[vchkpw] Newbie trying to figure vpopmail to popb4smtp.
i'm trying to configure my vpopmail + squirrelmail + qmail to not be an open
relay. The only way i've found to control this is put restricted domains in
the rcptshosts file. A concept of popb4smtp seems to be slipping through my
fingers. I've read the /usr/local/vpopmail/docs switches. From the doc's,
it will dynamically add the user so they can relay.
--enable-roaming-users=y \
--enable-relay-clear-minutes=${RELAYCLEAR}
Once I tried to implement. When I test this concept out, its an open
relay. What am I missing? Once frustrated newbie!
**
* Steve Schofield
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Microsoft MVP - ASP.NET
* http://www.aspfree.com
*
**
Re[2]: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
Hi Ben, Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 2:54:02 AM, you wrote: > Hi. > I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and qmail-smtpd is > able to recieve email from the various domains and route them to the correct > vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. > Except for one domain. > The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the only > LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done > vadddomain webpunch.net **, > vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > etc. > qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain > webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) > How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was > virtual? > - For reference, here are some of the files I have - > (line numbers are not in file, only here for reference) > /var/qmail/users/assign: > 1: +webpunch.net-:webpunch.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/webpunch.net:-:: > 2: +vdom1.com-:vdom1.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom1.com:-:: > 3: +vdom2.com-:vdom2.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom2.com:-:: > 4: +vdom3.net-:vdom3.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom3.net:-:: > 5: +vdom4.net-:vdom4.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom4.net:-:: > 6: . > (of course, vdom* are actual domain names in the file) > /var/qmail/control/me > (/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain and plusdoman have the same contents) > 1: webpunch.net > /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains > 1: webpunch.net:webpunch.net > 2: vdom1.com:vdom1.com > 3: vdom2.com:vdom2.com > 4: vdom3.net:vdom3.net > 5: vdom4.net:vdom4.net > > Thanks in advance. > Ben 1) make sure the domain is in /var/qmail/users/virtualdomains and rcpthosts. If so, give qmail-send a HUP and see if it continues. We know it's in your assign file, but you can try rebuilding the cdb by running /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu 2) if all else fails, try changing the name of your server. Run the config-fast script from your qmail source (config-fast mail.webpunch.net) and use mail.webpunch.net instead of just webpunch.net. If you're running FreeBSD and you installed qmail through ports the config-fast file is in /var/qmail/configure. 3) Remove whatever *webpunch.net from this files /var/qmail/control/me /var/qmail/control/locals /var/qmail/control/defaultdomain /var/qmail/plusdomian 4) Just put whatever *webpunch.net at /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts coz its a virtual domain right! Hope this help you -- regards made <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ikuti polling TELKOM Memo 166 di www.plasa.com dan menangkan hadiah masing-masing Rp 250.000 tunai
[vchkpw] Can not delete mailing list subscriber via QmailAdmin
Hello, I have a subscriber who is to be banned from a usersgroup, but I am not able to delete them using the Qmail Admin. I've tried going to delete and putting in the email address and I've tried going to the subscribers list and clicking delete user. Erik T Murray eInformation Manager Ferro Color & Glass Performance Materials http://www.ferro.com/our+products/glass/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager of Information Technology Ferro Graphics Inc http://www.ferrographicsinc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[vchkpw] Weird user/group for vpopmail/domains directory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] vpopmail]# lltotal 7drwxr-xr-x 2 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 fév 21 01:47 bindrwxr-xr-x 4 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 fév 21 01:47 docdrwxr-xr-x 5 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 fév 23 15:12 domainsdrwxr-xr-x 2 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 nov 26 2001 etcdrwxr-xr-x 2 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 fév 21 01:47 includedrwxr-xr-x 2 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 fév 21 01:47 libdrwxr-xr-x 2 vpopmail vchkpw 1024 fév 21 16:40 users[EMAIL PROTECTED] vpopmail]# ll domainstotal 3drwx-- 5 530 7798 1024 fév 23 15:21 mydomain1.comdrwx-- 3 530 7798 1024 fév 23 15:12 mydomain2.comdrwx-- 3 530 7798 1024 fév 23 15:12 mydomain3.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] vpopmail]# My mail server works fine with qmail however I don't know why vadddomain/vadduser use 530:7798 User 530 is not even in /etc/passwd and vpopmail user is : vpopmail:x:510:505::/home/vpopmail:/bin/bash Thanks, Al
RE: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
