Re: Mass user email
No, it's for pop accounts, hence the name...shell has nothing to do with it. On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Robert wrote: Am I wrong in assuming that pop-bull only works on users with shell accounts?? I'm a sys admin for an ISP, and I don't give my users shell access. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Thank you. Ken Jones wrote: Robert wrote: Hello, Thank you in advance for any help that is given. Is there a way to send a single email to all the users on my system so it looks like it's addressed to each individual user? I tried adding each user on the box to my .qmail file, but the mail that is sent out is addressed to the original user the email was sent to. I looked at ezmlm, but i'm not interested in setting up mailing lists. I just want to send out system warnings and such to my users if needed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. popbull might work for you, or the virtual pop bull programs out there. If not, I have a program that will send an email out to a list of users in a file, individually addressed. If it's all local, use a popbull program. Ken Jones Inter7 James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 3 - The Forum for ISPs by ISPs(tm) || Nov 15-17, 1999, New Orleans 3 days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. Visit http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration. =
Re: How is spam relaying done?
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, James wrote: Thanks for the replies.. one other thing I forgot to ask.. how would an administrator know if his server is being used by a spammer? By the way, I am not a spammer, just curious about how these things work. I'm having problemst getting my selective relaying to work and I might just opt to remove rcpthosts. Did you read the howto at http://qmail-docs.surfdirect.com.au/docs/qmail-antirelay.html ? It really isn't that tough. tcpserver (ucspi-tcp) package is a breeze to install, but the INSTALL doc that comes with it doesn't explain how to set up a /etc/tcp.smtp file and make a .cdb file out of it, which is arguably the most confusing part of it all. The howto above does it step-by-step. You really don't want to run an open relay. We won't be able to get any mail from you :)
Re: Completely Off-topic: A good MUA for Windows?
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Rogerio Brito wrote: I know this is VERY off-topic, but do you know any "good" MUA for Windows? Pegasus is manual-ware. It's very solid, feature-rich, and powerful. Not the most user-friendly, though--but then, that wasn't your question. :) I've also seen Pegasus suffer the same stray line feed problem that some versions of Eudora, Outlook and Claris Emailer has. Not sure which version(s) of Pegasus this was, though...
Re: PINE Patched Source (fwd)
I recall at least a couple of people who were having trouble with the getting the Maildir-patched pine-4.10 to work, so I thought I'd forward this insight from Larry. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:22:43 -0400 From: Larry Morley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: James Smallacombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PINE Patched Source James - By George, I think I've got it! Once I removed the mbox directory from any users $HOME (~/mbox), everything started working correctly. The answer seems to be: (mbox2maildir.pl; rm -rf mbox) (of course, you'd probably want to make sure step 0 worked before going on to step 1 :( ) Upon inspection of the source, this is what is supposed to happen if drivers are used (mbox first, then something-else-I-can't-recall, etc.). Cavetat emptor (programmerus?) Thanks again, Larry Morley James Smallacombe wrote: You're the third person that's mentioned this problem to me, and I have yet to figure out what's happened. If works fine for me using $HOME/Maildir in my pine config, so I can only think of 2 things: 1: maybe your global /usr/local/lib/pine.conf is overriding your .pinerc 2: check your MAIL envronmental variable. It should look like this: [richard2 james james]$ echo $MAIL /usr/home/james/Maildir This worked for me no problem on both Sparc Solaris 2.6 and FreeBSD 3.2. If you find the solution, please let me know. Thanks, On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Larry Morley wrote: Hi James - Thanks for posting the patched source. One problem though. On Solaris 7, messages find there way to ~/Maildir fine. And, pine (from the patched source you posted) can read old pine messages in mbox. Unfortunately, I can't for love or money get the thing to read from Maildir. I tried (in pine setup) specifying $HOME/Maildir, ~/Maildir, /export/home/whoever/maildir - everything I could think of. The best I get from PINE is "Maildir - not a selectable folder." (or something very similar). Even tried leaving the inbox-path set to it's default. Any ideas? Thanks, Larry Morley
Re: qmail
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Peter Samuel wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Magnus Bodin wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:18:44PM -0200, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Neil Floris wrote: I think that is only one advantage on usign sendmail: you can program it to play the old 'X' or 'O' game... ( somebody can tell me how can i say this game name in english? ) X | | ___|___|___ | X | ___|___|___ | | | O | O It's called tic-tac-toe. But the above story I've heard several times but I have NOT seen any evidence trace of it but a small passus repeating the fact that "... programming a tic-tac-toe game in sendmail.cf ...". flippant That's not the question he asked. He wanted to know what the game is called in _English_. It's called "Noughts and Crosses". In _American_ it's called "tic-tac-toe" :) /flippant Ok, but what's it called in Australian? :-P I used to have a sendmail.cf that turned sendmail into a slow mathematical calculator. I'll see if I can hunt it down (I'll also have to find a sendmail system to test it - not many around here any more :) You should see if there's a way to convert it to work with qmail control files. Then we could have a fast mathematical calculator...
