Re: auto append a sig
I think patching qmail-remote would be overboard for this particular problem. Most unix MUA's have the ability to append a signature to the end of your message. PINE I know has a configuration option for this. mutt does it automatically. I don't know about other mailers. --Adam On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 05:35:00PM -, Petr Novotny wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 15 Dec 99, at 9:25, Mark Maggelet wrote: > > > Hi > > how do I get qmail to automatically append > > a little sig line at the end of all outgoing messages? > > Patch qmail-remote. Don't screw up MIME messages. > > (If you want to have better control, use the approach of FAQ #5.5 to > "fixup" a message by appending a trailer line. Doesn't affect > messages injected by qmail-inject.) > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 > Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > > iQA/AwUBOFffblMwP8g7qbw/EQIJEwCgq2j840sGVy8V88XBp7Se/yjNj38AoKDl > HkTO2hmerIF87oVI1wWCvXUI > =TUxK > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- > Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.antek.cz > PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F > -- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk. > [Tom Waits] >
Re: make errors
Actually, he is probably just missing some -dev packages. I don't know Redhat very well, but I'm sure there is someone here who can tell him which RPM's he needs to install. --Adam On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 12:12:29AM +, Sam wrote: > Brock M. Eastman writes: > > > qmail-local.c:1: sys/types.h: No such file or directory > > qmail-local.c:2: sys/stat.h: No such file or directory > > make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 1 > > You have a corrupted installation. Some your key files are missing. > > Reformat and reinstall the entire O/S. > > >
Re: Question about UCE and also AMAVIS
I don't see anything wrong with offering to fix someone's problem for a reasonable fee, especially if it is something that is beyond the scope of the normal questions/problems that the list is here to answer. IMHO, it's not the list's job to do peoples' work for them. We're here to provide technical information and support for people who are having legitimate problems (and hopefully have done their homework before asking). --Adam On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 07:27:58AM -, Alex at Star wrote: > > >Probably not against "the rules", but it shows extremely poor taste, and, > >much like you, I would actually refrain from doing business with any > >inconsiderate clod who'd try to pull that on me. > > > So Sam, let me get this straight. If you posted a problem onto the list, > and someone proposed a solution that not only costs you less in real terms, > but is also technically better, you would ignore it. In that case, why post > the problem in the first place? > > Alex > > > This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System > http://academy.star.co.uk/public/virustats.htm >
Re: Virtual domains stuff
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 08:43:45AM -0500, Peter Green wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 09:39:07AM +0800, 'Michael Boman' wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:49:55AM -0500, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:48:10AM -0500, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > > > > then, in ~alias/.qmail-foo, put: > > > > > > Sorry, this should be ~alias/.qmail-foo-default > > > > > > --Adam > > > > It doesnt work. My files looks like this: > > > > cat /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains > > wizoffice.com.sg:alias-wizoffice.com.sg > > > > cat ~alias/.qmail-wizoffice.com.sg-default > > |forward "$[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > Shouldn't that be "DEFAULT", not "DFAULT"? yeah, I suppose it's my time to say I had just woken up when I wrote that message :) --Adam
Re: Virtual domains stuff
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:48:10AM -0500, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > then, in ~alias/.qmail-foo, put: Sorry, this should be ~alias/.qmail-foo-default --Adam
Re: Virtual domains stuff
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 03:55:46PM +0800, 'Michael Boman' wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:47:53AM +0100, Häffelin Holger wrote: > > Hi Michael! > > > > > I am still a bit new qmail user and I am wondering how this > > > with virtual > > > domains are working. The this is that the comapany has 2 domain names > > > (foo.com and foo.bar.com for an example). Can I use the virtual domain > > > stuff to redirect all mail from foo.bar.com to foo.com ? How is it > > > done? > > You put in your virtualdomains: > > foo.bar.com:virtualuser > > foo.com:virtualuser > > > > where virtualuser is a shell user. All the mail for both domains are > > delivered into virtualuser's homedir. There you can go on with .qmail-files > > to distribute mail. > > > > That is not something I want to do as I have right now 10k users to > take care of.. (only 70 of them are affected of this, but I like to keep > things simple and put everything in the mySQL databse. > > What I want to do is to tell qmail that if the domain is foo.bar.com > change it to foo.com and THEN deliver the mail. Put the following in virtualdomains: foo.bar.com:alias-foo then, in ~alias/.qmail-foo, put: |forward "$[EMAIL PROTECTED]" --Adam
Re: Filtering on "MAIL FROM:"
On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 11:16:33PM +, Sam wrote: > Stefaan A Eeckels writes: > > The qmail connection being that I'm running qmail on our > > corporate server, and he wants me to basically make it an > > open relay so he can use the SMTP server from his portable > > (he's on the road a lot, uses a lot of different ISP while > > on the road, wants his mail to look as if it comes from > > the corporate server, and can't/won't give me a range of > > IP addresses). Refusing mail that doesn't come from > > our domain is of course dimwitted, as we would not be receiving > > a lot of mail :-). > > He pretends this can be done with Exchange or Notes - I guess > > it's BS, but I don't know these animals... > > It's BS. Also, depending on his providers' policies, he should be able to use their relays for outgoing mail, while using his internal e-mail address. Most providers allow this. --Adam
Re: Sendmail Virtusertable equivalent?
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 06:39:35PM -0800, Richard Roderick wrote: > At 08:46 PM 12/6/1999 -0500, Jay Soffian wrote: > > "Richard" == Richard Roderick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Richard> AAAHHH. That's what I was looking for! The part about > > Richard> using the fastforward to do it was what I could not find, > > Richard> and I'm no expert. > > Richard> Someone needs to add this to the Qmail web site. > > > >It is. See 'Author's Enhancement Software for qmail': > >The fastforward package supports forwarding tables under qmail. > > > I saw fastforward, I just didn't have a clean understanding of the capabilities > and how it could be used to solve this problem. :) Then how's about downloading it and reading the README and man pages for it? --Adam
Qmail + F-secure
Is there a "convention" for setting up an incoming mail relay with virus checking ability with qmail? It seems like something that would be easy to do, like running every incoming message through a script and then forwarding it back out, but that seems rather system intensive. Has anyone come up with a cleaner way? Thanks, --Adam
Re: Force mailqueue to send?
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 08:35:26AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 06:44:48PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote: > > > Is it possible to force qmail to try send all the messages in the queue? > > > > /var/qmail/bin/qmail-tcpok > > killall -ALRM qmail-send > > All you linux folks: Please don't suggest using killall without warning. > It's not standard unix (so what?) and the only other place I've > encountered killall is on solaris, where it tries to kill *all* processes. Erm, I've seen killall in a bunch of places including a FreeBSD box, so I wouldn't say it's limited to just linux. --Adam > > > Greetz, Peter. > > -- > > Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/womanizer/pretending coder > > | > > | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; > > | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.' > > | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++ > > > > -- > "Life is much too important to be taken seriously." > Thomas Erskine<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(613) 998-2836 >
Re: disk mirroring
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 02:04:50AM +, Florian G. Pflug wrote: > > I don't really mean to be a hardass here, but you need to know about > > how the qmail queue works. You have the qmail source right? Included > > with that source is an "INTERNALS" document which describes how the > > queue works. With qmail's insistance on fsync'ing, you can see how > > a writeback cache on the HW RAID controller can help. > > > > Or perhaps you don't know? HW RAID controllers can come with non-volitile > > RAM caches. When part of this cache is in "writeback" mode, scsi write > > commands are put in the cache, and the controller tells the OS that the > > command has been completed. Then the writes are committed to hard drive > > (which have their own caches). Thus, multiple small-block writes followed > > by fsync's should finish much quicker on a HW RAID with writeback cache. > > > > If you're relying on OS RAM to do the same thing for a filesystem, then > > the fsync will put an end to that. > > All this would make hw-cach *forbidden* for qmail queue dir, since then it > is *not* guaranteed, that what is synced is writted on disk and will > survive a power loss It depends on your raid card. Some cards/systems battery back-up their cache so that it is not lost in the event of a power failure. > Anyway, what is noone mentioning raid 5? I just played with it under linux > (software raid) until now - but it seems quite fast. What may seem fast to you could be nothing compared to the numbers people are looking for in large environments. --Adam > > Greetings, Florian Pflug >
Re: Qmail with rh 6.1
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:39:44PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: > And, from Steve's process list: > > > qmaill2893 0.0 1.1 1084 340 ?SNov07 0:00 > > cyclog -s500 -n5 /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd Right.. that's for qmail-smtpd.. Those logs will be useless however if he wants to see where the mail actually went. He needs to look in qmail-send's logfile which appears to still be handled by splogger. --Adam
Re: Qmail with rh 6.1
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote: > "Andres Mendez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >The log should be in /var/log/qmail/smtpd. > > For LWQ. But he said he used the HOWTO, which uses > /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd. No.. It's runing splogger and not cyclog, which means the logs are getting sent through syslog. Look in /var/log/mail.log. --Adam > > -Dave >
Re: Disk Space
You could try stripping the binaries. I think they're already stripped though. man strip besides that, I hope you are putting your queue on a real disk, because if you're not, it'll be lost every time you reboot. --Adam On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 09:26:01PM -0700, Matt Mouser wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering how small could I get Qmail down in file size? I am only > talking about the binaries and config files. All the user mail boxes and > stuff won't be a problem. The reason I ask is because I run a different > linux distro that stores all my os and daemons in a ramdisk. This is great. > Right now everything boots off a floppy (exim and qpopper) and then loads in > ram, and I have all my user files stored on hard drives. I wish to do the > same thing with qmail. All the current packages I use are just tarred > gzipped files. How small can I get qmail's binaries and config files down > to? I would love to use Qmail as it has tons more vhosting features than > other mailservers and is way more scaleable. Thanks for your help. > > Matt >
Re: same domain on two mailservers
Isn't this the same as a smarthost? put the following in /var/qmail/control/smtproutes: :mailserver2.example.com where this is the address of your second mail server. --Adam On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: > Jan Stanik writes: > >I need set same domain on two mailservers: when user does > > not exist on first server, mail will be route to next one. Is it > > possible? > > Sure. > > echo '|forward "$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"' >~alias/.qmail-default > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool! >
Re: Is inetd really unreliable?
