qmail Digest 7 Jun 2000 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 1025
Topics (messages 42761 through 42823):
Re: Does someone knows what is this about?
42761 by: Petr Novotny
42774 by: OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg
42776 by: Bruno Wolff III
42781 by: Mate Wierdl
42786 by: Aaron L. Meehan
42796 by: Peter van Dijk
42823 by: Jenny Holmberg
Re: Qmail problems - mail won't send
42762 by: slvrchair.monmouth.com
Help on smtp and rcpthosts !!
42763 by: Xionghui Chen
42764 by: Vince Vielhaber
42766 by: Len Budney
42813 by: clemensF
Re: Why not inetd?
42765 by: Peter van Dijk
42785 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
42801 by: clemensF
42803 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
42816 by: clemensF
Web Tool for qmail
42767 by: Nguyen Hong Son
42768 by: Uelinton Braulio dos Santos
42769 by: Olivier M.
PROBLEM with messages
42770 by: Sinisa Malesevic
Help Please!
42771 by: yavuz
42784 by: net admin
qmail + filter + autorespond
42772 by: Gologan, Andrei
42773 by: Russell P. Sutherland
Re: programming with vpopmail - add account from web
42775 by: "Próspero, Esteban"
42777 by: kingram
42778 by: Bruno Negrão
List all users
42779 by: Ari Arantes Filho
42791 by: David L. Nicol
Opinions on filtering
42780 by: Derek Watson
42792 by: Derek Watson
42812 by: clemensF
Virtual domains problems
42782 by: Patricio Escobar Pineda
Re: Can it be done?
42783 by: Guillermo Villasana Cardoza
rejecting emails
42787 by: Jens Georg
42799 by: Greg Hinton
42802 by: clemensF
Re: tcpserver: unable to bind
42788 by: clemensF
Relaying to different hosts
42789 by: Jules Desforges
42790 by: Chris Johnson
42822 by: Jules Desforges
Checkpoppasswd
42793 by: Michael Hornby
Setting default domain for outgoing mail on a per user basis
42794 by: scarrera.Telenisus.com
"Get Me Off This List!" Dissenting Opinion
42795 by: Kai MacTane
thousands of qmail-queue processes hanging...
42797 by: bjv
42818 by: clemensF
pop3 / tcpserver problems
42798 by: Photocon
42800 by: Ben Beuchler
42815 by: clemensF
42817 by: Petr Novotny
Suggestion for mailing list manager?
42804 by: John R Levine
42805 by: Murat Guven Mural
42806 by: Ben Beuchler
42807 by: Peter Green
42808 by: Russ Allbery
Re: DRAFT RFD - comp.mail.qmail - Comments Sought (Was: qmail advocacy questions)
42809 by: Darren Wyn Rees
42811 by: Brad Johnson
Anybody got the RPM for Qmail, pease send me <eom>
42810 by: Tushar.Shah.snstech.com
Why messages not in maildir of users???
42814 by: Sinisa Malesevic
server load problem
42819 by: kapil sharma
Multiple domains
42820 by: Andrés
42821 by: Michael Hufnagl
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Jun 00, at 11:56, OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg wrote:
> This seems like a weak excuse, all your interfaces should have
> matching RDNS to their main A records and it's sufficient to set this
> up once!
Who shall fill in control/locals, should the reverse (outside my
control) change?
> > I still fail to see "domain must be any RDNS for your computer you
> > can think of".
>
> If your mailservers hostname is mail.antek.cz then mail.antek.cz is
> also an domain, then [EMAIL PROTECTED] is an required RFC 822
> postmaster address.
Yes; but the machine has also an interface antek.vol.cz (outside
my control). This interface is never shown in DNS as MX, but still
it's an _outgoing_ interface for world-bound mail. Should I have this
interface in control/locals? Not at all - anyone using it is just doing
that by mistake.
> >> There are surely more ways to get mail to these admins /
> >> postmasters, but telnet to port 25 and manually dropping a "rcpt
> >> to: <postmaster>" is far to much to ask from a normal person trying
> >> to contact a postmaster.
> >
> > ORBS tester (notifier) is far from being "normal person". After all,
> > a normal person wouldn't know how to set up and run such a service.
> > Or doesn't ORBS know either?
>
> They postmaster described in RFC822 is for all user, not ORBS only.
>
> ORBS only have the IP address of the mailserver,
> as per RFC822 postmaster@RDNS/IP should be enough.
Perhaps this shows the beef some people have with ORBS. "Four
legs goos, two legs bad."
It would be trivial for you to change the way you notify the
postmaster. It would actually _help_ the administrators of the
misconfigured sites. But no, due to some religious belief you just
list them and not tell them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOTy+PVMwP8g7qbw/EQK46gCeLbcKuag1m61qKdycTVphhUTS90YAoIfM
r4l7QJoDMhcNk8Gl+8Jp1w5U
=ssYw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> This seems like a weak excuse, all your interfaces should have
>> matching RDNS to their main A records and it's sufficient to set this up once!
>
> Who shall fill in control/locals, should the reverse (outside my control) change?
You, because you choose the mailservers hostname/domain.
Just because your RDNS is handled by your ISP,
doesn't excuse not updateing the RDNS.
In fact this is even more important than before since
the IP you are using is NOT linked to you in any other way.
>> If your mailservers hostname is mail.antek.cz then mail.antek.cz is
>> also an domain, then [EMAIL PROTECTED] is an required RFC 822
>> postmaster address.
>
> Yes; but the machine has also an interface antek.vol.cz (outside my control).
> This interface is never shown in DNS as MX,
> but still it's an _outgoing_ interface for world-bound mail.
> Should I have this interface in control/locals?
> Not at all - anyone using it is just doing that by mistake.
Sorry, again!
If this server is answering port 25 with an SMTP server/deamon,
this is a mailserver and MUST have a valid postmaster address (RFC822).
antek.vol.cz is absolutly in DNS and RDNS:
mail1:~ # host -t a antek.vol.cz
antek.vol.cz has address 195.250.137.143
mail1:~ # host -t ptr 195.250.137.143
143.137.250.195.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer antek.vol.cz
As far as i'm concern any mail problems with antek.vol.cz
should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>> ORBS only have the IP address of the mailserver,
>> as per RFC822 postmaster@RDNS/IP should be enough.
