qmail Digest 2 Mar 2000 11:00:00 - Issue 928
Topics (messages 38012 through 38094):
/etc/tcpcontrol/smtp.cdb not working (Re: can't stop qmail (supervise-scripts))
38012 by: Smoerk
Re: Forwarding emails
38013 by: Ricardo Cerqueira
38014 by: Roger O. Svenning
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:04 AM 2/20/00 -0800, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
Just imagine what happens when some script kiddie uses a few ten
thousand trojaned cable/dsl connected home computers to send email
to tens of thousands of domains and they all bounce back to your
mail
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:05:34AM -0600, Erich Zigler wrote:
Im having several complaints from people using Netscape 4.7's email client.
Seems when they are trying to log into the server that Netscape is only
sending user@ not [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the user then cannot get their mail.
Hello,
I asked about message 252 yesterday and was told that to have the smtp
server not vrfy users was a security feature. I do understand this
perfectly. But shouldn't this be an option for the sysadmin to turn off
and on or to have a deny file to only allow certain people to access the
vrfy
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 09:35:02AM -0400, Shera wrote:
Hello,
[snip]
secure system possible. There are times that I need to vrfy users from
remote and in the past the easiest and only form I knew was through the
smtp server, but now using qmail it is impossible. I would just like to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2 Mar 00, at 9:35, Shera wrote:
I asked about message 252 yesterday and was told that to have the smtp
server not vrfy users was a security feature. I do understand this
perfectly. But shouldn't this be an option for the sysadmin to turn
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:34:11AM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
No they do not need to be open relays. If they are qmail
servers that is perfect for the purpose.
Why? There is no appreciable gain. To be effective the attacker needs to
send a small amount of traffic, which is amplified by a
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 01:49:32PM +, James Raftery wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:34:11AM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
No they do not need to be open relays. If they are qmail
servers that is perfect for the purpose.
Why? There is no appreciable gain. To be effective the attacker
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 11:34:11AM -,
Lorens Kockum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:04 AM 2/20/00 -0800, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
Just imagine what happens when some script kiddie uses a few ten
thousand trojaned cable/dsl connected home
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients.
All these recipients will bounce the message - separately. There's your
amplification :)
This is a gain if you are sending the original message
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 08:03:04AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients.
All these recipients will bounce the message - separately. There's your
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients.
All these recipients will bounce the message - separately.
No it doesn't :) Try it (with qmail, of course) One message with failed
deliveries results
I'm going off of memory here, but I think this should do it. Test
before using in production.
I would like to have the qmail configurated to
FORWARD/DUPLICATE EVERY incoming message (no matter whoever
the receiver) to two different host behind. (Both hosts are
not linux machines
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:15:19PM +, James Raftery wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients.
All these recipients will bounce the message - separately.
No it doesn't :) Try it
Hi,
I have qmail setup and running. In my /var/qmail/control/smtproutes
I have ,
:mail.server
This tells qmail to direct my outbound mail to my ISP.
However when ever I have any local mail it also gets sent to my ISP's
server and because it has no QDM it gets bounced back. I would like to
Hi!
Since last monday I have problem with ORBS database. Due to spam relay my host
got into their list. I applied relaymailfrom+tarpit patch and now most of "relay
holes" on my site are blocked out. But I can't fix problem with exclamation and
percen sign - tester at orbs.org checks it.
Ryszard Lach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MAIL FROM:spamtest@[AAA.BBB.CCC.DDD]
250 ok
RCPT TO:"user-02782%nf.abuse.net"
250 ok
Do you have any ideas?
Bogus test. See:
http://www.faqts.com/knowledge-base/view.phtml/aid/1198/fid/206/lang/en
-Dave
MooNDoGGie iS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have qmail setup and running. In my /var/qmail/control/smtproutes
I have ,
:mail.server
This tells qmail to direct my outbound mail to my ISP.
However when ever I have any local mail it also gets sent to my ISP's
server and because it has no QDM it
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 04:44:22PM +0100, Ryszard Lach wrote:
Hi!
Since last monday I have problem with ORBS database. Due to spam relay my host
got into their list. I applied relaymailfrom+tarpit patch and now most of "relay
holes" on my site are blocked out. But I can't fix problem with
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:42:23AM -0500, MooNDoGGie iS wrote:
:mail.server
This tells qmail to direct my outbound mail to my ISP.
