qmail Digest 27 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 893
Topics (messages 36122 through 36219):
Re: SetEnv QMAILSUSER not working in Apache conf
36122 by: Vince Vielhaber
36132 by: Chris Hardie
qmail and dnscache
36123 by: Petr Novotny
36131 by: iv0
36133 by: Petr Novotny
36135 by: Dave Sill
Message delivery failure question
36124 by: Randolph S. Kahle
36125 by: Petr Novotny
36127 by: Randy Kahle
Unique domain, several mail server
36126 by: Andrea Verni
36160 by: Faried Nawaz
36163 by: Russell Nelson
Mail Stuck In Bin
36128 by: Jeff Russell
smtp authentication
36129 by: Thomas Schachner
36215 by: Thomas Schachner
More setup questions
36130 by: Joe Millay
Re: Any way to log and correlate qmail-smtpd/qmail-send IP addresses?
36134 by: asheiduk.hawo.stw.uni-erlangen.de
qtools available
36136 by: William E. Baxter
Re: remote root qmail-pop with vpopmail advisory and exploit with patch (fwd)
36137 by: Derek Callaway
36139 by: Petr Novotny
36140 by: Russell Nelson
36141 by: Pavel Kankovsky
36142 by: Russell Nelson
36143 by: Petr Novotny
36144 by: Pavel Kankovsky
36146 by: Mads E Eilertsen
is turning off mail relaying correct?
36138 by: Eric Long
36179 by: Sam
Re: Duplicates on outbound mail, not inbound
36145 by: Kevin Lee
36147 by: Mark Delany
36217 by: Greg Owen
Re: Scenario
36148 by: Dave Sill
Re: Adding Users when Installing (NEWBIE)
36149 by: Dave Sill
Re: Help starting qmail...
36150 by: Dave Sill
Re: Problems with Subscription
36151 by: Dave Sill
Re: pop3 check failed
36152 by: Dave Sill
How do I limit outbound SMTP threads?
36153 by: Randolph S. Kahle
36155 by: Charles Cazabon
Re: qmail aliases
36154 by: Mike Denka
36162 by: Giles Lean
36165 by: Faried Nawaz
cc messages are splited in severals deliveries
36156 by: dsmail.linux.highnet.com.br
36157 by: Charles Cazabon
36158 by: dsmail.linux.highnet.com.br
36159 by: Russell Nelson
36164 by: Russell Nelson
36174 by: Charles Cazabon
36180 by: Sam
Funny but sad...
36161 by: Petr Novotny
36166 by: Faried Nawaz
36167 by: Russell Nelson
36168 by: Giles Lean
36169 by: Petr Novotny
36170 by: Giles Lean
36171 by: Paul Schinder
36173 by: Russell Nelson
open relay problem
36172 by: Jeff Mayes
36181 by: Sam
36186 by: Len Budney
36204 by: Keith Warno
36206 by: Adam McKenna
36213 by: Dr. Erwin Hoffmann
Re: Strange queue behaviour]
36175 by: Chris Readle
maildir delivery code in perl
36176 by: Nathan J. Mehl
36192 by: John White
Re: Strange queue behaviour]]
36177 by: Patterner
Daemontools.61 initscripts?
36178 by: Bill Rogers
36182 by: Vincent Schonau
36188 by: Jon Rust
Restrict Times
36183 by: Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas
36184 by: Mark Delany
36185 by: Vince Vielhaber
36187 by: Stephen Mills
36189 by: Len Budney
36190 by: David Mandala
Re: Truncating large attachments in bounced mail
36191 by: Peter Green
36194 by: David Cunningham
procmail problems
36193 by: Eric LaLonde
36208 by: Deke Clinger
Re: What MUA do you use?
36195 by: Mark E. Drummond
36196 by: Mark E. Drummond
36209 by: Martin Lesser
About offline
36197 by: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary
36207 by: Martin Lesser
big fat qmail-command hole
36198 by: Stig Hackvän
36201 by: Faried Nawaz
36202 by: Russell Nelson
36203 by: Faried Nawaz
36214 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
subdomain qmail locals
36199 by: Scott Beck
($BL5Bj(B)
36200 by: masayuki sakai
Restricting cc and recipients:
36205 by: TAG
VIRTUAL DOMAIN
36210 by: ruchandra.hss.hns.com
FLUSH QUEUE
36211 by: TAG
36212 by: Peter Gradwell
Failed Relay test 6 ?
36216 by: Erwin van Kroonenburg
36218 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
36219 by: petervd.vuurwerk.nl
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Chris Hardie wrote: > I've tried this to no avail. As the above part of my message indicates, > it seems the environment variables aren't even being set, let alone used. I did notice that when I upgraded from 1.3b5 to 1.3.9 (internal server) that SetEnv no longer worked where I had it in the the config file. I moved it under the line that starts: ScriptAlias /cgi-bin/ and it worked again. I use it for Sybase environ variables. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN: $24.95/mo or less - 56K Dialup: $17.95/mo or less at Pop4 Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
On 26 Jan 2000, Frank D. Cringle wrote: > Chris Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I tested the env setting by printing out the ENV variable to a log file > > from within the CGI script, and it came up empty...this held true with > > non-QMAIL environment variables. > > > > So I suppose this might be more of an apache question, but surely one > > of you has dealt with this. :) > > Read about the PassEnv configuration directive in the Apache > documentation. I did this already - PassEnv is for passing an existing environment variable through to the CGI environment, e.g. PassEnv VARIABLE, whereas SetEnv is for setting the value, e.g. SetEnv VARAIABLE VALUE. In my case, I believe I want to use SetEnv. Chris -- Chris Hardie ----------------------------- ----- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- -------- http://www.summersault.com/chris/ --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, is someone of you running qmail fed from dnscache? How does dnscache deal with oversized DNS packets? The same way as unpatched qmail? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI7r+FMwP8g7qbw/EQJRPwCfV0t/hIzgca7cYmSCl2Qx1n12bBYAnjUv lWTcQKkcckOYwvmcwITYBmAe =wNRy -----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]
Petr Novotny wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > is someone of you running qmail fed from dnscache? How does > dnscache deal with oversized DNS packets? The same way as > unpatched qmail? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- I've been running it for over two weeks. the return information on an MX record is different than bind. It returns less information and doesn't seem to send the oversized DNS packets. If you read about dnscache it talks about how it works better with qmail. dnscache MX lookup: bash$ nslookup > set type=mx > inter7.com Server: localhost Address: 127.0.0.1 Non-authoritative answer: inter7.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = vast.inter7.com bind MX lookup > inter7.com Server: ns1.inter7.com Address: 209.218.8.2 inter7.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = vast.inter7.com inter7.com nameserver = ns1.inter7.com inter7.com nameserver = ns2.inter7.com vast.inter7.com internet address = 209.218.8.20 ns1.inter7.com internet address = 209.218.8.2 ns2.inter7.com internet address = 209.218.8.3 Ken Jones
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26 Jan 00, at 7:48, iv0 wrote: > I've been running it for over two weeks. > > the return information on an MX record is different than > bind. It returns less information and doesn't seem to > send the oversized DNS packets. If you read about dnscache > it talks about how it works better with qmail. Actually, I can believe _that_. I wanted to hear what dnscache itself does when it gets oversized reply. Does it do tcp retry, or does it do the same as unpatched qmail (ie report failure)? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI8W01MwP8g7qbw/EQLWhwCgsqZx7GN1Pl/NN5M106R+/CQiIbUAn0SX +8eywtcRLWIAlNjsoj9jyGc0 =f61I -----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]
"Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On 26 Jan 00, at 7:48, iv0 wrote: >> I've been running it for over two weeks. >> >> the return information on an MX record is different than >> bind. It returns less information and doesn't seem to >> send the oversized DNS packets. If you read about dnscache >> it talks about how it works better with qmail. > >Actually, I can believe _that_. I wanted to hear what dnscache itself >does when it gets oversized reply. Does it do tcp retry, or does it >do the same as unpatched qmail (ie report failure)? > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 >Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > >iQA/AwUBOI8W01MwP8g7qbw/EQLWhwCgsqZx7GN1Pl/NN5M106R+/CQiIbUAn0SX >+8eywtcRLWIAlNjsoj9jyGc0 >=f61I >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This is a question for the dns list, which to which I've copied this message. -Dave
I am new to qmail and I have a question about message delivery. I have several messages in my outbound queue that are not getting delivered. The log file says "[...] deferral: Connected_to_151.xxx.x.xx_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/" The email is being send to an address <person_name>@<company>.com that works when I send the email through another SMTP server. So, I thought this might be a DNS problem. I switched my resolv.conf to point to the DNS that the working SMTP server uses and this does not seem to fix the problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated! Randy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26 Jan 00, at 6:27, Randolph S. Kahle wrote: > I am new to qmail and I have a question about message delivery. > > I have several messages in my outbound queue that are not getting > delivered. The log file says > > "[...] deferral: Connected_to_151.xxx.x.xx_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/" > > The email is being send to an address <person_name>@<company>.com that > works when I send the email through another SMTP server. So, I thought this > might be a DNS problem. I switched my resolv.conf to point to the DNS that > the working SMTP server uses and this does not seem to fix the problem. Isn't it a large mail sent to hotmail.com for example? When they reach some size, they simply drop the line... Speak about brain- dead. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI73EFMwP8g7qbw/EQKgRACgsKNai7JzxLqc4sBCkiO4f5hNb7YAoKwu a0Fr9r7sskkGIQ0TLRmC8Mj3 =ttkI -----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]
This is a set of small messages being sent to my client (a large corporation). Regards, Randy At 07:30 AM 1/26/00 , Petr Novotny wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On 26 Jan 00, at 6:27, Randolph S. Kahle wrote: > > > I am new to qmail and I have a question about message delivery. > > > > I have several messages in my outbound queue that are not getting > > delivered. The log file says > > > > "[...] deferral: Connected_to_151.xxx.x.xx_but_connection_died._(#4.4.2)/" > > > > The email is being send to an address <person_name>@<company>.com that > > works when I send the email through another SMTP server. So, I thought > this > > might be a DNS problem. I switched my resolv.conf to point to the DNS that > > the working SMTP server uses and this does not seem to fix the problem. > >Isn't it a large mail sent to hotmail.com for example? When they >reach some size, they simply drop the line... Speak about brain- >dead. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 >Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html > >iQA/AwUBOI73EFMwP8g7qbw/EQKgRACgsKNai7JzxLqc4sBCkiO4f5hNb7YAoKwu >a0Fr9r7sskkGIQ0TLRmC8Mj3 >=ttkI >-----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]
Hi guys, I have resolve this problem (if anyone can help me or just give me a link with detailed instruction): I have one domain and several departmental mail servers and all users must have the same domain in their email address. I want to avoid that when "user a" sends and email to "user b", both on the same dempartmental mail server, the email goes from departmental mail server to central MX mail server and then again to the departmental mail server. Example: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] this email is recevied from a mail server, than sent to the MX machine for `'mydomain.com' and then resent to the first mail server. How to resolve this problem with Qmail ? TIA Andrea Verni
Andrea Verni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have one domain and several departmental mail servers and all users must have the same domain in their email address. I want to avoid that when "user a" sends and email to "user b", both on the same dempartmental mail server, the email goes from departmental mail server to central MX mail server and then again to the departmental mail server. How are the departmental mail servers set up? How does the central mail server know which departmental mail server to send the message back to? Is there any header rewriting going on?
Andrea Verni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have one domain and several departmental mail servers and all users must have the same domain in their email address. I want to avoid that when "user a" sends and email to "user b", both on the same dempartmental mail server, the email goes from departmental mail server to central MX mail server and then again to the departmental mail server. The departmental mail servers should have user-specific virtualdomains set up. If everyone is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a [EMAIL PROTECTED], you should put the following into your virtualdomains: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-resend [EMAIL PROTECTED]:alias-resend And in ~alias/.qmail-resend, put: |forward "$EXT2" -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Hi everyone. This account is not on the list, but if you could respond to this I'd appreciate it. I'm not sure if this is qmail or not, but I can't send messages outside of our firewall, nor can I get messages in. However, I am able to email interoffice. So qmail is functioning, but only partially. I have checked our firewall processes, and the web server and SMTP mail is running. I then checked var/qmail/bin for any messages, and there are sixty-two preprocessed messages. ( I am not sure if these are the messages from outside). I have also gone directly to my Maildir and tried to list messages from there, but it doesn't list anything. In fact no ones does. Clearly, I am able to get on the net, so I don't believe that this is a firewall problem. If anyone has any clue, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Jeff Russell, AIT ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
HI! Is there any support for RFC 2554 ( SMTP Extension Authentication ) for qmail available? And if it is available can i combine it with the Relay mechanism'n? For example: Client: Outlook with the option Smtp-Server needs authentication. Server: qmail Scenario with user granted to relay messages on qmail: C connects to S S says that he needs authentication C -> User types in the authentication S checks and says ok S takes the message to relay and do NOT CHECK against rcpthosts-entrys Scenario with user NOT granted to relay messages on qmail: C connects to S S says that he needs authentication C -> User types in the authentication S checks and says not ok S takes the message to and CHECK against rcpthosts-entrys I do not want relay based on IP Adresses!! Any hints???? ThanQmail
Hi everyone! Is it possible to set qmail to only allow authenticated smtp session to send messages ?? RFC 2554 Any hints?
