Re: qmail on AFS

[Andrea Cerrito]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

It appears that AFS is like Coda (you have to use rename() instead of
link()). Try to search in the archive about Coda, you'll find a lot
of discussions, with some patches.
Vpopmail is being patched to work with Coda too, in the dev release.

Good luck
- ---
Cordiali saluti / Best regards
Andrea Cerrito
^^
Net.Admin @ Centro MultiMediale di Terni S.p.A.
P.zzale Bosco 3A
05100 Terni IT
Tel. +39 0744 5441330
Fax. +39 0744 5441372

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use 

iQEVAwUBO2+AWfo9HK4+yTI3AQF3DAf+N9I8iXUkdVWmxMyQa70LSJdVMyDsDyoX
8vfuTExnCULfPRAf7f6LuTqW+bcFyxw+8K8qvE9Q1aeV4yGKIp3LPoSsKY9FU7te
xxgWtRnsfJeeQRUEo1Uh82ATuw201fOk2Uc6qwEGupu7picp3xFK6VeaUvhW3+L0
5V46DC0atz+fKVjAHUJq1ZArrt48+As2WqDKAFHjrFVK1jn8BA0VAREt3Ay2bFVe
Fp5HHzfeRaAWQx1lLdqFm2YKmavwbWnTvDI5TsHUjTu3RqlNKID4C5kqyvmLDmza
PEsqsYdwC+/rbRnLgDBfBdbtYqG1HnX9nt7BahYLr6HevV8ZnIedYQ==
=KjBI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Flame Bait: Using Qmail as a front-line mail server

[David Talkington]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

Dean Staff wrote:

>qmail can handle running on lower end equipment

Except for its unfortunate habit of laying bare the i/o bottlenecks
you never knew you had.

;-)

- -d

- -- 
David Talkington
http://www.spotnet.org

PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6

iQEVAwUBO2+BNr1ZYOtSwT+tAQHgnAf+LRLuElYi7P7LLjqNH+xfjCalJBlbThtq
7stgiatYclo2AOJZVE1XRft3aDbNr0CzGRRBpJQG99H4tsRF75PlrQ4sjiufti19
jxVC2ZpAEIb3sTm0JNt5W98WZXZqqeUeqgicSYRPNXRgum7rdpIKEYoMNhmge3d9
z5Grm6um+pbBEZWpw3ZynFrLfAwRPfkV7+4Uy9migY6xTfZiuEXnZaT59qrr7nAA
5OlO31P8n4XcATZtzRhVV0sDwyF2F2ktuxRO/PG5qWGcP+/IQvUbrzS4LMfWEmOK
sCruWYoHsmW9ZxgsIz/44PH7hKhImBfCr/5Mm+QO5061XaSIPgiIYA==
=NxFz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

New qmail spam-fighting script added

[Todd A. Jacobs]

http://www.codegnome.org/scripting/showscript.php?script=qacct.sh

-- 
Work: It's not just a job, it's an indenture.

RE: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time

[Dean Staff]

On 7 Aug 2001, at 10:47, KY Lui wrote:

> 
> oh, i found the problem in the log file (/var/log/qmail)
> it said, "Sorry, I want able to establish an SMTP connection"
> could you pls advice?
> many thanks
> sorry for soo many questions since i am new in qmail
> 
> regards
> KY

Don't worry about the questions... I did the same thing when I first started 
too. 

It's that simple.. Your sever was not able to establish an SMTP connection 
with the destination server. 
Either it's not there. (bad domain name, the server is down, or their net 
connection is down.) If it's the latter two, your sever will try to resend for, (I 
believe this is the case) 7 days. 

The other issue may be your server's net connection may be down. But I 
presume your recieving my messages on this server so that not likely.

If all is well at your end there's really not much you can do but wait. The one 
nice thing about qmail in this case is that unlike Sendmail, which just tries to 
deliver or re-deliver all messages at the same time. qmail keeps track of the 
messages in the queue, each time it fails to deliver it it waits longer to retry. 
This prevents you from eating up your conncurrent connections by 
constantly trying to redeliver the same failed messages.

Cheers
Dean


Dean Staff
Protus IP Solutions
210 - 2379 Holly Lane
Ottawa, ON K1V 7P2 Canada
613-733- ex 546 Fax 613-248-4553
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.protus.com

RE: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time

[KY Lui]

oh, i 
found the problem in the log file (/var/log/qmail)
it 
said, "Sorry, I want able to establish an SMTP connection"
could 
you pls advice?
many 
thanks
sorry 
for soo many questions since i am new in qmail
 
regards
KY

  -Original Message-From: Dean Staff 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:40 
  AMTo: KY Lui; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: send 15000 
  mails using qmail in one time
  On 7 Aug 2001, 
  at 10:18, KY Lui wrote:
  
  > 
  > 
  > the value in the file concurrencyremote is 
  450..
  > is it good enough?
  > do i need to recompile the qmail again after i 
  changed the value? or
  > just restart the qmail? thanks regards KY 
  -Original Message-
  > From: Dean Staff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 
  Tuesday, August 07,
  > 2001 10:14 AM To: KY Lui Subject: Re: send 15000 
  mails using qmail in
  > one time
  
  This should be 
  fine.  It is necessary to restart qmail after making the 
  change.
  
  To find out if 
  your changes are woking, you can check the qmail logs in 
  /var/log/qmail.
  
  do a tail on 
  the most current log file and look for an entry like 
  this...
  
  997149670.204567 status: local 0/10 remote 
  54/450
  
  in the remote 
  part, the 54 is the current number concurrent connections open and the 450 is 
  the total allowed conncurrent connections. 
  
  If you don't 
  have a entry like this you may need to recompile. 
  
  You may also want to look at 
  "Patches for 
  high-volume servers" at qmail.org.
  
  Cheers
  Dean
  

Re: qmail on AFS

[Rudy Zung]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 07:04:42PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:00:09AM -0400, Rudy Zung wrote:
> [snip]
> > I changed the link() in qmail-local.c to rename() and my mail delivery
> > now works. Anyone want to put in some input as to whether a rename() would
> > fail in some cases where a link() might not?
> 
> Using rename() instead of link() takes away the reliability of
> Maildir. If for some reason, two processes generate the same filename for
> a message, no matter within what timespan, you lose the first of these
> two.
> 
> Greetz, Peter

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that possibility; however, I am hoping that I
wouldn't "casually" lose an email message because the file name is
constructed by the combination of the system time and the process ID, which
should be sufficiently unique, except possibly when the system clock is
reset, and the PIDs recycle. The tmp file name is given to stat() which
makes sure that the filename does not yet exist where the tmp directory has
AFS ACL system:anyuser lidk (so, this allows anybody to delete the file, but
should that happen, then the rename would fail, and qmail should notice that
error and defer delivery (I hope)). 

The next part is that I am now using rename() to "move" the file from tmp to
new. For the new directory, I have AFS ACL system:anyuser ik. The
system:anyuser has no permission to delete files, and this is what I am
using to hope that the rename() will not be able to overwrite an existing
file because that would mean a delete would have to be done, or the file
would have to be rewritten, which are not permissible with ik ACLs.

I guess what I can do is to modify qmail-local.c's maildir_child() and make
it always generate the same file name as a test case and see how it behaves.

That's just what I'm surmising; certainly glad for any input so that I don't
totally mangle my email and start losing all sorts of email.

Nevertheless, thank you for the rename() unsafe warning.

-- 

...Ru   (a low-cost superhero)
   On, on! Blue skies. Think snow.
   1740484I 998300172 076662 82968/A17215 045124P E286/184435
   975-203608 11859 DS1160 

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[John R. Levine]

>There is no way for the mailing list software to get from
>`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to
>`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' without having knowledge of virtualdomains.
>That's not an acceptable solution.

Is it really that overwhelmingly difficult to have whatever configures
your bounce handler look in /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains to see
what prefix to strip off the local part of the VERP address?  I
suspect either of us could do it in about four lines of perl.

It's true, qmail doesn't work the way you might first have guessed it
does.  That doesn't mean it's wrong.

-- 
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, 
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

RE: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time

[Dean Staff]

On 7 Aug 2001, at 10:18, KY Lui wrote:


> 
> 
> the value in 
the file concurrencyremote is 450..
> is it good enough?
> do i need to 
recompile the qmail again after i changed the value? or
> just restart 
the qmail? thanks regards KY -Original Message-
> From: Dean Staff 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 07,
> 2001 10:14 AM 
To: KY Lui Subject: Re: send 15000 mails using qmail in
> one time


This should be fine.  It is necessary 
to restart qmail after making the change.


To find out if your changes are woking, 
you can check the qmail logs in 
/var/log/qmail.


do a tail on the most current log 
file and look for an entry like this...


997149670.204567 status: local 0/10 
remote 54/450


in the remote part, the 54 is the 
current number concurrent connections 
open and the 450 is the total allowed conncurrent connections. 


If you don't have a entry like this 
you may need to recompile. 

You may also want to look at "Patches for high-volume servers" at qmail.org.


Cheers
Dean

Re: Flame Bait: Using Qmail as a front-line mail server

[Dean Staff]

On 7 Aug 2001, at 1:09, MarkD wrote:

> > 1.  Is it possible to list the Qmail server as the primary MX record
> > and
> > 
> > still forward the mail to its final destination?  All my research
> > says no, but I need to be certain.
> 
> It's trivial. smtproutes is your friend.
> 

So true! I use it to do just this... We have redundant servers on mutliple net-
links. if one link dies, mail is routed via MX entries to the secondary server, 
which then forwards it via out internal network to the final destination server.

Works like a charm. The other nice thing is that if it's the primary server itself 
that died, then the seconary server will hold the mail until we bring the 
primary back on line.
  

> > 2.  If #1 is possible, could your generously provide some real world
> > suggestions on how this can be done?
> 
> It'd be helpful to know the real names of the domains and machines
> involved, then we could give you a real world config entry, but
> assuming the MX domain is example.com and the ultimate mail server
> running sendmail is sendmail.example.com, then:
> 
> echo example.com:sendmail.example.com >>/var/qmail/control/smtproutes
> 
> No restarts are needed. Just change your MX to point to the qmail
> machine and you're done. Of course you need to make sure that
> example.com isn't in locals and virtualdomains.
> 

Good point... If you have your Sendmail boxes domain listed in the 
secondary servers locals or virtualdomains files, you will end up delivering 
the mail locally to the secondary server. Just remember locals take priority 
over virtualdomains, and virtualdomains take proirity over smtproutes.