Two things you might try. 1.) make sure the domain is in /var/qmail/users/virtualdomains and rcpthosts. If so, give qmail-send a HUP and see if it continues. We know it's in your assign file, but you can try rebuilding the cdb by running /var/qmail/bin/qmail-newu 2.) if all else fails, try changing the name of your server. Run the config-fast script from your qmail source (config-fast mail.webpunch.net) and use mail.webpunch.net instead of just webpunch.net. If you're running FreeBSD and you installed qmail through ports the config-fast file is in /var/qmail/configure. -Clayton -Original Message- From: Ajai Khattri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual. Ben Ullian wrote: > Hi. > I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and > qmail-smtpd is able to recieve email from the various domains and > route them to the correct vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. > > Except for one domain. > > The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the > only LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done > > vadddomain webpunch.net **, > vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > etc. > > qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain > webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. > > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) > > How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was > virtual? Log files are your friend ;-) -- Aj. Systems Administrator / Developer
Re: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
Ben Ullian wrote: Hi. I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and qmail-smtpd is able to recieve email from the various domains and route them to the correct vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. Except for one domain. The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the only LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done vadddomain webpunch.net **, vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * etc. qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was virtual? Log files are your friend ;-) -- Aj. Systems Administrator / Developer
Re: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
qmail is probably not passing them on to vpopmail for delivery. Make sure you remove your domainname from the qmail control/locals file, and add it to your control/rcpthosts file. Brian > Hi. > I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and qmail-smtpd is > able to recieve email from the various domains and route them to the correct > vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. > > Except for one domain. > > The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the only > LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done > > vadddomain webpunch.net **, > vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > etc. > > qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain > webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. > > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) > > How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was > virtual? > > - For reference, here are some of the files I have - > (line numbers are not in file, only here for reference) > > /var/qmail/users/assign: > 1: +webpunch.net-:webpunch.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/webpunch.net:-:: > 2: +vdom1.com-:vdom1.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom1.com:-:: > 3: +vdom2.com-:vdom2.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom2.com:-:: > 4: +vdom3.net-:vdom3.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom3.net:-:: > 5: +vdom4.net-:vdom4.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom4.net:-:: > 6: . > > (of course, vdom* are actual domain names in the file) > > /var/qmail/control/me > (/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain and plusdoman have the same contents) > 1: webpunch.net > > > /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains > 1: webpunch.net:webpunch.net > 2: vdom1.com:vdom1.com > 3: vdom2.com:vdom2.com > 4: vdom3.net:vdom3.net > 5: vdom4.net:vdom4.net > > Thanks in advance. > Ben > >
Re: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
Ben, I don't think you would declare any local domains (other than localhost?) in a vpopmail implementation... I recall something in the docs about that. I'm extremely new, so caveat emptor. Dave. -- Original Message -- From: "Ben Ullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:54:02 -0500 >Hi. >I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and qmail-smtpd is >able to recieve email from the various domains and route them to the correct >vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. > >Except for one domain. > >The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the only >LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done > >vadddomain webpunch.net **, >vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * >etc. > >qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain >webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. > >(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) > >How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was >virtual? > >- For reference, here are some of the files I have - >(line numbers are not in file, only here for reference) > >/var/qmail/users/assign: >1: +webpunch.net-:webpunch.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/webpunch.net:-:: >2: +vdom1.com-:vdom1.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom1.com:-:: >3: +vdom2.com-:vdom2.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom2.com:-:: >4: +vdom3.net-:vdom3.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom3.net:-:: >5: +vdom4.net-:vdom4.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom4.net:-:: >6: . > >(of course, vdom* are actual domain names in the file) > >/var/qmail/control/me >(/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain and plusdoman have the same contents) >1: webpunch.net > > >/var/qmail/control/virtualdomains >1: webpunch.net:webpunch.net >2: vdom1.com:vdom1.com >3: vdom2.com:vdom2.com >4: vdom3.net:vdom3.net >5: vdom4.net:vdom4.net > >Thanks in advance. >Ben > > >
Re: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
