Can't send mail , Mail blocked
Hi, I get a problem with our mail server when we try to send a mail with outlook express it ,responds:"An error occurred while sending mail. The main server responded: MAILBLOCKED; see http://www.e-scrub.com/orbs/ Please check the mainrecipients and try again."Also, can someone tell me how to stop queering the ORBS database ?I am using qmail with Corel Linux if that helps.Regards,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 39,696 emails later...
man, if it were me I'd kill all mail services and wipe the queue clean .. Check the qmail home page there are a few queue repair and fix tools avaliable... But simplest way is to rm- R queue and then either (depending on how good you are) retouch the queue to set it up again or the simpler approach just goto the qmail source directory and re-run 'make setup check' --JT Network Administrator - Original Message - From: lists To: Qmail Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:30 PM Subject: 39,696 emails later... Well, my flood of mails has stopped at 39,696. My boss and people at the office were also getting the mails at the office domain. I took the office mail server offline when they were at about 9,000 mails to prevent them from getting flooded. After I stopped getting mails at my home address, I checked the sending mail server and the zombie processes had stopped. I put the office machine back online and the zombie processes kicked in again, and the people at the office began receiving the mails again. Should I tell them to just hang in there until the total reaches 39,696? The zombie processes look like this: qmailr 26008 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:16PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31053-rtagqmailr 26088 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31068-rtagqmailr 26097 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31066-m_ayqmailr 26101 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.01 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31069-m_ayqmailr 26119 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.01 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31070-rtagqmailr 26122 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31070-m_ayqmailr 26124 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31070-santqmailr 26127 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.01 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31070-nakaqmailr 26131 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31067-rtagqmailr 26132 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.01 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31067-m_ayqmailr 26133 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31067-santqmailr 26134 0.0 0.5 888 568 ?? S 3:17PM 0:00.00 qmail-remote officedom.com query-return-31067-naka (this list shows about half of the processes) As I mentioned before, I have removed user 'query' in whose name the mails are being sent, stopped qmail, cleared the cache, restarted qmail and even rebooted the server itself, but these zombies just won't die. Anyone have an oaken stake for qmail-remote? Thanks, Shawn
Re: how can I unsubscri...
Standardized Bonehead Reply Form Hrmphhh So I will take it for granted this is coming from a bonnifyed bonehead then? Be nice will ya.. Enough said I've been up almost 48hrs now upgrading three Linux Boxes.. Night all --JT - Original Message - From: Lukas Beeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 10:29 AM Subject: Re: how can I unsubscri... iam not sure, what's the target behind your replys... did this help somebody ? no i know that they are some stupid idiots out there in this world, but the best method is still to reserve your resources and ignore them. just replying email to qmail-uns. will help more, and reserve bandwith. Starting an flamewar is _NEVER_ a solution thx in advance At 11:58 11.07.2001 -0500, you wrote: * Paul Kristensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010711 11:49]: IF PEOPLE KNEW THE ANSWER THEY WOULD NOT ASK THE QUESTION ! STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM -- snip -- -- Lukas Maverick Beeler / Telematiker Project: D.R.E.A.M / every.de - Your Community Web: http://www.projectdream.org Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Begging for a control/spamlovers patch
Pushy little prick isn't he??? Best Advice we can give you.. Learn C code and go write your own because you are obviously not going to listen to us. Ofcourse then again if ya got money then hey I'm all ears what ya want and how much cash ya got? Otherwise see ya in cyberspace. --JT P.S. Anyone seen a guy who goes by 'Danoo' on this list??? --JT - Original Message - From: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Re: Begging for a control/spamlovers patch On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 07:38:29PM +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 01:18:53PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 07:43:16AM +0200, torben fjerdingstad wrote: - Please don't suggest post-filtering- Happy coding. You are refusing the obvious, elegant and working solution. If you don't want our advice, don't ask. I did not ask for advise. I asked for a qmail-smtpd patch. So, go write one, or pay someone to do it for you. --Adam
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I
had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the primary
DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I don't
know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
DNS service on that machine.
Cheers,
--JT
- Original Message -
From: David Balatero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
-- David Balatero
-Original Message-
From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
status display of the process shows Logging into POP server for
upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 21 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 21 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I take that back, it's a 386... Drrr
Writting the message on it made me log into it just to check up on it been
awhile
--JT
- Original Message -
From: James Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Balatero [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286 I
had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the primary
DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I don't
know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
DNS service on that machine.
Cheers,
--JT
- Original Message -
From: David Balatero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
-- David Balatero
-Original Message-
From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then, my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
status display of the process shows Logging into POP server for
upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 21 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 21 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing from One connection
I beg to differ... I have a list of 40k I'll use to race ya.. Hell I'll even let you use a list of 10k to race my list of 40k.. Me using qmail and you using Sendmail.. I'll even go beyond that I'll limit the bandwidth my server can consume to 1600kb/s and you can use whatever you want.. I'll still win.. Speed is not the key here. The key is in how mail is handled. Sendmail opens up a single connection and dumps all similiar address for that domain into that connection one obvious slow down is in response time waiting for the server to acknoledge the User address, accept the message and then reset. Whereas qmail just cranks out each message in it's own instance and does not have to deal with all those extra commands and can open as many as (in my case) 400 connections to a single remote server at one shoot, limiting my bandwidth to 1600k I can still crank out something like 1400 messages a minute sustained using qmail.. Can Sendmail do the same?? I think not. --JT - Original Message - From: Roger Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:30 AM Subject: Re: Mailing from One connection Rodney Broom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This has been hashed, rehashed, and re-re-hashed on this list. It inevitably ends in a flameware, somebody telling somebody else to profile rather then speculate, and a series of past analyses of these events supporting both sides of the argument being dredged up. Test with stock qmail on a Solaris workstation, 10,000 copies sent to the same email address (obviously the same domain) using qmail-inject: 30 minutes. Test from same workstation with a script to generate 10,000 rcpt to: lines and send via a single connection: 5 minutes. In the first example, 10,000 actual copies were delivered to the mailbox but in the second, only a single copy was delivered. Presuming it should take the same amount of time to wait for a rcpt to: response whether sending a separate message at a time or a single message with multiple rcpt to: lines, I get the results that I expected - to send to the same domain (ignoring VERP requirements), it is faster to use a single connection for multiple messages than to use qmail. -- Roger Walker Tier III Messaging/News Team Internet Applications, National Consumer IP TELUS Corporation 780-493-2471
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Yes you could do that unless your parnoid about things.. Just make sure you
tell your NAT/Firewall which IP to allow inbound outbound connections on
port 53 to. In that case it would be that machine. The whole slowdown in my
case was a stupid mistake of not mapping port 53 in the first place but even
after mapping the port I found much more performance when I added the DNS
server into the loop. Might be a old computer but it don't need to be
powerfull to do it's job .. Just needs memmory which it has 128megs which
was tough to find in the old 32pin memmory (shesh - don't even ask)
BTW, this is for my office pop3/imap4 services not my outgoing mail
services. My outgoing mail servers have 3 deddicated DNS servers which are
housed on newer 650mhzPIII's with lotsa memmory and yes still using bind
(yeah, yeah I know djbdns)
--JT
- Original Message -
From: Will Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Well if the problem is name resolutions, why not just install bind on the
machine itself (in a caching-only configuration)? Then make it listen only
on 127.0.0.1 and make this the primary resolver for the machine.
w
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:32:53AM -0700, James Stevens wrote:
I had a similar problem however my resolve to it was to take an *OLD* 286
I
had laying around install a fairly bare installation of Linux on it and
installed the DNS service. Then I put that online behind my firewall and
added it's IP for port 53 to my NAT/Firewall and assigned it as the
primary
DNS server for my qmail machine. That resolved everything... However I
don't
know how many of ya out there have old 286 machines just laying around but
you can use any machine you want you can even install bind on the qmail
machine itself the only reason I didn't was I did not want the load of the
DNS service on that machine.
Cheers,
--JT
- Original Message -
From: David Balatero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chin Fang [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Its quite slow with my Netgear RT314 router as well.
-- David Balatero
-Original Message-
From: Chin Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
I recently have a user reported me the following:
I recently installed a Netgear RP114 Router, to provide multiple
computers
access to the internet via a single cable modem from ATT. Since then,
my
Eudora email program encounters some sort of 30 second delay when
attempting to retrieve email from any of my awit.com accounts. The
status display of the process shows Logging into POP server for
upwards
of 30 seconds, before continuing. Once it actually starts downloading
email, it proceeds as quickly as it always has.
None of the other five email POPs I deal with have this problem. Do you
know of anything that I can try to improve this performance?
I first asked him where these five POP boxes are hosted, and then I
telneted
to port 110 of these five places, and got the following info:
popd.accesscom.com QPOP (version 2.3)
pop.vitac.com DPOP Version 2.4a
venus.he.netQPOP (version 3.1.2)
holzheimers.com POP3 holzheimers.com v4.47 server
cihost.com POP3 localhost v4.47 server
I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
The following is from the init script of our POP server. The -R is
used to turn off identd, a typical cause of delay. But he got the
delay with the Eudora client and with the command line telnet client
regardless.
tcpserver \
-v -R -x $RULESDIR/pop3.cdb \
0 pop3 qmail-popup $HOSTNAME \
$checkpassword qmail-pop3d Maildir 21 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 21 \
| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64nlocal \
| $setuidgid qmaill $multilog s${LOGSIZE} n${LOGNUM} \
/var/log/pop3d
I am quite puzzled at this moment. We don't have a Netgear RP114 router
handy, so I wonder whether anyone has experienced this and has insight
into why this symptom is there. Any hints/tips are appreciated.
We use qmail 1.03.
Regards,
Chin Fang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?
Wait a minute now... Who said anything about straight? --JT - Original Message - From: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon? On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:14:58PM +0200, Lukas Beeler wrote: as he already said in another posting, it's a 386, and he was mistaken.. Well, I'm sure glad we got that straightened out. --Adam
Re: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF?
