Reforward emails (RE: Spamming ..... )
Hi, Brett Randall wrote: I'll agree that asking about bulk mailing on this list is a little suicidial, (especially since www.qmail.org/top.html talks about mailing lists with ezmlm) but considering how many people don't speak English natively on this list, I think it is a little rude to go insulting them for their errors... We don't know what his situation is so we don't have the right to call him 'stupid'. Thanks Brett, for your kind message. I don't speak English natively, either, so it's a bit difficult to ask questions to 'English-speaking' list like this. Since my question several days ago, I keep thinking that perhaps I was not clear enough (or 'polite' enough) so that nobody answer my question .. :-) Maybe, I can have some reply to my question now .. :-) (Please .. :-)) My question is: All emails come to X.org ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.) are forwarded to me (say, [EMAIL PROTECTED]). I use qmail at chem.itb.ac.id. What's the simplest way to reforward those emails to the right person or to the right place? Or, do I have to write a perl script to process those emails? (Unfortunately, I currently cannot write any single line of perl script .. :-)) For your info, in the header of those emails, the "To:" field still contains the original recipient ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), and the "From:" field contains the original sender. Thanks. Muhamad
RE: Reforward emails (RE: Spamming ..... )
I use qmail at chem.itb.ac.id. What's the simplest way to reforward those emails to the right person or to the right place? I suggest looking into fetchmail and similar programs...we had to use it for a while (albeit with sendmail, not qmail, but since it works via POP3 retrieval, I would guess it should still work the same). There was a discussion on this topic earlier in the year and fetchmail was mentioned, so try searching the qmail ML archives (find them on www.qmail.org) for fetchmail and see what you find... /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/
RE: Reforward emails (RE: Spamming ..... )
On 12-Sep-2000 Muhamad A. Martoprawiro wrote: My question is: All emails come to X.org ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.) are forwarded to me (say, [EMAIL PROTECTED]). I use qmail at chem.itb.ac.id. What's the simplest way to reforward those emails to the right person or to the right place? Or, do I have to write a perl script to process those emails? (Unfortunately, I currently cannot write any single line of perl script .. :-)) For your info, in the header of those emails, the "To:" field still contains the original recipient ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), and the "From:" field contains the original sender. If they're in Maildir format, just do: for i in * ; do qmail-inject $i ; done You may want to add arguments to qmail-inject to control delivery in the case of forwarded email; see the manpage for qmail-inject for more info. If the mail is in a file (mbox format), split it into Maildir format with convert-and-create (http://www.qmail.org/convert-and-create). -- Rick Lyons WebCentral
connecting to my IMAP port
um, The first email I have ever sent to this list was a few hours ago. and as soon as I sent it, someone has been spending ALL night trying to connect to my machine to an IMAP port. 207.155.121.162 207.155.121.170 207.155.121.166 just quit it, I am watching. thanks shawn -- got root?
Comparation between Qmail and IMAP4(UW)
Is there anybody know the main features different between Qmail and IMAP4(UW). I know they support different protocol,I want to choose one of them to construct a mail server.Wish somebody give me some advice. -- »¶ÓÄúʹÓà °Ù¼ÒÉÌÎñµç×ÓÓʼþϵͳ http://www.email.com.cn Welcome to E-mail business system
RE: connecting to my IMAP port
You may be interested in knowing that those IP addresses belong to emumail.net, an email checking web site. I would almost suggest you block those IP addresses from accessing your machine, since I doubt you will have any use for email from that site... An insecure site where people expose their usernames, passwords, and email hosts? I don't think so... /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ -Original Message- From: shawn p. duffy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: connecting to my IMAP port um, The first email I have ever sent to this list was a few hours ago. and as soon as I sent it, someone has been spending ALL night trying to connect to my machine to an IMAP port. 207.155.121.162 207.155.121.170 207.155.121.166 just quit it, I am watching. thanks shawn -- got root?
RE: connecting to my IMAP port
thanks, but I already checked it out and portsentry has blackholed them already. the IP that tries the most is running red hat linux, apache 1.3.9, and qmail. I emailed root@that IP and told them if it doesn't stop then I will contact their service provider... thanks guys! shawn On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, you wrote: You may be interested in knowing that those IP addresses belong to emumail.net, an email checking web site. I would almost suggest you block those IP addresses from accessing your machine, since I doubt you will have any use for email from that site... An insecure site where people expose their usernames, passwords, and email hosts? I don't think so... /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ -Original Message- From: shawn p. duffy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: connecting to my IMAP port um, The first email I have ever sent to this list was a few hours ago. and as soon as I sent it, someone has been spending ALL night trying to connect to my machine to an IMAP port. 207.155.121.162 207.155.121.170 207.155.121.166 just quit it, I am watching. thanks shawn -- got root? -- got root? --- -- got root?
RE: connecting to my IMAP port
I emailed root@that IP and told them if it doesn't stop then I will contact their service provider... A machine that runs qmail and accepts mail for its IP address... Pretty easy to do, but not many people (AFAIK) do this...maybe this machine is an open relay? ;) /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/
RE: connecting to my IMAP port
actually, the email got bounced back to me so I know it is from this list... ever since I posted that message, the connections have stopped... shawn On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, you wrote: I emailed root@that IP and told them if it doesn't stop then I will contact their service provider... A machine that runs qmail and accepts mail for its IP address... Pretty easy to do, but not many people (AFAIK) do this...maybe this machine is an open relay? ;) /BR Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/ -- got root?
