date:20010604


Lye On Siong Johnny writes:
 > Are there any other way to implement virtual domain apart from using vpopmail?

There are many ways.  qmail is in effect a tool for sending and
receiving email.  You can use it in many different ways, vpopmail
being just one of them.  You could use vmailmgr
(http://www.vmailmgr.org/) instead.  Rumor has it that IBM has a
virtual domain system based on qmail; I expect it's proprietary since
they charge very large amounts of money for it.  Or you could invent
your own.  I usually do that for my larger customers, because their
requirements are specialized and unique.  E.g. rediffmail.com, which
doesn't need virtual domains, but which handles ten million users.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.

Virtual Domain

2001-06-04 Thread Lye On Siong Johnny


hi,

Are there any other way to implement virtual domain apart from using vpopmail?

or is it true that if having virtual domain, then the log in name will be 
the full email address since that's the only way to differentiate the accounts?

Thanks
Johnny

qmail-qfilter signal 11

2001-06-04 Thread Daniel Kelley



hi-

i think that someone posted earlier today regarding sporadic sig 11's on
freebsd 4.2-RELEASE while running qmail-qfilter.

interestingly, i just installed qmail-qfilter earlier today on the same
release of freebsd, and i'm getting the same thing:

Jun  4 19:46:03 mx1 /kernel: pid 64541 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 19:48:39 mx1 /kernel: pid 64670 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 20:01:07 mx1 /kernel: pid 65370 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 20:04:58 mx1 /kernel: pid 65495 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 20:18:38 mx1 /kernel: pid 66276 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 20:50:45 mx1 /kernel: pid 68131 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 21:02:07 mx1 /kernel: pid 68625 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 21:52:43 mx1 /kernel: pid 70813 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11
Jun  4 22:26:45 mx1 /kernel: pid 71658 (qmail-qfilter), uid 1003: exited
on signal 11

the previous thread on this topic ended when it was suggested that the
problem was running softlmit with a limit of 2 meg, which didn't give the
perl interpreter enough room to get started.  

interestingly enough, the problem persists after removing the softlimit
from /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run. (i'm running LWQ-style)

i've checked the sig 11 FAQ (www.bitwizard.nl/sig11), but that doesn't
seem to have anything relevant.

has anyone else running qmail on freebsd noticed this behavior?

thanks-

dan

Re: Re: whether original sender can receiver a notic mail when mail can't send?

2001-06-04 Thread george


Thank you your reply.

But I want to know whether I specify return a failure message to the originator if the 
user quota size has exceed .




ÔÚ 2001-06-04 00:02:00 ÄúÐ´µÀ£º
>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, george wrote:
>
>> 1.  I want to know how to process when qmail received a not exist user
>
>qmail will automatically return a failure message to the originator if the
>local recipient does not exist.
>
>> 2.  About quota ,when user mail sizes execd max quota size,qmail how
>> to process, or qmail-local error .
>
>The same. qmail handles this automatically.
>
>--
>Todd A. Jacobs
>CodeGnome Consulting, LTD

Re: qmail ONLY selectively receiving mail from outside

Ashe Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> The system "works" but will not receive mail from outside the select few I
> list in the /etc/hosts.allow file. 

Others have replied with correct information as well, but this is the crux of
your problem.  To receive mail from the net at large, you have to accept
connections from the net at large.

Relaying is another matter entirely.  qmail will relay (in a normal setup)
only when the RELAYCLIENT environment variable is set.  So what you want to do
is accept connections from any IP address, and conditionally set this variable
to an empty value for only those IP addresses you wish to allow to relay.  The
easiest way to do this is to run qmail-smtpd from tcpserver instead of
inetd/xinetd.  If you use this configuration, you're also much more likely to
be able to find help/user-contributed documentation that applies to your
setup.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: requesting messages from ezmlm

Cary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> according to the mail I recieved when I signed up, I can request a copy of
>  message 12345 by sending mail to
> 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Where do I find these numbers by which to request a message, or groups of 
> messages?

In the envelope sender, typically recorded by the final destination MTA in the
Return-Path: header.  It contains, along with static elements, your email
address that you signed up to the list with, and a unique message number.
That way, if it bounces, qmail can tell which address bounced, and what
message that member therefore missed.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: xinetd

Charles Cazabon wrote:

{ snip }

> 
> > That way, I can have only my domain in rcpthosts, but allow my other clients
> > access.
> 
> You're misunderstanding the purpose of rcpthosts.  It's only supposed to
> contain the domains for which you act as either a primary or backup mail
> exchanger.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding it.  The only thing in my rcpthosts
is my domain name and 'localhost'.  If it's empty, then I'm a relayer,
which is a no-no.  Without tcpserver, I can't (or haven't figured out
how with Xinetd) to populate the required env vars, hence my clients
can't send email via qmail-smtpd to domains not listed in rcpthosts,
right?

{ snip }

> 
> Now that you've written code to do some of this for qmail-smtpd, what would
> happen if you wanted exactly the same features with qmail-qmtpd, or
> qmail-pop3d, or fingerd?  With djb's modular approach, you don't need to
> rewrite a single line of code.  tcpserver "just works" for all of them.

Well, for the qmail stuff, I you're right: I'd have to patch'em all, use
tcpserver or patch xinetd to act like tcpserver.  But with other servers
(like fingerd), I'm content to let my firewall and xinet (as is) deal
with who gets in or out.  :-)

Thanks for your comments!

David

> 
> Charles
> --
> ---
> Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
> ---

Re: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Paul

Title: RE: big-concurrency patch

Sorry, maybe you are in the wrong directory? you
should not be in the qmail-1.03 dir. because the patch specifies the path
already "qmail-1.03/file-to-patch". so if you are in the qmail dir , do a "cd
.." and try the patch again. if it still can't work then follow my first
instruction, get another version of the tool "patch".
Hope this helps
Paul

- Original Message -
From:
Mark Douglas
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 3:36
AM
Subject: RE: big-concurrency patch

I've tried all kinds of -p options, and left it out, and it
doesn't help.
Also, as for it not being the standard big-concurrency patch,
would you tell me which one is? Even the one right on qmail's home site is
that same patch muddled in with the e-mail.
Thanks,
Mark
-Original Message- From:
Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 15:04 To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: big-concurrency
patch
Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm having problems applying this patch. I can't find any
documentation for > it, and the patch file itself
seems to be rather chopped up. I did my best > to
put it into appropriate patch files, but when I run patch -p1 <
> big-concurrency.patch it asks me what file I want to
patch.
That's a clue that you're using the wrong argument to the -p
option. However, it could have another cause -- the
patch you pointed to isn't the standard
big-concurrency one; the message above the patch states:
This is the patch that I use at suse.com. We do almost
1 million messages a day with this patch and
concurrencyremote set to 400.
This patch comes with the standard disclaimer. No
warranty, it may not work, etc. But it works
for me :)
It's also not pretty. It's against qmail-1.03+verh-0.02
(the ezmlm patch l and h patch). So the offsets
may be off a little bit.
So it's not against standard qmail; it's against qmail 1.03
after the verh patch has been applied. If you're
not using that patch as well, it's not surprising it
won't apply cleanly. Try against a vanilla qmail 1.03 source
tree.
Charles -- ---
Charles
Cazabon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software
available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ---

Re: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Paul

Title: RE: big-concurrency patch

What operating system are you compiling on? maybe
you want to try another version of patch from ftp.gnu.org . Because the same thing happened
to me when i compiled on solaris 8 and using another version of patch
helped.
Hope it works for you
Paul

- Original Message -
From:
Mark Douglas
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 3:36
AM
Subject: RE: big-concurrency patch

Re: xinetd


It's also in tcp-env


Scott Schwartz wrote:
> 
> > tcpserver does much more than this; in particular, the ability to arbitrarily
> > set environment variables on a per-IP or per-hostname basis is particularly
> > valuable in controlling certain aspects of qmail's behaviour.
> 
> Historical note:  that functionality used to be available in
> a separate program, most recently called tcpcontrol-0.50,
> before it was merged with tcpserver.
> 
> SYNOPSIS
>  tcpcontrol rules.cdb subprogram [ args ... ]

Re: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Adam McKenna

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:25:58PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, I can make this patch cleanly on a linux based system no problem, but
> > when I try the same approach on the solaris system, it doesn't work. Was the
> > test you're doing from a solaris system?
> 
> Nope, Linux.  Perhaps the version of patch which Sun ships is broken?  Most of
> the rest of their tools seem to be :).

