qmail Digest 17 Aug 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 731
qmail Digest 17 Aug 1999 10:00:01 - Issue 731 Topics (messages 29036 through 29080): controls/databytes 29036 by: Dimitri SZAJMAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29037 by: Vince Vielhaber [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29038 by: Faried Nawaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29043 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] receive 29039 by: Kevin Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29041 by: Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Big mama ISP server 29040 by: Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] undelivered messages. 29042 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qmail case sensitivity 29044 by: "Gum, Greg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29045 by: "Adam D . McKenna" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29046 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29048 by: "Mr. Christopher F. Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29049 by: "Chris Garrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29055 by: "Gum, Greg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29056 by: "Gum, Greg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29057 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29061 by: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMAP drivers with helper indexes databases (was RE: Inode/file limits) 29047 by: David A Galbraith CIRT [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29050 by: "David Harris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29051 by: Jeff Hayward [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29065 by: "David Harris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inode/file limits 29052 by: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Infamous internic 29053 by: Uwe Ohse [EMAIL PROTECTED] DNS 8.2.1 installed 29054 by: Bill Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail-start STDOUT 29058 by: "Michael Mertel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks and Qmail Date Stamping. 29059 by: "Larry H. Raab" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29067 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] queue botched? update 29060 by: Michael Boyiazis [EMAIL PROTECTED] postmaster autoresponder 29062 by: "Racer X" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29063 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29064 by: Jeff Hayward [EMAIL PROTECTED] stop broken incoming mail connects? 29066 by: "Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29068 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29069 by: "Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29070 by: "Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29071 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29075 by: Scott Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Virtual Hosting Help. 29072 by: "Larry H. Raab" [EMAIL PROTECTED] long dns records 29073 by: Mate Wierdl [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29074 by: "Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patch for Aol? 29076 by: "Martin Paulucci" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29077 by: "Lyndon Griffin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail-pop3d unbearably slow on a mac 29078 by: mdap [EMAIL PROTECTED] packages, rpms 29079 by: Mate Wierdl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Queue quiery - strange results. 29080 by: Georgi Kupenov [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] -- Hi ! Please where can I find a documentation about how does the controls/databytes file works ? Thank you for your answer ! On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote: Hi ! Please where can I find a documentation about how does the controls/databytes file works ? Thank you for your answer ! man qmail-smtpd Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] flame-mail: /dev/null # include std/disclaimers.h TEAM-OS2 Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com == [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dimitri SZAJMAN) writes: Please where can I find a documentation about how does the controls/databytes file works ? See the man page for qmail-smtpd. In general, read the man page for qmail-control to find out about control/* files. Faried. On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Dimitri SZAJMAN wrote: Hi ! Please where can I find a documentation about how does the controls/databytes file works ? If you want to know where the documentation for any of qmail's control files is try "man qmail-control". That's all it is: pointers to which program uses which control file. It's my favourite man page. :-) Thank you for your answer ! -- "Life is much too important to be taken seriously." Thomas Erskine[EMAIL PROTECTED](613) 998-2836 hello all. I met a question with maildir format. When I send a mail to a user. I can found a new letter in his $HOME/Maidir/new, but when i receiver letter from netscape under x-window, The netscape cann't find the new letter. questin two: What should I setup the
Lots and lots of qmail-queue's
Has anybody seen this: from time to time, a whole bunch of qmail-queue's will accumulate (I'd say up to ~400), apparently doing nothing (ps shows that most of them have the same WCHAN, but not all of them). Most of them have 1 as PPID, a few still have qmail-smtpd as parent. This has a serious impact on the through-put and reliability of our qmail server. Right now, killing and restarting "tcpserver [...] qmail-smtpd" fixes the problem, but I'd really like to know what is going on to altogether avoid this behavior. BTW, this is a Solaris 2.5 machine. Any idea ? Martin -- | Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne __|_ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/SIC/SL/info/Martin.html __ Alors que la philosophie enseigne comment l'homme prétend penser, la beuverie montre comment il pense vraiment [René Daumal]
Re: Lots and lots of qmail-queue's
Check your tcpserver-log. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a broken M$ mailer that is trying to send the same email to you over and over again, pretty much like a DOS-attack. This has happened to me several times and having IIS with SP4 causes it. There's more information in the Qmail mailinglist-archive. http://www-archive.ornl.gov:8000/ On 17 Aug 1999, Martin Ouwehand wrote: Has anybody seen this: from time to time, a whole bunch of qmail-queue's will accumulate (I'd say up to ~400), apparently doing nothing (ps shows that most of them have the same WCHAN, but not all of them). Most of them have 1 as PPID, a few still have qmail-smtpd as parent. This has a serious impact on the through-put and reliability of our qmail server. Right now, killing and restarting "tcpserver [...] qmail-smtpd" fixes the problem, but I'd really like to know what is going on to altogether avoid this behavior. BTW, this is a Solaris 2.5 machine. Any idea ? Martin -- | Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne __|_ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/SIC/SL/info/Martin.html __ Alors que la philosophie enseigne comment l'homme prétend penser, la beuverie montre comment il pense vraiment [René Daumal] / daj
popbull not delivering to all users
Having a slight problem with popbull where it seems not to deliver to all users. I've been unable to duplicate the exact problem..It affects users with no mail, and with existing mail in their box at the time the bulletin was created. The majority of my customers appear to have received it, however I have had 3 staff who did not. I did not see anything in the archives quite like this..only posts about multiple messages...Has anyone else experienced this? Current system is Qmail 1.03 with the popbull patch, ezmlm 0.53, ucspi-tcp-0.84, and vchkpw 3.1.3 (modified including parts of 3.4.6) for virtual domains running on a FreeBSD 3.1 server. As a side note, We are using SQWebmail for web-email, which obviously will not work with popbull. Does anyone have any suggestions for an alternative to popbull that will work with SQWebmail for a customer base of about 10k pop users? Previously it has been accomplished via a perl script that grabbed the usernames from the password file. Sloppy and slow. I've heard of people using ezmlm (cant remember who or find the post right now). Mainly interested in a solution that will accomodate SQWebmail and vchkpw both without taking 2-3 hours to run. Thanks in advance, -- Stephen Comoletti Systems Administrator Delanet, Inc. http://www.delanet.com ph: (302) 326-5800 fax: (302) 326-5802
bad deliver
We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then send it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but the sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no header mutilation taking place. Cris Daniluk MicroStrategy
Re: qmail sighting