> It'll be interesting to know how you plan to catch Sircam with this
> though...
> 

Definately, please post!

BTW, for the record, I switched all my primary Sendmail boxes to qmail for 
little or no cost. (I chose to pay to register 3 e-smith servers, but you can 
grab the iso for free from their ftp site) The other nice things is that I find 
qmail can handle running on lower end equipment and still give you the 
same if not better performance than a Sendmail box. 

Cheers
Dean


Dean Staff
Protus IP Solutions
210 - 2379 Holly Lane
Ottawa, ON K1V 7P2 Canada
613-733- ex 546 Fax 613-248-4553
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.protus.com

RE: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time

[KY Lui]

Title: RE: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time






the value in the file concurrencyremote is 450..
is it good enough?
do i need to recompile the qmail again after i changed the value?
or just restart the qmail?


thanks


regards
KY
-Original Message-
From: Dean Staff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:14 AM
To: KY Lui
Subject: Re: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time



On 7 Aug 2001, at 9:25, KY Lui wrote:


> 
> hello
> i tired to send out 15000 mails using qmail at the same time.
> after a long long time (about 12 hours), some mails are still in the
> queue. why it takes so long to deliver the mails? what can i do to
> speed up the delivery time? is the qmail re-sending all the bounced
> back mail so that the queue is full and cant deliver mail anymore? can
> the number of re-tries be changed? many thanks regards KY


You problem is likely to be a low "concurrencyremote" setting. 


You can edit the (Or create if not already there) 
/var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote file. You can push number of 
conncurrent connections to 120 in a default qmail build. to push it higher you 
have to do it at compile time. 


FYI the default setting is 40 concurrent connections. This is usually fine for 
average load servers. but for high volume servers try the 120 before 
recompiling.  


Checkout "life with qmail" for more info.


Cheers
Dean

send 15000 mails using qmail in one time

[KY Lui]

Title: send 15000 mails using qmail in one time





hello


i tired to send out 15000 mails using qmail at the same time.
after a long long time (about 12 hours), some mails are still in the queue.


why it takes so long to deliver the mails?
what can i do to speed up the delivery time?
is the qmail re-sending all the bounced back mail so that the queue is full and cant deliver mail anymore?
can the number of re-tries be changed?


many thanks


regards
KY

Re: Flame Bait: Using Qmail as a front-line mail server

[MarkD]

> 1.  Is it possible to list the Qmail server as the primary MX record and
> 
> still forward the mail to its final destination?  All my research says
> no,
> but I need to be certain.

It's trivial. smtproutes is your friend.

> 2.  If #1 is possible, could your generously provide some real world
> suggestions on how this can be done?

It'd be helpful to know the real names of the domains and machines
involved, then we could give you a real world config entry, but
assuming the MX domain is example.com and the ultimate mail server
running sendmail is sendmail.example.com, then:

echo example.com:sendmail.example.com >>/var/qmail/control/smtproutes

No restarts are needed. Just change your MX to point to the qmail
machine and you're done. Of course you need to make sure that
example.com isn't in locals and virtualdomains.

It'll be interesting to know how you plan to catch Sircam with this
though...


Regards.

Flame Bait: Using Qmail as a front-line mail server

[Steve]

First, let me say I've searched the archives, Google and numerous other
sources BEFORE I decided to post this.  I do not desire the attacks that
the
qmail list is infamous for.

The company I work for, a mid-sized ISP, uses Sendmail as the primary
MTA
for our clients.  Given the downturn in the economy, my superiors are
very
reluctant to budget any kind of switch to Qmail despite my best
efforts.  As
a result, I am stuck with running Qmail on secondary servers.   Now the
point:

Unfortunately, our systems were extremely overloaded by the SirCam
virus,
and I have been tasked with finding a solution.  While I could simply
find
one that incorporates with Sendmail, I believe this will simply overload
our
primary mail server.  Therefore, I want to use one of the servers
running
Qmail to do the virus scanning and then send the mail to the primary
mail
server.  Both incoming and outgoing mail must be scanned.  Here is my
question:

1.  Is it possible to list the Qmail server as the primary MX record and

still forward the mail to its final destination?  All my research says
no,
but I need to be certain.

2.  If #1 is possible, could your generously provide some real world
suggestions on how this can be done?

Thank you,

-- Steve

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[MarkD]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:05:12PM +1200, Jason Haar allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:16:00PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > >   When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> > > process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able to go
> > > off and do other things.
> > 
> > Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
> > production environment.
> 
> It is absolutely necessary.
> 
> We have exactly the same issue here. Exchange goes down. Mail backs up on
> Qmail servers. Exchange comes back up. USERS ARE TOLD ITS WORKING AGAIN.
> Users then wonder why it takes up to 2 hours for queued mail to get to them.
> USERS COMPLAIN THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG.

One wonders what your users think of the Exchange server? Love it do they?

Be that as it may, if Exchange is that unreliable, why not change your
qmail server to send to it via serialmail? You'll then get the desired
effect. Trigger it once a minute out of cron or some such.

Just watch out for the possibility of two serialmails running
concurrently on the same Maildir, I recall that djb put locking in to
protect against this, but it may not be immediately obvious.


> Reality is that some things are better at some things than others. Wow -
> there's a shocker :-)

Yeah and qmail can work around unstable Exchange servers. Wow!


Regards.

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Jason Haar]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:16:00PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> > process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able to go
> > off and do other things.
> 
> Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
> production environment.

It is absolutely necessary.

We have exactly the same issue here. Exchange goes down. Mail backs up on
Qmail servers. Exchange comes back up. USERS ARE TOLD ITS WORKING AGAIN.
Users then wonder why it takes up to 2 hours for queued mail to get to them.
USERS COMPLAIN THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Manually ALRM'ing qmail-send for ten minutes is the only way to speed this
up.

The reality is that Qmail's design is basically mutually exclusive of
allowing SMTP connection sharing like Sendmail/Courier/Exchange/etc allow.
That's fine, there are advantages of this approach which Qmail greatly
exploits.

Reality is that some things are better at some things than others. Wow -
there's a shocker :-)

-- 
Cheers

Jason Haar

Unix/Special Projects, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417

Is there a better way to log qmail smtp & pop3

[board master]

Hi,
 
  I'm currently using Qmail 1.03 with the whole tcpserver/ucspi, multilog, etc. package.  My log files (this one is my pop log) look like this:
 
@40003b6f23d405fbda4c tcpserver: ok 10894 0:192.168.1.103:110 :192.168.1.103:110@40003b6f23d407ac513c tcpserver: end 10894 status 256@40003b6f23d407ad6a7c tcpserver: status: 0/25
 
Frankly, it doesn't tell me much -- like how long it took, what user authenticated, etc etc.  Is there a program/a way that i can log better?  If so, where can I get it?
 
Thanks in advance,
MichaelGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: Why local = 0 ?

[Henning Brauer]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:15:21AM +0200, NDSoftware wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Why local = 0 in received.c ?
> 
> I get:
> 
> Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
>   by 0 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:56 -
> 
> And i have the same problem with a new qmail installation.
> 
> How i can fix the problem ?

remove the -l 0 from your qmail-smtpd run file's tcpserver call. 

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

lwq

[Will Yadley]

I'm switching my qmail machine to use daemontools instead of inetd to start.
I installed the unnoficial debian packages for daemontools and ucspi-tcp.
svcscan doesn't seem to be starting automatically at boot - do people usually
create an init script to start this at boot?

i'm pretty sure that's what's causing my problems
w

Why local = 0 ?

[NDSoftware]

Hello,

Why local = 0 in received.c ?

I get:

Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (131.193.178.181)
  by 0 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:56 -

And i have the same problem with a new qmail installation.

How i can fix the problem ?

Thanks very much

annoucing qremove.sh

[Henrique Pantarotto]

Hello friends,

I wrote another script for message removal for Qmail, this time it's
written in bash.  I found this to be easier and faster then those others
already available.  It's very simple but efficient, so I hope.

It will only remove messages if you use "--remove", otherwise it will
only list the messages found.  I would like to receive comments and
suggestions if possible.

It's available at http://planeta.terra.com.br/arte/pantarotto/qremove/

[root@otonogatobasso /root]# ./qremove.sh --help
sintax: ./qremove.sh [-f|-t|-b string] [-q n] [--remove] [-h|--help]
  -f string   Search string in the from field
  -t string   Search string in the destination recipients
  -b string   Search string in the message body (first 50 lines)
  -q nBegin scan in queue number n (default=0)
  -h, --help  This instructions
  -v, --version   Version
  --removeReally REMOVE messages from queue
  --quiet Turn verbose off



Regards, Henrique.

Re: new message in queue

[Henrique Pantarotto]

Peter,

you're right.  The log confused me for a minute, but you've saved me.
"new msg" is really cool and will do it for me.  ;-)


Thanks, Henrique.

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:43:43 +0200
> Subject: Re: new message in queue
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 06:39:58PM -0300, Henrique Pantarotto wrote:
> [snip]
> > But we're having trouble for the "new messages going to queue" graph.  I
> > don't know what string I need to look for.  I tried couting for the
> > string "new msg" or "from <" but they (also?) appear when Qmail is
> > simpling trying to deliver that message, and that's not good for me.
> > 
> > Does anybody here know any string that indicates a real "new message"
> > going to queue?
> 
> 'new msg' only appears *once* for each message, the moment qmail-send
> accepts it into the local/remote queue. It is a reliable indicator.
> 
> 'end msg' is similar, and also appears only *once*, when the message
> is removed from the queue.
> 
> Greetz, Peter
> -- 
> Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

Re: new message in queue

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 06:39:58PM -0300, Henrique Pantarotto wrote:
[snip]
> But we're having trouble for the "new messages going to queue" graph.  I
> don't know what string I need to look for.  I tried couting for the
> string "new msg" or "from <" but they (also?) appear when Qmail is
> simpling trying to deliver that message, and that's not good for me.
> 
> Does anybody here know any string that indicates a real "new message"
> going to queue?

