Re: qmail & inetd.conf

[Fred Backman]

Either I've totally misunderstood your question or else I think you have
misunderstood what /etc/inetd.conf is for. inetd is a daemon listening
for incoming connections from a user on all the ports listed in the
file, and upon connection inetd then starts the corresponding program
which will then communicate with the user. So by putting the qmail
startup code in inetd.conf, you basically tell inetd to start qmail
every time someone sends an email to your mail server, which is surely
not what you want. Don't you want inetd to start the smtp daemon every
time someone sends an email?

The script to start qmail is usually put somewhere in the /etc/rc*.d/
directories, which means it's started up every time the machine
(re)boots. I'm sure you can find the explanation in the qmail
documentation.

If you for some reason want to restart qmail regularly, e.g. at 8
o'clock each morning, then you write a script which handles the restart
and put this script in the crontab file, though to be honest I can't
really see the point of doing this. You could have a cron job which
frequently checks if qmail is operational, and if it isn't, restarts it
or sends you an email or something.

Hope this cleared things up a little bit :-)

cheers
Fred

System Administrator wrote:

> can qmail live without an entry in /etc/inetd.conf on solaris 7?
>
> can it just be happy with the following in /etc/init.d/inetsvc:
>
> csh -f '/var/qmail/rc' &
> echo "qmail started..."
>
> /basit

POP3

[courtney]

I have Qmail installed on a FreeBSD 3.2 box and want to allow  users to
check their mail via POP3 clients- I downloaded and installed the
checkpassed package- but  I believe tat I have to add a line to my startup
files- what is it??

Thanks,
bernie

help: qmail question

[wenwei]

hi,all

  My system: RH v6.0 qmail-1.03 tcp-server  maildrop-0.70
 mess8.22 ( ofmipd instead of smtpd )  serialmail

 * /etc/ofmipd.cdb:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]: personal name:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 When I send to email, find email From: and Return-Path: header

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  change to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

When Email To: header , domain name is local domain name,

but user name write error ( no local user name ),

example:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] ,

then when email untread, email arrived into ~alias/Maildir,

not arrive into sender mbox. I don't know how to solve .

thanks

xww

how to use userdb

[wenwei]

hi,all

  my system: rh v6.0 qmail-1.03 maildrop-0.70   vchkpw-3.4.6

I can setup /etc/userdb.dat in term of help, but i'm using vchkpw package

for "virtual" accounts . I don't know to how to use /etc/userdb.dat.

Would you please tell me an example?

thanks

xww

RE: restarting qmail

[J.P. Racine]

Stephen,

 A kill -HUP seems to always work for me.

J.P. Racine
Thot Networks

> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Berg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 1:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: restarting qmail
> 
> 
> I just added a new virtual domain to a qmail server and am curious as
> to the best/easiest way to restart qmail so it will see the changes
> in the rcpthosts and virtualdomains file under /var/qmail/control. 
> So far a kill -ALRM does not seem to get qmail-send to reread the
> virtualdomains file.
> 
> Stephen Berg
> //-USAF Instructor  -/-  Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer-//
> //- Home = [EMAIL PROTECTED]   -//
> //-   Work = [EMAIL PROTECTED]   -//
> //- http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/   -/-   http://www.3c0x1.com
>  -// 
> 
> 
> 

restarting qmail

[Stephen Berg]

I just added a new virtual domain to a qmail server and am curious as
to the best/easiest way to restart qmail so it will see the changes
in the rcpthosts and virtualdomains file under /var/qmail/control. 
So far a kill -ALRM does not seem to get qmail-send to reread the
virtualdomains file.

Stephen Berg
//-USAF Instructor  -/-  Reluctant NT User -/- Web Designer-//
//- Home = [EMAIL PROTECTED]   -//
//-   Work = [EMAIL PROTECTED]   -//
//- http://iceberg.3c0x1.com/   -/-   http://www.3c0x1.com -// 

Re: Any ideas?

[Matthew Harrell]

: If these are similar systems doing similar workloads, there's
: something "wrong" with the first system. The difference between the
: vmstat output formats implies that they're running different OS revs,
: which could be enough to explain the variance.

