qmail Digest 22 Jul 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1070
qmail Digest 22 Jul 2000 10:00:00 - Issue 1070 Topics (messages 45122 through 45268): Re: tcpserver and NAT 45122 by: Reier Pytte 45124 by: Lars Brandi Jensen 45127 by: Lars Brandi Jensen 45135 by: Brett Randall 45136 by: Matthias Henze 45139 by: Vince Vielhaber 45144 by: Dave Sill 45146 by: John White 45150 by: Brett Randall 45153 by: Andre Michaud 45203 by: David Dyer-Bennet Re: qmail: 964126783.245290 delivery 15092: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbo x_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1) 45123 by: çééí äìôøï Re: 553 error code - MAPS? 45125 by: Vince Vielhaber Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying! 45126 by: Brian Johnson 45129 by: Greg Owen 45132 by: Brian Johnson 45133 by: James Raftery 45137 by: Petr Novotny 45141 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45142 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45143 by: Petr Novotny 45145 by: Mark Mentovai 45147 by: John White 45148 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45151 by: John White 45152 by: Petr Novotny 45156 by: Mark Mentovai 45157 by: Charles Cazabon 45158 by: Greg Owen 45159 by: Petr Novotny 45160 by: John White 45161 by: Mark Mentovai 45162 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45163 by: Petr Novotny 45164 by: Michael T. Babcock 45165 by: Charles Cazabon 45167 by: Mark Mentovai 45168 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45169 by: Greg Owen 45170 by: Petr Novotny 45171 by: Charles Cazabon 45172 by: Michael T. Babcock 45173 by: Michael T. Babcock 45174 by: Michael T. Babcock 45175 by: Michael T. Babcock 45176 by: Mark Mentovai 45178 by: Abdul Rehman Gani 45179 by: Petr Novotny 45181 by: John White 45182 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45183 by: John White 45185 by: John R. Dunning 45186 by: Julian Brown 45187 by: Paul Jarc 45194 by: Dave Sill 45195 by: markd.bushwire.net 45199 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45200 by: Charles Cazabon 45201 by: Julian Brown 45202 by: Dave Sill 45204 by: Jon Rust 45205 by: Paul Jarc 45206 by: Dave Sill 45207 by: David Dyer-Bennet 45208 by: Dave Sill 45209 by: David Dyer-Bennet 45210 by: David Dyer-Bennet 45212 by: Dave Sill 45213 by: John R. Dunning 45216 by: Dave Sill 45220 by: Dave Sill 45221 by: Paul Farber 45223 by: Adam McKenna 45224 by: Adam McKenna 45225 by: markd.bushwire.net 45228 by: Adam McKenna 45245 by: Russ Allbery minifaq 45128 by: Mick 45240 by: Steffan Hoeke 45241 by: John van V. 45250 by: asantos temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery 45130 by: Luis Bezerra "Unable to fork" 45131 by: Michael T. Babcock Re: forced queeuing 45134 by: Dave Sill Re: Slow Slow Mail Delivery, Not Trigger Permissions 45138 by: Dave Sill 45180 by: Julian Brown 45188 by: Dave Sill 45190 by: markd.bushwire.net 45191 by: Julian Brown 45192 by: Julian Brown 45193 by: Robert Sander 45196 by: markd.bushwire.net 45197 by: Dave Sill 45198 by: markd.bushwire.net Re: [OT] Re: Maildir support for emacs vm 45140 by: Paul Jarc Re: Maildir support for emacs vm 45149 by: Charles Cazabon 45154 by: Robin S. Socha 45155 by: Dave Sill 45233 by: Erich 45246 by: Russ Allbery pop3d daemon error 45166 by: Barry Smoke qq trouble creating files in queue 45177 by: Toens Bueker Qmailanalog 45184 by: Cedric Fontaine Re: Maildir support for emacs vm ( and cgi ) 45189 by: John van V. numbers 45211 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 45226 by: Bruce Guenter TCPserver error 45214 by: Z 45215 by: Ihnen, David 45217 by: Tyler J. Frederick 45218 by: Chris, the Young One SMTP question. 45219 by: Z 45222 by: Paul Jarc Re: Unable to send a huge file 45227 by: Aaron L. Meehan 45231 by: John van V. Init scripts for daemontools 70.1 45229 by: Bruce Edge more forced queueing 45230 by: mikec.qx.net 45232 by: Dave Sill 45234 by: M.B. 45236 by: Paul Jarc 45243 by: Steffan Hoeke Permissions Dilemma? 45235 by: Tony Campisi 45263 by: Chris, the Young One 45265 by: asantos qmqpc load balancing 45237 by: Austad, Jay 45238 by: markd.bushwire.net 45239 by: Paul Jarc 45242 by: markd.bushwire.net 45244 by: Austad, Jay Data in exel to Vpopmail 45247 by: Javier Vino R. pop3 outgoing config issue 45248 by: Bruce Edge 45264 by: Chris, the Young One Can
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
If I say 'sendmail', you'll say 'see, you should've used qmail' ... but I'll say 'and how many other sites are using sendmail that will appreciate it?'. Just telll me the first time someone finds a really cool porn AVI on some site and E-mails it to all of his collegues at a different office and the 25 or 30 copies all show up in parallel to the remote site. PS, 2 months ago. Petr Novotny wrote: On 21 Jul 00, at 11:17, Michael T. Babcock wrote: While you ponder the answer to those questions, qmail will have delivered the mail. Or crashed a mailserver. Please stop that. When was the last time you saw a crashed mailserver due to getting too many mails? And what was the software?
