Re: qmail remote delivery logic
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 15:11:29 -0700 in Andy Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus said Jason Haar on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300: We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively taking our Internet link offline for the next several hours. Qmail being the great bandwidth chewer it is suddenly has 20 concurrent qmail-remotes running all delivering the same Email message to 20 different people - some of who are on the same server (i.e. hotmail.com). I've actually upped our concurrency limit due to this "feature" of qmail. Of course another side-effect of this is that other users mail ends up being queued as the concurrency limit's been hit. Sounds like you should educate your users. They shouldn't be using SMTP at all for sending MP3s. The standard protocol for transfering files is FTP, not SMTP. I believe you can setup qmail to reject emails than some specified size. Andy Times are changing. Unified messaging is coming. Email, voice mail, faxes, video mail, all will be the same thing. "User education" will not be the answer--building the appropriate user interfaces and designing the appropriate transport protocols will be. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge:$500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: pop3 and maildirs now....
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:28:41 -0500 in 002801bf1743$7ce98670$7758eacf@jennifer "Jennifer Tippens" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that I'm actually getting mail delivered... I'm trying to get pop3 to work. I installed checkpassword. qmail works. I put: tcpserver -v -R 0 pop3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup FQDN \ /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d maildir 21 | \ /var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d after everything else in both the start and restart case of my qmail startup script (which is the one on "life with qmail" more or less). now.. MS outlook (I know, I know) gives me the following error: Server Response: '-ERR this user has no $HOME/Maildir'. (Account: 'web01.surfari.com', POP3 Server: 'web01.surfari.com', Error Number: 0x800ccc92). erg... What did I not do yet? -Jen Capitalize "Maildir" in your tcpserver command line. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge:$500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: RE: masquerading against remote majordomo services don't work.
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:23:38 -0700 in [EMAIL PROTECTED] "randyboy" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, am I using qmail-inject? If you're sending mail from the local host running qmail, then your MUA is passing the outgoing mail to qmail-inject, possibly through the qmail "sendmail" wrapper. If your qmail is on a separate machine than the one from which you're sending the mail, then I may be mistaken in my diagnosis. I though that since I'm using tcpserver to call qmail-smtpd this is what happens. tcpserver - qmail-smtpd - qmail-queue - qmail-send - qmail-rspawn - qmail-remote That's true for sending mail from a remote host. Well, if I am using qmail-inject then I'd very much like a copy of your script. That'd be very useful. Does the envelope header get stripped out before delivered to a mailbox? The envelope "header" isn't really a header on the message; in a Unix mailbox the envelope from field appears in the "From " header that's the first line of the message. Some MTAs put the envelope recipient into the "Received:" fields (e.g. "received for user@host"). The envelope from field for qmail-inject can be set with the environmental variables QMAILUSER and QMAILHOST, which you'll see in the Perl script I'll send you. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge:$500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: Is inetd really unreliable?
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:58:15 -0600 in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It also goes against "the UNIX way" -- each task does one small and easily definable task. Why else have programs like "sort" or "uniq"? Why not build those into "ls" as well? Oh, and "cat". Oh, and "more". What DJB has done is to build a set of programs that each do a single task -- svscan handles starting a series of supervise tasks; supervise handles (re)starting and stoping a single task; tcpserver handles incoming connections; qmail-smtpd handles ths SMTP protocol; and so on. This is by contrast with "the Multics way", which is to build powerful subroutines (programs not intended to be called except by other programs) to do things like date conversions, sorting, pattern matching, argument processing, file manipulation, etc., so that any given command can easily be as powerful as necessary, and be completely consistent with all other commands in its interface. Perl developers often seem to have a fairly similar philosophy. See http://www.best.com/~thvv/multics.html Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge:$500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: Sqwebmail and IMAP
I think Dan is assuming that additional mail folders won't be in the INBOX maildir (even though that was the question that was originally asked), but rather that you stick maildir mail folders in the same places you'd stick mailbox-format maildirs. I.e., not in the incoming maildir. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Sam wrote: D. J. Bernstein writes: Sam writes: A filename named "cur" will not work. Of course it will. There's nothing wrong with a mailbox named cur. As I said, whatever filenames worked with mbox format will continue to work with maildir format. So what exactly is the problem? Creating a maildir folder explicitly named "cur" will not work, for the obvious reason that the cur is already being used to store messages in the INBOX. -- Sam
Re: How good is RBL at filtering spam?
