Hello all
Trying to install qmail on a solaris 7 intel box. I have compiled other
programs fine. When I try to install qmail I get the following. I have
taken a look at the archives but not found any answers. Thanks for any help.
Bert Beaudin
chmod 755 makelib
./compile case_diffb.c
./c
Hi,
I am having a few problems getting qmail-pop3d to time out. I was
wondering if anyone else has had similar problems and could help me out.
Once again, I imagine it is something I have set up wrongly in my qmail
or tcpserver configuration. I have tried setting the tcpserver timeout
to 180 seco
>But blocking 25 is still not a feature. Nor is it a benefit to the
>customer. You're arguing that it allows you to spend time providing
other
>benefits to your customer. Fine. *Those* are the benefits to your
>customers, not the port blocking. And the hard reality of the situation
>is that t
>> Wrong. It simply requires you to use Radius and network equipment
that
>> allows you to send back filters in your Radius authentication.
>
>Good, I'm glad to hear that it's improved. (It certainly used to be the
>case that this was hard.) So how many ISPs are going to be willing to
do
>this?
Hi mailinglist,
where can I look up descriptions for error messages qmail logs, e.g. "I
could'nt find any host by that name (#4.1.2)"?
I once found the descriptions in one of the many (Well done, Dan!)
documentation files... but where?
Matthias
--
w e b f a c t o r y | matthias pigulla
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Don't fool yourself. The benefit to the customer in blocking port 25
>> outbound is basically nonexistent; it's entirely about administrative
>> resources devoted to keeping one's site from abusing the Internet. It
>> may be necessary, but you can't sell i
Racer X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Of course there is. Blocking port 25 for all their dialup lines is a
>> simple router configuration. Re-enabling it on a customer-by-customer
>> basis on dynamic dialups requires software to interact with the
>> terminal authentication server that they'd p
Here's a copy of the message I sent to the ezmlm mailing list, and the
detailed reply I got from Fred Lindberg describing why ezmlm can't do the
rewriting and how qmail would have to do it.
- Keith
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Subject: Fwd: Re: Unsubscribe info
From:
Russell Nelson wrote:
> No, that's not how I expect it would work. The list manager would
> append a trailer, and the trailer would have some magic that caused
> qmail-remote to merge the envelope recipient in. The user would see
> that trailer, fail to be stupid enough to miss it, and cut/paste
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Matthias Pigulla wrote:
> Bounces generated by some MTA would be required to include the out of
> band data too, and I think the unreliability of "foreign" MTAs was one
> of the reasons why Dan invented VERPs, for they encapsulate the bouncing
> address in the recipient addre
Matthias Pigulla wrote:
> So, what about a X-Header holding the data? This would require the
[snip]
> address in the recipient address, which is guaranteed to be returned ;-)
Sorry, seems as if I misunderstood Russells intention, I thought he
wanted to move VERPs into VERBs. He just want's "indiv
Matthias Pigulla writes:
> But anyway: your "new" unsubscription mechanism only works if the whole
> message (containing the "out of band" data) would be returned.
No, that's not how I expect it would work. The list manager would
append a trailer, and the trailer would have some magic that cau
On 19 Jan 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Okay, VERP has solved the bounce problem. Now we need VERB (Variable
> Envelope Recipient in Body) to solve the unsubscribe problem.
> Basically, we need qmail-remote to merge the envelope recipient into
> the message somewhere. The problem, of course, is
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
> This sounds like a job for an ESMTP option.
It seems like a logical solution. Unfortunately, it is qmail-send that
needs to know it can group deliveries, not qmail-remote.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"NSA
Russell Nelson wrote:
> In case it's not obvious what I'm getting at, imagine if you could say:
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> instead of the usual:
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BWT I encountered some problems with remote hosts limiting the sender
address t
On Tue 1999-01-19 (20:11), Russell Nelson wrote:
> Okay, VERP has solved the bounce problem. Now we need VERB (Variable
> Envelope Recipient in Body) to solve the unsubscribe problem.
> Basically, we need qmail-remote to merge the envelope recipient into
> the message somewhere. The problem, of
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> Conclusion: qmail does not need to send multiple copies of VERPed message
> if the destination SMTP server runs qmail (or any other VERP-enabled MTA
> if such MTA existed).
Without having looked at this closer (I claim to _remember_ from the
source code), I assume the add
This sounds like a job for an ESMTP option.
At 08:28 PM 1/19/99 +0100, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>SMTP conversation:
>--
>> MAIL FROM:
>> 250 ok
>< RCPT TO:
>> 250 ok
>< DATA
>> 354 go ahead
>< Subject: VERP test
><
>< .
>> 250 ok 916770426 qp 1077
>--
>
>Delivered message:
>--
At 02:05 PM 1/19/99 +0100, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
>
>> Then what will you match on? The content? How much code does it take to
>> randomize the content?
>
>You (as a spammer) can't randomize the contents beyond the point where an
>average reader would stop
Peter van Dijk writes:
> VERY weird.. why do I get this bounce?
You're seeing the combination of two problems: an RFC 1123 violation in
sendmail and a shortsighted design decision in fetchmail.
Background: If an MTA can't deliver a message, it sends a bounce back to
the message's return path. Ma
Okay, VERP has solved the bounce problem. Now we need VERB (Variable
Envelope Recipient in Body) to solve the unsubscribe problem.
Basically, we need qmail-remote to merge the envelope recipient into
the message somewhere. The problem, of course, is *where* to insert
it. What I did for one cust
>> * It takes a lot less time and effort to figure out when someone is
>> spamming and who they are, since everything is occurring on your mail
>> server.
>
>This is not a benefit to the customer.
False. It saves time (read: money) on the admin side of things, allowing
you to do other things wit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The problem comes when an email is addressed to _two_ or more people.