'new msg' only appears *once* for each message, the moment qmail-send
accepts it into the local/remote queue. It is a reliable indicator.

'end msg' is similar, and also appears only *once*, when the message
is removed from the queue.

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

new message in queue

[Henrique Pantarotto]

Hello friends,

I need to monitor (with MRTG) how many "messages successfully delivered"
per minute and how many "new messages goes to queue" per minute.

To create a graph for "messages successfully delivered" we count the
mailog for the string "success: " (or "accepted_message").

But we're having trouble for the "new messages going to queue" graph.  I
don't know what string I need to look for.  I tried couting for the
string "new msg" or "from <" but they (also?) appear when Qmail is
simpling trying to deliver that message, and that's not good for me.

Does anybody here know any string that indicates a real "new message"
going to queue?


Thanks, Henrique.

FW: Sporadic preprocessed queue backlog

[Matt Hubbard]

Hello again,

>Notice 63 unpreprocessed messages and 63 bytes in trigger? Not a
>coinicidence. qmail-send isn't reading trigger. Is qmail-send still
>running? If so, strace it. What's it doing?

Here are the results of my strace. Let me preempt this with a strong
apology: Aside from cutting it short fro brevity's sake, I have munged the
specific domain data. I _know_ this is bad juju, and could not agree with
everyone more that real data should be used, but my employer has expressly
forbidden me from displaying it. And hopefully, it isn't relevant in
tackling this particular problem(if I ever have a mystery on my personal
servers, you'd better believe I'll give you every detail, including my dog's
name ;-) But, I digress; the strace:

[root@mail2 bin]# /usr/bin/strace /var/qmail/bin/qmail-send
execve("/var/qmail/bin/qmail-send", ["/var/qmail/bin/qmail-send"], [/* 23
vars */]) = 0
_sysctl({{CTL_KERN, KERN_OSRELEASE}, 2, "2.2.16-22smp", 12, NULL, 0}) = 0
brk(0)  = 0x8056288
old_mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0)
= 0x40017000
open("/etc/ld.so.preload", O_RDONLY)= -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY)  = 3
fstat64(3, 0xb35c)  = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=13562, ...}) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 13562, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x40018000
close(3)= 0
open("/lib/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY)= 3
fstat(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=4776568, ...}) = 0
read(3, "\177ELF\1\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\3\0\1\0\0\0\220\274"..., 4096)
= 4096
old_mmap(NULL, 1196776, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0x4001c000
mprotect(0x40137000, 37608, PROT_NONE)  = 0
old_mmap(0x40137000, 24576, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED, 3,
0x11a000) = 0x40137000
old_mmap(0x4013d000, 13032, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x4013d000
close(3)= 0
munmap(0x40018000, 13562)   = 0
getpid()= 8198
chdir("/var/qmail") = 0
open("control/me", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "mail2.mycompanydomain.com\n", 64)  = 18 #Here is a line I
changed#
close(3)= 0
open("control/queuelifetime", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file
or directory)
open("control/concurrencylocal", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "120\n", 64)= 4
close(3)= 0
open("control/concurrencyremote", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "120\n", 64)= 4
close(3)= 0
open("control/envnoathost", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file
or directory)
open("control/bouncefrom", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open("control/bouncehost", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
open("control/doublebouncehost", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such
file or directory)
open("control/doublebounceto", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such
file or directory)
open("control/locals", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
read(3, "localhost\nmail2.mycompanydomain.com\n", 64) = 28 #Here is a
line I changed#
read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3)= 0
open("control/percenthack", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file
or directory)
open("control/virtualdomains", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3

[...]
followed by approx 1200 lines, similar to the ones in this excerpt(domain
names changed):
[...]

read(3, "fobwear-net\nkrut.com:krut-co"..., 64) = 64
read(3, "practicalvision.com:practical"..., 64) = 64
brk(0x806b000)  = 0x806b000

[...]
and finally ending with:
[...]

read(3, "", 64) = 0
close(3)= 0
chdir("queue")  = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGPIPE, {SIG_IGN}, NULL, 8) = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGTERM, {0x8048b8c, [], 0x400}, NULL, 8) = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGALRM, {0x8048b9c, [], 0x400}, NULL, 8) = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGHUP, {0x8048bac, [], 0x400}, NULL, 8) = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGCHLD, {SIG_DFL}, NULL, 8) = 0
umask(077)  = 022
open("lock/sendmutex", O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK) = 3
flock(3, LOCK_EX|LOCK_NB)   = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily
unavailable)
write(0, "alert: cannot start: qmail-send "..., 51alert: cannot start:
qmail-send is already running
) = 51
_exit(111)  = ?




First off, I note the "(Resource temporarily unavailable)" just after
lock/sendmutex, so here's an ls -l of my /var/qmail/queue/lock directory in
case I've missed some other permission type issue:

-rw---1 qmails   qmail   0 Jul 28 01:47 sendmutex
-rw-r--r--1 qmailr   qmail1024 Aug  

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Russell Nelson]

Charles M. Hannum writes:
 > There is no way for the mailing list software to get from
 > `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to
 > `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' without having knowledge of virtualdomains.
 > That's not an acceptable solution.

Why not?

-- 
-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: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Charles M. Hannum]

>Charles M. Hannum writes:
>> 
>> >> Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I thought it did.  Why doesn't it?
>> 
>> Uhhh, did you *read* my first piece of email?  If I get a VERP address
>> of `[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
>> how pray tell is my mailing list software supposed to know that the
>> mail was actually sent to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'?
>
> It's supposed to strip off the "foo-owner-mycroft-" prefix and the
> "@netbsd.org" suffix, and change the rightmost = into an @.  Were you
> expecting me to write the script for you?

Actually, the prefix is `foo-owner-', *not* `foo-owner-mycroft-'.
(However, had you not made that mistake, your answer would be equally
useless.)

It would strip off `foo-owner-', etc., resulting again in
`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' -- which is not the
address the mail was sent to, and is therefore useless for automatic
bounce/reply processing.

There is no way for the mailing list software to get from
`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to
`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' without having knowledge of virtualdomains.
That's not an acceptable solution.

I could possibly introduce some pure magic by having the final `-' in
virtualdomains be something else -- say, `&' -- and then explicitly
look for that in the VERP address, but that still fails to be
transparent.

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:02:10PM +0200, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> 
> > Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
> > production environment.
> 
> Apparently, your "production environment" does not involve situations when
> you need to convince qmail-send to retry some of the queued messages
> quickly in order to 1. verify the reason why those messages got stuck in
> the queue is gone, 2. calm lusers before they decide to lynch you for
> delaying their precious email (I am exaggerating here...a little bit).

My 'production environment' has a helpdesk that keeps these users away
from me :)

Also, whenever messages get stuck, I have always been able to find
what the problem was and fix it, without having to kick the queue
around to know.

I have kicked the queue on rare occasions, but only when I knew the
benefit would outweigh the downsides. When the receiving host is a
qmail server, this is perfectly acceptable, for example :)

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly other s)

[Pavel Kankovsky]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:

> Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
> production environment.

Apparently, your "production environment" does not involve situations when
you need to convince qmail-send to retry some of the queued messages
quickly in order to 1. verify the reason why those messages got stuck in
the queue is gone, 2. calm lusers before they decide to lynch you for
delaying their precious email (I am exaggerating here...a little bit).

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

Re: routing mail with user-specific tokens in addresses

[Bela Lubkin]

Russell Nelson wrote:

> Bela Lubkin writes:
>  > Assuming qmail has been set up on a bastion host and is being used to
>  > route incoming mail from the Internet to various internal hosts;
>  > 
>  > and observing that in doing such routing, it is not honoring the
>  > "user-token@domain" address extension delimiter;
>  > 
>  > then: what mistake has been made in configuring the bastion host?
> 
> Hard to say.  There are so many mistakes you could have made.  If you
> were a clueless luser, I'd suggest that you failed to create
> ~alias/.qmail-token (from the example above) or put the wrong thing in
> it.  But you're not, and you didn't, therefore you must have done
> something spectacularly wrong, rather than mildly and boringly wrong.

Well, thank you for the vote of confidence.  ;-}

I must not have been clear enough in my initial posts: I did not
configure qmail on our bastion host.  I do not even have _access_ to the
bastion host, to determine how it is configured.  Essentially the only
tool I have is to probe it with attempted emails.

I'm trying to solve this problem from the outside, because I know the
people in charge of the server are extremely overworked and won't want
to hear about my problems.  I would rather present them with a complete
(and hopefully simple) _solution_, rather than a mystery they have to
figure out.

> Pray, tell us what it was when you figure it out.

It isn't looking like that's going to happen.

Apply what I've said to what you've said:

- Since I don't have access to the bastion host, I have no idea what is
in ~alias/.qmail-token, or indeed whether that exists at all.

- If you're referring to configuration on the internal mailhosts (to
which the bastion host forwards), I remind you that (1) they aren't
running qmail, and (2) the probe messages I've sent bounce off the
bastion host, not the next hop, so mailhost configuration isn't actually
relevant at all (at this stage of the game).  It becomes relevant when
the qmail bastion host starts forwarding user-token messages -- _then_ I
need to figure out either how to get qmail to forward user=token
messages, or MMDF (on the mailhosts) to correctly receive user-token.

>  > Furthermore: once that's been fixed, is there a way to also get it to
>  > honor "=" as a similar address extension delimiter -- without setting up
>  > thousands of individual wildcard aliases?
> 
> man qmail-users
> should tell you how to set up multiple instances of each user, each
> with his own delimiter.  I tend not to like qmail-users because I
> (still!) have more experience with hosts where a user in /etc/passwd
> can receive email, damnit.

qmail-users _might_ be how they've configured the bastion host to
forward mail internally.  Maybe that would be a good thing -- it would
imply that they have a script which converts from our internal alias
file format to qmail-users format, and which could be modified to add
extra lines to forward wildcard user[-=.+]token addresses.  I have this
horrible feeling that they might have a _hand-edited_ qmail-users file;
in which case, any request to complexify its format would be summarily
rejected.