You are correct.

Get the latest version of GNU patch from ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch and
install it on your server.

Personally, I like to keep my namespaces separate for GNU tools on Solaris,
so that I always know which version of a program I'm running.  You can do
this for most GNU utils with the following configuration parameter:

# ./configure --program-prefix=g

--Adam

Re: qmail ONLY selectively receiving mail from outside

2001-06-04 Thread Greg White

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 03:11:36PM -0700, Ashe Coutts wrote:
> I have set up a qmail system (RedHat linux 7.1, kernel 2.4.5, xinetd, 
> qmail  1.03 RPMs, U of Wash pop3 and imap, etc.). with a domain name of 
>  sbcacademy.org (machine name mail.sbcacademy.org)  with the  following 
> configuration files: 
> 
> === start  /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts  
> localhost 
> sbcacademy.org 
> mail.sbcacademy.org 
> === end  /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts  
> 
> === start excerpt from /etc/hosts.allow  
> ### The qmail outgoing/retrieval stuff 
> ipop3d, imapd  :  ALL 
> 
> ### The qmail selective relaying stuff 
> tcp-env  :  xx.yy.zz.:  setenv RELAYCLIENT 
> tcp-env  :  aa.bb.cc.dd  :  setenv RELAYCLIENT 
> tcp-env  :  localhost  :  setenv RELAYCLIENT  
> === end excerpt from /etc/hosts.allow  
> 
> The system "works" but will not receive mail from outside the select 
> few I 
> list in the /etc/hosts.allow file. 
> 
> I think I now understand what is going on but not why.  
> 

SNIP

Don't set RELAYCLIENT for anyone but hosts you can explicitly trust.
hosts.allow (if you insist on using inetd/xinetd) should be configured
to _allow_ connections from anywhere, but only to set RELAYCLIENT for
hosts you should relay for. Most definitely you do _not_ want to allow
relay to hotmail. ;) To set this up under inetd/xinetd, consult the man
pages for their respective programs. You might be better off to avoid
inetd/xinetd altogether, and use tcpserver instead. Great instructions
for qmail & tcpserver can be found in Life With Qmail (aka LWQ) at:

http://www.lifewithqmail.org/

HTH,

-- 
Greg White

Re: qmail ONLY selectively receiving mail from outside

2001-06-04 Thread Daniel Kelley



what you want to do is allow all incoming connections (i.e. don't have
your /etc/hosts.allow & /etc/hosts.deny setup to drop all miscellaneous
smtp connections) on port 25.  if you only set RELAYCLIENT for the ip's
you want, qmail will handle rejecing the emails.

make sense?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Ashe Coutts wrote:

> I have set up a qmail system (RedHat linux 7.1, kernel 2.4.5, xinetd, qmail 
> 1.03 RPMs, U of Wash pop3 and imap, etc.). with a domain name of 
> sbcacademy.org (machine name mail.sbcacademy.org)  with the 
> following configuration files:
> 
> 
> === start  /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts 
> 
> localhost
> 
> sbcacademy.org
> 
> mail.sbcacademy.org
> 
> === end  /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts 
> 
> 
> === start excerpt from /etc/hosts.allow 
> 
> ### The qmail outgoing/retrieval stuff
> 
> ipop3d, imapd  :  ALL
> 
> 
> Courier New### The qmail selective relaying stuff
> 
> tcp-env  :  xx.yy.zz.:  setenv RELAYCLIENT
> 
> tcp-env  :  aa.bb.cc.dd  :  setenv RELAYCLIENT
> 
> tcp-env  :  localhost  :  setenv RELAYCLIENT 
> 
> === end excerpt from /etc/hosts.allow Arial
> 
> 
> The system "works" but will not receive mail from outside the select few I
> 
> list in the /etc/hosts.allow file.
> 
> 
> I think I now understand what is going on but not why. 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate that relaying is a bad idea but fail to see how to 
> 
> set up the qmail so anyone can at least send mail to a user on 
> 
> the qmail system.  Receiving from anywhere would be our problem 
> 
> and would not be relaying anything beyond us.
> 
> 
> As is, ONLY mail coming from our system (xx.yy.zz.) or our county 
> 
> education email server (aa.bb.cc.dd) is received.
> 
> 
> In testing from an outside hotmail account I was seeing the following in
> 
> /var/log/messages:
> 
> 
> Courier New=== Start excerpt from 
>/var/log/messages =
> 
> Jun  4 09:13:19 mail xinetd[492]: refused connect from 
> 
> 209.185.241.98
> 
> Jun  4 09:19:57 mail xinetd[492]: refused connect from 
> 
> 209.185.241.80
> 
> === End from /var/log/messages =
> 
> 
> ArialSo I entered this next line in 
>/etc/hosts.allow:
> 
> "tcp-env  :  209.185.241.   :  setenv RELAYCLIENT"
> 
> and viola - in comes a message from the hotmail account to one of 
> 
> our users.
> 
> 
> I want qmail to accept email from other email users/systems in the world
> 
> as other email systems I've set up do WITHOUT having to explicitly enter
> 
> every email system I want to receive mail from.
> 
> 
> Can qmail allow for this and still prevent relay abuse or are the two 
> somehow tied together??
> 
> 
> I have read what I could on the lists regarding what I'm trying to 
> accomplish (FAQ, "The qmail newbie's guide to relaying", "Selective 
> relaing with tcpserver and qmail-smtpd", etc.) and realize that this topic is 
> almost a dead horse BUT I'm still unable to understand what is required to 
> do what I wish so thanks in advance to any suggestions and/or 
> recommendations any of you may offer.
> 
> 
> 
> "Experience is not what happens to you, it
>  is what you do with what happens to you"
>-- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
> 
>Ashe Coutts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>805.963.4338 Ext 300
>Fax 805.884.1557
>

Re: Double Bounce Help

2001-06-04 Thread Nick (Keith) Fish


Alastair Rundlett wrote:
> 
> Thnx Charles
> 
> So where I could find these patches you talking about?
> 
> Why don't you use them ?
> 
> >> There are patches to change this if you like, but I don't use them.
> 
> I had over 200 msg's bounced to postmaster this over weekend to invalid
> mailboxes. What happens when this reaches thousands ? surely not delete
> postmaster msg's all day !!
> 
> Alastair

*chuckles* Our postmaster Mailboxes grow at a rate of about one gigabyte
per month.

Here's a nice anti-spam FAQ for qmail:

http://www.summersault.com/chris/techno/qmail/qmail-antispam.html

-- 
Keith
Network Engineer
Triton Technologies, Inc.

Re: big-concurrency patch


Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I can make this patch cleanly on a linux based system no problem, but
> when I try the same approach on the solaris system, it doesn't work. Was the
> test you're doing from a solaris system?

Nope, Linux.  Perhaps the version of patch which Sun ships is broken?  Most of
the rest of their tools seem to be :).

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: xinetd

David Means <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I believe your points are valid.  But I'm just stuborn, I suppose :)

Perhaps.  More importantly, you're re-inventing the wheel, possibly with bugs.

> So stuborn as a matter of fact, that I patched qmail-smptd this weekend
> to read a new control file which I called ipaddrallowed.  In which I can
> put things like 192.168. or a full IP addr.  If the source address of
> the client (as found via 'remoteip') matches those in the file, then the
> connect/relay is allowed.

tcpserver's tcprules files already allow exactly this, with IP address or
host/domain names:

192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""   # Allow LAN clients to relay
24.67.65.132:reject # Known spammer, don't let him in at all
foo.bar.example.com:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""# Let John relay
.example.net:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""   # as well as this broken ISP
:allow  # All others can connect, but not relay

> That way, I can have only my domain in rcpthosts, but allow my other clients
> access.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of rcpthosts.  It's only supposed to
contain the domains for which you act as either a primary or backup mail
exchanger.

> Since I'm on a private network and behind a firewall, I don't have to worry
> about spoofed source addresses.

With TCP, you don't need to worry about them either.  But if you're concerned,
tcpserver has paranoid mode to do forward- and reverse-correlation of DNS
entries.

