Bug? Sorta urgent to figure this out; adding domains...
I've been running qmail/vpopmail/sqwebmail forever. I have it running off mysql. I have about 70 domains added and have been doing the samething forever without a problem. That's why this confuses me; I added a new domain and I initially had the mail bouncing 5.4.6 (even after I hup'd) .. so then I rebooted (dunno why, was hoping..) and I now get 5.1.1 account doesn't exist mind you I can login with sqwebmail. I go into /home/vpopmail/bin, ./vadddomain domain.com and put the password in. Now I see the new entry in the mysql database. I log into my qmail admin (web-based).. and see up top "bounced" instead of the regular "Accounts"... so I add a pop account anyways and send the email off. Initially I was getting 5.4.6 and now I'm getting 5.1.1 (after rebooting)... Mind you I've always -HUP'd after any change. Can someone give me a suggestion? I'd appreciate it, Jeff. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Problem with routing (Again)
Thanks that worked! Tim Legant wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 07:03:36PM -0600, Cordell Bourne wrote: > > When my client is using the qmail mta for outgoing smtp, I want the mail messages > > to stay on jester.pain.teamp.com, if they are addressed as > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Add pain.teamp.com to .../control/locals. > > Tim > -- > * * * | 1) It's SLOW!--> "man tcpserver" - especially -R, -H, -l > qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying > FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains > * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
Re: Problem with routing (Again)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 07:03:36PM -0600, Cordell Bourne wrote: > When my client is using the qmail mta for outgoing smtp, I want the mail messages > to stay on jester.pain.teamp.com, if they are addressed as > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add pain.teamp.com to .../control/locals. Tim -- * * * | 1) It's SLOW!--> "man tcpserver" - especially -R, -H, -l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file
Re: Problem with routing (Again)
My qmail server is jester.pain.teamp.com (In my former messages this was hostname.somedomain.com) When my client is using the qmail mta for outgoing smtp, I want the mail messages to stay on jester.pain.teamp.com, if they are addressed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I want is this: If qmail sees an address of pain.teamp.com that it just delivers the message to localhost (in this case jester). My other mail servers will stay out of the the picture for now. If my client needs to send to any other system we simply use [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the messages get delivered as needed to those system. Here is my qmail-showctl output qmail home directory: /var/qmail. user-ext delimiter: -. paternalism (in decimal): 2. silent concurrency limit: 120. subdirectory split: 23. user ids: 7226, 7227, 7228, 0, 7229, 7230, 7231, 7232. group ids: 3002, 3003. badmailfrom: (Default.) Any MAIL FROM is allowed. bouncefrom: (Default.) Bounce user name is MAILER-DAEMON. bouncehost: (Default.) Bounce host name is jester.pain.teamp.com. concurrencylocal: (Default.) Local concurrency is 10. concurrencyremote: (Default.) Remote concurrency is 20. databytes: (Default.) SMTP DATA limit is 0 bytes. defaultdomain: Default domain name is pain.teamp.com. defaulthost: (Default.) Default host name is jester.pain.teamp.com. doublebouncehost: (Default.) 2B recipient host: jester.pain.teamp.com. doublebounceto: (Default.) 2B recipient user: postmaster. envnoathost: (Default.) Presumed domain name is jester.pain.teamp.com. helohost: (Default.) SMTP client HELO host name is jester.pain.teamp.com. idhost: (Default.) Message-ID host name is jester.pain.teamp.com. localiphost: (Default.) Local IP address becomes jester.pain.teamp.com. locals: Messages for jester.pain.teamp.com are delivered locally. Messages for localhost are delivered locally. me: My name is jester.pain.teamp.com. percenthack: (Default.) The percent hack is not allowed. plusdomain: Plus domain name is teamp.com. qmqpservers: (Default.) No QMQP servers. queuelifetime: (Default.) Message lifetime in the queue is 604800 seconds. rcpthosts: SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at pain.teamp.com. SMTP clients may send messages to recipients at jester.pain.teamp.com. morercpthosts: (Default.) No effect. morercpthosts.cdb: (Default.) No effect. smtpgreeting: (Default.) SMTP greeting: 220 jester.pain.teamp.com. smtproutes: SMTP route: pain.teamp.com:jester.pain.teamp.com timeoutconnect: (Default.) SMTP client connection timeout is 60 seconds. timeoutremote: (Default.) SMTP client data timeout is 1200 seconds. timeoutsmtpd: (Default.) SMTP server data timeout is 1200 seconds. virtualdomains: (Default.) No virtual domains. defaultdelivery: I have no idea what this file does. concurrencyincoming: I have no idea what this file does. Charles Cazabon wrote: > Greetings, > > This is an automated response. > > You apparently sent me private email, seeking support for qmail (or possibly > some other software package) in response to a message I posted to the public > mailing list for that package. > > If you are responding to a message I posted to a mailing list, please keep your > response on that mailing list. If you are supplying answers or informative > comments, they will be more useful there where others can see them. If you are > following up on a question you posted, I respond to questions on the various > mailing lists based on various factors, including how much time I have, and how > polite or well-researched the poster is. > > If, on the other hand, you are writing to me in hopes of obtaining private > support, my consulting rates for support via email start at USD$100 per hour, > with a four hour minimum, with payment in advance for new customers. Existing > customers may be eligible with only a purchase order. Simply reply to this > message if you wish to begin a private support contract. > > For more information on why discussions which start in mailing lists should be > kept on the mailing list, please see Russ Allbery's excellent article "Why Ask > Questions in Public?", available at: > http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html > > Thank you, > > Charles Cazabon > > > My qmail server is jester.pain.teamp.com > > > > When my client is using the qmail mta for outgoing smtp, I want the mail messages > > to stay on jester.pain.teamp.com, if they are addressed as > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I want is if > > qmail sees an address of pain.teamp.com that it just delivers the message to > > localhost (in this case jester). > > > > My other mail servers stay out of the the picture for now. If my client needs to > > send to any other system we simply use [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the > > messages get delivered as needed to those system. > > > > > > Here is my qmail-showctl output > > > > qmail home directory: /var/qmail. > > user-ext delimiter: -. > > paternalism (in decimal): 2. > > silent concurrency li
RE: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
> -Original Message- > From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:26 PM > Despite the smiley, that first paragraph sounds supiciously insulting. > And why are you trying to turn this into a dicksize war? Oh, Charles...I'm feeling impetuous. Please believe me, it wasn't an insult and I'm not into dicksize wars...Just got carried away. Sorry. I just took slight offense with you stating your email stats. We're all busy, eh? > > Big question: if you don't want the box to receive mail over the > network, why run an SMTP daemon in the first place? > > Oh, I see -- later on, you state you _do_ want it to receive mail over > the network. U, not precisely. I don't want outside world mail coming in. I simply want to relay internal traffic out. With the exception of me and the guy who is *supposed* to be sysadmin'ing this box, no one inside on the LAN has an account on the box. > I think you've made things much more complex than necessary. There is > lots of documentation on selective relaying with qmail and tcpserver. Charles, in all seriousness, no BS'ing, no being snide, anything, I am a newbie. A very new newbie to qmail and linux. When the consultant hired to do all this work bailed, I got tagged for the job. I read a ton of stuff on the web. I joined this list. I couldn't get selective relaying to work. Period. So the advice, I think from Robin, was to reinstall and follow the LWQ directions to a T - which I did with the exceptions of installing daemontools. The daemontools that I installed are 0.76 and not 0.70 as in the LWQ doc. Still could not get selective relaying to go. I was frantic and guessing. Thought maybe it was a DNS problem but when I brought that to the list and DNS got ruled out. Long story short: If Lukas Beeler hadn't told me to do a command I have NEVER in 6 years of working with SCO UNIX used or even knew existed and you hadn't explained to me about xinetd and wrappers I would still be begging for assistance. So yes, there are good docs on the web. But none that I was able to find addressed the possibility that if you screwed up your run file either a) xinetd might take over (because someone before you had tinkered with it) and make qmail mail an open relay or b) smtp would not run as a daemon at all. And not knowing sh*t about what I was really doing on a new OS with a new product I really think that maybe there is a bit of a gap in documentation - unless I really balled up and missed it somewhere. I was doing everything the docs and faqs had told me to do but selective relaying didn't work. Maybe I missed it when I didn't read the testing docs?? That's my two cents worth. I think maybe I should stop wasting everyone's time and bandwidth and call this closed unless someone wants to do rebuttal. Thanks, Scott
Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
Scott Zielsdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please don't cc: me on your list messages [...] > > While learning anything necessarily about linux or qmail from > you may be dubious, I will definitely learn perfection :) > > My humblest apologies that I failed to remove your personal > address. But only a 1000 a day? Really? Despite the smiley, that first paragraph sounds supiciously insulting. And why are you trying to turn this into a dicksize war? > > > 7. I put a blank rcpthosts file in the /var/qmail/control directory. > > > > Bad. Bad. Bad. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect > > $200. > > And this is bad, bad, bad because why? I don't want any traffic > coming back to the box. It does not have an MX record for the > domain and I don't want it to. Big question: if you don't want the box to receive mail over the network, why run an SMTP daemon in the first place? Oh, I see -- later on, you state you _do_ want it to receive mail over the network. [...] > I have closed the open relay state - which is the only state I could > run qmail in and get it to relay when I started posting to this group > seeking the accumulated wisdom of the 'umma'. Now, I have accepted the > orthodoxy of the priests of tcpserver, vanquished the satanic xinetd, > and can selective relay! Hallelujah I think you've made things much more complex than necessary. There is lots of documentation on selective relaying with qmail and tcpserver. > I think the problem with the run script may be that I was subbing > "zero" for "oh" or vice versa in the command line. My telnet > client and my eyes don't work so well differentiating between the > two. Yes, this will bite you. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
RE: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
Gadzooks In my previous reply to Charles Cazabon I was IMPRECISE. My rcpthosts file is NOT blank, it has localhost in it. Just wanted to clear that up before Charles could retort :) Scott Zielsdorf Senior Technical Support Consultant Computer Instruments 9901 W. 87th St. Overland Park, KS 66212 (913) 492-1888 ext. 402 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
> -Original Message- > From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 1:52 PM > First of all, I'm on the list, and I set Mail-Followup-To: > appropriately. Please don't cc: me on your list messages; I hate > duplicates and get 500-1000 messages a day already. While learning anything necessarily about linux or qmail from you may be dubious, I will definitely learn perfection :) My humblest apologies that I failed to remove your personal address. But only a 1000 a day? Really? Damn. Can I swap email accounts with you? I've got you beat by at least 600. Automated reports from a half dozen RS6000's plus the 14 UNIXWARE boxes sucking data from the RS6000's plus email from their associated staffs plus all the 25 or 30 messages I get from this list plus... well, like you, I am extremely put upon. How do gods like us do it? > > 7. I put a blank rcpthosts file in the /var/qmail/control directory. > > Bad. Bad. Bad. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect > $200. And this is bad, bad, bad because why? I don't want any traffic coming back to the box. It does not have an MX record for the domain and I don't want it to. > > > 8. I checked the /etc/tcp.smtp file and made sure I had my IP > >addresses set in the rules the way I wanted them. > [...] > > 10. Tested by sending a message from the allowable IP range > - success. > > Tested by sending a message from an outside IP range - failure. > > Define "failure" -- no connection, or no relay? Failure from an outside domain/IP address to relay. > > 11. Happiness > > Except that you're either: > > 1) An open relay, or > 2) Not accepting any mail from outside your local network You got it big guy. I have closed the open relay state - which is the only state I could run qmail in and get it to relay when I started posting to this group seeking the accumulated wisdom of the 'umma'. Now, I have accepted the orthodoxy of the priests of tcpserver, vanquished the satanic xinetd, and can selective relay! Hallelujah I only want this box to accept internal traffic and relay internal traffic outbound. After 4 or 5 days of vexing frustration, I have accomplished what someone else set out to do and I had to take over, learned Linux by crash course and, quite spectacularly, proved myself a fool. All in all, a good week. I think the problem with the run script may be that I was subbing "zero" for "oh" or vice versa in the command line. My telnet client and my eyes don't work so well differentiating between the two. Thanks, Scott
