qmail Digest 21 Sep 2000 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 1130
Topics (messages 49009 through 49103):
Re: patch to qmail-remote outgoingip patch
49009 by: Magnus Bodin
49036 by: Russell Nelson
Re: QMAILQUEUE patch
49010 by: J.J.Gallardo
49070 by: Jason Haar
49093 by: David Dyer-Bennet
qmail syntax problem
49011 by: Jens Georg
49012 by: Magnus Bodin
49013 by: Jost Krieger
49014 by: wolfgang zeikat
49080 by: Jens Georg
SMTP
49015 by: Nick Davies
49016 by: Johan Almqvist
Controlling resources.
49017 by: dG
49018 by: Petr Novotny
Mail billing software for qmail
49019 by: hitesh
49025 by: Olivier M.
some qmail message not being delivered to a certain smtp server. header questions
49020 by: John W. Lemons III
49021 by: Charles Cazabon
49022 by: Peter van Dijk
49023 by: Petr Novotny
49024 by: Charles Cazabon
49026 by: Peter van Dijk
49028 by: Petr Novotny
49054 by: John W. Lemons III
49061 by: Charles Cazabon
Mail in the Q
49027 by: Doug Schmidt
49030 by: Petr Novotny
Re: Humorous
49029 by: Greg Kopp
49031 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
49034 by: Brad Johnson
49035 by: dG
49039 by: Dave Sill
49040 by: Greg Kopp
49042 by: Robin S. Socha
49044 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
49045 by: markd.bushwire.net
49056 by: Felix von Leitner
49094 by: David Dyer-Bennet
49100 by: Russell Nelson
Re: Number of user-processes
49032 by: Dave Sill
49033 by: markd.bushwire.net
need help with vpopmail
49037 by: Simo Lakka
49088 by: Dale Miracle
SMTP connections timing out
49038 by: Albert Hopkins
49043 by: Petr Novotny
Re: Two @ signs in RCPT TO - how to reject?
49041 by: Dave Sill
Re: Users don't recieve mail...
49046 by: Dave Sill
49047 by: Cyril Bitterich
49050 by: wolfgang zeikat
49057 by: Dave Sill
49059 by: Cyril Bitterich
dotqmail scripting
49048 by: Gary Richardson
49051 by: Oezguer Kesim
49052 by: Peter Samuel
49053 by: Charles Cazabon
49072 by: Gary Richardson
Re: Mailman -> qmail
49049 by: Dave Sill
Send a mail
49055 by: Allama Hicham
49058 by: Charles Cazabon
49060 by: dG
49062 by: Jerry Lynde
49063 by: Dave Sill
49065 by: Dave Sill
49066 by: Peter Samuel
49068 by: Jerry Lynde
49069 by: Rishi Maker
messages on queue with no "To:" address
49064 by: Donovan, Laura
49067 by: Peter Samuel
pop3 running as...
49071 by: andy
49073 by: Peter Samuel
49074 by: Ben Beuchler
49102 by: Timothy L. Mayo
similar to the scripting question...
49075 by: Galen Johnson
49076 by: Charles Cazabon
49077 by: Galen Johnson
tcprules question
49078 by: Brice Ruth
49082 by: Brice Ruth
49083 by: Ben Beuchler
unsubscribe please
49079 by: Mervyn at ifwdc.com
49081 by: Ihnen, David
DNS ERROR
49084 by: tigre21.gamma.qnet.com.pe
49085 by: Markus Stumpf
Re: Remotely subscribing multiple addresses
49086 by: Brett Randall
49087 by: Austad, Jay
stumped with ezmlm
49089 by: Bill Logan
49090 by: Bill Logan
Tarpitting
49091 by: Denis Petrov
49092 by: Chris Johnson
Sending all outgoing email through a relay
49095 by: Al Sparks
49096 by: Brett Randall
49097 by: Al Sparks
49098 by: Brett Randall
Re: Are we acting as an open relay?
49099 by: Greg White
spam processing
49101 by: wolfgang zeikat
qmail-pw2u
49103 by: Allama Hicham
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
>
> Yes. This answer is _very_ late.
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:20:13AM -0800, Aaron Nabil wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the "qmail-remote outgoingip patch", I was able to
>
> Who contributed this, and where?
> Has anything been done to this further? Making it possible to bind
> qmail-remote to a specific interface.
OK. I found it. Here: http://www.qmail.org/outgoingip.patch
But it wasn't linked anywhere.
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
It's here:
<li><a
href="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Markus
Stumpf</a> has a <a
href="http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/">pair of qmail
patches</a>, one to cause qmail-smtpd to log its disposition of mail,
and another to convince qmail-remote to use a fixed IP address other
than the one you get without binding to an address. Andy Repton has
ported the <a href="outgoingip.patch">fixed IP address</a> patch to
qmail 1.03. Damir Cifer has better instructions for his <a
href="http://tycho.edico.si/linuxtnt/#qmail-patch">port</a>.
Magnus Bodin writes:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> >
> > Yes. This answer is _very_ late.
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:20:13AM -0800, Aaron Nabil wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the "qmail-remote outgoingip patch", I was able to
> >
> > Who contributed this, and where?
> > Has anything been done to this further? Making it possible to bind
> > qmail-remote to a specific interface.
>
> OK. I found it. Here: http://www.qmail.org/outgoingip.patch
>
> But it wasn't linked anywhere.
>
> /magnus
>
> --
> http://x42.com/
Jason Haar escribió:
> > I got the QMAILQUEUE patch the other day so I could get scan4virus working.
> When I tried running the patch on the qmail source, it failed out. Could this
> be because I used the DNS qmail patch? If so, should I
> Yes this is why it failed.
Anybody knowns if there is a 'documented problem' if you have patched Qmail with
Spamcontrol 1.3.0 and you gonna patch later with scan4virus? It's the next step i
will do next days.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:16:20PM +0200, J.J.Gallardo wrote:
> > > I got the QMAILQUEUE patch the other day so I could get scan4virus working.
> > When I tried running the patch on the qmail source, it failed out. Could this
> > be because I used the DNS qmail patch? If so, should I
> > Yes this is why it failed.
>
> Anybody knowns if there is a 'documented problem' if you have patched Qmail with
> Spamcontrol 1.3.0 and you gonna patch later with scan4virus? It's the next step i
> will do next days.
Just try it and see :-)
In general, patches will "live happily together" if each of them is small
and only alters parts of the same file that aren't related.
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Unix/Network Specialist, Trimble NZ
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
Michael French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 19 September 2000 at 23:33:44
-0400
> I was afraid of just "eyeballing it" and really screwing it up. No, I
> don't know exactly what I am doing, I am LEARNING, that is why I asked for
> help with a qmail related issue which is what I thought the purpose of this
> list was. If you have problems answering a question politely, don't bother
> saying anything at all. I realize this list can sometimes get repeative,
> but I made the effort to search the list archives and nothing was said about
> this except for a few unanswered requests for help. Someone even told me "
> don't bother this mailing list" with this question.
> I don't understand how a question pertaining to qmail (ie patching the
> source) does not belong on this list and why replies to questions have to
> terse or even down right rude. Don't get me wrong, people like Dave Sill
> and Ken Grieve have been very helpful and patient but others of you only
> gone out of your way to be rude. I am not trying to start a flame war a la
> "linuxpeople", I am just asking for some common courtsey.
I'd guess that many people here think that applying patches and
merging patches are basic Unix sysadmin tasks that should be in your
toolkit before you take on complex software like an MTA. They're
general skills, not specific to qmail.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
hi,
while trying to send mails to aol, qmail always reports the following:
Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s)
Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address
i haven't found anything about this in the docs. somebody here who can
explain to me what's going on there ?
--
jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices
http://www.instant-networks.de
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:17:23PM +0200, Jens Georg wrote:
> hi,
>
> while trying to send mails to aol, qmail always reports the following:
>
> Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s)
> Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address
>
> i haven't found anything about this in the docs. somebody here who can
> explain to me what's going on there ?
Show us your contents of
/var/qmail/control/me
and (if it exists)
cat /var/qmail/control/helohost
/magnus
--
http://x42.com/
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:39:31PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> Show us your contents of
>
> /var/qmail/control/me
>
> and (if it exists)
>
> cat /var/qmail/control/helohost
And (wild guess) make sure there are no CRs in them like after transferring
from a windoze machine in binary mode.
Jost
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please help stamp out spam! |
| Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine am RZ der RUB |
| Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate |
| William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) |
qmail announces itself to other SMTP servers with "HELO ..." and then it
adds either with what is in your file
/var/qmail/control/me
or (if it exists) the file /var/qmail/control/helohost
so make sure you have a hostname with a valid DNS entry in
/var/qmail/control/me
or at least in /var/qmail/control/helohost
wolfgang
Also sprach Jens Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 20.09.2000:
hi,
while trying to send mails to aol, qmail always reports the following:
Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s)
Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address
i haven't found anything about this in the docs. somebody here who can
explain to me what's going on there ?
hi,
while checking that qmail installation i found the problem:
/var/qmail/control/me was empty ! after telling this to my customer,
he told me that he has re-installed qmail because of some other problems
and forgot to fill ../control/me with life again ! thanks for your help!
> Remote host said: 501 syntactically invalid HELO argument(s)
> Remote host said: 501 HELO requires domain address
>
> i haven't found anything about this in the docs. somebody here who can
> explain to me what's going on there ?
--
jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
instant networks - netzwerkmanagment & internetfullservices
http://www.instant-networks.de
Can qmail be used on a office server without a permanent connection? To
pull mail say every hour..
Thanks.
Nick
--
Nick Davies
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:39:28PM +0100, Nick Davies wrote:
> Can qmail be used on a office server without a permanent connection? To
> pull mail say every hour..
Yes, and no. qmail can be the mail server for this setup, but another
program (like fetchmail) would have to do the actual "pulling". That
applies for all other common mail servers (such as sendmail or
postfix) also.
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
Since configuring qmail to start up via 'svscan' and 'supervise', I have
noticed what seems to be a slowdown on the server. When checking the stats
I see that 'supervise' is taking up, on average 3%-4% of the processor time
with spikes up to 8%. Would someone point me in a direction that will
explain to me how I limit the system resources a program uses.