No, I show them well under the 512 limit.. Even then if the 'bigtodo-dns' I believe it's called is installed then what does it matter??? I am correct right? --JT Network Administrator http://www.webcommanders.com - Original Message - From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF? Marek Gutkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It doesn't. snort is lying -- don't worry, it lies about a lot of other things, too. Take everything snort says with a grain of salt. First - thanks for a quick reply. Snort is just a tool, and my previous post was about qmail, not snort :) Snort is not lying. You think it took the packet dump out of the blue sky? I also ran tcpdump and it says the same. Is tcpdump also lying? No. There's no zone transfer happening. The worst case is Hotmail went over the 512-byte UDP DNS response limit, and the resolver is therefore trying to do a TCP query instead. This is not a zone transfer, but snort reports it as such. Mail server really tries to connect to the DNS with tcp dport 53. It does. It does. I'm sure. Hotmail's probably over the 512 byte limit, then. That doesn't make it a zone transfer. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF?
grrr hate it when I forget to reply to all... --JT - Original Message - From: James Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:38 AM Subject: Re: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF? That wasn't my message.. I was meerly replying to a message and asking a question Charles .. ;) --JT Network Administrator http://www.webcommanders.com - Original Message - From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:15 AM Subject: Re: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF? James Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It doesn't. snort is lying -- don't worry, it lies about a lot of other things, too. Take everything snort says with a grain of salt. Snort is just a tool, and my previous post was about qmail, not snort :) Snort is not lying. You think it took the packet dump out of the blue sky? I also ran tcpdump and it says the same. Is tcpdump also lying? No. There's no zone transfer happening. The worst case is Hotmail went over the 512-byte UDP DNS response limit, and the resolver is therefore trying to do a TCP query instead. This is not a zone transfer, but snort reports it as such. No, I show them well under the 512 limit.. Even then if the 'bigtodo-dns' I believe it's called is installed then what does it matter??? bigdns is the patch you're talking about. It matters in certain circumstances. Perhaps your local dns resolver is broken, or it forwards to another broken resolver. Perhaps Hotmail's load-balanced and distributed DNS is giving slightly different answers there than here. Regardless, you were very rude above. What we're telling you is the truth; please accept it, don't abuse those supplying the answers. I am correct right? Sadly, no. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: stopping Possible_duplicate!
side note on this... I had the same problem about 6 months ago from a mom and pop type hosting outfit.. I called them to ask them what was up and after about 30 mintes of them telling me there was no problem we hung up and I was ready to ban them from my entire network.. Then mysteriously about an hour later it was fixed My sugestion... Call them and then wait. --JT - Original Message - From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 10:24 AM Subject: Re: stopping Possible_duplicate! Omar Thameen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few duplicate deliveries are harmless -- and as they're the fault of the receiving system, if the recipient is annoyed, tell them to tell their postmaster to fix their system, and not to be angry at you. Do you have any idea what types of issues or configurations cause this to happen? Their mailserver is unstable or does not conform to RFC821/2821. Their network is unstable. Who knows? For whatever reason, they are failing to issue the required 2xx code after they see the end-of-data CR LF . CR LF. Without the 2xx response, the sender is required to consider the delivery a temporary failure. I'd like to be able to point them in the right direction, and the biggest problem is the fact that it's not happening with any other mail they receive. Thus, the fingers get pointed at my system. qmail tends to excercise other receiving MTAs somewhat differently than sendmail, for instance -- perhaps their smtpd can handle fifty messages dumped serially over a single SMTP session, but can't cope with qmail opening a separate session for each message. In that case, their incoming smtp concurrency is set too high, and that's a configuration problem on their end. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION
Ok, tell me this list has a black list attached to it please .. ;) --JT - Original Message - From: John Groseclose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:55 PM Subject: Re: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION At 4:51 PM -0700 6/29/01, James Stevens wrote: Oh gawd.. No we get spam.. laugh --JT - Original Message - From: James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:45 PM Subject: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISON Dear Friend and Future Millionaire- AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION: Looks like another one didn't read the FAQ... spamming a list of people who're probably *really* sick of dealing with spammers has to be one of the dumber stunts I've seen on this list. Not you, James. The other James. The MMF Spammer. -- John Groseclose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: RE: RE: Problem with VAR directory during install
Sorry Charles, I believe he got distracted by me.. I'm the one with the Mandrake 8 box that it is working on and we were communicating via email and not the list.. So the reason why he hasn't gotten to it yet was because of me.. Anyways, he's done everything I have done and he is still having the problem. I just asked him to do what you mentioned and hopefully he will do it soon as I really want to see whats up with this. Question though.. I've been told it makes no difference but I always (for the past year anyways) install qmail using 'make setup check' then 'make setup' People have told me this is repetitve but thats the way I do it (shrug) Question now is just for clarification with this problem.. Does it make a diff or not? --JT - Original Message - From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:41 PM Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Problem with VAR directory during install Steve Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The compile does run. But when it's over with the /var/qmail directory is as empty as the bottom of a dry well. The only proof that the compile and install goes correctly is your word -- and since nothing ends up in /var/qmail, obviously that's incorrect. The last time you said this, I requested you post a copmlete log of the make setup check procedure so we could see it. You've ignored that, twice. No one can help you without that information. If you don't want to post that information to the list (or put it on a web server and post the URL), hire a qmail consultant to fix it for you. The list can't be of any help if you won't give us the information we need. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: RE: RE: RE: Problem with VAR directory during install
Nod, I saw that I commented back to him also ... nroff I believe is part of a standard install although I don't have any standard machines here anymore (sigh) but at anyrate I sent him the man page so he could research it further. And yes it always exits out with 'nothing to do.' but thats when I know it will work and it always does so it's just a habit of mine now... Laugh --JT - Original Message - From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Problem with VAR directory during install James Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the reason why he hasn't gotten to it yet was because of me.. Anyways, he's done everything I have done and he is still having the problem. That's okay. Looks like a simple problem; he was missing a tool (nroff), so the make couldn't complete. I've been told it makes no difference but I always (for the past year anyways) install qmail using 'make setup check' then 'make setup' People have told me this is repetitve but thats the way I do it (shrug) Question now is just for clarification with this problem.. Does it make a diff or not? It shouldn't make a difference. When you do make setup check it's like doing make setup followed by make check. Running make setup again when it's done should just exit with nothing to do or a similar message from make, as none of the files which are dependencies for the targets have changed. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
long delays when sending mail
Hi all I have a fairly standard Linux (Mandrake 8) server with Qmail on a LAN serving 10 Win 98 PCs. What is very odd is that when windows clients, using a mixture of outlook express Outlook 2000, send mail the SMTP connection times out after 60 seconds. If the click the wait option the mail gets sent without any problems. The server is a AMD Duron with 128MB RAM. The system does little else other than dial up every hour to collect send mail plus provide basic file sharing. Qmail has been installed with daemontools and seems to work well any help would be appreciated James
Re: qmail-remote (cry wolf?)
On Tue 19 Jun, 2001, Mark Jefferys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 08:56:13PM +0100, James R Grinter wrote: Go look at timeoutread(), which *is* in your path. The select is in the line right before where you wedge. sorry, yes. You're right. It doesn't. (Don't know about other people's.) It assumes that the fd_sets will be cleared on timeout. Setting the fd_sets each time is always necessary and doesn't protect against this issue, anyway. I've now properly read the code, and I see what you're suggesting. I may be naive in believing manual pages, but in lieu of other evidence I do tend to go with what they say and it does explicitly mention zeroing the values upon timeout - therefore I wouldn't have expected to see this particular problem on Solaris 2.x. However, it wouldn't be too hard to modify it to log the condition of timeout being reached and an fdset not being zero. I also put a debugging version of qmail-remote on my system, so if it ever decides to hang again I can fling gdb at it. yes, that is what I should do too. James.
Re: qmail-remote (cry wolf?)
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Three of the four are running Red Hat 6.2. That could simply be because 75% of qmail systems are running RH 6.2, though. :-) I see this problem occasionally, with mail being sent from a Solaris 2.6 system. It frequently happens for mail to one particular ISP (freeserve.co.uk, aka Planet Online/Energis Squared), who run Exim on (I believe) Linux systems. I suspect they're using something to load balance the TCP sessions, as repeatedly connecting to the two A records for their one MX record shows up several different system names in the 220 banners. This could be the cause of the TCP session never closing down, but it's clear that because we're in a read() we never try and send anything that might illicit a TCP reset. No word on which qmail patches, if any, were installed on these Mine is stock qmail 1.03. I kept meaning to get around to posting the evidence I collected here, so here (finally) it is: Here's my example stuck qmail-remote, with a backtrace from gdb and also lsof output. Unfortunately I didn't keep truss output for this one. (I should point out that this output was collected on Jan 11th...) qmailr 4322 211 0 Nov 03 ?0:00 qmail-remote oglaroon.freeserve.co.uk mark-thomas-owner-mt=oglaroon.freeserve.c # gdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-remote 4322 GNU gdb 4.18 Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type show copying to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type show warranty for details. This GDB was configured as sparc-sun-solaris2.6... (no debugging symbols found)... Attaching to program `/var/qmail/bin/qmail-remote', process 4322 Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libresolv.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)... done. Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libc.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)...done. Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libdl.so.1...(no debugging symbols found)...done. Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libmp.so.2...(no debugging symbols found)...done. Symbols already loaded for /usr/lib/libresolv.so.2 Symbols already loaded for /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1 Symbols already loaded for /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1 Symbols already loaded for /usr/lib/libc.so.1 Symbols already loaded for /usr/lib/libdl.so.1 Symbols already loaded for /usr/lib/libmp.so.2 0xef6386b8 in _read () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1 (gdb) bt #0 0xef6386b8 in _read () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1 #1 0x13c7c in timeoutread () #2 0x12524 in saferead () #3 0x160e0 in oneread () #4 0x161a0 in substdio_feed () #5 0x16290 in substdio_get () #6 0x12594 in get () #7 0x1261c in smtpcode () #8 0x12938 in smtp () #9 0x133b0 in main () (gdb) # lsof -p 4322 COMMANDPID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFFNODE NAME qmail-rem 4322 qmailr cwd VDIR 85,14 512 328536 /var/qmail qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,1463804 361948 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-remote qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,019304 30060 /usr/lib/libmp.so.2 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,0 1014088 30137 /usr/lib/libc.so.1 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,0 721916 32170 /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,053656 30072 /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,092952 30061 /usr/lib/libresolv.so.2 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,0 4280 30124 /usr/lib/libdl.so.1 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr txt VREG 85,0 166196 30030 /usr/lib/ld.so.1 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr0r VREG 85,14 5021 150345 /var/qmail/queue/mess/17/150345 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr1u FIFO 0xf7e0e144 0t0 1091718 PIPE-0xf7e0e0c0 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr2u FIFO 0xf7e0e144 0t0 1091718 PIPE-0xf7e0e0c0 qmail-rem 4322 qmailr3u inet 0xf77ec040 0t0 TCP agent57.gbnet.net:59889-slb-mail-inG1.svr.pol.co.uk:smtp (ESTABLISHED)
Re: qmail-remote (cry wolf?)
