From-Addresses
Hi Can anybody explain to me, why ezmlm uses the from-address from the smtp-evenlope, instead of the from: provided in the mail-header? I think that can be a disadvantage, e.g. so
From-Addresses
Hi Can anybody explain to me, why ezmlm uses the from-address from the smtp-evenlope, instead of the from: provided in the mail-header? I think that can be a disadvantage, e.g. some home-linux-systems habe private (192.168.xxx.xxx) Addresses, and xxx.uucp domain names.. Those systems could have @domain.uucp as their mail-from, while the from-address is correct. Or did it missunderstand things completly? ;-) Greetings, Florian Pflug PS: Sorry for the incomplete mail I sent before - my fault.
Re: mail appliance
On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 02:43:38PM -0700, Jon Rust wrote: > I'm trying to build a mail "appliance" that I can install for > customers who know nothing about UNIX and/or qmail. I suppose webmin > will do for adding users, though a bit clumsy. Even so, that still > leaves forwarding and vacation messages out. I'll try to write some > scripts of my own for this purpose, but if someone wants to share, > that would be great. Just looking for some no-frills, perl/shell CGI. I have written a few shell scripts. They are based on the tip given on the qmail-homepage on how to make qmail work for a lot of different domains & users without an os-user for every account (by using users/assign & virtualdomains). This script can .) create domains (on the fly - with a suid-c-programm that send sighup to qmail. .) create users in the domains .) set the pop-password .) define forwards .) protect users & domains from being deleted .) supports "notifying" users with pop-account of new mail by sending them a finger for the user nm_notifymail. The whole thing is quite usable, but I fear it´s no very portable - one could even say "dirty design"... ;-) greetings, Florian Pflug
Big-Todo patch
Hi Can someone tell me what the big-todo-patch is? What does is change/make better/optimize? greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: confign problem: pls help, urgent.
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 08:54:50AM +0300, dd wrote: > > > i have just installed qmail on my linux machine. it has no running dns, > > though but instead using an upstream dns server to resolve domain names. > > i do not have a registered domain name for my server so my email address > > shld be: @. > > > > internal sending of mails is no problem. however, when i try to send > > messages to remote clients and vice versa, the message could not be > > delivered. on my remote machines, the message says "host unknown" for my > > ip address. > > hi > > errm i had the same problem and it wasn't solved until i got my domain > registered to the dns server. i tried sending mail to user@IP but it > doesn't work, don't know why. afaik you'll have to wait for your domain > name... :/ btw you _should_ be able to send mail to remote hosts. Hi This can´t work, because when an MTA wants to send mail to host xxx.yyy.zzz (or ip aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd), it checks the DNS for a MX-Record for that domain - the mx-record tells which mailserver is responsible for a certain domain - just like A-Records say which ip-address belongs to a certain hostname. I don´t know if it´s possible to put MX-Records for IP-Addresses in the DNS (could be, because there _are_ reverse lookups) - but I´ve never seen anybody do this. Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Help with virtual users and domains
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 11:31:27AM -0400, Andy Smith wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > I think this is on the right track for me, but I still don't understand. > > I can get virtual domains to work just fine, where all mail for a domain > will go into a certain user account, or a certain user .qmail-default > file. That's works well. > > The problem is that for some domains, I have maybe 50 POP accounts and the > domain added to the "locals" file. The mail goes into the user account > just fine. How, then, would I make an exception to send > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to one of those 50 accounts? Hi I think I don´t really understand, where the problem is. For your question, IMHO 1) just create the [EMAIL PROTECTED] as you would create any of the other accounts you have for domain.com, and make a forward from there to the pop-account 2) use users/assign. Greetings, Florian Pflug hoping that this has at least something to do with the problem you have to solve... ;-))
Problem with Virtualdomains, users/assign and .qmail
