Re: RAID & Qmail.

[Adrian Turcu]

> 
> Have you had any problems?...
>

There were some problems, especially with RAID and ENBD software.
 First, I try to figure out how ENBD works, in fact when the NBD server
is going down what are the possibilities for the NBD client to know that
and "make an announcement" to RAID software and the last to unbind
the partition from its configuration. Of course, after a carefully read
of ENBD docs, I was able to deal with this problem.
 One other problem (for me) was with linux kernel RAID support, because
you have to make a compromise between a small modularized kernel and
a "huge" speedy and reliable  one. I choose the last. 

>
>...  What sort of throughput
> do you get?  Have you had to actually do a rebuild? How much data are you storing?
> 

The throughput depends of the NIC's you are using and it is
not dramatically limited to much by the software (RAID and ENBD).
There are some compares between NFS and ENBD in the ENBD docs
and you could see how fast is ENBD (it is fast, if you can trust me).
What I can say is:
 - for reconstruction I am using 2 * 10BaseT NIC on each computer (3Com)
 - both computers are running 2.2.16 kernel optimized
 - one of those computers (the master) is PII-450MHz/64M RAM/IDE
and the other (the slave) is Pentium 100MHz/48M RAM/SCSI
 - the partition for qmail is 1GByte large (small site)

In the consideration above, a full reconstruction it takes ~20min
or less, depending the load of the master which also running NS.
I think a rate of 5Mbit/sec it could be OK. It can be raised in multi-processor
configuration, more RAM on each nodes, SCSI on both, 100BaseT or 1GByte ethernet
and same architecture.

> Thanks,
> Rick.

It was my pleasure.

Regards,

-- 
Adrian Turcu
System Administrator
 Computers Department
 Romanian Railway Company
 Constanta Region
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone:  +40 92 563791 (any time)
+40 43 363977 (home)

mail loop problem

[Charles Boening]

For the life of me, I can't figure out what I did.

I'm running qmail 1.03 on a RH 7 (kernel 2.2.17) system.  This is an
internal server providing DNS (internal and forwarding for external
resolution), mail and web services.  I'm running vpopmail 4.9.4.  Everything
seems to be working fine except sending from the mail server to an address
hosted on the mail server (local mail).  Incoming mail from the rest of the
Internet seems to work, mail from other servers internally seems to work,
again, just mail initiated locally is broken.

I'm also hosting other domains on this same system and they are behaving
similarly ... mail from outside works, mail initiated from the mail server
doesn't.

all the domains are listed in rcpthosts and virtual domains properly.  

Here's what I see in my bounced message (it gets bounced to root@localhost
and placed in an mbox)

   - Transcript of session follows -
553 5.3.5 mail.jahl.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
554 5.3.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Local configuration error

mail.jahl.com is my MX record ... here's a partial of my DNS:

kazon   IN  A   10.5.5.25
mailIN  A   10.5.5.25
@   IN  MX  5   mail.jahl.com.
@   IN  NS  kazon.jahl.com.
@   IN  A   10.5.5.25

I can ping all address and names just fine.


Any ideas?  All I can find are references to this similar problem.  Near as
I can tell, the qmail equivalent solution would be to add the domain to
rcpthosts file.  It's already there.


Thanks for any input.

Charlie

Re: bandwidth monitoring/analysis

[Michael Maier]

NDSoftware wrote:

> I search too but i need the bandwith used by domains and install a quota !
>
> Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware
> http://www.ndsoftware.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> France: Tel +33 671887502 - Fax N/A
> UK: Tel +44 8453348750 - Fax +44 8453348751
> USA: Tel N/A - Fax N/A
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Barry Smoke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vmailmgr@Lists. Em. Ca
> Subject: bandwidth monitoring/analysis
>
> I am in need of some bandidth monitoring/analysis, of qmail...
> I need to know what percentage of bandwidth of all running processes qmail
> is taking, and of that bandwidht, what percentage each virtual domain is
> taking...
> I am using the vmailmgr package for virtual domains...
>
> Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Barry Smoke

I am currently figuring out myself how to do it and yesterday I found a nice
Patch on qmail.org so qmail-remote can used fixed IP.
So what I would do is patching qmail and giving it a dedicated IP. After doing
that I would install snmp + mrtg for this IP.
After doing that it should be really no Problem to see which Bandwidth qmail
is using!
--
--^..^--
  michael maier  -  system & development administrator
  flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
  d-60314 frankfurt am main
  fon+49.(0)69.50 95 98-308
  fax+49.(0)69.50 95 98-101
  email  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  urlhttp://www.flatfox.com -  m a k e  m y  d a y

Re: couldn't find any host

[Michael Maier]

Henning Brauer wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:55:36PM -0500, Jeff Bolle wrote:
> > Jan 20 12:54:30 mail qmail: 980024070.874084 delivery 14: failure:
> > Sorry,_I_couldn't_find_any_host_named_bucknell.edu._(#5.1.2)/
>
> DNS problem.
> > This machine is
> > currently using register.com's domain servers in resolv.conf. Any help
>
> Aie! You have a great misunderstanding of DNS. I'd recommend reading
> http://www.lifewithdjbdns.org, it explains a _lot_ about DNS in general and
> djbdns.

Too bad that Web Site seems to be written from People who are just installing
DJBdns and jump when it works but not for real Life Examples!
I recommend  http://www.acmebw.com/askmr.htm

Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...

[Jacques WERNERT]

Hello,

ok but why waiting for a failed email attemp while many of them are waiting
in the queue 

Regards

Frip'

- Original Message -
From: "Paul Jarc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jacques  WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...