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:54:25AM -0700, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > Umm, you mostly reinvented inetd. Why not add the features you want to > inetd instead of reimplenting inetd in tcpserver? > > Seriously, there's reasons for using either program. The point I'm > trying to make is, for 90% of the people out there, inetd is good > enough. I'd be willing to wager that a good portion of the people reading this list do not use inetd at all. I replace it with xinetd on the systems that I administer. A lot of people ditch it altogether and just run everything under tcpserver. As far as a "single file" where you can put your "tcpserver configuration", what's wrong with /etc/init.d/tcpserver? --Adam
Re: Sqwebmail and IMAP
adam@spotted:~$ ls -l Mail drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Aug 18 01:37 billing drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 11:59 bugtraq drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:43 default drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 02:28 idt drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:36 inbox drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 02:27 inet drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:43 mailer-daemon drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:41 nanog drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 8 10:52 nic drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:46 old drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:35 qmail drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 29 21:26 raid drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:43 root drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 01:42 smp drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Aug 13 20:13 themes.org drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Jul 2 16:05 tx drwx-- 5 adam adam 1024 Aug 18 01:33 virtual This is the way my folders are organized. This makes sense to me. Everything that's not caught by a specific .qmail file or procmail rule is sent to ~/Mail/inbox/ > Then what you will have to ask yourself is whether you want all your > folders shared by every one of your incoming maildirs. I could consider > the proposal of storing all folders in ../Mail, however what I don't like > about this approach is that you're now in conflict with your mail apps who > use $HOME/Mail to store traditional mailbox-file folders. If we're really that concerned about this, we could decide upon a new, "standard" directory (such as Maildirs/ or Mailboxes/ etc). In any case, mutt has no problem with my method of keeping my mail folders, and as far as I know, most mailers allow you to specify this as a variable or config option. > Additionally, the approach of storing folders in the INBOX maildir allows > the implementation of a voluntary quota, which I've done, and I know that > people are using it, so I'm not going to abandon that. Fixing this up only involves the addition of a single directory inside ~/Mail. --Adam
Re: Newbie install help
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 10:59:40AM -0700, Ryan wrote: > 192.168.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" try 192.168.0. --Adam
Re: ANNOUNCE: /var/qmail/control/locals and regex
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 08:56:54AM +0200, Robert Sander wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) wrote: > > > Much of work? > > All you have to do is (untested): > > controls/virtualdomains: > > .example.com:alias-piffle > > alias/.qmail-default: > > |forward "$DEFAULT" > > (Yes, that's less work than applying a patch!) > > Inconsistent? > > Maybe. > > I see, but is that documented anywhere? You mean like, say, the man pages for example? http://www.qmail.org/man/man8/qmail-command.html > And I still think this is the "territory" auf control/locals because I do > not have a "virtual"domain, but a real one ;-) Don't reject a solution because you don't like the semantics. --Adam
Re: When will qmail back off to the next MX?
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 11:45:23AM -0700, Racer X wrote: > part of the problem, for me at least, is that it is impossible to guarantee > that secondary MX's will, in fact, accept mail for the domain they are > supposed to be MX'ing for. i'd rather hold the mail for a couple days in my > queue and deliver it directly to the host than pass it off to a secondary > that may or may not handle it correctly. at least if i pass it directly to > the host i can guarantee that it's his fault if he loses it then, as opposed > to getting a third party involved. That's not your problem though. If they advertise a secondary MX, it should be configured properly to accept mail. The problem here is really teh behavior of the raptor firewall. Connections that should be refused or dropped are being accepted. Raptor should either change this policy or proxy MX correctly. --Adam
Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:27:28PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote: > > The decision to not support inetd was made after qmail 1.03 was > > released and > > was announced on this list. I assume that the documentation will be > > corrected in the next version. > > So then the assumption is that all qmail users subscribe to - and read - > every message on this list. Not only that, new users have also gone back > and read every message that was ever posted. No, the assumption is that when a qmail user follows the instructions, and can't get qmail to work with inetd for some reason, he comes here and asks for help. He is then told that inetd is not officially supported and that he should use tcpserver. The user is in effect given an "update". The latest qmail source tarball is quite old, and since there will be no more releases of qmail 1.0, dan probably figured that it doesn't make sense to release 1.04 for a minor documentation change. *That* is what this list and www.qmail.org are for. *WE* are the cutting edge qmail users that know all the latest info. Expecting current info to be in a two year old distribution is kind of unrealistic, IMO. So is expecting an author to release a new version of software just to make documentation changes. --Adam
Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:24:28PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote: > There you have it... "make setup check" doesn't add/change that line in > inetd.conf for you, but other than that it looks pretty "out of the box" to > me. Then, to read that in conjunction with the statement on the web site IS > confusing and misleading. "make install" for any other program doesn't add lines to your inetd.conf either. I don't see how this is relevant. > Now, if this configuration isn't supported, the instructions in the > distribution need to be changed. Or something needs to change, like maybe > including tcpserver as part of the qmail distribution, if that is the > supported method. Or is there a supported method? The decision to not support inetd was made after qmail 1.03 was released and was announced on this list. I assume that the documentation will be corrected in the next version. I don't really know what your agenda is here. There are a lot of different ways to install qmail. The instructions in INSTALL work for most people. They worked fine for me the first time, even though I had to adapt the settings to xinetd. I didn't ask here how to configure my xinetd, I consulted the xinetd documentation. --Adam
Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
qmail runs fine under inetd. It is just not officially supported by the author or by this mailing list. The reason it's not supported is because of the large differences in tcpd and inetd between the different unices. These differences can sometimes cause support headaches. --Adam On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 06:34:50AM -0700, Josh Pennell wrote: > Hmmm. Inetd under OpenBSD 2.5 consistently envokes the qmail-1.03 smtpd > daemon. I don't run daemontools, ucspi-tcp or tcpserver. > > I also had qmail running under solaris 2.6 (x86 ver) without the above > requirements? > > So what gives? Is it that qmail-1.04 won't work with inetd? > > One last note, as the senior developer here always says, "if it was hard > to write it should be hard to read" ;) > > > > get qmail, but to make it work, also > > get daemontools and ucspi-tcp. On top of that, near the top of the home > > page you can read that qmail no longer works with inetd (or am I > dreaming), > > which means if you want to be able to receive email with qmail, you need > > tcpserver or something similar. Or am I just being thick headed, again? >
Re: Reading "aliases.cdb"?
/var/qmail/bin/printforward < /etc/aliases.cdb --Adam On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 03:53:32AM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote: > I am using the fastforward package. I've set up quite a few entries but > somehow seem to have wiped out my original '/etc/aliases' file. I assume > that if I just add new entries to a blank '/etc/aliases' file, it will wipe > out my existing entries. So... Is there a way for me to un-cdb the > aliases.cdb file? I would be a lot more comfortable with a plain-text > version around somewhere... > > Gracias, > Ben >
Re: Patches revisited
I think that it would be really useful if qmail.org had an "apps" section similar to freshmeat.net or linuxapps.com. If I could search through names and decriptions of apps, that would be *very useful*. For instance, if I hear about this cool program called "vchkpw", that's an addition for qmail, and I go to www.qmail.org, a simple search is not going to find it, because the places that vchkpw is mentioned on the qmail page do not lead to the actual software. vchkpw is listed as the following: >Christopher Johnson (EI39-1) wrote a virtual domains package with the >following features. Inter7 is now maintaining the current version. For someone who searches for "virtual domains", this is fine. However, if I've used vchkpw before and just can't remember the link, then it's going to be hard for me to find this on the page. Especially since it's listed under "Alternative checkpassword implementations." It's obvious to you or me why your checkpassword program relates to virtual domains, but that is not obvious at all to a newbie. Another thing that database searches are good for is that you can have descriptions with words appearing out of order. For instance, a search for "virtual domains" will find a document with "virtual mail domains" as well. Anyway, just my 2 cents. I think the qmail page is definitely a very valuable resource, but I can see how it would be confusing for newbies. --Adam
ulimit
Can someone give me some sane ulimits for using in my qmail init script? I have been running with only the following: ulimit -v 2048 But this gives problems on some systems. (tcpserver wouldn't even start on my Ultra5 running Debian after this ulimit statement) --Adam
Re: Problems while downloading E-Mails with Outlook-Express
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 09:38:07PM +0200, Cyril Bitterich wrote: > Nachricht Nr. 30 konnte nicht abgerufen werden. Konto: 'gunnet ', > Server: 'pop gunnet.de', Protokoll: POP3, Serverantwort: > 'Vielleicht sollte ich's mal mit "Learning by doing" versuchen???', > Anschluss: 110, Secure (SSL): Nein, Serverfehler: 0x800CCC90, > Fehlernummer: > 0x800420CD. I like how Outlook Express reports a Secure (SSL) connection, even though it is obvious that this is just a regular clear-text POP3 connection. --Adam
Re: Hurdle #2
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 12:52:22PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: > Ron Rosson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am using qmail 1.03 and think I have it working properly. > >But I am having a problem getting my procmail filters to work right. ... > > > >I have a .forward file for my procmail filters > > > > "|/usr/local/bin/procmail .jfrc" > > > >Here is the error I am getting im my procmail log: > > > > procmail: Lock failure on "/var/mail/insane.lock" > > Don't know if it'll fix that error, but procmail needs to be run from > preline, e.g.: > > "|/var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/local/bin/procmail .jfrc" > > -Dave > His procmail probably doesn't have permission to wrote to /var/mail Ron, did you use make install-suid when you installed procmail? Or did the permissions on /var/mail get changed somehow? --Adam
Re: Still 533
On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 01:04:24PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote: > I guess I don't fully understand the tcpserver part of it. I know if the > domain is not in rcpthosts it will not relay... but if I start tcpserver > WITHOUT -x it will deny ALL relaying? You're not understanding some critical details about how tcpserver and qmail relate to each other. tcpserver doesn't control relaying in any way. It just passes a set of environment variables to qmail-smtpd. These variables can change based on rules in the file specified with -x. If the RELAYCLIENT variable is not passed to qmail-smtpd, qmail will refuse to relay mail to hosts not listed in rcpthosts. You must use -x with the filename of the cdb hash. Not the flat text file. Lets get rid of all ambiguity here. Type the following commands into your server and report back with the output: file /etc/qmail-smtpd.cdb ps auxwww | grep tcpserver --Adam
Re: Still 533