Hello, I am setting up qmail on a RedHat Linux 6.1 machine. I am using life with qmail's installation directions. I posted a message yesterday and I am still a little confused. I have 3 questions (for now); QUESTION #1: The instructions say there should be a file named INSTALL.ids in the source directory. I couldn't find it, so per the instructions I added: alias:*:7790:2108::/var/qmail/alias:/bin/true qmaild:*:7791:2108::/var/qmail:/bin/true qmaill:*:7792:2108::/var/qmail:/bin/true qmailp:*:7793:2108::/var/qmail:/bin/true qmailq:*:7794:2107::/var/qmail:/bin/true qmailr:*:7795:2107::/var/qmail:/bin/true qmails:*:7796:2107::/var/qmail:/bin/true to the /etc/passwd file. I did the "make setup check" command and the "./config-fast the.full.hostname" command. Both seemed to work fine. NOW, I have a file named INSTALL.ids in the /usr/local/src/qmail/qmail-1.03/ directory. So, should I edit that file now? QUESTION #2: I am getting ready to install ucspi-tcp and daemontools, but I am not sure what they do, or if I really need to do so. Can anyone help with this? QUESTION #3: I've read forward in the instructions and I see that I will add users like the following: =address:user:uid:gid:directory:dash:extension: The instructions say that the directory /var/qmail/users contains a series of configuration files, but mine is empty (the directory contains no files). Am I to create the config files, or will they be setup later? I am extremely confused about this portion of the setup. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your patience with a newbie.I am sure I will have more questions later. Thanks, Joe Millay
Hello! On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 08:00:49PM +0000, George Cox wrote: > On 24/01 23:04, Reuben Farrelly wrote: > > > Is it possible to have qmail-smtpd log the connecting IP address (and/or > > hostname) in the same log (preferably the same line) for every incoming > > This may not _exactly_ answer your question, but did you read FAQ 5.1? You may note that the suggestet solution has several disadvantages: The performance breaks down, because "tcpserver -v" loggs five lines to the syslog facility, which in turn is quite slow when writing to disk. And there is still no visible correlation between the IP address of and the qmail logging output. CU Andreas --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andreas Heiduk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qtools 0.50 is available via http://www.superscript.com/qtools.html The package includes a variety of .qmail command tools. There is also a mailing list for discussion of qtools not relevant to the qmail list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From the BLURB file: qtools is a suite of utilities for use with qmail. 822body prints the message of an 822-format mail message. 822headerok checks whether a message has an 822-compliant header. 822bodyfilter applies a filter to the body of an 822-compliant mail message. 822headerfilter applies a filter to the header of an 822-compliant mail message. filterto filters an email message and forwards the result to a given address. tomaildir writes an email message to a Maildir-format directory. condtomaildir feeds an email message to a program and, depending on the result, writes the message to a Maildir-format directory. iftoccfrom acts like iftocc from the mess822 package, but also looks at the from field. replier is a simple email autoresponder. replier-config configures an address to use replier. W.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > > 5. Recommendation > > > > Impose the 40 character limitation specified by RFC1939 into qmail. > > Apply qmail-popup patch http://www.ktwo.ca/c/qmail-popup-patch > > I don't recommend applying that patch. Every line of it is wrong. It > makes qmail-popup less secure, by inserting a call to syslog(), which > is a security disaster. It also sucks in the string library, which What about the calls to syslog in qmail's splogger.c? Are they secure? > includes the well-known security hole sprintf(). > > -- > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M. > -- /* Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> char *sites[]={"http://www.geekwise.com", Programmer; CE Net, Inc. "http://www.freezersearch.com/index.cfm?aff=dhc", (302) 854-5440 Ext. 206 "http://www.homeworkhelp.org",0}; */
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26 Jan 00, at 10:49, Derek Callaway wrote: > > I don't recommend applying that patch. Every line of it is wrong. It > > makes qmail-popup less secure, by inserting a call to syslog(), which > > is a security disaster. It also sucks in the string library, which > > What about the calls to syslog in qmail's splogger.c? Are they secure? They are as secure as can be - if you really _need_ syslog logging, do it through splogger. Everyone will suggest you to ditch splogger and use cyclog instead. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI8ljVMwP8g7qbw/EQJAPgCdFFCKzuUaRvsNaDBhFMQjG8Rjb4cAn1GM W6/3pjE+LZlX0tb4GklC2U9F =M2oM -----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]
Derek Callaway writes: > What about the calls to syslog in qmail's splogger.c? Are they secure? Maybe. Maybe not. But splogger isn't a setuid program and needn't be run as root (unlike qmail-send). -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > Maybe. Maybe not. But splogger isn't a setuid program and needn't be > run as root (unlike qmail-send). 1. qmail-popup is a setuid program? 2. qmail-send is run as root? --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
Pavel Kankovsky writes: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > > > Maybe. Maybe not. But splogger isn't a setuid program and needn't be > > run as root (unlike qmail-send). > > 1. qmail-popup is a setuid program? No, howeer syslog is often used by daemons, and some daemons run setuid. > 2. qmail-send is run as root? Yup. Well, qmail-start is run as root. Along the line it gives up its rootness, becoming qmail-send, and leaving only qmail-lspawn running as root. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26 Jan 00, at 11:10, Russell Nelson wrote: > > > Maybe. Maybe not. But splogger isn't a setuid program and needn't be > > > run as root (unlike qmail-send). > > > > 1. qmail-popup is a setuid program? > > No, howeer syslog is often used by daemons, and some daemons run setuid. Well, on my system qmail-popup is root. (Not setuid, but is root.) /bin/checkpassword needs to be root, and giving it suid is a security disaster (su without logging of bad attempts). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI8sUlMwP8g7qbw/EQIaygCg4IKfGNwDi4RZ6bQZoTbqyn5khR8AoLmq h8hJAVzkEJ/FOVtlgH1QKd/6 =fflb -----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]
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote: > > 2. qmail-send is run as root? > > Yup. Well, qmail-start is run as root. Along the line it gives up > its rootness, becoming qmail-send, and leaving only qmail-lspawn > running as root. Login is run as root. It switches to my privs and execs my login shell. Therefore my login shell is run as root. Right? :) --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Petr Novotny wrote: [...] Everyone will suggest you to ditch splogger > and use cyclog instead. Well, cyclog is already history for some of us. :-) History: BigBang -> syslog -> splogger -> cyclog -> multilog Mads
I have been informed that my mail system is "incorrectly" denying mail relaying. It is to my understanding that the ip's of users should be allowed to relay mail, anything else should never have to--which is how I currently have it setup. One of my users is on a mailing list and the list admin snet me a message saying that I needed to fix my configuration. The admin is saying that whenever any message from the mailing list is sent to my user, it results in: 553 MAIL RELAY TURNED OFF He he stating that on his end, when sendmail has more than one e-mail address in a header with a mail it has to send, it will attempt to relay everything after the first address. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem to be right to me. Why should my mailserver be taking over his mailserver load? He is implying that my setup is wrong based on this comment from him: --- Per the RFCs, relays which include at least one address to the host should be allowed through. Relays which don't, should be validated via a method such as POP password before SMTP. Denying relaying to stop your server from being used as a spam source is not a recommended solution according to the RFCs because so many legit sources (majordomo being one) expect a certain behavior. --- Other mailing lists don't seem to have this problem, with my qmail mail server, and other mail servers I run. Which method is the correct? Thanks. -Eric
On 26 Jan 2000, Eric Long wrote: > I have been informed that my mail system is "incorrectly" denying mail > relaying. It is to my understanding that the ip's of users should be > allowed to relay mail, anything else should never have to--which is > how I currently have it setup. Your understanding is correct. > One of my users is on a mailing list and the list admin snet me a > message saying that I needed to fix my configuration. The admin is > saying that whenever any message from the mailing list is sent to my > user, it results in: 553 MAIL RELAY TURNED OFF > > He he stating that on his end, when sendmail has more than one e-mail > address in a header with a mail it has to send, it will attempt to > relay everything after the first address. Correct me if I'm wrong, > but this doesn't seem to be right to me. You are correct, and he is wrong. Furthermore, I've never heard of any mutation of sendmail that has ever acted that way. To prevent any further unrequested headaches from this twit, you might want to route his mail to /dev/null, from now on. [ ... ] > Per the RFCs, relays which include at least one address to Ask this brainiac to identify this RFC by number, together with the paragraph that he is referring to. > Other mailing lists don't seem to have this problem, with my qmail > mail server, and other mail servers I run. Which method is the > correct? There's nothing wrong with your Qmail server. -- Sam