> "Jacques  WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > in fact I trying to know why I can see sometimes 100 qmail-remote
processes
> > and sometimes only 10 with many messages in my queue (ie 200).
> >
> > So why qmail-send is not asking rspawn to fork much more ...
>
> After a delivery attempt fails, qmail waits a while before retrying
> it.  If it failed once, it's likely it'll fail again if you retry
> immediately, so that would be wasted effort.
>
>
> paul

Re: Error Message Numbers

[Markus Stumpf]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 02:44:14PM -0800, Alex Le Fevre wrote:
> I've noticed that, whenever an error occurs with
> qmail, a specific number is attached in the maillog.
> I'd like to be able to just go look those up and leave
> you all alone, but I don't know where to do so. Could
> you let me know?

Errors with qmail? You mean errors in delivering messages, right?

As you haven't attached an example of what numbers you are referring to,
I assume you mean the "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes" as described
in RFC 1893.

\Maex
-- 
SpaceNet AG   |   http://www.Space.Net/   | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 |  Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen  |  Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299  | fallen asleep yet.

Problem

[M Natanasigamani]

I want to ascertain whether my client as the capability to read HTML mail.

Bye

Pine/qmail/sqwebmail

[mrorange]

Can I use Pine with qmail/sqwebmail? Apparently sqwebmail is dependent upon 
a maildir directory format and when I run Pine it sets up a regular mail 
directory (/var/mail/spool?)...Is there a config I'm missing somewhere?

qmail Digest 22 Jan 2001 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1252

[qmail-digest-help]

qmail Digest 22 Jan 2001 11:00:00 - Issue 1252

Topics (messages 55699 through 55719):

Regarding Imap server and catchall
55699 by: kamesh
55711 by: qmailu

Re: couldn't find any host
55700 by: Henning Brauer
55715 by: Michael Maier

Re: POP Toaster
55701 by: Peder Angvall
55702 by: Johan Almqvist
55703 by: Mike Glover
55704 by: Henning Brauer
55705 by: Peder Angvall

Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
55706 by: Pavel Kankovsky

Error Message Numbers
55707 by: Alex Le Fevre
55717 by: Markus Stumpf

Re: CNAME errors, qmail-1.03+patches-18
55708 by: Christopher K Davis

failure notice
55709 by: Ah Sang

too many processes
55710 by: Rohit Gupta

Re: RAID & Qmail.
55712 by: Adrian Turcu

mail loop problem
55713 by: Charles Boening

Re: bandwidth monitoring/analysis
55714 by: Michael Maier

Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
55716 by: Jacques  WERNERT

Problem
55718 by: M Natanasigamani

Pine/qmail/sqwebmail
55719 by: mrorange

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,

 I have installed Qmail on RH linux 6.2 In maildir
format and also installed Vpopmail 4.8.5 and its
working fine.

While trying to install courier-imap 0.36 for imap
support for vpopmail, iam getting error while 
running
make install as root and the output is attached.

there is no error while running confifure and 
make as
non root user.

Also in /usr/lib/courier-imap/etc/imapd.config, 
only
authdaemon is selected in authmodules.

while trying to run imap deamon its responding on 
port
143. but its not able to authenticate to the
mailserver.

can u please help me in fixing this.

Also how to configure catchall in maildir format?
(all
mails sent to nonexistent user should go to
catchallmailbox)

Thank you for an early reply.


Regards,
kamesh


-
This mail sent through  http://www.sify.com


make  AM_INSTALL_PROGRAM_FLAGS=-s install
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a'
Making install in numlib
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/numlib'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/numlib'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/numlib'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/numlib'
Making install in gdbmobj
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/gdbmobj'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/gdbmobj'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/gdbmobj'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/gdbmobj'
Making install in soxwrap
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/soxwrap'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/soxwrap'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/soxwrap'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/soxwrap'
Making install in rfc822
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc822'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc822'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc822'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc822'
Making install in rfc1035
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc1035'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc1035'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'.
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc1035'
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc1035'
Making install in rfc2045
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc2045'
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kamesh/download/courier-imap-0.36a/rfc2045'
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'.
make[3]: Leaving direct

Re: failure notice

[M. Yu]

> qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail

Isn't this supposed to be ./Maildir/ (a slash after Maildir)?

Re: failure notice

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:13:16AM +0800, Ah Sang wrote:
> qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail
   ^
   you missed the / here.

-- 
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany

Re: bandwidth monitoring/analysis

[Michael Maier]

> OK Thanks but i haven't two ip on my server !

Give it an internal IP, and let it map with your Firewall =)
--
Ciao, Michael..

QMail DOS

[Andy Abshagen]

We are in the midst of a security audit performed 
by Ernst & Young.  They are claiming something about a DOS 
situation.  What I need to find out is whether there are any known DOS 
situations out there.  If so what needs to be done to take care of the 
problem.
 
Thanks
 
Andy

Re: mail loop problem

[Chris Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0800, Charles Boening wrote:
> I'm running qmail 1.03 on a RH 7 (kernel 2.2.17) system.  This is an
> internal server providing DNS (internal and forwarding for external
> resolution), mail and web services.  I'm running vpopmail 4.9.4.  Everything
> seems to be working fine except sending from the mail server to an address
> hosted on the mail server (local mail).  Incoming mail from the rest of the
> Internet seems to work, mail from other servers internally seems to work,
> again, just mail initiated locally is broken.
> 
> I'm also hosting other domains on this same system and they are behaving
> similarly ... mail from outside works, mail initiated from the mail server
> doesn't.
> 
> all the domains are listed in rcpthosts and virtual domains properly.  
> 
> Here's what I see in my bounced message (it gets bounced to root@localhost
> and placed in an mbox)
> 
>- Transcript of session follows -
> 553 5.3.5 mail.jahl.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> 554 5.3.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Local configuration error

That's sendmail talking, not qmail. How are you injecting this mail? Is
/usr/sbin/sendmail (or wherever sendmail is on your system) a symlink to
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail?