That's not a cdb, it's a flat textfile. You need to compile it into a cdb using tcprules. --Adam On Thu, Sep 09, 1999 at 12:33:22PM -0400, Paul Farber wrote: > 28500 ? S 0:01 tcpserver -v -H -R -c100 -x > /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.cdb -u81 -g80 0 smtp qmail-smtpd > > qmail-smtpd.cdb: > > 207.44.65.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 146.145.48.133-159:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 209.173.3.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > :allow > > Thanks for the help.. but as you can see I AM using the .cdb file. It > will not work if I have rcpthosts in place. As my little chart described. > > Paul D. Farber II > Farber Technology > Ph. 570-628-5303 > Fax 570-628-5545 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote: > > > You MUST run tcpserver with the -x option and specify the tcprules.cdb > > file to be used. You have been told this MULTIPLE times. > > > > On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Paul Farber wrote: > > > > > Hello all... > > > > > > still getting my ass kicked by qmail. I've gotten it down to one file... > > > if rcpthosts exists then I get the 533 (#5.7.1) not allowed message. > > > > > > there are no log file entries, and I am running tcpserver with -v -H -R. > > > > > > Here's what I've narrowed it down to: > > > > > > qmail-smtpd.cdbrctphostserror > > > Y Y Y > > > N Y Y > > > Y N N > > > N N N > > > > > > ANY advice > > > > > > Paul D. Farber II > > > Farber Technology > > > Ph. 570-628-5303 > > > Fax 570-628-5545 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > - > > Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Senior Systems Administrator > > localconnect(sm) > > http://www.localconnect.net/ > > > > The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/ > > One Monroeville Center, Suite 850 > > Monroeville, PA 15146 > > (412) 810- Phone > > (412) 810-8886 Fax > > > > >
Re: Virtual Domains
Does Brian have a .qmail-default file in his homedir? --Adam On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 11:21:59AM -0500, Keith From wrote: > I have read and read and read the man pages, online > resources, and anything else i could get my hands > on to try and resolve this problem on my own. Now I > turn to the masses for assistance. > > my mail server is: mail.cbssol.com > I have all my local mail running just fine. > > I created a new user like this: > useradd brian > userpasswd brian > * > * > su brian -c '/var/qmail/bin/maildirmake ~/Maildir' > > In /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains I added the line: > laiken.com:brian > > In /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts I added the line: > laiken.com > > I then did: > killall -1 qmail-send > to restart qmail. > > When I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it bounces back to me with this: > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.cbssolutions.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) > > When I send the message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it is delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I do not understand.. > Thank you in advance for all of your help. > Keith From >
Re: Problems getting started
I've changed the link in my howto to point to daemontools-0.53, and I suggest that people use that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with daemontools 0.53. --Adam On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 01:02:55PM -0500, Michael wrote: > Would someone please post a version of the startup script that works with > Daemontools 0.61? > > I have meticulously read the "Life with qmail" as well as the "qmail How-to" > before starting my qmail installation. I thought I understood everything. > Everything compiled and tested as planned. Then, I tried starting qmail. I > got a few errors related to setuser, accustamp, and syslog. Okay, after a > little more searching, I find that they have all been replaced in the new > Daemontools by setuidgid, tai64n, and multilog. I switched them, and > though I had fixed 'em. The startup script still doesn't work. I realize that > the supervise parameters have changed. Drastically. Then I realize > (through the mailing-list archives) that the "Life with qmail" and "qmail How- > to" docs, the ones I based my entire installation on, are not quite up to date > in regards to the new Daemontools. Now, I'm lost. > > Would someone post a version of the startup script with works with > Daemontools 0.61 that is equivalent to the script listed on the "Life with > qmail" doc? Or would the better solution be to just grab Daemontools 0.53, > recompile and reinstall, and use the old script? > > I have been reading the thread started by James, as it seem he is having > the same problem. However, he has not come to any solution. At least I > don't feel like I am the only one having these problems. I take it everyone > "out there" is still using the old Daemontools. Should I be too? > > Any insight would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Michael Lundberg > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Lobby mail.com
On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 02:33:01AM -0400, Cris Daniluk wrote: > There are no current court cases. There is, however, strong legal basis. I > sell content to a customer which I deliver via email. You cut my route to my > customer who has an email account with you. That prevents us from fulfilling > our end of the deal between us and our customer. They paid us money, we > didn't deliver. If you will all remember, Network Solutions' lawyers were in > a similar situation when they were threatened with a blacklist for their > high volume of spam. They made this very same argument. That never saw a > court room, but then again they aren't blacklisted are they? > > >The real question is, "are you a lawyer?" If you're not, then you really > >have no business speaking about the law in any forum. > > Are you? Is Sam? Are any of us? No. My point is that. I do have legal > background in this subject area though, as it is intimately involved with my > job. I'm not speaking about the law. I'm just asking you to qualify your own statements. I normally refrain from such discussions unless I'm making claims that I've researched and am ready to stand behind. > >By the way, I noticed that you responded to Sam's message, but you failed > to > >respond to Jim Lippard's posts which had a much more specific objection to > >your viewpoint, with a relevant quoted source. Is there a reason for this? > > Mr. Lippards points are completely irrelevant. He's citing a bill that > doesn't exist. Moreover, if it would suit the fancy of those of you who are > legal evangalists, I can bring in a list of court cases in which actual > statutes were cited, where entire sections of user agreements like what > we're discussing were thrown out as unreasonable. I don't have any desire to > sift through legal cases to prove a point, so I'd prefer you look it up > yourself if you don't believe me. In general, it is desirable for someone who is arguing a point to cite relevant sources, and not argue based (apparently) solely upon his own opinion. This is even more desirable in discussions where the people involved are uninformed, and/or do not trust the other side to give accurate information. In any event, my opinion is that anyone who tries to sue an ISP for refusing to accept mail from them will fail miserably. --Adam
Re: Lobby mail.com
I can understand customers suing for not having their mail delivered. However, I can't see where you make the mental leap to the sender being able to sue. If you are really serious about these claims, then please cite resources and court decisions that support them. The real question is, "are you a lawyer?" If you're not, then you really have no business speaking about the law in any forum. By the way, I noticed that you responded to Sam's message, but you failed to respond to Jim Lippard's posts which had a much more specific objection to your viewpoint, with a relevant quoted source. Is there a reason for this? --Adam On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 01:13:33AM -0400, Cris Daniluk wrote: > This may sound rude, but it's not intended to be--what country do you live > in? I think you're either under a different set of laws, or have a > fundamental misunderstanding of them. Your claims are very inaccurate. VERY > inaccurate. The only reason I bring this to the list is that there may be > other people in the same situation as mail.com out there and I think they > may be reading everything that comes through here as fact. It is illegal for > them to block out legitimate email from customers when they agree to provide > the mail to customers. They can make you sign contracts that say this is not > so, but those contracts can have their legality tried in court. All ISPs and > similar services have these contractual agreements that basically disclaim > everything they do and quite frankly, out of personal experience, I can say > they don't last a second in court. If mail.com accidentally blocked out this > and fixed it later that's one thing, but if it was intentional--which in > this case it could be construed as, since they made no effort on their part > to verify the validity of the mail, they are directly liable. Moreover, the > customer and/or the sender would be within their legal rights to sue. The > customer lost his mail and that was bad, but the sender potentially lost > money as well (in the case of premium content subscriptions such as WSJ.com > or others). Customers pay for this service and therefore blocking out a > large and significant chunk of users impedes on their profits. > > In this instance I think all is well between Mail.com and the offender, but > I think that they, as well as anyone in similar situations, need to be aware > that this is in fact dangerous. Exercise discretion. For your own sakes. > > -Original Message- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:19 PM > Cc: Qmail (E-mail) > Subject: Re: Lobby mail.com > > > Ben Kosse writes: > > > > No matter how dumb or not dumb mail.com's action was, they > > > had every legal > > > right to do what they did. It's their servers, their private > > > property, and > > > their bandwidth. > > Which, if you would note, are used by people who enter into a contractual > > arrangement by which they either pay mail.com (iname.com users with a POP > > account, for example) directly or access their e-mail via a web interface > > where they agree to view ads in exchange for, ahem, receiving e-mail. I > > In that case, it's those individuals, and not their system administrator, > who have a cause of action to take against mail.com. They might have a > legitimate issue, however it is their issue only, and nobody else's. > > > don't know what type of list the guy is running, but if, for example, it > was > > a high importance list and the customers of said list lost money or > similar > > because of mail.com's actions (or the list maintainer lost money because > of > > mail.com's non-researched actions), then either the customers and/or > himself > > have a very decent case. > > The customers may in fact do, I never said that they don't. However, > unless they appointed the admin to be their official spokesman, and > explicitly delegated to him the authority to take action on their behalf, > it's none of the admin's business. > > -- > Sam > >
Re: The word from Mail.com
On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 04:49:40PM -0400, Soffen, Matthew wrote: > It looks to me that many machines running qmail will die on test 6. > > I tried my personal email server, one I do consulting for, the one at > abuse.net, and muncher.math.uic.edu. It looks like all of them fail at > Test 6. > > However when I ran the test on vix's mailer, it passed all the tests. > The only reason it passes is that it checks the sender address BEFORE > attempting to deliver. I also ran the test on Sendmail.org's server. > It passes as well. > > I have a question though, how valid is testing > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to see if the address > fails/rejected ? > The mail server would HAVE to process the % hack. Its NOT necessarily a > valid test on all servers. Its only appropriate to test this on servers > who HAVE the % hack enabled. > > Comments ? > > Matt Soffen As stated many times before, the only valid proof that a relay test has worked is a delivered message. If the message doesn't get delivered, then the relay test didn't work. Period. --Adam
Re: Relaying large attachments
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 12:43:25PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: > "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >What about using qmtp/qmqp? Wouldn't this accomplish what he needs? > > No, SMTP already has a mechanism to handle this (multiple RCPT's), and > QMTP doesn't add anything there. The "problem" is that qmail doesn't > try to minimize bandwidth by using multiple RCPT's [1]. Also, I > believe he said he's unlikely to get the server to run anything > special for him. I thought that qmtp supported multiple RCPT's.. Anyway.. I thought he said that he was in control of both servers. my bad. --Adam
Re: Relaying large attachments
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 04:26:19PM +, Sam wrote: > Chris McCarthy writes: > > > > > My company has 2 qmail servers, one is a dialup, the other is online > > permanently in another office. > > When a user in the dialup office sends an email with a large attachment > > to a large number of recipients, is it possible to configure the dialup > > qmail server to send one copy to the other qmail server to relay, so > > that the dialup line is not being used to transfer the same attachment > > to all recipients ? > > The short answer is no. With a lot of pain, you can probably find some way > to hack around it, like dumping all mail into a Maildir, detecting > duplicate messages and combining them together, then unloading the combined > messages into the relay when the line comes up. > > If this represents your typical mail traffic, Qmail isn't the right mail > server for you. What about using qmtp/qmqp? Wouldn't this accomplish what he needs? --Adam > > > -- > Sam >
Re: orbs defence
This is incorrect. ORBS only includes host which actually relay the mail,
not just accept it. That is, it has to be *delivered* to the test RCPT TO:
address.
--Adam
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:50:48PM -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
> According to the www.orbs.org battery of tests,
> the qmail smtp daemon "fails" in the case:
>
> MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO:
>
> {relay} is tested as both [IP.address] and reverse.DNS.name.
>
> Heavily exploited by spammers and mailbombers.
> Most Lotus Notes/Domino installations fail this. Recently fixed - see
>
> [ See: http://www.orbs.org/envelopes.cgi for this reference.
> Test out your qmail daemon using the http://maps.vix.com/tsi/ar-test.html
> engine.]
>
> This being the case, how does one _prevent_ a mail server which
> is running qmail to be _not_ included in the orbs database?