Re: Comparation between Qmail and IMAP4(UW)
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:33:29PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anybody know the main features different between Qmail and IMAP4(UW). I know they support different protocol,I want to choose one of them to construct a mail server.Wish somebody give me some advice. well, it's impossible to make a comparaison, because qmail doesn't have an integrated imap daemon... But you can use UW-IMAP or Courier-IMAP with qmail if you want. The first one only with Mailbox-type boxes, and the second with Maildirs. Regards, Olivier -- _ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
qmail Digest 12 Sep 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1121
qmail Digest 12 Sep 2000 10:00:01 - Issue 1121 Topics (messages 48387 through 48454): list down ? 48387 by: Jens Georg 48388 by: "Próspero, Esteban" Reject it during the SMTP dialogue 48389 by: J.J.Gallardo 48393 by: Dave Sill 48421 by: postmaster.infoseek.de Re: daemontools problem 48390 by: Dave Sill Re: qmail-smtpd-auth crashes!!! 48391 by: Dave Sill nofiles not no files? 48392 by: Raul Miller SVSCAN not starting qmail 48394 by: Jimmy Newell Questions... 48395 by: James Stevens 48396 by: Petr Novotny 48397 by: Ben Beuchler 48398 by: Steven Rice 48399 by: Greg Owen 48401 by: Aaron L. Meehan 48403 by: Ben Beuchler 48407 by: Peter van Dijk 48409 by: Scott D. Yelich 48410 by: Peter van Dijk Tcpserver 48400 by: Jonathan Fanti 48404 by: David Dyer-Bennet Re: Does Qmail support MUA on Win9x? 48402 by: David Dyer-Bennet 48411 by: Ihnen, David qmail/mini.html 48405 by: Raul Miller Maildir 48406 by: Mike Jimenez 48408 by: Steve Wolfe Mail que 48412 by: Mike Jimenez 48413 by: Ben Beuchler Locals, rcpthosts, tcprules or other? 48414 by: Andy Meuse 48418 by: Alexander Pennace Catch all boxes and ~/.qmail 48415 by: Brian Moon 48416 by: Dave Sill bounce handling 48417 by: ketan bajaj 48420 by: Charles Cazabon Re: duplicate messages 48419 by: Christopher Taranto Error invoking tcprules 48422 by: Al Sparks 48423 by: Galen Johnson 48424 by: markd.bushwire.net 48428 by: Al Sparks tcpserver problems 48425 by: French, Michael virtualdomains (again) 48426 by: ryan p bobko 48427 by: Adam McKenna 48429 by: Adam McKenna 48430 by: Adam McKenna Spamming . 48431 by: Jerry Hsieh 48432 by: James Stevens 48433 by: Rick Harris 48434 by: Austad, Jay 48435 by: Brett Randall 48436 by: shawn p. duffy 48437 by: shawn p. duffy 48438 by: Jerry Hsieh 48440 by: Rick Harris 48443 by: Steve Wolfe 48444 by: Brett Randall Thank you 48439 by: Jerry Hsieh Setting a default local delivery agent 48441 by: Ben Logan subscribe qmail 48442 by: Micah Abrams Reforward emails (RE: Spamming . ) 48445 by: Muhamad A. Martoprawiro 48446 by: Brett Randall 48447 by: frob.powerup.com.au connecting to my IMAP port 48448 by: shawn p. duffy 48450 by: Brett Randall 48451 by: shawn p. duffy 48452 by: Brett Randall 48453 by: shawn p. duffy Comparation between Qmail and IMAP4(UW) 48449 by: big_qmail.email.com.cn 48454 by: Olivier M. 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] -- hi, didn't get message from this list since days now. is it down ? -- regards, jens --- department computer science, university of dortmund linux ... life's too short for reboots! begin:vcard n:Georg;Jens x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:University of Dortmund, Germany;computer science adr:;; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Jens Georg end:vcard If you get this message, it's not... if you don't get it... you won't notice anyway!! ;-) Esteban Javier Próspero -Original Message- From: Jens Georg [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 7:57 AM To: qmail mailinglist Subject: list down ? hi, didn't get message from this list since days now. is it down ? -- regards, jens -- - department computer science, university of dortmund linux ... life's too short for reboots! File: Card for Jens Georg I'm surprise today with a test that i've do it on my smtp server (qmail 1.03): I send an e-amil (1Mb) to an invalid user and qmail accept it a then, send a reply to the sender (another megabyte) saying that the user is unknown. Total = 2Mb of my lines used for no actions. Is there a way to reject mail during the SMTP dialogue so don't accept mail to "invalids and/or unknowns user's"? "J.J.Gallardo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm surprise today with a test that i've do it on my smtp server (qmail 1.03): I send an e-amil (1Mb) to an invalid user and qmail accept it a then, send a reply to the sender (another megabyte) saying that the user is unknown. Total = 2Mb of my lines used for no actions. Bouncing an
domain..
hi all can i use my domain as my adress eg.. my host: omni.arc.itb.ac.id i want my adress like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] what should i do..? i am sorry if my english bad cause english not my native..:) website : www.fadli.za.net email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparation between Qmail and IMAP4(UW)
* Olivier M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000912 05:31]: On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:33:29PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anybody know the main features different between Qmail and IMAP4(UW). I know they support different protocol,I want to choose one of them to construct a mail server.Wish somebody give me some advice. Qmail with Courier IMAP is an excellent choice. well, it's impossible to make a comparaison, because qmail doesn't have an integrated imap daemon... But you can use UW-IMAP or Courier-IMAP with qmail if you want. The first one only with Mailbox-type boxes, and the second with Maildirs. He asked for a comparison: http://search.securityportal.com/query.html?qt=imap+washingtoncol=topnewscol=othercol=listscol=lskb http://search.securityportal.com/query.html?qt=qmailcol=topnewscol=othercol=listscol=lskb and while we're there: http://search.securityportal.com/query.html?qt=imap+couriercol=topnewscol=othercol=listscol=lskb IMAO, UW IMAP sucks as bad as pine. YMMV.
Re: tcpserver problems
"French, Michael" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I try to telnet to port 25, I get a connection refused message. Checked the qmail logs and in the smtpd log, I get a message that says"tcpserver: error in loading shared libraries:libc.so.6.1:failed to map segment from shared object:Cannont allocate memory". This repeats over and over again. You need to increase the memory limit for qmail-smtpd specified in the softlimit command. (There's a note about this in LWQ, but it's easy to miss.) Edit the /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run script and raise the limit to 300 or 400 or whatever it takes to make the problem do away. -Dave
Re: Questions...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11 Sep 2000, at 12:03, Scott D. Yelich wrote: Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden. ok, I can't resist: "WHY" ? 1. Because the law (RFC) says so. 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency. I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOb4Q/lMwP8g7qbw/EQIItQCguo1XUFwxxQzb8pfbJpg2YeDrvdIAoMUV VYuhEbESx/1BuegJhKoQxZsR =bvfk -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: Comparation between Qmail and IMAP4(UW)
"Olivier M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you can use UW-IMAP or Courier-IMAP with qmail if you want. The first one only with Mailbox-type boxes, and the second with Maildirs. There's a patch to make UW-IMAP work with maildirs. Cyrus is another IMAP server that can work with qmail. It uses its own mail store format. LWQ has info about both: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#pop-imap-servers -Dave
Re: virtualdomains (again)
ryan p bobko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and finally, my virtualdomains: Y:bronco15 mail.Y:bronco15 My understanding is that all mail to Y or mail.Y will go to user bronco15. However, when I send mail to ryan@Y, I get the following message: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at X. 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. ryan@Y: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) Mail for ryan@Y will be delivered to bronco15-ryan on the local machine. If bronco15 doesn't have a .qmail-ryan, and doesn't have a .qmail-default, it will bounce. Charles -- -- Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer. --
Looking for input on JFS for linux.
