Pine 4.05 error, need help
When sending a message using pine. I get the following error: Pipe can't access "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail" : no such file or directory followed by: Error running "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail -oem -t -oi" Any ideas will be appreciated. I checked my links and they look like this: $ pwd /usr/lib $ ls -ld sendmail lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 23 Apr 30 20:31 sendmail - /var/qmail/bin/sendmail $ /var/qmail/bin $ ls -l sendmail -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 7936 Apr 25 16:32 sendmail $ $ cd /usr/sbin/ $ ls -l sendmail lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 23 Apr 25 04:05 sendmail - /var/qmail/bin/sendmail $ _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Stop! Now! (was Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail_
Enough of this thread! Please! -- Eddie http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/eirvine/index.html
Re: Modifying tcpserver and checkpoppasswd
At 12:46 PM 4/30/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Where can I find the sources. (I know, I know, STFW) http://pobox.com/~djb/ucspi-tcp.html (this is right off the qmail.org page, in the "author's software" section) 3) Would the author perhaps be so kind as to add it himself? The author is Dan Bernstein. He may have already read your post to the list. --Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ICQ UIN: 692441
Re: Cyrus Imapd anyone?
On 30-Apr-99 Scott Ellis wrote: Works dandy if your users all have a .qmail file containing: |preline -f /usr/local/bin/deliver scotte (or equivalent), where 'scotte' is the local username of course. Thanks! Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:23:23PM -0400, Joe Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what /dev/null is for. Hopefully filter based as the standard calls for the postmaster address to be monitored by humans so you shouldn't be chucking all email to that address. I got pretty ticked when I tried to report some hacking activity to one major univeristy and mail to postmaster at their top level address responded with a reply that said I had to reeneter my message and send it to their help desk. I bitched to their help desk and they said they would like to get the details about the hackers. I told them to go look for the email I had previously sent to their postmaster address. We have some similar stuff here (though not for the tld). We have people that want to run their own mail servers but don't want to be bothered with postmaster email or worrying about being used as a spam relay (at least not until their machine gets toasted). To answer another question in this thread, the ORBS is a list of hosts that are vunerable to being abused by spammers to gain throughput or to avoid blocklists. The RBL is a list of sites that are being abused by or supporting spammers. There is also a DUL, which is a list of dial up sites that normally wouldn't be running their own mail servers. See the following web pages for more details: http://maps.vix.com/ http://www.orbs.org/ http://maps.vix.com/dul/
Re: Cyrus Imapd anyone?
Just happened to do this yesterday. 1. Cyrus' instructions say to create a user cyrus (with a home directory - let's assume /var/imap) 2. Create a virtualdomains entry that says something like: domain.com:cyrus 3. Create a .qmail-default in /var/imap that says: |/var/imap/qmail-deliver "$EXT2" 4. Create the qmail-deliver script (found in the mail archives) #!/bin/sh /usr/cyrus/bin/deliver $1 case $? in 64|65|66|67|68|76|77|78) exit 100 ;; 0) exit 0 ;; *) exit 111 ;; esac 5. Make sure that qmailp can deliver to cyrus (I did this by adding qmailp to the same group that cyrus is a member of) I've found this to work just fine. There are many other setup details but these were the main ones to get qmail/cyrus working together. With the LDAP patch available for Cyrus, you can even LDAP enable your mail system rather easily. Jon Vince Vielhaber wrote: Anyone know anything about Cyrus Imapd and if it'll get along with qmail? Sendmail uses Cyrus' own program (deliver) to store the mail in a dir that only Cyrus can read/write. Would qmail be able to use a local delivery mechanism like this? Anyone ever try this imapd? Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Modifying tcpserver and checkpoppasswd
Just a little query... I'm currently using a slightly modified version of the Jedi/Sector One, Paul Gregg checkpoppasswd program and now I've modified it to use the DENY environ- ment variable. Rather than have ":deny" be the last line in my /etc/tcprules.d/ qmail-pop3d file, I replace it with ":allow,DENY=""" and that way I get the person to type in the username and password of the account they're trying to access and yet still guarantee that I can cut them off based on the existence of the DENY variable. My only problem now is that if they are trying to hack my server, they might not give a valid username or password. This is handled in the J/SO, PG checkpoppasswd in the newgetpwnam() function, which has no knowledge of the password variable as it is obtained from qmail-popup. So when an invalid username is used during a connection from a disallowed address, there's no way to log the password along side it. The cheap way around this is to just make "char *password" a global. Anyone foresee any problem with this? Second, when ":deny" is used, the originating port on the remote host is logged in the qmail-pop3d logfile. When ":allow,DENY=""" is used, that information is not passed along. I'd like to get my hands on a copy of the tcpserver source to add the TCPREMOTEPORT variable to the environemnt created by tcpserver. So, 1) Where can I find the sources. (I know, I know, STFW) 2) Anyone foresee any problem with this? 3) Would the author perhaps be so kind as to add it himself? I've also written several scripts and proggies of my own to centralize the operations of my ISP with SMTP, POP3, and RADIUS servers all maintaining consistency (of tapioca). I'll eventually be putting all of it under GPL and tarballing it onto my ftp site for all to gawk at. -- Matt Garrett, Network Engineer InterNIC handle: MG14026 Superior On-Line Services, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail is a replacement for Sendmail
I just wanted to get that out there Scott Burkhalter
Cyrus Imapd anyone?
