> That's not what we are discussing. I'm not paying you to receive my mail,
> your users are paying you, so that they can receive _their_ mail. Either
> them come from dial-up or not.
There are some services we choose to offer to our customers and there are
some services that we choose not to off
Hi,
This is what we want to archive:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]localuser1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]localuser2
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
@virtual.com anotherlocaluser
Do this
1) Put virtual.com in rcpthosts
2) Put the following in virtualdomains
virtual.com:
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Racer X wrote:
> There is no such thing as the "right" of a user to all the services an
> ISP provides. The user is entitled to what he's paid for. That's it.
> If the ISP wishes to charge extra for certain services, or to refuse to
> offer certain services, that's that. T
There is no such thing as the "right" of a user to all the services an
ISP provides. The user is entitled to what he's paid for. That's it.
If the ISP wishes to charge extra for certain services, or to refuse to
offer certain services, that's that. The customer is free to go
elsewhere. This is
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, root wrote:
> This is what we want to archive:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @virtual.com anotherlocaluser
>
> How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthos
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, root wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is what we want to archive:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @virtual.com anotherlocaluser
>
> How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com
Sam Somebody write:
> Nope. You cannot receive just the header, send an SMTP rejection, then
> expect the sender to stop sending you the rest of the message, unless you
> drop the socket as well. But, when you do that, the sender is likely to
> get a broken socket error, which gets interpreted
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This part is not true. You only need to receive the _header_, and can
> > still return the appropriate rejection code after your check. This
>
> Nope. You cannot receive just the header, send an SMTP rejection,
> then expect the sender to stop sending you the
Hi,
This is what we want to archive:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] localuser2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@virtual.comanotherlocaluser
How do we go about this i've added the domain virtual.com to rcpthosts,
locals but how do you do the rest
Len Budney writes:
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) Because in order to do that, you have to receive the message
> > first...
>
> This part is not true. You only need to receive the _header_, and can
> still return the appropriate rejection code after your check. This
Nope. You cannot r
>I'm quite new to Linux, and very new to setting up mail so please
>bear with me if these are stupid questions. I've got a one user
>dial-up box, retrieving mail from my provider using fetchmail. I'm
>pretty sure I'm not doing this the right way. I've got two files in
>control/
>
>me:
>mymadeupdom
On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
> Well now I am seeing something in my kaos queue...but they're not
> delivering...
>
> kaos-root /usr/local/lib/lookup$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread
> 27 Jan 1999 20:15:32 GMT #84893 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Okay, then why are people wasting their time rejecting mail from
> > dialups? Just scan email header for each envelope recipient, and
> > reject emails with >25 "BCC" recipients...
>
> 1) Because in order to do tha
Well now I am seeing something in my kaos queue...but they're not
delivering...
kaos-root /usr/local/lib/lookup$ /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qread
27 Jan 1999 20:15:32 GMT #84893 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27 Jan 1999 20:16:08 GMT #84895 198455 <[EMAIL PROTECTED
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [About why spammers must use long BCC lists]
> No, it's true because they operate from 28.8 dialups.
Getting some spam through beats getting no spam through (to the
spammer). Read on.
> >Efficient: On a Pentium under BSD/OS, qmail can easily sustain
> >
On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
>
> And logs look good on ella...
>
> Jan 27 20:03:52 6C:ella qmail: 917467432.923986 starting delivery 6117:
> msg 4640
> to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jan 27 20:04:26 6C:ella qmail: 917467466.080066 starting delivery 6120:
> msg 4315
> to remote [
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 08:12:18PM +, Sam wrote:
> Len Budney writes:
>
> > > Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending
> > > out spam with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the
> > > game being "send as many copies as you can before you get thrown
> >
Len Budney writes:
> > Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending
> > out spam with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the
> > game being "send as many copies as you can before you get thrown
> > off"...
>
> That's true largely because spammers are fairly c
Well, don't see any sendmail processes
kaos-root /var/adm$ ps -ef |grep sendmail
root 9571 6638 0 11:53:28 pts/62 0:00 grep sendmail
And telnet to port 25 seems ok (though i don't know what syntax to use)
ella 4% telnet kaos 25
Trying 144.91.3.21...
