[xmail] Re: Huge unknown threads for xmail
I just have to comment on the pun here, as it appears unintentional. aehrm. Which Wintendo do you use? Windows 2003 sever Enterprise. Wintendo + sever enterprise = LOL ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Error sending message with 553 5.7.1 code
Oops! I forgot to post back to the list. Sorry. Yes, it is the error from the other person's server. They have it set to reject messages where the MAIL_FROM resolves to a local account but no SMTP AUTH is given. I suspect this configuration will cause grief to lots of Postfix users who subscribe to mailing lists that don't munge the From: header. Sönke Ruempler wrote: On 02.08.2005 16:46, Kevin Williams wrote: I must be missing something here, but I don't see it. I have a mailing list, and one member says they can't send to the list. XMail bounced the message with this reason: 553 5.7.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender address rejected: not logged in As I've never had this error before and I don't require SMTP auth for members to send to the list, I'm stumped. If anyone has a suggestion, I would greatly appreciate it. I guees that error message isn't one from XMail. IMHO it's a XMail Bounce message with the Error of the _REMOTE_ server. Could you please post the complete bounce message so we can analyze it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Xmail filter with ClamAV
Are you using my Python filter or writing your own? I tested with file attachments, and it caught them quite well, but that was all I had to test with. Improvements are welcome. John Kielkopf wrote: Anyone else scanning mail with ClamAV? With just telling ClamAV to scan the message file supplied by Xmail, It'll miss a number of the test from http://www.webmail.us/testvirus If I build a new temp file to scan doing the following: - Strip MAIL-DATA X-ClamAV-Scan: clean X-ClamAV-Scan: clean Received-SPF: unknown ([69.30.125.51]: domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED] uses unknown mechanism: no SPF record) and everything before - Add a Return-Path: xxx header to the top. - Detect and fix a bad EOH (no double CRLF before the start of the message body) I can then get ClamAV to pass all of the tests that contain a virus. (#24 and #24 get past, but they contain no virus). Is it possible to get ClamAV to hit the target without all of this? I'd like to avoid the overhead of building a new file every time I want to scan it. Thanks, --John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Error sending message with 553 5.7.1 code
I must be missing something here, but I don't see it. I have a mailing list, and one member says they can't send to the list. XMail bounced the message with this reason: 553 5.7.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender address rejected: not logged in As I've never had this error before and I don't require SMTP auth for members to send to the list, I'm stumped. If anyone has a suggestion, I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Kevin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Help Xscanner
Jeff Buehler wrote: However, ASSP (nor ClamSMTP nor ClamAV) do not run on Windows. FYI - http://www.clamwin.com/ (Not that I run xmail on Windows, but just to clarify.) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Return-Path oddness
The problem turned out to be in Subversion's commit-email.pl. It has a --from argument, but that didn't have any effect. I finally broke down and opened up the Perl script and changed it to use sendmail -f$fromArg. Snke Ruempler wrote: On Saturday, April 02, 2005 4:07 AM [GMT+1=CET], Kevin Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please forgive me if this is a silly question. When sending a message from XMail's sendmail, the messages have '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' as the Return-Path. I can't figure out why this is. More important is that I want to fix it. I've been searching the mailing list and Googleing my fingers off trying to figure this out. Does anyone know how to correct this? # sendmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Need some direction... please
Randy Adams wrote: I am not a Perl wiz, wish I was. Be careful what you wish for. ;) -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Return-Path oddness
Please forgive me if this is a silly question. When sending a message from XMail's sendmail, the messages have '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' as the Return-Path. I can't figure out why this is. More important is that I want to fix it. I've been searching the mailing list and Googleing my fingers off trying to figure this out. Does anyone know how to correct this? Thanks in advance, Kevin -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: 110% off topic