Now that you've written code to do some of this for qmail-smtpd, what would
happen if you wanted exactly the same features with qmail-qmtpd, or
qmail-pop3d, or fingerd?  With djb's modular approach, you don't need to
rewrite a single line of code.  tcpserver "just works" for all of them.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

qmail ONLY selectively receiving mail from outside

2001-06-04 Thread Ashe Coutts

I have set up a qmail system (RedHat linux 7.1, kernel 2.4.5, xinetd, qmail  1.03 RPMs, U of Wash pop3 and imap, etc.). with a domain name of  sbcacademy.org (machine name mail.sbcacademy.org)  with the  following configuration files:

=== start  /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts 
localhost
sbcacademy.org
mail.sbcacademy.org
=== end  /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts 

=== start excerpt from /etc/hosts.allow 
### The qmail outgoing/retrieval stuff
ipop3d, imapd  :  ALL

### The qmail selective relaying stuff
tcp-env  :  xx.yy.zz.:  setenv RELAYCLIENT
tcp-env  :  aa.bb.cc.dd  :  setenv RELAYCLIENT
tcp-env  :  localhost  :  setenv RELAYCLIENT 
=== end excerpt from /etc/hosts.allow 

The system "works" but will not receive mail from outside the select few I
list in the /etc/hosts.allow file.

I think I now understand what is going on but not why. 

I can appreciate that relaying is a bad idea but fail to see how to 
set up the qmail so anyone can at least send mail to a user on 
the qmail system.  Receiving from anywhere would be our problem 
and would not be relaying anything beyond us.

As is, ONLY mail coming from our system (xx.yy.zz.) or our county 
education email server (aa.bb.cc.dd) is received.

In testing from an outside hotmail account I was seeing the following in
/var/log/messages:

=== Start excerpt from /var/log/messages =
Jun  4 09:13:19 mail xinetd[492]: refused connect from 
209.185.241.98
Jun  4 09:19:57 mail xinetd[492]: refused connect from 
209.185.241.80
=== End from /var/log/messages =

So I entered this next line in /etc/hosts.allow:
"tcp-env  :  209.185.241.   :  setenv RELAYCLIENT"
and viola - in comes a message from the hotmail account to one of 
our users.

I want qmail to accept email from other email users/systems in the world
as other email systems I've set up do WITHOUT having to explicitly enter
every email system I want to receive mail from.

Can qmail allow for this and still prevent relay abuse or are the two  somehow tied together??

I have read what I could on the lists regarding what I'm trying to  accomplish (FAQ, "The qmail newbie's guide to relaying", "Selective  relaing with tcpserver and qmail-smtpd", etc.) and realize that this topic is  almost a dead horse BUT I'm still unable to understand what is required to  do what I wish so thanks in advance to any suggestions and/or  recommendations any of you may offer.


"Experience is not what happens to you, it
 is what you do with what happens to you"
   -- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

   Ashe Coutts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   805.963.4338 Ext 300
   Fax 805.884.1557

Re: xinetd

2001-06-04 Thread Scott Schwartz


> tcpserver does much more than this; in particular, the ability to arbitrarily
> set environment variables on a per-IP or per-hostname basis is particularly
> valuable in controlling certain aspects of qmail's behaviour.

Historical note:  that functionality used to be available in
a separate program, most recently called tcpcontrol-0.50,
before it was merged with tcpserver.

SYNOPSIS
 tcpcontrol rules.cdb subprogram [ args ... ]

Re: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Mark


On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:14:00PM -0400, Mark Douglas allegedly wrote:
> No, I can make this patch cleanly on a linux based system no problem, but
> when I try the same approach on the solaris system, it doesn't work. Was the
> test you're doing from a solaris system? At this point I'm just kind of
> wondering what the problem is with the solaris system, because I took the
> patched version from the linux box and moved it to the solaris one and
> recompiled without any problems.

Solaris has it's own patch program. Try installing and using the
"real" one.


Regards.

requesting messages from ezmlm

2001-06-04 Thread Cary


according to the mail I recieved when I signed up, I can request a copy of
 message 12345 by sending mail to

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Where do I find these numbers by which to request a message, or groups of 
messages?

Thank you.  

Cary Mathews

Abilene Christian University
ACM Chair
| Education Committee

Re: mail queue getting bigger

2001-06-04 Thread Cary

On Thu, 31 May 2001, Dave Sill wrote:

> Cary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >However, when I try to check the mail that was sent, it has not been
> >delivered.  I use bin/qmail-qstat to look a the queue, and it is growing
> >bigger and bigger:
> >---results of bin/qmail-qstat---
> >messages in queue: 138
> >messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 138
> >---

I now have 216 messages in the queue.

> 
> qmail-send isn't running.
What do I need to change so it does run?  When I restart the system,
qmail-send and qmail-stmp both show up with as being managed by supervise,
but you and Charles both say it is not running.  What gives? Also,
according to Life with qmail, a properly configured qmail system should
have four daemons running, yet I obviously had only two.  Where do the
other two processes begin running?  

> 
> >root4755  0.0  1.6   892  520  ??  I12:25PM   0:00.13 \
> >/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c cat /var/qmail
> 
> You have a typo in your qmail-smtpd/run file. I suspect you used
> single quotes (') where you should have used back quotes (`).

Thank you for the pointer.  I did indeed have singles instead of backs.

> 
> >I would have expected qmail-inject to deliver the message as soon as
> >possible.
> 
> qmail-inject queues messages, it doesn't deliver them.

Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> >me: My name is localhost.
> 
> The host name is "localhost"?

It was, Yes.  My /etc/hosts file had the lines:
127.0.0.1   localhost localhost.bsd.local
192.168.0.102   gyrfalcon gyrfalcon.bsd.local

But I've since changed localhost to gyrfalcon, and commented out the
internal net address (192.x.x.x).

> 
> >rcpthosts:
> 
> You don't want to accept mail via SMTP?

Once I get getmail to work delivering mail to my Maildir mailbox, I won't
need to accept mail via SMTP for the summer, no.  BUT I will need/want to
use SMTP when I get back to school in the fall, and have an IP address
from which I would want to send/recieve mail (i.e. cary@[150.x.x.x]).
Is rcpthosts the correct place to put this address, or will it automaticly
be used (it is assigned by DHCP)?

> 
> >concurencyincomming: I have no idea what this file does.
> 
> concurrencyimcoming is misspelled.
> 

Again, thanks.
> -Dave
> 

Cary

RE: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Mark Douglas

Title: RE: big-concurrency patch





No, I can make this patch cleanly on a linux based system no problem, but when I try the same approach on the solaris system, it doesn't work. Was the test you're doing from a solaris system? At this point I'm just kind of wondering what the problem is with the solaris system, because I took the patched version from the linux box and moved it to the solaris one and recompiled without any problems.

Thanks,


Mark


-Original Message-
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 16:27
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: big-concurrency patch



Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've tried all kinds of -p options, and left it out, and it doesn't help.
> 
> Also, as for it not being the standard big-concurrency patch, would you tell
> me which one is? Even the one right on qmail's home site is that same patch
> muddled in with the e-mail.


I tried it here, and it applies cleanly:


[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ wget http://www.qmail.org/big-concurrency.patch
--14:19:19--  http://www.qmail.org:80/big-concurrency.patch
    => `big-concurrency.patch'
    Connecting to www.qmail.org:80... connected!
    HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
    Length: 9,331 [text/plain]


    0K -> .
    [100%]


    14:19:24 (9.19 KB/s) - `big-concurrency.patch' saved
    [9331/9331]
[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ ls -l
-rw-r--r--   1 charlesc qcc  9331 Aug 12  1999 big-concurrency.patch
[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ tar xzf qmail-1.03.tar.gz 
[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ cd qmail-1.03
[charlesc@charon qmail-1.03]$ cat ../big-concurrency.patch | patch -p1
patching file `chkspawn.c'
patching file `conf-spawn'
patching file `qmail-send.c'
patching file `spawn.c'
[charlesc@charon qmail-1.03]$


You must be using patch incorrectly.  For this patch, you should be in the
unpacked qmail source tree top directory, and strip one directory component
(-p1).  Perhaps you were in the wrong directory?


Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: ORBS, and RFC-ignorant blacklists


Besides, ORBS is dead!

http://www.orbs.org/

Or, is that the wrong site?

