Re: Odd.
You might try using formail to rewrite the headers and make sure they are not split... Then, have formail extract the headers 1 by 1 and reread the msg with outlook to see which header is causing the problem... Maybe we could try duplicating the problem with different domains etc and then we could see exactly what makes outlook barf. Kelly Prescott On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Alex Shipp wrote: > I use outlook too, and didn't see anything unusual with the messages > immediately preceeding yours. Since your message is still on the > server, what happens if you re-read the message with a different > copy of outlook, and/or a different version? > > -Original Message- > From: Dustin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my > >server. > > > > > This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System > http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm > >
Relay Problem- Problem resoulving hos-
Hello I'm having problem relaying e-mail via my qmail host. I check on my Network configuration and evrything works fine. here is the error message I get. Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.941915 new msg 46856 Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.943248 info msg 46856: bytes 672 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 618 uid 82 Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.953853 starting delivery 11: msg 46856 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 7 12:28:12 access1 qmail: 947266092.954264 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.465598 delivery 11: failure: Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_named_usa.net?._(#5.1.2)/ Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.471587 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.490534 bounce msg 46856 qp 620 Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.493392 end msg 46856 Jan 7 12:28:13 access1 qmail: 947266093.517319 new msg 46857 Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
RE: Odd.
For reference, there are known issues in Outlook 2000 Express which cause messages to occaisionally be unreadable in Outlook 2000. It is caused by character set issues which are annoying as hell if you ask me :) Regardless, it is only a "some-of-the-time" issue. MS knows about the bug and will probably fix it sometime never... it only seems to be a problem when viewing the message in Outlook 2000 DESPITE the fact that it is a deficiency in Outlook Express. In other mailiers, there is just a garbled letter or two at the beginning of the body. I think it's obvious this isn't your problem :) But the reason I mention it is to show that Outlook 2000 does NOT like misformed messages. And to set the record straight, integrating the mailer/scheduler/contact management is a great thing for our company. It may not be for yours, but that's your company's issue. Those of you fruitlessly attacking a perfectly fine solution that you wouldn't use, save it. It may not be your solution, but it's not necessarily a bad one either... -Original Message- From: Dustin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 1:57 PM To: Strange; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Odd. That's funny when I see a message From: Strange, Re: Odd. :) a) The original sender used Eudora Pro, I'm using Outlook 2000. b) I'm behind a masquerading gateway using a custom-patched Amavis installation to scan e-mails for virii. The message in question was actually still in another delivery location (I log *all* incoming mail to a different location that doesn't get touched by Amavis), and that copy was also wrapped. c) I'm using the qmail pop daemon. Dustin -Original Message- From: Strange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Odd. On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote: > I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my > server. Ok, then, why not fill us in on these sorts of details in advance? You would not believe the number of questions asked on this list where such a simple thing as checking the saved message on the server has not been done. Also: a) Are there any mail clients in common between the senders of these messages? Qmail will not "correct" headers. b) Are you or any of the senders behind any kind of firewall? What one(s)? c) What POP server program are you using? -M Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
ANNOUNCE: getmail v.0.98, a 'fetchmail' replacement