Actually, these two cases are similiar machines but the first has one processor
and the second two.   That's probably the difference you're seeing here.  They
are running the same kernel revision except one is compiled for SMP.

: Neither is swapping significantly, so memory doesn't seem to be the
: bottleneck.

That's good.

: Next step is to run iostat or equivalent during a peak period.

I don't seem to have iostat on my machine.  What's a good replacement?

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  Programmer - a red-eyed mumbling
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.   mammal capable of conversing with
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] inanimate objects.

Qmail and Cyrus-IMAP

[Joe Sollich]

Ok, this question was offered in this list thousent times certainly but I have
no sollution for the following: I need the qmail-cyprus-patch. All my attempts
to get 'http://www.periapt.com/qmail-cyrus/' end with an error 404. Does anyone
know an other URL for this patch and where can I get a good beginner-guidance,
possibly in german? By the way I try to get QMail 1.03 and Cyrus-imap-1.6.10 to
work together. thx.

Greetings,
  Joe



---
cu
  Joe Sollich   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  P/O-Box 2303  |  PGP-Key & Homepage:
  32095 Bad Salzuflen, Germany  |  http://members.tripod.de/joes_homepage

Re: Maildir patch on Qmail-imap-4.5

[Ken Jones]

There is a imap maildir modified source tar ball on 
http://www.inter7.com/vpopmail/

I don't know if it supports all the features correctly. However,
it has been tested by several isp system admin's. They reported
success. 

Here is the text from the page:
vchkpw now support IMAP!
opT from efnet #qmail has ported imap to talk to vchkpw. 
Pick up the tar file now. 

We have several people interested in maintaining this as a 
current version. So if you use it and program a fix or update,
please send us the code. Or go to efnet #qmail and tell
the folks there.


John Schmerold wrote:
> 
> Does the binary support Virtual Domains?  In particular, I'm interested in domains
> administered by Inter7's GUI.
> 
> David Harris wrote:
> 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
> > > handle Maildirs correctly?
> >
> > Why do you say patch the "Qmail-imap 4.5"? Almost sounds like you are referring
> > to an RPM that someone has created. If so, you need to know that a binary RPM
> > can not be patched. Instead you can only patch the IMAP 4.5 source code and
> > then compile a modified version.
> >
> > To get a working copy of the UW IMAP 4.5 server with Maildir support, you need
> > to take a base IMAP tarball, extract it, and apply a number of patches to the
> > source code. Detailed instructions and all the patches and tarballs you will
> > need are at:
> >
> >  http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
> >
> > Or you could use my RPM available at the same site.
> >
> > If you have any problems following those instructions first see the help on the
> > patch command, and then get in contact with me.
> >
> >  - David Harris
> >Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
> 
> --
> John Schmerold
> Katy Computer, LLC
> 20 Meramec Station Rd
> Valley Park, MO 63088
> 314-316-9000
> 314-316-9200 fax

Re : could not start qmail

[Tong YU]

Eventually I found out the source of the problem.
For some reasons, the .bashrc file was missing in the home directory.
After copying that back and
giving the appropriate rights, qmail can start now.
Thanks.

Tong

--
>Hello Everyone.
>I used Redhat Linux 5.2.
>I could not start qmail whether using
>csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'

>or execute the qmail-start ... command 
>directly. It just exit with code 111.
>Any hints ?
>( By the way, I did this in another machine
>also using Redhat 5.2 and was successful.
>I was able to create user accounts, virtual domains ... )

>Thanks.

>Regards,
>Tong

qmail & inetd.conf

[System Administrator]

can qmail live without an entry in /etc/inetd.conf on solaris 7?

can it just be happy with the following in /etc/init.d/inetsvc:

csh -f '/var/qmail/rc' &
echo "qmail started..."

/basit

Re: Maildir patch on Qmail-imap-4.5

[John Schmerold]

Does the binary support Virtual Domains?  In particular, I'm interested in domains
administered by Inter7's GUI.

