Re: vpopmail or sqwebmail bypasses qmail?
Put this in your httpd.conf SetEnv QMAILQUEUE /var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl like: DocumentRoot /usr/local/httpd/webmail/htdocs ServerName webmail.my.dom ServerAlias www.my.dom ScriptAlias /cgi-bin /usr/local/httpd/webmail/cgi-bin SetEnv TZ CET SetEnv QMAILQUEUE /var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl Or you could set it in sendit.sh before qmail-inject -- IDG New MediaEinar Bordewich Development Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: eibo(at)newmedia.no Lat: 59.91144 N Lon: 10.76097 E - Original Message - From: "Rick Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 12:39 AM Subject: vpopmail or sqwebmail bypasses qmail? > Hello! > > I have the following configuration working, using the latest versions of each: > > Red Hat 7.1 (Updated) > qmail with patch > QMAILQUEUE patch > qmail-scanner > vpopmail > courier-imap > sqwebmail > qmailadmin > > The only problem is, that when I send outgoing mail, using Eudora, through > the qmail server, it properly invokes qmail-scanner, however, when I use > sqwebmail, it bypasses the scanner completely. I can install and configure > a system like this, but don't have a detailed low-level understanding on > how all the pieces are talking to each other. I also don't know if the > problem is within vpopmail or sqwebmail. I have used LWQ to install the > basic qmail package. > > My questions are this: Is vpopmail or sqwebmail bypassing qmail and > sending the mail out directly? If this is true, why shouldn't both be > using qmail to actually send the mail? > > If this is not the case, then I need to do further checking of the > configuration of all the packages. Everything seems to work correctly. > > Thanks in advance for your feedback! > > Rick > >
Re: Lost the Battle
Dennis, I'm strongly advice you to keep fighting for your qmail as a frontend out to internet. IDG use notes all over the world, and of course from time to time there is problems related to third-party relaying. This is with R5 peace of cake to take care of, but it has to be done since it's not enabled as default. At IDG in norway, we use qmail as a frontend. One of the reasons is that IDG New Media is an ISP, and we do need the flexibility that qmail and it's modularity offers. Using qmail as the frontend, relaying for the notes server works flawlessly through the firewall only allowing the qmailservers through the fw. hope this gives you new fighting spirit ;-) regards -- IDG New MediaEinar Bordewich Development Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: eibo(at)newmedia.no Lat: 59.91144 N Lon: 10.76097 E - Original Message - From: "dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: Lost the Battle > Hi all... > > For the past 3 weeks I have been fighting the battle to move our dieing > email server from a proprietary solution to qmail. I had devoted 3 months of > research and development (with a lot of help from this list) to making sure > that the qmail server has all the features required by our organization. > > My nightmare began when management announced a new business development > manager. > > My qmail project, only 1 week away from implementation, was canned, we are > now moving to Lotus Notes. > > I'd like to thank everyone for there help over the 3 months, without you > guys, I don't think I could have even taken the project this far. > > Regards > Dennis > >
Re: Should I try the Qmail-scanner?
Yes they do. But they can also be misused, by for instance the zip file you provided the link for. My servers did'nt take harm of this file, but I'm sure that if I did'nt have the free disk space I have on my servers, they would. I'm not sure what qmail-scanner does if the process running out of disk space. If it removes the uncompressed files, or if it leaves it there. I'll better test that ;-) Of course the server would have problems when several instances would connect sending this file, and this will happen with qmail-scanner since qmail-scanner-queue.pl don't terminate the smtp session until the mail is finnished scanned. This would make the other server timeout, resending the mail. Then again, qmail-scanner/perlscan_scanner provides the ability to deny the mail based on the attachement being of type .zip and of size 42374 bytes solving that problem. I guess both of us can agree on the fact that there is a lot of different ways to make malicious damage to mailservers. -- ---- IDG New MediaEinar Bordewich Development Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: eibo(at)newmedia.no - Original Message - From: "Felix von Leitner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "qmail list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 7:54 PM Subject: Re: Should I try the Qmail-scanner? > Thus spake Einar Bordewich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > We have been using qmail-scanner several months now, I can highly recomend > > this solution. We are splitting the load on two dual PIII 700 proc. servers > > with 512MB each. > > Virus scanners don't solve the problem. > > http://www.fefe.de/antivirus/42.zip > > Felix >
Re: Should I try the Qmail-scanner?
We have been using qmail-scanner several months now, I can highly recomend this solution. We are splitting the load on two dual PIII 700 proc. servers with 512MB each. Also running the QMAILQUEUE patch with no problems. Here are the viruses trapped since 23/08/2000 15:30:48, and I must say that this solution is doing it's job. 230 virus TROJ_NAVIDAD.A 202 virus VBS_LOVELETTR.AS 58 virus TROJ_MTX.A 53 virus VBS_KAKWORM.A 33 virus TROJ_HYBRIS.B 23 virus VBS_LOVELETTER-O 22 virus VBS_COLOMBIA 21 virus TROJ_PRETTY_PARK 19 virus PE_CIH 18 virus TROJ_SKA 15 virus PE_MTX.A 13 virus W97M_ETHAN.A 13 Possibly a misdisinfected virus 12 Love Letter Virus/Trojan 12 virus VBS_STAGES.A 10 Joke program 7 virus W97M_THUS 6 virus JOKE_WOW 6 virus JOKE_FLIPPED 5 virus JOKE_RABBIT 5 virus JOKE_CURSOR.A 5 the W97M/Thus.gen virus !!! 4 virus JOKE_GESCHENK 4 virus JOKE_BUTTONS 4 the WScript/Kak.worm virus !!! 3 virus WM_CAP 3 virus W97M_MARKER 3 virus TROJ_HYBRIS.D 3 the JS/Kak@M virus !!! 2 Joke/Win-Wobble 2 Joke/Cokegift 2 virus W97M_WRENCH.E 2 virus W97M_OCARD.A 2 virus W97M_CLASS.Q 2 virus TROJ_SHOCKWAVE.A 2 virus O97M_TRISTATE 2 virus JOKE_SMALLPEN 2 virus JOKE_POINTER.A 2 virus JOKE_KNIJPME 2 virus JOKE_32 2 the JS/Kak.worm virus !!! 1 Happy99 Trojan 1 virus X97M_LAROUX.JH 1 virus X97M_LAROUX.BU 1 virus WM_MENTAL.A 1 virus W97M_TITCH.A 1 virus W97M_THUS.I 1 virus W97M_SELIUQ.B 1 virus W97M_SATELLITE 1 virus W97M_PRI.B 1 virus W97M_Generic 1 virus W97M_CLASS.QA 1 virus W97M_CHACK 1 virus W97M_BDOC2X 1 virus W97M_A_OPEY_03 1 virus TROJ_COCED.240 1 virus JOKE_FREIBIER.B 1 virus JOKE_DEL_WINDOWS 1 the W97M/Nalp.gen virus !!! 1 the W95/MTX@M virus !!! 1 the W32/Pretty.worm.gen virus !!! 1 the W32/MTX@M virus !!! 1 the BackDoor-HO.cli trojan !!! -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Development Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: eibo(at)newmedia.no
Re: Outlook Express Prank
I'll guess MS has fixed that problem, since my OE5.5 did'nt freeze or react at all on that mail. But then again, I'm preety eager on fixes for my W2K machine. -- IDG New MediaEinar Bordewich Development Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: eibo(at)newmedia.no - Original Message - From: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 11:11 PM Subject: Re: Outlook Express Prank > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:46:02PM -0300, martin langhoff wrote: > > I'm asking for a bit of professionalism. Whoever posted that practical > > joke was doing it on purpose -- and that's not professional at all. > > Professionals know that it takes a lot of work to build, and very little > > to destroy. > > > > Everyone needs to take a deep breath and just relax. The message I posted was > in the context of a discussion of certain types of legal addresses that mutt > didn't handle correctly. As an aside, I posted a message with an address in it > that caused Outlook Express to lock up. It didn't "destroy" anything. It wasn't > a virus. It didn't erase files. It simply made it necessary to kill Outlook > Express and restart it. > > If you use Windows (and I do), it's a fact of life that programs lock up > frequently and unexpectedly. You kill them, or sometimes you have to reboot > (which in this case you didn't), and life goes on. > > So please spare me all this talk of "attacks" and "vicitms" and so forth. If > you want to get angry at someone, get angry at the Microsoft software engineers > who put out an MUA that can be locked up by messages containing certain > sequences of ASCII characters. > > Chris >
Re: Outlook Express Prank
- Original Message - From: "Robin S. Socha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Outlook Express Prank > * Hubbard, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What does the MUA have to do with an MTA? > > Show me a competent Unix admin using Outlook or a similar abomination > and I won't show you the difference. So what you are saying, is that to be a good unix admin, you can't use Windows? I consider myself a pretty ok unix admin, but I can't live without my W2K laptop. It does it's job, and my linux machines are doing theirs. Something I prefer doing on my W2K laptop, and then agin other I prefer doing on one of my linux'es. Just another "MAC is bether than PC", "FreeBSD rulez linux" etc. Can't beat them, join them! BTW: I know my way around on Windows, MAC, Linux, FreeBSD, NextSTEP, etc.... and feel pretty good about it ;-) -- IDG New MediaEinar Bordewich Development Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: eibo(at)newmedia.no
Re: Problem with sqwebmail + qmail-scanner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > 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. > > The only solution I could find is reverting to Amavis. > Amavis is bit harder to setup and maintain, and I always > prefered qmail-scanner, even being a lot slower and more resource > consuming. Now Amavis is the only option. > > Some ideia? Sqwebmail uses a script called sendit.sh, that calls qmail-inject for sending the mail. If you have applied the QMAILQUEUE patch, than you have to tell qmail-inject to use that. In the sendit.sh: Apply export QMAILQUEUE="/var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl" before qmail-inject. Or you could also do as I've done, applied the QMAILQUEUE variable in the httpd.conf file. SetEnv QMAILQUEUE /var/qmail/bin/qmail-scanner-queue.pl regards, eibo
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
- Original Message - From: "John White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "qmail mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:28 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > I'm getting the impression that you use separate hardware or queues > for your mailing list server and non-mailing list mail server. Thats correct. > Why not tell the customer to send his 1000+ recipient message to > the mailing list server? Won't that solve your problem? Well, I do want him to send regular mails through the mail hub of support reason, and use the mailing list service for his "bulk" mails. It seems things goes the way I/we want, using the tarpit patch. He has been warned that it's time to pull out his finger from where ever it's stuck, and move over to the mailing list server. Majordomo or ezmlm, that is what he kan choose from. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
