On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 03:01:42AM -0500, Tim Tsai wrote:
Look at your qmail-start line. It goes something like:
qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail
The part "./Mailbox" is a default instruction to follow for any user who
does not have a .qmail file. You could replace it with a small script th
qmail Digest 12 Apr 1999 10:00:00 - Issue 608
Topics (messages 24124 through 24158):
qmail speed
24124 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum)
24125 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24126 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24138 by: Mark Delany <[
Hi All,
Is there anyway I can turn of logging in qmail? If I comment out
"logger" in /etc/init.d/qmail, will any default loggin mechanism
come into action?
Thanks,
Ramesh
OK - I have been messing with this one all weekend... H E L P!
I have just started looking at Qmail as an alternative to Sendmail, and
I cannot seem to get passed this one error.
421 unable to read controls (#4.3.0)
This is what I see when I connect to the SMTP port running Qmail..
What am I d
Create a file called "smtproutes" in /var/qmail/control/ with entries like
yourmachine:[IPaddress]
yourmachine.fulldomain:[IPaddress]
another file "me" in the above directory with entries like
localhost
yourmachine
yourmachine.fulldomain
Cheers,
Ramesh
| OK - I have been messing with this one a
+ "Ramesh Panuganty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Is there anyway I can turn of logging in qmail? If I comment out
| "logger" in /etc/init.d/qmail, will any default loggin mechanism
| come into action?
If you do that, qmail-send will write its log entries on stdout. You
can redirect that to /dev/null
Thanks for that - I got SMTP to respond now, but it will not find any of
my users. I have all of my local domains listed, but it keeps coming
back with:
"Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: test
Sent: 4/12/99 6:07 AM
The following recipie
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>At 01:38 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>>
>>qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it
>
>Incorrect. qmail-inject is *the* program that does look at headers. How did
>you deduce the above after reading the man page for qmail-inject?
Obvio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What are the advantages/disadvantages of cyclog over syslog?
Advantages: performance, automatic rotation, predetermined maximum
size, ability to filter for unusual messages using "usually", no
remote access and associated security problems, timestamps are more
precise.
Dave Sill wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Disadvantages: only logs messages sent to stdout, only logs messages
> from local system
You can use ucspi-tcp to reliably send log messages from one program's
stdout to a cyclog on another host.
Stefan
Hello.
Sorry for a noise.I've the following problem:
/etc/tcp.smtp file as follows:
192.168.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
192.168.0.2:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
192.168.0.4:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
192.168.0.5:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
192.168.0.6:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
192.168.0.7:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
192.168.0
> Hello.
>
> Sorry for a noise.I've the following problem:
> /etc/tcp.smtp file as follows:
> 192.168.0.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT=" "
^
Remove this space. Regardless of what tcprules is doing, you don't
want it there.
> tcprules: fatal: unable to parse this li
+ olli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Sorry for a noise.I've the following problem:
| /etc/tcp.smtp file as follows: [...]
| as in FAQ I do:
| cat /etc/tcp.smtp | /usr/local/tcpserver/bin/tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
|~/tcp.smtp.tmp
Bad idea. The cdb file and the tmp file must be on the same
filesystem
"Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
>to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
Sendmail only wins when the message is huge.
-Dave
Silver CHEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The mail reason that I can't switch to qmail is that I'm NOT
>familiar with qmail in early days, so I chose sendmail.
You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
revert to sendmail easily.
> I've read all the articles about th
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 11:55:17AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Hotmail, last time I checked, used qmail for outgoing mail, zmailer
> for incoming mail. If it's slow and unreliable, it's not because it
> uses qmail, it's because it's too busy or poorly run. If sendmail
> would have been better than q
Yes, this is the same setting up of Email on our big server.
Things are mostly working, but we have a problem with how the server decides
how to deliver.
As it is, it checks for a user, and if there is, then delivers based on that.
(and if the user has a .qmail file in their home dir)
I'm running
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The 'qmail for outgoing' claim is correct. The 'zmailer for incoming'
>claim is very ridiculous.
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/08/msg01208.html
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1998/05/msg00
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 12:13:06PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >The 'qmail for outgoing' claim is correct. The 'zmailer for incoming'
> >claim is very ridiculous.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/08/msg01208.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> Silver CHEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The mail reason that I can't switch to qmail is that I'm NOT
> >familiar with qmail in early days, so I chose sendmail.
>
> You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
> revert to s
Samuel Dries-Daffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
>> revert to sendmail easily.
