RE: pop3
That isn't what you wanted to do You have to use Maildir format files (not a softlink to the Mailbox). Maildir format uses separate files for each mail message, mailbox uses one file. qmail's Pop server doesn't handle mbox format. You need to use something like /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake in each user directory (run "as" the user) to create the Maildir hierarchy. Then you need to change "Maildir" to "./Maildir/" in your qmail start script. Then you can download one of the tools like mbox2maildir to convert your mbox formatted files to Maildir format. then you should be a bit farther.. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Michael Mannsberger [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:43 PM To: qmail maillist Subject: pop3 hello, pop3 isn't working for me! - i installed "ucspi-tcp" and "checkpassword" - then i linked /var/spool/mail/usr to $HOME/Maildir - in /var/qmail/rc i changed Mailbox to Maildir qmail-start ./Maildir splogger qmail - in the startup script i added tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup viper.promotions.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir when i want to connect to the mailserver i get "this user has no $HOME/Maildir can anybody help me with that? thanx, -mike
RE: VIRUS WARNING!!!!!!!
If you notice.. The date on the mail is Thursday... Some mailer somewhere held it up in transit it would appear.. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Alan Day [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 1:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: VIRUS WARNING!!! Thanks for the heads up. Any news on the impending release of Windows 3.1 ? -Original Message- From: R.Ilker Gokhan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 4:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: VIRUS WARNING!!! SUBJECT: ILOVEYOU YOU MUST DELETE IT BEFORE OPEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR OS IS WINDOWS !
RE: Two Delivered-To headers - Why ?
But its being delivered to 2 places. This is perfectly normal behavior for qmail. Why should it matter how many delivered-to headers there are ? Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: PPPindia [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 1:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Two Delivered-To headers - Why ? Setup: LAN, Redhat 6.1, qmail, vpopmail/vchkpw, Mailman list software Default domain : sanshri.com, Virtual domain : ppp.com Mailman list is configured for the virtual domain ppp.com Problem : Two Delivered-To headers are being generated - one addressed to the alias, and the other with the actual destination address - the mailman list owner address. (see below) I am having this problem not only in this case, but also when i manually create an alias in the default domain sanshri.com So far i have never been able to create an alias entry without the mail having two delivered-to headers ? I do not have this problem when i create an alias through qmailadmin/vpopmail. The alias setup for the virtual domain is as follows : - In /domains/ppp.com/.qmail-pppshar | preline /home/mailman/mail/wrapper post pppshar In .qmail-default the vdelivermail is called... and the default line put by vpopmail is there undisturbed in /var/qmail/users/assign Headers : Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 1040 invoked from network); 4 May 2000 12:02:28 - Received: from unknown (HELO sanshri.com) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by 192.168.0.15 with SMTP; 4 May 2000 12:02:28 - Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 986 invoked from network); 4 May 2000 11:57:05 - Received: from unknown (HELO ppp) (192.168.0.3) by 192.168.0.15 with SMTP; 4 May 2000 11:57:05 - Message-ID: 003f01bfb5be$ddd1ef80$0300a8c0@ppp From: "listc" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - What could be the problem here ? I want only one Delivered-To header in the messages. Please help ksamy ++ PPPshar- Internet for your LAN with one Internet account netMailshar -Email for every desktop with one 'Net account. MailAssistant - Speaking Email Notifier GetAgain - resume interrupted downloads. Visit http://www.pppindia.com/software ++
RE: Two Delivered-To headers - Why ?
OK.. How about this example. 1) You have an alias /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-ppp (in this file you have [EMAIL PROTECTED]). 2) You also have an alias /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-pppindia (in this file you have [EMAIL PROTECTED]). 3) you have /home/ksamy/ as your real account. An email is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The mail gets delivered to ppp (then the Delivered-To: ppp header is added). qmail then sends this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]). When the mail gets to pppindia another Delivered-To header is added (because it was delivered to pppindia). Then the mail gets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where a third header is added (Delivered-To: ksamy@localhost) Does this clear it up ? The gist of it is, whenever qmail delivers a piece of mail (be it to a real account or a .qmail alias) it adds a delivered-to header to suppress mail loops. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: PPPindia [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:24 PM To: Dave Sill Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Two Delivered-To headers - Why ? Dave Sill wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there are two headers, how does a mail server (say running in a remote place in an intranet) identify to whom it is sent to ? Or is it "legal" to have more than one delivered-to header ? There can be as many Delivered-To fields as necessary. What's "illegal" is two identical Delivered-To fields, which means a message is looping. -Dave But only one delivered-to is generated if i use vpopmail ! If i create an alias .qmail-alias by myself from the command line i have this two deliv.to header problem ? In my case, there is only one message to a single recipient. But the Delivered header shows - one to recipient and other delivered-to to list address !! Otherwise, is it possible to config. qmail so that only one delivered-to (that of final recipient) is generated ? I have seen so many headers of the mails generated by qmail from different providers and i don't see two delivered-to headers there ? I am confused now. ksamy
RE: PHP
Ok.. When you make PHP, what was your config.status ? I used something like: ./configure --with-mysql --with-oracle=/oracle --with-apache=../apache_1.3.9 --without-gd --enable-track-vars This installs it as a module for Apache. Then when you build apache you would do: ./configure --with-apxs=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs \ --with-config-file-path=/etc/httpd \ --activate-module=src/modules/php3/libphp3.a \ --with-mysql \ --with-pgsql \ --with-xml \ --with-gd \ --with-imap \ --with-zlib \ --with-system-regex This should make you all set. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Jeroen ten Berge [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 10:21 AM To: 'Soffen, Matthew'; 'Qmail mailing list' Subject: RE: PHP Euh, where ? There is no libphp3.a ! The configure was at /tmp/php-3.0.16, where I had PHP's source.. -Original Message- From: Soffen, Matthew [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:18 PM To: Jeroen ten Berge; 'Qmail mailing list' Subject: RE: PHP Yeah.. You forgot to "recompile" with PHP support. If you add: --activate-module=src/modules/php3/libphp3.a You should be fine Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Jeroen ten Berge [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:32 AM To: 'Qmail mailing list' Subject:PHP Has anyone treid the web mail howto from Ying Zhang ? Well, I have, first i've done the web database step by step howto, which went perfect, I had database activity on apache using php 3.0.16; Now in order to use IMAP i had to recompile php to include IMAP support : ./configure --with-apxs=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs \ --with-config-file-path=/etc/httpd \ --with-mysql \ --with-pgsql \ --with-xml \ --with-gd \ --with-imap \ --with-zlib \ --with-system-regex make make install Now when i do an /etc/rc.d/init.d/httpd configtest it exits with the following error : Syntax error on line 238 of /etc/httpd/httpd.conf: Cannot load /usr/local/apache/libexec/libphp3.so into server: /usr/local/apache/libexec/libphp3.so: undefined symbol: gss_mech_krb5 Does anybody have a clue what's wrong here ? Regards, Jeroen ten Berge.
RE: PHP
Yeah.. You forgot to "recompile" with PHP support. If you add: --activate-module=src/modules/php3/libphp3.a You should be fine Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Jeroen ten Berge [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:32 AM To: 'Qmail mailing list' Subject: PHP Has anyone treid the web mail howto from Ying Zhang ? Well, I have, first i've done the web database step by step howto, which went perfect, I had database activity on apache using php 3.0.16; Now in order to use IMAP i had to recompile php to include IMAP support : ./configure --with-apxs=/usr/local/apache/bin/apxs \ --with-config-file-path=/etc/httpd \ --with-mysql \ --with-pgsql \ --with-xml \ --with-gd \ --with-imap \ --with-zlib \ --with-system-regex make make install Now when i do an /etc/rc.d/init.d/httpd configtest it exits with the following error : Syntax error on line 238 of /etc/httpd/httpd.conf: Cannot load /usr/local/apache/libexec/libphp3.so into server: /usr/local/apache/libexec/libphp3.so: undefined symbol: gss_mech_krb5 Does anybody have a clue what's wrong here ? Regards, Jeroen ten Berge.
