RE: removimg a msg from the queue
With a similar thing that happened to me I found a little programme on the qmail.org site called queue-fix-1.4 Download and run this little guy and all your worries will be gone! If not take 2 asprin and call me in the morning ;-) Slider martin langhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - searched /var/qmail/queue and removed info/10/227894 mess/10/227894 remote/10/227894 and now I stand here and ask myself: did I do something terribly wrong? qmail-qread and qmail-qstat don't see the message, and apparently it hasn't been submitted. but maybe I did break something ... qmail-send might complain that files it's looking for aren't there. and, for the next time, is there a 'proper way' of performing the above mentioned deed cleanly? The correct procedure is: 1) stop qmail 2) remove queue files 3) start qmail -Dave
legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
A user on my system is subscribed to a large volume mailing list. When mail is sent to the user on my system, it never gets delivered because qmail bounces it due to an error 553, the server is not in my list of rcpthosts. I previously passed this off as being a problem on the other end, but it has been explained to me that large volumes of e-mails are distributed as follows: 1. Mail list server has 500 identical e-mails to send. 2. It gives that list of addresses to the mailserver, along with the e-mail message. 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. This system, in the overall scheme of things, is designed to reduce traffic across the internet, because if your network happens to hose 3 of the domains onteh list, it's able to take a lot of traffic off the internet and send it internally instead. Also, with mail going out of the country, one Australian server would end up relaying to other .au hosts, saving taffic over global pipelines. Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? -Eric
Re: rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org
Jon Rust [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 August 2000 at 10:35:18 -0700 Odd that this issue has been so quiet. Are there really so few people using rblsmtpd? Nothing to say. I need to apply the patch and update my config lines, but haven't yet. -- 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: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
on 8/10/00 2:31 PM, Michael T. Babcock at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you're describing, if it is indeed happening, sounds more like an unintentional result of open relays and strange mailing list server logic. To justify my opinion; how could this reduce Internet traffic unless the mailing list server chose E-mails _purposely_ (not just "20 or so") for a given mail server that had other servers "behind it" on the Internet? If they were just out on the public Internet and the server receiving this set of addresses were just another mail server, it would relay the messages, yes, but at no bandwidth savings over the original MDA simply sending it directly to the resulting host. My thoughts exactly. For all this other admin knows, my .com could actually be hosted on a machine in another country therefore rendering his theory useless. AFAIK, there is no rhyme or reason to how mail is divided up and sent/relayed through other servers from this sendmail system. Even so, I'm not sure I would want to rely on other people's systems to deliver important mailing list messages from a list I would host. -Eric
RE: Redirect query
This should be relatively easy with something like vpopmail/qmailadmin. www.inter7.com just have forwards instead of real addresses, even a (fairly) simple web based admin for you or the site. -- Tim -Original Message- From: Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Redirect query I am hoping to use qmail a a redirection and POP3 mailbox service. I work for an internet company which serves mail to the employees on an internal network and redirects for the customers, eg.: *@customerscompany.com redirects to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We currently achieve this using other operating systems. However I am attracted to linux and qmail for stability. Firstly, could anybody tell me if this is possible using qmail under RH 6.2 and secondly how to configure qmail mail to do this. Thanks very much, Adam
Re: How to Annoy People Whose Help You Need
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 August 2000 at 09:43:09 -0400 Say you're having a problem with qmail, and you want to request help from some people who might be able to help, and--at the same time--you want to annoy the hell out of them. Here are a few tips: Thanks, Dave, for this useful guide. Almost as clear as Life with Qmail! I see I've been doing it all wrong, and I'll strive to do better in future. -- 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: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
on 8/10/00 2:25 PM, David Dyer-Bennet at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: qmail denies it because it denies all relaying that's not expressly permitted. The scheme you describe is vulnerable to spamming simply by including a local address at the beginning of the list of recipients. The interesting thing about this scheme, I think, is that servers that supported it might not test as open to ORBS / RSS. Maybe that's why somebody is trying to push the idea? This particular server passes all 18 tests on abuse.net (or however many there actually are). The server is a Redhat linux server running sendmail with listar. I still agree that it is a bizarre theory, but why does qmail deny the delivery of mail from this server to the legit user on my system? -Eric
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
What you're describing, if it is indeed happening, sounds more like an unintentional result of open relays and strange mailing list server logic. To justify my opinion; how could this reduce Internet traffic unless the mailing list server chose E-mails _purposely_ (not just "20 or so") for a given mail server that had other servers "behind it" on the Internet? If they were just out on the public Internet and the server receiving this set of addresses were just another mail server, it would relay the messages, yes, but at no bandwidth savings over the original MDA simply sending it directly to the resulting host. - Original Message - From: "Eric Long" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. Mail list server has 500 identical e-mails to send. 2. It gives that list of addresses to the mailserver, along with the e-mail message. 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over.
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
Eric Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. Fascinating... And there are MTA's that support this scheme? Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? qmail denies it because it denies all relaying that's not expressly permitted. The scheme you describe is vulnerable to spamming simply by including a local address at the beginning of the list of recipients. -Dave
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
"David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The interesting thing about this scheme, I think, is that servers that supported it might not test as open to ORBS / RSS. Maybe that's why somebody is trying to push the idea? Perhaps, but, of course, if the idea catches on, spammers will catch onto it, too. Then ORBS/RSS/whatever will start testing for it. -Dave
RE: RSS vs. rblsmtpd second try
I'm a little confused what this patch is for? Did something change with mail-abuse.org? Did this affect just relays.mail-abuse.org or the RBL list too? Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 6:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RSS vs. rblsmtpd second try I hope no one has done anything with that patch I sent out last night. It works, but it is against an old version of rblsmtpd, and it conflicts with an option in the newer one. http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/rblsmtpd-rss/ now has patches for both rblsmtpd-0.70 and ucpsi-tcp-0.88, supporting the following syntax: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver-qmail -pR -c50 -u70 -g70 -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 \ smtp /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -b \ -r "relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?%IP%" \ /usr/bin/rblsmtpd -b /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 21 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 2 If the -r options contains a colon, everything before the colon is taken as a DNSBL zone _without_ TXT records, and the stuff after the colon is used as the error message. This seems clean enough to me since domain names can't have colons in them, and it doesn't conflict with having multiple -r's, which ucspi-tcp-0.88 allows. And this, unless someone complains, will be my final attempt :)
qmail not sending remotely if
First time I've used a newsgroup - not too sure of etiquette apologies in advance I am transferring in dns to our dns/mailserver from our ISP. Over the next few weeks I shall be transferring in the mail accounts as well - but in the mean time I am pointing the MX record to remote mail exchangers - in fact some mail accounts will remain on remote hosts of our clients' choosing. When I try and send mail from a local user [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED], qmail seems to insist on trying to send things locally even if DNS has a remote MX record. That's fine for the mail accounts that we have built locally - but not much good for the remainder. There is no entry in /var/qmail/control/locals and I have checked/removed entries in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains and passwd files. What is it that is telling send-mail to ignore DNS and try locally? If I remove dns entries completely - all is well - but that's not an option if we have to host dns but not mail! Thanks anyone/everyone
Cool powered by qmail logo.