>
>On our server (SGI Indy -- IRIX 6.5) this was mostly true, with one
>exception-- BSD mail users.
>
>We
We tried it but there were lots of funny interactions with BSD mail...for
example it would add extra >'s at the end of addresses and cause lots of
bounces.
And another wierd thing was the interaction with the vacation program,
also adding extra >'s and not working consistently in general. (Sinc
>>>4 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
>>>have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
>>
>>Incorrect. This is precisely how a "serious mailing-list" does it. Namely
>>ezmlm. Admittedly via qmail-queue, but the queue insertion costs and
>>sequences are the same.
>
>I didn't g
At 10:32 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>: Above and beyond the standard reporting programs -qstat and -qread, I
>: haven't heard of anything especially. The question is, how do you want to
>: constrain users?
>:
>: Is it X message per day, X messages in the queue at any one time, X
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> | Sorry for a noise.I've the following problem:
> | /etc/tcp.smtp file as follows: [...]
> | as in FAQ I do:
> | cat /etc/tcp.smtp | /usr/local/tcpserver/bin/tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
>~/tcp.smtp.tmp
> Bad idea. The cdb file and the tmp file mu
Umm.. Why didn't you use /var/qmail/bin/sendmail ?
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Dries-Daffner [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 12:19 PM
> To: Dave Sill
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Q] qmail speed "again"
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Da
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 11:04:15AM -0500, Greg Moeller wrote:
> Yes, this is the same setting up of Email on our big server.
> Things are mostly working, but we have a problem with how the server decides
> how to deliver.
> As it is, it checks for a user, and if there is, then delivers based on t
Allen Versfeld wrote:
Eric Ess wrote:
>
> A user of my mail system is having problems retrieving emails with attachments
>larger than 10k or so. They receive 'server timed out' messages. They are using
>Outlook Express as their email client. I'm using qmail 1.03 on a RedHat 5.2 server.
>The m
Does supervise(1) provide any protection against unauthorized root
access for a network program that faults, say, from a buffer overflow?
Thanks,
John
--
John Conover, 631 Lamont Ct., Campbell, CA., 95008, USA.
VOX 408.370.2688, FAX 408.379.9602
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www2.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:05:35 -0400 (EDT), Dave Sill wrote:
>dates/times aren't human-readable without "tailocal", throws away
>oldest logs.
Bruce Guenter has a patch to execute a program on the oldest log before
throwing it away. I use cyclog and this feature, where the latter used
matchup to ad
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 05:37:34PM -, John Conover wrote:
> Does supervise(1) provide any protection against unauthorized root
> access for a network program that faults, say, from a buffer overflow?
Supervise just restarts programs AFAIK. How would you design a
program where a parent proces
John Conover writes:
> Does supervise(1) provide any protection against unauthorized root
> access for a network program that faults, say, from a buffer overflow?
No. Supervise is a substitute for ad-hoc methods for communicating
with daemons.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://cryn
It sounds like in between the time a message was being queued
(todo/306659) and being processed (info/0/306659) that the information was
lost (I am assuming that info/0/306659 does not exist but mess/0/306659
does). You can try running queue-fix
(ftp://ftp.netmeridian.com/queue-fix.tar.gz) to cle
I am trying to set up a new qmail system with three email accounts and am
somewhat befuddled.
Two users:
user1
user2
Three email accounts:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and user2 has a POP3 email at a local university and would like to check email
there, too. So the third address is:
Hi Guys
Apr 13 03:05:23 www qmail: 923965523.860137 starting delivery 195: msg 8500
to l
ocal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How can i change this main domain name for qmail ? (eg. zechini.it)
Best Regards,
Luca Pescatore
On Mon 1999-04-12 (11:41), Dave Sill wrote:
> "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
> >to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
>
> No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
> >to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
>
> No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
> Se
On Mon 1999-04-12 (13:13), Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
> > >to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
> >
> > No, qmail
On Mon 1999-04-12 (15:34), Stefan Paletta wrote:
> Dave Sill wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> > Disadvantages: only logs messages sent to stdout, only logs messages
> > from local system
>
> You can use ucspi-tcp to reliably send log messages from one program's
> stdout to a cyclog on another host.
Ple
Only if they are silly enough to accept more connections than they can
handle. :) One of the things a sys admin is "supposed" to do is tune his
machines for performance. If you cannot limit the number of connections
you will accept to something your system can handle, you need to re-think
your s
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
> > qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
> > mailers.