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 1999 at 08:16:42 -0400 Bruce Schneier's CRYPTO-GRAM, a monthly newsletter sent to over 20,000 subscribers, uses qmail and ezmlm. This a high-profile list and a juicy hacker target. Yep, it does. With regard to which, I'm having trouble understanding the qmailanalog statistics I get out of this. Crypto-gram was sent yesterday in the early evening. As of now, I have only 20 messages in the queue. There was a tiny "pending" file generated by matchup last night, and only one of the messages was crypto-gram related (so most of the deliveries had to happen before the log cutoff last night). Here are the statistics on yesterday and today so far (zoverall): Basic statistics qtime is the time spent by a message in the queue. ddelay is the latency for a successful delivery to one recipient---the end of successful delivery, minus the time when the message was queued. xdelay is the latency for a delivery attempt---the time when the attempt finished, minus the time when it started. The average concurrency is the total xdelay for all deliveries divided by the time span; this is a good measure of how busy the mailer is. Completed messages: 1620 Recipients for completed messages: 4971 Total delivery attempts for completed messages: 5126 Average delivery attempts per completed message: 3.1642 Bytes in completed messages: 15183142 Bytes weighted by success: 31852134 Average message qtime (s): 197.403 Total delivery attempts: 25933 success: 24576 failure: 289 deferral: 1068 Total ddelay (s): 66248917.435193 Average ddelay per success (s): 2695.675351 Total xdelay (s): 391021.65 Average xdelay per delivery attempt (s): 15.078137 Time span (days): 8.0081 Average concurrency: 0.565141 I'm confused by the "completed messages" statistic; is the low value because it only lists messages for which all deliveries have been completed (a guess based on the name)? Why does anybody *care* about such a bizarrely constrained statistic? Also, how do you weight bytes by success? A quick check with qmail-qread shows that indeed there are a very few pending deliveries on crypto-gram. When those finally clear out, one way or the other, will I suddenly get an *immense* lump in my "recipients for completed messages" that day? As I say, I think it's a silly number to compute. (concurrencyremote on this system is 50; it's a Cyrix 166 running Linux with 96 meg of ram, IDE disks, no RAID. I'm amazed how well it digests big lumps like the crypto-gram mailing. A normal day here is a couple thousand deliveries.) -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: bad deliver
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:34:30AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then send it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but the sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no header mutilation taking place. What appears in the header has nothing to do with the recipient of an SMTP-injected message. The recipient is specified in the envelope, which is given with the SMTP RCPT TO command. It may be that you have something screwy in control/virtualdomains or users/assign and that mail isn't going where you want it to go, but the header of a message isn't an indicator of who the recipient should have been. Chris
RE: bad deliver
I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally. The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of 300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with. Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Fevrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671 EmailID:22196 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Simon Rae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:47 PM To: Daniluk, Chris Subject: Re: bad deliver Have you checked the intended recipient's .qmail file or the qmail/alias directory for entries that could be redirecting mail elsewhere? Si "Daniluk, Chris" wrote: We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then send it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but the sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no header mutilation taking place. Cris Daniluk MicroStrategy
Re: bad deliver
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:51:25AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally. The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of 300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with. Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]: These aren't all the headers. Please include Delivered-To lines. --Adam Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Fevrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671 EmailID:22196 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Simon Rae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:47 PM To: Daniluk, Chris Subject: Re: bad deliver Have you checked the intended recipient's .qmail file or the qmail/alias directory for entries that could be redirecting mail elsewhere? Si "Daniluk, Chris" wrote: We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then send it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but the sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no header mutilation taking place. Cris Daniluk MicroStrategy
Re: bad deliver
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:51:25AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally. The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of 300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with. Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Fevrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671 EmailID:22196 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What makes you think there's something wrong with this? Take a look at any message you've received from this mailing list. You received it, but your address isn't in the To header field or any other header field (except for the Delivered-To header, which is added by the local delivery agent). You received it because your address was specified in the SMTP envelope. Chris
RE: bad deliver
I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP server, why are we having this problem now? [snip] What makes you think there's something wrong with this? Take a look at any message you've received from this mailing list. You received it, but your address isn't in the To header field or any other header field (except for the Delivered-To header, which is added by the local delivery agent). You received it because your address was specified in the SMTP envelope. Chris
RE: bad deliver
"Daniluk, Chris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP server, why are we having this problem now? What we have here is a failure to communicate. If there was nothing wrong with the message whose header you posted, why did you post it? And, if there's nothing wrong, why do you refer to it as a problem? qmail doesn't randomly deliver messages to the wrong people. Not occasionally, not rarely, not once in a million deliveries. If you want to find out what's happening, you'll need to document the problem better. E.g., show us the log entries for a "misdelivered" message, as well as the header. Your claim that qmail doesn't log anything relevant just doesn't cut it. Chances are good that the problem lies with the injection process, and qmail is just doing exactly what you told it to do. How are these "misdelivered" messages being injected? -Dave
Re: bad deliver
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP server, why are we having this problem now? You haven't defined "the problem." You claim that messages aren't being delivered to the right address, and as evidence you provide a header that doesn't substantiate your claim. (Your claim can't be substantiated by *any* header you might provide, because the recipient isn't a function of anything that might appear in the header.) So why exactly do you think there's a problem? Chris
RE: bad deliver
I dont understand why there is so much friction in this thread. When I was asking for help so that we could implement QMail I received nothing but helpful information. Now that we are having troubles using it and are trying to find if there's a problem with QMail, we are receiving nothing but disreceptive attitudes. Let me go through this: 1. We have been using MS SMTP Server to send out a few hundred thousand emails per day for close to 3 months now. 2. It sucks. It sends slow, it's junk. I decide QMail would be better 3. I ask QMail list, they concur 4. We build a test server running a raid0 stripe with a heavy scsi cache for queueing performance 5. We test it by turning the MS SMTP Server smarthost to our qmail box, so that no software reconfigurations need to be made. MS SMTP Server can smart host messages at about 50 per second. It can only send to the Internet at 5 per second. SMTP Server obviously is STILL not sending fast enough, but still fast enough to make qmail worthwhile. 6. After a few days of testing, we find that people are inexplicably receiving other people's emails. We dont know why, we have NO clue. Headers are all the way they should be. QMail doesn't report any errors, but they just aren't delivered to the right location. So, I'm asking you for help... not to be continuously and repeatedly accused of this or that. You have all the information I have, and I'm not asking for a solution, I'm asking for reasonable and plausible possibilities as many of you have been using qmail since its inception and therefore may know anything that may cause this, or have heard of other people who have had similar problems. Again, this problem does not happen when we're using just ms smtp server, but when we go to qmail, it happens. That DOES NOT mean qmail is the problem, but obviously either qmail or something related to the problem is and we need to get to the bottom of it. That in mind, if you're just going to tell me the same argumentative things you have been, please don't. Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Again, in the past, everyone has been exceedingly helpful to me. I don't quite understand why this isn't the case right now, but I'm trying to supply what everyone is asking for, and I haven't made any accusations against the integrity of qmail, nor am I intending to. I simply have a problem and am wondering if anyone has any constructive thoughts. Cris Daniluk MicroStrategy -Original Message- From: 'Chris Johnson' [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:41 PM To: Daniluk, Chris Cc: QMail (E-mail) Subject: Re: bad deliver On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP server, why are we having this problem now? You haven't defined "the problem." You claim that messages aren't being delivered to the right address, and as evidence you provide a header that doesn't substantiate your claim. (Your claim can't be substantiated by *any* header you might provide, because the recipient isn't a function of anything that might appear in the header.) So why exactly do you think there's a problem? Chris