Have you tried the IISLockdown tool from MS? I haven't used that ( or been an IIS admin ) since the CodeRed and Nimda virus days, but that helped a bunch. IIRC it can be configured to ignore certain URL types/regexes. Mike Harrington wrote: The server is running IIS. The actual worm isn't causing any damage to us other than trying to flood our server with bogus requests. So far the response time of the server hasn't been damaged, but it's only day two of the virus and it seems by 5% an hour. Right now the server is getting about 1200 bogus requests a minute which is around 1.7 million a day (at the current rate). The log files I can just delete every few hours, but I was hoping to find a little bit better solution. -Mike - Original Message - From: decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: xmail@xmailserver.org Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:55 PM Subject: [xmail] Re: 110% off topic Hi, I'm not sure if this will help you since it's only relative for apache users. If you are running IIS or something I dunno. If you watch your logs closely you'll probably know there are some really annoying windows worm things out there that, while posing no threat to apache/*nix, are still annoying and a waste of space in logs. For example there is one that does a SEARCH request that is so long it breaches apache's max length for a url. To not log it (and another for example) I have in httpd.conf SetEnvIf Request_URI ^/SEARCH annoying SetEnvIf Request_URI ^/scripts/.. annoying And in my vhost entries (anywhere that would log this really) CustomLog /home/decker/logs/www/n3t.net-access_log combined env=!annoying This allows me to log everything normally except the junk from the worms. I'm not familiar with the bagle virus and what it looks for, however you may be able to apply the above example to help performance and save disk space. If the virus requests are causing the server to hit its MaxClients limit, then you are SOL for the most part. -darren - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SMTP external Auth help
Davide, Last year you tried to help me get this to work. You sent me a patch but it didn't solve the problem (something about the domain, perhaps?). I've been trying to get this to work for a couple of years now. There is plenty of interest and this isn't the first time the request has been posed. Not that XMailServer isn't awesome, but this would raise it another notch. Kevin Davide Libenzi wrote: On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Chris L. Franklin wrote: And in my MailRoot/userauth/pop3 i created a '.tab' and put this inside it : userauth[TAB]/var/MailRoot/bin/Authpam.pl[TAB]@@USER[TAB]@@PASSWD No big deal pop3 work great. Now my problem is how could I go about getting smtp to basicly work the same way ? (part of my problem is i don't find the XMail docs (ReadMe) to be all that help full when it comes to this.) XMail exmaples looks like this : external auth-name secretprog-path arg-or-macro So when i break down the columns I see this: external: Write external here so that xmail knows to run a external program / script auth-name : replace this with the smtp auth type cram-md5,login,plain secret : No clue ??? prog-path : Path to the script or program arg-or-macro : this can be @@CHALL,@@SECRT, and or @@RFILE Basicly I've tryed everything I can think of to get this to work like the pop3 auth. But i just can seem to grasp Somthing ? XMail has the ability to plug external authentications that works together with associated client counterparts. At the moment, there's no way to call out like POP3. I'll see how to fit this in, if there is an interest set with more than one element ;) - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SMTP external Auth help
I might have been the original author, I'm not sure. At the time XMail
didn't support external SMTP authentication. Davide tried to help me
patch the source but it didn't work. AFAIK it still doesn't work, but I
haven't looked at it since about version 1.15.
Chris L. Franklin wrote:
Okay So I got pop3 to auth against system account password with a lightly
modded perl to pam script (some one else wrote and posted to this list).
[Code]
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Authen::PAM;
# arguments: (1)user (2)password
my $username = shift;
my $password = shift;
if($username =~/(.+)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/) {
$username=$1;
}
$service = passwd;
sub my_conv_func {
my @res;
while ( @_ ) {
my $code = shift;
my $msg = shift;
my $ans = ;
$ans = $username if ($code == PAM_PROMPT_ECHO_ON );
$ans = $password if ($code == PAM_PROMPT_ECHO_OFF );
push @res, (PAM_SUCCESS,$ans);
}
push @res, PAM_SUCCESS;
return @res;
}
ref($pamh = new Authen::PAM($service, $username, \my_conv_func)) ||
die Error code $pamh during PAM init!;
$res = $pamh-pam_authenticate;
exit($res);
[/Code]
And in my MailRoot/userauth/pop3 i created a '.tab' and put this inside it :
userauth[TAB]/var/MailRoot/bin/Authpam.pl[TAB]@@USER[TAB]@@PASSWD
No big deal pop3 work great. Now my problem is how could I go about getting
smtp to basicly work the same way ? (part of my problem is i don't find the
XMail docs (ReadMe) to be all that help full when it comes to this.)
XMail exmaples looks like this :
external auth-name secretprog-path arg-or-macro
So when i break down the columns I see this:
external: Write external here so that xmail knows to run a external program
/ script
auth-name : replace this with the smtp auth type cram-md5,login,plain
secret : No clue ???
prog-path : Path to the script or program
arg-or-macro : this can be @@CHALL,@@SECRT, and or @@RFILE
Basicly I've tryed everything I can think of to get this to work like the
pop3 auth. But i just can seem to grasp Somthing ?
