qmail Digest 23 Dec 1999 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 858
Topics (messages 34718 through 34761):
test <please ignore>
34718 by: Jankok, L. (dsc-pm)
smtprouting-question
34719 by: Geir Høgberg
34722 by: Thorkild Stray
qmail - multilog - tai64n - tai64nlocal
34720 by: Cameron Arnott
my ammended /etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail script
34721 by: Cameron Arnott
qmail multilog tai64n tai64nlocal.. still now working
34723 by: Cameron Arnott
34726 by: Dave Sill
virtual domains
34724 by: Jankok, L. (dsc-pm)
34725 by: bert hubert
Qmail is relaying external mail (Spam).
34727 by: Mark H. Mabry
34729 by: Charles Cazabon
34732 by: Mark H. Mabry
34733 by: Dustin Miller
34735 by: Strange
34742 by: Keith Warno
34743 by: Keith Warno
34744 by: John Conover
34750 by: Strange
34751 by: Keith Warno
Store + forward email
34728 by: Stuart Harris
34730 by: Thomas Neumann
34731 by: Timothy L. Mayo
Should qmail immediately reject relaying? [was Re: Qmail is relaying external mail]
34734 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: Qmail is killing my mySQL server!
34736 by: Pedro Melo
if its not onr thing its another.. missing files now
34737 by: Cameron Arnott
Re: if its not onr thing its another.. missing files now]
34738 by: Cameron Arnott
Re: problem qmail / checkpassword
34739 by: Michael Neubert
would this work or am i barking up the wrong tree
34740 by: Cameron Arnott
34741 by: Cameron Arnott
why is qmail-pop3d keep on using the same message no.
34745 by: Cameron Arnott
34746 by: bert hubert
34747 by: Cameron Arnott
Re: Sendmail vs Qmail?
34748 by: Claus Färber
Problem with Amavis
34749 by: Carsten Witt
Qmail/IMP question
34752 by: Yuri Litvin
Re: Converting PMMail files to Maildir or mbox format
34753 by: Frederik Lindberg
34754 by: Keith Warno
Password
34755 by: Emmanuel Nee
34758 by: bert hubert
Re: 3 quickies!
34756 by: Marc-Adrian Napoli
34761 by: Petr Novotny
Self Delivery
34757 by: Emmanuel Nee
.qmail-postmaster
34759 by: David Uzzell
question about qmail start
34760 by: Luka Gerzic
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
my query is as follows:
I have one qmail-server and one Exchange-server on my network.
On my Exchange-server i have a virus-scanning service.
All my clients have configures their client-programs to use my qmail-server
as SMTP.
What i want to do is to route some of the clients (or if thats not possible,
then all of them) to the exchange-server when they're sending outgoing mail
(SMTP).
I don't want to reconfigure the clients, so is there a way to use SMTPROUTES
or something else to handle this?
I still want mail from the outside to be delivered to my qmail-server,
because all the clients have their mailboxes there.
So is there a way to do this? or is more information needed here?
Qmail-version is: 1.03
thanks for any help given! :-)
===
Geir O. Høgberg
IT-consultant
ElTele Østfold AS
**********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message and it's attachments
has been swept by MIMEsweeper 4.0 for the presence of computer viruses.
This has been done by ElTele Østfold AS.
Coustomer service e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corporate WEB site: www.eltele.no
**********************************************************************
[Geir Høgberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:]
> All my clients have configures their client-programs to use my
> qmail-server as SMTP. What i want to do is to route some of the
> clients (or if thats not possible, then all of them) to the
> exchange-server when they're sending outgoing mail (SMTP). I don't
> want to reconfigure the clients, so is there a way to use SMTPROUTES
> or something else to handle this?
The box is a Linux-box, right? What you could do was redirect it
without involving Qmail. Simply check where they are coming from, and
use ipchains/portfw (or something like that) to forward it to the port
on the exchange server. Not an ideal solution, but it should be
doable.
> I still want mail from the outside to be delivered to my
> qmail-server, because all the clients have their mailboxes there. So
> is there a way to do this? or is more information needed here?
An alternative way of doing it is to something like what I outlined in
(1), but make it run on all mail coming from those you relay from
(this can probably be done if you run qmail-smtpd under tcpserver, and
supply various enviromentvariables). You might also need to modify
qmail-smtpd some.