- Original Message - From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 2:24 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > If he sets up a mailing list using ezmlm, the obvious thing to use > with qmail, and sends to a mailing list of 1000 people through that > setup, you'll get exactly the same thing you have now. If you > implement a block on the submission, he'll be unable to use (that) > mailing list. So I think you need to think this through more > thoroughly. Well, on a mailing list server where 1000+ mails is going out you will occupy all remote resources (?) and keep the server bussy for a while. But on a dedicated mailinglist server you don't have (well, at least not me) single users sending out one mail at the time. My opinion is that candidates for mailing list is low priority mail, and single users sending mail is high priority (understand me right here, I want alle the mail delivered a.s.a.p). Sending a mail to the qmail list, I know that it will arrive. Sometimes it takes seconds, and othertimes it comes through after a while. Sending a mail to my co-workers or one of my customers that I'm on the phone with, I expect it delivered a second ago ;-) regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
> 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you > hosting him and has a constant ip address? He's one of our dialup customers (random ip) > 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his > connection to a slower mail service! > 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for > investigation in iether situation! I don't want to scare the customer away, but I want him over on our mailing list service. The customer is a company, and our relationship to this customer is very good except for the huge mailing from them once a week and sometimes more. There is no performance problems on this server, but I just like a clean mail queue. With huge recipients from a clients addressbook, there is always some bounce candidates keeping the whole recipientslist in the queue. The mails going out is product information/advertising to their customers/contacts. In other words low priority mails that can use the time it takes on a mailing list server to process. Our international bandwith is a E3 line and domestic it's 100mbps, and the mails is mainly domestic. I'm just tired of having this huge list of recipients hanging in the queue until all mails are delivered or bounced. This server is our main mailhub, and I think of our other customers when I want to move obvious hunks of mail to where they belong. It takes time to deliver mails to 1000+, making the other users mail wait on their turn. Just don't see the point to let this customer use the main mail hub, when we have dedicated servers for this. My customers are spoilt with instant delivery of their 1/2/3/4 mails, and I intend to keep it this way :-) > 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with > > "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto > send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" > (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) And of course patch qmail-smtpd.c with the tarpit-path ;-) > 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected > at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering > the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client > and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! > > Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY > starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being > that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as > to the best course of action... Have patched my home mailserver with this patch, and will try it out here first. Have'nt got any feedback on my question about experience with this patch installed. Looks good so far. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Slider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:57 AM Subject: RE: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > > Another couple of ideas; > > 1) Is the user a)dialling up and gets a ramdom ip address or b)are you > hosting him and has a constant ip address? > 2) If (a) then get his Caller ID and ban him from dial up or filter his > connection to a slower mail service! > 3) If (b) ban his IP from smtp connections to your mail servers... for > investigation in iether situation! > 4) Another suggestion editing the /etc/tcp.smtp file with > > "ipaddressofconnection".:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",DATABYTES="sizeyouarewillingto > send",TARPITCOUNT="100",TARPITDELAY="5" > (of course you have to recreate the tcp.smtp.cdb) > > 4 cont) this will allow first "100" e-mails past from the ip range selected > at the size selected and there after will wait "5" seconds before delivering > the remaining (above 100) emails, this will seriously hang the users client > and probably will not be too interested in doing it again! > > Anyone have ideas or scripts as to getting notification when the TARPITDELAY > starts to count, or when the TARPITCOUNT has been reached? Advantage being > that the administrator can catch red handed the user and make a decision as > to the best course of action... > > Slider > > > > Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 August 2000 at 00:40:06 > +0200 > > My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our > mailserver. > > > > The problem is that I want him over
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
> > This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail > > with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this > > number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct > > if I'm wrong. > > It's your service, you define it. For some, 1000 is fine, for others 10 > may be unacceptable. I agree. > > And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's > > deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't > > belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back > > that up. > > And what hardware/software do you propose to use to back up the > policy that says he can't make multiple submissions? That is what I'm looking for now. In this case software limitations is the solution. The tarpitting idea from Chris Johnson on www.qmail.org is so far the best choice, it seems. > One solution that generally covers it is to charge them for the > number of recipients or the total bytes sent or whatever. Naturally > self regulating then. You can generate billing information for the > mail logs. Not a solution for us. We have other mailservers handling large (1000+ rcpt) distribution of mail, both with ezmlm and majordomo. The bandwith is not the issue here, but the mailserver is. No doubt that this mailserver can handle his and others 1000+ rcpt, but my personal opinion is that this belongs on a mailing list. The recipients is customers of him/his company. It's the same recipients every week. Those two sentence together gives me: mailing list service. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
BTW: "Michael Samuel has a patch that limits the number of RCPT TO: commands per message via SMTP" on www.qmail.org is a dead end. Anyone that have this "lying around" ? Anyone have any experience with Chris Johnson's tarpitting patch for qmail-smtpd? Seems like a neat idea. -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
My tormentor is a customer and is allowed to relay through our mailserver. The problem is that I want him over on a mailinglist solution. He most likly will switch to mailinglist eventually, but I think it's a little bit drastic to block him out just to speed up the action ;-) I feel it would be more correct to implement some limitations on the mail server, affecting all the users. This because we from time to time have users/customers that pops off a mail with 100+ recipients. In my opinion beneath 100 is acceptable, over this number it's improper use. I might be out on a limb here, so please correct if I'm wrong. And yes, if he's smart he can abuse the solution, but then again he's deliberately have to do it, breaking our agreement and policy. I don't belive in policy when there is no hardware or software limitations to back that up. regards -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:00 AM Subject: Re: rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:58:53PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 11:54:00PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > Is there any solutions to set a limit on numbers of rcpt to|cc|bcc and > > > To:/Cc:/Bcc: recipients from qmail-smtpd/qmail-queue? > > > I have a tormentor sending out to 1000+ recipients. Makes my queue not > > > exactly surveyable, and in my opinion both for me and for him, he strictly > > > should use a mailinglist solution instead. I guess some limitations would > > > speed things up > > > > > > BTW: The last round was on 1006 recipients where 14 of theme was "hanging", > > > making my qmail-queue output on 1178 lines. > > > > Hmm. Either he is allowed to use the mail server like this or he's not. > > > > If he's not, block him. If he is, then maybe your setup needs to cater > > for it. > > > > To answer your question directly, there is no standard qmail solution > > for this though there are possibly some patches on www.qmail.org. > > I forgot to add that a max recipients solution wont work if your > tormentor is smart and submits multiple emails with the number of > recipients just below your threshold. The net effect on your server > is actually worse if he does this... > > > Regards. >
rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:|Cc:|Bcc: limitations
Is there any solutions to set a limit on numbers of rcpt to|cc|bcc and To:/Cc:/Bcc: recipients from qmail-smtpd/qmail-queue? I have a tormentor sending out to 1000+ recipients. Makes my queue not exactly surveyable, and in my opinion both for me and for him, he strictly should use a mailinglist solution instead. I guess some limitations would speed things up BTW: The last round was on 1006 recipients where 14 of theme was "hanging", making my qmail-queue output on 1178 lines. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: using RBLSMTPD env var
try puting into your tcp.smtp.cdb file
127.0.0.2:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Go away"
then
>telnet 127.0.0.2 25
helo test
<250 rblsmtpd.local
>mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<250 rblsmtpd.local
>rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<553 Go away
See if that works. Just so you know you are on the right track :)
--
--------
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Rust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: using RBLSMTPD env var
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:39:30AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote:
> > !host:~{503} $ telnet mail.vcnet.com 25
> > !Trying 209.239.239.15...