>
> Perhaps this shows the beef some people have with ORBS.
> "Four legs goos, two legs bad."
You do not understand, ANYBODY recieving mail from your server
only have the IP address as the link to any responsible party.
> It would be trivial for you to change the way you notify the postmaster.
> It would actually _help_ the administrators of the misconfigured sites.
NO, it would not -> WHY:
If 1'000'000'000 mail admins have different WAYS to be contacted,
ANYBODY trying to get in contact with another mail admin would
use an avarage 500'000'000 times to find the right way.
> But no, due to some religious belief you just list them and not tell them.
This isn't a religious belief we are talking about,
we are talking about a common way for all mail-servers
to accept mail for a common postmaster account using SMTP.
The way you are descibing requires ANYBODY to telnet to port 25
and sending a "rcpt to: <postmaster>", this is NOT the way
RFC822 ment ANYBODY should send to postmaster accounts on each mailserver.
OBVIOUSLY, due to RFC822 your mailserver MUST accept mail to postmaster,
even if it's only an outgoing relay server for your clients.
Since this server doesn't have any MX records and no additional RCPTHOSTS
and is located on another than your own network with a hostname other
than your own it's quite stupid of you to expect ANYBODY to be able to
contact this mailservers admin if they have questions/complains.
I emphasize that I'm now talking postmaster in general,
and that ANYBODY for any reason wants to write to mailservers admin.
Regards André Paulsberg
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 02:36:24PM -0700,
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think I will be able to use them again as I only want to block inputs
> > and outputs, since the ORBS seems to catch sites faster than the RSS.
>
> That's because RSS requires evidence that the relay is actually being
> abused, whereas ORBS will list any machine that's open regardless of
> whether it's being abused or not (by design). I disagree with ORBS on a
> lot of things, but it's good that this particular choice is available to
> people.
I think the choice is good as well. For my use, I would rather have the
open relays blocked before the abuse shows up so that I am covered before
the spam run hits rather than hoping that RSS catches the run and updates
its information before I get sent spam through a relay. For other people
this might not be a good trade off.
For our main mail servers we don't even use the RSS (we just use the RBL).
I have been pushing for that, but the people that get the final say, say
no. I do filter double bounces by checking to the received headers against
the RSS, ORBS, DUL and RBL lists to cut down some of the double bounces
I have to wade through, to see if something on our end appears to be broken.
> > I now understand why I get these messages from ORBS dropped into my
> > postmaster box.
> You will get mail from ORBS in two situations:
> - ORBS wants to warn you that they successfully relayed through your
> server.
> - an ORBS testmail ends up in your mailbox. This is quite common and
> actually a good thing - it did not get relayed.
I do not agree: I know that folks cannot relay through my box, and I
do not need to get bounces whenever somebody out there decides to check
out my box via ORBS.
Mate
Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> >
> > > More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
>
> He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions and he is quite clueful.
I don't believe Alan Brown incompetent, either. That little missive
about qmail on his web site is plain ignorance, however. What I do
know about him is that he's very aggressive about whatever he
perceives as network abuse. He's very conscious of bandwidth usage;
as operator of an ISP in New Zealand he has had to think much harder
than most of the rest of us about what's using his bandwidth. It's
somewhat ironic that his role on the net these days causes his
bandwidth-starved network to be attacked pretty regularly ;) I don't
know for sure but I wonder if his net connection has been upgraded
recently.
He detests spam and spammers. Spammers of any kind. As an IRC
operator on Undernet -- his network hosts an Undernet server -- he is
very aggressive against any network abusers, espcecially spammers.
He's been known to ban entire domains much more often than any other
oper (one in particular I remember, all of uu.net was banned.
Big-time collateral damage :-). I did a couple year stint as an oper
there (glad I'm done with IRC), so this is all first-hand experience.
He's often quite ruthless!
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic nature. This is just FYI based on
my experience with the man currently behind ORBS. I generally respect
him, but he often does not engender good feelings torward him from
others.
Aaron
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:22:51AM -0700, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
> Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> > >
> > > > More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
> >
> > He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions and he is quite clueful.
>
> I don't believe Alan Brown incompetent, either. That little missive
> about qmail on his web site is plain ignorance, however. What I do
Hmm I'll talk to him about that. He is right about stuff ending up in admin
mailboxes tho, but I do not consider the lack of !-handling a bug.
[snip bandwidth/attacks]
The relaytests are not conducted from his line anymore, althought the
endpoint for relayed messages is still a box in NZ.
[snip]
> He's often quite ruthless!
I like his attitude. He's a very honest guy.
> Anyway, sorry for the off-topic nature. This is just FYI based on
> my experience with the man currently behind ORBS. I generally respect
> him, but he often does not engender good feelings torward him from
> others.
He's a man with a cause, and a good cause. Everything I post about ORBS is
also FYI based on first hand experience with him :)
I suggest that this thread slowly dies now here, or be continued on a more
suitable forum.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
"Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5 Jun 00, at 19:12, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > The only correct choice is 1. If your customer has an open relay, block
> > them on your own smarthost until they fix their problem.
>
> Oh thanks. In other words, you're giving me the following
> possibilities:
> 1. Get used to being listed in ORBS.
> 2. Losing customers by denying them service (something that
> noone else does, at least around here).
Actually, if there's spam coming through a customer's server, we
require that they take steps to stop it - whether they are using our
mailserver as a smarthost or not. And if they refuse to take action,
we *will* cut their service. In fact, we have gone so far as to block
all port 25 traffic to a non-responsive customer. That got their
attention fairly quickly...
And we still get listed by ORBS at times, and I simply couldn't care
less. I have seen nothing to disprove that they list sites out of
spite, and that they do not follow their own stated guidelines on
their web page. Now, if I were listed by RBL or RSS - *that* would
make me worry.
We've got a clause in our AUP stating that customers may not "engage
in behaviour that is detrimental to our systems, other customers, or
the Internet as a whole". Anyone running an open relay after being
warned that spammers are using it definitely falls foul of that
clause.