RE: Web front-end to mail service
What ? I use sqwebmail with qmail and Maildir. I don't have any "central spool directory". Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 12:54 PM To: Steffan Hoeke Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Web front-end to mail service I stand corrected. Dave Sill also pointed out that any web front end tool, like sqwebmail, requires the use of mbox format in a central spool directory which is not too desirable to me. If anyone has any information on a more robust web front end tool, I would love to get it. Thanks, Tim |+- || Steffan Hoeke | || [EMAIL PROTECTED]| || yndns.org | || | || 05/02/2000 09:15 AM| || | |+- - ---| | | | To: Tim Clifton/LA/Candle@Candle | | cc: qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Subject: Re: Web front-end to mail service | - ---| On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 09:01:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Someone just asked a very interesting question but has not received a definitive answer: Is there a web based front-end (read "Can Isend receive mail for mail accounts") for qmail? Thanks Do you mean an interface like sqWebMail (http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail) or a web based _administrative_ tool like webmin (http://www.webmin.com) which has a qmail administration module ? What the original poster wanted was, amongst others, a way to remove messages for other users (i.e. customers) if their mailbox was over it's size limit... That's, IMHO, a completely different question than the one you're asking now ;-) Greetz, Steffan -- http://therookie.dyndns.org
RE: can receive no transmit
6 hours ? Man.. I'm lucky to get 4 hours on an average night (Weekends and holidays not withholding [since I can sleep 12 hours and not feel guilty about it] *g*'). Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Adam McKenna [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: can receive no transmit On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 09:07:04AM -0700, Les Higger wrote: YES... I cant believe I forgot to assign the correct DNS server.. qmail is working now.. just goes to show never install on 6 hrs sleep. You generally get more than six hours sleep? Impressive.. :) --Adam
RE: Compile Error
Nope.. Even that won't be a 100 % (so I found). You may need to modify : conf-cc and conf-ld to point to gcc instead of cc Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Greg Owen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 11:30 AM To: qmail Subject: RE: Compile Error to compile qmail. I received the error '/usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed' '*** Error code 1' 'make: Fatal error: Command failed for target 'qmail-local.o' '. What does this mean and how can I get around this? It means that Solaris ships without a C compiler, so you can't compile anything. To fix it, either purchase Sun's compiler, or download a precompiled version of GCC for Solaris. -- gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message Error
1) You didn't setup your control files properly (/var/qmail/control/*) Read the INSTALL.ctl file (its in your build directory). Did you run the config script ? 2) Yes. Read the INSTALL.maildir file (its in your build directory). It explains maildir vs. mbox. Also you probably should read the "Living with Qmail" ( http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html ) by David Sill. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Marcos dos santos Costa [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Message Error Dear Friends, I installed the qmail in my server which run Linux. I configured all things normally. However, when I try to send a message the program (in this case, Eudora) give the follow message: Can't send to ''. The server gives this reason: '553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)'. What is it? What I have to do? And other : When I check for messages, it show that I don?t have maildir. I don?t know how I do for to convert to Maildir, all my users. There is some utility? PS: Before I was use sendmail. Somebody help me? Regards, Frederiko Costa Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
RE: Qmail on FreeBSD 4.0
You will be able to get more support running ucspi and qmail (inetd is no longer supported on any platform for qmail). Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Gabriel Ambuehl [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Qmail on FreeBSD 4.0 Hello, well, we're currently in the migration from SuSE Linux to FreeBSD (atleast our 'testnuke' boxes for learning purposes) and during that I saw that the tcpwrapper port is forbidden because the functions have been integrated into FreeBSD itself. Now I'm wondering if I should install ucspi in order to use qmail on FreeBSD 4.0. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Gabriel
RE: mail-abuse.org
This has been discussed many times on this list. This test is erroneous. As the message says "It appeared to accept ..." This doesn't mean that it DID accept the message. This is a non-problem (as it is not a TRUE indication of your machine being an open relay). Only if it actually DOES deliver the mail should you worry (and unless you installed a patch to allow you to do this, then you shouldn't worry(. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Luis Bezerra [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 4:42 PM To: qmail list Subject: mail-abuse.org Hello averyone: Anyone has one solution for this situation: When I execute one Telnet session to mail-abuse.org, this relay problem is described: Relay test 10 RSET 250 flushed MAIL FROM:spamtest@[200.194.96.32] 250 ok RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[200.194.96.32] 250 ok Relay test result Uh oh, host appeared to accept a message for relay. The host may reject this message internally, however Connection closed by foreign host. Could you help me for to resolve this problem? regards -- - Luis Bezerra de A. Junior [EMAIL PROTECTED] SecrelNet Informatica LTDA Fortaleza - Ceara - Brasil Fone: 021852882090 -
RE: qmail, ucsi-tcp inetd
Its a GNU Tar feature (z means file is gzipped or should be gzipped) Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: "Prospero, Esteban" [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 10:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: qmail, ucsi-tcp inetd What is the z option for? my Solaris tar doesn't understand it... Esteban Javier Prospero -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: qmail, ucsi-tcp inetd tar xfz ucspi-tcp-0.88.tar.gz tar xzf ucspi-tcp-0.88.tar.gz Not really. Tar is one of those inconsistent commands, like find, or dd. When you specify options that have parameters, the parameters have to follow, but merely in the same order. Options that don't have parameters can appear in any order. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
RE: AOL rejects mail
AOL Ignores Time To Live fields in DNS.. It can/will take them up to a week to see DNS changes.. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AOL rejects mail On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 01:35:51PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. We people at mbhs.edu just changed our ISP. We updated all out nameservers for the new MX IP,and mail seems to be working for certain sites, but not all. AOL, erols, compuserve seem to be rejecting our mail. I'm not certain what is wrong./ Has anyone had this type of problem before? Your DNS looks ok, maybe they are slow to notice DNS changes. Are they delays or bounces? Regards.
RE: virtual domain
But have you verified this ? Does: 1) a system user with the ID fadli exist ? 2) a /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-fadli exist ? Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: fadli syarid [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 2:06 AM To: Dave Sill Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: virtual domain Tell us exactly what you did to implement the virtual domain and test it, what you expected to happen, and what actually happened. i make virtualdomains in /var/qmail/control and then add syarid.com:fadli. i add syarid.com to rcpthosts. and then i restart qmail i trying to send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get error message like this Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) i expect i can use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my email adress
RE: Minimal MX Mail and Proxy Confusion
Umm.. What do you mean ? A little more info might be useful. 1) Does your mail server have multiple interfaces/domains (i.e. 2 NIC cards. One for outside traffic and one for inside traffic). Or is the mail server a "real" machine (a valid routable IP address) ? 2) Can you get INSIDE mail to work (i.e. connections from behind the proxy server into the mail server) ? 3) Can you telnet from OUTSIDE through your proxy into the mail server's port 23, 25, or 143 ? Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Steve Craft [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:08 AM To: qmail Subject: Minimal MX Mail and Proxy Confusion Slightly OT - My proxy server has 3 "holes" through it passing port 23,25,143 traffic directly to my qmail box. I am trying to get the mail traffic to my mail server from both sides of the proxy. Can anyone example me the minimal DNS MX record entry/entries necessary to make this work? Thanks if you can help.
RE: Messages don't get deleted
Stop qmail first or you risk deleting valid mail ... (or do a mv cur cur.del; mkdir cur) . Then do a rm -rf cur.del Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Gabriel Ambuehl [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 1:24 PM To: System Administrator Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Messages don't get deleted Hello System, can anybody help me delete around 25000 messages from Maildir/cur , please also when rm -f * comamned is ececuted it says /bin/rm Arguments list too long. What stops you from using, say rm 91* rm 92* rm 93* and so on? That should help (I'm not sure about the naming, is it simply done by the number of seconds since the epoque? If yes, you'll most likely have to use something like 9XX1* 9XX2). Oh, what about $ cd.. $ rm -rf cur $ mkdir cur ?
RE: Vapormail (was: Re: Problem: 552 max. message size exceeded)
postfix sounds like a formatter for a online form submittal program, not a mail server.. I mean, How do you go from postfix to mail server (at least qmail and sendmail have the word MAIL in their titles). Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Aaron L. Meehan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Vapormail (was: Re: Problem: 552 max. message size exceeded) Quoting Jeremy Hansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): This is true, yet I don't understand why Wietse claims so many more people are using Postfix. I don't have the link to the thread off hand, but I remember reading something along the lines of "No one uses qmail, a few people are using Postfix" which boggled my mind because all the places I've visited in the past month or so in the Silicon Valley, about 10 - 15 companies all use qmail, none use Postfix. So where is he getting his information? The proverbial ether, probably! I really think he should have left the name as Vapormail, which DJB suggested he should name is "vaporware" MTA. Heh. Well, hmm, if I remember correctly. It was awhile ago Wietse came here trolling for a name for his new qmail replacement. I remember getting a laugh out of it, whatever the name was ;-) I like Vapormail better than ``Postfix.'' What does that mean, anyway? :) Aaron
RE: Relaying problem..
