If you want to use standard unix commands in a shell script, then something
like the following will do you (YMMV, this is untested, no warranty, user
serviceable parts inside, so get a screwdriver, etc):
---begin unix101.sh---
#!/bin/ksh
NUMDAYS=60 # Let's just assume approximately 2 months.
f
Your admin isn't completely correct. You can also add the domains to
virtualdomains, which can let you aggregate subdomains and do delivery in
your program. Giving your admin the benefit of the doubt, that you don't
have any possibility of aggregation, then yes, you have to put 3000 names in
th
On Mon, Jan 17, 2000 at 09:40:39PM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> Hi,
> We're setting up a big Qmail installation. It is projected that the number of
> users will be in the hundreds of thousands within a couple of months.
>
> Our current idea is to have one big NFS server, and a lot of lightweig
On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 10:26:22PM -0800, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> Not really. It only spawns a shell because sshd's usual procedure is to
> invoke /bin/login as it's last action (step 10 in the sshd(8) version 1 man
Sorry, I meant "emulate /bin/login" and asit
On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 12:09:13AM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> Good thought, especially with the tunneling options, but unless things
> have changed, SSH still requires shell access -- something that should
> not be required for mailbox access.
Not really. It only spawns a shell because sshd'
Actually, using ssh would obviate the need for an ftp-like second connection
protocol-mess for async notification. I think you could just forward 2
connections over the already-established link. So all connections from a
particular client would be guranteed to land on the same server, despite an
On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:36:03PM -0500, Sam wrote:
> caches the headers by itself. It seems that the original IMAP
> implementation by uwimap was so piss-poor performance-wise, that pretty
> much all IMAP clients either do some form of caching themselves, or are
> very carefull not to issue any
Post.Office is simple, it runs under NT, any idiot can set it up, and it's
user interface is better then the current web-configurators for
qmail/sendmail/anything else I've seen. It's also crappy. Delivery is
slow, can't grow well past about 200 users, can't handle large volumes of
email, doesn'
What's the $PATH set to for the user who built qmail? On solaris having
/usr/ucb before /usr/ccs/bin is fatal to qmail (and most other software).
What you're seeing is commonly caused by this mistake.
-Peter
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 06:18:00PM -, Robin Bowes wrote:
> > - Original Message
Would the following program:
http://public.connect.org.uk/~rkl/replace/
be suited for flogging a dead horse... er I mean replacing uid's/gid's in
qmail binaries?
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
Good luck Dan!
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2345714,00.html
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 07:00:57PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that is it neither necessary nor desireable to do a
> remote host lookup on each incoming mail item. However, I have tried to
> start qmail-smtpd under tcpserver with both the -H and -R options, as well
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 09:33:02PM -0700, Matt Mouser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to QMail and had a fe questions before I started to research how to
> configure it. I want to see if it's even suitable for the job first. First
> Question, how large is a standard binary for linux? Can it be stripped
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 08:50:15PM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> Classic remedy for most solaris build problems:
>
> Make sure to have /usr/ccs/bin in your path.
Just as importantly, make sure it's in your path before /usr/ucb. The ucb
dir has an ld which is badly broken. Completely useless e
It's called the "run away from IDE" code. The disk system in a U10 is
pathetic as an email server.
-Peter
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 04:24:38PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> That's what I've heard, as well... My problem is getting past 100k /
On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 10:34:22AM +1000, Peter Samuel wrote:
> On the client side:
>
> mv /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue.orig
> ln -s /var/qmail/bin/qmail-qmqpc /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue
>
> cat > /var/qmail/control/qmqpservers << EOF
Additionally I can prov
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 12:41:31PM -0400, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> ETRN DOES require the server to open a NEW SMTP connection to the domain
> that is being transferred. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETRN AND TURN.
> Please go back and reread the RFCs. ETRN IS secure.
>
> RFC 1985, Section 3, t
On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 03:17:06PM -0400, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
> Umm.. doesn't qmail HAVE to be started using CSH per the readme files
> ?
>
> Doesn't sh have problems running it ?
I think that FreeBSD uses the pdksh as /bin/sh (since it's a posix
shell, I guess), so it should work just fine.
Don't try this at home unless you're running linux! Results will
probably be bad.
To the original question, look at the solutions provided at www.qmail.org.
