qmail Digest 19 Aug 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1097
Topics (messages 46938 through 47016):
Re: Sort maildir and send smallest first
46938 by: Andrew Richards
46939 by: Chris, the Young One
prioq (was Re: Sort maildir and send smallest first)
46940 by: Chris, the Young One
Re: Error: Deferred: Connection refused
46941 by: Dieter Wilhelm
Re: auth/identd?
46942 by: James R Grinter
qmail-qfilter-problem
46943 by: Lars Pfuhl
46945 by: Petr Novotny
46946 by: Russell P. Sutherland
46950 by: Lars Pfuhl
46953 by: Chris Johnson
46954 by: Bruce Guenter
Re: Queue Time
46944 by: Michael T. Babcock
46992 by: richard.illuin.org
46994 by: Eric Cox
47016 by: Rogerio Brito
Re: rblsmtpd emergency
46947 by: Michael T. Babcock
offtopic: Re: prioq
46948 by: Chris, the Young One
Re: 4.7.1 error reported to netscape mail client
46949 by: Dave Sill
46952 by: Jenny Holmberg
tcpserver can't do setuid
46951 by: jan
store/forward env var?
46955 by: Tyler J. Frederick
46956 by: James Raftery
46959 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46960 by: Tyler J. Frederick
46966 by: Dave Sill
qmail binary redistribution question
46957 by: Peter Green
46965 by: Dave Sill
Linux Mandrake qmail packages available
46958 by: Vincent Danen
INETD AND UCSPI-TCP
46961 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
46968 by: Dave Sill
UCSPI-TCP
46962 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
46964 by: Aaron L. Meehan
46967 by: Dave Sill
Shifting from Sendmail to Qmail
46963 by: Sanjay Arora
46969 by: Dave Sill
SMTP In -> Virus Scan -> QMQP Out
46970 by: Kevin Sawyer
46972 by: Sean C Truman
46973 by: markd.bushwire.net
few Qs from newbie
46971 by: jakubski.poczta.arena.pl
How is this damn spam getting through.
46974 by: Duane L.
46975 by: wolfgang zeikat
46976 by: Timothy L. Mayo
sending e-mai to an ip address
46977 by: Jeff Mangewala
46978 by: Timothy L. Mayo
tcpserver/qmail problems
46979 by: R. Bettencourtt
46980 by: R. Bettencourtt
46982 by: Dale Miracle
Re: tcpserver/qmail problems - done
46981 by: R. Bettencourtt
CHANGING INETD
46983 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
46984 by: Dale Miracle
46986 by: David Dyer-Bennet
46989 by: Dale Miracle
46996 by: Al Sparks
47001 by: Ben Beuchler
47003 by: Al Sparks
47008 by: Greg White
47013 by: Chris Johnson
47014 by: Greg White
bcc's not accepted?
46985 by: Scott Sharkey
46987 by: Ihnen, David
46988 by: Dale Miracle
yahoo down?
46990 by: Ben Beuchler
46991 by: M.B.
46995 by: Dale Miracle
46998 by: Al Sparks
47002 by: Vince Vielhaber
47005 by: Al Sparks
47009 by: Brett Randall
47010 by: Ben Beuchler
47012 by: Brett Randall
47015 by: Rogerio Brito
obtaining TCPREMOTEIP during delivery
46993 by: Ben Beuchler
46997 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
47000 by: Ben Beuchler
47011 by: David Dyer-Bennet
Re: Is This Annoying Enough?
46999 by: Greg White
47007 by: Eric Cox
Re: Interesting MAPS issue
47004 by: Greg White
mbox o maildir
47006 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Picking up a thread running from 26th July to 9th August)
Jacob,
>I find that qmail is taking my maildir and sending <last in first out>
>
>I would like to have qmail changed to do a
>sort mailbox by seize and
>send the smallest first.
I've not got round to replying to this one: There may be an easy
solution for you as follows - I've noticed that the order of messages
listed by qmail-pop3d can be altered by touching (Unix
command "touch") the messages in the new/cur directories. I
assume that within a (C) program you could do the same with
open-for-append followed by close.
To perform tricks with this for qmail-pop3d, you can write a small shim to
go between checkpassword and qmail-pop3d which 'touches' [in
your case] all small files in Maildir/new, Maildir/cur before exec-ing
qmail-pop3d as normal. This even works if your varying size files
are distributed across new and cur! I haven't looked at the qmail-pop3d
code, but I assume this is down to 'Cool DJB code' rather than a quirk
of the system I tried it on (Linux).
Hopefully the same can be achieved in your case for other mail
collection mechanisms.
cheers,
Andrew.
PS: Where's
".lk"?
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:22:01AM +0000, Andrew Richards wrote:
> I assume that within a (C) program you could do the same with
> open-for-append followed by close.
No, you use utime().
> To perform tricks with this for qmail-pop3d, you can write a small shim to
> go between checkpassword and qmail-pop3d which 'touches' [in
> your case] all small files in Maildir/new, Maildir/cur before exec-ing
> qmail-pop3d as normal.
If you touch all the small files, then the big files will come earlier
in the list! If you want to get all the small files first, you can do
something like this:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
if (opendir(CUR, ".")) {
map {
my @sb;
utime($sb[8], $sb[7], $_) if (@sb = stat($_));
} readdir(CUR);
closedir(CUR);
}
This sets the timestamp of all the files in the current directory to
their sizes. This is clearly a hack, but would probably work.
> This even works if your varying size files
> are distributed across new and cur! I haven't looked at the qmail-pop3d
> code, but I assume this is down to 'Cool DJB code' rather than a quirk
> of the system I tried it on (Linux).
Your message prompted me to have a look at the code. Indeed it's roughly
sorted by the mtime of the messages. I say roughly because I did a pen-
and-paper test of the prioq functions and saw that it's not always fully
sorted.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ heartbleed (OpenBSD/i386) has now been up for
Auckland, New Zealand |_ all of 14 days, 06:54:32
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 12:30:37AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote:
> Your message prompted me to have a look at the code. Indeed it's roughly
> sorted by the mtime of the messages. I say roughly because I did a pen-
> and-paper test of the prioq functions and saw that it's not always fully
> sorted.
No, I'm an idiot. The prioq _doesn't need_ to be fully sorted! What just
matters is that the first element is always the smallest after you call
prioq_insert() and prioq_delmin().
Wish I had enough brain cells to describe adequately what the functions
do... I don't have Knuth's books in front of me either.
Hmm...
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ but what's a dropped message between friends?
Auckland, New Zealand |_ this is UDP, not TCP after all ;) ---John H.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ Robinson, IV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...
> You can test this theory by typing 'telnet mydomain.com 25' and
> seeing if the connection is accepted or rejected.
>
> If the connection is truly rejected, then find out why. Is
> qmail-smtpd running (ps -auxwww | grep qmail-smtpd). If so, is it
listening
> to port 25 (look at the tcpserver command line, use 'lsof', or possibly
> 'netstat')?
>
> --
> gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I've solved the problem. It was not my fault. The entry in the DNS was
wrong.
This was the reason I've never seen any packet of an email that was sent
from
another smpt server.
Thank you
Dieter
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing that *is* wise is to make sure that if you don't run
> auth/ident, make sure traffic to port 113 is visibly rejected and not
> just dropped. Dropping it will cause timeout hell to be spawned upon
> you.
and preferably with a proper TCP Reset, not an ICMP "TCP Port unreachable".
James.
Hi,
i am using qmail-qfilter _without_ B.Guenter's QMAILQUEUE patch.