Now for the obvious question, what does your /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
file look like ? Is beachassociates.com in it ? Is it a virtual server (if
so, is it in /var/qmail/control/virtualservers and NOT in
/var/qmail/control/locals) or is it a local domain ?
Matt Soffen
Web Intranet Developer
http://www.iso-ne.com/
==
Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==
-Original Message-
From: Chad Day [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 3:49 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Relaying problem..
First off, yes, I've read life with qmail and everything I can about
rcpthosts. :)
The error message I'm receiving is:
Error sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (553 sorry, that domain isn't
in
my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1))
[Tue Apr 4 17:24:48 2000] [error] Error sending to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of
allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1))
What I am trying to do is e-mail a user a login/pw from a webpage..
The code is:
# Takes the address, subject and an email, and does what it says
# used by dailyStuff, users.pl, and someday submit.pl
sub sendEmail {
my( $addr, $subject, $content, $smtp_server ) = @_;
my %mail = (
smtp= $smtp_server,
To = $addr,
From= $I{adminmail},
Subject = $subject,
Message = $content
);
sendmail( %mail ) or die $Mail::Sendmail::error;
}
$smtp_server is defined in another file to be my smtp server.. set
correctly.
Regular local - remote, remote - local, and local - local mail delivery
all works.
My tcp.smtp line is:
208.246.80.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
which I thought would be the solution, but I'm still hitting that error.
There must be something I'm not understanding or am missing somewhere.. I
don't think it's the script thats a problem, because if I telnet to port
25
and try to rcpt to anywhere else, it gives me the same problem.. what is
wrong with my tcp.smtp?
Thanks,
Chad Day
Beach Associates
- I heard if you play the NT CD backwards, you can hear satanic messages?
- That's NOTHING. If you play it forwards, it installs NT 4.0.
RE: network connection dies randomly?
Your default route may be munged. Verify that you DO have a default route defined (i.e.. the DSL modem). Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: John W. Lemons III [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 4:43 PM To: qmail list Subject: RE: network connection dies randomly? I installed and configured QMail on Friday of last week. It passed all the snip Another detail that may help... When the connection appears hung, netstat -r hangs before it reports the default route. I can't even kill it. Is the routing table getting hosed? If so, how? Also, pump sometimes brings it back to life, but usually just hangs and can't be killed.
RE: can't remove
No.. It clearly shows that it is being delivered to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] not to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's the address that needs to unsubscribe. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Philip Gabbert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: can't remove Ugh.. Everything I send the message back to the email help bot, it tells me it can't remove me from the list cause my address is not on the list, but I still get the email. here's a copy of the headers in a qmail message: Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:58:26 -0600 This clearly shows that it's sending email to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' exactly like that. Here's my response from the ezmlm help bot: Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. Acknowledgment: The address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not on this mailing list. Well... What's going on here? It says that I'm not on the list, but it clearly shows in the headers that it's getting sent to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' help.. Philip -- -- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
RE: Addition was Weird
A couple of things could be at work here: 1) Your mail server is running identd and its taking 3 minutes timing out trying to determine your identity. 2) The IP address you are connecting from is not in DNS properly, so you are timing out with DNS trying to do a reverse DNS Lookup. Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Irwan Hadi [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Addition was Weird After waiting for long time, the SMTP banner then up again how this could be happened ? so when I telnet localhost 25, I must wait about 3 minutes to wait until the SMTP banner up. (qmail is ready) how to fix this --- AFLHI 058009990407128029/089802---(102598//991024)
RE: Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:33:11 zTo: header
If memory serves me right, what Blue Mountain sends you for a "card" is a link to their site (please correct me if I am wrong). If I am correct, then you just don't go to the site to collect your card. Also, FYI: http://www.bluemountain.com/home/privacy.html "We are committed to making your Blue Mountain experience enjoyable and safe. When you send one of our electronic greetings, the information you provide to us is used only to customize your greeting with your name and your recipient's name, and to deliver email notifications to you and your recipient. The names and email addresses you give us when you simply send a card are NOT sold, compiled into any type of mailing list, or otherwise used for any type of email solicitation. " I get more SPAM from Real Audio then I get from anyone else ( I use a new address for anyplace that I have to give an address and so far NONE of them have ever sold my address ). Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Bruno Wolff III [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:47 PM To: Dave Sill Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:33:11 zTo:" header On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 12:22:21PM -0500, Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the same problem and have been trying to educate my relatives. What education do people sending you cards need? Apparently I need it, too. That I don't read email under windows. I don't want to waste bandwidth and diskspace on images, especially animated ones. I am currently not even using X on the machine that I use for email, so viewing images is a bit of a problem. I don't want the card companies collecting and reselling my address. While it isn't secret, the kind of people a greeting card company is likely to sell it to, aren't the kind of people I want using it. In the mean time I am using the following rules for tcpserver: # Blue Mountain greeting card goes through bmarts 209.247.132.86-138:deny 209.247.133.7-8:deny This appears to have blocked at least one message from a relative successfully. I don't know who else uses bmarts, so this may block other people than Blue Mountain. bmarts is, presumably, Blue Mountain Arts. Do you block other card services, or is Blue Mountain the only one that's evil? They are the only one I seem to have gotten sent cards by. If there was an RBL style list of greeting card servers, I would use it. Do you reject snail mail containing greeting cards? Snail mail cards don't have a lot of extra negative impact on my end when they have pictures added to them as well as text. Do you block calls from friends and relatives on holidays and birthdays? No, but I often give telemarkers a hard time. I just don't get it... -Dave
RE: SPAMCONTROL patch
-Original Message- From: Erwin Hoffmann [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Russell Nelson Subject: Re: SPAMCONTROL patch Hi Russell, I wrote in the README.spamcontrol: "Since QMAIL by contruction is an OPEN RELAY, some vulnerability may be experienced not in particular to the QMAIL system itself (which can stand a heavy load), but for other MTAs which are flooded by SPAM E-Mail. " You're kidding, right? == Am I? qmail is by construction an open relay?? URL to the RFC 2505: ftp://ftp.opus1.com/rfc/rfc2505.txt == See RFC 2505. And ? I just looked at it. qmail (when configured correctly) does 1 through 5 (the musts and must nots). It does 6a and 6b (providing the person sending the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address has permission to relay). qmail does 7a, 7b, It does 8 when you use tcpserver... And the reason not to be an open relay is because you'll be blocked because of the spam that (eventually) comes through your site. == Sorry, dont get the point. Spam is itself not a serious load on anybody's MTA -- not even sendmail. == Looking in the Log-files tells me something different. Are you talking Open Relay or SPAM ? They are related but not the same. By default, qmail is NOT an open relay. If you misconfigure it (by deleting the /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts file, for example) then all bets are off. Pls. have a look into my improved README. I tried to be as specific as possible. If I am mistaken, pls. correct me. We have a lot of discussion about that subject in the QMAIL mailinglist without bringing it to the point. SPAM and the abuse of SMTP MTAs is a severe problem, because the QMAIL FAQ is not specific enough at that item. From SYSADMINs who use QMAIL (I am responsible for an environment with 5000 local users) I know, that making QMAIL SPAM-proof is not that easy. I dont know, whether employing TCPSERVER and calling ORBs or others is the perfect solution. I am always suspicious about other people's "thats the right way to do". There is no "right" solution, only a solution that's "right" for the person who is implementing it. For the next version of QMAIL it would be a preferred solution to include the canonical SPAM filters nativeley into QMAIL-SMTPD. The information can be grepped via the TCPSERVER environment at run-time. I somehow doubt that it is going to happen. Anti-SPAM is NOT a part of mail transport, there for I really doubt that DAB would even consider adding it to Qmail 2.x Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: TZ for qmail
Yes. Since using GMT would allow better ease in tracking down mail problems (if everyone used GMT instead of some using EST, EDT, PST, etc.). Matt Soffen Web Intranet Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Brian Johnson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:12 AM To: Qmail-List Subject: Re: TZ for qmail I believe by default qmail is supposed to always use GMT no matter what... this is something of a feature? anyway, there is a small patch here: ftp://ftp.nlc.net.au/pub/unix/mail/qmail/qmail-date-localtime.patch to make qmail use your local timezone... Aled Treharne wrote: Where can I set the TZ for qmail? It's currently using GMT (although both my h/w clock and my TZ is set to EST). This kinda gets annoying. :)
Off Topic: Bernstein vs. US DOJ Text of ruling
I am wondering if this ruling is available online ? The reason in I ask is that in the deCSS case the judge has stated that software is NOT speech, If memory serves me correct, the judge in Dan's case stated that software IS speech. Thanks for any help ! Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: Off Topic: Bernstein vs. US DOJ Text of ruling
*confused look* Strange, either something IS speech, or it isn't (in my opinion anyways).. This is going to be one HELL of a legal precedent setting case if the deCSS defendants can't present more evidence in their favor. Matt -Original Message- From: iv0 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 10:35 AM To: Soffen, Matthew Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Off Topic: Bernstein vs. US DOJ Text of ruling If you read what the Judge said in the DeCSS case in New York, he stated that the courts are not clear on this issue. He sited the Bernstein case as "it is speech" and cited some other cases as "it is not speech". Ken Jones "Soffen, Matthew" wrote: I am wondering if this ruling is available online ? The reason in I ask is that in the deCSS case the judge has stated that software is NOT speech, If memory serves me correct, the judge in Dan's case stated that software IS speech. Thanks for any help ! Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: mail to all@domain.com password protected
Then couldn't an ezmlm list with specific people able to "post" work for a situation like this ? Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Marco Leeflang [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 2:50 PM Cc: qmail maillist Subject: Re: mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] password protected [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:33:38PM +0100, Marco Leeflang wrote: First a pop validation and then mail to this account. First of all: don't Cc me, I'm on the list. ok. Second: http://leerquoten.nijntje.net/ (Dutch). just read it. And then, to quote djb: 'What problem are you trying to solve?' i don't want everyone to send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], just selected people. mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be delivered to all popboxen in this domain. so thats why Greetz, Peter. marco leeflang