Hi I'm using a virtual domains file that looks like mydomain.com:mydomain.com and a users/assign file like - =mydomain-user1::/home/popuser/mydomain/user1: =mydomain-user2::/home/popuser/mydomain/user2: ... ... +mydomain-user10::/home/popuser/mydomain/user10: +mydomain-:.:/home/popuser/mydomain/user10: -- now when I send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], that .qmail file in /home/popuser/mydomain/user1 is executed correctly. the same when I send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] But when I send to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the mail is delivered to /home/popuser/mydomain/user10/Maildir, instead of executing the .qmail file in /home/popuser/mydomain/user10. for the users with a "+" at the beginning of the line in users/assign I have a .qmail _and_ a .qmail-default file. Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Problem with Virtualdomains, users/assign and .qmail
Hi >>I'm using a virtual domains file that looks like >> >> >>mydomain.com:mydomain.com >> > >Shouldn't that be: > > mydomain.com:mydomain yes - sorry, my mail was a bit inconsequent... so, either substitue :mydomain.com with :mydomain above, or mydomain with mydomain.com below. >>and a users/assign file like >> >>- >>=mydomain-user1::/home/popuser/mydomain/user1: >>=mydomain-user2::/home/popuser/mydomain/user2: >>... >>... >>+mydomain-user10::/home/popuser/mydomain/user10: >>+mydomain-:.:/home/popuser/mydomain/user10: >>-- >> >>[...] >> >>But when I send to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or to >>[EMAIL PROTECTED], the mail is delivered to >>/home/popuser/mydomain/user10/Maildir, instead of executing the .qmail >>file in /home/popuser/mydomain/user10. > >Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] would go to mydomain-user10postfix, >which would match the "+mydomain-user10:" entry, but you didn't >include the entire entry, so I can't tell where it would end up. >Likewise, mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] would go to >mydomain-notexistinguser, which would match the "+mydomain-:" entry, >which is, again, incomplete. sorry. I didn't realize that the tweo last fields in users/assign _are_ important - found it now in the .pdf from sage-aux on www.qmail.org what I still don't understand ist, what the differenct between the two last fields is - it looks like the two strings were just put one after the other, and the whole thing comes between ".qmail" and whatever follows the string for the first field (if there is a "+" at the beginning". Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Problem with Virtualdomains, users/assign and .qmail
>>what I still don't understand ist, what the differenct between the two >>last fields is - it looks like the two strings were just put one after >>the other, and the whole thing comes between ".qmail" and whatever >>follows the string for the first field (if there is a "+" at the >>beginning". > >I don't see a good reason for there being two fields either, since >they're always >concatenated. concatenated - the word I would have needed... ;-) anyway - anybody who can explain why there are two fields??? Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: X-Face headers
Hi >>Would >>a preprocessor that converts them into attached inline MIME gifs >>be too too too tricky? Procmail rule? Pestering Mozilla.org >>wish list to replace the Customizable N-Thing with the X-Face >>would result in much greater popularity of X-Faces, re-tacking >>them onto messages as a trailing (or leading) inline picture would >>work too and wouldn't require changes to MUAs that already can >>see inline graphics. > >It shouldn't be too hard to do something with >procmail+compface+metamail to convert them to MIME attachments. I think it's sick to send an _image_ with every mail (that's what you man, isn't it?) - Thats worse than those hunge ascii-arts sent as signatures... Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: delivery to a directory
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 06:06:03PM -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
> Patrick Berry wrote:
>
> > On 11/9/99 at 3:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Howard) had the thought:
> >
> > > Please don't suggest lots of userids and/or lots of .qmail files. I'm
> > > dead set on making this easy to administer, so those are not options.
> > > That's why I'm running things through a program that figures it out.
> >
> > I could be way off base here, but it sounds like your dead set on
> > reinventing the wheel. If you have to have a directory for the userid to
> > hold the Maildir, what is the problem with having a .qmail file to tell
> > qmail to deliver to that Maildir?
>
> There will be hundreds of virtual domains and hundreds of userids in each.
> No, make that thousands. Maybe more. What's more, the user names will
> be created on the fly, so creating .qmail files in advance for every user
> name just isn't possible.
