Hi everybody,
I can't find anything that explains how to selectively remove messages
from the outgoing queue in qmail-1.03... I'd like to obtain a list of
the messages in this queue and to delete only the messages sent by one
person (I've found qmail-qread and qmail-clean, but they are not of
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 08:14:13AM +0200, Luca Zancan wrote:
Hi everybody,
I can't find anything that explains how to selectively remove messages
from the outgoing queue in qmail-1.03... I'd like to obtain a list of
the messages in this queue and to delete only the messages sent by one
Hi,
I want to forward all mail to unknown users to another mail host. The
qmail FAQ suggests putting the line:
| forward "$LOCAL"@newmail.domain.com
in ~alias/.qmail-default.
However, the domain in question is a virtual domain, being handled by
vpopmail. So, I have made sure that the
Andrew Hill wrote:
However, email is being forwarded to the address of form:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a simple (or otherwise!) way to modify the $LOCAL variable to
remove the domain.com- prefix to the username?
Thanks to off-list helpers!
It now works, using:
VAR =| echo "$LOCAL"
orbs.org recently tested our qmail server, I mailed them and they advised
that our server could be used as a "proxy mailbomb relay". By this they
mean that a message with a forged FROM: address and multiple bad
RCPT TO: addresses will generate multiple non-delivery reports being
sent to the
Hello
I have set up my qmail ( using tcpserver ) server behind my router
(NAT), and got it working locally with sending and recieving mail. But
global it can send mail out but not recieve mail. I have tried various
things like telnet to port 25 and locally it works. But trying from
outside there
I'm obviously clueless, so perhaps someone can explain...
He says it's great for mailing lists, but it seems like the complaints
he has would be most apropos mailing lists. Am I misreading this?
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 05:04:59PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
HERE IS
Hi Folks,
Please have a look at the bounce error message below. Does this signify
that the IP is in MAPS? (every address to the 21.cn domain seems to be
bouncing) I checked, and indeed, they are blackholed. I don't quite
understand why *I* can't mail to them though. I thought MAPS worked
qmail Digest 21 Jul 2000 10:00:01 - Issue 1069
Topics (messages 45073 through 45121):
Error message...
45073 by: Mario Rafael
dot-qmail with ./named.pipe == invalid argument #4.3.0
45074 by: Jay J
45080 by: Chris, the Young One
45099 by: David Dyer-Bennet
have you specifically routed port 25 on the router through to your
mailserver's ip address?
Regards
Reier
- Original Message -
From: Lars Brandi Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21. juli 2000 1104
Subject: tcpserver and NAT
Hello
I have set up my qmail ( using
have you updated the assign file?
-Original Message-
From: Ricardo Cerqueira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 2:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: qmail: 964126783.245290 delivery 15092: failure:
Sorry,_no_mailbo x_here_by_that_name._(#5.1.1)
On Fri, Jul 21,
Reier Pytte wrote:
have you specifically routed port 25 on the router through to your
mailserver's ip address?
Yes, and also for port 110
sounds like you used the patch that controls relaying by the
from address??
No, ORBS is talking about a different thing.
If I want to mailbomb foo.com, and bar.com is running qmail, then I
can connect to bar.com's mail and say:
mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not me, my
Anyone knows this error message?
temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery
I use qmail with Mysql
thanks in advance
Luis
I've got a problem:
Jul 21 09:20:10 gw2 smtpd: 964185610.174990 tcpserver: status: 1/50
Jul 21 09:20:10 gw2 smtpd: 964185610.175379 tcpserver: warning: dropping
connection, unable to fork: temporary failure
Jul 21 09:20:10 gw2 smtpd: 964185610.175566 tcpserver: status: 0/50
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 09:18:42AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
sounds like you used the patch that controls relaying by the
from address??
No, ORBS is talking about a different thing.
If I want to mailbomb foo.com, and bar.com is running qmail, then I
can connect to bar.com's
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 09:18:42AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
And qmail will send 26 individual bounce messages, one for each
nonexistent recipient at bar.com, back to our victim at foo.com.
No it won't:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/2000/03/msg00112.html
james
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a way to force qmail to queue mail rather than
bouncing it?
No need. It does that automatically.
i.e., qmail is set to relay all mail to a different mail server.