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
John White wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:20:00AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or not, so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while we're at it? There's nothing wrong with using intelligent queuing to reorder messages and reduce session #'s. Sure there is. It creates overhead. So does opening simultaneous connections -- in the kernel, just not in user-space. Silly argument. SCSI command queues with reordering and elevator sorting add a lot of overhead ... and happen to increase performance dramatically. There are trade-offs in writing software. I'm not saying my way is perfect. I'm saying I think I have valid concerns (that others on this list have also stated) and they shouldn't be written off with 'it creates overhead'. If just getting the mail out FAST is all that matters, fine. But that's NOT all that matters. To be blunt, I don't mind taking a look at the code changes you're proposing. Where are they? (Sarcasm:) What, you don't know how to code? I'm sick of that response. If I'm a part of three different OSS projects and work 60 hours a week for a living on top of that, am I expected to give you a demonstration of my thoughts in code just so you can say they suck? If I had the time to write my modifications, I wouldn't propose them. I'd have written them, posted the patch and let everyone who agrees with me just use it (like other patches at qmail.org that aren't in the distro). I don't have that time, so I gave my observations and opinions instead for the sake of intelligent discussion. Ideas are equally valuable to working solutions. The latter usually doesn't appear without the former.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
I'd love to. Read my previous message. If I see some discussion about it, and enough people are actually interested, I may end up investing enough time to get this off the ground. I may not. I have four other pieces of software to write (from scratch) over the next week. John White wrote: That's nice. Where's your implementation? I don't mind testing your patches to qmail if you'll send them to me. Incidentally, is there a discussion in the past that I've missed about 'void main' declarations? :-)
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not really going to re-enter this recurring fray, but it is amusing to note that web browsers open multiple connections at once in an effort to speed up their perceived performance. I don't see much push to stop that sort of greedy behaviour. I do. HTTP 1.1 was proposed as a way to send all that data down a single TCP link instead of opening a new connection for each object. HTTP 1.1 browsers may still open multiple links, but those links are "reused" not opened and closed, to avoid the SYN, etc. overhead inherent in TCP. This was well studied and put into practice. They also repeatedly fetch exactly the same data. Does anyone care to calculate how many times the exact same stream of bits, let's say the home page of amazon.com, has been sent down their connection over the last six months? Yes. Read up on http://www.squid-cache.org/ ... a lot of major ISPs and organisations run caching proxy servers, etc. to eliminate undue bandwidth use. In house, we have a 25% hit rate on HTTP use. A greedy ant maybe, but rarely relevant compared to that 800lb gorilla/hydra combo, we call web-browsing. And web browsing technology has changed to help ... now it might be 'our' turn. As others have repeatedly said, if you're in that rare situation that demands something different, use it, or write it. qmail was never designed to meet every requirement out their and the author has made it abundantly clear which ones are important to him. Understood.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
I would be really interested in seeing those numbers in the FAQ somewhere ... Charles Cazabon wrote: A few people have done the math; MTAs which aggregate recipients to save bandwidth tend to have more overhead network bandwith (additional MX lookups, etc), and the savings is not as great as a first guess might make it look. It has to be a pretty pathological case (large mail, many recipients at one MX) for it to be consistently faster.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame? If I allow 20 simultaneous connections (hypothetically) and mail is delivered from 5 different hosts at once, two of which are running qmail with mailing lists, odds are that the other three hosts won't be able to connect and may bounce the message back to the sender because the qmail sites used all my connections. Is this correct? Jon Rust wrote: To be friendly to your neighbours ... Why is the onus on qmail here? If I'm an MTA dropping off mail to another MTA, I'm going to send the mail as fast as the other MTA accepts it. If Other MTA needs to slow it down, it should do so. There's no reason for me to make assumptions about how many SMTP connections and messages I can send to another MTA.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour (if this is true). I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ... This is very hard to do, and expensive. And it would slow down mail delivery, both overall and to each destination. And it would increase disk IO. Why would one want to do this? I said why. I just wanted to have the concept evaluated outside the 'its simply a stupid idea' crowd if at all possible.
Attitude
I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about being on the nameserver mailing list? I'm not being moderated out (I appreciate that), but the number of slams vs. useful responses to proposals is staggering. If all you have to say is "not my MTA, thank-you" then you may as well not bother. Silence does not mean consent. Especially in OSS. David Dyer-Bennet wrote: John R. Dunning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 21 July 2000 at 15:40:59 - I like qmail a lot. It's way easier to deal with than sendmail, and does a good job for my purposes. There are some things which I wish it did differently. This business of not bothering to consolidate deliveries of recipients at a common host (or mx) into a common connection is one of them. How would you suggest that this be performed without destroying the simple, secure, structure of qmail? And what would the cost in increased DNS traffic and increased disk bandwidth be? That is, have you considered this carefully enough to be able to make an actual proposal on how to do it, or are you just blowing smoke and assuming it's easy and cheap?