>
> --
> Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
> Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
> CANADAWWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
>
Re: bad deliver
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 10:51:25AM -0400, Daniluk, Chris wrote: > I think you may misunderstand the situation--we are sending mail globally. > The recipients may or may not (and most likely, based on statistical usage > of qmail, do not) use qmail. We are experimenting with qmail as a drop-in > replacement for MS SMTP server. MS SMTP server has never "switched" emails > before (that's about the *only* thing it hasn't done), but when we switch to > qmail it occaisionally does. We're talking about 10-15 messages out of > 300,000 here, but that's still pretty significant and needs dealt with. > > Here's a sample header of a message received by [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > These aren't all the headers. Please include Delivered-To lines. --Adam > Received: from mailtest1.strategy.com (10.10.209.10 [10.10.209.10]) by > mailgate.strategy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service > Version 5.5.2448.0) > id Q5V89MBW; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:06:59 -0400 > Received: (qmail 24678 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - > Received: from unknown (HELO qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com) (10.10.177.152) > by 10.10.209.10 with SMTP; 13 Aug 1999 13:16:01 - > Received: from mail pickup service by qta-ctah3-dev.querytone.com with > Microsoft SMTPSVC; > Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:14:14 -0400 > From: "Strategy.com Investment Channel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ian Fevrier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Change in Consensus Estimate > Date: 13 Aug 1999 09:07:38 EDT > X-Comment: Produced By Cheetah, Telepath, MSI. MessageID=PortfolioID:22671 > EmailID:22196 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -Original Message- > From: Simon Rae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 3:47 PM > To: Daniluk, Chris > Subject: Re: bad deliver > > > Have you checked the intended recipient's .qmail file or the qmail/alias > directory for entries that could be redirecting mail elsewhere? > > Si > > "Daniluk, Chris" wrote: > > > > We've been experiencing an unusual phenomenon--Qmail appears to be > > *occaisionally* delivering email to the wrong people. The message headers > > are fine, but they get delivered to completely wrong addresses. There's no > > similarity or relationship between the messages and qmail doesn't log > > anything relevant. It will receive the message via smtp, queue it, then > send > > it. The header will contain the email address it SHOULD have gone to but > the > > sender will be someone else. This is very strange considering there's no > > header mutilation taking place. > > > > Cris Daniluk > > MicroStrategy >
Re: Qmail case sensitivity
adam@spotted:~$ echo to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | qmail-inject ==> /var/log/qmail/@0934589497 <== 934815785.584174 new msg 14146 934815785.584186 info msg 14146: bytes 217 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 16516 uid 1000 934815785.623605 starting delivery 26638: msg 14146 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 934815785.623626 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 934815785.678035 delivery 26638: success: did_0+0+2/ 934815785.678051 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 934815785.678063 end msg 14146 adam@spotted:~$ telnet localhost 25 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. 220 flounder.net ESMTP mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok data 354 go ahead From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] hello . 250 ok 934815918 qp 16539 ==> /var/log/qmail/@0934589497 <== 934815918.595499 new msg 14146 934815918.595510 info msg 14146: bytes 235 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 16539 uid 71 934815918.634793 starting delivery 26640: msg 14146 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] 934815918.634813 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 934815918.685727 delivery 26640: success: did_0+0+2/ 934815918.685743 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 934815918.685754 end msg 14146 What's the problem? --Adam On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 10:46:22AM -0400, Gum, Greg wrote: > > > I am using Qmail on a Unix system (Digital Unix) and recently had a > complaint from my customer that a new email user was unable to connect to > the system using Qmail. Evidently the user name needed to be upper and > lower case in their system and possibly in our server also. > > Is Qmail RFC compliant with case sensitivity using mailbox user names? The > reason I ask is Qmail seems to take all user names to lower case. I have > heard through my peers that the RFC states that the mailbox user names need > to be accepted as either upper case or lower case and not be converted to > lower case. Is this true? If not would you say that Qmail is RFC > compliant? What is your thoughts with Qmail case sensitivity? Is there a > fix to the lower case conversion if I need to change our Qmail. > > Bottom line is if it is not RFC compliant and there is not a fix to the case > sensitivity issue, then I might need to come up with a good argument not to > replace Qmail in our system. > > Thank You > Greg Gum > Lockheed Martin >
Re: Secure pop
You can do tunneling with both of the commerically available SSH packages for windows. (F-Secure and SecureCRT) --Adam On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 03:46:39PM -0400, K. Brant Niggemyer wrote: > Yes, I am aware that you can do tunneling with ssh, but I am looking for a > way to do this with MS-dumb software, also. I didn't think you could do ssh > forwarding in Windows. That is why I was looking for a way to do ssl. > > Brant > > --- > The simplest way is to simply use normal POP, but forwarded over an > encrypted tunnel in an SSH > session. I do that here, and it works quite well, with any POP mail client. > Setting > up the port forwarding on the client is very simple. > > Charles > -- > > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. > > >
Re: qmail+jbuce patch--DNS messed up?
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 02:55:17PM -0400, Peter Green wrote: > On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Aaron L. Meehan wrote: > > We're using 1.03 and the jbuce patch, and hotoffice.com is accepted > > in the return path on our machine. > > That being the case, is there a reasonable explanation for the following > entry in our maillog? (Usernames and local domain omitted.) > > Aug 5 10:29:08 joppa qmail-smtpd: MAIL FROM MX check failed > (@hotoffice.com) -> (@.***) [207.69.200.32] (HELO > smtp2.mindspring.com) > > Other mail is getting through just fine for this local user...any > thoughts? I know what the problem is.. It's because of the * ** * * *** ** *. --Adam > /pg > -- > Peter Green > Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: spanning lines in .qmail
never mind, I figured it out. the answer was "man echo" --Adam On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 12:11:38AM -0400, Paul Farber wrote: > try adding \ at the end of each line. > > Paul D. Farber II > Farber Technology > Ph. 570-628-5303 > Fax 570-628-5545 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > > > if I make a .qmail file that looks like this: > > > > | echo "Dear $SENDER, > > Thank You for joining our e-newsletter. This e-mail is a confirmation that > > you have been added to our e-newsletter mailing list. > > " > > | MAILNAME="Flounder.net autoresponder" qmail-inject $SENDER > > > > qmail says: > > > > 933825055.140515 delivery 18846: deferral: > > >/bin/sh:_-c:_line_1:_unexpected_EOF_while_looking_for_matching_`"'//bin/sh:_-c:_line_2:_syntax_error:_unexpected_end_of_file/ > > > > Is there a way to span lines like this? I want to make autoresponders > > without reading external files or spawning scripts... But I don't want the > > entire e-mail to be on one line :) Even if I put \'s at the end of each > > line, qmail-local treats all of the lines as separate commands. I know that > > this is documented behavior.. What I want to know is if there is a way around > > it.. :) > > > > TIA > > > > --Adam > > >
spanning lines in .qmail
if I make a .qmail file that looks like this: | echo "Dear $SENDER, Thank You for joining our e-newsletter. This e-mail is a confirmation that you have been added to our e-newsletter mailing list. " | MAILNAME="Flounder.net autoresponder" qmail-inject $SENDER qmail says: 933825055.140515 delivery 18846: deferral: /bin/sh:_-c:_line_1:_unexpected_EOF_while_looking_for_matching_`"'//bin/sh:_-c:_line_2:_syntax_error:_unexpected_end_of_file/ Is there a way to span lines like this? I want to make autoresponders without reading external files or spawning scripts... But I don't want the entire e-mail to be on one line :) Even if I put \'s at the end of each line, qmail-local treats all of the lines as separate commands. I know that this is documented behavior.. What I want to know is if there is a way around it.. :) TIA --Adam
Re: ETRN
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 05:09:53PM -0700, Peter C. Norton wrote: > Don't try this at home unless you're running linux! Results will > probably be bad. > > To the original question, look at the solutions provided at www.qmail.org. > > -Peter Nah, solaris killall errors if you don't supply exactly 1 argument. YMMV. :) --Adam
mbox2smtp?
Is there a script available to take a mbox and forward all of the messages to another email account? I looked on www.qmail.org but nothing jumped out at me. TIA --Adam
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 04:13:13PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > They are discouraging it by harrassing companies for having hooks for > strong encryption and by prohibiting export of strong encryption products. The NSA is, yes. Hopefully this will be alleviated by some of the new bills that are in congress now. Either way, the government can't control it forever, only until mass-marketed cryptography software starts being produced outside the US. > You don't need to by certificates for S/MIME. You can make your own. As long > the people who you communicate with know it is your certificate you don't > need to have it signed by someplace that wants money. If a certificate isn't signed by a certifying authority, then all of the people who receive messages signed with that certificate will have to have the certificate in their own personal "keyring" or similar file. This decreases security because not only does it make the certificates harder to use, it puts the burden of key verification on the sender instead of the certifying authority. > > Yes, scanning engines are going to have to get smarter and smarter to > > maintain their usefullness. Is there a point I'm missing? > > Yes. Finding viruses is going to become so computationally expensive that > it will not be practical. I doubt it. Have you looked at the current list of viruses that the commercial scanners can detect and remove? It is in the 5-digit range, and an average file can be scanned in less than a second. With the microprocessor world moving like it is, I doubt that the above statement will be true anytime soon. My opinion is that most IS shops, right now, want a way to scan incoming emails for viruses. I know my company does. If this need is not filled by free software, it will be (and is already being) filled by commercial software. > Also expect the rate of false positives to become > higher. > > > Yes, but it's not realistic. No matter what you tell someone, if their > > best friend sends them an email with an executable in it saying "this is > > cl", the person is probably going to run it. > > If you are using a capability system, the program won't be able to do anything > more harmful than try to induce an epileptic fit by making the screen flash > rapidly. > > > Perhaps you could explain what a "capability system" is. > > Take a look at http://www.eros-os.org/faq/basics.html . The concept sounds nice. However the expected release date was the middle of last year, and the author hasn't even modified some of the pages on that site since last april. So when can we really expect to see something like this? --Adam