Slightly off-topic (flames in private mail, please), but applicable to qmail users: getmail 0.98 is now available from http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/getmail/ getmail is intended as a simple replacement for fetchmail, for those who don't need all of its various features, configuration options, and bugs. It retrieves mail only from POP3 servers, and delivers reliably to Maildirs. mbox delivery is also possible, but should not be attempted over NFS. It is written in Python and released under the GPL version 2. It can retrieve all mail, or only unread messages, from an unlimited number of POP3 mailboxes on one or more POP3 servers. Configuration and usage is straightforward and simple. getmail now has experimental support for domain (multidrop) mailboxes, with delivery instructions on a per-recipient basis. Changes since version 0.95: -experimental support for domain (multidrop) mailboxes. Please read the documentation for configuration and limitation information. -Slightly changed creation of 'From ' mbox delimiter line for overly picky mail clients. -Options to delete retrieved mail, and to only retrieve unread mail, can now be specified on a per-account basis in the .getmailrc file. The options are specified in each account section, with 'delete=value' and 'readall=value', where value is '1', 'true', or 'yes', or '0', 'no', or 'false'. -Changed password entry method. -Fixed a bug which resulted in failure to deliver to an mbox file when there was no Return-Path: header in a retrieved email. -Fixed a bug where explicitly specifying the --dont-delete or -l options (even though they are the default) caused mail to be deleted from the POP3 server. -The GETMAIL environment variable is now unnecessary if your getmail configuration/data directory is located at $HOME/.getmail -Some unnecessary code removed. -Exit codes changed. 0 means mail retrieved, 1 means no mail, -1 means fatal error, and 100/101 are exits due to options --help and --dump. Any questions, feedback, etc, is greatly appreciated, but should be done in private email. Charles Cazabon -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ My opinions are just that -- my opinions. ---
RE: Odd.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote: > a) The original sender used Eudora Pro, I'm using Outlook 2000. Nod. Was that the case for all the letters that had the problem for you? > b) I'm behind a masquerading gateway using a custom-patched Amavis > installation to scan e-mails for virii. The message in question was > actually still in another delivery location (I log *all* incoming mail to a > different location that doesn't get touched by Amavis), and that copy was > also wrapped. Next: What logs/moves it? What patches, if any, were applied to your qmail source tree? > c) I'm using the qmail pop daemon. Check. I haven't seen this problem with the distribution POP3 daemon under any cirdumstances, and I have it working for a cluster of art/graphics/photo houses which use a ton of different mail clients, and receive some of the most messed up mail I have ever encountered. -M Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
Re: qmail on rh 6.1 alpha problem
Welp.. I've been running qmail 1.03 on a Debian slink box for over a year.. DEC Multia 166Mhz 64MB RAM 3.1GB HD egcs 1.1.2 glibc 2.1.1 Without any unaligned traps.. Unaligned traps usually mean that the code isn't 64-bit clean and that the DEC firmware has kicked into some special compatibility code. (Which is slow as hell). I believe Aaron Nabil just posted some Alpha patches for qmail, maybe you should give those a try. Let me (and probably Aaron too) if they help you. If they do, I'll slap them on my Alpha! :) -Du -Dustin At 02:19 AM 1/9/00 , Kelly Prescott wrote: >Hello. I have qmail-1.03 running on a rh 6.1 box This is a DEC Alpha. I >seem to be getting exceptions and core dumps from cyclog and occationally >qmail-lspawn. >I am by no means a programming expert. I was just curious to see what >might be causing this and what I might do to solve it. >My first thought is maybe running out of resources etc... This is a >standard redhat installation and a out-of-the-box qmail compile. >The system is a Alpha 533 mhz lx164 w 256 megs of ram and 9 gb uh SCSI >drive. We probably do about 60,000 messages per day. This is where >sendmail started to barf and we happily upgraded. >I am including some log entries of the exceptions. >I would greatly appreciate any pointers or help. > > log >Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at >000120003c20: 0001201093e3 29 1 >Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at >000120003c28: 0001201093eb 28 1 >Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at >000120003c2c: 0001201093ef 28 10 >Jan 5 22:15:35 alpha kernel: cyclog(21878): unaligned trap at >000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 >Jan 5 22:15:35 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] >(fc31241c) >Jan 6 15:43:58 alpha kernel: cyclog(29443): unaligned trap at >000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 >Jan 6 15:43:58 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] >(fc31241c) >Jan 6 15:54:07 alpha kernel: cyclog(2248): unaligned trap at >000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 >Jan 6 15:54:07 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] >(fc31241c) >Jan 7 16:46:47 alpha kernel: cyclog(11912): unaligned trap at >000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 >Jan 7 16:46:47 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] >(fc31241c) >Jan 8 13:01:45 alpha kernel: cyclog(5593): unaligned trap at >000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 >Jan 8 13:01:45 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] >(fc31241c) > >Kelly Prescott.
RE: Odd.