Help
-- Chris L. Franklin --
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Abemus Papam ...
Feel free to update that ebuild and use it however you like.
Dustin C. Hatch wrote:
Has someone created an ebuild for 1.21 yet? If not, I will create it
and submit it to gentoo's bugzilla. Kevin, is it alright if I update
the ebuild you sent me? I prefer it to the chrooted version.
Dustin C. Hatch
http://www.dchweb.com/
Davide Libenzi wrote:
1.21 it is, at the end:
http://www.xmailserver.org
* Sun Jan 9 2005 Davide Libenzi davidel@xmailserver.org
Added a fix for 64 bits porting compatibility.
Added the ability to exclude filters from execution in case of
authenticated user.
By pre-pending the filter command token with a token containing !aex,
the filters
won't be run if the user authenticated himself.
Added @@USERAUTH macro even to standard in/out filters (before it was only
defined
for SMTP ones).
Added a new NoSenderBounce variable inside the SERVER.TAB file, to enable
XMail generated bounce messages to have the empty SMTP sender ('MAIL
FROM:').
Added a new SMTP-MaxErrors variable inside the SERVER.TAB file to set
the maximum
errors allowed in a single SMTP session (default zero, unlimited).
Added a LastLoginTimeDate variable to the userstat CTRL command.
Added external aliases support in the CTRL protocol.
The MESSAGE.ID file is now automatically created, if missing.
Changed the logic used to treat domain and user MAILPROC.TAB files.
Before, a user's
MAILPROC.TAB was overriding the domain one, while now the rules are merged
together,
with domain's ones first, followed by user's ones.
The maximum mailbox size of zero is now interpreted as unlimited.
Fixed XMail's sendmail to detect non-RFC822 data and handle it correctly.
The IP:PORT addresses emission in spool files (and Received: lines) has
been changed
to the form [IP]:PORT.
Added filter logging, that is enabled with the new -Qg command line option.
Fixed an error message in the SMTP server, that was triggered by the
remote client
not using the proper syntax for the MAIL FROM: and RCPT TO: commands.
Fixed explicit routing through SMTPGW.TAB file.
Fixed a possible problem with file locking that might be triggered from
CTRL commands
cfgfileget/cfgfileset.
Added a check to avoid the CTRL server to give an error when a domain
created with
older versions of XMail does not have the domain directory inside
cmdaliases.
The SMTP server FQDN variable should be set to the value of
SmtpServerDomain, when
this is used inside the SERVER.TAB file.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
--
Scanned for viruses by ClamAV
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Abemus Papam ...
When I introduced the XMail Server ebuild to Gentoo, I tried to achieve the same resulting install that one would have if following the Readme.html document. This way, the documentation would match one's file system. Also, since it was new to Gentoo, I thought following the documentation would be a Good Idea. I don't prefer non-chroot over chroot. I think a chroot-ed server that doesn't match the distributed documentation is a poor choice for an audience of users who likely have never used the server before. Davide specifically addresses his choice of permissions and file locations in the documentation, and I don't believe his setup is any less secure than he claims. I also don't agree that the ebuild should do the chroot for you. Most other servers in Gentoo don't do that. That is a server setup left to the skills of dedicated administrators. I wouldn't mind having two ebuilds in Gentoo, as long as it's clear which is which. The documentation would have to be changed or appended for the chroot-ed version, too. QuinoX wrote: 1) If I may ask, why do you prefer nonchroot over chroot ? 2) If you add a nonchrooted version to portage, will that make my server nonchrooted too if I use that ebuild to update? If it does, I guess some people will not like that (myself included) Kevin Williams schrieb: Feel free to update that ebuild and use it however you like. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Has someone created an ebuild for 1.21 yet? If not, I will create it and submit it to gentoo's bugzilla. Kevin, is it alright if I update the ebuild you sent me? I prefer it to the chrooted version. Dustin C. Hatch http://www.dchweb.com/ Davide Libenzi wrote: 1.21 it is, at the end: http://www.xmailserver.org *snip impressive list of changes snip* - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Abemus Papam ...