When I try to send a message I get:
qq temporary problem (#4.3.0)
I use a perl-script and in qmail-queue is:
#!/bin/sh
exec /var/qmail/bin/qmail-filter /var/qmail/bin/my-filter
What I have done:
- in the Makefile I have written
CFLAGS = -O -Wall -DQMAIL_QUEUE=\"/var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue-old\"
- compile
- qmail-queue --> qmail-queue-old
- qmail-queue ist now the shell-script with the owner qmailq and the
group qmail (chmod 755)
Any ideas?
Lars
--
bone labs ... Secure eBusiness
Try our Internet-WorkTeam platform at http://www.centerworks.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bone labs GmbH Lars Pfuhl
PF 171134, D-10203 Berlin
phone +49-(0)30-293475-0 email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax +49-(0)30-293475-99 web http://www.bonelabs.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18 Aug 2000, at 15:39, Lars Pfuhl wrote:
> When I try to send a message I get:
>
> qq temporary problem (#4.3.0)
>
> I use a perl-script and in qmail-queue is:
> #!/bin/sh
> exec /var/qmail/bin/qmail-filter /var/qmail/bin/my-filter
>
> What I have done:
> - in the Makefile I have written
> CFLAGS = -O -Wall -DQMAIL_QUEUE=\"/var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue-old\"
> - compile - qmail-queue --> qmail-queue-old - qmail-queue ist now the
> shell-script with the owner qmailq and the group qmail (chmod 755)
>
> Any ideas?
The original qmail-queue is suid qmailq program. What is suid
qmailq in your setup? (No other user than root or qmailq can write
into the queue; qmail-smtpd should run as qmaild, and therefore
can't write the queue.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOZ0xKFMwP8g7qbw/EQK5xQCfU4WiwPKWAmyLFa1fLSX2yhODOuYAn2SO
dUfxqUxvV3eEVfqenfliIeBL
=TSrc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
* Lars Pfuhl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Aug 2000 09:40]:
> i am using qmail-qfilter _without_ B.Guenter's QMAILQUEUE patch.
> qq temporary problem (#4.3.0)
Are you starting qmail-smtpd from the softlimit program?
If so increase the size of the -m argument.
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
Hi,
Petr Novotny wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18 Aug 2000, at 15:39, Lars Pfuhl wrote:
>
> > When I try to send a message I get:
> >
> > qq temporary problem (#4.3.0)
> >
> > I use a perl-script and in qmail-queue is:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > exec /var/qmail/bin/qmail-filter /var/qmail/bin/my-filter
> >
> > What I have done:
> > - in the Makefile I have written
> > CFLAGS = -O -Wall -DQMAIL_QUEUE=\"/var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue-old\"
> > - compile - qmail-queue --> qmail-queue-old - qmail-queue ist now the
> > shell-script with the owner qmailq and the group qmail (chmod 755)
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> The original qmail-queue is suid qmailq program. What is suid
> qmailq in your setup? (No other user than root or qmailq can write
> into the queue; qmail-smtpd should run as qmaild, and therefore
> can't write the queue.)
qmail-queue -rws--x--x qmailq qmail <-- this is now my shell-script
qmail-queue-old -rws--x--x qmailq qmail <-- the original qmail-queue
Is that ok?
Lars
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:38:40PM +0200, Lars Pfuhl wrote:
> qmail-queue -rws--x--x qmailq qmail <-- this is now my shell-script
> qmail-queue-old -rws--x--x qmailq qmail <-- the original qmail-queue
Change qmail-queue to mode 755. I had the same problem, and I think the problem
is that a shell script has to be readable in addition to executable.
Chris
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:38:40PM +0200, Lars Pfuhl wrote:
> qmail-queue -rws--x--x qmailq qmail <-- this is now my shell-script
> qmail-queue-old -rws--x--x qmailq qmail <-- the original qmail-queue
Shell scripts must be readable by the userid that is trying to execute
them. The wrapper script also does not need to be (and should not be
for security reasons) setuid. Make qmail-queue mode 755 instead of 4711.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
I'm not Dan, but this is slightly less mathematical than it sounds. The
main point (if I understand DJB here) is:
Its only an hour late? Another 10 minutes will hurt about "this much".
Its a day late? Another hour will probably also hurt about "this much".
Its a week late? Another (day?) won't hurt more than, oh, "this much".
"this much" being more or less equal ... djb: '...is worth the same as...'
... where the amount of delay is respective to the amount of accumulated
delay.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rogerio Brito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> BTW, Dan, where could I read more about optimal schedules? I'm
> particularly interested in learning more about the following
> paragraph of yours (I'm not very experienced on Statistics,
> but I'm willing to learn more about it):
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mathematical amusement: The optimal retry schedule is essentially,
> though not exactly, independent of the actual distribution of message
> delay times. What really matters is how much cost you assign to retries
> and to particular increases in latency. qmail's current quadratic retry
> schedule says that an hour-long delay in a day-old message is worth the
> same as a ten-minute delay in an hour-old message; this doesn't seem so
> unreasonable.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric Cox wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > If you only go to an hour granularity and assume a queuelifetime of no
> > more than seven days, then you only need 168 instances. I was kinda thinking
> > of something a little more elegant than that...
>
> How about using Netscape's X-Priority header to set the queue lifetime
> according to the admin's wishes. Set 5 different queue lifetimes
> according to based on the 5 settings of the X-Priority header. This
> could be accomplished with Ian's patch, and some preprocessing before
> qmail-inject.
qmail-send doesn't read the contents of the mesdsage, so qmail-queue would
have to do this to set the appropriate value into the queue control files
that qmail-send does read.
Considering the case of 'this mail message is no longer of use unless
delivered to the recipient BY time X'. On a qmail system we only have
control of the retry schedule on suystems which we control: if the MX
records for my mother's ISP's mail servers points to something other than
her machine (and it does) then I loose control of the delivery timing. In
fact if I'm emailing her to tell her what time I'm going to be home for
lunch (improbably given we're several thousand miles apart) I need to set
the time to much less than the real value by which I need to let her know
when I'll be home, so any bounce message has time to make it back from her
ISP to me so I know to telephone her.
Consider the case of 'this message is URGENT, deliver it first' this is
okay, however when email systems become congested I have observer that
people start marking all messages as urgent just so thier mail gets
delivered quickly (this is analogous to ordinary users being able to use
negative values for nice(1) and so boosting their prioity) eventually
everyone figures out how to do this and the benefit diminishes. I'm not
sure that retrying delivery frequently is going to get an urgent delivery
delivered /that/ much more frequently than it would have anyway. At the
start of the delivery schedule the times are every few seconds, growing to
every few minutes and then to every few hours. if the message were truly
URGENT then if immediate delivery is not available it should be returned
quicker than for normal delivery. (This principle was used in the Glasgow
mail package I was using on prime9955 minicomputers in the 1980's.) Urgent
messages got returned in half the time of normal messages and non-urgent
messages had twice the queuelifetime of normal messages.
so, the last case is one which is worthwhile, but only applies to This
MTA, once this mta has disposed of a message then all bets are off as to
when it will get delivered (if at all).
oh, for MUA integrated delivery status tracking like you can get out of
X.400 <evil grin> (I've received X.400 DSNs vie internet mail and the
first time you get one you think what on earth is this huge chunk of
binary data)
RjL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric Cox wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > If you only go to an hour granularity and assume a queuelifetime of no
> > > more than seven days, then you only need 168 instances. I was kinda thinking
> > > of something a little more elegant than that...