David


Mark wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 09:17:50AM +0200, Piotr Kasztelowicz allegedly wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> >
> > > Furthermore, Alan Brown's activities are not illegal - the ORBS
> > > relaytester runs in The Netherlands, where this is not illegal by any
> > > law.
> >
> > Maybe in Netherlands is not illegal, but in Netherlands even euthanasia
> > is legal by any law, in other countries not! The tester is in Netherlands
> > but it otucomes follow results in other countries, where performing
> > such lists and testing, which seeks the vulnerabilities in servers
> > and helps hackers at attacks, is illegal. From corespondence on this
> > list can be considered, that in US, NZ is illegal, in my country (Poland)
> > too. So, if Netherland will be right to others, probably shall give
> > this same injunction as NZ High Court - this want only a lot time
> 
> I'm confused. Isn't the use of ORBS entirely voluntary? I don't see
> how any site on the Internet is obliged to accept any traffic at
> all. So, if a site chooses to reject traffic based on a list -
> regardless of how flawed it may be - what's the big deal?
> 
> But I fail see the relevance to qmail...
> 
> Regards.

Re: xinetd

Charles:

I believe your points are valid.  But I'm just stuborn, I suppose :)

So stuborn as a matter of fact, that I patched qmail-smptd this weekend
to read a new control file which I called ipaddrallowed.  In which I can
put things like 192.168. or a full IP addr.  If the source address of
the client (as found via 'remoteip') matches those in the file, then the
connect/relay is allowed.  That way, I can have only my domain in
rcpthosts, but allow my other clients access.  Since I'm on a private
network and behind a firewall, I don't have to worry about spoofed
source addresses.  As a matter of fact, I configured email access for my
son today while we were at my office (he's outta school and doesn't have
camp this week -- oh joy!)  Anyway, all I did was add the a.b.c.d
address of the machine he was using in ipaddrallow and presto, he was
style'n!

;-)

David

Charles Cazabon wrote:
> 
> David Means <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > >
> > > Eduardo Gargiulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I had installed qmail and it's running ok.  All the examples says to add
> > > > a line in /etc/inetd.conf to run qmail-smtpd, but I don't know how to
> > > > configure it in xinetd.  Where can I find an xinetd example and what is
> > > > tcp-env for?
> > >
> > > Running qmail from inetd is deprecated.  Download ucspi-tcp and run it
> > > under tcpserver.
> >
> > I personally don't care to run tcpserver, although I've run it in the past,
> > and it worked well at that time.  tcpserver is nothing but a wrapper to
> > enable one to 1) log connections, and 2) keep unallowed hosts out.  Xinetd
> > does that for me.  Why would any one want to run two servers that can do the
> > same thing?
> 
> tcpserver does much more than this; in particular, the ability to arbitrarily
> set environment variables on a per-IP or per-hostname basis is particularly
> valuable in controlling certain aspects of qmail's behaviour.  I also find
> that tcpserver's controls on maximum concurrency are much better suited to
> controlling services than inetd/xinetd.  I've also never had tcpserver crash,
> for any reason -- not something I can say about inetd/xinetd.
> 
> Charles
> --
> ---
> Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
> ---

RE: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Joshua Nichols


> to put it into appropriate patch files, but when I run patch -p1 <
> big-concurrency.patch it asks me what file I want to patch.

Strictly speaking, it's /possible/ that your version of patch is getting
screwed up by the email header.  Try removing everything above the first
'diff' line.  Then copy it to your qmail-1.03 src directory, then just try
counting your peas.  :)

patch -p0

Re: big-concurrency patch


Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've tried all kinds of -p options, and left it out, and it doesn't help.
> 
> Also, as for it not being the standard big-concurrency patch, would you tell
> me which one is? Even the one right on qmail's home site is that same patch
> muddled in with the e-mail.

I tried it here, and it applies cleanly:

[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ wget http://www.qmail.org/big-concurrency.patch
--14:19:19--  http://www.qmail.org:80/big-concurrency.patch
=> `big-concurrency.patch'
Connecting to www.qmail.org:80... connected!
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 9,331 [text/plain]

0K -> .
[100%]

14:19:24 (9.19 KB/s) - `big-concurrency.patch' saved
[9331/9331]
[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ ls -l
-rw-r--r--   1 charlesc qcc  9331 Aug 12  1999 big-concurrency.patch
[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ tar xzf qmail-1.03.tar.gz 
[charlesc@charon qmail-test]$ cd qmail-1.03
[charlesc@charon qmail-1.03]$ cat ../big-concurrency.patch | patch -p1
patching file `chkspawn.c'
patching file `conf-spawn'
patching file `qmail-send.c'
patching file `spawn.c'
[charlesc@charon qmail-1.03]$

You must be using patch incorrectly.  For this patch, you should be in the
unpacked qmail source tree top directory, and strip one directory component
(-p1).  Perhaps you were in the wrong directory?

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: xinetd

2001-06-04 Thread Erwin Hoffmann


Hello,

I discussed XINETD on my web page intensively. Look at:

http://www.fehcom.de/qmail_en.html

cheers.
eh.

At 16:58 2.6.2001 -0300, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>I had installed qmail and it's running ok.
>All the examples says to add a line in /etc/inetd.conf to run
>qmail-smtpd, but I don't know how to configure it in xinetd.
>Where can I find an xinetd example and what is tcp-env for?
>
>--xgnu powered by vi editor
>:%s/Micros~1/GNU\/Linux/g^M
>:wq!^M
>
+---+
|  fffhh http://www.fehcom.deDr. Erwin Hoffmann |
| ff  hh|
| ffeee     ccc   ooomm mm  mm   Wiener Weg 8   |
| fff  ee ee  hh  hh   cc   oo   oo  mmm  mm  mm 50858 Koeln|
| ff  ee eee  hh  hh  cc   oo oo mm   mm  mm|
| ff  eee hh  hh   cc   oo   oo  mm   mm  mm Tel 0221 484 4923  |
| ff      hh  hhccc   ooomm   mm  mm Fax 0221 484 4924  |
+---+

Re: Ensuring only one svscan per directory

2001-06-04 Thread Karsten W. Rohrbach


Michael T. Babcock([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.04 11:11:59 +:
> We ran into a misconfiguration on one machine where svscan had been
> added by one person to rc.sysinit and inittab by another, so two copies
> of svscan were being started.
> 
> I realise that this is a misconfiguration, but wouldn't it be possible
> for svscan to add a 'lock' file to the services directory so it only
> starts once?  I'm not sure stale locks would be easy to detect since
> svscan is usually a very low-numbered PID.
hmm, the supervise implementation does locking, so at least the impact
on the box should not be really noticeable (in fact, you will see errors
from the supervises starteted from svscan).
adding locking to svscan would be more of a cosmetic change i think.
/k

-- 
> Captain Hook died of jock itch.
KR433/KR11-RIPE -- WebMonster Community Founder -- nGENn GmbH Senior Techie
http://www.webmonster.de/ -- ftp://ftp.webmonster.de/ -- http://www.ngenn.net/
karsten&rohrbach.de -- alpha&ngenn.net -- alpha&scene.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG 0x2964BF46 2001-03-15 42F9 9FFF 50D4 2F38 DBEE  DF22 3340 4F4E 2964 BF46

 PGP signature

Re: direct connection to qmqp or qmtpd server


Johan Almqvist writes:
 > BTW: Why is there still no link to my qmail page on www.qmail.org?

Laziness.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.

RE: big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Mark Douglas

Title: RE: big-concurrency patch

I've tried all kinds of -p options, and left it out, and it doesn't help.

Also, as for it not being the standard big-concurrency patch, would you tell me which one is? Even the one right on qmail's home site is that same patch muddled in with the e-mail.

Thanks,

Mark

-Original Message-
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 15:04
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: big-concurrency patch

Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having problems applying this patch. I can't find any documentation for
> it, and the patch file itself seems to be rather chopped up. I did my best
> to put it into appropriate patch files, but when I run patch -p1 <
> big-concurrency.patch it asks me what file I want to patch.

That's a clue that you're using the wrong argument to the -p option.
However, it could have another cause -- the patch you pointed to isn't the
standard big-concurrency one; the message above the patch states:

  This is the patch that I use at suse.com. We do almost 1 million messages a
  day with this patch and concurrencyremote set to 400.

  This patch comes with the standard disclaimer. No warranty, it may not
  work, etc. But it works for me :)

  It's also not pretty. It's against qmail-1.03+verh-0.02 (the ezmlm patch
  l and h patch). So the offsets may be off a little bit.