But then the mail server process on the second machine goes down, so
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jul 00, at 15:53, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Secondaries are not the only case. We for example have a system of
chained qmail servers with enough bandwith between them. All go
through one gateway server. All the subdomain systems do not have
Lars Brandi Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried to telnet to port 25 ( telnet 10.1.x.x 25 ) locally and it
works fine. I have send and recived mails locally and it works out fine.
I have send mails outside my net and it works fine. But to recieve mails
from outside isn't working. I have
Petr Novotny wrote:
The only way for this attack to work is to talk to qmail on a
secondary MX (and have primary MX generate 26 distinct
bounces), but then the effect of the mailbomb is probably
diminished by the (allegedly) poor line between secondary and
primary (why would you care about
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 01:33:34PM +0200, Lars Brandi Jensen wrote:
I have tried to telnet to port 25 ( telnet 10.1.x.x 25 ) locally and it
works fine. I have send and recived mails locally and it works out fine.
I have send mails outside my net and it works fine. But to recieve mails
from
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 09:18:42AM -0400, Greg Owen wrote:
If I want to mailbomb foo.com, and bar.com is running qmail, then I
can connect to bar.com's mail and say:
mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not me, my victim)
rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (presumed not to exist, will
Why do you use SMTP between them? Use qmtp or qmqp or
whatever the beast is called, and have the last qmail in the chain
do the expansion (or generate the only bounce).
Does QMTP avoid expansion? At this time it would also require
serialmail or is there a patched qmail-remote with qmtp
Erich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been using qmail for a long time, with Maildir and rmail. I use
the mdmovemail program which is available on the Qmail site, and it
works fine with rmail.
Now, however, it is time for me to upgrade to a MUA with better
support for MIME. It seems like
I have tried to telnet to port 25 ( telnet 10.1.x.x 25 ) locally and it
works fine. I have send and recived mails locally and it works out fine.
I have send mails outside my net and it works fine. But to recieve mails
from outside isn't working. I have tried to telnet to port 25 from
outside and
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 09:59:35AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
qmail-send's behavior for remote deliveries (which includes how it deals
with qmail-rspawn and qmail-remote) is something that's bothered me for a
while. The system really should manage remote deliveries better. At
present, we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jul 00, at 9:59, Mark Mentovai wrote:
There's a difference between being the target of a denial-of-service
attack and being involved in one as a tool used by an attacker. As
participants on the public Internet, we have to be willing to
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 01:33:34PM +0200, Lars Brandi Jensen wrote:
I have tried to telnet to port 25 ( telnet 10.1.x.x 25 ) locally and it
works fine. I have send and recived mails locally and it works out fine.
I have send mails outside my net and it works fine. But
* Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000721 10:12]:
Erich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, however, it is time for me to upgrade to a MUA with better
support for MIME. It seems like the best choice for emacs is vm.
Nope, Gnus. It supports maildir as a mailsource and alpha support for
maildir
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to start a mailer holy war,
Uh oh.
but you might want to try Mutt -- it's
MIME support is excellent, along with pgp/gpg support, and total
configurability. Try www.mutt.org.
Mutt is a fine mailer. Really. I use it at home and occasionally at
work,
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 09:59:35AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
qmail-send's behavior for remote deliveries (which includes how it deals
with qmail-rspawn and qmail-remote) is something that's bothered me for a
while. The system really should manage remote deliveries better.
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re: one-SMTP-session-per-recipient
That's very easy on a host-by-host basis, and I use it for certain setups.
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in question," an MTA
should make efficient use of a limited number of SMTP sessions when
And qmail will send 26 individual bounce messages, one for each
nonexistent recipient at bar.com, back to our victim at foo.com.
Where did you get this nonsense from? Please go ahead and test;
qmail will return only ONE bounce message specifying all 26
addresses. (I have tried, just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jul 00, at 10:30, Mark Mentovai wrote:
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in
question," an MTA should make efficient use of a limited number of
SMTP sessions when transferring mail to any other MTA.
This horse has been
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 10:30:41AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
That's very easy on a host-by-host basis, and I use it for certain setups.
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in question," an MTA
should make efficient use of a limited number of SMTP sessions when
transferring
Petr Novotny wrote:
BTW, you can still be the "tool", even without this amplification.
Let's denote "A" attacker, "B" "tool" and "C" victim. Suppose that
A and B are "stronger" (faster, or just on a faster line) than C (you
can attack only someone weaker). A connects to B's SMTP and
starts
qmail doesn't do this by default, and manages to use resources much more
efficiently than sendmail, which does this. Why should qmail change?
