qmail Digest 3 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 717
qmail Digest 3 Aug 1999 10:00:01 - Issue 717
Topics (messages 28454 through 28487):
Internet draft for VERP
28454 by: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
M$ Exchange -> qmail
28455 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28456 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28459 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28466 by: Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28468 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28469 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28471 by: "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28472 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28474 by: Thomas Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28487 by: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
delivery question
28457 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28458 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28460 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcpserver
28461 by: "kingman.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28462 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can I do this with qmail?
28463 by: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28477 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
unable to exec qq
28464 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28483 by: "Rob Baham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
your mail
28465 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28475 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28476 by: Ken Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28478 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html.
28467 by: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildirsmptd
28470 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Starting supervise from Digital Unix's rc3 files at bootup.
28473 by: Jim Arnott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[vmailmgr] imap with vmailmgr ? (...imp)
28479 by: Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
imap3d / pop3d giving connection closed w/ tcpserver
28480 by: Adam H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2 qmail-pop3d
28481 by: Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28485 by: Frederik Lindberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildirsmtp
28482 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
question on AUTOTURN
28484 by: Goh Sek Chye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tcprules: fatal
28486 by: Diana Dewi <[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]
--
Scott Schwartz writes:
> If you don't want to fix the problem,
There is no problem. qmail is working exactly as designed. It provides
this feature with a minimum of fuss.
> If sendmail or postfix did that, you'd flame about it constantly.
Your trolling is not welcome here, Scott. Go away.
---Dan
I read the other 4 replies to your original message. It sounds like you
are asking if the Exchange server (rather it be Exchange, Outlook97, 98,
2000, or another Exchange MAPI client) can connect to the Qmail server.
If you are using Exchange MAPI protocols. No.
Exchange works by a client making a direct connection to the Exchange
server. Where every click, drag-n-drop, and open is directly on the
server.
Now, if you want to get rid of MAPI (Calender, Address books, Tasks lists,
Scheduler, Notes and more), then you can switch to Qmail. You would
configure your clients to use 'Internet Mail' instead of Exchange Server
Extensions. This will remove their 'sharability' for the above features.
I don't think the president of a company that is used to using Lotus Notes,
Exchange, or Novell clients to switch to a 'non-sharing a schedules'
platform such as 'pop3/smtp'.
And you are correct, Exchange does not use SMTP to talk to other servers.
It uses X.400 pad's format, which Qmail has no idea how to handle.
Now, you could keep the Exchange servers up and running in the back end.
Then configure the mail to first route to the Qmail server. Where the
Qmail server will forward/re-route the mail to the correct Exchange box.
This will free up the load on the Exchange servers.
Regards,
Eric Duncan
Ps, why does your NT Server need rebooting? My Exchange servers have been
up for 102 days (last upgrade of the service packs). They have 512megs of
ram with an avarage of 100 to 150megs free on a network of 4,000 employees
world wide. Seems stable enough for me and I wouldn't switch to Qmail from
Exchange (the president would kill me). Even though I love Qmail for
email, pop3/smtp just does not have the resources and features of an
Exchange network. Humm, maybe someone should write one for the Internet.
And a RFC to go with it. So programs such as Pine, Mutt and others can
share calenders and such. On a Unix platform, that would be smoking!
President.and.CEO
The.Public.Network
http://www.thepublic.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Olivier M. writes:
> I have a friend which has an Microsoft Exchange Mail server ("main" server)
> always conne
tcpserver unable to bind
Hello all, Still trying to get tcpserver to run two qmail-pop3d's on one machine. The host name is mail.f-tech.net and I have an eth0 (207.44.65.16) and eth0:0 (vmail.f-tech.net 207.44.65.14). .16 is a "real" domain, .14 is for vchkpw and virtual domains. No matter what I do it seems that supervise(?) is trying to start two copies of tcpserver. The first one binds, but the 2nd one just errors out saying port in use. If I ps ax I can see the first one on the same PID, but the second one respawning and erroring out. Below is a printout of what get's called to start the process: Starting qmail-pop3d... supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d.vmail tcpserver -c100 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw qmail-pop3d Maildir & eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:48:4C:C0 inet addr:207.44.65.14 Bcast:207.44.65.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP RUNNING MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 Thanks Paul D. Farber II Farber Technology Ph. 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tcpserver unable to bind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Still trying to get tcpserver to run two qmail-pop3d's on one machine. The > host name is mail.f-tech.net and I have an eth0 (207.44.65.16) and eth0:0 > (vmail.f-tech.net 207.44.65.14). .16 is a "real" domain, .14 is for > vchkpw and virtual domains. > > No matter what I do it seems that supervise(?) is trying > to start two copies of tcpserver. The first one binds, but the 2nd one > just errors out saying port in use. > > If I ps ax I can see the first one on the same PID, but the second one > respawning and erroring out. > > Below is a printout of what get's called to start the process: > > Starting qmail-pop3d... > supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d.vmail > tcpserver -c100 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 This is your error! Ever wondered what that 0 between -g0 and pop3 means? It is IP address to bind to! If it's zero, you're basically saying "bind to all IP addresses". What you want is replace that zero with the IP address (207.44.65.14 or 16 in the second invocation) to bind to. > /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw qmail-pop3d Maildir & -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBN6cKiVMwP8g7qbw/EQI/2wCgq6YWI4e9xDOwQseZ8+N+4yuzWp8Aniri uKfiKY94ImXyDCegV9o2drda =VPi1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
mail volume
I know this question has been asked before, in sometimes quite violent threads, but I'll ask again anyway. We are looking to send high volume bulk emails to customers. The emails will be personalized to each user. Basically we're sending them out specific investment information which they ask for. That means every email is different, which limits out options. There are close to a million email addresses we have to send to each day and we'd like to be sending at a rate of 30+ emails per second so that we can finish in a reasonable amount of time. Currently, based on poor decisions in the past, NT is being used with Microsoft SMTP Server. The mailer writes directly to the SMTP pickup directory which will grab the file, try and send it, and queue it if it failts. Message delivery is not exceeding 5 emails per second. Because of this we've been considering other options. Currently the machines are 4 proc xeons with 512mb ram and a single scsi drive. Obviously this machine is not very appropriate for the task its being given... poor drive access, too much ram, etc. However, 4 have already been purchased for this... My question then is, in your honest, semi-unbiased opinions, do you think we would see *significant* results by switching to a qmail environment? Also, should this be so, which operating system should we be running qmail under? Which is the most "qmail friendly" in an intel environment? Linux or FreeBSD are the preferred solutions, but again, we are looking for the best overall performance results. On another note, to eliminate any possible confusion: - bandwidth is not an issue--the line is very under-utilized - we believe a key bottleneck is the limit on the maximum number of sockets that NT places. A connection to a sql server has to be made to generate each message, doubling the overhead - the server is also very under-utilized... ram usage never exceeds 160mb or so (surprise) and processor usage never exceeds 20% per processor or so (another shocker...). Please don't take the time to remark on whether the server was a bad or worse choice. Anyone who has ever worked for a large company should understand that you get what you're given--the people who buy the hardware rarely have any ties to the people who have to use it. I appreciate your input... Cris Daniluk
Re: Can I do this with qmail?
