Re: TCPserver error (fwd)
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Z wrote: > something else is already running on that port, and after doing an nmap > it seems to be smtp. i checked my inetd.conf but it says nothing of > smtp being started there. is sendmail still hanging around/running? try "lsof | grep smtp" or "netstat -p | grep smtp" to find the culprit. Regards, Uwe
Re: qmail-pw2u error
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:12:54PM -0400, Vincent Danen wrote: ! In /etc/passwd I have this: ! ! alias:x:400:401::/var/qmail/alias:/bin/true Can you please run qmail-showctl and list the output of the line ``user ids''. The first number shown has to be 400, in your case. Also, type ``ls -dln /var/qmail/alias'' and make sure it says 400 in the third field. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
question ?
I'm having problems w/ vpasswd the binary file for vpasswd (to change the password of a vpopmail user) is located in /home/vpopmail/bin but the users are located in /home/vpopmail/domains/foo.com how can i use the vpopmail and vadduser ?? it does not specify any syntax i need to add users and change password for vpop users from console. Thanx in advance Chad
qmail-pw2u error
I'm getting this error: qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to find alias user I'm calling it like this: #!/bin/sh /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u /var/qmail/users/assign && qmail-newu In /etc/passwd I have this: alias:x:400:401::/var/qmail/alias:/bin/true Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? qmail won't deliver mail and I get this in my logfile: delivery 34: deferral: Trouble_reading_users/cdb_in_qmail-lspawn./ I've never encountered this error before but, mind you, I've never used qmail-pw2u before. Any ideas? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], OpenPGP key available on www.keyserver.net Freezer Burn BBS: telnet://bbs.freezer-burn.org . ICQ: 54924721 Webmaster for the Linux Portal Site Freezer Burn: http://www.freezer-burn.org Current Linux uptime: 2 days 5 hours 31 minutes.
Re: tai64n -- why?
Chris, the Young One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 1 August 2000 at 12:56:46 +1200 > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:54:23PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > ! This one > ! makes zero sense. It's non-functional. It doesn't connect to the way > ! I work. > > Would you prefer the splogger format (to wit, Unix timestamp with > fractional part) instead? I'd do anything to use a logging format > that avoids timezone dependency, and multilog/tai64n seems to do > that job well. You mean this: Jul 31 06:02:10 gw qmail: 965023330.820010 status: local 1/10 remote 0/50 ? It's better than tai64n, because syslog puts a real timestamp on, but that big chunk of meaningless numbers in the middle wastes a lot of the line and adds no useful information. It's what I'm using now on my main server, but it's quite wasteful and annoying. (But qmailanalog expects it) I can see the desire to have a timezone independent format if you're reading logs from systems in multiple timezones. I'm not. Having anything other than my current timezone in plain ASCII is a big lose for me; it means I can't correlate the logs either to each other, or to the real world. (Yes, the random numbers produced by tai correlate to each other, but I can't remember them, whereas I can remember that something happened in midafternoon pretty easily). Multilog and splogger should really have selectable time format and timezone settings. I'd love to use multilog and tell it to use plain text and central time, rather than having to involve post-processors (which are a pain for the current log; for older logs it could be done automatically at rollover). You, on the other hand, could tell your multilog to use GMT on all machines so that when you correlate them across timezones they'd all match up right. And then we'd both be happier than we are now. -- 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]
Duplicate Message-ID question
I didn't see anything in the FAQ that seemed to be relevant to this, and the ORNL search engine wants to split 'message-id' into 'message' and 'id'. Please accept my apologies if this has been covered in the past. I just received a pair of messages from PayPal, which appears to be using qmail. I'm fortunate to have received a pair of messages (headers below), because I use procmail to eliminate duplicate messages based upon the Message-ID header, which RFC 822 requires to be unique. However, I'm a paranoid bastard, and shunt all "duplicate" email to a duplicates folder, rather than sending it to /dev/null, so I caught the false duplicate. My question is, is this a known problem with qmail, possibly a misconfiguration or something correctable by an upgrade? I'd like to be able to tell PayPal more than "Your mailer is doing Bad Things.". Thanks, Sten ===header 1=== >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 31 21:24:49 2000 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from localhost by sten.sten.org (8.10.2/8.10.2/grendel) with ESMTP id e712Omo25542 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:24:48 -0500 X-Received-IP: (IDENT:x [127.0.0.1]) Received: from mail.jump.net [206.196.91.7] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.4.1) for x (multi-drop); Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:24:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from x) by mail15.jump.net (8.10.2/) id e712LU004043 for x; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from web5.paypal.com (web5.paypal.com [208.48.73.218]) by mail15.jump.net (8.10.2/) with SMTP id e712LTk04037 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from web5.paypal.com (web5.paypal.com [208.48.73.218]) by mail15.jump.net (8.10.2/) with SMTP id e712LTk04037 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 28583 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - Date: 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: x ===header 2=== >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 31 21:24:48 2000 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from localhost by sten.sten.org (8.10.2/8.10.2/grendel) with ESMTP id e712Omo25536 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:24:48 -0500 X-Received-IP: (IDENT:x [127.0.0.1]) Received: from mail.jump.net [206.196.91.7] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.4.1) for x (multi-drop); Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:24:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from x) by mail.jump.net (8.9.1/) id VAA29732 for x; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:29 -0500 (CDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from web5.paypal.com (web5.paypal.com [208.48.73.218]) by mail.jump.net (8.9.1/) with SMTP id VAA29728 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from web5.paypal.com (web5.paypal.com [208.48.73.218]) by mail.jump.net (8.9.1/) with SMTP id VAA29728 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:21:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 28582 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - Date: 1 Aug 2000 02:20:39 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: x -- #include/* Sten Drescher */ [The Internet is] like a library in Resident Evil. - Mark Waid, 23 Aug 2000
Re: tai64n -- why?