Hey All, I was doing some research on linux files systems. and ran across? http://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/jfs/ Is anyone out there running Qmail on JFS for linux?? How is it running? Whats the pros/cons? Sean Truman[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.prodigysolutions.com/
Re: Monitoring Email - Clarified
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600 The favorite is always: Q: I would like to do "XYZ" A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ" Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number in society -- some people don't care to be that way. Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach their actual goal. Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me. Yes, sometimes. But should one really assume that everyone is just nothing but a clueless 'n newbie and thus simply assume to have the right to think for them and proceed to do so? How about... another example. Perhaps this one is clearer and/or more close to home: Q : How do I install qmail? A : You install postfix by blah blah blah. QQ: I asked about qmail. AA: No one uses qmail, everyone uses postfix because it's better. Hell, use sendmail, if you have to, just don't use qmail. No one uses qmail... see, even FAQs say don't use qmail. Understand? There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for people to answer a question with what they want, regardless of what they were asked. This doesn't just mean that a person is asking about qmail on a qmail list and is only being told about qmail -- this is just a general observation. Sometimes corporate or clients demand something... sometimes people want to experiment or try things out. Sometimes one size just won't fit all. Sometimes people may just have to make their own mistakes. After all, if shouldn't we all just be using mircosoft solutions... and exchange? It *is* the best MTA, right? :-/ Anyway, it's no biggy... just a little something to chuckle at. It's like ending a sentence with a preposition. Scott ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+ hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list.
Re: Spamming .....
On which note, it is quite useful to create your newsletter in HTML on a website, and then make a mailing list that simply gives the major headings and points back to that website for the actual newsletter (many large newsletters do this to save bandwidth and create a nicer looking newsletter). - Original Message - From: "Rick Harris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] That being the case, you will probably need to look toward things like Ezmlm and do the whole mailing list thing. IMHO . YOu might notofy your ISP that you are running a listserv or going to email out that much. THe provider I work for , we monitor that kind of traffic and when you decide to send 100k emails in a very short timespan , someone is very likely to notice and it wil raise an eyebrow or two. There is I would think better ways to disseminate this information than mass emails. Takes up to much servers space and just eats bandwitdh if you plan on doing this on any kind of regular basis ..
Re: Monitoring Email - Clarified
"Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Understand? There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for people to answer a question with what they want, regardless of what they were asked. I agree that this is "no biggy". This list is a completely free, voluntary and open forum, and both questioners and answerers are free to be stupid, wrong, irrelevant, irreverent, annoying, etc. So if Joe takes every question referring to mailbox formats as an opportunity to sing the praises of maildir, so what? If you ask a question and nobody answers it, so what? You want a refund? :-) ... I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+ hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list. I hope you reported the fault to the author. I also hope you thanked him for the FAQ/HOWTO he wrote, because without it you would doubtless have struggled even more than 3+ hours. -Dave
Re: Questions...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote: Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden. ok, I can't resist: "WHY" ? 1. Because the law (RFC) says so. but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps... 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency. AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient. Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a "whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but doing the same for email -- is? I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well... I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement. It's only impossible until it's not. Certain types of laws can be changed. Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their ways and rehabilitate and repent? Quick Qmail Quiz HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone name all of them! Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one): HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS? Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there. Scott
Re: Questions...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12 Sep 2000, at 11:11, Scott D. Yelich wrote: 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency. AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient. Well, Fortran's rules for indexing come from the same teapot. What is that site uses cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but doing the same for email -- is? There already _is_ one chain of CNAMEs. If you send a mail to a CNAME, MTA first follows the chain, until is finds the first non-CNAME record. (Example: www.example.com IN CNAME server.example.com - when mailing to www.example.com, MTA first follows the CNAME "chain" to server.example.com.) This non- CNAME is usually a MX. If this MX now points to CNAME, there's another chain of CNAMEs. It might be even possible that there arised a cycle; the obvious cycle a IN CNAME b b IN CNAME a is easy to catch. However, a subtle cycle a IN CNAME b b IN MX c IN A 1.2.3.4 c IN CNAME a is not a cycle for www (a record) but might be a cycle for mail (mx record). Noone claims that DNS system is perfectly designed (read djb's own comments on it). However, some stuff is illegal (although often used) - like MX pointing to CNAME or NS pointing to CNAME. HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone name all of them! That's not a matter of mailer, I believe, but of DNS software (resolver). There _are_ dinosaur programs which actually choke on MX-CNAME. HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS? Looking for a flame, aren't we? How many mailers are "transparent-reliable" - I mean guaranteed to leave a message intact? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOb5Z6lMwP8g7qbw/EQJNLwCghpAErfYcNTVkdazO8wKLfAnxdhYAnRrq MAH7LhHezVnYXBZKqAgYnpyO =0N9d -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: Monitoring Email - Clarified
Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 12 September 2000 at 10:12:15 -0600 On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600 The favorite is always: Q: I would like to do "XYZ" A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ" Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok? If I want to do XYZ, I want to do XYZ. I don't care if you group-think and are simply a number in society -- some people don't care to be that way. Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach their actual goal. Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me. Yes, sometimes. But should one really assume that everyone is just nothing but a clueless 'n newbie and thus simply assume to have the right to think for them and proceed to do so? Absolutely not; that would be completely wrong, and quite rude. But you'll notice that isn't what I suggested. The whole point was to *not* make assumptions, but instead to ask for clarification when there was some cause for doubt. *That*, IMHO, is responsible, polite, and producive. ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+ hours... I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list. Well, be sure to report the errors you found, if possible with a suggested way to fix them! -- 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]
Daemontools
Ok I'm running a qmail server for a few months without problems. But since I'm not a very experienced UNIX admin I want to make sure everything keeps working as it should. Now I hear people talking about daemonstools, how it restarts the service when it dies. At the moment I simply run a small program which makes a connection to the localhost and sents an `helo' command. If it fails I'll stop and start qmail. Should I start using daemontools ? --Frans
Re: Questions...
btw: this isn't flame bait... if it's too off topic, since no one else is participating, I'd be happy to discuss these things in private emails. On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote: Well, Fortran's rules for indexing come from the same teapot. Yes, and we all know how much attention every programmer pays to memory architecture these days. Writing a program to display today's date -- sure, why not include a web browser in that! What's a GIGABYTE of RAM these days? :-) (Humor? not funny? sorry.) is not a cycle for www (a record) but might be a cycle for mail (mx record). Agreed... but, alas, cycles/loops vs efficiency is still a weak argument -- in my camp. If you hose your MX cnames, you deserve your lost/queued mail. Hardly seems any different than 1 month TTLs and then changing things and dealing with that fallout for a month. There _are_ dinosaur programs which actually choke on MX-CNAME. Question: Why are there not so many non-dinosaur programs that actually choke on MX-CNAME? HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS? Looking for a flame, aren't we? No. Although it's not qmail... per se... I've constantly had to tell people "Gee, I run qmail... if your system can't send mail to me, but other systems seem quite capable of it, I'd tend to put the blame on your system." And then I get back the usual "but I can send mail to other systems just fine." to which I respond, "but are they running qmail" Most people tell me to "fix" my system. Of course, I refuse. It's really bad when one of those people is your boss... and he's a little tweaked that he can't seem to send mail to you. Ya know? How many mailers are "transparent-reliable" - I mean guaranteed to leave a message intact? I'm not really sure I follow you perhaps the soon-to-be de facto standard of having the HTML formatted body of the message as an attachment doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling? and we all know that visualization of HTML is left up to the display agent. *shudder* Scott
Re: Questions...