First, I want to thank Robert Varga, for his response, which also helped solving other problems I had. On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 03:08:46PM -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:43:04 +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote: > >I would like to use maildirs. Should i do double delivery, > >maildir for qmail-pop3d and mailbox for the rest, or are > >there better options? Which imap-maildir-patch is > >supported on this mailing list (none I suppose). > > Pine does not support maildir, but the patch works well. Without > patching, you could use pinq from qmail to create a mbox from the > maildir on startup. Would it not be simpler to let qmail do the work, by delivering the same mail to both maildir and mailbox? > Jucky solution - why not use the pine patch? I've > used pine 3.96 here with patch for some time - now the 4.10 one > mentioned second www.qmail.org. There is an imap there as well. Not > tried, but same library - so should work. I *hate* pine. People forward emails, telling me to look at the problems they have with mail or mailing lists and ask me to reply directly to the user. Unfortunately pine is unable to forward the original letter with all headers as a mime attachment. Then I have to cut and paste to compose a letter to the user, asking him to reply directly to me so I can see how his mail headers look like. And, we only have c compiler for aix-4.2, not for aix-4.3, so I don't think I can compile pine. Only pine has to be killed now and then because it eats all available memory on the machine. > Sender domain check, i.e. "MAIL FROM: at the smtp level" or From: > header parsing if IMHO a frightful waste of resources, and a reason for > bouncing mail that is perfectly legitimate (albeit syntactically > flawed). Use rbl and relay.radparker.com instead. Those approaches make > sense. I already use those blacklists. But they do not protect from bogus sender addresses (unqualified, nonexisting domains ...), like , , which all end up in the postmaster mailbox if they cannot be delivered. I don't mind about the extra DNS queries. I already do 4 different blacklist lookups for each message. > Address rewriting: Set QMAILUSER/QMAILHOST correctly > and get people to > configure their MTA correctly (memo from boss: I will fire everyone who > does not ...). I don't know how to rewrite e.g. From: headers with > qmail. I suppose the reverse-alias solution Robert gave, is the only way. Checking a cdb with all the reverse user mappings taken from /etc/passwd would be nicer. [ hmmm... ] Conclusion for now: 1) Spam_friends support on smtp level not possible. Can be done on a later level which means goodbye to rblsmtpd and hello to a flooded postmaster mailbox. 2) Reverse user aliases possible, using a qmail-inject wrapper. 3) Sender domain check not possible. Should be easy to implement in rblsmtpd. (needs a programmer). BTW, I run 4 rblsmtpd's, so I better use the unofficial multiple -r patch too. I wonder what features qmail-2.0 will have. Thanks for helping me. -- Med venlig hilsen / Regards Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group UNI-C Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41Mail: UNI-C Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby
Missing piece of my big-todo patch
Bruce Guenter writes in private email, forwarded with permission: > While testing the performance of a big todo directory, I observed that > qmail-qstat miscounted the number of messages in the todo directory. > The following trivial patch needs to be added to yours. Thanks, Bruce. I've added your patch to mine. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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: unable to exec qq
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >bash: ./qmail-queue: Operation not permitted An Alta Vista search on "operation not permitted" yielded lots of hits. It seems to be related to IP firewalls. You might try "strace /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue" to see more detail about where it's failing. -Dave
Re: tcprules: fatal
Diana Dewi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Anybody can help me? May be this problem ever ask before, I've got some >problem when get mail. I use tcpserver for POP3. And I've got error >message : > >tcprules: fatal: unable to parse this line: >202.155.12.172:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" Where are you seeing this message? What is running tcprules? >I'm not used tcprules for POP3. My tcpserver : > >tcpserver -v -R 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup asterix.dnet.net.id >/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & > >How to corecct this error? Are you using tcprules for any other services? You must have an access database somewhere with the `202.155.12.172:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""' line in it somewhere. -Dave
Re: unable to exec qq
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > You might try "strace /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue" to see more detail > about where it's failing. But can you strace a suid binary as a normal user? I think not. The solution I came up with was to strace "setuser user /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue" as root. Comments? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBN6cFf1MwP8g7qbw/EQLBKgCg1Vwgl4wIh36Bn0cQdcRFQ2oq7sIAoPF2 rw8eFq8lFJK4D30/nObjzgjI =7T0U -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
Re: mail volume
Cris Daniluk writes: > My question then is, in your honest, semi-unbiased opinions, do you > think we would see *significant* results by switching to a qmail > environment? You'll be floored by the results, although I would put the queue on its own SCSI drive. Your reaction will be "Why was I wasting my time? Why didn't I do this earlier?" > Also, should this be so, which operating system should we be > running qmail under? Which is the most "qmail friendly" in an intel > environment? Linux or FreeBSD are the preferred solutions, but > again, we are looking for the best overall performance results. The two are close enough that you'd have to try them both to compare. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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!