I guess I'm going to have to actually find out who maintains the qmail
configuration.  Once I do that, a clock starts ticking on how much
patience they'll have for showing me how they've configured it, before
they decide it's not worth the hassle.  :-(

>Bela<

Re: Sporadic preprocessed queue backlog

[Dave Sill]

"Matt Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Fairly frequently throughout an average day, my preprocessed queue will
>begin to grow steadily and not get processed. In most cases, if this is
>ignored, it resumes processing eventually. Sometimes after 15 or so minutes,
>sometimes after a couple of hours, but at bad times, it can fail to clear
>out the preprocessed queue for days. I've checked the logs, and in no case
>is the concurrency peaked during this problem(in fact, local is usually low
>at 1/120 and remote usually at about 20 to 40/120), though I'm not sure if
>that would be related, anyway.

Strange.

>The first thing I checked, of course, is the /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger
>file, as noted in the archives. As far as I can tell, it looks correct.

That would ahve been my first suggestion.

>Here is an example of my problem at 11:14am:
>
>qmail-qstat output:
>messages in queue: 228
>messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 63
>
>trigger file at the time:
>prw--w--w-1 qmails   qmail  63 Aug  6 11:14 trigger

Notice 63 unpreprocessed messages and 63 bytes in trigger? Not a
coinicidence. qmail-send isn't reading trigger. Is qmail-send still
running? If so, strace it. What's it doing?

>The only piece I note is that trigger has a file size of 63 before and 0
>afterwards. Is it normal for this pipe to increase/decrease in size, or is
>that normal behaviour for a pipe?

That's normal pipe behaviour, but it's not normal for qmail-send to
not read bytes soon after they're written.

-Dave

Installing Delayed-Mail Notifer Script

[Security User]

Title: Installing Delayed-Mail Notifer Script






I found this delayed mail notifer for qmail.  http://www.ranney.com/~mjr/qmail-lagcheck


How do I install this on the qmail box?


Should this be setup to run as a cron job?  What permission should I set the file to?


My unix isn't the best and I'm kinda stuck having to learn this on the fly.


Thanks.







This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient (s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. 


  


 


 Kalra, Amit.vcf

Sporadic preprocessed queue backlog

[Matt Hubbard]

Hello,

I've got a (hopefully) simple to fix problem on my hands. I have a vanilla
qmail-1.03 LWQ installation on dual 1Ghz, 1G ram, raid5 RedHat 7.0 server
with a 10Mbis Internet connection. It is a dedicated mail server, and is
currently under no load that could suggest my problems are related to lack
of cpu/memory/hard drive resources. Aside from the sporadic probelm
described below, when things are running fine, all deliveries are made once
they get past the preprocessed queue.

Fairly frequently throughout an average day, my preprocessed queue will
begin to grow steadily and not get processed. In most cases, if this is
ignored, it resumes processing eventually. Sometimes after 15 or so minutes,
sometimes after a couple of hours, but at bad times, it can fail to clear
out the preprocessed queue for days. I've checked the logs, and in no case
is the concurrency peaked during this problem(in fact, local is usually low
at 1/120 and remote usually at about 20 to 40/120), though I'm not sure if
that would be related, anyway.

The first thing I checked, of course, is the /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger
file, as noted in the archives. As far as I can tell, it looks correct.

Here is an example of my problem at 11:14am:

qmail-qstat output:
messages in queue: 228
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 63

trigger file at the time:
prw--w--w-1 qmails   qmail  63 Aug  6 11:14 trigger

Then, I stop and restart qmail at 11:18, after 4 minutes of the queue not
handling any preprocessing, and the preprocessed queue is promptly cleared,
as follows:

messages in queue: 159
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0

prw--w--w-1 qmails   qmail   0 Aug  6 11:18 trigger

>From there,

The only piece I note is that trigger has a file size of 63 before and 0
afterwards. Is it normal for this pipe to increase/decrease in size, or is
that normal behaviour for a pipe? Also, I've noted that when everything is
running smoothly, the date/time on the trigger stays up-to-the-minute, but
when I have problems, not only does the size of trigger increase, but the
timestamp on trigger does not update.

If I'm not on the right track here, what are the other pieces I should be
checking here, and what types of scenarios, other than a misconfigured
trigger pipe, can cause a preprocessing backlog? Of course, I should not be
resorting to stopping and restarting qmail just to get it to process the
queue. There must be some small detail I've missed. I've checked the
archives, and the only thing I can find that relates to the preprocessing
not being done is to check the trigger, but other than confirming that it is
a pipe and such, I did not see anything else to try.

Thanks in advance for any pointers,
Matt Hubbard

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Dave Sill]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Charles M. Hannum writes:
>  > 
>  > Uhhh, did you *read* my first piece of email?  If I get a VERP address
>  > of `[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
>  > how pray tell is my mailing list software supposed to know that the
>  > mail was actually sent to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'?

A better question is: Why is the the envelope return path getting
munged? Or: What does VERP have to do with Delivered-To?

> It's supposed to strip off the "foo-owner-mycroft-" prefix and the
> "@netbsd.org" suffix, and change the rightmost = into an @.  Were you
> expecting me to write the script for you?

Why strip "mycroft-"?

-Dave

Re: Serialmail send problem

[Dave Sill]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>I have installed qmail and serialmail and everything is working.

Cool. Thanks for letting us know.

>My setup is as follows
>
>metta.lk
> __
>|  | -to the InterNet.
>|__|
>   |
>modem dial-up to my Internet box
>   |
>   |
> __
>|  | _ local LAN col7.metta.lk
>|__|
> |  
>several modems for
>user dial in
>
>When col7.metta.lk dial into metta.lk and send the mail it is going OK,
>but when the connection from metta.lk to the Internet is down then the 
>mail is not going out of col7.metta.lk

Oops, so you have a problem, after all. So why doesn't the mail leave
col7?

>I would like metta.lk to first of all accept mail from col7.metta.lk
>and then for metta.lk to send the mail out to the Internet whenever
>possible.

That's how things are designed to work.

-Dave

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Pavel Kankovsky]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Charles M. Hannum writes:
>  > 
>  > Uhhh, did you *read* my first piece of email?  If I get a VERP address
>  > of `[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
>  > how pray tell is my mailing list software supposed to know that the
>  > mail was actually sent to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'?
> 
> It's supposed to strip off the "foo-owner-mycroft-" prefix and the
> "@netbsd.org" suffix, and change the rightmost = into an @.  Were you
> expecting me to write the script for you?

Oops. The result would be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" rather
than "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Of course, some people's favourite
scripting languages might include an implementation of an oracle
able to figure out "spamalicious-" should be stripped off as well...

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

isolog rotation with multilog

[Olivier Dupuis]

-Message d'origine-
De : Olivier Dupuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoye : lundi 6 aout 2001 19:13
A : Olivier Dupuis
Objet : isolog rotation with multilog


Hi,

I am testing log rotation with isolog on multilog. I can't understand why
after sending a ALRM signal to the multilog process, the "current" log is
not immediatly dumped into the "isolog" log.

Thanks

PS : Sorry for the previous copy of this message, I forgot about the
subject.

Re: qmail on AFS

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 07:02:25PM +0200, Olivier Dupuis wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am testing log rotation with isolog on multilog. I can't understand why
> after sending a ALRM signal to the multilog process, the "current" log is
> not immediatly dumped into the "isolog" log.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with 'qmail on AFS'?

Please start a new thread with a new subject if you are asking a new,
unrelated question.

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

RE: qmail on AFS

[Olivier Dupuis]

Hi,

I am testing log rotation with isolog on multilog. I can't understand why
after sending a ALRM signal to the multilog process, the "current" log is
not immediatly dumped into the "isolog" log.

Thanks

Re: qmail on AFS

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:00:09AM -0400, Rudy Zung wrote:
[snip]
> I changed the link() in qmail-local.c to rename() and my mail delivery
> now works. Anyone want to put in some input as to whether a rename() would
> fail in some cases where a link() might not?

Using rename() instead of link() takes away the reliability of
Maildir. If for some reason, two processes generate the same filename for
a message, no matter within what timespan, you lose the first of these
two.

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

Re: qmail on AFS

[Rudy Zung]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 10:17:06PM -0400, Rudy Zung wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 01:53:55PM -0700, Greg White wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:44:47AM -0400, Rudy Zung wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 03:27:49PM -0700, Greg White wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 05:17:46PM -0400, Rudy Zung wrote:
> > > > > [Don't remember if I've already posted this; sorry if it's a repeat.]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Trying to run qmail with Maildir on a Slackware with AFS. The AFS is
> > > > > installed and runs properly. Users' home volumes and Maildir are on AFS. 
> > > > > Qmail is generating temporary delivery errors; the mail never gets delivered.
> > > > 
> > > > Seeing the temporary delivery errors would likely be helpful here.
> > > > "What Do the Logs Say?"
> > > 
> [...ellide...]
> > Doing some digging, I found some folks discussing qmail and AFS, and
> > discussing AFS/Kerberos tokens, and a workaround for same -- I presume
> > that a token is required?
> > 

[...ellided...]

> Best that I can guess, is that the error is generated in local.c; looks like
> it performs a chdir(), and is doing some unlinks and hard links.
> 

Solution found; traced qmail-local.c and determined failure encountered
in maildir_child() during a call to link(). Rummaging around AFS FAQ in
chapter on differences between AFS and Unix FS, it says that hard links
across directories are not supported by AFS because AFS ACLs protect 
directories and not files, and allowing hard links to cross directories
would circumvent the ACL.

I changed the link() in qmail-local.c to rename() and my mail delivery
now works. Anyone want to put in some input as to whether a rename() would
fail in some cases where a link() might not?