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:11:48AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote: Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden. ok, I can't resist: "WHY" ? 1. Because the law (RFC) says so. but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps... 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency. AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient. Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in When this rule was devised the web didn't exist. When this rule was devised there was indeen a single internet backbone and numerous countries had less bandwidth to that backbone than a DSL line! It's only impossible until it's not. Certain types of laws can be changed. Sure. And there are working groups associated with the IETF precisely for this purpose. You should considering joining one if you're genuinely interested in advocating changes or in understanding why things haven't changed. For an example of how difficult it is to change a heavily entrenced semi-standard application like email you may want to look at the DRUMS working group archives. Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there. Fine, but what did you think of the 10 entries in the qmail list archive that come up when you search for CNAME? Is checking the archives first asking you to do too much? Regards.
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:47:37 +0200, Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Peter The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only Peter injecting a message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate Peter delivery of one message to 20.000 recipients. Peter It sucks at handling 20.000 separate messages all injected at Peter the same time. Can you be more specific on the last bit? It can't suck more than sendmail, can it?
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 02:05:27PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote: On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:47:37 +0200, Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Peter The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only Peter injecting a message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate Peter delivery of one message to 20.000 recipients. Peter It sucks at handling 20.000 separate messages all injected at Peter the same time. Can you be more specific on the last bit? It can't suck more than sendmail, can it? The specifics are that it keeps on switching between handling one message from the todo queue and spawning one local/remote delivery, which, somehow, seems to be fatal for performance. I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once, because of it's nature. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks
Re: Questions...
here's my summary of this issue that scott has been preseverating on for the past year and a half or so: -the RFC says MX records can't point to CNAMEs -scott thinks that is silly and doesn't understand why it should be -others point out that this was originally due to fears of efficiency (multiple lookups for the same record). -scott says: 'oh yeah? it's not that inefficient and so are other things anyway'. -others say: then change the RFC to be compliant -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them. -people generally stop taking scott seriously. i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive conversation for anyone? todd On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Scott D. Yelich wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote: Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden. ok, I can't resist: "WHY" ? 1. Because the law (RFC) says so. but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps... 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency. AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient. Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a "whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but doing the same for email -- is? I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well... I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement. It's only impossible until it's not. Certain types of laws can be changed. Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their ways and rehabilitate and repent? Quick Qmail Quiz HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone name all of them! Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one): HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS? Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there. Scott -- Todd Underwood Chief Technology Officer Oso Grande Technologies, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spamming .....
Shhh, don't tell. If he's stupid enough to ask for advice, he might just be stupid enough to put his real email address in... I'll agree that asking about bulk mailing on this list is a little suicidial, (especially since www.qmail.org/top.html talks about mailing lists with ezmlm) but considering how many people don't speak English natively on this list, I think it is a little rude to go insulting them for their errors... We don't know what his situation is so we don't have the right to call him 'stupid'. You're right, and I publicly apologize. Since he had misunderstood the meaning of "spamming", he isn't the sort of person I made him out to be. (However, had he understood the meaning of "spamming" and still asked for help, I would have stuck to my statement. : ) ) steve
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote: I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once, because of it's nature. However, sendmail (by default) also has a single queue directory (like todo is); it is hit by the very same problem (scandir(), open(), unlink() taking *too*long* in large directories) as qmail. If you get a big-todo patch for qmail, then 2 messages in todo queue are no problem... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOb5lUlMwP8g7qbw/EQKTYwCfXTtYT9HyLD7KttHP1nl4IGtkq2MAn2Xq yySr8DZyzhEPDee/mtfYRahI =ciew -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: duplicate messages
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:53:20PM -0700, Christopher Taranto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jamie, My post of a couple of days ago has a similar problem - but no one has responded to my message. I don't think I have the answer to your problem, but one thing you should be aware of is that qmail does not try to remove duplicate addresses the way sendmail does.
which host name
regarding INSTALL.ctl There's one big exception. You MUST tell qmail your hostname. Just run the config-fast script: # ./config-fast your.full.host.name config-fast puts your.full.host.name into control/me. It also puts it into control/locals and control/rcpthosts, so that qmail will accept mail for your.full.host.name. My host name is something.local because it is a masquaraded machine with an IP of 192.168.0.33 The hostname of the firewall / gateway machine that has ports 25 and 110 forwarded back to 192.168.0.33
Re: domain..
* Fadli Syarid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: can i use my domain as my adress eg.. my host: omni.arc.itb.ac.id i want my adress like this [EMAIL PROTECTED] what should i do..? /var/qmail/doc/FAQ: 1.1. How do I set up host masquerading? -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
Re: Monitoring Email - Clarified
* Scott D Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Asking for XYZ when everyone knows XYZ is a dumb thing to do] Very often, people new to an area get really dumb ideas. I've done it myself. Sometimes wanting to do "XYZ" is a warning flag for one of these. Telling them how to do "XYZ" is likely to not help them reach their actual goal. People that told me how XZY were the ones that made me put /etc under CVS. Just in case... Of course, since I can't read their minds, I can't know this for sure. So my options are to answer the question, while suspecting I'm not being helpful -- or ask a question of my own to determine what answer would be useful. Seems an easy choice to me. Yes, sometimes. But should one really assume that everyone is just nothing but a clueless 'n newbie and thus simply assume to have the right to think for them and proceed to do so? Absolutely. I vividly remember asking how to run an alpha version of Gnus. Without using a backup recipe in procmail. *smack* 1500 mails gone. I would not have minded telling *why* I wanted to run this particular version of dangerous software. Modern Linux distributions go to great lenghts to a) win the version size war and b) enable users to run software that is likely to do considerable harm to their systems. Clueless newbies come in two flavours: dick-size challenged lusers and people who are genuinely lost. Guess which group will appreciate an affirmative question? How about... another example. Perhaps this one is clearer and/or more close to home: Q : How do I install qmail? A : You install postfix by blah blah blah. QQ: I asked about qmail. AA: No one uses qmail, everyone uses postfix because it's better. Hell, use sendmail, if you have to, just don't use qmail. No one uses qmail... see, even FAQs say don't use qmail. Understand? Never saw this on this list. Remember the OP in this[1] thread? A luser wanted to make copies of all incoming/outgoing mail. He got a correct, concise and (give the circumstances (the solution is advertised in bbold/b letters in the FAQ)) polite answer. I mean, face it: if you're too fscking stoopid to recompile a freaking mailserver (one of the tools most likely to wreak havoc on unsuspecting admins if configured improperly), you *do* *not* *need* one. There's just, what I perceive, as a growing tendency for people to answer a question with what they want, regardless of what they were asked. This doesn't just mean that a person is asking about qmail on a qmail list and is only being told about qmail -- this is just a general observation. Well, thanks for bringing your observation to our attention. Happens to me every day. "Yo, d00d3, how much for the Bentley?" "Err, Sir, I think you'd rather take a look at those matchbox Bentleys..." Does not happen on this list, though. Sorry for blowing your attempt at making a point. Next time, maybe. Gotta try harder, Scott. Sometimes corporate or clients demand something... sometimes people want to experiment or try things out. You do not want to experiment with an MTA. Or with a newsserver. Unless you know what you're doing. In which case you're not experimenting but evaluating possibilities. Sometimes one size just won't fit all. Only if your solution is too small. My experience in this field is extremely limited. Thanks, God. Sometimes people may just have to make their own mistakes. After all, if shouldn't we all just be using mircosoft solutions... and exchange? It *is* the best MTA, right? :-/ No, Scott, it isn't. But making a mistake with an MTA *sucks* if you're connected. Anyway, it's no biggy... just a little something to chuckle at. It's like ending a sentence with a preposition. Prepositions are no good thing to end a sentence with, Scott. ps: have you noticed that LES's address bounces? I wonder if he's having difficulty with qmail. I struggled with qmail yesterday for 3+ hours... I've been struggling with it ever since I installed it. Good software. I followed a FAQ/HOWTO to the letter... it's faulty. Yes, I finally figured it out and I even resisted asking the list. man diff We're lightyears OT, reply-to set. Happy reading, Scott. Footnotes: [1] Courtesy of Microsoft Crapware(tm), we're now in thread number four, but who cares these days? -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
Re: Daemontools
* Frans Haarman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should I start using daemontools ? Absolutely. You'll probably like multilog, too. And while you're at it, also install ucspi-tcp. Basically, install everything written by DJ Bernstein - the man is a living programming marvel. -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
oops
this got sent incomplete the first time so disregard the first one - oops regarding INSTALL.ctl which states: "There's one big exception. You MUST tell qmail your hostname. Just runthe config-fast script: # ./config-fast your.full.host.nameconfig-fast puts your.full.host.name into control/me. It also puts itinto control/locals and control/rcpthosts, so that qmail will acceptmail for your.full.host.name. My host name isreally "www" because it is a masquaraded machine mail, ftp, www server with an IP of 192.168.0.33The hostname of the firewall / gateway machine that has ports 25 and 110forwarded back to 192.168.0.33 is supposed to be updegrove.net I have 2 DNS servers 1 internal and 1 external. I told it /config-fast www.updegrove.net Was I correct? qmail is running (I think) Sep 12 12:27:38 www qmail: 968786858.153688 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 root 702 0.0 0.0 1092 0 pts/1 SW 12:27 0:00 [supervise]qmails 704 0.0 0.0 1144 0 pts/1 SW 12:27 0:00 [qmail-send]qmaill 707 0.0 0.0 1112 0 pts/1 SW 12:27 0:00 [splogger]root 708 0.0 0.0 1104 0 pts/1 SW 12:27 0:00 [qmail-lspawn]qmailr 709 0.0 0.0 1100 0 pts/1 SW 12:27 0:00 [qmail-rspawn]qmailq 710 0.0 0.0 1092 0 pts/1 SW 12:27 0:00 [qmail-clean]root 732 0.0 14.6 2656 972 pts/1 R 12:48 0:01 ps -aux but when using PINE to send an e-mail I get the following: [Sending mail | 0% |] [Error sending: Connection failed to updegrove.net,25: Connection timed out] I realize this is probably not qmail related but someone may know whats going on. Back to the docs Thanks,Rick Uphttp://updegrove.net http://linuxpeople.cc
I did the IV. QMail and PINE
Did I mention I did this: IV. QMail and PINE If you are using pine, put: sendmail-path=/usr/sbin/sendmail -t inbox-path=$MAIL into /usr/lib/pine.conf. Thanks,Rick Uphttp://updegrove.nethttp://linuxpeople.cc
Re: Questions...
I'm missing the message where Scott said to ignore the RFC. He may have several times said the RFC was irrelevant, or hinted at that, but never said (to my reading) that it should be ignored. In fact, I understood him to be saying it should be changed. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] here's my summary of this issue that scott has been preseverating on for the past year and a half or so: -the RFC says MX records can't point to CNAMEs -scott thinks that is silly and doesn't understand why it should be -others point out that this was originally due to fears of efficiency (multiple lookups for the same record). -scott says: 'oh yeah? it's not that inefficient and so are other things anyway'. -others say: then change the RFC to be compliant -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them. -people generally stop taking scott seriously. i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive conversation for anyone? todd On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Scott D. Yelich wrote: On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote: Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden. ok, I can't resist: "WHY" ? 1. Because the law (RFC) says so. but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps... 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency. AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient. Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a "whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but doing the same for email -- is? I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well... I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement. It's only impossible until it's not. Certain types of laws can be changed. Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their ways and rehabilitate and repent? Quick Qmail Quiz HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone name all of them! Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one): HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS? Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there. Scott -- Todd Underwood Chief Technology Officer Oso Grande Technologies, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically? - Original Message - From: "Petr Novotny" [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote: I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once, because of it's nature. However, sendmail (by default) also has a single queue directory (like todo is); it is hit by the very same problem (scandir(), open(), unlink() taking *too*long* in large directories) as qmail. If you get a big-todo patch for qmail, then 2 messages in todo queue are no problem...
pine
I have got a question about qmailand pine...
I have qmail running on Slackware Linux 7 and it works fine, however, when I
use pine, I have to put localhost in inbox path : {localhost/pop3}
I never installed sendmail on installation of slack so the last posting about
qmail and pine won't work.
essentially, I want pine to refresh with new messages without having to exit
and enter again., and not have to enter name and password everytime I go into
pine.
I tried setting inbox path to Maildir and every other variation of it and it
doesn't work
any ideas?
shawn
--
got root?
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote: How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically? Basically, ext2fs sucks and FreeBSD FFS rocks (especially with softupdates). I hear good things about ReiserFS. Now only if it was stable. (don't come saying it is, I've seen too many people with trashed ReiserFS partitions lately). Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks
Re: Questions...
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're serious, the answer is that some people view that adherance to standards is important even if it seems to temporarily hamper interoperability. "Temporarily"? I'm talking the long-term view of the Internet not the next couple of years. Standards-rot over the last 20 years on the Internet has already caused serious problems and blithely ignoring them, no matter how vague, is a contributor to that standards-rot. I'd just like to throw in a little comment, without disagreeing with you outright, that CNAMEs are not 'prohibited' by any Internet Standards documents (to my knowledge). For those reading this who don't know, standards and rfcs are not equivalent. HTTP, for example (as someone on this list's homepage points out) is not a standard. For the sake of answering the original questionner w.r.t. reasoning, from RFC974 (which is standard 0014): Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g. REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This can be avoided if aliases are never used in the data section of MX RRs. cf. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc974.html This is the only mention of the non-use of CNAMEs in the mail standards.