--
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one."
qmails 45724 0.0 0.3 840 408 p2- I 11:16PM 0:00.06 qmail-
send
qmaill 45725 0.0 0.3 784 420 p2- I 11:16PM 0:00.00
splogger qmail
root 45726 0.0 0.2 784 312 p2- I 11:16PM 0:00.00 qmail-
lspawn ./Mailbox
qmailr 45727 0.0 0.2 780 308 p2- I 11:16PM 0:00.00 qmail-
rspawn
qmailq 45728 0.0 0.3 772 328 p2- I 11:16PM 0:00.00 qmail-
clean
And the log shows nothing besides:
Jun 5 23:16:59 bluestream qmail: 960261419.831336 status: local 0/10
remote 0/100
The messages in the queue continue to build up too:
messages in queue: 45
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 45
Thanks again for your help - anyone have any ideas on how to fix this?
> At 11:30 PM 6/5/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Mail seems to be building up my mail queue (I can tell from running
qmail-
> >qstat). I am new to qmail so I don't know quite how everything works
yet.
> >What would cause the mail to build up in the queue and not send, and
how
> >would I fix it?
>
> first do
> ps -waux | grep qmail
> and paste the result here
>
> after that see your log , it can be at /var/log/maillog or
> /var/qmail/log/current (for the last one is if you use multilog instead
of
> syslog)
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using MI-Webmail.
No matter where you are, never lose touch.
Get your Email using MI-Webmail.
http://www.monmouth.com/
This is real urgent:
every time when I send mail via port 25, if the domain of the mail address is not
belong in the file control/rcpthosts, it says:
553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
do this mean that I have to put all my possible rcpt domains in the rcpthots file?
i.e, i have to put yahoo.com in rcpthosts, or else I cannot send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
help me out, please!
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Xionghui Chen wrote:
> This is real urgent:
>
> every time when I send mail via port 25, if the domain of the mail address is not
>belong in the file control/rcpthosts, it says:
> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
>
> do this mean that I have to put all my possible rcpt domains in the rcpthots file?
>i.e, i have to put yahoo.com in rcpthosts, or else I cannot send mail to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> help me out, please!
No you don't need to put all domains in rcpthosts, just the domains that
your server accepts mail for. To set up qmail-smtpd for selectively
relaying mail (ie. from you) go here and follow the instructions:
http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
"Xionghui Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is real urgent:
>
> every time when I send mail via port 25, if the domain of the mail
> address is not belong in the file control/rcpthosts, it says: 553 sorry,
> that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
> do this mean that I have to put all my possible rcpt domains in the
> rcpthots file? i.e, i have to put yahoo.com in rcpthosts, or else I
> cannot send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No! (New qmail users often become scared about this; don't worry!)
The rcpthosts file is only for SMTP connections. SMTP connections are
usually for _incoming_ mail. So rcpthosts only lists allowed destinations
for _incoming_ mail. Usually, rcphosts will contain the domains listed
in control/locals as well as control/virtualdomains, and should all be
fully-qualified domain names.
But some of your software uses the SMTP port for _outgoing_ mail as well,
which is what made you ask your question. The answer is found at
<http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/servers.html#authorized-relay>. The magic word
is RELAYCLIENT.
Hope this helps,
Len.
--
Do not confuse complexity with security. It is a grave mistake.
-- Bruce Schneier
> Xionghui Chen:
> every time when I send mail via port 25, if the domain of the mail address is not
>belong in the file control/rcpthosts, it says:
> 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)
you would select the recipients-hosts.domain:25 port. in comes the mail
destined for you via your.host:25, out goes mail from you via recip.host:25.
clemens
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 07:22:25PM +1000, Peter Samuel wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
> >
> > While i agree with Peter that tcpserver is superior, i dont want people
> > getting the wrong idea of inetd.
> >
> > inetd by default has the above behaviour, but can be overridden in the
> > configuration file to accept any number of connections.
>
> I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
> inetd? You've got me curious now.
Research shows that FreeBSD 4.0's inetd actually doesn't have these
misfeatures anymore - it has a concurrency limit (yes, really!) and a
max-connections-per-minute-per-remote-IP.
Greetz, Peter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
>I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
>inetd? You've got me curious now.
>
>Regards
>Peter
>----------
man inetd
pop3 stream tcp nowait.120 root /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env......
--
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
11:55am up 26 days, 17:21, 4 users, load average: 0.15, 0.19, 0.18
> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
> >I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
> >inetd? You've got me curious now.
>
> man inetd
this is one of those things. we are used to spend five minutes on
inetd.conf using vendor-supplied-template-files-or-example-snippets :)
clemens
I'm not following???
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, clemensF wrote:
>> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Peter Samuel wrote:
>> >I've never seen this. How? What operating system? What version of
>> >inetd? You've got me curious now.
>>
>> man inetd
>
>this is one of those things. we are used to spend five minutes on
>inetd.conf using vendor-supplied-template-files-or-example-snippets :)
>
>clemens
>
--
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
9:45pm up 27 days, 3:11, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.16
> Peter van Dijk:
> Research shows that FreeBSD 4.0's inetd actually doesn't have these
> misfeatures anymore - it has a concurrency limit (yes, really!) and a
> max-connections-per-minute-per-remote-IP.
starting with at most 2.8.8, it has. freebsd 2.8.8 is my religion.
clemens
Dear all
Thank you for helping me with the SMTP Auth patch, But if you know where to
get a tool (or package) for making a web-mail site for qmail, please tell me
.
Thanks a lot
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Take a look of SqWebMail
http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail
Nguyen Hong Son escritas:
> Dear all
> Thank you for helping me with the SMTP Auth patch, But if you know where to
> get a tool (or package) for making a web-mail site for qmail, please tell me
> .
> Thanks a lot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uélinton B. dos Santos Faculdade Med. Veterinária Zootecnia
Analista de Sistemas Universidade de São Paulo
Sao Paulo Brasil
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel:+55-11-3818-7696 Fax:+55-11-3818-7428
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:50:33AM +0000, Nguyen Hong Son wrote:
> Dear all
> Thank you for helping me with the SMTP Auth patch, But if you know where to
> get a tool (or package) for making a web-mail site for qmail, please tell me
You may try omail-webmail :
http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about
Regards,
Olivier
|
I use qmail with serialmail and fetchmail. I
conect to my ISP with dial up.
All messages for out are stored in
"/var/qmail/alias/pppdir/"
All mesages witch I receive are in
"/var/qmail/qlias/pppdir/" to. And that is problem. Why this mesages not in
maildir of my users??? How qmail can dislocate this messages in maildir of my
users????