-- 

...Ru   (a low-cost superhero)
   On, on! Blue skies. Think snow.
   1740484I 998300172 076662 82968/A17215 045124P E286/184435
   975-203608 11859 DS1160 

Temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery._(#4.3.0)

[Jens Georg]

hello list,

i have several fine running qmailboxes all working perfectly since months.
today i got a strange failure on one machine for one special user, although
the machine's qmail-configurationfiles were not touched during the last
months.

for one special user i get a "Temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery._(#4.3.0)"
failure on some of the incoming emails. some are delivered, others not. all
other users have no trouble. i checked the logfiles for that.

i have active quota, but none of the users has exceeded their limits.

anybody who can give me a hint where to start investigation ?
neither life with qmail nor qmail docs could solve this.

-- 
gruss,jens
---
instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Russell Nelson]

Charles M. Hannum writes:
 > 
 > >> Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.
 > >
 > > Sorry, I thought it did.  Why doesn't it?
 > 
 > Uhhh, did you *read* my first piece of email?  If I get a VERP address
 > of `[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
 > how pray tell is my mailing list software supposed to know that the
 > mail was actually sent to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'?

It's supposed to strip off the "foo-owner-mycroft-" prefix and the
"@netbsd.org" suffix, and change the rightmost = into an @.  Were you
expecting me to write the script for you?

 > VERP and virtualdomains just don't work properly together in a stock
 > qmail.

Yup.

-- 
-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: qmail and logging

[Frank D. Cringle]

Martin Hasenbein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've read that the advantages about multilog and disadvantages about
> syslog and splogger, but I want qmail, smtpd, qmtpd and pop3d to
> log to one logfile

If you modify that to "I want to view the qmail, etc. logs together in 
chronological order", then consider this method...

$ for f in qmail smtpd qmtpd pop3d; do tail /var/log/$f/current; done | sort | 
tai64nlocal

That's just an example.  In practice you would replace 'tail current'
with a script that extracts the period of interest from each log.

-- 
Frank Cringle,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (+49 7745) 928759; fax: 928761

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Charles M. Hannum]

>> Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.
>
> Sorry, I thought it did.  Why doesn't it?

Uhhh, did you *read* my first piece of email?  If I get a VERP address
of `[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
how pray tell is my mailing list software supposed to know that the
mail was actually sent to `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'?  It doesn't have a
prayer -- unless it knows about qmail's virtualdomains, which would be
a major abstraction violation.

VERP and virtualdomains just don't work properly together in a stock
qmail.

RE: Local Deliveries not working anymore. (solved)

[Martin Marconcini]

It worked. Thank you very much. Adding localhost to rcpthosts and locals

Any ideas why it worked before that?


Thank you.

Regards,

Martin Marconcini
www.marconcini.com.ar

"Life must be lived looking forward and can be understood only looking
backward." Soren Kierkegaard

> -Original Message-
> From: Jankok, Lucio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:43 AM
> To: 'Martin Marconcini'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Local Deliveries not working anymore.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> try adding localhost to both rcpthost and locals
> 
> : -Original Message-
> : From: Martin Marconcini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> : Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 4:36 PM
> : To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : Subject: Local Deliveries not working anymore.
> :
> :
> : Hi: Here's a brief description of my problem.
> :
> : I had Qmail running smooth with tcpserver, qmail-pop3d,
> : daemontools, and
> : all the stuff explained in Life W/Qmail.
> : The box is OpenBSD 2.9-Stable.
> : I use obviously $HOME/Maildir
> :
> : The mail domain is: megadeth.dnsalias.com
> : But I have a rcpthost:
> : ---
> : cat /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
> : megadeth.dnsalias.com
> : marconcini.com.ar
> : ---
> : cat me
> : megadeth.dnsalias.com
> : ---
> : cat defaultdomain
> : dnsalias.com
> : ---
> : cat defaultdelivery
> : ./Maildir/
> :
> : Etc... Everything WAS working... and lifewithqmail is excellent.
> :
> : It was working very very smooth. (so if you are reading this and
don't
> : know whether to switch from sendmail, don't hesitate! Qmail is by
far,
> : much better).
> :
> : However, I had a web based form (using php mail() function)
> : that sent an
> : email for me at my Qmail. (The webserver is on the same box
> : w/Qmail, so
> : its localhost)
> :
> : Yesterday I found out that emails are not reaching my Maildir and I
> : though it was a PHP Problem. But let me expose some tests and logs.
> :
> : A) If I send and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from
> : internet (that is
> : any mail server) it works. I got the email in seconds. (I am
> : subscribed
> : to 4 mailing lists and while I type this, emails from those are
coming
> : and coming)
> :
> : B) If I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from
> : localhost (that is,
> : using either the PHP form or telnet localhost) it won't work.
> : Check this:
> :
> : bash-2.05$ telnet localhost 25
> : Trying 127.0.0.1...
> : Connected to localhost.
> : Escape character is '^]'.
> : 220 megadeth.dnsalias.com ESMTP
> : helo marconcini.com.ar
> : 250 megadeth.dnsalias.com
> : mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : 250 ok
> : rcpt to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : 250 ok
> : data
> : 354 go ahead
> : hello.
> : .
> : 250 ok 997103556 qp 27448
> : quit
> : 221 megadeth.dnsalias.com
> :
> : The mail never arrives. (If I do the same for
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] , which is the master domain, the same
> : happens)
> :
> : The log: /var/mail/qmail/current for the above was
> : @40003b6e97ae02acce8c starting delivery 68: msg 165132 to local
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : @40003b6e97ae02b62cfc status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> : @40003b6e97ae0890600c delivery 68: success: did_1+0+0/
> : @40003b6e97ae09840324 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
> : @40003b6e97ae099bbd5c end msg 165132
> :
> : But the mail isn't there. There are 0 msg in the queue according to
> : qmail tools.
> :
> : Even this user (martin) received mail from root and none is coming
> : through that alias.
> :
> : Qmail is started properly using tcpserver and supervise is running.
> :
> : One thing: IT WAS WORKING. I can assure that. It worked for the last
> : three months.
> : The question is what could have changed? Where can I look? More
logs?
> : Tests?
> : I really don't remember changing anything...
> :
> : Check this log:
> : /var/mail/mailog (php was configured to use /usr/bin/sendmail
> : which is a
> : link according to lifewithqmail so I suppose Qmail's sendmail
> : logs here)
> :
> : Aug  5 22:26:53 jupiter sendmail[28146]: f761Pc013284: to=Martin
> : Marconcini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ctladdr=www (67/67),
> : delay=00:01:15, xdelay=00:01:15, mailer=esmtp, pri=30219,
> : relay=megadeth.dnsalias.com. [209.99.238.166], dsn=4.0.0,
> : stat=Deferred:
> : Connection timed out with megadeth.dnsalias.com.
> :
> : Aug  5 22:26:55 jupiter sendmail[11698]:
gethostbyaddr(209.99.238.166)
> : failed: 2
> :
> : Aug  5 22:26:55 jupiter sendmail[11698]: f761QtV11698: from=www,
> : size=219, class=0, nrcpts=1,
> : msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : relay=www@localhost
> :
> :
> : ? A hand will be appreciated. The archives showed no clear
> : results, since trying Local Delivery Not Working brings up many
> : results...
> :
> : Thanks in advance for reading this far.
> :
> : Regards,
> :
> : Martin Marconcini
> : www.marconcini.com.ar
> :
> : "Life must be lived looking forward and can be understood only
looking
> : backward." Soren Kie

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Russell Nelson]

Charles M. Hannum writes:
 > 
 > >Charles M. Hannum writes:
 > >> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > >> ...
 > >> 
 > >> This seems very wrong.  The Delivered-To: address here isn't even
 > >> correct; it should be something the actually exists -- either
 > >> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
 > >
 > > Don't think of Delivered-To: as an address.  Think of it as a unique
 > > magic cookie derived from email delivery path.  You can always
 > > reconstruct the address if you know something about the delivery path,
 > > and sometimes you may indeed have to.
 > 
 > I don't need to be taught the religion, thanks.  I'm already well
 > aware of it.

But there are other people who are not.  I didn't write you a private
reply, did I?

 > And I don't buy it in this case.  What if
 > `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' *was* a valid, different
 > address?  It could falsely detect loops.  Maybe that wouldn't make
 > sense in this particular case, but I'm sure you can construct a more
 > palatable case with little effort.

Then use a character in virtualdomains which is not legal in an email
address.  I thought you didn't need to be taught the religion?
Repent, sinner!

 > Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.

Sorry, I thought it did.  Why doesn't it?

-- 
-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: Local Deliveries not working anymore.

[Jankok, Lucio]