So it's not against standard qmail; it's against qmail 1.03 after the verh
patch has been applied.  If you're not using that patch as well, it's not
surprising it won't apply cleanly.  Try against a vanilla qmail 1.03 source
tree.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: big-concurrency patch

Mark Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having problems applying this patch. I can't find any documentation for
> it, and the patch file itself seems to be rather chopped up. I did my best
> to put it into appropriate patch files, but when I run patch -p1 <
> big-concurrency.patch it asks me what file I want to patch.

That's a clue that you're using the wrong argument to the -p option.
However, it could have another cause -- the patch you pointed to isn't the
standard big-concurrency one; the message above the patch states:

  This is the patch that I use at suse.com. We do almost 1 million messages a
  day with this patch and concurrencyremote set to 400.

  This patch comes with the standard disclaimer. No warranty, it may not
  work, etc. But it works for me :)

  It's also not pretty. It's against qmail-1.03+verh-0.02 (the ezmlm patch
  l and h patch). So the offsets may be off a little bit.

So it's not against standard qmail; it's against qmail 1.03 after the verh
patch has been applied.  If you're not using that patch as well, it's not
surprising it won't apply cleanly.  Try against a vanilla qmail 1.03 source
tree.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: anyone using qmail-qfilter?

2001-06-04 Thread Jon Rust


On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 11:43:20AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> 
> Chances are that the Perl interpreter can't run in 2MB on your system; try
> upping that to 6MB or 8MB and try again.  I bet a pint that fixes your
> problem.

Ah, good call. Doh! A check of ps shows the filter process running
(waiting for input) taking up 1.8M.

> > Okay, how about it works fine without qmail-qfilter? :-)
> 
> You might not like this answer, but that's no guarantee.  Hardware issues in
> computing can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated problems; it's one of the
> reasons I wrote memtester.  "It worked fine before, I added foo, it doesn't
> work now, therefore foo is broken" is an argument known as post hoc, ergo
> prompter hoc -- and it's a fallacy.

Point taken. Checking out memtester now...

Thanks for the help!

jon

Mailbounce message/analisys

2001-06-04 Thread Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga


[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You sent the following message to a mailing list that I'm subscribed
to.  You also sent a copy directly to me.  I don't want an extra copy.
If you respond to a message of mine, please respect the
Mail-Followup-To header field.  If you respond to a message sent by
someone else, please exercise the common sense that they didn't, and
trim the recipient list to excluded anyone who you know is on the
list.
/You can learn more about Mail-Followup-To at
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html>.
/If you're running qmail 1.03, you can automatically generate
Mail-Followup-To fields in your own mailing list messages.  Set
$QMAILMFTFILE to $HOME/.lists, where $HOME/.lists contains the
addresses of all the mailing lists you've subscribed to, one per line.
man qmail-inject for more information.

How did you do that?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga - Analista de Suporte - #179653
Blumenau - Santa Catarina. Tel. (47) 9102-3303
   http://www.netron.com.br/~eduardo
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

big-concurrency patch

2001-06-04 Thread Mark Douglas

Title: big-concurrency patch





I'm having problems applying this patch. I can't find any documentation for it, and the patch file itself seems to be rather chopped up. I did my best to put it into appropriate patch files, but when I run patch -p1 < big-concurrency.patch it asks me what file I want to patch. I'm not a programmer, and have no idea what files need to be patched. I don't want to screw anything up (although I have made a backup of my current source directory). Can anybody point me in the right direction?

This is the big-concurrency.patch I'm using:


http://www.glasswings.com.au/qmail/big-concurrency.patch


Mark Douglas - Architecture
Sympatico-Lycos Inc.
All your base are belong to us! Make your time!

Re: anyone using qmail-qfilter?


Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:36:26AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> 
> > Is this happening whenever any process injects mail?  Or only when qmail-smtpd
> > (and possibly qmail-qmtpd and qmail-qmqpd) inject mail?  If the latter, are
> > you running with memory limits on qmail-smtpd?
> 
> I don't know. It doesn't happen all the time, and there is no logging
> available from within qmail-qfilter. :-/ I'm working on setting up a
> test environment to try to isolate the problem. I've got softlimit
> capping me usage for smtpd at 200 (2 MB).

Chances are that the Perl interpreter can't run in 2MB on your system; try
upping that to 6MB or 8MB and try again.  I bet a pint that fixes your
problem.

> > Another possibility (given that you're running on PC hardware) is hardware
> > problems; "it's worked fine for years" does not mean there wasn't a latent
> > problem all along.
> 
> Okay, how about it works fine without qmail-qfilter? :-)

You might not like this answer, but that's no guarantee.  Hardware issues in
computing can cause all sorts of seemingly unrelated problems; it's one of the
reasons I wrote memtester.  "It worked fine before, I added foo, it doesn't
work now, therefore foo is broken" is an argument known as post hoc, ergo
prompter hoc -- and it's a fallacy.

> > No, Bruce is just a busy guy (hence the adjective "prolific" at
> > qmail.org).  He's still working on qmail-related stuff; vmailmgr is
> > undergoing active development.  If you would like Bruce to change his
> > priorities, I'm sure that he would be happy to move your pet projects to
> > the top of his to-do list, given the appropriate incentive.  That's how
> > free software consulting works.
> 
> Ah, bad assumption on my part. He has never responded to any mail I've sent
> him concerning any of the qmail how-to's or projects he has donated to our
> community. I just ASSuMEd he had moved on. My bad, and apologies to BG.
> Offering up incentive isn't an issue. I'd be more than happy to.

Bruce rarely responds personally to questions which fall under any of the
following categories:

  -can be answered by the documentation
  -can be answered by the FAQ
  -can be answered by looking in mailing list archives
  -are only peripherally related to his software (i.e. core qmail questions)
  -questions sent to him personally instead of one of his mailing lists

In those respects, he's a lot like djb.  Unlike djb (I suspect), however, it
would probably be relatively easy to get him to put your request at the top of
his todo list by offering him a decent hourly rate for the work.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: Double Bounce Help

Alastair Rundlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

re: patches to qmail-smtpd to do local-part verfication

> >> There are patches to change this if you like, but I don't use them.
> 
> So where I could find these patches you talking about?

See either qmail.org or the qmail mailing list archives; that's where I heard
of them.

> Why don't you use them ?

They're non-standard, break the modular security design of qmail, and
unnecessary.

> I had over 200 msg's bounced to postmaster this over weekend to invalid
> mailboxes. What happens when this reaches thousands ? surely not delete
> postmaster msg's all day !!

I get lots of double-bounces in my postmaster inbox, too.  It takes, on
average, about 1/4 - 1/3 of a second to handle each one in mutt.  I see no
problem.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: anyone using qmail-qfilter?

2001-06-04 Thread Jon Rust

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:36:26AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm getting these in my syslog:
> > 
> >.../kernel: pid 93400 (qmail-qfilter), uid 82: exited on signal 11
> 
> segfault?  Is signal 11 a segmentation violation on your OS?

Yes. (FreeBSD 4.2-Stable)

> Is this happening whenever any process injects mail?  Or only when qmail-smtpd
> (and possibly qmail-qmtpd and qmail-qmqpd) inject mail?  If the latter, are
> you running with memory limits on qmail-smtpd?

I don't know. It doesn't happen all the time, and there is no logging
available from within qmail-qfilter. :-/ I'm working on setting up a
test environment to try to isolate the problem. I've got softlimit
capping me usage for smtpd at 200 (2 MB).

> Another possibility (given that you're running on PC hardware) is hardware
> problems; "it's worked fine for years" does not mean there wasn't a latent
> problem all along.

Okay, how about it works fine without qmail-qfilter? :-) I only recently
started running q-qf. Prior to that nothing on my qmail system
segfaulted. If I take q-qf outta the loop, everything is peachy again.
I've searched for .core files resulting from the sig 11, but can't find
any.

> > And I'm still seeing them. Bruce Guenter appears to have stopped
> > development of qmail-qfilter (anything related to qmail?).
> 
> No, Bruce is just a busy guy (hence the adjective "prolific" at qmail.org).
> He's still working on qmail-related stuff; vmailmgr is undergoing active
> development.  If you would like Bruce to change his priorities, I'm sure that
> he would be happy to move your pet projects to the top of his to-do list,
> given the appropriate incentive.  That's how free software consulting works.