Mark Jefferys [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Summary: Some systems leave the fd_sets alone when select times out.] Even if an OS doesn't do this intentionally, it's quite easy to see someone forgetting to clear the fd_sets on a timeout by accident, so some defensive coding against the problem (explicitly checking for a result of 0) may be worthwhile. Or this may just be a red herring... I think it isn't relevant. qmail-remote doesn't seem to use select, or at least it's nowhere in the path where my qmail-remote wedges. As to different OS behaviour, Solaris 2.6 (and 7) both say: C Library Functionsselect(3C) On failure, the objects pointed to by the readfs, writefs, and errorfds arguments are not modified. If the timeout interval expires without the specified condition being true for any of the specified file descriptors, the objects pointed to by the readfs, writefs, and errorfds arguments have all bits set to 0. whereas SunOS 4.1.4 (my usual 'old bsd system' benchmark) says: SELECT(2) SYSTEM CALLS SELECT(2) select() returns a non-negative value on success. A posi- tive value indicates the number of ready descriptors in the descriptor sets. 0 indicates that the time limit referred to by timeout expired. On failure, select() returns -1, sets errno to indicate the error, and the descriptor sets are not changed. and I can tell you that I've not seen the problem happen with qmail-remote on SunOS 4.1.4. Indeed, I think DJB's code (and most other people's) compensates for both behaviours by setting the necessary FD's each time anyway. N.B. Although someone claimed to have seen a BSD man page reporting that it wouldn't clear the fd_sets on a timeout, I was unable to find See above! James.
Re: postfix/qmail best for message tracking through system
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:47:49PM +0200, Mark Gebhardt wrote: Do you know if there's any way I can extend the VERP thing so that I can insert a unique message-ID into the return address or similar? In essence, yes. This mailing list, for example, uses just that. The return address for your message as it was delivered to me was: [EMAIL PROTECTED] which includes a message number (68498) and my delivery address (james-qmail=now.ie). This allows the mailing list software to determine the message which bounced and the recipient to which it was addressed. Regards, james -- James Raftery (JBR54) It's somewhere in the Red Hat district -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: [Fwd: Administrivia: Move to EZMLM]
Andre Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First Aleph1 didn't like qmail/ezmlm at all... but appearently there is nothing else out there which can do the job. he's using ezmlm, with postfix judging by the headers. James.
Footers
Any ideas on how to apend footers to all outgoing mail, I have seen some solutions using cat to append a message, but this will not work with multipart messages, so is there a definitive solution? James Peacock.
Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:14:38AM -0500, q question wrote: Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the point clearly. Because giving real information is *always* right. Giving mangled information is *rarely* right. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) It's somewhere in the Red Hat district -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: Receiving mail for multiple domains
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie) Good GOD!!! I'm an idiot then --JT :)
Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?
You are correct ;) Sendmail can only sustain one exsistance of it's delivery object meaning it can't multithread like the newer MTA's soo when sendmail runs a large q say 10k messages all those messages go into q and get piped out through one thread instance of sendmail whereas qmail simply fires up 500 threads and crunches through the q message by message until it's done. You can also reconfigure qmail to allow up to 1k concurrency and if you really want mailing power you can edit and recompile your system and qmail and go up as high as you want. I have mine set at 800 on 6 different servers and have never had a bootleneck... Anyways theres my two cents .. Now I go home and sleep (trying to remember what that word actually means) --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 4:42:34 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:59:04PM -0700, Brett wrote: Does anybody know the maximum concurrency for sendmail? From what I understand, with the big concurrency patch, it's 500 for qmail but I can't find any data on sendmail. Thanks in advance. 1 if I'm not totally mistaken... -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
RE: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?
Yes, it's sad but true... --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 5:07:13 PM, Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding RE: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: no way can it be 1. that would be ridiculous and yet... -Original Message- From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail? On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:59:04PM -0700, Brett wrote: Does anybody know the maximum concurrency for sendmail? From what I understand, with the big concurrency patch, it's 500 for qmail but I can't find any data on sendmail. Thanks in advance. 1 if I'm not totally mistaken... -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: RFC 2821 and 2822
You can basically take the difference between the two and stick it up a nat's a** ... Or at least thats my observation.. Everything I have read so far goes with what ya say chris... But just for the fun of it why doesn't everyone here on the list get together and will write up our own standards (evil grin) We'd just need a catchy name for it.. --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 4:08:13 PM, Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: RFC 2821 and 2822: From: Mike Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:49:24 +0300 Matthew Patterson wrote: I'm not very good at reading RFCs, so I can't be sure myself. Can anyone confirm that qmail 1.3 with the BigDNS and queuevar patches will be compliant with whatever standards may come out of RFCs 2821 and 2822? It could literally take years for RFCs to become standards, if they ever do. You don't have to worry too soon, I think. 2821 and 2822 are clarifications of 821 and 822; they don't throw away the existing standards. qmail should already be just as compatible as it was with the old standards. Chris -- Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com 4314 Avenue C Austin, TX 78751-3709+1 512 374 0500 My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft, but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
RE: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?
EZ Mailing List Manager -- using mySQL It's on the qmail.org home page.. --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 5:35:39 PM, Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding RE: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: James, Thanks for the info here. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind. What method are you using to cluster these six servers together? We're looking to set something very similar up as we're going to be sending out large quantities of mail to several different mailing lists (not spam). But we can't find any info regarding clustering and/or load balancing for mail servers. Also, have you gotten blocked from any servers with such high concurrencies? Thanks again. I appreciate any help. Brett. -Original Message- From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:12 PM To: Henning Brauer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail? You are correct ;) Sendmail can only sustain one exsistance of it's delivery object meaning it can't multithread like the newer MTA's soo when sendmail runs a large q say 10k messages all those messages go into q and get piped out through one thread instance of sendmail whereas qmail simply fires up 500 threads and crunches through the q message by message until it's done. You can also reconfigure qmail to allow up to 1k concurrency and if you really want mailing power you can edit and recompile your system and qmail and go up as high as you want. I have mine set at 800 on 6 different servers and have never had a bootleneck... Anyways theres my two cents .. Now I go home and sleep (trying to remember what that word actually means) --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 4:42:34 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:59:04PM -0700, Brett wrote: Does anybody know the maximum concurrency for sendmail? From what I understand, with the big concurrency patch, it's 500 for qmail but I can't find any data on sendmail. Thanks in advance. 1 if I'm not totally mistaken... -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
RE: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?
Actually to be more accurate... EZ Mailing List Manager -- using mySQL databases And on each server there actually 6 qmail instances running called qmqp1.whatever.com thru qmqp6.whatever.com and EZMail in setup to mail to all QMQP servers in basically what equates to a round robin order. 5K here 5k there and so on till all the addresses are spolled out. There are other ways of doing it which include simply splitting a very large list into several smaller lists and sitting each smaller list on it's own server. The biggest problem with running 6 instances of qmail on one server is you have to set your descriptors up high enough and then no matter what you max is you have to get a calculator out and balance out all 6 instances or however many you install on it so that you can never exceed your max descriptors. Even then you still want to leave yourself a safety zone. So when I set mine up I basically recompiled linux to be able to handle 64k discriptors and then applied the big-todo patches and every other patch I could find and ones recomeneded to me here in the list and then set the max concurrency for each qmail (qmqp) service to 800 although obviously I could go allot higher than that without worry about linux.. However you will find the higher you go (anything above 800 or so) the more complaints you will get from ISP's like aol and earthlink.. They really hate it when you open up 2k+ connections to them emagine what the smaller ISP's will tell you. But at any rate it all works just fine.. If your planing on multiple server then setup a linux (standard configuration no editing or recompiling) install qmail and edit the concurrency up to 800 make sure you have already applied the patches required. You should have a system capable at that point of crankin out some serious mail. Now read the install files that came with qmail on the qmqp server.. Get it setup and running make sure you add the appropiate entries for it to start automatically then go download majordomo or EZMail (recommend Ezmail) a couple of guys that work with me say majordomo is easier to learn.. I find Ezmail much faster and more versatile so it's up to you.. If your new then try majordomo if your not new to this then get Ezmail as it will have the capabilities you want. Anyways now I goto bed... For real this time.. --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 5:35:39 PM, Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding RE: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: James, Thanks for the info here. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind. What method are you using to cluster these six servers together? We're looking to set something very similar up as we're going to be sending out large quantities of mail to several different mailing lists (not spam). But we can't find any info regarding clustering and/or load balancing for mail servers. Also, have you gotten blocked from any servers with such high concurrencies? Thanks again. I appreciate any help. Brett. -Original Message- From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:12 PM To: Henning Brauer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail? You are correct ;) Sendmail can only sustain one exsistance of it's delivery object meaning it can't multithread like the newer MTA's soo when sendmail runs a large q say 10k messages all those messages go into q and get piped out through one thread instance of sendmail whereas qmail simply fires up 500 threads and crunches through the q message by message until it's done. You can also reconfigure qmail to allow up to 1k concurrency and if you really want mailing power you can edit and recompile your system and qmail and go up as high as you want. I have mine set at 800 on 6 different servers and have never had a bootleneck... Anyways theres my two cents .. Now I go home and sleep (trying to remember what that word actually means) --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 4:42:34 PM, Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:59:04PM -0700, Brett wrote: Does anybody know the maximum concurrency for sendmail? From what I understand, with the big concurrency patch, it's 500 for qmail but I can't find any data on sendmail. Thanks in advance. 1 if I'm not totally mistaken... -- Henning Brauer | BS Web Services Hostmaster BSWS| Roedingsmarkt 14 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg http://www.bsws.de | Germany Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?
