Re: Handling high volume lists

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Robin S. Socha" on 14 May 2001 22:30:00 +0200:

> > Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a Mail-Followup-To header in your
> > message. Are people supposed to guess whether or not you are on the
> > list or whether or not you want a cc header listing your address so
> > that your mail filter can handle the message differently.
> 
> Everyone here is on this list unless otherwise stated. Noone therefore
> wants Cc:s unless otherwise stated. How long have you been in a technical
> environment?

I disagree completely.  There are many cases in which I have greatly 
appreciated a Cc on mailing lists on which I participate because they 
generally arrive much sooner than the mailing list answer does.  This 
list especially has been known to have delays of up to at least 3 hours 
before emails that are sent actually show up in my mailbox.  That 
doesn't help much when the critical problem has escalated and my hair 
has fallen out.  It wouldn't be hard to configure your Gnus to add the 
mail-followup-to header for this list.  Even though it isn't quite a 
standard and probably never will be, I know a lot of users on this list 
have software that respects it.  I know mine does.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  8:14pm  up 5 days, 22:51,  5 users,  load average: 1.11, 1.18, 1.20

Re: OT - Problems with daemontools 0.70

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Michael Geier" on Mon, 14 May 2001 13:39:10 CDT:

> 'preciate that no one flamed...

Generally you won't get flamed for decent technical questions like 
this, however you might get flamed for using Microsoft Outlook to post 
your email. :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  8:06pm  up 5 days, 22:43,  5 users,  load average: 1.24, 1.40, 1.25

Re: Who is List Manager

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Niles" on Mon, 14 May 2001 11:49:46 EDT:

> Jim,
> 
> Try sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I believe you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED]  My guess, however, is 
that he isn't on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  8:02pm  up 5 days, 22:39,  5 users,  load average: 1.22, 1.17, 1.13

Re: Unsubscribe Doesn't Work

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Jim Darrough on Sun, 13 May 2001 09:27:30 PDT:

>  I have sent three blank emails to 
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in an attempt to unsubscribe three times 
> without any apparent effect. Anyone got a better idea?

Maybe you're not subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you may have 
subscribed to a sublist.

Andy
p.s. read the headers of the emails...
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  1:17am  up 5 days,  3:54,  4 users,  load average: 1.11, 1.12, 1.09

Re: html based email

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 09 May 2001 09:40:22 PDT, "Michael Boyiazis" wrote:

> It has 3 parts:
> plain text
> html for normals
> html for aol

Shouldn't that be:
text/plain for normals
bloat/html for lusers
bloat/html for aol users

:-)

Andy

Re: assign file being overwritten regularly

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 08 May 2001 18:42:20 EDT, "Carl J. Danowski" wrote:

> Does anyone know why the 'assign' file in /etc/qmail/users would continually be 
>overwritten?
> 

Hmm, who else has ``root'' access to your box?  If none, which cronjob 
did you write that overwrites it?  If none, which web utility did you 
write/install which overwrites it?  Basically, there is no qmail 
process that will do this---you or someone must be doing it.

Andy

Re: Qmail and its parts.

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 07 May 2001 14:36:54 EDT, "Carl J. Danowski" wrote:

> Why is someone sending this message again?  I was successfully helped.

Someone else finally noticed...  If you check the archives, I brought 
this up months ago and no one seemed to notice the duplicates.  
mail.delanet.com has been doing this for quite some time now.  I 
finally just wrote a procmail recipe for all of mail.delanet.com on 
another account that I post from because I was tired of seeing the 
duplicates. :-)

Andy

Re: defaultdomain ?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Joan Picanyol i Puig on Sat, 05 May 2001 22:04:49 +0200:

> However, look at the From: header of this message :(

This is most likely a client problem.  You need to configure your 
client to use the correct address.  BTW, you didn't show the contents 
of the rest of the control files...  At any rate, the Message-id of 
your email looks like this:

Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

So, either you have misconfigured qmail or your outgoing mail server is 
not your qmail server...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  2:16pm  up 28 days, 17:32,  5 users,  load average: 1.08, 1.07, 1.01

Re: Ban These Exchange Server Users

[Andy Bradford]

On 24 Apr 2001 06:57:45 PDT, Russ Allbery wrote:

> > I know you all are so against it... but don't you think it's time to
> > re-consider installing a scanner on Mailing Lists?
> 
> No, I think it's time to kick everyone running one of those broken
> scanners that mails the mailing list off of the mailing list.

Maybe it's time subscriber-only posting was enabled. :-)  All of this 
would have been prevented in this case because non of the AV addresses 
are subscribers.

Andy

Re: It's not my list but ... (AV Bots)

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:35:10 CDT, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

> It isn't my list, but if it was I would add the IP addresses of any servers
> that sent a virus warning to my list into my tcp rules block list.

Unfortunately that won't work.  The email is sent to a list exploder 
and never directly delivered to your mail server.  So, this would only 
be useful on the list server.  :-)

Andy

Here we go again [was Re: Antigen found W32/Navidad-B (Sophos,Norman) virus ]

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said ANTIGEN_ITMAILMAN2 on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:37:19 BST:

> Antigen for Exchange found Emanuel.exe infected with W32/Navidad-B
> (Sophos,Norman) virus.

Please fix your lame borken anti-virus scanner!!!

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:22pm  up 17 days, 37 min,  5 users,  load average: 1.04, 1.20, 1.24

Re: Can't establish SMTP connection (Error 4.4.1)

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:22:50 +0200, Willy De la Court wrote:

> Is'nt it time to install a virus scanner on the list.

Why?  I see no reason why the list should have a virus scanner.

Andy

Re: [OT] Re: VIRUS ALERT

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:10:10 EDT, Jason Kawaja wrote:

> folks on the list who are _still_ using a windows box should go to :

Maybe you should refer them to something like:

http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Installation-HOWTO/index.html

or

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html

;-)

Andy

Re: VIRUS ALERT

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:15:08 -0300, "Alan R." wrote:

> You are sending email with virus. Please use some anti-virus program.

What makes it worse are dumb anti-virus scanners that bounce messages 
back to the list... :-)

Andy

Re: tcpserver help

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:01:57 +0200, "NDSoftware" wrote:

> PLEASE USE A ANTIVIRUS !!!

Please don't send lame messages like this to the list.  If you have 
already blocked the virus with your software then what are you worried 
about?

[OT] Re: Sticky question about qmail-queue and qmail-smtpd interactions

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Jason Haar on Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:06:02 +1200:

> me to realise a rare error condition I hadn't expected. This virus scanner
> didn't like scanning a 90Mb zip'ped AVI file (ahem) - whereas another vendor
> scanner took 1.5minutes to scan it, this one took nearly two hours...

Tell them to send MPEG instead. ;-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  8:23pm  up 12 days, 23:39,  6 users,  load average: 1.46, 1.50, 1.45

Re: RFCs?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "D. J. Bernstein" on 15 Apr 2001 19:31:35 -:

> See http://cr.yp.to/qmail/warfield.html.

Wow, I've never seen a more clueless sysadmin.[1]  It's apparent that he
doesn't understand what the problem was and decided to make qmail the
scapegoat.  What's sad is that there are people out there that would
believe what he has to say because he poses as an ``expert''.

Andy
[1] Actually I have. :-)
[---[system uptime]]
 10:01pm  up 9 days,  1:17,  4 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

Re: Some mail is getting to qmail, some others aren't

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:11:43 PDT, "Steve Quezadas" wrote:

> Non-authoritative answer:
> pcrush.com  MX preference = 5, mail exchanger = 63.204.40.234

I could be wrong, but I believe that MX records are supposed to be 
names not IP addresses.  This could be part of the problem.

