Re: Qmail Relaying
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:24:11PM +0700, Eko Yulianto wrote: > Dear Netter, > > I use FreeBSD 4.3 > Qmail 1.03 > Checkpassword > and tcpserver. > > How to make my SMTP cannot access form outside. > Right now, I use tcpserver > > 202.171.1.0,allow,RELAYCLIENT="" A typo???^ > > and I try to relay my SMTP from outside and work. > How to block it, so only my user can use this SMTP... It ought to be a '':'' after the adress, i.e.: 202.171.1.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" There's more information about this in Bernsteins FAQ[1]. Jörgen [1] http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#authorized-relay
Re: tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used ???
A A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think this is probably the cause for the high cpu > load from qmail. Can anyone give me a pointer on how I > can fix this? I'll admit that I am a complete newbie > to linux and qmail, so any help and/or detailed > instructions is greatly appreciated. Did you remove the line beginning with "pop3" from the /etc/inetd.conf file? If not, that's the reason. In that case comment this line out (a # sign at the begin of the line) and restart inetd. To do this look at the process id of inetd: ps ax | grep inetd | grep -v grep The number at the front is the process id. Then do a kill -HUP 1234 (replace 1234 with the found process id of inetd). Regards, Frank
login length...
Is there some strict login length defined in qmail? I'm using qmail+mysql patches, and i'm transfering domains from M$ Exchange (which dies ones a week :) and have user with 33 character login... I've changed column 'id' length to 63, and inserted this user, but qmail refuses to accept mail for this person and sais "sorry, no mailbox here by that name"... Any suggestions? -- Daniel Fenert--==> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <==-- ==-P o w e r e d--b y--S l a c k w a r e-=-ICQ #37739641-== When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong ===- http://daniellek.linux.krakow.pl/ -===< +48604628083 >
Qmailqueue woes
The qmailqueue patch just wont work properly for me. This is what i get: #> patch < qmailqueue.patch patching file Makefile Hunk #1 FAILED at 1483. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.rej patching file qmail.c It always fails on the Makefile. Am I doing something wrong or what's going on here? CHeers Lars
Re: tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used ???
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:15:50PM -0700, A A wrote: [snip] > The line "23359 root 20 0 324 324 264 R >0 5.1 0.0 65:51 supervise" seems to suggest > something called supervise is taking up most of the > cpu (5.1%)? There's most probably two (or more) processes of the same supervise. You can verify this with ''ps axw | grep supervise''. Jörgen
Re: [Q] Supervise
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:13:19AM +0900, YOON, Joo-Yung wrote: > Hi, > > I just installed qmail, daemontools, ucspi-tcp. > Many strange things were cleared with help of qmail lists. > Now ps shows following things. [snip] > $ ps ax |grep supervise > 315 ?S 0:00 supervise qmail-send > 316 ?S 0:00 supervise log > 317 ?S 0:01 supervise qmail-smtpd > 318 ?S 0:00 supervise log > 4888 ?S 0:00 supervise qmail-smtpd > > I would like to ask if they show the right installations. > There should be one supervise qmail-smptd, and supervise log > respectively, I think. There mustn't be more than one supervise for each process. This explains your mail about CPU usage. Jörgen
Re: [Q] CPU usage -- Too busy
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 12:45:34PM +0900, YOON, Joo-Yung wrote: > Yes, my 'current' says > @40003b301aa6292e9c34 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address > already used > (I got this from /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current.) > > I do not understand why it makes this warning because there are no other > mailers, and there is only one svscan. There mustn't be more than one supervise for each service. According to an earlier mail from you there's two processes of ''supervise qmail-smtpd''. That explains the CPU usage and the log. Jörgen
Qmail Relaying
Dear Netter, I use FreeBSD 4.3 Qmail 1.03 Checkpassword and tcpserver. How to make my SMTP cannot access form outside. Right now, I use tcpserver 202.171.1.0,allow,RELAYCLIENT="" and I try to relay my SMTP from outside and work. How to block it, so only my user can use this SMTP... Please Help ! Thanks _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: failure on control/locals
failure on control/locals
I just installed qmail and I have everything I would like working except receiving mail. My main interest is to get pop functions working on the machine. I can check mail and receive bounced messages but I cannot send a message without it getting bounced. The return email always says: 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) my control/locals file has my domain in it. the logs output looks like this new msg 58259 @40003b30169b2371c4c4 info msg 58259: bytes 887 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 1895 uid 503 @40003b30169b2384eb1c starting delivery 47: msg 58259 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003b30169b23850e44 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 @40003b30169b246711a4 delivery 47: failure: Sorry._Although_I'm_listed_as_a_best-preference_MX_or_A_for_that_host,/it_is n't_in_my_control/locals_file,_so_I_don't_treat_it_as_local_(#5.4.6)/ @40003b30169b24675024 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @40003b30169b249c17dc bounce msg 58259 qp 1905 @40003b30169b249db204 end msg 58259 @40003b30169b24a29404 new msg 58260 @40003b30169b24a45154 info msg 58260: bytes 1544 from <> qp 1905 uid 508 @40003b30169b24b1843c starting delivery 48: msg 58260 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003b30169b24b2b4ec status: local 0/10 remote 1/20 @40003b30169b304b4224 delivery 48: success: 209.81.9.12_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_VAA95621_Message_accepte d_for_delivery/ @40003b30169b304e8614 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @40003b30169b3050dfa4 end msg 58260 If anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate it. - Erik
tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used ???
