Re: Begging for a control/spamlovers patch

[James Stevens]

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: how can I unsubscri...

[James Stevens]

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: 39,696 emails later...

[James Stevens]

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: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?

[James Stevens]

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: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?

[James Stevens]

nodnod, been forever since I've checked on the poor thing It was
basically a set it up and forget it thing in which case untill now it was
forgotten (laugh).

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Lukas Beeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ricardo SIGNES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?


as he already said in another posting, it's a 386, and he was mistaken..

On Monday 09 July 2001 18:45, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> In a message dated Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:21:35PM +0300, Mike Jackson
wrote:
> > 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
>
> Am I getting senile, or is Linux 386+ only?

--
Lukas "Maverick" Beeler / Telematiker
Project: D.R.E.A.M / every.de - Your Community
Web: http://www.projectdream.org
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Netgear RP114 Router doesn't work well with Qmail POP daemon?

[James Stevens]

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 2>&1 \
>| $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
>| $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

[James Stevens]

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?

[James Stevens]

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 2>&1 \
   | $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
   | $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?

[James Stevens]

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 2>&1 \
   | $setuidgid qmaill $tai64n 2>&1 \
   | $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]

Mac OSX

[James Stevens]

Looks like I'll be doing a project involving Mac OSX Servers here in a few
days which will involve installing qmail among other components. I just
caught a few hits on it from staff members here a little bit ago.

Anyone got notes they can share with me??? ;)

Would be much appreciated

--JT
Network Administrator
http://www.webcommanders.com

Re: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF?

[James Stevens]

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: Hotmail, CNAME lookup failure, zone transfer...WTF?

[James Stevens]

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: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION

[James Stevens]

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.. 
> >
> >--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: stopping "Possible_duplicate!"

[James Stevens]

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 .
> 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: RE: RE: RE: Problem with VAR directory during install

[James Stevens]

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/
> ---
>

Re: RE: RE: RE: Problem with VAR directory during install

[James Stevens]

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: Receiving mail for multiple domains

[James Stevens]

> 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?

[James Stevens]

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?

[James Stevens]

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?

[James Stevens]

Actually to be more accurate...

EZ Mailing List Manager -- using mySQL databases

And on each server there actually 6 qmail instances running called 
qmqp1. thru qmqp6. 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?

[James Stevens]

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: RFC 2821 and 2822

[James Stevens]

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?

[James Stevens]

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: max concurrency for qmail is 500, what's it for sendmail?

[James Stevens]

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: Why does qmail accept "From: <>" and can it be told not to?

[James Stevens]

You could always be mean like me  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: Multiple instances of qmail...

[James Stevens]

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

Fw: @home.com mail servers... ~ FIX...

[James Stevens]

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: virus in list

[James Stevens]

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

Re: Outlook Express Prank

[James Stevens]

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

[James Stevens]

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:
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Robin S. Socha 

qmail-autoresponder script

[James Stevens]

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?

[James Stevens]

Raise Hand...

--JT

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Nod, I agree.. However the people I work with and especially my boss are all
in love with Majordomo and I even bring up the subject of moving to another
list server and I get stared at So I'm stuck with Majordomo and qmail.

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Bradford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...


> Thus said "James Stevens" on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:38:01 PDT:
>
> > list at a time without a queue delay Right now 'Majordomo' funnels
all
> > messages into qmail via qmail-send and anything that gets queued after
that
> > has to wait for the current queue to get done. To get around this I plan
on
> > setting up multiple qmails under the same server each having it's own
queue
>
> You might consider installing ezmlm or ezmlm-idx over majordomo---it is
> integrated pretty tightly with qmail and would probably increase the
> performance as well.  majordomo is almost as much as beast compared to
> ezmlm as sendmail is compared to qmail. :-)
>
> Andy
> --
> [---[system uptime]]
>  10:29pm  up 4 days,  1:56,  3 users,  load average: 1.41, 1.31, 1.27
>
>

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

ROFL, ok.. I feel small now ... ... ... ...

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Austad, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'James Stevens'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...


