Eric Ess wrote:
>
> 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
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Brad (Senior Systems Administrator - Americanisp, LLC.) wrote:
> I have qmail with pop3 and Maildir's.
> Would like it if we can run IMAP, along with the pop3 and
> smtp.
Use Maildir-powered pine and pine's imapd.
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
Thanks for the note - I poked around some more and it looks like the
simplest way is to put a wrapper around qmail-queue. We'll just have to
be more careful about upgrading our distribution. Thanks,
Tim
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 11:44:49AM +0300, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 1999
qmail Digest 13 Apr 1999 10:00:00 - Issue 609
Topics (messages 24159 through 24215):
how to turn of logging?
24159 by: "Ramesh Panuganty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24162 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SMTP Error...
24160 by: Jim Beam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sounds like a library problem to me...
> --
> From: BoLiang[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 1:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: qmail-ldap run error
>
> Hi
>
>After I setup the qmail-ldap package on a Redhat5.2,
>I run i
Hi,
I just received above warning from the qmail list server.
Some of the messages (from April 1st) have been bouncing:
123.123.123.123 does not like recipient
remote host said [...] we do not relay
I forwarded the warning message to my provider asking for
an explanation.
This is the answer.
Is there any console based tool which can help me to see the advance
of sending a large file? Like the wget program.
I send sometimes large files and I'd like to see the advance of the process of
the sending my mail.
Thanks
Attila
RedHat 5.2/Kernel 2.0.36/ppp only
Juergen Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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 just sent myself a test message with such cha
Hello Dave,
> I just sent myself a test message with such characters in the subject
>and qmail didn't complain. Please provide an example bounce message
>demonstrating the problem.
This is a sample error message. I think your XEmacs is a good one and
encodes the Subject MIME compliant.
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Juergen Schubert wrote:
[snip]
> This is a sample error message. I think your XEmacs is a good one and
> encodes the Subject MIME compliant.
[snip]
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:51:29 +0200
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Juergen Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: fär
The
Juergen Schubert wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at janus.pks-software.de.
> 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.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> kaufmann: Message
Hello Stefan,
you gave me the final tip, thank you very much!
> This is not an error message from qmail.
>Is there anything in the .qmail file that controls this address?
It's the deliver from the cyrus-IMAPD which causes the troubles and I
blamed qmail instead, my fault :-(
But I think this
I'm replying to several messages here (see References), but I'm not
going to bother attributing each quote.
>> >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
+ Ralf Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I just received above warning from the qmail list server.
| Some of the messages (from April 1st) have been bouncing:
|
| 123.123.123.123 does not like recipient
| remote host said [...] we do not relay
|
| I forwarded the warning message to my provider askin
Dear Sir:
I'm the one that causes 'a lot' discussion about the topic 'qmail speed'.
I've read through the whole mail-threads, and thanks for anyone that
give even a word here.
I HAVE to say that I like qmail, and I don't hate sendmail too -
that's not my point here. If anything other
qmail does NOT reject messages with invalid characters in the headers. IT
DOES NOT PARSE THE HEADERS.
Are you using cyrus for IMAP service. Cyrus does this by default.
Again, this error is NOT coming from qmail, it is coming from whatever you
are using to do the final delivery.
On Tue, 13 Apr
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:37:18 +0200, Juergen Schubert wrote:
>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.
Please post an actual bounce me
>>Actually, if you are unfortunate enough to have a list of addresses sorted
>>by the right side of the @, qmail can be a big loser here. ...
>somedomain is poorly configured. Should qmail assume all sites are
>poorly configured? Should properly configured sites suffer because
>some sites are poo
hello,
i have been tasked to talk to a linux conference here in the philippines
about qmail. now most of the guys in this technical conference are using
sendmail as their mail server and so am bound to be very scrutinized.
could anyone give me their reasons why they switched to
Silver CHEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Someone said that qmail is weaker if I send many 'RCPT TO:' in one SMTP
> transactions than sendmail. Well, I don't know the inside story, but I
> do worry about that statement.
Don't worry. There are very rare situations in which sendmail can be
fast
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Juergen Schubert wrote:
> you gave me the final tip, thank you very much!
>
> > This is not an error message from qmail.
> >Is there anything in the .qmail file that controls this address?
>
> It's the deliver from the cyrus-IMAPD which causes the troubles and I
> blamed q
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
> could anyone give me their reasons why they switched to qmail
> from sendmail or any other mail server? anything convincing enough
> for most of you would most likely be convincing for most other ppl not
> in the know :)
One word:
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dave Sill 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
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:46:18 +0200, Attila Csosz wrote:
>Is there any console based tool which can help me to see the advance
>of sending a large file? Like the wget program.