Hello, I installed qmail by following LWQ to the very letter, and sendmail is disabled. However, on a new server (getting prepared but not serving web pages or sending or more than 20 emails a day yet) having dual p3 800 and 1 gig ram, I get the following load average: *VIA TOP** 0.94, 0.86, 0.69 60 processes: 58 sleeping, 1 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: 20.6% user, 20.4% system, 0.0% nice, 58.8% idle Mem: 899660K av, 176784K used, 722876K free, ** The line "23359 root 20 0 324 324 264 R 0 5.1 0.0 65:51 supervise" seems to suggest something called supervise is taking up most of the cpu (5.1%)? Anyway, if I shutdown qmail by doing a "qmailctl stop," the load average drops to 0.03 within 60 seconds. The CPU idle time increases to 99.8%. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? I will admit that I am an absolute newbie at qmail and linux so any help is appreciated. This is what I found on every line in /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current: "@40003b2c94571738f434 tcpserver: status: 0/20" which I guess is fairly normal. However, in /var/log/qmail/POP3D/current: I get "@40003b303b311450ef74 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used" on every line. Please note that this line was also reported by YOON, Joo-Yung with his error occuring in smtpd/current and mine happening in pop3d/current... I think this is probably the cause for the high cpu load from qmail. Can anyone give me a pointer on how I can fix this? I'll admit that I am a complete newbie to linux and qmail, so any help and/or detailed instructions is greatly appreciated. Thanks! [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: [Q] CPU usage -- Too busy
Dear russ, Thank you for your comment. Yes, my 'current' says @40003b301aa6292e9c34 tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used (I got this from /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current.) I do not understand why it makes this warning because there are no other mailers, and there is only one svscan. On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:16:59PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: > YOON, Joo-Yung writes: > > I just installed qmail, ucspi-tcp, and daemontaols under directions > > of lwq. > > > > Now the system shows 100% of CPU usage on the window of wmcube (a small > > display application in WindowMaker, which shows the CPU rate.) > > > > And the load average is also full on the window of wmload (WindowMaker App.). > > > > I wonder if supervise takes all the resources, and that is why. > > Couldn't it run as quiet as other daemons? > > Look at /service/qmail-smtpd/log/main/current . I'll bet you that the > service is looping because it cannot open port 25 because sendmail is > still running. Either that, or look at > /service/qmail-send/log/main/current to see if qmail is looping > because a configuration file is missing. > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
Re: ReiserFs and qmail
We are running Qmail on Reiser and have been very happy. You can see one thread in this list from me where we got intermittent errors from qmail when doing a lot of mailings at a time. We discovered that the qmail patch for Reiser caused the error. Look for 'qmail-inject error' from me in the list. The only time that this combo is "dangerous" if when you have a system crash. Because neither ext2 (AFAIK) or Reiser sync the disk when creating a link, there is a possibility that if the system crashed before the kernel synced the disk, a mail can be lost. Evidently on BSD when a link is made it is immediately sync to disk. However, with my understanding of Reiser and it being a journaling FS, this should never cause a problem. I would however suggest making the small change to the patched code so that you do not get senseless errors. Brian Moon -- dealnews.com, Inc. Makers of dealnews, dealmac http://dealnews.com/ | http://dealmac.com/ - Original Message - From: "John Gonzalez/netMDC admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Nick (Keith) Fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Qmail Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:17 PM Subject: Re: ReiserFs and qmail > On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote: > > > I am not sure about the recommendation to lower the conf-split, since, > > again, I am not in any way familiar with ReiserFS's operation. Generally > > you want a large split since filesystems perform better with many > > directories with a couple of files than a few directories with lots of > > files. My advice, test it for yourself; just make sure you are using a > > prime number for the split. > > ReiserFS negates the need for this, as that is one of the strong suits of > the FS... > > -- > John Gonzalez / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tularosa Communications, Inc. (505) 439-0200 voice / (505) 443-1228 fax > http://www.tularosa.net / ASN 11711 / JG6416 > [--[ sys info ]---] > 6:15pm up 285 days, 23:44, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.07 > > >
Re: [Q] CPU usage -- Too busy
YOON, Joo-Yung writes: > I just installed qmail, ucspi-tcp, and daemontaols under directions > of lwq. > > Now the system shows 100% of CPU usage on the window of wmcube (a small > display application in WindowMaker, which shows the CPU rate.) > > And the load average is also full on the window of wmload (WindowMaker App.). > > I wonder if supervise takes all the resources, and that is why. > Couldn't it run as quiet as other daemons? Look at /service/qmail-smtpd/log/main/current . I'll bet you that the service is looping because it cannot open port 25 because sendmail is still running. Either that, or look at /service/qmail-send/log/main/current to see if qmail is looping because a configuration file is missing. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
Re: [Q] CPU usage -- Too busy
You have something seriously wrong for it to be taking that many resources on my FreeBSD boxes i still have yet to reach 2% of my cpu usage. Lose the stupid app and open a console and use the top command instead it wont lie to you. Just my .02 jps From: "YOON, Joo-Yung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:13 PM Subject: [Q] CPU usage -- Too busy > I just installed qmail, ucspi-tcp, and daemontaols under directions > of lwq. > > Now the system shows 100% of CPU usage on the window of wmcube (a small > display application in WindowMaker, which shows the CPU rate.) > > And the load average is also full on the window of wmload (WindowMaker App.). > > I wonder if supervise takes all the resources, and that is why. > Couldn't it run as quiet as other daemons? > > Joo-Yung >
[Q] CPU usage -- Too busy
I just installed qmail, ucspi-tcp, and daemontaols under directions of lwq. Now the system shows 100% of CPU usage on the window of wmcube (a small display application in WindowMaker, which shows the CPU rate.) And the load average is also full on the window of wmload (WindowMaker App.). I wonder if supervise takes all the resources, and that is why. Couldn't it run as quiet as other daemons? Joo-Yung
Re: Connection difficulties
I have had to change from reverse lookup to host file entries and back and I can tell you from today's experiment that a host file lookup on my RH system is slower then the reverse DNS lookup method. Try a local DNS server, W2K has a easy one preinstalled with it if you don't like bind. Good luck! Jeff - Original Message - From: "Oden Eriksson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 6:26 PM Subject: Re: Connection difficulties > onsdagen den 20 juni 2001 01:02 skrev Nick: > > I've also noticed these sypmtoms with Oversize DNS packets. > > there is a few patches that address this issue : > > http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#patches > > > > > > > > > > Nick > > - Original Message - > > From: Thomas Rokamp > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:20 AM > > Subject: Connection difficulties > > > > > > Hi! > > > > I'm using Qmail with vpopmail as pop3-server, but most of the time when > > clients connect to the server, it takes like forever before they are > > allowed to check for mail. Both external and internal. Internally I thought > > I had solved it, by putting my local hosts into the /etc/hosts file, but it > > doesn't seem to work that well. It still takes too long time to connect. > > Most of the times the connection gets a timeout... > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > (and yes, I think I have been through the faq 3 times... no luck) > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > Thomas Rokamp > > If you run it under tcpserver you could try to use the -HR switch to disable > lookups. I have also noticed that clients behind a firewall sometimes need > the firewall to reply to auth messages (port 113), the -HR switch should > disable this behaviour I think. > > -- > > Regards // Oden Eriksson > Kvikkjokk Networks >
Re: smtp auth failures
joc wrote: >There it is. any wise thoughts here? > > Thanks > John Encourage your customers to use non-broken MUA. Our company refuses to support anything other than Outlook Express, Netscape Messenger, and our own web-based e-mailing service. You might try that: promoting a web-based e-mail service they can access FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! That always makes them giddy. :-) -- Nick (Keith) Fish Network Engineer Triton Technologies, Inc.