--
Thorkild Stray - LinPro AS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
have i done this right as it seems to be working.. but i think i've read
somewhere not to use pipes in here
[root@top qmail-smtpd]# cat run
#!/bin/sh
QMAILDUID='id -u qmaild'
NOFILESGID='id -g qmaild'
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 2000000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb \
-u $QMAILDUID -g $NOFILESGID 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd \
2>&1 |/usr/local/bin/tai64n | /usr/local/bin/tai64nlocal
[root@top qmail-smtpd]#
[root@top log]# cat run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog
/var/log/qmail/qmail.smtpd
[root@top log]#
#! /bin/sh
PATH=/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
export PATH
case "$1" in
start)
echo -n "Starting qmail: svscan"
cd /var/qmail/supervise
env - PATH="$PATH" svscan &
echo $! > /var/run/svscan.pid
echo "."
;;
stop)
echo -n "Stopping qmail: svscan"
kill `cat /var/run/svscan.pid`
echo -n " qmail"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*
echo -n " logging"
svc -dx /var/qmail/supervise/*/log
echo "."
;;
stat)
cd /var/qmail/supervise
svstat * */log
;;
doqueue|alrm)
echo "Sending ALRM signal to qmail-send."
svc -a /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
;;
queue)
qmail-qstat
qmail-qread
;;
reload|hup)
echo "Sending HUP signal to qmail-send."
svc -h /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "Sending HUP signal to qmail-pop3d."
svc -h /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d
;;
pause)
echo "Pausing qmail-send"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "Pausing qmail-smtpd"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "Pausing qmail-pop3d"
svc -p /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d
;;
cont)
echo "Continuing qmail-send"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "Continuing qmail-smtpd"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "Continuing qmail-pop3d"
svc -c /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d
;;
restart)
echo "Restarting qmail:"
echo "* Stopping qmail-smtpd."
svc -d /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "* Sending qmail-send SIGTERM and restarting."
svc -t /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send
echo "* Restarting qmail-smtpd."
svc -u /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-smtpd
echo "* Sending qmail-pop3d SIGTERM and restarting."
svc -t /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-pop3d
;;
cdb)
tcprules /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb /etc/tcp.smtp.tmp < /etc/tcp.smtp
chmod 644 /etc/tcp.smtp*
echo "Reloaded /etc/tcp.smtp."
;;
*)
echo "Usage: $0
{start|stop|restart|doqueue|reload|stat|pause|cont|cdb|queue}"
exit 1
esac
exit 0
arghhhh...
it looks like the "|" are stuffing up my svc -dx..
supervise is loosing its grip on the scripts.. it wont shut them down
please refer to my previous 2 messages for the scripts
Cameron Arnott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>it looks like the "|" are stuffing up my svc -dx..
>supervise is loosing its grip on the scripts.. it wont shut them down
Pipes are no-no's in supervise run files.
-Dave
Hi,
I have a question about virtual domains
the current setup is:
1) control/virtualdomains contains "example.org:john-example.org"
2) in john's directory there is a ".qmail-john-example-org-vuser001"
file which contains "./domains/example-org/vuser001/maildir/"
if I have vuser001 to vuser999 (999 virtual users) I would need 999
".qmail-ext-vuserxxx" files... I think that this setup wouldn't scale well.
is there a better way to set this up ?.. I need this setup for the courier
imap server.
cheers,
Lucio Jankok
On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 03:07:09PM +0100, Jankok, L. (dsc-pm) wrote:
> if I have vuser001 to vuser999 (999 virtual users) I would need 999
> ".qmail-ext-vuserxxx" files... I think that this setup wouldn't scale well.
> is there a better way to set this up ?.. I need this setup for the courier
> imap server.
You can also do program delivery in .qmail-john-example-org-default (for
example fastforward).
You can also skip the creation of a real user and put the delivery
instruction in ~alias.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
I'm running Qmail 1.03 on a Debian Linux PC connected to a cable-modem
(roadrunner). The other day, a roadrunner security test found that my
mailserver allows some third-party relays. It sent me the failing example
which I'll include below. It also pointed me to a website to help me in
fixing this problem. The website is http://mail-abuse.org/tsi/ar-fix.html,
which says that I should not be having this problem since I use qmail.
Here is the failing example. I've tried it myself and seen it accept the
message. In the example I've replaced my explicit IP address with
200.200.200.200.