However when ever I have any local mail it also gets sent to my ISP's
server and because it has no QDM it gets bounced back. I would like to
make all local
On Tuesday, Michael Handler wrote:
Back:
("qmail" stylized text)
(dolphin logo)
Secure, reliable, efficient.
Pick three.
(white space)
www.qmail.org
The latest round of designs are at
I don't care much for the Q-arrow logo, the dolphin is far far cooler.. so
my pick goes for dolphin 0 .. I like the font on the Secure, reliable,
efficient quote, but I think the anti-sendmail quote is cooler.
Chad
-Original Message-
From: Vern Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 03:06:16PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 08:03:04AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:53:41PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're missing a point: the message is sent with a couple of 100 recipients.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 09:54:07AM -0700, Vern Hart wrote:
The latest round of designs are at http://vern.com/tshirts/qmail/
They are the above quote, plus the anti-sendmail quote. Both with
each logo version.
Let me know the latest round of critiques.
My only beef would be with having
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Vern Hart wrote:
The latest round of designs are at http://vern.com/tshirts/qmail/
They are the above quote, plus the anti-sendmail quote. Both with
each logo version.
Let me know the latest round of critiques.
Vern, those look great. I'll take one of each with the 'Q'
Hello averyone,
How could I find the spamcontrol patch?
thanks in advance
--
-
Luís Bezerra de A. Junior
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SecrelNet Informática LTDA
Fortaleza - Ceará - Brasil
Fone: 021852882090
-
I have to say that I agree with chat, Dolphin 0 is the best :)
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Chad Day wrote:
I don't care much for the Q-arrow logo, the dolphin is far far cooler.. so
my pick goes for dolphin 0 .. I like the font on the Secure, reliable,
efficient quote, but I think the
Aaron L. Meehan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 1 March 2000 at 13:21:43 -0800
Quoting Mark E. Drummond ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I am currently using rblsmtpd to block spammers on the RBL. I may add ORBS as
well. Think I'll wait, gather some stats on how much is being blocked by RBL,
and then
At 3/2/2000 09:54 AM -0700, Vern Hart wrote or quoted:
The latest round of designs are at http://vern.com/tshirts/qmail/
[snip]
Let me know the latest round of critiques.
I like the new scaling on the sendmail and qmail logos. It's now much
easier to tell what the shirt is really endorsing.
All right, I'm going to throw yet another suggestion into the hat -
one for the mother of all T-Shirts.
Front: Qmail "Q" logo with the "Secure, Reliable, Efficient. Pick
Three" quote under it in small lettering.
Back: The same as the back from "Qmail 0 (dolphin)" shirt
Has anyone been successful in getting QMAIL-1.03 to run on a SPARC running
Solaris 7, and compiled using the Sun C compiler? Here is my environment:
This is SUN Netra T1 running Solaris 7:
m67[admin]% uname -a
SunOS m67 5.7 Generic_106541-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine
How about a truss -f?
That might tell you why the spawned process is dying.
Also, you might want to quote the log files exactly next time. As a long-time user
of qmail you may be aware of how confusing a paraphrased error can be to people
trying to help you.
Regards.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at
Hi John,
Would you be willing to share the scripts/setup you use to achieve the labeling that
you do? I'd like to be able to replicate this on our end -- labeling is better than
rejecting, I think, because it allows after-the-fact analysis, plus it allows
different users to choose how
Erich Zigler wrote:
Im having several complaints from people using Netscape 4.7's email client.
Seems when they are trying to log into the server that Netscape is only
sending user@ not [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the user then cannot get their mail.
use % in stead of @
so user%domain.com will
http://www.isp-planet.com/equipment/qmail-a.html
Sorry if this is a duplicate posting.. I scanned back subject lines a couple of
days and didn't see anything.
- David Harris
Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 03:30:34PM -0500, David Harris wrote:
http://www.isp-planet.com/equipment/qmail-a.html
Sorry if this is a duplicate posting.. I scanned back subject lines a couple of
days and didn't see anything.
It's got a few technical errors specifically, qmail-send does *not*
On 02-Mar-00 David Harris wrote:
http://www.isp-planet.com/equipment/qmail-a.html
Sorry if this is a duplicate posting.. I scanned back subject lines a couple of
days and didn't see anything.
I'm confused as to what she's writing about:
---
QMail is open source. While you can't beat the
Last I checked vpopmail and SqWebMail weren't part of qmail. Must be
the way them media types listen.