> > !Connected to mail.vcnet.com.
> > !Escape character is '^]'.
> > !220 rblsmtpd.local
> > !Connection closed by foreign host.
> >
> > I presume that the connection didn't get closed immediately. I know
> > that rblsmtpd closes the connection after 60 seconds. If you issue
> > SMTP commands, they will all result in error messages (if you need
> > a quick SMTP reference, see http://cr.yp.to/smtp.html).
>
> It closes in < 1 second.
>
> > Hey, vcnet.com, aren't they those cool people hosting the boycott
> > Microsoft site? :-)
>
> That is one of customers, yes. We comp that space to him. :->
>
> jon
>
Re: The famous MichaelG@rxamerica.com
> > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > > gives: > > > 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP > > helo hell2000 > > 250 hellriser.bordewich.net > > mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 250 ok > > rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) > > Did you construct this smtp conversation or is it an actual transcript? -snip- Yes, I did construct that smtp conversation based on my first opinion. When I realized that I was wrong ( seconds after I sent the mail), I followed up with a new mail, where I apologized and telling that you where right (and I was wrong). -snip- > YES, I was wrong and YOU where right, and you, you'r always right, right ;-) > > sorry about that. -snip- Thanks for your information and feedback clearing up things. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 11:55 PM Subject: Re: The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:50:16PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > > > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > > > > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > > > > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. > > -snip- > > > > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > > gives: > > > 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP > > helo hell2000 > > 250 hellriser.bordewich.net > > mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 250 ok > > rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) > > Did you construct this smtp conversation or is it an actual transcript? > > As I correctly surmised, the offending mail server is indeed sending > Mail From: <> and results in a Return-Path: <> which means that you cannot > put anything useful into badmailfrom to stop it. > > If you are seeing something different then I suspect that you have some > intervening server doing something. And that something is as much an > offender as ns.albertsons.com if it replaces an empty envelope sender > with <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > Regards. > > > > > or Chris K. might have a better solution. The result is the same with a 5xx > > return code. > > 167.234.1.10:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Good mailers don't bounce to header senders" > > > > > > Return-Path: <> > > Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Received: (qmail 30504 invoked by uid 505); 28 Jul 2000 17:09:46 - > > Received: from by hellriser with scan4virus-0.53 (iscan: > > v3.1/v5.170-0617/748/20225. uvscan: v4.0.70/v4088. sweep: 1.8/3.33 Beta. > > hbedv: 6.2.0.3. fsecure: 4.08/2030/2000-07-27/2000-07-28/2000-06-27. . > > Clean. Processed in 3.069411 secs); 28/07/2000 19:09:42 > > X-Scan4Virus-Mail-From: via hellriser > > X-Scan4Virus-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > X-Scan4Virus: 0.53 (No viruses found. Processed in 3.071213 secs) > > Received: from unknown (HELO ns.albertsons.com) (167.234.1.10) > > by hellriser.bordewich.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 17:09:42 - > > Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com > > [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP > > id KAA02136 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:50:56 -0600 > > Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (dubs0001.albertsons.com [162.120.128.9]) > > by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308 > > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:49:06 -0600 > > X-Internal-ID: 398127291838 > > Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex > > 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > > > IDG New Media Einar Bordewich > > Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >
Re: The famous MichaelG@rxamerica.com
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like > the > > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. > -snip- > > Nope, thats the Return-Path: field > The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom > gives: YES, I was wrong and YOU where right, and you, you'r always right, right ;-) sorry about that. Chris K. example is now used. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The famous MichaelG@rxamerica.com
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:26 PM Subject: Re: The famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 08:02:20PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like the > > famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? > > > BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... > > Will that help? I though the Mail From: was <> with these bounces? > > You might want to consider a :deny entry in your tcpserver rules. -snip- Nope, thats the Return-Path: field The From: field is [EMAIL PROTECTED] , and with that in badmailfrom gives: 220 hellriser.bordewich.net ESMTP helo hell2000 250 hellriser.bordewich.net mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 250 ok rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1) or Chris K. might have a better solution. The result is the same with a 5xx return code. 167.234.1.10:allow,RBLSMTPD="-Good mailers don't bounce to header senders" Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 30504 invoked by uid 505); 28 Jul 2000 17:09:46 - Received: from by hellriser with scan4virus-0.53 (iscan: v3.1/v5.170-0617/748/20225. uvscan: v4.0.70/v4088. sweep: 1.8/3.33 Beta. hbedv: 6.2.0.3. fsecure: 4.08/2030/2000-07-27/2000-07-28/2000-06-27. . Clean. Processed in 3.069411 secs); 28/07/2000 19:09:42 X-Scan4Virus-Mail-From: via hellriser X-Scan4Virus-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Scan4Virus: 0.53 (No viruses found. Processed in 3.071213 secs) Received: from unknown (HELO ns.albertsons.com) (167.234.1.10) by hellriser.bordewich.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 17:09:42 - Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA02136 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:50:56 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (dubs0001.albertsons.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:49:06 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 398127291838 Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:49:08 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dot-qmail deliver help
- Original Message - From: "Uwe Ohse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:14 PM Subject: Re: dot-qmail deliver help > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:46:25PM +0200, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > |TEST=`echo $EXT | cut -d"-" --output-delimiter="." -f1-4` ; if [ -d > > "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST" ]; then maildirdeliver > > $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST/ ; else env ; maildirdeliver > > $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi > > > > The above line does what I want. > > i think you don't want the `;' after "env". -snip- Are you sure? If I remove it, the env results does'nt show up in the logs. If I keep it there, everything is like I expect it. It's show the env, then deliver the mail to default maildir. This happens only if the recipient does'nt resolv to a maildir according to EXT. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Handy way to restart qmail
- Original Message - From: "Harry Putnam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 6:39 PM Subject: Re: Handy way to restart qmail > > If you install "Life with qmail"'s "qmail" script--which uses DJB's > > daemontools--restarting qmail is done by: > > > > qmail restart > > OK, so much for the quessing game. I find no address to acquire this > script at: > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html > http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.txt > > Lots of mentions of what to call for this or that situation *IF* you > installed `qmail script' but no URL where it can be gotten. > > No mention of it in my source package or /var/qmail/doc > > Google searchs turn up many threads in various mail groups but still > no URL. > Well, if you had read the lwq document, you would have found the script. It's there, but to use it you have to follow the lwq recipe ;-) (rtfm) -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The famous MichaelG@rxamerica.com
What is normal action from the list-owner regarding false addresses like the famous [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? The attachements is only earlier postings regarding the same non-existing user, and my own bounces. How about some manual action ex. ezmlm-unsub qmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-) BTW: It's in my badmailfrom now... -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] And my previous message about a broken mailer generated a bounce from *another* broken mailer... - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 23018 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 - Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 - Received: from mta1.infoteen.com (media1.infoteen.com [216.35.114.216] (may be forged)) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01713 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:15:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mta1.infoteen.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA12144; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:51 -0700 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:51 -0700 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Returned Mail: user [EMAIL PROTECTED] unknown! To: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Dagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 No such user here Content-Type: text/plain The following email has been returned to you. Error 550: User [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not an existing InfoTeen.com account. Please make sure that the email address you specified, [EMAIL PROTECTED]@infoteen.com is valid. Email Message Follows - >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 22 09:06:51 2000 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181]) by mta1.infoteen.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA12140 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:06:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 13465 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Jul 2000 16:14:10 - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 12106 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:14:09 - Received: from envy.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:14:09 - Received: (qmail 40488 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 16:13:45 - Received: from kesteren.vuurwerk.nl (HELO daemon.vuurwerk.nl) (194.178.232.59) by envy.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 16:13:45 - Received: (nullmailer pid 23406 invoked by uid 11109); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:13:44 - Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:13:44 +0200 From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: some broken mailer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Returned mail: User unknown] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Somebody is using a *very* broken mailer. - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Return-Path: <> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 - Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16) by winschoten.vuurwerk.nl with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 - Received: from ns.albertsons.com ([167.234.1.10]) by leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA31786 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:33:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (S7352c.7000.albertsons.com [167.234.12.204]) by ns.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA14290 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:48 -0600 Received: from dubs0001.amstr.com (roll.mcit.com [162.120.128.9]) by S7352c.7000.albertsons.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA131978 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:30:10 -0600 X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DE Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9) by dubs0001.amstr.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 22 Jul 2000 08:30:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This message originated by GCS Client Services *** - Delivery could not be made to the following recipients - Invalid Recipient: MichaelG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) Invalid Recipient: qmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unrecoverable error) RFC822 Header may follow: X-Env-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Env-Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-End-of-Envelope: X-Internal-ID: 3973070E000158DD Received: from amstr.com (162.120.128.9)
Re: dot-qmail deliver help
- Original Message - From: "Einar Bordewich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 11:04 AM Subject: dot-qmail deliver help > |if [ -d "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.einar.$EXT2/new" ]; \ > then maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.einar.$EXT2/; \ > else maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi > > I'm a little tired of the above script in my .qmail-einar-default file. > Since I'm no script expert, I would appreciate som help to expand this > "script" to a even more flexible solution. > > I use IMAP to read my mail, and creating new directories. When I subscribe > to a new list, I basicly create a directory under einar with the name > qmail-newlist and subscribe with this address > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail is the delivered to this > subdirectory. |TEST=`echo $EXT | cut -d"-" --output-delimiter="." -f1-4` ; if [ -d "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST" ]; then maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$TEST/ ; else env ; maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi The above line does what I want. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot-qmail deliver help
|if [ -d "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.einar.$EXT2/new" ]; \ then maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.einar.$EXT2/; \ else maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi I'm a little tired of the above script in my .qmail-einar-default file. Since I'm no script expert, I would appreciate som help to expand this "script" to a even more flexible solution. I use IMAP to read my mail, and creating new directories. When I subscribe to a new list, I basicly create a directory under einar with the name qmail-newlist and subscribe with this address [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail is the delivered to this subdirectory. But, I realy would love to: a) not be locked on the .einar.$EXT2, if it exist according to the mailaddress deliver it b) be able to have directories in several levels depending on the emailaddress, insted of todays 2 ( I can deliver to einar and to directories beneath depending of the EXT2 value). I guess this is just some easy substitute entry, but since this is not what I'm good at I rly could need some inspiration. -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: preventing postmasters to make more than paid acounts then they have paid for in vpopmail..