>>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest@[200.200.200.200]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[200.200.200.200]>
<<< 250 ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 go ahead
My rcpthosts file has only my machine name in it and localhost.
I don't know how qmail is supposed to handle this case. Obviously, I don't
want to be forwarding spam all over the internet. How can I fix this?
Mark H. Mabry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm running Qmail 1.03 on a Debian Linux PC connected to a cable-modem
> (roadrunner). The other day, a roadrunner security test found that my
> mailserver allows some third-party relays. It sent me the failing example
> which I'll include below. It also pointed me to a website to help me in
> fixing this problem. The website is http://mail-abuse.org/tsi/ar-fix.html,
> which says that I should not be having this problem since I use qmail.
>
> Here is the failing example. I've tried it myself and seen it accept the
> message. In the example I've replaced my explicit IP address with
> 200.200.200.200.
>
> >>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest@[200.200.200.200]>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[200.200.200.200]>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> DATA
> <<< 354 go ahead
This isn't a failure. Roadrunner isn't doing their homework -- not all
MTAs mean "Yes, I'll deliver this mail" when they say "354 go ahead".
Qmail would have properly bounced this message _after_ accepting it into
the queue if your system is configured as you say -- and therefore, you
aren't an open relay.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, "Charles" == Charles Cazabon said:
Charles> This isn't a failure. Roadrunner isn't doing their homework --
Charles> not all MTAs mean "Yes, I'll deliver this mail" when they say "354
Charles> go ahead". Qmail would have properly bounced this message _after_
Charles> accepting it into the queue if your system is configured as you say
Charles> -- and therefore, you aren't an open relay.
Okay, this is what happened. Qmail accepted the mail and then bounced the
message. I'll be sure and point this out to Roadrunner.
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark Mabry Tel: (978)964-2264
Avici Systems Inc. Fax: (978)964-2100
101 Billerica Avenue, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Billerica, MA 01862-1256 Web: http://www.avici.com/
Further, I've contacted Mark Herrick at RoadRunner security to tell him that
his test is faulty, and have made several suggestions on how to fix it.
First suggestion would be: To assume qmail users are not allowing relay. :)
Drop him a line at ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and tell him that you're running qmail,
and that you're not an open relay. Their test is faulty.
I got scared by that one a few weeks back, and the list set me straight.
RoadRunner's security staff would rather not write an actual check script
that waits for the mail to come back. Oh well.
Although that does bring up an interesting security question. A spammer
could, potentially, launch a denial of service attack against a qmail server
by sending spams, couldn't they? If qmail takes the time to queue them,
that's a Bad Thing(tm), in my opinion. Would it be violating any kind of
RFC if we re-coded qmail to reject those relay messages the moment someone
who doesn't have ALLOWRELAY set for their mask attemps to send a message to
a non-local user? Just a thought.
Dustin
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Cazabon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 9:11 AM
To: Mark H. Mabry
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail is relaying external mail (Spam).
Mark H. Mabry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm running Qmail 1.03 on a Debian Linux PC connected to a cable-modem
> (roadrunner). The other day, a roadrunner security test found that my
> mailserver allows some third-party relays. It sent me the failing example
> which I'll include below. It also pointed me to a website to help me in
> fixing this problem. The website is
http://mail-abuse.org/tsi/ar-fix.html,
> which says that I should not be having this problem since I use qmail.
>
> Here is the failing example. I've tried it myself and seen it accept the
> message. In the example I've replaced my explicit IP address with
> 200.200.200.200.
>
> >>> MAIL FROM:<openrelaytest@[200.200.200.200]>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[200.200.200.200]>
> <<< 250 ok
> >>> DATA
> <<< 354 go ahead
This isn't a failure. Roadrunner isn't doing their homework -- not all
MTAs mean "Yes, I'll deliver this mail" when they say "354 go ahead".
Qmail would have properly bounced this message _after_ accepting it into
the queue if your system is configured as you say -- and therefore, you
aren't an open relay.
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Dustin Miller wrote:
> Although that does bring up an interesting security question. A spammer
> could, potentially, launch a denial of service attack against a qmail server
> by sending spams, couldn't they?
They can do that anyhow by sending to mailer-daemon, root, or another
system account.
> If qmail takes the time to queue them,
> that's a Bad Thing(tm), in my opinion. Would it be violating any kind of
> RFC if we re-coded qmail to reject those relay messages the moment someone
> who doesn't have ALLOWRELAY set for their mask attemps to send a message to
> a non-local user? Just a thought.