RE: Strange malfuntion when using ifconfig alias on FreeBSD
-Original Message- From: Ingmar Hupp [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Strange malfuntion when using ifconfig alias on FreeBSD Hi, I'm experiencing strange problems with qmail on my FreeBSD box when trying to use IP aliases. qmail sends broken envelope-froms while aliasing is active. this is the state of the only NIC in my system: de0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 inet 194.145.150.99 netmask 0xfff0 broadcast 194.145.150.111 Just a single adress on a single interface. qmail works fine. Then i add an IP alias: de0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 inet 194.145.150.99 netmask 0xfff0 broadcast 194.145.150.111 inet 194.145.150.97 netmask 0x broadcast 194.145.150.97 Hmmm this looks correct. Do you have IP routing enabled on the machine ? Is the netmask correct ? After this, qmail breaks the envelope-from, which looks like this (tcpdump'ed = received; = sent): 220 lily.zomby.net ESMTP[CR] HELO mail.zomby.net[CR] 250 lily.zomby.net[CR] ...everything ok so far. But now: MAIL FROM:[\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\0 0][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][\00][CR] 250 ok[CR] ...normal SMTP blabla continues I think i've also seen strange control chars instead of this null-string sometimes. It works perfect again if I remove the IP alias. It doesn't matter wheter qmail is running or not while adding/removing the alias. So how can I fix this? I didn't find anything about this in the mailing list archive, but I can't believe I'm the only person using qmail on FreeBSD with IP aliases. Or is FreeBSD broken here? I'd appreciate your help. qmail version is 1.03 (FreeBSD ports one) FreeBSD taurus.zomby.net 3.4-RC FreeBSD 3.4-RC #1 I have the exact same versions running on my system (not from ports) (machine with 2 IP's).. Heck ! this machine has 2 NIC Cards too ! What type of NIC do you have ? Are you running on TCP Server or Inetd ?
RE: new to list, install questions
-Original Message- From: Peter Green [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:15 AM To: Mark Maggelet Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: new to list, install questions [snip] 3) how do I configure /bin/mail to use qmail? the doc just says do it but doesn't say how. I haven't been able to figure out how to configure *sending* mail using /bin/mail on a qmail installed machine. My guess is that /bin/mail speaks directly to an SMTP server or something goofy. Being on a RedHat 6.1 box, you might consider using Bruce Guenter's *excellent* qmail source RPMs. http://em.ca/~bruceg/ I believe that /bin/mail simply uses /usr/sbin/sendmail to send its mail so make sure that you have replaced sendmail with a link to the qmail sendmail wrapper program. Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: begging for mercy, I am swallowing pride.
Could your problem be due to your "reply-to" address being set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of your normal account ? Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Chris Santerre [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:54 AM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: begging for mercy, I am swallowing pride. Importance: High I hate when people keep posting stupid stuff on a list. I am on numerous lists like everyone else. When you get these newbies that ask the stupidest things you have to grin and bear it. But when they keep beating a dead horse, you want to beat the term FAQ and HOWTO into there vocabulary. Well now I feel like I need the beating. All I want to do is get off this list. I got on when I was thinking of using qmail on one of our servers, but I didn't use it. So I get tons of things I don't need. I have tried just about everything. If somebody can't figure out this problem, I'll have to write a script that filters this stuff out. the following is an email I sent to another person that best describes the problem. Basically the return-path address in the header is the same as what I try to unsubscribe as, but it just says not in the list. PLEASE help me figure this out so I can stop wasting everyone's time. Here goes: If you can figure this one out for me, I am in your debt. I hate pasting in all this stuff, but I don't have a choice at this point. I have done the usual unsubscribe with no effect. Yes it tells me I am not in the list. So I searched the return path as you and about ten others have mentioned, including the ezmlm itself. It gives me the same name that I tried unsubscribing with. As with every other admin in the world, I have a lot of email addresses. I have tried them all. Here is a list of the email addresses I have tried to unsubscribe as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (An old email I inherited from previous admin's web design) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this is an internal email id set by emwac) and the 1st 3 again with @mole.paginc.com It never gives me an error about my unsubscription, so I no they are not malformed. This branch of the company is using EMWAC email on an NT server w/ Norton antivirus email gateway. I don't think any of this matters but I figured I'd give you the whole scoop. So here's what it gives me: Received: from SMTP (unverified [208.165.176.194]) by mole.paginc.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:11:58 -0500 Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.181]) by 208.165.176.194 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:11:57 (GMT) Received: (qmail 6030 invoked by uid 1002); 7 Dec 1999 14:06:32 - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Date: 7 Dec 1999 14:06:32 - Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ezmlm response Delivered-To: responder for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 5512 invoked from network); 7 Dec 1999 14:06:32 - Received: from mole.paginc.com (208.165.176.194) by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 7 Dec 1999 14:06:32 - Received: from SMTP (unverified [172.16.1.101]) by mole.paginc.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:10:13 -0500 Received: from paginc.com ([172.16.1.188]) by 172.16.1.101 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:10:12 (GMT) X-Mozilla-Status: 8003 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-UIDL: B494508.MSG Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. To confirm that you would like [EMAIL PROTECTED] removed from this mailing list, please send an empty reply to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your mailer should have a Reply feature that uses this address automatically. I haven't
RE: rejecting mail for 1 user
http://www.qmail.org/man/man1/bouncesaying.html in .qmail: |bouncesaying error [ program [ arg ... ] ] Make the /var/alias/.qmail-annie:loul file contain: |bouncesaying 'This address no longer accepts mail.' /dev/null This will give a bounce message and put the message into the trash bin. Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Tim Hunter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: rejecting mail for 1 user This is something that has been bugging me for quite awhile but never had the time to deal with it. Apparently some time ago before I became the email admin for our domain the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] became a target for many a spammer. Now this account does not exist and is very doubtful that it ever existed. What I would like to do is make something to reject any mail for this "user". This is a corporate email server and I don't have the time nor the patience to deal with bounces for unknown or full spammer return addresses. I am sure this has come up before but didn't see a solution on the website anywhere. Thanks for any ideas Tim Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] CIMx Company p 513 248-7700 f 513-248-7711 http://www.cimx.com
RE: rejecting mail for 1 user
Right.. but the onus of this is put on the people with the open relays... Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: rejecting mail for 1 user On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 12:36:48PM -0500, Soffen, Matthew wrote: http://www.qmail.org/man/man1/bouncesaying.html in .qmail: |bouncesaying error [ program [ arg ... ] ] Make the /var/alias/.qmail-annie:loul file contain: |bouncesaying 'This address no longer accepts mail.' /dev/null This will give a bounce message and put the message into the trash bin. The /dev/null can be replaced by a '#', or even better, removed altogether. But this solution won't work since the spammers use fake return addresses most of the time. Greetz, Peter. -- Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/womanizer/pretending coder | | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.' | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
RE: Maildir as link
Maildir should be transparent to any POP users. The only people who would have difficulties are one who log directly onto the mail server via some sort of shell account (and use PINE or MUTT, etc. for accessing their mail). Your POP users can care less about the format on the server. The POP3 Server handles the actual distribution to the PC POP client. Matt Soffen Applications Developer http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -Original Message- From: Edward Castillo-Jakosalem [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:22 AM To: Dave Sill Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Maildir as link Great! Thanks a lot guys! It worked. BTW, is there an available list of Windoze MUA that support Maildir? I have tried Eudora2.x and Netscape Communicator so far and it seems ok. (Yeah, I have to accept that many of our clients use Windoze!) Regards, Edward Castillo Jakosalem On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Maildir as link David Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is possible to deliver mail to a symbolically linked Maildir. Why don't you try it and see? -Dave
RE: The word from Mail.com
It looks to me that many machines running qmail will die on test 6. I tried my personal email server, one I do consulting for, the one at abuse.net, and muncher.math.uic.edu. It looks like all of them fail at Test 6. However when I ran the test on vix's mailer, it passed all the tests. The only reason it passes is that it checks the sender address BEFORE attempting to deliver. I also ran the test on Sendmail.org's server. It passes as well. I have a question though, how valid is testing "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to see if the address fails/rejected ? The mail server would HAVE to process the % hack. Its NOT necessarily a valid test on all servers. Its only appropriate to test this on servers who HAVE the % hack enabled. Comments ? Matt Soffen -Original Message- From: Justin Bell [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 4:01 PM To: Ben Kosse Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The word from Mail.com On Wed, Sep 01, 1999 at 12:44:22PM -0700, Ben Kosse wrote: # From: "Mail.com Abuse" [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:09:54 -0400 # To: Justin Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Subject: Re: blacklisted? # # Justin # # On Thu Jul 15, we received a high volume of traffic from # 206.246.140.165 # (iq-ss5.iquest.net). Specifically, we got 472 messages in # an hour. If you # check # http://maps.vix.com/tsi/new-rlytest.cgi?ADDR=iq-ss5.iquest.net you # will see that this machine is an open relay. We therefore # blocked it. If # you secure this machine, we will be glad to unblock it. # # as can be seen here, no, they did not claim that that is why it was # blacklisted, but that the host is an open relay. # # of course, their own mail servers do not get past test TWO themselves. # # I'd like to point out that they're saying, based solely on the failure of # test 7, they claim that iq-ss5.iquest.net is an open relay and thus needs # blocking. exactly! If that did not get across the first time, they are blocking my mail server because it fails test 7, of course, I have since added [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the badmailfrom which lets the machine pass all the tests Justin -- /- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\ |Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. | |Pearson | Attention span is quickening.| |Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. | \ http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ --/
RE: tcpserver and rejection logging .