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:54:23PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: ! This one ! makes zero sense. It's non-functional. It doesn't connect to the way ! I work. Would you prefer the splogger format (to wit, Unix timestamp with fractional part) instead? I'd do anything to use a logging format that avoids timezone dependency, and multilog/tai64n seems to do that job well. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
Re: many processes open
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 08:03:41PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ! >your system cannot open any more files. It's just a temporary situation, ! >just wait it out and hope you don't get more SMTP connections. :-) ! Perhaps checkout ulimit -n, which refers to the max. no. of file descriptors ! - With Solaris using ulimit -n xxx before calling qmail-start is appropriate, ! but with Linux it looks like there is no upper limit (bash offers you a ulimit ! command to check this). Maybe there's a hard-coded f.d. limit in the kernel?? Linux 2.2's global fd limit (as opposed to the per-process fd limit which you set with ``ulimit -n'') isn't hard-coded; you can set it via /proc/sys/fs/file-max. ! I disagree: I've setup machines handling plenty of connections ! using tcpserver - which is, I feel, a far more appropriate way of ! calling qmail-smtpd. You can set tcpserver's concurrency to 400, should you so wish. But by default it will handle only 40, which was why I found 328 a bit strange. (Maybe it's because my mail server doesn't get that many SMTP connections, not enough to merit altering the concurrency limit.) ! Have you come across particular problems ! with tcpserver that lead you to the 'Need inetd' conclusion? I didn't say you ``need'' inetd. My conclusion was that with inetd, there is effectively _no_ concurrency limit, which in my opinion is a Bad Thing. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
RE: [offtopic?] RE: Encryption (was: Open letter)
most recent PGP for windows install worked fine on win2k for me. Put it on last week. Jacob -Original Message- From: Ihnen, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:16 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Ihnen, David Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [offtopic?] RE: Encryption (was: Open letter) Original Message From: Michael T. Babcock on Monday, July 31, 2000 3:04 PM >> I would be signing my messages pgp, if I could, but I haven't gotten ahold >> of PGP 7 yet... and the earlier versions don't work on 2000. > >Use any version of PGP or "PGP for Windows" and use the clipboard encryption >features: >1) select all text (Ctrl-A) >2) "copy" (Ctrl-C) >3) click on PGP tray icon >4) click "sign & encrypt" >5) enter password >6) click window of program with selected text >7) "paste" (Ctrl-V) (replacing original with encrypted + signed cipher-text) Maybe you didn't understand what I said... I can't even INSTALL the current pgp for windows. It don't work. Installer doesn't run. David
RE: [offtopic?] RE: Encryption (was: Open letter)
Original Message From: Michael T. Babcock on Monday, July 31, 2000 3:04 PM >> I would be signing my messages pgp, if I could, but I haven't gotten ahold >> of PGP 7 yet... and the earlier versions don't work on 2000. > >Use any version of PGP or "PGP for Windows" and use the clipboard encryption >features: >1) select all text (Ctrl-A) >2) "copy" (Ctrl-C) >3) click on PGP tray icon >4) click "sign & encrypt" >5) enter password >6) click window of program with selected text >7) "paste" (Ctrl-V) (replacing original with encrypted + signed cipher-text) Maybe you didn't understand what I said... I can't even INSTALL the current pgp for windows. It don't work. Installer doesn't run. David
Re: [offtopic?] RE: Encryption (was: Open letter)
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 06:04:12PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: > Use any version of PGP or "PGP for Windows" and use the clipboard encryption > features: > 1) select all text (Ctrl-A) > 2) "copy" (Ctrl-C) > 3) click on PGP tray icon > 4) click "sign & encrypt" > 5) enter password > 6) click window of program with selected text > 7) "paste" (Ctrl-V) (replacing original with encrypted + signed cipher-text) It's not even this complicated with 6.5. You click on the window whose text you want to encrypt, click on the try icon, and click "encrypt window" (or something like that). PGP automatically does the copying and pasting for you. --Adam
Re: [offtopic?] RE: Encryption (was: Open letter)
Potentially long, off-topic message: (follow-ups and/or flames probably best kept private :) "Ihnen, David" wrote: > Would you consider PGP more than a low-effort? It would be zero effort if > we weren't concerned about the privacy of our own secret keys, thus keeping > them encrypted behind passwords. Personally? Using PGP is very low-effort for me. Typing my 25+ character passphrase has become reflexive. I've run a site re: PGP use since my first website in 1993 or so, so I'm probably not a good test-case. :-) > Maybe an extra-low-effort system would consist of a simply speaking a > keyword into a microphone, and using voiceprint authentication to decrypt > the secret keys. Fortunately almost all computers have the ability to read > in decent quality audio. Sending to particular people is no effort - the > public key aquisition can be automated. I saw some very interesting matrix-mapping software back in 1994 and 1995 for DOS that converted individual words (expandable to phrases) into vectors (stored as matrices) that could easily be compared against a stored file for each person. The idea was to do the "opposite" of voice-to-text recognition software and store the portion of audio that is unique for each user instead of using primarily the part that is similar. > Its interesting to think of the change in load on list servers. Would you > encrypt to the list server, who then decrypts and re-encrypts for each > client, or would there be a collaborative key for the list that everybody > had the secret to and could decrypt? More probably we would just > cleartext-sign the messages for source authentication, for backwards > compatibility, I suspect. Assuming, like the original 'open letter' poster, that you don't want others to snoop on the messages (but their being a subscriber to the list is "okay"), then you'd want a public key for the mailing list that all messages are encrypted to. The mailing list would decrypt the session key for the message (PGP only requires using CPU intensive P.K. cryptography to sign a session key). It would then re-encrypt the session key (effectively, the message) to the public keys of each of the recipients on the list. (It would not need to necessarily verify the sender's signature, to avoid decrypting messages at all). The sender's signature (if used) would be intact in the encrypted message and each person would be able to verify for themselves that that user had sent 'them' the message in question. The CPU intensive portion would be encrypting the session keys to everyone on the list. Assuming the old PGP protocol, that would mean doing 1024 (or more) bit RSA on a 128 bit session key (16 bytes). > Either way, it can be zero-effort for the people generating the e-mail, > outside of authenticating your personal secret key, though accepting the > e-mail has the same effort problems. > > I would be signing my messages pgp, if I could, but I haven't gotten ahold > of PGP 7 yet... and the earlier versions don't work on 2000. Use any version of PGP or "PGP for Windows" and use the clipboard encryption features: 1) select all text (Ctrl-A) 2) "copy" (Ctrl-C) 3) click on PGP tray icon 4) click "sign & encrypt" 5) enter password 6) click window of program with selected text 7) "paste" (Ctrl-V) (replacing original with encrypted + signed cipher-text)
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
asantos wrote: > I bet you a eider feather against a authentic Sakenussem scroll that your > problem is right there on the first line: different versions of libresolv. Agreed. After confirming his resolv was setup and functioning, I suggested a recompile (if on the same box) without and LD_LIBRARY_PATH and after rerunning ldocnfig as root (he was on Linux so no need for the -R :) Failing that a truss/strace and actually see what it's up to. Regards, D.
RE: qmail & dns
Take a look at the DNS-HOWTO (linux) and read about MX records. That'll be easier than waiting here. Brett Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: qmail & dns > > > hello friends > > sorry for asking you too many silly questions , but its just bcoz > i want to > know more about qmail > > >so these questions just keep popping up , > > > how qmail will send the message from one domain > > say a [EMAIL PROTECTED] to someother domain say [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >when DNS comes in to the picture , is qmail it self starts query > authorative dns server for that domain or its a job of some other > programme > bundled with qmail-1.03 > > thanks once again , > with warmest regards > Prashant Desai > >
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
From: Jens Hafsteinsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Did you install qmail from source or using a binary package? >> > >From source, but compiled on a different machine (the user and group match). Right. A ldd qmail-remote on my machine gives me: libresolv.so.2 => /lib/libresolv.so.2 (0x40019000) libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40027000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000) I bet you a eider feather against a authentic Sakenussem scroll that your problem is right there on the first line: different versions of libresolv. Armando
TCPserver error (fwd)
i'm getting the following tcpserver error: [root@myserver /var/qmail/control]# tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u513 -g513 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & [1] 4307 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used [1] Exit 111tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u513 -g513 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd [root@myserver /var/qmail/control]# i've done a ps -aux | grep tcp and don't see it running anywhere. my /etc/tcp.smtp is: 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 216.160.248.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 216.160.240.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 10.1.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 192.168.1.:allow, RELAYCLIENT="" :allow something else is already running on that port, and after doing an nmap it seems to be smtp. i checked my inetd.conf but it says nothing of smtp being started there. what i'm trying to do is solve the relaying problem of having .com or .net in the rcpthosts file. Thanks, Z
RE: many processes open
Chris, >your system cannot open any more files. It's just a temporary situation, >just wait it out and hope you don't get more SMTP connections. :-) Perhaps checkout ulimit -n, which refers to the max. no. of file descriptors - With Solaris using ulimit -n xxx before calling qmail-start is appropriate, but with Linux it looks like there is no upper limit (bash offers you a ulimit command to check this). Maybe there's a hard-coded f.d. limit in the kernel?? >concurrencyremote and concurrencylocal do not affect how many >qmail-smtpd processes can be run. Having 328 connections seems to >me to be doable only if you invoke qmail-smtpd via inetd (see >http://cr.yp.to/docs/inetd.html). I disagree: I've setup machines handling plenty of connections using tcpserver - which is, I feel, a far more appropriate way of calling qmail-smtpd. Have you come across particular problems with tcpserver that lead you to the 'Need inetd' conclusion? If it's an issue of timeouts, or [very] slow connections, that should be the familiar old cookie of the -R and -H options to tcpserver - as someone who moved from inetd to tcpserver myself, this is a problem I remember well cheers, Andrew. -- From: Chris, the Young One[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 31 July 2000 14:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: many processes open On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:03:12PM +0200, Marco Benetton wrote: ! @4000398064413962161c delivery 303: deferral: bin/qmail-queue:_error_in_loading_shared_libraries:_libc.so.6:_cannot_open_shared_object_file:_Error_23/Unable_to_forward_message:_qq_temporary_problem_(#4.3.0)./ Error 23, in Linux (not such a big assumption seeing that your libc is called libc.so.6 :-)), is ENFILE (File table overflow). Essentially, your system cannot open any more files. It's just a temporary situation, just wait it out and hope you don't get more SMTP connections. :-) ! I have set the file concurencyremote=20 and concurencylocal=10 ! but how is possible that I have 328 qmail-smtpd process in a time. concurrencyremote and concurrencylocal do not affect how many qmail-smtpd processes can be run. Having 328 connections seems to me to be doable only if you invoke qmail-smtpd via inetd (see http://cr.yp.to/docs/inetd.html). Try using tcpserver from the ucspi-tcp package instead. It has a concurrency limit of 40, by default. See http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html. Good luck, ---Chris K.