At 09:47 AM 1/24/00 -0800, Mark Delany wrote: >Do your logs show that you are sending it twice? > >Note that duplicates are always possible with SMTP and there is nothing >you can do about it. One scenario is simply that the other end sends back >a 250 OK which your end never sees. What does your end do? Resend as it must. > >Ultimately only the receiver knows if it has a duplicate. What if a person is >subscribed with multiple addresses? What if a subscriber address is an >exploder? The logs do sometimes have an error that the connection died, and I guess it is impossible to determine if the message was delivered or not. The think is, our subscribers (to BRIEFME.COM) don't care if the reason for the duplicates is their provider not having implemented a de-duping system, they blame us. Anyone who can help us solve this one is a real hero (and will be treated to a really nice dinner when they are in NYC). Kevin Lee TeamINTERACT --------------------- NY office ---------------------------- 352 7th Ave 3rd Floor 212-402-7767 NYC Fax:212-402-7768 New York, NY 10001 http://www.teaminteract.com --------------------- NJ office ---------------------------- 1100 Cornwall Rd Suite 5 Tel: 732-940-6550 Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852 Fax: 732-940-6540 -- Full Service Multimedia Agency: Disk/CD-ROM, KIOSKS, Sales Presentations, Tradeshow, Web, Screensavers. http://www.did-it.com/ Boost search engine traffic Guaranteed! http://www.briefme.com/ FREE subscriptions to over 80 e-zines http://www.virtualinsults.com/ insulting greeting cards, FREE
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 11:33:17AM -0500, Kevin Lee wrote: > At 09:47 AM 1/24/00 -0800, Mark Delany wrote: > >Do your logs show that you are sending it twice? > > > >Note that duplicates are always possible with SMTP and there is nothing > The logs do sometimes have an error that the connection died, and I guess > it is impossible to determine if the message was delivered or not. Quite so. Unless you have access to the mail logs at the receiving end. > The think is, our subscribers (to BRIEFME.COM) don't care if the reason for > the duplicates is their provider not having implemented a de-duping system, > they blame us. > > Anyone who can help us solve this one is a real hero (and will be treated > to a really nice dinner when they are in NYC). Can't be done without a change to the SMTP protocol I'm afraid. This is not a problem unique to qmail, it's a problem that every implementation of SMTP suffers from. It's possible that some characteristic of qmail-remote is exacerbating this situation with briefme.com, but determining the exact reason and determining ways to ameliorate this problem would require pretty extensive analysis of the traffic and connections at each end. It may, eg, simply be that way that qmail-remote closes the connection without waiting for the QUIT response. I do note that briefme have a truly *interesting* DNS setup. I get different results when querying that domain with dnscache and bind. dnscache shows me: briefme.com. 0S IN MX 10 mail.remove-it.com. briefme.com. 0S IN MX 10 209.191.19.113. bind shows me: ;; ANSWER SECTION: briefme.com. 23h51m32s IN MX 10 remove-it.com. erg. There is more to this but it's probably more relevant to the tinydns list. As an aside, are others complaining of dupes or largely this site? Mark.
>We use qmail to send out large subscriber emagazine/newsletter mailings (2 >million messages/week), and we seem to have a problem with some subscribers >getting duplicates. I have seen fixes for duplicates on inbound mail, but >does anyone know how to address our problem on outbound mail. Onelist and >Hotmail don't seem to have a dupe problem. > >The problem is sporadic and unpredictable. > >Sometimes the duplicates have the same time stamp, and other times they are >separated by an hour (message sent back into the cue as undelivered?). > >Any thoughts? 1) Is the message-id the same for the dupes? 2) Given two dupes with the same message-id, how do their Received: paths compare? 3) Consider the likelihood that with any large subscriber base, you'll get people who have no clue what their email address is and who are probably signed up three times with four different AOL "screen names." The key is to find a victim who can forward you full copies of the headers, including Received:, Message-ID:, To:, Delivered-To: (if present), etc. etc. Once you have that, you can find many problems with just that evidence, and if theproblem does go back to your logs you'll have enough info to correlate with your logs and find out what happened. Greg
"Muhammad Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'll be highly thankful to you if U suggest me with the settings >which I have to made at my company. I am replacing five mailservers >running smail with Qmail. the layout is described with the >attachement. Would U plz. let me know the settings .....thanx. > >[big, hairy picture looking something like this, I think > > mailserver.mynet.com.pk gatekeeper.mynet.com.pk > | ^ > | | > +------> Welcome.mynet.com.pk <------+ >] > >I need two way mail routing between "welcome" & "gatekeeper". All of >these three servers were running smail. I replaced "mailserver" with >Qmail for one way delivery of messages, i.e., from Internet / Outside >to mynet. "welcome" basically is a relaying machine. Whenever an >outbound mail arrives at welcome, it decides whether it is for >mynet.com.pk or not. If it is not, then it forwards it to >"gatekeeper". Mailserver only receives mail from outside destined to >"mynet.com.pk" and delivers it to "welcome". > >On mailserver: > >In locals, localhost > >In rcpthosts, mynet.com.pk > >Localhost > >Mailserver.mynet.com.pk > >In defualthost, welcome.mynet..com.pk > >In smtproutes, :welcome.mynet.com.pk > >Now I wanna replace "gatekeeper" with Qmail. I wanna make it open >relay so that it can send messages to anyone, but accept messages >only for "mynet.com.pk" & then forward it to "welcome.mynet.com.pk" >What do U think abt this configuration: > >In locals, localhost > >In smtproutes, mynet.com.pk:welcome.mynet.com.pk > >In defaulthost, welcome.mynet.com.pk > >No rcpthosts, > >But I think that I am a little bit wrong somewhere..... would U >plz. Let me know where? So: "mailserver" is externally accessible, and passes everything to "welcome", "welcome" is a relay/gateway, relaying mail from "mailserver" to "gatekeeper", mail from anywhere internal to "gatekeeper", and delivers everything else (external) itself, and "gateway" is an internal mail server or hub "mailserver" is already running qmail and does what you want? Now you want to switch "gateway" to qmail? Is "gateway" accessible from outside your network? If so, don't remove rcpthosts, set up selective relaying for your internal network. I think you want the following on "gateway": locals: localhost gateway.mynet.com.pk mynet.com.pk smtproutes: :welcome.mynet.com.pk Which delivers gateway and mynet.com.pk locally, but sends everything else to welcome. -Dave
Joe Millay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am installing qmail on a box with RedHat 6.1 as the OS. I am following >LQW's instructions. I have downloaded the source for qmail, ucspi, and >daemontools. I am to the section where I create users and groups, but I >am confused (VERY confused). > >I cannot find the "INSTALL.ids" file. If you followed LWQ, at this point, INSTALL.ids would be in /usr/local/src/qmail/qmail-1.03/INSTALL.ids. >Nor do I understand the lines of the script: > >pw useradd alias -g nofiles -d /var/qmail/alias -s /nonexistent >pw useradd qmaild -g nofiles -d /var/qmail -s /nonexistent Those are an *example* for FreeBSD. You're not using FreeBSD. >Am I to substitute the username somewhere in the lines above? No. You're to extract the Linux "useradd" lines from INSTALL.ids and execute them as-is. >The instructions say to edit /etc/group if INSTALL.ids is not >installed. No, they say to edit /etc/group and /etc/passwd *if* your system isn't covered in INSTALL.ids. >OK. I find that, but I do not understand: > >qmaild:*:7791:2108:: /var/qmail/:bin/true > >Where is the user name located in this line? Am I missing something in >the instructions? What you're missing is that the instructions need to be followed. At the point where you were unable to locate INSTALL.ids, you should have stopped, thought, and asked for help. Instead, you plowed on. BTW, the username in the above entry is "qmaild". The whole point of this section of the instructions is to set up certain users and groups that qmail itself uses--not to add end users, as you seem to believe. >Thanks for any help, I really, really appreciate it. By the way--I am >installing this on a test machine, just like the instructions suggest. >:) Good. Very good. :-) -Dave
