Re: smtproutes and virtualdomains

[Charles Cazabon]

Andy Abshagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are in the process of moving one our clients mail from our server to
> their own exchange server.  What I need to know though is which takes
> precedence.  The virtualdomains control file or the smtproutes control file.

virtualdomains will take precedence; if it's in there, qmail knows it
has to deliver messages locally rather than remotely.  If you remove
their domain from virtualdomains and put an smtproutes entry for them
in, all mail for them which gets queued in the future will be forwarded
to them -- messages which are currently queued and awaiting local
delivery will not be affected, I think.

Note that you'll still need to have their domain in rcpthosts if you
want qmail-smtpd to accept mail destined for that domain.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
---

Re: smtproutes and mail still in queue

[Greg White]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:36:41AM +, Subba Rao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My mail client is Mutt. Few days ago I have subscribed to their mailing list.
> Their list server is at gbnet.net. The list server attempts to authenticate
> my server by calling to identd. I have opened up ipchains to access identd for
> the gbnet.net domain and the mail is still the mail queue.
> 
> Since my initial subscription (sometime ago) to Mutt list, I have added the
> gbnet.net in the /var/qmail/control/smtproutes file. The relaying server is my
> ISP's mail server. In this case, this mail should have left my system long time
> ago but it still remains in the mail queue. Why is it trying to authenticate my
> system via identd when the smtproutes has been defined for this domain?

qmail does not ignore control files. Verify that
/var/qmail/control/smtproutes contains the correct information (and is
named correctly), restart qmail, send qmail-send an ALRM signal to retry
all queued mail, and watch the mail fly off to your ISP. 
> 
> Thank you in advance for any help.

NP. :)

-- 
Greg White

RE: smtproutes and mail still in queue

[GARGIULO Eduardo INGDESI]

> My mail client is Mutt. Few days ago I have subscribed to 
> their mailing list.
> Their list server is at gbnet.net. The list server attempts 
> to authenticate
> my server by calling to identd. I have opened up ipchains to 
> access identd for
> the gbnet.net domain and the mail is still the mail queue.
> 
> Since my initial subscription (sometime ago) to Mutt list, I 
> have added the
> gbnet.net in the /var/qmail/control/smtproutes file. The 
> relaying server is my
> ISP's mail server. In this case, this mail should have left 
> my system long time
> ago but it still remains in the mail queue. Why is it trying 
> to authenticate my
> system via identd when the smtproutes has been defined for 
> this domain?
> 
> Thank you in advance for any help.
> -- 
> 

Look at the recipients of mutt list messages. You subscribe to
gbnet.net but the message recipients are @mutt.org
You can post to @mutt.org too

hope this help

~edu

Re: smtproutes and mail still in queue

[Subba Rao]

On  0, Alex Pennace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:36:19AM +, Subba Rao wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > My mail client is Mutt. Few days ago I have subscribed to their mailing list.
> > Their list server is at gbnet.net. The list server attempts to authenticate
> > my server by calling to identd. I have opened up ipchains to access identd for
> > the gbnet.net domain and the mail is still the mail queue.
> > 
> > Since my initial subscription (sometime ago) to Mutt list, I have added the
> > gbnet.net in the /var/qmail/control/smtproutes file. The relaying server is my
> > ISP's mail server. In this case, this mail should have left my system long time
> > ago but it still remains in the mail queue. Why is it trying to authenticate my
> > system via identd when the smtproutes has been defined for this domain?
> 
> What do the logs say? Has qmail-send tried any deliveries to gbnet.net
> since you altered smtproutes?
> 

---
Jun 29 22:15:54 myhost qmail: 993852954.669066 starting delivery 65: msg 197156 to 
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun 29 22:15:54 myhost qmail: 993852954.670044 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Jun 29 22:15:55 myhost qmail: 993852955.514653 delivery 65: deferral: 
Connected_to_194.70.126.10_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
Jun 29 22:15:55 myhost qmail: 993852955.515821 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Jun 29 22:22:35 myhost qmail: 993853355.538097 starting delivery 66: msg 197156 to 
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun 29 22:22:35 myhost qmail: 993853355.538447 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Jun 29 22:22:36 myhost qmail: 993853356.268755 delivery 66: deferral: 
Connected_to_194.70.126.10_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
Jun 29 22:22:36 myhost qmail: 993853356.269908 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
---

The following is from this morning.

---
Jul  6 06:22:35 myhost qmail: 994400555.804312 starting delivery 59: msg 197156 to 
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul  6 06:22:35 myhost qmail: 994400555.804480 status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
Jul  6 06:22:45 myhost qmail: 994400565.356285 delivery 59: deferral: 
Connected_to_194.70.126.10_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
Jul  6 06:22:45 myhost qmail: 994400565.356445 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
---

The mail is still in the queue. Here is the output of mailq,

29 Jun 2001 22:15:54 GMT  #197156  621  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
remote  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The smtproutes has the following entry:

gbnet.net:mail.home.com

I have tried the following too: 

.gbnet.net:mail.home.com

-- 

Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/subba9/

GPG public key ID 27FC9217
Key fingerprint = 2B4C 498E 1860 5A2B 6570  5852 7527 882A 27FC 9217

Re: smtproutes and mail still in queue

[Alex Pennace]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 06:36:19AM +, Subba Rao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My mail client is Mutt. Few days ago I have subscribed to their mailing list.
> Their list server is at gbnet.net. The list server attempts to authenticate
> my server by calling to identd. I have opened up ipchains to access identd for
> the gbnet.net domain and the mail is still the mail queue.
> 
> Since my initial subscription (sometime ago) to Mutt list, I have added the
> gbnet.net in the /var/qmail/control/smtproutes file. The relaying server is my
> ISP's mail server. In this case, this mail should have left my system long time
> ago but it still remains in the mail queue. Why is it trying to authenticate my
> system via identd when the smtproutes has been defined for this domain?

What do the logs say? Has qmail-send tried any deliveries to gbnet.net
since you altered smtproutes?

smtproutes and mail still in queue

[Subba Rao]

Hi,

My mail client is Mutt. Few days ago I have subscribed to their mailing list.
Their list server is at gbnet.net. The list server attempts to authenticate
my server by calling to identd. I have opened up ipchains to access identd for
the gbnet.net domain and the mail is still the mail queue.

Since my initial subscription (sometime ago) to Mutt list, I have added the
gbnet.net in the /var/qmail/control/smtproutes file. The relaying server is my
ISP's mail server. In this case, this mail should have left my system long time
ago but it still remains in the mail queue. Why is it trying to authenticate my
system via identd when the smtproutes has been defined for this domain?

Thank you in advance for any help.
-- 

Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/subba9/

GPG public key ID 27FC9217
Key fingerprint = 2B4C 498E 1860 5A2B 6570  5852 7527 882A 27FC 9217

Re: smtproutes

[Peter van Dijk]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:31:49AM -0500, Steve Woolley wrote:
> I am planning to use smtproutes to route email from a qmail server
> to an internal Microsoft Exchange 5.5 server. 
> If the Exchange server goes down for a period of time, will the
> qmail server cache (for lack of a better word) the routed emails
> locally until the Exchange server comes back up? or will the
> qmail server bounce the email back (after a given amount of time)?

It will keep retrying for upto a week (with growing intervals). After
that week, it will bounce the mail.

Read up on queuelifetime in man qmail-send to see how to increase that
period even more.

Greetz, Peter.

smtproutes

[Steve Woolley]

I am planning to use smtproutes to route email from a qmail server
to an internal Microsoft Exchange 5.5 server. 
If the Exchange server goes down for a period of time, will the
qmail server cache (for lack of a better word) the routed emails
locally until the Exchange server comes back up? or will the
qmail server bounce the email back (after a given amount of time)?

Steve Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: fifo smtproutes Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings

[Mark Delany]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 03:46:55PM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
> 
> what if /var/qmail/control/smtproutes was replaced with a fifo that
> gave a different relay every time it was read?
> 
> 
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl
> while(++$count){
> unlink '/var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
>     system 'mkfifo /var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
> $c=$count % 5;# or however many there are
> open R,">/var/qmail/control/smtproutes"; #block until it is read
> print R ":bsdrelay$c.macrosys.com\n";
> };
> __END__
> 
> 
> Will the above cause unexpected freezes?

Perhaps not, but unexpected results:

1. Nothing stops a pipe being opened by multiple readers at once. What
will the second and subsequent reader get? Almost certainly eof with
no data.

2. You have a timing window between the mkfifo and the unlink where a
qmail-remote instance will find no smtproutes file.

Doesn't plan9 have something that does this properly, where you open a
file system object and each open gets a matching process on the other
side?


Regards.

fifo smtproutes Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings

[David L. Nicol]

what if /var/qmail/control/smtproutes was replaced with a fifo that
gave a different relay every time it was read?


#!/usr/local/bin/perl
while(++$count){
unlink '/var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
system 'mkfifo /var/qmail/control/smtproutes';
$c=$count % 5;  # or however many there are
open R,">/var/qmail/control/smtproutes"; #block until it is read
print R ":bsdrelay$c.macrosys.com\n";
};
__END__


Will the above cause unexpected freezes?


A less intensive solution might be to overwrite the tenth
character in the static file every few seconds, to load up that
relay.



"Collin B. McClendon" wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> Sounds good.
> Thanks,
> Collin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David L. Nicol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:58 AM
> To: Collin B. McClendon
> Subject: Re: Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
> 
> several slave BSD boxes with high concurrencies and a hacked qmail-remote
> that round-robins through them.


-- 
   David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"people with fish eyes and brown socks"

Re: mailroutes vs smtproutes (was: FIX!)

