John Groseclose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 1:22 AM +0200 7/11/01, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> >The Realtek cards and in special the netgear ones are pure crap, but I'm not
> >aware about such problems with them.
>
> The original revision of the NetGear cards apparently used a "real"
> tulip
Chin Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I then asked him to use telnet to port 110 to our POP server, and he
> still got the delay. So, I am quite sure it's most likely caused by
> the Netgear RP114, although I don't see any reason why this is so.
A common cause of this can be your POP s
"Rodney Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> D Rajesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> DR> > If in the total 20,000 mails, say 5000 are hotmail, 5000 are yahoo and
> the
> DR> > rest are to other domains. Then, is it possible to open a single
> DR> > qmai
"~darkage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> This is what my tcp.smtp.cdb looks like -
>
> 10.1.0.28.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> :allow
Do you mean to say that's what your /etc/tcp.smtp file looks like?
If that's really what's in /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb, that's your problem; it
should be in /etc/tcp.
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 11:00:12PM +0200, Arjen van Drie wrote:
> [snip]
> > >You will see this if you use `cat -ve' on the file.
> >
> > Thanks all. It works now. How does one read hexdumps? Is there
> > a howto or a table somewhere?
>
[...]
> Fo
"Gianni Campanile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> My problem is to speed up the injection of mails.
> The system I am setting up must send mail to different people
> based on external triggers, so in peak times it must send
> up to 1 different mails to different recipients as soon as
"Reid Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Most likely I'll have to store password somewhere and replace it in the
> shadow file with a 'x' when suspended, and put the crypt password back once
> the account is restored.
Not qmail related, but a trick I like to use is to just prep
Tonino Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> What the idea is - MS EXchange does not work that good :) - and we
> need to replace it - but the exchange server does a poll to another
> Primary server at a ISP. This hold the mail spool - and when the
> exchange server dials in - gets the mail
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> michael writes:
> > This question I suppose is directed at Russell since he is the
> > writer of qmail-popbull...
> >
> > We're trying to get courier-imap running and the desire is to
> > also have bulletin ability. Since qmail-popbull is calle
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric Bonharme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have a problem with the 'for' line being stripped out when delivering
> > Bcc'ed messages to the Bcc'ed recipient locally.
>
> qmail doesn't remove any headers. What is a "for" header? I've never see
Hadn't seen this mentioned here, and thought it might be of general
interest.
RFCs 2821 and 2822 were published today, obsoleting the venerable RFCs
821 and 822, covering SMTP and the Internet Message Format,
respectively.
They're available from the usual places, including:
http://www.rfc-e
"Kittiwat Manosuthi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anybody know how to delay failed authentication attempts to prevent
> brute force pwd cracking on POP3 server using qmail & vpopmail?
You might be able to do this via PAM, if you have a checkpassword that
supports PAM (available from www.qmail.o
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:57:52PM -0700, Frank Precissi wrote:
> > > My question: Does ucspi-tcp support hostnames? If so, would they be
> > > added as:
> > >
> > > domain.com:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
> > >
Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark Delany wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Elias also talks about an emulation layer for LISTSERV. I've not heard
> > of anyone providing that for ezmlm.
>
> I don't know if there is any mailing list software out there having
> an emulation layer for LISTSERV...
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 01:12:13PM -0500, John R Levine wrote:
> > The usual mailbox vs. maildir war has flared up on inet-access, and points
> > out a bug in qmail-pop3d. When you do a LIST command, it gives you the
> > size of each message. Pop3d j
Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LDAP is not part of an MTA. It's an extension.
LDAP may not be part of an MTA (although it certainly can be, if it
contains aliases), but it's a quite reasonable part of an MDA, which
qmail also includes in qmail-local. It's certainly as reasonable a
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris Garrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above,
> > > at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong
> > > with this; he keeps qmail secure, re
Claudio Nieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> www.qmail.org mentions Scott Gifford's patch making qmail recognize
> 0.0.0.0 as local IP address. But the link to the patch
>
> http://www.tir.com/~sgifford/qmail/qmail-0.0.0.0.patch
>
> is invalid:
>
> Not Found
>
> The requested URL /~sgifford
Herbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am I right in think qmail-smtpd will never give this error?
Yes.
> As I see it qmail-smtpd will only check the domain of the message to see
> if it is valid, ie it will accept any valid username for localhost whether
> the user actually exists on the system
"Andrew Wafula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I was at the ORBS site the other day and I saw that as from 1st Feb 2001
> relays.orbs.org would be deleted.
>
> This may seem dumb but here goes :).