That's what I would have thought. But it isn't. -Original Message- From: Dave Sill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 9:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: tcpserver and rejection logging . "Soffen, Matthew" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there any way to get tcpserver to log deny's ? I would like to see the failures/rejections when it logs (similar to how tcpd does it in Paranoid mode). Any help would be appreciated. The command I currently use to start my qmail/tcpserver is: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 1017 -g 1016 -x /var/qmail/tcp.smtp.cdb 0 smtp recordio /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 21 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 That should be logging deny's, as well as successful connections. -Dave
RE: tcpserver and rejection logging .
-Original Message- From: Dave Sill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 12:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: tcpserver and rejection logging . "Soffen, Matthew" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I would have thought. But it isn't. It isn't what? Logging denials? Logging successes? Successful attempts are logged properly as are all transmissions. Denials are not being logged. If it's not logging anything, your syslog configuration is probably botched. Does: echo foo | splogger smtpd 3 No. But, 'echo foo | splogger smtpd 2' does (on my system 2 = LOG_MAIL, 3 = LOG_DAEMON); Log anything? If not, check your syslog.conf. Logged it fine (once I changed from 2 to 3) . Logs fine. I even added mail.* to the syslog.conf and restarted the syslogd daemon but it is still not logging denys.
RE: pine patches
Actually the mail administrator MAY be a non-programmer. (in fact where I work, our postmaster is a tech / system maint person). And I bet that this is more the norm, than an exception. Matt -Original Message- From: Mate Wierdl [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 12:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pine patches If you want, I can extract the patches from the src rpm for you. 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. Mate
RE: Skipping DNS reverse check!
Do what I do, I scan the "refused connect" messages and send emails to the domains in question. Most of the time, I get a good response. Matt -Original Message- From: Vanderlei C. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Skipping DNS reverse check! Hello, I'm using tcp_wrappers (tcpd) to avoid email relay in my server. But the problem is that some email I should receive, are instead bounced. In my maillog file I noticed that this is happening when the DNS verification results in different domain names (the reverse is not good in the email original server!). Ex: Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: warning: can't verify hostname: gethostbyname(sahs-gateway.acrux.net) failed Aug 13 09:12:52 mymachine tcp-env[13392]: refused connect from 207.51.203.140 Or Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: warning: host name/name mismatch: inet.netaxs.com != mail.inet-access.net Aug 13 09:12:35 mymachine tcp-env[13390]: refused connect from 207.8.186.50 Do you know how to avoid dns verification? Thanks a lot, -- Vanderlei C. da Silva PHONE: 212-962-7410 x324 Fine Point Technologies, Inc. FAX: 212-962-7404 90 John Street Suite 311E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] New York, NY 10038 Web: http://www.finepoint.com
RE: security
I just found this in my delete folder.. It looks like Gustavo DID say they claimed qmail was the point of entry. On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Gustavo Rios wrote: Does any body here knows something about rootshell attack? According some people at bos-br, they were hacked through qmail, which has some bug! (Nothing sure). -Original Message- From: Dave Sill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: security Gustavo Rios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did not say they blamed qmail, they only assured SSH was bugfree! Anyone who says 'X' is bugfree, when 'X' is something as baroque as ssh, is a fool. My confidence in ssh would only be lowered by hearing such a claim--unless it was made a marketing type. NOTHING were said about qmail. So why are we talking about it? -Dave
RE: DNS error
Now I can't even find the host nslookup dhamma.metta.lk in DNS. -Original Message- From: Jacob (Mettavihari) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 7:21 AM To: Soffen, Matthew Cc: Robbie Walker; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: DNS error On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Soffen, Matthew wrote: I found what you said in /var/named.local. this file was taking local host to be the NS. I have done a few corrections, and would much appriciate to have advice. to see if what I have done is OK. dig any metta.lk @tradenetsl.lk dig any metta.lk @metta.lk or nslookup (I have never used it) still very much a beginner at this. Thanks for your help. Jacob Here is the DNS error: # nslookup dhamma.metta.lk Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 Non-authoritative answer: Name:metta.lk Address: 204.143.107.46 Aliases: dhamma.metta.lk # nslookup 204.143.107.46 Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 *** localhost can't find 204.143.107.46: Non-existent host/domain This means the reverse DNS is not set. You may not have any means to do this either (some ISP's want full control over the reverse DNS). So if you contact your ISP, they may be able to update (O.K., create) your entry. My ISP have been very helpful and they also learn in the process. We all are just young people learning around here. Jacob.
RE: DNS error
Here is the DNS error: # nslookup dhamma.metta.lk Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 Non-authoritative answer: Name:metta.lk Address: 204.143.107.46 Aliases: dhamma.metta.lk # nslookup 204.143.107.46 Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 *** localhost can't find 204.143.107.46: Non-existent host/domain This means the reverse DNS is not set. You may not have any means to do this either (some ISP's want full control over the reverse DNS). So if you contact your ISP, they may be able to update (O.K., create) your entry. -Original Message- From: Robbie Walker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:33 AM To: Jacob (Mettavihari) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DNS error Jacob, you wrote: Thank you very much I think you are right, I have changed the DNS entry as you suggested. I though still have an error. I am working on a test machine. which is not connected to the net, and the differences will only be updated later today. to the online machine. [root@dhamma qmail-1.03]# ./config Your hostname is dhamma.metta.lk. soft error Sorry, I couldn't find your host's canonical name in DNS. You will have to set up control/me yourself. -- I modified as per your suggestion, but did not have a good result The machine is a test machine which is not conneted to the NET I shall update the DNS in the main machine later today. perhaps you might get a different result if if you say dig all metta.lk @tradenetsl.lk Jacob, this is way beyond my meager skills. You should probably set up control/me as follows dhamma.metta.lk and move on. I'm not sure why the DNS isn't resolving your domain/host properly, but something definitely seems odd. Good Luck. Robbie Walker 800-773-5647 - -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1.2 GCM d- s+:++ a- C+++ UL P++ L+++ E--- W+++ N+ o? K- w---(++) !O M++ !V PS--(+) PE++ Y+ PGP++ t++ 5+ X+ R+ tv b++ DI++ D++ G++ e h--- r+++ y+++ - --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [President Clinton] boasts about 186,000 people denied firearms under the Brady Law rules. The Brady Law has been in force for three years. In that time, they have prosecuted seven people and put three of them in prison. You know, the President has entertained more felons than that at fundraising coffees in the White House, for Pete's sake." -- Charlton Heston, FOX News Sunday, 18 May 1997 "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2 iQA/AwUBN3jnSTrJV5JQYcnnEQLXygCfdOsb6G6a16IfGDbICp90wPbQ510AoMlL xDAx/kbuseW02e4pLO0rEQR8 =gPCU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: mail time ?