You should not do anything special to accept mail for that domain. I have it on my machine and I do not recall to have done anything special. You may want to check your installation again. Remo > From: "Ben Ullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:54:02 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual. > > Hi. > I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and qmail-smtpd is > able to recieve email from the various domains and route them to the correct > vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. > > Except for one domain. > > The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the only > LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done > > vadddomain webpunch.net **, > vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > etc. > > qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain > webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. > > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) > > How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was > virtual? > > - For reference, here are some of the files I have - > (line numbers are not in file, only here for reference) > > /var/qmail/users/assign: > 1: +webpunch.net-:webpunch.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/webpunch.net:-:: > 2: +vdom1.com-:vdom1.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom1.com:-:: > 3: +vdom2.com-:vdom2.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom2.com:-:: > 4: +vdom3.net-:vdom3.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom3.net:-:: > 5: +vdom4.net-:vdom4.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom4.net:-:: > 6: . > > (of course, vdom* are actual domain names in the file) > > /var/qmail/control/me > (/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain and plusdoman have the same contents) > 1: webpunch.net > > > /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains > 1: webpunch.net:webpunch.net > 2: vdom1.com:vdom1.com > 3: vdom2.com:vdom2.com > 4: vdom3.net:vdom3.net > 5: vdom4.net:vdom4.net > > Thanks in advance. > Ben > > >
[vchkpw] How to handle the local domain as virtual.
Hi. I am running Qmail with vpopmail successfully right now, and qmail-smtpd is able to recieve email from the various domains and route them to the correct vpopmail mailboxes with no problem. Except for one domain. The real domain name of the server itself (webpunch.net) is set as the only LOCAL domain in qmail, and even though I have done vadddomain webpunch.net **, vadduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] * etc. qmail bounces all messages sent to any user I have created in domain webpunch.net, saying that there is no user by that name. (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sorry, no mailbox here by that name.) How do I make QMail treat incoming mail for webpunch.net as if it was virtual? - For reference, here are some of the files I have - (line numbers are not in file, only here for reference) /var/qmail/users/assign: 1: +webpunch.net-:webpunch.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/webpunch.net:-:: 2: +vdom1.com-:vdom1.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom1.com:-:: 3: +vdom2.com-:vdom2.com:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom2.com:-:: 4: +vdom3.net-:vdom3.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom3.net:-:: 5: +vdom4.net-:vdom4.net:89:89:/home/vpopmail/domains/vdom4.net:-:: 6: . (of course, vdom* are actual domain names in the file) /var/qmail/control/me (/var/qmail/control/defaultdomain and plusdoman have the same contents) 1: webpunch.net /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains 1: webpunch.net:webpunch.net 2: vdom1.com:vdom1.com 3: vdom2.com:vdom2.com 4: vdom3.net:vdom3.net 5: vdom4.net:vdom4.net Thanks in advance. Ben
Re: [vchkpw] OT: Spamarrest
If you can send me the original message, we will take appropriate action. -- Keith K, Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. On Tuesday 25 February 2003 4:01 am, Dave Weiner wrote: > Sorry for the waste of bandwidth folks, but somebody who's using > spamarrest is subscribed to this list: > > Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I got a request from him to validate myself when I posted a > follow up to the vpopmail daemon thread. > > For those of you that don't know, while they claim it's not spam, > Spamarrest spams. There was a thread recently on the Spam > Assassin mailing list about it. Spamarrest feels that if you > validate yourself to one of thier customers that it gives them > the right to send you solicitations for their service. You can > read more about their practices at > http://www.groovymother.com/archives/000545.html > > > Brian, if you even see this, please consider other solutions. > > Dave
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail extension modules
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:06, Doug Clements wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 6:47 PM > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail extension modules > > Does GPL mean that you absolutely HAVE to distribute and publish your > > code? (I don't think it does... I could be wrong though...) > > If you change vpopmail (or any other GPL-licensed code), yes, you have to > make it available to the public. I just read the GNU license. I don't see anything that says that I HAVE to distribute my changes. There are terms and conditions forced upon me if I DO distribute, but nothing about absolutely having to give people my code. :) Did I miss something? > --Doug -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net We are actively looking for companies that do a lot of long distance faxing and want to cut their long distance bill by up to 50%. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info.