RE: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken
Toens, >That'd be great. Because I can't imagine, why the >'bare-LFs' thing should only affect qmails on Solaris 7 - >and why it should trigger this undeterministic. If bare >LFs would be the reason, it should trigger on the first >mail, right? Well in the case I was looking at, the machines in question are used by tens of thousands of users every day - so some of these may have broken clients. Alternatively, mail is coming in for those same users from broken servers. As I write, the systems are still happy (no recurrence of the 000's of procs), so it really looks like bare LF was the issue. Since it's now 'Fixed', I'm unlikely to be back with that system for a while Contrary to your assertion that it only affects Solaris 7, I did see that other systems (Linux) were affected in other messages in the archive (go search...) - so I suspect all platforms could have this issue if 'Stoned' enough by broken mailers. I suppose it's worth mentioning that the issue was sporadic, so that the apparent DoS would last for maybe an hour... which suggests dialup users to me, with broken clients, rather than servers. Unfortunately at present dialup "Outbound" mail is handled by the same machines as Internet "Inbound" mail, meaning that a "DoS" like this from either source degrades both services. This will be changed to having separate "Inbound" and "Outbound" machines - this reduces the impact of this problem. I think for the systems concerned, bare-LF mailers must be pretty rare, but once a couple started appearing, it spelt trouble. cheers, Andrew. -- From: Toens Bueker[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 29 July 2000 23:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: qmail-1.03 on Solaris is broken Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The SMTP service may issue a QUIT, and immediately try again, > resulting in a potential loop." > > The actual qmail-smtpd error message re bare LFs is > > 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html > > which would trigger the above fault if Microsoft's software does > indeed send bare LFs - contributors suggest it does. [...] > Anyway, part of my reason for posting was to speculate on why > a mailserver might get a flood of SMTP connections. Now, I'm testing qmails behaviour under these conditions, 'cause I need to relay a quite reasonable amount of mail through it a few times a week. This is no spam, though. > The above bare LF issue is obviously one, as are > smtpstone and a DoS. In my case, fixing the bare LF > problem fixed the many-procs problem, by fixing the > thing that was triggering it, but there may still be > something that is 'broken' in Solaris 2.7. If I'm > feeling brave, and happen to be working with that system > again, I'll try smtpstone-ing it... That'd be great. Because I can't imagine, why the 'bare-LFs' thing should only affect qmails on Solaris 7 - and why it should trigger this undeterministic. If bare LFs would be the reason, it should trigger on the first mail, right? By Töns -- Linux. The dot in /.
How I deal with qmail log files
This little perl script is what I use to transform qmail log files into something I can understand easily. Face it, the format of the log files is hard to track with your eyes, to tell when a message actually worked, with its repeating message numbers and delivery numbers... I run it under a 'watch -n 1 mailwatch' in the background to keep an eye on things, but also put in options for retrieving from other files, and retrieving an arbitrary number of deliveries (mailwatch /var/log/maillog.2 125) and all the entries (mailwatch /var/log/maillog.1 -) (default is mailwatch /var/log/maillog 18) I didn't bother transforming the tai times with the localtime function, just clipping out the times in the log file already myself. It would be trivial to make the change though. In its current incarnation, it prints out the messages that are recieved but not delivered, and then prints out the specified number of entries (minus the number of messages-in-delivery lines) (it ignores everything with 'emon' in it, my little monitoring script, to keep it from spamming my screen) Its probably not complete, and not particularly efficient, but it sure relaxes my mind when scanning current status. David --BEGIN PERL SCRIPT-- #!/usr/bin/perl $| = 1; my $logfile = $ARGV[0] ? $ARGV[0] : "/var/log/maillog"; if ($ARGV[1] eq "-") { $length = 0; @loglist = `cat $logfile`; } elsif ($ARGV[1]) { $length = $ARGV[1]; my $tail = $length * 50; @loglist = `/usr/bin/tail --lines $tail $logfile`; } else { $length = "18"; @loglist = `/usr/bin/tail --lines 1000 $logfile`; } foreach (@loglist) { if (/info msg (\d+): bytes (\d+) from \<(.*?)\>/) { $from{$1} = $3; $size{$1} = $2; unless ($from{$1} =~ /\@/) { $from{$1} = "BLANK-ADDRESS($from{$1})"; } } elsif (/starting delivery (\d+): msg (\d+) to remote (.*?)$/) { $msg2del{$2} = $1; $del2msg{$1} = $2; $addressee{$2} = $3 } elsif (/starting delivery (\d+): msg (\d+) to local (.*?)$/) { $msg2del{$2} = $1; $del2msg{$1} = $2; $addressee{$2} = $3 } elsif (/(...).+delivery (\d+): success: /) { if (exists $del2msg{$2}) { # printf "%s SUCCESS: %8.8s From %30.30s to %30.30s\n", $1, $2, $from{$del2msg{$2}}, $addressee{$del2msg{$2}}; $string = "$1 SUCCESS: From $from{$del2msg{$2}} delivered to $addressee{$del2msg{$2}}"; unless ($string =~ /emon/) { push @through, $string; } } else { push @through, "orphan: no message info for delivery $2 "; } } elsif (/(...).+delivery (\d+): failure: (.*)$/) { if (exists $del2msg{$2}) { push @through, "$1 FAILED: From $from{$del2msg{$2}} to $addressee{$del2msg{$2}}"; push @through, "$1 REASON: $3"; } } elsif (/(...).+delivery (\d+): deferral: /) { if (exists $del2msg{$2}) { push @through, "$1 DEFERRED: From $from{$del2msg{$2}} to $addressee{$del2msg{$2}}"; } } elsif (/status: /) { } elsif (/end msg (\d+)/) { delete $from{$1}; delete $size{$1}; delete $msg2del{$del2msg{$1}}; delete $addressee{$del2msg{$1}}; delete $del2msg{$1}; } elsif (/new msg/) { } elsif (/(...).*bounce msg (\d+)/) { push @through, "$1 BOUNCE: from $from{$2} to $addressee{$2}"; } else { print "error: no match $_"; } } open PIPE, "| cut -b -130"; $count = 0; foreach (keys %from) { $count ++; unless (exists $msg2del{$_}) { print PIPE "message from $from{$_} recieved and waiting for delivery\n"; } else { print PIPE "message from $from{$_} to $addressee{$_} delivery in process\n" } } print PIPE "---OLDER---\n"; if ($length) { $lines = $length - $count ; $offset = $#through - ($lines); } else { $lines = $#through; $offset = 0; } foreach (0..$lines) { print PIPE "$through[$offset + $_]\n"; } print PIPE "---NEWER---\n"; ---END PERL SCRIPT- -Original Message- From: David Dyer-Bennet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 10:54 AM To: qmail list Subject: Re: tai64n -- why? [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 10:50:23 -0700 > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:23:38PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 11:20:48 -0600 > > > David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > > > > > > > > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > > > > > > > > > and it all looks fine for humans. > > > > > > > Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I > > > > check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny > > > > timestamps make them darned near useless. > > > > > > So why not tail them to a temp file and use emacs to view the temp file? > > > Or write an emacs-lisp function to convert the time
Re: tai64n -- why?