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 03:01:58PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0400, > "Adam D . McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I seriously doubt that a majority of users will be using public key > > encryption anytime soon. Encryption went from being something hard to use to > > something you have to pay to use. Only the users that demand secure e-mail > > will be using encryption. > > PGP for personal use has been free for a long time. RCF 2015 has been > around for a few years as well. There is also an Open PGP standard > that is nearing finalization. The main reason we already aren't seeing > most people using real encryption in their email is that the US Government > is discouraging it, so they can continue to easily read people's email. How are they "discouraging it"? I haven't gotten any notices in the mail from the government saying "please don't use strong encryption". All of the major e-mail clients have a way of integrating strong encryption, it's just that the two most popular (Netscape and Outlook) only work with S/MIME and not PGP, which you need to buy a certificate for. Also, you hit upon the key word. "Personal use". Business e-mail is not a personal use. And I think the people on this list that are concerned with scanning e-mail are much more concerned with scanning business e-mail than personal e-mail. > > > In the shorter run, viruses will be developed that use a simple encryption > > > each time they transmit themselves in order to keep the fixed part of the > > > virus small in order to make virus detection more difficult. They may > > > also use a number of varient codes to do the decryption part so that even > > > that may vary with each copy. > > > > There are already many variants of many common viruses. > > We are talking about 'many's that are orders of mangitudes apart. With > encryption, each copy of a virus will be different. There will have to > be a small relatively constant part, but that can be giving a large amount > of variability by having alternate code that does the same thing for > small pieces of the bootstrap part of the program. This is a lot different > than having just a few thousand viruses to check for. Yes, scanning engines are going to have to get smarter and smarter to maintain their usefullness. Is there a point I'm missing? > > > Another problem is that virus checking is going to take more and more time > > > as the number of viruses that have ever been written increases. Virus > > > scanning just can't work in the long run. > > > > How do you propose viruses be detected then? What will "work in the long > > run"? I suppose we should just ask the malicious hackers out there to just > > "stop" making and distributing viruses. > > What will work in the long run is real security such as capability systems. > In the short run teaching people not to run programs given too them > by people who are either clueless or untrustworthy is a good start. Yes, but it's not realistic. No matter what you tell someone, if their best friend sends them an email with an executable in it saying "this is cl", the person is probably going to run it. Perhaps you could explain what a "capability system" is. > > > The other question is why this is being done on the mail server instead of > > > on the end user machines, where there is likely to be a lot of underused > > > CPU power? > > > > Where I work we run VirusScan on the workstations and NetShield on the > > servers. Guess what, the servers catch way more viruses than the > > workstations do. Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade 10 > > servers than it is to upgrade 800 workstations every time there is an update > > from McAfee. Yes, we could start AutoUpdate on every workstation if we had > > the manpower. But there will always be some machines that fall through the > > cracks. > > The antivirus people need to improve the way they do things. Viruses are > spreading much faster now than they used to and having to have people go > and look to see if there is a new update once a week or so isn't good enough. > Probably the best solution is a distributed one, where information is > pushed to a local server when there is a change and all local machines > check with that server for updates everytime they are about to do a scan. > Yes, we do that here, but like I said, all of the local machines need to be configured to use this repository. They also have to be equipped with the latest software. This is all well and good until the VP calls at 7pm on a friday saying he needs a laptop because he's leaving in 2 hours for a conference. (Yes, this has happened to me.) --Adam
Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 12:09:32PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 12:28:14PM -0300, > Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think a good virus scanning package would be an increadible asset for > > the qmail community. There are not many mailhubs which provide a virus > > scan. Where I worked previously the virus scan package that we used with > > Exchange went for $20,000. > > > > Anyway, I'm a few months from delving heavily into virus scanning, but > > am glad to see that there is already work being done. > > > > Think of how well a virus free outsourced mail service would go over. > > Viruses wreak havoc on corporate LANs. > > Dream on. What are you going to do when people use public key encryption > by default? The server won't be able to decode the messages to scan > on behalf of its users. I seriously doubt that a majority of users will be using public key encryption anytime soon. Encryption went from being something hard to use to something you have to pay to use. Only the users that demand secure e-mail will be using encryption. > In the shorter run, viruses will be developed that use a simple encryption > each time they transmit themselves in order to keep the fixed part of the > virus small in order to make virus detection more difficult. They may > also use a number of varient codes to do the decryption part so that even > that may vary with each copy. There are already many variants of many common viruses. > Another problem is that virus checking is going to take more and more time > as the number of viruses that have ever been written increases. Virus > scanning just can't work in the long run. How do you propose viruses be detected then? What will "work in the long run"? I suppose we should just ask the malicious hackers out there to just "stop" making and distributing viruses. > The other question is why this is being done on the mail server instead of > on the end user machines, where there is likely to be a lot of underused > CPU power? Where I work we run VirusScan on the workstations and NetShield on the servers. Guess what, the servers catch way more viruses than the workstations do. Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade 10 servers than it is to upgrade 800 workstations every time there is an update from McAfee. Yes, we could start AutoUpdate on every workstation if we had the manpower. But there will always be some machines that fall through the cracks. Anyway, I think the best solution here is to scan for viruses *after* the mail has been delivered. (Or possibly in a way that is transparent to the MTA, which scans the file before it is written to disk). This takes the responsibility away from the MTA. McAfee can already look inside Zip files for viruses, adding the code to look in UUEncoded emails shouldn't be much harder. This would be especially good for qmail because the Maildir delivery format because each message would be a different file and would be able to be scanned separately by the scanner. --Adam
Re: Strange problem
Russ, The problem was that there was stuff in /var/qmail/users/assign that I didn't put there.. It had nothing to do with anything in ~alias.. --Adam On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 05:11:54PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote: > Adam D . McKenna writes: > > OK, I figured it out (sort of). > > > > ~alias/.qmail-postmaster was forwarding to root.. > > > > When I changed it to adam-postmaster, mail to root started working again. > > > > Anyone have an idea why this happened? > > Hahahahah! This is not to laugh at you, but to laugh at *us*. I got > bitten by that exact problem years ago. The instructions tell you to > create an empty .qmail-root, .qmail-mailer-daemon, and > .qmail-postmaster, all in ~alias. This is all very nice, but doesn't > help the newbie a bit. > > You see, the natural idea is to think "because ~alias has a Mailbox, > and mail to root@ (etc) is being delivered into it, mail is being > forwarded into it, so if I forward the mail elsewhere, it'll go > there." > > It won't. Alias is a special user -- it controls all non-deliverable > mail directly, just by virtue of having a .qmail file in its home > directory. So, instead of the mail being *forwarded* to alias, the > mail is being directly stuffed into alias's Mailbox. If you want > alias's mail forwarded to some other user, you need to eschew empty > ~alias/.qmail-* files. Either forward the mail to alias, and forward > alias's mail elsewhere, or forward the mail directly to the desired > user. > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson > Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool! >
Re: ORBS check, except for specific users.
You can do ORBS/RBL/DUL checks in .procmailrc if you want to. Unfortunately I don't remember where I saw how to do this, but I know it can be done and you can probably find out if you do a little digging. (I am pretty sure it was either the RBL homepage, the ORBS homepage, or the procmail homepage.) --Adam On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 11:30:27AM +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote: > A long time ago some bosses decided that every user has > an email address of the form: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > :-( > > The MX host for ourdomin.dk does ORBS check. > > Now, a few bosses are angry because they can't receive > mail from open relays, while others definitely don't > want mail from open relays. > > How can they all be satisfied? > Their official email address must not be changed. > > -- > Med venlig hilsen / Regards > Netdriftgruppen / Network Management Group > UNI-C > > Tlf./Phone +45 35 87 89 41Mail: UNI-C > Fax. +45 35 87 89 90 Bygning 304 > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DK-2800 Lyngby >
Re: qmail won't read ~alias/.qmail-root
*ding ding ding* I actually figured this out around 4am last night... Some piece of software (maybe vckpw) put a bunch of aliases there without telling me (or if it did tell me, I didn't remember..) --Adam On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:12:38PM +0200, Tomasz Papszun wrote: > Check if you haven't got in file users/assign a line like this: > =root:alias:70:65534:/var/qmail/alias:-:postmaster: > > -- > Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros. > > > On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 at 0:58:12 -0400, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > > I don't know why. But qmail absolutely refuses to read ~alias/.qmail-root. > > If I send e-mail to root, it goes to ~alias/.qmail-postmaster. > > I've just recompiled and reinstalled qmail, and it's doing the same thing. > > It doesn't do this on any of my other hosts. > > Does anyone have a clue as to why this is happening? > > > > --Adam >
qmail won't read ~alias/.qmail-root
I don't know why. But qmail absolutely refuses to read ~alias/.qmail-root. If I send e-mail to root, it goes to ~alias/.qmail-postmaster. I've just recompiled and reinstalled qmail, and it's doing the same thing. It doesn't do this on any of my other hosts. Does anyone have a clue as to why this is happening? --Adam
Re: Strange problem
OK, I figured it out (sort of). ~alias/.qmail-postmaster was forwarding to root.. When I changed it to adam-postmaster, mail to root started working again. Anyone have an idea why this happened? --Adam On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 12:27:00AM -0400, Adam D . McKenna wrote: > Here's a dumb one. Can anyone tell me why this is happening? > > adam@spotted:~$ cat ~alias/.qmail-root > adam-root > adam@spotted:~$ cat ~adam/.qmail-root > ./Mail/root/ > > I tried changing ~alias/.qmail-root to be adam-rt instead of adam-root but > the same thing happens. > > - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: failure notice > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at virtual-estate.net. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: (qmail 3654 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: (qmail 3652 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - > Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - End forwarded message - >
Strange problem
Here's a dumb one. Can anyone tell me why this is happening? adam@spotted:~$ cat ~alias/.qmail-root adam-root adam@spotted:~$ cat ~adam/.qmail-root ./Mail/root/ I tried changing ~alias/.qmail-root to be adam-rt instead of adam-root but the same thing happens. - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at virtual-estate.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: (qmail 3654 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 3652 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - Date: 3 Jul 1999 04:18:47 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End forwarded message -
Re: qmail/tcpserver problem
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 05:27:54AM +0200, Johan Van Gompel wrote: > Adam D . McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How are you starting tcpserver? --Adam
Re: qmail/tcpserver problem
How are you starting tcpserver? Did you remember to compile your /etc/tcp.smtp into /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb using tcprules? --Adam On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 04:22:24AM +0200, Johan Van Gompel wrote: > Hello, > > Despite following the necessary instructions (#5.4) we are still > experiencing an outgoing mail problem with qmail 1.03. Unless I remove > /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts nobody can send mail outside the LAN. > > This is what I put in /etc/tcp.smtp: > > -- > 192.168.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > -- > > The content of /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts is: > > -- > alro.be > recitech.be > wca.be > 192.168.1.99 > -- > > I use '192.168.1.99' as a hostname in the tcpserver (0.84) invocation. The > IP addresses of alro.be, recitech.be and wca.be are not in the 192.168. > range. (194.7.something) > > Does anyone have a clue as to what is wrong? I don't want to become mr. > Spam Relay. > > -- > Johan Van Gompel >
Re: Off topic - What is GFY?
