", do you mean a way that's not already built into your operating system? --Adam