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:54:23PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Yes, when I first looked at it. As is often the case with Dan, I just > disagree. It's not straight text in the sense I mean; it's not human > readable. Of all the strange choices Dan's made that I've encountered > in working with qmail, this is the first one that I fail completely to > understand. All the others, I see the tradeoffs and I see why he > chose as he did, even if I might have chosen otherwise. This one > makes zero sense. It's non-functional. It doesn't connect to the way > I work. You have expressed my sentiments precisely. It has left me sad and confused. Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Re: tai64n -- why?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 10:50:23 -0700 > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:23:38PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 11:20:48 >-0600 > > > David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > > > > > > > > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > > > > > > > > > and it all looks fine for humans. > > > > > > > Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I > > > > check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny > > > > timestamps make them darned near useless. > > > > > > So why not tail them to a temp file and use emacs to view the temp file? > > > Or write an emacs-lisp function to convert the timestamps. > > > > If I'm going to go to effort to make it work the way I want, I think > > I'll just change multilog to use a sensible format. It's silly having > > archival log files sitting there that don't mean anything without a > > conversion program; straight text is the appropriate format for log > > files. > > But it *is* straight text. The point about tai is that it's entirely > appropriate for log files that may live for a long time. Have you > read the rationale for tai at all? Yes, when I first looked at it. As is often the case with Dan, I just disagree. It's not straight text in the sense I mean; it's not human readable. Of all the strange choices Dan's made that I've encountered in working with qmail, this is the first one that I fail completely to understand. All the others, I see the tradeoffs and I see why he chose as he did, even if I might have chosen otherwise. This one makes zero sense. It's non-functional. It doesn't connect to the way I work. -- 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: tai64n -- why?
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:23:38PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 11:20:48 -0600 > > David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > > > > > > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > > > > > > > and it all looks fine for humans. > > > > > Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I > > > check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny > > > timestamps make them darned near useless. > > > > So why not tail them to a temp file and use emacs to view the temp file? > > Or write an emacs-lisp function to convert the timestamps. > > If I'm going to go to effort to make it work the way I want, I think > I'll just change multilog to use a sensible format. It's silly having > archival log files sitting there that don't mean anything without a > conversion program; straight text is the appropriate format for log > files. But it *is* straight text. The point about tai is that it's entirely appropriate for log files that may live for a long time. Have you read the rationale for tai at all? Regards.
Re: tai64n -- why?
Isn't there something on this list about "profile not speculate"? (defun convert-tai64nlocal (arg) "generate a local, human timestamped buffer from a tai64 timestamped buffer" (interactive "p") (mark-whole-buffer) (shell-command-on-region (region-beginning) (region-end) "tai64nlocal" nil nil) ) works pretty fast, only issue it opens an output buffer, but OTOH, you don't have to go to any effort ;^) You could also just take out the 't' in your "...log/run" files, no time stamp, no problem. Regards, Tony On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 11:20:48 -0600 > > David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > > > > > > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > > > > > > > and it all looks fine for humans. > > > > > Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I > > > check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny > > > timestamps make them darned near useless. > > > > So why not tail them to a temp file and use emacs to view the temp file? > > Or write an emacs-lisp function to convert the timestamps. > > If I'm going to go to effort to make it work the way I want, I think > I'll just change multilog to use a sensible format. It's silly having > archival log files sitting there that don't mean anything without a > conversion program; straight text is the appropriate format for log > files. > > I had thought about writing a mode for TAI stamped log files that > converts the timestamps, but that will be pretty slow since it'll have > to change every line of the file. > -- Tony Hansmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Director of Technical Services Quepasa.com, INC. 602-716-0100
Re: tai64n -- why?
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 July 2000 at 11:20:48 -0600 > David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > > > > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > > > > > and it all looks fine for humans. > > > Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I > > check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny > > timestamps make them darned near useless. > > So why not tail them to a temp file and use emacs to view the temp file? > Or write an emacs-lisp function to convert the timestamps. If I'm going to go to effort to make it work the way I want, I think I'll just change multilog to use a sensible format. It's silly having archival log files sitting there that don't mean anything without a conversion program; straight text is the appropriate format for log files. I had thought about writing a mode for TAI stamped log files that converts the timestamps, but that will be pretty slow since it'll have to change every line of the file. -- 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: tai64n -- why?
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > > > and it all looks fine for humans. > Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I > check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny > timestamps make them darned near useless. So why not tail them to a temp file and use emacs to view the temp file? Or write an emacs-lisp function to convert the timestamps. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ---
Re: tai64n -- why?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 30 July 2000 at 21:21:19 -0700 > On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote: > > I understand from DJB's website that TAI is a better way to deal with > > time functions than the typical unix localtime(). However, it seems to > > make a lot of things really awkward when it is used as the time stamp in > > a log file. > > Really? If I want to tail a log file, eg, I go like this: > > tail ../someservice/current | tai64nlocal > > and it all looks fine for humans. Yeah, it works fine for people who check log files by tailing them. I check them by bringing them into an emacs buffer, so the funny timestamps make them darned near useless. I actually find second resolution entirely adequate for log entries; the great detail TAI provides is just wasted space to me, and displaces other, more useful, information from the screen. -- 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: Open letter
Would you consider PGP more than a low-effort? It would be zero effort if we weren't concerned about the privacy of our own secret keys, thus keeping them encrypted behind passwords. Maybe an extra-low-effort system would consist of a simply speaking a keyword into a microphone, and using voiceprint authentication to decrypt the secret keys. Fortunately almost all computers have the ability to read in decent quality audio. Sending to particular people is no effort - the public key aquisition can be automated. Its interesting to think of the change in load on list servers. Would you encrypt to the list server, who then decrypts and re-encrypts for each client, or would there be a collaborative key for the list that everybody had the secret to and could decrypt? More probably we would just cleartext-sign the messages for source authentication, for backwards compatibility, I suspect. Either way, it can be zero-effort for the people generating the e-mail, outside of authenticating your personal secret key, though accepting the e-mail has the same effort problems. I would be signing my messages pgp, if I could, but I haven't gotten ahold of PGP 7 yet... and the earlier versions don't work on 2000. David -Original Message- From: Michael T. Babcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Open letter And unfortunately, zero-effort security is, with current technology, an oxymoron. Swipe-card key systems that do the authentication would be low-effort. Retina scanning cameras built into your monitor to do authentication would be low effort as well. Until then, people have to decide if its worth their effort or not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Key management is a non-zero effort, installation is a non-zero effort, > cost is a non-zero effort and actual usage is a non-zero effort. > > Total transparency is what I define as "easy to use" in the context > of the average email user (who probably has an email address at AOL). > I'm afraid anything less won't get there.
Re: Open letter
And unfortunately, zero-effort security is, with current technology, an oxymoron. Swipe-card key systems that do the authentication would be low-effort. Retina scanning cameras built into your monitor to do authentication would be low effort as well. Until then, people have to decide if its worth their effort or not. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Key management is a non-zero effort, installation is a non-zero effort, > cost is a non-zero effort and actual usage is a non-zero effort. > > Total transparency is what I define as "easy to use" in the context > of the average email user (who probably has an email address at AOL). > I'm afraid anything less won't get there.