Hi,

try adding localhost to both rcpthost and locals

: -Original Message-
: From: Martin Marconcini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 4:36 PM
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Local Deliveries not working anymore.
: 
: 
: Hi: Here's a brief description of my problem.
: 
: I had Qmail running smooth with tcpserver, qmail-pop3d, 
: daemontools, and
: all the stuff explained in Life W/Qmail.
: The box is OpenBSD 2.9-Stable.
: I use obviously $HOME/Maildir
: 
: The mail domain is: megadeth.dnsalias.com
: But I have a rcpthost:
: ---
: cat /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
: megadeth.dnsalias.com
: marconcini.com.ar
: ---
: cat me
: megadeth.dnsalias.com
: ---
: cat defaultdomain 
: dnsalias.com
: ---
: cat defaultdelivery 
: ./Maildir/
: 
: Etc... Everything WAS working... and lifewithqmail is excellent. 
: 
: It was working very very smooth. (so if you are reading this and don't
: know whether to switch from sendmail, don't hesitate! Qmail is by far,
: much better).
: 
: However, I had a web based form (using php mail() function) 
: that sent an
: email for me at my Qmail. (The webserver is on the same box 
: w/Qmail, so
: its localhost)
: 
: Yesterday I found out that emails are not reaching my Maildir and I
: though it was a PHP Problem. But let me expose some tests and logs.
: 
: A) If I send and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from 
: internet (that is
: any mail server) it works. I got the email in seconds. (I am 
: subscribed
: to 4 mailing lists and while I type this, emails from those are coming
: and coming)
: 
: B) If I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from 
: localhost (that is,
: using either the PHP form or telnet localhost) it won't work. 
: Check this:
: 
: bash-2.05$ telnet localhost 25
: Trying 127.0.0.1...
: Connected to localhost.
: Escape character is '^]'.
: 220 megadeth.dnsalias.com ESMTP
: helo marconcini.com.ar
: 250 megadeth.dnsalias.com
: mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: 250 ok
: rcpt to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: 250 ok
: data
: 354 go ahead
: hello.
: .
: 250 ok 997103556 qp 27448
: quit
: 221 megadeth.dnsalias.com
: 
: The mail never arrives. (If I do the same for
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , which is the master domain, the same
: happens)
: 
: The log: /var/mail/qmail/current for the above was
: @40003b6e97ae02acce8c starting delivery 68: msg 165132 to local
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: @40003b6e97ae02b62cfc status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
: @40003b6e97ae0890600c delivery 68: success: did_1+0+0/
: @40003b6e97ae09840324 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
: @40003b6e97ae099bbd5c end msg 165132
: 
: But the mail isn't there. There are 0 msg in the queue according to
: qmail tools. 
: 
: Even this user (martin) received mail from root and none is coming
: through that alias. 
: 
: Qmail is started properly using tcpserver and supervise is running. 
: 
: One thing: IT WAS WORKING. I can assure that. It worked for the last
: three months.
: The question is what could have changed? Where can I look? More logs?
: Tests?
: I really don't remember changing anything...
: 
: Check this log:
: /var/mail/mailog (php was configured to use /usr/bin/sendmail 
: which is a
: link according to lifewithqmail so I suppose Qmail's sendmail 
: logs here)
: 
: Aug  5 22:26:53 jupiter sendmail[28146]: f761Pc013284: to=Martin
: Marconcini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ctladdr=www (67/67),
: delay=00:01:15, xdelay=00:01:15, mailer=esmtp, pri=30219,
: relay=megadeth.dnsalias.com. [209.99.238.166], dsn=4.0.0, 
: stat=Deferred:
: Connection timed out with megadeth.dnsalias.com.
: 
: Aug  5 22:26:55 jupiter sendmail[11698]: gethostbyaddr(209.99.238.166)
: failed: 2 
: 
: Aug  5 22:26:55 jupiter sendmail[11698]: f761QtV11698: from=www,
: size=219, class=0, nrcpts=1,
: msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: relay=www@localhost
: 
: 
: ? A hand will be appreciated. The archives showed no clear
: results, since trying Local Delivery Not Working brings up many
: results... 
: 
: Thanks in advance for reading this far. 
: 
: Regards,
: 
: Martin Marconcini
: www.marconcini.com.ar
: 
: "Life must be lived looking forward and can be understood only looking
: backward." Soren Kierkegaard
: 
: 

Local Deliveries not working anymore.

[Martin Marconcini]

Hi: Here's a brief description of my problem.

I had Qmail running smooth with tcpserver, qmail-pop3d, daemontools, and
all the stuff explained in Life W/Qmail.
The box is OpenBSD 2.9-Stable.
I use obviously $HOME/Maildir

The mail domain is: megadeth.dnsalias.com
But I have a rcpthost:
---
cat /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
megadeth.dnsalias.com
marconcini.com.ar
---
cat me
megadeth.dnsalias.com
---
cat defaultdomain 
dnsalias.com
---
cat defaultdelivery 
./Maildir/

Etc... Everything WAS working... and lifewithqmail is excellent. 

It was working very very smooth. (so if you are reading this and don't
know whether to switch from sendmail, don't hesitate! Qmail is by far,
much better).

However, I had a web based form (using php mail() function) that sent an
email for me at my Qmail. (The webserver is on the same box w/Qmail, so
its localhost)

Yesterday I found out that emails are not reaching my Maildir and I
though it was a PHP Problem. But let me expose some tests and logs.

A) If I send and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from internet (that is
any mail server) it works. I got the email in seconds. (I am subscribed
to 4 mailing lists and while I type this, emails from those are coming
and coming)

B) If I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from localhost (that is,
using either the PHP form or telnet localhost) it won't work. 
Check this:

bash-2.05$ telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 megadeth.dnsalias.com ESMTP
helo marconcini.com.ar
250 megadeth.dnsalias.com
mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
rcpt to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
hello.
.
250 ok 997103556 qp 27448
quit
221 megadeth.dnsalias.com

The mail never arrives. (If I do the same for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , which is the master domain, the same
happens)

The log: /var/mail/qmail/current for the above was
@40003b6e97ae02acce8c starting delivery 68: msg 165132 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@40003b6e97ae02b62cfc status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@40003b6e97ae0890600c delivery 68: success: did_1+0+0/
@40003b6e97ae09840324 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@40003b6e97ae099bbd5c end msg 165132

But the mail isn't there. There are 0 msg in the queue according to
qmail tools. 

Even this user (martin) received mail from root and none is coming
through that alias. 

Qmail is started properly using tcpserver and supervise is running. 

One thing: IT WAS WORKING. I can assure that. It worked for the last
three months.
The question is what could have changed? Where can I look? More logs?
Tests?
I really don't remember changing anything...

Check this log:
/var/mail/mailog (php was configured to use /usr/bin/sendmail which is a
link according to lifewithqmail so I suppose Qmail's sendmail logs here)

Aug  5 22:26:53 jupiter sendmail[28146]: f761Pc013284: to=Martin
Marconcini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ctladdr=www (67/67),
delay=00:01:15, xdelay=00:01:15, mailer=esmtp, pri=30219,
relay=megadeth.dnsalias.com. [209.99.238.166], dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred:
Connection timed out with megadeth.dnsalias.com.

Aug  5 22:26:55 jupiter sendmail[11698]: gethostbyaddr(209.99.238.166)
failed: 2 

Aug  5 22:26:55 jupiter sendmail[11698]: f761QtV11698: from=www,
size=219, class=0, nrcpts=1,
msgid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
relay=www@localhost


? A hand will be appreciated. The archives showed no clear
results, since trying Local Delivery Not Working brings up many
results... 

Thanks in advance for reading this far. 

Regards,

Martin Marconcini
www.marconcini.com.ar

"Life must be lived looking forward and can be understood only looking
backward." Soren Kierkegaard

Re: Problems with qmail.org?

[Jason Kawaja]

perhaps a brief issue, seems fine now.

uk mirrors:

 http://qmail.plig.org/top.html
 http://qmail.humourengine.com/top.html
 http://qmail.softflare.com/top.html

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John P wrote:

> I'm trying to get onto qmail.org, and neither that nor the direct link
> (www.qmail.org/top.html) is working. Is there another list of mirrors
> anywhere?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>


/* Regards,
   Jason Kawaja, UF-ECE Sys Admin */

RE: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Richard Underwood]

> From: MarkD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> Has this been discussed before? Yes. Endlessly. Check the
> archives. You are breaking no new ground here at all.
> 
I'm sure it has - it's an important issue.

> If you want to be truly helpful, you might want to read the archives
> on this matter and then suggest/do something beyond what has been
> already been discussed ad nauseum.
> 
I would have, if I had been investigating that problem. I was
looking at a completely different problem at the time. If you look at the
title of this thread, you'll see that it's about qmail-remote processes
hanging on Linux.

The argument was started because I described multiple connections to
a site as an "issue". I could have ignored the replies telling me that "it
wasn't an issue" as flame-bait, but having seen some of the other replies on
this list, I thought it'd be more constructive to explain what I had meant.

I still believe it's an issue. 

Richard

Problems with qmail.org?

[John P]

I'm trying to get onto qmail.org, and neither that nor the direct link
(www.qmail.org/top.html) is working. Is there another list of mirrors
anywhere?

Thanks,
John

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[MarkD]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:17:22PM +0100, Richard Underwood allegedly wrote:
> > And if you don't like this behaviour: write a patch (or find one), or
> > stop using qmail. Nobody is forcing you to use qmail.
> > 
>   Perhaps, but using this list to tell people (often quite forcefully)
> that the behaviour they are experiencing is as it should be, and it's the
> rest of the world that's broken, and that qmail is perfect already isn't
> going to encourage anyone to help. 
> 
>   If I had the time, I'd write a patch. I wouldn't do it without
> discussing it on a mailing list first, though ... Has it been suggested/done
> before? Does anyone have any suggestions for better algorithms? What
> features would people want?

Has this been discussed before? Yes. Endlessly. Check the
archives. You are breaking no new ground here at all.

>   I wonder how many other people have been put off like that?

Only those who make technical decisions based on the personality of
some random Joe on a mailing list. If you're put off doing something
by the comment of a complete stranger on the net, then you're going to
have a lot of free time on your hands.

>   I think I've been quite reasonable with the messages I've sent. I've
> said that I like qmail numerous times. I've said I want to improve it ...
> and people have told me it needs no improvement. I simply think that this is
> short-sighted.
> 
>   I'll leave you all alone now.

If you want to be truly helpful, you might want to read the archives
on this matter and then suggest/do something beyond what has been
already been discussed ad nauseum.


Regards.

Re: virtualdomains vs. VERP and Delivered-To

[Charles M. Hannum]

>Charles M. Hannum writes:
>> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ...
>> 
>> This seems very wrong.  The Delivered-To: address here isn't even
>> correct; it should be something the actually exists -- either
>> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
>
> Don't think of Delivered-To: as an address.  Think of it as a unique
> magic cookie derived from email delivery path.  You can always
> reconstruct the address if you know something about the delivery path,
> and sometimes you may indeed have to.

I don't need to be taught the religion, thanks.  I'm already well
aware of it.  And I don't buy it in this case.  What if
`[EMAIL PROTECTED]' *was* a valid, different
address?  It could falsely detect loops.  Maybe that wouldn't make
sense in this particular case, but I'm sure you can construct a more
palatable case with little effort.

Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.

Re: Prejudice and control

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:26:34PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The qmail list does not accept messages from Microsoft Outlook Express.
> 
> I get the above mesage whenever I send mail to the list nowadays.  I've been
> a member for quite a while and am curious why my input is no longer accepted.

Indeed, this filter works. djb: could you tell us what else you
filter, and the reasons (how obvious these may seem, perhaps)?