>
> I don't want to add the extra I/O overhead of creating a .qmail file for
> each user. I'm trying to make this lean and mean. What I want to do is
> divert the .qmail lookup for these virtuals (the ones in virtualdomains
> naming this one single base user that handles this whole mess) so that
> for each user@domain to be delivered there is _not_ a .qmail file there.
>
> If I could code the master .qmail file like:
>
> # note the single quotes here:
> echo './Virtuals/${HOST}/${USER}/' > .qmail
>
> and qmail-local would apply environment substitution, that would do the job.
> But that doesn't work. So I'm trying:
>
> echo '|./bin/delivery-to' > .qmail
>
> where the program in bin/delivery-to examines the environment variables
> and determines the directory to deliver to (all are owned by the one user
> that all this is running under). The next step is to deliver the mail
> there (which I'm wanting to avoid re-inventing, since something in qmail
> can obviously do it).
>
> There would be a corresponding logic for vchkpw authentication and finding
> the directory under the pop3 server, plus a web based access facility to
> be developed, too (I'll be doing this in PHP).
Hi
There is an explanation for virtualdomains/multiple users with signed system
user/uid on www.qmail.org.
It is bases on the users/assign file (in /var/qmail/users/assign). This
files tells qmail where mail to a certain user shall be delivered too (thus
overiding /etc/passwd). This together with the virtualdomains files gives
you excellent support for a _lot_ of domains and a _lot_ of users. Note that
(as far as I remember) the user/assign file is _compiled_ into some sort of
binary file, so it should be fast also with a lot of entries.
I am using this setup, and things are quite fast. I still have a .qmail file
for each user in his directory (/home/popuser/$DOMAIN/$USER), because you
need this for forwarding, starting mail notifying scripts, etc. But if you
just want to deliver to his Maildir/Mailbox you don´t need those .qmail
files.
I have writting a small webinterface for the administration of this (you can
add domains, add users to domain, set their pop-password, add forwards to
users,...). It is a quick and dirty hack (it´s a bunch of shell scripts!),
but it works for me - you can have it, if you want to (maybe you want to do
the necesary perl rewrite?? ;- )
greetings, Florian Pflug
OT: Network problems
Hi I know this is OT, but I just need a pointer to some/more information. I have _very_ slow tcp-connections to our qmail smtp/pop3 server, I guess due to some network problems. The mail server is connected to a 100mbit-network (via a 10/100 hub). If I send mails/copy files(via ftp)/tranfer any kind of data, I get about 20-40 kByte/s... but only if the other host is connected via 100mbit too. If I use a host, that has only a 10mbit-link to the hub, the connection is at about 600kByte/s - which is _much_ better. I guess there is some problem with the cable, the nic, or the nub. Is a any good linux-software that allows me to debug this, e.g. to see if there are any tcp-retransmits, or if the ethernet-frames are corrupted??? Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: delivery to a directory
Hi > fgp> There is an explanation for virtualdomains/multiple users with signed system > fgp> user/uid on www.qmail.org. > > I'm not sure I find this or not. I didn't find something literally that, > but I found many "virtual" things there. Part of the problem, I think, is > that there isn't a precise meaning for "virtual". Well.. you are right - but "virtualdomain" ist quite precise, if you stay in the qmail context ;-) > fgp> It is bases on the users/assign file (in /var/qmail/users/assign). This > fgp> files tells qmail where mail to a certain user shall be delivered too (thus > fgp> overiding /etc/passwd). This together with the virtualdomains files gives > fgp> you excellent support for a _lot_ of domains and a _lot_ of users. Note that > fgp> (as far as I remember) the user/assign file is _compiled_ into some sort of > fgp> binary file, so it should be fast also with a lot of entries. > > If it uses /var/qmail/users/assign then it's not what I want, and not what I > call virtual. To me, one of the attributes of virtual is that there is no > table of mapping between a user e-mail address and where to deliver, but > instead, the determination of where to deliver is a functional relation to > the e-mail address. It´s virtual, the same as you have "virtual" http-hosts... But I guess I know what you want - from the address [EMAIL PROTECTED], you want the mail to be stored in "/somepath/domain.com/user" - not a "static" mapping, "calculated" from the address? Then you could think about patching/rewriting qmail-local - altough maybe you should hink about writing you own smtp-server/mda for that purpose. > I want the very minimum of administrative work to manage it. This will > require such things as automatically deriving the user authentication data > from the customer account database. I expect to write something that will > rebuild certain