[melo]

Fine by me... as long as installing thew patch does not affect current config :)

Best regards :)

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:24:14PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:21:28PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > [smtproutes vs mailroutes]
> > if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes 
> > against stock qmail.
> > if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README. 
> > There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over 
> > smtproutes. I personally would ignore the whole smtproutes file in this case, 
> > but giving mailroutes precedence makes sense.
> 
> Yes. This I like. I'll just ignore smtproutes if mailroutes exists! And
> the README (or whatever) will say "cp smtproutes mailroutes" and not "mv"
> - that guarantees that things will work as they used to if the user
> decides to go back to not using my patch.
> 
> The code for reading the files will of course be the same, I'll even use
> the same filehandle, just pointing to different files depending on the
> existence of control/mailroutes. But I won't tell people you can have
> :qmtp in smtproutes as that will break things when you go back to not
> using QMTP. Oops, I told...
> 
> Thanks, Henning!
> 
> -Johan
> -- 
> Johan Almqvist
> http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/



-- 
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP - Infraes. Portal <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Saldanha, 1 - 7º / 1050-094 Lisboa
tel:  +351 21 0104340  - Fax: +351 21 0104301

mailroutes vs smtproutes (was: FIX!)

[Johan Almqvist]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:21:28PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> [smtproutes vs mailroutes]
> if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes 
> against stock qmail.
> if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README. 
> There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over 
> smtproutes. I personally would ignore the whole smtproutes file in this case, 
> but giving mailroutes precedence makes sense.

Yes. This I like. I'll just ignore smtproutes if mailroutes exists! And
the README (or whatever) will say "cp smtproutes mailroutes" and not "mv"
- that guarantees that things will work as they used to if the user
decides to go back to not using my patch.

The code for reading the files will of course be the same, I'll even use
the same filehandle, just pointing to different files depending on the
existence of control/mailroutes. But I won't tell people you can have
:qmtp in smtproutes as that will break things when you go back to not
using QMTP. Oops, I told...

Thanks, Henning!

-Johan
-- 
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/

 PGP signature

Re: smtproutes

[Henning Brauer]

Am Donnerstag,  4. Januar 2001 00:47 schrieb Wolfgang Zeikat:
> In the previous episode (03.01.2001), Steve Hammond
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >I have set
> >smtproutes
> >to smtp:exchange.
>
> the syntax to send all mail (except for locals) to one host is:
> :that.one.host

Right, but this was not his intention.

> wolfgang

-- 

Henning Brauer |  BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS|  Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de|  Germany

Re: smtproutes

[Wolfgang Zeikat]

In the previous episode (03.01.2001), Steve Hammond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I have set
>smtproutes
>to smtp:exchange.

the syntax to send all mail (except for locals) to one host is:

:that.one.host

wolfgang

Re: smtproutes

[Henning Brauer]

Am Mittwoch,  3. Januar 2001 21:48 schrieben Sie:
> Hi,
>
> I have a redhat 7  \ qmail installation. I want to use this as a smtp
> frontend to send all messages to our exchange server. I have set smtproutes
> to smtp:exchange. When I send a message it gets delivered locally 

1) Do NOT add the affected domain to locals, only to rcpthosts
2) your smtproutes-syntax is nonsens, use domain:host


-- 

Henning Brauer |  BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS|  Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de|  Germany

RE: smtproutes

[Greg Owen]

> I have a redhat 7  \ qmail installation. I want to use this
> as a smtp frontend to send all messages to our exchange
> server. I have set smtproutes to smtp:exchange. When I send
> a message it gets delivered locally to me

Make sure that the domain you are sending mail to is not listed in
locals or virtualdomains, only rcpthosts and smtproutes.

-- 
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
 

smtproutes

[Steve Hammond]

Hi,

I have a redhat 7  \ qmail installation. I want to use this as a smtp
frontend to send all messages to our exchange server. I have set smtproutes
to smtp:exchange. When I send a message it gets delivered locally to me
using the procmail rc and when trying to use binmail rc nothing seems to
happen (mail message gets logged in maillog - logged with procmail not
logged with binmail ). Neither sends it to the exchange server. Everything
seems to be working and I can telnet to smtp using either rc and compose a
message and get a mail id when sent - it's just when sending it doesn't get
forwarded. Any help 

Thanks,
Stephen Hammond

When i add my domain in the smtproutes it stops , otherwise it works

[RAGHVENDRA N SHUKLA]

Hello ,
  We are able to relay the messages when the smtproutes are there ,
but when i add my domain to the
  smtproutes then it does not relays. eg my domains are prl.res.in
and prl.ernet.in
 when i add the :prlfs.prl.ernet.in in the smtproutes , it works for
all the mails which are
allowed Ok thats fine , but when i add the
prl.ernet.in:prlfs.prl.ernet.in then it stops
   relaying  WHY ? . there are no spaces from the starting.

Re: smtproutes

[Peter Samuel]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Wolfgang Zeikat wrote:

> is it possible to have more than one smtproute for the same destination
> for the case that the first relay cannot be reached? if so, how?

No. smtproutes is read in a "last best match wins" fashion. So if you
have the entries:

domain1.com:hosta.somewhere
domain1.com:otherhost.elsewhere

The first line will NEVER be used.

If you really want the fallback behaviour, then use MX records -
that's what they're for. Of course if you don't have control over the
DNS entries, then you can't control the MX records.

You could use a load balancing dns server such as Dan's pickdns from
his djbdns package.

-- 
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"

smtproutes

[Wolfgang Zeikat]

is it possible to have more than one smtproute for the same destination
for the case that the first relay cannot be reached? if so, how?

wolfgang

Re: smtproutes - smtp server needs authenication

[Jenny Holmberg]

"CHIU, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Originally I use smtproutes to route all outgoing messages to my isp smtp
> server.  However, now, they set up rules to control email relaying.  They
> implement smtp after pop.  I need to login first before I can send out mail.
> Can anybody share with me your experiences?

If they do that even when you're coming from their own network, my
first suggestion would be to change to a better ISP.

My second suggestion is to write a perl script which logs in to their
POP server every time you connect, or run the script via cron every
fifteen minutes or so. There are good examples in the documentation
for the Net::POP3 module. Or you could use fetchmail for the same
purpose. 

-- 
"I live in the heart of the machine. We are one." 

smtproutes - smtp server needs authenication

[CHIU, Jonathan]

Hi,

Originally I use smtproutes to route all outgoing messages to my isp smtp
server.  However, now, they set up rules to control email relaying.  They
implement smtp after pop.  I need to login first before I can send out mail.
Can anybody share with me your experiences?

Thanks.

Regards,
Jonathan

Re: smtproutes?

[Peter Green]

* Ed Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001204 10:47]:
> Where is the format for entries in smtproutes defined?

man qmail-remote

/pg
-- 
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
If you lived in the Dark Ages and you were a catapult operator, I bet the most 
common question people would ask is: Can't you make it shoot farther? 'No, I'm 
sorry. That's as far as it shoots.'
 (Jack Handey)

smtproutes?

[Ed Weinberg]

Where is the format for entries in smtproutes defined?
While I have a default route set I want to add routes for certain
domains to test them.


Ed Weinberg, Q5 Comm, LLC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel 914-713-7222
fax 914-713-7227 
Connecting you to the internet...

urgent smtproutes not working

[reach_prashant]

   hello friends 

   my qmail-1  is under  /var/qmail-1/   , before compiling  my conf-qmail
= /var/qmail-1,
  alias
  queue 
  control 
   all r under   /var/qmail-1/ 


   

   my qmail2 is under /var/qmail-2/  , before compiling  my conf-qmail =
/var/qmail-2/,
  alias
  queue 
  control 
   all r under   /var/qmail-2/ 


 my /var/qmail-1/bin/qmail-smtpruns on port 25  
my /var/qmail-2/bin/qmail-smtpd   runs  on port 26 

 in /var/qmail-1/control/smtproutesis 
hotmail.com:[ip of same mechine]:26


then i restarted  qmail along with qmail-smtpd  

   but , its not working for me  , is there any one who had done this
? if some one running qmail like this then please , tell me how can i
smtproutes files. 
 

  Thanks 7 regards , 
 Prashant Desai  



 

  
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Oct 2000 20:47:04 +1100
Subject: Re: urgnt help : smtp routes not working


>>>>> "reach" == reach prashant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

reach>   hello friends i am trying to run 2 instances of qmail on
reach> same mechine one

Oh no! Its you again!

reach> /var/qmail (qmail-smtpd listning on port 25),

reach> now for this qmail i have created
reach> /var/qmail/control/smtproutes

reach> hotmail.com:host.domain.com:26 yahoo.com:host.domain.com:26

reach> and the other
reach> /var/qmail2/ ( qmail-smtpd listning on port 26)
reach>but /var/qmail is not atall sending any mails to
reach> /var/qmail2's smtpd which is running and listning on port
reach> 25

Don't you mean /var/qmail2's smtpd which should be listening to port
26?

reach>   i have restarted both the qmail instances , but its still
reach> not working ,

I'm no expert, but I'd say you need to change a few things before you
compile qmail to make it work in a directory other than /var/qmail. Oh
and also logs (NOT complete ones this time, just of what happens), the
relevant config files in control (both control dirs) would be
good...no guarantees I can help you (I'm kind of busy) but someone can
if you give some more info.
-- 
"I wonder what Jesus would do if HE had to reload Windows 95 for the
eighth time today ?"

- Mirabour Gilbride

Re: multiple default routes in smtproutes

[Russell Nelson]

O'Yang Kai writes:
 > I'm trying to increase the robustness of our qmail environment by setting up
 > multiple default routes in control/smtproutes such as:
 > ... 
 > :hub1.company.com
 > :hub2.company.com
 > 
 > The problem is that the emails will only route to hub1 and never to hub2.
 > Before I try to implement round robin DNS or lbnamed, is there any way to
 > set up in qmail so that it will automatically fall over to hub2 if hub1
 > fails, or do a random choice between hub1/2?

Well yeah; using MX records.  If you need private MX records, you
should be using split DNS.  smtproutes is really only for overriding
somebody *else*'s DNS.

-- 
-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.