Ah, bad assumption on my part. He has never responded to any mail I've
sent him concerning any of the qmail how-to's or projects he has donated
to our community. I just ASSuMEd he had moved on. My bad, and apologies
to BG. Offering up incentive isn't an issue. I'd be more than happy to.

jon

Re: Ensuring only one svscan per directory

2001-06-04 Thread Rob Mayoff

+-- On Jun 4, Paul Jarc said:
> Michael "T\." Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I realise that this is a misconfiguration, but wouldn't it be possible
> > for svscan to add a 'lock' file to the services directory so it only
> > starts once?
>
> setlock -n /path/to/lockfile svscan /service
> http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/setlock.html>

Since that's not built in to svscan, and it's not documented as the
standard way to run svscan, it probably wouldn't prevent the human error
that caused Michael's problem.

Re: Double Bounce Help

2001-06-04 Thread Alastair Rundlett


Thnx Charles

So where I could find these patches you talking about?

Why don't you use them ?

>> There are patches to change this if you like, but I don't use them.

I had over 200 msg's bounced to postmaster this over weekend to invalid
mailboxes. What happens when this reaches thousands ? surely not delete
postmaster msg's all day !!

Alastair

Re: Ensuring only one svscan per directory

2001-06-04 Thread Paul Jarc


Michael "T\." Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I realise that this is a misconfiguration, but wouldn't it be possible
> for svscan to add a 'lock' file to the services directory so it only
> starts once?

setlock -n /path/to/lockfile svscan /service
http://cr.yp.to/daemontools/setlock.html>


paul

Re: qmail and cgi

2001-06-04 Thread Gordon McDowall


No, checked that, I guess I will need to look at their scripts in greater
detail


- Original Message -
From: "Frank Tegtmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: qmail and cgi


> "Gordon McDowall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since we changed from sendmail to qmail there has been a few people
saying they have the mails
> > generated by their scripts rejected by the mail server
>
> Possibly you don't allow the webserver to relay.
>
> Regards, Frank
>

Re: direct connection to qmqp or qmtpd server

2001-06-04 Thread Johan Almqvist


* Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010604 14:06]:
> Newbieportal writes:
>  > Everyone knows that we can connect to smtp server directly using telnet or
>  > simple socket connection script.
>  > Can I do the same for qmqp server or qmtpd server.
> Not using telnet.  At least, not without counting every character you
> type before you type it and adding them into multiple sums.
>  > If yes, is this better way to speed up the sending mail.
> Only if you have to send it from a different machine.

There is a litte c program to send mail by qmtp from the command line. A
link to it can be found at the bottom of my qmail page - see .sig

Hope this helps.

BTW: Why is there still no link to my qmail page on www.qmail.org?

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

 PGP signature

Ensuring only one svscan per directory

2001-06-04 Thread T\.


We ran into a misconfiguration on one machine where svscan had been
added by one person to rc.sysinit and inittab by another, so two copies
of svscan were being started.

I realise that this is a misconfiguration, but wouldn't it be possible
for svscan to add a 'lock' file to the services directory so it only
starts once?  I'm not sure stale locks would be easy to detect since
svscan is usually a very low-numbered PID.

-- 
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed

Re: anyone using qmail-qfilter?

Charles Cazabon writes:
 > Another possibility (given that you're running on PC hardware) is hardware
 > problems; "it's worked fine for years" does not mean there wasn't a latent
 > problem all along.

Yep; in fact "it's worked fine for years" and now doesn't is probably
a very good indication of a hardware failure.  Have you checked your
CPU fan?  The qmail.org outages in December 1999, and February 2001
were due to a worn-out CPU fan.  ALL of the qmail.org outages for the
past five years have been due to hardware problems:
  o Hardware lacking AC mains power.
  o Hardware in wrong location.
  o Hardware overheating due to bad CPU fan.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.

Re: qmail and cgi


"Gordon McDowall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Since we changed from sendmail to qmail there has been a few people saying they have 
>the mails
> generated by their scripts rejected by the mail server

Possibly you don't allow the webserver to relay.

Regards, Frank

Re: qmail and cgi

Gordon McDowall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience of customers having problems sending mail
> through qmaill using formmail etc?

Only if their scripts are broken, or use very odd sendmail-specific
commandline options.

> Since we changed from sendmail to qmail there has been a few people saying
> they have the mails generated by their scripts rejected by the mail server

Are they using the qmail sendmail wrapper, or qmail-inject, or qmail-queue
directly?  I assume the sendmail wrapper.  Have them tell you exactly how
they're calling it (weird options, whatever), and check what exit code they're
getting.  Without that, they're just pissing in the wind.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: "To:" on Reply problems

Massimo Quintini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Physical name of my qmail server is "terri1.te.astro.it" but mail domain
> is "astrte.te.astro.it" (record CNAME in dns)

Bad idea.  See below.

> In the reply of msg the To: field contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Why???

The mail RFCs dictate this behaviour; CNAMEs get rewritten by the sending MTA.
Instead of using a CNAME, just use a second A record for your mail domain
name.  This will fix your problem.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: xinetd

2001-06-04 Thread Alessandro De Maria


Su 04 Jun 2001 08:22:59 -0600, Charles Cazabon ha scritto:
> David Means <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > >
> > > Eduardo Gargiulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I had installed qmail and it's running ok.  All the examples
says to add
> > > > a line in /etc/inetd.conf to run qmail-smtpd, but I don't know
how to
> > > > configure it in xinetd.  Where can I find an xinetd example and
what is
> 

[cut]
> tcpserver does much more than this; in particular, the ability to
arbitrarily
> set environment variables on a per-IP or per-hostname basis is
particularly
> valuable in controlling certain aspects of qmail's behaviour. 

hosts.allow

tcp-env :   127.0.0.1   : setenv RELAYCLIENT
tcp-env :   ALL

As you can see, xinetd can do the same job of tcpserver...
It can also work with tcpd for maro flexibility...

bye!

p.s. in my machine tcpserver doesn't works... it have problems with same
library.
p.p.s (I've compiled tcpserver from the source..)

ri-bye
alle

Re: ORBS, and RFC-ignorant blacklists

2001-06-04 Thread Mark


On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 09:17:50AM +0200, Piotr Kasztelowicz allegedly wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> 
> > Furthermore, Alan Brown's activities are not illegal - the ORBS
> > relaytester runs in The Netherlands, where this is not illegal by any
> > law.
> 
> Maybe in Netherlands is not illegal, but in Netherlands even euthanasia
> is legal by any law, in other countries not! The tester is in Netherlands
> but it otucomes follow results in other countries, where performing
> such lists and testing, which seeks the vulnerabilities in servers
> and helps hackers at attacks, is illegal. From corespondence on this
> list can be considered, that in US, NZ is illegal, in my country (Poland)
> too. So, if Netherland will be right to others, probably shall give
> this same injunction as NZ High Court - this want only a lot time

I'm confused. Isn't the use of ORBS entirely voluntary? I don't see
how any site on the Internet is obliged to accept any traffic at
all. So, if a site chooses to reject traffic based on a list -
regardless of how flawed it may be - what's the big deal?

But I fail see the relevance to qmail...


Regards.

Re: Double Bounce Help

Alastair Rundlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> How do I stop spamers from sending mail to my domain and then disappearing
> before the msg can be returned to the sender, all the messages are to a
> random and invalid mailbox at my domain.

This happens to everyone; it's not a problem.  qmail will try to send bounces,
which will bounce if the envelope sender is invalid.  Then you, as postmaster,
delete the double-bounces.

> I thought qmail would ignore any incoming mail that does have a valid
> Mailbox/Maildir.

qmail-smtpd (the process actually accepting the mail over the network) doesn't
know anything about users; it only knows what domains are valid on your
server; therefore anything in those domains is accepted.  There are patches to
change this if you like, but I don't use them.

> P.S. I'm getting lots of these
> 
> I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce
> bounced!

Welcome to the wonderful world of internet spam.  Make money fast!  Hot horny
teenagers!  We can help you clean your credit!  Better erections in ten days!
More exclamation points than we know what to do with, and everything must go!

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: Multiple vchkpw processes going on

Lye On Siong Johnny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I have multiple lines of this when I do a ps ax
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup foo.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw 
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir
> 
> They seems to be there for a long time. I never seen that many of such 
> lines previously.
> Is there anything wrong??