Actually, I believe the ebuild I sent you is set up for use with CourierIMAP, because users need direct access to their maildir. A strict POP3 SMTP install, like my earlier ebuilds in Gentoo's bugzilla, were closer to the documentation. I haven't touched the ebuild in quite a while except for version bumps, so I might not remember it correctly (don't have it in front of me ATM). Sorry. I hope that doesn't mess anyone up. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Portage is not specific about what you name your ebuilds, so it would be feasible to create two ebuilds, ie xmail-1.21.ebuild and xmail_chroot-1.21.ebuild. The only foreseeable problem with this is if you don't unmerge the original chrooted version before installing the new chrooted version would be that you would have two ebuilds merged onto your system. This would be a simple problem to correct, using portage's package blocker detection. ie, emerge -p xmail_chroot with xmail previously installed would return # emerge --pretend xmail_chroot These are the packages I would merge, in order Calculating dependencies ...done! [blocks B ] mail-mta/xmail (from pkg mail-mta/xmail_chroot-1.21) [ebuild N] mail-mta/xmail_chroot-1.21 Would this be a good solution? I think it can be done, then Sergey can maintain the chroot, and Kevin or whoever wants to can maintain the standard. I do, however like the Gentoo file structure, which doesn't veer too far from the documentation, merely replacing $MAIL_ROOT = /var/MailRoot with $MAIL_ROOT = /etc/xmail. I did remove the symlink into /home/xmail as that merely confused me :D Dustin C. Hatch http://www.dchweb.com Kevin Williams wrote: When I introduced the XMail Server ebuild to Gentoo, I tried to achieve the same resulting install that one would have if following the Readme.html document. This way, the documentation would match one's file system. Also, since it was new to Gentoo, I thought following the documentation would be a Good Idea. I don't prefer non-chroot over chroot. I think a chroot-ed server that doesn't match the distributed documentation is a poor choice for an audience of users who likely have never used the server before. Davide specifically addresses his choice of permissions and file locations in the documentation, and I don't believe his setup is any less secure than he claims. I also don't agree that the ebuild should do the chroot for you. Most other servers in Gentoo don't do that. That is a server setup left to the skills of dedicated administrators. I wouldn't mind having two ebuilds in Gentoo, as long as it's clear which is which. The documentation would have to be changed or appended for the chroot-ed version, too. QuinoX wrote: 1) If I may ask, why do you prefer nonchroot over chroot ? 2) If you add a nonchrooted version to portage, will that make my server nonchrooted too if I use that ebuild to update? If it does, I guess some people will not like that (myself included) Kevin Williams schrieb: Feel free to update that ebuild and use it however you like. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Has someone created an ebuild for 1.21 yet? If not, I will create it and submit it to gentoo's bugzilla. Kevin, is it alright if I update the ebuild you sent me? I prefer it to the chrooted version. Dustin C. Hatch http://www.dchweb.com/ Davide Libenzi wrote: 1.21 it is, at the end: http://www.xmailserver.org *snip impressive list of changes snip* - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Graylisting ...
I would love to have SMTP AUTH on another port, and/or SASL. Davide tried to help me get SMTP external authentication to work once, but I couldn't figure it out and Davide didn't have time to do all the work himself. Davide is very busy, but you're not alone in wishing for more native SMTP options. John Kielkopf wrote: I agree. This would be nice to have as part of xmail, and not force its implementation in a filter. I'm honestly surprised we're the only two on the list that has run into the need for it. That said, we all know Davide has a full plate at the moment, so using a filter as an interim solution is a good option. -John Shiloh Jennings wrote: The reason for needing SMTP SASL support is because some customers = outside of our class C will need to use our SMTP server when sending since our = SMTP will be listed as their authorized sending SMTP server within their SPF data. However, their local ISPs ban outbound port 25. These customers = of ours will need a port other than 25 to connect to us on. Port 587 is recommended. However, if I open 587 without requiring SMTP AUTH on that port, then we will still be vulnerable to dictionary attacks on that = port. We need scalability as well. If we write a separate filter for each = thing we need done, then the performance will get crushed. SMTP SASL support = is something that could best be done within XMail instead of needing to = call a separate filter. IF XMail supported in process filters (through DLL = files), then I would simply write in process filters and be done. However, = spawning separate processes for each incoming email is something that quickly = kills the ability to scale. For small operations, spawning processes is fine, = but not for big operations. -- If I'm not mistaken, a patch for this could be created using SMTP=20 filters, if only there was a way to retrieve the port used to connect as = well as the @@USERAUTH. Though, of course, true SASL support is better, for obvious reasons. Hmm... In fact, what's wrong with adding a @@USREAUTH check to your SPF = filter? If the user is authenticated, skip the test. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: HEEELLLLLPPPPPPPPP