files (password CDB, rcpthosts, virtualdomains) from the > data obtained from the database. jes - create /users/assign from the database.. ;-)) > I don't want a .qmail file for each user (except for local host users). If > by leaving it out I can deliver to each users's maildir, that' what I want. > > At the same time there may be a catch. The default delivery for the local > host (e.g. listed in locals, for users in /etc/passwd, with distinct uids), > is not maildir, but "./Mailbox". I need to be able to leave local users as > all "./Mailbox" by default (unless overridden in a .qmail file for each user > individually), yet have maildirs used for all the virtualdomains users without > creating zillions of .qmail files. you could make .qmail files for local users, overiding the Maildir default to Mailbox - or just take one machine for all those thousands of users and "virtual"domains, and another one for the shell accounts. > We'll be doing the web interface for administration as an integral part of > the whole internet service administration, working through a central database > that records every service, not just e-mail. E-mail configuration will then > be derived from that database much like web configuration, DNS configuration, > and so forth. I will be able to add a new customer, specify domains, and > let them add their own users and subdomains, and it will automatically set > up their e-mail, radius for dialup, routing for dedicated DSL, web service, > and whatever else (the exact system hasn't been chosen, yet). Wow.. Zero Administration ISP - sounds quite cool. Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Large message killing system
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 07:21:58AM -0600, Matthew Callaway wrote: > Dave Sill wrote: > > > >It's obvious that 150 MB of mail is a lot to process on such a pokey > > >little machine, but it seems a bit odd for the machine to completely > > >choke and die. > > > > If you push an underpowered system running antiquated software to the > > breaking point, don't be surprised if it breaks. > > > > Is that 16 MB RAM parity, ECC (:-), or pot luck? Do you have adequate > > swap? > > > > If qmail croaks a system, either the hardware or the OS is buggy. > > > > -Dave > > The swap space is 50 MB, which seems adequate to me. Well, 10MB Message for 15 Users makes 150MB vs. 16MB Ram + 50 MB Swap makes 64MB. So if qmail tried to deliver all the messages simultaniously, it will run into trouble, and could make the machine *seem* to be crashed, while it was just really, really busy. This specially happens with IDE disks, which are not running in DMA-Mode, since IO on this Disks costs quite a lot of cpu time. > I realize that the machine is old, and is running software that has > updates, but the point is that a heavily loaded mail program shouldn't > *kill* a machine. I would understand slow performance. How can you be > sure that the hardware or the OS is buggy, and not qmail? I'm not that > familiar with qmail. Could it be that qmail could be reconfigured to > handle mail without bringing the system to its knees? Under any good OS (not Win95, Winnt?), software running in userspace (that is, all programms, including init) should _never_ be able to crash the machine. If the machine crashed under heavy load and/or heavy IO, it seems that your hardware is buggy. Consider, that non-ECC RAM _could_ cause errors, as well as IDE-Disks. Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Large message killing system
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 11:35:06AM +1300, Jason Haar wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 08:35:18PM +0000, Florian G. Pflug wrote: > > Well, 10MB Message for 15 Users makes 150MB vs. 16MB Ram + 50 MB Swap makes > > 64MB. So if qmail tried to deliver all the messages simultaniously, it will > > run into trouble, and could make the machine *seem* to be crashed, while it > > ??? Are you sure? Are you saying that Qmail has to deal with every message > been loaded into memory first? was kind of worst-case-scenariao - don´t know enough about qmail internals, but I guess it just copies that message around - which essentially means, that 1 byte/megabyte/... ist read, than 1 byte/megabyte/... is written - no matter if this happens on userspace or os level. > I hope not... More likely it just does I/O when needed. Chances are this is > a hardware problem of some description. 10Mb mail to 15 users is absolutely > nothing Linux or Qmail or even IDE harddisks should be having problems with. Well - still there are 150MB to be transfered... and with 16MB, after loading linux & some daemons, you don´t have too much memory left, probably meaning that data has to be copied in smaller chunks, thus making _more_ load. And again - IDE-Transfers take up a lot of cpu-time on older motherbords (with no DMA for IDA) - e.g. my notebook used to just stop for some seconds, when I did a lot of IO (using dd...). Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: [ Documentation problems ] - just a quick note from me..