Laugh... No Stress is when you wake up screaming and realize it wasn't the phone ringing with that irritating customer you hate so much.. Then you realize as you wide the sweat of your forehead that your not even at work!! If anyone can agree with that say 'hell ya!' --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 5:18:57 PM, Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:11:46AM +, James Stevens wrote: Anyways theres my two cents .. Now I go home and sleep (trying to remember what that word actually means) Lack of caffeine? SCNR, but I can understand what you mean ... (see my .sig) Have a good night! \Maex -- SpaceNet AG| Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research Development | D-80807 Muenchen| Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.
Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?
Laugh... No Stress is when you wake up screaming and realize it wasn't the phone ringing with that irritating customer you hate so much.. Then you realize as you wide the sweat of your forehead that your not even at work!! If anyone can agree with that say 'hell ya!' --JT Original Message On 4/25/01, 5:18:57 PM, Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?: On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 12:11:46AM +, James Stevens wrote: Anyways theres my two cents .. Now I go home and sleep (trying to remember what that word actually means) Lack of caffeine? SCNR, but I can understand what you mean ... (see my .sig) Have a good night! \Maex -- SpaceNet AG| Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research Development | D-80807 Muenchen| Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Hi there, I've just got qmail and vpopmail installed and I'm seeing strange things. I've the following : - real user, real host (/etc/passwd) : [EMAIL PROTECTED] - virtual user and virtual domain : [EMAIL PROTECTED] The /var/qmail/control/locals has the following localhost localhost.localdomain sol.oficina.es The /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts has the following localhost localhost.localdomain oficina.es The /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains has the following oficina.es:oficina.es I can send and receive mails to and from both the real and virtual user but I always get a reply from the MAILER DAEMON saying that Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) And the mail actually got delivered! Any clue anyone? Thanks, James
Re: Why does qmail accept From: and can it be told not to?
You could always be mean like me g and block out the entire IP range using tcprules.. IE: 216.42.:deny But that's on the extreme side.. Will stop him cold from conecting to your server but no one else from the ip range will be able to send you anything either.. Then he could always goto someplace like AOL who have allot of C classes and it would probably be almost imposible to guestimate which IP he's coming from.. Ofcourse then again I blocked all of AOL for 3 months before one of there admins called me. But anyways if he's being a real jerk use tcprules and just lock out that entire IP range for a couple of days.. He'll do one of two thing.. Use another ISP to dial up or forget about you and move on and in a couple of days he won't even remember who you are. --JT Original Message On 4/3/01, 5:26:02 PM, David Talkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: Why does qmail accept "From: " and can it be told not to?: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Charles Cazabon wrote: (yes, I lock out his IP, but he just dials in and gets another one) rblsmtpd -rdialups.mail-abuse.org That may help. It's a blacklist of problem dialup pools. - -d - -- David Talkington http://www.spotnet.org PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQEVAwUBOspqIL1ZYOtSwT+tAQGLvwf/bls+bmDhSv8JmlSBIHBAjeMjsrJS14Aa JdLGdYGqQeNHf7O6J270uGjg2Lqj24DajzhfuDFqfUJq1YD+kMbkI+WEg9o6xuow YDa18ZLuRjOtk60WkXv2hL5Vkvlz9bji3eZf1WG6LmfRXvVNwbwqBdvFUMXxyNbj JXekaMuTI1GApxEII54Vusghxx0xdWXddF1ZNHxrZAJCiFNkyN6G0eHfwtvor4tY XE8zLQ20RqI0jkwHvT+/soboYpV37/iVlVxDa/LsIMdSXoLTlF8TAu+8+j0IAikQ MNlawpProo/Ae0iHaMLXel2hhOKnXb9pUcPuLCqDQ8sf2inkCAJxvA== =2VDS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: oh no, not another relaying question...
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:18:17PM +0100, Gary Law wrote: I have a roaming user who is having severe problems sending mail via ISP. Consequently, I need to let her relay urgently. She authenticates using IMAP from Outlook on a Mac (os9.0.4). 1/ Apply the patch to allow relaying on the basis of the senders addy. (http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html) Not a good option unless - forgeing a sender address is trivial. I have no idea how one applies a patch... :o) a pointer to a man page or how-to would be great. 'man patch' :) 2/ Slot in Bruce Guenter's relay-ctrl thingy ( http://em.ca/~bruceg/relay-ctrl/current/relay-ctrl-2.5.tar.gz ). Looks great but requries "tcpserver with qmail-smtpd". Tcpserver is in my /usr/local/bin but doesn't look like it is called from inetd :_ do I just substitute tcpserver for tcp-env and follow the instructions in Bruce's page? No. tcpserver *replaces* inetd (for running qmail-smtpd). Follow the instructions at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#tcpserver-smtpd for using tcpserver to start qmail-stmpd. Then you can follow Bruce's instructions. Regards, james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: migrating from MS Exchange to q-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IIRC, HP OpenMail on Linux has been discontinued. Another option is to look at TradeServer from Bynari - http://www.bynari.com The Horde project (http://www.horde.org/) is also trying to put together an appointments/calendar system called Kronolith. I'm not sure how far they are, though. (IMP, a web-based email client and another part of the Horde project, works nicely.) (HP OpenMail has been around a long time - so to say that they realised it would be an Exchange killer is quite funny!) James.
Re: Secondary SMTP-server
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:33:18PM +0200, Andreas Grip wrote: But my problem are, if someone is trying to use my secondary SMTP-server for open relaying, the messages are routed to the primary server and that server rejects them. So configure your secondary server properly. Stop it being an open relay. Putting the rcpthosts file on the secondary server is not an option because the file will be out of date almost immediately and the configuration I have will not allow me to have a scheduled script that downloading that file. Then your configuration is broken. Your problem is that you have a publically available open-relay. It is that problem you need to fix. Irritating bounce messages are just side effects of your open-relay. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: Secondary SMTP-server
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 08:39:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: He can either keep a list of domains in smtproutes, and only send those to the primary, or he can keep them the heck off his secondary by using rcpthosts in the first place. Exactly. But he's doing the former now and is unhappy with it. That leaves the latter as the only other course of action. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: Mostly OT: New qmail server security concerns
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:51:57PM -0500, Roger Merchberger wrote: This is mostly off-topic so I apologize for any lost bandwith whatnot, but here goes: Yep; this question is, in essence, 'which Linux do you suggest' and is more suited (and likely to be answered better) on a general Linux list. What are other folks here using to keep their nice, secure MTA secure across the rest of the box? (info on distros, utilities, etc. most welcome.) FWIW, I see the different Linux distros as a starting point. I'd never deploy an out-of-the-box Linux installation whether from Caldera, Suse, RedHat, etc. RedHat can be made sufficiently tight to keep me happy. It just involves liberal application of 'rpm -e'. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: Trouble with qmail on Redhat 6.2
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:48:55AM -, Iain Morrison wrote: The problem is that I am unable to connect to the SMTP server even via the loopback address. When I telnet to port 25 I get connected but get a dead prompt. [snip] The run file for qmail-smtpd is: ...riddled with typos... #!/bin/sh QMAILDUID='is -u qmaild' "is" should be "id". NOFILESGID='id -g qmaild' MAXSMTPD='cat /var/qmail/control/concurrencyincoming' exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 200 \ /usr/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -c "MAXSMTPD" \ "MAXSMTPD" should be "$MAXSMTPD". -u "$QMAILDUID" -g "$NOFILESGIS" 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd "$NOFILESGIS" should be "$NOFILESGID" Regards, james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
qmail and mailman problems
I've been working on getting mailman set up and working with qmail for the last month in my spare time. I already have qmail up and running happily on two different systems, and I'm mailing from a qmail server so I know it's working okay so far. I'm glad to be rid of snedmail, finally. The major obstacle that I'm encountering with mailman has to do with using virtual domains. I've meticulously followed the instructions included in the latest mailman distribution, 2.0.3. Mailman includes a script called qmail-to-mailman.py which catches all mail sent to 'mailman-*' locally and runs it through the appropriate mailman commands to post messages to lists or to mangle and manage administrative mails. I've set up a virtual domain 'lists.unlambda.com'. This is a CNAME pointing to 'mail.unlambda.com' which is my mail server. If I subscribe or send mail to a mailman list from an account local to mail.unlambda.com I have no problems at all. I mail from the list and administrative requests are handled correctly. If I subscribe or send mail to a mailman list from a remote system for some reason I get bounces. I can *receive* mail from the list without problem, but mail *sent* to the list from the remote system, and in fact *any* mail sent to the 'lists.unlambda.com' CNAME (which should be translated by virtualdomains: "lists.unlambda.com:mailman") causes a bounce. The interesting part of the bounce is that somehow the address 'lists.unlambda.com' is translated to 'mail.unlambda.com' before it ever hits virtualdomains. Here's an example scenario. I make a list called '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. If I send mail to this list from an account local to the qmail server the mail goes through fine. If I mail this list from a remote system then I get a bounce message like the following: ---8--- Hi. This is the qmail-send program at kappa.unlambda.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6145 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 08:01:18 - Received: from unknown (HELO control.spectrumwireless.net) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by kappa.unlambda.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 08:01:18 - Received: from spectrumwireless.net (tachyon.spectrumwireless.net [12.17.190.232]) by control.spectrumwireless.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E59436CF5 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:56:03 -0900 (AKST) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:56:13 -0900 From: "James A. Crippen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Spectrum Wireless, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test 6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---8--- What I see there is that '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' never made it to the point where the address was translated to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. Instead the 'lists.unlambda.com' CNAME was translated to 'mail.unlambda.com' and then qmail finds that that user doesn't exist. Any clues what's going on? Should I just blow away both my qmail and mailman installations and start from scratch? I've removed and reinstalled mailman something like ten times now and I don't think that it's mailman which is causing the problem. When it *does* actually get a message it seems to be behaving correctly. But for some reason it's not getting messages delivered other than locally. Sigh. 'james
Re: Connections Deferred
Chad Ziccardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are the most common cause of deferreds? In my experience, a) remote hosts being poorly run and maintained, b) with poor network connections, c) or very busy (which brings you back to a, really.) James.
