RE: Error message:deferral: qmail-local_crashed ,Please help me.
On 28-May-2001 george wrote: what is this ? How to solve the problem ,if I want to use g++? Why do you want to use a C++ compiler to compile what is a pure 'C' program (apart from one // comment)? Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: How Does Everyone Feel About The Tone Of The Automatic Messa
On 28-May-2001 David T. Ashley wrote: This is a very subjective matter, but the tone of the automatically-generated messages seems too freindly. For example, there was a bounce message today which ended with Sorry it didn't work out!. It seems too casual, too friendly, too personal. Would you prefer something a bit insulting? It also seems too wordy. One ends a marriage or a business partnership with those words, but they don't seem right for a bounced e-mail message. You forgot the IMVHO. And IMVHO, one doesn't end a marriage like that; most often it gets a helluva lot more acrimonious. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this, too? Am I too picky or too sensitive or too ... whatever? Yes. Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Re: OT - Problems with daemontools 0.70
On 15-May-2001 Uwe Ohse wrote: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Please stop flaming lusers until you get your MUA to stop sending superfluous default information. Thanks. How dare you criticize Gnus :-) | People who are as stupid as you have no business installing software | at all. Kann es eigentlich sein daß Deutsche, die in Englisch flamen, jedes Gefühl für Subtilität verlieren? First, the German sense of humor is different (or, as the English jokingly suggest, non-existent). Second, swearing is one of the most difficult aspects of any language; getting it right requires years of immersion in the culture. Add to that the fact that each and every English-speaking country has different mores and you'll realize that, as a non-native speaker, you should refrain from swearing. There are exceptions, but neither Robin nor Felix are amongst them. They'd be far more effective if they would vituperate a tad less. Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: Qmail and time zone
On 04-Mar-2001 Rod... Whitworth wrote: Does this have any bearing on his problem? I don't know as I have not been following it in detail. The - just hit my eye. The - is in the MTA generated Received: lines. AFAIK, it's the standard way to indicate "no offset from UTC". Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: Qmail and time zone
On 06-Mar-2001 Rod... Whitworth wrote: On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:40:29 +0100 (MET), Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: On 04-Mar-2001 Rod... Whitworth wrote: Does this have any bearing on his problem? I don't know as I have not been following it in detail. The - just hit my eye. The - is in the MTA generated Received: lines. AFAIK, it's the standard way to indicate "no offset from UTC". What standard are you quoting? RFC822 says that UT representation is + RFC1123 point out that 822 gets MIL tz codes bass-ackwards so - should be used as defined in 822 as operational difficulty or invalid tz code. According to D J Bernstein (from http://cr.yp.to/immhf/date.html#timestamp ): : The time shown is the creator's local time. The time shown, minus the zone shown, is : the actual time in UTC. : : Exception: a zone of - indicates that the local time is unavailable or :meaningless, : and that the time shown is the actual time in UTC. : (In contrast, a zone of + indicates that the times hown is both local time and : actual time in UTC.) This special meaning of - was not specified in 822, but it :is being : widely used and is mentioned in 822bis. : : Note that, in a few areas of the world, the difference between local time and UTC is : almost never an exact multiple of 1 minute. : Implementors can still use - safely in this case. Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: Qmail and time zone
From Kari's header: Received: (qmail 1259 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Received: from kb2.ksbase.com (HELO k4.ksbase.com) (216.126.66.211) by kb3.ksbase.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:28:30 -0500 I am not talking about clients! Mail generated on a qmail server doesn't have proper date headers, whereas mail coming from a sendmail server does. and That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. Meseems you've got a perfectly reasonable Date: line... As a matter of fact, all your messages have a -0500 offset in the Date: line. What are you blathering about? Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: Lost the Battle
On 28-Feb-2001 dennis wrote: My qmail project, only 1 week away from implementation, was canned, we are now moving to Lotus Notes. Condolences. A company I used to work with also replaced the qmail I installed (and which had worked flawlessly for 18 months) with Notes (they wanted shared calendars :-). Two months later, they had to be rescued by their ISP because they were being used as a SPAM relay. Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Re: Importing Emails into ezmlm-idx