RBL checks and header modification
Does anyone have a program that does the checks rblsmtpd does, except that it allows the modification of the message header instead of blocking the mail? I've mentionned this before, but after trying some things, didn't manage to get it to work right. Basically: - incoming message from server a.b.c.d - software checks if a.b.c.d is in RBL (or RSS, etc.) - if so, adds "X-RBL-Failure: http://www...blah" (which is the failure line) - if not, ignores the message (as is currently done).
Return Receipts
I'm aware of how qmail currently handles receipts, but am wondering if it would be possible (of course ;-) to (by adding a header?) request that qmail-remote or qmail-local generate a return-receipt-verified E-mail once they succeeded? It doesn't seem that difficult to return a confirmation message (on request) once the sending server has successfully delivered the message to where it was going. The user may not have received it yet, etc., but it is sent.
step 3 of TEST.deliver
Is this the correct reply address? [EMAIL PROTECTED] If so this step doesn't work or offer any suggestions on what to do if it does not. Has anyone experienced this step not working? 3. Local-local test: Send yourself an empty message. (Replace ``me'' with your username. Make sure to include the ``to:'' colon.) % echo to: me | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject The message will show up immediately in your mailbox, and syslog will show something like this: qmail: new msg 53 qmail: info msg 53: bytes 246 from me@domain qp 20345 uid 666 qmail: starting delivery 1: msg 53 to local me@domain qmail: status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 qmail: delivery 1: success: did_1+0+0/ qmail: status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 qmail: end msg 53 (53 is an inode number; 20345 is a process ID; your numbers will probably be different.) NOTE this works: 2. Do a ps and look for the qmail daemons. There should be four of them, all idle: qmail-send, running as qmails; qmail-lspawn, running as root; qmail-rspawn, running as qmailr; and qmail-clean, running as qmailq. You will also see splogger, running as qmaill. I get nothing in /var/log/messages or in /var/log/maillog I get nothing in my mailbox. (I am still waiting to hear a word on how to name the 2 machines 1.) router/gateway/nameserver1 and 2.) the masquaraded www, ftp, mail and nameserver2 - see the post entitled "which host name" and the 3 subsequent posts
Re: RBL checks and header modification
* Michael T Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone have a program that does the checks rblsmtpd does, except that it allows the modification of the message header instead of blocking the mail? Procmail, preferably in conjunction with rblcheck: http://www.procmail.org/jari/pm-tips-body.html -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
ok I do see tail -f maillog
[root@www log]# tail -f maillog Sep 12 17:13:51 www qmail: 968804031.708313 delivery 35: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ Sep 12 17:13:51 www qmail: 968804031.710696 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 12 17:14:43 www qmail: 968804083.883235 starting delivery 36: msg 86907 to local root@ Sep 12 17:14:43 www qmail: 968804083.885455 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Sep 12 17:14:45 www qmail: 968804085.855165 delivery 36: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ Sep 12 17:14:45 www qmail: 968804085.857371 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 12 17:17:45 www qmail: 968804265.025859 starting delivery 37: msg 86908 to local root@ Sep 12 17:17:45 www qmail: 968804265.028077 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Sep 12 17:17:46 www qmail: 968804266.661371 delivery 37: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ Sep 12 17:17:46 www qmail: 968804266.663861 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Re: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:18:09PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote: On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote: I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once, because of it's nature. However, sendmail (by default) also has a single queue directory (like todo is); it is hit by the very same problem (scandir(), open(), unlink() taking *too*long* in large directories) as qmail. Bzt! Please don't erroneously compare CURRENT sendmail with CURRENT (that's 1.0.3) Qmail. Qmail has a single queue directory, sendmail-8.11 ALLOWS you to have multiple. I'm afraid sendmail is catching up... :-) People for years have hacked sendmail to do multiple queues for large sites - just like Qmail has been hacked... But Sendmail officially supports it, Qmail doesn't. -- Cheers Jason Haar Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
more logs
When I try step 5 in TEST.deliver 5. Local-remote test: Send an empty message to your account on another machine. % echo to: me@wherever | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject qmail: new msg 53 qmail: info msg 53: bytes 246 from me@domain qp 20372 uid 666 qmail: starting delivery 4: msg 53 to remote me@wherever qmail: status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 qmail: delivery 4: success: 1.2.3.4_accepted_message./... qmail: status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 qmail: end msg 53 There will be a pause between ``starting delivery'' and ``success''; SMTP is slow. Check that the message is in your mailbox on the other machine. I get the following: Sep 12 17:26:16 www qmail: 968804776.495455 delivery 42: deferral: Connected_to_216.33.238.136_but_my_name_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_501_ HELO_requires_domain_address/ Sep 12 17:26:16 www qmail: 968804776.497676 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.554074 starting delivery 43: msg 86907 to local root@ Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.556274 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.936574 delivery 43: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ Sep 12 17:26:23 www qmail: 968804783.938775 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 I can't find any reading on /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ which I think would help
MAX NUMBER DE RCPT's
Hi friends... I need setup the number max of rcpt than qmail can send. For example : I have a client remote than send 600 messages into a issue of a only e-mail, I'd like than my users only could send 100 messages max by e-mail or 100 messages max by hour. Is it possible? Thanks friends Juan Enciso
Re: Questions...
Is this offsubject? Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g. REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This can be avoided if aliases are never used in the data section of MX RRs. cf. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc974.html This is the only mention of the non-use of CNAMEs in the mail standards. OLD A: main.server A IP1 mail.server CNAME main.server host1 A IP2 MX mail.server host2 A IP3 MX mail.server NEW B: main.server A IP1 mail.server A IP1 host1 A IP2 MX mail.server host2 A IP3 MX mail.server For what it's worth, it seems to me that moving from the old style A to the new style B ... is so trivial, it shouldn't be an issue or a hassle. Scott
rblsmtpd lookup timeouts for slow/broken networks
Hi folks. I've got ucspi-tcp-0.88 with rblsmtpd and qmail-1.03 on FreeBSD 4.0. We recently had some problems where a large part of our area network was working fine, but our link to the outside world was having problems and periodically went down. This meant that when an smtp connection was made to our server, the conversation couldn't happen because rblsmtpd couldn't connect to the RBL server to do the lookup. Despite not having an internet connection, there were still lots of messages that could be delivered locally, and it would have been nice if they'd gone through. I looked through the rblsmptd documentation and related sites and couldn't find anything that mentions this sort of behavior. A few questions, then: -If rblsmtpd can't talk to the RBL server, what sort of error does it issue to the connecting server? Temporary or permanent? Is it just the default 60 second timeout? -Is there a way to tell rblsmtpd to "carry on like normal" if the lookup doesn't happen in the first X seconds? The "-t" option appears to be a timeout related option, but doesn't seem to do this particular thing. -Any other bits of advice/strategy for rblsmtpd being used in that sort of situation? Thanks, Chris -- Chris Hardie - - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
qmail pop
Hi All, well being the newbie on this list and new to qmail I figure I would start off with the typical how do I question and see what kind of experts we have on here. :) So far qmail has been easy to install with the exception of the pop service. I have the 110 port open and it does function however it states this user has no $HOME/Maildir when in fact the Maildir does exist in the /home/user directory. Also needing to find information on how to do a .forward or something to that effect as I have installed the dotforward package and can't seem to find a how to faq on that part either Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks James __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
qmail performance under Solaris8
I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance (http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html) "publicfile achieves similar results under other operating systems, except Solaris. Solaris adds an incredible amount of bloat to every process invocation." DJB didn't indicate which version of Solaris. Does this still apply to Solaris8? Thanks, Brian
Which to choose?