David Harris wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
> > handle Maildirs correctly?
>
> Why do you say patch the "Qmail-imap 4.5"? Almost sounds like you are referring
> to an RPM that someone has created. If so, you need to know that a binary RPM
> can not be patched. Instead you can only patch the IMAP 4.5 source code and
> then compile a modified version.
>
> To get a working copy of the UW IMAP 4.5 server with Maildir support, you need
> to take a base IMAP tarball, extract it, and apply a number of patches to the
> source code. Detailed instructions and all the patches and tarballs you will
> need are at:
>
>  http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
>
> Or you could use my RPM available at the same site.
>
> If you have any problems following those instructions first see the help on the
> patch command, and then get in contact with me.
>
>  - David Harris
>Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services

--
John Schmerold
Katy Computer, LLC
20 Meramec Station Rd
Valley Park, MO 63088
314-316-9000
314-316-9200 fax

RE: Maildir patch on Qmail-imap-4.5

[David Harris]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i
> handle Maildirs correctly?

Why do you say patch the "Qmail-imap 4.5"? Almost sounds like you are referring
to an RPM that someone has created. If so, you need to know that a binary RPM
can not be patched. Instead you can only patch the IMAP 4.5 source code and
then compile a modified version.

To get a working copy of the UW IMAP 4.5 server with Maildir support, you need
to take a base IMAP tarball, extract it, and apply a number of patches to the
source code. Detailed instructions and all the patches and tarballs you will
need are at:

 http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/

Or you could use my RPM available at the same site.

If you have any problems following those instructions first see the help on the
patch command, and then get in contact with me.

 - David Harris
   Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services

Maildir patch on Qmail-imap-4.5

[Regnér]

How exactly do you patch Qmail-imap 4.5 so that i 
handle Maildirs correctly?

/Victor

qmail crash

[Gustavo Rios]

Hy, my qmail crash suddenly.

The message is:
oh no! lost spawn connection! dying...


Does anybody suggest what could make it crash ?
My system is freebsd 3-2 Stable, and the only thing bad here is the
problem related to qmail, my system uptime is 48 days, this only machine
is a ftp, ssh, http, pop3, smtp server, nothing else goes wrong, only
qmail.

i decide to run truss -p , but until now, nothing
happened. While this truss goes eating my system RAM memory.

I am afraid off not discoverying what is going on before truss eat *ALL*
my memory.

Hardware problem? I guess no, no other software crash, only qmail, and i
have already maked the *HOLE* world many times, nothing wrong.

i am really getting nut about all that, once no ideia come up into my mind
about what's is f.. my system.

Can any body help me?

Thanks a lot for your time and cooperation!

--
What's the similarity between an air
conditioner and a computer? They both
stop working when you open windows.

Re: IMAP/Maildir

[Magnus Bodin]

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Denis Voitenko wrote:

> Are there any known IMAP servers that would work with Maildir?

Check out David Harris excellent patch-fix for the UW-IMAP server.

http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/
 

-- 
magnus
-- MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/

RE: IMAP/Maildir

[David Harris]

Denis Voitenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Are there any known IMAP servers that would work with Maildir?

http://www.davideous.com/imap-maildir/

 - David Harris
   Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services

Re: Any ideas?

[Dave Sill]

Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> procs  memoryswapiosystem cpu
> r b w  swpd  free  buff cache  si  so   bi   bo   in   cs  us  sy  id
>10 0 0  1308  3888  5856 54780   0   0   17  150  427 2163  20  76   4
>
>   procs  memoryswap  io system cpu
> r  b  w   swpd   free   buff  cache  si  sobibo   incs  us  sy  id
> 3  1  0588   4788   6768 174512   0   056   231  602   819  20  37  43

The first system seems to be spending a lot of CPU in the kernel (the
sy column) and is nearly CPU bound. This is probably due to the high
rate of context switches (the cs column)

The second system spends half as much time in the CPU, and has CPU to
spare (the id column). The difference seems to be the context switch
rate which is less than half (819 vs 2163, in this case).

If these are similar systems doing similar workloads, there's
something "wrong" with the first system. The difference between the
vmstat output formats implies that they're running different OS revs,
which could be enough to explain the variance.

Neither is swapping significantly, so memory doesn't seem to be the
bottleneck.

Next step is to run iostat or equivalent during a peak period.

-Dave

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Nathan J. Mehl]

Okay, I lose credibility here for responding on-list when I said I
wouldn't, but I just couldn't let a whopper this size pass...