RE: bad deliver
Daniluk, Chris writes: Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Can we see one of these pieces of email, with all headers intact? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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: bad deliver
Daniluk, Chris writes: I know there is nothing wrong with this. That's why I posted it. My question is, if this is fine, and the problem did not exist on a different SMTP server, why are we having this problem now? Only you can find out the answer to that one. Given your earlier confusion regarding message headers versus the SMTP envelope, I would suggest that you brush up on the relevant RFCs, and examine ALL software that is being used. Qmail does not create messages out of thin air. Something must generate those messages in the first place, and you will need to examine that software as well. -- Sam
RE: bad deliver
Daniluk, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 1999 at 11:51:48 -0400 6. After a few days of testing, we find that people are inexplicably receiving other people's emails. We dont know why, we have NO clue. Headers are all the way they should be. QMail doesn't report any errors, but they just aren't delivered to the right location. So, I'm asking you for help... not to be continuously and repeatedly accused of this or that. You have all the information I have, and I'm not asking for a solution, I'm asking for reasonable and plausible possibilities as many of you have been using qmail since its inception and therefore may know anything that may cause this, or have heard of other people who have had similar problems. And none of us have ever experienced anything vaguely like this as a qmail problem, even in the pre-release-1 days. It's just not something we've seen qmail do; so the immediate suspicion is that something else is at fault. Also, we *don't* have all the information you have. The log files would make it possible to trace a message from injection to delivery, and show a much clearer view of the path it followed. And I know at least one other contributor to the thread asked about the log files previously. Because of your special setup originating the messages, you also probably know some "invariants" in your head that we don't (the messages always have the user's name *here* and *here* and address *here*, that sort of thing). My best guess, actually, is that the message maker is injecting messages with headers inconsistent with their envelope addresses. If that's it, it will be clearly traceable in the logs on your qmail system. Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Again, in the past, everyone has been exceedingly helpful to me. I don't quite understand why this isn't the case right now, but I'm trying to supply what everyone is asking for, and I haven't made any accusations against the integrity of qmail, nor am I intending to. I simply have a problem and am wondering if anyone has any constructive thoughts. It's clearly a *business* problem in your situation. I understand that these emails are not ending up where you want them to. It is *NOT* clear that it's a technical problem. The contents of the headers do *NOT* control where a message is sent; that's controlled by the SMTP envelope. And most of us on this list, especially the people with the best technical understanding of qmail, look at it very much from the technical viewpoint. -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
RE: IMAP drivers with helper indexes databases (was RE: Inode/filelimits)
The imap server (From the all the code in maildir.c) never changes a message. The only thing it changes is flags which are file name changes. The question is what sort of performance gain would you get using a database alongside (Assuming you can't use locking so you have to copy the entire thing for every update you want to make to the database) When you make your local copy should you use that copy for the entire session of the imap and only copy it back when you are done (or do some sort of checkpointing of moving it back every 10 minutes or so) Or copy/move it for every single change? How big would the database get with about 1000-2000 messages. I guess the only way to know for sure is to write the code and measure the perfomance, but any ideas? Would it really help? I can help write the code (or write it) if people think it might speed things up... I have already tweaked the UW/Imap code to split the Maildir cur directory into 10 sub directories so that each sub directory has a balanced number of messages in it. (This increases speed for flag changes significantly since flag changes are filename changes, which if you have 5000 files in a single directory can be time consuming :) The next step would be to use a database for UID/Header/Flag data. Where the Maildir is still an "Authority" on the data but there is a helper database that can be consulted. -d. On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, David Harris wrote: Jeff Hayward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Forgive my ignorance of this IMAP issue, but does the IMAP spec permit a mail message to be modified (excluding flags) without assigning it a new UID? If not, there is no need for stat as long as the maildir file name changes. Hey, you are right! I don't know much about the nitty-gritty details of the IMAP protocol, so I just did a test. I'm using Outloook 98 as my IMAP client, and the server is the latest RPM available from www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/ I setup a maildir with one message: $ md5sum `find Maildir -type f` b862d13ec755ade64c204f83ca994e48 Maildir/cur/934827988.10150.hobbes.drh.net:2,S d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e Maildir/.uidvalidity Then modified that message and saved the changes, and this is how the maildir looked: $ md5sum `find Maildir -type f` b862d13ec755ade64c204f83ca994e48 Maildir/cur/934827988.10150.hobbes.drh.net:2,ST c2784ffaa223c6fab44e64108a5c0536 Maildir/cur/934842373.15905.0.hobbes.drh.net:2,S d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e Maildir/.uidvalidity So, I think we are guaranteed at least the IMAP client will not go changing the messages without changing their name. In my mind, this makes an IMAP server with a side-by-side database a real possibility. Any thoughts? - David Harris Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services +---+ | David Galbraithdgalb@ University Of New Mexico | |Systems Analyst unm.edu(505)-277-8499| +---+
RE: bad deliver
As previously stated, THIS HEADER IS NOT COMPLETE! Where is the header with the SMTP 'RCPT To:' address? This is normally in a 'Delivered To:' header or something similar. This set of headers does NOT tell you who the message was addressed to! The recipient of an email message is NOT the address listed in the To: header in all cases. NONE of the messages from this list include your email address in the To: header yet you will not deny that the list messages are intended for you. Please provide the COMPLETE header as asked so we can help you find the systems that are messing up. If any really are. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Daniluk, Chris wrote: Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Fevrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671 EmailID:22196 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Strategy.com - Investment Channel http://home.strategy.com 8/13/99 Dear Ian: The following stocks in your portfolio, "MY PORTFOLIO", have experienced changes in EPS consensus estimate: NOKIA CORP ADS (NOK) estimate for quarter ending 9/99 up $0.01 to $0.51/share. Earnings Details: Stock Qtr End Curr Est Prev Est # Est High LowYr Ago Est NOK9/99 $0.51 $0.50 13 $0.54 $0.46 $0.44 Quote Details: Stock Last Change High Low 52Wk High 52Wk Low NOK82 13/16 -Unch- N/A N/A 99 3/8 67 11/16 Quotes supplied by Standard Poor's ComStock, Inc. http://www.spcomstock.com/. Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes for NYSE and AMEX, 15 minutes for NASDAQ. Additional data provided by Zacks Investment Research. -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 4:59 PM To: QMail (E-mail) Subject: RE: bad deliver Daniluk, Chris writes: Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Can we see one of these pieces of email, with all headers intact? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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! - Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Administrator localconnect(sm) http://www.localconnect.net/ The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/ One Monroeville Center, Suite 850 Monroeville, PA 15146 (412) 810- Phone (412) 810-8886 Fax