qmail works in UTC time. I am assuming you are -3.00 GMT ? -Original Message- From: Claudiu Balciza [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 10:06 AM To: qmail List Subject: mail time ? qmail 1.03 on redhat 5.2 I sent myself an e-mail at 17:01 I got it back instantly marked as received at 20.01 The server time was 17:01 why is that ? Claudiu
RE: rcpthost question
Did you also make sure that you had jammconsulting.com in the locals file ? Otherwise it will accept mail for the domain, but it will forward it to the other account. -Original Message- From: Neil Aggarwal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 11:19 AM To: qmail mailing list Subject: rcpthost question Hello: I have a domain JAMMConsulting.com hosted with an ISP. I have set-up a Redhat linux 5.3 system with qmail that I am going to transfer the domain to. So, when I set-up qmail, I put JAMMConsuling.com in the rcpthosts file. I tried to test it by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from that machine. I asumed that it would go to neil on that machine, but it went to the account on the other ISP. This is not what I expected. Will everything be OK when I transfer the domain? Will I be able to receive email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on this new machine if I have a login neil on it? Thanks, Neil. -- **We pay a 5% finders fee for job referrals that lead to a contract* |Neil Aggarwal |JAMM Consulting, Inc. |Custom Programming | |President CEO|www.JAMMConsulting.com|Java, C, C++, perl,| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|(972) 612-6056|HTML, CGI | File: Card for Neil Aggarwal
RE: rcpthost question
This is an FAQ question. You create a ~alias/.qmail-webmaster file which contains one line (neil). To handle all non-user addresses you create a ~alias/.qmail-default which contains the address you wish to receive the bad/bogus mail. -Original Message- From: Neil Aggarwal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 11:32 AM To: Soffen, Matthew; qmail mailing list Subject: Re: rcpthost question Did you also make sure that you had jammconsulting.com in the locals file ? Otherwise it will accept mail for the domain, but it will forward it to the other account. That was my problem. Obviously, I am still now to this. Another question: Do you know how to alias an email address? Ie: If someone send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I want it delivered to the neil account. Moreover, is there a way to do this: When a piece of mail comes to the machine, by any of its names, do this: 1. Check if it is to login on that machine. If so, deliver it. 2. If it is for a non-existant login, send to a speciified account. Thanks, Neil. **We pay a 5% finders fee for job referrals that lead to a contract* |Neil Aggarwal |JAMM Consulting, Inc. |Custom Programming | |President CEO|www.JAMMConsulting.com|Java, C, C++, perl,| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|(972) 612-6056|HTML, CGI | File: Card for Neil Aggarwal
RE: Cname lookup failure only on aol.com addresses?
This is strange. I DON'T have the DNS patch installed and I am able to send to AOL without any problems. -Original Message- From: Russell Nelson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 10:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cname lookup failure only on aol.com addresses? Adam H writes: I get delivery 12148: deferral: CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/ On any mail being sent to aol.com Everything else is kosher. Anyone else having this problem? Everyone else is having this problem. Dan predicted that nobody would *dare* to use DNS records 512 bytes. AOL did, and does. Look on www.qmail.org for the dns patch. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Good parenting creates 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | an adult, not a perfect Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | child.
RE: Problem receiving email.
I just checked a couple of things. They appear to have 2 mail hosts (mail-gw.zianet.com and mail.zianet.com). I just tried to send to mail.zianet.com and it worked fine. I then tried to connect to mail-gw.zianet.com and it failed (Connection refused) I wonder if the failures happen when the 2ndary mailer (mail-gw) is being used. That could at least part of the problem. Also, can you paste any failure messages from this ISP to the list ? Those will be of great use. -Original Message- From: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 2:22 PM To: qmail-list Subject: Problem receiving email. We're running a combination of qmail-1.01 on a box and qmail-1.03 on a box. Both setups are working fine, and we are utilizing tcpserver. The problem is that a local internet competitor cannot email our customers "sometimes" -- I just sent a test message to their webmaster address and it completed fine, however, i have some of THEIR customers calling me, as well as some of MY customers calling me telling me about it. I know the problem exists, but i cant track it down. They of course blame it on us. They are running NT, here is a cap from their port 25: Connected to zianet.com. Escape character is '^]'. 220 nova.zianet.com WindowsNT SMTP Server v3.02.13/1.abcm ready at Mon, 17 May 1999 12:17:25 -0600 ^] They told us to check and see if we were on ORBS (which were not) and other then that made no effort to help me trouble shoot the problem. Does anybody have any clues on what could cause some mail NOT to go through properly? ___ _ __ _ __ /___ ___ /__ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC! _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052 /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com [-[system info]---] 12:15pm up 101 days, 19:18, 3 users, load average: 0.48, 0.19, 0.11
RE: qmail doesn't accept any connections on port 25
can you give some more data ? What does the mail log say ? How do you start qmail. what is the command line you use to start qmail ? What is in your inetd.conf file for SMTP ? -Original Message- From: Achim Gosse [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 11:00 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: qmail doesn't accept any connections on port 25 hello, i've installed qmail like it is described in the qmail faq. internal mail deliviery is running fine, but qmail doesn't get any emails from outside and doesn't accept any connections per telnet on port 25 (telnet localhost 25). any hints? thanks in advance achim
RE: Qmail and tcpserver bootup script
Ok.. 1) The best place to add "user" scripts is in the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ directory. You make a little /usr/local/etc/rc.d/qmail.sh file to run that command. (this will save it from upgrade to upgrade). The files in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ are run after /etc/rc.* are done but before you log in. B) Your path is not initialized at that point. You should put the explicit path to tcpserver in your startup script. This way it will not require anything extra in the path to start it. -Original Message- From: Jeff Lush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 19, 1999 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Qmail and tcpserver bootup script Hello all, I am a bit of a newbie to Unix and installed qmail for the first time this weekend on FreeBSD 3.1. Installation and configuration was really very straight forward. In no time I had setup selective relaying for my LAN and pop3 with checkpassword (kudos to everyone with documentation on these topics, without you people like me would be lost!). My only problem is: As the FAQs and docs require, I added two lines to my startup script: 1) "tcpserver -R -x/usr/local/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u82 -g81 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd " 2) "tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin qmail-popup MYHOST \ /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir " I added these into the rc.conf file under /etc. When the machine reboots, I get an error near the end of the script saying "tcpserver not found"; however, when I manually key in the commands at the prompt, they work fine. I suspect I have placed the tcpserver commands into the wrong boot script, but I am not sure which others to use. Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff Lush mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Q] qmail speed again
Umm.. Why didn't you use /var/qmail/bin/sendmail ? -Original Message- From: Samuel Dries-Daffner [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 12:19 PM To: Dave Sill Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote: Silver CHEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The mail reason that I can't switch to qmail is that I'm NOT familiar with qmail in early days, so I chose sendmail. You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can revert to sendmail easily. On our server (SGI Indy -- IRIX 6.5) this was mostly true, with one exception-- BSD mail users. We had a problem with a sendmail that was re-installed by default on our IRIX upgrades. ...because it seemed to be called by those users still using BSD mail on our system. Other users (like pine, IMAP, POP) had no problems. So we made a simple wrapper of sendmail that piped messages to qmail-inject. FWIW--- Samuel Daffner Mills College ITS
RE: running qmail-pop3d in RH's /etc/init.d/*
OR What you do is add a single line to the /etc/rc.d/rc.local file. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 11:36 AM To: Greg Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: running qmail-pop3d in RH's /etc/init.d/* On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 11:27:19PM -1000, Greg wrote: yup, it is there /etc/init.d/ and it is executable, that's what's got me stuffed? i'll check out linuxconf, and it that fails, rc.local's the go... that's how I do things on my "slack" boxes, even a nong! like me, can follow that. Hey, Did you figure it out? You have to simbolically link the files in /etc/rc.d/init.d to one of the startup directories. For example, here is how I have my qmail startup script done: [kbo@webmail /]$ ls -l /etc/rc.d/*/*qmail -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 886 Mar 22 12:12 /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K30qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K30qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K30qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S80qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K30qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K30qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Mar 13 12:11 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K30qmail - /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail Ken Jones Inter7
