Re: Using qmail with CGI feedback form - needing reference
Dan Poynor wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
I nuked anything that smelled of sendmail. Trying to avoid it's ghost also.
qmails Sendmail requirements seem redundant to me. That is I don't want to
create sendmail symbolic links when it's not necessary.
/usr/{lib,sbin}/sendmail is _the_ API for mail injection on UNIX systems.
Perhaps a future FAQ item could mention form mail sending injects to
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail.
Now, why should they? With symlinks in /usr/lib and /usr/sbin, nothing
must be changed, which is a Good Thing. qmail's native API for mail
injection is the qmail-queue interface.
Now I see someone is saying it should be /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject. Are
these the same thing?
No, /var/qmail/bin/sendmail implements the sendmail API. It knows how
to execute qmail-inject or qmail-smtpd [1] with appropriate parameters
depending on its invocation.
Stefan
[1] exec'ing qmail-smtpd to emulate sendmail's 'SMTP-on-stdin' mode
is pretty damn elegant, BTW
qmail Digest 13 Jul 1999 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 696
qmail Digest 13 Jul 1999 10:00:00 - Issue 696 Topics (messages 27697 through 27749): fetchmail+sendmail+procmail = qmail? 27697 by: Yan Seiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27715 by: Yan Seiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Source Routing Relaying 27698 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] lwq/serialmail 27699 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] nested aliases 27700 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarding to variable username 27701 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27734 by: "Jim Gilliver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] About mailing lists 27702 by: Tero Niemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27703 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27705 by: "Soffen, Matthew" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27706 by: Anand Buddhdev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrapping qmail-inject - can I? 27704 by: Anand Buddhdev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acknowledgement ? 27707 by: "Tarkan Hocaoglu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27708 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27714 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] lwq/pop3d 27709 by: "Jacob (Mettavihari)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27710 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] autoconf? 27711 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27716 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27740 by: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] headers. 27712 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27713 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] cleaning out queue. 27717 by: "Tony D'Andrade" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27721 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27729 by: "Tony D'Andrade" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27731 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27746 by: Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qmailanalog, want per msg information 27718 by: Eric Dahnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27720 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] periodic cleanup of email 27719 by: Diego Puertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] does pine use qmail-inject? 27722 by: Robert Varga [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27725 by: Richard Letts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27726 by: Robert Varga [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27735 by: Richard Letts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27736 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27738 by: Robert Varga [EMAIL PROTECTED] info 27723 by: "Alex Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] pine does NOT use qmail-inject (uses /usr/sbin/sendmail) 27724 by: Robert Varga [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27737 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using qmail with CGI feedback form - needing reference 27727 by: "Dan Poynor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27728 by: "Reid Sutherland" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27730 by: Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27733 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27743 by: "Dan Poynor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27745 by: "Reid Sutherland" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27748 by: Sergei Kolobov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27749 by: Stefan Paletta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aliasing using fastforward 27732 by: Chris Galanos [EMAIL PROTECTED] A Re-Explanation of my aliasing problem 27739 by: "Chris Galanos" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver 27741 by: "Alvaro Escobar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 27742 by: Keith Burdis [EMAIL PROTECTED] child exited 127 () (fwd) 27744 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (IBRIC - International Buddhist Research Info. Center) Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2) 27747 by: Christopher Seawood [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] -- I am new to this list and to qmail. I am trying to set up a more secure server so I am in the process of dumping sendmail. Here's the present setup: our email is collected by our ISP and deposited in a single mailbox (3 domains, two dozen users). Fetchmail collects our email and forwards to the local postmaster account. The postmaster account has a .procmailrc file, which then invokes procmail. The procmail recipes simply look at the recipient and send the proper email to the proper place. No fancy recipes are used at all; just straight forwarding based on address. EG: [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I feel that I am using a cannon to squash a mouse - and I keep thinking that there must be some simpler way to do what I am doing. I've been reading through the archives, and fetchmail has received its share of getting trashed, but there's also recommendations to use it. From reading the docs, it seems that I may be able to get rid of procmail in my setup? Can qmail forward to different users based on address? Is fetchmail the way to go to collect POP3 mail or should I be looking elsewhere? I am looking for general recommendations and pointers on how to set this up. I can read docs; I just need some help on which docs to read :-)
AtDot package
Is anybody using AtDot (to check mail via Web) package with qmail? Need some help Andrzej
Question
Erm ... is this mail getting through ... if so, I have the following Questions. Hi all , I am currently attempting a Sendmail --- Qmail moveover. We have 3 or 4 sendmail servers that i would like to replace with a single Qmail server. Questions 1. Would someone point me to the doccies on how to use a Database for all aliases and perhaps Mailing lists and Vhosts, i will be looking at using Ezmlm for the mailing lists, and Mysql for the Database. We currently use MajorDomo for the mailing lists, is there a way to easily move all the lists from that to Ezmlm. 2. Has anyone got a web interface that uses RCS to keep track of who did what with Vhosts and Aliases ? I know that Qmail-admin is available. I may need to make changes to allow for the RCS. Has anyone moved 2000 + Aliases and Vhosts and mailing lists from a Sendmail server to Qmail. If so how did you keep track of everything. Thank You. Tony Wade The Internet Solution Tel:(+27 11) 283 5483 Fax:(+27 11) 283 5401 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web:http://www.is.co.za
Re: does pine use qmail-inject?
They are not really computer-specialists... they might know a thing about setting a few options in pine, but I don't think they will be able to use my SMTP port if I don't want to. Why do not you try then to use the mess822 package ? It has various tools to do global rewriting of headers. There are rpms as well, but at koobera you can find the tarball. Mate --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
qmail: no inbox with IMAP
I installed UW IMAP. I am using mailboxes. If I try to move anything into INBOX on my client, the server responds saying that the mailbox is not a UNIX mailbox. Mail is going to ~/Mailbox. However, either UW or the client (MS Outlook Express) or both do not recognize Mailbox as the INBOX. Is this something related qmail? Brian.