Andy
p.s. nslookup is deprecated, not to mention broken.  If you don't use 
djbdns you should at least use dig.

Re: End of the qmail era?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Adam McKenna on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:48:17 -0800:

> > 
> 
> Come on now.  You can do better than this.

I got a good laugh out of it anyway. :-)  

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:00pm  up 46 days, 11:03,  4 users,  load average: 1.19, 1.27, 1.12

Re: very large queue list (qmail-qread)

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Ross Davis - Data Anywhere" on Sun, 25 Mar 2001 21:53:02 PST:

> when I run qmail-qread I get 108,000 lines of emails, most of which have
> sent.  When I run qmail-qstat is says that there typically about 250 emails
> that in queue.
> 
> Is that normal to have that may lines returned from qmail-qread?

Yep, however, you might want to only show those that haven't been 
delivered yet:

qmail-qread | grep -v done

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:17pm  up 39 days, 23:20,  6 users,  load average: 1.54, 1.73, 1.70

Re: 554 too many hops?

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:32:36 PST, "Brad Dameron" wrote:

> failed_after_I_sent_the_message./Remote_host_said:_554_too_many_hops,_mail_i
> s_looping.
> 
> Anyone know what can cause this error? Is there a way to stop the loop?

It means there are too many received lines in a message.  To stop the 
loop, look through the headers and figure out where the loop is.

Andy

Re: 2 questions

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said David Dyer-Bennet on 12 Mar 2001 00:21:10 CST:

> Because my local users are used to using mailbox-based tools, but I'm
> using vmailmgr for virtual support and it likes maildir.  And some of
> my local users want to also check via pop from time to time.

How do you intend to keep the mailbox and maildir ``in sync?''  Now, if 
you can convince your users to use one or the other then you could just 
put the proper delivery instruction in their .qmail file.  i.e. for 
user joe who wants mailbox format:

~joe/.qmail:
./Mailbox

and for fred who wants pop (using maildir)
~fred/.qmail:
./Maildir/

Of course, now if joe wants pop then he will be out of luck unless you 
do something like:

~joe/.qmail:
./Mailbox
./Maildir/

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:33pm  up 25 days, 23:36,  7 users,  load average: 1.08, 1.08, 1.08

Re: 2 questions

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Alberto Dainotti on Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:31:30 +0100:

> Is there a pop server allowing to use the maildir format
> for users who have "Maildir" and a standard Mailbox
> file for the other users ?

qmail-pop3d comes with qmail, but it only supports maildir, why would 
you want both?

> The ideal thing would be that this pop server would work
> with ssl too.

You can wrap SSL around pop using stunnel.

> Is there a way to convert a Mailbox to maildir format ?

I believe someone wrote a script to do this already---look on qmail.org 
for it.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:27pm  up 25 days, 12:30,  5 users,  load average: 1.08, 1.27, 1.26

Re: Error 554 from hotmail

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:55:22 +0800:

> I've got 800+ error 554 form hotmail out of 1000+ email sent to valid hotmail.com 
>accounts.
> Can anyone explain what's the problem - Hotmail or qmail or network problem?

Why don't you post a copy of one of the errors?

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:58pm  up 22 days, 23:01,  7 users,  load average: 1.14, 1.17, 1.11

Re: e-mail notification

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:19:39 PST, "info" wrote:

> is there a way to notify me that i've received an e-mail for the account 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] into my other account [EMAIL PROTECTED] , without forwarding a copy of the 
>e-mail?
> 

Oops, forgot one thing...  Don't forget to put the normal delivery 
instruction for that user after that command. i.e.

./Maildir/

Andy

Re: e-mail notification

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:19:39 PST, "info" wrote:

> is there a way to notify me that i've received an e-mail for the account 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] into my other account [EMAIL PROTECTED] , without forwarding a copy of the 
>e-mail?
> 

Something like:

| sed -n -f $HOME/headers.sed | qmail-inject -f$SENDER [EMAIL PROTECTED]; exit 0

where headers.sed is:

/^From:/p
/^Subject:/p

Seems to work pretty good for me.  I'm sure there are cleaner ways than 
this because this will also match text within the body of the message.

Andy

Re: Qmail and time zone

[Andy Bradford]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:08:43 EST,  wrote:

> This is very annoying! I've spent lots of time training the users to 
> configure their clients properly, and now my qmail server sends out 
> garbage, which defeats the purpose. :(

What did you train your users to do?  They should be putting in a 
correct Date header with the right timezone information---if they 
aren't retrain them.  Most users won't ever look at the rest of the 
headers such as Received and it is more appropriate that they are in 
UTC/GMT.

Andy

Re: qmail vulnerability

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "D. J. Bernstein" on 01 Mar 2001 02:27:37 GMT:

>http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/2237

  ``Currently the SecurityFocus staff are not aware of any vendor
supplied patches for this issue.''

Why haven't they updated this?  On a properly configured qmail system 
this is a non-issue.  Why is that not the *fix* that they seek?

>http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/6969

Isn't this a repeat of the first?  The *exploit* code even looks 
similar (if not the same).

>http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/6970

Again the same issue which is easily solved by configuring qmail 
properly.

>http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-1999-0144

More of the same.  Maybe they should define what they consider the 
OS...  Out of curiosity, is this why softlimit was added to the 
daemontools package?

>http://www.insecure.org/sploits/qmail.DOS.rcpt.html

Again the same problem...

>http://xforce.iss.net/static/208.php

At least they got the version right here, but still the same problem 
which is easily taken care of with proper configuration.

>http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2000-01/1170.html

At least this one is not as dull as the rest. :-)

> If you have seen any of these web pages, or any similar web pages at
> other locations, please send me email with the following information:

I haven't seen any additional pages, but the first three listed I had 
seen before.  When I first saw the reports I decided to test my current 
systems against what was proposed.  Each test failed to reproduce the 
attack described.  I was actually surprised because I wasn't certain 
how the systems had been setup (I didn't do the initial configuration 
of the systems).  Of course it didn't have any effect (other than 
closing the connection with a temporary error) on the system.  I 
suppose an attacker could attempt to exhaust the memory by taking up 
all the connections available, however, even this is avoidable by doing 
the math.  

For example, tcpserver by default will only accept 40 connections.  
If each qmail-smtpd is started with softlimit -m 200 that comes out 
to 80M of RAM that will ever be allocated.  On a server with 128M this 
won't even touch swap (unless there are other services running on the 
server in which case the admin *will* have figured that into the total).

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:43pm  up 14 days, 23:45,  7 users,  load average: 1.22, 1.16, 1.17

Duplicate mails on mailing list.

[Andy Bradford]

It seems that someone's mail server re-injecting messages to this 
mailing list.  I just got another copy of a message that I sent 
yesterday.  Has anyone else noticed this?  The headers are included and 
what I have seen is that the Message-id has changed maybe to the mail 
server that is re-injecting the message and obviously the Return-path 
and all the Received lines.