In the immortal words of Cris Daniluk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> There are no current court cases.

Oh yes there are.  AOL vs Cyberpromo.  Fascinating case, I suggest you
look into it, especially as its conclusion (which carries the weight
of law) directly contradicts most of your assertions here.

-n, shutting up now, really

--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for
Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point.  It was
the built-in blind spot of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed
Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place.(--HST)
--

IMAP/Maildir

[Denis Voitenko]

Are there any known IMAP servers that would work with Maildir?

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Nathan J. Mehl]

In the immortal words of Fabrice Scemama ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> Is Nathan trying to explain that qmail sends mail so fast that it
> can't be natural ? ;-)

Heh, there is an element of that.  Parallelizing MTAs such as qmail
and Postfix present a challenge when doing frequency analysis.
However, I would tend to think that this is the analyzer's problem,
not qmail's.

-n

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have seen the future of the net, and it's a pimply 14-year old boy shouting
"ADD ME TO THE LIST11!!!"  Forever.

Queue problems

[Kevin Sawyer]

I've noticed /var/qmail/queue/mess getting quite full lately, almost as if
qmail-clean has died.  However, it is still running.  When I stop/restart
the queue functions (qmail-clean, etc.), the queue shrinks back to normal
quickly.  I'm running qmail-1.03+patches under RH Linux 6.0 (kernel
2.2.5-22SMP) on a dual PPro 200Mhz box with a fantastic disk subsystem.  Any
ideas?

---
Kevin Sawyer - President/CEO - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Personal Computing, Inc. - APCiNet - http://www.apci.net
6001 Old Collinsville Road, Building #3, Fairview Heights, IL  62208
Office: (618) 632-7282  FAX: (618) 632-7287  Support: (618) 628-2Net 

remove

[Edward Dooner]

remove

Re: daemontools 0.6x

[Mate Wierdl]

I think you should read the man page for svscan and multilog.  Then
you will come up with a better setup.

Mate

Re: Any ideas?

[Matthew Harrell]

Okay, here goes again.  One machine does this:

 procs  memoryswapiosystem cpu
 r b w  swpd  free  buff cache  si  so   bi   bo   in   cs  us  sy  id
 4 2 1  1308  4660  7108 53960   0   0   17   285   17   9  21  32
10 0 0  1308  4372  7124 53828   0   06  153  471 2306  19  76   5
12 0 0  1308  4240  7212 53660   0   0   15  121  468 2297  20  77   3
10 2 1  1308  4084  7216 53740   0   05  214  497 2338  22  74   3
10 0 0  1308  3836  7224 53916   0   05  136  425 1982  21  74   5
 7 1 1  1308  4048  6844 53676   0   07  167  475 2299  22  75   2
10 0 0  1308  3944  6288 54224   0   0   15  223  442 2012  22  69   9
10 0 0  1308  3924  6312 54708   0   0   12  167  425 2107  20  76   4
10 0 0  1308  3888  5856 54780   0   0   17  150  427 2163  20  76   4
 9 0 1  1308  4708  5908 54836   0   0   13  194  482   19  75   6
 3 1 1  1308  4080  5932 55472   0   0   12  206  428 1788  20  73   7
11 0 0  1308  4756  5432 56000   0   0   25  202  470 2208  22  72   6
11 0 0  1308  3580  5468 56688   0   0   18  166  410 1941  21  74   5
10 0 0  1308  2976  5072 57216   0   0   31  180  445 2047  22  74   4
 9 0 1  1308  3468  4188 57828   0   0   36  170  433 2047  23  72   4
 3 1 1  1308  4208  3432 58516   0   0   35  245  454 1898  22  71   7
 3 3 0  1308  2948  3604 59572   0   0   37  212  380 1686  22  70   8
 4 0 0  1408  5000  2780 60216   0  10  111  198  490 1991  21  66  12
 3 2 0  1408  3160  3120 61412   6   0  102  197  423 1847  26  69   5
 8 0 0  1408  3528  3212 61068   0   0   53  186  432 2110  22  73   5
10 0 0  1408  3580  3200 60700   0   0   48  212  467 1983  23  72   5