tcpserver/checkpassword
I'm running Linux Slackware 2.0.35, I have been running Qmail on three other machines now just over a year. Right now I run Qmail mail from inetd and had been working great. I only wanted to install tcpserver because of the spam filtering I could do with it. I installed Qmail 1.03(tarball), and tcpserver 0.84(tarball), I have in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local file tcpserver -u 1001 -g 101 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb & tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dns1.surftheusa.com \ /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir & I installed checkpassword just as the INSTALL file said. make, make setup check It said that's it, then I ran the tests just as it said and it shows it works. Now the problems I'm having. All mail does get delivered when I send to the host. When I try to check the mail with Outlook Express, or Netscape mail, even Netscape with X windows the auth fails and asks me to enter the password again. I did re-did the password three times to make sure and it still fails on all mail programs. Thanks in advance Bob Ross
Re: tcpserver unable to bind
This is what I get. tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used 13255 p1 S0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-vpop3d tcpserver -c100 -u0 -g0 207.44.65.14 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw qmail-vpop3d 13307 p1 S0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-vpop3d tcpserver -c100 -u0 -g0 207.44.65.14 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw qmail-vpop3d the qmail-vpop3d is just a copy of qmail-pop3d renamed for supervise to work properly or else it will say it's already running.. which is it as the "normal" pop3 server. It looking more like a supervise problem? Paul D. Farber II Farber Technology Ph. 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Petr Novotny wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Still trying to get tcpserver to run two qmail-pop3d's on one machine. The > > host name is mail.f-tech.net and I have an eth0 (207.44.65.16) and eth0:0 > > (vmail.f-tech.net 207.44.65.14). .16 is a "real" domain, .14 is for > > vchkpw and virtual domains. > > > > No matter what I do it seems that supervise(?) is trying > > to start two copies of tcpserver. The first one binds, but the 2nd one > > just errors out saying port in use. > > > > If I ps ax I can see the first one on the same PID, but the second one > > respawning and erroring out. > > > > Below is a printout of what get's called to start the process: > > > > Starting qmail-pop3d... > > supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d.vmail > > tcpserver -c100 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 > > This is your error! Ever wondered what that 0 between -g0 and pop3 > means? It is IP address to bind to! If it's zero, you're basically > saying "bind to all IP addresses". > > What you want is replace that zero with the IP address > (207.44.65.14 or 16 in the second invocation) to bind to. > > > /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw qmail-pop3d Maildir & > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 > Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > > iQA/AwUBN6cKiVMwP8g7qbw/EQI/2wCgq6YWI4e9xDOwQseZ8+N+4yuzWp8Aniri > uKfiKY94ImXyDCegV9o2drda > =VPi1 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- > Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.antek.cz > PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F > -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. > [Tom Waits] >
Re: tcpserver/checkpassword
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:54:21AM -0700, Bob Ross wrote: > I'm running Linux Slackware 2.0.35, I have been running Qmail on three > other machines now just over a year. Right now I run Qmail mail from > inetd and had been working great. I only wanted to install tcpserver > because of the spam filtering I could do with it. > > I installed Qmail 1.03(tarball), and tcpserver 0.84(tarball), > > I have in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local file > tcpserver -u 1001 -g 101 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -x > /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb & > tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dns1.surftheusa.com \ > /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir & > > I installed checkpassword just as the INSTALL file said. > make, > make setup check > > It said that's it, then I ran the tests just as it said and it shows it > works. > > Now the problems I'm having. > > All mail does get delivered when I send to the host. When I try to check > the mail with Outlook Express, or Netscape mail, even Netscape with X > windows the auth fails and asks me to enter the password again. > > I did re-did the password three times to make sure and it still fails on > all mail programs. If you have shadow passwords installed, did you use that option in the make file? -- Brad Shelton On Line Exchange http://ole.net
Re: tcpserver unable to bind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > 13255 p1 S0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-vpop3d tcpserver -c100 -u0 > -g0 207.44.65.14 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw > qmail-vpop3d > > 13307 p1 S0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-vpop3d tcpserver -c100 -u0 > -g0 207.44.65.14 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw > qmail-vpop3d > > the qmail-vpop3d is just a copy of qmail-pop3d renamed for supervise to > work properly or else it will say it's already running.. which is it > as the "normal" pop3 server. How exactly did you make the copy? What supervise needs is just a clear directory. Do the following: 0. Become root 1. Stop all the supervise processes for pop3 service (svc -dx) 2. Do rm -rf /var/lock/qmail-pop3d /var/lock/qmail-vpop3d 3. Do mkdir /var/lock/qmail-pop3d /var/lock/qmail-vpop3d 4. Check the starting scripts (supervise invocations) that they really use different directories and tcpservers bind to different addresses. 5. Try to start that script. 6. If it doesn't work, you haven't told us everything :-) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBN6cfc1MwP8g7qbw/EQJUQQCeLeZtQz8bHzlKEFLRRVIdMSMMCKEAn0Qh ZPg/VePYCND+dX3C0HSQIZnN =RZgE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
Re: tcpserver/checkpassword
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Bob Ross wrote:
> I'm running Linux Slackware 2.0.35, I have been running Qmail on three
> other machines now just over a year. Right now I run Qmail mail from
> inetd and had been working great. I only wanted to install tcpserver
> because of the spam filtering I could do with it.
>
> I installed Qmail 1.03(tarball), and tcpserver 0.84(tarball),
>
> I have in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local file
> tcpserver -u 1001 -g 101 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -x
> /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb &
> tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dns1.surftheusa.com \
> /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir &
Are you absolutely sure about that path? Is
checkpasswd in /var/qmail/bin or /bin? I don't run it, it just doesn't
look right.
Vince.
--
==
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null
# includeTEAM-OS2
Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com
==
Re: tcpserver/checkpassword
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > I'm running Linux Slackware 2.0.35, I have been running Qmail on three > other machines now just over a year. Right now I run Qmail mail from inetd > and had been working great. I only wanted to install tcpserver because of > the spam filtering I could do with it. tcpserver has nothing to do with checkpassword > I installed Qmail 1.03(tarball), and tcpserver 0.84(tarball), > > I have in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local file > tcpserver -u 1001 -g 101 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -x > /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb & > tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dns1.surftheusa.com \ > /bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir & So far so good... only that -x parameter must be BEFORE the first zero; this way, -x is parameter of qmail-smtpd and not tcpserver. That's not what you want. > I installed checkpassword just as the INSTALL file said. > make, > make setup check With which patches? PAM-enabled? Shadow passwords? > All mail does get delivered when I send to the host. When I try to check > the mail with Outlook Express, or Netscape mail, even Netscape with X > windows the auth fails and asks me to enter the password again. What happens if you telnet to port 110 on the computer and say USER username PASS password (that's the authentication part of POP3 session) > I did re-did the password three times to make sure and it still fails on > all mail programs. Does your system use PAM? Does it use shadow passwords? (Does it use MD5 passwords?) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBN6cgRFMwP8g7qbw/EQKBZwCdFV4K7VsYfAP0mOx0Fd+u2ZjVlO8AoJnB TgrglRQlOzEYrLIbuoNsM2/v =mHHQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
GOT IT! tcpserver unable to bind