This is the original:

Received: (qmail 6694 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2001 06:22:51 -
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 27 Feb 2001 06:22:51 -
Received: from localhost
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.2.0)
for andyb@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:22:51 -0700 (MST)
Received: (qmail 28594 invoked by uid 0); 27 Feb 2001 06:22:25 -
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by 
mail.calderasystems.com with scan4virus-0.50 (uvscan: v4.0.70/v4077. . Clean. 
Processed in 0.609433 secs); 26/02/2001 23:22:25
Received: from id.wustl.edu (128.252.140.87)
  by mail.calderasystems.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2001 06:22:24 -
Received: (qmail 32017 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2001 06:22:23 -
Precedence: bulk
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 32014 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2001 06:22:23 -
Mailing-list: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-image-url: http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/pictures/mugshot1sm.jpg
X-url: http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/
In-reply-to: Message from "Chrisanthy Carlane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:13:52 +0700." <000c01c0a084$7531d060$8924a5ca@everyone> 
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-to: andyb@localhost
Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-to: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-to: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4
To: "Chrisanthy Carlane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mailserver buffering
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:17:22 -0700
From: Andy Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


This is the duplicate:

Received: (qmail 15724 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 17:53:13 -
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 17:53:13 -
Received: from localhost
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.2.0)
for andyb@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:53:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: (qmail 22216 invoked by uid 0); 28 Feb 2001 17:53:00 -
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by 
mail.calderasystems.com with scan4virus-0.50 (uvscan: v4.0.70/v4077. . Clean. 
Processed in 3.906777 secs); 28/02/2001 10:52:56
Received: from id.wustl.edu (128.252.140.87)
  by mail.calderasystems.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2001 17:52:56 -
Received: (qmail 5699 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2001 17:52:54 -
Precedence: bulk
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 5696 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2001 17:52:53 -
Mailing-list: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-image-url: http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/pictures/mugshot1sm.jpg
X-url: http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/
In-reply-to: Message from "Chrisanthy Carlane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:13:52 +0700." <000c01c0a084$7531d060$8924a5ca@everyone> 
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-to: andyb@localhost
Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-to: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-to: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Chrisanthy Carlane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mailserver buffering
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:17:22 -0700
From: Andy Bradford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Andy

Re: mailserver buffering

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Chrisanthy Carlane" on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:13:52 +0700:

> What I want to ask is: HOW to create that buffering thing ? Do I have to add
> every user for every domain(which will be a lot of user)?

With a standard qmail install it's as simple as:

Add their domain to /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts

They must produce an appropriate MX record in their DNS information 
which points to your mail server.

I don't know what addition complexities vpopmail might add, but I 
suspect this should still work.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:17pm  up 12 days, 23:19,  6 users,  load average: 1.01, 1.11, 1.21

Re: nfs mounting /var/qmail/alias

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Phil Oester" on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:02:15 PST:

> Any issues with NFS mounting the alias directory so a common version can be
> shared by all mail servers?

You should probably use the ``fastforward'' package and then distribute 
the alias.cdb with rsync or something like that.  I believe that would 
be more reliable than using NFS to mount the alias directory.  In 
addition, it gives you a speedier lookup of aliases...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:33pm  up 13 days, 21:35,  8 users,  load average: 1.02, 1.08, 1.14

Re: mailserver buffering

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Chrisanthy Carlane" on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:44:14 +0700:

> > They must produce an appropriate MX record in their DNS information
> > which points to your mail server.
> OK, and when their emails go to my server, where do they go(what directory,
> do I have to make a directory for their domain?
> and what about the users?

Not necessary.  They will be queued up in qmail's mail queue until they 
can be delivered to their mail server (or until the message has been in your 
queue too long and the message bounces).  Simple really.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:08am  up 13 days, 10 min,  6 users,  load average: 1.06, 1.20, 1.23

Re: mailserver buffering

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Chrisanthy Carlane" on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:13:52 +0700:

> What I want to ask is: HOW to create that buffering thing ? Do I have to add
> every user for every domain(which will be a lot of user)?

With a standard qmail install it's as simple as:

Add their domain to /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts

They must produce an appropriate MX record in their DNS information 
which points to your mail server.

I don't know what addition complexities vpopmail might add, but I 
suspect this should still work.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:17pm  up 12 days, 23:19,  6 users,  load average: 1.01, 1.11, 1.21

Re: forwarding when somebody already has an account

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Chris Hellberg on Wed, 01 Jan 1997 04:57:21 +1300:

> Oops, you're right, doesn't seem to work. The file should be named just
> .qmail in the user's directory. I've tried it with .qmail file and works
> for me so give that a shot.

Just so you understand why this works and not .qmail-default...  
.qmail-default is only read if there is an additional part in the email 
address such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a corresponding .qmail-admin 
does not exist.  If .qmail-admin exists it will use the delivery 
instructions in that file, if it doesn't exist it will follow delivery 
instructions in .qmail-default.  If that doesn't exist either then the 
mail will bounce with ``Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)''

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:15pm  up 10 days, 12:17,  6 users,  load average: 1.23, 1.23, 1.13

Re: Missing To:/From: Fields in Virtual Domain Setup.

[Andy Bradford]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:57:59 PST,  wrote:

> have I obviously missed?? I've used the LWQ and set up the qmail server
> using Ch 11 of Running with qmail - Using qmail as an ISP server. Am I
> supposed to resupply the To: / From: fields using variables in the
> .qmail-default file?? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

No, qmail will not modify those headers by default.  Exchange pullmail 
must be removing them or they are not included with the email when it 
was injected into the queue.  Try looking at the mail in the Maildir to 
see if they are present before they get pop'd.  In addition, how are 
the messages being put into the queue?  Are you doing it from a script? 
 Are you sending it from a MUA?  And no, you shouldn't have to resupply 
them in a .qmail-default... :-)

Andy

Re: tcpserver prints to console!?!

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Paul Farber on Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:28:56 EST:

> /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -q -ladmin.f-tech.net -xtcp.cdb -- 0 25
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd

I think you need a 2>&1 at the end of that line (and that line should 
be all on one line).

> Also, the multilog part of the qmail-smtpd dosen't seem to fire off... no
> errors, but also no supervise multilog.

Did you set the sticky bit on the supervised directory?  For example,
/var/qmail/supervise/send should have the sticky bit and then it will 
launch a supervise process for /var/qmail/supervise/send/log.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:36pm  up 6 days, 22:38,  7 users,  load average: 1.03, 1.13, 1.16

Re: outgoing message(with multi recipient address) was sent multi-times

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Qiao Aijun" on Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:49:41 GMT:

> I have routed outgoing message to my ISP's SMTP server. I hope our email with multi 
>recipient address are forwarded to my ISP's SMTP once. How can I do that?
> 

Unless someone has written this functionality for qmail to do this then 
it won't do it.  Look on qmail.org for patches, but I don't believe 
anyone has ever had the ``itch'' to do it.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:39am  up 3 days, 41 min, 10 users,  load average: 1.01, 1.09, 1.13

Re: redirecting Mail ??

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said TAG on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:36:05 +0200:

> ok - Yes - how

Put a single ``#'' in your dotqmail file for postmaster.
> 
> and NO - why not ??

What if for some strange reason someone starts spamming from your mail 
server.  I would like to be able to send an email to postmaster to 
inform of the criminal act.  If I don't hear back from postmaster in 24 
hours I will submit your domain to one of the open relay lists thus 
blocking your IP from sending mail to those who participate.  Is that 
incentive enough?

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:32am  up 3 days, 34 min, 10 users,  load average: 1.13, 1.18, 1.17

Re: SMTP routing based on From: address?

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:39:22 GMT, "Grant Edwards" wrote:

> It's sort of an odd request, but I'd like to route outgoing mail to one of
> two SMTP servers, but I don't want to do it based on the destination
> address.  I would like to do it based on the From: address in the header.

You could probably handle something like this in ~alias/.qmail-default 
and then based on the local part in the address reinject the message to 
the *real* mail server.

Andy

Re: svscan does not recurse into subdirectories

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Mario Thaten on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:44:25 +0100:

> From the docs of svscan I learned, that 
> "svscan starts a pair of supervise processes, one for sub, one for 
> sub/log, with a pipe between them.", but this effect does not take
> place, and I really don't know, what the problem might be.