smtp auth failures
Hello. I received a fortune cookie today some here may like: It is harder to ask the right questions than to find answers for the wrong questions. Lucky # 6,8,38,40,45 A perceived problem I am trying to solve is that sending mail from eudora win 4.3 or 5.1 with AUTH enabled to a qmail server I administrate results in unsent email in the outgoing eudora queue when the password given is incorrect. Well, that's not the problem really. But since the error code is 553, it results in a broken mail entry which will requires manual requeue dexterity. The very users who can't type their password are the ones who need to do this, but I fear they will not see the rcpthosts error message and move on to some other tasks, mail never sent, thinking it the message it on it's way (or with qmail, there already). Any ideas on good things to try? I could modify the rcpthosts message to be more "got the password wrong there buddy, or foiled relay attempt". I'm wondering if a 400 level message might be better, since at least it would requeue and succeed later with another future password prompt. (non-users relaying attempts will then suffer return trips though - very bad?) There it is. any wise thoughts here? Thanks John
Re: spam/other custom bouncing
Mike Culbertson wrote: > Therefore, I would like to maintain a list of domains a la > badmailfrom, but rather than doing an smtp reject, an autoreponse would > result (your mail has been reject because , please contact etc. > etc. ). This way, legitimate users on "banned" domains would have an > opportunity to notify us and get unbanned. > Mike Culbertson > sysadmin Hmmm . . . Check out a qmail homepage mirror, search for "autoresponder". Try them, see which one you like best. Use qmail's alias files to sort through by domain and feed blocked domains to the autoresponder using qmail's environment variables to generate a message. That feasible? I've never tried it. :-) -- Nick (Keith) Fish Network Engineer Triton Technologies, Inc.
Re: ReiserFs and qmail
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote: > I am not sure about the recommendation to lower the conf-split, since, > again, I am not in any way familiar with ReiserFS's operation. Generally > you want a large split since filesystems perform better with many > directories with a couple of files than a few directories with lots of > files. My advice, test it for yourself; just make sure you are using a > prime number for the split. ReiserFS negates the need for this, as that is one of the strong suits of the FS... -- John Gonzalez / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tularosa Communications, Inc. (505) 439-0200 voice / (505) 443-1228 fax http://www.tularosa.net / ASN 11711 / JG6416 [--[ sys info ]---] 6:15pm up 285 days, 23:44, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.07
Re: ReiserFs and qmail
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:15:11PM +, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote: [snip] > I'm not sure on the statement that qmail is unreliable under Linux due to > its assumptiopn that "link is a synchronous operation". I've never read > anything about it. Anyone else? This is true. I'm not sure, however, if this is ext2fs's or Linux's fault. If the latter, ReiserFS suffers as well. Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
[Q] Supervise
Hi, I just installed qmail, daemontools, ucspi-tcp. Many strange things were cleared with help of qmail lists. Now ps shows following things. $ ps ax |grep svscan 299 ?S 0:00 svscan 4558 ttyp0S 0:00 grep svscan $ ps ax |grep qmail 315 ?S 0:00 supervise qmail-send 317 ?S 0:01 supervise qmail-smtpd 320 ?S 0:00 qmail-send 321 ?S 0:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/log/qmail 322 ?S 0:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/log/qmail/smtpd 435 ?S 0:00 qmail-lspawn ./Mailbox 436 ?S 0:00 qmail-rspawn 437 ?S 0:00 qmail-clean 4718 ?S 0:00 supervise qmail-smtpd $ ps ax |grep supervise 315 ?S 0:00 supervise qmail-send 316 ?S 0:00 supervise log 317 ?S 0:01 supervise qmail-smtpd 318 ?S 0:00 supervise log 4888 ?S 0:00 supervise qmail-smtpd I would like to ask if they show the right installations. There should be one supervise qmail-smptd, and supervise log respectively, I think. Please add your comments and suggestions to this. Joo-Yung
Re: ReiserFs and qmail
Paco Gracia wrote: > > I have done some research and I found a "Qmail and ReiserFS integration and > optimization HOWTO" in http://www.jedi.claranet.fr > > How accurate is the information on that web? > > Anything else to take care of? > > Thanks in advance > === > Paco Gracia Looks good to me. I can't offer any technical advice on the suggest settings for ReiserFS since I haven't had a chance to play with it yet; but he seems to know what he is talking about. :-) I highly recommend against applying the patch he has at the top of the Qmail Tuning section, though. That is very unethical e-mail practice. I am not sure about the recommendation to lower the conf-split, since, again, I am not in any way familiar with ReiserFS's operation. Generally you want a large split since filesystems perform better with many directories with a couple of files than a few directories with lots of files. My advice, test it for yourself; just make sure you are using a prime number for the split. I'm not sure on the statement that qmail is unreliable under Linux due to its assumptiopn that "link is a synchronous operation". I've never read anything about it. Anyone else? Like it says, I wouldn't use ReiserSMTP in a production environment. Lastly, common recommendations: if you are going to be running a big server, run your queue and Maildirs (run Maildirs, not Mailboxes) on a 15k RPM SCSI disk with a good controller. Don't be afraid to spend some cash, here. You will have a lot less headaches if/when one of your customers decides to start spamming from your server or your own server comes under siege from UBE. -- Nick (Keith) Fish Network Engineer Triton Technologies, Inc.
