Tobias Neubert a écrit :
> /usr/local/bin/maildirsmtp ~alias/pppdir alias-ppp- sendmail.neubert.com
> $IPADDR
> to send my mail. But if I try this now, I get the following error:
> maildirserial: info: new/963816027.832.chakoty bounced: 209.231.49.20
> said: 553 To send mail, first check your mail
Hello,
i have a problem i didn't find in the archive.
I run qmail on solaris 2.6 and it works fine with one
restriction. Every message sent with qmail or recieved with qmail
gets a:" content length: 0" as body. I think the problem lies in the rc file
i use but i can't find the mistake
My rc file
qmail Digest 17 Jul 2000 10:00:00 - Issue 1065
Topics (messages 44836 through 44854):
Re: Announcing qmail-autoresponder version 0.90
44836 by: Russ Allbery
Re: Domain forwarding]
44837 by: Henry Baragar
Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS
44838 by: Jedi/Sector O
Hi all
I'm running the qmail package for some time now and I got now a special
error when sending a message to a user in my virtualdomains (vpopmail):
"
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at turkey.rogatec.ch.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a
Hi all
I'm trying to use vpopmail to allow user that autenticate via pop3 the
user of smtpd.
I create a user with vadduser e vaddpasswd then i try to connect
to the qmail-pop3d telnet localhost pop-3 i insert:
user prova or user prova%virtualdomain
pass prova
-ERR this user has no
- Original Message -
>Hi all
>I'm trying to use vpopmail to allow user that autenticate via pop3 the
>user of smtpd.
>I create a user with vadduser e vaddpasswd then i try to connect
>to the qmail-pop3d telnet localhost pop-3 i insert:
>user prova or user prova%virtualdomain
wolfgang zeikat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|/var/qmail/alias/autorespond 1 100 /var/tmp/autor.txt
>/var/tmp/autorespond/no-mailbox
>
>(that is one line, no matter how your email client wrapped it here)
Actually, your e-mail client wrapped it. Mine doesn't wrap, and it
came in on two lines.
Try vpopmail in www.inter7.com for virtual accounts. All your accounts are
reached through one entry in /etc/passwd
Esteban Javier Próspero
> -Original Message-
> From: çééí äìôøï [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 11:36 AM
> To: Paul Jarc; Qmail
> Subject:
I recently started monitoring qmail-smtpd's activity via "tcpserver -v",
and at the moment it's burning through a steady 15-20 concurrencies,
scrolling by beyond readability.
Meanwhile, as I "tail -f maillog" for qmail-send's activity, it sits
predominantly idle, with an occasional message to pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>qmail server is accepting mails for unknown users, users who do not exists
>on my mail server ( users whose entries r not there in my LDAP
>directory server )
[...]
> i cant understand why to accept mail for unknow users ( just t
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 10:43:09AM -0400, Dave Kitabjian wrote:
> I recently started monitoring qmail-smtpd's activity via "tcpserver -v",
> and at the moment it's burning through a steady 15-20 concurrencies,
> scrolling by beyond readability.
>
> Meanwhile, as I "tail -f maillog" for qmail-send
With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound. How much disk will be
sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
I'm just grasping here to figure out the best solution, so bear with me...
What if I only needed a 1GB queue, and
> > In other words you'll need to pump out 5+ megabits per second, which
> > means a connection of around double that, say 10 Mbits per second.
> >
> > Is that what you have available?
>
> In theory, yes. In practice... remains to be seen.
> I did some similar calculations and came up with a sim
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 10:29:03AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
> I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound. How much disk will be
> sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
>
> I'm just grasping here to figure out the b
It's all newsletter subscription email so an occasional loss of the queue
would be fine. It won't be pumping out mission critical email or anything
like that. I'm benchmarking a ramdisk filesystem right now, unfortunately
the only thing I have to compare it to is an IDE disk because I can't take
Hi everyone,
Anyone know where there's a list of standard MTA bounce messages? I have
70,000 bounced messages which have been sitting on an imap account and
gathering dust over the past 2 months. My job: to sort these through and
get an approximate picture of which are fake, which are due to re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, I'm using qmail 1.03 on a Debian 2.1 system with the
vchkpw/vpopmail programs. Whenever I try to send mail to
user@localhost, qmail interprets this as [EMAIL PROTECTED],
which is not in the DNS at all. Is there a way to fix this?
"localhost" is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:39:38PM +, Christopher Tarricone wrote:
> Is there a way that you can setup of the server to allow the user to
> check all of thier messages and then go to another location and then
> check them again? What I would like to happen is this.. A person sends
> me an e-ma
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 10:29:03AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
> I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound.
Ahhh... someone who gets it.
> How much disk will be sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
What if you di
Ryan Hayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, I'm using qmail 1.03 on a Debian 2.1 system with the
>vchkpw/vpopmail programs. Whenever I try to send mail to
>user@localhost, qmail interprets this as [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>which is not in the DNS at all. Is there a way to fix this?
Don't send mail t
I overlooked that when I posted this message; I totally forgot about the
write penalty. Sorry about that.
-Original Message-
From: John White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 7:08 PM
To: qmail mailing list
Subject: Re: questions about performance and setup
On Fr
Quoting Thomas Duterme ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm new to managing bounces, so please bear with me. I've had a very tough
> time finding any good documentation which could guide me to building some
> scripts to parse through my bounces and semi-automate them. I do fairly
> large mailings at a tim
I have a question about the qmail-date-localtime patch written by John
Saunders.
What files does this patch modify exactly?
I have a rpm based install, and would like to see if it's possible to
just replace the files that this patch modifies..
any help would be appricaited
thanks
Grant
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 12:56:25PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> >Hi, I'm using qmail 1.03 on a Debian 2.1 system with the
> >vchkpw/vpopmail programs. Whenever I try to send mail to
> >user@localhost, qmail interprets this as [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >which is not in the DNS at all. Is there a way to
On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:55:21PM +0200, Jedi/Sector One wrote:
> ReiserFS does not commit link() synchronously (mounting with "sync"
> doesn't change anything). Therefore, if there is a power outage during
> the Maildir delivery or if qmail-smtpd answered the final "queued"
> message without a
Hello,
I want to write a simple script to check if
mails are queued in /var/qmail/alias/pppdir/new
to decide, wheter the PC should go online or not.
Is there a spezial command like 'qmail-queue' to
decide if the computer should dial (isdn) to the
provider and send the queued mails using maildirsmt
> It is DJB's view that all directory operations (creating, removing,
> linking, etc.) sould be synchronous, just like BSD does.
For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous
directory operations; you have to open and fsync() the file you just
moved to be sure the operation
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 07:31:22PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a question about the qmail-date-localtime patch written by John
> Saunders.
> What files does this patch modify exactly?
exactly the one www.qmail.org states; date822fmt.c
$ grep "^+++" qmail-date-localtime.patch
+++ q
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 03:59:00PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > It is DJB's view that all directory operations (creating, removing,
> > linking, etc.) sould be synchronous, just like BSD does.
>
> For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous
> directory operations; you ha
Apologies for not catching this in my first reply to Bruce's message.
> There is also the discussion of ordered meta-data updates (OMDU) vs
> unordered (UMDU). Linux (with the exception of newer journalled
> file systems) does UMDU. With OMDU, the file meta-data (inode,
> indirect blocks, etc)
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 12:07:52AM +, Thomas Duterme wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Anyone know where there's a list of standard MTA bounce messages? I have
> 70,000 bounced messages which have been sitting on an imap account and
> gathering dust over the past 2 months. My job: to sort these thr
The 'sane' response would be to buy high-end power protection equipment
and use redundant drive configurations (RAID) and only worry about whether
the kernel writes out data consistently or not (and good journalling takes
care of many performance issues here).
Reliability of gigabytes per minute
>> For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous
>> directory operations; you have to open and fsync() the file you just
>> moved to be sure the operation has been committed to disk. See
>> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2000/06/19/0011.html for a
>> little more
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 04:39:01PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > Which to me seems to be a more logical mode of operations: if you
> > want the file data sync'd to disk, call fsync on the file; if you
> > want the directory, fsync the directory.
>
> Perhaps. There are arguments for either model
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 09:51:22AM -0700, John White wrote:
> > (I can put 2GB of ram in the box)? Linux has support for making a disk in
> > memory, putting a filesystem on it and mounting it. Wouldn't this take care
> > of I/O problems?
>
> I'd read up on ramdisks first. They aren't instant
"Steven M. Klass" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how I can test a vpopmail installation. I know this may
> probably be trivial, but I like DJB's instructions, especially since he
> always allows provisions for testing..
>
> Thanks
> Steven M. Klass
> Physical Design Engineering Manager
>
> Andigi
Is there a way that you can setup of the server to allow the user to
check all of thier messages and then go to another location and then
check them again? What I would like to happen is this.. A person sends
me an e-mail when I check it that message stays on the server. If I were
to check it gain
"Steven M. Klass" wrote:
>
> Hey all
>
> I just started working with vpopmail and I am in need of answers.
>
> 1. The install guide recommends that all domains be set up as virtual
> domains. In the qmail/control/locals file I have my domain already
> defined. How can I convert that
Most mail packages have the ability to let a user log in when sending mail.
(Outlook for example.) I was looking at this and had a couple of
questions...
Is this part of the SMTP standard?
Can this be used to let authorised people relay through a server?
Thanks
Martin
Martin Searancke
CommSoft G
--- Martin Searancke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most mail packages have the ability to let a user
> log in when sending mail.
> (Outlook for example.) I was looking at this and had
> a couple of
> questions...
> Is this part of the SMTP standard?
No.
> Can this be used to let authorised peopl
> With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
> I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound. How much disk will be
> sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
It's not so much a matter of disk size (I don't think you'll have a 1 gig
queue!), but of throughput.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 11:04:26AM +1200, Martin Searancke wrote:
> Most mail packages have the ability to let a user log in when sending mail.
> (Outlook for example.) I was looking at this and had a couple of
> questions...
> Is this part of the SMTP standard?
It is not part of the original rfc
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 10:24:53PM -0600, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
> > I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound. How much disk will be
> > sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
> It's not so much a matter of disk siz
Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > With all of the emails I recieved, I get the impression that I'm going to
> > I/O bound instead of processor or memory bound. How much disk will be
> > sufficient for the queue? 1GB? More?
>
> It's not so much a matter of disk size (I don't think you'll have a 1 gig
>
44 matches
Mail list logo