That's funny when I see a message From: Strange, Re: Odd. :) a) The original sender used Eudora Pro, I'm using Outlook 2000. b) I'm behind a masquerading gateway using a custom-patched Amavis installation to scan e-mails for virii. The message in question was actually still in another delivery location (I log *all* incoming mail to a different location that doesn't get touched by Amavis), and that copy was also wrapped. c) I'm using the qmail pop daemon. Dustin -Original Message- From: Strange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Odd. On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote: > I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my > server. Ok, then, why not fill us in on these sorts of details in advance? You would not believe the number of questions asked on this list where such a simple thing as checking the saved message on the server has not been done. Also: a) Are there any mail clients in common between the senders of these messages? Qmail will not "correct" headers. b) Are you or any of the senders behind any kind of firewall? What one(s)? c) What POP server program are you using? -M Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
RE: Odd.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Dustin Miller wrote: > I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my > server. Ok, then, why not fill us in on these sorts of details in advance? You would not believe the number of questions asked on this list where such a simple thing as checking the saved message on the server has not been done. Also: a) Are there any mail clients in common between the senders of these messages? Qmail will not "correct" headers. b) Are you or any of the senders behind any kind of firewall? What one(s)? c) What POP server program are you using? -M Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
Re: Odd.
I use outlook too, and didn't see anything unusual with the messages immediately preceeding yours. Since your message is still on the server, what happens if you re-read the message with a different copy of outlook, and/or a different version? -Original Message- From: Dustin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my >server. This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm
RE: Odd.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Dustin Marquess wrote: > > I have a hard time believing that Outlook is just being > strict on RFCs, since it's usually M$ that breaks the RFCs in the > first place, and Anyways, why do you need a journal and scheduler > built into your MUA? because most people at work send me messages saying where I'll be needed for a consulting gig, or where /when meetings will be held. Where I worked before I used outlook, now I use Eudora Pro and Netscape Calendar. I theink the point here being that I use what everyone else is using inside my organisation. Finally... qmail makes very few changes to the contents of a mail message submitted via SMTP. if the contents of a message is unreadable after pasing through qmail I think it unlikely that it was qmail that despoiled it. RjL == You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
RE: Odd.
I checked the original messages, since I don't delete messages from my server. Everyone responding to this thread seems to think that I'm unwilling to admit that Microsoft is the problem. While true, they are the cause of the majority of my daily headaches, in this case, MS has nothing to do with it. Dustin -Original Message- From: Ronny Haryanto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 10:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Odd. On 09-Jan-2000, Dustin Miller wrote: > It wasn't my mailer that wrapped those headers in that message. They > arrived here wrapped. So it's either the other message author's MUA or the > MTA. If you open the message with Outlook, how can you be sure it has not been tampered with by Outlook? You have to prove that the headers are already wrapped _before_ you open it with Outlook. -- Ronny Haryanto
Re: Odd.
On 09-Jan-2000, Dustin Miller wrote: > It wasn't my mailer that wrapped those headers in that message. They > arrived here wrapped. So it's either the other message author's MUA or the > MTA. If you open the message with Outlook, how can you be sure it has not been tampered with by Outlook? You have to prove that the headers are already wrapped _before_ you open it with Outlook. -- Ronny Haryanto
RE: Odd.
It wasn't my mailer that wrapped those headers in that message. They arrived here wrapped. So it's either the other message author's MUA or the MTA. -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 9:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Odd. Dustin Miller writes: > It's off-topic, anyway, if no one will concede that it might actually be > qmail's fault. Oh, well, it *might* be qmail's fault, but given the numer of people who have been using qmail-1.03 over the length of time that it's existed, you'll have to come up with some pretty good evidence. So far, you've just asked if it might be qmail's fault, and the answer has to be: not bloody likely. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
RE: Odd.