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail+qmail
Ihsan Turkmen wrote: I have installed qmail+vpopmail ,bur have a problem. 1. qmai-inject and smtp-deamon inject mails into and look for mailboxes in $HOMEDIR/Maildir What is in ~qmail/control/rcpthosts? What is in ~qmail/control/virtualdomains? What does your /var/qmail/users/assign file say? 2.Vpopmail tries to pop the mail from /home/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com.tr/ihsan/Maildir 3.When I manually copy the content of $HOMEDIR/Maildir to /home/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com.tr/myusername/Maildir, the pop client sees all the mail in the mailbox but unable to read them. Because normally, the Maildirs are owned by vpopmail and belong to the vchkpw group. 4.qmail-inject sends mail to outside world succesfully. 5.When qmail gets an e-mail for an acccount who has'nt got a homedir (even if he has a Mailbox in home/vpopmail/domains/mydomain.com.tr/myusername/) qmail deamon returns the Tell us what the control and assign files look like. Also, what are you using for POP3? Courier? -- Aj. Systems Administrator / Developer
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmal + mail scanner and spam scanner
I have used spamassassin and qmail-scanner with vpopmail for a long time now no problem at all. REMO > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 25 Feb 2003 15:20:20 - > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [vchkpw] vpopmal + mail scanner and spam scanner > > Hi all!! > > It's time to install a scanner (virus) and spam scanner > in this moment i see the "qmail-scanner" with fprot or sophos (i don't no), > but i read in other lists have problems with vpopmail and qmail-scanner > it's that true or no??? > If it's true, somebody recommed me other script/software to this!! > for smpan a thinking in SpamAssassin!!?? > > thank's for all > >
[vchkpw] vpopmal + mail scanner and spam scanner
Hi all!! It's time to install a scanner (virus) and spam scanner in this moment i see the "qmail-scanner" with fprot or sophos (i don't no), but i read in other lists have problems with vpopmail and qmail-scanner it's that true or no??? If it's true, somebody recommed me other script/software to this!! for smpan a thinking in SpamAssassin!!?? thank's for all
RE: [vchkpw] Configure options for MySQL support?
This sounds like a good idea to me.. I'd like to see this in the future. Andre -Original Message- From: Robin Bowes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Configure options for MySQL support? David, On Tue, February 25, 2003 2:13 pm, David Richardson said: > I don't plan on changing my MySQL params very often, but I'm _certain_ > that I'll forget to update vmysql.h during a recompile and I'll foobar my > Vpopmail. Can you guess what bit me resulting in my raising this as an issue?!! > Perhaps we could just cobble together a helper perl script to query for > and rewrite the vmysql.h params as part of the compile script(s) you use. That's another possibility... > Without a lot of other "me too" votes, is there interest from the vpopmail > team in having this idea go a particular direction (into config/make or > external perl)? Is this even the appropriate venue to ask??? Let's wait and see... R. -- Robin Bowes | http://robinbowes.com
Re: [vchkpw] Configure options for MySQL support?
