Edward S. Marshall writes:
> On the flip side, I've had Linux boxen run for what basically seems like
> forever, running all manner of user tasks on relatively cheap PC hardware,
> without hiccups. Tells me a lot about that "Sun resilience". ;-)
Let's end this by noting that Sun now supports Lin
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Edward S. Marshall wrote:
> Solaris simply started losing it's mind after prolonged periods of uptime
> (specific case was a pair of Oracle servers; after a few months of uptime,
> the machines started behaving badly, zombies refusing to be reaped, etc;
> half-way through shut
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> > > Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running
> > > a free Unix.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work uses Solaris
> for everything expect a few routers and lightly loaded pr
Most of the time the load is about 15 POP sessions. I will increase the
-c40 to 100 and see what happens.
Paul D. Farber II
Farber Technology
717-628-5303
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Paul Farber wrote:
>
> > at most I can have 72 people us
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Paul Farber wrote:
> at most I can have 72 people using pop (that's all the modems I have) and
> qmail-pop3 is run from tcpserver:
>
> 29384 ? S0:00 supervise /var/lock/qmail-pop3d tcpserver -c40 -u0 -g0
> 0 pop-3 qmail-popup mail.f-tech.net checkpassword qmail-pop3d Ma
For those who might've missed the initial announcement two weeks ago,
amidst several concurrent flame wars...
There's an open alpha/beta test of a new CGI application which provides a
web interface to Maildir-based mailboxes. Since then, a new rev came out,
with additional features, and bug fixe
Hello all,
Been getting a lot of calls about MUA's reporting "Unable to locate
mail.f-tech.net" usually from Eudora lite or Netscape Communicator. I'm
not sure if this is a tcp problem or tcpserver problem.
Here's what happens..
Customer clicks on either send mail or check mail, a window pops
Matt Garrett wrote:
>
> I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting qmail to recognize e-amil sent to
> my virtual domains. Here is what I've done so far...
>
> 1. Install Qmail 1.03 from binary rpm.
>
> 2. create popuser account/group
> in /etc/passwd> popuser:x:888:888:POP E-Mail User:/var/q
I'm using smtproutes with entry
:machine.domain.com
On a RH Linux machine all is working great
on a SCO UNIX I get this deferral message in syslog:
Feb 3 00:34:45 bd2001 qmail: 918002085.24 delivery 33: deferral:
Connected_
to_209.52.99.25_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/
The .25 machine
> I have a little cosmetic problem with spam handling. I'd like to make a
> controlled account where the handled-as-spammer-hosts can post mail. This
> account can be practically [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Well, I understand that RBL lists are a solution of today's problems and it
> have to be isola
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> > > load?
> >
> > Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running
> > a free Unix.
>
> Why not?
No (or few) technical reasons. The same reasons that my work
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> > Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> > load?
>
> Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not running a
> free Unix.
Why not?
> The congressional stuff runs on, I think, 8 (was that 18?) Exchange
I did not save all my testdata unfortunately, but at one time, I had 2
FreeBSD P6 boxes, NFS mounting a Netapp F540, using Maildir for delivery,
and several boxes generating the email in front. The P6's were
loadbalanced with a Cisco LocalDirector.
I certainly recall it handling something like
Ok, I know I will get badgered and flamed over this one, but Im having a
problem setting up Qmail to run for my POP3 server. Ive had no problems
getting it to run up to this point. It delivers messages fine to Mailbox
in any home directory. I changed the line in /var/qmail/rc from Mailbox to
Ma
I have qmail delivering to a user's ~/Maildir. The user uses netscape
as the MUA with copy to self set. The copy ends up in ~/Maildir/cur,
and all other mail ends up in ~/Maildir/new.
Is this normal? Why does qmail think copy to self has been read?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conove
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, John Conover wrote:
> There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
> handling a million emails a day.
>
> Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> load?
Probably, although it wouldn't be a single box, and probably not runnin
John Conover writes:
> There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
> handling a million emails a day.
>
> Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
> load?
Not that I know of, although I believe that a suitably-provisioned one
could, with qma
There was an article that the Congressional mail servers are choked
handling a million emails a day.