Dumb mistake.. I only added a the IP to the 2nd instance of pop3d, forgetting the first.. which was still set to bind to all ip's (ie the 0 was still there). Put the hostname on both tcpserver lines and its in there! Thanks for all the helpyou're on the christmas card list! Paul D. Farber II Farber Technology Ph. 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Petr Novotny wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Still trying to get tcpserver to run two qmail-pop3d's on one machine. The > > host name is mail.f-tech.net and I have an eth0 (207.44.65.16) and eth0:0 > > (vmail.f-tech.net 207.44.65.14). .16 is a "real" domain, .14 is for > > vchkpw and virtual domains. > > > > No matter what I do it seems that supervise(?) is trying > > to start two copies of tcpserver. The first one binds, but the 2nd one > > just errors out saying port in use. > > > > If I ps ax I can see the first one on the same PID, but the second one > > respawning and erroring out. > > > > Below is a printout of what get's called to start the process: > > > > Starting qmail-pop3d... > > supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d.vmail > > tcpserver -c100 -u0 -g0 0 pop-3 qmail-popup 207.44.65.14 > > This is your error! Ever wondered what that 0 between -g0 and pop3 > means? It is IP address to bind to! If it's zero, you're basically > saying "bind to all IP addresses". > > What you want is replace that zero with the IP address > (207.44.65.14 or 16 in the second invocation) to bind to. > > > /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw qmail-pop3d Maildir & > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 > Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > > iQA/AwUBN6cKiVMwP8g7qbw/EQI/2wCgq6YWI4e9xDOwQseZ8+N+4yuzWp8Aniri > uKfiKY94ImXyDCegV9o2drda > =VPi1 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- > Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.antek.cz > PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F > -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. > [Tom Waits] >
Re: tcpserver/checkpassword
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Are you absolutely sure about that path? Is > checkpasswd in /var/qmail/bin or /bin? I don't run it, it just doesn't > look right. It's wherever you copy it to. There's not make install in the makefile (or at least there hasn't been any when I did that) BUT, on my computer it's called checkpassword, not checkpasswd! Couldn't that be your problem? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBN6cg6lMwP8g7qbw/EQLTwwCgoYLNaTTwk4NTiR4hDi7lOBF4FdAAn0lG Koq0XUlWNhIVO/egZ+6iq2Zf =ow4h -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
tcpserver/password
I made a change to the spelling of password thanks for catching that. When I telnet to localhost 110 I get the +OK 110.numbers.domain name then I enter quit to get out. I also found that tcpserver does not start from the rc.local file, I have to run it manually, I did check and rc.local is called from the rc.M file that has qmail in it. Qmail does start. After I run rc.local I can ps aux | grep tcpserver and see the two processes running, with the only difference is that I'm loged in remotley and it is showing that id as starting it. I loked in as root and it does the same thing, so I don;t think this could be a problem because it still doesn't start from a re-boot. Even after changing the spelling of checkpassword I still get the auth failed. I have looked in the Makefile and can not find where to tell checkpassword that I'm using shadow passwords. Thanks Bob Ross
Re: mail volume
I have run test loads on QMAIL inbound delivery (messages were identical 1000 bytes plus 300+ bytes of header) where we exceeding 1200 emails per minute (20 per second) on a single 400Mhz Intel uniprocessor Unix system (I did not increase the lspawn limit from its default). To drive the test we have a 350 mhz Linuz system doing (multiple) SMTP delivery to it. Connections were all at 100mbit. Since the delivery system was also qmail based, the 340mhz system sending mail was able to deliver at that rate. I was not concerned about how fast it could deliver emails, only that it could at least handle 20/second. Your case could present other issues: - How large are your emails (don't forget that a single non-attached message to single user has 330 or so bytes of envelope et al overhead)? Is the email creation done on a separate machine? Do you smtp from that machine to the final MTA? What is the size of your network pipe? (Divide the bit rate by 10 to get a realistic byte rate). Please note that the above was NOT a limitation, when I discovered that a single slower machine could drive the faster delivery at the desired receipt rate, I stoped testing further. Cris Daniluk wrote: > > I know this question has been asked before, in sometimes quite violent > threads, but I'll ask again anyway. We are looking to send high volume > bulk emails to customers. The emails will be personalized to each user. > Basically we're sending them out specific investment information which > they ask for. That means every email is different, which limits out > options. There are close to a million email addresses we have to send to > each day and we'd like to be sending at a rate of 30+ emails per second > so that we can finish in a reasonable amount of time. Currently, based > on poor decisions in the past, NT is being used with Microsoft > SMTP Server. The mailer writes directly to the SMTP pickup directory > which will grab the file, try and send it, and queue it if it failts. > Message delivery is not exceeding 5 emails per second. Because of this > we've been considering other options. Currently the machines are 4 proc > xeons with 512mb ram and a single scsi drive. Obviously this machine is > not very appropriate for the task its being given... poor drive access, > too much ram, etc. However, 4 have already been purchased for this... My > question then is, in your honest, semi-unbiased opinions, do you think > we would see *significant* results by switching to a qmail > environment? Also, should this be so, which operating system should we > be running qmail under? Which is the most "qmail friendly" in an intel > environment? Linux or FreeBSD are the preferred solutions, but again, we > are looking for the best overall performance results. > > On another note, to eliminate any possible confusion: > - bandwidth is not an issue--the line is very under-utilized > - we believe a key bottleneck is the limit on the maximum number of > sockets that NT places. A connection to a sql server has to be made to > generate each message, doubling the overhead > - the server is also very under-utilized... ram usage never exceeds > 160mb or so (surprise) and processor usage never exceeds 20% per > processor or so (another shocker...). > > Please don't take the time to remark on whether the server was a bad or > worse choice. Anyone who has ever worked for a large company should > understand that you get what you're given--the people who buy the > hardware rarely have any ties to the people who have to use it. > > I appreciate your input... > > Cris Daniluk -- Daemeon Reiydelle Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail volume
Russell Nelson wrote: > > Cris Daniluk writes: > > My question then is, in your honest, semi-unbiased opinions, do you > > think we would see *significant* results by switching to a qmail > > environment? > > You'll be floored by the results, although I would put the queue on > its own SCSI drive. Your reaction will be "Why was I wasting my time? > Why didn't I do this earlier?" > > > Also, should this be so, which operating system should we be > > running qmail under? Which is the most "qmail friendly" in an intel > > environment? Linux or FreeBSD are the preferred solutions, but > > again, we are looking for the best overall performance results. > > The two are close enough that you'd have to try them both to compare. There is more how-to books on Linux. FreeBSD has been in use a lot longer. Since the bottleneck will be your internet pipe, the decision probably becomes one of whether anyone on your team is familiar with one or the other (incidentally qmail also works fine on Sun Solaris X_86). Either FB or Linux will build qmail with ease and works fine. I use both (but then I have been a BSD user (the old sun OS) for years. I personally have a bit of fud (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) because FreeBSD has been in use so long in firewall and other "exposed to the internet" situations. I guess, if your folks are not UNIX savy, and this qmail box is behind a good firewall then the slightly better availability of books and (perhaps?) contract folks to set it up, might suggest Linux. As with Microsoft, the existence of books and warm bodies with experience is probably your best indication of platform choice. Your management might prefer the major-vendor-style support available from RedHat to other Linux packager's solutions. > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson > Crynwr sells support for free 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! -- Daemeon Reiydelle Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail volume
Daemeon Reiydelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Since the bottleneck will be your internet pipe, ... Probably the spool disk, unless you've got multiple boxes flooding the pipe. >Either FB or Linux will build qmail with ease and works fine. True, but if one or the other handles >1024 file descriptors so concurrencyremote can go over 256, that would be a major plus since the hardware involved could potentially drive that many qmail-remotes. -Dave
Re: mail volume
