Re: E-Mail Address Harvesting

On Mon, 1 May 2000 13:28:53 -0500 , "Dennis Duval" writes: > It appears that the sending IP (207.190.23.59) is bogus. I > get no information on a reverse lookup. ... which really doesn't mean it's bogus, just not properly configured. > I don't see any way to stop this type of attack other tha

Re: So? No answer?? (Was: could it be? A bug?)

On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:41:14 +0100 , "Ricardo Cerqueira" writes: > > According to this snippet of rspawn's code... > > > > switch(wait_exitcode(wstat)) > > { > >case 0: break; > >case 111: substdio_puts(ss,"ZUnable to run qmail-remote.\n"); return; > >default: substdio_puts(ss,"DU

Re: POP-before-SMTP implementations

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:32:31 +0100 , "Petr Novotny" writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 16 Mar 00, at 7:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > An NFS filesystem is relatively low overhead, compared > > to "open connection to SQL database and INSERT," > > etc. I might have

Re: POP-before-SMTP implementations

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:13:48 +0100 , "Petr Novotny" writes: > You may. However, I think that it w= > ould eventually boil down to > creating that CDB for tcpserver anyway - othe= > r options just seem > too slow. I've been using NFS for this purpose for a while, but not with CDB. To record a

Re: Dropping mail?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:54:00 -0800 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'd like to have certain addresses 'eat' email (ie. just discard it). So, I > setup an account with a ".qmail" file which has one line "|/dev/null". > > QMail complains "deferral: /bin/sh_/dev/null:_cannot_execute". > > What is th

fixup-queue updated....

I have updated the fixup-queue program available at: http://www.users.uswest.net/~cmikk/fixup-queue.tar.gz New in this release: Bug fixes: * fixup-queue now behaves properly when qmail-smtpd exits (e.g. when receiving a bare newline). Before, it would just hang. Now, it exits just like

Re: Does RSS et al block postmaster mail?

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:46:52 -0500 , "Mark E. Drummond" writes: > Will using RSS/DUL/RBL etc prevent someone from a blocked site from > sending mail to postmaster at a site using the RSS etc? This is > certainly a Bad Thing Yes, and I agree. I solved this problem by patching qmail-smtpd to

Re: Qmail & Majordomo

On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:57:32 -0500 , "Andrew Scott" writes: > At 10:46 AM 2000/02/15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I think djb's mess822 lib could help out a lot here... > > Sorry, but what is "djb's mess822 lib" ? It's available from his "available software" page. It is a pretty nice

Re: I spoke too soon.

On 29 Feb 2000 19:09:45 -0700 Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:09:45 -0700 (MST) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I added the -x switch to the tcpserver line in rc.local and reinstated my > rcpthosts. > > Everything *seemed* to work -- I was able to send to any outside > addresses from hosts inside the ip netw

Re: Effective anti spamming

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:20:06 +0100 , "Ruben van der Leij" writes: > On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:35:26PM -0800, Jon Rust wrote: > > > Yes, ORBS catches a ton of spam. It also labels a lot of email that > > I'd like to see, as spam. > > But that wasn't what ORBS is about. ORBS stands for Open Rel

Re: antirbl question

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:49:11 -0500 (EST) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 1003 -g 1002 0 25 \ > > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -rdul.maps.vix.com \ > > /usr/local/bin/rblsmtpd -b -rrelays.mail-abuse.org \ > > /var/qmail/bin/qmai

Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates

On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:25:19 -0500 , "Len Budney" writes: > Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And should be resent later by the sending MTA because qmail did not > > say "250 ok". Transaction not completed, roll-back. > > I'm not sure if we're communicating. Does FFS offer the guara

Re: Big and/or famous sites using qmail?

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:55:04 -0600 , Bruce Guenter writes: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 12:02:17PM +0800, Michael Boman wrote: > > Wouldn't it great if there was a list of big/famous sites that uses qmail > > as their MTA? > > I just compiled a list of these from searching through the qmail mailing

Re: school filtering of student e-mail

On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 19:36:31 -0500 , "Len Budney" writes: > If you're worried about spam, you should (at bare minimum) set up > rblsmtpd, and use the Realtime Blackhole List . > You might also want to subscribe to the Open Relay Blocking System > .