Re: mail appliance
Didn't I hear that someone put together a webmid module for qmail? Anybody know anything about it? On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Jon Rust wrote: qmailadmin does not handle management of local accounts. It only handles management of virtuals. Not too bad really, but that requires you to have a pop prefix. Trying to avoid that... jon At 8:33 PM +0200 10/18/99, Markus Wuebben wrote: On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Jon Rust wrote: I'm trying to build a mail "appliance" that I can install for customers who know nothing about UNIX and/or qmail. I suppose webmin will do for adding users, though a bit clumsy. Even so, that still leaves forwarding and vacation messages out. I'll try to write some scripts of my own for this purpose, but if someone wants to share, that would be great. Just looking for some no-frills, perl/shell CGI. Check this out: http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ Later, Markus
Re: mail appliance
Didn't I hear that someone put together a webmin module for qmail? Anybody know anything about it?^ On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Jon Rust wrote: qmailadmin does not handle management of local accounts. It only handles management of virtuals. Not too bad really, but that requires you to have a pop prefix. Trying to avoid that... jon At 8:33 PM +0200 10/18/99, Markus Wuebben wrote: On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Jon Rust wrote: I'm trying to build a mail "appliance" that I can install for customers who know nothing about UNIX and/or qmail. I suppose webmin will do for adding users, though a bit clumsy. Even so, that still leaves forwarding and vacation messages out. I'll try to write some scripts of my own for this purpose, but if someone wants to share, that would be great. Just looking for some no-frills, perl/shell CGI. Check this out: http://www.inter7.com/qmailadmin/ Later, Markus
alias header mods causing problems
I set up a simple alias something like: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to forward to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which pages me) and it just seems to blackhole. Syslog shows a successful delivery to their smtp server, I get no bounce message, and they don't respond to any questions about it. The only thing I can think of is they filter on the To: header, presumably as an anti-spam measure. As I intend to be VERY judicious about who gets this address, I'm not so concerned about spam. Is there a fairly simple way to modify the outgoing header of an alias to preserve the To: address of the recipient? TIA,
Re: Mail not being delivered to local users (was: Re: URGENT !!Strange Problem)
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Rogerio Brito wrote: Just to add something that I rarely see discussed in this list, at least in some environments, I've seen qmail deliver a bounce message saying that there was "no mailbox here by that name" when the user (hard) quota limit is over. REally? Don't I wish. When one of my users hits quota, the 3MB gif's his brother-in-law have been sending gets deferred delivery and sits in my queue. Ugh.
Re: smtp server as a relay
:allow,RELAYCLIENT="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Of course, now ANYONE who puts that email address in their FROM (or is it envelope-sender?) field can relay through you. On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Ana [iso-8859-1] Belén Santos wrote: I want to allow selected clients to use my smtp server as a relay. I have used tcpserver, but I only can restrict the access controling the IP of the sender and I want to control the email address of the sender, not the IP. Is this possible?? How can I do that?? Thanks Ana Belén Santos Pintor
Re: How good is RBL at filtering spam?