On 14-Feb-2001 Peter Green wrote: * Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010213 16:29]: Jeremy Suo-Anttila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: anyone know how i can import 350 email addy's from a text file into ezmlm ? `man ezmlm-sub`. Dear Sirs: I just tried the command above and it didn't add any subscribers at ALL! It just printed out a bunch of USELESS words at me AND DIDN"T ADD ANYTHING TO MY LIST!!! Charles (if that is your REAL NAME), why don't you try posting something HELPFUL once in a while?!?!?!?!?! FROM A REAL H4X0R, It took 30 seconds to seek in, but then I ROTFLMAO. Subtlety wins any time. OK, 45 seconds :-) Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: qmail + Solaris 7.0 fatal: data 451 qq write error or disk f
On 07-Feb-2001 Michael Maier wrote: Someone knows why I get fatal: data 451 qq write error or disk full (#4.3.0) ? It comes after different Message Counts when sending via SMTP. I think there is an Error in that qmail-smtpd. Any Solutions ? Never seen that on Linux btw. Are you using quotas on Solaris? Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Re: Bogus Popularity claims (sendmail.org's reply)
On 04-Feb-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love their claims of scalibility with their mail server. "UNIX-like scalability at a fraction of the cost". Hurrumph. How much does it cost to put Linux and Qmail on an old Pentium or Pentium II? I would guess at around $10,000 for the installation, and then around $1000/month ? the cost of software is not in the hardware, nor in the actual cost of the license, but in the cost of the people to implement the solution, either consultants or exsiting sysadmins. This is the underlying business model behind open source software. But this is without the cost of the license fees for a proprietary OS and a proprietary MTA. It's a fallacy to believe that -for the sake of the argument- NT and Mailsite 4 would not require knowlegeable people to install it, or existing sysadmins to maintain it. The European Commission just installed a new mail system based on MS Exchange. They did not simply go out and buy the boxes off the shelves of their local retailer, no siree! They issued a call for tender, and are paying a "consortium" of consultants a load of spondulicks to install and run it. The Open Source business model just allows you to pay your staff and contractors better money, and have them do more interesting work, so they stay longer. Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: High Mem usage??
On 04-Feb-2001 Sumith Ail wrote: There is hardly anybody using this server...please let me know how can I find out which process is using so much of memory. This is perfectly normal. Linux stashes as much files as possible into its disk cache. When a process needs more memory, the cache is reduced. Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Re: secrets and lies
On 27-Nov-2000 Paul Jarc wrote: Programs - or rather, algorithms - *are* patentable in the US. You may think this is a ridiculous idea, and I may agree with you, but it's true nonetheless. That's not true. Algorithms are specifically _not_ patentable in the US. What _is_ patentable is a device consisting of a (any) computer and an algorithm. It is true that to the non-patent professional this is the same as patenting the algorithm, but it is not. If the applicant has not correctly written the claims, then a specific application of the algorithm might not be covered. If the claims are too broad, the patent will be re-examined, or will be held invalid in court. What remains is that _any_ patent, whether ultimately valid or not, allows the patent holder to force their competitors to either stop selling a product, or engage in often lengthy, and possibly expensive, legal procedures. The other problems are that the onus for disclosing prior art lies with the applicant, and that the PTO is only obliged to search its own databases for possible prior art. As devices comprising software have only recently become patentable, there isn't much "official" prior art, and the examiner then relies on the disclosures made by the applicant. It then becomes the responsibility of those affected by the patent to use the courts to invalidate it. In short, in the current scheme of things, the patent system favours the big guys with lawyers. Take care, Stefaan -- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
RE: Unable to receive MIME messages
On 22-Aug-2000 Rick Glunt wrote: 1) Open to suggestion to replace fetchmail It's not too bad, and not the cause of your problem. I suppose you use fetchmail to inject the mail into qmail, and you then read it using a mailer of sorts. Knowing which mailer would be a help. 2) Error messages vary. One sample is "This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME messages." There's an error in the MIME structure of the message. The fact that you can see it in your mailer means that both fetchmail and qmail have worked correctly. My mail read will handle MIME, however, I'm not sure what it wants as far as a gateway. Could it be fetchmail or is there another missing link I have overlooked? As a matter of fact, the message you read was inserted as a place holder by the remote mailer. The fact that you see it means a) your mailer has a problem b) the message was incorrectly written by the remote client c) it got stuffed in transit (fetchmail could have done it, but AFAIK stuffing up MIME messages is not one of its passtimes. If you care to send me a zipped copy of the entire message (easy if it's in Maildir, not so easy otherwise), then I'd be happy to have a look at it. Stefaan -- This was a thread between ignorant people until I jumped in. -- Richard Kulisz in gnu.misc.discuss
RE: INSTALL.maildir - Clairification please!