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
3) Opening M connections (where M N) and sending the messages down those M pipes without marking the message as having gone through a "could not connect to mail server" situation but queuing it for that MX instead. ?? Dave Sill wrote: Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not? You can have your cake and eat it too. Efficient network utilization doesn't mean delayed or slow delivery. Say you have 100 different messages to deliver to various users at AOL. Which will be faster: 1) Opening one connection to a single AOL MX and feeding them through single-file, or 2) Opening N connections to M AOL MX's and feeding one message to each? Answer: 2
RE: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Greg Owen writes: No, ORBS is talking about a different thing. If I want to mailbomb foo.com, and bar.com is running qmail, then I can connect to bar.com's mail and say: No you can't, not like that. Try it. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
RE: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Greg Owen writes: Yup. If you have one qmail box forwarding to a second qmail box which is the mail store, you get this amplification. No, you don't get any amplification. You only get amplification if you can get someone else's machine to expend resources that you didn't. Yes, you can get one message to expand into N, but you have to send those N messages yourself. The only effect you get by forging the envelope sender and using a bouncing envelope recipient is that the attack comes from many hosts instead of just yours. But any MTA will do that, not just email. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) writes: orbs.org recently tested our qmail server, I mailed them and they advised that our server could be used as a "proxy mailbomb relay". By this they mean that a message with a forged FROM: address and multiple bad RCPT TO: addresses will generate multiple non-delivery reports being sent to the forged FROM: address. Is it possible to stop this? No. It's an artifact of the SMTP protocol. Anybody who claims that qmail will do this but sendmail will not is just blowing smoke. HERE IS WHAT ORBS.ORG SAID ABOUT QMAIL: Kick Qmail's author. Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that anyone uses ORBS. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
Duplicate Msgs
Hi All... My Setup qmail+vpopmail. I'd like to eliminate duplicate msgs... so I installed eliminate-dup package and made the necessary .qmail file under /home/vpopmail/domains/test.com/sumith/ now instead of only the duplicate msgs getting deleted all the messages are getting deleted... Any IDEA whats going wrong Sumith __ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
Re: qmqpc load balancing
Austad, Jay writes: Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it to load balance between all servers I have listed as QMQP servers. Do it the other way around. If a server thinks its load is too high, it should shut down its qmqpc service. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Tornadoes, earthquakes, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | hurricanes and government: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | uncontrollable forces
Yet another /var/spool/mail questions
Hi Everyone.. I have setup Qmail according to the LWQ document, and also installed the scripts which are used in this document to start qmail.. Everything works nicely, but I would like to have all mail be delivered in the the /var/spool/mail directory instead of $HOME/$USER/Mailbox.. I read the INSTALL files, but I can't figure out something.. You run the command 'qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail' to deliver to Mailbox file When I read the documentation what you need to change in order to get the delivery in your /va/spool directory they tell you, you need to use Procmail (or binmail) to deliver your mail to /var/spool/mail.. Is this correct? Isn't there a easier way? Bascially I am very happing how everything is working, I only would like to change the delivery directory.. I am running Redhat 6.2 and removed all sendmail files before doing the Qmail install.. What in my situation would I need to install/change to get it to work.. Sorry if this is a dumb question.. Bye Bye David
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:32:24AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame? If I allow 20 simultaneous connections (hypothetically) and mail is delivered from 5 different hosts at once, two of which are running qmail with mailing lists, odds are that the other three hosts won't be able to connect and may bounce the message back to the sender because the qmail sites used all my connections. Ofcourse not. A 'connection refused' will not cause a bounce unless some involved software is *severly* broken. Also, the other hosts will get into the connection-backlog and get their turn. That's the beauty of qmail using one connection per message - message done, connection closed, next in connection queue gets it's turn. A qmail box delivering to another qmail box will never chew up all it's incoming connections for a long time, they will nicely rotate. A sendmail box *is* able to cause that DoS. Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
Filters have been made for Sendmail and Postfix to deal with this issue : and qmail ???
Hi, Again a security problem with outlook : look at the announce on securityfocus: http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?section=solutionvid=1481 On the solution page, it is written: Workaround: Filters have been made for Sendmail and Postfix to deal with this issue. See the Bugtraq posts in the Credit section for more information. Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a workaround on my old qmail server ? What about a /var/qmail/regexpreject ? What do you think ? Could be a feature for a qmail 1.04... :) Regards, Olivier -- _ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
some broken mailer [MAILER-DAEMON@gcs.gateway: Returned mail: User unknown]
Somebody is using a *very* broken mailer. - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 - Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 - Received: from ns.albertsons.com ([167.234.1.10]) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA31786 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:33:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14290 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:48 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (roll.mcit.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA131978 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:10 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DE Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** - Delivery could not be made to the following recipients - Invalid Recipient: MichaelG [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DD Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:29:04 +0200 From: (Peter van Dijk) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying! - End forwarded message - Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
another broken mailer [MAILER-DAEMON@infoteen.com: Returned Mail: user qmail@list.cr.yp.to unknown!]
And my previous message about a broken mailer generated a bounce from *another* broken mailer... - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 23018 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 - Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 - Received: from mta1.infoteen.com (media1.infoteen.com [216.35.114.216] (may be forged)) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01713 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:15:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mta1.infoteen.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA12144; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:51 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:51 -0700 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned Mail: user [EMAIL PROTECTED] unknown! To: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Dagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 No such user here Content-Type: text/plain The following email has been returned to you. Error 550: User [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not an existing InfoTeen.com account. Please make sure that the email address you specified, [EMAIL PROTECTED]@infoteen.com is valid. Email Message Follows - From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 22 09:06:51 2000 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181]) by mta1.infoteen.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA12140 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 13465 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Jul 2000 16:14:10 - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 12106 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:14:09 - Received: from envy.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:14:09 - Received: (qmail 40488 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:13:45 - Received: from kesteren.vuurwerk.nl (HELO daemon.vuurwerk.nl) (194.178.232.59) by envy.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:13:45 - Received: (nullmailer pid 23406 invoked by uid 11109); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:13:44 - Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:13:44 +0200 From: Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: some broken mailer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Returned mail: User unknown] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Somebody is using a *very* broken mailer. - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Return-Path: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 - Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 - Received: from ns.albertsons.com ([167.234.1.10]) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA31786 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:33:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14290 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:48 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (roll.mcit.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA131978 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:10 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DE Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** - Delivery could not be made to the following recipients - Invalid Recipient: MichaelG [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DD Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:29:04 +0200 From: (Peter van Dijk) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying! - End forwarded message - Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper] - End forwarded message - Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
Re: another broken mailer
Yep, same thing here. I think someone (probably [EMAIL PROTECTED], since it appears in the bounces tough the original message was no addressed to said individual) has a mail forwarder that gags with semicolon separated addresses in the To: field. Armando
Re: Filters have been made for Sendmail and Postfix to deal with this issue : and qmail ???
From: Olivier M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a workaround on my old qmail server ? What about a /var/qmail/regexpreject ? What do you think ? Could be a feature for a qmail 1.04... :) Probably ofmipd from the mess822 package repairs the date field... Armando
Re: Filters have been made for Sendmail and Postfix to deal with this issue : and qmail ???
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 06:00:30PM -, asantos wrote: From: Olivier M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a workaround on my old qmail server ? What about a /var/qmail/regexpreject ? What do you think ? Could be a feature for a qmail 1.04... :) Probably ofmipd from the mess822 package repairs the date field... is it an add-on to qmail-smtpd, or something to add in the .qmail-xxx ? It should be something system-wide... Olivier -- _ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
Re: Filters have been made for Sendmail and Postfix to deal with this issue : and qmail ???