> Here's what I did:
>
> I have a main server running qmail and ezmlm.  I set up ezmlm to use qmqp
to
> send it's messages.  I modified qmail-qmqmc.c to randomly pick a QMQP
server
> instead of just choosing the first one.  Each list is broken up into 52
> sublists.  Right now, I only have 3 QMQP servers.  When a message goes
out,
> it randomly distributes 52 separate messages between 3 QMQP servers, which
> ends up being pretty even.  All of the sending is offloaded to other
> machines, and split up, so the messages go out super fast.  1,000,000
> addresses in under 15 minutes.  :)  I saturate one of our DS3's everytime
it
> runs.  My modifications can support up to 255 QMQP servers.
>
> The bounces are starting to load down the main box though, I'm going to
have
> to lower the ezmlm-warn timeout to about 4 days, it's still at 11.6.
>
> Jay
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:38 PM
> To: Goran Blazic; Qmail
> Subject: Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
>
>
> Well when a list of 200k+ is mailing and another list gets fired up behind
> it I would like the server which sits almost twiddling it's thumbs and has
> all kinds of resources left over to be able to send out to more than one
> list at a time without a queue delay Right now 'Majordomo' funnels all
> messages into qmail via qmail-send and anything that gets queued after
that
> has to wait for the current queue to get done. To get around this I plan
on
> setting up multiple qmails under the same server each having it's own
queue
> ofcourse and then each client would have his or her own smtp server for
> sending to there lists on. Meaning that with multiple qmails running one
> client could send to her or his list and a secound client could send to
her
> or his list and a third client could send to her or his list and I could
> send to my staff list and nowone would experience any delays and maybe
just
> maybe my server might get above a 5% load avaerage for the first time in
> it's life.
>
> Anyways if anyone has actually done this please point me in the right
> direction I'd really appreciate it. ;)
>
> --JT
> - Original Message -
> From: "Goran Blazic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'James Stevens'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Qmail"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
>
>
> > I dont really see no good point on why you would want to run multiple
> copies
> > of qmail...
> > Or what you would understand by that ??!!??
> >
> > Goran
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:19 AM
> > To: Qmail
> > Subject: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> >
> >
> > Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation of setting
up
> > concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits I need to
> make
> > to avoid conflicks..
> >
> > Thanks in advance..
> >
> > --JT
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Laugh, ok wheres that Fiber Trunk and gigabit card I ordered?

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Ihnen, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'James Stevens'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Boyiazis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:48 PM
Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...


> Even on a raid 5 array, I'm sure that the processor will be waiting for
the
> disk I/O.  There is alot of it, after all.
>
> Is it a problem?  Naw...
>
> Will it process messages faster with separate disks, and even separate
disk
> controllers?
>
> I'm bettin it will.
>
> But when it comes down to it, are you more limited by bandwidth or disk
i/o?
> Fix one bottleneck, you'll make another.
>
> David
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:45 PM
> > To: Michael Boyiazis; Qmail
> > Subject: Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> >
> >
> > Thanks! .. ;)
> >
> > The machine I'm running qmail on has like a full c block
> > assigned to it and
> > a RAID5 array so I don't think the disk i/o will be a problem
> > ??  But if
> > needed I also have a RAID1 Array setup on it with twin 20gigs
> > so I could
> > place the secound qmail over there but I think the RAID5
> > should be fast
> > enough for it Thoughts?
> >
> > --JT
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Michael Boyiazis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:38 PM
> > Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> >
> >
> > > We have found inbound mail to be very disk i/o bound
> > > w/o doing much to the cpu.  so we added another disk
> > > and have two instances running.  it lets us handle twice
> > > the load.
> > >
> > > you need the box to handle 2 IPs;
> > >
> > > for the second instance recompile w/ the value in:
> > > /export/home/qmail-1.03/conf-qmail to hold the
> > > home of the second queue, say   /var/qmail2 instead
> > > of the default /var/qmail
> > >
> > > the spot in your tcpserver line that says  0 smtp
> > > should be changed to be:
> > >
> > > mail_instance_1.domain.com smtp
> > >
> > > and repeat the tcpserver startup for another instance.
> > >
> > > make sure to both qmail instances are started in your
> > > init script.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Boyiazis
> > > Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Goran Blazic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:23 PM
> > > > To: 'James Stevens'; Qmail
> > > > Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same
> > server...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I dont really see no good point on why you would want to run
> > > > multiple copies
> > > > of qmail...
> > > > Or what you would understand by that ??!!??
> > > >
> > > > Goran
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:19 AM
> > > > To: Qmail
> > > > Subject: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation
> > > > of setting up
> > > > concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits
> > > > I need to make
> > > > to avoid conflicks..
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance..
> > > >
> > > > --JT
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Hrmm Been running qmail for about 5 months now and really haven't
noticed a bottle neck. I know with SendMail (shudder) there were bottle
necks everywhere... But since I installed qmail really haven't ecperienced
any...

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Austad, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'James Stevens'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Boyiazis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...