You must have missed the part about the stick bit eh?  svscan will only 
supervise the log directory if the it is set on the parent directory.

chmod +t /supervise/qmail/*

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  6:06pm  up 100 days, 20:27,  7 users,  load average: 1.17, 1.12, 1.09

Re: tcp.smtp file

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" on Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:11:28 EST:

> What is the proper format for the tcp.smtp file in regards to multiple class
> c networks.  For example
> 
> 209.168.128-143.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""

This seems to be consistent with 
http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp/tcprules.html in the ``Address ranges'' 
section:

tcprules treats 1.2.3.37-53:ins as an abbreviation for the
rules 1.2.3.37:ins, 1.2.3.38:ins, and so on up through
1.2.3.53:ins. Similarly, 10.2-3.:ins is an abbreviation
for 10.2.:ins and 10.3.:ins.

So, it looks like you can do entire CIDR blocks by specifying a range.  
There is no need for individual entries.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  6:47pm  up 97 days, 21:07,  5 users,  load average: 1.10, 1.16, 1.11

Re: qmail port

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:16:46 +0200, "Mike Jackson" wrote:

> When was the last time anybody actually heard from DJB?

The last time he posted to this list was not too long ago actually.

Date: 25 Jan 2001 22:18:11 - (Thu 15:18 MST)
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1)

Andy

Re: How does SVSCAN work ?

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:45:23 +0200, Mike Jackson wrote:

>  I tried to use svscan for something other than qmail and couldn't get
> it to work. The process in question, slapd, wasn't producing specific
> log files, and svscan refused to start. It works just fine for me with
> qmail when I specify the log files for qmail.

If you are intending to use multilog with slapd as you do with qmail 
then you will need to make sure that it logs it's output to stdout.  In 
addition, you will need to ensure that slapd doesn't fork/background or 
supervise will not be able to ``manage'' it.  But, I guess this is kind 
of off topic. :-)

Andy

Re: How does SVSCAN work ?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "dennis" on Mon, 05 Feb 2001 13:23:55 +1100:

> I must be as thick as two short planks but for the file of me I can't get my
> head around how SVSCAN works. Can someone please enlighten me, PLEASE !!

svscan ``scans'' the directory that you give it for other directories.  
For each directory it finds, it spawns a supervise process that 
monitors the service defined in the run file found in that directory.  
If a supervise process (which monitors a service) dies for some odd 
reason it will restart another supervise process on that directory to 
keep the service running.  That's all it does, plain and simple.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:10pm  up 95 days, 31 min,  6 users,  load average: 1.09, 1.15, 1.13

Re: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)

[Andy Bradford]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:56:26 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:

> > sendmail[23266]: OAA23264: to=toto@the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine,
> > ctladdr=the_sender_on_the_machine (50011/50012), delay=00:00:00,
> > xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, 
> > relay=the_virtual_vpopdomain_on_the_machine. [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx], stat=Local
> > configuration error
> 
> This message is unreadable (what encryption standard is this, and
> where is the key?)

You need to put on your sendmail Urim and Thummim[1]

> Seriously: you molested the log output. Please provide real log
> output, this is confusing.

It is not even qmail output... :-)

Andy

[1] If you don't know what this is see the following:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=boolean&q1=urim&operator1=Or&q2=thummim&operator2=And&q3=&rgn=verse&restrict=All&size=First+100

Re: Secure IMAP server

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:32:13 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:

> That is not sufficient.

That was my point.  Not having seen a security audit, nor looked at the 
code myself, there is not solid claim to security.

> That said, I use the imapd myself.

We use it here as well on production systems.

> While I would not trust it as much as an imapd from djb, it seems to be
> the best alternative.  Please note that IMAP is a large and complicated
> protocol.  It is difficult to make it right because of the complexity.

My point exactly.  Since there is no other alternative at this time 
then it wins out by default.  Compared to the rest of the imapd that 
exist courier-imap works best with the our current needs.

Andy

Re: Sorry about the size of my prevous e-mail (I have beem flamed on this before).

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:48:21 +0200, "Alex Kramarov" wrote:


> I do not use a broken MUA. I use an MUA that helps me construct
> a more personal e-mail by adding backgrounds and other multimedia
> elements. If you want to check that out, there is a link to it's site
> on the bottom of my e-mail. Noone I have sent a customised e-mail
> have ever complained, except (understandably) people on this list,
> and only because it was sent in error. I think, that in the future

If it's so configurable, can you customize it to wrap lines properly ad 
a reasonbale length please?

Andy
p.s and turn off the HTML if you can... :-)

Re: Secure IMAP server

[Andy Bradford]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:08:06 PST, Sam Trenholme wrote:

> The only security document I could find in the source tarball for
> courier-0.30.0 has this note:

courier is not an IMAP package but a MTA like qmail.  What you need to 
get is courier-imap and look there... I just looked there myself and 
realized that there is no SECURITY file---I must have been thinking of 
a different package.  Sorry about the wild goose chase.

Andy

Re: Secure IMAP server

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Rahsheen Porter on Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:27:14 EST:

> I'm extremely happy with qmail and the other software available from
> DJB, but I've yet to hear anything about an IMAP server that takes
> security into consideration. I'm running Courier-IMAP right now, but I
> haven't actually opened the port to the world yet because I'm not
> confident in it's security (since I can't seem to find any docs on it
> that mention the word). 

Why would you be more confident in an IMAP daemon from DJB? (No offense 
DJB).  Why are you not confident in it's security?  While courier-imap 
isn't coded in the same style that DJB uses, I do believe that it has 
been built with security in mind.  Having said that, I cannot say for 
certain that it *is* indeed secure merely because I have not seen a 
security audit on the code, but I do believe for the most part it is 
secure.  For more on it's security I believe there is a document called 
SECURITY in the code tree somewhere which discusses it's approach to 
security---you might have a look at that.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:26pm  up 88 days,  1:46,  5 users,  load average: 1.04, 1.09, 1.08

Re: What variables are available inside of .qmail-*?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Peter Green on Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:28:12 EST:

> Also, if you ever have any doubt, create a temporary .qmail file for a user
> that reads:
> 
>   env>/tmp/qmail.env

Don't forget the pipe... :-)

| env > /tmp/qmail.env

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:57pm  up 87 days,  1:17,  5 users,  load average: 1.14, 1.32, 1.33

Re: Specific IP

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Linux on Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:24:39 +0100:

> There is a method to run qmail on a specific IP address.
> For example binding on 111.222.222.222:25 instead of 0.0.0.0:25

This is the job of tcpserver... find your invocation of tcpserver and 
change the 0 to 111.222.222.222.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:34am  up 86 days, 11:55,  6 users,  load average: 1.05, 1.17, 1.15

Re: Wildcards in badmailfrom?

[Andy Bradford]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:40:12 CST, Charles Cazabon wrote:

> Someone posted a patch to do this some time ago.  You could search the
> qmail list archives for it, or look at qmail.org for a pointer.  I think
> it was called 'badrcptpatterns' or something similar.

Yes, thanks to another poster I found the wildmat program/patch that 
will add this into it.  I seached for ``wildcard'' instead of ``regex'' 
on qmail.org which is why I didn't see it the first time...

Andy

Wildcards in badmailfrom?

[Andy Bradford]

Hey all,
I have a really annoying spammer on my hands and just wonder if it is 
possible to use wildcards in badmailfrom?  Originally I added

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

to badmailfrom and that blocked it for about a month.  Then he got 
halfway smart and changed his sender address to 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

for which I added 

@tpts6.seed.net.tw

to badmailfrom.  This however, only worked for a few minutes as he is 
apparently starting to create random names for mail hosts.  Here is a 
list that I have collected so far

@tpts4.seed.net.tw
@mx.seed.net.tw
@ara.seed.net.tw
@tpts6.seed.net.tw
@sky.seed.net.tw
@iris.seed.net.tw
@giga.net.tw
@party.seed.net.tw
@ksmail.seed.net.tw
@saturn.seed.net.tw
@tpts7.seed.net.tw

Now, my question is, would it be possible to block as in

@*.seed.net.tw

Thanks.  I guess I could always try it to see what it does but I would 
rather know before hand---the man page doesn't mention anything about 
wildcards.