Thanks,
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Sep 2000, at 7:59, dG wrote:
> Since configuring qmail to start up via 'svscan' and 'supervise', I
> have noticed what seems to be a slowdown on the server. When checking
> the stats I see that 'supervise' is taking up, on average 3%-4% of the
> processor time with spikes up to 8%.
Something is odd about your system. supervise should wait in
select() for a communication through the named pipe, or for a
signal from the child. It should take 0% CPU.
Try to attach strace or truss to your supervise, and tell us what it
actually does (or post a strace log on some website).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOciaNVMwP8g7qbw/EQJ27wCfWVtgR1OlLfnKmWTlYDpwxJL7yTsAoKwK
P0/oxTe03wFQu/Rp5Rl9gIdJ
=1W7D
-----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]
Dear Qmail techies,
I want to know if any one is using mail billing software which can do:
1. No. of outgoing mails per user per virtual domain per day/month
2. No. Of incoming mails per user per virtual domain per day/month
3. Total mails per virtual domain ( Incoming & outgoing)
4. No .of POP access per day/month
Thanks in advance.
Hitesh
----- Original Message -----
From: dG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 6:29 PM
Subject: Controlling resources.
> Since configuring qmail to start up via 'svscan' and 'supervise', I have
> noticed what seems to be a slowdown on the server. When checking the
stats
> I see that 'supervise' is taking up, on average 3%-4% of the processor
time
> with spikes up to 8%. Would someone point me in a direction that will
> explain to me how I limit the system resources a program uses.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 06:04:33PM +0530, hitesh wrote:
> I want to know if any one is using mail billing software which can do:
>
> 1. No. of outgoing mails per user per virtual domain per day/month
can be found in the log, but only for local users using
the server als smtp server
> 2. No. Of incoming mails per user per virtual domain per day/month
a perlscript looking at the logs should do it.
> 4. No .of POP access per day/month
depends of the pop daemon... if you use vmailmgr, you can setup
some scripts to log the access.
Regards,
Olivier
--
_________________________________________________________________
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland
PGP signature
When a user BCCs a list of people, their message gets delivered to all but
one of the people on the list. Their mail server bounces it. Apparently,
tech support for their mail server claims that the envelope is invalid
because it doesn't contain an X-Recipient header. I dug through some RFCs
and can't find any mention of X-Recipient. I'd assume it hasn't been
adopted yet, and they are relying on an experimental header. Since this
message goes everywhere but there, I'd like some info as to why they are
broke so I can convince them to fix it or change servers. It sounds like
their tech support doesn't know what they are talking about, but I'd
appreciate any info.
Here are a few example envelopes:
> >> The attached message could not be delivered due to the following error:
> >> No resolvable mailbox address in:
> >> TO:(recipient list suppressed),
> >>
> >> Received: from mail.borg.com by FTGate SmartPop;
> >> Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:00:55 -0400
> >> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Received: (qmail 11416 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2000 09:44:10 -0400
> >> Delivered-To: alias^[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Received: (qmail 11406 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2000
09:44:10 -0400
> >> Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (000.000.000.000)
> >> by mx1.thebiz.net with SMTP; 13 Jul 2000 09:44:10 -0400
> >> Received: from XXXX (xxxx.dialup.mindspring.com
[000.000.000.000])
> >> by xxxx.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA32413;
> >> Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:44:01 -0400 (EDT)
> >> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
> >> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:44:00 -0400
> >> To: (Recipient list suppressed)
> >> From: XXXX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Thursday AM comments
> >> Mime-Version: 1.0
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >>
> >> Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\f0007131000550459.txt"
>>>>The attached message could not be delivered due to the following error:
>>>>No resolvable mailbox address in:
>>>>TO:"me \(personal\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>
>>>>Received: from mail.borg.com by FTGate SmartPop;
>>>> Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:42:08 -0400
>>>>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>Received: (qmail 29552 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2000 16:19:46 -0400
>>>>Delivered-To: alias^[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>Received: (qmail 29499 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2000 16:19:45 -0400
>>>>Received: from kcll-tx.216-90-210-252.adsl.alpha1.net
>>>([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>>>> by mx1.thebiz.net with SMTP; 18 Sep 2000 16:19:45 -0400
>>>>Received: (qmail 2676 invoked by uid 0); 18 Sep 2000 20:21:37 -0000
>>>>Received: from unknown (HELO johnl) (206.28.117.254)
>>>> by kcll-tx.216-90-210-252.adsl.alpha1.net with SMTP; 18 Sep 2000
>>>20:21:37 -0000
>>>>From: "John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>To: "Me \(Personal\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>Subject: Ok, this it completely and totally cool
>>>>Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:22:49 -0500
>>>>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>>>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>>>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>>>>Importance: Normal
>>>>
>>>>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\f00091816420800D7.txt"
John W. Lemons III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a user BCCs a list of people, their message gets delivered to all but
> one of the people on the list. Their mail server bounces it. Apparently,
> tech support for their mail server claims that the envelope is invalid
> because it doesn't contain an X-Recipient header.
The people you're talking to aren't compentent to run a mail server. The
SMTP envelope doesn't contain any 'headers' -- those are part of the message,
not the envelope. The envelope contains exactly two things, a sender and
a recipient (specified with MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO:). Their mail system should
be delivering based on the contents of the RCPT TO: and _nothing else_.
Besides, when talking about mail headers, I thought X- was essentially a way
of saying explicityly that a header is non-standard.
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK
My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 09:11:51AM -0500, John W. Lemons III wrote:
> When a user BCCs a list of people, their message gets delivered to all but
> one of the people on the list. Their mail server bounces it. Apparently,
> tech support for their mail server claims that the envelope is invalid
> because it doesn't contain an X-Recipient header. I dug through some RFCs
> and can't find any mention of X-Recipient. I'd assume it hasn't been
> adopted yet, and they are relying on an experimental header. Since this
> message goes everywhere but there, I'd like some info as to why they are
> broke so I can convince them to fix it or change servers. It sounds like
> their tech support doesn't know what they are talking about, but I'd
> appreciate any info.
Their mailserver is broken. *any* mailserver that looks at headers to do
delivery is *slightly* broken, and any mailserver that *bounces*
messages based on headers or missing headers is *severely* broken.
That's what you should tell them, and you should not believe anything
else. I have never heard of X-Recipient, and no matter what it means,
hedaers should not be relevant in delivery. RFC821 says so.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Sep 2000, at 9:11, John W. Lemons III wrote:
> When a user BCCs a list of people, their message gets delivered to all
> but one of the people on the list. Their mail server bounces it.
According to the bounce you attached, they expect to have the
name of the recipient in To: (or perhaps Cc:), effectively disabling
any possibility of Bcc: addressing.
> Apparently, tech support for their mail server claims that the
> envelope is invalid because it doesn't contain an X-Recipient header.
That's fertilizer. Anything X-* is strictly non-standard and optional.
You can't prevent them bouncing the mail (and you can't prevent
them bouncing the mail because "we only accept e-mails from
Exchange servers"); you can try to educate them, and you surely
have to educate their customers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOci6F1MwP8g7qbw/EQIlmACgwrMn2tKYSOJ+0kcsMRM/LS2TJoEAoIwr
/TdFPrfAvqydfh/sJ+gmvLsh
=m74B
-----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]
John W. Lemons III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The people you're talking to aren't compentent to run a mail server. The
> >SMTP envelope doesn't contain any 'headers' -- those are part of the
> >message, not the envelope. The envelope contains exactly two things, a
> >sender and a recipient (specified with MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO:). Their mail
> >system should be delivering based on the contents of the RCPT TO: and
> >_nothing else_.
> That makes good sense. Any way to capture the envelope that qmail is sending
> so I can see what they are getting? I suspect they have a seriously broke
> mail server, but I'd rather have my ducks in a row before telling them this.
Hmmm. Capturing an outgoing SMTP envelope? tcpdump comes to mind :).
Set it up to capture all TCP sessions going to port 25 on the IP address
of their MX and you should be set. There's probably an easier way -- perhaps
temporarily replacing qmail-remote with a wrapper around it that uses
recordio or something like that, but I haven't done that myself.
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:26:27AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
[snip]
> > That makes good sense. Any way to capture the envelope that qmail is sending
> > so I can see what they are getting? I suspect they have a seriously broke
> > mail server, but I'd rather have my ducks in a row before telling them this.
>
> Hmmm. Capturing an outgoing SMTP envelope? tcpdump comes to mind :).
> Set it up to capture all TCP sessions going to port 25 on the IP address
> of their MX and you should be set. There's probably an easier way -- perhaps
> temporarily replacing qmail-remote with a wrapper around it that uses
> recordio or something like that, but I haven't done that myself.
Looking at the qmail logfiles is just about as informative :)
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> John W. Lemons III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That makes good sense. Any way to capture the envelope that qmail
> > is sending so I can see what they are getting?
Why bother? Their bounce message clearly states that the reason
for bouncing the message is that they didn't like the To: header
field.
> > I suspect they have
> > a seriously broke mail server, but I'd rather have my ducks in a row
> > before telling them this.
Then simply create a bcc-like message body and feed it to their
mailserver via telnet to smtp port; see if you get the bounce.
Example:
telnet their.server 25
220 hi this is me
HELO your.server
250 ok
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
DATA
354 go on
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: undisclosed_recipients
Subject: test
test
.
250 ok
quit
221 goodbye
Tune the message body to resemble what you actually send.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOci/R1MwP8g7qbw/EQJZWwCfX1Ffj5mZ6utszWVypx+56ua18rMAoLk4
lIy8768e5E3huq+hG0TozdOO
=DFmo
-----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]
I think I've figured out their problem... They are using FTGate to retrieve
the mail from their ISP who places all their mail in a multi-drop mailbox.
Then the "smartpop" stuff in FTGate pulls the info from the ISPs drop box
and distributes it to the various local mail boxes, but can't distribute
some of the messages because the ISP is not modifying the message headers to
append the "expected" X-Recipient header derived from the RECV TO:
information from the envelope. Is it just me, or does this sound
non-standard? Any RFCs on this?
John W. Lemons III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I've figured out their problem... They are using FTGate to retrieve
> the mail from their ISP who places all their mail in a multi-drop mailbox.