> >
> > How about using Netscape's X-Priority header to set the queue lifetime
> > according to the admin's wishes. Set 5 different queue lifetimes
> > according to based on the 5 settings of the X-Priority header. This
> > could be accomplished with Ian's patch, and some preprocessing before
> > qmail-inject.
>
> qmail-send doesn't read the contents of the mesdsage,
Yep, hence the "preprocessing".
> Considering the case of 'this mail message is no longer of use unless
> delivered to the recipient BY time X'. On a qmail system we only have
> control of the retry schedule on suystems which we control:
Agreed - no system is perfect. I was just pointing out that some of the
MUAs had already come halfway, and with some scripting and Ian's patch,
one might be able to meet them in the middle. Personally I don't have any
use for this functionality, but thought I'd throw it into the mix...
Eric
On Aug 18 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> I'm not Dan, but this is slightly less mathematical than it sounds. The
> main point (if I understand DJB here) is:
>
> Its only an hour late? Another 10 minutes will hurt about "this much".
> Its a day late? Another hour will probably also hurt about "this much".
> Its a week late? Another (day?) won't hurt more than, oh, "this much".
>
> "this much" being more or less equal ... djb: '...is worth the same as...'
>
> ... where the amount of delay is respective to the amount of accumulated
> delay.
Oh, thanks. Yes, I think that I understand the intuition
behind those claims.
I was looking for more detains about the mathematical side of
the things (e.g., what is the measure of "hurt", in your words
or the cost to which Dan refers?) and like why the optimal
retry schedule is essentially independent of the actual
distribution of message delay times. And why did Dan choose a
quadratic retry schedule and not, say, a cubic one? For some
convenience?
If Dan (or any other poster) could help, I'd be very gateful.
:-)
Thanks for your insight, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You're right -- there's no doubt that the TXT record is useful (or was
;-) ). But my point is that the lookups (according to the spec) were to be
done on A records, and the TXT records fetched if you wanted that
description. This is two lookups, so no qmail person would settle for that
(humour). That was the jist of my original coment.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mate Wierdl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:34:21PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> > The best approach to this is to have rblsmtpd use A records, as it
should
> > have from the beginning (that's what you get for optimising solely for
> > speed, not for correctness).
>
> But then the TXT record is really useful: it does give a clue to the
> client how to get out of the mess.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:01:37AM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote:
> Wish I had enough brain cells to describe adequately what the functions
> do... I don't have Knuth's books in front of me either.
The lightbulb in my head suddenly flicks on, and I gain enlightenment...
I hope this is of use to others who want to understand prioq objects.
First, picture it as a structure that looks like this (the numbers are
the index numbers used in pq->p[]):
0
.---' `---.
1 2
/ \ / \
3 4 5 6
/ \ / \ / \ / \
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Here, I refer to 0 as the parent of 1 and 2, who are the children of 0.
Likewise, 3 and 4 are the children of 1, who is the parent of 3 and 4.
The one guarantee that prioq_insert() and prioq_delmin() make is that if
an item has children, both of its children will have values greater than
that of the item. Similarly, its value will be greater than that of its
parent. Hence, pq->p[0], the parent of all parents if you will, always
has the smallest value.
i.e., assuming all items have unique values,
pq->p[0] < pq->p[1], pq->p[0] < pq->p[2],
pq->p[1] < pq->p[3], pq->p[1] < pq->p[4],
pq->p[2] < pq->p[5], pq->p[2] < pq->p[6],
and so on.
The descriptions that follow are not entirely accurate (since Dan's
functions are more optimal); I aim to make them easy to understand.
prioq_insert(): first, put new item at the next slot (15, if we use
the above diagram). Then, compare the value of the new item with that
of its parent (7 in this case). If parent has greater value, swap,
and see if the new item (now 7)'s parent (namely 3) is greater; keep
swapping until the new item is greater than its parent.
prioq_delmin(): swap the smallest item (at slot 0) with the child of
lesser value; keep swapping with the smallest item, until the item in
the final slot (14, if we use the above diagram) has a value less than
that of the item just swapped (or there are no more children to look
at). Then swap the smallest item with the item in the final slot, and
remove the final slot (effectively removing the smallest item).
Sorry, that was a mouthful. :-)
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't
Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer.
http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed
Jenny Holmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aug 15 22:14:48 atlas qmail: 966392088.232922 delivery 662: deferral:
>>
>Connected_to_152.163.224.66_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_421_SERVICE_NOT_AVAILABLE,_TEMPORARY_DNS_FAILURE/
>
>This is due to AOL returning too big a DNS record when you query for
>their MX.
How do you figure that? Looks like AOL is rejecting the message
because it's having DNS problems.
>There are basically two solutions to this - either apply a
>patch, which you'll find on the qmail web site, or set up a static
>route to the AOL MX of your choice.
A third alternative to the too-big-DNS-reply problem is to run
dnscache. It strips a lot of fluff when it returns the cached info, so
too-big replies often become not-too-big. But I believe AOL has
changed their ways and no longer sends too-big replies.
-Dave
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How do you figure that? Looks like AOL is rejecting the message
> because it's having DNS problems.
Not enough coffee -> impaired reading comprehension. My apologies for
a completely erroneous answer.
> A third alternative to the too-big-DNS-reply problem is to run
> dnscache. It strips a lot of fluff when it returns the cached info, so
> too-big replies often become not-too-big. But I believe AOL has
> changed their ways and no longer sends too-big replies.
Might well be. Certainly the question isn't asked here very often any
more...
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
Hi list,
I've setup qmail1.03 with QMAILQUEUE patch.
And scan4virus0.53.
Everything works perfect with mail to local users
(with QMAILQUEUE set in /etc/profile)
If I send mail from an extern host,
tcpserver gives the following message:
---
Aug 18 16:19:40 checkers tcpserver: 966608380.887058 tcpserver: status:
0/20
Aug 18 16:32:20 checkers tcpserver: 966609140.394051 tcpserver: status:
1/20
Aug 18 16:32:20 checkers tcpserver: 966609140.395238 tcpserver: pid 2680
from 131.111.112.3
Aug 18 16:32:20 checkers tcpserver: 966609140.608752 tcpserver: ok 2680
checkers.altus.de:131.111.112.4:25 :131.111.112.3::53305
Aug 18 16:32:20 checkers tcpserver: 966609140.620980 Can't do setuid
Aug 18 16:32:20 checkers tcpserver: 966609140.658435 tcpserver: end 2680
status 0
Aug 18 16:32:20 checkers tcpserver: 966609140.659017 tcpserver: status:
0/20
---
that's how i'm calling tcpserver:
(ulimit -d 5120 -m 2048 && /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -l`hostname -f`\
-c20 -b30 -P -h -R -t10 -O -Q -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 503 -g 101 0 25
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 2>&1) | /var/qmail/bin/splogger tcpserver &
the file /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb exists with the following (test)content:
1.2.3.4:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
:allow
I made the cdb file as follows:
cat /etc/tcp.smtp | tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp
the tcp.smtp.cdb file belongs to root:root
Any help would be appreciated ;)
thanks...
jan.meyer
Hey all
I was talking to someone today about qmail, and they were saying that
"it's good, but it's a lousy secondary MX because it won't store and
forward" I didn't think this was right, and he elaborated by saying "Yea,
if you use tcpserver with the -x option, an env var doesn't get set so it
won't store and forward."
I've never heard of anything like this, and he swore there was a link on
qmail.org about it (which he couldn't find when I asked to see it) but I'm
always willing to get a second opinion. That's where you guys come
in. Anyone heard of this?