David, On Tue, February 25, 2003 2:13 pm, David Richardson said: > I don't plan on changing my MySQL params very often, but I'm _certain_ > that I'll forget to update vmysql.h during a recompile and I'll foobar my > Vpopmail. Can you guess what bit me resulting in my raising this as an issue?!! > Perhaps we could just cobble together a helper perl script to query for > and rewrite the vmysql.h params as part of the compile script(s) you use. That's another possibility... > Without a lot of other "me too" votes, is there interest from the vpopmail > team in having this idea go a particular direction (into config/make or > external perl)? Is this even the appropriate venue to ask??? Let's wait and see... R. -- Robin Bowes | http://robinbowes.com
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail extension modules
I largely think that I already have my answer from the vpopmail community regarding a module interface. Most of you don't think it's needed, or that it would be a benefit if it were written. And certainly I'd have to write it myself if I really wanted it that badly. So, the following comments are written just to clarify some of my reasoning, NOT the say, "Hey! I want a module interface and I want it NOW!" On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:06, Doug Clements wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 6:47 PM > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail extension modules > > Well, yes and no. My point is that many successful projects release > > production code more quickly. > > I think vpopmail is unique in that it's very specialized and very small. > There haven't been huge changes that require the more frequent updates > other software packages have. While there are some bugs, they aren't > usually very big, and since most of vpopmail is buffered by other software > from potentially malicious users, the fixes typically aren't > earth-shattering. New features aren't added often either, so there just > doesn't seem to be much demand for more regular updates. > > While I think they could be a bit more often, making releases just because > it feels like it's been a long time is not a good reason. Look at qmail, > which hasn't had an official update in years. (On the flip side, look at > the collections of patches that people have submitted for enchanced > functionality and bug-fixing). I'm not sure that qmail is a good example. Half the crowd wants new patches incorporated, and the other half wants to make sure that their code stays small and fortified for security reasons. Vpopmail doesn't really have that many security issues (but it WOULD if someone daemonized part of it... which seems less useful now than when I originally thought of it) by design. > > > My point here is that the developer had spent so much time in the > > development version code that he refers to the production release > > > as 'back in the 5.2.x days'. That makes it sound like just a bit too much > > time has passed since a release, IMO. > > Gotcha. I stopped running a "stable" release a long time ago, so I guess > I'm a bit insulated from that. That was kinda my point. Not many people run stable versions. It's kinda like the 'introductory' version of vpopmail. Then you step up to a development version if you need a new feature. (And there a quite a few to choose from) > Modularization does not automatically make code easier to follow. In fact, > in this case, I think it would be harder. Depends on how it's implemented, and how well it's documented. I used to be a Windows programmer. The one thing I really miss about windows is the excellent interface documentation. You just don't get that with UNIX. You have to dig for information yourself and get your hands dirty. A well written and well documented module interface might actually make it easier to write code for vpopmail. The only thing that worries me is that I fear much of the way vpopmail works would have to be modified to accomodate such a module interface. Vpopmail would probably have to take many aspects of a code library... > > > Also, I don't really believe in overengineering. What's the harm in > > thinking about how we might make things easier for ourselves in > > > the future? > > No harm there. I think there are areas in which vpopmail could get better, > I just don't think that modularization fits into how vpopmail works at this > time. You typically pick one thing out of a list of choices and don't run > different choices concurrently. I know we're going in circles at this point, but modularization would allow developers OTHER than vpopmail create modules that could be statically or dynamically linked to vpopmail. This removes inter7 from the loop, which I think would be a good thing. I dislike patches. (Yes, I know, I'm going to get flamed for choosing qmail now) > > > Does GPL mean that you absolutely HAVE to distribute and publish your > > code? (I don't think it does... I could be wrong though...) > > If you change vpopmail (or any other GPL-licensed code), yes, you have to > make it available to the public. Ouch. Didn't realize that. GPL is quite viral then isn't it. Well... what does "public" mean? If someone asks for it that I have to give it to them? What if no-one knows about it? Does the GPL list WHERE and HOW I have to make it "public"? Very confusing. > You can technically get around the GPL with certain types of modules, but > this is where my knowledge gets fuzzy. Apparently things you link into a > program count, but things that can be loaded at run-time don't count. This > is how you can license a linux kernel module under some other non-gpl > license, and run gcc on non-GPL systems. Create
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:56, Dave Weiner wrote: > On Sunday 23 February 2003 21:56, Jesse Guardiani wrote: > > OK. Again, I admit lack of experience here. But, it still seems like a > > vpopmail specific protocol would be faster than transfering and modifying > > files over NFS. Does everyone really think that NFS would be faster? > > First off, I've designed and built 2 different qmail+vpopmail clusters, > using different platforms (Sun and Linux), both using NFS (EMC and > RaidZone), and they both work like champs. OK. So, you don't think that a vpopmail specific protocol would save a little overhead? If that is everyone's general conception, then: ok. Works for me. Thanks for the feedback people! Jesse > > Ok, as to your question. NFS is optimized for sending the data for the > network and writing it to disk, or reading the data from disk and pushing > it back out. Your vpopmail daemon would have to do the same thing -- > accept the message via a network port and then write it to the disk. > Sounds a lot like NFS to me. Why not go with the mature protocol? > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > Jesse -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net We are actively looking for companies that do a lot of long distance faxing and want to cut their long distance bill by up to 50%. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info.