From: Olivier M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is it an add-on to qmail-smtpd, or something to add in the .qmail-xxx ? It should be something system-wide... It replaces qmail-smtpd. Check http://cr.yp.to/mess822.html , download the package and read ofmipd.8 inside. Note that this does not prevent the MIME version of the exploit, and that that unforeseen problems (not security, its djb's work) may arise, re bandwidth, speed, too much filtering of the headers, and so on. Armando
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
I really suggest you to sift through the archives first. My MTA really
does faster, even in this situation: The round-trip times around here
are too long. The less round-trips, the faster the mail gets through.
Easy as that.
Hmm...RSET needs one roundtrip (C: RSET, S: OK). A new SMTP connection
needs 3 roundtrips: 1. C:TCP(SYN), S:TCP(SYN+ACK), 2. C:TCP(ACK), S:server
hello, 3. C:HELO, S:OK. Moreover a typical TCP implementation will open
every new connection with most parameters (such as rtt, window, mtu) set
to some default values and it takes a while to adjust them. Your claim
(less roundtrips, better performance) is at least misleading...what is
meant by "roundtrips" in that context anyway?
The real reasons why qmail-style multiple connections are very likely to
outperform sendmail-or-whatever-style single connections are:
(Please note that the following explanations are intentionally
simplified for the sake of clarity and brevity.)
1. There are several "synchronization points" per one SMTP transaction,
let's say N (e.g. N=7 for qmail-remote and a server without pipelining:
TCP(SYN) TCP(SYN+ACK), TCP(ACK) server hello, HELO, MAIL, RCPT, DATA,
end of DATA (".")). At each of those points, there is one roundtrip wait
on the client's side. Let's say an average roundtrip is R seconds long,
the link can transmit B bytes per second, the client needs to transmit M
bytes per message and the traffic from the server to the client is
negligible. This means an average SMTP transaction is M/B + NR seconds
long, and an average link utilization during a single transaction is
U = M / (M + NRB). It is obvious that U 1. If U 1, the client spends
more of its time waiting for the server's responses than sending data. In
such a case, the performance grows less or more linearly with the number
of simultaneously running clients, as does the link utilization. Up to a
point: when the link is saturated, the performance cannot grow anymore,
and it even decreases gradually due to the congestion-induced overhead and
increased per-message latencies.
2. Even when the link is congested, it might still be possible to
increase the amount of data you send...if there are other users using the
link you can steal some bandwidth from them. Let's assume the link can
transmit B bytes per second and the router on its end receives Y b/s
to be transmitted from you and O b/s from other users. A typical Internet
router will transmit a less or more randomly chosen set of cca. B incoming
bytes per second and drop the rest, i.e approx. Y / (Y + O) of the
bandwith will be allocated to you, and O / (Y + O) to others. If O remains
fixed and Y grows, Y / (Y + O) grows as well. This is similar to the
"communistic" behaviour of the traditional unix CPU scheduler: the more
processes you run, the more CPU time you get...at the other user's
expense. Today, it pays off to be aggressive (OTOH, I am not sure it
will pay off tomorrow in the more QoS-aware Internet).
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
I've written a little perl script to analyze a qmail log. This scripts gives a hint as to what you might save in bandwidth if qmail supported multiple recipients. This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats: o only messages sizes as recorded in the log are counted o SMTP overhead is not counted o DNS overhead is not counted o TCP overhead is not counted o failed deliveries are not counted o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target o Assumes no VERP (which makes each message unique and this not countable) (grep these out if it's a problem) o The incremental costs of subsequent deliveries via multiple recipients is assumed to be zero. So if you feed it a log that has one message inserted for 2 remote recipients to the same domain it will show a potential saving of 50%. Since the script is only lightly tested, I'm soliciting a few volunteers who are willing to run this script on their log files and send the results back to me (and/or the list if you so desire). You must be able to run a perl script and devise a preprocessing command such as cut or awk (as the script only wants the qmail output, not timestamps and such). You must understand the caveats, and giving me feedback would be nice. IOW, no beginners please. Email me if you can help. Mark.
Re: another broken mailer [MAILER-DAEMON@infoteen.com: Returned Mail: user qmail@list.cr.yp.to unknown!]
Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): And my previous message about a broken mailer generated a bounce from *another* broken mailer... - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED] - My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into badmailfrom--they are kind enough to send their bounces with a non-null return-path :) I think it would be nice if Mr. Bernstein could unsub these dweebs from the list. Aaron The following email has been returned to you. Error 550: User [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not an existing InfoTeen.com account. Please make sure that the email address you specified, [EMAIL PROTECTED]@infoteen.com is valid.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detect what the foreign MTA is when you connect usually ... ) Adam McKenna wrote: What it does is make sendmail look bad. qmail can easily handle a flood of incoming connections (if it is being run through tcpserver). It will coolly defer all incoming connections until a slot opens up. IMHO this is an important feature, and the fact that sendmail doesn't handle incoming connections as gracefully is not an excuse to bash qmail.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose mail ... (through failures of their own). If we're the 'intelligent' ones and the secure ones, we should probably be working around their failures where we can, to keep _mail_ secure, not just mail on Qmail servers. Adam McKenna wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:17:32AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: And DJB has already proposed other protocol solutions that don't handle this issue either. That said, your comment is moot. SMTP has lots of problems, why _not_ solve them? This isn't a problem with SMTP -- It's a problem with MTA's that don't handle lots of incoming connections very well. The fact that a majority of people on the Internet are running such MTA's is not a concern of mine and it shouldn't be a concern of Dan's. If they want better connection handling, they should either request the feature in sendmail or upgrade to something better. --Adam
Re: Unable to send a huge file
Yes, I've seen this too. I can almost guarantee that the user on the remote server has exceeded their storage allocation. They've probably received a message from the server telling them they should delete some mail. Incidentally, in RFC 821, that is the exact text for error 552. Hotmail et. al. tend to rewrite it otherwise ... so it might be a sendmail site or something. "Aaron L. Meehan" wrote: Quoting Ismal Hisham Darus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): I don't know where the problem is .. but in my my case, we have two qmail servers server0 and server1 (not using inetd.. of course :)). When somebody send files exceeding 2.5mb, he get a bouce mail stating that : Remote host said: 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation. Anyway, as others stated, that message isn't output by qmail. I _have_ seen that particular annoying message before: it's output by hotmail.com's mail servers when you send an email to someone there that has exceeded their mail quota. The quota is quite small at hotmail and other free mail providers, and they outright *bounce* mail when it's exceeded.