Hey all, I created a cool little powered by qmail logo in B/W so it should match just about any page. Cheers Sean Truman[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.prodigysolutions.com/ pbqmail.JPG
RE: Cool powered by qmail logo.
hi, i like it. and i am going to use it... ;) a -Original Message- From: Sean C Truman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:18 PM To: Nagy Balázs Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. Revised: Thanks Sean - Original Message - From: Nagy Balázs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sean C Truman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Sean C Truman wrote: Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Could you pull up that q to the top? It looks a bit funny with that inverse thing. Nothing informal at the bottom and the same is true at the left upper corner. -- Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon
Re: qmail-pop3d problem: No mail delivery to Maildirs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, I've defined a user, Jim.Morley. When I send test msgs to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", the Qmail Mailer- Daemon returns "Sorry, no mailbox here by that name." qmail doesn't deliver mail to users whose usernames contain uppercase letters. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#uppercase-usernames -Dave
Re: rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:55:57PM -0400, Hubbard, David wrote: I've been reading more of the archives about this rblsmtpd issue lately and I think what has happened is that the relays.mail-abuse.org DNS no longer has the TXT entries in it that rblsmtpd looks for. Did this spam that got through your server come from a host in the open-relays database or the maps? Does anyone know if the other services, not relays.mail-abuse.org, have made the same change or are going to? If they did, it would prevent rblsmtpd from working with them too correct? Do you think DJB would make a new rblsmtpd release to make it work with these new no-TXT maps DNS servers? Thanks, Dave Correct. I did some research too (should have before posting :-/). rblsmtpd works by rejecting connections from servers with TXT records at the various "RBLs." On Aug 8th, RSS stopped using TXT records entirely. All along there has also been an A record for each listed address, so you can still use that, and in fact, rblcheck uses the A records for its check. I applied the patch at http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/rblsmtpd-rss/ posted by pacman Aug 9th I believe. This patch allows you to tell rblsmtpd to use A records for certain RBLs. It seems to be working just fine. Odd that this issue has been so quiet. Are there really so few people using rblsmtpd? jon
Thank you
I would just like to say to everyone that helped me with my qmail problems, "Thank you!". Everything seems to be working as needed. :-) All the best, Kevin Smith
Improper message removal
This was brought up yesterday and I know what to do next time. I am one of the people that forcibly removed a message from the queue without properly stopping qmail. When I run Russ' qsanity it tells me: message has no entry in info: 256004 message is neither local nor remote: 256004 message has no entry in info: 256015 message has no entry in mess: 256015 .. My logs are showing these quite regularly. 2000-08-10 09:29:45.582458500 warning: trouble opening local/0/256013; will try again later 2000-08-10 09:30:20.752585500 warning: trouble opening info/2/256015; will try again later 2000-08-10 09:30:42.762486500 warning: trouble opening remote/12/256002; wi ll try again later My question. Will these messages, which aren't really there, be bounced to me eventually? If queue-fix-1.4 will fix this, I will run it tonight. *OR* my question before I read the "How to annoy People" My gear be broken. What now? :) Thanks, tonyC
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
Eric Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 August 2000 at 14:17:11 -0500 This system, in the overall scheme of things, is designed to reduce traffic across the internet, because if your network happens to hose 3 of the domains onteh list, it's able to take a lot of traffic off the internet and send it internally instead. Also, with mail going out of the country, one Australian server would end up relaying to other .au hosts, saving taffic over global pipelines. Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? I've never heard of this type of relaying before, and all the normal anti-relaying precautions I'm familiar with will block it. I subscribe to mailing lists from egroups and topica and I think one other big service, and none of them do this, or I'd be rejecting the mail myself. I think the explanation you're getting is bogus. -- 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: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 August 2000 at 15:23:23 -0400 Eric Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. Fascinating... And there are MTA's that support this scheme? Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? qmail denies it because it denies all relaying that's not expressly permitted. The scheme you describe is vulnerable to spamming simply by including a local address at the beginning of the list of recipients. The interesting thing about this scheme, I think, is that servers that supported it might not test as open to ORBS / RSS. Maybe that's why somebody is trying to push the idea? -- 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]
server load?