RE: bad deliver
Daniluk, Chris writes: Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Fevrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Okay, clearly the envelope sender is not being set correctly. Can you consult the logfile to find the envelope information for pid the email received by 24678 ? Probably not, since this email is four days old. I also hope that you're not actually sending mail from qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com, because that name does not have an A record. A host that sends email MUST have correct reverse DNS, and that PTR entry MUST have the same string as that presented by the HELO command. Otherwise you risk being mistaken for a spammer. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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: bad deliver
It doesn't look to me like there will be a Delivered-To line, since it appears qmail is accepting it via smtp and then sending it via smtp to another host, mailgate.strategy.com. I'm leaning towards a misconfiguration, perhaps in smtproutes. Think we need to see the delivery logs and what's in his control files. Aaron Quoting Timothy L. Mayo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): As previously stated, THIS HEADER IS NOT COMPLETE! Where is the header with the SMTP 'RCPT To:' address? This is normally in a 'Delivered To:' header or something similar. This set of headers does NOT tell you who the message was addressed to! The recipient of an email message is NOT the address listed in the To: header in all cases. NONE of the messages from this list include your email address in the To: header yet you will not deny that the list messages are intended for you. Please provide the COMPLETE header as asked so we can help you find the systems that are messing up. If any really are. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Daniluk, Chris wrote: Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ian Fevrier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671 EmailID:22196 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: bad deliver
I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is logged. Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send them in an earlier message. Again: 34578188.651364 starting delivery 622: msg 2230 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] 34578188.651413 status: local 0/10 remote 8/8 ... 34578193.505918 delivery 622: success: 199.173.152.28_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/ ... 934578193.515841 status: local 0/10 remote 7/8 934578193.516751 end msg 2230 The dots of course represent entries from other messages being delivered at the same time. Cris -Original Message- From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 5:11 PM To: QMail (E-mail) Subject: RE: bad deliver Daniluk, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 1999 at 11:51:48 -0400 6. After a few days of testing, we find that people are inexplicably receiving other people's emails. We dont know why, we have NO clue. Headers are all the way they should be. QMail doesn't report any errors, but they just aren't delivered to the right location. So, I'm asking you for help... not to be continuously and repeatedly accused of this or that. You have all the information I have, and I'm not asking for a solution, I'm asking for reasonable and plausible possibilities as many of you have been using qmail since its inception and therefore may know anything that may cause this, or have heard of other people who have had similar problems. And none of us have ever experienced anything vaguely like this as a qmail problem, even in the pre-release-1 days. It's just not something we've seen qmail do; so the immediate suspicion is that something else is at fault. Also, we *don't* have all the information you have. The log files would make it possible to trace a message from injection to delivery, and show a much clearer view of the path it followed. And I know at least one other contributor to the thread asked about the log files previously. Because of your special setup originating the messages, you also probably know some "invariants" in your head that we don't (the messages always have the user's name *here* and *here* and address *here*, that sort of thing). My best guess, actually, is that the message maker is injecting messages with headers inconsistent with their envelope addresses. If that's it, it will be clearly traceable in the logs on your qmail system. Emails ARE being sent to the wrong people. When someone named Cezary receives email that starts off saying "Dear Ian" and Ian's email address is all over the headers, but Cezary is no where, THAT is a problem. Again, in the past, everyone has been exceedingly helpful to me. I don't quite understand why this isn't the case right now, but I'm trying to supply what everyone is asking for, and I haven't made any accusations against the integrity of qmail, nor am I intending to. I simply have a problem and am wondering if anyone has any constructive thoughts. It's clearly a *business* problem in your situation. I understand that these emails are not ending up where you want them to. It is *NOT* clear that it's a technical problem. The contents of the headers do *NOT* control where a message is sent; that's controlled by the SMTP envelope. And most of us on this list, especially the people with the best technical understanding of qmail, look at it very much from the technical viewpoint. -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: bad deliver
I'd have to agree. A valid, if not necessarily correctly stated, concern. Nothing in the original post to warrant the near-flames that followed. Lighten up, everyone. Yan "Daniluk, Chris" wrote: I dont understand why there is so much friction in this thread. -- __ __ | / / /--/ -- / \/ \ -- / /\ \ / /\ \ | / | \/--|--| \/\/ ~~~~ "The older I get, the faster I was."
Re: bad deliver
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Daniluk, Chris writes: Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) I also hope that you're not actually sending mail from qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com, because that name does not have an A record. A host that sends email MUST have correct reverse DNS, and that PTR entry MUST have the same string as that presented by the HELO command. Otherwise you risk being mistaken for a spammer. Note the 10.x.x.x addresses...this is clearly all behind a firewall. Presumably, he has an internal DNS that does have A and PTR records for qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com. (Just thought I'd stick my nose in and say something in Chris' defense since he's been on the receiving end of quite a bit.) Chris -- Chris Garrigues virCIO http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com +1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500 4314 Avenue C O- Austin, TX 78751-3709 My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft. PGP signature
RE: bad deliver
Daniluk, Chris writes: I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is logged. Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send them in an earlier message. 34578188.651364 starting delivery 622: msg 2230 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] qmail is delivering the mail to the party it's supposed to. You aren't, um, mounting the queue over NFS, are you? Wait a second. You said that you were striping the disk. Could there be a bug in your striping? What OS are you using? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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: bad deliver
Chris Garrigues writes: Note the 10.x.x.x addresses...this is clearly all behind a firewall. Presumably, he has an internal DNS that does have A and PTR records for qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com. That doesn't help me if he contacts my smtp server, and it says "HELO hostname doesn't match the forward DNS of the reverse DNS? You're a spammer -- go away". -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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: orbs defence
This is incorrect. ORBS only includes host which actually relay the mail,
not just accept it. That is, it has to be *delivered* to the test RCPT TO:
address.
--Adam
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:50:48PM -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
According to the www.orbs.org battery of tests,
the qmail smtp daemon "fails" in the case:
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCPT TO:victim%target@{relay}
{relay} is tested as both [IP.address] and reverse.DNS.name.
Heavily exploited by spammers and mailbombers.
Most Lotus Notes/Domino installations fail this. Recently fixed - see
[ See: http://www.orbs.org/envelopes.cgi for this reference.
Test out your qmail daemon using the http://maps.vix.com/tsi/ar-test.html
engine.]
This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which
is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database?