I hope I'm not missing something. I see port 25 (SMTP) is bound at 212.243.37.26, which should be fine. I don't see port 110 bound anywhere. If you can connect to port 110 with telnet, then perhaps the listing you posted is not complete. Perhaps there's no problem with XMail's POP3. Using the secure connection setting in Outlook, do you get a prompt window asking about accepting the SSL certificate? Is the certificate signed by a known certificate authority such as Thawte, or is it locally signed? Yann LE ROCH - Agence CHROM wrote: Hello Kevin i do a netstat -p TCP -an in local area and the result is: Proto Local Address Foreign Address State TCP 0.0.0.0:21 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:53 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:79 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:80 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:119 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:135 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:443 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:445 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:563 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 0.0.0.0:995 0.0.0.0:0 Listening TCP 212.243.37.26:250.0.0.0:0 Listening If i do a telnet connexion on port 110 from a client i've this message + ok [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmail 1.18 Win32/Ix86 Pop3 server service ready ; wed 24 Nov 2004 ... Outlook have a checkbox This server need a secure connexion (SSL) and the port number change automaticly to 995 when checkbox is checked (sorry for translate) Thanks Yann -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Kevin Williams Envoyé : mercredi 24 novembre 2004 04:01 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : [xmail] Re: HEEELP If you run netstat -p TCP -an from a Command Prompt window, do you see something like: Proto Local Address Foreign AddressState TCP0.0.0.0:25 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING TCP0.0.0.0:1100.0.0.0:0 LISTENING Under Local Address, you want to be sure of two things. First, that port 25 and 110 (the numbers after the colon) are there. Second, take careful note of what the IP address is (the numbers before the colon). If you have four zeros separated by periods, as above, then the service is bound to all addresses. This means that you can use any IP address that is assigned to the machine. From your previous post, lets assume it is 212.243.37.26. From the server or any other machine that can ping the server, try this in a Command Prompt window: telnet 212.243.37.26 110 and you should see something like this come back to you on the screen: +OK [EMAIL PROTECTED] [XMail 1.20 POP3 Server] service ready; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:52:48 -0700 Then type quit. You just connected to POP3. Outlook should be able to use the same settings if necessary. Verify this before moving on. If this works, you have a problem with either your stunnel or Outlook configuration. If this doesn't work, please post the results of the netstat and telnet commands above. Also, be sure Outlook is set for the secure connection. I don't have Outlook so I'm not sure of the option structure, but if it is not configured to expect a SSL certificate it will likely be confused. Hope that helps! Yann LE ROCH - Agence CHROM wrote: Hi Tracy it's more difficult what i think but i'll try to understand your email. Many thanks Yann -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Tracy Envoye : mardi 23 novembre 2004 19:10 A : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : [xmail] Re: HEEELP OK, I've sat back and watched the show, and it appears that what we have here is a failure to communicate...:) In the pre-stunnel world, you have Client Server Outlook :xxx - Xmail :25 Outlook :xxx - Xmail :110 If you want a secure connection to the server, you then have to provide a secure tunnel (stunnel, for instance) to the server. However, note the analogy of the tunnel - a tunnel has both an entrance and an exit. You've defined the exit point on the server, as such: stunnel :8025 - Xmail :25 stunnel :995 - Xmail :110 But you haven't defined the entrance to the tunnel. Something on the client has to provide the encrypted session. Now, Outlook (IIRC) can do secure SMTP connections on port 465 - but I don't know if that security is compatible with stunnel. If so, then you just need to change stunnel's mapping from :8025 to :465, and your SMTP should
[xmail] sendmail and cron
I'm currently running Vixie-Cron 4.1, which was upgraded from 3.x about 11/2. I have not received a single mail from cron since. I know the sendmail that XMail builds doesn't handle all the command-line arguments that the Sendmail or Postfix version does, but I thought it would ignore the ones it doesn't know. I'm tempted to switch to dcron, but it still uses non-XMail arguments for sendmail. Has anyone else solved this problem on their servers? Should I hack some kind of wrapper for sendmail, or should I hack the arguments in Vixie-Cron and re-compile? Or should I switch to Postfix? ;) Thanks in advance, Kevin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Perl filters on Windows
c:\perl\bin\perl.exe[TAB]MyFilter.pl[TAB]@@FILE... This is what worked for me in the past. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: PAM Authentication Perl Script