- T
--
Tyler J. Frederick
Systems Administrator
Sportsline.com, Inc.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:31:30AM -0400, Tyler J. Frederick wrote:
> I didn't think this was right, and he elaborated by saying "Yea,
> if you use tcpserver with the -x option, an env var doesn't get set so it
> won't store and forward."
That's gibberish.
> I've never heard of anything like this, and he swore there was a link on
> qmail.org about it (which he couldn't find when I asked to see it) but I'm
> always willing to get a second opinion. That's where you guys come
> in. Anyone heard of this?
qmail queues mail (no pun intended). It will queue it and retry delivery
for a configurable length of time. It's fine for a backup-MX.
You can also deliver all mail for a domain into a Maildir folder and
leave it there for as long as you want, if you don't want it to be
retried. Then fire up maildir2smtp when you're ready to send it on its
way.
Regards,
james
--
James Raftery (JBR54) - Programmer Hostmaster - IE TLD Hostmaster
IE Domain Registry - www.domainregistry.ie - (+353 1) 706 2375
"Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like
herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tyler J. Frederick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 18 August 2000 at 11:31:30 -0400
> Hey all
>
> I was talking to someone today about qmail, and they were saying that
> "it's good, but it's a lousy secondary MX because it won't store and
> forward" I didn't think this was right, and he elaborated by saying "Yea,
> if you use tcpserver with the -x option, an env var doesn't get set so it
> won't store and forward."
>
> I've never heard of anything like this, and he swore there was a link on
> qmail.org about it (which he couldn't find when I asked to see it) but I'm
> always willing to get a second opinion. That's where you guys come
> in. Anyone heard of this?
I'm using qmail on my secondary MX; works fine. Nothing tricky or
complex about setting it up.
I chose to use the "deliver to maildir" approach mentioned. The other
approach would also work, but I wanted to cover the possibility that
my primary might be down for longer than queuelifetime without my
losing mail. Also wanted to be able to easily turn *off* delivery
from the secondary, for when I have the carcass of the primary
partially revived and not smart enough to know it's not safe yet
(since the secondary is physically and network-topology close, things
I did to keep the primary away from the real world might not isolate
it from the secondary).
No reference to "MX" or "secondary" on the front page at www.qmail.org
seems to discuss anything like this. If it's there, it's buried
deeper (and most everything is pointed to from the top page there).
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:31:30AM -0400, Tyler J. Frederick wrote:
> > I didn't think this was right, and he elaborated by saying "Yea,
> > if you use tcpserver with the -x option, an env var doesn't get set so it
> > won't store and forward."
>
> That's gibberish.
As I had expected. Thanks for confirming.
- T
"Tyler J. Frederick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was talking to someone today about qmail, and they were saying that
>"it's good, but it's a lousy secondary MX because it won't store and
>forward" I didn't think this was right, and he elaborated by saying "Yea,
>if you use tcpserver with the -x option, an env var doesn't get set so it
>won't store and forward."
Sounds like he mistakenly believed that acting as a secondary required
setting RELAYCLIENT. It doesn't, because you add the domains you're
secondarying (?) to control/rcphosts.
-Dave
I have a rather bizarre question about redistributing qmail binaries. I've
read through <http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html> and
<http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html> already without a clear answer to my
question.
Can I distribute a binary qmail RPM (provided it complies with the
precompiled var-qmail package definition) and a qmail-patches RPM that
contains *binary* patches for the qmail system? I'm not asking whether it's
possible, feasible, or advisable; I'm asking whether it's legal.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
panic("esp_handle: current_SC == penguin within interrupt!");
(Panic message in the kernel.)
Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can I distribute a binary qmail RPM (provided it complies with the
>precompiled var-qmail package definition) and a qmail-patches RPM that
>contains *binary* patches for the qmail system? I'm not asking whether it's
>possible, feasible, or advisable; I'm asking whether it's legal.
IANAL, but IMHO, why not? DJB's copyright controls how you can
redistribute DJB's bits. As long as the binary patches don't contain
any of DJB's bits, DJB's copyright doesn't apply.
-Dave
IANAL = "I Am Not A Lawyer"
IMHO = "In My Humble Opinion"
DJB = "Daniel J. Bernstein"
On Mon Aug 14, 2000 at 07:55:46PM +0200, Gerrit Pape wrote:
There are now Linux Mandrake qmail RPMs available for testing. They
are not part of the Linux Mandrake distribution, which I hope will
change (once I get DJB's blessing I hope!). The following packages are
part of the package:
qmail-1.03-7mdk.i386.rpm
daemontools-0.70-3mdk.i386.rpm
dot-forward-0.51-2mdk.i386.rpm
fastforward-0.51-2mdk.i386.rpm
ucspi-tcp-0.88-3mdk.i386.rpm
I have tested these packages on my own system and they work very well
out of the box. No patches are applied, the installed system is a
pristine system identical to a regular qmail compilation/installation
with the following exceptions:
- manpages are bzipped
- symlink from /var/qmail/man/* to /usr/share/man/*
- manpages are added to daemontools and ucspi-tcp
- uid/gid info for qmail is hardcoded in the spec file (this helps to
preserve permissions across re-installs instead of having different
uid/gid info on various installs)
All of these packages together will setup qmail on a Linux Mandrake
system (and, most likely, any other RPM-based distribution although I
can't guarantee this). They were built on a Linux Mandrake 7.1 system.
Any Linux Mandrake users: please test/try these packages (if you wish)
and help to get them approvied by D. J. Bernstein so we can include
them in the main Linux Mandrake distribution, or at the very least, as
part of the RPM contributions.
Please, when testing, make sure they comply with
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html and
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html. This is the only way they will
be approved by DJB, so if there are any discrepencies, please let me
know.
You can download the RPMs from:
ftp://ftp.freezer-burn.org/pub/custom/{qmail,daemontools,ucspi-tcp,...}
or
www.freezer-burn.org/rpm.php3
Thanks.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED], OpenPGP key available on www.keyserver.net
// Danen Consulting Services www.danen.net, www.freezer-burn.org
// MandrakeSoft, Inc. www.linux-mandrake.com
1024D/FE6F2AFD 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD
Current Linux uptime: 14 days 21 hours 18 minutes.
They two can are runnning simultaneously
I have 50,000 users of e-mail,
I need give simultaneously most of 300 connections for send email and
client POP3 ...
Do Inetd or Tcp-server can do these?
Regards
P.D.
Somebody speak spanish
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I need give simultaneously most of 300 connections for send email and
>client POP3 ...
>
>Do Inetd or Tcp-server can do these?
With tcpserver, you can set a per-service simultaneous connection
limit. For example, you can limit incoming SMTP to 100 ports and POP3
to 200 ports. There's no way to limit SMTP+POP3 to 300 connections
total, though.
-Dave
One question friends
Is the ucspi-tcp-0.88 version stable?
or is the version 0.84 best?
What is the best?
Thanks
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> One question friends
> Is the ucspi-tcp-0.88 version stable?
> or is the version 0.84 best?
Interesting question. One can be very sure that software Dan
Bernstein releases is stable.
Idle wish I just feel like expressing: I wish Dan had coded an ftp
daemon that did more than anon logins (I wish I was one-twentieth the
coder Dan is).
Aaron
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is the ucspi-tcp-0.88 version stable?
Yes, very.
>or is the version 0.84 best?
It's stable, too, but 0.88 is preferred.
>What is the best?
0.88
-Dave
Earlier we were having our e-mail using sendmail. Now we have installed
Qmail and Sendmail had been disabled/removed because the Plesk Sys Admn
(PSA) was installed which automatically replaces Sendmail with Qmail.
Now the problem is that we were using e-mail before that but now we are
unable to send/receive the e-mails. We are unable to locate the location
where the e-mails are being stored.