And the other:

   procs  memoryswap  io system cpu
 r  b  w   swpd   free   buff  cache  si  sobibo   incs  us  sy  id
 0  3  0588   3532   7080 180396   0   0 837  223   218   7  15  78
 3  3  0588   4348   6852 179212   0   058   222  591   752  18  34  47
 2  2  0588   3844   6856 179332   0   049   221  557   766  21  33  47
 0  6  0588   2708   6632 179076   0   046   265  550   739  21  37  41
 0  3  0588   3388   6528 178464   0   060   163  564   672  17  29  54
 0  5  0588   3380   6432 178052   0   055   259  563   733  16  27  56
 1  5  0588   3080   6276 177920   0   040   226  496   642  20  37  43
 0  6  1588   3088   6328 177288   0   060   223  572   740  15  26  59
 0  3  0588   4008   6524 177716   0   067   119  648   757   6  14  80
 2  1  0588   2760   6616 175984   0   061   194  534   649  23  29  48
 4  3  0588   3844   6648 173592   0   064   294  610   757  22  36  43
 3  1  0588   4788   6768 174512   0   056   231  602   819  20  37  43
 4  1  0588   4544   6840 174368   0   059   228  575   791  17  34  49
 6  1  0588   3400   6924 173848   0   067   225  602   876  21  37  42
 5  1  0588   1736   7048 174124   0   074   220  667   983  20  39  41
 2  2  0588   3020   7112 174028   0   060   235  588   810  20  37  43
 0 12  2588   3464   7204 174704   0   084   264  731  1125  19  34  47
 6  2  1588   3068   7328 176220   0   059   157  605   919  18  36  46
 4  2  1588   3716   7380 177668   0   047   302  600   888  16  30  54
 3  1  0588   3440   7532 180124   0   072   198  673  1048  24  39  38
 0  9  0588   3132   7552 181320   0   057   279  656   895  15  28  57
11  0  0588   3456   7620 183184   0   057   191  634   871  17  27  56

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  Smile, it's the second best thing
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.   you can do with your lips
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Lobby mail.com

[craig]

>There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I
>sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my
>customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling
>our end of the deal between us and our customer. They paid us money, we
>didn't deliver.

In other words, your customer has every right to sue *you*.

Sam's exactly right.  If you and your customer not only want to rely
upon a third party (an ISP) to conduct legally-binding business,
but want to reserve the right to *sue* that third party over it's
failure to continue to meet your expectations, then it is up to *you*
to enter into a *legally binding contractual agreement* with that
third party.  (Actually, it's probably best for both you and your
customer to do so -- to ensure the ISP recognizes email coming from
you, to your customer, as never to be rejected for any reason.)

Yes, there are cases where the agreement is considered implicit, even
in the absence of a contract between two parties.  E.g. the requirement
that a building constructed such that it blocks a pathway long used
by pedestrians must provide continued public access through it, which
leads to nonsense like businesses shutting down public access to their
private parking one day per year just to establish that they don't always
provide it, to avoid being caught up in such lawsuits without a quick
exit available.

But, the moment the Internet community perceives that someone might
even have a ghost of a chance succeeding with a lawsuit such as has
been proposed *here*, a substantial percentage of ISPs and email-hosting
sites will *shut down* their email (SMTP processing) with a message
saying something like "we are having problems with our email system,
but expect it to be fixed by [24 hours from shutdown], which happens
from time to time as you all know".  The rest of them will do the
same thing later, on a fairly arbitrary schedule.  All to try to eliminate
the argument that "well, it was there before and always worked, so I get
to sue the moment it isn't there for me".

Do you really *want* that to happen?

Further, it will be interesting to see how a lawyer tries to explain
how the concept I cited is extended to email, given facts such as:

  -  there exist *plenty* of alternate routes, i.e. other than
 the SMTP port of an "offending" ISP, to reach the end user
 of that system

  -  the end user of that system could always maintain accounts on
 other ISPs and ask that duplicate mails be sent to them, to
 assure likelihood of receipt of at least one of them (i.e. plenty
 of alternate routes on the receiving end as well)

  -  letting pedestrians walk through your vacant lot for 30 years
 and then erecting an impassable obstacle is hardly the same
 thing as letting pedestrains walk through your back yard for
 10 years but putting up "private property, keep out" signs
 whenever you see an armored tank division rolling your way
 (the equivalent of a huge flood of email)

In particular, *spam* will be impossible to distinguish from "wanted
email" in this kind of lawsuit, because the protocols used to exchange
the email do not include any way to assure "wanted" status.