>I send sometimes large files and I'd like to see the advance of the process of
>the sending my mail.
No, but if you hav
At 08:42 AM Tuesday 4/13/99, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dave Sill 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
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 11:27:15AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Silver CHEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Someone said that qmail is weaker if I send many 'RCPT TO:' in one SMTP
> > transactions than sendmail. Well, I don't know the inside story, but I
> > do worry about that statement.
>
>
Does anyone have any experience (real world) with the speed/reliability of
IRIX NFS? We're looking at distributed ring of POP3/SMTP servers with a
single NFS server (right now) to hold all users' mail and directly accept
mail as the primary MX and a secondary MX to back it up. The POP3/SMTP
server
Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>...Please give me an example of how to set it up so that a
>remote site can open as many connections as it wants (which you think it
>should be able to do) without monopolizing the system.
I don't care if a remote site uses all available SMTP connections
Greg Owen {gowen} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
>> could anyone give me their reasons why they switched to qmail
>> from sendmail or any other mail server? anything convincing enough
>> for most of you would most likely be convincing for most o
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>> ...with sendmail, one process delivers to all
>> recipients, and only one connection is ever open to a remote
>> site. ...
>
>Hmm very untrue in fact. Sendmail will under several circumstances
>[none of which I will explain here but
> I couldn't agree more. That's why I switched to qmail. However, that
> one word reason is unlikely to convince sendmail fans, who will
> immediately counter that sendmail hasn't had a serious security
> problem in months/years. You should be prepared to argue that that
> doesn't mean sendmail i
I'm trying to setup qmail to have 2 sepearate domains and 2 seperate
usernames. for example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] are 2 seperate boxes,
but want to be able to host them on the same machine, but keep each billybob
seperate. is this possible with qmail?
Gary Stewart
[EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 11:08:18AM -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:46:18 +0200, Attila Csosz wrote:
>
> >Is there any console based tool which can help me to see the advance
> >of sending a large file? Like the wget program.
> >I send sometimes large files and I'd like to see
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Dave Sill wrote:
> >>
> >> ...with sendmail, one process delivers to all
> >> recipients, and only one connection is ever open to a remote
> >> site. ...
> >
> >Hmm very untrue in fact. Sendma
Hi, I like users to be able to access and manage their email via a browser.
Does anyone know of a web-based interface to Qmail or other similar packages
for Linux that is freeware?
Thanks,
Matthew Bora Kaing
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 11:11:50AM -0700, Matthew Kaing wrote:
> Hi, I like users to be able to access and manage their email via a browser.
> Does anyone know of a web-based interface to Qmail or other similar packages
> for Linux that is freeware?
web.horde.org/imp/, if I'm not mistaken.
Greet
At 11:11 am -0700 13/4/99,the wonderful Matthew Kaing wrote:
>Hi, I like users to be able to access and manage their email via a browser.
>Does anyone know of a web-based interface to Qmail or other similar packages
>for Linux that is freeware?
www.endymion.com/products/mailman
--
peter at gr
http://www.focalmail.com/
--
Y2K - We're all gonna die.
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>> You got me. Of course you're right. I meant to say that when
>> delivering a single message "immediately", i.e., not from the queue,
>> sendmail will only open one connection at a time.
>
>
On Tue 1999-04-13 (09:56), Dave Sill wrote:
> I'm replying to several messages here (see References), but I'm not
> going to bother attributing each quote.
>
> >> >qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
> >> >to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 03:36:20PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> >>
> >> You got me. Of course you're right. I meant to say that when
> >> delivering a single message "immediately", i.e., not fro
Hi all,
I'm a bit of a newbie to qmail, so my apologies in advance if
this is a FAQ or if I don't explain things correctly, but here
goes:
I've got a setup on my ISP's machine using qmail where they are
hosting several virtualdomains for me, and I am setting up
mailing lists within some of those
Keith Burdis wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
> Remember that we're talking about sending one message to a large number of
> addresses on the same remote host. In general qmail is faster, but I think in
> this case any MTA that does multiple rcpt to's will be quicker.
AFAIK, sendmail has a limit of "RCPT
Keith Burdis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13 April 1999 at 21:39:09 +
> What I had in mind was that with sendmail you can do:
>
> HELO
> MAIL FROM
> RCPT TO:
> RCPT TO:
>
> RCPT TO:
> DATA
> ...
