multiple auto-reply messgs...(simple??)
Hello, I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales, etc). How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all arrive at the same pop account? Thanks. *** ICQ 22921676 MSM Interactive. El Bosque Norte 0134, Las Condes, Chile. Phone: (56-2) 234-9852 Fax: (56-2) 233-8912 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.msm.cl ***
Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
>The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work what about others? Outlook'97 does not have support for smtp-auth at all. '98 supports it. exactly like outlook express. Kris
Re: Message: "-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir"
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Bob Carpenter wrote: > But I DO have the maildir as created by "maildirmake", no? > > [root@mercury bob]# ls -al Mai* > -rw---1 bob bob 19136 May 12 13:07 Mailbox > -rw---1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir > [root@mercury bob]# No, the above ls output shows that you have a FILE named 'Maildir'. You do NOT have a Maildir/ directory as created by maildirmake. Delete the above file and rerun maildirmake as user 'bob'. Note: the ls output for a Maildir directory would have looked like the following: drwx--1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir - 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
Message: "-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir"
I've searched through several qmail archives and saw this question appear many times, but never found a solution that helped me. I've been following Dave Sills "Life with qmail" pretty much to the letter. OK, actually _TO_ the letter. I'm finding that the server happily accepts e-mail on both of the IP addresses and host names I've assigned to the box. It doesn't DELIVER them mind you, but they sit happily in the queue. It would appear as though I definitely have a mailbox type issue. # telnet localhost 110 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to mercury (127.0.0.1). Escape character is '^]'. +OK <9981.958401059@FQDN> user bob +OK pass xx -ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir Connection closed by foreign host. [root@mercury control]# more /var/qmail/control/defaultdelivery ./Maildir/ [root@mercury control]# But I DO have the maildir as created by "maildirmake", no? [root@mercury bob]# ls -al Mai* -rw---1 bob bob 19136 May 12 13:07 Mailbox -rw---1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir [root@mercury bob]# I've experimented with different types of delivery, as shown by the two mailbox types above. And now I seem to have broken it quite badly. As well as: [root@mercury bob]# tail -f /var/log/qmail/current @4000392008fb0ad9d30c status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @400039200a1207e7e33c starting delivery 1: msg 24123 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @400039200a1207e9b02c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @400039200a120852c29c delivery 1: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/ @400039200a1208541e44 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @400039200a1907d2b944 starting delivery 2: msg 24126 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @400039200a1907d42c5c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @400039200a19083a8b64 delivery 2: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/ @400039200a19083bdb54 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 As you can see by the Mailbox and Maildirs it once worked, once I started to mess with tcpserver my woes began. Ultimately this is just going to be a MTA/MDA box for MS Lookout clients. Any thoughts, suggestions and supportive criticisms, would be greatly appreciated. Bob R. (Bob) Carpenter CIO-Chief Information Officer RedSea Management Ltd. San José, Costa Rica (506) 204-3300 (506) 204-7090 fax PGP Key available by request.
RE: Message: "-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir"
Thank you! It works! Now the mystery is how did I make that file in the first place? I'm SURE that I followed the instructions in the qmail 'INSTALL.maidir' to create this file. (as shown below) maildirmake $HOME/Maildir echo ./Maildir/ > ~/.qmail But the directory now exists, the telnet to the localhost has been fixed too. I do notice that, unlike the tcpserver instructions, it does NOT echo back the users mail directory. Or is that not a normal function of tcpserver under Maildir? Bob > -Original Message- > From: Timothy L. Mayo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Message: "-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir" > > > On Mon, 15 May 2000, Bob Carpenter wrote: > > > But I DO have the maildir as created by "maildirmake", no? > > > > [root@mercury bob]# ls -al Mai* > > -rw---1 bob bob 19136 May 12 13:07 Mailbox > > -rw---1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir > > [root@mercury bob]# > No, the above ls output shows that you have a FILE named 'Maildir'. You > do NOT have a Maildir/ directory as created by maildirmake. Delete the > above file and rerun maildirmake as user 'bob'. > > Note: the ls output for a Maildir directory would have looked like the > following: > > drwx--1 bob bob 8956 May 12 13:29 Maildir > > > - > 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
SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
Hello all, is there a SMTP AUTH patch for qmail? Regards, Robert Varga
slow answer through firewall
Hello, we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to initiate while the connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that forwards the requests to the outside mailserver is fast. That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall but that qmail handles the connections differently. But I don't see a reason for this. Any clues? The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03. Thanks for any hints, Antje
Re: slow answer through firewall
Antje Koschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that > connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to time delays with connecting to port 25 always say to me 'ident' - ie, is the remote system attempting to make an ident (port tcp/113) connection back to you and suffering a delay because it gets no response and no TCP reset? (clues here would include looking at what your firewall is rejecting during this time.) it's fairly common practice, if you're not wanting to provide an ident response to remote systems for later tracking purposes, to configure filters to send TCP resets for port 113 (whereas most defaults are just to 'drop' the packet, ie ignore it and act as if it was never received.) James.
RE: Share queue between servers and other questions.
I'm on the list, no need to Cc me. Michael Boman wrote: > What I want is to be able to share the queue between n+2 > servers on each loocation Qmail's design specifically precludes putting the queue on a network filesystem, so you can't share it that way. One alternative is to set up something like N+1 host PCs connected to a SCSI disk array that allows multiple hosts, and to somehow configure all but one of the hosts as a failover. Perhaps even a NAS technology like GFS (http://www.globalfilesystem.org/) would work (but not definitely). However, I've never heard of anyone doing so, so you'd be forging into new ground. Note that in particular, you'd have to have the 2nd to Nth servers lying dormant until the 1st server is believed to be dead, because multiple instances of qmail can't be processing one queue at the same time. No mail system I know of supports this kind of setup by design, and I'm not sure it is easily possible under any of them. There's a reason for that. It isn't worth the trouble. Most people who are concerned about reliability and losing mail run N+1 independent servers, put the mail queue on RAID, and if one machine dies try to manually recover the mail on their second server. Your problem seems to be that you don't have local resources that can administer these machines if something goes wrong. If that's your problem, what you should do is buy a server with serious redundancy. Compaq (among others, I'm sure) makes servers with redundant power, disk, memory, and CPU. You're safe from pretty much anything except a fried motherboard. You can go a lot further with seriously redundant server hardware than you will with some homegrown shared server approach, especially where it looks like load is not your reason for multiple servers. Then just make sure you get notified when a power supply dies so you can get a new one out while the second is still working. > as well as be able to split a single domain's mailstorage > so each users doesn't need to download his/hers email from > the other end of the world. One way is to break down users into subdomains for delivery. I.e., given the email domain "bigdomain.com," with a primary MX server physically located in Singapore, and users in Singapore, Tokyo, and Hong Kong: You would need to set up forwarding on a user-by-user basis. User joe lives in Singapore? Then [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delivered locally there. User jane lives in Tokyo? [EMAIL PROTECTED] User josh lives in Hong Kong? [EMAIL PROTECTED] As long as their mail clients correctly send as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]," the illusion of a single domain is retained. You may or may not have to do some header rewriting on final delivery so that they don't end including [EMAIL PROTECTED] in their "Reply to..." mail messages. This is not a hard problem, it just doesn't have an elegant solution. If you need to do it that badly, then you can justify the added busy work. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiple auto-reply messgs...(simple??)