Dustin Miller writes: > It's off-topic, anyway, if no one will concede that it might actually be > qmail's fault. Oh, well, it *might* be qmail's fault, but given the numer of people who have been using qmail-1.03 over the length of time that it's existed, you'll have to come up with some pretty good evidence. So far, you've just asked if it might be qmail's fault, and the answer has to be: not bloody likely. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
My non-cannonical patch list
This isn't intended to be a list of all patches, patches that I think you should apply, or anything like that. It is just part of an internal log I keep so I know what I've changed. I was hoping some people might find it useful (I certainly would have killed for something like this when I started with qmail), and was also hoping to encourage other "mature" installations to share their wisdom about what they changed in qmail. This is from a 10k user site that's been running qmail for about a year, and we are running in a single-UID environment that is very much like a POP toaster. I'm just looking at vpopmail now to handle our virtual domain stuff instead of the way we are currently doing customer domains. (some of these are specific to the alpha, and although qmail is mostly free of aligment and word-size dependancies, the "ULL" stuff are the few places it isn't) qmail-1.03/Makefile (several changes) qmail-1.03/conf-cc cc -O2 -Olimit 768 -misalign qmail-1.03/dns.c big aol DNS patch qmail-103.patch qmail-1.03/install-big.c pop bulletins qmail-popbull-1.03.patch mail-1.03/qmail-pop3d.c MAKE_NETSCAPE_WORK right from QLDAP uidl patch qmail-pop3d-1.03.diff fix for STAT buglocal fix for extra /r/n bug local fix to uidl patch local qmail-1.03/qmail-popup.c ignore after @ local lowercase username local eudora CAPA qmail-popup-CAPA-2.patch qmail-1.03/qmail-smtpd.c syslog envelope local LF RFC fix local qmail-1.03/qmail-popbull.c new file from qmail-pop3d-1.03.diff checkpassword-0.81/Makefile some changes checkpassword-0.81/checkpassword.c get data from users cdb local mess822-0.58/caltime_tai.c alpha ULL fix local mess822-0.58/caltime_utc.c alpha ULL fix local mess822-0.58/conf-cc cc -O2 mess822-0.58/conf-ld cc -s mess822-0.58/conf-ld cc -s mess822-0.58/ofmipd.c smtp auth mostly from brisby smtpd version lowercase username local ignore after @ local allow passwd retry local OFMIPLOCAL local took out PIPELINING local mess822-0.58/tai_now.c alpha ULL fix local rblsmtpd-0.70/rblsmtpd.c multiple lookup hacklocal add IP address to error local ucspi-tcp-0.84/Makefile add env.a for recordio local ucspi-tcp-0.84/recordio.c RECORDIO hack local TODO mime-bouncesqmail-mime.tgz tarpitting tarpit.patch -- Aaron Nabil
Re: The Canonical Set of qmail Patches
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski writes: > > Why can't we make something like this (qmail-whatever)? > > This way we can port all the exisiting patches that everyone is applying > > these days into one bit patch > > and later on supporters can work off this patch to add more feautres? > > Applying a lot of patches to qmail these days leads me into reading diffs > > manualy and adding them by hand. > > > > Is this idea anything good in your opinion? > > Sure. Propose a canonical set of patches. About the only thing I > install, and only on very high volume sites, is big-todo. Oh, and the > rblsmtpd multiple -r option patch. Given that MAPS > (http://mail-abuse.org) has adopted the DUL and RSS zones, you really > need multiple zones. And running multiple copies of rblsmtpd (Dan's > suggested solution) is too much of a hack, given the simplicity of > Aaron Nabil's patch. Cool, thanks! I like being useful. :) But I was a bit surprised that you overlooked my POP "stat" bug on your page, since qmail has so few (if any) other bugs, I was kinda expecting it to get better billing. (maybe even it's own category and little box like all the other categories!) It isn't even mentioned! Considering how much a bug like that could screw up a email client, I'd certainly put it (and the big-dns thing) into the "must patch" category. It still lives at http://www.spiritone.com/~nabil/popstatbug.diff and a search of the archives would turn up some explanatory material, in case anyone needs it. -- Aaron Nabil
qmail Digest 9 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 875
qmail Digest 9 Jan 2000 11:00:01 - Issue 875
Topics (messages 35248 through 35267):
Qmail, virtualdomains and amavis
35248 by: Einar Bordewich
Re: Slow delivery of large message
35249 by: bert hubert
Re: Odd.