Re: Problem with routing (Again)
Cordell Bourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically what I am needing to get back to is this scenario All of > the domain names are representative names and do not reflect the real > thing in my test lab. Please don't do this; it wastes everybody's time. Use real names or IP addresses. Obviously this can be a problem when the names involved aren't in the public DNS. > I have a client using my qmail server for outgoing smtp. > > 1) If I address the user as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I > want the message delivered to the user on the qmail system. This > works Okay. > 2) If I address the user as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want the > message delivered to the user on the qmail system. In other words > both forms of addressing should work just fine. This does not work. > qmail bounces the message. > > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hostname.psomedomain.com. > > > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following > > > addresses. > > > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named pain.teamp.com. (#5.1.2) That's not what the above bounce message indicates; it's precisely the other way 'round. There's no way to tell for sure, because of the fake data you're providing. You have two cases: the "central" machine which handles domain.tld (I think this is the one you're referring to as "the qmail system"), and other systems which handle machine.domain.tld. Post the output of qmail-showctl (unedited!) for both of these cases, clearly identifying which is which. Then we can help. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: Problem with routing (Again)
Basically what I am needing to get back to is this scenario All of the domain names are representative names and do not reflect the real thing in my test lab. I have a client using my qmail server for outgoing smtp. 1) If I address the user as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want the message delivered to the user on the qmail system. This works 2) If I address the user as [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want the message delivered to the user on the qmail system. In other words both forms of addressing should work just fine. This does not work. qmail bounces the message. Greg White wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 06:15:07PM -0600, Cordell Bourne wrote: > > Here is my situation. I have a test lab with many mail servers from various > > venders. Each of the mail servers has the same set of test users loaded on each > > machine. With this problem I am not able to setup a MX record so I use the > > "artificial routing" scheme of qmail to get some things accomplished that I need > > done. > > > > Here is what I am trying to achieve now. > > > > I have qmail on a server with the U of W IMAP server. With our client which we > > are testing I am able to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the message is > > accepted by qmail with no problem. > > > > However, if I send to > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] the message never arrives. I get a bounced message from > > qmail stating the following > > > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at hostname.psomedomain.com. > > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following > > addresses. > > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named pain.teamp.com. (#5.1.2) > > I don't know where pain.teamp.com comes in, but your nameservers are > broken -- that makes it difficult to recieve mail. > > gregw@frodo:~$ dnsq mx somedomain.com a.gtld-servers.net > 15 somedomain.com: > 108 bytes, 1+0+2+2 records, response, noerror > query: 15 somedomain.com > authority: somedomain.com 172800 NS ns1.betstop.com > authority: somedomain.com 172800 NS ns2.betstop.com > additional: ns1.betstop.com 172800 A 12.8.12.75 > additional: ns2.betstop.com 172800 A 12.8.12.76 > > So, I asked ns1.betstop.com about somedomain.com, and it said: > > gregw@frodo:~$ dnsq soa somedomain.com ns1.betstop.com > 6 somedomain.com: > timed out > > ns2.betstop.com revealed the same result. Fix your nameservers, then > maybe things will work. If not, fix them and post the results. > > The results you posted look like a _real_ misconfiguration, based on > whatever your _real_ DNS is. Perhaps posting an unmunged bounce message, > and unmunged output of 'qmail-showctl' would be helpful for the list in > determining what the problem really is. > > Note that, in posting what appears to be mangled data, much of the list > has ignored your post. :) > > -- > Greg White
Re: no shell for qmail user (qmails, qmaill,...)