The problem is that the double @ addressing (user@target@[qmailhostip]) IS
a local address as far as qmail is concerned. So it's not, as far as
qmail is concerned, a relay attempt, but a regular delivery attempt to a
client it handles. Then when it tries to deliver it locally, and it turns
out there is no user@target on the local machine, it bounces the letter.
Qmail does immediately reject relay attempts to domains it is not
configured to handle.
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Strange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Dustin Miller wrote:
> > Although that does bring up an interesting security question. A spammer
> > could, potentially, launch a denial of service attack against a qmail
server
> > by sending spams, couldn't they?
>
> They can do that anyhow by sending to mailer-daemon, root, or another
> system account.
Well they could do that sending to ANYONE pretty much, eh?
Mail delivery for system accounts should be eliminated via the
qmail-users(5) mechanism. Ideally it would be nice for there to be a
control file -- perhaps ``badrcptto'' -- to reject mail for such users at
the door.
Heh.. maybe there's already something like that and I haven't seen it. ;-)
[snip]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Strange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Dustin Miller wrote:
> > Although that does bring up an interesting security question. A spammer
> > could, potentially, launch a denial of service attack against a qmail
server
> > by sending spams, couldn't they?
>
> They can do that anyhow by sending to mailer-daemon, root, or another
> system account.
Well they could do that sending to ANYONE pretty much, eh?
Mail delivery for system accounts should be eliminated via the
qmail-users(5) mechanism. Ideally it would be nice for there to be a
control file -- perhaps ``badrcptto'' -- to reject mail for such users at
the door.
Heh.. maybe there's already something like that and I haven't seen it. ;-)
[snip]
Keith Warno writes:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Strange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Dustin Miller wrote:
> > > Although that does bring up an interesting security question. A spammer
> > > could, potentially, launch a denial of service attack against a qmail server
> > > by sending spams, couldn't they?
> >
> > They can do that anyhow by sending to mailer-daemon, root, or another
> > system account.
>
> Well they could do that sending to ANYONE pretty much, eh?
>
> Mail delivery for system accounts should be eliminated via the
> qmail-users(5) mechanism. Ideally it would be nice for there to be a
> control file -- perhaps ``badrcptto'' -- to reject mail for such users at
> the door.
>
> Heh.. maybe there's already something like that and I haven't seen it. ;-)
>
Hi Keith; tcpserver, from the author of qmail, works quite nicely-it will
throttle DoS, and has a very speedy database that can contain blacklisted
IPs.
John
--
John Conover [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.inow.com/
631 Lamont Ct. Tel. 408.370.2688 http://www.inow.com/ntropix/
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602 http://www.inow.com/nformatix/
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Keith Warno wrote:
> > They can do that anyhow by sending to mailer-daemon, root, or another
> > system account.
>
> Well they could do that sending to ANYONE pretty much, eh?
Yes, my point exactly, though I wanted to make it clear that real,
predictable accounts are even more vulnerable to DoS abuse.
> Mail delivery for system accounts should be eliminated via the
> qmail-users(5) mechanism. Ideally it would be nice for there to be a
> control file -- perhaps ``badrcptto'' -- to reject mail for such users at
> the door.
Hunh? Eliminate mail to mailer-daemon? To <>? I think not.
> Heh.. maybe there's already something like that and I haven't seen it. ;-)
There was a badrcptto patch, IIRC. There's also a pretty huge patch that
allows the server to reject unknown addresses while the SMTP session is
still active, rather than bouncing later, but one should note that doing
so can break the security design of the basic qmail setup, depending on
how local users are defined.
-M
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy Analyst
Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Strange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> > Mail delivery for system accounts should be eliminated via the
> > qmail-users(5) mechanism. Ideally it would be nice for there to be a
> > control file -- perhaps ``badrcptto'' -- to reject mail for such users
at
> > the door.
>
> Hunh? Eliminate mail to mailer-daemon? To <>? I think not.
Well no, sorry for being unclear as to what was meant by ``system account''.
I was speaking of ``system users'' that actually have an entry in
/etc/passwd (ie, bin, daemon, ftp, etc) -- and even more specifically -- the
subset of these users that actually own their home dirs (for whatever
obscene reason -- there are only a few of these in most cases) and hence
_could_ receive mail (which would be stupid).