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

Re: qmail and logging

[Martin Hasenbein]

Niles Rowland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm running qmail with the daemontools and right now
> > qmail and tcpserver are logging through multilog.
> > But now I want them to log through splogger,
> 
> multilog is much better than splogger.  splogger puts a severe load on your
> machine.
> 
> > because I'm used to have everything, belonging to
> > mail in one logfile. With multilog it's not possible
> 
> Yes it is.  The size of the logfiles can be changed before the logs are
> rotated and a new current is created.  This is done with one of the command
> line switches.  I don't know the exact switch off the top of my head and
> qmail.org is unreachable this morning so I don't know which docs to tell you
> to look at.. sorry.
> 
> Niles
> 
> 
---

Hi Niles,

I've read that the advantages about multilog and disadvantages about
syslog and splogger, but I want qmail, smtpd, qmtpd and pop3d to
log to one logfile and as far as I know it isn't possible with
multilog to do this. Or am I wrong with that?

/martin

---


   Martin Hasenbein  Phone (Fax): (+49) 89 1216376-1 (3)
 \|/   Weiglstr.9mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 @ @   D-80636 München   http://martin.hasenbein.com
-oOO-(_)-OOo

On the 8th day, god created Unix ;-)

Prejudice and control

[niles]

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The qmail list does not accept messages from Microsoft Outlook Express.

I get the above mesage whenever I send mail to the list nowadays.  I've been
a member for quite a while and am curious why my input is no longer accepted.

Niles

RE: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Richard Underwood]

> From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> 
> > When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> > process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able
to go
> > off and do other things.
> 
> Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
> production environment.
> 
Life with qmail, 1.5.8 and E.1. - qmail backs off. When a server
comes back up, I want the queued mail there ASAP. If the exchange server has
been down for more than half an hour, you're looking at unacceptable delays.
(Unacceptable to the company, that is.)

> If this box' only function is relaying to the exchange server, why not
> set concurrencyremote to 20?
> 
It's not the only function of the server. Even if it was, that's a
hack. It's a workable solution, but also a hack. I could install another
qmail instance, but then that's worse in my opinion. 

> Have you tried not kicking it at all? qmail has a very efficient retry
> schedule, that doesn't even bog down heavily loaded servers.
> 
I've not, for the reason given above. What I described was just an
example of what can happen to illustrate my point. I've seen similar
problems without kicking the queue, but nothing so clear or repeatable. I
was just giving an example of where qmail doesn't act 'perfectly'.

> Lots of patches satisfy needs easily fixed without patches. Lots of
> patches satisfy needs that only a few users have.
> 
Oh, I quite agree. Apart from my server where I run virtual domains,
I use qmail out of the box. (Actually, one server now has the keep-alives
patch happily installed.) 

> And if you don't like this behaviour: write a patch (or find one), or
> stop using qmail. Nobody is forcing you to use qmail.
> 
Perhaps, but using this list to tell people (often quite forcefully)
that the behaviour they are experiencing is as it should be, and it's the
rest of the world that's broken, and that qmail is perfect already isn't
going to encourage anyone to help. 

If I had the time, I'd write a patch. I wouldn't do it without
discussing it on a mailing list first, though ... Has it been suggested/done
before? Does anyone have any suggestions for better algorithms? What
features would people want?

But I don't think I will. Even suggesting that there was an issue (I
didn't say bug, and I didn't say problem, I said issue) with qmail resulted
in some very abrupt replies, telling me that I was wrong, and qmail was
perfect.

This stifles discussion. The "nobody is forcing you" cliche makes
things worse. I personally think qmail is great, and will always use it -
but all this makes me less willing to contribute - if the (apparent) general
consensus is that people are happy with qmail as it is, then I'll leave you
all in peace. I've got enough servers to split tasks up, a patch would be
good, but I may as well tailor it to my needs and not bother sharing it.

I wonder how many other people have been put off like that?

I think I've been quite reasonable with the messages I've sent. I've
said that I like qmail numerous times. I've said I want to improve it ...
and people have told me it needs no improvement. I simply think that this is
short-sighted.

I'll leave you all alone now.

Richard

Re: Nothing at port 25? RESOLVED

[Alex Le Fevre]

I don't know why Yahoo! decided to not send this
message last night; they're really flaky lately. Good
thing I have my server back up and running.

Basically, it was just that, in all of the
repartitioning/data restoration/etc. that I had to do
this weekend, I forgot to bring over /etc/tcp.smtp.
Duh! It was fixed the instant I put that back.

Thanks for catching that, though.

Alex Le Fevre

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:09:25AM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > >   I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
> > > messages to one host concurrently, perhaps 2 will get through. The rest
> will
> > > be retried, but unfortunately they tend to get retried at much the same
> > > time. Again, 2 messages get through, and the process repeats. This
> simply
> > > isn't efficient.
> > 
> > This isn't qmails fault but the fault of the remote host. There is room
> for
> > improvement - just not on qmail's side. The remote host MUST NOT accept
> more
> > connections than it can handle. If it does the remote recipients must live
> > with the delays.
> > 
>   Read what I wrote again. It IS qmail's fault. One role I use qmail
> for is to accept mail which is then passed on to an exchange server on the
> same network. Here's an example of what can happen ...
>   If the exchange server goes down, a large queue builds up. The
> exchange server accepts something like 20 concurrent connections before
> refusing to accept connections. This, as you say, is what the server should
> do. 
>   When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able to go
> off and do other things.

If you would simply qmail let do its job this would not have been happening.
Just do nothing. qmail's backoff algorithm would not deliver all messages at
once if you hadn't send a SIGALRM to qmail-send.

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

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
[snip]
>   Read what I wrote again. It IS qmail's fault. One role I use qmail
> for is to accept mail which is then passed on to an exchange server on the
> same network. Here's an example of what can happen ...
> 
>   If the exchange server goes down, a large queue builds up. The
> exchange server accepts something like 20 concurrent connections before
> refusing to accept connections. This, as you say, is what the server should
> do.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

>   When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able to go
> off and do other things.

Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
production environment.

>   However, qmail tries to send the queue with lots of concurrent
> connections. The first 20 work, but the rest are dropped. This then blocks
> any further attempts for a time. After this time, the mails are tried again
> - once more, lots of concurrent connections, more dropped connections, more
> delays.

If this box' only function is relaying to the exchange server, why not
set concurrencyremote to 20?

>   In the end, I resort to sitting there watching the queue and kicking
> the qmail-send process until the queue is small enough to go through without
> help.

Have you tried not kicking it at all? qmail has a very efficient retry
schedule, that doesn't even bog down heavily loaded servers.

[snip]
>   Saying that there's no room for improvement on qmail's side is pure
> arrogance. Just look at the number of patches available for it for a clue.
> qmail is great, it works well, but it still could be improved.

Lots of patches satisfy needs easily fixed without patches. Lots of
patches satisfy needs that only a few users have.

Some patches are useful to me. Some are useful to you. Fact remains
that vanilla qmail-1.03 does just about everything one could need.

And if you don't like this behaviour: write a patch (or find one), or
stop using qmail. Nobody is forcing you to use qmail.

>   People complain about single message blocking their queue ...  Run
> two copies? That works, but is it the best option? A configurable limit to
> the threads per message would fix this. Prioritizing messages would be
> better.

It is the best option to me. Not because of single messages blocking
the queue, but because I like my user-to-user emails to be instant and
not be delayed in *any* way by mailinglist traffic.

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

RE: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Richard Underwood]

> From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:09:25AM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
> > messages to one host concurrently, perhaps 2 will get through. The rest
will
> > be retried, but unfortunately they tend to get retried at much the same
> > time. Again, 2 messages get through, and the process repeats. This
simply
> > isn't efficient.
> 
> This isn't qmails fault but the fault of the remote host. There is room
for
> improvement - just not on qmail's side. The remote host MUST NOT accept
more
> connections than it can handle. If it does the remote recipients must live
> with the delays.
> 
Read what I wrote again. It IS qmail's fault. One role I use qmail
for is to accept mail which is then passed on to an exchange server on the
same network. Here's an example of what can happen ...

If the exchange server goes down, a large queue builds up. The
exchange server accepts something like 20 concurrent connections before
refusing to accept connections. This, as you say, is what the server should
do.

When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able to go
off and do other things.

However, qmail tries to send the queue with lots of concurrent
connections. The first 20 work, but the rest are dropped. This then blocks
any further attempts for a time. After this time, the mails are tried again
- once more, lots of concurrent connections, more dropped connections, more
delays.

In the end, I resort to sitting there watching the queue and kicking
the qmail-send process until the queue is small enough to go through without
help.

The exchange server is working as it should be - it's dropping
connections once its connection limit is reached, but left alone, qmail is
being far less than efficient - sendmail with a single thread could deliver
the mail faster!

Saying that there's no room for improvement on qmail's side is pure
arrogance. Just look at the number of patches available for it for a clue.
qmail is great, it works well, but it still could be improved.

People complain about single message blocking their queue ...  Run
two copies? That works, but is it the best option? A configurable limit to
the threads per message would fix this. Prioritizing messages would be
better.

The problem I describe above could be fixed by a configurable
per-host thread limit. Can you think of a neater solution?

Blindly defending qmail isn't going to make it better. It doesn't
help, except in flame-wars. 

Richard

Re: Re: qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:48:07PM +0530, Himanshu Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Henning,
> thanks for your inputs 
> >> I am getting qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._ error on my qmail server 
> >This looks like a ressource limit issue. man ulimit, upper -n and -p.
> I had been monitoring all the resources very closely ... the ulimit is 
> unlimited ...

Surely not. There are at least kernel level limits, if memory serves me
right they aren't reported through ulimit on linux. I don't use linux so
expect not to much help here.


> More oftenly this problem occur due to exceeding max processes ..we are 
> not crossing 150 process where as limits of process is 512 on Redhat linux 
> .. we discussed this problem with developers and seems to be because Qmail 
> not closing connection with LDAP server on port 389 cleanly .. 

FUD. You are using qmail-ldap I might guess. It closes the connections fine.
Works fine with OpenLDAP and iPlanet Directory server. Looks more like IBM's
LDAP server does something wrong here. You might have more look using the
OpenLDAP client libraries instead of IBM ones (or vice versa, try it).