On 15-May-2000, Marcelo J. Iturbe wrote: > Hello, > I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales, > etc). > How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all > arrive at the same pop account? The trick is to generate auto-reply _before_ they arrive at the same mailbox. In .qmail-info: | /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/info mailbox In .qmail-support: | /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/support mailbox ...etc... Ronny
Re: multiple auto-reply messgs...(simple??)
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:38:47AM -0400, Marcelo J. Iturbe wrote: > I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales, > etc). > How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all > arrive at the same pop account? Do it in the control file for the various addresses. You probably have .qmail-info .qmail-support .qmail-sales .qmail-etc Set them up like .qmail-info # |autoresp-info ./Maildir/ # .qmail-support # |autoresp-support ./Maildir/ # Thus you have different autoresponders, but one POP3-Box. If you do it via a .qmail-default it's more complicated: .qmail-default # |autoresp-enhanced ./Maildir/ # Make "autoresp-enhanced" a script that checks $LOCAL and decides what text to send and then exit 0 Of course you could use this "autoresp-enhanced" also with the "more .qmail files" setup. \Maex
Re: qmail / mysql (/ldap)
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 03:29:45PM +0200, Joerg Ebel wrote: > is there a qmail-mysql-module, like qmail-ldap? You may take a look at http://www.softagency.co.jp/mysql/qmail2.en.html Never tried it myself ... \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Re: Disable telnet to port 110
WTF? Telnet has nothing to do with POP3. Comment out the telnet line in inetd.conf. If you need to filter port 110 that different, but it has nothing to do with POP3. Paul Farber Farber Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 On Sun, 14 May 2000, Matthew wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 May 2000, Mark Lo wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still > > let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > > tcpserver) > > > > with great difficulty i'm afraid. users will always be able to write > their own program to cummunicate on port 110. even if u where to delete > telnet they could just download a another copy. > is their a good reason for doing this? > > if u're users are not very "knowlegeable" then u could get the telnet > source code and stick in a line on code somewhere to check that the port > parameter is not 110, if it is then just print something like > "telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused". > this could prove confusing to your users! > they could still use many other program such as nc. > > > Thank You > > > > Mark > > > > > >
Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
Unfortunately members.elysium.pl cannot be resolved. Does someone have the patch downloaded, or knows a working address? Robert Varga On Tue, 16 May 2000, Colin Humphreys wrote: > Does this work with any Outlook versions? > > The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work what about others? > > thanks, > Colin > > - Original Message - > From: Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:34 PM > Subject: Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail? > > > > http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/ > > > > Kris > > > > > >
Re: Unix_Loveletter
A mistype, Apple instead of Apache. Robert Varga On Mon, 15 May 2000, Robert Varga wrote: > > > Maybe. I seem to remember about an interview on The Register with > a spokesperson from Microsoft Benelux mentioned that he knows of Linux and > Apache servers has been infected with Lovebug. Interestingly that person > was out of contact for quite a time after that, and MS Benelux denied that > they have stated anything such. > > Robert Varga > > > On Thu, 11 May 2000, Jon Rust wrote: > > > Hardly an issue since I know of not a single mail program on any UNIX > > that will automatically run an attachment. And even if you were > > foolish enough to run it, it would only effect your files, not the > > entire system's. > > > > If you get this virus, it's your own damn fault! :-) > > > > (Hmmm... wondering if MS created this just so they could say "see, > > other platforms can have it happen too!" Conspiracy theorists will > > have a field day.) > > > > jon > > > > At 12:01 PM +0200 5/11/00, Dewald Strauss wrote: > > >http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=UNIX_LOVELETT > > >ER > > > > > >*nix is loved too :-) > > > > > >
Re: Unix_Loveletter
Maybe. I seem to remember about an interview on The Register with a spokesperson from Microsoft Benelux mentioned that he knows of Linux and Apache servers has been infected with Lovebug. Interestingly that person was out of contact for quite a time after that, and MS Benelux denied that they have stated anything such. Robert Varga On Thu, 11 May 2000, Jon Rust wrote: > Hardly an issue since I know of not a single mail program on any UNIX > that will automatically run an attachment. And even if you were > foolish enough to run it, it would only effect your files, not the > entire system's. > > If you get this virus, it's your own damn fault! :-) > > (Hmmm... wondering if MS created this just so they could say "see, > other platforms can have it happen too!" Conspiracy theorists will > have a field day.) > > jon > > At 12:01 PM +0200 5/11/00, Dewald Strauss wrote: > >http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=UNIX_LOVELETT > >ER > > > >*nix is loved too :-) > >
Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/ Kris
qmail Digest 15 May 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1002
qmail Digest 15 May 2000 10:00:01 - Issue 1002 Topics (messages 41693 through 41711): Re: Disable telnet to port 110 41693 by: Matthew 41696 by: Uwe Ohse 41704 by: Daniel J. Zaccariello DNS configuration for virtual mail 41694 by: James 41697 by: Casey Zacek Re: Purpose of this list 41695 by: adil.tahiri Re: automatically resolve dns 41698 by: Erwin Hoffmann 41702 by: octave klaba 41703 by: Mark Lo 41705 by: octave klaba Re: Subject: SMTP & POP ports are non responding 41699 by: J. I. Sendoro Error messages... 41700 by: Mario Rafael 41701 by: Chris Johnson BACKUP POP SERVER 41706 by: Jhun Hubac is content level blocking possible 41707 by: Madhav Virtual Domain User not receiving mail 41708 by: James Re: Share queue between servers and other questions. 41709 by: Michael Boman can not send mail to remote host 41710 by: chenweih.PAIC.com.cn 41711 by: Mulindwa Eric 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] -- On Sun, 14 May 2000, Mark Lo wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still > let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > tcpserver) > with great difficulty i'm afraid. users will always be able to write their own program to cummunicate on port 110. even if u where to delete telnet they could just download a another copy. is their a good reason for doing this? if u're users are not very "knowlegeable" then u could get the telnet source code and stick in a line on code somewhere to check that the port parameter is not 110, if it is then just print something like "telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused". this could prove confusing to your users! they could still use many other program such as nc. > Thank You > > Mark > > On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:48:50PM +0800, Mark Lo wrote: > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still > let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > tcpserver) telnet and your mail client do exactly the same things. That means: if you disable telnet connections to port 110 you'll also disable your mail clients. Regards, Uwe You could: 1. Disable telnetd 2. Make the user's shell /usr/nologin or something (depends on your OS). At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote: >Hi, > > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using >tcpserver) > >Thank You > >Mark I have a question about my DNS setup for a virtual domain on my server.. I think this may be a reason I cannot send mail to my virtual domain user. Here is my current configuration for one of my virtual domains: ___ @ IN SOA ponyexpressdelivery.com. james.vivid-eye.com. ( 25132 ; Serial 3H ; Refresh 1H ; Retry 1W ; expire 1H) ; Minimum ; NS ns ;Inet Address of name server ; localhost A 127.0.0.1 ns A 63.224.195.57 ns2 IN A63.224.195.60 ponyexpressdelivery.com IN MX 10 www.vivid-eye.com. ponyexpressdelivery.com.IN A 63.224.195.57 www CNAME ns ___ Is this set up correctly for server vivid-eye.com? In the MX section, should I have "mail.vivid-eye.com." or "mail.ponyexpressdelivery.com." or is it ok as it is? If this looks ok, then I will describe the steps I took using Life With Qmail and why I can't send mail to a virtual user. James James spoke forth with the blessed manuscript: > > ponyexpressdelivery.com IN MX 10 www.vivid-eye.com. > ponyexpressdelivery.com.IN A 63.224.195.57 > cz@tuba:~% host -t mx ponyexpressdelivery.com cz@tuba:~% host -t mx ponyexpressdelivery.com.ponyexpressdelivery.com ponyexpressdelivery.com.ponyexpressdelivery.com mail is handled (pri=10) by www.vivid-eye.com cz@tuba:~% This line: > ponyexpressdelivery.com IN MX 10 www.vivid-eye.com. needs a ``.'' after ``ponyexpressdelivery.com'' -- -- Casey Zacek Senior Staff Engineer 1-800-Hosting.com I It is always worth checking the Archives of this mailing list on www.qmail.org.I bet that 99% of questions in this list are al