Therefore, any whiff of a legal requirement to accept "legit" email
from anyone, anytime, will amount to accepting spam, and probably
denial-of-service attacks, as well.  Spammers will probably be the
first to sue, though I think they have tried already (and failed).

Of course, the present US tort system might well encourage such lawsuits
nevertheless.  Change it so the plaintiff pays triple *requested* damages
when the suit is determined to be frivolous (i.e. the problem can be
solved by entering into a legal agreement with the 3rd party, in this
case), and also make sure the jury can never award more than requested
damages, and I assure you nobody would *ever* bring such a case to trial.
(Note, I'm not arguing for "loser pays" *here*.)

IANAL, but I play one on the Internet.  ;-)

And I'm finding the Internet to be more and more full of the sorts of
people who respond to not getting their pet email through (or seeing
themselves as possibly in that boat) by talking about hiring lawyers,
rather than making mindnumbingly simple adjustments in their privileged
little lifestyles.  ("Like, place a phone call, goober, and use a modem
on both ends if it *really* has to be data you exchange."  I said
basically this to some guy who pestered the EGCS mailing lists with
off-topic posts and got booted off -- the only guy to get booted? -- and
who also claimed, on that publicly archived mailing list, that my ISP was
run by incompetents because it wouldn't accept his email.  He then
went on to tell me in private email that if I didn't *immediately*
agree with him and switch ISPs, I was an "elitist".  I told him never
to email me again, which is too bad since he was technically quite bright
and seemed interested in some o

Information

[J.P. Racine]

Hi I'm new,

 Is this where I complain about the mail.com stuff?

Think about it,
J.P. Racine
Thot Networks

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Paul Farber]

> A better question: how can anybody NOT?

If you want to run a mail SERVICE then you need to provide the ability to
send and recieve mail to/from anyone anywhere.  Sure, if you can catch a
spammer then block it.  But by your OWN ADMISSION flitering the bad guy
rarely works.  They just change who/how they sent it and you are back at
square one. (See below)

> Spammers can change their names, change their addresses, alter the
> length and content of their mail, forge their headers, hide behind
> proxies, register their assets in the Carribean, get sex changes and
> crouch down behind shubberies, but there is one fingerprint they can
> never, ever change: in order to have a prayer of making a profit, they
> have to send out a lot of mail, really quickly.

I have a priets with a cc'ed list of church information... he is a
spammer?
 
> If I see a host that I do not recognize appear out of the blue and
> start pumping hundreds or thousands of messages an hour into my mail
> server, the odds are pretty on that it's a spammer.  If it's not, I'm
> not averse to apologizing later on.

Basically we have learned that mail.com dosen't know what it is doing.
And that you make be on that same path.  If you want to stop spammers,
take them to court.  Filtering e-mail just pisses the rest of us off.  If
you are serious about protecting your network resources then ACTUALLY FIND
THE SPAMMER, and sue them.  It's actually pretty easy.  They usually give
you the address or phone number you can use to get in contact with them. 

I think I've got it. (was: Re: qmail and statistics)

[Bill Johnson]

I've made a small modification to multilog in daemontools, and written a
perl script which will allow me to tail through the cycling log just as if
it were a single text file. The way it works is, multilog will write a line
to the effect of "CLOSING LOG FILE" when it is about to cycle to a new log,
and the perl script detects this, closes the old log, waits a tenth of a
second, then opens "current" again. It seems to work quite well. Since this
seems it could be useful to a lot of people, if anyone's interested feel
free to email me for a copy of the sources.

Bill Johnson
MicroStrategy

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Sam]

Einar Bordewich writes:

> Actually I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to gain some wisdom around qmail and 
>it's solution. I think the subject "Re: Lobby mail.com" and it's legal issues is some 
>kind of boring now. (Time to stop or move to another list for legal issues?)
> 
> What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail check the RCPT TO: 
>against the actual users on my machine.
> 
> (PLEASE.. ;)

It takes about 50 lines of C code to do so.  I know, because I've done it.
It's not easy.