> hence we 
> were seraching if any one has faced/fixed this problem ...

Use a working LDAP server.

Really looks like you are hitting ressource limits. Check ulimit -a for the
user qmails. And check the kernel ressource limits, defaults to 512
processes and file descriptors if memory serves me right.

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

Re: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:09:25AM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
>   I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
> messages to one host concurrently, perhaps 2 will get through. The rest will
> be retried, but unfortunately they tend to get retried at much the same
> time. Again, 2 messages get through, and the process repeats. This simply
> isn't efficient.

This isn't qmails fault but the fault of the remote host. There is room for
improvement - just not on qmail's side. The remote host MUST NOT accept more
connections than it can handle. If it does the remote recipients must live
with the delays.

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

[OT] tcpserver machine, running amanda?

[Todd Finney]

I'd like to complete the removal of inetd from a server, and run 
everything under tcpserver.  Amanda looks like it needs a UDP 
connection though, which tcpserver's name seems to indicate it doesn't 
support.

Dan mentions netcat on the ucspi-tcp page, is that the current SOP for 
doing this?   The amanda archives don't have much information on either 
method that I can find, and the qmail list hasn't talked about it since 
97.   In that message G2S is mentioned, but it's still in beta four 
years later.

thanks,
Todd


  

Re: Re: qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._

[Peter van Dijk]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:48:07PM +0530, Himanshu Kulkarni wrote:
[snip]
> More oftenly this problem occur due to exceeding max processes ..we are 
> not crossing 150 process where as limits of process is 512 on Redhat linux 
> .. we discussed this problem with developers and seems to be because Qmail 
> not closing connection with LDAP server on port 389 cleanly .. hence we 
> were seraching if any one has faced/fixed this problem ...

So you are running qmail-ldap. Ask your questions on the qmail-ldap
list then.

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html

Re: Re: qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._

[Himanshu Kulkarni]

Hi Henning,
thanks for your inputs 

>> 
>> I am getting qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._ error on my qmail server 
>
>This looks like a ressource limit issue. man ulimit, upper -n and -p.
>

I had been monitoring all the resources very closely ... the ulimit is 
unlimited ...
More oftenly this problem occur due to exceeding max processes ..we are 
not crossing 150 process where as limits of process is 512 on Redhat linux 
.. we discussed this problem with developers and seems to be because Qmail 
not closing connection with LDAP server on port 389 cleanly .. hence we 
were seraching if any one has faced/fixed this problem ...
any further inputs will be welcome ...

thanks and regards





Himanshu Kulkarni
B202, Nirmal Tower,
Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane
Pin 401107, Maharashtra
India
Ph. 91 22 8110195
---
Keeping in touch keeps friendship growing
---

qmail and logging

[Martin Hasenbein]

Hi,

I'm running qmail with the daemontools and right now
qmail and tcpserver are logging through multilog.
But now I want them to log through splogger,
because I'm used to have everything, belonging to
mail in one logfile. With multilog it's not possible
to write to one logfile. But when I change my startscript
it doesn't work. The script looks like this:

#!/bin/sh
exec 2>&1 \
envdir ./env \
sh -c '
case "$REMOTENAME" in h) H=;; p) H=p;; *) H=H;; esac
case "$REMOTEINFO" in r) R=;; [0-9]*) R="t$REMOTEINFO";; *) R=R;; esac
exec \
envuidgid qmaild \
softlimit ${DATALIMIT+"-d$DATALIMIT"} \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver \
-vDU"$H$R" \
${LOCALNAME+"-l$LOCALNAME"} \
${BACKLOG+"-b$BACKLOG"} \
${CONCURRENCY+"-c$CONCURRENCY"} \
-xtcp.cdb \
-- "${IP-0}" "${PORT-25}" \
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
'

How do I have to add splogger that this scipt, that it works 
correct?

Thanks

/martin


---


   Martin Hasenbein  Phone (Fax): (+49) 89 1216376-1 (3)
 \|/   Weiglstr.9mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 @ @   D-80636 München   http://martin.hasenbein.com
-oOO-(_)-OOo

On the 8th day, god created Unix ;-)

RE: Fix for qmail-remote process hanging on Linux (and possibly o ther s)

[Richard Underwood]

> > try a couple of dozen connections to the same remote host 
> at the same time.
> > (This is an issue in itself!)
> 
> Why is this an issue?  If the remote host can handle 100 inbound
> connections, you should be able to open 100 connections to 
> them, inject
> your messages, and close the connections.  Everyone's happy.
> 
> If the remote host can't handle that many, it shouldn't accept that
> many.  You'll then get connections past X deferred, and qmail 
> will back
> off.
> 
It's an issue because, while in an ideal world this would be fine,
we don't live in an ideal world and not every smtp server out there will
drop connections smoothly. Instead, they hang, or accept connections that
they can't handle, leading to a reduced throughput.

If I'm sending a few thousand mails, chances are it'd be possible to
maintain full throughput without hitting the same host more than once
concurrently. Sure, if there's nothing else in the queue, then you may as
well use multiple threads per MX, but what do you lose by scheduling other
hosts first?

I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
messages to one host concurrently, perhaps 2 will get through. The rest will
be retried, but unfortunately they tend to get retried at much the same
time. Again, 2 messages get through, and the process repeats. This simply
isn't efficient.

I think qmail is great, don't get me wrong. I just thing there is
room for improvement.

Richard

P.S. People here seem to be a little over-sensitive about this issue!

qmail Digest 6 Aug 2001 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1448

[qmail-digest-help]

qmail Digest 6 Aug 2001 10:00:01 - Issue 1448

Topics (messages 67308 through 67337):

qmail-pop3d and /var/spool/mail
67308 by: Severin Olloz
67309 by: Lukas Beeler
67310 by: Henning Brauer
67313 by: Peter van Dijk

Automatic BCC of all outgoing mail
67311 by: Steve
67312 by: Balazs Nagy
67316 by: Charles Cazabon

Maildir/cur folder question
67314 by: Randolph S. Kahle
67315 by: Peter van Dijk

Procmail+qmail
67317 by: Seby
67318 by: Charles Cazabon

qmailanalog awk: division by zero
67319 by: martin
67320 by: Lukas Beeler
67321 by: martin

problem compiling
67322 by: Tib
67330 by: andrew.tic.ch
67333 by: Tib

Dan, how do we solve this problem?
67323 by: Russell Nelson
67326 by: Steve Reed
67328 by: Greg White
67332 by: Chris Hardie

Nothing at Port 25?
67324 by: Alex Le Fevre
67327 by: Alex Pennace
67329 by: Chris Hardie

rblsmtpd and rblplus?
67325 by: John R. Levine

Serialmail send problem
67331 by: qmail2.col7.metta.lk

Re: Qmail IMAP4 for Maildir - best one??
67334 by: arnie

qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._
67335 by: Himanshu Kulkarni
67337 by: Henning Brauer

Re: rblsmtpd and mail-abuse.org's DNS servers
67336 by: John R. Levine

Administrivia:

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--



I want to migrate my sendmail-server to qmail.

I have to decide to use /var/spool/mail with |/usr/sbin/qmail-procmail to 
store the mails on the server.

But the qmail-pop3-server doesn't work. I use this command-line for the 
server:

tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup servername /usr/bin/checkpassword 
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d /var/spool/mail

But ther's always this error-message when I want to fetch the mails:

-ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir

So I try the pop3lite-server and then it works perfectly.

Is this normal that the qmail-pop3d doesn't work with the /var/spool/mail 
directory or must I hack the code?

What's the best solution? Use a other pop3-server!?

Any ideas?

Thnaks!

Severin Olloz





At 14:28 05.08.2001 +0200, Severin Olloz wrote:
>Any ideas?
qmail-pop3d supports only maildir spools.
use gnu-pop3d, qpopper or similar to pop your vms


-- 
--/-/-- Lukas Beeler  [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---\-\--
   \ \  My HomePage: http://www.projectdream.org>  / /





On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 02:28:39PM +0200, Severin Olloz wrote:
> I have to decide to use /var/spool/mail with |/usr/sbin/qmail-procmail to 
> store the mails on the server.
> But the qmail-pop3-server doesn't work. 

qmail-pop3d does not support any mail storage format asifr from Maildir.
Either switch to maildir (you won't regret it) or use another pop3d.

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




On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 02:28:39PM +0200, Severin Olloz wrote:
> I want to migrate my sendmail-server to qmail.
> 
> I have to decide to use /var/spool/mail with |/usr/sbin/qmail-procmail to 
> store the mails on the server.

mbox or Maildir format? Both are perfectly possible in /var/spool/mail
(we currently do Maildir in /var/spool/mail as well).

If mbox: qmail-pop3d can't do it. If Maildir: get a checkpassword
module that understands /var/spool/mail. I don't know if any are
readily available.

Greetz, Peter
-- 
Against Free Sex!   http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html




Does anyone know how to automatically send a copy of all outgoing email from
all addresses on a qmail machine to a remote address (e.g. for legal
compliance) - or just to save it locally in the log, and to do this without
requiring a recompile of qmail?

Steve Leeke





On Sun, Aug 05 2001, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Does anyone know how to automatically send a copy of all outgoing email from
> all addresses on a qmail machine to a remote address (e.g. for legal
> compliance) - or just to save it locally in the log, and to do this without
> requiring a recompile of qmail?

With no testing:

cd /var/qmail/bin
mv qmail-rspawn qmail-rspawn.orig
echo '#!/bin/sh' > qmail-rspawn
echo 'tee /var/log/outgoing-emails | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-rspawn.orig' >> qmail-respawn
chown root:qmail qmail-rspawn
chmod 711 qmail-rspawn

Maybe it does what you want.
---jul




Please don't introduce an unrelated topic by replying to an existing
thread.  It screws up threading in the archives and our MUAs.

Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know how to automatically 

Re: qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._

[Henning Brauer]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:00:43PM +0530, Himanshu Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> I am getting qmail-spawn_unable_to_fork._ error on my qmail server 

This looks like a ressource limit issue. man ulimit, upper -n and -p.

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