Dustin, This script is certainly something I slapped together from the Authen::PAM docs. My Perl skills are anything but. ;) The script should return the return code from PAM, but your shell may translate that return code to another number. I wish I could be more help, but this is one of those times where I got lucky without understanding the code I wrote. I'm sure there are others who could improve the script if they feel like it. Kevin P.S. The Authen::PAM docs describe quite a few other functions which would make the script much more robust. -- Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=26755amp;t=1 Dustin C. Hatch wrote: I am trying Kevin Williams's perl srcipt for external user authentication, and for a test, I have modified it to print the output number from the pam module, but it prints 7. According to make test, 7 is authentication failure. Kevin, what am I doing wrong? Also, for anybody, how would I tell xmail to go on to use internal authentication if this perl script fails? Dustin C. Hatch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: More on the Gentoo Ebuild
Just did. Let me know if it doesn't work for you. -- Get Firefox! http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=26755amp;t=1 Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Kevin, would you send me a copy of your ebuild for XMail 1.20. This one in portage really sucks. I don't like the chroot and the port redirects. If yours doesn't do that stuff, could you send it to me? Thanks Dustin C. Hatch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SPF
Please explain why you think it is not practical to add the SPF record to your DNS. Publishing an SPF record in your DNS is step 1, and you do not need to do anything else if you don't feel like it. This just makes life easier for everyone who receives messages from your domains. Shiloh Jennings wrote: AUTH only. The other issue is SRS (Sender Rewriting Scheme). With SRS = and SASL SMTP support, it is not practical to enable SPF within our own DNS records. It is unfortunate, because I would love to be able to fully = - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SPF
Wow, I hope that's not true. The SPF site leaves me with the impression that the DNS record checking, Received-SPF header, SMTP AUTH, and SRS are all pieces which can be implemented in steps and should not fail when all steps are not yet implemented. I have the impression that if a server is rejecting messages because SRS is not implemented on the sending server, that's a bad implementation on their part and not the fault of the sender or sending server. Honestly, I don't yet see the benefit to SRS because it seems like a huge hassle, requiring servers to be re-architected. If SPF is designed to fail without SRS, then I don't see how it will ever succeed. Shiloh Jennings wrote: Without SRS and SASL SMTP support, publishing SPF records for your = domains can cause problems. One potential problem is with forwarded email. = Some of your forwarded email could be blocked by other ISPs if you publish SPF records without proper SRS support within your email server. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] = On Behalf Of Kevin Williams Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF Please explain why you think it is not practical to add the SPF record=20 to your DNS. Publishing an SPF record in your DNS is step 1, and you do=20 not need to do anything else if you don't feel like it. This just makes=20 life easier for everyone who receives messages from your domains. Shiloh Jennings wrote: AUTH only. The other issue is SRS (Sender Rewriting Scheme). With = SRS =3D and SASL SMTP support, it is not practical to enable SPF within our own = DNS records. It is unfortunate, because I would love to be able to fully = =3D - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Gentoo ebuild?
The Gentoo Bugzilla has all the comments. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: What is wrong with it? Kevin Williams wrote: It's not a stability issue, it's an ego problem. I wrote the original ebuild (bugs.gentoo.org) and someone else came in and raped it. The portage maintainers put the other guy's ebuild into Portage. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: I just noticed that 1.20 is in portage as ~x86. Seems to be stable for me... Dustin Kevin Williams wrote: I use my own ebuild for xmail, as the one in portage doesn't work for me. You can submit a bug report to ask for a version bump. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Is anyone maintaining the Gentoo ebuild mail-mta/xmail-* ebuild? It still shows xmail-1.16 as the most current version. Dustin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Gentoo ebuild?
It's not a stability issue, it's an ego problem. I wrote the original ebuild (bugs.gentoo.org) and someone else came in and raped it. The portage maintainers put the other guy's ebuild into Portage. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: I just noticed that 1.20 is in portage as ~x86. Seems to be stable for me... Dustin Kevin Williams wrote: I use my own ebuild for xmail, as the one in portage doesn't work for me. You can submit a bug report to ask for a version bump. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Is anyone maintaining the Gentoo ebuild mail-mta/xmail-* ebuild? It still shows xmail-1.16 as the most current version. Dustin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Gentoo ebuild?
I use my own ebuild for xmail, as the one in portage doesn't work for me. You can submit a bug report to ask for a version bump. Dustin C. Hatch wrote: Is anyone maintaining the Gentoo ebuild mail-mta/xmail-* ebuild? It still shows xmail-1.16 as the most current version. Dustin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Use both System and Nonsystem users?