I'd like to know why to choose Qmail or IMAP4(UW). What's their merit and disadvantage? -- »¶ÓÄúʹÓà °Ù¼ÒÉÌÎñµç×ÓÓʼþϵͳ http://www.email.com.cn Welcome to E-mail business system
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats network processes. All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris latform. However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD. John
Re: Looking for input on JFS for linux.
jfs for linux is not yet stable. try reiserfs if you want a journaling fs for linux now. -makatao "It is insufficient to protect ourselves with laws,We must protect ourselves with mathematics." - Original Message - From: Sean C Truman To: QMail List Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:13 PM Subject: Looking for input on JFS for linux. Hey All, I was doing some research on linux files systems. and ran across? http://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/jfs/ Is anyone out there running Qmail on JFS for linux?? How is it running? Whats the pros/cons? Sean Truman[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.prodigysolutions.com/
Re: MAX NUMBER DE RCPT's
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:07:59PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need setup the number max of rcpt than qmail can send. For example : I have a client remote than send 600 messages into a issue of a only e-mail, I'd like than my users only could send 100 messages max by e-mail or 100 messages max by hour. Do you mean you'd like no more than that number added to the queue per hour? If so, modify qmail-queue so that it keeps track of the current number of messages sent, by the current user, and have it fail when more than 100 have been sent per hour. The details, of course, depend on precisely what you're trying to achieve, and how you write code. -- Raul Is it possible? Thanks friends Juan Enciso
smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd is the line in inetd.conf but I have no var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd file I am supposed to?
Re: qmail pop
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:11:32PM -0600, James Shelby wrote: So far qmail has been easy to install with the exception of the pop service. I have the 110 port open and it does function however it states this user has no $HOME/Maildir when in fact the Maildir does exist in the /home/user directory. How exactly are you starting qmail-pop3d? Also needing to find information on how to do a .forward or something to that effect as I have installed the dotforward package and can't seem to find a how to faq on that part either Depending on what you want to do, you may not need the dotforward package. See the dot-qmail man page. Chris
RE: qmail pop
Thanks for the help Chrishere is what I have... In the inetd.conf file I have pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I will research the dot-qmail...What I am trying to accomplish is having a local email account on the domain that all of the servers can send to and then have it forward to an offsite email that may change every so often such as maybe a pager address today and yahoo email the next. This way it would be easier to update one dotforward then all the servers and applications pointing to the addresses. James -Original Message- From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:31 PM To: James Shelby Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail pop On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:11:32PM -0600, James Shelby wrote: So far qmail has been easy to install with the exception of the pop service. I have the 110 port open and it does function however it states this user has no $HOME/Maildir when in fact the Maildir does exist in the /home/user directory. How exactly are you starting qmail-pop3d? Also needing to find information on how to do a .forward or something to that effect as I have installed the dotforward package and can't seem to find a how to faq on that part either Depending on what you want to do, you may not need the dotforward package. See the dot-qmail man page. Chris __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Re: qmail pop
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:37:17PM -0600, James Shelby wrote: In the inetd.conf file I have pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I hardly use inetd for anything, so I'm no expert, but I expect it needs to look like this (all on one line): pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I will research the dot-qmail...What I am trying to accomplish is having a local email account on the domain that all of the servers can send to and then have it forward to an offsite email that may change every so often such as maybe a pager address today and yahoo email the next. This way it would be easier to update one dotforward then all the servers and applications pointing to the addresses. dot-qmail is all you need. Chris
Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd is the line in inetd.conf but I have no var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd file I am supposed to? Yes it should be there along with quite a few other files. You can use find to see if it got placed somewhere else by typing this as the root user find / -name qmail-smtpd If it should happen to find it you can either copy or move it to /var/qmail/bin . If it doesn't find it you will need to either re-install it (if you used an rpm) or if you have the source go into the directory where you have the qmail source (for example /usr/src/qmail-1.03 and type make setup check Take Care, -- Dale Miracle System Administrator Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
Re: qmail pop
'Chris Johnson' wrote: On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:37:17PM -0600, James Shelby wrote: In the inetd.conf file I have pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I hardly use inetd for anything, so I'm no expert, but I expect it needs to look like this (all on one line): pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I just looked at my commented out entry in my inetd.conf for pop3 (before I switched over to tcpserver) and mine looks like this (all on one line): pop3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup atlas.teoi.net /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir The only difference is the pop3 . Look at the /etc/services for the pop3 and see how it is listed there then just use what it has there on the inetd.conf line. Some systems have pop-3 and other have pop3 . -- Dale Miracle System Administrator Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
RE: qmail pop
Thanks Dale, still no luck...same error message. Here is a little more information that might tell someone that I have it configured wrong... Say I have a user called johnd in /home/johnd I have a Mail and Maildir directories along with a Mailbox file. In /var/spool/mail I have a johnd link that goes to the /home/johnd/Mailbox Does any of this sound like a misconfiguration? Thanks James -Original Message- From: Dale Miracle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:12 PM To: 'Chris Johnson' Cc: James Shelby; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail pop 'Chris Johnson' wrote: On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:37:17PM -0600, James Shelby wrote: In the inetd.conf file I have pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I hardly use inetd for anything, so I'm no expert, but I expect it needs to look like this (all on one line): pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup mail.mydomain.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir I just looked at my commented out entry in my inetd.conf for pop3 (before I switched over to tcpserver) and mine looks like this (all on one line): pop3 stream tcp nowait root/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup atlas.teoi.net /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir The only difference is the pop3 . Look at the /etc/services for the pop3 and see how it is listed there then just use what it has there on the inetd.conf line. Some systems have pop-3 and other have pop3 . -- Dale Miracle System Administrator Teoi Virtual Web Hosting _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: rblsmtpd lookup timeouts for slow/broken networks
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 07:06:47PM -0500, Chris Hardie wrote: -If rblsmtpd can't talk to the RBL server, what sort of error does it issue to the connecting server? Temporary or permanent? Is it just the default 60 second timeout? From http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/rblsmtpd.html: There are several error-handling options for RBL lookups: -B: (Default.) Use a 451 error code for IP addresses listed in the RBL. -b: Use a 553 error code for IP addresses listed in the RBL. -C: (Default.) Handle RBL lookups in a ``fail-open'' mode. If an RBL lookup fails temporarily, assume that the address is not listed; if an anti-RBL lookup fails temporarily, assume that the address is anti-listed. Unfortunately, a knowledgeable attacker can force an RBL lookup or an anti-RBL lookup to fail temporarily, so that his mail is not blocked. -c: Handle RBL lookups in a ``fail-closed'' mode. If an RBL lookup fails temporarily, assume that the address is listed (but use a 451 error code even with -b). If an anti-RBL lookup fails temporarily, assume that the address is not anti-listed (but use a 451 error code even if a subsequent RBL lookup succeeds with -b). Unfortunately, this sometimes delays legitimate mail. The default -C seems to cover you in this case. Chris
delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
I get this a lot on the logs delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ Please tell me where it comes from it might solve all my problems with qmail
Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd is the line in inetd.conf but I have no var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd file I am supposed to? If you've installed qmail, yes. Have you got a /var/qmail? Have you got a /var/qmail/bin? If so, what's does ls -l /var/qmail/bin show? Regards.