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
Does this amavis catch macro viruses, is it updateable? Amavis integrates with other packages that actually do the scanning. Amavis's job is more to unpack the mail and decode attachements, then call the virus scanner(s) on the unpacked mail. I think amavis supports three virus scanners (H+BEDV AntiVir, McAfee, and two versions of DrSolomon), and so long as those catch macro viruses/are updateable, then amavis is also. Troy
Domain name case sensitivity
I'm running qmail 1.03 with vchkpw 3.1.2 with the case sensitivity patch installed. If I send mail to my address at [EMAIL PROTECTED], all the mail delivers fine. If I try to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED], or anything with the domain having capital letters, it gets bounced back to me with the following message: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ccbor.intcomm.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: agoben:ccbor.org:CCBOR.ORG Reason for failure: Unknown local POP user agoben (#5.1.1) Are there any fixes for this?
Re: Domain name case sensitivity
Alex, Check out the new version of vchkpw (4.3.2kj) at http://www.inter7.com/vchkpw/. This case sensitivity problem has been corrected in the release prior to this one. -- Stephen Comoletti Systems Administrator Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802 Alex Goben wrote: I'm running qmail 1.03 with vchkpw 3.1.2 with the case sensitivity patch installed. If I send mail to my address at [EMAIL PROTECTED], all the mail delivers fine. If I try to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED], or anything with the domain having capital letters, it gets bounced back to me with the following message: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ccbor.intcomm.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: agoben:ccbor.org:CCBOR.ORG Reason for failure: Unknown local POP user agoben (#5.1.1) Are there any fixes for this?
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 12:28:14PM -0300, Eric Dahnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a good virus scanning package would be an increadible asset for the qmail community. There are not many mailhubs which provide a virus scan. Where I worked previously the virus scan package that we used with Exchange went for $20,000. Anyway, I'm a few months from delving heavily into virus scanning, but am glad to see that there is already work being done. Think of how well a virus free outsourced mail service would go over. Viruses wreak havoc on corporate LANs. Dream on. What are you going to do when people use public key encryption by default? The server won't be able to decode the messages to scan on behalf of its users. In the shorter run, viruses will be developed that use a simple encryption each time they transmit themselves in order to keep the fixed part of the virus small in order to make virus detection more difficult. They may also use a number of varient codes to do the decryption part so that even that may vary with each copy. Another problem is that virus checking is going to take more and more time as the number of viruses that have ever been written increases. Virus scanning just can't work in the long run. The other question is why this is being done on the mail server instead of on the end user machines, where there is likely to be a lot of underused CPU power?
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 12:09:32PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 12:28:14PM -0300, Eric Dahnke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a good virus scanning package would be an increadible asset for the qmail community. There are not many mailhubs which provide a virus scan. Where I worked previously the virus scan package that we used with Exchange went for $20,000. Anyway, I'm a few months from delving heavily into virus scanning, but am glad to see that there is already work being done. Think of how well a virus free outsourced mail service would go over. Viruses wreak havoc on corporate LANs. Dream on. What are you going to do when people use public key encryption by default? The server won't be able to decode the messages to scan on behalf of its users. I seriously doubt that a majority of users will be using public key encryption anytime soon. Encryption went from being something hard to use to something you have to pay to use. Only the users that demand secure e-mail will be using encryption. In the shorter run, viruses will be developed that use a simple encryption each time they transmit themselves in order to keep the fixed part of the virus small in order to make virus detection more difficult. They may also use a number of varient codes to do the decryption part so that even that may vary with each copy. There are already many variants of many common viruses. Another problem is that virus checking is going to take more and more time as the number of viruses that have ever been written increases. Virus scanning just can't work in the long run. How do you propose viruses be detected then? What will "work in the long run"? I suppose we should just ask the malicious hackers out there to just "stop" making and distributing viruses. The other question is why this is being done on the mail server instead of on the end user machines, where there is likely to be a lot of underused CPU power? Where I work we run VirusScan on the workstations and NetShield on the servers. Guess what, the servers catch way more viruses than the workstations do. Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade 10 servers than it is to upgrade 800 workstations every time there is an update from McAfee. Yes, we could start AutoUpdate on every workstation if we had the manpower. But there will always be some machines that fall through the cracks. Anyway, I think the best solution here is to scan for viruses *after* the mail has been delivered. (Or possibly in a way that is transparent to the MTA, which scans the file before it is written to disk). This takes the responsibility away from the MTA. McAfee can already look inside Zip files for viruses, adding the code to look in UUEncoded emails shouldn't be much harder. This would be especially good for qmail because the Maildir delivery format because each message would be a different file and would be able to be scanned separately by the scanner. --Adam
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
The main trick is to use qmail-remote directly. Only queue things when delivery is not possible. Dirk On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 02:47:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to tune qmail to deliver outgoing mail as fast as possible. We have a mail list with about 100,000 subscribers. I'd use ezmlm, but unfortunately this is impossible due to prioritary stuff built into the mail list to generate reports, update a database, etc, etc. So the people before me implemented this Java mail delivery client thing using some common Java mail interface thing. I don't know much about it, but it's really not important. Qmail, just from tailing logs doesn't appear to be spawning more then about one delivery per second. I have concurrentremote boosted up to 75. What else do I need to do. It doesn't appear to be working to its capacity. I've seen qmail do unbelieve amounts of work on other systems. Any suggestion or pointers to something I may be missing would be great. Thanks! -jeremy
