Hi,
I had read a lot of mail to say that HotMail is build by QMail.
But how to implement another HotMail by QMail ?
HotMail have following feature:
1. Several million user
2. Only use domain name for each account (eg: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
3. Multiple mail server to store user mail
My mainly
Hi,
What's the best way to kill supervise/tcpserver/qmail processes for
system shutdown? Do the supervise lock directories need clearing up
manually, or what?
I'm on Solaris 5.6, not that it should make any difference ...
Thanks,
Adam.
--
I've been wrong before.
I have a question about MX records. Our users cannot email a certain domain,
say foo.com, and when I looked the domain up, I noticed their entry for mail
exchanger is an IP address rather than a host name. Now I've read somewhere
earlier on the qmail list that this is not correct according to
qmail Digest 12 Oct 1999 10:00:01 - Issue 787
Topics (messages 31489 through 31529):
Re: qmail-inject: fatal: qq read error (#4.3.0)
31489 by: Vince Vielhaber
Re: getting qmail to retry
31490 by: Sam
31495 by: Claus Färber
31505 by: Sam
31514 by:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I had read a lot of mail to say that HotMail is build by QMail.
But how to implement another HotMail by QMail ?
HotMail have following feature:
1. Several million user
2. Only use domain name for each account (eg: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
3. Multiple mail
Claus Färber wrote:
Brad Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
BTW, the time on your workstation looks pretty wrong, almost 19 hours
behind.
More like 13 hours.
Well, exactly time-of-day hours. (My UA is configured to always send
00:00:00 - for privacy reasons.)
Thats a
Just an addition to my last post: I just sent a message to myself via
Bigfoot's email forwarding service and I found something that appears to
indicate that my server's name IS resolving. Here is the relavent bit:
Received: from emergimail.com ([205.218.58.195])
by
I can't shut off the percenthack feature. Qmail 1.01 ignores an absent or
an empty percenthack file. It will relay mail for any ip alias on the
server except for the fqdn of the host. How do I shut it down?
If it ignores the control/percenthack, can I make a code change somewhere
and
Hello again,
I have a customer who uses a package called mailtraq. He calls our
outgoing server from an external address sometimes. When using his
mailtraq package to send mail via our outgoing server, he gets a 553
status code from the server. He has requested that we return a 471 or
571 code
Hi Folks,
I've problems to configure a Qmail Server as a mailhub for external
mails.
The scenario:
I've a internal Qmail server that handles all mails at "mydomain.de" and
everything is working fine.
Now I created a subnet behind a firewall "subnet.mydomain.de".
There I've another Qmail server
My logs do not show the "from address". is this normal ?
This only happens from mail coming from qmail-smtp. I see the from if
it comes from qmail-inject.
example:
...
1999-10-12 08:41:08.393144 info msg 107714: bytes 847 from qp 3471 uid 605
1999-10-12 08:41:08.453629 starting delivery 314:
Craig Shrimpton writes:
I can't shut off the percenthack feature. Qmail 1.01 ignores an absent or
an empty percenthack file. It will relay mail for any ip alias on the
server except for the fqdn of the host. How do I shut it down?
Are you sure you don't have a sendmail host somewhere in
In desperation I re-patched and re-compiled the server. Now all of a sudden
it's working like it's supposed to. I've seen that kind of weirdness with
DOS C programs but never with a "Unixoid" application.
Strange...
Thanks,
Craig
- Original Message -
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL
Sam wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?= writes:
On second thought, I really don't want to know what these people want to
do with SMTP. Ugh, what a frightening thought...
It's not a new version of SMTP if that is what you're afraid of. It only
collects some important
Craig Shrimpton wrote:
In desperation I re-patched and re-compiled the server. Now all of a sudden
it's working like it's supposed to. I've seen that kind of weirdness with
DOS C programs but never with a "Unixoid" application.
I have, many times. I usually attribute it to things like
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 06:44:34AM -0700, Rich Aldridge wrote:
mailtraq package to send mail via our outgoing server, he gets a 553
status code from the server. He has requested that we return a 471 or
571 code instead. I reckon that "toying" with these codes may not be a
good idea as other
you may have noticed that there's another thread similar to this on the list
right now. i'd first suggest that you ignore the 471 part, as that would be
changing the meaning of the error from permanent to temporary. my second
suggestion would be to find out exactly what the customer thinks the
Conceivably, a smart MUA could resend mail when it gets a bounce back that
it thinks is a temporary condition. In most cases when I get errors
trying
to deliver mail to people, I don't always assume they have passed away.