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Dave Sill wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (My pobox.com address, on the other hand, gets plenty of spam, because pobox's antispam methods are very poor. I only wish they used DUL, which would get rid of most of the spam from that direction.) It's not good enough for an antispam method to simply be effective, it should also be selective. The DUL blocks non-relaying, nonspammers, just because it doesn't like the looks of their domain name...the I thought it blocked known IP blocks of dialup ports? baby/bathwater scenario. But the War on Spam, like the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism cares little about collateral damage like me. I cannot imagine what damage is done by asking a dialup user to send email out through his provider's internal relay.
Re: How good is RBL at filtering spam?
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? It's not terribly pro-active, and they won't RBL anyone if you just forward them the headers from a spam, even if they have verified that it came from an open relay. You have to demonstrate that the server admin(s) of said relay was unresponsive or uncooperative in taking steps to shut down the open relay first. I can certainly see why they do things this way, but it definitely limits the RBL's effectiveness as a spam filtering mechanism. OTOH, it's been outstanding in terms of getting lethargic providers (big and small) to crack down on spamming customers. It still appears to catch a significant number of spams (just not enough to make an impact on my system or mailbox), and IMHO, is worth implementing, but you should also employ the MAPS DUL, which appears to catch almost all of the spam that comes directly from dialup accounts (not through a relay). It also appears that the spammers have caught on to that and have reverted to using open relays, and unfortunately, there's still an abundance of them, and more coming on line all the time. I've been toying with using ORBS (I already forward open relays to them), but am reluctant for various reasons.
Re: How good is RBL at filtering spam?
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Vern Hart wrote: to stay away from .gov addresses. So, we finally have THE universal solution against spam! what about opening .forward accounts to everyone ? -- no kidding! They also seem to stay away from .org addresses as well (for the most part). A .org address is a lot easier to get than a .gov. Not from my experience. They shamelessly spam [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] or any list or alias that's open.
Re: Qmail server problem
What's using all the memory? Did you do a top? Sounds like a memory leak. Unless you'd done something horribly strange, it's not qmail... On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Derek Harkness wrote: I've been having a problem with a new qmail box I setup. It's running on RH6.0 with a 2.2.12 kernel, the box is a Pentium/133 with 64 megs of RAM and 128 meg swap. The problem is the box runs great for about two to three days, then starts complaining that there is no memory. This leads to the killing off of every process on the system. The kernel doesn't hang but it does require a reboot of the box. The problem seems to occur while the box is under a moderate to heavy load. I've been running qmail on several different boxes for a while and have never come across this problem. I've killed off everything not vitial to the system and have even made a habit of watching the memory on this box. Everthing on the box is stock other then the kernel and several updates from RH. At this point I'm just looking for suggestions as to where to look next.
Re: qmail as secondary MX server
On Mon, 13 Sep 1999, Fred Backman wrote: Is there anything specific I need to keep in mind or do in order to set up qmail as a secondary MX server, as opposed to a "normal" qmail setup? I've installed qmail before but never on a secondary MX server so I'd appreciate any advice you may have. Put the domain(s) that you want to do secondary MX for in rcpthosts but *not* in locals. Make sure you have enough space in /var for the primary MX's mail spool for at least a week or two, on top of your own requirements. That's it (other than the DNS MX record entry, of course).
Re: Strange open relay problem with qmail due to bad configuration.
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999, Sebastian Andersson wrote: I just got a nasty letter from ORBS telling me that one of my SMTP servers was an open relay. The host was a secondary mailserver for some of our domains and it had no hosts in locals and a correctly configured rcpthosts. Its virtualhosts was also empty and it was not configured to allow percent hack. Still user%domain@[ipnumber], where ipnumber was the hosts IP number, was allowed stright through. me was set to a local domain, where another server was was primary and that server was configured to allow relaying for this server. [ipnumber] was changed to the default domain and that was in the rcpthosts file so it was ok. The message was forwarded to the primary smtp server for that domain and that server saw that the mail came from an authorized relayer and past it along... Well, yeah... This is a major hole. Plug it up by taking the host A's ip/name out of the relay host's list of allowed relay clients. It'll still receive email from that host, but will only deliver it locally.