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:10, Doug Clements wrote: > If you don't mind my asking, why don't you care for NFS? I just never heard anything good about it. Honest misconception I suppose. > > --Doug > > - Original Message - > From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:36 PM > Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon > > > You're right. I don't care for NFS. > > That's why I suggested this. -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net We are actively looking for companies that do a lot of long distance faxing and want to cut their long distance bill by up to 50%. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info.
Re: [vchkpw] Configure options for MySQL support?
Robin, if it's up for a vote, I'll second your motion! I don't plan on changing my MySQL params very often, but I'm _certain_ that I'll forget to update vmysql.h during a recompile and I'll foobar my Vpopmail. Perhaps we could just cobble together a helper perl script to query for and rewrite the vmysql.h params as part of the compile script(s) you use. Without a lot of other "me too" votes, is there interest from the vpopmail team in having this idea go a particular direction (into config/make or external perl)? Is this even the appropriate venue to ask??? Thanks, Dave. -- Original Message -- From: "Robin Bowes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:50:23 - (GMT) >Hi, > >I currently use a script to build vpopmail to mame sure I keep the same >configure options: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# cat vpopmail.config.sh >#!/bin/bash >./configure \ > --enable-tcpserver-file=/etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd \ > --enable-logging=e \ > --enable-log-name=vpopmail \ > --enable-default-domain=robinbowes.com \ > --enable-file-sync=n \ > --enable-auth-logging=y \ > --enable-qmail-ext=y \ > --enable-clear-passwd=y \ > --enable-valias=y \ > --enable-roaming-users=y \ > --enable-mysql=y \ > && make \ > && make install-strip > >I keep this in /home/tarballs along with my vpopmail tarballs: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# ls -d vpopmail* >vpopmail-5.2.1.tar.gz vpopmail-5.3.16.tar.gz vpopmail.config.sh >vpopmail-5.3.12.tar.gz vpopmail-5.3.7.tar.gz >vpopmail-5.3.16 vpopmail-5.3.9.tar.gz > >If I need to build vpopmail (any version), I so the following: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# tar zxf vpopmail-5.3.12.tar.gz >[EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# cd vpopmail-5.3.12 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] vpopmail-5.3.12]# ../vpopmail.config.sh >creating cache ./config.cache >checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c >checking whether build environment is sane... yes >... > >This worked perfectly until I enabled MySQL support. Now I must edit >vmysql.h to include the server/user/password for mysql. > >Would it be possible to add in a few options for configure to supply these >values on the command line, e.g.: > >./configure \ > --with-mysql-update-server=servername \ > --with-mysql-update-user=username \ > --with-mysql-update-password=password \ > --with-mysql-read-server=servername \ > --with-mysql-read-user=username \ > --with-mysql-read-password=password > >The "--with-mysql-read-*" options could be optional, i.e. use the update >server values if the read server is not present. > >I'd hack this myself, but I'm afraid I know little about writing configure >scripts. > >Thanks, > >R. >-- >Robin Bowes | http://robinbowes.com > >
[vchkpw] OT: Spamarrest
Sorry for the waste of bandwidth folks, but somebody who's using spamarrest is subscribed to this list: Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I got a request from him to validate myself when I posted a follow up to the vpopmail daemon thread. For those of you that don't know, while they claim it's not spam, Spamarrest spams. There was a thread recently on the Spam Assassin mailing list about it. Spamarrest feels that if you validate yourself to one of thier customers that it gives them the right to send you solicitations for their service. You can read more about their practices at http://www.groovymother.com/archives/000545.html Brian, if you even see this, please consider other solutions. Dave
[vchkpw] Configure options for MySQL support?