Kindly help
Regards
Sanjay Arora
Sanjay Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Earlier we were having our e-mail using sendmail. Now we have installed
>Qmail and Sendmail had been disabled/removed because the Plesk Sys Admn
>(PSA) was installed which automatically replaces Sendmail with Qmail.
Curious. What is "Plesk Sys Admn"?
>Now the problem is that we were using e-mail before that but now we are
>unable to send/receive the e-mails. We are unable to locate the location
>where the e-mails are being stored.
They could be going lots of places, but I'd bet on $HOME/Mailbox or
$HOME/Maildir. If it's $HOME/Mailbox, setting the MAIL environment
variable to $HOME/Mailbox should be all you need to do.
-Dave
We've recently started scanning all of our incoming/outgoing messages for
viruses and have found it to be extremely CPU intensive. However, we are
catching a lot of viruses this way so we've decided to continue the
practice. We are interested in off-loading the virus scanning overhead to a
different system.
Our primary MX is currently the final destination for most incoming e-mail
(it hosts all of the mailboxes). We'd like to build a new primary MX that
scans all of the incoming e-mail then relays it to the current "mailbox"
server (POP3/IMAP) via QMQP. Please don't drill me on why I want to use
QMQP. We have reasons why we don't want SMTP running on the "mailbox"
server once it is no longer the MX.
So, the question is, how to I configure qmail on the MX to relay the
outgoing mail via QMQP?
Thanks,
--Kevin
--
Kevin Sawyer - President and CEO - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Personal Computing, Inc. - APCiNet - http://www.apci.net
6001 Old Collinsville Road, Building #3, Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Office: (618) 632-7282 FAX: (618) 632-7287 Support: (618) 628-2Net
You can do the mini-qmail installation.. see http://cr.yp.to/qmail/mini.html
Sort of like MX points to mini-qmail (Virus scanner loaded on this machine)
it then forwards mail to main queue.
Sean Truman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.prodigysolutions.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 3:08 PM
Subject: SMTP In -> Virus Scan -> QMQP Out
> We've recently started scanning all of our incoming/outgoing messages for
> viruses and have found it to be extremely CPU intensive. However, we are
> catching a lot of viruses this way so we've decided to continue the
> practice. We are interested in off-loading the virus scanning overhead to
a
> different system.
>
> Our primary MX is currently the final destination for most incoming e-mail
> (it hosts all of the mailboxes). We'd like to build a new primary MX that
> scans all of the incoming e-mail then relays it to the current "mailbox"
> server (POP3/IMAP) via QMQP. Please don't drill me on why I want to use
> QMQP. We have reasons why we don't want SMTP running on the "mailbox"
> server once it is no longer the MX.
>
> So, the question is, how to I configure qmail on the MX to relay the
> outgoing mail via QMQP?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Kevin
>
> --
> Kevin Sawyer - President and CEO - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Applied Personal Computing, Inc. - APCiNet - http://www.apci.net
> 6001 Old Collinsville Road, Building #3, Fairview Heights, IL 62208
> Office: (618) 632-7282 FAX: (618) 632-7287 Support: (618) 628-2Net
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:08:43PM -0500, Kevin Sawyer wrote:
> We've recently started scanning all of our incoming/outgoing messages for
> viruses and have found it to be extremely CPU intensive. However, we are
> catching a lot of viruses this way so we've decided to continue the
> practice. We are interested in off-loading the virus scanning overhead to a
> different system.
>
> Our primary MX is currently the final destination for most incoming e-mail
> (it hosts all of the mailboxes). We'd like to build a new primary MX that
> scans all of the incoming e-mail then relays it to the current "mailbox"
> server (POP3/IMAP) via QMQP. Please don't drill me on why I want to use
> QMQP. We have reasons why we don't want SMTP running on the "mailbox"
> server once it is no longer the MX.
>
> So, the question is, how to I configure qmail on the MX to relay the
> outgoing mail via QMQP?
How does your virus scanner work now? Is mail delivered to it via a .qmail
file?
The easiest way to acheive your desired results would be to create
a second instance of qmail that is setup to use qmqpc and have your inbound
scanner use this queue when re-injecting the mail.
How are your users going to submit mail? Do they submit to the MX or to
the POP/IMAP3 server?
Regards.
Hi
I'm new to this list (and Linux generally) and I'm from Poland
so please excuse me my English and not too complicated questions.
I'm using RedHat 6.2 and recently got rid of sendmail and installed
qmail. After instalation everything was working fine. But later
I changed my default mailbox for local messages. I changed it to
Maildir (and I changed my /var/qmail/rc file ofcourse). And after
that I don't get any information about new mail for me. Messages go
to Maildir but why there is no response about it.
The secound problem is that I removed file: /bin/mail (because
I read Remove.binmail during instalation qmail) and now I don't
know how to send short messages to other users locally.
And that's all for now.
Thank you 4 answering to my questions,
qba
I am about ready have a conniption. Perhaps I'm mistaken in what portion
of the mail header qmail actually looks at.
8< - - - - -
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Get a $1000 FREE Satellite TV System ..
> FREE SATELLITE T.V. SYSTEM
8< - - - - -
I have '*@indiatimes.com' in badmailfrom
I have 'satsystems*' in badrcptpatterns
So what am I missing?
(exsposing cranium to sharp blows from a clue stick)
Duane L - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
the correct syntax would be:
@indianatimes.com
no wildcard *
wolfgang
Also sprach Duane L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 18.08.2000:
I have '*@indiatimes.com' in badmailfrom
qmail doesn't look at ANY of the headers in the message. It looks at the
SMTP protocol envelope sender address (which it adds as the Return-Path:
header on final delivery). badmailfrom effectively filters based on the
Return-Path: header and ONLY the Return-Path header and as you are finding
out, that can and lots of times does, have absolutely NOTHING in common
with the contents of the headers in the message itself. :)
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Duane L. wrote:
>
> I am about ready have a conniption. Perhaps I'm mistaken in what portion
> of the mail header qmail actually looks at.
>
> 8< - - - - -
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Get a $1000 FREE Satellite TV System ..
> > FREE SATELLITE T.V. SYSTEM
> 8< - - - - -
>
> I have '*@indiatimes.com' in badmailfrom
>
> I have 'satsystems*' in badrcptpatterns
>
> So what am I missing?
> (exsposing cranium to sharp blows from a clue stick)
>
>
> Duane L - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
Hello,
Can I use qmail-inject on hostA to send e-mail to a user at hostB by doing
the following:
qmail-inject
to: user@ip-address-of-hostB
<ctrl-D>
I saw an RFC that states that DNS aliases cannot be used.
Does this mean that the "to:" line has to be to something with an "A" record
in DNS?
ie to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And how about if I configure qmail on hostB to receive e-mail for
"ip-address-of-hostB"?
Will hostA still barf out with the message:
CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily.
And, if it does, can I telnet to port 25 of hostB and send e-mail to
user@ip-address-of-hostB
Thanks,
Jeff Mangewala
*********************************************************
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of original message.
The correct syntax is:
to: user@[ip-address-of-hostB]
the square brackets are required in this case.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Jeff Mangewala wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can I use qmail-inject on hostA to send e-mail to a user at hostB by doing
> the following:
>
>
> qmail-inject
> to: user@ip-address-of-hostB
> <ctrl-D>
>
>
> I saw an RFC that states that DNS aliases cannot be used.
> Does this mean that the "to:" line has to be to something with an "A" record
> in DNS?
>
> ie to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And how about if I configure qmail on hostB to receive e-mail for
> "ip-address-of-hostB"?