"Max" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am really confused now. How should I be starting qmail on a freebsd >system. I recommend installing using the directions in "Life with qmail": http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html Which only requires that you add "/usr/local/sbin/qmail start" to a startup file. -Dave
"Juan E Suris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am in the process of changing my email adress. I tried to subscribe >my new address and it did not work. What did you do, exactly? How did it "not work"? No response? Error message? -Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >when i use outlook express to connect my qmail server, error occur: > " -ERR usage: popup hostname subprogram" >i had a entry in inetd.conf : > " pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup qmail-popup \ > head.paic /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir " Is the line wrapped using "\" in inetd.conf? If so, make it one long line. -Dave
As I understand it, qmail will try to create several simultaneous SMTP connections if there are multiple messages in the outbound queue. I am trying to debug a problem and I would like to limit qmail to using only one connection at a time. How can I do this? Thanks -- Randy
Randolph S. Kahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I understand it, qmail will try to create several simultaneous SMTP > connections if there are multiple messages in the outbound queue. > > I am trying to debug a problem and I would like to limit qmail to using > only one connection at a time. > > How can I do this? Change the contents of /var/qmail/control/concurrencyremote to 1 and restart qmail. Charles -- ---------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ----------------------------------------------------
Turns out that the solution to this problem was to make sure that the ampersand, '&', is in front of each line followed by each additional recipient address. Thanks to Jim Gilliver for the solution and Ruben van der Leij for an explanation. However the documentation makes it sound as though the '&' is optional if the first character of the recipient address is alphabetic. It would be helpful if this were clarified somewhere in the docs. Thanks, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Anand Buddhdev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 10:31 PM > To: Mike Denka > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: qmail aliases > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 03:51:50PM -0800, Mike Denka wrote: > > > dot-qmail man page. But I'm still missing something: it seems that to > > alias root, for example, you put the real address you want > root's mail to go > > to into the file ~/alias/.qmail-root, right? But what if you > want root's > > mail to go to several recipients? Then the implied solution is to put > > multiple addresses, one per line, in the ~alias/.qmail-root > file. However > > Correct. > > > we have done this and only the first address on the first line > gets the mail > > addressed to root. The remaining recipients do not receive > mail from root. > > Can someone point us in the right direction to force aliases to > work for > > multiple recipients? > > This should work, but since it's not, you need to look at the qmail > logfile, to see what qmail is doing. That might give you a clue > about why the other recipients are not receiving the mail. If you > still can't make sense of the log, make the relevant lines of out > of the log available - someone may be able to help. > > -- > See complete headers for more info >
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:02:47 -0800 "Mike Denka" wrote: > Turns out that the solution to this problem was to make sure that the > ampersand, '&', is in front of each line followed by each additional > recipient address. ... > ... However the documentation makes it sound as > though the '&' is optional if the first character of the recipient address > is alphabetic. It would be helpful if this were clarified somewhere in the > docs. Since the '&' is optional I suggest you made some other change simultaneously with this one that corrected your problem. Regards, Giles
"Mike Denka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I have searched all the faqs and all the literature that I can stomach in one sitting. I have read and re-read the dot-qmail man page. But I'm still missing something: it seems that to alias root, for example, you put the real address you want root's mail to go to into the file ~/alias/.qmail-root, right? But what if you want root's mail to go to several recipients? Then the implied solution is to put multiple addresses, one per line, in the ~alias/.qmail-root file. However we have done this and only the first address on the first line gets the mail addressed to root. The remaining recipients do not receive mail from root. What do the mail logs say? What exactly do you have in the file? Is it anything like &user1 &[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] user4 ? By the way, if you have lots of mail aliases, check out fastforward. http://cr.yp.to/fastforward.html
My qmail system when receive a message with x recipients always split in x deliveries, is there a way to qmail-remote do one delivery using a "Cc" field instead of use a lot of processes?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My qmail system when receive a message with x recipients always split in x > deliveries, is there a way to qmail-remote do one delivery using a "Cc" > field instead of use a lot of processes? qmail is designed to process each recipient separately. This tends to maximize performance at the expense of network bandwidth. Is there a particular reason you want it to behave differently? If your concern is that the additional processes put too much load on your server, you probably needn't worry -- qmail is very lightweight in this respect. Charles -- ---------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ----------------------------------------------------
I live in Brazil, so network badwidth is a little expensive, so if i can send all equal messages to a host in a unique tranfer, that would be good, there is some patch to do this or it's up to me work on something for it? On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Charles Cazabon wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My qmail system when receive a message with x recipients always split in x > > deliveries, is there a way to qmail-remote do one delivery using a "Cc" > > field instead of use a lot of processes? > > qmail is designed to process each recipient separately. This tends to > maximize performance at the expense of network bandwidth. > > Is there a particular reason you want it to behave differently? If your > concern is that the additional processes put too much load on your server, > you probably needn't worry -- qmail is very lightweight in this respect. > > Charles > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. > ---------------------------------------------------- >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My qmail system when receive a message with x recipients always split in x > deliveries, is there a way to qmail-remote do one delivery using a "Cc" > field instead of use a lot of processes? The extremely short answer is "0". The slightly less short answer is "no". And the somewhat longer question is "why do you think that is a problem?" -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I live in Brazil, so network badwidth is a little expensive, so if i can > send all equal messages to a host in a unique tranfer, that would be good, > there is some patch to do this or it's up to me work on something for it? If bandwidth is that expensive, buy a colocated server in the US, and deliver the mail from there. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles wrote: > > qmail is designed to process each recipient separately. This tends to > > maximize performance at the expense of network bandwidth. > I live in Brazil, so network badwidth is a little expensive, so if i can > send all equal messages to a host in a unique tranfer, that would be good, > there is some patch to do this or it's up to me work on something for it? qmail just doesn't operate this way, for good technical/design reasons. If your MTA has to do this, perhaps you should try another MTA. However, it really doesn't save you much. I suggest you try qmail as is, and see if its bandwidth usage is too high for your setup. Charles -- ---------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ----------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I live in Brazil, so network badwidth is a little expensive, so if i can > send all equal messages to a host in a unique tranfer, that would be good, > there is some patch to do this or it's up to me work on something for it? No. Qmail is not patchable in this respect, this is how it works. -- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I have recently spoken to a guy who said me something along these lines: "I have considered qmail once. I found it easy to install and configure. But I had to write all the top-level domains to some file, can't remember which one, to be able to deliver mail to them. It was too difficult for me to manage that file, and I ditched qmail therefore. Has the situation changed recently?" Yikes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI9X+lMwP8g7qbw/EQLtmgCg6V2j7KeCWBCBCIbOU74/OnTnuYcAoKQo zcNGzlJAl4zV6iLU94W8H2Ga =aoJC -----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]
Please...let's not bring that up again.
