tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used

@4000386f36191f0ac50c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used I'm getting tons of these lines in my logs, what would cause it? what port is tcpserver trying to bind to? thx, - Mark

Re: tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used

On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:29:33AM -0800, Mark Maggelet wrote: > @4000386f36191f0ac50c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used > I'm getting tons of these lines in my logs, what would cause it? > what port is tcpserver trying to bind to? Do some more work for us, we aren't cla

Re: Anal-ness

Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own personal use (not for redistribution?) - Original Message - From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 11:23 PM Subject: Re: Anal-ness

qmail Digest 2 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 868

qmail Digest 2 Jan 2000 11:00:01 - Issue 868 Topics (messages 34948 through 34965): max messages queued? 34948 by: Benjamin de los Angeles Jr . 34949 by: Russell Nelson 34953 by: Benjamin de los Angeles Jr . 34954 by: Russell Nelson Delivery Problems

Re: Anal-ness

On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 02:39:40AM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: > Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own > personal use (not for redistribution?) No, just like any other license can't prohibit you: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Interesting reading.

Re: Anal-ness

On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:42:53 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 02:39:40AM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: >> Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own >> personal use (not for redistribution?) > >No, just like any other license can't prohibit you

Re: Anal-ness

Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An OSI-approved Open Source license...And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) Note that many things are good and right, though unblessed by OSI and Richard "Source code for the workers or we shoot you" Stalin. Qmail's restrictions may be a "moral" downer for

Re: Anal-ness

At 23:47 01/01/2000 -0700, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote: I just want to know, is there any MTA called fmail (not qmail), because nowadays there are some spammers who like to spam me with their own mail server, using fmail as its MTA. I 'm afraid fmail is qmail with a bit modifications, becaus

Re: Anal-ness

David Cunningham writes: > Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own > personal use (not for redistribution?) It's complicated. According to US copyright law, once you have a copy, it is yours to dispose of as you wish. However, the software may have attempted t

Re: Anal-ness

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > An OSI-approved Open Source license...And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) > > Note that many things are good and right, though unblessed by OSI and > Richard "Source code for the workers or we shoot you" Stalin. I th

q-mail relay responses (revisited)

I was going over the qmail pictures to see if I could get a little more insight into the hows and whys of qmail's failure to throw an exception of some kind the moment someone unauthorized attempts a relay. As it is, it doesn't give any indication to the end user that he's not allowed to be doing

Re: q-mail relay responses (revisited)

On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 10:40:59AM -0600, Dustin Miller wrote: > I was going over the qmail pictures to see if I could get a little more > insight into the hows and whys of qmail's failure to throw an exception of > some kind the moment someone unauthorized attempts a relay. As it is, it > doesn'

Re: Anal-ness

Presumably there's nothing stopping anyone truly committed to GPL'ing qmail from buying the copyright to it from Dan...other than Dan setting too high a price. (No, I'm not planning to do this myself, just pointing out that it is, presumably, possible.) Having developed GPL'ed software myself, d

Re: Anal-ness

Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Cunningham writes: >> Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my >> own personal use (not for redistribution?) > It's complicated. According to US copyright law, once you have a copy, > it is yours to dispose of as you

Re: Anal-ness

Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Richard "Source code for the workers or we shoot you" Stalin. > > ...what RMS actually says these days. Granted; he's doing much better. As an ethic, his ideas are wonderful; as potential laws, they would amount to soci

Re: Anal-ness

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ...but because qmail is not open source, Dan wins the argument without > > need for persuasion. > > But I haven't heard of anything people can't accomplish with qmail, > obeying Dan's license, except possibly ``Never

RE: q-mail relay responses (revisited)

It seems, from RoadRunner's recent probe of my qmail installation (yes, I know, the test was bogus) that qmail DIDN'T flag it as a bad RCPT host. I've enclosed the SMTP conversation between their security test and my qmail server. It doesn't seem to announce that a bad RCPT was given. Connectin

Re: Anal-ness

>Right, and if someone changes the software, that person takes on the >support nightmare. Dan could quite reasonably say "I will only help >you if you are using an unpatched qmail." > > > Dan doesn't want to be ``faced with a support nightmare---forever'', and > > I can't say I blame him. > >T

Re: Anal-ness

David Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own > personal use (not for redistribution?) No. Also, distributing patches is allowed. -- Claus Andre Faerber PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49

Re: q-mail relay responses (revisited)

"Dustin Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems, from RoadRunner's recent probe of my qmail installation (yes, I > know, the test was bogus) that qmail DIDN'T flag it as a bad RCPT host. > > I've enclosed the SMTP conversation between their security test and my qmail > server. It doesn't

Re: max messages queued?

On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > Benjamin de los Angeles Jr. writes: > > On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > > > > > Benjamin de los Angeles Jr . writes: > > > > What's the maximum number of messages that can be queued in Qmail? > > > > > > There is no limit, however,

Re: q-mail relay responses (revisited)

There are a variety of sites on the internet that will perform such a relay probe for you. It's important to consider the possibility that the probe script at some of these sites may not be perfect and the dialog echoed back to your browser (or telnet session) may not be complete. (i.e. reject m

Re: max messages queued?

On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 07:25:28AM +0800, Benjamin de los Angeles Jr. wrote: > increase the value in conf-split or install another instance of qmail? > By default, the value of conf-split is 23, and I don't know how much > queued emails can this handle. When I tried to send a message to all cust

cgi program will not work to qmail-inject - PLEASE READ

Hello All,       I recently installed the daemontools package, and created the initscripts as described by Dave Sill's Life With Qmail webpage.  Here is the problem.       Before, I had qmail w/ tcpserver starting up our of the /etc/rc.d/rc.local file, and I had to reboot the system to restar

Re: q-mail relay responses (revisited)

In article <006d01bf5579$81bfd5e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >There are a variety of sites on the internet that will perform such a relay >probe for you. It's important to consider the possibility that the probe >script at some of these sites may not be perfect and the dialog echoed back >to y

The Canonical Set of qmail Patches

listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski writes: > Why can't we make something like this (qmail-whatever)? > This way we can port all the exisiting patches that everyone is applying > these days into one bit patch > and later on supporters can work off this patch to add more feautres? > Applying

qmail patch list?

Does anyone have a complete list of the available qmail patches and what they do? Pete

Re: qmail patch list?

Peter Cavender writes: > Does anyone have a complete list of the available qmail patches and > what they do? I expect http://www.qmail.org/top.html#addons to be canonical, and I hope everyone else does too. If I've missed anything, please remind me of it (except the Amavis stuff, that's still

Re: qmail patch list?

On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:26:45PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > Peter Cavender writes: > > Does anyone have a complete list of the available qmail patches and > > what they do? > > I expect http://www.qmail.org/top.html#addons to be canonical, and I > hope everyone else does too. If I've mi

Re: The Canonical Set of qmail Patches

On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:17:51PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: > Sure. Propose a canonical set of patches. About the only thing I > install, and only on very high volume sites, is big-todo. Oh, and the > rblsmtpd multiple -r option patch. Given that MAPS And big-dns, I hope. Regards, ber

Virtual domains..?

I have qmail running several virtual domains (and a "real" domain) on a server. I am trying to make it so that the operation of the virtual domains appears independent of the master domain. The problem is: 1) bounce messages for [EMAIL PROTECTED] come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) A message deliv

Re: tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used

Thus said "Mark Maggelet" on Sun, 02 Jan 2000 01:29:33 PST: > @4000386f36191f0ac50c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used > I'm getting tons of these lines in my logs, what would cause it? > what port is tcpserver trying to bind to? Did you possibly enable the smtp port in yo