Re: Connection difficulties
onsdagen den 20 juni 2001 01:02 skrev Nick: > I've also noticed these sypmtoms with Oversize DNS packets. > there is a few patches that address this issue : > http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#patches > > > > > Nick > - Original Message - > From: Thomas Rokamp > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:20 AM > Subject: Connection difficulties > > > Hi! > > I'm using Qmail with vpopmail as pop3-server, but most of the time when > clients connect to the server, it takes like forever before they are > allowed to check for mail. Both external and internal. Internally I thought > I had solved it, by putting my local hosts into the /etc/hosts file, but it > doesn't seem to work that well. It still takes too long time to connect. > Most of the times the connection gets a timeout... > > Any suggestions? > > (and yes, I think I have been through the faq 3 times... no luck) > > Thanks in advance! > > Thomas Rokamp If you run it under tcpserver you could try to use the -HR switch to disable lookups. I have also noticed that clients behind a firewall sometimes need the firewall to reply to auth messages (port 113), the -HR switch should disable this behaviour I think. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Kvikkjokk Networks
Re: Connection difficulties
I've also noticed these sypmtoms with Oversize DNS packets. there is a few patches that address this issue : http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#patches Nick - Original Message - From: Thomas Rokamp To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:20 AM Subject: Connection difficulties Hi! I'm using Qmail with vpopmail as pop3-server, but most of the time when clients connect to the server, it takes like forever before they are allowed to check for mail. Both external and internal. Internally I thought I had solved it, by putting my local hosts into the /etc/hosts file, but it doesn't seem to work that well. It still takes too long time to connect. Most of the times the connection gets a timeout... Any suggestions? (and yes, I think I have been through the faq 3 times... no luck) Thanks in advance! Thomas Rokamp
Re: Forwarding Question...
Jeffrey Austin Collop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi list, Don't post new subjects by replying to an existing thread. It screws up the threading in our MUAs and in the list archives. It's also considered rude. > @40003b2f84460273a1d4 delivery 134: deferral: > Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ That tells you everything you need to know. `man dot-qmail` for details. In other words, RTFM. 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: qmail-remote (cry wolf?)
On Tue 19 Jun, 2001, Mark Jefferys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:56:13PM +0100, James R Grinter wrote: >Go look at timeoutread(), which *is* in your path. The select is in >the line right before where you wedge. sorry, yes. You're right. >It doesn't. (Don't know about other people's.) It assumes that the >fd_sets will be cleared on timeout. Setting the fd_sets each time is >always necessary and doesn't protect against this issue, anyway. I've now properly read the code, and I see what you're suggesting. I may be naive in believing manual pages, but in lieu of other evidence I do tend to go with what they say and it does explicitly mention zeroing the values upon timeout - therefore I wouldn't have expected to see this particular problem on Solaris 2.x. However, it wouldn't be too hard to modify it to log the condition of timeout being reached and an fdset not being zero. >I also put a debugging version of qmail-remote on my system, so if it >ever decides to hang again I can fling gdb at it. yes, that is what I should do too. James.
Re: LWQ/svscan question
I wrote: > > Since the new LWQ sets up svscan to run independently of the qmail control > > script, would it not be a wise idea to include a "down" file in each > > supervise directory, so that qmail and any other services would not start > > up when svscan is run? Dave Sill replied: > That was my original goal, but I soon discovered that the qmail init > script was being run before svscan was started, so qmail wasn't > starting when the system was rebooted. I opted to remove the "down" > files and let svscan start them ASAP, which is safe since the init > scripts have alread been run by that point. I think I'd prefer to have svscan running before any of the relevant init scripts were executed, because I plan on "supervise"-ing other programs besides qmail. I like the idea of having them all in one place, overseen by one svscan process (my current set-up calls svscan three times), but would like more control over what order the services are started. So what I'll probably do is call svscan from its own start-up script that runs before the scripts of qmail and the other programs, and sprinkle "down" files where appropriate. It doesn't look like it, but would I be at the risk of breaking anything else in the LWQ scheme of things if I do it this way? Charles Cazabon wrote: > Mea culpa; I claim "brain fade". Been there, done that, can't remember what happened. ---Kris Kelley
Re: LWQ/svscan question
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >And even then, svscan won't start them until you do a svc -u (or -o) > >/service/servicename . > > Sure it will, unless there's a "down" file. Of course, I received several corrections immediately after sending this. Mea culpa. 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: LWQ/svscan question
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave can probably give a more detailed answer to this, but you don't >symbolicly link the directories into /service until you're ready to run them. That's not how LWQ's qmailctl works. The links in /service are permanent. >And even then, svscan won't start them until you do a svc -u (or -o) >/service/servicename . Sure it will, unless there's a "down" file. >In short, stop worrying, I think :). Definitely. -Dave
LWQ/svscan question
I looked at the new version of "Life with qmail" for the first time today, so forgive me if this is a little late. I didn't see anything in the archive to suggest it had already been talked aobut. Since the new LWQ sets up svscan to run independently of the qmail control script, would it not be a wise idea to include a "down" file in each supervise directory, so that qmail and any other services would not start up when svscan is run? That way you would have greater control over when and in what order the supervised services began during boot-up. ---Kris Kelley
Re: LWQ/svscan question
> Dave can probably give a more detailed answer to this, but you don't > symbolicly link the directories into /service until you're ready to run them. > And even then, svscan won't start them until you do a svc -u (or -o) > /service/servicename . Everything I've read about svscan says that once you create the symbolic link in /service that the new service will start within 5 seconds. I don't use svscan to run Qmail (mainly due to a newbie mess up when I initially installed Qmail and don't want to break what *IS* working fine for my needs) but I *DO* use svscan for djbdns and in every instance where I have installed djbdns and created the symbolic link in /service, dnscache has always started on it's own. FWIW Richard
Re: Forwarding Question...