> You're better off with RAID 0+1.  I run RAID 5 on mine and when it runs
> through the queue, disk IO is the bottleneck.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:45 PM
> To: Michael Boyiazis; Qmail
> Subject: Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
>
>
> Thanks! .. ;)
>
> The machine I'm running qmail on has like a full c block assigned to it
and
> a RAID5 array so I don't think the disk i/o will be a problem ??  But if
> needed I also have a RAID1 Array setup on it with twin 20gigs so I could
> place the secound qmail over there but I think the RAID5 should be fast
> enough for it Thoughts?
>
> --JT
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Boyiazis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:38 PM
> Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
>
>
> > We have found inbound mail to be very disk i/o bound
> > w/o doing much to the cpu.  so we added another disk
> > and have two instances running.  it lets us handle twice
> > the load.
> >
> > you need the box to handle 2 IPs;
> >
> > for the second instance recompile w/ the value in:
> > /export/home/qmail-1.03/conf-qmail to hold the
> > home of the second queue, say   /var/qmail2 instead
> > of the default /var/qmail
> >
> > the spot in your tcpserver line that says  0 smtp
> > should be changed to be:
> >
> > mail_instance_1.domain.com smtp
> >
> > and repeat the tcpserver startup for another instance.
> >
> > make sure to both qmail instances are started in your
> > init script.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Boyiazis
> > Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Goran Blazic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:23 PM
> > > To: 'James Stevens'; Qmail
> > > Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> > >
> > >
> > > I dont really see no good point on why you would want to run
> > > multiple copies
> > > of qmail...
> > > Or what you would understand by that ??!!??
> > >
> > > Goran
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:19 AM
> > > To: Qmail
> > > Subject: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> > >
> > >
> > > Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation
> > > of setting up
> > > concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits
> > > I need to make
> > > to avoid conflicks..
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance..
> > >
> > > --JT
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Thanks! .. ;)

The machine I'm running qmail on has like a full c block assigned to it and
a RAID5 array so I don't think the disk i/o will be a problem ??  But if
needed I also have a RAID1 Array setup on it with twin 20gigs so I could
place the secound qmail over there but I think the RAID5 should be fast
enough for it Thoughts?

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Boyiazis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:38 PM
Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...


> We have found inbound mail to be very disk i/o bound
> w/o doing much to the cpu.  so we added another disk
> and have two instances running.  it lets us handle twice
> the load.
>
> you need the box to handle 2 IPs;
>
> for the second instance recompile w/ the value in:
> /export/home/qmail-1.03/conf-qmail to hold the
> home of the second queue, say   /var/qmail2 instead
> of the default /var/qmail
>
> the spot in your tcpserver line that says  0 smtp
> should be changed to be:
>
> mail_instance_1.domain.com smtp
>
> and repeat the tcpserver startup for another instance.
>
> make sure to both qmail instances are started in your
> init script.
>
> --
> Michael Boyiazis
> Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Goran Blazic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:23 PM
> > To: 'James Stevens'; Qmail
> > Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> >
> >
> > I dont really see no good point on why you would want to run
> > multiple copies
> > of qmail...
> > Or what you would understand by that ??!!??
> >
> > Goran
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:19 AM
> > To: Qmail
> > Subject: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
> >
> >
> > Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation
> > of setting up
> > concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits
> > I need to make
> > to avoid conflicks..
> >
> > Thanks in advance..
> >
> > --JT
> >
>
>
>

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Thanks! I was hoping it was that simple... 

--JT
- Original Message - 
From: "Ricardo Cerqueira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

Re: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Well when a list of 200k+ is mailing and another list gets fired up behind
it I would like the server which sits almost twiddling it's thumbs and has
all kinds of resources left over to be able to send out to more than one
list at a time without a queue delay Right now 'Majordomo' funnels all
messages into qmail via qmail-send and anything that gets queued after that
has to wait for the current queue to get done. To get around this I plan on
setting up multiple qmails under the same server each having it's own queue
ofcourse and then each client would have his or her own smtp server for
sending to there lists on. Meaning that with multiple qmails running one
client could send to her or his list and a secound client could send to her
or his list and a third client could send to her or his list and I could
send to my staff list and nowone would experience any delays and maybe just
maybe my server might get above a 5% load avaerage for the first time in
it's life.

Anyways if anyone has actually done this please point me in the right
direction I'd really appreciate it. ;)

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Goran Blazic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'James Stevens'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Qmail"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...