Hi I think the doku is quite ok - I took LWQ, found a pdf on www.qmail.org, which was what someone has written together for a speech about qmail (don´t recall how the meeting was calles - something like SAGEU or so), took the qmail-sources, and played with it for about a day. Then I had figured out enough, to set it up - and on the second day including pop3-support, using the singe-uid methode
Re: Serialmail fd 7 error!
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:14:09AM +0100, Rok Papez wrote: > Hi Roger, qmail and serialmail m.l. > > On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Roger Wrethman wrote: > > > Go and have a look at http://www.e-smith.net > > They have this all down to a tee. > > I was expecting help It seems I've got a commercial :-(. > I guess Qmail/serialmail just isn't up to the job. > > Everybody can smart-ass around about Linux support how great the mailing > list/newsgroup support is and that it's better than commercial. > My experiance (specialy with qmail/serialmail) shows that this is not the case. > The people who know don't bother to answer, the people who don't know smart-ass > around :-. > > I'm sorry but this is very dissapointing that no-one on qmail nor serialmail > mailing list is able to just give me a hint (RTFM would do, if I accidently > missed the docs - I do a lot of RTFM on our local user group m.l.). But it is > not like I'm the power user who can go in and use the RTSL (Read The Source, > Luke). > > Obviously a step in the right direction would be to dump Qmail/Serialmail > altogether. Local user group people know only about sendmail and qmail > users are obviously unwilling to help out. > > I'll mail djb personaly.. maybe he will answer altough I doubt > it... I'll probably get ditched together with SPAM into /dev/null. Hi Well.. if you think there is not enough support for linux/free software, go on, and install exchange server (running nt->microsoft->commercial->help) I guess if what you need is an easy job, installation will be faster. It will run slower, be a bit mysterious (like all those windows things) - and of course M$ will respond to mails you send to them asking for help. I am quite sure, just will just have to call the hotline, and those nice & competent guys there will call you back, telling you how to use RBL/IMAP/filter mails/chack for viruses/tune your mailserver. If exchange server can´t do what you need, they will incorporate the changes you need in the next release, if you ask really nice, they will give you there software for 1/2 the price. greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: disk mirroring
> I don't really mean to be a hardass here, but you need to know about > how the qmail queue works. You have the qmail source right? Included > with that source is an "INTERNALS" document which describes how the > queue works. With qmail's insistance on fsync'ing, you can see how > a writeback cache on the HW RAID controller can help. > > Or perhaps you don't know? HW RAID controllers can come with non-volitile > RAM caches. When part of this cache is in "writeback" mode, scsi write > commands are put in the cache, and the controller tells the OS that the > command has been completed. Then the writes are committed to hard drive > (which have their own caches). Thus, multiple small-block writes followed > by fsync's should finish much quicker on a HW RAID with writeback cache. > > If you're relying on OS RAM to do the same thing for a filesystem, then > the fsync will put an end to that. All this would make hw-cach *forbidden* for qmail queue dir, since then it is *not* guaranteed, that what is synced is writted on disk and will survive a power loss Anyway, what is noone mentioning raid 5? I just played with it under linux (software raid) until now - but it seems quite fast. Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Hmmm... Corel Linux
On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 12:38:53AM -0500, Peter Cavender wrote: > If that is the case, I may very well ditch RH for my co-lo...I have > two floppies worth of "mods" to my base RH 6.1. Does Corel include > all the extra goodies: checkpasswd,ucspi-tcp,daemontools,etc?? Does > the .deb extension mean they are using the Debian installer thingey? Corel Linux is based on Debian.. Is this debian-package provided by corel? Or maybe Debian now has a binary qmail package (They have a source package for a while now). greetings, FLorian Pflug > Please keep us posted! I agree... ;-)
Re: MX question related to diff. A and MX record
