Re: Slow smtp response
Sometimes we are given Orders from On High. This has started me thinking though. Maybe there is away to stop the disclaimer being attached under certain conditions. If the software adding the disclaimer permits the monkey^H^H^H^H^H^H admin to define who the local users are so that they don't get the disclaimer added for internal-only emails, then presumably, they could add list.cr.yp.to to that list. The software we use (eManager) permits this. How that would go down with the bosses is another matter... Best Regards, Brian [some IT guy] Alex Pennace wrote: > The spread of these retarded "disclaimers" is quite virus like. Monkey > see, monkey do: some IT guy sees another company posting this and adds > it to his mails too. It is as if a ".signature virus" went horribly > wrong. ? Out of disclaimer error
Re: Peter from the Dike and Security
Just open the email in Netscape Messenger, right-mouse on the body and click "unscramble [ROT-13]". Brain. peter green wrote: > * Robin S. Socha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010627 09:42]: > > * peter green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010627 08:32]: > > > (pcg@pcg2) ~> rot13 > > > bash: rot13: command not found > > > > (robin@mail1):(~)$ man caesar | head -n4 > > (pcg@pcg2) ~> caesar > bash: caesar: command not found > > Next? :-) > > /pg > -- > Peter Green : Architekton Internet Services, LLC : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- > Ooohh.. "FreeBSD is faster over loopback, when compared to > Linux over the wire". Film at 11. > (Linus Torvalds)
Re: How to piss people off easily (Was: How to create dynamic use rs for IMAP Email services) Reply-To: robin@socha.net
I agree. We're here to help, aren't we? Otherwise, what's the list for? Let's be nice to each other. I get enough bitching from the ex. Warmest Regards, Brian Kirti S. Bajwa wrote: >>If you are too incompetent to use a >>search engine, why are you running a mail server? >> > >I am just wondering if hurdling insults at the first opportunity is the >direction this list is heading towards. What happened to common decency and >business manners? > >
Re: How to piss people off easily (Was: How to create dynamic use rs for IMAP Email services) Reply-To: robin@socha.net
Henning Brauer wrote: >On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:00:50PM +0100, Brian S. Craigie wrote: > >>I agree. We're here to help, aren't we? Otherwise, what's the list >>for? >> > >Not for posting FAQs every few minutes. >We already had this discussion, stop it. Now. > Goodbye. Thanks to all who have helped me over the years. I've had enough of this childish behaviour. Brian
need suggestions (pop/imap or what)
Hi. Sorry if this is slightly O/T. I do have qmail installed, so may be relevant. Currently I've got a mixture of users using various clients for reading email. The most popular method is POP3 using qpopper. However, this leaves some users with the inability to change their pop3 password, since it is tied to their unix account login password and they don't know how to log in to change it. Is there a scheme which would provide the users with the ability to change their own password from the client end, using a standard client such as Netscape Messenger, Eudora, Outlook etc? Would IMAP allow this? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Brian
qmail without DNS?
Hi All. I've checked the FAQ and mailing list archive. The question "can I use qmail without DNS" was asked in 1997, but there is no reply in the archives. Can anyone tell me if qmail can be used [ on Solaris 2.x with NIS+ ] without using DNS, at least for the client machines? My real external email server uses the DNS server provided by my ISP, but I don't really have the time to mess about with DNS on the clients. Thanks! Brian Unix Sysadmin
Re: qmail without DNS?