I've added the PAM authentication script as well as a Windows authentication executable to my site at http://www.bantamtech.com/nukes/xmail-auth.html. The Perl script is LGPL, so I'm fine with it being included in Debian. I suppose it could use better documentation ... ;) kalinga wrote: pls send it to me too. vk. On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:45:51 -0400 (EDT), Chris L. Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know i'm interested seeing that script. Any chance you could email it = to me ? -- Chris L. Franklin --=20 =20 =20 =20 I've got a PAM authentication script written in Perl, if you're interested. =EF=C8=C9=D4=C9=CE =F2=D5=D3=CC=C1=CE wrote: Hi Dustin! I think it's possible with external pop3 auth. You need to write script that first authenticate pop3 user with =3D /etc/passwd and if it fails, use CtrlClnt to authenticate with mailusers.tab . External pop3 auth well described in xmail manual. I use it to authenticate xmail users in samba domain. -- Ruslan Ohitin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] =3D On Behalf Of Dustin C. Hatch Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Use both System and Nonsystem users? Would it be possible for xmail to use both its internal authentication=3D20 file and the /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files to authenticate users. I =3D would like all of my system users to have an email address and also for=3D20 there to be non-system users under each of these, for example joeblow # system user, able to log in, etc - jimblow # These users can't log in, not on system, only in xmail's=3D20 authentication - janeblow # What I have now is an xmail user that corresponds with each system user= , =3D but the passwords are not the same if only one is changed. It really=3D= 20 isn't a problem, I just wanted to know if there was a better way to do=3D20 it. I have considered using sendmail, but I am not sure if it can do=3D= 20 both either. Let me know if you think of anything - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the =3D body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 =20 =20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 =20 --=20 vk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Use both System and Nonsystem users?
I've got a PAM authentication script written in Perl, if you're interested. wrote: Hi Dustin! I think it's possible with external pop3 auth. You need to write script that first authenticate pop3 user with = /etc/passwd and if it fails, use CtrlClnt to authenticate with mailusers.tab . External pop3 auth well described in xmail manual. I use it to authenticate xmail users in samba domain. -- Ruslan Ohitin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] = On Behalf Of Dustin C. Hatch Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Use both System and Nonsystem users? Would it be possible for xmail to use both its internal authentication=20 file and the /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files to authenticate users. I = would like all of my system users to have an email address and also for=20 there to be non-system users under each of these, for example joeblow # system user, able to log in, etc - jimblow # These users can't log in, not on system, only in xmail's=20 authentication - janeblow # What I have now is an xmail user that corresponds with each system user, = but the passwords are not the same if only one is changed. It really=20 isn't a problem, I just wanted to know if there was a better way to do=20 it. I have considered using sendmail, but I am not sure if it can do=20 both either. Let me know if you think of anything - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the = body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: OT: Spam SPF
We all (should) know that no one single tool will prevent all spam from reaching our mailboxes. Each tool targets specific ways of fighting spam. The most effective ways to prevent spam include using more than one tool. SPF is very simple to set up and use compared to packages like SpamAssassin, and IMHO is very effective in the area of spam it targets. It requires very low resources and is on it's way to becoming an RFC (or is it already?). I say why not?. I personally use SpamAssassin as well as SPF, and I can attest to the fact that they complement each other. XMail's existing spam prevention features round out the package. It may not be an enterprise-level solution, but I have very few users and I can't remember the last time any spam reached my mailbox. That's my $0.02. Davide Libenzi wrote: On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Nick Marino wrote: Why do you say that? Can we have your PRO's and CON's of your expreience with it so far? I am using it also and would really like to know how you feel about using it. I am using it thru the filter and I dropped SPF record in my DNS. But I do not see too many ppl embracing it. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: Small utility to be GPL'ed
Davide, Just a thought - how about adding a Wiki or phpBB forum or something where users can add links to filters and such without bugging you for links? Kevin Davide Libenzi wrote: On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Luca Giuranna wrote: I wrote a script in vbscript, based on eyeXmail, which keep synchronized user accounts on a xmail server with the informations stored in a database. The database can also contain a field for each user with an email address where to redirect received messages for that user, and my script will create the necessary mailproc.tab on the xmail server. I want to release it under GPL. Is there a sort of repository of xmail add-on where I can put the script or I have to make it available on my web site? To avoid in being bugged with updates, I want HTML pages on remote web sites to link to the xmailserver.org main site. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: XMail v1.20 / Courier-IMAP 3.0.7 - CRLF is still aproblem