> Now, does it mean that we can no longer use it to check for open
> relays
No, the
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c
> to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the
> original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_
> of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that are
"Rick Updegrove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Boris Krivulin wrote"
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to run qmail behind NAT. The local machine is called
> 'galois',
> > with ip number 192.168.1.6. The router is locally called 'euler', and
> > globally is accessible by 'hypervolume.com'.
>
> I
Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ a bunch of stuff about changing qmail's default bounce message]
> We made a change like this nearly a year ago, and have had zero
> issues.
I got a question off-list about how to make this change, from a
person whose email is a
Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:56:38PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> > Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It means that a user sending a steady stream of 10 (small)
> > > messages/sec over a dialup connectio
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering what the consequences of breaking QSBMF are. My
> >desire is to change the bounce messages to something more
> >professional (we've had some complaints)
>
> Seriously? Sheesh.
We got similar c
adi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ ... ]
> Arggh.. thanks again!
>
> Our mailserver currently being attack by navidad.exe ;-(
> I didn't received your patch, yet. Anyway, I think this patch would
> be more correct than previous one :-)
Yep, that patch looks fine; mine's pretty much the same, bu
:)
-ScottG.
adi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 06:39:36AM +, James wrote:
> > So.. my question is, could someone please post a complete patch to
> > work around this issue? Or at least a URL to their patch?
>
> Try this patch. Use with your o
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was recently some talk on this list about about patching ipme.c
> to add 0.0.0.0 to qmail's list of known local addresses.. and the
> original poster supplied a patch. However, the patch was only _part_
> of a bigger patch.. leaving those of us that are
"D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Patrick Bihan-Faou writes:
> > If you don't count that as a bug in qmail, then I don't know what is a
> > bug...
>
> In fact, it's not a bug; it's a portability problem. If you were using
> OpenBSD, you'd see outgoing connections to 0.0.0.0 rejecte
Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 06:32:47PM -0500, Scott Gifford wrote:
> > Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserver
> > > thi
Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> > Well failure to recognize that 0.0.0.0 is yourself is not quite DNS related
> > exploit. It is a bug.
>
> If AOL or hotmail would decide to change their MX records to your mailserv
Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well I guess that this one is definitely elligible for the
> > "qmail security challenge".
> >
> > http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/qmail-challenge.html
>
> I don't think so. The challenge says:
Obviously, the purpose of reporting this bug wasn't
Matt Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has been a feature of recent spam, which is probably why it's now
> an issue. Several spam senders are now having sender addresses of
> @, where resolves via DNS to
> '0.0.0.0'.
>
> Eventually qmail rejects the message because it recognises that it
Keary Suska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would definitely be a bug of concern--even sendmail (yoiks!) knows how
> to handle 0.0.0.0. But shouldn't qmail bounce the message as a possible MX
> loop?
It should, but does not. Putting it into ipme would cause it to.
See my original post t
Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
> users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
> following MX record:
>
> groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 07:35:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > My question is, is it possible to run multiple instances
> > > of qmail, sharing the same disk structure, configuration, etc..
> >
> > at least /var/qmail/queue/ mu
Bjorn Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need to allow open relay on my mail server for a certain domain eg:
> *.somedomain.com. tcpserver does not seem to support domain names is there
> some other way that I can do this?
You should be able to use
=.somedomain.com:allow,RELAYCLIENT="
We received an influx of mail today addressed to (probably bogus)
users at the domain 'groupprojects.net'. This domain has the
following MX record:
groupprojects.net preference = 0, mail exchanger = 0.0.0.0
When we received the message, qmail connected to 0.0.0.0 to deliver
the mail.
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> > Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 15 January 2001 at 17:24:13 -0500
> >
> > > And, since MXPS is not an accepted Internet standard, the (unlikely,
> > > but
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scott Gifford writes:
> > Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Try applying two patches to the same program.
> >
> > While this may require some manual reconciliation between
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Almqvist writes:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I think there may be a problem with the patches to qmail-remote that make
> > it speak QMTP based on MXPS.
> >
> > If the QMTP connection fails (because the remote host doesn't have a qmtpd
> > running
>
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Try applying two patches to the same program.
While this may require some manual reconciliation between
conflicting packages, it's far better than needing a seperate full
distribution of components of qmail for every possible combination of
patches.
"Jonathan J. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need to be able to send/relay all of the messages in a maildir (the
> default/catchall for that domain) back out to that domain,
> there was a 'cessation' of the domains real mail server, and it is
> operational again so the desire is to hand
>
Ben Beuchler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our one qmail/vpopmail server is about to become a node in a load
> balanced pool of mail servers. I plan to mount the queue via NFS (I am
> now, in fact) but am wondering about the control files. It seems that
> at least SOME of them should be safe to
Keith Warno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the help from those who have assisted.
