Re: maildir and You have new mail
According to Jay Soffian:
Doesn't the presence of any messages in the new dir indicate "You
have new mail." and the presence of any messages in the cur dir
indicate "You have mail."
I wish, but the maildir manpage is clear on this:
HOW A MESSAGE IS READ
A mail reader operates as follows.
It looks through the new directory for new messages. Say
there is a new message, new/unique. The reader may freely
display the contents of new/unique, delete new/unique, or
rename new/unique as cur/unique:info.
This means a mail reader may leave new messages in new/ if it wishes.
Now if a mail reader was obliged to move all new messages to cur/unique:info
before opening or deleting a message, you could use the mtime on cur/
as an indication of when the new mail was read.
So to find (a) when mail last arrived and (b) when mail was last checked
there are the following options:
1. Use atime on new/ for (a), and mtime on tmp/ for (b)
Problem: some non-MUA programs scan new/ as well and change the
atime on new/. They should be fixed.
2. Use mtime on cur/ for (a) and mtime on tmp/ for (b)
Problem: all MUAs MUST move messages from new/ to cur/ first so
that the mtime on cur/ gets updated.
3. Scan all files in new/ and cur/ with readdir(), then stat() them all
and use the highest mtime for (a) and the highest atime for (b).
Problem: this is the traditional method but can be very disk
intensive because of all the stat()s. It is also more complicated to
code - (1) and (2) are easy to drop in in existing applications.
My original proposal was (1). Now I get the feeling that (2) might
be better, but at least mutt and qmail-pop3d do things differently -
mutt leaves messages in new/ if not read, and qmail-pop3d deletes DELEted
messages directly from new/ without ever moving them to cur/
Now another solution would be:
4. Get mtime from tmp/, cur/ and new/. the mtime on tmp is (a): last time
a new message arrived. MAX(mtime(cur), mtime(new)) defines (b): when the
maildir mailbox was last checked for new mail.
Problem: maildir(5) needs to state that a MUA MUST move the message
new/unique to cur/unique:flags unless it is deleted.
This last proposal would work with most existing applications including
qmail-pop3d and applications that scan new/ and cur/. AFAICS, only
mutt would need to be fixed - a minor issue.
Remember why I started this: to be able to make shells and status bars
etc aware of maildir without big changes. Changing the app from stat()ing
the mbox to stat()ing maildir/{cur,tmp,new} is much easier, takes less
code and is more portable then to add a complete readdir() / stat() loop
to the application.
With just one added requirement for the MUA - it MUST move the message
new/unique to cur/unique:flags unless it is deleted - this would be possible.
Besides, most MUAs (including qmail-pop3d) behave this way already.
djb?
Mike.
--
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Re: maildir and You have new mail
Duh. Ignore my previous email, I wasn't thinking straight. I said: 4. Get mtime from tmp/, cur/ and new/. the mtime on tmp is (a): last time a new message arrived. MAX(mtime(cur), mtime(new)) defines (b): when the maildir mailbox was last checked for new mail. This doesn't work, ofcourse the mtime on new/ is changed every time a new message is delivered into the maildir. So it's back to the original idea: 1. Use atime on new/ for (a), and mtime on tmp/ for (b) Problem: some non-MUA programs scan new/ as well and change the atime on new/. They should be fixed. Mike. -- Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
The from script for Maildir.
Does anyone no where I can or how I can modify the "from" script that outputs just the headers? It looks for Mailbox but I switched over to Maildirs. Thanks, Ricardo!