Andy

Re: A firestorm of protest?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Robin S. Socha" on 16 Jan 2001 20:47:55 +0100:

> A module is not a patch. You can apply as many well written modules as
> you like - but you cannot simply patch away at an existing code base.

Unless you write code in Lisp... :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  7:16pm  up 75 days, 21:36,  5 users,  load average: 1.38, 1.35, 1.38

Re: Virus-ridden emails from 'funky gao'?

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:02:44 EST, "Hubbard, David" wrote:


> Is everyone else receiving a bunch of emails
> from 'funky gao'?  Can someone remove this
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the list?  I've
> received quite a few messages from him this
> morning, all containing the file Emanuel.exe
> with a virus.

Yes, I have been receiving these as well.  Our mail server with 
qmail-scanner has rejected 16 so far.  They are probably not going 
back to him so he may not even be aware...

Andy

Re: hrm....pop3d

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Andy Bradford on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:19:11 MST:

> My guess would be that you specified pop-3 in your start script, 
> however, pop-3 does not exist in /etc/protocols

Oops, make that /etc/services (I hate replying to my own replies) :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:28pm  up 73 days, 48 min,  5 users,  load average: 1.13, 1.16, 1.11

Re: hrm....pop3d

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Kurth Bemis" on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:11:57 EST:

> Jan 12 06:54:30 noname pop3d: 979300470.784986 tcpserver: fatal: unable to figure 
>out port number for pop-3
> Jan 12 06:54:31 noname qmail: 979300471.799484 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20

My guess would be that you specified pop-3 in your start script, 
however, pop-3 does not exist in /etc/protocols

Check that an if that's not your problem you will need to provide more 
details about how you setup your pop3 script.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:19pm  up 73 days, 39 min,  5 users,  load average: 1.09, 1.06, 1.07

Re: qmail-1.03-6.src.rpm

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Keith Smith" on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:56:09 MST:

> I received an error ""Shadow-Utils is needed by qmail-1.03-6

Sounds like you need to install the shadow-utils RPM...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:41pm  up 70 days,  1:02,  6 users,  load average: 1.36, 1.22, 1.14

Re: help needed

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:50:29 EST,  wrote:

> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> x.x.x.x does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address 
> rejected: Relay access denied
> Giving up on x.x.x.x.

Hmm, this is not a qmail error message.  In fact, if I do the following 
it looks like you are connecting to a Postfix machine:

[andyb@work:desk andyb]$ telnet 24.165.127.56 25
Trying 24.165.127.56...
Connected to 24.165.127.56.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 pagan.madhorizons.com ESMTP Postfix (Postfix-19991231-pl08) (Linux-Mandrake)
MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Ok
RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied
QUIT
221 Bye
Connection closed by foreign host.

Looks like you forgot to disable Postfix or something...

Andy

Re: control/mailroutes (was: QMTP autoreply tester)

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Ricardo Cerqueira on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:50:16 GMT:

> Hmmm... OK, disregard my previous mail.
> Personally, I'd rather have one file for SMTP, and another for QMTP. Does
> anyone else here agree with me?

This seems more logical to me as it allows finer control over the 
entire system.  Oh well, I suppose it isn't critical as qmail-remote 
will just have to determine which to use by probing I guess---unless of 
course it is accompanied by a port number on which QMTP runs.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:28pm  up 66 days, 48 min,  4 users,  load average: 1.25, 1.15, 1.10

Re: rcpthosts - IP addresses not allowed?

[Andy Bradford]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:38:56 EST, Bernard Karmilowicz wrote:

> I am trying to send mail from host FROM_HOST (1.2.3.4) to host TO_HOST
> (1.2.3.5). The mail is addressed to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". qmail is running on
> both hosts. Unfortunately, TO_HOST refuses the mail. However, TO_HOST
> will accept the mail if it is addressed to "user@domain".

Try sending to user@[1.2.3.5] instead...

Andy

Re: Hy.....

[Andy Bradford]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:17:40 +0200, Seby wrote:

>   How can i configure qmail to allow a users to send emails only to
>   the localhost.. and to can not send emails romote (to another host)

echo 0 > /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote
Might do the trick---but I believe that would just hold the mail in the 
queue until it timed out.  That may not be exactly what you're looking 
for.

Andy

Re: AntiVirus!

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:18:33 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:

> By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of virus scanners,
> please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not making this up):

I can verify this---I too received a similar bounce from their group 
and sent them back a *fix your MTA* email.  They responded and said 
that they had removed the person that was subscribed (not fixing the 
root of the problem).  In fact, it was to the same [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
address.

Andy

Re: Minimum OS Requirement to run Qmail

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Andrew Buenaventura on Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:56:36 +0800:

> I am going to setup a dedicated linux box that will run qmail only.  What is
> the most minimum package that I need to install from Red Hat 7.0 to be able
> to run Qmail? I do not want unnecessary services/daemons running on that
> box.  I will also be installing the web based email package that runs on
> qmail.  

You really should know this---if you don't then I wouldn't recommend 
trying to install qmail until you do.  However, just to get you started,
you could probably get away with a minimal install and have everything 
you need.  Good luck.

Andy
p.s. Unless you are installing a binary RPM of qmail you will also need 
to know how to compile and which packages are required for doing so.
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:39pm  up 28 days, 23:58,  4 users,  load average: 1.24, 1.26, 1.33

Re: Please Ignore

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "montgomery f. tidwell" on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:59:32 PST:

> sorry for all the tests. this is the only mail list that
> will accept my Sender: messed up emails.

That's because qmail doesn't care about the Sender header...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:29pm  up 28 days, 23:49,  4 users,  load average: 1.19, 1.39, 1.44

Re: newbie need help

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Arif Rudiana on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:14:42 +0700:

> to find in archive files...  I think it's better to post my questions to
> this millist

Please turn of HTML in your emails. ;-)

>   in recipient the sender username appears like this
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]   what should i do  if
> i want in recipients
>  the sender username appear like :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] without sis01

You should probably configure this in your clients but if they are 
sending mail directly from the server then you will probably also want 
to read the man page for qmail-send and qmail-inject and read up on 
setting "envnoathost" and/or "defaultdomain" in /var/qmail/control

> second: there is no problem  if  our email server received mail from
> users with
>   domains  .telkom.co.id   but we have trouble if receiving
> mail from
>   another domain  (like .com , .org ,  .indosat.co.id  and
> so on) .  is there any
>   something wrong with our qmail's configutaration?  or our
> problem come
>from outside ( like proxy or DNS Server) ?

As far as I can tell there are network problems.  I cannot traceroute 
to your host, nor can I even ping it.  DNS seems to resolve it fine and 
it will also return the proper MX so my guess is that you have some 
network problems (maybe not in your network).  Here is the final part 
of a traceroute:

15  hssi1-0-gw3.cibinong.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.2)  762.458 ms  715.068 ms  761.583 
ms
16  FE4-1-0-sm2.jakarta.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.133)  713.796 ms  708.392 ms  765.980 
ms
17  S12-1-5.kbl.surabaya.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.38)  908.190 ms  828.817 ms  952.539 
ms
18  S0-0.jpt.bandung.telkom.net.id (202.134.3.49)  915.910 ms  955.823 ms  934.870 ms
19  * * *
20  * * *

This continues until it reaches the maximum hop count.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:12pm  up 28 days,  1:31,  4 users,  load average: 1.48, 1.35, 1.22

Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Jamin Collins on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:45:04 CST:

> > * 6 attribution lines
> 
> Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.  If it is,
> which one?
> 
> > * No citation leader 
> 
> Once again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.  If
> it is, which one?
> 
> > * Trailing blank line
> 
> And yet again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.
> If it is, which one?