I use vpopmail.
|
|
Hello
I have installed qmail1.03 under the
FreeBSD3.4
I can log in pop3 and smtp ports in telnet
But I can not putting any user in mailbox
And I couldn't make maildir
directory.
As manually How can I add any user in a
qmailserver ?
Thanks
|
On Tue, 30 May 2000, yavuz wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have installed qmail1.03 under the FreeBSD3.4
>
> I can log in pop3 and smtp ports in telnet
>
> But I can not putting any user in mailbox
Try su <user-name> -c /var/qmail/bin/maildirmake ~<user-name>/Maildir
<user-name> is the local user you want to add
and create a .qmail file in user home dir containing ./Maildir/
user must own all files/dir you create in his/her homedir
Dan
Hi,
we need a litle help with qmail
We need to block all attachments, except one or two predefined ones.
The sender of the mail, has to receive an e-mail saying what type of
attachment is allowed.
Any idea where to look or how to do it ?
Sincerily,
Andrei Gologan
* Gologan, Andrei ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [ 6 Jun 2000 08:58]:
> we need a litle help with qmail
> We need to block all attachments, except one or two predefined ones.
> The sender of the mail, has to receive an e-mail saying what type of
> attachment is allowed.
Here are two ideas:
1. Use the QMAILQUEUE patch and write a filter (perhaps using
Bruce Guenters qmail-qfilter package to intercept all
in coming mail, scanning it with perhaps the perl CPAN
MIME-tools package. If the attachment types fail proceed
accordingly.
2. Use the two queue method as proposed by Dave Sill some
weeks ago on this list. One the incoming mail is stored
in a local Maildir, you can process it, scanning for
deviant messages.
--
Quist Consulting Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
219 Donlea Drive Voice: +1.416.696.7600
Toronto ON M4G 2N1 Fax: +1.416.978.6620
CANADA WWW: http://www.quist.on.ca
I've already installed qmailadmin, but it doesn't allow "inexistent" users
to subscribe themselves; you must login as postmaster or other vpopmail
user, with password and domain. Did I miss something?
Esteban Javier Próspero
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Negrão [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 5:28 PM
> To: Próspero, Esteban; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: programming with vpopmail - add account from web
>
> Why don't you use de qmailadmin program.
> It does what you are trying to do. You can get it at the inter7's site.
>
> -----Mensagem Original-----
> De: Próspero, Esteban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Enviada em: Segunda-feira, 5 de Junho de 2000 12:21
> Assunto: programming with vpopmail - add account from web
>
>
> Hi everyone!
> Where can I get more information about vpopmail api functions? I want to
> make an html page where anyone could pop into and add as a users of
> sqwebmail (a kind of Hotmail). I'm using qmail 1.03 and vpopmail.
>
> Thanks in advance!!
>
> Esteban Javier Próspero
>
>
"Próspero, Esteban" wrote:
>
> I've already installed qmailadmin, but it doesn't allow "inexistent" users
> to subscribe themselves; you must login as postmaster or other vpopmail
> user, with password and domain. Did I miss something?
>
No. That's all what you can do with qmailadmin. Users can also change
theirs passwords.
--
Best Regards from Poland
Krzysztof Ingram - secondary root where the power of Linux / is the
first
FF Computers Sp. z o.o.
Bielsko-Biala
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ffcomp.com.pl
:-)
No, you didn't. I was wrong.
-----Mensagem Original-----
De: Próspero, Esteban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: 'Bruno Negrão' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Enviada em: Terça-feira, 6 de Junho de 2000 10:27
Assunto: RE: programming with vpopmail - add account from web
I've already installed qmailadmin, but it doesn't allow "inexistent" users
to subscribe themselves; you must login as postmaster or other vpopmail
user, with password and domain. Did I miss something?
Esteban Javier Próspero
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Negrão [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 5:28 PM
> To: Próspero, Esteban; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: programming with vpopmail - add account from web
>
> Why don't you use de qmailadmin program.
> It does what you are trying to do. You can get it at the inter7's site.
>
> -----Mensagem Original-----
> De: Próspero, Esteban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Enviada em: Segunda-feira, 5 de Junho de 2000 12:21
> Assunto: programming with vpopmail - add account from web
>
>
> Hi everyone!
> Where can I get more information about vpopmail api functions? I want to
> make an html page where anyone could pop into and add as a users of
> sqwebmail (a kind of Hotmail). I'm using qmail 1.03 and vpopmail.
>
> Thanks in advance!!
>
> Esteban Javier Próspero
>
>
Hi,
Is there some script to list all users including the content of each
.qmail-<user>?
Thanks,
Ari
You mean something like this?
cut -f6 -d: < /etc/passwd | xargs -i echo grep "''" "{}""/.qmail-*" | sh
Ari Arantes Filho wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there some script to list all users including the content of each
> qmail-<user>?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ari
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visualize creamed corn
Hello all.
I was just looking for a little insight, maybe from someone who has
tried this before. I plan to write a wrapper (for qmail-local?), which will
intercept every local mail delivery (from local to local, or remote to
local). I need to filter the content, strip attachments and postpend a
tagline to the message. I figure Perl is suitable for the task, and have no
problems writing that element, but I am unsure of how to implament it.
Is qmail-local the program I should emulate? Is there any piping
trickery I can use when starting qmail-smtpd instead? I have seen people
pipe messages through other programs before delivering them to ./Maildir. .
. is that the way I should go about this?
I appretiate any input you might have.
Derek Watson
Systems Administrator, Programmer
Elyrium Corp.
Just a follow up to my last message, which might not have been very
clear. I think I want to do something from within the rc script so that
qmail runs like this:
qmail-start "|/var/qmail/myscripts/filter.pl ./Maildir/" splogger qmail
Where filter.pl would read STDIN, filter out words, and print to STDOUT,
in the hopes that qmail-local would pick up the rest and deliver to Maildir.
But this doesn't seem to work out. .. I just get filter.pl printing the
contents of the message to syslog.
Can anybody help me along?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:48 AM
Subject: Opinions on filtering
>
> Hello all.