-Peter
On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 11:09:00AM +1000, Simon Elder wrote:
> Woops that should be killall -ALRM qmail-send
>
> -Original Me
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:24:41PM -0400, David Villeger wrote:
> Return-Path is added by the *final* transport system. So why is it added by
> qmail-inject?
rfc 821 seems to define "transport system" not as a host, but more
generally. Specificly, I think this would address the question:
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 09:01:35PM -0400, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Chris, when you get that filter written would you mind sharing a copy?
> Unless I get a few minutes to do it myself, then I'll share.
>
> Scott, can you say **plonk** ?
Maybe the freds could extend ezmlm with an rfish option?
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 03:31:06PM -0400, Alex Miller wrote:
> The idea that you have to be a programmer to install qmail is silly. Lot's
> of folks are programmers but have never done any systems administration.
> Many people are systems administrators but haven't done any programming.
Are we ta
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 04:12:58PM -0400, Alex Miller wrote:
> When I first started, I downloaded the tarball, read everything, did
> everything, but smtp wasn't working.
If you did everything it would have worked. End of story. Please
stop flogging the list with your mistakes.
> 3) My rc#.d
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 05:37:34PM -, John Conover wrote:
> Does supervise(1) provide any protection against unauthorized root
> access for a network program that faults, say, from a buffer overflow?
Supervise just restarts programs AFAIK. How would you design a
program where a parent proces
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:49:22PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
> single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
> to put all the recipients in.
That's what xargs is for.
--
The 5 year plan:
In fiv
On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 09:42:18AM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Well extend it a bit to ignore qmtp in smtp banners for like one hour if qmtp turns
> out to be _not_ available. No big deal.
Right. I just wanted to throw that into the proposal. An hour is
probably a good long time.
-Peter
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:31:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
>
> netstat -a |fgrep '*:qmtp'
>
> or the low-level C equivalent.
I'm not concerned with this. I'm concerned with Fred's proposal
relying on the status of the remote smtp and qmtp server. If I'm
"local" and someone else is
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:57:37PM -0500, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> When sending, one would look up host names in the cdb, and if
> QMTP-capable start a QMTP dialog. If it fails, the db can be updated
> with that info (it doesn't matter if it takes a while to make it to the
> cdb since this should be
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 02:16:58AM -0500, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> From: Alex Shipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : >Faried Nawaz writes:
> : >Emacs is a bad example -- it explicitly asks before executing code.
> : Like Word then!
> Think about the people you know who use emacs. Now think about the
> peo
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 06:48:35PM -0800, Kai MacTane wrote:
> >I had been told that it didn't anymore, unless you enable that
> >behavior.
>
> Similarly, MS Word doesn't run any macros automatically, unless you
> specifically enable them in a particular document as you're opening it, or
> you sp
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 03:52:31PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruno Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This isn't the same thing. They don't run commands imbedded in the the
> > documents.
>
> emacs does.
I had been told that it didn't anymore, unless you enable that
behavior.
-Peter
On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 01:19:13AM +0200, Stefan Paletta wrote:
> The point is that an MS Office install _requires_ being able to write
> stuff anywhere. (Same with StarOffice on Linux btw, comes with its own
> libc.)
A quick quibble: that's not the same thing. Staroffice may come w/
its own lib
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0100, Richard Letts wrote:
> funnily enough I have to login on my windowsNT machine as 'administrator'
> to install/remove a program. when I login as ais007 I can't ...
A big difference is in the application software, though. Most (nearly
all?) unix software
> > I'm running Solaris and am looking at the possibility of having the queue on
> > tmpfs so it's in RAM. Of course, on reboot or crash the directory structure
> > would be gone.. how much of this directory structure does qmail expect to
> > find, and how much of it will it create on the fly
On Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 08:59:34PM -0500, Roger Merchberger wrote:
> What's a FAQ 5.4??? ;^>
I think you want to read FAQ #5.4 to fix that. (whee! That must be
my 100th).
> > or surviving events like the great flamewars in December.
>
> I survived 'em (and all the flamewars since early '96..
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 02:45:36PM -0800, Eric Dahnke wrote:
> If his machine is on a home network behind a dial-up conection what the
> hell does it matter.
Justifications like this for shoddy work will always bite back
eventually.
Why set up relay prevention in what is currently a protected
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:24:00PM -0500, Paul J. Schinder wrote:
> At 8:18 PM -0500 1/25/99, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> } A moderated list would be a good thing.