Chris

Re: QMail DOS

[Greg Cope]

> Andy Abshagen wrote:
> 
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> They are claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to
> find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there.  If
> so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andy

Did they give any concrete evidence ?

Greg

Re: Problem

[Chris Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:10:01PM +0530, M Natanasigamani wrote:
> I want to ascertain whether my client as the capability to read HTML mail.

Why don't you ask him?

Chris

Re: QMail DOS

[Dave Sill]

"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
>They are claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to
>find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there.  If
>so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.

If you're not running qmail-smtpd under some kind of memory limit
(e.g., via ulimit or softlimit) it can be made to consume all
available memory. The "Life with qmail" installation uses
softlimit. See also:

  http://cr.yp.to/docs/resources.html

For more background.

-Dave

Re: QMail DOS

[Michael Maier]

> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> They are claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to
> find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there.  If
> so what needs to be done to take care of the problem. ThanksAndy

Just use tcpserver or xinetd!
CYA,
 Michael..

Re: POP Toaster

[Dave Sill]

Sean Reifschneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 12:26:09AM -0600, Peder Angvall wrote:
>>
>>The virtualhosts file has:
>>webscripting.net:webscripting-net
>
>So, you're forwarding mail for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to
>"webscripting-net-user" *AT WHAT DOMAIN*?

virtualdomains entries can't redirect to remote domains.

-Dave

Re: QMail DOS

[Dave Sill]

Michael Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Just use tcpserver or xinetd!

No, that's not sufficient.

-Dave

Re: qlogtools compile - error

[Bruce Guenter]

On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:15:57PM +0100, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> sorry, I used the wrong make but now it does not work anyway:
> 
> gmake: *** No rules to make target 'qlogselect', needed by 'all'. Stop.
> 
> what is wrong? on my Debian it compiles perfect but not under FreeBSD

Did you remove the "qlogselect" program while trying to build it?

Please direct further messages on this topic to the bgware mailing list,
as this is off-topic for this list.
-- 
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://em.ca/~bruceg/

 PGP signature

Re: QMail DOS

[Andy Abshagen]

Yes.  And no.  I just read the preliminary report from them.  The report
actually states in it that it only affect qmail 1.02 and older.  They
dropped it on the report because they could not get our mail server to
report a version number.  Since we are running 1.03 they are removing the
"problem" from the report.

Thanks for the all the responses though.
Andy
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Cope" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Qmail Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: QMail DOS


> > Andy Abshagen wrote:
> >
> > We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> > They are claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to
> > find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there.  If
> > so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andy
>
> Did they give any concrete evidence ?
>
> Greg
>

Re: QMail DOS

[Dave Sill]

"Andy Abshagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Yes.  And no.  I just read the preliminary report from them.  The report
>actually states in it that it only affect qmail 1.02 and older.  They
>dropped it on the report because they could not get our mail server to
>report a version number.  Since we are running 1.03 they are removing the
>"problem" from the report.

Regardless of what your auditors say, the fact that you're having and
audit conducted--and running qmail--means that you're concerned about
security. In that case, you should verify that you've configured
qmail-smtpd to run with limited memory consumption. This is a real
issue, and it wasn't resolved by 1.03.

-Dave

502 unimplemented

[Stef Hoesli Wiederwald]

Hi there

We use qmail on one of our systems (How do I find out what version it
is? Did not install it myself...). Sometimes, it throws back '502
unimplemented' errors with no apparent reason. I also tried to connect
manually via telnet to port 25. Sometimes I can send a message without
problems, and sometimes I get the 502 error, but not at the same
point, i.e. arbitrarily after any of the helo, mail, rcpt or data
commands.

Any idea what this could be?

Stef
-- 
IT freelancer
President SOS-ETH 
ETH Zurich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://hoes.li

RE: mail loop problem

[Charles Boening]

Thanks.  I'll be damned if I didn't remove the sendmail RPM ... could have
sworn I did that!

Thanks again.


Charlie

-Original Message-
From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 6:46 AM
To: Charles Boening
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: mail loop problem


On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:33:15AM -0800, Charles Boening wrote:
> I'm running qmail 1.03 on a RH 7 (kernel 2.2.17) system.  This is an
> internal server providing DNS (internal and forwarding for external
> resolution), mail and web services.  I'm running vpopmail 4.9.4.
Everything
> seems to be working fine except sending from the mail server to an address
> hosted on the mail server (local mail).  Incoming mail from the rest of
the
> Internet seems to work, mail from other servers internally seems to work,
> again, just mail initiated locally is broken.
> 
> I'm also hosting other domains on this same system and they are behaving
> similarly ... mail from outside works, mail initiated from the mail server
> doesn't.
> 
> all the domains are listed in rcpthosts and virtual domains properly.  
> 
> Here's what I see in my bounced message (it gets bounced to root@localhost
> and placed in an mbox)
> 
>- Transcript of session follows -
> 553 5.3.5 mail.jahl.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
> 554 5.3.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Local configuration error

That's sendmail talking, not qmail. How are you injecting this mail? Is
/usr/sbin/sendmail (or wherever sendmail is on your system) a symlink to
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail?

Chris

listening of defined IPs only

[Mailing List Address]

Hi.
I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to? 

Regards!
J.M.Roth

Re: listening of defined IPs only

[Johan Almqvist]

* Mailing List Address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 17:58]:
> I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
> How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to? 

man tcpserver?

HINT: The zero in tcpserver's arguments means bind to all interfaces...

-Johan
-- 
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/

 PGP signature

RFC822

[Marcio Sa]

Hello,

i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because second
one looks like
a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and the
only information
related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
":" like my header.
I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same. Header
looks like ok (only
from without ":" was different from my old email server header).

Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
Thanks, Marcio

This is my example :

mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test one

teste one body

.
250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test two

test two body
.