>
> I was just looking for a little insight, maybe from someone who has
> tried this before. I plan to write a wrapper (for qmail-local?), which
will
> intercept every local mail delivery (from local to local, or remote to
> local). I need to filter the content, strip attachments and postpend a
> tagline to the message. I figure Perl is suitable for the task, and have
no
> problems writing that element, but I am unsure of how to implament it.
>
> Is qmail-local the program I should emulate? Is there any piping
> trickery I can use when starting qmail-smtpd instead? I have seen people
> pipe messages through other programs before delivering them to ./Maildir.
.
> . is that the way I should go about this?
>
> I appretiate any input you might have.
>
>
> Derek Watson
> Systems Administrator, Programmer
> Elyrium Corp.
>
>
>
> Derek Watson:
> qmail-start "|/var/qmail/myscripts/filter.pl ./Maildir/" splogger qmail
>
> Where filter.pl would read STDIN, filter out words, and print to STDOUT,
> in the hopes that qmail-local would pick up the rest and deliver to Maildir.
> But this doesn't seem to work out. .. I just get filter.pl printing the
> contents of the message to syslog.
.. because splogger loggs it's stdin and your program prints on stdout.
the first argument to qmail-start is handed to qmail-local, it's standard
setting is the maildir. there was numerous mentioning of filtering
qmail-queues input, which would let you get at every message in or out.
why don't you try these? the archive should tell you all about this.
clemens
Greetings...
I have a problem creating vrituals dominains of mail... In
the DNS setup:
miprueba.com MX miservidor.empresa.com
servidor.miempresa.com A 209.167.23.26
and in /var/qmail/controls/ add miprueba.com to rpchosts and
virtualdomains [EMAIL PROTECTED]:usuariop
In addition add the file
/home/usuariop/.qmail-default
Also in the environments variables of the user (usuariop) adds:
MAILHOST=miprueba.com
QMAILINJECT=f
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAILNAME=Usuario de Dom Virtual
MAILUSER=usuariop
and what I want it is that this user receives post office sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but he does not do it. Single it does when a user of
the server miservidor.empresa.com him sent a message.
If host becomes of any other it gives back it saying that encontro host,
but that not fail rules that allowed to distribute it him.
Also I want, that when this user (usuariop) envie a message to another
person appears
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] en vez de
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That I need or that I am making bad...
Thanks
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Patricio Escobar P.
"La felicidad no es hacer lo que se quiere, sino querer lo
que se hace y amar lo que se alcanza"
Jose Marti
=================================================================
Red Academica y de Investigacion Nacional - PANNet
Unidad de Investigacion y Desarrollo - UID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================================================
L.S.P.M.
I have some more question about this...
So, the email gets to the internal servers but can the internal servers
be sendmail servers or they must also be qmail servers and will the
users be able to read their messages from the internet???
Thanks again
Guillermo Villasana Cardoza wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for all the help...
> I will try and see how it works :)
>
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > Guillermo Villasana Cardoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I have one Internet IP address .. which I use for my firewall behind the
> > >firewall I have several internal servers... The problem is that each
> > >server will be a different web and mail server...
> > >
> > >eg.
> > >mailserver1.domain.com
> > >mailserver2.domain.com
> > >...
> > >etc
> > >
> > >Each mail server with it's own users...
> > >
> > >Can this be done?
> >
> > Sure. You'll need to:
> >
> > 1) list mailserver1.domain.com, mailserver2.domain.com, etc in
> > control/rcpthosts,
> >
> > 2) add entries like:
> > mailserver1.domain.com:[IP of mailserver1]
> > to control/smtproutes, and
> >
> > 3) set up MX records for mailserver1, mailserver2, ... pointing to
> > the firewall.
> >
> > -Dave
hi,
i haven't found a hint about configuring qmail to refuse accepting
emails from either ip's or domains or simply an email-address.
i would like to refuse accepting emails from i.e. baddomain.com
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] how could this be achieved ?
regards,
jens
Jens Georg wrote:
>
> i would like to refuse accepting emails from i.e. baddomain.com
> or [EMAIL PROTECTED] how could this be achieved ?
Probably the easiest way is to use QMAIL-HOME/control/badmailfrom, see
the qmail-smtpd(8) man page. You could also use tcpd(8), tcpserver(8),
or rblsmtpd(8).
HTH...
--
Greg Hinton (aka ZenBum)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.websalad.net>
"Search for me in the words I failed to find." -- Blaga Dimitrova
> Greg Hinton:
> > i would like to refuse accepting emails from i.e. baddomain.com
> > or [EMAIL PROTECTED] how could this be achieved ?
>
> Probably the easiest way is to use QMAIL-HOME/control/badmailfrom, see
> the qmail-smtpd(8) man page. You could also use tcpd(8), tcpserver(8),
> or rblsmtpd(8).
regarding control/badmailfrom, it depends. on the way one fetches mail.
if using fetchmail(1), the 553-rejection code has to come =before= the
recipients address, that is to say =after= the <mail from:> dialog. i have
a patch for this non-rfc-broken-fetchmail situation.
clemens
> Luca Zancan:
> "tcpserver: fatal error: unable to bind: port already in use", or
usually it's one & too many. at least two servers in the field.
clemens
Hi,
I've recently installed Qmail 1.03 on a BSD box, and
I'm impressed with both the speed and the security
features in Qmail.
But I have a design problem which somebody might be
able to throw light on.
I need to be able to redirect e-mail from particular
addresses to different servers. (NOT forwarding).
e.g. if I host the domain :-
blah.com
I would like to send :-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to server [x.y.z]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to server [p.q.r]
.....
and finally any aliases that do not
match are forwarded onto another server [d.e.f]
I can use the .qmail files to forward e-mail to another address,
but how do you relay a messages onto another server without changing
the envelope.
Regs,
Joolsie
Euroute.net
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 08:12:35PM +0000, Jules Desforges wrote:
> I need to be able to redirect e-mail from particular
> addresses to different servers. (NOT forwarding).
>
> e.g. if I host the domain :-
>
> blah.com
>
> I would like to send :-
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to server [x.y.z]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to server [p.q.r]
>
> .....
>
> and finally any aliases that do not
> match are forwarded onto another server [d.e.f]
>
> I can use the .qmail files to forward e-mail to another address,
> but how do you relay a messages onto another server without changing
> the envelope.
I don't think you'll be able to. You can use smtproutes to override DNS and
send a whole domain's mail somewhere else without changing the envelope, but I
don't know of a way to do it with different addresses in the same domain.