Re: Open letter
Blackey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >" > The Bill means the UK government - specifically the Home Office and > Home Secretary Jack Straw - can demand encryption keys to any and all > data communications, with a prison sentence of two years for those who > do not comply with the order. > >(source "http://uk.news.yahoo.com/000728/101/aedvu.html")" Yow. Well, you could always move to a free country. Luckily, one's already been set up for you. :-) >Most email transmitted now doesn't require PGP protection, (or warrant it). I >know that with the amount of email I get in a day, I wouldn't want the >extra overhead of having to decrypt it all. Ah, but if you only encrypt the stuff that needs to be encrypted, you're waving a red flag and saying "Hey, look! I've got something to hide!" Better to encrypt everything you can and keep the spooks guessing. The overhead should be acceptable with modern hardware--and well worth it to preserve your privacy. -Dave
Re: Open letter
Agreed: PGP (et. al.) is definately the answer, not server-to-server encryption. However, properly authenticated DNS (or an evolution thereof) and resulting authenticated (S/Q)MTP sessions would be a leap forward as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The problem with your solution is that server to server encryption > does not stop government and big corporations from looking at your > mail on the mail server after it has arrived. Ask any system admin > how hard it is to scan /var/mail or a users home directory. Answer, > it's trivial.
qmail & DNS
hello guys sorry for asking you too many silly questions , but its just bcoz i want to know more about qmail so these questions just keep popping up , how qmail will send the message from one domain say a [EMAIL PROTECTED] to someother domain say [EMAIL PROTECTED] when DNS comes in to the picture , is qmail it self starts query authorative dns server for that domain or its a job of some other programme bundled with qmail-1.03 thanks once again , with warmest regards Prashant Desai
Re: Open letter
Patrick Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Each SMTP server could compute a random set of keys when it >is installed, and a simple new command could be added to retrieve >the public key. When any connection is made between the servers, >a public key would be fetched. If the remote server has not been >upgraded and does not support PKI, then the transmission would >continue in a normal way. If both servers support it, then >encryption could be established, automatically, using PKI. Congratulations, you've just reinvented RFC2487: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2487.txt qmail patch available from: http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~vermeule/qmail/tls.patch -Dave
Re: qmail & dns
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:47:49AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: !when DNS comes in to the picture , is qmail it self starts query ! authorative dns server for that domain or its a job of some other programme ! bundled with qmail-1.03 qmail-1.03 uses BIND's libresolv to do the actual resolution. See dns.c. Most of the action occurs in the resolve() function. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1 Aug 00, at 3:42, Chris, the Young One wrote: > At the moment though, as far as I know, the messages get sent pretty > much straight after preprocessing. Just how do you get the messages > ``reinjected''? For example by a smtproutes entry pointing back at yourself. (Be careful about rcpthosts or RELAYCLIENT in that case; you don't want to bounce the message during reinjection, do you?) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOYWSMlMwP8g7qbw/EQJDhgCfaHTdaaewRJ5UYpXQjNaaYX2Ti/AAn0Km UXztdJ0vkYlHpAVO1Ug0a0fB =RGZE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
qmail & dns
hello friends sorry for asking you too many silly questions , but its just bcoz i want to know more about qmail so these questions just keep popping up , how qmail will send the message from one domain say a [EMAIL PROTECTED] to someother domain say [EMAIL PROTECTED] when DNS comes in to the picture , is qmail it self starts query authorative dns server for that domain or its a job of some other programme bundled with qmail-1.03 thanks once again , with warmest regards Prashant Desai
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 05:33:39PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote: ! No, it's done by qmail-send. (qmail-queue writes the message into ! the queue and pulls the trigger; that's all.) Having just peek at INTERNALS again, I agree. My mistake. ! DJB sais that qmail-2.0 will handle this situation better. (Like, you ! want to ditch all mails going to aol.com; once they're ! preprocessed, you can't just put aol.com in virtualdomains and ! /dev/null the messages locally; you must first re-inject the ! messages, so that local/remote decision is retried.) At the moment though, as far as I know, the messages get sent pretty much straight after preprocessing. Just how do you get the messages ``reinjected''? (Please don't tell me it's in the FAQ. :-)) ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends? Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
RE: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 10:28:29AM -0500, Craig L. Ching wrote: > ! Thanks, I'll give that a shot! Now, the TEST.receive > example looks nothing > ! like this. > > Sure it does! That document skimped out on writing ``mail from:'' and > ``rcpt to:'' fully, but does have a note later on saying ``(Note for > programmers: Most SMTP servers need more text after MAIL and RCPT. > See RFC 821.)''. ``ehlo'' is defined in RFC 1869, but for qmail-smtpd > behaves almost identically to ``helo''. > > Other than those, how different is my snippet from TEST.receive's one? > Ooops! I didn't read carefully enough! Just following the text without thinking, sorry! > ! Should it? Or should my configuration not > worry about that? I > ! just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly. > > Well, if either works, you're in business. > Excellent! Thanks much for your help and everyone else's help as well. I also want to thank Dave Sill for "Life With qmail", read that over the weekend. Guess I'd better go out and get the RFC's now! > ---Chris K. > -- > Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines > haven't been > Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been > broken. It's > http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of > PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider > Cheers, Craig
Re: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 10:28:29AM -0500, Craig L. Ching wrote: ! Thanks, I'll give that a shot! Now, the TEST.receive example looks nothing ! like this. Sure it does! That document skimped out on writing ``mail from:'' and ``rcpt to:'' fully, but does have a note later on saying ``(Note for programmers: Most SMTP servers need more text after MAIL and RCPT. See RFC 821.)''. ``ehlo'' is defined in RFC 1869, but for qmail-smtpd behaves almost identically to ``helo''. Other than those, how different is my snippet from TEST.receive's one? ! Should it? Or should my configuration not worry about that? I ! just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly. Well, if either works, you're in business. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1 Aug 00, at 3:25, Chris, the Young One wrote: > If I remember right, preprocessing (which is done by qmail-queue) No, it's done by qmail-send. (qmail-queue writes the message into the queue and pulls the trigger; that's all.) > involves determining whether a message is local or remote. Yep. > ! Say that I now change > ! my setup in some way but that change isn't reflected in the old > ! messages in the queue as the have already been preprocessed, so next > ! time qmail tries to deliver them, they fail. > > This happens if you change /var/qmail/control/locals so that the > notion of what's local is changed. Other than that I can't see how > else it can happen. DJB sais that qmail-2.0 will handle this situation better. (Like, you want to ditch all mails going to aol.com; once they're preprocessed, you can't just put aol.com in virtualdomains and /dev/null the messages locally; you must first re-inject the messages, so that local/remote decision is retried.) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOYWORFMwP8g7qbw/EQL7cgCgrWgAAC4wG/9c0OMGCsBff+RpwzwAoN+M v7oFujaricywPflsvlrgbJrv =bCXp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antek.cz PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. [Tom Waits]
RE: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
> Let's try again: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:45:40AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote: > ! ehlo localhost > > ``ehlo sumo.craig-home.org'' (you can use helo also) > > ! mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ``mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'' (now that I looked back > at your previous messages) > > ! rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thanks, I'll give that a shot! Now, the TEST.receive example looks nothing like this. Should it? Or should my configuration not worry about that? I just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly. > I type sudo too much. :-) Replace ``you'' with ``cching'', as before. > Also, there is no space between the colon and the left angle bracket, > just in case this wasn't made clear. :-) > > ! data > ! . > ! quit > > ---Chris K. > -- > Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines > haven't been > Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been > broken. It's > http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of > PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider > Cheers, Craig