Is anyone running qmail on a FreeBSD or Linux PC with that kind of
load?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688
[EMAIL PROTE
Mike Holling writes:
> I just fear that it's a very small step to go from blocking known dialup
> pools to blocking any IP that resolves to a pattern like
> "1-2-3-4.example.net". That looks like a dialup, and if it's a cablemodem
> or DSL line who cares, that may as well be a dialup right? Aft
Balazs Nagy writes:
> Hiyas,
>
> I have a little cosmetic problem with spam handling. I'd like to make a
> controlled account where the handled-as-spammer-hosts can post mail. This
> account can be practically [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAIK, rblsmtpd is an all-but-nothing deal, since once it takes o
> That's not what I hear. I hear some people arguing that mailservers
> on dynamically assigned (i.e. anonymous) IP addresses are suspect. I
> hear them give statistics explaining *why* they consider them
> suspect. This is not nearly so strong a claim as the one you say is
> being promoted.
Hiyas,
I have a little cosmetic problem with spam handling. I'd like to make a
controlled account where the handled-as-spammer-hosts can post mail. This
account can be practically [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I understand that RBL lists are a solution of today's problems and it
have to be isolated
>We hope you enjoy your visit to our timeline. Around here, static IPs
>cost about another $5 a month (that's the rate currently quoted at
>www.visi.com, for example, as well as the number in my memory, and the
>number reported on this list by a number of other people). And for
>ADSL, at least o
>take russ saying he objects to anonymous spammers. i'm on a dial-up but
it
>doesn't have ``anonymous'' spammers and they persue spammers that use
their
>service aggressively. but i didn't hear anyone say ``I'll fix anonymous
>spammers.'' i hear folks saying ``Let's screw technically sophistica
>if you didn't sound so unpleasant i'd be more sympathetic to your
premise.
>however that aside i'll just observe that, like many people you're
making
>assumptions that work for you but might not where someone doesn't have a
>(reasonable) choice.
I don't believe there are any places where someone
nelson> Well, Paul, how are we to tell the difference? It would be
nelson> great if we could come up with a new idea that positions qmail
nelson> as the spamless MTA.
let's *pursue* a different victim. i'd be happy if instead of talking
about ``dial-up'' users people said ``Dial-u
>That's not what I hear. I hear some people arguing that mailservers
>on dynamically assigned (i.e. anonymous) IP addresses are suspect. I
>hear them give statistics explaining *why* they consider them
>suspect. This is not nearly so strong a claim as the one you say is
>being promoted.
I'll b
On 02-Feb-99 Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> Did anyone catch the CNN.com frontpage article (link) about
> Cyber Vigilantes? *shudder*
Catch it, hell. I printed it and passed it around! But wasn't it about
networks getting hacked? Or are we talking about two different articles?
Vince.
--
==
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Sam wrote:
> What kind of a stupid compiler would let this go by? Different
> prototypes, you should get at least a warning.
What prototypes?
Richard
-
#ifndef STRALLOC_H
#define STRALLOC_H
#include "gen_alloc.h"
GEN_ALLOC_typedef(stralloc,char,s,len,a)
exter
> On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:32:58PM -0500, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> > accountable for 128.3cust.da.uu.net (etc)
> Hmm.. I think I nuked that guy once, after receiving spam :)
> Greetz, Peter.
There ya go with a solution for spam. Get spam, smurf the
offending network off the Internet. *sigh*
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Joe Garcia wrote:
> Has anybody managed to get an SSL wrapper around Qmail-SMTP and POP-3D??
Yep. See http://www.rickk.com/sslwrap. It's easy to set up, and works great.
Note that MS Outlook Express on Windows 98 (but not, for some reason, on 95)
frequen
Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 February 1999 at 13:05:26 -0500
> On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> > And what's to stop someone from buying a
> > static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
> > freely?
>
> The economic
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> > And what's to stop someone from buying a
> > static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
> > freely?
>
> The economics of static IP discourage it. ISPs in the
Has anybody managed to get an SSL wrapper around Qmail-SMTP and POP-3D??
If so let me know.
Joe
At 5:20 pm + 2/2/99,the wonderful root wrote:
>Sorry guys to bug again,
>
>Qmail is now 99% working, however have one more problem:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> useraccount1 + useraccount2 + useraccount3
>
>say i have [EMAIL PROTECTED] , i want jane and bill to get copies of it. In
>the end upto 8
Paul Graham writes:
> take russ saying he objects to anonymous spammers. i'm on a dial-up but it
> doesn't have ``anonymous'' spammers and they persue spammers that use their
> service aggressively. but i didn't hear anyone say ``I'll fix anonymous
> spammers.'' i hear folks saying ``Let'
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
> And what's to stop someone from buying a
> static IP from their ISP with its own lovely domain and spamming the world
> freely?