Why do you care if the envelope is changed? What you propose is trivial with
.qmail files if you use forwarding, but the envelope recipient will change.
Chris
Chris Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> > I can use the .qmail files to forward e-mail to another address,
> > but how do you relay a messages onto another server without changing
> > the envelope.
>
> I don't think you'll be able to. You can use smtproutes to override DNS and
> send a whole domain's mail somewhere else without changing the envelope, but I
> don't know of a way to do it with different addresses in the same domain.
>
> Why do you care if the envelope is changed? What you propose is trivial with
> .qmail files if you use forwarding, but the envelope recipient will change.
>
> Chris
OK. Even if the envelope isn't changed I can't find a solution to this
problem using .qmail files. If anyone can shed any light on this, it
would be appreciated.
Joolsie
I downloaded the checkpoppasswd script at
http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/ and would like to implement it into
qmail. I put it into /var/qmail/bin and compiled it - what do I do next?
I am running qmail on a Linux box with a default domain of "default.com" and
a virtual domain of "virtual.com". I have set up the users in
"control/virtualhosts" and they receive mail correctly for the virtual
domain. My question is, when a user that exists on the virtual domain
"virtual.com" and they ssh into my box, is there a way for qmail to tag the
outgoing email for that user to say it came from "virtual.com" and not the
default domain "default.com"? Basically this is a question of outgoing
email originating from the box itself, because I know this is configurable
in a POP3/IMAP client. I don't want to use a .pinerc or .muttrc file if I
don't have to. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott
Hey, Folks--
This is the first time I've had to unsubscribe an ezmlm list (and
particularly [EMAIL PROTECTED]), and I wanted to deliver my opinion on
the unsubscribe process, as a sort of counterpoint to all the "How do I get
off this list?" mails.
It was almost trivially simple. I checked a random message to find the
"Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm" header, sent
a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and got back a mail mentioning
various addresses. Sent another blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], got back a confirmation message. To
confirm that I wanted the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] removed from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I simply replied to that message, and didn't even
bother to blank out the Subject: line or body. Presto! I just got a removal
message.
I'm sure many people here already think it's easy enough to subscribe. But
since those who don't have trouble unsubbing rarely write in with their
experiences or to ask for help, I thought I'd supply at least one
data-point on that side, just for balance.
I'm leaving my job at Online Partners, so if you need to reply, please send
it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kai MacTane
System Administrator
Online Partners.com, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
finger trouble /n./
Mistyping, typos, or generalized keyboard incompetence (this is
surprisingly common among hackers, given the amount of time they
spend at keyboards). "I keep putting colons at the end of statements
instead of semicolons", "Finger trouble again, eh?".
Hello all,
I am running qmail1.03 on SunOS5.7 single processor, single disk
machine. This is an incoming qmail box that processes around 75,000
messages a day. It does no local delivery, it simply relays all mail to a
certain host with a line like the following in smtproutes:
:host.domain
What has started to happen today is that receiving mail is slow, between
the '.' and 'ok' from qmail (got that from telnet to port 25). Even slower
is its sending, which is about a message every 5 or 10 seconds. The other
noticable problem is that there are thousands of qmail-queue processes
running concurrently in the process table. Most of the processes are
fairly recent (started within the last couple of minutes), but some are
several hours old. Here is a sample of ps -ef:
qmailq 20471 1 0 15:51:29 ? 0:00 bin/qmail-queue
qmailq 19623 1 0 15:51:10 ? 0:00 bin/qmail-queue
qmailq 20899 1 0 15:51:40 ? 0:00 bin/qmail-queue
qmailq 21515 1 0 15:51:54 ? 0:00 bin/qmail-queue
qmailq 17269 1 0 15:50:17 ? 0:00 bin/qmail-queue
qmailq 19408 19385 0 15:51:06 ? 0:00 bin/qmail-queue
There a thousands of these processes, and as you can see, some of them
have init as a parent, and some have an actual qmail-smtpd.
The queue is growing on this incoming mail server because it is sending
mail so infrequently/slowly.
Can somebody please give me some advice on where to start.
Oh, iostat looks like this:
extended device statistics
r/s w/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 c0t0d0s0
0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 311.2 0 5 c0t0d0s1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 c0t0d0s2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 c0t0d0s3
1.3 209.8 12.5 1281.9 0.0 6.3 0.0 29.6 0 99 c0t0d0s4
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 c0t0d0s6
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 628.6 0 5 c0t0d0s7
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
cobalt:vold(pid207)
s4 is mounted as /var/qmail. Obviously pretty busy 99%! I think this 99%
busy is a result of these qmail-queue porcess, however I am hesitant to
believe that this problem is as simple as the disk is maxing out and thus
the hanging qmail-queue porcesses. Especially because this box has been
able to handle the load thus far, and I do not detect any new extremely
large influx of mail.
I would be tremendously grateful for any advice tackling this problem.
Brandon
> bjv:
> What has started to happen today is that receiving mail is slow, between
> the '.' and 'ok' from qmail (got that from telnet to port 25). Even slower
> is its sending, which is about a message every 5 or 10 seconds. The other
> noticable problem is that there are thousands of qmail-queue processes
> running concurrently in the process table. Most of the processes are
did you concurrency-limit outgoing/incoming connections via
control/concurrency{remote,local} and tcpserver -c and -b or the
appropriate inetd.conf settings?
did you check:
z0:57:55:600:/queue/lock/:sendmutex:
z1024:56:55:644:/queue/lock/:tcpto:
p:57:55:622:/queue/lock/:trigger:
which is, ls-itarary speaking, or ls-wise, or simply wise:
(ls -l /var/qmail/queue/lock/)
total 1
-rw------- 1 qmails qmail 0 May 13 13:59 sendmutex
-rw-r--r-- 1 qmailr qmail 1024 Jun 7 04:16 tcpto
prw--w--w- 1 qmails qmail 0 Jun 7 08:53 trigger
qmail depends on these.
clemens
hello all....
forgive the newbie question, but Ive come to a point where Im stuck, and
need some help. Ive read the FAQ, the help pages, but I cant seem to find a
definitive answer. Im having the same problem that Eric Fletcher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about on the 12th of may (according to
the mailing list archives). Ive searched all over my system for a
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd/run (or similiar) file to modify, to no
avail. Can someone tell me what to do about a "tcpserver: fatal: unable to
figure out port number for pop-3" error on a redhat 6.2 system?