When erroneous articles get mentioned in slashdot, the reader's letters
to the editor usually trigger a rewrite of the article. Perhaps if someone
(Dan?) were to kindly mention the errors
Hello,
I am installing the daemontools package and reading the docs. I was
wondering if anyone is using this to monitor other services besides qmail
and if so anyone had any recomendations on configurations. Thanks in advance.
Clifford Thurber
Web Systems Administrator
LiveUniverse.com
[EMAIL
At 12:04 PM -0800 3/2/00, Chris Thorman wrote:
Hi John,
Would you be willing to share the scripts/setup you use to achieve
the labeling that you do? I'd like to be able to replicate this on
our end -- labeling is better than rejecting, I think, because it
allows after-the-fact analysis, plus
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
Pavel Kankovsky writes:
Damned omnipotent root. I hate unix.
Well, my feeling is that Unix is well designed.
If unix was well designed... (in random order)
- access to network ports and devices could be controlled
as easily as access to files
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 02:35:51PM -0700, Steve Wolfe wrote:
Last I checked vpopmail and SqWebMail weren't part of qmail. Must be
the way them media types listen.
When erroneous articles get mentioned in slashdot, the reader's letters
to the editor usually trigger a rewrite of the
Pavel Kankovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The error message is quite long. In fact, it is probably longer than
most email addresses, even with additional "rcpt to:". If you send an
empty message to many bogus recipients (limited only by the amount of
virtual memory available to
From: Pavel Kankovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:52:23 +0100 (MET)
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
Pavel Kankovsky writes:
Damned omnipotent root. I hate unix.
Well, my feeling is that Unix is well designed.
If unix was well designed... (in random
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How about a truss -f?
That might tell you why the spawned process is dying.
Also, you might want to quote the log files exactly next time. As a long-time user
of qmail you may be aware of how confusing a paraphrased error can be to people
trying to help
How about a truss -f?
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 04:50:46PM -0500, Curtis Generous wrote:
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How about a truss -f?
That might tell you why the spawned process is dying.
Also, you might want to quote the log files exactly next time. As a long-time user
Neither bouncing messages nor return receipts make sense for
ordinary messages. And for registered messages one needs
authentication and encryption anyway.
As far as DOS is concerned, amplification is much much higher.
The problem is this:
1) Hacker uses a tool to root compromise a few
I refer anybody who wants to know what 'etc' covers to find a copy of "The
UNIX-HATERS Handbook", by Simson Garfinkel, et. al. ISBN 1-56884-203-1
It's been out of print for a while, but if you can find it, it's an
entertaining read. (Full disclosure: I'm a contributor.)
Chris
Yes!
Dirk Harms-Merbitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Neither bouncing messages nor return receipts make sense for ordinary
messages.
I disagree.
1) Hacker uses a tool to root compromise a few thousand home
computers.
At which point they launch a smurf attack, which is considerably less
Heh, I have that book. I picked it up one day after struggling to get
ClearCase running on HPUX 8 (or was it 9?) for about 2 weeks. Not
good for the UNIX newbie. It will really unnecessarily skew your
opinion against the OS. So many of the UNIX "features" they listed
were out of date, even
Dave Sill has helped me kick start a Qmail Knowledge Base. There are
now 32 answers to 43 questions. Check it out at:
http://qmail.faqts.com
We need the help of the community to build this resource. Please
consider taking some time to share your knowledge. A good way to
do this may be
- Original Message -
From: "Dirk Harms-Merbitz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2 Mar 2000 16:34
Subject: Re: SMTP in distributed DOS
Neither bouncing messages nor return receipts make sense for
ordinary messages. And for registered messages one needs
authentication
Does this list have a digest? I've tried sending a blank message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but I didn't get a reply.
Thanks.
Walt
What information do you gain from a successfull delivery? You
don't know if anybody will read it. It could have gotten
caught in a mail filter. Somebody could have messed up their
email client.
Failed messages should silently disappear. If you need to check
the spelling off the email address
-Original Message-From:
sachin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date:
Saturday, February 12, 2000 4:02 PMSubject: complex user routing
-Original Message-From:
sachin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date:
Saturday, February
Hi there, I'm extremely new to Qmail and installed it today to replace the
mail server on my primary server as well as use the install for the basis
for an article I'm writing. Even though the install was pretty wierd, I
managed to make my way through it. =)
A few questions, however, and I'm
56 matches
Mail list logo