- Original Message - From: "Geir Ove Øksnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail help.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 11:05 AM Subject: preventing postmasters to make more than paid acounts then they have paid for in vpopmail.. >From the INSTALL file in qmailadmin package. --- 6. If you want to set per domain limits on the number of: a) pop accounts b) aliases c) forwards d) mailing lists e) autoresponders Then create a .qmailadmin-limits file in the virtual domain directory for the domain you wish to limit. The syntax of the .qmailadmin-limits file is as follows: maxpopaccounts X maxaliases X maxforwards X maxmailinglists X maxautoresponders X Where X is the maximum number you wish. Be sure the vpopmail user has read permissions to this file. The default is unlimited. If you set any of the above values to 0 it will effectually disable that part of the menu and that feature. --- BTW: the the vpopmail mailinlist at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess would have been a more proper place to address this issue. -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail-pw2u
> #/var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u /var/qmail/users/assign > qmail-pw2u: fatal: unable to find alias user Try using the /etc/passwd file instead of /etc/shadow, and if you have not created the alias user (grep alias /etc/passwd), read the INSTALL.ids file for howto install the qmail users. Dave Sill's Life with qmail is also good reading. http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: .qmail file does not work (this is right one ,first i made some mistake in it)
David writes: > Hello, > everyone. > > 1st, sorry for my previous mail, I make a mistake in it. > > > I'm using qmail+vpopmail+mysql > I place a .qmail in ~vpopmail/domains/domainname/username/ directory > (this is username's home directory) > and write .qmail file like this Try moving the dot-qmail file up one directory (under the domainname), and rename it to .qmail-davidge This is how I have it on my system. > > [root@mail davidge]# cat .qmail > |egrep -qw '(word1|word2|word3)' && exit 99 || exit 0 > /Maildir/ > [root@mail davidge]# ls -al > total 5 > drwx-- 3 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 12 10:02 . > drwx-- 46 vpopmail vchkpw 2048 Jul 5 23:43 .. > -rw-r--r-- 1 vpopmail vchkpw 65 Jul 12 10:02 .qmail > drwx-- 9 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 Jul 12 10:00 Maildir > [root@mail davidge]# pwd > /mail/domains/1stchina.com/davidge > > > But it does not work! > any letter with word1 or without it > can be send to my email > > anyone have some advertises? > or someone tell me where to found a whole document about .qmail file > or another way to filter incoming email by user. > > Thanks a lot. > > Any suggestions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are welcome. > > > Sincerely yours, > David > 00-7-12 8:42:59 > > > eibo
Re: email error from outlook express
Please, do not misinform users of qmail out there. By deleting rcphosts file, you open up qmail for third-party relaying. DON'T. What you rater ought to do, is to control who can relay against your SMTP-server with tools like tcpserver http://cr.yp.to/ucspi-tcp.html package. Keep helping newbies with their search for information, but at least be sure what you help them with is corrcet. BTRW: This is also good reading, Dave Sill's Life with qmail http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html and of course man qmail-control, dot-qmail, etc regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Darryl O'Keefe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:29 PM Subject: Re: email error from outlook express > delete the file rcpthosts in /var/qmail/control > > At 11:30 PM 7/5/2000 +0530, you wrote: > >Sir here is the message displayed by outlookexpress when sending mails > >to outside domains: > > > >The message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected > >by the server. The rejected e-mail address was > >'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Subject 'test', Account: > >'[EMAIL PROTECTED]', Server: 'mail.cybermaintenance.com', > >Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my > >list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)', Port: 25, Secure(SSL): > >No, Server Error: 553, Error Number: 0x800CCC79 > > >
Re: Migrating From NT/Imail to Qmail
> You can try to crack them using one of the many, many NT password > crackers, depending on the password algorithm the software uses. Don't go there. Too much time-consuming cracking the passwords. We tried that first. > One method we're looking at possibly using with a customer is to set up > a modified POP proxy in front of the NT POP server for a few weeks. The > proxy will note the username and password and then relay the connection > through (obviously you'll need to modify the proxy source to log passwords). Now your talking. Exactly what we did. Worked perfectly. The client POPed in, proxy did a check if the account was local, if not then POPed into the old NT server and retrieved the mail from there. This was done with logging, so after a while we had the users password in clear text for further processing into the SQL database. Your welcome to contact me, and I'll se what we have of old code and information for this solution. You have to prepaire to leave this solution on for ~3 months, depending on how many users you have. You will end up with some accounts never logged into, cleaning up I think you call it ;) -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vacation
I have some problems making vacation fetched from ftp://ftp.uniq.com.au/pub/tools/qmail/qmail-vacation-1.3.tar.gz The same problem occurs on two different machines, Intel/Suse Linux 6.3 with perl, v5.6.0 built for i686-linux-multi and Sparc/Solaris 7 with perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris Here is the error message: - perl -c vacation.pl Type of arg 1 to close must be HANDLE (not ) at vacation.pl line 477, near ";" vacation.pl had compilation errors. make: *** [vacation] Error 255 - This is "out of the tarball", and when close; on line 477 is changed to close MSG; it seems to work. This should be changed in the dist, if what I've done is correct. If not, please correct me. tnx -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP Size/RFC 1870
Now when qmail is RFC 1870 compliant on the server side, how about support this also on the client side when sending with qmail-remote ;-) -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: applying SMTP SIZE patch
I had the same problem, so I patched it manually. Her it is with the patch applied. If you rename your old file to qmail-smtpd.c.orig and do a "diff -c qmail-smtpd.c.orig qmail-smtpd.c |more", you should see output quite equal to the patch. BTW: The initial size on qmail-smtpd.c was 11262 bytes. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Jim Breton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 7:52 PM Subject: applying SMTP SIZE patch : Hi, sorry for the lame thread, but I'm having a hard time applying the : patch: : : http://will.harris.ch/qmail-smtpd.c.diff : : to qmail-smtpd.c. : : Note that I downloaded the patch using "wget" and it did not insert any : extraneous carriage returns, etc. into the file. : : The diff, after I download it, is 2463 bytes. My qmail-smtpd.c is the : original, unpatched version, and it is 11262 bytes. : : Here is the error I get: : : $ patch --verbose < qmail-smtpd.c.diff : Hmm... Looks like a new-style context diff to me... : The text leading up to this was: : -- : |*** qmail-smtpd.c.orig Mon May 29 11:54:41 2000 : |--- qmail-smtpd.c Wed May 31 11:44:21 2000 : -- : Patching file `qmail-smtpd.c' using Plan A... : Hunk #1 succeeded at 52. : patch: unexpected end of hunk at line 56 : : : System is Debian GNU/Linux, potato. patch --version reports: : : $ patch --version : patch 2.5 : Copyright 1988 Larry Wall : Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc. : : This program comes with NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. : You may redistribute copies of this program : under the terms of the GNU General Public License. : For more information about these matters, see the file named COPYING. : : written by Larry Wall with lots o' patches by Paul Eggert : : : I have tried various command-line arguments to patch (including -R) with : no success. Would someone be kind enough to send me his copy of the : patched qmail-smtpd.c so I can generate my own diff? : : Also if anyone could tell me why this is happening, it would help. The : diff itself looks fine to my eyes. : : I started applying the patch by hand, which was fine for the first : (non-mail-rejecting) patch, but this one is getting under my skin with : the combination of changing line numbers, and the fact that I have no : idea what "!" signifies at the beginning of a diff line, and that the : line looks exactly the same as the original, etc.. (My frustration : tolerance is quite low today.) ;) : : Thanks. : : qmail-smtpd.c.size-patched.tar.gz
Re: Databytes Problem