>
> Well, the obvious question is why do mailers accept connections that they
> cannot handle? If the remote host accepts the mail it should be prepared to
> deal with
Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 12 April 1999 at 13:13:51 -0700
> qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
> mailers.
Well, the other side knows about its capability to accept additional
connections. We don't. Basic self-protection, from both enthusias
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> Only if they are silly enough to accept more connections than they can
> handle. :) One of the things a sys admin is "supposed" to do is tune his
> machines for performance. If you cannot limit the number of connections
> you will accept to somethin
Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 12 April 1999 at 13:24:34 -0700
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
>
> > > qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
> > > mailers.
> >
> > Well, the obvious question is why do mailers accept connections that th
Neither Keith nor I are talking about the mailer. If the remote MACHINE
cannot handle the load, it should be set up to reject the excess
connections. This is true no matter WHAT MTA is running on the remote
system.
What is a valid limit? Only the administrator of that particular machine
knows
Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
>
> > If you cannot limit the number of connections you will accept to
> > something your system can handle, you need to re-think your setup.
>
> Erm... you just described a classic DoS attack. You put a limi
> I think DJB has given a mathematically rigorous proof that "program
> which is vulnerable to DoS" is one definition of "server". When a
> server is serving all it can, it will refuse to serve any more. QED
this is accurate for a single function server. in a multifunction
server, it would be sma
what is considered the BEST method of accepting bare LFs
patching smtpd? putting fixcr in the pipeline, and what would be the best way
to do that?
Thanks
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 05:35:19PM -0400, Craig I. Hagan wrote:
> As for those bulk senders, a relatively painless solution is to randomize the
> order of the domains and/or pull out the top 5 and serially send those. Your
> tools *do* talk smtp, don't they?
qmail-remote will handle multiple RCPT
Timothy L Mayo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neither Keith nor I are talking about the mailer. If the remote MACHINE
> cannot handle the load, it should be set up to reject the excess
> connections. This is true no matter WHAT MTA is running on the remote
> system.
This is great in theory. In
Keith Burdis wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> On Mon 1999-04-12 (15:34), Stefan Paletta wrote:
> > You can use ucspi-tcp to reliably send log messages from one program's
> > stdout to a cyclog on another host.
>
> Please could you show an example of how you'd do this.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefan
On 12 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ...the root problem is qmail's rudeness in this area.
>
> You may have a point here. Is there a well-defined rubric within which
> we can assert, "It is ill-mannered to consume all available
> connections to a remote server, just because those services
I have a customer who runs Qmail 1.03 on RedHat Linux 5.1 as a SMTP relay
between the internet and their internal MS Exchange server.
They have started to encounter delivery and reception problems with a couple
of sites and the only thing I can narrow it down to is that these sites want
to use ES
Quoting Karl Lellman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I have a customer who runs Qmail 1.03 on RedHat Linux 5.1 as a SMTP relay
> between the internet and their internal MS Exchange server.
>
> They have started to encounter delivery and reception problems with a couple
> of sites and the only thing I can
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 10:55:43AM +1200, Karl Lellman wrote:
> I have a customer who runs Qmail 1.03 on RedHat Linux 5.1 as a SMTP relay
> between the internet and their internal MS Exchange server.
>
> They have started to encounter delivery and reception problems with a couple
> of sites and t
Hello,
I'm searching for a patch which lets qmail to accept mails with characters
>126 ( e.g. german umlauts ) in the mail headers. I searched all archives
but it seems no one didn't ask for this up to now.
I know in theory these characters musn't appear in EMail headers but some
customers use
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 04:05:54PM +0200, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> | so Bcc or not is of no concern, is it?
>
> Only in that supplying addresses in a Bcc field requires qmail-inject
> to parse that Bcc field; supplying recpipients on the command line
> ought to be slightly faster. Check the
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:49:22PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
> single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
> to put all the recipients in.
That's what xargs is for.
--
The 5 year plan:
In fiv
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:04:50AM -0400, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> > On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
> > single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
> > to put all the recipients in.
> That's what xargs is for.
Unless you want to
This must be a simple thing to do but I can't seem to find a good solution
around it.
I'd like to be able to add a header to all incoming e-mail (only remotely
generated is necessary so it can be through qmail-smtpd). What is the
simplest/cleanest way to do this?
I am aware of the .qmail approa
60 matches
Mail list logo