Re: Still 533
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Paul Farber wrote: Yeah, I know. But the binary .cdb file is pretty unreadable, don't you think? unreadable by you, but it's what tcpserver reads. AFAIK, tcpserver can't read unhashed plaintext. The command to do this changed in recent tcpservers; You now use tcprules instead of tcpmakectl...it does pretty much the same thing. You can also use tcprulescheck to check it against an ip. Also, if the following isn't all on one line (ie, if you edit it with pico without using -w), make sure you put a \ on the end of the first line. 28500 ? S 0:01 tcpserver -v -H -R -c100 -x /etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd.cdb -u81 -g80 0 smtp qmail-smtpd
Re: Maildir and Pine-4.10
I was a little curious about this, so I went and downloaded the very same file (to make sure I didn't tar the wrong source tree or something) and built the thing agoin on my Solaris 2.5 (sparc) box and it works fine. It also works fine on the box I'm typing this from (FreeBSD 3.2). I use $HOME/Maildir (without the trailing slash) as my pine inbox-path, I have ./Maildir/ in my .qmail file, and my env is: [richard2 james james]$ echo $MAIL /usr/home/james/Maildir Kai speculated that it might have something to do with the Linux shadow support but I have no idea what the deal is with the Solaris box, except that it's Intel, and I don't see any mention of Intel Solaris in the pine-ports file (not that it should have to...). Anybody else have any success with it? Platform? On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Kai MacTane wrote: Text written by Josh Pennell at 08:53 PM 9/6/99 -0700: I downloaded the patched pine src from http://3.am/pine4.10.maildir.tar.gz and built it on an Intel Solaris 2.6 box. This is eerily reminiscent of my troubles with the same version of Pine, building on a Red Hat Linux 5.1 (Intel) box. What I have tried to get pine to read Maildir: // edits to the ~/.pinerc file inbox-path=~/Maildir (didn't work) inbox-path=$HOME/Maildir (didn't work) inbox-path=~/Maildir/(didn't work) inbox-path="inbox" (didn't work) It just always reads 0 messages in inbox :( I tried a few other variations on this and always got "can't open /home/kmactane/Maildir: not a selectable folder". I checked in with James Smallacombe about it, too, but he didn't have any ideas aside from making sure the .qmail file has a trailing slash (which it does). In case it will help, here are a few more details on my system (don't laugh; it serves stuff): Intel Pentium 75 MHz 32 MB RAM 1 IDE HD running RHL 5.1 (2.0.34 kernel) shadow passwords qmail 1.03 daemontools 0.53 Let me know if any other details would help. - Kai MacTane System Administrator Online Partners.com, Inc. - From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996) examining the entrails /n./ The process of grovelling through a core dump or hex image in an attempt to discover the bug that brought a program or system down. The reference is to divination from the entrails of a sacrified animal. Compare runes, incantation, black art, desk check.
Re: Maildirmake
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone- I am just ready to put my Qmail server running under FreeBSD 3.2-Stable on line, but I'm having one minor problem. I created an account for myself and used "maildirmake" to created my home directory's maildir- but now I am trying to add the rest of my users, but I get an error when trying to use "maildirmake" the following is what I entered and what the error was: $/var/qmail/bin/maildirmake /usr/home/boudin/Maildir/. maildirmake: fatal: unable to mkdir /usr/home/boudin/Maildir/.: file does ^ Take out that dot.