It does break one of the basic rules on the Internet that many people fell
ist still important. It produces bad reputation (based only on this one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jul 00, at 16:47, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
qmail doesn't do this by default, and manages to use resources much
more efficiently than sendmail, which does this. Why should qmail
change?
It does break one of the basic rules on the
I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour
(if this is true).
I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ...
msg1 - mx1 (in progress)
msg2 - mx2 (start another process)
msg3 - mx1 (queue and send on same connection as #1 when #1 is
Frank Tegtmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qmail doesn't do this by default, and manages to use resources much more
efficiently than sendmail, which does this. Why should qmail change?
It does break one of the basic rules on the Internet that many people fell
ist still important. It
what is causing this...and how much later is it talking about?
I'm on Bruce's rpm.this has been working fine for months...now I can't
restart, or stop then start the daemon.
Redhat 6.0 system.
/etc/rc.d/init.d/pop3d start
Starting pop3d: pop3d/log (will be started later) pop3d (will be
Petr Novotny wrote:
On 21 Jul 00, at 10:30, Mark Mentovai wrote:
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in
question," an MTA should make efficient use of a limited number of
SMTP sessions when transferring mail to any other MTA.
This horse has been beaten to death. What do you
95% of the people on the internet care about
speed, not bandwidth consumption or resource usage.
Of course. That's why and for security I do use qmail.
people have you observed saying "I am pulling down all the nifty
graphics from my website - it consumes too much resources."?
The
oh, I get it.. I agree that they're probably worrying too
much, but how should qmail prevent this? does sendmail
handle it differently?
If N recipients at a site are getting the same exact message, you
enter multiple RCPT TO lines and one DATA entry. If N recipients at a site
are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jul 00, at 10:58, Mark Mentovai wrote:
My MTA should get the messages out as soon as possible. I have
seen the benchmarks, and I know that my MTA does exactly that.
Is it as fast as possible? In the situation above, what I suggest
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use "should" in the same manner that it is used in the documents which
define the very standards and practices over which we are arguing. In order
to be a good 'net neighbor, an MTA (note that I am not singling any MTA out
here) should not open 25
The issue of bandwidth management is the #1 issue for higher level ISPs
right now. Obviously you don't read the trade magazines or talk to those
persons.
The move to lower bandwidth consumption of websites in general has picked up
speed as well. Many many sites and organisations are taking a
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 10:30:41AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
That's very easy on a host-by-host basis, and I use it for certain setups.
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in question," an MTA
should make efficient use of a limited number of SMTP
Don't get me wrong. I like Qmail for the most part. I just think there's
room for improvement. And room for less attitude ... hint.
Petr Novotny wrote:
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in
question," an MTA should make efficient use of a limited number of
SMTP sessions
I agree.
But I think we're both just labelled as radicals for wanting better than the
best there is.
Microsoft ended up with good software at some point in time ... best of its
class even ... then stopped making it better.
Hint ;-).
Mark Mentovai wrote:
I use qmail because it meets most of
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 10:30:41AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
That's very easy on a host-by-host basis, and I use it for certain setups.
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in question," an MTA
should make efficient use of a limited number of SMTP sessions
Hi *,
qmail-1.03 with bigtodo- and the big-queue-patch gives
this error-message, when I relay mails with smtpstone
through it.
root@:~# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 1221
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 77
Hints, where to look for a solution?
By
Töns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
From: Mark Mentovai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I use "should" in the same manner that it is used in the documents which
define the very standards and practices over which we are
arguing. In order
to be a good 'net neighbor, an MTA (note that I am not singling
any MTA out
here) should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21 Jul 00, at 11:17, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
While you ponder the answer to those questions, qmail will have
delivered the mail.
Or crashed a mailserver.
Please stop that. When was the last time you saw a crashed
mailserver due to
Ok, here's my configuration. If anyone can tell me why I have slow mail
delivery, I checked the Trigger permissions and they are supposedly fine.
Any insight would be so greatly appreciated.
Pentium III 550
256 Megs of Ram
FreeBSD 3.3
Rackspace.Com Network (Multiple OC3 - Peering on several
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:20:00AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't
have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or
not, so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while we're at it?
What are
The problem with re-using the same SMTP session for multiple messages, etc,
is the high-latency inherent in the protocol. DJB found an easy way around
that.
That's not, what we are talking about. It's about creating multiple
messages when it is really ONE with many receivers going to ONE
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:23:45AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
How is this accumulation supposed to occur? Per queue injection?