> Then the "smartpop" stuff in FTGate pulls the info from the ISPs drop box
> and distributes it to the various local mail boxes, but can't distribute
> some of the messages because the ISP is not modifying the message headers to
> append the "expected" X-Recipient header derived from the RECV TO:
> information from the envelope. Is it just me, or does this sound
> non-standard? Any RFCs on this?
It's commonly done. fetchmail and getmail support this type of thing;
it would help if the ISP used something which inserted Delivered-To: headers,
like qmail. However, relying on this for business purposes is broken, as
it is trying to do something that SMTP/POP3 was never designed to do.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have searched through the archives, but have not been able to find info
regarding this problem.
On our qmail server we are using ucspi-tcp-0.88 to control relaying. I
notice from qmail-qread
some messages sitting in the Q.
i.e.-
18 Sep 2000 21:29:49 GMT #577964 5553 <>
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and also:
19 Sep 2000 02:59:55 GMT #578031 1649 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How is mail getting into the Q, which is not from our domain.? I know that
the first example is probably
just from someone internally feeding mail with no from header info, but its
the second example that Im not sure
about.
Any help would be great.
~Doug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Sep 2000, at 10:40, Doug Schmidt wrote:
> i.e.-
> 18 Sep 2000 21:29:49 GMT #577964 5553 <>
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is a bounce message
> and also:
> 19 Sep 2000 02:59:55 GMT #578031 1649 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> How is mail getting into the Q, which is not from our domain.?
That's what the logs are for. It can be one of your trusted users,
using envelope address of his "home account" at hotmail or
something...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOcjCy1MwP8g7qbw/EQIONACeKPRq33opqu5i1lR5R0Eetlpb5HYAoPq0
6O+WBk0TvdFOSXhctFsCJfdb
=t1PB
-----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]
It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although I cannot say
that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I have seen it, and it
is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert on qmail, but I have been
successful with several installations of it. Maybe I've been lucky.
For those of you reading this that have been a party to this undesirable
beahavior, ask yourself this question:
Were you born with all the knowledge you now posess? Have you studied the
source code to every program you use to determine it's use and function? Or
did someone, somewhere, somehow, answer a question or two for you? Have you
ever read a FAQ, a doc, or (gasp) the replies on a mailing list?
Maybe you're not the genius you thought you were.
My 2 cents only.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Humorous
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 01:16:14PM -0500, dG wrote:
> > For all fans of linuxpeople, this is the latest news on his website,
> > www.linuxpeople.cc.
> >
> > September 14th, qmail: WHAT @ FSCKING JOKE!
> > Brought to you from the "Do not even waste your time department"
>
> I'm famous! From http://www.linuxpeople.cc/qmail.htm:
>
> "Even Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> author of 'The
> qmail newbie's
> guide to relaying' acted like a complete jerk."
>
> Chris
>
Maybee it's not the peoples on the lists JOB to support users that are too
lazy to try and help themselves.
Maybee the person writing the article could have asked in a manner that
would prompt list users to be more apt to reply to him.
Maybee the person writing the article asked a simple question contained in
the FAQ, and|or did not paste necessary log file info for proper
answering.
Perhaps, i will give the person writing the article a full refund for the
services that he paid the list for? Would this be appropriate?
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Greg Kopp wrote:
| It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although I cannot say
| that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I have seen it, and it
| is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert on qmail, but I have been
| successful with several installations of it. Maybe I've been lucky.
|
| For those of you reading this that have been a party to this undesirable
| beahavior, ask yourself this question:
|
| Were you born with all the knowledge you now posess? Have you studied the
| source code to every program you use to determine it's use and function? Or
| did someone, somewhere, somehow, answer a question or two for you? Have you
| ever read a FAQ, a doc, or (gasp) the replies on a mailing list?
|
| Maybe you're not the genius you thought you were.
|
| My 2 cents only.
--
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)439-0200/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
9:10am up 13 days, 14:39, 5 users, load average: 0.13, 0.15, 0.15
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Kopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:53 AM
> To: Chris Johnson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Humorous
>
>
> It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although
> I cannot say
> that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I have
> seen it, and it
> is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert on qmail, but I
> have been
> successful with several installations of it. Maybe I've been lucky.
>
Unfortunately, the qmail list wants to just be a discussion for high-level/
difficult qmail problems, and not a hand-holding/question-redirect list.
What's unfortunate about it? There aren't really any other forums for the
discussion.
Is there a solution? Well, the obvious one is to allow people to ask
newbieish
questions without being flamed. Even though qmail is logical, it's complex;
just because something is logical and coherent, doesn't mean it's
comprehensible.
Quantum physics theory is even more elegant, but considerably less
comprehensible.
But I understand that many people don't want the list inundated and their
mailboxes
invaded. I think that's perfectly reasonable. So, is there any alternative?
In fact, there are several. I think the best is to create a qmail newsgroup,
as that's
the perfect forum for both newbieish and slightly less newbieish discussion.
Contrary
to the opinions that were stated when a newsgroup was recently proposed
(first week of
June), I don't think a newsgroup would unnecessarily or improperly infringe
upon the
mailing list; rather, the mailing list would remain as a high-quality, low
volume
discussion of complex or arcane or theoretical qmail issues.
Another alternative that I find less appealing but perhaps more qmailian is
to create
another mailing list that expressly handles such qmail problems, like
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or the such. Or maybe a whole host of mailing lists. Modularize the list!
I hope this isn't improper, but I'm attaching below my earlier post in
support of
comp.mail.qmail.
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:36:43AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > I agree with you in general, Russ. The only benefit I can see to
> > comp.mail.qmail is that there is also a comp.mail.sendmail.
>
> The impression I gain is that reception amidst vocal
> qmail advocates is at best lukewarm. How many replied ?
> 4 or 5 on a list containing upwards of 800 list members.
Though I didn't comment, especially as I am not yet seasoned,
I want to state that I am in favor of comp.mail.qmail. I
intended my silence to be interpreted as implicit agreement
with the idea of forming the group; as it seemed that the RFD
would likely be presented to the news.groups, I didn't see
where my words would be particularly necessary.
Now, can I justify my position of wanting the newsgroup?
The primary arguments I found against the formation of
comp.mail.qmail are 1) The current situation is fine;
2) a newsgroup would take traffic away from the mailing
list 3) Usenet is Useless! (i.e. it used to be better than
mailing lists, now its not).
I don't personally see 1) as a real argument against the formation
of the newsgroup, unless it's coupled with 2). Yes, the current
situation is good, but it could be better.
2) is a slightly strange one. I'd actually like traffic on the
qmail list to go down, or more, stay where it is. Mailing lists
are good for small, relatively closed communities; ones that I
subscribe to include the excellent libwww-perl which is mainly
trafficked by the module owners, plus some newbie-q traffic.
Higher volume lists like the WWWAC list and Perl-Win-32-Web are
a pretty big mess.
3) Usenet needs updating. I've got some ideas on that, and anyone
who is interested in some bold ideas for shaking up the newsgroups
should drop me a line. However, I still think it's better than
mailing lists for a number of reasons, the first being threading.
Also, when traffic gets high, then newsgroups are clearly are
more rational option, as fewer copies of the messages are sent out.
Etc. etc.
These rejoinders offer some reasons for a newsgroup, but I want to
add that in my opinion, qmail is at the stage where a newsgroup is
appropriate. It's well-documented and tested, and I do expect it
to supplant sendmail over time. A newsgroup not only allows the
qmail community to grow gracefully, but it also serves as an excellent
advertisement for qmail. ("sendmail has its own newsgroup, but qmail
doesn't. Hmm, guess qmail isn't really ready/well supported/well
advocated.")
I hope there are some points here that seem to make sense.
Personally, my problem was not with the questions that he asked or his
ignorance. I can be and am very ignorant most of the time. My problem was
with the way he asked those questions and the way in which he responded to
the various emails.
Its about the manner in which someone acts and responds not the questions
they ask. If you can't see from his traffic here and his "News" on his
website, that he is a major asshole then too bad for you.
All your questions about the knowledge that I had, have, and will have are
moot. I never claimed to be a genius.
And what pray tell is so undesirable about telling a moron that he is a
moron?
David aka "The Elephant Man"
"I am not a genius, I am a human being" ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Kopp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: Humorous
> It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although I cannot say
> that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I have seen it, and it
> is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert on qmail, but I have been
> successful with several installations of it. Maybe I've been lucky.
>
> For those of you reading this that have been a party to this undesirable
> beahavior, ask yourself this question:
>
> Were you born with all the knowledge you now posess? Have you studied the
> source code to every program you use to determine it's use and function?
Or
> did someone, somewhere, somehow, answer a question or two for you? Have
you
> ever read a FAQ, a doc, or (gasp) the replies on a mailing list?
>
> Maybe you're not the genius you thought you were.
>
> My 2 cents only.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:52 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Humorous
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 01:16:14PM -0500, dG wrote:
> > > For all fans of linuxpeople, this is the latest news on his website,
> > > www.linuxpeople.cc.
> > >
> > > September 14th, qmail: WHAT @ FSCKING JOKE!
> > > Brought to you from the "Do not even waste your time department"
> >
> > I'm famous! From http://www.linuxpeople.cc/qmail.htm:
> >
> > "Even Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> author of 'The
> > qmail newbie's
> > guide to relaying' acted like a complete jerk."
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
Brad Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the qmail list wants to just be a discussion for high-level/
>difficult qmail problems, and not a hand-holding/question-redirect list.
I disagree. The list is pretty newbie-tolerant. The only newbies that
get smacked down are the annoying ones. Check the list archives and
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
>What's unfortunate about it? There aren't really any other forums for the
>discussion.
There's nothing stopping anyone from creating a qmail-newbies
list. Or, alternatively, a qmail-masters list. I've toyed with doing
the latter, but I'm not sure what it would gain.
>In fact, there are several [alternatives]. I think the best is to
>create a qmail newsgroup, as that's the perfect forum for both
>newbieish and slightly less newbieish discussion.
There's already a qmail newsgroup: alt.comp.mail.qmail, and it's
fairly active. Creating a comp.mail.qmail newsgroup would be a
tedious, lengthy process for whomever takes it on. I'd vote for it, of
course.