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADAWWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
Re: qmail sighting
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:39:13 -0500 (CDT), David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I'm confused by the "completed messages" statistic; is the low value because it only lists messages for which all deliveries have been completed (a guess based on the name)? Why does anybody *care* about such a bizarrely constrained statistic? Also, how do you weight bytes by success? From matchup you have to collect fd5 output (pending messages) and feed them in again to the next run of matchup (on the next log file). see man page. You're stats are screwed up because you didn't and there are a lot of deliveries for which the initial log entry is not available to matchup. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
RE: bad deliver
Daniluk, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 1999 at 12:21:07 -0400 I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is logged. Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.119294 new msg 39077 Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.123654 info msg 39077: bytes 4463 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 1039 uid 70 This shows a message being received via smtp. The clue is the "uid 70" where 70 is the qmaild uid. The address shown is the envelope sender. Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.158059 starting delivery 112225: msg 39077 to local @gw.dd-b.net Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.162167 status: local 1/10 remote 2/50 Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.162554 starting delivery 112226: msg 39077 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.163222 status: local 1/10 remote 3/50 Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.185655 delivery 112225: success: Aug 17 12:02:44 gw qmail: 934909364.186046 status: local 0/10 remote 3/50 Aug 17 12:02:45 gw qmail: 934909365.650676 delivery 112226: success: 166.84.0.213_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_Ok:_queued_as_9000518C0A/ This particular message got both a local and a remote delivery. The local isn't important here, but the remote shows us some more; where it says "to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]", that's the envelope sender it's delivering to remotely. The "msg #" and "delivery #" are what ties this together. The "new msg #" and "info msg #" lines let us identify the incoming message, and then the deliveries each say what message they're delivering, so that lets you tie a delivery number back to a message number. Also note the "qp #" in the info msg line; that same qp # will appear in the header of the message after it's been sent on, like this (this example is actually your message coming in from the qmail list; it's *not* the same message the previous examples used since that's a private user message which I don't have access to and shouldn't publish if I did): In my mail log: Aug 17 11:21:49 gw qmail: 934906909.153289 new msg 39065 Aug 17 11:21:49 gw qmail: 934906909.153961 info msg 39065: bytes 4717 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 32452 uid 70 Aug 17 11:21:49 gw qmail: 934906909.265442 starting delivery 111799: msg 39065 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] And in the header of the message as it was delivered to me: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 32456 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 1999 16:21:49 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 32452 invoked from network); 17 Aug 1999 16:21:48 - The bottom received line shows qmail 32452 invoked from network, meaning smtp. The log entries show msg 39065 injected via uid 70 (also meaning smtp) and being handled by qmail process 32452. Process numbers can repeat as the system wraps around, so verifying that the timestamps are close is necessary to be really sure. Qmail, as you see, likes GMT (the "-" shows that). So you haven't actually showed us enough logs to tell much. I'm not all that fond of the way qmail logs things myself. I find other mailer's logs easier to read. *Some* of the constraints come about because of the segmentation of qmail functions, which is an important part of its security architecture. Some of the differences are just personal preference. qmail logs are, I think, easier to parse in a program, which is useful. But the information to trace what was done with a message is all there; you just need different approaches to finding it than with other mailers. (I should note that I've never run sendmail, and am not familiar with its logs other than as posted by people in discussion groups; the other mailer I've run on unix is smail.) Hope this helps. I'm curious as to what's going on in your setup. Incidentally, while I'm writing, let me mention that I learned quite a bit from the earlier performance analysis discussion that you started and participated in. Thanks! Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send them in an earlier message. Again: 34578188.651364 starting delivery 622: msg 2230 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] 34578188.651413 status: local 0/10 remote 8/8 ... 34578193.505918 delivery 622: success: 199.173.152.28_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK/ ... 934578193.515841 status: local 0/10 remote 7/8 934578193.516751 end msg 2230 The dots of course represent entries from other messages being delivered at the same time. -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: qmail sighting
Fred Lindberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 1999 at 13:31:15 -0500 On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:39:13 -0500 (CDT), David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I'm confused by the "completed messages" statistic; is the low value because it only lists messages for which all deliveries have been completed (a guess based on the name)? Why does anybody *care* about such a bizarrely constrained statistic? Also, how do you weight bytes by success? From matchup you have to collect fd5 output (pending messages) and feed them in again to the next run of matchup (on the next log file). see man page. You're stats are screwed up because you didn't and there are a lot of deliveries for which the initial log entry is not available to matchup. I'm collecting the fd5 output, and I'm feeding it back in, really I am. Only for the last 3 or 4 days at this point, I'm just getting the log rollover code to do matchup right. There shouldn't be any significant number of deliveries outstanding over multiple days, though. -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
RE: bad deliver
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 1999 at 13:33:38 -0500 This particular message got both a local and a remote delivery. The local isn't important here, but the remote shows us some more; where it says "to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]", that's the envelope sender it's delivering to remotely. Eep! I meant, of course, "envelope *recipient*". -- David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: Lots and lots of qmail-queue's
] Check your tcpserver-log. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a broken M$ ] mailer that is trying to send the same email to you over and over again, ] pretty much like a DOS-attack. This has happened to me several times ] and having IIS with SP4 causes it. Yes, this seems to be the explanation, but what now ? I can filter out the faulty machines that I know about, but what if other come along ? Is there anything I can do ? Also, how do other MTA cope with this ? I'm asking this because we switched recently to qmail, but this IIS client went unoticed until now, meaning that old and big PP (our previous MTA) knew what to handle it. -- | Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne __|_ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/SIC/SL/info/Martin.html __ La méthode que j'emploie pour te discipliner n'est[Marpa à] pas faite pour les êtres dégénérés de l'avenir [Milarepa]
How to add X-Envelope-To: to all incoming mails?