> The /nonexistent is meant to be the user's shell, not his home. You and Peter are absolutely correct. I lost my train of thought as I was typing out that question. Sorry! Thanks for the fast response. I hadn't created /nonexistent, but wanted to be sure that I wasn't overlooking something. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
First of all, I'm on the list, and I set Mail-Followup-To: appropriately. Please don't cc: me on your list messages; I hate duplicates and get 500-1000 messages a day already. Scott Zielsdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's "setuidgid", not "setguidgid". > > Yeah, people keep telling me that *I* spelled it wrong but after an hour > and a half of looking at EVERY script I had edited, "setuidgid" or > "setguidgid" was no where to be found in any text file. Hmmm. > 7. I put a blank rcpthosts file in the /var/qmail/control directory. Bad. Bad. Bad. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. > 8. I checked the /etc/tcp.smtp file and made sure I had my IP >addresses set in the rules the way I wanted them. [...] > 10. Tested by sending a message from the allowable IP range - success. > Tested by sending a message from an outside IP range - failure. Define "failure" -- no connection, or no relay? > 11. Happiness Except that you're either: 1) An open relay, or 2) Not accepting any mail from outside your local network Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
RE: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
-Original Message- > From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > So did I 'fat finger' setguidid somewhere in a script or did my > daemontools > > install fail and I just didn't realize it? Or is there another problem? > > It's "setuidgid", not "setguidgid". Yeah, people keep telling me that *I* spelled it wrong but after an hour and a half of looking at EVERY script I had edited, "setuidgid" or "setguidgid" was no where to be found in any text file. Turns out I didn't fat finger anywhere. I tracked the problem to the /service/qmail-smtp/run script. I haven't isolated the problem in the script yet but I must have mis-set a flag, misplaced a line break or something. I gave up after a couple of hours on trying to diagnose my faux paux. Here's what I did to get tcpserver to run: 1. I removed the smtp file from the xinetd.d directory which was invoking tcpwrappers through xinetd and HUP'd xinetd. (BTW, simply removing the smtp file and rebooting...and yeah...I know, didn't have to reboot, could have HUP'd, etc did NOT allow tcpserver to "run free". I was still getting the errors about "setguidgid" not being found in the readproctitle log. It was only after replacing the run file with the one from the LWQ install docs that I was able to eliminate the the readproctitle errors.) 2. I stopped qmail. 3. I went back to the LWQ /service/qmail-smtpd/run script and put it into play. (I was using a script sent to me by Robin but I had modified it - hence, my fault not his) 4. I started qmail. 5. I ran `ps auxwf | grep readp` and saw there were no readproctitle errors. 6. I ran `netstat -lp | grep smtp` and saw that tcpserver was the daemon. (Previous invocations of the command either showed that xinetd was running smtp or that NO smtp was running. 7. I put a blank rcpthosts file in the /var/qmail/control directory. 8. I checked the /etc/tcp.smtp file and made sure I had my IP addresses set in the rules the way I wanted them. 9. Restarted qmail. 10. Tested by sending a message from the allowable IP range - success. Tested by sending a message from an outside IP range - failure. 11. Happiness Again, my thanks to you and Lukas for pointing me in the right direction. I'm not enough of a linux wizard yet (going on 5 days now, woohoo!) to know how to delete xinetd. Hell, I didn't even know what xinetd was. Scott Zielsdorf Senior Technical Support Consultant Computer Instruments IVR Solutions Support Group Voice: 913.492.1888 x8862 Fax: 913.492.1483
Re: no shell for qmail user (qmails, qmaill,...)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 04:28:51PM +, pop corn wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:41:29AM -0200, MassimoQuintini wrote: > >>For security reason, can I disable shell in /etc/passwd for qmail >users > >>(qmails, qmaill, ...ect,) setting the shell to /bin/false ? > > > >/bin/false is a very silly idea. /nonexistent is much better. > > > >Greetz, Peter. > > Hi Peter, > > This is a post that I pulled out from the archives. I think /nonexistent > does seem better than /bin/false. > > I would like to ask one question to clarify what is probably very obvious, > but I want to be certain of this. > > Is the directory /nonexistent supposed to be created or not? In other words, > do you want the directory not to be created so that the login fails due to > "missing home directory", or do you want the directory to be created, but > empty? > Hi The /nonexistent is meant to be the user's shell, not his home. -- Ricardo Manuel Oliveira Eurotux Informática, SA Tel: +351 253257395 // +351 919475934 Fax: +351 253257396
Re: no shell for qmail user (qmails, qmaill,...)