Re: OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 23:15:41 -0500 (EST) , Russell Nelson writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > What use is syncing the data to disk, if you can't > > get to it after a crash? It might as well have just > > stayed in cache otherwise > > fsync the data if you want the data on disk. > fsy

OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:12:00 -0500 (EST) , Russell Nelson writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I believe that ext2 honors fsync() as well (but not in 2.3 yet). > > Could someone who knows more confirm? The metadata is still > > asyncronous though so FFS with softupdates is probably better.

Re: Linux kernel turning for mail performance?

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:29:03 -0700 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > 2. *BSD FFS (with and without softupdates) honors fsync() for data > > AND metadata in any case. > > > > -> The fsync() call returns when the data and met

Re: Linux kernel turning for mail performance?

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:47:43 -0700 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > AFAIK, the benefits of softupdates over fully asyncronous > operation has not been well proven. softupdates assure that the > metadata on the disk is always in a consistant state. It says > nothing about the data. Neither does van

Re: Linux kernel turning for mail performance?

On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:05:35 -0500 , "Len Budney" writes: > Agreed; that's a serious issue. I would recommend switching to a better > synchronous filesystem, though, rather than using ext2 async. > > Unfortunately, Linux offers few choices there. The BSD fs would be great > if it wasn't so imma

qmail RBL handling....

What I wanted to do is allow mail to certain "critical" addresses (e.g. postmaster, support, and abuse) even if the sender is using an RBL-listed mail server. Sendmail can do this, but then again, sendmail can do anything As far as I can see, the stock rblsmtpd code cannot do this, nor can R

Re: High-load servers...

I was mistaken. > > I probably took the "more hacking" route: I wrote > > a qmail-queue wrapper which will rewrite the message > > headers and the envelope. > > Could we see it? Sure: fetch http://www.users.uswest.net/~cmikk/fixup-queue.tar.gz It's a few ad

Re: High-load servers...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:33:04 -0600 , Bruce Guenter writes: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 10:24:11PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > When I started my latest hack, I was under the > > impression that ofmipd supported a subset of SMTP, > > but checking the source, I see that I was mistaken. > > I p

Re: ORBS database under tcpserver's cdb?

On 23 Jan 2000 23:33:07 - , John Conover writes: > Is there any way of running the ORGS IP database as a cdb under > tcpserver on port 25? Ummm... you are aware of rblsmtpd, which is meant for doing this blacklist thing, right? Otherwise, how up-to-date do you need the list? ORBS publishes

Re: SMTP AUTH - was: High-load servers...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 18:57:10 +0100 , listy-dyskusyjne Krzysztof Dabrowski writes: > > >relaying. What control mechanism are you using? SMTP after POP is pretty > >easy, and I think there's stuff already on the qmail web site implementing > >it. > > There is atleast one smtp client from redmon

Re: High-load servers...

On 22 Jan 2000 08:11:37 -0800 , Russ Allbery writes: > cmikk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, we use tcpserver's -x option, for a static list of known customer > > IPs (e.g. our dial-up pools). We use a variant of Russ's open-smtp > > package f

Re: High-load servers...

On 21 Jan 2000 23:39:13 -0800 , Russ Allbery writes: > cmikk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Since our mail servers perform relaying for roaming customers, they > > would have to be open to any IP address. Ofmipd does not allow you to > > control relaying,

Re: High-load servers...

On 21 Jan 2000 23:41:08 -0800 , Russ Allbery writes: > Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Could we see it? I am almost finished writing a simple qmail-queue > > wrapper that filters the body of the message through qmail-inject. This > > achieves the same header rewriting that the

Re: High-load servers...

On 21 Jan 2000 17:47:24 -0800 , Russ Allbery writes: > cmikk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That's how you do header rewriting in "stock" qmail: use a virtualdomain > > (e.g. @fixme in the FAQ) to direct the mail through > > ~alias/.qmail-somet

Re: High-load servers...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:26:13 -0500 (EST) , Dave Sill writes: > >I guess my point was this: if you don't do anything > >fancy, i.e. your box does not do forwarding, rewriting, > >etc., then setting up a high-volume qmail server is > >pretty straightforward. > > Forwarding is not "fancy" or expens

Re: High-load servers...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:38:16 -0800 , Mark Delany writes: [double-deliveries + header rewriting] > Right. It sure is something people can do and I think that > @fixme accurately alludes to the general nature of things, > but it's not clear to me how this got specifically bound to > questions rel

Re: High-load servers...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:18:04 -0800 , Mark Delany writes: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:57:55AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:04:11 -0800 , Mark Delany writes: > > > Are these inbound or outbound transactions. Inbound and the concommitant > > > local delivery is us

Re: High-load servers...