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:11:14PM +, Jens Hafsteinsson wrote: ! Yes. qmail-qstat says it has 0 preprocessed messages in the queue but 2 ! waiting to be sent. I was just wondering if qmail did some header building ! or something based on information it had at the time. If I remember right, preprocessing (which is done by qmail-queue) involves determining whether a message is local or remote. ! Say that I now change ! my setup in some way but that change isn't reflected in the old messages in ! the queue as the have already been preprocessed, so next time qmail tries to ! deliver them, they fail. This happens if you change /var/qmail/control/locals so that the notion of what's local is changed. Other than that I can't see how else it can happen. See INTERNALS in the qmail distribution. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
>From: Holborn BongMiester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Do you have an nsswitch.conf in your /etc/ dir? Make sure it has: > >hosts: files dns > >as the hosts line. This means it will first attempt to resolve the entry >in /etc/hosts if not it tries dns. The hosts line in nsswitch.conf reads: hosts: files nisplus nis dns I don't use NIS. > >Them in ya resolv.conf you'll want: > >nameserver 127.0.0.1 Ok. I had 'search axon.is' and 'nameserver 194.144.127.194'. Tried to also remove search but it didn't change anything. Now I only have 'nameserver 127.0.0.1'. > >That _should_ be your resolv set up correctly, what does nslookup -d -q=mx >abacus.com give? nslookup -d -q=mx abacus.com. ;; res_nmkquery(QUERY, 1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa, IN, PTR) Got answer: HEADER: opcode = QUERY, id = 15582, rcode = NOERROR header flags: response, auth. answer, want recursion, recursion avail. questions = 1, answers = 1, authority records = 2, additional = 2 QUESTIONS: 1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa, type = PTR, class = IN ANSWERS: -> 1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa name = localhost ttl = 86400 (1D) AUTHORITY RECORDS: -> 0.0.127.in-addr.arpa nameserver = triton.axon.is ttl = 86400 (1D) -> 0.0.127.in-addr.arpa nameserver = sprettur.isnet.is ttl = 86400 (1D) ADDITIONAL RECORDS: -> triton.axon.is internet address = 194.144.127.194 ttl = 86400 (1D) -> sprettur.isnet.is internet address = 193.4.58.19 ttl = 15853 (4h24m13s) Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 ;; res_nmkquery(QUERY, abacus.com, IN, MX) Got answer: HEADER: opcode = QUERY, id = 15583, rcode = NOERROR header flags: response, want recursion, recursion avail. questions = 1, answers = 2, authority records = 3, additional = 5 QUESTIONS: abacus.com, type = MX, class = IN ANSWERS: -> abacus.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = merc91.us.sas.com ttl = 28300 (7h51m40s) -> abacus.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = merc92.us.sas.com ttl = 28300 (7h51m40s) AUTHORITY RECORDS: -> abacus.com nameserver = LAMB.sas.com ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) -> abacus.com nameserver = SCHAF.sas.com ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) -> abacus.com nameserver = BLEAT.sas.com ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) ADDITIONAL RECORDS: -> merc91.us.sas.com internet address = 149.173.6.1 ttl = 28398 (7h53m18s) -> merc92.us.sas.com internet address = 149.173.6.2 ttl = 28398 (7h53m18s) -> LAMB.sas.com internet address = 149.173.1.1 ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) -> SCHAF.sas.com internet address = 212.185.185.19 ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) -> BLEAT.sas.com internet address = 149.173.1.4 ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) Non-authoritative answer: abacus.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = merc91.us.sas.com ttl = 28300 (7h51m40s) abacus.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = merc92.us.sas.com ttl = 28300 (7h51m40s) Authoritative answers can be found from: abacus.com nameserver = LAMB.sas.com ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) abacus.com nameserver = SCHAF.sas.com ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) abacus.com nameserver = BLEAT.sas.com ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) merc91.us.sas.com internet address = 149.173.6.1 ttl = 28398 (7h53m18s) merc92.us.sas.com internet address = 149.173.6.2 ttl = 28398 (7h53m18s) LAMB.sas.com internet address = 149.173.1.1 ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) SCHAF.sas.com internet address = 212.185.185.19 ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) BLEAT.sas.com internet address = 149.173.1.4 ttl = 172296 (1d23h51m36s) > > > >So two waiting to go. > > > > I've clean the queue several times just to keep the log managable. These >are > > the most recent messages. > >*nods* I can imagine it's a bit of a nuisence :( > > > What kind of preprocessing does qmail do? > >Preprocessing? You mean before sending mail out 'to the world'? Yes. qmail-qstat says it has 0 preprocessed messages in the queue but 2 waiting to be sent. I was just wondering if qmail did some header building or something based on information it had at the time. Say that I now change my setup in some way but that change isn't reflected in the old messages in the queue as the have already been preprocessed, so next time qmail tries to deliver them, they fail. Jens Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
Let's try again: On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:45:40AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote: ! ehlo localhost ``ehlo sumo.craig-home.org'' (you can use helo also) ! mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ``mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'' (now that I looked back at your previous messages) ! rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I type sudo too much. :-) Replace ``you'' with ``cching'', as before. Also, there is no space between the colon and the left angle bracket, just in case this wasn't made clear. :-) ! data ! . ! quit ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ Never brag about how your machines haven't been Auckland, New Zealand |_ hacked, or your code hasn't been broken. It's http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ guaranteed to bring the wrong kind of PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_ attention. ---Neil Schneider
Re: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 09:37:47AM -0500, Craig L. Ching wrote: ! @40003981b5cf1637e39c new msg 12548 ! @40003981b5cf16432284 info msg 12548: bytes 2104 from <> qp 12047 uid 105 Empty sender == don't send bounce messages. ! @40003981b5cf16d538f4 starting delivery 3956: msg 12548 to local @sumo.craig-home.org An empty ``local'' part is definitely wrong. Since you were testing your SMTP set-up (unless my memory is failing again), you might try the following SMTP conversaion (assuming your local user name is ``you''): ehlo localhost mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> data . quit After this, neither the sender nor recipient should show up as empty in your logs. Note: you can't omit the angle brackets. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
RE: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
It looks like to me a bad smtp session, was this created manually? or by some mailer? -Original Message- From: Craig L. Ching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 10:38 AM To: qmail Distribution List (E-mail) Subject: Not receiving mail sent through smtpd Hi! Thanks for the help on this so far, the pointers have really helped me understand qmail. I've nailed down the problem, but I still don't know how to resolve it. Basically, the clue was in my qmail-send logs. Here's an example of what I'm seeing: @40003981b5cf1637e39c new msg 12548 @40003981b5cf16432284 info msg 12548: bytes 2104 from <> qp 12047 uid 105 ^ ---| Nothing here and @40003981b5cf16d538f4 starting delivery 3956: msg 12548 to local @sumo.craig-home.org ^ | Nothing here. @40003981b5cf16e3c39c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @40003981b5cf1ba4fcfc delivery 3956: success: did_0+0+2/ @40003981b5cf1bb890b4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @40003981b5cf1bbea364 end msg 12548 Does this look familiar to anyone? Thanks for all the help! Cheers, Craig
Not receiving mail sent through smtpd
Hi! Thanks for the help on this so far, the pointers have really helped me understand qmail. I've nailed down the problem, but I still don't know how to resolve it. Basically, the clue was in my qmail-send logs. Here's an example of what I'm seeing: @40003981b5cf1637e39c new msg 12548 @40003981b5cf16432284 info msg 12548: bytes 2104 from <> qp 12047 uid 105 ^ ---| Nothing here and @40003981b5cf16d538f4 starting delivery 3956: msg 12548 to local @sumo.craig-home.org ^ | Nothing here. @40003981b5cf16e3c39c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @40003981b5cf1ba4fcfc delivery 3956: success: did_0+0+2/ @40003981b5cf1bb890b4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @40003981b5cf1bbea364 end msg 12548 Does this look familiar to anyone? Thanks for all the help! Cheers, Craig
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