>
> I've not used maildir2mbox in the past; I know it "does not protect
> against simultanous access by another maildir2mbox" (from maildir(5))
> but is it safe to use over NFS?
NFS is only less safe tha
Keith Warno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One one my lusers insists on using emacs rmail for reading mail. I'm
> not an emacs user so I don't know a lick about it, but I do know it
> doesn't talk to the Maildir format. It wants mbox format.
Three comments:
1. GNUS, another EMACS mail/news read
"Darrell Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have written a patch to force clients to say helo first.
Out of curiosity and not unpleasantness, why would one want such a
patch? I've seen that sendmail has options to do the same thing, and
have never understood exactly what it accomplishes.
"Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi...I've been asked by a fellow sysadmin to reinject a number of complete
> e-mails (containing every original header field and the body with the
> standard one-line gap) into the mail system for delivery to their relevant
> locations, both locally a
Albert Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The new location is on another (non-qmail) server. Basically this
> user is wanting her currently delivered email to be send to the
> other email address (the one I put in her .qmail). I'm not sure if
> it's called requeuing or what but basically I w
"Neil D. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now, mail sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" does not go to the mail
> queue but goes to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". How could I duplicate this so
> that it also goes to the mail queue ? I can´t place
> "&[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the ".qmail-user" file because
PipE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear All i wanna find more detail about ETRN what it mean how
> to work who can give me information or Document ?
See RFC 1985:
http://www.geektools.com/rfc/rfc1985.txt
Hope this helps,
ScottG.
Is there anything about AOL or any of AOL's IP addresses in your
tcpserver setup (especially the database that tcpserver uses to block
connections and set environment variables)?
And do you see anything in your logs about these messages?
-ScottG.
"Matt Taft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> H
It is not an issue. I don't remember if qmail will silently drop
these messages or return a bounce for them, but it most certainly will
not run any programs as root because of them.
ScottG.
John Steniger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Running a network test against my recent qma
"clemensF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Scott Gifford:
>
> > > to use apop, germanynet (calisto) barked, thay would not change their
> > > entire setup for just one customer, when i asked them for apop. i dared
> > > to ask only beca
"clemensF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Scott Gifford:
[ ... ]
> > POP over SSL solves both of these, by making no changes to the POP
> > protocol, but just encrypting the whole session.
>
> i've checked around here in germany: isp's
Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Monday, July 03, 2000, 5:54:00 PM, you wrote:
> >> May anyone explain me what sense a SSL tunnel for POP3 does have (I've
> >> been wondering about that for long...)?
> > [ ... ]
> > To protect the POP password.
>
> But wouldn't it
Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It works exactly the same as SSL and IMAP. You can encapsulate any
> > TCP connection in an SSL tunnel. This includes IMAP, POP3, telnet, or
> > even ssh or another SSL session, although the last two are pretty
> > pointless.
>
> May anyone expla
tar up the queue directory, move it onto the new machine in a temp
> > directory, run qmail-qfix, and then rename the files over into their
> > new locations?
would or wouldn't work?
Thanks much,
-ScottG.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at
Interestingly, I'm in a similar situation, only my messages are still
in the queue. Normally, I would just put ":new.server.name" in my
smtproutes, and have it dump its queue, but it's already put all of
the local messages in the "local" section of the queue, which doesn't
look at smtproutes. Is
Yes, we do this.
Just follow the instructions that come with rblsmtpd. It dropped in
no problem with the latest version of tcpserver.
-ScottG.
If that server is going to be connecting to other mail servers and
sending them mail, common practice requires a PTR record, and an A or
CNAME record for that name that refers to the same IP address. Many
mail servers will refuse to accept your mail otherwise.
ScottG.
Cyril Bitterich <[EMAI
I have a farm of qmail servers sitting behind a load balancer. I'm
having a problem with being a secondary MX for a domain, because the
individual qmail servers in the farm don't realize that the IP address
of the load balancer actually points to them. They keep trying to
re-deliver to the load
Here's one interesting solution I heard about not too long ago:
http://www.whalemail.com/
Another interesting solution would be to teach your MTA to
automatically replace MIME attachments with a link to a Web page and a
password, and decode and store the attachments on a Web server. Not
"Peter Janett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's all working OK, but now I need to be able to access the accounts via
> IMAP. I have been looking into Courier-IMAP, but if possible, I'd like the
> IMAP server to use the same checkpasswd I'm using for POP3 access.
I solved this problem with a h
Our qmail+ldap installation seems to be losing track of the number of
local deliveries going on. We have it set up to limit concurrent
local deliveries to 50, and after running for a while, it will think
that it already has 50 local deliveries running, and won't start any
more up. In reality, th
65 matches
Mail list logo