-Dave
And you're trying to tell me the orignal poster had an attitude?
Sorry, my intention was not to ruffle feathers. Yes, there are those that
can't read a manual or an FAQ. But it was a while after I started using
qmail that I discovered the LWQ page. I did do it all on my own, digging up
as much information as I could. I guess it's the compasionate side of me. I
know how complex it can be. When I see a question on the list that is
obviously newbie-ish, I typically send them a PRIVATE email telling them
where to find the asnwer, or I just give it to them straight out if it's
simple enough.
I just think, IMHO, that it's not for me to PUBLICLY call a moron a moron.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:13 AM
> To: Greg Kopp
> Cc: qmail-list
> Subject: RE: Humorous
>
>
>
> Maybee it's not the peoples on the lists JOB to support users that are too
> lazy to try and help themselves.
>
> Maybee the person writing the article could have asked in a manner that
> would prompt list users to be more apt to reply to him.
>
> Maybee the person writing the article asked a simple question contained in
> the FAQ, and|or did not paste necessary log file info for proper
> answering.
>
> Perhaps, i will give the person writing the article a full refund for the
> services that he paid the list for? Would this be appropriate?
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Greg Kopp wrote:
>
> | It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although I
> cannot say
> | that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I have seen
> it, and it
> | is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert on qmail, but I have been
> | successful with several installations of it. Maybe I've been lucky.
> |
> | For those of you reading this that have been a party to this undesirable
> | beahavior, ask yourself this question:
> |
> | Were you born with all the knowledge you now posess? Have you
> studied the
> | source code to every program you use to determine it's use and
> function? Or
> | did someone, somewhere, somehow, answer a question or two for
> you? Have you
> | ever read a FAQ, a doc, or (gasp) the replies on a mailing list?
> |
> | Maybe you're not the genius you thought you were.
> |
> | My 2 cents only.
>
> --
> _ __ _____ __ _________
> ______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
> __ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
> _ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)439-0200/fax-437-3052
> /_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
> [---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
> 9:10am up 13 days, 14:39, 5 users, load average: 0.13, 0.15, 0.15
>
>
* Brad Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000920 11:48]:
> > From: Greg Kopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although I
> > cannot say that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I
> > have seen it, and it is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert
> > on qmail, but I have been successful with several installations of
> > it. Maybe I've been lucky.
> >
> Unfortunately, the qmail list wants to just be a discussion for
> high-level/ difficult qmail problems, and not a
> hand-holding/question-redirect list. What's unfortunate about it?
> There aren't really any other forums for the discussion.
What discussion? You have a problem - you read the docs. You still have
a problem - you ask here in an acceptable fashion (which includes the
use of an MUA that's apt for participation in public mailing lists
(hint: not yours)). And - lo! - you're helped. Well, fine.
> Is there a solution? Well, the obvious one is to allow people to ask
> newbieish questions without being flamed.
"Never attribute to malice..." Wise up, Brad - you don't have to be an
idiot just because you're new to qmail. And qmail being a complex
program to be used by seasoned admins, you really *shouldn't* be. Ever
seen some clueful person get flamed for asking a sensible question?
> Even though qmail is logical, it's complex; just because something is
> logical and coherent, doesn't mean it's comprehensible. Quantum
> physics theory is even more elegant, but considerably less
> comprehensible.
But equally well documented. Now, what would you say about some retarted
highschool student going "dude, I'm gonna build myself some nice quantum
thingy - you gonna help or what?!?"?
[Alternatives]
> Another alternative that I find less appealing but perhaps more
> qmailian is to create another mailing list that expressly handles such
> qmail problems, like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the such. Or maybe a
> whole host of mailing lists. Modularize the list!
Not enough traffic. After "killfiling", there's about 20 messages per
day left. Fine.
> I'm attaching below my earlier post in support of comp.mail.qmail.
[...]
> 3) Usenet is Useless! (i.e. it used to be better than mailing lists,
> now its not).
[...]
> 3) Usenet needs updating. I've got some ideas on that, and anyone who
> is interested in some bold ideas for shaking up the newsgroups should
> drop me a line.
Ummmm... I think I'll let this one pass. Somehow "shake up" and "I use
Windows" don't mix in a way I think I'd like. So, thanks but no thanks.
> I hope there are some points here that seem to make sense.
There's always hope, Brad...
Your original post served no purpose. It had no point. This post here,
serves no purpose and has no point.
No one called him a moron.
The original poster ruffled the feathers by posting what he posted on
linuxpeople.cc -- not here. You rehashed his post here and 'backed' his
argument.
I am simply trying to get a point across to you that this list is by no
means obligated to help anyone out. The user felt that we were under some
obligation, and you seemed to agree with him. This is not the case. Any
help here should be considered gratis, and not expected.
I dont know where you got 'calling him a moron publicly' from -- i never
called anyone a moron.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Greg Kopp wrote:
| And you're trying to tell me the orignal poster had an attitude?
|
| Sorry, my intention was not to ruffle feathers. Yes, there are those that
| can't read a manual or an FAQ. But it was a while after I started using
| qmail that I discovered the LWQ page. I did do it all on my own, digging up
| as much information as I could. I guess it's the compasionate side of me. I
| know how complex it can be. When I see a question on the list that is
| obviously newbie-ish, I typically send them a PRIVATE email telling them
| where to find the asnwer, or I just give it to them straight out if it's
| simple enough.
|
| I just think, IMHO, that it's not for me to PUBLICLY call a moron a moron.
--
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)439-0200/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
10:20am up 13 days, 15:49, 5 users, load average: 0.26, 0.23, 0.64
> Is there a solution? Well, the obvious one is to allow people to ask
> newbieish
> questions without being flamed. Even though qmail is logical, it's complex;
> just because something is logical and coherent, doesn't mean it's
> comprehensible.
> Quantum physics theory is even more elegant, but considerably less
> comprehensible.
>
> But I understand that many people don't want the list inundated and their
> mailboxes
> invaded. I think that's perfectly reasonable. So, is there any alternative?
I agree with others that it's not that the question may be simple, it's
that fundamentally many of us believe that the questioner has had to make
a reasonable attempt to help themselves. Reasonable to their own abilities.
If they can find this list and email to it, then it's hard to believe
that they cannot find the FAQ/INSTALL docs that come with the package
they've installed.
But even if they don't find existing docs in the first instance, when
pointed to such docs I expect the questioner to go to the trouble of reading
and trying to understand those docs.
If the docs are insufficient, I expect the questioner to help evolve the
docs by identifying where they are insufficient and what they'd like to see
in them. Most authors appreciate useful feedback!
Alternatively, if the questioner believes their situation is different, then
it's reasonable to expect that they will say "I read this, but my situation
seems different because of..."
In short. Many of us would rather teach people how to fish rather than give
them fish. So, when people insist on freebie fish, some of us get a little
frustrated.
Regards.
Thus spake Brad Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Is there a solution?
I don't see a reason to change anything about this mailing list.
People who ask intelligent questions in a nice way will always be
helped. I have never seen a friendly and intelligent question ridiculed
by people who aren't obvious saboteurs or idiots.
Of course, every society has their share of bozos that will post crap in
Usenet and on mailing lists. You can't fix that, so you might as well
ignore it or regard those people as free entertainment.
If your question shows that you read the documentation, thought about
the problem yourself and tried the obvious things and it still does not
work, then people will be delighted to help you.
Talking about people who can't spell, didn't read the manual, post FAQs,
can't quote or do other offensive stuff is a complete waste of time.
Even following up on their dumb questions is a waste of time. Don't
reply. No reply is better than a nasty reply. And if you must send a
nasty reply, do it in private email and not on the mailing list.
Come on, people, this should be common sense.
Now let's stop this worthless thread that has been done a million times
on Usenet and will be repeated a milling times on Usenet and use the
bandwidth for something better.
Now that you all have a lot of new spare time *bg*, you can help me
writing IPv6 support for qmail. ;-)
Felix
PS: Outlook users, please read
http://www2.merton.ox.ac.uk/~rejs/outlook.html
or
http://learn.to/quote (German only, unfortunately)
If the style of your message looks ugly, people are less likely to help
you. This is a fact. So watch your spelling and grammar!
Greg Kopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 September 2000 at 10:52:36 -0400
> It's too bad that the article was somewhat accurate. Although I cannot say
> that I have experienced the same kind of treatment, I have seen it, and it
> is deplorable. I don't pretend I am an expert on qmail, but I have been
> successful with several installations of it. Maybe I've been lucky.
>
> For those of you reading this that have been a party to this undesirable
> beahavior, ask yourself this question:
>
> Were you born with all the knowledge you now posess? Have you studied the
> source code to every program you use to determine it's use and function? Or
> did someone, somewhere, somehow, answer a question or two for you? Have you
> ever read a FAQ, a doc, or (gasp) the replies on a mailing list?
No, no, yes, yes. And you know what? I managed to go from being a
completely novice sysadmin, to one who's willing to wear his "Qmail
expert" t-shirt at least when the other listmembers aren't in the
room, *without* starting a flamewar on this mailing list. Makes ya
think, doesn't it?
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Brad Johnson writes:
> Unfortunately, the qmail list wants to just be a discussion for high-level/
> difficult qmail problems, and not a hand-holding/question-redirect list.
Yup.
> Is there a solution? Well, the obvious one is to allow people to
> ask newbieish questions without being flamed.
They don't get flamed. They typically get ignored or someone responds
with a reference to LQW.
In order to get flamed, you have to be a real jerk. You have to ask
lots of stupid questions quickly. You have to ask questions which are
in Dan's FAQ. You have to act as if you've never read
http://www.qmail.org. In other words, it takes real effort to get
flamed.
> Another alternative that I find less appealing but perhaps more
> qmailian is to create another mailing list that expressly handles
> such qmail problems, like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the such. Or
> maybe a whole host of mailing lists. Modularize the list!
Nope. Won't work. Feel free to try it.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | A hate crime makes
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it illegal to think certain
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts. The crime is
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | itself already a crime.
Christoffer Hall-Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am currently running with a concurrencylocal of 40. But if problems
>arise with a mailbox (eg. no more quota) peoples procmail processes
>hang for a long time and ties up all the local processes.