Ok,
You need to spend more time in the books and less time flapping the 
jaw.  Each one of those violates RFC 1855 to some extent.  Here is the 
link to the RFC and just to make things easy on you, I will quote 
relevant parts of it here (you should still read it though):

- Be brief without being overly terse.  When replying to a message,
  include enough original material to be understood but no more. It
  is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including
  all the previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material.

* Did you do this?

- Do not include control characters or non-ASCII attachments in
  messages unless they are MIME attachments or unless your mailer
  encodes these.  If you send encoded messages make sure the
  recipient can decode them.

* Are you 100% certain that everyone on the list can read your goofy 
windows font/content-type

- Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages.  If you
  have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via
  FLAME ON/OFF enclosures.  For example:
  FLAME ON:  This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth
 it takes to send it.  It's illogical and poorly
 reasoned.  The rest of the world agrees with me.
  FLAME OFF

* Is not your original post based on emotional response to someone 
elses?  Just because they respond emotionally, does that justify your 
ignorance of the same?

- A good rule of thumb:  Be conservative in what you send and
  liberal in what you receive.  You should not send heated messages
  (we call these "flames") even if you are provoked.  On the other
  hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's
  prudent not to respond to flames.

* No comment.

Cheers,

Andy
p.s. BTW, this applies to anyone on the list---not that I am a 
netiquette cop by any means. ;-)
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  7:58pm  up 27 days, 22:18,  4 users,  load average: 1.06, 1.21, 1.23

Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "asantos" on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:13:18 -0100:

> For someone with such a doubtfull sense of humour as he shows to have
> welcoming IE users the way he does at http://socha.net/, he seems to be
> inordinately proud of listing among his "computer skills" Microsoft Office.

Bah!  That's a lot nicer than what I used to have on my webpage:
http://www.xmission.com/~bradipo/fun.html

Andy
p.s. only works with 9x not NT
[---[system uptime]]
  5:35pm  up 27 days, 19:55,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

Re: Henning Brauer's reply

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Chris Olson on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:28:26 CST:

> I believe I'm no more braindead than you are.  At least I have the
> common courtesy to not post a derogatory statement like this on the
> list, nor would I even send a private email to anyone containing a

Granted, it is pretty rude to send derogatory statements to the 
list---he/she was probably just having a bad day.  Maybe a good review 
of RFC 1855 would be in order. :-)
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1855.txt

> I can assure you that I did not intend to waste yours or anybody else's
> time, nor did I intend to waste list bandwidth.

I for one did not think it was a waste of bandwidth, however, I must 
admit I did think it quite a trivial question---but, since you are new 
to qmail and linux and possibly the whole *NIX mentality I'm sure you 
have a handful.  Did you suddenly inherit someone else's job?

> And speaking of wasting bandwidth, why do you (and many others) reply to
> list messages and the reply goes to both the list and to the original
> poster's private email address?  Is it so hard to edit the original

Some people actually don't mind receiving two copies---I for one do 
not.  Some mailing lists tend to be slow and if I am in a hurry I 
appreciate the quick delivery of the message that was sent directly to 
my mailbox.  That is one of the reasons to use filters when 
participating on mailing lists.  Try setting 
mail-followup-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in your mail headers when posting to this list if you don't want a 
duplicate copy.  A few of the mailers on this list support it and the 
"reply-to-all" will usually do the Right Thing(tm).  (BTW, I'm risking 
getting flamed for mentioning this header...)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:13am  up 26 days,  2:32,  5 users,  load average: 1.14, 1.27, 1.31

Re: changing to tcpserver

[Andy Bradford]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:06:03 EST, Dave Sill wrote:

> I recommend copying and pasting the scripts, rather than typing them
> in by hand. Unless you're in Florida, in which case, entering manually
> is more accurate.

ROTFLOL!!!  This has got to be one of the best Florida jokes I have 
seen. :-)

Andy

Re: auto append signature file to all outgoing messages

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Romeyn Prescott on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:52:05 EST:

> There may be others.  I have no idea if this will work.

It may work for a few cases, but with today's mailiers, it most likely 
will corrupt the message or not be seen at all.  Consider the different 
Content-Type made available in most of todays MUA:

multipart/mixed
multipart/alternative
text/html

Without parsing the message in some fashion it will most likely not 
work properly.  Now, if your company's mail policy/standard is to only 
send text/plain messages then you might be able to get away with it...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  5:43pm  up 23 days, 20:02,  5 users,  load average: 1.13, 1.21, 1.21

Re: Hostname Lookup

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:21:10 EST, Warren Small wrote:

> I'm sure a lot of you will say that the problem is obviously a DNS lookup
> issue but I can lookup this server name successfully from the same server
> that is having problems talking to the qmail server. This problem is also
> not confined to one server and I can change the configuration to send the
> mail to our current mail hub and it will be delivered successfully.

I hate to state the obvious, but yes, it is obviously a problem with 
DNS.  Sure, the hostname resolves fine, but your DNS does not return an 
MX for it.  See results below:

[andy@mail andy]$ dnsmx qmail.mainstream.net
dnsmx: fatal: unable to find MX records for qmail.mainstream.net: temporary failure

This should, in the very least return a preference of 0 for the server 
itself.  Instead it is failing---something is misconfigured in your 
DNS.  The same results can be found with dig:

[andy@mail andy]$ dig qmail.mainstream.net mx
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> qmail.mainstream.net mx 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 40425
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  qmail.mainstream.net, type = MX, class = IN

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe it is a 
problem with DNS. :-)

Andy

Re: sending messages from sysadm to users

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said David Ryan on Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:13:43 +1100:

> The main difference is that I do not want them to be able to
> reply-to-all. I had used a mailing list but someone did a reply-to-all
> and caused all sorts of trouble.

Use ezmlm to setup a mailing list and then make the list moderated so 
only you can post to the list.  Then, even if they do a reply-to-all it 
will only be approved by you (or bounced back if you don't want to 
accept any posts).  You could probably concoct your own solution using 
.qmail files, however, I think ezmlm would be easier. :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 10:50pm  up 20 days,  1:09,  3 users,  load average: 1.45, 1.50, 1.23

Re: How insall qmail relay server in an DMZ

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Jose AP Celestino on Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:38:39 GMT:

> Have you tried rtfm. There's plenty of stuff on this.

Why don't you RTFM on your MUA so you don't send out duplicate emails 
to the mailing list...  sheesh.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  8:53pm  up 19 days, 23:13,  4 users,  load average: 1.64, 1.39, 1.30

Re: return receipts

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "David L. Nicol" on Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:12:46 CST:

> What about the "notification on delivery" stuff -- is that not
> an MTA feature?  Is it deprecated?  Rather it would be a feature
> of the MDA, has anyone added it to qmail-local?

You mean something like what is covered in "man qreceipt" ?  It depends 
on what the user is expecting I guess...  If it is
Disposition-Notification-To then it has nothing to do with the MTA, 
however, if it is Notice-Requested-Upon-Delivery-To then that is 
covered...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  8:24pm  up 18 days, 22:43,  4 users,  load average: 1.11, 1.11, 1.04

Re: secrets and lies

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Raul Miller on Sun, 19 Nov 2000 12:33:30 EST:

> Or do you have similar problems deciding whether ATM means automated
> teller machine or asychronous transfer mode?  Or deciding whether
> ASP means active server pages or application service provider?  Or ...