Re: Permissions Dilemma?
You might just be running into chown user.group problems ... try escaping the '.' or wrapping the username in quotes. That failing, does al.koch have an entry in /etc/passwd? Your final question makes me believe that none of your users are in /etc/passwd at all. You might want to convert to vpopmail, which wouldn't require adding users to /etc/passwd. Tony Campisi wrote: When I set up my Sendmail box last year I added all of my users in 'userconf' as POP accounts (mail only). Approx 250. As I'm attempting to add Maildir folders under their /home/name directories, I cannot chown Maildir. For example: drwx-- 5 root popusers 1024 Jul 21 11:22 Maildir [root@mail2 /home/al.koch]# chown -R al.koch /home/al.koch/Maildir chown: al.koch: invalid user Will I have to remove all my users and add them as regular users?
Re: [spam score 2.14/10.0 -pobox] qmqpc load balancing
Wouldn't you just rotate the mailservers? Go from A to B to C instead of
picking one randomly? I don't see how random distribution is going to be less
balanced than a simple round-robin, and generating random numbers tends to take
more computation than incrementing a variable.
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it
to load balance between all servers I have listed as QMQP servers. In
qmail-qmqpc.c on line 153, it says:
i = 0;
for (j = 0;j servers.len;++j)
if (!servers.s[j]) {
doit(servers.s + i);
i = j + 1;
}
Would it work if I change it to:
i = 0;
for (j = 0;j servers.len;++j)
i = (servers.len*1.0)*rand()/(RAND_MAX+1.0);
if (!servers.s[j]) {
doit(servers.s + i);
}
This way, "i" will be a random number from 0 to (servers.len-1).
--
Jay Austad
Network Administrator
CBS Marketwatch
612.817.1271
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://cbs.marketwatch.com
http://www.bigcharts.com
Re: minifaq
"John van V." wrote: I am building a site to toot the horn of public domain products that have industrial strength. I'm not aware of Qmail being public domain ... I see a public domain statement in sgetopt and subgetopt ... but that is all. (please correct me if I'm wrong -- and the licensing should be easier to find ... at the top of the README, for instance). Its actually becoming free portal w/o banners and such combining the features of yahoo! and dejanews, for instance w/ developer support as well. I'd like to find readers-digest versions of all the uscpi tools, daemontools, the kind of stuff that resides under the qmail type apps.
Re: remote load management, was orbs.org nonsense
If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detect what the foreign MTA is when you connect usually ... ) I've been thinking for quite a while of some sort of hack to qmail to do remote load management, the idea being that we want to open almost but not quite enough connections to each remote system to make the remote fall over. Possibilities for guessing the appropriate limit per remote might include: - sniff the SMTP banner for known lame MTAs - measure the round trip time, for the response to HELO, stop connecting when it becomes "too much", either an absolute limit or N times more than it used to be - pay more attention to "421 come back later" type messages -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
procmail preline acting like a local user
Hi, Just installed qmail and procmail on a FreeBSD 4.0 box.qmail works fine if I delete .qmail With .qmail containing less .qmail | /var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/local/bin/procmail I find in /var/log/maillog local _|_/var/qmail/bin/preline_/usr/local/bin/procmail@adsl-6etc. etc later I get no_mailbox as to be expected. That is, procmail is attemting to deliver to a local address, clearly a non-existant local address, on my box. It is as if preline is not being executed but is being treated as an address. Advice please. Thanks Jeff
Re: Data in exel to Vpopmail
Export to CSV format, then you can import them into MySQL with very little difficulty (LOAD DATA ... see MySQL manual). If you're not using MySQL authentication, sorry. "Javier Vino R." wrote: I have a big table in MS exel with de login and pass, How can I do to import from VPOPMAIL all the users ? I hope so u can help me
Re: Data in exel to Vpopmail
Another possibility is to install the MySQL ODBC driver which works quite well and use that to upload the data directly from Excel into MySQL. Export to CSV format, then you can import them into MySQL with very little difficulty (LOAD DATA ... see MySQL manual). If you're not using MySQL authentication, sorry. I have a big table in MS exel with de login and pass, How can I do to import from VPOPMAIL all the users ? I hope so u can help me -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:07:11AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: John White wrote: To be blunt, I don't mind taking a look at the code changes you're proposing. Where are they? (Sarcasm:) What, you don't know how to code? No, but I'm skeptical about ideas that are so good that someone else should code them. John
Re: procmail preline acting like a local user (fwd)
I tried the suggestion [thanks John] below but alas. Jul 22 13:46:42 adsl-63-201-55-218 qmail: 964298802.949315 starting delivery 86: msg 79379 to local _|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff local _|_/var/qmail/bin/preline_/usr/local/bin/procmail@adsl-6etc. etc later I get no_mailbox as to be expected. Advice please. Try deleting the space in front of the vertical bar. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
[Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown]
Why am I getting bounces when the message is indeed getting to the list? Also, who is GCS Client Services? Original Message Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Date: 22 Jul 2000 05:29:39 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** - Delivery could not be made to the following recipients - Invalid Recipient: MichaelG [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E00015629 Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:29:26 -0700 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:29:08 -0400 From: (Michael T Babcock) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: (Charles Cazabon) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Re: Alan @ ORBS
I'd have to agree. I'm using ORBS ... but it was a lot of internal arguing (my head :-) At some point I need to rewrite the ORBS interface software to both bounce the messages and deliver them to a temporary store where I can review them. Russell Nelson wrote: Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that anyone uses ORBS.