Hmm. I'd look into why procmail is hanging around.
>Will qmail handle a pr. user process-limit (set by the OS) of eg 5 or
>10 gracefully or are there any pitfalls or bette ways to limit the
>problem?
I haven't tried it, but I'm almost certain qmail will handle such a
limit gracefully. If it can't spawn a qmail-local, it should log an
error and try again later.
-Dave
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 11:02:28AM +0200, Christoffer Hall-Frederiksen wrote:
> I am currently running with a concurrencylocal of 40. But if problems
> arise with a mailbox (eg. no more quota) peoples procmail processes
> hang for a long time and ties up all the local processes. I can soulve
It's actually a tricky problem as a user can hog all of the concurrencylocal
by having a .qmail file with "| sleep 100000" as a delivery instruction. Your
procmail problem is exhibiting the same effect.
> this partially with /etc/procmailrc but thats not really a solution.
> Will qmail handle a pr. user process-limit (set by the OS) of eg 5 or
> 10 gracefully or are there any pitfalls or bette ways to limit the
> problem?
That's about the best solution if it's one particular user who's causing
the problem. qmail will simply attempt to re-deliver using it's usual
delivery schedule.
You have correctly pointed out though that solving the problem in procmail
is a better long-term solution.
Does procmail normally just wait and retry if there is no quota?
If you wanted to, you can probably get procmail to generate a bounce message
saying "over quota", by judicious use of the exit codes recognized in
qmail-local processing.
Regards.
re
When i email something to [EMAIL PROTECTED], then log says:
Unable_to_switch_to_/var/qmail/vpopmail/users/domain.net:_file_does_not_exist._(#4.3.0)
and i cant login to pop3... :P
But but, i have an ohter domain, and that works fine...
- zrx
Simo Lakka wrote:
>
> re
>
> When i email something to [EMAIL PROTECTED], then log says:
>
>
>Unable_to_switch_to_/var/qmail/vpopmail/users/domain.net:_file_does_not_exist._(#4.3.0)
> and i cant login to pop3... :P
>
> But but, i have an ohter domain, and that works fine...
>
> - zrx
Does the user 'test' have a home directory to receive the mail into? I
would if isn't to much trouble, recreate the account and see if that
fixes it.
--
Dale Miracle
System Administrator
Teoi Virtual Web Hosting
I have two qmail servers which are load balancing for our domain, however,
one of our
servers is taking a long time to respond.
If I telnet directly to port 25 I immediately get a connection, but it takes
over a minute
to get a 220 reply from the server. The log files show nothing out of the
ordinary. Both machines are on the same network with the same
configuration. Anyone have any idea how I can figure out what qmail is
doing to take so long to respond?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20 Sep 2000, at 11:05, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> If I telnet directly to port 25 I immediately get a connection, but it
> takes over a minute to get a 220 reply from the server.
60 seconds is the usual time for DNS timeout; reverse DNS query
issued by tcpserver (or DNS query issued by rblsmtpd?) times out.
Find out why, or instruct tcpserver not to issue reverse DNS
queries (-H option).
[There may also be ident (auth) queries timing out, but the default
timeout for those is 26 seconds.]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8 -- QDPGP 2.61b
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOcjWAFMwP8g7qbw/EQLkOwCg6Pi/Nf9oOFbGycU5ZPk4dx55SXoAoI1a
TbAvRPlgs0bIlb6CWTCu88SN
=ynOV
-----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]
"Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There's a long story that I don't want to tell, but is there any way of
>rejecting e-mail with two @ signs in the 'RCPT TO' part of the SMTP
>conversation?
During the SMTP dialogue? Perhaps using one of the patches available
from www.qmail.org. After the dialogue? That should happen
automatically unless you've got a ~alias/.qmail-default that's
catching them.
-Dave
"jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, I'm new to qmail and one year old in linux.
Welcome, newbie!
>When I send the message it looks like it works, it doesn't error out or
>anything. But when I telnet into my linux box, I can't find the email
>anywhere.
The receiving user's home directory is apparently world-writable. See
below.
>I had a heck of a time shuffling thru the directions/installation documents.
>It didn't seem very clear, but it was probably me.
Have you seen "Life with qmail"[1] (also known as LWQ)?
>I'm using the ./Maildir method.
>
>My .qmail file is:
>
>./Maildir/
>
>My rc is:
>
>#!/bin/sh
>
># Using splogger to send the log through syslog.
># Using qmail-local to deliver messages to ~/Mailbox by default.
>
>exec env - PATH="/var/qmail/bin:$PATH" \
>qmail-start ./Maildir/ splogger qmail
That all looks OK. The .qmail file is unnecessary since it contains
the default delivery instructions, that's not a problem.
>there is nothing in my /var/qmail/users directory. From what I could make
>out, there should be an assign file in there but I'm not clear on the
>format.
users/assign is completely optional, and if you don't know whether you
need it or not, you probably don't.
>I tried to use the command qmail-pw2u but it just hangs up and does
>nothing, I have to hit the Control-C to stop it. Am I using it
>wrong?
Yes, see the man page or LWQ[2] for more information on usage.
>Another thing, my main user account
>has 2 uppercase letters, so I tried using the -u option, but nothing again.
qmail doesn't deliver to accounts with uppercase letters.[3]
>I didn't instal the anti-spamming package or the daemontools since it's a
>very small LAN. I'm using inetd instead of ucspi-tcp.
There's no system too small for daemontools and ucspi-tcp. I recommend
them everywhere.
>I wasn't sure if I need the POP3 thing, but I installed it anyways since I
>notice the properties on my windows mail server account has POP indicated.
>I put in my inetd too, just like the documentation said.
Which POP3 thing did you install? It doesn't look like qmail-pop3d,
based on the log entries below, so it probably won't work with
maildirs.
>Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.987402 delivery 28: deferral:
>Uh-oh:_home_directory_is_writable._(#4.7.0)/
That's why messages aren't being delivered.
Thanks for including lots of details, especially the log file
snippet.
-Dave
Footnotes:
[1] http://lwq.w3.to
[2] http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#qmail-users
[3] http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#uppercase-usernames
Hi Jim,
> When I send the message it looks like it works, it doesn't error out or
> anything. But when I telnet into my linux box, I can't find the email
> anywhere.
How are you telnetting into your box?
via
telnet yourbox
or via
telnet yourbox 110
> I had a heck of a time shuffling thru the directions/installation documents.
> It didn't seem very clear, but it was probably me.
Maybe you shouöd have tried Dave Sills "Life with qmail". Look for it on
the qmail homepage.
> there is nothing in my /var/qmail/users directory. From what I could make
> out, there should be an assign file in there but I'm not clear on the
> format.
the format is:
=aliasname:user_name:UID:GID:user/directory/:::
.
the dot has to be in the last line of your file!
One of the expired entries in my server is for example:
=Andreas.Bitterich:ABitterich:1243:102:/wwwroot/gun/ABitterich:::
> Another thing, my main user account
> has 2 uppercase letters, so I tried using the -u option, but nothing again.
As you have read correctly you have to have your main users in the
users/assign file if they have uppercase letters in it.
> I wasn't sure if I need the POP3 thing, but I installed it anyways since I
> notice the properties on my windows mail server account has POP indicated.
> I put in my inetd too, just like the documentation said.
But there seems to be one of your problems.
> Before I installed the POP3, I created a dummy account (flapjack) and sent
> some mail to it thru the win workstation. It showed up in the ~/Maildir/new
> dir. I was excited for a moment. I tried another and it worked too.
Try to get to that point again. Thin about everything you did after that
worked.
> Here is the bottom portion of my /var/logs/messages file:
> Sep 19 22:26:58 alita gnu-pop3d[511]: Session ended for user: flapjack
^^^^^^^^^^
Here is your problem. gnu-pop3d does not know anything about Maildirs.
You need to take the pop3-server provided with the qmail-package.
Have at look at the qmail-docu on how to install it. If you can't figure
it out I can look in my archives if I have an old configuration of mine.
> Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.977842 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
> Sep 19 22:35:43 alita qmail: 969417343.987402 delivery 28: deferral:
> Uh-oh:_home
> _directory_is_writable._(#4.7.0)/
And here we have another problem. See to it that you have the following
rights with the home-directory of the user you tried to send mail to.
ls -lad ~flapjack
drwxr-xr-x
you get them by
chown 755 ~flapjack
Tell me wether it worked or not.
Ciao,
Cyril
from my sendmail days i remember creating aliases in /etc/aliases like
UserName:username
but here the problem seems to be the other way around,
is there a way to fix it?
(phew, luckily we only have lower case usernames here :)
wolfgang
Also sprach Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 20.09.2000:
>Another thing, my main user account
>has 2 uppercase letters, so I tried using the -u option, but nothing
again.
qmail doesn't deliver to accounts with uppercase letters.[3]
wolfgang zeikat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>from my sendmail days i remember creating aliases in /etc/aliases like
>UserName:username
>
>but here the problem seems to be the other way around,
>is there a way to fix it?
>(phew, luckily we only have lower case usernames here :)
Yes, you can use qmail-users to match the usernames case insensitively
and specify the uid/gid/home directory of the mixed-case user. I
should add a note to that effect to the LWQ gotcha entry.
-Dave
HI there,
> from my sendmail days i remember creating aliases in /etc/aliases like
> UserName:username
>
> but here the problem seems to be the other way around,
> is there a way to fix it?
> (phew, luckily we only have lower case usernames here :)
users/assign!
> >Another thing, my main user account
> >has 2 uppercase letters, so I tried using the -u option, but nothing
> again.
>
> qmail doesn't deliver to accounts with uppercase letters.[3]
qmail does deliver to these accounts. But not out of the box.
We did it the following way:
Username: Bitterich
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
entry in users/assign:
=Cyril.Bitterich:Bitterich:1003:102:/wwwroot/gun/Bitterich:::
Ciao,
Cyril
Hey,
I'm still having troubles with the dotqmail scripting. I can not go
|scriptname
as someone suggested since my script simple prints the email address the
message is supposed to go to. Is there some way to use variables in the .qmail
files?
I want to do something like:
&`scriptname`
to have it forward to a specific address. Can I do this with a simple script or
am I going to have to reinject the message instead of redirecting it?
thanks.