[snip]
>
> -M
>
> Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213) Anthropologist, Attorney, Policy
Analyst
> Mainlining Internet Connectivity for Fun and Profit
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
|
I am looking to switch our mail systems over from sendmail
to Qmail early next year (Feb hopefully!)
but I obviously want to remove ALL trace of sendmail when
I do this, for all but one of our servers this
will be a simple task. however, there is one that I need
help with..
We provide a solution where we store the mail for a
customer on our servers for download when the customer comes online, the mail is
then sent to them via a command issued by our RADIUS server.. my questions are
as follows..
1, can you selectively process mail for a specific domain?
2, is there any way to increase the maximum queue time,
obviously because this mail is stored indefinitely for the customer then we do
NOT want it to bounce.
3, can you suggest any queue analysys applications other
than qmail-qstat?
|
"Stuart Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1, can you selectively process mail for a specific domain?
Deliver it all to one Maildir and use serialmail
> 2, is there any way to increase the maximum queue time, obviously
> because this mail is stored indefinitely for the customer then we do
> NOT want it to bounce.
This is not an issue 'cause the mail does not stay in the queue.
> 3, can you suggest any queue analysys applications other than qmail-qstat?
No, sorry.
-t
Take a look at AUTOTURN and/or turnmail. AUTOTURN is a method of using
the serialmail package to provide an improved ETRN service to a static IP.
turnmail (link on www.qmail.org) provides a similar arrangement for a
dynamic IP system.
We use AUTOTURN for several of our customers and are very pleased with it.
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Stuart Harris wrote:
> I am looking to switch our mail systems over from sendmail to Qmail early next year
>(Feb hopefully!)
> but I obviously want to remove ALL trace of sendmail when I do this, for all but one
>of our servers this
> will be a simple task. however, there is one that I need help with..
> We provide a solution where we store the mail for a customer on our servers for
>download when the customer comes online, the mail is then sent to them via a command
>issued by our RADIUS server.. my questions are as follows..
>
> 1, can you selectively process mail for a specific domain?
> 2, is there any way to increase the maximum queue time, obviously because this mail
>is stored indefinitely for the customer then we do NOT want it to bounce.
> 3, can you suggest any queue analysys applications other than qmail-qstat?
>
---------------------------------
Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Administrator
localconnect(sm)
http://www.localconnect.net/
The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
Monroeville, PA 15146
(412) 810-8888 Phone
(412) 810-8886 Fax
Dustin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got scared by that one a few weeks back, and the list set me straight.
> RoadRunner's security staff would rather not write an actual check script
> that waits for the mail to come back. Oh well.
Not much you can do about that besides try to educate them.
> Although that does bring up an interesting security question. A spammer
> could, potentially, launch a denial of service attack against a qmail server
> by sending spams, couldn't they? If qmail takes the time to queue them,
> that's a Bad Thing(tm), in my opinion. Would it be violating any kind of
> RFC if we re-coded qmail to reject those relay messages the moment someone
> who doesn't have ALLOWRELAY set for their mask attemps to send a message to
> a non-local user? Just a thought.
Not much point to that - if someone is trying to launcb a deliberate DoS
attack on a qmail server, they could then just send a ton of 1MB messages
to aaa,aab,aac,[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- qmail has to queue and try
to deliver them because they're local. The next step (immediately denying
the mail if the local user doesn't exist) is difficult with qmail, because
of aliases and qmail-extension email addresses, and is a bad idea anyway,
because it opens you up to email-harvesting attacks (like with VRFY with
other MTAs).
However, I seem to remember an unoffical qmail patch somewhere that did
immediately reject mail to domains not in rcpthosts. You might want to
check the mailing list archives, or possibly www.qmail.org. Maybe even a
pointer in Dave Sill's (excellent) Life with qmail?
Charles
--
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------
On 21-Dec-1999 Michael Boman wrote:
>
> And you guys who is having tons of users, what are you running?
User (300k of them) in Mysql. Dump users and configs each 10 minutes into CDB
files. Use those for deliveries.
Better solution is LDAP...
--
Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IP - Engenharia de Rede <http://ip.pt/>
Av. Duque de Avila, 23, 1049-071 LISBOA - PORTUGAL
tel: +351 21 3166740/00 (24h/dia) - fax: +351 21 3166701
[root@top qmail-1.03]# make install check
make: `install' is up to date.