The DUL and RRSS are more effective, in my experience. dul.maps.vix.com and relays.radparker.com For info see http://maps.vix.com/dul/ http://www.mail-abuse.org/rss/ Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, David Harris wrote: I'm thinking of deploying RBL to try to cut down on spam, but before I did that I wanted to poke around and see how effective it might be. So, I gathered up some spam messages that I had received and looked up the mailserver's ipaddr in RBL using rbl.maps.vix.com and rbl.dorkslayers.com, and not one host was rejected from either RBL site. Even though I could see the messages looked like they were going trough an open relay. How good is this whole RBL thing anyway? - David Harris Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
Re: http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html
Lynx fails for me, too (version 2.8rel.2)... in my case it's because my router blocks the returning data connection from the FTP server. Apparently lynx doesn't know how to do passive FTP. Perhaps your problem is similar? Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Jeff Taylor wrote: I am using Lynx Version 2.8.3dev.9 (13 Sep 1999) and it just hangs on the ftp://kookbera... address. Jeff Quoting Frederik Lindberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 10:12:36AM -0500, Mark Thomas wrote: When you double click on this address(or cut and paste it), do you get to this site, or do you get errors. Http://www.pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html Because, if you can get there, I have a real funny problem. Because I use Pobox.com for my mail redirector, and I frequent their site, I just can't get to ~djb/ under pobox.com. DJB uses anonftpd which uses a more general/better ls format, but also one that isn't universally supported. ~djb maps there. Squid supports it, lynx 2.8 supports it (i believe =2.6). I think latest IE/NScape do as well, but I do most things via SQUID, so I'm not sure. -Sincerely, Fred
Re: setuser command not found
accustamp is replaced with tai64n, and cyclog has been replaced with multilog. multilog does timestamps itself, too, so you don't actually need tai64n. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Subba Rao wrote: What about "accustamp" and "cyclog"? I can't seem to find them. If they are under different names, what could they be. Thank you in advance. Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] == Disclaimer - I question and speak for myself. http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/ __ On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:35:43 -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote: * Subba Rao ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Sep 1999 16:25]: I am following the instruction in 10b of the FAQ. When I try the command with "supervise .." I get the message saying, bash: setuser: command not found Any idea, which package has the "setuser" command? It is part of the daemontools 0.53 package. The newer 0.61 version is completely different and uses setuidgid. -- Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600 Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620 CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
Re: setuser command not found
rblsmtpd/qmail-smtpd should be run as user qmaild; that is usually done using tcpserver. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Subba Rao wrote: Thank you. The commands suggested in 10b. rblsmtpd, should they be executed as root or a qmail account (which one?)? Thank you once again. Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] == Disclaimer - I question and speak for myself. http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/ __ On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 14:00:02 -0700 (MST), James J. Lippard wrote: accustamp is replaced with tai64n, and cyclog has been replaced with multilog. multilog does timestamps itself, too, so you don't actually need tai64n. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Subba Rao wrote: What about "accustamp" and "cyclog"? I can't seem to find them. If they are under different names, what could they be. Thank you in advance. Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] == Disclaimer - I question and speak for myself. http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/ __ On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:35:43 -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote: * Subba Rao ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Sep 1999 16:25]: I am following the instruction in 10b of the FAQ. When I try the command with "supervise .." I get the message saying, bash: setuser: command not found Any idea, which package has the "setuser" command? It is part of the daemontools 0.53 package. The newer 0.61 version is completely different and uses setuidgid. -- Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600 Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620 CANADAWWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