Connected to kaos.mills.edu.
Escap
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > What will you match on then?
>
> Current economics of spam pretty much prevent anyone from sending
> out spam with one envelope recipient per copy. With the name of the
> game being "send as many copies as you can before
On 27-Jan-99 Samuel Dries-Daffner wrote:
>
> Ok simple question...too foggy to fix on my own :)
>
> I have two machines: ella (IRIX) and kaos (Solaris), both have qmail.
>
> I want to send mail to a user on kaos from a user on ella.
>
> Mail seems to leave ella, and doesn't bounce...
>
> ...
Okay, I've tried [EMAIL PROTECTED], replied to the confirm
message, I'm still on the list and I don't know who runs it. Sorry to bug
everyone but my mailbox keeps filling up and I don't have time to read it all...
--
Matthew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> FWIW, we charge $5/mo extra for a static IP. Some ISPs charge less, some
> charge more, some give it away, some don't offer it.
Over here they charge $100 or more.
- --
Luca Olivetti http://www.luca.ddns.org
UNETE A LA HUELGA EUROPEA DE INTERN
Ok simple question...too foggy to fix on my own :)
I have two machines: ella (IRIX) and kaos (Solaris), both have qmail.
I want to send mail to a user on kaos from a user on ella.
Mail seems to leave ella, and doesn't bounce...
...but doesn't get delivered on kaos...
What should be in the re
Yes,...you can get Linux softawre from tucows at :-
http://alpha1.Linuxberg.com
Also note that Qmail is available :-
http://alpha1.Linuxberg.com/conhtml/ser_mail.html
Regards...Martin
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> :> > Not all prejudice is bad.
> :
> :Yes it is.
>
> It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
> Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
> evide
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
>
> Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
> uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
> originate o
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> (Forgive me! One last one...)
Me too. :)
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My suggestion to you would be to get a static IP.
>
> You're quite right. Please make your check payable to "Len Budney"
> and mail it c/o "Maya Design Group, 21
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exact
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:02:37PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> (my last post in this thread...sorry for getting caught up in it)
>
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > > rather than _causation_, is mighty risk
(Forgive me! One last one...)
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My suggestion to you would be to get a static IP.
You're quite right. Please make your check payable to "Len Budney"
and mail it c/o "Maya Design Group, 2100 Wharton Street, Pittsburgh
PA, 15203".
Len.
--
Take away th
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:02:37PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
}
} Judging all mail from dialups, though, based on the "track record" of
} such mail, is the fallacy of reasoning from the general to the
} specific.
The track record of dialup mail for me is that it's all spam. So
every time I get on
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > > And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> > > That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> > > me.
> >
>
(my last post in this thread...sorry for getting caught up in it)
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
> > rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
>
> I'm prejudiced against sendmail, and in favor of djb'
Jeff Hayward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
>
>True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
>rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
>
> It isn't prejudice, it is prevention.
Prejudice is defined, in part, as "a le
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> Lots of filtering rules rely on _legitimate_ grounds for discarding
> email: RFC non-compliance, illegitimate or invalid DNS information,
> etc.. Discarding mail from dialups involves _violating_ the RFC
> (assuming the modems have proper A records) based
Adam D. McKenna writes:
> From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> :> > Not all prejudice is bad.
> :
> :Yes it is.
>
> It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
> Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
> evidence, which
James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> > And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> > That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> > me.
>
> Oh, come on...this sounds like the same BS logic tha
Len Budney writes:
> And all the crime I've experienced was perpetrated by "those people."
> That's why I ready my pepper spray whenever one of "them" comes near
> me.
A statement which would be particularly ironic if you happened to be a
member of a minority group. Not that we can tell from
From: Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> > Not all prejudice is bad.
:
:Yes it is.
It really isn't, however this isn't the forum for that discussion.
Prejudice is the wrong word here anyway. Prejudice == judgement before
evidence, which isn't what is happening here. The judgement has happe
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
True, but even factually-based prejudice, when based on _correlation_
rather than _causation_, is mighty risky business.
It isn't prejudice, it is prevention. The analogy I use is
communicable disease - it is universally acknowledged (at least in
the
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Len Budney wrote:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> > > Most other anti-spam measures have a technical
> > > foundation...Blocking dialups doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously
> > > close to racism.