just remember to remove your mail with the 2.2mb attachement from your outgoing queue/mbox, before resending... -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Databytes Problem : Yes I can reproduce the problem. : In fact I have just tried it again. : : So lets do it again, ;-) : : If I send the smaller file (1.2 megs) then its fine. : If I send the large file (2 meg ) then it shows as an on screen error : "databytes exceeded" which is correct. : Then I send the smaller file again (1.2 meg) and it shows the same error. : Then I sent a blank email ( this I hadnt tried before ), surprise suprise it : gives an error. : : Perhaps this has to do with Kmail. I think that if it cant get through it : keeps the message in memory or something, thus when one tries to send : another message it tries to send the large file attachement ( 2 meg ) with : it ... which would of course exceeds the databytes limit. : : What do you think ? : Mark : :
Re: .qmail-default and some scripting
No feedback on my question, but this does what I want. .qmail-einar-default: |if [ -d "$HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$EXT/new" ]; then maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir/.$EXT/ ; else maildirdeliver $HOME/postmaster/Maildir ; fi You have to fetch maildirdeliver from http://www.din.or.jp/~ushijima/maildirdeliver-0.50.tar.gz This is a simple way to have the different mailinglists to deliver mail for you to individual maildirs for your user together with sqwebmail and/or imap where you can make extra maildirfolders in your main Maildir. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message ----- From: "Einar Bordewich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Qmail-mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:12 PM Subject: .qmail-default and some scripting > On my home server I run qmail 1.03 with courier-imap, sqwebmail, qmailadmin, > vpopmail and Scan4Virus. > I'm looking for some help regarding .qmail-default file. > Since I'm not into shell/perl/awk/sed scripting, I'm hoping for some help > regarding deliver mail to the correct folder depending on receipient > address. > > All mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to INBOX, that is postmaster/Maildir/. > Under postmaster/Maildir/, I have other "Maildir" catalogs, like > .einar-qmail, .einar-zebra, etc. They are all called einar-something. I > could ofcourse make .qmail-einar-qmail and deliver the mail to > postmaster/Maildir/.einar-qmail, something that works. But why bother by > making a .qmail file for every address i deliver out, when the > catalog/address structure is consistent. > > Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should go to > postmaster/Maildir/.einar-qmail/ if exists deliver there, if not, then > postmaster/Maildir/ > > Anyone that could help me with translating my wishes into shell script? > > Tnx. > -- > > IDG New Media Einar Bordewich > Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
.qmail-default and some scripting
On my home server I run qmail 1.03 with courier-imap, sqwebmail, qmailadmin, vpopmail and Scan4Virus. I'm looking for some help regarding .qmail-default file. Since I'm not into shell/perl/awk/sed scripting, I'm hoping for some help regarding deliver mail to the correct folder depending on receipient address. All mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] goes to INBOX, that is postmaster/Maildir/. Under postmaster/Maildir/, I have other "Maildir" catalogs, like .einar-qmail, .einar-zebra, etc. They are all called einar-something. I could ofcourse make .qmail-einar-qmail and deliver the mail to postmaster/Maildir/.einar-qmail, something that works. But why bother by making a .qmail file for every address i deliver out, when the catalog/address structure is consistent. Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should go to postmaster/Maildir/.einar-qmail/ if exists deliver there, if not, then postmaster/Maildir/ Anyone that could help me with translating my wishes into shell script? Tnx. -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filtering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > thank you for this one. However, my problem is not only the size of > the message but as well as its contents. I want to deny also any > messages that contain .EXE files to avoid virus spread. So actually I > have to filter the message in two ways - the size and its content. What you want is Scan4Virus http://www.geocities.com/jhaar/scan4virus/ There is a text filter solution where you can filter on ex. attachement of .EXE files not allowed when over ex. 5MB, etc.. This is the emergency solution when stopping brand new viruses not detected by the scanners. Scan4Virus supports Trend/Mcaffee/Sophos/H+BEDV and also very soon AVP from Kaspersky Lab. Take a look and I guess you will be impressed. I was and still am. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: scan4virus
"octave klaba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > mail. Make sure debugging is turned on, also.
>
> I have nothing else in log :(
>
> it looks like qmail is not using antivirus-qmail-queue.pl
I've followed this thread since I have the same problem, and I think you are
using antivir.qmail-queue.pl
Fact:
I've installed the QMAILQUEUE-patch.
The maildrop-0.76b gives me shit. When trying to configure, it fails with
the configure in bdbobj with this from config.log:
configure:1084: c++ -o conftestconftest.C 1>&5
/usr/i486-linux/bin/ld: cannot open crtbegin.o: No such file or directory
configure: failed program was:
#line 1079 "configure"
#include "confdefs.h"
int main(){return(0);}
I've had this problem earlier with sqwebmail, but I don't remember how I
solved this.
# ls -lsa /var/spool/qmailscan/
total 64
1 drwxr-xr-x 5 qmailq qmail1024 May 8 01:34 .
1 drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 1024 May 7 02:07 ..
13 -rw-r- 1 qmailq qmail 16384 May 8 00:09
antivirus-attachments.db
2 -rw-r--r-- 1 qmailq qmail1577 May 7 18:52
antivirus-attachments.txt
1 -rw-rw 1 qmailq qmail 96 May 8 00:09
antivirus-qmail-queue-version.txt
1 drwxr-xr-x 5 qmailq qmail1024 May 7 02:08 archive
43 -rw-rw 1 qmailq qmail 42881 May 8 09:05 qmail-queue.log
1 drwxr-xr-x 5 qmailq qmail1024 May 7 02:08 viruses
1 drwxr-xr-x 5 qmailq qmail1024 May 7 02:08 working
The symptoms are the same (no reaction on virus or .vbs attachements), and
my geuss was that I didn't have the maildrop program installed.
Does this count for you too?
regards
--
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qmail installation on Integrix Ultrasparc 10
I'm about to start installation of Qmail with vpopmail, QmailAdmin and SqWebMail on a Sun clone named Integrix Ultrasparc 10 (360Mhz Ultrasparc, 256Mb RAM, and I guess >10GB disk). Solaris 7 (Sun OS 5.7) will be the OS on the box. Any traps I should look out for, any special patches that should be applied, libaries that must be installed, etc. I'm gratful (but not dead! :) for any advices that will help me do this installtion as smooth as possible. This is all information I have right now about the machine/OS. This is for a customer of us (IDG New Media), and they are still running an old Sun machine with sendmail, that are listed in ORBS etc. Since they now are upgrading their hardware, and are seeking us for help, I'v adviced them to use Qmail instead of sendmail. BTW: We have been running several machines with Qmail as our mailservers for us and our customers for the last 3 years, but on Intel/Linux platform. regards -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich Technical Manager Phone: +47 2336 1420 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HLP: How do I know if qmail received my emails?
cd /etc/skel echo "./Maidir/" > .qmail chmod 644 .qmail /var/qmail/maildirmake Maildir useradd -m user (the -m option creates homedir if it does'nt exist, and you kan use the -k option if you prefere another skel dir than /etc/skel) This I think should cover it. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Tony Mai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Paul Jarc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 11:34 PM Subject: Re: HLP: How do I know if qmail received my emails? > Thanks Paul. That works well. > > If I was to include this Maildir in the /etc/skel so that the next time I > create a user, this directory will be create for that as well, what do I > have to do to ensure this new user will automatically entitle to his/her > Maildir directory? > > --Original Message-- > From: Paul Jarc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: February 19, 2000 9:00:55 AM GMT > Subject: Re: HLP: How do I know if qmail received my emails? > > > Tony Mai writes: > > #cd /home/tmai > > #/var/qmail/bin/maildirmake /home/tmai/Maildir > > I assume from the `#'s that you did this as root. Your Maildir needs > to be owned by tmai. (Assuming Linux; tweak the following commands as > necessary for your system.) > # chown -R tmai.tmai ~tmai/Maildir# as root > > Then, unless you changed the system's default delivery method to be > Maildir instead of mbox, you'll need to do: > $ echo '/home/tmai/Maildir/' > ~tmai/.qmail # as tmai > > > paul > > . > iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you? > . > >
Re: Smtp and Pop3 log empty??