Anyone know anything about Cyrus Imapd and if it'll get along with qmail? Sendmail uses Cyrus' own program (deliver) to store the mail in a dir that only Cyrus can read/write. Would qmail be able to use a local delivery mechanism like this? Anyone ever try this imapd? Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
- Off: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail -
Hi Boy, have I been enjoying reading my mail lately :-) OK, let's kill the thread. Change the subject, it's out of line. My purpose was to have the right warnings popup in the mailinglist's searchengine for the rookie type of 'rpm go' user (like me) considering to install qmail. I've just tried the searchengine, I'm happy to say, I succeeded. Thanks guys. A few [OFF] responses to all the heat: * The main problem was the RPM. Some people helped me look at the installation, and it's messy what I have here... the docs don't match the man pages, I've got different versions of different programs, some stuff seems missing. This may account for why fastforward and dotforward don't work ... either that or ...the RPM engine may be acting up ... :-( * A word about me: yes, it's a small office and I don't get paid to be sysadmin. Generally, I just tie all the machines together and keep an eye on things. We bought ourselves a linux box few years ago. Occassionaly, we've hired a Guru to configure .. sendmail ! right :-) Cost you money. Qmail could be the solution ... it seems. On the counterpart, a few complaining users are not such a pain to me as they are to you SuperUsers, in this small office. But I don't think I'm the "moron" I claimed myself to be. I know the difference between sendmail and xmail ... it's no thing a quick look at the RedHat Book wouldn't tell too. Deinstalling sendmail (which is obligatory for the RPM ... either with --force or by hand) felt much like taking the wheels of a driving car. What's more, I don't _want_ to be a Guru. Sorry guys, it's not what I do for a living. Most of the time trusting the RPM works much better than trying to do it myself. I really love RPM, it could be a powerfull thing ... enough rope to hang yourself. * RedHat does just 'pop out of a box' nowadays. It's shipped with a book that suggests you don't really have to read it at all.This may be RH's mistake. ( BTW, ofcourse I did read it. It's empty ) ( in fact, I read qmail's docs and mans and studied 'The Big Picture' - wow, there's a pp version - before I decided to 'safely' go for the RPM. I've printed out half this mailinglist to read it at home. Much of it is just happy faces. The rest is quite hebrew if you've never seen a working qmail setup ) I really really really hope RedHat installers will support Qmail in future releases ... * Ofcourse I had a backup :-) You don't need 2 machines, use partitions. But once I had Qmail working (with some workarounds), the backup was outdated. Mail came in. * I never said qmail is "SH*T" - in fact, I keep repeating it's great (without caps). That's why I installed it. This really makes me wonder: what's it to you ? Why get angry at 'constructive criticism' ? Thanks for the responses. I'm looking forward to the O'Reilly book and pretty interested in what Dave Sill and Chris Green might add ... Bye *.P.i.k.e..* PS oh right, the signature :-) I know it showed up as an ugly mess on your .."VT100" tty -s. That is the point ... therefor I mac, right ? ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸ http://www.kw.nl/~pike ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸ As I was going up the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish, I wish, he'd go away
Re: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
Add the -R option to your tcpserver command lines to disable ident lookups. Without -R, tcpserver attempts to do an ident lookup, which then causes the 10-15 second delay while it times out when the user is behind either a firewall or NAT which just blackholes your connection attempt. - Original Message - From: Reid Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:46 AM Subject: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the most part is NAT). I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no results. Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me? Reid Sutherland Network Administrator ISYS Technology Inc. http://www.isys.ca Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
Re: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
may i also sugest that you use something like nullident to give everone using nat the same ident, i use it here. works great, checkout freshmeat.net for more info. -xs end +-+ |Greg Albrecht KF4MKT [EMAIL PROTECTED]| |Safari Internetwww.safari.net| |Fort Lauderdale, FL1-888-537-9550| +-+ On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Matt Buford wrote: Add the -R option to your tcpserver command lines to disable ident lookups. Without -R, tcpserver attempts to do an ident lookup, which then causes the 10-15 second delay while it times out when the user is behind either a firewall or NAT which just blackholes your connection attempt. - Original Message - From: Reid Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:46 AM Subject: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the most part is NAT). I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no results. Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me? Reid Sutherland Network Administrator ISYS Technology Inc. http://www.isys.ca Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