Re: Error 554 from hotmail
"Tim Hunter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I _think_ this is hotmails way of telling you the message size exceeds the mailbox size. no. When it's a quota/mailbox size issue they specifically say that in the error. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a sample of the 554 error delivery 7295: failure: 64.4.49.7_failed_after_I_sent_the_message./Remote_host_said:_554_Transaction _failed/ it happens, apparently randomly, with hotmail. A list I run regularly gets these: the hotmail accounts all exist, the messages are small, and the next message will get through just fine. I put it down to them being broken, James.
Re: reverse DNS?
Erwin Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, it makes sense to do DNS lookup f=FCr the MAIL FROM: address.=20 If you have reliable DNS services - I've been on the other end of that, a site permanently rejecting each mail (a 5xx code) because they were having problems resolving the sending domain. Delegation and the nameservers were fine, as it was the second address I tried (which also failed with a 5xx code) Very messy, and not very good for their customers. James.
Re: trigger with wrong permission.
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: skyper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hu ? You mean allowing any local user to cat /dev/zero trigger is the better idea ? Giving non-trusted processes write access to a pipe of a daemon (running with root-privilieges) is never a good idea tought. That's the way it's designed. The author put a lot of thought into this, and there has never been a security hole in qmail. Look at the code yourself; it's safe. Not to mention that the permissions on the directory /var/qmail/queue/lock (and /var/qmail/queue) prevent anyone not in the qmail group from accessing it anyway. (Students of Unix variations will also know that Solaris and some other OSs don't correctly enforce permissions on the named pipe itself anyway.) James.
Re: mbox POP3 Server w/Virtual Domain Support
Ben Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: mbox server and virtual domains. Basically I need to be able to allow my users to have both shell and POP3 access to their mail, and since they will be using clients such as Pine, elm and others, I'm going to need to support the mbox format. You could just make all clients talk through POP3 or IMAP. (That might discount Elm, but I wouldn't consider that a great loss) James.
Re: qmail - listserv
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 12:04:31PM -0500, Michael McNicholas wrote: I am using ezmlm now, but users are looking for the sub-topic functionality of listserv. Does anyone have any war stories about using listserv on top of qmail? I'm currently using LISTSERV for Linux under FreeBSD without a hitch. One small gotcha; use preline. See http://lists.omnipotent.net/qmail/199701/msg6.html james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: Return address for autoresponder
Mikko Hänninen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course, one should try to avoid sending auto-replies to list emails at all, but chances are you'll never be able to detect with 100% accuracy all list emails, so should count on it happening sometime. My first rule would be never ever send one if you're not in the To (and possibly Cc - but that's debtable) headers. That's a method that doesn't have 100% coverage, as some of the daily-mailings from less-wise operations like Flonetwork (who send the techweb.com daily mailing) tend to have your address in the To: header (and they don't put any Precedence headers, or anything that might give you a clue). But it's a good start. James.
Re: djbcron
"Chris Garrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A few years ago i had a gig teaching use of Tivoli Maestro, which is best described to Unixheads as "cron on steroids". It's a port of a mainframe Yes! Many of us will have encountered this functionality in similar tools such as Autosys and Control-M - and it is functionality that would be worth having. The neatest feature it has, however, is a very sophisticated dependency relationship, so you can say things like: Run job A on work days Run job B on holidays and weekends Run job C after either job A or job B has completed. (but don't run job C if A or B did not run). plus: - including the ability to restart at any job once a problem has been fixed. - conditional execution depending upon the result of a previous job. - maximum number of simulataneous jobs on a system, or across systems. (and the ability to have user interfaces sat atop, to indicate how far a batch-run has got.) James.
Re: LWQ OpenBSD
"Robin S. Socha" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
man hier should be a lot older than OpenBSD or whatever. I mean, really.
Unix-88 said that this sort of non-vendor provided stuff should go in
/opt/{vendor}/, but SunOS 4.1.x chose not to do that and few others do
even now. (SunOS 4's HIER(7) suggested /usr/local/ was for "locally
maintained software", and /var/ was "directory of files that tend to
grow or vary in size". The BSD4.4-derived OS's go further and suggest
that /var/ should be solely transient stuff)
Nowadays, I'm tending to build things self contained in
/opt/{product}/ and symlink appropriate things into /usr/local/*/.
For qmail on Solaris, I've been going for:
/opt/qmail/
alias/
bin/
boot/
control/
doc/
log - var/log/qmail
man/
queue - var/queue
sbin/
supervise/
users/
var - /var/qmail
/var/qmail/queue/
/var/log/qmail/
/usr/local/man/*/* - /opt/qmail/man/*/* (to aid use of man)
(as I consider my qmail configurations and binaries non-transient!)
supervise/ is a tricky one though - some bits in there are
configuration and some bits are transient status info. How would
supervise cope if the .../{process}/supervise/ subdirectories were
symlinks into /var/run/supervise/ ?
(control/ should arguably be in /etc/opt/qmail/..., as should alias/.)
Dan's right that it's a mess, for sure.
James.
Re: qmail-smtpd logging
"Chris Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: have it logged for remote-to-local x-fers, for say finding out the address of an open spam relay that keeps sending me junk, that is my end-goal. qmail's approach is that you look in the message that you have. As someone else has pointed out - it's in the Received: headers... Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way, but in the past with sendmail I have always been able to get this information from my logs. ...which is great, except when you don't have the message because you're trying to analyse it passing through your system. Markus Stumpf has been working on some improved qmail-smtpd logging. James.
Re: badrcptto
Alex Kramarov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The list is based on .qmail with all recipients names. I was thinking to block people from sending to his list, read a little ezmlm-idx, but couldn't find a satisfactory solution with it. in .qmail-whatever: |(validate-mail || exit 100) #real list of stuff from hereon Where validate-mail is a program that checks some appropriate criteria (sender, contents of headers, etc) and exits with an appropriate exit code (in the above example exitting with 0 would mean that the message was ok to go) Russell Nelson has given some very good examples of validation in the past - check the list archives. James.
Re: qmail-inject refuses to work if it's parent process is qmail-local?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:34:03PM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: Thank you Charles. I'll be sure to look at that. The goal here is not so much to get a functional autoresponder as it is to satisfy my curiosity about the behavior of qmail in terms of script processing. I tested a .qmail file with: |/var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it worked just fine. Why do you need perl? Starting it, writing a file and then starting qmail-inject is rather expensive. Regards, james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: scripting problems with qmail-inject and qmail-local
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:49:24AM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: I'm trying to write a script that will watch for incoming mail and send out a response when one arrives. I've tried to spawn the script from .qmail but it appears that qmail-inject refuses to accept input from my script when the script is ran by qmail-local. Please define "refuses". Doesn't execute? Gives an error? Siliently discards mail? Any suggestions for how to write a script to get around this problem? Use one of the auto-responders on http://www.qmail.org/top.html? james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
Re: error in qmail logs
Jason Radford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually I use a tool called qmHandle -d# to delete a few messages out of qmail's message queue. Funny thing is doing a qmHandle -l produces: qmHandle will attempt to shutdown qmail before removing the file from the queue, but it would seem that even if it fails to do so it will remove the file. Messages in local queue: 0 Messages in remote queue: 2 don't know about the descrepancy in numbers, sorry. James.
RE: High MEM Usage??
ps aux will display all the processes and the % of memory in use. Greg James -Original Message- From: Kurth Bemis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 5:37 PM To: Sumith Ail; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: High MEM Usage?? At 09:34 AM 2/4/2001, Sumith Ail wrote: try free -m -t... don't freak out about buffers.its just buffers that can be overwritten.. ~kurth Hello, We have just received our server which is a Dual PIII with 512 MB RAM , RH Linux 6.2 Box. I have installed qmail on this with tcpserver, Now the meminfo shows cat /proc/meminfo total:used:free: shared: buffers: cached: Mem: 529530880 364380160 165150720 72847360 300982272 24657920 Swap: 10485514240 1048551424 MemTotal:517120 kB MemFree: 161280 kB MemShared:71140 kB Buffers: 293928 kB Cached: 24080 kB BigTotal: 0 kB BigFree: 0 kB SwapTotal: 1023976 kB SwapFree: 1023976 kB There is hardly anybody using this server...please let me know how can I find out which process is using so much of memory. Kind Regards Sumith
ipme.c patch
There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_ of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that aren't familiar with qmail's code in the dark. So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to work around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch? Thanks.
Re: Qmail and GFS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to get a bit of advice on this one. I know that NFS is a big no-no when using qmail due to the way it handles the queue. I also know that qmail may have trouble with certain journaling filesystems (for example, reiserfs) because qmail assumes that link() and unlink() are syncronous operations (according to the reiserfs FAQ). I knew I'd seen the requirements explicitly mentioned somewhere. Then I had occasion to build qmail from scratch the other day and found it: % cat conf-qmail /var/qmail This is the qmail home directory. It must be a local directory, not shared among machines. This is where qmail queues all mail messages. The queue (except for bounce message contents) is crashproof, if the filesystem guarantees that single-byte writes are atomic and that directory operations are synchronous. These guarantees are provided by fixed-block filesystems such as UFS and by journaling filesystems. Under Linux, make sure that all mail-handling filesystems are mounted with synchronous metadata. ie. semantics that local Unix filesystems are supposed to conform to (but which Reiserfs apparently doesn't). Does GFS? That's the question.. James.