>
> Will hostA still barf out with the message:
>
> CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily.
>
> And, if it does, can I telnet to port 25 of hostB and send e-mail to
> user@ip-address-of-hostB
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Mangewala
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients(s)
> and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender by
> reply email and destroy all copies of original message.
>
>
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
I'll try to keep it short. I've only installed qmail twice, and I'm having
some difficulty with this one.
using slackware 7.1
ucspi-tcp-0.88
qmail 1.03
rc.local:
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup (my hostname here)
\
/bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 7791 -g 2108 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
the first two lines execute correctly. the third does not, and reports:
tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
for the sweet dear love of all that is holy, does anyone know why this is
occuring?
I can provide any necessary information if I haven't provided enough here.
Thank you x 193840
-Ryan
It looks like when I sent the email, the lines got screwed up. Here is the
correct rc.local entries for qmail.
Line 1: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
c50912-a.btnrug1.la.home.com \
Line 2: /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
Line 3: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 7791 -g 2108 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
Line 4: 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
Line 5: csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
Again, Thanks.
"R. Bettencourtt" wrote:
>
> It looks like when I sent the email, the lines got screwed up. Here is the
> correct rc.local entries for qmail.
>
> Line 1: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 110 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> c50912-a.btnrug1.la.home.com \
> Line 2: /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir &
> Line 3: /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -u 7791 -g 2108 0 smtp
> /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
> Line 4: 2>&1 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3 &
> Line 5: csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &'
>
> Again, Thanks.
Try putting the contents of line 5 first. Line 5 loads all the main
qmail process's. Then you can load the pop3 daemon and smtp daemon.
Another thing that could cause this is if sendmail is still running.
Type at the prompt as root ps -aux|grep 'sendmail' . If it is you will
have to remove it from the init scripts.
I think if I can remember correctly sendmail was started in rc.inet2 or
rc.M . A quick method of finding out is to do grep 'sendmail' * in the
rc.d directory or grep 'sendmail' rc.* .
If it is still there comment it out by putting a # in front of the lines
that load it.
I hope this helps.
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
|
problem solved. there was a misconfiguration in my
inetd.conf.
Thanks for the direct replies that I
got.
Ryan
|
what consequence could happen changing inetd for ucspi-tcp?
I have a mail-server, Sendmail 8.9.3 (by the moment), web server (APACHE)
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> what consequence could happen changing inetd for ucspi-tcp?
> I have a mail-server, Sendmail 8.9.3 (by the moment), web server (APACHE)
>
> Thanks
Nothing but good consequences, tcpserver works very well. Sendmail
should work fine with it, though I have never personally run sendmail
with tcpserver. Apache on the other hand I don't think will run with
tcpserver. I would keep apache in inetd. You can run both of them at
the same time (inetd and tcpserver) just as long as they are running the
same service.
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
Dale Miracle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 18 August 2000 at 17:38:45 -0400
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > what consequence could happen changing inetd for ucspi-tcp?
> > I have a mail-server, Sendmail 8.9.3 (by the moment), web server (APACHE)
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Nothing but good consequences, tcpserver works very well. Sendmail
> should work fine with it, though I have never personally run sendmail
> with tcpserver. Apache on the other hand I don't think will run with
> tcpserver. I would keep apache in inetd. You can run both of them at
> the same time (inetd and tcpserver) just as long as they are running the
> same service.
While you can run Apache under inetd, it's a very bad idea except for
the smallest volume web site. Better to let it run as a daemon, where
it does useful things like reusing processes (cutting down overhead).
inetd is actually a very good idea. The particular implementation
seems to have some problems; but the idea of not having to have every
low-use specialized server always running is a good one. I run Apache
and Named and Samba as daemons, qmail under tcpserver, and leave the
rest in inetd.
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Nothing but good consequences, tcpserver works very well. Sendmail
> > should work fine with it, though I have never personally run sendmail
> > with tcpserver. Apache on the other hand I don't think will run with
> > tcpserver. I would keep apache in inetd. You can run both of them at
> > the same time (inetd and tcpserver) just as long as they are running the
> > same service.
>
> While you can run Apache under inetd, it's a very bad idea except for
> the smallest volume web site. Better to let it run as a daemon, where
> it does useful things like reusing processes (cutting down overhead).
>
> inetd is actually a very good idea. The particular implementation
> seems to have some problems; but the idea of not having to have every
> low-use specialized server always running is a good one. I run Apache
> and Named and Samba as daemons, qmail under tcpserver, and leave the
> rest in inetd.
Good point, wasn't thinking. I run apache, named, ftpd as daemons and
qmail under tcpserver.
Though I have recently thought of moving ftpd to tcpserver since it
isn't used as much.
Take Care,
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
--- David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dale Miracle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 18 August 2000 at 17:38:45 -0400
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > what consequence could happen changing inetd for ucspi-tcp?
> > > I have a mail-server, Sendmail 8.9.3 (by the moment), web server (APACHE)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > Nothing but good consequences, tcpserver works very well. Sendmail
> > should work fine with it, though I have never personally run sendmail
> > with tcpserver. Apache on the other hand I don't think will run with
> > tcpserver. I would keep apache in inetd. You can run both of them at
> > the same time (inetd and tcpserver) just as long as they are running the
> > same service.
>
> While you can run Apache under inetd, it's a very bad idea except for
> the smallest volume web site. Better to let it run as a daemon, where
> it does useful things like reusing processes (cutting down overhead).
>
> inetd is actually a very good idea. The particular implementation
> seems to have some problems; but the idea of not having to have every
> low-use specialized server always running is a good one. I run Apache
> and Named and Samba as daemons, qmail under tcpserver, and leave the
> rest in inetd.
> --
> Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
> Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
> David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New to list, new to qmail (running a test box right now and still
trying to decide whether to switch frm sendmail).
Anyway, while on this thread it has occurred to me to ask why put qmail
in either inetd or tcpserver? Why not run it as a daemon? At the
moment my test box is running it in inetd because I did a quick
cookbook install. I didn't see anything, off hand anyway, that told me
how to do that. Coming from the sendmail world, that would be my
initial preference (especially since the box would be dedicated to
email anyway).
=== Al
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 07:46:52PM -0700, Al Sparks wrote:
> Anyway, while on this thread it has occurred to me to ask why put qmail
> in either inetd or tcpserver? Why not run it as a daemon? At the
> moment my test box is running it in inetd because I did a quick
> cookbook install. I didn't see anything, off hand anyway, that told me
> how to do that. Coming from the sendmail world, that would be my
> initial preference (especially since the box would be dedicated to
> email anyway).
I'm sure several people on this list could explain why that is a bad
idea and why DJB chose not to design it that way, but I'll give you the
easy anser: Because you can't. It won't listen to a port all by
itself. tcpserver creates the connection and then passes it off to
qmail-smtpd.
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
--- Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 07:46:52PM -0700, Al Sparks wrote:
>
> > Anyway, while on this thread it has occurred to me to ask why put qmail
> > in either inetd or tcpserver? Why not run it as a daemon? At the
> > moment my test box is running it in inetd because I did a quick
> > cookbook install. I didn't see anything, off hand anyway, that told me
> > how to do that. Coming from the sendmail world, that would be my
> > initial preference (especially since the box would be dedicated to
> > email anyway).
>
> I'm sure several people on this list could explain why that is a bad
> idea and why DJB chose not to design it that way, but I'll give you the
> easy anser: Because you can't. It won't listen to a port all by
> itself. tcpserver creates the connection and then passes it off to
> qmail-smtpd.