Re: Qmail dying
If you're running it from inetd, you have to comment it out and send inetd a HUP, just like any other inetd process. If you're running it from tcpserver, you need to kill that tcpserver process. On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Thomas M. Sasala wrote: Is there an easy way to kill pop3d when it isn't being 'supervised'? I've scoured the documentation and couldn't come up with a good way. Clearly I'm missing something. Thanks. -Tom Luka Gerzic wrote: you have script to start/stop/restart qmail on : http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-script.txt i think -- +---+ + Thomas M. Sasala, Electrical Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + MRJ Technology Solutionshttp://www.mrj.com + + 10461 White Granite Drive, Suite 102(W)(703)277-1714 + + Oakton, VA 22124 (F)(703)277-1702 + +---+
Re: pinq
there are patches to pine 4.1 to make it work with Maildir, although it's not clear without guidance which patches to use, and in which order. I have a patched source of Pine 4.1 for Maildir at http://3.am/pine4.10.maildir.tar.gz It built fine under Solaris 2.6 and FreeBSD 3.2 (you're soaking in it; see the headers of this email). 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
Patched source for pine 4.1 w/ Maildir support WAS Re: pine patches
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote: What you wrote about patches and nonprogrammers was exactly my point; for nonprogrammers (and I assume many mail administrators may not be), it is hard to figure out which patches they need to get for what they want. www.qmail.org is a great help, but I think a common ftp site (or at least a common naming scheme via Bruce's daystamp suggestion) would ease the sysadms' task. And of course, maintaining www.qmail.org would be also easier. After a coupla days of screwing around and a pointer from Ragnar Kjorstad, I finally got the various patches to work with pine 4.1. If Russ still wants to put it up on the qmail site, or if anybody else wants to check it out, the patched source is at: http://3.am/pine4.10.maildir.tar.gz It's hard to follow who did which patches, except that it looks like Mattias did the original patch for 3.96 and Ragnar did some mods to work with later versions (sorry if I missed somebody) Here is what I did (not neccessarily in this order): maildir980721.patch (updated for pine 4.02; not sure why it wasn't renamed) pine4.00-pine-maildir-patch (the comments here are a little confusing; I went ahead and defined the NO_MAILDIR_FIDDLE and NO_ABSOLUTE_PATHS options per mattias's advice for ISPs running IMAP4) pine4.10-c-client_directory_with_driver_patch pine4.10-folder_list_write.patch It builds and runs fine under FreeBSD 3.2 (-bsf) and Solaris 2.6 with gcc 2.8.1 (-gs5)
Re: pine patches
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 11:25:57AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote: : If you want, I can extract the patches from the src rpm for you. I didn't see an SRPM anywhere...if I had I would have extracted it on my Linux box, but I sure appreciate it :) : What you wrote about patches and nonprogrammers was exactly my point; : for nonprogrammers (and I assume many mail administrators may not be), : it is hard to figure out which patches they need to get for what they : want. www.qmail.org is a great help, but I think a common ftp site (or : at least a common naming scheme via Bruce's daystamp suggestion) would : ease the sysadms' task. And of course, maintaining www.qmail.org : would be also easier. For sure. In the past 3+ years I've been running qmail, Sendmail's gotten a whole lot better, both from a security standpoint, and an ease of configuration standpoint. If qmail is going to remain a desirable alternative, it has to move forward as well. DJB's licensing stance doesn't help this, but AFAIK, there's nothing standing in the way of distributing patched for Maildir tarballs (please, NOT RPMs!) of the latest Pine and IMAP on www.qmail.org.
Re: Copy of all messages from host xxxx
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 07:38:27PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote: : Completely off topic, but I find it interesting that Outlook 98 decided that : this particular thread was of an obscene nature and marked it as an "Adult", : filtering it into my trash folder... : : Perhaps Redmond doesn't like any competition for the dreaded Exchange : server... : : Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Subject: Re: Copy of all messages from host Nice conspiracy theory, but I think this is the more likely culprit. The real question is why are you using an M$ mail client? Now that's truly obscene! ;-)
Pine4 and IMAP4 patches Re: humble suggestion from a confused boy
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 11:39:05PM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote: : As I was searching for various patches at ftp sites, I got struck by : how many different names patches get --- and how many different : versions there are. For example, there are 5 different versions of : the big-todo patch, and as a test, I'd ask the maintainers if they : know offhand under what name they are posted at their (or others') ftp : site. Tell me about it...I'm trying to figure out just what I need to build Pine 4.1 and IMAP4 for Maildir use, and it ain't that easy to figure out. Ok, there's that Norwegian patch...I go to the FTP site, download the only thing that looks like a patch for Pine 4.1 that isn't an RPM, apply it cleanly, build pine...still no Maildir support...wait, I must need Adam's patches for the c-client library as well...oops, no good, the directory ANSI doesn't appear to exist under imap in the 4.1 source... Is it me, or is this next to impossible for a non-programmer to figure out? : Often happens that the name does not suggest uniquely what package the : patch is supposed to patch (like `rbl.patch' could conceivably patch : at least three packages). It took me a few private emails to some helpful and clueful people to figure out you don't need the damn patches for qmail-1.03, you just download rblsmtpd...it would be nice if the website was updated accordingly. sorry for the rant, but I like to think of myself as pretty resourceful, but that's not proving enough here...