RE: Trigger help and adduser scripts
Just look at your adduser command. It probably copies a "skeleton" directory over to the users's home directory. Set up the Maildir in there. (Or just setup the .qmail files.). Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 2:18 PM To: Russell Nelson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Trigger help and adduser scripts I was forced to do some file movement as a result of a crash. I have traced one problem to trigger file permissions, but for the life of me cannot find a way to change the file type so that it reads pwr- Any clues you could provide would be much appreciated. (I looked at "man chmod" on my linux boxen and found little.. odd that.. Found evidence of the trigger permission file everywhere, but no actual lines on what the fix is, just info that it needs fixin! .. :^) I also was looking around for examples of standard "adduser" scripts that had been modified for use with qmail. thanks thanks.. Jason Simonds Computer Connection Upper Maine Street Damariscotta, Maine 04553 207 563 3098
RE: control/locals
You need to make sure it is in your rcpthosts file as well as the virtual domain file. Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Michael Bryan[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: control/locals When I don't put one of my virtual domains in control/locals/, I get the following error: = Hi. This is the qmail-send program at radiocafe.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry. Although I'm listed as a best-preference MX or A for that host, it isn't in my control/locals file, so I don't treat it as local. (#5.4.6) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 20844 invoked from network); 12 Feb 1999 17:21:56 - Received: from mbryan.radiocafe.com (HELO radiocafe.com) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by radiocafe.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 1999 17:21:56 - Sender: root Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:22:46 + From: Michael Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: The Radio Cafe, LLC - http://www.radiocafe.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit test That's why I've been putting my virtualdomains in both control/virtualdomains and control/locals Where's my error? -- Michael Bryan The Radio Cafe, LLC http://www.radiocafe.com
OT: Web Admin
Has anyone created a Web Admin module for qmail ? FYI: Web Admin (http://www.webadmin.com/) is a GUI based interface for many standard system admin tasks. Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
Re: OT: Web Admin
I screwed up the URL. It really is http://www.webmin.com/ At least I was close *g* Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: More Maildir configuration questions
-- From: Chris Green[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 2:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: More Maildir configuration questions I have qmail running on my Linux RedHat 5.2 box now and it successfully delivers mail to 'ordinary' users. After a little hassle I have got mutt successfully reading from ~/Maildir. However I have a problem and a question:- The 'problem' is that mail to root, postmaster, etc. is still not working. I have set up a Maildir directory in /var/qmail/alias which seems to be the place it should arrive (I'm not sure about this) but the mail doesn't arrive. In /var/log/maillog I'm getting lots of errors like:- Feb 5 19:03:33 server2 qmail: 918241413.728213 delivery 39: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/ Who owns the directory ? Probably root or alias ? The easiest solution would be to create a non-root user (like an admin account) and set .qmail-root, .qmail-postmaster, etc to forward the mail to the admin account. So presumably I either haven't got the Maildir for root's mail in the right place or the permissions are wrong. Can anyone set me right please. (By the way I also have a /root/Maildir but nothing has arrived there either) qmail will NOT deliver mail to root. That would be a security hole (since qmail would need to setuid to root). Secondly, the 'question'. Can I change the name and location of a user's Maildir or does it *have* to be ~/Maildir? If it can be changed which configuration files need changing? Just set it in the ~/.qmail file. You could just as easily set it to /var/log/mail/USER/maildir however you will still need to enforce the protections. -- Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/ Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: qmail-lint-0.50
If I am reading this correctly, it is only going to work for comments
that are at the beginning of a line, not in the middle (or after the
command in this case).
Matt Soffen
Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/
==
Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==
--
From: Peter Haworth[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: Peter Haworth
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 11:14 AM
To: Russell Nelson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: qmail-lint-0.50
I've uploaded qmail-lint-0.50 to www.qmail.org. It checks for
common
problems in your qmail control files. If you try it, and it prints
something you don't understand, or you think is not a problem, send
me
email. Or if it misses a known problem, I'd also to hear about that
as well.
Comments in control/locals are treated somewhat strangely. All lines
are pushed
onto @locals, but only those which aren't comments are added to
%locals. Then
comments matching /^#\s/ are treated differently to those which don't.
I get:
Warning: a host # Web server names in locals does not appear in
rcpthosts.
Warning: a host in locals does not appear in rcpthosts.
... where the first warning is for "# Web server names" and the second
is for
"#physicsweb.org"
I don't understand the distinction between different types of comment,
but this
patch ignores comments completely anyway:
*** qmail-lint-0.50 Tue Jan 26 13:45:48 1999
--- qmail-lint Tue Jan 26 16:05:30 1999
***
*** 24,29
while(F) {
chomp;
- push(@locals,$_);
next if m"^#";
$locals{$_} = "";
}
--- 24,29
while(F) {
chomp;
next if m"^#";
+ push(@locals,$_);
$locals{$_} = "";
}
***
*** 36,41
while(F) {
chomp;
- push(@virtualdomains,$_);
next if m"^#";
if (split(/:/) 2) {
print "Warning: Line $. in control/virtualdomains has no
colon:\n";
--- 36,41
while(F) {
chomp;
next if m"^#";
+ push(@virtualdomains,$_);
if (split(/:/) 2) {
print "Warning: Line $. in control/virtualdomains has no
colon:\n";
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The net serves four of the five physical senses. You can get sight,
and
sound, and to a limited extent tactile feedback. No one would deny
that
some portions of the net smell, but I see no signs that taste will
ever
come to the net." -- bill davidsen
RE: ORBS Returns
I just tried this little "exploit" on the qmail 1.01 machine at my house: Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. 220 mail.soffen.com ESMTP HELO testing 250-mail.soffen.com 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME MAIL FROM:testing 250 ok RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) MAIL TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 503 one MAIL per message (#5.5.1) So between this exmaple and the fact that his qmail seems to have been hacked so that it allows the directive MAIL TO to work, I don't know what to believe. This is a vanilla qmail setup with only the GMT to LOCAL time patch applied. Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Adam D. McKenna[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 10:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: ORBS Returns For those who are not fans of obscurity, here is the news post that was referred to RE: ORBS --Adam -Original Message- From: Paul Schmehl TINLC#[EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 7:02 PM Subject: Re: ORBS Returns :On 21 Jan 1999 00:24:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew :Gideon) felt it essential to add to the discussion: : :[snip] : : 2. Why is scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (128.32.43.201) listed? : :Perhaps because all it takes is a little creativity to relay through :it? All I'd have to do is find a legitimate party for the RCPT TO: :line, and I can mail to as many people as I want. : :telnet 128.32.43.201 25 :Trying 128.32.43.201... :Connected to 128.32.43.201. :Escape character is '^]'. :220 scam.xcf.berkeley.edu ESMTP :HELO testing :250 scam.xcf.berkeley.edu :MAIL FROM: testing :250 ok :RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) :MAIL TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :250 ok :DATA :503 RCPT first (#5.5.1) :RCPT TO: testing :250 ok :DATA :354 go ahead :Testing for open relay :. :250 ok 916876400 qp 11121 :QUIT :221 scam.xcf.berkeley.edu :Connection closed by foreign host. : :Return-Path: :Received: from poteidaia.utdallas.edu (null-smtp.utdallas.edu [192.168.1.1]) : by area51.utdallas.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/cyrus-2.1) with ESMTP id RAA20900 : for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:47:59 -0600 (CST) :Received: from scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (scam.XCF.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.43.201]) : by poteidaia.utdallas.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1/null-3.5) with SMTP id RAA12136 : for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:52:08 -0600 (CST) :Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Received: (qmail 11129 invoked for bounce); 20 Jan 1999 23:53:20 - :Date: 20 Jan 1999 23:53:20 - :From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Subject: failure notice : :Hi. This is the qmail-send program at scam.xcf.berkeley.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]: :Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) : :--- Below this line is a copy of the message. : :Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Received: (qmail 11121 invoked from network); 20 Jan 1999 23:53:10 - :Received: from inca.utdallas.edu (HELO testing) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) : by scam.xcf.berkeley.edu with SMTP; 20 Jan 1999 23:53:10 - :Testing for open relay : :http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/ (Paul Schmehl) :Technical Support Services Manager :University of Texas at Dallas :Texas resident. Don't mess with Texas.