35250 by: Peter Green
35251 by: Troy Frericks
35253 by: Einar Bordewich
35254 by: Tim Hunter
35255 by: Dustin Miller
35256 by: Aaron L. Meehan
35257 by: Dustin Miller
35262 by: Dustin Marquess
35264 by: Russ Allbery
35267 by: Dustin Miller
Virtual domains and bouncing emails
35252 by: me Custodio
.qmail questions
35258 by: jay
35259 by: Einar Bordewich
qmail-qlint 0.55
35260 by: Russell Nelson
suggestion for qmail 2.0
35261 by: Giles Lean
Qmail V1.03 POP3 Authentication Failure
35263 by: Kevin Frith
Qmail V1.03 Authentication Failure - SOLVED. =)
35265 by: Kevin Frith
qmail on rh 6.1 alpha problem
35266 by: Kelly Prescott
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
The latest tarball of AMaViS (0.2.0-pre6-clm-rl-4 ) is not handling virtualdomains
very well. Have anyone made a patch for this do work. I also appended -f{mailfrom} in
scanmails.in:
cat < qp 23532
uid 1001
qmail: 947335924.203454 starting delivery 37: msg 999433 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail: 947335924.203546 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
qmail: 947335925.298990 new msg 999447
qmail: 947335925.299217 info msg 999447: bytes 2076 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
23715 uid 1008
qmail: 947335925.300800 end msg 999447
qmail: 947335925.352348 new msg 999447
qmail: 947335925.352568 info msg 999447: bytes 1645 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
23720 uid 1008
qmail: 947335925.355694 starting delivery 38: msg 999447 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail: 947335925.355815 status: local 1/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335925.418456 new msg 999448
qmail: 947335925.418687 info msg 999448: bytes 623 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
23726 uid 1008
qmail: 947335925.421966 starting delivery 39: msg 999448 to
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^
qmail: 947335925.422084 status: local 2/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335925.442034 delivery 37: success:
qmail: 947335925.442216 status: local 1/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335925.442272 end msg 999433
qmail: 947335926.522386 delivery 39: success:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
qmail: 947335926.522573 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335926.522631 end msg 999448
qmail: 947335926.575286 delivery 38: success:
10.10.10.10_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_947332282_qp_4738/
qmail: 947335926.575459 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
qmail: 947335926.575516 end msg 999447
--
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:09:05PM -0700, Monte Mitzelfelt wrote:
> I've got a fairly large (45k+ message) being sent to a mailing list of
> about 1100 people. It is getting "qmail-spawn unable to create pipe"
> errors each time the message hits the delivery stage. At this point, I
> also can't seem to ALRM it into sending for some reason. It is running on
> Solaris 7 (SunOS 5.7 is what uname -a reports anyway).
It sounds like you are running out of some kind of resource. Study the
fields that can be set in /etc/system. If this is not an option, try
lowering remote-concurrency. I suspect you are running out of
filedescriptors somewhere.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 10:09:02PM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote:
> Why is that, every now and then, I receive messages that Outlook just seems
> to bungle up? All of the message's headers appear in the body of the
> message, and the "From:" header seems to be missing. If just happened with
> the last message that just went out on the list.
I had this problem incessantly with my ezmlm+idx lists. It turned out to be
stray ^M characters in the headers that were being added to each message.
Why it only turned up in *some* messages is beyond me.
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:09 PM 1/7/00 , Dustin Miller wrote:
>Why is that, every now and then, I receive messages that Outlook just seems
>to bungle up? All of the message's headers appear in the body of the
I don't really know what you mean by "bun
RE: Odd.
My reasons for using Outlook shouldn't be under scrutiny. I use those functions in an all-in-one program which I keep open /all the time/ during my business day. That's enough of an explanation. I do not believe it is entirely Outlook's fault, and I'd really like to get down to the nitty-gritty of what causes Outlook to do that, and where the blame truly lies. Believe me, I'd like to just say "It's Outlook 2000's fault", that's easy and fun, but it might not be. It's off-topic, anyway, if no one will concede that it might actually be qmail's fault. Dustin -Original Message- From: Dustin Marquess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 11:36 PM To: Dustin Miller Cc: Aaron L. Meehan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Odd. I have a hard time believing that Outlook is just being strict on RFCs, since it's usually M$ that breaks the RFCs in the first place, and since Outlook seems to be the only mailer having this problem... Anyways, why do you need a journal and scheduler built into your MUA? -Dustin At 05:32 PM 1/8/00 , Dustin Miller wrote: > > A: Use another mailer. > >Show me a Win32 mailer that has integrated contact management, journalling, >and scheduling, along with a word-based junk mail and adult mail filter, >with a little bit of programmability tossed in for good measure, and