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:04:11 -0800 , Mark Delany writes: > Are these inbound or outbound transactions. Inbound and the concommitant > local delivery is usually a lot harder on a system than outbound. Another issue is multiple deliveries -- if you are doing header rewriting in the standard, stock

Re: Choosing a queue according to length - solution

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:05:24 + (GMT) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > #include > #include > void main(void) > { >long len=0L; > >fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_END); >len=ftell(stdin); >fseek( stdin, 0L, SEEK_SET); >if (len>=128000L) > system("/var/qmai

Re: QMAILQUEUE Patch for qmail-1.03

On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:16:40 -0500 , Juan E Suris writes: > I am interested in implementing this patch, but I am not sure how to do it. > I am thinking of writing a wrapper around qmail-queue that reads the message > and envelope, does all the necessary changes and forwards it to qmail-queue. > W

Re: spam filters

On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 19:13:49 -0700 , Irwan Hadi writes: > At 13:59 12/01/2000 +0200, Tonino Greco wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to know how to get spam filters set up? I have installed > >rblsmtp and it is running - but it does not seem to be blocking?? > > I think you should subscribe ano

Re: Slow delivery of large message

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:46:12 +0100 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > You're out of file descriptors. Probably this problem never occurred > to you with small messages becuase qmail-remote delivers them faster > than qmail-rspawn could spawn 'm. Now, with this big message, > qmail-remote takes some tim

Re: trouble with unusually high mbuf usage?

On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 18:32:32 -0500 , Delanet Administration writes: > I have a FreeBSD 3.1r server running qmail 1.03 with ezmlm and vchkpw > 3.12. It's been running fine for 9 months or so now until last week. The > server crashed (hardware related and fixed) and there was rather > extensive FS

Re: 3 quickies!

On 23 Dec 1999 10:06:42 - , "Petr Novotny" writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 23 Dec 99, at 18:19, Marc-Adrian Napoli wrote: > > [rblsmtpd] > > As far as I can see, this only blocks certain mail servers - I could do > > this at my border routers and save myself

Re: Limit POP3 and SMTP service !

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:23:28 +0100 , bert hubert writes: > On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 07:04:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > tcpserver -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 31 -g 30 o smtp /var/qmail/bin/tcp-domche ck -x /etc/dom.smtp.cdb /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd > > > > where tcp-domcheck is a smal

Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:36:52 -0500 (EST) , Sam writes: > You want to hand-hold all the PHBs who can barely put together a > Powerpoint presentation, and tell them how to install a unix filter? > > Life's too short. IIRC, Russ's suggestion was to change the default delivery for the qmail instal

Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 23:19:10 -0500 (EST) , Russell Nelson writes: > Why would this happen after installing eliminate-dups? That's the > beauty of qmail. If you don't want dups, you don't have to receive > them. And if you do want a separate delivery to multiple extensions, > you can have that

Re: dumping msgs to the BBBB

On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:18:32 -0500 , "Keith Warno" writes: > I remember seeing something on the list about how to do this; apologies in > advance. I would like to send a user's mail (either a real user or > non-existant user) silently to /dev/null. I'm assuming that an > appropriately-named .qm

Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?

On 17 Dec 1999 13:34:39 - , "Petr Novotny" writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 17 Dec 99, at 7:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The inability to do header rewriting without making > > two trips through the queue causes a severe performance > > hit, if you are doi

Re: local address used as spam sender

On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:13:09 +0800 , Gil Prudente writes: > Someone used a non-existent address in our domain > ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) to send spam and we're getting > hundreds of bounced messages, which in turn are > double-bounced because the mailbox does not exist. > > I have temporarily redi

Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?