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 04:28:51PM +, pop corn wrote: [snip] > >/bin/false is a very silly idea. /nonexistent is much better. > > Hi Peter, > > This is a post that I pulled out from the archives. I think /nonexistent > does seem better than /bin/false. It is. /nonexistent has no security issues. /bin/false does. Check the bugtraq archives for details. > I would like to ask one question to clarify what is probably very obvious, > but I want to be certain of this. > > Is the directory /nonexistent supposed to be created or not? In other words, > do you want the directory not to be created so that the login fails due to > "missing home directory", or do you want the directory to be created, but > empty? /nonexistent should not exist at all. Therefore, do not create the directory. 'missing home directory' has nothing to with this - we're specifying /nonexistent for the shell, not the homedirectory. Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
Re: no shell for qmail user (qmails, qmaill,...)
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:41:29AM -0200, MassimoQuintini wrote: >>For security reason, can I disable shell in /etc/passwd for qmail >users >>(qmails, qmaill, ...ect,) setting the shell to /bin/false ? > >/bin/false is a very silly idea. /nonexistent is much better. > >Greetz, Peter. Hi Peter, This is a post that I pulled out from the archives. I think /nonexistent does seem better than /bin/false. I would like to ask one question to clarify what is probably very obvious, but I want to be certain of this. Is the directory /nonexistent supposed to be created or not? In other words, do you want the directory not to be created so that the login fails due to "missing home directory", or do you want the directory to be created, but empty? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help? (fwd)
Charlie Chrisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How do you get tcpserver to run the qmail-smtpd daemon? When I run it > as in the faq, it runs and I see the process running, but it doesn't > accept connections. I then changed it to use inetd using tcp-env and > qmail-smtpd accepts connections. Could someone get me starting in the > right direction? Not without some real information. Post the script you use to start tcpserver/qmail-smtpd, along with copies of any tcprules files. The output of qmail-showctl is always good too. Chances are this is FAQ #1. But you didn't even clarify the problem; "doesn't accept connections"? Describe exactly what you did, what you expected to happen, and what did happen. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help? (fwd)
Please quote properly; your original text was after a sig delimiter, and you had no attribution for my text. I wrote: > > There are precisely zero advantages to using inetd/xinetd in this > > manner, and several disadvantages (when compared to a simple > > tcpserver installation). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What are the disadvantages of using xinetd? Security and concurrency limits, mostly. But it's not qmail, and doesn't belong on this list. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help?
Scott Zielsdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My thanks to Lukas Beeler who asked me to run 'ps auxf' and behold! > I found errors coming from readproctile telling me it couldn't find > /usr/local/bin/setguidid. [...] > So did I 'fat finger' setguidid somewhere in a script or did my daemontools > install fail and I just didn't realize it? Or is there another problem? It's "setuidgid", not "setguidgid". > So aside from me telling the Canadian guy how to use xinetd to *maybe* > get around his problem (I hadn't considered a fire wall issue)instead > of tcpserver, can you give me some guidance into where to look to > solve this? Sorry; I delete inetd/xinetd from all the boxes I administer and can offer you no advice other than "use tcpserver instead". Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: How-best-to: Secondary Queue for Mailing List
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 05:56:46PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Jeff Hill wrote: > > When we e-mail a newsletter to our user list (10,000+ e-mail, twice a > > month), it holds up any other e-mail going into the send queue. What's > > the best way to avoid this? > > This question has been asked and answered less than a week ago. In fact, less than 30 hours before you posted your question, the previous asker followed-up with 'yes this works' and even explained how he did it. I will stop complaining now. Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
Re: How-best-to: Secondary Queue for Mailing List
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:45:00AM -0400, Jeff Hill wrote: > When we e-mail a newsletter to our user list (10,000+ e-mail, twice a > month), it holds up any other e-mail going into the send queue. What's > the best way to avoid this? This question has been asked and answered less than a week ago. (I won't answer it now since Charles already did. This is just a hint: lurk for a while before your first post, and check the archives. Really, it's in there. At least 50 times.) Greetz, Peter -- Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
Re: rblsmtpd and mail-abuse.org's DNS servers
I list some alternatives to MAPS's RBLs, along with some other
spam-prevention techniques, here:
http://www.summersault.com/chris/techno/qmail/qmail-antispam.html
http://www.summersault.com/chris/techno/qmail/qmail-antispam.html#resources
Chris
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Derek Callaway wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Chin Fang wrote:
>
> Right, I guess I should have said that I already read those pages before I
> posted this message. I'm looking for a _free_ workaround to this problem.