Re: poor documentation example
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Scott D. Yelich wrote: I've had tcpserver compile just fine even with HP's broken compiler. It seems as if you're trying to find fault just to try and prove your point. If you know/knew in advance of your non-standard compiler setup you'd be prepared for it. *sigh* You just don't get it... do you. I have a standard compiler set up. I have gcc. I do not have cc. The first thing I do after I install gcc on a new Solaris box is symlink cc to gcc. I recall you saying that this breaks things, but I haven't had a problem with it. I get 99% of my programs in source and they tell me to edit the Make file and change the "cc" line to "gcc" or to type ./Configure. Both of these get me to compile (maybe I have to define solaris, etc.) just fine. So does linking gcc to cc. Then comes qmail, et al., does it use Makefile with CC=gcc? no. Does it use ./Configure? no. It says "type make; make config check; # that's all!" No, it doesn't. It doesn't need to, since it doesn't have a bazillion compile-time options (I kinda wish it did, but that's another story). BUT IT IS NOT ALL. That's all (I'm trying to say). Okay, okay, you've said it. That being said, tcpserver is the quickest and easiest piece of software I've ever built and installed. YMMV James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 3 - The Forum for ISPs by ISPs(tm) || Nov 15-17, 1999, New Orleans 3 days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. Visit http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration. =
Re: sorry!!!
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Daniel V. Pedersen wrote: but i can't find the man for setting up aliases :) - could someone throw me an url ? dot-qmail(5) in a nutshell: cd ~alias echo "mailbox" .qmail-aliasname James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 3 - The Forum for ISPs by ISPs(tm) || Nov 15-17, 1999, New Orleans 3 days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. Visit http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration. =
Re: ofmipd to rewrite return-path header
On 3 Mar 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote: Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header and not touch the From header? No. Why would a user want that? Well, for one, a user that's subscribed to an ezmlm mailing list that has posts restricted to subscribers might want to be able to post from envelope sender "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED] this has been driving alot of people nuts. James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: ofmipd to rewrite return-path header
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote: On 3 Mar 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote: Also: is it possible to rewrite the Return-Path header and not touch the From header? No. Why would a user want that? Well, for one, a user that's subscribed to an ezmlm mailing list that has posts restricted to subscribers might want to be able to post from envelope sender "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED] this has been driving alot of people nuts. So then why not rewrite the From: header as well. The messages are sent to the envelope address anyways. Sorry, I just don't follow you here... BTWY, under ezmlm-idx, it is possible to use several envelope addresses using allow. This does not scale when you're admin'ing dozens of lists with thousands of subscribers, as I am. James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: UNSUBSCRIBE !!!!
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Jay D. Dyson wrote: Plaintext message follows... -- On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, KMJJKT wrote: UNSUBSCRIBE !! To unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe if he just added a few more exclamation points... James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: Am I being exceedingly silly?