Hi, I noticed that the load on my qmail server was running higher than I expected to, although I don't know should be normal for a qmail mail server. Perhaps someone here can tell me if this is normal, or if I should look at fixing something? I haven't yet applied the Russ Nelson's big-todo patch, would it clean up some of this stuff? I've got qmail 1.03, vpopmail 4.8.2 (yup, I should upgrade) and qmailadmin 0.34 running on a RedHat 6.2 system using tcpserver (not inetd). There are only around 30 virtual domains on this server, and it only allows relaying for our office mail, our virtual domains are not sending through this server at all. I have read the Life with qmail document, although it's entirely possible I missed the page that tells me the answer. ===TOP OUTPUT=== 45 processes: 42 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 55.9% user, 16.7% system, 0.0% nice, 27.2% idle Mem: 127952K av, 124660K used, 3292K free, 4016K shrd, 55848K buff Swap: 265032K av, 4732K used, 260300K free 32496K cached PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 16756 vpopmail 12 0 22436 21M 280 S 0 59.9 17.5 0:03 qmail-inject 16757 qmailq 9 0 328 328 260 R 0 5.7 0.2 0:00 qmail-queue 16753 vpopmail 0 0 500 500 376 S 0 0.5 0.3 0:00 vdelivermail 16677 root 1 0 1024 1024 824 R 0 0.3 0.8 0:00 top 14791 root 0 0 576 176 112 R 0 0.1 0.1 0:00 sshd 16754 vpopmail 0 0 756 756 628 S 0 0.1 0.5 0:00 sh 1 root 0 0 108 5244 S 0 0.0 0.0 0:04 init ===SNIP=== Thanks for any help. Ross Lawrie
RH migration
So RedHat finally migrated her mailinglist server to postfix (they now use mailman). Mate
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
Eric Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still agree that it is a bizarre theory, but why does qmail deny the delivery of mail from this server to the legit user on my system? What evidence do you have that it does? I just did a quick test: $ telnet 0 25 Trying 0.0.0.0... Connected to 0. Escape character is '^]'. 220 sws5.ctd.ornl.gov ORNL/WS ESMTP mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 ok rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 ok rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) data 354 go ahead testing... . 250 ok 965937482 qp 723103 quit And I got the message. -Dave
Re: How to Annoy People Whose Help You Need
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 09:29:10AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote: There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next to your screen. It says my print error occurred. How to fix? Ask Dave to print it and send it by snail mail. Why fix a problem if it can be used to annoy others? Regards, Uwe
Re: qmail-pop3d problem: No mail delivery to Maildirs
Dave: Thanks for the heads up on qmail's upper case user "gotcha". I stopped getting the "no mailbox here by that name" msgs when I adhered to lower case users. Still no success however, but logs did shed a bit of light. Delivery errors for my tests have changed from "no mailbox here by that name" to "delvery deferred:_dot-forward:_command_not_found". Is the "dot-forward" a package that I've failed to install, or is my config in need of a tweak?" Hopefully I'm getting closer? //jrkeene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example, I've defined a user, Jim.Morley. When I send test msgs to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", the Qmail Mailer- Daemon returns "Sorry, no mailbox here by that name." qmail doesn't deliver mail to users whose usernames contain uppercase letters. See: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#uppercase-usernames -Dave Jerry R. Keene Senior Systems Analyst SCS ENGINEERS Partners With EPA Through The Landfill Methane Outreach Program Phone: 703.471.6150 Fax: 703.471.6676 http://www.scsengineers.com
Re: Protection
Brett Randall wrote: Set up an automatic revenge flood? Maybe not... : It depends if it is mailing lists or spam. First start by unsubscribing from REAL mailing lists. Then the mailing-list admins will never learn to use authenticating managers. Slider: Mailing lists, I say bounce it, definately. ezmlm will simply auto-unsub you, but other, non-authenicating mailing lists will get the spam. Let the mailing list admins unsub you - after all, it's their unsecure lists that allowed this to happen. As for the spammers, start using RBL,RSS, etc,etc,etc... Also, if you're this user's ISP, don't you already have all of his info? Maybe you should threaten to post his credit card number (just kidding!!!) Eric P.s. Just a thought: Once you get rblsmtpd set up, you could write a script to scan for the first Recieved: line with an IP, add the sending IP to your own RBL-style domain. Mail will pile up on the sending end without your intervention, and without loading down your server (to recieve the mails and generate bounces). Then, when it all dies down a bit, take the IPs out of the domain, and you're back to normal... If it is spam, change your domain name...I would personally sue the ex user for breaching your 'reasonable use policy' (what? you don't have one? doh!) or at least for ongoing damages since you are now virtually permanently committed to wasting bandwidth on unsolicited e-mails. Only other option is to refuse the e-mails (ie using common spam killing techniques) at the last relay before it is transferred over your link. Hi all, Please can you help with advise about protecting my mail servers from one of my on ex users!! He/She has subscribed to about 30 mailing lists with the address that falls under my mail service! I am now recieving about 10 mails a minute for that user! Removing the maildir and letting them bounce is not helping as I thought it would... any other suggestions?? Slider
Re: RH migration
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Mate Wierdl wrote: So RedHat finally migrated her mailinglist server to postfix (they now use mailman). That the same redhat/mailman combo I read about on bugtraq a week or two ago? Vince. -- == Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSHemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directoryhttp://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstorehttp://www.cloudninegifts.com ==
RE: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
Another couple of ideas; 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you hosting him and has a constant ip address? 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his connection to a slower mail service! 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for investigation in iether situation! 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as to the best course of action... Slider Einar Bordewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 August 2000 at 00:40:06 +0200 My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the users. This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct if I'm wrong. And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back that up. If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more thoroughly. -- 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: qmail-pop3d problem: No mail delivery to Maildirs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still no success however, but logs did shed a bit of light. Delivery errors for my tests have changed from "no mailbox here by that name" to "delvery deferred:_dot-forward:_command_not_found". Is the "dot-forward" a package that I've failed to install, or is my config in need of a tweak?" dot-forward is a separate package that implements Sendmail .forward file compatibility. It's usually configured into qmail via the defaultdelivery specification in the qmail-start command line (e.g., in /var/qmail/rc). If you need .forward compatibility, install dot-forward (available from DJB's web/ftp server). If you don't need it, change the qmail-start command line to specify ./Mailbox or ./Maildir/ and restart qmail. See also: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#dot-forward Hopefully I'm getting closer? Yep. -Dave
How to Annoy People Whose Help You Need