Thank you for all the invaluable input. Personally I have a great deal of Linux/freebsd/qmail experience, though my qmail knowledge is quite limited to the extent of volume email such as this. Linux I think is the forerunner because I will not be dealing with the project after it is setup and therefore ease of administration is important. I have to throw in one more question, albeit somewhat off topic, it has definite relevance. We're going to put in a raid controller with a hell of a cache in it (64 mb probably). My question then is, what type of disk configuration would you propose we need? Space needs are virtually nonexistant, the machines sole purpose will be mail. Probably 100 mb for the system itself and then the rest will be for the queue. I'd figure a raid controller with 64mb cache and a 4.5 gb Cheetah would do the job. Do you feel that striping and multiple drives would be valuable? Also, our pipe is not going to be a bottleneck--everything is set up on a 100mbit lan with a T3 connection to the Internet. The t3 runs directy to level3's backbone in DC which we are a few miles from, so there should be no significant or relevant latency. Thanks again, Cris Daniluk
Re: mail volume
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Cris Daniluk wrote: > question then is, in your honest, semi-unbiased opinions, do you think > we would see *significant* results by switching to a qmail > environment? Also, should this be so, which operating system should we > be running qmail under? Which is the most "qmail friendly" in an intel > environment? Linux or FreeBSD are the preferred solutions, but again, we > are looking for the best overall performance results. for what you want to do, the best technical solution is to drive qmail-remotes directly from a perl script. if qmail-remote fails pass the message off to qmail proper to deliver the message sometime later. Linux has some problems with its filesystem which might cause problems if the system crashes (this is the syncronous directory write problem). xBSD won't have the problem. On the other hand if you've a system with a logging filesystem (eg Veritas or XFS then this will go alot faster). SGI have announced they'll be proviing XFS for linux so that might be the better long-term option. hope this helps. RjL == The problems of the world|| Fax: +44 870 0521198 can't be solved by fixing|| Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the working -- C. Daniluk|| Phone: +44 1706 882419
Bug fix for supervise pipe patch
Greetings. I just put a revised supervise-pipe patch up at: http://em.ca/~bruceg/rpms/daemontools/supervise-pipe.diff This fixes a bug that would cause supervise to not re-write the status file when exiting after terminating its supervised children (ie, after running "svc -dx") such that the status file would indicate that the processes were still up. Background: This patch allows supervise to manage an entire pipeline of processes instead of a single one, restarting individual processes as necessary. To use it, apply the patch to the daemontools sources, compile, install, and then run: supervise program1 args1 \| program2 args2 \| ... -- Bruce Guenter, QCC Communications Corp. EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (306)249-0220 WWW: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/
Re: mail volume
At 02:32 PM 8/3/99 -0400, Dave Sill wrote: >Daemeon Reiydelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Either FB or Linux will build qmail with ease and works fine. > >True, but if one or the other handles >1024 file descriptors so >concurrencyremote can go over 256, that would be a major plus since >the hardware involved could potentially drive that many >qmail-remotes. Even with more than 1024 file descriptors, you can't have concurrencyremote go over 256 without patching qmail. The limitation comes from the fact that qmail-send gets concurrencyremote back from qmail-rspawn with a read() to a char. A char is 8 bit wide, so the max number it holds is 255. Of course, there are some solutions (several qmail instances, rewrite a specialized qmail-send,...) David. __ David Villeger (212) 972 2030 x34 http://www.CheetahMail.com The Internet Email Publishing Solution
Getting qmail
Is there anywhere to find the qmail source tarballs besides koobera? Someone seems to have done something bad to the ftp server there. Thanks, ---sambo
RE: Getting qmail
On 03-Aug-99 Sammy Ominsky wrote: > Is there anywhere to find the qmail source tarballs besides koobera? > Someone seems to have done something bad to the ftp server there. Try www/software on koobera. They were moved. Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # includeTEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
Problem with installation.
Hi ! I am new to qmail and also to Linux admin (somewhat). I am running RH 6.0 on a P-133 machine with 64MB RAM. My scenario is single machine with a dial up TCP IP link with my ISP and multiple users. I wish to map all users to my email address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]); i.e., all non local mail. I had earlier tried this with sendmail but had failed. Later I wish to use procmail to "multiplex" my account (i.e., the incoming mail is divided into different users mailboxes based on some filtering criteria. Before you start wondering, I am using kmail (KDE) to send this email. It does not serve my design. So I want the above improvements. I tried to install qmail : 1) I have shadow-utils and bind-utils. 2) I installed packages : -rw-r--r-- 1 root root41109 Aug 3 17:07 daemontools-0.53-16.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1811 Aug 3 17:05 functions-2-1.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 394897 Aug 4 00:43 qmail-1.03-14ucspi.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root69017 Aug 3 17:09 ucspi-tcp-0.84-1.i386.rpm 3) I got the following error after I tried to install qmail-1.03-14ucspi.i386.rpm : -- Your hostname is localhost.localdomain. soft error Sorry, I couldn't find your host's canonical name in DNS. You will have to set up control/me yourself. set qmail-smtpd.cdb file for tcpserver ... Creating tcprules file for qmail-smtpd... Please look at /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd and see if this is what you want in a tcprules file. If you do not understand what is going on read the man pages for tcprules and tcpserver. Also, read the qmail FAQ 5.4, but note the files must be in /etc/tcprules.d instead of /etc, and they are named qmail-smtpd* instead of tcp.smtp* . Please run '/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail.init start' and '/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail-smtpd.init start' (or '/etc/rc.d/init.d/rblsmtpd.init start' if you run rblsmtpd) to start Qmail. Qmail will be started in run levels 3, 4 or 5 when machine is (re)booted. -- There seems to be some problem with my DNS. Since I am a relative rookie at Linux administration, I would appreciate any help. bye, Madhusudan Singh. -- Chhabras, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail volume
David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Even with more than 1024 file descriptors, you can't have concurrencyremote >go over 256 without patching qmail. You're right, I was confusing two issues: the concurrency remote limit and insufficient file descriptors. Under older Linux kernels, the default max file descriptors is too low to support concurrencyremote of 255. -Dave
Re: Getting qmail
Sammy Ominsky writes: > Is there anywhere to find the qmail source tarballs besides koobera? > Someone seems to have done something bad to the ftp server there. There's a mirror at ftp://ftp.qmail.org/pub/koobera.math.uic.edu/ which uses a more conventional (translation: insecure) FTP server. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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: mail volume
Dave Sill wrote:
>
> Daemeon Reiydelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Since the bottleneck will be your internet pipe, ...
>
> Probably the spool disk, unless you've got multiple boxes flooding the
> pipe.
A couple of pieces. Performance tuning any system consists of finding
which of a series of potential bottlenecks is THE bottleneck limiting
performance at the moment. The original author was very clearly talking
about outbound message delivery. I made an assumption that anyone
looking at the volumes she was discussing probably didn't have a
ten-thousand-dollar-per-month OC-12 network connection. I therefore
limited myself to discussions of less-than 100mbit issues. NONE of the
issues discussed by Dave would affect performance at network speeds
under 50mbit (OC-3). (Even with mirrored drives as long as they are at
least fast SCSI).
Please don't let comments like Dave's make you think there is any pain
in Qmail on Linux, FreeBSD or even Solaris. You do need to have some
reasonable skills in the OS and a reasonable time to learn this new
technology (incidentally, not only do I work with both UNIX and NT, but
I am currently moving a client from an NT Exchange environment to Qmail
on Solaris. I *believe* I have a good feeling for how easy it really is
to make this happen.).
If you have e.g. an OC-12 internet pipe, then the tuning points
mentioned by Dave would need to be considered. The next bottleneck you
are likely to see would indeed be the qmail directory file system, and
yes, you will need to add an accellerated (battery backed cache) disk
subsystem. After you do that, you will need to make some additional
kernel changes (just as you would on Solaris, HP-UX, SGI-Irix, etc.)
(FYI, both OS's in their current kernel builds will support >1024 child
processes with appropriate kernel optimizations).