Unless you're comfortable with hacking the guts of qmail-smtpd.c, forget
about this ever happening.


-- 
Sam

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Sam]

Cris Daniluk writes:


> There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I
> sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my
> customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling
> our end of the deal between us and our customer.

If it is within my legal right to cut the route, which it is, since the
route lies on my private property, using private equipment that I paid for,
than that's just too bad.  I am under no legal obligations to conduct my
business in a way that does not conflict with yours.

> They paid us money, we
> didn't deliver.

Frankly, I do not care for your contractual obligations with your customer.
 It is none of my concern.  Until several key provisions of the Bill of
Rights are voided, I have every legal right to configure my equipment in
whatever way I see fit, unless it is a violation of existing law to do so.
Whatever impact it has on your business does not interest me very much. If
you put yourself in a situation where you depend on other entities that
have no legal obligations to you in order for you to conduct your business,
you have nobody but yourself to blame for your poor business choices.

> If you will all remember, Network Solutions' lawyers were in
> a similar situation when they were threatened with a blacklist for their
> high volume of spam. They made this very same argument.  That never saw a
> court room, but then again they aren't blacklisted are they?

They weren't blacklisted because they took steps to stop spamming.

> >The real question is, "are you a lawyer?"  If you're not, then you really
> >have no business speaking about the law in any forum.
> 
> Are you? Is Sam? Are any of us? No.

Good, so stop inventing laws that do not exist.

> and no, Sam, legal fees would not be awarded. If you'll do your homework,
> legal fees are rarely awarded except in exceptionally erroneous claims. My

A legal claim based on laws that do not exist would probably qualify as
"exceptionally erroneous".


-- 
Sam

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Sam]

Cris Daniluk writes:

> This may sound rude, but it's not intended to be--what country do you live
> in? I think you're either under a different set of laws, or have a
> fundamental misunderstanding of them.

My understanding of laws comes from established precedents - AOL versus
Cyberpromo, and Prodigy versus Cyberpromo, which states that system
administrators have a fundamental right to block any source of mail that
they see fit.  Even though AOL does not have explicit clauses in their
TOS/AUP giving them the right to block mail, the judge has ruled that they
have an implied right to do so, based upon the fact that this is private
property, and existing principles applicable to private property are in
force.

>Your claims are very inaccurate. VERY
> inaccurate. The only reason I bring this to the list is that there may be
> other people in the same situation as mail.com out there and I think they
> may be reading everything that comes through here as fact. It is illegal for
> them to block out legitimate email from customers when they agree to provide
> the mail to customers.

No, it's not illegal for them to do anything just because you think it's
illegal.  It is only illegal if it violates an existing law, which is what
"illegal" means.  Until you came come up with a statute which prohibits
what mail.com did, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

You have also completely ignored my pointer to mail.com's Terms Of
Service/Acceptable Usage Policy which clearly gives mail.com to arbitrarily
block incoming mail.  Your blather about them agreeing to this and that is
just that, blather, since they did not agree to anything you think that
they agreed to, and, in fact, they agreed to just the opposite.


>   They can make you sign contracts that say this is not
> so, but those contracts can have their legality tried in court. All ISPs and

Courts will not void existing contracts just because you think they should.
 The only way contracts can be voided would be if they violate an existing
law.

You're welcome to cite a statute that prohibits private property owners
from configuring their equipment in whatever way they see fit.

[ more gruborisms deleted ]


-- 
Sam

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Thomas M. Sasala]

YES!  Please move this flame war off line!  Thanks.