I'm >sold. > >Until then, I would have to guess that the problem isn't actually with >Outlook itself, but some other step along the way. Sure, Pine displays the >messages fine -- it's quite lenient when it comes to messaging standards. >But somewhere out there, someone's sending mail that, either by their own >MUA or MTA, or the qmail-list's MTA, is not comformant to standards. > >Someone has mentioned previously that messages that have too many newlines >in the header (or something of that nature) will cause Outlook 2000 to barf. >Well, then -- a message like that violates the RFC's for e-mail, doesn't it? >Or am I wrong here. > >People say the same thing about Netscape / IE when a page doesn't appear >right. However, usually, it's the fault of the source HTML. A missing >quote or closing tag bracket may be ignored by one browser, and look really >odd in another one (one that's more strict). > >I guess the bottom line is: When it comes to reading e-mail, Outlook 2000 >(et. al.) are strict in what they're expecting, and messages that violate >the related standards cause it to choke in some fashion or another. > >To help debug this, I have enclosed a message that recently showed up in >Outlook with no "From:" in the message list, and with all message headers in >the body of the message (Outlook doesn't display any message headers, its >only fault, IMHO). > >Dustin > > >-[ begin bungled message ]- > >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: (qmail 25177 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2000 03:50:00 - >Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181) > by el02-24-29-203-57.ce.mediaone.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2000 03:50:00 - >Received: (qmail 12846 invoked by uid 1002); 8 Jan 2000 03:50:01 - >Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm >Precedence: bulk >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: (qmail 19521 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2000 03:50:01 - >Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (192.51.44.36) > by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 8 Jan 2000 03:50:01 - >Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp >(8.9.3/3.7W-MX9912-Fujitsu Gateway) > id MAA08812 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:49:38 > +0900 (JST) > (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Received: from fsas.fujitsu.co.jp by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp >(8.9.3/3.7W-9912-Fujitsu Domain Master) > id MAA23535; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:49:37 +0900 (JST) >Received: from CL973712 (cl973710.fsas.fujitsu.co.jp [172.21.2.218]) > by fsas.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7WFsas Mail Server) with SMTP id >MAA07002 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:49:36 +0900 (JST) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1-J >Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 12:54:14 +0900 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Kristina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: SMTP error >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >I have qmail-smtpd setup using inetd. . >However when I try to send mail by >telnet localhost 25. I get the following error: > >502 unimplemented (#5.5.1) $B!!(B***ERROR HERE > >Does anyone know what may be causing this? > >Thanks in advance, >Kristina >P.S Sorry about the empty message before! > >-[ end bungled message ]-
qmail on rh 6.1 alpha problem
Hello. I have qmail-1.03 running on a rh 6.1 box This is a DEC Alpha. I seem to be getting exceptions and core dumps from cyclog and occationally qmail-lspawn. I am by no means a programming expert. I was just curious to see what might be causing this and what I might do to solve it. My first thought is maybe running out of resources etc... This is a standard redhat installation and a out-of-the-box qmail compile. The system is a Alpha 533 mhz lx164 w 256 megs of ram and 9 gb uh SCSI drive. We probably do about 60,000 messages per day. This is where sendmail started to barf and we happily upgraded. I am including some log entries of the exceptions. I would greatly appreciate any pointers or help. log Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at 000120003c20: 0001201093e3 29 1 Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at 000120003c28: 0001201093eb 28 1 Jan 6 08:15:13 alpha kernel: qmail-lspawn(15881): unaligned trap at 000120003c2c: 0001201093ef 28 10 Jan 5 22:15:35 alpha kernel: cyclog(21878): unaligned trap at 000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 Jan 5 22:15:35 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] (fc31241c) Jan 6 15:43:58 alpha kernel: cyclog(29443): unaligned trap at 000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 Jan 6 15:43:58 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] (fc31241c) Jan 6 15:54:07 alpha kernel: cyclog(2248): unaligned trap at 000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 Jan 6 15:54:07 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] (fc31241c) Jan 7 16:46:47 alpha kernel: cyclog(11912): unaligned trap at 000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 Jan 7 16:46:47 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] (fc31241c) Jan 8 13:01:45 alpha kernel: cyclog(5593): unaligned trap at 000120001ee8: 0001200033a6 2c 31 Jan 8 13:01:45 alpha kernel: cyclog: Exception at [do_entUnaUser+852/1056] (fc31241c) Kelly Prescott.