Going out on a limb, my guess would be you could expect 50-100 1000 byte
messages per second (or better) outbound with an OC-12, hardware assist,
etc. However, there are some FreeBSD/Linux limitations on throughput at
the moment that *might* come into play here. Recent IIS vs. Apache/Linux
testing identified a limitation on threading in the IP stack at high
HTTP volumes in recent releases that don't occur with Solaris X_86. This
limitation on the IP stack applies (or applied) to both FreeBSD and
Linux. I am sure that these limitations will (or may already have as you
read this) go away soon. As Silicon Graphics gets more involved in
Linux, these extreme load point constraints should start to fall even
more rapidly.
Your mileage may differ of course ;{)
>
> >Either FB or Linux will build qmail with ease and works fine.
>
> True, but if one or the other handles >1024 file descriptors so
> concurrencyremote can go over 256, that would be a major plus since
> the hardware involved could potentially drive that many
> qmail-remotes.
>
> -Dave
--
Daemeon Reiydelle
Systems Engineer, Anthropomorphics Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting qmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > There's a mirror at ftp://ftp.qmail.org/pub/koobera.math.uic.edu/ > which uses a more conventional (translation: insecure) FTP server. What do you mean insecure? What's the deal with DJB's FTP with no LS and crazy filenames? Is this "secure" ? Scott -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN6dJ+x4PLs9vCOqdAQH4hAQA3AhsL9nMH9k9o7ev1NSdB6Gy4YBxbYfN 7WDuIW2Hs6WTQy2Kgo/x+d3p083iwWRLx9SPxg6/EO2Gw4vk1d2r/4YIvJPMNDya MgqFDZkstWfC22BXRaNahjzjOYW6/6Y9m0wi6bqnmYJFJUSSH/yt2z4fFzeezxnC w6jimsJ43iY= =EK7u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Getting qmail
Scott D. Yelich writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > > There's a mirror at ftp://ftp.qmail.org/pub/koobera.math.uic.edu/ > > which uses a more conventional (translation: insecure) FTP server. > > What do you mean insecure? Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers simply cannot break authentication because there *is* no authentication. Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd directory. Anything else is less secure. > What's the deal with DJB's FTP with no LS and crazy > filenames? Isn't it about time we had an ftp server which cooperated with a visual ftp client by giving it an easily parsed listing format? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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: mail volume
At 03:44 PM 8/3/99 -0400, Dave Sill wrote: >David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>Even with more than 1024 file descriptors, you can't have concurrencyremote >>go over 256 without patching qmail. > >You're right, I was confusing two issues: the concurrency remote limit >and insufficient file descriptors. Under older Linux kernels, the >default max file descriptors is too low to support concurrencyremote >of 255. No, no, you had a point: even Solaris 2.x (a recent OS), has a file descriptor limit set by default at 64. The number of file descriptors needed by qmail is 2*concurrencyremote+5 (this is due to the fact that all fds to qmail-remote's are kept open,...). So for a reasonable concurrencyremote (>30), you will need to increase the fd limit. But even if you do, you *can't* bring concurrencyremote over 256. David. __ David Villeger (212) 972 2030 x34 http://www.CheetahMail.com The Internet Email Publishing Solution
Re: Getting qmail
> Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers > simply cannot break authentication because there *is* no > authentication. Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd > directory. Anything else is less secure. But giving Dan's anonftpd the binary label "secure" and anything different the binary label "insecure" seems misleading to me. Dan's anonftpd is still subject to stream modification of the file you request, for instance (not that I particularly expect an ftpd to solve this problem; it's hard), and your idea of use of "less secure" really seems to mean "potentially less secure." > Isn't it about time we had an ftp server which cooperated with a > visual ftp client by giving it an easily parsed listing format? If this format is intended for programs and not users, wouldn't it be better to provide it under a new query? The description of LIST in RFC 959 says about the information returned: Since the information on a file may vary widely from system to system, this information may be hard to use automatically in a program, but may be quite useful to a human user.
Re: Getting qmail
Russ Nelson wrote: > There's a mirror at ftp://ftp.qmail.org/pub/koobera.math.uic.edu/ > which uses a more conventional (translation: insecure) FTP server. > Thankyaverrymuch. Now, questions for the general population: Following the instructions in Life With qmail, I'm at step 2.5.5; Do the build. After the compile, when I'm supposed to run either ./config or ./config-fast, I'm not sure what to do. When I come to my office, I connect to the lan here, and use DHCP. I'm not in any DNS that way. When I dial in to my ISP from elsewhere, I'm sambo.charm.net, with a static IP. Even when I'm at work, though, my machine thinks it's sambo.charm.net, just with a different interface with a different IP addy. What do I pass ./config-fast? Thak you. ---sambo
Re: Getting qmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers simply > cannot break authentication because there *is* no authentication. > Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd directory. Anything > else is less secure. Does any anon ftp these days *not* chroot? I use wuftpd-vr17 or so. What's insecure with that? > > What's the deal with DJB's FTP with no LS and crazy > > filenames? > Isn't it about time we had an ftp server which cooperated with a > visual ftp client by giving it an easily parsed listing format? I don't know if I understand if you can't get an LS, how do yo expect to use a visual ftp? is visual different than ncftp (with tab completion?) Scott ps: I was interested in checking out DJB FTPD ... is it available? I looked briefly but I don't remember finding it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN6dRxB4PLs9vCOqdAQHMNAQAkf8YcuD2V15a/Va4VmuINrrpIjxfUdPo k+UYhEszWS8aQPV141K8kWEOxPXZ+kTHZ2o/obXUyVS8fEXqj80UqEZRRSRbS1O7 1hPj65yZxo2baDPOn4g2yUM9ptQBwa44tyip/iVNSEOYSjf2o9Ccv9SUbYtvwTQS IljKx6VNMUw= =oWI8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Getting qmail
Greg Hudson writes: > > Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers > > simply cannot break authentication because there *is* no > > authentication. Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd > > directory. Anything else is less secure. > > But giving Dan's anonftpd the binary label "secure" and anything > different the binary label "insecure" seems misleading to me. I didn't say anonftpd was secure. I said that the ftp server I'm using was insecure (wuftpd -- check it out on www.rootshell.com), and that by comparison, anonftpd was secure. Everything in the security field is relative -- and only needs to be. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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!