I have found some solutions to insert a X-Envelope-To: header in the list archives but all of them suggest doing something like this in the users home directory: echo '|(echo "X-Envelope-To: $EXT@$HOST";cat) | qmail-inject -- "$USER-mailbox"' .qmail echo './Mailbox' .qmail-mailbox This solution isn't useable for us because most of our customers use some kind of IAS which depends on the X-Envelope-To: Header. Is there a solution which puts the X-Envelope-To: Header in all incoming mails? Claude -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP-Public-Key
Anti-SPAM and my DNS
It just came to my attention that my domain is getting rejected for what appear to be Anti-SPAM / DNS related issues. Could one of the DNS gurus on the list check me on what I think is wrong? My mail server is sassafrass.softlock.com (204.165.216.231). We are suddenly getting bounces, with log messages as follows: Aug 17 08:32:07 sassafrass qmail: 934893127.225645 delivery 52940: failure: Connected_to_212.54.64.155_but_sender_was_rejected./ Remote_host_said:_555_does_not_resolve_-_check_your_DNS_(#5.1.2)/ Aug 17 12:40:02 sassafrass qmail: 934908002.875160 delivery 53661: failure: Connected_to_195.60.31.17_but_sender_was_rejected./ Remote_host_said:_501_[EMAIL PROTECTED]..._Sender_domain_must_exist/ Aug 17 13:17:05 sassafrass qmail: 934910225.563674 delivery 53788: failure: Connected_to_199.246.69.20_but_sender_was_rejected./ Remote_host_said:_550_'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'_sender_address_target_ 'softlock.com'_is_not_a_valid_e-mail_domain./ 'softlock.com' has an MX record pointing to 'sassafrass.softlock.com.' Sassafrass resolves to 204.165.216.231. There's also an A record for 'softlock.com' that points to 208.218.134.68. Neither 'softlock.com' nor 'sassafrass' have PTR records for reverse DNS, which I believe is the problem. I'm trying to get the DNS admin to fix this, but is there anything else wrong here while I'm at it? Part of the mystery is why this seems to be suddenly happening. One of the recipients causing an error above went through fine on August 5th. And there was a deferral here which doesn't make sense: Aug 17 13:40:53 sassafrass qmail: 934911653.029886 delivery 53856: deferral: Connected_to_207.69.231.11_but_sender_was_rejected./ Remote_host_said:_450_[EMAIL PROTECTED]... _Sender_domain_not_compliant_with_RFC_822,_section_6.2.7/ I've read 6.2.7 (Explicit Path Specification) and I don't see what that has to do with anything in the sender domain. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wierd tcpserver DNS failure problem
I am running tcpserver to run qmail-smtpd. I have patches applied to let me use rules based on reverse DNS as well as IP range (yes, I know that's insecure) although they don't seem to be the problem here. I also have a small tarpitting patch to qmail-smtpd.c, but it's not active for the site in question. This site can't deliver mail to me: Aug 17 15:02:30 xuxa qmail-smtpd: MAIL FROM MX (temporary) check failed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [193.164.172.32] (HELO hydrogen.electronic-vending.net) When I do a lookup, it doesn't have an MX but its forward A record and reverse PTR appear to be fine. I've restarted BIND, qmail-send, and tcpserver, doesn't make any difference. Any ideas? Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
HELP! queue not sending
qmail v 1.03 with the "AOL patch" and Maildir support...was working fine for months and then: It's acting very strangely...the queue started out a a couple hundred emails this morning and is up to about 730 now, for no apparent reason. Some emails are being delivered and some aren't...I couldn't even subscribe to this list from my normal account; I had to use a sendmail box, yet that account is still getting mail from other lists. I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant. the only problems I've had recently are: 2 days ago /var filled up, which screwed up the syslog and I'm sure didn't help the queue any. I've since purged the offending logfiles and gotten syslog working again. We also had a local DNS problem last night and this morning which has been fixed. I've got a few customers whose outgoing email really needs to be delivered, but while the ALRM signal doesn't even get qmail to attempt to deliver their email, although it does for a few, more recent emails. Any hints/help appreciated!
Re: Anti-SPAM and my DNS
Quoting Greg Owen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): It just came to my attention that my domain is getting rejected for what appear to be Anti-SPAM / DNS related issues. Could one of the DNS gurus on the list check me on what I think is wrong? My mail server is sassafrass.softlock.com (204.165.216.231). We are suddenly getting bounces, with log messages as follows: Aug 17 08:32:07 sassafrass qmail: 934893127.225645 delivery 52940: failure: Connected_to_212.54.64.155_but_sender_was_rejected./ Remote_host_said:_555_does_not_resolve_-_check_your_DNS_(#5.1.2)/ I saw on NANOG this morning that h.root-servers.net was returning authoritative NXDOMAIN for a time. After seeing your post, I looked in our mail logs and see a lot of our customers sent email early this morning that was bounced for DNS errors. Aaron
Re: postmaster autoresponder
On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 03:00:06PM -0700, Racer X [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm toying with the idea of setting up an autoresponder for "postmaster@" mail. Reason: there's too many people, both customers and outsiders, who don't read the part about "this is the qmail program" and attempt to reply to postmaster with questions. (Granted, they don't read the abuse autoresponder either, particularly the part about "this is an autogenerated message", but at least this way they know they won't be getting a personal response...) Humans should read your postmaster email. People are supposed to ask for help there. Often a postmaster can figure out the correct address for a local user or definitively say the person has moved on and the address is no longer useful.
.qmailadmin-limits problem
Hi everyone, I finally configured the qmailadmin + qmail and everythings seems to be working well. I only have 2 problems now: 1) the .qmailadmin-limits file works, but for example, if you erase one alias (and you previously reached the max # of aliases allowed) so you would have 1 free to add, it still says that the max # was reached, even if you have one alias available. 2) As ken said, no implementation of support for local users is still not done in qmailadmin, anybody resolved this? 3) When creating a new user with the vchkpw command "vadduser" for the local domain, it doesn't create the file .qmail (containing: "./Maildir/") so the mail is not delivered to that account, how can I fix this?. I'm using Solaris 2.6...any idea?. Thanks 4 everything!. Martin.
Re: HELP! queue not sending
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote: qmail v 1.03 with the "AOL patch" and Maildir support...was working fine for months and then: It's acting very strangely...the queue started out a a couple hundred emails this morning and is up to about 730 now, for no apparent reason. Some emails are being delivered and some aren't...I couldn't even subscribe to this list from my normal account; I had to use a sendmail box, yet that account is still getting mail from other lists. I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant. I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as to why a message was deferred. Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok. Chris
Re: HELP! queue not sending
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Chris Johnson wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote: I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant. I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as to why a message was deferred. Like I said, it doesn't show anything that I can see: Aug 17 14:02:03 richard2 qmail: 934912923.663159 end msg 274702 Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.571908 new msg 274702 Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.573256 info msg 274702: bytes 780 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 20832 uid 1825 Aug 17 14:02:12 richard2 qmail: 934912932.925614 new msg 274705 Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok. I did, per the FAQ... anything else?
Disconnected Operation
Hello everyone, I've got a mail server on a private network (192.168.x.x) which I want to periodically pick up mail from my server that's co-located elsewhere. Both servers are running qmail. The public server has MX records for my domain, pointing to it. Mail to/from there seems to be working just fine. I want the private server to periodically dialin, pick up the messages, send any that are queued (this is already working), and deliver via POP (also already working). SO, do I switch the public server from handling the mail as a standard domain to a virtual domain? How do I get the private server (which has a DYNAMIC IP address) to pickup the mail? I've looked at both fetchmail and serialmail. I think I understand how to do this with fetchmail, but I cannot make heads or tails of the serialmail "docs". Any advice, suggestions, etc? Thanks in advance, -Scott
Re: HELP! queue not sending
check that you've got enough smtp ports available. I've seen our queue build like that when we hit tcpservers default 40 smtp sessions limit. (On a side note am i correct in saying that tcpservers 40 default is not the same as concerrency remote)? is port 25 slow to respond? and how about syslog, is it eating a lot of cpu? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spark Sistemas - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. Tel: 4702-1958 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - eric User JAMES escribió: On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Chris Johnson wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote: I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant. I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as to why a message was deferred. Like I said, it doesn't show anything that I can see: Aug 17 14:02:03 richard2 qmail: 934912923.663159 end msg 274702 Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.571908 new msg 274702 Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.573256 info msg 274702: bytes 780 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 20832 uid 1825 Aug 17 14:02:12 richard2 qmail: 934912932.925614 new msg 274705 Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok. I did, per the FAQ... anything else?
relay testing
Just to make sure I went and tried the relay test that MAPS' tester says may be a problem. The message was accepted however the % imparted no special meaning to how the local address was treated and a bounce message was sent, since there was no local address with a % in it. About the only problem with this, is that in these days of spammers, it would be nice to have the message refused rather than generate a bounce message locally and end up with double bounces for a lot of spam.