The difference would be doing this in the MUA vs the MTA. For mail
Hi everyone. I have got to the stage where I am confident enough to use qmail for my
ISP network. I need some help. I have no idea what machine to buy. Can you all chip
in with ideas regarding the following problems.
For a 100 000+ user sytem
money is no object
what machine is necessary.
; what machine is necessary. (alpha preferable)
; what distribution is necessary. (minimum install ie no X)
strip down a linux dist or make one yourself.
; can I split up the pop and smtp and imap servers to different machines?
let me know what you get on this.
--
Eric D. Pancer
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:18:19 -0400 (EDT), Sam wrote:
For once thing, the explicit prohibition against content-based rejection
of messages. This is probably as far out of touch with reality as you can
possibly get. According to the draft, if some pissant decides to flood
your server with spam,
eric wrote:
; what machine is necessary. (alpha preferable)
; what distribution is necessary. (minimum install ie no X)
strip down a linux dist or make one yourself.
Or just install FreeBSD 3.3 and select User only.
http://www.freebsd.org
(Or OpenBSD, DJB uses it,
Hi, I am trying to test my configuration according to TEST.receive file. I have the
following error message on RCPT. Can you please help me?
Thanks,
Bora
--
[bora@ufo ~]$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220
http://www.pobox.com/~djb/qmail/faq/incominghost.html#local
Or "virtual domain" a little further down.
Hi, I am trying to test my configuration according to TEST.receive file. I have the
following error message on RCPT. Can you please help me?
Thanks,
Bora
--
[bora@ufo ~]$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
220
Hi there
I'm wanting to put in a replacement qmail-queue that scans for virii before
calling the real qmail-queue. It's supposed to read the message on
descriptor 0 and the envelope on descriptor 1 and then write to the same
descriptors on the real qmail-queue. That's just a bit beyond me
Hi all,
We are currently running qmail on out internet gateway. At the moment we
only have a 64k ISDN link which works well most of the day, however
several times per day a few users send out mail to a large group of
recipients with large binary attachments. The users connect MS Exchange
servers
Dear all,
Say, I have two domains : domain_a.com and domain_b.com
Both use the same SMTP server (with qmail).
Is possible that [EMAIL PROTECTED] has different mailbox as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
How can I do that ?
Thanks
ddn
__
Get Your Private,
deden purnamahadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 13 October 1999 at 10:11:21 JAV
Dear all,
Say, I have two domains : domain_a.com and domain_b.com
Both use the same SMTP server (with qmail).
Is possible that [EMAIL PROTECTED] has different mailbox as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
How can I do that
Sam replied:
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
Sam wrote:
It's not a new version of SMTP if that is what you're afraid of. It only
collects some important extensions (such as Extended SMTP/EHLO) and
clarifications.
No, it does more than just that. I just
Racer X wrote:
Conceivably, a smart MUA could resend mail when it gets a bounce back that
it thinks is a temporary condition. In most cases when I get errors
trying
to deliver mail to people, I don't always assume they have passed away.
The difference would be doing this in the MUA vs
Hi all
A friend pointed this out on www.barnesandnoble.com:
Qmail
John R. Levine Russell Nelson Tim O'Reilly (Editor)
bn.com Price: $29.95
Special Order: Ships 3-5 weeks
Format: Paperback, 400pp.
ISBN: 1565926285
Publisher: O'Reilly Associates, Incorporated
Qmail
John R. Levine Russell Nelson Tim O'Reilly (Editor)
...
Pub. Date: September 1999
So, John and Russell are you guys to get over to Amazon and start
autographying copies for us hungry qmailers next month? ;-)
Hadn't planned on it. On the other hand, if anyone can get a
Keith Burdis writes:
Qmail
John R. Levine Russell Nelson Tim O'Reilly (Editor)
Pub. Date: September 1999
September. Hmmm... That's in the past. John!! We're in trouble!!
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software |
Sam wrote:
Here it is. I just went back and looked it up to be sure. Section 2.4.1:
===
... In general, a relay SMTP SHOULD assume that the
message content it has received is valid and, assuming that the envelope
permits doing so, relay it without inspecting that
35 matches
Mail list logo