some mail gets delivered, some doesn't
Hello, I'm running qmail with serialmail and the ucspi-tcp program. I likely don't have the aliases/control set up right, but I can recieve mail. However when I try to deliver mail, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Since it's the same command, I can't tell what the difference is. I'm using the alias pppdir as described in one of the how-tos. My deliver command is : /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp ~alias/pppdir alias-ppp- mail.gte.net When it fails it prints the following message: maildirserial: info: new/933708259.30611.cherrycoke.gte.net succeeded: 207.115.153.33 said: 250 Message received: 19990803203626.SRHR1382416@[208.254.19.21] maildirserial: info: new/933709163.30713.cherrycoke.gte.net bounced: 207.115.153.33 said: 550 "Relaying mail to gnu.org is not allowed." maildirserial: info: returned new/933709163.30713.cherrycoke.gte.net: qp 30720 maildirserial: info: new/933708259.30616.cherrycoke.gte.net succeeded: 207.115.153.33 said: 250 Message received: 19990803203629.SRID1382416@[208.254.19.21] maildirserial: info: new/933709180.30723.cherrycoke.gte.net bounced: 207.115.153.31 said: 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Relaying from NULL to non-local recipient denied for 208.254.19.21 maildirserial: info: returned new/933709180.30723.cherrycoke.gte.net: qp 3072 Any ideas? Like I said sometimes it worksrather confusing... Kurt
Re: Getting qmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > I didn't say anonftpd was secure. I said that the ftp server I'm > using was insecure (wuftpd -- check it out on www.rootshell.com), and > that by comparison, anonftpd was secure. Everything in the security > field is relative -- and only needs to be. Exactly. As I have mentioned, my site is a continual target and is usually under continuous attack. I'm interested in protecting my sites that use Qmail and have user level FTP... that's all. Of course, if you have run across anything that's at all remotely decent in terms of security, I'd love to hear about it (perhaps in a private message). Scott -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN6dTix4PLs9vCOqdAQFGNQP9HTcaoipLFPs4XUn+IytNmZBHV1JopWeq /h+bamivKT+MHYTUyimc48A3g+spMm0R1S7ZqsEpMgYmm0SdVXcVbjgovZ4npDtZ 6gPaEXR2GWJ3sfwMX/TKhY9ZGB0yUU99hQbQscKY/69V4cn/Xi4jgenxWpNXnDLU 2gyrBHiX9VA= =CO8T -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Can I do this with qmail?
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:40:44 +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote: >1) Spam_friends support on smtp level not possible. Can be done > on a later level which means goodbye to rblsmtpd and hello to > a flooded postmaster mailbox. Why not put it on a separate host/IP? Leave that open. Small specific postmaster box. Forward mail to main box for specific users. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Re: mail volume
>At 03:44 PM 8/3/99 -0400, Dave Sill wrote: >>David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>Even with more than 1024 file descriptors, you can't have concurrencyremote >>>go over 256 without patching qmail. >> >>You're right, I was confusing two issues: the concurrency remote limit >>and insufficient file descriptors. Under older Linux kernels, the >>default max file descriptors is too low to support concurrencyremote >>of 255. > >No, no, you had a point: even Solaris 2.x (a recent OS), has a file >descriptor limit set by default at 64. The number of file descriptors >needed by qmail is 2*concurrencyremote+5 (this is due to the fact that all >fds to qmail-remote's are kept open,...). > >So for a reasonable concurrencyremote (>30), you will need to increase the >fd limit. But even if you do, you *can't* bring concurrencyremote over 256. > >David. >__ >David Villeger >(212) 972 2030 x34 > >http://www.CheetahMail.com >The Internet Email Publishing Solution > I was under the impression that the "big" qmail patches by Russell would increase this concurency level above 256. File descriptors are a minimal problem, increasing file descriptors in linux is as simple as can be and I would imagine that FreeBSD is just as easy. It appears that our major NT bottleneck is that it will never be sending more than a few hundred concurrent email messages. This sucks... with a 45mbit line, it would be more productive to be sending 4-5 times that. Will be run into similar limitations with qmail, or will we be able to patch it to accept more than 256? As far as linux goes, we'll have no problems patching that so that more processes/file descriptors are available. Cris
RE: tcpserver/checkpassword
> I'm running Linux Slackware 2.0.35, I have been running Qmail on three> other machines now just over a year. Right now I run Qmail mail from> inetd and had been working great. I only wanted to install tcpserver> because of the spam filtering I could do with it.> > I installed Qmail 1.03(tarball), and tcpserver 0.84(tarball),> > I have in my /etc/rc.d/rc.local file> tcpserver -u 1001 -g 101 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd -x> /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb & My line is the following and works fine: tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 1005 -g 801 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 & > tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup dns1.surftheusa.com \> /bin/checkpasswd/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir & I made the same mistake. When we read Live with qmail of Dave Sill, we see checkpasswd. But the correct form is checkpassword. > I installed checkpassword just as the INSTALL file said.> make,> make setup check> > It said that's it, then I ran the tests just as it said and it shows it> works.> > Now the problems I'm having.> > All mail does get delivered when I send to the host. When I try to check> the mail with Outlook Express, or Netscape mail, even Netscape with X> windows the auth fails and asks me to enter the password again.> > I did re-did the password three times to make sure and it still fails on> all mail programs.> > Thanks in advance> Bob Ross>
Re: mail volume
Cris Daniluk writes: > I was under the impression that the "big" qmail patches by Russell would > increase this concurency level above 256. No. The big-todo patch simply hashes the todo directories. It allows you to inject email faster than qmail-send can process it, without creating humongo directories. > or will we be able to patch it to accept more than 256? No, although you can run more than one instance of qmail on a machine if it runs into that has a limit. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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: Getting qmail
Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: >> Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers simply >> cannot break authentication because there *is* no authentication. >> Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd directory. Anything >> else is less secure. > Does any anon ftp these days *not* chroot? > I use wuftpd-vr17 or so. What's insecure with that? wuftpd-vr17 has the capability to do uploads, authenticated ftp, chmod, site exec, and all sorts of other things. Even if you're very careful about what options you compile it with, like I am, it still has a lot of code for doing a wide variety of extra stuff. djb's code implements *only* an anonymous ftp server; it has no code anywhere in it that's capable of opening a file for writing. That means there's much less code to have bugs, and means it would be much harder to exploit such a server. Note that wuftpd also doesn't do a full chroot because it writes to a log file outside its chroot jail. It also doesn't fully drop permissions, and there are potential problems with its signal handlers still running with elevated privs. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Re: mail volume
[snip] > >No, although you can run more than one instance of qmail on a machine >if it runs into that has a limit. > But, can you run 2 instances of qmail sharing the same queue? Or would you have to create 2 separate queues and come up with a distributed method to populate them? Cris
Re: mail volume