Ah, now you've pinpointed the logic behind my use of an acronym.. (they're so fun!) Alex assumed that the acronym stood for some sort of insult or profanity. Why? If you'll read the paragraph that I was replying to, you can tell that it was blatant flamebait. Alex proved this with his reaction. --Adam On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 03:20:36PM -0400, McGinnis, Tom wrote: > I've tried and tried, but can't seem to figure out why "GFY" is so > offensive. Obviously I haven't figured out the real meaning. "Good for > you" is all I can come up with. > > -Tom >
Re: "rcpthosts may include wildcards"
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 10:55:33AM -0400, Dave Kitabjian wrote: > > This is probably very simple, but indulge me. > > man for qmail-smtpd says: > > rcpthosts may include wildcards: > > heaven.af.mil > .heaven.af.mil > > So is the "." the wildcard? My current understanding is: > > heaven.af.mil - will allow all email to @heaven.af.mil > .heaven.af.mil - will allow all email to @.heaven.af.mil > > So you need both entries to block *heaven.af.mil. Is this correct? As far as I have been able to tell, yes. > > Also, does the same explanation apply to "virtualdomains" and "smtproutes"? I'm relatively sure it does. If you man qmail-send, it tells you the exact syntax of all of the control files. --Adam
Re: Howto
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:50:32AM -0700, Durham, Kenneth J wrote: > Being a newbi as alex in qmail an other things. You guys have to understand > that alot of the manuals are made for linux users and not newbies. The text > as well as explination of alot of the commands do not make any sense at all > to someone that is new. If the manuals were also out with text that were in > simpler terms which others that are not gurus can understand I've noticed something in my years on internet mailing lists - the tone in which a question is answered usually matches the tone in which it is asked. I don't think anyone here had a problem with alex asking questions. I think that they had a problem with his accusatory tone and whining when he found out that he actually had to do a little reading in order to accomplish what he wanted to do. He hasn't let up with this attitude yet. It's like he's Scott Jr. or something. --Adam
Re: Howto
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 12:08:20AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: First of all I'd like to apologize to the entire list for posting this. I had told myself I wasn't going to post any more on this thread, but it's just too funny to keep away from. This, however, WILL be my last post, and as for scott and alex, they have been procmailed out of my existence. > > DNS & BIND (studying it, pretty advanced for me) > > I just read the bind book after 12 years of Internet work (ya, predating > real widespread bind use... remember ftping to xerox parc?). I did > learn two things, so that was worthwhile. Of course, I borrowed the > book, so it has been returned. Why can't MX records be CNAMES? No one > seems to really know for sure. People will spew "RTFM" and/or "read the > RFC" -- but they can't even specify *which* RFC. Even if one does read > the RFC, it will just state something like "MX records can't point to > CNAMES" -- and never really state why this is so. You were given the answer to this two days ago and didn't bother to read it. Russ just answered you again, let's see if you read it this time. > > Linux System Administration (I've referred to this one a LOT trying to get > > To me, linux was always more BSDish in the admin than SysV. Lately > there has been a little more SysV creepage. Overall, the only thing > linux teaches me is what Adam or someone was harping about -- and that > is knowing your daemons -- or, rather, how to find how and where they > are in the system config. > > On the otherhand, I'm really tired of people putting together linux crap > and trying to pass it off as the best thing since Sys7. taildir what -- > good luck trying to get that to work. net/inet.h? good luck. Yes, I remember that tirade. You spent about 3 days trying to compile a utility that basically does the same thing as a two-line shell script. Also, if I remember correctly, the compilation problem you were having had to do with an incompatibility that was specific to your platform, namely Solaris, on which the (BSD) functions you needed had been moved into a different library. Did you just conveniently forget about that? > Has anyone, yet, seen a complete list of all of the auxiliary programs > that are necessary to install qmail and get it working with any decent > functionality? Every time I ask about some new functionality, I'm told > something like taildir or some other program that I ahve yet to see any > reference to -- and at the same time I'm being called an idiot for not > knowing this relationship. Everything you need to get a perfectly fine working qmail setup is on ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu. > > Internet - Relay Chat > > Been there, done that. Now I just get smurfed for my nick or opers > "temp kline" me for my nick. Ya, I was an irc op on like the 8th (US?) > server? I get kiddies (Adam?) who tell me IRC wasn't around before '91 > since that's when the RFC was put out. Uh huh. I don't believe there's a phrase or statement that you can't twist around to suit your agenda. That's one thing you're actually pretty good at. I suppose that we can attribute that to all of your years on irc (pissing contest what?) > > The Bash System Shell (I bought this one recently because of trying to get > > Mutt to work required handling the Environment variables) > > Right, bash, ksh, zsk, psh, ash, sh, csh, tcsh, whatever. I've > forgotten more about shell scripting than oh nevermind Yeah but the following apparently had you baffled: FILE=`ls /var/log/qmail | tail -n 1' tail -f $FILE Blah blah blah.. more annoying off topic crap deleted.. Before I go to sleep tonight I will pray that you switch to postfix. --Adam
Re: Howto
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 05:21:46PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > > > I'm really getting tired of this lists hostility. I thought perhaps it > might have just been me or it might be that some people here are on the > metal-rag but I'm not sure I can stand it any longer. I assume > there will be an exodus soon. > > I have already seen people prove their ignorance and hostility > repeatedly on this list -- but it will be amusing to see yet another > round. I do have stuff that's probably a wee bit more on topic that I > will probably ask once this round of insulting is over, but for the > meantime, please have fun with the following: > > Adam -- > > You say one needs to be an expert with RPC (to install qmail). Fine. For god's sake, I DID NOT SAY THAT. Can't you read? > I'll admit it, I'm not an rpc expert -- I've only written a handful of > original programs that used direct RPC calls and not just simple used > calls built upon other already built RPC calls/routines. However, I am > stuck... I need to protect my system, that is, my qmail system, against > unauthorized use of qmail/RPC (they're related, eh?). Since you have > installed qmail -- this means that you are an an expert with RPC and I > beseech you for help! > > Since we've all been amused at the file ownership/permissions > discussion, the cc/gcc (conf-cc/conf-ld) ongoing debate, ipfilter on > Solaris 7, I'll throw this into the fire: > > I would like to know: > (1) What RPC is open on my system[s] -- ie: how to get a list > and > (2) How to prevent unauthorized use of this RPC system, specifically > with ipfilter and Solaris 7 as well as other OS builtin features. > > Now, Adam has already stated that installing qmail has a prerequisite > that one must be an expert with rpc -- so this must be on topic... so I > don't want to hear about that. > > Please, Adam, enlighten me. see above. --Adam
Re: Howto
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 05:31:56PM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > I never said I didn't understand linux. You don't. Or any other unix for that matter. > I said I don't know what Adam's "basic networking daemons" knowledge of > which are required to install qmail. You appear to like putting words in people's mouths. Even though I know every other person on this list knew what I meant when I said that, I'll clarify, just for you: Knowledge of the basic networking daemons of any UNIX is required to be a competent system administrator on that platform. These include, but are not limited to: inetd/xinetd/tcpd and anything running under them sunrpc (nfsd, statd, lockd, etc.) portmap tcpserver named > Adam's famous "basic networking daemons" that you must understand to install > qmail (or something like that, I'll be sure to quote Adam verbatim so > everyone will give him proper credit) GFY --Adam
Re: Howto
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 03:24:20PM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > I have read the manual for each car that I have driven, as well as other > vehicles, such as the Cessna 150, and Cessna 152 (those are both airplanes, > those specify gas and many other things) You have a manual for inetd too. But instead of reading that, you complained that the qmail documentation wasn't complete. > I assume you made a typo when you compared my reading the QMail > documentation when attempting to install QMail to learning to use your car > by reading your car stereo manual. By the time you're adding qmail to inetd, you're finished installing it. There are many ways of getting qmail-smtpd to listen on port 25, of which inetd is only one. An example configuration line for inetd was provided for your benefit. > Question: since, as you say, every competent system administrator needs to > know the syntax of the base networking deamons his system uses, why don't > you save us idiots some time. The following could be included in the QMail > documentation since it is required knowledge. > > "To get the syntax of any system daemon, for example inetd, type "man inetd" > at the system prompt. Huh? You want the qmail documentation to tell you how to use "man"? Why don't you save *everyone* some time, and go buy a copy of "UNIX for dummies". > Here is a list of the base network system daemons, including firewall > daemons you need to know the syntax of to install qmail: > > 1) inetd > ..." > > Why don't you fill in the rest Adam. This sounds like a REALLY useful list, > that would be useful to anyone on the list. I wish I had such a list > beforehand. I wish I had such a list now. Can you please take your off-topic BS to some other list? --Adam
Re: Howto
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 01:50:10PM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > That is not an RTFM. > > The QMail documentation said nothing about inetd syntax being different on > different systems. Oh please. This is like saying "I was looking in my car stereo manual and it didn't say anything about what kind of gas to use! So I tried using diesel fuel and it wrecked my engine!" Any competent system administrator needs to know the syntax that the base networking daemons on his operating system use, and if he doesn't know the syntax, he should at least know where to look it up. --Adam
Re: autoconf?
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 01:07:40PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: > "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots? > > Sometimes "better" doesn't mean "has more features". Sometimes it > means smaller, simpler, more reliable. Hmm, sounds like qmail. Also, the qmail tgz's are much more self-contained. They depend on far fewer system libraries than something like pine. --Adam
Re: New qmail list et al
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 10:23:24AM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > > What IPs is you internal network using. You probably will need to setup > > qmail ON your firewall for it to function correctly. > > Are you saying that qmail (an MTA) might need to be installed differently > with a firewall in place for it function correctly (i.e. for pop3 to work)? > Someone said that a firewall setup has nothing whatsoever to do with an MTA. No, someone didn't say that. Someone said that there are no mta-specific differences when setting up a mail server behind a firewall. --Adam
Re: maildir format delivery problems?
Well, from what I've gleaned by reading this list, Crispin has no interest in supporting maildirs because he has a grudge against either qmail or djb. Besides that, it's obvious that he's not interested in improving his product. He doesn't even use autoconf for god's sake.. When I compile PINE on debian I have to manually edit the makefile so that it compiles with ncurses instead of termcap.. --Adam On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote: > "David Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >He says that Maildir is unsuitable for large servers because the > >filesytems serialize creation and deletion of files in a single file > >system, because the inode and free block tables have to be > >manipulated. > > Yes, that's what makes maildirs reliable. TANSTAAFL > > >Thus the file creation part of Maildir drivery ends up being > >serialized and you spend all your time in the filesystem. He states > >problems with servers processing more than a few hundred messages per > >second (300+ or so). > > That's a pretty high rate of delivery. Any server delivery nearly that > much mail would surely be delivering to multiple file systems. > > -Dave
Re: New qmail list et al
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote: : > Nobody was called an idiot for their choice of topic. Nobody was called : > an idiot in order to end a conversation. The reason someone got called : > an idiot is that he was acting like an idiot. : : Call me an idiot... I don't care. I appreciate all the help you or : anyone else can provide. I really appreciate the responses from DJB. : However, I'm not going to stop asking (stupid) questions. OK. : > Furthermore, if people were interested in discussing 'the behavior of : > qmail in a "firewall environment"', I think that a discussion probably : > would have started by now. The problem is, there are really no : > MTA-specific issues with running a mail server behind a firewall. That : > makes it a firewall discussion, not a qmail discussion. : : I am interested in talking about qmail in a firewall environment. I'ved : asked.. and received... about stripping headers... but it appears it : amounts to setting up money laundering business front. I mean, if : something is too complicated or error prone -- it becomes a nuisance or : a headache. I'm not saying the solution doesn't work, but it does : appear outright to be non-eloquent no matter how ingenious. Hey, I have : a machine to whack with DJBware now and I'll get around to setting up : the laundering front sooner or later. I'll even apply the 30 or 40 : other hacks to the mail system... eventually. What's the question? : > : But on my list there will be no rule enforcement allowed. : > Can you please just go make your list and leave us alone? : : Why? Why are you so hostile? Because I don't care about his list. If he wants to advertise it so badly then he should put it in his .sig, then every (on topic) message he sends out would have it. : Anyway, my question... as to remain on topic... is: : : (Q) Does qmail look up new information when mail is deferred? If not, : why the hell not? Why would qmail cache information from bind? That's not the MTA's job and besides that, it _really_ doesn't sound like something Dan would do. : day 0: offsite changes their network (mx?) : day 1: they send me an email, I receive it, I reply. : day 3: they send mail saying that their mail has been down, please resend. : day 4: I resend. : day 6 or 7: They say that haven't received mail, I resend. : day 8: my day 1 message gets returned to me as undeliverable, no 3 day warning. : day 11: my day 3 mail gets returned to me as undeliverable, no 3 day warning. : : Meanwhile, my day 6/7 mail has gotten through. I can't explain why the : retries that should have happened *after* day 6 didn't go through since : all mail was going to the same "host" address (not direct IP address). : I'm kind of annoyed that I haven't been given any notices of failures : or inability to send mail through that should be going through until : it's like 7 days later. : : Of course, I'm sure I'm just an idiot and I'm only imaging this but, : just in case I am not, if anyone has any information on this or has had : similar experiences, please /msg me privately as so that we won't annoy : this list. If you could provide more information such as the text of the bounce messages (including headers), and your qmail logs showing delivery attempts, it would probably be helpful. --Adam
Re: maildir format delivery problems?
From: David Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : I've been talking to Mark Crispin about the Maildir format and he as brought : up what really seems to be a valid concern to me. : : He says that Maildir is unsuitable for large servers because the filesytems : serialize creation and deletion of files in a single file system, because : the inode and free block tables have to be manipulated. Thus the file : creation part of Maildir drivery ends up being serialized and you spend all : your time in the filesystem. He states problems with servers processing more : than a few hundred messages per second (300+ or so). I'm not arguing with you, but what's the difference in disk access between appending to an existing file (mbox) and creating a new file (maildir)? It seems like appending an existing file would take at least one extra stat(), and the inode and free block tables would still have to be manipulated (wouldn't they?) --Adam
Re: New qmail list et al
From: Alex Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This is getting ridiculous, but... : My serious objection in the case you mentioned was not the fact that : the word "idiot" was used even if for supposed cause but that it was : used to squelch any further discussion in a subject of great interest : to me, the behavior of qmail in a firewall environment and what can : happen to someone who is offering qmail services to the public and : is the target of nefarious folk. Nobody was called an idiot for their choice of topic. Nobody was called an idiot in order to end a conversation. The reason someone got called an idiot is that he was acting like an idiot. Furthermore, if people were interested in discussing 'the behavior of qmail in a "firewall environment"', I think that a discussion probably would have started by now. The problem is, there are really no MTA-specific issues with running a mail server behind a firewall. That makes it a firewall discussion, not a qmail discussion. : But on my list there will be no rule enforcement allowed. Can you please just go make your list and leave us alone? --Adam
Re: repost: alias problem (no mailbox here by that..)