Thus spake Gary Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I want to do something like:
>
> &`scriptname`
>
> to have it forward to a specific address. Can I do this with a simple
> script or am I going to have to reinject the message instead of
> redirecting it?
There is no 'or'. You can do this with a _simple_ script which reinjects the
message. In terms of the design of qmail 'redirecting' _is_ a special case
of 'reinjecting'.
cheers,
oec
On 20 Sep 2000, Gary Richardson wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I'm still having troubles with the dotqmail scripting. I can not go
>
> |scriptname
>
> as someone suggested since my script simple prints the email address the
> message is supposed to go to. Is there some way to use variables in the .qmail
> files?
>
> I want to do something like:
>
> &`scriptname`
Use this instead
| forward `scriptname`
forward is part of the qmail package. See
man -M /var/qmail/man forward
--
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate)
Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739
e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
Gary Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I want to do something like:
>
> &`scriptname`
>
> to have it forward to a specific address. Can I do this with a simple script
> or am I going to have to reinject the message instead of redirecting it?
Reinject. It's not as painful as it sounds; read `man qmail-inject` or
even `man mailsubj` for details. .qmail- files don't allow you to do
quite what you want above. conredirect might suffice, but we don't know
enough about what you want to accomplish.
Charles
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK
My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I modified the script to just do the inject. That worked, but then I
got an email about the already built 'forward'. I decided to switch to that
since it is probably a whole lot more tested
thanks guys.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:37:57 -0600, Charles Cazabon said:
> Gary Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I want to do something like:
> >
> > &`scriptname`
> >
> > to have it forward to a specific address. Can I do this with a simple script
> > or am I going to have to reinject the message instead of redirecting it?
>
> Reinject. It's not as painful as it sounds; read `man qmail-inject` or
> even `man mailsubj` for details. .qmail- files don't allow you to do
> quite what you want above. conredirect might suffice, but we don't know
> enough about what you want to accomplish.
>
> Charles
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> QCC Communications Corporation Saskatoon, SK
> My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Plesk installed qmail. I didn't have any choice, but I don't have any
>particular problem with it, since when I configure mail via the Plesk
>administration interface, it works just fine.
>
>Plesk allows open relaying, pop'n'drop relaying and SMTP relaying.
>I have chosen pop'n'drop relaying and SMPT for those who wish to
>use it.
>
>There is nothing in hosts.allow.
I took at look at Plesk, and it allows you specify a "white list": a
list of IP's that are allowed to relay at all times. You need to make
sure that the local system is listed by its IP address(es), as well as
127.0.0.0/24.
-Dave
Hi everyone,
I'm using qmail and Unix.
I'm using Life with qmail.
I'm chosing the Maildir.
I'don't know how an account in /etc/passwd can be a "normal" user for
qmail.
When a send a mail to user (in /etc/passwd) and I open the
/var/log/syslog, I
find that message
"delivery26.: failure :Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/"
I have read the INSTALL.maildir :
I have created the Maildir :
# maildirmake $HOME/Maildir
$HOME it is the account's home directory appers in /etc/passwd ?
# echo ./Maildir/ > ~/.qmail
I m replacing ./Mailbox with ./Maildir in /var/qmail/rc
I have read the qmail-getpw, but I don't know how account's
homedirectory can be
visible to qmail-getpw.
Thank you all,
Allama.
Allama Hicham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have created the Maildir :
> # maildirmake $HOME/Maildir
> ~/.qmail I m replacing ./Mailbox with ./Maildir in /var/qmail/rc
That should be ./Maildir/ -- note the trailing slash.
> I have read
> the qmail-getpw, but I don't know how account's homedirectory can be visible
> to qmail-getpw.
The permissions of the directories above it in the tree have to allow
searching by the user qmail-getpw runs as. This isn't normally a problem.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you set the proper ownership of the directories
$cd /home/user
$ls -l Maildir
If Maildir is not owned by the user then:
$chown user.group -R Maildir
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allama Hicham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:15 AM
Subject: Send a mail
> Hi everyone,
> I'm using qmail and Unix.
> I'm using Life with qmail.
> I'm chosing the Maildir.
> I'don't know how an account in /etc/passwd can be a "normal" user for
> qmail.
> When a send a mail to user (in /etc/passwd) and I open the
> /var/log/syslog, I
> find that message
> "delivery26.: failure :Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/"
> I have read the INSTALL.maildir :
> I have created the Maildir :
> # maildirmake $HOME/Maildir
> $HOME it is the account's home directory appers in /etc/passwd ?
> # echo ./Maildir/ > ~/.qmail
> I m replacing ./Mailbox with ./Maildir in /var/qmail/rc
> I have read the qmail-getpw, but I don't know how account's
> homedirectory can be
> visible to qmail-getpw.
> Thank you all,
> Allama.
>
At 12:15 AM 9/20/2000, you wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>I'm using qmail and Unix.
>I'm using Life with qmail.
>I'm chosing the Maildir.
>I'don't know how an account in /etc/passwd can be a "normal" user for
>qmail.
>When a send a mail to user (in /etc/passwd) and I open the
>/var/log/syslog, I
>find that message
> "delivery26.: failure :Sorry,_no_mailbox_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)/"
>I have read the INSTALL.maildir :
>I have created the Maildir :
> # maildirmake $HOME/Maildir
> $HOME it is the account's home directory appers in /etc/passwd ?
> # echo ./Maildir/ > ~/.qmail
> I m replacing ./Mailbox with ./Maildir in /var/qmail/rc
> I have read the qmail-getpw, but I don't know how account's
>homedirectory can be
> visible to qmail-getpw.
>Thank you all,
> Allama.
Did you run qmail-pw2u and qmail-newu ??
If not, then even though the users are valid (meaning listed in
/etc/passwd) qmail doesn't know about them...
In the default install, you should find a list of valid users in
/var/qmail/users/assign.
If they're not there, either create the assign file by hand as per
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html section 3.6
or run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u and then run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu.
enjoy :o)
Jer
Allama Hicham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'don't know how an account in /etc/passwd can be a "normal" user for
>qmail.
>From "man qmail-getpw":
RULES
qmail-getpw considers an account in /etc/passwd to be a
user if (1) the account has a nonzero uid, (2) the
account's home directory exists (and is visible to qmail-
getpw), and (3) the account owns its home directory.
qmail-getpw ignores account names containing uppercase
letters. qmail-getpw also assumes that all account names
are shorter than 32 characters.
>When a send a mail to user (in /etc/passwd)
Which user?
>I have created the Maildir :
> # maildirmake $HOME/Maildir
> $HOME it is the account's home directory appers in /etc/passwd ?
$HOME is the current user's home directory. The "#" prompt leads me to
believe you're doing this as root. The root user has uid 0, and is
therefore *not* a valid mail account.
> I have read the qmail-getpw, but I don't know how account's
>homedirectory can be visible to qmail-getpw.
Accessible by user qmailp. Generally, user home directories are
readable and executable by "other", so qmailp *can* access them.
-Dave
Jerry Lynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Did you run qmail-pw2u and qmail-newu ??
>If not, then even though the users are valid (meaning listed in
>/etc/passwd) qmail doesn't know about them...
Not true. The use of qmail-users (users/assign) is completely
optional.
>In the default install, you should find a list of valid users in
>/var/qmail/users/assign.
Nope.
-Dave
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Jerry Lynde wrote:
>
> Did you run qmail-pw2u and qmail-newu ??
> If not, then even though the users are valid (meaning listed in
> /etc/passwd) qmail doesn't know about them...
> In the default install, you should find a list of valid users in
> /var/qmail/users/assign.
> If they're not there, either create the assign file by hand as per
> http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html section 3.6
> or run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pw2u and then run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu.
That's not true. In a default install there are NO
/var/qmail/users/assign
/var/qmail/users/cdb
files.
qmail-lspawn will examine /var/qmail/users/cdb for any username
overrides. If it does not find a match, it will then call qmail-getpw
to interrogate the passwd database via getpwnam(3). See the qmail
pictures for a more detailed explanation of what happens.
It's a good idea to create /var/qmail/users/assign from qmail-pw2u and
then create /var/qmail/users/cdb but it is NOT mandatory.
The user's problem is almost certainly to do with the fact that he is
either delivering to a mailbox called Maildir (instead of delivering
to a maildir called Maildir/) and the existence of a directory called
Maildir/ is stopping delivery, or the Maildir/ is owned by root instead
of the correct user.
--
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate)
Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739
e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
At 01:05 PM 9/20/2000, you wrote:
>Jerry Lynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Did you run qmail-pw2u and qmail-newu ??
> >If not, then even though the users are valid (meaning listed in
> >/etc/passwd) qmail doesn't know about them...
>
>Not true. The use of qmail-users (users/assign) is completely
>optional.
>
> >In the default install, you should find a list of valid users in
> >/var/qmail/users/assign.
>
>Nope.
Mah bad... felt like a default setup to me... never mind :o)
please can some body tell me how to unsubscribe from the list
i am having isp problems
I am extremly sorry if this feels like spaming
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Follows :-
Rishi Maker |------------Quote Of The Mail----------------|
Senior Developer |... the heat come 'round and busted me for |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |smiling on a cloudy day. |
Tel : 91-22-5374892 | |
ICQ UIN :-56551784 | |
www.rishimaker.com | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------The Following has been stolen from fortune cookies-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ----:----:----:-----:----:----:----:----:----:----:----:----:|
--------| guru, n: A computer owner who can read the manual. |-------
| ----:----:----:-----:----:----:----:----:----:----:----:----:|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "-advice") == 0) {
printf("Don't Panic!\n");
exit(42);
}
(Arnold Robbins in the LJ of February '95, describing RCS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
(Adapted from Pat Paulsen by Joe Sloan)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`When you say "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just stare at
you blankly and say "Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*".'
(By Linus Torvalds)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyleft --:- ®Ø§hì Måkër -:--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I'm running a store & forward server with qmail 1.03. We only relay for
domains we put in /var/qmail/rcpthosts and for one ip address (the mail
server itself) in /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb. Lately we've been finding spam on our
queue with no "To:" address in the header field, although when I inspect the
maillog I can see that the recipient is for a user at one of our domains
(i.e. one of the domains in the rcpthosts file).