RE: ORBS Returns
As I said, I think that his qmail has been hacked (by someone who didn't know what they were doing). Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Adam D. McKenna[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ORBS Returns I don't know what the guy's problem is. It says quite clearly in RFC821 that the MAIL command can only be used to set the return-path. I've replied via news. I hate it when clueless people start admining things like this. --Adam
RE: ORBS Returns
Ok.. It must have been changed in qmail 1.02 or 1.03 (Sorry.. Then I guess it wasn't hacked). Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Adam D. McKenna[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 11:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ORBS Returns From: Soffen, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] :RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) :MAIL TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :503 one MAIL per message (#5.5.1) This was probably changed later on because the RFC says that the MAIL command should clear both the forward and return-path buffers. MAIL (MAIL) [snip] This command clears the reverse-path buffer, the forward-path buffer, and the mail data buffer; and inserts the reverse-path information from this command into the reverse-path buffer. --Adam
RE: Three solutions for spam
I have a MAJOR problem with this. I have my own mailhost and I do work for a specific domain (UItimateTV.com). When I am on my primary ISP, all is well. I send mail to the appropriate mailhost for whatever domain the mail is from. When I am on my backup ISP, I am unable to send out ANY mail because it blocks out all the port 25 accesses. I had given my inlaws an email account on our server/domain and we allowed them (will full knowledge/permission of the ISP) to use our backup account since we were paying for it and not using it. When the ISP instituted this policy, it screwed them over. We finally go them an email account at the backup ISP. Is this legitimate ? I mean, I am trying to use a mail host for which I am fully allowed to (Hell! I am in charge of the other mailers) and am being blocked. When my primary internet account was down, I was unable to send mail for 3 days !!! To me the blocking of port 25 is more of a CYA for the ISP. Nothing more, it benefits no one but the ISP. I can understand why an ISP would do it, but there must be better mechanisms for blocking spam Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Racer X[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 12:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Three solutions for spam Sure. It's a false economy. What if the mail doesn't go through? What if the destination host blocks mail from dialups? I wouldn't even begin to consider sending mail directly from any national provider of dialup service (which is what I presume you're using, since you indicate that you're not making a long-distance call). One thing that hasn't been considered - what if you're dialing up through a responsible ISP who doesn't let their users send mail directly out, by blocking outbound SMTP connections from dialups? We did this about 3 months ago after some recurrent and vicious spammers. Since then, we've had exactly 2 complaints about the procedure, both of which were resolved after we informed the customer that we did this as an anti-spam measure. I had my reservations about this policy at first, but given the problems it's solved so far, I must say it's been a good move. It forces spammers to go directly through our mail server, where we can keep an eye out for behavior that looks like spam. shag
RE: Three solutions for spam
Wouldn't that require the ISP to have the ability to change their packet filters on the fly (since it is an ISP where I get a random IP) ? Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Adam D. McKenna[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 2:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Three solutions for spam From: Soffen, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] :To me the blocking of port 25 is more of a CYA for the ISP. Nothing :more, it benefits no one but the ISP. I can understand why an ISP would :do it, but there must be better mechanisms for blocking spam There is no reason that an ISP cannot block port 25 by default and then enable it for any customer that complains. :Matt Soffen --Adam
RE: Tcpserver quiz
-- From: Chris Johnson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 11:04 AM To: Roger O. Svenning; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tcpserver quiz On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 03:34:19PM +0100, Roger O. Svenning wrote: I installed tcpserver for use with qmail 1.03 yesterday so I could allow and restrict relaying. (According to the instrucions in FAQ 5.4) After setting up the tcp.smtp file and rebuilding the cdb, mail relaying worked ... for everyone :) I tried to just make a test tcp.smtp with the following content 123.12.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow After rebuilding I was still able to relay mail trough our server from whatever host I wanted (I tried from several different shell accounts). Guess I have to put in deny entries too to keep other ppl away but will they be able to deliver mail to local addresses then ? (I have several virtual domains on the server), and if this is the case then the FAQ is wrong and should be corrected ... cause it does not say anything about adding 'deny' entries. You don't need (or want) any deny entries. You're not trying to deny anyone a connection to your SMTP server; you're just trying to set RELAYCLIENT for certain clients. Actually, there may be a reason to deny access. On my machines I have blocked access to specific .jp domains. All that I had ever received from these domains was spam.Now I get less spam and the mailer has to deal with it. ( BTW: I DID try to contact the hosts but never got any resoponse). Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
RE: Frivolous forking
Thats exactly my point. If there were a "REAL" security hole found in qmail, DJB would immediately want to fix it right. He would not want a "quick" fix as the OS venders may do. Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Adam D. McKenna[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:22 PM To: Qmail mailing list Subject: Re: Frivolous forking From: Matthew Soffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] : No, that is exactly why they can _not_ include qmail. They are not allowed :to distribute modified versions, which means that as security holes are :found, they can't fix them and distribute their fixed versions. : :Name 1 security hole found in qmail that they would have had to fix. This isn't the point. It is possible that a security hole could be found in qmail. (highly doubtful, but possible). However, if that happened, I wouldn't want Redhat touching the source anyway. --Adam
RE: Frivolous forking
But would you really want RedHat fixing qmail instead of DJB ? If security holes were found (REAL security holes), DJB would be the 1st to want them fixed right, not a quick fix as an os vender/redhat would do. Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:28 PM To: Qmail mailing list Subject: Re: Frivolous forking On 29-Dec-98 14:44:00, Matthew Soffen wrote something about "Re: Frivolous forking". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus: At 01:16 PM 12/29/98 +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: No, that is exactly why they can _not_ include qmail. They are not allowed to distribute modified versions, which means that as security holes are ^ found, they can't fix them and distribute their fixed versions. ^ Name 1 security hole found in qmail that they would have had to fix. Regards, /??T?? ???\ | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Registered Phase5 developer | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ | | A4000, 775 kkeys/s (RC5-64) | "ThrustMe" on XPilot and EFnet IRC | | Do artificial plants need artificial water? |
RE: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail
Well.. One other "related" thing that would need to be updated if you want Maildir mail handling is the modification of the "skeleton" directory/User Add/Del Scripts. If you used qmail w/Maildir, the rpm would need to modify the User Add scipts and skeleton Directory to set up new users properly. It could also be made smart enough to get rid of the /var/mail directory. Same for User Del, it would have to know to not bother with /var/mail Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - == -- From: Fred Lindberg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: Fred Lindberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail On 23 Dec 1998 06:40:20 -, D. J. Bernstein wrote: I tried to work with Donnie Barnes. I put a lot of effort into making qmail distributable in binary form. But he isn't willing to guarantee cross-platform compatibility. It saddens me that he hasn't been honestly telling his users the nature of our disagreement. RedHat has SECURITY announcements. Often, the problem is that the package is screwed up, not that the source program itself is. Directories have the worng permission, etc. They fix it and the announcement clearly states that it was the _package_ not the _program_. This would not give qmail a bad name. RedHat may well screw it up, but that's [mainly] their problem. RedHat already distribute "non-free" packages, i.e. packages with restrictions above GPL. They do not need to make qmail _the_ redhat MTA, just make it avaialble as an option. What we need is one good and secure rpm. I want maildir, not some stupid mbox spool. RedHat are likely to do the latter for ease of sendmail compatibility. So, I'll keep building qmail on my [redhat linux] system. However, I'd rather the rest of the word used a partially screwed up qmail than sendmail. So, DJB and DB are both 100% correct. A compromise, is worth more than the sum of the merits of both points of view. -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
RE: Red Hat Linux and Frivolous forking
I agree. I have even taken to saying to hell w/RPM's on my Linux 5.x systems. I MUCH prefer the FreeBSD ports mechanizm (which is, download the tar.gz file from a known place then do a standard install -after applying any system patches). Its fairly trivial to do this. I dislike when a program doesn't let me tell it (EASILY) how to relocated it. -- From: Vince Vielhaber[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 4:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux and Frivolous forking [snip] No can do. You won't find RPM on any of my FreeBSD machines. Besides, I much prefer to build and install my own software. I'm not an advocate of the dumbing down of sysadmins, M$ is doing too much of that now. If you like using RPMs and think they're a good idea, that's your business. I agree. I have even taken to saying to hell w/RPM's on my Linux 5.x systems. I MUCH prefer the FreeBSD ports mechanizm (which is, download the tar.gz file from a known place then do a standard install -after applying any system patches). I wish that I could just use THAT on my Linux boxes. Its fairly trivial to install using ports. Even ports "dumb down" system admin's, the only reason I tend to use it is on heavily patched packages - it handles adding the patches. I dislike when a program doesn't let me tell it (EASILY) how to relocated it. The only thing the ports need is a mec Matt Soffen Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/ == Boss- "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers." Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX." Boss- "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said never mind." - Dilbert - ==