Re: multiple default routes in smtproutes

[Charles Cazabon]

O'Yang Kai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to increase the robustness of our qmail environment by setting up
> multiple default routes in control/smtproutes such as:
> ... 
> :hub1.company.com
> :hub2.company.com
> 
> The problem is that the emails will only route to hub1 and never to hub2.
> Before I try to implement round robin DNS or lbnamed, is there any way to
> set up in qmail so that it will automatically fall over to hub2 if hub1
> fails, or do a random choice between hub1/2?

smtproutes isn't really there for this; it's to hardcode the equivalent of
an MX when you want to override that (for an internal domain that doesn't
have one, etc).  Is there something wrong with letting qmail look up
MX records for mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and using the MX records?  It will
then fall back to lower-priority MX hosts when the higher priority MX host
is unavailable, giving you your desired robustness.

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.
---

multiple default routes in smtproutes

[O'Yang Kai]

Hi,

I'm trying to increase the robustness of our qmail environment by setting up
multiple default routes in control/smtproutes such as:
... 
:hub1.company.com
:hub2.company.com

The problem is that the emails will only route to hub1 and never to hub2.
Before I try to implement round robin DNS or lbnamed, is there any way to
set up in qmail so that it will automatically fall over to hub2 if hub1
fails, or do a random choice between hub1/2?

Thanks,
Kai

CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended 
only for the use of the addressee named above.  If you are not the intended recipient 
of this message you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or reproduction of 
this message is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error please notify 
Siemens Ltd., ABN 98004347880, or Siemens (NZ) Limited immediately.

Re: smtproutes examples ?

[Ricardo Cerqueira]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:05:43AM +0200, mailing wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>Could someone possibly send a few control/smtproutes examples, I haven't been 
>able to find much info in the docs.
> 

man 8 qmail-remote

>   Is it possible to forward all mail for adomain.com to mailserver.domain.com using 
>this ?
>

Yes, it is.
 
RC

-- 
+---
| Ricardo Cerqueira  
| PGP Key fingerprint  -  B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E  87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42 
| Novis  -  Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica 
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 21 010 - Fax: +351 21 011

 PGP signature

smtproutes examples ?

[mailing]

Hello,
 
   Could someone possibly send a few 
control/smtproutes examples, I haven't been able to find much info in the 
docs.
 
  Is it possible to forward all mail for 
adomain.com to mailserver.domain.com using this ?
 
 
  Thanks in advance
 
 
Regards
 
 
   Ken

RE: smtproutes syntax

[Charles Warwick]

try

:[123.234.123.234]

-Original Message-
From: John Conover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 31 August 2000 4:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: smtproutes syntax



Is it legal to use the ip address in smtproutes, somthing like:

:123:234:123:234

Thanks,

John

-- 

John ConoverTel. 408.370.2688  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
631 Lamont Ct.  Cel. 408.772.7733
Campbell, CA 95008  Fax. 408.379.9602  http://www.johncon.com

smtproutes syntax

[John Conover]

Is it legal to use the ip address in smtproutes, somthing like:

:123:234:123:234

Thanks,

John

-- 

John ConoverTel. 408.370.2688  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
631 Lamont Ct.  Cel. 408.772.7733
Campbell, CA 95008  Fax. 408.379.9602  http://www.johncon.com

Re: smtproutes not working!

[Charles Cazabon]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
> > Or perhaps you didn't restart qmail after making the changes?
> 
> That's a bad point. Each invocation of qmail-remote looks at this
> file so restarting qmail will not change a thing.

My bad.  I can never recall offhand the exact configuration changes which
require a restart of qmail.  In this case, it's unnecessary -- but it won't
hurt him, either.  It's not like rebooting the machine :).

Thanks for the correction.

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.
---

Re: smtproutes not working!

[Chris Johnson]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 01:17:45PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have an smtproutes file that contains the following:
> > 
> > smtproutes:
> > chatfish.org:barbuda.chatfish.com
> > chatfish.net:barbuda.chatfish.com
> > 
> > I've also tried to use the ip address:
> > chatfish.org:[216.7.16.196]
> > chatfish.net:[216.7.16.196]
> > 
> > Both of these methods are being ignored by qmail. 
> > Qmail is taking the MX record before it looks at
> > smtproutes.
> > 
> > Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
> 
> Note the smtproutes entries you have are for "chatfish.org" and "chatfish.net"
> _only_.  If mail comes for anyone at "host.chatfish.org" or similar, MX
> records will be looked up as usual.
> 
> Or perhaps you didn't restart qmail after making the changes?

You don't need to. qmail-remote reads smtproutes for every invocation.

Chris

Re: smtproutes not working!

[markd]

> Note the smtproutes entries you have are for "chatfish.org" and "chatfish.net"
> _only_.  If mail comes for anyone at "host.chatfish.org" or similar, MX
> records will be looked up as usual.

That's a good point.
 
> Or perhaps you didn't restart qmail after making the changes?

That's a bad point. Each invocation of qmail-remote looks at this
file so restarting qmail will not change a thing.


Mark.

Re: smtproutes not working!

[markd]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:12:37PM -0700, J wrote:
> I have an smtproutes file that contains the following:
> 
> smtproutes:
> chatfish.org:barbuda.chatfish.com
> chatfish.net:barbuda.chatfish.com
> 
> I've also tried to use the ip address:
> chatfish.org:[216.7.16.196]
> chatfish.net:[216.7.16.196]
> 
> Both of these methods are being ignored by qmail. 
> Qmail is taking the MX record before it looks at
> smtproutes.
> 
> Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Show us some logs and qmail-showctl. qmail-remote is known
to work as advertised wrt smtproutes.


Regards.

Re: smtproutes not working!

[Charles Cazabon]

J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have an smtproutes file that contains the following:
> 
> smtproutes:
> chatfish.org:barbuda.chatfish.com
> chatfish.net:barbuda.chatfish.com
> 
> I've also tried to use the ip address:
> chatfish.org:[216.7.16.196]
> chatfish.net:[216.7.16.196]
> 
> Both of these methods are being ignored by qmail. 
> Qmail is taking the MX record before it looks at
> smtproutes.
> 
> Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Note the smtproutes entries you have are for "chatfish.org" and "chatfish.net"
_only_.  If mail comes for anyone at "host.chatfish.org" or similar, MX
records will be looked up as usual.

Or perhaps you didn't restart qmail after making the changes?

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.
---

smtproutes not working!

[J]

I have an smtproutes file that contains the following:

smtproutes:
chatfish.org:barbuda.chatfish.com
chatfish.net:barbuda.chatfish.com

I've also tried to use the ip address:
chatfish.org:[216.7.16.196]
chatfish.net:[216.7.16.196]

Both of these methods are being ignored by qmail. 
Qmail is taking the MX record before it looks at
smtproutes.

Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks a lot.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: smtproutes and From-Address

[Robin S. Socha]

* Moritz Jodeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way, how I could change the From-address from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? The From-address should
> only be changed for mail to the internet. Local mail should still be
> delivered as [EMAIL PROTECTED]

,[ /var/qmail/doc/FAQ ]
| 2.4. How do I set up a separate queue for a SLIP/PPP link?
| 
| Answer: Use serialmail (http://pobox.com/~djb/serialmail.html).
`

Then read about masquerading.
-- 
Robin S. Socha 

smtproutes and From-Address

[Moritz Jodeit]

I setup qmail on a small dialup machine. All local mail is delivered normally and mail 
to the internet is relayed to smtp.my.provider.com.
My smtproutes contains the line

:smtp.my.provider.com

The problem is, that the smtp server of my provider checks the From address (or the 
domain part of it?). My hostname is myhost.local. Local mail is delivered as 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as it should be. But mail, which is relayed to smtp.my.provider.com 
is delivered as [EMAIL PROTECTED], too. I get the following errors in syslog:

delivery 23: failure: 
Connected_to_smtp.my.provider.com_but_sender_was_rejected./Remote_host_said:_501_Sorry,_<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>_not_authorized./

Is there a way, how I could change the From-address from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]? The From-address should only be changed for mail to the 
internet. Local mail should still be delivered as [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Thanks in advance,
Moritz
___
1.000.000 DM gewinnen - kostenlos tippen - http://millionenklick.web.de
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 8MB Speicher, Verschluesselung - http://freemail.web.de

Re: smtproutes

[John White]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:05:18AM -0700, Jacob Scott wrote:
> I would like to bounce all mail incoming to my qmail machine (which is
> qmail.domain.com) for domain.com to mail.domain.com while i set up my 
> server. What would this look like in smtproutes? I don't see this file in my 
> control files, and I didnt see it in the install docs. Can anyone point me   
> towards the answer/tell me which M to RTF?

man qmail-control
This man page tells you which man page each file in /var/qmail/control
is referenced under.  This is mentioned in the install, but is generally
not absorbed during the initial learning curve.

John

smtproutes

[Jacob Scott]

I would like to bounce all mail incoming to my qmail machine (which is
qmail.domain.com) for domain.com to mail.domain.com while i set up my
server. What would this look like in smtproutes? I don't see this file in my
control files, and I didnt see it in the install docs. Can anyone point me
towards the answer/tell me which M to RTF?


Thanks,


Jacob

Re: relay problems with smtproutes

[Charles Cazabon]

John L. Fjellstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I try to relay my mail to my ISP instead of trying to deliver mail
> myself.
> 
> When I send mail through Eudora/Outlook, and send it directly to the ISP,
> I have no problems delivering the mail.
> 
> When I set the smtproutes in qmail to the same ISP address, I get rejected
> because of illegal relay.
> 
> Anyone know what might be going on? (This is a DSL connection, so both
> originator IPs should be the same).  

What is your email address set to in Eudora?  Is that what is being used
for the envelope sender?  What is your qmail installation using for the
envelope sender?  is it possible your ISP is checking the envelope sender
and rejecting the relay if it isn't labelled as being from in their domain?

Try posting the exact error message the server gives you when it "rejects
because of illegal relay".

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.
---

relay problems with smtproutes

[John L. Fjellstad]

I try to relay my mail to my ISP instead of trying to deliver mail
myself.

When I send mail through Eudora/Outlook, and send it directly to the ISP,
I have no problems delivering the mail.