Re: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
Makes sense. The man stated something in regards to TCPREMOTEINFO which throws me off. But now I know :) Thanks again, the problem seems to be fixed now. Reid Sutherland Network Administrator ISYS Technology Inc. http://www.isys.ca Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5 -Original Message- From: Matt Buford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Reid Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:55 PM Subject: Re: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT Add the -R option to your tcpserver command lines to disable ident lookups. Without -R, tcpserver attempts to do an ident lookup, which then causes the 10-15 second delay while it times out when the user is behind either a firewall or NAT which just blackholes your connection attempt. - Original Message - From: Reid Sutherland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:46 AM Subject: tcpserver and firewalls/NAT It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the most part is NAT). I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no results. Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me? Reid Sutherland Network Administrator ISYS Technology Inc. http://www.isys.ca Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
Re: Aliases..
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] user. This was pretty painless in sendmail. Couldn't be much easier in qmail: echo vhost.com:user /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains echo vhost.com /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts I also tried the virtualhosts file, but didn't get positive results there. thoughts..ideas? thanks. How exactly did you set it up, and how did it fail? -Dave
tcpserver and firewalls/NAT
It seems that tcpserver is having problem communicating with people using NAT (Network Address Translation) or are behind a firewall (which for the most part is NAT). I have 2 large scale clients, and they both state it takes them roughly 10-15 seconds to send or receive email. I have my smtp/pop3 both running under tcpserver. I've tried adding the -o option, but with still no results. Has anyone seen this problem, or have an answer for me? Reid Sutherland Network Administrator ISYS Technology Inc. http://www.isys.ca Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
Fwd: a simple question
Hi After I setup the qmail-imap-4.5.beta-2 server, I add a new user account: bo what is need under the ~bo/ to support a maidir format creation from the client side. BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OpenSMTP - another approach
That's what /dev/null is for. Joe -Original Message- From: Bruno Wolff III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:14 AM To: Petr Novotny; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OpenSMTP - another approach On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 12:20:52PM +0100, Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are accepted (not sent out, just accepted). I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that. No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept and bounce after" kind of approach. You won't end up on the rbl, but whoever reads your postmaster mail is not going to be happy if a spammer tries to relay through you.
Re: qmail-getpw
+ "Joe Garcia" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | So what does qmail-lspawn pass to qmail-getpw as local? "user" of | "user@domain" Which part of the qmail-getpw manual page did you not understand? Did you try actually running the program with various data on the command line? - Harald
Re: Secondary MX que
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeas, killed and restarted every qmail- I could find. Even tried the smtproutes with .f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net and stil sitting with 300+ in the queue and netstat -a says nothing's moving. Maybe you wanted "f-tech.net:mail.f-tech.net" (without the leading dot). Good luck with the maildir2smtp. -- #include std_disclaim.h Lorens Kockum
Fwd: Maildir format mailbox
Hi I'm trying to use the qmail-imap package from ftp://ftp.engr.uark.edu/pub/qmail/qmail-imap/ I encounted some problem, I can't creat a Maildir (cur,new,tmp) format mailbox from the client side, after I creat a new folder from the netscape, I just got a plain text file unde my home directory. Does anyone has some advise or please tell me is there and document about this package beside the README.maildir? BTW, I'm using a RedHat 5.2 box, and a netscape messanger Thanks a lot BoLiang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stoping a SPAM in progress?
+ Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Anyone know how to stop/cleanup a SPAM with 1500 messages in | queue? | | The user was deactivated and kicked offline in the middle of | SPAMing.. But what now? :) Shut down qmail-send, identify all the spam messages and delete their corresponding files from the queue. Then restart qmail. For efficiency, you may wish to write a little script to precompute all the relevant file names (for split directories, files belonging to message n is in the subdir named n%23 (where % means modulo). - Harald
Re: Help for newbies (was: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail)
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:08:01PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: Dave Sill writes: People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail without self-injury, which, IMHO, is: 1. Ability to read 2. Ability to think 3. Ability to follow directions 4. Ability to ask high-quality questions, which demonstrate that one has indeed RT'ed the FM, and which include just the necessary information needed to solve the problem. We're not all *perfect* you know! :-) I occasionally (?) ask some pretty silly questions but that doesn't automatically make me a complete moron. A little sympathy from experienced usesrs is always welcome. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 05:20:29PM -0400, Julian L.C. Brown wrote: (like any MTA) is full of quirks. Most companies have someone dedicated to the task of looking after email - and if this is not your company you should look towards Micro$oft for buggy, low grade help. No! "Most companies" do *not* "have someone dedicated to the task of looking after email". This is what I have been trying to get across to this list, nothing more. There are an increasing number of (potential) qmail users who can't possibly afford to have a dedicated E-Mail person, or even a dedicated sysadmin. Even a ten person company will probably have only one person who spends *some* of their time each day on computer administration. Lots of companies with fewer than ten people now have a small network. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Vince Gonzalez wrote: I *know* that qmail is good, fairly simple to install and secure. But a bit more acceptance that the documentation and other help isn't all *that* brilliant would reduce the sort of problems that non-professional users have installing it. If you're not a professional, maybe you should not be setting up a mail server. This is where I came in to some extent! :-) Linux is being used by *lots* of non 'professional' people as a 'server' on small networks. They need an MTA of some sort and qmail is better than most for various reasons. Most of these people are either home users who certainly can't afford professional help or small businesses who could afford something but (probably) not the sort of amount a good sysadmin would cost for a day or two. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Re: Help for newbies (was: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail)
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 12:03:51PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail without self-injury, which, IMHO, is: 1. Ability to read 2. Ability to think 3. Ability to follow directions However, I do think there's a need for documentation aimed at less experienced administrators. I'm putting something together in my free time, which means it'll take longer than I'd like, but it'll be available before the book, and it'll be free and on-line. If you'd like to contribute, let me know. Excellent! I'd certainly be willing to help if I can, even if just by reading your documentation and seeing if I can follow it. I could possibly also contribute my experience of installing qmail for a dial-up ISP using the holdremote patch. My ISP is unusual though in that my mail is delivered from the ISP using SMTP and I have a static IP address. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay '
checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT.
Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth
it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus.
Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most
secure. I like the thought that has gone into them.
M.
--
\//
\\|// _\\|//_ | | _\\|//_ \\|//
(@ @) (' 0-0 ') (.) (.) (' @-@ ') (o-o)
+-=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=oo0=(_)=0oo=oOOo-(_)-oOOo=-+
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Martin wrote: Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay ' checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT. Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus. Yes, I used to use Mercury but it was awkward because my NT system wasn't turned on 24 hours a day. My Linux box is turned on all the time so it makes much more sense to me to use qmail. Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most secure. I like the thought that has gone into them. Quite, but it would be *even better* if qmail was as easy to set up as Mercury. Maybe what I'm after is qmail-lite which is easy to set up rather than efficient. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
Chris Green wrote: On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 10:40:33AM -0400, Martin wrote: Both Mdaemon and Mercury are easy to set-up. Both have a 'do not relay ' checkbox Both are secure and functional, if you ignore windows95/98 and NT. Both have built-in mailing lists. Mdaeon you have to pay for (but it's worth it), Mercury (Pegasus's companion) is free as is Pegasus. Yes, I used to use Mercury but it was awkward because my NT system wasn't turned on 24 hours a day. My Linux box is turned on all the time so it makes much more sense to me to use qmail. Still, I want Qmail and Ezmlm because they appear to be the best and most secure. I like the thought that has gone into them. Quite, but it would be *even better* if qmail was as easy to set up as Mercury. Maybe what I'm after is qmail-lite which is easy to set up rather than efficient. I suggest you turn back to NT and have it turned on all the time ;-)
Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
Tim Tsai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 30 April 1999 at 05:12:40 -0500 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are accepted (not sent out, just accepted). I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that. I don't think so. ORBS verifies *delivery* of the relayed test message, not just acceptance. RBL requires a history of human contact and lack of response to the problem. If there's no problem, no RBL. Meanwhile, the spammer *thinks* he's sent his message, but it hasn't gone out. That part sounds especially amusing to me. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 09:12:49AM -0700, Patrick Berry wrote: Anyone who can read and comprehend the documentation and is moderately intelligent should be able to install qmail with a minimum of fuss. I can back this up. I've been thrown into sys admin duty recently. I was able to get qmail+pop3 up in about a day and a half. I didn't have a plan. This was bad. I just downloaded the src and compiled, then went searching for the INSTALL file. Then to qmail.org, the searched the archive for hours. OK you (and I) can 'afford' to spend this sort of amount of time. In my case it's simply because it's on a home system which is as much hobby as essential tool. However a small businessmand hasn't got this sort of amount of time to spend and isn't going to regard configuring his E-Mail as recreation over the weekend. He is also, maybe, a one or two person business that can't afford to hire someone for a day or two to do the job for him. Lots of other (quite complex) software is used by small businesses and is quicker/easier to set up than qmail. OK, so quite a bit of it is commercial and so part of what your paying for is the slick set-up. But there's not much in the way of alternatives to qmail (and they're more difficult to configure) so where does the small business go? -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Re: some questions to qmail and sql
hi, I'm tring to do nearly the same thing here. At moment my conf. includes : 0. PortSlave for dial-up and leased users (or any other portmaster) 1. XTRadius server (Based on Cistron which is based on Livingston. it is free). 2. Qmail server (at the moment only POP auth. is made against Radius). 3. MySQL DB server which holds all user info. (The good thing is that you can implement additional crypting for passwords, for a better protection ). 4. Later will add IIS (via MySQL ODBC) an Apache auth. against this DB. The whole system is partially finished and is yet in test phase. So the big benefit will be that all user info will in one fast and reliable place (which can fit any of your future needs), no in hard to support and protect passwd, shadow, NIS or NT SAM base. The other benefit of this approach is that the DB can store also accounting info which will be the base of future Billing and Reporting software :") till moment I'm on NT SAM. So flatfile may be is the easier approach, but it is unscalable. I'm very interesting how you think to incorporate QMAIL routing information and forward infos into SQL DB. see ya = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Hi to all, I want to create an sql-database in which I want to hold information about my mail-users, routing information and forwarding infos. Does anybody know a sql-databaseengine which works fine with qmail? Is a flatfile more efficient than a sql-database? Thanks in advance, Heiko Romahn
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
- Original Message - From: Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 1:06 AM Subject: Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail However a small businessmand hasn't got this sort of amount of time to spend and isn't going to regard configuring his E-Mail as recreation over the weekend. He is also, maybe, a one or two person business that can't afford to hire someone for a day or two to do the job for him. Lots of other (quite complex) software is used by small businesses and is quicker/easier to set up than qmail. OK, so quite a bit of it is commercial and so part of what your paying for is the slick set-up. But there's not much in the way of alternatives to qmail (and they're more difficult to configure) so where does the small business go? The thing is, email servers are *not* something a novice should be setting up. There aren't any *really* easy ways to set up a (insert secure and/or functional here) mail server. It's a complex subject, and that's exactly why larger organizations assign staff to the subject, or simply hire someone else to do the task. You need someone with expertise in this area, or you're going to be kicking yourself later. Smaller companies, one would assume, don't have such a high volume of mail that they need their own server. And correct me if I'm wrong, but setting up a simple install of qmail to act as a mere relay is ridiculously easy. You know, it's funny.. but we recently had a client with an NT box full of users decide to co-locate with us, and they're running iMail, a horribly nasty mail server ;) All kidding aside, part of the server's 'slick' setup (being a commercial server, and all) was to simply not ask questions like "Do you want this server to be an open relay?" and default to relaying for the entire world. This just blows me away. J.