Re: qmqpc load balancing
True, but its quite valid to round-robin several servers to keep any one from ever getting a high load in the first place. eg. the way load-balancing HTTP usually works. Russell Nelson wrote: Austad, Jay writes: Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it to load balance between all servers I have listed as QMQP servers. Do it the other way around. If a server thinks its load is too high, it should shut down its qmqpc service.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification on Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host refuses the connection because it has too many incoming sessions open. Peter van Dijk wrote: Also, the other hosts will get into the connection-backlog and get their turn. That's the beauty of qmail using one connection per message - message done, connection closed, next in connection queue gets it's turn. A qmail box delivering to another qmail box will never chew up all it's incoming connections for a long time, they will nicely rotate. A sendmail box *is* able to cause that DoS.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 04:58:04PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification on Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host refuses the connection because it has too many incoming sessions open. It tries again later. Only if after 7 days (by default) it bounces because it has been trying too long. Greetz, Peter. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:ircoper]
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Well written. Pavel Kankovsky wrote: Hmm...RSET needs one roundtrip (C: RSET, S: OK). A new SMTP connection needs 3 roundtrips: 1. C:TCP(SYN), S:TCP(SYN+ACK), 2. C:TCP(ACK), S:server hello, 3. C:HELO, S:OK. Moreover a typical TCP implementation will open every new connection with most parameters (such as rtt, window, mtu) set to some default values and it takes a while to adjust them. Your claim (less roundtrips, better performance) is at least misleading...what is meant by "roundtrips" in that context anyway? And I'm very glad you brought up "round trips" because I'm getting the feeling that not very many people are considering how TCP works in an IP context vs. how SMTP works over TCP. That is to say, you gain quite a bit initially by opening parallel TCP connections, but opening them in sequence (closing one, opening a new one) is inherently expensive. Cutting down the number of open+closes is a 'good thing'. The real reasons why qmail-style multiple connections are very likely to outperform sendmail-or-whatever-style single connections are: Comments given once ... read them in the list archives ... cut for brevity. This is similar to the "communistic" behaviour of the traditional unix CPU scheduler: the more processes you run, the more CPU time you get...at the other user's expense. Today, it pays off to be aggressive (OTOH, I am not sure it will pay off tomorrow in the more QoS-aware Internet). QoS is something I spend quite a bit of time working with, especially with VPN links I'm running and trying to make the most of clients' access bandwidth when running multiple 56k analog modems (2 or 3 aggregate).
Re: procmail preline acting like a local user - again, sorry
My apologies for sending this again but I could not receive mail responses for a bit because silly me, I forgot to remove the .qmail before sending the note below. If anyone was good enought to repsond as yet please also be so good as to send again. Thanks Jeff --- I tried the suggestion [thanks John] below but alas. Jul 22 13:46:42 adsl-63-201-55-218 qmail: 964298802.949315 starting delivery 86: msg 79379 to local _|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jeff local _|_/var/qmail/bin/preline_/usr/local/bin/procmail@adsl-6etc. etc later I get no_mailbox as to be expected. Advice please. Try deleting the space in front of the vertical bar. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Re: another broken mailer [MAILER-DAEMON@infoteen.com: Returned Mail: user qmail@list.cr.yp.to unknown!]
I think unsubscribing them is probably unnecessary, but blocking their 'bounce' messages at the list server would probably be smart. "Aaron L. Meehan" wrote: My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into badmailfrom--they are kind enough to send their bounces with a non-null return-path :) I think it would be nice if Mr. Bernstein could unsub these dweebs from the list.
Re: another broken mailer - #2
Scratch previous comment -- bounces are going to individual senders, not to list (because headers are not rewritten, which is a good thing, I suppose). I'll add a filter myself for my host. "Aaron L. Meehan" wrote: My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into badmailfrom--they are kind enough to send their bounces with a non-null return-path :) I think it would be nice if Mr. Bernstein could unsub these dweebs from the list.
Re: remote load management, was orbs.org nonsense
For your #1: this would be similar to the Linux kernel approach to DMA on hard
drives ... enable by default, except on those drives we have in database of broken
drives.
As for #2 and #3: this adds overhead, of course, but could inherently reduce
overhead down the road, as long as the algorithm is simple. Something like a
simple:
(pseudo:)
if (hosts[current].connections hosts[current].max_connections)
{
/* ... open connection ...
... read response ...
... record response latency as current_latency ... */
if (response_val == 421
|| current_latency best_latency * (1 + latency_percentage))
{
hosts[current].max_connections = hosts[current].connections;
/* could be connections -1 but this will keep trying to up the # */
} else {
best_latency = min(best_latency, current_latency);
/* ... do delivery ... */
}
}
I hope this satisfies someone ... :-P
"John R. Levine" wrote:
I've been thinking for quite a while of some sort of hack to qmail to
do remote load management, the idea being that we want to open almost
but not quite enough connections to each remote system to make the
remote fall over.
Possibilities for guessing the appropriate limit per remote might include:
- sniff the SMTP banner for known lame MTAs
- measure the round trip time, for the response to HELO, stop connecting
when it becomes "too much", either an absolute limit or N times more than
it used to be
- pay more attention to "421 come back later" type messages
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Michael T Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detect what the foreign MTA is when you connect usually ... ) This is all nice and good in theory, but you should be aware that you're going down a rathole with this particular discussion. The only person who's going to be able to modify this behavior of qmail and make it stick is Dan, Dan has heard all of these arguments before, and so far he doesn't seem to be buying it. You're rather far from making any *new* arguments here, regardless of whether any of the rest of us find them persuasive or not. If you really want to have separate queues and streaming of mail through a single connection per peer rather than qmail's behavior, you may seriously want to consider using Postfix instead of qmail. I personally prefer qmail, but trying to use a software package against the express design intention of its primary author is rather like banging one's head repeatedly against a brick wall. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree. Russ Allbery wrote: If you really want to have separate queues and streaming of mail through a single connection per peer rather than qmail's behavior, you may seriously want to consider using Postfix instead of qmail. I personally prefer qmail, but trying to use a software package against the express design intention of its primary author is rather like banging one's head repeatedly against a brick wall.