Maybe, maybe not.  It just means lots of people have connected to your POP3
server in the last few minutes and are still connected.  To see if it's a
matter of concern, see if there are any of those processes hanging around
which are old (i.e., processes that were created 24 hours ago or something
like that).

> Also, I uses supervise to start qmail and qmail-smtpd but dun seems to be 
> able to get it to work for qmail-popup
> how can i get popup to work with supervise 

You don't.  You supervise the tcpserver instance which is launching
qmail-popup.  If you try to supervise qmail-popup, then those instances of
qmail-pop3d can never go away (they'll get restarted by supervise), and you
would get problems like you report above.

> Finally should i use svscan instead? and how can i gracefully restart qmail ??

svscan can be used if you like.  Many people do.  Restarting qmail gracefully
is basically a matter of sending qmail-send a SIGTERM and waiting for all its
associated processes to go away cleanly.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: anyone using qmail-qfilter?

Jon Rust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm getting these in my syslog:
> 
>.../kernel: pid 93400 (qmail-qfilter), uid 82: exited on signal 11

segfault?  Is signal 11 a segmentation violation on your OS?

> I was getting LOTS of them, and I thought it was related to my filter
> attempting to reject messages with error code 31. Well my current filter
> consists of:
> 
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>while (<>) {
>   print;
>}
>exit (0);

Is this happening whenever any process injects mail?  Or only when qmail-smtpd
(and possibly qmail-qmtpd and qmail-qmqpd) inject mail?  If the latter, are
you running with memory limits on qmail-smtpd?

Another possibility (given that you're running on PC hardware) is hardware
problems; "it's worked fine for years" does not mean there wasn't a latent
problem all along.

> And I'm still seeing them. Bruce Guenter appears to have stopped
> development of qmail-qfilter (anything related to qmail?).

No, Bruce is just a busy guy (hence the adjective "prolific" at qmail.org).
He's still working on qmail-related stuff; vmailmgr is undergoing active
development.  If you would like Bruce to change his priorities, I'm sure that
he would be happy to move your pet projects to the top of his to-do list,
given the appropriate incentive.  That's how free software consulting works.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: xinetd


Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> tcpserver does much more than this;

One additional thing: It doesn't have to run as root when the service
doesn't require it.

Regards, Frank

qmail and cgi

2001-06-04 Thread Gordon McDowall




Has anyone had any experience of customers having 
problems sending mail through qmaill using formmail etc?
Since we changed from sendmail to qmail there has 
been a few people saying they have the mails generated by their scripts rejected 
by the mail server
Any help?
 
Gordon McDowall

Re: qmail-remote crashing w/TLS patch

Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I'm getting tons of these log entries whenever I send mail:
[...]
> May 25 18:49:19 bigpoop qmail: 990830959.662255 delivery 801: deferral:
> qmail-remote_crashed./
[...] 
> It was rough combining these, but the most trouble was in smtpd, not
> qmail-remote, as only one patch touched it (the TLS patch).
> 
> Any hints on how to debug this?

strace/ktrace/truss qmail-rspawn, with the necessary options to automatically
trace all children.  If possible, also use the option which sends each child
process' trace to a separate logfile.  The system call trace of the process
should give pretty definitive hints as to why it is crashing.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: whether original sender can receiver a notic mail when mail can't send ?

George Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.  I want to know how to process when qmail received a not exist user in
> qmail server.  which program to process, is qmail-send ?
> 
> whether original sender can receiver a notic mail?

I'm afraid I have to guess at what you meant here.  When qmail receives a mail
for a non-existent address in a local/virtual domain, qmail-send will notice
this.  qmail-send will generate a bounce message ("Your message could not be
delivered..." type message) to the original sender of the message
automatically; you don't need to do anything.

> 2.  About quota ,when user mail sizes execd max quota size,qmail how to
> process, or qmail-local error .  whether original sender can receiver a
> notic mail?

If you're talking per-virtual-user limits, you'll need to use a virtual domain
manager of some sort which has this feature; vmailmgr has quota support.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: xinetd

David Means <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Charles Cazabon wrote:
> >
> > Eduardo Gargiulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I had installed qmail and it's running ok.  All the examples says to add
> > > a line in /etc/inetd.conf to run qmail-smtpd, but I don't know how to
> > > configure it in xinetd.  Where can I find an xinetd example and what is
> > > tcp-env for?
> >
> > Running qmail from inetd is deprecated.  Download ucspi-tcp and run it
> > under tcpserver.
>
> I personally don't care to run tcpserver, although I've run it in the past,
> and it worked well at that time.  tcpserver is nothing but a wrapper to
> enable one to 1) log connections, and 2) keep unallowed hosts out.  Xinetd
> does that for me.  Why would any one want to run two servers that can do the
> same thing? 

tcpserver does much more than this; in particular, the ability to arbitrarily
set environment variables on a per-IP or per-hostname basis is particularly
valuable in controlling certain aspects of qmail's behaviour.  I also find
that tcpserver's controls on maximum concurrency are much better suited to
controlling services than inetd/xinetd.  I've also never had tcpserver crash,
for any reason -- not something I can say about inetd/xinetd.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---

Re: Slow smtp response

2001-06-04 Thread Brian S. Craigie

Sometimes we are given Orders from On High.  This has started me thinking though.  
Maybe
there is away to stop the disclaimer being attached under certain conditions.  If the
software adding the disclaimer permits the monkey^H^H^H^H^H^H admin to define who the
local users are so that they don't get the disclaimer added for internal-only emails,
then presumably, they could add list.cr.yp.to to that list.  The software we use
(eManager) permits this.  How that would go down with the bosses is another matter...

Best Regards,
Brian
[some IT guy]

Alex Pennace wrote:

> The spread of these retarded "disclaimers" is quite virus like. Monkey
> see, monkey do: some IT guy sees another company posting this and adds
> it to his mails too. It is as if a ".signature virus" went horribly
> wrong.

? Out of disclaimer  error

Re: ORBS, and RFC-ignorant blacklists

2001-06-04 Thread Alex Pennace


On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 09:17:28AM +0200, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > Furthermore, Alan Brown's activities are not illegal - the ORBS
> > relaytester runs in The Netherlands, where this is not illegal by any
> > law.
> 
> Maybe in Netherlands is not illegal, but in Netherlands even euthanasia
> is legal by any law, in other countries not! The tester is in Netherlands
> but it otucomes follow results in other countries, where performing
> such lists and testing, which seeks the vulnerabilities in servers
> and helps hackers at attacks, is illegal. From corespondence on this
> list can be considered, that in US, NZ is illegal, in my country (Poland)
> too. So, if Netherland will be right to others, probably shall give
> this same injunction as NZ High Court - this want only a lot time

Can you please get over this? The evidence you posted last year was
flawed, it did not link ORBS to a few probes from Romania. You have no
proof that ORBS is somehow worse than any other list of IPs.

Re: Slow smtp response

2001-06-04 Thread Alex Pennace


On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:03:37AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip Jonathan's confidential message] 
> I know exactly what your problem is, but I can't tell you, because I'm
> not sure that you addressed the question to me.  Please re-send your
> message without any disclaimers.
> 
>  > **DISCLAIMER**
>  > This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended 
>  > Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is 
>  > privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, 
>  > copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person 
>  > other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or 
>  > criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, 
>  > please contact the sender as soon as possible.
>  > 
>  > Reed  Business Information Ltd.  +44 (0)20 8652 3500
>  > ** 

You just copied the message without establishing that you are the
Intended Recipient. Off to jail with you! Roar!

The spread of these retarded "disclaimers" is quite virus like. Monkey
see, monkey do: some IT guy sees another company posting this and adds
it to his mails too. It is as if a ".signature virus" went horribly
wrong.

NFS failover?

2001-06-04 Thread Mike Cathey


I have 2 e450s (with very large hardware RAID5 arrays) that I want to
setup in a replicated/failover environment.  These boxes will primarily
be a backend for smtp/pop3.  Is there a clean way to do this without
investing $40k in Veritas's clustering/replication software?  Can NFS
failover cleanly using some kind of heartbeat software?