On 25-Jun-2000 Mark Thomas wrote: ** How cool! I didn't know you could su username without a password. ** Novell/NT protects the user login. You have to change thier password to login as the ** user.. You can if you're logged in as root, the rationale being that if you can change their password, and have access to all their files anyway, it's a lot easier to be able to impersonate the user without undue hassle. Obviously, you need a password when you're not root, and you might not even be allowed to use 'su'. Stefaan -- --PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)-- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
Number of mailboxes per Exchange server
Hi, It's not a qmail question, but because many of you are in the high-volume mail business, I hope to get a few answers :-) A colleague of mine works for a place where they're going to change from an X400 system to MS Exchange. I don't have details on the hardware, but they're planning on using 1 server per 1000 accounts. I seem to remember to have read (maybe on this list) that Exchange doesn't like that amount of users, and that 300-400 is about the right number of accounts per server. MS litterature speaks about 2000-15000 accounts per server, but that seems rather optimistic for PC class hardware, even when the network seems OK (in this case, switched 10Mb/s). Any comments, cites on the ideal number of accounts per Exchange server? Thanks a lot, Stefaan -- --PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)-- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
RE: don't know if anyone noticed this, but...
On 16-May-2000 Adam McKenna wrote: I was browsing amazon today and noticed it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0672319454/qid%3D958501880/104-5030846-4577265 Who the hell is Rich Blum? I never hoid of him. And why does he say Qmail when anyone knowledgable enough to write a book should know it's qmail... Stefaan -- --PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)-- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
RE: sort mail with qmail
On 10-Apr-2000 Eric Poubeau wrote: My problem: I have a small server, and I dont want sent too big mail, so I want to sort e-mail BEFORE sending, catch too big mail, grep and convert attachements, re-sent mail with just a pointer to attachement and text/plain. How I can do? Now firstly, that's not an MTA problem. However, I'll assume that you're connected through a slow link, and that you don't want saturate that link with huge e-mails, which is understandable (but misguided). If you convert a mail to contain pointers to (I suppose) HTTP or FTP accessible files instead of huge attachments, you'd have to write the code to extract these attachments, and store them somewhere in your HTTP or FTP space, only to find out that the recipient uses her browser or mail client to download said files. Net gain in bandwidth: zero. Next you'll have to manage these files (do you delete them after a successful download, or what?). Net increase in complexity: quite a lot. Effect on your small server: worse than if you'd simply send out those attachments. If your users want to send out big attachments, these'll somehow get out. Better educate them to use "gzip" (or "winzip") on their Word/Excel files. Usually that takes care of the bloat. As to batching up the mail before sending it to your smarthost, with qmail that's done by delivering all outgoing mail to a Maildir, and using serialmail. Works like a charm. HTH, Stefaan -- --PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)-- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
Filtering on MAIL FROM:
Hi list, I've got a colleague who claims that many ISPs (he lives in Canada, so probably Canadian ISPs) refuse mail based on the MAIL FROM: command. To me, that seems inane and futile, but as I'm not an ISP, and don't work for one either, I'm solliciting the views of people in the know. The qmail connection being that I'm running qmail on our corporate server, and he wants me to basically make it an open relay so he can use the SMTP server from his portable (he's on the road a lot, uses a lot of different ISP while on the road, wants his mail to look as if it comes from the corporate server, and can't/won't give me a range of IP addresses). Refusing mail that doesn't come from our domain is of course dimwitted, as we would not be receiving a lot of mail :-). He pretends this can be done with Exchange or Notes - I guess it's BS, but I don't know these animals... In any case, he's a director of the joint, and threatens to migrate to Exchange (he's a big Exchange fan) if this can't be done. My solution would be to patch qmail-smtpd to *require* a auth before accepting any further commands, and to run it on another port. Does this sound OK? Stefaan -- --PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)-- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
Re: qmail-queue was killed?