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Michael T Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree. I disagree with the contention that the *average* qmail admin is using any patches at all, if by average you mean the mode, and possibly even the median. I'm running qmail on a half-dozen different machines and I've never used a third-party patch to qmail for anything. I've never needed to. If your qmail installation is dependent on patches not written by Dan, I will echo my same recommendation: Seriously consider using another MTA. My opinion as a system administrator is that attempting to use and support packages plus third-party patches not blessed by the package maintainer is a recipe for disaster. With all due respect to the qmail-ldap people, for example, I'd be much more confident in Postfix's LDAP support because it's part of the main distribution. I'd make an exception for ezmlm-idx, given that Dan has all but blessed it as a good third-party product to use for people doing more than non-trivial mailing lists, but last I'd heard, he was rather annoyed at the qmail patches, not welcoming them. That means that he's likely to be willing to break them without giving them a second thought in later releases, whereas he may work closer with the ezmlm-idx folks if he releases a new version of ezmlm. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: procmail preline acting like a local user - again, sorry
From: Jeff Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] I tried the suggestion [thanks John] below but alas. _|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah, the Americisms... :) Jeff, note the underline before the pipe ( _| ). Delete the space at the *start* of the line, *before* the pipe. Armando
qmail: cannot mail to root
Hi all, I'm probably not the first one to stumble over this 'problem'. I've recently installed Q-Mail (yesterday), and found 1 problem rather 'annoying'. I can't send any mail to root. Anyone else works fine, but not root. The qmail daemon tells me (in /var/log/messages) cannot chdir to maildir what does this mean? I'm using the Maildir configuration (as it is most safe - and security safety come first here). If anyone has got an answer... Please let me know. (as detailed as possible) Thanks! -- Jan De Luyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webmaster of http://www.blindguardian.org ICQ: 8453612 Public PGP key at http://www.blindguardian.org/txt/pgp_public.asc Geekcode: GCS/IT/TW/MC d- s+:+ a-- C++$ UL++$ P L++ E W+$ N++ o? K? w-- O- M- V? PS+ PE+ Y+++ PGP++ t+ 5-- X R tv- b++ DI+ D G e* h! !r-- y! Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
"Michael T. Babcock" wrote: You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose mail ... (through failures of their own). As long as qmail is going to be expected to handle connection-management for remote MTAs, shouldn't we also handle security on the client, rather than the server, as well? In my view, if an MTA crashes, for any reason, it's the MTA's fault - no discussion about it. Doesn't matter how many connections were opened to it, or how fast. If it can't handle more connections, it should start refusing them, period. Another point is that if qmail "fixes" this "problem", it leaves the flawed MTAs alone to be crashed by a attacker - they need not fix their connection-management problems - they're left in, silently waiting for and attacker to exploit. Eric
Re: qmail: cannot mail to root
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:21:52AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can't send any mail to root. Anyone else works fine, but not root. The qmail daemon tells me (in /var/log/messages) Check out INSTALL.alias file in your qmail/doc directory. It explains why and what to do. -- John__ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quis custodiet ipsos custodes icq: thales @ 17755648
Re: qmail: cannot mail to root
Also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 23.07.2000: from the qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL file: 5. Read INSTALL.alias. Minimal survival command: # (cd ~alias; touch .qmail-postmaster .qmail-mailer-daemon qmail-root) # chmod 644 ~alias/.qmail* from qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL.alias: * root. Under qmail, root never receives mail. Your system may generate mail messages to root every night; if you don't have an alias for root, those messages will bounce. (They'll end up double-bouncing to the postmaster.) Set up an alias for root in ~alias/.qmail-root. .qmail files are similar to .forward files, but beware that they are strictly line-oriented---see dot-qmail.0 for details. # end of quotes so you should set up an alias root either as ~alias/.qmail-root or in /etc/aliases if you use that. and that alias should redirect mails for root to one or more persons in charge ... wolfgang
Re: qmail: cannot mail to root
Also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 23.07.2000: from the qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL file: 5. Read INSTALL.alias. Minimal survival command: # (cd ~alias; touch .qmail-postmaster .qmail-mailer-daemon qmail-root) # chmod 644 ~alias/.qmail* from qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL.alias: * root. Under qmail, root never receives mail. Your system may generate mail messages to root every night; if you don't have an alias for root, those messages will bounce. (They'll end up double-bouncing to the postmaster.) Set up an alias for root in ~alias/.qmail-root. .qmail files are similar to .forward files, but beware that they are strictly line-oriented---see dot-qmail.0 for details. # end of quotes so you should set up an alias root either as ~alias/.qmail-root or in /etc/aliases if you use that. and that alias should redirect mails for root to one or more persons in charge ... wolfgang Ic. Thanks! -- Jan De Luyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webmaster of http://www.blindguardian.org ICQ: 8453612 Public PGP key at http://www.blindguardian.org/txt/http://www.blindguardian.org/txt/publ ic_key.asc Geekcode: GCS/IT/TW/MC d- s+:+ a-- C++$ UL++$ P L++ E W+$ N++ o? K? w-- O- M- V? PS+ PE+ Y+++ PGP++ t+ 5-- X R tv- b++ DI+ D G e* h! !r-- y! Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
Re: qmail: cannot mail to root
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:21:52AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I'm probably not the first one to stumble over this 'problem'. I've recently installed Q-Mail (yesterday), and found 1 problem rather 'annoying'. I It's qmail :-) not Q-Mail, nor Qmail. can't send any mail to root. Anyone else works fine, but not root. The qmail daemon tells me (in /var/log/messages) You can't do it now, and you probably never will while using qmail. It refuses to deliver to root. That's mentioned in the documentation, somewhere. Set up a .qmail-root in ~alias, and deliver it to some other user. RC -- +--- | Ricardo Cerqueira | PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 | Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica | Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal | Tel: +351 21 3166700 (24h/dia) - Fax: +351 21 3166701
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Michael T. Babcock writes: You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose mail ... (through failures of their own). You *REALLY* don't understand the point of Qmail. Qmail is designed to be standards compliant, fast, reliable and secure. Your belief seems to be that the designer of Qmail only cared about reliability. That is demonstrably false, by DJB's own admission. Nothing in the design or implementation of Qmail was there ever consideration given to causing or preventing broken implementations of SMTP from crashing. They are broken, therefore they *should* crash. If we're the 'intelligent' ones and the secure ones, we should probably be working around their failures where we can, to keep _mail_ secure, not just mail on Qmail servers. Now you have gone and changed the subject to secure e-mail. There is no such thing in the defined SMTP protocol. Security is an add-on and has nothing to do with Qmail. /Joe