Dave, Thanks for the help! Yes that was an obvious fix, but I'm new to qmail and getting it working and healthy all in one day (yesterday) must have fried my little brain! RTFM is great but sometimes you need some help :) Jeff > Jeffrey Austin Collop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >@40003b2f84460273a1d4 delivery 134: deferral: > >Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ > >(#4.2.1)/ > >@40003b2f84a202a82724 delivery 135: deferral: > >Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ > >(#4.2.1)/ > >@40003b2f84a202a97714 delivery 136: deferral: > >Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ > >(#4.2.1)/ > > Hmm... It's just a hunch, but is the sticky bit set on > /var/qmail/alias? > > -Dave
Re: Forwarding Question...
Jeffrey Austin Collop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >@40003b2f84460273a1d4 delivery 134: deferral: >Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ >(#4.2.1)/ >@40003b2f84a202a82724 delivery 135: deferral: >Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ >(#4.2.1)/ >@40003b2f84a202a97714 delivery 136: deferral: >Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ >(#4.2.1)/ Hmm... It's just a hunch, but is the sticky bit set on /var/qmail/alias? -Dave
Re: restart without rebooting
* Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [...stuff concerning Solaris killall command] > (I haven't tried it to see what it does with unexpected options and an > invalid signal name.) It still kills everything, including init. I made this mistake when I was a Solaris newbie. My users were not pleased. -- Drew
Re: Q: Queue-limit (was Re: Discarding mailer_daemon mail....)
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 07:13:42PM +0200, Bernhard Graf allegedly wrote: > Greg Moeller wrote > > > Hmmm, ok, what would a good split be for 7-10 in the queue? > > BTW... > I wonder if there are any limits on how many files can be in the queue > besides inodes and disk size? Memory. Read THOUGHTS regarding 'qmail-send uses 8 bytes..." Regards.
Forwarding Question...
Hi list, I've got qmail running, healthy on a 7.1 RH box. However, no matter what I try, I can't get the aliases to work right. I've got the user alias and if you run qmail-getpw alias it points to his home dir, however, if you run qmail-getpw info (or whatever alias you wanted to use) you get [jcollop@edgeweb users]$ qmail-getpw info alias103507/var/qmail/alias-info[jcollop@edgeweb users]$ @40003b2f84460273a1d4 delivery 134: deferral: Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ (#4.2.1)/ @40003b2f84460273c114 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 @40003b2f84a202370a1c starting delivery 135: msg 2763630 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003b2f84a202372574 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @40003b2f84a202372d44 starting delivery 136: msg 2763630 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003b2f84a2023738fc status: local 2/10 remote 0/20 @40003b2f84a202a82724 delivery 135: deferral: Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ (#4.2.1)/ @40003b2f84a202a84664 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 @40003b2f84a202a97714 delivery 136: deferral: Home_directory_is_sticky:_user_is_editing_his_.qmail_file._ (#4.2.1)/ @40003b2f84a202a986b4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 Does this help? I'm getting to a point of total confusion, there are different ways to make forwards/aliases run and I've tried them all and non of them work, all the logs show this business. Confusion . :) What suggestions or advice is out there? Any help is appreciated, I'm new to qmail and so far I really like it, this is the only snag I've found. I'm sure it's something I've done wrong, but I'm not sure what I have done wrong. (user error) Jeffrey Austin Collop
RE: Could someone please send a test email to -
Since it is difficult to see whether you'd like us to flood them or not, I would suggest if you need an outside test, to use hotmail or some other free email service and send a message. Hank Wethington Information Logistics www.GoInfoLogistics.com mailto:info.at.GoInfoLogistics.com -Original Message- From: arnie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:38 AM To: Qmail Users Subject: Could someone please send a test email to - Roger Arnold wrote: Hello All, I am having difficulty checking a domain to see if it is receiving email from outside on the Internet. Could someone please send a test email to the following 2 addresses, so I can check that they are receiving mail properly: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks in advance Regards Roger
Could someone please send a test email to -
Roger Arnold wrote: Hello All, I am having difficulty checking a domain to see if it is receiving email from outside on the Internet. Could someone please send a test email to the following 2 addresses, so I can check that they are receiving mail properly: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks in advance Regards Roger
Q: Queue-limit (was Re: Discarding mailer_daemon mail....)
Greg Moeller wrote > Hmmm, ok, what would a good split be for 7-10 in the queue? BTW... I wonder if there are any limits on how many files can be in the queue besides inodes and disk size? -- Bernhard Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FW: Slow Connection with LVS
Any suggestions / further reading? Posting this again since our internet link was down this morning and in the mean time if some one has (hopefully ..!!) responded, might be bounced. Thanks, Mehul. -Original Message- From: Mehul Choksi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:29 AM To: Qmail List (E-mail) Subject: Slow Connection with LVS We have a couple of Qmail servers in a cluster (LVS), co-existing with Sendmail. The qmail servers take half and one minute each for establishing the connection with client when connecting thru the LVS. The tcpserver option I am using is –R and –t 0 with which, direct connection happens with absolutely no delay. The LVS is fine I guess since the sendmail gets connected without any delay thru LVS. Could any one help me reducing this delay? Thanks, Mehul.
