RE: Qmail and time zone
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:40:29 +0100 (MET), Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: On 04-Mar-2001 Rod... Whitworth wrote: Does this have any bearing on his problem? I don't know as I have not been following it in detail. The - just hit my eye. The - is in the MTA generated Received: lines. AFAIK, it's the standard way to indicate "no offset from UTC". What standard are you quoting? RFC822 says that UT representation is + RFC1123 point out that 822 gets MIL tz codes bass-ackwards so - should be used as defined in 822 as operational difficulty or invalid tz code. This is off the top-of-the-head but if you persist I'll cut and paste quotes! ~|^ From a land where we have to watch out for Northern hemisphere biased ideas about Daylight Saving /Summer Time reversals. From the land "down under": Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over?
RE: Qmail and time zone
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:44:45 +0100 (MET), Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: From Kari's header: Received: (qmail 1259 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Received: from kb2.ksbase.com (HELO k4.ksbase.com) (216.126.66.211) by kb3.ksbase.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:28:30 -0500 I am not talking about clients! Mail generated on a qmail server doesn't have proper date headers, whereas mail coming from a sendmail server does. and That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. Meseems you've got a perfectly reasonable Date: line... As a matter of fact, all your messages have a -0500 offset in the Date: line. What are you blathering about? Stefaan, the line that worries me in that snip you quoted was the one containing -. A negative GMT or UTC or whatever you call it means that there is a difficulty with the timezone on the local machine (IIRC RFC822) and due to an error in RFC822 definition of Military TZ codes (reversed offset from UTC) RFC1123 suggests the use of - should be substituted for all Mil TZs. Does this have any bearing on his problem? I don't know as I have not been following it in detail. The - just hit my eye. FWIW In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Re: Inter7 introduces new software: vQregister
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:57:03 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not and lots of other stuff requoting in full his promotion which, if it had anything to do with qmail, was only of peripheral interest to a few. If I was ever likely to be interested in such a product this would cause me to look elsewhere. Get off my bandwidth. It costs ME not you!
Re: 550 User Unknown
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:49:37 -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: Am I right in think qmail-smtpd will never give this error? Yes. However, it should be noted that servers which do return this error are revealing valuable information -- spammers can use this technique to build a list of valid email addresses, simply by connecting to port 25 and throwing a dictionary at it. I do not disagree. However you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Ever had a spam random attack? Sounds just like the dictionary attack just get squillions of messages directed at squillions of potential mailboxes. What would you rather handle: spam sent to the valid few or bouncing heaps? The spammers will get some through either way and sometimes an innocent forged MTA will have to handle all the bounces if the rejection is not immediate. No simple answer, I think. I'd be pleased to be proven wrong, tho'. What say Charles? In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Things I have noted
I have been lurking on this list for a while. Osmosis! I think I am learning. I certainly know things not to ask. ^|~ Some things seem to be somewhat philosophical however and I do not know all the history. Perhaps the long-time residents may care to expound. Hopefully other lurkers are taking notes. Q1: I have learnt that qmail does not issue reply codes indicating permanent failure for invalid users/mailboxes. I know that these messages will eventually bounce but (apart from the issue of determining whether a recipient exists within a valid domain for delivery) is this "less expensive" than the more obvious 5xx response? On the face of it I see that a qmail server receiving lots of spurious mail for a valid domain will be doing lots lots of work getting rid of messages it could have refused. Is there a non-obvious upside to the qmail way of doing this? Q2: Perhaps I have a user who makes a typo in an address. Say it is in the local-part and that the domain is valid. I have learnt tha qmail does not issue deferral notices. On the server I have worked with in the past a deferral after a few hours may result in the sender correcting the address. (Some are so stupid that a 4x4 hardwood billet but never mind!) Waiting days doesn't seem like other than a godlike retribution process for fallible beings. Comments? In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Re: Things I have noted
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:12:25 +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: I personally *hate* those delay messages. Once I got one every hour for a whole week from a remote system telling me that it cannot contact the final delivery system. Really annoying and pretty useless, as there's nothing I could have done against the problems. The time I liked it was when I was sending a quote and had misunderstood the destination address (or mistyped it, I forget which) and so two things happened: First I had a chance to resend so that my customer did not have to wait 5 days and maybe I would have lost him. Secondly I had a number of re-inforcement messages reminding me to get it right first time! However there is a addon module available at http://www.qmail.org/ that IMHO does what you want. Search for delayed-mail notifier on qmails website. Thanks for that pointer. I didn't go looking because I just knew it wasn't a qmail thing to do! Back to being a lurking sponge.. Rod In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Why?