Not generally, however, I must admit that when...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Don't care. What I care about is what the words mean in an actual
> language. In this case English. I do not recognize OSI as a standards
> body and do not care what definition of Open Source can be found at
> opensource.org or the 

I was thrown off for a bit---I have never seen Open Source Initiative 
turned into an acronym, so the first time I say OSI I immediately 
thought he had qualms with the OSI model, because that was the only 
instance of OSI that I had ever seen (and I have been using "open 
source" software for a while now).

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:19pm  up 17 days, 14:39,  4 users,  load average: 1.20, 1.35, 1.31

Re: Adding CR to bare LFs

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Casey Allen Shobe" on Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:30:55 EST:

> Hi there, I run a webmail service, and am having some trouble.  It appears 
> that not all web browsers send CRLF, but instead send LF only when I 
> compose (this is the fault of the widget used for entering email).

It has nothing to do with the composition of the email 
whatsoever---it's the transmission of the email during the SMTP dialog 
that is the problem.

> Both Netscape 6 for Linux and Konqueror 2 have this problem, as well as a 
> bundle of other unix browsers I'm sure.  Is there a way I can have qmail 
> automatically convert bare LFs to CRLFs?  This would be *very* helpful.  
> Otherwise, I'm going to have to figure out how to write some PHP into my 
> webmail service to do it...

I believe there is a program called fixcr but I'm not entirely certain 
what it is used for (see man pages).  Probably what you should do 
instead is fix your mail injecting webmail service---that's where the 
problem is.

On a side note, how are you injecting the email in your webmail?  Are 
you using PHP to communicate via SMTP to the mail server?  If so, you 
are going to need to ensure that it communicates properly.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:59am  up 16 days, 14:19,  4 users,  load average: 1.20, 1.24, 1.26

Re: secrets and lies

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Michael T. Babcock" on Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:41:20 EST:

> OSI == "Open Source Initiative" I believe ...

That's funny, I always thought that OSI was the _Open Systems 
Interconnection_ internet model proposed by the ISO.  I guess this 
goes to show that context really does matter. :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:52am  up 16 days, 14:11,  4 users,  load average: 1.28, 1.33, 1.29

Re: RFC822 compliant?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:54:48 CST:

> So you're basically saying that qmail can pretty much mung up an
> e-mail address any way it likes because it's...qmail!  

No, he is not saying that at all.  qmail out-of-the-box will not munge 
anything.  What that user was asking is clearly a case of user error 
and misconfiguration.  It has nothing to do with any RFCs whatsoever.  
There is nothing to protect the user from telling qmail to do the Wrong 
Thing(tm), just like there is nothing stopping the user from doing
"rm -rf /" when logged in as root.

> That seems to sum up the attitude around here:  Qmail is great, don't
> dare question its merits.

I don't see that attitude at all---this problem is clearly not due to 
qmail, but rather the way the user configures it.

> Sorry to obscure the issue with facts.  I can see why qmail is still
> stuck at 1.03, given the support of folks like yourself.

That's not the reason why it is *stuck* at 1.03---what does free 
support have to do with versioning of a program?!?  You clearly have 
obscured the issue with facts.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:08pm  up 10 days, 14:27,  4 users,  load average: 2.40, 2.18, 1.73

Re: Script for adding new qmailusers

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said defender of the protocol on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:24:59 EST:

> someone correct me if im wrong, but when i add a user (to users/assign, i 
> have all virtualdomains), i run qmail-newu and SIGHUP qmail-send, so yeah

There is no need to HUP qmail-send unless virtualdomains or locals has 
changed.  You can add and remove users from users/assign at will 
without restarting anything.  The only thing that needs to be done is 
create the new cdb with qmail-newu.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  7:29pm  up 8 days, 21:49,  4 users,  load average: 1.22, 1.32, 1.29

Re: cc incoming mail

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Kimberly Vher on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:35:34:

> so that i have a copy in my hotmail account. but i want to make a copy to
> multiple address how can i do that?

Just put in multiple addresses in the .qmail file---they should each be 
separated by a newline.  That's all folks.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:03pm  up 8 days,  1:22,  3 users,  load average: 1.27, 1.27, 1.24

Re: New Mail Notification (with VMailMgr, advanced, not qbiff etc)

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 14:24:11 GMT, "Michael Vorburger" wrote:

> I need to implement a New Mail Notification; not for login like qbiff etc,
> but more like notifiying users on another external email, SMS etc in the
> future.  So a simple forward won't do, I need to call some external script
> each time new mail comes in.

This is what I do.  I have a dot-qmail file that looks like this:

| if grep -i "^$SENDER" $HOME/.qmailpage > /dev/null; then sed -n -f 
|$HOME/bin/mail2page.sed | qmail-inject -f$SENDER [EMAIL PROTECTED]; exit 0; 
|else echo "You are noth authorized to send me a page"; exit 100; fi
| /usr/local/bin/maildrop

The first pipe will check that the sender is valid, and if so it will 
allow the page through.

Here are the contents of mail2page.sed:

/^From:/p
/^Subject:/p

This works very well, provided that no on knows the real email address 
of the pager and they don't spoof the SENDER.  You could modify this 
script not to return an error code, or not even check the sender for 
that matter.
:-)

Andy

Re: Quota on outgoing mail

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Jens Georg on Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:49:57 +0100:

> > echo 10485760 > /var/qmail/control/databytes
> 
> is this really enough ? i remember to read once that qmail has to be
> compiled specially to use this feature.

Yes, this really is all that needs to be done---no special compiling or 
patches.  Read the man pages and you'll see. ;-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:56am  up 2 days, 14:15,  5 users,  load average: 1.17, 1.19, 1.18

Re: (Fwd) failure notice

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Brett Randall on 03 Nov 2000 13:44:59 +1100:

> In-Reply-To (note caps)...I will make it case insensitive for future
> cases. Apologies to Phil and anyone else who has received this
> error...

I believe all headers should be treated case insensitive... :-)  Kind 
of nice that it's working to some extent though isn't it?  I need to 
start implementing something like this.  I get over 90 SPAM a month on 
this email account.  Granted, I have a heavy set of procmail filters 
setup and I only see 1% of them, but it also catches some valid 
emails...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:54pm  up 1 day, 13 min,  4 users,  load average: 1.31, 1.31, 1.27

Re: Return receipt

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:28:09 +0100, Enrique wrote:

> Qmail doesn't support "return receipt". Any solution for this?.

Return receipt is not at all a function of the underlying MTA.  All you 
really need is to include a Disposition-Notification-To header in every 
outgoing mail with the address that you want it to go to.  This has 
nothing to do with qmail, but it has everything to do with the client 
you are using.

Andy

Re: FILTERING ATTACHEMENTS

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Anthony Abby" on Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:38:38 EST:

> Andy, I appreciate the advice, but I like LISTAR much better.  The feature
> set looks to be fuller to me than does EZMLM.  All I want to do is strip out
> attachements at the SMTP level.  Is that possible?

No, it is not possible to strip attachments at the SMTP level.  SMTP 
knows nothing of the contents of the message.  SMTP is for mail 
transfer only, not filtering.  You could roll your own type of 
attachment stripping routines though---and possibly even look at how 
ezmlm is doing it---that strip attachments before handing it over to
the mailing list software.  This would probably need to be done using
a dot-qmail but my guess is that you could do it with a nice perl
script or whatever language you are familiar with.  All this seems
unecessarily superfluous since ezmlm already handles this nicely,
but it sounds like you want your own solution... :-)

Andy
p.s. If LISTAR has such a big feature list, why can't it do the
stripping for you?!? ;-)
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  2:03pm  up 22 days, 18:30,  3 users,  load average: 1.01, 1.06, 1.09

Re: people are definately starting to harvest emailadresses on this list...