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:53:26AM -0500, Sam wrote: > 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. I never had troubles with A Records pointing to something different then MX-Records. But I had big trouble, when I tried using a CNAME for the domain, instead of an A record. using: domain.com MX 25 smtp.domain.com domain.com CNAME www.domain.com www.domain.com A 1.1.1.1 smtp.domain.com A 1.1.1.2 made sendmail send mails to our webserver... ;-) > > 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. well - since the problems are with the sender, using qmail for your own mail-server doesn´t help you... greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Hmmm... Corel Linux
On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 12:49:00PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > Florian G. Pflug writes: > > Is this debian-package provided by corel? > > Yes, it appears to be a binary. The only reason why certain parties > have had a problem with the binaries is because they have to be > adapted on a per-machine basis including uids. Well, if you ship the > system with the qmail uids from the start, it's no problem. And > indeed, there they are: I have no problem with binary distributions - i love them, especially with debian - just an "apt-get install qmail" and you have qmail... Thank you, corel > alias:*:70:65534:qmail alias:/var/qmail/alias:/bin/sh > qmaild:*:71:65534:qmail daemon:/var/qmail:/bin/sh > qmails:*:72:70:qmail send:/var/qmail:/bin/sh > qmailr:*:73:70:qmail remote:/var/qmail:/bin/sh > qmailq:*:74:70:qmail queue:/var/qmail:/bin/sh > qmaill:*:75:65534:qmail log:/var/qmail:/bin/sh > qmailp:*:76:65534:qmail pw:/var/qmail:/bin/sh this is an debian for quite a while - since they have qmail-source packages greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Palm Pilot Mail
On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 12:03:15PM -0800, Doug Lumpkin wrote: > When downloading new mail to a palm pilot only the first 8000 characters are > retrieved... Is there a way (I'm sure there is) to use a .qmail file to > split the message into multiple parts (as well as leaving the original > message intact). AFAIK the maximul message length can be set on the pilot - or in pilot-mail (or however that program was called - or ar you using the windows software?) But I can be wrong - didn´t like mail reading on the palm anyway... greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Problems telneting to port 25
On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:51:02PM -0600, Steve Schroeder wrote: > Before & after installing qmail, which I believe I've done successfully, I > cannot telnet to port 25 to test the installation. I can however send mail > as root to external addresses. I'm trying to use fetchmail to suck down my > mail from my ISP. > > I've included the stuff below to show that I have installed qmail. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated! I'm almost there, just give me a > nudge :-) I wouldn't know how to troubleshoot this particular issue. I've > read through the FAQ and INSTALL.* docs and have'nt seen a pointer to my > specific issue. > > Thank you! > > [root@zamdrist doc]# telnet localhost 25 > Trying 127.0.0.1... > Connected to localhost. > Escape character is '^]'. > Connection closed by foreign host. > > tail /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit (Is this where this belongs?) > > #QMAIL > csh -cf '/var/QMAIL/rc &' > > # Now that we have all of our basic modules loaded and the kernel going, > # let's dump the syslog ring somewhere so we can find it later > dmesg > /var/log/dmesg > > ps -A |grep qmail > >86 ?00:00:00 qmail-send >93 ?00:00:00 qmail-lspawn >94 ?00:00:00 qmail-rspawn >95 ?00:00:00 qmail-clean > > netstat -a |grep LISTEN > > tcp0 0 *:netbios-ssn *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:printer *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:linuxconf *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:smtp *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:auth *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:pop-3 *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:login *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:shell *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:telnet*:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:ftp *:* LISTEN > tcp0 0 *:sunrpc*:* LISTEN > > tail --lines 3 /var/log/maillog > > Nov 30 16:55:49 zamdrist qmail: 944002549.769021 delivery 5: success: > >206.145.48.1_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_AAA01365_Message_accepted_for_delivery/ > Nov 30 16:55:49 zamdrist qmail: 944002549.769273 status: local 0/10 remote > 0/20 > Nov 30 16:55:49 zamdrist qmail: 944002549.769424 end msg 432179 Hi Stupid Question - do you have tcpserver + qmail-smtpd running, or have you put qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf, or did you maybe forget this? Greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Mac conflict?