When I set the smtproutes in qmail to the same ISP address, I get rejected
because of illegal relay.

Anyone know what might be going on? (This is a DSL connection, so both
originator IPs should be the same).  

-- 
John__
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq: thales @ 17755648

Re: smtproutes

[Dave Sill]

Martin Roest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Is it possible to create user-based smtproutes like:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:foo
>
>I need to route every mailaddr in the domain to another mailserver
>except one.

No, but you can get the same effect using virtualdomains.

In control/virtualdomains, put:

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-someaddr

In control/smtproutes, put:

  somedomain.com:foo

In ~alias/.qmail-someaddr, put:

  |forward someaddr@[IP of somedomain.com]

-Dave

smtproutes

[Martin Roest]

Hi,

Is it possible to create user-based smtproutes like:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:foo

I need to route every mailaddr in the domain to another mailserver
except one.
It would be nice to do this with smtproutes.

Thnx in advance,
-- 
Roest, M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ibuildings.nl -- information architects
tel: 0118 415054, fax: 0118 413314

Re: SMTProutes - how to use them?

[Anand Buddhdev]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 02:40:51PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote:

man qmail-remote

> How do I use SMTPRoutes?
> 
> Please advice
>  Michael Boman

-- 
See complete headers for more info

SMTProutes - how to use them?

[Michael Boman]

How do I use SMTPRoutes?

Please advice
 Michael Boman

-- 
W I Z O F F I C E . C O M   P T E   L T D  -  Your Online Wizard
16 Tannery Lane, Crystal Time Building, #06-00, Singapore 347778
Voice : (65) 844 3228 [ext 118]  Fax : (65) 842 7228
Pager : (65) 92 93 29 49 ICQ : 5566009
eMail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL : http://www.wizoffice.com

Re: DUL list and smtproutes

[cmikk]

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:56:20 -0500 , Subba Rao writes:
> I am currently using dial-up connection for Internet and Intranet access.
> For Internet mail, I have defined my isp's smtp server in smtproutes file.
> For Intranet mail, I would prefer to use another smtp server. Is that possible
?
> Can smtproutes be different for different user accounts?

It can be different for different destination
addresses, that is all.

So, if your intranet mail is typically to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
you can have

:relay.my-isp.net
mycompany.com:relay.mycompany.com

qmail-remote will find the most "specific" (I beleive by number of
dots) match, and use that.

-- 
Chris Mikkelson  | "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | which, when you looked at it the right way, did not 
 | become still more complicated."  -- Poul Anderson

DUL list and smtproutes

[Subba Rao]

I am currently using dial-up connection for Internet and Intranet access.
For Internet mail, I have defined my isp's smtp server in smtproutes file.
For Intranet mail, I would prefer to use another smtp server. Is that possible?
Can smtproutes be different for different user accounts?

Subba Rao
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/

 => Time is relative. Here is a new way to look at time. <=
http://www.smcinnovations.com

Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[David L. Nicol]

"Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:

> > domain.tld.   86400   MX  200 nnn.nn.nn.nnn
> ^
> This is your problem.
> 
> An MX record may ONLY point to a A record machine name.  Fix your DNS and
> I can guarantee that the rcpthosts-only entry will work.

Hmm.  having readjusted the dns to serve a name instead of a number
on a test domain, it does not appear to bounce.  I am not
removing my smtproutes entries, to reduce dns load, and to prevent
messages getting forwarded around between multiple secondaries.

I would like to see qmail-remote.c adjusted to account for this
particular flavor of misconfiguration, which is clear enough to
enough MTAs to cause the machine at nnn.nn.nn.nnn to receive
plenty of e-mails, yet which causes qmail-remote.c to mistakenly
determine that the local machine is the best-choice server for
a domain, in release 2.0.

Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[David L. Nicol]

Steve Vertigan wrote:
> 
> if it was really a lower priority why did the error
> message begin "I am listed as the *primary mx* for this host"?

Because there's a bug in the way the determination of "primary MX"
is made.  I have not looked at the source code of how the determination
is made.


$ dig mx umkc.edu

; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> mx umkc.edu 
...
;; ANSWERS:
umkc.edu.   86400   MX  5 email.exchange.umkc.edu.
umkc.edu.   86400   MX  20 umx.missouri.edu.
umkc.edu.   86400   MX  200 134.193.4.60.


I suppose that now someone is going to try and tell me that 200 < 5 ?


__
  David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[Timothy L. Mayo]

You do NOT need the smtproutes entry if your DNS is set up correctly.

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Dustin Miller wrote:

> Can we get a consensus here? 
> 
> :)
>   _  
> 
> Dustin Miller, President
> WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: david [mailto:david]On Behalf Of David L. Nicol
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 4:10 PM
> To: Timothy L. Mayo
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES
> 
> 
> "Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David L. Nicol wrote:
>  
> > > And add a line in control/smtproutes too; otherwise you'll
> > > bounce messages as qmail mistakenly interprets that it is supposed
> > > to be the end recipient.  This starts happening only after you
> > > actually modify the MX records.
> > >
> > 
> > No.  An smtproutes entry is NOT needed.  The only time you would have a
> > problem would be if you placed your server at the same MX or higher
> > priority as the machine you were serving as the secondary for.  (Remeber
> > that a HIGHER MX number is a LOWER priority.)
> > 
> > -
> > Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Senior Systems Administrator
> > localconnect(sm)
> > http://www.localconnect.net/
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what I thought, too, until I did it.  The primary MX has
> priority five, the secondary has priority 20, and I set the qmail box
> to have priority 200 and what happened to the occasional piece of
> e-mail that got to it?  It was bounced, with a message that said
> "Although I am listed as the primary mx for this host, I haven't a
> clue what to do with this piece of e-mail." (from memory.)
> 
> 
> After concernedly rereading the FAQ I added lines to smtproutes
> and things are now working properly: the occasional piece of overflow
> that
> wanders into the box in question is now held briefly and then forwarded.
> 
> 
> The fact that I had no "locals" file may have had something to do with 
> it; although the documentation seems to say that a locals file is not
> needed if you only accept local mail for "me."
> 
> 
> 
> The moral of the story?  Set up test cases before altering your
> production
> systems, no matter how well-documented and "authoritatively" asserted
> the
> feature may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> __
>   David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Corel Linux is Debian with qmail preinstalled
> 
> 

-
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- Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax

Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[Timothy L. Mayo]

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David L. Nicol wrote:

> "Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David L. Nicol wrote:
>  
> > > And add a line in control/smtproutes too; otherwise you'll
> > > bounce messages as qmail mistakenly interprets that it is supposed
> > > to be the end recipient.  This starts happening only after you
> > > actually modify the MX records.
> > >
> > 
> > No.  An smtproutes entry is NOT needed.  The only time you would have a
> > problem would be if you placed your server at the same MX or higher
> > priority as the machine you were serving as the secondary for.  (Remeber
> > that a HIGHER MX number is a LOWER priority.)
> > 
> > -
> > Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Senior Systems Administrator
> > localconnect(sm)
> > http://www.localconnect.net/
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what I thought, too, until I did it.  The primary MX has
> priority five, the secondary has priority 20, and I set the qmail box
> to have priority 200 and what happened to the occasional piece of
> e-mail that got to it?  It was bounced, with a message that said
> "Although I am listed as the primary mx for this host, I haven't a
> clue what to do with this piece of e-mail." (from memory.)
> 

Then something was wrong with either your DNS setup or the name server
that the qmail secondary MX server was using.  My instructions for ONLY
adding it to the rcpthosts file were based on it working exactly that way
for several domains for which I do just exactly what I said and they work
exactly as documented.  Mail is queued and forwarded when the primary
comes back on line.

Why did your qmail box think it was the best preference MX host?

> 
> After concernedly rereading the FAQ I added lines to smtproutes
> and things are now working properly: the occasional piece of overflow
> that
> wanders into the box in question is now held briefly and then forwarded.
> 
> 
> The fact that I had no "locals" file may have had something to do with 
> it; although the documentation seems to say that a locals file is not
> needed if you only accept local mail for "me."
> 
> 
> 
> The moral of the story?  Set up test cases before altering your
> production
> systems, no matter how well-documented and "authoritatively" asserted
> the
> feature may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> __
>   David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Corel Linux is Debian with qmail preinstalled
> 

-
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- Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax

RE: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[Dustin Miller]

Can we get a consensus here? 

:)
  _  

Dustin Miller, President
WebFusionDevelopmentIncorporated


-Original Message-
From: david [mailto:david]On Behalf Of David L. Nicol
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 4:10 PM
To: Timothy L. Mayo
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES


"Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David L. Nicol wrote:
 
> > And add a line in control/smtproutes too; otherwise you'll
> > bounce messages as qmail mistakenly interprets that it is supposed
> > to be the end recipient.  This starts happening only after you
> > actually modify the MX records.
> >
> 
> No.  An smtproutes entry is NOT needed.  The only time you would have a
> problem would be if you placed your server at the same MX or higher
> priority as the machine you were serving as the secondary for.  (Remeber
> that a HIGHER MX number is a LOWER priority.)
> 
> -
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Administrator
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/



Yes, that is what I thought, too, until I did it.  The primary MX has
priority five, the secondary has priority 20, and I set the qmail box
to have priority 200 and what happened to the occasional piece of
e-mail that got to it?  It was bounced, with a message that said
"Although I am listed as the primary mx for this host, I haven't a
clue what to do with this piece of e-mail." (from memory.)


After concernedly rereading the FAQ I added lines to smtproutes
and things are now working properly: the occasional piece of overflow
that
wanders into the box in question is now held briefly and then forwarded.


The fact that I had no "locals" file may have had something to do with 
it; although the documentation seems to say that a locals file is not
needed if you only accept local mail for "me."



The moral of the story?  Set up test cases before altering your
production
systems, no matter how well-documented and "authoritatively" asserted
the
feature may be.