Here is my Mailbox:


# more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
  by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
  for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
-
Subject: Test one

teste one body


>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
  by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
  for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
-
Subject: Test two

test two body

RE: RFC822

[Timo Geusch]

The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.

OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?

T. 

-Original Message-
From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFC822


Hello,

i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
second
one looks like
a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and
the
only information
related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
":" like my header.
I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
Header
looks like ok (only
from without ":" was different from my old email server header).

Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
Thanks, Marcio

This is my example :

mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test one

teste one body

.
250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
Subject: Test two

test two body
.


Here is my Mailbox:


# more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
  by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
  for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
-
Subject: Test one

teste one body


>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
  by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
  for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
-
Subject: Test two

test two body

Re: listening of defined IPs only

[Mailing List Address]

Sorry, should've looked more carefully 
thanks anyway 


Johan Almqvist writes: 

> * Mailing List Address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 17:58]:
>> I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
>> How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to? 
> 
> man tcpserver? 
> 
> HINT: The zero in tcpserver's arguments means bind to all interfaces... 
> 
> -Johan
> -- 
> Johan Almqvist
> http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
 

Re: RFC822

[Marcio Sa]

Timo Geusch wrote:

> The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
> the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
> as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
>
> OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?

Hello,

Thanks for you response.
yes, this is my script:

#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail


Marcio Sa

>
>
> T.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFC822
>
> Hello,
>
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
> second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and
> the
> only information
> related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
> ":" like my header.
> I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
> Header
> looks like ok (only
> from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
>
> Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
> Thanks, Marcio
>
> This is my example :
>
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> .
> 250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
> .
>
> Here is my Mailbox:
>
> # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
> -
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
> -
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body

RE: RFC822

[Timo Geusch]

Mario,
as I pointed out the delivery into a Mailbox file
inside a Maildir is a bit suspicious. How are you
trying to access the email?

Maybe this would shed some light on your problem.
To be honest, I don't think it has anything to do
with RFC compliance; my money is on a config
problem.

Regards,

Timo

-Original Message-
From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 17:10
To: Timo Geusch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC822


Timo Geusch wrote:

> The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line
without
> the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is
used
> as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
>
> OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?

Hello,

Thanks for you response.
yes, this is my script:

#!/bin/sh
# Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
# Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail


Marcio Sa

>
>
> T.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFC822
>
> Hello,
>
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
> second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages
and
> the
> only information
> related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from
withou
> ":" like my header.
> I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
> Header
> looks like ok (only
> from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
>
> Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
> Thanks, Marcio
>
> This is my example :
>
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> .
> 250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
> mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 250 ok
> data
> 354 go ahead
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body
> .
>
> Here is my Mailbox:
>
> # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
17:03:51
> -
> Subject: Test one
>
> teste one body
>
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
17:04:16
> -
> Subject: Test two
>
> test two body

slow connection init

[Steve Woolley]

I am running a Red Hat v6.2 (w/ patches) server
on a AMD Athlon 800MHz with 256M RAM -- and have 
been fairly pleased with its performance.
The problem is I want to migrate my existing RH 6.2
qmail mail server (a slower Pentium II). 
The problem is, when first started the server
flys (very fast). After aprox one day, any 
connection into this server (sshd, telnet , pop,
smtp, etc) takes a while to initiate. Sometimes
more than 60 seconds -- which of course times out
most POP connections. Once connected, everything seems to
act normal (connections initiated quickly).
I have looked into the logs and looked at netsat -pa
to get some insight into this slowdown, but have not
had very good luck. I know this is probably not
directly related to qmail, but I am a little woried
about the svscan process and how quickly it can wake
up a process. 
P.S> I can see the correct processes running when I get 
in this process initiation hang so I don't think they've 
died. Could it be some reverse name resolution problem?

HELP!?!?!?!

--
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFC822

[Alex Pennace]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 02:52:15PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because second
> one looks like
> a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages and the
> only information
> related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from withou
> ":" like my header.
[...]
> Here is my Mailbox:
> 
> 
> # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:03:51
> -
> Subject: Test one
> 
> teste one body
> 
> 
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001 17:04:16
> -
> Subject: Test two
> 
> test two body

All that's kosher, the message separator in mbox files is a line
beginning with "From ".

Re: RFC822

[Marcio Sa]

Timo Geusch wrote:

> Mario,
> as I pointed out the delivery into a Mailbox file
> inside a Maildir is a bit suspicious. How are you
> trying to access the email?

Hi Timo,

i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
create local Mailbox instantly too.

>
> Maybe this would shed some light on your problem.
> To be honest, I don't think it has anything to do
> with RFC compliance; my money is on a config
> problem.
>

Ok, i'll try some changes. But header message is a qmail-inject
problem isn't it ? I have looked to it and i didn't find any kind
of configuration. I can change a start script but the procedure
to generate a header is the same , isn't it ?

Thanks,
Marcio


>
> Regards,
>
> Timo
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 January 2001 17:10
> To: Timo Geusch
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFC822
>
> Timo Geusch wrote:
>
> > The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line
> without
> > the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is
> used
> > as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
> >
> > OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> > Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for you response.
> yes, this is my script:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
> # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
> exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
>
> Marcio Sa
>
> >
> >
> > T.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcio Sa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 22 January 2001 16:53
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RFC822
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > i'm using qmail-1.03 and i have found a problem to read messages because
> > second
> > one looks like
> > a body of the first one. I lokked to RFC 822 and qmail-inject man pages
> and
> > the
> > only information
> > related with this situation is that UUCP with mbox format uses a from
> withou
> > ":" like my header.
> > I'm sending emails via telnet or with netscape and header is the same.
> > Header
> > looks like ok (only
> > from without ":" was different from my old email server header).
> >
> > Is there some problem with my configuration or my client is the problem ?
> > Thanks, Marcio
> >
> > This is my example :
> >
> > mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > data
> > 354 go ahead
> > Subject: Test one
> >
> > teste one body
> >
> > .
> > 250 ok 980183043 qp 18389
> > mail from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 250 ok
> > data
> > 354 go ahead
> > Subject: Test two
> >
> > test two body
> > .
> >
> > Here is my Mailbox:
> >
> > # more /home/usuario/Maildir/new/Mailbox
> > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:03 2001
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: (qmail 18398 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:02 -
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> > Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> >   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> >   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
> 17:03:51
> > -
> > Subject: Test one
> >
> > teste one body
> >
> > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jan 22 17:04:29 2001
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: (qmail 18411 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:04:29 -
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> > Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (envelope-sender
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> >   by localhost (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
> >   for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 22 Jan 2001
> 17:04:16
> > -
> > Subject: Test two
> >
> > test two body