OK I feel like an idiot now. Forget that last mail.. :) --Adam On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:09:41PM -0400, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > By the way, if the alias is trying to do a program delivery, and is set +x, > qmail will refuse to deliver the mail. Check and see if that's the case. > > --Adam > > On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:06:39PM -0400, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:03:09PM +, Geoff Wing wrote: > > > Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > > :Can't figure this one out. > > > :Here is the .qmail file in ~alias: > > > : > > > :-rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 7 Jun 29 12:18 >.qmail-centroculturaldelacooperacion-letras > > > > > > chown alias ~alias/.qmail-* > > > > Shouldn't matter.. It should only need to have permissions such that > > qmail-local can read it AFAIK.. Perhaps the permisisons on the directory > > itself are wrong? > > > > --Adam
Re: repost: alias problem (no mailbox here by that..)
By the way, if the alias is trying to do a program delivery, and is set +x, qmail will refuse to deliver the mail. Check and see if that's the case. --Adam On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:06:39PM -0400, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:03:09PM +, Geoff Wing wrote: > > Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > :Can't figure this one out. > > :Here is the .qmail file in ~alias: > > : > > :-rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 7 Jun 29 12:18 >.qmail-centroculturaldelacooperacion-letras > > > > chown alias ~alias/.qmail-* > > Shouldn't matter.. It should only need to have permissions such that > qmail-local can read it AFAIK.. Perhaps the permisisons on the directory > itself are wrong? > > --Adam
Re: repost: alias problem (no mailbox here by that..)
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 05:03:09PM +, Geoff Wing wrote: > Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > :Can't figure this one out. > :Here is the .qmail file in ~alias: > : > :-rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 7 Jun 29 12:18 >.qmail-centroculturaldelacooperacion-letras > > chown alias ~alias/.qmail-* Shouldn't matter.. It should only need to have permissions such that qmail-local can read it AFAIK.. Perhaps the permisisons on the directory itself are wrong? --Adam
Re: New qmail list et al
You can't, but after a few posts you can be reasonably sure. :) --Adam On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:00:05AM -0700, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote: > > How do you identify an idiot during the signup process? > > Dirk > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:29:39PM -0400, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > > > One difference: > > > > > > On this list it is permissable to send an email that says: > > > "Your an idiot" > > > "That is off-topic" > > > "That is way off-topic" > > > "Take it elsewhere" > > > "RTFM" > > > "Your posting is against the rules of this list" > > > > > > On my list it will not be permissible to send an email that says those or > > > similar such things. Any subscriber who does so would be asked to leave by > > > me. > > > > I think it would be much more effective if you just kept idiots from joining > > the list in the first place. > > > > --Adam
Re: alias problem (no mailbox here by that..)
In that case then you should only need ~alias/.qmail-centroculturaldelacooperacion-letras. If this isn't working then you're doing something wrong... Are you sure you spelled everything right?? :) --Adam On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 01:50:28PM -0300, Eric Dahnke wrote: > > There are no virtual domains involved. rcc.com.ar is a local domain. > > centroculturaldelacooperacion-letras is an alias for a regualar user. > ie. this user wants the following address to be valid for his account. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > many thx. - eric > > > > > > "Adam D. McKenna" escribió: > > > > The problem is simple. You need to add a .qmail file in the home directory > > of the user that is named in "virtualdomains" as being in control of the > > domain. > > > > If the user is alias, then you should create the following: > > ~alias/.qmail-letras > > > > If the user is one of your regular users, then you should create the > > .qmail-letras file in that user's home directory. > > > > Did you remember to HUP qmail-send after adding this entry to virtualdomains? > > > > --Adam > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:35:31PM -0300, Eric Dahnke wrote: > > > Can't figure this one out. > > > > > > Here is the .qmail file in ~alias: > > > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 7 Jun 29 12:18 > > > .qmail-centroculturald > > > elacooperacion-educacion > > > > > > > > > and here is the bounce: > > > > > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at nmail.rcc.com.ar. > > > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following > > > addresses. > > > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) > > > > > > Is there a limit on the length of aliases? Anyone know why this alias is > > > not working? > > > > > > > > > thx - eric > > > > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > > Spark Sistemas E-mail > > >- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. > > >Tel: 4702-1958 > > >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > > -- > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > Spark Sistemas E-mail >- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. >Tel: 4702-1958 >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Re: alias problem (no mailbox here by that..)
The problem is simple. You need to add a .qmail file in the home directory of the user that is named in "virtualdomains" as being in control of the domain. If the user is alias, then you should create the following: ~alias/.qmail-letras If the user is one of your regular users, then you should create the .qmail-letras file in that user's home directory. Did you remember to HUP qmail-send after adding this entry to virtualdomains? --Adam On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:35:31PM -0300, Eric Dahnke wrote: > Can't figure this one out. > > Here is the .qmail file in ~alias: > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root qmail 7 Jun 29 12:18 > .qmail-centroculturald > elacooperacion-educacion > > > and here is the bounce: > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at nmail.rcc.com.ar. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following > addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) > > Is there a limit on the length of aliases? Anyone know why this alias is > not working? > > > thx - eric > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > Spark Sistemas E-mail >- presentado por IWCC Argentina S.A. >Tel: 4702-1958 >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Re: New qmail list et al
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Alex Miller wrote: > One difference: > > On this list it is permissable to send an email that says: > "Your an idiot" > "That is off-topic" > "That is way off-topic" > "Take it elsewhere" > "RTFM" > "Your posting is against the rules of this list" > > On my list it will not be permissible to send an email that says those or > similar such things. Any subscriber who does so would be asked to leave by > me. I think it would be much more effective if you just kept idiots from joining the list in the first place. --Adam
Re: Big delays
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 02:08:38PM -0300, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote: > I guess you meant /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger. Look how the lock directory > was: > > -rw--- 1 qmails qmail 0 jun 8 14:46 sendmutex > -rw-r--r-- 1 qmailr qmail1024 jun 29 13:33 tcpto > prw--- 1 qmails qmail 0 jun 8 14:42 trigger > > I changed trigger to 622. Are the others ok? should be.. I'm still a little confused as to the exact reason that this problem happens... I mean, you would think mail would either get delivered or not get delivered.. What causes the delay? --Adam
Re: Perhaps I missed it the first time ...
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 09:36:00AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote: > > I dunno about you but when I ask a question in a public forum I usually > > actively look for responses. To not even make a cursory check before asking > > again is rude to everyone on this list, and especially the people who > > responded the first time. > > cursory... > > http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/06/maillist.html > search for my name > find "Qmail Qs" > search for the next occurrence... > it doesn't re-occur. That's because the topic wasn't "Qmail Qs", it was "PTR issue / question", and you received seven replies, the last of which was from Mr. Bernstein. > > I wonder what you could have done to piss someone off this badly. > > Whack Kevin Mitnick? Make the script kiddies look even more pathetic > than they are (ie: see upcoming NYT article[s]). I hope you are not one > of those ``FREE KEVIN'' kiddies? tchrist of #perl doesn't like me > either -- but that's probably just because I'm a bigger asshole than he > is online and he's just jealous or has a crush on me -- I just can't > tell. Not that this is an appropriate forum for this discussion, but are you saying that you support the government holding Kevin Mitnick for four years without bail or trial? > ps: I had a DNS question about why MX hosts couldn't be CNAMEs. > Everyone seems to say "READ THE RFC" -- but no one seems to know which > one? Perhaps they haven't actually really read the RFCs themselves? I > was lucky enough to get a message back from an/the author of BIND9 -- > and I appreciate it. But, the question still remains -- why is a MX > that is a CNAME a bad thing? Sorry to be pedantic. Mailing List Archive Search Results Documents 1 to 10 of 81 documents containing: mx And record And cname And dns 1. Mail, CNAME, A records, and MX http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/03/msg01291.html - size: 4773 bytes 2. Re: DNS and connection refusal http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/09/msg00945.html - size: 4523 bytes Hmm, the second hit exactly answers your question. Gee that was hard. --Adam
Re: Perhaps I missed it the first time ...
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 09:07:46AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > I'm sorry... I must have overlooked it. I get upwards of 300 emails a > day -- quite a few from this list. I do apologize that I missed this. I dunno about you but when I ask a question in a public forum I usually actively look for responses. To not even make a cursory check before asking again is rude to everyone on this list, and especially the people who responded the first time. > Oh, btw ... did I mentioned that I have been the target of malicious > computer crackers for the last month who are completely hell bent on > destroying every computer I have on the Internet? I'm sure you don't > care. My mail has been down (and I have had to reconfigure and > re-install every computer that I have) and add 4 redundant firewalls to > my *home* network. Maybe I actually received the response and I just > didn't see the it -- worse has happened. I'm sure you don't care and > you are happy to get your insult in. I wonder what you could have done to piss someone off this badly. --Adam
Re: unsuscribe
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:51:12AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote: > (1) Did anyone answer this? What should be done for a site that has > multiple PTRs -- as this appears to confuse qmail -- see (a). I find it amusing that Dan himself took the time to reply to you and you didn't even read it. Are you sure you really want help? > (2) What do people do for sites where tcp-env refuses to allow a > connect -- but which seem to attempt to reconnect quite often -- see (b). > > (a) > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > 30.160.221.216.in-addr.arpa. 11h22m24s IN PTR cobalt. > 30.160.221.216.in-addr.arpa. 11h22m24s IN PTR cobalt.propagation.net. I also still can't figure out why you "need" to do this. People have asked but you have not responded. > > Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: warning: can't verify hostname: >gethostbyname(cobalt) failed > Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: refused connect from 216.221.160.30 > > (b) > Jun 27 21:37:17 spy.org tcp-env[27990]: refused connect from 209.233.130.35 > Jun 28 11:39:47 spy.org tcp-env[2295]: refused connect from 209.233.130.35 > Jun 29 06:04:23 spy.org tcp-env[591]: refused connect from 209.233.130.35 > (many more per day)... > > Jun 27 03:37:33 spy.org tcp-env[21610]: warning: can't verify hostname: gethostb > yname(209-233-130-35.cc-inc.com) failed > Jun 27 03:37:33 spy.org tcp-env[21610]: refused connect from 209.233.130.35 --Adam
Re: LOTS of Orbs hits
You might try using the -b flag with rblsmtpd, this will send 553 error code (permanent) instead of 451 (temporary).. --Adam On Sat, Jun 05, 1999 at 10:49:26PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm getting LOTS of ORBS hits suddenly, like this: > > Jun 5 22:41:00 gw smtpd: 928640460.637397 rblsmtpd: pid 4196: 451 See >http://www.orbs.org/blocked.cgi. Your mailserver is in the ORBS database as an >insecure email relay. This is a generic text message. > Jun 5 22:41:02 gw smtpd: 928640462.642219 rblsmtpd: pid 4198: 451 See >http://www.orbs.org/blocked.cgi. Your mailserver is in the ORBS database as an >insecure email relay. This is a generic text message. > Jun 5 22:41:03 gw smtpd: 928640463.555417 rblsmtpd: pid 4199: 451 See >http://www.orbs.org/blocked.cgi. Your mailserver is in the ORBS database as an >insecure email relay. This is a generic text message. > Jun 5 22:41:04 gw smtpd: 928640464.110713 rblsmtpd: pid 4200: 451 See >http://www.orbs.org/blocked.cgi. Your mailserver is in the ORBS database as an >insecure email relay. This is a generic text message. > > Every second or two, on for hours. Normal mail traffic seems to be > working okay. I upgraded ezmlm+idx today, and I applied the > qmail-verh patch, so I *could* have knocked something over; but the > ORBS hits at least have been going on all day in the log-file (must > have been going yesterday too, they start immediately on log rollover > today), well before I touched any software, so I don't *think* I > caused this problem myself. > > The frequency is too low to be a deliberate DOS attack, I'd think -- > one connect every second or so, while it's making the logs grow, isn't > really hurting me, and looks more like persistence than malice. > Unfortunately rblsmtpd fails to log anything useful; it just gives the > TXT record from ORBS, and ORBS has chosen not to have them say > anything meaningful / useful. What I want, of course, is the IP > address the connect was from. Has anybody patched rblsmtpd to log > that already? It looks darned easy -- except that I don't speak Dan's > non-stdio library. I'll probably tackle it eventually anyway if > nobody has done the deed. > > Am I overlooking some other reasonable way to find out where this is > coming from easily? > -- > David Dyer-Bennet[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon > http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms > Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: Mailing lists on dial-up box
From: Eric Dahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : I don't think any of you are understanding his problem. The problem is : that singular e-mail is not sent out singularly, but that it is : separated in to 500 separate messages, creating 500 times the traffic : load. : : I have the same problem with a few customers. : : I know that is how qmail is designed. No, that is how SMTP is designed. The only difference with qmail is that if more than one of those messages are destined for the same host, qmail will not combine them into a single SMTP session. With qmail you will get 500 separate messages. With sendmail you will get somewhere less than 500, but certainly pretty close to 500, unless all of the users on your mailing list are on only a few different hosts. --Adam
Re: Rookie qmail error question !