On 30-Sep-99 Fred Backman wrote:
2761: open("/dev/zero", O_RDONLY) Err#13 EACCES
2761: open("/dev/zero", O_RDONLY) Err#13 EACCES
...
Check the privileges on /devices/pseudo/mm@0:zero, they should be
something like:
crw-rw-rw- 1 root sys 13, 12 Oct 23 1998 /devices/pseudo/mm@0:zero
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___
In a world where everyone uses an alias, one's real identity is
the best disguise.
Re: Qmail is not a replacement for Sendmail
On 30-Apr-99 Chris Green wrote: No! "Most companies" do *not* "have someone dedicated to the task of looking after email". This is what I have been trying to get across to this list, nothing more. There are an increasing number of (potential) qmail users who can't possibly afford to have a dedicated E-Mail person, or even a dedicated sysadmin. Even a ten person company will probably have only one person who spends *some* of their time each day on computer administration. Lots of companies with fewer than ten people now have a small network. Then maybe such companies should either -- use the server of their ISP -- get a qmail consultant on a retainer basis If they want to run an SMTP MTA, they should know what it entails. Why pay maintenance for a machine, or an accounting package, but not for the MTA? The fact that qmail and Linux don't cost them any money should be an added incentive to employ a computing-knowledgeable person, or to buy the service from a local consultant. Stefaan -- PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/) ___ Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
Re: Fw: Anonymous Qmail Denial of Service
On 04-Jan-99 Mate Wierdl wrote: On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 01:03:14PM +, Sam wrote: : :% /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue : :^Z : :Suspended : :% kill -9 %1 : :[1]Killed /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue : :% : : : :There will be one more zero-length file, owned by qmail, without : :any user identification whatsoever. It is an exercise for the qmail-queue is a setuid program. Did UNIX change, while I was out of town, and you can now send signals to processes of different userids? Not only that, but the above works w/o the -9 flag. IIRC, qmail-queue should not be called by someone wanting to submit mail (see doc/PIC*). A better test would be to use qmail-inject: /var/qmail# /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject [1] + 2728 Suspended /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject /var/qmail# kill %1 /var/qmail# [1]Terminated /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject /var/qmail# find . -size 0 ./control/locals ./alias/.qmail-postmaster ./alias/.qmail-mailer-daemon ./alias/.qmail-root ./alias/Mailbox ./queue/lock/sendmutex ./queue/lock/trigger /var/qmail# There's no empty file. I tried it with partial messages, and there never are file droppings left in the queue. But yes, if we are to be paranoid, qmail-queue should clean up when no message has been queued, or when it's interrupted by a signal that can be caught. Stefaan -- PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/) ___ Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
Re: Fw: Anonymous Qmail Denial of Service
On 04-Jan-99 Russ Allbery wrote: IIRC, qmail-queue should not be called by someone wanting to submit mail (see doc/PIC*). A better test would be to use qmail-inject: Doesn't qmail-inject call qmail-queue eventually anyway? So this is just a timing issue. Maybe (I haven't looked at the code) qmail-inject collects the message before calling qmail-queue. You'd have to kill qmail-inject after submitting the message but before the message has been queued, which would usually leave you a very small window of opportunity. But I tend to be paranoid WRT interrupting programs, and always catch all signals and clean up after me. I just wanted to point out that using a program not designed for interactive use interactively is not totally kosher, IMHO. Stefaan -- PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/) ___ Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exupéry