Petr Novotny writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > I have recently spoken to a guy who said me something along > these lines: > > "I have considered qmail once. I found it easy to install and > configure. But I had to write all the top-level domains to some file, > can't remember which one, to be able to deliver mail to them. It > was too difficult for me to manage that file, and I ditched qmail > therefore. Has the situation changed recently?" Tell him "Yup. These days, you can use a script to create that file." Like this: #!/bin/sh cat /etc/qmail/domains/* >/var/qmail/control/locals.new && mv /var/qmail/control/locals.new /var/qmail/control/locals cat /etc/qmail/domains/* >/var/qmail/control/rcpthosts.new && mv /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts.new /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts svc -h /var/run/qmail -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:24:27 -0000 "Petr Novotny" wrote: > I have recently spoken to a guy who said me something along > these lines: > > "I have considered qmail once. I found it easy to install and > configure. But I had to write all the top-level domains to some file, > can't remember which one, to be able to deliver mail to them. It > was too difficult for me to manage that file, and I ditched qmail > therefore. Has the situation changed recently?" This hasn't been true ever in my experience of qmail. Of course, I only started with it about 0.9 or so. It sounds like the person you were talking to had some sort of DNS problem he or she failed to solve. Regards, Giles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27 Jan 00, at 6:47, Giles Lean wrote: > It sounds like the person you were talking to had some sort of DNS > problem he or she failed to solve. No. If I understand correctly, that file was rcpthosts. It means he just put .cz .sk .com .edu .whatever into rcpthosts... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60 Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html iQA/AwUBOI9euVMwP8g7qbw/EQLXYwCeLVH63BQkO3F+KNpG7Ww3QlyzQd0An0UR I9EUBo40ElGHt7RylWUNYO9h =Nn5S -----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]
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 06:47:07 +1100 Giles Lean wrote: > It sounds like the person you were talking to had some sort of DNS > problem he or she failed to solve. Or maybe I misunderstood. If your correspondant was concerned about rcpthosts and locals like Russell Nelson's reply suggests, then *ROTFL* This information has to be maintained somewhere even for sendmail. :) Ciao, Giles
At 6:47 AM +1100 1/27/00, Giles Lean wrote: >On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:24:27 -0000 "Petr Novotny" wrote: > > > I have recently spoken to a guy who said me something along > > these lines: > > > > "I have considered qmail once. I found it easy to install and > > configure. But I had to write all the top-level domains to some file, > > can't remember which one, to be able to deliver mail to them. It > > was too difficult for me to manage that file, and I ditched qmail > > therefore. Has the situation changed recently?" > >This hasn't been true ever in my experience of qmail. Of course, I >only started with it about 0.9 or so. > >It sounds like the person you were talking to had some sort of DNS >problem he or she failed to solve. No, no, he was talking about rcpthosts. The usual "My users are having trouble sending mail out through my server. Do I really have to put *all* the domains that my users send to in rcpthosts?". > >Regards, > >Giles -- Paul J. Schinder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 693 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Petr Novotny writes: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 27 Jan 00, at 6:47, Giles Lean wrote: > > It sounds like the person you were talking to had some sort of DNS > > problem he or she failed to solve. > > No. If I understand correctly, that file was rcpthosts. It means he > just put > .cz > .sk > .com > .edu > .whatever > into rcpthosts... Ahhhhhh...... He never read FAQ 5.4. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Hi I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver with 3 domains in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" According to what I've read, this should allow only users with 192.168.1.* to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely, the test messages are allowed through. Any input would be much appriciated. Thanks Jeff
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Jeff Mayes wrote: > Hi > I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver > with 3 domains in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp > > 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > According to what I've read, this should allow only users with 192.168.1.* > to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely, the test messages > are allowed through. Perhaps you also forgot to initialize control/rcpthosts. You need to put your domains in there. -- Sam
Jeff Mayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > > According to what I've read, this should allow only users with 192.168.1.* > to use my server as a relay. That's correct. > But when I test remotely, the test messages are allowed through. > Any input would be much appriciated. Were the test messages addressed to local users on your qmail server? If so, qmail wasn't _relaying_ mail; it was just accepting _incoming_ mail. With the above tcprules, connecting from a remote host, mail addressed to _other remote_ servers should be refused. (You did tell qmail-smtpd to use those rules, right? You need to invoke it with the options "-x /etc/tcp.smtp".) Len. -- ``It's the delivery speed, stupid.'' -- Dan Bernstein, author of qmail
| Hi | I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver | with 3 domains in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp | | 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" | 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" | | According to what I've read, this should allow only users with 192.168.1.* | to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely, the test messages | are allowed through. | | Any input would be much appriciated. | Thanks | Jeff Yayayaya.. but hmmm.. maybe you need a default allow rule in there eh? 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" :allow
You don't need that. allow is the default. As someone else pointed out, his problem is that he has no rcpthosts file. --Adam On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 01:16:40AM -0500, Keith Warno wrote: > | Hi > | I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver > | with 3 domains in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp > | > | 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > | 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > | > | According to what I've read, this should allow only users with 192.168.1.* > | to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely, the test messages > | are allowed through. > | > | Any input would be much appriciated. > | Thanks > | Jeff > > > Yayayaya.. but hmmm.. maybe you need a default allow rule in there eh? > > 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" > :allow > > >
At 01:16 27.1.2000 -0500, you wrote: > >| Hi >| I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays. I'm using tcpserver >| with 3 domains in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp >| >| 192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >| 127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >| >| According to what I've read, this should allow only users with 192.168.1.* >| to use my server as a relay. But when I test remotely, the test messages >| are allowed through. >| >| Any input would be much appriciated. >| Thanks >| Jeff > > >Yayayaya.. but hmmm.. maybe you need a default allow rule in there eh? > >192.168.1.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" >:allow > > > Hi, try my SPAMCONTROL Patch I posted into this group recently. However, I really advise everybody NOT to use the LOOPBACK address to be included in the relaying control mechanism. Its easy enough to fake that. regards, erwin. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | fff hh Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | | ff hh | | ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 | | fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln | | ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm | | ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 | | ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Chris Readle wrote: > > I'm having a bit of strand queue behaviour. Basically I've got 50+ (I > think 54, without looking) local-bound messages in the queue that I > cannot get to flush no matter what I try. I've tried sending an ALRM, a > HUP, stopping and restarting qmail and rebooting the server. The > messages are still there. Everything else seems to be running great and > new messages are going in and out with no problems, but these message > justs won't deliver. Any ideas? > > chris
Anybody got any sample maildir delivery code in perl lying about that I could snarf? A quick scan of CPAN revealed nothing of any use. -n -- ------------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Listen up, freaks: This is the last time I'm going to run one of your whiny, "Am I the only one?" questions. Whatever your fetish, no matter how obscure, there are other people like you out there, and guess what? Every last one of them is on-line. Crush fetishists? On-line. Plush-toy fetishists? On-line. Women-who-enjoy-decapitating-men fetishists? On-line. (--Dan Savage) <http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 04:23:59PM -0500, Nathan J. Mehl wrote: > > Anybody got any sample maildir delivery code in perl lying about that > I could snarf? A quick scan of CPAN revealed nothing of any use. http://search.cpan.org/doc/KJOHNSON/MailFolder-0.07/Mail/Folder/Maildir.pm John White
Let's try this again...I *gotta* quit putting in *lists*.cr.yp.to --- Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:24:00 -0800 (PST) > From: Patterner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Strange queue behaviour]] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I apologize if this gets sent twice, but I tried sending it from my work > account, but I have yet to see it come across there so I will try sending it > from here. > > chris > > --- Chris Readle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:23:15 -0500 > > From: Chris Readle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Strange queue behaviour]] > > > > Chris Readle wrote: > > > > > > Chris Readle wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm having a bit of strand queue behaviour. Basically I've got 50+ (I > > > > think 54, without looking) local-bound messages in the queue that I > > > > cannot get to flush no matter what I try. I've tried sending an ALRM, > a > > > > HUP, stopping and restarting qmail and rebooting the server. The > > > > messages are still there. Everything else seems to be running great > and > > > > new messages are going in and out with no problems, but these message > > > > justs won't deliver. Any ideas? > > > > > > > > chris > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Installing qmail and thought it would be a breeze just to install daemontools and use old scripts. WRONG. Could someone point me to some standard qmail-* scripts using daemontools .61 Thanks, Bill ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
At 03:22 PM 26/1/2000 -0800, Bill Rogers wrote: >Installing qmail and thought it would be a breeze just >to install daemontools and use old scripts. WRONG. > >Could someone point me to some standard qmail-* scripts >using daemontools .61 I wouldn't call them 'standard', but I've been working on some flexible scripts for both qmail and dnscache. If you're interested, drop me a line and I'll document them and make them available somewhere. Vince.