Re: slow answer through firewall
> we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that > connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to > initiate while the connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that > forwards the requests to the outside mailserver is fast. > That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall but that qmail handles > the connections differently. But I don't see a reason for this. > Any clues? > > The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the > mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03. I am also configuring a qmail-1.03 mailserver working through Checkpoint FW1 (4.0) on a Nokia. The mailserver is in a DMZ so smtp requests from inside go through the firewall. I also noticed a delay such as you describe, and noticed in the firewall log that the mailserver was trying to make an 'auth' connection (port 113) to the client, which was being dropped by the firewall. It wasn't until that timed out that the smtp connection continued. I configured the firewall to allow the auth connection, and the delay disappeared. I don't know the reason for the auth conenction. Hope this helps. Chris Harris System Manager STL Ltd. ph. 01228 512512 ext. 2211 fax 01228 514949
Re: slow answer through firewall
Thanks to all for your fast replies. Rejecting the ident* (auth at port 113) solved the probolem. Thanks, Antje On Mon, 15 May 2000, Administrator for OK 2 NET wrote: > > we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see > > the strange behaviour that connections from inside to an > > outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to initiate while the > > connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that forwards > > the requests to the outside mailserver is fast. > > That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall > > but that qmail handles the connections differently. > > But I don't see a reason for this. Any clues? > > > > The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the > > mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03. > > The ident* segments are being dropped by your firewall, > this causes the OUTSIDE server to wait for response. > > Solution 1: which I think is the best, is to REJECT all ident segments. > The reason for this is that many server expect some sort of reply > to accept connections or the will wait og make connections slow. > > Solution 2: you could allow all or some ident segments, > beware however that some NAT systems will have problems with ident. > Since the mailserver will not see the hidden IP and will send it directly > to the firewall, which the FIREWALL might not know where to send... > > Solution 3: set the TIMEOUT on the OUTSIDE mailserver to a lower number, > I would do this only if everything else fails. > > Solution X: You could mix your own configuration of RULES to make this work! > > > *ident is a small TCP connection on PORT 113 done by servers to "verify" the client, > your INSIDE mailserver being the client and OUTSIDE being the server in this case. > > > Regards André Paulsberg > > EMBL Computing & Network Group Antje Koschel Phone : +49 / 6221 / 387 287 Meyerhofstr. 1 Fax : +49 / 6221 / 387 517 D-69012 Heidelberg Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
courier IMAP and Outlook problem
Hi, I'm having difficulty getting MS Outlook 5 to create IMAP subfolders in Courier-IMAP. Does anyone have any experience of this, do they have it working? Can anyone offer any work around? Cheers, Del.
Metering POP related email traffic?
Watching the logs created by qmail-pop3d, I can see that the access frequency is always increasing. A POP connection results the retrieval of a message of finite size. This takes bandwidth too. However, the logs created by tcpserver and qmail-pop3d do not contain any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any hints for an alternative. Regards, Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:39:33AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote: > any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We > don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any > hints for an alternative. Perhaps your OS kernel supports IP firewalling with accounting? james -- James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375 "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
Well, mail must come into the system in order for it to be collected, so perhaps qmail-analog - the qmail log analysis tool ? It's available from www.qmail.org and is written by the author himself. so analysing the smtp logs will show you how much mail the user has received, but you must assume all mail was collected successfully. there is a -v switch you can add to tcp server to make its logging more verbose, i'm not sure if this would help or not. Regards, Jerry. Jerry Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aardvark IPLFax +353 21 896040 Morris houseTel +353 21 896060 Douglas Cork Ireland. http://www.aardvark.ie/ The package said Windows NT 4 or better - I installed UNIX
Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
Yes it does resolve, check your DNS At 04:12 PM 5/15/00 +0200, Robert Varga wrote: >Unfortunately members.elysium.pl cannot be resolved. Does someone have the >patch downloaded, or knows a working address? > >Robert Varga > >On Tue, 16 May 2000, Colin Humphreys wrote: > > > Does this work with any Outlook versions? > > > > The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work what about others? > > > > thanks, > > Colin > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:34 PM > > Subject: Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail? > > > > > > > http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/ > > > > > > Kris > > > > > > > > > >
Re: courier IMAP and Outlook problem
Hi Derek, There is a readme for setting up imap clients here: http://www.inter7.com/courierimap/README.imap.html Follow the instructions for the Outlook section. I have gotten it to work. Hope this helps, Cono - Original Message - From: Derek Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: qmail Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:16 AM Subject: courier IMAP and Outlook problem > Hi, > > I'm having difficulty getting MS Outlook 5 to create IMAP subfolders in > Courier-IMAP. > > Does anyone have any experience of this, do they have it working? > > Can anyone offer any work around? > > > Cheers, > > Del. > >
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:39:33AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote: > However, the logs created by tcpserver and qmail-pop3d do not contain > any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We > don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any > hints for an alternative. First it would be interesting how exact the metering should be! If you have to know about every byte in/out you could plug a modified "recordio" (from ucspi-tcp) just after the tcpserver command. (recordio fork()s and duplicates the data stream. Thus you have one stream for the "POP3 process" and one "locally" where you could simply count bytes in/out (instead of outputting them) and on the termination of the stream outout it, so it will show up in the logs. This is probably the better (and exacter) approach. The other possibility would be to patch qmail-pop3d.c to output the number of bytes on every successfull "RETR" command (probably to STDERR) and have them listed in the logfile. Both approaches are still kinda vague, as they do "content" accounting, which is different from IP accounting, as you won't catch TCP/IP protocol overhead, retransmissions on packet loss, etc. If you want to measure IP traffic, you should add some factor to the content data. From our experience a rather realistic formula is ip-traffic = 1.8 * content-size This however also depends on the kind of userbase you have. If they all are well connected the factor is smaller. If they access the POP3-Server mostly remote from bad connected dialins it may also be higher. The 1.8 is what we calculated from incoming/outgoing traffic for SMTP connections to/from our local customers and in/out from/to the Internet (i.e. mixed "userbase"). \Maex P.S. No, sorry, I don't have patches for any of the approaches I've described above. -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Re: Disable telnet to port 110
Quoting Daniel J. Zaccariello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > You could: > > 1. Disable telnetd telnetd listens on port 23, by default. > 2. Make the user's shell /usr/nologin or something (depends on your OS). If you think about this some more, you'll realize this isn't going to do anything for this person, either :) It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question. Aaron > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote: > >Hi, > > > > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > >tcpserver)
Re: Disable telnet to port 110
I think the original poster is just 'scared' because the POP3 protocol uses cleartext command (telnet, perl script, python) could connect up and get mail. Thinking that telneting to 110 and giving the same commands at a console is somehow 'hacking' a system. It will blow thier mind when they telnet to port 25 and can actually SEND mail! Paul Farber Farber Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 On Mon, 15 May 2000, Aaron L. Meehan wrote: > Quoting Daniel J. Zaccariello ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > You could: > > > > 1. Disable telnetd > > telnetd listens on port 23, by default. > > > 2. Make the user's shell /usr/nologin or something (depends on your OS). > > If you think about this some more, you'll realize this isn't going to > do anything for this person, either :) > > It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question. > > Aaron > > > > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > > I would like to know how to disable telnet to port 110, but still > > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > > >tcpserver) >