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
Hmm, so if they can possible alter their command to call qmail-remote, instead of /usr/sbin/sendmail, this should increase speed? Thanks -jeremy The main trick is to use qmail-remote directly. Only queue things when delivery is not possible. Dirk On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 02:47:16PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to tune qmail to deliver outgoing mail as fast as possible. We have a mail list with about 100,000 subscribers. I'd use ezmlm, but unfortunately this is impossible due to prioritary stuff built into the mail list to generate reports, update a database, etc, etc. So the people before me implemented this Java mail delivery client thing using some common Java mail interface thing. I don't know much about it, but it's really not important. Qmail, just from tailing logs doesn't appear to be spawning more then about one delivery per second. I have concurrentremote boosted up to 75. What else do I need to do. It doesn't appear to be working to its capacity. I've seen qmail do unbelieve amounts of work on other systems. Any suggestion or pointers to something I may be missing would be great. Thanks! -jeremy http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
At 02:47 PM Tuesday 7/13/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to tune qmail to deliver outgoing mail as fast as possible. We have a mail list with about 100,000 subscribers. I'd use ezmlm, but Over what time period and what sort of hardware? Qmail, just from tailing logs doesn't appear to be spawning more then about one delivery per second. I have concurrentremote boosted up to 75. What else do I need to do. It doesn't appear to be working to its capacity. I've seen qmail do unbelieve amounts of work on other systems. Right. You haven't provided any information about resource utilization on your system. How busy are the disks? What else is happening? What does qmail-qstat say? What sort of concurrency do you get after all the mails have been injected into the queue. How long does the injection take? Btw. qmail-remote is not a direct replacement for any of the mail injection programs (qmail-inject, sendmail, qmail-queue) and if you wish to use qmail-remote directly you will need to provide all the queue and retry mechanisms that qmail provides. Regards.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
At 03:09 PM Tuesday 7/13/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, so if they can possible alter their command to call qmail-remote, instead of /usr/sbin/sendmail, this should increase speed? Nope and maybe. But only if your own queue and retry mechanism is more efficient than that provided by qmail-send. Oh, you don't have your own queue and retry mechanism? Then qmail-remote is irrelevant to you unless you are happy to discard mail that doesn't get thru first time. I sgguest that you stick with qmail-inject and investigage your resource usage. To give you a ballpark. Something like a P-II with 100MB of memory, a single SCSI disk that is well connected should be able to deliver 100K average sized messages in 3-4 hours. If your goal is in that ballpark or less, then it's a matter of homework and perhaps a better understanding of the best way to inject mail. Regards.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
The system is a Linux box, PII 450, 128meg o ram. It's doing nothing but this mail list, but the mail list is using Java, which makes the system crap as far as I'm concerned, but hey, that's out of my control, so I have to deal with it. I just got word that their program does not shell out to spawn mail processes, but rather communicates directly with smtp, so unless they have some control over this, it doesn't look like I'll be able to call anything directly. Heh, the load average on this thing is averaging around 20 which is just bad. I just sent out 300 messages using qmail-remote in about 4 seconds. *sigh*, qmail remote is fast, but you have to pass it information like you state below, such as the prefer MX host, which over course a simple perl wrapper could find, but well... I still remember qmail being very fast on other servers. Why isn't my concurrentremote filling up? I see in logs an average of 1-3/75 and that's it. -jeremy At 02:47 PM Tuesday 7/13/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to tune qmail to deliver outgoing mail as fast as possible. We have a mail list with about 100,000 subscribers. I'd use ezmlm, but Over what time period and what sort of hardware? Qmail, just from tailing logs doesn't appear to be spawning more then about one delivery per second. I have concurrentremote boosted up to 75. What else do I need to do. It doesn't appear to be working to its capacity. I've seen qmail do unbelieve amounts of work on other systems. Right. You haven't provided any information about resource utilization on your system. How busy are the disks? What else is happening? What does qmail-qstat say? What sort of concurrency do you get after all the mails have been injected into the queue. How long does the injection take? Btw. qmail-remote is not a direct replacement for any of the mail injection programs (qmail-inject, sendmail, qmail-queue) and if you wish to use qmail-remote directly you will need to provide all the queue and retry mechanisms that qmail provides. Regards. http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
I just got word that their program does not shell out to spawn mail processes, but rather communicates directly with smtp, so unless they have some control over this, it doesn't look like I'll be able to call anything directly. Heh, the load average on this thing is averaging around 20 which is just bad. I just sent out 300 messages using qmail-remote in about 4 seconds. *sigh*, qmail remote is fast, but you have to pass it information like you state below, such as the prefer MX host, which over course a simple perl wrapper could find, but well... I still remember qmail being very fast on other servers. Why isn't my concurrentremote filling up? I see in logs an average of 1-3/75 and that's it. It may be that your Java program is simply injecting one mail at a time (via SMTP) and that is getting delivered before the Java prog is ready to inject the next. It may also be that you're hitting an inbound SMTP concurrency limit. How is your inbound SMTP connection managed? inetd, tcpserver, ? To find out more, run qmail-qstat every 10 seconds while the Java prog is running. Post 2-3 minutes of this to the list. Regards.