Re: Spam Removal
Roger Walker wrote: > > You Wrote: > > >Please let know if you find a way to block all of the domains you mentioned. > >Also do you think someone like arin.net would have there blocks of ips on > >file and then we can just block them ? > > I believe IANA has the master list of IP blocks that lists where > they are assigned to (high level): > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space Unfortunately this list doesn't offer the necessary granularity to allow someone to block addresses in Korea and China. The closest you can come here, it would seem, would be to block the entire Pacific Rim. What about APNIC? -Stephen-
Re: more spam bouncing
Mike Culbertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What would be great would be to have qmail-smtpd catch the HELO or MAIL FROM > address the sender gives (a la badmailfrom) and do something, like perhaps > dump the mail to a local account for further processing, or initiate a > bounce, anything other than just an smtp reject. This is possible. For the particular hosts/IP addresses you want to filter mail from, have entries in your tcprules file like this: 1.2.3.4:allow,RELAYCLIENT="@mailfilter" Then, in virtualdomains, have an entry like: mailfilter:alias-mailfilter Then, have ~alias/.qmail-mailfilter-default which contains appropriate instructions for what to do with these messages. Note that they could be addressed to any domain originally, and qmail-smtpd will append the contents of RELAYCLIENT to the address they supply. You can pipe all these messages through a filter, or simply do: | bouncesaying "We don't really like your mail. Phone 555-1234 to change our minds." 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. ---
more spam bouncing
After some thought, perhaps I shoud clarify what I am trying to do. I have looked and looked, and seems most every feature for filtering relies on .qmail files, or something like procmail. I would like to determine if there is a way to avoid both of these. Since the machines in question with this problem are relays (private relays in case you are wondering), there are no home directories for me to add .qmail files to. Also, since they don't hold mail locally, with procmail, the path would be: sender > qmail > procmail > qmail > relay target host which would signifigantly increase the load required to send each piece of mail on to it's destination. I don't want to send every piece of mail through procmail (or similar) if I don't have to. What would be great would be to have qmail-smtpd catch the HELO or MAIL FROM address the sender gives (a la badmailfrom) and do something, like perhaps dump the mail to a local account for further processing, or initiate a bounce, anything other than just an smtp reject. This way, good mail would travel clean on through the relay without being subject to any additional filtering, and only mail matching a bad domain would get handled further. This may be entirely out of the realm of capability within the parameters I have described, I'm not sure. It just seems there must be some way to fanagle qmail itself into reacting to the sender domain. If this answer is painfully obvious, feel free to slap me, but I'd rather know regardless :) Mike Culbertson
Re: FW: Slow Connection with LVS
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: > peter green writes: > > * Mehul Choksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010619 09:35]: > > > Why do I get this message? Any suggestions? > > > > lesoleil.com's mail servers suck rocks. Their admins seem unresponsive to > > fix the problem. Feel free to block 'em with your tcpserver rules. > > Wouldn't it be easier if Dan removed them from the mailing list? Ofcourse. So, why hasn't he? Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
Re: FW: Slow Connection with LVS
* Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010619 10:06]: > peter green writes: > > * Mehul Choksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010619 09:35]: > > > Why do I get this message? Any suggestions? > > > > lesoleil.com's mail servers suck rocks. Their admins seem unresponsive to > > fix the problem. Feel free to block 'em with your tcpserver rules. > > Wouldn't it be easier if Dan removed them from the mailing list? Yes it would. I'm sure many people would appreciate it. However, it's been going on for quite some time, and I'm under the impression that Dan isn't too hip on manual intervention in these sorts of situations. But yeah, it would be great. /pg -- Peter Green : Architekton Internet Services, LLC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > In Perl How do I print the 22343.87 like this $22,232.87 First you subtract 111 from the number you'd like to print, then you check perlfaq5 for "commify".
Re: administrative copy of qmail mails
Raymond Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need to configure the qmail server which can automatically keep a copy of > in and out mail of some specified address in some domains. This is in the author's FAQ. Please read it. 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: FW: Slow Connection with LVS
peter green writes: > * Mehul Choksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010619 09:35]: > > Why do I get this message? Any suggestions? > > lesoleil.com's mail servers suck rocks. Their admins seem unresponsive to > fix the problem. Feel free to block 'em with your tcpserver rules. Wouldn't it be easier if Dan removed them from the mailing list? -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
Re: FW: Slow Connection with LVS
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:38:18AM -0400, Mehul Choksi wrote: > Why do I get this message? Any suggestions? lesoleil.com's mailserver is broken. It's been discussed about 20 times over the past few months. Check the archives. Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
RE: Strange SMTPd behaviour
> Thanks a lot to you all. Disabling the command > fixed it. I didn't know about that proxying > feature of the firewall. > > I have to check wether it's worth or not leaving > it enabled. I read in the smtp paper of DJB that > some smtpd may not send mail to a host refusing > the VRFY command. Though, I would rather leave > the firewall do the proxy. > Any advice ? > Have a look at http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2001/03/msg01203.html about problems having fixup protocol smtp 25 on the PIX enabled. J.
Re: FW: Slow Connection with LVS
* Mehul Choksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010619 09:35]: > Why do I get this message? Any suggestions? lesoleil.com's mail servers suck rocks. Their admins seem unresponsive to fix the problem. Feel free to block 'em with your tcpserver rules. /pg -- Peter Green : Architekton Internet Services, LLC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- "...this does not mean that some of us should not want, in a rather dispassionate sort of way, to put a bullet through csh's head." --- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FW: Slow Connection with LVS
Why do I get this message? Any suggestions? Thanks. -Original Message- From: Mailer-Daemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NDN: Slow Connection with LVS Importance: High Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to: test test (Mailbox or Conference is full.)
Slow Connection with LVS
We have a couple of Qmail servers in a cluster (LVS), co-existing with Sendmail. The qmail servers take half and one minute each for establishing the connection with client when connecting thru the LVS. The tcpserver option I am using is –R and –t 0 with which, direct connection happens with absolutely no delay. The LVS is fine I guess since the sendmail gets connected without any delay thru LVS. Could any one help me reducing this delay? Thanks, Mehul.