In the last minute I have received 5 emails from this list purporting to be from funky gao. All have an attachment called Emanuel.exe. 4 are messages from regular contributors who are not (apparently) Chinese. These appear to be from other than their normal origins. What is going on? I am certainly not executing the attached exe (and it probably would not run on either my OS/22 box I'm on now nor the Linux or OBSD ones) but I'm mightily suspicious. In a way this is a test to see if the list is hijacked. In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Re: E-mail through firewall
On 05 Jan 2001 04:55:18 +1100, Brett Randall wrote: I have a problem. Optus@Home in Australia (one of two cable internet providers) have decided to firewall port 25 traffic (incoming) to their entire network except for their own mail servers. This means my mail server is virtually useless... Maybe ask the administration nicely to open up port 25 for certain IPs if the machine passes an open relay test? If no less personal solutions are available, then I will try it. Getting to talk to the administration of telcorp's here in Australia is harder than finding a tinny of VB in Alaska at the moment. They don't particularly care about their customers, and they know that (at the moment), there are only two cable providers in the whole country and both are as crap as the other. I was told that running servers on either of the cable networks was contrary to their AUPs so my mailserver runs on a 'permanent' dial-up to BPD which is enough bandwidth for my 20 or so family accounts and for various other uses. It also gives me a range of static IPs and an IN-ADDR classless routing lookup for the names. Anyway this is OT.. time to go.
Does qmail really delay a bounce for this long?
I have been lurking here for quite a while learning whilst I spend the evenings reading various qmail docs so that when I do get my new box configured and running qmail I hopefully won't need to ask anything. BUT I did get a message today from the list daemon that said: snip == Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. Messages to you seem to have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce message I received. If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces, I will remove your address from the mailing list, without further notice. I've kept a list of which messages bounced from your address. Copies of these messages may be in the archive. To get message 12345 from the archive, send an empty note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here are the message numbers: 58201 --- Below this line is a copy of the bounce message I received. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15605 invoked for bounce); 29 Nov 2000 03:06:15 - Date: 29 Nov 2000 03:06:15 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at muncher.math.uic.edu. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 139.130.242.11 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 552 Requested mail action aborted: storage allocation or incoming size limit exceeded === end snip I looked at the logs on the server here and found that there had been one attempt to get this message through and that it said that the connection was broken (i.e. no QUIT was received) and the time was a week before the bounce date. So the question is - Does qmail by default leave a person trying to send mail waiting for a week before they get any notification that an attempt has failed? Even if the return code suggests a permanent failure? This seems more than a little derelict even if it was due to a typo in an address and very harsh when there is nothing wrong with the message. Is there a way to change this behaviour? BTW the server concerned had no limits set for the mailbox and had 667MB of free space at the time (and now) so I am pursuing that issue elsewhere. TIA In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Re: Does qmail really delay a bounce for this long?
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:03:57 -0500, Alex Pennace wrote: This isn't qmail, it's ezmlm. ezmlm waits a week after the first bounce to send a warning note by default. Sad! I'd have to fix that if I ran it, but thanks for the info. What happens with plain qmail in a similar circumstance? I suppose I'll find out if I keep reading? Thanx again.
Re: meaning of the log files
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:19:29 +0800, Mark Lo wrote: trouble opening local/8/16131; will try again lager." ^ ^^ Were you in the pub directory? I'll slip down to my local and have a beer! My many typos don't usually have a smile as a result. Thank your fingers for this one! In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Re: Free documentation for beginners about mail server basis ?
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:19:11 +0100, Joost van Baal wrote: On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:08:03PM +0300, Mbarak M. Ittiso wrote: my recommendation would be slightly different...download the relevant RFCs. For SMTP try RFC 822...and you'd get an insight into SMTP. The RFC's are required to get a proper understanding; you're right. However, LWQ suggests these (as does the Mail-Administrator-HOWTO). I expected Christophe to know LWQ. I am not a developer but a book I found to be very useful in interpreting RFCs and letting me get a better feel of how things work is: Internet Email Protocols (A developer's guide) Kevin Johnson Addison Wesley ISBN 0-201-43288-9 $44.95 SRP USA It comes with all the relevant RFCs on a CD - a rare case of a truly useful CD with a book! It does stress the need to keep abreast of any updates like new RFCs. There is also source code for "several popular email packages" (I haven't looked at them! and the CD is not within reach) HTH In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