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Brett Randall on 28 Oct 2000 22:28:51 +1100:

> A better alternative, IMHO, is to use a certain anti-spam e-mail
> address (someone on this list uses it but I can't remember who) that
> only lasts like a week, and then its gone. This gives most ppl enuf
> time to reply. This won't cut down your bandwidth, however, but it
> will cut down the spam in your inbox (instead of getting bigger and
> bigger, it will remain constantly low).

His name is Chris.  I haven't yet put his system to test yet, but I can 
attest that it works pretty nicely.  Here is the webpage if you are 
interested:

http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:20pm  up 22 days, 16:47,  4 users,  load average: 1.33, 1.29, 1.27

Re: people are definately starting to harvest emailadresses on this list...

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:00:11 MST:

> > and have your *real* address that you give out to people who you want to
> > have a stable address be user-@domain and be careful about
> > revealing that .  :)
> 
> That's a good idea Russ.

It is a very good idea, however, you have to absolutely trust the 
people you give out the extension to.  The first time they send out one 
of those dumb _forward this to as many people as you can_ type emails 
then the cat is out of the bag.  You could then delete the extension 
and inform them not to do it again and give them a new one.  This, 
however, only applies if you actually see that they have made such a 
blunder.  :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:01pm  up 22 days, 16:28,  4 users,  load average: 1.25, 1.26, 1.26

Re: FILTERING ATTACHEMENTS

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Anthony Abby" on Sat, 28 Oct 2000 22:29:41 EDT:

> Can someone point me to documentation or just tell me how I can filter out
> ALL attachements to my smtp server.  I'm using Qmail solely in a listserver
> environment and I want to make sure that zero attachements get through.  I'm
> new to QMail though and don't readily see how this could be done.

You should use ezmlm as your list management software.  It has an 
option where you can tell it to strip out attachments of arbitrary MIME 
types.  I believe this is the -x option.  See www.ezmlm.org for more 
details and you might consider subscribing to the ezmlm mailing list as 
well...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 11:46am  up 22 days, 16:13,  4 users,  load average: 1.33, 1.34, 1.24

Re: Problem with sqwebmail + qmail-scanner

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:26:33 GMT:

> I have noticed that it is possible to send infected messages
> with sqwebmail running qmail-scanner.
> I guess sqwebmail put messages directly in the queue, so it
> no qmail-smptd is called and no antivirus is used.

I don't see how you could do this with sqwebmail unless you are 
forwarding on messages that someone sent you.  I am not aware of any 
email *virus* for sqwebmail and you most certainly won't be sending one 
out with it when you simply hit "Create message"  As far as I know, it 
is not susceptible to the strain of kiddie *virus* that most 
Microsludge mailers are. :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  7:11pm  up 20 days, 22:38,  4 users,  load average: 1.33, 1.22, 1.21

Re: unsubscribe qmail

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Adam McKenna on Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:51:03 EDT:

> That's why ezmlm creates a random tag for each subscription that is sent back
> to the subscriber for confirmation.  There is no way to subscribe someone
> else to an ezmlm list unless you have access to their mail spool.

Then, what is to be done in the event that the reply-to header is set 
as well and it is different from the from?  I believe that the sender 
is the most reliable for subscription/unsubscription.  It probably 
wouldn't be hard to patch ezmlm to use from though if you wanted. :-)

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  7:07pm  up 20 days, 22:34,  4 users,  load average: 1.06, 1.17, 1.21

Re: unsubscribe qmail

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Daniel Augusto Fernandes on Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:07:49 -0200:

> You should look at the mail header of this message and see what's your
> address.
> The very first (mostly) is something like this:
> 
> > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Unfortunately, the return-path may not always be available... My ISP 
for instance uses exim which must be stripping the Return-Path header 
because emails that I get through them never have it.

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  6:56pm  up 20 days, 22:23,  4 users,  load average: 1.15, 1.29, 1.25

Re: unsubscribing from qmail list a project in itself

[Andy Bradford]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:56:05 EDT, "McGillicuddy, Dennis" wrote:

> - sent a blank email to   "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" .
> (several times)

It is possible that you aren't actually on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
list, but on one of the sublists.  Look at the headers of the messages 
you are receiving to find out.

Andy

Re: Resending large bulks of mail!

[Andy Bradford]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:50:46 +0200, "Wilson, Frank" wrote:

> This means of course, that when mail.web-trade.com is down, the mail will be
> stored localy in the postmaster account on be.wise.no.

You must have configured it do deliver email locally then.  If you 
simply accept the mail and not deliver it, it should remain in that 
mail server's queue until it can forward it on to mail.web-trade.com

Andy

Re: What to do about these barelinefeeds?

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Hubbard, David" on Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:31:01 EDT:

> verify that since I don't have a mailer to try it with
> but it seems that you'd never want the 451 in this case
> because obviously it will be the same mailer that will
> retry each time and it will continue to be broken for each
> try...

You don't need a MUA to do this.  You can use netcat to simulate this 
type of an environment...

http://www.l0pht.com/~weld/netcat/

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
  9:51pm  up 20 days,  1:18,  3 users,  load average: 1.17, 1.22, 1.24

Re: Maildir search tools?

[Andy Bradford]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:12:14 +0200, "Mark Weinem" wrote:

> Are there any search tools (like grepmail) for Maildirs?

Well, you could use a combination of grep and find maybe... or even 
iterate over the files found by find and grep on those, whatever... I 
can think of a number of different possible ways to 'grep' through 
Maildirs...

Andy

Re: wildcards in virtualdomains

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:35:07 MDT, Andy Bradford wrote:

> thenewdawn.com:thenewdawn

I think I made a mistake... I believe it should be:

thenewdawn.com:alias-thenewdawn

Andy

Re: wildcards in virtualdomains

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:57:22 BST, "ROD" wrote:

> Would
> 
> info.@thenewdawn:ezmlm-test
> 
> send anything with info.*@thenewdawn to the ezmlm-test?
> 
> e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sorry about that last blank email...  I accidentally hit ctrl-s instead 
of ctrl-d. :-)

Anyway, no you cannot use wildcard matching in this way, however, you 
could create an alias that handles *all* email for a given virtual 
domain as in:

thenewdawn.com:thenewdawn

Then in ~alias have

.qmail-thenewdawn-info

With the proper mail delivery directives.  Then if you wanted another, 
say [EMAIL PROTECTED] you would create

~alias/.qmail-thenewdawn-info:sales

Andy
p.s. please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. :-)

Re: wildcards in virtualdomains

[Andy Bradford]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:57:22 BST, "ROD" wrote:


> I have read qmail-send but still i'm still a bit unclear to how to doit.
> Would
> 
> info.@thenewdawn:ezmlm-test
> 
> send anything with info.*@thenewdawn to the ezmlm-test?
> 
> e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Re: any comment on this line

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said "Yamin Prabudy" on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:31:42 +0700:

> My friend forwad it to me from http://www.orbs.org/otherresource.html

The URL is actually:

http://www.orbs.org/otherresources.html

I suggest you read it and then take your pick which you want to use...  
When qmail is configured properly you will have no problems just as the 
blurb says, however, it can produce bad results just like any other piece 
of misconfigured software.  If you follow the directions for 
installation at http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html you shouldn't 
have any problems.  Tell your friend he is misinformed...

Andy
-- 
[---[system uptime]]
 12:28am  up 17 days,  3:55,  6 users,  load average: 1.53, 1.42, 1.44