./instcheck
instcheck: warning: /var/qmail/queue/lock/tcpto does not exist
instcheck: warning: /var/qmail/queue/lock/sendmutex does not exist
instcheck: warning: /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger does not exist
instcheck: warning: .../bin/qmail-inject has wrong group
[root@top qmail-1.03]#
they were there now their gone .. how do i remake them
and how come qmail-inject is the wrong group.. now.. sheeshh what group
should it be again
Its ok now.. whew.. make setup check fixed them
[root@top qmail-1.03]# make install check
make: `install' is up to date.
./instcheck
instcheck: warning: /var/qmail/queue/lock/tcpto does not exist
instcheck: warning: /var/qmail/queue/lock/sendmutex does not exist
instcheck: warning: /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger does not exist
instcheck: warning: .../bin/qmail-inject has wrong group
[root@top qmail-1.03]#
they were there now their gone .. how do i remake them
and how come qmail-inject is the wrong group.. now.. sheeshh what group
should it be again
Petr Novotny wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Dec 99, at 20:27, Michael Neubert wrote:
> > pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup
> > michael.neubert.de /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> > /home/$USER/.mailspool/
>
> Will not work. At the moment inetd is reading the file, it has no
> idea what $USER means. It simply would not work this way.
>
> Change the "/home/$USER/.mailspool/" to simple ".mailspool" and
> tell me what happened.
>
That's it!
After changing that line the pop3-server is working fine.
Thank you ( and all the others ) very much!
Michael
i have..
[root@top log]# cat run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog
/var/log/qmail/qmail.send
[root@top log]#
I need the current log to have readable timestamps
what i need to do is run tia64n then tai64n64local then multilog.. in
that order
what would happen if i were to try to put say
file mylog
/usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/tai64n |
/usr/local/bin/tai64nlocal | /usr/bin/local/multilog
/var/log/qmail/qmail.send
then in /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run
exec mylog
would that work
any other ideas
i have..
[root@top log]# cat run
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/multilog
/var/log/qmail/qmail.send
[root@top log]#
I need the current log to have readable timestamps
what i need to do is run tia64n then tai64n64local then multilog.. in
that order
what would happen if i were to try to put say
file mylog
/usr/local/bin/setuidgid qmaill /usr/local/bin/tai64n |
/usr/local/bin/tai64nlocal | /usr/bin/local/multilog
/var/log/qmail/qmail.send
then in /var/qmail/supervise/qmail-send/log/run
exec mylog
would that work
any other ideas
can someone please help me
@40000000386126860696746c starting delivery 18: msg 2088999 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@40000000386126860697c45c status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@400000003861268607a91cec delivery 18: success: did_1+0+0/
@400000003861268607aa3dfc status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@400000003861268607ab285c end msg 2088999
@4000000038612a3b0a0c8c44 new msg 2088999
@4000000038612a3b0a0d8e14 info msg 2088999: bytes 2175 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 11792 uid 0
@4000000038612a3b0a3fe8b4 starting delivery 19: msg 2088999 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@4000000038612a3b0a4138a4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612a3b0b491b54 delivery 19: success: did_1+0+0/
@4000000038612a3b0b4a3c64 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612a3b0b4b26c4 end msg 2088999
@4000000038612a822574302c new msg 2088999
@4000000038612a82257823e4 info msg 2088999: bytes 1974 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 11797 uid 0
@4000000038612a8225a17dd4 starting delivery 20: msg 2088999 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@4000000038612a8225a2cdc4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612a8226b2f98c delivery 20: success: did_1+0+0/
@4000000038612a8226b41a9c status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612a8226b504fc end msg 2088999
@4000000038612c012871a14c new msg 2088999
@4000000038612c012872a31c info msg 2088999: bytes 1711 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 11807 uid 0
@4000000038612c0128a334b4 starting delivery 21: msg 2088999 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@4000000038612c0128a484a4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612c0129a98cdc delivery 21: success: did_1+0+0/
@4000000038612c0129aaaa04 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612c0129ab9464 end msg 2088999
@4000000038612deb2ef88f1c new msg 2088999
@4000000038612deb2efc82d4 info msg 2088999: bytes 1828 from <> qp 11819
uid 0
@4000000038612deb2f27f7d4 starting delivery 22: msg 2088999 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@4000000038612deb2f2947c4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612deb302ddeb4 delivery 22: success: did_1+0+0/
@4000000038612deb302effc4 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
@4000000038612deb302fea24 end msg 2088999
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 06:15:42AM +1000, Cameron Arnott wrote:
>
> can someone please help me
Do you see problems? I believe the msg number is actually the inode number.