>
> Moderated how? About all I can think of is that the FAQ's and complaint
> about "no multiple RCPT" c
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:53:16AM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | [ I'm sending this to the qmail list because the interaction of this
> | bug with sub-users in qmail is especially pronounced. ]
> |
> |
[ I'm sending this to the qmail list because the interaction of this
bug with sub-users in qmail is especially pronounced. ]
I've been chasing down a stupid problem for a few days now, and now I
finally know why user-ext hasn't been working for one of my users on
freebsd. After figuring out the
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 02:25:16PM -0500, Jozef Gniadek wrote:
> Hi folks
> Maybe this is out of topic. On sun with solaris 2.5.1 are running mail
> server and web server, I got error msg, something like ' out of file descriptors,
> too many open files'..
> What I should do?, how I may
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 05:51:14PM +, Sam wrote:
> > other hand I have also no problems with syslogd performance and qmail.
> >
> > > RTFM man syslog
> >
> > Nothing there on my system.
>
> Try man syslog.conf, it could be there.
I'm sure the documentation is, but the "-" feature is one
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 08:31:39PM +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> - "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:58:09AM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
>
> No, he didn't.
> He just forwarded a piece of email from Nigel Methering
On Tue, Jan 12, 1999 at 10:58:09AM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
> Firstly this is all academic, VGER doesn't run sendmail at all. Its
> mailing list performance is extraordinarily good considering the hardware
> base and other load on the system.
Yep. Vger runs zmailer, which bogs down like all h
On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 07:10:17PM -0500, Paul Farber wrote:
> tcpserver still logs to the console with
>
> supervise $DIR \
> tcpserver $VERBOSE -c$CONCURRENT -u$USERID -g$GROUPID 0 $PORT
> \
> qmail-popup $HOST $CHKPASS $COMMAND Maildir
Are you possibly miss
On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 05:53:39PM -0500, Cris Daniluk wrote:
>
> This is because RedHat feels it pretty much won't function without a
> mailer of some sort. Which is relatively true, a lot of things go
> through mail in Redhat (or any *nix for that matter) like cron logs,
> warnings, etc.
I fig
On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 01:57:36PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
> Ps: this is ridiculous.
Agreed. It installs sendmail if you tell it not to.
Bummer.
-Peter
On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 05:14:22PM -, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 3) qmail-smtpd should have the filename of qmail-queue as a parameter
> on its command line. The problem with qmail-smtpd as it currently
> stands is that it can only run /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue. If we wrap
> that program with
On Fri, Jan 08, 1999 at 07:22:32PM -0600, Alejandro Flores wrote:
> Hi there
> Im interested in build a free mail service just like hotbot or Rocket mail
> i heard that qmail can help me on this ...
> Does anybody know how can i begin to build this application.
Yeah - buy a netapp.
-Peter
On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 01:38:01PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (Personally I'm not terribly interested in whether or not changes
> are made to qmail, because these are easy to hack in, but I am
> interested in Dan's thinking.)
I'm interested as well. There is already one possible fix to a
On Mon, Jan 04, 1999 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Apprently I need to nail *both* feet to the floor. Okay. Let me know
> which of the following statements you disagree with.
>
> 1) Red Hat ships sendmail.
>
> 2) Red Hat doesn't ship qmail, zmailer, exim, smail, or any other OSS
>
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 12:30:31AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Being rude is the barrier to effective distribution of qmail binaries?
That and the fact that creating a forked rpm and expecting that use of
it will be widespread is pissing into the wind. The ratio of
installed qmail syste
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 05:10:00PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Then having a control file with the uids in it sounds safer to me.
>
> That's just flat out not an option. Until it is, why waste time
> considering it?
Originally because perhaps djb would consider a useful, mostly trivial
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 01:28:08AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> No that's a great idea. Have rpm spawn an external -_possibly_tampered_with_-
> binary to verify qmail. Then having a control file with the uids in it sounds
> safer to me.
While I agree with you completely, I'm really looking forw
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Sam wrote:
> No, that's your answer right there. This proposed feature is not going to
> benefit anything else except Qmail. You do not stick features into system
> management tools unless there's a clear benefit that will profit at least
> a good fract
On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 03:31:00PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Let me try again. Licensing alone could conceivably explain why Red
> Hat doesn't ship qmail. But it does't explain why they don't ship
> exim, smail, zmailer, or any other OSS sendmail equivalent.