I noticed that my logging didn't start when I forgot to chmod +t /var/qmail/supervice/qmail- catalog. Check that also. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Smtp and Pop3 log empty?? > "Arisandy Arief" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I install qmail 1-.03 + Ucspi-tcp + Daemontools 0.61 > >and follow step by step instruction in Life with Qmail... > >the daemon running well but my log file /var/log/qmail/smtpd/current and > >/var/log/qmail/pop3d/current always empty ?? > >there is already multilog t qmail-smtpd and pop3d process, but log file > >still empty..?? > >and sometime log come out in console not in log files?? > > > >anything wrong?? > > Yeah, if stuff is going to the console, it's probably because it was > sent to stderr and not redirected to stdout. I.e., make sure you have > "2>&1" at the end of the pop and smtp run scripts. > > -Dave >
Re: .qmail questions
- Original Message - From: "jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 12:48 AM Subject: .qmail questions > (even if it's empty!), and I run qmail-newu, I get the following > error: > > qmail-newu: fatal: bad format in users/assign Remember the dot in the last line. If you do "echo "." > assign", then you will be able to run qmail-newu on this empty file;) -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Here's the deal... > I'm new to qmail, and I think it's just the coolest thing > I've ever seen. But I am having problems with it. > > I have a domain in the rcpthosts and virtualdomains files > and I want to set up a pop account for somebody on my > domain. So I create a file called .qmail-mydomain-user > in my home directory and put "/home/user/Maildir/" in it. > > When I send mail to that user, qmail cannot chdir to > /home/user/Maildir/, so the mail isn't recieved. > > I've tried changing permissions on /home/user/Maildir/ but > the mail still isn't delivered... temporary error. Don't > know the reason for this. > > I've tried using the users/assign method of delivering mail to > this user, but no matter what I put in the users/assign file > (even if it's empty!), and I run qmail-newu, I get the following > error: > > qmail-newu: fatal: bad format in users/assign > > Are there any workaround for my problem, or am I doing something > wrong? Also, what is wrong with users/assign? Just for reference, > here is the line I put in users/assign: > > =myuser-mydomain-nathan:nate:1035:109:/home/nate::: > ^^^this is set to what I set in control/virtualdomains > like: > > mydomain.com:myuser-mydomain > > Any help appreciated. > > > >
Re: Odd.
> BTW, with Eudora Pro, you don't have to sign in and out of different > profiles to download email from different accounts. Neither do you have to with outlook express 5, but you can have different profiles that download from several mail accounts each. -- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qmail, virtualdomains and amavis
The latest tarball of AMaViS (0.2.0-pre6-clm-rl-4 ) is not handling virtualdomains
very well. Have anyone made a patch for this do work. I also appended -f{mailfrom} in
scanmails.in:
cat < qp 23532
uid 1001
qmail: 947335924.203454 starting delivery 37: msg 999433 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail: 947335924.203546 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
qmail: 947335925.298990 new msg 999447
qmail: 947335925.299217 info msg 999447: bytes 2076 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
23715 uid 1008
qmail: 947335925.300800 end msg 999447
qmail: 947335925.352348 new msg 999447
qmail: 947335925.352568 info msg 999447: bytes 1645 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
23720 uid 1008
qmail: 947335925.355694 starting delivery 38: msg 999447 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail: 947335925.355815 status: local 1/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335925.418456 new msg 999448
qmail: 947335925.418687 info msg 999448: bytes 623 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp
23726 uid 1008
qmail: 947335925.421966 starting delivery 39: msg 999448 to
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^
qmail: 947335925.422084 status: local 2/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335925.442034 delivery 37: success:
qmail: 947335925.442216 status: local 1/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335925.442272 end msg 999433
qmail: 947335926.522386 delivery 39: success:
Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/
qmail: 947335926.522573 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
qmail: 947335926.522631 end msg 999448
qmail: 947335926.575286 delivery 38: success:
10.10.10.10_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_ok_947332282_qp_4738/
qmail: 947335926.575459 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
qmail: 947335926.575516 end msg 999447
--
----
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: selective relay pbm
> compared to the host and domainname (IN). You can try starting tcpserver without Should offcourse be "compared to the host and domainname (A) And as Dave Sill corrected me on: >cat tcp.smtp | tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb ~/tcp.smtp.tmp Warning: egregious use of "cat". Try: tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb ~/tcp.smtp.tmp To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:06 AM Subject: Re: selective relay pbm > Note, somewhereelse.com is not listed in my rcpthosts. Ok, but this is > a telnet session is from a machine who enables RELAYCLIENT in the > tcp.smtp.cdb database. Here is my configuration (ip info has been > changed for security reasons) > tcp.smtp (I remembered to reload this): > > 192.152.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > :allow Did you remeber to: cat tcp.smtp | tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb ~/tcp.smtp.tmp Also remember that you are running in paranoid mode (-p). Your reversemapping (PTR) has to be correct compared to the host and domainname (IN). You can try starting tcpserver without the -p option, and check if this solves your problem. If it does, fix your lack of reverse info and turn it back on (if you need it). -- -------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: selective relay pbm
> Note, somewhereelse.com is not listed in my rcpthosts. Ok, but this is > a telnet session is from a machine who enables RELAYCLIENT in the > tcp.smtp.cdb database. Here is my configuration (ip info has been > changed for security reasons) > tcp.smtp (I remembered to reload this): > > 192.152.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > :allow Did you remeber to: cat tcp.smtp | tcprules tcp.smtp.cdb ~/tcp.smtp.tmp Also remember that you are running in paranoid mode (-p). Your reversemapping (PTR) has to be correct compared to the host and domainname (IN). You can try starting tcpserver without the -p option, and check if this solves your problem. If it does, fix your lack of reverse info and turn it back on (if you need it). -- ---- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System ManagerPhone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MX question related to diff. A and MX record
: > Back a few years, I know we had a problem related to mail going to the : > webserver instead the mailserver, when the domain was set up with an A : > record that was different than the IP address of the hostname pointed : > to by MX. Does this still count, or is this a solved issue? : : This was never the case with Qmail. Is there other mailservers out there, that this is the known case for? -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Qmail-mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:53 PM Subject: Re: MX question related to diff. A and MX record : On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Einar Bordewich wrote: : : > Does a mailserver always look at the MX record, and not the A record : > for a domain? : : Yes. : : > Back a few years, I know we had a problem related to mail going to the : > webserver instead the mailserver, when the domain was set up with an A : > record that was different than the IP address of the hostname pointed : > to by MX. Does this still count, or is this a solved issue? : : This was never the case with Qmail. : : : -- : Sam : :
MX question related to diff. A and MX record
Does a mailserver always look at the MX record, and not the A record for a domain? Back a few years, I know we had a problem related to mail going to the webserver instead the mailserver, when the domain was set up with an A record that was different than the IP address of the hostname pointed to by MX. Does this still count, or is this a solved issue? ex. zone config where a http request will go to test.com/192.168.1.1 and mail to test.com will go to mail.test.com/10.10.10.10 ; Zone file for: test.com @ IN SOA ns.domain.com. hostmaster.domain.com. ( 1999112214 ; serial number 28800 ; refresh 7200; retry 604800 ; expire 86400 ) ; minimum TTL ; NS records @ IN NS ns.domain.com. @ IN NS ns1.domain.com. @ IN NS nn.domain.net. ; MX records @ IN MX 10 mail.test.com. @ IN MX 20 mail1.domain.com. ; Zone records @ IN A 192.168.1.1 mailIN A 10.10.10.10 www IN CNAME www.domain.com. BTW: test.com and domain.com in this example has nothing to do with the real domains out there. -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Urgent Please