 
__
  David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Corel Linux is Debian with qmail preinstalled

Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[David L. Nicol]

"Timothy L. Mayo" wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David L. Nicol wrote:
 
> > And add a line in control/smtproutes too; otherwise you'll
> > bounce messages as qmail mistakenly interprets that it is supposed
> > to be the end recipient.  This starts happening only after you
> > actually modify the MX records.
> >
> 
> No.  An smtproutes entry is NOT needed.  The only time you would have a
> problem would be if you placed your server at the same MX or higher
> priority as the machine you were serving as the secondary for.  (Remeber
> that a HIGHER MX number is a LOWER priority.)
> 
> -
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Administrator
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/



Yes, that is what I thought, too, until I did it.  The primary MX has
priority five, the secondary has priority 20, and I set the qmail box
to have priority 200 and what happened to the occasional piece of
e-mail that got to it?  It was bounced, with a message that said
"Although I am listed as the primary mx for this host, I haven't a
clue what to do with this piece of e-mail." (from memory.)


After concernedly rereading the FAQ I added lines to smtproutes
and things are now working properly: the occasional piece of overflow
that
wanders into the box in question is now held briefly and then forwarded.


The fact that I had no "locals" file may have had something to do with 
it; although the documentation seems to say that a locals file is not
needed if you only accept local mail for "me."



The moral of the story?  Set up test cases before altering your
production
systems, no matter how well-documented and "authoritatively" asserted
the
feature may be.







 
__
  David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Corel Linux is Debian with qmail preinstalled

Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[Timothy L. Mayo]

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, David L. Nicol wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:13:38 -0600 , "Dustin Miller" writes:
> > > configure qmail to queue mail for foo.com,
> > > attempting delivery to a mail.foo.com when it receives mail bound for
> > > foo.com, and holding that mail (without giving deferral notices) until
> > > mail.foo.com comes back online in the event that it is down?
> > 
> > All you should need to do is put "foo.com" in the
> > rcpthosts file.  That way, qmail-smtpd will accept
> > the message, and then deliver it to mail.foo.com,
> > the primary MX.
> > 
> > Qmail does not generate deferral notices.
> > 
> > The time qmail will hold the message is in
> > control/queuelifetime, specified in seconds.
> 
> 
> And add a line in control/smtproutes too; otherwise you'll
> bounce messages as qmail mistakenly interprets that it is supposed
> to be the end recipient.  This starts happening only after you
> actually modify the MX records.  
> 

No.  An smtproutes entry is NOT needed.  The only time you would have a
problem would be if you placed your server at the same MX or higher 
priority as the machine you were serving as the secondary for.  (Remeber
that a HIGHER MX number is a LOWER priority.)

-
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- Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax

Re: secondary mail relay: rcpthosts AND SMTPROUTES

[David L. Nicol]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:13:38 -0600 , "Dustin Miller" writes:
> > configure qmail to queue mail for foo.com,
> > attempting delivery to a mail.foo.com when it receives mail bound for
> > foo.com, and holding that mail (without giving deferral notices) until
> > mail.foo.com comes back online in the event that it is down?
> 
> All you should need to do is put "foo.com" in the
> rcpthosts file.  That way, qmail-smtpd will accept
> the message, and then deliver it to mail.foo.com,
> the primary MX.
> 
> Qmail does not generate deferral notices.
> 
> The time qmail will hold the message is in
> control/queuelifetime, specified in seconds.


And add a line in control/smtproutes too; otherwise you'll
bounce messages as qmail mistakenly interprets that it is supposed
to be the end recipient.  This starts happening only after you
actually modify the MX records.  








__
  David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[Matthew Harrell]

: Why don't you set up a name like aolmail.bittwiddlers.com pointing
: round-robin-wise at all four of the IP addresses, and stick that name in
: smtproutes?

Good idea.  I hadn't thought of that one.  Hopefully they won't change the 
addresses often but it should work until I can think of something else I
might want to try.

Thanks

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  To err is human,
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.   to purr feline.
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[Chris Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 02:20:53PM -0500, Matthew Harrell wrote:
> 
> : If you can get them to give you an IP address you're set.  Use the IP
> : address in smtproutes instead of the name.
> 
> Actually, I should have mentioned something about this.  The MX address 
> actually points to four addresses and knowing how frequently AOL machines 
> go down I'm hesitant to force all my mail through one of them.  It would
> be fine if I could do
> 
> aol.com:mx1.aol.com,mx2.aol.com
> 
> and I haven't tried it but I haven't see anything written about it.

Why don't you set up a name like aolmail.bittwiddlers.com pointing
round-robin-wise at all four of the IP addresses, and stick that name in
smtproutes?

Chris

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[Matthew Harrell]

: : No, according to them they need the IP's of the machines which will be sending
: : mail.  Of course I haven't actually tested that so I don't know what it does.

: What filters is it "getting past"?

My contact there claims it gets past the internal ones the users set up - not
the ones that AOL sets up.  I've been given this stuff by the company I'm
working for but it sounds like they have a partnership agreement which, for
some reason, allows bypassing these rules.  I haven't actually tried it yet
due to this smtproutes problem and I don't have an AOL account to test it 
on that side.  It would be nice for the inordinately large number of people
who complain that they aren't getting our daily messages but yet have their
filters so restrictive that we can't even reply to them.  

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  "Think of it as evolution in action"
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[MikeINET]

In a message dated 11/24/99 3:49:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< : PS: Can we all do that to get around AOL's filters, too?
 
 No, according to them they need the IP's of the machines which will be 
sending
 mail.  Of course I haven't actually tested that so I don't know what it does.
 >>

What filters is it "getting past"?

___
--Mike
"Life moves pretty quickly, if you don't stop and look around you might miss 
it"
- Ferris Buler
___

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[Matthew Harrell]

: I'm confused.  Is the mail supposed to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather
: than [EMAIL PROTECTED], or are you just supposed to route the mail through the
: partner MXes but leave the RCPT TO addresses unchanged?

: In the latter case, unless you plan to send a truly stupendous amount of
: mail, I'd just pick one of the partner MXes and put that in SMTProutes.

Well, it will be bunches of 200K recipient messages going out and I've know
AOL's mail routers so go down for over a day.  Since this is time sensitive
material I can't really get away with waiting for a machine to come back up.
I would much rather prefer to have at least two of them available.  Maybe I'll
just dig out the source to qmail-remote (?) and see if I can get it to check
for a MX record if an A record doesn't exist.

Yes, BTW, the mail will be routed to partner.aol.com but will still have the
form [EMAIL PROTECTED]

: PS: Can we all do that to get around AOL's filters, too?

No, according to them they need the IP's of the machines which will be sending
mail.  Of course I haven't actually tested that so I don't know what it does.

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  Another Month's End:
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.  All Targets Met 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]All Systems Working
   All Customers Satisfied
   All Staff Enthusiastic
   All Pigs Fed And Ready To Fly

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[John R. Levine]

>Anyway, AOL would like all their email to go to 
>partner.aol.com instead of the usual aol.com.  The problem with setting it
>up in smtproutes like
>
>aol.com:partner.aol.com
>
>is that partner.aol.com has only MX records and no A records so it bounces.  

I'm confused.  Is the mail supposed to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather
than [EMAIL PROTECTED], or are you just supposed to route the mail through the
partner MXes but leave the RCPT TO addresses unchanged?

In the latter case, unless you plan to send a truly stupendous amount of
mail, I'd just pick one of the partner MXes and put that in SMTProutes.

In the former case, you put aol.com in your local virtualdomains file
and write a little .qmail-default that remails everything to
"$[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

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 

PS: Can we all do that to get around AOL's filters, too?

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[Matthew Harrell]

: If you can get them to give you an IP address you're set.  Use the IP
: address in smtproutes instead of the name.

Actually, I should have mentioned something about this.  The MX address 
actually points to four addresses and knowing how frequently AOL machines 
go down I'm hesitant to force all my mail through one of them.  It would
be fine if I could do

aol.com:mx1.aol.com,mx2.aol.com

and I haven't tried it but I haven't see anything written about it.

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  Programmer - a red-eyed mumbling
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.   mammal capable of conversing with
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] inanimate objects.

Re: smtproutes and MX aliases

[mabrown]

Matt,

If you can get them to give you an IP address you're set.  Use the IP
address in smtproutes instead of the name.

-Martin

On 24 Nov, Matthew Harrell wrote:
  : 
  : Hi,
  : I'm working on a mail system for a company and AOL has agreed to give
  : them access through a backdoor to avoid the AOL filter rules.  I know it's
  : kind of a shady thing but you wouldn't believe the general stupidity I've seen
  : with filter rules.  Anyway, AOL would like all their email to go to 
  : partner.aol.com instead of the usual aol.com.  The problem with setting it
  : up in smtproutes like
  : 
  : aol.com:partner.aol.com
  : 
  : is that partner.aol.com has only MX records and no A records so it bounces.  
  : I'm sure someone has asked this before but is there any way I can get it to
  : use partner.aol.com or am I forced to edit the code and make it check for MX 
  : records also?
  : 
  : Thanks
  : 

-- 
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe Communications --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

smtproutes and MX aliases

[Matthew Harrell]

Hi,
I'm working on a mail system for a company and AOL has agreed to give
them access through a backdoor to avoid the AOL filter rules.  I know it's
kind of a shady thing but you wouldn't believe the general stupidity I've seen
with filter rules.  Anyway, AOL would like all their email to go to 
partner.aol.com instead of the usual aol.com.  The problem with setting it
up in smtproutes like

aol.com:partner.aol.com

is that partner.aol.com has only MX records and no A records so it bounces.  
I'm sure someone has asked this before but is there any way I can get it to
use partner.aol.com or am I forced to edit the code and make it check for MX 
records also?