[Off: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail]
Hi Boy, have I been enjoying reading my mail lately :-) OK, let's kill the thread. My purpose was to have the right warnings popup in the mailinglist's searchengine for the rookie type of 'rpm go' user (like me) considering to install qmail. I've just tried the searchengine, I'm happy to say, I succeeded. Thanks guys. A few [OFF] responses to all the heat: * The main problem was the RPM. Some people helped me look at the installation, and it's messy what I have here... the docs don't match the man pages, I've got different versions of different programs, some stuff seems missing. This may account for why fastforward and dotforward don't work ... either that or ...the RPM engine may be acting up ... :-( * A word about me: yes, it's a small office and I don't get paid to be sysadmin. Generally, I just tie all the machines together and keep an eye on things. We bought ourselves a linux box few years ago. Occassionaly, we've hired a Guru to configure .. sendmail ! right :-) Cost you money. Qmail could be the solution ... it seems. On the counterpart, a few complaining users are not such a pain to me as they are to you SuperUsers, in this small office. But I don't think I'm the "moron" I claimed myself to be. I know the difference between sendmail and xmail ... it's no thing a quick look at the RedHat Book wouldn't tell too. Deinstalling sendmail (which is obligatory for the RPM ... either with --force or by hand) felt much like taking the wheels of a driving car. What's more, I don't _want_ to be a Guru. Sorry guys, it's not what I do for a living. Most of the time trusting the RPM works much better than trying to do it myself. I really love RPM, it could be a powerfull thing ... enough rope to hang yourself * RedHat does just 'pop out of a box' nowadays. It's shipped with a book that suggests you don't really have to read it at all.This may be RH's mistake. I did read it. It's empty. ( in fact, I read qmail's docs and mans and studied 'The Big Picture' - wow, there's a pp version - before I decided to 'safely' go for the RPM. I've printed out half this mailinglist to read it at home. Much of it is just happy faces. The rest is quite hebrew if you've never seen a working qmail setup ) I really really really hope RedHat installers will support Qmail in future releases ... * Ofcourse I had a backup :-) You don't need 2 machines, use partitions. But once I had Qmail working (with some workarounds), the backup was outdated. Mail came in. * I never said qmail is "SH*T" - in fact, I keep repeating it's great (without caps). That's why I installed it. This really makes me wonder: what's it to you ? Why get angry at 'constructive criticism' ? Thanks for the responses. I'm looking forward to the O'Reilly book and pretty interested in what Dave Sill and Chris Green might add ... Bye *.P.i.k.e..* PS oh right, the signature :-) I know it showed up as an ugly mess on your .."VT100" tty -s That is the point ... therefor I mac, right ? ...*..P.i.k.e...* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kw.nl/~pike - desktop icq: 4322610 | U | s | e | _ | a | _ | f | i | x | e | d | _ | f | o | n | t | | _ | a | n | d | _ | D | o | n | ' | t | _ | W | r | a | p | _ |
Re: Help for newbies (was: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail)
Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:08:01PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: Dave Sill writes: People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail without self-injury, which, IMHO, is: 1. Ability to read 2. Ability to think 3. Ability to follow directions 4. Ability to ask high-quality questions, which demonstrate that one has indeed RT'ed the FM, and which include just the necessary information needed to solve the problem. We're not all *perfect* you know! :-) Russ went a little too far, I think. "Ability to ask questions that demonstrate that one has read the documentation and that include at least some of the relevant details" would be good enough. One can't expect someone to know exactly which information is required if they don't know what the problem is. On the other hand, there is no excuse for questions like "I installed foo and it didn't work. Why?" I occasionally (?) ask some pretty silly questions but that doesn't automatically make me a complete moron. A little sympathy from experienced usesrs is always welcome. Silly questions are OK. Stupid questions aren't. -Dave
Re: Rewriting outoing mails for other smtp servers
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 08:52:10PM +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote: So I want to have all outgoing smtp servers forward their outgoing mail to my mail hub, which would look up a database and rewrite old adresses into new ones in the From, Reply-To en enveloppe (and maybe a few other fields, suggestions ?), and then send them out. The setup I propose to use on the mail hub is this : in tcprules, for each IP of outgoing smtp server, add: 123.123.123.123:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@rewrite" in control/virtualdomains, add: rewrite:alias-rewrite in ~alias/.qmail-rewrite-default: | rewriteheadersproggy | forward $DEFAULT You could also try an investigate the mess822 package by DJB. It allows rewriting of incoming SMTP mail. -- System Administrator See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Chris Green wrote: Time and lack of knowledge are basically what prevent me at the moment. If winter arrives and I'm still in the same frame of mind I might well try putting something together. The lack of time thing doesn't help, but when in a state of 'lack of knowledge' it's the best time to write the how to. 1) you learn by doing and more importantly; 2) you assume nothing. Too often it's assumed by the writer that the reader already knows something. If you want an example, go visit some of the LDAP sites! Most of them that I've seen assume you already know everything there is to know about X.500. Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are accepted (not sent out, just accepted). I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that. Tim