miniQmail and QMQP? (was: Share queue between servers)
1) Are any of you out there running miniQmail / QMQP? 2) What's the final word on which is recommended: multiple inbound SMTP servers, or a series of QMQP servers? (The goal is high volume / high availability). For the latter, here are the two configs I'm considering: Internet | | smtp |_ | | | MXa | MXb _|___ _|___ |miniQ||miniQ| ... |_||_| | | | qmqpc| |__|__ ___|_ ___ | qmail/ | | RAID | | qmqpd |---| -queue| |_| | -Maildirs | | |___| | NFS __|__ | | | | _|___ _|___ |qmail||qmail| ... |_||_| | |DNS round robin | pop | pop |__|__ | | Internet Here's the other config: Internet | | smtp |_ | | | MXa | MXb _|___ _|___ |qmail||qmail| ... |_||_| | | | NFS | |__|__ ___|___ | RAID | | -queue| | -Maildirs | |___| | NFS __|__ | | | | _|___ _|___ |qmail||qmail| ... |_||_| | |DNS round robin | pop | pop |__|__ | | Internet Notes: 1)For the moment, both POP sides are the same (I'm not sure what other POP options exist). 2)The first uses miniQmail; the 2nd does not. 3)The first has a "master" qmail server. The second are pure peers, offering better availability. Is the 2nd option even possible with qmail? Any and all educated input is more than welcome. How do some of you very large sites operate? Thanks! Dave _ Refs: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/mini.html http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmqp.html http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#organize http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#qmqpd http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#big-servers http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/QLDAPINSTALL http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/the-big-qmail-picture-103-p2.gif http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/179/1/1/1.html http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/175/1/1.html
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
> Well, mail must come into the system in order for it to be collected, > so perhaps qmail-analog - the qmail log analysis tool ? > > It's available from www.qmail.org and is written by the author himself. We are using that for metering SMTP traffic. However, there are three traffic streams that IMHO should be watched: o incoming SMTP traffic o outgoing SMTP traffic o POP traffic (message retrieval costs bandwidth) qmailanalog handles the first two quite well. I am having problems with the third one. I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total email bandwidth usage. I would like to find a way to make this metering more precise. The -v flag of tcpserver prints error messages and status messages, not sizes. Regards, Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED] > so analysing the smtp logs will show you how much mail the user has received, > but you must assume all mail was collected successfully. > > there is a -v switch you can add to tcp server to make its logging more > verbose, i'm not sure if this would help or not. > > > > Regards, > > Jerry. > Jerry Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aardvark IPL Fax +353 21 896040 > Morris house Tel +353 21 896060 > Douglas > Cork Ireland. http://www.aardvark.ie/ > > The package said Windows NT 4 or better - I installed UNIX > >
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
We are using Solaris boxes as mail servers. All mail servers have ipfilter installed. Ipfilter does offer ip traffic accounting, but as it's at IP level, so it's only useful to get overall bandwidth utilization, but I would also like to know which users are hogging up bandwidth most. The later requires application level data. Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We > > don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any > > hints for an alternative. > > Perhaps your OS kernel supports IP firewalling with accounting? > > james > -- > James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster >IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375 > "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like >herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
RE: Metering POP related email traffic?
Try using IPAC, it generates graphs for bandwith. You can specify the IP, port... - Original Message - From: Chin Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: James Raftery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Metering POP related email traffic? > We are using Solaris boxes as mail servers. All mail servers have > ipfilter installed. Ipfilter does offer ip traffic accounting, but as > it's at IP level, so it's only useful to get overall bandwidth > utilization, but I would also like to know which users are hogging up > bandwidth most. The later requires application level data. > > Chin Fang > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > any size info, and this makes metering POP traffic difficult. We > > > don't have control of our router, so I would be appreciative for any > > > hints for an alternative. > > > > Perhaps your OS kernel supports IP firewalling with accounting? > > > > james > > -- > > James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster > >IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375 > > "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like > >herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
RE: miniQmail and QMQP? (was: Share queue between servers)
To achieve the High Availability and Transparent down time, we are using a VERY NICE protocol specific proxy from bluetail.com. Their programmers wrote code for telco switches and they have a product that includes auto-failover, load-balancing, etc and has MANY re-writing and features that greatly exceed the capabilities of ServerIron or hardware loadbalancers. I highly recommend the product. You can have many POP, SMTP, IMAP, etc servers behind a couple of Bluetail servers. Then, assuming that you are using NFS-shared POP-dirs, you can up/down the qmail app servers with no effect to the end users. This works VERY well and prevents down time of any kind. They have an Web/Radius/DNS product as well. Duane. -Original Message- From: Dave Kitabjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 12:59 PM To: 'qmail Mailinglist' Cc: 'Greg Owen' Subject: miniQmail and QMQP? (was: Share queue between servers) 1) Are any of you out there running miniQmail / QMQP? 2) What's the final word on which is recommended: multiple inbound SMTP servers, or a series of QMQP servers? (The goal is high volume / high availability). For the latter, here are the two configs I'm considering: Internet | | smtp |_ | | | MXa | MXb _|___ _|___ |miniQ||miniQ| ... |_||_| | | | qmqpc| |__|__ ___|_ ___ | qmail/ | | RAID | | qmqpd |---| -queue| |_| | -Maildirs | | |___| | NFS __|__ | | | | _|___ _|___ |qmail||qmail| ... |_||_| | |DNS round robin | pop | pop |__|__ | | Internet Here's the other config: Internet | | smtp |_ | | | MXa | MXb _|___ _|___ |qmail||qmail| ... |_||_| | | | NFS | |__|__ ___|___ | RAID | | -queue| | -Maildirs | |___| | NFS __|__ | | | | _|___ _|___ |qmail||qmail| ... |_||_| | |DNS round robin | pop | pop |__|__ | | Internet Notes: 1)For the moment, both POP sides are the same (I'm not sure what other POP options exist). 2)The first uses miniQmail; the 2nd does not. 3)The first has a "master" qmail server. The second are pure peers, offering better availability. Is the 2nd option even possible with qmail? Any and all educated input is more than welcome. How do some of you very large sites operate? Thanks! Dave _ Refs: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/mini.html http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmqp.html http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#organize http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#qmqpd http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#big-servers http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/QLDAPINSTALL http://www.nrg4u.com/qmail/the-big-qmail-picture-103-p2.gif http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/179/1/1/1.html http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9811/175/1/1.html
Re: is content level blocking possible
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:48AM +0530, Madhav wrote: > From the qmail server(on Linux machine) adminstrator point of view I > have a question. All my end users are M$ windoze users. Let's say a mail > with some virus prone attachment(which act on windoze) arrives through SMTP. > Is there any package which scans the mail for all possible known virii(which > act on M$ windoze) before the qmail-queue is invoked. Can anyone give me a > good pointer or some info as to where I can get that kind of packages. I > hope something like this is already existing. Sure take a look at qmail-qfilter: http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail-qfilter/ You can use it to run all mail through one or more content filters of your chosing. -- Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Problem with virtual domains.