Actually, I have to agree that the wording that "qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd" seems to mean that qmail 1.03 doesn't work with inetd. But the web site (at least as of this moment) has perfectly clear wording: Inetd is no longer recommended for use with qmail 1.03. Use tcpserver instead. BTW, I agree with Eric about being unnecessarily insulting. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: Eric Rahmig writes: Russell Nelson writes: Lyndon Griffin writes: thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it not seem a little extreme to say that simply "qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd." and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out for yourself that that's what the link is trying to tell you, when it is, as you all say, quite possible that qmail-smptd WILL run under inetd (maybe OS dependent)? Maybe we just have too high an opinion of your intelligence? Come on, is this kind of comment really necessary? Good grief. Obviously, it is necessary. By linking to ucspi-tcp and telling people that inetd is no longer supported, that should be taken as a clue for what to do next. Since this is obviously not obvious, I need to point out why I consider that such a link is an indication of the high esteem in which I hold qmail users. Is everything clear now? -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
There is proposed new law on the matter--recent revisions to the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2B, a/k/a UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act). It has been approved by the National Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Law and will be introduced in most state legislatures early next year. Do a web search for "UCITA" or "UCC 2B" and you'll find all kinds of opposition web pages. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On 16 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was told last night by an IP lawyer that "click-through licenses have been upheld in court". Yes, I believe that's been the case for a while. A click on ACCEPT appears to be legally roughly equivalent to the signature on a contract, provided you can prove the person did that (signatures are a bit more permanent and lasting and easier to establish). This is a Good Thing; if this weren't the case, ISP AUPs and the like would be uninforceable and e-commerce would become very difficult. I don't have a problem with that. Yes, that's the reasoning, and I understand it perfectly well...to a point. Exactly *who* are the parties to the "[rough] equivalent to the signature on a contract", though? Remember, the assumption here is that the transaction between the parties (FTP client and FTP server operators and their correlative software agents; or customer and salesperson exchanging money and shrinkwrap software) has *already happened*. After that transaction, which is an *implied contract* (I assume), there can be *no* after-the-fact changes to the contract without *both* parties agreeing to that. When you're *later* running that computer program, you are *not* engaging in contract negotiations with a second party. In fact, you are dealing with no legally recognized entity at all. You can't sue it for making false representations, for example. I'm not interested in what we can *infer* that software did based on the code. I'm only interested in what *legislation* exists that grants software the right to, on its own volition, enter into an enforceable contract with an individual such that the individual is liable for damages, can be imprisoned, and so on, when the *software* is under no such legal liabilities. Put another way: if you buy a JimBobBoy Toy for your 5-year old, take it out of the store, assuming the transaction has completed, what right does that *toy* have to suddenly, two months later, "decide" it will no longer "play" with your son as it has (perhaps implicitly) been promised to do in the past *unless* you tell it you agree to some *new* license terms? I'm aware of *no* legal or ethical compulsion under which I should be required to tell the truth to *software*. To another person *via* software as a recording device, yes -- if that's part of what is clearly a valid contract-agreement process, for example. But when I'm running software on my computer, it's unconnected to the net, or if I've *clearly* been led to believe that I've purchased it (or obtained it for "free" via download), then I can't see how any attempt by that software to get me to engage in *further* contract negotiations have any validity. Now, I'm a *totally* committed Christian who doesn't believe it's right to lie, cheat, steal, or kill, *ever*, period. Yet I have no problem lying to a computer program. (Okay, honesty time, maybe I *have*, in the past, and thus not clicked-through a license I didn't want to accept. But no longer, now that I clearly see the issues.) As far as convenience for etrade and such: poppycock. First, the courts' jobs are to interpret the *law*, not invent new law for the convenience of industry. That's for the legislatures to undertake. Second, in any situation where a vendor chooses to use a manner of delivery that creates the clear impression that a transaction has been completed as of purchase or download, that vendor must be interpreted, *legally*, to have agreed to continue abiding by the terms of the transaction ever after, regardless of what it claims its software might or might not ask, or be told, by its user. If the vendor disagreed with that, it is up to the *vendor* to choose a *different* method of delivery. E.g. provide *non*-anonymous FTP access via a login/password combination after getting something akin to an online signature verifying that the potential customer agrees to the license terms *up front*. It's called "the cost of doing business". And it's trivial, both for FTP access to "free" software that tries to add post-transaction constraints, as well as for overshelf sales of shrink-wrap software, as well as telephone-based sales of shrink-wrap software. In all cases, if the *legislation*
Re: large companies using qmail?