FW: In need of Qmail help
Hi all: I am in need of assistance with Qmail and I got your addresses from "http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/01/maillist.htm l" "http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/03/maillist.htm land" . I am hoping that someone can point me in the right direction. We've recently installed Qmail onto a system running Redhat 5.2. The all of the daemon tools are running and messages are received by Qmail's queue. The problems are that the messages stay on the queue and are not delivered to the specified address and that the Qmail-users program is not installed. Is it possible to tell by the log what has gone wrong? What do I need to do to pop the messages off of the queue? Below is a sample of the messages that are in the log: 923005669.564054 delivery 169: failure: This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/ 923005669.564762 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 923005669.592650 bounce msg 20106 qp 6397 923005669.592979 end msg 20106 923005669.593778 new msg 20105 923005669.594032 info msg 20105: bytes 1475 from #@[] qp 6397 uid 86 923005669.610879 starting delivery 170: msg 20105 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 923005669.611242 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 923005669.669272 new msg 20106 923005669.669561 info msg 20106: bytes 1584 from #@[] qp 6400 uid 80 923005669.673305 starting delivery 171: msg 20106 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 923005669.673666 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 923005669.674145 delivery 170: success: did_0+1+0/qp_6400/ 923005669.674566 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 923005669.675246 end msg 20105 923005669.787210 new msg 20105 923005669.787499 info msg 20105: bytes 1687 from #@[] qp 6403 uid 80 923005669.791457 starting delivery 172: msg 20105 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 923005669.791815 status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 923005669.792294 delivery 171: success: did_0+1+0/qp_6403/ 923005669.792715 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 923005669.793402 end msg 20106 923005669.805667 delivery 172: failure: This_message_is_looping:_it_already_has_my_Delivered-To_line._(#5.4.6)/ 923005669.806404 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 923005669.807029 triple bounce: discarding bounce/20105 923005669.807262 end msg 20105 923005755.816658 starting delivery 173: msg 20104 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 923005755.816693 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 923005755.851891 delivery 173: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/ 923005755.851925 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks LaCresha S. Nelson
question about qmail RPM
Hi all, I wan to change from sendmail to qmail, but I have encountered some problem during the installation. My server configuration: Redhat 5.2 RPM Package: Summersoft RPM : qmail-1_03-6_src.rpm Problem, When I type : rpm --rebuild qmail-1_03-6_src.rpm It can't complete the whole process, it rebuild to some extent and then it only shows: + STATUS=0 + [ 0 -ne 0 ] + chown -R root . + chgrp -R root . + chmod -R a+rX,g-w,o-w . + echo Patch #0: Patch #0: + patch -p1 -s /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59197: patch: command not found Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59197 (%prep) Does anyone what's going wrong and how to solve this problem? I really need some help. Thanks. Regards, Harris
Re: Sending mail with bounces going elsewhere
: I'm presently trying to send out mail where the sender and from fields : are different. I'm using the line : :env - QMAILUSER=$From QMAILSUSER=$Sender qmail-inject $Recipient msg : : and the mail arrives with a "From " string of $Sender$From, no "Sender:" line, : and a "From:" field of $From. Is there any way to get the "Sender:" field in : there (I already tried putting it in the message) and to get the "From " field : to just show the sender and not a concatenation of the two strings? : : : If you are trying to send the retuned mail someplace else, modify the : Return-Path: emailaddress Actually, I hadn't tried modifying that line directly but I did find that if I specified QMAILSUSER and QMAILSHOST along with QMAILUSER then it worked. The values of the QMAILS variables get put in the Return-Path and From fields and the other get's put in the From: field. -- Matthew Harrell Beauty is in the eye of the beer Simulation Technology Division, SAIC holder. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question about qmail and private networks
Hello all, I have been using qmail on my personal server at home for about a year I'm guessing but it must be close ). I have a situation at work that needs to be resolved. First a little background: This is my first post to this mailing list so forgive me if it has been covered already. If it has, could you please point me to the archives so that I can get the answer myself. OK that being said here is my situation: I have Dual-homed firewall setup at work with our mail server residing on the internal side. This mail server is located on the 192.168.1.0/24 protected network. I have the FWTK loaded on the firewall. I have smap/smapd running on the firewall to handle incoming mail. When mail comes to the firewall I would like the firewall to pick up the mail and send it to the internal mail server for local delivery. I would also like to send outgoing mail like normal. My users will use pop to get mail from the internal mail server and will send mail through the firewall directly. I have seen examples with other mail systems for forwarding mail to another server but I have yet to see an example of how to forward that mail to a server located internally. So I guess I would like to know two things: 1) If I use something like smap/smapd to pick up the mail is it possible just to have qmail started to deliver the queue every now and then without a big hassle and 2) If the 1st is possible can someone give me a nudge in the right direction on how to do this. If you need more information please feel free to contact me Thanks Gary winmail.dat
sendmail like lusers in qmail
I'm trying to get qmail to support something like the LUSER support in sendmail. Here's the situation: This is a client machine. That is, it relays everything off of a mail hub (which happens to be running sendmail). I've set defaulthost and defaultdomain to "cimedia.com" so any mail sent to an unqualfied address on the machine is qualified with "@cimedia.com" and then forwarded to the mailhub (since I have also setup smtproutes to forward everything to the mail hub). fetchmail is used to grab mail for the machine and it delivers it through qmail-smtpd via tcpserver. That all works fine. The machine has a limited set of users, let's say it has root and bob. I'd like mail which originates on the machine but is addressed to either root or bob (that is, anyone in /var/qmail/users/cdb on this machine) to be qualified with /var/qmail/control/me instead of with defaulthost. Is there anyway to do this w/o wrapping qmail-inject or replacing it with new-inject? Can I even do this with new-inject? j. -- Jay Soffian [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNIX Systems Administrator 404.572.1941 Cox Interactive Media