-Photocon
Conrad Hunziker III
**********
"Cinematography: the art of expressing one's soul 24 times a second."
-Conrad Hunziker III
"This is the first time in the history of our planet when any species, by
its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself. ... Science
grants immense powers. In a flash they create world-altering contrivances.
Some planetary civilizations see their way through, place limits on what
may and what must not be done, and safely pass through the time of perils.
Others, not so lucky or prudent, perish."
-Carl Sagen - "Pale Blue Dot"
c1996 Photocon Studios
*********
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 04:24:54PM -0700, Photocon wrote:
> avail. Can someone tell me what to do about a "tcpserver: fatal: unable to
> figure out port number for pop-3" error on a redhat 6.2 system?
Yep. It tries to figure out what port number 'pop-3' is by looking it up
in /etc/services. I would bet that in your /etc/services file, it's
actually referred to as 'pop3'. If that is the case, change your command
line to read 'pop3' and it should work fine.
Ben
--
The spectre of a polity controlled by the fads and whims of voters who
actually believe that there are significant differences between Bud Lite
and Miller Lite, and who think that professional wrestling is for real, is
naturally alarming to people who don't.
-- Neal Stephenson
> Photocon:
> avail. Can someone tell me what to do about a "tcpserver: fatal: unable to
> figure out port number for pop-3" error on a redhat 6.2 system?
add
pop3 110/tcp #Post Office Protocol - Version 3
pop3 110/udp #Post Office Protocol - Version 3
pop-3 110/tcp #Post Office Protocol - Version 3 for qmail :)
pop-3 110/udp #Post Office Protocol - Version 3 for qmail :)
to /etc/services, if they are not there.
clemens
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7 Jun 00, at 8:53, clemensF wrote:
> add
>
> pop3 110/udp #Post Office Protocol - Version 3
> pop-3 110/udp #Post Office Protocol - Version 3 for qmail :)
Ouch! Since when can pop3 run over udp? 110/tcp lines are just
enough.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOT3kN1MwP8g7qbw/EQI2/wCfadnyU8i2sldvMx7HA5yrna58MVwAn0qr
PK4Tu0nD4A9DIqmG2+OijrEz
=Xy+3
-----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'm moving my lists to a new server, and I figure this is as good a time
as any to look for something better than Majordomo 1.94. Here's what I
want:
-- automatic VERP bounce processing
-- plain and digest lists
-- multiple lists in multiple virtual domains
-- plays nicely with qmail
-- does somethinge reasonable with MIME, e.g., strip multipart/alternative
down to plain text
-- web interface, at least enough so that the subscription confirmation
can have a "click to confirm"
Majordomo gives me all but the last two (I hacked in the VERP stuff
myself)
Possible candidates I've looked at:
* Majordomo 2: looks swell but is in perpetual alpha, dunno about VERP
* Sympa: needs NLS library that I don't have on BSDI, unknown VERP
support, needs work to do virtual domains
* ezmlm: no digests, no web, no MIME
* SmartList: no digests, no web, no MIME
* GNU Mailman: looks superswell, but I'd rather not have to learn python
Any suggestions?
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
Hi John,
ezmlm can have digest with idx patch.
(i dunno about web/mime still)
Best regards,
Murat Guven Mural
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "John R Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "qmail list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 6:13 AM
Subject: Suggestion for mailing list manager?
> I'm moving my lists to a new server, and I figure this is as good a time
> as any to look for something better than Majordomo 1.94. Here's what I
> want:
>
> -- automatic VERP bounce processing
> -- plain and digest lists
> -- multiple lists in multiple virtual domains
> -- plays nicely with qmail
> -- does somethinge reasonable with MIME, e.g., strip multipart/alternative
> down to plain text
> -- web interface, at least enough so that the subscription confirmation
> can have a "click to confirm"
>
> Majordomo gives me all but the last two (I hacked in the VERP stuff
> myself)
>
> Possible candidates I've looked at:
>
> * Majordomo 2: looks swell but is in perpetual alpha, dunno about VERP
>
> * Sympa: needs NLS library that I don't have on BSDI, unknown VERP
> support, needs work to do virtual domains
>
> * ezmlm: no digests, no web, no MIME
>
> * SmartList: no digests, no web, no MIME
>
> * GNU Mailman: looks superswell, but I'd rather not have to learn python
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer
Commissioner
> Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36
A3 47
>
>
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:13:51PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> * Majordomo 2: looks swell but is in perpetual alpha, dunno about VERP
I've never liked majordomo... But that's just personal opinion.
> * ezmlm: no digests, no web, no MIME
What you want is ezmlm-idx, a fully supported patch for ezmlm that does
all that you want except the web stuff. And for that there is ezweb. I
*think* that's what it is called... Anyway. Very spiffy. Very fast.
All sorts of crunch, peanutty goodness.
All the info is right there on the ezmlm site: www.ezmlm.org
> * GNU Mailman: looks superswell, but I'd rather not have to learn python
WHAT'S WRONG WITH LEARNING PYTHON????
Ben
--
The spectre of a polity controlled by the fads and whims of voters who
actually believe that there are significant differences between Bud Lite
and Miller Lite, and who think that professional wrestling is for real, is
naturally alarming to people who don't.
-- Neal Stephenson
[ added ezmlm list to cc: ]
also sprach johnl:
> I'm moving my lists to a new server, and I figure this is as good a time
> as any to look for something better than Majordomo 1.94. Here's what I
> want:
[snip]
> -- web interface, at least enough so that the subscription confirmation
> can have a "click to confirm"
ezmlm-idx doesn't support this...yet. Fred Lindberg, the maintainer of the
-idx patch has expressed a desire to set it up so that a potential
subscriber can confirm via a web page, rather than a confirmation e-mail.
The problem with ezmlm is that it tends to generate rather lengthy cookies
that cause some point-and-drool interfaces (notably people using web-based
e-mail) to break the URL/reply-to address for confirmations. Other than
that, it should be relatively simple to hack in.
At the very least, there could be a confirmation page (with a short URL)
where people could enter an e-mail address and cut-and-paste the cookie into
a form...but that's at least one extra step...