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:32:29AM +, James R Grinter wrote: But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point Pine at that. Seems pretty simple to me. How about this: Use a non-crappy, open source e-mail client instead? no need to tell me - (for the record I've never ever used Pine, though I think I did compile it for someone else once.) but for people to complain that they want to use it, but that it doesn't natively support Maildir which they also want to use, is just madness. James.
Re: conf-split
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:12:32AM +, James R Grinter wrote: [snip] Indeed, qmail already uses a split queue/mess/ directory structure and it was a bit of an omission to assume that there would never be a surge of mail in one go (VERP list expansion is definitely good for creating this situation) and thus many messages in todo/ at once. VERP expansion happens on delivery, not on queue injection, unless you are doing something very wrong. It's always good to question and investigate what is happening - thanks to Peter for the prompting - the answer seems to be that the "majordomo-inject" script we've been using since 1998 was indeed expanding upon queue injection (it was doing the VERP itself.) Anyone out there using this - *do* switch to mjinject instead - Giles Lean and Russ Allbery's replacement script. James. (Only 2 and a half years to spot and nail the problem. Not bad...)
Re: Things I have noted
"Rod... Whitworth" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:12:25 +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: However there is a addon module available at http://www.qmail.org/ that IMHO does what you want. Search for delayed-mail notifier on qmails website. Thanks for that pointer. I didn't go looking because I just knew it wasn't a qmail thing to do! but do be careful with that code - it will attempt to send notifications to many mails that you might not want to send notifications to (mailing lists, bounces, etc.) On the subject of notifications, it's becoming more of a problem because of "similar" domains - you should have typed "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and instead type "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The latter doesn't even accept mail deliveries, so it hangs around in the queue for too long. In the case of typing "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", qmail as the sender *will* bounce the mail quickly, if is told there is no such remote mailbox "jo". Similarly as the receiver, qmail *will* send a bounce message telling the sender that there is no such mailbox "jo." Your original email implied that it didn't (not sure which of those two cases you were specifically referring to), and that puzzles me. James.
Re: [OT] pine and Maildir (was: Maildir versus malibox)
"Pavel Kankovsky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Adam McKenna wrote: The author of PINE flat out refuses to support Maildir. Umm...doesn't it sound familiar? ;) But, it doesn't matter - Pine does IMAP right? (Isn't that it's real reason for existence?) So hook your Maildirs up with IMAP, and point Pine at that. Seems pretty simple to me. James.
Re: conf-split
Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the benefit is with OSs having poor directory access routines. Such as Solaris/UFS (and, to my knowledge, all the *BSDs that use UFS have not improved this much either.) As directories are scanned on a linear basis access is faster scanning two small directories than one very big one. Also modifications in the small directories (adding/removing files) will be faster. UFS code, when looking for a filename, checks for a matching size, then a matching first letter, second letter, and the rest: so it's sub-optimal to have all your files in a single directory with the same filename length and starting letters (as everyone running INN eventually found out.) Each stat() or open() is a linear scan through the directory to find the file. And (not sure about that, though) the first level directory is held in the filesystem cache as it has lots of accesses but does (usually) not change. Whilst qmail-queue is scanning over todo/ I'd expect it to remain in the various caches, with or without splitting up the directories. Indeed, qmail already uses a split queue/mess/ directory structure and it was a bit of an omission to assume that there would never be a surge of mail in one go (VERP list expansion is definitely good for creating this situation) and thus many messages in todo/ at once. Further more, when there are many messages in todo/ the processing overwhelmes the rest of the work that qmail-queue normally does and slows down outbound deliveries to a crawl. All it takes is one of the first people on a list to reply quickly and then you get another list delivery, and yet more messages in todo/. Very messy business. I've just started working on trying to collect (and thereby graph) as much data as I can on qmail's operation - but one thing that isn't recorded in the logs is the time between todo/ creation by qmail-inject and 'new msg'. If anyone has previously made changes to the code to accomplish this, could they let me know and/or give me some pointers? Otherwise I'll have to go digging. (Any patches to qmail-smtpd to log useful things would also be of help to me: I've seen, and am looking at Maex's code.) James.
Re: mutt configuration
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:27:44AM +0100, Redak, Dorian wrote: I'm trying to use mutt as MUA and get an error msg when trying to send mail: Error sending message, child exited 127 (Exec error.) The original sendmail binaries have been replaced by the qmail wrapper. Is the partition that /var/qmail/bin is on mounted with either the noexec or nosuid option? If so, you need to remove those options. The qmail binaries need to be executed and qmail-queue is setuid qmailq. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple instances of qmail...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let's say each cluster node was using something like /var/qmail/queue/_NODE_IP_HERE_/ on the NFS server, it wouldn't be a problem for the delivery or the Maildirs? The docs fairly clearly say that putting the queue on NFS is a no-no. My understanding has always been that this isn't just because you might be tempted to share it, which obviously wouldn't work, but that the semantics of NFS are not sufficient for how the qmail-queue and delivery programs are written. From 'THOUGHTS', as distributed with qmail-1.03: 5. Handling queued mail (qmail-send, qmail-clean) The queue directory must be local. Mounting it over NFS is extremely dangerous---not that this stops people from running sendmail that way! Diskless hosts should use mini-qmail instead. Delivery to Maildirs on NFS is fine - the order of operations specified are constructed in order that it can be "safe" - although you should note that the recommendation is still to deliver locally and read remotely if you must (obviously on a dedicated NFS server you can't deliver locally.) James.
Re: Virtual domains and forwarding.
Charles Warwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes the data of the message will 'pass through' that machine. There is no way with SMTP for it to just see the RCPT TO: address and say, no I don't accept that e-mail, please send that to a different mail server. Well, there is. But I've not seen it specifically supported in sender or (non-)receiver: RFC 821 offers: 3.2. FORWARDING [...] 551 User not local; please try forward-path This reply indicates that the receiver-SMTP knows the user's mailbox is on another host and indicates the correct forward-path to use. Note that either the host or user or both may be different. The receiver refuses to accept mail for this user, and the sender must either redirect the mail according to the information provided or return an error response to the originating user. although clearly the bounce that results from that could direct the recipient to send the mail elsewhere. Which may, or may not be, what the original poster was wanting to avoid. James.
Re: Multiple instances of qmail...
Exactly.. I have 7 instances of qmail running on a Linux box (don't ask why its a rather long complicated story) and has been that way for about a year now.. No lost messages or anything. Just make sure your running the big concurrency patch. Other than that as far as performance .. It does work faster when each of our major clients has his own qmail process to goto. However that's about the only benefit. --JT - Original Message - From: "Paul Jarc" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Dave Sill" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 8:30 AM Subject: Re: Multiple instances of qmail... Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is, is it possible to run multiple instances of qmail, sharing the same disk structure, configuration, etc.. No. The queue cannot be shared by multiple instances of qmail. OTOH, everything else (binaries, configuration, addresses) can be shared. Then if one queue disk dies, you've lost any mail that was in it, but other mail will be unaffected. paul
Re: virus in list
How many people here on this list actually open up an executable that was sent to you via email before scanning it anyways??? --JT - Original Message - From: "Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Keith, Yeung Wai Kin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:56 AM Subject: Re: virus in list On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Keith, Yeung Wai Kin wrote: don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao" Why not? *clickclick* Did I miss something? Scott
mailing list
I have been having trouble when trying to send out emails to mailing lists in qmail. The local users get teh email fine but the mailing list gets the error I show below. I have all of the permissions correct (as you can see below) and I have recompiled qmail several times. Please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with any suggestions! Local users actually get the mail and the .qmail's are in the same directory as the mailing lists .qmails Thanks, James Clark - Jan 17 13:11:54 leat qmail: 979755114.882956 info msg 361545: bytes 684 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 16680 uid 1005 Jan 17 13:11:54 leat qmail: 979755114.892269 starting delivery 94: msg 361545 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan 17 13:11:54 leat qmail: 979755114.892562 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 Jan 17 13:11:54 leat qmail: 979755114.964965 delivery 94: deferral: ezmlm-send:_fatal:_temporary_qmail-queue_error:_qq_trouble_in_home_directory _(#4.3.0)/ Jan 17 13:11:54 leat qmail: 979755114.965300 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 --- -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9152 Jan 16 22:06 bouncesaying -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 15244 Jan 16 22:06 condredirect -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 128 Jan 16 22:06 datemail -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 115 Jan 16 22:06 elq -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9088 Jan 16 22:06 except -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 14220 Jan 16 22:06 forward -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jan 17 13:14 jic -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 18988 Jan 16 22:06 maildir2mbox -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 8764 Jan 16 22:06 maildirmake -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 17128 Jan 16 22:06 maildirwatch -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 180 Jan 16 22:06 mailsubj -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 116 Jan 16 22:06 pinq -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 12860 Jan 16 22:06 predate -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 13048 Jan 16 22:06 preline -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 116 Jan 16 22:06 qail -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 11716 Jan 16 22:06 qbiff -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 10132 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-clean -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 5760 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-getpw -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 34396 Jan 16 22:06 qmail- inject -rws--x--x 1 qmailq qmail 12612 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-queue -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 24808 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-remote -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 13348 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-rspawn -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 39204 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-send -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 15796 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-showctl -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 25820 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-smtpd -rwx-- 1 root qmail 5524 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-start -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9152 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-tcpok -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 10260 Jan 16 22:06 qmail-tcpto -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 21468 Jan 16 22:06 qreceipt -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 11216 Jan 16 22:06 qsmhook -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 9460 Jan 16 22:06 sendmail -rwx--x--x 1 root qmail 6416 Jan 16 22:06 splogger -rwxr-xr-x 1 root qmail 17016 Jan 16 22:06 tcp-env
Fw: @home.com mail servers... ~ FIX...