I'm having problems with a virtual domain. I wanted to set up a subdomain, arl.dynacare.com. Created a user, arl, for this virtual domain and put arl.dynacare.com:arl in virtualdomains. Then I proceded to make a bunch of user accounts using the arl-user convention. Then I'd create a .qmail-user in the arl home directory and put arl-user into the file. But for some reason I'm getting 'no mailbox by that name' when sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I replace alr-user with, for example, my email address I get the mail fine. These users exist on the system and they have appropriate Maildir and .qmail files. Any clues? -- Albert Hopkins Sr. Systems Specialist Dynacare Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote: [snip] > > I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop > output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total > email bandwidth usage. I would like to find a way to make this > metering more precise. Unless people have forwards to more than 1 address, logic dictates that POP3 should be at least 50% of your traffic. Why 'at least'? 'Keep mail on server'. If you are running mailinglist, the 50% is probably way too high. Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Re: Virtual Domain User not receiving mail
Quoting James ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I have finally been able to get Qmail to work with local users and > receiving mail from outside my server. My next step is to try to get mail > to my virtual domain users. I am using Mandrake 7.02. > > Here are the steps I have taken, but still cannot get mail to my virtual > domain user: > > 1. I've created a user called "pony" whom I wish to have administrative > control for "ponyexpressdelivery.com" > > 2. I have configured my virtualdomains file to look like this: > @ponyexpressdelivery.com:pony Remove the @ before the domain name. > 3. I've configured my locals file to include pony, and kevin, but not > ponyexpressdelivery.com Virtual domains do not go into the control/locals. > 4. I've configured my rcpthosts file to include the following: > ponyexpressdelivery.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only domain names go into control/rcpthosts. Remove the email addresses. After completing these steps, restart qmail-send. Aaron
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote: > > > > I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop > > output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total > > email bandwidth usage. > > Unless people have forwards to more than 1 address, logic dictates that > POP3 should be at least 50% of your traffic. This strikes me as a ``Profile. Don't speculate.'' moment. ``Logic'' might argue instead that 30% is about right: one might expect roughly equal volumes of incoming SMTP, outgoing SMTP, and POP traffic, assuming no mailing list servers. The moral: measuring is better. Len. -- Frugal Tip #63: Leave your penny loafers empty. It's cheaper!
ezmlm list creation problem
ok qmail works great / ezmlm works great , i got all the ezmlm-web.cgi running with .htaccess files but the problem i have is no matter who logs in over the cgi interface and creates a list , it goes under my account? how do i change to a global account? and also instead of having a list name like [EMAIL PROTECTED] how do i get [EMAIL PROTECTED]?? any suggestions would be great! thanks chris.
Re: ezmlm list creation problem
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:07:12PM -0400, cdowns wrote: > ok qmail works great / ezmlm works great , i got all the ezmlm-web.cgi > running with .htaccess files but the problem i have is no matter who > logs in over the cgi interface and creates a list , it goes under my > account? how do i change to a global account? and also instead of having > a list name like [EMAIL PROTECTED] how do i get > [EMAIL PROTECTED]?? any suggestions would be great! thanks Which user does ezmlm-web.cgi run as ? is it setuid alias or . As it seems from your mail ezmlm-web.cgi is running 'under' your account if you want [EMAIL PROTECTED] ezmlm-web.cgi should run as user alias The easiest way is to change the settings in index.c and compile it to index.cgi, per README.install instructions of ezmlm-web > chris. HTH, Steffan -- http://therookie.dyndns.org
Re: Metering POP related email traffic?
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:09:47PM -0400, Len Budney wrote: > Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0700, Chin Fang wrote: > > > > > > I have a strong suspicision as of now, based on some casual snoop > > > output reviews, that POP traffic is consuming about 30% of the total > > > email bandwidth usage. > > > > Unless people have forwards to more than 1 address, logic dictates that > > POP3 should be at least 50% of your traffic. > > This strikes me as a ``Profile. Don't speculate.'' moment. ``Logic'' Correct. I am speculating :) > might argue instead that 30% is about right: one might expect roughly > equal volumes of incoming SMTP, outgoing SMTP, and POP traffic, assuming > no mailing list servers. I'd expect incoming to be equal to the sum of outgoing and POP, assuming any address is either a forward or a popbox. > The moral: measuring is better. Always. Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Re: Problem with virtual domains.