> >
> > ...it's a reasona
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:19:33AM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> > > Most other anti-spam measures have a technical
> > > foundation...Blocking dialups doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously
> > > close to racism.
> >
>
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> > Most other anti-spam measures have a technical
> > foundation...Blocking dialups doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously
> > close to racism.
>
> ...it's a reasonable prejudice, since all of the non-relayed spam I
> g
Peter Haworth writes:
> Shame on you for not using strict!
I'm an old BASIC programmer from way back. I *like* not having to
declare variables. :)
> Without this patch, if a user's home directory produces more than one warning,
> the second and subsequent warnings show the previous error co
I believe that the checkpassword program upon successful authentication
chdir()s into the user's homedir before execing qmail-pop3d.
-Chris
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Martin Staael wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:55:03 +0100
> From: Martin Staael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Deliv
On 22-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not at all. There's two functions. There's two ways to order the functions.
>
> 1) A before B
> 2) B before A
>
> striping and mirroring
>
> 1) mirror the stripes
> 2) stripe across the mirrors
Ah! I think I see what you mean. I'll need to try that
If you just want to lurk, I've got a daily digest of the list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:57:04 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>loss or bounce?
Important semantics: bounce from the MTA point of view. Loss from the
subscribers point of view.
Point: This is a temporary error and should not result in a bounce. No
big deal, but easy to fix.
IMHO, since qmail does n
This may be slightly off topic, but I'm having trouble getting ezmlm to
respond to moderation requests. I've already sent a copy of this message to
the ezmlm list.
I am running qmail-1.03 with ezmlm-0.53 and ezmlm-idx-0.313. I am already
running another (unmoderated) mailing list on the same serv
Hi
I'm having a problem with qmail-pop3d.
There is no problem starting qmail-pop3d via tcpserver, but when a user
logs into POP3 it says unable to scan $HOME/Maildir.
How do I tell qmail-pop3d where the users mail directory is?? In the
qmail-pop3d.c file it only reads argument 1 which is "./"
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Iain Hardcastle wrote:
> People,
>
> In doing some consulting work for an ISP, I need to specify a mail
> server.
>
> Could all you ISP techs please respond with a good figure for sizing a
> mail account? I mean if you are going to offer mail, on average, how
> much would y
maildir.5 states:
A program delivers a mail message in six steps. First, it
chdir()s to the maildir directory.
why?
I'd like to avoid to have to do a chdir() inside a library or
force a chdir() outside of that library.
I assume this has to do something with NFS, but i don't under
> I've uploaded qmail-lint-0.51 to www.qmail.org. It now has a -v flag
> which prints a more verbose explanation of why something might be a
> problem.
Shame on you for not using strict!
Without this patch, if a user's home directory produces more than one warning,
the second and subsequent war
qmail Digest 27 Jan 1999 11:00:17 - Issue 533
Topics (messages 20945 through 20977):
getpwnam() bug in freebsd-2.2.8 affects qmail
20945 by: "Paul J. Schinder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unable to run qmail-remote from resource exthaustion PERMENENT error?
20946 by: "Fred Lindberg
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes:
> >Most other anti-spam measures have a technical foundation. Invalid domain,
> > header field syntax error, no or incorrect reverse DNS, etc. Blocking dialups
> > doesn't. IMHO, it comes dangerously close to racism.
>
> The term is "prejudice", not racis
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:26:35AM -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:19:32PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> > On 18-Jan-99 05:51:16, Chris Johnson wrote something about "Re: Three solutions
>for spam". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> >
> > > I've alw
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:36:39PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On 26-Jan-99 16:06:07, Fred Lindberg wrote something about "Unable to run
>qmail-remote from resource exthaustion PERMENENT error?". I just couldn't help
>replying to it, thus:
> > Testing ezmlm stuff on a 486/32MB I ran
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:19:32PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On 18-Jan-99 05:51:16, Chris Johnson wrote something about "Re: Three solutions for
>spam". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
>
> > I've always wondered why Dan doesn't have an MX record for koobera (though
> >
59 matches
Mail list logo