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Eric Dahnke wrote: If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the hell does it matter. I had a dedicated dialup ppp customer get his NT box relayed off of...not sure exactly how many mails the guy got off, though. If this is a static IP, it would be a very good idea to close relaying anyway. DO NOT do this, you will get blacklisted in one qucik hurry. Quoting Eric Dahnke ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Remove the file rcpthosts from /var/qmail/control Qmail will then accept mail destined for whereever. Tah - eric It's late and I'm probably being silly, but.. I have qmail running on my Linux system at home, this has a dial-up connection to my ISP. It sends and receives mail quite happily from the Linux system. It also allows other users on the home network to receive mail using POP3 from the qmail POP3 server on the Linux box. BUT, how are users on other oomputers on the home ntwork meant to send mail? They connect to the qmail SMTP server, try and send mail and it says:- 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) So how is it supposed to work? How can other computers on my SoHO network send mail Help Maybe I've just had too much to drink tonight! -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: I'm stuck
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Dave Hansen wrote: Hello All, I have this in my inetd.conf smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /usr/sbin/tcpd /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd If this is actually how it looks in your /etc/inetd.conf file, your problem is that it's not all on one line. Try putting a backslash \ at the end of the first line, or re-edit the file with an editor that won't wrap it, like vi. James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
RE: Three solutions for spam
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote: James Smallacombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote: And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people." That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near me. Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic that was used to argue that SMTP servers should remain open relays... I was not involved in that debate. Nor do I carry pepper spray. Nor is the above point BS. If deliveries to a certain neighborhood are statistically more likely to be waylaid and robbed, then refusing to deliver to that neighborhood WILL diminish the number of robberies. Sadly, such a rule is actionable, as a US pizza vendor recently learned. snip completely invalid comparison True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_ rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business. Allowing UUNet dialup IPs direct access to my mail server has _caused_ alot more spam than I now get. Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information, etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC (assuming the modems have proper A records) based on the _true_ observation that origination from a modem _correlates_ with spam. Modems don't have A records, dialup ports do. RFC1123 states that your SMTP server must talk to domains with MX records, nothing about A records alone. You can get away with exercising this prejudice, for now, because social stigma applies only to specific forms of prejudice. sociology has nothing to do with this. You might as well be saying that we're "prejudice" against open relays. Well, we are. If the open relay or dialup port wants to sue me, then I'll take my chances. The irony is that your prejudice, were it widespread, would hurt a few Linux geeks like me--but would not affect spammers at all. If enough servers began rejecting mail from dialups, then spammers will start using smarthosts, or finding ISPs whose modems are named "wombat" and "cheetah", or adopting some other countermeasure. tcpserver filters by ip address, not name. Besides, nobody said you can get ALL of them, but that's no reason not to make the effort. My suggestion to you would be to get a static IP. Once I get more address space, I'm going to renumber, and all the dynamic IPs will be blocked for outbound port 25 access, and the static IPs and static subnets will be on a different /24 that isn't. Like all pattern-matching or profiling solutions, it is temporary, and relies for its effectiveness on its novelty and your domain's numeric insignificance. Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching. James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
RE: Three solutions for spam
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote: (Forgive me! One last one...) Me too. :) James Smallacombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My suggestion to you would be to get a static IP. You're quite right. Please make your check payable to "Len Budney" and mail it c/o "Maya Design Group, 2100 Wharton Street, Pittsburgh PA, 15203". FWIW, we charge $5/mo extra for a static IP. Some ISPs charge less, some charge more, some give it away, some don't offer it. In Pittsburgh, I'm sure you have an ample selection. If you can't afford it, you may, in fact be SOL when it comes to sending out SMTP directly to some or all places. The Internet is not some big, free, public network that everyone has a God-given right to have unfettered access to. It's a collection of private networks that each network owner/admin makes rules for his little corner of, at his/her own peril (peril in terms of technical and marketing ramifications). James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: Pattern-matching and filtering
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote: James Smallacombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching. Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exactly one envelope recipient and one envelope sender--which will be a valid email address. What will you match on then? Why, the host it comes from, of course. There's no wooden stake here, just a bunch of crucifixes...nobody says this is a complete solution. James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: Cool!