Over a time period? How long of a time period? As long as we're
being good neighbors, should the mta lookup the mx for each
recipient and accumulate by mx? What
I ve just installed qmailanalog and daemontools on my server Could you
please just help me on I can get good daily report of qmail usage with
multilog ?
What shall I do exactly ???
Is there a FAQ on this ?
Thank you
I agree completely. Running an ISP can teach you that people care
significantly less about even their web sites than they do their e-mail.
How many times have you heard the 'I lost a piece of a e-mail and I could
have potentially lost $10,000 because of your ISP!' I'm sorry, but Mail is
the
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If an MTA receives a message with 100 recipients with the same MX,
there is no reason to transfer the message to the remote mail
exchanger 100 times.
Yes, there is: per-recipient VERPs. You may not see this as
outweighing the bandwidth issue, but it's
"Julian Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, here's my configuration. If anyone can tell me why I have slow mail
delivery, I checked the Trigger permissions and they are supposedly fine.
Any insight would be so greatly appreciated.
Pentium III 550
256 Megs of Ram
FreeBSD 3.3
Rackspace.Com
I'm doing pretty well w/ my cgi MUAs.
Weak on features, but thats only temporary. I've been learning from Yahoo!
which is weak because of performance latency, but I am going to graft together
a bunch of cgi MUAs into perl modules, adding folder support, etc.
Along w/ that I want to add
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:41:55AM -0400, Julian Brown wrote:
Ok, here's my configuration. If anyone can tell me why I have slow mail
delivery, I checked the Trigger permissions and they are supposedly fine.
Any insight would be so greatly appreciated.
Pentium III 550
256 Megs of Ram
Just because showctl prints out all of my virtualdomains and rcpthosts and
qmail-send is logged under maillog on my system and it's full of tcpserver
stuff. If you can give me something to yank out of the log that is of
interest to you I can grab it. Same with showctl, I'm not sure what you
Ok so you guys want me to attach my log or something? If you're sure that's
what you need I would be more than happy. Let me know I'll send it to your
private boxes.
J
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 12:02 PM
Subject: Re:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 09:02:34AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Messages In Queue: 44
Message in Queue but notyet preprocessed: 0
What does qmail-qread say? Maybe these are just messages that could not
be delivered.
Greetings
--
Robert Sander
Epigenomics AG www.epigenomics.de
I'm not really going to re-enter this recurring fray, but it is
amusing to note that web browsers open multiple connections at once
in an effort to speed up their perceived performance. I don't see
much push to stop that sort of greedy behaviour.
They also repeatedly fetch exactly the same data.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 12:26:42PM -0400, Julian Brown wrote:
Ok so you guys want me to attach my log or something? If you're sure that's
what you need I would be more than happy. Let me know I'll send it to your
private boxes.
If you're concerned about their size or which parts are
"Julian Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok so you guys want me to attach my log or something? If you're sure that's
what you need I would be more than happy. Let me know I'll send it to your
private boxes.
No, I don't want a copy of your entire mail log. If you can't post the
last 30 lines or
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 12:23:59PM -0400, Julian Brown wrote:
Just because showctl prints out all of my virtualdomains and rcpthosts and
qmail-send is logged under maillog on my system and it's full of tcpserver
stuff. If you can give me something to yank out of the log that is of
interest
Frank Tegtmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with re-using the same SMTP session for multiple messages, etc,
is the high-latency inherent in the protocol. DJB found an easy way around
that.
If that multiplies with large sized messages (also common here - please
forget hints
Now that we're on the subject of Qmail. (Well, the whole list is but.. )
When I try to add to assign, and recompile with qmail-newu.. I've done this
a lot.. I have about 4000 users in there now with the syntax:
=domain-com-user:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/domains/d/domain-com/user:::
I for some
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qmail-send's behavior for remote deliveries (which includes how it deals
with qmail-rspawn and qmail-remote) is something that's bothered me for a
while. The system really should manage remote deliveries better. At
present, we have one SMTP connection per
Brett Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 21 July 2000 at 23:34:02 +1000
there is no MX in my.dk and www.my.dk does not resolve.
I think you will find he was just giving a false domain name as is customary
among system admins...
WHY is it customary? I just don't understand the level of
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:20:00AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I like Qmail for the most part. I just think there's
room for improvement. And room for less attitude ... hint.