> I dont really see no good point on why you would want to run multiple
copies
> of qmail...
> Or what you would understand by that ??!!??
>
> Goran
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:19 AM
> To: Qmail
> Subject: Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...
>
>
> Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation of setting up
> concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits I need to
make
> to avoid conflicks..
>
> Thanks in advance..
>
> --JT
>
>
>

Running Multiple Copies of Qmail on the same server...

[James Stevens]

Can someone point me to a web page that has some explanation of setting up
concurrent running qmails on the same machine and what edits I need to make
to avoid conflicks..

Thanks in advance..

--JT

Re: Hrmm, question on relay restrictions

[James Stevens]

Nod, it is proper .. Well to my thinking it is 
maybe my logic is messed up today..  But RSS and RBL tests keep 
failiing it because it responds back to there test with 250 Ok .. Meaning it 
excepted the message. When I test out sendmail and Microsoft's SMTP services 
they all deny it and respond back with the No Relaying Aloowed response which is 
what I would like Qmail to do...
 
--JT

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ihnen, 
  David 
  To: 'James Stevens' ; Qmail 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:16 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Hrmm, question on relay 
  restrictions
  
  What 
  part of a bounced message implies that it has been 
  delivered?
   
  Addressing something to somebody without an @ is just addressing it to 
  the local system...
   
  You 
  addressed it with % (no @) and it was not delivered.  Sounds proper 
  to me.
   
  David
  
-Original Message-----From: James Stevens 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 
2000 2:17 PMTo: QmailSubject: Hrmm, question on relay 
restrictions
I've been updating our relay rstriction 
security in tcpserv but while testing I noted that if I attempted to send a 
message to nobody%nobody.com (note the % instead of @) it actually acepts 
the message but bounces it back to me with a no local user 
error...
 
How do I make it to where it doesn't allow that 
type of addressing???
 
--JT

Hrmm, question on relay restrictions

[James Stevens]

I've been updating our relay rstriction security in 
tcpserv but while testing I noted that if I attempted to send a message to 
nobody%nobody.com (note the % instead of @) it actually acepts the message but 
bounces it back to me with a no local user error...
 
How do I make it to where it doesn't allow that 
type of addressing???
 
--JT

Question on Relay Control

[James Stevens]

What file do I need to create in the control 
directory to enable relay control? Actually I would like to enforce User Name 
and Password Authentication from anything incomming to qmail.
 
Secound question.. What happened to www.qmail.org
 
--JT

Re: statistics with qmailanalog

[James Stevens]

Hrmm, I am having the same problem I have a bunch of '@#' files...
I know the numbers are the microsecounds and thats all fine and dandy but
qmail does not seem to be crunching these into a permanet log file.. Hrmmm,
am I mising something here?

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Gesner JEAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 9:11 AM
Subject: statistics with qmailanalog


> Hello,
> Formely i used NT,now I have my server Linux Redhat 6.1 using already
qmail,
> but Iwould like to make now statistics for mails outgoing, entering and
> numbers it connection per month of my utilisateurs.De this fact, I have
> downloaded qmailanalog, at which I estimate who can make it.The problem,
it
> is that I have difficulties in test the correct operation of
qmailanalog.One
> time downloaded qmailanalog on my server, I desarchive it then I made:
> 1- make
> 2- make setup I should have something as follows:
>849347513.939860 running
>849347523.531129 new msg 1923
>849347523.532347 info msg 19326:bytes 266... and in my
configuration,
> after having launched make setup, I found things about like that:
> @000984500.0
>  @000984570.0
>  @956400.0
> After these two there, I blocked myself, and I visited by evil of site
> inorder to find a solution, in vain.Of this, I request your assistance of
> means so that I would make not only the installation but to test to see,
how
> functioning statistics.  I thank you.
>
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>

Re: Spamming .....

[James Stevens]

Talk about a brain fart

--JT
- Original Message -
From: "Jerry Hsieh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Qmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: Spamming .


> Hi,
>
> I would like to get into the spamming business and I have a basic qmail
> server setup already. I have no idea how to send mail to 100k receiptents
at
> one time. Can someone give me some hints? Thanks for your time.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jerry
>
>

Questions...

[James Stevens]

Okay couple questions..
 
1. In qmail how can I force it to go by both MX and 
A records as opposed to just A records??  I have found that qmail seems to 
have a problem when it can't resolve the A record even though the MX is fully 
resolveable to an IP...
 
2. Is there any way to view whats actually in queue 
as oppsed to just seeing numbers.. My boss likes being able to actually see the 
queue like in the old Sendmail.
 
--JT