On 22 Jan 1999, Russell Nelson wrote: I'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories: /etc/skel/Maildir /etc/skel/Maildir/new /etc/skel/Maildir/tmp /etc/skel/Maildir/cur and this file: /etc/skel/Maildir/new/welcome.message And the useradd script will make the Maildir for me AND "email" them a welcome message! This is so cool! Been doing this for years...since the Mailbox days... :) James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: file descriptors
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Peter C. Norton wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:25:16PM -0500, Jozef Gniadek wrote: Hi folks Maybe this is out of topic. On sun with solaris 2.5.1 are running mail server and web server, I got error msg, something like ' out of file descriptors, too many open files'.. What I should do?, how I may to increase file descriptors?, if this is posible... First, try starting qmail with the max # of file descriptors increased from the default maximum of 64 that solaris sets. You can do this with the ulimit builtin in most ksh-style shells, or with the limit command in csh-like shells. If that's not enough, find out what resources are available in the /etc/system file under 2.5.1. In 2.6, to up the # of descriptors can be upped by adding the following to /etc/system: I recall having this problem with Solaris 2.5. I had to add a ulimit command to one of my rc files, because it had some kind of exceptionally low default for file descriptors. Check man ulimit James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: .qmail file oddities
Are you SURE the domain is NOT listed in locals? If it is, it could cause this... On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Chris Hardie wrote: Greetings. I'm experiencing an oddity with .qmail files in qmail-1.03. In /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains: domain.com:user In the past, messages sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" were sent to ~user/.qmail-joe, and if that file didn't exist, they were bounced back to the sender. This still happens, except on one domain. This domain is set up like all the others, with no detectable differences in configuration or permissions, but messages sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" are delivered to ~user/Mailbox If I put *no* .qmail files in ~user, all messages to any user are delivered to ~user/MailboxIf I put a .qmail file in ~user, all messages are piped throgh that file, even if I add a ~user/.qmail-joe file, it still goes through ~user/.qmail. It's as if there's an invisible .qmail-default file at work, but I can't find what's causing this. Any ideas? Thanks, Chris - Chris Hardie[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.summersault.com/chris great is the power of truth ----- James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
Re: HOw do I Stop this...
uOn Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Gordon Soukoreff wrote: I have this outfit ( asshole ) relaying off my smtp host running qmail: Jan 1 01:36:31 blahblah smtpd: 915183391.413662 tcpserver: ok 19689 blablah.blah.net:211.123.239.112:25 onlymail2.oneandonly.com:211.123.239.112::1825 Jan 1 01:36:31 blahblah smtpd: 915183391.421722 tcpcontrol: ok 19689 blahblah.blah.net:211.123.239.112:25 onlymail2.oneandonly.com:206.50.219.157::1825 This is what I have in the tcp relaycontrol file: 211.123.239.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 211.123.240.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" Is there anything else I could do ? Is he IP spoofing ? Assuming you do have a rcpthosts file (needed to prevent relaying), you should have your border router(s) configured to deny incoming traffic from any of your IPs. If you're using a Cisco: access-list 102 deny ip my.ip.net.block 0.0.0.255 (assuming you have a /24) then on your border interface: ip access-group 102 in As a good netizen, you should also filter IPs other than yous from getting out of your network. This way, nobody on your network can spoof outward. James SmallacombeInternet Access for The Delaware [EMAIL PROTECTED]Valley in PA, NJ and DE PlantageNet Internet Ltd.http://www.pil.net = ISPF 2.0b, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. San Diego, CA, March 8-10 '99 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com for information and registration. =
RE: Odd problems with MUA deleting server messages
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Scott Burkhalter wrote: I'm embarrassed to say that I'm not sure which POP server is being used. "ps ax" doesn't show any pop processes running It wouldn't, unless you were running the pop3d in standalone mode. the inetd.conf file has the following lines... # # Pop and imap mail services et al # pop-2 stream tcp nowait root/usr/sbin/tcpd ipop2d pop-3 stream tcp nowait root/usr/sbin/tcpd ipop3d imapstream tcp nowait root/usr/sbin/tcpd imapd which leads me to believe that we're using the ipop3d deamon when pop requests come in. It leads me to believe that you should check out your tcpwappers config. I do not run any of the other qmail processes under inetd - they run under supervise instead. Any thoughts ? and thanks for helping! Well, if you're running qmail-pop3d under tcpserver, it'll show up if you ps ax | grep tcpserv Or just telnet to port 110. qmail-pop3d looks like this: Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. +OK [EMAIL PROTECTED] qpopper, something like this: Escape character is '^]'. +OK QPOP (version 2.53) I'm not sure what you have: Connected to mailserv.entyre.com. Escape character is '^]'. +OK POP3 mailserv.entyre.com v6.50 server ready quit +OK Sayonara From: Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Odd problems with MUA deleting server messages [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have about 25 people using MS Outlook 98 to retrieve their email from my qmail 1.03 server. Their Outlook clients access qmail through the Internet Email agent in Outlook. ... As I mentioned above I use Mailbox files. Which POP server are you using? This is a POP problem, not a qmail problem. -Dave