Re: delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 09:35:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get this a lot on the logs delivery 27: deferral: /bin/sh:_dot-forward:_command_not_found/ Please tell me where it comes from it might solve all my problems with qmail You are delivering mail to a .qmail-file that includes a | command-that-could-not-be-found-by-qmail-local-when-executing-dot-qmail /magnus -- http://x42.com/
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:56:35AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote: I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance (http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html) "publicfile achieves similar results under other operating systems, except Solaris. Solaris adds an incredible amount of bloat to every process invocation." DJB didn't indicate which version of Solaris. Does this still apply to Solaris8? Probably. But unless you're pushing the limits of your hardware I don't think that it's particularly important. I've run qmail on many Solarises, both Sparc and intel, from 2.4 to 2.8. They generally work, but if I need a screamer system I go for a FreeBSD boxen for the best price/performance. Regards.
Re: qmail performance under Solaris8
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:22:02PM -0700, John White wrote: Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats network processes. All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris latform. However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD. Without starting an OSwar, it may be that they are a total Solaris shop, in that case it may be more convenient to run Solaris x86 and not have to deal with OS sysadmin differences. Secondly, their management may feel better with the level of support they can get from Sun than what they can get from the FreeBSD support services. Eg, they may have a site support contract. Thirdly, they may be running additional products on their system that only run on Solaris and therefore they need to use that OS. Finally, running Solaris x86 is not necessarily a wrong choice. It may not be optimal according to your criteria, but it's not a wrong choice. In other words, if he's happy with that OS and isn't trying to squeeze performance to the limits, then he'll almost certainly find Solaris x86 quite an acceptable OS for qmail. Regards.
Good review of qmail on securityfocus.com
http://www.securityfocus.com/focus/linux/articles/qmail.html Replacing your MTA with qmail Jeremy Rauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, Aug 28 2000 ... By taking a modular approach, and running with the lowest possible privileges, qmail is able to markedly improve the security stance of machines it is installed on. Unlike many security related packages, however, it is easy to build, install and configure. With qmail being as easy to use as it is, there are few reasons more people shouldn't be running it. ... -- Karl Vogel ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd is the line in inetd.conf but I have no var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd file I am supposed to? If you've installed qmail, yes. [root@www /root]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980 /var/qmail/bin - /usr/bin and Have you got a /var/qmail? [root@www qmail]# pwd /var/qmail Have you got a /var/qmail/bin? [root@www bin]# pwd /var/qmail/bin If so, what's does ls -l /var/qmail/bin show? [root@www bin]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980 /var/qmail/bin - /usr/bin Thanks! Regards.
actually it is a standard install following the directions even
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:51 PM Subject: actually it is a standard install following the directions even - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:28 PM Subject: Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 10:24:30PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: Re: smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd is the line in inetd.conf but I have no var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd file I am supposed to? If you've installed qmail, yes. [root@www /root]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980 /var/qmail/bin - /usr/bin This is a truly non-standard qmail install. You are mostly on your own if you want to deviate this much from that standard instructions. I have probably installed qmail on over 100 different sites around the planet and I have never seen this. I hope whoever set it up really understands what they are doing. If not you will have no end of trouble and qmail doesn't deserve that because when it's installed according to the instructions it works as advertised. Actually it is a standard qmail rpm install. What else can I say? I cannot compile without getting errors. Install wants 2 iforgetnowtheexactname.h files that I can find on the hard drive but locate can't find. I will start over and document the steps better. I cannot compile without getting errors. I can install the rpms with rpm -ivvh and watch the install. Your other questions were asked in earlier posts I assume you will see them eventually. rpm -ivvh qmail-1.03+patches-7.i386.rpm rpm -ivvh qmail-utils-1.03+patches-7.i386.rpm and their deps I did not do a --force or --nodep I also followed the source install directions again making certian each step had been done from the rpm install (or so I thought) So you got me. If you know a good resource for a rpm install onto red hat 6.0 that already a 2.2.16 kernel and all security updates up to date let me know. Thanks Regards.
RE: actually it is a standard install following the directions even
OK...I haven't been following this thread, but two things: 1. Could you PLEASE turn off request for read receipt...it is getting very annoying 2. Another annoying thing is how, in the same thread, you keep changing subjects. For people reading archives later, and even people following this thread now, this is annoying, tiring, inefficient, and a lack of netiquette. I hope this is taken the right way. I am not meaning an attack, but this is getting annoying...Thanks. Brett. Manager InterPlanetary Solutions http://ipsware.com/
Re: actually it is a standard install following the directions even
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 10:53:35PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you've installed qmail, yes. [root@www /root]# ls -l /var/qmail/bin lrwxrwxrwx 1 root qmail 8 Jan 11 1980 /var/qmail/bin - /usr/bin This is a truly non-standard qmail install. You are mostly on your own Actually it is a standard qmail rpm install. What else can I say? I cannot compile without getting errors. Install wants 2 iforgetnowtheexactname.h files that I can find on the hard drive but locate can't find. Actually, it's not. A standard install in my book is to download the sources from a recognized mirror and do a make setup. I will start over and document the steps better. I cannot compile without getting errors. I can install the rpms with rpm -ivvh and watch the install. If the rpms don't work, speak to the people who made the rpm. Mostly you are dealing with an rpm issue, not a qmail issue. If you know a good resource for a rpm install onto red hat 6.0 that already a 2.2.16 kernel and all security updates up to date let me know. There are zero security updates to qmail-1.03 - any sort of packaging is a convenience and in the case of Redhat is possibly more marketing than substance. Download the sources, do a make setup and be amazed how easily it works. Regards.