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0400, "Adam D . McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seriously doubt that a majority of users will be using public key encryption anytime soon. Encryption went from being something hard to use to something you have to pay to use. Only the users that demand secure e-mail will be using encryption. PGP for personal use has been free for a long time. RCF 2015 has been around for a few years as well. There is also an Open PGP standard that is nearing finalization. The main reason we already aren't seeing most people using real encryption in their email is that the US Government is discouraging it, so they can continue to easily read people's email. In the shorter run, viruses will be developed that use a simple encryption each time they transmit themselves in order to keep the fixed part of the virus small in order to make virus detection more difficult. They may also use a number of varient codes to do the decryption part so that even that may vary with each copy. There are already many variants of many common viruses. We are talking about 'many's that are orders of mangitudes apart. With encryption, each copy of a virus will be different. There will have to be a small relatively constant part, but that can be giving a large amount of variability by having alternate code that does the same thing for small pieces of the bootstrap part of the program. This is a lot different than having just a few thousand viruses to check for. Another problem is that virus checking is going to take more and more time as the number of viruses that have ever been written increases. Virus scanning just can't work in the long run. How do you propose viruses be detected then? What will "work in the long run"? I suppose we should just ask the malicious hackers out there to just "stop" making and distributing viruses. What will work in the long run is real security such as capability systems. In the short run teaching people not to run programs given too them by people who are either clueless or untrustworthy is a good start. The other question is why this is being done on the mail server instead of on the end user machines, where there is likely to be a lot of underused CPU power? Where I work we run VirusScan on the workstations and NetShield on the servers. Guess what, the servers catch way more viruses than the workstations do. Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade 10 servers than it is to upgrade 800 workstations every time there is an update from McAfee. Yes, we could start AutoUpdate on every workstation if we had the manpower. But there will always be some machines that fall through the cracks. The antivirus people need to improve the way they do things. Viruses are spreading much faster now than they used to and having to have people go and look to see if there is a new update once a week or so isn't good enough. Probably the best solution is a distributed one, where information is pushed to a local server when there is a change and all local machines check with that server for updates everytime they are about to do a scan.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just sent out 300 messages using qmail-remote in about 4 seconds. *sigh*, qmail remote is fast, but you have to pass it information like you state below, such as the prefer MX host, which over course a simple perl wrapper could find, but well... I still remember qmail being very fast on other servers. Why isn't my concurrentremote filling up? I see in logs an average of 1-3/75 and that's it. -jeremy You'd be better off doing a couple other things with your time (rather then whining here) 1.) Look at qmail-inject, and see if that can help you test the machine for proper delivery statistics (might also look into getting qmail-analog) 2.) See if it's possible to use qmail-inject with their java system A. If it's not possible, then try convincing the higher ups that the system needs to be modified by doing the following: 1.) Show them how much faster an untuned qmail installation can be over their "custom" setup. 2.) Show them the benefits of the modularity of qmail, and how easily it can be modified to do what they want. (there are people on this list that will contract themselves to custom write anything you need, i'm sure russ can help you out, he's a genius when it comes to qmail (among other things)) ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 1:50pm up 158 days, 20:53, 2 users, load average: 1.09, 0.35, 0.17
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 03:01:58PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0400, "Adam D . McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I seriously doubt that a majority of users will be using public key encryption anytime soon. Encryption went from being something hard to use to something you have to pay to use. Only the users that demand secure e-mail will be using encryption. PGP for personal use has been free for a long time. RCF 2015 has been around for a few years as well. There is also an Open PGP standard that is nearing finalization. The main reason we already aren't seeing most people using real encryption in their email is that the US Government is discouraging it, so they can continue to easily read people's email. How are they "discouraging it"? I haven't gotten any notices in the mail from the government saying "please don't use strong encryption". All of the major e-mail clients have a way of integrating strong encryption, it's just that the two most popular (Netscape and Outlook) only work with S/MIME and not PGP, which you need to buy a certificate for. Also, you hit upon the key word. "Personal use". Business e-mail is not a personal use. And I think the people on this list that are concerned with scanning e-mail are much more concerned with scanning business e-mail than personal e-mail. In the shorter run, viruses will be developed that use a simple encryption each time they transmit themselves in order to keep the fixed part of the virus small in order to make virus detection more difficult. They may also use a number of varient codes to do the decryption part so that even that may vary with each copy. There are already many variants of many common viruses. We are talking about 'many's that are orders of mangitudes apart. With encryption, each copy of a virus will be different. There will have to be a small relatively constant part, but that can be giving a large amount of variability by having alternate code that does the same thing for small pieces of the bootstrap part of the program. This is a lot different than having just a few thousand viruses to check for. Yes, scanning engines are going to have to get smarter and smarter to maintain their usefullness. Is there a point I'm missing? Another problem is that virus checking is going to take more and more time as the number of viruses that have ever been written increases. Virus scanning just can't work in the long run. How do you propose viruses be detected then? What will "work in the long run"? I suppose we should just ask the malicious hackers out there to just "stop" making and distributing viruses. What will work in the long run is real security such as capability systems. In the short run teaching people not to run programs given too them by people who are either clueless or untrustworthy is a good start. Yes, but it's not realistic. No matter what you tell someone, if their best friend sends them an email with an executable in it saying "this is cl", the person is probably going to run it. Perhaps you could explain what a "capability system" is. The other question is why this is being done on the mail server instead of on the end user machines, where there is likely to be a lot of underused CPU power? Where I work we run VirusScan on the workstations and NetShield on the servers. Guess what, the servers catch way more viruses than the workstations do. Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade 10 servers than it is to upgrade 800 workstations every time there is an update from McAfee. Yes, we could start AutoUpdate on every workstation if we had the manpower. But there will always be some machines that fall through the cracks. The antivirus people need to improve the way they do things. Viruses are spreading much faster now than they used to and having to have people go and look to see if there is a new update once a week or so isn't good enough. Probably the best solution is a distributed one, where information is pushed to a local server when there is a change and all local machines check with that server for updates everytime they are about to do a scan. Yes, we do that here, but like I said, all of the local machines need to be configured to use this repository. They also have to be equipped with the latest software. This is all well and good until the VP calls at 7pm on a friday saying he needs a laptop because he's leaving in 2 hours for a conference. (Yes, this has happened to me.) --Adam
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