> One of those people is local, but more often than not the other(s) are
> not. Qmail delivers a copy to the local address, and another copy into
> the outgoing ppp maildir for e
>Of course there is. Blocking port 25 for all their dialup lines is a
>simple router configuration. Re-enabling it on a customer-by-customer
>basis on dynamic dialups requires software to interact with the terminal
>authentication server that they'd probably have to write themselves.
Wrong. It
SMTP conversation:
--
> MAIL FROM:
> 250 ok
< RCPT TO:
> 250 ok
< DATA
> 354 go ahead
< Subject: VERP test
<
< .
> 250 ok 916770426 qp 1077
--
Delivered message:
--
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: user@host2
Received: (qmail 16270 invoked from network); 19 Jan 1999 18:27:09
hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Remote host said: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... unresolvable relay
> host name [209.167.138.195]; check your reverse-IP configuration.
> I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.
Your reverse-lookup is not installed:
mehl:/var/qmail
Am 19. Jan 1999, um 18:48:11 schrieb Peter van Dijk:
> VERY weird.. why do I get this bounce?
>
[...]
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: (qmail 38528 invoked from network); 20 Jan 1999 02:44:40 +0900
> Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1)
> by localhost with SMTP; 20 Jan 1999 02:44
host name
Hello qmail world !
This is the message i'am getting sending mail from our server :
"Hi. This is the qmail-send program at alphainter.net.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<[
D. J. Bernstein writes:
>Craig Burley writes:
>> That is, I'd like outgoing email to be from `[EMAIL PROTECTED]', or
>> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]', or whatever (jcb-sc.com being my domain name).
>
>ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/faq/appearance.html#user-masquerading
That's helped some. I've made
Discussion of pipelining on the Postfix list got me thinking. I know
qmail supports pipelining on the SMTP server side because qmail-smtpd
says so in response to HELO/EHLO. But does it support it on the client
side? I don't see any reference to pipelining in qmail-remote.c.
-Dave
"D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Sill writes:
>> sendmail-send-it looks for a list of undeliverable recipients in the
>> combined stdout/stderr from sendmail.
>
>That will catch most errors, with either sendmail or qmail, but it's not
>reliable. Many current operating systems wil
"Brock Eastman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone know how to configure news on a red hat 5.1 server? Is this a
> qmail thing or something separate. Please let me know.
*Quite* seperate. Read the INN documentation.
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen, Software Engineer, Mjolner Informatics ApS
[
Hi
Does anyone know how to configure news on a red hat 5.1 server? Is this a
qmail thing or something separate. Please let me know.
For all of you who are beginning with qmail, check out my help pages that
this mailing list has helped me with. http://qmail.n2-2000.com
Brock Eastman
VERY weird.. why do I get this bounce?
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 2778 invoked from network); 19 Jan 1999 17:46:12 -
Received: from zopie.attic.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by koek.attic.vuurwerk.
Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Well, make sure a posting from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (me) then gets approved
> automatically since [EMAIL PROTECTED] is on the list. I know that
> a few subscribers use this method to filter out mail. Can be done automatically
> I guess.
Yes it's easily done in ezmlm (of cour
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Thomas Andrews wrote:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like somebody is trying to parse the RFC822 headers again (but
> > not clear who that is). This is not right. Once you've got an
> > envelope address, you preserve it forever. Is fetchmail parsing the
> > messag
Hi Guys (and Gals),
I could really do with some help at the moment. I am trying to configure
email for 5,000 users using Linux on Intel systems.
I don't know how well qmail (or the equipment) will scale so any
reccommendations for optimal performance will be appreciated.
Should I be using a sep
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Stanley Horwitz wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Sam wrote:
> > That's some Pine 4 gibberish. You can get rid of it by going into setup,
> > and checking off "quell-folder-internal-msg".
> >
> > This message will actually stay there, but, if something gets rid of it,
> > it wo
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Sam wrote:
> That's some Pine 4 gibberish. You can get rid of it by going into setup,
> and checking off "quell-folder-internal-msg".
>
> This message will actually stay there, but, if something gets rid of it,
> it won't come back.
Would you happen to know how to make that
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
> Then what will you match on? The content? How much code does it take to
> randomize the content?
You (as a spammer) can't randomize the contents beyond the point where an
average reader would stop being able to understand it.
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Edward S. Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Invalid assumption; you do not have the "right" to send me mail. You -may-
> > > be able to send me mail if you pass my "arbitrary criteria".
> >
> > Do you warn your customers, that they may neve
qmail Digest 19 Jan 1999 11:00:08 - Issue 525
Topics (messages 20566 through 20653):
qmail bandwidth usage versus other MTAs
20566 by: "Brian S. Craigie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20618 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Three solutions for spam
20567 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
205
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Sounds like somebody is trying to parse the RFC822 headers again (but
> not clear who that is). This is not right. Once you've got an
> envelope address, you preserve it forever. Is fetchmail parsing the
> message? How are you getting the recipient information when t
Niels, the instructions here...
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougvw/mailqueue.html
worked for me almost 100% I don't have ISDN though - just a normal modem
dialup. Hope this helps.
Niels Jensen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to get qmail working, and need some help...
>
> I have a machine connec
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Niels Jensen wrote:
>
> So, some of my control files are:
>
> me:f64.work.com
> locals:f64.work.com (to define local addresses)
> defaultdomain: work.com
> defaulthost: sonic.net (my ISP)
> plusdomain:work.com
> smtproutes::mail.sonic.net
>
>
At 08:09 PM 1/18/99 , Sam wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Mate Wierdl wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:55:20 -0600 (EST)
>> From: Mail System Internal Data <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA
>> X-IMAP: 0916718116 11
>
>That's some Pine 4 gibbe
46 matches
Mail list logo