>
> Ben
>
> --
> Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
> Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Well, that's actually a good enough reason for me, at least at this stage.
Thanks.
=== Al
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
SNIP
>
> New to list, new to qmail (running a test box right now and still
> trying to decide whether to switch frm sendmail).
>
> Anyway, while on this thread it has occurred to me to ask why put qmail
> in either inetd or tcpserver? Why not run it as a daemon? At the
> moment my test box is running it in inetd because I did a quick
> cookbook install. I didn't see anything, off hand anyway, that told me
> how to do that. Coming from the sendmail world, that would be my
> initial preference (especially since the box would be dedicated to
> email anyway).
> === Al
>
SNIP
qmail will work fine as a daemon, but you get some really handy
functionality from running it under tcpserver:
1. RELAYCLIENT environment variable on a per-ip basis.
2. The ability to trivially add rbl filtering to disallow dirty spamboxen
from access to qmail-smtpd.
and probably other lovely bits as well.
GW
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 08:54:54PM -0700, Greg White wrote:
> qmail will work fine as a daemon, but you get some really handy
> functionality from running it under tcpserver:
>
> 1. RELAYCLIENT environment variable on a per-ip basis.
>
> 2. The ability to trivially add rbl filtering to disallow dirty spamboxen
> from access to qmail-smtpd.
>
> and probably other lovely bits as well.
There seems to be an inordinate amount of misinformation on the list lately.
None of the qmail programs that depend on listening for network connections
(qmail-smtpd, qmail-pop3d, qmail-qmqpd, qmail-qmtpd) can run as a standalone
daemon. They don't know anything about packets, sockets, TCP/IP, etc. All they
can do is read from standard input and write to standard output and standard
error. They must be run from inetd, tcpserver, or the like.
The qmail programs that are long-running daemons (qmail-send, qmail-lspawn,
qmail-rspawn) it wouldn't make any sense to run under tcpserver.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: CHANGING INETD
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 08:54:54PM -0700, Greg White wrote:
> > qmail will work fine as a daemon, but you get some really handy
> > functionality from running it under tcpserver:
> >
> > 1. RELAYCLIENT environment variable on a per-ip basis.
> >
> > 2. The ability to trivially add rbl filtering to disallow dirty
spamboxen
> > from access to qmail-smtpd.
> >
> > and probably other lovely bits as well.
>
> There seems to be an inordinate amount of misinformation on the list
lately.
>
> None of the qmail programs that depend on listening for network
connections
> (qmail-smtpd, qmail-pop3d, qmail-qmqpd, qmail-qmtpd) can run as a
standalone
> daemon.
SNIP
My bad. Looking back again at the docs etc., I see that I was talking out my
ass about qmail-smtpd as a stand-alone daemon (although I seem to remember
doing this at some point, perhaps pre-1.03, or perhaps my brain fails me yet
again). My own searches on the subject reveal no results, so perhaps I
misremember this completely.
That being said, however, my intention was merely to indicate that even if
one could run qmail-smtpd as a stand-alone daemon, why would one want to
given just the two examples given above as additional functionality.
GW
Hi everyone,
I've got a customer running qmail with vpopmail, and he's reporting
that qmail is not delivering messages to bcc'ed recipients. He was
testing with hotmail.com, and by telnetting directly to qmail. Is
anyone aware of any circumstances in which the bcc'ed recipients would
be dropped or refused?
Thanks!
-Scott
Yes:
If they are not specified in the list of RCPT's given to the SMTP server at
original message transmission time, they won't get a copy of the message.
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Sharkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 2:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: bcc's not accepted?
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've got a customer running qmail with vpopmail, and he's reporting
> that qmail is not delivering messages to bcc'ed recipients. He was
> testing with hotmail.com, and by telnetting directly to qmail. Is
> anyone aware of any circumstances in which the bcc'ed recipients would
> be dropped or refused?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Scott
>
Scott Sharkey wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've got a customer running qmail with vpopmail, and he's reporting
> that qmail is not delivering messages to bcc'ed recipients. He was
> testing with hotmail.com, and by telnetting directly to qmail. Is
> anyone aware of any circumstances in which the bcc'ed recipients would
> be dropped or refused?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Scott
I personally use BCC quite a bit almost daily and I run a qmail server.
What mua is he using? (eudora, netscape messager, outlook, etc). I
haven't heard of this problem before. Maybe some of the others here
could shed some light on this.
Take Care,
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
Is it just my imagination or am I seeing a larger than normal number of
yahoo.com messages building up in my remote queue?
I've tried a few telnet sessions to port 25 on mx7.mail.yahoo.com and
sometimes it gets through and sometimes it doesn't...
Annoyed,
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
I've noticed it the last few days, also.
At times they are 75% of the stuff in our queues!
--
Michael Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:50 PM
> To: qmail list
> Subject: yahoo down?
>
>
> Is it just my imagination or am I seeing a larger than normal
> number of
> yahoo.com messages building up in my remote queue?
>
> I've tried a few telnet sessions to port 25 on mx7.mail.yahoo.com and
> sometimes it gets through and sometimes it doesn't...
>
> Annoyed,
> Ben
>
_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
"M.B." wrote:
>
> I've noticed it the last few days, also.
> At times they are 75% of the stuff in our queues!
>
> --
> Michael Boyiazis
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:50 PM
> > To: qmail list
> > Subject: yahoo down?
> >
> >
> > Is it just my imagination or am I seeing a larger than normal
> > number of
> > yahoo.com messages building up in my remote queue?
> >
> > I've tried a few telnet sessions to port 25 on mx7.mail.yahoo.com and
> > sometimes it gets through and sometimes it doesn't...
> >
> > Annoyed,
> > Ben
> >
>
> _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
I think there some problems across the internet in general. I have
found that various sites across the net have dns or related problems
recently. I have noticed that the deferral rate as risen the past
couple weeks at least for my mail server.
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
I'm certainly getting email from this list....
But checking one of the Recieved headers I am seeing a 19 minute
delay in Yahoo receiving the message.
=== Al
--- "M.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed it the last few days, also.
> At times they are 75% of the stuff in our queues!
>
> --
> Michael Boyiazis
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:50 PM
> > To: qmail list
> > Subject: yahoo down?
> >
> >
> > Is it just my imagination or am I seeing a larger than normal
> > number of
> > yahoo.com messages building up in my remote queue?
> >
> > I've tried a few telnet sessions to port 25 on mx7.mail.yahoo.com and
> > sometimes it gets through and sometimes it doesn't...
> >
> > Annoyed,
> > Ben
> >
>
>
> _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Al Sparks wrote:
> I'm certainly getting email from this list....
> But checking one of the Recieved headers I am seeing a 19 minute
> delay in Yahoo receiving the message.
I have a number of messages in the queue for yahoo. Perhaps it's
just one machine that's gone awry?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
First a disclaimer, I just use Yahoo!, I don't administer the email or work
for them in any way.
I don't think it's one machine. I checked headers and found 2 delayed's
(not all of them get delayed) and one of them was mta212 and the other
was mta108.
=== Al
--- Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Al Sparks wrote:
>
> > I'm certainly getting email from this list....
> > But checking one of the Recieved headers I am seeing a 19 minute
> > delay in Yahoo receiving the message.
>
> I have a number of messages in the queue for yahoo. Perhaps it's
> just one machine that's gone awry?
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
> 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
> Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
> Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
At times, in the past, I've even had bounces saying that a yahoo user
doesn't exist. An e-mail the day after might go fine, then a few days later
it'll go astray again...
Definitely a few machines in that bank which need some heart surgery
Perhaps they're using sendmail? :>
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 11:50 AM
> To: qmail list
> Subject: yahoo down?