If you are typically processing only one message at a time, you may be using
and reusing the same inode number time and time again.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
i think there might be as.. qmailpop3d isn't loging anything when i pick up my
mail (ues a pop3d /Maildir/ mailbox)
it usedto but its stoped
bert hubert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 06:15:42AM +1000, Cameron Arnott wrote:
> >
> > can someone please help me
>
> Do you see problems? I believe the msg number is actually the inode number.
> If you are typically processing only one message at a time, you may be using
> and reusing the same inode number time and time again.
>
> Regards,
>
> bert hubert.
>
> --
> +---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
> | nerd for hire | |
> +---------------+ | - U N I X -
> | | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> 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?
Why don't you tell them to get a proper mail user agent? Throwing away
email is not really the MTA's task.
--
Claus Andre Faerber <http://www.faerber.muc.de>
PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC
Hi anybody,
I've installed amavis with mcafee.
1 - get amavis from <http://www.amavis.org>
2 - get McAfee from
<http://www.nai.com/asp_set/buy_try/try/products_evals.asp>
3 - read
<http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/10/msg01093.html>
I'm not good at this, but I had to use "patch -l" to patch
scanmails.in...
I've made myself a cron-job which get updates of dat-files to the
virusscanner from
<ftp://ftp.mcafee.com/pub/datfiles/english>.
On a Linux debian System and something failed
LOG in the syslog-file shows :
Dec 23 03:22:07 advp23 qmail: 945915727.541195 delivery 23: success:
bin/qmail-local:_line_781:__3817_Segmentation_fault______${uvscan}_--secure_
-rv_--summary_${tmpdir}/unpacked/_>>${tmpdir}/logfile_2>&1_/
what is wrong
Thanks for help
CU
Carsten
Hey guys :-)
I've got a question for ya. I'm not sure if it's more qmail or imp
question :-) I have RH 6.0 (2.2.13 kernel, 1.3.6 Apache, 3.0.12 PHP,
Horde 1.0.10, IMP 2.0.11) installed with qmail as a mail server. It
works great.
I can use all the functions of IMP just fine except when after I've
composed a message and click on "Send Message" it just sits there and
never returns, and in error log i get "qmail-inject: fatal: read error".
I can send mail messages as a regular user (root and another one), but
when i do su -m another_user from root and then try to send a mail
message from prompt it gives me the same error.
What's funny is that before, my PHP was compiled with safe-mode on
(modified src.rpm) and i could send e-mails, but could not make/view
attachments. Then i've compiled PHP with no safe mode and now I can
view, make attachments, save files, but can't send e-mails
After reinstalling mail server and hours of other crap, that's what i
found
out:
If i reboot the server, then IMP is functioning all right, i can
receive/send e-mails, attachments, etc == my dream, but if i'll restart
Apache without restarting the server, the above error pops up again.
Does anyone know what can be a problem?
What da hell is going on? have u ever seen anything like it?
Why can't i send an e-mail when i do su -m nobody and try to send mail?
Any Any tips, ideas, suggestions are greatly appreciated!!!
Thanx in advance guys :-)
On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 08:38:31AM -0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> On 22 Dec 99, at 5:46, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
> > They are just the message, but in dos/CRLF format. There are several ways
> > to convert them. The easiest if to ftp from the OS/2 box to the unix box
> > into the ~Maildir/new/ folder using "ascii" mode.
>
> Huh? FTP the easiest? On my PC, the easiest was
> tr -d "\r" <input >output
> Putting it into a for... cycle is left to the reader as an excercise.
Exactly this is why ftp is easiest. The files need to be moved anyway,
and it's not trivial to set up the for loop right the first time,
especially for someone who might be used to GUI and ne to unix. Anyone can ftp,
and almost anyone can type "ascii" before doing it. YMMV.
Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederik Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 08:38:31AM -0000, Petr Novotny wrote:
>
> > On 22 Dec 99, at 5:46, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
> > > They are just the message, but in dos/CRLF format. There are several
ways
> > > to convert them. The easiest if to ftp from the OS/2 box to the unix
box
> > > into the ~Maildir/new/ folder using "ascii" mode.