tcp.smtp

[Joanne Pons]

I am having trouble sending mail from an application
running on the same server as the mail server. If the
domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read the
section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and from what
I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting
host (listed with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a
message. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Joanne

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Load Balancing

[Federico Edelman Anaya]

Actually, I have a server called MLM and 4 servers called MLM1,2,3,4
..

MLM is a central server with Qmail and EZMLM, and the other servers are
the RELAY with qmail.

MLM -> (smtproutes) -> MLMRELAY (dns roundrobin ) -> MLM1

-> MLM2

-> MLM3

-> MLM4



Can I change the ROUNDROBIN DNS for a Load Balancing system? Exist any
software for this implementation?

Thanks

Re: tcp.smtp

[Chris Johnson]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:05:13AM -0800, Joanne Pons wrote:
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application running on the same
> server as the mail server. If the domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the
> tcp.smtp list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed
> rcpthosts" error. I've read the section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and
> from what I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting host (listed
> with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a message.

Don't do that! That'll make your server an open relay. What you probably want
is:

127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""

This assumes that your application delivers mail by making an SMTP connection
to localhost. If it connects to your public interface instead, then make sure
that IP is allowed to relay.

Chris

Re: RFC822

[Johan Almqvist]

* Marcio Sa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010122 18:09]:

> Timo Geusch wrote:
> 
> > The mailbox file you attached seems to be OK to me. The 'from' line without
> > the colon, but with the time and date and preceded by an empty line is used
> > as a separator between emails in a mailbox file.
> >
> > OTOH, it is very unusual to store email in mailbox format inside
> > Maildir/new. Care to post your startup script here?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for you response.
> yes, this is my script:
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> # Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
> # Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
> exec env - DENYMAIL=DNSCHECK DEBUGLEVEL=16 PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
> qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
   ^^^ what is this? Why did you put this
   here?


-Johan
-- 
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/

 PGP signature

Re: RFC822

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:34:56PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
> only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
> create local Mailbox instantly too.
> > qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail

I see your problem, its relatively easy. It has nothing to do with RFCs. You
told qmail to place new Mails in an mbox ~/Maildir/new/Mailbox, and you are
using qpop3d. qpop3d supports only Maildirs, no mboxes, and therfore treats
your Mailbox-file as a single Mail.
There is no way I'm aware of to use qmail-ldap with Maildirs, unless you
find another pop3-daemon which can use the ldap directory to authentificate
the users.
In any way I'd _really_ recommend using Maildirs instead of Mailboxes, there
is lots of other stuff in qmail-ldap only working with Maildirs (quotas for
example). It was written with Maildirs in mind, not Mailboxes.
To use Maildirs, just change you /var/qmail/rc:

qmail-start ./Maildir/

Every new mail will then be a file in Maildir/new with a timestamp as name.
You should also retire from splogger and user multilog, but thats another
story. I'd recommend reading http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/.
-- 
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany

Re: listening of defined IPs only

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 04:58:56PM +, Mailing List Address wrote:
> Hi.
> I'm running qmail with supervise, tcpserver, rblsmtpd etc.
> How can I make the POP/SMTP servers listen only on the IPs I want them to? 

man tcpserver

> Regards!
> J.M.Roth
> 

-- 
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany

Re: tcp.smtp

[Greg Cope]

Joanne Pons wrote:
> 
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application
> running on the same server as the mail server. If the
> domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
> list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
> list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read thetcprules
> section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and from what
> I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting
> host (listed with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a
> message. Am I missing something?

you need a line like:


127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""

In your tcp.smtpd file (which you then build into your tcp.smtpd.cdb)

I've put these files in /etc so to rebuild on my box requires:

/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp

Which means that tcpserver will set the RELAYCLIENT ENV variable - this
is then allows qmail to relay the mail.

Does this help ?

Greg

> 
> Thanks,
> Joanne
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Re: tcp.smtp

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:05:13AM -0800, Joanne Pons wrote:
> 
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application
> running on the same server as the mail server. If the
> domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
> list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
> list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read the
> section on relaying in "Life with Qmail" and from what
> I read, the tcp.smtp file should allow the connecting
> host (listed with :allow,RELAYCLIENT="") to SEND a
> message. Am I missing something?

yes, 127.0.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" ;-))

-- 
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany

Re: Load Balancing

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:07:27PM -0300, Federico Edelman Anaya wrote:
> Can I change the ROUNDROBIN DNS for a Load Balancing system? 

Round Robin is Round Robin, no load balancing possible.

> Exist any
> software for this implementation?

halinux.org (or was it linuxha.org?) comes to my mind, . Unfortunately I
havent found anything running on *BSD yet - if anybody knows something...

-- 
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany

RE: slow connection init

[Tim Hunter]

My experienced guess would this would be DNS related, perhaps you should
look into running djbdns locally or close to the Mail server.