Re: procmail preline acting like a local user - again, sorry
Thanks, this was, of course, the fix. This post is now mostly for the archives so another will not fall into the 'American whitespace hole" g. With appreciation to a list that responds professionally and quickly. Hopefully in a bit I too will be able to contribute. Jeff On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, asantos wrote: From: Jeff Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] I tried the suggestion [thanks John] below but alas. _|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah, the Americisms... :) Jeff, note the underline before the pipe ( _| ). Delete the space at the *start* of the line, *before* the pipe. Armando
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Russ Allbery writes: Michael T Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree. I disagree with the contention that the *average* qmail admin is using any patches at all, if by average you mean the mode, and possibly even the median. I agree with Russ. I have never felt the need to install or even consider a patch to the main Qmail code. I feel that there is a small minority of list members who cannot resist trying every third-party patch that comes along without understanding how it will *break* Qmail. Then they complain about broken behavior caused by ill-considered patches. /Joe
RE: qmqpc load balancing
It would probably be much more efficient to round-robin them. Otherwise you end up banging on one until it's buried (or at it's set limit), then banging on the next, and so on. What happens when they all decide their load is too high and shut down qmqpd? Isn't it much easier to code round-robin into it anyway? Would it be easier to just make it so I could put a hostname into the qmqpservers file and do round robin dns for it? Wouldn't that just be a simple addition of gethostbyname()? I have to say though, I really like the way qmail is laid out. Lots of small programs with specific functions, it makes it very easy to do modifications. Jay -Original Message- From: Michael T. Babcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 3:55 PM To: Russell Nelson Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: qmqpc load balancing True, but its quite valid to round-robin several servers to keep any one from ever getting a high load in the first place. eg. the way load-balancing HTTP usually works. Russell Nelson wrote: Austad, Jay writes: Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it to load balance between all servers I have listed as QMQP servers. Do it the other way around. If a server thinks its load is too high, it should shut down its qmqpc service.
Re: qmail died again... 3x in 3 weeks
Paul Farber wrote: telnetting to port 25 and 110 just timed out. This usually means (when it has happened to me anyway) that the server is listening on the port you're telnetting to, but is stalled doing a reverse DNS lookup of the client's IP address. Perhaps a munged reverse DNS zonefile? DNS was fine... it means just that, I could ping via hostname and the dns logs show it was running. That could still happen under the above scenario... Eric
pop3 won't die
I have a question many of you have probably answered before. Let me give you some info about my setup first: qmail,vpopmail,daemontools,ucspi-tcp I followed "Life with qmail" concerning the setup of the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send and /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd directories and they seem to be working fine. However, pop3d is another situation. I created a /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d directory and added the run file and log directory. When I issue a /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start, everything seems to work fine including pop3. When I issue a /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop, pop3 still continues on about it's business. Below is some misc code: /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d/run: - #!/bin/sh /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup pop.linux-perl.com \ /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir 21 /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail (snippet): - ... start) echo -n "Starting qmail: svscan" cd /var/qmail/supervise env - PATH="$PATH" svscan echo $! /var/run/svscan.pid echo "." ;; stop) echo -n "Stopping qmail: svscan" kill `cat /var/run/svscan.pid` echo -n " qmail" svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/* echo -n " logging" svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*/log echo "." ;; ... I hope someone can help me with this. Thanks, Jeff Jones
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 08:32:24 -0400 Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame? If I allow 20 simultaneous connections (hypothetically) and mail is delivered from 5 different hosts at once, two of which are running qmail with mailing lists, odds are that the other three hosts won't be able to connect and may bounce the message back to the sender because the qmail sites used all my connections. Is this correct? Certainly not! The sender should simply back off and try again later -- what they all do now if they fail to connect on the first try, in fact. -- Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Attitude
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 08:38:47 -0400 I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about being on the nameserver mailing list? I'm not being moderated out (I appreciate that), but the number of slams vs. useful responses to proposals is staggering. If all you have to say is "not my MTA, thank-you" then you may as well not bother. Silence does not mean consent. Especially in OSS. You're bringing up an old, old, argued-to-death, topic, and displaying ignorance of that history. People *do* hear what you're saying. We've heard it all before. We've heard various responses before. We've thought about it a lot. Our failure to accept your ideas is not because we have not heard them; it's because we *have* heard them; repeatedly. And the responses to them. Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT clear to you; sorry about that! Meanwhile, you're asking us to do all the work, *again*, to disprove some claims that have been repeatedly disproved in the past. Sorry, most of us are confident in our positions and don't feel a need to do that much work. Plus there's the DJB factor :-). Doesn't matter if you convince *us* or not; qmail is not, in fact, open source software. -- Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400 Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that anyone uses ORBS. I'm really annoyed at the degree of uncivility that's developed in the spam-fighting community. I'm running selected spams through spamcop (more curious about their analysis than anything else), and nearly everything reaching me is marked as already blocked by ORBS. It's not blocked by RBL or RSS, unfortunately, so it's still reaching me. And either ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke or MAPS is really putting the boot in in their private way, in ways I can't approve of. Ugly all around. -- Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
Joe Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 16:03:00 -0700 Russ Allbery writes: Michael T Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree. I disagree with the contention that the *average* qmail admin is using any patches at all, if by average you mean the mode, and possibly even the median. I agree with Russ. I have never felt the need to install or even consider a patch to the main Qmail code. I feel that there is a small minority of list members who cannot resist trying every third-party patch that comes along without understanding how it will *break* Qmail. Then they complain about broken behavior caused by ill-considered patches. I'm running the big-todo on one system, though I'm not sure it's really necessary there; I'm quite sure it is for people with more volume. And the verh patch is definitely needed for anybody doing mailing lists seriously. -- Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