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 10:54:59AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Frank,
>
> I don't know of any particular problems with this setup...but first and
> foremost, this does not appear to be a qmail issue. It appears to be a
> Macintosh & DNS problem. ("because no answer was returned by
> DNS")e.g., the Mac thinks it's a DNS server for the zone which your
> qmail machine is in, or it's "looking for DNS in all the wrong places".
Hi
Is your DNS-Setup straight forward, or somehow complicated?
I noticed an error in the Mac DNS-Resolver library.
If you use the Tips from an certain RFC for reverse dns authority finer
grained than class-c subnets (by using cnames in reverse lookups), than the
Mac is unable to resolve those ip-addr -> name mappings.
greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Here are your coupons
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 11:00:51AM -0700, Philip Gabbert wrote: > > There is a way to allow multiple email address to post to a list. I'm not > sure if it can be done with elmz or not, but I do know I post to a list with > multiple email addresses, but it all gets sent to just one address. It's a > closed list, but I've setup the preferences for my account to allow posts > from my work account, home account, and website account. Since faking the from-address (both header and smtp-envelope) is just sooo easy, why bother, and restrict posting. I guess big companies who are spamming have people who know quite a lot about smtp/email... greetings, Florian Pflug
Re: Qmail crashing TCP/IP-stack
>On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:35:31PM -0600, Dennis Duval wrote: > >> to retrieve the file with OE and voila! it worked. When I pull the file >> into a dos-based text editor in binary mode, it shows them as the NUL char, >> hex 00. I'm not sure whether this editor is showing the actual data, or >> just replacing the characters with NUL. > >Most likely NUL. Seen similar problems with Eudora. qmail/ezmlm have no >problems with such messages and transport them happily (and correctly). > >> I guess the only questions are: where did the control chars come from, and >> if they are some uncontrollable artifact of transmission, should OE be able >> to retrieve the item even though they are present. > >Of course. At worst it should say that there are errors in that message and >continue with the next. Write to microsoft.com support to get the bug fixed. > >(they may tell you that a POP3 transmission may not contain NUL, which may >be correct in some sense, but is irrelevant to the need of the client to >handle it). Well - but them how about qmail not handling bare newlines in the body of a message (and with the patch I use still not being recognizing \n.\n as the end of a message)... If OE shpuld handle NULL characters (which can stress you, if you program in C/C++), than qmail should handle "strange" messages or smtp/pop3 commands too... just my $0.2 mfg, fgp
Re: Need someone to contract for qmail/ezmlm -> db integration
> >We have a client who runs a number of mailing lists. Data and >subscription information is kept on our Sybase database server. > >We have another machine (mail server) running qmail + ezmlm + vpopmail. >The setup works great. > >We need a module that we can put into the list-subscribe and >list-unsubscribe stream and have it perform a SQL call or two on our >existing database tables. Right now we have one direction >synchronization.. the website/database server adds/removes people from the >ezmlm subscriber list. We want to close the loop and have the ezmlm >process also update the database tables/website. This may or may not mean >just converting our ezmlm setup to run strictly from the DB but we're >looking for some recommendations. > >If anyone has some experience with this and would like some work, please >drop me a line off-list. Hi First there is an ezmlm list (www.ezmlm.org), which is more appropriate for this question. Do you use ezmlm oder ezmlm-idx? ezmlm-idx supports keeping its subscriber db in an sql-RDBMS - I don't know if sybase is supported at the moment, but adding support should not be hard. Greetings, Florian Pflug