>
>
> Is it just my imagination or am I seeing a larger than normal number of
> yahoo.com messages building up in my remote queue?
>
> I've tried a few telnet sessions to port 25 on mx7.mail.yahoo.com and
> sometimes it gets through and sometimes it doesn't...
>
> Annoyed,
> Ben
>
> --
> Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
> Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:57:49PM +1000, Brett Randall wrote:
> At times, in the past, I've even had bounces saying that a yahoo user
> doesn't exist. An e-mail the day after might go fine, then a few days
> later it'll go astray again...
>
> Definitely a few machines in that bank which need some heart surgery
>
> Perhaps they're using sendmail? :>
Hmm. Telnetting to the server on port 25 says that it is something
called YSmtp. And sending it a 'help' command returns
'250 OK. Yahoo! MTA'. Sounds like something proprietary...
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
> Hmm. Telnetting to the server on port 25 says that it is something
> called YSmtp. And sending it a 'help' command returns
> '250 OK. Yahoo! MTA'. Sounds like something proprietary...
Or just something hacked up so no one will be able to (knowingly) hack them
if a bug happens to exist in the MTA...
Anyway I'm straying now...
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
On Aug 18 2000, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> Hmm. Telnetting to the server on port 25 says that it is something
> called YSmtp. And sending it a 'help' command returns
> '250 OK. Yahoo! MTA'. Sounds like something proprietary...
Humm... Some of their messages seem hauntingly familiar. :-)
IMVHO, it looks like they've hacked qmail with loads of
patches (like POP before SMTP and such).
BTW, Iname's host is Mail.com and they seem to periodically
have problems with their hosts. :-(
I dream of the day I have a permanent connection to the net so
that I can put a DJB-based solution for my e-mails...
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It appears that $TCPREMOTEIP is only available to qmail-smtpd. It is no
longer in the environment during final message delivery. I would like
to be able to use rblcheck and maildrop to allow opt-in
ORBS/RBL/DUL/RSS/etc. and would prefer to obtain the necessary info
directly from qmail rather than trying to parse the correct IP out of
the message header.
Any thoughts?
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Have you tried rblsmtpd? It works as a filter between tcpserver and
qmail-smtpd, and checks against blacklists on the TCP/IP connection, not the
mail itself.
RC
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 09:18:06PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> It appears that $TCPREMOTEIP is only available to qmail-smtpd. It is no
> longer in the environment during final message delivery. I would like
> to be able to use rblcheck and maildrop to allow opt-in
> ORBS/RBL/DUL/RSS/etc. and would prefer to obtain the necessary info
> directly from qmail rather than trying to parse the correct IP out of
> the message header.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ben
>
> --
> Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
> Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 21 3166700 (24h/dia) - Fax: +351 21 3166701
PGP signature
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:52:36AM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> Have you tried rblsmtpd? It works as a filter between tcpserver and
> qmail-smtpd, and checks against blacklists on the TCP/IP connection, not the
> mail itself.
Yeah, in fact I'm using it now to check against the dul list. However,
I would prefer to have some sort of opt-in choice, for our customers
that are afraid of losing legitimate mail.
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 18 August 2000 at 22:05:30 -0500
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 03:52:36AM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
>
> > Have you tried rblsmtpd? It works as a filter between tcpserver and
> > qmail-smtpd, and checks against blacklists on the TCP/IP connection, not the
> > mail itself.
>
> Yeah, in fact I'm using it now to check against the dul list. However,
> I would prefer to have some sort of opt-in choice, for our customers
> that are afraid of losing legitimate mail.
Sounds like a header-insert environment variable for qmail-smtpd is in
order. Then all the things that run before it, including tcpserver
and rblsmtpd, could set up stuff in that variable which would become
headers in the message, and then could be used at the user level for
maildrop / procmail / autosorting / whatever. I don't remember
anybody doing this patch yet; anybody?
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Is This Annoying Enough?
> Bruno Prior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >A short while before the self-righteous thread on How To Annoy People
> >Whose Help You Need, I posted a request for help with a problem I was
> >experiencing.
>
> Pardon me for trying to humorously and constructively address a
> problem the list has been having.
>
Please don't let this guy turn you off of that. Anyone with a clue would
have gotten the joke, and it afforded me many a chuckle (along the lines of
the old alt.sysadmin.recovery Price List). Another posters response about
his previous $5000 support contract with the list having run out struck a
chord with me, from the tone of the OP's post.
> I'll go back to dryly answering FAQ's and quietly suffering list
> abuses now.
>
> >Not a single one of the supposedly helpful people of
> >this list have bothered to reply. Having read the thread, it occurs to
> >me that perhaps the original message wasn't annoying enough to merit a
> >reply, so this is my next attempt.
>
> Oops, you forgot the part about *not* mentioning the previous
> attempts. Otherwise, this was a pretty annoying message.
>
SNIP
GW
> From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 5:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Is This Annoying Enough?
>
> > Bruno Prior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >A short while before the self-righteous thread on How To Annoy People
> > >Whose Help You Need, I posted a request for help with a problem I was
> > >experiencing.
> >
> > Pardon me for trying to humorously and constructively address a
> > problem the list has been having.
Hey Dave,
If you come across some free time :-), I have some ideas
Re: "HOWTO: How to get yourself into as many killfiles as possible"
(without typing a single curse word - I figure that would be too
easy. :-)
Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Interesting MAPS issue
> > [root@mail:~]# nslookup rbl.maps.vix.com
> > Server: ns1.supplyguys.net
> > Address: 205.247.132.3
> >
> > *** smtp.supplyguys.net can't find rbl.maps.vix.com: Non-existent
host/domain
> >
> > and I get the same response if I lookup DUL. Makes no sense.
>
> You are using NSLOOKUP to find a A, CNAME or PTR record which is default,
try:
> nslookup -type=SOA rbl.maps.vix.com
>
SNIP
That being said, however, no name server should return NXDOMAIN on such a
query. Does the RFC not specify that the correct answer in this case is
NOERROR with no records or authority data? That's the response I'm used to
from properly configured servers, and the response I currently get for such
a query myself.
frodo:~$ dig rbl.maps.vix.com
; <<>> DiG 8.2 <<>> rbl.maps.vix.com
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; rbl.maps.vix.com, type = A, class = IN
;; Total query time: 3 msec
;; FROM: frodo to SERVER: default -- 127.0.0.1
;; WHEN: Fri Aug 18 20:11:03 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 34 rcvd: 34
(Many kudoes to DJB for qmail and djbdns, but for some reason I still prefer
dirty BIND's 'dig' for diagnostics...
GW)
Dears managers:
I have a question for you:
I have +50,000 users of e-mail (pop3) I do change to qmail because
sendmail have problems of speed low ...
What is the best way of have user local buzon?
./Mailbox or /var/spool/mail/
Now, I have sendmail running ...
Is ./Mailbox very speed or no?
I have a problem, I can't have most of 32768 directorys into of other
directory, because my system no can support it. My system is Digital-Unix
on Tru64Unix 4.0F
for example: I did have them home users into /usr/users... but the
directory overflow, then created other directory /usr/user2/ .... then now the users
32768, 32769... 40000 are into /usr/user2 ...
I have dread than qmail by guilt of Mbox no work very good?
Maybe a database with Mysql could better ?
but where is these information?
LDAP is very good for 50,000 users?
and the aliases.. ?
Other problem than I have is limits of characters of username, because my
system Digital Unix only accept <= 8 characters... But I wish have most of
8 ....
A database maybe be a solution?
Very Thanks
Sorry for the english.. I am Peruvian