>From: Holborn BongMiester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >You all may be barking up the wrong tree (there again, so could I > > >:). Whats the address that getting the CNAME lookup failure. > > > > I've tried several addresses, both local to my root domain and external. > > Example domains are dimon.is and abacus.com. All fail with the CNAME >error. > >Okay. What OS? At my end or theirs? My end is Linux (2.2.16, glibc 2.1.2) and dimon is Linux (version ?). I don't know about abacus. > > > >What does qmail-qstat give? > > > > > > > qmail-qstat gives the following: > > > > messages in queue: 2 > > messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0 > >So two waiting to go. I've clean the queue several times just to keep the log managable. These are the most recent messages. What kind of preprocessing does qmail do? Jens Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: many processes open
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 12:03:12PM +0200, Marco Benetton wrote: ! @4000398064413962161c delivery 303: deferral: bin/qmail-queue:_error_in_loading_shared_libraries:_libc.so.6:_cannot_open_shared_object_file:_Error_23/Unable_to_forward_message:_qq_temporary_problem_(#4.3.0)./ Error 23, in Linux (not such a big assumption seeing that your libc is called libc.so.6 :-)), is ENFILE (File table overflow). Essentially, your system cannot open any more files. It's just a temporary situation, just wait it out and hope you don't get more SMTP connections. :-) ! I have set the file concurencyremote=20 and concurencylocal=10 ! but how is possible that I have 328 qmail-smtpd process in a time. concurrencyremote and concurrencylocal do not affect how many qmail-smtpd processes can be run. Having 328 connections seems to me to be doable only if you invoke qmail-smtpd via inetd (see http://cr.yp.to/docs/inetd.html). Try using tcpserver from the ucspi-tcp package instead. It has a concurrency limit of 40, by default. See http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html. Good luck, ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends? Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV PGP: 0xCCC6114E/0x706A6AAD |_
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
>From: Holborn BongMiester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >You all may be barking up the wrong tree (there again, so could I >:). Whats the address that getting the CNAME lookup failure. I've tried several addresses, both local to my root domain and external. Example domains are dimon.is and abacus.com. All fail with the CNAME error. >What does qmail-qstat give? > qmail-qstat gives the following: messages in queue: 2 messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0 Jens Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
RE: qmail running; no mail delivery to Maildir
Isn't this a FAQ somewhere? Double check your /var/qmail/rc make sure you have ./Maildir/ with the ending / otherwise it thinks its delivering to a file -Original Message- From: root [mailto:root]On Behalf Of Harsha Linux Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 2:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: qmail running; no mail delivery to Maildir Hi, I installed qmail in this order.. MySQL Version 3.22.32 tcpserver (ucspi-tcp-0.88) qmail-1.03 qmail was working fine. Mails were being deleiverd to Mailbox file. I switched to Maildir format according to instructions in qmail's INSTALL.maildir file. I logged in as root and executed : ./maildirmake ~user1/Maildir echo ./Maildir/ > ~user1/.qmail for all the users (have only a few users...for testing) I also excuted: ./maildirmake /etc/skel/Maildir echo ./Maildir/ > /etc/skel/.qmail so that all new users are created with proper Maildirs. Step-4 of qmail's INSTALL file says... 4. Read INSTALL.ctl and FAQ. Minimal survival command: And according to the FAQ file... According to FAQ's question 5.1: 5.1. How do I run qmail-smtpd under tcpserver? I setup in inet.conf file the following (since I have tcpserver installed) tcpserver -u 7770 -g 2108 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & (I have replaced 7770 and 2108 with my qmaild uid and nofiles gid) According to FAQ's question 5.3: 5.3. How do I set up qmail-pop3d? I setup in /etc/inetd.conf the following... tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup YOURHOST \ /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & (Since I have tcpserver installed) I've replaced YOURHOST with my host name. I have also installed the checkpassword programs. Now, I can connect to my system on port 25 using telnet and send local mails using SMTP commands. But mails are not being delivered to mailbox or Maildir. I checked the file /var/log/maillog file. But it says...Unable_to_open_./Maildir Jul 31 12:04:28 Linux qmail: 965025268.328030 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Jul 31 12:04:28 Linux qmail: 965025268.422942 delivery 25: deferral: Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/ Jul 31 12:04:28 Linux qmail: 965025268.423060 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 What could be wrong? Please help With regards, Harsha
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
Jens Hafsteinsson wrote: > >In the right directory? I'm grabing at straws, here, but ... > > Yes, it is in the right directory. You all may be barking up the wrong tree (there again, so could I :). Whats the address that getting the CNAME lookup failure. What does qmail-qstat give? I'm intrested to whats cuasing the CNAME errors. Regards, D.
Re: Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors
>From: "asantos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >named does recursive queries by default according to the docs. > >Well.. is your installation the default one? ;) Yes, I would think so. > >Everything in named.conf seems fine. The zone "." looks like this: > > > >zone "." in > >{ > > type hint; > > file "db.cache"; > >}; > > > >and the db.cache file contains the root servers. > >In the right directory? I'm grabing at straws, here, but ... Yes, it is in the right directory. > > >Well, if the problem lies with my resolver, are there any tools that I >can > >use to simulate what qmail is trying to do? ping and nslookup seem t be > >working fine. > >Maybe some simple source code that I can fiddle with to figure this out? > > >The main difference between qmail and other software re DNS is that qmail >doesn't give a hoot about the /etc/hosts file. Everything is done through >DNS. As things stand now, I'd dump bind and try djbdns... unless you can >get >someone to debug bind for you. > >The tests I've done with triton.axon.is using nslookup did ok. It's even >recursive. dnsq concurs, everything seems ok. If this was djbdns, with its >clearer binding to interfaces, I'd say that your DNS server is ok for >outside queries, but not correctly configured for local queries, and point >the proverbial finger at the culprit. > >Next thing I'd suspect would be libc upgrade problems... what OS are you >running? I couldn't identify it remotely. It looks like Linux 2.2.14, >but... >try to reinstall your libc's. This thought has bee creeping up on me since yesterday. I'm a bit keen on sticking with bind, so I will check on my libs first. I'm running Linux 2.2.16 (RH6.1 at heart). > >Did you install qmail from source or using a binary package? > >From source, but compiled on a different machine (the user and group match). Thanks, Jens Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: WEIRD BEHAVIOR WITH MY QMAILd!!
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 02:29:20AM +0100, Artur D'assumpção wrote: [snipped a bunch of badly indented lines] > If I send , LOCALY, a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or even >[EMAIL PROTECTED], it will > work with no problems!! > In the other way, if ill do the same thing remotly only >[EMAIL PROTECTED] will work!! Everything > else , [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] will give >this error. > > >194.210.xx.xx_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_553_sorry,_that_domain_isn't_in_my > > _list_of_allowed_rcpthosts_(#5.7.1)/Giving_up_on_194.210.xx.xx./ > OK, that's common. Are you sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] won't work? It should. vhost should fail, but galileu _should_ work. It IS in the rcpthosts file. And, because it's in control/locals, it should be taken as a local address. > And I have this, > > [root@sarrazola control]# cat defaultdomain > example.com > [root@sarrazola control]# cat locals > localhost > galileu.example.com > example.com > galileu > [root@sarrazola control]# cat me > galileu.example.com > [root@sarrazola control]# cat rcpthosts > localhost > galileu > galileu.example.com > example.com > [root@sarrazola control]# > > > Has you can see I can't resolve the problem... And I dont >understand it... RTFM would be nice. man 5 qmail-control, in particular, is very useful to find out what each and every one of this file is supposed to do. 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: qmail ident lookups
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 01:24:16PM +0200, wolfgang zeikat wrote: > since the ident port has been disabled in our firewall, > these lookups slow sending mail down on the users' client side. > > is there a way to run qmail without those lookups? Hi, You should use the -R option to tcpserver to stop it makng ident queries. See http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcpserver.html for the full list of tcpserver options. Regards, 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]