-Original Message-
From: Steve Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: slow connection init


I am running a Red Hat v6.2 (w/ patches) server
on a AMD Athlon 800MHz with 256M RAM -- and have
been fairly pleased with its performance.
The problem is I want to migrate my existing RH 6.2
qmail mail server (a slower Pentium II).
The problem is, when first started the server
flys (very fast). After aprox one day, any
connection into this server (sshd, telnet , pop,
smtp, etc) takes a while to initiate. Sometimes
more than 60 seconds -- which of course times out
most POP connections. Once connected, everything seems to
act normal (connections initiated quickly).
I have looked into the logs and looked at netsat -pa
to get some insight into this slowdown, but have not
had very good luck. I know this is probably not
directly related to qmail, but I am a little woried
about the svscan process and how quickly it can wake
up a process.
P.S> I can see the correct processes running when I get
in this process initiation hang so I don't think they've
died. Could it be some reverse name resolution problem?

HELP!?!?!?!

--
Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: slow connection init

[Steve Woolley]

> I had this problem with my mail server as well...
> qmail logs extensively, and if you have it using the generic logging 
> stuffs, the files get HUGE and the entire system drags like a dog.
> 

Thanks for the input Teep. Since this is a new box (and I also
verified) the size of the log files are (so far) very small.

Thx

RE: QMail DOS

[Andrew Richards]

>We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
>They are claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to
>find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there.
>If so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.

Andy,

The standard DoS is to open lots of SMTP connections to an SMTP server,
which could be qmail, or any other MTA - and leave them open. Since
[vanilla] SMTP is not authenticated, this attack could be initiated from
anywhere. It's unlikely that you'd be able to knock out a whole machine
like this (tcpserver gives the -c option to limit the no. of connections, and
even inetd has a crappy way of limiting connections), but you would be
able to DoS SMTP on a machine (the attacker continues to setup lots
of SMTP connections to force the MTA to its SMTP connection limit, so
that anyone else trying to establish an SMTP connection is likely to fail).

The normal way to reduce the effect of this potential attack is to think
carefully about your setup - maybe you can separate SMTP into "Ingoing"
and "Outgoing" - the latter for, say, the office network only. Then setup
separate tcpserver processes (different IPs) for both, filtered accordingly.
Additionally, you can use other tools like POP3-before-SMTP.

cheers,

Andrew.

RE: slow connection init

[Andrew Richards]

>flys (very fast). After aprox one day, any 
>connection into this server (sshd, telnet , pop,
>smtp, etc) takes a while to initiate. Sometimes
>more than 60 seconds -- which of course times out
>most POP connections. Once connected, everything seems to
>act normal (connections initiated quickly).

Steve,

Also take a look at the -R, -H and -l options to tcpserver - these
relate to DNS and identd lookups - try using all three (see the
man page) and see if the behaviour of the box changes. If so,
investigate why - then either leave these options in, or address
the issues these options work around.

cheers,

Andrew.

Re: POP Toaster

[Sean Reifschneider]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 10:00:02AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>>So, you're forwarding mail for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to
>>"webscripting-net-user" *AT WHAT DOMAIN*?
>
>virtualdomains entries can't redirect to remote domains.

Hmm, seems that envnoathost isn't used for delivery of virtual domains.
While that's probably what you want, it's not what I expect.  Not after
being biten by msglog trying to be delivered to msglog@envnoathost

Sean
-- 
 Jackie Trehorn treats objects like women, man...
 -- _The_Big_Lebowski_
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python

Re: RFC822

[Marcio Sa]

Henning Brauer wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 03:34:56PM -0200, Marcio Sa wrote:
> > i'm trying with netscape pop3 client or netscape imap client. Then , i saw
> > only one message. I'm using qmail-ldap patch to authenticate and
> > create local Mailbox instantly too.
> > > qmail-start ./Maildir/new/Mailbox splogger qmail
>
> I see your problem, its relatively easy. It has nothing to do with RFCs. You
> told qmail to place new Mails in an mbox ~/Maildir/new/Mailbox, and you are
> using qpop3d. qpop3d supports only Maildirs, no mboxes, and therfore treats
> your Mailbox-file as a single Mail.
> There is no way I'm aware of to use qmail-ldap with Maildirs, unless you
> find another pop3-daemon which can use the ldap directory to authentificate
> the users.
> In any way I'd _really_ recommend using Maildirs instead of Mailboxes, there
> is lots of other stuff in qmail-ldap only working with Maildirs (quotas for
> example). It was written with Maildirs in mind, not Mailboxes.
> To use Maildirs, just change you /var/qmail/rc:
>
> qmail-start ./Maildir/

Hi Henning,

thank you. I didnt put a slash after Maildir and in my wrong solution, i think
that .../new/Mailbox work.
Ok, now is working, thank you 

Marcio

>
>
> Every new mail will then be a file in Maildir/new with a timestamp as name.
> You should also retire from splogger and user multilog, but thats another
> story. I'd recommend reading http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/.
> --
> Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
> Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
> http://www.bsws.de | Germany

Rewriting Headers

[huma]

How qmail can rewrite _any_ header of outgoing mail? Is there some rules
system to do this?

thanks


David Gómez

"The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of
 whether submarines can swim." -- Edsger W. Dijkstra

Re: QMail DOS

[Markus Stumpf]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:40:13AM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote:
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.  They are 
>claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to find out is whether there 
>are any known DOS situations out there.  If so what needs to be done to take care of 
>the problem.