Thanks, that worked.. ;) Earthlink.net is another one doing the same thing. I also added them to smtproutes which resolved the problem.. earthlink.net:[207.217.120.28] --JT - Original Message - From: "Jesse Sunday" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Bill Nugent" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: Re: @home.com mail servers... ~ FIX... An entry into 'smtproutes' will take care of that (or at least it did for me) home.com:[24.2.2.194] That's it... Jesse : Howdy, : : I am having the same trouble and working with the folks at Excite on : this. They have some anti-spam software which appears to have been : triggered and so it is blocking connectivity to all their MX hosts : from the "offending" IP address. Other IP addresses on the network : are fine. : : I am guessing that qmail's habit of opening multiple SMTP sessions is : triggering their anti-spam software but I have not received confirmation : of this as of yet. : : The problem started either Jan 10th or 11th for me. : : I'll let you know what I find out. : : Bill :
Re: Hotmail Woes.
PD Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you do get an smtp connection, your trouble may not be over. You may find that they don't 250 at the end (a sporatic problem there) or that the user you are sending to is over quota. Yes, hotmail is very erratic in its mail acceptance (which isn't done through qmail - they only seem to use qmail for outgoing mail) On some mailing lists I run, there's usually at least one outgoing message that will bounce from all the hotmail.com addresses on the list. Finally, if your server sends to yahoo, your either lucky or good. I find yahoo.com and yahoo.ca to be down 20% of the time. ditto yahoo.co.uk - for the same reason. Their MX hosts are regularly too busy. Many sites also bounce mail with 'unknown user' at certain times of the day. Anyone would think they weren't updating user-lists atomically... James.
Re: addition to qmail init script
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:16:27PM -0800, Bill Parker wrote: tcprules) cp /etc/tcp.smtp /etc/tcp.smtp.bak echo -n "tcprules file backed up..." tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp /etc/tcp.smtp echo -n "installing new rules file..." chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp* ;; Would something like this work, or could someone post an example if they have already done this? Not really. Once you say 'qmail tcprules' (or whatever) /etc/tcp.smtp and /etc/tcp.smtp.bak have the same contents. That's not much use! The logic needs to be something like: If tcp.smtp is good, make a backup; else leave current backup alone. That should leave you with your current config (tcp.smtp) and your last good config (tcp.smtp.bak). Try: tcprules) echo -n "installing new rules file..." tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp /etc/tcp.smtp cp /etc/tcp.smtp /etc/tcp.smtp.bak chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp* ;; james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dot in email adress
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:28:53AM -0200, Alan R. wrote: Today, i tried to create an account with the file ".qmail-ar.rubin", but when someone sends email to this account, it returns with the below message. The [snip] Someone knows why is these happening ? I cant create email accounts with dots ? qmail replaces dots with colons before delivery. Rename the file as .qmail-ar:rubin and it should work as expected. (Is this in the man pages? I couldn't find it during a quick search) james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dot in email adress
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:02:24AM -0500, Greg Owen wrote: man dot-qmail: Aha! Thanks. (That's a funny place to put it. Why not in the qmail-local man page?) james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FIX! (was: qmail-1.03-qmtpc-mailroutes.patch)
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote: But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good tradition of the multiple qmail conf files) But what about precedence as Johan mentioned earier? (e.g. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I don't think it's a difficult problem to solve. There's an existing set of config. file that can cause conflict: locals and virtualdomains. The issue was solved in that case by stating clearly in the docs that locals is processed first and so will win in a conflict situation. My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in qmtproutes to be processed first, thereby winning in any conflict situation. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message numbers repeating?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 09:12:18PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: This kinda worries me. Also makes log analysis a pest. What's wrong? Hi, Absolutely nothing. The message ID is the inode number of the messages queue file. These do get reused. See the qmail-log(5) man page for details of qmail's logging output. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail-Proxy
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 12:03:36PM +0100, Redak, Dorian wrote: It should also receive mail from the intranet and forward it to the internet. I think I already found out to fix this second part, but I'm still having problems with the first. Hi Dorian, On the linux box, put the domains it should act as a relay for into control/rcpthosts (and nowhere else!). Put :exchangeserver.yourdomain.com into control/smtproutes. man qmail-remote for info. on smtproutes. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail-Proxy
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:09:27AM +, James Raftery wrote: Put :exchangeserver.yourdomain.com into control/smtproutes. Thinko Alert! That should be yourdomain.com:exchangeserver.yourdomain.com in control/smtproutes. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCC problem.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:01:31PM +0100, Arjan Speelman wrote: When using Exhange 5.5 to send mail through qmail 1.03 and then reading the mail with Netscape any version the following happens. If the user decides to send a mail and add BCC-recipients the BCC-recipients will show up in the mail in Netscape. [snip] Has anyone else experienced this problem. Hi Arjan, The sending MUA should remove the Bcc header line before submitting the message to the MTA. The Bcc field should only be used by the MUA to construct the envelope. Does anyone have any solutions to this problem. Use an MUA that does the right thing. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail pop no longer works
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:43:35AM -0800, Justin Cunningham wrote: the person that sends it gets those "warning: message undelivered for 4 hours" type messages Hi, It seems that something is blocking incoming SMTP traffic to your mail server. The warning messages you mention should give some clue as to what's happening. Do you have a firewall? Is it recording dropped/denied traffic? Is your upstream ISP blocking you? What domain are you trying to receive mail for? james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail pop no longer works
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 03:07:46AM -0800, Justin Cunningham wrote: the domain is ac.d4a.net. I am just really confused because it only happened over new years eve, and the computer running qmail was not even touched over that period. it worked flawlessly before then ac.d4a.net is being announced in the DNS as 203.164.92.195. Is that correct? I can't get a connection to port 25 on that machine -- something is dropping the packets. Might somebody have applied an access list to a router of yours, or perhaps your upstream ISP has put an access list in place? james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: relaying by domain
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 06:32:14PM +0300, ksemat wrote: instructed in the FAQ however the /etc/tcp.smtp file only accepts realying by ip address yet I would like to do it by domain name i.e As you have noted, it's a terrible idea but if you insist http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaymailfrom.html [ found from http://www.qmail.org/top.html ] james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Local users can clog qmail local queue
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:52:49PM -0500, Greg Owen wrote: In theory, you are correct, although this is a Denial-Of-Service attack rather than a strict security breach. In practice, a local user has many other avenues of attack similar to this, and for all of them the fix is quite simply to throw the user off Yes; definitely. There's nothing special about local users (though they do have more potential for mischief). A local or remote user could give you a large email to be delivered to a slow remote mail server which, if send enough times, can use up all your remote delivery slots and 'clog the remote queue'. Such is life. Analyse your logs. Watch your local/remote concurrency. Wield a big stick. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts for future qmail
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 12:14:03AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: FYI, we're halfway there. Not bad for a worldwide holiday weekend. Hi, Add another. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Qmail and RFC1894 - Delivery Status Notifications
I am somewhat hesitant to rely upon VERP's because I have seen several problems in how some email programs handle the = sign in the VERP. We all know that the = sign is a valid character for the local part of an email address according to the RFC, but there are many mail programs (definitely some clients, but how MTA's handle VERP's is unknown to me) which incorrect parse the = sign. The incorrect parsing results in something that looks like: list-action-username=userhost@listhost being interpreted as: userhost@listhost Has anyone else found problems with VERP's? I know that I have experienced several problems with mailto: and reply links when using ezmlm. Some clients that I know have problems are Yahoo, Excite, etc. In the short term, I have modified my bounce processor to parse DSN's and qmail bounce reports. Thoughts? Thanks. James -Original Message- From: Sean Reifschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:08 AM To: James Morgenstein Cc: qmail list Subject: Re: Qmail and RFC1894 - Delivery Status Notifications On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:04:14PM -0500, James Morgenstein wrote: This appears to be used by most of the public mail servers that I have tested against, but when a mail bounces out of one of my local qmail The problem with DSN is that *EVERY* machine that the message passes through must support DSN, or it fails. QMail doesn't support DSN (unless there's a patch, you have looked at www.qmail.org, right?). Check out VERPs -- Variable Envelope Return Paths. Searching google should provide some good hits. Sean -- I never thought I would live in a country which had a self-declared president. Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous [EMAIL PROTECTED] tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
badmailto functionality ?