Say you're having a problem with qmail, and you want to request help from some people who might be able to help, and--at the same time--you want to annoy the hell out of them. Here are a few tips: 1) Post the message multiple times. To be even more annoying, change the subject each time--or even the body. Slight rewordings and small additions are especially effective. Be sure not to mention the previous "editions" of your request. 2) Describe your problem in the most general terms possible. Something like: "My qmail doesn't work. Why?" is a good start. If somebody else just asked that question, that's even better! (See #3) Under no circumstances should you include detailed error messages, message headers, log entries, qmail-showctl output, etc. OK, there's one exception to this rule: see #4. 3) Ask a FAQ. This is not as effective as the previous two techniques because most old timers automatically ignore FAQs. 4) If you do post details, be sure to alter them! Change domain names, usernames, and UID's to something else. Try not to be obvious. Use your imagination! Have fun. And, of course, don't mention these little alterations. 5) Whine, insult, and/or threaten to use Sendmail instead of qmail. Don't let the fact that these people are providing free tech support get in the way. There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next to your screen. -Dave
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
Apparently, I was mistaken. As far as the user knows, he was still receiving mail while the error messages were received on the mailserver of the mailing list. But he doesn't know for sure as the admin removed him from the mailing list because of the "problems on my end." This appears to be a feature in sendmail, but where can I look to specifically find which method is correct? -Eric on 8/10/00 3:07 PM, Dave Sill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still agree that it is a bizarre theory, but why does qmail deny the delivery of mail from this server to the legit user on my system? What evidence do you have that it does? I just did a quick test: $ telnet 0 25 Trying 0.0.0.0... Connected to 0. Escape character is '^]'. 220 sws5.ctd.ornl.gov ORNL/WS ESMTP mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 ok rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 ok rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) data 354 go ahead testing... . 250 ok 965937482 qp 723103 quit And I got the message. -Dave
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. I've never seen I mailing list do this, it not only sounds stupid - it is stupid. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. I've never ever seen this behaviour on a relay protected server, this is in any cirumstance a relay security problem ... This system, in the overall scheme of things, is designed to reduce traffic across the internet, because if your network happens to hose 3 of the domains onteh list, it's able to take a lot of traffic off the internet and send it internally instead. Also, with mail going out of the country, one Australian server would end up relaying to other .au hosts, saving taffic over global pipelines. BULL, there is NO WAY the mailinglist server KNOWS where mail is hosted, insted of saving bandwith it will waste RANDOM bandwith around the Internet. There is also NO WAY the mailinglist server knows the queue-status of all the other servers it would use for "delivery", or their bandwith capabilities or other neceserry resurcses it might need/use. Worst case a mailinglist server in US send all .au mail to a server in chile who is hosting a .au domain for one of it's customers, causing all E-mail to be sent over several slow lines before being split up and sendt back over the same lines and over to australia. This server might even be on a 64kbps line and mail might be delay for several hours if the lines are congested allready, or if the server has several large outgoing mails in it's queue. The only one saving bandwidth is the abusive mailinglist server, who is "living off" all others on the Internet without their permission. Qmail is denying legitimate messages to my users because it doesn't allow this type of relaying. Why? WHAT! Your server is correctly denying this server from unautherized relaying, the fact that the server is wronly sending you recipients at the cost of your CPU and BANDWITH (at least this is what it hopes to do). should make you wanna kick their butts. MVH André Paulsberg
Qmail Jobs
I am looking for qmail developers and operation specialists to work in Lakewood, NJ. Alternative site is Newark, NJ. Please send resumes to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: urgent help required
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is there any one who knows how to install qmail on AIX 4.3 , i have installed it on RedHat 6.1, but in case of AIX i dont know how to remove sendmail and creation of the links /usr/sbin/sendmail, /usr/lib/sendmail etc please help me ASAP , else i have to switch over to sendmail ,which i dont like ,but have to bcoz my boss wants that as we are not getting any help for qmail-aix You've asked--repeatedly--if anyone has installed qmail on AIX 4.3. Apparently nobody here has, or wants to admit it. :-) So, you can either switch to sendmail, or you can describe in detail the problems you're having, and we can try to help you get around them. I've installed qmail under AIX--not 4.3, but I can't imagine anything has changed so drastically that qmail won't work. -Dave
Re: Cool powered by qmail logo.
Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Sean - Original Message - From: Henrik Öhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. But you've got it wrong. It should be a small q in qmail. I think you should redo it before you advertise it further, and I think the majority of the qmail community agrees with me. :) Henrik. At 10:49 AM 8/10/00 -0400, you wrote: Hey all, I created a cool little powered by qmail logo in B/W so it should match just about any page. Cheers Sean Truman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.prodigysolutions.com/ pbqmail2.JPG
Re: Cool powered by qmail logo.
Revised: Thanks Sean - Original Message - From: Nagy Balázs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sean C Truman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Sean C Truman wrote: Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Could you pull up that q to the top? It looks a bit funny with that inverse thing. Nothing informal at the bottom and the same is true at the left upper corner. -- Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon pbqmail3.JPG
Re: Redirect query
Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Firstly, could anybody tell me if this is possible using qmail under RH 6.2 and secondly how to configure qmail mail to do this. Dan's fastforward package will do this via /etc/aliases. See: ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/fastforward.html -Dave
Re: Cool powered by qmail logo.
You still have the logo with big Q letter @ http://www.prodigysolutions.com/ maybe u forgot it ? :) mgm - Original Message - From: "Sean C Truman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Henrik Öhman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Sean
RE: rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org
I've been reading more of the archives about this rblsmtpd issue lately and I think what has happened is that the relays.mail-abuse.org DNS no longer has the TXT entries in it that rblsmtpd looks for. Did this spam that got through your server come from a host in the open-relays database or the maps? Does anyone know if the other services, not relays.mail-abuse.org, have made the same change or are going to? If they did, it would prevent rblsmtpd from working with them too correct? Do you think DJB would make a new rblsmtpd release to make it work with these new no-TXT maps DNS servers? Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Jon Rust To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 8/10/00 12:33 PM Subject: rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org While checking out a spam I received this morning I noticed that rblcheck finds it in the RSS. Hrmf. I run rblsmtpd so I'm not clear on how it got through: snip /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -t10\ -r rbl.maps.vix.com \ -r dul.maps.vix.com \ -r relays.mail-abuse.org snip According to the RSS it was added yesterday at 1700 PDT. The address is 133.5.173.200 if you want to test for yourself. I vaguely remember someone mentioning a patch for rblsmtpd, but not a whole lot of discussion on why it's not working anymore. Anyone got the low-down? Anyone tried the patch? Thanks, jon
rblsmtpd and relays.mail-abuse.org
While checking out a spam I received this morning I noticed that rblcheck finds it in the RSS. Hrmf. I run rblsmtpd so I'm not clear on how it got through: snip /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -t10\ -r rbl.maps.vix.com \ -r dul.maps.vix.com \ -r relays.mail-abuse.org snip According to the RSS it was added yesterday at 1700 PDT. The address is 133.5.173.200 if you want to test for yourself. I vaguely remember someone mentioning a patch for rblsmtpd, but not a whole lot of discussion on why it's not working anymore. Anyone got the low-down? Anyone tried the patch? Thanks, jon