Any update, Fred?
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
"A word to the wise: a credentials dicksize war is usually a bad idea
on the net."
(David Parsons in c.o.l.development.system, about coding in C.)
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:13:51PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
>> * Majordomo 2: looks swell but is in perpetual alpha, dunno about VERP
> I've never liked majordomo... But that's just personal opinion.
Majordomo 2 is a completely different program than Majordomo 1; it's
arguable whether it should even have the same name.
>> * ezmlm: no digests, no web, no MIME
> What you want is ezmlm-idx, a fully supported patch for ezmlm that does
> all that you want except the web stuff. And for that there is ezweb. I
> *think* that's what it is called... Anyway. Very spiffy. Very fast.
> All sorts of crunch, peanutty goodness.
Agreed there, actually. If you're already running qmail, I think
ezmlm-idx is best of breed.
>> * GNU Mailman: looks superswell, but I'd rather not have to learn
>> python
> WHAT'S WRONG WITH LEARNING PYTHON????
It's annoying? :)
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[ Copy : comp.mail.mail & alt.comp.mail.qmail ]
[ Newsgroups followup-to alt.comp.mail.qmail ]
[ We have been discussing comp.mail.qmail RFD ]
[ as posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a week ago ]
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.
I don't accept the "there's a comp.mail.sendmail so
yeh, there should be a comp.mail.qmail" argument, as I
think it is plainly flawed, and will be shot to death
on news.groups.
This 'thread' started in 1998, when I asked some simple
advocacy questions viz. who is using qmail ? ISPs etc.
I note that the www.qmail.org webmaster, later amended
some of the replies, and put them on the web page. Good. This
kind of information gives people useful insight.
I originally suggested firmly I would post the RFD formally
this week, or thereabouts. I'll re-phrase that as, I'll
"try again here in 15 months' time, to see if there is interest".
That's being prudent about things and qmail is a prudent MTA.
Meantime, some of you may be interested in the alt.*
newsgroup alt.comp.mail.qmail (newgrouped 27 Feb 2000).
If your ISP does not carry this group, and you'd like
access to it, one usually writes to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
or your usual support contact asking "please add ..."
I would also suggest a <a href="news:... link on the website.
Thank you to those who commented publically and privately,
and corrected my typos. Feel free to ignore any more above !
Darren
- --
this is my .sig, show me yours
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOT2zPTz2ljeBLFSxAQH+xQQApOLTGGXXU3N3EbDyotRuj4usKvihzSZ6
ZJFcAZQc+odVG4catq5kvARZXkS7eHhjQB6qKrEIzV67v2fmndxH3T1EAMp8uCHx
F/hYXJSdYTXCUVVLdkrVn2neecWRptWGvcmw7ZyRmuUZQkFGcqrpoDyqkPZ1eZIn
P/1plB8wGvA=
=IEuM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> 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.
> I don't accept the "there's a comp.mail.sendmail so
> yeh, there should be a comp.mail.qmail" argument, as I
> think it is plainly flawed, and will be shot to death
> on news.groups.
>
> This 'thread' started in 1998, when I asked some simple
> advocacy questions viz. who is using qmail ? ISPs etc.
> I note that the www.qmail.org webmaster, later amended
> some of the replies, and put them on the web page. Good. This
> kind of information gives people useful insight.
>
> I originally suggested firmly I would post the RFD formally
> this week, or thereabouts. I'll re-phrase that as, I'll
> "try again here in 15 months' time, to see if there is interest".
> That's being prudent about things and qmail is a prudent MTA.
>
> Meantime, some of you may be interested in the alt.*
> newsgroup alt.comp.mail.qmail (newgrouped 27 Feb 2000).
> If your ISP does not carry this group, and you'd like
> access to it, one usually writes to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> or your usual support contact asking "please add ..."
>
> I would also suggest a <a href="news:... link on the website.
>
> Thank you to those who commented publically and privately,
> and corrected my typos. Feel free to ignore any more above !
>
> Darren
>
> - --
> this is my .sig, show me yours
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3i
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQCVAwUBOT2zPTz2ljeBLFSxAQH+xQQApOLTGGXXU3N3EbDyotRuj4usKvihzSZ6
> ZJFcAZQc+odVG4catq5kvARZXkS7eHhjQB6qKrEIzV67v2fmndxH3T1EAMp8uCHx
> F/hYXJSdYTXCUVVLdkrVn2neecWRptWGvcmw7ZyRmuUZQkFGcqrpoDyqkPZ1eZIn
> P/1plB8wGvA=
> =IEuM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
I use qmail with serialmail and fetchmail. I conect
to my ISP with dial up.
All messages for out are stored in
"/var/qmail/alias/pppdir/" and that is OK.
All mesages witch I receive (with
fetchmail) are in "/var/qmail/qlias/pppdir/" too.
And that is
problem. Why this mesages not in maildir of my users??? How
qmail can
dislocate this messages in maildir of my users????
I use
vpopmail.
|
Hi,
I am running redhat linux6.1, qmail. My server conf are as follows:
Intel PIII 550 MHz, 1 GB RAM, 48GB SCSI HDD
We are using a web based software developed by our company for proving
web based email service. Now there are about 24000 users on our server.
It is giving problems:
1: server gets hanged up.
2: CPU utilization id very high
3: RAM is being used too much.
I need a help to do memory management as well as to configure qmail
for very heavy loads.
Thank you
kapil
--
Kapil Sharma
DSF Internet Services Pvt. Ltd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dsfinternet.com
Hello.
I've configured in my machine a few domains:
example.com
test.com
What can I do if I want to have 2 different e-mail address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have the user "me", but those two different e-mail addresses goes to the
same user, is there a way to make them go to different users?
As the alias files don't make any difference (as far as I know) for users
between domains...
Thanks.
hi,
At 10:35 07.06.00 +0200, Andrés wrote:
>I've configured in my machine a few domains:
>
>example.com
>test.com
>
>What can I do if I want to have 2 different e-mail address:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I have the user "me", but those two different e-mail addresses goes to the
>same user, is there a way to make them go to different users?
you need virtual domains -> you need vpopmail (www.inter7.com) ;-)
--
MfG
Michael Hufnagl
Netzwerktechnik
***************
* ecore Kommunikations AG
* http://www.ecore.net
*************************************