Well, I'm not really whining. I realize there are things that I'm limited by and unfortunately the people in charge don't really understand, but I'd still like to try and optimize where I can. I'm willing to accept that there's nothing I can do. I just want to be sure. Right now as it stands, calling external program is pointless because like I said, their nice program communicates directly with smtp. They said this is to have platform portability. I understand that I guess, but why since it is running on a Unix machine. Thanks -jeremy On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just sent out 300 messages using qmail-remote in about 4 seconds. *sigh*, qmail remote is fast, but you have to pass it information like you state below, such as the prefer MX host, which over course a simple perl wrapper could find, but well... I still remember qmail being very fast on other servers. Why isn't my concurrentremote filling up? I see in logs an average of 1-3/75 and that's it. -jeremy You'd be better off doing a couple other things with your time (rather then whining here) 1.) Look at qmail-inject, and see if that can help you test the machine for proper delivery statistics (might also look into getting qmail-analog) 2.) See if it's possible to use qmail-inject with their java system A. If it's not possible, then try convincing the higher ups that the system needs to be modified by doing the following: 1.) Show them how much faster an untuned qmail installation can be over their "custom" setup. 2.) Show them the benefits of the modularity of qmail, and how easily it can be modified to do what they want. (there are people on this list that will contract themselves to custom write anything you need, i'm sure russ can help you out, he's a genius when it comes to qmail (among other things)) ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 1:50pm up 158 days, 20:53, 2 users, load average: 1.09, 0.35, 0.17 http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
All this talk about maximum speed
Does anyone have an example Perl code that uses qmail-inject? Do I need to check if it bounced? Will it queue itself if it takes too long to deliver? Or make sure I don't fork too many porcesses? -- Tim "Mylo" Madams -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'm not really whining. I realize there are things that I'm limited by and unfortunately the people in charge don't really understand, but I'd still like to try and optimize where I can. I'm willing to accept that there's nothing I can do. I just want to be sure. Right now as it stands, calling external program is pointless because like I said, their nice program communicates directly with smtp. They said this is to have platform portability. I understand that I guess, but why since it is running on a Unix machine. Maybee i'm confused. Can you please explain to me what: "communicates directly with smtp" means? ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 2:10pm up 158 days, 21:13, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.10
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
Here: messages in queue: 93166 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81367 -- messages in queue: 93215 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81414 -- messages in queue: 93268 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81469 -- messages in queue: 93327 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81507 -- messages in queue: 93365 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81564 -- messages in queue: 93428 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81618 -- messages in queue: 93480 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81672 -- messages in queue: 93540 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81720 -- messages in queue: 93590 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81770 -- messages in queue: 93637 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81819 -- messages in queue: 93693 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81876 -- messages in queue: 93714 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81880 -- every 10 seconds. Thanks -jeremy Post 2-3 minutes of this to the list. Regards. http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
SMTP is a port on your computer. Port 25. The program uses socket functions to connect to this port to do its work instead of shelling out and calling something like /usr/sbin/sendmail. Therefore this makes it difficult to have the program call qmail-inject or qmail-remote if it never calls external programs in the first place. -jeremy Maybee i'm confused. Can you please explain to me what: "communicates directly with smtp" means? ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 2:10pm up 158 days, 21:13, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.10 http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
So your saying that their cute little java program in no way uses an MTA, and that it contacts the remote MTA of the recipients server directly. If that's the case, i dont see why you even have qmail installed on the server? You are tuning for outbound performance, but according to you their java server: "communicates directly with smtp" which means that no MTA will ever get called to do outbound SMTP. On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SMTP is a port on your computer. Port 25. The program uses socket functions to connect to this port to do its work instead of shelling out and calling something like /usr/sbin/sendmail. Therefore this makes it difficult to have the program call qmail-inject or qmail-remote if it never calls external programs in the first place. -jeremy Maybee i'm confused. Can you please explain to me what: "communicates directly with smtp" means? ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 2:10pm up 158 days, 21:13, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.10 http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die. ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 2:20pm up 158 days, 21:23, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.21, 0.18
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
Right. This is a nasty state to be in as qmail-send is not processing the inbound queue quickly enough. Are you in a position to let the "not yet preprocessed" number go down to zero then run the injection program and redo this sample? If the "not yet preprocessed" number climbs or gets into double or triple digits I worry. You are probably running out of disk spindle so a look at your I/O stats would be useful at this point. I'd be looking at a 10 second samples of iostat and vmstat (or their moral equivalent). Regards. At 04:22 PM Tuesday 7/13/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here: messages in queue: 93166 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81367 -- messages in queue: 93215 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81414 -- messages in queue: 93268 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81469 -- messages in queue: 93327 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81507 -- messages in queue: 93365 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81564 -- messages in queue: 93428 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81618 -- messages in queue: 93480 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81672 -- messages in queue: 93540 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81720 -- messages in queue: 93590 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81770 -- messages in queue: 93637 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81819 -- messages in queue: 93693 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81876 -- messages in queue: 93714 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81880 -- every 10 seconds. Thanks -jeremy Post 2-3 minutes of this to the list. Regards. http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
Wow. Looks like I do :-) Can you explain what it does? Thanks! -jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: messages in queue: 93166 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81367 You need my big-todo patch. It's http://www.qmail.org/big-todo.103.patch . -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool! http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: messages in queue: 93166 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 81367 You need my big-todo patch. It's http://www.qmail.org/big-todo.103.patch . -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
It communicates with the localhost smtp server and basically relay's every message off the localhost. -jeremy So your saying that their cute little java program in no way uses an MTA, and that it contacts the remote MTA of the recipients server directly. If that's the case, i dont see why you even have qmail installed on the server? You are tuning for outbound performance, but according to you their java server: "communicates directly with smtp" which means that no MTA will ever get called to do outbound SMTP. On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SMTP is a port on your computer. Port 25. The program uses socket functions to connect to this port to do its work instead of shelling out and calling something like /usr/sbin/sendmail. Therefore this makes it difficult to have the program call qmail-inject or qmail-remote if it never calls external programs in the first place. -jeremy Maybee i'm confused. Can you please explain to me what: "communicates directly with smtp" means? ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 2:10pm up 158 days, 21:13, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.10 http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die. ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 2:20pm up 158 days, 21:23, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.21, 0.18 http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Y2K. We're all gonna die.