Petr Novotny wrote:
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in
"Frank Tegtmeyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, there is: per-recipient VERPs.
If VERPs are used you have different senders. So bundling receivers of
the same message at one host is a non issue at all (at least with SMTP).
That's my point: VERPs are good, but using them requires sending
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Petr Novotny wrote:
This horse has been beaten to death. What do you mean by
"should"? And why "limited number"?
To be friendly to your neighbours ...
Ah... And are your HTTP, FTP, etc. clients and servers also "friendly
to your neighbours"? Or
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 21 July 2000 at 10:55:39
-0400
I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour
(if this is true).
I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ...
msg1 - mx1 (in progress)
msg2
"Frank Tegtmeyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If VERPs are used you have different senders.
Different *envelope* senders, yes: that's how VERP works. But the
originator is one entity (a user or a mail list handler).
So bundling receivers of
the same message at one host is a non issue at all (at
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 21 July 2000 at 11:20:00
-0400
No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't
have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or
not, so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while we're at
John R. Dunning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 21 July 2000 at 15:40:59 -
I like qmail a lot. It's way easier to deal with than sendmail, and
does a good job for my purposes. There are some things which I wish
it did differently. This business of not bothering to consolidate
Does anyone have a pointer to a comparison of qmail/sendmail/postfix/...
that is done at a real world server over a longer period of time?
It should include bandwith use (including DNS) and performance data.
The only thing I remember were some graphs about mailer timings (DNS
lookup, start of
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not? You can have your cake and eat it too. Efficient network
utilization doesn't mean delayed or slow delivery.
Say you have 100 different messages to deliver to various users at
AOL. Which will be faster:
1) Opening one connection to a single AOL
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:07:21 -0500 (CDT)
[...]
That is, have you considered this carefully enough to be able to make
an actual proposal on how to do it, or are you just blowing smoke and
assuming it's easy and cheap?
I
i'm getting the following tcpserver error:
[root@myserver /var/qmail/control]# tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u513
-g513 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
[1] 4307
tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
[1] Exit 111tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u513 -g513
Your inetd or some other process is already bound to the smtp port
David
-Original Message-
From: Z [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: TCPserver error
i'm getting the following tcpserver error:
[root@myserver
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use "should" in the same manner that it is used in the documents which
define the very standards and practices over which we are arguing. In order
to be a good 'net neighbor, an MTA (note that I am not singling any MTA out
here) should not open 25 SMTP
You can do (with some versions of the nettools package, on linux at
least) "netstat -anp | grep LISTEN" and that will show you all ports
listening, and the -p options tells the process that is listening
- T
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Z wrote:
i'm getting the following tcpserver error:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 12:26:25PM -0500, Z wrote:
! [root@myserver /var/qmail/control]# tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u513 -g513 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
! tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
Well, see if sendmail is still running, or whether you have an smtp
I was wondering if there was a way that I can have SMTP do a database
lookup in order to find out where the mail should be delivered.
What i mean is let's say that the SMTP server gets a request for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I need it to search in a mySQL database
with the extracted information (bob,
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft ended up with good software at some point in time ... best of its
class even ... then stopped making it better.
For a second there I thought you were serious. Ha, ha. Good one.
-Dave
Should read - "Microsft purchased, then has no internal talent nor desire
to improve"
I have 3 words for you -Microsoft Exchange Server-NOOooo.
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
"Michael T.
Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was wondering if there was a way that I can have SMTP do a database
lookup in order to find out where the mail should be delivered.
What i mean is let's say that the SMTP server gets a request for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I need it to search in a mySQL database
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
qmail doesn't do this by default, and manages to use resources much more
efficiently than sendmail, which does this. Why should qmail change?
It does break one of the basic rules on the Internet that many people fell
ist
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:17:32AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
And DJB has already proposed other protocol solutions that don't handle this
issue either. That said, your comment is moot. SMTP has lots of problems, why
_not_ solve them?
This isn't a problem with SMTP -- It's a problem
This isn't a problem with SMTP -- It's a problem with MTA's that don't handle
lots of incoming connections very well. The fact that a majority of people
on the Internet are running such MTA's is not a concern of mine and ...
And that number has been in steady decline over the last 3-4
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 07:10:08PM +0200, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
Does anyone have a pointer to a comparison of qmail/sendmail/postfix/...
that is done at a real world server over a longer period of time?
In the real world, you will not find two sites with identical input load
so that you can
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