I believe Hotmail is still using qmail. So is egroups.com. Critical Path uses a customized version of qmail. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Sven wrote: for an article about qmail i'm looking for informations about large companies using qmail. Any ideas? are hotmail and onelist still using qmail? Thanx Sven
Re: Newbie qmail install problems
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Barry Dwyer wrote: I'm not new to *nix but this is my first go-round with mail systems. I'm installing qmail on a Calera OpenLinux 2.2 (col 2.2.5) system and have run into several show-stoppers. Basically, I need qmail, smtp and pop3 for this to be any use to us. (40 internal users with pop clients, smtp relay to an external host for Internet email.) The first problem I have is I can't start the daemons -- Caldera does not include "setuser", which is referenced in the qmail daemon start scripts. Is there a work-around? Can I get setuser somewhere? It's part of the daemontools package, and is now called setuidgid. See http://pobox.com/~djb/daemontools.html The second problem is with checkpassword. On compilation I get errors regarding calls to the "crypt" library. The program appears to compile but when I test it against a valid user/password combination using: /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup host /bin/checkpassword pwd it exits with "-ERR authorization failed. Are you running as root? If you're not running as root, and you have shadowed passwords, you won't be able to test the authentication against the password file. Exactly the same thing happens when I try to use the "checkvpw" utility from the vmailmanager package. How do I solve this? Another one: Our server has a dedicate connection to the 'net but does not run its own DNS service. I searched the archives and found only one not-too-helpful post on this issue. What do I need to do about DNS? As long as your server can do DNS lookups from another nameserver, you don't have to worry about it. You might want to run a caching nameserver locally for efficiency, though. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: qmail relay detection
I agree with Sam on this one. My experience supports his view. I've never seen any systematic attempts to grab usernames via SMTP. I've seen quite a few mailbombs with bounces, though. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Sam wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyhow, I realize that giving information "up front" on working usernames on the system is probably at least a small security risk, so I'd rather not do that, I've yet to see anyone make a cogent argument for this, instead of accepting it as a given. It's pretty obvious. Given two systems, one that advertises users and one that doesn't, and an infinite supply of kiddie krackers doing brute-force searches for accounts with easy-to-guess passwords, the It's much easier to scrape the same accounts from the web or Usenet. Furthermore, you ignored the rest of my post, which compared whatever miniscule benefit you get from practicing security through obscurity weighed against your server now being a willing accomplice in a denial-of-service attack. The same script kiddies are far less likely to select a nailed down service in order to mailbomb someone by proxy, instead it's much easier to shove a few thousand messages with a few thousand bad recipients into Qmail's queue, then sit back and watch Qmail unload a few million messages into the target's mailbox. system that advertises usernames will be broken into first, on average, because the crackers will waste less time trying to break into nonexistent accounts. I've yet to hear of a single documented case of someone using sendmail in this fashion in order to crack into accounts. If a cracker wants to collect valid addresses to try to crack into, they're far less likely to start banging on port 25 which is usually logged on sendmail boxes, and be notices, instead of simply harvest the addresses off the search engines or Dejanews, which is virtually undetectable.
Re: newbie problems with qmail-pop3d
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Michael wrote: echo -n " checkpassword" tcpserver -v -R 0 pop-3 \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.slave-1.net /bin/checkpassword \ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d maildir 21 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d Try capitalizing "Maildir" here. qmail-pop3d.c does a "if (chdir(argv[1]) == -1) die_nomaildir();" -- that chdir takes a case-sensitive argument. Unfortunately, the error message produced by die_nomaildir doesn't correctly report the directory name that couldn't be chdir'd to. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: newbie problems with qmail-pop3d
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Michael wrote: Thanks to all who suggested I uninstall daemontools 0.61 and reinstall 0.53. Everything seems to be up and running, however, now I am having problems with qmail-pop3d. I have tested the following: 1. Smtp sends mail out fine. I can send mail out from a local and remote account. 2. Receiving mail. I can receive mail locally and remotely (I see the messages appear in the /Maildir/new/ directory). I can't seem to pop any mail down yet. Checkpassword is installed and configured. When I run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup slave-1.net /bin/checkpassword pwd as a user, then enter a valid "user username" at +OK, then a valid "pass password" at +OK prompt I get an -ERR authorization failed. If I perform the same command with the same user and password as root, I get the proper /home/$user directory. Is it by design that only root can get the correct response with checkpassword? It is if you have shadowed passwords. Given the above, it would appear checkpassword is working properly (I think). However, when I try to pop my mail down I get an invalid password response. I am using a WinNT mail reader. Does the mail reader have to support ./Maildir if I am only POP'ing my mail down? No, POP looks the same from the outside. The client need not know anything at all about Maildirs. How do you start your POP server? I am running qmail 1.03 on x86 Red Hat 6.0. Thanks. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: can't start