Re: bad deliver
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Chris Garrigues writes: Note the 10.x.x.x addresses...this is clearly all behind a firewall. Presumably, he has an internal DNS that does have A and PTR records for qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com. That doesn't help me if he contacts my smtp server, and it says "HELO hostname doesn't match the forward DNS of the reverse DNS? You're a spammer -- go away". If your SMTP server gets a packet from a 10.x.x.x address, you won't even be able to ACK it and he'll never even get a chance to say "HELO hostname". I'm on a system who's IP address is 10.2.252.1 and who's name is backstroke.deepeddy.com; when I send mail to you it goes through an IP-masq firewall and looks to you like it came from a system with a real IP address and a real hostname. It's the nature of internal-only addresses. Chris -- Chris Garrigues virCIO http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ http://www.virCIO.Com +1 512 432 4046 +1 512 374 0500 4314 Avenue C O- Austin, TX 78751-3709 My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft. PGP signature
Re: Wierd tcpserver DNS failure problem
Quoting John R Levine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): This site can't deliver mail to me: Aug 17 15:02:30 xuxa qmail-smtpd: MAIL FROM MX (temporary) check failed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [193.164.172.32] (HELO hydrogen.electronic-vending.net) When I do a lookup, it doesn't have an MX but its forward A record and reverse PTR appear to be fine. I've restarted BIND, qmail-send, and tcpserver, doesn't make any difference. Any ideas? I got a SERVFAIL when querying for an MX record. It would seem that the antispam patch doesn't go on to look for an A record if SERVFAIL is the result of an MX check. I'm not sure if this is appropriate behavior or not, really. I got the same result when I telnetted to port 25 and used hydrogen.electronic-vending.net in mail from. Aaron ; DiG 8.1 mx hydrogen.electronic-vending.net ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 6
Re: Queue quiery - strange results.
At 11:11 AM 8/17/1999 +0300, Georgi Kupenov wrote: myhost:~# qmail-qstat messages in queue: 2 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0 myhost:~# qmail-qread myhost:~# Any ideas? I get that during FreeBSD's periodic scripts (I had to modify them to use qmail's commands instead of sendmail). A similar thing happened under sendmail. The message is in the queue because it's being piped from somewhere else (like the periodic script), but there's no info for it because it isn't "finished" yet. The script mails its own output, and part of its output is a list of what's in the mail queue. So the script's own mail is partially in the queue, but not completed yet, so there's no info on it. If that's not the case, take a look at the queue/mess and /info directories. --Ludwig Pummer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HELP! queue not sending
...as it turns out...another reboot fixed it. Not sure why the first didn't (could be the syslog problem that was fixed afterwards), but some child processes went crazy, and I didn't wait long enough for them to stop during one of my stop-and-restarts. Thanks to everyone who responded! On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote: check that you've got enough smtp ports available. I've seen our queue build like that when we hit tcpservers default 40 smtp sessions limit. (On a side note am i correct in saying that tcpservers 40 default is not the same as concerrency remote)? is port 25 slow to respond? and how about syslog, is it eating a lot of cpu? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spark Sistemas - presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. Tel: 4702-1958 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - eric User JAMES escribió: On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Chris Johnson wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:14:06PM -0400, User JAMES wrote: I used qmHandle and can see no real pattern as to which emails aren't working. I've sent qmail-send serveral ALRM signals, rebooted, etc, to no avail; syslog shows no errors that appear relevant. I'll be the first to say it: what's in the logs? There you'll find a reason as to why a message was deferred. Like I said, it doesn't show anything that I can see: Aug 17 14:02:03 richard2 qmail: 934912923.663159 end msg 274702 Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.571908 new msg 274702 Aug 17 14:02:10 richard2 qmail: 934912930.573256 info msg 274702: bytes 780 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 20832 uid 1825 Aug 17 14:02:12 richard2 qmail: 934912932.925614 new msg 274705 Also, before sending an ALRM to qmail-send, run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok. I did, per the FAQ... anything else?
Can not get with Netscape or Outlook.
I installed qmail 1.03 on a fully updated Mandrake 6.0 box. The testing in TEST.receive and TEST.deliver all work. At the moment I am not using Maildir. My problem is that trying to access my email from Netscape or Outlook fails. My mail is there. I can read it with pine if I log directly into the email server. There are no log file errors to speak of. I know that I am not giving specifics, but mainly I am asking for ideas as to what might be my problem. Is pop messed up? Port 110 seems to be working. I have an identical setup on a Mandrake 5.3 box that works just fine. Mandrake 6.0??? ACK!!! Thanks for the help! Dan
Re: Can not get with Netscape or Outlook.
At 04:11 PM 8/17/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I installed qmail 1.03 on a fully updated Mandrake 6.0 box. The testing in TEST.receive and TEST.deliver all work. At the moment I am not using Maildir. My problem is that trying to access my email from Netscape or Outlook fails. My mail is there. I can read it with pine if I log directly into the email server. There are no log file errors to speak of. I know that I am not giving specifics, but mainly I am asking for ideas as to what might be my problem. Is pop messed up? Port 110 seems to be working. I have an identical setup on a Mandrake 5.3 box that works just fine. Mandrake 6.0??? ACK!!! Thanks for the help! Dan Your pop3 daemon is probably looking for /var/spool/mail/username. The default qmail setup delivers mail to ~username/Mailox. Read the docs, it explains this.. -Dustin
Re: Queue quiery - strange results.
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Georgi Kupenov wrote: myhost:~# qmail-qstat messages in queue: 2 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0 myhost:~# qmail-qread myhost:~# Any ideas? Yes. It is quite simple (TM). You probably are receiving two messages concurrently and qmail has already written them (partially) on queue (to be more exact /var/qmail/queue/mess/?/xxx) but hasn't written the "rest" of the message on /var/qmail/queue/[mess | remote] so qmail-qread doesn't ack the messages since they are not entirely queued. Don't worry about it it's normal. -- Tiago Pascoal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX : +351-1-7273394 Politicamente incorrecto, e membro (nao muito) proeminente da geracao rasca. Recem empossado (engajado) cidadao da republica das bananas. Beethoven was this deaf, he thought all the time he was a painter.