Re: Trying to achieve maximum speed!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow. Looks like I do :-) Can you explain what it does? It modifies various programs to use hashed todo and intd directories. This allows you to inject mail faster than qmail-send can deal with it. Otherwise, you end up with really big directories with more than 1,000 files. Once that happens, the kernel spends more and more time locked reading/writing those directories. Also, if you're injecting 100,000 messages all at once, make your conf-split bigger -- more like 231 than the default 23. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
pop-3 problems
I compiled, installed and configured based on djb documentation and Paul Gregg Single-UID based POP3 accounts (Maildir). I can send and recieve messages locally. The problem: When connecting via a mail client (or telnet), the session is disconnected by the server almost immediately. I start qmail-pop3d on my linux box by: tcpserver -v -R 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.amberjack.net \ /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d maildir 21 | \ /var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d I do a "ps aux" and it lists the process as done. Any help would be great. -Mark - Mark Lundquist I don't suffer from insanity - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I enjoy every minute of it. -
Re: periodic cleanup of email
The thread is not dead, i just fell a little shame to release the script as it is, I'm working in a configuratión file on my spare time, because right now you have to edit the script to change the parameters, which is a really bad thing. Be pacient, this evening after work, I'll have it done you will have the script.
Blocking nonexistent local recipients
Yeah, yeah, I know it's been asked ages ago, but I wasn't able to find it either in the archives or in Qmail's page. What I want is a patch that makes qmail-smtpd immediately refuse recipients which are local and nonexistent. Oh, and it should respect global aliases and virtualdomains. I know such a beast exists, but dammit, where is it? Thanx all, begin:vcard n:Castro;Juan tel;work:540-9100 Ramal 46 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.appi.com.br/~jcastro org:APPI Informática;Desenvolvimento adr:;;Av. Ataulfo de Paiva, 135/1410 - Leblon;Rio de Janeiro;RJ;22499-900;Brasil version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultor note;quoted-printable:One man alone cannot fight the future. USE LINUX!=0D=0A=0D=0A-- The X Racer fn:Juan Carlos Castro y Castro end:vcard
Re: Blocking nonexistent local recipients
Juan Carlos Castro y Castro writes: Yeah, yeah, I know it's been asked ages ago, but I wasn't able to find it either in the archives or in Qmail's page. What I want is a patch that makes qmail-smtpd immediately refuse recipients which are local and nonexistent. Oh, and it should respect global aliases and virtualdomains. I know such a beast exists, but dammit, where is it? You're probably referring to my patch, which does that, and a few other things. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/qmail-uce.html A small word of warning: I have not yet decided if I will port the patch to Qmail 2.0, whenever it actually comes out. Unless DJB puts something into 2.0 which will absolutely make me salivate and make me want to upgrade, I'll stick with 1.3, until... -- Sam
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:41:19 -0400, "Adam D . McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: A I think the best solution here is to scan for viruses *after* the mail A has been delivered. (Or possibly in a way that is transparent to the A MTA, which scans the file before it is written to disk). This takes the A responsibility away from the MTA. McAfee can already look inside Zip A files for viruses, adding the code to look in UUEncoded emails shouldn't A be much harder. This would be especially good for qmail because the A Maildir delivery format because each message would be a different file A and would be able to be scanned separately by the scanner. I'm trying some experiments along this line with a heavily-modified smap/smapd (from the TIS firewall toolkit) plus either qmail or sendmail. Here's a Cliff-notes version of the setup: 1. "smap" listens on port 25 for incoming mail, and stores each message in a given spool directory based on time. This directory changes every 30 seconds. The delivery log looks like this: 1999-07-13 18:40:30.157247 sd=(/smap0/a) 1999-07-13 18:41:00.174410 sd=(/smap1/a) 1999-07-13 18:41:30.189001 sd=(/smap0/b) 1999-07-13 18:42:00.205318 sd=(/smap1/b) 1999-07-13 18:42:30.230449 sd=(/smap0/c) 1999-07-13 18:43:00.283121 sd=(/smap1/c) 1999-07-13 18:43:30.358441 sd=(/smap0/d) 1999-07-13 18:44:00.364667 sd=(/smap1/d) The spool directories are /var/spool/smap0/[abcde...] and /var/spool/smap1/[abcde...]. 2. "smapd" follows 30 seconds behind "smap"; while "smap" is storing new messages in (say) /var/spool/smap0/b, "smapd" is scanning and handling final delivery of messages in /var/spool/smap1/a. This way, I could have smap0 and smap1 on separate devices. I use a number of queues just in case I want to stop the scanning process for some reason; this way, no one directory gets too full, and I can process an older directory knowing that nothing is writing to it at the time. 3. The scanning part is just a script run from smapd; we do all the virus checking on an NT box, but I wanted to see if I could catch viruses by breaking up MIME messages, running "strings" on binary-type attachments and looking for things like "HKEY" plus an indication that Visual Basic was being used. Most email viruses we've run into seem to rely on VB macros which mess around with the registry. -- Karl Vogel ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver
I changed maildir by Maildir. I ran Mark Delany's checkpassword test. I did: printf "myaccount \0mypassword\0Y123456\0" | /bin/checkpassword id 30 and the test wass succesfull. However when I intent to see my e-mail from any Windows station with Outlook Express, I get the following message: ´ERR authorization failed´. - Original Message - From: Keith Burdis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Qmail Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver On Mon 1999-07-12 (19:05), Alvaro Escobar wrote: I have Linux 2.0.36. I installed qmail. It is working fine. I am running qmail-smtpd under tcpserver and qmail-pop3d under inetd. I can see my e-mails from any Windows station with Outlook Express. I would like to have qmail-pop3d running under tcpserver too. I put the following line in my rc.local: tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup ns1.integral.com.co \ /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d maildir 21 | \ /var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d Your tcpserver line appears to be fine. Perhaps maildir should be Maildir though. However when I intent to see my e-mail from any Windows station with Outlook Express, I get the following message: ´ERR authorization failed´. I suspect checkpassword is your problem. Mark Delany's checkpassword test at the top of the "Alternative Checkpassword Implementations" on www.qmail.org should help. (Just a note though that on my system id is in /usr/bin). - Keith -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
RE: Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver
Yes the Windows stations are in my local network. I disable totally the IP-Masquerade. However when I intent to see my e-mail from any Windows station with Outlook Express, I get the following message: ´ERR authorization failed´ - Original Message - From: Alex Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Qmail Users Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 9:57 AM Subject: RE: Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver Are the windows stations on your local network? I had a similar problem to yours but only on stations that were remote, not on my local network. The problem was that I had a firewall, which was refusing all connections to port 110, the port that pop3 uses. At Ronnie Walker's suggestion I did a search for files containing ipfwadm (one of the two major firewall tools) and I found the file that controlled which ports were being listened to and port 110 wasn't listed. Copying the line from the other ports I was then able to free up port 110. As an additional note, I needed to beef up my security in general, using shadow passwords, and need to find an ftp server that can use them, so don't think that if you free up that port that your firewall work will be done (mine isn't) but it might enable you to run pop3 from outlook. Alex Miller -Original Message- From: Keith Burdis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 8:42 PM To: Qmail Users Mailing List Subject: Re: Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver On Mon 1999Ar-07-12 (19:05), Alvaro Escobar wrote: I have Linux 2.0.36. I installed qmail. It is working fine. I am running qmail-smtpd under tcpserver and qmail-pop3d under inetd. I can see my e-mails from any Windows station with Outlook Express. I would like to have qmail-pop3d running under tcpserver too. I put the following line in my rc.local: tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup ns1.integral.com.co \ /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d maildir 21 | \ /var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d Your tcpserver line appears to be fine. Perhaps maildir should be Maildir though. However when I intent to see my e-mail from any Windows station with Outlook Express, I get the following message: ´ERR authorization failed´. I suspect checkpassword is your problem. Mark Delany's checkpassword test at the top of the "Alternative Checkpassword Implementations" on www.qmail.org should help. (Just a note though that on my system id is in /usr/bin). - Keith -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 04:13:13PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: They are discouraging it by harrassing companies for having hooks for strong encryption and by prohibiting export of strong encryption products. The NSA is, yes. Hopefully this will be alleviated by some of the new bills that are in congress now. Either way, the government can't control it forever, only until mass-marketed cryptography software starts being produced outside the US. You don't need to by certificates for S/MIME. You can make your own. As long the people who you communicate with know it is your certificate you don't need to have it signed by someplace that wants money. If a certificate isn't signed by a certifying authority, then all of the people who receive messages signed with that certificate will have to have the certificate in their own personal "keyring" or similar file. This decreases security because not only does it make the certificates harder to use, it puts the burden of key verification on the sender instead of the certifying authority. Yes, scanning engines are going to have to get smarter and smarter to maintain their usefullness. Is there a point I'm missing? Yes. Finding viruses is going to become so computationally expensive that it will not be practical. I doubt it. Have you looked at the current list of viruses that the commercial scanners can detect and remove? It is in the 5-digit range, and an average file can be scanned in less than a second. With the microprocessor world moving like it is, I doubt that the above statement will be true anytime soon. My opinion is that most IS shops, right now, want a way to scan incoming emails for viruses. I know my company does. If this need is not filled by free software, it will be (and is already being) filled by commercial software. Also expect the rate of false positives to become higher. Yes, but it's not realistic. No matter what you tell someone, if their best friend sends them an email with an executable in it saying "this is cl", the person is probably going to run it. If you are using a capability system, the program won't be able to do anything more harmful than try to induce an epileptic fit by making the screen flash rapidly. Perhaps you could explain what a "capability system" is. Take a look at http://www.eros-os.org/faq/basics.html . The concept sounds nice. However the expected release date was the middle of last year, and the author hasn't even modified some of the pages on that site since last april. So when can we really expect to see something like this? --Adam
Don't wanna save messages into ~/Maildir/cur after checked.
Hello all, I'm using qmail-imap for accessing Maildir. After checked, the messages is moved from +AH4-/Maildir/new/ to +AH4-/Maildir/cur/. I don't wana saved checked messages. How to tell qmail-imap server to purge messages after checked. Thank you inadvance, Dong
Re: Problem running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver
On Tue 1999-07-13 (19:41), Alvaro Escobar wrote: I changed maildir by Maildir. I ran Mark Delany's checkpassword test. I did: printf "myaccount \0mypassword\0Y123456\0" | /bin/checkpassword id 30 and the test wass succesfull. However when I intent to see my e-mail from any Windows station with Outlook Express, I get the following message: ´ERR authorization failed´. Okay, so checkpassword works fine. Try telneting to your pop3 port and logging in manually. Your session should go something like this: % telnet localhost pop3 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. +OK [EMAIL PROTECTED] USER username +OK PASS yourpassord +OK LIST 1 1268 2 1314 3 1138 4 3399 5 1049 . QUIT +OK Connection closed by foreign host. % If this works, then your problem is most likely with Outlook itself. - Keith -- Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/ IRC : Panthras JAPH "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script" Standard disclaimer. ---
Multiple domains with Qmail
Hello, I need to know how to set up qmail for multiple domains. We are getting rid of our NT based email which was extremely easy to set up multiple domains for getting email however; we have to go with UNIX now. Any step by step directions? As it is, our ISP can get email but not our customers!! hahaha.. oops, not funny huh? Also: We don't want to set up an open relay but we want to make it as open as possible because we have 3 or 4 ISP's that use our email server with lots of IPs that I don't want to have to enter into a file. Thanks.. Sienna
Compile error with AIX 3.2.5
I have just tried to compile qmail on AIX 3.2.5 and it failed. I
searched the archives and found some one who had the identical
error. There was a reply that suggested a fix and then a reply
from Bruno Wolff III on 26 August 1998 that suggested this
would not work. Here is that reply that contains the original
error and the first suggestion:-
---
This solution won't work. fchdir is being used because it is an efficient
way to reset the cwd after it has been changed. I think it may have also
been done to simplify indicating where to install stuff (by cd'ing
to the install directory rather than building full filename paths).