Hi, I currently use a script to build vpopmail to mame sure I keep the same configure options: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# cat vpopmail.config.sh #!/bin/bash ./configure \ --enable-tcpserver-file=/etc/tcprules.d/qmail-smtpd \ --enable-logging=e \ --enable-log-name=vpopmail \ --enable-default-domain=robinbowes.com \ --enable-file-sync=n \ --enable-auth-logging=y \ --enable-qmail-ext=y \ --enable-clear-passwd=y \ --enable-valias=y \ --enable-roaming-users=y \ --enable-mysql=y \ && make \ && make install-strip I keep this in /home/tarballs along with my vpopmail tarballs: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# ls -d vpopmail* vpopmail-5.2.1.tar.gz vpopmail-5.3.16.tar.gz vpopmail.config.sh vpopmail-5.3.12.tar.gz vpopmail-5.3.7.tar.gz vpopmail-5.3.16 vpopmail-5.3.9.tar.gz If I need to build vpopmail (any version), I so the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# tar zxf vpopmail-5.3.12.tar.gz [EMAIL PROTECTED] tarballs]# cd vpopmail-5.3.12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] vpopmail-5.3.12]# ../vpopmail.config.sh creating cache ./config.cache checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes ... This worked perfectly until I enabled MySQL support. Now I must edit vmysql.h to include the server/user/password for mysql. Would it be possible to add in a few options for configure to supply these values on the command line, e.g.: ./configure \ --with-mysql-update-server=servername \ --with-mysql-update-user=username \ --with-mysql-update-password=password \ --with-mysql-read-server=servername \ --with-mysql-read-user=username \ --with-mysql-read-password=password The "--with-mysql-read-*" options could be optional, i.e. use the update server values if the read server is not present. I'd hack this myself, but I'm afraid I know little about writing configure scripts. Thanks, R. -- Robin Bowes | http://robinbowes.com
[vchkpw] Forwards / Catchall
Hello list, On the qmail mailinglist they told me to ask here :) One side note, this is a copy/paste from my email to the qmail mailinglist. I have already removed the named files from our server, this was only a test case. I do have several users with these problems. Just now, I noticed that a catch-all which forwards to another address doesn't work, and I'm unable to figure out why. # cat .qmail-default | /var/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' [EMAIL PROTECTED] # cat .qmail-test-jan [EMAIL PROTECTED] De dot-qmail files are not world/group readable, which is fine according to the qmail-inject manpage: -rw---1 vpopmail vchkpw 55 Feb 24 13:35 .qmail-default -rw-r--r--1 root root 20 Feb 24 13:34 .qmail-test-jan Email send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] gets forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is correct. Email send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is delivered only to [EMAIL PROTECTED] == Begin headers of a test email to the catchall == Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 23575 invoked by uid 0); 24 Feb 2003 12:36:29 - Received: from post-21.mail.nl.demon.net (194.159.73.20) by net3-nl-mail-03.ad.vevida.net with SMTP; 24 Feb 2003 12:36:29 - Received: from [212.238.190.175] (helo=vevida.nl) by post-21.mail.nl.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18nHwB-qk-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:42:27 + Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:42:36 +0100 From: Jan Reilink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: test 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit == End headers of a test email to the catchall == == Begin headers of a test email to test-jan == From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 24 13:41:01 2003 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from net3-nl-mail-03.ad.vevida.net (net3-nl-mail-03.ad.vevida.net [213.244.179.76]) by havana.dsinet.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DCBE46CAB for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:40:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 18742 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2003 12:34:47 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18740 invoked by uid 0); 24 Feb 2003 12:34:47 - Received: from post-21.mail.nl.demon.net (194.159.73.20) by net3-nl-mail-03.ad.vevida.net with SMTP; 24 Feb 2003 12:34:47 - Received: from [212.238.190.175] (helo=vevida.nl) by post-21.mail.nl.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18nHuY-RG-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:40:46 + Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:40:55 +0100 From: Jan Reilink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit == End headers of a test email to test-jan == Thanks in advance for any help. -- Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Jan Reilink
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
If you don't mind my asking, why don't you care for NFS? --Doug - Original Message - From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon > You're right. I don't care for NFS. > That's why I suggested this.
Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail extension modules
- Original Message - From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail extension modules > > Most software development goes like this. I would be dissapointed at inter7 > > if they didn't have development and stable releases. Why do you want test > > code in a supposedly "stable" distribution? > > Well, yes and no. My point is that many successful projects release production code more quickly. I think vpopmail is unique in that it's very specialized and very small. There haven't been huge changes that require the more frequent updates other software packages have. While there are some bugs, they aren't usually very big, and since most of vpopmail is buffered by other software from potentially malicious users, the fixes typically aren't earth-shattering. New features aren't added often either, so there just doesn't seem to be much demand for more regular updates. While I think they could be a bit more often, making releases just because it feels like it's been a long time is not a good reason. Look at qmail, which hasn't had an official update in years. (On the flip side, look at the collections of patches that people have submitted for enchanced functionality and bug-fixing). > My point here is that the developer had spent so much time in the development version code that he refers to the production release > as 'back in the 5.2.x days'. That makes it sound like just a bit too much time has passed since a release, IMO. Gotcha. I stopped running a "stable" release a long time ago, so I guess I'm a bit insulated from that. > 1.) Individual authentication storage and access mechanisms would make good modules. (LDAP, MySQL, flat file, etc...) > 2.) Possibly mailbox read write code might make a good module. (One for maildir, one for mbox, etc) > 3.) Quota management might make a good module 1) I think that authentication methods are generally just so darn simple that there's no incentive to go through the trouble of modulerizing. For any storage method you want to use, there's going to be easy-lookup and easy-update routines, which takes minimal implementation in the clients. You're also only going to be using one of these at a time on a given system, so it makes sense to compile it statically for the above reason as well as the minimal speed increase. Now if you wanted to for some reason mix authentication backends, there's potential. I can't come up with a real-world scenario for that off the top of my head, though. 2) Same argument for using only one at a time, with these exceptions: - Boxes with users that use different formats * but: vpopmail users are virtual, so users don't care what format their mailbox is in - I currently pass off mail delivery to Maildrop. I think you can also pass it off to procmail (if you really want mbox). This is already modular enough to pick the 2 most popular delivery and filtering mechanisms out there, in addition to straight delivery without filtering. 3) You mean lookup and setting of quota, or calculation? lookup and setting should go along with whatever authentication backend you use. Calculation pretty much depends on the mail storage format you use. I personally do quotas with Maildrop, which dropped in to replace vdelivermail with a little scripting. Now that vdelivermail does Maildir quotas and has .qmail file support, I think I'll change it back. From my view, the parts that need to be modular already are. > Maybe others too. But I'm not so much thinking about how badly I hate the current implementation of vpopmail (because I don't), but > how we might make it easier to extend vpopmail in the future. And possibly take some load off the inter7 team in the process. Each > non-standard module could have it's own mailing list and programming team, making development progress a bit faster, and also making > code a bit easier to follow (because it's modularized). Modularization does not automatically make code easier to follow. In fact, in this case, I think it would be harder. > Also, I don't really believe in overengineering. What's the harm in thinking about how we might make things easier for ourselves in > the future? No harm there. I think there are areas in which vpopmail could get better, I just don't think that modularization fits into how vpopmail works at this time. You typically pick one thing out of a list of choices and don't run different choices concurrently. > Does GPL mean that you absolutely HAVE to distribute and publish your code? (I don't think it does... I could be wrong though...) If you change vpopmail (or any other GPL-licensed code), yes, you have to make it available to the public. > (Under the assumption that I'm not wrong...) > So, if a programmer makes a module for a company under the GPL, he has to give that company his code. But that doesn't mean he has > to make it public dom