Nevermind, problem solved. I had put arl.dynacare.com in /var/qmail/locals. Now that I've taken it out everthing works fine. On Mon, 15 May 2000, Albert Hopkins wrote: > > I'm having problems with a virtual domain. I wanted to set up a > subdomain, arl.dynacare.com. Created a user, arl, for this virtual domain > and put arl.dynacare.com:arl in virtualdomains. Then I proceded to make a > bunch of user accounts using the arl-user convention. Then I'd create a > .qmail-user in the arl home directory and put arl-user into the > file. But for some reason I'm getting 'no mailbox by that name' when > sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I replace alr-user with, for > example, my email address I get the mail fine. > > These users exist on the system and they have appropriate Maildir and > .qmail files. Any clues? > > -- Albert Hopkins Sr. Systems Specialist Dynacare Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accessing Qmail using Netscapes mail client
I am having a problem using Netscape's mail client. I am getting an error msg stating that an there is a problem with the pop3 mail server. I believe that my set up is correct. I have used several of availble HOWTO's on qmail and I always seem to get stuck at this point. Currently I have installed the MEMPHIS RedHat version. I can send messages out and receive them back using the man page procedure, but when it comes to hooking up to the server using Netscape's or IE mail client I run into a brick wall. Initially I was given this project as a learning tool to increase my Linux awarness, so my background is weak. Any assistance that can be given is appreciated in advance. Respectfully Dean
Re: is content level blocking possible
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:48AM +0530, Madhav wrote: > Hi all, > From the qmail server(on Linux machine) adminstrator point of view I > have a question. All my end users are M$ windoze users. Let's say a mail > with some virus prone attachment(which act on windoze) arrives through SMTP. > Is there any package which scans the mail for all possible known virii(which > act on M$ windoze) before the qmail-queue is invoked. Can anyone give me a > good pointer or some info as to where I can get that kind of packages. I > hope something like this is already existing. See http://www.geocities.com/jhaar/scan4virus/ - a anti-virus scanner harness for Qmail. It supports several commercial virus scanners, and also has an in-built attachment scanner that can be used to stop all mail with VBS attachments for example... -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
Re: BACKUP POP SERVER
Make sure you have round-robin turned on in your DNS, assuming that both POP servers have the same name. If that doesn't work, bother half your users and have them change their settings to point to the second machine. I don't see what is saved by this arrangement, over having all the users connect directly to the machine with the mailboxes: all you gain is complexity and additional possible points of failure. NFS isn't free, those packets need to get read off the disk and written to the LAN just the same as if the MUA connects directly. Jhun Hubac wrote: > > Hi! > > Is there a way that I can back-up my pop server? I'm using qmail for my two > servers (both have SMTP & POP3 service). > No problem of having redundant SMTP servers but it seems that the MUA > (clients) are polling on only 1 of the two servers. I'm using NIS/NFS to > distribute information between the two, so their home directories are on a > different LINUX machine and the accounts are based on a NIS master. Is > there a work-around for this? -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] drawn to the speed and performance
Re: multiple auto-reply messgs...(simple??)
Hi, Maybe I am going around this all wrong. I am having troubles creating the auto-reply scripts. The script is in PERL and I am trying to capture the message. I tried to do a print on ARGV and ENV but both arrays are empty. How do I grab the email message? I would also like to modify the subject line of the message before it gets sent to the "common" pop account. The .qmail-support alias file looks like |/var/qmail/alias/forward.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:55 AM 5/15/00 -0500, Ronny Haryanto wrote: >On 15-May-2000, Marcelo J. Iturbe wrote: > > Hello, > > I have several aliases poiting to the same mailbox. (info, support, sales, > > etc). > > How can I set up an individual auto reply for each alias when they all > > arrive at the same pop account? > >The trick is to generate auto-reply _before_ they arrive at the same >mailbox. > >In .qmail-info: > | /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/info > mailbox > >In .qmail-support: > | /path/to/autoreplyscript/for/support > mailbox > >...etc... > > Ronny *** ICQ 22921676 MSM Interactive. El Bosque Norte 0134, Las Condes, Chile. Phone: (56-2) 234-9852 Fax: (56-2) 233-8912 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.msm.cl ***
Re: Disable telnet to port 110
How about a really short time-out? Automated POP3 clients waste no time typing at the prompt -- Mark could analyze the delay his MUAs have between connection and sending auth commands; and patch pop3d accordingly. Or he could patch pop3 to require (not just accept) encrypted authentications, maybe in addition to the timing thing. Paul Farber wrote: > > I think the original poster is just 'scared' because the POP3 protocol > uses cleartext command (telnet, perl script, python) could connect up and > get mail. > > Thinking that telneting to 110 and giving the same commands at a console > is somehow 'hacking' a system. > > It will blow thier mind when they telnet to port 25 and can actually SEND > mail! > > Paul Farber > Farber Technology > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ph 570-628-5303 > Fax 570-628-5545 > > On Mon, 15 May 2000, Aaron L. Meehan wrote: > > It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question. > > Aaron > > > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote: > > > > I would like to disable telnet to port 110, but still > > > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > > > >tcpserver) -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] drawn to the speed and performance
sending bulk personalized email
I have a client that needs various mailing lists and needs to send around 100,000 messages a day - he needs to handle bounces and subscriptions automatically- ezmlm-idx seems perfect but for one thing - he needs each meesage personalized -to say hi fred - hi barney etc etc and even personalized in the message body Id rather him use ezmlm but they insist on this feature - Theres no problem doing the sending and generation of messages with php and using postgresql or mysql to store all the data - but I'm worried that trying to send out 100,00 or more messages that way will be bad for server performance - I have no experience in mass email and was wondering if anyone could suggest the right way to go ?
Re: qfilelog...
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 09:12:58PM -0700, Jason Ingham wrote: > I'm using the scripts that come with the memphis RPM's for qmail v1.03. > They come setup by default for cyclog. Here's the pertinent part of the > script: > > # Grab the daemontools init functions > . $INITDIR/daemontools.functions It looks like this file defines a function stop() that causes cyclog to stop. You'll need to modify it to make qfilelog to stop. -- Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
Qmail-Imap-Maildir
I have installed souce of imap : courier-imap-0.32 from inter7.com but it doesn't work goodThen I installed the imap-4.7 package from the Mandrake 7.02(I also tryed the imap package (version:4.5-3mdir4) I prefer use package than source.I create Maildir with the command : maildirmake /home/USER/Maildir/ (with the good permission)for the client.When I configure a client (Outlook Express, Netscape 4.7), the synchronisation is OK between server and client. I can send messages ...But: my problems are: I have nothing in the recept-box (or Inbox?) of the client. Or : where do the messages go on the server?(Do I use the good package, source ??)this is my /etc/inetd.conf: imap steam tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd imapdthis is my /etc/services: imap2 143/tcp imap imap2 143/udp imapNote: I have used the UCSPI source for the tcpserver before with pop3. And all was OK . Do I delete an old program ??