There are two "problems" with a vanilla qmail installation I can think of:
1) if an agressor sends zillions of emails to a non-existing local
   address qmail-smtpd will - unlike a lot of other smtpds - accept
   the messages, pass it through it's delivery mechanism and bounce
   them back creating bounce messages itself.
   qmail-smtpd cannot decide at SMTP level wether a user exists or not.
   It is IMHO a question of definition whether you will call this a
   DoS vulnerability.
2) is only applicable if the qmail server is acting as a relay to the final
   MTA. If again an agressor sends zillions of emails to (non-existing) local 
   addresses (even with multiple RCPT TO commands in one SMTP session)
   qmail-remote will send one mail per recipient to the final MTA. If this
   final MTA is also qmail you again have situation 1) and if the user does
   not exist, qmail will return a bounce message for each message
   received, regardless what type of SMTP receiver the final MTA is.
   This could cause the receiver of the bounces problems and some ppl
   claimed that - because of that - qmail could be used to DoS other systems
   (e.g. by faking the sender address).

I'd personally not call any of the two situations DoS vulnerabilities,
other might want to. Your mileage may vary.

\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG   |   http://www.Space.Net/   | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 |  Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen  |  Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299  | fallen asleep yet.

Re: Pine/qmail/sqwebmail

[Robin S. Socha]

* mrorange  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Can I use Pine with qmail/sqwebmail? 

Yes/no.

> Apparently sqwebmail is dependent upon a maildir directory format and
> when I run Pine it sets up a regular mail directory (/var/mail/spool?)...

Do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

> Is there a config I'm missing somewhere?

Somewhere between your ears, yes. Read before you write.
-- 
Robin S. Socha 

Re: 502 unimplemented

[Markus Stumpf]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:20:56PM +0100, Stef Hoesli Wiederwald wrote:
> manually via telnet to port 25. Sometimes I can send a message without
> problems, and sometimes I get the 502 error, but not at the same
> point, i.e. arbitrarily after any of the helo, mail, rcpt or data
> commands.

How about you show examples of the situation where the 502 is returned.

\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG   |   http://www.Space.Net/   | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 |  Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen  |  Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299  | fallen asleep yet.

RE: QMail DOS

[Dave Sill]

Tap, tap, tap. Hello? Is thing on?

Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The standard DoS is to open lots of SMTP connections to an SMTP server,
>which could be qmail, or any other MTA - and leave them open.

No, the "standard" qmail DOS is to make a single connection to
qmail-smtpd and send it either lots of RCPT's or a single
unlimited-length command. Eventually, the qmail-smtpd process will
consume all available memory, preventing other processes from getting
the memory they need.

See:

  http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/06/msg00317.html
  http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/06/msg00322.html

>Since
>[vanilla] SMTP is not authenticated, this attack could be initiated from
>anywhere.

Authentication won't help. Since SMTP is (usually) a public service,
it needs to be open to everyone.

>It's unlikely that you'd be able to knock out a whole machine
>like this (tcpserver gives the -c option to limit the no. of connections, and
>even inetd has a crappy way of limiting connections), but you would be
>able to DoS SMTP on a machine (the attacker continues to setup lots
>of SMTP connections to force the MTA to its SMTP connection limit, so
>that anyone else trying to establish an SMTP connection is likely to fail).

That's a different and less severe problem that is shared by any
public network service.

-Dave

Re: QMail DOS

[Jose AP Celestino]

You should take a look at the following thread:

http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2001/01/msg00832.html

Regards.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:40:13AM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote:
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.  They are 
>claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to find out is whether there 
>are any known DOS situations out there.  If so what needs to be done to take care of 
>the problem.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andy

-- 
Jose AP Celestino  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  || SAPO / PTM.COM
Administração de Sistemas / Operações || http://www.sapo.pt
---
Knowledge is power -- knowledge shared is power lost.
-- Aleister Crowley

Re: QMail DOS

[Mark Delany]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:32:58PM +, Jose AP Celestino wrote:
> You should take a look at the following thread:
> 
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2001/01/msg00832.html
> 
> Regards.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:40:13AM -0500, Andy Abshagen wrote:
> > We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.  They are 
>claiming something about a DOS situation.  What I need to find out is whether there 
>are any known DOS situations out there.  If so what needs to be done to take care of 
>the problem.

Of course let us not forget that it is impossible to stop DOS attacks
on publicly connected servers. I hope your consultant are telling you
that all systems connected to the Internet are vulnerable to some form
of DOS?

You can mitigate against the obvious attacks, but that's about
it. Even big players with lots of resources, such as Yahoo and Ebay
cannot stop a determined DDOS.


Regards.

Re: QMail DOS

[Markus Stumpf]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 07:25:20PM -, Andrew Richards wrote:
> The standard DoS is to open lots of SMTP connections to an SMTP server,
> which could be qmail, or any other MTA - and leave them open.

Which can easily be dealt with by setting Q/control/timeoutsmtpd to
a lower value (default is 1200 seconds).

\Maex

Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1)

[Scott Gifford]

Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
> users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'.  This domain has the
> following MX record:
> 
> groupprojects.net   preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
> 
> When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
> the mail.  0.0.0.0 connects to 127.0.0.1, so qmail ended up connected
> to itself.  It continued to deliver the message to itself, and because
> 127. is allowed to relay on my system, the message was accepted.  Then
> qmail would immediately begin delivering the message to itself again.
> Wash, rinse, repeat.

[ ... ]

Further investigation of this problem has led me to what seems to be a
subtle bug in qmail.

in ipme.c, qmail tries to decide what IP addresses will connect back
to itself.  It does this by finding the IP addresses of all network
interfaces on the system, and putting them into an ipalloc structure
called ipme.  Then, in qmail-remote.c, it deals with the situation
where the best-preference MX for a domain is itself, but this domain
doesn't appear in control/locals, by issuing a permanent failure for
the message, via perm_ambigmx(), which displays the familiar error
message:

   Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, 
   it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)

This is necessary to prevent a tight internal mail loop, like the one
I encountered below.  Otherwise, qmail will see that the message isn't
local, qmail-remote will connect to its own IP address, and the
message will be re-injected.