You need to create the directories that cyclog is logging to, in this case /var/log/qmail and /var/log/qmail-smtpd, and make them owned by qmaill I'll add this to the howto.. --Adam On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 07:38:22PM +0200, Per Birkeby wrote: > Hello qmailers ! > > I managed to setup qmail using Adam McKennas HOWTO. It went well. Made > me happy cuz I'm kinda newbie. I can transfer mail remotely and local. > But the error message below just keeps appearing. What does it mean and > what shall I do to correct the error ? > > cyclog: warning: unable to create @0927481077, pausing: access > denied > > > Thank you ! > > -Per
Re: Automated vmkpasswd from vchkpw
From: Adam H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : Hi all: : I have a question. : Anyone have an idea how to automate the creation of virtual users thru a : shell script.. So I can supply the password on the command line? : like : ./vadduser : instead of it having to prompt me? : : Basiaclly I'm pulling userId's and cleartest Pw's out of an internal : database and then submitting them to vadduser Why don't you write your own vmkpasswd using perl's crypt() function? : Thanks for any ideas/help. : Adam --Adam
Re: qmail/fictitious domain/ppp connection
From: Eric Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : May 19 08:57:37 moby qmail: 927118657.368399 delivery 1: deferral: Connected_to_199.182.120.56_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_451_< [EMAIL PROTECTED]>..._Domain_must_resolve/ : : How should a qmail Admin go about thinking about this and solving the : problem? Put a domain that resolves into /var/qmail/control/helohost You might want to consider sending all of your mail through your ISP's mail relay. This is the best way to make sure that all of your mail will get delivered. : -Eric. --Adam
Re: What's a DSN?
Wait, do DSN's include return receipts for successfully delivered mail? --Adam - Original Message - From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 12:17 PM Subject: Re: What's a DSN? : Barton writes: : : > Ok, I give up, what's a DSN? : : Read RFC1891, RFC1892, RFC1893, and RFC1894. : : A standard format for a bounce message. Well, somewhat more than that. : : -- : Sam : :
Re: Mass migration off of qmail because of lack of DSNs?
DNS's (IMNSHO): a) are lame b) are an invasion of privacy (if you can't turn them off) c) should be handled by the MUA --Adam
Re: qmail: full disk?
maybe it's a mount problem. I've seen this with linux before -- I don't have a lot of solaris experience. Try stopping qmail, unmounting and mounting the filesystem and restarting. --Adam - Original Message - From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Adam D. McKenna' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 5:38 PM Subject: RE: qmail: full disk? : We sent 247,000 messages and there are about 85,000 more to go in the todo : queue. The body of the message is just under 2k. : : -tina : : > -Original Message- : > From: Adam D. McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] : > Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:29 PM : > To: Tina Stewart : > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > Subject: Re: qmail: full disk? : > : > : > From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 149406226% /var/qmail : > : > > : > : > > Filesystemkbytesused avail capacity : > Mounted on : > : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s71823222 948752 85623853% : > /var/qmail : > : > Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a : > ludicrously : > large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and : > running out of : > space? : > : > --Adam : > : > :
Re: qmail: full disk?
From: Tina Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > Filesystem iused ifree %iused Mounted on : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s7 524498 149406226% /var/qmail : > > : > > Filesystemkbytesused avail capacity Mounted on : > > /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s71823222 948752 85623853%/var/qmail Could it be that someone mailed one (or more) of your users a ludicrously large attachment, and qmail is trying to write it to disk and running out of space? --Adam
Re: qmail: full disk?
From: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : qmail has lots and lots of small configuration files, queue files, etc : which will only consume part of a block and time allocation leaves you : with lots of part-used blocks. (it's almost the degenerate case) Wouldn't that affect the free inode count though? --Adam
Re: compiling qmail 1.03 under solaris 2.6
yeah, I meant gcc :) --Adam - Original Message - From: Scott Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 11:53 AM Subject: Re: compiling qmail 1.03 under solaris 2.6 : "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : | For some reason qmail is looking in /usr/local/include instead of : | /usr/include. The files can be found in /usr/include/arpa. : : gcc searches /usr/local/include, and some versions of bind put their : stuff there. : :
Re: compiling qmail 1.03 under solaris 2.6
From: James P Kannengieser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : Here is the error message that I am receiving: : : # make setup check : ./compile qmail-remote.c : In file included from qmail-remote.c:4: : /usr/local/include/arpa/inet.h:68: sys/bitypes.h: No such file or directory : /usr/local/include/arpa/inet.h:72: sys/cdefs.h: No such file or directory : *** Error code 1 : make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `qmail-remote.o' For some reason qmail is looking in /usr/local/include instead of /usr/include. The files can be found in /usr/include/arpa. : If anyone can help me resolve this issue, I'd appreciate it. What makes this : problem more strange is that 1.03 compiled nicely under : solaris 2.6 for someone I know, and her system also lacked the specified files. I seriously doubt that. : NOTICE* : This transmittal and/or attachments may be a confidential attorney-client : communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If you are not : the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this : transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this : transmittal is strictly prohibited. Not that this is on topic, but I don't believe this is true. Once I receive a message it is my property and I can do what I want with it. --Adam
Re: taildir won't compile...
It compiled fine for me with no warnings on Debian 2.1. Maybe your headers are outdated. --Adam - Original Message - From: Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 12:33 PM Subject: Re: taildir won't compile... : On Thu, 13 May 1999, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote: : :mail:~$ cc taildir.c :taildir.c:15: conflicting types for `sys_errlist' :/usr/include/errno.h:31: previous declaration of `sys_errlist' :taildir.c: In function `newest': :taildir.c:65: warning: passing arg 3 of `scandir' from incompatible pointer :type :taildir.c:65: warning: passing arg 4 of `scandir' from incompatible pointer :type : :am using linux... is there a problem with it? : : It compiles with 1 warning (which can be ignored) for me. Which : Linux are you using? I've got RH 6.0 : : % uname -v -s -r -m : Linux 2.2.5-15 #1 Mon Apr 19 23:00:46 EDT 1999 i686 : : % cc -o taildir taildir.c : taildir.c: In function `newest': : taildir.c:65: warning: passing arg 3 of `scandir' from incompatible : pointer type : : % ./taildir . & (sleep 1; echo "Hello, world" >>@02; sleep 3) : [2] 1380 : Hello, world : : : -- Jeff : : :
Re: script to tail latest logfile in a directory?
Hmm, the last time I asked this question nobody answered me. so I wrote this: #!/bin/sh QMAIL=`ls /var/log/qmail | grep @ | tail -n 1` QMAILS=`ls /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd | grep @ | tail -n 1` tail -f /var/log/daemon.log /var/log/auth.log /var/log/xferlog \ /var/log/mail.log /var/log/kern.log /var/log/cfingerd.log \ /var/log/xntpd /var/log/qmail/$QMAIL /var/log/qmail/qmail-smtpd/$QMAILS I don't have an excessively high volume of mail, and I use rather large cyclog files, so this works well, my syslog logfiles are rotated much more often, causing me to have to break out of this script and restart it anyway. BTW, the tail that ships with most linux's will let you tail -f more than one file. --Adam
Re: script to tail latest logfile in a directory?
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Right. Just with taildir or whatever else package was written for
: this... I'm sure there is a program out there. I can whip up a little
: perl proggie to do it as well.
:
: I was just saying, apparently not clearly enough, that I just wished
: that tail would do this *inherently*.
Get GNU tail.
SYNOPSIS
tail [-c [+]N[bkm]] [-n [+]N] [-fqv] [--bytes=[+]N[bkm]]
[--lines=[+]N] [--follow] [--quiet] [--silent] [--verbose]
[--help] [--version] [file...]
tail [{-,+}Nbcfklmqv] [file...]
DESCRIPTION
This documentation is no longer being maintained and may
be inaccurate or incomplete. The Texinfo documentation is
now the authoritative source.
This manual page documents the GNU version of tail. tail
prints the last part (10 lines by default) of each given
file; it reads from standard input if no files are given
or when a filename of `-' is encountered. If more than
one file is given, it prints a header consisting of the
file's name enclosed in `==>' and `<==' before the output
for each file.
pine and maildir
I have been distributing the c-client library patch from my website (http://www.flounder.net/qmail/) for quite a while now. My question is, has anyone updated this patch so that it works with the newest version of pine? Is anyone willing to? The current patch works on pine 3.96, which is a rather old version. As a secondary note, is UW planning on adding Maildir support to pine at any time? It would seem that this would be a worthwhile feature. --Adam
Re: What happens when qmail-send is killed?
From: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: If you use sys V, a script is called to kill qmail-send
: (/etc/rc?.d/K??script) with 'stop' as argument when you shutdown the
: machine. Make sure that this script kill -TERM qmail-send.
The "killall" command varies depending on unix variant.
I snarfed/modified the following from a solaris rc file -- YMMV:
PID=`/usr/bin/ps -eo pid,comm | /usr/bin/awk '{ if ($2 == "qmail-send")
print $1 }'`
kill -TERM $PID
--Adam
Re: qmail is not a replacement for sendmail
From: Jay D. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- : : On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote: : : > > Not everyone installing Unix/Linux nowadays is an OS guru. : > : > If they're playing the role of admin, they damn sure should be. It's : > obvious from the beginning that they're not installing windoze 95. : : Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot : of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to : install Qmail without inflicting self-injury. : : Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means a : turbo-guru of *nix by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who can read and comprehend the documentation and is moderately intelligent should be able to install qmail with a minimum of fuss. The problem is the people who don't want to read and learn. This usually includes *nix newbies. --Adam