Is there anyone else like me, lurking in this list, who uses Courier IMAP and has no troubles whatsoever using XMailServer+Courier IMAP with SquirrelMail and/or Thunderbird on Windows? David Broderick wrote: Mircea, Thank you! I have applied both patches below and have tested that Windows versions of Outlook 2000 and Thunderbird 0.7.3 are now reading messages properly from the server. And of course the Linux apps and Squirrelmail still work as well. Nice to see these patches are keeping pace with new versions of XMail and Courier-IMAP. Thanks again. David On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, David Broderick wrote: 1. Can the fix Mircea did for earlier versions be tweaked a little to work with XMail v1.20? This would be the most simple and quickest solution at least for me. Mircea, can you rediff over 1.20? - Davide Hi Davide, before links to the latest versions of our patches here are some needed explanations because it seem to be a bit of confusion about what those patches do, so here we go: We have http://mircea.smartpost.ro/download/POP3Svr2.cpp.diff.bz2 that is a patch for the POP3 server component of XMailserver that eliminate double messages and other confusion due to the peculiar way of Courier-IMAP stroring messages in folders. This patch is small, non-intrusive and altough specialised four Courier-IMAP way of storing data I think that it can be integrated until Xmailserver will get IMAP because from my experience and others it seem to be the best solution until native IMAP We also have http://mircea.smartpost.ro/download/courier-imap-crlf.patch.bz2 that is patch for the Courier-IMAP daemon that make it work with cr/lf terminated files of Xmail, while this patch is more complex is also clear what it does and was rejected by Sam of Courier fame only because of political reasons like a Unix program has to deal with the Unix way of storing files.. But aside from this the patch integrates perfectly with Courier-IMAP at least until version 3.0.6 ( not tested yet with 3.0.7 but I'll do it soon ) and we use it here to a score of quite busy servers and never got Peter's problem with thunderbird and attachments, bug reports are welcome. In the end, to have an working instalation you'll need to patch both programs and recompile them, some RPMS for Mandrakelinux 9.2 are in http://mircea.interplus.ro/ftp/ultraupdates and Radu Spineanu that is also on that list maintain Debian packages. Hope that helps and we pray that soon we'll have native IMAP ;) Best regards, Mircea Ciocan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Another SPF Filter
I've put my SPF filter out on my web site, if anyone would like to try it. It's written in Python, FWIW. I wrote it at the same time Davide wrote his, but it's taken me this long to wrap it up for the world to use. I've been using it on my servers the whole time, so it should be relatively stable. I will improve the documentation and web pages as time goes by, but there is a download link on my web site http://www.bantamtech.com/, in the downloads section. Enjoy, Kevin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] bad download?
I tried to build 1.20 on my Linux server, but it fails with a message about SysMachine.h not found. Has anyone else had any troubles? Is there an md5sum of the download files? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SPF
Peter Lindeman wrote: Davide Libenzi wrote: This sounds like a perfect candidate for the new pre-data SMTP filters. Any takers? Me me: http://www.xmailserver.org/xm-spf.pl From what I have seen now from it is that a domain should have a SPF record made in DNS, if the domain does not have it a mail will always pass. As long as not all domains in the whole world do have SPF records what is the sense of this at all? Perhaps no one wants my $0.02, but I just finished my own SPF filter and DNS records so I'll speak up anyway. Given how simple it is to set up, why not? The list of domains implementing SPF is impressive, and growing rapidly. If the RFC is adopted then the reasons to implement it only increase. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: bad download?
Davide Libenzi wrote: On Mon, 31 May 2004, Kevin Williams wrote: I tried to build 1.20 on my Linux server, but it fails with a message about SysMachine.h not found. Has anyone else had any troubles? Is there an md5sum of the download files? Very strange. For the .tar.gz: 1c9279508957b2c03e024412ade9bb19 - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. The md5sum matches my file. Another odd note. There are only 3 makefiles in the tarball - bsd, lnx, and sso. No plx, slx, or ssx, as I see in the 1.18 tarball. Those don't matter to me, I'm just trying to figure out why it won't compile. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: bad download? [SOLVED]
Sorry guys. My Gentoo portage script had emake -f Makefile.lnx and something in the emake command was messing it up. I changed it to plain make and it's fine. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