Thanks

-- 
  Matthew Harrell  All science is either physics or
  Bit Twiddlers, Inc.   stamp collecting.
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: smtproutes per user

[Nagy Balazs]

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, A.Y. Sjarifuddin wrote:

> Does smtproutes could route specific email to a specific server:
[...]
> a-p@domain:[IP Address]
> q-z@domain:[IP Address]

You cannot do this, because control/smtproutes is handled by
qmail-remote(8).  It checks the first argument against control/smtproutes'
first column.  Here's the excerpt from the appropriate man page:

SYNOPSIS
   qmail-remote host sender recip [ recip ...  ]

You have to use control/virtualdomains and a selector script like this:

control/virtualdomains:
domain:domainprocessor

~alias/.qmail-domain-default:
domain/

~alias/.qmail-domainprocessor-default:
|qsmhook -x domainprocessor- -lnP /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject 
`/var/qmail/bin/sforwarder %u %h`

/var/qmail/bin/sforwarder:
#!/usr/bin/perl
($user, $domain) = @ARGV;
open(I,"/var/qmail/alias/domains-$domain");
while() {
s/^([^#]*)#.*$/$1/;
next unless ($rx, $host) =~ (/^(.+) ([a-zA-Z.-]+)\s*$/);
if ($user =~ /${rx}/) {
print "$user\@$host\n";
close I;
exit;
}
}
print "$domain-$user\n";
close I;

/var/qmail/alias/domains-domain:
^albert$ mail.albert.com   # albert wants his own mail
^[a-k].+ ahost.domain.com  # ahost does users a-k
#^z.+ zone.domain.com  # this zone is currently down
.+ masshost.domain.com # for old users

Ps: Iam curious if it works IRL (in the real life).  I tested just the perl
module.
-- 
Regards: Kevin (Balazs) @ synergon

Re: smtproutes per user

[Jeff Taylor]

Yes.  My smtproutes file looks like this.

ieee.org:gemini.ieee.org
lists.io.com:lists.io.com
suse.com:mail.suse.com
:mail.texas.net

Note the default address at the end (empty string on the left hand
side of the colon matches anything.  I route solely by domain, nothing
user-specific though certainly you can do that.  These are not
prefixes, but patterns.

HTH,
   Jeff

   
Quoting A.Y. Sjarifuddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dear All,
> Does smtproutes could route specific email to a specific server:
> 
> email for user with prefix ~a.. to ~p... will be delivered to mail
> server A.
> email for user with prefix ~q.. to ~z... will be delivered to mail
> server B.
> 
> so it will be something like:
> 
> a-p@domain:[IP Address]
> q-z@domain:[IP Address]
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Ayip.
> 

smtproutes per user

[A.Y. Sjarifuddin]

Dear All,
Does smtproutes could route specific email to a specific server:

email for user with prefix ~a.. to ~p... will be delivered to mail
server A.
email for user with prefix ~q.. to ~z... will be delivered to mail
server B.

so it will be something like:

a-p@domain:[IP Address]
q-z@domain:[IP Address]

Thanks in advance

Ayip.

Re: smtproutes - possible without DNS ?

[Dave Sill]

"Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>HOST1 = SCO Unix with qmail and a few scripts that are sending
>emails to the realworld via a relay. No dns access, subnet.
>IP = 192.168.0.50
>In /var/qmail/control/smtproutes, I have :
>:[192.168.0.10]
>
>HOST2 = linux server, with normal qmail configuration, allowing
>relaying for 192.*.  World acces. Should act as relay.
>IP = 192.168.0.10
>
>Now, when I try to send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the Host1, I get this
>in syslog : 
>
>Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.64 new msg 50584
>Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.64 info msg 50584: bytes 265 from 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 840 uid 0
>Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.84 starting delivery 13: msg 50584 to 
>remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]

It's not using your smtproutes file. Check the spelling and
permissions. If you still don't see a problem, try running
qmail-remote under your system call tracing tool
(trace/truss/strace/par/etc.)

>There is a connexion made to the relay, because in the log of Host2,I see :
>
>Jul 21 23:39:05 webima smtpd: 932593145.632655 tcpserver: status: 13/40
>Jul 21 23:39:05 webima smtpd: 932593145.640848 tcpserver: pid 3890 from 192.168.0.90

192.168.0.90 isn't HOST1, is it?

-Dave

smtproutes - possible without DNS ?

[Olivier M.]

Wired smtproutes problem.

HOST1 = SCO Unix with qmail and a few scripts that are sending
emails to the realworld via a relay. No dns access, subnet.
IP = 192.168.0.50
In /var/qmail/control/smtproutes, I have :
:[192.168.0.10]

HOST2 = linux server, with normal qmail configuration, allowing
relaying for 192.*.  World acces. Should act as relay.
IP = 192.168.0.10


Now, when I try to send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the Host1, I get this
in syslog : 

Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.64 new msg 50584
Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.64 info msg 50584: bytes 265 from 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 840 uid 0
Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.84 starting delivery 13: msg 50584 to 
remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 21 21:38:50 qmail qmail: 932593130.84 status: local 0/10 remote 11/20

and a qmail-remote is started :
 qmailr   834   821  0 23:38:24   ttyp000:00:00 qmail-remote 212.28.128.193 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

but then, __ nothing __. It simply hangs.


There is a connexion made to the relay, because in the log of Host2,I see :

Jul 21 23:39:05 webima smtpd: 932593145.632655 tcpserver: status: 13/40
Jul 21 23:39:05 webima smtpd: 932593145.640848 tcpserver: pid 3890 from 192.168.0.90
Jul 21 23:39:05 webima smtpd: 932593145.699765 tcpserver: ok 3890 :192.168.0.10:25 
:192.168.0.90::1082


I would be really happy to get some hints on this point. 
I made everything I could following manual and faq, but well, it
still hangs, and it must work for tomorrow :(  

Olivier

Re: Problem: smtproutes entry obviously ignored ?

[Juergen Kuersch]

Definitely 

Thanks a lot to the people who pointed out the error !

Grumble ;-) ...

GRTX
Juergen Kuersch

> Juergen Kuersch wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > on our firewall, I have a smtproutes file like this:
> > 
> > <---snip>
> > # Mail to Rog1 must be directed to ROG1
> > rog1.rog.rwth-aachen:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de
> 
> Shouldn't that be
>   rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de
>   ^^^
> ?
> 
> -- 
>   Peter Haworth   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "If sendmail does [Return-Receipt-To], it is just plain wrong
>  (and that really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?)"
>   -- Thomas Neumann
> 

-- 
--
  Juergen Kuersch,mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems, RWTH Aachen, Germany
 PGP public key (0x830E1B55) available at public key servers

AW: Problem: smtproutes entry obviously ignored ?

[Achim Gosse]

Title: AW: Problem: smtproutes entry obviously ignored ?





> Juergen Kuersch wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > on our firewall, I have a smtproutes file like this:
> > 
> > <---snip>
> > # Mail to Rog1 must be directed to ROG1
> > rog1.rog.rwth-aachen:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de
> 
> Shouldn't that be
>   rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de
>   ^^^
> ?


yes, that should be


rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de !!!


achim

Re: Problem: smtproutes entry obviously ignored ?

[Peter Haworth]

Juergen Kuersch wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> on our firewall, I have a smtproutes file like this:
> 
> <---snip>
> # Mail to Rog1 must be directed to ROG1
> rog1.rog.rwth-aachen:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de

Shouldn't that be
  rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de
  ^^^
?

-- 
Peter Haworth   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If sendmail does [Return-Receipt-To], it is just plain wrong
 (and that really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?)"
-- Thomas Neumann

Problem: smtproutes entry obviously ignored ?

[Juergen Kuersch]

Hi there,

on our firewall, I have a smtproutes file like this:

<---snip>
# Mail to Rog1 must be directed to ROG1
rog1.rog.rwth-aachen:rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de

# Mail to CIP mail hosts uses central RWTH mail relay
cip.rog.rwth-aachen.de:mail.rwth-aachen.de
cip1.rog.rwth-aachen.de:mail.rwth-aachen.de
berlin.rog.rwth-aachen.de:mail.rwth-aachen.de

# Qmos is internal Mail host for eecs and rog domain
eecs.rwth-aachen.de:qmos.rog.rwth-aachen.de
rog.rwth-aachen.de:qmos.rog.rwth-aachen.de

# Qmos is internal Mail host for mail to any other *.rog host
.rog.rwth-aachen.de:qmos.rog.rwth-aachen.de

# Any other mail uses standard MX routing
:
<---snap>

Everything works fine, well, except for mails to @rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de,
which is still relayed to qmos.rog.rwth-aachen.de, our internal mail host.
Especially forwarding for hosts cip, cip1 and berlin works fine, so my first
guess of problems with the wildcards in the last but one rule was nil.

Split DNS's MX entries for rog1 are

IN MX 10 rog1.rog.rwth-aachen.de.
IN MX 15 qmos.rog.rwth-aachen.de.

Our firewall host is definitely allowed to connect to rog1's SMTP port.

Any hints ?

GRTX
Juergen

Re: Setting up smtproutes + DNS + firewall

[Timothy L. Mayo]

Add a DNS record for sub.domain.com pointing to mail.domain.com.

sub.domain.com  IN MX 10 mail.domain.com.

Add sub.domain.com to rcpthosts on mail.domain.com.
Add the following to smtproutes on mail.domain.com.

sub.domain.com:[10.2.11.12]

Things should now work as you intend from both inside and outside the
firewall. :)

You have to add the MX record for sub.domain.com into the DNS.  There are
no other options if you want people to be able to route the mail
correctly.  (Wildcard MX might work, I've never used them.)