The problem is that 0.0.0.0 is a special IP address which refers to
"This host on this network" (RFC 1122, 3.2.1.3a), although it isn't
the address of any of the interfaces on a host.  According to Paul
Vixie in the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains FAQ (Q5.15):

   0.0.0.0 is just an alias for the first interface address assigned
   after a system boot [ ... ]

The IP stacks I've checked (Solaris and Linux) behave consistently
with this.

Because qmail doesn't recognize 0.0.0.0 as an IP address which refers
to the local host, when it sees an MX record with that address, it
doesn't recognize it as being an address that will connect back to
itself.  This causes the looping scenario that ipme is designed to
prevent.

The simple solution to this problem is to add 0.0.0.0 to ipme, by
adding something like:

  ip_scan("0.0.0.0",&ix.ip);
  if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(moreipme_fd); return 0; }

into ipme.c, around line 96.

The solution we actually used took advantage of an internal patch
which allows us to list additional addresses to be added to ipme in
"control/moreipme", which works around some other problems qmail has
when addresses that refer to it go through any kind of address
translation or proxying, and it can't recognize them as local.  We
just added 0.0.0.0 to the beginning of this file, and all was well.

I'd be happy to hear any comments on this problem.

-ScottG.

Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0or 127.0.0.1)

[Keary Suska]

This would definitely be a bug of concern--even sendmail (yoiks!) knows how
to handle 0.0.0.0. But shouldn't qmail bounce the message as a possible MX
loop?

-K

"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, because you are crunchy and taste
good with ketchup."


> From: Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jan 2001 17:20:49 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or
> 127.0.0.1)
> 
> Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
>> We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
>> users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'.  This domain has the
>> following MX record:
>> 
>> groupprojects.net   preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
>> 
>> When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
>> the mail.  0.0.0.0 connects to 127.0.0.1, so qmail ended up connected
>> to itself.  It continued to deliver the message to itself, and because
>> 127. is allowed to relay on my system, the message was accepted.  Then
>> qmail would immediately begin delivering the message to itself again.
>> Wash, rinse, repeat.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> Further investigation of this problem has led me to what seems to be a
> subtle bug in qmail.
> 
> in ipme.c, qmail tries to decide what IP addresses will connect back
> to itself.  It does this by finding the IP addresses of all network
> interfaces on the system, and putting them into an ipalloc structure
> called ipme.  Then, in qmail-remote.c, it deals with the situation
> where the best-preference MX for a domain is itself, but this domain
> doesn't appear in control/locals, by issuing a permanent failure for
> the message, via perm_ambigmx(), which displays the familiar error
> message:
> 
> Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host,
> it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6)
> 
> This is necessary to prevent a tight internal mail loop, like the one
> I encountered below.  Otherwise, qmail will see that the message isn't
> local, qmail-remote will connect to its own IP address, and the
> message will be re-injected.
> 
> The problem is that 0.0.0.0 is a special IP address which refers to
> "This host on this network" (RFC 1122, 3.2.1.3a), although it isn't
> the address of any of the interfaces on a host.  According to Paul
> Vixie in the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains FAQ (Q5.15):
> 
> 0.0.0.0 is just an alias for the first interface address assigned
> after a system boot [ ... ]
> 
> The IP stacks I've checked (Solaris and Linux) behave consistently
> with this.
> 
> Because qmail doesn't recognize 0.0.0.0 as an IP address which refers
> to the local host, when it sees an MX record with that address, it
> doesn't recognize it as being an address that will connect back to
> itself.  This causes the looping scenario that ipme is designed to
> prevent.
> 
> The simple solution to this problem is to add 0.0.0.0 to ipme, by
> adding something like:
> 
> ip_scan("0.0.0.0",&ix.ip);
> if (!ipalloc_append(&ipme,&ix)) { close(moreipme_fd); return 0; }
> 
> into ipme.c, around line 96.
> 
> The solution we actually used took advantage of an internal patch
> which allows us to list additional addresses to be added to ipme in
> "control/moreipme", which works around some other problems qmail has
> when addresses that refer to it go through any kind of address
> translation or proxying, and it can't recognize them as local.  We
> just added 0.0.0.0 to the beginning of this file, and all was well.
> 
> I'd be happy to hear any comments on this problem.
> 
> -ScottG.
> 

Re: QMail DOS

[Chin Fang]

> Which can easily be dealt with by setting Q/control/timeoutsmtpd to
> a lower value (default is 1200 seconds).
> 
>   \Maex

I am afraid it's not that straightforward.  For instance, for a guy
who is on a slow dial up connection (say 28.8kbps or less), and who is
attempting to send large message (say a message with a 10MB
attachment) to your site, he is capable of tieing up for quite a while
a qmail-smtpd instance of your installation regardless his intention.

Now, assuming on a day your site is unlucky enough to have quite a
few this kind of people banging on your mail server(s), your life
can become somewhat difficult.

I have experienced the above situation once.

Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Delivering to Courier imap userdb maildirs

[Chris]

What's the best way to tell qmail to deliver mail 
to virtual maildirs ?
 
I have Courier imap setup for userdb 
authentication, with mailboxes under /home/vmail/maildir-user
 
TIA,
 
- Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1)

[Scott Gifford]

Keary Suska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This would definitely be a bug of concern--even sendmail (yoiks!) knows how
> to handle 0.0.0.0. But shouldn't qmail bounce the message as a possible MX
> loop?

  It should, but does not.  Putting it into ipme would cause it to.

  See my original post that triggered this, at:

  http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail0101/326.html

-ScottG.

Re: QMail DOS

[Russell Nelson]

QMail doesn't run under DOS.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | "This is Unix...
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Stop acting so helpless."
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | --Daniel J. Bernstein

Re: QMail DOS

[Dan Peterson]

  Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> QMail doesn't run under DOS.

If we get 20 people together...

-- 
Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://danp.net