If you're not going to stripe multiple volumes, why do you need a RAID controller? Any decent OS these days with a UBC will cache as much data as possible, so I would not expect too much more performance from a single drive, and a modern OS. FreeBSD with softupdates would probably work just peachy, with 98% of the performance, and less cost. On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Cris Daniluk wrote: > Thank you for all the invaluable input. Personally I have a great deal of > Linux/freebsd/qmail experience, though my qmail knowledge is quite limited > to the extent of volume email such as this. Linux I think is the forerunner > because I will not be dealing with the project after it is setup and > therefore ease of administration is important. > > I have to throw in one more question, albeit somewhat off topic, it has > definite relevance. We're going to put in a raid controller with a hell of a > cache in it (64 mb probably). My question then is, what type of disk > configuration would you propose we need? Space needs are virtually > nonexistant, the machines sole purpose will be mail. Probably 100 mb for the > system itself and then the rest will be for the queue. I'd figure a raid > controller with 64mb cache and a 4.5 gb Cheetah would do the job. Do you > feel that striping and multiple drives would be valuable? > > Also, our pipe is not going to be a bottleneck--everything is set up on a > 100mbit lan with a T3 connection to the Internet. The t3 runs directy to > level3's backbone in DC which we are a few miles from, so there should be no > significant or relevant latency. > > Thanks again, > > Cris Daniluk > >
Re: mail volume
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 01:59:43PM -0400, Cris Daniluk wrote: > I have to throw in one more question, albeit somewhat off topic, it has > definite relevance. We're going to put in a raid controller with a hell of a > cache in it (64 mb probably). My question then is, what type of disk > configuration would you propose we need? Space needs are virtually > nonexistant, the machines sole purpose will be mail. Probably 100 mb for the > system itself and then the rest will be for the queue. I'd figure a raid > controller with 64mb cache and a 4.5 gb Cheetah would do the job. Do you > feel that striping and multiple drives would be valuable? Basically, your goal is to provide the fastest seek times and small block write performance possible for your queue'ing process. Two observations: 1) Configuring a large write-back cache in front of your queue disk is a good way to handle qmail's multiple directory writes and sync calls. 2) No FIFO cache will help the qmail's preprocessing. That can only be done by 1) RN's big-todo patch, and 2) increasing the seek performance of the disk array. -THE- solution for (2) is RAID 1+0 or RAID 10, creating mirrored pairs of disk drives, then creating a stripe across the mirrored pairs. This is the highest performance configuration you can make (aside from striping across multiple RAID 10's), and not all controllers can actually do it. What I would do: 1) Use multiple instances of qmail on one of your quad-xenon boxes. I'd start with four: /var/qmail1 , /var/qmail2, etc. 2) Use Russ Nelson's big-todo patch 3) Go with your cached raid controller idea with one disk, but make sure you choose one which can do RAID 10 if you need it to. 4) Force your message generation process to Round-Robin balance it's message queue'ing to each of the qmail instances. I question whether you've correctly identified your bottlekneck... To be specific, how quickly can you generate 1M messages? What is your method of queue'ing them? I'm sure you'll have people suggest that you call qmail-remote directly and only queue if that fails. The question then becomes, how robustly can you recover from the disasters the qmail queue is designed to be proof against... -- John White johnjohn at triceratops.com PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Re: mail volume
Modern OS's also don't know things like drive geometry. Good caching disk controllers do a better job of optimizing disk I/O. We've always seen major improvements in disk I/O with DPT caching controllers over just adding RAM to Linux. The OS has less 'dirty' buffers to track and worry about as well. > If you're not going to stripe multiple volumes, why do you need a RAID > controller? Any decent OS these days with a UBC will cache as much data > as possible, so I would not expect too much more performance from a single > drive, and a modern OS. > > FreeBSD with softupdates would probably work just peachy, with 98% of the > performance, and less cost. > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Cris Daniluk wrote: > > > Thank you for all the invaluable input. Personally I have a great deal of > > Linux/freebsd/qmail experience, though my qmail knowledge is quite limited > > to the extent of volume email such as this. Linux I think is the forerunner > > because I will not be dealing with the project after it is setup and > > therefore ease of administration is important. > > > > I have to throw in one more question, albeit somewhat off topic, it has > > definite relevance. We're going to put in a raid controller with a hell of a > > cache in it (64 mb probably). My question then is, what type of disk > > configuration would you propose we need? Space needs are virtually > > nonexistant, the machines sole purpose will be mail. Probably 100 mb for the > > system itself and then the rest will be for the queue. I'd figure a raid > > controller with 64mb cache and a 4.5 gb Cheetah would do the job. Do you > > feel that striping and multiple drives would be valuable? > > > > Also, our pipe is not going to be a bottleneck--everything is set up on a > > 100mbit lan with a T3 connection to the Internet. The t3 runs directy to > > level3's backbone in DC which we are a few miles from, so there should be no > > significant or relevant latency. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Cris Daniluk > > > > > > -- Richard Shetron [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is the Meaning of Life? There is no meaning, It's just a consequence of complex carbon based chemistry; don't worry about it The Super 76, "Free Aspirin and Tender Sympathy", Las Vegas Strip.
Re: mail volume
Cris Daniluk writes: > >No, although you can run more than one instance of qmail on a machine > >if it runs into that has a limit. > > But, can you run 2 instances of qmail sharing the same queue? Or would you > have to create 2 separate queues and come up with a distributed method to > populate them? The latter. You could just use a round-robin A record pointing to multiple IP addresses on the same machine, and hang a different instance's qmail-smtpd off of each one. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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!
Qmail UCE & Virtualdomains
Hi all, I'd installed Qmail 1.03 with Qmail-UCE patch. It's working fine except virutal domain not works. I'd already set up a virtual domain as follow: 1. In my DNS virt.domINMX10mail.mycompany.com 2. In control/rcpthosts, I'd aready added the folowing line: virt.dom 3. In control/virtualdomains, add a line: virt.dom: myunixaccount 4. killall -HUP qmail-send Whenerver I send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , my mail.company.com said "550 Sorry, no mailbox here at that name. (#5.1.1) Can anyone help me? Thank you very much. Dong Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong Phuong Nam Net. - System Administrator.
Re: Qmail UCE & Virtualdomains
Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong writes: > virt.dom: myunixaccount Check to make sure that, in your case, this account's home directory has global read and execute permissions. -- Sam
Re: Qmail UCE & Virtualdomains
Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong writes: > Hi all, > > I'd installed Qmail 1.03 with Qmail-UCE patch. It's working fine except > virutal domain not works. I'd already set up a virtual domain as follow: > > 1. In my DNS > > virt.domINMX10mail.mycompany.com > > 2. In control/rcpthosts, I'd aready added the folowing line: > > virt.dom > > 3. In control/virtualdomains, add a line: > > virt.dom: myunixaccount > > 4. killall -HUP qmail-send > > Whenerver I send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , my mail.company.com said > "550 Sorry, no mailbox here at that name. (#5.1.1) Dong, please don't hide hostnames. It's much better to give us the actual data from your files, because the solution might be different than you expect. In this case, it seems to be that you didn't create a ~myunixaccount/.qmail-someone file. Without one, there's "no mailbox here by that name." We now return me to my regularly scheduled sleep. Z. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr sells support for free 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 UCE & Virtualdomains
Hello Sam, Yes, it's exactly my problem. Thank you very much+ACE- Best regards, Dong -Original Message- From: Sam +ADw-mrsam+AEA-geocities.com+AD4- Cc: Qmail List +ADw-qmail+AEA-list.cr.yp.to+AD4- Date: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:14 PM Subject: Re: Qmail UCE +ACY- Virtualdomains +AD4-Nguyen Dang Phuoc Dong writes: +AD4- +AD4APg- virt.dom: myunixaccount +AD4- +AD4-Check to make sure that, in your case, this account's home directory has +AD4-global read and execute permissions. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4--- +AD4-Sam +AD4-