Re: Help for newbies (was: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail)
Chris Green wrote: We're not all *perfect* you know! :-) I occasionally (?) ask some pretty silly questions but that doesn't automatically make me a complete moron. A little sympathy from experienced usesrs is always welcome. At the start of the journey which is learning qmail, and until the "qmail-way" clicks into place, it is sometimes necessary to ask questions which may seem obvious or odd to more seasoned qmail users. This is not the same as asking "silly" questions. FWIW, I don't recall you ever having asked "silly" questions. R. -- Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK. Tel: +44 161 838 8321 Fax: +44 161 835 1657
Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:45:26 +0100, you wrote: I have found many people claiming the current OpenSMTP (SMTP- after-POP) is useless for them because some MTAs (like Netscape? Outlook? I don't really know) try to do SMTP first and the retrieve mail. If you're having problems with Netscape or Outlook, why not just patch your qmail-smtpd to support authentication? http://www.nimh.org/code.shtml near the bottom. I have successfully implemented it (and all my patches have been send back to mrs.brisby). It's working here great. Just ask if you're interested.. Best wishes James -- Adastra Software Ltd, Edmonton House, Park Farm Close, Folkestone, Kent Tel: 01303 222700 Fax: 01303 22270124-hr support: 0701 0702 016 Call handling for GP Co-ops Deputising services www.adastra.co.uk
Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If you're having problems with Netscape or Outlook, why not just patch your qmail-smtpd to support authentication? http://www.nimh.org/code.shtml near the bottom. Your approach is definitely correct to relay from Netscape; my Pegasus doesn't do authentication. I'm aiming at general, not too expensive, solution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBNymWWVMwP8g7qbw/EQKU/QCdGhmVkUL0mk/XUfkgB/QA+c/2WJYAnAs8 fBcdFDO2Y7M86H4kOdi8+eeV =datL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS, antek.cz node administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
Re: OpenSMTP - another approach
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 1. SMTP relay looks kind of open - and relay attempts are accepted (not sent out, just accepted). I think you're going to end up in RBL sites with that. No I won't - if I bounce the mail within 10 or 20 or whatever minutes after accepting it. If I understand correctly, ORBS allows "accept and bounce after" kind of approach. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBNymSE1MwP8g7qbw/EQLa4gCg8Or6fEia81SO4162tEpoyhcPr8cAoLm4 cm2yR/rN0A0qG74LK21doiAo =5FJB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS, antek.cz node administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On 30-Apr-99 Chris Green wrote: No! "Most companies" do *not* "have someone dedicated to the task of looking after email". This is what I have been trying to get across to this list, nothing more. There are an increasing number of (potential) qmail users who can't possibly afford to have a dedicated E-Mail person, or even a dedicated sysadmin. Even a ten person company will probably have only one person who spends *some* of their time each day on computer administration. Lots of companies with fewer than ten people now have a small network. Then maybe such companies should either -- use the server of their ISP -- get a qmail consultant on a retainer basis If they want to run an SMTP MTA, they should know what it entails. Why pay maintenance for a machine, or an accounting package, but not for the MTA? The fact that qmail and Linux don't cost them any money should be an added incentive to employ a computing-knowledgeable person, or to buy the service from a local consultant. Stefaan -- PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/) ___ Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
Re: Pine 4.05 error, need help
You were absolutely correct. I found the problem just after I sent this email. I had the line as "sendmail-path=sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail". Thanks for your kind response. Dinesh --- Vern Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Dinesh Punjabi wrote: When sending a message using pine. I get the following error: Pipe can't access "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail" : no such file or directory followed by: Error running "sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail -oem -t -oi" Just a guess, but it looks like pine is trying to execute 'sendmail-path=/usr/lib/sendmail' instead of just '/usr/lib/sendmail'. Search for 'sendmail' in your ~/.pinerc and the system's pine.conf (on my system this is /usr/lib/pine.conf but could be /usr/local/lib/pine.conf or something else): grep sendmail ~/.pine* /usr/lib/pine.conf It's a shot in the dark since I'm still using 3.96. Let me know. Cheers, Vern -- \ \ / __| _ \ \ | Vern Hart \ \ / _|/ . | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \_/ ___|_|_\_|\_| _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