All- Is there a way to block the delivery of messages through my smtp servers to particular addresses? I have qmail acting as a local relay sending mail from inside my network to users on the outside. The users that I want to block would be on the outside, but the mail is sent from the inside. I can use the badmailfrom control file to block mail from someone, but I am looking to block mail to a list of people. As always, thanks for the help. James
Qmail and RFC1894 - Delivery Status Notifications
All- I have a need to process mail server bounces in an automated fashion and planned to make use of RFC1894 - An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications. This appears to be used by most of the public mail servers that I have tested against, but when a mail bounces out of one of my local qmail machines (e.g., cannot connect after the maximum queue time), the message that I am receiving back from qmail does not appear to follow the RFC specification for reporting this error. Do I have something mis-configured? Is there a patch to bounce using RFC1894 standards? Thanks for the help. James
Re: Outlook Express Prank
Laugh, I have tried In vein I might add as anyone knows. But still they persist.. (sigh) BTW- Best way to not get a VBS worm is to add a couple of filters and rework your reg. But I don't recommend that for the light of heart.. hehehe --JT Original Message On 12/12/00, 11:22:18 AM, Aaron "L." Meehan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: Outlook Express Prank: Quoting James Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Without going into a 20 page technical look at every bug here's some simple tips even biggeners should know. 1. Don't use the 'Preview' plane. 2. Don't let or set Outlook to open messages automatically. 3. Don't open any executable or any other microsoft attachement unless it's from someone you know and trust. VBS bugs are kewl but are a 'PAIN ^^ Well there is precisely the biggest bitch about Lookout: most VBS worms you get _are_ from someone you know and trust, like your mom, since the worms scour Lookout's blasted address book, eh? Note that I could write a shell script to do the same thing to mutt, but the problem is that the unwashed masses are the ones running Upchuck products. We strongly recommend our customers not use it, unfortunately many do. Aaron
Re: Outlook Express Prank
Well let's see.. Been Managing Unix systems for about 5 years now .. Did start on Mac's then Windows then Unix so yeah I kinda went the long way but I have been using Outlook Express almost since the beging.. It has just been recently that I have started using other MUA's ... However I don't run your stock Outlook Express either. I know of just about every trick that can be played on Outlook and Outlook express.. Although if anyones using Outlook then there much braver than I am. Hell I can tell you which bugs/tricks work on which versions. Without going into a 20 page technical look at every bug here's some simple tips even biggeners should know. 1. Don't use the 'Preview' plane. 2. Don't let or set Outlook to open messages automatically. 3. Don't open any executable or any other microsoft attachement unless it's from someone you know and trust. VBS bugs are kewl but are a 'PAIN IN THE ASS'. 4. Know your damm system.. Spacifically know where the mail is stored on your computer.. It's simple to go delete the damm inbox.mbx file when one pesky message is bugging you. If your good you can even get rid of the one message without loosing the rest of your inbox. 5. Goto windowsupdate.microsoft.com and make sure you have all the security patches for your current version. Microsoft is famous for releasing about a dozzen security patches a month for OutLook and OutLook Express amoung other things. And Number 6... Use common sense and quit belly aching when someone screws up. If someone purposely screwed you up then fix your computer then go and send them a nice email thanking them for the 'grand experienece' .. If they wana be pricks then leave them be, there not worth getting heart burn or teary eye'd over.. If you wana put yourself down to there level for pay back then hey, more power to ya. As you can tell I'm not a Microsoft Lover but I'm not a hatter either. Microsoft has it's up's and down's (Okay, more downs than up's) just like any of the other Major OS's around the world but if your gona use it then you'd better dam well learn it and most of all learn how to deal with it. I think just about every admin on this list would agree with that last statement, however I expect varying flames regarding the rest (grin) --JT Original Message On 12/11/00, 1:19:27 PM, Robin "S." Socha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding 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. Recommended reading for obvious newbies like yourself: http://learn.to/attribute/ http://learn.to/sign/ http://learn.to/edit_messages/ -- Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/LB/
Qmail and RFC1894 - Delivery Status Notifications
All- I have a need to process mail server bounces in an automated fashion and planned to make use of RFC1894 - An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications. This appears to be used by most of the public mail servers that I have tested against, but when a mail bounces out of one of my local qmail machines (e.g., cannot connect after the maximum queue time), the message that I am receiving back from qmail does not appear to follow the RFC specification for reporting this error. Do I have something mis-configured? Is there a patch to bounce using RFC1894 standards? Thanks for the help. James
qmail-autoresponder script
Ok this is weird I have the autoresponder installed and vmailmgr installed and everything is working as far as vertiuals are concerened. The problem I am having is with the auto responder script itself. When I send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the message arrives triggers the autoresponder which writes the tmp file in the directory like it's supposed to and the message gets delivered to my mailbox but the responder email itself never gets mailed. I have the response message sitting in /home/domain/autoresponse And I have the temp files being written to /home/domain/responders I call the autoresponder like so |qmail-autoresponder message.txt /home/domain/responders and I have also tried |qmail-autoresponder /home/domain/autoresponse/message.txt /home/domain/responders But like I said it writes the temp file just fine.. It's the message file that never seems to get sent. The message.txt contains.. From: "Administrator" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Testing -- %S Testing Autoresponder. Okay so what do I have wrong here??? --JT
Re: How can I patch with big-conrrency.patch?
Raise Hand... --JT
Re: List Problems
I agree! I have over 200 mailing lists, and 1500 pop accounts all running off of qmail servers. I have asked very few questions to this list and have found the list helpful in the past. However this recent bickering is just not worth it anymore. V/r Jay Original Message On 12/6/00, 7:53:21 PM, "Gary Barnett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding List Problems: "asantos" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 04:57PM From: Chris Brick [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about you and Dave take all your points off list. Amazing. Since Feb 2000 this is exactly your second post, AFAICS. Very construtive. Armando I am going to break my self-enforced silence to make a quick point, as I will burst with frustration if I don't. After that I will leave the list, as I will have become part of the problem, and have little faith that a solution will be found. 1) I am a newbie to qmail. Never asked a question on the list, things work just fine. I read the docs and set up prototypes until I felt I had enough of a handle on it to use it in production. This seems to support the point that a someone with a bit of intelligence, work ethic and time can succeed with this software, even without this list. 2) Quick question to ask yourself before you post: If your boss read your post on this forum, would it reflect well upon your future employment with that firm? How about if your wife/gf read your post? 3) I would be irresponsible if I continued to allow this list to waste my time with topics that are clearly off-charter. In that I am sure MY boss would agree. 4) This list _cries_ out for a moderator, as the vocal denizens of this list are unable to keep their off-topic thoughts to themselves. 5) I believe this list is doing a disservice to the qmail community, as the signal-to-noise ratio is below Usenet. Perhaps a moderator, or a stricter enforcement of the list charter would make a difference. Failing that I see this list continuing to turn away new blood. Hard to take over the world when you alienate a large number of potential contributers, and go around hammering on those without a clue. I believe moderation is the solution, perhaps the only solution to this mess. And, yes, I would be happy to spend some time moderating posts. I don't mind putting my time in on something that is good for the community. As it stands though, I would be embarassed should I have to explain why I read all these posts from this list, as there is very little value in reading zero-content flames and complaints. Have a good day, from a former list subscriber, and still very happy qmailer, Gary Barnett Network Administrator Wells, St. John, et al
Duplicate Messages and missing trailers.....
Has anyone ever had the problem where messages are delivered more than once? On what appears to be random occasions, messages are delivered twice to my lists. I did notice this at one point happening to the qmail and ezmlm lists. Also on random occasions, messages distributed to my lists do not appear to have the designated trailer included in the messages. Again, no real pattern to this one either. I am running the latest version of qmail and ezmlm/ezmlm-idx on Redhat 6.2 with double confirmation disabled (I am doing the double-opt in elsewhere). Thanks for the help. James
Re: why didn't it send my msg?
on 12/1/00 13:18, QBA at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did 'ps -aux | grep qmail-smtpd' and got no message so I don't have it running. And that's why I have two more questions: 1. What means this line (about qmail) in my /etc/inetd.conf ? (I wrote it in my earlier message) Include the line anyway. Must I search for it? 2. How can I enable qmail-smtpd? What is the best way to do it? Thanks for your help, Ahhh... So basically what you're saying is you don't have a clue about inetd. You might want to look at the man page for it-- that way you won't have any questions. --jtb
Re: why didn't it send my msg?
on 12/1/00 13:29, QBA at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I also typed 'telnet 0 25' and here is what I got: Trying 0.0.0.0... Connected to 0. Escape character is '^]'. 220 qbaroot.dyndns.org ESMTP 'help' 214 qmail home page: http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html 'quit' 221 qbaroot.dyndns.org Connection closed by foreign host. So it looks similiar to yours but I don't understand what I did. What all these messages can tell me about my qmail? Thanks for help, They tell you you're connected to the smtp server on port 25 and that help can be found at the qmail home page. --jtb
RE: Help Emergency!
Thanks to all, qmHandle took care of it. V/r Jay Original Message On 11/23/00, 5:18:46 AM, "Panagiotis Kotsiopoulos" wrote regarding RE: Help! Emergency: There is a good perl script called qmHandle. You can find it in www.qmail.org (on the antispam section I think). With this script you can list the messages in the queue , verbose a message in the queue or delete a message on the queue. -Original Message----- From: James Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:04 AM To: Ezmlm List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Help! Emergency I setup a list wrong and now people are responding to the list (was supposed to be a newsletter type list for an online store), so the responses are going to about 60,000 people. Not good. I have killed the box for now. I have deleted the list, how can I clean out the queue so these message will not go out to all these folks when I fire the box back up. V/r Jay
Help! Emergency
I setup a list wrong and now people are responding to the list (was supposed to be a newsletter type list for an online store), so the responses are going to about 60,000 people. Not good. I have killed the box for now. I have deleted the list, how can I clean out the queue so these message will not go out to all these folks when I fire the box back up. V/r Jay
Re: A doubt about Qmailadmin
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 12:18:46PM -, Mark Anderson wrote: I don't even know where to start. Start by looking to your logs. james
adding an outgoing-only smtp server?
Hi, While thinking this over, I became confused so I was wondering if someone could shed some light on adding an outgoing-only qmail server to a network/domain. Any docs, references, etc, for pointers are very much appreciated. What I would like to do is this: host1 - primary MX for incoming and outgoing host2 - outgoing only host1 will be used for "regular" email traffic, with legit user accounts, while host2 will be mainly used for pumping out big loads of outgoing email (handling large lists). All bounces (and ofcourse all incoming email) will go to host1. Limited number of admins will be handling the lists on host2, so all email intended to go out to list members will be injected at host2 (e.g. not relayed from any other hosts). Thanks in advance, jamie #-#-#-#-#-#-#-# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
Re: adding an outgoing-only smtp server?
Hi Dave, Dave Sill wrote: OK, so where are you stuck? oops, sorry ;) I must have sent out the message in the middle of my racing thoughts. I was wondering whether to include host2 also as an MX in the dns records although host1 is the only MX handling incoming and part of outgoing (none from host2). Install qmail on host1 and host2, but skip qmail-smtpd on host2. Configure host2 to pretend to be either the MX or host1 (e.g., in control/me replace host2 with host1). Wow, that simple? Thank you for your input. (now I need to find myself another box :) OTOH, this is where I am confused still: If I'm correct, I don't need an MX entry for host2 in the dns records right? (since it shouldn't respond to incoming messages) But if host2 sends email out as host1 without host2 listed as an MX, wouldn't the IP address or "return-path" resolve back to an "unknown" host, or get denied from the remote smtp server? Where-as, if host2 was listed also as an MX, qmail-smtpd is not running on it so won't the messages get deferred/bounced if any incoming connections were attempted? (sorry for this confusion) Thanks again. cheers, jamie #-#-#-#-#-#-#-# -- If somebody can help create a search engine for my room, I will call them a Saint... GUI == Graphical User Interference