The economics of static IP discourage it. ISPs in the U.S. often
charge $200-300 in setup fees for stati
The easiest thing is to just do in .qmail-listname :
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&user2
&user3
--
// Jere Cassidy - System Administration - D&E SuperNet
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]phone: (717)738-7054
web: http:/
Gavin,
Try this;
/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-info
where .qmail-info contains;
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, root wrote:
> Sorry guys to bug again,
>
> Qmail is now 99% working, however have one more problem:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> useraccount1 + useraccount
Sorry guys to bug again,
Qmail is now 99% working, however have one more problem:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -> useraccount1 + useraccount2 + useraccount3
say i have [EMAIL PROTECTED] , i want jane and bill to get copies of it. In
the end upto 8 people will be on the list to receive [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s
he figured it out
> --
> From: Fred Lindberg[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: Fred Lindberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 6:02 PM
> To: Van Liedekerke Franky
> Subject: RE: qmail eats up my memory
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:45:41 +0100, Van Liedekerk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Feb 1999 11:53:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: "Racer X"'s message of "Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:25:51 -0800"
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEm
It's ok now... I patched qmail but I forgot a "s" in the code ... :(
But now it works great: :)
Qmail (with the LDAP patch patched again, and the anti UCE path in there as
well) already served over 100.000 messages in two days, and the system
didn't even budge. It's fabulous! And it just keeps on
shag> Find another ISP. I have no sympathy for you. You are choosing
shag> to stay with an ISP who is providing you with less service than
shag> you want (by not providing a reverse lookup). Choose with your
shag> dollars.
if you didn't sound so unpleasant i'd be more sympathe
I should also note that I'll probably want all of the mail for [root,
postmaster, mailer-daemon]@ to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't know if I'll need to set up those addresses in ~users/assign, or if
!alias/.qmail-other-com-root, etc would catch them.
On another note, anyone know why checkpoppass
Since the user receiving the mail must OWN the directory it is finally
delivered to, symlinks won't work. Forwarding is your best option. :)
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matt Garrett wrote:
> D'oh!
> That would help, wouldn't it.
> Okay, problem solved. Next problem.
>
> I still can't seem to deliver m
D'oh!
That would help, wouldn't it.
Okay, problem solved. Next problem.
I still can't seem to deliver mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED], even though I have
~alias/.qmail-[root, postmaster, mailer-daemon] all set up to be
"./operator/Maildir/" and ~alias/operator is a symlink to /home/me, on which
I hav
Adam D. McKenna wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Does anyone know if Dan is planning on adding DUL support to rblsmtpd?
There's no need to do that. Just pass "-rdul.maps.vix.com" as an argument
to another instance of rblsmtpd.
Stefan
Does anyone know if Dan is planning on adding DUL support to rblsmtpd?
--Adam
Yusuf Goolamabbas writes:
> If the local MTA is qmail you _must_ install a different MTA somewhere
> (eg in a subdirectory) and tell the bug system to use that;
> qmail has broken command-line parsing in its /usr/lib/sendmail
> emulation.
>
> Has anybody used this package and can elaborate
Mike Holling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 1 February 1999 at 19:28:07 -0800
> > > It may come to that. If DSL IP banks become a significant, easily
> > > blockable source of mostly spam, then of course they will be blocked.
> > > So? Why is this supposed to be a problem for me if I block the
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:35:23 -0500, Michael Slade wrote:
>Anyone else prefer a digest for the qmail mailing list?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent out daily, so it may be large [several subscribers' bounced the
latest digest because of their databytes limit. It was 211K.].
Also: I use it to test new vers
Use the protocol correctly and it will work. :)
220 plutonium.mayod.nb.net ESMTP
EHLO mayod.nb.net
250-plutonium.mayod.nb.net
250 8BITMIME
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
DATA
354 go ahead
testing
.
250 ok 917968202 qp 10149
QUIT
221 plutonium.mayod.nb.
I've fixed my DNS CNAME snafu and my ~control/locals, and now when I
`telnet me.domain.com smtp`
HELO
MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCPT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DATA
Subject: Test message.
testing
.
QUIT
and then look in the qmail logs on me.domain.com, it shows an accepted
connection and...
starting deliver
Michael Graff writes:
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The DUL and the RBL have NOTHING (vehemently so) to do with each
> > other.
>
> Well, no, but they are served in the same way, both MAPS projects, and
> both work to help reduce spam on my network.
Yeeks! I was veh
put the following in .qmail:
> &[EMAIL PROTECTED]
./Maildir/ (for storage in Maildir format)
./mbox (for storage in inbox format)
> --
> From: Martin Staael[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 2:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
Hi,
I have a user who has a .qmail in his mail directory which looks like this:
.qmail:
&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This works fine and forward the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BUT - what if the user wants a copy of the mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
STILL keep a copy of the mail in the home director
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The DUL and the RBL have NOTHING (vehemently so) to do with each
> other.