On 17 Dec 1999 08:10:26 - , "Petr Novotny" writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 16 Dec 99, at 20:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I would list a few things in sendmail's favor: > > > > 1) The ability to rewrite headers "up front" without > > requiring double deli

Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:07:00 -0800 , Darren Foo writes: > Does Sendmail have any advantages over qmail? I'm trying to convince > people to switch to qmail, but they're view is: Everyone uses sendmail, > so we should too. I would list a few things in sendmail's favor: 1) The ability to rew

Re: DUL list and smtproutes

On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:56:20 -0500 , Subba Rao writes: > I am currently using dial-up connection for Internet and Intranet access. > For Internet mail, I have defined my isp's smtp server in smtproutes file. > For Intranet mail, I would prefer to use another smtp server. Is that possible ? > Can

Re: Performance?!

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:44:25 + , James Raftery writes: > > I think that the "no-trigger" idea has some merit, > > even for general purpose servers. I will have to > > try this out myself, but it would seem that reducing > > SLEEP_TODO in qmail-send.c, and removing the trigger > > mechanism s

Re: Performance?!

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:15:06 +0100 , Markus Stumpf writes: [triggering slows down qmail] > This causes qmail to deliver in "waves". > > I have graphically documented this (avail at >http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/deliver-stats.gif> > and also asked on the list whether ther

Re: Sendmail Virtusertable equivalent?

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:48:08 -0500 (EST) , "Michael T. Halligan" writes: > qmail is very unlogical if you have been using sendmail for five years.. > heck I know people who have been using qmail for 3 years and none of you > can explain to me how to do the equivalent of /etc/mail/virtusertable ..

Re: secondary mail relay

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:13:38 -0600 , "Dustin Miller" writes: > Is there a dirt-simple way of configuring qmail to queue mail for foo.com, > attempting delivery to a mail.foo.com when it receives mail bound for > foo.com, and holding that mail (without giving deferral notices) until > mail.foo.com

Re: bouncing a domain permanently

On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 14:50:27 -0600 , Ronny Haryanto writes: > However, I think you misunderstood me. I want to refuse delivery to > certain domains based on the *recipients*. Something similar to > smtproutes except that the next hop is not a remote smtp server but a > local bounce agent, eg. some

Re: URGENT !!

It's quite easy to install qmail in a non-/var/qmail directory. You just replace /var/qmail with whatever you want in conf-qmail, and rebuild qmail. -- Chris Mikkelson | Microsoft: Where do you want to go today? [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? |

Re: performance problem/todo backlogs

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:00:32 +0100 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 10:44:51AM -0500, Mark Hoffman wrote: > > I've got the same problem. Forgive me if the answer is documented > > somewhere, but does anyone have a solution? I've put in all the > > patches for high volume serve

Re: another qmail-clean question

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:04:25 +0200 (EET) , dd writes: > i know that deleting a mail from the queue is not recommended (i don't > know why though) but i had to delete all the 29 mails waiting to be Because qmail-send maintains its own information about the contents of the queue, independent of wha

Re: Qmail and Ident.

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:28:05 +1000 , Warren Beckett writes: > Hi all. > > I have been watching my qmail logs and parallel with logs from other > firewall and noticed that the qmail box is generate a large number of > ident lookups. > > Does anyone know what is cause this, and how do I stop it.

qmail-popup question

>From the qmail-popup man page: qmail-popup expects descriptor 0 to read from the network and descriptor 1 to write to the network. It reads a username and password from descriptor 0 in POP's USER-PASS style or APOP style. It invokes subprogram, with the same

Re: From: and To: - Headers with SMTP-Messages

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:54:55 +0100 , "Ekker, Heinz" writes: > > You could probably use a variant of the fixup/@fixme hack described > > in the FAQ. Feed the message through an appropriate formail command > > line to add the headers, and then through forward or qmail-inject > > to deliver it to t

Re: Sending Through other Mail Server !

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:00:54 +0330 , "Seyyed Hamid Reza Hashemi Golpayegani" writes: > I have installed qmail 1.03 with Redhat Linux ! it is work perefectal . > Here a little problem . I wanna send my emails through an other mail server > that provide me to inernet . Put a line of the form :rel

Re: disk mirroring

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 18:53:00 -0500 (EST) , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Doesn't a journeling FS incure speed penalities due to the fact that all > disk activity is logged? Theoretically, a journalling FS should be able to get a better response time on an fsync() call than an FS with soft updates,