>
> whereas with qmail, since it doesn't do
>But when I send from an account in other server (a webmail free service)
>to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get the following bounce:
>
>---
>The original message was received at Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:45:46 -0300
>(EST)
> from [200.246.7
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> Right. How about putting nabla.com.br in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts?
I did!!! That's why it's weird! :-O
--
___THE___ "Commercial OS vendors are, at the moment, all closed
\ \ / / economies, and doomed to fall in their competition with
\ V / open economies
Dave Sill wrote (on Apr 12, 1999):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >What are the advantages/disadvantages of cyclog over syslog?
[...]
> Disadvantages: only logs messages sent to stdout, only logs messages
> from local system, doesn't chunk logs by day/week/etc--only by size,
> dates/times
Hi. I have virtual domains on our server. One of which is nabla.com.br.
We use rcpthosts to block spammers and tcpserver to allow pop. Our main
domain is pcshop.com.br, which works fine. My virtualdomains reads like
this:
---
> I think you should get information on latency for message from a machine
> running a large distribution lst to see where it's spending its time
probably waiting for those slug domains which have either
* slow links
* slow dns
* are no longer in services
but, that is ju
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
> Remember that we're talking about sending one message to a large number of
> addresses on the same remote host. In general qmail is faster, but I think in
> this case any MTA that does multiple rcpt to's will be quicker.
if the effect latency of the con
Something occurred to me:
Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
>
> But when I send from an account in other server (a webmail free service)
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get the following bounce:
>
> >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts
At 07:37 PM Tuesday 4/13/99, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
>Something occurred to me:
>
>Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
>>
>> But when I send from an account in other server (a webmail free service)
>> to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get the following bounce:
>>
>> >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTE
Matthew Kaing writes:
> Hi, I like users to be able to access and manage their email via a browser.
> Does anyone know of a web-based interface to Qmail or other similar packages
> for Linux that is freeware?
http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail/
Only for Maildir mailboxes.
--
Sam
> What I had in mind was that with sendmail you can do:
>
> HELO
> MAIL FROM
> RCPT TO:
> RCPT TO:
>
> RCPT TO:
> DATA
> ...
>
> whereas with qmail, since it doesn't do multiple rcpts, you'd have to do:
>
> for i = 1 to n
> HELO
> MAIL FROM
>
Hi:
I have installed & configured qmail on my
freebsd machine running FreeBSD 2.2-960130-SNAP.
I am running into some strange qmail behavior.
I have configured qmail under tcpserver.
Queues are permanently stuck and messages keep
accruing in the queue. When the machine is rebooted,
tcpserver st
Hi Dirk et al,
Hmm, after reading this thread, I see that I have a thought on
how to help with this that doesn't seem to exactly be stated
here... (though some similar things have been)
I venture this suggestion with some trepidation, being that a)
I'm a newbie to qmail, and b) I'm a newbie to
>I am running into some strange qmail behavior.
>I have configured qmail under tcpserver.
>
>Queues are permanently stuck and messages keep
>accruing in the queue. When the machine is rebooted,
>tcpserver starts, apparently qmail also does, but
>qmail dies.
Apparently? You don't know? What inte
Doug McClure wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience (real world) with the speed/reliability of
> IRIX NFS? We're looking at distributed ring of POP3/SMTP servers with a
> single NFS server (right now) to hold all users' mail and directly accept
> mail as the primary MX and a secondary MX to b
>One word comes to mind when I hear "NFS" and "mail" in the same
>breath... Ick.
>
>I admit I do not have any experience with qmail specifically in
>this area, or even any with IRIX in this area (my IRIX
>experience lies elsewhere), but the one time I was at a site
>that delivered mail into an NF
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> My experience (and others on this list) differs. Maildir on a reliable NFS
> system is an excellent way of sharing a filestore across multiple front end
> systems.
Hmm... interesting.
> I agree that NFS is *not* well suited to V7 mailboxes and the associated
> locking
Dave,
we have been deploying a very large mail service with the home directories
are mounted on NFS. we currently have 5 SMTP/POP3 boxes, each with thier
own queues accepting connections via a round-robin dns.
this boxes are the front-ends for another 5 Data servers which just se
Hello all,
When a pop user logs in to check mail, they send their user password in clear
text over the network. So, a pop user account could be comprimised, and is
therefore unsecure. On a mail server I administer, I set all of the qmail user
accounts shell to be /bin/false which disallows a direc
62 matches
Mail list logo