On 30-Dec-98 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 10:16:00AM -0000, Brian S. Craigie wrote: >> Can anyone tell me if qmail can be used [ on Solaris 2.x with NIS+ ] without >> using DNS, at least for the client machines? My real external email server >> uses the DNS server provided by my ISP, but I don't really have the time to >> mess about with DNS on the clients. > > If, by client machines, you mean machines which send all their smtp > traffic to one smtp server, then the answer is yest. You put: >:[ipaddress of relay] > in /var/qmail/control/smtproutes Thanks for the speedy response! Yes. I've basically got a mail hub which also has the users home dirs on it, so all internal email goes to it and procmail processes their emails. The mail hub also passes any external mail to another mail server for external delivery. I've had endless trouble with sendmail since Sun went to 8.8.x and changed from sendmail.cf to using m4, so having heard good things about Qmail, I thought I'd give it a try. Thanks again. Brian > -- > John White > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Re: Multi-user virtual-domains with QMail
On 30-Dec-98 Russell Nelson wrote: > .LP > So you want to micro-manage email to a virtual domain? No problem. > Let's say that you have the following line in virtualdomains: > .Ps > domain.com:alias-domain > .Pe > That will cause mail to \fBuser\fP\fI\@domain.com\fP to be > controlled by \fI~alias/.qmail-domain-\fP\fBuser\fP. [Snips] Uhm, what's with all the dotLP and backslashfI fP fB stuff? Makes it very difficult to read the email. Is this some kind of rich text formatting? Cheers! Brian
root user masquerading from cron or at
Hi again. I searched the mailing list and once again found a question but no answer. Perhaps it was answered off-list. [comment: why doesn't the mailing list set reply-to to the list?] Anyway, I see from the faq how to set MAILNAME for a user in their environment, (or MAILUSER) but how do I do this for root when the root .profile isn't sourced, such as with 'cron' and 'at'? The way I found which seems to work is to set MAILNAME to something in /etc/init.d/cron (called when cron starts - may also be /sbin/init.d/cron) so that /usr/sbin/cron will run with it set, then stop and start cron using /etc/init.d/cron stop /etc/init.d/cron start Hope this helps others. BTW, sendmail gets the user's real name from /etc/passwd (or the NIS/NIS+ equivalent). Wouldn't it be smart for qmail to do that too _if_ MAILNAME is not set? Cheers! Brian
Re: root user masquerading from cron or at
On 31-Dec-98 Russell Nelson wrote: > Brian S. Craigie writes: > > Hi again. > > > > I searched the mailing list and once again found a question but no answer. > > Perhaps it was answered off-list. [comment: why doesn't the mailing list > set > > reply-to to the list?] > > Because that confuses people whose email client has a Reply button. > They get used to hitting Reply to Reply to the sender. Then they sign > onto a mailing list, and suddenly Reply means Reply to All. But their > MUA already has a Reply to All button. If it doesn't have one, then > it needs to have one added. Adding Reply-To: list is the wrong solution. Hmm... OK. Spoke too soon. Past replies I've made only went to the sender, because they were sent directly to me, not cc:ed to the list. When I hit reply to your email it asked me 'reply to all?', and included the cc to the list, so we're ok. [snip] > You can also do it on the command line (at least with bash and sh): > > MAILNAME=Superuser /usr/sbin/cron That doesn't persist through a reboot, but I suppose I could put that line in the rc script instead of the line that runs cron just now. > > BTW, sendmail gets the user's real name from /etc/passwd (or the NIS/NIS+ > > equivalent). Wouldn't it be smart for qmail to do that too _if_ MAILNAME > is not > > set? > > Not if there's a security hole in getpwuid. Not to mention the fact > that that often sucks in a lot of other code and bloats the executables. Understood, though I don't see the problem with the security hole. Even if there is a hole, the worst it can do is bring up the wrong "name" isn't it? Perhaps it should be mentioned in the sendmail to qmail checklist... Anyway, thanks. I hope you and all list members had a nice festive season / new year / whatever you celebrate. > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson > Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace. Cheers! Brian
one email with cc creates multiple messages - oh dear.
Hi all. I saw the multiple RCPTs discussed several times in the archives, but did not see an answer applicable to our situation. If I send an email to person1 and cc: it to person2, qmail creates two separate messages which our poor email server has to send separately. Our email server sends to a smarthost (our ISP) so we'd much rather send one message with 2 RCPT headers. Say for example I send an email with a 3Mb attachment to my home address and CC: it to my family members, it's going to be sent, say, 5 times over a 33kBPS modem link, and take maybe 1 hour per message, so 5 hours instead of 1 hour. Please Please tell me there's an easy way to tell qmail not to create separate messages in this case? Else, we're going to be hammered for phone line charges. Thanks! Brian Unix Sysadmin Fledgling Qmail admin.
Re: one email with cc creates multiple messages - oh dear.
On 04-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 05:19:13PM -0000, Brian S. Craigie wrote: >> Please Please tell me there's an easy way to tell qmail not to create >> separate >> messages in this case? Else, we're going to be hammered for phone line >> charges. > man qmail-remote Nope, sorry. Nothing in that man page on multiple RCPTs. Thanks anyway. Brian > > -- > John White > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
Re: qmail, fetchmail, serialmail et al
On 03-Jan-99 Luca Olivetti wrote: > A better option (IMHO) is to apply the patch and foolow the directions at > http://www.warren.demon.co.uk/qmail.html Aha! Could be just what I want. BTW What happens if I SIGHUP the qmail-send while it is in the process of sending a mail? Will it wait until it is finished sending? If so, I'm OK and Robert will be my paternal sibling. ;-) Cheers! Brian
RE: Qmail running with wrong uids.