Thanks,

Mike

RE: Slow smtp response

2001-06-04 Thread Jonathan . Coker



Alright already.
I dont make the rules i just tend to obey them. Sometimes. :-)
As requested:


 > Apologies in advance for this question, I have trawled the archives and
the
 > various web pages but no joy.
 > The problem is my qmail box responds v.slowly to smtp request, taking an
 > average of 100 secs for a connection to be made.  I am running qmail on a
 > redhat 7.0 box.
 > I have eliminated networking issues. Any ideas on how to speed this up?
-Original Message-
From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 June 2001 13:04
To: 
Subject: Re: Slow smtp response





I know exactly what your problem is, but I can't tell you, because I'm
not sure that you addressed the question to me.  Please re-send your
message without any disclaimers.



-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets
everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose
screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.


**DISCLAIMER**


This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended 
Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is 
privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person 
other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or 
criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, 
please contact the sender as soon as possible.

Reed  Business Information Ltd.  +44 (0)20 8652 3500


**

RE: Slow smtp response

2001-06-04 Thread Jonathan . Coker

Apologies Henning,
I am using tcpserver. Qmail is set up according to life with qmail. Its nice
to see civility is not dead thou!

-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 June 2001 12:52
To: 
Subject: Re: Slow smtp response

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:13:56PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  
> The problem is my qmail box responds v.slowly to smtp request, taking an
> average of 100 secs for a connection to be made.  I am running qmail on a
> redhat 7.0 box.

Oh no, once more THE qmail-FAQ. If you really traveeled the archives as you
said you must have been blind. Search again. Hint: search for tcpserver.

> **DISCLAIMER**
This useless cruft takes more space then your message.

-- 
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany   *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)

**DISCLAIMER**

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended 
Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is 
privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person 
other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or 
criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, 
please contact the sender as soon as possible.

Reed  Business Information Ltd.  +44 (0)20 8652 3500

**

Re: direct connection to qmqp or qmtpd server


Newbieportal writes:
 > Everyone knows that we can connect to smtp server directly using telnet or
 > simple socket connection script.
 > 
 > Can I do the same for qmqp server or qmtpd server.

Not using telnet.  At least, not without counting every character you
type before you type it and adding them into multiple sums.

 > If yes, is this better way to speed up the sending mail.

Only if you have to send it from a different machine.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.

Re: Slow smtp response


[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 > Apologies in advance for this question, I have trawled the archives and the
 > various web pages but no joy.
 > The problem is my qmail box responds v.slowly to smtp request, taking an
 > average of 100 secs for a connection to be made.  I am running qmail on a
 > redhat 7.0 box.
 > I have eliminated networking issues. Any ideas on how to speed this up?

I know exactly what your problem is, but I can't tell you, because I'm
not sure that you addressed the question to me.  Please re-send your
message without any disclaimers.

 > **DISCLAIMER**
 > 
 > 
 > This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended 
 > Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is 
 > privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, 
 > copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person 
 > other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or 
 > criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, 
 > please contact the sender as soon as possible.
 > 
 > Reed  Business Information Ltd.  +44 (0)20 8652 3500
 > 
 > 
 > ** 

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.

"To:" on Reply problems

2001-06-04 Thread Massimo Quintini


I have problem with the errata setting (from remote-server?) of To:
field in Reply msg.

Physical name of my qmail server is "terri1.te.astro.it" but mail domain
is "astrte.te.astro.it" (record CNAME in dns)

Many users (but not all!!!) of my organization send our msgs like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (setting our client program - Outlook,
Messenger or Sqwebmail)

In the reply of msg the To: field contains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Why??? Which component is
responsable for setting the To: field in Reply

My organizatione is known as astrte.te.astro.it and no like terri1
This is a problem for me 

It happens for not all my users...Why? Is it a problem of remote server?

excuse me for my english.

Thanks. Massimo Quintini

--
Massimo Quintini
Osservatorio Astronomico Collurania Teramo
Via Mentore Maggini s.n.c. 64100 TERAMO (Italy)
Tel +39-0861210490  Fax +39-0861210492
http://www.te.astro.it

Re: Enquiry

Pavel Kankovsky writes:
 > Perhaps I should have been more specific: when I said ``clogged'' I meant
 > the queue had run out of disk space and no new messages could be injected.
 > (To make things better, it was even impossible to inject bounces.)

Oh, well, a full disk always requires immediate sysadmin attention.
It's not an MTA issue, except to the extent that the disk got filled
by email messages.

 > Once upon a time, I spent a week modifying Sendmail's code! :)

I cannot be responsible for your odd habits.  Whatever you want to do
for fun is fine by me, as long as you don't scare the horses.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Microsoft rivets everything.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Linux has some loose screws.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX  | You own a screwdriver.

Re: Slow smtp response

2001-06-04 Thread Henning Brauer


On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:13:56PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  
> The problem is my qmail box responds v.slowly to smtp request, taking an
> average of 100 secs for a connection to be made.  I am running qmail on a
> redhat 7.0 box.

Oh no, once more THE qmail-FAQ. If you really traveeled the archives as you
said you must have been blind. Search again. Hint: search for tcpserver.

> **DISCLAIMER**
This useless cruft takes more space then your message.

-- 
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany   *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)

Double Bounce Help

2001-06-04 Thread Alastair Rundlett



How do I stop spamers from sending mail to my domain and then disappearing
before the msg can be returned to the sender, all the messages are to a
random and invalid mailbox at my domain. I thought qmail would ignore any
incoming mail that does have a valid Mailbox/Maildir. I have set qmail as
per "Life with qmail".

Any help would be most gratefully

Thanks

Alastair


P.S. I'm getting lots of these

I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce
bounced!

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
216.140.160.203 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User unknown
Giving up on 216.140.160.203.

:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)

I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce
bounced!

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
193.231.236.41 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 user not found
Giving up on 193.231.236.41.

:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
I tried to deliver a bounce message to this address, but the bounce
bounced!

Re: Enquiry

2001-06-04 Thread Pavel Kankovsky

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Sure.  You may *wish* to do something about it, but it's not required.
> While those 10,000 spam messages are sitting in your queue (on
> average, 434 per directory; a reasonable size for a directory on ufs
> or e2fs), new emails will continue to be received and sent.

Perhaps I should have been more specific: when I said ``clogged'' I meant
the queue had run out of disk space and no new messages could be injected.
(To make things better, it was even impossible to inject bounces.)

And no, this is not a speculation. It happened to me.

> Visualize sendmail with a 10,000 message queue.  Or rather, don't,
> unless you wish to spoil an otherwise beautiful Sunday night / Monday
> morning.

Was that supposed to scare me? Once upon a time, I spent a week modifying
Sendmail's code! :)

--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak  [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."

Slow smtp response

2001-06-04 Thread Jonathan . Coker




 
Hello 
All,
Apologies in advance 
for this question, I have trawled the archives and the various web pages 
but no joy.
The problem is my 
qmail box responds v.slowly to smtp request, taking an average of 100 secs for a 
connection to be made.  I am running qmail on a redhat 7.0 
box.
I have eliminated 
networking issues. Any ideas on how to speed this up?
 
Thanks in 
advance,
Jay.
 
 

**DISCLAIMER**


This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended 
Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is 
privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, 
copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person 
other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or 
criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, 
please contact the sender as soon as possible.

Reed  Business Information Ltd.  +44 (0)20 8652 3500


**

French speaking list

2001-06-04 Thread Djalil Chafai



Hi all,

I've created a mailing list about qmail for French speaking users. 
See http://qmail.free.fr/ for the instructions.

Cheers,

Dj.

Multiple vchkpw processes going on

2001-06-04 Thread Lye On Siong Johnny


Hi,

I have multiple lines of this when I do a ps ax
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup foo.com /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw 
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3 Maildir

They seems to be there for a long time. I never seen that many of such 
lines previously.
Is there anything wrong??


Also, I uses supervise to start qmail and qmail-smtpd but dun seems to be 
able to get it to work for qmail-popup
how can i get popup to work with supervise 


Finally should i use svscan instead? and how can i gracefully restart qmail ??


Please advice thanks.

Johnny

Re: How filter a special mail address or subject when receiver all mail ?


george <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  I use qmail+mysql system in SunOS.I want to filter a special mail
> address or subject
> or content when qmail server receiver all mail.

Qmail-Scanner may be the right thing for you. Have a look at
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/

Regards, Frank

Re: where can found exit code explain ?