qmail ident lookups
qmail seems to be doing ident lookups with each email a local user sends via SMTP. since the ident port has been disabled in our firewall, these lookups slow sending mail down on the users' client side. is there a way to run qmail without those lookups? wolfgang
many processes open
Hi all I have a big problem with my mail server. In a moment I have 328 processes open and the mail server had a problem with libc.so.6, this is the log in log/current: @4000398064413962161c delivery 303: deferral: bin/qmail-queue:_error_in_loading_shared_libraries:_libc.so.6:_cannot_open_shar ed_object_file:_Error_23/Unable_to_forward_message:_qq_temporary_problem_(#4.3. 0)./ I have set the file concurencyremote=20 and concurencylocal=10 but how is possible that I have 328 qmail-smtpd process in a time. Thanks in advantage
qmail Digest 31 Jul 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1079
qmail Digest 31 Jul 2000 10:00:00 - Issue 1079 Topics (messages 45827 through 45872): Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings? 45827 by: Greg Cope 45828 by: Greg Cope 45855 by: richard.illuin.org 45872 by: Greg Cope Still getting CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily errors 45829 by: Jens Hafsteinsson 45830 by: asantos 45831 by: Jens Hafsteinsson 45849 by: Jens Hafsteinsson 45851 by: Erwin Hoffmann 45852 by: Jens Hafsteinsson 45856 by: asantos 45857 by: asantos Re: Blocking Spam, badmailfrom not working 45832 by: Hubbard, David 45833 by: Chris, the Young One 45834 by: wolfgang zeikat 45850 by: Erwin Hoffmann 45860 by: Chris Hardie 45861 by: Ben Beuchler Re: Open letter 45835 by: Bruno Wolff III Re: bug in qmail-autoresponder version 0.92 ? 45836 by: Bruce Guenter Re: Sort maildir and send smallest first 45837 by: qmail.col7.metta.lk 45846 by: Peter van Dijk qmail IMAP & SSL 45838 by: qmail.col7.metta.lk 45847 by: Robin S. Socha 45848 by: Jacob Scott qlogtools 45839 by: Alex.nder Budiman Re: [Question about qmail-ldap] 45840 by: Ronny Haryanto 45841 by: Chris, the Young One 45842 by: markd.bushwire.net Re: invalid characters in a email address? 45843 by: Claus Färber 45844 by: Claus Färber Qmail with LDAP? 45845 by: Jack Barnett Asking again: rcpthosts, relaying, and tcp-env 7.6 45853 by: Todd Finney 45859 by: Eric Cox 45863 by: Todd Finney omail-admin upgrade-work -> php + newest vmailmgr+autoresponder features. any suggestion before I start ? 45854 by: Olivier M. Re: From where to get tcpserver 45858 by: Robert Jiang WEIRD BEHAVIOR WITH MY QMAILd!! 45862 by: Artur D'assumpção License Question 45864 by: joomy 45865 by: markd.bushwire.net tai64n -- why? 45866 by: Ben Beuchler 45867 by: markd.bushwire.net Announcing qmail-autoresponder version 0.93 45868 by: Bruce Guenter user w/ shell access not receiving mail after running vpopmail 45869 by: Lavender qmail running; no mail delivery to Maildir 45870 by: Harsha Linux 45871 by: Erwin Hoffmann 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] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the > > messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we > > I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons, for example it might be > a late-breaking news email that ages very rapidly. It might be a > hot-stock pick which needs to get out before the market notices. No - it was never that urgent - they just wanted it sent yesterday ! > > > were considereding bining the customised part. > > FWIW. I see the trend going in the opposite direction. Customization > is where the industry is headed so it's likely only a matter of time > before that requirement comes back. Well we are now looking at a totaly scalable solution - where we just add boxes to scale. Generating the emails is simplistic and quick - injecting into a queue and then processing the queue is the fun part ! Flavour of the month is nolonger emailing speed ! Thanks Greg Bruce Guenter wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:17:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote: > > My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ? > > When the bandwidth required to send its mail is significantly smaller > than the bandwidth available. That is, if you have to send 100,000 5K > messages over a 1 hour period, you would need a T1, and you would fill > it to over 75% capacity. > > In general, the concept of "well connected" is dependant on your mail > volume. If you only have to send a few non-time-sensitive emails a day, > your 9.6Kb modem is well connected. If you have to pay by the > kilo/mega/giga-byte of traffic, you're probably not well connected. If > opening up concurrencyremote connections and sending mail kills your > link for other applications using the network, you're not well (enough) > connected. > -- > Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/ Thanks I'm going to try and measure the real bandwidth our servers have to see whats going on. Greg > > >Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Greg Cope wrote: > Well we are now looking at a totaly scalable solution - where we just > add boxes to scale.
Re: Want to know your potential multiple recipient savings?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Greg Cope wrote: > > > Well we are now looking at a totaly scalable solution - where we just > > add boxes to scale. Generating the emails is simplistic and quick - > > injecting into a queue and then processing the queue is the fun part ! > > it is much better if you try the first delivery attempt yourself, possibly > using qmail-remote to send the first message. if the invocation of > qmail-remote fails fally back to injecting the message into a qmail server This is a good idea that we had not thought of. (Although we did think about making our own smtp (outbound) server in perl at one point). > > If you want to spread the load across outbound servers look at invoking > qmtp to pass the message from your script off to (n) remote qmtp servers. > > Richard The email issue is on the back burner at the moment - byt we the techies feel the need to redo everything so that we have a scalable solution. Following on from other posts I had come to a similar idea as this - i.e scaling the SMTP servers (or in this manner qmtp servers). We are also thinking about scalinging at the other end - i.e having mutiple servers running the script. If we ever get round to that I drop everyone a line here. Thanks Greg
Re: qmail running; no mail delivery to Maildir
Hi, At 12:22 31.7.2000 +0530, you wrote: >Hi, > >I installed qmail in this order.. > >MySQL Version 3.22.32 >tcpserver (ucspi-tcp-0.88) >qmail-1.03 > >qmail was working fine. Mails were being deleiverd to Mailbox file. > >I switched to Maildir format according to instructions in qmail's >INSTALL.maildir file. I logged in as root and executed : > > ./maildirmake ~user1/Maildir Check persmissions of Maildir. They have to belong to the owner and not root! Example: orion# ls -la Maildir total 5 drwx-- 5 erwin users 512 Jan 16 2000 . drwxr-xr-x 6 erwin users 1024 Jun 2 14:14 .. drwx-- 2 erwin users 512 Jan 16 2000 cur drwx-- 2 erwin users 512 Jul 30 13:00 new drwx-- 2 erwin users 512 Jul 30 13:00 tmp > echo ./Maildir/ > ~user1/.qmail > >for all the users (have only a few users...for testing) > >I also excuted: > > ./maildirmake /etc/skel/Maildir > echo ./Maildir/ > /etc/skel/.qmail > >so that all new users are created with proper Maildirs. > >Step-4 of qmail's INSTALL file says... > >4. Read INSTALL.ctl and FAQ. Minimal survival command: > >And according to the FAQ file... > >According to FAQ's question 5.1: >5.1. How do I run qmail-smtpd under tcpserver? > >I setup in inet.conf file the following (since I have tcpserver >installed) > > tcpserver -u 7770 -g 2108 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd & > >(I have replaced 7770 and 2108 with my qmaild uid and nofiles gid) > >According to FAQ's question 5.3: >5.3. How do I set up qmail-pop3d? > >I setup in /etc/inetd.conf the following... > > tcpserver 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup YOURHOST \ > /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir & > >(Since I have tcpserver installed) I've replaced YOURHOST with my host >name. I have also installed the checkpassword programs. > >Now, I can connect to my system on port 25 using telnet and send local >mails using SMTP commands. But mails are not being delivered to mailbox >or Maildir. You have enable qmail's local delivery to Maildir which is triggered via the rc script. Example: #!/bin/sh # Using splogger to send the log through syslog. # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Maildir/ . exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \ qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail > >I checked the file /var/log/maillog file. But it >says...Unable_to_open_./Maildir > > Jul 31 12:04:28 Linux qmail: 965025268.328030 status: local 1/10 remote >0/20 > Jul 31 12:04:28 Linux qmail: 965025268.422942 delivery 25: deferral: >Unable_to_open_./Maildir:_is_a_directory._(#4.2.1)/ > Jul 31 12:04:28 Linux qmail: 965025268.423060 status: local 0/10 remote >0/20 > >What could be wrong? Please help Cheers. eh. > >With regards, >Harsha > +---+ | fffhh http://www.fehcom.deDr. Erwin Hoffmann | | ff hh| | ffeee ccc ooomm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 | | fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln| | ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm| | ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 | | ff hh hhccc ooomm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 | +---+