On 31-Dec-98 Johan \"Orbit\" Mjönes wrote: > I'm setting up qmail on my machine (as you might know by my previous > messages =). > > Anyone, I have just discovered that QMail for some reason is runnning as > some of my shell-users, and not the users I set up in the installation. > > I'm quite confused, and would really like some help on how to solve this Finally! A question I can answer! When you make install check on the server, it notes the uid's of the users you already set up with useradd (or whatever). When you install on the client, it uses _those_ id's instead of looking up /etc/passwd again. Since the uid's are probably different on the client and server for the same users, this causes the problem. Solution:- Pick uid's that are the same on all your machines that need qmail on them [eg qmaild = 1000, alias =1001 etc] , change /etc/passwd to that uid for the relevant users (the ones with a home directory with /var/qmail in it) on each machine, and chown the files as appropriate. Alternatively, set up all the users on all the machines first [with the same uid numbers across machines], then make clean and remake. IMHO a bug in the installer or the install instructions. > problem. > > Regards, > > Johan Mjones Cheers! Brian Unix Sysadmin
Re: one email with cc creates multiple messages - oh dear.
On 05-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >: On 04-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >: > On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 05:19:13PM -0000, Brian S. Craigie wrote: >: >> Please Please tell me there's an easy way to tell qmail not to create >: >> separate >: >> messages in this case? Else, we're going to be hammered for phone line >: >> charges. > > Nope, no way at all. One rcpt to one message, always and no > exceptions. Not that it's a consolation, but there really is just > one message in the queue, but delivery will be attempted for it at > least as many times as there are recipients for it. > >: >: > man qmail-remote > >: Nope, sorry. Nothing in that man page on multiple RCPTs. > > qmail-remote can handle more than one rcpt per message, but > qmail-send will never ask it to. Hmmm. Big pity. Qmail is otherwise quite acceptable. Is there any wonderful guru out there who would be willing to provide a patch to qmail-send to make it do this? [my C programming isn't up to scratch unfortunately] It can't be that hard. Just stop it looping and send all the recipients together to qmail-remote, yes? This would be a great benefit to all the dial-up qmail users. > -harold Cheers! Brian
Re: one email with cc creates multiple messages - oh dear.
On 05-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The envelope recipient addresses are listed as recip argu- >ments to qmail-remote. Hmm... Yes, but that's not the problem. Apparently qmail-send deliberately only sends one recipient to qmail-remote at a time. I understand the logic for a site with direct internet access, but for those of us who use a smarthost, it's a big drawback. So basically, I'd have to change qmail-send, or write my own replacement for it. I really wish it would be possible to have the option to tell qmail-send to use multiple rcpts to qmail-remote by some configuration parameter. Nobody seems to think it's important, or correct, but it's the one thing that's holding me back from replacing sendmail with qmail en-mass at our (small) site. Anyway, thanks again for the pointers. I may well delve into the qmail-send code yet. Cheers! Brian
Re: Building new mail system
On 22-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1) RAID 0+1 is creating two stripes, and mirroring one onto another. >RAID 1+0 is mirroring each drive to another, and striping across > the resulting volumes. > >They aren't the same thing. Really. They aren't. I'm reliably told 0+1 and 1+0 _are_ the same thing. Either way, you create stipes across a set of disks, and then mirror the set of disks to another set of disks. You can lose all the disks on one side of the mirror and still be operational. Raid 0 is striping, raid 1 is mirroring. There is logically only one way to combine the two correctly, ie you mirror your stripes. This is variably termed 0+1 or 1+0. > >with 0+1, the second drive you lose results in the loss of the data. Only if it's on the opposite side of the mirror from the first lost disk and on the same stripe. >with 1+0, you can lose one drive from each mirrored pair, and still > maintain data integrity. It's the no-compromise approach to RAID > sets. I think you mean raid 10? http://www.whatis.com/raid.htm says:- "RAID-10. This type offers an array of stripes in which each stripe is a RAID-1 array of drives. This offers higher performance than RAID-1 but at much higher cost." > RAID 5 has slow writes which make it unadvisable for data that undergoes > updates on a minute to minute basis. Agreed. Can't see why anyone would want raid 5. > Personally, I'm not into server controller based RAID. I'd rather have > the RAID look like a drive on the SCSI bus... Yup, hardware raid is indubitably better. > -- > John White > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp Cheers! Brian
Re: Building new mail system
On 22-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Not at all. There's two functions. There's two ways to order the functions. > > 1) A before B > 2) B before A > > striping and mirroring > > 1) mirror the stripes > 2) stripe across the mirrors Ah! I think I see what you mean. I'll need to try that with Solstice Disksuite and see if it will work here. Thanks for providing the idea! Cheers! Brian