Re: maildir and You have new mail
On Apr 2, 12:19am, William Burrow wrote: Subject: Re: maildir and "You have new mail" On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 07:19:42PM -0500, Lenny Mastrototaro wrote: how are you going to stop a user from `innocently' updating the atime of new/ with the following command? ls ~/Maildir/new ... But first I need an answer on the new/atime thing - from djb, I guess as he would be the final authority on this. DJB, please don't weaken the maildir protocol to the point where I can't `safely' use ls(1). Why would someone do an ls on their Maildir? Just curious. I occasionally do this to find the luser with the message with a 20MB QuickTime attached. Why should I write another tool when ls(1) does the job? It would be different if I wanted to move or delete files, but I think simple queries are reasonable to allow. Regards, Lenny -- William Burrow, VE9WIL -- New Brunswick, Canada Asking for good driving is like asking for good government. -- Unknown -- End of excerpt from William Burrow -- Leonard MastrototaroSystems Administrator Click3X New York [EMAIL PROTECTED] 212-627-1900http://www.click3x.com "Yeah well ... The Dude abides." -- http://www.lebowski.com
Re: Melissa Virus
If companies would just get it that ALL of their PC users need training and rules to follow (like never turn off macro protection or you get canned) If this is the case.. then why have macros be able to be executed in the first place? It seems that people *want* this convenience, but then they don't want to live with the consequences. Sorry, mickeysoft isn't smart enough to give it both ways to the user. My car is "user-friendly" and easy to use, so are you saying that if I go out and drive at 100mph and crash that it's Ford's fault for not limiting the maximum speed of my car? Seems to be that way with cigarettes. Dismissed - invalid analogy. You need a licence to drive a car. You probably did some tests to prove you know what you're doing. If there were no licence for driving a car, Ford would make a car that would limit your maximum speed. analogies can always have faults. who cares. Scott
qmail Digest 2 Apr 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 598
qmail Digest 2 Apr 1999 11:00:01 - Issue 598 Topics (messages 23860 through 23878): Mail server load testing 23860 by: Anand Buddhdev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23862 by: "Fred Lindberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23873 by: "Dave Teske" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Melissa Virus 23861 by: "Paul J. Schinder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23865 by: Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problem with CGI 23863 by: "Adam D. McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23864 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] () 23866 by: "Adam D. McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23869 by: Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23870 by: "Adam D. McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail and relaying to an aliased address... 23867 by: "Stephenson Grant (SMI)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does Qmail have support for Dynamic IP Spam Sources List 23868 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] () maildir and "You have new mail" 23871 by: Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23872 by: Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23874 by: Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23875 by: "Lenny Mastrototaro" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23876 by: Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23877 by: Jay Soffian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23878 by: Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrivia: To subscribe to the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To bug my human owner, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to the list, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 01:26:19AM -0500, Dave Teske wrote: The Postfix distribution includes such tools. Go to: http://www.postfix.org Does anyone know of any apps that can do load testing on mail servers. I've seen a bunch that do web server load testing but none for mail servers. I've got our server on a tiny (486 w/P90 upgrade chip 24mb ram)box and I'd like to see how much load it'll handle before I go scrounging for a replacement. -- System Administrator See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:26:19 -0500, Dave Teske wrote: Does anyone know of any apps that can do load testing on mail servers. I've seen a bunch that do web server load testing but none for mail servers. I've got our server on a tiny (486 w/P90 upgrade chip 24mb ram)box and I'd like to see how much load it'll handle before I go scrounging for a replacement. qmail is an excellent tool for this. Just set up another computer with qmail and a concurrencyremote as high or higher than the max number of connections you can accept on the test machine. Set up an ezmlm list on the test machine. Subscribe a lot of users test-123@testhost, over a range of "123". Set up a user "test" on testhost. Create ~test/.qmail-default with a single "#" in it. Send a message to the list on the other computer. It will send as many messages as there are subscribers to the test machine. It does less disk work that the test machine since it sends the same message to all subscribers. The test machine receives the messages, queues them, then delivers them discovering that the "#" which means that the delivery succeeds without writing anywhere. Thus, you test the [local] network, qmail-smtpd, queue and queuing, that you have memory for the set number of incoming connections, etc. For outbound mail, you can reverse the function of the two boxes. Do yourself a favor and set it up with tcpserver and daemontools (cyclog) directly. Otherwise, syslog may become limiting and you are slow on incoming connections and have less control over the number. Also, carefully read tcpserver docs on -H -l, etc. What isn't tested: outside net, named (run a caching one locally). Still, it tells you a lot, especially to what to limit the nuber of incoming connections (tcpserver -c) and outgoing (concurrencyremote/local) so that you don't run out of memory at maximum load. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA) Thanks thats exactly what I wanted. I got the smtp sending tester working (of course I didn't like the results...) Would you happen to know of any docs for the 2 apps. I gathered what I needed for the cmdline help but addtl info would be great. Thanks again --Dave The Postfix distribution includes such tools. Go to: http://www.postfix.org Does anyone know of any apps that can do load testing on mail servers. I've seen a bunch that do web server load testing but none for mail servers. I've got our server on a tiny (486 w/P90 upgrade chip 24mb ram)box and I'd like to see how much load it'll handle before I go scrounging for a replacement. -- System Administrator See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers At 9:14 AM + 4/1/99, Petr Novotny wrote: } My car is "user-friendly" and easy to use, so are you saying that if } I go out and drive at 100mph and crash that