Re: Strange SMTPd behaviour
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 02:39:49PM +0200, Sebastien Monassa wrote: > Thanks a lot to you all. Disabling the command > fixed it. I didn't know about that proxying > feature of the firewall. > > I have to check wether it's worth or not leaving > it enabled. I read in the smtp paper of DJB that > some smtpd may not send mail to a host refusing > the VRFY command. Though, I would rather leave > the firewall do the proxy. > Any advice ? I usually don't like such features since there's been problems with them but on the other hand -- don't fix it if it's not broken. Jörgen
RE: Strange SMTPd behaviour
Thanks a lot to you all. Disabling the command fixed it. I didn't know about that proxying feature of the firewall. I have to check wether it's worth or not leaving it enabled. I read in the smtp paper of DJB that some smtpd may not send mail to a host refusing the VRFY command. Though, I would rather leave the firewall do the proxy. Any advice ? SM --- Moutsos Georgios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Your host is probably behind a Cisco PIX > firewall > with fixup protocol smtp 25 enabled. > > J. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sebastien Monassa > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:54 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Strange SMTPd behaviour > > > > > > I could not find this problem in the FAQ or > in > > the mailing list: > > > > SMTPD behaves differently from the inside > network > > and from the internet. > > > > INSIDE: > > > > $ telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 > > Trying 172.16.3.4... > > Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. > > Escape character is '^]'. > > 220 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr ESMTP > > HELO world > > 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr > > VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 252 send some mail, i'll try my best > > > > INTERNET: > > > > # telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 > > Trying 194.206.221.216... > > Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. > > Escape character is '^]'. > > 220 ***0*0***0*** > > HELO world > > 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr > > VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 502 unimplemented (#5.5.1) > > > > I guess the problem comes from the host being > > masqueraded, but I can't find out what to do > to > > get it right. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sebastien Monassa > > > > > ___ > > Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour faire vos courses sur > le Net, > > Yahoo! Shopping : > http://fr.shopping.yahoo.com > > ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour faire vos courses sur le Net, Yahoo! Shopping : http://fr.shopping.yahoo.com
spam/other custom bouncing
I am attempting to figure out the best way to set up an auto-response (bounce, in a manner of speaking) triggered by sender domain, in order to facilitate not just rejecting specific domains, but auto-answering mail from them. The situation is as follows: My company receives mail from vary large number of different domains, most legitimate, but some notorious spammers, and some a combo of both. The problem is that I am uncomfortable just adding a domain to "badmailfrom", as I have to be really careful blocking out entire domains lest I block out some legitimate users. badmailfrom only provides an smtp rejection, and I cannot guarantee that an end-user could figure out what happened. Therefore, I would like to maintain a list of domains a la badmailfrom, but rather than doing an smtp reject, an autoreponse would result (your mail has been reject because , please contact etc. etc. ). This way, legitimate users on "banned" domains would have an opportunity to notify us and get unbanned. It seems simple on the surface, but most every filter I have found so far relies on RBLs (love em, but far too arbitrary for this task), or receiver address/domain (it's all coming to the same domain, I need to filter by sender domain). I am sure there must be a fairly simple way to complete this, but I'm not having a lot of luck so far. Any help/thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Mike Culbertson sysadmin P.S. The qmail boxes in question are acting as relays only, I am trying to avoid using procmail to filter all deliveries, as 99.9% is sent onwards to another host, not locally. Don't want to double-process the mail if I don't have to, rather have qmail handle all the filtering alone if possible.
RE: Strange SMTPd behaviour
Your host is probably behind a Cisco PIX firewall with fixup protocol smtp 25 enabled. J. > -Original Message- > From: Sebastien Monassa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Strange SMTPd behaviour > > > I could not find this problem in the FAQ or in > the mailing list: > > SMTPD behaves differently from the inside network > and from the internet. > > INSIDE: > > $ telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 > Trying 172.16.3.4... > Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr ESMTP > HELO world > 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr > VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 252 send some mail, i'll try my best > > INTERNET: > > # telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 > Trying 194.206.221.216... > Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 ***0*0***0*** > HELO world > 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr > VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 502 unimplemented (#5.5.1) > > I guess the problem comes from the host being > masqueraded, but I can't find out what to do to > get it right. > > Thanks, > > Sebastien Monassa > > ___ > Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour faire vos courses sur le Net, > Yahoo! Shopping : http://fr.shopping.yahoo.com >
Re: Strange SMTPd behaviour
* Sebastien Monassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010619 07:53]: > I could not find this problem in the FAQ or in > the mailing list: > > SMTPD behaves differently from the inside network > and from the internet. Is this actually causing a problem? > INTERNET: > > # telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 > Trying 194.206.221.216... > Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 ***0*0***0*** > HELO world > 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr > VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 502 unimplemented (#5.5.1) That is almost definitely a Cisco PIX firewall filtering mail. /pg -- Peter Green : Architekton Internet Services, LLC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- I think someone should have had the decency to tell me the luncheon was free. To make someone run out with potato salad in his hand, pretending he's throwing up, is not what I call hospitality. (Jack Handey)
Re: Strange SMTPd behaviour
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Sebastien Monassa wrote: > I could not find this problem in the FAQ or in > the mailing list: > > SMTPD behaves differently from the inside network > and from the internet. You've got some kind of SMTP proxy between the MTA and the internet (most probably a firewall). You'r able to disable that ''feature'' with most firewalls. Jörgen
Strange SMTPd behaviour
I could not find this problem in the FAQ or in the mailing list: SMTPD behaves differently from the inside network and from the internet. INSIDE: $ telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 Trying 172.16.3.4... Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. Escape character is '^]'. 220 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr ESMTP HELO world 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] 252 send some mail, i'll try my best INTERNET: # telnet mail.netsecurity.fr 25 Trying 194.206.221.216... Connected to nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr. Escape character is '^]'. 220 ***0*0***0*** HELO world 250 nss0501510sr.netsecurity.fr VRFY [EMAIL PROTECTED] 502 unimplemented (#5.5.1) I guess the problem comes from the host being masqueraded, but I can't find out what to do to get it right. Thanks, Sebastien Monassa ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour faire vos courses sur le Net, Yahoo! Shopping : http://fr.shopping.yahoo.com
ReiserFs and qmail