Re: Disable telnet to port 110
Network/server latentancy and a poor MUA (OUTLOOK!) could cause a lot of 'could not connect to host' errors. Funny thing is.. it's working. qmail-pop3 is secure (right?) and it needs cleartext commands to log in, authenticate and pass mail. It sure dosen't look broke to me.. why are we trying to fix it? Paul Farber Farber Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 On Mon, 15 May 2000, David L. Nicol wrote: > > How about a really short time-out? Automated POP3 clients > waste no time typing at the prompt -- Mark could analyze the > delay his MUAs have between connection and sending auth commands; > and patch pop3d accordingly. Or he could patch pop3 to require > (not just accept) encrypted authentications, maybe in addition to > the timing thing. > > > > > > > Paul Farber wrote: > > > > I think the original poster is just 'scared' because the POP3 protocol > > uses cleartext command (telnet, perl script, python) could connect up and > > get mail. > > > > Thinking that telneting to 110 and giving the same commands at a console > > is somehow 'hacking' a system. > > > > It will blow thier mind when they telnet to port 25 and can actually SEND > > mail! > > > > Paul Farber > > Farber Technology > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ph 570-628-5303 > > Fax 570-628-5545 > > > > On Mon, 15 May 2000, Aaron L. Meehan wrote: > > > It's difficult to answer a nonsensical question. > > > Aaron > > > > At 05/14/2000 05:48 AM Sunday, Mark Lo wrote: > > > > > I would like to disable telnet to port 110, but still > > > > >let my user to retrive mail via mail client at port 110?? (using > > > > >tcpserver) > > > > > -- > David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > drawn to the speed and performance >
distributed redundnat queue architecture (for M Bowman)
Michael Boman wrote: > A server goes down [and the mail should been taken care of by > another server, automatically and samlessly.] > > A single point of failure is not an option. > > Best regards > Michael Boman At the cost of more WAN traffic, you could add patches so that on delivery failures, in addition to a message being added to the local queue it also gets copied to one or more other peers for queuing. Whenever a message that was queued gets successfully delivered, a notification message is sent to the associated peer, so it can dequeue its redundant message. Implementing this would require: full description of the redundancy protocol implementing the protocol in the software Depending on the various costs (WAN bandwitdh, CPU, storage space, programmer time) this architecture could result in something similar to usenet, with each extended queue storage server contacting the others at regular intervals with a list of message-IDs it has received, so that all of them get multiple chances to receive the same message stuck in the queue. -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] drawn to the speed and performance
Re: distributed redundnat queue architecture (for M Bowman)
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:41:49PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote: [snip] > > Depending on the various costs (WAN bandwitdh, CPU, storage space, > programmer time) this architecture could result in something similar > to usenet, with each extended queue storage server contacting the > others at regular intervals with a list of message-IDs it has received, > so that all of them get multiple chances to receive the same message > stuck in the queue. Do note that usenet was never designed to guarantee message delivery. Usenet was designed for non-reliable wide-scale messaging. These useless and irrelevant facts were brought to you by LackOfCaffeine2000(tm). Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
Weird startup troubles
Hi, all. I'm running qmail 1.02 on Linux/UltraSPARC. If I run /var/qmail/rc & ...by hand, qmail starts and runs flawlessly. But if I use the init script that came with the source code: #!/bin/csh -cf /var/qmail/rc & ...which is the way I have qmail set to start at boot, I get something like this, quoting /var/log/messages from my last boot: May 15 18:04:54 embley qmail: csh May 15 18:04:55 embley qmail: : error in loading shared libraries: libtermcap.so.2: cannot open shared object file: Error 23 May 15 18:04:55 embley kernel: VFS: file-max limit 4096 reached May 15 18:05:09 embley rc: Starting qmail failed To further confuse matters, if I do this: # /bin/csh -cf /var/qmail/rc & ...it works just fine as well. If I call the initscript by hand, I don't see the library message but qmail does spawn so many copies of itself that I get the max-files error. Is this a known issue? Is there a better way to start qmail at boot? TIA, -m -- Michael Jinks, IB Systems Administrator, Chicago Center for Computational Psychology finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public key
Re: Virtual Domain DNS MX question
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:31:34PM -0700, James wrote: > I've created a few virtual domains on my system (Linux Mandrake 7.02), and > they are all working well. Now I wish to redirect mail sent to any one of > the virtual domains to the correct place. > > I have only one question at this point that I'd like to clear up. I can't > find any reference in the O'Reilly "DNS and BIND" book that explains > exactly how to do this. Anyway, my only question at this point is.. in > the MX part of the DNS record of a virtual domain, I don't quite > understand "what" the mail server is.. is it my server? Or do I have some > special name for the mail server?? So, if it's just my server, and I have > a virtual domain user that I want to have mail sent to, which one of these > MX setups is correct? > > virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 server.com. > or > virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 virtualdomain.com. Either will work, so long as server.com or virtualdomain.com resolves to whatever the address of the server is. There's no reason that virtualdomain.com's mail exchanger has to be called virtualdomain.com though. (There are actually reasons why you'd want an "in-zone" server, but I wouldn't worry about it at this point.) Chris
Re: Share queue between servers and other questions.
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote: > A server goes down that resolvs in global or local downtime (ok, the > box itself is down, but the mail should been taken care of by another > server without we need to plug the raid-set into another box). We > should be able to say: Hmm.. let's check that out after lunch.. or > if it is in the middle of the night: let's have a look at it tomorrow > morning. > > A single point of failure is not an option. Two points: 1) Having a backup qmail server as a backup MX will result in being able to continue delivery of new mail when the primary host goes down. 2) Having the queue of the primary qmail server on an external RAID will allow you to recover what few messages were in the queue at the time of failure at your liesure. A final suggestion: Since you already need a custom delivery agent to look up information from LDAP, or whatever you wanted to do, just have that delivery agent drop a copy of each message in an NFS mounted maildir. Then have another process from the primary server delete anything in the maildir older than queuelifetime. That way a primary server crash will leave a copy of every message which could be in the queue in a maildir. serialmail will allow the messages to be re-injected into another queue. Duplication is the price of recovery. John
Stupid Sendmail tricks?
On a mailing list I administer, bounces from a subscriber go to the person in the From: header. The subscriber is from leisureworld.org, who's mx is mail.pajo.com bash-2.03$ telnet mail.pajo.com 25 Trying 216.116.96.4... Connected to mail.pajo.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail.pajo.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.9.1a/8.9.0; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:35:17 -0700 Hello Is it really possible to configure Sendmail 8.9.x to bounce messages to someone other than the envelope sender?!?!?!?! John
Anonymizing Email
I need to make any mail that my system relays from a specific domain look as if it came from my system, including headers. eg. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sends mail via a local dial-up in Georgia. I need to recognize secret.com, grab the message and change the header to look as if it came from my machine. The From: contains [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Received: from ipdiddle.com has to be changed to Received from: mail.secret.com., etcetera. Pardon what looks simple, but I'm switching to Qmail from an OS/2 server that I kludged up 4 years ago and want to get rid of.
Pummelling limiting, again
An acquaintance of mine who has a religious devotion to sendmail tells me that the next version of sendmail will have a swell new feature. As we all know, one of the aspects of sendmail that makes it so exciting to use is that it will accept an unlimited number of simultaneous inbound connections, causing thrashing and other disasters. So their solution is to let you set a limit on the number of simultaneous connections from a single host and reject mail (not connections) if there are more than that. Surely it is a coincidence that this misfeature will reject entirely legitimate mailing list traffic from qmail, while being ineffective at limiting overloads if there's just a lot of traffic overall. So in the spirit of playing nice with other kids, even when the other kids deserve to be stomped into the mud, I'm wondering again about how hard it would be to do some global per MX connection limiting. Sendmail isn't the only MTA with this problem, of course. My thought would be to keep some estimate of server load based on the time from the connection attempt to the banner, or maybe the response to the HELO, and throttle connections to a host when it got significantly slower than it used to be. The idea is to set up almost but not quite enough connections to each remote host to make it fall over. Anyone experimented with this? Considering that qmail already keeps a retry time for MX'es that don't answer, I'd think it'd be a relatively straightforward extension to that. 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
Re: Pummelling limiting, again
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 12:33:20AM -0400, John R Levine wrote: > > My thought would > be to keep some estimate of server load based on the time from the connection > attempt to the banner, or maybe the response to the HELO, and throttle > connections to a host when it got significantly slower than it used to be. Wouldn't an approach like this be vulnerable to a whole host of noise effects like varying net latency, or host slowdowns that don't have anything to do with actual mail load? -m -- Michael Jinks, IB Systems Administrator, Chicago Center for Computational Psychology finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public key
Re: Stupid Sendmail tricks?