> >
> > Huh? FTP the easiest? On my PC, the easiest was
> > tr -d "\r" <input >output
> > Putting it into a for... cycle is left to the reader as an excercise.
>
> Exactly this is why ftp is easiest. The files need to be moved anyway,
> and it's not trivial to set up the for loop right the first time,
> especially for someone who might be used to GUI and ne to unix. Anyone can
ftp,
> and almost anyone can type "ascii" before doing it. YMMV.
>
> Fred Lindberg, Inf. Dis., WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA
Heh.. well.. there's also cute things like recode etc etc. Although I would
have to agree: chances are better that people have FTPed something
somewhere.
But how good are the chances that they (newbies) know the difference between
ascii and binary? ;-)
I'm new to qmail. Is it possible to setup users without having to add
into the /etc/passwd file.
Emmanuel
On Thu, Dec 23, 1999 at 02:15:01PM +0800, Emmanuel Nee wrote:
> I'm new to qmail. Is it possible to setup users without having to add
> into the /etc/passwd file.
Yes, this is very possible. Read up on qmail-newu.
Regards,
bert hubert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
Hi all,
> > 1. anyone have any suggestions as to what to use for anti-spam
> > measures? there seems to be a number of options.
>
> http://cr.yp.to/rblsmtpd.html
As far as I can see, this only blocks certain mail servers - I could do this
at my border routers and save myself from installing any software. (Blocking
from certain IP's on port 25).
What i'm after is a solution that falls into place at the
qmail-send/qmail-local stage that will quickly check the headers of the
message to be delivered locally first for any particular strings. (Silly
email addresses or anything with the word "buy now" or "sell now" etc)
Is there something that can do this?
Appreciating all the help.
Regards,
Marc-Adrian Napoli
Connect Infobahn Australia
+61 2 92811750
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 23 Dec 99, at 18:19, Marc-Adrian Napoli wrote:
> > > 1. anyone have any suggestions as to what to use for anti-spam
> > > measures? there seems to be a number of options.
> >
> > http://cr.yp.to/rblsmtpd.html
>
> As far as I can see, this only blocks certain mail servers - I could do
> this at my border routers and save myself from installing any software.
> (Blocking from certain IP's on port 25).
That's right but you wouldn't get the on-line feed you're getting from
RBLish services. You'd have to type in that million IPs by hand.
Yuck.
> What i'm after is a solution that falls into place at the
> qmail-send/qmail-local stage that will quickly check the headers of the
> message to be delivered locally first for any particular strings. (Silly
> email addresses or anything with the word "buy now" or "sell now" etc)
>
> Is there something that can do this?
Have you been to www.qmail.org lately? There's links to such
packages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
iQA/AwUBOGICXFMwP8g7qbw/EQK0vACfXB348pGniI8pPWGSGft66o5+y9EAn0Vi
bHWLpcsXnLG92DGmmjO8MEbD
=2tgi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Petr Novotny, ANTEK CS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antek.cz
PGP key ID: 0x3BA9BC3F
-- Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just God when he's drunk.
[Tom Waits]
By default qmail do not delivery to self. How can I enable this ?
Emmanuel
I am stuck.
I was tying to use fastforward and that did not work as it only created .cb
not a .cdb
I then tried to in the ~/alias/ setup .qmail-postmaster but qmail would ne
use these just bounced the address and not on this server etc so fo the time
being I have given it a postmaster account etc but I would like to get rid
of these can any one help. Please
------------------------------------------
FreeBSD is the only
Real OS for Real Users
mx1:/var/log/qmail# tail -f @00000945945015
945945018.033125 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945019.043364 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945020.053121 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945021.063117 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945022.073210 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945023.083242 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945024.093341 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945025.103224 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945026.113330 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945027.123147 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945028.133545 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945029.143122 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945030.153153 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945031.163347 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
945945032.173192 alert: cannot start: qmail-send is already running
i have this in my log's and i can't find error in my log's and i don't know
how to fix it.. i don't know where is problem, and how to solve it.
i restarted it few times and i didn't get any better.. any ideas ? btw.
qmail worked very fine and working fine... (i send this mail didn't i ? :) )
... but it's anoying.. too much for me... please help
----
D r e n i k N e t w o r k s / Y u g o s l a v i a
Luka Z. Gerzic
Graphic design, prepress, html, networking
home page: http://www.linux.drenik.net
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / GSM +381 64 11 0 29 56