For example, here's a header from today:
--------------
MESSAGE NUMBER 917539
--------------
Received: (qmail 15374 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2000 11:09:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO exch01.Fex.com) (209.179.82.60)
by ourserver.ourdomain.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2000 11:09:41 -0000
Received: from 70p3iB95p ([10.0.0.1]) by exch01.Fex.com with SMTP (Microsoft
Exc
hange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
id SKM5R528; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:37:52 -0700
DATE: 14 Sep 00 2:11:50 AM
FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <5hBKWsxRdIi>
SUBJECT: >> Planes, Trains, & Automobiles! What do they all have in common?
When I looked up message 917539 in the maillog, I found this:
Sep 14 07:09:41 voodoo qmail: 968929781.869508 new msg 917539
Sep 14 07:09:41 voodoo qmail: 968929781.872968 info msg 917539: bytes 10947
from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 15374 uid 701
Sep 14 07:09:41 voodoo qmail: 968929781.881842 starting delivery 541: msg
917539
to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sep 14 07:09:41 voodoo qmail: 968929781.887705 status: local 0/10 remote
1/20
Sep 14 07:09:42 voodoo qmail: 968929782.099443 delivery 541: deferral:
Sorry,_I_
wasn't_able_to_establish_an_SMTP_connection._(#4.4.1)/
Any idea how the To address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is not appearing in
the message header?
-Laura
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Donovan, Laura wrote:
> Any idea how the To address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is not appearing in
> the message header?
Because the To: header is part of the RFC822 headers, while the delivery
involves the RFC821 "mail from:" and "rcpt to:" headers. Consider this
telnet exchange
telnet allspice 25
Trying 192.168.16.20...
Connected to allspice.e-smith.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 e-smith.net ESMTP
helo risotto
250 e-smith.net
RFC821 mail from: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
RFC821 rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
data
354 go ahead
RFC822 Subject: no other headers here
bye now
.
250 ok 969477228 qp 26202
quit
221 e-smith.net
Connection closed by foreign host.
The message was delivered to the recipient as specified by the RFC821
rcpt to: header above. The delivery has nothing to do with the headers
that you see when you actually read the message. That's how spammers
can send mail to you, even though it looks like it should have been
sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail will deliver the message with a Return-Path: RFC822 header that
contains the information contained in the RFC821 mail from: header.
--
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate)
Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739
e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
|
Just one question for y'all.
As per the "humorous" thread, none of you are
obliged to answer, and if I in any way come off as and asshole or idiot feel
free to harass me. ( Oh shit! that wasn't an asshole thing to say was it?
)
Is qmail-popup\qmail-pop3d supposed to run as
root?
Thanks in advance,
-Andy
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, andy wrote:
> Just one question for y'all.
>
> As per the "humorous" thread, none of you are obliged to answer, and if I in any way
>come off as and asshole or idiot feel free to harass me. ( Oh shit! that wasn't an
>asshole thing to say was it? )
>
> Is qmail-popup\qmail-pop3d supposed to run as root?
Yes. It needs to be able to change it's uid/gid to the
authenticated user, and only root can use the seteuid/setuid and
geteuid/getuid calls.
--
Regards
Peter
----------
Peter Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate)
Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739
e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada
"If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:14:54PM -0400, andy wrote:
> As per the "humorous" thread, none of you are obliged to answer, and
> if I in any way come off as and asshole or idiot feel free to harass
> me. ( Oh shit! that wasn't an asshole thing to say was it? )
Hmmm... No comment. ;-)
> Is qmail-popup\qmail-pop3d supposed to run as root?
Aye. Otherwise it would be unable to spawn kids as the necessary user.
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, andy wrote:
> Just one question for y'all.
>
> As per the "humorous" thread, none of you are obliged to answer, and if I in any way
>come off as and asshole or idiot feel free to harass me. ( Oh shit! that wasn't an
>asshole thing to say was it? )
>
> Is qmail-popup\qmail-pop3d supposed to run as root?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -Andy
>
Simple answer, yes.
Long explanation. qmail-popup reads the username and password from the
socket and passes them to the next program (usually checkpassword by djb
or another program based on it). checkpassword verifies the username and
password and changes the gid and uid and priveledges to become the user
just verified. It then runs qmail-pop3d as that user.
The fact that checkpassword switches to the identity of the verified user
is what requires qmail-popup to be run as root. It is also what provides
protection from any exploits in qmail-pop3d (none have been found to date
and based on Dan's and Russ' coding, I doubt that any will be found).
qmail-pop3d runs as the user who owns the mailbox being accessed and
therefore can only access files and directories available to that user.
---------------------------------
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
Ok, I need someone to point in the right direction on this..
I've set up my own command as described in the FAQ....I've also set it
up so that only subscribers can access it...the .qmail file looks
similar to the following:
|/path/to/ezmlm-issubn DIR
|/path/to/count list domain
ok, that much works as expected...what I need it to do is for anyone not
subscribed send them a message explaining why they aren't getting a
response to the request (ie, list-count@host) immediately such as "I'm
sorry but you must be subscribed to this list in order to make this
request." instead of never getting a response or at least not until it
times out.
Any help would be appreciated.
=G=
Galen Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> |/path/to/ezmlm-issubn DIR
> |/path/to/count list domain
>
> ok, that much works as expected...what I need it to do is for anyone not
> subscribed send them a message explaining why they aren't getting a
> response to the request (ie, list-count@host) immediately such as "I'm
> sorry but you must be subscribed to this list in order to make this
> request." instead of never getting a response or at least not until it
> times out.
You might want to try the ezmlm list instead of qmail, but...I would think
you could do this with 'bouncesaying', another djb tool which is included
in his (mublemumble) package (qmail itself? can't recall at the moment).
You would modify the above to something like:
| bouncesaying "Only list members can request a membership count"
|/path/to/ezmlm-issubn DIR
| /path/to/count list domain
Note this will only work if bouncesaying and ezmlm-issubn agree on exit codes.
Since they're both djb tools, I wouldn't be surprised if it's fine out of
the box.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oops...I have both lists going to the same folder and I wasn't
thinking...thanks for the response though.
=G=
Apparently since version 0.86 of ucspi-tcp, you can make rules based on
TCPREMOTEHOST. Furthermore, this ought to be the syntax:
(1) tcp.smtp:
=host.domain.net:allow,RELAYHOST=" "
:allow
this allows relaying to connections coming from host.domain.net
(2) tcp.smtp:
domain.net:allow, RELAYHOST=" "
:allow
this allows relaying to connections coming from *.domain.net
The second one doesn't work - I can't get anything to work besides
relaying for a particular host.
Any clues? Help is as always much appreciated! :)
-Brice Ruth
This would make sense, wouldn't it? But, it doesn't work :(
I'm using tcprulescheck with a file that looks like this:
.domain.net:allow,RELAYHOST=" "
:deny
and the response I get from tcprulescheck with TCPREMOTEHOST set to
host.domain.net is:
rule :
deny connection
:(
-Brice
Andrew Gray wrote:
> the way I would try it is
>
> for all hosts at a domain
> .domain.net.au:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>
> for just one host
> host.domain.net.au:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>
> similarly for IP based block, a whole class C
> 10.29.184.:deny
>
> a single IP
> 10.29.184.1:deny
>
> Regards
>
> Andrew Gray
> Network Administrator
> NetConnect Communications
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ph +61 3 5332 2140
>
> required email legal disclaimer
> http://gray.ballarat.net.au/disclaimer.htm
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brice Ruth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 8:43 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: tcprules question
> >
> >
> > Apparently since version 0.86 of ucspi-tcp, you can make rules based on
> > TCPREMOTEHOST. Furthermore, this ought to be the syntax:
> >
> > (1) tcp.smtp:
> > =host.domain.net:allow,RELAYHOST=" "
> > :allow
> >
> > this allows relaying to connections coming from host.domain.net
> >
> > (2) tcp.smtp:
> > domain.net:allow, RELAYHOST=" "
> > :allow
> >
> > this allows relaying to connections coming from *.domain.net
> >
> > The second one doesn't work - I can't get anything to work besides
> > relaying for a particular host.
> >
> > Any clues? Help is as always much appreciated! :)
> >
> > -Brice Ruth
> >
> >
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 06:13:39PM -0500, Brice Ruth wrote:
> This would make sense, wouldn't it? But, it doesn't work :(
>
> I'm using tcprulescheck with a file that looks like this:
>
> .domain.net:allow,RELAYHOST=" "
> :deny
>
> and the response I get from tcprulescheck with TCPREMOTEHOST set to
> host.domain.net is:
>
> rule :
> deny connection
>From the tcprules page on DJB's site:
tcpserver looks for rules with various addresses:
1) $TCPREMOTEINFO@$TCPREMOTEIP, if $TCPREMOTEINFO is set;
2) $TCPREMOTEINFO@=$TCPREMOTEHOST, if $TCPREMOTEINFO is set and
$TCPREMOTEHOST is set;
3) $TCPREMOTEIP;
4) =$TCPREMOTEHOST, if $TCPREMOTEHOST is set;
5) shorter and shorter prefixes of $TCPREMOTEIP ending with a dot;
6) shorter and shorter suffixes of $TCPREMOTEHOST starting with a dot,
preceded by =, if $TCPREMOTEHOST is set;
7) =, if $TCPREMOTEHOST is set; and finally
8) the empty string.
It sounds to me like you want #6.
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101
Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
unsubscribe please
(If this gets to the list, appologies, and could someone tell me how to
unsubscribe?)
Merv.
I went to the qmail site. There is a link for the 'discussion group' that
initiates e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On a gamble, I put 'help' in the subject line, and this is what it sent back
to me:
---
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
This is a generic help message. The message I received wasn't sent to
any of my command addresses.
See http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html for more information about qmail.
Please read http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/faq.html before sending your
question to the qmail mailing list.
--- Here are the ezmlm command addresses.
I can handle administrative requests automatically.
Just send an empty note to any of these addresses:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Receive future messages sent to the mailing list.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Stop receiving messages.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Retrieve a copy of message 12345 from the archive.
DO NOT SEND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUESTS TO THE MAILING LIST!