Re: bad deliver
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 12:21:07PM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: I'm a bit confused about how initial injection is logged. qmail-smtpd via tcpserver is receiving the message, but I cannot find where (or if) it is logged. Regarding the user who requested to see logs, I did in fact send them in an earlier message. Again: Actually, you were asked to include the recordio program in your qmail-smtpd invocation, thereby recording all smtp traffic. Part of the reason you seem to be getting increasingly abrasive messages is that you aren't apparantly reading the offers for help that you're getting. -- John White johnjohn at triceratops.com PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
question on big-todo patch
I just installed the big-todo patch on one of my servers, and am running a mailing of around 350k names. I am frequently getting the following error: find: cannot open queue/todo/117188: No such file or directory find: cannot open queue/todo/117514: No such file or directory any idears? Thanks, :) Lyndon Griffin Systems Engineer ||| Naviant ||| 100 buckets of bits on the bus 100 buckets of bits Take one down, short it to ground FF buckets of bits on the bus FF buckets of bits on the bus FF buckets of bits Take one down, short it to ground FE buckets of bits on the bus...
Re: Can not get with Netscape or Outlook.
Dustin Marquess wrote: At 04:11 PM 8/17/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I installed qmail 1.03 on a fully updated Mandrake 6.0 box. The testing in TEST.receive and TEST.deliver all work. At the moment I am not using Maildir. My problem is that trying to access my email from Netscape or Outlook fails. My mail is there. I can read it with pine if I log directly into the email server. There are no log file errors to speak of. I know that I am not giving specifics, but mainly I am asking for ideas as to what might be my problem. Is pop messed up? Port 110 seems to be working. I have an identical setup on a Mandrake 5.3 box that works just fine. Mandrake 6.0??? ACK!!! Thanks for the help! Dan Your pop3 daemon is probably looking for /var/spool/mail/username. The default qmail setup delivers mail to ~username/Mailox. Read the docs, it explains this.. -Dustin I do have the spool files setup correctly. They are also setup the same on both boxes. I am really stumped. :( Dan
User Name length restriction
Is there any way to increase the username length to more that 8 charactersthat freeBSD imposes?I have moved to Qmail recently and I have a few users who would like to usetheir previousmail address.Thanks in anticipation.-Samar
Not receiving message from Internet
HI, Our email server wont receive mails from certain domains while it =does receive from others.Is there any filter that does it? How can I find out the reason for the =problem.Thanks-Samar
RE: IMAP drivers with helper indexes databases (was RE: Inode/filelimits)
The imap server (From the all the code in maildir.c) never changes a message. The only thing it changes is flags which are file name changes. Right. I was wrong when I thought it did. The question is what sort of performance gain would you get using a database alongside (Assuming you can't use locking so you have to copy the entire thing for every update you want to make to the database) When you make your local copy should you use that copy for the entire session of the imap and only copy it back when you are done (or do some sort of checkpointing of moving it back every 10 minutes or so) Or copy/move it for every single change? How big would the database get with about 1000-2000 messages. Hum.. you bring up some valid concerns with the "copy and move" strategy for maintaining a database without locking. I'll have to do some more thinking and investigation and see what I come up with. For example, I'm not even sure what header information should be stored in the database. I guess the only way to know for sure is to write the code and measure the perfomance, but any ideas? Would it really help? Well, I'm particularly concerned about web based e-mail clients, which I suspect have to grab a listing of all the messages in a folder whenever they show the Inbox, whereas terminal clients would only grab a listing once a session or less if they store their own database. I think it would be a good idea to do some testing with a real web-based e-mail client and the current Maildir driver. I could setup recordio to capture the IMAP conversation between the server and the client, as well as running a strace on the client to see how labored things get with lots of messages. I can help write the code (or write it) if people think it might speed things up... I have already tweaked the UW/Imap code to split the Maildir cur directory into 10 sub directories so that each sub directory has a balanced number of messages in it. (This increases speed for flag changes significantly since flag changes are filename changes, which if you have 5000 files in a single directory can be time consuming :) The next step would be to use a database for UID/Header/Flag data. Where the Maildir is still an "Authority" on the data but there is a helper database that can be consulted. It would be great if I could get my hands on this patch from you. The patch you describe and any summary database that we might develop would go a long way towards making the Maildir driver more robust for large mailboxes, and I'd like to post them on www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/. Also, you mention the idea of moving the UID/Header/Flag data into a database while keep reverse compatibility. I'm not sure that we have to really keep reverse compatibility, because the 10 hashed cur directories that you have created already killed the ability for other Maildir clients to read the Maildir, right? - David Harris Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
Re: User Name length restriction
Samar Vijay writes: Is there any way to increase the username length to more that 8 characters that freeBSD imposes? I have moved to Qmail recently and I have a few users who would like to use their previous mail address. I think, Samar, that you're failing to make a distinction between a username and an email address. Unix doesn't help you make that distinction, since both concepts are merged into one. However, there is no reason why that should be so. The Unix machine expects a username for authorization and authentication. qmail as shipped will make a perfect match between username and email address, because that is traditional. You can, though, create your own mapping from username to email address and email address to username. qmail delivers mail using multiple algorithms. Basically, though, users/assign gets a chance and if it doesn't find a match, it falls back to qmail-getpw. If that doesn't match, there is no such local address. So, if you don't use users/assign, then the standard qmail-getpw runs, and it looks in /etc/passwd. Now, in your case, you have a simpler problem than remapping all of your usernames. You just have to create some aliases. Like this: echo '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' ~alias/.qmail-samarvijay Forward the mail to their current username. Configure their email client so it generates email using the long version of their name. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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: question on big-todo patch
Lyndon Griffin writes: I just installed the big-todo patch on one of my servers, and am running a mailing of around 350k names. I am frequently getting the following error: find: cannot open queue/todo/117188: No such file or directory find: cannot open queue/todo/117514: No such file or directory any ideas? Did you clean out the queue after installing the patch? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com 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!
ORBS and other relay blockers
This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database? It's true that ORBS generally lists only hosts that actually return relay spam, but it's not invariably true -- he listed some of my addresses for a while because he was mad at me. ORBS probes come from a single IP address so it's easy just to block them with tcpserver rules. While you're at it, you might as well block some of the other SMTP relay scanners: # ORBS 202.36.148.5:deny # null.dk 194.192.207.9:deny # IMRSS 199.0.22.2:deny -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Re: Lots and lots of qmail-queue's
] Check your tcpserver-log. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a broken M$ ] mailer that is trying to send the same email to you over and over again, ] pretty much like a DOS-attack. This has happened to me several times ] and having IIS with SP4 causes it. Yes, this seems to be the explanation, but what now ? I can filter out the faulty machines that I know about, but what if other come along ? Is there anything I can do ? Also, how do other MTA cope with this ? I'm asking this because we switched recently to qmail, but this IIS client went unoticed until now, meaning that old and big PP (our previous MTA) knew what to handle it. I try to contact the administrators of the broken systems and convince them to fix the problem on their side, because that's where the problem is really. I guess you could change Qmail's behaviour somehow to get rid of the problem but I don't think it's the right solution. / daj