On May 15 2000, John White wrote: > Is it really possible to configure Sendmail 8.9.x to bounce messages > to someone other than the envelope sender?!?!?!?! I don't know the answer to your question with any margin of certainty, but I'd guess that it is possible. My ISP does header rewriting and I've noticed that if it differs from the From: field, then its sendmail puts the Return-Path: field as the From: field. :-( []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Virtual Domain DNS MX question
I've created a few virtual domains on my system (Linux Mandrake 7.02), and they are all working well. Now I wish to redirect mail sent to any one of the virtual domains to the correct place. I have only one question at this point that I'd like to clear up. I can't find any reference in the O'Reilly "DNS and BIND" book that explains exactly how to do this. Anyway, my only question at this point is.. in the MX part of the DNS record of a virtual domain, I don't quite understand "what" the mail server is.. is it my server? Or do I have some special name for the mail server?? So, if it's just my server, and I have a virtual domain user that I want to have mail sent to, which one of these MX setups is correct? virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 server.com. or virtualdomain.com. IN MX 10 virtualdomain.com. Thanks for any help. James
Re: Share queue between servers and other questions.
On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 12:47:53AM -0700, John White wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 10:02:24PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote: > > What I want is to be able to share the queue between n+2 servers on each > > loocation as well as be able to split a single domain's mailstorage so each > > users doesn't need to download his/hers email from the other end of the world. > > You again failed to tell us why you want to share the queue. > > For the second time, what failure modes are you trying to protect against? > > John A server goes down that resolvs in global or local downtime (ok, the box itself is down, but the mail should been taken care of by another server without we need to plug the raid-set into another box). We should be able to say: Hmm.. let's check that out after lunch.. or if it is in the middle of the night: let's have a look at it tomorrow morning. A single point of failure is not an option. Best regards Michael Boman -- W I Z O F F I C E . C O M L T D - Your Online Office Wizard 16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #04-00, Singapore 347778 Voice : (+65) 844 3228 [extension 118] Fax : (+65) 842 7228 Pager : (+65) 92 93 29 49 ICQ : 5566009 Mobile: (+65) 97 87 39 14 eMail : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]URL : http://www.wizoffice.com
can not send mail to remote host
I'd set up 2 mail server in my intranet. server A 's IP is 10.16.104.100 head.mytest.com server B's IP is 10.16.103.102 alpha.mytest.com i'd install qmail 1.03, tcpserver and checkpassword. a DNS is running on server A. when i try to send a mail from server B to server A, i got the follow error message: ++ May 15 17:08:13 localhost qmail: 958381693.831643 delivery 8: deferral: Sorry,_I _couldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/ May 15 17:08:13 localhost qmail: 958381693.831721 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 _ i can't send a mail from server B to server A , either. the error message is: +++ May 15 17:06:08 alpha qmail: 958381568.213827 delivery 5: deferral: Sorry,_I_cou ldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/ May 15 17:06:08 alpha qmail: 958381568.214003 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 __ but i can use nslookup in both server. the DNS seems work fine. could anyone give me some advice? thanks!!! chan
Re: can not send mail to remote host
Can these servers ping each other? E On Mon, 15 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd set up 2 mail server in my intranet. > server A 's IP is 10.16.104.100 head.mytest.com > server B's IP is 10.16.103.102alpha.mytest.com > i'd install qmail 1.03, tcpserver and checkpassword. > a DNS is running on server A. > when i try to send a mail from server B to server A, i got the follow error > message: > ++ > May 15 17:08:13 localhost qmail: 958381693.831643 delivery 8: deferral: > Sorry,_I > _couldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/ > May 15 17:08:13 localhost qmail: 958381693.831721 status: local 0/10 remote > 0/20 > _ > > i can't send a mail from server B to server A , either. the error message > is: > +++ > May 15 17:06:08 alpha qmail: 958381568.213827 delivery 5: deferral: > Sorry,_I_cou > ldn't_find_any_host_by_that_name._(#4.1.2)/ > May 15 17:06:08 alpha qmail: 958381568.214003 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 > __ > > but i can use nslookup in both server. the DNS seems work fine. > could anyone give me some advice? thanks!!! > chan > > >
Re: slow answer through firewall
> we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see > the strange behaviour that connections from inside to an > outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to initiate while the > connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that forwards > the requests to the outside mailserver is fast. > That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall > but that qmail handles the connections differently. > But I don't see a reason for this. Any clues? > > The firewall is a nokia box with checkpoint FW1 (newest version) and the > mailserver is a sun ultra1 running qmail-1.03. The ident* segments are being dropped by your firewall, this causes the OUTSIDE server to wait for response. Solution 1: which I think is the best, is to REJECT all ident segments. The reason for this is that many server expect some sort of reply to accept connections or the will wait og make connections slow. Solution 2: you could allow all or some ident segments, beware however that some NAT systems will have problems with ident. Since the mailserver will not see the hidden IP and will send it directly to the firewall, which the FIREWALL might not know where to send... Solution 3: set the TIMEOUT on the OUTSIDE mailserver to a lower number, I would do this only if everything else fails. Solution X: You could mix your own configuration of RULES to make this work! *ident is a small TCP connection on PORT 113 done by servers to "verify" the client, your INSIDE mailserver being the client and OUTSIDE being the server in this case. Regards André Paulsberg
Re: slow answer through firewall
Antje, > we are testing a firewall setup at the moment and see the strange behaviour that > connections from inside to an outside mailserver take about 30 seconds to > initiate while the connection to port 25 of an outside proxy machine that > forwards the requests to the outside mailserver is fast. > That's why we assume it's not a problem of the firewall but that qmail handles > the connections differently. But I don't see a reason for this. > Any clues? I had a similar problem sometime ago. It was related to the firewall not allowing ident requests to pass. They didn't even had to be answered, they just had to pass the firewall. As I wrote this it really looked strange but to allow ident request to pass my fierwall was all I did and my delay problem got solved. I hope this helps, Rodrigo
Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail?
Does this work with any Outlook versions? The page mentions that Outlook 97 doesn't work what about others? thanks, Colin - Original Message - From: Krzysztof Dabrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:34 PM Subject: Re: SMTP AUTH - is there a patch for it in qmail? > http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/ > > Kris > >