>
> TIA
>
> > You will need to pay MAPS to use one of its three RBLs, or the combined
> > RBL+.
> >
> > Please see http://www.mail-abuse.org/subscription.html and
> >http://www.mail-abuse.org/feestructure.html
> >
> > even you are with an educational institution.
> >
> > Dr. Dan Bernstein himself has given up on MAPS's RBLs:
> >
> > Please see: http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/rblsmtpd.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chin Fang
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Hi, I'm having a problem with my qmail smtpd server becoming unresponsive
> > > when rblsmtpd cannot communiate with the RBL nameservers. Has anyone else
> > > had this problem? I'd like to blindy accept e-mail if the RBL nameservers
> > > cannot be contacted. Here's how I'm starting the SMTP server:
> > >
> > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 7791 -g 2108 -v 0 smtp fixcrio
>/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -t 7 /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -t 7 -r dialups.mail-abuse.org
>/usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -t 7 -r 'relays.mail-abuse.org:Open relay problem - see
>http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgi-bin/nph-rss?%IP%>' /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1
>| /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog t n100 s100
>/var/log/smtp &
> > >
> > > --
> > > //Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Programmer: CISC, LLC - S@IRC
> > > char *sites[]={"http://www.freezersearch.com/index.cfm?aff=dhc";,
> > > "http://www.ciscllc.com","http://www.freezemail.com",0}; /*KDR AB 249*/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
-- Chris Hardie -
- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
RE: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help? (fwd)
How do you get tcpserver to run the qmail-smtpd daemon? When I run it as in the faq, it runs and I see the process running, but it doesn't accept connections. I then changed it to use inetd using tcp-env and qmail-smtpd accepts connections. Could someone get me starting in the right direction? Charlie Chrisman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help? (fwd) Possibly the reason you were "blasted" is that this is incorrect. You _cannot_ make inetd or xinetd use tcpserver. Your xinetd script doesn't use tcpserver; it uses tcp-env. tcp-env was originally designed to allow you to do tcpserver-like operations from inetd, but is now deprecated. There are precisely zero advantages to using inetd/xinetd in this manner, and several disadvantages (when compared to a simple tcpserver installation). Charles -- What are the disadvantages of using xinetd? Rob...
Re: Anti-relaying
Charles Cazabon wrote: > > You're an open relay. Stop qmail-smtpd, and change that line to > > :allow > > instead. Hi Charles, thanks for your advice. I changed my /etc/tcpcontrol/smtp.rules to 127.0.0.1:allow :allow and now everything is working fine. :-) I also reread some of that smtp-stuff so I can see my fault now. Tom
Re: tcpserver problems? or is it qmail? or BOTH! Help? (fwd)
Possibly the reason you were "blasted" is that this is incorrect. You _cannot_ make inetd or xinetd use tcpserver. Your xinetd script doesn't use tcpserver; it uses tcp-env. tcp-env was originally designed to allow you to do tcpserver-like operations from inetd, but is now deprecated. There are precisely zero advantages to using inetd/xinetd in this manner, and several disadvantages (when compared to a simple tcpserver installation). Charles -- What are the disadvantages of using xinetd? Rob...