Try "setuidgid", not "setguid". Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Magnus Bodin wrote: On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, James wrote: In the life with qmail, his qmail script also has "setuser".. if I replace all setuser's with "setguid" will this fix my problem? Well, that didn't fix it.. I get this error now: ./qmail: setguid: command not found Is there anything else I can try? I would try to install daemontools, as the HOWTO, and lwq advises. The daemontools package includes setuser or setguid, depending on version of daemontools. http://pobox.com/~djb/daemontools.html -- magnus -- MOST useless 1998 * http://x42.com/
Re: Newbee to Qmail
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson wrote: I just got qmail up and installed on my system. I am coming from a Sendmail 8.9.3 setup. Here are the following issues that I am having a hard time figuring out: 2. How to set a Smarthost for outgoing mail. Looks like your other two questions have been answered already. For this one, put a file names smtproutes in /var/qmail/control that contains :smart.host.name Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
RE: Lobby mail.com
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Ben Kosse wrote: IOW, you're forgetting mail.com sells their servers and bandwidth. It's only private if you don't make money on it. Heh, by that definition, Mail.com, Critical Path, and all the other email outsourcing companies are private. Not a good definition, though. Mail.com can write their contracts however they want; I suspect they include provisions which cover their spam filtering and not being held liable for any damages from filtering errors that inadvertently prevent legitimate mail from getting through. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
RE: Lobby mail.com
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Ben Kosse wrote: Heh, by that definition, Mail.com, Critical Path, and all the other email outsourcing companies are private. Not a good definition, though. Let me rephrase the "make money" part. It's only private if you don't receive goods or services in exchange for use of your services. Bleh, if I knew there were lawyers on this list. Nah, I'm not a lawyer, I've just had to deal with them a lot. Mail.com can write their contracts however they want; I suspect they include provisions which cover their spam filtering and not being held liable for any damages from filtering errors that inadvertently prevent legitimate mail from getting through. Possibly, but unless they're covered by article 2B, they probably have no protection from that. Check out http://www.ljextra.com/internet/UCC2Bintro.html, specifically: ---begin quote--- The second question every asks about Article 2B is, "Will my existing contracts be valid?" This vital question is answered by Section 2B-107(b), which provides: "Except as expressly provided in this article or in Article 1, the effect of any provision of this article, including allocation of risk or imposition of a burden, may be varied by agreement of the parties". This means that you may contract out of virtually any restriction, right, or obligation in the statute. Of course, there is a short list of obligations that may not be varied by contract, but they are common sense exclusions: " ---end quote--- The exclusions are listed on the web page. I don't think any would apply here--UCC 2B won't have any effect on a pre-existing contract that contains such a limitation on liability. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: email postage
One scheme devised (and implemented) a couple years ago was "hash cash": http://www.mit.edu:8008/menelaus/cpunks/91769 Another vague proposal is: http://www.mall-net.com/spam/ Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Racer X wrote: I'm wondering if anyone knows of any sort of protocol or system built to handle "email postage." I'm of the belief that as long as email is an essentially free service, people will always find a way to abuse it, and I'd like to know if there's any sort of work going on in this area, research, etc. Before you ask - no, I don't think the USPS has any business charging for email, nor any other governmental entity. I'm talking about doing this on a private, per-host basis, with the possibility of peering agreements, pay-as-you-go for email transmission, automated exchange of payment info, etc. Just bored at work and looking for something to fool around with. I've got a feeling QMTP could probably do something with this pretty easily. I've no idea how you'd be able to integrate MUA's. shag = Judd Bourgeois| CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170 Software Architect| 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065 Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Re: Problem when sending external emails from workstation
You need to set it up to allow your clients to relay. See http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Ari Arantes Filho wrote: Hi, My qmail instalation is working - almost!!! - I can send message to anywhere using qmail-inject. - I can read messages from any workstation using any client program (netspace, outlook, ...) - I can only send messages from the workstation to a local domain, when I try to send to someone@yahoo.com, for example, the qmail display an error: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcphosts (#5.7.1). What is wrong? Best regards, Ari
wildmat patch
Has anyone updated this for qmail 1.03? The current one is for 1.01. (BTW, the mail link for Mark Delany on the qmail web page is out of date, too.) Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C
Re: pinq
MAIL=$HOME/Mailbox MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir MAILTMP=$HOME/Mailtmp works for me. Jim Lippard [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.discord.org/ Unsolicited bulk email charge: $500/message. Don't send me any. PGP Fingerprint: 0C1F FE18 D311 1792 5EA8 43C8 7AD2 B485 DE75 841C On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Josh Pennell wrote: Hello, I'm running qmail 1.03 under OpenBSD 2.5. There has been a user request to run pine 4.1 . Looks like pine only supports mbox. It looks like maildir2mbox wants the following environment vars set. MAIL MAILDIR MAILTMP Does anybody know what these should look like? I'm guessing MAILDIR should be set to ~/Maildir/ but the other two I have no clue. I tried a man on maildir2mbox but man couldn't find an entry for it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Josh