Einar Bordewich wrote:
> 
> Actually I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to gain some wisdom around qmail and
> it's solution. I think the subject "Re: Lobby mail.com" and it's legal issues is some
> kind of boring now. (Time to stop or move to another list for legal issues?)
> 
> What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail check the RCPT TO: 
>against the actual users on my machine.
> 
> (PLEASE.. ;)
> ---
> IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
> System Manager   Phone: +47 2205 3034
> E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---

-- 
+---+
+  Thomas M. Sasala, Electrical Engineer   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   +
+  MRJ Technology Solutionshttp://www.mrj.com   +
+  10461 White Granite Drive, Suite 102(W)(703)277-1714 +
+  Oakton, VA   22124  (F)(703)277-1702 +
+---+

qmail Digest 3 Sep 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 748

[qmail-digest-help]

qmail Digest 3 Sep 1999 10:00:01 - Issue 748

Topics (messages 29729 through 29806):

qmail and forwarding
29729 by: Van Liedekerke Franky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Any ideas?
29730 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29731 by: "Daniluk, Cris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29734 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29735 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29736 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29737 by: "Daniluk, Cris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29739 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29741 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29742 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29744 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29746 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29748 by: Dirk Harms-Merbitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29750 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29751 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29753 by: James Raftery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29754 by: Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29755 by: James Raftery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29756 by: "Daniluk, Cris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29757 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29758 by: Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29759 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29778 by: "Aaron L. Meehan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29784 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29788 by: "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

trouble injecting bounce message
29732 by: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Mail.com blacklisting
29733 by: Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29738 by: "Daniluk, Cris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29740 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29745 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

AUTOTURN questions
29743 by: "Filippos Slavik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

virtual domain users can't get msgs from maillists
29747 by: egor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29749 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29752 by: Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Alpha Base
29760 by: "Kulish, Chris (Des Moines)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29762 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29764 by: Stan Horwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29765 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29766 by: Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

daemontools 0.6x
29761 by: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29763 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29767 by: Tim Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29768 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Alias Manipulation by CGI Script
29769 by: Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29771 by: "Timothy L. Mayo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29775 by: Peter Gradwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Lobby mail.com
29770 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29772 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29773 by: "Daniluk, Cris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29774 by: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29776 by: "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29777 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29779 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29780 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29783 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29785 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29787 by: Ben Kosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29789 by: "James J. Lippard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29790 by: Ben Kosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29791 by: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29792 by: "James J. Lippard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29793 by: "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29796 by: "Cris Daniluk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29799 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29800 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
29801 by: "Cris Daniluk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29802 by: "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29803 by: Fabrice Scemama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29804 by: "Einar Bordewich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Problems with qpop and Solaris
29781 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

qmail and statistics
29782 by: "Bill Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

qmail SMTP delivery hangs while manual SMTp telnet works fine
29786 by: Emmanuel Mogenet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

.qmail-ext deliver to recepient and another maildir
29794 by: Steve Vertigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

SMTP Authentication
29795 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

could not start qmail
29797 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tong YU)

Block Email From Server
29798 by: "Cesar A. Iriarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29805 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29806 by: Tomasz Papszun <[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 all,

I h

Re: Block Email From Server

[Tomasz Papszun]

On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 at 11:22:11 +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 12:32:20AM -0500, Cesar A. Iriarte wrote:
> 
> If you use tcpserver, use the rules file to deny connections from the IP
> of that host. man tcprules. If you use tcp_wrappers, use the
> /etc/hosts.deny file to block connections from the IP address.

Or, just in case Cesar meant originating email address, not host really
sending a message, one can use  /var/qmail/control/badmailfrom .
See qmail-smtpd(8) .

> > Hi,
> > 
> > I would like to block any emails coming from a specific host from being
> > received by my server... is there an easy way to do this?

-- 
 Tomasz Papszun   SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland  | And it's only
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/   | ones and zeros.

Re: Block Email From Server

[Anand Buddhdev]

On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 12:32:20AM -0500, Cesar A. Iriarte wrote:

If you use tcpserver, use the rules file to deny connections from the IP
of that host. man tcprules. If you use tcp_wrappers, use the
/etc/hosts.deny file to block connections from the IP address.

> Hi,
> 
> I would like to block any emails coming from a specific host from being
> received by my server... is there an easy way to do this?

-- 
See complete headers for more info

Re: Lobby mail.com

[Einar Bordewich]

Actually I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to gain some wisdom around qmail and 
it's solution. I think the subject "Re: Lobby mail.com" and it's legal issues is some 
kind of boring now. (Time to stop or move to another list for legal issues?)

What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail check the RCPT TO: 
against the actual users on my machine.

(PLEASE.. ;)
---
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
System Manager   Phone: +47 2205 3034
E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---