LWQ has some very handy examples of how to use daemontools: http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html jon At 12:47 AM +0100 1/27/00, Vincent Schonau wrote: >At 03:22 PM 26/1/2000 -0800, Bill Rogers wrote: >>Installing qmail and thought it would be a breeze just >>to install daemontools and use old scripts. WRONG. >> >>Could someone point me to some standard qmail-* scripts >>using daemontools .61 > >I wouldn't call them 'standard', but I've been working on >some flexible scripts for both qmail and dnscache. > >If you're interested, drop me a line and I'll document them >and make them available somewhere. > > >Vince.
Hi, I was wondering if any of you know of any qmail feature that allows restrict E-Mail checking at a specific time of the day Juan Navas System Administrator Managua, Nicaragua
There is nothing in qmail, but the beatuy of Unix is that there are plenty of ways of building a collection of tools to do this. There is, eg, cron. With it you can issue any command at any time of the day or night. One such command might be to kill your pop listener. Another (at a different time) might be to start it. What made you think you had to use a qmail specific feature to achieve this result rather than something general to Unix? Regards. On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 06:01:59PM -0600, Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if any of you know of any qmail feature that allows > restrict E-Mail checking at a specific time of the day > > Juan Navas > System Administrator > Managua, Nicaragua > >
On 27-Jan-00 Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if any of you know of any qmail feature that allows > restrict E-Mail checking at a specific time of the day Launch and kill your pop and imap servers from cron. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN: $24.95/mo or less - 56K Dialup: $17.95/mo or less at Pop4 Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Title: RE: Restrict Timesthere is no feature like this that Im aware of.
but you could setup a cron job to remove pop3 and enable at given hours, athough your users will get a nasty no connection when they check mail at times when its disabled...
--Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Restrict Times
Hi,
I was wondering if any of you know of any qmail feature that allows
restrict E-Mail checking at a specific time of the dayJuan Navas
System Administrator
Managua, Nicaragua
Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What made you think you had to use a qmail specific feature to achieve > this result rather than something general to Unix? Exactly right. As someone well-known once said, ``This is UNIX. Stop acting so helpless.'' However, killing the POP listener was just an example--I wouldn't recommend it. If you happen to use qmail-pop3d, you could write a replacement for checkpassword which, instead of checking the password, prints out "-ERR pop server offline between 2pm and 4pm daily" and exits. Using cron, you could change a symlink to point to it, instead of checkpassword, at the right times. (Disclaimer: if you write this, make sure it plays nicely with qmail-popup! It will run as root; make it bug free. Check qmail-popup for proper exit codes, whether you _must_ read stdin, etc.) Len.
Not in there right now but given the usage of checkpassword in qmail-pop you could implement a time based check of the user. Quoting Stephen Mills ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > there is no feature like this that Im aware of. > > but you could setup a cron job to remove pop3 and enable at given hours, > athough your users will get a nasty no connection when they check mail at > times when its disabled... > > --Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 11:02 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Restrict Times > > > Hi, > > I was wondering if any of you know of any qmail feature that allows > restrict E-Mail checking at a specific time of the day > > Juan Navas > System Administrator > Managua, Nicaragua > > -- David Mandala, Senior Executive, Special Projects, Linuxcare, Inc. 415 354-4878 x240 tel, 415 701-7457 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com/ Linuxcare. At the center of Linux.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 11:16:20PM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: > I've thought of truncating the message before it's bounced but this still > requires my server to read in the entire message. Any suggestions for how > to handle this? There's a patch to do this. Search the qmail home page for 'truncate'. (I don't necessarily endorse this product and/or service. YMMV.) /pg -- Peter Green Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perfect. This is just what I needed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: David Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Truncating large attachments in bounced mail > On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 11:16:20PM -0800, David Cunningham wrote: > > I've thought of truncating the message before it's bounced but this still > > requires my server to read in the entire message. Any suggestions for how > > to handle this? > > There's a patch to do this. Search the qmail home page for 'truncate'. (I > don't necessarily endorse this product and/or service. YMMV.) > > /pg > -- > Peter Green > Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.491977 info msg 40216: bytes 260 from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 8619 uid 0
Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.495584 starting delivery 11: msg 40216 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.495851 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20
Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.525596 delivery 11: success: procmail:_Skipped_"/home/mordac/Mailbox"/did_0+0+1/
Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.525854 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20
Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.525958 end msg 40216what's with "success: procmail:_Skipped_"/home/mordac/Mailbox"/did_0+0+1/" ???What am I leaving out or doing wrong?any help is appreciated.
Hey, Try something like this: :0: * /home/mordac/mailbox Check out the procmail docs for details. -Deke Eric LaLonde [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > I'm trying to set up procmail so that when a user emails another user locally using >'mail', it will go to ~/user/Mailbox. (mordac is my test user) > to do this i put: > "/home/mordac/Mailbox" (minus quotes) in > /home/mordac/.procmailrc > > and in > /home/mordac/.qmail > i put: > | preline procmail > > but it doesn't seem to work. I get this in the maillog: > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.491702 new msg 40216 > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.491977 info msg 40216: bytes 260 from ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 8619 uid 0 > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.495584 starting delivery 11: msg 40216 to >local [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.495851 status: local 1/10 remote 0/20 > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.525596 delivery 11: success: >procmail:_Skipped_"/home/mordac/Mailbox"/did_0+0+1/ > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.525854 status: local 0/10 remote 0/20 > Jan 26 19:46:50 damacles qmail: 948934010.525958 end msg 40216 > > what's with "success: procmail:_Skipped_"/home/mordac/Mailbox"/did_0+0+1/" ??? > > What am I leaving out or doing wrong? > > any help is appreciated.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > You can use a mailcap definition to pipe html attachments through lynx. > This works well for mutt. The html attachments look like plain text > attachments. Not adequate .. some of the html mail I receive is complex and does not render in any decently readable fashion in lynx. > Be carefull when using a browser to read email. People can tell when you > read their email by looking to see when image links in the message are > referenced. Scripting can also be used to do unfriendly things to you. Bah! A'm not afrrrraid! ;-) -- ___________________________________________________ Mark Drummond|ICQ#19153754|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gang Warily|http://signals.rmc.ca/
Jedi/Sector One wrote: > > Right, and many Netscrap and Grootlook users are sending HTML mails > (and even HTML + plain text) for a plain text content, or just ugly and > useless colors or background. > Wotta stupid bandwidth starvation : the content is the same than a > plain text message, but with twice its size. Wrong-o! Want to send a nicely formatted proposal (with appropriate highlights etc) to the department director so you can get funding for that million dollar server upgrade project? Good luck doing it in plain text. And tables? -- ___________________________________________________ Mark Drummond|ICQ#19153754|mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gang Warily|http://signals.rmc.ca/
"Mark E. Drummond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Wotta stupid bandwidth starvation : the content is the same than a > > plain text message, but with twice its size. > > Wrong-o! Want to send a nicely formatted proposal (with appropriate > highlights etc) to the department director so you can get funding for > that million dollar server upgrade project? Good luck doing it in plain > text. And tables? I don't think you're right. There are at least two kinds of `directors´: 1. The one who knows how e-mail works and is a technican: He would not have problems with getting plain text with some file attachments (i.e. tables). 2. The other one who only accepts e-mail but doesn't like this way to communicate really. In this case it would be better to send him nice printed offers with coloured charts and tables by snail-mail. He only thinks that his employees should use e-mail to save money and time - in detail he does not know the difference (and the risks) between plain text and html-formatted e-mail. Perhaps there are some more kinds of `directors' but the two descriptions above fit them all - at least. Martin
Hi all, Help me about qmail. I am running an offline Internet Server. I like to use qmail server in my LAN. How can I queue my out going mail from my LAN till the server goes online and how can i retrive my in coming mails which are also queued in other Inthernet mail (running qmail) server? Regards. Sifat.
"Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am running an offline Internet Server. I like to use qmail server in my > LAN. How can I queue my out going mail from my LAN till the server goes > online ... Have a look at serialmail. You find it on http://www.qmail.org . > ... and how can i retrive my in coming mails which are also queued in > other Inthernet mail (running qmail) server? Use fetchmail in multidrop-mode. Martin
qmail invokes commands with /bin/sh regardless of the user's login shell, so even if a user has /bin/false for a shell, that user's .qmail file can be used to gain shell access. i consider this to be a qmail bug. stig -- Stig ... Friend of Hacking ... 707-987-3236 work@home Hackvän ... http://hackvan.com ... 415-264-8754 mobile We are {b}Org ... http://brainofstig.AI ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stig Hackvän wrote: qmail invokes commands with /bin/sh regardless of the user's login shell, so even if a user has /bin/false for a shell, that user's .qmail file can be used to gain shell access. And how does someone with /bin/false as their shell put commands in their .qmail files? i consider this to be a qmail bug. I consider it a site-specific administrative problem.
Faried Nawaz writes: > And how does someone with /bin/false as their shell put commands in their > .qmail files? The sysadmin put /bin/false into /etc/shells, and now ftp lets them deposit files in their home directory. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Russell Nelson wrote: Faried Nawaz writes: > And how does someone with /bin/false as their shell put commands in their > .qmail files? The sysadmin put /bin/false into /etc/shells, and now ftp lets them deposit files in their home directory. Well, yes -- that's what I imagine happened. An admin error. The only time I saw someone place /bin/false in /etc/shells was when they had a sendmail-based mailhost and wanted to allow people to run procmail from their .forwards. Home directories and /var/mail were shared between the client machines and the mailhost. Perhaps this sysadmin upgraded from sendmail and didn't fix /etc/shells. (Though "| xterm -display myhost:0" worked great, too!)
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 09:41:34PM -0800, Faried Nawaz wrote: > Russell Nelson wrote: > > Faried Nawaz writes: > > And how does someone with /bin/false as their shell put commands in their > > .qmail files? > > The sysadmin put /bin/false into /etc/shells, and now ftp lets them > deposit files in their home directory. > > Well, yes -- that's what I imagine happened. An admin error. > > The only time I saw someone place /bin/false in /etc/shells was when they > had a sendmail-based mailhost and wanted to allow people to run procmail > from their .forwards. Home directories and /var/mail were shared between > the client machines and the mailhost. Perhaps this sysadmin upgraded from > sendmail and didn't fix /etc/shells. Oh and procmail doesn't allow people to execute stuff thru /bin/sh? :) > (Though "| xterm -display myhost:0" worked great, too!) :) Greetz, Peter. -- Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder | | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.' | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
Hi all, This may have been answered before but I searched the archive and found nothing on it. How do I set *.domain as a local delivery in /var/qmail/control/locals or do I need to do something entirly different? Example: I want <anything>@<anything>.domain to be considered local. After which fastforward will be handling it from there. Currently if I write an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] it is being bounced but there is an entry in /etc/aliases.cdb for that email address and I really do not want to add an entry for every subdomain in /var/qmail/control/locals as we plan to have a lot of them. Thanks in advance Scott ----------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: Scott Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Address: 3542 Pine Bettle Ln. Sulphur La. 70663 Phone: (318) 527-9518 Date: 26-Jan-00 Time: 22:20:08 -----------------------------------------------------------------
HI ALL, I have a odd question - is it possible to restrict the amount of people in in reciepient and cc's?? Also is there a way of flushing the mail queue??? MANY THANKS ALL --Tonino
Hi!, I am facing a mail forwarding problem to my SMTP users. I have a qmail running on Linux 5.2 server. Question: How can i configure same name for two different domains. As alias in QMAIL directory forwards the mail only through the user name and it doesn't see the domain name. I feel the problem can be sorted out by " Virtual Domain " concept. Kindly suggest is this the right solution if yes, how it can be implemented. cordially Ruchir
HI ALL, IS there a way of flushing the qmail queue - PLEASE HELP!!! Many thanks _Tonino
At 10:51 27/01/00 +0200, the wonderful TAG said: >HI ALL, > >IS there a way of flushing the qmail queue - PLEASE HELP!!! kill -ALRM qmail-send or, if you're using memphis RPMS: /etc/rc.d/inet.d/qmail.init alrm all explained at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/admin.html#queuerun peter -- peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/
Hi, I received a message from orbs.org that our mailhost is relay server. I thought I fixed the problem by installing ucspi-tcp-0.84 but when I checked our mailhost on http://www.abuse.net/relay.html I got the following relay error: Relay test 6 >>> RSET <<< 250 flushed >>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest@[193.58.204.195]> <<< 250 ok >>> RCPT TO:<relaytest%abuse.net@[193.58.204.195]> <<< 250 ok Can anyone help me on this because I don't know what to do. Regards, Erwin van Kroonenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:38:20AM +0100, Erwin van Kroonenburg wrote: > > Hi, > > I received a message from orbs.org that our mailhost is relay server. I > thought I fixed the problem by installing ucspi-tcp-0.84 but when I checked > our mailhost on http://www.abuse.net/relay.html I got the following relay > error: > > Relay test 6 > >>> RSET > <<< 250 flushed > >>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest@[193.58.204.195]> > <<< 250 ok > >>> RCPT TO:<relaytest%abuse.net@[193.58.204.195]> > <<< 250 ok > > Can anyone help me on this because I don't know what to do. Read the note you see at the bottom: -- Relay test result Uh oh, host appeared to accept a message for relay. That means it might or might not be an open relay. Some systems accept relay mail, but then reject messages internally rather than delivering them. You cannot tell if it is really an open relay without sending a test message; this anonymous user test DID NOT send a test message. -- So, get an abuse.net account and use _that_ to test, only to see that your host _is_ secure now :) Greetz, Peter. -- Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder | | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.' | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:46:19AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 11:38:20AM +0100, Erwin van Kroonenburg wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I received a message from orbs.org that our mailhost is relay server. I > > thought I fixed the problem by installing ucspi-tcp-0.84 but when I checked > > our mailhost on http://www.abuse.net/relay.html I got the following relay > > error: > > > > Relay test 6 > > >>> RSET > > <<< 250 flushed > > >>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest@[193.58.204.195]> > > <<< 250 ok > > >>> RCPT TO:<relaytest%abuse.net@[193.58.204.195]> > > <<< 250 ok > > > > Can anyone help me on this because I don't know what to do. [snip] > > So, get an abuse.net account and use _that_ to test, only to see that your > host _is_ secure now :) Luckily, the ORBS-tester is a bit more reliable than this. I marked your host 'secure' at ORBS (after doing a bit of testing myself) and it's now marked 'closed but pending retest', which is good :) Greetz, Peter. -- Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder | | 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; | C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off.' | Bjarne Stroustrup, Inventor of C++