Let's suppose that aside from licensin
On Wed, Dec 30, 1998 at 12:17:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Red Hat is not an OS vendor in the classic sense. Red Hat is a marketing
> company that happens to produce some neat packages along the way, but
> their primary goal in life is to make something written by other people
> into a produ
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 04:12:27PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Remember, Red Hat is a big bux commercial operation (see recent news
> reports of substantial investment in Red Hat by Intel). They don't
> produce Open Source Software because they're nice guys and it makes
> them feel good to give awa
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 11:55:10AM -0600, Rick McMillin wrote:
> There are times when this happen 3 times a night
> and then it may not happen again for a week or
> so. It's all pretty random. Does anyone have
> any ideas?
What was your $PATH when you compiled qmail? Have you tried building
w/
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 01:07:33PM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> In this case, someone from this list would no doubt also come up with a
> patch. So who would you rather have fix it, redhat or someone like one
> of the Russes, Sam, Fred, ... ?
Sure, the best of both worlds would be to have so
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 12:35:30PM -0500, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
> But would you really want RedHat fixing qmail instead of DJB ?
>
> If security holes were found (REAL security holes), DJB would be the 1st
> to want them fixed right, not a quick fix as an os vender/redhat would
> do.
Again, thi
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 12:28:59PM -0500, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
> I wasn't referring to OS Security Holes. I was referring to "true"
> qmail holes.
I am too. I'm just adding what I believe is relevant information to
the realm of "qmail and security."
> If there were a real hole shown, I beli
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 12:23:57PM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> FreeBSD uses login classes to handle this, but prior to that I used
> limit. I agree with Dan that it's an OS thing whether it can be handled
> in the app or not.
FreeBSD *can* use login classes to handle this. I don't see any
r
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 08:44:00AM -0500, Matthew Soffen wrote:
>
> Name 1 security hole found in qmail that they would have had to fix.
Do you use ulimit before running your qmail-smtpd? One place to fix
this security hole is in qmail-smtpd. Though Dan doesn't think it
should be fixed in qmai
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 10:50:37AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Likewise, Donnie has hacked off Dan one too many times. I don't know
> Donnie,
Donnie is the most abrasive member of the redhat team. He deals with
people in about the same way that Dan does. I would have supposed
that they were a ma
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 06:05:19PM -, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > If we constantly rely on RPM's to do for us the fundamental things of
> > installing, and we get USED to that, we are going experience serious
> > problems in the fut
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 10:24:35AM +, Lara Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi!
> Is there a way that I can set up the above two deamons to work
> without the inetd configuration.
Yes, but they still require that they be run from within another
program that actually listens to the network. Tcpserv
> When's the last time you reconfigured your system uids? You have to
> take the system down and do a massive file conversion. Why is it
> such a big deal to reinstall qmail on these rare occasions?
Almost every site I've been to in the last 3 years could do with a
massive overhaul including chan
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 02:45:07AM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Peter C. Norton writes:
> > As to why I'd rather not have to recreate the files - if I'm following
> > a break-in, I have more useful things to do, like find the schmuck who
> > did it. Being abl
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 11:05:20PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Peter C. Norton writes:
> > /etc/aliases.db however is a dynamic file. However verifying it can
> > be easily done by a human with fairly standard interperters like perl,
> > or python, or with a small c pro
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 12:01:21AM -, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
> You're wrong. Leave those 40 bytes out of the checksum, and you have a
> verification tool. This allows you to distribute qmail binaries under
> the current license, using idedit. Or just always have your
> verification tool reins
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 06:19:02PM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> As to make, I guess you don't use make -n install. It doesn't actually
> install, just shows you what's going to happen.
Wow. You can do the same thing with rpm!
rpm -qpl packagename
lists what it's going to install.
rpm
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:39:16PM -, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
> In the package manager, it's supposed to handle package
> installations. Who wants additional code running on their systems when
> you don't need it? Why doesn't RPM provide for a package supplied
> verification tool? Then someone
On Wed, Dec 23, 1998 at 08:54:41AM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
> I guess I'd have a more sophisticated comparison program. Why not have two
> MD5 checksums - one for the data prior to the modified section of the binary
> and one for after the modified section. Then I'd have a mechanism for
> chec
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 09:54:56PM -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> How, pray tell, are you going to check the integrity of /etc/aliases.db?
> If you can verify /etc/aliases.db, why can't you verify the qmail files?
The qmail binaries are static after installation. /etc/aliases.db
however is a dy
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 08:45:36PM -, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
> > The conditions necessary to eliminate sendmail from hundreds of
> > thousands of computers have been laid out. Redhat *wants* to ship
> > qmail, but they need those conditions satisfied. Are you suggesting
> > that there is no
75 matches
Mail list logo