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> 
> We have a qmail server sitting on a dmz behind a firewall.  We wish this
> to be the main smtp server and have all incoming mail sent to it.  So say
> we are domain.com, then our MX record for domain.com points to
> mail.domain.com.  This works fine.
> 
> Recently one of our divisions decided it wanted to use it's own (exchange)
> server.  They want to be able to receive mail for @sub.domain.com.
> This machine (sub.domain.com) is behind the firewall.  I would like for
> our main mail server, mail.domain.com to recieve all messages for
> *.domain.com and relay it to wherever it needs to go.  I believe the
> terminology is mail hub.
> 
> Anyway, the smtproutes file on mail.domain.com reads:
> 
> sub.domain.com:[10.2.11.12]
> 
> Sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from anywhere internally works fine.
> It gets to mail.domain.com and is then routed to sub.  However, when
> sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the outside, messages bounce
> back with the error "sub.domain.com: host not found" or similiar.  My
> understanding about email routing is that the MTA is supposed to look up
> the MX record for domain.com and send the message there.
> 
> Or is it that I need to have an MX record for sub.domain.com?  Either way
> I sub.domain.com does not resolve to anything currently.
> 
> I guess my question is if I need to do something to the DNS server or is
> there a way to avoid this?
> 
> 
> 

-
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- Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax

Setting up smtproutes + DNS + firewall

[Albert Hopkins]

We have a qmail server sitting on a dmz behind a firewall.  We wish this
to be the main smtp server and have all incoming mail sent to it.  So say
we are domain.com, then our MX record for domain.com points to
mail.domain.com.  This works fine.

Recently one of our divisions decided it wanted to use it's own (exchange)
server.  They want to be able to receive mail for @sub.domain.com.
This machine (sub.domain.com) is behind the firewall.  I would like for
our main mail server, mail.domain.com to recieve all messages for
*.domain.com and relay it to wherever it needs to go.  I believe the
terminology is mail hub.

Anyway, the smtproutes file on mail.domain.com reads:

sub.domain.com:[10.2.11.12]

Sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from anywhere internally works fine.
It gets to mail.domain.com and is then routed to sub.  However, when
sending email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the outside, messages bounce
back with the error "sub.domain.com: host not found" or similiar.  My
understanding about email routing is that the MTA is supposed to look up
the MX record for domain.com and send the message there.

Or is it that I need to have an MX record for sub.domain.com?  Either way
I sub.domain.com does not resolve to anything currently.

I guess my question is if I need to do something to the DNS server or is
there a way to avoid this?

Re: smtproutes failover

[Lorens Kockum]

On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 05:09:25PM -0400, Jason wrote:
>> [...] if it fails trying to send to the first host (10.1.1.1),
>> qmail will try sending it to the second host (10.1.1.2)
>
>No.

Could be useful ... wouldn't it be easy, though, since MXs
already work like that ? In the code that looks for MXs, you'd
just have to consider smtproutes if there exists one for the
destination, with a value related to its position in the file.

Disclaimer: haven't looked at the code.

-- 
#include   Lorens Kockum

smtproutes failover

[Jason]

is it possible to something like this in smtproutes?
so that it if it fails trying to send to the first host (10.1.1.1),
qmail
will try sending it to the second host (10.1.1.2).. ive tried this and 
it seems to be just taking whatever entry is last, which isnt the
desired
effect.. :)


domain.com:10.1.1.1
domain.com:10.1.1.2



-- 
===
|  Jason Welsh   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   If you think there's |
||   good in everybody, you   |
|  http://welsh.dynip.com/   |   haven't met everybody.   |
===

Re: smtproutes failover

[Chris Johnson]

On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 05:09:25PM -0400, Jason wrote:
> is it possible to something like this in smtproutes?
> so that it if it fails trying to send to the first host (10.1.1.1),
> qmail
> will try sending it to the second host (10.1.1.2).. ive tried this and 
> it seems to be just taking whatever entry is last, which isnt the
> desired
> effect.. :)
> 
> 
> domain.com:10.1.1.1
> domain.com:10.1.1.2

No.

Chris

smtproutes issue?

[Robin Bowes]

Hi,

My smtproutes is currently as follows:

eoc.org.uk:ms-mail.eoc.org.uk
.eoc.org.uk:
:relay.mail.uk.psi.net

Basically, mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is forwarded to our MS Mail
gateway;
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be delivered according to MX
records;
and outgoing mail is all relayed via our ISP.

I'd like to change this so that I can specify that certain specific
addresses @eoc.org.uk should be dealt with differently with the
remainder being forwarded to the MS Mail gateway.

How would I go about doing this?

My current thinking is that I change SMTP routes so that mail for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is delivered to host.eoc.org.uk.  Then use something
like this in .qmail-:

|condredirect robin-webmaster iftocc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|conredirect robin-postmaster iftocc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| forward $EXT2@$HOST@ms-mail

Am I heading in the right direction, or is there a better way?  Would
this even work ???!!!

R.
-- 
Robin Bowes - System Development Manager - Room 405A
E.O.C., Overseas House, Quay St., Manchester, M3 3HN, UK.
Tel: +44 161 838 8321  Fax: +44 161 835 1657

Bounces off of incorrect smtproutes

[Greg Owen {gowen}]

Short summary:  I screwed something up and bounced a lot of mail.  It
seems to me that the mistake I made could be handled differently, and I'd
just like to explore it as an idea, see if it makes sense to anyone else.

I'm not blaming qmail or saying "qmail should definitely do this."  I'm
just exploring an idea.


I have 2 qmail mail relays.  Currently, they forward all mail to a Xerox
mail relay, which then relays it through the Xerox firewall to the
(ex-)Xerox company where I work.  We are migrating to our own network, and
yesterday we installed the firewall and planned to go live.  (We didn't go
live because of other problems that cropped up).

As part of the attempted switch, I took down the internal mail server to
transfer its files to the new mail server (the old one will remain up as a
Xerox host for a while).  Since I expected the new mail server would be
accepting mail by the end of the day, I stopped the mail relays from passing
mail onto the Xerox relay.  I did this by configuring smtproutes to route to
an (unreachable) internal network address.

We spent the entire day setting up the firewall and running tests on a
small test network.  Several tests failed, so at 4:30 we gave up on the plan
to switch users over and re-enabled the old (Xerox) internal mail server.
Then I reconfigured the external mail relays to relay through Xerox again.

Unfortunately, after a long day of intensive work with 5 subnets and 2
domain names, I messed up and reset the smtproutes file on the main relay to
"mailer-east.scansoft.com" instead of "mailer-east.xerox.com," the Xerox
relay.  Of course, "mailer-east.scansoft.com" doesn't exist.  Qmail looked
it up in DNS, found it didn't exist, and bounced the 300 or so messages in
its queue back to their senders.  I didn't think that was a lot of mail, but
the VP of Sales sure did ;>.

Now, it seems to me that a case where the smtproutes - an internal
control file set by the mail administrator - is wrong like that, might be
treated differently.  Perhaps rather than bouncing the (innocent ;>) mail
messages, they could remain queued, and mail be sent to the postmaster.  Of
course, if the postmaster is relayed to that smtproute, he wouldn't get it,
but presumably he'd notice sooner or later that a) he wasn't getting mail
from that system he just modified and b) the disks on it were filling up.
Again presumably, he'd check the logs, see the error messages that clue him
in to his internal mistake, and let him fix it without losing mail.

Obviously, qmail requires almost everything to be kosher DNS wise for
security and spam reasons.  But it seems to me an invalid smtproute is
pretty clearly an administrator error as opposed to an attempt to spoof,
overload, enter, or otherwise attack the server.

So, what do you think of the following ideas?

1) qmail could treat unresolvable hosts in its control files as operator
errors and leave affected mail in the queue rather than bouncing, and also
try to notify the operator.

2) Perhaps changes to control files could somehow require something like
qmail-lint that checks stuff like this?  (I note qmail-lint doesn't check
smtproutes).  But the key would be requiring a check made before changes
would take affect.  The key to this question is, it seems to me that some
changes (like smtproutes) take affect immediately, and that limits
checkability.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding...

3) get a smarter and more careful sysadmin.  For the obvious reasons, I
heartily disapprove of this option.


Any thoughts on all this?

--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will
become my default address in March, and which works now.

Re: smtproutes

[Sam]

Mate Wierdl writes:

> This is exzactly my question:  suppose I have only two machines, box1.home,
> and box2.home.  Can I just put
> 
> :box2.home
> 
> in smtproutes on box1.home to direct all remote mail to box2---though
> box2.home is in only /etc/hosts?

No - you must use the IP address.

> 
> Also, is the syntax
> 
> :[1.2.3.4]
> 
> valid, if 1.2.3.4 is the IP of box2.home?

That's it.  Actually:

box1.home:[1.2.3.4]

is probably better.

-- 
Sam

Re: smtproutes

[Stefan Paletta]

Mate Wierdl wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Also, is the syntax
> 
>:[1.2.3.4]
> 
> valid, if 1.2.3.4 is the IP of box2.home?

Yes. No need for DNS here.

Stefan

Re: smtproutes

[Mate Wierdl]

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 10:47:01PM +, Sam wrote:
> Mate Wierdl writes:
> 
> > So with stock qmail, I *must* have DNS?
> 
> Correct.  If you don't have DNS running, your network must be so small that
> putting a few lines into control/smtproutes shouldn't be much of a hassle.

This is exzactly my question:  suppose I have only two machines, box1.home,
and box2.home.  Can I just put

:box2.home

in smtproutes on box1.home to direct all remote mail to box2---though
box2.home is in only /etc/hosts?

Also, is the syntax

:[1.2.3.4]

valid, if 1.2.3.4 is the IP of box2.home?

Thx
Mate

Re: smtproutes

[Sam]

Mate Wierdl writes:

> So with stock qmail, I *must* have DNS?

Correct.  If you don't have DNS running, your network must be so small that
putting a few lines into control/smtproutes shouldn't be much of a hassle.

-- 
Sam

Re: smtproutes

[Mate Wierdl]

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 10:38:12PM +0530, Sameer Vijay wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I would suggest that you put the name and ip (1.2.3.4) in /etc/hosts
> and put the name in the smtproutes
> 
> :remote.host
> 
> I am not sure whether putting brackets there will help. just the
> IP should suffice, if you want to put ip there.

If what you suggest is supposed to work, then I am confused: having 

:remote.host

in smtproutes does not require a DNS lookup of remote.host?  