Re: How to Annoy People Whose Help You Need
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote: There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next to your screen. It says my print error occurred. How to fix? Scott
virtual domain (vpopmail): no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1)
hi, 1. every user in /var/lib/vpopmail/users works fine 2. every user in /var/lib/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com doesn't work ;( if I send a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] i get the following error in the mail.log --- from /var/log/mail.log --- Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.712606 new msg 1507345 Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.713055 info msg 1507345: bytes 618 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 31023 uid 64011 Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.767276 starting delivery 520: msg 1507345 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aug 9 10:15:20 joshua qmail: 965808920.767613 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.007641 delivery 520: failure: Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._vpopmail_(#5.1.1)/ Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.071573 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.130812 bounce msg 1507345 qp 31026 Aug 9 10:15:21 joshua qmail: 965808921.145955 end msg 1507345 --- the virtual domain directory looks like that: joshua:/var/lib/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com# ls -la total 12 drwx--6 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 12 11:54 . drwx--3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 5 10:34 .. -rw---1 vpopmail vchkpw 34 Jul 12 11:54 .dir-control -rw---1 vpopmail vchkpw 46 Jul 5 10:34 .qmail-default -rw---1 vpopmail vchkpw 0 Jul 5 10:34 .vpasswd.lock drwx--3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 5 10:40 info drwx--3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 10 09:51 info2 drwx--3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 12 11:54 info3 drwx--3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 5 10:34 postmaster -rw---1 vpopmail vchkpw356 Jul 12 11:54 vpasswd -rw---1 vpopmail vchkpw 2492 Jul 12 11:54 vpasswd.cdb I created the virtualdomain with vadddomain and the virtualdomain users with vadduser any idea what's wrong? do you need more information (log files or whatever...)? btw: does the virtualdomain need an MX entry on the DNS server? cya Joel
tcp.smtp problems
Hi All, I have a config file in /etc/tcp.smtp which contains the following: 24.26.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 212.159.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 216.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 206.154.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 195.8.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow I then use the following to turn it into a binary, stored into /etc/tcp.smtp/cdb tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb tcp.smtp.temp tcp.smtp Then in my start-up script I run tcpserver like this : /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 112 -g 104 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd But I can't relay any email, the error I got when the email was returned is. and my ISDN dial IP address is 212.159.51.38, so it should go through. mail returned Hi. This is the qmail-send program at merlins.force9.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 195.224.150.194 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 Relaying is prohibited Giving up on 195.224.150.194. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 16659 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2000 08:17:39 - Received: from ruin.servers.plus.net.uk (212.159.2.66) by merlins.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 08:17:39 - Received: (qmail 25749 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2000 08:01:45 - Received: from dyn38-51.sftm-212-159.plus.net (HELO NSLimited) (212.159.51.38) by ruin.servers.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 08:01:45 - Message-ID: 002301c002a1$b3de62a0$26339fd4@NSLimited Reply-To: "Kevin Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Kevin Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Wendell E. Ray" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:05:08 +0100 Organization: Lemon Lainey Design MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Test /mail returned The bizarre thing about all this is my defaultdomain is dwshop2.dedic.web.xara.net, if I send an email there is works fine and doesn't get bounced. I do have the domain iin.org in the /var/qmail/control/locals and /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts file, I also have in the virutaldomains file the following : iin.org:wendray Does anyone have any ideas? Could any who replies, also reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks, Kevin Smith - Original Message - From: "Brett Randall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "qmail" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:01 AM Subject: RE: /etc/init.d problems OK, you are obviously a little new to this... Have I got this correct, if I put the following line in a file called qmail-tcpserver in the directory /etc/init.d when the server is rebooted, this should be automatically restarted? You virtually asked this question twice so I will answer it once...Check your OS documentation. If you're running Solaris, then I'd damn well make sure that you know how to put things into startup scripts! Also, read the info on using tcpserver either in Life With qmail or on www.qmail.org. Use of qmail with inetd is no longer encouraged, use tcpserver instead. My host is 212.159 and I can't relay... :-( That is because the config file should be tcp.smtp, not tcp.smtp.cdb. tcp.smtp.cdb is a binary version of tcp.smtp, and must be converted via (with the correct paths, of course): /usr/local/bin/tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp /etc/tcp.smtp each time you change /etc/tcp.smtp. Regards Brett Randall Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ Kevin Smith Netsmith Limited http://www.netsmith.ltd.uk
Re: qmail not sending remotely if
Great stuff - I needed to comment out entries in control/virtualdomains and control/rcpthosts . AND do the HUP. I'd have more hair left if I'd joined the newsgroup yesterday. Many thanks Petr Novotny wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10 Aug 00, at 13:41, Keith Edwards wrote: What is it that is telling send-mail to ignore DNS and try locally? control/locals and control/virtualdomains. qmail _fist_ decides if it's local or remote and _then_ checks DNS. Have you HUPped qmail-send after editing control/locals? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOZKWaFMwP8g7qbw/EQKrwQCeMRKGj5i10V5AmZUdPBBe3KF/gJMAnjzN VoIEwnZE7UqWBlOsPZjikmmn =I9rR -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: Cool powered by qmail logo.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Sean C Truman wrote: Revised with smaller q. Thanks for the input. Could you pull up that q to the top? It looks a bit funny with that inverse thing. Nothing informal at the bottom and the same is true at the left upper corner. -- Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon
RE: filters
I'd love to filter by "Mailing-List" or by "To:" but hotmail only allows to filter by "Subject" and "From", thus my petition to attach a "qmail" to the subject or something. Somebody told me to use another mail service... maybe I will do, but I still think that a "qmail-ish" subject would be OK :), even helpful for some people and woludn't hurt anyone... Raul B. Raul Beltran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 9 August 2000 at 00:35:09 CDT hi, is there a possibility to automatically concatenate a string like "[qmail] " to the subjects of all the messages coming from this mailing list? That would allow us to filter all messages coming from this list to a specific folder, or (my particular situation) aviod hotmail delivering them to the bulk mail folder... Perfectly easy to filter on the "Mailing-List" header instead, which is already there.
qmail on AIX
hello friends is there any one who is running qmail-1.03 on AIX 4.3 ? thanks Prashant Desai
Re: Hotmail now based on IIS ?!
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:18:53AM +0100, James R Grinter wrote: [snip] (What they have receiving emails does not appear to be qmail, any longer. Their sending systems do seem to be running qmail still, witness: The receiving system has never been running qmail, at least not in the last 12 months. Received: from f188.law10.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (64.4.15.188) by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 12:50:13 - Received: (qmail 83201 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2000 12:49:18 - and that line of itself *really* concerns me.) I've seen it on mail on this list too, IIRC qmail-1.02 looks like that. Greetz, Peter. -- [ircoper][EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk / Hardbeat [student]Undernet:#groningen | IRCnet:#koffie/#alliance [developer] _ [madly in love](__VuurWerk__(--*-
Redirect query
I am hoping to use qmail a a redirection and POP3 mailbox service. I work for an internet company which serves mail to the employees on an internal network and redirects for the customers, eg.: *@customerscompany.com redirects to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We currently achieve this using other operating systems. However I am attracted to linux and qmail for stability. Firstly, could anybody tell me if this is possible using qmail under RH 6.2 and secondly how to configure qmail mail to do this. Thanks very much, Adam
Re: tcp.smtp problems
"Kevin Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I can't relay any email, the error I got when the email was returned is. and my ISDN dial IP address is 212.159.51.38, so it should go through. mail returned Hi. This is the qmail-send program at merlins.force9.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. This shows that your message *was* accepted by the qmail system, but that it was unable to deliver it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 195.224.150.194 does not like recipient. Remote host said: 550 Relaying is prohibited Giving up on 195.224.150.194. The reason the delivery failed is that the MX for iin.org rejected it. 195.224.150.194 is orac.digitalworkshop.co.uk, which either doesn't realize it's supposed to handle iin.org, or isn't supposed to handle iin.org. Either way, it's not a configuration problem on your end. -Dave
Re: Cool powered by qmail logo.
But you've got it wrong. It should be a small q in qmail. I think you should redo it before you advertise it further, and I think the majority of the qmail community agrees with me. :) Henrik. At 10:49 AM 8/10/00 -0400, you wrote: Hey all, I created a cool little powered by qmail logo in B/W so it should match just about any page. Cheers Sean Truman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.prodigysolutions.com/
Username refusal
Hi all! I am trying to refuse mail from any address that starts with [EMAIL PROTECTED] The TO: address is fine although the FROM addresses are [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not want to ban the WHOLE domain.com (in BADMAILFROM) as there are legitimate users there mailing to my users! I just want to ban all FROM addresses that start with "nobody"! Any ideas? Thanks Slider
Re: Mailing list performance
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:30:47AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: Motonori seems to have thought that the "smtp" service entry in master.cf controlled outgoing concurrency, when, in fact, it controls incoming concurrency. I think still this is not correct. Actually there are two 'smtp', one for incoming (smtpd daemon), one for outgoing (smtp daemon). I think, Monotori was not make any mistakes with this regard. It could be a factor if any of the test addresses had duplicate hostnames. Since they were of the form nobody@FQDN, they were apparently all unique. Where such a conclusion come from? The author never mentions about the number of domains in the evaluations. Firstly, those rates are for DNS queries, not SMTP deliveries. Second, a steeper slope doesn't necessarily mean it's faster. The equation is: y = N x + a and the "a" can be a significant factor. Better you consult the graph's legend and read 'How to read the graphs'. In this regard, 'a' mean, number of message(s) sent after the first dns query. As you see in postfix, it has negative value, so it 'doesn't mean' anything, in this regard. Perhaps...that hasn't been proven in a published test, to my knowledge. I'd also like to see the effect of running a local dns cache (both djbdns and BIND). You're right. I just do a little, very unscientific test :-) BTW, if you're right, i.e the evaluation just do single rcpt to deliveries, then I did't see any reason to say that postfix is better than qmail and vice versa. Salam, P.Y. Adi Prasaja
RE: qmail not sending remotely if
what entries are there in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts? Or more precisely is test.co.uk in the rcpthosts file? First time I've used a newsgroup - not too sure of etiquette apologies in advance I am transferring in dns to our dns/mailserver from our ISP. Over the next few weeks I shall be transferring in the mail accounts as well - but in the mean time I am pointing the MX record to remote mail exchangers - in fact some mail accounts will remain on remote hosts of our clients' choosing. When I try and send mail from a local user [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED], qmail seems to insist on trying to send things locally even if DNS has a remote MX record. That's fine for the mail accounts that we have built locally - but not much good for the remainder. There is no entry in /var/qmail/control/locals and I have checked/removed entries in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains and passwd files. What is it that is telling send-mail to ignore DNS and try locally? If I remove dns entries completely - all is well - but that's not an option if we have to host dns but not mail! Thanks anyone/everyone
urgent help required
is there any one who knows how to install qmail on AIX 4.3 , i have installed it on RedHat 6.1, but in case of AIX i dont know how to remove sendmail and creation of the links /usr/sbin/sendmail, /usr/lib/sendmail etc please help me ASAP , else i have to switch over to sendmail ,which i dont like ,but have to bcoz my boss wants that as we are not getting any help for qmail-aix Thanks regards Prashant Desai
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you hosting him and has a constant ip address? He's one of our dialup customers (random ip) 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his connection to a slower mail service! 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for investigation in iether situation! I don't want to scare the customer away, but I want him over on our mailing list service. The customer is a company, and our relationship to this customer is very good except for the huge mailing from them once a week and sometimes more. There is no performance problems on this server, but I just like a clean mail queue. With huge recipients from a clients addressbook, there is always some bounce candidates keeping the whole recipientslist in the queue. The mails going out is product information/advertising to their customers/contacts. In other words low priority mails that can use the time it takes on a mailing list server to process. Our international bandwith is a E3 line and domestic it's 100mbps, and the mails is mainly domestic. I'm just tired of having this huge list of recipients hanging in the queue until all mails are delivered or bounced. This server is our main mailhub, and I think of our other customers when I want to move obvious hunks of mail to where they belong. It takes time to deliver mails to 1000+, making the other users mail wait on their turn. Just don't see the point to let this customer use the main mail hub, when we have dedicated servers for this. My customers are spoilt with instant delivery of their 1/2/3/4 mails, and I intend to keep it this way :-) 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) And of course patch qmail-smtpd.c with the tarpit-path ;-) 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as to the best course of action... Have patched my home mailserver with this patch, and will try it out here first. Have'nt got any feedback on my question about experience with this patch installed. Looks good so far. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Slider" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Qmail-mailing list" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:57 AM Subject: RE: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations Another couple of ideas; 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you hosting him and has a constant ip address? 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his connection to a slower mail service! 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for investigation in iether situation! 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as to the best course of action... Slider Einar Bordewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 August 2000 at 00:40:06 +0200 My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the users. This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this number it's
Re: spambot subscribed to qmail list recently
Charles Cazabon wrote: Hi, all, I think someone has recently subscribed an email harvester to the qmail list. Two messages I've sent today have both resulted in almost immediate spam with subject "Have a GREAT day on me.". The mail appears to be forged to look like it was relayed through a hotmail server. Anyone else experiencing this today? I've run the messages through spamcop, but I'm not hopeful. Unless this spammer is a complete dumbass, (which I suppose is likely), his domain appears to have been created for the sole purpose of messing with people: Non-authoritative answer: Name:frankiefantastic.20m.com Address: 127.0.0.1 Aliases: www.frankiefantastic.20m.com Sheesh. I LARTed 20m.com, hopefully they have some on-the-ball people there that will squash this guy... Eric
courier-imap help
I need some help with a new problem with courier-imap Is there a developers list for that I can join? Problem is There is a rpm build problem in the new Redhat 7.0 Beta that didn't exist in RedHat 6.2 I am on the redhat rpm-devel-list, and got around the problem for builds as root, but the courier-imap requires it's rpm to be built as a non-root user. I need to discuss this further with those who know. :-) thanks, Barry Smoke
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
- Original Message - From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Qmail-mailing list" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:24 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more thoroughly. Well, on a mailing list server where 1000+ mails is going out you will occupy all remote resources (?) and keep the server bussy for a while. But on a dedicated mailinglist server you don't have (well, at least not me) single users sending out one mail at the time. My opinion is that candidates for mailing list is low priority mail, and single users sending mail is high priority (understand me right here, I want alle the mail delivered a.s.a.p). Sending a mail to the qmail list, I know that it will arrive. Sometimes it takes seconds, and othertimes it comes through after a while. Sending a mail to my co-workers or one of my customers that I'm on the phone with, I expect it delivered a second ago ;-) regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
changing of Sendmail to QMAIL
Hello Managers... I need change my sendmail MTA to QMAIL, Do you have the information step by step? Please I'm looking www.es.qmail.org and www.qmail.org... but it confusion me I don't understand Please... Somebody have the step I need install it on a Digital-Alpha with Tru64 4.0F ... The Qmail will run very good? The qmail no need the file /etc/passwd ? Do it use a database? why? Thanks P.D. Somebody speak spanish
multiple destinations for one domain
I must configure a number of domains statically through smtproutes. It would be nice if I could specify more than one possible relay-to address, in case an address is down. For instance: test.com:mail1.test.com test.com:mail2.test.com test.com:mail3.test.com Would relay only to mail3 if mail1 and 2 were down, mail 2 only if mail 1 was down, and only mail1 if it is up. Sort of like an artificial MX record pile. Is this currently supported, or are all subsequent (or only the last entry) ignored? David David Ihnen Integration Engineer myCIO 503-670-4018
Re: courier-imap help
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:30:51PM -0500, Barry Smoke wrote: I need some help with a new problem with courier-imap Is there a developers list for that I can join? There is a courier-users list monitored by the sole developer. It is linked to from the courier home page. Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 11:49:56PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: Well, on a mailing list server where 1000+ mails is going out you will occupy all remote resources (?) and keep the server bussy for a while. But on a dedicated mailinglist server you don't have (well, at least not me) single users sending out one mail at the time. My opinion is that candidates for mailing list is low priority mail, and single users sending mail is high priority (understand me right here, I want alle the mail delivered a.s.a.p). I'm getting the impression that you use separate hardware or queues for your mailing list server and non-mailing list mail server. Why not tell the customer to send his 1000+ recipient message to the mailing list server? Won't that solve your problem? John
Re: legit mail being blocked because of relay methods
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Eric Long wrote: 1. Mail list server has 500 identical e-mails to send. 2. It gives that list of addresses to the mailserver, along with the e-mail message. 3. The mailserver then contacts teh first server on teh list, says "here's an e-mail message", along with a list of addresses (usually 20 or so). Sometimes all those addresses are on that server, somtimes not. 4. To stop spam, the receiver then checks the list for at least one valid receiver. if one is local, it delivers it and any other local mails, then relays the rest off to the first system in the list left over. So In step 3, you say "20 or so." What limits that to 20? Volunteerism? What stops me from relaying my entire 50K subscriber mailing list off of your server, as long as you have -one- subscriber to the list? John
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
- Original Message - From: "John White" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "qmail mailing list" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:28 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations I'm getting the impression that you use separate hardware or queues for your mailing list server and non-mailing list mail server. Thats correct. Why not tell the customer to send his 1000+ recipient message to the mailing list server? Won't that solve your problem? Well, I do want him to send regular mails through the mail hub of support reason, and use the mailing list service for his "bulk" mails. It seems things goes the way I/we want, using the tarpit patch. He has been warned that it's time to pull out his finger from where ever it's stuck, and move over to the mailing list server. Majordomo or ezmlm, that is what he kan choose from. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail forwarder
I'm trying to set up my system to that all mail goes through an SMTP relay or forwarder. This is because the firewall I'm behind only allows email out through this forwarder. Ok, so I put the FQDN in the /var/qmail/control/bouncehost. No joy; I suspect it's still trying direct. I change it to the hostname in the bouncehost file. Nothing. Change it to the ip address. Nothing. The host is in the /etc/hosts file. There could be a problem with getting the host resolved though as the DNS I'm going through is a bit dodgy. Would this have any affect even though the host is in the /etc/hosts file? Syslog gives me the message: unable to establish an SMTP connection. Anyone have any suggestions? Regards Chris Hellberg
Re: removimg a msg from the queue
martin langhoff writes:
and, for the next time, is there a 'proper way' of performing the above
mentioned deed cleanly?
Yes. You could also have run this program except that it didn't exist
earlier today. It will cause the email to be bounced. This is
appropriate in the situation you outlined, but may not be for others.
Hand it any one of these filenames:
info/10/227894
mess/10/227894
remote/10/227894
--
#! /usr/bin/perl
chdir("/var/qmail/queue") or die;
$queuelifetime = 10*24*60*60;
if (open(F, "/var/qmail/control/queuelifetime")) {
my($q) = F;
$queuelifetime = chomp $q;
close(F);
}
$t = time - $queuelifetime;
while() {
chomp;
s!.*?/!info/!;
utime($t, $t, $_) or die;
}
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com | If you think
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
RE: RSS vs. rblsmtpd second try
Hubbard, David writes: I'm a little confused what this patch is for? Did something change with mail-abuse.org? Did this affect just relays.mail-abuse.org or the RBL list too? Just relays.mail-abuse.org. It's a huge zone. They're trying to make it smaller by eliminating the "redundant" TXT records. I can see why they're doing it, but the TXT records are awfully useful. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
Re: Username refusal
Slider writes: I am trying to refuse mail from any address that starts with [EMAIL PROTECTED] The TO: address is fine although the FROM addresses are [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not want to ban the WHOLE domain.com (in BADMAILFROM) as there are legitimate users there mailing to my users! I just want to ban all FROM addresses that start with "nobody"! Well, badmailfrom lets you ban a single envelope sender (just put "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" into control/badmailfrom), but it doesn't let you ban all envelope senders that start with "nobody". You'd have to be a little more clever about that, and when you do, it's going to have to happen after the mail has made it through qmail-smtpd. Or you can grovel through www.qmail.org looking for an appropriate anti-spam patch. You might find one in the shiny new, chrome-plated spam prevention section of the site. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
Re: Cool powered by qmail logo.
Keith Warno \(@HaggleWare.com\) writes: Whatever happened to the qmail shirt idea? Last I knew most people agreed "don't queue mail with sendmail; send mail with qmail" was the slogan of choice, but where'd it go from there? Remember this posting? Russ Nelson writes: Vern Hart writes: http://www.nerdgear.com/search.php?@category=100 Those prices at nerdgear are pretty good. Especially for embroidery. Even with shipping. The extra-large is $18.18 with shipping. I'll let the list know if the shirts don't suck. They don't suck. I've already worn it to a customer's site. :) -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
RE: Cool powered by qmail logo.
If anyone is interested in printing up a bunch of these, my friend works for a place here in Minneapolis called Signature Concepts and he gets a hefty discount (they do all of the University of MN stuff). We printed up some shirts for the DSM Racing club (http://www.dsm.org) and it cost us around $9 for a short sleeve and $12 for a long sleeve shirt. Good quality too, heavy cotton. Drop me an email if you're interested and I'll get you in touch with him. If you can send a JPG of what you want printed on the shirts, that would be even better. The more colors, the higher the cost. We had 2 colors on our shirts. The turn around time is usually pretty quick (a week or two depending on the season), so we had people send their money first so we knew how many to print up. Jay -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:38 PM To: qmail Subject: Re: Cool powered by qmail logo. Keith Warno \(@HaggleWare.com\) writes: Whatever happened to the qmail shirt idea? Last I knew most people agreed "don't queue mail with sendmail; send mail with qmail" was the slogan of choice, but where'd it go from there? Remember this posting? Russ Nelson writes: Vern Hart writes: http://www.nerdgear.com/search.php?@category=100 Those prices at nerdgear are pretty good. Especially for embroidery. Even with shipping. The extra-large is $18.18 with shipping. I'll let the list know if the shirts don't suck. They don't suck. I've already worn it to a customer's site. :) -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com | If you think Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health care is expensive now 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait until you see Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it costs when it's free.
Re: filters
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 04:01:54AM -0500, Raul Beltran wrote: Somebody told me to use another mail service... maybe I will do, but I still think that a "qmail-ish" subject would be OK :), even helpful for some people and woludn't hurt anyone... Just imagine the number of subscribers who'd get annoyed if the list maintainer actually set up subject tags (or Reply-To fields pointing to the list---but that's another issue). I'd be one of them. Hotmail is a free service, right? Just set up another mailbox, dedicated to receiving messages from the qmail list. ---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
Qmail + sendmail wrapper + PHP's mail()
Hi,
I don't know the best way to explain my problem, but here it goes. :)
Dev machine is a RedHat 6.2 install. Apache 1.3.12 with PHP 4.0.1pl2 and stock
sendmail.
Server is Redhat 6.2 apache 1.3.12 PHP 4.0.1pl2 with qmail (and vpopmail)
I got a php script that I developed on the dev machine.. every thing works.
it calls mail() proper headers and whatnot.. sendmail connects to my server
sends the mail and works. Things here O.K.
Move the web code to the server. Try the php script. nothing... no erros no
nothing. I do a 'tail -f' on the qmail log files. nothing shows up...
I double and tripple check eveyr thing. /usr/lib/sendmail is symbolic linked
to /var/qmail/bin/sendmail (the sendmail wrapper naturally).
/usr/sbin/sendmail -- /var/qmail/bin/sendmail.
I run sendmail manually and it works. run qmail-inject the same way. works. use
-t and -t and -i -t works from command line usr /bin/mail all works. A-OK. but
via php's mail() call. nothing. nada. talking to a few ppl on IRC. we dig into
things.
apache is running as use 'nobody'. I think a little... su to root. then so to
nobody. try to run sendmail, I get this error.
[root@neworder jason]# su nobody
bash$ sendmail
qmail-inject: fatal: read error
Then I was asked to 'strace' sendmail. we find this.
open("/root/.lists", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 EACCES (Permission denied)
( I can provide the whole output if one needs it).
It was determined something about the env - PATH="$PATH" was needed to be
appeded before apache started up. I'm still confused on what this actully is.
The command line problem is SOLVED but suING to nobody like this
su - nobody
sendmail works fine. qmail-inject works. /bin/mail works Apache started
FROM THAT SESSION still doesn't work... I even went as far as chaging apache's
user to a test user. apache was started as user 'test' and group 'test' same
result. nothing.
AS other side noted. I ran the phpinfo() and varified that
/var/qmai/bin/sendmail -t (and other various combinations of switches) was
being used by php.
This problem just doesn't make sence at all.
the apche installed on my system is the one from readhat 6.2 CD. php is an RPM
I found off the net. And, qmail was DLed in rpm and tar formats (used RPM were
I could to save time and hassel).
As a temporary fix I'm going to install apache (on another port) and php on
another server with a standard sendmail install. So I don't wanna get a
compleate hack but more of a real fix for the problem
Thank you.
--
Jason J. Czerak ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux Systems Evangelist
Jasnik Services, LLC
http://www.Jasnik.net
Re: Connection refused?
- Original Message - From: Bennett Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:07 PM Subject: Re: Connection refused? I see two places you might inquire further. First, if you have lsof, you can use it to double-check what address[s] tinydns is really listening on, to make sure that part of the config really worked right. And second, "Connection refused" _Really_Really_ sounds like a TCP error; UDP doesn't do connections. Tinydns doesn't do TCP. I don't know dig, but if the query you're attempting requires TCP DNS service, you need to bring up axfrdns alongside tinydns to cover that. -Bennett Acutally, dig is trying to be helpful, I believe. It's getting back an ICMP UDP-port-unreachable response ( the UDP equivalent of TCP-RST), saying 'no such daemon here!' Try 'dig'ging on a server not running DNS (or another daemon on UDP 53) and you'll get back the same error message... I'll bet you're right about which address tinydns is listening on. GW