If you do, I won't see them, and subscribers will yell at you.
To specify [EMAIL PROTECTED] as your subscription address, send mail
to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I'll send a confirmation message to that address; when you receive that
message, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.
---
So consider yourself yelled at. Was what I did so hard to intuit? :P
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mervyn at ifwdc.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 3:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: unsubscribe please
>
>
> unsubscribe please
>
> (If this gets to the list, appologies, and could someone tell
> me how to
> unsubscribe?)
>
>
> Merv.
>
Hi friends
I have something messages in queue than can't send The logfile in
/var/log/qmail/qmail-send/current show me this:
@4000000039c93a902a17eeac status: local 0/100 remote 45/255
@4000000039c93a91018ff4ac delivery
1367: deferral: Connected_to_161.132.0.21_but_sender_was_rejected./
Remote_host_said:_450-defer_'<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'./450-Sender_address_targe
t_'mydomain.com'_cannot_be_verified_at_this_time./450-Reason_given_was:_verify_
sender():_DNS_error:_Hostname_lookup_failure./450_Try_again_later./
My domain is : mydomain.com
and the name of my email-server is: server.mydomain.com
I have in /var/qmail/control/ that files in this order:
defauldomain : mydomain.com
locals : localhost
mydomain.com
server.mydomain.com
me : server.mydomain.com
mydomain.com
plusdomain : mydomain.com
queuelifetime: 14400
rcpthosts : mydomain.com
timeoutconnect: 240
timeoutremote : 4800
timeoutsmtpd : 4800
I can send e-mail to hotmail, usa.net, yahoo, bum
t can't send to
mixmail.com , and others domains. Please How I should have my files
into of /var/qmail/control?
Please help me.
Thanks
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 06:29:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My domain is : mydomain.com
> and the name of my email-server is: server.mydomain.com
Please give REAL Domain names!
And don't claim that existing domain names (and mydomain.com DOES
exist) belong to you.
If there are problems with your DNS, we can check by doing some
DNS queries, but we can't if you hide your domain name for whatever
reasons.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
> Is there any way for a remote admin to subscribe multiple addresses in
> one request? I'm guessing not, but it sure would be nice...
A work-around way, but set up your own admin user (like multadmin), that has
a .qmail file which pipes to a script you made up, which checks that the
address it is coming from is an administrator's address, and then feeds the
contents of the message line-by-line to ezmlm-sub. You might want to use
some method of authentication in the message just so people don't learn
about your multiple-subscription method and abuse it via a simple e-mail
(could be as simple as your favourite word, or could be as complex and safe
as public key encryption).
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
A solution someone gave me awhile back was to save the emails to a file, one
per line, and do:
cat emails.txt | xargs --max-args 20 ezmlm-sub ~/<listname>
Worked great.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 8:28 PM
To: Ben Beuchler; qmail
Subject: RE: Remotely subscribing multiple addresses
> Is there any way for a remote admin to subscribe multiple addresses in
> one request? I'm guessing not, but it sure would be nice...
A work-around way, but set up your own admin user (like multadmin), that has
a .qmail file which pipes to a script you made up, which checks that the
address it is coming from is an administrator's address, and then feeds the
contents of the message line-by-line to ezmlm-sub. You might want to use
some method of authentication in the message just so people don't learn
about your multiple-subscription method and abuse it via a simple e-mail
(could be as simple as your favourite word, or could be as complex and safe
as public key encryption).
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
I'm new to linux, qmail, fetchmail, serialmail, maildrop... I
have linux installed on a small two machine lan and am using a
dial-up connection... I own a domain hosted by a another server
and maintain a small, low-volume mailing list which I would like
to manage from this machine. I've followed the instructions to
the best of my ability and read until I'm tired of reading, and
still I can't get fetchmail to deliver list mail to "user-list"
when it retrieves it from the pop3 server who hosts my domain. It
sends everything to "user", not "user-list". Probably something
simple and obvious I've overlooked, but I can't seem to see it
for the life of me. Any help from users (if there are any) using
these programs in this manner will be greatly appreciated.
TIA
My apologies for sending the following to the wrong list. (Can't
believe I did such a stupid, stupid thing! I'll just go ahead and
sign off the list!
--------------------------------------
I'm new to linux, qmail, fetchmail, serialmail, maildrop... I
have linux installed on a small two machine lan and am using a
dial-up connection... I own a domain hosted by a another server
and maintain a small, low-volume mailing list which I would like
to manage from this machine. I've followed the instructions to
the best of my ability and read until I'm tired of reading, and
still I can't get fetchmail to deliver list mail to "user-list"
when it retrieves it from the pop3 server who hosts my domain. It
sends everything to "user", not "user-list". Probably something
simple and obvious I've overlooked, but I can't seem to see it
for the life of me. Any help from users (if there are any) using
these programs in this manner will be greatly appreciated.
TIA
I installed tarpiting patch from Chris Johnson, at least I think I did, I
am not sure what to do next.
I am not sure about syntax of the control/tarpitdelay and
control/tarpitcount. Do those files get created after I install the patch if
they are I did not install it right, but if I create those files manually
what do i put in them just numbers that I choose.
How do I verify that is working. I know only first part telnet on port
25
HELO
MAIL FROM :<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
what would be next steps?
Thank you for your help.
Denis
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 06:18:13PM -0700, Denis Petrov wrote:
> I installed tarpiting patch from Chris Johnson, at least I think I did, I
> am not sure what to do next.
> I am not sure about syntax of the control/tarpitdelay and
> control/tarpitcount. Do those files get created after I install the patch if
> they are I did not install it right, but if I create those files manually
> what do i put in them just numbers that I choose.
You create the files manually, and yes, they do just contain numbers. For
example:
# echo 10 > /var/qmail/control/tarpitcount
# echo 5 > /var/qmail/control/tarpitdelay
This would give you a 5-second delay for every recipient after the tenth.
> How do I verify that is working. I know only first part telnet on port
> 25
> HELO
> MAIL FROM :<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> what would be next steps?
Add some more RCPT TOs, at least one more than your tarpitcount. If you notice
a delay, it's working.
Chris
I've got a test qmail server, and I want to put it into semi
production, for my email account at least. I'd also like to send mail
through it. However, due to the firewall, it won't go to external
addresses.
Is there a way I can get it to send to the production mail server, for
relay?
=== Al
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Put
:mail.productionrelay.com
into /var/qmail/control/smtproutes, and man qmail-remote for more...
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Sparks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 1:09 PM
> To: qmail list
> Subject: Sending all outgoing email through a relay
>
>
> I've got a test qmail server, and I want to put it into semi
> production, for my email account at least. I'd also like to send mail
> through it. However, due to the firewall, it won't go to external
> addresses.
>
> Is there a way I can get it to send to the production mail server, for
> relay?
> === Al
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
Thanks. I'm amazed at how fast I get a response to a question on this
list. The few times I've sent email onto this list it's been very
helpful.
=== Al
--- Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Put
> :mail.productionrelay.com
> into /var/qmail/control/smtproutes, and man qmail-remote for more...
>
> /BR
>
>
> Manager
> InterPlanetary Solutions
> http://ipsware.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
> Thanks. I'm amazed at how fast I get a response to a question on this
> list. The few times I've sent email onto this list it's been very
> helpful.
> === Al
When you make an e-mail easy to follow and professional, I (and others I
guess) enjoy responding...when questions are all thrown together in a rush
without thought or investigation, and there is even a hint of an attitude,
you're asking for either trouble or ignorance from our part.
/BR
Manager
InterPlanetary Solutions
http://ipsware.com/
Jen Franklin wrote:
>
> Today the postmaster "account" recevied about 20 messages stating unable
> to deliver mail, unable to return to sender. Neither address was a local
> address in any of these cases.
>
> Our rcpthosts file only lists our domains.
> When I telneted into port 25 however and tried to mail from: a remote
> address and rcpt to: a remote address I recevied a 250 ok.
>
> I am new to qmail but I have read the "Qmail newbie's guide to relaying"
> and I thought when I sent from a remote email address to a remote email
> address I should have received a 553 domain not in allowed rcpthosts
> message. None of the mail i was trying to deliver has appeared in the
> remote accounts I was using.
>
If the mail never got there, you're not relaying. An open relay would
have immediately sent the mail on to the proper SMTP host for delivering
to the account in question. The part of qmail that talks to the network
has no idea about the part of qmail that knows what users are local, and
what are not. At least I can reassure you on that score.... Perhaps
others on the list could be more helpful as to why your server does
_not_ say:
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
like mine do...
GW
sadly, one of our domains seems to have gotten onto one or more of those
"Buy * Million first class spam recipients' email addresses NOW" lists/CDs.
so we keep receiving mails from all over this lovely planet for the non
existent users
michellep tonyak jenniferd barbik melindaa gabriellej barbis doloresz
melindab junem
(exciting isn't it)
i would like to process them automatically via a .qmail* file, and one
thing i would like to extract automatically is the IP of the SMTP relay
that sent the mail to our server. example:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 28677 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2000 01:26:51 -0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 28673 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2000 01:26:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO srvweb.IMPI-GIPSI.FR) (194.206.111.65)
by 192.168.27.19 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2000 01:26:51 -0000
Received: from cs28100-41.houston.RR.COM by srvweb.IMPI-GIPSI.FR with SMTP
(Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1457.7)
id S52XFY3D; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:07:33 +0200
DATE: 20 Sep 00 5:08:51 PM
FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <TeK72wV57gK1zQ7474o>
SUBJECT: get shopping discounts, improve your quality of life
so i would like to extract 194.206.111.65 from the line
Received: from unknown (HELO srvweb.IMPI-GIPSI.FR) (194.206.111.65)
i am rather new at parsing ... and PERL? is that something you wear around
your neck?
sorry if you consider this off topic, it certainly is part of my life with
qmail *g*
cheers
wolfgang
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all,
I'm runnig the qmail-pw2u like
% ./qmail-pw2u alm:x:65542:1::/d1/qmail/qmail/users/alm:/sbin/sh
But I don't have the prompt!
"alm:x:65542:1::/d1/qmail/qmail/users/alm:/sbin/sh" is a line in
/etc/passwd
Allama,