-- 
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis  

Re: smtproutes

[Mate Wierdl]

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 05:39:48PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> | Suppose I have a box running qmail on a home network without DNS.
> | How can I route all remote messages to another box on the home
> | network?
> | 
> | Would putting
> | 
> | :[1.2.3.4]
> | 
> | in smtproutes work, where 1.2.3.4. is the remote box's IP on the
> | home network.
> 
> I think you would need to patch qmail-remote to skip the CNAME
> lookups, or provide a fake dns_cname() that does no actual lookup.

So with stock qmail, I *must* have DNS?
-- 
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis  

Re: smtproutes

[Harald Hanche-Olsen]

- Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

| Suppose I have a box running qmail on a home network without DNS.
| How can I route all remote messages to another box on the home
| network?
| 
| Would putting
| 
| :[1.2.3.4]
| 
| in smtproutes work, where 1.2.3.4. is the remote box's IP on the
| home network.

I think you would need to patch qmail-remote to skip the CNAME
lookups, or provide a fake dns_cname() that does no actual lookup.

- Harald

smtproutes

[Mate Wierdl]

Suppose I have a box running qmail on a home network without DNS.  How
can I route all remote messages to another box on the home network?

Would putting

:[1.2.3.4]

in smtproutes work, where 1.2.3.4. is the remote box's IP on the home
network.

Thx

Mate

Re: multiple relays in smtproutes

[ddb]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 January 1999 at 
16:47:15 +0100

 > BTW: Why does qmail-remote not use /etc/hosts ?

I know of 2 reasons off-hand:

1.  /etc/hosts doesn't have anything like MX records, and a host might
be listed in /etc/hosts that doesn't actually accept its own mail.

2.  The functions that use /etc/hosts in the standard library aren't
available, since Dan doesn't use the standard library (for
security and space reasons).

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!

Re: multiple relays in smtproutes

[Russell Nelson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 > > Bernhard Duebi writes:
 > >  > is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
 > >  > smtproutes ?
 > > 
 > > Yes and no.  You have to do it through the DNS.  Make a new name for
 > > the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record,
 > 
 > > or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.
 > 
 > This is bad news, as the security people already told me that they will
 > not put internal hosts in the external DNS.

Then run a private DNS server on that machine, which is only
authoritative for that one hostname.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   cause of world peace.

Re: multiple relays in smtproutes

[DUB]

> Bernhard Duebi writes:
>  > is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
>  > smtproutes ?
> 
> Yes and no.  You have to do it through the DNS.  Make a new name for
> the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record,

> or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.

This is bad news, as the security people already told me that they will
not put internal hosts in the external DNS.

BTW: Why does qmail-remote not use /etc/hosts ?

Cheers
Bernhard

Re: multiple relays in smtproutes

[Russell Nelson]

Bernhard Duebi writes:
 > is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
 > smtproutes ?

Yes and no.  You have to do it through the DNS.  Make a new name for
the hosts involved, and put it into the DNS as a round-robin A record, 
or a special load-balancing name server, or whatever.

-- 
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   cause of world peace.

multiple relays in smtproutes

[Bernhard Duebi]

Dear Qmail Admins,

is it possible to have more than one relay for a given route in
smtproutes ?

I use qmail as a relay from the internet to the internal mail server.
The internal mail server is built of two maschines. When one goes down,
the other one takes over automaticaly. Normaly this is handle with
virtual IP addresses. But the firewall can't handle virtual IP
addresses.

In sendmail I can define a list of hosts in the routing table. This list
is then handled as a list of equal preference MX records.

Is this also possible in qmail ?
If yes, how ?

Cheers
Bernhard Duebi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Need qmail to reload smtproutes

[Peter van Dijk]

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 04:10:32PM +, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Eric Smith wrote:
> > 
> > Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks several questions, including:
> > > I'm also unsure how
> > > to tell qmail to "always hold mail for this domain in the queue"
> > 
> > You'll probably be told that serialmail is the officially 'correct'
> > solution to this problem.  I personally happen to have a conceptual
> > dislike for introducing yet another different queuing method,
> 
> I'm glad that someone else does too :) I was beginning to be afraid I
> *was* barking up the wrong tree...
> 
> > so I use
> > Alan Curry's ETRN patch:
> > 
> > http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/qmail-etrn/
> > 
> > [I think this used to be listed on www.qmail.org, but I can't find it
> > there now.]
> 
> This is going to be really helpful! Thanks!
> 
> > This won't solve the dynamic IP problem, though.  It allows the domain
> > to request delivery of its email, but it still uses the smtproutes to
> > determine how to get it there.
> 
> I have a script now that will auto-create an smtproutes file every time
> someone dials in or out. This should solve that problem.
> 
> > Note that since you don't know the IP address, you'll have to accept an
> > ETRN from *anyone*, which is suboptimal.
> 
> Ah, but I *can* restrict ETRNs to only people within the netblocks that
> are assigned to our dialins. So it's not that big a problem.
> 
> I'll report back to the list on my progress, because mail dequeueing
> without a static IP sounds like something that might be of use to other
> people too.

At an ISP I work for, we've been doing a test with SMTP delivery to dynamic
IPs. We used a small script that was put on port 79 (finger) thru inetd.
You would then finger username:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (no, that's not a real
hostname :) and it would trigger serialsmtp. Ofcourse easily adjusted for
qmtp too.

A friend of mine is using something similar right now, although for some
reason he decided to develop a separate protocol on a separate port, which
means you need a special client too. I think my solution was better.

The code to do such a thing is quite trivial, if anybody is interested let
me know. I don't know how long the script was, if it's short I might post it
here.

Greetz, Peter.
-- 
 AND I AM GONNA KILL MIKE|  Peter van Dijk
 hardbeat, als je nog nuchter bent:  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   @date = localtime(time);  |  realtime security d00d
   $date[5] += 2000 if ($date[5] < 37);  | 
   $date[5] += 1900 if ($date[5] < 99);  |-x- available -x-

Re: Need qmail to reload smtproutes

[Stuart Ballard]

Eric Smith wrote:
> 
> Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks several questions, including:
> > I'm also unsure how
> > to tell qmail to "always hold mail for this domain in the queue"
> 
> You'll probably be told that serialmail is the officially 'correct'
> solution to this problem.  I personally happen to have a conceptual
> dislike for introducing yet another different queuing method,

I'm glad that someone else does too :) I was beginning to be afraid I
*was* barking up the wrong tree...

> so I use
> Alan Curry's ETRN patch:
> 
> http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/qmail-etrn/
> 
> [I think this used to be listed on www.qmail.org, but I can't find it
> there now.]

This is going to be really helpful! Thanks!

> This won't solve the dynamic IP problem, though.  It allows the domain
> to request delivery of its email, but it still uses the smtproutes to
> determine how to get it there.

I have a script now that will auto-create an smtproutes file every time
someone dials in or out. This should solve that problem.

> Note that since you don't know the IP address, you'll have to accept an
> ETRN from *anyone*, which is suboptimal.

Ah, but I *can* restrict ETRNs to only people within the netblocks that
are assigned to our dialins. So it's not that big a problem.

I'll report back to the list on my progress, because mail dequeueing
without a static IP sounds like something that might be of use to other
people too.

Thanks to everyone on the list for their tips.

Stuart.

Re: Need qmail to reload smtproutes

[Eric Smith]

Stuart Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks several questions, including:
> I'm also unsure how
> to tell qmail to "always hold mail for this domain in the queue"

You'll probably be told that serialmail is the officially 'correct'
solution to this problem.  I personally happen to have a conceptual
dislike for introducing yet another different queuing method, so I use
Alan Curry's ETRN patch:

http://www.cqc.com/~pacman/projects/qmail-etrn/

[I think this used to be listed on www.qmail.org, but I can't find it
there now.]

This won't solve the dynamic IP problem, though.  It allows the domain
to request delivery of its email, but it still uses the smtproutes to
determine how to get it there.

Note that since you don't know the IP address, you'll have to accept an
ETRN from *anyone*, which is suboptimal.

Re: Need qmail to reload smtproutes

[johnjohn]

On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 05:03:21PM +, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> I am attempting to configure qmail to handle mail queueing for multiple
> domains, each of which will dial up with _dynamically assigned_ IP
> addresses. The servers themselves use exchange, so I can't rely on any
> features from them ;) (but they can send an ETRN if it helps).
> 
> I have a script written to monitor when they connect and disconnect, and
> keep track of who is connected to what IP at what time. I just need to
> get the mail to be delivered.
> 
> My initial thought was to trigger fetchmail, serialmail or maildir2smtp
> to send the mail from the appropriate user's maildir. But this is likely
> to have problems when the envelope information doesn't match the header
> information, and besides, why reinvent the wheel when qmail already has
> a mail queueing system designed for the purpose rather than cobbled
> together like mine would be.

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with your conclusion.

You already monitor what "virtual domain server" is connected, and from
which IP?  Then it's trivial to trigger serialmail delivery to that
IP address.

Serialmail handles the envelope information so it's not mangled.

qmail does -not- have a queue'ing system designed for serial connections.

drop all the virtual domain's mail in a maildir.  when the domain connects,
trigger maildirsmtp to the IP of the connecting machine.
 
> Then I found the smtproutes file. "Great!" I thought, "I can just put
> the dynamically assigned IP address for each domain into smtproutes and
> send qmail-send a SIGALRM to trigger immediate delivery". Unfortunately,
> it appears qmail doesn't ever reload this file, and I'd need it to be
> reloaded on a regular basis, whenever a host connects or disconnects.

reloading smtproutes is horrible, when compared to triggering maildirsmtp.
 
> Is there a way to force qmail to reload this file? I'm also unsure how
> to tell qmail to "always hold mail for this domain in the queue" (the
> nearest I can find are concurrencylocal=0 and concurrencyremote=0, but
> again, they're never reloaded, which sounds to me like all mail would be
> held forever).

The files you're talking about get reloaded when qmail restarts.  So you'd
have to kill qmail-send, wait for it to stop, then restart it.

> Am I totally barking up the wrong tree here?

Yup.
 
-- 
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp