qmail Digest 22 Jul 2000 10:00:00 - Issue 1070
Topics (messages 45122 through 45268):
Re: tcpserver and NAT
45122 by: Reier Pytte
45124 by: Lars Brandi Jensen
45127 by: Lars Brandi Jensen
45135 by: Brett Randall
45136 by: Matthias Henze
45139
If I say 'sendmail', you'll say 'see, you should've used qmail' ... but I'll
say 'and how many other sites are using sendmail that will appreciate it?'.
Just telll me the first time someone finds a really cool porn AVI on some
site and E-mails it to all of his collegues at a different office and
John White wrote:
> 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 wh
I'd love to. Read my previous message.
If I see some discussion about it, and enough people are actually interested, I
may end up investing enough time to get this off the ground. I may not. I have
four other pieces of software to write (from scratch) over the next week.
John White wrote:
>
To help you out with that comment:
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#multi-rcpt
I'm not sure if that's the best discussion on the issue, but its there
(that section and the next).
The quick version is:
VERP was proposed by DJB as a way to identify bounce recipients. VERP
requires that eac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
I do. HTTP 1.1 w
I would be really interested in seeing those numbers in the FAQ somewhere ...
Charles Cazabon wrote:
> A few people have done the math; MTAs which aggregate recipients to save
> bandwidth tend to have more overhead network bandwith (additional MX lookups,
> etc), and the savings is not as great
Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its
incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually
get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame? If I allow 20
simultaneous connections (hypothetically) and mail is deliv
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > 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 ...
>
> This is very hard to do, and expensive. And it would slow down mail
> deli
I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about being on the
nameserver mailing list? I'm not being moderated out (I apprec
3) Opening M connections (where M < N) and sending the messages down those M
pipes without marking the message as having gone through a "could not connect to
mail server" situation but queuing it for that MX instead.
??
Dave Sill wrote:
> Mark Mentovai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why not?
Greg Owen writes:
> 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:
No you can't, not like that. Try it.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynw
Greg Owen writes:
> Yup. If you have one qmail box forwarding to a second qmail box
> which is the mail store, you get this amplification.
No, you don't get any amplification. You only get amplification if
you can get someone else's machine to expend resources that you
didn't. Yes, you
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) writes:
> 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 n
Hi All...
My Setup qmail+vpopmail. I'd like to eliminate
duplicate msgs... so I installed eliminate-dup package
and made the necessary .qmail file under
/home/vpopmail/domains/test.com/sumith/
now instead of only the duplicate msgs getting deleted
all the messages are getting deleted... Any IDEA
Austad, Jay writes:
> Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it
> to load balance between all servers I have listed as QMQP servers.
Do it the other way around. If a server thinks its load is too high,
it should shut down its qmqpc service.
--
-russ nelson <
Hi Everyone..
I have setup Qmail according to the LWQ document, and also installed the
scripts which are used in this document to start qmail..
Everything works nicely, but I would like to have all mail be delivered in
the the /var/spool/mail directory instead of $HOME/$USER/Mailbox..
I read th
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:32:24AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its
> incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually
> get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame?
Hi,
Again a security problem with outlook : look at the announce
on securityfocus:
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?section=solution&vid=1481
On the solution page, it is written:
> Workaround:
>
> Filters have been made for Sendmail and Postfix to deal with this issue. See the
>Bu
Somebody is using a *very* broken mailer.
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 17992 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 15:33:24 -
Received: from leeuwarden.vuurwerk.nl (194.178.232.16)
by winschoten.vuurwerk.
And my previous message about a broken mailer generated a bounce from
*another* broken mailer...
- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 23018 invoked from network); 22 Jul 20
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:38:47AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
> listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
> how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about be
Yep, same thing here. I think someone (probably <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
since it appears in the bounces tough the original message was no addressed
to said individual) has a mail forwarder that gags with semicolon separated
addresses in the To: field.
Armando
From: Olivier M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a
workaround
>on my old qmail server ? What about a /var/qmail/regexpreject ? What do
you
>think ? Could be a feature for a qmail 1.04... :)
Probably ofmipd from the mess822 package repairs t
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 06:00:30PM -, asantos wrote:
> From: Olivier M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a workaround
> >on my old qmail server ? What about a /var/qmail/regexpreject ? What do
> > you think ? Could be a feature for a qma
From: Olivier M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>is it an add-on to qmail-smtpd, or something to add in the .qmail-xxx ?
>It should be something system-wide...
It replaces qmail-smtpd. Check http://cr.yp.to/mess822.html , download the
package and read ofmipd.8 inside. Note that this does not prevent the MI
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> I really suggest you to sift through the archives first. My MTA really
> does faster, even in this situation: The round-trip times around here
> are too long. The less round-trips, the faster the mail gets through.
> Easy as that.
Hmm...RSET needs on
I've written a little perl script to analyze a qmail log.
This scripts gives a hint as to what you might save in bandwidth
if qmail supported multiple recipients.
This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
o only messages sizes as recorded in the log are counted
o SMTP overhead
Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> And my previous message about a broken mailer generated a bounce from
> *another* broken mailer...
>
> - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>-
My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into
badm
If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and
you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that
defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a
particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detect wh
You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is
to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other
MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving
them headaches so that we don't 'encourage' t
Yes, I've seen this too. I can almost guarantee that the user on the
remote server has exceeded their storage allocation. They've probably
received a message from the server telling them they should delete some
mail.
Incidentally, in RFC 821, that is the exact text for error 552. Hotmail
et. a
You might just be running into chown user.group problems ... try escaping the
'.' or wrapping the username in quotes. That failing, does al.koch have an
entry in /etc/passwd? Your final question makes me believe that none of your
users are in /etc/passwd at all. You might want to convert to vpo
Wouldn't you just rotate the mailservers? Go from A to B to C instead of
picking one randomly? I don't see how random distribution is going to be less
balanced than a simple round-robin, and generating random numbers tends to take
more computation than incrementing a variable.
"Austad, Jay" wro
"John van V." wrote:
> I am building a site to toot the horn of public domain products that have
> industrial strength.
I'm not aware of Qmail being public domain ... I see a public domain statement in
sgetopt and subgetopt ... but that is all. (please correct me if I'm wrong --
and the licensi
>If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and
>you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that
>defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a
>particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detec
Hi,
Just installed qmail and procmail on a FreeBSD 4.0 box.qmail works
fine if I delete .qmail
With .qmail containing
less .qmail
| /var/qmail/bin/preline /usr/local/bin/procmail
I find in /var/log/maillog
local _|_/var/qmail/bin/preline_/usr/local/bin/procmail@adsl-6etc. etc
later I
Export to CSV format, then you can import them into MySQL with very
little difficulty (LOAD DATA ... see MySQL manual). If you're not using
MySQL authentication, sorry.
"Javier Vino R." wrote:
> I have a big table in MS exel with de login and pass, How can I do to
> import from VPOPMAIL all the
Another possibility is to install the MySQL ODBC driver which works quite
well and use that to upload the data directly from Excel into MySQL.
>Export to CSV format, then you can import them into MySQL with very
>little difficulty (LOAD DATA ... see MySQL manual). If you're not using
>MySQL auth
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:07:11AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> John White wrote:
>
> > To be blunt, I don't mind taking a look at the code changes you're
> > proposing. Where are they?
>
> (Sarcasm:) What, you don't know how to code?
No, but I'm skeptical about ideas that are so good t
I tried the suggestion [thanks John] below but alas.
Jul 22 13:46:42 adsl-63-201-55-218 qmail: 964298802.949315 starting
delivery 86: msg 79379 to local
_|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff
>local _|_/var/qmail/bin/preline_/usr/local/bin/procmail@adsl-6etc. etc
>later I get no_mailbox as to be expected.
Why am I getting bounces when the message is indeed getting to the list?
Also, who is GCS Client Services?
Original Message
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Date: 22 Jul 2000 05:29:39 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** This message originated by GCS C
I'd have to agree. I'm using ORBS ... but it was a lot of internal arguing (my
head :-)
At some point I need to rewrite the ORBS interface software to both bounce the
messages and deliver them to a temporary store where I can review them.
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Alan is the south end of a hors
True, but its quite valid to round-robin several servers to keep any one from ever
getting a high load in the first place. eg. the way load-balancing HTTP usually
works.
Russell Nelson wrote:
> Austad, Jay writes:
> > Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it
I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification on
Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host
refuses the connection because it has too many incoming sessions open.
Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Also, the other hosts will ge
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 04:58:04PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification
>on
> Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host
> refuses the connection because it has too many inc
Well written.
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> Hmm...RSET needs one roundtrip (C: RSET, S: OK). A new SMTP connection
> needs 3 roundtrips: 1. C:TCP(SYN), S:TCP(SYN+ACK), 2. C:TCP(ACK), S:server
> hello, 3. C:HELO, S:OK. Moreover a typical TCP implementation will open
> every new connection with most pa
My apologies for sending this again but I could not receive mail responses
for a bit because silly me, I forgot to remove the .qmail before
sending the note below.
If anyone was good enought to repsond as yet please also be so good as to
send again.
Thanks
Jeff
---
I tried the suggest
I think unsubscribing them is probably unnecessary, but blocking their 'bounce'
messages at
the list server would probably be smart.
"Aaron L. Meehan" wrote:
> My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into
> badmailfrom--they are kind enough to send their bounces with a
> non-nu
Scratch previous comment -- bounces are going to individual senders, not to list
(because
headers are not rewritten, which is a good thing, I suppose). I'll add a filter
myself for
my host.
"Aaron L. Meehan" wrote:
> My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into
> badmailfrom-
For your #1: this would be similar to the Linux kernel approach to DMA on hard
drives ... enable by default, except on those drives we have in database of broken
drives.
As for #2 and #3: this adds overhead, of course, but could inherently reduce
overhead down the road, as long as the algorithm i
Michael T Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail
> installations, and you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then
> you'll probably agree that defining "good netizen" would include
> "limiting outgoing connections to a particular MX"
Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail
distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree.
Russ Allbery wrote:
> If you really want to have separate queues and streaming of mail through a
> single connection per peer rather than qmail's behavi
Michael T Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail
> distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree.
I disagree with the contention that the *average* qmail admin is using any
patches at all, if by avera
From: Jeff Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I tried the suggestion [thanks John] below but alas.
>
>_|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Ah, the Americisms... :)
Jeff, note the underline before the pipe ( _| ). Delete the space at the
*start* of the line, *before* the pipe.
Armando
Hi all,
I'm probably not the first one to stumble over this 'problem'. I've
recently installed Q-Mail (yesterday), and found 1 problem rather 'annoying'. I
can't send any mail to root. Anyone else works fine, but not root. The qmail
daemon tells me (in /var/log/messages)
cannot chdir to maildir
"Michael T. Babcock" wrote:
>
> You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is
> to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other
> MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving
> them
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:21:52AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> can't send any mail to root. Anyone else works fine, but not root. The qmail
> daemon tells me (in /var/log/messages)
Check out INSTALL.alias file in your qmail/doc directory. It explains why
and what to do.
--
John_
Also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 23.07.2000:
from the qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL file:
5. Read INSTALL.alias. Minimal survival command:
# (cd ~alias; touch .qmail-postmaster .qmail-mailer-daemon
qmail-root)
# chmod 644 ~alias/.qmail*
from qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL.alias:
* r
> Also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 23.07.2000:
> >from the qmail-1.0.3/INSTALL file:
> 5. Read INSTALL.alias. Minimal survival command:
># (cd ~alias; touch .qmail-postmaster .qmail-mailer-daemon
> qmail-root)
># chmod 644 ~alias/.qmail*
>
> >from qmail-1.0.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:21:52AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm probably not the first one to stumble over this 'problem'. I've
> recently installed Q-Mail (yesterday), and found 1 problem rather 'annoying'. I
It's qmail :-) not Q-Mail, nor Qmail.
> can't send any mail to r
Michael T. Babcock writes:
> You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of
> Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this
> _must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating
> standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them
Thanks, this was, of course, the fix. This post is now mostly for
the archives so another will not fall into the 'American whitespace
hole" .
With appreciation to a list that responds professionally and
quickly. Hopefully in a bit I too will be able to contribute.
Jeff
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000,
Russ Allbery writes:
> Michael T Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail
> > distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree.
>
> I disagree with the contention that the *average* qmail admin i
Bruce Edge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can send a message to a remote host using:
>
> echo to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject
>
> but I cannot do so from a pop3 MUA, netsacpe.
>
> When I try I get a dialog:
> Sorry that's not in my list of rtpchosts (#5.7.1)
You're testing
It would probably be much more efficient to round-robin them. Otherwise you
end up banging on one until it's buried (or at it's set limit), then banging
on the next, and so on. What happens when they all decide their load is too
high and shut down qmqpd? Isn't it much easier to code round-robin
Paul Farber wrote:
>
> telnetting to port 25 and 110 just timed out.
This usually means (when it has happened to me anyway) that the
server is listening on the port you're telnetting to, but is
stalled doing a reverse DNS lookup of the client's IP address.
Perhaps a munged reverse DNS zo
I have a question many of you have probably answered before.
Let me give you some info about my setup first:
qmail,vpopmail,daemontools,ucspi-tcp
I followed "Life with qmail" concerning the setup of the
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send and
/var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd directories and they
Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 08:32:24
-0400
> Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its
> incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually
> get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasona
Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 08:38:47
-0400
> I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
> listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
> how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's disc
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
> Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
> orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that
> anyone uses ORBS.
I'm really annoyed at the degree of uncivility that's devel
Joe Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 22 July 2000 at 16:03:00 -0700
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Michael T Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail
> > > distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be us
David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And either ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke or MAPS is really
> putting the boot in in their private way, in ways I can't approve of.
ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke. Either that, or Alan Brown has
literally no clue whatsoever h
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've written a little perl script to analyze a qmail log.
Have you looked at qmailanalog? Could it help you if it does not
already do what you want?
> This scripts gives a hint as to what you might save in bandwidth
> if qmail
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:49:51PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
> Again a security problem with outlook : look at the announce
> on securityfocus:
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?section=solution&vid=1481
>
> Well, these filters are quite simple : but how could I setup such a workar
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:27:36AM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:49:51PM +0200, Olivier M. wrote:
> > http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?section=solution&vid=1481
>
> Check out qmail-qfilter, and write a filter that looks for date lines
> longer than 80 charac
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 04:18:21PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is
> to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other
> MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic, encoded in local
> language that's completely clear to those of us who've been through
> the argument umpteen times before. And which is probably NOT clear to
> you; sorry abou
78 matches
Mail list logo