Hello everyone, We're going to install a new production server with the lastest linux kernel (2.4.5) and ReiserFS. Is there any issue regarding qmail? I have done some research and I found a "Qmail and ReiserFS integration and optimization HOWTO" in http://www.jedi.claranet.fr How accurate is the information on that web? Anything else to take care of? Thanks in advance === Paco Gracia Director Técnico Net2u_ http://www.net2u.es
Re: automatic forwarding of msgs in folder
Massimo Quintini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How can I do ??? (Can I use condredirect program with 822mess > package...but how???) It's a job for maildrop or procmail. You will find maildrop here: http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/ Regards, Frank
Re: automatic forwarding of msgs in folder
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:55:35AM +0200, Jörgen Persson wrote: > For example: > $ echo ./Maildir-qmail/ > ~/.qmail-qmail > and change your adress on the qmail list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry I forgot... $ maildirmake ~/Maildir-qmail/ Jörgen
Re: Connection difficulties
Thomas Rokamp writes: > Hi! > > I'm using Qmail with vpopmail as pop3-server, but most of the time when clients >connect to the server, it takes like forever before they are allowed to check for >mail. Both external and internal. Internally I thought I had solved it, by putting my >local hosts into the /etc/hosts file, but it doesn't seem to work that well. It still >takes too long time to connect. Most of the times the connection gets a timeout... > > Any suggestions? > If you use tcpserver for qmail-smtpd and/or qmail-pop3d, try using -R, -H, and -l options. Regards, Ahmad Ridha
Re: automatic forwarding of msgs in folder
Massimo Quintini writes: > My mail user ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) partecipate in many mailing list... > > I want automatically redirect the msgs in right folder and no in INBOX > folder (for example the msgs of qmail mailing list MUST go in "qmail" > folder, the msgs of sqwebmail in "sqwebmail" folder..and so on...) > > How can I do ??? (Can I use condredirect program with 822mess > package...but how???) > Try maildrop (http://www.courier-mta.org/download.php). It can also used by sqwebmail. Regards, Ahmad Ridha
Re: automatic forwarding of msgs in folder
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:31:42AM +0200, Massimo Quintini wrote: > My mail user ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) partecipate in many mailing list... > > I want automatically redirect the msgs in right folder and no in INBOX > folder (for example the msgs of qmail mailing list MUST go in "qmail" > folder, the msgs of sqwebmail in "sqwebmail" folder..and so on...) > > How can I do ??? (Can I use condredirect program with 822mess > package...but how???) Either use procmail[1] (or something similar) or use aliases since you are on qmail (that is the way I do it myself). For example: $ echo ./Maildir-qmail/ > ~/.qmail-qmail and change your adress on the qmail list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jörgen [1] http://www.procmail.org
automatic forwarding of msgs in folder
My mail user ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) partecipate in many mailing list... I want automatically redirect the msgs in right folder and no in INBOX folder (for example the msgs of qmail mailing list MUST go in "qmail" folder, the msgs of sqwebmail in "sqwebmail" folder..and so on...) How can I do ??? (Can I use condredirect program with 822mess package...but how???) Thanks Massimo. -- 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: restart without rebooting
Virginia Chism([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.18 15:34:10 +: > > > > But I don't think BSDi knows the killall command. > > > That is exactly correct. I was able to find the PID and restart the > qmail-send. Thanks to all who responded. > > I am working on the Unix books, but find some of them are written in > techno-shorthand. I need a dictionary to go along with them. if you are on a *BSD system, you might check out the basic documentation on the system for a quick start, too. man intro will do the trick. then continue digging through the man pages with the references in the "SEE ALSO" section... the learning curve for the man docs is slightly higher than most well-written unix books, but they give you a good start to familiarize yourself with the system and you have them always online on the box you are logged on. you won't have any version/parameter problems with several commands since the man pages are up to date with the installed operating system (well, they should be). /k -- > Real Time, adj.: > Here and now, as opposed to fake time, which only occurs there 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: restart without rebooting
Dave Sill([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2001.06.18 16:20:49 +: > Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >HUPing only makes qmail reread locals and virtualdomains. (And there is no > >process called "qmail," so "killall -HUP qmail" won't do anything on > >any system.) > > Except possibly on Solaris: ..and AIX -- beware ;-) /k > > NAME > killall - kill all active processes > > SYNOPSIS > /usr/sbin/killall [ signal ] > > DESCRIPTION > killall is used by shutdown(1M) to kill all active processes > not directly related to the shutdown procedure. > > killall terminates all processes with open files so that the > mounted file systems will be unbusied and can be unmounted. > > killall sends signal (see kill(1)) to the active processes. > If no signal is specified, a default of 15 is used. > > The killall command can be run only by the super-user. > > (I haven't tried it to see what it does with unexpected options and an > invalid signal name.) > > -Dave -- > The life uncaffeinated is not worth living. --Michael Han 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
Connection difficulties
Hi! I'm using Qmail with vpopmail as pop3-server, but most of the time when clients connect to the server, it takes like forever before they are allowed to check for mail. Both external and internal. Internally I thought I had solved it, by putting my local hosts into the /etc/hosts file, but it doesn't seem to work that well. It still takes too long time to connect. Most of the times the connection gets a timeout... Any suggestions? (and yes, I think I have been through the faq 3 times... no luck) Thanks in advance! Thomas Rokamp
Re: administrative copy of qmail mails
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 03:42:55PM +0800, Raymond Hui wrote: [snip] > I need to configure the qmail server which can automatically keep a copy > of in and out mail of some specified address in some domains. [snip] > For incoming email, i think it can easily handled by ".qmail" files. > However, for outgoing mail. How can i do so...?? [snip] It's described in Bernsteins FAQ[1]. Jörgen [1] http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/admin.html#copies
Re: Virtual domain How-to
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 02:24:47PM +0800, Alex Tsang wrote: > Do any one have some documents talking about creating virtual domain? It's described in Bernsteins FAQ[1] Jörgen [1] http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#virtual
administrative copy of qmail mails
Dear Sir/Madam, I have read the Life With Qmail in the web. I have found it very interested and i have set up my mail server using Qmail and i found it is very great!! I have a problem here about Qmail, would you please kindly help me to find out the answer..?? I have set up my qmail server and it can run properly in the past month till now As some reasons, we decided to have make some configures.. I need to configure the qmail server which can automatically keep a copy of in and out mail of some specified address in some domains. For example, in the domain abc.com there are three email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] And all email send from or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will need to have another copy of the mail in the email box [EMAIL PROTECTED] For incoming email, i think it can easily handled by ".qmail" files. However, for outgoing mail. How can i do so...?? Or is there any integrated method that i can do both in a simple manner. Hope you can answer me. Best Regards, Raymond Hui