rcpthosts is for which domains your mailserver accept mail to, and you only want to accept mail to domains that have relevance to your mailserver (either local accounts or as a secondary MX for another mailserver). By removing rcpthosts, you are accepting mail for all domains, and opening for abuse of your mailserver. Your "local" users are threaten as whatever client/server trying to deliver mail through your mailserver, until you tell qmail otherwise. That is what you are using tcpserver for, where you accept relaying of mail from a range of IP addresses (your local addresses!), and only allows deliver to locals/rcpthosts from anybody else. Hope this clears things a little bit regards -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: dd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 2:15 PM Subject: Re: Urgent Please > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > Nope, rcpthost includes domains that the server accept, > >it can be local domain or just a domain that the server queues mail for > >ex. secondary MX for a domain. It does not have anything to do with the > >local users. If a domain is listed in rcpthost, anybody in the "world" is > >allowed to deliver mail to that domain, even if that doman is not local > >on that server. > > > > Use tcpserver (and do not run it from inetd), and set the relaying from there. > > Check this links, cut'ed from www.qmail.org: > > hey hey wait a minute. rcpthosts doesn't have anything to do with the > local users? so why couldn't any of the users send a mail to the rest of > the world when rcpthosts included only my host? i removed the file and now > users can send mail to everywhere. at first i also thought as you > explained, the file should include the hosts that are allowed to use my > machine as relay but the reality is different, it seems (?). > > > i'm confused... > >
Re: Urgent Please
Nope, rcpthost includes domains that the server accept, it can be local domain or just a domain that the server queues mail for ex. secondary MX for a domain. It does not have anything to do with the local users. If a domain is listed in rcpthost, anybody in the "world" is allowed to deliver mail to that domain, even if that doman is not local on that server. Use tcpserver (and do not run it from inetd), and set the relaying from there. Check this links, cut'ed from www.qmail.org: http://qmail-docs.surfdirect.com.au/docs/qmail-antirelay.html http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/ucspi-tcp.html ( tcpserver/ucspi-tcp ) -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: dd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 8:32 PM Subject: Re: Urgent Please > > > > > the rcpthosts file. that was it... > > > > Congratulations, > > You just opened up the mailserver for Spam-attacks ;) > > Use tcpserver and RELAYCLIENT="" instead. > > errm eheh thank you <;}} > i'm a rookie and quite unexperienced, so ehem thanks again <:} > but doesn't the rcpthosts file only include the hosts to whom local users > are allowed to send mails? > > dd > >
Re: Urgent Please
> the local one. i read the documentation and accordingly removed > the rcpthosts file. that was it... Congratulations, You just opened up the mailserver for Spam-attacks ;) Use tcpserver and RELAYCLIENT="" instead. > > Connected to 206.31.56.7 but sender was rejected. > > Remote host said: 501 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must exist The bounce message bounce because the mailserver does a check against sender domain. If this fails, it denies the request. Here the domain exists, but it might not exist for the DNS that the mailserver queries (bad config?). -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: dd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 12:44 PM Subject: Re: Urgent Please > > > I have just setup qmail for my ISP server, I have got my DNS and MX > > everything setup properly. But most of my clients are getting bounced > > message when they send to other addresses around the world. > > > > This is the content of the bounced message, > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Connected to 206.31.56.7 but sender was rejected. > > Remote host said: 501 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must exist > > had a similar prob. our machine kept saying that the domain name was not > in the rcpthosts file when users tried to send mails to a host other than > the local one. i read the documentation and accordingly removed > the rcpthosts file. that was it... > sorry if i misunderstood you and sent a crap answer here... > > dd > > >
Re: qmail logs
If you use cyclog: man cyclog (check the -n option) supervise $DIR qmail-start "$DEFAULT_DELIVERY" accustamp qmail \ | setuser $LOGUSER cyclog -n 100 -s 100 /var/log/qmail & would keep 100 logfiles, each 1Mb in the /var/log/qmail directory -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: shajain To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 12:28 PM Subject: qmail logs Hi, I need to keep logs of qmail atleast for 60 days, but when I check in /var/log/qmail it shows the logs of only past three-four days. I would be very thankful if somebody can tell me how to increase the entry for no. of days for which qmail keeps the logs. Thanks,
Re: MAIL FROM: somedamnuser@notvalid.dom
Use that patch, stop qmail, then a make setup check, echo 1 > /qmail path/control/mfcheck and start qmail again. You don't have to do any changes in your startup script or worry about rblsmtpd. tcpserver allows or denies ip adresses from local list rblsmtpd allows or denies ip addresses from remote list if the connecting ip address passes the two first, then qmail-smtpd checks for a valid domain in the from field. -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: torben fjerdingstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 11:29 AM Subject: Re: MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 03:39:56PM +0200, Balazs Nagy wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > > > > > Einar Bordewich writes: > > > > Has anyone made som MX/A/PTR checking on MAIL FROM: in qmail-smtpd? > > > > > > Yes, there's a patch for it on www.qmail.org. > > > > Well, actually it doesn't work. Please use qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch > > instead (URL: http://lsc.kva.hu/dl/qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch ). Oh, by the > > way, Russ, could you update this patch's URL and local copy at www.qmail.org > > please? > > I use rblsmtpd. So patching qmail-smtpd won't work? > What can I do? > > /usr/local/bin/supervise /usr/local/qmail/supervise/tcpserver env - \ > PATH="/usr/local/bin:$PATH" TZ=MET-1METDST,M3.5.0,M10.5.0 \ > tcpserver -x /usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \ > -v -p -t 5 -c 400 -b 40 -u 203 -g 200 0 \ > smtp /usr/local/bin/smtplog \ > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrelays.orbs.org \ > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rrbl.maps.vix.com \ > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -rdul.maps.vix.com \ > /usr/local/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1 \ > | /usr/local/bin/accustamp \ > | /usr/local/bin/cyclog -s14000 -n2 /var/adm/smtpd smtpd 3 & > > -- > 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: MAIL FROM: somedamnuser@notvalid.dom
Tnx, I worked perfectly.. BTW: no need to Cc: me, since I'm already on the list ;) -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 3:39 PM Subject: Re: MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: > > > Einar Bordewich writes: > > > Has anyone made som MX/A/PTR checking on MAIL FROM: in qmail-smtpd? > > > > Yes, there's a patch for it on www.qmail.org. > > Well, actually it doesn't work. Please use qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch > instead (URL: http://lsc.kva.hu/dl/qmail-1.03-mfcheck.3.patch ). Oh, by the > way, Russ, could you update this patch's URL and local copy at www.qmail.org > please? > -- > Regards: Kevin (Balazs) > >
MAIL FROM: somedamnuser@notvalid.dom
Has anyone made som MX/A/PTR checking on MAIL FROM: in qmail-smtpd? -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: London qmail training?
Did you get any feedback on this topic? We are 3 persons from IDG New Media interested. -- --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 8:35 PM Subject: London qmail training? > Is there any interest in a London qmail training session? The final > cost would be dependent on the number of participants (in other words, > talk it up among UK people using qmail), but if I can't do it for less > than $800 per participant there's no point in doing it. So, there's > an upper bound on the price; the variable is whether it happens or not. > > -- > -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: Main server = qmail, destination = ms exchange
I was earlier looking for a ETRN solution with qmail, so I could queue mail for dialup customers. I came up short. Since that I've seen a few ETRN patches for qmail, but I've not tried them out. I ended up with a solution where a pop-client connected to a pop3 dummy account (always empty), and with the correct username and password triggered a smtp-feed from our mailserver. You can use a standard POP-client, or write a telnet script that is triggered from Exchange. If the customers network is behind a router that is using NAT and private network addresses, the router has to forward all incoming traffic on port 25 to the internal mailserver. Not all routers is supporting this function, that is called PAT on Cisco 7xx routers. Most of our customers is using this solution, and only a few where the mailserver have it's own isdn card/connection. Highly recommended solution.. http://www.qmail.org/turnmail --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Ruben van der Leij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Olivier M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 10:25 PM Subject: Re: Main server = qmail, destination = ms exchange On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote: > Sending the mail outside isn't a problem (relaying for an IP class). > But how can I tell the qmail server that the NT box is currently > online and waiting for an smtp feed ? I guess I need a kind of trigger > that will start a maildirsmtp command. Is it the right way ? You have a choice of two mechanisms. The first is the ETRN-command. This is only supported on Exchange 5.5 SP1 and later. For older servers you can use a custom trigger, but I'm uncertain about how and what. Start with searching support.microsoft.com for 'Exchange ETRN'. This will point you to the right documents for the Exchange-side of the story.. -- Ruben -- Eat more memory!