What I did for install for rblstmpd and qmail-1.03, was create a static
buffer of size PATHNAMELEN+1 (defined in sys/param.h) and used getwd
to get the name of the cwd and then used chdir to the saved name to
return to it.
.fchdir
The OS is AIX 3.2.5
AIX 3.2.5 doesn't have fchdir(2).
Try replacing
if (fchdir(fdsourcedir) == -1)
with
if (chdir(".") == -1)
---
I have two questions:-
Is Bruno correct that the simple line change just above does not work?
If so, how do his suggestions translate into changes in the code?
Cheers, Brian.
--
Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke)
Chemistry, Faculty of Science, IT and Education, Northern Territory University,
Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/chemistry/compchem.html
Re: Multiple domains with Qmail
Sienna writes: I need to know how to set up qmail for multiple domains. Start by reading the documentation. You'll quickly run across the virtualdomains control file, and .qmail files. Also: We don't want to set up an open relay but we want to make it as open as possible because we have 3 or 4 ISP's that use our email server with lots of IPs that I don't want to have to enter into a file. Unfortunately, that's the best way to control relaying with SMTP. You've got to distinguish between a customer and a non-customer, and the thing you know best about them is that a customer has a known IP. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: qmail: no inbox with IMAP
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Brian Moon wrote: I installed UW IMAP. I am using mailboxes. If I try to move anything into INBOX on my client, the server responds saying that the mailbox is not a UNIX mailbox. Mail is going to ~/Mailbox. However, either UW or the client (MS Outlook Express) or both do not recognize Mailbox as the INBOX. Is this something related qmail? No, it's something UW IMAP related. UW IMAP looks at /var/spool/mail or whatever the system mail spool directory is. If you don't want to set up symlinks, look through all of the UW IMAP documentation for what to change and an example for a homedir mail spool. If I remember correctly, there were a few changes to be made to src/osdep/unix/tcp_env.[ch]. --Ludwig Pummer ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
RE: Don't wanna save messages into ~/Maildir/cur after checked.
dont use Imap, use pop3. -Original Message- From: Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong +AFs-mailto:dongnd+AEA-tlnet.com.vn+AF0- Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 8:19 PM To: Qmail List Subject: Don't wanna save messages into +AH4-/Maildir/cur after checked. Hello all, I'm using qmail-imap for accessing Maildir. After checked, the messages is moved from +AH4-/Maildir/new/ to +AH4-/Maildir/cur/. I don't wana saved checked messages. How to tell qmail-imap server to purge messages after checked. Thank you inadvance, Dong
Disk Quota Qmail
Dear All, I have Redhat 5.2 with Qmail. I have enabled quota and it works fine, except for the fact that mail send to the user doesn't bounce back to the sender. The user also doesn't get the mail as Qmail just records " Temporary Deferral in Maildir Delivery" in its log. Can you please point to me on how can I use disk quota with qmail ? Another question is what is practically good ? use disk quota or force databytes ? Please guide. TIA Shashi
Re: Don't wanna save messages into ~/Maildir/cur after checked.
No, I don't use IMAP client, I use POP3 client. In other words, I use POP3 protocol to read my mail. Qmail-imap is also a POP3 server. Exactly, I use MS Outlook Express 4.0 to access my mail. The problem will stop if I use Mailbox format, but I prefer Maildir format for many reason you known. Thanks anyway+ACE- Best regards, Dong -Original Message- From: Peter C. Norton +ADw-spacey+AEA-lenin.nu+AD4- To: Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong +ADw-dongnd+AEA-tlnet.com.vn+AD4- Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Don't wanna save messages into +AH4-/Maildir/cur after checked. +AD4-Set your imap client tell the server to delete the messages. +AD4- +AD4-On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:19:21AM +070-, Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong wrote: +AD4APg- Hello all, +AD4APg- +AD4APg- I'm using qmail-imap for accessing Maildir. After checked, the messages is +AD4APg- moved from +AH4-/Maildir/new/ to +AH4-/Maildir/cur/. I don't wana saved +checked +AD4APg- messages. How to tell qmail-imap server to purge messages after checked. +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Thank you inadvance, +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Dong +AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4--- +AD4-The 5 year plan: +AD4-In five years we'll make up another plan. +AD4-Or just re-use this one.
Quicky
hi all , i believe there is a way, that i can have a reply to: in a .qmail file . I have a few people mailing to an address [EMAIL PROTECTED], and i want the reply-to address to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone know what the command is to add to the .qmail file ? Tony Wade The Internet Solution Tel:(+27 11) 283 5483 Fax:(+27 11) 283 5401 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web:http://www.is.co.za BOFH excuse for the day: Due to the CDA, we no longer have a root account.
Qmail web page redesign...
I'm looking at the qmail web site every day. Recently I became a little bit irritated because the web page is just one huge list of links without date stamps. It's virtually impossible to detect what's new and what's old. Looking at the "new" pictures doesn't help much either. Some "new" pictures are there for over a month. I'd suggest to put each section in a separate web page. Sort the links by date. Anyway, the basic rules for a "good" web page don't apply. It contains just too much information. btw Dan, your software is great! I've tried sendmail before and it really sucks, but qmail is the best! Kind regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Gremmen Country-Micado Consultant / Check 2000 Team Manager Origin International B.V. Complex Vredeoord VH 1.20 Groenewoudseweg 1, 5621 BA Eindhoven +31 (0)40 2756943 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