Well, no, but they are served in the same way, both MAPS projects, and
both work to help reduce spam on my network.
--Michael
So many misconceptions, so little time...
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:22:47AM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
}
} You assume an ISP would do this. Really? That's an awful lot of work for
} something an Inbox filter would stop. And what's to stop someone from buying a
} static IP from their ISP with i
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Mike Holling writes:
> > Exactly. The implicit assumption being promoted here is that an ISP's
> > mail server is somehow more "legitimate" than an arbitrary mailserver on
> > the Internet. As Russ has just demonstrated, there is quite a bit of
> > legitimate mail tr
On 01-Feb-99 23:44:32, Jake Jellinek wrote something about "trouble opening local". I
just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> Hi,
> I get loads of messages in my qmail log like this:
> 917908634.888123 warning: trouble opening local/0/361859; will try again
> later
> 917908638.898115 warning
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 01:19:30PM +, Lara Marques wrote:
> I would like to know if it is possible to accept mail with a
> certain size not higher then a predefined limit for individual
> users. And where can I set the limit of mail for all users if
> the above is not possible.
>
> I am a
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently we setup a qmail-server with virtual domains. We use Bruce Guenter's
> checkvpw for pop3 on these boxes. Now, here's the problem. When creating a
> mailbox under a virtual domain with <8chars and no caps, eve
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now I wanted to create an account like this: MWormgoor
> I can login to the account using pop just fine. However, qmail-send will not
> deliver mail to this address for some reason, as shown down below.
> The .qmail-MWormgoo
Hi all,
I would like to know if it is possible to accept mail with a
certain size not higher then a predefined limit for individual
users. And where can I set the limit of mail for all users if
the above is not possible.
I am assuming that the "databytes" file in the control directory
needs
qmail Digest 2 Feb 1999 11:00:29 - Issue 539
Topics (messages 21200 through 21338):
Performance
21200 by: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21202 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21208 by: Dirk Vleugels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21211 by: David Villeger <[EMAIL PROT
Hi, I came across the Debian bug tracking system today
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debbugs/
In the README file, it is mentioned as
If the local MTA is qmail you _must_ install a different MTA somewhere
(eg in a subdirectory) and tell the bug system to use that;
qmail has broken comma
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:32:58PM -0500, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :Paul Schinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :I'll point out that this mailing list is being run off what is arguably an
> :IP address provided to an end-user by an ISP. (At least possibly;
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:17:54PM -0500, Mail Account for root wrote:
> I know, asked that before, but here I go again:
>
> I was wondering - did anyone ever look into the creation of a third (or even
> more) delivery queues for qmail? Here is what I have in mind:
>
> local - for local addres
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 04:15:53AM -, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Mike Holling writes:
> > Exactly. The implicit assumption being promoted here is that an ISP's
> > mail server is somehow more "legitimate" than an arbitrary mailserver on
> > the Internet. As Russ has just demonstrated, there
Image - Odinn Sorensen wrote:
> Mon 01 Feb 1999 18:17, les <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have noticed that if I send myself an Email there appears to be at
> > least a 5 minute delay after the message arrives in $HOME/Maildir/new
> > before qmail-pop3d will tell me it is there.
> > Is th
Hi,
recently we setup a qmail-server with virtual domains. We use Bruce Guenter's
checkvpw for pop3 on these boxes. Now, here's the problem. When creating a
mailbox under a virtual domain with <8chars and no caps, everything works
great. We can both receive and check mail.
Now I wanted to cr
> -Original Message-
> From: Robin Bowes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 1:46 PM
> To: Len Budney
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re-write domain information in outgoing mail
>
>
> Hi Len,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Len Budney wrote:
> >
> > Robin Bo
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russ Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately for the legitimate users, dialup users have proven
> > themselves untrustworthy, because they are at the moment of connection
> > anonymous. How can they generate the necessary trust? Well, for one,
> > by
At 8:45 PM -0800 2/1/99, Russ Allbery wrote:
} Paul J Schinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
}
} Heh. Heh heh. Um... "in theory" is the phrase that comes to mind.
:-)
}
} Sure. But the problem was being cast in terms of "IP address provided by
} ISP to end user." The point that I'm trying to
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately for the legitimate users, dialup users have proven
> themselves untrustworthy, because they are at the moment of connection
> anonymous. How can they generate the necessary trust? Well, for one,
> by having a DNS record which identifies
76 matches
Mail list logo