Re: SQL enabled checkpassword
We use a own modified checkpassword to authenticate the users against Radiator (Radius) that again SQL query against Informix SQL server. Mostly this is a custom built solution, but I don't think it should be to hard to implement this on other sites. I'm kind of strict regarding not to alter to much of home made code, for later upgrading purposes. This is why Qmail is so perfect with it's module support. --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Jonathan Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 6:12 PM Subject: SQL enabled checkpassword Hi Gang, Perhaps this has been covered in the past, perhaps even recently, but does there exist a checkpassword which can authenticate against a SQL database? Last i heard Ken from inter7 was working on integrating this functionality into vchkpw. Thanks, Jonathan W. Herbert
Re: Mail Server Problem
Go to your qmail-control catalog and echo "cyberscapes.com.au" >> locals, then HUP the qmail-send process. --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Lal, Vivian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 8:39 AM Subject: Mail Server Problem I hope this is the right area to ask this question but I didn't see anything listed in the FAQ. I am tryiong to send mail to myself and I get the following error message, I have my user setup so I thought qmail would just look at /etc/passwd for the user: ---START Hi. This is the qmail-send program at neptune.cyberscapes.com.au. 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. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) --END By the way thanks to all those who replied to me about the FAQ. Regards Vivian Lal
Re: Check the RCPT TO: against
> I have a patch for qmail which denies posting to nonexisting host names. It > does with an extra DNS query. A lot of people say that this kind of check > is obsolete but I found it very useful for this kind of bounce. Does this mean a: Deferred: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must resolve Is the patch available for retrieval, or are you kind to attach it to me? Or do I misunderstand you here, and this actually check to see if the host exist before bouncing the message? If this is so, I think this probably takes away a small amount of the doublebounces, but the common situation is that I get: 550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown when my qmail has sent away a bounce for an nonexistent recipient. --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:50 PM Subject: Re: Check the RCPT TO: against > On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Einar Bordewich wrote: > > > I must confess that I'm a little unsure what I really want.. My > > problem is that 95% of bounced mail, is typical doublebounce, where a user > > that don't exist anymore (at my servers) has received mail and that bounce > > at my side. A spamer don't use a correct address, so I then get the > > doublebounce back. Another problem I then get, is the overview of > > "correct" bounces where there is a misspellings of some sort, that I then > > could correct. Today I don't do this a 100%, since most of the "correct" > > bounce mail drowns with the rest. > > I have a patch for qmail which denies posting to nonexisting host names. It > does with an extra DNS query. A lot of people say that this kind of check > is obsolete but I found it very useful for this kind of bounce. > > > I can't see that I'm helping anybody with ignoring mail to non-existing > > (known) users. I think I would be more help to my customers by getting the > > bounces down. Then again, I can concentrate more on the issue about open > > relays, by have my users (that exist) to report back to us about SPAM mail > > they have received. Here I can use some more energy to block SPAM. > > Well, denying posting to nonexisting users is a security hole. Denying > nonexisting hosts isn't - you can get this info yourself. > -- > Regards: Kevin (Balazs) > >
Re: Check the RCPT TO: against
I must confess that I'm a little unsure what I really want.. My problem is that 95% of bounced mail, is typical doublebounce, where a user that don't exist anymore (at my servers) has received mail and that bounce at my side. A spamer don't use a correct address, so I then get the doublebounce back. Another problem I then get, is the overview of "correct" bounces where there is a misspellings of some sort, that I then could correct. Today I don't do this a 100%, since most of the "correct" bounce mail drowns with the rest. I can't see that I'm helping anybody with ignoring mail to non-existing (known) users. I think I would be more help to my customers by getting the bounces down. Then again, I can concentrate more on the issue about open relays, by have my users (that exist) to report back to us about SPAM mail they have received. Here I can use some more energy to block SPAM. I'm not to found of having non-existing addresses in the lists out there, wasting my (costly) bandwidth. After we started to check against maps.vix.com and relays.orbs.org, the doublebounce has gone down a little bit, but it's still to high. Anyway, I think we are on the right track blocking traffic from known relays, even if I hate when persons tries to make me do things, and I'm now in the situation trying to make other people to take care and responsibility of their own mailservers ;) regards ------- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 5:39 AM Subject: Check the RCPT TO: against > Einar Bordewich writes: > > What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail > > check the RCPT TO: against the actual users on my machine. > > Remember when some spammer got the bright idea of checking RCPT TO: > against the users he would like to spam? Are you really sure that you > want to give away that much information about your users? > > -- > -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: Lobby mail.com
Actually I'm subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to gain some wisdom around qmail and it's solution. I think the subject "Re: Lobby mail.com" and it's legal issues is some kind of boring now. (Time to stop or move to another list for legal issues?) What I really would like, is someone telling me how to make qmail check the RCPT TO: against the actual users on my machine. (PLEASE.. ;) --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Mail.com blacklisting
We build the virtualuserdomains,locals,rcpthosts and assign file from an Informix SQL database that we authenticate the users against. It's an easy match to generate a list of legal addresses that qmail-smtpd could check against. Anyway I think the database should be build from assign and virtualdomains file, since this is up to date and is the most common solution? or easiest to convert to. In a virtualdomain solution, you have all the data you need to generate a list of legal addresses from these files. The different default entries in the assign file should come up as @somedomain.com in the list allowing any address at that domain "to enter". This because you already have configured qmail to actually deliver mail to any user at that domain, and in that way made [EMAIL PROTECTED] a legal address. --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: David Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 6:54 PM Subject: RE: Mail.com blacklisting > > Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > Russ Allbery writes: > > > Doesn't Postfix also behave in the same way? Seems to me that pretty much > > > any MTA whose port 25 listener is running unprivileged is going to have > > > the same problem > > > > getpwnam() will tell you if a userid is valid, or not, no matter what > > userid you're running as. > > > > > unless you want to periodically build a database of valid > > > addresses or require that all information necessary to determine whether a > > > given address is valid be world-readable on the system. > > > > Well, it is: /etc/passwd is world readable. > > > > Now, for Qmail, there's also an issue of dot-qmail files. Well, let's say > > that I've been there and done that, and brought back pictures. These kinds > > of things are very much possible. > > > > At the very least, you can attempt to stat the .qmail file, and return an > > invalid user if it fails with ENOENT. You can differentiate between that, > > and EPERM, which you'll get if the home directory is not globally > > executable. > > Sam proposed a way to deal with checking to see if a userid is valid or not and > possibly checking for their .qmail file. But how would one deal with: > > virtual domains > ~alias/.qmail-default -> fastforward database > ~virtualdomainuser/.qmail-default -> fastforward database > > You can just do some "simple checking".. there's too much complexity in the way > that qmail handles the mail. Yes, you could toss all of this functionality into > qmail-smtpd, but then you break down the beautiful boundaries between the > different handler programs. > > The mail.com people have to figure out that they are using an idiot test. > Warping qmail into meeting this test would be not possible without destroying > qmail, IMO. > > - David Harris >Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services > > >
Re: Mail.com blacklisting
I'm very interested in this issue, specially since we recently started to check request to our mailservers against rbl.maps.vix.com and relays.orbs.org. I've missed that functionality in qmail to reject the user in the first session attempt, and not to mention all the bounces. Please let me know if someone comes up with a patch that implements this functionality. regards --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 5:47 AM Subject: Re: Mail.com blacklisting > Jay D. Dyson writes: > > > I think the folks at vix.com and abuse.net are *far* from > > "idiots." I'm also currently attempting to acquire the source for the > > new-rlytest.cgi script to perform modifications that will demonstrate that > > Qmail doesn't relay. Even so, I think it would be good for Qmail to > > outright reject such relay hacks. I'd rather have a 553 than a load of > > internal bounces in my logfiles. > > The problem is not relay checking per se, but the real problem is that > qmail-smtpd does not check whether the local address is valid, before > accepting the message. The relay check that gets accepted looks like an > address in the local domain, so the message is accepted. Only afterwards > does Qmail figure out that the local address doesn't exist, and the mail is > bounced. > > > > -- > Sam > >
Re: a bug?
Try .qmail-marc:jaskowiak --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Marcin Jaskowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 30. august 1999 17:46 Subject: a bug? > Hi, > > I've just installed qmail on my system and i have little trouble with > aliases... > When i use alias like marc ir johndoe everything is ok (.qmail-johndoe), > but when i'm trying to set marcin.jaskowiak alias the system (log) > response that there is no such user (.qmail-marcin.jaskowiak). > Anyone has done such a things? > > Thanks, > Marcin Jaskowiak > > >
rblsmtp and more than 1 domain?
How do I configure rblsmtpd to check against more than ex. rbl.maps.vix.com? Do I have to run it over and over again ;) like this? supervise /var/lock/qmail-smtpd \ tcpserver -v -c40 -x /etc/qmail-smtpd.cdb -u1000 -g1000 0 25 \ rblsmtpd -b -R rblsmtpd -b -R -rdul.maps.vix.com rblsmtpd -b -R -rrelays.orbs.org \ qmail-smtpd 2>&1| setuser qmaill accustamp \ | setuser qmaill cyclog 100 /var/log/qmail-smtpd & --- IDG New Media Einar Bordewich System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
